Thoughts on Vygotsky

Beverley E Steichen
English 611
Dr. Nikola Hobbel
16 December 2009

Transformations to Education and Early Childhood Development:
Lev Vygotsky's Building Blocks

Prior to studies done on developmental learning by theorist Lev Vygotsky,approaches to education seemed to consist of presuppositions of common knowledge and vagaries of method and form in teaching children and students of all ages. With refreshing insights and intellectual zeal, Vygotsky reduced the concepts and step-by-step processes of intellectual development down to basic, elemental blocks in a stratified learning continuum. By studying these and learning their importance in the structuring of the students' learning environment, we as teachers can create an atmosphere of optimal individual, group, and teacher/learner interactions and the most effective learning arena for each of our students.

As teachers of writing, knowledge of the basic tenets of learning development and the ability to recognize and utilize these developmental steps is essential; to be the very best teachers, it is imperative. The antiquated American ideas of teaching to the class as a whole and unified entity--with each student successfully digesting each part of each lesson in a step-lock system--are widely recognized as having failed and have been rejected by many in the educational system. Concepts such as "scaffolding," which is teaching a lesson on many levels of learning ability and maturation, thereby speaking to the needs of each student as a learning individual in lieu of the class as a single unit, have taken the place of outmoded methods. Lev Vygotsky's theories of learning stages and student-centered learning are among the most valuable of the psychological and behavioral studies done in the twentieth century.

Although Vygotsky's studies were carried out by observing children, the results and experimental data are applicable to learners at all ages and learning levels. This paper is meant to apply to the teaching of writers at a high-school or community college level. It will examine the building block system of human learning development, with a focus also on some of the social and interdisciplinary applications of universal inter- dependency, which illustrates Vygotsky's theory that all true learning consists of attaching new concepts to a personal foundation of past experience.

Some Vygotskian concepts to be discussed in this paper are the zone of proximal development (ZPD), “accessing prior knowledge,” the learning concept of “I+1” and “universal interdependency,” keeping in mind that this all falls under the heading of “learner-centered” education, which is far removed from the old “teacher-centered” or “prescribed curriculum centered” learning of earlier years, at least in America.

Learner-centered education did not originate with Lev Vygotsky. Confucius, Socrates, John Locke and many others were also proponents of making the individual student the focal point of his personal educational experience. (Henson). The Vygotskian concept of building on the prior knowledge of each student goes back at least as far as the Bible where in the book of Isaiah 28:10 it says, "Whom will he teach knowledge?... precept must be upon precept, ...line upon line,...here a little, there a little." This was written between 740 and 680 B.C. and is an example of accessing prior knowledge and adding one concept at a time onto this foundation of experience in each student.

Kenneth T. Henson, in his article "Foundations for Learner-Centered Education: A knowledge base" mentions many noteworthy scholars, psychologists, sociologists and philosophers from around the world who have studied the benefits of keeping the focus of the learning experience centered on the learner. From a cultural-historical perspective relative to studies done in many countries of Europe, Russia and eventually in the United States, the arena of teaching literacy in classrooms where there is ever increasing diversity of students, should be approached as an interactive and inter-responsive--however, learner-centered--group endeavor.

Vygotsky, Jean Piaget and John Dewey are responsible for the pedagogy of “constructivism” (Henson 14) which is a learner-centered method of problem solving using inherent logic and concrete solutions--the actual manipulation of available objects to achieve a solution. Simplistically speaking, human beings are natural problem solvers and the course of a human life consists of an ongoing series of problems to be solved. Given a problem such as "Put the book on the shelf," a child creatively uses tools at his/her disposal to create a way to solve the problem of getting a book onto a high shelf. This concept can expand to the greater outside world, with a problem such as “throw the ball onto the house” and can further advance into abstract questions of logic such as, “Can the ball be on the house?” and then “Can the house be on the ball?” Any person who is thus trained to find solutions using logic, imagination, determination, accessed prior knowledge and available tools or techniques to find answers will have a more rich and satisfying life, and will be of greater benefit to any social or academic community of which they are part.

