educational researcher-2001-glassman-3-14

8/7/2019 EDUCATIONAL RESEARCHER-2001-Glassman-3-14

1/13

http://er.aera.netEducational Researcher

http://edr.sagepub.com/content/30/4/3The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.3102/0013189X030004003

2001 30: 3EDUCATIONAL RESEARCHERMichael Glassman

Dewey and Vygotsky: Society, Experience, and Inquiry in Educational Practice

Published on behalf of

American Educational Research Association

and

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:Educational ResearcherAdditional services and information for

http://er.aera.net/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://er.aera.net/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.aera.net/reprintsReprints:

http://www.aera.net/permissionsPermissions:

http://edr.sagepub.com/content/30/4/3.refs.htmlCitations:

at SSRT-Tech Serv on April 13, 2011http://er.aera.netDownloaded from
http://er.aera.net/http://er.aera.net/http://er.aera.net/http://edr.sagepub.com/content/30/4/3http://edr.sagepub.com/content/30/4/3http://www.aera.net/http://www.aera.net/http://www.sagepublications.com/http://er.aera.net/alertshttp://er.aera.net/alertshttp://er.aera.net/alertshttp://er.aera.net/subscriptionshttp://er.aera.net/subscriptionshttp://www.aera.net/reprintshttp://www.aera.net/reprintshttp://www.aera.net/permissionshttp://www.aera.net/permissionshttp://edr.sagepub.com/content/30/4/3.refs.htmlhttp://edr.sagepub.com/content/30/4/3.refs.htmlhttp://edr.sagepub.com/content/30/4/3.refs.htmlhttp://er.aera.net/http://er.aera.net/http://er.aera.net/http://er.aera.net/http://edr.sagepub.com/content/30/4/3.refs.htmlhttp://www.aera.net/permissionshttp://www.aera.net/reprintshttp://er.aera.net/subscriptionshttp://er.aera.net/alertshttp://www.sagepublications.com/http://www.aera.net/http://edr.sagepub.com/content/30/4/3http://er.aera.net/


2/13

Dewey and Vygotsky: Society, Experience,and Inquiry

in Educational Practiceby Michael Glassman

John Dewey and L. S. Vygotsky share similar ideas concerning the re-

lationship of activity and learning/development, especially the roles

everyday activities and social environment play in the educational

process. However, the two theorists are far apart in their concep-

tion of the relationship between process and goals in education.

Dewey concentrates on means in education, believing that it is the

ability of the individual to question through experience that is most

important for the human community. Vygotsky, while recognizing

the importance of (especially cultural) process in education, sees so-

cial and cultural goals as being integrated into social pedagogy.This

paper compares Dewey and Vygotsky on three key points that re-

late directly to educational processes and goals. First, the two the-

orists are compared on the role of socialhistory and the tools it pro-

duces. Dewey sees social history as creating a set of malleable tools

that are of use in present circumstances. Vygotsky believes that tools

developed through history have a far more lasting impact on the

social community.Second, the two theorists are compared in their

conceptualizations of experience/culture. Dewey sees experience as

helping to form thinking,whereas Vygotsky, in his culturalhistorical

theory,posits culture as the raw material of thinking.Third, the two

theorists are compared on their perspectives on human inquiry.

Dewey sees the child as afree agent who achieves goals through her

own interest in the activity. Vygotsky suggests there should be

greater control by a mentor who creates activity that will lead the

child towards mastery. These differences are then explored in terms

of how they might impact actual classroom strategies and curriculum.

The work of Soviet psychologist L. S. Vygotsky has had a

growing impact on education in the United States. Many of

Vygotskys ideas that have had the greatest resonance for educa

tors, such as bringing everyday activities into the classroom and

focusing on the importance ofsocial context in learning, bear a

striking resemblance to the work of John Dewey, especially his

writings on education (e.g., 1912, 1916). It is something of a

mystery, then, that there has been so little discussioncomparingthe theories of Vygotsky and Dewey. There have been a few at

tempts to merge Dewey with Vygotsky (e.g., Rogoff, 1993) or to

place Dewey within a larger sociocultural framework (Cole,

1996), but for the most part these works have not included de-

Educational Researcher, Vol. 30. No. 4, pp. 314

tailed analyses of important similarities and differences. It is

true that Dewey is not a developmentalist in the same way that

Vygotsky is. But his educational theory comes close in spirit to

Vygotskys major questions concerning education, which were

pursued with the greatest vigor by those who followed him (e.g.,

Davydov, 1997; Leontiev 1981). These questions include: How

and why does natural human activity serve as the major impetus

for learning? And how, through understanding that activity, can

we promote and guide human learning? (It is important to sepa

rate the word activity from the Activity Theory ofA. N. Leontiev,

1981, a student and colleague ofVygotsky. In this paper the term

activity is used in its broadest possible sense, the state of beingactive rather than passive.)

The similarities between Dewey and Vygotsky, however, belie

one difference of extraordinary import to educators in general,

but especially for those inclined towards the use of activity as a

major teaching strategy. The difference revolves around the ques

tion of how educators view the process of activity in relation to

the consequences of activity. Are these consequences goals to be

carefully planned and then brought about through active men

toring on the part of the social interlocutor (i.e., a more seasoned

member of the community who fosters social interaction with a

purpose)? Or are they temporary destinations of little educa

tional import in and of themselves?

I believe that the issues that separate these two theorists, who

see activity as being of such vital importance, could not be moreprofound. It raises the question ofwhether teachers should ap

proach students as mentors who guide or direct activity, or facil

itators who are able to step back from childrens activity and let it

run its own course. It crosses into such areas as culturally and eco

nomically heterogeneous classrooms, and well as cultural/social

historical attitudes towards education. A comparison of Dewey

and Vygotsky highlights strong reasons why education should be

an active and context specific process, but it also forces educators

to thinklong and hard about how and why they use activity in

the classroom.

In this paper I compare Dewey and Vygotsky on three specific

conceptual issues that relate directly to educational processes and

goals. These issues are the roles of social history, experience/

culture, and human inquiry in the educational process. Both ofthese theorists believe that, in the context of educational processes,

none of these issues can stand without the other two. The dif

ference between Dewey and Vygotsky involves the relationships

among these three issues. For Vygotsky human inquiry is em

bedded within culture, which is embedded within social history.

The educational process works, more or less, from the outside in.

MAY 2001 3

http://er.aera.net/http://er.aera.net/http://er.aera.net/


3/13

It is social history, and, most important, the tools developed

through our social history that helps to determine our everyday

culture (Vygotsky& Luria, 1993). The social interlocutor stands

as a mediator between tools developed through social history and

individual human inquiry. The interlocutor uses theeveryday

culture, which itself is a product ofsocial history, to guide the

thinking of the neophyte.

Dewey would applaud Vygotskys emphasis on everyday cul

ture as the lynchpin of the educational process. Deweys notionofexperience is equivalent to Vygotskys conception ofculture.

(In his attempt to revise his 1925 bookExperience andNature 25

years later, Dewey suggested he could use the term culture in

place ofexperience.) However, in contrast to Vygotsky, Dewey

emphasizes human inquiry, and the role that it plays in the cre

ation of experience/culture and, eventually,social tool systems. I

believe Dewey would be very cautious about educators stressing

how individual thinking might be embedded within social his

tory. One of the major purposes of education is to instill the abil

ity and the desire for change in experience, and possible resultant

changes insocial history, through individual inquiry.

The differences between the two theorists are easily recogniz

able when one compares Vygotskys conception of the zone of

proximal development (Rogoff & Wertsch, 1984 ) and the

Dewey-inspired model oflong term projects (Katz & Chard,

1989, 2000). In many ways, these two educational models oper-

ationalize the theoretical underpinnings of the two thinkers. The

zone ofproximal development, especially as it has been interpreted

in the West, focuses on the role of the adult associal interlocutor

who is also a representative ofsociety. These adults mentor chil

dren in specific, culturally appropriate activity (Berk& Winsler,

1995). The role ofthe educational process is toprepare children

for more complex activity in the larger social community.

