Sociocultural theory in collaborative learning - Essay Example

SOCIOCULTURAL THEORY IN COLLABORATIVE LEARNING 2006 INTRODUCTION In practice, the concept of collaborative learning has come to mean working in pairs or small groups to achieve shared learning goals. It is learning through group work rather than learning by working alone” (Barkley et al, 2004: 4). Collaborative learning environment is characterised by such features as intentional design, meaningful learning, and co-labouring. The essence of the philosophical assumptions underlying collaborative learning is perfectly summarized by Matthews (1996): “Collaborative learning occurs when students and faculty work together to create knowledge… It is a pedagogy that has at its centre the assumption that people make meaning together and that the process enriches and enlarges them” (p. 101). The debate about the definition of term ‘collaborative’ as well as ongoing attempts to identify relevant criteria to determine whether learning is collaborative or not does not seem to have any major implications for the basics of collaborative learning. Almost every research study exploring collaborative learning environment comes to positive conclusions (Johnson, Johnson, and Stanne, 1986; Natasi and Clements, 1991). Natasi and Clements (1991) summarize these conclusions in the following way: “Cognitive-academic and social-emotional benefits have been reported for students from early elementary through college level, from diverse ethnic and cultural backgrounds, and having a wide range of ability levels… Furthermore, cooperative learning has been used effectively across a wide range of content areas, including mathematics, reading, language arts, social studies and science” (p. 111). The benefits of collaborative learning listed in literature fall into four major groups, namely: Social (e.g. social support system, better diversity understanding among students and staff) (SOME); Academic (e.g. development of higher level thinking and critical thinking skills, active involvement of students in the learning process, improved academic results) (SOME); Psychological (e.g. improved self-esteem, positive attitudes toward teacher, reduced anxiety) (SOME); Assessment (e.g. greater variety of assessment tools and techniques). Initially, research in the realm of collaborative learning focused on functioning of an individual learner in a group: the theories which dominated cognitive psychology over the 1970s tended to emphasise the role of individual information processors in the process of cognition. The social context of this process was viewed as secondary to individual activity (Dillenbourg et al, 1996: 189). The last decades of the 20th century were marked by increased attention to the social context, and, consequently, improved understanding of the process of cognition. Much of the shift was due to growing influence of sociocultural theory in pedagogical practice. This theory is very helpful in predicting, explaining and justifying the above listed cognitive, psychological and social benefits of engaging students in collaborative learning activities MAIN DISCUSSION The theoretical background underlying contemporary models of collaborative learning relies heavily upon three major theories of learning: socio-constructivist theory, socio-cultural theory, and shared cognition theory (Dillenbourg et al, 1996). These three perspectives share the basic features of cognitive stance, including the focus on the interactive aspect of human development and learning, but the socio-cultural theory has been recently gaining momentum as the most influential among the three in the realm of language education (Lantolf, 2000; Wells, 1999). L. S. Vygotsky formulated the basics of socio-cultural theory in the 1920s and 1930s, though current conceptualisations of this approach also draw on works and ideas of other theorists (Luria, 1979; Wertsch, 1991, 1998; Newman and Holzman, 1993; Cole, 1996). The essence of socio-cultural theory is exploring the causal relationship between the social interactions and cognitive advances of the individual. Implications of sociocultural theory for teaching and education are profound. The ideas of Vygotsky has led to the conception of learner as historical and cultural subject, embedded within and constituted by a system of social interactions taking place within the culture in question (Vygotsky, 1978; Wertsch, 1991). Consequently, the process of learning is “…embedded within social events and occurring as a child interacts with people, objects, and events in the environment" (Kublin et al, 1998: 287). Yet, the most important postulate of the sociocultural perspective is the social nature of knowledge as well as the belief that knowledge is constructed during the processes of collaboration and interaction among learners (Vygotsky, 1978). Evidently, such perception of learners and knowledge suggests the focus on the social context of cognition. The methodological basis of contemporary language education encompasses various approaches and styles. Given the extreme complexity of language such variety