Ton Jörg

University of Utrecht, The Netherlands

Title:
A Theory of Reciprocal Learning in Dyads

Abstract
The topic of this contribution concerns the theorizing on reciprocal learning (RL) as a social form of
interactive learning. The aim is not only to understand the reported successes of such forms of
learning but also to model learning adequately by explaining failures and successes of the
mechanisms of interactive learning. Different perspectives are integrated in the qualitative modeling.
It focuses on the reciprocal influences of the interaction as a process of co-construction by the
participants. It may be said that participants are able to magnify each others development, implying
multiplier-effects as mechanisms of change. Modeling these within a causal framework builds on the
work of Jörg (1994) about causal self-reinforcing processes and reciprocal causation, showing
potential non-linear causal effects in time. Special non-linear effects such as the (known) Matthew
and the less known Comenius effect may be called ‘general laws of reciprocal causal interaction’.
These laws can be regarded as responsible for the success of forms of interactive learning such as
‘reciprocal teaching’ which Bruer (1993) has called “the educational equivalent of polio vaccine.”
Through modeling such forms of interactive learning it seems possible to show the unexpected
beneficial effects of such learning in practice. From a theoretical point of view this modeling may
lead to a general theory of learning, integrating a theory of complexity based on simple causal
mechanisms with theories of so-called ‘learnability’ as a property of a functional system, recently
referred to as a goal in a report by the (Dutch) Program Preparation Committee for the Cognitive
Sciences (PPCCS, 2001). The ultimate goal of this project is to show how the ‘educational vaccine’ of
reciprocal learning and teaching may find its application in educational practice.
Introduction

The aim of this contribution is to formulate a theory of reciprocal learning (RL), to be regarded as a
new theory of social learning as learning together through interaction. This contribution to that
theorizing aims to uncover the hidden mechanisms of reciprocal learning as a fundamental social form
of learning and to show their relevance for education. The theory is not a theory meant to be applied to
practice but a theory about practice and the hidden mechanisms involved in that practice (cf. Egan,
1982). It takes the primacy of practice as its starting point in education.
The theory of reciprocal learning is strongly inspired by the work of Vygotsky on learning and
development and agrees with Bruner’s statement that Vygotsky’s conception of development is at the
same time a theory of education.“ (Bruner, 1962, 1987). The approach taken is an explanatory,
explaining learning from the Vygotskian perspective of learning and development through social
interaction and social relations. It takes the following statement of Vygotsky as its central focus: “it is
through others that we develop into ourselves.” (Vygotsky, 1981, p.161). The theory of reciprocal
learning as a social form of learning may offer new prospects to education, by showing how that type of
learning through social interaction and the complex processes involved may be enhanced in education.
This may be done by uncovering the ‘hidden (inner) mechanisms underlying complex human
psychology’ which seem characteristic of these processes (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 122). The perspective
taken corresponds with the interactionist approach such as of Piaget. The premises of such an approach,
however, are still lacking full formulation according to John-Steiner and Souberman (1978, p. 123).
The theory of RL is a theory of interactive learning, of dialogic (mainly verbal) interaction in a
reciprocal relationship (RR), showing their effects on the partners resulting from reciprocal influences
and their dynamics. These processes, now, may be conceived as real-time learning processes, taking
place in time, within lasting reciprocal relationships between the two partners in an educational context.
The dialogic interaction is verbal in nature and has influence on the psychological processes, even in
very young children. The theory of RL is based on the social principle of reciprocity as an
interdisciplinary concept (Gergen, 1994; Azmitia, 1996; Salomon & Perkins, 1998; see also Buunk and
Schaufeli, 1999) and the notion of partners influencing each other in that interaction (Selman &
Demorest, 1986). It may therefore be called ‘a theory of reciprocal learning’. It may, however, also be
called ‘a generative theory of learning’ because the uncovered hidden mechanisms of change,
responsible for the dynamic causal processes taking place in interaction (according to Vygotsky, 1978,
p. 62), are supposed to be generative in nature. These processes may lead to effects which may be
described as upheavals (p. 73), non-linear in nature (cf. Kozulin, 1998, p. 13, 16, about Vygotsky’s
view). These effects and the description of their mechanisms of change were not common in theorizing
on education. The lack of such descriptions, and of explaining the phenomena involved, can be viewed
both in terms of the common existence of myopia by the ‘use of’ the so-called ‘normal’ paradigm(s) (cf.
Eco, 1984). The publication of the (Dutch) Program Preparation Committee for the Cognitive Sciences
is also clear on this point of concern for the epistemological foundation of a scientific paradigm
(PPCCS, p. 30). According to that committee an integrative theoretical account of “the complexity of
‘real’ cognition still seems a far cry.” (PPCCS, 2001, p. 29).
The lack noted above can also be viewed in terms of the common ‘blind spots’ in the understanding of
Vygotsky himself (cf. van der Veer and Valsiner, 1994, p. 5). Vygotsky (1978) rejected “the frequently
held view that cognitive development results from the gradual accumulation of separate changes.” (p.
73). Vygotsky viewed (child) development as “a complex dialectical process, characterized by
periodicity, unevenness in the development of different functions, metamorphosis or qualitative
transformation of one form into another, intertwining of external and internal factors.” (Vygotsky, 1981,
p. 73) The problem, however, was how to model those processes of development, their genesis and its
causal dynamic basis, starting from an explanatory approach, as advocated by Vygotsky (1978). Such
causal modeling of the complex processes involved was, even for Vygotsky, not within reach.
For modeling the hidden mechanisms of change and the dynamic causal processes involved in reciprocal
causation, different tools are needed from different fields of knowledge such as Structural Equation
Modeling (SEM). Non-linear effects are to be expected from that causal modeling, as the result of the
modeling of self-reinforcing processes between so-called ‘latent’ variables as effects of reciprocal
causation (see Jörg, 1994). These effects illustrate what Van Geert (1994) called so nicely ‘the
unexpected complexity of reciprocal dynamics’ (see also Van Geert, 1998). They may be regarded as the
2
basis of the link between a theory of complexity and theories of learnability, as a fundamental property
of functional learning systems (cf. PPCCS, 2001, p. 28). By integrating quantitative modeling of the
unexpected (potentially non-linear) effects of reciprocal causation with the qualitative modeling of RL
as a form of interactive learning, a general theory of learning for the Cognitive Sciences may be
constructed, which may be beneficial for educational practice. It combines the quantitative theory of
reciprocal causation as a specific theory of growing complexity through multiplication and complication
and the qualitative theory of RL as a descriptive theory focusing on complexity and learnability
(PPCCS, 2001, p. 28).
As a consequence of integrating qualitative and quantitative modeling the successes of what may be
called ‘interactive learning’ in general , as reported by many (Gartner et al., 1971, 1994, 1998; Bruer,
1993; Springer et al., 1999; Antil et al., 1998; Anderson et al., 2001), may be predicted from this
general integrated theory (and the failings as well, of course).

Theoretical framework
To foster an approach in education which is really beneficial for students an interactional perspective on
learning and development seems necessary. A clear vision on the concept of interaction, as a
precondition for the interactionist approach, will be meaningful for such an approach. This is in line
both with a Vygotskian and Piagetian perspective. In the history of education and psychology such a
perspective, however, and the definition of interaction has been hampered by the dominant rational,
objective, scientific approach (cf. Van den Bergh and Fetchenauer, 2001). Interaction as a concept
brought much confusion in the field of psychology with many different descriptions (Magnusson &
Stattin, 1998). This situation did not change very much. The concept of interaction, to be viewed as a
true dialectical process, is still in need for clarity (cf. John-Steiner and Souberman, 1978, p. 122;
Holzman, 1997, p. 58). This, however, seems to be the case in dictionaries as well. In the Collins
Cobuild dictionary interaction of people is defined in terms of communication, but differently for things:
“When one thing interacts with another or two things interact, the two things affect each other’s
behavior or condition.” In an English (short Oxford) dictionary one finds (reciprocal) interaction
circumscribed as “action or influence of persons or things on each other.” The last description clearly
implies influence and the concomitant effects one may have on another in interaction (see also Webster’s
dictionary). This, however, is no common knowledge for (educational) psychology (cf. Magnusson &
Stattin, 1998). It is this description which, however, seems the very focus of Vygotsky’s work, which
makes his work so distinctive from others in the field of learning and instruction, and of development as
well.
An adequate process-view of interaction was hampered by the rationalist-objective view (Vološinov,
1973/1930; Magnusson & Stattin, 1998), although Vygotsky’s view was very much a process-view. It
was Vygotsky who strongly urged to study the process instead of the object (see his three principles in
“Mind in Society”, p. 65). He stressed the need to change the idea of (child) development in a
fundamental way and, simultaneously, “…, if we take into consideration the fact that it represents a
complex, dialectical process characterized by a multifaceted, periodic timetable, by disproportion in the
development of various functions, by metamorphoses or qualitative conversion of one set of forms into
others, by complex combinations of the processes of evolution and involution, by complex mixing of
external and internal factors, …..” (Vygotsky, 1981, p. 150; see also Vygotsky, 1962, p. 133, about
involution and evolution). Although Vygotsky (1978) clearly described the role of causal mechanisms of
change in interaction, he did not know how to describe or explain their working, their effects on the
partners in interaction (cf. Vološinov, 1973/1930, p. 17, who openly expressed his problem with using
the notion of mechanical causality from the field of natural sciences). It is certain he did not know about
causal modeling of these dynamics within a causal framework. So, although the spiral of development
has been just a descriptive metaphor for Vygotsky (1978, p. 56), it has been demonstrated that the
potential effects of such a spiral of development can be fully realized in practice. This has been shown
in the empirical studies on the effects of cooperative and collaborative learning as forms of interactive
learning (Springer et al., 1999; Antil et al., 1998). Gartner et al. (1971) speak about ‘the multiplier-
effects’ of such learning, which may have an exponential form. Anderson et al. (2001) report about the
‘Snowball phenomenon’ in their description of effects of small-group discussions. Kuhn et al. (1997)
report about the enhanced effects of dyadic interaction among peers. Bruer (1993) reported about the
educational effects of ‘reciprocal teaching’ as a social form of learning in terms of “the educational

3
equivalent of polio vaccine.” Summarizing, all of these positive outcomes of forms of interactive
learning leads to the question:
“Is it possible, not only to describe these phenomena and positive outcomes of interactive
learning in dyads, but to explain them too by adequate modeling of this social form of learning
as a self-reinforcing process of reciprocally influencing?”
Hereafter, a qualitative and quantitative model of RL as a social form of interactive learning will be
presented, which has been derived from and may offer a fruitful perspective on the integration of
different perspectives such as:
1. the Vygotskian perspective, with his notion of learning and development as processes of change
and transformation through social interaction,
2. the Piagetian one, with his specific view on cognitive development through person-environment
interaction by processes of reciprocal assimilation and accomodation,
3. Bandura’s social cognitive perspective (Bandura, 1997), his transactionalist perspective regarding
people as producers as well as products of social environments, capturing the notion of
reciprocal causation as mechanism of change and transformation, and
4. Gergen’s social constructionist perspective (1994, 1999), with its focus on how meaning is
created and used within social relationships, on the ‘imperative of reciprocity’ and the
significance of the relational process, which serves as the generative source of change.
Summarizing the essential features of these perspectives or approaches, these are integrated as much as
possible and meaningful in the modeling of RL below, such as the role of social relationships (R’s) and
the principle of reciprocity, the role of partners as agents and the role of their agency in interaction, and
of their willingness or readiness to interact as an essential form of motivation, the role of assimilation
and accommodation in the course of development, the role of reciprocal causation in person-
environment interaction as a potential non-linear process, and the role of of attunement between the
inter- and intra-personal processes.
After having put those features into modeling RL as a form of social interactive learning among peers,
the second question is how to model RL within a causal framework, showing the unexpected non-linear
effects of the reciprocal dynamics of interaction as a process of reciprocal causation in time. That
process of reciprocal causation through reciprocal influences can be envisioned as a process of
multiplication of causal effects potentially cumulating in time as total non-linear effects.
After modeling RL qualitatively and quantitatively, the next question is how to relate the modeling to the
successes of cooperative and other social forms of interactive learning?
In other words: what do these unexpected effects of modeling interactive learning as a self-reinforcing
interactive process mean to education in general and learning and instruction in particular? And more
specific questions to be formulated are:
- How to introduce this form of social learning into practice?
- What kind of innovation strategy will be successful in the daily practice of teachers?
- Is it possible to conceptualize the innovation process also as a self-reinforcing interactive process
by the use of RL itself for the professional use of RL by teachers in their daily teaching?
First, however, the qualitative modeling of reciprocal learning (RL) will be presented.

