UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND ELECTRONIC RESERVE ... - Yolahayleyreideportfolio.yolasite.com/resources/vygotskyreading.pdf · The socio-cultural view: Vygotsky Introduction Ann, ... 2003;

UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND ELECTRONIC RESERVE UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA Copyright Regulations 1969

WARNING

This material has been reproduced and communicated to you by or on behalf of the University of New England pursuant to Part VB of the Copyright Act 1968 (the Act). The material in this communication may be subject to copyright under the Act. Any further reproduction or communication of this material by you may be the subject of copyright protection under the Act. Do not remove this notice.

Citation Vialle, Wilma. & Lysaght, Pauline. & Verenikina, Irina. 2005 'The Socio-cultural view : Vygotsky' In: Psychology for educators / Wilma Vialle, Pauline Lysaght, Irina Verenikina. Southbank, Vic. : Thomson Learning, 2005. Chapter 3, pp. 45-74 This file is a digitised version of printed copyright material. Due to the process used to create it, its accuracy cannot be guaranteed. Please refer to the original published version if you have any concerns about its accuracy.

3

The socio-cultural view:

Vygotsky Introduction

Ann, a third year early childhood education student, was undertaking her teaching practice in a kindergarten classroom. At the Faculty of Education reflection day Ann approached lrina in tears. She was not happy with her supervising teacher, Ms Brown, who would not allow her to scaffold the students' reading comprehension in her classroom. The teacher demanded of Ann that books be read to the children without comments or questions. Her

concern was that Ann would impose her own understanding of the story on her students, which might suppress their spontaneity and freedom in interpreting the text and take away their ability to think for themselves. Mostly, Ms Brown was concerned with Ann's questions on 'story prediction'. She didn't think that

asking specific questions such as, 'Do you think the Duck will come back?' was appropriate. To support her claim, Ms Brown referred to the theory of Piaget, which she had studied in her undergraduate degree. Ann was very disappointed with her supervising teacher as she believed in Vygotsky's scaffolding as one of the most advanced teaching techniques to date. She also felt that scaffolding was a natural way of sharing reading with young children. As an educator, she felt somewhat constrained and restricted by not being able to talk to children and ask questions while reading to them.

In the above example, whose position would you support? Ann's or Ms

Brown's? Would you agree with Ms Brown that Ann should not have influenced

the children's understanding of the story, asking them leading questions? Or, would you support Ann in her eagerness to lead the children's understanding by helping them comprehend the ideas of the book? To answer these questions it is important to understand educational theories that will help you justify your beliefs and to choose instructional techniques that can be successfully utilised in the classroom.

Part A--Views on learning

As we pointed out in Chapter 2, an important contribution of Piaget to the theory and practice of education was his view of children as independent discoverers and explorers by being active participants in their own development and active constructors of their own knowledge. This position is known as constructivism or sometimes cognitive constructivism (Berk, 2003; Krause et al., 2003; McDevitt & Ormrod, 2002). The implication of this is that the initiative and self-determination of the child as a learner should not be hindered by educational instruction. Instead, children should be given freedom to explore

and discover by themselves, at their own pace and by their own means.

Vygotskian theory was built upon the Piagetian idea of the child as an active learner but with the emphasis on the role of social interaction in

learning and development. Thus, both Piaget and Vygotsky agreed that an individual's active participation is essential for their successful development. However,Vygotsky emphasised that children and adults are both active agents in the process of the child's development. 'Development is, in this case, co- constructed' (Cole & Cole, 2001, p.37). For teaching it means that both the teacher and the student are seen as active agents in student learning. The teacher's intervention in children's learning is necessary, but it is the quality of instruction, the quality of the child-adult interaction, which is seen as crucial in that learning (Bodrova & Leong, 1996; Fleer, 1995; Tharp & Gallimore, 1988). This approach is sometimes called 'social constructivism' to emphasise the

role of social interaction in children's development and learning (Krause et al., 2003; McDevitt & Ormrod, 2002).

The view of development as socially (and culturally) mediated is central to Vygotsky's theory and will be described in detail below. But first we will briefly look into the biography of this prominent theorist whose work has inspired many generations of educational theorists, researchers and practitioners.

Who was Lev Vygotsky?

The importance of the contribution of Russian theorist Lev Vygotsky to the contemporary field of child development and education can only be compared to that of Piaget. The theories of the two men have many similarities but are also very different. A look into the cultural and historical circumstances of

Vygotsky's life, his family and educational background, as well as his professional interests and aspirations gives an insight into the uniqueness of his theoretical views and beliefs.

Lev Semenovich Vygotsky was born on November 5, 1896 (the same year as Piaget), to a middle class family of a small town in Belorussia. His father was a bank official who was also a local 'enlightener' and a founder

socio-cultural view:Vygotsky 47

the first public library in the town (Yaroshevsky, 1989). Vygotsky's mother as also an educated person who influenced his interests in languages and Ierature. Instead of attending the public primary school, Vygotsky studied ith a private tutor, whose pedagogical technique was grounded in a form of ocratic dialogue (Wertsch, 1985)--teaching by engaging in extended critical Nuiry and philosophical conversations with students. Undoubtedly, this kind f teaching influenced Vygotsky's further views on the role of social dialogue i learning.

By the age of fifteen Vygotsky had become known as a 'little professor' howing extensive interests in and knowledge of theatre, literature, history, ,hilosophy and languages (Wertsch, 1985, p.4). He was fluent in a number ~f foreign languages such as German, French, English, and also could read n Latin, Greek and Hebrew (Wertsch, 1985). Vygotsky had strong personal :harisma. When he went to high school, he was immediately liked by peers and eachers. He organised and regularly ran a debating society where problems of iterature, history and philosophy were discussed (Yaroshevsky, 1989).

After graduating from Moscow State University in 1917,Vygotsky returned to his home town to work in a school for the next seven years as a teacher

of literature and history of arts. This was a time of dramatic revolutionary change in Russia. The country was still involved in World War I and the Soviet government had just come to power. The newly formed government of workers was seeking a comprehensive system of education suitable for all classes in society. Vygotsky was inspired by the idea of creating a new education system and the challenge of searching for its new theoretical base. He organised a laboratory of psychology at the local Teachers' College for the identification of schoolchildren who needed help. His research at the laboratory, his teaching in both schools and the college where he delivered lectures on the psychology of teaching and learning, provided the groundwork for his book on Educational Psychology, published in 1926 (Wertsch, 1985; Yaroshevsky, 1989).

Life in post-World War, revolutionary Russia was inspiring but difficult. It was an economically and politically troubled time across the country, including Vygotsky's home town. Working hard, Vygotsky developed tuberculosis in 1920 from which he never fully recovered and which took his life in 1934. He

was only 37. Vygotsky's ideas on the nature of human consciousness, as well as his study

in developmental and educational psychology, were becoming well known and in 1924 he was invited to join the Psychological Institute in Moscow. On moving to Moscow, Vygotsky's scholarly work became more intensive and productive. His research group, which included such famous scholars as Alexander Luria

f


(1976) and Alexei Leontiev (1981), became known as the Vygotskian school of psychology.

Vygotsky was a brilliant public speaker. Students and colleagues sometimes listened to his lectures outside the open doors of the auditoriums, which were

completely packed (Gal'perin, 1984, cited in Wertsch, 1984). In the last decade of his life, Vygotsky published a number of books, which outlined his original theory of socio-cultural psychology. In all, Vygotsky published approximately 180 works (Wertsch, 1985).