is absolutely reasoned: as Brown (1994) realistically observes, different psychological approaches focus upon different aspects of language. Thus, psycholinguistic theories focus upon psychological mechanisms of language acquisition, sociolinguistic approaches explores the social component of language functioning, pedagogically oriented perspectives concentrate on the factors which determine effectiveness of teaching, etc. None of the existing approaches or methods is better than the others per se: the choice is determined by a set of situation- and learner-specific factors (Williams and Burden, 1997). However, the sociocultural perspective of language learning is unique in terms of addressing the interactive, dynamic and reciprocal aspects of language education (Wu, 1998). Vygotsky’s ideas about the nature of language and specifics of language acquisition and learning imply a wider focus on language education. As Nassaji and Cumming (2000) state, the sociocultural approach provides “…a psycholinguistic explanation of the sociocultural circumstances and processes through which pedagogy can foster learning that leads to language development” (p. 98). The core of sociocultural theory includes four major concepts: mediation, thinking and speaking, zone of proximal development (ZPD), and interaction. Mediation Vygotsky claimed that human beings employ a set of symbolic tools, or signs, to mediate and regulate their internal and external relationships, and transform them. These tools emerge and gradually evolve within certain culture to pass over from generation to generation with language being the most important among them. Lantolf (2000) defines mediation as “the most fundamental concept of sociocultural theory” the essence of which is that “…the human mind is mediated” (p.1). The view of learning as mediation makes sociocultural theory highly important in making language education really effective. Adopting this view the researcher does not only focus on learning linguistic skills alone, but also on the way the process of learning occurs and how learners shape their perspective, identities, social and cultural awareness. Thinking and Speaking Sociocultural theory suggests that learning is a process of appropriating so-called ‘tools for thinking’. These tools are made available by social agents originally acting as interpreters and guiding in the individual’s cultural apprenticeship (Rogoff, 1990). Vygotsky’s account of the relationship between thought and language clearly illustrates the process of appropriation: Vygotsky views speaking and thinking are ways of acting on the material and social world. The changing functional relationship between speaking and thinking is the illustrative example of the general process of development in which social tools – initially serving social functions – are appropriated and transformed into individual tools of thinking and problem solving. However, the shift from the social realm of functioning to the internal individual one requires active involvement of learners in social interaction with peers and teachers. During social interactions, the learner employs speech and gestures to fulfil multiple goals: to regulate joint attention, to identify and label objects, to classify, to elaborate experiences, and to offer explanations (Renshaw, 1992). Only socially situated use of language enables the learner to reflect on and transform perceived experience. Speech does not include within itself the power to create intellectual functioning: “It acquires this capacity only through being used in its instrumental capacity” (Levina, 1981: 296). The opportunity to use speech as a means of making sense of experiences with other participants is a crucial step, therefore, towards independent intellectual functioning. Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) The ‘zone of proximal development’ is less broad concept than mediation, but its educational potential is huge. Vygotsky (1978) defined the zone of proximal development as “the distance between a childs actual developmental level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving under guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers” (p. 86). ZPD represents the site where various social forms of mediation take place. Originally, Vygotsky proposed the concept of ZPD as a way to capture the process through which intelligence measured by standard IQ tests is influenced by institutionalised schooling (Lantolf, 2000). Vygotsky (1978), Cole (1996), Wertsch (1998, 1991), and Lantolf (2000) emphasise the role of language as a mediating tool in all forms of higher-order mental processing such as reasoning. However, language derives these critical mediating functions only from social activities: a human being may possess certain abilities, but only social or collaborative forms of behaviour activate these abilities. From the moment of birth an individual is actively involved in constructing his personal meanings from socially acquired experiences, which are subsequently internalised into the inner cognitive structures (Yu, 2004). In the context of language