Vygotsky’s Theory of Cognitive Development

Sociocultural Theory 

The work of Lev Vygotsky (1934, 1978) has become the foundation of much research and theory in cognitive development over the past several decades, particularly what has become known as sociocultural theory.

Vygotsky’s theory comprises concepts such as culture-specific tools, private speech, and the zone of proximal development.

Vygotsky believed cognitive development is influenced by cultural and social factors. He emphasized the role of social interaction in the development of mental abilities e.g., speech and reasoning in children.

Vygotsky strongly believed that community plays a central role in the process of “making meaning.”

Cognitive development is a socially mediated process in which children acquire cultural values, beliefs, and problem-solving strategies through collaborative dialogues with more knowledgeable members of society.

The more knowledgeable other (MKO) is someone who has a higher level of ability or greater understanding than the learner regarding a particular task, process, or concept.

The MKO can be a teacher, parent, coach, or even a peer who provides guidance and modeling to enable the child to learn skills within their zone of proximal development (the gap between what a child can do independently and what they can achieve with guidance).

The interactions with more knowledgeable others significantly increase not only the quantity of information and the number of skills a child develops, but also affects the development of higher-order mental functions such as formal reasoning. Vygotsky argued that higher mental abilities could only develop through interaction with more advanced others.

According to Vygotsky, adults in society foster children’s cognitive development by engaging them in challenging and meaningful activities. Adults convey to children how their culture interprets and responds to the world.

They show the meaning they attach to objects, events, and experiences. They provide the child with what to think (the knowledge) and how to think (the processes, the tools to think with).

Vygotsky’s theory encourages collaborative and cooperative learning between children and teachers or peers. Scaffolding and reciprocal teaching are effective educational strategies based on Vygotsky’s ideas.

Scaffolding involves the teacher providing support structures to help students master skills just beyond their current level. In reciprocal teaching, teachers and students take turns leading discussions using strategies like summarizing and clarifying. Both scaffolding and reciprocal teaching emphasize the shared construction of knowledge, in line with Vygotsky’s views.

Vygotsky highlighted the importance of language in cognitive development. Inner speech is used for mental reasoning, and external speech is used to converse with others.

Initially, these operations occur separately. Indeed, before age two, a child employs words socially; they possess no internal language.

Once thought and language merge, however, the social language is internalized and assists the child with their reasoning. Thus, the social environment is ingrained within the child’s learning.

Effects of Culture

Vygotsky’s theory emphasizes individuals’ active role in their cognitive development, highlighting the interplay between innate abilities, social interaction, and cultural tools.

Vygotsky posited that people aren’t passive recipients of knowledge but actively interact with their environment. This interaction forms the basis of cognitive development.

Infants are born with basic abilities for intellectual development, called “elementary mental functions.” These include attention, sensation, perception, and memory.

Through interaction within the sociocultural environment, elementary functions develop into more sophisticated “higher mental functions.”

Higher mental functions are advanced cognitive processes that develop through social interaction and cultural influences. They are distinct from the basic, innate elementary mental functions.

Unlike elementary functions (like basic attention or memory), higher functions are:

• Conscious awareness: The individual is aware of these processes.
• Voluntary control: They can be deliberately used and controlled.
• Mediated: They involve the use of cultural tools or signs (like language).
• Social in origin: They develop through social interaction.

Examples include language and communication, logical reasoning, problem-solving, planning, attention control, self-regulation, and metacognition.

Vygotsky posited that higher mental functions are not innate but develop through social interaction and the internalization of cultural tools.

Tools of Intellectual Adaptation

Cultural tools are methods of thinking and problem-solving strategies that children internalize through social interactions with more knowledgeable members of society.

These tools, such as language, counting systems, mnemonic techniques, and art forms, shape the way individuals think, problem-solve, and interact with the world.

Tools of intellectual adaptation is Vygotsky’s term for methods of thinking and problem-solving strategies that children internalize through social interactions with the more knowledgeable members of society.

Cultural tools, particularly language, influence the development of higher-order thinking skills.

Other tools include writing systems, number systems, mnemonic techniques, works of art, diagrams, maps, and drawings.

These tools are products of sociocultural evolution, passed down and transformed across generations.

Each culture provides its children with tools of intellectual adaptation that allow them to use basic mental functions more effectively.

These tools, along with social interaction, contribute to the development of higher mental functions through a process of internalization.

This historical and cultural embeddedness means that tools carry within them the accumulated knowledge and practices of a particular community.

For example, biological factors limit memory in young children. However, culture determines the type of memory strategy we develop.

For example, in Western culture, children learn note-taking to aid memory, but in pre-literate societies, other strategies must be developed, such as tying knots in a string to remember, carrying pebbles, or repeating the names of ancestors until large numbers can be repeated.