Vygotsky's theory was not known in the English-speaking world of educators until the 1960s when the first translation of his book, Thought and Language, was published in the US (Vygotsky, 1962). There were several reasons for such a delay. Firstly, only a few of Vygotsky's scholarly works were published during his lifetime and these had been left as drafts. Secondly, and most importantly, shortly after Vygotsky's death, his theory was banned in the Soviet Union for twenty years, with publication of his work not being resumed until 1956 (Yaroshevsky, 1989). .~

Lev Vygotsky, the 'Mozart of psychology' (Toulmin, 1978, cited in Wertsch, 1985), lived a short but productive life as a truly 'revolutionary scientist' (Newman & Holzman, 1993). He had a great impact on people who worked with him and his theory stimulated a wealth of research all over the world. A number of the prominent leading theoretical perspectives of today developed from his theory,

Socio-cultural approach to learning and

development

The theory of Vygotsky is commonly referred to as socio-cultural psychology (Berk, 2003; Krause et al., 2003; Wells, 1999) or cultural-historical psychology (Cole, 1996; Bodrova & Leong, 1996). While the latter is a direct translation from the Russian, there is an argument that 'sociocultural is a better term when it comes to dealing with how this [Vygotskian] heritage has been appropriated in contemporary debates in the human sciences, at least in the West' (Wertsch, Del Rio & Alvarez, 1995, cited in Daniels, 2000, p.78). Both the terms reflect Vygotsky's view of children's learning and development as culturally, socially and historically mediated. This means that a child's development cannot be understood outside of the historical dynamics of its social and cultural context. It is with the concept of 'mediation' that Vygotsky made his most important and unique contribution to the field of developmental psychology (Wertsch, 1985). The concept of social and cultural mediation of human activity closely


i~,~ ~i!'i i!

connects to a number of Vygotsky's other interrelated theoretical concepts such as psychological tools, higher mental processes, internalisation, symbolic representation and the zone of proximal development. These are described in detail below.

!,

Cultural mediation: Tools of the mind

According to Vygotsky, a crucial part of children's psychological development is their growing into the culture to which they belong. Who we are, what we do, how we think and what we value largely depends on the culture in which we are brought up. The culture influences a child's development through its artefacts, the main attribute of any culture (Vygotsky, 1978). Artefacts, or cultural products, are those things that are manufactured and created by people through the history of their culture in order to enhance their actions and abilities. They include the things that we use in our everyday life, from simple objects such as a pen or table, to the most complex systems such as language, traditions, religion, science and arts. Artefacts can be described at three levels, as primary, secondary and tertiary artefacts (Wartofsky, 1979, cited in Wells, 1999, p.69). Primary artefacts include objects, which are mostly physical tools used to complete an activity, for example, a pen or a spoon, a hammer or a computer. Secondary artefacts include tools that relate to the conceptual level of operation in society such as conceptual models, maps, ethical norms, customs and traditions. Tertiary artefacts are autonomous, imaginary worlds, which include scientific models and theories, literature, arts and virtual realities of a

modern technological world.

Simple physical artefacts are used as tools to enhance and support our performance beyond its natural capacity; for example, we can move much faster if we use a bike or a car compared to walking or running. In the same way, the higher level artefacts are produced to support our mental functioning beyond its natural capacity. For example, using mathematical concepts we can estimate the time that we need to get to a particular place. Ethical norms help manage our social relationships in an efficient manner. A new theory, such as Einstein's theory of relativity or the evolutionary theory of Charles Darwin, can dramatically change the way that we think about the world around us. Such tools, when appropriated by people, become psychological tools or tools of the mind (Bodrova & Leong, 1996).

Children grow into the culture around them through learning and mastering its tools. The tools need to be appropriated by children and become their own psychological tools in order to advance their development. The appropriation of tools happens through symbolic representations and internalisation, while

eli

,4


t

children use them and act upon them in their everyday life. Each artefact or tool was produced for a particular purpose and therefore it has a particular

function, which is not necessarily evident in its outward appearaoce. Quite often, even for adults from another culture, the meaning (functions, way of using) of a wide range of artefacts is not obvious. Similarly children cannot fully understand the meaning of cultural artefacts on their own and they need the assistance of adults or more capable peers.

Take, for example, a child learning the meaning of such a simple artefact as a spoon. When it is first seen a spoon is not presented in the child's mind as

a 'tool for eating'. The look of the spoon does not indicate how it is to be used. So when the child first sees the spoon the concept for the 'spoon' in its meaning is not present in his or her mind. There are a few stages, which the child needs

to go through to develop this concept. The first stage is when the mother feeds

a child with a spoon and keeps naming it 'spoon'. The child then needs to use the artefact together with somebody in a shared activity and finally the child needs to practise using the spoon by herself, using the word. Within this process of practice there is a stage in which the child is playing at 'feeding the doll' with the spoon itself. The next stage occurs when the child uses a little stick

or pencil or some other substitution of the spoon to feed the doll and calls it

'spoon'. In playing with it, the child learns the abstract meaning of the concept 'spoon' or its symbolic function. Children's symbolic play contributes to this process, which will be addressed later in this chapter. Learning the abstract, symbolic meanings of words lays the foundation for a child's abstract thinking development.

Acquisition of mental tools plays a crucial role in children's learning. 'The role of the teacher is to "arm children" with these involves enabling the child to use tools independently and creatively' (Bodrova & Leong, 1996, p.3). Children acquire cultural tools in social interactions with more experienced members of the society. Moving from shared use of tools (interpersonal) to their individual appropriation (intrapersonal) is associated with gaining independence and a shift in the development of the child.

Social mediation: Co-constructed development Vygotsky claimed that development cannot be understood independently of its social context or social interactions with other people. Children's relationships with the people who surround them, such as parents and grandparents, teachers, neighbours, peers, siblings and so on, are crucial for their development. 'According to Vygotsky, social interaction --in particular, cooperative dialogues between children and more knowledgeable members of society--is necessary

socio-cultural view:Vygotsky 5 1

for children to acquire the ways of thinking and behaviour that make up a community's culture' (Wertsch & Tulviste, 1992, cited in Berk, 2003, p.26).

It is important to remember, however, that children are not passive recipients of social influences by being simply immersed in social context. On the contrary, children actively influence their social surroundings and interact with them. For example, the same parents would treat their quiet newborn

who is easy to deal with differently from a baby who is teary and anxious in temperament. Thus, it is the child-parent interactions which affect a child's development, not just the parental style. As children grow older, they become increasingly aware of their own agency and therefore more capable of taking responsibility in relationships. For example, a young boy of four might not be as capable of consciously influencing his relationship with his parents as would a teenage boy of 14. As a result, the appropriate parental strategy would be to allow children more independence and responsibility in the relationship with parents as they grow.

A child's cognitive development is embedded in, and influenced by social interactions from the very beginnings of a child's life. This is demonstrated in the following example of the development of pointing in infancy (Vygotsky, 1978). A pointing (indicatory) gesture, which is an important step in further language development, is not a natural reflex but is a cognitive competency which is social in its origins.

Initially, the pointing gesture is nothing more than an unsuccessful attempt to grasp something, a movement aimed at a certain object placed beyond his reach; his hands stretched towards that object, remain poised in the air. His fingers make grasping movements. At this initial stage pointing is represented by the child's movement, which seem to be pointing to an object--that and nothing more.

When the mother comes to the child's aid and realises his movement

indicated something, the situation changes child's unsuccessful attempt engenders a reaction not from the object he seeks but from another person. Consequently, the primary meaning of that unsuccessful grasping movement is established by this juncture there occurs the change in that movement's function: from an object-oriented movement it becomes a movement aimed at another person (Vygotsky, 1978, p.56).

Thus, the meaning of the gesture has been acquired in the process of interaction with the adult. From then on, the child uses the pointing gesture to communicate with the mother in order to get objects or, later on, in asking for the names of the objects and so on.

,!

PartA~Views or~.learning

Another example deals with the acquisition of language and the role of social interaction in it. Vygotsky claimed that language is social in its origin. Language first appears in communication and for communication. We can see the 'pure communicative function' of language in the example of how a mother and child carry on a dialogue. The mother approaches her five-month-old baby and asks: 'What would we like to have today--apple or grape juice?' The child babbles in reply and the mother says: 'Okay. We want the apple juice, don't we?' And then she goes to get the juice. So we can see that the baby is involved in the communication in the form of dialogue without being able to properly use language. This indicates that language exists first in its communicative function between two people in its external form. Following this, the dialogue becomes one of the main forms of our thinking. In other words, the external function, which appeared in social interactions, transforms into the personal, internal cognitive ability of the child.

