Vygotsky gave a good answer himself regarding the advantages of his approach relative to theories that assume that a child cannot work beyond a given developmental level and theories that focus on learning alone. Developmental stage theories that assume that a child cannot do anything "over" their current "level" of development presuppose limitations that may not exist in practice--with the right support. Learning theories that view development as simply more "learning" tend to have no way of explaining "development," which involves a change in the way learning in some area is occurring. Vygotsky's approach allows a teacher or tutor to find the ZPD, the "zone" in which a child (or other tutee) can perform successfully with appropriate assistance (like the higher level tennis game you can play with a consistent partner). Hence it is more positive or constructive than simply saying "You're not ready for that yet." It also allows one to understand how a student can understand new relationships (changing the task definition for "learning") that they did not understand previously, by participating in them with someone else. For example, I taught my daughter what "leader" and "follower" meant by enacting it together as one of us led and the other followed in the playground, and then reversed ourselves.

Some possible disadvantages (depending on how Vygotsky is interpreted and on one's purposes or values) are: The approach is rather tutor-centered, even though cooperative. It might also be seen as rather school-centered in its emphasis on eventually learning "scientific" concepts (analogous to learning formal reasoning in the Piagetian scheme). The approach may also leave less room for hermeneutic ambiguity and novel interpretations (See a kind of reworking of it in Newman, Griffin and Cole's, The Construction Zone). In general, however, it seems an important advance--as others have pointed out--on trait psychology and an emphasis on inner causes.

I see more and more usage of this idea both labeled as Vygotsky's cultural historical (or his zone of proximal development - ZPD) or unlabeled but the ideas being a foundation for new learning. Simply put, in today's technological society I cannot see how education can divorces itself from the culture in which our students are brought up. To not acknowledge and work within the students' culture seems to be fighting an overwhelming tide. We, in my opinion, need to use this concept to advance student learning by integrating our knowledge requirements into a familiar environment of the student. This helps to make the subject and the delivery system of that subject matter more relevant, interesting, and acceptable.

To not incorporate the culture of the student into our teaching seems to set up a conflict between the culture of the schooling and the culture of the society, including our own daily lives. It is like we are telling our students "do what we say but not necessarily what we do." I feel that today's students are far to savvy for that smokescreen.

Students need to relevance and application of knowledge in their daily lives. If they do not it is very difficult to engage them.

I see its increasing usage in Early childhood education, as against developmental theories that focus on the child alone (as a unit of analysis). The advantage of using the cultural historical approach is that it broadens the research lens by focusing on the child and the socio cultural context the child is in . The child's development is regarded not only as product of the inner/biological attributes, but also attention is given to the way a child relates to the community. As human beings are part and parcel of the society hence it is important to understand them this way and hence facilitates designing of suitable curriculum materials.

Maybe it might be useful for you to look at Leontiev's action theory and the twin experiment of Luria and Judovich, too.

An educational research that aims at examining the 'total man' cannot exclude the cultural life of the individual or people. If Vygotsky's cultural historical approach is the most appropriate for the particular study then it's o.k, if not then choose another.

I see myself more and more explitly using Vygotsky's theory when educating teachers and designing curricula. The point I always try to make is that the cultural historical activity theory better explaines the processes I see in education. Better, that is, than for example social constructivism. I agree with Bert van Oers that constructivism lacks explanatory power on the precize learning mechanism. Since many schools and curricula tend to be based on constructivism, but meanwhile teacher struggle to find a balance between the individual needs and goals and the educational goals imposed by the goverment. This is where Vygotsky comes in, in my opinion. This is where culture meets individual. It's about sense and meaning.

Presently I am writing a paper based on online oral examination in which I am intending to include authentic learning theory as the theoretical framework. I have read about some scholars who are authentic theorist and the Vygotsky theory also features in their studies. That sound so great for me.

Vygotsky gave a good answer himself regarding the advantages of his approach relative to theories that assume that a child cannot work beyond a given developmental level and theories that focus on learning alone. Developmental stage theories that assume that a child cannot do anything "over" their current "level" of development presuppose limitations that may not exist in practice--with the right support. Learning theories that view development as simply more "learning" tend to have no way of explaining "development," which involves a change in the way learning in some area is occurring. Vygotsky's approach allows a teacher or tutor to find the ZPD, the "zone" in which a child (or other tutee) can perform successfully with appropriate assistance (like the higher level tennis game you can play with a consistent partner). Hence it is more positive or constructive than simply saying "You're not ready for that yet." It also allows one to understand how a student can understand new relationships (changing the task definition for "learning") that they did not understand previously, by participating in them with someone else. For example, I taught my daughter what "leader" and "follower" meant by enacting it together as one of us led and the other followed in the playground, and then reversed ourselves.

Some possible disadvantages (depending on how Vygotsky is interpreted and on one's purposes or values) are: The approach is rather tutor-centered, even though cooperative. It might also be seen as rather school-centered in its emphasis on eventually learning "scientific" concepts (analogous to learning formal reasoning in the Piagetian scheme). The approach may also leave less room for hermeneutic ambiguity and novel interpretations (See a kind of reworking of it in Newman, Griffin and Cole's, The Construction Zone). In general, however, it seems an important advance--as others have pointed out--on trait psychology and an emphasis on inner causes.

