DEWEY AND VYGOTSKY: A COMPARISON OF THEIR VIEWS

SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIVISM IN EDUCATION

BY JOHANNA R. JOHNSON

A dissertation submitted to

The Graduate School of Education

Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey

in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree

Doctor of Education

Graduate Program in Social and Philosophical

Foundations in Education

Approved by

mes M. Giarelia., air

Joseph J. Chambliss

Ivan Z . Holowinsky

New Brunswick, New Jersey

May 2003

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 UMI Number: 3088475

Copyright 2003 by
Johnson, Johanna R.

All rights reserved.

UMI
UMI Microform 3088475
Copyright 2003 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

ProQuest Information and Learning Company

300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346

R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I wish to acknowledge my husband, Nelson, and children,

Sarah, Ethan, and Emily who always made me believe that I

could do this. I would especially like to acknowledge my

youngest daughter, Emily, whose time with me was most

sacrificed during the past seven years.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION

Dewey and Vygotsky: A Comparison of Their Views on

Social Constructivism

By JOHANNA R. JOHNSON

Dissertation Chairperson: James M. Giarelli, Ph.D.

The purpose of this study was to compare and contrast

the main elements of Dewey's and Vygotsky's social

constructivism views against Dewey's principles of

experience, continuity, and interaction. Also, to determine

if Vygotsky's views on education reform were similar or

different from Dewey's definition of education reform as "a

new order of conceptions leading to new modes of practice"

(Dewey, 1963, p. 5). The analysis of their differences

would be of importance, because the differences if

significant would impact upon educational practices.

Through an historical approach, a biographical review

of the theorists was researched to identify the early

influences upon their thinking. Using their seminal works,

the researcher looked for common language and expressions of

social constructivism to compare and contrast to a working

definition of social constructivism gleaned from

contemporary literature.

Though common language was found, the differences

related to continuity. For Dewey, continuity meant

ii

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 reconstruction of experience, whereas Vygotsky's continuity

meant construction of experience under the control of the

teacher. This difference could impact upon educational

practices if one is adopted exclusive of the other. Because

of the pervasive changes the entire education community and

society at large would need to embrace, social

constructivism could be an educational reform.

iii

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 TABLE OF CO NTENTS

Page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...................................... i

A B S T R A C T ............................................ ii

Chapter

I INTRODUCTION .............................. 1

Definition and Significance of the

Problem.......................... 1
Need for the Study and Objectives. . . 8
Questions of the Study................ 12
Definition of T e r m s .................. 12

II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE.................. 20

III METHODOLOGY................................ 28

Research Design ...................... 28

IV FINDINGS .................................. 31

What Are the Main Elements of Dewey's

Social Constructivism? .......... 31
What Are the Main Elements of Lev S .
Vygotsky's Social Constructivism?. 52
How Are John Dewey's and Lev Vygotsky's
Social Constructivist Views
Similar and Different? .......... 81
The Impact Upon Social Constructivist
Practices........................ 103

V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

FOR FUTURE RESEARCH.................. 108

REFERENCES.......................................... 118

iv

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Definition and Significance of the Problem

Constructivism is a term that often elicits the mantra­

like response that students construct their own knowledge.

One source states, "students are viewed as thinkers with

emerging theories about the world" who through

transformation of new information create new individual

understandings (Brooks Sc Brooks, 1993, pp. 15-17) .

Constructivism rejects the traditional knowledge

transmission model where the students is the vessel into

which the teacher pours knowledge. This is the only tenet

accepted universally.

The word constructivism elicits myriad definitions. In

an article entitled "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly: The

Many Faces of Constructivism", Phillips (1995) states "there

are so many versions of constructivism, with important

overlaps but also with major differences, it is difficult to

see the forest for the trees" (p. 7 ) . Later, Phillips

(2000) warns:

'Constructivism' is a currently fashionable magic

word in the Western intellectual firmament, one
which has beguiled a great many educational
researchers, curriculum developers, trainers of

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 2

teachers and teachers themselves, school

administrators, sociologists, philosophers,
and anti-philosophers who regard themselves as
being of postmodern disposition. The philosopher
Michael Devitt nominates constructivism
as a candidate for 'the most dangerous
contemporary intellectual tendency,' while the
Continental educational researcher Reinders
Duits, regard it as a 'fashionable and fruitful
paradigm' for guiding educational research and
practice. (Phillips, 2000, pp. 1-2)

Amid all the confusion over what constructivism is,

Phillips labels John Dewey as a social constructivist

(Phillips, 1995, p. 7; Phillips, 2000, p. 13). Because he

took issue with the traditional approach to education, there

is reason to believe that Dewey's educational theory was

constructivist in nature. As early as 1902 in School and

Society, Dewey (1990) made reference to the "typical points

of the old education: its passivity of attitude, its

mechanical massing of children, its uniformity of curriculum

and method" (p. 35). In Experience and Education. Dewey

(1938) criticized the purpose and means of traditional

education,

to prepare the young for future responsibilities

and for success in life, by means of acquisition
of the organized bodies of information and
prepared forms of skill which comprehend the
material of instruction. Since the subject-matter
as well as standards of proper conduct are
handed down from the past, the attitude of pupils
must, upon the whole, be one of docility,
receptivity, and obedience. Books, especially
textbooks, are the chief representatives of the
lore and wisdom of the past, while teachers are
the organs through which pupils are brought into
effective connection with material. Teachers are
agents through which knowledge and skills are
communicated and rules of conduct enforced. (p.
18)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 Dewey (193 8) espoused the need to replace the

traditional approach with a experimentalist education he

termed the "new" education in which there would be an

"organic connection between education and personal

experience" (p. 25) resulting in the "growing as developing"

(p. 36) in a positive direction.

Beyond Phillips, a review of the constructivist

literature yields others who assert striking similarities

between constructivism and Dewey's experimentalism, thus

supporting the belief that Dewey can be labeled a

constructivist (Popkewitz, 1998; Prawat, 1995; Duffy &

Cunningham, 1966; Phillips, 1995; Stone, 1996; Phye, 1997).

Bentley (1998) opines that "John Dewey did not describe his

own position with the constructivist label (he eschewed

labels), but his epistemological work certainly is

consistent with much of constructivist thought" (p. 238).

With a lifetime of work that includes psychology, philosophy

and educational theory, Dewey's influence in constructivist

thought is being recognized and compared with Lev Vygotsky.

Phillips identified Vygotsky, the Russian social and

developmental psychologist as a social constructivist,

however, warns not to confuse Vygotsky with other social

constructivists including Piaget and the radical

constructivist Ernst von Glasersfeld. The difference

between the two is that they see constructivism based solely

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 4

on the psychological with von Glasersfeld labeling his own

as a "radically individualistic version" of psychological

constructivism (Phillips, 2000, p. 10). Vygotsky as a

social constructivist focused on the social influences of

individual learning and stressed the role played by language

in shaping the individual's construction of knowledge, "the

under appreciated role played by the vast cultural

repertoire of artifacts, ideas, assumptions, concepts, and

practices which the individual inherits or is 'born into'"

(p. 11) •
Out of the many, sometimes confusing, definitions of

constructivism, what stands out is the labeling of both

Vygotsky and Dewey as social constructivists. The irony of

this is that their views on society were quite different.

Dewey believed in a democratic society while Vygotsky, a

Russian Marxist, is considered "a seminal theorist for most

social constructivists" (Bentley, 1998, p. 239). Cobb,

Perlwitz, and Underwood-Gregg (1998) state, "a gamut of

sociocultural theories that build on the work of Vygotsky

and Russian theorists has become increasingly influential in

the United States (p. 72). This is remarkable since

Vygotsky died of tuberculosis in 1934 at the young age of

thirty-eight. His works span only ten years as compared to

Dewey's influential works that span decades.

Jerome Bruner in the introduction to the translated

version of Vygotsky's (1962) Thought and Language stated

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 that this volume is a "presentation of a highly original and

thoughtful theory of intellectual development. Vygotsky's

conception of development is at the same time a theory of

education" (p. v ) . Bruner stated that Vygotsky's

developmental theory is also a description of the "many

roads to individuality and freedom" (p. x). In the

translation of Vygotsky's (1978) previously unpublished

essays, the editors, Cole, John-Steiner, Scribner, and

Souberman stated that as a Soviet scholar and a man of this

time, Vygotsky "viewed Marxist thought as a valuable

scientific resource" (p. 6), and that "Marx's theory of

society (known as historical materialism) also played a

fundamental role in Vygotsky's thinking" (p. 7). Thus, "for

Vygotsky, the mechanisms of individual developmental change

are rooted in society and culture" (p. 7). Because of the

sociopolitical conditions of his time, Vygotsky's (1978)

scientific work was expected to meet the demands of pressing

economic and social problems of the Soviet people.

Psychological theory could not be pursued apart

from the practical demands made on scientists by
the government, and the broad spectrum of
Vygotsky's work clearly shows his concern for
producing a psychology that would have relevance
for education and medical practice . . . . Thus,
it was consistent with his general theoretical
view that his work should be carried out in a
.society that sought the elimination of illiteracy
and the founding of educational programs to
maximize the potential of individual children.
(Vygotsky, 1978, p. 9)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 6

Vygotsky's Educational Psychology written in 1926 and

recently translated into English in 1997 revealed his

formula of the educational process:

Man's behavior is composed of biological and

social features of man's own developmental
conditions. The biological factor features the
foundation, the basis or groundwork, of the innate
reactions without which the organism could not
exist and upon which the system of acquired
reactions is constructed.
That this new system of reactions is wholly
determined by the structure of the environment in
which the individual grows and develops is
entirely obvious. Every form of education,
therefore, unavoidably bears a social character

We have seen that the individual's own

experience is the only teacher capable of forming
new reactions in an individual. Only those
relations are real for an individual that are
given to him in his personal experience. This is
why the student's personal experience becomes the
fundamental basis of pedagogical work. . . . (p.
47)

Vygotsky (1997) explained that the structure of the social

environment is manipulated by the teacher, "the director of

the social environment in the classroom, the governor and

guide of the interaction between the educational process and

the student" (p. 49). From this Vygotsky developed the

following formula for the educational process: "Education

is realized through the student's own experience, which is

wholly determined by the environment, and the role of the

teacher than reduces to directing and guiding the

environment" (p. 50).

Dewey (1963) expressed similar beliefs in Experience &

Education when he spoke of the "organic connection of

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 education and experience." Of the early stages of a child's

life, he wrote, "environment steadily expands by the

momentum of experience" as the child develops.

The environment, the world of experience,

constantly grows larger and, so to speak, thicker.
The educator who receives the child at the end
of this period has to find ways for doing
consciously and deliberately what 'nature'
accomplishes in the earlier years.
It is the cardinal precept of the newer
school of education that the beginning of
instruction shall be made with the experience
learners already have; that this experience and
the capacities that have been developed during its
course provide the starting point for all further
learning.
It is essential that the new objects and
events be related intellectually to those of
earlier experiences, and this means that there be
some advance made in conscious articulation of
facts and ideas. (pp. 73-75)

Dewey (1963) also stated that "education is essentially

a 'social process' and that "it is absurd to exclude the

teacher from the membership of the group" as he is the

"mature member" of the group who conducts the "interactions

and intercommunications which are the very life of the group

as a community" (p. 58).

As shown by the preceding discussion, there are

important similarities in the thinking of both men as to how

the educational process should function. If Dewey and

Vygotsky have similarities or "overlaps" which have earned
them the social constructivist label, then the minor

differences between their views should have no impact on

social constructivist education practices (Phillips, 1995,

p. 7). However, if this study reveals major differences in

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 8

Vygotsky's and Dewey's educational views, then educators may

need to reassess educational practices and what portions of

each thinker's philosophy is relevant to today.

Need for the Study and Objectives

Since the late 1980s there has emerged an education

reform movement known as constructivism (Fosnot, 1989;

Brooks & Brooks, 1993) . In defining constructivism,

proponents universally agree on what it is not -- a

knowledge transmission model found in traditional education.

To emphasize this, constructivists agree that learners

engage in "an active process of constructing rather than

acquiring knowledge" (Duffy & Cunningham, 1996, p. 171) .

Constructivists hold that instruction should be a "process

of supporting that construction rather than communicating

knowledge" (p. 171).

Based on the cognitive development learning theory of

Piaget (Hyerle, 1996; Fosnot, 1989; Richardson, 1997; Black

Sc Ammon, 1993; Driver, Asoko, Leach, Mortimer, & Scott,

1994; Phillips, 1995) constructivism is defined as a theory

about knowledge and learning. According to Brooks and

Brooks (1993) , the theory of constructivism "defines

knowledge as temporary, developmental, socially and

culturally mediated, and thus non-objective. Learning from

this perspective is understood as a self-regulated process

of resolving inner conflicts that often become apparent

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 through concrete experience, collaborative discourse, and

reflection" (p. vii).

Phillips (1995) acknowledges that Piaget is "generally-

regarded as a foundational figure by many constructivists,"

but that there is "an enormous number of authors, spanning a

broad philosophical or theoretical spectrum, who can be

considered constructivists." Consequently, there is a

significant volume of educational literature on what he

calls "the many sects of constructivism" (pp. 5-6).

Phillips views the sects spread out along an axis along

which constructivist similarities and differences can be

understood. Along the first axis he places Piaget and

Vygotsky and states their brands of constructivism are

generally similar, but notes important differences. For

example, Piaget "stressed the biological/psychological

mechanisms to be found in the individual learner, whereas

the other (Vygotsky) focused on the social factors that

influenced learning" (Phillips, 1995, p. 7). Farther along

that continuum under "construction of knowledge as an active

process with activity described in terms of individual

cognition or else in terms of social or political

processes," Phillips (1995) places Dewey and James who

represent the "gradation" within the ranks of social

constructivists (pp. 9-10) .

Phillips's concern with the multitude of authors and a

spectrum of theories is reminiscent of Dewey's own words in

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 10

1938. Compared with important theoretical educational

issues, he wrote a short but powerful "little volume"

entitled Experience and Education (p. 6). His preface is as

vital and compelling today as it was then. On forming an

intelligent philosophy of education, Dewey (1963) stated,

It means the necessity of the introduction of a

new order of conceptions leading to new modes of
practice. It is for this reason that it is so
difficult to develop a philosophy of education,
the moment tradition and custom are departed from.
. . .those who are looking ahead to a new
movement in education, adapted to the existing
need for a new social order, should think in
terms of Education itself rather than in terms of
some 'ism' about education, even such an 'ism' as
'progressivism.' For in spite of itself any
movement that thinks and acts in terms of an 'ism'
becomes so involved in reaction against other
'isms' that it is unwittingly controlled by them.
For it then forms its principles by reaction
against them instead of by a comprehensive,
constructive survey of actual needs, problems, and
possibilities. (pp. 5-6)

Many of the discussions of constructivism and its many

facets were centered on Piaget, Vygotsky, and von

Glasersfeld. Piaget, as stated earlier, is considered the

foundational figure of constructivism whose theories were

based on cognitive psychology. Von Glasersfeld's (1996)

radical constructivism is an outgrowth of Piaget's theory.

He explained his position as follows:

For Piagetian and radical constructivists, the
notion of constraint stems from the biological
principles of adaptation, which says that to
survive and reproduce, organisms must have
properties and develop ways of behaving that do
not bring them into fatal conflict with their
environment. Nature does not instruct them what
to be or how to behave; it merely eliminates them
if they are not viable.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 11

Having adopted this principle for use in the

cognitive/conceptual domain, radical
constructivism holds that the only instruction or
information a human knower can possibly receive
from 'nature' or 'reality' is negative. In other
words, the world beyond our experiential
interface may show us what concepts, theories, and
actions are not viable, but it cannot instruct us
what to think. . . .
My form of constructivism, I keep
reiterating, is a theory of rational knowing, not
a metaphysics of being. (p. 19)

Social constructivism is one of the most often

discussed 'isms' in today's constructivist literature

(Phillips, 2000; Phillips, 1995, p. 7; Fosnot, 1996).

According to Bentley (1998), Vygotsky is considered the

"seminal theorist for most social constructivists" (p. 239).

Bruner considers Vygotsky's concepts of education essential

to his theory of development to be really "a theory of

education" (Moll, 1990, p. 3). The attention to Vygotsky's

works and Bruner's statement concerning Vygotsky sparked the

curiosity of the researcher to investigate whether both

Vygotsky and Dewey may truly be labeled social

constructivist, and if so, how their theories compare.

The purpose of this study is to analyze the educational

theories of Dewey and Vygotsky as revitalized by today's

constructivist literature and to gauge how they may impact
upon educational practices. Does Vygotsky's theory of

education support "a new order of conceptions leading to new

modes of practice"? (Dewey, 1963, p. 5). This study will

determine whether or nor Vygotsky's theory of how learners

come to know can translate into Dewey's (1963) principles of

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 12

"experience, continuity and interaction between the learner

and what is learned" (p. 10).

Questions of the Study

This study will answer the following questions:

1. What are the main elements of Dewey's and

Vygotsky's versions of social constructivism?

2. How are Dewey's and Vygotsky's versions of social

constructivism similar and how do they differ?

3. How are Dewey and Vygotsky's educational views

similar and how are they different?

a. In what ways are Vygotsky's educational views

similar and different to Dewey's principles

of experience, continuity and interaction?

b. In what ways are Vygotsky's educational views

similar and different to Dewey's definition

of educational reform, "a new order of

conceptions leading to new modes of

practice?"

4. Are the differences significant enough to impact

upon social constructivist educational practices

so as to force educators to reassess their

practices?

Definitions of Terms

Establishing a precise definition of social

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 13

constructivism has been and remains difficult. This is due

to the many interpretations as noted by Phillips. One

simple, yet helpful definition is that social constructivism

emphasizes the social construction of knowledge in which an

"individual's interaction with a social milieu" results in a

"change in both the individual and the milieu" (Airasian &

Walsh, 1997, p. 446). This definition is broad enough to

include both Dewey and Vygotsky as social constructivists

based on the continuum that Phillips (1995) devised.

Nevertheless, the simplicity of this definition requires

more in-depth explanation. One explanation is found in the

definition of social constructivism gleaned by Bredo from

George Herbert Mead's work.

