A sociocultural perspective of learning: Developing a new theoretical tenet Huy P.

Phan
[email protected]

---------------------------------------------------------------

A sociocultural perspective of learning: Developing a new

theoretical tenet
A/Prof. Huy P. Phan
University of New England

Abstract

Explanation pertaining to individuals’ cognitive development and learning approaches is a

recurring theme in the areas of education and psychology. The work of Okagaki (e.g.,
Okagaki, 2001; Okagaki & Frensch, 1998), for example, has provided both theoretical and
empirical insights into the structuring and situational positioning of individuals within a
community (e.g., the school, the family). Theoretical tenets emphasised by Uri Bronfenbrenner
(1979, 1989) and Lev Vygotsky (1978), in particular, form a basis that enables us to
understand how individuals acquire their knowledge from societies. Notably, differing from
other theories of cognition, the emphasis here entails the social construction of knowledge and
how we fit in within the different layers or systems of societies (e.g., the community). Our
work within the last couple of years (Phan, 2009a, In press-2013) has entailed a similar
approach, emphasizing the social process of cognition within different contexts – for example,
a child interacting with his/her peers at a local preschool, or a child conversing with his/her
siblings at home. The empirical evidence we obtained (Phan, 2007, 2008b) has led to a
conceptualisation that supports previous theoretical tenets (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, 1989;
Vygotsky, 1978). The scope of this article espouses a theoretical model that depicts an overall
arching system of change. In particular, similar to previous tenets and studies (e.g., Okagaki,
2001; Vygotsky, 1978; Wertsch & Tulviste, 1992), we posit that a person’s cognition may
situate within three separate layers: (i) individuals’ sociocultural and historical origin, (ii) the
community, in general, and (iii) individualised learning and achievement obtained by the
individual. Our conceptualisation, for continuing discussion and research discussion, details
the intricacy of distinctive layers that individuals may transverse between. Pivotal to our
discussion is the quest for us to explore the multi-layered system of cognition from an
individual’s perspective. Rather than accentuating the potency of what a community entails,
our examination discusses the individual’s perceptions of learning in the various layers of
society. In this analysis, how does an individual’s historical genesis shape his/her
understanding and perceptions of meanings such as ‘learning’, ‘knowledge’, and ‘skills’?
Similarly, how does an individual fit in with a family that adheres to the beliefs pertaining to
collectivism (Markus & Kitayama, 1991) and filial piety (Chow & Chu, 2007)?

Introduction

Recent educational research has shown that different cultural and social layers combine in a
hierarchical system to shape individuals’ cognitive and motivational processes of learning. This
theoretical premise arises, in part, from multilevel analyses of data where evidence highlights,
specifically, the importance of a person-context relation in the learning process (e.g., Marsh, Martin, &
Cheng, 2008; Urdan, 2004; Walker, Pressick-Kilborn, Arnold, & Sainsbury, 2004). Notably, the
significance of this research inquiry suggests that our thinking processes, motivation and, ultimately,
and development of skills per se do not exist in isolation, but rather embed in multi and systematic
layers, consisting of the social milieu, the immediate family, and the individual himself/herself. This
documentation is not contemporary, but rather an expansion of previous bioecological and
sociocultural theories (Bronfenbrenner, 1989; Lave & Wenger, 1991; Vygotsky, 1978; Wertsch,
1985). Acknowledging the individual and his/her societies has implications for research development
and applied teaching practice, especially in the structuring, design, and implementation of instructional
policies at the community, school, and classroom levels.

Joint AARE APERA International Conference, Sydney 2012 Page 1 of 14

 A sociocultural perspective of learning: Developing a new theoretical tenet Huy P. Phan
[email protected]

The focus of this theoretical article then, attempts to elucidate the ways in which external
forces, in this case, the environment and the family, shape individuals’ learning in achievement
contexts. Our discussion involves an in-depth examination of the empirical literature pertaining to the
positioning of individuals in their societies, and how sociocultural attributes such as epistemological
beliefs and cultural values contribute to learning and achievement outcomes. With reference to the
works of Bronfenbrenner (1989), Okagaki (2001), Vygotsky (1978) and others, we present a cohesive
hierarchical model for research development, describing in particular three dialectically-related
mechanisms that influence individuals’ learning: the community and its social, economical, and
cultural attributes; the immediate family; and the individual’s cognitive-motivational processes
involved in learning. We conclude the discussion by drawing in a few major issues for consideration
and research development.

Society, values, and beliefs

Individuals’ cognition and motivation, according to some researchers, originate in contexts

and, consequently, relate closely to the external world (Phan, Maebuta, & Dorovolomo, 2010; Walker,
et al., 2004). This theoretical postulation reflects existing tenets, notably Bandura’s (1986, 1997)
social cognitive theory, Bronfenbrenner’s (1979, 1989) ecological systems theory, and Vygotsky’s
(1978, 1981) sociocultural theory of development. Despite their distinctive characteristics, the
mentioned orientations concur a commonality, suggesting that individuals’ development per se is not
an isolated entity, but rather confined to an overarching sociocultural system. The central thesis here,
in accordance with Bandura’s (1986, 1997), Bronfenbrenner’s (1979, 1989), and Vygotsky’s (1978,
1981) theories, contends that extraneous social factors (e.g., cultural values) combine with internal
cognitive-motivational processes to account and explain individuals’ learning and achievement
outcome in educational and non-educational settings. Considering this theorization, the premise of our
article contemplates three interactive processes that may take precedence to influence individuals’
development and learning: (i) the community and its social influence; (ii) the immediate family and its
expectations; and (iii) the individual and his/her cultural beliefs and values. Other researchers (Nelson,
McInerney, & Craven, 2005a, 2005b; Okagaki, 2001; Okagaki & Sternberg, 1993) have also
conferred, similarly, that individuals continuously interact with their social milieus to master and
acquire new skills.

The aforementioned theories’ (e.g., Bioecological theory: Bronfenbrenner, 1979, 1989)

rationalization interprets knowledge acquired by individuals as a derivative of their environments. In
details, central to Bandura’s (1986, 1997) social cognitive theory is the emphasis on a bidirectional
framework, known as reciprocal determinism that describes the interrelations between the
environment, and individuals’ behavior and his/her cognition. His works on observational learning and
subsequent seminal publication on personal self-efficacy during the late 1970s (Bandura, 1977)
exemplified a reciprocal interaction between a person’s environment and his/her behavior or cognitive
thought. For example, in the context of elementary school learning, a child’s aggressive behavior (e.g.,
bullying another child) may cause others in his/her class to act hostile with negative feelings; in turn,
this hostility reciprocates and influences the child (e.g., isolation). In a similar manner, a child’s
positive self-belief about his/her capability to solve a set of mathematics problems will influence
his/her decision to take some extra lesions in mathematics; this additional participation, in turn, is
likely to make a positive impression on his/her teacher. This bidirectional interaction has relevance
and indicates that external forces contribute to the shaping of a person’s cognition and/or behavior.

