Vygotsky’s notion of social dimension of human mind
and its impact on education
林文川
Source:
Lin, W. C. (2008). Culture, ethnicity and English language learning: a socio-cultural study of secondary schools in
1. Vygotsky: the social dimension of human mind
Vygotsky’s formulation, generally agreed upon in the research literature (e.g., Kozulin, 1990, 2003; Wertsch, 1991), may be summarised in terms of the following basic themes: a reliance on genetic (or developmental) analysis; the assertion that higher mental functioning in the individual derives from social life; and the claim that human activity (on both social and individual planes) is mediated by tools and signs. These interlocking themes suggest that his underlying approach to a theory of mind shifted from an individualistic to a socio-cultural perspective (Kozulin, 2003). The shift towards the social origin of human mind is captured by Vygotsky’s (1981) ‘general genetic law of cultural development’:
‘Any function in the child’s cultural development appears twice, or on two planes. First, it appears on the social plane, and then on the psychological plane. First, it appears between people as an interpsychological category, and then within the child as an intrapsychological category […] It goes without saying that internalisation transforms the process itself and changes its structure and functions. Social relations or relations among people genetically underlie all higher functions and their relationships.’ (Vygotsky, 1981:163)
Children’s cultural development, in Vygotsky’s terms, is a process that takes place ‘between people as an interpsychological category’. This social dimension of the human mind is not only ‘radical’ but also ‘positive’ because it points out that ‘psychology should focus its attention on uniquely human higher mental processes’ (Kozulin, 1990). This ‘positive psychological program’ reshaped the disputable Cartesian dualism by bringing what cognitive psychologists viewed as ‘noise’ back into the picture.
According to Vygotsky, ‘higher mental functioning processes’ rely on ‘mediation’ or ‘psychological tools’. Vygotsky (1981: 137) stated that ‘by being included in the process of behavior, the psychological tool alters the entire flow and structure of mental functions’. Wertsch (1985) interpreted this as meaning that such tool-using behaviour both fundamentally and qualitatively transformed human mental functioning. Psychological tools, such as language or mathematic symbol systems were considered by Vygotsky to be social in nature. In a broad sense, he viewed tools as products of socio-cultural life, rather than individual inventions.
2. Language as mediational means
Language, in Vygotsky’s approach, was considered to be the most important psychological tool. He suggested that ‘the primary function of speech, both for the adult and for the child, is the function of communication, social contact, influencing surrounding individuals’ (Wertsch, 1985: 81). Language as a psychological tool or as mediational means was understood by Vygotsky as speech. As Daniels (1993) put it:
‘For Vygotsky, speech was an important psychological tool, which was at one time a social and cultural element but also served to mediate social processes in the process of internalisation. Such psychological tools not only function externally/socially, they mediate or regulate internally the action of mental processes.’ (Daniels, 1993: 53)
Wertsch (1985) similarly argued that psychological tools are social and have important implications for Vygotsky’s theory of human mental processes. If we accept Vygotsky’s notion that language provides psychological tools that ‘regulate internally the action of mental processes’, their essential property is that they are culturally, historically and institutionally situated (Wertsch, 1998). The socio-cultural situatedness of ‘mediational means’ which alter human mental processes, therefore questions individualistic approaches and the discrete, inner mechanism of human mind.
Though Vygotsky brought us to recognise the role of language as meaningful tools which alter mental functions, he did not provide a consolidated, theoretical framework concerning language use (Hassan, 2002; Wertsch, 1985, 1991). In other words, the theory of language used by Vygostky lacked adequate, empirical support. Contemporary first or second language learning research seems to have recognised this, responding by tending to formulate theories of language aimed at investigation of the detail of different modalities (e.g., written or spoken) and formal systems of language (e.g., grammar, syntax and vocabulary). However, such language learning theories that are underpinned by a notion of mind as a cognitive mechanism involved in information processing, do not require researchers to move beyond a consideration of the individual. Indeed Vygotsky was one of the first psychologists to start with the social.
