U’ otros isómeros de tocoferol en los tejidos animales no parece ser el resultado de la alta

The sociocultural approach forms part of Vygotsky’s prolific writings and emphasises “the interdependence of social and individual processes in the co-construction of knowledge” (John- Steiner & Mahn, 1996, p. 191). Vygotsky believed that cognition, or learning, arises from participation in social activities, where the activities are mediated (Smolcic, 2009). Johnston (2006) further suggests that the individual’s consciousness is shaped by specific social activities that include physical and psychological tools. Vygotsky advocated that sociocultural factors were the primary determinants in the development of higher order cognitive abilities, such as voluntary attention, logical thinking, intentional memory, and problem-solving abilities (Turuk, 2008). Therefore, learning can only be understood in its social context as the sociocultural theory places great emphasis on social mediation (Smolcic, 2009). It claims that learning and language acquisition both require the learner’s engagement in socially mediated activities. This includes second language acquisition. As Turuk (2008, p. 244) states, “[sociocultural theory] advocates learning, including [second language] acquisition, as a semiotic process where participation in socially mediated activities is essential.” In addition, instruction, aimed at the learner’s ZPD, is considered crucial to second language development and should be part of collaboration between teacher and learner (Turuk, 2008).

Some basic tenets in the sociocultural theory are discussed below. 2.2.3.1. The development of thought

The first tenet is that the human mind is mediated by tools which humans use to make sense of themselves and the world around them. According to Lantolf (2000), Vygotsky claimed that humans do not interact with the world directly but use artefacts that are created by other humans under specific cultural and historical conditions. As a result, these artefacts also have cultural features in their makeup, exert an influence on the user, and are modified with each passing generation to meet that generation’s specific needs. Language is one such artefact. Any person’s first encounter with such an artefact is usually during childhood, while interacting with his parents through his home language. Parents often convey culture and social norms through language. Through this interaction, internalisation takes place, so the child first acquires knowledge through social interaction (interpsychological) and then assimilates the knowledge and transforms it with his personal values (intrapsychological). The process at schools is the same: children transform what the teacher models as they internalise it (Turuk, 2008). Vygotsky believed that consciousness, arising from and developing during social interactions, was the link between a person’s knowledge and his behaviour. Furthermore, Lantolf and Appel (1994) state that this understanding of consciousness is incorporated into the concept of metacognition.

2.2.3.2. Education and values

The second tenet is that education is not value-free but is rather underpinned by a set of societal beliefs. These beliefs and values are often conveyed through explicit and implicit messages taught in the classroom. Some would argue that a genuine education is one that teaches values, provides knowledge, and produces well-rounded holistic citizens capable of caring for themselves and others while contributing to the economy. This is in line with Lin (2001, p. 24), who notes that metacognitive instruction research is concerned with student development and therefore, “[s]tudents' academic achievement and strategies for learning are taken seriously, but so is their ability to create a role for themselves in a community, where they build friendships, contribute to the values of the community, and involve themselves in its academic, social, and civic activities.” In the context of this study, I assumed that ‘educating’ the learners would result in a collision of worldviews, that is, between European and African worldviews. Education in English is founded upon societal beliefs (values) that are significantly anglicised when compared to traditional African cultures. For example, the custom of sending adolescent Xhosa boys to initiation schools has a direct impact on their schooling and is not something that our anglicised schooling system has managed to accept well up until now.

In addition to acknowledging the effect of values, sociocultural theory also views learning as holistic. Williams and Burden (1997) claim that the theory advocates teaching concepts in their complexity, not dumbing them down to skill sets and basic facts. The learner should make meaning rather than learning a discrete set of skills in a unit of study. Sociocultural theory endorses this type of learning whereby children develop the skills and strategies necessary for becoming active learners, ensuring that learning is relevant to the individual and that the individual grows and develops as a whole being through education (Turuk, 2008; Williams & Burden, 1997).

2.2.3.3. Learning together with others

The third tenet focuses on learning arising “not through interaction but in interaction” (Turuk, 2008, p. 248). The learner is therefore an active meaning-maker, engaged in problem solving during the interplay between teachers, learners, and other role players such as the text and, indirectly, the text’s author. Social interaction acts as a mediator of learning, during which the child first experiences successful learning in partnership with a more advanced ‘other’ and then internalises the task in order to perform it individually at a later stage. In this way, social interaction acts as a mediator during learning. Furthermore, the theory states that successful learning results when children’s learning is supported by a more knowledgeable other as they perform new tasks (Turuk, 2008). This is pointed out by Kozulin (2002), who emphasises the critical role that parents, teachers, and community members play in determining how and what children are exposed to as part of their learning experiences.

