ArticlePDF Available

Sociocultural Theory and Education of Children with Special Needs: From Defectology to Remedial Pedagogy

Authors:
  • Center for Cognitive Assessment and Remediation

Abstract

Was the issue of the development and education of children with special needs chosen by Vygotsky, or was it a chance encounter forced by circumstances? We may never be able to find a definitive answer to this question. Vygotsky left no diary, and the testimony of his colleagues does not shed much light on this issue. What is known with certainty is that young Vygotsky's original interests lay in the field of literature and humanities and apparently remained so following his graduation from Moscow University in 1917. The unmerciful reality of everyday life in his hometown of Gomel during the civil war (1918-1922), however, forced everyone - including Vygotsky - to seek any occupation that would make mere survival possible. For Vygotsky, a teacher's job, first at school and then at the Teacher Training College, was such an opportunity. It is apparently under these rather extreme circumstances that Vygotsky encountered the problem of children with special needs for the first time. As the head of the psychological laboratory at the Gomel Teacher Training College, Vygotsky was responsible both for teaching students the techniques of psychological evaluation and actually supervising these evaluations in schools (Van der Veer & Valsiner, 1991; Vygodskaya & Lifanova, 1996, 1999). This link to the issue of special needs was further strengthened after Vygotsky's move to Moscow in 1924. As with his previous experiences in Gomel, we cannot be sure whether it was Vygotsky's growing interest in special-needs children or the social circumstances that led to his affiliation with the Section of Abnormal Children in the Peoples Education Commissariat of Education.
Sociocultural Theory and Education of Children with Special Needs: From
Defectology to Remedial Pedagogy. In: H. Daniels, M. Cole, J. Wertsch, Eds. The
Cambridge Companion to Vygotsky. Cambridge University Press, NY 2007, pp. 332-
363 (co-author: A. Kozulin)
Sociocultural Theory and Education of Children with Special Needs:
From Defectology to Remedial Pedagogy
Alex Kozulin & Boris Gindis
Was the issue of the development and education of children with special needs chosen by
Vygotsky or was it a chance encounter forced by circumstances? We may never be able
to find a definitive answer to this question. Vygotsky left no diary and the testimony of
his colleagues does not shed much light on this issue. What is known with certainty is
that young Vygotsky’s original interests lay in the field of literature and humanities, and
apparently remained so following his graduation from Moscow University in 1917. The
unmerciful reality of everyday life in his hometown of Gomel during the Civil War
(1918-1922), however, forced everyone – including Vygotsky – to seek any occupation
which would make mere survival possible. For Vygotsky a teacher’s job, first at school
and then at the Teacher Training College, was such an opportunity. It is apparently under
these rather extreme circumstances that Vygotsky encountered the problem of children
with special needs for the first time. In his capacity as head of the psychological
laboratory at the Gomel Teacher Training College, Vygotsky was responsible both for
teaching students the techniques of psychological evaluation and actually supervising
these evaluations in schools (Van der Veer and Valsiner, 1991; Vygodskaya & Lifanova.
1996, 1999).
This link to the issue of special needs was further strengthened after Vygotsky’s
move to Moscow in 1924. As with his previous experiences in Gomel, we cannot be sure
whether it was Vygotsky’s growing interest in the topic of special needs or the social
1
circumstances that led to his affiliation with the Section of Abnormal Children in the
Peoples Education Commissariat of Education. After all, the new post-Revolutionary
government was posed to revamp the entire system of education, including special needs
services. In 1926 Vygotsky organized a Medical-Pedagogic Laboratory for the Study of
Abnormal Children and in 1929 this laboratory was expanded to become the
Experimental Institute of Defectology – currently the Institute of Corrective Pedagogy in
Moscow.
