Chapter 7 Vygotsky Rocks!

An argument that helps use Lev Vygotskys ideas in early

years practice
Anna Popova

Abstract
When you begin to study child development, observe children and try to understand what gui
des their development, you will be developing your own theories of why things are the way th
ey are. In addition, you will be reading about other peoples perspectives and their interpretati
ons of childrens development, and you will be applying these different ideas to practice. In th
is chapter, I am offering an argument that concepts developed by Lev Vygotsky appear to be
more appropriate in unpacking the intricacies of child development today. I will argue that ot
her concepts of child development in psychology and sociology are very important but that V
ygotskys framework incorporates them in a way that allows a more modern and culturally ap
propriate explanation of what guides childrens development. I do not insist that my view is th
e most appropriate but I am trying to show how I, as former teacher, have built this perspectiv
e, and my argument is just an example of the kind of thinking you might generate while learni
ng about child development. In this chapter, I will be referring to other development theories,
and it is from their perspectives that I will critically evaluate Vygotskys concepts. It is impor
tant to note that Vygotskys ideas were developed by many other researchers, and currently th
e research in this theoretical framework is referred to as cultural historical and activity theory,
often abbreviated as CHAT.

Introduction
Through my experience of teaching in primary schools, and also teaching child development
courses in higher education in Russia, the UK and Australia, I have identified a number of de

141

bates in child development that seem to re-occur. It seems practitioners and students are curio
us about the dominant factors in human development (whether our genes play the dominant ro
le or whether it is the social environment that dominates). They also want to understand whet
her the way we develop has some consistency about it or whether it is easy for us to change.
When my students and I work on trying to understand what children need for their developme
nt, we discuss how it is best to study child development and what needs to be taken into accou
nt. In other words, we discuss the best way to research child development. And whatever disc
ussions we have we always try to apply them in the practice of working with children; we test
and critique their usefulness. In this chapter I will discuss how Vygotskys concepts can help
understand these issues. In order to present this argument to you, I have selected the texts tha
t have influenced me in the last twenty years while I was practising and learning Vygostkys t
heory.

It is not just about nature vs. nurture

In your child development course you might encounter a popular debate of what guides childr
ens development, nature or nurture. For example, in textbooks by Lindon (2010) and Berk (2
009), this debate is introduced as a way for students to think about what factors are more dom
inant: childrens own physical and mental capacities or influences from the environment. This
debate still exists even today because child development textbooks consider maturation theor
ies (Geselle, 1954 cited in Lindon, 2010) seriously. These theories emphasise the self-guided
nature of child development, whereby a childs body is actively interacting with the environm
ent, and it is the genetic predisposition, e.g. brain capacity, is responsible for the way in whic
h the child interacts with the environment.
In my experience, the nature vs. nurture debate is usually concluded with the idea that both na
ture and nurture are important, and yet, it is the interaction between the two that I find most in

142

triguing. It is not so important what dominates, nature or nurture, but the complexities of a chi
lds interaction with the world in which she or he grows up. It has been proven through a num
ber of studies of feral children (children who have been deprived of human contact for a subst
antial amount of time) that they acquire behaviour and manners of the animals they interact w
ith. Basically, humans are mammals, and if left without the society of other humans, they will
behave like other animals (dogs, wolves, for example). A vivid example is presented in the fi
lm about Oksana, a Ukrainian girl who was left with the dogs and who acquired all the physic
al and vocal habits of the dogs (you tube, 2010), and yet because she had some contact with h
umans, she managed to develop some skills of communicating in her native language. So, no
w she can do both, bark like a dog and speak (still in a limited way) like a human.
Lev Vygotsky (1978, 1986) did not engage in the nature vs. nurture debate. It was clear to hi
m that it is only through human interaction that a human becomes a human. He argued that w
hat really separates us from other mammals is our interaction with cultural tools, and the most
important cultural tool is language. This is Vygotskys most important contribution to our un
derstanding of human development. It is not a direct interaction with the environment; the int
eraction occurs through cultural mediation. For example, what images do you have in your mi
nd if you come across a word soldier? Perhaps, you might think of an adult man or woman i
n military uniform. This is the notion that we develop by acquiring a word soldier in the cult
ure where we grow up. Yet, in some African countries, a word soldier does not necessarily c
onjure up an image of an adult person; often it is children who become soldiers. The word ma
y be the same as in the West but the meaning mediated within a culture is different. Roth (201
0: 49) comments:
In much of the educational literature, thinking is taken to be the result of conceptual/c
ognitive frameworks that generate thought; speaking is taken to be the process by mea
ns of which thought is made available to others. Lev Vygotsky, however, conceives of

