Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T06:41:46.805Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sociocultural theory and concept-based language instruction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 September 2020

James P. Lantolf ,
Jiao Xi  and
Valeriya Minakova
James P. Lantolf*
Affiliation:
Xi'an Jiaotong University, China and The Pennsylvania State University, USA
Jiao Xi
Affiliation:
Xi'an Jiaotong University, China and The Pennsylvania State UniversityUSA
Valeriya Minakova
Affiliation:
Xi'an Jiaotong University, China and The Pennsylvania State UniversityUSA
*
*Corresponding author. Email: jpl7@psu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In the initial sociocultural theory (SCT) timeline, Lantolf and Beckett (2009) surveyed a broad spectrum of research informed by sociocultural psychology as it was extended into the field of second language acquisition and language teaching. Since that time, the amount of research that has been published within the SCT framework has grown exponentially. With regard to the educational setting, two major strands of research have emerged; one that addresses pedagogical practice and the other that deals with assessment. The assessment strand, Dynamic Assessment, adheres to principles that emerge from the SCT concept of the Zone of Proximal Development and is the topic of a separate timeline (see Poehner & Wang, forthcoming). The pedagogical strand, the topic of the present article, is generally referred to as Concept-based Language Instruction (C-BLI), although in some publications the rubric Concept-based Instruction (CBI) is used. Unfortunately, the abbreviation of the alternative rubric has on more than one occasion been confused with content-based instruction, also abbreviated as CBI. We would like to suggest here that it would be better if SCT researchers were to adopt C-BLI to avoid misinterpretations going forward.

Type
Research Timeline
Information
Language Teaching , Volume 54 , Issue 3 , July 2021 , pp. 327 - 342
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

†

Indicates full reference appears in the subsequent timeline.

‡

Xi and Minakova are joint second authors

References

Arievitch, I. M. (2017). Beyond the brain: An agentive activity perspective on mind, development, and learning. Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carpay, J. A. M. (1974). Foreign language teaching and meaningful learning: A Soviet Russian point of view. I. T. L. Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, 161–187.Google Scholar
Cole, M. (2009). The perils of translation: A first step in reconsidering Vygotsky's theory of development in relation to formal education. Mind, Culture, Activity: An International Journal, 16(4), 291–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davydov, V. (2004). Problems of developmental instruction: A theoretical and experimental psychological study. Moscow, Russia: Akademiya.Google Scholar
Egan, K. (2002). Getting it wrong from the beginning. Our progressivist inheritance from Herbert Spencer, John Dewey, and Jean Piaget. Binghamton, NY: Vail-Ballou Press.Google Scholar
Ferreira, M. (2005). An application of the concept-based approach to academic writing instruction (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA.Google Scholar
Gal'perin, P. Ya. (1979). The role of orientation in thought. Soviet Psychology, 18(1), 19–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gal'perin, P. Ya. (1992). Stage-by-stage formation as a method of psychological investigation. Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, 30(4), 60–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haenen, J. (1996). Piotr Gal'perin: Psychologist in Vygotsky's footsteps. New York, NY: Nova Science Publishers.Google Scholar
Haenen, J. (2001). Outlining the teaching-learning process: Piotr Gal'perin's contribution. Learning and Instruction, 11, 157–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kabanova, O. Y. (1985). The teaching of foreign languages. Instructional Science, 14(1), 1–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karpov, Y. V. (2003). Vygotsky's doctrine of scientific concepts: Its role for contemporary education. In Kozulin, A., Gindis, B., Ageyev, V. S., & Miller, S. (Eds.), Vygotsky's educational theory in cultural context (pp. 39–64). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. D., & Terrell, T. D. (2000). The natural approach: Language acquisition in the classroom. London, UK: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Lantolf, J. P., & Beckett, T. G. (2009). Sociocultural theory and second language acquisition. Language Teaching, 42(4), 459–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lantolf, J. P., & Poehner, M. E. (2014). Sociocultural theory and the pedagogical imperative in L2 education: Vygotskian praxis and the research/practice divide. New York, NY: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paradis, M. (2009). Declarative and procedural determinants of second languages. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pienemann, M. (1989). Is language teachable? Psycholinguistic experiments and hypotheses. Applied Linguistics, 10(1), 52–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pienemann, M. (1998). Language processing and second language development: Processability theory. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poehner, M. E., & Wang, Z. (forthcoming). Timeline: Dynamic assessment of L2 development. Language Teaching.Google Scholar
Silverstein, M. (2003). Indexical order and the dialectics of sociolinguistic life. Language and Communication, 23(3–4), 193–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swain, M. (2006). Languaging, agency and collaboration in advanced language proficiency. In Byrnes, H. (Ed.), Advanced language learning: The contributions of Halliday and Vygotsky (pp. 95–108). London, UK: Continuum.Google Scholar
Talyzina, N. (1981). The psychology of learning. Moscow, Russia: Progress Press.Google Scholar
van Compernolle, R. A. (2012). Developing sociopragmatic capacity in a second language through concept-based instruction (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA.Google Scholar
Vocate, D. (1994). Self-talk and inner speech: Understanding the uniquely human aspects of intrapersonal communication. In Vocate, D. (Ed.), Intrapersonal communication. Different voices, different minds (pp. 3–32). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). Thinking and speech. In Rieber, R. W. & Carton, A. S. (Eds.), The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky. Volume 1: Problems of general psychology: Including the volume Thinking and speech (pp. 39–288). New York, NY: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
Vygotsky, L. S. (1997). The instrumental method in psychology. In Rieber, R. W. & Wollock, J. (Eds.), The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky. Volume 3: Problems of the theory and history of psychology (pp. 85–91). New York, NY: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry: Toward a socio-cultural practice and theory of education. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar