This research paper will be a comparison and contrast ...



Dewey & Vygotsky 1

Running head: Dewey & Vygotsky: A Comparative Look

Dewey & Vygotsky: A Comparative Look at Curriculum Philosophy

Francisco Gonzalez

Chapman University

EDUC 609

Dr. Cindy Slatinsky

January 6, 2009

Dewey & Vygotsky 2

Dewey & Vygotsky: A Comparative Look at Curriculum Philosophy

This research paper will be a comparison and contrast between John Dewey and Lev Vygotsky both of which contributed much to the field of constructivist learning theory in education. To begin, I will briefly describe what constructivism is. Second, I will discuss John Dewey’s philosophy of curriculum. Third, I shall discuss Lev Vygotsky’s philosophy of curriculum. Fourth, I will examine common factors that are apparent in the philosophies of Dewey and Vygotsky. Fifth, I shall contrast the ideas that are different in the philosophies of Dewey and Vygotsky. Finally, I will conclude by summarizing my curriculum philosophy as it relates to one of the curriculum philosophies described in this paper.

The research of Dewey and Vygotsky had blended with Piaget's work in developmental psychology into the broad approach of constructivism. The basic tenet of constructivism is that students learn by doing rather than observing. Students bring prior knowledge into a learning situation in which they must critique and re-evaluate their understanding of it. This process of interpretation, articulation, and re-evaluation is repeated until they can demonstrate their comprehension of the subject. Constructivism often utilizes collaboration and peer criticism as a way of provoking students to reach a new level of understanding. Active practice is the key of any constructivist lesson. To make an analogy, if you want to learn how to ride a bike, you don't pick a book on bicycle theory - you get on the bike and practice it until you get it right. It is this repetition of practice and review that leads to the greatest retention of knowledge. It is an experience-based learning theory in which students reflect upon their experiences.

John Dewey (1859-1952), a believer in what he called "the audacity of imagination," was one of the first national figures in education policy. He rejected the notion that schools should focus on repetitive, rote memorization. Instead he proposed a method of "directed living" in which students would engage in real-world, practical workshops in which they would demonstrate their knowledge through creativity and collaboration. Students should be provided with opportunities to think from themselves and articulate their thoughts. Dewey's theory emphasizes the experiential aspects of learning. In his theory, learning results from our reflections on our experiences, as we strive to make sense of them, We can directly sense smells, tastes, and the like, and have visceral reactions (e.g., danger), but we also confront situations which leave us challenged, puzzled, or confused. Through our encounters with the world and our reflections upon these experiences, our current understandings of the world are transformed so that things make more sense. Our understandings become broader and more coordinated, helping us to gain greater meaning from our experiences. I will now discuss Dewey’s philosophy of curriculum.

Dewey believed that humans have a fluid intellect, which grows when challenged by problems or dilemmas. The role of education is neither to cater completely to a learner's inclinations nor to attempt to force upon a child a preordained curriculum which takes no account of the learner. He saw children's minds as flexible, expansive, and unformed. Educators should structure learning environments that engage children in inquiries which guide them toward broader knowledge and participation in the larger culture. The rich learning environments suggested by Dewey should provide ample "time, talk, and tools." Said another way, Dewey believed that learning and inquiry can't be scheduled--ample

Dewey & Vygotsky 3

and unstructured time is needed for learners to follow their own questions and investigations. Learners are challenged through questions, discussions, suggestions, and encouragement from parents, teachers, and peers. Tools, such as the microscopes and

research techniques used by scientists, or the musical instruments and notation used by composers and musicians, can make the learner's inquiries and investigations in the world even more engaging and powerful. I shall now discuss Vygotsky’s philosophy of curriculum.

Lev Vygotsky (1896-1934) pioneered research in learning sciences and made a strong argument for the need for students to demonstrate their knowledge by creating explanations and interpreting their work for others. To Vygotsky, teachers served as mediators who coached and encouraged students to formulate their own level of understanding. Each student has a base level of knowledge, but they can increase it by practicing what they know well and adding onto it. The social interaction between the student, teacher and other students reinforces their increase of knowledge.

