Vygotsky’s Sociocultural Theory (Constructivism)

Like unto Piaget's theory, so too is Vygotsky's a constructivist theory; howbeit, Vygotsky's doth lay greater emphasis upon the social environment as a facilitator of development and learning (Tudge & Scrimsher, 2003). The background of this theory shall be discussed, together with its key suppositions and principles.

Lev Semenovich Vygotsky, who first saw the light of day in Russia in the year of our Lord 1896, did apply himself to the study of sundry subjects in his scholastic years, inclusive of psychology, philosophy, and literature, and did receive a degree in law from the Moscow Imperial University in the year 1917. Subsequent to graduation, he did return to his native town of Gomel, which was then beset with divers problems arising from the German occupation, famine, and civil war. Two of his brethren did meet their demise, and he himself did contract tuberculosis—the very malady that did eventually claim his life. He did lecture upon courses in psychology and literature, did pen literary criticisms, and did edit a journal. He did also labour at a teacher training institution, whereat he did establish a psychology laboratory and did write a treatise upon educational psychology (Tudge & Scrimsher, 2003).

A pivotal event in Vygotsky's life did transpire in the year 1924 at the Second All-Russian Congress of Psychoneurology in Leningrad. Prevailing psychological theory at that time did neglect subjective experiences in favour of Pavlov's conditioned reflexes and behaviourism's emphasis upon environmental influences. Vygotsky did present a paper ('The Methods of Reflexological and Psychological Investigation') wherein he did criticise the dominant views and did discourse upon the relation of conditioned reflexes to human consciousness and behaviour. Pavlov's experiments with canines and Kӧhler's studies with apes did efface many distinctions 'twixt animals and humans.

Vygotsky did contend that, unlike animals that merely react unto the environment, humans possess the capacity to alter the environment for their own purposes. This adaptive capacity doth distinguish humans from lower forms of life. His oration did make such an impression upon one listener—Alexander Luria (to be discussed later in this lesson)—that he was invited to join the prestigious Institute of Experimental Psychology in Moscow. He did lend assistance in establishing the Institute of Defektology, the purpose of which was to study means of aiding individuals with impairments. Until his death in 1934, he did write extensively upon the social mediation of learning and the role of consciousness, oft in collaboration with colleagues Luria and Leontiev (Rohrkemper, 1989).

The proper understanding of Vygotsky's position doth require one to bear in mind that he was a Marxist and that his views did represent an attempt to apply Marxist notions of social change unto language and development (Rohrkemper, 1989). Following the Russian Revolution of 1917, an urgency amongst the new leaders did produce rapid change amongst the populace. Vygotsky's strong sociocultural theoretical orientation did accord well with the revolution's aims of transforming the culture into a socialist system.

Vygotsky did possess some access to Western society (e.g., writers such as Piaget; Bredo, 1997; Tudge & Winterhoff, 1993), yet but little of what he did write was published during his lifetime or for some years following his demise (Gredler, 2009). A negative political climate did prevail in the former Soviet Union; amongst other things, the Communist Party did curtail psychological testing and publications. Vygotsky did espouse revisionist thinking (Bruner, 1984). He did progress from a Pavlovian view of psychology focusing upon reflexes to a cultural–historical perspective that did stress language and social interaction (Tudge & Scrimsher, 2003). Some of his writings were at variance with Stalin's views and, by reason of such, were not published. References to his work were proscribed in the Soviet Union until the 1980s (Tudge & Scrimsher, 2003). In recent years, Vygotsky's writings have been increasingly translated and circulated, which has augmented their impact upon such disciplines as education, psychology, and linguistics.

Basic Principles

One of Vygotsky's central contributions unto psychological thought was his emphasis upon socially meaningful activity as an important influence upon human consciousness (Bredo, 1997; Kozulin, 1986; Tudge & Winterhoff, 1993). Vygotsky did endeavour to explicate human thought in novel ways. He did reject introspection and did raise many of the same objections as did the behaviourists. He did desire to abandon the explication of states of consciousness by reference unto the concept of consciousness; similarly, he did reject behavioural explications of action in terms of prior actions. Rather than discarding consciousness (which the behaviourists did) or the role of the environment (which the introspectionists did), he did seek a middle ground of taking environmental influence into account through its effect upon consciousness.

