Mediated language classrooms: theory and practice.

Abstract

This investigation addresses the implementation of sociocultural theory in second language classrooms as a means with which to foster and facilitate second language acquisition and cognitive development (Vygotsky, 1978). Concepts central to the successful realization of sociocultural theory in the language classroom (scaffolding, zone of proximal development, zone of actual development) are discussed and clarified for instructors and students. The true purpose of socioculturally sensitive pedagogy, the development of cognition and discourse, is presented as the first step in implementing sociocultural theory (Lantolf, 2000). Suggestions for classroom teachers are given so they can become aware of their own theoretical beliefs in relation to their classroom practices and methods of assessment.

Introduction

As the fields of language education (LE) and second language acquisition (SLA) continue to evolve and embrace new approaches and theories, it becomes essential that those involved in LE take the theories to task in order to clarify their applicability and pedagogy in the language classroom. The purpose of this analysis is to further explore the cognitive and sociocultural perspectives that compromise foundations for contemporary language classrooms (Bloom, 1956; Piaget & Inhelder, 1969; Vygotsky ,1978; Luria, 1981; Slobin 1986; Wertsch, 1991; Brooks & Donato, 1994; Wells, 1999; Lantolf, 2000). Both of these perspectives have fallen under the general shelter of sociocultural theory. Sociocultural theory has given rise to the practice of scaffolding by language educators where language, as will be demonstrated later, is to be used as a tool that shapes and assists individual learning (Volosinov, 1973; Bakhtin, 1981;Donato, 1994). However, the current view of scaffolding that has been observed in language classrooms has more in common with Behaviorist views of SLA than with sociocultural understanding (Skinner, 1957; Mantero,2002a, 2002b). Wiggins's (1990) concept of authentic assessment along with Tharp and Gallimore's (1988) view of the activity setting are presented as helpful concepts if teachers and students are to fully benefit from the work of sociocultural theorists and scholars.

Review of Theoretical Framework

The object, from a pragmatic viewpoint, of sociocultural theory is tool-mediated, goal-directed action (Lantolf & Appel, 1996). When placed in the second language classroom, this pragmatic goal often becomes overshadowed by lexical-linking and pseudo-scaffolded dialogues where language fails to become a tool for cognitive development that assists in mediating the human mind because the lesson or class is only input-based rather than process-oriented (Vygotsky, 1978; Krashen, 1982; Hall, 1995a, 1995b). As Vygotsky (1978) explains, "The tool's function is to serve as the conductor of human influence on the object of activity; it is externally oriented; it must lead to changes in objects. It is a means by which human external activity is aimed at mastering, and triumphing, over nature" (p.55). Tools (language) then assist in developing internal signs and meaning (intrapersonally) in relation to their use that was first interpersonally implemented.

An obvious question that many teachers and scholars have is what the central purpose of language in a foreign or second language classroom is if it isn't to provide a firm linguistic arena for comprehensible input. Obviously, input has to play role in the language classroom. However, input as understood through sociocultural lenses becomes production (from student and teachers), which is the essence and purpose of language (Volisonov, 1973). While engaged in production, students use (and learn) language in order to mediate their own and other's understandings of concepts or actions. Vygotsky (1962) foreshadowed Volosinov's ideas by stating that in order for a person to learn and develop new knowledge, she or he has to be engaged in meaningful interaction with their environment. Placing such an idea within the realm of language teaching and learning seems to situate 'language' on the perimeter of the language classroom instead of at the very core. But, it is the context and social situation that gives rise to the meaning of language. Therefore, meaning and signs in a language classroom are socially introduced, re-enforced, transformed, or modified through social speech and allow for language to be used transactionally between individuals instead of only for purely expressive reasons (Britton, 1970, 1977; Mantero, 2002b).

Vital to the successful implementation of sociocultural theory in the language classroom is the clarification of the concept of scaffolding (Vygtosky, 1978). Vygotsky operationalized scaffolding to include the zone of actual development (ZAD) and the zone of proximal development (ZPD). Donato (1994), Gass and Varonis (1994), and Brooks (1997) have all underlined the importance that teachers must understand that both the ZAD and ZPD are dynamic and may expand or contract according to the task at hand. The role of language within scaffolding can be to mediate others or to mediate the self, and (more importantly), it is not only students that are being scaffolded during classroom activities; instructors are being scaffolded as well (Wells, 1999). This point will be discussed and expanded on later in relation to the practices of assessment and language proficiency.

Implications for Second Language Acquisition

Wertsch (1991) believes that "The basic goal of a sociocultural approach to mind is to create an account of human mental processes that recognizes the essential relationship between these processes and their cultural, historical, and institutional settings" (such as classrooms) (p.6). As noted, sociocultural theory isn't necessarily a theory of/ for only second language acquisition. Sociocultural theory embraces the development of knowledge, thinking, and education as a whole (Bakhtin, 1981). That which makes sociocultural theory applicable to the language classroom, the role of cognition and an individual's mind in learning and mediating one's world, pivots on the role of language (as stated above) in shaping and negotiating meaning (Dunn & Lantolf, 1998). However, in order for SLA theory to evolve, then the role of opportunities to enter into discourse and dialogue become a crucial aspect of the successful implementation of sociocultural theory (Tudge, 1990).

