Sociocultural Theory, Posthumanism, and Their Intersection in Language Teaching
Anna Bartosik, George Brown College, Toronto, Canada
How Do I Marry Sociocultural and Posthuman Theories
Since concluding my research on teacher development in online spaces using posthumanism as part of my theoretical framework, I have thought about how to incorporate posthumanism into my work as a language teacher and faculty facilitator, where sociocultural theory has maintained a strong footing among teachers, pre-service teacher education, and researchers. Briefly, posthuman theory acknowledges the entanglement of humans and technology, challenging traditional notions of the human as a separate and autonomous entity, whereas sociocultural theory examines language as the channel through which behaviour and culture are understood when interacting with other people. At first glance, these two theories may not appear to have much in common, but I cannot easily separate how I was encouraged to think about language learning in my language teacher education days and what I observe now as an experienced teacher who also supports teachers in their teacher learning journeys.
Language Learners and Technology Use in Tandem
In 1998, Freeman and Johnson highlighted that “language teacher education is primarily concerned with teachers as learners of language teaching rather than with students as learners of language” (p. 407). More than two decades later, the knowledge base for pre-service language teachers remains focused on the teacher as a learner of language teaching. This ongoing emphasis is problematic because it fails to centre the language learner, who is the target audience of language teaching.
Another drawback in language teacher education is the approach to technology within the lens of language learning and teaching. With the advent of an ever-increasing move to expand hybrid or online learning (regardless of the reasons behind it), the language learner and technology are still separate considerations for teaching language in language teacher education (LTE) programs, but I believe they need to be considered in tandem, with more focus on the learner through the lens of technology. Students in language classes have technological needs related to language, and technology changes the world in which we live significantly. LTE research has often pointed to a need for more knowledge and sensitivity about sociocultural perspectives; since each student’s knowledge about and access to technology is different, information and communication technologies need to be taught in LTE programs. Additionally, when communication takes place in online communities, communication is filtered through culture but the technology tool we use also filters communications and can adapt intended meanings by the communicator. For instance, the autocorrection feature on mobile devices can change an intended word, such as suggesting the word “duck” when we attempt to type a different word. Extending this example to language learning, autocorrect can influence learners’ written communications on a discussion board, potentially obscuring the original intent of the message. Is the meaning behind the text filtered only by the teacher’s understanding of language learners’ abilities to construct language, or does the teacher also need to consider the possibility that the technology (the discussion board) has additionally clouded the writer’s original intent? By ignoring the language learner’s intent in communicating via technology, we also ignore the importance that technology plays in our lives, and how that mediates the human experience. Teachers, therefore, must mediate the meaning conveyed through such platforms by considering both the language learner’s abilities and the possible distortions introduced by technology.
One way to pivot perceptions about the entwinement of language learning and technology is through posthuman theory as a framework for understanding the human experience within the context of our environment as we explore the material and sociomaterial transformations as we interact with technology. Posthumanism offers a compelling solution to these existing drawbacks in pre-service teachers’ understanding of language teacher education in tandem with technology’s impact on communication. By incorporating posthuman theory, we acknowledge that technology is an integral part of the human experience and should be a central consideration in language teacher education. This shift in perspective ensures that the language learner’s intent in communicating via technology is recognized and valued. It also highlights the importance of understanding how technology mediates our interactions and experiences. Through this lens, language teacher education can evolve to better meet the needs of learners in a technologically interconnected world. In the next section, I provide a snippet from my own teaching experience with pre-service language teachers in an online environment.
A Personal Case: Technology as a Form of Mediation
When I was facilitating a teaching English as a second language (TESL) course online, the students and I engaged in a hybrid digital blog regularly throughout the course. Within this environment, we mediated our activities as learner knowledge was scaffolded to enhance cognitive development (Vygotsky & Cloe, 1978). The course was asynchronous, so the technology we used for communication was vital. One of the required elements in the lesson plan assignment was the incorporation of a simple tech tool. The students I taught in the TESL courses will never not have technology in their lives, and once they became language teachers, the same would be true in their teaching contexts. Neither the students nor I were autonomous from the technology—we both needed the technology to coexist, and it was used by pre-service teachers to help develop their understanding of the knowledge that was available (Johnson, 2009) to them within the course. As students continued to blog about their learning throughout the course, I would encourage them to reflect back on earlier posts and consider how they might approach technology differently. It became a mediated dialogue between them and their former selves and provided the pre-service teachers with the opportunity to observe the learning they had gleaned during the course. Most often, the reflection would discuss how their perception of teaching through, not with, technology, had changed in a few weeks as they themselves were learning online. Within the context of learning through mediation, Johnson (2009) noted that human mediation, in addition to physical tools, are both ways to mediate learning. However, there is a glaring omission in not including technology as a form of mediation, which also shapes teaching practice. A world with information and communication technologies (ICTs) is already hybridized, with the boundaries between humans and technologies already blurred. From a posthumanist perspective, if we teach online and use technology to mediate knowledge, we collect different “data” than we would if we were interacting in a physical classroom. The intersection between humans and machines has been such that the demarcation lines between the two have been blurred (Snaza et al., 2014). Johnson (2009) also added that “language is a vital means by which humans represent thought” (p. 44). Both language and technology are vital, and the separation of them is less clear than explaining when to use stative verbs and their exceptions. Surprisingly, this posthumanist intersection is missing from existing language learning and teaching practices. Technology also guides students in the process of cognition when only using educational technology tools for learning and engagement, as they have digital artefacts from the start of a course to reflect on and see a progression of their thinking and learning. They have the opportunity to mediate with their former selves as learners as they reflect on their work.
