Language Learning Great and Small: Environmental Support Structures and Learning Opportunities in a Sociocognitive Approach to Second Language Acquisition/Teaching

Abstract

Sociocognitive theory views learning, including second language acquisition, as the progressive alignment of individuals vis‐à‐vis their ecosocial environments. In this article we first update sociocognitive theory in light of recent evolutionary/ecological research on learning/teaching: (a) Humans are evolutionarily adapted to adapt to myriad environments, placing a premium on adaptive learning, (b) human adaptation is effected substantially through niche construction—engineering environments to make them more adaptive, and then transmitting the results culturally, placing a premium on adaptive teaching, (c) both human learning and teaching are innate/instinctive, and co‐evolved, and (d) there are many kinds of ‘teachers’ in the world. Second, we briefly review 3 approaches to second language acquisition/teaching (SLA/T) vis‐à‐vis sociocognitive theory: van Lier's ecological‐semiotic approach, Schumann's interactional instinct, and conversation analysis. Third, we apply our theoretical perspective exploratorily to videotaped data of a Japanese learner/user of English as a lingua franca who is baking pastries with a Finnish friend. Our analysis includes 5 widely studied ‘units of participation’: activity types, routines, co‐constructed tellings, repetition, and assessments. Analysis suggests that these constitute powerful environmental support structures yielding rich learning opportunities for SLA/T in moment‐to‐moment interaction. Fourth and finally, we discuss our results vis‐à‐vis our theoretical approach. We conclude by suggesting how our expanded view of teaching/learning might broaden SLA/T's ‘pedagogical imagination.’

Material Moments: Teacher and Student Use of Materials in Multilingual Writing Classroom Interactions

“…This embodied action coordinated with the worksheets clearly aligns with Singh's embodied actions (lines 12–13 and 49–50). It can be argued that Teacher L employs an embodied confirmation check with Singh regarding what he originally meant by “eight and, uhn, second?” The co‐coordination of Teacher L's and Singh's embodied actions with the worksheets, which appears to emerge spontaneously, interactionally confirms their mutual understanding through alignment (Atkinson et al., , ).…”

Beyond the Brain: Intercorporeality and Co‐Operative Action for SLA Studies

“…In fact, empirical SLA embodiment/multimodality research has expanded considerably circa 2019—notable instances include studies conducted in the conversation analysis framework (e.g., Eskildsen & Markee, ; Hellermann, Thorne, & Haley, in press), sociocultural theory (e.g., Smotrova, ), and sociocognitive approaches to SLA (Atkinson et al., ; Atkinson & Shvidko, in press). But Block's larger point still holds: If language is fundamentally intertwined with other forms of embodied/multimodal meaning‐making, then it must be studied integratively.…”

Natural Pedagogy in Second Language Learning and Teaching

“…CA research on L2 teacher–student interaction and learning has been ongoing and substantial (e.g., Sert, ). It also has self‐imposed difficulties, we believe, in studying a wide range of teaching‐learning behavior (Atkinson et al, ; Gardner, ; Markee & Kunitz, ). Seedhouse () described the interactional architecture of SLT and conversation as maximally different; Nguyen () showed how rapport is constructed moment‐by‐moment in teacher–student interaction; and Cekaite () studied how primary school learners seek and obtain teacher attention, thus enabling their classroom participation.…”

“…Linguistic repetition pervades learning and has been extensively discussed in the language acquisition literature (e.g., Larsen‐Freeman, ; Moore, ). Among other functions, it (1) makes learning objects more salient/memorable/learnable, (2) “replays” language for better comprehension, (3) linguistically scaffolds interaction/discourse cohesion, (4) enhances classroom affiliation/alignment, and (5) provides feedback on student performance (e.g., Atkinson et al, ; Larsen‐Freeman, ).…”

“…Participation structures are vital elements in human interaction—they provide answers to the fundamental social question (which therefore rarely needs to be posed explicitly): “What is it that’s going on here?” (Goffman, 1974, p. 46). Participation structures enable the “practical” mode of existence underlying fluent social action (Atkinson et al, ; Dreyfus, ) rather than the highly conscious, intentional, and often “artificial” problem‐solving behavior highlighted in much SLA/T. Participation structures are like sociocognitive GPS: If you can use them to “go on” (Wittgenstein, ) you can fluently find your way in an interaction.…”