Introduction

This paper explores the application of a key theory of second language

acquisition (SLA) for a group of primary school learners (aged 10–11) attending
a private English language school. Their proficiency ranges from A2 to B1 on
the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR), and
they have three hours of English instruction daily after regular school hours.
While motivated, their learning is parent-driven, and they exhibit preferences
for traditional teacher-led learning yet are beginning to respond positively to
collaborative, student-centered approaches. This analysis identifies a suitable
SLA theory, evaluates supporting and opposing evidence from peer-reviewed
literature, and proposes five guiding principles for teaching this group,
integrating theoretical insights with practical considerations and personal
teaching beliefs.

Key theory selection: Sociocultural Theory (SCT)

Rationale for choosing SCT

Given the learners' age, sociocultural context, and needs, Sociocultural Theory
(SCT), as developed by Vygotsky and expanded in SLA by Lantolf and others,
is especially relevant. SCT posits that language learning is fundamentally a
social process, occurring through interaction, scaffolding, and mediation within
the learner’s Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) (Lantolf, 2000; Swain et al.,
2015). For young learners at the A2 level, who are motivated by group work but
still expect teacher correction, SCT provides a framework for gradually
increasing independence, collaborative learning, and peer interaction, all crucial
for developing communicative competence and learner autonomy.

Evidence for SCT in child SLA

Supportive evidence:

Peer interaction and scaffolding: Numerous studies show that peer interaction
within the ZPD leads to language gains, with scaffolding by teachers and peers
enabling learners to perform tasks beyond their independent abilities (Donato,
1994; Swain, 2000). For example, collaborative dialogue has been demonstrated
to facilitate noticing and internalization of linguistic forms (Swain & Lapkin,
1998; Brooks & Donato, 1994).
Negotiation of meaning: SCT emphasizes the importance of negotiation of
meaning, which is especially effective for young learners who benefit from
repeated opportunities to co-construct knowledge (Ohta, 2000).
Affective support: SCT recognizes the affective dimension of learning, with
social interaction helping to lower anxiety and increase willingness to
communicate (Mercer & Howe, 2012).

Contrary evidence and limitations:

Teacher control and learner expectations: SCT assumes learners are ready for
increased independence, but young students accustomed to teacher-led lessons
may resist peer-scaffolding or hesitate to speak without direct correction
(Mitchell et al., 2019).
Cultural constraints: In contexts where educational traditions emphasize explicit
instruction and error correction, SCT’s emphasis on learner autonomy and peer
mediation can conflict with institutional norms and parental expectations
(Butler & Le, 2018).
Cognitive demands: Some studies suggest that not all learners benefit equally
from peer interaction; less proficient students may require more structured
support (Storch, 2002).

Summary: While SCT is not without challenges—especially in transitioning

learners from teacher dependence to autonomy—it is well-supported by
research as an effective approach for developing communicative competence,
especially when combined with explicit scaffolding and sensitivity to the
learners’ cultural and educational context.

Five guiding principles derived from SCT and evidence

Principle 1: Scaffold Interaction within the ZPD

Description: Design tasks that require collaboration and provide support as

learners move from dependence to independence. Use modeling, prompts, and
guided practice, gradually reducing support as learners become more confident.

Justification: Scaffolding enables learners to achieve more complex language

tasks with support, fostering internalization of new structures (Donato, 1994;
Lantolf, 2000). For our group, this means starting with structured pair/group
activities, then gradually shifting responsibility to students.

Citation:
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). Ablex. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-443885-
9.50006-1
Principle 2: Promote Collaborative Dialogue and Peer Support

Description: Create opportunities for learners to work together on meaningful,

communicative tasks, encouraging negotiation of meaning, peer correction, and
shared problem-solving.

Justification: Collaborative dialogue supports language development by

enabling learners to co-construct knowledge, notice gaps, and provide feedback
to each other (Swain & Lapkin, 1998; Storch, 2002).

Citation: Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and Second Language
Learning: Two Adolescent French Immersion Students Working Together. The
Modern Language Journal, 82(3), 320-337. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-
4781.1998.tb01209.x

Principle 3: Balance Teacher Guidance with Learner Autonomy

Description: Maintain explicit instruction and corrective feedback, especially

valued by the learners and their parents, but gradually encourage students to
take greater responsibility for their learning through self- and peer-assessment.

Justification: Combining direct instruction with opportunities for self-directed

learning aligns with research showing that a balanced approach yields optimal
outcomes for young learners (Mitchell et al., 2019; Butler & Le, 2018).

Citation: Mitchell, R., Myles, F., & Marsden, E. (2019). Second Language
Learning Theories (4th ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315676784

Principle 4: Contextualize Language through Authentic, Meaningful Activities

Description: Use real-world and personally relevant materials (e.g., stories,

games, projects about the learners’ interests) to foster engagement and
meaningful communication.

Justification: Authentic tasks increase motivation and support the development

of communicative competence, as learners see the relevance of language use in
real-life contexts (Ellis, 2003; Butler, 2018).

Citation: Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based Language Learning and Teaching.

Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263104213043

Principle 5: Address Affective Needs and Foster a Positive Classroom Climate

Description: Establish a supportive, non-threatening classroom where errors are
treated as natural and opportunities for risk-taking are encouraged, to reduce
anxiety and increase willingness to use English.

Justification: Research has shown that a positive affective environment is

crucial for young learners, enabling them to participate more freely and develop
confidence (Mercer & Howe, 2012; Dewaele & MacIntyre, 2014).

Citation:
Dewaele, J.-M., & MacIntyre, P. D. (2014). The two faces of Janus? Anxiety
and enjoyment in the foreign language classroom. Studies in Second Language
Learning and Teaching, 4(2), 237-274. https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2014.4.2.5
Reflection: Self-Review and Learning Process (ca. 600 words)
Completing this assignment has been both challenging and enlightening,
prompting me to reflect deeply on my learning processes, my teaching values,
and the integration of theory and practice.
1. What did I learn about myself as a learner while completing this assignment?
The biggest challenge was synthesizing a large body of research into a coherent
set of principles tailored to a specific learner profile. Early on, I found myself
overwhelmed by competing theories and the abundance of academic literature.
My breakthrough came when I focused on the learners’ context and needs,
realizing that the most effective theory would be one that aligned not just with
empirical evidence, but also with the realities of the classroom and my own
beliefs about learning. I learned that I am a reflective learner: I process new
information by relating it to my experiences and questioning how it fits with
what I already know. I also discovered the value of perseverance and critical
reading. Using academic databases like SAGE Journals and Scopus, I
prioritized high-quality, peer-reviewed articles with DOIs, which helped ensure
the credibility of my citations. When I encountered unfamiliar terminology or
conflicting evidence, I learned to read more widely and consult meta-analyses
and review articles to get a balanced perspective.
2. How did this assignment connect to my experiences and values as a teacher
and learner?
The process of connecting theory to practice reminded me of my own journey
as a language learner and as a teacher. I have always valued collaborative
learning and the supportive role of peers and mentors. SCT resonated with me
because it mirrors how I learned best through interaction, discussion, and
making mistakes in a safe environment. The tension between learner autonomy
and teacher direction is something I have often grappled with in my own
classrooms. This assignment validated my belief that young learners need both
structure and opportunities to develop independence, and that the teacher’s role
is to facilitate this transition. It also reinforced the importance of affective
factors: I remembered moments when anxiety hindered my own learning, and
how positive classroom relationships made a difference. These memories
guided my emphasis on creating a supportive climate and balancing explicit
instruction with autonomy.
3. What will I carry forward from this learning experience?
I will carry forward a stronger appreciation for the interplay between theory,
research, and practical decision-making. I have gained new skills in critically
evaluating evidence and adapting it to specific contexts. The process of
distilling theory into actionable principles is one I will apply to future lesson
planning and curriculum development. I am more committed than ever to
fostering a classroom environment where students collaborate, take risks, and
become independent learners. I also recognize the importance of ongoing
reflection and professional growth, staying up-to-date with research, seeking
feedback, and being open to new ideas. Finally, this assignment has
strengthened my resolve to balance academic rigor with empathy and
responsiveness to students’ needs.

References

Brooks, F. B., & Donato, R. (1994). Vygotskyan Approaches to Understanding Foreign

Language Learner Discourse During Communicative Tasks. Hispania, 77(2), 262–274.
https://doi.org/10.2307/344507
Butler, Y. G., & Le, V. N. (2018). Teaching English to young learners in Asia: A review of
policies and practices. Language Teaching, 51(3), 369–408.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444818000212
Dewaele, J.-M., & MacIntyre, P. D. (2014). The two faces of Janus? Anxiety and enjoyment
in the foreign language classroom. Studies in Second Language Learning and
Teaching, 4(2), 237-274. https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2014.4.2.5
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).
Ablex. http://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-443885-9.50006-1
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based Language Learning and Teaching. Oxford University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263104213043
Lantolf, J. P. (2000). Introducing Sociocultural Theory. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural
Theory and Second Language Learning (pp. 1–26). Oxford University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263101233055
Mercer, N., & Howe, C. (2012). Explaining the dialogic processes of teaching and learning:
The value and potential of sociocultural theory. Learning, Culture and Social
Interaction, 1(1), 12–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2012.03.001
Mitchell, R., Myles, F., & Marsden, E. (2019). Second Language Learning Theories (4th
ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315676784
Ohta, A. S. (2000). Rethinking Interaction in SLA: Developmentally Appropriate Assistance
in the Zone of Proximal Development and the Acquisition of L2 Grammar. In J. P.
Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning (pp. 51–78).
Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263101233055
Storch, N. (2002). Patterns of Interaction in ESL Pair Work. Language Learning, 52(1), 119–
158. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9922.00179
Swain, M. (2000). The Output Hypothesis and Beyond: Mediating Acquisition through
Collaborative Dialogue. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural Theory and Second
Language Learning (pp. 97–114). Oxford University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263101233055
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and Second Language Learning: Two Adolescent
French Immersion Students Working Together. The Modern Language Journal, 82(3),
320-337. https://doi.org/10.1 111/j.1540-4781.1998.tb01209.x