Recognizing the importance of interdependency is pivotal in understanding the theories and methodology of Lev Vygotsky and their application to a person’s social placement and socio-political contributions and views, according to Henson’s essay. Any member of a community comes in with a personal base of knowledge and personal history. New concepts which are received from the community are woven into that pre-existing basis, while fibers of the new member's experience also weave into and enrich the group. Thomas Jefferson is quoted by Henson, saying:

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. There is no safe deposit for the functions of government but with the people themselves nor can they be safe without information." (Thomas Jefferson 1816)

One hundred years before Vygotsky's work in Russia, Jefferson saw the necessity of intellectual interconnectedness for social well being in America. Yet it was another fifty years before Colonel Francis Parker of New Hampshire, took the idea up in the field of education. He was met with such resistance from the educational community in America that he went to Berlin, Germany, to be educated in the concepts of learner-centered methods of educating children. "When [he was] told that the courses he had chosen would not lead to a degree, his response...was, 'But they do lead to the children of America.'" (Henson 9)

During this time in history Vygotsky's work remained in Russia; it was not printed in English until the 1960s, after Dewey's similar--but far less comprehensive-- theories of education had been introduced. Vygotsky strongly criticized formerly held popular beliefs that the preformed ideals of the future adult were lying dormant within a child. (Vygotsky 6) Nor did he endorse the “tabula rasa” philosophy of John Locke, which was held by Dewey. (Henson 10) All of Vygotsky’s theories and prescribed methods of teaching presupposed a “knowledge base” that is owned by all thinking individuals regardless of any other factor. It is upon this knowledge base that any successive and successful learning will take place. With or without instruction, the base will be increasing, but with good instruction and--more importantly--rich opportunities for experiential learning the knowledge base (which of course, will then be a broader base for future learning) will grow more rapidly, if the learner is comfortable within a non-threatening and safe learning environment.

While the progressive stages of learning are similar, that is not to suggest that all learning is inter-related. It was once believed by psychologists that all learning was beneficial across domains, which is to say that “any improvement in any specific ability results in a general improvement in all abilities.”(Vygotsky 82) (i.e. studying mathematics would also make you better at geography, Latin, and all other academic subjects). It is now believed that the only areas of academic expertise which are improved by studying another subject are ones which share common factors or methods of mastery.

Human learning development, according to some of Lev Vygotsky's theories of development, follows a sequential series of steps.(Crawford 114) From pre-verbal infancy, into the schooling years and we can speculate even further beyond and into adulthood, the pattern follows: 1) awareness of the availability of a tool, sign or word followed by 2) discovery of our personal access to the same, and finally 3) the question of "what can I now do with this tool, sign or word for myself (early development) and/or for the community(later)?"

Without oversimplifying, I would like to offer briefly from my own observation of more than sixteen children the similar experiences of pre-verbal infants when discovering their own feet. Of this group there was no exception to this series of steps, although reactions and responses were individual; therefore, I offer it as somewhat conclusive. At the developmental stage of infancy where the active infant is not yet crawling, but may or may not have the ability to roll over she notices that there are feet in her line of vision. The feet are watched with interest for a brief period of time and then in another step the infant discovers that they can be grasped by the hands. Now that the feet are "owned" they can be manipulated. From this point, the feet are a first toy (or tool) for the infant, because she does not yet have the knowledge base to consider them as a means of walking, nor does she know what walking is.

The discoveries that follow, and the accompanying results are individualized, according to the infant. If the foot is scratched by a fingernail or put into the mouth and encounters an early tooth, the results are not favorable and usually not repeated. However, many manipulations of this newly discovered tool are pleasant and even studying it visually and learning about the foot and making noises to it or about it are common (universal in this small study group). I allow that this was not a formal experiment, as there was no control group, but I offer it as supporting evidence of the Vygotskian progression of learning stages, which will then be repeated in myriad stages of every learner’s life.