Modeling of Reciprocal Learning (RL) as a form of social interactive learning

The modelling of RL can be done both qualitatively and quantitatively. In the qualitative part, it may be
shown how the intra-personal (or intra-psychological) processes within each of the individual partners is
connected to the processes of the social unit of the dyad, i.c. the interpersonal or inter-psychological
processes. These interconnected processes are regarded as a dynamic unity of developmental coupling
(cf. Beach, 1999, p. 120). The quantitative part shows how each of the partners in interaction may
influence the other through those interpersonal processes; how those processes of reciprocal influencing
may be modelled within a causal framework.

Qualitative modeling of RL
Figure 1 shows a qualitative model of RL as processes of reciprocally influencing and their effects
taking place in interaction between two partners (interpersonal) and within these partners as well (intra-
personal). These influences are to be regarded as impelling forces through sharing of activities, taking
place in time. The model shows the dynamic coupling between the intra-personal and the interpersonal
processes between the two partners involved. It forms an extension of the model of person-environment
4
interaction of only one individual. The intra-personal processes, as a system of processes, are regarded
as both awakened and directed at the same time by the process of dialogic interaction. The model shows
how development of each of the partners involved in the activities of dialogic interaction can be socially
facilitated (cf. John-Steiner and Souberman, 1978, p. 126). The model represents a coupling which is in
principle symmetric for the partners. Between both partners an interface has been envisioned as an
interpersonal process, consisting of cognitive and meta-cognitive activities, which are linked
reciprocally. These activities take place in dialogic interaction, which may be constructive of nature and
which may influence each of the partners in interaction. For each of the partners the intra-personal
processes have been drawn as well. Each of the partners has an innovative space, to be regarded as a
dynamic extension of Vygotsky’s zone of proximal (or potential) development. Van Geert called a
multidimensional space like this a hyperspace. (Van Geert, 1998, p.

Figure 1 A qualitative model of reciprocal learning (RL) as processes of reciprocally influencing

and their effects

EBd

EAd
intrapersonal intrapersonal
processes interpersonal processes
processes
innovative innovative
space
meta- space
cognitive
MA activities EBi

self- self-
reinforcing reinforcing
processes EAi cognitive MB processes

activities

RR RR
as defined as defined
by A by A

Reciprocal Relationship (=RR)

Legenda: M = Readiness to engage in interaction and into the reciprocal relationship (RR)
Ei = Indirect effect of influencing one another
Ed = Direct effect of influencing one another

639). From a wider perspective than education one may call it a ‘life space’, in which the higher
psychological processes emerge and develop (see Holzman, 1997, p. 60). This innovative or life space,
which may be regarded as a space of dynamic change of processes and their effects (i.c. of change and
transformations), is reciprocally connected to the self-reinforcing processes (cf. the role of reciprocal
conditionality in the development of thinking, in Vygotsky, 1994). Valsiner has designated the innovative
space as ‘a space of possible meanings’ (1998, p. 69).
The Reciprocal Relationship (RR) and its quality may be viewed as a feature of RL in practice on the
one hand, observable from a spectator’s view, but on the other hand each of the partners may define or
perceive that RR and its quality subjectively as well. The question is how those qualities are related to
one another in practice, through hidden mechanisms (cf. Vygotsky, 1994, p. 158, 159). The interaction
5
itself, now, may take place as dialogic interaction between the two partners involved, leading to
engagement in (meta-) cognitive activities: see Table 1. This engagement may be viewed in terms of
readiness to interact, or as influencing the interaction, conceived as a process of social construction of
shared meaning and making sense.
The intra-personal processes of the partners are linked with the interaction, with the concomitant
interpersonal processes, as shown in Figure 1. The interaction itself, formed by cognitive and meta-
cognitive activities, is not only viewed as verbal, from a constructivist perspective of constructing
meaning in a dialogic verbal interaction and reflecting on it, but also as taking place nonverbally with
indirect effects on one another. The processes outside the individual, now, may have an impelling force,
which determines the start of any process or initiates any evolving mechanisms of behaviour inside the
individual (Vygotsky, 1994, p. 213). The construction of meaning in dialogic interaction is supposed to
influence each of the partners involved in that construction, and may have an effect E on the intra-
personal processes of each of the partners in the dyad. Thus, there is a link between the inter- and the
intra-personal processes which Vygotsky described as one of reciprocal conditionality (Ibid.). The link
may also be described as follows: “Both (processes) are interdependent and create each other.” (Souza
Lima, 1995, p. 447-448; italics inserted) This process of creation means a continuing process of change
and (reciprocal) transformation in the course of time: within and across the interaction with the same
two partners, and within the same reciprocal relationship (dyad). This description of the link between
the interpersonal cognitive activities and individual cognitive functioning is in agreement with the
program of the PPCCS (2001) stating that “Cognition is not just an intra-individual phenomenon but an
inter-individual one as well.” (p. 27). So, cognition, and learning and development as well, may be
regarded as a manifestation of both phenomena, understanding continuity and transformation of
cognition and learning and development as an ongoing relation between changing individuals and
changing social contexts, of what Vygotsky (1994, p. 155) called a ‘two-pronged process’: a process of
change and transformation. Such a process has been described, also by him, in terms of transfer, as
leading to “transforming our own learning and development.” (Beach, 1999, p. 102). This process of
transformation may, according to Vygotsky, lead to “a new intra-psychological layer and gives birth to a
new psychological system., incomparably superior in content , and cultural-psychological in genesis.”
(Vygotsky, 1994, p. 155)
The quality of the interaction (QoI) may influence the ‘definition’ and the perception of the relationship
with the partner, and the quality of the relationship (QoR), as shown in Figure 1. These two qualities are
supposed to be or become interdependent and determine each other in the social context of the
continuing dialogic interaction (cf. Van Lieshout & Doise, 1998; Frank, 1998).