The process of such transformation is called'internalisation' and is regarded

by Vygotsky as a main principle of psychological development. Thus, Vygotsky formulated a new vision of the developmental path of a child's cognition which was opposite to that of Piaget: 'The true direction of the development of thinking is not from the individual to the social, but from the social to individual' (Vygotsky, 1986, p.36).

Social mediation of learning in the classroom means that the teacher doesn't simply give children instructions but she mediates children's learning in the classroom and acts as facilitator and co-constructor of children's knowledge and understanding. For example, in teaching reading:

the teacher does not simply pass text meaning on to the student Instead, she mediates the student's learning through social

interaction. Teacher mediation is more than instructing, modelling or demonstrating how to do something. While the teacher is interacting with the student, she continuously analyses how the student thinks and what strategies they use to solve problems and construct meaning. From this analysis, the teacher decides how much and what type of support to provide (Dixon-Krauss, 1996, p.20).

The development of higher cognitive processes

The argument that human mental functions are social in their origins was one of the major theoretical advances of Vygotsky's approach to cognitive development. He used the concept of the mediation of elementary mental functions by psychological tools to explain the means by which the development


of the human mind is socially and culturally determined. He also used the idea of social and cultural mediation to explain how the specific properties of the

higher order mental processes (unique to the human species) could arise on the foundation of the lower, elementary mental functions, common to both higher animals and human beings.

To explain the relationship between the elementary mental functions possessed by newborn infants and the higher-order thinking processes of adults, Vygotsky distinguished between lower and higher cognitive psychological functions (Vygotsky, 1978, 1981). The 'lower mental functions' are elementary cognitive processes which infants possess at birth. Humans share them

with animals; they are innate and depend primarily on maturation for their development.They include sensations (any of the five senses), reactive attention, spontaneous memory and sensorimotor intelligence. The child doesn't have control over these cognitive processes; on the contrary, they are controlled by external stimuli (objects and/or events). For example, all children are born with the ability of reactive, spontaneous attention; that is they attend spontaneously to a loud noise or a bright object. However, they are not yet able to deliberately concentrate their attention for a particular purpose.

The 'higher mental functions' are qualitatively different from natural mental processes; they don't develop as direct continuations of the corresponding lower mental functions. Psychological tools (such as language) transform the lower mental processes into a new type of psychological functioning, acquired through learning and teaching. The higher mental functions include mediated perception, voluntary selective attention, deliberate memory and logical and abstract thinking. Vygotsky (1978) describes the difference between the lower cognitive processes of direct spontaneous perception and the higher forms of mediated attention as follows:

A special feature of human perception--which arises at a very young

age--is the perception of real I do not see the world simply in colour and shape but also as a world with sense and meaning. I do not merely see something round and black with two handles, I see a all human perceptions consist of categorised rather than

isolated perception (Vygotsky, 1978, p.33).

Thus, Vygotsky saw higher forms of human perception as mediated by the signs and the language of the culture.

Compared to lower mental functions, the higher mental functions are deliberate and are used for a purpose. For example, the pointing gesture that was examined above is the basis for self-direction of attention (the forming of deliberate attention). A mother points to a toy and says, 'Teddy-bear'. The child

.il


points to the toy and names it. When children learn how to point and name an

object they are able to direct their attention to it. Later the pointing gesture becomes reduced and the name is not spoken aloud. This example illustrates

that the higher mental functions are formed in social interaction and in joint

everyday activities with other people. Firstly higher-order selective attention

is distributed between the child and the mother when they are exploring toys, and later on it transforms into an individual, intrapersonal process used by the

child independently. Every function in the child's cultural development appears twice: first, on the social level, and later, on the individual level; first, between people

(interpsychological) and then inside the child (intrapsychological). This applies equally to voluntary attention, to logical memory and to the formation of concepts [language development]. All the higher [unctions originate as actual relations between human individuals (Vygotsky,

1978, p.57). This process of transformation of mental functions from an interpersonal level

into an intrapersonal is called internalisation as was mentioned earlier when

discussing the social origins of language. As children internalise the social and cultural mediation techniques of

human activities, their ability to control their mental processes increases and

they gain the ability to self-regulate. For example, a little girl comes into the room and, looking at a vase on the coffee table, says, 'Do not touch! Daddy[' and she does not touch it. Obviously her father had told her before not to touch

the vase. In this example, the girl uses the father's words to regulate her own

behaviour. This illustrates that children master their own behaviour through

appropriating the language of those around them.

Language and the development of cognition Language has been given a special place in Vygotsky's theory. It is regarded

as a universal cultural tool or artefact, which plays a crucial role in human development. Language is considered to be the central factor in the development and functioning of all higher-order cognitive processes, including

abstract thinking and self-regulation. It transforms the way that children perceive the world, remember events and solve problems. It enables children

to master and regulate their own behaviour, learning how to plan, organise and control their activities. In addition, language is a vital tool for social interaction,

communication and interpersonal influence. At the end of infancy it takes


communication between child and adult to a new level that qualitatively changes the path of children's cognitive and socio-emotional development.

Vygotsky's view on the role of language in child development is evident in his debate with Piaget on the origins and functions of egocentric speech. His understanding of language as central to the development of cognition is also conceptualised in his discussion of the interrelation between language and thought. It is through his original concepts of private and inner speech, verbal thinking and internalisation, that Vygotsky demonstrates the ways that language affects the developmental path of human thought.

Egocentric/private speech: Vygotsky versus Piaget In his writing, Vygotsky often referred to the publications of contemporary European and American scholars (late 1920s-early 1930s) as he was fluent in a number of languages and could read the originals. He was familiar with the early work of Piaget and acknowledged his enormous contribution to the theory of child development, viz a child is not a miniature adult and his mind not the mind of an adult on a small scale' (Rousseau, cited in Vygotsky, 1986, p. 13). Vygotsky valued Piaget's great ability to observe and gather experimental support for his theoretical claims. He acknowledged that Piaget was thc first to pay attention to and interpret the phenomenon of egocentric speech, a highly distinctive characteristic of the young child's mind.

What is egocentric speech? As we indicated in the previous chapter, everyone has observed small children talking aloud to themselves, or carrying on a sort of dialogue with each other that does not make much sense. This form of speech disappears by the beginning of school. Piaget believed that egocentric speech reflected the egocentric position of the pre-operational mind, for example, the self-focused level of young children's thinking and their inability to take into account the perspective of another person. At the end of pre-operational stage,

when children decentre and grow out of their egocentrism, egocentric speech

fades away and becomes substituted by social speech (Piaget, 1959). Thus, Piaget viewed the development of language as dependent on the cognitive development of children. Such a point of view assumes that egocentric speech is of no significance for children's behaviour and cognitive development and therefore does not bear any educational value. In other words, the best way to

treat children's egocentric speech is to ignore it and wait until it disappears.

Social origins of language Vygotsky disagreed with the Piagetian interpretation of the phenomenon of egocentric speech (Vygotsky, 1986). Arguing against the overall understanding of the child's mind as initially egocentric, he pointed out that in the theory of


Piaget, 'social factors are shown as an external force that enters the child's mind and dislodges the forms of thinking inherent in the child's intelligence' (Vygotsky, On the contrary, Vygotsky suggested that the development of speech is social from the very beginning of the child's life. He saw the initial function of language as that of communication and claimed that language starts its development in social interactions. Well before children can actually talk, they become engaged in social dialogue with their parents and/or caregivers in which all the child's vocalisations are interpreted as social, communicative acts. Social interactions do not just influence the development of language but form and shape it from the start. Language appears first as a social tool for communication; only later does egocentric speech branch off and children start

to use speech not only for communication but also for their own private needs of thinking, self-direction and self-control (Vygotsky, 1986).

