Between the Lines and Out of Place: A brief synopsis of sociocultural learning theory

and the remaining questions

Robert J. Sullivan

ARE6933: 04HE, Fall 2012

Professor Delacruz

October 3, 2012

Between the Lines and Out of Place 2

Abstract

This review attempts to briefly define sociocultural learning theory and what it

endeavors to accomplish for the learner. There is also a concise discussion of some of

its associative theories. Whether or not the theory is having, or even should have an

influence on today’s education system, particularly in K-12 public schools, is

considered. Finally, I ask questions regarding why it seems sociocultural theory is not

more utilized as a means of serious alternative learning in today’s American public

schools, especially in the schools where the student could most benefit from what the

theory has to offer.

Between the Lines and Out of Place 3

Introduction

Sociocultural theory, later termed cultural-historic activity theory (CHAT), can be

traced back to “dialectical materialism, classical German philosophy and the work of

Vygotsky, who created what is referred to as first-generation activity theory” (Roth &

Lee, 2007, p. 189). According to Roth and Lee, the fact that Vygotsky’s work was

grounded in Marxism may be one reason why it has only recently been given so much

consideration in the west (Roth & Lee, 2007). However, Roth and Lee noted that the

“powerful analytic tools, existing even in Vygotsky’s works, have little to do with

totalitarian regimes that have falsely masqueraded under the banner of Marxism,

socialism, or communism” (Roth & Lee, 2007, p. 191).

The idea that people are continuously being molded and influenced by their

social environments is at the heart of sociocultural theory as well as some of its

decedent theories. The theory has introduced many new and useful ways of thinking

about how learners discover things and how learning ought to be considered. According

to L. C. Moll many of the most important advantages about the sociocultural theory

approach is summed up in a citing of his in an essay by John-Steiner and Mahn:

…studying human beings dynamically, within their social circumstances, in their

full complexity, we gain a much more complete and…valid understanding of

them. We also gain, particularly in the case of minority children, a more positive

view of their capabilities and how our pedagogy often constrains, and just as

often distorts, what they do and what they are capable of doing. (as cited in John-

Steiner & Mahn, n.d., p. 292)

This “distortion” that Moll refers to is quite possibly the canary in the coal mine of

public education. Being able to isolate and, more importantly, mitigate the distortion,

quite possibly makes sociocultural theory more pertinent in today’s factory-like public

Between the Lines and Out of Place 4

education environment (Robinson, 2010) than when it was first introduced almost one-

hundred years ago.

The Zone

Each cycle begins with a newly displayed behavior, such as a smile, a visually

directed reach, or a babble. The adult's reaction and interpretations transform the

infant's emerging behavior into a social act. In essence, the child induces the

adult to recruit the act for communication (Bakeman, Adamson, Konner, & Barr,

in press). After many experiences of supported expression, the child gradually

masters an action that is qualified with cultural meaning. The act has passed

through the zone of proximal development during which the adult has educated

the child in its use. (Scherba de Valenzuela, 2002)

Understanding Vygotsky’s idea of the “zone of proximal development” is key to

understanding sociocultural theory. A clear and summarizing example of this idea may

be derived from this brief example:

When manipulating objects in accordance with their physical characteristics,

children, strictly speaking, do not need an adult nearby…Therefore, children can

discover by themselves, for example, that a ball rolls away if pushed or that a

rattle makes a sound if shaken. When carrying out such independent actions,

however, children are performing at the actual rather than proximal level of

development of their mental processes, which is not particularly advantageous in

terms of their mental development… When involved in actions with objects in

accordance with their social meanings…children are in need of adult help.

(Karpov, 2005, p.110)

The Learner Teaches

Another important aspect of sociocultural theory emphasizes not only what the

learner obtains from a caregiver, mediator, or teacher but also what the learner brings

to the interaction, and then how the “broader cultural and historical setting shaped the

Between the Lines and Out of Place 5

interaction” (Scott & Palinscar, 2003-2009). “Sociocultural approaches emphasize the

interdependence of social and individual processes in the construction of knowledge”

(John-Steiner and Mahn, n.d). If we can agree that there is an “interdependence” that

exists in contemporary society, then this begs the question perhaps as to why the

American public education system is prone to minimize the need to create learning

environments where “interdependence” is recognized.

A good example of this type of learning is outlined in Roth and Lee’s essay

Vygotsky’s Negelected Legacy: Cultural Historical Activity Theory (2007), whereby a

group of middle school learners are given the task by their coteachers (coteaching is

another method that often takes place within CHAT learning environments) of

brainstorming and figuring out how they could become involved in cleaning up a

polluted creek in their community:

Mediated by teacher questions and inspired by visiting environmentalist,

biologists, water technicians, First Nation elders, and local residents, the

students, in groups of three to four individuals, then designed there own projects

that concretely realized the general call of the environmentalists to generate

scientific knowledge and to rescue the creek. (Roth & Lee, 2007, p. 192)

The students had relative free reign in designing their core curriculum and each

group figured out different methods of studying the problem and reporting their findings.

What the endeavor was successful in figuring out is that all the students became very

engaged in very meaningful and holistic ways, including a student that had been

diagnosed with ADHD. Because the students were not only involved in the object of

their actions (i,e, generating knowledge and saving the creek), but also the means by

which they represented their actions, they became much more occupied with their

learning process than what normally took place in their conventional classroom setting

(Roth & Lee, 2007).