In long term projects children are immersed in everyday activ

ities. It is expected that the activities of the children will eventu

ally coalesce around a topic that is of interest to them. The topic

need not be ofany relevance to the demands of the larger social

community, or even have meaning or interest for the teacher. As

a matter offact, the teacher should step back from the process

once children display a relevant interest and act as facilitator

rather than mentor. It is the students who must drive the inquiry

based on their own goals. The children learn that they control

and are responsible for inquiry in their lives, and they determine

what goals are important and the ways in which they can (or can

not) be met (Dewey, 1916). It is aprocess that will be played out

over and over again over the course oftheir lifetime experience.

After providing some historical context for these two men, the

remainder ofthis paper focuses primarily on Vygotskys and

Deweys visions ofsocial history, experience/culture, and human

inquiryconcepts that are central to understanding the differ

ences between their approaches to the processes andgoals of

education. These differences are illustrated by examining the ed

ucational models of the zone of proximal development and longterm projects.

Dewey and Vygotsky in Historical Con text

There are historically based explanations for both the strong sim

ilarities and the strong differences between Dewey and Vygotsky.

Although it would probably be a mistake to claim that all, or even

most, of the similarities and differences between Vygotsky and

Dewey have historical roots, it might be an even greater mistake

to ignore the impact of history on their thinking.Deweys educational philosophy was, in many ways, a critical

reaction to the burgeoning educational system in the United

States between 1870 and 1910 (Handlin, 1959). Public school

ing developed for a number ofreasons during this period, in-

cluding the need for vocational training to meet the demands of

the industrial revolution and the desire to identify and maintaina specifically American culture. The time frame of the develop

ment of public schooling in the United States coincidedwith the

emergence of the progressive movement (Popkewitz, 1987), but

initially schooling did not reflect the internal values ofthat

movement (Handlin, 1959). There was a distinct separation be

tween the school culture and theeveryday culture of the indi

viduals for whom the public education infrastructure was being

created (e.g., newly arrived immigrants from Southern and East

ern Europe).

Public education was highly mechanistic (Pepper, 1942), with

students learning subjects completely divorced from their everyday reality in stilted and artificial environments. Deweys educa

tional philosophy was originally a critique ofthis dichotomous

model ofeducation (Handlin, 1959). Dewey combined the

Hegelian idea that activity and thought were both part ofa single

experience with thepragmatists notion that activity must be understood within the moment for its specific purposes, and not as

a means to an ideological end. The human condition isenhanced

when individuals engage in the everyday activity oftheir social

community in a thoughtful and positive way, to the point where

they are able to change that community through the force oftheir own actions. In order for a society to progress it must cul

tivate the individual, sometimes at the expense of its own present

social organization (Dewey, 1954).

Despite the obvious emphasis ofindividual over social com

munity byleading progressives such as Dewey, the progressive

movement, and many of the Marxist-based movements, became

political allies in the United States during the early part of the

twentieth century. This may have been the result of the two political movements having only a superficial understanding ofeach

other (Novak, 1975). At the same time there was a good deal of

interest in Dewey among those attempting to modernize the ed

ucational system ofpre-Revolutionary Russia, such as the First

Moscow Settlement (Brickman, 1964; van der Veer & Valsiner,

1991). Much ofDeweys early works were translated into Rus

sian, including School andSociety (1900) and a 50-page booklet

based onEducation and Democracy (1916). The combination of

these two factors probably led to a Deweyan influence on early

Soviet educators such as Blonsky and the young Vygotsky.

In 1928 Dewey visited the Soviet Union (although the schools

were closed for vacation for most ofthe time he was there). Prawat

(2001) recounts how Dewey visited Second Moscow University

during this trip at the time Vygotsky was a rising young star there.Dewey certainly met with Blonsky, Vygotskys compatriot, and

Prawatt (2001) builds a fairly strong circumstantial case that

Dewey actually met with Vygotsky. This only adds to the proba

bility that Dewey influenced Vygotskysearly work.

The period between 1928 and 1931 led to a souring of the re

lationship between Dewey and official Soviet education. In his

4 EDUCATIONAL RESEARCHER



4/13

subsequent articles about his 1928 visit Dewey praised the So

viet system as being far superior to the American system in bring

ing the everyday world of the child into the classroom. How

ever, he also offered a devastating critique that in many ways

defines the difference between his own educational philosophy

and Vygotskys educational perspective. Dewey felt the Soviet

educational system was being used for specific propaganda pur

poses, that is, the education system was being used to develop

good Soviet citizens that understood and fit into the communistsocial order (Dewey, 1964). Vygotsky did not see education as

propaganda based, but he did see it asan important and definite

tool in the development of the new man (Kozulin, 1990).

Deweys critique may have started a rift that came to fruition in

1931 when the Central Committee of the Communist Party of

fered an official resolution condemning progressive educational

practices (e.g., the project method) advocated by Dewey and his

followers. What followed was the de-Deweyization of the offi

cial educational system within the Soviet Union (Brickman, 1964).

This short history offers some possible reasons for similarities

between Dewey and Vygotsky, such as the focus on activity, the

importance ofthe everyday activities ofthe child in the educational

process, and the importance of history. The young Vygotsky was

working within an educational structure that had been influencedby Deweys ideas for a number ofyears. The important differ

ences between the two theorists may be partially attributed to the

divergence between progressive education and Marxist ideology

on key issues, such as socially determined goals in activity (Novak,

1975; Popkewitz & Tabachnik, 1981).

Society and History

Both Vygotsky and Dewey agree that the human condition is

based in social interactions. Humans are initially social beings

who slowly develop their individual selves through their relation

ships (experiences) with others. Dewey (1916) makes the argu

ment that humans are only human through their social intercon-

nectedness with each other (and actually suggests that helplessness

is, in some ways, a positive attribute because it helps to fosterthis interconnectedness). The essential questions that need to be

asked involve how these extraordinary connections come about,

and how the individual begins to take control ofthem (Dewey,

1925). Vygotsky suggests that it is the ability to develop coop

erative activity through complex social relationships that sepa

rates mature humans from all other animals (Vygotsky& Luria,

1993). Humans are best understood as products of these com

plex relationships.

ForDewey (1916), the individual mind must be understood as

a creative development ofsocial life. The social is primary in that

it comesfirst,whereas the development of the individual follows

as a shadow ofsocial relationships. Dewey is in many ways fol

lowing his friend and mentor Mead (1934). But he also speaks to

a larger issue that seems to have been common in the early part ofthe twentieth century (it is an important component ofVygotskys

theory as well). The general argument is that human beings

originally are born social creatures and develop their sense ofself

through their social relationships. An important difference be

tween Dewey and Vygotsky lies in how much power this indi

vidual organizer eventually has over future social activities. This

difference is captured in the way Deweys idea of cultural in

strumentality (Eldridge, 1998) compares with Vygotskys theory

ofcultural historical development (Kozulin, 1990).

For Dewey culture and history provide a malleable set ofmeans

(e.g., tools) that can be used to achieve immediate or easily viewed

ends (see Eldridge, 1998, for an in-depth discussion ofDeweys

instrumentality). These tools have worth only to the degree to

which they can be used to successfully navigate a given situation.

ForVygotsky (Vygotsky& Luria, 1993) cultural history providesfor a (relatively) more static set of tools and symbols that should

eventually enable members of a society to move beyond pure in

strumentality, to a higher level of cognitive awareness. Tools are

means for specific, culturally approved consequences that act as

way stations on the path to a socially defined end. Deweys cul

tural instrumentality was criticized for its emphasis on means over

ends in social historical development (Eldridge, 1998; Novak,

1975). Dewey posits that education leads to free inquiry, and free

inquiry leads to a richer society, but he lacks a description of ex

actly what a richer society looks like. Vygotsky, on the other hand,

is susceptible to the criticism Dewey (1964) makes of the entire

Soviet educational systemthat social goals can easily be turned

into propaganda that services the society.

Dewey, Tools, andLong Term Projects

It is an individuals social history that provides what Dewey

termed intellectual tools (Eldridge, 1998). These are the so

cially developed tools such as morals, ideals,values, and customs

that serve as reference points for the individual as she attempts

to navigate life situations. But these areonly reference points, in

that they inform immediate activity, but in an atmosphere of free

inquiry they do not limit it.

