The Socio-cultural Approach to Language Development and Learning: Language Acquisition, Discourses and Classroom Applications. By Liz Reynolds Next

Introduction  The socio-cultural view of language development and learning has gained substantial support over the past decade (Barratt Plough &Rohl 2000; Campbell & Green 2000).  The view maintains that language development is socially and culturally defined (Halliday 1990; Vygotsky 1962). Language is a social practice, which is learned as part of the wider socio- cultural activities in which we are engaged, as we become members of family and community groups (Breen et al. 1994). Next

In this essay I will:  Identify and explore theoretical underpinnings of the socio- cultural approach to language development and learning.  Discuss the notion of discourse communities, focusing upon language acquisition and how we become members of particular discourse groups.  Examine issues relating to cultural diversity and the impact of family or community literacy practices upon performance at school.  Apply socio-cultural theory to language development and learning within the primary classroom. Next

Theoretical Underpinnings The socio-cultural approach to language development And learning is based upon the theories of Vygotsky (1962) and Halliday (1990). It maintains that:  Learning and cognitive development are socially and culturally based (Halliday 1990; Vygotsky 1962).  Language develops over time, as we interact within particular social and cultural settings (Halliday 1990; Vygotsky 1962).  Language experiences of children will vary in accordance with values, beliefs and behaviours of the cultural group into which they are being socialised (Vygotsky 1962). Next

Discourse Communities  Meanings within language are determined by social and cultural context (Gee 1991; Halliday 1990).  Semiotics (signs and symbols of language) and semiotic systems are based on shared language conventions, which are often specific to a particular socio-cultural group or discourse community (Love et al. 2002).  Love et al. (2002) describe a discourse community as a group of people who share common knowledge and understanding of language concepts, content, symbols, vocabulary and subject matter.  In learning to make meaning through language, we move from being outsiders to insiders within a particular discourse community (Gee 1991; Love et al. 2002). Next

Primary Discourse Communities Early language development is shaped by the social and cultural mechanisms of the discourse community into which we are born – the primary discourse community (Gee 1991).  From the moment of birth, children are actively involved in communicating signals to and from parents, siblings and other members of their primary network (Halliday 1990).  Through face-to-face interaction with intimates, children become familiar with a range of literacy practices, which are valued within their family and community groups (Brice-Heath 1986; Gee 1991; Halliday 1990; Vygotsky 1962). Next

Language experiences of groups of learners will vary according to types of literacy experiences, valued within the primary network (Brice-Heath 1986; Gee 1991; Love et al. 2002; Vygotsky 1962). Examples:  Brice-Heath (1986)- Mainstream middle-class children are often introduced to school-style literacy practices, through reading and reading related activities, such as the bed-time story.  Eades (1993) – Disparities between literacy practices within the Aboriginal community and mainstream institutions. Next

Secondary Discourse Communities The school is a Secondary Discourse community – an institution beyond the family in which individuals are required to communicate with non-intimates, including teachers and peers (Gee 1991).  Schools are institutions, which uphold particular social practices. Literacy practices of dominant social and cultural groups are often highly valued and reinforced within the school, while those of minority groups are commonly undervalued or unrecognised (Barratt-Plough & Rohl 2000; Eades 1993; Gee 1991).  Students from minority groups often struggle to come to terms with unfamiliar classroom discourses. These students are not illiterate. They simply use literacy in different ways than those valued by the school (Eades 1993). Next

Implications of the Socio-cultural view within the classroom. The socio-cultural view of language development and learning has major implications within the primary classroom.  Teachers need to understand and acknowledge the variety of backgrounds from which students come and help all students to become insiders within the discourse community of the classroom(Gee 1991; Love et al. 2002).  Traditional languages are important and valuable, however students must also develop an understanding of dominant literacy styles, in order to participate within the classroom and wider society (Cusworth 1994; Eades 1993; Moll et al.1992). Next

Students need to develop an understanding of language structures and functions. Language choices vary according to the context of use (Cusworth 1994; Love et al. 2002). Teachers should:  Encourage students to experiment with text production (Droga & Humphrey 2003),  Introduce students to a broad range of literacy practices, based upon familiar experiences (Cusworth 1994),  Draw upon “funds of knowledge” within the local community. Invite parents and community members into the classroom to share their skills (Moll et al. 1992, pp ),  Reinforce the notion that non-mainstream literacies are important and valid within particular social contexts (Eades 1993; Moll et al.1992). Next

Guided learning strategies such as scaffolding and apprenticeship training, have been developed in response to the notion that students learn best in interaction with others (Hammond & Gibbons 2001). Teachers who adopt the socio-cultural model will:  Encourage interaction within the classroom (Cusworth 1994; Hammond & Gibbons 2001),  Model the structure and purpose of a variety of text-types, both written and spoken,  Provide meaningful and appropriately challenging learning tasks (Cusworth 1994). Next

Conclusion Research presented supports the notion that language is a social practice (Brice-Heath 1986; Cusworth 1994; Halliday 1990; Love et al. 2002; Vygotsky 1962).  Values, behaviours and attitudes of significant others within the primary discourse community, shape a child’s literacy experiences and impact upon his or her ability to access learning within secondary institutions such as the classroom (Gee 1991; Halliday 1990).  Some children find disparities between family and community literacy practices, and those valued by the school (Eades 1993; Knobel 1999).  It is our role as teachers to provide all students with the opportunity to acquire and develop a broad range of literacy skills, so as to facilitate participation within classroom activities, the family, community and wider society. Next

Barratt-Pugh, C & Rohl, M (eds.) 2000, Literacy learning in the early years, Allen & Unwin, Sydney. Breen, M, Louden, W, Barratt-Pugh, C, Rivalland, J Rohl, M, Rhyden, M, Lloyd, S & Carr, T 1994, Literacy in its place: Literacy practices in urban and rural communities,electronic version, Clearinghouse for National Literacy and Numeracy Research, Griffith University, QLD. < gu.edu.au/school/cls/clearinghouse/1994_place/content01.ml.gu.edu.au/school/cls/clearinghouse/1994_place/content01.ml.> Brice-Heath, S 1986, ‘ What no bedtime story means: narrative skills at home and school ’, in Language socialization across culture, B Schieffelin (ed.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, pp Cusworth, R 1994, ‘ What is a functional model of language? ’ in PEN 95, Primary English Teaching Association, Newtown, pp Eades, D 1993, ‘Aboriginal English’, in PEN 93, Primary English Teaching Association, Newtown, pp Gee, J 1991, ‘What is literacy?’ in Rewriting Literacy, C Mitchell & K Weder (eds.), Beigin & Ganey, New York, pp References Next

Halliday, M 1990, ‘Three aspects of children’s language development’ in Oral and written language development: impact on schools, Y Goodman (ed.), International Reading Association and National Council of Teachers, pp Hammond, J & Gibbons, P 2001, ‘What is Scaffolding?’ in Scaffolding: Teaching and learning in Literacy Education, J. Hammond (ed.), Primary English Teaching Association, Sydney. Love, K, Pigdon, K, Baker, G, & Hamston, J 2002, Built: Building Understandings in Literacy and Teaching, 2 nd edn, CD-ROM. The University of Melbourne, Melbourne. Moll, L, Amanti, C, Neff, D & Gonzalez, N 1992, ‘Funds of knowledge for teaching: using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms’, Theory into Practice, vol. 31 (2), pp.132 – 141. Vygotsky, L 1962, Thought and Language. MIT Press, Cambridge MA. Next

Return to E-Portfolio