Bronfenbrenner’s (1979, 1989) bioecological systems theory differs relatively, and

emphasizes individuals’ situational placement within four distinct sociocultural layers. Individuals in
this case develop within a complex system of relationships and contexts between the microsystem
(i.e., person-others interaction), mesosystem (i.e., connections between situations), exosystem (i.e.,
indirect influence on a person from others’ relations), and macrosystem (i.e., relation with society at

Joint AARE APERA International Conference, Sydney 2012 Page 2 of 14

 A sociocultural perspective of learning: Developing a new theoretical tenet Huy P. Phan
[email protected]

large and one’s own cultural identity) layers (Hoffnung, et al., 2010). In this analysis, the
bioecological systems framework suggests that individuals, in part, learn and acquire knowledge from
their social surroundings. Individuals do not exist in isolation vacuum, but rather interact and
transgress between contexts, events, and situations. A child’s learning and understanding of a key
concept (e.g., why rainbows exist), for example, are embedded in his/her interactions with others in a
local preschool. Another child hearing bedtime folklore stories about rainbows from his/her mother
may impart this information onto others, facilitating then a process of sharing, negotiation, and the
passing on of knowledge. In a similar vein, apart from the immediate surrounding, it is also likely that
a child’s interaction with the wider community may shape his/her personal beliefs and understanding
about the world. A group of individuals in a remote area with a specific set of ideologies and policies
may, for example, believe that knowledge is resolute and not amenable to change (Phan, 2008b, 2010;
Phan, et al., 2010).

Bronfenbrenner’s (1979, 1989) ideas are, in part, similar to those of Vygotsky’s (1978, 1981)
where the latter emphasized an interaction between two major processes: the interpsychological
process (i.e., person-environment interaction) and the intrapsychological process (i.e.,
internalization)(Moll, 1994; Sluss & Stremmel, 2004; Valsiner, 1987). This interaction in
psychological processes suggests that higher mental functioning is a derivative of one’s social origin.
Central to Vygotsky’s (1978) theorization, knowledge that is constructed socially is internalized or
“appropriated” on an individual level. Instructional dialogue arising from social interaction with more
competent peers, for example, leads to cognitive development (Burkhalter, 1995; Kinginger, 2002). In
a similar vein, social reliance on cultural tools (e.g., culturally accepted behavioral patterns, such as
how to eat certain food) and/or semiotic signs (e.g., gestures, symbols, and facial expressions) may
also serve to mediate cognitive development (Mahn, 1999; Smagorinsky, 1995; Wilson, 2001).

Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory of development suggests psychological tools and semiotic

signs that individuals use to mediate development reflect their social origins and cultural identities.
One could argue, for example, that sign systems used to structure relationships psychological
mechanisms (e.g., how one composes music or how one member touches another) reflect specific and
unique cultural values and ethos of a society, community, or a group of individuals. For many
indigenous groups and communities, oral and dance presentations, and/or traditional story telling,
rather than formal symbolic representations (e.g., textbooks) may take precedence in learning and
development. In this sense, informal forms of art and verbal discourse (e.g., traditional singing) define
and signify specific cultures and their related attributes (Phan, 2008b). Overall, similar to Bandura’s
(1986, 1997) and Bronfenbrenner’s (1979, 1989) theories, Vygotsky believes that external influences
cognitively transform individuals’ interpretation, perceptions, and meaning of the external world.

Considering the emphases of existing theories (Bandura, 1997; Bronfenbrenner, 1989;

Vygotsky, 1978), we contend there is a dialectic association between individuals and their societies.
Development of simplistic skills and complex mental processes (e.g., one’s ability to reflect) entails,
inherently, a form of social engagement with the social milieu at large. This interpretation places a
prominent weighing on cultural ideologies, beliefs and values, and suggests that individuals’
situational placements in communities and societies play a major role in the internalization process. In
the context of classroom learning, the acquisition of knowledge (e.g., how gravity works) entails
exploration and the experience of conflict resolution by means of social dialogues. Other students’
thinking, behaviors, and personal beliefs, as well as the availability of resources (e.g., availability of
the Internet) may all combine to motivate and enhance one’s learning.

Contemporary views emerged recently have also discussed the evolution and development of
mental functioning. The work of Okagaki (2001), for example, has been prominent and emphasizes
three major characteristics that influence individuals’ learning and achievement: the school, the family
and the community, and the child himself/herself. These three characteristics, conceptualized as part of
a triarchic framework, were originally developed to take into consideration the sociocultural and
environmental settings of minority students, and whether these could influence their learning and
achievement outcomes. The Okagaki (2001) triarchic framework has relevance for teaching and
learning, and this acknowledgement has been validated empirically by a few major research studies

Joint AARE APERA International Conference, Sydney 2012 Page 3 of 14

 A sociocultural perspective of learning: Developing a new theoretical tenet Huy P. Phan
[email protected]

involving students in developing and third world countries (Nelson, et al., 2005a, 2005b; Okagaki &
Frensch, 1998). Research interest in this sociocultural context is not unexpected, given the genesis of
some cultural groups suggests a strong bonding between three entities: the individual, the family, and
the collective community at large. Okagaki’s (2001) triarchic framework entails, in general, a
systematic intricacy, situating the learning process within different layers of development. Notably,
similar to previous theoretical contentions (Bandura, 1997; Bronfenbrenner, 1989; Vygotsky, 1978),
Okagaki’s (2001) orientation connotes the acquiring of knowledge of skills as being non-
individualized.

A triarchic framework: A different theoretical perspective

The thesis of our theoretical positioning extends the Okagaki (2001) framework to include a
stipulation of other sociocultural attributes. Our conceptualization, surmising in part from previous
tenets (Bandura, 1997; Bronfenbrenner, 1989; Vygotsky, 1978), posits the interrelations between three
distictive entities: the historical and cultural attributes of a society; individuals’ families within a local
community; and the individual in his/her surroundings. Importantly our premise, similar to the works
of Bronfenbrenner (1979, 1989) and Okagaki (2001), posits a hierarchical, structured system that
reflects various ‘layers’ descriptive of society, family, and the individual. An individual who is
embedded in a remote community in Papua New Guinea, say, may consequently have different
personal beliefs about intimacy and relationships with others. In a similar vein, growing up in urban
metropolitan cities may stimulate cognitive growth and foster more competitiveness in learning and
achievements. Differentiation in learning and motivation, for example, results from differences in
contexts and individuals’ disparate upbringings. In essence, contextualization and historical genesis
may combine to appropriate individualized development of skills, etc. This section of the article
provides a synthesis and review of existing research that delves into facets we believe support our
proposition of a hierarchical system of development.