Cognitive activities
Table 1 contains the main elements of the (meta-) cognitive activities in Figure 1. The cognitive
activities may be regarded as primary in interaction. At first, in fostering a dialogic interaction a
common goal orientation seems favourable. The goal(s) and the orientation of both partners towards
that goal(s) may determine the way in which information is searched for, by a process of selection, the
contents of the information and how that information may be shared. That process has been described as
a process of framing (in the work of Bateson and Goffman). This is linked to implicit norms and values
in social processes. Frames can be described as “a co-regulated consensual agreement about the scope
of the discourse: its location, its setting, the acts that are taken to be significant versus those that are
irrelevant, and the main focus or topic.” (Fogel, 1993, p. 36; italics in

TABLE 1 Cognitive and meta-cognitive activities in interaction

Activities in interaction

Cognitive activities Meta-cognitive activities

1. ‘Goal orientation’ 1. ‘Co-construction’

2. ‘Sharing of information’ 2. ‘Co-regulation’
3. ‘Co-framing’ 3. ‘Co-reflection’

6
original; for co-regulation: see below). In modeling RL as a form of interactive learning, such framing
becomes a process of co-framing in dyads.

Meta-cognitive activities
The ‘construction’ of meaning in a dialogic interaction within a RR is not regarded as an individual
activity, but as a process of co-construction (Azmitia, 1996; Van Geert, 1994; cf. Thayer-Bacon, 2000).
The process of co-construction of meaning is viewed as a process of producing shared knowledge and
understanding. That process may be viewed as the co-construction of one’s own development (Brownell,
1989, p. 190), for each of the partners, simultaneously or seperately. Co-regulation may be linked to
learning in terms of co-regulated learning. Hickey & McCaslin (2001) describe it in contrast to self-
regulated learning: “co-regulated learning focuses on relationships, social supports, opportunity, and
emergent interactions that empower the individual to seek new challenges, …., thereby internalising
those supports in a manner that is expected to further enhance students’ ability to participate in
worthwhile school activity.” (p.48; italics inserted). So co-regulation can be linked to an emergent
process (Cf. Van den Berg & Fetchenauer, 2001; PPCCS, 2001). Fogel (1993) links co-regulation to the
generative nature of the elements and processes involved: “Co-regulation suggests that communication
is a self-organizing system, one that generates the sources of its own transformation.” (p. 223;
italicsinserted). The third element of meta-cognitive activities concerns ‘co-reflection’. In a similar vein
as with construction, reflection is not viewed as an individual activity, but as relational in nature, too
(cf. Vygotsky about internalisation). The object of co-reflection may be the processes of co-construction
or co-regulation, and its focus on the optimalization, the effectiveness in terms of effects of those
processes on the quality of interaction, quality of relationship or significance of effects on the partners
in interaction (Brownell, 1989; cf. Van Lieshout & Doise, 1998).

Quantitative modeling of RL: Grounding RL and its mechanisms of change and concomitant effects
within a causal framework of Structural Equation Modeling (SEM)
The modeling of the reciprocal influences and the causal effects of these influences on one another in
time may be done in different ways, as shown in Figure 2. The effects may be conceptualised as the
impact the interaction with its cognitive and meta-cognitive activities may have on the various
dimensions, the so-called latent variables in the causal framework of Structural Equation Modeling, to
be related to each of the partners (in time). The strength of the impact is indicated by ß 1 and ß2, as usual
in a causal framework. The values for these ß’s are not static, but can be dynamic in time. They may
increase when the quality of interaction and/or quality of relationship increase in the course of time. The
process of causation as modelled has been described as reciprocal causation (Namboodiri et al., 1975;
Verschuren, 1989; Bandura, 1997).
There are distinct causal effects of reciprocal causation: the self-effect, the reciprocal effect and the total
effect (see Hayduk, 1987; Verschuren, 1989; Jörg, 1994 1; Verschuren & Jörg 2002). Below, only the
formulas for the total effects are given (Jörg, 1994). They have been derived under the condition

ß1
A B
ß2

7
 A
t A
t+
1 A
t+
2 A
t+
3 A

B
t B
t+
1 B
t+
2 B
t+
3 B

Figure 2. Representations of reciprocal (causal) influences between partners A and B: as a causal

reciprocal relationship without indication of time (above), and as a process of reciprocal influencing
in time (below).

that the absolute value of the product ß1*ß2 < 1 (see Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1993, p. 154). The
corresponding formulas for the total effects are:

Total effect on B = ß1
______
(1- ß1*ß2)

Total effect on A = ß2
______
(1- ß1*ß2)

According to Hayduk (1987), the total effects can be expressed as the sum of the direct and the indirect
effects of reciprocal causation: TE = ß 1 + Δ ß1. It can be shown that the increase Δ ß (delta ß) may be
non-linear and become larger than the ß1itself. So, the total effect can become (much) larger than the
direct effect. This non-linear increase happens if the other ß is large enough (making the product ß1*ß2
in absolute value approach the value 1). This is shown in figure 3 for the total effects on A and on B.
Both of these effects can be shown simultaneously in this figure, because of the symmetry of the
formulas for the total effects (only the two axes should be reversed!). The form shows sheer flatness in
the middle of the figure. This is because the total effects do not change for small values of ß1  and ß2,
making the product ß1*ß2 even smaller and the denominator close to 1 (see the formulas above).
Verschuren & Jörg (2002) have shown two unexpected general ‘laws’ concerning self-reinforcing causal
effects in interaction: the Matthew effect (see Merton, 1968; Walberg & Tsai, 1983) and the Comenius
effect (derived from the, original Latin, statement “He who teaches others, teaches himself”, strongly
supported by Comenius (in Gartner et al., 1971, p. 14-15).