Opportunities for SLA, though, have to be presented to students when the instructor is satisfied that the materials or topic is generally well understood, conceptually speaking. Here, the importance of the placement of such opportunities, theoretically, happens in relation to the pattern of classroom talk known as triadic dialogue (Lemke, 1985, 1990). Triadic dialogue consists of three basic moves: Initiation, Response, and Evaluation or Follow-up (IRE). If SLA is to take place, then opportunities have to take place at the end of or outside of the IRE sequence. As stated before, the central role of language is production that in turn will assist in cognitive development. If the opportunities presented to the students are only those that engage them in the IRE, then, as Givens (1976) argues the cognitive level of classroom talk will be relatively low. That is, students will only speak of knowledge of specifics rather than summarize, analyze, or evaluate in the second language because of the summative rather than formative nature of interaction and discourse. Linguistically, the IRE pattern may seem to be rich. For example: A teacher may initiate by asking in a foreign language: "What is this?" (pointing to a chair) or "Who is the main character of the novel?". The responses offered by students may be:

(a) "This is a chair." or

(b) "Smith is the main character." And, the evaluation that follows will reflect the correctness of the student's response. An instructor may also initiate interaction by asking the student: "Would you want the main character as one of your friends?" To which the student may respond:

(c) "No"

Now let's compare the above responses (a), (b), and (c). The student response (c) "No", is linguistically poorer than the responses in the traditional IRE patterns: (a)"This is a chair" or (b)"Smith is the main character". Here is where a clear understanding of the role and placement of opportunities may affect not only SLA but the cognitive development of our students as well. "No" is a cognitively higher response (evaluation/analysis) than "This is a chair" (knowledge of specifics) (Mantero, 2002a; Givens, 1976; Bloom, 1953). Imagine if the teacher asks the student who said "No" a simple question: "Why?", thus taking advantage of the opportunity to have the student use and produce language in what may be a completely novel way by having to support their statement. Far too often, as Lemke states, instructors settle in and for the IRE pattern (about 70% of the time) and believe it to reflect true communication. In fact, true communication, especially in SLA, is based on co-construction of meaning that approaches language learning cognitively instead of linguistically (Lantolf, 2000). The IRE pattern serves a purpose in our language classrooms, but this purpose of checking for background and contextual information is met early on in most teacher-students exchanges (Wells, 1999).

Consequences for the L2 Classroom

Patterns of classroom talk are not random (Johnson, 1995). Instructors establish patterns of interaction and communication, knowingly or not, according to their own personal and professional beliefs regarding SLA and classroom dynamics. Of special interest to the language classroom when attempting to put sociocultural theory into practice is the concept of scaffolding. Scaffolding is presented as a method of providing assistance to individuals as they attempt to perform a task during goal directed-directed action (Lantolf, 2000; Wells, 1999; Vygotsky, 1978;Tharp & Gallimore, 1988). Language within scaffolding performs the function of a tool that assists in the mediating the minds of those involved in the task (Luria, 1981). More precisely, when an instructor scaffolds a student, the teacher has to be familiar with the student's zone of proximal development (ZPD) (Vygotsky, 1978). The ZPD determines the success of what person can do with some assistance. And, the zone of actual development (ZAD) includes the tasks that an individual can successfully perform without assistance (Vygotsky, 1978). Central to the foundation of scaffolding is the understanding that both the ZPD and ZAD are dynamic and task-specific. Scaffolding is a construct that assists in mediating minds, negotiating meaning, and the development of cognitive skills (Rogoff & Wertsch, 1984).

It has been observed that instructors believe scaffolding to include such exercises as sentence completion and drills (Mantero, 2002b). Take into consideration the following exchange:

Teacher(T): "Where are you going this weekend?"

Student(S): "Restaurant".

T: "In a complete sentence, I am going to--this weekend"

S: "I am going to restaurant this weekend."

T: "A restaurant"

S: "Right."

This short, linguistically-focused example cannot be described as scaffolding because the focus is linguistic in nature, and not cognitive. Also, in order for scaffolding to occur both student and teacher must scaffold each other. The instructor must take an active role in the process of scaffolding and not only serve as the evaluator of a linguistic exchange (Wells, 1993). The assessment of students who are operating within a socioculturally grounded classroom stems from a clear understanding of the emergent nature of discourse as well as linguistic and cognitive skills (Hopper & Thompson, 1993). Viewing language learning as product-oriented rather than processoriented while at the same time attempting to scaffold students goes against the nature of authentic assessment in second language learning (Wiggins, 1990). Coupling product-based language assessment with scaffolding does not accurately reflect the students' language proficiency, linguistic skill, or cognitive development (Archibald & Newman, 1989).

Conclusion and Discussion

Language instructors that are willing to explore their own beliefs (and how they are translated into classroom practice) may benefit from the following guidelines and activities:

* Video tape yourself in the classroom and ask if how you taught reflected how you believe languages are best learned (and taught).