Historical and cultural attributes

There has been an emerging interest recently in the study of cognition and motivation from
sociocultural perspectives (Mugler & Landbeck, 1997; Phan, et al., 2010; Walker, et al., 2004). In its
simplistic term, this avenue of inquiry entails the notion that knowledge acculturates in contexts.
Qualitative examination of students enrolling in teacher education programs in non-Western settings
indicates that meanings pertaining to aspects such as ‘learning’, ‘knowledge’, and ‘skills’ relate
closely to sociocultural attributes (Mugler & Landbeck, 1997; Tuinamuana, 2007). Borderline on
anthropological emphases, there is a conviction amongst some scholars that the ‘land’ and where one
originates transform individuals’ personal perceptions and views about qualified knowledge (Authors,
2010; Nabobo-Baba, 2006; Ravuvu, 1988). Grounded specifically, and similar to Vygotsky’s (1978)
theorization, is the tenet that the social world at large shapes individuals’ positioning and
understanding of their societies (Berger & Luckmann, 1966; Tuinamuana, 2007). In this analysis,
differing social milieus may make contributions to individuals’ personal makeups and disparate
interpretations of meaning. This avenue of inquiry and continuous questions reflect a paradigm shift in
theorization about the purpose of learning and knowledge per se.

Ethnographical research investigations have led researchers to a better comprehension of how

individuals perceive and approach their learning. Epistemologically, questions are constantly being
asked as to how we, as individuals, come to acquire knowledge – for example: “How do I come to
know about the world?”; “How does my own cultural upbringing fit in with the learning of this unit
material?”; and “How does my cultural identity relate to achievement and academic success?” These
questions, in our view, reflect a shift in conceptualization in the construction of knowledge (Phan,
2008a, 2010; Phan, et al., 2010). Unlike scientific testing where empirical evidence may be
ascertained, this alternative positioning is more non-scientific and inquires more anthropological
insight. In this sense, differing from research investigations that delve into individualized cognitive

Joint AARE APERA International Conference, Sydney 2012 Page 4 of 14

 A sociocultural perspective of learning: Developing a new theoretical tenet Huy P. Phan
[email protected]

processes (e.g., achievement goal orientations: Fenollar, Román, & Cuestas, 2007; Murayama &
Elliot, 2009; Senko & Miles, 2008), the focus here involves the study of extraneous social forces and
historical-cultural attributes, and how these, in totality, shape a person’s epistemological beliefs and
cognitive development (Hofer, 2004; Nabobo-Baba, 2006; Phan, et al., 2010; Tuinamuana, 2007).
This emphasis accentuates the importance of non-isolationism, wherein we co-exist continuously with
other living and non-living matters.

Considering the evidence so far, there is a sense that historical origin within a social milieu
may act as a psychological ‘artifact’ or tool to mediate one’s own deliberation and action. An
individual who has experienced poverty and who is continuously undergoing financial difficulties
may, consequently, have a conviction and set of ideologies and beliefs about the purpose of education.
Some individuals may, for example, believe that societies reserve academic qualifications for a
selected few. In contrast, for the greater mass of the population with limited opportunities, education
may have non-significant values and/or purposes. In a community where there is no foreseeable future,
individuals may likely to view the concept of education with a sense of distaste and pessimistic
thinking. This negative mindset may escalate when there is a lack of proper physical infrastructures or
resources (e.g., availability of computers) in a community. Relating closely to this tenet, a number of
researchers have explored the potency of the social milieu and its advantages and negative influences
on a person’s wellbeing and development. In this analysis, one notable aspect of development and
relating to the sociocultural settings is concerned with the formation of a person’s sense of identity.

A sense of identity, culturally in its makeup, may contribute to the shaping of a person’s
cognitive and social development (Phan, 2009b; Seijts, 1998). Questions such as “who am I as a
person?” and “where am I heading to in life?” may serve as a premise to guide a person to consider
his/her identity. One could say that the question of who we are as people is dependent, in part, on the
social context at hand. Technological advanced societies, compared to other places that may reflect
some backward modernity, give rise to a strong and coherent identity. Technologies and the
abundance of resources readily available assist in the stimulation of economic growth and democratic
social values, thereby creating a milieu where individuals tend to feel at ease. Growing up in societies
where economic and social vibrancy is an expected norm, individuals may feel more self-efficacious
with themselves and/or to affiliate to a set of expectations, values, and achievement-related outcomes;
for example, an individual may feel confident to express his/her thinking and desires (e.g., “When I
grow up, I want to be like my dad and attend university”). In a similar vein, living in communities and
societies where there is positive hope (Snyder, Feldman, Shorey, & Rand, 2002; Snyder, et al., 2000;
Snyder & Shorey, 2002), individuals may feel more anticipatory with their current and future events
(Seijts, 1998).

One could also posit an alternative view where disadvantaged and impoverished societies
galvanize the feelings of discontentment and hopelessness (Phan & Deo, 2007, 2008). Communities
and societies in developing and third world countries tend to manifest negativities that relate closely to
financial difficulties, social insecurities, and political unrest. Consequently, unfavorable drawbacks
may weaken individuals’ resolve to contemplate and/or to form positive beliefs about themselves as
individuals. In periods of upheaval where there are limited opportunities, individuals may postulate
and query their positioning in societies – for example, “is there a place for me to grow and develop?”
and “I don’t know what is happening; where do I go next in life?” Questions that pertain to the notion
of uncertainties may assist also in the forming of identity or lack thereof. Developing and third world
places may, in many cases, cultivate more simplistic views of the world and about oneself. Individuals
may show more inclination towards identifying themselves with simple personas and/or
characteristics, such as “I want to be a farmer and work on the land just like my father” and “Mum is
teaching me things so that I know what to do when I get older and have a family of my own.”

