1.The origin and basic prescriptions of sociocultural theory
Current researches on second language acquisition can be roughly divided into two categories: studies focusing on the language mechanism itself and studies which sees language as a whole and conducted from a sociocultural perspective. Along with the process of researching on language acquisition linguistic researchers gradually claim that target language interaction cannot be viewed simply as a source of ‘input’ or autonomous and internal learning mechanisms, but that it has a much more central role to play in learning. Sociocultural theory emerges accordingly.
Sociocultural theory, a neo-Vygotskian theory of human cognitive, psychological, social and historical development. Vygotsky, a researcher and theorist of child development, the principle founder of Social Cultural Theory together with his colleagues Luria and Leontev which is grounded in the ontology of the social individual. Wertsh(1985,p.199) claimed that Vygotsky’s development research was inspired by three essential principles of Marxist theory. Vygotsky's sociocultural theory can be summarized as the following three main principles. (1)
Analysis of mental development process (2) the social roots of human mental processes;(3) the role of the symbolic system in the development of higher mental functions. The core concept in Vygotskian SCT is that human mental functioning is mediated by symbolic, or semiotic, artefacts, foremost among which is language which humans can use to organize their own and others’ social and mental functioning (Vygotsky, 1986). Within sociocultural theory, learning and development are seen as mediated processes in which language plays a crucial role. Symbolic tools are inwardly directed as a unit of thinking. the development of high-level human mental activities from the interactive mental level to the internal mental level is always mediated by symbolic tools. Practically speaking, development processes occur through taking part in cultural, linguistic and historically formed settings. SCT has been applied in SLL since 1980s and the main figure is James Lantolf.
1.1 The basic concept of the theory
Sociocultural theory developed a unified theory of human mental functioning that initiated a new way of thinking about development. In Vygotsky's theory, internalization is done within the zone of proximal development (ZPD). The zone of proximal development is actually a transition zone from other-regulation to self-regulation. The transformation from social plane to psychological plane is the process of internalization, from external and social regulation to internal "regulation" of individuals. The concepts of accommodation, internalization and zone of proximal development are closely related.?Regulation is the basic approach to the development of higher psychological functions, "internalization" is actually a change process of the adjustment mode from the outside to the inside, "zone of proximal development" is a metaphor, is the place to fulfil the internalization. "Social interaction and cultural institutions, such as schools, classrooms, etc., play an important role in the cognitive development of individuals" (Donato & McCormick, 1994, p. 453). People learn through interaction, not through interaction to learn.
1.2 Mediation
Mediation is the most important prescription in sociocultural theory. The central and distinguishing concept of sociocultural theory is that higher forms of human mental activity are mediated (Lantolf, 2000). Social-cultural theory shows strong belief that language is a ‘tool for thought’. Learning is a mediated process and also seen as socially mediated. It involves on interaction and joint processes. Vygotsky built an intermediary bridge between internal psychology and external environment. People use symbolic psychological tools as auxiliary means to control and reorganize low-level biological psychological processes. Through social interaction, language symbols begin to play the role of psychological tools from the outside to the inside. The acquisition of higher mental functions is the product of cultural construction, especially the result of language internalization.
1.3 Regulation and Internalization
The developmental sequenced shift in the locus of control of human activity is object-, other and self-regulation. Mature individuals have their own spontaneous function, which is self regulation. Whereas Lantolf claims that even the most proficient communicators, including native speakers, may need to reaccess earlier stages of development when confronted with challenging situations. Children or immature individuals always need other regulation. The approach is mainly through language and collaboration conversation. Children or beginners can be induced to develop into a shared consciousness until they can recognize and take on new knowledge and skills finally. This process is accompanied by changes to the internal mental activity from the spiritual activities. It is also accompanied by scaffolding. Language learning and cultural acquisition go hand in hand in the process of object and other-regulation. Language acquisition and sociocultural knowledge acquisition are regarded as synchronous development process. In the process of linguistic learning, learners gradually acquire and internalize the values, behaviors and social customs of the language, so as to realize individual socialization.