Figure 3 Non-linear effects of reciprocal causation as modeled within a causal framework

8
 Total 10
Effect
8

0
Z-as

-2

-4

-6

-8

-10
-1.50 2.00
-1.00
-0.50 0.501.001.50
X-a 0.00 0.00
-0.50
s 0.50 -1.00
1.00 -1.50
ß1 1.50
2.00 -2.00 Y-as
ß2

Linking theory with educational practice

The question, now, is how the modeling of RL can be connected to educational practice in general and
instruction of RL in particular. It may be formulated as a challenge to show the effectiveness of the
learning within reciprocal relations and its dynamics between cognition and social interaction in
practice. Theorizing started with the idea that the theory of RL is a theory about that practice and the
reported effectiveness of different forms of social learning as real-time learning processes in social
interaction with a focus on fostering the understanding of these reported effects. The description of the
RL as a form of social learning in practice and to be put in practice was not only descriptive but also
explanatory in nature, in line with the principles of method formulated by Vygotsky (1978). Explanatory
in the sense that the modeling showed the processes involved as processes of multiplication and
amplification of causal effects, because of increasing causal influences (the ß’s) through processes of
change and transformation taking place in time. Consequently, it should be possible now to show the
effects of modeling of the processes and social relations involved in that very same practice of
reciprocal learning by taking account of that modeling.
The RL with its social interaction should be viewed from a dynamic point of view, connecting learning
and instruction as a unity: not a simple unity of person-environment interaction but as a complex unity
of two processes of person-environment dynamics, to be connected in educational practice by adequate
instruction of activities. This connection may be compared with the description of connected cognitive
growers as dynamic systems by Van Geert (199). Educationally these dynamic processes may be
regarded as processes of co-evolution, of cognitive growth through cognitive activities within social
relations which may develop in terms of quality in the course of time. So, RL is based on a dynamic
interpretation of the environment in relation with the learner and learning of the participants involved
(see Vygotsky, 1994, p. 347). That environment is not a given but an environment actively to be created.
By both partners in social interaction. Each of them should therefore become involved in the social
activity of construction of meaning and sense making, thereby facilitating the inner psychological
mechanisms in accordance with their own developmental laws (Vygotsky, 1962, p. 102). These can be
related to the complex processes of adequate tuning to the innovative space of the participants as “a
dynamic region of sensitivity in which cognitive functioning advances.” (Rogoff & Wertsch, 1984, p. 1;
9
cf. Brownell, 1989, p. 176), as a variety of internal processes of development. According to Vygotsky
“these processes are still possible for the child only in the sphere of interaction with surrounding people
and in the sphere of collaboration with peers. But these processes, which constitute the course of
internal development, then becomes the internal property of the child himself or herself.“ (Vygotsky,
1956, p. 450). The process of tuning through interaction may be described therefore as ‘interaction in
the zone, or better, space of processes of potential development’ (cf. Rogoff & Wertsch, 1984, p. 5;
italics inserted). If the tuning goes well, which may depend on the sensitivity of the complex inner
psychological systems, the influences may become stronger with increasing causal effects (the ß’s). It
should lead to a dynamic spiral of cognitive development as result of advancing cognitive functioning
through social interaction. Thus, the spiraling process may lead to higher levels of cognitive functioning
and development in the partners involved. This whole process should be fostered by the instructional
design of how to enter into reciprocal learning relationships (cf. Salomon & Perkins, 1998). Facilitation
of these interpersonal relations might be facilitative in initiating the inner psychological mechanisms
positively by their impelling force (cf. Vygotsky, 1994, p. 213).
Azmitia (1996) stated correctly that both outcomes and processes of this form of learning among peers
have to be considered. It is according to her, however, also known that “Effective peer collaborative
programs are surprisingly difficult to implement or reproduce in schools and universities” (Ibid., p.
147). She continues with “unless we can explain in detail how to create processes and outcomes, many
teachers will not be receptive to our proposals.“ (Ibid) The question now is how to introduce RL in
educational practice. This is not an easy step to be made, as history of educational reform has shown
(Tyack & Cuban, 1997). Different lines of thinking seem necessary here:
1. professional development of teachers (Hawley & Valli, 1999),
2. strengthening of the connection between teacher and student learning (Sykes, 1999), and
3. organizing schools for teacher learning (Little, 1999).
These lines of thinking should be integrated in one approach to be as effective as possible for the
learning of students as the ultimate goal. The challenge, now, is to develop a proper design for a teacher
program focused on the learning and development of teachers, in agreement with the statement of Joyce
& Showers (1995) that “all teachers can learn the most powerful and complex teaching strategies
provided that staff development is designed properly.” (see also Jörg, 2002) Firstly, by fostering the
design of adequate learning environments (LE’s), to be formulated as a program based on design
principles which promote the interactive learning among peers and its outcomes as a collaborative form
of learning, and secondly by the design of powerful LE’s, fostering RL as an interactive form of
collaborative learning. So, formulating a design theory for reciprocal learning in dyads among peers
(teachers) will be the first step, with RL of their students as the subject for study for the teachers
involved in the program.

