Symbolic Mediation Internalization Learning Process And Zpd Education Essay

Symbolic Mediation Internalization Learning Process And Zpd Education EssaySecond wording achievement (SLA) is a relatively new field, which was seen as an adjunct of language teaching pedagogy before 1960s (Myles, 2010). Ellis (1994) defined tether aspects that argon responsible for L2 accomplishment external factors ( amicable factors, input and interactions) internal factors ( apprentices existing knowledge and internal mechanisms) and individual student factors (P. 193). The social factors was investigated under heavy influence from Vygotskys Zone of Proximal Developments (ZPD). In this paper, major focus would be around the notion and application of ZPD, includingdefining ZPD and key concepts of Vygotskys theory relating to ZPD exemplary mediation, internalization, encyclopaedism passage, the role of interlocutor and learnercomparing Vygotskys social cultural theory (SCT) with Piagets cognitive theorycomparing Vygotskys Zone of Proximal Developments with Krashens notion of i+1 hypothesisSymbolic mediation, internalization , acquirement work on and ZPDThe social-cultural theory, stemmed from Vygotskys thoughts claims that the language culture process is socially mediated (Lantolf, 2000). Lantolf (1994) stressed that from Vygotskian perspective, the higher stocks of human psychological activity argon always, and everywhere, mediated by symbolic direction (P. 418) The symbolic mediation refers to the external process via symbolic signs or tools in social context through which learner can control mental process after internalization (Lightbown Spada, 2006). Lantolf (2000) regards language, among all the symbolic tools, as the most powerful psychological tool (P. 81). Through the mediation of language, the child or learner learns how to perform a task or solve a puzzle with the help from a more skilled individual (Mitchell Myles, 2004). In other words, the development process starts as an inter-mental activity, by the more skilled individual sh aring through talk, and ends as an intra-mental activity, with the dual-lane knowledge taken in by the incompetent individual. Thus, according to Vygotsky, learning includes two stages shared understanding in social context through symbolic mediation (mainly in the form of dialogue) and internalization of the shared knowledge by individual. The learning process from a Vygotskyan perspective is described as new concepts continue to be acquired through social/interactional authority (Mitchell Myles, 2004, P. 147).Vygotsky defines the concept of zone of proximal development (ZPD), as the distance between the unfeigned developmental level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance or in quislingismism with more capable peers (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 86). In other words, the role of more advanced interlocutor is stressed by assisting individual crossing the gap between actual level (what the learner can do alone) and potential level (what the learner can achieve with help). The learner is cognitively prepared for solving more coordination compound problems if supported by an interlocutor. More importance has been attached to social interaction between learner and interlocutor, which is regarded as a causative force in accomplishment (Saville-Troike, 2006, P. 111).Vygotsky versus PiagetZuengler and Miller (2006) reviewed the current debates on whether a separation should be made between second language acquisition and second language use and the debates on the commensurability of theories from protestent schools. It may be interesting to handbill that the differences between sociocultural theory and cognitive theory bear relationship with their origins -Vygotsky, the start of socioculture theory and Piaget, the father of cognitive theory.Piaget and Vygotsky are among the earliest proponents to link childrens language development with their cognitive development (Lightbown Spada, 2006). For Piaget, the cognitive development for children is realized through interaction with things around them and is presented by language which is not different from Vygotskys view. They share the view of learner as a social human being who are learning through interaction with environment and of learning and development as a contextually embedded process of interactions (Vianna Stetsenko, 2006, P. 85).However, the dissimilar emphasis that they place on social interaction leads to three major differences. For Piaget, children learn and develop in the environment. For Vygotsky, children not only learn and develop in the environment but also change it through interaction. Therefore, for Vygotsky, language is seen as a more powerful symbolic mediation (Lightbown Spada, 2006). The second difference is adjustion versus transformation (Vianna Stetsenko, 2006, P. 87). For Piaget, human develop by assimilation and accommodation to adapt to the environment, where as for Vygotsky, human develop by actively changing the environment. The third difference lies in their view of the priority between learning and cognitive development. For Piaget, children need to be cognitively prepared to a certain stage before learning, while for Vygotsky, precedence is given to learning instead of development. Therefore, Vygotsky argue for teaching or learning within ZPD, where learners could do more with scaffolding from interlocutors than their independent performance (Zuengler Miller, 2006).ZPD versus i+1Second language scholars have suggested the feasibility of integrating Krashens i+1 with Vygotskys zone of proximal development (ZPD) based on their similarities. Dunn and Lantolf (1998) have stated the incommensurability of these two concepts not only because they are unrelated but also because they are based on incommensurable theoretical discourses (P. 411)In Krashens view, humans acquire language in only one way-by understanding messages, or by receivin g clear input . . . that contains structures at our next stage- structures that are a collation beyond our current level of competence (Krashen, 1985, p. 2). More specifically, three