Vygotsky's approach indeed is tutor-centered. But without any sort of tutor learning is very difficult. And his approach is a co-constructive approach. But we should not forget, that Vygotsky's "Pedagogical Psychology" is from 1925 and his "Language and Thought" from 1933. Anyway a bit (resp. a lot) of Dewey should be added.

Desde la práctica investigativa, el concepto de zona de desarrollo próximo nos da herramientas para determinar aspectos de las competencias de los sujetos desde las capacidades potenciales y no sobre la base de resolver los problemas por sí mismos. Por ello somo sujetos, por vivir en contextos interactivos.

La Educación Física y el deporte han caído históricamente en esa trampa, considerando etapas de desarrollo y contenidos "convenientes" para cada una, desde una óptica puramente lineal y positivista.

I am agree, Vigotsky wrote in the 20 and 30 decade of XX century, and we need to have in mind that:

-From Vigotsky´s ideas was developed Activity theory, based on Leontiev and Rubinshtein studies, mainly on Leontiev.

-Currently both, CH approach and activity theory, continue developing, mainly by russian specialists. Most of this research are unknown out of Russia, due, I think, the idiomatic barrier. Names like D. A. Leontiev, A. A. Leontiev, Asmolov, are not very popular in west Europe and America, but they and many others have many interesting results.

@Jose Me he tomado la libertad de tratar de traducir esto en Inglés.

I have taken the liberty of attempting to translate this into English.

"From research practice, the concept of zone of proximal development gives us tools to determine aspects of the powers of the subjects from potential capabilities and not based solely on learners solving the problems by themselves. Therefore we are subject, living in interactive contexts.

Physical education and sport have historically fallen into that trap, considering stages of development and content "suitable" for each, from a purely positivist and linear view."

@Eric & Klaus - Rather tutor centred.

This may be due to the interpretation and the 'proximal zone sound bite.

@ Rey

Yes the language problem is an issue. I know that several important pieces of work in this area are thought to have better translations into Spanish than English because our Cuban colleagues were so much more adept at Russian.

Perhaps that is why they emphasise the concept of Vivencia eg http://www.scribd.com/doc/67839061/La-Vivencia-en-Vygotsky - (I acceot that this is an Argentinian source)

Vivencia involves concepts of resilience and self efficacy as well as collective action. It also links in with the ideas of Jose Marti- the Cuban Pedagogue whose ideas anticipate Paulo Friere.

en espanol

Idioma puede ser un problema.. Sé que están pensado varias piezas importantes del trabajo en esta área para tener mejores traducciones al español que Inglés, porque nuestros colegas Cubanos eran mucho más hábiles en ruso.

Si el problema del idioma es un problema. Sé que están pensado varias piezas importantes del trabajo en esta área para tener mejores traducciones al español que Inglés, porque nuestros colegas cubanos eran mucho más hábiles en ruso.

Quizás es por eso que destacan el concepto de Vivencia ejemplo http://www.scribd.com/doc/67839061/La-Vivencia-en-Vygotsky - (Acepto que esta es una fuente argentina)

Vivencia implique conceptos de resiliencia y autoeficacia, así como la acción colectiva. También enlaza con las ideas de José Martí-el pedagogo cubano cuyas ideas anticipar Paulo Freire.

I find it impossible to answer this question. Given that Vygotsky's work dates to the early 20th Century, it is hard to update it. As a result, different scholars have different interpretations of his work, given that they like all of us, interpret the text in terms of their own conceptual models.

@Rochel

I do not get this 'hard to update' criteria.

Are you assuming that 20th century educationalists have nothing in common with 21st century educationalists? I have been one in both centuries (admitedly not the early bit of the last one) and still think I can understand and apply and perhaps add to the ideas I had back then.

Of course there will be a reinterpretation of Vygotsky's work as people contextualise it for their own purposes and build upon the research. Maybe applying Vygotsky's theories is 'updating'.

I think I am suspicious of the implication that the theorising of dead educationalists might be just beyond our grasp. If that is so, whence the eternal verities?

Try this book for lots of examples of living psychologists and educationalists or cultural theorists getting to grips with the ideas of dead Russian psychologists.

Portes, P.R. & Salas. S. eds (2011) Vygotsky in the 21st Century : advances in cultural historical theory and praxis with non-dominant communities New York : Peter Lang

En mi limitado español .

@ Rochel

No entiendo este criterio ' difícil de actualizar .

¿Está asumiendo que los educadores del siglo 20 no tienen nada en común con los educadores del siglo 21 ? He sido uno de los dos siglos (por desgracia no es la primera parte de la última) y todavía creo que puedo entender y aplicar y quizás añadir a las ideas que tenía en ese entonces.

Por supuesto que habrá una reinterpretación de la obra de Vygotsky como la gente contextualizar para sus propios fines, y se basan en la investigación. Tal vez la aplicación de teorías de Vygotsky es ' actualización ' .

Creo que soy sospechoso de la implicación de que la teorización de los educadores muertos podría ser un poco más allá de nuestro alcance. Si esto es así , ¿de dónde las verdades eternas ?

