Vygotsky's theory - research Flashcards
Wertsch (1979)
The second weakness we will cite in the research on egocentric speech is that investigators almost always fail to take the origins of this phenomenon into account in their analyses.
Most researchers who have studied egocentric speech
(e.g., Kohlberg et al, 1968) have restricted their attention to the child’s utterances once the child has begun to function as an independent, selfregulating agent.
While this is an important part of the picture, it fails to take advantage of a genetic explanation something which was very important in Vygotsky’s view.
Specifically, it fails to take into account the fact that egocentric speech has its origins in earlier forms of social speech.
Vasileva et al. (2019)
Theories formulated by Russian psychologist and educator Lev Vygotsky currently range from being applied and celebrated across multiple contexts to be considered outdated.
In this paper, we maintain that such inconsistency in application stems from the overreliance on translated or reformulated Vygotskian theories, the attempts to understand these ideas in isolation from the scientific historical context of their development, and the impact of Vygotsky’s personal life circumstances on the development of his scholarship.
It is known that Vygotsky’s untimely death prevented him from elaborating on his theoretical views and expanding his early empirical work.
We suggest that Vygotsky’s scholarship could be better understood in light of the core principles that transcend all aspects of his work.
In this paper, we elaborate on two such core principles: theories of language development and their relation to the integrated systemic approach to psychological development.
We argue that although linguistic and historical boundaries have shaped the common perception of Vygotskian theories in anglophone research in a specific way, there is a potential for a renewed application of these theories to modern psychology that might be especially relevant in light of the increasingly interdisciplinary character of the modern science.
To support our argument, we provide a brief overview and examples of potential connections between Vygotsky’s scholarship with contemporary landscape in psychological science.
The paper presents a brief introduction to the topic of Vygotskian work and its application to modern psychology, rather than an addition to the field of Vygotskian scholarship.
It is geared toward non-Vygotskian scholars and invites researchers working in interdisciplinary areas of psychology.
First, as noted by Van der Veer and Yasnitsky (2016a,b) and Zavershneva (2016), a complete and accurate bibliography of Vygotsky’s work is yet to be created. The existing Vygotsky’s bibliographies often contain significant limitations (Van der Veer and Yasnitsky, 2016a,b). As the result, we cannot accurately establish how much Vygotsky wrote himself. It is known that Vygotsky’s texts were not always written and sometimes consisted of notes rather than well-formulated and polished texts, and a significant portion of what is known as Vygotsky’s work was published posthumously. In other words, Vygotsky did not collect and organize these specific pieces of text in the order in which they are found today. Moreover, as noted by Yasnitsky (2011a), some texts that appear under Vygotsky’s name were redacted prior to publication while in other texts portions from different manuscripts were inserted. Furthermore, a significant portion of Vygotsky’s work has not been published at all, and these archival works have become accessible to a broader audience only recently (Zavershneva, 2010, 2014, 2016).
Eun (2019)
Because Vygotsky lived and worked within a high-context culture (Ageyev, 2003), where writers do not provide detailed descriptions of constructs that are self-evident to themselves, he left out aspects of the ZPD that may have been obvious to himself, but nonetheless crucial in achieving a clear definition of the concept. Therefore, an attempt was made to reconceptualize the ZPD by going beyond the explicit definitions to include issues that are not directly addressed in Vygotsky’s writings but may serve to enhance the understanding of the concept. The notion of voice and dialogicality, mainly borrowed from the works of the Russian semiotician Bakhtin proved useful in the reconceptualization.
further questions still need to be raised
Versaka and Versaka (2018)
The article is aimed at describing approaches towards understanding of mediation forms used in educational programs for preschool children as one of the major lines of psychology implementation in Russia. To a large extent, they are based on the cultural-historical approach, developed by Lev Vygotsky and his followers. It is shown how idea of mental tools usage in preschool education evolved and has developed nowadays. According to the cultural-historical theory sample is one of the cultural tools, mastering of which by the child occurs in the zone of proximal development. Another cultural tool is a sign, and especially the word. Followers of Vygotsky elaborated such tools as visual models, schemes, symbols. Implementation of mental tools in educational programs is analyzed in different spheres (speech development, cognitive development, voluntariness development) on the examples of the most spread educational programs in Russia.