At this stage of life the foundation of prior knowledge is difficult to assess, but evidently in its beginning--and therefore most limited--stage. From this point, according to Vygotsky’s theory of the zone of proximal development, all the lessons learned by The ZPD represents the area in a learner's development which contains the skills--physical or deductive--that can be performed with assistance or as part of a cooperative group, but are not yet within the scope of achievements that can be performed alone by the learner. Therefore, the ZPD contains developing capabilities rather than mastered skills. Once a concept is mastered it becomes part of the established “prior knowledge.” The I + 1 concept of learning is simply the idea of adding new concepts onto the present knowledge base (that is the "I") and with the simple consecutive addition of each new concept the "I" expands.

With each simple or complex stimulus or discovery, with every new word, tool, sign or concept the developmental progression of concepts passing through the ZPD is the same: awareness; followed by personal ownership; and ultimately to utilization. In time the statements of “There is a foot. It is my foot. How can I use the foot?” may be replaced with, “There is a cure for cancer. It is my cure. How can I use this cure?”

According to Vygotsky, skills which are completely outside of the child's present developmental capabilities will not go into the ZPD; it follows that there is no danger in exposure to more advanced data, since any concept that is too large will "go overhead."

Vygotsky’s theory of the ZPD can easily synthesize the opposing beliefs of Swiss philosopher Jean Jacques Rousseau, “who wanted to protect children from society” and of Dewey who “believed that the only way a child would develop to its potential was in a social setting.” (Henson 11) Since the ZPD will only contain concepts that are within the intellectual grasp of the child and are able to be achieved or actualized with assistance, any concept that is too large should have no impact. The "works in progress" in this zone of cognitive development will contain cultural tools and concepts that are relevant and familiar to the individual learner and are applicable to the individual child in regard to her prior knowledge, socio-cultural background and her place within a learning community. This place in the community is a major focus in Paul D Crawford's essay "Educating for Moral Ability: reflections on moral development based on Vygotsky's theory of concept formation." Crawford posits that the "fundamental of universal interdependency" is an absolute in the process of intellectual development. Universal interdependency is the interweaving of the learner taking strands from the community and also giving back into this community of group knowledge and is imperative for successful development. (Crawford, abstract) In Crawford’s essay he claims that Vygotsky identified five types of thinking complexes: associative; collective; chain; diffuse; and pseudo-concept, all of which he believed to be crucial for learning to take place. (Crawford 115)

The “associative complex” connects objects of similar usefulness or shared features. “...while comparing...pictures a child may associate a wheelbarrow with an apple because both are red, or [a wheelbarrow] with a wagon because both are...moved by people.”

The “collective complex” groups objects according to their complementarities or ability to function together. For instance, collectively a child would group a saucepan and a wooden spoon together, where associatively the spoon might go with a garden spade.

The complex which functions like a “chain” are made when previously formed knowledge leads in a step by step pattern to a linked chain of thought, much like the connection or neural synapses firing one after the other in a row, which becomes a set pattern. It may be that a porch swing is associated with a rope, which brings to mind leading a pony around a pasture and that leads to memories of Grandpa’s house with memories of Grandma’s home-made cookies.

The diffuse complex” is much like the chain complex mentioned above, but with links missing. Something like a train of thought that jumps unnecessary tracks. One thought leads to another in the same way that the chain complex works, but “some of the links of the chain have been removed. From the chain of connections above, it follows that a person could be reminded of home-made cookies every time she sees a porch swing, although no one else sees the connection. I believe this is often a reason for misunderstanding to take place between teacher and student and it may be most easily described in a mathematical realm. Once the student has full mastery of basic concepts, he may not mention those in his question about more advanced concepts, assuming that they are in a presupposed pool of common knowledge. Young college students and even those in high-school are already or nearly adults with a great store of personal knowledge and personal experience.

According to Crawford this set of complexes is responsible for “startling associations and generalizations, which cannot be easily verified through perception or practical action.” This can mean that the student sees a valid connection that is unseen by the teacher, but may result in a demeaning tone toward the student. In a pre-Vygotskian mode, the idea of the student seeing a connection that did not come from the teachers' knowledge base may not have been accepted. As teachers we should ask what the connections are that are being presented, before declaring that there is no connection

The final complex is the “pseudo-concept” which acts as “a bridge between thinking in complexes and genuine conceptual thinking... Essentially, in complex thinking meaning is acquired whereas in conceptual thinking meaning is created.” (Crawford 116, emphasis in original text).

