Sociocultural Theory and the Pedagogical Imperative in L2 Education

Vygotskian Praxis and the Research/Practice Divide

James P. Lantolf, Matthew E. Poehner

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2014
• eBook ISBN: 9781136703010
• Topic: Languages & Linguistics
• Subtopic: Education General
• Index: Languages & Linguistics

Explicating clearly and concisely the full implication of a praxis-oriented language pedagogy, this book argues for an approach to language teaching grounded in a significant scientific theory of human learning—a stance that rejects the consumer approach to theory and the dichotomy between theory and practice that dominates SLA and language teaching. This approach is based on Vygotsky's sociocultural theory, according to which the two activities are inherently connected so that each is necessarily rooted in the other; practice is the research laboratory where the theory is tested. From the perspective of language education, this is what is meant by the 'pedagogical imperative.'

Sociocultural Theory and the Pedagogical Imperative in L2 Education• Elaborates a new approach to dealing with the relationship between theory and practice—an approach grounded in praxis—the dialectical unity of theory and practice
• Presents an analysis of empirical research illustrating praxis-based principles in real language classrooms
• Brings together cognitive linguistics and sociocultural theory ? the former provides the theoretical knowledge of language required of praxis and the latter furnishes the theoretical principles of learning and development also called for in a praxis approach
• Offers recommendations for redesigning teacher education programs

Its timely focus on the theory-practice gap in language education and its original approach to bridging it put this book at the cutting edge of thinking about Vygotskian sociocultural theory in applied linguistics and SLA.

1 Theory/Research–Practice Gap in Applied Linguistics

DOI: 10.4324/9780203813850-1

Before second language acquisition (SLA) was recognized as an independent field, scholars such as S. Pit Corder (1973, 1978) argued that applied linguistics, as the field most directly concerned with the teaching of second and foreign languages, was a consumer, rather than generator, of theories. In other words, applied linguists assumed the task of bringing into relevance theories of language for the purpose of improving intentional language instruction. This ranged from first-order application that entailed descriptions of a particular language (Corder, 1973, p. 145); to second-order application, whereby material from first-order description was selected for inclusion in a pedagogical syllabus (p. 150); to third-order application where specific instructional techniques and materials were implemented relative to the second-order syllabus (p. 155). Researchers soon began to ask questions about the nature of L2 acquisition that were not directly related to classroom instruction. Long (2009, p. 376, italics in original), for instance, described the separation between SLA and language teaching, as follows: “the goal of a theory of language teaching is a maximally efficient approach, not, as in the case of a theory of SLA, one which is primarily concerned with what is necessary and sufficient for language acquisition to occur.”

The SLA branch of applied linguistics began to grow its own theories and eventually emerged as a discipline without direct connections or interests in classroom instructional practice. Even though SLA emerged as an independent field, researchers continued to cast an eye toward the classroom setting and to wonder if and how the findings of their work might be relevant for teachers. Indeed, Crookes (1998, p. 6) noted that “If the relationship [between research and practice] were simple, or not a source of concern, I do not think it would come up so often.” Bygate (2005, p. 568) captured the ambivalence of the field when he noted that although by the 1980s SLA had established itself as an independent “academic discipline in its own right,” many continued to view SLA “as synonymous with an approach to language teaching.” R. Ellis (2010, p. 183), for example, commented that despite its interest in language acquisition as such, SLA is “still at its heart an applied rather than a pure discipline.”

One of the recurring worries regarding the relationship of SLA and language pedagogy has been the perception among some researchers that the field has not yet reached the level of maturity where it can with confidence make recommendations to language teaching. For example, Tarone, Swain, and Fathman (1976, p. 19) remarked that “second language acquisition research is still in an infancy stage, and hence cannot yet provide the classroom teacher with the kind of valid and reliable guidelines needed to effect curriculum change.” At about the same time, Hatch (1978, p. 140) made her famous comment that the findings of research either should not be applied at all, or if they are to be applied, we should do so “with caution.” About a decade later, Lightbown (1985, p. 173) expressed the belief that SLA was still not in a position to offer teachers concrete guidance on what should be done in classrooms, although the field might be in a position to highlight some expectations for what teachers and learners can achieve through classroom instruction. Fifteen years later, Lightbown (2000, p. 452) noted that SLA research had established a robust compilation of findings that not only offered teachers guidance on what was achievable in classrooms but that the field could also “provide valuable clues to effective pedagogical practice.” However, she once again echoed Hatch’s admonition to apply with “caution.” Even more recently Gass and Mackey (2007, p. 190) continued to worry about the application of the findings of research on the interactionist hypothesis to the classroom as potentially “premature.”