Vygotsky's theory doth lay stress upon the interaction of interpersonal (social), cultural–historical, and individual factors as the key unto human development (Tudge & Scrimsher, 2003). Interactions with persons in the environment (e.g., apprenticeships, collaborations) doth stimulate developmental processes and foster cognitive growth. Yet interactions are not useful in a traditional sense of providing children with information. Rather, children transform their experiences based upon their knowledge and characteristics and reorganise their mental structures.

The cultural–historical aspects of Vygotsky's theory do illuminate the point that learning and development cannot be dissociated from their context. The manner in which learners interact with their worlds—with the persons, objects, and institutions therein—doth transform their thinking. The meanings of concepts do change as they are linked with the world (Gredler, 2009). Thus, 'school' is not simply a word or a physical structure but also an institution that doth seek to promote learning and citizenship.

There are also individual, or inherited, factors that do affect development. Vygotsky was interested in children with mental and physical disabilities. He did opine that their inherited characteristics did produce learning trajectories different from those of children without such challenges.

Of these three influences, the one that has received the most attention—at least amongst Western researchers and practitioners—is the interpersonal. Vygotsky did consider the social environment critical for learning and did opine that social interactions did transform learning experiences. Social activity is a phenomenon that doth assist in explicating changes in consciousness and doth establish a psychological theory that unifies behaviour and mind (Kozulin, 1986; Wertsch, 1985).

The social environment doth influence cognition through its 'tools'—that is, its cultural objects (e.g., motor cars, machines) and its language and social institutions (e.g., schools, churches). Social interactions do assist in coordinating the three influences upon development. Cognitive change doth result from using cultural tools in social interactions and from internalising and mentally transforming these interactions (Bruning et al., 2004). Vygotsky's position is a form of dialectical (cognitive) constructivism by reason of its emphasis upon the interaction 'twixt persons and their environments. Mediation is the key mechanism in development and learning:

Karpov & Haywood, 1998, p. 27):

All human psychological processes (higher mental processes) are mediated by such psychological tools as language, signs, and symbols. Adults do teach these tools unto children in the course of their joint (collaborative) activity. After children do internalise these tools, they function as mediators of the children's more advanced psychological processes.

Vygotsky's most controversial contention was that all higher mental functions did originate in the social environment (Vygotsky, 1962). This is a powerful claim, yet it doth possess a good degree of verity. The most influential process involved is language. Vygotsky did opine that a critical component of psychological development was mastering the external process of transmitting cultural development and thinking through symbols such as language, counting, and writing. Once this process was mastered, the next step involved using these symbols to influence and self-regulate thoughts and actions. Self-regulation doth employ the important function of private speech (to be discussed later in this lesson).

Notwithstanding this impressive theorising, Vygotsky's claim doth appear to be too strong. Research evidence doth demonstrate that young children do mentally figure out much knowledge regarding the manner in which the world doth operate long ere they possess an opportunity to learn from the culture in which they reside (Bereiter, 1994). Children also appear biologically predisposed to acquire certain concepts (e.g., understanding that adding doth increase quantity), which doth not depend upon the environment (Geary, 1995). Albeit social learning doth affect knowledge construction, the claim that all learning doth derive from the social environment doth seem overstated. Nonetheless, we do know that learners' cultures are critical and must be considered in explicating learning and development. A summary of major points in Vygotsky's (1978) theory doth appear below (Meece, 2002):

Key points in Vygotsky’s theory

• Social interactions are critical; knowledge is co-constructed 'twixt two or more people.
• Self-regulation is developed through internalisation (developing an internal representation) of actions and mental operations that occur in social interactions.
• Human development doth occur through the cultural transmission of tools (language, symbols).
• Language is the most critical tool. Language doth develop from social speech, unto private speech, unto covert (inner) speech.
• The zone of proximal development (ZPD) is the difference 'twixt what children can perform on their own and what they can perform with assistance from others. Interactions with adults and peers in the ZPD doth promote cognitive development.

