The two words ‘language’ and ‘learning’ have broad implications. Seedhouse (2010) suggests that any study on language acquisition or learning should clearly define these two words in order to clarify which aspects of language and learning the study is examining. According to Cook (2010), language can refer to various concepts: language as a species-specific system, language as a set of abstract ideas, language as a unit of sentences, language as the shared practice of a community, language as cognitive knowledge and language as action. The last meaning is relevant to the scope of this study. The meaning of language as action refers to individuals’ competence in communicating with native or non-native communities. Therefore, this definition of language includes both language as a community practice and language as a set of sentences (Cook, 2010). This view of language seems to be underpinned by socio-cultural theory.
Socio-cultural theory originated with Vygotsky (1896-1934). Vygotsky (1978) defines learning as the creation of meaning through social interaction. This theory emphasises the cooperation between the teacher and the learners and the cooperation among the learners themselves in constructing meaningful learning (Williams and
30
Burden, 1997). Vygotsky’s main contribution was the notion of the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD), which refers to the learner’s ability to perform higher mental functions with the assistance of others (ibid.). Socio-cultural theory has been widely used by second language researchers because it provides “a psycholinguistic explanation of the socio-cultural circumstances and processes through which pedagogy can foster learning that leads to language development” (Nassaji and Cumming, 2000: 97).
According to Nassaji and Cumming’s (ibid.) definition, socio-cultural theory explains the processes of language learning. The meaning of learning, according to this theory, is therefore different from the meaning provided by cognitive theories, which view learning as a product and seek to identify evidence of language acquisition (Seedhouse, 2010). Sfard (1998) defines these two perspectives on examining learning as ‘learning metaphors’ and states that separating the two views can be difficult. Ellis (2010), who has a similar view to Sfard, claims that it is not possible to separate acquisition from learning, since according to him, “Interaction constitutes the site where acquisition either arises or is initiated, and that, by Interaction, I have meant ‘social interaction’...acquisition entails social interaction. However, acquisition is not dependent on social interaction.” (Ellis, 2010: 50)
The above definition by Ellis suggests that interaction can facilitate acquisition. In addition, since socio-cultural theory is concerned with examining learning processes, changes or development in learning can be identified. This indicates that acquisition and process are not separable concepts. Seliger (1983) found that there is a relationship between interaction and language acquisition. In other words, high qualiy interaction leads to language acquisition. In order to combine these concepts, Ellis (ibid.) suggests adapting sociocognitive theory, which includes both acquisition and process.
Since this study examines changes in the quality of classroom dialogue taking place while implementing the critical thinking pedagogy, I adopted socio-cultural theory to develop my understanding of this pedagogy by examining how interlocutors interact with one another to communicate particular views and verbalise their thinking,
31
taking the context into consideration, and by examining how the processes of learning might facilitate acquisition.
I have explained above what is meant by learning, as the term is used in this study, from a socio-linguistic perspective (i.e., learning as a process). The focus now is turned on what might be considered to be a ‘learning opportunity’. Kumaravadivelu (1994) encourages teachers and educators to provide learners with more learning opportunities.
It is customary to distinguish teaching acts from learning acts, to view teaching as an activity
that creates learning opportunities and learning as an activity that utilises those opportunities. If we, as we must, treat classroom activity as a social event jointly constructed by teachers and learners (Breen, 1985) then teachers ought to be both creators of learning opportunities and utilisers of learning opportunities created by learners. (Kumaravadivelu, 1994:33)
The types of learning opportunity seem to vary from one discipline to another. In the field of EFL classroom interaction, researchers have discussed how learning opportunities can be created. For instance, Walsh (2002) recognises the negotiation of meaning as a learning opportunity. Waring (2011) identifies taking the initiative as an opportunity (see sub-section 2.3.4 of this chapter). Spolsky (1989) mentions conditions that can develop language learning, and some of these conditions include opportunities for analysing the new language. The learning opportunities identified by these researchers require learners to apply their cognitive skills in order to participate. This indicates a close link between participation and thinking. Creating learning opportunities that encourage learners to apply their HOTS might increase their participation in the learning process and develop the quality of their learning.
Although socio-cultural theory has been applied widely in EFL research, it has received criticism. One of the criticisms is that the theory does not allow for explaining the processes of internalising knowledge (i.e., the cognitive processes), and that it can only measure lexical and grammatical features (Mitchell and Myles, 2004). Also, it is difficult to observe learning or claim that learning takes place
32
during talk, and the reason for this is that most studies have examined learning processes rather than acquisition (ibid.). However, it is argued that evidence of learning could be identified in social interaction through tracking the changes in interaction patterns or learners’ abilities to mediate talk (Ohta, 2010). In this study, evidence of learning was identified through examining changes in the quality of classroom talk, from qualitative and quantitative standpoints (i.e., by identifying interactional patterns that deviated from the traditional IRF pattern and by identifying learning opportunities that occurred, as reflected in particular types of interlocutors’ utterance that fit under the category of dialogic talk).