Vygotsky developed a socio-cultural theory of cognitive development that is recognized as a practical theory of learning and teaching in educational and information technologies literature. He argued that knowledge acquisition is essentially and inescapably a socio-historical-cultural process. Children are socialized into learning and using the appropriate cognitive and communicative tools that have been passed down from generation to generation. This means that children learn cognitive (thinking) and linguistic skills from more capable caretakers, peers, and teachers who assist and regulate the child's cognitive and linguistic performance. Through such socialization, children learn the accumulated ways of thinking and doing that are relevant in their culture/s.

In a culturally diverse society, a person's language and ways of thinking and doing in one culture are mediated by those of another. For instance, for Australian Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders, social activity within their cultures ensures cognitive development in culturally appropriate ways. Asking questions, particularly "why' questions, is not condoned in their cultures as a teaching or learning strategy and is met with negative sanctions. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander learners are also allowed to demonstrate their understanding and abilities when, how, and in what setting they chose; adults do not have the right to demand any of these. But questioning strategies and performance of knowledge and skill acquisition on demand from the teacher are endemic to Western teaching and learning. Thus, when Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children attend school in Australia, their cultural ways of thinking and doing are simultaneously mediated by the different accumulated achievements of (middle class) Anglo-Australian schooling culture. This means that there is context-specificity of cognitive development.

Scaffolding--supports for learning, such as working cooperatively with peers, coaching or other learning tools--facilitates the transfer of what visitors already know to the task at hand. Scaffolding is derived from Vygotsky's idea of the "zone of proximal development," where a learner can extend his competency beyond his individual reach with the help of others. This means maintaining optimal levels of challenge. Too little challenge will prove boring while too much will foster frustration. Scaffolding closes the gap between task requirements and skill levels. Scaffolding needs to be reduced, reorganized, adjusted, or eliminated as learners develop a sound understanding of the particular task or concept being learned. In summary, the cognitive and social

Dewey & Vygotsky 4

development of the learner proceeds as an unfolding of potential through the reciprocal influences of the learner and the social environment. Through guided intervention, higher mental functions that are part of the social and cultural heritage of the learner will shift from the socially regulated to the self-regulated. I will now examine common factors that are apparent in the philosophies of Dewey and Vygotsky.

Dewey and Vygotsky definitely share some similarities in their philosophy of curriculum. To begin, they are both proponents of constructivist learning theory. Much of their research contributed to the development of constructivism. In addition, they share similar ideas concerning the relationship of activity and learning/development, especially the roles everyday activities and social environment play in the educational process. The work of Soviet psychologist Vygotsky has had a growing impact on education in the United States. Many of Vygotsky’s ideas that have had the greatest resonance for educators, such as bringing everyday activities into the classroom and focusing on the importance of social context in learning, bear a striking resemblance to the work of John Dewey, especially his writings on education (e.g., 1912, 1916). It is true that Dewey is not a developmentalist in the same way that Vygotsky is. But his educational theory comes close in spirit toVygotsky’s major questions concerning education, which were pursued with the greatest vigor by those who followed him. 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?

Dewey and Vygotsky are in agreement concerning the roles of social history, experience/culture, and human inquiry in the educational process. Both of these theorists believe that, in the context of educational processes, none of these issues can stand without the other two. Dewey would applaud Vygotsky’s emphasis on everyday culture as the lynchpin of the educational process. Dewey’s notion of experience is equivalent to Vygotsky’s conception of culture. (In his attempt to revise his 1925 book Experience and Nature 25 years later, Dewey suggested he could use the term culture in place of experience.) In many ways, these two educational models operationalize the theoretical underpinnings of the two thinkers. The zone of proximal development, especially as it has been interpreted in the West, focuses on the role of the adult as social interlocutor who is also a representative of society. These adults mentor children in specific, culturally appropriate activity (Berk & Winsler, 1995). The role of the educational process is to prepare children for more complex activity in the larger social community.