Pruebe este libro para un montón de ejemplos de los psicólogos , pedagogos o teóricos culturales de vida que trabajan con las ideas de los psicólogos rusos muertos.

Portes, P.R. & Salas . S. eds ( 2011 ) Vygotsky en el Siglo 21 : avances en la teoría histórico-cultural y la praxis con las comunidades no dominantes

Nueva York : Peter Lang

As a former teacher in k-12 I adopted Cultural Historical Activity Theory when I developed my phd in educational psychology. CHAT matched the the learning experiences and processes that I had experienced teaching. It also allowed me to contextualize the research process into real-world educational settings. Finally it is a systemic approach based on SC that is designed to support research to understand change- I use it primarily to understand educational programs integrating technology but really isn't all education is about the potential for change? Then by definition doesn't ed research mean understanding change?

I think it is very useful for the investigation of classroom practices and impacts on learning room. In my research particularly on assessment for learning I use as a frame of reference to activity theory (Lentiev) but especially the development that Engestrom (expansive learning) make of it.

Dear Eric, Klaus, Jose, Rey Segundo, Mike, Rochel, Donna and Jorge, thank you very much for the important contributions!!.

You can find recent materials at:

http://www.psy.msu.ru/science/seminars/activity/materials.html

This is Psyc. Faculty seminar on Activity Theory at Moscow State University. There you can find text and audio files. The only problem is related with language: all resources are in russian.

Dear Rey, thank you very much for the important contribution.

I see Vygotsky in the historical epistemological line of learning as appropriation which is an outcome of the social and political turbulences at the end of the 18th century. The key name is Wilhelm von Humboldt (not: Alexander) and the theory of Bildung/ appropriation. Humboldt's idea was to see learning as a dialect and mediated process of the formation of subjectivity by appropriation of cultural objects. This was a counter-reaction to Rousseau's idea of learning as unfolding of already existing capacities. Piaget is the 20th century version of Rousseau's 'unfolding' theory of learning. Vygotsky in the turmoil of the Russian Revolution tried to reconsider as psychologist the development of subjectivity and personality inclusive learning mediated in and by social contexts. Therefore Vygotsky was in a severe debate with Piaget's 'unfolding' theory of learning. In contrast Vygotsky tried to understand the socio-cultural contextualization of learning as a dialectic process. I am rather sure that the mantra-like debate about Vygotsky's idea of 'zone of proximal development' and its scholastic version of 'scaffolding' subdues Vygotsky's endeavour under the hospices of Piaget's 'unfolding' concept. Leontyev, one of the younger discussants of Vygotzky made the appropriation model more visible despite the Marxist rhetoric of Leontyev does not makes it easy to distillate the basic ideas.

For me it seems really helpful to look for another authors of the same time and with the same socio-cultural framing of the development of subjectivity who works on the basis of an appropriation model: Norbert Elias. 1939. The Civilizing Process. Both together, Vygotsky and Elias, their dialectic theory of the development of subjectivity and personality in processes of appropriation, have still the capacity to contribute to the actual socio-cultural context if we identify the interdependence of structuration (Giddens) of our recent cultural turmoil.

Dear Ben, thank you very much for your very important contribution.

Dear Rolando,

Since 1970, in our research at the Center of Instructional psychology and technology (CIP &T, Leuven University), Russian psychologists Vygotsky, Gal-perin, Leont’ev, Luria) have been studied because at that time and in contrast to the dominant behaviorist theory in the USA during the 1060s, they were close to the European psychology of thinking of a.o. Duncker, Selz, Prins and later on De Groot. An excellent overview of the Russian activity theory is found in Engeström, Y.,Miettinen, R., Punamäki, R.J. Eds.) (1999; 2003). Perspectives on Activity Theory, Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press ISBN: 0-521-43730 X.   See also http://www.cee.uma.pt/ron/Greene%20-%20Memory,%20thinking%20and%20language.pdf

But, back to your interesting question: advances and disadvantages of use of Vygotsky’s theory.   A theory as suc’ has possibly 'theoretical' advantages or disadvantages given its empirical or philosophical basis. That’s the reason why theories are falsified and continuously adapted or even rejected after a serious paradigm shift.

However, possible advantages or disadvantages of use put theory in a different perspective. Educational reality consists of amongst others contextual parameters like educational needs, aims and objectives, target groups, cultural and educational traditions, available methods and technologies. This hinders a direct implantation of a single theory into reality.  Indeed, theories stem from a specific segment in research which makes bridging theories to reality rather complex . See: Lowyck, J. (2014). Bridging Learning Theories and Technology-enhanced Environments: A Critical Appraisal of its History. In J.M. Spector, M.D. Merrill, J. Elen & M.J. Bishop (Eds.). Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology (pp. 3-20). New York, Heidelberg, Dordrecht, London: Springer.

In the literature on use of learning theories for instructional design and technology, applications of Vygotsky’s theory and more broadly of many learning theories have been explored. See for example Vygotsky’s  concept of ‘Zone of proximal development’ as represented in the Jasper series at Vanderbilt university (Duffy, T.M., Lowyck, J. & Jonassen, D.H. (Eds). (1993), Designing environments for constructive learning. Heidelberg/New York: Springer-Verlag).