The meaning oftools, in a Deweyan framework, is directly re

lated to their value in a given situation. When the tools no longer

have pragmatic value they are modified or rejected by the indi

viduals using them. By making tools so dynamic Dewey is sug

gesting that there are no ends beyond the process of successful

activity within the context of the immediate situationwhatDewey termed the end-in-view (Eldridge, 1998). Theeasiest en

vironments in which humans can use these intellectual tools

are those with the greatest degree of shared social history (en

abling individuals to useshared social ends as a central aspect of

their activity). This allows members of the same group to share

likes anddislikes, to maintain the same attitudes towards objects,

to communicate without a disconnect. The historically defined

intellectual tools work more often than not because new situ

ations and activities reflect the same situations and activities these

shared intellectual tools were based on. Those objects and ideas

that fall outside of the shared history are considered suspect

and/or of little worth (Dewey, 1916). But while environments

with a high level of agreement between subjects are relatively

comfortable, they are not beneficial. They do not engage free in

quiry, which is the bedrock of Deweys democratic society.

Dewey (1916) believes that this is a dangerous situation that

leads to narrow-mindedness.

This is a major reason Dewey (1916) posits diversity as an

important aspect of a true educational experience. (He actually

counted diversity as a tool in education.) Dewey sees progress/

MAY 2001 5



5/13

development as occurring only through an equilibration/dis-

equilibration process. For him, the state of disturbed equilibra

tion represents need (Dewey, 1938, p.27). In his theory of in

quiry Dewey suggests that it is this same type ofdisturbedequilibration that drives exploration of new ideas. Many hu-mans, however, find suspending judgment and reconstructing

the world disagreeable (Dewey, 1933). It is therefore incumbent

on the educational structure to create diverse environments that

demand social inquiry. There is a second, related reason thatDewey champions diversity. Dewey echoes Mead in his argu

ment that we see ourselves basically through a lookingglass phenomenon (Dewey, 1930). Humans see themselves in the con

text of the way they are viewed by others. For Dewey the raison

dtre for human activity is to make life better and more worth

while, both for themselves and, especially, for the general social

community. Ifhumans do not see themselves in the context of

social views different from themselves, they are unable to recon

struct themselves in the face of a problematic society. Unable to

change themselves, and, therefore, unable to change the world,

humans can become slaves to their history and their habits.Dewey clearly understands the problems that diversity will cause(Dewey, 1916), and he does not believe that theproblems, or

their solutions, will lead to a greater absolute good. He believes

that the process will lead to the process of free inquiry, and freeinquiry itself is good. For Dewey, then, it is not that the means

justify the ends, but that the means are the ends.

The emphasis on process over product in the cause of free in-

quiry is reflected in one of the most important educational ap

proaches to emerge from Deweyan-based educational philoso

phies, long term projects (Katz & Chard, 1989). This educational

format stresses the importance ofengaging children, as members

ofcommunities, in projects based on subjects that interest them.

It is the students, rather than the teacher, who choose direction,

set goals, and determine effort. The goal of the project itselfis

relatively unimportant andcan be changed through thecom

bined activity of the children. This is not to say that teachersshould nothave anawareness ofpossible goals, but rather that

they should regard these goals as possibilities that may or maynot be fulfilled by those actually engaged in the project (i.e., the

students). This is why I refer to the teacher inDeweyan educa

tional philosophy as a facilitator. The major function ofthe teacher

is tokeep students on a stable course in the process oftheir owndiscoveries. I will use two examples tohighlight this application

ofDeweys philosophical approach to education. Thefirstexam

ple is a long-term project developed through toddlers interest and

activity in construction (Glassman & Whaley, 2000). The second

is a kindergarten project on shoes (Katz & Chard, 2000).

These two projects are similar in that their goals were not set

through teacher determination but developed over time through

childrens interests. The actual goals (construction for toddlers

and understanding the shoe business for kindergarten children)

had little social meaning outside of the immediate activity. Inmany ways these goals were inconsequential to the long-term

learning ofthechildren. This is one of the reasons theteachers

were able to focus on the process of education. In the construc

tion project, a group oftoddlers in a mixed-age classroom (in

fants and toddlers) developed an interest in a nearby construc

tion site. The teachers and parents nurtured this interest through

the introduction of construction type materials and class visits to

the site. The toddlers worked with some of the older infants to

develop their own construction site that served as a learning envi

ronment and playground. The project on shoes took place in a

kindergarten classroom. The interest initially developed as a re

sult ofdiscussionsof new shoes some of the children wore at the

beginning of the school year. A number ofquestions emerged

through childrens and teachers exploration oftheir everyday

lives. The questions came from the children, with the teacher playing the role of facilitator by maintaining a list. Special interests of

the children were identified, such as the responsibilities ofthesales

person and the manner in which the shoes were displayed. The

teacher arranged a trip to a real shoe store, and the children even

tually developed their own shoe store in the classroom.

Vygotsky, Social Tools, and the Zone

of Proximal Development

Vygotsky has much the same view of the human as product ofso

cial interaction, with one important difference. Whereas Dewey

fears progressive human thinking being lost in the shared comfort

ofcommon history, Vygotsky is basically agnostic on the subject.

This is because of how Vygotsky views tools and symbols in the

context of development. He believes tools and symbols are used

in the service ofculturally defined goals that are far beyond theimmediacy ofDeweys end-in-view.

Vygotsky sees the social as being ofprimary influence in the

life of the individual, much the same way that Dewey does. But

Vygotsky (1987) sees tools and symbols asplaying a much more

active and determinate role in the lives ofindividuals. Free in-

quiry is, in many ways, eclipsed by culturally significant and ap

propriate inquiry (Vygotsky, 1987). Vygotsky agrees with Dewey

that the society (or powers within the society) have a vested inter

est in the development and maintenance of these tools (Vygotsky

& Luria, 1993). Deweys solution is to educate the individual

and diversify the social milieu so that these tools will be brought

into question (a bottom-up/indeterminate approach). Vygotsky

wants to use the educational process to teach new members of the

social community how to use important, culturally developedtools in an effective manner (a top-down/determinate approach).

This top-down approach was exemplified in Vygtosky and Lurias

research expedition into Central Asia (Luria, 1971). In a highly

controversial natural experiment Vygotsky and Luria attempted

to gauge the impact ofnew tools on an isolated, homogenous

population. They hypothesized that the introduction ofnew tools

by a strong social organization (i.e., theSoviet Union) would lead

to the development of a new type of citizen.

The relative emphasis on specific, culturally determined prod

ucts in activity (i.e., the ability to use social tools) is in many ways

at the heart ofchildrens learning in the zone ofproximal develop

mentthe title of a collected work by Rogoff& Wertsch, 1984.

I use two examples from the Rogoff and Wertsch book to high

light the differences between long term projects and the zone ofproximal development specifically, and the educational philoso

phies ofDewey and Vygotsky in general. I chose these two ex

amples both because they have played important roles incurrent

conceptualizations of the zone of proximal development and be

cause there is some similarity in ages of the children between

these examples and the two long term projects (construction and




6/13

shoes) mentioned earlier. One example deals primarily with in

fants (417 months ofage) and their abilities to engage in joint

social activity with adults using the cultural tool of a jack-in-

the-box as a mediating device (Rogoff, Malkin, & Gilbride,

1984). In this study the same two babies interacted with a num

ber of adults over the course ofa year. Theemphasis was on how

the adults used their interactions to guide the infant(s) towards

socially appropriate and rewarding social interaction.

The second example involves childrens development oflogical (mathematical) operations through social interactions with

their mothers (Saxe, Gearhart, & Guberman, 1984). In this study

mothers taught their children (between 2.5 and 5 years ofage) a

number reproduction game. The goal of the game had a direct

relationship to the type ofmathematical skills that are considered

important in the larger society. The logical operations study and

the jack-in-the-box study have three things in common which

are indicative ofcurrent conceptualizations of the zone of prox

imal development: (1) There is an emphasis on joint attention

between the adult/mentor and the child/neophyte; (2) there is

some recognition on the part ofthe adult ofa (socially determined)

goal to the activity and an attempt to set up sub-goals to reach that

goal; and (3) there is a focus on the social relationship between the

adult/mentor and the child/neophyte in reaching that goal. The

starting point for childrens learning in both of these examples is

the social tools that the children will eventually need to become

socialized participants in their culture (Rogoff et. al., 1984,

p. 31). The adults use their own experience/culture to guide the

childrens inquiry.