3. Vygostky on pedagogy
Vygotsky’s notion of language as mediational tools that alter higher mental process is not a simple extension of language based on human biology. Rather, language is viewed as ‘a function of socially meaningful activity’ (Kozulin, 1990: 113). Such meaningful social activity, in Moll’s (1990) view, was Vygotsky’s major contribution and brought educational pedagogy into theories of psychological development:
‘Vygotsky’s primary contribution was in developing a general approach that brought education, as a fundamental human activity, fully into a theory of psychological development. Human pedagogy, in all its forms, is the defining characteristic of his approach, the central concept in his system.’ (Moll, 1990: 15)
In the opening chapter in his recent book, Vygotsky and Pedagogy, Daniels (2001: 2) explored in depth Vygotsky’s writings concerning pedagogy and mediation, and suggested that, through a wide range of extensions and interpretations of Vygotsky’s work, ‘new and important possibilities for practices of teaching and learning in schools and beyond’ have been created. Vygotsky (1997) provided an emergent, sociological account of pedagogy underlining not only its importance as socially meaningful, but also pointing out the value-laden nature of pedagogy:
‘Pedagogics is never and was never politically indifferent, since, willingly or unwillingly, through its own work on the psyche, it has always adopted a particular social pattern, political line, in accordance with the dominant social class that has guided its interests.’ (Vygotsky, 1997, cited in Daniels, 2001: 5)
Vygotsky’s approach drew the ‘value’ inherent with pedagogic instruction to our attention. English language teachers, like those of other subjects, bringing different cultural experiences and mediational means to their pedagogic practice. Students, like teachers, also bring with them various sets of knowledges and values into the classroom that regulates their learning. Vygotsky was clear that the values of the dominant social class cannot be neglected in the socio-cultural process of pedagogy. As Davies (1994) pointed out:
‘Pedagogy involves a vision (theory, set of beliefs) about society, human nature, knowledge and production, in relation to educational ends, with terms and rules inserted as to the practical and mundane means of their realisation.’ (Davies, 1994: 26)
In Davies’ account the ‘practical and mundane’ nature of pedagogy reminds us of the everyday, situated practice of classroom teaching and learning. In other words, if we are to pay attention to pedagogic practice or use, the specific ways that teachers instruct students in, for example, English language classrooms, have to be taken into consideration. In addition, broader levels of political issues that regulate pedagogic practice have also to be considered, ranging from the objects that ‘school visions’ privilege, to national curriculum requirements and the outworking of notions of economic, social and cultural ‘driving forces’ embedded in notions of ‘national interest’. It is commonly agreed among neo-Vygotskian scholars (e.g., Daniels, 2001; Moll, 1990; Wertsch, 1985) that such broader levels of investigation or discussion concerning classroom, pedagogic practice were not present in Vygotsky’s writings. As Daniels (2001) put it, Vygotsky has pointed out the ‘social’ aspect of pedagogy but only in terms of a limited level of the ‘social’ in his investigations of individual development. Such work has, however, provided wonderfully fertile ground for the growth of ideas in collaboration, for example with those of Bernstein and Moscovici.
From this necessarily limited discussion of Vygotsky’s main ideas, it could be argued that his intention was to develop an account of human beings seen as ‘making themselves from outside’ (Daniels, 2001: 56), whereby ‘mind is in society’ (Rogoff, 1990: 36). Vygotsky’s ideas constituted a radical shift away from the world view of Cartesian philosophy which had stressed the isolated individual. His ideas set the stage for a broader understanding of the importance and the connection between social, cultural and historical forces involved in the development of human mind. However, a problem solved in social science almost inevitably means a new problem raised. Drawing on Vygotsky, we need a situated practice approach to language learning to supplement contemporary accounts of second language acquisition if we wish to pay more attention to actual experiences, practices and uses involved in processes of language teaching and learning. In some measure these may be found in neo-Vygotskian studies.
4. Neo-Vygotskian studies
Over the past three decades, building on Vygotsky’s heritage, there has been rapid growth in the number of approaches attempting to investigate the development of cognition in actual contexts which challenge early, cognitivist approaches to mind. Relevant researches have examined issues, such as how cognition is situated in everyday social contexts (Rogoff and Lave, 1984), how cognitive processes may be socially distributed (Salomon, 1993) and how certain forms of social interaction (e.g., mother-child dyads) may be appropriated to organise individual mental process (e.g., Rogoff, 1990, 2003). Perhaps more radically, there have been explorations of how cognition may be studied by shifting the analytic focus to the ‘individual-operating-with-mediational-means’. This kind of approach recognises that human agency is mediated by cultural tools (e.g., language) and ‘extends beyond the skin’ (Wertsch, Tulviste, and Hagstrom, 1993: 352).