My observation is that most users of learning theories show a rather eclectic approach where aspects or ingredients from different theories are selected due to estimated compatibility with their needs and by doing so, converge into educational reality. In this way, an answer in terms of  ‘a or b’ (binary choice) seems not very productive and needs replacement by ‘if-then’. 

Dear Joost, a very helpful overview

Ben

Dear Joost, I agree with your in all, but especially  regarding  applied theory and the context needs. Really enjoyed you point.

I am trying to use it in Procurement management..since procurement is essentially an activity with all those issues combined. I would like to compare experiences with how others have borrowed the theory and domesticated it in other new fields. I will be pleased to share experiences with others

Une "référence" pas très connue je pense, relevant clairement davantage de la réflexion didactique libre inspirée par l'expérience pédagogique que de la recherche proprement dite, mais intéressante à mon avis : Gennaux (1999). Pédagogie du patrimoine et ses actions. Bulletin de liaison des professeurs d'histoire-géographie de l'académie de Rennes, n° 18.

Bonne investigations, bon courage, bises,

Pierre Champollion

Excellent question!  I use cultural historical activity theory to guide both the design of my research but also as a method for structuring data analysis.  As a former k-12 teacher teaching in rural, suburban, and urban schools, I found this methodology matched with the real-world experience of designing and implementing problem-based learning units integrating technology.  As a methodology that focuses on understanding a system undergoing change, it provides me with guidelines for understanding the incredibly complex and fluid environment of a classroom especially as I study the integration of transformative technologies such as virtual, mixed and augmented reality. 

I think that Vygotsky's theory of incongruence comes in here. Is the education that we are giving congruent with the student's/students' needs? We need to get to know the student and their social background.  The education needs to be relevant according to the society the students, family, teachers live in, as was stated above.  In studies of  disability, I can see this. What parents/teachers supply might be incongruent with the person's needs. Parents, teachers and others do not have all of their needs met either, so incongruency could go through the entire social system.  I used Rieber, R.W., & Carton, A.S. (1993). The collected works of L.S. Vygotsky. Volume 2. The Fundamentals of Defectology (Abnormal Psychology and Learning Disabilities). Plenum Press, New York. A horrible title I realise but quite a good reference.

Smith, L., Dockrell, J.,Tomlinson,P. (1997). Piaget, Vygotsky & Beyond. Routledge, London were also quite good.

Kerre

I think we moved beyond Vygotsky theory. Teaching and learning have changed in in the 21st century.

I think Vygotsky theory is still relevant because even today, because teaching and learning is about giving guidance which relates to scaffolding.As teachers and lecturers we cannot guide our students without identifying the things that they are able to do on their own and those that they cannot.

Hello Donna Rusell is it possible to share part of your work?....i am interested in looking at the parameters used in your research derived from CHAT theory and how you are integrating this in your methodology section. Thank you

Vygotsky died in the 1920's. He did state of the art work. I continue to be amazed that educators are still trying to tie their work to him. Yes, he was brilliant. But the culture he was dealing with is hardly like modern day one. Need I also remind people that he was living at a time when Russia was very poor, in political turmoil, and dealing with war.

Some of his cognitive development studies are still relevant, and the findings are robust. The idea that one has to take into account the social variables that are relevant for talking to children also deserve serious attention. But any modern theory that claims to be based on V cannot be a reasonable theory. It neglects all the findings on infants, preschoolers, and the fact that science can be taught to very young children. The real issue is this: what today is what I and Cristine Massey call the current "cultural unconscious" that permeates are views of children, parents, politics, social institutions, etc.

R gelman

Vygotsky died June 11th, 1934.

The original question in this discussion is: What is your opinion about the advantages and disadvantages of the use of Vygotsky's cultural historical approach in educational research?

The answer depends on what is known about the so-called Vygotskian theory and how it can be used in educational research. Maybe his most influential idea was the Zone of proximal development (ZPD) that refers to the observation that children learn more if they are embedded in a social environment that not only cultivates what they actually know, but are challenged in their social interaction to engage in tasks that are 'a bit' more difficult than the actual task. This can be seen as a 'motor' of cognitive development. This is why ZPD was used as a method of scaffolding in constructivist approaches of teaching and learning in the 1980s (see a. o. Duffy, Lowyck & Jonassen). This focus on ZPD was, at least from a constructivist perspective at that time, rather independent of Russian historical, societal and political issues

Thanks for the exact date. In either case, there is more than a century since V wrote. For the record, I have always assigned V in seminars.

I agree re the point you bring out re the ZPD is meant to push the learner forward.However, there is a related notion - competence vs performance, which is about more than cultural variables that are related to differences between groups and cultural opportunities.However, the relevant variables are not outlined - giving kids written lists when they go to the grocery was a brilliant idea re memory limits. But some might consider this a variable re competence vs performance, or an information processing prop. Further, there is a need to consider sociolinguistic variables that influence how children of different ages and cultural groups interpret adults' questions. Shirley Brice-Heath's work in Appalachia is very important in this context. More generally different groups have different cultural assumptions regarding what is child-directed speech (Bambi Scheifflen). Similarly, there are developmental and cultural differences re requirements of politeness markers in different languages. English is rather thin as compared to Japanese. Sure, one can say these are all part of the ZPD but then the concept becomes way too general.