Conclusion
The theory of RL is not just a theory about learning from a theoretical perspective but of understanding
learning as processes taking place in practice, in short a theory about a particular form of practice in the
field of education. The theory of RL can be regarded as a Vygotskian theory which has as its ambition to
be as much a theory of learning and development as well as a theory of education about a particular
form of educational practice (Bruner, 1962, 19972). Its goal is to offer a foundation for that practice, to
enable a better instructional organization of that practice. It takes an integrative perspective on the
processes of learning and development on the one side and the process of instruction on the other side,
rejecting the notion that they are incommensurate processes (Vygotsky, 1962, p. 116), but regarding
them as a unity, thereby bridging the gap between learning and instruction (Jörg, 2002; Boekaerts,
2002). It is the nature of the processes involved in that unity which is the central focus of the sketched
theory. However, instruction is not taken as usual but as the interaction between two partners in a
dyadic social relationship, a reciprocal relationship which is meant to be, or become, (more) steady in
the course of time. It is this dynamically developing relationship and its quality for both partners in
social interaction which is fundamental for the developing learning processes in time. It is the dialogical
interaction as a process of constructing meaning and sense making which functions as the impelling
force which, according to Vygotsky (1994), determines the start of any process or initiates the any
evolving mechanism of behavior and propels it forward along the path of further development.”
(Vygotsky, 1994, p. 213) That impelling force is not to be found inside but outside the partners involved
in interaction (Vygotsky, 1994, p. 213). It is the dynamics of these forces and their multiplication in the
10
course of time through a process of reciprocally influencing, to be regarded as a process of propelling
forward, which has been modeled above. Although Vygotsky himself was clear about his description of
the processes involved, he was not able, then, to give a full explanatory account of those processes and
their effects on the partners involved in interaction. He recognized very well the need for such an
account in his description of the ‘Problems of method’ in one of his main works (Vygotsky, 1978). The
premises of such an account of the processes taking place in interaction are, however, still lacking full
formulation (see John-Steiner & Souberman, 1978, p. 123). This corresponds strongly with the
statement of the Committee of the PPCCS (2001) that “an integrative theoretical account of ‘real’
cognition still seems a far cry.” (p. 29). The Committee openly admits that it is “too early for a
systematic approach of the cognitive domain as a whole.” (p. 30). There seems no clarity at all about
the choice of scientific paradigm as epistemological foundation of this field. Insufficient concern for that
foundation may have held up progress in the field (cf. Holzman, 1997, p. 47; Saljö & Wyndhamn, 1996,
p. 339). Related to this, it may be regarded as of significance that the Committee speaks about “the
‘scandal’ of reductionistic theories” (p. 29). But at the same time they seem to reject, although rather
implicitly, the Vygotskian perspective on cognitive functioning and social interaction and the role of
social relations. They seem to do so by putting an emphasis on the relevance of cognitive theories for a
(further) individualization of the educational system (p. 19). This makes the question urgent of how the
theory of RL can be positioned in this field of theories.
In short, this theory is an integrative account of learning and instruction in which instruction is focused
on the social interaction and the significance of the reciprocal relationship between the two partners
involved in that interaction and relationship. In modeling the processes the focus is on the processes and
mechanisms of change and transformation: both between and within the intra-personal processes.
Taking reciprocally influencing as the essential process of social interaction enables the causal modeling
of this process within a causal framework which has been developed in the social sciences in the second
half of the twentieth century. It is not a theory developed for practice but an explanatory theory about
practice, inspired by the success of forms of social learning in practice, explaining the effectiveness of
social learning in steady relationships. Theorizing on that success may be relevant for the organization
and enhancement of success of that same practice through the understanding of the general principles
and mechanisms of the psychological processes involved in that practice of different forms of social
learning.
The theory of RL, expressed quantitatively in its modeling as a theory of generative learning with
potential non-linear effects, diverges strongly from the main paradigm of learning in the field of
Learning and Instruction, with its implicit notion of learning with linear cumulative effects.
The theory of RL and its qualitative and quantitative causal modeling is strongly in accordance with the
view of Vygotsky (1978), in his emphasis on the processes and the causal dynamics involved in social
interaction, the intertwining of external and internal factors (p. 73). It addresses one of his main topics
that developmental psychology as a science should not only be descriptive but should be explanatory in
nature, which to him means causally explanatory, providing for the causal dynamic basis of the
processes to be studied (p. 62). It conforms to his notion of the potential of non-linear effects as well,
rejecting the notion of gradual accumulation of separate changes (p. 73). The theory and the modeling of
the processes involved such as the multiplication process through reciprocal influences as causal effects,
to be regarded as the impelling influences or forces which start and initiate the intra-personal processes
and initiate the mechanisms, the working of ‘the most complex inner psychological systems’
characteristic of these processes (Vygotsky, 1994, p. 155) refer to the inner mechanisms characteristic
of these processes which remain hidden (Vygotsky, 1994).
The aim of this contribution was to formulate an integrative account of reciprocal learning and their
effects in practice, i.e. the effectiveness of reciprocal learning as a special form of the general theory of
social learning. This is done by integrating qualitative and quantitative causal modeling explaining the
effectiveness of instruction for optimal interaction. It offers the possibility to sketch the fundamental
significance of the role of the educational processes of construction and of tuning in that process of
dialogical interaction within steady reciprocal relationships, i.e. for the processes of development in the
innovative space. It may be stated, now, that the tuning can be fostered by optimal interaction: through
optimal tuning the impelling forces of causal influencing, i.c. the ß’s, may increase in time. Under these
optimal conditions of tuning the whole complex process may lead to a process which is generative in
nature, to the concept of generative learning including causal multiplier effects with its potentially
unlimited total causal effects on one or both of the partners in the course of time. These effects
11
correspond to the reported effects in educational practice such as the Snowball Phenomenon (Anderson
et. al., 2001), the Matthew effect of Walberg & Tsai (1983) or the multiplier effects of Gartner et al.
(1971).
The process of social interaction within social relations can be described, now, as a process of co-
constructing the social context by the partners through which they are, in turn, influenced (Frank, 1998,
p. 196). This process may be viewed as an example of the general process of change and transformation
through social interaction within social relations as a dynamic unity, leaving the common notion of
process and product as a dichotomy behind. Consequently, the (Vygotskian) spiral of development for
one or both of the partners may increase simultaneously in the course of time to unexpected levels.
These levels of development as higher levels of mental functioning, brought forward by what Vygotsky
(1981) called ‘the conversion of social relations into mental functions’ (p. 165), are unlimited in the
same way as the sense of a word can be viewed as principally and practically unlimited (see Vygotsky,
1962, p. 146). This description conforms to the Vygotskian notion of development through revolution
and evolution as connected to one another: “Scientific observers3 consider revolution and evolution as
two mutually connected forms of development that presuppose one another. They see the sharp changes
in the child’s development that occur simultaneously with other, similar changes as the determining
point in the whole line of development.” (Vygotsky, 1981, p. 150) It is the dynamics of evolution and
revolution which seems responsible for the potential unlimited changes in the innovative space of the
participants through active social interaction within a reciprocal relationship. It seems precisely to be
these connected processes which Vygotsky described as the second type of processes which takes a
much larger place than the processes of growth and maturation. They arise “from actual collision of the
organism and the environment and from active adaptation to the environment.” (Ibid., p. 152)
Consequently, the whole complex of reciprocal learning can be described in terms of the reciprocal
dynamics of more or less connected processes through interaction within steady social relations.
It is the fostering and optimizing of the conditions for enhancing all of the processes involved and the
balancing of the whole which should be the focus of education and design of instruction. This does not
reduce the role of the individual, the significance of his agency in the whole process, especially the
building of the reciprocal relationship as a learningful relationship for each of the partners. It is also the
individual and the role of his agency which determines his development as the result of the constructive
process of shared meaning and (individual) sense making. For in the end, each of the individual partners
“coconstruct his own development .” (Brownell, 1989, p. 190; last italics added)
By overcoming the lack of recognition among educators of the significance of the social process in
social interaction within social relations for mental functioning as a complex, potentially generative
process with potentially non-linear effects, a Utopian view of learning and development in educational
practice may be developed (cf. Vygotsky, 1993, p. 218). A view which corresponds with the reported
significant results of various forms of social learning in practice.

