VYGOTSKY’NİN SOSYOKÜLTÜREL TEORİSİ BAKIŞ AÇISINDAN YAZMA ÖĞRETİMİ

Bu çalışma, Vygotsky’nin Sosyokültürel Teorisi kapsamında hazırlanmış yazmaöğretimi ile ilgili çalışmaları incelemektedir. İkinci/ yabancı dil öğrenim ve öğretimbağlamlarında, Vygotsky’nin Sosyokültürel Teorisi pek çok araştırmacı için yeni ve farklı birbakış açısı sunmaktadır. Bu çalışma, Sosyokültürel Teori bakış açısıyla yazma öğretimialanının temel öğelerini özetlemekte ve başlıca konularına göre bu çalışmaları sınıflamaktave analiz etmektedir.Çalışma, bu alanda belli başlı araştırmaların anahtar öğelerini kısaca özetleyerek başlamakta, daha sonra Vygotky’den ve onun ikinci/ yabancı dil öğrenim ve öğretim alanındaki takipçilerinden (Lantolf, Wells ve digerleri) esinlenerek hazırlanmış çalışmaları detaylarıyla incelemektedir. Yabancı dil öğretimi alanındaki yazma öğretimi ile ilgili çalışmalar ana hatlarıyla araştırma odaklarına göre sınıflandırılmış ve bu araştırmaların genel sınırlılıkları belirtilmiştir. Bu çalışmada üzerinde durulan iki önemli sınırlılık kavramlardaki belirsizlik ve anadilin (fazlaca) kullanımıdır. Makale, bu alanda yapılabilecek yeni çalışmalara yönelik tavsiyelerle son bulmaktadır. Temel tavsiye akranlarla işbirliğinin yazmanın tüm alanlarında yaygınlaştırılması ve işbirlikli yazmanın çeşitli türlerinin etkinlikleri üzerine yeni çalışmalar yapılmasıdır.

WRITING FROM A SOCIOCULTURAL THEORY OF MIND PERSPECTIVE

This paper reviews the studies on teaching writing from a sociocultural framework. Vygotskyan Sociocultural theory of mind (SCT) has been presented as an alternative to mainstream research in second and/or foreign language learning and teaching contexts. This paper examines key elements of writing from a SCT perspective and reviews the studies on writing according to their orientations. It groups the studies based on their research focus and addresses their limitations. Two basic limitations of the studies are (a) the vagueness in concepts and (b) (over)use of first language. Examples about these limitations are given in the study. The study closes with suggestion for further research. The main direction for further research, as argued in this study, would be the increased focus on peer collaborative writing in different phases of writing (e.g., while planning, during writing or while editing and revising) and incorporating different versions of collaborative writing and measuring their effectiveness.

Keywords:

Vygotskyan Sociocultural theory, writing, peer feedback collaborative writing,

PDF

___

Anthony, H.M., & Anderson, L.M. (1987, April). “The nature of writing instruction in regular and special education classrooms”. Paper presented at the annual meeting of American Educational Research Association, Washington, DC, USA.

AntÃ³n, M., & DiCamilla, F. J. (1998). “Socio-cognitive functions of L1 collaborative interaction in the L2 classroom”. The Canadian Modern Language Review/ La Revue canadienne des langues vivantes, 54, 314-342.

Brooks, F. B., & Donato, R. (1994). “ygotskyan approaches to understanding foreign language learner discourse during communicative tasks”. Hispania, 77, 262-274.

Brooks, L., & Swain, M. (2009). “Languaging in collaborative writing: Creation of and response to expertise”. In A. Mackey & C. Polio (Eds.). Multiple perspectives on interaction in SLA (pp. 58-89). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Cazden, C. (2001). Classroom discourse the language of teaching and learning. Portsmouth: Heinemann.