To demonstrate that egocentric speech is social in its origins, Vygotsky conducted a number of experiments. He observed children engaged in what

Piaget called 'collective monologue'. As described in the previous chapter, Piaget explained the egocentric nature of collective monologue through children's inability to take into account the position of the listener and therefore to see that their speech cannot be understood. In his experiments Vygotsky aimed to eliminate children's illusion of being understood by placing them in a group

of deaf and mute or foreign children. He found out that in such a situation the amount of children's egocentric speech or talk to themselves drops almost to zero! In another experiment Vygotsky arranged a noise outside the room so that the children could not hear each other. Again, the amount of egocentric speech significantly decreased. He also noticed that children talk to themselves significantly less when being excluded from the group (Vygotsky, 1986, pp.233-234). Thus children's egocentric speech was found to be sensitive to the social situation: children still used egocentric speech for its initial function:

communication. However, subjectively, children do not yet distinguish between speech for others and speech for themselves. These findings demonstrated that children's collective monologue is not only egocentric but social in nature as well.

The two functions of speech

'Egocentric speech emerges when the child transfers social, collaborative forms of behaviour to the sphere of inner-personal psychic functions' (Vygotsky, 1986, p.35). In other words, the emergence of egocentric speech heralds a differentiation between the two functions of speech: for communication; and


for thinking and self-regulation. This occurs at approximately two years of age when children become relatively confident users of language.

Vygotsky and his colleagues conducted a number of experiments which support this point of view. They demonstrated that the amount of egocentric speech increases when the task gets more difficult for the child. They described a child drawing a picture for which he needed a blue pencil that was taken away from him to make the task harder. The egocentric speech of the child

increased. He said, 'Where is the pencil? I need a blue pencil! Never mind,

I'll draw with the red one and wet it with water; it will become dark and look

like blue' (Vygotsky, 1986, p.30). In this example, the child used egocentric speech to help him to solve the problem. Often this is true for adults, too. For example, when they have something difficult to do and, especially if they are tired, they talk, often quite loudly, to themselves. If you ask why they talk to themselves, they explain that it helps them to organise their behaviour and their own thinking better. Can you think of some situations in which you spoke aloud to yourself?

Another experiment dealt with a child solving a problem. It confirmed Vygotsky's view that egocentric speech is not just a reflection of an egocentric position of the children's mind but an important part of their problem solving. A 4-year-old girl was asked to get a chocolate from a cupboard. She could use

a stool and a stick, which were in the room. The girl climbed onto the stool and

tried to reach the chocolate saying to the experimenter, 'On the stool'. She couldn't reach it. 'I can get it from another stool.' She got another stool and

stood on it. 'No, that does not get it. I can use the stick and get it.' She got the stick and knocked at the chocolate. 'It moves now! I've got it, with the stick!'

(Vygotsky, 1978, p.25). In this example, the girl's talk was a significant part of solving the problem. She used her egocentric speech not only to describe what she was doing, but also to direct herself and to plan what to do next; that is, she was thinking aloud. The interesting fact is that if the girl was asked not to talk, she would continue to do so and if we insisted on her not talking, she would not be able to continue solving the problem.

The above experiments support Vygotsky's view that children use egocentric speech for self-guidance and problem solving. 'Children solve practical tasks with the help of their speech, as well as their eyes and hands' (Vygotsky, 1978, p.26). They do it aloud because their ability to think 'inside their mind' is not as yet formed.

Since Vygotsky's discovery of the self-regulatory function of egocentric speech, researchers have carried out numerous studies, which support and

further develop this view Kohlberg, Yaeger & Hjertholm, 1968, cited


in Cole & Cole, 2001). Now most contemporary psychologists agree with Vygotsky's explanation of the nature and development of egocentric speech and so children's speech to themselves is called 'private speech' to highlight the individual purposes of its use as opposed to social or public speech, which

is used for communication and exchange of meanings (Berk, 2003).

Language and thought:The phenomenon of inner speech

The emergence of private speech is a landmark in the relationship between language and thought. During the first two years of life, language and thought develop relatively independently. With the appearance of private speech, language and thought start to merge and influence each other, which fundamentally changes the nature of both thinking and speech: language becomes intellectualised and thinking becomes verbal (Vygotsky, 1986).

When children grow older, their egocentric speech does not disappear but 'goes underground' and becomes internalised and transformed into what Vygotsky called 'inner speech'. Egocentric speech serves as a transitory link from social, vocalised speech for others into silent inner speech for self, which

lays the foundation for the development of logical and verbal thinking.

Vygotsky described the process of transformation of egocentric/private speech into inner speech by pointing out the similarities in their structure. He discovered that private speech gradually transforms into a form less and less understandable for others. From loud pronunciation it transforms into

whispering and then into silent speech. It also becomes reduced in grammar and articulation. This means that it increasingly becomes a speech for self. The structure of egocentric/private speech is very close to that of inner speech, which is characterised by a decrease in vocalisation, an abbreviation and reduction of

grammar and it is idiomatic and subjective. Inner speech serves us as a tool for logical thinking, self-direction and self-control (Vygotsky, 1986). If you try to observe the process of your own thinking, you can always notice some fragments of speech. Further, you can often notice that you carry on a sort of inner dialogue with yourself, or your friends, parents and so on.

Vygotsky's point of view on the role of language in a child's development has important implications for teaching. Firstly and most importantly, it highlights the critical role of language for learning and development. There are many ways to enrich children's use of language in the classroom. While children are completing a task, it is important to encourage them to 'think aloud' (talking while thinking), which enables the teacher to check their understanding of the concepts and strategies they are learning. This also enables children to better reflect on their own problem solving and helps them to regulate their thinking


when necessary. Adults could encourage children to speak aloud by asking questions and making remarks which connect to the task, such as, 'What are you going to do next?' or 'Good work! How did you do that?' A variety of group tasks can be a good way to encourage children's use of language in their learning.

.~

The Zone of Proximal Development

The great importance that Vygotsky placed on the role of social interaction in children's learning and development is best expressed in his widely known concept of the 'zone of proximal or potential development' (ZPD). It deals with the quality of child-adult interaction in what Vygotsky called 'good learning' and refers to the distance between what children can accomplish independently and what they can achieve when interacting with more competent others (Vygotsky, 1978, 1986).

Initially the concept of the ZPD was elaborated in connection with psychological testing in schools (Vygotsky, 1986). However, it is its concern with the quality of teacher intervention and successful teaching instruction which accounts for its great popularity among educational researchers and practitioners.

Learning and development Both Piaget and Vygotsky agree that, 'learning should be matched in some manner with the child's developmental level' (Vygotsky, 1978, p.85). For example, current notions of developmentally appropriate practices (Bredekamp & Copple, 1997; Haughland, 2003) reflect this point of view. However, there are different approaches to how learning can match children's development.

Vygotsky argued that, traditionally, school learning measured the level of mental development of the child, making them solve certain standardised problems. The problems they were able to solve by themselves were supposed to indicate the level of their mental development at the time (Vygotsky, 1986, p,187). Such testing is familiar to everyone who has experienced formal schooling and sat their exams.

Vygotsky stated that testing should be based not only on the current level of a child's achievements but also (and mainly) on the child's potential development. The actual level of development (level of independent performance) does not sufficiently describe development. Rather, it indicates what is already developed or achieved; it is a 'yesterday of development'. Teaching based on such testing will be oriented to the 'yesterday' of a child's development and lag behind it. The level of assisted performance indicates what a person can achieve in the


near future, what is developing (potential level, 'tomorrow of development', what a person 'can be') (Vygotsky, 1978).

The zone of proximal development is defined as the 'distance between the actual developmental level as determined by independent problem solving, and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers' (Vygotsky, 1978, p.86). The term proximal (nearby) indicates that the assistance provided goes just slightly beyond the learner's current competence, complementing and building on existing abilities (Cole & Cole, 2001, p.207). Testing which looks to the future of children's learning but not to its past should be aiming at capturing the characteristics of the ZPD.