Then there also is a need to consider information processing variables. In a way, one can say that Vygotsky took these into consideration, e.g. having children take a list with them when they went to the grocery. Now, we are appealing to what is commonly called the performance-learning distinction.

My comment is not a plea to ignore V, but to go beyond. I worry about the strong tendency of Schools of Education needing something like an "Intellectual god." Good to take what is good from those who came before -- but be aware that this could yield blinders. The very point about the constructivist view. I find it interesting that V has replaced Piaget as the intellectual god. I shudder whenever I hear "Piaget is dead" , not literally but intellectually so. I well remember when everyone cited and praised Piaget and hardly mentioned Vygotsky. I am retired but were I still teaching, I would continue to assign both. Both made critical contributions to current questions, especially re their empirical work.

Lots more, but this will do.

Dear Rochel,

Thanks for the open reaction and the reference to Piaget who delivered an enormous contribution to understand cognitive development. Maybe the original question of Rolando Serra Toledo brought us to discuss about Vygotsky, ignoring other interesting players in the field of cognitive development (see my comments from 4 years ago). Indeed his question was about the possible impact of Vygotsky on educational research.

I think that you are right to broaden the scope of the discussion!

I have enjoyed reading Joost and Rochel contributions for their insights. Could you also comment on the generations that evollved out of V's work like the second generation of V's work that is associated with

Yrjö Engeström (i.e the second generation of Activity theory of Cultural Historical Activity theory by Yrjö Engeström. I happen to be using this version of activity theory that brings on board rules , cmmunity and division of labour that makes a lot of sense in a procurement management activity setting, which is my field. Thank you. I am particularly interested in the advantages and disadvantages of it and possibly the potential variables that can be borrowed and domesticated.

Thank you

Piaget and Vygotsky were both developmental psychologists, if I recall. Although Piaget took an interest in pedagogy, neither of the two wrote directly about education. Their appearance in educational research seems to come from others applying their ideas to education,as Joost points out.

For many years I have been using a combination of Engeström's activity system (derived from Vygotsky's theory of semiotic mediation) and Leont'ev's Activity/Action/Operations to analyse the role of digital technologies in classroom practices. Their value lies in providing a general framework which can be used to model different forms of pedagogy, and analyse the dynamism of roles and relationships taken by teachers and learners when using technology. Whether either Vygotsky or Leont'ev would recognise these and other uses of their ideas is an interesting question.

The validity of using these ideas rests on ensuring that the conceptual framework to which they belong forms the basis for interpreting educational activity, rather than simply being "plucked from the shelf", in my view.

BTW Charles have you looked at Third Generation Activity theory, which examines how different activity systems interact?

Piaget was not a developmental psychologist, And Vygotsky was not so much developmental but social psychologist: following Marx he believed that n individual begins like a hunter gatherer and end up a communist, in a nutshell :) So a learning model that was developed following V was teach a kid to be what we think we are (in a nutshell). A greta lecture on Piaget is by Jordan Peterson on youtube, in fact I think he offered a few of those

Maybe we can put V's theory back to a big background, which belonged to cultural historical approach, meaning V's theory is a part of that approach and it keep pace with the time. There are no such thing as right or wrong. It is depend on what question you want to deal with and what perspective you want to select. Besides, one of my teacher said that education is about human. So even applying AI into education, human is the learner at large degree, which need noticed in the research and courses design.

In conducting educational research, Vygotsky's focus on concept formation and the interaction between everyday concepts and scientific concepts has been very useful for observing what is (or is not) happening in the classroom.

The development of skills that emerge in the cognitive development

Vygotsky was writing in a context one hundred years ago in poverty stricken, politically unstable Russia. However, keep in mind those are the conditions are still current in much of the world. There is also poverty and disadvantage in rich developed countries, such as Australia. It will be little comfort for teachers and students who read of the excellent educational techniques we have developed, if only they did not live where they did. That said, Vygotsky and other early theorists can only provide us with some hints as to what might be worth investigating today. Something like Vygotsky's Zone of proximal development (ZPD) is just a guide as to what we might do. This needs to be tested to see if it is really useful.

The ZPD- Zone of Proximal Development as explained by Vygotsky also points out towards Meta cognitive skills /strategies in a classroom setting. It also aligns well with the 21 century skill framework.

Really a useful theory for the construction of knowledge by the learner by using the 5Es for life long.

Dear Rolando

You ask the following. "What is [my] opinion about the advantages and disadvantages of the use of Vygotsky's cultural historical approach in educational research?

It is often the case that the application of Vygotsky's cultural historical approach in educational research is compared with Piaget's views on education. In 2012, I published a paper in New Ideas in Psychology, titled Piaget and Vygotsky: Many resamblances and a crucial difference. I think that you can profit a lot from reading this paper. My opinion about the advantages and disadvantages of the use of Vygotsky's cultural historical approach in educational research can be seen in this paper. You can read my paper in my publications in Research Gate.

Best regards,

Orlando

I am a firm believer in the need to know the history of one's field. However, I am more than a bit shocked to read that Piaget was not a Developmentalist. Please explain. True, he tended to ignore the social environment but modern day PIAGETIANS DO NOT.

