SCE (WILEJ) RIGHT BATCH

ISSUES AND
TRENDS
Stephen Norris, Section Editor

Learning Science in a First Grade

Science Activity: A Vygotskian
Perspective

DANIEL P. SHEPARDSON
School Mathematics and Science Center, Department of Curriculum and Instruction,
Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907-1442, USA

Received 1 November 1996; revised 18 May 1998; accepted 18 August 1998

ABSTRACT: The objectives of this article are to: (a) synthesize the key aspects of Vy-
gotsky’s sociocultural theory of learning; and (b) interpret classroom vignettes and child
interviews from a first-grade science activity in light of Vygotsky’s theory. The key aspects
of Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory explored in terms of the teaching–learning process are:
the social interactional nature of learning; the role of psychological and technical tools,
the role of social interactions in mediating children’s thought; and the interplay between
everyday and scientific concepts. 䉷 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Sci Ed 83:621– 638, 1999.

INTRODUCTION
The objectives of this article are to: (a) synthesize Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory of
learning; and (b) interpret classroom vignettes and child interviews from a first grade
science activity in light of Vygotsky’s theory. The outcomes elucidate how Vygotsky’s
theoretical perspective may inform us about how children learn science, as well as explicate
pedagogical issues. Despite the pedagogical emphasis of Vygotsky’s theory, little has been
written that addresses the specific application of his ideas to classrooms (Moll, 1990).
Thus, there is a need to utilize Vygotsky’s theory as a lens for looking at and investigating
how education practices constrain or facilitate children’s thinking and science learning.
Vygotsky’s theory does provide a perspective on teaching and learning that may assist in
developing an understanding of classroom instruction and schooling (Confrey, 1995).
Hence, Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory does provide one framework for interpreting the

Correspondence to: D. P. Shepardson; e-mail: dshep@purdue.edu

short
䉷 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. CCC 0036-8326/99/050621-18 standard
long
SCE (WILEJ) LEFT BATCH

Top of RH
622 SHEPARDSON Base of RH

Top of test
classroom vignettes and child interviews presented; different theoretical frameworks would Base of text
result in different interpretations, leading to different implications for science teaching –
learning. Further, Vygotsky’s theory brings with it a specialized language for looking at
and explaining classrooms; a language for seeing, talking, and thinking about children’s
science activity and learning in classrooms.
Although this article in its limited space cannot do justice to Vygotsky’s lifelong work,
it does provide a view of the key elements of his theory. The aspects of Vygotsky’s
sociocultural theory explored in terms of the teaching – learning process are: the social
interactional nature of learning; the role of psychological and technical tools, the role of
social interactions in mediating children’s thought; and the interplay between everyday
and scientific concepts. Although presented as individual topics, they are interrelated in
that they contribute to the development of the whole of children’s higher mental functions.
This work extends Howe’s (1996) discussion of Vygotsky that primarily addressed concept
development. Further, this article takes a more detailed stance at examining children’s
science learning from a Vygotskian perspective by drawing on classroom examples of
children’s science activity.

BACKGROUND
Although much has been written about Vygotsky’s theory (e.g., Moll, 1990; Wertsch,
1985a, 1985b, 1991), the direct application of his theory to science education is rather
limited. The work reported here is intended to provide the reader with a brief overview or
introduction to the ways in which Vygotsky’s ideas have been applied to educational
practice and research in other disciplines.
For Moll (1990), the key elements of Vygotsky’s theory are: (1) social activity and
cultural practice as a source of thinking; (2) mediation in human psychological functioning;
(3) that pedagogy is central to development; and (4) the inseparability of the individual
from the social. These elements applied to educational practice are central to Vygotsky’s
zone of proximal development, and articulate that teaching and learning rest in socially
created settings. The emphasis is not on the transference of skills, words, or knowledge,
but on the collaborative use of mediational means, wherein teachers and children engage
in exploratory talk and activity that assist them in the appropriation of skills, words, and
knowledge as tools for reorganizing and understanding their experiences (Moll, 1990).
Thus, children are engaged in collaborative activity within a specific social (discourse)
environment, an environment that is mutually and actively created by the teacher and
children (Moll & Whitmore, 1993).
Children learn through social relationships facilitated by teachers, wherein teachers me-
diate the process by the manner they engage students and by the contexts that they create
for children to apply their new ways of knowing (Moll & Whitmore, 1993). According to
Moll and Whitmore (1993), teachers mediate children’s learning through roles that they
enact within the context of the activity: facilitator; guide and supporter; active participant;
and evaluator. The goal of mediated assistance is to make children aware of how they are
manipulating materials and ideas and applying knowledge. The aim of teacher – child in-
teractions is to facilitate the internalization of physical and cognitive tools by the child
(Wertsch & Stone, 1985).
Minick, Stone, and Forman (1993) view Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory as consisting
of four key components. First, social interactions exist in an institutional context that
structures and shapes the social interactions that occur among members of the institution. short
In turn, the language used reflects the speech register appropriate to the social institution standard
and the particular social practice within that institution. Thus, the thematic content, lexical long
SCE (WILEJ) RIGHT BATCH