The development process of regulation is the process of getting rid of external help step by step, and also the process of obtain “internalization" of ability. The process through which cultural artifacts, including language, take on a psychological function is known as internalization (Kozulin,1990). It?refers to the process in which learners regulate their own behaviors through the medium of language and transforming the knowledge which acquired in interpersonal communication into their own knowledge. L2 learners will use imitation and private speech to internalize the form and meaning in the acquisition of L2. Imitation refers to learners' conscious attempts at various usages of L2 so as to get familiar with and master the process of L2 language features. The inward or self-directed use of language as symbolic tool for cognitive regulation is private speech (Lantolf & Thorne,2006). Vygotsky (1978) believes that private speech will eventually develop into an internal language (inner speech). The quality of past interaction shapes the development of the present, and in turn the present interaction shapes the future development(Mitsuyo Skamoto,2017).
1.4 Activity theory
Activity theory which is articulated by Leontiev(1981), emphasizes social motives at the level of activity and individual goals at the level of actions which parallel with Vygotsky’s interpersonal and intrapersonal functions. Activity theory conceptualizes the social context within which individual learning occurs. Vygotsky argues that what children internalize as they grow up is the social activities they participate in or experience. Activity theory focuses on the interaction between human activities and consciousness in the environment and their mutual influence (Vygotsky,1987;Loentiev, 1981). It focuses on the social origins of human knowledge and the practical activities which leading to the formation of cognition (Lantolf,J.P.& s. Throne,2006). Human activity patterns in activity theory are not static. The application of activity theory in the study of second language development includes subjectivity study, vocabulary learning, interactive activity analysis and educational reform. As a result of the role of subjectivity, students in the completion of the same task to engage in activities and task completion results will be different. The operational level of activity is the way an action is carried out and depends on the conditions under which actions are executed (Donato and McCormick,1994).
1.5 Zone of Proximal District and Scaffolding
Vygotsky argues that learning and internalization most effectively occurs in what he called the zone of proximal development (ZPD). Vygotsky argues that instruction creates a zone of proximal development. Most researchers today use the ZPD differently than Vygotsky intended(Chaiklin 2003;Kinginger 2002). ZPD is neither pre-determined nor static; it is a phenomenon and a degree in a continuum that is dependent on specific context and the learner (Mitsuyo Skamoto,2017).
Self-regulation is the goal of the zone of proximal development. Although the ZPD is often conceived of in terms of expert–novice interaction, Lantolf (2000b) argues that ‘The ZPD … is more appropriately conceived of as the collaborative construction of opportunities ZPD’. Ohta (2001) specifically defined ZPD in second language learning, that is, the distance between the level of development determined by individual language output and the potential level of development determined by cooperative output with teachers or peers. It is through the "scaffolding" that learners construct the proximal development zone and thus facilitate learning. A learner can display two levels of performance (Vygotsky, 1981, 1986). Sociocultural theory suggests that internalization would occur via scaffolded interactions and that the learners engage in shared cognition via languaging (Swain et al., 2011). Studies have shown that appropriate teacher "scaffolding" through increasing focus on form and meaning to encourage and facilitate L2 learning,??while excessive teacher "scaffolding" will hinder the development of language ability.
2.Observational studies based on SCT in SLA
2.1 ZPD and Scaffolding studies
Negueruela (2008) argues that properly organized teaching–learning activity in which the instructor collaborates with students in their ZPD is necessary to develop their understanding and agentive use of linguistic variants. Cumming A&Nassaji(2011) conducted a case study account of features of the ZPD in language teaching. Mariane Hedegaard(2003) who was a pioneer in the study of ZPD, together with Seth Chaiklin conducted research in ZPD and motivate students and help teachers to understand how the dialectic relationship between abstract and concrete aspects of a conceptual system can be combined with personal experience to become part of a person’s conceptual understanding.
Donato and Adair-hauck (1992) investigated how teachers and students could construct common grammatical concepts and found that a teacher who encourages verbal communication between teachers and students can push her students forward on the basis of the current level. A follow-up study by Aljaafreh and Lantolf (1994), which investigated teachers' efforts to help students correct writing errors showed that timely negotiation between teachers and students and provided positive feedback is effective to learners. Nassaji and Swain (2000) conducted an experiment on the teaching of writing to two Korean adult students. The results confirmed that the effect of corrective feedback provided by teachers in the ZPD of learners was significantly better than those do not provided. Two experimental studies by Schinke-llano (1994) have challenged the assumption that all teacher "scaffolding" are bound to produce positive results.?She pointed out that "over-regulation and unabbreviated language remindation would hinder children's cognitive progress from inter-mental to intra-mental" (Schinke-llano, 1994, p. 67).