12
1
The causal modeling above has its roots in the proposal of the SVO-project 6596, with its notion of causal self-reinforcing processes (Jörg & Wubbels, 1985;
Jörg, Man in ‘t Veld, Wubbels & Verweij, 1989) and the elaborated results of that SVO-project in the dissertation of Jörg (1994). The modeling is in agreement
with the causal modeling of the self-enhanced loop effect and the formulas for the total effects by Hayduk (1987).
2
In the foreword of Vygotsky’ s work ‘Thought and language’, and again in 1997, in the first part of the collective works of Vygotsky.
3
It seems of relevance here that Vygotsky mentions scientific observers, thereby referring to notions about practice instead of theoreticians building theories for
practice.

Acknowledgements: I would like to thank Gerhard Dalenoort and an anonymous reviewer for their critical but inspiring comments on
an earlier version of this contribution.

References

Anderson, R.C., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., McNurlen, B., Archodidou, A., So-young Kim,
Reznitskaya, Tillmans, M., & Gilbert, L. (2001), The Snowball Phenomenon: Spread of
ways of Talking and Ways of Thinking Across Groups of Children, Cognition and
Instruction 19,1-46.

Antil, L. R., Jenkins, J.R., Wayne, S.K., Vadasy, P. F. (1998), Cooperative learning: prevalence,
conceptualizations, and the relation between research and practice, American Educational Research
Journal 35, 419-454.

Azmitia, M. (1996), Peer interactive minds: developmental, theoretical, and methodological

Issues, In: P. Baltes & U.M. Staudinger (Eds.), Interactive minds. Life-span perspectives on the Social
Foundation of Cognition, Cambridge University Press,. Cambridge (MA).

Bandura, A. (1997) Self-efficacy. The exercise of control, Freeman and Company, New York.

Beach, K. (1999), Consequential transitions: A sociocultural expedition beyond transfer in education, in: Iran-
Nejad P.D. Pearson & A (Eds.), Review of Research in Education, 24, Published by the AERA,
Washington, DC, 101-139.

Boekaerts, M. (2002), Bringing about change in the classroom: strengths and weaknesses of the self-regulated
learning approach – EARLI Presidential address 2001, Learning and Instruction 12, 589-604.

Brownell, C.A. (1989), Socially-shared cognition: The role of social context in the construction of knowledge, in
L.T. Winegar (Ed), Social interaction and the development of children’s understanding, Ablex Publishing
Corporation, Norwood (NJ), 173-205.

Bruer (1993), in Wertsch, J. (1998), Mind in Action, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Bruner, J. (1962), Foreword, in: L. Vygotsky, Thought and Language, M.I.T. Press, Cambridge (MA).

Bruner, J. (1987), Foreword. In R.W. Rieber & A.S. Carton (Eds.), The collected works of
L.S. Vygotsky. Vol. 1, Plenum Press, New York.

Buunk, B.P. & Schaufeli, W.B. (1999), Reciprocity in Interpersonal Relationships: An Evolutionary
Perspective on Its Importance for Health and Well-being, in: W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone Eds.), European
Review of Social Psychology 10, 259-291.

Eco, U. (1984), Semiotics and the Philosophy of Language, The MacMillan Press, London.

Egan, K. (1982), On the Possibility of Theories of Educational Practice, Journal of

Curriculum Studies 14, 153-165.

Fogel, A. (1993), Developing through relationships, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press.
Frank, K.A (1998), Quantitative methods for studying social context in multilevels and through interpersonal
relations, in: P.D. Pearson & A. Iran-Nejad (Eds.), Review of Research in Education 23, Published by the
AERA, Washington, DC, 171-216.

Gartner, A., Kohl, M.C. & Riessman, F. (1971), Children teach children. Learning by teaching, Harper & Row,
Publishers, New York.

Gergen K. J. (1994), Realities and relationships.Soundings in social construction, Harvard University Press,
Cambridge (MA).

Gergen, K.J. (1999), An invitation to social construction, Sage Publications, London.

Hayduk, L.A. (1987), Structural equation modeling with LISREL: Essentials and advances,
John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.

Hawley, W.D. & Valli, L. (1999), The essentials of effective professional development,
in: L. Darling-Hammond, G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the Learning Profession. Handbook of
Policy and Practice, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, 127-150.

Hickey, D. T. & McCaslin, M. (2001), A Comparative, Sociocultural Analysis of Context

and Motivation, in: S. Volet (Ed.), Motivation in Learning Contexts: Theoretical
Advances and Methodological Implications, Elsevier Science Ltd, Amsterdam, 33-55.

Holzman, L. (1997), Schools for growth. Radical alternatives to current educational models, LEA Publ.,
Mahwah (NJ).

John-Steiner, V. & Souberman, E., Foreword, in: L. Vygotsky (1978), Mind in

Society, Harvard University Press, Cambridge (MA).

Jörg, T. & Wubbels, T. (1985), Oorzaken van de geringe populariteit van natuurkunde als
examenvak bij meisjes in het A.V.O., Onderzoeksvoorstel voor de SVO, Universiteit Utrecht,
Utrecht.

Jörg, T., Man in ’t Veld, M., Wubbels, Th. & Verweij, P. (1987), Oorzaken van de geringe
populariteit van het vak natuurkunde als examenvak bij meisjes in het MAVO en HAVO,
Eindverslag SVO-project 6596, Centrum voor Didaktiek van de Wiskunde en
Natuurwetenschappen van de Universiteit Utrecht te Utrecht en het Instituut voor
Onderzoek van het Onderwijs (SVO), Den Haag.

Jörg, T. (1994), De keuze van het vak Natuurkunde als examenvak en de wijze waarop die tot
stand komt bij leerlingen in het MAVO en HAVO, Proefschrift, Universiteit Utrecht, Utrecht.