Mead was credited with being one of the founders of

social psychology (Menand, 2001, pp. 304-305). By 1890, the

influences of Mead, Pierce, and James helped Dewey to grow

in his philosophical beliefs that began with intuitionism,

through Hegelianism, instrumentalism, to experimentalism.

Roughly, from 1890 to 1900 Dewey's Hegelianism

went through a conversion under Darwinian
evolution, and Dewey was responding to the thought
of Alfred Lloyd and George Herbert Mead, his
colleagues at Michigan, and to the Psychology of
James. The idealism with its categories of the
organic whole, and the development viewed as a
passage from 'contradictions' to 'syntheses,' gave
way to the evolutionary and biologically conceived
notions of growth as a process of 'conflicts' and
'resolutions.' The outward forms of idealist
tradition began to disappear with what Dewey
called his 'experimental idealism.' The remaining
substance of the Hegelian inheritance became

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 14

the leaven in the emergence of instrumentalism.

(Thayer, 1981, p. 167)

The comprehensive work of Mead influenced Dewey greatly and

as a result he quoted Mead whenever he discussed social

psychology (Ryan, 1995, p. 79).

Vygotsky was also influenced by Mead according to Rex

Lohmann who drew on connections among Dewey, Vygotsky, and

Montessori. Lohmann (1988) expressed his opinion that

Vygotsky's "theory of signs and behavior . . . paralleled

and virtually duplicated in many ways" Mead's work (p. 3).

Mead and Vygotsky were compared as similar even in their

looks according to Bruner (1962, p. vi) .

Because Mead influenced both theorists, Bredo's (2000)

analysis of Mean's interactive perspective is pertinent in

the development of a working definition for this research.

Within the number of varieties of social

constructivism, Bredo (2000) finds the common premise in all

the approaches to be dualistic, the inner-versus-outer

premise.
One common premise is the inner-versus-outer way
in which the problem of knowledge or reality is
framed. In fact, it would seem obvious that an
either/or framing is incorrect. One is not
human or natural, individual or social, mental or
material. (Bredo, 2000, p. 141)
Bredo (2000) stated there is an alternative to these

approaches that he entitled interactional constructivism.

"The principal alternative is an interactional (or

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 15

transactional) approach deriving, ultimately, from

evolutionary thought . . . . An interactional approach

attempts to avoid the inside-versus-outside dichotomy by

giving priority to doing rather than knowing" (p. 142).

Based on Mead's work, Bredo (2000) explained how

various objects are socially constructed beginning with a

physical object.

. . . an 'object' is the objective of response.

It is what the child reaches for, the stimulus for
the response of reaching . . . it is also a means
to some further consummation, since it is to
achieve some purpose, however unconscious and
implicit. Objects are thus both ends of a
perceptual act and means for further activity.
They must play successfully the role of
something sought and used to accomplish a purpose
to be an 'object.' A physical object, in
particular, is whatever can be brought to play
these roles in the close, manipulatory region
in which one's hands or other appendages can
function. This experience may later be extended
to other objects that cannot be brought close to
manipulate, like distant planets, which are
treated as if they could be handled if they were
near to hand. (p. 142)

A physical object becomes the focal point for activity

as it is manipulated by a child. The activity translates

into a foundational experience for the child from which new

experiences can be built to the more abstract object.

Bredo (2000) refers to construction of social objects
such as gestures, words, and ideas whose manipulation

creates social meaning. "The conversation of gestures and

the social meanings that these regularities of mutually

anticipatory behavior create are themselves important

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 16

because they form the basis for the development of

reflective intelligence" (p. 144).

When a person feels conflicted when responding to

conversation of gestures also known as "significant symbols,

she is becoming conscious of her own thought processes and

that her own gestures reflect meaning. This is what is

meant by 'reflective intelligence'" (Bredo, 2000, p. 146).

In effect, reflective intelligence, which is made

possible by such symbols, enables a creature to
select the aspects of the situation to which it
responds. By being able to 'take' things in
different ways it becomes in many respects self-
stimulating, freeing it from merely responding to
the most obvious or intense of immediately present
stimulus. This process of responding to one's own
behavior, treating one's own responses as
'objects,' also implies that one has a self,
since acting toward oneself as an object is what
it means to have a self, at least when considered
functionally. Seen in this way, both mind and
self are socially constructed functions, not
preexisting entities. (p. 146)

Bredo explained that social interaction using

linguistic symbols helps to respond to physical objects in

many ways even when the physical object is not present and

helps to create other social processes like mind providing a

"whole new type of self interactive 'object'" (p. 146).

Therefore, the individual is reflecting on previous

experience to create a new understanding of himself in his

environment. Thus, for the individual, the school provides

the social setting where common language is used to build

upon those experiences and understandings resulting in the

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 17

individual becoming an integral social member. Bredo (2000)

stated,

Such institutions involve taking the role or

attitude of a 'generalized other' that one learns
through participation in more complex and
widespread activities. When one takes the
attitude of a generic member of the public into
account in one's action, such as taking into
account what 'school' implies for all
participants, this becomes the basis for
institutionalized behavior. Thus, whole new
classes of objects are constituted as a result of
social interaction using language. As Mead
wrote, 'Symbolization constitutes objects not
constituted before, objects which would not exist
except for the context of social relationships
wherein symbolization occurs. Language does not
simply symbolize a situation or object which is
already there in advance; it makes possible the
existence or the appearance of that situation or
object, for it is a part of the mechanism whereby
that situation or object is created.' (p. 147)

Finally, Bredo (2000) takes on the construction of

scientific objects. Though many of the objects in science

are abstract, Mead "sought to recognize the value of science

. .. by placing it within everyday life rather than outside

of it" (p. 147).

Science begins with the everyday world, uses

abstract objects to infer the implications of
various actions, and ends with the everyday world
in which these consequences are tested. The role
of the scientific object is to focus attention on
certain aspects of the situation, . . . and
suggest implications leading to consequences that
can be put to experimental (or other) test. Seen
in this way science produces what are in essence
transformation rules for changing one state of
affairs into another . . . . In other words
scientific objects are also to be understood
functionally rather than metaphysically.
. . . (scientific object) original function
is to guide action in inquiry in an instrumental
fashion so that different observers may
produce similar results from similar

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 18

manipulations. Their scientific role is to be

tools of inquiry.
In this view, scientific objects are
constructs that help to reconstruct the world.
The results of scientific inquiry literally
change reality, rather than merely reflecting it.
When science is placed within the world,
rather than outside of it, the rigid division
between the natural and human is also
eliminated, leaving in its place various sciences
with differing aims and objects, all of which
involve some form of participation in the
phenomena being studied. (pp. 147-150)
Mead's approach as Bredo saw it placed "the knower

inside of the world as it is evolving, and whose evolution

the knower effects" echoes the simple definition offered by

Airasian and Walsh (1997), "the individual interacts with

the social milieu changing both the individual and the

milieu" (p. 446). Bredo (2000) offered his conclusion on

how this approach affects education. He stated that

"education builds from where one is, utilizing and

transforming this base, but not destroying or entirely

supplanting it. When properly done, more specialized

education and inquiry is a function within a wider life

rather than a competitor with it" (p. 154).

In sum, the dualism of inner-versus-outer is debunked

as Bredo demonstrated how the social constructed physical,

social and scientific objects interact and are

interdependent. The detailed explanation of social

constructivism fleshed out the simple definition of social

constructivism. Thus, the definition of social

constructivism that will be referred to throughout is as

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 follows: Knowledge is constructed utilizing earlier

experience as the foundation for building or reconstructing

knowledge within an interactive and interdependent

environment which results in growth of the individual and

social environment.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

The foundational source for this study will be "My

Pedagogic Creed" in which Dewey succinctly expressed his

beliefs and in doing so blended pedagogy and social

psychology. It was published as a pamphlet the year after

he had moved to Chicago in 1896 where he opened the

University Elementary School of the University of Chicago

(Menand, 2001, p. 320). The experimental nature of the

school was subject to criticism. Dewey responded in a

series of lectures, one of which was published as The School

and Society in 1900, and in 1902, The Child and the

Curriculum. Dewey understood that transformation of

American agrarian society required educational reform.

Education could not be static, especially in the face of

such profound changes. Dewey believed the school should be

an "embryonic Community" (Cremin, 1961, p. 177) whose

purpose was to reflect the life of the larger society. What

was learned in the natural community of home and in working

the land would not be taught in the classroom (p. 118).

That embryonic community was not to be found in a

20

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 21

traditional school setting. Activity was part of the

natural community. So must it be in the laboratory school.

Dewey didn't conceive of his school as a teacher-

training institute, though, and he didn't conceive
of it as a psychology laboratory. Dewey wasn't
conducting curricular experiments or collecting
data on mental development. He was trying out a
theory. It was a theory, as he said, of the
'unity of knowledge' . . . .
By 'unity of knowledge' Dewey did not mean
that all knowledge is one. He meant that
knowledge is inseparably united with doing.
Education at the Dewey school was based on the
idea that knowledge is a by-product of activity;
people doing things in the world, and doing
results in learning something that, if deemed
useful, gets carried along into the next activity.
(Menand, 2001, p. 322)

Simply stated, Menand described Dewey's idea of continuity.

Dewey saw continuity as a principle of inquiry. Continuity

in Dewey's writings means growth. Continuity represents a

remnant of Helgianism that was ingrained in Dewey's

thinking.

Dewey (1991) understands systemic inference as the

process of arriving at the recognition of the definite

relations of interdependence between considerations

previously unorganized and disconnected (p. 81).

Inferences are not to be taken for granted, but
rigorously tested by mental elaboration and
further action. First, the process of forming
the idea or supposed solution is checked by
constant reference to the conditions observed
to be actually present; secondly the idea after
it is formed is tested by acting upon it, overtly
if possible, otherwise in imagination. The
consequences of this action confirm, modify,
or refute the idea. (Dewey, 1991, p. 82).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 22

Reflective action, therefore binds together cause

and effect, action and its consequences. For
Dewey, this kind of thinking is an intentional
endeavor, which leads to the discovery of specific
connections between something that we do and the
consequences that result, so that the two become
continuous. (Dewey, 1966, p. 145; Shepel, 1999,
p. 76)
His concept of continuity became synonymous with growth.

"And it is growth as a form of continuity that provides the

nexus and the beginning point of logical, ethical, and

educational theory. . . a paradigm . . . of growth is

education. Education is growth" (Thayer, 1981, p. 175).

During the ten years that Dewey was in Chicago, he was

a living embodiment of his education theory as he grew

through the observations of the many experiences in the

Laboratory School. By the end of his Chicago tenure, he was

held in esteem not only as a philosopher, but also as an

educator and a social commentator (Cremin, 1961, p. 119).

With his ideas further formulated by his Chicago

experience, Dewey became a prolific writer at Columbia

University. Between 1908 and 1916, he published several

important works including How We Think (1910), Schools of

Tomorrow (1915) with his daughter Evelyn, and his highest

acclaimed work, Democracy and Education (1916) . Cremin

(1961) calls this volume "the clearest, most comprehensive

statement of the progressive education movement" (p. 120).

In it, Dewey summarized the elemental concepts that formed

his philosophy of education.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 . . . the biological continuity of impulses and
instincts with natural energies; the dependence
of the growth of the mind upon participation in
conjoint activities having a common purpose; the
influence of the physical environment though the
uses made of it in the social medium; the
necessity of utilization of individual variations
in desire and thinking for a progressively
developing society; the essential unity of method
and subject matter; the intrinsic continuity of
ends and means; the recognition of mind as
thinking which perceives and tests the meanings
of behavior. (Dewey, 1966, p. 323)

In truth, each of these seminal works were no more than

further explication and refinement of the fundamental

principles Dewey had laid down years earlier in his creed.

The translations of Vygotsky's books, Educational

Psychology (1997), Thought and Language (1962), and Mind in

Society (1978) will be cited throughout the study as seminal

works. The newly translated 1997 version of Educational

Psychology originally published in 1926 was introduced by

Davydov (1997), a student of Vygotsky and present-day

Vygotskian scholar. He explained that at the time of the

writing of this book, the young Vygotsky's ideas were formed

by the times. Therefore, his intentions were "to construct

a course of educational psychology on the foundations of

sociobiology" (p. xxviii) relating to human behavior,

reactions and reflexes. By the time it was published, he

had already begun experimental investigations with his

students-turned-colleagues, Luria and Leontiev in Moscow

that would change his mind about that construct. Davydov

(1997) suggests that this volume be viewed as "an important

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 24

stage in the preparation and evolution of cultural-

historical theory" (p. xxxvii) associated with Vygotsky

toward the end of his career and after his death.

Mind In Society, published in 1978 is a compilation of

Vygotsky's manuscripts edited by Cole, John-Steiner,

Scribner, and Souberman. These were studies and experiments

he conducted in his laboratory for a decade before his death

from tuberculosis. It details his experimental style which

was different from the usual in that the focus of his

experiments was not on performance but on the process of

development (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 13). It was written in a

time of post revolutionary Russia when Marxism was being

newly interpreted.

Vygotsky (1978) clearly viewed Marxist thought as a

valuable scientific resource from early in his career. "A

psychologically relevant application of dialectical and

historical materialism" (p. 6) would be one accurate summary

of Vygotsky's sociocultural theory of higher mental

processes.

Vygotsky's final book, Thought and Language originally

published in 1934 after his death was edited and translated

by Eugenia Hanfmann and Gertrude Vakar and published in the

United States in 1962. Bruner (1962) wrote in the

introduction to the translation that this work is a

"presentation of a highly original and thoughtful theory of

intellectual development" and that "Vygotsky's conception of

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 25

development is at the same time a theory of education"

(1962, p. v ) . It was in this volume that Vygotsky

introduced the "zone of proximal development" which Moll

(1990) considers "a key theoretical construct, capturing as

it does the individual within the concrete social situation

of learning and development" (p. 5). Vygotsky (1978)

defines it as follows: "It is the distance between the

actual developmental level as determined by independent

problem solving and the level of potential development as

determined through problem solving under adult guidance or

in collaboration with more capable peers" (p. 86). It is

this definition that helped to earn Vygotsky the social

constructivist title in today's literature.

With so many opinions and interpretations of social

constructivism in the contemporary literature, these primary

sources will reduce any distortion of Dewey's and Vygotsky's

theories. Though the comparison of the original works of

Vygotsky and Dewey will be primarily cited, other sources

will be utilized when appropriate. Vygotsky and Education

(1990) edited by Moll provides background into the

historical and theoretical issues of Vygotsky's research.

In addition, works by Wertsch, and Bruner provide insight

into Vygotsky's theory of education.

Contemporary published sources of social constructivist

literature include the Ninety-ninth Yearbook of the National

Society for the Study of Education, edited by D. C.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 26

Phillips, and entitled Constructivism in Education, Opinions

and Second Opinions on Controversial Issues (2000), offered

insight into the role of constructivist discussion on

philosophy, theory, and practice. The Case for the

Constructivist Classroom (1993) by Brooks and Brooks issued

by the Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development

and other sources they authored will provide the reader with

what they consider the principal tenets of constructivism as

an educational reform. Constructivism and Education (1998)

edited by Larochelle, Bednarz and Garrison and other

contributors provided diversity of interpretations of

constructivism through several authors' perspectives on

Vygotsky and Dewey, as do articles by Phillips. Popkewitz

offers some comparisons of Dewey and Vygotsky in an article

published in the American Educational Research Journal

(1998) that will be of value.

Shepel's article in the summer 1999 issues of

Educational Foundations compares Dewey's and Vygotsky's

perspectives on the process of reflective thinking. She

also presents a brief summary of the philosophical

traditions of reflective thinking including the ideas of

dialectics in Hegel's philosophy. This is helpful in

understanding the origins of their individual perspectives

on reflective thinking and continuity.

The biographical information for Dewey was taken from

Ryan's (1995) biography entitled John Dewev and the High

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 27

Tide of American Liberalism and The Metaphysical Club (2001)

by Menand. Both of these biographies provided insight into

the early influences in Dewey's personal history that

eventually contributed to the development of his theory of

education.

Vygotsky's biographical information was taken from two

sources that provided a sketch of the influences on

Vygotsky's thinking; Vygotsky and the Social Formation of

Mind (Wertsch, 1985) and Vygotsky and Education (1990)

edited by Moll. The latter source contains as detailed a

biographical sketch as possible in a chapter written by

Blanck (1981) who recounted that Bruner once said "Vygotsky

speaks to us from the future" (p. 31).

Comparing the writings and philosophies of learning of

Dewey and Vygotsky is the focus of this study with

references to other works when clarification or inter­

pretation of their words will be helpful.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

Research Design

By applying the historical method to this study, a look

at the past is helpful in determining how Dewey and Vygotsky

can be considered social constructivists today. Where

appropriate, biographical information that was relevant to

the development of Vygotsky's and Dewey's educational views

will be cited.

Contemporary educational literature abounds with

differing opinions and definitions of what constructivism

is. No doubt, researchers will probe and debate the various

schools of thought for years to come. In doing so, they

will "attempt to tease out what is important and good, what

is important but mistaken, and what is not important at all

in the various schools of thought" (Phillips, 2000, p. 2).

It is the desire of this researcher to avoid being mired

down by the clamor of the continuum of opinions of

constructivism. Through the various sources listed above

and scrutinizing the very words of these two theorists, the

research conducted will be an exegetical analysis of primary

28

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 29

texts for common language, expressions of social

constructivism. These will be compared and contrasted with

the working definition of social constructivism drawn from

the contemporary literature as the following: Experience is

the foundation for building or reconstructing knowledge

within an interactive environment that supports growth in

both the individual and the social group.

Since Dewey and Vygotsky were labeled social

constructivists and Vygotsky was thought to be the seminal

theorist, a comparison and contrast of their theories

concentrates on the two important figures in constructivist

literature. At the conclusion, there will be evidence

supported by the research of how Vygotsky's theory of

education and views labeled as social constructivism compare

and contrast with the principles of experience, continuity

and interaction (Dewey, 1963) which embodies educational

reform as explicated by Dewey.