Vygotsky’s interest in the study and treatment of children with special needs,
which started in the early 1920s, continued to the end of his life and career. His paper
“The problem of mental retardation” was published posthumously in 1935 (see Vygotsky,
1993). In addition to such general topics as defect and compensation and the sociocultural
nature of special needs, Vygotsky also wrote on the education of deaf and blind children,
the role of peer interaction for the special needs child, and the question of “integration” or
“mainstreaming” (see Vygotsky, 1983, 1993). Apart from leaving a rich collection of
writings, Vygotsky also trained the whole group of psychologists and special education
teachers who continued working in the Institute of Defectology after the death of their
teacher in 1934. In many ways Vygotsky became firmly associated with the field bearing
the strange name of “defectology” (defektologija).
What is defectology?
The term defeklologija in Russian simply means “the study of defects.” The term was
well suited to the mechanistic mentality of the 1920s which explicitly compared human
beings with mechanisms. If the mechanism is malfunctioning the defect should be found,
classified, and fixed; likewise if the human organism is malfunctioning the mental or
sensorial defect should be identified and corrected. In the Russia of Vygotsky's time and
until the late 1980s this term covered the following disabilities: the hard of hearing and
2
deaf ("surdo-pedagogica"), the visually impaired and blind ("tiflo-pedagogica"), children
with mental retardation ("oligophreno-pedagogica"), and speech and language impaired
children ("logopedia") (Petrovsky & Yaroshevsky, 1998, p. 364). The field of
defectology was comprehensive in the sense that it included diagnosis and treatment as
well as research and the university level training of the specialists called “defectologists.”
What was unquestionably unique was the social situation in which Russian
defectology found itself in the 1920s. Amongst the primary victims of the Revolution and
the Civil War were children, often orphaned, and almost universally suffering from
malnutrition, enforced relocation, and a lack of education. What was difficult for the so-
called regular children was twice as hard for children with special needs. The complexity
and social interconnectedness of these problems is well expressed in the very title of the
congress convened by the Soviet government in 1920 – “The congress for the struggle
against child defectiveness, homelessness, and delinquency” (McCagg, 1989, p.41). One
may presume that these circumstances could not but influence Vygotsky’s perception of
special needs as a sociocultural rather than an organic or individual developmental
phenomenon.
There are certain paradoxical features in Vygotsky’s influence on former Soviet
and current Russian special education. On the one hand his influence on theory and
research in special education is so significant that a foreign observer would not be able to
understand the nature of Russian “defectology” out of the context of Vygotsky’s ideas.
On the other hand one would be mistaken to presume that the Soviet practice of
education of children with special needs is a living heritage of Vygotsky’s thoughts. For
political reasons any open discussion of Vygotsky’s ideas was practically impossible
from 1936 to the late 1950s (see Kozulin, 1984; Van der Veer and Valsiner, 1991). The
regimental nature of Soviet education could not but influence the field of special
3
education. When it once again became fashionable to be called “Vygotskian,” some of
these regimental educational principles were presented as coming from the Vygotskian
tradition. Thus, it is not surprising that a Western observer was rather disappointed by his
first hand encounter with the Soviet special education system of the early 1990s:
“Rather than the active model of pupil we had come to expect within the neo-
Vygotskian practice in England and Wales we observed remarkable passivity on the part
of pupils. Children were seated in formal rows of desks with no opportunity for small
group interaction or peer-cooperation. Much of the teaching and learning involved drills,
repetition and rote learning” ((Daniels and Lunt, 1993, p.87).
It seems that some of the Vygotskian theoretical principles are still waiting to be
implemented not only in the West, but in Russia itself. It has been observed more than
once that the path from theoretical innovation to its practical application is particularly
thorny in Russia (Lubovsky, 1996).