* Take a close look at your assessment methods and rubrics and ask yourself not only if you are assessing what you taught, but are you assessing the material the same way as you taught the material.

* Notice the patterns of classroom talk in your class. Do you take advantage of opportunities to extend classroom dialogue in situations that may stem from IRE patterns of communication?

Although the above guidelines are only a beginning, they offer those who implement them several insights into how theory turns into practice. Appreciating a theory and then placing it into practice is very different in nature from fully comprehending a theory and then creating a context and opportunities for that theory to affect patterns of interaction, assessment, communication and SLA in language classrooms. This is challenging in any arena. However, the danger comes when we misunderstand the role of one of the pillars of a theory (such as scaffolding) and then create a mismatch in how we believe to teach and how we assess. For students (and teachers) to fully benefit from sociocultural theory, then those that implement it in their classrooms have to be aware of how it permeates every aspect of their dally activities.

References

Archbald, D. and Newman, F. (1989). The functions of assessment and the nature of authentic academic achievement, in Berlak (ed.) Assessing achievement: toward the development of a new science in of educational testing. Buffalo, NY: SUNY Press

Bakhtin, M.M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: four essays by MM

Bakhtin, Ed. by Holquist, M. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Bloom, B.S (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: handbook I, cognitive domain. New York: McKay.

Britton, J. (1970). Language and learning. Florida: University of Miami Press.

--(1977). Getting the message. Education, 5,(2),22-26

Brooks, F.B. et al (1997). When are they going to say 'It' right? Understanding learner talk during pair-work activity. Foreign Language Annals, 30,(4), 524-540.

Brooks, F.B. & Donato, R. (1994). Vygostkian approaches to understanding foreign language learner discourse during communicative tasks. Hispania, 77, 262-273.

Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In Lantolf and Appel, Eds., Vygotskian approaches to second language research. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 33-56.

Dunn, W.E. & Lantolf, J.P. (1998). Vygotsky's zone of proximal development and Krashen's i + 1: incommensurable constructs; incommensurable theories. Language Learning, 48, (3), 411-442.

Gass, S. & Varonis, E.M. (1994). Input, interaction, and second language production. SSLA, 16, 283-302.

Givens, C.F. (1976). A descriptive study of the cognitive level of classroom discourse of college professors and students. (Unpublished Dissertation) Claremont Graduate School, California.

Hall, Joan Kelly (1995a). (Re)creating our world with words: a sociohistorical perspective of face-to-face interaction. Applied Linguistics, 16, (2), 206-232.

--(1995b). "Aw, man, where you goin'?": Classroom interaction and the development of L2 interactional competence. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 6, (2), 37-62.

Hopper, P. and Thompson, S. (1993). Language universals, discourse pragmatics, and semantics. Language Sciences, 15, (4), 357-76

Johnson, K. (1995). Understanding communication in second language classrooms (Ed. by Richards, J.C.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Lantolf, J.P. & Appel, G. (1996). Vygotskian approaches to second language research. New Jersey: Ablex Publishing.

Lemke, J.L. (1985). Using language in the classroom. London: Oxford University.

--(1990). The language of classroom science. In C. Emihovich (Ed.), Locating learning across the curriculum. Norwood: Ablex, 216-239.

Luria, A.R. (1981). Language and cognition. Ed. J.V. Wertsch. New York: Wiley Publishing.

Mantero, M. (2002a). The Reasons we speak: cognition and discourse in the second language classroom. Westport, CT: Bergin and Garvey.

--(2002b). Bridging the gap: discourse in text-based foreign language classrooms. Foreign Language Annals,35,(4),437-455.

Piaget, J. & Inhelder B. (1969). The psychology of the child. New York: Basic Books.

Rogoff, B. & Wertsch, J.V. (Eds.) (1984). Children's learning in the zone of proximal development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Skinner, B.F. (1957). Verbal behavior. New-York: Apple-Century-Crofts.

Slobin, D.(1986). The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition: Volumes 1 and 2. NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.

Tharp, R.G. & Gallimore, R. (1988) Rousing minds to life: teaching, learning, and schooling in social context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Tudge, J.(1990). Vygotsky, the zone of proximal development, and peer collaboration: Implications for classroom practice. In Moll, L.C. (Ed.), Vygotsky and education: instructional implications and applications of sociohistorical psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 155-172.

Volosinov, V.N. (1973). Marxism and the philosophy of language. New York: Seminar Press.

Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard: University Press.

--(1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Wells, Gordon. (1999). Dialogic inquiry: toward sociocultural practice and theory of education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

--(1993). Reevaluating the IRF sequence: A proposal for the articulation of theories of activity and discourse for the analysis of teaching and learning in the classroom. Linguistics and Education, (5), 1-37.

Wertsch, J.V. (1991). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural Approach to mediated action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wiggins, G. (1990). The case for authentic assessment. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 2 (2).

Miguel Mantero, The University of Alabama 

Miguel Mantero's research interests include cognition and SLA, as well as classroom discourse processes. He was awarded the Ph. D from The Florida State University.