Despite the obvious emphasis of individual over social community by leading 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 of each other (Novak, 1975). At the same time there was a good deal of interest in Dewey among those attempting to modernize the educational system of pre-Revolutionary Russia, such as the “First Moscow Settlement” (Brickman, 1964; Van Der Veer & Valsiner, 1991). Much of Dewey’s early works were translated into Russian, including School and Society (1900) and a 50-page booklet based on Education 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. This short history offers some possible reasons for similarities between Dewey and

Dewey & Vygotsky 5

Vygotsky, such as the focus on activity, the importance of the everyday activities of the child in the educational process, and the importance of history. The young Vygotsky was working within an educational structure that had been influenced by Dewey’s ideas for a number of years.

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 relationships (experiences) with others. Dewey (1916) makes the argument that humans are only human through their social interconnectedness with each other (and actually suggests that helplessness is, in some ways, a positive attribute because it helps to foster this interconnectedness). The essential questions that need to be asked involve how these extraordinary connections come about and how the individual begins to take control of them (Dewey, 1925). Vygotsky suggests that it is the ability to develop cooperative activity through complex social relationships that separates mature humans from all other animals (Vygotsky & Luria, 1993). Humans are best understood as products of these complex relationships.

Vygotsky and Dewey are very similar in approach to experience/culture. If Dewey could have renamed his conception of experience as culture, Vygotsky might have renamed his conception of culture as (Dewey’s) experience. Vygotsky recognizes two levels of culture, much the same way that Dewey sees two levels of experience. There is the culture that emerges through everyday concepts, and there is the culture that emerges through scientific concepts (Vygotsky, 1987). They both suggest that a child learns language in social interaction and then thinks in terms of that language. Vygotsky’s scientific concepts (Vygotsky, 1987) is in many ways parallel to Dewey’s (1925) conceptualization of secondary experiences.

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 of confrontation, pushing the mind from comfort into conflict. Vygotsky from a very early point saw interest as an inherent characteristic of the individual, and perhaps the primary driving motivation in activity. This echoes Dewey’s view of interests as children’s “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. Vygotsky echoes one of Dewey’s ideas, when he says, “In youth, one’s eyes are always wide open to the world, which underscores the greater maturity of youth towards life.” Dewey suggests 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). I shall now contrast the ideas that are different in the philosophies of Dewey and Vygotsky.

In many ways the ideas of Dewey and Vygotsky came to the same outcomes in education. However, they also had different ideas on human thought. Dewey’s ideas on thought were based on instrumentalism and he focused his educational ideas on this. On the other hand Vygotsky’s educational ideas revolved around Marxist social ideas. Instrumentalism is a way of looking at ideas and thoughts as instruments for action. This belief led Dewey to believe that vocational studies needed to be a part of the education system. He thought schools should have a combination of vocational and academic

Dewey & Vygotsky 6

studies. In this way he said students should take part in life like activities that would promote creativity and cooperation. Dewey saw repetition and memorization as the worst possible ways to teach people how to do something. An idea he really supported through out his whole range of research and writings on education was that there need to be a focus on thought and not strict topics. He thought it was a waste to teach kids how to do things in just one context. He condemned elitism and felt teachers shouldn’t teach as if they are all knowing and better then their students. He thought teachers should be creative and practical in their approach to teaching to provide students with opportunities to think for themselves.

Vygotsky applied Marxist social ideals to education, believing that a person could learn more if they were learning in a social situation. His theory of “Zone of Proximal Development” stated that there was a difference between the level of learning that one could reach by studying alone and the level they would reach working with a teacher or a more advanced peer. In this way he believed that education should be formed into a social process. His ideal class would contain group work, peer review and one on one contact with the teacher. He too would be against elitism by teachers as Dewey was and agreed with many of Dewey’s ideas. He was in favor of teaching thinking skills rather then just topic based lesson.

The two theorists are far apart in their conception 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 social and cultural goals as being integrated into social pedagogy. 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. Dewey sees experience as helping to form thinking, whereas Vygotsky, in his cultural historical theory, posits culture as the raw material of thinking. Dewey sees the child as a free 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.