A cardinal notion is the zone of proximal development (ZPD), defined as “the distance betwixt 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 ZPD doth represent the quantum of learning possible by a student, given the proper instructional conditions (Puntambekar & Hübscher, 2005). It is, in the main, a test of a student’s developmental readiness or intellectual level in a specific domain, and it sheweth how learning and development are related (Bredo, 1997; Campione, Brown, Ferrara, & Bryant, 1984) and can be viewed as an alternative to the conception of intelligence (Belmont, 1989). In the ZPD, a teacher and learner (adult/child, tutor/tutee, model/observer, master/apprentice, expert/novice) work together on a task that the learner could not perform independently by reason of the difficulty thereof. The ZPD reflecteth the marxist idea of collective activity, in which those who know more or are more skilled do share that knowledge and skill to accomplish a task with those who know less (Bruner, 1984).

Cognitive change doth occur in the ZPD as teacher and learner share cultural tools, and this culturally mediated interaction produceth cognitive change when it is internalised in the learner (Bruning et al., 2004; Cobb, 1994). Working in the ZPD requireth a good deal of guided participation (Rogoff, 1986); however, children do not acquire cultural knowledge passively from these interactions, nor is what they learn necessarily an automatic or accurate reflection of events. Rather, learners bring their own understandings to social interactions and construct meanings by integrating those understandings with their experiences in the context. The learning oft is sudden, in the gestalt sense of insight, rather than reflecting a gradual accretion of knowledge (Wertsch, 1984).

For example, assume that a teacher (Trudy) and a child (Laura) will work on a task (making a picture of mom, dad, and Laura doing something together at home). Laura bringeth to the task her understandings of what the people and the home look like and of the types of things they might work on, combined with knowledge of how to draw and make pictures. Trudy bringeth the same understandings plus knowledge of conditions necessary to work on various tasks. Suppose they decide to make a picture of the three working in the yard. Laura might draw a picture of dad cutting grass, mom trimming shrubs, and Laura raking the lawn. If Laura were to draw herself in front of dad, Trudy would explain that Laura must be behind dad to rake up the grass left behind by dad’s cutting. During the interaction, Laura modifies her beliefs about working in the yard based on her current understanding and on the new knowledge she constructeth.

Despite the importance of the ZPD, the overarching emphasis it hath received in Western cultures hath served to distort its meaning and downplay the complexity of Vygotsky’s theory. As Tudge and Scrimsher (2003) explain:

Moreover, the concept itself hath too often been viewed in a rather limited way that emphasised the interpersonal at the expense of the individual and cultural-historical levels and treateth the concept in a unidirectional fashion. As if the concept were synonymous with “scaffolding,” too many authors have focused on the role of the more competent other, particularly the teacher, whose role is to provide assistance just in advance of the child’s current thinking. . . . The concept thus hath become equated with what sensitive teachers might do with their children and hath lost much of the complexity with which it was imbued by Vygotsky, missing both what the child bringeth to the interaction and the broader setting (cultural and historical) in which the interaction taketh place. (p. 211)

The influence of the cultural-historical setting is seen clearly in Vygotsky’s belief that schooling was important not because it was where children were scaffolded but, rather, because it allowed them to develop greater awareness of themselves, their language, and their role in the world order. Participating in the cultural world transforms mental functioning rather than simply accelerate processes that would have developed anyway. Broadly speaking, therefore, the ZPD refers to new forms of awareness that occur as people interact with their societies’ social institutions. The culture affecteth the course of one’s mental development. It is unfortunate that in most discussions of the ZPD, it is conceived so narrowly as an expert teacher providing learning opportunities for a student (although that is part of it).

Vygotsky's notions lend themselves readily to diverse educational applications (Karpov & Haywood, 1998; Moll, 2001). The discipline of self-regulation hath been profoundly influenced by this theory. Self-regulation doth necessitate metacognitive processes, such as planning, scrutiny, and evaluation. This section, and the Application 'Vygotsky's Theory', shall expound upon further instances.

