Sociocultural aspects in FL education
Connected with the rise of qualitative research methodology in classroom-based research, there has been a manifest shift of emphasis on the importance of the students’ own contributions to their language learning through an active involvement. In current views of sociocultural learning, the process of knowledge construction is discussed with an emphasis on interaction between the participants. Lev Vygotsky (1978), an early precursor of the theory writing in the 1920/30s, emphasised social interaction as the basis for the development of higher-level mental activity of the individual. Through social, interpsychological action the individual is mediated to move to the individual, intrapsychological plane.
Vygotsky described this process of development using the metaphor of the zone of proximal development (ZPD), referring to the zone between the individual’s actual and potential planes of development. Learning begins with what the child already knows and proceeds through social interaction. The tasks that pupils can do on their own are within their area of self-regulation. The development in the zone thus proceeds from other-regulation to self-regulation, from tasks carried out with the help of others to increasing self-regulation and autonomy (Vygotsky 1978; Wertsch 1998; Lantolf 2000; Breen 2001; Alanen 2003; Watson-Gegeo 2004; van Lier 2004.)
In sociocultural theory, students are seen as a significant resource for their own learning as well as for each other’s learning. They need to take charge of their learning in order to enhance their autonomy as students and language users. This shift in the research has brought about a new focus on the students themselves as language learners. Students need to be facilitated to develop a basic reflective orientation to learning by working on their experiences, beliefs and expectations of language use and learning. Kalaja & Barcelos (2003, 1) define beliefs as “opinions and ideas that learners (and teachers) have about the task of learning a second/foreign language”. Beliefs are socially constituted, interactively sustained and time-bound assumptions about the roles and duties of the participants in the social teaching-learning process. Consequently, they are modifiable and changeable (at least to some extent), rather than being stable and permanent (Lantolf 2000; Kalaja & Barcelos 2003; ; Barcelos 2003; Kohonen 2005; 2006a; Lehtovaara 2001; Jaatinen 2001; 2003; Little 2004; Watson-Gegeo 2004; van Lier 2004.)
As Devon Woods points out, beliefs are integrated in a larger dynamic model of thought and action forming a central framework within which all learning takes place. The formation and development of beliefs can thus be seen as a type of learning. Beliefs impinge on the teacher’s decisions, actions and events and the interpretation of events. Teaching behaviour is influenced by a complex set of relationships which the teacher may or may not be aware of at a particular moment and which he/she may not be able to make explicit. (Woods 2003, 2002-2008.) Being unconscious and covert, they easily remain unnoticed and are kind of taken for granted in the classroom community. In this sense they can exercise a powerful hidden influence on the learning/teaching culture in the social contexts of foreign language education. By learning culture I understand the shared assumptions and understandings about the ways things are done in an institutional context.
The teachers’ educational practices and beliefs of language teaching and learning will also shape the pupils’ images of “good” language teaching and learning. For these reasons it is important for teachers to develop an awareness of educational phenomena in their classes, to consider their beliefs and views of education, and the roles of the participants in the process. This is also a question of using educational power in the classroom. (Alanen 2003, 60-63; Wertsch 1998; Kohonen 2001; 2004; 2005.)
As professional teachers and teacher educators we need to realise that our conception of man is inherent and embedded in our educational practices whether we are aware of it or not. Our lesson plans and methods inevitably presuppose some perspective from which we view learning, our teaching and students, the human beings to whom we teach languages. Our teaching methods are an inseparable part of our conception of man. As Jorma Lehtovaara points out, our methods are our philosophy of praxis. He argues further that we need genuine contemplative thinking based on a lived and personally experienced open dialogue in the spirit of a humanistic-scientific approach. We need to clarify our educational stance and make our implicit conception of man more explicit by asking questions such as: what is it - being human? What is the meaning of that for me? How can I approach a person’s way of being-in-the-world so that I let it be what he or she experiences it to be? To what extent can and dare another person manifest himself or herself as he or she inherently is in my presence? (Lehtovaara 2001, 157-58).
References
*http://www.hltmag.co.uk/jan07/mart01.htm
Alanen, R. 2003. A sociocultural approach to young learners’ beliefs about language learning. In Kalaja, P. & Ferreira Barcelos, A.M. (eds), Beliefs about SLA: new research approaches. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 55-85.