These two examples of the zone of proximal development, as

well as the two earlier mentioned examples of the project ap

proach, will be used throughout the paper to illustrate, in con

crete terms, conceptual differences between Dewey and Vygotsky.

These examples are especially important in examining the two

theorists diverging viewpoints concerning the mentor/neophyte

relationship and the adults role in problem solving.

The Interaction Between History andTools

The role of tools in activity, and by extension the educationalprocess, is closely related to the interaction between history and

tool use. Dewey, as already mentioned, sees tools as historically

based, but only valid so long as they are of use to the individual

in the immediate situation. History is implicit in activity, but it

is not determinate. Vygotsky sees history as playing a more piv

otal role in development and education (Vygotsky & Luria,

1993). It is not the activity that gives meaning to historical arti

facts, but historical artifacts that give meaning to the activity. So

cial history is embodied in tools and symbols. These tools and

symbols have meanings and serve as mediational markers setting

frames of reference for individual thinking in context. It is the

objects history within the social group that helps create mean

ing in the mind of the child (Vygotsky, 1987).

The most omnipresent and important tool/symbol in the lifeofthe individual is ofcourse language. Vygotsky and Dewey sug

gest that the child learns language in social interaction and then

thinks in terms ofthat language. Vygotsky, however, goes a step

further than Dewey, emphasizing the importance of both history

and context in the meaning each unit (word) ofthat language has

in the thinking of the individual. Language by itself createsa con-

text for activity and, especially, for reflective thinking about (the

consequences of) that activity. In Thinking andSpeech (1987)

Vygotsky takes pains to examine both the historical development

ofwords over time, how this development is tied to specific cir

cumstances of use in activity, and the degree to which specific

context can change the meaning of the word. The meaning of a

specific word (e.g., grasshopper) in a poem is determined by

the ways in which language emerged in a particular historical

context (Vygotsky, 1987). Change the historical context, changethe meaning of the exact same word, and change the meaning of

the poem. Vygotskys theory ofsocial meaning, then, has a strong

connection to the past and an investment in the way in which

the past creates the present and acts as precursor for the future.

This means that the mind is essentially a living catalogue of his

torical incidence.

There is little discussion offree inquiry in Vygotskys workbe

cause the parameters of all inquiry are set by the culture as it is

manifested through its tools andsymbols. Changing the focus of

inquiry requires a social organization as strong as the existing cul

ture that is able to implement new tools and symbols (e.g., the

reasoning behind the expeditions to central Asia). The adult sees

the jack-in-the-box as a potential instrument ofamusement where

Bugs Bunny pops out and is then forced back in. It is assumed

that, as a result ofsocial interactions, the child will see the jack-

in-the-box the same way. There is only one way to engage in ac

tivity with the number reproduction game. The mother sees it as

her responsibility to bring the child closer to this specific under

standing ofsocially sanctioned activity.

Dewey is more concerned with the process of history than the

specific goals a social community might achieve through history.

There are two reasons that the process of history is emphasized.

First, Deweys vision of the social is forward looking (Campbell,

1995): Dewey (1916, 1938) has tremendous faith in the process

offree inquiry to overcome immediate problems as they occur.

Second, Dewey sees the separation of process from goals as an

unnecessary dualism (Eldridge, 1998). What is most important

is actual activity in the moment and the way that activity leads

to specific judgments that may or may not use historically de

fined tools. In the learning process the judgments concerning re

lationship between activity and consequence become intercon

nected with earlier activities to form a body of knowledge. That

knowledge will then come into play in subsequent, intercon

nected activities (Dewey, 1916). However, the value of any his

torically developed knowledge is dependant upon the situation.

In Deweys view, stressing specific goals in education can actu

ally be counter-productive because it may force students to focus

on tools that may be of little use for future problems, instead of

the process necessary to solve problem as they arise. There is little

to be gained in a product sense from having children develop

their own construction site, or build their own well run shoe store

(except for the few who might become construction workers or

shoe clerks). What is important in these activities is that childrenexperience the way one end-in-view builds upon another to cre

ate an ever more satisfying experience.

Experience/Culture

The way in which experience is defined sets the context for

Deweys entire educational theory; in some important ways

MAY 2001 7



7/13

experience is synonymous with education. As mentioned ear

lier, Deweys notion of experience is, in many ways, parallel to

Vygotskys notion of culture.

Deweys Experience as Culture

Dewey (1916) sees experience as physical action and the conse

quences ofthat action, combined with the judgment of the con

sequences ofthat action (motivations). He abhors the dualism

that often emerges between the actions a person takes and the

way this person thinks about these actions. In his view they can

not be separated, in that where there is no mind, there is no way

ofthinking about things outside of the actual action in which an

individual is engaged. To put it in a more academic tone, there

is no such thing as method separate from content, orcontent sep

arate from method. A simple example might be eating a slice of

pizza. A person from New Yorkhasa method of eating pizza that

involves folding the pizza in half and lifting it up to his mouth.

Take that person and put him in Chicago with deep dish style

pizza and the method necessarily moves to knife and fork. The

content and the method are part of a single activity. The person

from New York might try to lift and fold the deep dish slice, but

judgments resulting from consequences of the action would force

him to adjust his action in subsequent situations. This has important implications for Deweys ideas concerning the goals of

education. If it is impossible to separate physical activity from its

consequences, then it is useless, andpossibly detrimental, to plan

the physical activity of others in order to achieve a specific set of

goals. The only viable goal for any activity is the end-in-view,

which is ostensibly a part of the immediate activity rather than

any plan. Dewey emphasizes process not only because he believes

process is the essential quality in a democratic society, but also

because from a non-dualistic perspective experience and process

are one and the same thing.

Dewey (1916) emphasizes the role of vital experience in edu

cation. He initially posits vital experience asan essential compo

nent of the educational process. This vital experience moves be

yond simple rote habit or capricious activity in that it involvesconsequences for both the individual and the environment. A

person automatically reciting a times table (rote habit) or avoid

ing cracks in the sidewalk (capricious activity, if you dismiss the

possibility that it will break your mothers back) are activities

without educational worth.

Worthwhile, or vital, experience in education is activity in

which the link between action and consequence is intercon

nected with previous and future (related) activities. The conse

quence or end-in-view is still tied to the immediate situation. But

the process of inquiry used to reach this end-in-view not only has

a connection with, but has been enriched by, previous inquiry in

some way. An important aspect of vital experience is a difficulty

or a problem that must be solved in a way that can lead to both

a satisfactory conclusion and an enriched future inquiry.Dewey (1925) later developed an alternative conceptualiza

tion based on primary and secondary experiences, which has im

portant implications for educators as well as his own ideas con

cerning education. Primary experiences are the gross, everyday

activities in life that have consequences. These experiences are

broad and crude and involve a minimum of reflective activity.

Primary experience helps to create an aggregate of related activ

ities that necessarily leads to systematic, regulated thinking about

that activity. Dewey terms this more reflective activity secondary

experience. Secondary experience clarifies the meaning of pri

mary experience, organizing it so that there is a useful accumu

lation of knowledge (Dewey, 1925). Secondary experience can

run the gamut from judgments of the relationship between ac

tion and consequence(s) in early activity, to the development of

hypotheses and theories to explain and examine later activities.There is a bi-directional relationship between primary experi

ence and secondary experience, in that primary experience serves

as the basis for secondary experience, but it also serves as tests for

secondary experience. Hypothesis as intellectual tool serves as

an exemplar for both vital experience and secondary experience.

Individuals engage in interconnected primary experience until

they slowly organize it into a hypothesis about how things work

in the world. The development of the hypothesis (deductive rea

soning) becomes an end-in-view for activity. Once the hypothe

sis is developed it becomes a natural part of inquiry into other

problems. Atfirstit serves as a tool for organizing thinking about

future experiences (inductive reasoning), and maintains its iden

tity as secondary experience. Eventually the boundary between

organizing the experience and the experience itself will blur andthe hypothesis will become completely integrated into the activ

ity itself.