2.2 Private speech research
The empirical research is held by Weir(1962), in which imitation was observed when they were alone in bed. Ohta (2001) underscores the interactional relevance of private speech as vicarious participation in language learning activity leading to internalisation (i.e. self-regulation). Ohta(2001) conducted research in L2 classrooms. Frawley&Lantolf comprehensively studied the relationship between individual language regulation functions and second language acquisition. Anton and DiCamilla(1999) have studied the uses of first language by adult learners while working collaboratively fulfil a send language Spanish classroom writing task. Researchers sensed the use of L1 English in private speech with regulatory and task management functions. Amy Snyder Ohta(2001) conducted longitudinal case studies of adult L2 Japanese learners’ private speech in two different classroom settings. Smith H presented an examination of the functions of the private speech produced and the consequences of outward verbalisation within the interactive group activities and resulted a heuristic model of the relationship between speech for social and private purpose is proposed.
The studies argue that private speech may reveal what pupils have already learned and how they are using language as a tool in the process of learning. As Frawley(1997)explained that private speech does not represent thought but is a symptom of it...it is the style of control. Donato(2000) propose that teachers should be more conscious of pupil’s need for self-mediation on private speech besides incomprehensible utterance.
2.3 Dynamic Assessment in ZPD studies
DA derives from the work of Vygotsky and Feuerstein. In order for DA to be successful in promoting development, learning must be “properly organized”(Vygotsky, 1978). A child cannot learn the knowledge which he does not have gotten the necessary maturing psychological functions. The goal of DA can be to help a learner reach peak performance (Campione & Brown，1987).
Poehner(2008a) dynamically assessed university students’ ability to correctly use two senses in French when narrating a film and found that using DA gave him insight into the origin of students’ errors. Anton(2009) also reports the usefulness of DA with university students and also concluded that DA led to a deeper understanding of students’ abilities. Ableeva(2008) also used DA to promote development of listening comprehension skills and got the result of differences in learners’ difficulties on an assessment revealed their unique ZPDs, a difference not revealed on the non-dynamic pretest.
2.4 Microgenetic development studies
Vygotsky’s focus on the moment-to-moment(qualitative) changes in psychological functioning, or microgenetic development, has been characterised as a ‘very short-term longitudinal study. The aim of analysing microgenetic development, is to ‘grasp the process in flight’.
Van Compernolle(2010), explores incidental microgenetic development during an oral proficiency interview between university learner of French and his teacher. Van Compernolle &William (2012) explores the microgenetic development of learners’ understanding of sociolinguistic variation in French during an instructional conversation (IC). It proved that teacher–student collaborative interaction (e.g. instructional conversation) can create a ZPD within which learners have the potential to develop their understanding of linguistic variation, properly organized teaching–learning activity in which the instructor collaborates with students in their ZPD is necessary to develop their understanding and agentive use of linguistic variants.
3.Evaluation and enlightenment
Sociocultural theory has constructed a theoretical framework of how to comprehend the interaction between individuals and society, mental mechanism and providing some useful enlightenment for second language teaching. Sociocultural theory emphasizes the positive effect of teaching on second language learning: meaningfully designed learning environment can promote the development of second language learning quality(Lantolf & Thorne,2006). Meaningful learning environment involves meaningful context for L2 language and literacy development combines with advancing language skills for understanding L2 subject knowledge. The symbiosis has for some time now been the focus of content oriented language instruction with the aim of enhancing L2 learners’ successful participation in mainstream education (Brinton, Snow, & Wesche, 2003). The teachers’ ability in interaction along with scaffolding the learners appears to be essence. The teacher needs to be responsive to learners’ contributions (van Lier, 1996) in order to discern their zone of proximal development (Vygotsky, 1986), to scaffold their learning (Gibbons, 2006; Wood, Bruner, & Ross, 1976), and to guide the construction of knowledge (Mercer, 1995), most particularly through joint dialogic inquiry (Wells, 1999). The prescription sheds light on the special demanding on teachers’ abilities within interaction which includes ask follow-up questions, check for understanding and pay attention to the language during teaching. Only through this can they provide continuous assistance and facilitate learners’ developing procedure. Swain and Lapkin(1998:333) recommend that classroom tasks involving collaboration ‘must be followed by opportunities for teacher feedback’ to minimize the potential for learning incorrect forms. Sociocultural theory also builds up a bridge for parents to scaffold children in daily environment. We have some reflections on sociocultural theory.