Vygotsky, therefore, sees cognitive functions, even those carried out alone, as affected by the beliefs, values, and tools of intellectual adaptation of the culture in which a person develops and, therefore, socio-culturally determined.

Therefore, intellectual adaptation tools vary from culture to culture – as in the memory example.

More Knowledgeable Other

The more knowledgeable other (MKO) is somewhat self-explanatory; it refers to someone who has a better understanding or higher skill level than the learner in a particular task or concept.

As a result of shared dialogues with more knowledgeable others, which provide hints, instructions, and encouragement, the child can internalize the ‘how to do it’ part of the task as part of their inner or private speech. The child can use this later when they tackle a similar task independently.

Although the implication is that the MKO is a teacher or an older adult, this is not necessarily the case. Often, a child’s peers or an adult’s children may be the individuals with more knowledge or experience.

What constitutes “more knowledgeable” can vary across cultures and contexts. In some situations, traditional knowledge held by elders might be most valued, while in others, cutting-edge technical skills of younger individuals might be more relevant.

For example, who is more likely to know more about the newest teenage music groups, how to win at the most recent PlayStation game, or how to correctly perform the newest dance craze – a child or their parents?

In fact, the MKO need not be a person at all. To support employees in their learning process, some companies are now using electronic performance support systems.

Electronic tutors have also been used in educational settings to facilitate and guide students through learning. The key to MKOs is that they must have (or be programmed with) more knowledge about the topic being learned than the learner does.

The MKO is not a static position of superiority but a fluid role that shifts contextually in response to the learners’ evolving understanding and the dynamics of the learning environment.

As learners gain greater understanding, they can transition from being novices to assuming the role of MKO for their peers.

This highlights the collaborative and fluid nature of learning within the ZPD, where knowledge is co-constructed rather than simply transmitted from a more knowledgeable individual.

Abtahi (2016) suggests that tools themselves can function as “more knowledgeable others,” embodying cultural-historical knowledge that guides learners’ thinking and actions.

Abtahi uses the example of fraction strips guiding children’s understanding of fraction addition, even without direct instruction from an adult. This suggests that the design and affordances of tools can structure learning experiences, creating a zone of proximal development (ZPD) where learners, through their interactions with these tools, can achieve more than they could independently.

This idea is further supported by Puntambekar and Hübscher (2005), who discuss the use of curricula, software tools, and other resources as forms of scaffolding.

Zone of Proximal Development

The concept of the more knowledgeable other relates to the second important principle of Vygotsky’s work, the zone of proximal development (ZPD).

The ZPD relates to the difference between what a child (or a novice) can achieve independently and what a child can achieve with guidance and encouragement from a skilled partner.

Vygotsky (1978) views the zone of proximal development as the area where the most sensitive instruction or guidance should occur, enabling the child to develop skills they will later use independently, thus fostering higher mental functions.

The ZPD is not a static space but constantly shifts as the child learns and develops new skills. As a child’s competence grows, their zone of proximal development also expands to encompass new challenges.

Vygotsky emphasizes social interaction as crucial to learning, arguing that children develop more fully with support than alone. He defines the gap between actual and potential learning as the ZPD, asserting that collaboration with more knowledgeable others is essential to bridge this gap.

According to Vygotsky (1978), the child (or a novice) learns through social interaction with a skillful tutor. The tutor may model behaviors and/or provide verbal instructions for the child.

Vygotsky refers to this as cooperative or collaborative dialogue. The child seeks to understand the actions or instructions provided by the tutor (often the parent or teacher) and then internalizes the information, using it to guide or regulate their performance.

Social interaction, therefore, supports the child’s cognitive development in the ZPD, leading to a higher level of reasoning. 

Internalization of Knowledge

Scaffolding

The ZPD has become synonymous with the term “scaffolding” in the literature. However, it is important to note that Vygotsky never used this term in his writing; it was introduced by Wood, Bruner, and Ross (1976).

Scaffolding consists of activities provided by the educator or a more knowledgeable person to support the student as he or she is led through the zone of proximal development.

It’s the “how” of guided learning, the specific strategies and techniques used by a more knowledgeable other to bridge the gap between a learner’s current abilities and potential development.

This support can be provided in many different ways, such as modeling or asking questions, and is used across different subjects and age groups.

Scaffolding is a dynamic process that changes based on the student’s progress and the task at hand, so it will look different in different situations.

Contingency (or responsiveness) is paramount. This means the teacher continually assesses the learner’s understanding and calibrates their support accordingly.