According to Dewey (1916) one of the most important roles

ofeducation is to teach children how to maintain these relation

ships between experiences so that they are constantly both amass

ing and testing new knowledge. The teacher must use interest to

help students recognize and achieve aims, and then use aims to

develop continued motivation for engaging in activity. Particu

lar types ofthinking are not especially important because that

thinking will eventually need to be reconstructed to meet the

needs of the situation (Dewey, 1916). What is important is that

secondary experience is derived from knowledge and knowledge

is the reconstruction of secondary experience through primary

experience. The knowledge storehouse is dynamic because secondary experience (should be) dynamic (primary experience con

tinuously forcing reconstruction in order to dealwith the imme

diate situation).

Social history can, to a certain extent, limit the types of expe

riences possible. But a major purpose of the educational process

is to show that it is possible for experience to move beyond so

cial history (Dewey, 1916). In the shoe project there was little, if

anything, in the social history of the classroom or the children to

suggest that a large part oftheir curriculum would involve creat

inga shoe store. One experience gave momentum to the next ex

perience. The questioning of friends and relatives about shoes led

to the development of a shoe store. The development of a shoe

store led to questions concerning specific issues of how exactly a

shoe store operates. Specific questions about how a shoe store operates led to afieldvisit to a shoe store in the community. The

children had to reflect on their initial questions about how a shoe

store operates in order to set up their own shoe store in the class

room. They merged their prior experiences oftheir shoe store with

theirfieldtrip to a community shoe store. Just as importantly, the

knowledge gained from each primary experience became part of




8/13

secondary experience as the children followed the natural mo

mentum oftheir project.

This ability of the teacher to step back and simply facilitate,

rather than guide or mentor the children, can be an extraordi

narily difficult task, especially as children grow older and adults

become more concerned with what students must know. Long

term projects, in a reflection of Dewey, focus on how students

can know.

Vygotskys Culture as Experience

Vygotsky takes a very similar approach to experience/culture. If

Dewey could have renamed his conception of experience as cul

ture, Vygotsky might have renamed his conception of culture

as (Deweys) experience. Vygotsky recognizes two levels of cul

ture, much the same way that Dewey sees two levels of experi

ence. There is the culture that emerges through everyday con

cepts, and there is the culture that emerges through scientific

concepts (Vygotsky, 1987). Everyday concepts, the result ofevery

day activity, have much in common with primary experience. It

has the same double barreled nature in that it involves both ac

tion and the motivation for action. Vygotsky (1987) carefully de

fines activity as both the actions that humans take and the sub

text of those actions, which are driven by desired consequences.

(Vygotsky took the idea of sub-text to action at least partially

from Stanislavskys works on training actors [Glassman 1996].)

Each true activity involves action and sub-text. Vygotsky does not

explicitly deny that rote habit and capricious actions have little or

no impact on the cultural development of the child, but his em

phasis on subtext and motivation certainly imply this. (The re

lationship between action and motivation would become one of

the central themes ofA.N. Leontievs [1981] work on Activity

Theory.)

The relationship between action and consequence moves to the

internal plane ofthinking over time. The individual builds this

relationship up through life experience. Such relationships are

based on specific historical circumstances. Thus a child in one cul

ture (i.e., involved in one set ofexperiences) may see the action of

demanding attention from a social interlocutor as related to theconsequence ofgetting what she wants. A child from another cul

ture may see the same action as leading to the consequences ofos

tracism or punishment. There are also subtle, within-culture vari

ations in these relationships. It is this accumulated historical

experience that mediates all future activity. The thinking of in

dividuals becomes reconstructed on the basis of new situations,

but this reconstruction is still based in the everyday history of the

individual.

Vygotskys Scientific Concepts as Secondary Experience

Scientific concepts (Vygotsky, 1987) is in many ways parallel to

Deweys (1925) conceptualization of secondary experiences.

Moreover, secondary experience is a complex, multi-level phe

nomenon for Vygtosky. Part of the reason for this may be that itplays a much more distinct, and possibly more important, role

in (vital) experience for Vygotsky than it does for Dewey. At the

center ofVygotskys secondary experience is his tool parexcel-

lance, language. Vygotsky does not explicitly posit an individual

organizing principle for everyday experience. One is not really

necessary for a couple ofreasons. First, while Dewey sees experi-

ence as focused on the solving ofproblems, Vygotsky (1978) sees

experience as emerging through direct communication between

social interlocutors and neophytes. At some points Vygotsky

(1997) suggests that true experience can only come from the in

dividuals own understanding of the world, but in his later, more

mature works he de-emphasizes the individuals relationship to

the world, and emphasizes the relationship to the social system.

This is most clearly reflected in Vygotskys (1987, 1994) claim

that young children thinkin complexes. The complex is foundedon factual associations which can be revealed through direct ex

perience (Vygotsky, 1994, p.220). The child at this stage does

not so much accumulate and reconstruct thinking as an indi

vidual in building a body of knowledge, but accepts knowledge

gained through social intercourse. It is in many ways the social sys

tem itselfthat serves as the organizing principle for accumulated

thinking, or knowledge. Vygotsky does not share Deweys pre

occupation with individualism. In Vygotskys conception ofsec

ondary experience there is no need for the type of individual re

flection (natural, immediate, and an integral part of activity)

explored by Dewey.

While language serves as an organizing principle for experience,

it does not have the same reflective qualitiesas Deweys secondary

experience. Language creates meaning within activity through

history rather than through individual reflection in the moment.

This does not mean that there is no vehicle for organization

through individual reflection in Vygotskys theory. Vygotsky sug

gests individually generated organizing principles through the de

velopment ofscientific concepts (Vygotsky, 1987). However, sci

entific concepts are more a goal of standardized education than a

natural part of the thinking process.

The zone of proximal development seems, in some ways, con

cerned with establishing specific experiential/cultural tools that

will eventually serve the child in her social purposes. This is not

to say that interest plays no part in the zone of proximal devel

opment. The mentor is dependent on the childs interest for con

tinued activity, but the mentor does not stand back and wait for

interest to emerge. In Saxe et. al.s (1984) description of the re

lationship between mother and child during the counting game

it is the mother who reaches for knowledge accumulated through

everyday experience with the child to use as teaching strategies (the

relationship between secondary experience and primary experi

ence). It is the mentor who draws on the relationships between

primary and secondary experience to bring important social tools,

representing the seeds of mathematical scientific concepts, to the

child. Process is important, but not as important as drawing the

child closer to socially defined goals. Scaffolding (Wood, Bruner,

& Ross, 1976), a term often used in conjunction or in place of

zone of proximal development (e.g., Berk& Winsler, 1995), is an

appropriate description of this type of phenomenon. The mentor

builds a scaffold, piece by piece, so that the child can engage in un

derstanding and development of scientific concepts on her own.

Experience/Culture andDevelopment

For Dewey, the development of individually generated organiz

ing principles begins very early in life, whereas Vygotsky ties

them closely to the development of conceptual thinking in ado

lescence (1994) and suggests that it is best to wait foradolescence

to gear pedagogical strategies to the development of individual

MAY 2001 9



9/13

mastery (1987). While Dewey sees thedifference between pri

mary experience and secondary experience as relative (Campbell,

1995), Vygotsky seems to see thedifference in more absolute

terms (at least over the course of an individuals history). There is

a relationship between everyday concepts and scientific concepts,

but there are also qualitative differences and strict boundaries be

tween complexive thinking and conceptual thinking. Complex-

ive thinking is based on categorizing objects solely on the basis of

the immediate situation, and conceptual thinking is based on amore abstract understanding.