The research results based primarily on the original

sources will provide a clearer picture of theory of

education and views of social constructivism of both

Vygotsky and Dewey. The similarities and differences in

their views will come to light. If social constructivism is

a real education reform, then the differences between

Vygotsky's and Dewey's social constructivism cannot be

great. The significance of the comparison is the degree of

difference found between their thoughts. If the differences

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 are broad, the impact on education practices will be

significant.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 CHAPTER IV

FINDINGS

What Are the Main Elements of Dewey's Social

Constructivism?

Literature in constructivism reform movement is rife

with opinions as to what social constructivism is and who in

the world of education is what kind of social

constructivist. Though Vygotsky is considered by some the

"seminal theorist" (Bentley, 1998, p. 239), Dewey is also

connected with this reform movement. With the shift from

traditional education to the more activity-centered

approach, Dewey, who Prawat (1995) stated is "viewed as the

godfather of activity-based education" (p. 13) does get some

attention, but Prawat believes Dewey is misread. Prawat

identifies Dewey's social constructivism as "idea-based

social constructivism." He explains that social

constructivism "assigns the highest priority in education to

important ideas developed within academic disciplines" and

that the job of the teacher is to provide "discourse

communities" that encourage students to "hammer out and

apply big ideas . . . to real world phenomena that they can

31

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 32

view with fresh eyes." Prawat provided the following Dewey

quote to support his view: "'Ideas are worthless,' wrote

Dewey, 'except as they pass into actions which rearrange and

reconstruct in some way, be it little or large the world in

which we live'" (Prawat, 1995, p. 20) .

While Prawat calls Dewey's social constructivism "idea-

based social constructivism," Garrison (1996) called it

idea-based and feeling-based social constructivism. "For

Dewey, feelings matter just as much as do ideas within the

unity of activity, especially social activity." He also

referred to Dewey's social constructivism as pragmatic

social behaviorism as it "stresses the unity of action and

not just its parts, as important as each is to the integrity

of the whole. An emphasis on activity, behavior, and

conduct" (pp. 21-23).

Dewey did not like labels; he warned against "isms."

It is probable that he would react to the various

discussions of the constructivist movement and the confusing

labels the same way as he did in 193 8

. . . those who are looking ahead to a new

movement in education, adapted to the existing
need for a new social order, should think in
terms of Education itself rather than in terms
of some 'ism' about education, even such an
'ism' as 'progressivism.' For in spite of
itself any movement that thinks and acts in
terms of isms becomes so involved in reaction
against other isms that it is unwittingly
controlled by them. For it then forms its
principles by reaction against them instead
of by a comprehensive, constructive survey
of actual needs, problems, and possibilities.
(Dewey, 1963, pp. 5-6)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 33

More than sixty years after their writing, these words

remain as fresh as when they were first expressed and are an

apt reply to the cacophony of disparate views on social

constructivism. Dewey is his own best spokesperson and for

that reason his words as found in his various works will be

used to identify the main elements of his version of social

constructivism.

Gleaned from the simple definition of social

constructivism that "knowledge is seen as constructed by an

individual's interaction with a social milieu in which he or

she is situated, resulting in a change in both the

individual and the milieu" (Airasian & Walsh, 1997, p. 446),

and Bredo's (2000) interpretation of Mead's "interpersonal

approach" (p. 141), the definition for social constructivism

has been developed. It will be used as a means of

identifying the main elements of social constructivism as

they are found in Dewey's and Vygotsky's own words as

follows: knowledge is constructed where earlier experience

is the foundation for building or reconstructing knowledge

within an interactive and interdependent environment that

encourages growth in both the individual and society. In

this definition of social constructivism, the principles of

continuity, experience, interaction are apparent.

Dewey died at the age of ninety-three in 1952. During

a lifetime that straddled two centuries, he developed an

intellectual presence in the nation unlike anyone before

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 34

him. "So faithfully did Dewey live up to his own

philosophical creed that he became the guide, the mentor,

and the conscience of the American people; it is scarcely an

exaggeration to say that for a generation no issue was

clarified until Dewey had spoken" (Ryan, 1995, p. 20). This

was how Commager characterized Dewey's impact in The

American Mind published at the end of Dewey's life (cited in

Ryan, 1995, p. 20).

Looking back to Dewey's earliest writing, he

articulated those beliefs in "My Pedagogic Creed."

Published in 1897, it is a social constructivist document in

which each element of social constructivism is found. In

this research, generous quotations from the text of the

creed are used because Dewey speaks quite well for himself

and paraphrasing would be a disservice. Dewey set up his

credo into five articles; What Education is, What School is,

The Subject Matter of Education, The Nature of Method, and

The School and Social Progress. The first article

explicated his educational philosophy identifying both the

social and psychological components of the educational

process. Dewey outlined his belief in the continuity,

experience, and interaction of the education process of a

child from birth as he constructs knowledge through his
informal or what Dewey refers to as an "unconscious

education" (Archambault, 1964, p. 427). From those early

social experiences with his immediate surroundings, the

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 35

child reconstructs knowledge continually as he grows in more

complex understandings. He engages in communication of his

thought through the assimilation of language. Dewey

emphasizes, however, that the interaction with his

environment must not be left to the child's own

interpretation, but must be guided to provide the child the

understanding of his inclusiveness within the society.

Therefore, the idea of the psychological versus the

sociological cannot be entertained because the two are

interdependent, or, as Dewey stated, are "organically

related" (Archambault, 1964, p. 428).

All education proceeds by the participation of the

individual in the social consciousness of the
race. This process begins unconsciously almost at
birth, and is continually shaping the individual's
powers, saturating his consciousness, forming his
habits, training his ideas, and arousing his
feelings and emotions. Through this unconscious
education the individual gradually comes to share
in the intellectual and moral resources which
humanity has succeeded in getting together. He
becomes an inheritor of the funded capital of
civilization. The most formal and technical
education the world cannot safely depart from
this general process. It can only organize it
or differentiate it in some particular direction.
The only true education comes through the
stimulation of the child's power by the demands
of the social situations in which he finds
himself. Through these demands he is stimulated
to act as a member of a unity, to emerge from
his original narrowness of action and feeling,
and to conceive of himself from the standpoint
of the welfare of the group to which he belongs.
Through the responses which others make to his
own activities he comes to know what these mean
in social terms. The value which they have
is reflected back into them. For instance,
through the response which is made to the
child's instinctive babblings the child comes
to know what those babblings mean; they are

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 36

transformed into articulate language, and thus

the child is introduced into the consolidated
wealth of ideas and emotions which are now
summed up in language. (Archambault, 1964,
pp. 427-428)
The psychological and social sides are
organically related, and that education cannot
be regarded as a compromise between the two,
or a superimposition of one upon the other
(p. 429)
In sum, I believe that the individual
who is to be educated is a social individual,
and that society is an organic union of
individuals. If we eliminate the social factor
from the child we are left only with an
abstraction; if we eliminate the individual
factor from society, we are left only with an
inert and lifeless mass. Education, therefore,
must begin with a psychological insight into
the child's capacities, interests, and habits.
It must be controlled at every point by reference
to these same considerations. These powers,
interests, and habits must be continually
interpreted - - w e must know what they mean.
They must be translated into terms of their
social equivalents -- into terms of what they
are capable of in the way of social service.
(pp. 429-430)

Dewey held true to his beliefs when he discussed

education as a necessity of life and as a social function in

Democracy and Education written in 1916. "Life is a self-

renewing process through action upon the environment" (p.

2). He explains that life means much more than the

physical. "'Life' covers customs, institutions, beliefs,

victories and defeats, recreations and occupations" (p. 2).

Life as experience continually renews itself through "re­

creation of beliefs, ideals, hopes, happiness, misery and

practices. The continuity of any experience, through

renewing of the social group is a literal fact" (p. 2).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 37

Education, in its broadest sense, is the means

of this social continuity of life. Every one
of the constituent elements of a social group,
in a modern city as in a savage tribe, is born
immature, helpless, without language, beliefs,
ideas, or social standards. Each individual,
each unity who is the carrier of the life-
experience of his groups in time passes away.
Yet the life of the group goes on. (Dewey,
1916, p. 2)

In Dewey's view, the ability of psychology to draw on

physiology, biology, and other sciences of the functioning

organism showed how impossible it was for science to proceed

on the basis of merely empirical, merely mechanical, or

merely mathematical principles . . . the thoughts, feelings,

and sensations of the individual person formed a unity, and

that unity reflected larger social, intellectual, and

spiritual unities into which the individual fitted (Ryan,

1995, p. 75).

It is through communication that ideas and practices

are transmitted. This type of learning is incidental and

may not always be educative. Dewey made it very clear in

both his creed and in Experience and Education the early

learning experiences of the child should not be supplanted;

he believed that education should build upon those

experiences using them as the starting point. For the

continuation of a society, deliberate teaching of the young

becomes a necessity. A more formal education is the vehicle

to share communication of interests in a complex society.

"Without such formal education, it is not possible to

transmit all the resources and achievements of a complex

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 38

society" (Dewey, 1938, pp. 6-9). Education is therefore a

social function, and must be directed by creating a social

environment. The three functions of this social environment

are: "simplifying and ordering the factors of the

disposition it is wished to develop; purifying and

idealizing the existing social customs; creating a wider and

better balanced environment than that by which the young

would be likely, if left to themselves, to be influenced"

(p. 22).

Dewey understood the unpredictability of the future.

What or how civilization would change through time was and

is still unknown. The importance of education in Dewey's

mind was to prepare children to handle any situation by

being in command of their ability to think and to use all of

their capacities to meet the challenges of life. That

important concept is perhaps more relevant today than itwas

in Dewey's time in light of the rapid advances in

technology, changing workplace requirements, and changes in

family structures. Formal education helps children make

sense of their world.

As a result, the role of school in today's society

becomes more complex and important. Preparation for living

in the future is not as critical as learning how to deal

with living today. Children are faced with complex and

adult situations at a much earlier age due to exposure to

ubiquitous media, rampant commercialism, technology, and

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 39

untraditional family situations. The traditional school is

even less relevant in the lives of the children than it was

when Dewey objected to traditional schools. Dewey's second

article is an expression of his frustration and his belief

in structuring schools to be "embryonic communities" (p.

430) that should "take up and continue the activities with

which the child is already familiar in the home" (pp. 430-

431). Though the type of home occupation Dewey was

referring to is different from the home occupation of today,

the concept of the embryonic community is still important,

because children are faced with complexities that need be

simplified and made understandable. Schools must "simplify

existing social life" (p. 430) and build upon the

experiences of the child to "secure continuity in the

child's growth" (p. 430) in the present. In light of

societal challenges, the school as a social institution is

vital and Dewey believed it to be so in his time.

The school is primarily a social institution.
Education being a social process, the school
is simply that form of community life in which
all those agencies are concentrated that will be
most effective in bringing the child to share
in the inherited resources of the race, and
to use his own powers for social ends.
Education, therefore, is a process of living
and not a preparation for future living.
The school must represent present life --
life as real and vital to the child as that which
carries on in the home, in the neighborhood, or on
the playground.
That Education which does not occur through
forms of life, forms that are worth living for
their own sake, is always a poor substitute for
the genuine reality, and tends to cramp and to
deaden. (p. 43 0)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 40

Dewey's criticism of traditional schools is relevant

today, and the very reason reform movements like

constructivism have come to the forefront of education

discussions. Disappointingly, criticism in history is

relevant in the present.

Much of present education fails because it

neglects this fundamental principle of the
school as a form of community life. It
conceives the school as a place where certain
information is to be given, where certain
lessons are to be learned, or where certain
habits are to be formed. The values of these
is conceived as lying largely in the remote
future; the child must do these things for the
sake of something else he is to do; they are
mere preparations. As a result they do not
become a part of the life experience of the
child and so are not truly educative.
The moral education centers upon this
conception of the school as a mode of social
life, that the best and deepest moral training
is precisely that which one gets through
having to enter into proper relations with
others in a unity of work and thought. The
present educational systems, so far as they
destroy or neglect this unity, render it
difficult or impossible to get any genuine,
regular moral training.
The child should be stimulated and
controlled in his work through the life of the
community.
Under existing conditions far too much of
the stimulus and control proceeds from the
teacher, because of neglect of the idea of the
school as a form of social life. (p. 431)
What Dewey stated about the role of the teacher is what

the role of a social constructivist teacher should be. He

understood the importance of guided direction that

encourages a child to reconstruct knowledge in a

cooperative, and safe environment.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 41

The teacher's place and work in the school is to

be interpreted from this same basis. The teacher
is not in the school to impose certain ideas or
to form certain habits in the child, but is there
as a member of the community to select the
influences which will affect the child and to
assist him in properly responding to these
influences.
The discipline of the school should proceed
from the life of the school as a whole and not
directly from the teacher.
The teacher's business is simply to
determine, on the basis of larger experience
and riper wisdom, how the discipline of life
shall come to the child. (p. 432)

Dewey felt strongly about the schools and their role in

the growth of the individual and society. After he

addressed this issue in his creed, he wrote in 1900 and

revised in 1915, School and Society. He emphatically

addressed his passion concerning the work of the school.

"What the best and wisest parent wants for his own child,

that must the community want for all of its children. Any

other ideal for our schools is narrow and unlovely; acted

upon, it destroys our democracy" (1990, p. 7). He expounded

upon this statement as follows:

All that society has accomplished for itself is

put, through the agency of school, at the disposal
of its future members. All its better thoughts
of itself in hopes to realize through the new
possibilities thus opened to its future self.
Here individualism and socialism are at one.
Only by being true to the full growth of the
individuals who make it up, can society by any
chance be true to itself. And in the self-
direction thus given, nothing counts as much as
the school. . . . (1990, p. 7)

He was tenacious in his criticism of traditional

schools in his works and expounded upon the difference

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 42

between what schools should be and what he found in

traditional education in School and Society. Though he

stressed activity that mimicked home life, cooking, weaving,

sewing, as "methods of living and learning, not as distinct

studies," (p. 14) he was making the following point: "A

society is a number of people held together because they are

working along common lines, in a common spirit, and with

reference to common aims. The common needs and aims demand

a growing interchange of thought and growing unity of

sympathetic feeling" (p. 14).

Traditional education does not provide for this type of

social unit. Traditional schools aim to prepare future

societal members under conditions that are not social. In

this setting, students are passive members who are to absorb

facts presented by the teacher. In traditional school,

students compete with one another rather than working

together for mutual understanding. Dewey's suggested remedy

for this is a social constructivist solution.

A spirit of free communication, of interchange of

ideas, suggestions, results, both successes and
failures of previous experiences, becomes the
dominating note of the recitation. So far as
emulation enters in, it is in the comparison
of individuals, not with regard to the quantity
of information personally absorbed, but with
reference to the quality of work done -- the
genuine community standard of value. In an
informal but all the more persuasive way, the
school life organizes itself on a social basis.
(1990, pp. 15-16)
In this social atmosphere, Dewey believed that students

are so engaged in social activity that discipline becomes a

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 43

matter of self-discipline. The echo of his sharp criticism

of traditional schools can be heard today.

That we learn from experience, and from books or

sayings of others only as they are related to
experience, are not mere phrases. But the school
has been so set apart, so isolated from the
ordinary conditions and motives of life, that
the place where children are sent for discipline
is the one place in the world where it is most
difficult to get experience -- the mother of all
discipline worth the name. It is only when a
narrow and fixed image of traditional school
discipline dominates that one is in any danger
of overlooking that deeper and infinitely wider
discipline that comes from having a part to do
in constructive work, in contributing to a
result which, social in spirit, is none the less
obvious and tangible in form -- and hence in
a form with reference to which responsibility
may be exacted and accurate judgment passed.
(pp. 17-18)

The role of the teacher in this social setting is one

of an active member of the community rather than a center of

the community. It is the role of the teacher to provide

directed living activity rather than drill unrelated facts

and information that will be of no value in the future.

Children live in the present, not in the future. Dewey

believed that active occupation was not to be for the

purpose of making better workers in our industrial society,

but to be better members of society.

The occupation supplies the child with a genuine
motive; it gives him experience at first hand;
it brings him into contact with realities. It
does all this, but in addition it is liberalized
throughout by translation into its historic and
social values and scientific equivalencies. With
the growth of the child's mind in power and
knowledge it ceases to be a pleasant occupation
merely and becomes more and more a medium, an
instrument, an organ of understanding -- and it

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 44

is thereby transformed.
. . .scientific insight thus gained becomes
an indispensable instrument of free and active
participation in modern social life. (pp. 22-
23) .

The following social constructivist quote sums up what

Dewey believed school should be and how the school should

affect a child's social development.

. . . to make each one of our schools and

embryonic community life, active with types of
occupations that reflect the life of the larger
society and permeated throughout with the spirit
of art, history, and science. When the school
introduces and trains each child of society into
membership with such a little community,
saturating him with the spirit of service, and
providing him with the instruments of effective
self-direction, we shall have the deepest and
best guaranty of a larger society which is worthy,
lovely, and harmonious. (p. 28)

The main elements of his social constructivism were

more fully developed in each of his works over a score of

years. Each publication built upon the principles of

experience, interaction, and continuity; the experiences of

the individual as the starting point for reconstructing

knowledge, building upon those experiences in an interactive

social setting of which he becomes an integral part. This

concept of unity of the individual with society and with

subject-matter is the focus of the third article.

Dewey (1964) reiterated that the experience of the
child is the starting point for knowledge reconstruction; he

believed subject-matter should be introduced with the

interests of the child at the foundation and not in

isolation from the social life of the child. "The true

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 45

center of correlation on the school subjects is not science,

nor literature, nor history, nor geography, but the child's

own social activities" (p. 432). "The primary basis of

education is in the child's powers at work along the same

general constructive lines as those which have brought

civilization into being" (p. 433). ". . . i n the so-called

expressive or constructive activities as the center of

correlation" (p. 433) .

At this point Dewey was referring to the home

occupations that children were involved with at the time

such as cooking, sewing, and others, but for social

constructivists today, though cooking and sewing are not the

center, but other real-life activity based on earlier

experience of the child is as the center of correlation.

Social constructivists would agree with Dewey (1964) that

each of the subject matter areas should relate to the social

life of the child for "if education is life, all life has,

from the outset, a scientific aspect, an aspect of art and

culture, and an aspect of communication" (p. 434).

