Teaching and Learning – EDU00221

Essay Topic: Evaluate the usefulness of Vygotsky’s theory in the secondary classroom.
In your answer, consider issues that may be associated with the theory’s application.

Sometimes it takes just an idea, perhaps one that we feel we could have thought ourselves, it
seems so obvious. Ideas can solidify our understanding or put into focus what it is we are
trying to achieve. Vygotsky’s theory of learning and the instructional models he left us are
like those kinds of ideas. By conceptualising a way of seeing learning and teaching as a
holistic endeavor or as in the case of Marxist rationale and parlance, the social-historical-
dialectic imperative of human culture, Vygotsky makes possible a vision of education that
embraces both the inner and outer forces at play when we are engaged in learning.

Judging the success or relevance of an idea within practical settings (i.e. secondary
classrooms) comes down to the way it deals with the perceived issues that stand in contrast to
its process’s and or that challenge its effectiveness as a way of teaching. Vygotsky himself
contrasted his theories with those of Piaget in his writing so will we consider his ideas in
connection with them most and briefly those from a contemporary view that critique the
practice of Vygotsky’s ideas in today’s schooling.

For someone who died so early in their life, Lev Semenovich Vygotsky (1896 – 1934) left a
prodigious amount of writing (Woolfolk, 2004). Born in Russia and from Jewish heritage, life
at that time in Russian history was tumultuous and in some ways Vygotsky’s life and death
mirrors the political, intellectual and social revolutions that took place. John Reed (1920) cited
in Moll (1994) states that “there was no heating during all of winter. People died of cold in
their rooms.” The Vygotsky family suffered from hunger and tuberculosis (Moll, 1994) and
the disease was the cause of Lev Vygotsky’s short life. By all accounts a brilliant scholar and
exceptionally bright, Vygotsky had many diverse interests, yet it was predominantly through
the discipline of psychology that he formulated his theories on learning and pedagogy.

Having read the writings of Piaget, Gesell, and others, Vygotsky used their studies and
theories on children’s learning to develop and compare his own thinking and writing.

In Vygotsky’s view, spontaneous development is important, but it is not all-

important, as Piaget believed. If children’s minds were simply the products of
their own discoveries and inventions, their minds wouldn’t advance very far. In
reality, children benefit enormously from the knowledge and conceptual tools
handed down to them by their cultures (Crain, 1994, p. 211).

1
Linton Chapman – 21751266
 Teaching and Learning – EDU00221

“The child,” Vygotsky said, “learns the social forms of behaviour and applies them to
himself” (1931a, p. 40 cited in Crain, 1992). Piaget in contrast saw development as a
biological function and occurring in defined stages (Snowman & Biehler, 2006). Competency
in a prior stage was a pre-requisite to advancing to the next. The child was seen by Piaget as
being the sole constructor and arbiter of her knowledge and experience (Piaget, 1958 cited in
Powell & Kalina). Pedagogical instruction itself was for Piaget an unnecessary imposition as
an individual only grasps what they are ready or capable of and will, given the right
environment construe knowledge (schemes) for their own meaning (equilibration) and use
(adaptation).

Often seen as opposite sides of the constructivist coin, Piaget on one side with a cognitive
approach or individual constructivist ideal and Vygotsky somewhat shackled as the ‘other’
view of constructivism i.e. the social aspect of knowledge construction. However for Liu &
Matthews (2005) this scholastic reductionism of learning ideas has lead to an epistemological
relativism of both theories and for them a misrepresentation of Vygotsky’s philosophical
orientation and theoretical intent. Vygotsky saw his study and research as a way to build a
new paradigm* in understanding how and why we learn. In the formation of a new Russia,
Vygotsky was a part of a cultural imperative for a new consciousness in understanding and the
purpose of knowledge. Much like Kandinsky’s isosceles triangle in his Concerning the
Spiritual in Art (2001), Vygotsky saw learning as a social dialectic propelling us ever forward.

Woolfolk (2004) points out knowledge of Vygotsky’s work is relatively new in the Western
world, yet for the past 30 years the (re)discovery of his work has had a major influence on the
way we view teaching and learning in the classroom. Vygotsky saw the explicit teaching of
metacognition through the instruction of scientific concepts or knowing about knowing by
understanding the structure of concepts we use to know. In the case of students learning it is
seen as an extension or elaboration on his deeper belief of humans’ cultural acquisition of
psychological tools. Cain (1992) notes,

Vygotsky was deeply impressed by Engels writing on tool-use, and he attempted to

extend Engel’s insights. Just as people have developed tools to master the environment,
Vygotsky proposed, they also have created “psychological tools” to master their own
behavior.