Top of RH
VYGOTSKIAN PERSPECTIVE 623 Base of RH

Top of text
and syntactic style, and conceptual structure of one’s speech are all influenced by the social Base of text
and psychological activity of the particular institution or community (Bakhtin, 1986).
Third, the interpersonal relationships between individuals within a shared activity in a
particular institutional context determine the educational significance of the interactions.
These interpersonal relationships are influenced in part by the socially accepted expecta-
tions and obligations of the participants. Last, that mind in a sociocultural context must
view thinking as existing in a system of motives, goals, values, and beliefs that are tied to
specific forms of social practice. Thus, for Minick et al. the institutional context is central
to shaping the teaching – learning environment.
Extending Vygotsky’s theory, Cobb, Wood, and Yackel (1993) emphasized the rela-
tionship between social norms and individual beliefs in the teaching – learning of mathe-
matics. On this view, social norms support the mathematical practice of the community,
while individual beliefs influence one’s mathematical knowledge. One’s mathematical
knowledge in turn influences one’s perspective and expectations of the community’s math-
ematical practice. On one hand teachers attempt to negotiate mathematical meaning with
children when they engage in interactions that focus on “talking about and doing mathe-
matics” (p. 99); on the other hand, teachers negotiate social norms with children by en-
gaging in interactions that emphasize “talking about talking about mathematics” (p. 99),
which reflected the elicitation – reply – evaluation pattern (Mehan, 1979). These teacher –
child interactions are not mutually exclusive, but are “reflexive”; that is, the “topics dis-
cussed when talking about talking about mathematics emerged when the teacher and child
did and talked about mathematics” (Cobb et al., 1993, p. 99). Thus, the social norms of
the classroom constrain children’s mathematical actions and constructions.
Forman and McPhail (1993) add to this social norms perspective the view that cognitive
growth is constrained by children’s opportunities to set their own goals and organize their
own activity to accomplish their goals. Forman and McPhail view the success of peer
collaboration as hinging on the negotiation or renegotiation of children’s attitudes, inter-
ests, and goals. Along with such social processes comes the situation-specific use of lan-
guage relating verbal means to a social context (Hymes, 1974); that is, the lexical and
grammatical choices as well as meanings appropriate to scientific work in a scientific
setting (Halliday, 1975). Forman and McPhail stress that successful peer collaboration
requires children to develop a shared means of communication using the speech registers
supplied by the practice of the speech community. Forman and McPhail believe that
schooling does provide children with access to different speech registers; however, school-
ing does not provide sufficient opportunity to practice such registers. Thus, for Forman
and McPhail, instruction must provide children the opportunity to use speech registers as
tools for collaboratively solving shared problems in ways that do not falsely mimic or
contradict real-world uses of language.
Wertsch and Toma’s (1995) work is foregrounded in a sociocultural situatedness in
which human action is mediated both on the social and individual planes by tools and
signs. For Wertsch and Toma, children’s intrapsychological functioning must be consid-
ered in the context of adult – child interactions in a particular instructional situation.
Wertsch and Toma note Vygotsky’s point that adult – child interactions in a school setting
differ from adult – child interactions in other situations. A Bakhtinian view of this would
attribute such a difference to the necessity to use different speech genres in each situation
(Bakhtin, 1986), complementing Wertsch and Toma’s Vygotskian view. Similarly, child –
child interactions in school settings differ from child – child interactions in other situations,
just as adult – child and child – child interactions may differ by the instructional context
within school settings. short
From another perspective, Rogoff’s work (e.g., Rogoff, 1990) draws from Vygotsky an standard
emphasis on children’s cognitive development as an apprenticeship. Rogoff (1990) views long
SCE (WILEJ) LEFT BATCH

Top of RH
624 SHEPARDSON Base of RH

Top of test
children’s cognitive development as occurring through guided participation in socially Base of text
situated activity where adults (more knowledgeable family members) extend children’s
understandings through the use of cultural tools that support children’s development and
thinking. Cultural tools, for Rogoff, consist of the technologies used to solve problems,
the skills and procedures for using the technologies, and the language used for thinking,
organizing reality, and structuring activity. Further, the use of cultural tools is shaped by
the goals and values established by the community. Cultural tools are appropriated by
children through child – adult interactions that guide, direct, and challenge children’s un-
derstandings, activities, and thinking. Rogoff argues that guided participation is essential
to children’s development and learning, as it supports children’s appropriation of shared
thinking for their own use in solving problems.

METHOD
Although this article is not written as a formal research piece, it draws examples from
a prior classroom investigation (e.g., Shepardson, 1997). The classroom vignettes and child
interviews presented are drawn from a first grade classroom where children, working in
small groups of four, were investigating beetle and butterfly metamorphosis. The teacher,
through her everyday grouping practice, established the small groups. The children had
no prior formal school experiences with beetle or butterfly life cycles, or other insects. In
the initial study, 8 children (Jack, Steve, Erin, Laura, Sally, Jill, Peter, and Mike) served
as key informants for the 24 children who comprised the two first grade classrooms. It is
from these eight children’s classroom activity and interviews that I have selected examples
of science learning to be explained in light of Vygotsky’s theory.

Data Collection and Analysis

The classroom vignettes and child interviews within this article were derived from data
collection techniques involving pre- and postinstruction child interviews, children’s journal
entries, informal conversational interviews concerning children’s journal entries, class-
room observations recorded as field notes, and videotaped recordings of children’s activity.
The two small groups were videotaped each of the 15 days of instruction. Because the
purpose of this article is to introduce Vygotsky’s theory and to utilize it as lens for looking
at and explaining science learning, these data sources were analyzed for examples that
illustrated how the essential elements of Vygotsky’s theory explained children’s science
learning.

Instructional Context
The description of the instruction that follows is intended to provide a context for
understanding the classroom vignettes and child interviews interpreted in light of Vygot-
sky’s theoretical framework. The butterfly and beetle life cycle unit was based upon the
teacher’s understanding of the Generative Learning Model (GLM) (Osborne & Freyberg,
1985). The GLM consists of four instructional phases: preliminary; focus; challenge; and
application.
The preliminary phase revolved around the children’s individual journal writing and
drawing in response to the teacher’s questions, “How do you think the caterpillars will
change over time” and “How do you think the mealworms will change over time.” This
activity was intended to identify children’s ideas and understandings about butterfly and short
beetle life cycles, as well as engage children in learning about insect life cycles. standard
long
SCE (WILEJ) RIGHT BATCH

Top of RH
VYGOTSKIAN PERSPECTIVE 625 Base of RH

Top of text
The focus phase involved children in small groups making observations of caterpillars Base of text
and mealworms and recording these observations in their journals. The teacher also intro-
duced scientific terminology, linked to the children’s experience with the phenomena,
when appropriate. The focus phase was designed to provide children experience with
butterfly and beetle life cycles. Each small group received a container of caterpillars, a
container of mealworms, and a handlens. The children were grouped with desks facing
each other forming a square, to foster social interactions and collaboration.
During the challenge phase, the teacher conducted a whole-class discussion with the
purpose of providing children an opportunity to share their observations and understand-
ings about butterfly and beetle life cycles. Further, the teacher viewed the whole-class
activity as a means to introduce/reintroduce scientific terminology. The teacher told the
children that: (a) caterpillars and mealworms come from eggs laid by adult butterflies and
beetles; (b) mealworms and caterpillars are larva, the “new born” stage of growth; (c) the
pupa is the resting stage; and (d) butterflies and beetles are the adult stages of growth. The
teacher also differentiated between cocoon and chrysalis.
The children’s completion and discussion of the insect life cycle diagram and insect
field trip comprised the application phase activities. Prior to the completion of the unit the
children participated in a hike, in the field and woods near the school, to look for insects
in their various stages of development. The last day of the unit consisted of a teacher-led,
whole-class discussion of the children’s life cycle diagrams, wherein the children shared
their completed diagrams and responded to the teacher’s questions about butterfly and
beetle life cycles.