143

thinking and speaking as two mutually constitutive processes that continuously evolv
e at microgenetic, ontogenetic and cultural-historical levels.
Usually, when discussing childrens development with a societal framework, it is the work of
Bronfrenbrenner (e.g. 1994) that is referred to most often. He acknowledged that the develop
ment of the child occurs in one particular context, and that context can be seen as a complex s
tructure of micro elements and factors (developing within a family and local community) and
macro factors (economic structure, political situation). His contribution was very important, b
ut he failed to explain how these different factors are linked in the development of one child.
Vygostky suggested that the development of the child first happened outside of the childs bo
dy and mind; in the interaction of the child and other people, and only then internal changes o
ccurred. These people use cultural tools to mediate notions that are deemed appropriate in this
culture. I remember growing up in the Soviet Russia which in political terms was under dicta
torship. I knew the things that I was allowed to say as being appropriate at that time, and not t
o say the words that my family might have been punished for because they were deemed polit
ically inappropriate. As a child I did not have an understanding that the political situation in R
ussia was severe, but through communication with the adults in my family I had an invisible
connection with macro elements of Russian society.
Holland (2001) and Valsiner (2007), who continued to work on Vygotskys concepts, suggest
that a child develops through a dialogue. This two directional communication is enacted with
in a socio-cultural context in which the child is placed, within a particular linguistic reality (w
hich is often multi-lingual) and within an established set of practices. Children are negotiating
their place in the socio-cultural situation though acquiring the language, ways of behaviour a
nd values needed to negotiate their reality in the way that is suitable to their unique way of be
ing. Thus, although I understood what I was allowed and not allowed to say when growing up
in Soviet Russia, I also developed my own view of the political situation of the time. I dislike

144

d the fact that people around me were not free and that we were restricted in what we wanted
to say publicly. If my situation were considered from a point of view of maturation theories th
at expect children to develop certain capabilities by a certain age, by nature pushing the devel
opment in one predictable direction, then it would be difficult to explain how a five year old c
hild may develop skills of interpreting a political situation. Vygostkys concept of the develop
ment being mediated by cultural tools allows us to understand how this may be possible.

Enduring nature of the context

Another debate that you might join in during your course in early childhood and within your p
ractice, is how much childrens development depends on the context in which they happen to
be. You will hear arguments that depending on a situation, the childs behaviour may be diff
erent. Doherty and Hughes (2009) suggest that most psychologists take the view that develo
pment has both elements of continuity (gradual and unbroken) and discontinuity (separate sta
ges marked by major changes) (p. 22). In contrast, Vygotsky did not consider continuity vs.
discontinuity, instead he argued that a child develops by participating in socio-cultural and his
torical activities, or practices which have a long history. Activity and individual development
are interconnected. A.A. Leontiev (2006) points out:
[] consciousness cannot be understood in any other way than as a product of
activity. Functionally, they are interconnected: activity is directed by consciou
sness and at the same time, in a certain sense, it is activity that directs conscio
usness (p. 33).

Contexts are episodes where particular practices reveal themselves. Thus, a day in a nursery o
r school is part of the long tradition of educating children. What happens today in a school is
not an accident, it is an expression of cultural practice. For example, you hear that a child in y

