The implications of “first language acquisition as a guide for theories of learning and pedagogy” in a pluralistic world
Abstract The value of James Gee's (1994) analysis of first language acquisition as a guide for theories of learning and pedagogy is that it initiates a serious discussion of learning that is based upon the most effectively studied developmental mastery—language. In this commentary, we will argue that the major limitation of this approach does not have to do so much with the roles of biology and maturity as proposed by Gee, but rather, that it underestimates the roles of diverse symbol systems and scaffolding when it is introduced in the context of a near-universal mastery of language.