Our deliberation in the aforementioned sections reflects, similarly, the emphasis on future time
orientations (De Volder & Lens, 1982; Mehta, Sundberg, Rohila, & Tyler, 1972; Seijts, 1998;
Vázquez & Rapetti, 2006) and how identity (e.g., “who am I as a person?”) may associate with a
person’s cognitive time structures. In this analysis, we contend that sociocultural origins and contexts
shape a person’s sense of identity and this, in turn, governs his/her anticipations for future

Joint AARE APERA International Conference, Sydney 2012 Page 5 of 14

 A sociocultural perspective of learning: Developing a new theoretical tenet Huy P. Phan
[email protected]

possibilities. Social instability is a deterrence that limits individuals from forming positive identities,
giving rise then to consideration for basic short-term objectives and goals in life. Apart from historical
and social milieus, there has been research recently that suggested the importance of critical periods in
the development of identity (Seijts, 1998; Vázquez & Rapetti, 2006). Does the formation of identity,
similar to language development (Collier, 1989; Curtiss, 1977; Flege, Munro, & MacKay, 1995;
Newport, 1990; Ormrod, 2008), depend on a critical period in life? There is some empirical evidence
to indicate that there may be a critical period, especially during adolescence where one’s forming of an
identity influences his/her anticipations of current and future events (Phan, 2009b; Vázquez & Rapetti,
2006). This line of evidence entails the notion that critical periods (e.g., the period of 12 – 4 yrs.) may
scaffold and provide relevant information for individuals to form their personal experiences,
expectations, and goals; ongoing experiences then assist in the forming of positive and negative
identities which, in turn, may motivate individuals to engage in learning.

One could also argue that historical origins and cultural attributes contribute to the shaping of
a collective identity (e.g., “these people are my family”). A group identity, for example, may entail a
sense of affiliation, social rapport, and acceptance for others. Affiliation with others in a social group
may assist in the forming and sharing of similar beliefs, goals, expectations, and anticipations of future
takings (e.g., “I want to be a firefighter, like John”). In some societies and communities, there is a
strong emphasis regarding the notion of interdependency and the social and moral well being of others
(Phan, et al., 2010; Ravuvu, 1988; Teaero, 2002). The feelings of belongingness may cognitively
transform individuals’ beliefs and thinking towards a collective anticipation of an outcome for further
development. In this analysis, differing from values that pertain to individualism (Markus &
Kitayama, 1991), individuals may in this case contemplate and work collaboratively with each other to
achieve a common objective or goal – for example, “The next couple of weeks will be ideal for us; we
need to quickly build the community hall that we have been promising for the village.”

A contrasting positioning also prevails where a feeling of disconnectedness may isolate

individuals from working collaboratively with each other towards a collective outcome. One could
argue that individualism and, consequently, the notion of separation between people in time and space
give rise to feelings of despondency, pessimism, and negative anticipatory thoughts (e.g., “I don’t
think I will be able to achieve this feat; I just can’t see a future here”). Importantly, experience of
independency may result in a weakened sense of identity for some, especially those individuals who
live in communities that encourage and cultivate sharing and communal learning. Our argument then,
in this analysis, suggests that historical-social origins and social settings play a major contribution in
the instilment of beliefs about a need for belongingness or otherwise.

Some communities and societies, based on their sociocultural geneses, may dictate a natural
preference and progression towards individualistic alignment and thinking (Markus & Kitayama,
1991; Triandis, 1989; Triandis, Bontempo, Villareal, Asai, & Lucca, 1988). This does not mean to say,
in this analysis that non-collectivist beliefs and behaviors serve as impediments. Western societies and
their corresponding sociocultural attributes, in many cases, infer distinctive ethos, values and
principles, resulting in the formation of concrete identities and personas (e.g., “I feel really confident
and I will make it into medical school; like my father I want to be successful”). Differing from the
potency of communalism (e.g., a tribal village in Papua New Guinea), individualistic societies
emphasize considerations for discrete learning and development. There is a balance in successes and
failures, and individuals have opportunities to plan specific courses in life. Often the case, a myriad of
values and expectations combine to cognitively transform individuals to make plans for current and
future goals. Recognition by means of public appraisal is an expected norm, and societies place an
important focus on individualized achievements and successful accomplishments.

Individuals’ family within the community

Apart from the milieus at large, and similar to Bronfenbrenner’s (1979, 1989) bioecological
perspective, we contend that the family within a community also makes a contribution to the shaping
of individuals’ learning and development. By this account, considering our examination previously we
posit that a community may impart some extraneous influences on the family. Families, drawing from

Joint AARE APERA International Conference, Sydney 2012 Page 6 of 14

 A sociocultural perspective of learning: Developing a new theoretical tenet Huy P. Phan
[email protected]

the values, norms, and expectations of a community, in turn, stipulate a set of personal beliefs for
immediate members to adhere and action to. As we alluded earlier, philosophical principles of a
community may transpire to all its members some common protocoled behaviors and collective
thinking. Examples of this manifestation include, from a Western perspective, the need for
individualistic achievement and success (Markus & Kitayama, 1991). Individuals from an earlier age
are reared and nurtured towards competition and academic excellence. Consequently, a family in the
Western world may feel more inclined to embrace the value pertaining to individualized learning in
achievement contexts. One could argue, in this instance, that relations within the family are more
‘clear-cut’, indicating individual accountability, responsibility, and personalized success. Parents and
relatives may provide a stable home environment that then conduces effective learning and
development (Daulta, 2008; Niebuhr, 1995). A stable home environment, in this case, may entail the
provision of resources (e.g., textbooks) and/or parental involvement in their children’s education
(Kamaruddin, Zainal, & Aminuddin, 2009; Muola, 2010). In a similar vein, as a major agency of
socialization, the immediate family may also serve to enhance children’s intellectual growth,
aspirations, and achievements by strengthening the quality of the home environment (Daulta, 2008;
Jagannathan, 1986). This aspect of quality involves more than just the provision of physical resources,
and calls for nurturing, dedication, and the showing of care and love. Likewise a closer analysis would
suggest there is more emphasis in the structuring of a learning environment that fosters individual
development – for example, a parent may make attempt to provide a safe climate for his/her child to
grow up in and learn. The dynamics here are concerned with a cultivated physical infrastructure where
individuals receive incentives and devices to mediate their learning and development. One could argue
then, that a lack of resources and/or a disruptive noisy environment may attribute to one’s failure to
ascertain a desired learning outcome. Consequently, in addition to one’s own motivation and self-
beliefs, other extraneous influences, such as the caring shown by caregivers also contribute to
individualized success and failure.

Considering an alternative postulation, we note that the immediate family also connotes other
extraneous, but important influences on individuals’ learning and development. Embedded in a larger
social system of change (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, 1989), the immediate family may transpire and inform
individuals of their ‘moral’ duties and obligations. In this sense, there is emphasis on the gradual
passing of values and customs that pertain to a collective whole. In this analysis, parents and
caregivers may impart relevant information and beliefs about the need to achieve for others. This
interpretation, arising from Markus and Kitayama’s (1991) theorization and other related scholarly
publications (Dorovolomo, Koya, Phan, Veramu, & Nabobo-Baba, 2008; Nabobo-Baba, 2006; Phan,
et al., 2010; Triandis, 1989), suggests that individuals’ motives and beliefs for learning and growth
may depend more on abstract, philosophical reasoning. The notion of interdependency (Markus &
Kitayama, 1991; Triandis, 1989; Triandis, et al., 1988), for example, has been revered by some
societies and cultural groups for its principles and standards (e.g., filial piety: Chow & Chu, 2007)
towards schooling and behavioral conduct. Individuals, in this instance, may persist to achieve good
academic grades for social recognition and collective acceptance.