Teaching/learning in the ZPD Learning in the ZPD refers to performing a range of tasks that the child cannot yet handle alone but can accomplish with the help of adults or more knowledgeable peers. In the ZPD, children and adults or more capable partners engage in cooperative dialogues in which teaching and learning merge in a single integral process of joint performance. Such an inextricable connection between teaching and learning makes great sense for a Russian-speaking person such as Vygotsky as the verbs 'teach' and 'learn' are translated into Russian as one word: 'uchit'. Children take the language they use in this cooperative dialogue and make it part of their private speech, then use this speech to organise

their independent performance in the same way. They acquire the methods of collaborative performance and use them in their independent performance later.

Learning in the ZPD awakens a variety of internal developmental processes that are able to operate only when the child is interacting with more experienced people.These processes happen externally, between two minds, and as already mentioned are called 'inter-mental' processes. The process when the adult and the child come to a shared understanding is called by contemporary psychologists 'intersubjectivity' (Wertsch, 1985, 1998). Intersubjectivity is an essential step in the process of internalisation as the adult gradually removes the assistance and transfers responsibility to the child. Diaz and colleagues (1992) point out the importance of intersubjectivity in promoting self-regulated development in children.

When inter-mental processes become internalised and turn into a part of

the child's independent achievement, they become 'intra-mental' (within one mind). Thus children acquire socially constructed knowledge and use it as their own.

socio-cultural view:Vygotsky 6 1

The quality of adult-child interaction and the ZPD

The notion of the ZPD was not elaborated by Vygotsky in much detail. There 'remain a number of questions about how the concept should be understood'

(Wells, 1999, p.314). Paris and Cross (1988, cited in Miller, 1993) pointed to the metaphorical nature of the term and noted some ambiguities in the concept. In the last three decades there have been a number of significant publications which further developed theoretical understanding of the ZPD in its connection to instruction (see, for example, Chaiklin, 2003; Hedegaard, 1992; Tharp & Gallimore, 1988; Tudge, 1992; Wells, 1999; Wertsch, 1985). The researchers agree that it is the emphasis on the quality of adult-child interaction which makes Vygotsky's ZPD so unique and valuable for understanding successful educational instruction.

The idea of teaching in the ZPD should be understood in the context of the theory as a whole. 'In fact, failure to see the connections between the zone and the theory as a whole, means that it is difficult to differentiate Vygotsky's concept from any instructional technique that systematically leads children, with the help of an adult, through a number of steps in the process of learning some set of skills' (Tudge, 1992, p.156). Furthermore, there is a danger that a failure to understand the complexity of Vygotskian theory as a whole can lead to interpretation of the zone of proximal development as a domination over a child's initiative and active position as a learner. An illustration of this failure is

a recently published criticism of the Vygotskian notion of the zone of proximal

development by Lambert and Claydon (2000).These authors, takingVygotskian definitions of the zone Of proximal development out of the context of the main assumptions of Vygotsky's theory (such as social and cultural mediation of psychological development) state, 'We Vygotsky's ZPD presents a restricted view of learning processes and reduces the learner's role to one of passivity and dependence upon the adult' (Lambert & Claydon, 2000, p.29).

The main aspiration of teaching in the ZPD is to see students being actively engaged in their learning with the future prospect of becoming self-directed, lifelong learners. In the ZPD, the teacher doesn't influence children directly, but through shaping and fashioning their social environment. The way that an adult interacts with the child is essential to supporting children as active, self-regulated learners (Diaz, Neal & Amaya-Williams, 1992). 'Within the ZPD the child is not a mere passive recipient of the adult teaching, nor is the adult simply a model of expert, successful behaviour. Instead, the adult-child dyad engages in joint problem-solving activity, where both share knowledge and responsibility for the task' (Wells, 1999, p.140). Further, the 'teacher's role is to


provide the path to independence--a goal of all educators' (Bodrova & Leong, 1996, p.3),

Thus, teaching in the ZPD is a kind of finely tuned adult support and indirect mediation of children's learning and understanding. The example below illustrates the way that the teacher works with a group of children in

their zone of proximal development (adapted from Tharp & Gallimore, 1988):

At a reading lesson, the teacher reads a story to a group of young children. In the story, Freddie has proudly shown his new frog to Mr Mayer. Mr Mayer says that he just might take Freddie's new frog fishing. None of the children understand the double meaning of Mr Mayer's remark, and they are missing both the grisly joke and Freddie's revulsion.

The teacher didn't want to explain the story to the children but

indirectly led them to an understanding of its meaning:

Teacher

Don

Mel Teacher

Group Teacher

Group Bill

Teacher

Alice

What did Mr Mayer say he would do with the frog?

He would take Water them fishing

Do frogs like fishing? No yes no-o-o!

Why don't they like fishing?

Frogs don't like water don't like flies don't like fish They use for bait.

If you use it for bait, what do you have to do with the

frog? Put it on a hook In the above example the teacher worked with the children in their zone of

proximal development: the children were not able to grasp the meaning of the

story on their own but they figured it out as a group under the guidance of the teacher. The teacher didn't directly explain the story to the children but led them to understanding its meaning indirectly, using questioning and reinforcing correct guesses in a subtle manner. Also note that the teacher didn't comment

on the incorrect answers to avoid suppressing children's initiative.

To understand the complexity of teaching in the ZPD, it is necessary to take into account such concepts as cultural and social mediation of learning, internalisation, intersubjectivity and the active position of the child. When we talk about teaching in the zone of proximal development, we look at the way that a child's performance is mediated socially, that is, the quality of adult-child


interaction. This includes the means by which the educator meets the level of the child's understanding and leads the child to a higher, culturally mediated level of development. This connects to the idea of tool mediation, that is, to a consideration of what cultural tools have been provided for the child to

appropriate and use in their own independent performance. It also includes a consideration of the conditions that have been created for the tools to be

internalised; in other words, what techniques have been used to ensure the transformation of assisted performance into independent performance.

In the example in the introduction to this chapter, Ann was asking children a prediction question,'Do you think the Duck will come back?' What cultural tools

does this question provide? Obviously, the question modelled the technique of prediction.The next question that arises in this case is whether intersubjectivity between the child and Ann has been achieved. Has Ann, in fact, considered the

child's initial understanding of the story? Before scaffolding the child's reading, did she find out what they thought about a possible continuation of the story? Perhaps not.

The role of make believe play in learning and

development

The crucial role of play in children's development has been well documented in developmental psychology. Theories of play have identified many ways in which children's play may advance their cognitive, social and emotional development. While freely engaging in play, children acquire the foundations of self-reflection and abstract thinking, develop complex communication and recta-communication skills, learn to manage their emotions and explore the

roles and rules of functioning in adult society.

Vygotsky (1977, 1978) made a unique contribution to understanding child's play by drawing attention to its overarching role in child development and viewing it as the most significant activity of the early childhood years (Bodrova & Leong, 1998; Leontiev, 1981). He claimed that play creates a broad zone of proximal development advancing the child's cognitive and socio-emotional development.

As mentioned in the previous chapter, Piaget's study of play focused on children's cognition (Piaget, 1962). He placed play within his stage-based theory of cognitive development and assigned it a significant role in the growing of children's minds. The make-believe play during the pre-operational stage is seen as a result of newly acquired symbolic schemes. Play contributes to children's cognitive development through the processes of assimilation and

,I


accommodation. The main role of make-believe play in child development for Piaget is an exercising of the schemes where assimilation predominates over accommodation and, therefore, the influence of play on the child's cognitive development is limited by the structure and the content of the schemes. Piaget outlined the im~rtance of play in the development of children's mental representation and abstract thinking. This idea was further developed in socio- cultural theories of play (Leontiev 1981; Vygotsky 1978).