I prefer to focus on the positive aspects of posthumanism as they pertain to the dialogic mediation in online courses, even though in many cases, students have been moved into an online environment for economic efficiency by a school, and they have also been thrust into a new world that is digitally constructed (Bayne, 2018). Teachers and students are not given much choice for the type of mediation they engage in. Schools may have good intentions to incorporate technology, but implementing technology is often done for expediency’s sake or for the sake of using technological tools, not good learning practices. It becomes the role of the teacher to incorporate technology thoughtfully into the learning environment, and that is easier for a teacher who has had that experience themselves in a language teacher education course.
However, there are challenges with learning in online environments, more so with language learning, due to the dual barriers of language and technology. I address that briefly in the following section.
Learners and their Digital Footprint
An additional challenge to examining dialogic mediation through technology is that, quite often, students are reluctant to engage digitally but have at the same time chosen to study in a completely online environment. This limits the access a teacher has to understanding a learner in an online environment. There are different versions of the human in online courses. We have the physical individual, whom the instructor never sees online, and the digital human, who is engaged with the teacher via online technologies in written or video form. The individual creates themself as a digital persona, not separable from the technologies they use, but chooses what to share, which may be different from day to day, class to class, and teacher to teacher. However, we each leave our digital footprint in each interaction on every platform used in the course, so the words that one leaves as a digital footprint are, in essence, part of the individual and not just their words. The words in an e-portfolio are the student at that moment of learning. As a teacher, I do not have any options other than to interact with what a student has chosen to share online. As the student becomes more involved in the course, it becomes more difficult to disentangle the traces they leave on the learning management system (LMS) within discussion boards, in their e-portfolio, and in the educational technology tools which they choose to use for their learning. As Snaza (2014) notes, “We can only know things by the relations into which they enter, by the contacts they forge, and effects they are able to produce” (p. 47). Ultimately, sociocultural theory is a theory of learning, and it is connected to the individuals we interact with within a created space for interaction. And technology is an extension of ourselves, no longer the medium alone.
How Does This Play Out in the Classroom?
In my faculty development work, I write a regular feature called “The Plus-One Approach.” When I present a perspective on inclusion or accessibility, I ask the reader to consider one change they might make to their current practice, based on what I have shared. I would like to end here by taking the same approach with a few suggestions for dialogic mediation with language learners.
If you are teaching online and use a learning management system, sharing audio files and short videos to introduce topics or teach part of a lesson provides students with the opportunity to interact and understand your voice at their own pace. They can slow down and replay videos and audio files and develop a connection with you. Students have often told me it’s as if I am sitting next to them and guiding them personally through an assignment.
Another option is introducing assignments to students with a narrated video and providing students with opportunities to respond to you in alternative formats. One of my favourite learner experiences was when I received a video from a professor as feedback on an assignment. I reviewed the video several times and appreciated the personal touch that a human voice provides in an asynchronous course. It helped me understand my professor better as well and that feedback ultimately shaped a section of my dissertation two years later.
Even if your course is asynchronous, building an understanding of each other in a synchronous online meeting can help both learners and teachers shape their understanding of each other. It deepens the feeling of community among students and teachers.
Finally, adding images and GIFs or some humour to responses in discussion boards can help learners mediate understanding of your feedback and provide further opportunities for spontaneous interaction.
I hope you consider one of these suggestions through a posthuman lens and explore your mediated communications with language learners.
References
Bayne, S. (2018). Posthumanism: A navigation aid for educators. On Education. Journal for Research and Debate, 1(2). https://doi.org/10.17899/on_ed.2018.2.1
Freeman, D., & Johnson, K. E. (1998). Reconceptualizing the knowledge-base of language teacher education. TESOL Quarterly, 32(3), 397–417. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588114
Johnson, K. E. (2009). Second language teacher education: A sociocultural perspective. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203878033
Snaza, N., Appelbaum, P., Bayne, S., Morris, M., Rotas, N., Sandlin, J., Wallin, J., Carison, W., & Weaver, J. (2014). Toward a posthumanist education. Journal of Curriculum Theorizing, 30(2), 39–55. https://journal.jctonline.org/index.php/jct/article/view/501
Vygotsky, L. S., & Cole, M. (1978). Mind in society: Development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
Anna Bartosik, PhD (she/ona/elle) (click here to hear how I like to hear my name pronounced) is a language teacher, faculty facilitator, instructional designer, and researcher. She works at George Brown College in Ontario, Canada. Anna’s areas of exploration include educational technology, tech ethics, the scholarship of teaching and learning, inclusion in higher education settings, as well as teacher development. Anna has deliberately chosen to use Canadian spelling conventions throughout this piece as it is part of her identity as a teacher and scholar.