Interdependency is closely associated with non-Western cultures, whereas individualistic

thinking, as we alluded previously, is more embraced by Western cultures at large. Interdependency in
schooling, as an example, is often shown by many Asian learners where there is deliberation towards
achievements for others. Differing from previous accounts involving individualism, relationships that
are bound by collectivist thinking entail loyalty, family commitment, pride, and honor (Chow & Chu,
2007; Malaki, Soriano, & Valdez, 2009; Ng, 2003; Shek & Chan, 1999). In this sense, considering the
importance of these attributes, there is an appreciation for the sharing of academic achievement and
success by members of a family. In a similar manner, many families from indigenous communities
(e.g., the Kiribati people) believe in the philosophy of filial piety (Chow & Chu, 2007), wherein there
is close alignment to the conceptions of values for respect, sharing, and communal learning (Nabobo-
Baba, 2006). Somewhat discouraged from individualistic competition, many indigenous people prefer
communalism and the sharing of knowledge and ideas (Ravuvu, 1988; Teaero, 2002).

The family, in connection with a community at large, imparts principled beliefs and motives

Joint AARE APERA International Conference, Sydney 2012 Page 7 of 14

 A sociocultural perspective of learning: Developing a new theoretical tenet Huy P. Phan
[email protected]

for one’s learning and development. The emphasis here, differing from the mentioning of
individualistic approach, entails respect and affiliation for communal relations and family values.
Rather than one’s own desire to achieve, the notion of interdependency as a premise for upbringing
(Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Triandis, 1989; Triandis, et al., 1988) may precipitate a sense of moral
duty for accomplishment. In this analysis, considering non-Western cultures and societies at large, we
connote that interest, motive, and deliberation for learning and development may arise from an ethos
that that reflects individuals’ willingness to share knowledge, and to assist others socially and morally.
It is possible, for example, for individuals to approach their learning with a distinctive motive that
reflects a sense of caring, kindness, and shared learning outcomes.

If we consider the family as a focal point for development, then its genesis and placement in a
society may have implications for educators and learners alike. Motives and desires for learning and
achievement in school differ and may reflect an individual’s historical origin and contemporary
standing in a society. Often, as individuals, our quest to be successful in schools depends on
motivation and the reasons why we want to achieve a certain objective. In part, this argument suggests
that a person’s determination and academic trajectories towards schooling and subsequent professional
development maybe a product of his/her time (Phan, et al., 2010; Vázquez & Rapetti, 2006).
Struggling through life, financially, may compel some parents to place more aspirations and hope in
their children. This passing of expectations, needs, and motives from some parents (e.g., “I want Mary
to study hard and go to university”) may prompt some children from an early age to view leaning with
a purposive deliberation - for example, “I need to study hard so that I can help my parents” and
“Having academic qualifications is important as good grades will help me get a job later on in life”.
This predetermined mindset may instigate and serve as a vehicle for individuals to remain steadfast
and persevere.

Drawing from the contentions made, there have been theorizations and research development
with individuals from developing and third world countries. Despite different accounts, a consensus is
shared amongst researchers in terms of reasons and deliberation for many individuals in these regions
to engage in learning. Families that are bounded by unfavorable conditions (e.g., not being able to
afford school fees for their children), given their low social class status, are more pessimistic of goal
settings and future planning (e.g., “I might ask my son to drop out of school and help support the
family”)(Leshan, 1952; Vázquez & Rapetti, 2006). This pessimism, influencing one’s own future
anticipations, has educational implications, such as a decline in academic learning and achievement
outcomes. In contrast, however, other researchers have been more positive, and advocate that adverse
situations and unfavorable circumstances may even serve to motivate individuals to progress forward
in life (Phan, 2009a, 2009b; Phan & Deo, 2008). According to these authors, unsettling social and
political unrests may force individuals to look elsewhere for economic vibrancy and development.
Many Indo-Fijians in Fiji, from their historical backgrounds dating back to the 1880s, have faced and
are facing ongoing poverty and financial difficulties and racial discrimination. Because of this
uncertainty and feelings of despair and hopelessness, families rear their children at an early age to
work hard and achieve academic success.

The individual in his/her surroundings

Apart from the sociocultural milieus at large, individualized learning and success in
achievement contexts ultimately rest with the individual in his/her surroundings. Environmental
settings may entail a number of philosophical principles and these, consequently, contextualize
individuals to believe and to act accordingly. A community within a larger social milieu may
encompass its inhabitants with some common elements and cultural attributes, resulting in a collective
system of beliefs and values that may be shared over the course of time. The family, as a recipient of
extraneous influences (e.g., cultural ideology), may then impart on its members concrete personal
beliefs about the purpose of learning and having academic qualifications. Some individuals, as we
mentioned, may have extrinsic motives for engaging in learning (e.g., obtaining good grades to enter
university), whereas others may feel more inclined towards achieving success for family pride and
honor.

Joint AARE APERA International Conference, Sydney 2012 Page 8 of 14

 A sociocultural perspective of learning: Developing a new theoretical tenet Huy P. Phan
[email protected]

Individualized perceptions and views about learning rest, ultimately, with the individual
himself/herself. Personal beliefs, prescribed by our affiliation towards individualism or
interdependency thinking (Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Triandis, et al., 1988), shape individuals’
cognitive and non-cognitive processes. In this analysis, an individual’s desire to achieve and obtain
good academic grades may permeate his/her behavior and thinking towards a performance goal
orientation (Ames & Archer, 1988; Archer, 1994; Elliot, 1999; Elliot & Thrash, 2001) in learning. In a
similar vein, emphases pertaining to academic excellence and achievement outcomes may strengthen
individuals’ resolve to engage more in performance-based and surface learning strategies (Biggs,
1987; Entwistle, 1981; Marton & Säljö, 1976). These internal cognitive processes may act in tandem
with other non-cognitive processes, such as individuals’ personal self-efficacy beliefs (Bandura, 1986,
1997) and self-concept (Bandalos, Yates, & Thorndike-Christ, 1995; Marsh, 1993) to influence
individuals’ aspirations, planning, and learning outcomes.