According to Vygotsky, the qualitative jump that humans

make in adolescence to conceptual thinking is based on the abil

ity to use words and signs as internal mediators. The functional

use of words and signs helps the adolescent by allowing him to

take charge ofhis own psychological processes and master the

flow ofhis own psychological processes so that their activity can

be directed for the purpose ofsolving the problems he is faced

with (Vygotsky, 1994, p. 212). Adolescence is thefirstpoint at

which humans are able to use thinking to make true individual

judgments concerning their own activities. The development of

this conceptual thinking does not occur naturally through expe

rience, but is dependent on specific types ofsocial interactions

(Vygotsky,1994). Vygotsky (1987) suggests the best style ofsocial

interaction for the development ofconceptual thinking is direct

pedagogy; the teaching of abstract ideas and problems connected

with the process of growing into the cultural, professional, and so

cial life ofadults(Vygotsky, 1994, p. 213). Thus, development of

the ability to analyze, hypothesize about,and test primary or every

day experience is actually separated from everyday experience.

There are two points to be made here. Thefirstis that Dewey

would certainly agree that human organization of primary expe

rience is mediated through words and signs and that there is an

important relationship between the use oflanguage and thinking

that emerges through experience (Dewey, 1925). But for Dewey

language is more an integral part ofexperience than a tool that

acts as a central organizing theme for experience. The second

point is that Vygotsky certainly sees a necessary relationship between experience that results from everyday activity and individ

ual organization ofthat activity, especially the cumulative impact

ofthat experience on all subsequent thinking. But the develop

mental aspect of his worksuggests a qualitative break between

thinking and thinking about thinking that could nothelp but

seep into his conceptualization ofeducation.

Human Inquiry

Both Vygotsky and Dewey see inquiry as based in progressive

problem solving. The individual is forced to confront issues that

are not easily reconciled by current thinking. Interest is the only

true motivation that can force this type ofconfrontation, push

ing the mind from comfort into conflict. The only wayto bring

stability backto the situation through activity is to reconstructthinking about activity so that it meets the needs ofthat situa

tion. It makes little sense to define the development ofthinking

or knowledge as astatic, additive process. Thinking is something

to be used in situations to solve problems. Dewey is most adamant

on this point: The only use ofthinking is thebetter living of

life. Vygotsky offers a similar, but slightly different perspective:

Thinking leads to greater social cohesion and the advancement

ofthe social group (Vygotsky & Luria, 1993).

For Dewey much of the action that we engage in during our

lifetimes is habit. That is, it is does not require conscious recogni

tion of the relationship between action and consequences. This is

as it should be, because consciously thinking about the activities

with which you are engaged is exhausting and creates awkward

ness in action (Dewey, 1922). Yet what allows life to progress,

what allows for better living, is what occurs when something goeswrong, when our habits, for whatever reasons, break down. For

Dewey education is based in preparing the student notonly to

face these moments of vital experience when habit is of little use,

but to actually desire them, and to enjoy them when they occur

(Dewey, 1916).

Humans, however, are comfortable in their habits. It is easier,

though less worthwhile, simply not to consciously engage in vital

experiences; or if it becomes necessary to actually solve a prob

lem, not to pursue the next problem, especially ifthere are bar

riers and/or obstacles. It is interest that drives thehuman being

from habit and into worthwhile vital experience. This is the rea

sonDewey places interest at the center of the educationalprocess

(Dewey 1900, 1916). Interest is not something that can be artifi

cially created within the educational context, but mustcome fromthe interaction between the person and the situation. There must

be enough interest so that the individual is able to recognize an

indeterminate situation and be motivated by the doubt inherent

in that particular situation, the proverbial fork in the road

(Dewey, 1920). There follows a process of reasoning whereby the

individual works out theproblem through a series ofstages

(Dewey, 1938).

Vygotsky also saw interest as a key to the educational process

(1997). Vygotsky speaks of the importance of instincts in educa

tion, but in borrowing the term instinct he is not really talking

about hereditary animal instincts, but has in mind the childs

needs and the intimately associated realm of the childs interests

(Davydov, 1997, p. xxxii; emphasis in original text). Interests are

an expression of the childs organic needs (Vygotsky, 1997,p. 87). Vygotsky from a very early point saw interest asan inher

ent characteristic of the individual, and perhaps the primary driv

ing motivation inactivity. This echoesDeweys view of interests

aschildrens native urgencies and needs (Dewey, 1912, p. 23).

Interest for both theorists is intrinsic to the activity and natural to

the child. It cannot be created for the child from without. How

ever, Vygotsky maintains a very broad conception ofinterests,

suggesting that inearly childhood it is interest in mastery ofthe

immediate environment; in later childhood it is interest inad

venture, and in puberty interest in oneself (Vygotsky, 1997).

Vygotsky echoes one ofDeweys ideas, stating, In youth , ones

eyes are always wide open to the world, which underscores the

greater maturity of youth towards life (ibid., p. 88). Dewey sug

gests that it is in youth that we are truly able to find interest in

things with an open awareness, and that we lose this openness as

we mature (Dewey, 1916).

Vygotskys broad conception of interest, however, means that

the social interlocutor can have far more control indeveloping

specific situations that are indeterminate for the neophyte (but

not for the mentor, thus giving the mentor a certain amount of




10/13

directional control). The taskis not so much in recognizing what

is of interest to the child and following through with it (as it is

for Dewey). It is in creating learning situations where the child

can recognize the possibilitiesof his or her own possible mastery

ofthe activity (moving the situation from indeterminate to de

terminate) through interaction with the social interlocutor.

It may be in the area of inquiry that the differences between

long term projects and the zone of proximal development as ed

ucational models are most apparent. The long-term project isbased on the idea that true doubt stems from interest. Dewey(1938) seesdoubt as the direct result of activity within an inde

terminate situation (i.e., a situation that does not have an easily

recognized end-in-view). Initially, recognition of an indetermi

nate situation requires a breaking of habits (which usually comes

about as the result of interest). The progressive problem solving

that follows is a natural outgrowth of vital experience that is no

longer moving in a determined direction for the actor. Key to the

educational experience is getting the student to recognize that

this cycle of interest-doubt-problem solving is beneficial and

worthy of pursuit. The more the child confronts interesting in

determinate situations as the result of her own unique experi

ence, the more confident she becomes in her own process of in

quiry. This is especially important as activities become more

complex and there are difficult barriers between doubt and problem solving. The child develops a sense ofdiscipline as a result of

prior success (Dewey, 1916; Glassman & Whaley, 2000).

A long-term project, even in toddlerhood, sets the childs ac

tivity on an important life trajectory. In the construction project,

described earlier, children followed through on their initial interests andmade important discoveries. Through a series of ends-in-

view, a simple initial interest in a construction site was turned into

a complex construction site. The children developed a construc

tion site playground far beyond anything the toddlers, or the

adults that surrounded them, could have initially comprehended.

The shoe project, with slightly older children, shows how com

plexity of experience begins to enter into inquiry by creating bar

riers that demand more disciplined problem solving. The initial

interest in shoes was so amorphous, and the possible directionsthe activities could take so wide ranging, that maintaining themomentum of the project was probably fragile on a number of

occasions. The balancing of interest and discipline in inquiry be

comes a greater challenge for students and teacher as activities be

come more complex, making long term projects more difficult to

manage. A complimentary methodology developed by the Reggio

Emilia schools in Italy uses documentation of the project (e.g.,

taking pictures of activities and products at various stages of the

project and showing them to the students at later, difficult junc

tures to re- energize them) to maintain the activity (Rinaldi, 1998).

The use of documentation allows the teacher to breathe new life

into a project without controlling its context or direction.

The mechanism for the zone ofproximal developmentreflects

the same type of doubt as outlined by Dewey (1938). There is aproblem in immediate activity that is beyond the reach of current thinking. The problem causes doubt and the child is forced

to work through this doubt, and reconstruct thinking, in order

to complete the activity. The completion of the activity, achieve

ment of the aim, potentially creates a new problem to be solved.

The emphasis is on dynamic progress rather than static abilities.

However, there are two important differences between Dewey

and Vygotskys thinking as far as education is concerned. The

first is that Dewey (1938) believes that doubt is discovered by the

individual in unique, naturally evolving situations. (Dewey ex

plicitly states that the doubt must be the result of the situation it

self.) Problems will necessarily emerge because situations change

and children (as well as adults) will be forced to confront them

through the natural momentum of activity (Dewey, 1916). For

Vygotsky the indeterminate situation is the plan and product ofthe mentor. Doubt is not discovered by the individual, but sown

by the society through complementary actions of the social inter

locutor. Related to this is Vygotskys idea that the social inter

locutor takes an active role in guiding the thinking of the child

through the zone of proximal development. In short, in some

way or another I propose that the children solve the problem

with my assistance (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 86). This can be done

through teachers offering of demonstrations that they asktheir

students to repeat, or through presenting leading questions. In

any case the teacher is both guide and mentor.