Arnold, J. (ed.) 1999. Affect in language learning. Cambridge: CUP.
Askew, S. & Carnell, E. 1998. Transforming Learning: individual and global change. London: Cassell.
Barcelos, A.M.F. 2003. Researching beliefs about SLA: a ctitical review. In Kalaja, P. & Barcelos, A.M.F. (eds), Beliefs about SLA: new research approaches. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 7-33.
Beacco, J-C & Byram, M. 2002. Guide for the development of language education policies in Europe: from linguistic diversity to plurilingual education. Strasbourg: Language Policy Division.
Breen, M. 2001. Introduction: conceptualisation, affect and action in context. In Breen, M. (ed.) 2001. Learner contributions to language learning. Harlow: Pearson Education, 1-11.
Byram, M. (ed.) 2003. Intercultural competence. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
Cochinaux, P. and de Woot, P., 1995. Moving towards a learning society. Brussels: CRE-ERT Forum Report on European Education.
CEFR 2001 = Modern languages: learning, teaching, assessment. A common European framework of reference. Strasbourg: Council of Europe and Cambridge University Press.
Darling-Hammond, L. 1998. “Teacher learning that supports student learning”. Educational Leadership, Vol. 55(6), 6-11.
Draft 2005 = European Commission. Draft common principles for teacher and trainer competences and qualifications. (Unpublished document, read on January 14th 2007 at www.helsinki.fi/vokke/dokumentit/Common_Principles_Draft02032005.pdf).
Edge, J. 2002. Continuing cooperative development. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
Fullan, M., 1996. The school as a learning organisation: distant dreams. In Ruohotie, P. and P. Grimmett (eds), Professional growth and development. Vancouver, Canada: Career Education Center, 215 -226.
Huttunen, I. 2003. Planning learning: the role of teacher reflection. In Little, D., Ridley, J. & Ushioda, E. (eds), Learner autonomy in the foreign language classroom: teacher, learner, curriculum and assessment. Dublin: Authentik, 122-134.
Jaatinen, R. 2001. Autobiographical knowledge in foreign language education and teacher development. In Kohonen,V., Jaatinen, R., Kaikkonen, P. & Lehtovaara, J., Experiential learning in foreign language education. London: Pearson Education, 106-140.
Jaatinen, R. 2007. Learning languages, learning life-skills: Autobiographical reflexive approach to teaching and learning a foreign language. New York: Springer.
Kaikkonen, P. 2001. Intercultural learning through foreign language education. In Kohonen,V., Jaatinen, R., Kaikkonen, P. & Lehtovaara, J., Experiential learning in foreign language education. London: Pearson Education, 61-105.
Kaikkonen, P. 2002. Identitätsbildung als Zielvorstellung im interkulturellen Fremdsparachenunterricht. In Kohonen, V. & Kaikkonen, P. (eds), Quo vadis foreign language education? Tampere University: Publications of the Department of Teacher Education A 27, 33-44.
Kaikkonen, P. 2004. Vierauden keskellä: vierauden, monikulttuurisuuden ja kulttuurienvälisen kasvatuksen aineksia. [In the middle of foreignness: perspectives to foreignness, multiculturalism and intercultural education]. Jyväskylä: Department of teacher education at the University of Jyväskylä.
Kalaja, P. & Barcelos, A.M.F. 2003. Introduction. In Kalaja, P. & Barcelos, A.M.F. (eds), Beliefs about SLA: new research approaches. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1-4.
Kohonen, V. 2001. Towards experiential foreign language education. In Kohonen, V., Jaatinen, R., Kaikkonen, P. & Lehtovaara, J., Experiential learning in foreign language education. London: Pearson Education, 8-60.
Kohonen, V. 2002. From isolation to interdependence in ELT: supporting teacher development through a university-school partnership. In Edge, J. (ed.), Continuing professional development: some of our perspectives. Kingsdown Perk, UK: IATEFL Yearbook, 40-49.
Kohonen, V. 2003. Student autonomy and teachers’ professional growth: fostering a collegial culture in language teacher education. In Little, D., Ridley, J. & Ushioda, E. (eds), Learner autonomy in the foreign language classroom. Dublin: Authentik, 147-159.
Kohonen, V. 2004. On the pedagogical significance of the European language portfolio: findings of the Finnish pilot project. In Mäkinen, K., Kaikkonen, P. & Kohonen,V. (eds.), Future perspectives in foreign language education. Oulu: Studies of the faculty of education of the University of Oulu 101, 27-44.
