Sociocultural theory as the motivation to create change.



By Lina Roncallo

Since the beginning of time, the fact that human beings and society are complementary
to each other has been shown through both history and science. Thanks to literature
and media, people have always been familiar with the concept of human beings as part
of a society that needed them to properly function. This is the reason why many
researchers have spent numerous years of work attempting to explain how being a part
of society can affect the behavior, the way of thinking, and even the understanding of
humans. This situation was not any different in the pedagogic field since many
psychologists and educators have inquired about the influences that society has on the
cognitive development of a student, especially of children. When morphing these
questions and doubts about the effects that the environment could have on children,
linguists decided to join this research path in order to answer significant questions such
as explaining how a child learned to speak, communicate, and express their needs
through speech. Among the many theories that have been studied, there is a set that is
always paramount to analyze when studying the foundations of first language
acquisition, which are known as schools of thought. In this argumentative text, I attempt
to share with the reader the importance of a particular theory that focuses on the
students and their social context. This theory is called the Socio-Cultural Theory, and
many authors such as the Russian psychologist Lev Vygotsky paved the way for others
to widen the horizons of pedagogy and learning as social acts.

To begin with, it is mandatory to understand what the supporters of this theory believed
when it came to learning a language. For instance, Vygotsky considered that social
interaction was the origin and engine of learning. It is not hard to believe that someone
with quotes as famous as “Social interaction is the origin and engine of learning.” would
not bring up a full theory based upon that statement. This sociocultural perspective that
Vygotsky shared with other authors, focused on a social structure which was considered
as necessary to learning. It paid special attention to the importance of social interactions
by using communication and instructions, considering that the social environment is not
just the physical place where learning happens, but a paramount aspect to it.



Even though he suggests that the language development process begins through social
contact, he acknowledged that both the social space and the psychological one were
equally important, since he affirmed that the knowledge gathered from the social
environment gradually moved inwards through inner speech, assuring the innate
curiosity and critical thinking of the children.



The primary constructs of this theory are mediation and regulation, internalization, and
the zone of proximal development or ZPD. He considers the latter as a pedagogical tool
that all teachers must use to better understand the capacities of their students.
Moreover, this theory considers the participation and assistance of others necessary in
order to become a competent speaker of the language, using the ZPD as a bridge
between the current state of the learner and their future knowledge. When others are
mentioned, it is not limited to educators only, but it can also be applied to learners who
have internalized aspects of the language and are willing to share them in interaction.

Thanks to the impact that the contributions of Vygotsky had on the sociocultural theory
of first language acquisition, more authors decided to add their own beliefs and
hypothesis in order to make the theory more complete. For instance, Ellis argued that
although the sociocultural theory was mainly based on the assumption that learning
emerged through interaction, he added that it was necessary for this knowledge to be
brought up in interaction as well.

In spite of the fact that many people believe that only theorists and researchers can
contribute to the pedagogic theories, I have to disagree. As future teachers, teaching is
not our only duty. In my opinion, I consider that when we enroll in the faculty of
education, we take an oath to become what the country is lacking in terms of leadership
and innovation. It is relevant to take into account and recognize how one of the sources
of income for any country relies on the contributions that are made in the research field,
the reason why I firmly believe that any teacher must have enough background
knowledge about pedagogy itself to be able to develop critical thinking skills and tools
that enable them to change the reality of education. Reading and nurturing our brains
about these schools of thought might be the motivation that we need in order to start
creating and start researching subjects of our interest. Who said that language teachers
could not be the next big researchers?