The importance of the mentor/neophyte relationship for

human inquiry is shown in both examples of the zone of proxi

mal development used in this paper. The adults interacting with

the infants and the mothers interacting with their children attempted to create doubt through their own development of (a

series of) indeterminate situations. The adult/mentors also had a

firm idea of the possible direction(s) they would like the problem

solving to take once the doubt was sown. This is important be

cause the problem solving was related to the type of problems the

children would have to dealwith in the larger society later in life.

In Rogoff et. al.s (1984) infancy study the adults knew the

problem the child needed to solve was how to use the jack-in-

the-box in a socially appropriate manner. The adults also under

stood that in order to get the child to solve this social problem,

some type of doubt about a situation involving the jack-in-the-

box must be established, and that it was in some way incumbent

on them as adults to do this. The adult managed the childs in

volvement with the toy even at the early ages (Rogoff et. al. 1984,p. 37). Thus, the adults negotiate how and at what level the

baby was to participate in the means-end behaviors of winding

the handle to getBugs Bunny to pop out of the jack-in-the-box

(ibid, p. 38).

The relationship between the interest-doubt-problem-solving

cycle and social expectations is even more dominant in the (math

ematics) conceptual issue task(Saxe et al., 1984). The adults in

volved understand that the concepts they are helping their chil

dren with are basic components they will need for later learning

ofscientific concepts. The adults feel an obligation to take a strong

hand in both instilling doubt and the problem solving process that

follows it. Interest (and to a lesser extent discipline) while certainly

important, play secondary and, to a certain extent, decorous roles.

The socially created goal was ofgreat importance for the mothers,so much so that mothers of low ability children structured their

tasks differently than mothers of high ability children (instituting

a number of additional sub-goals). In both cases the mothers of

fered directives to their children to get them as close to the pro

posed goal aspossible within the context oftheir abilities. Inter

estingly enough Saxe etal. (1984) report that in initial unassisted

MAY 2001 11



11/13

performances children not only made errors, but actually con-

ceptualize[d] the task quite differently than adults d[id] (p. 22).

Nowhere was it even suggested that the children might gain more

by following through on their own conceptualizations of the task.

There are, I believe, important philosophical, political, and ed

ucational reasons for the differences in how involved society should

be in a students inquiry in the educational process. Vygotsky

(1987; Luria, 1971) believed in grand social goals for the educa

tional process that Dewey (1916, 1964), in many ways, disdained.For Vygotsky The new structures of social lifeincluding the

industrialization of work activity, compulsory school and collec

tive forms of everyday lifebecame seen as determinants of the

nascent forms ofbehavior and cognition ofa new man (Kozulin,

1990, p. 277). If more powerful tools can come into existence

through activity, then it is almost a moral obligation for the teacher

to act as mentor and establish the types of activities that will en

gender these new tools. The mentor devises cooperative activities

that will allow the child to acquire the plane ofconsciousness of

the natal society (Tharp & Gallimore,1988, p. 30).

Conclusion

Dewey and Vygotsky are extraordinarily close on the importance

ofeveryday activity in the educational process. At the same timethey are miles apart on how and why that activity should be used

in the classroom. A careful consideration of the two theorists ex

plodes the myth of a dichotomy between the individual and the

social in development; and yet Dewey is unrepentant in the de

gree to which he promotes individualism, whereas Vygotsky sees

the social organization as the central agent of change.

This crucial difference between Vygotsky and Dewey might best

be explored through a chapter where Vygotsky (1978) discusses

the interaction between learning and development. Vygotsky ex

amines three possible relationships between learning and develop

ment: that processes of learning are independent of development,

that learning is development, and that learning and development

are two inherently different but related processes (ibid p. 81).

For Dewey it is education the drives development. It is a dynamic force in helping students to create their own primary ex

periences that will lead naturally to the secondary experiences of

inquiry and the organization of knowledge. From an education

perspective there is little to be gained by getting the child to sim

ply exhibit the required product of activity (Dewey, 1912). What

is important is the process, and the disposition of the child in ac

tivity towards that process.This is especially true of the interest/

motivation for the activity; the desire to engage in an activity,

achieve an aim, despite obstacles and/or barriers (Dewey, 1916).

It is society, certainly, that provides the context and the imme

diate, superficial motivations for particular activities. But ulti

mately context and specific motivation are ethereal and not as

important to learning and development as the ability to harness

this motivation, so the very fact of interest becomes a motivatingforce for problem solving over the entire lifetime, no matter what

the situation. This allows the child to grow into a human whose

subject is the betterment oflife (for the self and the society),

rather than simply a member of a social group that is subject to

the needs ofthat group. The purpose of education is to teach in

nately social animals to be individuals within a society. There is

a darker political side to Deweys emphasis on process. He be

lieved that, ultimately, social and cultural groups establish goals

and end points for their own benefit. If you accept the social or

ganization as thefinalarbiter for education goals, individuals are

forever trapped within that organization.

Vygotsky (1978) uses the zone of proximal development as an

alternative for his described three interactions between learning

and development. He sees learning as a tool in the developmen

talprocess. The process of learning allows the child to fulfill herdevelopmental potential. It is therefore important for teachers/

mentors to be a proactive force and take greater control in the ed

ucational process, just as they would be a proactive force in the

use of any other tool (e.g., the teacher wields pedagogy just as the

builder wields a hammer). For Dewey the teacher is one of a

number ofpossible sieves that the social environment can pour

through in the general development of activity. That is why it is

important for teachers to take the less dominant, facilitator roles

exhibited in the best long term projects. For Vygotsky the teacher/

mentor uses the social environment to build activities that will

lead to mastery. Vygotsky might have joined some ofDeweys

critics in seeing faith in process and free expression as naive in a

complex social environment. The society and the individual are

both more successful if education leads to individual and society

working together towards a greater good.

This general difference between Vygotsky and Dewey in the

relationship between the roles of process and goals in learning

and development highlights three important educational issues:

the role ofsocial history as opposed to individual history in the

classroom; whether or not the teacher should take the general at

titude of facilitator or mentor; and whether the source of change

is the individual or the social community.

Individual history and social history are both important in the

educational process, and it is sometimes difficult to separate the

two, but there are differences with important implications. The

difference between the two types of histories speaks directly to

the issue of diversity in the classroom. If the role ofsocial history

is seen aspreeminent then it is difficult to escape the importanceofshared historical artifacts in the classroom. This includes not

only language, but also childhood tools and symbols such as toys

and games. The greater the shared history the higher the level of

communication between teacher and students and between peers.

This is especially important for a model such as the zone of prox

imal development where the mentor plays such an important

role in establishing indeterminate situations that will both be of

interest to the student and beneficial to the students role in the

larger society.

If individual history is emphasized, a diverse student popula

tion (and even differences between teacher and students) is some

thing to be consciously pursued, even at the expense of initial

communicative abilities. Rather than bringing in artifacts from

the outside world, teachers might be more inclined to concentrateon the development ofpeer projects that lead to self-generated in

determinate situations.

Ifclear communication is pursued and realized then the bur

den for development of specific activities falls squarely on the

shoulders of the mentor(s). The mentor mustfindthe right ques

tions, the proper situations that will allow the students to achieve




12/13

their promise. Deweys vision of the teacher as facilitator (1916)

is at once more distant and more immediate than Vygotskys

mentor. The learning situation develops through the natural so

cial evolution of activity in the childs life. The teachers role is

more distant in that there should be little control over content of

specific activities. It is more immediate because the teacher dis

covers the doubt of indeterminate situations alongwith the child.