Support is tapered off (i.e., withdrawn) as it becomes unnecessary, much as a scaffold is removed from a building during construction. The student will then be able to complete the task again independently.

Shaffer (1996) gives the example of a young girl given her first jigsaw. Alone, she performs poorly in attempting to solve the puzzle. The father then sits with her and describes or demonstrates some basic strategies, such as finding all the corner/edge pieces, and provides a couple of pieces for the child to put together herself, and offers encouragement when she does so.

As the child becomes more competent, the father allows the child to work more independently. 

Evidence for Vygotsky and the ZPD

Freund (1990) conducted a study in which children had to decide which furniture items should be placed in particular areas of a doll’s house.

Some children were allowed to play with their mother in a similar situation before they attempted it alone (zone of proximal development) while others were allowed to work on this by themselves (Piaget’s discovery learning).

Freund found that those who had previously worked with their mother (ZPD) showed the greatest improvement compared with their first attempt at the task.

The conclusion is that guided learning within the ZPD led to greater understanding/performance than working alone (discovery learning).

Vygotsky and Language

Vygotsky believed that language develops from social interactions for communication purposes. Vygotsky viewed language as man’s greatest tool for communicating with the outside world.

According to Vygotsky (1962), language plays two critical roles in cognitive development:

1. 1. Cultural transmission of knowledge: Language is the primary vehicle for passing down cultural knowledge, values, and practices across generations. This transmission occurs through formal instruction and informal interactions, shaping individuals’ understanding of the world and their place within it.
   2. Language becomes a powerful tool for intellectual adaptation: Language is not merely a tool for communication; it’s a tool for thinking. Language facilitates the development of higher mental functions like abstract thinking, planning, and problem-solving.

Vygotsky (1987) differentiates between three forms of language:

1. 1. Social speech: The initial form of language serves as the primary means for children to engage with others, establish shared meanings, and participate in cultural activities (typical from age two).
   2. Private speech: Overt and audible speech directed to the self and serves an intellectual function (typical from age three).
   3. Inner speech: According to Vygotsky, private speech doesn’t simply disappear; it goes “underground,” transforming into silent inner speech (typical from age seven).

For Vygotsky, thought and language are initially separate systems from the beginning of life, merging at around three years of age.

At this point, speech and thought become interdependent: thought becomes verbal, and speech becomes representational.

As children develop mental representation, particularly the skill of language, they start to communicate with themselves in much the same way as they would communicate with others.

When this happens, children’s monologues are internalized to become inner speech. The internalization of language is important as it drives cognitive development.

This internal dialogue allows individuals to mentally rehearse different viewpoints, contributing to more sophisticated social understanding and problem-solving abilities.

“Inner speech is not the interiour aspect of external speech – it is a function in itself. It still remains speech, i.e., thought connected with words.

But while in external speech thought is embodied in words, in inner speech words dies as they bring forth thought. Inner speech is to a large extent thinking in pure meanings.”

(Vygotsky, 1962: p. 149)

Private Speech

Vygotsky (1987) was the first psychologist to document the importance of private speech.

He considered private speech as the transition point between social and inner speech, the moment in development where language and thought unite to constitute verbal thinking.

Thus, in Vygotsky’s view, private speech was the earliest manifestation of inner speech. Indeed, private speech is more similar (in form and function) to inner speech than social speech.

Private speech is “typically defined, in contrast to social speech, as speech addressed to the self (not to others) for the purpose of self-regulation (rather than communication).”

(Diaz, 1992, p.62)

Private speech is overt, audible, and observable, often seen in children who talk to themselves while problem-solving.

Conversely, inner speech is covert or hidden because it happens internally. It is the silent, internal dialogue that adults often engage in while thinking or problem-solving.

In contrast to Piaget’s (1959) notion of private speech representing a developmental dead-end, Vygotsky (1934, 1987) viewed private speech as:

“A revolution in development which is triggered when preverbal thought and preintellectual language come together to create fundamentally new forms of mental functioning.” (Fernyhough & Fradley, 2005: p. 1)

In addition to disagreeing on the functional significance of private speech, Vygotsky and Piaget also offered opposing views on the developmental course of private speech and the environmental circumstances in which it occurs most often (Berk & Garvin, 1984).

Functions of Private Speech

Through private speech, children collaborate with themselves in the same way a more knowledgeable other (e.g., adults) collaborates with them to achieve a given function.

Vygotsky sees “private speech” as a means for children to plan activities and strategies, aiding their development. Private speech is the use of language for self-regulation of behavior.

Private speech is not just aimless chatter; it serves a vital self-regulatory function. As children develop, they need to transition from relying on external guidance from adults to directing their own actions and thoughts.