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 question 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 mentoring 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 educational import in and of themselves? The issues that separate these two theorists, who see activity as being of such vital importance, could not be more profound. It raises the question of whether teachers should approach students as mentors who guide or direct activity, or facilitators who are able to step back from children’s activity and let it run its own course. It crosses into such areas as culturally and economically heterogeneous classrooms, and well as cultural/social historical attitudes towards education. A comparison of Dewey and Vygotsky highlights strong reasons why

Dewey & Vygotsky 7

education should be an active and context specific process, but it also forces educators to think long and hard about how and why they use activity in the classroom.

For Vygotsky human inquiry is embedded within culture, which is embedded within social history. The educational process works, more or less, from the outside in. It is social history, and, most important, the tools developed through our social history that helps to determine our everyday culture (Vygotsky & Luria, 1993). However, in contrast to Vygotsky, Dewey emphasizes human inquiry, and the role that it plays in the creation 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 history. One of the major purposes of education is to instill the ability and the desire for change in experience, and possible resultant changes in social history, through individual inquiry.

The differences between the two theorists are easily recognizable when one compares Vygotsky’s conception of the “zone of proximal development” (Rogoff & Wertsch, 1984) and the Dewey-inspired model of “long term projects” (Katz & Chard, 1989, 2000). In many ways, these two educational models operationalize the theoretical underpinnings of the two thinkers. The zone of proximal development, especially as it has been interpreted in the West, focuses on the role of the adult as social interlocutor who is also a representative of society. These adults mentor children in specific, culturally appropriate activity (Berk & Winsler, 1995). The role of the educational process is to prepare children for more complex activity in the larger social community.

In long term projects children are immersed in everyday activities. It is expected that the activities of the children will eventually coalesce around a topic that is of interest to them. The topic need not be of any relevance to the demands of the larger social community, or even have meaning or interest for the teacher. As a matter of fact, 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 a process that will be played out over and over again over the course of their lifetime experience. An important difference 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).

Dewey (1916) makes the argument that humans are only human through their social interconnectedness with each other (and actually suggests that helplessness is, in some ways, a positive attribute because it helps to foster this interconnectedness). The essential questions that need to be asked involve how these extraordinary connections come about and how the individual begins to take control of them (Dewey, 1925). Vygotsky suggests that it is the ability to develop cooperative activity through complex social relationships that separates mature humans from all other animals (Vygotsky & Luria, 1993). Humans are best understood as products of these complex relationships.

Dewey & Vygotsky 8

For Dewey culture and history provide a malleable set of means (e.g., tools) that can be used to achieve immediate or easily viewed ends (see Eldridge, 1998, for an in-depth discussion of Dewey’s instrumentality). These tools have worth only to the degree to which they can be used to successfully navigate a given situation. For Vygotsky (Vygotsky & Luria, 1993) cultural history provides for a (relatively) more static set of tools and symbols that should eventually enable members of a society to move beyond pure instrumentality, to a higher level of cognitive awareness. Dewey posits that education leads to free inquiry, and free inquiry leads to a richer society, but he lacks a description of exactly what a richer society looks like. Vygotsky, on the other hand, is susceptible to the criticism Dewey (1964) makes of the entire Soviet educational system—that social goals can easily be turned into propaganda that services the society.

Whereas Dewey fears progressive human thinking being lost in the shared comfort of common 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 of culturally defined goals that are far beyond the immediacy of Dewey’s end-in-view. While Dewey sees experience as focused on the solving of problems, Vygotsky (1987) sees experience as emerging through direct communication between social interlocutors and neophytes. Vygotsky does not share Dewey’s preoccupation with individualism. In Vygotsky’s conception of secondary experience there is no need for the type of individual reflection (natural, immediate, and an integral part of activity) explored by Dewey. There is also another important difference between Dewey and Vygotsky’s thinking as far as education is concerned. Dewey (1938) believes that doubt is discovered by the individual in unique, naturally evolving situations. (Dewey explicitly states that the doubt must be the result of the situation itself.) 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 of the mentor. Doubt is not discovered by the individual, but sown by the society through complementary actions of the social interlocutor. Related to this is Vygotsky’s idea that the social interlocutor 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, 1987, p. 86).

