116 Marie-Cécile Bertau and John L. Roberts
retrieving ready knowledge (as in behaviorism and cognitivism) did not
hold any more. For the first time, context and situation as sources of
experience were considered, and – in the variant of social constructionism
(Gergen, 1973) – also the language used while learning (in speaking and
writing). In this way, learning theories extended to where the learning
activity takes place; as such, learning becomes viewed in a broader scope
that integrates external and social aspects with individual and internal
aspects (or phases) of learning. Piaget’s (1983) developmental stage model
and Vygotsky’s notion of the zone of proximal development (Chaiklin,
2003) – leading further into the development of Vygotsky’s theory of
language and thinking as in Cultural-Historical Activity Theory (CHAT,
van Oers et al., 2008) – are well-known contributions of the two major
scholars within this approach, although distinctively different with regard
to the role of language. Learning is an auto-regulated process; the brain is
a highly dynamic system; the teacher is a collaborating partner (as along
with peers, although in a different role). Specifically in the Vygostkian
framework, the learner is culturally and socially situated and thus not
isolated anymore but related to others in a significant way, and a clear
emphasis is put on the so-called semiotic tools: signs and symbols
employed for learning, such as spoken and written words, numbers, graphs,
and maps – they act as meditational means (they mediate between the
learner and the task). So here, for the first time, it starts to matter how the
learning process takes place, i.e., with whom, in which context, and with
what kind of semiotic tools. In this way, learning expands into the very
process of learning instead of being focused on the outcome alone.
3.4. Dialogism
Dialogism is an epistemological framework to understand human
meaning-making (Bertau, 2019). In the context of learning, it draws partly
on constructivism and social constructionism, and challenges traditional
views of the individual, of the teacher-learner relationship, and of
language-in-use. The challenge is threefold. First, it resides in the fact that