Therefore, "the progress is not in the succession of

studies, but in the development of new attitudes towards,

and new interests in, experience" (p. 434). "...
education must be conceived as a continuing reconstruction

of experience; that the process and the goal of education

are one and the same thing" (p. 434).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 46

Article III was the expression of Dewey's continuous

frustration with traditional schools. He articulated that

to a greater extent in School and Society. "From the

standpoint of the child, the great waste in the school comes

from his inability to utilize the experiences he gets

outside the school in any complete and free way within the

school itself; while on the other hand, he is unable to

apply in daily life what he is learning in school" (1990, p.

75) .

This is the argument given today by constructivists who

call for contextual learning (Brooks & Brooks, 1993, p. 96) .

Whatever the concept, the goal should be to teach in the

context of the experiences a child already has, making it

easier to apply new knowledge as part of a continuous

experience. For example, reading should not be substituted

for experience, but should help interpret and expand

experience. He considered this an example of the "organic

relation of theory and practice" (Dewey, 1990, p. 85).

Dewey introduced the fundamental factors of the

educative process in The Child and the Curriculum he wrote

in 1902. These factors are:

an immature, undeveloped being; and certain social

aims, meanings, values incarnate in the matured
experience of the adult. The educative process
is the due interaction of these forces. Such a
conception of each in relation to the other as
facilitates completest and freest interaction
in the essence of educational theory. (1990,
p. 182)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 It is when these forces are considered in opposition to

one another that the educative process is thwarted.

Traditional education practices do just that when subject

matter is taught in isolation with no connection to the life

experiences of the child. Dewey's remedy for ridding the

dualisms of child vs. the curriculum, of individual nature

vs. social culture is to:

Abandon the notion of subject-matter as something

fixed and ready-made in itself, outside the
child's experience; cease thinking of the child's
experience as also something hard and fast; see
it as something fluent, embryonic, vital; and we
realize that the child and the curriculum are
simply two limits which define a single process.
Just as two points define a straight line, so the
present standpoint of the child and the facts and
truths of studies define instruction. It is a
continuous reconstruction, moving from the child's
present experience out into that represented by
the organized bodies of truth that we call
studies. (1990, p. 189)

The child cannot be expected to have the same thought

processes as the adult, but the child cannot be left to his

own "caprice or whim" (1964, p. 36). The adult role in this

process is to give guidance. Dewey said, "The systematized

and defined experience of the adult mind. . . is of value to

us in interpreting the child's life as it immediately shows

itself, and in passing on to guidance or direction" (1990,

p. 191). He explained further that "Guidance is not

external imposition. It is freeing the life-process for its

own most adequate fulfillment" (1990, p. 195). This social

constructivist view is similar today. The teacher is a

guide to help children "build their own bridges from present

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 understandings to new, more complex understandings" (Brooks

& Brooks, 1993, p. 83).

The fourth article in Dewey's creed addresses education

methods. Throughout Dewey eschews the passive role children

play in the traditional school setting. Methods should

involve the development of the natural powers and interests

of the child through a means of action. One instructional

tactic may be to assist the child in developing powers of

imagery. In this way, the child is "continually forming

definite, vivid, and growing images of the various subjects

with which he comes in contact in his experience" (1964, p.

436). The teacher becomes attuned to the emerging interests

of the child and cultivates those interests into positive

activity.

Interests are the signs and symptoms of growing

power. I believe that they represent dawning
capacities. Accordingly the constant and careful
observation of interests is of the utmost
importance for the educator.
These interests are to be observed as showing
the state of development which the child has
reached.
They prophesy the stage upon which he is
about to enter.
Only through the continual and sympathetic
observation of childhood's interests can the adult
enter into the child's life and see what it is
ready for, and upon what material it could work
most readily and fruitfully. (1964, p. 436)
Dewey had always cautioned about humoring the interest

of the child. Dewey made himself very clear in The Child

and the Curriculum when he criticized the neglect of the

child's interests by the "old education" and the sentimental

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 49

belief of the "new education" that the child's interests

should be indulged without direction.

The child is expected to 'develop' this or that

fact or thought out of his own mind. He is told
to think things out, or work things out for
himself, without being supplied any of the
environing conditions which are requisite to
start and guide thought. Nothing can be developed
from nothing; nothing surely happens when you
throw the child back upon his achieved self as
a finality, and invite him to spin new truths
of nature or of conduct out of that. (1990,
pp. 195-196)

Social constructivism is student-centered but learning

occursthrough a structured curriculum of "big ideas" in

which the child is actively involved using the powers of

reasoning and thought to explore interests in a cooperative

social setting. The child is not left without the guidance

of the teacher who is also a member of the community of

learners (Brooks & Brooks, 1993).

All constructivists today, no matter what "sect," have

the same complaints as Dewey did in the first third of the

last century; education in the traditional form fails to

include the experience of the child, subject matter is not

relevant to the life of the child, the child is not active

in his own learning, the child is not an active member of

the school community. He is simply a vessel into which

information should be poured. Dewey's frustration with

traditional education systems abounds in the first four

articles; but his fifth article addresses education as the

fundamental hope of social progress and reform. He

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 50

addresses the role of education as the basis of social

reconstruction, and makes it understandable that if

education is so conceived, there would be an awakening of

interest and support for the powerful possibilities

education can employ toward societal progress. He believed

strongly, but stated it quite simply that "education is the

fundamental method of social progress and reform" (1964, p.

437). Article V is an eloquent explication of that

statement. It is the best of what social constructivist

education should be in its ideal form.

--education is a regulation of the process of

coming to share in the social consciousness;
and that the adjustment of individual activity
on the basis of this social consciousness is
the only sure method of social reconstruction.

--this conception has due regard for both the

individualistic and socialistic ideals. It is
duly individual because it recognizes the
formation of a certain character as the only
genuine basis of right living. It is
socialistic because it recognizes that this
right character is not to be formed by merely
individual precept, example, or exhortation
but rather by the influence of a certain form
of institutional or community life upon the
individual, and that the social organism through
the school, as its organ, may determine ethical
results.

--in the ideal school we have the reconciliation

of the individualistic and the institutional
ideals.
--the community's duty to education is, therefore,
its paramount moral duty. By law and punishment,
by social agitation and discussion, society can
regulate and form itself in a more less haphazard
and chance way. But through education society can
formulate its own purposes, can organize its own
means and resources, and thus shape itself with

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 51

the definiteness and economy in the direction in

which it wishes to move.

--when society once recognizes the possibilities

in this direction, and the obligations which these
possibilities impose, it is impossible to conceive
of the resources of time, attention, and money
which will be put at the disposal of the educator.

--It is the business of every one interested in

education to insist upon the school as the primary
and most effective interest of social progress
and reform in order that society may be awakened
to realize what the school stands for, and
aroused to the necessity of endowing the
educator with sufficient equipment properly
to perform his task.

--education thus conceived marks the most perfect

and intimate union of science and art conceivable
to human experience.

--the art of thus giving shape to human powers

and adapting them to social service is the
supreme art; one calling into its service the
best of artists; that no insight, sympathy,
tact, executive power, is too great for such
service.

--with the growth of psychological service, giving

added insight into individual structure and laws
of growth; and with growth of social science,
adding to our knowledge of the right organization
of individual, all scientific resources can be
utilized for the purposes of education.

--when science and art thus join hands the most

commanding motive for human action will be
reached, the most genuine springs of human
conduct aroused, and the best service that
human nature is capable of guaranteed.

--the teacher is engaged, not simply in the

training of individuals, but in the formation
of the proper social life.

--every teacher should realize the dignity of

his calling; that he is a social servant set
apart from the maintenance of proper social
order and the securing of the right social
growth.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 52

--in this way the teacher is the prophet of the

true God and the usherer in the true kingdom
of God. (Archambault, 1964, pp. 437-439)

These are Dewey's democratic conceptions. He

summarizes in effect his beliefs in the power of education

as a means of empowering the individual in a medium of

associated life directing progress toward continued growth

both for the individual and society. These are also the

main elements of Dewey's social constructivism. Experience,

growth, continuity are all principles that are anything but

implicit throughout his works, and these principles have

endured in social constructivism. Dewey's technical

definition of education is: "It is that reconstruction or

reorganization of experience which adds to the meaning of

experience, and which increases ability to direct the course

of subsequent experience" (Dewey, 1966, p. 76). As Dewey

(1966) stated it, "education as a freeing of individual

capacity in a progressive growth directed to social aims"

(p. 9). The definitions appear to be synonymous.

What Are the Main Elements of Lev S. Vygotsky's Social

Constructivism?

Vygotsky's educational background is impressive. His

scope of studies was extraordinarily broad for his day or

any era. His studies included law, medicine, philosophy,

psychology, art, languages, and education. Though he had no

formal training as a psychologist, the breadth of his

studies and his interest in child development, especially

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 53

for children with special needs, led Bruner (1962) to view

Vygotsky's "conception of development" as a "theory of

education" (p. v ) . Drawing from his various works, his

theory of education will be drawn revealing the main

elements of his theory that are viewed as social

constructivism.

The latest translation of Vygotsky's work is his book

entitled Educational Psychology written in 1926 when

Vygotsky was a young man. As Davydov, a former student and

later a collaborator in research pointed out in the

introduction to this translation, the book has significance

for today's educators and psychologists, but it also has

shortcomings. Davydov (1997) explained that as a young man,

Vygotsky's intention in this book was to "place educational

psychology on a sociobiological foundation" (p. xxviii).

"Vygotsky was fully devoted to a presentation of his

theoretical understanding of the biological and

physiological forms of behavior in man and in animals and

the sociobiological foundations of man's education" (p. xx).

Davydov is quick to point out that by the time the book was

published "he began to doubt the necessity of any direct

connection between biology and sociology, or between

physiology and psychology" (p. xxxvii). Later, as he and

his associates conducted their experiments, his cultural-

historical theory evolved concerning the social nature of

man.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 54

Another shortcoming of the book Davydov related was the

out-dated vocabulary. His interpretation was that when

Vygotsky spoke of instinct he really had in mind "the

child's needs and the intimately associated realm of the

child's interests" (p. xxxii).

It is noteworthy that even though this body of work was

written by Vygotsky early in his career, the translation

language gives it the feel of being written recently.

Despite this and the suggested shortcomings, the book still

has value as a research tool because it reveals the

foundational thoughts of Vygotsky that are typical of social

constructivism as defined earlier. Vygotsky recognized the

importance of the social influences on the growth of the

individual. Early in his works, he stated, " . . . system of

reactions is wholly determined by the structure of the

environment in which the individual grows and develops is

entirely obvious. Every form of education, therefore,

unavoidably bears a social character" (Vygotsky, 1997, p.

47). He reinforces this belief of the educative value of

the social environment, especially school, when he stated,

". . . education . . . has always been social in nature,

indeed, by its very ideology it could not hardly exist as

antisocial in any way . . . it was never the teacher and the

tutor who did the teaching, but the particular social

environment in the school which was created for each

individual instance" (p. 47).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 55

More to the point Vygotsky recognized that the

experience within the social environment is the starting

point of all learning.

We have seen that the individual's own

experience is the only teacher capable of
forming new reactions in the individual.
Only those relations are real for an
individual that are going to him in his
personal experience. That is why the
student's personal experience becomes the
fundamental basis of pedagogical work.
Strictly speaking, and from the scientific
point of view, there is no other way of
teaching. It is impossible to exert a
direct influence on, to produce changes
in, another individual, one can only teach
oneself, i.e., alter one's own innate
reactions, through one's own experience.
(Vygotsky, 1997, p. 47)

Like Dewey, he criticizes the traditional European

school system because individual experience is ignored as

knowledge is dispensed.

. . . the assumption that the student is simply

passive, just like the underestimation of his
personal experience, is the greatest of sins,
since it takes as its foundation the false rule
that the teacher is everything and the student
nothing. On the contrary, the psychological
point of view forces us to acknowledge that,
in the educational process, the student's
individual experience is everything. Education
should be structured so that it is not that
the student is educated, but the student
educates himself. (p. 48)

"... knowledge that is not gained through personal

experiences is not knowledge at all" (p. 48). That "the

student educates himself" can be misunderstood as too child-

centered, but his explanation as the role of the teacher

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 56

proves that not to be so. His belief in this regard are

protypical social constructivist.

. . . the educational process must be based on

the students individual's activity, and the art
of education should involve nothing more than
guiding and monitoring this activity. In the
educational process the teacher must be like
the rails on which trains travel freely and
independently, receiving from the rails only
the direction they are to travel. The school
which is run on scientific grounds is
inevitably a school of action. (1997, 48)

The student-teacher relationship that Vygotsky

envisioned was

In establishing such exceptional importance

to the student's individual experience, should
we reduce the role of the teacher down to
nothing? Should we replace the old formula,
'the teacher is everything, the student is
nothing' with the opposite: 'the student is
everything, and the teacher is nothing'? By
no means. If, speaking from a scientific
point of view, we have to reject the thesis
that the teacher has the power to produce an
immediate educational influence, that he
possess a mystical ability to directly, 'mold
another person's soul,' this is precisely
because we are assigning to the role of teacher
something incomparably more important. (p. 48)

Vygotsky (1997) went into some detail in explaining the

role of the teacher as the "director of the social

environment . . . the governor and guide of the interaction

between the educational process and the student" (p. 49).

This is a tenet of all constructivists no matter what the

"sect."
Though the teacher is powerless to produce
immediate effects in the student, he is
all-powerful when it comes to producing direct
effects in him through the social environment.
The social environment is the true lever of the

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 57

educational process, and the teacher's overall

role reduces to adjusting this lever . . . . Thus
it is that the teacher educates the student by-
varying the environment. (p. 49)

Vygotsky further clarified the role of the teacher as not

only being the director of the social environment but at the

same time as being part of the same environment. With this

he arrived at what he called the "formula of the educational

process: Education is realized through the student's own

experience, which is wholly determined by the environment,

and the role of the teacher than reduces to directing and

guiding the environment" (p. 50).

However, Vygotsky was concerned with all aspects of the

environment. He did not believe children should be set free

in any environment without guidance and preparation because

not all environments are educative in a positive way. He

stated,

First, education has always had as its goal not

adaptation to an already existing environment,
which may, in fact, happen anyway in the natural
course of events, but the creation of an adult
who will look beyond his own environment. . . .
It is true that we educate for life, that life
is the highest judge, that our ultimate purpose
is not to inculcate any sort of special, academic
virtues, but to teach vital habits and skills,
and that acculturation to life is our ultimate
purpose. But the most varied habits may be
met up within life, and acculturation may assume
the most diverse properties. We cannot relate
equally and with indifference to all aspects
of life, we cannot say 'yes' to absolutely
everything, just because it exists in real life.
Consequently, we cannot agree to leaving the
educational process in the control of life's
elements. We are never able to judge ahead
of time which of life's elements will triumph
in our student without ending up with a

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 58

parody of life, i.e., a medley of all its

negative and worthless aspects. (p. 51)

What is appropriate for an adult is not appropriate for a

child. Care must be taken to provide organized subject

matter through which the child can be guided.

Secondly, it must be kept in mind that the

elements of the environment may sometimes
include effects that are quite harmful and
destructive to a young child. Bear in mind
that we are dealing not with a well-established
member of the environment, but with a growing,
changing, fragile organism, and much that would
be acceptable for an adult can be destructive
to a child.
Thus, both these considerations, on the
one hand, the fact that the adult environment
is not suitable for a child, and on the other,
the extraordinary complexity and diversity of
environmental influences, compel us to reject
a spontaneous foundation for the educational
process, and to oppose to it a program of
judicious resistance to, and guidance of, this
process, attained through rational organization
of the environment. (p. 51)

Continual interaction between experience and the environment

results in change or growth. "In his interaction with the

environment, man always makes use of his social experience."

. . . if the social environment is understood

provisionally as a collection of human relation­
ship, the extraordinary plasticity of the social
environment, which makes of it very nearly the
most flexible of all tools of education, becomes
entirely understandable. The elements of the
environment are not in a forced and rigid state,
but rather exist in a state that is variable
and readily changes its shapes and form. By
putting these elements together in a certain
way, man creates ever newer forms of social
environment. (p. 54)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 59

It was because of his beliefs about the influence of

the environment on the education process that he emphasized

the importance of the role of the teacher.

This is also why an active role is the lot of the

teacher in the course of education. The teacher
fashions, takes apart and puts together, shreds,
and carves out elements of the environment, and
combines them together in the most diverse ways
in order to reach whatever goal he has to reach.
Thus is the educational process an active one
on three levels: the student is active, the
teacher is active, and the environment created
between them is an active one. (p. 54)

In the educational process, Vygotsky placed the highest

priority on the growth of the individual as a result of his

view of the social environment.

The element of uncertainty, of fluidity of

growth, and of original changes in the
individual should be considered the essential
feature of education. Thus, in pure form the
concept of education is applicable only to
the child, i.e., to the growing and self­
changing individual . . . . The term 'education,'
is applicable only to growth. (p. 58)

Thus, the child and his experiences, the teacher's awareness

of the experiences and goals, and the social environment

provided the elements of his definition of education, one

that can be considered social constructivist.

Thus, education may be defined as a systematic,

purposeful, intentional, and conscious effort
at intervening in and influencing all those
processes that are part of the individual's
natural growth. Consequently, only that
formation of new reactions will be educational
in nature which, actually intervenes in growth
processes to one degree or another, and steers
these processes. (p. 58)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 60

Critical of the European and Russian system of

education, both of which ignored the experiences of the

child, he also found the structure of subject matter treated

as separate entities with no connections to real life

counter to the purpose of education. For example,

memorization of facts, and grammar rules, were not conducive

to acquiring genuine knowledge. Construction of knowledge

should occur out of practical activity.

All knowledge ultimately, has arisen, and will

arise always, out of some sort of practical need
or necessity, and if, in the course of the
development of knowledge, it loses touch with
the practical problems that gave rise to it, at
its final points of its development it will again
be oriented toward praxis and find in praxis its
ultimate justification, confirmation, and
verification.
In particular, the fact that knowledge was
presented as entirely abstract and lifeless was
the greatest psychological sin of the entire
scholastic and classical system of education.
Knowledge was assimilated as if a prepared dish,
and absolutely no one knows what to do with it.
The very nature of knowledge, and likewise the
very nature of science was forgotten, the fact
that knowledge is not a kind of prepared dish
or pre-set capital reserve, but is always a
process of activity, mankind's battle for the
mastery of nature. (pp. 199-200)

Vygotsky was against compartmentalizing subject matter.