Amongst these efforts a few strands can be broadly characterised as, for example, cultural-historical activity theory (Cole, Engeström, and Vasquez, 1997), socio-cultural approaches (Wertsch, 1991, 1998), situated learning models (Lave, 1988; Lave and Wenger, 1991; Lave, 1996) and distributed cognition approaches (Salomon, 1993). These neo-Vygotskian (or ‘post-Vygotskian’) studies all share a common view in seeking to investigate or attempt to understand processes involved in the social formation of mind. The common thread running through these strands is the attempt to shift away from an emphasis on discrete and individualistic cognitive schemata to the connectedness of the social world, challenging traditional cognitivist notions of knowledge, pedagogy and the learner. Within neo-Vygotskian approaches socio-cultural accounts of learning or development are viewed as socio-cultural processes that recognise historical, political, economic and institutional forces that influence learning.
5. Socio-cultural approach to SLA research
The convergent effect of neo-Vygotskian scholarship and the growing recognition of cultural practices in the process of language learning have shifted the individualistic orientation of its study to take into more account social and cultural forces (Breen, 2001; Johnson, 1992; Kramsch, 1998; Lantolf, 2000; Donato, 2000; Mitchell and Myles, 2001). For example, Johnson (1992) pointed out that studies that include social contexts and personal factors clearly depart from the 1970s tradition of linguistic acquisition. In the last two decades, major advances in research have attempted to explain the complex interactions between the social contexts of
Informed by neo-Vygotskian studies in the 1980s, the beginning of the 1990s appeared to be the time when many SLA researchers in North America started to carry out Vygotsky-inspired work involving what they often termed ‘socio-cultural theory’ (SCT). Lantolf (1994, 2000), among others, has been at the forefront of advocacy of socio-cultural theory in this field. In the last twenty years, alongside the development of situated social theories (e.g., Lave, 1988, 1996; Lave and Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 1998),
6. Exemplary socio-cultural study of EFL learning in secondary schools in Taiwan
Socio-cultural theory poses challenges to contemporary theories of learning by questioning deeply held, yet controversial, views about individual cognition, recognising that thinking and learning take place between people and between people and tools in situated settings. It requires a shift from the ‘individual human mind’ as the sole unit of analysis for understanding human thought to recognition of socio-culturally constituted practice where human thinking and behaviour develop (Scribner, 1997). Drawing from Vygotsky’s formulation as a point of departure and inspired by Scribner and Cole’s (1981) notion of the ‘practice approach to literacy’, this study used socio-cultural approaches to learning in order to investigate differential achievement in English language and the relationship between English language learning and ethnic culture, as well as a broader level of state economy and historico-political forces. The research design has drawn on the work of Scribner and Cole (1981), Lave and Wenger (1991), Wenger (1998), Rogoff (1990), Rogoff and Lave (1984) and Wertsch (1991, 1995, 1998) in a multi-disciplinary investigation.
This study’s intent has been to broaden the focus to view English language learning as everyday practice influenced by socio-cultural forces including political, economic, family, institutional and personal settings, circumstances and values. I attempt to challenge the problematic assumptions that English benefits all students equally, as a neutral language tool with no connection to unequal distribution of power along lines of race, class, religion, and ethnicity. It was also my intention to explore the phenomena of ’value asymmetry’ between home and school settings that might reveal why some students learn well and others fall behind in learning English. It was hoped to highlight that English language practices that take account of the socio-cultural backgrounds of students both reflect and affect the learning milieu in educational settings. The study sought to investigate the following research aims:
· What motivates students in different locales in
· Are there any differences between ethnic groups’ situated experiences of, and access to, English?
· Is the pressure to speak English contributing to inequalities between groups in the society?
Useful references
Bourdieu, P. (1977) Outline of a theory of practice.
Breen, M. P. (2001) The social context for language learning: a neglected situation? In C. N. Candlin, and N. Mercer (eds.), English language teaching in its social context: a reader.
Chaiklin, S., and Lave, J. (eds.) (1996) Understanding practice: perspectives on activity and context.
Cole, M. (1985) The zone of proximal development: where culture and cognition create each other. In J. V. Wertsch (ed.), Culture, communication, and cognition: Vygotskian perspectives.
Cole, M. (1996) Cultural psychology: a once and future discipline.
Cole, M., Engeström, Y., and Vasquez, O. (1997) Mind, culture, and activity: seminal papers from the Laboratory of Comparative Human Cognition.
Daniels, H. (ed.) (1993) Charting the agenda: educational activity after Vygotsky.
Daniels, H. (2001) Vygotsky and pedagogy.
Davies, B. (1994) On the neglect of pedagogy in educational studies and its consequences. British Journal of In-Service Education, 20(1): 17-34.