Connor, U., & Asenavage, K., (1994). “Peer response groups in ESL writing classes: how much impact on revision?” Journal of Second Language Writing, 3, 257–276.

de Guerrero, M. C. M., & Villamil, O. (1994). “Social-cognitive dimensions of interaction in L2 peer revisions”. The Modern Language Journal, 78, 484-496.

de Guerrero, M. C. M., & Villamil, O. (2000). “Activating the ZPD: Mutual scaffolding in L2 peer revision”. The Modern Language Journal, 84, 51-68.

Donato, R. (1994). “Collective scaffolding in second language learning”. In J. P. Lantolf & G. Appel (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp. 33-56). Norwood, N. J. Ablex.

Dunn, W., & Lantolf, J. (1998). “Vygotsky's zone of proximal development and Krashen's i + 1: Incommensurable constructs; incommensurable theories”. Language Learning, 48, 411–442.

Ede, L. & Lunsford, A. (1990). Singular texts/plural authors: Perspectives on collaborative writing. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

Englert, C. S. (1992). “Writing instruction from a sociocultural perspective: The holistic, dialogic, and social enterprise of writing”. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25(3), 153-172.

Ferreira, M & Lantolf, J.P. (2008). “A concept-based approach to teaching: Writing through genre analysis”. In J.P. Lantolf & M.E. Poehner (Eds.), Sociocultural theory and the teaching of second languages (pp. 285-320). London: Equinox.

Ivanic, R. & Camps, D. (2001). “I am how I sound: Voice as self-representation in L2 writing”. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 3 - 33.

Kern, R. (2000) Literacy and language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Kramsch, C. (2000). “Social discursive constructions of self in L2 learning”. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 133-153). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Lantolf, J. P. (2000). Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Lantolf, J.P., & Thorne, S.L. (2006). The sociogenesis of second language development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Maguire, M. H., & Graves, B. (2001). “Speaking personalities in primary school children's L2 writing”. TESOL Quarterly, 35, 561–593.

Mahn, H. (2008). “A Dialogic Approach to Teaching L2 Writing”. In J.P. Lantolf & M.E. Poehner (Eds.), Sociocultural theory and the teaching of second languages (pp. 115-138). London: Equinox.

Mendonca, C. O., & Johnson, K. E., (1994). “Peer review negotiations: Revision activities in ESL writing instruction”, TESOL Quarterly, 28(4), 745–769.

Oxford, R. L. (1997). “Cooperative learning, collaborative learning, and interaction: Three communicative strands in the language classroom”. The Modern Language Journal, 81, 443-456.

Strauss, S., Feiz, P., Xiang, X. & Ivanova, D. (2006). “The dialogic construction of meaning in advanced L2 writing: Bakhtinian perspectives”. In H. Byrnes (Ed.), Advanced language learning: The contribution of Halliday and Vygotsky (pp. 184-203). London: Continuum.

Swain, M. (2006a). “Languaging, agency and collaboration in advanced second language proficiency”. In H. Byrnes (Ed.) Advanced language learning: The contribution of Halliday and Vygotsky (pp. 95-108). London: Continuum.

Swain, M. & Lapkin, S. (2000). “Task-based second language learning: The uses of the first language”. Language Teaching Research, 4(3), 251–74.

Villamil, O., & de Guerrero, M. C. M. (1996). “Peer revision in the L2 classroom: Social-cognitive activities, mediating strategies, and aspects of social behavior”. Journal of Second Language Writing, 5(1), 51-75.

Villamil, O. S., & de Guerrero, M. C. M. (1998). “Assessing the impact of peer revision on L2 writing”. Applied Linguistics, 19, 491-514.

Vollmer, G. (2002). Sociocultural perspectives on second language writing. ERIC Clearning House on Language and Linguistics: News Bulletin, 25(2), 1–3.

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Wells, G. (1998). “Using L1 to master L2: A response to Anton and DiCamilla's â€•Socio-cognitive functions of L1 collaborative interaction in the L2 classroom”. The Canadian Modern Language Review/ La Revue canadienne des langues vivantes, 54, 343–53.