What is of considerable interest then, in this analysis, is the study of internal cognitive-
motivational processes and self-beliefs (e.g., self-efficacy) and how they operate in tandem in a system
of change to affect learning outcomes. Taking into account the social milieu and the immediate family
at large, how do internal cognitive (e.g., deep processing strategies) and non-cognitive (e.g., self-
efficacy) processes function to influence current and future academic learning and achievement-
related outcomes (Phan, In press-2012)? In this analysis, we contend that the operational nature of a
particular facet (e.g., an individual’s resilience) may depend, in part, on its situational placement in
different sociocultural ‘layers’ of development. An individual’s preference and/or ability to reflect and
to critique (Dewey, 1933; Leung & Kember, 2003; Norris & Ennis, 1989; Schön, 1987; Willsen &
Binker, 1993) may, for example, depend on his/her identity, cultural values, upbringing, or learning
experience (e.g., “I was never taught this skill (critical analysis); in our society, we are brought up to
never question our authority or those in power”: Nabobo-Baba, 2006; Phan, 2008b; Teaero, 2002).
This postulation, which requires further empirical validation, suggests that internal cognitive-
motivational processes of learning exist within a hierarchical system where multiple layers and factors
interact dialectically.

From our previous examination in the preceding sections, this avocation is persuasive and has
theoretical credence for advancement. The advent of sophisticated statistical techniques, such as
hierarchical linear modeling (HLM)(Little, 2000; MacCallum, Kim, Malarkey, & Kiecolt-Glaser,
1997; Raudenbush & Bryk, 2001) and latent growth modeling (LGM)(Bollen & Curran, 2006;
Duncan, Duncan, Strycker, Li, & Alpert, 1999; Hancock & Lawrence, 2006) has allowed researchers
to study the complexities of various layers that define an individual’s development (Lau & Nie, 2008;
Marsh, et al., 2008; Walker, et al., 2004). Multilevel analyses with correlational data may, in this case,
allow researchers to test the potency of the society-family relationship, and/or the family-personal
interactions. Most significantly, there is a strong emphasis by a number of researchers to acknowledge
the contexts and environmental settings that may characterize individuals’ learning and development
(Baek & Hye-Jeong, 2002; Church, Elliot, & Gable, 2001; Nijhuis, Segers, & Gijselaers, 2007;
Schroeder & Kelley, 2009; Wong & Watkins, 1998). Notably, arising from this line of empirical
evidence is the notion that cognition and motivational beliefs for learning and development relate and
embed holistically with other internal and external factors.

Conclusion

Various theories have been offered to explain and predict individuals’ learning and
development. There are a number of theoretical models (Bandura, 1997; Bronfenbrenner, 1989;
Okagaki, 2001; Vygotsky, 1978), for example, which situate individuals’ learning and development in
a holistic system made up of different internal and social factors. Significantly, arising from this
collective insight is the illumination that various intricate relations may combine to define a person’s
acquiring of knowledge. Extending the tenets of the aforementioned theorists (Bronfenbrenner, 1989;

Joint AARE APERA International Conference, Sydney 2012 Page 9 of 14

 A sociocultural perspective of learning: Developing a new theoretical tenet Huy P. Phan
[email protected]

Okagaki, 2001), we proposed a similar conceptualization that entailed a multi-layered, hierarchical

system of interactions: community, family, and the individual. We contend that the interrelations
between the three facets are intertwined and, more importantly, any form of development requires an
input of one (e.g., the community) and the output of another (e.g., the family). Similar to Bandura’s
(1997) tenets of reciprocal determinism, we connote that the relations between the community, family,
and the individual are bidirectional – for example, an individual’s willingness to persist in current and
future studies may influence other members of the immediate family with his/her motives and views;
similarly, the immediate family may express its stance, commitment, values, and beliefs to the
community via electoral voting, town hall meetings, etc. Consequently, arising from a general
consensus through voting, a community may refine its positioning, identity, and ethos at large.

In our discussion so far, we made an ambitious attempt to situate the study of human cognition
within a wider sociocultural context. In the last couple of years, there has been an emerging trend in
social sciences research with the study of amalgamation of both extraneous factors and internal
cognitive, affective, and motivational processes (Baek & Hye-Jeong, 2002; Lau & Nie, 2008; Walker,
et al., 2004; Wong & Watkins, 1998). Given this interest for the inclusion of non-internal factors, we
suggest that educators advance this avenue of inquiry considering this triarchic framework in different
social and cultural settings. How does the impact of a community on a family and its immediate
members differ between Western and non-Western contexts? What are some of the extraneous factors
from environmental surroundings that could uniquely shape a community? We mentioned, for
example, that political instability, financial constraints and poverty, and racial discrimination may
permeate into some societies, making this experience a status quo. No doubt other societies may instill
feelings of serenity, confidence, and technological advanced development. Consequently, by means of
statistical comparison, we strongly suspect disparities in results and interpretations for different
populations.

References

Ames, C., & Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in the classroom: Students' learning strategies and
motivation processes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 260-267.
Archer, J. (1994). Achievement goals as a measure of motivation in university students. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 19, 430-446.
Authors. (2010). Title: A.
Baek, S.-G., & Hye-Jeong, C. (2002). The relationship between students' perceptions of classroom
environment and their academic achievement in Korea. Asia Pacific Education, 3(1), 135-145.
Bandalos, D. L., Yates, K., & Thorndike-Christ, T. (1995). Effects of math self-concept, perceived
self-efficacy, and attributions for failure and success on text anxiety. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 87(4), 611-623.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological
Review, 84, 191-215.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. New Jersey:
Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman & Co.
Berger, P., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality. London: Penguin Books.
Biggs, J. (1987). Student approaches to learning and studying. Melbourne, Australia: Australian
Council for Educational Research.
Bollen, K. A., & Curran, P. J. (2006). Latent curve models: A structural equation perspective.
Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.

Joint AARE APERA International Conference, Sydney 2012 Page 10 of 14

 A sociocultural perspective of learning: Developing a new theoretical tenet Huy P. Phan
[email protected]