Private speech emerges as a way for children to guide their own behavior, especially during challenging tasks. They are essentially verbalizing the thought process that will eventually become internalized as inner speech.

Berk (1986) provided empirical support for the notion of private speech. She found that most private speech exhibited by children serves to describe or guide the child’s actions.

Therefore, language accelerates thinking and understanding (Jerome Bruner also views language this way). Vygotsky believed that children who engage in large amounts of private speech are more socially competent than children who do not use it extensively.

Vygotsky (1987) notes that private speech does not merely accompany a child’s activity but acts as a tool the developing child uses to facilitate cognitive processes, such as overcoming task obstacles, and enhancing imagination, thinking, and conscious awareness.

Children use private speech most often during intermediate difficulty tasks because they attempt to self-regulate by verbally planning and organizing their thoughts (Winsler et al., 2007).

Imagine a child working on a complex puzzle. They might say things like, “Where does this piece go? No, it doesn’t fit there. Maybe I should try turning it around.”

This self-directed talk helps them to:

• Focus attention: By verbalizing the problem and possible solutions, children are more likely to stay on task.
• Plan and sequence actions: Talking through the steps helps them organize their approach.
• Monitor progress: They can use their words to evaluate their success and make adjustments.

The frequency and content of private speech correlate with behavior or performance. For example, private speech appears functionally related to cognitive performance: It appears at times of difficulty with a task.

For example, tasks related to executive function (Fernyhough & Fradley, 2005), problem-solving tasks (Behrend et al., 1992), and schoolwork in both language (Berk & Landau, 1993), and mathematics (Ostad & Sorensen, 2007).

There is also evidence (Behrend et al., 1992) that those children who displayed the characteristic whispering and lip movements associated with private speech when faced with a difficult task were generally more attentive and successful than their ‘quieter’ classmates.

Developmental Trajectory

Berk also discovered that children engaged in private speech more often when working alone on challenging tasks and when their teacher was not immediately available to help them.

Furthermore, Berk also found that private speech develops similarly in all children regardless of cultural background.

Vygotsky (1987) proposed that private speech is a product of an individual’s social environment. This hypothesis is supported by the fact that there exist high positive correlations between rates of social interaction and private speech in children.

Children raised in cognitively and linguistically stimulating environments (situations more frequently observed in higher socioeconomic status families) start using and internalizing private speech faster than children from less privileged backgrounds.

Indeed, children raised in environments characterized by low verbal and social exchanges exhibit delays in private speech development.

As children become more adept at a task, their private speech typically becomes quieter and less grammatically complete.

This process of internalization involves “syntactic and semantic abbreviation,” meaning children start using a sort of mental shorthand, reflecting their increasing mastery of the task and the underlying cognitive processes. Eventually, this abbreviated private speech transforms into silent inner speech.

Children’s use of private speech diminishes as they grow older and follows a curvilinear trend. This is due to changes in ontogenetic development whereby children can internalize language (through inner speech) to self-regulate their behavior (Vygotsky, 1987).

For example, research has shown that children’s private speech usually peaks at 3–4 years of age, decreases at 6–7, and gradually fades out to be mostly internalized by age 10 (Diaz, 1992).

Vygotsky proposed that private speech diminishes and disappears with age not because it becomes socialized, as Piaget suggested, but because it goes underground to constitute inner speech or verbal thought” (Frauenglass & Diaz, 1985).

Inner Speech

Inner speech develops from private speech. As Vygotsky (1987) proposed, private speech “goes underground” to become inner speech.

Inner speech is a silent, internal language of thought that we use to reason, plan, and regulate our behavior. Unlike private speech, which is outwardly audible self-talk, inner speech is a completely internal process.

Vygotsky viewed language as a “tool” that mediates between our thoughts and actions. In the context of inner speech, language provides the very structure and form for our internal dialogue. It’s how we represent ideas, construct arguments, and engage in mental problem-solving.

Our capacity for silent thought (inner speech) is not an innate ability but rather a developmental achievement that emerges from our social world.

• Our earliest experiences with language and dialogue shape the very structure of our internal thought processes.
• Language acts as a tool, a system of representation, that enables us to think and reason internally.
• We carry the patterns and structures of social dialogue into our private mental landscapes.

The quality and development of inner speech can vary significantly across individuals. Factors such as social experiences, cultural background, and even the presence of developmental differences can influence the way inner speech manifests and its role in cognitive functioning.

Characteristics 

• Social dialogue: Inner speech is not merely a solitary monologue but retains the dialogic structure of social interaction. This means that when we engage in inner speech, we are essentially conversing with ourselves, mentally rehearsing different viewpoints, considering alternatives, and working through problems using language as the primary tool.