Though many aspects of defectological research and practice can be mapped into
contemporary Western special education with relative ease, these two fields are far from
identical. Defectology is only roughly equivalent to contemporary Western special
education (embracing so-called “low-incident disabilities”: children with serious organic
or sensory impairment and severe developmental delays) and school psychology (mostly
in the domain of assessment). Thus, defectology did not include psychopathology,
learning disability, or emotional disturbance as known in the West. In Vygotsky’s time
the educational ideology that influenced the formation of a specific nomenclature of
handicapping conditions was based almost entirely on the organic impairment of the
central nervous system and severe sensory deficiency. Children with non-organic,
relatively mild learning disabilities were beyond the realm of Russian defectology until
very recently (Gindis, 1986; Sutton, 1988; Suddaby, 1988; Daniels and Lunt, 1993;
4
Smith-Davis, 2000; Malofeev, 2001). Considering the fact that emotionally disturbed and
learning disabled students account for more than half of the special education population
in the USA (Schulte, Osborn, Erchul, 1998), the issue of the congruency of Vygotskian
defectology with contemporary special education in the West needs to be taken into
consideration. In spite of the lack of coincidence between these two fields, Vygotsky's
theoretical and methodological findings could serve as a powerful source of professional
inspiration for current and coming generations of special education professionals.
Natural and Cultural Axes of Development
Vygotsky's contribution to understanding the development of children with special needs
is based on two foundations: his general cultural-historical theory of human development
(see Vygotsky, 1998) and a special theory which Vygotsky (1993) called the "theory of
disontogenesis" (meaning the “theory of distorted development").
Breaking away from the common assumption of his time that disability is mainly
biological in nature, Vygotsky suggested that the principal problem of a disability is not
the sensory or neurological impairment itself but its social implications:
"Any physical handicap...not only alters the child's relationship with the world,
but above all affects his interaction with people. Any organic defect is revealed as a
social abnormality in behavior. It goes without saying that blindness and deafness per se
are biological factors; however, teachers must deal not so much with these biological
factors by themselves, but rather with their social consequences" (Vygotsky, 1983, p.
102).
One of the major theoretical innovations brought about by Vygotsky was the
distinction between two axes of development: natural and cultural. This schema applies
not only to normal development but also problematic development (disontogenesis). The
source of the problematic development may therefore be both natural and cultural. Along
5
the natural axes cognitive and social/adaptive functions can be arranged from retarded
(delayed) to advanced (highly developed) functions. At the same time, the cultural axis
presupposes progression from primitive to highly developed cultural functions. It was
Vygotsky’s idea that delays, distortions, and abnormalities in human development may
have natural and cultural causes or a combination of both.
Individuals with normal or even highly developed natural abilities, such as spontaneous
attention, simple memorization, practical problem solving, phonetic hearing, or imitative
behavior, may nevertheless remain deprived of the important symbolic tools offered by
their culture. These people, according to Vygotsky, display a syndrome of cultural
“primitivity.” According to Vygotsky it is extremely important to distinguish the true
sources of the impairment, because the outside picture of the impaired performance might
be quite similar in the cases of severe cultural “primitivity” and those of organic-based
retardation.
Vygotsky referred to the case of a nine-year old girl (described by Petrova, 1925),
who was considered mentally retarded until it was discovered that the girl had never
experienced a normal process of linguistic development in either of her two languages,
Tartar and Russian. She acquired these languages as the means of immediate
communication but no one had mediated to her the meaning of language as a tool of
reasoning. Thus to the question: “In one school some children write well, and some draw
well. Do all the children in this school write and draw well?” the girl answered: “How
should I know? What I have not seen with my own eyes I cannot explain…” (Vygotsky,
1993, p. 46).
Another child assessed by Petrova was asked: “How do a tree and a log differ?”
The child answered: “I have not seen a tree, I swear I haven’t seen one”. When shown a
linden tree that stands under the window, he answered: “This is a linden” (Vygotsky,
6
1993, p.46). Vygotsky commented that from the point of view of primitive logic the child
was right, no one had ever seen “a tree,” all we had seen were lindens, chestnuts, ash, and
so on. “A tree” is a product of cultural development, when word becomes not only a
substitute for concrete objects, but a source of generalizations.