He found in his investigations that Thorndike's atomistic

model just did not work. His research demonstrated that

intellectual development was much more "unitary and the

different school subjects interact in contributing to it"

(Vygotsky, 1962, p. 102). His experiments led him to these

interrelated facts.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 61

. . . The psychological prerequisites for

instruction in different school subjects are
to a large extent the same; instruction in a
given subject influences the development of the
higher functions far beyond the confines of that
particular subject; the main psychic functions
involved in studying various subjects are inter­
dependent -- their common bases are conscious
and deliberate mastery, the principal contri­
butions of the school years. It follows from
these findings that all the basic school subjects
act as formal discipline, each facilitating the
learning of the others; the psychological
functions stimulated by them develop in one
complex process, (p. 102)

Vygotsky believed that the freedom of students to learn

was critical to the educative process. As an example, he

did not believe that ethical behavior, including values and

morals, could be taught by setting rules or meting out

punishment. Rather Vygotsky believed that children would

come to learn proper conduct through their interaction

within the social group.

Thus, free education must be understood

exclusively as denoting education which is
as free as it can be within the constraints
of an overall educational program and within
the constraints of the social environment.
Thus may it turn out, and, in fact, it often
turns out that the child's behavior is far
from the same thing as the interests of the
group. Then conflict may always arise, which
without forcing the child to do anything in
particular, will make him see the value of
changing the way he behaves so as to accord
with the interest of the group. (Vygotsky,
1997, p. 238)
Therefore, an additional role of the teacher was not to

impose rules and mete out punishment, but to engage students

in worthwhile activity that promotes the desire for social

order. Vygotsky felt the role of the teacher was so

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 62

important that along with his comments mentioned earlier, he

devoted a whole chapter to the psychological nature of the

work of the teacher. He reiterated that the teacher plays a

dual role; one as a purveyor of knowledge which, at times,

is a necessity for setting a foundation for construction or

reconstruction of knowledge, the traditional role; the other

as a guide, a motivator, a resource, and a manipulator of

the environment that influences students to construct

knowledge.

. . . the real secret to education lies in not

teaching. The process of development is sub­
ordinated to the very same iron laws of necessity
as is everything else in nature. Consequently,
parents and teachers 'have just as much power of
right to prescribe to this new being as to tell
the stars that path to follow.
The student educates himself. A lecture that
has been presented by the teacher in finished
form may teach many things, but it inculcates only
ability and drive, and everything it makes use of
comes from the hands of others, without
accomplishing anything or checking anything. For
present-day education, it is not so important to
teach a certain quantity of knowledge as it is to
inculcate the ability to acquire such knowledge
and to make use of it. And, like everything else
in life, this may be achieved only in the very
process of labor and in the very process of
attaining this knowledge.
Just as you cannot learn how to swim by
standing on the sea shore, that to learn how to
swim you have to, out of necessity, plunge right
into the water even though you don't know how to
swim, so the only way to learn something, say,
how to acquire knowledge, is by doing so, in
other words, by acquiring knowledge.
Thus the teacher must shoulder a new burden.
He has to become the director of the social
environment which, moreover, is the only
educational factor. Where he acts like a simple
pump, filling up the students with knowledge,
there he can be replaced with no trouble at all
by a textbook, by a dictionary, by a map, by a

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 63

nature walk. When the teacher presents a lecture

or explains a lesson, in these instances he is
only partially acting in the role of a teacher,
say in that area of his labor which establishes
the child's relationship to all the elements of
the environment which affect him. Where he is
simply setting forth ready-prepared bits and
pieces of knowledge, there he ceases being a
teacher. (p. 339)

In order to be effective, teachers must know their

subject matter, but must also be part of the social group.

In addition, they must be good classroom managers, and have

"knowledge of the methodology of his craft . . . "

Moreover, the very method of instruction demands

of the teacher that same sense of activity, that
same sense of group spirit, with which the soul
of the school must be infused with. The teacher
must live within the school collective, as if
an integral part of it. It is in this sense that
the relationship between the teacher and student
can attain a force, a transparency, and a depth
without equal in the entire social scale of
human relationships. (p. 345)

With continued emphasis on the many roles of the

teacher, it can be concluded that Vygotsky viewed teaching

as a calling rather than a profession. His expectations of

teachers required dedication beyond instruction. Educators

must be active role models in society relating education to

real world situations. In Vygotsky's view, the teacher

needs to be a creative influence in the education of life.

. . . the teacher of the future will not be an
instructor, but an engineer, a seaman, a
political worker, an actor, a worker, a
journalist, a scholar, a judge, a doctor, and
so forth. . . Our only concern is that there
exist within the very nature of the educational
process, within its psychological essence, the
demand that there be as intimate a contact, and
as close an interaction, with life itself as

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 64

might be wished for.

Ultimately, only life educates, and the
deeper that life, the real world, burrows into
the school, the more dynamic and the more robust
will be the educational process. . . . The
teacher's educational work, therefore, must
inevitably be connected with his creative social
and life work.
Only he who exerts a creative role in real
life can aspire to a creative role in pedagogics.
It is just for this reason that, in the future,
the educator will also be an active participant
in society. Whether in theoretical science, in
the sphere of work, or in practical social
activity, he will always relate the school and
the real world through the subject which he
teaches. Thus pedagogical work will inevitably
be linked to the broad social work that the
scholar or political leader, the economist or the
artist pursues.
. . . the role of the teacher increases
beyond all bounds, the school of today requires
of the teacher a higher test for life in order
that he possess the capacity to turn education
into the creation of life. (pp. 349-350)

Vygotsky links the theme of creation of life with his

belief that education is life in whatever social milieu a

person finds himself. He must learn to live within that

milieu in a social struggle for self-preservation. It is

that struggle that spawns the creativity to equalize social

discomfort. This creativity is problem solving in the real

world.

Life then discloses itself as a system of

creation, of constant straining and
transcendence, of constant invention and the
creation of new forms of behavior. Thus,
every one of our thoughts, every one of our
movements, and all our experience constitutes
a striving toward the creation of a new
reality, a breakthrough to something new.
(p. 350)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 65

In this newly translated volume of work completed in

1926, Vygotsky reflects the social constructivist view in

several ways, including the emphasis of the individual's

interest as the starting point of formal education, the

social aspect of learning and education as life. What is

revealed in this volume is the influence of the social on

the development of the individual. Thus, the principles of

experience, growth, and continuity are explicit in this

volume.

Another work which came eight years later is Thought

and Language. Written in 1934, but unpublished until 1962,

this work established Vygotsky as a force in American

psychology. Bruner (1962) wrote the introduction to this

work in which he states that this theory of intellectual

development is really a theory of education (p. v ) .

Vygotsky believed that children could learn more complex

concepts that would raise their present intellectual

development to a higher level if provided assistance. This

is a simplified definition of the zone of proximal

development that social constructivists view as an important

element in educational reform. Throughout Thought and

Language and Mind and Society. Vygotsky's approach to his

research in this area was theoretical. He emphasized that

children were active participants in their own development,

and those who they encountered in their lives impacted on

that development. Children not only adapt to their

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 66

environment, but also contribute to changes in that

environment and themselves. The study of language

acquisition, memory development, and play were important

tools in Vygotsky's research. He saw each one as essential

to the child's development and the tools by which a child

interacts with and affects changes in his environment. His

historical-cultural approach emphasized according to the

editors of Thought and Language, Hanfmann and Vakar (1978),

"how as human beings we actively realize and change

ourselves in the varied contexts of culture and history" (p.

131) .

Vygotsky differentiates the adaptive capabilities

of animals from those of humans. The critical
factor on which this distinction is based is
the historically created and culturally elaborated
dimensions of human life that are absent from the
social organization of animals. In the
development of higher functions -- that is, in
the internalization of the processes of knowing
-- the particulars of human social existence are
reflected in human cognition: an individual
has the capacity to externalize and share with
other members of her social group her under­
standing of their shared experiences.
. . . Although children are dependent on
lengthy nurturance and caretaking, they are
active participants in their own learning
within the supportive contexts of family and
community. (1962, p. 132)

This last statement is a tenet of social

constructivism; children actively involved in their own

learning in a social setting.

Thought and Language is a study of the inter­

relationship between the two. Vygotsky addressed in the

study the earlier belief that thought and speech were

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 67

independent and two completely distinct processes.

Vygotsky's (1962) research revealed that not to be true. He

found that in addition to an interrelationship of thought

and speech, the world of experience was an integral

component of the meaning development process and concluded

that
After closer study of the development of under­
standing and communication in childhood, however,
has led to the conclusion that real communication
requires meaning -- i.e., generalizations -- as
much as signs. According to Edward Sapir's
penetrating description, the world of experience
must be greatly simplified and generalized
before it can be translated into symbols. Only
in this way does communication become possible,
for the individual's experience resides only in
his own consciousness and is, strictly speaking,
not communicable. To become communicable it
must be included in a certain category which,
by tacit convention, human society regards as
a unit.
Thus, true human communication presupposes
a generalized attitude, which is an advanced
stage of development of word meanings. The
higher forms of human intercourse are possible
only because an's thoughts reflects conceptualized
actuality. . . .
The conception of word meaning as a unit
of both generalizing thought and social inter­
change is of incalculable value for the study
of thought and language. (pp. 6-7)

As his research progressed in the area of speech

development, Vygotsky (1962) was led to the schema that

speech was first social, then became egocentric, and then

became inner speech. "In our conception, the true direction

of the development of thinking is not from the individual to

the socialized, but from the social to the individual" (pp.

19-20, see also Reiber, 1987, pp. 74-75). He further

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 68

concluded that the child's activity was directly related to

his development of his thought processes.

We have seen that egocentric speech is not

suspended in a void but is directly related to
the child's practical dealings with the real
world. We have seen that it enters as a
constituent part into the process of rational
activity, taking on intelligence, as it were, from
the child's incipiently purposeful actions; and
that it increasingly serves problem-solving and
planning as the child's activities grow more
complex. This process is set in motion by the
child's actions; the objects he deals with
mean reality and shape his thought process.
(p. 22)
To communicate a thought, a child must use language,

socially developed symbols that demonstrate meaning and

understanding. As a result of his research, Vygotsky (1962)

abandoned the idea of innate reactions in the thought

development process.

Thought development is determined by language,

i.e., by the linguistic tools of thought and
by the sociocultural experience of the child
. . . . The child's intellectual growth is
contingent on his mastering the social means
of thought, that is, language.
. . . The nature of the development itself
changes, from the biological to sociohistorical.
Verbal thought is not an innate, natural form
of behavior but is determined by a historical-
cultural process and has specific properties
and laws that cannot be found in the natural
forms of thought and speech. (p. 51)

Intellectual development is a process in which socially

constructed signs or language are the essential component to

learning more complex concepts. "Learning to direct one's

own mental processes with the aid of words or signs is an

integral part of the process of concept formation. The

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 69

ability to regulate ones' actions by using auxiliary means

reaches it full development only in adolescence" (p. 59).

The relationship between education or instruction and

mental development was the next step in research for

understanding complex concept formation. Through a series

of investigations with young children Vygotsky reaches these

conclusions: "... the development of the psychological

foundations for instruction in basic subjects does not

precede instruction but unfolds in a continuous interaction

with the contribution of instruction" (p. 101).

Vygotsky is referring to how children learn to write,

read, and do arithmetic. It begins with the foundation of

the command of spoken language. Learning to use symbols for

the basic subjects is more abstract; he must learn "to do

consciously what he has been doing unconsciously in

speaking" (p. 101) with the aid of instruction. "... the

curve of development does not coincide with the curve of

school instruction; by and large, instruction precedes

development" (p. 102).

His investigation showed that as school curriculum is

taught, a child may not necessarily fully grasp the concepts

at that particular time. For example, he may be taught

arithmetic steps to solve a problem, but may not understand

fully the math concept; he may have only begun to develop

the concept. Development of conceptual understanding

differs for different children. "... all the basic

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 70

school subjects act as formal discipline, each facilitating

the learning of the others; the psychological functions

stimulated by them develop in one complex process"

(Vygotsky, 1962, p. 102).

What was revealed in this study was that no matter what

subject matter is taught, higher functions are developed

that influence learning any subject; these higher functions

"involved in studying various subjects are interdependent --

their common bases are consciousness and deliberate mastery"

(p. 102).

It is important to know of these investigations as they

lead up to the final series of his investigations of what he

considered to be the "focal importance for the study of

learning and development" (p. 103). These investigations

gave birth to the zone of proximal development, a main

element in today's social constructivism. More detailed

discussion of the zone of proximal development will be dealt

with later in this study.

Most of the psychological investigations con­

cerned with school learning measured the level
of mental development of the child by making
him solve certain standardized problems. The
problems he was able to solve by himself were
supposed to indicate the level of his mental
development at the particular time. But in this
way only the completed part of the child's
development can be measured, which is far from
the whole story. We tried a different approach.
Having found that the mental age of two children
was, let us say eight, we gave each of them
harder problems than he could manage on his
own and provided some slight assistance: the
first step in a solution, a leading question,
or some other form of help. We discovered

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 71

that one child could, in cooperation, solve

problems designed for twelve-year-olds, while
the other could not go beyond problems intended
for nine-year-olds. The discrepancy between
a child's mental age and the level he reaches
in solving problems with assistance indicates
the zone of proximal development; in our
example, this zone is four for the first child
and one for the second. Can we truly say that
their mental development is the same?
Experience has shown that the child with the
larger zone of proximal development will do much
better in school. This measure gives a more
helpful clue than mental age does to the
dynamics of intellectual progress.
. . .What a child can do in cooperation
today he can do alone tomorrow. Therefore the
only good kind of instruction is that which
marches ahead of development and leads it; it
must be aimed not so much at the ripe as at the
ripening functions. It remains necessary to
determine the lowest threshold at which
instruction in, say, arithmetic, may begin
since a certain minimal ripeness of functions
is required. But must consider the upper
threshold as well; instruction must be
oriented toward the future, not the past.
(pp. 103-103)

Vygotsky explained that there is a period of time when

a child is more open to learning some concepts than at

earlier times, but is not easily discerned. Vygotsky

concluded "Our investigation demonstrated the social and

cultural nature of the development of higher functions

during these periods, i.e., its dependence on co-operation

with adults and on instruction" (p. 105).

Thought and Language established him as an expert in

individual cognitive development. But Cole, John-Steiner,

Scribner, and Souberman, the editors of his translated works

of which they constructed Mind and Society in 1978 believed

this volume took him beyond that label. In the

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 introduction, it is explained that Vygotsky and other

Russian scientists of the time were looking to develop a

Marxist theory of human intellectual development. However,

unlike the others, Vygotsky thought of Marxism as a valuable

scientific resource. "'A psychologically relevant

application of dialectical and historical materialism' would

be one accurate summary of Vygotsky's sociocultural theory

of higher mental processes" (p. 6).

According to the editors, incorporating the concept of

tools that man uses to change his environment and thus

change himself from his study of Engels, Vygotsky (1978)

takes the concept of mediation to another level.

Vygotsky brilliantly extended this concept of

mediation in human-environment interaction to
the use of signs as well as tools. Like tool
systems, sign systems (language, writing,
number systems) are created by societies over the
course of human history and change with the form
of society and the level of its cultural develop­
ment. Vygotsky believed that the internalization
of culturally produced sign systems brings about
behavioral transformations and forms the bridge
between early and later forms of individual
development. Thus for Vygotsky, in the
tradition of Marx and Engel, the mechanism of
individual developmental change is rooted in
society and culture. (Vygotsky, 1978, pp.
6-7)

The reference to individual development further

confirms Vygotsky's emphasis on the influence of the social

on the individual.

Mind and Society presents Vygotsky's style of

experimentation, one in which observation of the subjects

takes place in a variety of situations that are not

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 73

necessarily controlled by the observers. His brand of

experimentation focused on developmental process and not

performance. This was different from the stimulus/response

theories of his time. He was interested in observing

mediated behavior, that is, behavior that changed the

stimulus to produce a response.

What he did intend to convey by this notion was

that in higher forms of human behavior, the
individual actively modifies the stimulus
situation as a part of the process of responding
to it. It was the entire structure of this
activity which produced the behavior that Vygotsky
attempted to denote by the term 'mediating.'
(p. 14)
The tool that Vygotsky used in his experiments was

language, particularly speech. Written language represented

signs. He summarized the inseparability of the signs from

action after conducting experiments.

. . . children confronted with a problem that is

slightly too complicated for them exhibit a
complex variety of responses including direct
attempts at attaining the goal, the use of tools,
speech directed toward the person conducting the
experiment or speech that simply accompanies the
action, and direct, verbal appeals to the object
of attention itself.
If analyzed dramatically, this alloy of
speech and action has a very specific function
in the history of the child's development; it
also demonstrates the logic of its own genesis.
From the very first days of the child's develop­
ment his activities acquire a meaning of their
own in a system of social behavior and, being
directed toward a definite purpose, are
refracted through the prism of the child's
environment. The path from object to child and
from child to object passes through another
person. This complex human structure is the
product of a developmental process deeply rooted
in the links between individual and social
history. (p. 30)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 74

This research confirmed his belief that informal

learning begins from birth through his social environment.

Mediation of this process can be explained by the following

example: A child hears the voice or speech of the parent,

an external stimulus, he will internalize the speech and

then will respond to the parent through his own babblings

which will eventually become speech. Thus, the parent takes

on the role of mediator.

Vygotsky investigated memory and thinking, because

memory plays a role in cognitive activity. He found that

"thinking in the very young child is in many respects

determined by his memory, and is certainly not the same

thing as the thinking of the more mature child. . . .For the

young child, to think means to recall; but for the

adolescent, to recall means to think" (p. 5). It is the

interaction of adults with children that provides effective

means for children to develop skills for remembering (p.

124). Memory, therefore, becomes one of the tools in the

development of higher psychological processes.