factors contribute to language learning learners internalized grammar,namely the i, input containing linguistic structure a bit beyond learners current level, namely the i+1 and learners internal language processing mechanism (LAD)For Vygotsky, as mentioned above, ZPD is defined as those functions that have not yet matured but are in the process of maturation (1978, p. 86). A more holistic characterization has been drawn with comply to language learning learner, interlocutor, their social cultural backgrounds, their goals and motives and all the resources available (Dunn Lantolf, 1998).Learning and development occur in both situations, where learner exit surpass their current level either with assistance from a more advanced interlocutor within learners ZPD or with acquisition of linguistic stru cture i+1, which may contribute largely to their seemingly similarities. However, it would be cautious to notice as well that the development occur with a comparison of learners current level, that is learner himself. Therefore, it would be less justifiable to view the development in Krashens term as an equivalent to that in Vygotskys theory. Also it would be more reasonable to notice that the construct of ZPD and i+1 cannot stand without considering the theocratical frame in that they root in respectively. Therefore, a comparison would be made between theories that have incubated these two constructs with respect to the relationship between learning and development, the consequence of learning, the role of language, learner and interlocutor and the role of social interaction.The fundamental difference between Krashens theory with Vygotskys theory is their various(a) view on the relationship between pedagogy learning and cognitive development. Krashen hold the view as a separatis t, who perceive learning under instruction and cognitive development as two independent process (Dunn Lantolf, 1998, P. 491). Therefore, Krashen intentionally draw a line between learning and acquisition, arguing that only though subconscious acquisition can comprehensible input be acquired, and learners cognition be developed. Conversely, Vygotsky presented a dualistic quality to development, that is whether learning consciously or not, a mutual influence exists between learning and development ( Dunn Lantolf, 1998, P. 491). Thus, learners are learning and developing at the same time, and the site where learning and development meet is called ZPD.Secondly, Krashen and Vygotsky differ in their view of the consequence of learning, based on their divergent view on learning and development. For Krashen, the outcome of learning is the linguistic structure that is a bit beyond learners current level, and with the acquisition of this feature, learner has developed cognitively, ready to obtain the next i +1. Whereas for Vygotsky, learners are developing along the whole learning process, which means that not only the immediate future, but also the maturing process account for development (Dunn Lantolf, 1998, P. 422). Therefore, it is the variability between acquisition and Internalization (Kinginger, 2002, P. 418).Thirdly, the roles of language, learner and interlocutor are interpreted differently. From Krashens point, language is conceived as a container of linguistic features with comprehensible input and learner as a container with Language Acquisition Device (LAD), the individual process mechanism built inside minds, and the assistance from interlocutor is not necessary (Dunn Lantolf, 1998, P. 418). In contrast, from Vygotskys perspective, language is one of the the most powerful psychological tool of semiotic mediation system (Lightbown Spada, 2006, P. 81), and thus representing the mediated forms of cognition (Dunn Lantolf, 1998, P. 426). Both learner an d interlocutor are portrayed as a social human being, with pauperization and social cultural identity, instead of a loner with an innate ability to process (Kinginger, 2001, P. 419).Moreover, unbalanced attention is given to social interaction in the frame developed by Krashen and Vygotsky. Krashen assigned relatively little importance to social interaction due to the existence of LAD, despite his support for a weak form of interaction meaning negotiating proposed by Long (1996). In other words, Krashen argues that the strong form of interaction such as scaffolding or peer collaboration as well as learner output bear no direct relevance to SLA (Dunn Lantolf, 1998). In contrast, social interaction is viewed as the medium and the firmness of purpose of development by Vygotskian scholars (Kinginger, 2001, P. 422). Thus in order to maximize learners acquisition, interlocutor should scaffold the learner along ZPD and learners comprehensible output is as important as comprehensible inp ut.ConclusionOver the past decade, there has been an increasing number of SLA researches conducted under the influence of socioculture theory (SCT) based on the work of Vygotsky (Ableeva Lantolf, 2011 Brooks colleague et al., 2010 Kinginger, 2002 Knouzi Swain et al., 2010 Lantolf, 2007 Foster Ohta, 2005 Swain Deters, 2007 Swain Lapkin et al, 2009). This theory differs from other theory describing the SLA in the stance that social environment is not only a learning context but rather a significant contributor to language acquisition (Swain Deters, 2007). Thus the concept built in SCT framework such as ZPD, cannot be viewed separately away from its origin, which implies that it would be best for any future comparison or commensuration of concepts from unlike theories be made with their roots considered. Also the incommensurability merely add the value to the theory building in SLA field, not only for the sake of the this particular school itself but also for a helpful observ ance for other schools.It is with this sharp comparison between different perspectives, a more holistic picture can be draw for L2 acquisition, despite the criticisms been made and the debates ongoing (Zuengler Miller, 2006). Lantolf (1996) have shown his welcome for a future of letting all the flowers bloom in SLA theory building and I simply cannot agree more with him (P.713-49).