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1989). Ecological systems theory In R. Vasta (Ed.), Annals of child development:
Theories of child development: Revised formulations and current issues (Vol. 6, pp. 187-251).
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Burkhalter, N. (1995). A Vygotsky-based curriculum for teaching persuasive writing in the elementary
grades. Language Arts, 72(3), 192-199.
Chow, S. S.-Y., & Chu, M. H.-T. (2007). The impact of filial piety and parental involvement on
academic achievement motivation in Chinese secondary school students. Asian Journal of
Counsellung, 14(1 & 2), 91-124.
Church, M. A., Elliot, A. J., & Gable, S. L. (2001). Perceptions of classroom environment,
achievement goals, and achievement outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 43-
54.
Collier, V. (1989). How long? A synthesis of research on academic achievement in second language.
TESOL Quarterly, 23, 509-523.
Curtiss, S. (1977). A psycholinguistic study of modern-day "wild child". New York, NY: Academic
Press.
Daulta, M. S. N. (2008). Impact of home environment on the scholastic achievement of children.
Journal of Human Ecology, 23(1), 75-77.
De Volder, M., & Lens, W. (1982). Academic achievement and future time perspective as a cognitive-
motivational concept. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 566-571.
Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative
process. Boston: D. C Health (Original work published in 1909).
Dorovolomo, J., Koya, C. F., Phan, H. P., Veramu, J., & Nabobo-Baba, U. (Eds.). (2008). Pacific
education: Issues and perspectives. Suva, FJ: Max Marketing & Publishing Ltd.
Duncan, T. E., Duncan, S. C., Strycker, L. A., Li, F., & Alpert, A. (1999). An introduction to latent
variable growth curve modelling: Concepts, issues, and applications. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Elliot, A. J. (1999). Approach and avoidance motivation and achievement goals. Educational
Psychologist, 34, 169-189.
Elliot, A. J., & Thrash, T. M. (2001). Achievement goals and the hierarchical model of achievement
motivation. Educational Psychology Review, 13, 139-156.
Entwistle, N. J. (1981). Styles of learning and teaching: An integrative outline of educational
psychology. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Fenollar, P., Román, S., & Cuestas, P. J. (2007). University students' academic performance: An
integrative conceptual framework and empirical analysis. British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 77, 873-891.
Flege, J. E., Munro, M. J., & MacKay, I. R. A. (1995). Effects of age of second-language learning on
the production of English consonants. Speech Communication, 16(1), 1-26.
Hancock, G. R., & Lawrence, F. R. (2006). Using latent growth models to evaluate longitudinal
change. In G. R. Hancock & R. O. Mueller (Eds.), Structural equation modeling: A second
course (pp. 171-196). Greenwich, Connecticut: Information Age Publishing.
Hofer, B. K. (2004). Exploring the dimensions of personal epistemology in different classroom
contexts: Student interpretation during the first year of college. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 29, 129-163.
Hoffnung, M., Hoffnung, R. J., Seifert, K. L., Smith, R. B., Hine, A., Ward, L., et al. (2010). Lifspan
development. Milton, QLD: Wiley.
Jagannathan, K. (1986). Home environment and aademic achievement. Journal of Educational
Research and Extension, 23(1), 18-25.
Kamaruddin, R., Zainal, N. R., & Aminuddin, Z. M. (2009). The quality of learning environment and
academic performance from a student's perception. International Journal of Business and
Management, 4(5), 171-175.
Kinginger, C. (2002). Defining the zone of proximal development in US foreign language education.
Applied Linguistics, 23(2), 240-261.
Lau, S., & Nie, Y. (2008). Interplay between personal goals and classroom goal structures in
predicting student outcomes: A multilevel analysis of person-context interactions. Journal of
educational Psychology, 100(1), 15-29.

Joint AARE APERA International Conference, Sydney 2012 Page 11 of 14

 A sociocultural perspective of learning: Developing a new theoretical tenet Huy P. Phan
[email protected]

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge,
MA: Cambridge University Press.
Leshan, L. L. (1952). Time orientation and social class. The Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 47, 589-592.
Leung, D. Y. P., & Kember, D. (2003). The relationship between approaches to learning and reflection
upon practice. Educational Psychology, 23(1), 61-71.
Little, T. D. (2000). Modeling longitudinal and multilevel data: Practical issues, applied approaches,
and specific examples. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
MacCallum, R. C., Kim, C., Malarkey, W. B., & Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K. (1997). Studying multivariate
change using multilevel models and latent curve models. Multivariate Behavioral Research,
32(3), 215-253.
Mahn, H. (1999). Vygotsky's methodological contribution to sociocultural theory. Remedial and
Special Education, 20(6), 341-350.
Malaki, A., Soriano, M. S., & Valdez, F. (2009). Asian values and epistemological beliefs as
predictors of valuing education. The International Journal of Research and Review, 1, 21-56.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and
motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224-253.
Marsh, H. W. (1993). The multidimensional structure of academic self-concept: Invariance over
gender and age. American Educational Research Journal, 30, 841-860.
Marsh, H. W., Martin, A. J., & Cheng, J. H. S. (2008). A multilevel perspective on gender in
classroom motivation and climate: Potential benefits of male teachers for boys? Journal of
educational Psychology, 100(1), 78-95.
Marton, F., & Säljö, R. (1976). On qualitative differences in learning - I: Outcome and process. British
Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 4-11.
Mehta, P., Sundberg, N. D., Rohila, P. K., & Tyler, L. E. (1972). Future time perspetives of
adolescents in India and the United States. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 3(3), 293-
302.
Moll, L. (1994). Reclaiming the natural line in Vygotsky's theory of cognitive development. Human
Development, 37(6), 333-342.
Mugler, F., & Landbeck, R. (1997). Learning in the South Pacific and phenomenography. Higher
Education Research and Development, 16, 227-239.
Muola, J. M. (2010). A study of the relationship between academic achievement motivation and home
environment among standard eight pupils. Educational Research and Reviews, 5(5), 213-217.
Murayama, K., & Elliot, A. J. (2009). The joint influence of personal achievement goals and
classroom goal structures on achievement-relevant outcomes. Journal of educational
Psychology, 101(2), 432-447.
Nabobo-Baba, U. (2006). Knowing and learning: An Indigenous Fijian approach. Suva: Institute of
Pacific Studies, University of the South Pacific.
Nelson, G. F., McInerney, D. M., & Craven, R. (2005a). Education in developing countries: A
qualitative study of student achievement in Papua New Guinea. Paper presented at the
Australian Association for Research in Education, Parramatta, NSW: Australia.
Nelson, G. F., McInerney, D. M., & Craven, R. (2005b). Student achievement in developing countries:
A triarchic theoretical and operational framework. Paper presented at the Australian
Association for Research in Education, Parramatta, NSW: Australia.
Newport, E. L. (1990). Maturational constraints on language learning. Cognitive Science, 14, 11-28.
Ng, C.-H. (2003, November 29th - December 3rd). Re-conceptualizing achievement goals from a
cultural perspective. Paper presented at the Joint Conference of NZARE & AARE, Aukland,
NZ.
Niebuhr, K. (1995). The effect of motivation on the relationship of school climate, family
environment, and student characteristics to academic achievement. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service ED 393 202).
Nijhuis, J., Segers, M., & Gijselaers, W. (2007). The interplay of perceptions of the learning
environment, personality and learning strategies: A studies amongst International Business
Studies students. Studies in Higher Education, 32(1), 59-77.
Norris, S. P., & Ennis, R. H. (1989). Evaluating critical thinking. Pacific Grove, CA: Midwest.