Kohonen, V. 2005. Experiential learning, intercultural learning and teacher development in foreign language education. In Smeds, J., Sarmavuori, K., Laakkonen, E & de Cillia, R. (eds) Multicultural communities, multilingual practice. Turku: Annales Universitatis Turkuensis B 285, 123-135.
Kohonen, V. 2006a. Facilitating student ownership of learning in FL education through the European Language Portfolio. In Bendtsen, M., Björklund, M., Fant, C. & Forsman, L. (eds), Språk, lärande och utbildning i sikte. Festskrift tillägnad professor Kaj Sjöholm. Vasa: Rapport från pedagogiska fakulteten vid Åbo Akademi, Nr 20, 113-126.
Kohonen, V. 2006b. Student autonomy and the European Language Portfolio: evaluating the Finnish pilot project (1998-2001). In Bobb Wolff, L. & Vera Batista, J. L. (eds). The Canarian conference on developing autonomy in the classroom: each piece of the puzzle enriches us all. La Laguna: Gobierno de Canarias, Conserejía de Educación, Cultura y Deportes (CD-ROM, Lecture 2).
Kohonen, V. & P. Kaikkonen 1996. Exploring new ways of inservice teacher education: an action research project. European Journal of Intercultural Studies 7(3), 42-59.
Kohonen, V. & Kaikkonen, P. 2001. Towards a colleagial school culture: fostering new teacher professionalism and student autonomy through an action research project. In Benton, N. & R. (eds) Te rito o te Matauranga. Experiential learning for the new millennium volume 2, ICEL 7th Conference proceedings. University of Auckland: James Henare Maori Research Centre, 79-93.
Kolb, D. 1984. Experiential learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Lantolf, J. 2000. Introducing sociocultural theory. In Lantolf, J. (ed.), Sociocultural theory of second language learning. Oxford: OUP, 1-26.
Lehtovaara, J. 2001. What is it - (FL) teaching? In Kohonen, V., Jaatinen, R., Kaikkonen, P. & Lehtovaara, J., Experiential learning in foreign language education. London: Pearson Education, 141-176.
Little, D. 1991. Learner autonomy: definitions, issues and problems. Dublin: Authentik.
Little, D. 1999. The European language portfolio and self-assessment. Strasbourg: Council of Europe, Document DECS/EDU/LANG(99) 30.
Little, D. 2004. Constructing a theory of learner autonomy: some steps along the way. In Mäkinen, K., Kaikkonen, P. & Kohonen, V. (eds), Future perspectives in foreign language education. Oulu: Publications of the Faculty of Education in Oulu University 101, 15-25.
Luque, M.L. 2003. The role of domain-specific knowledge in intentional conceptual change. In Sinatra, G.M. and P.R. Pintrich (eds), Intentional conceptual change. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 133-170.
Niemi, H. 2006. Opettajan ammatti - arvoja ja arvottomuutta [The teacher's profession - values and lack of values]. In A-R. Nummenmaa & J. Välijärvi (eds), Opettajan työ ja oppiminen [The teacher's work and learning]. Jyväskylä University Press, 73-94.
Ushioda, E. & Ridley, J. 2002. Working with the European Language Portfolio in Irish post-primary schools: report of an evaluation project. Dublin: Trinity College, Centre for Language and Communication Studies, Occasional paper no. 61.
Sachs, J. 2003. The activist teaching profession. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.
van Lier, L., 1996. Interaction in the language curriculum: awareness, autonomy & authenticity. London: Longman.
van Lier, L. 2004. The ecology and semiotics of language learning: a sociocultural perspective. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Watson-Gegeo, K. A. 2004. Mind, language and epistemology: toward a language socialization paradigm for SLA. The Modern Languages Journal 88, 3, 331-350.
Wertsch, J. V. 1998. Mind as action. New York: Harvard University Press.
White Paper on Education and Training (1996). Teaching and learning: towards a learning society. European Commission, Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European communities.
Woods, D. 2003. The social construction of beliefs in the language classroom. In Kalaja, P. & Barcelos, A.M.F. (eds), Beliefs about SLA: new research approaches. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 201-229.
Vygotsky, L. S. 1978. Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