DISCUSSION OF VYGOTSKY’S SOCIOCULTURAL THEORY AND

INTERPRETATION OF CLASSROOM VIGNETTES AND CHILD
INTERVIEWS
The aspects of Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory explored here in terms of the teaching –
learning process are: the social interactional nature of learning; the role of psychological
and technical tools; the role of social interactions in mediating children’s thought; and the
interplay between everyday and scientific concepts. For each section I first discuss Vy-
gotsky’s theoretical perspective followed by the presentation of classroom vignettes and/
or child interviews interpreted in light of Vygotsky’s theoretical framework.

The Social Interactional Nature of Learning

For Vygotsky, children’s understandings of natural or scientific phenomena exist in a
social interactional way with language mediating both children’s social and individual
psychological functioning; that is, the way children see, talk, act, think, and know. Sci-
entific concepts, then, do not exist in nature, but in social and individual psychological
activity. Therefore, scientific knowledge and activity occur on two planes: first social, then
psychological; interpsychological, then intrapsychological:

Any function in the child’s cultural development appears twice, or on two planes. First it
appears on the social plane, and then on the psychological plane. First it appears between
people as an interpsychological category, and then within the child as an intrapsychological
category. (Vygotsky, 1981, p. 163)

The formation of the intrapsychological plane, however, is not a copying of the external, short
social plane on to an internal psychological structure, but the formation or restructuring standard
long
SCE (WILEJ) LEFT BATCH

Top of RH
626 SHEPARDSON Base of RH

Top of test
Base of text

Figure 1. Peter’s Preinstruction caterpillar drawing.

of the intrapsychological plane (Vygotsky, 1981). Vygotsky viewed the social interactional
nature of learning to involve: (1) the formation of the internal, intrapsychological plane
through interpsychological activity; (2) an external reality that exists only in a social in-
teractional context; (3) the use of external signs, primarily words, as the mechanism for
the formation of the intrapsychological plane; and (4) the “quasi-social” nature of the
intrapsychological plane, that is, the intrapsychological plane is not a copy of the interp-
sychological plane (Wertsch, 1985b).
To learn science children must engage in social activity, participate in scientific dis-
course that leads to the formation or restructuring of the intrapsychological plane. Scientific
concepts come into existence first between the teacher (more knowledgeable individual)
and the child through social activity, then the child internalizes them as individual activity.
Through interpsychological activity children appropriate a framework or lens for seeing,
talking, acting, and thinking about scientific concepts and phenomena. Language (speech)
becomes a psychological tool for seeing, talking, acting, and thinking:

Initially speech follows actions, is provoked by and dominated by activity. At a later stage,
however, when speech is moved to the starting point of activity, a new relation between
word and action emerges. Now speech guides, determines, and dominates the course of
action . . . (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 28)

Classroom Vignette and Child Interview. This preinstructional interview with Peter
illustrates the social interactional nature of learning, the role of social activity and language
in the mediation of children’s science understandings:

I: Tell me about your caterpillar drawing (Fig. 1).

P: This is what I think it’s gonna turn out to look like. They are caterpillars and this is
what I think they’re gonna look like when, they’re done changing out of their cocoon.
I: What do you mean by cocoon?
P: It’s kinda like an egg, it’s like stuff, silk wrapped around them. They go in it, see when
they’re caterpillars, when they come out they’re butterfly.
I: How do you know that a caterpillar turns into a cocoon and then into a butterfly?
P: I’ve got two at home that changing right now. short
I: Have they changed into butterflies at this time? standard
long
SCE (WILEJ) RIGHT BATCH

Top of RH
VYGOTSKIAN PERSPECTIVE 627 Base of RH

Top of text
P: No. They’re in their cocoons. Base of text
I: Then how do you know they will change into butterflies?
P: My dad. They told me that they change into butterflies and moths. My dad knows a lot
more than I do about them so he told me.
I: Where do you think caterpillars come from?
P: [Pause.] Don’t know. Maybe baby caterpillars?
I: Qkay. Can you tell me about your mealworm drawing (Fig. 2)?
P: Well, um, I am not sure. I think they’re just gonna get bigger.
I: Will they look the same or different?
P: They will look the same, but they’re gonna be old.
I: Have you ever seen a mealworm before?
P: No. They look like worms.

Peter’s preinstructional interview illustrates how his prior social interactions with his
father provided an intrapsychological plane or lens for seeing and talking about butterfly
life cycles. Peter’s dad supported and extended Peter’s understanding through the use of
cultural tools (Rogoff, 1990), the psychological tools of caterpillars, cocoons, and butter-
flies. The interview also illustrates how words provided Peter with a framework for acting,
drawing his butterfly life cycle diagram (see Fig. 1), as well as for describing the cater-
pillars in his drawing as “. . . changing out of their cocoon” into butterflies. The social
interactions between Peter and his dad supported Peter’s appropriation of the cultural tools
as a shared way of thinking for Peter’s use of acting (drawing) and talking (Rogoff, 1990).
Caterpillars, cocoons, and butterflies first appeared on the interpsychological plane between
Peter and his father (as Peter states, “My dad. They told me that they change into butterflies
and moths.”) than appear on the intrapsychological plane as a lens for seeing, acting, and
talking about butterfly life cycles. Caterpillars, cocoons, and butterflies exist only in a
social interactional way, first between Peter and his father and then for Peter, and later
between Peter and the interviewer. Language (speech) functioned as a psychological tool
to mediate Peter’s social and individual psychological functioning, differentiating between
the phenomena, specifically the stages of metamorphosis: caterpillars; cocoons; butterflies.
The signs (caterpillars, cocoons, and butterflies) functioned as the mechanism by which
Peter constructed an understanding of butterfly life cycles.
The importance of social interactions in the formation of the intrapsychological plane
is further illustrated by Peter’s description of mealworm growth and development. Peter’s
intrapsychological structure for understanding mealworms is constrained by the lack of
external, interpsychological activity that forms the intrapsychological structure for seeing,

short
Figure 2. Peter’s Preinstruction mealworm drawing. standard
long
SCE (WILEJ) LEFT BATCH

Top of RH
628 SHEPARDSON Base of RH

Top of test
Base of text

Figure 3. Erin’s journal drawing of the caterpillars.