His account of the shift from Concrete to Formal reasoning is much like V's on the shift to Scientific Reasoning. Neither provide a good account of what these are, let alone the transition mechanisms. The idea is deeply related to Conceptual Change - a deep concern of the Philosopher Kuhn, Susan Carey, myself, and many, many others. The big idea on this front is as follows: one needs to be concerned with the question of how a content-specific mental structure develops - consider the change that led to the distinction between velocity and speed or that the the concept of the numeral I=0+1 to 1=(2/2)=(200/200)........, i.e any numeral divided by itself.

I add that the need to characterize the supporting social environment is deeply important. However, what the rules are on this front are far from understood. My lab has taken a stab at this difficult question: a book entitled Preschool Pathways to Science....; papers that reports on an effort to embed Science into 9th Grade English as. Second Language, and the construction of learning environments in a museum for young children.

Piaget DID write about education, in the 1970's. His main message: Do not teach conservation, classification, etc. These will develop as a function of the child's efforts to assimilate and accommodate relevant structural data. The msg for teaching" Teach the subjects.

Ania : Piaget is the greatest developmental psychologist of all times. You probably do not know his work and theory. Saying that Piaget is not a developmental psychologist is like saying that Darwin was not an evolutionnary bioligist !

Very interesting question. Vygotsky ‘s theory is based on the principle that students have already some knowledge and on it accumulate more. In other words for the learners there is knowledge that they create for themselves based on the stimuli and information that they receive from the environment around them and that the learner creates the answer of the problem on individual basis according to the previous experiences, so there is no unique answer to a problem but many based on the unique knowledge every individual has. Since all learners start off with existing experiences and knowledge, teachers are not authoritarians and only provide information and guide the students in a “democratic” way allowing them to make their own decisions, coaching them to have their own conclusions, encouraging them to incorporate their culture and diversities into their newly accumulated experiences by using the scaffolding of their previous knowledge. There is no direct instruction with passive absorption of the information but only guidance helping people to achieve their goal.

In my humble opinion the main positive or negative parts are summarised in:

Prons

There is no clear non sensitive blunt examination or testing

There is learner participation within the classroom

Utilises the whole experience of all students

Cons

Not a clear standardised curriculum, lacking structure.

Potential confusion at learners’ level

Silly Piaget,

He held a Chair in Sociology at UdeG, but ignored social aspects of acquiring necessary knowledge? Read Les Smith’s translation of Piaget’s Études Sociologiques

He was Chair of the Education Bureau of UNESCO, but wrote only a little on education. The 1998 collection De la pédagogie, covers some key contributions from 1930 to 1976.

He claimed to be a genetic epistemologist, and not a developmental psychologist. Read Piaget’s foreword to Flavell’s account of his theory.

I’d put more faith in Piaget’s written self representations, rather than in the post hoc evaluations of others.

collegially

Trevor

Well-founded/grounded and inspiring completion. Cool!

As Vygotsky (1978) outlined in his social theory of mind that children develop and learn in a social matrix formed by the interconnection of social relationships and interactions between themselves and other persons, I highlight students' face to face promotive interactions . In doing so, the students demonstrate their resources in mediating each other’s learning by engaging in their promotive interaction process with effective helping behaviours in terms of help seekers and help givers . Thus, the transformation of an interpersonal process into an intrapersonal one depends on each child’s zone of proximal development, that is the zone between what children can achieve independently and what they can accomplish through interaction with more experienced and capable peers (Vygotsky, 1978) . Cooperative learning in a small group context is an opportunity and approach to see "how these things" works.

Group learning is complicated. It does not always work. I have developed three different education programs. Please provide assessment evidence that all children in all groups actually learn what you think they do. Have you evidence that all members of a group are doing what you claim. If so, what is the content of materials and the goal of learning with understanding. How much do you prep the children?

How does the theory allow for the creation of "new" knowledge? If stretch (my term there) needs an MKO, doesn't this preclude development of something that someone else does not already know?

The strength of Vygotsky's works is on the acknowledgement of the influence of one’s society and culture in learning and in a language learning in particular. For Vygotsky, knowledge is seen as social in nature and constructed through the processes of interaction, communication and collaboration among children in social settings. This makes learning more real and not distant from the learner, an aspect that is critical for effective learning.

One disadvantage of this theory could be that it does not show how the facilitator for learning could make up for cultural diversity in the learning environment.

Well, no-one has yet mentioned his N + 1 recommendation for teaching, that implies the still revelutionary idea that collaborative learning should be organised so that each and every pupil in a class should receive a boost from his/her present level of thinking. Not easy.

Patience - I had not thought of the diversity issue. I suppose it could be argued that the social environment at that point is the fusion of all that diversity. That does leave off any specific learning tied to the smaller cultural environment of the student.

Michael: Please elaborate. What is this recommendation?

I benefited so much from reading Vygotskys' original work in my quest to better understand ways to consider learning in diverse contexts (e.g., cultural, geographical, sociocultural, and many, many more contexts) . Impressively intellectually, morally, emancipatory persuasive arguments made that could be tested in real world environments (which they have been and continue to be).

