CRITICISMS OF THE VYGOTSKIAN APPROACH
Vygotskian Slogan: "The intermental constructs the intra-mental."
There are several criticisms to the Vygotsky approach. They are as follows:
2. Vygotsky’s socio-cultural theory disregards the role of the individual, but regards the collective. Vygotsky asserted that the mind is not considered separate from the group. That is, Vygotsky maintained that knowing is relative to the situation in which the knowers find themselves. In turn, the theory does not recognize that individuals can rise above social norms based on their ability to bring about personal understanding (Lui & Matthews, 2005, p. 392). Such individuals would include gifted students or child prodigies.
- The Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) is unclear in that it does not account for a precise picture of a child’s learning needs, a child’s present capability level, or a child’s motivational influences. The ZPD also does not explain the process of development or how development actually occurs (Chaiklin, 2003, pp. 42-46).
2. Vygotsky’s socio-cultural theory disregards the role of the individual, but regards the collective. Vygotsky asserted that the mind is not considered separate from the group. That is, Vygotsky maintained that knowing is relative to the situation in which the knowers find themselves. In turn, the theory does not recognize that individuals can rise above social norms based on their ability to bring about personal understanding (Lui & Matthews, 2005, p. 392). Such individuals would include gifted students or child prodigies.
3. Vygotsky’s socio-cultural theory does not seem to apply to all social and cultural groups. That is, social groups may not be whole and equal with all learners being able to gain the same meaning from engagement. However, collaboration and participation vary from one learner to another, hence the inequality for each learner. As well, there are differences in skill set for each learner, which produces learning constraints. Learners with learning disabilities or learning difficulties, for example, might not (be able to) take away the same meaning from group interactions as those learners without learning disabilities or learning difficulties (Lui & Matthews, 2005, p. 392).
4. Regarding the development of play, Vygotsky believed that the ability to adhere to rules is the key capacity for school preparedness, not the ability to imagine. However, engagement in play – that has implicit, internalized rules that can be negotiated among the players – requires a greater level of cognitive, social, and verbal functioning than following explicit, external, and immutable rules. Furthermore, the use of the imagination in make-believe play is at a greater cognitive level (involving more complex and deeper thinking over a longer period of time) than the imagination used during rule-based play such as games and sports. Overall, regarding the development of play, rules governed Vygotsky’s argument, whereas the role of the imagination did not (Saifer, 2010, p. 40).
4. Regarding the development of play, Vygotsky believed that the ability to adhere to rules is the key capacity for school preparedness, not the ability to imagine. However, engagement in play – that has implicit, internalized rules that can be negotiated among the players – requires a greater level of cognitive, social, and verbal functioning than following explicit, external, and immutable rules. Furthermore, the use of the imagination in make-believe play is at a greater cognitive level (involving more complex and deeper thinking over a longer period of time) than the imagination used during rule-based play such as games and sports. Overall, regarding the development of play, rules governed Vygotsky’s argument, whereas the role of the imagination did not (Saifer, 2010, p. 40).
Activity: Discussion Forum
Please share your thoughts about the criticisms of the Vygotskian approach in the discussion forum.
Please share your thoughts about the criticisms of the Vygotskian approach in the discussion forum.
To join in the discussion forum, please click on the button.
References
Chaiklin, S. (2003). The zone of proximal development in Vygotsky’s theory of learning and school instruction. 39-64. Retrieved from http://www.cles.mlc.edu.tw/~cerntcu/099-curriculum/Edu_Psy/Chaiklin_2003.pdf
Lui, C.H. & Matthews, R. (2005). Vygotsky’s philosophy: Constructivism and its criticisms examined. International Educational Journal, 6(3), 386-399. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ854992.pdf
Saifer S. (2010). Higher Order Play and Its Role in Development and Education. Psychological Science and Education. Retrieved from http://psyjournals.ru/files/31248/psyedu_2010_n3_Saifer.pdf
Chaiklin, S. (2003). The zone of proximal development in Vygotsky’s theory of learning and school instruction. 39-64. Retrieved from http://www.cles.mlc.edu.tw/~cerntcu/099-curriculum/Edu_Psy/Chaiklin_2003.pdf
Lui, C.H. & Matthews, R. (2005). Vygotsky’s philosophy: Constructivism and its criticisms examined. International Educational Journal, 6(3), 386-399. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ854992.pdf
Saifer S. (2010). Higher Order Play and Its Role in Development and Education. Psychological Science and Education. Retrieved from http://psyjournals.ru/files/31248/psyedu_2010_n3_Saifer.pdf