James P. Lantolf

Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Acquisition

Although the sociocultural theory (henceforth SCT) of mental activity, rooted in the work of L. S. Vygotsky and his colleagues, has certainly come to the fore in developmental and educational research (cf. Forman, et al. 1993, Lave and Wenger 1991, Moll 1990, Newman, et al. 1989), it is still very much the “new kid on the block” as far as SLA research is concerned. Recently, however, SCT has begun to enjoy increased attention among L2 researchers, as is amply attested in the bibliography of this paper. This research has focused on three general areas: activity theory and the relevance of motives and goals for L2 learning; the role of private speech in L2 learning; and learning in the zone of proximal development. These areas serve as the organizing basis for the survey that follows. The overview begins, however, with a brief, but necessary, overview of the theory itself.

SOCIOCULTURAL THEORY AND L2: State of the Art

This article considers the implications of two central constructs of sociocultural theory (SCT) for second language (L2) development: mediation and internalization. It first discusses Vygotskys general theoretical claim that human mental activity arises as a consequence of the functional system formed by our biologically specified mental capacities and our culturally constructed symbolic artifacts. It then examines some of the L2 research that has investigated the extent to which L2 users are able to deploy their new language for cognitive mediation. Specific attention is given to the mediational function of L2 private speech and to the synchronization of gestures and speech from the perspective of Slobins thinking for speaking framework, a framework that interfaces quite well with Vygotskys theory. The second general topic addressed, internalization, is intimately connected to the first. It is argued that internalization of the features of a L2 takes place through imitation, especially as occurs in private speech. Imitation, based on recent neuroscience and child development research, is seen as an intentional and potentially transformative process rather than as rote mimicking. The research documents that L2 children and adults rely on imitation in their private speech when they encounter new linguistic affordances. What remains to be established is the connection between the linguistic features of private speech and those deployed by L2 speakers in their social performance. Finally, the article proposes that the study of how L2 learners internalize and develop the capacity to use conceptual and associated linguistic knowledge should move to the forefront of SCT L2 research and argues that a productive way of realizing this agenda is through the union of SCT and cognitive linguistics.

DYNAMIC ASSESSMENT IN THE LANGUAGE CLASSROOM

The focus of this paper is on the implementation of Dynamic Assessment (henceforth, DA) in the L2 classroom setting. DA is an approach to assessment and instruction derived from Vygotsky’s theory of the Zone of Proximal Development (henceforth, ZPD). In what follows, we will first discuss briefly the concept of the ZPD and its realization in DA procedures; next we will briefly discuss the work of Reuven Feuerstein, whose work on DA is most directly relevant to the goal of the present article (for a discussion of other models of DA, see Lantolf and Poehner, 2004; Sternberg and Grigorenko, 2002); finally, we will compare DA to Formative Assessment (henceforth, FA) and will suggest how FA might be reconceptualized according to DA principles. In the language testing literature, FA is usually contrasted with Summative Assessment on the grounds that the former is intended to feed back into the teaching and learning process while the latter reports on the outcomes of learning (Bachman, 1990: 60-61). Moreover, FA procedures are generally considered to be less systematic and not as high-stakes as summative assessments. Following Rea-Dickins and Gardner (2000), however, we suggest that FA is not necessarily low-stakes and that it can be carried out quite systematically, yielding results that may be more systematic and revealing with regard to learner development than summative assessments.

Sociocultural theory and second language acquisition

Second language acquisition (SLA) research informed by sociocultural theory (henceforth, SCT) began in earnest with the publication of Frawley & Lantolfs (1985) article on L2 (second language) discourse (described in the timeline proper). Since then, well over 300 journal articles, book chapters and doctoral dissertations have appeared in the research literature. Although the term ‘sociocultural’ is often applied to a wide array of approaches to research that seeks to understand what it means to be a human being, in the present timeline, we restrict its interpretation to refer to the specific theory of psychological development proposed by Vygotsky (1986). Other approaches that have appropriated the term, such as those emanating from the writings of Bakhtin (1981), while compatible in many respects with Vygotskian theory, have a different focus and are not strictly speaking psychological or psycholinguistic theories. To be sure, Vygotsky rarely used the term ‘sociocultural’, preferring instead ‘cultural psychology’ or ‘cultural-historical psychology’ to refer to his theory. Wertsch (1985) is generally credited with having coined the term ‘sociocultural’ as a way of capturing the notion that human mental functioning results from participation in, and appropriation of, the forms of cultural mediation integrated into social activities.

Vygotsky's Zone of Proximal Development and Krashen's i+1: Incommensurable Constructs; Incommensurable Theories

Second language scholars, in public research and in public discussions,have suggested that Krashens construct of i+1is similar to Vygotskys zone of proximal development and that it might therefore befeasible to integrate the two constructs in a way that would be productive for second languageacquisition (SLA) research. After surveying publications relevant to the issue, we argue that thisenterprise is futile, not only because the concepts are unrelatable, but also because they arerooted in incommensurable theoretical discourses. We also propose a way in which SLAresearch and theory might deal with incommensurability.