Collaborative learning is just one of the strategies a teacher can use. Multiple approaches are better. A teacher needs to be aware of their impact on students learning and make adjustments; no one approach will work all the time.

Collorative learning effect size does not compare well against scaffolding, deliberate practice or feedback in the primary sector.

From my way of seeing the advantages are in being able to visualize the training in an integral way (bio-psycho-social) from the opportunity to contribute to the personality formation in an intentional way with the establishment of external conditions (teaching) that make it possible for the apprentice subject takes into account their naturalness and can thus access higher levels of development. On the basis of this theory, it is important to take into account the knowledge one has of oneself, both in the instrumental-cognitive and instrumental motivational sphere, which is what allows reaching higher levels of development and in this way asking for help or evidencing the need to help. Consequently the teacher and in this case the educational researcher must master the essence of this theory, to be able to transform the reality from the evaluation of the internal, external conditions of each apprentice or group subject, without having to change the physical context (space), if not the way of seeing and relating things in a process of internalization, externalization of reality. Denoto the disadvantages, in not mastering the theory, in not recognizing the educational reality as it is posed, in not having the necessary and sufficient tools to provide the levels of help that each one requires, in wanting to impose criteria without addressing the nature human, in not considering the formation of personality as a process that has moments and we are diverse, which is where its complexity is evident.

Education Research

Well, interesting, applicable to the educational process, as long as its essence is understood and applied accordingly.

Vygotsky's gave a perfect answer for himself in relation to this thoery. In my openion, the theory allows an educational personnel , such as a teacher or a tutor to know the comfort zone or the level of his or her learner. This enables him or her to plan an activity to talor the learning needs of the learner.

Relationship building: It allows educational practitioners to undersatnd and appreciate how leaners progesse from one level of a task to another through rapports. That is changing the task's levels from the kwown to unkown through a facilitator's support.

Limitation: the theory in my opinion is seen to be a facilitator's (a teacher, a nurse, a tutor) centred.

El trabajo colaborativo en el aula, permite evidenciar cómo la gran diversidad de estilos de aprendizaje entre los niños y las niñas se unifica a partir del trabajo de aquellos estudiantes padrinos, que desempeñan una labor orientadora entre sus pares, creando espacios de reflexión y de aprendizaje más significativos; entre otras cosas, más enriquecidos. ZDP.

Dear\ Rolando Serra Toledo

pls read this article :-

https://lidtfoundations.pressbooks.com/chapter/sociocultural-learning/

• https://www.simplypsychology.org/vygotsky.html
• https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1081990.pdf

Good luck

A profound theory of influence in the different fields of thinking, especially the Reflective thinking

Vygotsky, to me, is a "mess", in comparison to Piaget. Why I see his work this way is partly expressed in a recent Answer I gave to: https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_would_be_the_first_step_to_create_a_common_language_for_different_disciplines . I think there are MAJOR problems in integrating inter-disciplinary views; almost all the time one should work within a discipline -- and certainly the discipline should always be clearly central.

Vygotsky, with his personal (social and cultural) stuff, is operating at the level of "overall perspective", and this as done in an interdisciplinary fashion FOR PSYCHOLOGY (and, in particular, developmental psychology) is not a view that would facilitate good continuing and progressing research, or any decent (real) science AT ALL, if you have a reasonable and necessary standard for empiricism.

I find that those who like such perspectives like them to bolster their reliance of untestable/unverifiable and distinctly non-central "social" factors (or "social/cultural" factors) -- not true variables (because they are undefinable/unsupportable with good empirical data; I address what real empiricism is in the Answer I just referred to, above).

Psychologists look for things that bolster their terrible ultra-focus on "the social" as a crutch, this including "social learning" 'concepts' themselves; and THIS is all done for the furtherance of terribly ill-defined 'learning' (supposedly always of a quite similar nature) as the ONLY accepted aspect of behavior change after toddler-hood (based on what are really just beliefs that are ultimately based on absolutely unproven, unsupported, unsupportable, and unjustified presumptions about "just learning", these falsely seen as "assumptions" * (with no critical examination of these EVER done) -- and with HUGE consequences and ramifications for all 'understandings' in Psychology (and the reason it has yet to even BE a science)) ** . Tip: Learning changes qualitatively over several levels of development, ages 2-18 (NOT "just-'learning'" over this time of ontogeny); the qualitative changes that occur (recognized by ANY with common, decent reasoning and reasonability) must of course result in qualitative changes in the nature of "learning" too !!

* FOOTNOTE: This stilted unscientific view also explains the unprovable and unsupportable (untestable) notions of "sensori-motor" bases to all thinking (in the "embodied learning" 'theories'), EVEN AFTER toddler-hood (actually, again, founded on mere notions and mere beliefs and based on the same pseudo-assumptions referred to above); "Embodied learning" 'theories', with their concepts (pseudo-constructs) reviewed and critiqued by respected peers as forever untestable "variables" ( by their nature), are centrally involved here.

** FOOTNOTE: All this is explained in detail in my other writings (all available on RG). All my criticism HERE is justified and explicated and elaborated there, in these writings.

Another way to put your comments re P vs V. Piaget's theory is testable, especially for Concrete and Formal Operations.