145

our room or class makes a racist comment. What will be your interpretation of their behaviour
? Will you blame the family? Or will you examine the practice in your own setting? I have be
en in early years settings in rural communities in the UK where practitioners did not think it w
as necessary to introduce children to cultures other than the ones represented in their small co
mmunity. If a child has not acquired a concept that it is OK to be different, can she or he be
necessarily blamed for making a racist comment? Perhaps, it is the practice itself that needs re
considering.
Valsiner (1998) states that
collective culture is person-anchored and not a property of social units. It is of no us
e to speak of American collective culture or the collective culture of high school No
4, but it is possible to speak of the collective culture that organises the life of John or
Sally who studies in high school in a town in the United States (p. 31).
Overall, CHAT promotes the idea that the development of the child occurs within practices w
hich are prone to internal conflicts. It is acknowledged that although we think that it is the chi
ld that might be in the driving seat of his or her development, it is important to unpack and ex
amine that collective culture Valsiner refers to above. Engestrm (1999) proposed that it is i
mportant to find out who is in the centre of the cultural practice and who may be a dependent
actor. For example, it is often said that children are active in their learning, but is it really true
in all the contexts? When a teacher constructs the lesson based on curriculum guidelines that
have to be implemented at this time of the year because it will help prepare children for exam
s, is she really letting children drive their own development? Yet, prescribed curricula are an
accepted educational practice in many countries. According to CHAT, this is due to enduring
nature of socio-cultural activities and unresolved systemic contradictions.

Vygotskys ideas in early years research

146

During your studies of child development in early years, you will be asked to observe the chil
dren you are working with. There is a long tradition of using observations as the main method
of collecting data about the ways in which children develop. Most of the literature on observa
tions of young children, describes observations as a research method that originates from psyc
hology research (Boem and Weinberg 1997; Smidt 2005). By this I mean that it is required of
early years practitioners that observations should be as objective as possible; students and p
ractitioners are warned of a possible bias in interpreting the observations. Hence, it is recom
mended that the observers themselves try to focus on what is observed, i.e. just the children or
the child. This view is challenged in CHAT research.
In CHAT, because it is argued that the child develops by participating in socio-cultural activit
ies, and by acquiring cultural tools in collaboration with others, the others who are with the ch
ild are as important as the child herself. The most important contribution to understanding res
earch in early years from a socio-cultural perspective has been made by Hedegaard and Fleer
(2008). They argue that A methodology for studying childrens development in everyday set
tings has to use methods that are different from those of natural science and medicine, where t
he research is often on human functioning (p. 5). They add that the aim is to research the co
nditions as well as how children participate in activities. This allows the conditions and the ch
ilds development to be conceptualised as a whole (p.35).

Because the language is the most important cultural tool that mediates childrens developmen
t, Hedegaard and Fleer (2008) focus on collecting and analysing narratives that children are in
volved in. These are conversations between adults and children, and childrens conversations
with each other. The analysis focuses not only on what children do, or only on what they say;
it tries to unpack what children accomplish together with others, or as a result of communicati
on with others. A very famous concept created by Vygotsky, the Zone of Proximal Developm

147

ent (Vygotsky 1978), happens to be in the centre of research. CHAT researchers want to kno
w how the child can change if offered adequate support at the right time. That is why the rese
arch that helps determine developmental milestones (see Lindon 2010), is not supported by C
HAT. Although CHAT researchers do not deny some maturation and ethological principles of
human development, their interest is not to find out how children develop on average, they w
ant to know what can be done in particular socio-cultural contexts so that they child could rea
ch their potential (this potential is not established as a an established norm).
You can find an excellent example of such research in the article by Hjorne and Saljo (2004)
called There is something about Julia. The article tells us a story about Julia who is consi
dered to have a hyperactive disorder. Usually, in order to identify if a child has a hyperactive
disorder, their own behaviour is assessed (what they do and how often, how they react to certa
in situations). In this research, however, the focus has been on conversations about Julia in dif
ferent professional meetings. Conversations during meetings have been recorded every time J
ulias name has come up. It has been found that every time Julia did something that the teache
rs and other professionals did not think normal, they suggested that there was something ab
out her that reminded them of hyperactive disorder. Hjorne and Saljo conclude that it is the p
eople around Julia who have labelled her as having hyperactive disorder, instead of analysing
the contexts in which she behaved in an unusual manner. The focus of the professionals was o
n Julia, and not on her interactions, or what she would have done, had the situation around her
been changed.