• Abbreviated and telegraphic: Inner speech is typically highly condensed, lacking the full grammatical structure of spoken language. This is because, in our own minds, we don’t need to state every detail explicitly. We can rely on shared context and understanding implicit in our internal dialogue.
• Simultaneity of perspectives:  A key characteristic of mature inner speech is the ability to hold multiple perspectives simultaneously. Rather than a linear, back-and-forth exchange, inner speech can encompass a complex interplay of ideas, allowing for more nuanced and flexible thinking.

Functions

• Planning and problem solving: Inner speech is essential for planning future actions, considering potential consequences, and developing strategies for navigating challenges.
• Self-regulation and control: Inner speech facilitates self-regulation, as it allows us to inhibit impulsive behaviors, stay focused on goals, and manage our emotions and motivations.
• Social understanding: There is a link between inner speech and our capacity to understand others’ minds. Engaging in internal dialogue, mentally representing different perspectives, might lay the groundwork for making sense of others’ thoughts, feelings, and intentions.

Educational Implications

Vygotsky’s approach to child development is a form of social constructivism, based on the idea that cognitive functions are the products of social interactions.

Social constructivism posits that knowledge is constructed and learning occurs through social interactions within a cultural and historical context.

Vygotsky emphasized the collaborative nature of learning by constructing knowledge through social negotiation. He rejected the assumption made by Piaget that it was possible to separate learning from its social context.

Vygotsky believed everything is learned on two levels. First, through interaction with others, then integrated into the individual’s mental structure.

Every function in the child’s cultural development appears twice: first, on the social level, and later, on the individual level; first, between people (interpsychological) and then inside the child (intrapsychological).

This applies equally to voluntary attention, to logical memory, and to the formation of concepts. All the higher functions originate as actual relationships between individuals.

(Vygotsky, 1978, p.57)

Teaching styles grounded in constructivism represent a deliberate shift from traditional, didactic, memory-oriented transmission models (Cannella & Reiff, 1994) to a more student-centered approach.

Traditionally, schools have failed to foster environments where students actively participate in their own and their peers’ education. Vygotsky’s theory, however, calls for both the teacher and students to assume non-traditional roles as they engage in collaborative learning.

Rather than having a teacher impose their understanding onto students for future recitation, the teacher should co-create meaning with students in a manner that allows learners to take ownership (Hausfather, 1996).

For instance, a student and teacher might start a task with varying levels of expertise and understanding. As they adapt to each other’s perspective, the teacher must articulate their insights in a way that the student can comprehend, leading the student to a fuller understanding of the task or concept.

The student can then internalize the task’s operational aspect (“how to do it”) into their inner speech or private dialogue. Vygotsky referred to this reciprocal understanding and adjustment process as intersubjectivity.

ZPD

Because Vygotsky asserts that cognitive change occurs within the zone of proximal development, instruction would be designed to reach a developmental level just above the student’s current developmental level.

Vygotsky proclaims, “learning which is oriented toward developmental levels that have already been reached is ineffective from the viewpoint of the child’s overall development. It does not aim for a new stage of the developmental process but rather lags behind this process” (Vygotsky, 1978).

Appropriation is necessary for cognitive development within the zone of proximal development. Individuals participating in peer collaboration or guided teacher instruction must share the same focus to access the zone of proximal development.

“Joint attention and shared problem solving is needed to create a process of cognitive, social, and emotional interchange” (Hausfather,1996).

Furthermore, it is essential that the partners be on different developmental levels and the higher-level partner be aware of the lower’s level. If this does not occur or one partner dominates, the interaction is less successful (Driscoll, 1994; Hausfather, 1996).

Vygotsky’s theories also feed into the current interest in collaborative learning, suggesting that group members should have different levels of ability so more advanced peers can help less advanced members operate within their ZPD.

Scaffolding and reciprocal teaching are effective strategies to access the zone of proximal development.

Reciprocal Teaching

A contemporary educational application of Vygotsky’s theory is “reciprocal teaching,” used to improve students” ability to learn from text.

In this method, teachers and students collaborate in learning and practicing four key skills: summarizing, questioning, clarifying, and predicting. The teacher’s role in the process is reduced over time.

Reciprocal teaching allows for the creation of a dialogue between students and teachers. This two-way communication becomes an instructional strategy by encouraging students to go beyond answering questions and engage in the discourse (Driscoll, 1994; Hausfather, 1996).

A study conducted by Brown and Palincsar (1989) demonstrated the Vygotskian approach with reciprocal teaching methods in their successful program to teach reading strategies.

The teacher and students alternated turns leading small group discussions on a reading. After modeling four reading strategies, students began to assume the teaching role.

