online education research, skripsi, tesis, disertasi, penelitian,action research, statistical, sampling, research proposal, qualitative research,quantitative research,sampling methods

No language or rules, in the sense of morphological difficulty, have ever been acquired or located within the brain, rather, the transition from the first to the second language involves cognitive processes of reconceptualization through social interaction (Hill 2006:821).
    Social interaction as a necessary condition for language development. Second generation cognitive grammars, in contradiction, readily acknowledge that they need a firm sociocultural basis Zuengler & Miller 2006). Usage-based approaches to language also provide an opportunity for cognitive linguists to engage with the social-interaction nature of language (Croft & Cruse 2004 in Hill 2006: 821). Therefore, within the second-generation cognitive grammar framework, exclusion of social interaction no longer holds as a standard for incommensurability (Hill 2006: 821).

    Hill points out that the sociocognitive advantage to SLA is that it focuses on how so-called unobservable cognitive processes reveal themselves in social interaction Harre & Gillete. 1944; Swain & Lapkin 1998). The object of stuffy then becomes the concept, which develops through social interaction to arrive at language. In this way correct developmental processes are initiated (e.g., meaning –to-form constructions not form-to-meaning). Within SLA, this entails a shift away from morphological difficulty as a measure for sequences and rates of acquisition toward conceptualization difficulty (i.e., development).
The impact of various sociocultural perspectives such as Vigotskian sociocultural theory, language socialization, learning as changing participation in situated practices, Bakhtin and the dialogic perspective, and critical theory (Zuengler & Miller 006).
The several most important developments in the SLA field over the past 15 years is the arrival of  sociocultural perspectives in SLA and the tensions involving cognitive versus sociocultural understandings of learning and debate involving disagreements between positivists and relativists over how to construct  SLA theory. (p.35-36). Sharwood Smith (1991) said the cake of SLA is cognitive, while its icing is the social.
Sosiocultural perspectives on language and learning view language use in real-world situations as fundamental, not ancillary, to learning. These researchers focus not on language as input, but as a resource for participation in the kinds of activities our everyday lives comprise. Participation in these activities is both the product and the process of learning. (37-38). Vigotskian sociocultural theory and language socialization is often positioned as the primary theoretical framework (38), situated leaning theory, Bachtian approaches to language, critical theories of discourse and social relations.
SLA research using first began to appear in the mid 1980s Vigotskian sociocultural theory (Frawley & Lantolf, 1984, 1985) but quickly gain momentum in the mid-1990s with the special issue of the modern language journal (LAntolf 1994) devoted to sociocultural theory and second language learning.
Like traditional cognitive approaches to learning, Vygotkian sociocultural theory is fundamentally concerned with understanding the development of cognitive processes. However its distinctiveness from traditional cognitive approaches can best be highlighted by citing Vygotsky: “the social dimension of consciousness (i.e., all mental processes) is primary in time and fact. The individual dimension of consciousness is derivative and secondary (1979:30). Lantolv and Pavlenko (1995) clarify that eventhough Vigotskian sociocultural theory does not deny a role for biological constraints, development does not proceed as the unfolding of inborn capacities, but as the transformation of innate capacities once they intertwine with socioculturally constructed mediational means” (p. 109). These means are the socioculturally meaningful artifacts and symbolic system of a society, the most important of which is language (Zuengler Miller 39). Of significance for SLA research is the understanding that when learners appropriate mediational means, such as language, made available as they interact in socioculuturally meaningful activities, these learners gain control over their own mental activity and can begin to function independently. And this is what development is about (Vygotsky 1979, Lantolf 2000).