Implications for early years practice

As a former practitioner and currently a researcher, I keep reflecting on the impact of the CH
AT concepts on my everyday practice. It seems that if we accept the usefulness of CHAT con
cepts, we need to move away from the idea that we can expect children of a certain age to per

148

form as expected. We also can no longer think that todays situation at our place of work is ve
ry temporary and has no history or repercussions for the future. CHAT concepts encourage u
s to think about the socio-cultural context where we are interacting with the children, about ou
r own role in that context; we need to think whether we are free to act in the best interests of t
he child or whether there are some rules that prevent us from doing so. Hedegaard and Fleer (
2008) emphasise that in early years research (and I will add in practice) the research proble
m becomes connected to how well the researcher in his or her conceptualisation can handle th
e different perspectives. In order to catch the childs perspective, the researcher has to enter in
to the everyday activities of the child (p.35). If we take CHAT concepts seriously, we can no
longer remove ourselves from the trajectory of the childs development. What we say and do
in response to the childs action or as an attempt to prompt an action, makes us part of the chil
ds development.
An interesting example of how early years practice can be constructed with the help of CHAT
concepts is Australian Early Years Learning Framework (EYLF) (2009). Its creation was bas
ed on the CHAT concepts. The result was a document that equipped early years professionals
with thinking tools that could support them in unpacking particular situations that they came a
cross in practice. It avoided direct guidelines and rules, and instead encouraged professionals
to think deeply about the history of their practice, the childs socio-cultural environment and t
heir interactions with the children. EYLF offers a socio-cultural view of the child, whereby ea
ch cultural context is co-constructed by professionals, children and communities. Professional
s, therefore, are offered a framework, which emphasises analytical activities they should enga
ge in, i.e. to learn, analyse and reflect, rather than follow a set of principles and achieve a cert
ain number of standards (compared to, for example, 39 standards as suggested by the Early Y
ears Professional Status in the UK (Teaching Agency 2012)). The EYFL views professionali
sm as an autonomous, fluid and reflective process and a community of practice which is trust

149

worthy and capable of analytical thinking.

At the end of this chapter I need to caution you against accepting CHAT concepts blindly. Th
ey may be and have been perceived to be idealistic. For example, Roth and Lee (2007: 186) c
omment that
it is difficult to find research recommendations concerned with knowing and learning i
n and out of schools and across the life span that take into account the kind of holistic
integration that Vygotsky had originally championed. Now, as then, we are confronted
with a number of conundrums in educational research and practice, which advances i
n modern psychology have not fully overcome.
Holzman (2009) also raises this concern. She made a huge contribution to practising Vygotsk
ys concepts outside academia. She stated that cultural-performatory activitya participator
y process in which people exercise their collective power to create new environments, new so
cial-emotional-intellectual growth, and new forms of social relational life (p. 111), thus clai
ming that CHAT concepts need to be practised . However, she emphasises that to achieve this
in social life, we need an enormous social upheaval both in everyday practices and values.
So, to be true to the CHAT tradition, I suggest that in and through your everyday work with c
hildren, you can try out the concepts presented above and make your own conclusion wheth
er they are what you need. In order to succeed, you need to examine the context in which you
are working and reflect honestly on your own personal/professional history. This will help yo
u understand how the practice should be transformed to help children who are in your care de
velop further. If you have to work within certain government guidelines, analyse them in conn
ection with what happens in your context and adapt them. On an everyday basis ask yourself

What do I know about this child? Is it enough to make decisions about his or her
development?

Am I taking into account where the child comes from and what the child experiences

150

every day?

In which ways is the child connected to these different activities? How can I bring them
into my relationship with the child?

Do I give direct answers or provide prompts?

Do I know how I speak to each child? Is it the same way?
Who is in my community and how they construct the childs reality?

You might have gleaned from the argument above that to study and use Vygotskys concepts
is not a simple process of applying theory to practice. In my experience, these concepts have
become part of the way I think about life, my practice and my relationships. In her recent lect
ure, a leading post-Vygotskian, Irina Verenikina, stated: I feel I have been very lucky to hav
e been introduced to the cultural-historical theory in my life. I find that a lot of my colleagues
struggle with educational dilemmas, and I feel that I have better tools to resolve them than th
ey do, because this theory is part of who I am and how I live my life (Verenikina 2012).