His experimentation led him to conclude that through

the tools of development, the child, what and when he

learns, and his environment are interactive, and that

developmental process is continuous. Vygotsky expresses

this conclusion in the following way:

. . . child development is a complex dialectical

process characterized by periodicity, unevenness
in the development of different functions,
metamorphosis or qualitative transformation

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 of one form into another, intertwining of
external and internal factors, and adaptive
processes which overcome impediments that the
child encounters. (p. 73)

The educational implications of his findings prompted

him to concentrate on the interaction of learning and

development. He analyzed three theoretical positions on

learning and development: Piaget's (1978) position that

"learning forms a superstructure over development" which

does not alter development; James's theory based on the

concept of reflex -- learning is development; and Koffka's

theory that learning and development do not coincide (pp.

80-81). Vygotsky reasoned that development and learning

simultaneously occurred within a child from his first day of

birth. By the time a child enters school, there is a

learning history albeit the learning is not formal. Upon

entering school, a level of development is determined, the

actual development level of the child, his mental age. This

is determined by a battery or variety of tests that measure

how he solved the task and at what level of difficulty.

Vygotsky (1978) found it incredulous that no thinkers looked

beyond this.

. . . if we offer leading questions or show how

the problem is to be solved and the child then
solves it, or if the teacher initiates the
solution and the child completes it or solves
it in collaboration with other children -- in
short, if the child barely misses an independent
solution of the problem -- the solution is not
regarded as indicative of his mental development.
This 'truth' was familiar and reinforced by
common sense. Over a decade even the profoundest
thinkers never questioned the assumption; they

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 76

never entertained the notion that what children

can do with the assistance of others might be
in some sense even more indicative of their
mental development than what they can do alone.
(p. 85)
Vygotsky (1978) defined the zone of proximal

development at "the distance between the actual

developmental level as determined by independent problem

solving and the level of potential development as determined

through problem solving under adult guidance or in

collaboration with more capable peers" (p. 86).

What the zone of proximal development does according to

Vygotsky (1978):

. . . The zone of proximal development defines

those functions that have not yet matured but
are in the process of maturation, functions that
will mature tomorrow but are currently in an
embryonic state. These functions could be
termed the 'buds' or 'flowers' of development
rather than the 'fruits' of development. The
actual developmental level characterizes mental
development retrospectively, while the zone of
proximal development characterizes mental
development prospectively. (pp. 86-87)

What that means for psychologists and educators is the

following:

The zone of proximal development furnishes

psychologists and educators with a tool through
which the internal course of development can be
understood. By using this method we can take
account of not only the cycles and maturation
processes that have already been completed but
also those processes that are currently in a
state of formation, that are just beginning to
mature and develop. Thus, the zone of proximal
development permits us to delineate the child's
immediate future and his dynamic developmental
state, allowing not only for what already has
been achieved developmentally but also for
what is in the course of maturing. (p. 87).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 77

Instruction that only meets the child's

developmental level cuts off development at this point. "It

does not aim for a new stage of the developmental process

but rather lags behind this process" (p. 89). Instruction

should begin with a child's emerging capabilities. The zone

of proximal development advances development because

collaboration with the experienced adult elevates the

child's learning to a personal, higher level. In this view,

the process is both individual and social at the same time.

. . . learning awakens a variety of internal

developmental processes that are able to operate
only when the child is interacting with people
in his environment and in cooperation with his
peers. Once these processes are internalized,
they become part of the child's independent
achievement. (p. 90)

The zone of proximal development is regarded as an

element of education reform because the child is actively

involved in the social setting to advance his knowledge

through mediated construction of knowledge. The zone of

proximal development addresses the emerging development of

the individual. Implications for instruction of the

individual was offered in the Afterward of Mind and Society.

written by two of the editors, John-Steiner and Souberman

(1978). They state

To implement the concept of the zone of proximal
development in instruction, psychologists and
educators must collaborate in the analysis of the
internal. . . developmental processes which are
stimulated by teaching and which are needed for
subsequent learning. In this theory, then,
teaching represents the means through which
development is advanced, that is, the socially

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 78

elaborated contents of human knowledge and the

cognitive strategies necessary for their
internalization are evoked in the learners
according to their 'actual developmental levels.'
Vygotsky criticizes educational intervention that
lags behind developed psychological processes
instead of focusing upon emerging functions and
capabilities. (p. 131)

Vygotsky's explication of how children should learn

written language focused on emerging functions and

capabilities. Vygotsky was concerned that children learned

the mechanics of writing from the direction of the teacher

without attention to the symbols as language. He spent time

studying the prehistory of written language and concluded

that make-believe play, drawing, and writing were all part

of a unifying process of development of written language.

He concluded that children were quite capable of learning to

read and write in preschool. He studied Montessori's

approach with her kindergarten program. Though Montessori

demonstrated that preschoolers are capable of learning to

write, he was critical of the lack of relevant purpose for

writing.

We do not deny the possibility of teaching reading

and writing to preschool children; we even regard
it as desirable that a younger child enter school
if he is able to read and write. But the teaching
should be organized in such a way that reading and
writing are necessary for something. If they are
used only to write official greetings to the staff
or whatever the teacher thinks up (and clearly
suggests to them), then the exercise will be
purely mechanical and may soon bore the child;
his activity will not be manifest in his writing
and his budding personality will not grow.
Reading and writing must be something the child
needs. Here we have the most vivid example of the
basic contradiction that appears in the teaching

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 79

of writing not only in Montessori's school but

in most other schools as well, namely, that
writing is taught as a motor skill and not as a
complex cultural activity. Therefore, the issue
of teaching writing in the preschool years
necessarily entails a second requirement: writing
must be 'relevant to life' -- in the same way that
we require a 'relevant' arithmetic.
. . . writing should be meaningful for
children, that an intrinsic need should be aroused
in them, and that writing should be incorporated
into a task that is necessary and relevant to
life. Only then can we be certain that it will
develop not as a matter of hand and finger habits
but as a really new and complex form of speech.
(Vygotsky, 1978, pp. 117-118)

Vygotsky (1978) also concluded that reading and writing

should be "taught naturally." By this he meant that writing

should be "cultivated, not imposed" through a child's play.

In other words, when a child has interest in reading and

writing, it should be cultivated. ". . . a child approaches

writing as a natural moment in her development, and not as a

training from without" (p. 118). Though he complimented

Montessori for introducing reading and writing to

kindergarten children, he was critical that her approach

regarded only motor skill development and not emerging

capabilities.

In the same way as children learn to speak, they

should be able to read and write. Natural methods
of teaching reading and writing involve
appropriate operations on the child's environ­
ment. Reading and writing should become
necessary for her in her play. But what
Montessori has done as regards the motor aspects
of this skill should now be done in relation to
the internal aspect of written language and its
functional assimilation.
. . . drawing and play should be preparatory
stages in development of children 's written
language. (p. 118)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 80

Though Montessori's school was not conceived as

traditional education, it was not centered on the child's

experiences. Reading and writing were taught from the adult

perspective.

Educators should organize all these actions and

the entire complex process of transition from
one mode of written language to another. They
should follow it through its critical moments
up to the discovery of the fact that one can
draw not only objects but also speech. If we
wished to summarize all these practical require­
ments and express them as a single one, we
could say that children should be taught
written language, not just the writing of
letters. (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 118)

Vygotsky formulated the theory that learning occurs

before development does. When a child learns something new,

the stimulus for that learning comes from an external source

in his environment. As the child puts this new knowledge

into action in his environment, the result is that the child

has internalized that which was learned, thus a new or

higher level of development has been reached. Once

knowledge is internalized, the child is ready to progress to

the next level.

The common elements of social constructivism of both

Dewey and Vygotsky have been documented. The principles of

experience, interaction, and continuity are evidenct, but

there are similarities and differences that will be

addressed.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 81

How are John Dewey's and Lev Vygotsky's Social

Constructivist Views Similar and Different?

Though their education opportunities were quite

different, both Dewey and Vygotsky were influenced by some

of the same philosophers, particularly Mead, James, and

Hegel. Shepel (1999) in writing about reflective thinking

extrapolated on the Hegelian influences on both men after

presenting a brief summary of Hegel's philosophy.

. . . Hegel writes that mind (Geist) is not a

plurality of immaterial substances, but a system
of individuals actively developing their
potentialities by embodying them in increasingly
complex forms. A fundamental feature of mind,
according to Hegel, is freedom, and nothing that
is partial or finite can be wholly free. The
mind that is the only reality is therefore
infinite. Furthermore, no one is free unless
he/she is conscious of what he/she is doing,
and infinite mind is therefore self-conscious
mind. He considered reflection as that which
makes it possible to purify and free the mind.
The idea of dialectics is essential for
the understanding of Hegel's philosophy. He
believes that the dialectical method helps
construct less partial and less abstract views,
which retain in themselves what there was of truth
in the original views. The dialectical contra­
dictions should allow the thinker to reveal the
essence of the matter. . . . The role of
reflection is to define the essential contra­
dictions in their dialectal unity. (p. 71)

After this brief explanation of Hegel's philosophy, she

then discussed the modern perspective on reflective thought

offering three fundamental assumptions in this perspective

that influenced both Dewey and Vygotsky.

(1) the belief that the world exists

independently of our lies, our minds and our
social and cultural practices; (2) the assumption
that truth is objective and universal and can be

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 82

represented by law-like scientific generaliza­

tions; (3) the belief that universal objective
truth can be discovered through systematic
study of essential aspects and relationships
of the phenomenon. From the perspectives of
these beliefs and assumptions, reflection is
viewed as rational thinking directed to the
study of the essential qualities of the process
of thinking itself or of another phenomenon,
which is dialectical in the case of Hegel
. . . Such thinking liberates the agent of
activity from contextual constraints and is,
therefore, metasituational. This meta-
situational power allows one to generate
predictions and achieve control. The stronger
the power of reflective thinking of the self-
conscious mind, the more liberated is the
person. This paradoxical equation of the
degree of freedom with the degree of control
as well as other modern Western assumptions on
the nature of reflection. . . influenced the
theoretical frameworks of Dewey and Vygotsky.
(Shepel, 1999, p. 72)

Shepel (1999) noted their philosophical differences;

pragmatism for Dewey and dialectical materialism for

Vygotsky, but believed that they were strongly influenced by

Hegel's idea of "liberated self-conscious mind, dialectics

and history and their understanding of the origins and the

processes of reflective thinking are complementary" (p. 72).

She opined that Dewey and Vygotsky rejected the idea that

reflective thinking existed independently from cultural

practices.

They considered socio-cultural practices forces

to be fundamental in the formation and develop­
ment of human thinking. Dewey (1966) argues that
'. . . social environment forms the mental and
emotional disposition of behavior in individuals
. . . .' (p. 16). The teacher is viewed by Dewey
as an active experimenter who constructs the
educative experiences on the grounds of continuous
reflective inquiry. . . . Dewey believed that the
conceptual instruments of reflective thought are

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 83

social human constructions rather than independent

Platonic existences and that the process of
reflective thinking is deeply rooted in social
interaction. (p. 73)

Her final "reflection on reflection" (p. 87) showed how

Deweyan and Vygotskyan views permeate reflective thinking

from her perspective.

Reflective thinking is a human ability of the

agent of action to be self-conscious, the
ability to regard oneself, or one's own action
as the other, as the subject of the purposeful
change. Reflective thinking is socially
constructed in the course of the culturally
mediated human activities. The mediational
means of reflection are multiple and they are
inherently situated culturally, institutionally,
and historically. The process of reflection can
undergo fundamental transformation with the
introduction of new mediational means.
Mediational means are mastered in the process
of internalization. (p. 87)

In her own reflection, she combined Dewey's views on

continuity of educational experiences and Vygotsky's views

on cultural and mediational activities to arrive at an

amalgam for her definition of reflective thinking. The fact

that they were both influenced by Hegel was the nexus she

relied upon to arrive at this conclusion. However, the

research of Vygotsky's seminal work does not indicate that

reflection was essential to emerging capabilities. Knowing

the present level of development of the child was important

so that with the intervention of an adult or wiser peers,

the child could stretch to a higher level of development.

The external stimulus of the adult provided the impetus for

higher levels of learning, not the child's reflective

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 84

thought. Dewey did encourage reflection as part of the

process of inquiry. Reflective thinking "converts action

that is merely appetitive, blind, and impulsive into

intelligent action (Dewey, 1933, p. 17). Reflective thought

can be an individual process or part of collaborative

process. Therefore, as Shepel defined reflective thinking

and the Hegelian connection between Dewey and Vygotsky, she

revealed a difference in their view on the starting point of

construction of knowledge.

Further investigation into the background of Dewey and

Vygotsky revealed the state of societal tumult within their

perspective countries. Dewey (1990) was responding to the

changes of an agrarian to an industrial society and his

strong belief that factory-model educational practices were

not meeting the needs of this society. He saw school as the

tool of the social progress defining society as ". . . a

number of people held together because they are working

along common lines, in a common spirit, and with reference

to common aims. The common needs and aims demand a growing

interchange of thought and growing unity of sympathetic

feeling" (p. 14). Therefore, he envisioned school to be

an embryonic community life, active with types of

occupations that reflect the life of the larger
society and permeated throughout with the spirit
of art, history, and science. When the school
introduces and trains each child of society into
membership within such a little community,
saturating him with the spirit of service, and
providing him with the instruments of effective
self-direction, we shall have the deepest and

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 85

best guaranty of a larger society which is

worthy, lovely, and harmonious. (p. 29).

For Dewey, the flood of immigrants from around the

world who came looking for work in America's factories along

with the long-time citizens who had left their farms,

required a common ground to foster an ongoing democratic

society. At the time, it was believed that the purpose of

education was to Americanize the immigrants. Dewey did not

see it that way. For him, education was the social

continuity of life. What the immigrant and the farmer had

in common were the occupations of daily living which were

the experiences in which all children took part. In Dewey's

mind, it was the best starting point for their education.

He did not view education as a means to supplant culture,

but to engender a culture of literacy and social

consciousness.

education is a regulation of the process of coming

to share in the social consciousness; and that the
adjustment of individual activity on the basis of
this social consciousness is the only sure method
of social reconstruction. (Archambault, 1964, p.
437)

Dewey (1990) believed it was a moral duty of a

community to educate its citizenry. He reiterated this

belief in The School and Society, "What the best and wisest
parent wants for his own child, that must the community want

for all its children. Any other ideal for our schools is

narrow and unlovely; acted upon, it destroys our democracy"

(p. 6).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 86

For Vygotsky, the Russian Revolution and the lack of

literacy provided the impetus to work toward a new social

order under Marxism. "... higher psychological processes

develop in children through enculturation into practices of

society; through the acquisition of society's technology,

its signs and tools; through education in all its forms"

(Moll, 1990, p. 1). However, Vygotsky viewed literacy as

not only a stabilizer for his country, but also an equalizer

to some extent. Devoted to the Marxist doctrine, he was

still an educational psychologist who realized that in order

to develop a cohesive society, Marxism needed some

"intellectual freshening" according to Bruner (1984).

Bruner opined that within the idea of the zone of proximal

development was a "hidden agenda" (pp. 93-94). Literacy

could be the vehicle to share knowledge and "consciousness,

albeit an historically shaped consciousness" (p. 94).

Bruner believed that Vygotsky's zone of proximal development

was the "instrument" of social progress.

Realization of one's individual powers through

the utilization of knowledge and shared
consciousness depended not on the individual
child but on society's capacity to provide the
child with symbolic tools that the child needed
in order to grow; on providing opportunity for
the child to enter into relationship with some­
body wiser or abler than himself who would
provide the necessary concepts and consciousness
that would enable him to make the epistemic leap
forward the Vygotsky saw as the promise of the
Revolution. (p. 96)

Bruner's assessment of the motives of Vygotsky in terms

of the zone of proximal development cannot be proven. What

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 87

is in evidence is Vygotsky's devotion to developing a

Marxist psychology. According to Rosa and Montero (1990),

". . . the task that Vygotsky set for himself was the

elaboration of a new system of psychology based on

historical and dialectical materials that is, a 'mutation'

of psychology by means of an 'explication' from Marxist

philosophy" (p. 76).

It is of value to note that Vygotsky was very well read

in philosophy. It has already been established that he was

influenced by Hegel and Mead, and was well versed in the

theories of Thorndike, Piaget, and Koffka (Moll, 1990, p.

79) among others. It may be safe to assume that he also

read Dewey's works. Vygotsky was a teacher before he was

known as a psychologist. The influences of his background,

his innate superior intelligence, and his experimentation

with handicapped children were the impetus for developing a

practical psychology within Marxist thought.

Popkewitz (1998) provided his perspective noting that

both Dewey and Vygotsky believed in the use of science to

change the existing social factors.

The psychologies written embodied a particular

doctrine of modernity which linked an
Enlightenment belief in the potential for
reason to produce social progress with a faith
in the rationality of science. But these two
scholars recognized that science involved more
than changing physical conditions. It also was
to produce a citizen who would act wisely and
autonomously in the new political and social
institutions of the times. The social sciences
would not only provide a cognitive knowledge
but also discipline the capabilities, values,

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 88

dispositions, and sensitivities through which

individuals problematized their participation
in the world. The assumption was part of a
larger, profound, reshaping of social life in
Europe and the U.S. during the early years of
the 2 0th century. (p. 53 7)

Belief in the social sciences was important to both

theorists. They lived in a time when there was a need to

reshape the social life of each of their countries. Where

they differ was Vygotsky's emphasis on individual

development. For him, it was more important for the

individual to fit within the Marxist society then to shape

society.

Vygotsky (1997) equated education with enculturation.

For him, cultural transmission was an essential component of

education. School was the medium for experiencing,

observing and instructing culture. He defined education as

". . . a systematic, purposeful, intentional, and conscious

effort at intervening in and influencing all those processes

that are part of an individual's natural growth" (p. 58).

Growth continued through enculturation. For the era in

which Vygotsky was of influence, enculturation was important

to the Marxist philosophy.