SLA researchers have focused on learners linguistic development in the zone of proximal development (ZDP), Vygotsky’s conception of what an individual can accomplish when working with collaboration with others (more) versus what she or he could have accomplished without collaboration with others (less). The ZDP points to that individual’s learning potential, that is, what he or she may be able to do independently in the future (Adair-Hauck & Donato, 1994; Aljafreeh & Lantolf 1994; Anton 1999, 2000; DiCamilla & Anton 1997; Nassaji & Cumming2000; Ohta 2000; Swain & Lapkin 1998). Others have focused on the use of private speech or speech directed to oneself that mediates mental behavior. Private speech manifests the process in which external, social forms of interaction come to be appropriated for inner speech or mental development Anton & DiCamilla 1998; Mccafferty 1994, 2004). Still others have focused on activity theory and task-based approaches to second language teaching and learning (Coughlan & Duff, 1994; McCafferty, Roebuck, & Waylan 2001; Parks 2000; Storch 2004; Thorne 2003).
Language socialization researchers close identify with Vigotskian sociocultural approaches to learning (Orchs 1988; Schefflin & Ochs 1986; Watson-Gegeo 2004; Wason-Gego & Nielson 2003). This theory emerges from anthropology with an interest in understanding the development of socially and culturally competent members of society. Odd and Schefflin (1986) take for granted that the development of intelligence and knowledge is facilitated to an extent by children’s communication with others, and emphasize the sociocultuiral information that is generally encoded in the organization of conversational discourse (pp. 2-3). As such, language socialization research has investigated the interconnected processes of linguistic and cultural learning in discourse practices, interactional routines, and participation structures and roles.
Whether at home, in the classroom, at work, or in any number of other environments, language learners are embedded in and learn to become competent participants in culturally, socially, and politically shaped communicative contexts. The linguistic forms used min these contexts and their social significance affect how learners come to understand and use language (Zuengler & Miller 2006:40).
Situated learning is most notably represented by Lave & Wanger’s (1991) notion of community of practice. Their perception of legitimate peripheral participation is meant to describe the changes of engagement in particular social practices that entail learning. They in 998 maintain that learning is not a separate activity but is something we can assume-whether we see it or not. Even failing to learn what is expected in a given situation usually involves learning something else instead (p. 8). Tohey (1999) agrees, suggesting that this approach can help us avoid consigning poor success in second language learning merely to an individual’s failure to learn. Legitimate peripheral participation allows us to see instead that some members learn to take a less empowered position in a community of practice because of the kinds of participation made available to them by processes of exclusion and subordination that operate locally (p. 135).
Learning is not as an individual achievement and thus not only concerned with cognition (Lave & Wanger 1991).  There is a growing awareness of the fundamentally social nature of learning and cognition in the field of educational and cultural psychology (e.g. Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989; Newman, Griffin, & Cole, 1989; Rogoff, 1990; Scribner & Cole, 1981; Wertsch, 1985) and critical anthropology (Lave, 1988, 1991). For Lave and Wenger, knowledge is not something that is incrementally stored in an individual’s mind; it is to be understood relationally, as located in the evolving relationships between people and the settings in which they conduct their activities. Individuals do not simply receive, internalize and construct knowledge in their minds but enact it as persons-in-the world participating in the practices of a sociocultural community. Accordingly, learning is an intrinsic and inseparable aspect of any social practice, not the goal to be achieved, and it occurs when people engage in joint activity in a community of practice (CoP), with or without teaching.
    Despite their different theoretical perspectives, psychology, which traditionally focuses on individuals, and anthropology, which traditionally focuses on community and on culture, may be collaborators in maintaining dualism, synthesized by framing the individual and the context as coconstitutive where individual’s cognitive processes (and thus learning) and social practice (and thus activity) are irreducible because agent, activity, and the world mutually constitute each other (Lave 1988). The concept of legitimate peripheral participation (LPP) is proposed as a descriptor of engagement in social practice that entails learning as an integral constituent (p. 35). LPP describes a process in which newcomers acquire the skill to perform by actually engaging in the practice in attenuated ways and move toward full participation by mastering the knowledge and skills critical for that particular CoP (p. 29). Thus the concept of LPP characterizes the particular mode of engagement of a novice learner who participates in the actual practices of an expert, but only to a limited degree and with limited responsibility for the product as a whole (p. 14).