Critical Learning Activity

In this chapter I have tried to argue that Vygotskys ideas have helped me understand child de
velopment and shape my thinking around the ways in which I can help children in their devel
opment. Can you find examples in this chapter of when I developed arguments to persuade yo
u that my point of view has weight?

Further Reading
Gray, C. & MacBlain, S. (2012) Learning Theories in Early Childhood (London: SAGE), Ch
apter 5 Vygotsky: Learning in a Social Matrix.
You tube (2010) Ukranian Girl Raised by Dogs. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkX47

151

t2QaRs (accessed 06.06.2012).

References
Berk, Laura E. (2009) Child development, 8th edn, Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Boem, AE & Weinberg, RA 1997, The classroom observer: developing observation skills in
early childhood settings, 3rd edn, Teachers College Press, New York.

Bronfenbrenner, Urie (1994) Ecological models of human development. In T. Husen & T. N.

Postlethwaite (Eds.), International encyclopedia of education (2nd ed., Vol. 3, pp. 1643 164
7). Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press.

Engestrm, Yrj (1999) Activity theory and individual and social formation. In Y. Engestrm
, R. Miettinen, R. Punamki (Eds.). Perspectives on Activity Theory (pp. 19-39). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.

Hedegaard, Mariane and Fleer, Marylin (2008) Studying children. A cultural-historical appro
ach. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Hjorne, Eva & Saljo, Roger (2004) "There Is Something About Julia": Symptoms, Categories
, and the Process of Invoking Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder in the Swedish School
: A Case Study, Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 3:1, 1-24

Holzman, Louise (2009) Vygotsky at Work and Play. New York: Routledge.

152

Holland, Dorothy & Lave, Jean (2001) History in person: an introduction. In D. Holland & J.
Lave (Eds.), History in person. Enduring struggles, contentious practice, intimate identities (
pp. 3-33). Sante Fe: School of American Research Press.

Leontiev, A.A. (2005) O sisteme deyatelnosti. [About the system of activity]. Moskva: Nauka
.
Leontiev, Alexei A. (2006) Units and levels of activity. Journal of Russian and East Europ
ean Psychology, 44 (3), 30-46.

Lindon, Jennie (2010) Understanding child development: linking theory and practice.
Robertson SS, Watamura SE, Wilbourn MP. (2012). Attentional dynamics of infant visual for
aging. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109: 1146011464.

Roth, Wolf-Michael (2010) Vygotsky's dynamic conception of the thinking-speaking relation

ship. Pedagogies, January, Vol. 5, issue 1, pp.49-60.

Roth, Wolf-Michael and Lee, Yew-Jin (2007) "Vygotsky's Neglected Legacy": Cultural-Hist
orical Activity Theory. Review of Educational Research June, Vol. 77, No. 2, pp. 186-232

Smidt, Sandra (2005) Observing, Assessing and Planning for Children in the Early Years, L
ondon: Routledge Falmer.

Teaching Agency (2012) Early Years Professional Status. From September 2012. Departmen
t of Education, UK.

153

Valsiner, Jaan (1998) The Guided Mind. A sociogenetic approach to personality. Cambridge,
Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Valsiner, Jaan (2007) Culture in Minds and Societies. Foundations of Cultural Psychology. L
os Angeles: SAGE.

Verenikina, Irina (2012) Scientific and everyday concepts: Theory and practice for quality pr
actice. Open lecture. A planned event for the Asia-Pacific Australian group of the Internation
al Society for Cultural Activity theory (ISCAR). 13.12.12. Monash University, Melbourne, V
ictoria, Australia.

Vygotsky, Lev S. (1986) Thought and language. (A. Kozulin, ed. and trans.). Massachusetts:
The M.I.T. Press. (original work published in 1934).

Vygotsky, Lev S. (1978) Mind in society. (M. Cole, John-Steiner, V., Scribner, S. & Souberm
an, E., Eds.). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

You tube (2010) Ukranian Girl Raised by Dogs. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkX47

t2QaRs (accessed 06.06.2012).

Department of Education, employment and Workplace Relations (2009) The Early Years Lea
rning Framework. Department of Education, employment and Workplace Relations, Australi
a.

154