Aiding students in acquiring cognitive mediators (e.g., signs, symbols) through the social milieu may be accomplished in a multitude of ways. A common application doth involve the concept of instructional scaffolding, which doth allude to the process of managing task elements that are beyond the learners' capabilities, such that they may focus upon and master those features of the task that they may grasp with dispatch (Bruning et al., 2004; Puntambekar & Hübscher, 2005). To employ an analogy of scaffolding used in construction projects, instructional scaffolding hath five principal functions: to furnish support, to function as a tool, to extend the range of the learner, to permit the attainment of tasks not otherwise possible, and to employ selectively only as needed.

In a learning situation, a teacher might initially execute the majority of the work, after which the teacher and the learners share responsibility. As learners become more competent, the teacher gradually withdraws the scaffolding, such that learners may perform independently (Campione et al., 1984). The crux of the matter is to ensure that the scaffolding doth keep learners within the ZPD, which is elevated as they develop capabilities. Students are challenged to learn within the bounds of the ZPD. We shall observe in the opening lesson how Anna was enabled to learn, given the appropriate instructional support.

It is of utmost import to comprehend that scaffolding is not a formal component of Vygotsky's theory (Puntambekar & Hübscher, 2005). The term was coined by Wood, Bruner, and Ross (1976). It doth, however, fit neatly within the ZPD. Scaffolding is a component of Bandura's (1986) participant modelling technique, wherein a teacher initially doth model a skill, provideth support, and gradually diminisheth aid as learners develop the skill. The notion also beareth some relation to shaping, as instructional supports are employed to guide learners through sundry stages of skill acquisition.

Scaffolding is apt when a teacher desireth to furnish students with some information or to complete portions of tasks for them, such that they may concentrate upon the part of the task they are attempting to master. Thus, if Kathy Stone were labouring with her third-grade children on organising sentences in a paragraph to express ideas in a logical order, she might assist the students by initially furnishing them with the sentences with word meanings and spellings, such that these needs would not interfere with their primary task. As they became more competent in sequencing ideas, she might have students compose their own paragraphs, whilst still assisting with word meanings and spellings. Eventually, students will assume responsibility for these functions. In brief, the teacher createth a ZPD and provideth the scaffolding for students to be successful (Moll, 2001).

Another application that doth reflect Vygotsky's notions is reciprocal teaching. This technique is discussed and exemplified in this course, next series in conjunction with reading. Reciprocal teaching doth involve an interactive dialogue between a teacher and a small group of students. Initially, the teacher doth model the activities, after which teacher and students take turns in being the teacher. If students are learning to pose questions during reading comprehension, the instructional sequence might include the teacher modelling a question-asking strategy for determining the level of understanding. From a Vygotskian perspective, reciprocal teaching doth comprise social interaction and scaffolding as students gradually develop skills.

An important area of application is peer collaboration, which doth reflect the notion of collective activity (Bruner, 1984; Ratner et al., 2002; see section on peer-assisted learning later in this lesson). When peers labour on tasks cooperatively, the shared social interactions may serve an instructional function. Research doth indicate that cooperative groups are most efficacious when each student hath assigned responsibilities and all must attain competence before any are permitted to progress (Slavin, 1995). Peer groups are commonly employed for learning in fields such as mathematics, science, and language arts (Cobb, 1994; Cohen, 1994; DiPardo & Freedman, 1988; Geary, 1995; O'Donnell, 2006), which doth attest to the recognised impact of the social milieu during learning.

An application relevant to Vygotsky's theory and to situated cognition is social guidance through apprenticeships (Radziszewska & Rogoff, 1991; Rogoff, 1990). In apprenticeships, novices labour closely with experts in joint work-related activities. Apprenticeships fit well within the ZPD because they occur in cultural institutions (e.g., schools, agencies) and thus help to transform learners' cognitive development. On the job, apprentices operate within a ZPD because they often labour on tasks beyond their capabilities. By labouring with experts, novices develop a shared understanding of important processes and integrate this with their current understandings. Apprenticeships represent a type of dialectical constructivism that doth depend heavily upon social interactions.