This also connected Vygotsky’s extension and revision of Piaget’s study of young children’s
self-talk. For Vygotsky a child’s self talk was a cognitive process of learning and lead to his

2
Linton Chapman – 21751266
 Teaching and Learning – EDU00221

conceptualization of inner speech. Vygotsky called the various psychological tools that people
use to aid their thinking and behavior signs, and he argued that we cannot understand human
thinking without examining the signs that cultures provide. Vygotsky’s proposal was that
children first learn these tools in their social interactions with others; then they apply them to
their own, individual thinking (Crain, 1992, p. 217). As Ivic (2000) points out,

All this goes to show that Vygotsky attached the greatest importance to the content of
educational curricula but placed the emphasis on the structural and instrumental aspects of
that content, the significance of which was mentioned in our analysis of the implications
of McLuhan’s phrase ‘the medium is the message’.

The Quality Teaching in NSW Public Schools, Discussion Paper (2003), creates expectations
of teachers to incorporate learning of concepts within the learning of content. This is a
influence from Vygotsky as teaching of scientific concepts forms the core of Vygotsky’s
learning theory (for higher cognitive states) and as mentioned earlier this is also connected to
Vygotsky’s idea of metacognition. Wells (1994) in a conference on the issue states,

Scientific concepts also differ from everyday concepts in the manner in which they are
acquired. Unlike everyday concepts, which Vygotsky suggests are appropriated
spontaneously by the child through the social interaction that occurs in the course of
engagement in jointly undertaken activities in his or her immediate community, scientific
concepts can only be acquired as a result of deliberate and systematic instruction in an
educational setting.

Vygotsky argues scientific concepts have four features which the former lack: generality,
systemic organization, conscious awareness and voluntary control. Vygotsky felt that
instruction in scientific concepts is very helpful because it provides children with broader
frameworks in which to place their spontaneous concepts. For example, writing, Vygotsky
said, “brings awareness to speech” (1934, p. 183).
The other major aspect of Vygotsky’s theoretical application is his zone of proximal
development (ZPD). This is Vygotsky’s formulation for the most appropriate application of
pedagogical outcomes. He defined the zone as,

‘the distance between actual development 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’ (1935, p. 86)

Vygotsky’s ZPD makes explicit both his theory of learning as well as the types of
instructional designs that might effectively engage students learning, such as scaffolding and
assisted learning through the More Knowledgeable Other (MKO) The MKO is not necessarily

3
Linton Chapman – 21751266
 Teaching and Learning – EDU00221

the teacher and can be a peer, book, or increasingly computer technology, anything that can
scaffold the steps in achieving a level of proficiency in a given area. As social interaction
plays the fundamental role in the process of cognitive development (in contrast to Piaget’s
understanding of child development, in which development precedes learning), Vygotsky felt
social learning precedes development (Learning Theories Knowledgebase, 2010). Crain lists
encouraging findings that support the benefit of ZPD teaching (Brown & Ferrara, 1985). The
concept has also stimulated new interest in the teaching process itself – in what happens when
adults help children solve problems that they cannot solve by themselves (Rogoff et al., 1984;
Griffin & Cole, 1984; Valsiner, 1984).

Vygotsky’s sought to make this function explicit in his writings and felt strongly about its
implementation as a teaching consciousness. In comparison to developmentalists like Piaget,
Montessori etc who avoided instructional designs, Vygotsky was of the opinion that
consciousness and deliberate control are “the principle contributions of the school years”
(1934, p. 186). Vygotsky’s theories of learning seem to be most adaptable to the secondary
classroom. Within the consideration of various commentators like Piaget and his stage of
formal operations, Erikson’s identity versus role confusion for early adolescence to young
adulthood and others as described in Woolfolk (2004) one would get the picture that also
given Vygotsky’s importance on the acquisition of speech that secondary schooling is the
perfect place for the practical application of his theories. So called tricky educational
situations in catering for learners with diverse needs is possible through the ZPD and assisted
learning by MKO.