The basis for Crawford’s focus in “Educating for Moral Ability” is the ethical ideal set forth by Vygotsky which must under gird any group based learning situation where interdependency is the key. Called “morals” or “ethics” or “social responsibility,” this idea opposes some theories of all things being relative and no responsibility being imposed upon any member of the community. According to Vygotsky’s interdependent and socially interactive learning methods, in order for a learner-centered, group-learning experience to take place, an understanding of the value of each person’s place, needs and contributions to the group as a whole need to be recognized, acknowledged and affirmed.

In her article, "Linking Writing and Community through the Children's Forum," Anne Haas Dyson (Lee, Smagorinsky, ch. 6) endorses this concept as she studies observations of children utilizing socially available and familiar popular media characters in their development of new skills of classroom socio-politics. While the behaviors of these familiar characters are widely and well known by these youngsters, the concepts of social equality, personal agency, independence and interdependence are actualizing in their zone of proximal development. Furthermore, these concepts are multi-layered and for each individual learner they may take on different relevance and levels of depth. (Vygotsky 2)

This is where a pedagogue who uses a scaffolding structure is most effective. Each student can be allowed to feel the importance of his own placement in the learning community for optimal learning to take place. In a safe and vital group, a learner should feel that he is receiving what he needs from the group and that his contribution is vital and appreciated by the group as a whole. At the young adult ages in high-school and community colleges, this concept is absolutely critical and applicable to community membership in the professional world and job market. However, this can be a difficult task for a teacher with many cultural, intellectual and skill-level backgrounds represented in one classroom.

An example given in chapter 8, of Lee and Smagorinsky illustrates this. In the essay entitled, "Idiocultural Diversity in Small Groups: The Role of the Relational Framework in Collaborative Learning" by Peter Smagorinsky and Cindy O'Donnell-Allen, (Lee, Smagorinsky 165-190) Cindy--a high-school teacher--relates the findings of observations made of high-school students completing a group project in small groups without direct supervision of an instructor. The students had sufficient knowledge of the subject material and were provided with the tools necessary to complete the task. The significant and determining factor in the ways that each group's efforts differed, was the group interaction. This was the focal point of the study.

The group interactions while working cooperatively on an art project were recorded and decoded according to the merit of statements made. Comments were codified as "positive affirmation," "inclusion," "courtesy," "destructive discourtesy," "resistance to discourtesy" and "off-task." It is interesting, but not necessarily telling, that the study group consisting of all girls remained better focused and had few "off task" comments, where the group of four boys and one girl (who was admittedly targeted) had 5.73 times as many "off-task" comments as all other comments combined. One boy contributed more than one-third of these remarks alone, many of which were demeaning comments directed at the only girl or the only black boy in the group (Lee, Smagorinsky 172). That observation aside, the results from this study evidenced that the teacher's "intentions" for a cooperative and individually rich experience did not guarantee any Utopian outcome. As teachers, we must remain aware that our intention for a particular group activity may not manifest into the ideally desired results.

I was disappointed in one response in my small group discussion of the results mentioned above. The response was, “Well, that’s life.” This is true and to a degree we must allow for basic human nature, but to what degree is that innate and to what degree learned from our social constructs? I believe that Vygotsky could imagine an improved basic human nature, if we only improve the learning environment in which that nature finds its developmental roots.

Synthesis of the old with the new is also a key to Vygotsky’s theories. In chapter 3, of Lee, Smagorinsky, Creativity and Collaboration in Knowledge Construction, by Vera P. John-Steiner and Teresa M. Meehan, the social structures of learning are blended with the semiotics of the social world that come into the group with each individual learner. There are innumerable constructs, concepts and social tools that are brought to the community via its members. Upon this basis of pooled concepts the learning experience of each individual learner is founded, which is reminiscent of the botanical approach to child development that was the basis of Karl Stumpf‘s theories. (Vygotsky 19, 20) Stumpf was a German psychologist in the early 20th century. With a classroom of five-year-olds still being called (the child garden) kindergarten, there are some residual afterthoughts of Stumpf’s influential theories with us today.