education this means that language is not learned by the mere memorization of grammar, syntax, morphology, or other linguistic aspects. Instead, learners are actively involved in the process of making sense; they construct their own understanding of the language categories they deal with. The concept of ZPD implies an important consideration in terms of instructional design. Since cognitive change takes place within ZPD, instructions aimed to stimulate this change must be designed in a way to target a level that is reasonably above the actual developmental level of learner. Otherwise the cognitive change will not occur: “learning which is oriented toward developmental levels that have already been reached is ineffective from the view point of the childs overall development. It does not aim for a new stage of the developmental process but rather lags behind this process” (Vygotsky, 1978: 37). Appropriation is another critical prerequisite for cognitive change to occur within ZPD. Learners involved in collaborative learning activities should have similar focus in order to access ZPD: “Joint attention and shared problem solving is needed to create a process of cognitive, social, and emotional interchange” (Hausfather, 1996: 3). Scaffolding The concept of scaffolding originates from ZPD, and means the guidance or collaborative activities involving more capable learners that help the learner advance to the higher levels of thinking. Donato (1994) defines the learning situation where scaffolding takes place as a “situation where a knowledgeable participant can create supportive conditions in which the novice can participate, and extend his or her current skills and knowledge to higher levels of competence” (p.40). Gibbons (2002) suggests a similar definition of scaffolding arguing it is “help which will enable the learners to accomplish a task which they would not have been able to manage on their own” (p.14). Although this definition reflects the essence of scaffolding, its applicability to language development is limited (Yu, 2004). The sociocultural perspective identifies language development with the overall development of individual: it encompasses more elements than acquisition of knowledge and skills. Therefore, Nassaji and Swain (2000) offer a broader definition of scaffolding, which is “the collaboration of both the learner and the expert operating within the learner’s ZPD” (p.36). During this collaboration the expert (teacher) gradually removes the scaffold initially provided to make sure that the learner would not fail. The goal of the teacher whom uses the strategy is turning the student into an independent and self-regulating learner with good problem-solving skills (Hartman, 2002). The comprehensible input strategy represents one interesting variation of scaffolding used in language education. This strategy implies that the information being input is to some degree comprehensible to the specific learner but simultaneously a bit above the learner’s actual level of development. Consequently, the learner faces a moderate challenge to push beyond the actual level of development. The difficulty of task should gradually increase as the learner advances to a higher level of development (Yu, 2004). Another type of scaffolding involves changing teachers’ instructional style when learners need something they are not currently receiving. Oxford (1990) also states that an important aspect of scaffolding is the provision of learning strategies or tools which students can use on their own, that is to say, aiding the learners to ‘learn how to learn’ (Bruner, 1960: 4). CONCLUDING REMARKS Sociocultural theory places all kinds of human activity, including teaching and learning, in a specific cultural and institutional context, and rejects the focus on isolated individual learner. Instead, the learner is studied only within the context of interactions with teacher acting as a social agent. Consequently, sociocultural theory offers a new set of role models for both parties involved. The key difference that distinguishes the new roles from the traditional ones is determined by the collaborative nature of teacher-student interactions. While the conventional approach is based upon the notion of teacher as the transmitter of knowledge to be memorised and recited, the sociocultural perspective forces teacher collaborate with learners in order to help them create certain meanings (Hausfather, 1996). Sociocultural theory views learning a reciprocal experience involving both participants of the learning process: teacher and learner. The relationships between the basics of collaborative learning and fundamental concepts of sociocultural theory can hardly be overlooked. The term ‘collaborative learning’ relates to a situation in which certain forms of interaction take place. These interactions trigger the mechanisms of learning identified within the sociocultural perspective. Therefore, the sociocultural theory can be addressed as a theory of collaborative learning, which dominates contemporary research in the field of collaborative education. For example, the