The effects of Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory on second language acquisition and language Input
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15332/erdi.v7i1.1780Keywords:
Higher order thinking skills, Input, Scaffolding, second language acquisition, interaction, SIOPAbstract
Objective. The present reflection article derives from a Diploma Course on Updating Teaching English Practices with Emphasis on Designing Learning Experiences, which took place at Universidad Industrial de Santander, Colombia. It is aimed at reflecting upon the key role of comprehensible input and social interactions between second language learners, teachers, peers and a meaningful learning environment. In addition, a revolutionary teaching model called SIOP for English learners will be described in terms of definition, justification and application to the classroom.
Methodology. This paper is framed within a documentary research that, from a hermeneutic perspective, makes reference not only to the methodology, assignments and resources used for second language acquisition in a formal academic setting, but also to the suitable language input students should be encountered with to reach higher order thinking processes and develop outstanding communicative skills. The results of this conceptual analysis, focused on the Sociocultural Theory elaborated by the psychologist Lev Vygotsky, have allowed us to examine how a second language is learned successfully if teachers are able to manipulate input through effective scaffolding techniques which are thought to offer support to each student throughout the learning process until they can progressively get rid of it.
Results. The impact of the Socio-cultural Theory by Vygotsky on second language acquisition leads us to suggest the SIOP as a new approach towards English teaching. This emphasizes the use of comprehensible input that is highly beyond students’ level of competence and multiple interactions at all levels throughout the lesson from the preparation and delivery to the assessment stage.
Downloads
References
Albaiz, T. (2016). The Pearl Side of Online Portfolios: A Descriptive Study on the Rich Experience of Using Pearl trees by Master Students of Teaching English as a Foreign Language. TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 15(1), 136-140. Retrieved from http://www.tojet.net/volumes/v15i1.pdf
Bear, D.R., Helman, L., Templeton, S., Invernizzi, M. & Johnston, F. (2007). Words their way with English learners: Word study for phonics, vocabulary, and spelling instruction. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Beers, K. (2009). Graphic organizers are tools that help your brain think. Holt Interactive Graphic Organizers. Retrieved from http://my.hrw.com/nsmedia/intgos/html/igo.htm
Benati, A. (2016). Input manipulation, enhancement and processing: Theoretical views and empirical research. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching. University of Greenwich, UK. Pressto 6(1), 65-88. Retrieved from http://pressto.amu.edu.pl/index.php/ssllt/article/view/5294
Beverly, D. & Michele, S. (2015). Applying Dale’s Cone of Experience to increase learning and retention: A study of student learning in a foundational leadership course. QScience Proceedings: Engineering Leaders Conference, 2014, 6. Retrieved from: http://www.qscience.com/doi/10.5339/qproc.2015.elc2014.6
CAL. (2017). What is the SIOP Model? Retrieved from the Center for Applied Linguistics website. http://www.cal.org/siop/
Celic, C. (2009). A Complete Guide to Literacy, Content-Area, and Language Instruction. NY: Heinemann.
Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In: Lantolf, J. P. (Ed.). Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp. 33-56). London: Ablex Publishing.
Donato, R. (2000). Sociocultural contributions to understanding the foreign and second language classroom. In: Lantolf, J. P. (Ed.). Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford University Press.
Echevarria, J., Vogt, ME. & Short, D. (2004). Making content comprehensible for English learners: the SIOP model. (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
Ellis, R., (2000). Task-based research and language pedagogy. Language Teaching Research, 4(3), 193-220.
Ellis, R., Tanaka, Y., y Yamazaki, A. (1994). Classroom interaction comprehension and the acquisition of L2 word meanings. Language Learning, 44, 449-49.
Ferlazzo, L., & Hull Sypnies, K. (2012). The ESL / ELL Teacher’s Survival Guide: Ready-to-Use Strategies, Tools, and Activities for Teaching English Language Learners of All Levels. NY: Jossey-Bass.
Freeman, Y., & Freeman, D. (2009). Academic language for English language learners and struggling readers: How to help students succeed across content areas. Portsmouth NH: Heinemann.
Gass, S. (1997). Input and Interaction. Retrieved from http://w3.coh.arizona.edu/classes/lwaugh/slat596/gass_input.pdf
Gee, S., (1997). Teaching writing: a genre-based approach. In: Fulcher, G. (Ed.). Writing in English language classroom. Hertfordshire: Prentice Hall Europe ELT.
Gibbons, P. (2002). Scaffolding language, scaffolding learning teaching second language learners in the mainstream classroom. NH: Heinemann, Portsmouth.
Haynes, J. (2004). SIOP: Making Content Comprehensible for ELLs. Retrieved from http://www.everythingesl.net/inservices/using_siop_model_08621.php.php
Herrera, G.S., & Murray, K. G. (2011). Mastering ESL and Bilingual Methods. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Horowitz, D. (1986). Process not product: less than meets the eye. TESOL Quarterly, 20(1), 445-462.
Hyerle, D., & Yeager, C. (2007). A language for learning: Thinking maps Incorporated, 1-20.
Jarvis, H., & Krashen, S. (2014). Is CALL Obsolete? Language Acquisition and Language Learning Revisited in a Digital Age. The Electronic Journal for English as a Second Language, 17(4), 1-6. Retrieved from http://www.tesl-ej.org/wordpress/issues/volume17/ej68/ej68a1/
Lipson, M., & Wixson, K. (2003). Assessment and instruction of reading and writing difficulty: An interactive approach (4th Ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Min, G. (2006). Vygotsky’s Sociocultural Theory and the Role of Input and Output in Second Language Acquisition. Wuhan University. CELEA Journal, 68, 29.