Dewey makes it very clear that the major task of education is

to develop an individual thinker out of a social being (1916).Progress is made when the individual questions a social system she

no longer believes works. Dewey recognizes that the classroom is

aninherently social organization that is representative of the larger

social community. But the child must recognize herselfas a viable

agent of change for that social organization. In order to do this

the student must realize that she has some element of control over

classroom activity. The fact that the classroom is made up of a

number of individuals with different social histories means that

agency for change is relatively limited. Individuals may desire to

take activities in directions they cannot go. This is perhaps the

most important of all educational experiences; it forces the indi-

vidual to reconstruct her thinking about the situation in order to

maintain even a partial role as agent for change.

For Vygotsky the classroom is also a social organization thatis representative of the larger social community. But instead of

the individual as agent for change in the social organization, it

is the social organization, and the larger social community, that

is the agent for change in the individual. The purpose of educa-

tion is to meld children into the larger social structure so that they

become productive members of the community. Change of the

larger social structure itselfis historical and based on the cumula-

tive effort of the social group over time (Vygotsky & Luria, 1993).

Dewey and Vygotsky left a legacy ofideas that continue to in-

fluence educators in their attempts to create a better classroom.

At the core ofthis legacy is the importance of everyday activities

to all human beings. Whether it is the individual or the social or-

ganization that is the focus of educational strategies, educators

forget the power and importance of everyday activities and socialcontext at their peril.

REFERENCES

Berk, L. E., & Winsler, A. (1995). Scaffolding childrens learning: Vygot-

sky andearly childhoodeducation . Washington, DC: National Associ

ation for the Education ofYoung Children (NAEYC Research into

Practice Series).

Brickman, W. (1964). Introduction. Impressions ofSovietRussia andthe

revolutionary world, Mexico, China, Turkey, 1929 (by John Dewey).

New York: Teachers College Press.

Campbell, J. (1995). Understanding John Dewey. Chicago: Open Court

Press.

Cole, M. (1996). Cultural psychology. Boston: Harvard University Press.

Davydov, V.V. (1997). Lev Vygotsky and Educational Psychology. In

L. S. Vygotsky and V. V. Davydov (Eds.), Educational psychology,(Robert Silverman, Trans., pp. xxixxxix). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

Dewey, J. (1900). The school and society/being three lectures by John

Dewey. Chicago:The University ofChicago Press.

Dewey, J. (1912). Interest andeffortin education. Boston, MA: Houghton

Mifflin.

Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy andeducation. New York: Free Press.

Dewey, J. (1920). Reconstruction in philosophy. New York: Holt Pub

lishing.

Dewey, J. (1922). Human nature andconduct: An introduction to socia

psychology. New York: Holt Publishing.

Dewey, J. (1925). Experience and nature. Chicago: Open Court Pub

lishing.

Dewey, J. (1930). Individualism oldandnew. New York: Capricorn

Books.

Dewey, J. (1933).How we think, a restatement ofthe relation ofreflec

tive thinking to the educative process. Boston: D.C. Heath and Co.Dewey, J. (1938). Logic, the theory ofinquiry. New York: Holt Publishing.

Dewey, J. (1954). The public andits problems. Chicago: Swallow Press.

(Original workpublished 1927)

Dewey, J. (1964). Impressions ofSovietRussia andthe revolutionary

world, Mexico, China, Turkey, 1929. New York: Teachers College

Press. (Original workpublished 1928.)

Eldridge,M. (1998). Transforming experience: John Deweys cultural in-

strumentalism. Nashville: Vanderbilt UniversityPress.

Glassman, M. (1996). Understanding Vygotskys motive and goal: An

exploration oftheworkofA. N. Leontiev. Human Development, 39,

309327.

Glassman, M., & Whaley, K. (2000). Dynamic Aims: The use oflong

term projects in the early childhood classroom in light ofDeweys ed

ucational philosophy. Early ChildhoodResearch andPractice, 2.

Handlin, O. (1959). John Deweys Challenge to Education. Westport,CT: Greenwood Press.

Katz, L., & Chard, S. C. (1989). Engaging childrens minds: The project

approach. Norwood,NJ: Ablex Publishing.

Katz, L., & Chard, S. C. (2000). The project approach: an overview. In

J. L Roopnarine & J. E. Johnson (Eds.),Approaches to early childhood

education (pp. 175190). Columbus, Ohio: Merrill.

Kozulin, A. (1990). Vygotskys psychology: A biography ofideas. New Yo

Harveser Wheatsheaf.

Leontiev, A. N. (1981). Problems in the developmentofthe mind. Moscow

Progress Press.

Luria, A. (1971). Towards thenature of the historical nature ofpsy

chological processes. International Journal ofPsychology, 6, 259272.

Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self and society from the standpointofa socia

behaviorist. Chicago:UniversityofChicago Press.

Novak, G. (1975). An appraisal ofJohn Deweys philosophy: Pragmatism

vs. Marxism. New York: Pathfinder Press.

Pepper, S. (1942). Worldhypotheses. Berkeley:University ofCalifornia

Press.

Popkewitz,T. (1987). The formation ofschool subjects and the politi

cal context ofschooling.InT. Popkewitz (Ed.), The formation ofthe

school subjects. New York: The Falmer Press.

Popkewitz, T., & Tabacknik, R. (1981). Soviet and American peda

gogical research: Differences and similarities in the two countries. In

B. R. Tabachnick, T. S. Popkewitz, B. B. Szekely (Eds.), Studying

teaching andlearning: Trends in Sovietand American research. New

York: Praeger.

Prawat, R. (2001). Dewey meets the Mozart ofPsychology in Moscow:

The untold story. American Educational Research Journal, 37, 663696

Rinaldi, C. (1998). Projected curriculum constructed through

documentationProgettazione: An interview with Lella Gandini. In

C. Edwards, L. Gandini, & G. Forman (Eds.),The hundredlanguages

ofchildren: The Reggio Emilia approachadvancedreflections (2nd ed

pp. 113126). Greenwich, Conn.: Ablex.

Rogoff, B., Malkin, C., & Gilbride, K. (1984). Interaction with babies

as guidance in development. In B. Rogoff & J. Wertsch (Eds.), Chil

drens learning in the zone ofproximal development(pp. 3144). Sa

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

MAY 2001 13



13/13

Rogoff, B., & Wertsch, J. (1984). Childrens learning in the zone ofprox

imal development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Rogoff, B. (1993). Childrens guided participation and participatory

appropriation in social activity. In R. Wozniak& K Fischer (Eds.),

Developmentin context: Acting andthinking in specific environments

(pp. 121154). Hillsdale, NJ: Earlbaum.

Saxe, G., Gearhart, M., & Guberman, S. (1984). The social organiza

tion of early number development. In B. Rogoff & J. Wertsch (Eds.),

Childrens learning in the zone ofproximal development. (pp.1930).

San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Tharp, R. G., & Gallimore, R. (1988). Rousing minds to life. New York:

Cambridge UniversityPress.

van der Veer, J., & Valsiner, J. (1991). Understanding Vygotsky: A quest

forsynthesis. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). The collectedworks ofL.S. Vygotsky: Vol. IProb

lems ofgeneral psychology. R. Rieber & A. Carton (Eds.) (N. Minick,

Trans.). New York: Plenum Press. (Original work published 1934)

Vygotsky, L. S. (1994). The development of concept formation in ado

lescence. In R. van der Veer & J. Valsiner (Eds.), The Vygotsky reader.

Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

14 EDUCATIONALRESEARCHER

Vygotsky, L. S. (1997). Educational psychology (R. Silverman, Trans.)

Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. (Original work published 1926)

Vygotsky, L. S., & Luria, A. R. (1993) . Studies on the history ofbe

havior: Ape, primitive and child. (Victor I. Golod & Jane E. Knox.

Hillsdale,Eds. and Trans.) NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Wood, D. J., Bruner, J., & Ross, G. (1976). The role oftutoring in prob

lem solving. Journal ofChild Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89100.

AUTHOR

MICHAEL GLASSMAN is Assistant Professor in the Department of

Human Development and Family Sciences, 135 Campbell Hall, 1781

Neil Ave., Columbus, OH 43210;[email protected] . His research

interests include child development and early childhood education.

Manuscript received February 7, 2000

Revision received March5, 2001

Accepted March 7, 2001
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]

educational researcher-2001-glassman-3-14

Documents