collaborative learning principles are meant to foster students’ language skills, self-awareness and cultural-awareness, improve critical thinking skills, etc. This can be achieved by observing the principles of mediation, thinking and speaking, proximal zone development, and interaction underlying sociocultural theory. Understanding the meaning and potential effects of the social factors in language education is critically important for a successful educator. Sociocultural theory provides the learning community with such understanding while the variety of documented benefits of engaging students in collaborative learning demonstrates how effectively the latter capitalizes on the sociocultural theory. REFERENCES Barkley, E., K. P. Cross, and C. H. Major (2004), Collaborative Learning Techniques: A Handbook for College Faculty. Jossey-Bass Brown, H.D. (1994), Principles of Language Learning and Teaching, 3rd Ed. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall Bruner, J. S. (1960). The Process of Education. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press Cole, M. (1996), Culture in mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press Dillenbourg, P., M. Baker, A. Blaye, and C. OMalley (1996) The evolution of research on collaborative learning. In E. Spada and P. Reiman (Eds) Learning in Humans and Machine: Towards an interdisciplinary learning science. (Pp. 189- 211). Oxford: Elsevier. Donato, R. (1994), Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In: J. P. Lantolf and G. Appel (eds). Vygotskian Approach to Second Language Research. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex Publishing Corporation Gibbons, P. (2002), Scaffolding Language, Scaffolding Learning: teaching Second Language Learning in the mainstream classroom. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann Hausfather, S. (1966), “Vygotsky and Schooling: Creating a Social Contest for Learning”. Action in Teacher Education, 18, 1-10 Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., and Stanne, M. (1986), “Comparison of computer assisted cooperative, competitive and individualistic learning”, American Educational Research Journal, 23(3), 382-92 Kublin, K. S., Wetherby, A. M., Crais, E. R., and Prizant, B. M. (1989). Prelinguistic dynamic assessment: A transactional perspective. In A. M. Wetherby, S. F. Warren, and J. Reichle (Eds.), Transitions in prelinguistic communication (pp. 285-312). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes. Lantolf, J. (2000). Sociocultural theory and second language learning. New York: Oxford University Press. Levina, R.E. (1981), L.S. Vygotskys ideas about the planning function of speech in children, In: J.V. Wertsch (ed.), The Concept of Activity in Soviet Psychology, Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharp Luria, A. R. (1979). The Making of Mind, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. Mantero, M and Iwai,Y. (2005). Reframing English Language Education in Japan. Asian EFL Journal, Vol. 10, Issue 2 Matthews, R.S., (1996), Collaborative Learning: creating knowledge with students. In: Menges, R.J., Weimer, M., and Associates. Teaching on Solid Ground. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Nassaji, H. and Cumming, A. (2000), Whats in a ZPD? A case study of a young ESL Student and teacher interacting through dialogic journals. Language Teaching Research 4, 95-121 Natasi, B. K., and Clements, D.H. (1991). Research on cooperative learning: Implications for practice. The Social Psychology Review, 120, 110-131 Newman, F. and Holzman, L. (1993), Lev Vygotsky: Revolutionary scientist. London: Routledge Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language Learning Strategies: What Every Teacher Should Know. Boston: Heinle & Heinle Renshaw, P.D. (1992) The Sociocultural Theory of Teaching and Learning: implications for the curriculum in the Australian context. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Australian Association for Research in Education, Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, November Robert, J. (1999). Personal construct psychology as a framework for research into teacher and learner thinking. Language Teaching Research. 3, 117-144 Rogoff B. (1990) Apprenticeship in thinking : Cognitive development in social context. New York: Oxford University Press. Tharp, R. G., and Gallimore, R. (1988). Rousing minds to life: Teaching, learning, and schooling in social context. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind and society: The development of higher mental processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wertsch, J. V. (1998). Mind as action. New York: Oxford University Press Williams, M. and Burden, R. (1997). Psychology for Language Teachers: A social Constructivist approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wu, B. (1998). Towards an understanding of the dynamic process of L2 classroom. Interaction. System 26, 525-540 Yu, G. (2004), Perception, practice and progress - significance of scaffolding and zone of proximal development for language teachers. Asian EFL Journal, 6 (4) Read More