Of course not all culturally “primitive” children are normative in respect to the
natural development of their psychological functions. Cultural “primitivity” may enter
into different combinations with mental retardation or sensory problems. For example, if
special effort is not made and remedial education not offered, deaf children will display
many signs of culturally primitive behavior. It is important, however, to remember that
underdevelopment of natural functions may be compensated for by acquisition of cultural
tools, while even superior development of natural functions, e.g. simple memory, cannot
guarantee the establishment of higher mental functions that employ cultural tools-
mediators. Thus, mentally retarded individuals with good phonetic hearing and superior
imitation abilities may easily acquire a foreign language in its communicative function,
skillfully using the entire blocks of learned speech in familiar contexts. The problem
becomes revealed when comprehension of the verbal meanings and reflection upon them
go beyond immediate situation-embedded communication. Here these individuals reveal
their impairment, because they cannot operate with language as an organized system of
meanings.
The following diagram presents a schematic view of possible relationships
between problems in natural and cultural development:
Fig.1. Natural and cultural determinants of development.
Cultural difference and cultural deprivation
For several decades after Vygotsky’s death, the cultural aspect of retarded performance
seemed to be neglected, both within the Vygotskian school and outside it. Cross-cultural
7
studies focused on normative behavior and cognition while the performance of children
with special needs was interpreted on an individual level without the involvement of
cultural categories. In a sharp departure from this overall tendency, Feuerstein et al.
(1979) placed the concept of cultural difference and cultural deprivation at the very
center of their theory of retarded performance. One may hypothesize that a certain
affinity of Feuerstein’s approach to that of Vygotsky is associated with the similarity of
practical tasks facing both psychologists. Vygotsky was designing the special education
system in a post-Revolutionary Russia under conditions of sociocultural dislocation and
the educational deprivation of large masses of children. Feuerstein was entrusted with
finding educational solutions in the 1950s and 1960s for thousands of new immigrant
children in Israel who were also for the most part educationally deprived and dislocated
from their familiar sociocultural milieu. In the US and Western Europe similar problems
became recognized much later with an influx of immigrants from the Third World, child
victims of regional conflicts, and more recently internationally adopted post-
institutionalized children (Gindis, 1998).
The first finding made by Feuerstein et al. (1979) was that standard psychometric
tests are unable to distinguish between children with mental retardation and educationally
and socially neglected immigrant children. The second finding made by Feuerstein
(1990) concerns the differentiation between two groups of new immigrant children who
demonstrated poor results in the standard psychometric tests and were at risk of being
placed into special education classes. According to Feuerstein, the first group’s problem
stems from their difference from Western culture including the culture of psychometric
testing. These children, however, had good general learning skills mediated to them in
their original culture and thus had a positive prospect for overcoming their initial
difficulties and succeeding in adapting to the formal educational system of the new
8
culture. Feuerstein attributed the high learning potential of this culturally different group
to the sufficient experience of mediated learning received by these children in their
original community. The second group was defined by Feuerstein as culturally deprived.
The cognitive and educational problems of these children originates not so much in their
cultural distance from the formal educational culture as in their low learning potential.
Feuerstein claimed that the absence of adequate mediated learning in their original
culture resulted in the lowered learning potential of this group. One can, of course, be
culturally deprived without leaving his or her own culture, but it is the challenge of
adaptation to a new culture that clearly revealed the low learning potential of this group.
One may see a clear parallel between Vygotsky’s notion of cultural primitivity
and Feuerstein’s notion of cultural deprivation. Culturally deprived children failed to
receive appropriate mediation of their native culture and as a result had to rely almost
exclusively on their natural cognitive functions and spontaneous learning skills. Such a
scenario fits quite well into the Vygotskian definition of cultural primitivity. Vygotsky,
however, placed particular emphasis on the child’s appropriation of symbolic tools as a
criterion of cultural development. Feuerstein, in turn, focused predominantly on the
quality of mediation provided to a child by the members of his or her extended family
and other significant community figures. Kozulin (1998) suggested that these two
aspects, psychological tools and mediated learning, should be integrated into one matrix.
Table 1. Matrix of interactions between symbolic tools and mediated learning
experience.