Vygotsky (1977, 1978) viewed play as highly significant to development. 'Play contains in a concentrated form, as in the focus of a magnifying glass, all developmental tendencies' (Vygotsky, 1978, p.74). Vygotskians view play as the most influential, 'leading' activity of the early childhood years (Bodrova & Leong, 1996; Leontiev, 1981; Nikolopolou, 1993; Vygotsky, 1977). This means that the most significant psychological achievements of early childhood occur while children engage in play.

Make-believe play is an action and/or interaction in an imaginary situation, which contains a set of roles and rules and the symbolic use of objects. According to Vygotsky, it influences development in many ways, the two main directions being: firstly, play creates a broad zone of proximal development, both in cognitive and socio-emotional development; and secondly, it facilitates the development of symbolic function through separation of thoughts from actions and objects.

Play and the Zone of Proximal Development

According to Vygotsky (1978), play creates a broad zone of proximal development, both in cognitive and socio-emotional development. In make- believe play children perform above their existing cognitive abilities--logical thinking, memory and attention. Their ability for deliberate behaviour and self- regulation in make-believe play is also beyond their everyday performance. 'In play a child always behaves beyond his average age, above his daily behaviour; in play it is as though he was a head taller than himself' (Vygotsky, 1978, p.102).

How does play create the ZPD? Acting in an imaginary situation, children have to follow certain rules implied by the situation of pretend, 'not rules that are formulated in but ones that stem from an imaginary situation. If the child is playing the role of the mother, then she has rules of maternal behaviour' (Vygotsky, 1978, p.95). Thus, in play children's behaviour is dominated by voluntarily-accepted rules whereas in real life most children's behaviour is not driven by rules and when it is, the rules that children have to follow are set by adults. By voluntarily following the rules of the behaviour appropriate to the role, children do not act as they please but exercise deliberate


behaviour which enhances their abilities of self-regulation and self-control. For example, a colleague of Vygotsky described a game of 'sentry' when the child who PlaYed a role of sentry kept the same quiet position for more than an hour just because he had received the order from the 'commanding officer' in the game (Leontiev, 1973). In an everyday situation a 5-year-old child would hardly keep quiet and still for a few minutes!

In play, children's cognitive abilities are above those of their everyday performances. For example, it was discovered that a child could remember a

lot more items in a shopping list in a game called 'grocery store' than in an experimental situation. The study of Dias and Harris (1990, cited in Cole & Cole, 2003, p.362) supported Vygotsky's point of view that participating in make-believe play creates a ZPD which enhances children's logical thinking. They presented to 4- to 6-year-olds the following logical problem: 'All fishes live in the trees. Tot is a fish. Does Tot live in water?' Usually children do not solve such problems until they are considerably older--in fact, according to Piaget, not until they reach adolescence. They were unable to solve it in the first part of this experiment either.

In the second part of the experiment the problem was put into the context of

play by experimenters saying in a sort of dramatic playful voice, 'Let's pretend that I am from another planet and fishes live in trees over there.' In this make-

believe context children were much more successful in giving logically correct answers, performing a great deal above their previous performance.

The development of mental representations and symbolic function One of the most important and powerful impacts of play on children's cognition is the development of mental representations and symbolic function which lay the foundation for the development of children's abstract thinking. The 'pretend' situation Of play creates an imaginative dimension in which children

use substitutions of things and acts. Separation of the meaning from the object promotes the development of abstract ideas and abstract, verbal thinking. In actions like riding a broomstick as if it were a horse, children separate the literal meaning of the object from its imagined meaning; this, argued Vygotsky, marks the beginnings of abstract thought (Vygotsky, 1978).

For example, children use a little stick instead of a spoon and a big stick as a horse for 'riding', or some blocks for a car. They could transform a room into a kingdom by saying, 'Let's pretend we are in the Palace' and then they could destroy it in a minute by just saying, 'It's destroyed'. So children's actions and thoughts become separated from an actual, visual situation. In play, children

.14

) ~ii

PartA--Views on learning

do not act in accordance with what they perceive but in accordance with what they think. This promotes the development of mental representations of the objects and actions in children's minds. 'Thus, through play the child achieves a functional definition of the concept or object, and words become parts of a

thing' (Vygotsky, 1978, p.99). In an advanced form of play, children deal with imagined objects without any physical symbolic substitution of them 'Let's pretend I am dressed in a white shiny dress'). They use symbolic actions as well; for example, 'Let's pretend it's destroyed', or 'Let's pretend the inspector arrived'.

Playing out the roles of real people or fictional characters that they observe, children acquire and internalise the rules and norms of functioning in society. Undertaking the role of a doctor, mother or salesperson in a grocery store, they follow the rules of behaviour appropriate for the role. Children were found

to be sensitive to following the rules correctly. They demand that each other behaves as a 'proper' doctor or teacher. When they do not agree on a rule they check it with adults. Vygotsky's student, Fradkina, observed children who, under the impression of vaccination, played 'doctors and nurses' giving vaccinations to their 'patients'. In doing so, they did exactly what a real doctor of that time in Russia would do: wiped the skin of the arm 'with antiseptic', made a 'scratch' and rubbed in 'the vaccine' (Leontiev, 1981, pp.372-373). The observer asked the child who was 'the doctor' if he would like to have real antiseptic spirit to clean the patient's skin before the vaccination. The child was delighted with the suggestion. The experimenter said that she needed to go to the laboratory to bring the spirit, so she suggested the child do the vaccination first and then, when she brought the spirit, clean the skin afterwards. The child vehemently rejected the suggestion and explained that it would not be right and a real doctor would never do that. For the child it was important to follow the 'real' rules which were learnt from a real-life situation.

To Vygotsky, the child's strict adherence to the rules in the above example indicated an important role of play in children's development: the acquisition and internalisation of real roles and rules of functioning in adult society (Leontiev, 1981). It appears that children are not able to acquire the rules without playing them out. This is evident in a remarkable example of two sisters, aged five and

seven, who said to each other, 'Let's play sisters' (Vygotsky, 1978, p.94). In real life, the girls behaved as sisters without conscious thought of what sisterhood actually meant; however, when playing 'sisters' they were highly concerned to follow the rules of sisterhood: they dressed alike, talked alike and walked holding hands. Thus, they had to play out the imaginary roles of sisters (which they already played in real life!) to be able to appropriate the rules of sisterly behaviour.


.I

,!

Children's play and learning When working with young children it is important to keep in mind the significance of play for their development. Sufficient time and space should be provided for children to engage in play. It is important to be serious about play and support the situation of pretend to sustain children's motivation. Supplying children with toys and props which can be used in multiple ways

big pieces of colourful cloth, blocks, etc.) will support the development of children's imagination and ability to think abstractly (Bodrova & Leong, 1996). Encouraging children to play out situations from real life, books or movies will assist them in appropriating the ways of operation in adult society.

As children grow older, spontaneous pretend play occupies less and less of their time; however, it does not disappear but becomes more sophisticated and 'goes underground' in the form of imagination and fantasy (Leontiev, 1981; Singer & Singer, 1990, cited in Cole & Cole, 2001). In recent years, computer pretend play attracts audiences of different ages and has proved to have a great potential for learning. For example, simulation software such as SimCity has been successfully used to organise a unit of work in an economics course in a high school (Rieber, 1998).

Pretend play can be used to assist children's learning in primary school and the early years of high school. For example, a role play can be organised to enhance children's learning of history. A variety of role play such as grocery shop can be used to create a cross-curriculum unit of work. Leontiev (1981) described a successful polar epic adventure play, based on a dramatic historical event of Soviet polar exploration in the 1930s, which was enthusiastically run by teachers in a high school. The play was organised in such a way that it enabled the students to explore the social relationships and social hierarchy of the people involved, such as the rules of behaviour of the captain, the chief engineer and

the radio operator, as well as the moral and emotional implications involved.

Current perspectives

Contemporary researchers and practitioners have found the socio-cultural theory of Vygotsky fruitful in advancing and refining their understanding of teaching and learning.While many Vygotskian ideas have been further explored and developed, it is the concept of the ZPD which has provided the foundation for a number of newly emerging socio-cultural perspectives, some of which are outlined below.