Joint AARE APERA International Conference, Sydney 2012 Page 12 of 14

 A sociocultural perspective of learning: Developing a new theoretical tenet Huy P. Phan
[email protected]

Okagaki, L. (2001). Triarchic model of minority children's school achievement. Educational

Psychologist, 36(1), 9-20.
Okagaki, L., & Frensch, P. A. (1998). Parenting and children's school achievement: A multi-ethnic
perspective. American Educational Research Journal, 35, 123-144.
Okagaki, L., & Sternberg, R. J. (1993). Parental beliefs and children's school performance. Child
Development, 64, 36-56.
Ormrod, J. E. (2008). Human learning (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.
Phan, H. P. (2007). An examination of reflective thinking, learning approaches, and self-efficacy
beliefs at the University of the South Pacific: A path analysis. Educational Psychology, 27(6),
789-806.
Phan, H. P. (2008a). Exploring epistemological beliefs and learning approaches in context: A
sociocultural perspective. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 6(3),
793-822.
Phan, H. P. (2008b). Teaching and learning in the South Pacific: A Vygotskian classroom? In J.
Dorovolomo, C. F. Koya, H. P. Phan, J. Veramu & U. Nabobo-Baba (Eds.), Pacific
education: Issues and perspectives (pp. 68-87). Suva: Max Marketing & Publishing Ltd.
Phan, H. P. (2009a). Amalgamation of future time orientation, epistemological beliefs, achievement
goals and study strategies: Empirical evidence established. British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 79, 155-173.
Phan, H. P. (2009b). Future time perspective in sociocultural contexts: A discussion paper. Electronic
Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 7(2), 761-778.
Phan, H. P. (2010). A theoretical perspective of learning in the Pacific context: A sociocultural
perspective. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 8(1), 411-428.
Phan, H. P. (In press-2012). Interplay between cognitive and non-cognitive processes: Review,
implications, and directions. Predictors, Learning Strategies and Influences of Gender.
Hauppauge, NY: Nova Publishing
Phan, H. P. (In press-2013). Psychosocial processes that facilitate unity and interdependency:
Contemplation for research development. The Journal of educational and Developmental
Psychology, 3(1).
Phan, H. P., & Deo, B. (2007). The revised learning process questionnaire: A validation of a Western
model of students' study approaches to the South Pacific context using confirmatory factor
analysis. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 719-739.
Phan, H. P., & Deo, B. (2008). 'Revisiting' the South Pacific approaches to learning: A confirmatory
factor analysis study. Higher Education Research and Development, 27(4), 371-383.
Phan, H. P., Maebuta, J., & Dorovolomo, J. (2010). The relations between personal epistemology and
learning approaches in sociocultural contexts: A theoretical conceptualization - Part II. The
International Journal of Learning, 17(5), 465-478.
Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2001). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis
methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park: Sage.
Ravuvu, A. D. (1988). Development or dependence: The pattern of change in a Fijian village. Suva,
Fiji: USP Press.
Schön, D. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Schroeder, V., & Kelley, M. (2009). Family environment and parent-child relationships as related to
executive functioning in children. Early Child Development and Care, 99999(1), 14 pages
downloaded. doi: 10.1080/03004430902981512
Seijts, G. H. (1998). The importance of future time perspective in theories of work motivation. The
Journal of Psychology, 13(2), 154-168.
Senko, C., & Miles, K. M. (2008). Pursuing their own learning agenda: How mastery-oriented
students jeopardize their class performance. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33, 561-
583.
Shek, D. T. L., & Chan, L. K. (1999). Hong Kong Chinese parents' perceptions of the idea child.
Journal of Psychology, 133(3), 291-302.
Sluss, D. J., & Stremmel, A. J. (2004). A sociocultural investigation of the effects of peer interaction
on play. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 18(4), 293-305.

Joint AARE APERA International Conference, Sydney 2012 Page 13 of 14

 A sociocultural perspective of learning: Developing a new theoretical tenet Huy P. Phan
[email protected]

Smagorinsky, P. (1995). The social construction of data: Methodological problems of investigating

learning in the zone of proximal development. Review of Educational Research, 65(3), 191-
212.
Snyder, C. R., Feldman, D., Shorey, H., & Rand, K. (2002). Hopeful choices: A school counselor's
guide to hope theory. Professional School Counseling, 5, 298-307.
Snyder, C. R., Ilardi, S. S., Cheavens, J., Michael, S. T., Yamhure, L., & Sympspn, S. (2000). The role
of hope in cognitive behavior therapies. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 24, 747-762.
Snyder, C. R., & Shorey, H. (2002). Hope in the classroom: The role of positive psychology in
academic achievement and psychology curriculum. Psychology Teacher Network, 12, 1-9.
Teaero, T. F. (2002). Old challenges, 'new' responses to educational issues in Kiribati. In F. Pene, A.
M. Taufe'ulungaki & C. Benson (Eds.), Tree of opportunities: Re-thinking Pacific education
(pp. 73-83). Suva, Fiji: Institute of Education, USP.
Triandis, H. C. (1989). The self and social behavior in differing cultural contexts. Psychological
Review, 96(3), 506-520.
Triandis, H. C., Bontempo, R., Villareal, M. J., Asai, M., & Lucca, N. (1988). Individualism and
collectivism: Cross-cultural perspectives on self-ingroup relationships. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 54(2), 323-338.
Tuinamuana, K. (2007). Reconstructing dominant paradigms of teacher education: Possibilities for
pedagogical transformation in Fiji. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 35(2), 111-
127.
Urdan, T. (2004). Using multiple methods to assess students' perceptions of classroom goal structure.
European Psychologist, 9(4), 222-231.
Valsiner, J. (1987). Culture and the development of children's action. New York, NY: Wiley.
Vázquez, S. M., & Rapetti, M. V. (2006). Future time perspective and motivational categories in
Argentinean adolescents. Adolescence, 41, 511-532.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Walker, R., Pressick-Kilborn, K., Arnold, L. S., & Sainsbury, E. J. (2004). Investigating motivation in
context: Developing sociocultural perspectives. European Psychologist, 9(4), 245-256.
Wertsch, J. V. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Wertsch, J. V., & Tulviste, P. (1992). L. V. Vygotsky and contemporary developmental psychology.
Developmental Psychobiology, 28(4), 548-557.
Willsen, J., & Binker, A. (1993). Critical thinking: How to prepare students for a rapidly changing
world. Santa Rosa, CA: Foundation for Critical thinking.
Wilson, M. S. (2001). Cultural consideration in online instruction and learning. Distance Education,
22(1), 52-64.
Wong, N.-Y., & Watkins, D. (1998). A longitudinal study of the psychosocial environmental and
learning approaches in the Hong Kong classroom. The Journal of Educational Research,
91(4), 247-254.

References

Joint AARE APERA International Conference, Sydney 2012 Page 14 of 14