2.2.3.4. The zone of proximal development

Fourth, learning and instruction facilitate the development of the zone of proximal development (ZPD). This was defined by Vygotsky as “the distance between the child’s actual developmental level as determined by independent problem solving, and the higher level of potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers” (Wertsch, 1985, p. 60). The ZPD is a measure of a child’s potential to learn as opposed to the child’s actual learning (McCown, Driscoll & Roop, 1996). When interacting with his environment and others, the child stimulates numerous internal development processes that are only able to operate during interaction. Once these processes have been internalised, they form part of the child’s independent individual growth. The ZPD also serves as the region in which internalisation takes place, that is, where knowledge transitions from the interpsychological plane to the intrapsychological plane (Turuk, 2008). In addition, the ZPD is formed by both development and instruction, that is, as biological factors and forms of instruction are both instrumental in shaping the ZPD. However, Vygotsky did advocate that good instruction should lead development, ‘pulling’ it. According to Shayer (2003), ‘good’ instruction targets developing functions and not developed ones. Therefore, by working interactively with learners, teachers are able to determine in what areas the learner requires assistance by first identifying his ZPD and then planning good instruction that will ‘pull’ his development processes (Turuk, 2008). As a result, identifying the learners’ ZPDs formed the starting point for this study’s intervention. According to Williams and Burden (1997), as the learner develops, he becomes more proficient in his second language. In this development process, the ZPD can be seen as a higher level of understanding in the learner’s language acquisition. Therefore, working from the learners’ ZPDs, I encouraged them to use the language socially with more proficient ESL speakers so that, as they became more aware of the linguistic features of English, their overall mastery of English improved. The sociocultural theory proposes that an awareness of the structure and function of language develops as learners use it socially (Turuk, 2008).

2.2.3.5. Mediation and scaffolding

The fifth concept, central to the sociocultural theory, is the concept of mediation. Mediation takes place in two ways, both through social interactions and through tools such as language (Kozulin, 2002). According to Vygotsky (Wertsch, 1985), language helps children function within and move through their ZPDs. He defined mediation as the role played by more capable others in shaping and selecting the learners’ learning experiences. Kozulin (2002) identifies two categories of mediators: human and symbolic. These two types each have a different function. According to him, human mediation focuses on enhancing the learner’s performance, while symbolic mediation is geared towards bringing change in the learner’s performance. However, both types of mediation aim at changing the learner’s individual mental functioning (Turuk, 2008). In relation to this study, I

hoped to act as a mediating tool so that the learners could extend their ZPDs through enhancing their cognitive functioning in order to improve their linguistic capabilities.

With regard to mediation and language acquisition, it is also necessary to discuss scaffolding.

Scaffolding is a process in which the skilled partner continuously adjusts the amount of support

(through speech, skills or techniques) given to the unskilled partner. The unskilled partner thus acquires and extends his current level of knowledge/skill to a level of advanced competency (McCown, Driscoll & Roop, 1996; Turuk, 2008). Competency results when the learner “internalise[s] the problem-solving processes” (Turuk, 2008, p. 252). For this to happen, the needs of the unskilled partner need to be known to the skilled partner. Often, teachers function as the skilled partner but peer-to-peer scaffolding has also proved effective. However, this is usually in cases where a more skilled learner models his learning to a less skilled learner (Turuk, 2008). The goal of scaffolding is thus the transfer of responsibility onto the learner and when that occurs, the scaffolding is dismantled (Turuk, 2008). When teachers concentrate on teaching a fixed skill set without engaging learners’ cognitive capacity, which Vygotsky termed fossilisation, Kennedy (1997) and Kubota (1998) argue that learners’ thinking becomes restricted and they are unable to handle tasks that require complex thinking. Therefore the argument for teaching for meaning construction implies that learners take ownership of what they are learning by adding personal meaning and values while assimilating, internalising, and integrating it (their new learning) with their prior knowledge. This is termed true learning according to sociocultural theory, where the learner actively transforms his world instead of conforming to it (Donato, 1994). In addition, Shayer (2003) suggests that when learners collaborate and interact, they create a collective ZPD from which all the individuals can then draw. In such a group situation, learners actually support one another’s learning by interacting. Turuk (2008) goes on to say that it is during the negotiation and co- construction of meaning that internalisation takes place in such a situation.