The results showed significant gains over other instructional strategies (Driscoll, 1994; Hausfather,1996).

Cognitively guided instruction is another strategy to implement Vygotsky’s theory. This strategy involves the teacher and students exploring math problems and then sharing their problem-solving strategies in an open dialogue (Hausfather,1996).

Based on Vygotsky’s theory, the physical classroom would provide clustered desks or tables and workspace for peer instruction, collaboration, and small-group instruction. Learning becomes a reciprocal experience for the students and teacher.

Like the environment, the instructional design of the material to be learned would be structured to promote and encourage student interaction and collaboration. Thus the classroom becomes a community of learning.

Scaffolding

Also, Vygotsky’s theory of cognitive development on learners is relevant to instructional concepts such as “scaffolding” and “apprenticeship,” in which a teacher or more advanced peer helps to structure or arrange a task so that a novice can work on it successfully.

A teacher’s role is to identify each individual’s current level of development and provide them with opportunities to cross their ZPD.

A crucial element in this process is the use of what later became known as scaffolding; the way in which the teacher provides students with frameworks and experiences which encourage them to extend their existing schemata and incorporate new skills, competencies, and understandings.

Scaffolding describes the conditions that support the child’s learning, to move from what they already know to new knowledge and abilities.

Scaffolding requires the teacher to allow students to extend their current skills and knowledge.

During scaffolding, the support offered by an adult (or more knowledgeable other) gradually decreases as the child becomes more skilled in the task.

As the adult withdraws their help, the child assumes more of the strategic planning and eventually gains competence to master similar problems without a teacher’s aid or a more knowledgeable peer.

It is important to note that this is more than simply instruction; learning experiences must be presented in such a way as to actively challenge existing mental structures and provide frameworks for learning.

Five ways in which an adult can “scaffold” a child’s learning:

1. Engaging the child’s interest
2. Maintaining the child’s interest in the task e.g., avoiding distraction and providing clear instructions on how to start the task.
3. Keeping the child’s frustration under control e.g., by supportive interactions, adapting instructions according to where the child is struggling.
4. Emphasizing the important features of the task
5. Demonstrating the task: showing the child how to do the task in simple, clear steps.

As the child progresses through the ZPD, the necessary scaffolding level declines from 5 to 1.

The teacher must engage students’ interests, simplify tasks to be manageable, and motivate students to pursue the instructional goal.

In addition, the teacher must look for discrepancies between students” efforts and the solution, control for frustration and risk, and model an idealized version of the act (Hausfather, 1996).

Challenges to Traditional Teaching Methods

Vygotsky’s social development theory challenges traditional teaching methods. Historically, schools have been organized around recitation teaching.

The teacher disseminates knowledge to be memorized by the students, who in turn recite the information to the teacher (Hausfather,1996).

However, the studies described above offer empirical evidence that learning based on the social development theory facilitates cognitive development over other instructional strategies.

The structure of our schools does not reflect the rapid changes our society is experiencing. The introduction and integration of computer technology in society has tremendously increased the opportunities for social interaction.

Therefore, the social context for learning is transforming as well. Whereas collaboration and peer instruction were once only possible in shared physical space, learning relationships can now be formed from distances through cyberspace.

Computer technology is a cultural tool that students can use to meditate and internalize their learning. Recent research suggests changing the learning contexts with technology is a powerful learning activity (Crawford, 1996).

If schools continue to resist structural change, students will be ill-prepared for the world they will live.

Critical Evaluation

Vygotsky’s work has not received the same level of intense scrutiny that Piaget’s has, partly due to the time-consuming process of translating Vygotsky’s work from Russian.

Also, Vygotsky’s sociocultural perspective does not provide as many specific hypotheses to test as Piaget’s theory, making refutation difficult.

Risk of Overemphasizing Environmental Influence

Vygotsky overemphasized socio-cultural factors at the expense of biological influences on cognitive development.

Vygotsky prioritized the role of cultural tools and social interaction in shaping mental processes, but paid insufficient attention to innate cognitive abilities and developmental processes that unfold more independently of social influence.

This imbalance in focus potentially led Vygotsky to underestimate the impact of elementary mental functions (arising from the natural line) on the development of higher mental functions (shaped by cultural tools). 

Vygotsky’s theory cannot explain why cross-cultural studies show that the stages of development (except the formal operational stage) occur in the same order in all cultures suggesting that cognitive development is a product of a biological process of maturation.

Lack of Attention to Emotional Development

The theory is criticized for focusing primarily on cognitive development while neglecting the emotional and social-emotional aspects of development.

Modern developmental psychology recognizes that cognitive and emotional development are deeply intertwined. Critics argue that Vygotsky’s theory doesn’t adequately address how emotions influence cognitive processes and vice versa.