Pathan et al. (2018)
Socio cultural theory has influenced research in SLA. The applications and implications of the theory are strongly discussed in the social context of language learning. Moreover, Donato (2002) researched based on SCT and showed language learning as a social process. His study concluded that meaning is created through collaboration. The studies of Lantolf (2000) and Swain (2002) indicate the usefulness of peer interaction. It includes the way learners help each other during second language learning and simultaneously, the way they work together in form of focused activities. Verenikina (2008) concluded that in spite of some limitations of
Vygotskyan socio-cultural theory and its basic concepts, researchers and practitioners have conducted a number
of studies based on SCT. There is still deeper understanding required to operationalize scaffolding, ZPD in teaching practices. The notion of ZPD is used which engages interaction between expert and novice.
The theory presents the positive view of learner and provides meditational tools to promote him or her potential level. A main focus is placed on the active position of learner which is necessary to become a self-regulated
learner. The main concepts of Vygotsky’s SCT, ZPD, mediation, scaffolding, internalization and private speech have been reviewed and researched in the domain of SLA. A great deal of research has been conducted based on
SCT in classroom. In this regard, citing Ellis (2000) who suggests that socio-cultural theory emphasizes how learners complete the task and indicate how interaction among learners can scaffold in second language
acquisition. The theory focused on the social, cultural and historical artifacts which play a pivotal role in the
children’s cognitive development as well as their potential performance. Vygotsky revolutionized pedagogy with his thoughtful psychology of child development centered in the socio-cultural perspective.
Most importantly, language use, the notion of ZPD, peer interaction and learning as a mediated process are Vygotsky’s influential thoughts used and practiced in SLL, SLA. Broadly speaking, the
application of these ideas is a matter of great significance.
Marginson and Dang (2017)
The article reviews the social-educational theorization of the early Soviet psychologist L. S. Vygotsky (1896-1934) in the light of the impact of communicative globalization in educational practice. Vygotsky proposed four genetic domains for investigating higher cognitive processes: the phylogenetic (humans undergoing natural evolution), the cultural-historical (social activity of humans), the ontogenetic (individual lifespan), and the microgenetic (immediate events). Vygotskian sociocultural theory is widely used in educational research, especially Vygotsky’s notion of mediated development via tools and signs. Since Vygotsky, communicative globalization has transformed educational potentials. Nevertheless, provided adjustments are made to Vygotsky’s genetic method to incorporate time-space compression, the mutual presence of the genetic domains, and the glonacal heuristic, Vygotskian theory continues to be useful in socially-situated investigations of educational development and transformation, and opens another way into the global, for example investigation of the role of global mediation in learning.
van der Veer (1996)
Vygotsky’s concept of culture is powerful but limited and biased. It os powerful in that it allows us to explain the way individuals master the linguistically mediated aspects of their cultural heritage and the way they are changed in the process. It is limited because it is less fit to explain the innovation of cultural by indvs and the transmission of presumably non-linguistically mediated aspects of culture such as the (culturally variable) critical distance between indvs and body odour. It is biased in the sense that it capitalises on abstract, de-contextualised thinning and regards other ways of thinking as lower or less developed.
Mesquita (2012)
In this sense, Vygotsky’s theoretical framework offers a space for constructing thinking about the emotions towards an understanding of the dialectical relationship between nature and culture. Based on his theoretical framework, the process of psychological development is seen as dependent on the contact with others and the acquisition of linguistic mediational instruments. Thus, human psyche is the result of the relationship biology-culture-environment, breaking with the developmental view that usually establishes a unidirectional causal relationship, moving always from biology to culture.
A “very high activity of the psyche” (Vygotsky, 1923/
2001) and the process of fantasy are nothing but activities pertaining to higher psychological processes, dependent on the linguistic apparatus to form. So we can say that, as thought, emotion has a different nature and origin of language. In fact, in his article of 1929, “Basic Problems of Modern Defectology”, Vygotsky (1929/1997) sees
emotion and cognition with relative independence in their origins, just like he later formulated in more detail about thought and language. Thus, one can argue that when the
emotional system meets language, there is a qualitative leap in the former. This leap is like the secondary, or higher, emotions: humans acknowledge themselves only after they belong to a cultural milieu.