A particularly revealing manifestation of the ambivalence toward the application of SLA research to classroom practice is documented in TESOL Quarterly (2007) where five SLA researchers debated the merits of the editorial policy of the journal at the time whereby its aim was to publish papers that contribute to bridging the theory and practice gap to the extent that practical submissions must be grounded in theory and theoretical articles much show their relevance for practice. Magnan (2007), then outgoing editor of the Modern Language Journal, remarked that she had revised the journal’s editorial policy to encourage submissions that did not avow any “immediate pedagogical applications” (p. 401). Chapelle (2007) adopted the alternative view that strongly supported the stated policy of TESOL Quarterly (p. 405). Han (2007, p. 391) argued that “excessive concern” with trying to force a connection between empirical research and classroom practice when one is not clearly present could result in misplaced applications as well as failure to pursue interesting research because it does not have clear practical implications. For her part, Belcher (2007) adopted a more neutral stance that pointed to the theory and practice gap as reflected in the pedagogically oriented programs of the annual TESOL Convention (we would include the annual ACTFL Convention) and the strongly theory/research bias of AAAL conference programs. She did suggest, however, that given the high number of journals in applied linguistics today (approximately 50), authors should be able to identify an appropriate outlet for their research. According to Belcher (2007), for those wishing to submit to TESOL Quarterly they should recognize its editorial policy aimed at bridging the theory–practice gap early on in their research and well before the pedagogical implications of their work must be addressed (p. 399).

What to Do About the Gap?

A number of solutions have been proposed to overcome the gap between theory/research and practice. Some have been more radical than others. Among the more radical proposals is an early recommendation by Jakobovits and Gordon (1974) that surfaced even before the field of SLA was firmly established. They insisted that if teaching is to result in successful learning outcomes it must free itself from “the tyranny of irrelevant expertise,” which they claimed understands virtually nothing about the “individual qualities” of teachers or their students (p. 85). Their criticism is directed at so-called basic research of the kind supported by Krashen and other early SLA scholars, and which represents one side of the gap. The authors, however, did not reject all research and instead called for an increase in applied classroom research. More than 30 years later, Allwright (2005, p. 27) adopted a less incendiary stance that nevertheless made the same point as Jakobovits and Gordon in his comment that academic research “is of negligible value to current classroom participants, who need their understandings now.”

M. A. Clarke (1994) offered two suggestions for dealing with the gap, one of which meshed with Jakobovits and Gordon’s position—for teachers to engage in “small actions” that resist the advice of experts “except on their own terms in order to solve problems of direct interest” to their practice (p. 18). The other suggestion was to invert the assumed researcher/practitioner hierarchy whereby teachers are on top with the experts and administrators below them and in their service (p. 18). Stewart (2006) proposed that another way to overcome the hegemony of the researcher, which is maintained even in proposals calling for collaborative research, is for teachers themselves to conduct classroom research for their own benefit and without concern for what is happening in so-called basic research (p. 425).

R. Ellis has had a long-standing concern regarding the theory/research–practice gap. In Ellis (1997) he reflected Hatch’s (1978) recommendation to apply the findings of SLA research with caution because the field was still in a stage of “relative infancy” (p. 70). However, Ellis (2005b), continuing to espouse the view that SLA was “still a very young field of study” (p. 209), nevertheless asserted that it had “to bite the bullet and proffer advice” to language teachers, provided the advice be understood as “tentative” and “provisional” (p. 210). With the requisite caution, he offered a set of ten principles for teachers to reflect upon. The principles that are relevant for the current work are that “Instruction needs to be predominantly directed at developing implicit knowledge of the L2 while not neglecting explicit knowledge” (p. 214), that it “needs to take into account the learner’s ‘built-in syllabus’” (p. 216), and to be successful “instructed language learning requires extensive L2 input” (p. 217).

R. Ellis (2010) continued his efforts to connect SLA and language teaching, this time asserting that the field had finally achieved the status of “an established discipline” (p. 182) as attested by the existence of numerous graduate programs, journals, and conferences where research findings are presented, discussed, and passed on from one generation of scholars to the next. Reviewing past and current proposals to (re-)connect research and practice, he offered eleven principles for a graduate-level SLA course concerned with language teaching (presumably designed for teachers, teacher educators, and classroom researchers). These principles seem to be sensitive to some of the skepticism and resistance to basic SLA research reflected in the positions taken by Clarke, Stewart, and perhaps even Jakobovits and Gordon, as illustrated by the following sample: “The topics covered in an SLA course need to be demonstrably relevant to teaching”(p. 195); “The texts selected for an SLA course need to be comprehensible to teachers who lack technical knowledge about SLA” (p. 195); “Any proposals emanating from the SLA ‘ideas’ examined in the course or from the pedagogical implications of research articles should be viewed as ‘provisional’, to be evaluated in the light of teachers’ own classrooms and experiences of learning and teaching an L2. This process of evaluation needs to be conducted explicitly” (p. 196). ¹

Long (2009) pointing out that while SLA is “(much) less developed” than fields such as medicine and engineering, it nevertheless has a responsibility to at least recommend best practices to teachers based on “what is known or thought to be known at the time” (p. 375). He provided a set of ten principles intended as “design features, motivated by theory and research findings … which show them either to be necessary for SLA or facilitative of it” (p. 376). Some of Long’s principles parallel those proposed by Ellis, including “respect ‘learner syllabus’/developmental processes” and “provide rich (not impoverished) input” (p. 387). The principles are intended to be implemented at “the classroom level” through a “potentially infinite range of pedagogic procedures” (p. 376).