For example, Field B. of this matrix corresponds to the case of children who received
adequate mediated learning in their native culture but who lack symbolic tools typical for
a new or dominant culture. Problems facing these children will depend predominantly on
the type and amount of symbolic tools that they have to appropriate and internalize. Field
9
C. corresponds to the case where the required symbolic tools were present in the child’s
original culture but failed to be internalized as inner psychological tools. In this case the
main problem is how to turn the symbolic tools already familiar to a child into inner
psychological tools.
The question is, however, how to distinguish the culturally different children from
the culturally deprived when the standard test performance of both groups is equally low.
Feuerstein proposed the degree of a child’s cognitive modifiability as a differentiating
parameter. Children who demonstrated greater responsiveness to a short-term learning of
the cognitive principles embedded in the test material were presumed to do this on the
basis of the previous mediated learning experience acquired in their native culture. These
children therefore should be classified as culturally different and may rather quickly
become integrated into a new school culture. Those children who demonstrate poor
responsiveness to short-term learning, and thus lowered cognitive modifiability, are most
probably suffering from cultural deprivation. Their educators should plan for a long-term
remediation process during which these children should first learn how to learn and only
later acquire specific knowledge essential in their new cultural context. Referring to the
matrix presented in Table 1, one may add that the children’s modifiability will also
depend on the type of psychological tools available to them.
Figs.2 A and B show how the evaluation of cognitive modifiability proposed by
Feuerstein et al. (1979) may help in deciding whether a given child has an organically
impaired performance or is culturally deprived or culturally different. Y., an eleven-year-
old new immigrant from Ethiopia was shown the model Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure
and asked to copy it first by looking at the model and then from immediate memory (see
Fig. 2A). The girl’s performance was so inferior that it did not rule out either organic
impairment or profound cultural deprivation. However, a relatively short-term (several
10
hours) intervention that included analysis of the model, practice with simpler shapes
(square, diamond, etc.), and mediation of the planning strategies resulted in substantial
improvement of the girl’s performance both in direct copying and drawing from memory
(see Fig.2 B). One may thus conclude that Y. has no organic impairment and her
cognitive modifiability is good enough for successful integration into a regular
classroom, provided that she masters a considerable number of symbolic tools and
strategies typical of formal education. If Y. were culturally deprived the process of
change would be much slower and the outcome would be reached only after much more
intensive mediation (for a detailed description of this
and similar cases see Kaufman and Kozulin, 1999).
Fig. 2A
Fig.2B
Vygotsky’s Theory of Disontogenesis
Vygotsky’s views on the development of children with special needs had been shaped by
his polemic with the then popular quantitative understanding of handicapped
development (disontogenesis). The quantitative paradigm presented a mentally retarded
child as a normal child minus a certain amount of intelligence and the development of a
blind child as normal development minus vision. Vygotsky vigorously argued against this
subtractive approach to special needs, claiming that “A child whose development is
impeded by a defect is not simply a child less developed than his peers but is a child who
has developed differently”(Vygotsky, 1993, p.30).
Vygotsky’s model of disontogenesis is based on two major theoretical premises.
The first is a distinction between primary and secondary defects, the second is the notion
of interfunctional relationships in mental development. A primary defect is identified by
Vygotsky as an initial sensory, organic, or neurological impairment which influences the
11
development of the child’s natural functions of perception, memory, communication, and
so on. This impairment, however, far from remaining an isolated feature leaves its
imprint on the entire structure of the child’s development. This secondary influence is
both mediated and moderated by the social consequences of the primary defect (on social
situation of development see Mahn, 2003).
In the essay "Defect and Compensation," Vygotsky (1993, pp. 52-64) wrote about
the "two-sided nature" of a handicap: the underdevelopment or absence of the functions
related to an organic defect and formation of an adaptive-compensatory mechanism. He
stated that the most efficient compensation for the loss or weakness of natural functions
could be achieved through the development of higher psychological functions.
Paradoxically, while what may be impaired are the natural processes (visual, auditory,
kinesthetic), the target of intervention is the cultural processes of abstract reasoning,
logical memory, voluntary attention, and goal-directed behaviors.