John-Steiner and Meehan illustrate the need for connectedness within a human being even in its preverbal and physically dependant stages. They say that “only other human beings can create the special conditions needed for that development to occur.” “That development” being the requisite connections that begin between infant and caregiver and then continue to intertwine with each knew association, acquaintance and acquired concept or skill. The connection of these things is seen as a framework for further development by these authors, based on the works of Lev Vygotsky. All levels of intellectual development can find a basis here. From learning what the words “table” and “book” represent, to realizing that a book can be on a table, to the skill of placing the book on the table, to the analytical concept of whether or not a table can be on a book, and if that is logical. The conceptual list goes on.

In order for academic progress to occur the pedagogy must be learner-centered (Henson 6) where the incoming level of each learner has been evaluated and is considered, and progress from this point is assessed as a measure of learning, rather than a state-mandated set of educational norms. With the available resources and studies that can be evaluated and reevaluated, teachers have a panoply of encouraging data to use in keeping their classrooms vital and productive. Vygotsky is one of the greatest contributors, if not the greatest theorist of modern child and cognitive developmental methods.

The intricacy of Vygotsky's "incredible analytic ability" was considered unsurpassed and he was called a genius by A. R. Luria (Vygotsky) one of his students who took up the work of Vygotsky after his death. The theories unique to this man and which earned him the status of genius in the eyes of his students and contemporaries were never fully realized by the man himself, due to his death at only 38 years of age, barely into his own prime of life. (Vygotsky Introduction) Aware of his failing health, Vygotsky was forced to explain the bases of the intricate ideas that were developing in his own realm of understanding, trusting that the students he had worked with and trained, would succeed him and actualize his theoretical methods of teaching.

Studying Vygotsky's works and those written about him is a dense, intense and thought provoking process. He simplifies, while at the same time illustrating the complex intricacies of the stages of cognitive development. It would take years to fully absorb and understand the depth and breadth of his work. It is no wonder that many of his students took on his life's work as their own and spent their lifetimes testing, revising and proving his theories. He is among the most important of theorists or learning specialists who are available to be studied by those in the modern teaching profession.

As teachers, we should create an arena of optimal learning opportunities for students on every level of learning, to advance forward and use more tools as they become aware of them as we utilize Vygotsky’s educational building blocks to assist students in mastering concepts and skills that are within their reach. The focusing question should always be “What does this individual learner need from me, the teacher and from her interactive learning experience, which is at this time my responsibility?”

Using Vygotsky’s tools and techniques should bring success in classrooms on all levels of academia. Recognition and understanding of the ZPD, introduced by Vygotsky can allow for the validation of an individual’s creativity within the confines of each learning experience. Applying the I + 1 method of learning and recognizing the value of creative “play-time” if you will, or more impressively “experimentation” for the learner, can invigorate and reignite the usefulness of pedagogies and retain the joy of learning for the student within the arena of their classroom experience. The ZPD is situated upon the constantly reforming base of mastered concepts and is free from distraction of concepts that are still outside of the realm of consideration. It contains the valuable and palpable material for ongoing learning to continue in a robust and progressive continuum.

The learning process never ends. Learners who know how to self-apply Vygotskian methods to their lives will have rich and ongoing learning experiences. Teachers should insure that the time spent in their classroom is optimal for the short period of time that students will be there. If each student takes away at least one new learning tool from exposure to each teacher that uses these superior techniques, the world will become a smarter place for us all.



Works cited:

Crawford, Paul Duncan. "Educating for Moral Ability: reflections on moral development based on Vygotsky's theory of concept formation" Journal of Moral Education, Vol. 30, No 2, 2001. Print

Henson, Kenneth T. "Foundations for Learner-Centered Education: A Knowledge Base" Education; Fall2003, Vol. 124 Issue 1, p5-16, 12p. Print

Holy Bible, Book of Isaiah, ch. 28: v. 9 and 10. Print

Lee, Carol D. and Peter Smagorinsky. Vygotskian Perspectives on Literary Research, Cambridge Press 2005. Print

Vygotsky, L. S. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes, ed. Michael Cole, Vera John-Steiner, Sylvia Scribner, Ellen Souberman, Harvard University Press. 1978. Print