In the initial sociocultural theory (SCT) timeline, Lantolf and Beckett (2009) surveyed a broad spectrum of research informed by sociocultural psychology as it was extended into the field of second language acquisition and language teaching. Since that time, the amount of research that has been published within the SCT framework has grown exponentially. With regard to the educational setting, two major strands of research have emerged; one that addresses pedagogical practice and the other that deals with assessment. The assessment strand, Dynamic Assessment, adheres to principles that emerge from the SCT concept of the Zone of Proximal Development and is the topic of a separate timeline (see Poehner & Wang, forthcoming). The pedagogical strand, the topic of the present article, is generally referred to as Concept-based Language Instruction (C-BLI), although in some publications the rubric Concept-based Instruction (CBI) is used. Unfortunately, the abbreviation of the alternative rubric has on more than one occasion been confused with content-based instruction, also abbreviated as CBI. We would like to suggest here that it would be better if SCT researchers were to adopt C-BLI to avoid misinterpretations going forward.

中文翻译：

---

社会文化理论和基于概念的语言教学

在最初的社会文化理论 (SCT) 时间表中，兰托夫和贝克特 (Lantolf and Beckett) (2009) 调查了广泛的社会文化心理学研究，因为它被扩展到第二语言习得和语言教学领域。从那时起，在 SCT 框架内发表的研究数量呈指数增长。在教育环境方面，出现了两大研究方向；一个涉及教学实践，另一个涉及评估。评估链，动态评估，坚持从 SCT 概念中出现的原则近端开发区并且是单独时间线的主题（参见 Poehner & Wang，即将出版）。教学链，本文的主题，通常被称为基于概念的语言教学（C-BLI），尽管在一些出版物中使用了基于概念的指令（CBI）。不幸的是，替代量规的缩写不止一次与基于内容的教学相混淆，也缩写为 CBI。我们想在这里建议，如果 SCT 研究人员采用 C-BLI 来避免未来的误解会更好。