Scaffolding As the quality of teaching has become a focus for educational researchers and practitioners A Commonwealth Government Quality Teacher Initiative, 2000), the metaphor of scaffolding is becoming increasingly popular among educators (Daniels, 2001; Hammond, 2002; Wells, 1999). In recent years, a large number of educators and researchers have used the concept of scaffolding as a metaphor to describe and explain the role of adults or more knowledgeable peers. in guiding children's learning and development (D aniels, 2001; Hammond, 2002; Stone, 1998; Wells, 1999). Teachers find the metaphor appealing as it 'resonates with their own intuitive conceptions of what it means to intervene successfully in students' learning' (Mercer, 1994, cited in Hammond, 2002, p.2).

The term 'scaffolding', although never used by Vygotsky, was introduced by Wood, Bruner and Ross (1976) in an attempt to operationalise the concept of teaching in the zone of proximal development (Wells, 1999). In a wide sense it refers to 'a form of support for the development and learning of children and young people' (Rasmussen, 2001, p.570). A more comprehensive definition is provided by Berk and Winsler (1995), who describe scaffolding as:

a changing quality of support over a teaching session, in which a more skilled partner adjusts the assistance he or she provides to fit the child's current level of performance. More support is offered when a task is

new; less is provided as the child's competence increases, therefore

fostering the child's autonomy and independent mastery (Berk & Winsler, 1995, p.171).

Obviously, not any kind of adult support can be regarded as scaffolding. Mercer and Fisher (1993, cited in Wells, 1999) view the ZPD characteristic of transfer of responsibility for the task to the student as the major goal of scaffolding in teaching. In order to qualify as scaffolding, they propose, a teaching and learning event should: a) enable the learners to carry out the task which they would not have been able to manage on their own; b) be intended to bring the learner to a state of competence which will enable them eventually to complete such a task on their own; and c) be followed by evidence of the learners having achieved some greater level of independent competence as a result of the scaffolding experience (Wells, 1999, p.221). To ensure that the independent performance has been internalised it is helpful to allow students to progress through the following sequence of stages: the performance is assisted by more capable others (coaches, experts, teachers); the performance begins to internalise with less dependence on external assistance and finally the emergence of talking aloud (self-assistance) indicates the performance is developed and automated (Tharp & Gallimore 1988, p.35).

pasn aq ol paau X~alg21s g ~u!lsa~ns/o ~(~olgug ~u!p!AO!d '~utlu!q '~u!uo!lsanb sg qans l~oddns jo sonb!uqaal laa.qpu! '.pa~g!noaua pug p/loads/! aq plnoqs aA!lg!I!U! s,pi!qa aq! '.UO!lgA!IOtu a!SU!!lU!

gmgg:moaua ,(q pa!:mddns aq uta >ISel aql u! lUamaAIOAU! aA!lag S,pl!qa aq! '.(£1!A!laa.fqns~alu! ~o gu!puelsaapun ignmtu ~u!qs!lq~lsa) luno3at olu! Ua~lel aq ol spaau >ISe! aql jo ~u!puels:mpun If3!1!u! s, pl!tta aq! :a.n3 alou ol slu!od amos "/hpopd ~ s! uo!lae!alu! jo,{l!l~nb aq! a-lOtla~'Jou~aI aql pu~ ~oqa~al oq! uaa~laq uo!l~2oqel.lOa as!s~qdtua o! lu~12odtu! s! 1! '~u!ploJjgas jo asns~tu ~3 p!oa~30~L

"pal:mddns

pug poolsaapun aq uga '.tald~3qa s!ql jo ~u!uu!~aq aql le aldtutxa !no tIl !atlOl3al ~u!s!A:~adns aq! 'u~o!~ s1~ Xq passa/dxa uaaauoa aql 'asia e tlans uI "uo!lanalsu! laa/!p q~noJql ~u!qatal Jo £g,~ IgUO!l!pl3J1 'ut!la~g!d-a!d ~ o! ~lagq s/olganpa a~tgl lq~!tu '~u!qaeal tuoo!sstla ol pa!Idd~ J! '~u!ploJj~as jo a~a~a s!q& "a/n!~u u! pap!s-auo pug uaa!!p-!inp~ !qlu~u!tuopaM sg tuoo~ssglo aql u! uo!lae!alu! pi!qa-llnpt aql ~mt~a~,~ o! pea[ uta ~u!plojj~as jo ~oqdelatu aql 'sp!oA~ .mqlo Ul "(617E'd 'g661 'auols) ,luapnls atll uo aanlanals t jo uo!!!sodtu! aq!, u! llnsa! plnoa 'sIaqaga! aA!!!SUaSU! JO spugq aql U!/~Iit!aadsa '/oqdt!atu ~u!ploJj~as art1 o1 aauo.~aqpg ue ie~al!l ool leq! uiaauoa art1 passaadxa (866I 'auo!s u! pal!a 't'861) aI-~gaS Xq ,{pnls ~ 'oaotuaaq!/nd "uo!lg!lo~au pu~ uo!leaoq~3llOa aau~eal -/aqagal sas!s~qdtua qa!q~ (IdZ aql jo uo!lou aql ol pa/gdtuoa 'ssaao/d

uo!lga!untutuoa Xg~-auo ~ st aauetuaoj/ad ~u!qaea! sa/nldga ~u!plojjgas (g00g 's[a!ue(I u! pal!a '[66I) !a~UaA~ pug aA~q ol gu!p~oaag 'aldtu~xa /od "([00g 'auols £q pas!aetutuns s~3) asns~tu sl! lsu!tge ui~3,~ put (IdZ 0ql jo uo!lou oql ol pa:mdtuoa pal!m!i se ~u!plojj~33s jo !oqdtlatu atll /as s~oqlng atuos ltql pu!tu u! daa:,I o! lugl!odtu! s! 1! '~u!qata! 1noX u! Su!plojj~as ~msn uaqA~

"(~00g "|e la asne~>I '.g00g 'pmtu~O :'g 11!Aa(lalAI '.6661 '~leqane3I :'g ua~t ~g00g slxal aql u! pas!s~qdtua uaaq seq 1~ql ~u!plo~j~as jo a!nlgaj uotutuoa t aq ol stuaas saaa~d alqgaggu~tu olu! lualuoa ~Uplea~[ "(666I '~Itqant>I :~ ua~I) ~u!uo!lsanb pug saldtutxa gu!p!AoM pug (g00g 'PO!tuaO @ 11!Aa(IalAI) pasnaoj uo!luallg ~u!daa~l :sau!Iap!n$ ~u!p!AoM :sdals :mldtu!s olu! ~IStl e ~u!p!i!p '.UO!1g!lSUOtuOp :apnlau! qa!q~a 'palsa$$ns uaaq aa~q sanb!uqoal tuoo!ssela otj!oads jo !aqtunu V "~u!p[ojjtas o! aaua!aja2 u! s~oltonpa aa~A!aS -aM !oj slxal aq! u! passnas!p uaaq aA~q 1!oddns llnpe jo stu!oj sno!agA

69 ,~lSlOa,{A:,~o!a io~mln>opos oq/


'dynamic assessment' was elaborated on the basis of the ZPD by Feuerstein and colleagues (1980) as an alternative to the traditional measurement (the static

assessment) of current performance: for example, a university examination, when the students arc asked to answer questions successfully without further detailed feedback and/or intervention. The results of static assessment might be unfair as the performance during such tests may be depressed for a variety

of reasons stress, tiredness) and does not estimate the learning capability of a person.

Dynamic assessment is aimed at the process of change and co-constructing

of knowledge and skill through collaboration with instructors or more capable peers (Kirschenbaum, 1998; Roth, 1992). It concerns the level of potential learning of a student and looks into the conditions of improving current

performance. Table 3.1 provides a comparison of static and dynamic kinds of

assessment based on their aims, structure and the level of tested performance

(adapted from Sternberg & Grigorenko, 2002).