"The child's intellectual growth is contingent on his

mastering the social means of thought, that is language"

(Vygotsky, 1962, p. 51). Dewey would not argue this,

because language communicates the ideas and practices of a

society. It is language that provides the means of learning

about the history of a society, and it is language, the

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 89

active expression of thought, that helps the child

understand his membership in his society. For both Dewey

and Vygotsky, the interdependence of thought, mind, and

action was embodied in communication.

Language is almost always treated in the books of

pedagogy simply as the expression of thought. It
is true that language is a logical instrument, but
it is fundamentally and primarily a social instru­
ment. Language is the device for communication;
it is the tool through which one individual comes
to share ideas and feeling for others. When
treated simply as a way of getting information,
or as a means of showing off what one has learned,
it loses its social motive and end.
If education is life, all life has, from the
outset, a scientific aspect, an aspect of art and
culture, and an aspect of communication.
. . .education must be conceived as a
continuing reconstruction of experience; that the
process and the goal of education are one and the
same thing. (Archambault, 1964, p. 43 5)

Formal education in the views of Dewey, provided the

social setting in which everyday experiences could be built

upon to develop new concepts. It was the vehicle for

transmitting the values and interests of a society in order

to ensure the continuity of that society, a strong social

constructivist element. Dewey (1964) emphasizes this point

in his creed:

The primary basis of education is in the child's

powers at work along the same general
constructive lines as those which brought
civilization into being.
The only way to make the child conscious of
his social heritage is to enable him to perform
those fundamental types of activity which make
civilization what it is.
In the so-called expressive or constructive
activities as the center of correlation.
Education must be conceived as a continuing
reconstruction of experience; that the process

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 90

and the goal of education are one and the same

thing. (pp. 433-434)

For all the similarities in the idea of social as

stated above, there are differences as well in the meaning

of social for Dewey and Vygotsky. It was espoused by both

theorists that all learning is social whether it occurs in a

family setting, or a school, or larger community, and,

therefore, interactive, but it is the school that is the

greatest influence on the continuation of a society.

Through education, society can formulate its own purposes;

through the school, students are influenced by certain forms

of institutional or community life with the teacher involved

in assisting to form a proper social life.

All that society has accomplished for itself is

put, through the agency of the school, at the
disposal of its future members. All its better
thoughts of itself it hopes to realize through
the new possibilities thus opened to its future
self. Here individualism and socialism are at
one. Only by being true to the full growth of
the individuals who make it up, can society by
any chance be true to itself. And in the
self-direction, nothing counts as much as the
school. (Dewey, 1990, p. 6)

In social terms, the most critical aspect of education

is to empowering the individual. Ideally, it should occur

in a medium associated with life which insures continued

growth for both the individual and society. A cohesive

society is made up of numbers of individuals who come

together with a common purpose and common aims. Through

their interactions and exchange of ideas, the society

changes as do its individual participants. These were the

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 91

elements of democracy that Dewey envisioned for society.

These are also elements of social constructivism --

interactivity and interdependency with the goal of change in

the social environment. Dewey emphasized not the

individual, but how the individual serves and advances the

social.

Vygotsky viewed the social as it related to

enculturation of the individual. Like Dewey, he was certain

that learning was social and began at birth. What a child

would become evolved from mediated, sociocultural situations

in his environment. Therefore, he believed that the social

environment was the most influential and flexible tool in

education. The school was the one medium in which the

social environment could be created by the teacher, but it

must be connected to real life. Vygotsky was concerned that

a natural environment would be destructive or harmful to the

child. So, it was imperative that the teacher be an active

participant in leading the process by creating an active and

fluid social environment. This would direct a child into

active learning to reach for his potential level of

development.
A controlled social environment would provide the
perfect medium for enculturation.
. . . higher mental functions are formed during
children's enculturation. At the time of birth
the organism is completely hominidized (its
biological structure is formed), yet it is not
humanized at all. We become human through the

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 92

internalization of culture. For Vygotsky, formal

education was an essential tool of enculturation
. . . (Moll, 1990, p. 49)
The importance of the social was not for the individual

to serve society, the social was the mediator. Interaction

through mediation with a peer group or interaction with the

teacher to provide assistance in reaching a higher level of

development was the purpose of the socialenvironment

created by the teacher once he discoveredthe emerging

capabilities of the individual.

The school was the perfect social environment for

delivery of the education, and the teacher was the social

agent in the process. For Vygotsky (1997), the role of the

teacher was especially controlling for even though he

realized the importance of the child active in his own

learning, the teacher greatly controlled two of the three

prongs of the education process. The educational process is

three-pronged, " . . . the student is active, the teacher is

active, and the environment created between them is an

active one" (p. 54).

Vygotsky, as a former teacher, revealed the degree to

which the role of the teacher was to impact on the school

environment. "... The teacher fashions, takes apart and

puts together, shreds, and carves out elements of the

environment, and combines them together in the most diverse

ways in order to reach whatever goals he has to reach"

(Vygotsky, 1997, p. 54).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 93

In the same work he reiterated and expanded the

teacher's role to be a member of the learning community.

Moreover, the very method of instruction demands

of the teacher that same sense of activity,
that same sense of group spirit, with which the
soul of the school must be infused with. The
teacher must live within the school collective,
as if an integral part of it. It is in this
sense that the relationship between the teacher
and student can attain a force, a transparency,
and a depth without equal in the social scale
of human relationships. (p. 345)

Vygotsky (1997) emphasized the importance of individual

growth and believed growth and education were synonymous.

He believed that education must be guided, and not left to

the child to follow his own interests and instincts in an

unorganized fashion warning that some of life's elements

were not good for a child, that the social environment must

be adjusted, because the child is an immature being still

growing and not capable of handling some of the aspects of

adult life.

In the educational process, the teacher must be

like the rails on which trains travel freely
and independently, receiving from the rails only
the direction they are to travel. The school
which is run on scientific grounds is inevitably
a school of action. (p. 48)

In Vygotsky's research on thought development and the

importance of language in formation of complex concepts, he

was investigating the relationship between education and

mental development. Like Dewey, Vygotsky viewed thought as

a psychological process, but Vygotsky's investigations led

him to conclude that instruction preceded development.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 94

Vygotsky (1962) referred to investigations that would

provide him with a theory of the relationship between

instruction and development. In his studies involving

writing and grammar he concluded that "the development of

the psychological foundations for instruction in basic

subjects does not precede instruction but unfolds in a

continuous interaction with the contribution of instruction"

(p. 101) .

Regarding research centered on math skills, he stated,

"There is never complete parallelism between the course of

instruction and the development of the corresponding

functions" (p. 101). He concluded from the investigations

that

When the child learns some arithmetical operation

or some scientific concept, the development of
that operation or concept has only begun. Our
study shows that the curve of development does
not coincide with the curve of school instruction;
by and large instruction precedes development.
(p. 102)

With this conclusion and additional testing research,

he formulated his theory of the zone of proximal development

simply stated as

What a child can do in cooperation today he can

do alone tomorrow. Therefore, the only good kind
of instruction is that which marches ahead of
development and leads it; it must be aimed not
so much at the ripe as at the ripening function,
(pp. 103-104)

When Vygotsky tested a child and found the level of his

present understanding, he would provide assistance to enable

the child to reach beyond that level of understanding.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 95

Given a new, but similar problem it was expected that the

child would be able to solve the problem with no assistance

or collaboration. The role of the teacher would be to

determine the range of the zone for each individual child as

each child had a different zone of proximal development.

The teacher would become the mediator using verbal clues or

questioning and would create the environment in a quest for

new knowledge as it arose out of practical need taken from

close interaction with life. The teacher through some type

of instruction including questioning would provide the

necessary tools for the child to reach for a higher

developmental level. In this way, instruction proceeded

development, and instruction would be geared toward the

future, not the past.

Dewey's view of the role of the teacher was equally

important but less controlling. First, Dewey (1964)

believed that the school should be an embryonic community in

which "the child should be stimulated and controlled in his

work through the life of the community" (p. 432), but he

warned not to permit too much control from the teacher.

The teacher is not in the school to impose

certain ideas or to form certain habits in the
child, but there as a member of the community
to select the influences which will affect
the child and to assist him properly responding
to those influences . . . the teacher's business
is simply to determine, on the basis of larger
experience and riper wisdom, how the discipline
of life shall come to the child. (p. 432)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 Dewey also characterized the need of the teacher to "an

intelligent medium of action" (Archambault, 1964, p. 205).

He must survey the capacities and needs of the

particular set of individuals with whom he is
dealing and must at the same time arrange
conditions which provide subject-matter or
content for experiences that satisfy these
needs and develop these capacities. The planning
must be flexible enough to permit free play for
individuality of experience and yet firm enough
to give direction toward continuous development
of power. (Dewey, 1963, p. 58)

For Dewey, the teacher's role was "to select influences

which will affect the child and to assist him in properly

responding to those influences" (Archambault, 1964, p. 432).

These influences would help to transform a state of

perplexity and difficulty into a practical action that

results in new knowledge which Dewey considered a temporary

end, a starting point for more growth. Dewey made this very

clear in Experience and Education:

. . . the educator's responsibility to see equally

to two things: First that the problem grows out
of the conditions of the experience had in the
present, and that it is within the range of
capacity of students; and secondly, that it is
such that it arouses in the learner an active
quest for further experiences in which new
problems are presented. The process is a
continuous spiral. (Dewey, 1963, p. 79)

The teacher provided assistance in helping the child

fully develop his own powers of control of the means

necessary to achieve ends and also power to value and test

ends. For Dewey, this was freedom; "freedom is the power to

act and to execute independent of external tutelage. It

signifies mastery capable of independent exercise,

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 97

emancipated from the leading strings of others, not mere

unhindered external operation" (Dewey, 1960, p. 87). Dewey

insisted on the active role the teacher must take in guiding

the child through the thinking process:

. . . the real problem of intellectual education

is the transformation of natural powers into
expert, tested powers: the transformation of
more or less casual curiosity and sporadic
suggestion into attitudes of alert, cautious,
and thorough inquiry. He will see that the
psychological and the logical, instead of being
opposed to each other (or even independent of
each other), are connected as the earlier and the
terminal, or concluding, states of the same
process. (p. 84)

Secondly, the vehicle the teacher would use to guide a

child's discovery or reconstruction of knowledge would be

the inquiry process. Much like Socrates, Dewey considered

the art of questioning to be the art of guiding learning.

Questioning illuminates the range of the capacity of the

student. He believed in no hard and fast rules for this

art, but made five suggestions as to how teachers should

proceed. First, questions should evoke prior knowledge for

use in the new problem. Second, questions should "direct

the mind of the students to the subject matter rather than

to the teacher's aim." Third, "questions should provoke"

continuous discussion, not asked as if each one were

complete in itself. . . . " Fourth, questions should at some
point summarize to reflect on what has already transpired in

discussion or thought. And fifth, the concluding recitation

should evoke in the minds of the students, "a sense of some

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 98

coming topic, some problem still in suspense" (Dewey, 1960,

pp. 266-267).

To visualize the differences between Dewey's view of

the role of the teacher and Vygotsky's role of the teacher

the analogy of climbing stairs can be used.

Visualize Vygotsky's teacher on a staircase with a

child. The teacher would be on a stair ahead of the child

having determined the present level of development or

understanding of the child on the stair below. The child

would be pulled or lifted up to the next step by the teacher

through questioning or instruction. Once there, the child

would be expected to continue on the plane of that step

overcoming similar problems set before him on his own. He

would not be encouraged to look back to the previous step or

reflect on past experiences. He need not look up to the

next step, because the teacher is there determining the

approach to the next level based on the child's emerging

capabilities. The teacher is always in the lead to pull him

up to the next step to reach the goal set by the teacher.

Reflection, arousal of student curiosity, and encouragement

of self-direction are less evident in the role of the

teacher utilizing the zone of proximal development.

To visualize Dewey's teacher, a spiral staircase must

be conjured with the teacher on the step below the child to

guide and support progress up to the next step. On a spiral

staircase, a child can always look back to see where he has

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 99

been in reference to where he presently is. When he looks

up, the unknown is around the bend in the staircase arousing

curiosity to take the next step toward those unknown

possibilities to be discovered. The spiral seems endless as

the child builds new knowledge. The role of Dewey's teacher

through the inquiry process is to guide the child to reflect

on past experiences, to arouse curiosity for the unknown

before him, and to encourage self-direction.

Implicit in these illustrations is that at the center

of all instruction for both Dewey and Vygotsky was the

child, not the teacher or the subject matter, or the tests

as it is in today's educational milieu. Guiding the child

toward expansion of his knowledge within a social setting is

at the foundation of both Dewey's and Vygotsky's social

constructivism and demonstrates the principle of continuity

in both their views.

The above illustrations also demonstrate the

differences between Dewey and Vygotsky regarding the

principle of continuity. Vygotsky's view of education was a

continuous process, but not a spiral. Though he believed

that present life experiences should be the starting point

of learning or development, he did not encourage reflection

in the same way that Dewey did through inquiry. What a

child had learned in his sociocultural environment from

birth had been internalized and, therefore, had become an

integral part of his development. Through mediation, the

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 100

social aspect of learning in the form of teacher instruction

or interaction with wiser peers, new orchestrated

experiences would provide the lift for a child to reach a

higher level of understanding or development. The distance

between the present developmental level and the new level of

learning or development, Vygotsky determined to be the zone

of proximal development. The child given a similar problem

or experience, would be expected to meet this challenge with

no assistance. Development or understanding, though

continuous, would not be a smooth process.

Dewey determined past experiences as a point of

reference; something children were already familiar with

brought into the present life experiences, real work

problems. He believed continuous reconstruction of

experiences would arouse an active quest to expand

knowledge. Therefore, growth would be continuous, learning

would occur in a continuous spiral. The teacher would guide

the experiences to ensure that the experiences were not

controlled by child whims, but by sustained interest. The

teacher would support the student in the inquiry process and

would participate in the learning process as well through

real world social activities resulting in expanded

knowledge. Through observation of the student, he would

determine what the student would be ready for and would

guide him toward that goal. Growth or development would be

a smooth process.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 Though the principle of continuity was found in both

men's views, Dewey's appeared to encourage more independent

thought within the social setting and arousal of curiosity.

Vygotsky's view of continuity accepted that what a child had

internalized through sociocultural experiences of the past

was part of his continuous growth, but need not be

consciously reflected upon. Conversely, Dewey encouraged

reflection and reconstruction of experience. Though natural

growth was important to Vygotsky, continuity of experience

was encouraged to move in one direction, toward the future.

Simply stated, Dewey promoted reconstruction of experience;

Vygotsky promoted construction of experience. Dewey

encouraged flexibility in instruction to permit individual

freedom in experience with just enough teacher control to

give direction. Vygotsky advocated control of new

experiences with the teacher creating new environments.

Encouraging search for unknown possibilities is less evident

in Vygotsky's views; the teacher determines the potential

development of higher-level learning. Self-direction was

not an obvious goal of Vygotsky as compared to Dewey who

encouraged it openly for individual freedom is a tenet of

democracy.
A final comparison of their similarities relates to

their common disaffection for traditional education.

Education for future living instead of educating for living

in the present was criticized by both Dewey and Vygotsky.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 102

It was life in the present that Dewey and Vygotsky believed

children should be prepared, not for future living.

Students actively solving problems relevant to life in the

present rather than teachers dispensing subject matter with

no relevance was considered essential to both theorists.

Dewey (1990) stated:

Abandon the notion of subject matter as something

fixed and ready-made in itself, outside the
child's experience; cease thinking of the child's
experience as also something hard and fast; see
it as something fluent, embryonic, vital. . . . It
is a continuous reconstruction, moving from the
child's present experience out into that
represented by the organized bodies of truth that
we call studies. (p. 189)

Vygotsky's (1997) similar views are as follows:

All knowledge ultimately, has arisen, and will

rise always, out of some sort of practical need
or necessity, and if, in the course of the
development of knowledge, it loses touch with
the practical problems that gave rise to it, at
its final points of its development it will again
be oriented toward praxis and find in praxis its
ultimate justification, confirmation, and
verification.
In particular, the fact that knowledge was
presented as entirely abstract and lifeless was
the greatest psychological sin of the entire
scholastic and classical system of education.
Knowledge was assimilated as if a prepared dish,
and absolutely no one knew what to do with it.
The very nature of knowledge, and likewise the
very nature of science was forgotten, the fact
that knowledge is not a kind of prepared dish
or pre-set capital reserve, but is always a
process of activity, mankind's battle for the
mastery of nature. (pp. 199-200)

Their complaint concerning traditional education is

universally espoused by all constructivists no matter where

they are located on Phillips's (1995) continuum of

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 103

constructivists (p. 7) . For Dewey and Vygotsky, the child

should be at the center of the educational process.

The similarities and differences in the common elements

of Vygotsky's and Dewey's social constructivism views found

within this research reveal variations that can impact upon

educational practices.

The Impact Upon Social Constructivist Practices

The definition of social constructivism developed as a

result of this research is as follows.

Knowledge is constructed utilizing earlier experience

as the foundation for building or reconstructing knowledge

within an interactive and interdependent environment which

results in growth of the individual and the social

environment. That definition would mean something different

to Dewey and Vygotsky in a subtle way. Dewey's social

constructivism practices would lead to enhancement or

enriching of democracy. The individual is a member of a

group. As people work together toward a common goal,

individual ideas are shared and explored as they reflect on

what they already know and how it relates to the problem at

hand. The best solution to a perplexity is discovered in

cooperation to reach the common goal. The teacher guides

the progress of the group as he works within the group to

ensure that they do not lose sight of the goal. Once the

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 104

goal is met, the individuals within the group have expanded

their understanding, and the group now has a new direction.

Vygotsky's social constructivism practices would lead

the individual to expanded knowledge by the direction of the

teacher or more experienced peers. First the teacher would

determine the present level of understanding of the

individual. Then the teacher would adjust the environment

in order to meet the goal set for the individual.

Interaction with the teacher or with a wiser group of peers

would bring the individual to understand the perplexity set

by the teacher within the social environment. So the

solution to the problem would be found within the social

context. Though reflection and discovery are minimal, the

individual has expanded knowledge, and the social

environment has been strengthened by the inclusion of the

individual, the collective is enhanced.