A Teaching Model based on Vygotsky

Student Responsibility-
Adult-Then Joint-Responsibility-> Self-Responsibility
>
Zone of Actual Development Zone of Proximal Development

What the student Assistance provided Transition Assistance Internalisation,

can do on her by more capable from other provided by automatisation
own unassisted others: teacher or assistance to the self
peer or environment: self-
classroom structures

4
Linton Chapman – 21751266
 Teaching and Learning – EDU00221

and activities assistance

SOCIAL
SPEECH
INNER SPEECH
•Adult uses
The student's silent,
language to
abbreviated dialogue that
    model process    
she carries on with self
• Adult and
that is the essence of
student share
conscious mental activity
language and
activity

PRIVATE SPEECH
student uses for
herself language that
           
adults use to regulate
behaviour (self-
control)

Private speech
internalised and
            transformed to inner
verbal thought (self-
regulation)

Adapted from Strategic Reading: Guiding Students to Lifelong Literacy by Jeffrey Wilhelm, Tanya Baker,
and Julie Dube. Copyright © 2001 by Jeffrey Wilhem, Tanya Baker, and Julie Dube. Published by
Heinemann, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc., New Hampshire, USA.

The debate still rages somewhat over the cognitive versus the social aspect of knowledge
construction. Liu & Matthews (2004) ascribe most of that to the inherent dualism or Cartesian
logic that most western thinking adopts. They posit Vygotsky’s thinking outside that dichotic
debate, they argue that, ‘the polarisation of Piaget and Vygotsky along the individual and
social is at least in part due to the dualist thought that lies implicit within so much of
constructivist writing’, They state that without proper consideration of the philosophical
orientation of Vygotsky, namely, ‘the development of intellect and rationality beyond
situations is the central aim of education’ (Liu &Matthews, 2004), that criticisms are skewed
from lack understanding of what Vygotsky was on about. Objections on its one-sidedness,
epistemological relativity and Brave New World ideology might be better seen as misguided
appeals if we account for their incorrect application of his ideas.

5
Linton Chapman – 21751266
 Teaching and Learning – EDU00221

Though this still does raise concern about continued and ongoing misappropriation of
Vygotsky’s idea’s and practices. Such as starting the very young on, ‘the 3R’s and conceptual
and analytical reasoning’ (Crain, 1992) that appear to forgo a young child’s natural
development in less formal learning and play. However this particular objection possibly
states a case for Vygotskian practices in secondary classroom where they are at least ready for
a socio-cultural-historical dialectic. Equally problematic is the possibility it’s being
overstated as the only theory of knowledge. As Phillips (2020) comments this is just a plain
‘Bad’ outcome and hopefully the balance between fanaticism and relativism can be
negotiated.

Perhaps the most pertinent critique of Vygotsky’s application to secondary classrooms comes
from the reality that it is the responsibility and ability of teachers themselves and the
institution that they work in to be motivated and capable in delivering best practice. Creating
expectations of this in practice in any universal way is asking too much, but it doesn’t stop
good teachers and communities from embracing educational modes that can best suit their
classroom.

The object of learning is to become aware of one’s learning in any given situation, not to
know everything about the situation itself. Again Liu & Matthews (2004) extrapolate that,
‘For Vygotsky, consciousness is not the ability of an individual to know all the ontological
answers to the universe, rather, it is the ability to perceive meaningfully.

(1668 words not including block quotes)

*A paradigm is a general hypothesis about ‘the truth’, but not the complete truth as such. In passing, it is of relevance that Russel (1998)
distinguishes two levels of truth – intentional and extensional truth; and Kant differentiates knowledge of the a priori and the a posteriori
natures. Paradigms are comparable to intentional truth and a priori knowledge, which cannot be objectively or empirically asserted, only
individually represented and internally experienced (Liu & Matthews, 2004).

Reference
Brown, A. L. & Ferrara, R. (1985). Diagnosing zones of proximal development. In Wertsch, J. (Ed.). Culture,
Communication, and Cognition: Vygotskian Perspectives. New York: Cambridge University Press. In Crain, W. (1992).
Theories of development: concepts and applications 3rd Edition. New Jersey: Prentice Hall Inc.

Crain, W. (1992). Theories of development: concepts and applications 3 rd Edition. New Jersey: Prentice Hall Inc.

Griffin, P. & Cole, M. (1984). Current activity for the future: The Zo-ped. In Rogoff, B., & Wertsch, J. (Eds.) Children’s
Learning in the “Zone of Proximal Development”. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. In Crain, W. (1992). Theories of
development: concepts and applications 3rd Edition. New Jersey: Prentice Hall Inc.

6
Linton Chapman – 21751266
 Teaching and Learning – EDU00221

Kandinsky, W. Sadler, M. T. (Translator) Adrian Glew (Editor)(2001). Concerning the Spiritual in Art. New York: MFA
Publications and London: Tate Publishing.

Kozulin, A. (1990). Vygotsky's psychology: A biography of ideas. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. In Powell, K.
C., & Kalina, C. J. (2010). Cognitive and Social Constructivism: Developing Tools for an Effective Classroom. Florida
Atlantic University Education Vol. 130 No. 2.