Davydov, V. V. and Radzikhovsky, L. A. (1985) Vygotsky’s theory and the activity oriented approach in psychology. In J. V. Wertsch (ed.), Culture, communication and cognition: Vygotskian perspectives.
Donato, R. (2000) Sociocultural contributions to understanding of the foreign and second language classroom. In J. P. Lantolf (ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning.
Forman, E. A., and McPhail, J. (1993) Vygotskian perspective on children’s collaborative problem-solving activities. In E. A. Forman, N. Minick, and C. A. Stone (eds.), Context for learning: sociocultural dynamics in children’s development.
Hassan, R. (2002) Semiotic mediation, language and society: three exotripic theories- Vygotsky, Halliday and Bernstein.
Johnson, D. M. (1992) Approaches to research in second language learning.
John-Steiner, V., and Mahn, H. (1996) Sociocultural approaches to learning and development: a Vygotskian framework. Educational Psychologist, 31(3/4): 191-206.
Kozulin, A. (1990) Vygotsky’s psychology: a biography of ideas.
Kozulin, A. (2003) Psychological tools and mediated learning. In A. Kozulin, B. Gindis, V. S. Ageyev, and S. M. Miller (eds.), Vygotsky's educational theory in cultural context.
Kramsch, C. (2000) Social discursive constructions of self in L2 learning. In J. P. Lantolf (ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning.
Lantolf, J. P. (1994) Sociocultural theory and second language learning: introduction to the special issue. The modern Language Journal, 78(4): 418-20.
Lantolf, J. P. (2000) Introducing sociocultural theory. In J. P. Lantolf (ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning.
Lantolf, J. P., and Poehner, M. E. (2004) Dynamic assessment of L2 development: bringing the past into the future. Journal of Applied Linguistics, I: 49-74.
Lantolf, J. P., and Throne, S. L. (2006) Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development.
Lave, J. (1996) The practice of learning. In
Lave, J., and Wenger, E. (1991) Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation.
Mitchell, R., and Myles, F. (2001) Second language learning: key concept and issues. In C. N. Candlin, and N. Mercer (eds.), English language teaching in its social context: a reader.
Moll, L. C. (1990) Introduction. In L. C. Moll (ed.), Vygotsky and education: instructional implications and applcations of sociohistorical psychology.
Pavlenko, A., and Lantolf, J. P. (2000) Second language learning as participation and the (re)construction of selves. In J. P. Lantolf (ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning.
Penuel, W. R., and Wertsch, J. V. (1995) Vygotsky and identity formation: a sociocultural approach. Educational Psychologist, 30(2): 83-92.
Poehner, M., and Lantolf, J. (2005) Dynamic assessment in the language classroom. Language Teaching Research, 9: 1-33.
Roberts, C. (2001) Language acquisition or language socialization in and through discourse: toward a redefinition of the domain of
Rogoff, B. (1990) Apprenticeship in thinking: cognitive development in social context.
Rogoff, B. (1995) Observing sociocultural activity on three planes: participatory approprication, guided participation, and apprenticeship. In J. V. Wertsch, P. del
Rogoff, B. (2003) The cultural nature of human development.
Rogoff, B., and Lave, J. (eds.) (1984) Everyday cognition: development in social context.
Scribner, S. (1997) A sociocultural approach to the study of mind. In E. Tobach, R. J. Falmagne, M. B. Parlee, L. M. W. Martin, and A. S. Kapelman (eds.), Mind and social practice: selected writings of Sylvia Scribner.
Scribner, S., and Cole, M. (1981) The psychology of literacy.
Salomon, G. (1993) Distributed cognitions: psychological and educational considerations.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978) Mind in society.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1981) The genesis of higher mental functions. In J. V. Wertsch (ed. and trans.), The concept of activity in Soviet psychology.
Wenger, E. (1998) Communities of practice: learning, meaning, and identity.
Wertsch, J. V. (1985) Vygotsky and the social formation of mind.
Wertsch, J. V. (1991) Voices of mind: a sociocultural approach to mediated action.
Wertsch, J. V. (1995) The need for action in sociocultural research. In J. V. Wertsch, P. del
Wertsch, J. V. (1998) Mind as action.
Wertsch, J., Minick, N., and Arns, F. (1984) The creation of context in joint problem-solving. In B, Rogoff and J. Lave (eds.), Everyday cognition: its development in social context.
Wertsch, J. V.,
Wertsch, J. V., Tulviste, P., and Hagstrom, F. (1993) A sociocultural approach to agency. In E. A. Forman, N. Minick, and C. A. Stone (eds.), Contexts for learning: sociocultural dynamics in children’s development.
