Rooted in Marxian dialectics, the socio-cultural theory of mind was put forth by the Russian psychologist Vygotsky. One of the Key concepts of this theory is mediation (Gass & Selinker, 2008; Lantolf & Poehner, 2008). It is proposed:
Human consciousness …emerged from the organic (i.e., dialectic) unity of our biologically endowed brains and our culturally
created symbolic artefacts and activity. Humans develop the capacity to use cultural means to gain intentional control over their brain rather than being controlled by this biological organ
(Lantolf & Poehner, 2008, p. 4)
The core argument of sociocultural theory is that individual’s cognitive development is not direct, but it is through socio-culturally mediated activities and tools. This maintains that internalisation takes place as a result of establishing a connection between individual’s cognitive and social and physical world and this is mediated by cultural artefacts such as language and by material artefacts (Gass and Selinker, 2008).
Vygotsky (1978) believed that in the institutionalised system of the formal education, mediation was best accomplished in what he called the ‘Zone of Proximal Development’. This concept, according to Vygotsky,
indicates the gap between the actual level of development (that is what individuals are able to do on their own) and the level of potential future development (that is what the individual is not yet able to do
independently but they s/he will be able to do with the assistance of adults or in cooperation with more competent peers). This type of
support and assistance resulting from interaction that enables the learner to carry out the activity and to internalise the procedure has been called Scaffolding (Kirsch, 2008). This, according to Brown (2007),
‘emphasizes the dynamic nature of interplay between learners and their
peers and the teachers and others with whom they interact’ (p. 304). By
such interactions, helping the accomplishment of tasks is not the ultimate goal in ZPD, but developing the intra-mental processes such as strategies of both learning and communication while they engage in collaborative activities are given importance (Kirsch, 2008).
This is not just about transmission of knowledge, and learners are not defined as passive receptors of knowledge. There is a reciprocal relationship between learners and context, a relationship that is dialectical, dynamic and constantly evolving (ibid). In this vein, the sociocultural view of language learning/acquisition prompted a move towards taking as specific the interpersonal setting in which the learner functions, and having a great focus on the social process and the
2007).
Although it was generally a theory of mind and not to explain second language acquisition, SCT has made a great impact in the SLA field. One important drive towards application of social constructivist perspectives in SLA was the work of Long (1983, 1985).
Long considered Krashen’s innatist view of SLA within a social constructivist framework and proposed Interaction Hypothesis.
Krashen’s emphasis was exclusively on input (Kirsh, 2008) as he explicitly asserted that ‘comprehensible input is the only causative
variable in second language acquisition’ (Krashen, 1981, p. 74). And
believed that exposing learners to rich input guarantees intake (i.e., the input that is stored in memory and gets internalised) (ibid). Swain (1993, 1995, 2000) by offering what is known as the Output Hypothesis
responded that output (production of language) is as important as input in language acquisition. Likewise, Long recognised that, while rich language input was essential it was not adequate for the acquisition to take place. Also the questions were raised as what comprehensible input is and who is blamed in the case of student’s lack of progress (Blake, 2013). Long believed that SLA acquisition was best achieved through social interaction (Brown, 2007; Kirsch, 2008). As such, he proposed an interaction hypothesis in which both comprehensible input and
comprehensible as a result of modification or restructuring interaction known as modified interaction. In his view, modification of language in the similar way that people adapt their speech when speaking to
foreigners, or infants, can provide the students with an acceptable level of understanding. Furthermore, the negotiation of meaning or form through the adaptation of the speech and changing the structure, that leads to repair the miscommunications or misunderstandings, can work as a catalyst for improving linguistic knowledge of the learners.
The role of feedback by teachers in the form of comprehension checks and repetition of the student’s utterance without errors, when student makes mistakes, has been emphasised (Blake, 2013; Brown, 2007; Kirsch, 2008). To this end, and to achieve successful acquisition, information gap is a required condition (Blake, 2013).
An example of a methodology based on the interactionist approach is the focus on form (FonF) instruction that is in the form of a task based syllabus, in which students cooperatively work on tasks, in a process of active participation and negotiation of meaning focus on their linguistic misunderstandings, and analyse their errors (Blake, 2013). Although the interactionist approach pays particular attention to learner’s mental as well as social processes (Brown, 2007; Kirsch, 2008), it is mainly concerned with mental aspects of learning. This model has thus been criticised by Vygotskyan theorists for the distinction it has made
between the individual and context or competence and performance as two independent dimensions, and for the transmission view that
interactionism holds about learning (Kirsch, 2008).
Returning to the discussion of CLT, some believe that FonF instruction is a kind of tasked-based syllabus within the old version of CLT, while the task-based instruction (TBI) and content-based
instruction (CBI) that are regarded as the strong versions of CLT are based on socio-cultural theory (Kirsch, 2008; Magnan, 2008).
As was discussed in the preceding sections, in the context of 21st
century focus of classroom instruction has shifted towards providing students with opportunities to develop their communicative competence. To provide a definition of communicative competence for learners, Savignon (2005) considers the socio cultural knowledge of the given context of which languages are a part as the crucial requirements. And to achieve the communicative competence by learners, she believes, the socio cultural differences should be understood and taken into account in the selection of methodology. I close the discussion in this section with a quote from Sullivan (2000) who expressed a similar concern:
If we are going to approach CLT and communication from a socio-cultural perspective, we cannot assume that values that underlie CLT are universal. We must take into consideration
cultural, historical, and institutional factors on a local level’ (p. 120).
Such a shift of attention from innate to social and from universal to local was prompted by and was indicative of a shift toward a post method era in language pedagogy.