Learning Theories Knowledgebase (2010, May). at Learning-Theories.com. Retrieved May 9th, 2010 from
http://www.learning-theories.com

Lui, C. H. & Matthews, R. (2005). International Education Journal, 6(3), 386-399. Shannon Research Press. Website last
accessed, May 6, 2010. http://ehlt.flinders.edu.au/education/iej/articles/v6n3/liu/paper.pdf

Moll, L. C. (Ed)(1992). Vygotsky and education : instructional implications and applications of socio-historical psychology.
Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.

New South Wales Department of Education and Training (2003). Quality Teaching in NSW Public Schools, A Discussion
Paper. Sydney: New South Wales Department of Education and Training. Last Assessed May 17, 2010,
https://www.det.nsw.edu.au/proflearn/docs/pdf/qt_EPSColor.pdf

Phillips. R, (1995). The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: The Many Faces of Constructivism, EDUCATIONAL RESEARCHER.
Vol. 24: pp. 5-12.

Piaget, J. (1953). The origins of intelligence in children. New York, NY: Basic Books. In Powell, K. C., & Kalina, C. J.
(2010). Cognitive and Social Constructivism: Developing Tools for an Effective Classroom. Florida Atlantic University
Education Vol. 130 No. 2. pp.?

Reed, J. (1919). Ten Days that Shook the World (1st ed.). Penguin Classics. In Moll, L. C. (Ed)(1992). Vygotsky and
education : instructional implications and applications of socio-historical psychology. Cambridge : Cambridge University
Press.

Rogoff, B., Malkin, C., & Gilbride, K. (1984). Interaction with babies as guidance and development. In Rogoff, B., &
Wertsch, J. (Eds.) Children’s Learning in the “Zone of Proximal Development”. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. In Crain, W.
(1992). Theories of development: concepts and applications 3 rd Edition. New Jersey: Prentice Hall Inc.

Snowman, J. &Biehler, R (2006). Psychology Applied to Teaching, 11th Edition. Boston MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Wells, G (1994). Learning and Teaching “Scientific Concepts”: Vygotsky’s Ideas Revisited.” Vygotsky and the Human
Sciences,” Moscow, Sept.1994, Conference. Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.
Last Accessed May 17, 2010, http://people.ucsc.edu/~gwells/Files/Papers_Folder/ScientificConcepts.pdf

UNESCO: International Bureau of Education (2000). Prospects:the quarterly review of comparative education
vol. XXIV, no. 3/4, 1994, p. 471–485. Paris, UNESCO: International Bureau of Education, Last accessed May 17, 2010.
http://www.ibe.unesco.org/publications/ThinkersPdf/vygotske.pdf

Valsiner, J. (1984). Construction of the zone of proximal development in adult-child joint action: The socialization of meals.
In Rogoff, B., & Wertsch, J. (Eds.) Children’s Learning in the “Zone of Proximal Development”. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass. In Crain, W. (1992). Theories of development: concepts and applications 3 rd Edition. New Jersey: Prentice Hall Inc.

Wilhelm, J., Baker, T., & Dube, J. (2001). Adapted from Strategic Reading: Guiding Students to Lifelong Literacy. Published
by Heinemann, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc., New Hampshire, USA. Last accessed 9 th of May, 2010.
http://www.myread.org/scaffolding.htm

Vygotsky, L. S. (1934). Thought and Language, trans. Eugenia Hanfmann and Gertrude Vokar (1962). Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press. In Crain, W. (1992). Theories of development: concepts and applications 3 rd Edition. New Jersey: Prentice Hall Inc.

______(1931a). Development of higher mental functions. In Psychological Research in the U.S.S.R . Moscow: Progress
Publishers, 1966. In Crain, W. (1992). Theories of development: concepts and applications 3 rd Edition. New Jersey: Prentice
Hall Inc.

7
Linton Chapman – 21751266
 Teaching and Learning – EDU00221

_____(1935). Mental development of children and the process of learning (M. LopezMorillas, trans.). In M. Cole, V. John-
Steiner, S. Scribner, and E. Souberman (Eds.) L. S. Vygotsky: Mind in Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,
1978, chs. 7-8. In Crain, W. (1992). Theories of development: concepts and applications 3 rd Edition. New Jersey: Prentice
Hall Inc.

Woolfolk, A. (2004). Educational Psychology, 9th edn., Boston: Pearson, Allyn & Bacon.

8
Linton Chapman – 21751266