• While Vygotsky emphasized the social nature of learning, he didn’t extensively explore how children develop emotional intelligence or learn to regulate their emotions through social interactions.
• The concept of ZPD focuses on cognitive tasks, but critics argue it should also consider emotional challenges and how supportive relationships help children develop emotional competencies.
• The process of internalization in Vygotsky’s theory focuses on cognitive processes, but critics argue it should also consider how children internalize emotional coping strategies and understanding.

Vague Explanation of Internalization

People take in (internalize) dialogues and guidance they’ve received from others who are more knowledgeable. This internalized information is then used to guide their own actions and thinking.

While Vygotsky considered internalization a cornerstone of his theory, he did not fully articulate the specific mechanisms by which this process occurs. 

This concept is important because it describes how social interactions and cultural contexts contribute to individual cognitive development.

The idea is that higher mental functions first exist in the social realm (between people) before becoming internalized and part of an individual’s cognitive processes.

Eurocentric Bias

Vygotsky saw cultural development like a ladder, with European culture at the top. This view implies some cultures are “better” than others.

Vygotsky’s tendency to view cultural development as a linear hierarchy (often positioning European culture at the apex) can lead to:

1. An oversimplification of cultural differences
2. An underappreciation of the unique strengths and values of diverse cultural perspectives

A more nuanced approach, recognizing the heterogeneity of cultural tools and the situated nature of cognitive development, would better reflect the complexity of cultural influences on human thought and behavior.

Collaborative ZPD

Collaborative ZPD challenges traditional interpretations of ZPD that focus on the asymmetry between a more knowledgeable individual and a less knowledgeable learner.

Instead, a collaborative ZPD emphasizes the symmetrical nature of learning within peer interactions, where knowledge is co-constructed through mutual contributions and challenges, even among individuals with comparable expertise.

Collaborative ZPD represents a shift from viewing learning as an individual endeavor to recognizing it as a social practice (Tudge, 1992).

The most significant aspect of the ZPD is not the individual benefits gained by participants but the emergence of “a new form of collective consciousness,” highlighting how the interaction creates something new that transcends the contributions of any single individual.

Teachers need to go beyond simply placing students in groups and instead create conditions that foster genuine collaboration, characterized by:

• Transactive discussion, where students clarify, elaborate, justify, and critique their own and each other’s reasoning.
• Opportunities for students to challenge each other’s thinking, prompting metacognitive awareness and deeper engagement with the content.

Vygotsky vs. Piaget

Unlike Piaget’s notion that children’s cognitive development must necessarily precede their learning, Vygotsky argued, “learning is a necessary and universal aspect of the process of developing culturally organized, specifically human psychological function” (1978, p. 90). 

In other words, social learning precedes (i.e., come before) development.

Vygotsky’s theory differs from that of Piaget in several important ways:

Vygotsky places more emphasis on how culture affects cognitive development.

Unlike Piaget, who emphasized universal cognitive change (i.e., all children would go through the same sequence of cognitive development regardless of their cultural experiences), Vygotsky leads us to expect variable development depending on cultural diversity. 

This contradicts Piaget’s view of universal stages of development (Vygotsky does not refer to stages like Piaget does).

Hence, Vygotsky assumes cognitive development varies across cultures, whereas Piaget states cognitive development is mostly universal across cultures.

Vygotsky places considerably more emphasis on social factors contributing to cognitive development.

1. Vygotsky states the importance of cultural and social context for learning. Cognitive development stems from social interactions from guided learning within the zone of proximal development as children and their partners co-construct knowledge. In contrast, Piaget maintains that cognitive development stems largely from independent explorations in which children construct knowledge.
2. For Vygotsky, the environment in which children grow up will influence how they think and what they think about.

   The importance of scaffolding and language may differ for all cultures. Rogoff (1990) emphasizes the importance of observation and practice in pre-industrial societies (e.g., learning to use a canoe among Micronesian Islanders).

Vygotsky places more (and different) emphasis on the role of language in cognitive development.

According to Piaget, language depends on thought for its development (i.e., thought comes before language). For Vygotsky, thought and language are initially separate systems from the beginning of life, merging at around three years of age, producing verbal thought (inner speech).

In Piaget’s theory, egocentric (or private) speech gradually disappears as children develop truly social speech, in which they monitor and adapt what they say to others.

Vygotsky disagreed with this view, arguing that as language helps children to think about and control their behavior, it is an important foundation for complex cognitive skills.

As children age, this self-directed speech becomes silent (or private) speech, referring to the inner dialogues we have with ourselves as we plan and carry out activities.

For Vygotsky, cognitive development results from an internalization of language.