First, the researches documented in sociocultural research is limited in local, individual and not long term. The researching rates and routes of learning which compared with the ones on the other theories is lack of centralization. Ohta ‘s study on the acquisition of ‘listener response expressions’(Ohta,2001,.p228) does not make any claim on morphosyntax except the isolated claim on the common development route on listening and expressions, this is a major gap. Cumming A & Nassaji(2000)’s case study on interacting through dialogue journals is limited to a single student and teacher as a exploratory and paradigmatic rather than verified or representative. The study can be extend to other pedagogical processes, contexts and aspects of interaction.
Second, some researchers raises several questions worthy of further inquiry to understand the ZPD in language teaching and learning. They are presented as below, (1)how can we know for certain when a ZPD is really being constructed? (2) what happens when a ZPD breaks down or subsides? (3)how do teachers and students themselves perceive their ZPD? (4)how do contexts outside of the ZPD interact with it? (5)what distinguishes the craft of a skilled teacher in constructing a ZPD? (6)how might we evaluate the quality of ZPD.
Third, some researchers pointed out that previous studies have not systematically explored what kind of teacher, expert or adult "scaffolding" can promote and drive learners to learn independently. Feuerstein’s Mediated Learning Experience (MLE) theory is worked within neo-Vygotskian paradigm. Portes et al.(2000)worked within the paradigm. In their study of mother-child interactions in the joint science problem-solving, the scaffolding procedure keeps no description.
Fourth, More attention should be paid to teacher agency and learner agency in interaction. Only through developing personal meaning can lessen the gap with social reality (Feryok, A,2012). It understands agency as including intentionality and the attribution of meaningfulness (Lantolf & Throne,2006). This view makes agency a contextually enacted way of being in the world. Stetsenko(2005) claims that individual agency has been conceptualized as being on a continuum with society. Meanwhile, Sakamoto, M.(2008) argues that the extent of languaging is significantly influenced by affective actors. On the empirical research on online writing task, it is hypothesized that, while most would benefit from an online writing task, not all would (cf. Braine, 1997; Sullivan & Pratt, 1996). Swain has the same thesis on it and mentions out the reason of behaving differences. It is hypothesized that learning is not always guaranteed in all interactions, as learners’ emotional state influences the possibilities afforded by the ZPD (Swain, 2013). Affective factors play an important role in nurturing as well as inhibiting the benefits that one can accrue from interaction (Swain, 2013).
A lot of researchers declare that there some more minutely points need to be observed in-depth research. On agents of mediation, Portes(1991)’s findings demonstrate that not every type of parent-child interaction has a mediational effect. On the sensitive periods of development. Although Feuerstein’s MLE theory together with Vygotsky admit childhood is the optimal period for MLE, it also can arouse significant changes during adolescence and young adulthood. Is it implicated that the studies can combine with the theory of Critical Period Hypothesis to further investigate the development procedure in sociocultural theory? Sociocultural theory is an important theory in second language acquisition research. We expect the ‘bridge’ which links learners with society and higher mental development will keep on the way together with other ‘bridges’ to open up a wider path for learners.
References:
Ableeva, R. (2008). The effects of dynamic assessment on L2 listening comprehension. In J.Lantolf & M. Poehner (Eds.), Sociocultural Theory and the Teaching of second language. London: Equinox.
Aljaafreh, A. & Lantolf, J. P. Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the zone of proximal development [J]. The Modern Language Journal, 1994 ,78(4) : 465-483.
Anton, M. and Dicamilla, F.J. 1999: Socio-cognitive functions of L1 collaborative interaction in the L2 classroom. Modern Language Journal 83,233-47
Antón, M. (2009). Dynamic assessment of advanced second language learners. Foreign Language Annals 42(3): 576-598.
ANNE FERYOK 2012. Activity Theory and Language Teacher Agency The Mordern Language Journal
Braine, G. (1997). Beyond word processing: Networked computers in ESL writing classes. Computers and Composition, 14, 45–58.
Brinton, D. M., Snow, M. A., & Wesche, M. B. (2003). Content-based second language instruction. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Chaiklin, S.(2003) The Zone of Proximal Development in Vygotsky’s analysis of learning and instruction. (pp.39-64) Cambridge University Press
Davin, K. J. . (2011). Group dynamic assessment in an early foreign language learning program: tracking movement through the zone of proximal development. Dissertations & Theses - Gradworks, 170.
Donato, R. & Adair-Hauck, B. Discourse perspectives on formal instruction [J]. Language Awareness, 1992(1): 73-90.