The Sign of the Times

Between the Lines and Out of Place 6

Semiotics is an important heuristic component to a learner’s development and

another aspect of sociocultural theory that is perhaps more relevant today than when

Vygotsky began to develop his theories. Its current significance is quite possibly

because of the increased amount of visual stimuli in today’s visual culture. However,

where sociocultural theory is concerned, there has always been a serious consideration

given to common symbols and artifacts, and their potential to influence the learner:

Newborns are, of course, ignorant of the meanings of the artifacts they encounter

and the ways in which those artifacts (including words of the language as well as

diapers, mobiles and pacifiers) are to be incorporated into action. At birth the

cultural part and present are literally thrust upon them. (Cole & Wertsch, n.d., p.

254)

Vygotsky and “his colleagues stressed the contexts of everyday activity as the

local medium within which mind is formed” (Holland & Cole, 1995, p. 475). Schema

theory, another one of Vygotsky’s developments, emanates from this notion of the way

“culture can be thought of as a system of meanings” (Holland & Cole, 1995, p. 478) and

particularly how the meanings are perceived by learners from different social

backgrounds.

The Remaining Questions

The above examples of sociocultural theory may seem like obvious means in

which society and environment may influence and engage learners in life, and

especially in education settings. However, its utilization in a holistic and concerted way

in today’s classrooms, in my experience, does not seem to be taking place. Is it

because our education system has been taken over by a preponderance of people that

have studied business and public administration rather than learning theory? Could it be

because standardized testing, itself a result of the “numbers conscious” administrators

running our schools has quite possibly trumped any learning that does not stay between

the lines that have been drawn in the proverbial public education sand, by these very

Between the Lines and Out of Place 7

administrators? Is it a refusal to recognize that a multitude of students in our public

education system are feeling out of place in a system that continues to reward middle

and upper middle class values? Is it a lack of understanding amongst educators of the

“multiple intelligences” that learners possess (Shearer, 2004) that we educators are not

considering? Or could it also be that “the ways in which children acquire language and

construct knowledge in nonschool environments and the dynamic relation with what

they are taught in school is maximally relevant to school learning” (John-Steiner and

Mahn, n.d., p. 202) is not something that most educators spend much time deliberating?

Many see education suffering because of a deficit they feel exists from an across

the board societal morality malaise or crisis rather than a result of a dearth of

meaningful mediation between the learner and the caregiver and/or teacher. Worse yet,

administrators that stress strict standardized policies over learning theories, such as

sociocultural theory, are quite possibly the reason why some of our high school drop-out

rates are at their highest levels in recent years (Child Trend Databank, 2012). What is

all too often happening today is children “whose mode of discourse is different from that

used in school instruction find themselves at a disadvantage and often drop out, or are

forced out of school” (John-Steiner and Mahn, n.d, p. 202). Where is the social

interaction or “mediation” (Vygotsky, 1925, 1924) needed to allow for the healthy

development of the child when so many children today are coming from financially and

educationally challenged homes forced into going to schools that are no more than

“drop-out factories” (Guggenheim & Kimball, 2010)?

In his book Shame of a Nation: The Restoration of Apartheid Schooling in

America Jonathan Kozol (2005) exposes the desegregation taking place in America

since the early nineties resulting in less money going to school districts with financially

challenged student populations. I mention Kozol’s findings as among other important

conclusions, his book points to the financial problems that are at the core of our

education dilemma. Needless to say, any kind of education curriculum that involves the

Between the Lines and Out of Place 8

amount of interaction and mediation that sociocultural learning theory requires needs

serious funding.

It does always seem to boil down to money, but before funding can occur, there

needs to be a seismic shift in thinking and/or in the kinds of people that are becoming

the education administrators in schools and school districts. I feel we will never see

learning theory implemented in the public school system in any meaningful way until

the administrators are educators, and in our bottom-line centric education system

dominated by people trained to be efficient public administrators, I see an ensuing uphill

battle.

References

Child Trends Databank. (2012) High school drop out rates. [Web site].Retrieved from

http://childtrendsdatabank.org/?q=node/300

Cole, M., & Wertsch, J. V. (n.d.) Beyond the individual-social antimony in discussions of

Piaget and Vygotsky. Retrieved from

Semioticshttp://webpages.charter.net/schmolze1/vygotsky/

Guggenheim, D. & Kimball, B. (2010) Waiting for superman. [Documentary Film]

Holland, D., & Cole, M. (1995). Between discourse and schema: Reformulating a

cultural historical approach to culture and mind. Anthropology & Education

Quarterly, 26(4), 475-489.

John-Steiner, V., & Mahn, H. (n.d.). Sociocultural approaches to learning and

development: A Vygotskyan framework. Retrieved from

http://webpages.charter.net/schmolze1/vygotsky/

Karpov, Y.V. (2005). The neo-Vygotskian approach to child development. New York,

NY: Cambridge University Press

Kozol, J. (2005). The Shame of the nation: the restoration of apartheid schooling in

America. New York: Three Rivers Press.

Robinson, K. (2010) Ken Robinson: Changing education paradigms. [Online Video].

Between the Lines and Out of Place 9

Retrieved from

http://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_changing_education_paradigms.html

Roth, W. M., & Lee, Y. J. (2007). Vygotsky's neglected legacy: Cultural-Historical

Activity Theory. Review of Educational Research, 77(2), 186-232.

Scherba de Valenzuela, J. (2002, July 30). Sociocultural Theory [Web site essay].

Retrieved from http://www.unm.edu/~devalenz/handouts/sociocult.html on

Scott, S. & Palinscar, A. (2003-2009).The historical roots of sociocultural theory.

Retrieved from www.education.com/reference/article/sociocultural-theory/

October 4, 2012)