In Chapters 5 through 8 we consider SCT research that addresses a subset of the principles proposed by R. Ellis and Long, respectively; specifically that instruction must be directed at implicit knowledge, that it must respect the learner’s built-in syllabus that is presumed to guide development, and that it requires extensive input. Our immediate concern here is to respond to Ellis’s (2010) misconstrual of the SCT perspective that the theory–practice gap is a result of the dualistic stance common in Western science and that the gap can be eliminated through a praxis-based orientation. Ellis (2010, p. 186) argued that the SCT position is ultimately untenable because the activity and interests of researchers diverges from the activity and interests of teachers in a fundamental way. According to Ellis (p. 186) academic theories (and presumably affiliated research) are explicit and framed in “technical language,” while teacher theories are implicit, “action based,” and derived from “practical knowledge.” Ellis’s assertion that there is “a world of difference between studying and acquiring technical knowledge and developing and using practical knowledge” (p. 184) makes a great deal of sense when the relationship between theory and practice is construed dualistically. The SCT position sustains however an approach wherein theory/research and practice do not constitute different discourses; rather, they are two sides of the same coin, not different coins. In other words, Kurt Lewin’s laconic aphorism, alluded to by Ellis (2010, p. 186), that there is nothing as practical as a good theory, is but one side of a new kind of coin, in which the reverse side carries the following inscription: there is nothing more “theoretically rich than a good practice” (Stetsenko & Arievitch, 2004, p. 76).

The relationship between theory and practice can be reciprocal rather than a one-way street whereby theory informs, or is applied to, practice, but practice does not inform, or apply to, theory. In fact, from a praxis-based perspective, which is at the foundation of Vygotsky’s theory, the relationship is cyclic: theory–practice–theory, etc. or indeed, practice–theory–practice, etc.

Reconceptualizing Theory and Practice

The traditional understanding of theory is rooted in one strand of Greek philosophy that eventually came to dominate Western European thinking during the Enlightenment. The strand, espoused by Plato and Aristotle, postulated a fundamental distinction between mind and matter, neither of which had anything to do with the other (Novack, 1978, p. 402). Theory was conceived of as abstract ideal knowledge “derived mostly through contemplation,” whereas practice was taken to mean concrete activity in the material world (Stetsenko & Vianna, 2009, p. 39). Theory was also seen as having virtually no practical relevance and practice was considered to have no role in advancing theory, which could only happen through pure, or basic, research (p. 39). Furthermore, priority was assigned to basic research with application to practical circumstances proceeding in a linear fashion once scientists had sufficient confidence in their findings, not unlike the situation in SLA described earlier.

However, an alternative conceptualization of knowledge and practice also emerged from Greek philosophy and it too had an impact on Enlightenment thought. At the end of the 6th century BC Heraclitus of Ephesus developed a philosophy which held the world to be in a constant state of flux consisting of the dialectical unity of opposing forces (Novack, 1978, p. 410). The two conflicting understandings of the world (dualistic vs. dialectical) were captured “in the positions on the problem of knowledge put forward by Spinoza and Hegel on the one hand and Hume and Kant on the other” (Novack, 1978, p. 273). Essentially, one approach, represented by Hume and Kant, sustained the Aristotelian schism between the material world and the ideal world epitomized in human thinking; the other, represented by Spinoza and Hegel, rejected the schism and argued instead for a world unified in diversity and transformed through “mutual contradictions” (Valsiner, 2012, p. 89). This is the essence of the materialist dialectic that Vygotsky relied on to formulate his scientific psychology.

As we will discuss in Chapter 2, Vygotsky, following Marx, and in contradistinction to many of his contemporary Western European and North American colleagues (e.g., Piaget, Freud, Stern, Watson, Thorndike, Titchner), undertook to construct a psychology grounded in a dialectical understanding of the material world. His theory, discussed in Chapter 2, connects scientific knowledge with practical ac...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title Page
• Title Page
• Frontmatter
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Contents
• Preface
• Acknowledgements
• 1 Theory/Research–Practice Gap in Applied Linguistics
• 2 Sociocultural Theory and the Dialectic of Praxis: An Alternative to the Theory/Research–Practice Gap
• 3 Psychology of the Social Environment
• 4 A Theory of Developmental Education
• 5 L2 Systemic Theoretical Instruction: Experimental-Developmental Studies
• 6 L2 Systemic Theoretical Instruction: Intact Classroom Studies
• 7 The Zone of Proximal Development and Dynamic Assessment
• 8 Dynamic Assessment and L2 Development
• 9 Conclusion
• References
• Index