Donato, R. and McCormick, D. 1994: A sociocultural perspective on language learning strategies: the role of mediation. Modern Language Journal 78-453-64
Donato, R. (2000). Sociocultural contributions to understanding the foreign and second language classroom. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 27–50). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, NC. 2003: Constructions, chunking, and connectionism: the emergence of second language structure. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 63-103
Dubravka Kenzic (2013) Teacher’s Education in Socratic Dialogue: Some Effects on Teacher -Learner Interaction The Mordern Language Journal 490-505
Frawley, W. (1997). Vygotsky and cognitive science: Language and the unifification of the social and computa
tional mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
Gibbons, P. (2006). Bridging discourses in the ESL classroom. London: Continuum.
Hossein Nassaji and Alister Cumming(2000). What’s in a ZPD? A case study of a young ESL student and teacher
interacting through dialogue journals. Language Teaching Research 4,2 (2000); pp. 95–121
Kinginger, C. 2002. Defining the zone of proximal development in US foreign language education. Applied Linguistics 23: 240-61
Kozulin, A.(1990) Vygotsky’s Psychology: A Biography of Ideas. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Kozulin, A. (2002). Sociocultural Theory and the Mediated Learning Experience. School Psychology International, 23(1), 7–35.
Lantolf, J.P. 2000: Second language learning as a mediated process. Language teaching 33, 79-96
Lantolf, J.P. (ed.) 2000b: Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne, S. L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne, S. L. (2007). Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Theories in Second Language Acquisition: An introduction(pp.201-224). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Leontiev, A. N. (1981). The problem of activity in psychology. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.), The concept of activity in Soviet psychology. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
Mercer, N. (1995). The guided construction of knowledge: Talk amongst teachers and learners. Clevedon, UK:Multilingual Matters.
Nassaji, H., & Swain, M. A Vygotskian perspective on corrective feedback in L2: the effect of random versus negotiated help on the learning of English articles [J]. Language Awareness, 2000, 9(1): 34-51.
Negueruela, E. 2008. Revolutionary pedagogies: Learning that leads (to) second language development. In J. P. Lantolf and M. Poehner (eds.) Sociocultural theory and the teaching of second languages, 189-227. London: Equinox.
Ohta, A.S 2001: Second language acquisition processes in the classroom: Learning Japanese. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Portes, P. (1991) Assessing Children’s Cognitive Environment Through Parent-Child Interactions. Journal of Research and Development in Education 24:30-37
Poehner, M.E. (2008a). Dynamic Assessment: A Vygotskian approach to understanding and promoting second language development. Berlin: Springer Publishing.
Rémi A. van Compernolle (2010) Incidental microgenetic development in second‐language teacher–learner talk‐in‐interaction Classroom Discourse
Sakamoto, M., & Honda, Y. (2008). The effect of collaborative work on writing: A website creation activity. Sophia Linguistica, 56, 215–240.
Schinke-Llano, L. Linguistic accommodation with LEP and LD children [A]. In J. Lantolf & G. Appel (eds). Vygotskian Approaches to Second Language Learning Research[C]. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 1994: 56-68.
Smith H.J (2007) The Social and Private Worlds of Speech: Speech for Inter-and Intramental Activity. The Mordern Language Journal, 341-356
Stetsenko, A. (2005). Activity as object-related: Resolving the dichotomy of individual and collective planes
of activity. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 12, 70–88.
Swain, M., Kinnear, P., & Steinman, L. (2011). Sociocultural theory in second language education: An introduction through narratives. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Swain, M. (2013). The inseparability of cognition and emotion in second language learning. Language Teaching, 46(2), 195–207.
Swain,M.and Lapkin,S.1998. Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: a step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics 16:370-91
Portes, P.,Cventas,T. and Zady,M.(2000)’Cognitive Socialization Across Ethnocultural Contexts: Literacy and Cultural Differences in Intellectual Performance and Parent-Child Interaction Journal of Genetic Psychology 161:79-98
van Compernolle, R. A., & Williams, L. (2012). Promoting sociolinguistic competence in the classroom zone of proximal development. Language Teaching Research, 16(1), 39–60.
van Lier, L. (1996). Interaction in the language curriculum: Awareness, autonomy & authenticity. London: Longman.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and language (A. Kozulin, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. (Original work published 1934)
Vygotsky, L..S. 1987: The collected works of L.S. Vygotsky: Volume 1. Thinking and speaking. New Your, NY: Plenum Press
Weir, R. (1962) Language in the Crib. The Hague: Mouton
Wretsch, J. (1985) Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89–100.