Talk:Social interactionist theory

The first paragraph of this article makes no sense whatsoever. I can't tell what its talking about, and I can't grammatically parse it.

"Social interactionist theory is number of proven hypotheses of language acquisition methods in which a variety of its forms including written, spoken, or visual as a social tool consisting of a complex system of symbols and rules on the question of language acquisition and development—the compromise between “nature” and “nurture” is the “Interactionist” approach which demands a particular type of syntagma in recognizing that many factors influence language development."

Mschures (talk) 02:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)Mschures

I thought the exact same thing. Ironic that this article is about language acquisition, huh? This entire article needs to be rewritten. 66.26.95.207 (talk) 02:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Interactionist vs. Socio-Culturalist
This article makes no mention that there are two distinct ways of looking at learning. For example interactionists from a cognitive/developmental perspective believe that learning is an interal, individual process and interaction helps with the internalization of language, knolwedge or skills. Socio-culturists influenced by Vygotsky, on the other hand, see learning as a socially mediated process; that is learning is external to the individual because it happens as a consquence of interaction; that is, it is through interacting with others that we construct meaning and understanding.

I don't have the Saville-Troike book "Introducing Second Language Acquisition" in front of me but she does a good job describing the differenes between several different "frameworks for understadning second language acqusition." The relevant infromation can be found in chapter 2. I was hoping that similar information was to be found in the wiki article, but it is missing. The relevant pages are also missing from googlebooks, much to my chagrin. I think this is something we should consider fixing.

The book I have in front of me "How Languages Are Learned" by Lightbown and Spada doesn't make a clear enough distinction. It's there, but one has to infer it; whereas, Saville-Troika spells it out succinctly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.229.220.7 (talk) 06:32, 29 May 2010 (UTC)