talking, acting, and knowing about beetle life cycles. Therefore, for Peter, beetle life cycles
do not exist in natural phenomena, in his case only “worms” exist. In order for Peter to
construct an understanding of beetle life cycles he must participate in social activity that
provides him with the psychological tools (larva, pupa, beetle) necessary for seeing, talk-
ing, and knowing the phenomena at hand.
The social interactional process is also evident in children’s journal entries. Children
did not initially use scientific words to label or talk about their butterfly journal drawings;
instead the children used words they were the most familiar with, everyday words like
“cocoon and caterpillar,” as a way of seeing, acting, and talking about butterfly life cycles.
Erin, for example, drew a picture labeled “Whet he looks like now.” She described her
picture as “. . . it’s a hairy caterpillar . . . has lots of legs. It will be a butterfly someday”
(Fig. 3). When asked to explain her drawing, Erin said, “. . . the caterpillars are in the
cocoons. . . . When they come out they be butterflies.”
Erin’s journal entries illustrate how her prior social interactions (interpsychological ac-
tivity) provided an intrapsychological plane or lens for seeing, drawing, and talking about
butterfly life cycles. Language (caterpillars, cocoons, and butterflies) functioned as a psy-
chological tool to mediate Erin’s intrapsychological plane, her ability to differentiating
between the phenomena, specifically the stages of metamorphosis. Further, Erin’s speech
(both written and oral) appeared to follow her actions (drawing in journal) and were
provoked by the activity (Vygotsky, 1978). That is, Erin first drew her caterpillar picture
and then labeled her picture, “Whet he looks like now,” and later described her picture as
“. . . it’s a hairy caterpillar . . . has lots of legs. It will be a butterfly someday.” Thus,
language (speech) mediated her thinking, and functioned as a tool for expressing her
thinking about the phenomena at hand.

Interplay between Psychological and Technical Tools

The formation of the child’s intrapsychological plane is mediated by what Vygotsky
(1986) referred to as “tools.” For Vygotsky, tools consisted of psychological tools and
technical tools. Psychological tools (signs) change nothing in the phenomenon, they are
an internal activity that influences behavior, either another’s or one’s own, and so they are
sociocultural products and therefore do not exist in the phenomenon. Psychological tools
are neither invented nor discovered by individuals independent of social interactions; they
are “appropriated.” Individuals gain access to psychological tools by being a part of a
sociocultural milieu. Psychological tools at first help children “. . . shape an activity into
a structure. However, that structure may be changed or reshaped when children learn to
use language [psychological tools] in ways that allow them to go beyond previous expe-
riences when planning future action” (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 28). Vygotsky (1986), then, short
viewed language, words, as the psychological tools for thought; however: standard
long
SCE (WILEJ) RIGHT BATCH

Top of RH
VYGOTSKIAN PERSPECTIVE 629 Base of RH

Top of text
. . . thought does not express itself in words, but rather realizes itself in Base of text
them . . . thought is mediated by signs externally, but it also is mediated internally, this
time by word meanings . . . Thought must first pass through meanings and only then
through words (pp. 251– 252).

Thus, psychological tools provide children with a lens, a way of seeing phenomena, as
well as a way for talking, acting, and thinking about phenomena. In order for children to
learn science, then, they must appropriate psychological tools as a way of: (1) seeing
phenomena; (2) talking about phenomena (engage in scientific discourse); (3) guiding and
structuring activity; and (4) thinking about phenomena.
Technical tools are phenomena oriented; they stimulate change in the phenomena and
are a means for physically acting on phenomena, completing a task. Technical tools provide
individuals access to different perspectives of the phenomena by enabling different phys-
ical characteristics to be observed or change the appearance of the phenomena, what is
observed. Technical tools enable children to learn science by changing, extending, or
enhancing their observations of phenomena; enabling children to see phenomena from a
different perspective or point of reference.
Although Vygotsky (1986) does not clearly articulate the importance of the interplay
between psychological tools and technical tools in the formation of the intrapsychological
plane, the interplay is a strong force in mediating children’s science learning. While tech-
nical tools provide children access to phenomena from different perspectives, it is only
through psychological tools that children come to see the phenomena from the different
perspectives. In science learning, technical tools such as microscopes, thermometers, and
handlenses (to name a few) provide children access to phenomena from different perspec-
tives, however, it is only through the psychological tools that children come to see the
phenomena differently. Learning involves shifting perspectives, learning to see the situa-
tion from a different point of reference; psychological tools that are appropriated through
social interactions provide the access to a new frame of reference (Rogoff, 1990).

Classroom Vignettes. The vignette surrounding Steve’s journal entry and talk illustrates
Vygotsky’s view that psychological tools, words, mediate children’s mental activity. Steve
drew a picture of four mealworms and labeled his drawing “they Are worms” (Fig. 4).
When Steve was asked why he thought they were worms he replied, “They look like
worms . . . have lines [segments] on body . . . move like worms.” For Steve, the beetle
larva (mealworms) appeared similar to earthworms in body shape and movement; therefore
mealworms must be worms. The psychological tool, “worm,” provided Steve with a means
for shaping the activity (observing and drawing mealworms) into a structure, a way of
seeing, talking, acting, and thinking about mealworms. The sign, “worm,” was tied directly

short
Figure 4. Steve’s journal drawing of the mealworms. standard
long
SCE (WILEJ) LEFT BATCH

Top of RH
630 SHEPARDSON Base of RH

Top of test
to the physical appearance of the mealworms. Specifically, Steve’s thinking was mediated Base of text
by his meaning of the word “worm,” that for him involved “. . . hav[ing] lines [segments]
on body [and] mov[ing] like worms.” Thus, Steve’s thought about mealworms existed in
the word “worm;” however, his thought had to first be communicated through his meaning
of the word “worm.” Others (including the researcher) could only know Steve’s thought
about mealworms by knowing his meaning of the word “worm.” Steve’s thought about
mealworms is both expressed and realized in the word “worm,” a psychological tool. To
understand Steve’s actions, drawing and labeling, one has to understand the psychological
tools that mediated his action (Wertsch & Toma, 1995).
The interplay between psychological and technical tools in learning is illustrated in the
following example. The technical tool, the handlens, provided Steve (S), Erin (E), and
Jack (J) with access to a different perspective of caterpillars, to observe the physical
appearance of the caterpillars in a different way. The psychological tool, the word “spines,”
provided them with a different way of seeing caterpillars:

S: [Looking at caterpillars through the handlens.] Wow! Look at the spines.

E: [Erin’s head pops up from the journal.] Can I see. Let me look.
J: Let me look. [S passes caterpillars and handlens to E and draws caterpillar picture in
journal.]
E: [Erin, looking at caterpillar.] . . . These are spines?