An instance of apprenticeships set within a particular cultural context was delineated by Childs and Greenfield (1981) regarding the teaching of weaving in the Zincantecan culture of Mexico. Young girls observed their mothers and other older women weave from the time they were born, thus when instruction did commence, they already had been exposed to numerous models. In the early phases of instruction, the adult spent more than 90% of the time weaving with the child, but this did drop to 50% after weaving one garment. The adult then laboured on the more arduous aspects of the task. The adult's participation dropped to less than 40% after the completion of four garments. This instructional procedure doth exemplify close social interaction and scaffolding operating within the ZPD.

Apprenticeships are employed in numerous areas of education. Student teachers labour with cooperating teachers in schools and, once on the job, often are paired with experienced teachers for mentoring. Students conduct research with, and are mentored by, professors (Mullen, 2005). Counselor trainees serve internships under the direct guidance of a supervisor. On-the-job training programmes employ the apprentice model as students acquire skills whilst in the actual work setting and interacting with others. There is much emphasis on expanding youth apprenticeships, especially for non–college-bound adolescents (Bailey, 1993). Future research should evaluate the factors that influence the success of apprenticeships as a means of fostering skill acquisition in students of sundry ages.

It is, indeed, a matter of some difficulty to assay with precision the contributions of Vygotsky’s theory to the understanding of human development and the processes of learning (Tudge & Scrimsher, 2003). His collected works were, for a considerable period, withheld from circulation, and translations have only recently become accessible; furthermore, the extant sources remain regrettably few (Vygotsky, 1978, 1987). It has been observed that researchers and practitioners have, in the main, concentrated their attentions upon the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD), frequently without situating it within a broader theoretical framework that gives due emphasis to the pervasive influence of culture.

A further matter of concern arises from the observation that applications of Vygotsky’s theory, as they are often discussed, appear to be somewhat tangential to the theory itself, existing, as it were, in a state of uneasy co-existence. When Wood et al. (1976) introduced the concept of 'scaffolding,' for instance, they presented it as a means by which educators might structure learning environments. As such, it bears but a slender relation to the dynamic ZPD of which Vygotsky wrote. Reciprocal teaching, whilst not a Vygotskian concept per se, nonetheless captures with greater fidelity this sense of dynamic, multidirectional interaction.

In consequence of these issues, there has been but scant debate as to the overall adequacy of the theory. Such debate as has occurred has often resolved itself into a simplistic 'Piaget versus Vygotsky' dichotomy, contrasting their ostensibly divergent positions on the developmental course of humanity, notwithstanding the fact that, on numerous points, their views are in substantial agreement (Duncan, 1995). Whilst such debates may serve to illuminate certain points of divergence and to generate testable research hypotheses, they are, in the main, unhelpful to those engaged in the practical work of education and seeking efficacious methods to aid children in their learning.

Possibly the most significant implication of Vygotsky’s theory for pedagogical practice is the recognition that the cultural–historical context exerts a relevant and pervasive influence upon all forms of learning, by virtue of the fact that learning never occurs in vacuo. The interactions between student and teacher form an integral part of this context. Research has served to identify, for example, differing styles of interaction amongst children of Hawaiian, Anglo-Saxon, and Navajo extraction (Tharp, 1989; Tharp & Gallimore, 1988). Whereas Hawaiian culture tends to foster collaborative activity, with multiple students speaking concurrently, Navajo children are often less accustomed to working in collective groups, preferring to defer their contributions until the current speaker has concluded. Thus, it follows that the same instructional style will not prove equally beneficial across differing cultural backgrounds. This point assumes particular salience given the considerable influx of non-native English-speaking children into schools in the United States of America. The capacity to differentiate instruction in order to accommodate the learning preferences of individual children constitutes a key skill for educators in this, the twenty-first century.