In translating the above to practices within today's

classroom, Dewey's social constructivism based on inquiry

would work well in solving real life problems that encompass

history or social studies, language arts including written

expression, science, math, and technology in our democratic

society.
Vygotsky's social constructivism without the political

underpinnings has value for teaching and learning process as

well. For students who may not be self-motivated or may not

have developed self-direction or who may have a learning

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 105

disability, the process within the zone of proximal

development would be a valuable tool for teachers. Helping

such students expand their knowledge by adjusting the

environment and by direct interaction with the teacher or

more experienced peers makes Vygotsky's social

constructivism practices advantageous. The students would

be engaged in interactive activities in a real life present

situation that would lead to individual expanded knowledge.

The teacher would then determine the next level of

development or understanding for the child and how to

approach it. Though the teacher exerts more control,

expanded knowledge is the goal.

Whether Vygotsky's or Dewey's social constructivist

practices are utilized would depend on the make up of the

students. However either social constructivist practices

could occur within the academic content and within an

integration of the academic content areas. It would require

extended planning time for the teacher to adjust the

curriculum, collaborate with peers and the larger community,

as well as collaborate with the students.

To implement social constructivist practices in our

schools would require a commitment to change in all invested

in education. To orchestrate social constructivist

practices would require a major commitment on the part of

instructors as they engage students in cooperative and

collaborative activity over an extended period of time.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 106

Classroom interactions would require teachers to choose

questions and pose problems to students and guide them to

accept their errors or mistakes as learning opportunities on

the way to constructing knowledge.

It would necessitate a commitment from institutions of

higher learning to provide social constructivist research,

theory and practices in their pre-service teacher education

and in-service teacher programs.

To engage in social constructivist practices would also

require a change in the attitudes of the students who are

used to being taught in the traditional classroom setting.

Having the freedom to participate actively in their learning

would take time to develop.

Parents and the community at large would need to change

their attitudes. Social constructivism eschews traditional

assessment practices, especially standardized testing.

Assessment practices would become more holistic than the

traditional A, B, C code. Parents would find that difficult

to adjust to and would need a better understanding of social

constructivism.
Equally important, social constructivist practices

would be successful if administrators are committed to

support these changes. The traditional classroom set up of

rows of chairs and students sitting quietly would not work

with social constructivist practices. Observations of

instruction would require a different approach.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 107

Administrators would need to become supporters and advocates

of social constructivism.

Even though Dewey and Vygotsky engaged in social

constructivist practices early in the last century, the

impact on educational practices would be pervasive

considering the scope of change that would encompass all of

society. It is for that reason that it can be considered an

educational reform.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 CHAPTER V

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

Social constructivism is one of the most often

discussed 'isms' among todays constructivists. Vygotsky is

viewed as the seminal theorist for social constructivism.

Dewey is also considered a social constructivist. The

research was conducted to reveal the main elements of

Vygotsky and Dewey's social constructivism as they relate to

Dewey's principles of experience, continuity, and

interaction. This research was conducted to compare and

contrast the main elements of social constructivism gleaned

from the words of Vygotsky and Dewey rather than from the

multitude of interpretations published in contemporary

literature.

Social constructivism defined as the social

construction of knowledge in which an "individual's

interaction with a social milieu" results in a "change in

both the individual and the milieu" (Airasian & Walsh, 1997,

p. 446) along with Bredo's (2000) interpretation of Mead's

interactional constructivism, " . . . interactional (or

transactional) approach deriving, ultimately, from

108

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 109

evolutionary thought . . . . An interactional approach

attempts to avoid the inside-versus-outside dichotomy by

giving priority to doing rather than knowing" (p. 142),

provided the foundation for identifying what a social

constructivist is and if Dewey and Vygotsky should both be

labeled social constructivists. The definition of social

constructivism developed as a result of the research is as

follows: Knowledge is constructed utilizing earlier

experience as the foundation for building or reconstructing

knowledge within an interactive and interdependent

environment which results in growth of the individual and

the social environment.

The analysis of their works helped to determine if

Vygotsky's views on education were similar or different from

Dewey's definition of educational reform, "a new order of

conceptions leading to new modes of practice" (Dewey, 1938,

1963, p. 5). What was evident is that they both were very

critical of traditional education practices that ignored

student interest and modes of practice that involved

students in their own learning through practical

experiences. Similarities in their views on experience,

continuity and interaction were found in the research, but

subtle differences surfaced that could impact upon education

practices.

Research conducted reveals that by the definition of

social constructivism as gleaned from the literature, Dewey

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 110

and Vygotsky were both social constructivists. The common

elements of their views came to surface in the ideas of

experience, interaction, and continuity to a certain extent.

However, when examining the words of these two men closely

without the varied interpretations of contemporary scholars,

it is revealed that there are fundamental differences in

their educational beliefs due to their differences in the

political philosophies. Both believed in the interaction of

a child with peers and adults, that learning is a social

process and that society is an organic union of individuals.

Both believed that learning begins at birth and that the

social environment brings the child into sharing of

resources of the society in which he was born and the

culture of that society. Vygotsky, as a psychologist delved

into the way in which concepts were developed by a young

child; first, by external experience, then internal mental

grasping, and then through the use of linguistic tools to

communicate conceptualized activity. Dewey referred to the

grasping of new concepts as psychologizing, and understood

language to be the expression of conceptualized thought in

addition to being social because communication meant sharing

ideas and feelings. Therefore, both believed that formal

education should begin with psychological insight into a

child's capacity and interests.

Formal education or schooling for both Dewey and

Vygotsky was important to the development of the child's

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 I l l

ability to think and grow. Both were highly critical of

traditional education where subject matter did not relate to

the child's interest and present social activities. Dewey

was particularly critical because traditional schools were

all about preparation for future living, not for living in

the present.

The role of the school and, particularly, of the

teacher in the development of the child were equally

important to both Dewey and Vygotsky. However, it is here

where the subtle differences in their beliefs begin to

surface. Though both Dewey and Vygotsky believed that

instruction should begin at the place where a child

presently is in his development, Dewey believed that in

order for growth to occur, when a perplexity arises, the

teacher must assist the child in reflection on past

experiences before moving forward in inquiry with new

experiences. He referred to it as reconstruction of

experience. The role of the teacher is as a guide

supporting progress toward understanding the unknown or

solving the perplexity. In this way, continuity of growth

is ensured. The earlier reference made to the spiral

staircase assists in understanding the continuous spiral of
growth; one can look back to some extent and one can look

forward to move toward the unknown around the bend of the

stairs as the teacher, one step behind, guides progress.

The student, therefore, is actively involved in an

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 112

experience that with the guidance of the teacher will result

in construction of new knowledge. The school helps direct

new experiences of interest toward social ends. Thus,

social constructivism elements as per the definition stated

above, can be clearly seen in the views of Dewey's

educational theory, social constructed knowledge in a social

setting that changes both the individual and the social

milieu.

Vygotsky viewed the role of the school as the most

flexible and fluid tool in formal education. Referring to

it as the social environment, he viewed the school as the

greatest educational factor because to him the environment

becomes the teacher. He felt if the environment was

controlled, learning was controlled. Therefore, the teacher

should create the environment in a purposeful and

intentional way to influence student learning. He believed

if children were involved in worthwhile activity, social

order would follow. Activity should relate to real world

experiences at the present developmental level of the child.

Reflection on past experiences was not essential as the

internalized culture was in the present situation. Forming

new concepts did not begin with reflection of the past the
way it did for Dewey. Reconstruction of experience was not

essential to Vygotsky. Construction of an experience based

on the zone of proximal development revealed the potential

level of development a child could reach with the help of

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 113

the teacher or peers. Teachers were the means through which

development advanced. As the analogy of the staircase in

the previous chapter demonstrated, the role of the teacher

was to life the child to the next step through intervention.

In this way, the teacher was active, the student was active,

and the environment was active. All the elements of social

constructivism are apparent in Vygotsky's zone of proximal

development to some degree. The goal of education in

Vygotsky's view was enculturation which promoted change in

the individual, and since a society is made up of a group of

individuals, change was reflected in the group. However, it

appeared that control of learning was paramount despite his

emphasis on real world experiences. The free exchange of

ideas and feelings did not seem to be an aim. The Marxist

philosophy that Vygotsky believed in quite strongly

emphasized the collective culture. Discovery or self-

direction was not apparent in his works.

In the opinion of the researcher, Dewey's education

theory matches more closely to the contemporary elements of

social constructivism. Vygotsky's zone of proximal

development would be a useful tool in pedagogical practices

if the political underpinnings of his beliefs are ignored.

To look at social constructivism as a means of

advancing emerging and functioning capabilities of a child,

the role of the teacher would be different in Dewey's and

Vygotsky's view. The teacher according to Dewey would be

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 114

the agent of support exerting control only as needed to keep

a student focused; he would be the guide, the reconstructor

of experience encouraging freedom to discover. The teacher

in Vygotsky's view would be the controller, the lifter, the

stimulator, the constructor of the environment. Freedom of

thought and exchange of ideas appears less obvious to the

researcher based on what has been gleaned from Vygotsky's

works.

It is also concluded that social constructivism should

be an educational reform movement based on Dewey's (1963)

definition "a new order of conceptions leading to new modes

of practice" (p. 5). If teachers followed either Dewey's

social constructivism or Vygotsky's social constructivism

without regard to the Marxist underpinnings, practices would

not be new to the classroom. Dewey's Laboratory School

engaged in the process of inquiry that included experience,

interactivity, and continuity, and Vygotsky's Institute of

Defectology engaged in the determination of the zone of

proximal development in the early part of the last century.

However, social constructivism has not made its way into

traditional schools in any pervasive ways. It could be a

reform movement if all aspects of society understood and

were involved in acceptance of social constructivist

practices. Higher education institutions for pre-service

teachers are just beginning to address constructivist

practices. It has been the experience of the researcher

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 115

that not all practicing teachers are aware of the term

constructivism. That is due in part to the fact that

defining constructivism has not been easy. Too many

interpretations of what it is and how to implement it has

been one of the reasons for lack of change.

The original and the most widely accepted

constructivist tenet that traditional methods of pouring out

information to students as if they were vessels to be filled

is still valid. Social constructivist practices that

include inquiry, experience, and interaction to construct

new knowledge are practices that should be pursued. If pre­

service teachers and practicing teachers are given an

opportunity for professional development in the social

constructivist practices as defined in this research, I

believe they can be effective in improving student personal

and social development. Vygotsky's social constructivism if

taken without the Marxist aspect may work very well with

students who have disabilities or special needs or just have

not developed self-motivation or self-direction. His

successful experimentation was with special needs students

in his Institute of Defectology. Dewey's social

constructivism may work best with students who are self-

motivated and work well in collaboration with others as was

the case in his Laboratory School at the University of

Chicago.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 116

Essentially, I believe there is no one way to help a

child develop and grow. There are times when traditional

teaching strategies are effective. There could be times

when Vygotsky's social constructivist methods of lifting

students to help them reach higher levels of development and

understandings of new concepts can be effective. However,

in my opinion, Dewey's social constructivism in all its

elements of the learning spiral is best for our society.

Upon expression of that opinion, it must be also stated

that social constructivist practices are difficult to

implement just as Dewey's educational theory and practices

were difficult to implement in his time. However, if

teachers have available to them and understand how to use

technology to assist them and their students, those needs

could be more easily met.

If constructivists wish to impact upon teaching

practices, they will need to concentrate their efforts

toward forming one voice that says more than the common

tenet that denounces traditional education. They must

formulate a social constructivist theory that can be

translated into common practices. Teacher education

institutions should be at the forefront of research to

participate in the formulation of this theory involving pre­

service teachers in all aspects of the research. In that

way, the pre-service teacher is part of the reflective and

inquiry experience, engaged in interaction with peers and

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 college professors and instructors. Through their

participation in their own learning and reconstruction

knowledge, they will be better prepared to do the same

their students.

R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 REFERENCES

Airasian, P. W., & Walsh, M. E. (1997). Cautions for

classroom constructivists. Phi Delta Kappan, 78, 444-
449.

Archambault, R. D. (Ed.). (1964). John Dewey on education.

Selected writings. New York: Modern Library.

Bentley, M. (1998). Constructivism as a referent for

reforming science (pp. 233-249). In M. Larochelle, N.
Bednarz, & J. Garrison (Eds.), Constructivism and
education. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Black, A., & Ammon, P. (1992). A developmental-

constructivist approach to teacher education. Journal
of Teacher Education, 43(5), 323-335.

Blanck, G. (1990). Vygotsky: The man and his cause (pp.

31-58). In L. C. Moll (Ed.), Vygotsky and education.
Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Bredo, E. (2000). Reconsidering social constructivism: The

relevance of George Herbart Mead's interactionism
(pp.127-157). In D. C. Phillips (Ed.), Constructivism
in education, opinions and second opinions on
controversial issues. National Society for the Study
of Education Ninety-Ninth Yearbook, Part I.
Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

Brooks, J. G., & Brooks, M. G. (1993). The case for

constructivist classrooms. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Bruner, J. (1962). Introduction (pp. v-x). In E. Hanfmann

& G. Vakar (Eds.), Thought and language. Cambridge,
MA: The M.I.T. Press. (Original work published 1934).

Bruner, J. (1990). Introduction (pp. 1-27). In L. C. Moll

(Ed.), Vygotsky and education. Cambridge, MA:
Cambridge University Press.

Cobb, P., Perlwitz, M., & Underwood-Gregg, D. (1998).

Individual construction, mathematics acculturation, and
the classroom community (pp. 63-80) . In M. Larochelle,
N. Bednarz, N., & J. Garrison (Eds.), Constructivism
and education. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University
Press.

Cole, M., & Scribner, S. (1978). Introduction (pp. 1-14).

In Vygotsky, L., Mind in society. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.

118

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 119

Cremin, L. (1964). The transformation of the school.

Progressivism in American education. 1876-1957. New
York: Vintage Books.

Davydov, V. (1997). Introduction (pp. xxi-xxxix). In L.

Vygotsky, Educational psychology. Problems of general
psychology. Vol. 1 . Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press LLC.
(Original work published 1926).

Dewey, J. (1916, 1966). Democracy and education. New

York: The Free Press.

Dewey, J. (1933, 1960). How we think. Lexington, MA:

Heath.

Dewey, J. (1938, 1963). Experience and education. New

York: Collier Books.

Dewey, J. (1990). The school and society (Rev. ed.). and

The child and the curriculum. Chicago, IL: University
of Chicago.

Driver, R., Aslo, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E., & Scott, P.
(1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the
classroom. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 5-12.

Duffy, T .,& Cunningham, D. (1996). Constructivism:

Implications for the design and delivery of instruction
(pp. 170-198). In D. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of
research for educational communication and technology.
New York: Macmillan.

Fosnot, C. T. (1989). Enquiring teachers, enquiring

learners: A constructivist approach for teaching. New
York: Teachers College Press.

Fosnot, C. T. (Ed.). (1996). Constructivism: Theory,

perspectives and practice. New York: Teachers College
Press.

Garrison, J. (1996). The unity of the activity: A

response to Prawat. Educational Researcher, 25(6), 21-
23 .
Hyerle, D. (1996). Visual tools for constructing
knowledge. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Larochelle, M., Bednarz, N., & Garrison, J. (Eds.).

(1998). Constructivism and education. Cambridge, MA:
Cambridge University Press.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 120

Lohmann, R. T. (1988). A re-vision of Montessori:

Connections with Dewey, Piaget, and Vygotsky.
Washington, DC: USDOE, Office of Educational Research
and Improvement.
Moll, L. C. (Ed.). (1990). Vygotsky and education.
Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Menand, L. (2001) . The metaphysical club. New York:

Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Phillips, D. C. (1995) The good, the bad, and the ugly:

The many faces of constructivism. Educational
Researcher, 24 (7) . 5-12.

Phillips, D. C. (Ed.). (2000). Constructivism in

education, opinions and second opinions on
controversial issues. National Society for the Study
of Education Ninety-Ninth Yearbook, Part I. Chicago,
IL: The University of Chicago Press.

Phye, D. (Ed.). (1997). Handbook of academic learning,

construction of knowledge, learning and remembering.
Boston, MA: Academic Press.

Popkewitz, T. S. (1998). Dewey, Vygotsky, and the social

administration of the individual: Constructivist
pedagogy as systems of ideas in historical spaces.
American Educational Research Journal, 35(4), 535-570.

Prawat, R. S. (1995). Misreading Dewey: Reform projects

and the language game. Educational Researcher, 24(7),
13-22.

Rieber, R., & Carton, A. (Eds.). (1987). The collected

works of L. S. Vygotsky. New York, NY: Plenum Press.

Richardson, V. (Ed.). (1997). Constructivist teacher

education. Building a world of new understandings.
London: Falmer Press.

Rosa, A., & Montero, I. (1990) . The historical context of

•Vygotsky's work: A sociohistorical approach (pp. 59-
88). In L. C. Moll (Ed.), Vygotsky and education.
Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Ryan, A. (1995). John Dewev and the high tide of American

liberalism. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.

John-Steiner, V., & Souberman, E. (1978). Afterword (pp.

121-133). In L. Vygotsky, Mind in society. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 121

Stone, J. E. (1996). Developmentalism: An obscure but

pervasive restriction on educational improvement.
Education Policy Analysis Archives [On-line], 4(8).
[Link]/ epaa/v4n8html.

Thayer, H. S. (1968, 1981). Meaning and action, A critical

history of pragmatism. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett
Publishing Company.

Von Glasersfeld, E. (1996). Footnotes to 'The many faces

of constructivism.' Educational Researcher. 25(6). 19.

Vygotsky, L. (1962). Thought and language. (E. Hanfmann &

G. Vaker, Eds. & Trans.). Cambridge, MA: The M.I.T.
Press. (Original work published 1934).

Vygotsky, L. (1971). The psychology of art. (Scripta

Technica, Inc., Trans.). Cambridge, MA: The M.I.T.
Press.

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. (M. Cole, V. John-

Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, Eds.).
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Vygotsky, L. (1997). Educational psychology. Problems of

general psychology. Volume I . (R. Silverman, Trans.).
Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press LLC. (Original work
published 1926).
Wertsch, J. V. (Ed.). (1985). Culture, communication, and
cognition: Vvgotskian perspectives. Cambridge, MA:
Cambridge University Press.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.