On the matter of whether "sensors-motor" is testable: It is possible to have a model that has a planner, the job of which is to potentiate acts that meet constraints of environmental data (has to be described), goal and context.

Thank you for your support.

Dear Rochel Gelman

Thanks for the addition and support that your first paragraph provides.

Regarding the rest: I do not see that (THAT that potentiates ) being defined in a real solid empirical way, that is, CLEARLY based/founded on some directly observable overt behavior patterns FROM THE OUTSET of ANY concept/construct in a model -- those behavior patterns CLEARLY LITERALLY FORMATIVE , and directly observable as overt behavior patterns (or important aspects thereof), at least at some KEY times, e.g. the inception of a new qualitative way of thinking clearly starting to be used. No aspect of a model should precede this OR what you are doing is like armchair philosophy conjuring up a hypothetico-deductive system -- ill-founded, oddly committed-to, and falsely directing one's research; I am DONE with "considerations" of such "models"; the SUBJECT DEFINES ALL , each and every concept or construct, WITH DIRECTLY OBSERVABLE OVERT BEHAVIOR PATTERNS as a clear basis -- and, with new technologies, we do not have to settle for less, OR GIVE UP because things-about-behavior that have SEEMED to be hard/impossible to conceptualize in the good empirical way indicated, without now considering REAL NEW WAYS OF OBSERVATION, to gain decent empirical bases, e.g. eye-tracking. Behavior researchers/theorists should ALSO CONSIDER the almost-always-"missed" real OBSERVATIONAL PHASE of their science research and concept development -- missing that is another thing that clearly shows a lack of science in a supposed science. Missing everything and doing basically everything wrong is not atypical of Psychology (e.g. ALL of the "Embodiment" and enhancement "theories"). (Failing to do some of the good discovery for foundations/bases has not been done EVEN IN WAYS THEY COULD HAVE FOR DECADES (or a century).)

Foundations of concept/constructs, clearly defined WITH DIRECTLY OBSERVABLE OVERT phenomenon is a [ basic, minimum, required ] standard of empiricism for all sciences, no exceptions. OR, it's not science. [ ( Even if you do not want to do all the right things directly yourself, it is possible to reason this point-of-view out (on minimum standards for empiricism).) ]

P.S. Researchers/theorists also are not to define the following, just based on their deductive thinking: "environmental data ([that] has to be described), goal and context". For "what the relevant environmental factors are", AGAIN ONE SHOULD CLEARLY BE RELYING ONLY ON WHAT THE SUBJECT SHOWS for the main determinations here. If you are not clearly going from that one has the same set of problems described above. NO researchers' thoughts-defined "environment", "relevant behavior" (WHICH SHOULD ONLY BE SEEN AS PATTERNS, in a biological organism), OR what is a "reinforcement" or "reward" (or "punishment" and such ...).

...I’m fully agree with the Vygotsky’s theory in this important field of research.

With my best wishes

Czesław

Dear Czeslaw Nosal

One is left wondering about WHY/HOW you fully agree with the theory.

I can state my standard:

A standard I use for ALL science is follows, below; (this standard is used for each and every single concept and construct in a theory, and for how such things are related the theory):

ALL science refers to the ability to replicate KEY OVERT OBSERVABLE circumstances and KEY OVERT OBSERVABLE phenomenon * THAT, obvious to ALL (in a fully agreed-upon way), are necessary for best understanding later replicable overt observable circumstances AND corresponding later proximately-related key overt, observable phenomenon * patterns ( so both "sides of the equation" are taken care of, so to speak ) -- BUT, ALSO this may well imply some more-than-believable mechanism(s) for some linkage(s) which would be of some reasonable nature, but that may not be fully or clearly discovered YET (

for educational researches on enrichment and remediation activities, ZPD for me is the best theory that suits the study, but we know that in instances of determining the best theory we can anchor depends on the width and which it is intended to delve.

our ancestor made a theory for a particular and some for common, so we have to understand the situation need and which theory is suitable decide and apply because every theory has its own importance in every walks of life.

Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory supports researchers to consider the cultural context and relationships with others when analysing learning events. The unit of analysis is widened to include the interactions, cultural meanings and tools being utilised. The widening of the frame and emphasis on culture thus opens the possibility for increased diversity.

Teaching and learning processes involve a socuiocultural relationship between the teacher as an expert and the learner as a novice traversing an interactive path known as the Zone of Proximal distance (ZPD). While mediation and interaction are important positive assets in learning, the theory fails to consider liberatory learner autonomy whereby the learner sets his/her own directions independently in order to reach the expected outcomes.

For my the value of the sociocultural theory is the main rol it gives to the teachers action in order to bring about learning, in opposite to piagetean´s views

In my opinion the concept of Zone of proximal development is very interesting to use as a concept base to think school activities. The notion of language as the structuring of thought and how inter and intra-personal relationships allow the development of ways of thinking are its strongest points

Many recent theories of learning, such as personalisation or connectivism, seem to be premised on Vygotsky's ideas. It could be argued that we would be better served as a discipline to build on the original Vygotsky, rather than the seemingly endless rebranding that acts to simply confuse teachers.

Following