According to Vygotsky, adults are an important source of cognitive development.

Adults transmit their culture’s tools of intellectual adaptation that children internalize.

In contrast, Piaget emphasizes the importance of peers, as peer interaction promotes social perspective-taking.

References

Abtahi, Y. (2018). Pupils, tools and the Zone of Proximal Development. Research in Mathematics Education, 20(1), 1-13.

Behrend, D.A., Rosengren, K.S., & Perlmutter, M. (1992). The relation between private speech and parental interactive style. In R.M. Diaz & L.E. Berk (Eds.), Private speech: From social interaction to self-regulation (pp. 85–100). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Berk, L. E. (1986). Relationship of elementary school children’s private speech to behavioral accompaniment to task, attention, and task performance. Developmental Psychology, 22(5), 671.

Berk, L. E. (1994). Vygotsky’s theory: The importance of make-believe play. Young Children, 50(1), 30-39.

Berk, L. & Garvin, R. (1984). Development of private speech among low-income Appalachian children. Developmental Psychology, 20(2), 271-286.

Berk, L. E., & Landau, S. (1993). Private speech of learning-disabled and normally achieving children in classroom academic and laboratory contexts. Child Development, 64, 556–571.

Cannella, G. S., & Reiff, J. C. (1994). Individual constructivist teacher education: Teachers as empowered learners. Teacher education quarterly, 27-38.

Crawford, K. (1996) Vygotskian approaches to human development in the information era. Educational Studies in Mathematics, (31),43-62.

Cho, B.-Y., & Lee, H.-J. (2020). Exploring the use of scaffolding strategies in a virtual learning environment: A sociocultural perspective. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 58(3), 523-545.

Diaz, R. M., & Berk, L. E. (1992). Private speech: From social interaction to self-regulation. Lawrence Erlbaum.

Driscoll, M. P. (1994). Psychology of Learning for Instruction. Needham, Ma: Allyn && Bacon.

Eun, B. (2010). From learning to development: A sociocultural approach to instruction. Cambridge Journal of Education, 40(4), 401-418.

Frauenglass, M. & Diaz, R. (1985). Self-regulatory functions of children’s private speech: A critical analysis of recent challenges to Vygotsky’s theory. Developmental Psychology, 21(2), 357-364.

Fernyhough, C., & Fradley, E. (2005). Private speech on an executive task: Relations with task difficulty and task performance. Cognitive Development, 20, 103–120.

Freund, L. S. (1990). Maternal regulation of children’s problem-solving behavior and its impact on children’s performance. Child Development, 61, 113-126.

Hausfather, S. J. (1996). Vygotsky and Schooling: Creating a Social Contest for learning. Action in Teacher Education, (18),1-10.

Gredler, M. E., & Shields, C. C. (2004). Does no one read Vygotsky’s words? Commentary on Glassman. Educational Researcher, 33(2), 21-25.

Ostad, S. A., & Sorensen, P. M. (2007). Private speech and strategy-use patterns: Bidirectional comparisons of children with and without mathematical difficulties in a developmental perspective. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40, 2–14.

Piaget, J. (1959). The language and thought of the child (Vol. 5) . Psychology Press.

Puntambekar, S., & Hubscher, R. (2005). Tools for scaffolding students in a complex learning environment: What have we gained and what have we missed?. Educational psychologist, 40(1), 1-12.

Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. Oxford university press.

Saettler, P. (1990). The Evolution of American Educational Technology. Egnlewood, Co: Libraries Unlimited.

Schaffer, R. (1996) . Social development. Oxford: Blackwell.

Siraj-Blatchford, I. (2009). Conceptualising progression in the pedagogy of play and sustained shared thinking in early childhood education: A Vygotskian perspective. Educational and Child Psychology, 26(2), 77-89.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). Thinking and speech. In R.W. Rieber & A.S. Carton (Eds.), The collected works of L.S. Vygotsky, Volume 1: Problems of general psychology (pp. 39–285). New York: Plenum Press. (Original work published 1934.)

Wertsch, J. V., & Tulviste, P. (1992). L. S. Vygotsky and contemporary developmental psychology. Developmental Psychology, 28(4), 548-557.

Wertsch, J. V., Sohmer, R. (1995). Vygotsky on learning and development. Human Development, (38), 332-37.

Winsler, A., Abar, B., Feder, M. A., Schunn, C. D., & Rubio, D. A. (2007). Private speech and executive functioning among high-functioning children with autistic spectrum disorders. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 37, 1617-1635.

Wood, D., Bruner, J., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Child Psychiatry, 17, 89−100.

Further Reading

• Vygotsky’s Theory of Cognitive Development