    Treating learning as legitimate peripheral participation means that learning is seen as itself an evolving form of membership (Lave & Wanger, 1991:53). Individuals develop identities of mastery as they change in how they participate in a CoP through the multiple social relations and roles they experience. Defining identities as long-term, living relations between persons and their place and participation in communities of practice, Lave & Wanger (p. 53) argue that identity, knowing and social membership entail one another. Lave (1996) further elaborates the connection among learning, identity, and the social world by asserting that learning entails becoming kinds of persons, and that crafting identities in practice becomes the fundamental project subjects engage in (p. 157).
    Eckert & McConell-Ginet (1999) bring a new analytical dimension to the CoP , focusing on the construction of gendered identities in adolescent peer-groups, focusing on their shared ways of doing things, ways of talking, beliefs and values (p. 186). In addition these scholars highlight individuals’ multiple memberships in a variety of CoPs, both face-to-face and more diffuse. Wanger (1998) points out that individual’ modes of participation in different CoPs may vary considerably. Wenger proposes three defining characteristics of a CoP: mutual engagement, joint activity involving a collective process of negotiation, and shared repertoires. Of note is that although Wanger’s definition of CoP fits his example of the face-to-face CoP of claims processors, it does not necessarily apply to the more diffuse CoPs hat he discusses. Like Lave & Wanger’s examples of CoPs, the studies by the aforementioned scholars take place in non-school settings and do not involve explicit teaching.
    Like sociocultural theories, Bakhtin dialogic perspective, (1981) stresses the sociality of intellectual processes in claiming that language, for the individual consciousness, lies on the border between oneself and the other (293).  His concept of dialogism entails the mutual participation of speakers and hearers in the construction of utterances and the connectedness of all utterances to past and future expressions. Thus, the linguistic resources we use and learn can never be seen as merely part of a neutral and impersonal language; rather Bakhtin viewed our use of language as an appropriation of words that at one time exist(ed.) in other people’s mouth before we make them our own (pp. 293-294). Hall (2002) explains that in this view, an utterance can only be understood fully by considering its history of use by other people, in other laces for other reasons )p.13).  Within this framework, Toohey (2000) describes language learning as a process in which learners try on other people’s utterances; they take words from other people’s mouths; they appropriate these utterances and gradually (but not without conflict) these their needs and relay their meanings (p.13).
    From the point of view of critical theory being socialized into the practices of a community includes learning one’s place in the sociopolitical organization of those practices. Critical theory research study the relation of interest language and identity Zuengler & Miller 2006: 43. From a sociocultural perspective, our identity is shaped by and through our language use (Norton 1995, 1997, 2000; Pavlenko & Blefledge 2003).
    Unlike the two previous innatist and cognitive perspectives of SLA which focus more on the learner, the social constructivist perspectives that are associated with more current approaches to both first and second language acquisition emphasize the dynamic nature of the interplay between learners and their peers and their teachers and others with whom they interact (Brown 2002).  The interpersonal context in which a learner operates takes on great significance, and therefore, the interaction between learners and others is the focus of observation and explanation.
    One of the most widely discussed social constructivist positions in the field emerged from the work of Michel Long (Brown 2002). In Long’s view (1985, 1996), interaction and input are two major players in the process of acquisition. Conversation and other interactive communication are the basis for the development of linguistic rules. A number of studies have supported the link between interaction and acquisition (Swain & Lapkin 1998; Gas, Mackey, & Pica 1998; Leo van Lier 1996). In a strong endorsement of the power of interaction, they point out the importance of the principles of awareness, autonomy, and authenticity which lead the learner into Vigotsky’s (1978) zone of proximal development (ZDP), where learners construct the new language through socially mediated interaction.