Table 3. I : Comparison of static and dynamic assessment

Aim

Tested level

Structure

To test current performance

Achieved

One step

To test potential performance

and find the ways to improve

current performance

Potential

Three steps

Compared to traditional assessment, dynamic testing is based on a sequence of

two tests with an intervention in the middle (Sternberg & Grigorenko, 2002). It includes three steps: 1) pre-test (independent performance); 2) intervention

(in-depth instruction in the ZPD and practice); and, 3) post-test (aims at finding what techniques were helpful). Simply put, dynamic testing can be described

as a 'test-teach-test' paradigm. It is aimed at the child's ZPD and doesn't focus on what one is but what one can become; it is not about what has developed, but what is developing. It deals with the assessment of the maturing cognitive functions by setting up a collaborative effort between a child and others to

provide a basis for estimating the discrepancy between what the learner can do

independently and what they can do with the help of others.


The advantages of dynamic assessment are in its flexibility and dynamic nature. It allows teachers to undertake an individual approach to performance

improvement, but does not necessarily need to be administered individually. It can be conducted in a formal, standardised manner, but classroom teachers

may use it informally in order to compare learning curves of their students on specific tasks. In addition, different aspects of student performance may be

measured. For example, the teacher can examine the number of trials or time

that students need to complete the task correctly and the quality or correctness of their answers (Kirschenbaum, 1998, p.142).

Reciprocal teaching Reciprocal teaching is another application of Vygotsky's notion of the zone of proximal development. It was designed to improve the reading comprehension skills of primary or junior high school children who were able to decode words adequately but had problems in making overall meaning of the text. In the procedure of reciprocal teaching, a teacher and a small group of two to four students discuss a text passage in order to determine its meaning (Palincsar & Brown, 1984, cited in Cole & Cole, 2001). The members of the group flexibly apply four cognitive strategies: questioning, summarising, clarifying and predicting, and take turns leading a discussion. The leader can be a teacher or a skilled peer. The stages of reciprocal teaching are as follows:

• Reading: members of the group silently read the passage.

• Questioning: the leader asks members of the group questions about the main idea.

• Summarising: the leader summar{ses the content of the passage in his or her own words.

• Clarifying: the group members discuss the points which remain unclear.

• Predicting: the leader asks for prediction of what will come next in the text.

The strategies of reciprocal teaching involve talking about and arguing over the meaning of the text. The children are able to observe and be a part of these discussions where they practise different strategies of making meaning; for example, pointing to relevant words in the paragraph, asking questions about words and making connections between the parts of the text. This allows children to participate in the act of reading for meaning even before they have acquired the full set of abilities that independent reading requires (Cole & Cole, 2001).


Research indicates that reciprocal teaching if used regularly can be highly effective. As demonstrated in a review by Rosenshine and Meister (1994, cited in Krause et al., 2003), children who had been engaged in reciprocal teaching achieved significantly higher reading-comprehension scores than those who had not. The technique of reciprocal teaching can be used not only as a reading lesson but also in various curricular areas such as science or social studies as a

way to learn the course material (Brown, 1997, cited in Cole & Cole, 2001).

Post-Vygotskian studies

Apart from the socio-cultural perspectives described above there are numerous concepts and approaches which are associated with Vygotsky's theory and which perhaps could be called 'post-Vygotskian studies' (Daniels, 2001, p.69). Because of their shared background they have much in common; in their attempt to investigate the development of cognition in social, cultural and historical context they interrelate and complement each other's ideas. Among such newly emerged concepts are Barbara Rogoff's (1990) concepts of 'cognitive apprenticeship' and 'guided participation' based on the idea of the ZPD. They involve collaboration and shared understanding in everyday problem-solving activities. Adults or more skilled peers assist children in their development by guiding their participation in relevant activities, helping them to adapt their understanding to a new situation and structuring their problem- solving attempts (Rogoff, 1990, p.191).

Another influential approach is known as 'situated cognition' (Lave & Wenger, 1991, cited in Daniels, 2001) which views learning as engaging in problem solving in the course of participation in ongoing everyday activities. It is concerned with learning within communities of practice shared purpose and understanding) in real life situations.

The importance of learning in the community and the home is highlighted in the concept of the 'household's funds of knowledge' (Moll & Greenberg, 1992). This approach aims at establishing cultural connections between what teachers and students do in classrooms and what students experience in the

community. It focuses on the household's social histories, methods of thinking and learning and practical skills related to the community's everyday life in order to provide teachers with the knowledge of the culture and history of the students they are teaching.

The concept of'distributed cognition' (Hatchins, 1995,cited in Daniels, 2001) looks at the phenomenon of cognition as being extended beyond the individual. The information is processed between the individuals and the tools and artefacts

provided by the culture; therefore the individual's abilities and achievements


cannot be understood outside of the connections to the society and culture in which they are immersed (Salomon, 1993, cited in Daniels, 2001).

Educational implications

Vygotsky's socio-cultural theory provides numerous insights into children's learning and development. Throughout the text of this chapter we have referred to a variety of ways in which the theory can be applied to the classroom. We summarise the main points below,

• To successfully assist children's learning it is important to ensure that they work in their ZPD. The assignments should not be too easy or too hard. Set challenging tasks which are slightly above the level of children's independent performance and provide enough support to enable them to complete the task.

• Ensure that your assistance is subtle and indirect and that it doesn't

impose ready-made knowledge and structures on the child. Provide indirect guidance and support.

• Scaffold children's learning by demonstrating, questioning, hinting, providing examples, dividing a task into simpler steps, giving guidelines and assisting children's self-regulated learning.

• Allow children to take an active position in their learning: provide hands-on learning activities, and make tasks interesting and appealing to the child (encourage intrinsic motivation).

• Listen to children, observe them in different contexts to better

understand their interests, abilities and background knowledge. Use this information to assist children's further development when planning your scaffolding.

• Make group learning a part of your everyday classroom practice. Provide collaborative tasks which require group work. Have

children work in small groups of different abilities, so they scaffold each other's learning, thus working in their ZPD.

• Encourage children's talk while working on their tasks by asking them questions or making them report on the strategies they employ to complete the task. Teach them to guide themselves while completing the task, making plans and checklists. Encourage them to talk themselves through the steps of task completion.

• Organise small group discussions to ensure that each child has a chance to talk. Direct and guide the group discussions to lead

,?


children's co-construction of their knowledge reciprocal teaching).

Keep in close contact with families of the children that you teach; take an interest in their life style, customs and family activities. Draw upon the 'household's funds of knowledge' to bridge the gap between the community, home and school contexts.

Make sure that you use a variety of authentic activities and real life problem solving in your teaching to keep it 'situated' in the social and cultural context.

Use make-believe play in your teaching to encourage the development of children's imagination. Design group projects that allow children to play out imaginary situations. Work together with children to develop the rules and roles of the play.

Why not I. Compare the views of Vygotsky and Piaget on the role of social

interactions in children's learning. Create a concept map that illustrates the similarities and differences in these two approaches.

2. Think of the ways that you can learn about the community and

home learning experiences of the students in your classroom. How might you use these 'household's funds of knowledge' in designing the lessons in your classroom?

3. Think about your own learning in this course or in your work or your hobbies.What aspects of the situation are you able to

perform on your own? What parts are you unable to accomplish?

What forms of assistance help you to do better? What does this tell you about your own ZPD in different contexts?

4. Investigate one of the contemporary approaches dynamic assessment) based on Vygotsky's ideas and write a report on how effective you think the approach would be.

5. Do we ever stop learning from play? In a small group, ~'eflect on your individual childhood play experiences and discuss whether play has a role in your adult life.

Documents

UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND ELECTRONIC RESERVE ... - Yolahayleyreideportfolio.yolasite.com/resources/vygotskyreading.pdf · The socio-cultural view: Vygotsky Introduction Ann, ... 2003;