This sequence illustrates how the handlens, the technological tool, provided a different
perspective of the caterpillar, while “spines” functioned as the psychological tool for seeing
the caterpillar. The notion that caterpillars have “spines” did not exist until Steve used the
handlens to examine the caterpillars in more detail, and then used the word “spines” to
describe the caterpillars. This is most obvious with Erin, who initially viewed caterpillars
as being “hairy” and who now ponders if caterpillars have “spines.” In essence, psycho-
logical tools provide the ways of knowing, and technical tools provide the how of knowing.
The interaction between psychological and technical tools shape or mediate the formation
of the intrapsychological plane. Building on Wertsch and Toma (1995), the unique inter-
action between Steve and Erin, within the instructional context of observing caterpillars,
shaped their actions, as well as their interpsychological and intrapsychological functioning.
Thus, the phenomena and materials of an activity, and the social interactions that take
place within an activity establish boundaries for the meanings children construct about the
phenomena at hand.

Verbal Interactions as Mediated Activity

Speech first functions to establish a point of reference between teacher and child; then
social speech becomes the means by which teachers mediate children’s thinking and
through which children appropriate psychological tools, or words to represent thought.
Children internalize social speech as a means to mediate their own psychological func-
tioning, as well as the actions and psychological activity of others. “A sign is always
originally a means used for social purposes, a means of influencing others and only later
becomes a means of influencing oneself” (Vygotsky, 1981 p. 157):

[T]he word intrudes into the child’s perception, singling out separate elements overcoming
the natural structure of the sensory field and, as it were, forming new (artificially introduced short
and mobile) structural centers. Speech does not merely accompany the child’s perception, standard
long
SCE (WILEJ) RIGHT BATCH

Top of RH
VYGOTSKIAN PERSPECTIVE 631 Base of RH

Top of text
from the very first it begins to take an active part in it: the child begins to perceive the Base of text
world not only through its eyes, but also through its speech . . . (Vygotsky & Luria,
1994, p. 125)

Vygotsky (1986) viewed social speech as the interpsychological means by which teach-
ers mediate children’s mental operations, as well as the formation or reformation of the
child’s intrapsychological structure. Verbal interactions that mediate children’s activity do
not simply facilitate activity, but shape and define it (Wertsch, 1990) and function as
psychological tools for which children see, act, talk, and think about scientific phenomena.
Children mediate their own actions and psychological activity through words or other
signs, first as egocentric speech then as inner speech:

. . . egocentric speech is similar to that of inner speech: It does not merely accompany
the child’s activity; it serves mental orientation, conscious understanding; it helps in over-
coming difficulties; it is speech for oneself, intimately and usefully connected with the
child’s thinking. . . . [E]gocentric speech represents a transition from speech for others
to speech for oneself. It already has the function of inner speech, but remains similar to
social speech in its expression” (Vygotsky, 1986, pp. 228 and 235).

When children encounter new, unfamiliar situations, egocentric speech is often similar
to social speech in that it is communicative (Wertsch & Stone, 1985). It is through social
speech and social activity that children appropriate the psychological tools for thought,
speech for thinking (inner speech) is dependent upon verbal interactions with others, teach-
ers and peers:

[T]he emergence of inner speech is based on external speech. Originally, for a child, speech
represents a means of communication between people, it manifests itself as a social func-
tion, in its social role. But gradually a child learns how to use speech to serve himself, his
internal processes. Now speech becomes not just a means of communication with other
people, but also a means for the child’s own inner thinking processes (Vygotsky, 1994, p.
353)

To learn science children must be engaged in verbal interactions with a more knowl-
edgeable individual, wherein the psychological tools (words) mediate the formation of the
child’s intrapsychological structure: first as a way of seeing and acting, then as a way of
talking and thinking about scientific phenomena. Although the social environment is an
important determinant in the formation of the intrapsychological plane, this does not mean
that the physical environment does not contribute to its formation and functioning (Wertsch
& Stone, 1985).

Classroom Vignette. The following interaction sequence between the teacher and Steve
illustrates Vygotsky’s view on verbal interactions as mediated activity and how speech
(words) mediated children’s psychological activity, shaping the way by which children
came to know butterfly and beetle life cycles:

T: So, where do you think the beetles come from?

S: [Pause] I don’t know . . . they got in. . . . These are beetles? [The children initially
thought that “bugs” had gotten into their mealworm containers.] short
T: Do you notice any difference in your mealworms? standard
long
SCE (WILEJ) LEFT BATCH

Top of RH
632 SHEPARDSON Base of RH

Top of test
S: [Looks at mealworms.] Some are mealworms, some look dead, and some are beetles. Base of text
T: How many of each do you have? Can you count them?
S: Two mealworms, four dead, and four beetles.
T: How many mealworms did you start with? Whats your journal say?
S: [Looks through journal.] 10.
T: So. If you started with 10 mealworms, and you still have 10 left, where did the beetles
come form?
S: [Long pause.] Oh! Um, from the mealworms. They came from the mealworms!
T: Yes. Good. How do you know that? What have you observed, seen how your meal-
worms have changed?
S: . . . they can’t come from dead ones . . . has to be the ones that move . . . when
you’re dead you’re dead.
T: Okay, but what happened to the mealworms?
S: Some dead, some turned into beetles.
T: The dead mealworms aren’t really dead. They are just resting. It’s a pupa. So, what do
you think the beetles came from?
S: [Long pause.] . . . From, from the pupa things [stated more as a question]. It’s just
resting? . . . its not dead!

The discourse sequence depicts how Steve’s way of seeing and talking about mealworms
(beetle life cycles) begins to change and takes shape, as the words “beetle” and “pupa”
are used in the teacher’s social speech as a means to describe the phenomena and mediate
Steve’s psychological activity. The discourse sequence also illustrates how the teacher and
Steve’s speech manifests itself in a social function, through their social roles: the teacher
as questioner and Steve as responder. The teacher’s speech, “So, where do you think the
beetles come from?” functioned in a communicative manner, providing Steve with a point
of reference for entering and participating in the verbal interaction. Steve’s response,
“. . . These are beetles?” reflects egocentric speech in that it serves to orient his psycho-
logical activity, as well as to overcome the discrepancy in his thinking about bugs and
beetles.
As the discourse sequence continues, the teacher’s speech focuses Steve’s attention on
features of the phenomena and their analysis: “Do you notice any difference in your
mealworms? How many of each do you have?” The teacher’s speech mediates Steve’s
actions, however, Steve’s verbal responses are essentially social replies to the teacher’s
questions, versus speech for thinking about mealworms. On the other hand, the teacher’s
social speech “. . . where did the beetles come from?” mediated Steve’s psychological
activity, as Steve’s response, “Oh! Um, from the mealworms. They came from the meal-
worms!” reflected speech for thinking about mealworms and beetles. Similarly, Steve’s
reply, “. . . they can’t come from dead ones . . . has to be the ones that move . . .
when you’re dead you’re dead,” to the teacher’s, “How do you know that?” also illustrates
egocentric speech in that Steve verbalizes his thinking about mealworms. What is missing,
from a pedagogical perspective, is that Steve is not confronted with a problem or authentic
task wherein his speech must serve as means for thinking about beetle life cycles.
The discourse sequence illustrates how Steve appropriated the words “beetle” and
“pupa” through the verbal interaction with the teacher, the teacher’s social speech provided
Steve access to the scientific speech register (Forman & McPhail, 1993). It also illustrates short
how the teacher and Steve’s interactions mutually and actively created a discourse envi- standard
long
SCE (WILEJ) RIGHT BATCH