Jörg, T. (2002). The use of complexity theories for building a theory of education. Just a metaphor or
more? Presentation of paper at the annual meeting of the AERA at New Orleans.

Jörg, T. (2002), Linking a complexity theory of generative learning with a complex pedagogy of education in
practice, proposal for the Special Interest Group ‘Chaos and Complexity Theories’, AERA 2003,
Chicago.
Joyce, B. & Showers, B. (1995), Student achievement through staff development. Fundamentals of school
renewal, (Second Ed.), Longman Publishers, White Plains.

Jöreskog, K.G. & Sörbom, D. (1993), LISREL8: A guide to the Program and Applications,
SPSS, Chicago.
Kozulin, (1998), Psychological tools. A sociocultural approach to education, Harvard
University Press, Cambridge (MA).

Kuhn, D., Shaw, V., & Velton, M. (1997), Effects of Dyadic Interaction on Argumentative
Reasoning, Cognition and Instruction 15, 287-315.

Little, J. W. (1999), Organizing Schools for Teacher Learning. L. Darling-Hammond, G.

Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the Learning Profession. Handbook of Policy and Practice, Jossey-Bass, San
Francisco, 233-262.

Magnusson, D. & Stattin, H. (1998), Person-context interaction theories, Reports from the Department
Psychology, Stockholm University, Sweden, 1-99. Appeared also in W. Damon (Ed.-in-Chief), Handbook
of Child Psychology (5th edition), John Wiley & Sons, New York.

Merton, R. K. (1968), The Matthew Effect in science, Science 159, 156-163.

Namboodiri, N.K., Carter, L.F. & Blalock Jr., H.M. (1975), Applied multivariate analysis and experimental
designs, McGraw-Hill, New York.

Piaget, J. (1954), The construction of reality in the child, Ballantine Books, New York.

PPCCS (2001), Fruits of Enlightenment. A Special Program for the Cognitive Sciences,
Report of the (Dutch) NWO Program Preparation Committee for the Cognitive Sciences,
Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO), The Hague.

Rogoff, B. & Wertsch, J. (1984), Editor’s Notes, in: B. Rogoff & J. Wertsch (Eds.), Childrens’s learning in the
“Zone of Proximal Development”, Jossey-Bass Inc., San Francisco, 1-6.

Saljö, R. & Wyndhamn, J. (1996), Solving everyday problems in the formal setting: An empirical study of the
school as context for thought, in: S. Chaiklin & J. Lave (Eds.), Understanding practice. Perspectives on
activity and context. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (MA), 327-342.

Salomon, G. & Perkins, D.N. (1998), Individual and social aspects of leaming, in: P.D. Pearson & A. Iran-Nejad
(Eds.), Review of Research in Education 23, Published by the AERA, Washington, DC, 1-24.

Selman & Demorest (1986), Putting thoughts and feelings into perspective: A developmental view on how children
deal with interpersonal disequilibrium, in: D.J. Bearison & H. Zimiles (Eds.), Thought and emotion.
Developmental perspectives, LAE, Hillsdale, 93-127.

Springer, L. Stanne, M.E. & Donovan, S.S. (1999), Effects of small-group learning on undergraduates in science,
Mathematics, engineering, and Technology: a meta-analysis, Review of Educational Research 69, 21-51.

Souza-Lima, E. (1995), Culture revisited : Vygotsky’s ideas in Brazil, Anthropology and Education Quarterly
26, 443-457.

Sykes, G. (1999), Teacher and student learning: Strengthening their connection, in:
L. Darling-Hammond, G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the Learning Profession. Handbook of
Policy and Practice, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, 151-179.

Thayer-Bacon, B.J. (2000,. Transforming Critical Thinking. Thinking constructively,

Teachers College Press, New York.

Tyack, D. & Cuban, L. (1995), Tinkering Toward Utopia. A Century of Public School Reform,
Harvard University Press, Cambridge (MA).
Valsiner, J. (1998), The Guided Mind, Harvard, Cambridge (MA).

Van den Bergh, J. & Fetchenauer, D. (juli 2001), Voorbij het Rationele: Evolutionaire
verklaringen van Gedrag en Sociaal-Economische Instituties, NWO, Den Haag.

Van der Veer, R. & Valsiner, J. (1994), See Vygotsky, L.S. (1994), The Vygotsky Reader.

Van Geert, P. (1991), A dynamic systems model of cognitive and language growth, Psychological Review 98, 3-
53.

Van Geert, P. (1994), Dynamic systems of development. Change between complexity and chaos, Prentice Hall
with Harvester Wheatsheaf, New York.

Van Geert, P. van (1998), A dynamic systems model of basic developmental mechanisms: Piaget, Vygotsky, and
beyond, Psychological Review 105, 634-677.

Van Lieshout, C.F.M. & Doise, W. (1998), Social Development, in A. Demetriou, W. Doise & C. van Lieshout
(Eds.), Life-span developmental psychology, Wiley, Chichester, 271-316.

Verschuren, P.J.M. (1989), Structurele modellen tussen theorie en praktijk, Het Spectrum, Utrecht.

Verschuren, P. & Jörg, T. (2002), Causal effects of Reciprocal Relationships in Structural Equation
Modeling, Structural Equation Modeling. A Multidisciplinary Journal (submitted).

Vološinov, V.N. (1930/1973), Marxism and the philosophy of language, Seminar Press, New York.

Vygotsky, L. (1956), Selected psychological investigations, Nauk SSSR, Moscow.

Vygotsky, L. (1962), Thought and Language, Harvard University Press, Cambridge (MA).

Vygotsky, L. (1978), Mind in Society, Harvard University Press, Cambridge (MA).

Vygotsky, L.S. (1981), The genesis of higher mental functions, in: J. Wertsch (Ed.), The concept of
activity in Soviet psychology, M.E. Sharpe Inc., New York, 144-188.

Vygotsky, L.S. (1987), in: R.W. Rieber & A.S. Carton (Eds.), The collected works of
L.S. Vygotsky. Vol. 1, Plenum Press, New York.

Vygotsky, L.S. (1994), The Vygotsky Reader, (Ed. by R. Van der Veer & J. Valsiner),
Blackwell, Oxford.
Walberg, H.J. & Tsai, S. (1983), Matthew Effects in Education, American Educational Research Journal 20,
359-373.