Dynamic assessment in the classroom: Vygotskian praxis for second language development

This article reports the efforts of an elementary school teacher of Spanish as a second language to implement principles of dynamic assessment (DA) in her daily interactions with learners. DA is neither an assessment instrument nor a method of assessing but a framework for conceptualizing teaching and assessment as an integrated activity of understanding learner abilities by actively supporting their development (Poehner, 2008). DA is based on Vygotsky’s (1987) proposal of the zone of proximal development (ZPD), which underscores the developmental importance of providing appropriate support to learners to help them stretch beyond their independent performance. The particular approach to DA that the teacher followed reflected her interpretation of the ZPD as well as her knowledge of her instructional context and was arrived at through consultation with the present authors. In other words, her use of DA represents a unification of theory and practice, as advocated by Vygotsky, whereby theory offers a basis to guide practice but at the same time practice functions to refine and extend theory. Examples of the teacher’s interactions with learners in her classroom are discussed with regard to the opportunities for development they create.

Second language learning in the zone of proximal development: A revolutionary experience

Abstract In this paper we provide empirical support from L 2 learning for Vygotskys claim that development and performance in mental systems is not a smooth linear process, but simultaneously entails forward movement and regression , or what some L 2 researchers refer to as backsliding . After considering the specifics of Vygotskys argument, we show that because learning arises in “zones of proximal development”, regression is manifested not only in the linguistic features of the second language produced by learners, but also in the frequency and quality of help as other-regulation negotiated between learners and experts. Although other L 2 researchers have recognized the appearance of regression among learners, we propose a different theoretical status for the phenomenon than is currently the case.

Bringing the ZPD into the equation: Capturing L2 development during Computerized Dynamic Assessment (C-DA)

Dynamic Assessment (DA) derives from Vygotsky’s (1987) insight that the use of mediation, attuned to learner needs, enables learners to perform beyond their current level of functioning, thereby providing insights into emerging capabilities. The instructional quality of mediation means that this process simultaneously creates possibilities for development, even over the course of a single session, a phenomenon referred to as ‘microgenesis’ (Wertsch, 1985). An important feature of DA is transfer, or transcendence: the process of tracking learner development as it unfolds not only with regard to control of tasks included in an assessment but also more complex and difficult tasks that build on those included in the original instrument (Campione, Brown, Ferrera, & Bryant, 1984; Feuerstein, Rand, & Hoffman, 1979; Poehner, 2007). The present study reports on the use of DA principles in tests of second language (L2) listening and reading comprehension delivered through an online format. The tests, which incorporate mediation, include transfer items to determine the extent to which learner development is supported during the test. This process generates three scores: actual (to capture unmediated performance); mediated (reflecting responsiveness to assistance provided on each test item); and a learning potential score (based on gain between actual and mediated performance) that indicates how much investment in future instructional activity is likely required for development to move forward.

Vygotsky's Teaching-Assessment Dialectic and L2 Education: The Case for Dynamic Assessment

This article concerns a particular application of Vygotskys concept of the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) wherein conventional assessment situations are reorganized to allow for cooperation between assessor and learner as they jointly complete assessment tasks and work through difficulties that arise. This approach, known as Dynamic Assessment (DA), a term coined by Luria (1961), derives from Vygotskys own work in the area of “defectology” and aims to reveal abilities that have fully developed as well as those that are still forming. Several models of DA have been developed and pursued in countries around the world, primarily in contexts of intelligence and abilities testing and in work with learners with special needs (Haywood & Lidz, 2007). We argue that DA in fact has profound implications not only for formal testing but for educational practice more generally, and for language education in particular, given that it posits a dialectical relation between instruction and assessment. Specifically, joint activity intended to reveal a learners ZPD and the provision of mediation to support continued development are fully integrated in DA. Examples of this dialectical activity are presented involving classroom learners of French as a second language.

Sociocultural Theory and the Pedagogical Imperative in L2 Education : Vygotskian Praxis and the Research/Practice Divide

CONTENTS Preface Acknowledgments Chapter 1 Theory/Practice Gap in Applied Linguistics Chapter 2 Sociocultural Theory and the Dialectic of Praxis: An Alternative to the Theory/Research-Practice Gap Chapter 3 Psychology of the Social Environment Chapter 4 A Theory of Developmental Education Chapter 5 L2 Systemic Theoretical Instruction: Experimental-Developmental Studies Chapter 6 L2 Systemic Theoretical Instruction: Intact Classroom Studies Chapter 7 The Zone of Proximal Development and Dynamic Assessment Chapter 8 Dynamic Assessment and L2 Development Chapter 9 Conclusion References