Top of RH
VYGOTSKIAN PERSPECTIVE 633 Base of RH

Top of text
ronment for talking about beetle life cycles (Moll & Whitmore, 1993), which was on the Base of text
normative expectations and obligations of the participants, the teacher as questioner and
Steve as responder. The sequence illustrates what Cobb et al. (1993) might call “talking
about science,” wherein the social norms constrain Steve and the teacher’s actions and
Steve’s scientific understanding. The verbal interaction with the teacher has provided Steve
with the elements (mealworms, pupa, beetle) by which he constructs a conceptual complex
for understanding beetle life cycles. The teacher’s social speech, then, has mediated Steve’s
way of generalizing the beetle life cycle. The goal of the teacher’s talk is to mediate Steve’s
actions and way of seeing beetle life cycles, assisting Steve in appropriating psychological
tools for reorganizing and understanding his experience (Moll, 1990). Although the phe-
nomena had not changed, the way in which Steve sees and talks about the phenomena
had. The discourse community mediates Steve’s reality of beetle life cycles — in this sit-
uation the scientific community as represented by the teacher. Although the social envi-
ronment was essential in the formation of Steve’s intrapsychological structure, the physical
environment — the mealworms, pupa, and beetles — contributed to the formation of
Steve’s intrapsychological structure.
From an institutional perspective (e.g., Minick et al., 1993), the teacher’s and Steve’s
speech were shaped by the roles that were defined by the culture of the institution of
schooling. The teacher’s accepted speech register was that of questioner and Steve’s was
that of responder. The relationship between the teacher and Steve determined the educa-
tional significance of appropriating the teacher’s words for seeing beetle life cycles. Fi-
nally, the goals and motives were for Steve to see mealworms and beetles in a different
way; that is, goals established by the teacher, but mutually agreed upon by Steve.
Learning science involves learning to see phenomena in new ways (Sutton, 1992). Thus,
for children to learn science they must learn to see the situation (phenomena) in the same
way as scientists and teachers. Wertsch (1985b, p. 159) made the point that, although
scientific phenomena are perceived by both teacher and children, they may not “be in the
same situation.” For example, the teacher sees larva, pupa, and beetles, whereas the chil-
dren initially see worms (larva), worms sleeping (pupa), dead worms (pupa), and bugs
(adult beetles). “The child’s framework is purely situational, with the words tied to some-
thing concrete, whereas the adult’s framework is conceptual” (Vygotsky, 1986, p. 106).
Only through social speech can children have access to psychological tools, new ways of
seeing, acting, talking, and thinking about scientific phenomena; however, only through
the child’s use of speech, psychological tools, to solve problems, construct products, or
complete authentic tasks can learning occur.

Everyday and Scientific Concepts

Vygotsky (1986) separated children’s concepts into two categories that reflected the
context in which they were formed: everyday (spontaneous) and scientific (nonsponta-
neous). Essentially, everyday concepts are formed through the interactions and experiences
encountered outside of formal school settings, whereas scientific concepts are formed
through interactions and experiences within formal school settings. For Vygotsky (1986),
everyday concepts center on the phenomena being represented and not on the act of
thought, and they are based on the physical appearance and characteristics of the phenom-
ena encountered in everyday experiences; therefore, they are perceptually bound, lacking
a distance from immediate experience, as well as a system of generality.
Scientific concepts, on the other hand, are formed through the “. . . functional use of
the word, or any other sign, as a means of focusing one’s attention, selecting distinctive short
features and analyzing and synthesizing them, “. . . direct[ing] our mental operations, standard
long
SCE (WILEJ) LEFT BATCH

Top of RH
634 SHEPARDSON Base of RH

Top of test
control[ing] their course, and channel[ing] them toward the solution of the problem con- Base of text
fronting us” (Vygotsky, 1986, pp. 106 – 107). Concept formation, then, involves the spe-
cific use of words as “functional tools” to solve problems, create products, or complete
tasks. Scientific concepts are not directly tied to phenomena or objects and are defined in
a generalized fashion; that is, in a relationship between other concepts. Scientific concepts
relate to phenomena in a mediated way, through previously established concepts (scientific
or everyday). The scientific concept changes the everyday concept and the everyday con-
cept changes the scientific concept, changing the conceptual system (Vygotsky, 1986). In
the acquisition of scientific concepts the “system” must be built. Concepts first form as
“concept-in-itself” (sign – object relation) and as “concept-for-others” (socially), then as
“concept-for-myself” (individual, intrapsychological) (Vygotsky, 1986, p. 124).
In learning science, children’s everyday concepts move upward from phenomena toward
generalization, whereas scientific concepts move downward toward the phenomena (Vy-
gotsky, 1986). Children’s everyday concepts, therefore, shape the formation of the intrap-
sychological plane. To learn science, children need to be introduced to scientific concepts
as a way of seeing phenomena, and to be engaged in activity that relates their everyday
concepts to the scientific concepts. The “[a]nalysis of reality with the help of concepts
precedes analysis of the concepts themselves” (Vygotsky, 1986, p. 141), and is a necessary
step in the formation of the intrapsychological plane. Phenomena provide a reference point
or touchstone from which conceptual systems may be built. “The child’s and the adult’s
[teacher’s] meaning of a word often ‘meet,’ as it were, in the same concrete object . . .”
(Vygotsky, 1986, p. 111). Words (concepts), however, must be used as “functional tools”
to solve problems and create products in order for children to build conceptual systems
for understanding.