To summarize, Dewey and Vygotsky are similar in some aspects of their curriculum philosophies but different in other ways. For Dewey, education is a bottom-up process where the individual is central to the process. The purpose of education is to teach the child to be an individual within the society. Process is more important than product, and inquiry more important than tool use. In investigating long term projects, the student is involved in a circular learning process which begins with interest which leads to doubt (questioning), to problem solving, and renewed interest. The teacher serves as a facilitator. Tools are intellectual tools (morals, ideas, values and customs) that are used as reference points. He includes diversity as one of these tools. Dewey considered experience (culture) as physical action and the consequences of that action. Human inquiry is the use of thinking for greater social cohesion and advancement of the social group. Interest is created by needs and instincts, creating situations where the child can move towards mastery through interactions with the facilitator. For Vygotsky, education is a top-down process, where the social group is central to the process. The purpose of

Dewey & Vygotsky 9

education is to allow the child to fulfill his developmental potential within the community and prepare him for complex activity in that community. In the zone of proximal development the child addresses a problem through doubt (questioning), which leads to reconstruction of his thinking to complete the activity, which leads to a new problem to be solved. The teacher serves as a mentor, or interlocutor. Tools and symbols are used in the service of culturally defined goals, and can give meaning to the activity. One aim of education is to teach members of the community how to use these tools effectively. Experience (culture) is the result of direct communication between the learner and his social mentor, and the zone of proximal development is concerned with establishing specific tools that can serve the child in his social purposes. Human inquiry is imbedded within culture, and the use of thinking is for the better living of life. Interest is created by the interaction the person and the situation. I will now conclude by summarizing my curriculum philosophy as it relates to one of the curriculum philosophies described in this paper.

In terms of my own curriculum philosophy, I would say that I have more in common with Dewey than Vygotsky. Like both of them I consider myself a constructivist, but I agree with Dewey’s idea that education is a bottom-up process where the individual is central to the process. Teaching a child to be an individual in society is important to me as well. I agree that the teacher should be a facilitator in the learning process. I also agree with Dewey’s concept of experience as culture. Our experiences definitely make up our culture and who we are. Free inquiry and diversity are absolutely vital for a democratic society and for true educational experiences.

Dewey & Vygotsky 10

References

Berk, L. E., & Winsler, A. (1995). Scaffolding children’s learning: Vygotsky and early

childhood education. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of

Young Children (NAEYC Research into Practice Series).

Brickman, W. (1964). Introduction. Impressions of Soviet Russia and the revolutionary

world, Mexico, China, Turkey, 1929 (by John Dewey). New York: Teachers College

Press.

Dewey, J. (1912). Interest and effort in education. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

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

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

Dewey, J. (1938). Logic, the theory of inquiry. New York: Holt Publishing.

Dewey, J. (1964). Impressions of Soviet Russia and the revolutionary world, Mexico,

China, Turkey, 1929. New York: Teachers College Press. (Original work published

1928.)

Eldridge, M. (1998). Transforming experience: John Dewey’s cultural instrumentalism.

Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press.

Katz, L., & Chard, S. C. (1989). Engaging children’s minds: The project approach.

Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.

Novak, G. (1975). An appraisal of John Dewey’s philosophy: Pragmatism vs. Marxism.

New York: Pathfinder Press.

Popkewitz, T., & Tabacknik, R. (1981). Soviet and American pedagogical research:

Differences and similarities in the two countries. In B. R. Tabachnick, T. S.

Popkewitz, B. B. Szekely (Eds.), Studying teaching and learning: Trends in Soviet

and American research. New York: Praeger.

Dewey & Vygotsky 11

Rogoff, B., & Wertsch, J. (1984). Children’s learning in the zone of proximal

development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Van Der Veer, J., & Valsiner, J. (1991). Understanding Vygotsky: A quest for synthesis.

Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). The collected works of L.S. Vygotsky: Vol. I Problems of general

psychology. R. Rieber & A. Carton (Eds.) (N. Minick, Trans.). New York: Plenum

Press. (Original work published 1934)

Vygotsky, L. S., & Luria, A. R. (1993). Studies on the history of behavior: Ape, primitive

and child. (Victor I. Golod & Jane E. Knox. Hillsdale, Eds. and Trans.) NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum Associates.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download