Moss, D. (2003). Second Language Acquisition in Adults: From Research to Practice. National Center for ESL Literacy Education, Georgetown University. Retrieved from http://www.cal.org/caela/esl_resources/digests/SLA.html
Navracsics, J. (2014). Input or intimacy. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching. University of Pannonia, Hungary, 4(3), 485-506. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/287556786_Input_or_intimacy
Nguyen, M. (2013). EFL Students’ Reflections on Peer Scaffolding in Making a Collaborative Oral Presentation. English Language Teaching. Canadian Center of Science and Education, 6(4), 64-73. Retrieved from http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/elt/article/view/25563
Nowbakht, M. (2015). The Comparative Effects of Comprehensible Input, Output and Corrective Feedback on the Receptive Acquisition of L2 Vocabulary Items. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 6(4), 103-114. Australian International Academic Centre. Retrieved from http://www.journals.aiac.org.au/index.php/alls/article/view/1624
Peregoy, S. (2012). Reading, writing, and learning in ESL. A resource book for K-12 teachers. NY: Pearson.
Powers, K. (2006). School reform and standards-based education: An instructional model for English Language Learners. Journal of Educational Research, 99(4), 195-211.
Readence, J.E., Bean, T. W., & Baldwin, R. S. (2004). Content area literacy: An integrated approach (8th Ed.) Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company.
Reiss, J. (2012). 120 Content Strategies for English Language Learners (2nd Edition). New York: Allyn & Bacon.
Salazar, P. (1996). Comprehensible input and learning outcomes. Jornades de Foment de la Investigació. Universitat Jaume. Retrieved from www.uji.es/bin/publ/edicions/jfi2/compren.pdf
SIOP. (2017). Retrieved from The SIOP Institute Website http://www.siopinstitute.net/about.html
Spezzini, S. (2013). Enhancing Language for Specific Purposes through Interactive, Peer-to-Peer Oral Techniques. Scholarship and Teaching on Languages for Specific Purposes. University of Alabama, Birmingham. Retrieved from http://static.squarespace.com/static/513fb99fe4b0878d799ba12c/t/520a913de4b0f3bf53bb700e/1376424253563/Enhancing+LSP+Through+Peer-to-Peer+Techniques+by+Susan+Seay,+Susan+Spezzini+%26+Julia+Austin+.pdf
Spezzini, S., La Cross, L., & Austin, J. (2013). A doctoral student’s shift from modified AAVE to Standard English: Evidence for taking a Language for Specific Purposes (LSP) approach. In L. Sánchez-López (Ed.). Scholarship and Teaching of Languages for Specific Purposes. ISBN 978-0-9860107-0-5.
Spezzini, S. (2010). Effects of visual analogies on learner outcomes: Bridging from the known to the unknown. International Journal on the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 4(2), 1-30. http://academics.georgiasouthern.edu/ijsotl/v4n2.html
Spezzini, S. (2010). Children were punished: Not for what they said but for what their teachers heard. Childhood Education, 86(3), 130-131. http://images.magnetmail.net/images/clients/ACEI/attach/issues.pdf
Spezzini, S. (2009). Fostering language in English language learners through grammaring and IPOTs. Focus on Teacher Education, 9(3), 5-6. http://acei.org/wp-content/uploads/Spr09Teach.pdf
Spezzini, S. (2009). Fostering language in English language learners through grammaring and IPOTs. Focus on Teacher Education, 9(3), 5-6. http://acei.org/wp-content/uploads/Spr09Teach.pdf
Spezzini, S. (2006). Helping English language learners with pronunciation. Focus on Teacher Education, 7(1), 3-4.
Spezzini, S. (2004). English immersion in Paraguay: Individual and sociocultural dimensions of language learning and use. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 7(5), 412-31. http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~db=all~content=g908067275
Spezzini, S., & Oxford, R. (1998). Perspectives of pre-service foreign language teachers. System 26(1), 65-76.
Tharp, R., & Gallimore, R. (1988). Rousing minds to life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Turuk, M. (2008). The relevance and implications of Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory in the second language classroom. ARECLS, 5, 244-262. Retrieved from https://research.ncl.ac.uk/ARECLS/volume_5/turuk_vol5.pdf
U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. (2013). What Works Clearinghouse. English Language Learners intervention report. Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol® (SIOP®). Retrieved from http://whatworks.ed.gov
Van Der Stuyf, R. (2002). Scaffolding as a Teaching Strategy. Adolescent Learning and Development, Section 0500ª.
Vogt, M. E., & Echeverria, J. (1996). 99 Ideas and Activities for Teaching English Learners with the SIOP Model. Pearson Education Limited.
Vogt, M.E. (2000). Active learning in the content areas. In M. McLaughlin & M.E. Vogt. Creativity and innovation in content area teaching. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon Publishers.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind and Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, Eds. and Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Yi, B., & Sun, Z. (2013). An Empirical Study of the Effectiveness of Negotiation of Meaning in L2 Vocabulary Acquisition of Chinese Learners of English. English Language Teaching, 6(10), 120-131. Canadian Center of Science and Education. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1077092.pdf
Downloads
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Publishing and copyright
The authors of the articles accepted to be published, transfer proprietary rights to Espiral, Journal of Teaching and Research for the partial reproduction of the published work in electronic media (websites, indexes, directories), as long as their purposes are academic but not commercial.