Classroom Vignettes. The following interaction sequence between the teacher and Jill
illustrates Vygotsky’s view of everyday and scientific concepts, as well as how these
concepts mediate children’s mental activity, shaping the way by which they came to know
butterfly and beetle life cycles:

J: Mrs. T., Mrs. T. come here . . . there are bugs in the mealworms! [The children ini-
tially thought that “bugs” had gotten into their mealworm containers.]
T: [Comes over.] Those aren’t bugs, they are beetles.
J: Beetles! They look like bugs!
J: [Looking at mealworms.] Some are dead and some are beetles. [Long pause.] They came
from the live mealworms! The beetles come . . . from the live mealworms.
T: How do you know that? What have you observed, seen how your mealworms have
changed?
J: . . . they can’t come from dead ones . . .
T: See how this one looks different? Its not really dead, just like sleeping. It’s a pupa. The
beetles came from the pupa?
J: The pupa is the mealworm sleeping.

Jill, like many of the children, thought that “bugs” had gotten into their mealworm
containers and that the pupa were “dead” mealworms. Jill’s everyday concepts of “bug”
and “dead” represented the actual phenomena (beetle, pupa), and were based strongly on
the appearance and characteristics of the phenomenon at hand. These spontaneous or ev- short
eryday concepts were perceptually bound and directly connected to the experience. Ini- standard
tially, Jill’s understanding of beetle metamorphosis was mediated by her everyday concept long
SCE (WILEJ) RIGHT BATCH

Top of RH
VYGOTSKIAN PERSPECTIVE 635 Base of RH

Top of text
Base of text

Figure 5. Steve’s journal drawing of the mealworms.

of living and dead: “. . . The beetles come . . . from the live mealworms”; therefore,
beetles come directly from mealworms, thus the pupa stage does not exist for Jill. The
teacher mediated Jill’s understanding of pupa through the everyday concept of “sleeping.”
The everyday concept of sleeping moves upward from the phenomena, while the scientific
concept of pupa moves downward toward the phenomena. The phenomenon (beetle pupa)
at hand, then, served as a touchstone or frame of reference, the concrete objects wherein
Jill’s and the teacher’s words met.
From a pedagogical perspective, the teacher attempted to mediate Jill’s construction of
a conceptual system through the use of words (speech) as psychological tools to focus
Jill’s attention on the beetle pupa and to select distinctive features about the pupa for Jill
to analyze. Thus, the teacher’s use of the word pupa directed Jill’s psychological activity;
however, the concept of pupa was perceptually bound to the appearance of the mealworms
at hand, and the more generalized scientific concept of complete metamorphosis (insect
life cycles), at this point in time was not made explicit. The interpsychological activity
mediated, through the use of speech between the teacher and Jill, Jill’s formation of a
conceptual complex: a grouping of the elements of mealworm, pupa, and beetle, but not
yet the formation of a conceptual system. The concept of pupa first existed for Jill as a
“concept-in-itself” (word – object relation) and as a “concept-for-others” (the teacher), and
it did not yet exist as a concept for Jill (concept-for-myself). Following Forman and
McPhail (1993), the collaborative interactions between the teacher and Jill provided Jill
with access to the speech register of the scientific community, but had not yet provided
Jill an opportunity to use the scientific speech register to talk about insect life cycles. The
instruction did not allow Jill to functionally use speech as a psychological tool.
Steve also thought that the beetle pupa were “dead” mealworms. Steve drew a picture
of three living (“whit[e]”) and two “dead” (black) mealworms (Fig. 5). For Steve, the two
mealworms were dead because they were, “. . . dark and not moving. If you’re not mov-
ing your dead.” Steve’s everyday concepts of “living” and “dead” mediated his way of
seeing the beetle pupa. Steve’s everyday concepts centered on the physical appearance and
characteristics of the phenomena; thus, they were perceptually bound. Therefore, Steve
failed to observe the differences in beetle larva and pupa body form and shape, and that
the larva transformed into a pupa and that the pupa transformed into a beetle. Only through
using the scientific concepts (psychological tools) of larva, pupa, and beetle, to focus his
attention to the distinctive features of the phenomena and to direct his psychological ac-
tivity could his thinking about the phenomena develop into a conceptual system of beetle
life cycles, a new way of seeing the phenomena.

CONCLUSION
short
Children’s science learning is nested within social, psychological, and physical dimen- standard
sions of activity that provide boundaries for the individual construction of meaning. For long
SCE (WILEJ) LEFT BATCH

Top of RH
636 SHEPARDSON Base of RH

Top of test
the children observed in this study, the classroom science activity composed of social Base of text
interactions provided an intrapsychological structure, or a way of seeing, acting, talking,
and thinking about insect life cycles. The meaning and use of words was appropriated by
the children through their discourse with the teacher, as well as from the instructional
artifacts supplied by the teacher (insect life cycle diagram), interpsychological activities.
The teacher’s speech, then, provided children with access to the elements (egg, larva, pupa,
adult) of complete metamorphosis that came pregrouped — in other words, to lexical ele-
ments of what Forman and McPhail (1993) refer to as a speech register. In Vygotsky’s
terms:

The child does not choose the meaning of his words. He is not free to form complexes at
will. The meaning of the words are given to him in his conversations with adults. The
child receives all the elements of his complexes in a ready-made form, from the speech
of others. A set of things covered by one general name comes pregrouped. (Vygotsky,
1986, p. 122)

Word meanings, however, are dynamic; they change as the child develops; they change
with the various ways in which thought functions (Vygotsky, 1986). “It is not merely the
content of a word that changes, but the way in which reality is generalized and reflected
in a word” (Vygotsky, 1986, p. 213). Yet, the instructional activities shown here did not
require children to use words (psychological tools) to solve problems, construct products,
complete tasks, or make connections. Neither did the instruction require children to use
their “new” psychological tools to see, act, talk, and think about related phenomena.
Learning science requires in part that children participate in a speech community or
engage in social interactions with a more knowledgeable individual (teacher or peer) or
more knowledgeable resource (such as a science textbook, magazine, or CD-ROM).
Through these interactions children gain access to the language of the scientific community
as a way of seeing and thinking about phenomena. In this way, language becomes a
psychological and social tool for knowing. Children’s participation in the speech com-
munity requires that they use the language of the community as a tool for describing and
explaining phenomena, interpreting data and results, and planning and directing future
activity. Technological tools combine with psychological tools to provide children with
access to a different perspective of the phenomena. Thus, the psychological and technical
tools of science give children access to different ways of seeing, acting, talking, and
thinking about phenomena, as well as for guiding and structuring activity. The emphasis
is on using the language of science as a psychological tool, not as a placeholder for
memorizing definitions or labeling phenomena.
Although the children in these classroom vignettes learned a new way of seeing and
knowing about mealworms and caterpillars, their understanding was constrained by the
way language was used to construct a new way of knowing; scientific language was used
only as a tool for labeling or naming. Children were not given opportunities to use language
as a tool for solving problems, creating products, and/or completing authentic tasks. For
example, having the children fill in the insect life cycle diagrams did not require them to
use language as a tool. To use language as a psychological tool would have required that
children create their own insect life cycle diagram using language to organize their ex-
perience, explain their product, and direct their own activity, to create a product of their
choice. Further, the teacher – child discourse tend to emphasize the initiation – response –
evaluation (Mehan, 1979) interactional pattern, with children here granted access to lan-
guage as a tool only for labeling; that is, access to the speech register of science, but not short
practice in using such registers (Forman & McPhail, 1993). For children to appropriate standard
language as a psychological tool, teacher – child discourse would need to emphasize chil- long
SCE (WILEJ) RIGHT BATCH

Top of RH
VYGOTSKIAN PERSPECTIVE 637 Base of RH

Top of text
dren’s talk about egg, larva, pupa, and adult to describe and explain the changes in cat- Base of text
erpillars and mealworms over time and how caterpillar and mealworm development stages
are similar and different. Finally, children could have been required to investigate the life
cycle of different insects, using language to interpret and explain their observations and
findings. Children, by creating a product, explaining the similarities and differences in
insect development, and applying language to new problems, functionally use psycholog-
ical and technical tools as ways of seeing, acting, talking, and thinking.
Although the teacher’s discourse integrated the children’s everyday concepts with the
scientific, and provided children with access to the scientific concepts, the children were
not required to construct a product that showed the connections between their everyday
understandings and the scientific understanding of insect life cycles. In addition, the in-
struction emphasized the life cycle stages (egg, larva, pupa, and adult), language as labels,
versus the importance of these stages in insect development (separation of niche and habitat
for reducing competition). In order for instruction to have emphasized the development of
children’s conceptual understanding, the children would need to investigate the feeding
habits and living environments of butterflies and beetles.
Only through social speech can children have access to new ways of seeing, acting,
talking, and thinking about scientific phenomena; however, only through the child’s use
of speech to solve problems, create products, make connections, or complete authentic
tasks can learning occur. Thus, within a Vygotskian sociocultural framework, the emphasis
of science teaching – learning is on knowledge construction and the development of chil-
dren’s abilities to use and apply scientific explanations (psychological tools) and tech-
niques (technical tools) in understanding phenomena, solving problems, and creating
products, and also in directing scientific inquiry, explorations, and activity.

The author wishes to thank and acknowledge Dr. Susan J. Britsch, Literacy and Language Education,
Department of Curriculum and Instruction, Purdue University for her review and thoughtful sug-
gestions for enhancing the quality of this article.

REFERENCES
Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
Confrey, J. (1995). How compatible are radical constructivism, sociocultural approaches, and social
constructivism? (pp. 185– 226). In L. P. Steffe and J. Gale (Eds.), Constructivism in education.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Cobb, P., Wood, T., & Yackel, E. (1993). Discourse, mathematical thinking, and classroom practice
(pp. 91– 119). In E. A. Forman, N. Minick, & C. A. Stone (Eds.), Contexts for learning: Socio-
cultural dynamics in children’s development. Oxford: UK Oxford University Press.
Forman, E. A., & McPhail, J. (1993). Vygotskian perspective on children’s collaborative problem-
solving activities (pp. 213– 229). In E. A. Forman, N. Minick, & C. A. Stone (Eds.), Contexts for
learning: Sociocultural dynamics in children’s development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1975). Some aspects of sociolinguistics. In Interactions between linguistics and
mathematical education (pp. 64– 73). Final report of the symposium sponsored by UNESCO,
CEDO, and ICMI, Nairobi, Kenya. Copenhagen: UNESCO.
Howe, A. C. (1996). Development of science concepts within a Vygotskian framework. Science
Education, 80:35– 51.
Hymes, D. (1974). Foundations in sociolinguistics: Ethnographic approach. Philadelphia, PA: Uni-
versity of Pennsylvania Press.
Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Minick, N., Stone, C. A., & Forman, E. A. (1993). Integration of individual, social, and institutional
processes in accounts of children’s learning and development (pp. 3–16). In E. A. Forman, N. short
Minick, and C. A. Stone (Eds.), Contexts for learning: Sociocultural dynamics in children’s de- standard
velopment. Oxford: Oxford University Press. long
SCE (WILEJ) LEFT BATCH

Top of RH
638 SHEPARDSON Base of RH

Top of test
Moll, L. C. (1990). Vygotsky and education: Instructional implications and applications of socioh- Base of text
istorical psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Moll, L. C., & Whitmore, K. F. (1993). Vygotsky in classroom practice: Moving from individual
transmission to social transaction. In E. A. Forman, N. Minick, & C. A. Stone (Eds.), Contexts
for learning: Sociocultural dynamics in children’s development (pp. 19–42). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Osborne, R. & Freyberg P. (1985). Learning in science: The implications of children’s science.
Birkenhead, Auckland: Heinemann.
Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Shepardson, D. P. (1997). Of butterflies and beetles: First graders’ ways of seeing and talking about
insect life cycles. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 873–889.
Sutton, C. (1992). Words, science and learning. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. (M.
Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, Eds.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1981). The genesis of higher mental functions. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.), The concept
of activity in Soviet psychology. Armonk, NY: Sharpe.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language. (A. Kozulin, Ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1994). The problem of the environment (pp. 338–354). In R. van der Veer & J.
Valsiner (Eds.), The Vygotsky reader. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Vygotsky, L. S., & Luria, A. (1994). Tool and symbol in child development (pp. 99–174). In R.
van der Veer & J. Valsiner (Eds.), The Vygotsky reader. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Wertsch, J. V. (1985a). Culture communication and cognition: Vygotskian perspectives. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Wertsch, J. V. (1985b). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Wertsch, J. V. (1990). The voice of rationality in a sociocultural approach to mind (pp. 111–126).
In L. C. Moll (Ed.), Vygotsky and education: Instructional implications of sociohistorical psy-
chology. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Wertsch, J. V., & Stone, A. C. (1985). The concept of internalization in Vygotsky’s account of the
genesis of higher mental functions (pp. 162– 182). In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.), Culture, communication
and cognition: Vygotskian perspectives. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Wertsch, J. V., & Toma, C. (1995). Discourse and learning in the classroom: A sociocultural ap-
proach (pp. 159– 184). In L. P. Steffe & J. Gale (Eds.), Constructivism in education. Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

short
standard
long