Vygotsky believed that unlike attempts at direct compensation which are limited
by the primary defect, compensatory strategies are effective because they are based on
higher mental processes which may be relatively unaffected by the severity or type of the
child's disability. "Cultural development is the main area for compensation of deficiency
when further organic development is impossible; in this respect, the path of cultural
development is unlimited" (Vygotsky, 1993, p. 169).
Let us consider the case of a child born with mild hemiparesis of the right side of
his body. Such a primary neurological defect may, under certain social conditions, evolve
into a serious impairment of the whole range of higher mental functions. An initial
problem with walking, running, and outdoor games may put such a child at a
disadvantage regarding the development of communicative speech, peer interaction, and
the psychological mechanisms of role playing. Motor problems with the right hand may
12
prevent him from acquiring writing skills, especially in an educational system that does
not recognize left-handed writing as acceptable. At the beginning of primary school such
a child may develop a very negative self-image as a result of both objective learning
difficulties and the attitude of peers and teachers. This may result in his being placed in a
special educational framework that will further limit his aspirations. Thus a primary
motor defect may develop into a full-blown secondary psychological defect involving
higher verbal functions, problem solving, and personality problems.
On the other hand, a supportive social environment and an appropriate
compensatory program may help by-pass the primary defect and lead the same child to a
full mastery of all higher psychological functions. Vygotsky particularly emphasized the
role of social mediation and the acquisition of symbolic tools. To return to a previous
example, Vygotsky most probably would have suggested compensating for the child’s
motor problem by cultivating his verbal functions, teaching him to use a typewriter at a
relatively early age, organizing peer interaction around non-motor activities, and in
general substituting higher cognitive and verbal functions for the impaired motor skills.
What the child cannot do by hand he should be able to do by word.
The second premise of Vygotsky’s theory of disontogenesis concerns the inter-
functional relationships established during development. This premise comes from
Vygotsky’s (1986, 1998) general concept of normal (as well as handicapped)
development as a process of ever increasing interaction between different psychological
functions. Speech, perceptual and motor functions, memory and problem solving do not
develop as separate elements but form functional systems dependent on the acquisition
and internalization of symbolic tools. For example, when an educated adult person have
to remember something he or she rarely relies on direct memorization, involving instead
an entire complex of verbal and reasoning functions. Disontogenesis on the one hand may
13
disrupt this process of system-formation, but on the other can be compensated via the
creation of alternative functional systems.
“Investigative study of the mentally retarded child has revealed that in such a
child, interfunctional relationships take shape distinctively and differently in comparison
with those that come to light in the development of a normal child. This sphere of
psychological development, the change in interfunctional connections and relationships,
the change in the internal structure of the psychological system, is the most important
area for the compensatory processes in forming [the child’s] personality” (Vygotsky
1993, p.131).
The first author (AK) observed such a disontogenesis of interfunctional relations
in a highly developed adolescent with Down Syndrome. His parents invested an
enormous amount of time in the development of their child, who was successfully
integrated in a regular classroom, became a fluent reader and writer, and in many other
respects demonstrated highly developed cognitive and learning skills. The same
adolescent, however, could be seen reading the same text aloud over and over again,
under conditions absolutely inappropriate for such an activity. Here, apparently, the
functional relations between basic reading skills and the pragmatic aspect of reading
failed to be internalized. Under conditions of external contextual “scaffolding” provided
by adults the same reading activity might appear as absolutely appropriate.
Within the context of Vygotsky’s paradigm of primary and secondary defects,
many symptoms such as behavioral infantilism or primitivism of emotional reactions in
individuals with mental retardation are considered to be a secondary handicapping
condition because they are acquired in the process of social interaction. If untreated, these
conditions may effectively exacerbate the primary disability. Expectations, attitudes ,and
the general moral atmosphere of a given society influence the access of a child with a
14
disability to sociocultural knowledge, experiences, and the opportunity to participate in
shared or joint activities with peers. That is why Vygotsky so passionately insisted on
changing the negative societal attitudes towards individuals with disabilities. The search
for positive capacities and the creation of quality of life through education and the
upbringing of children with disabilities is the trademark of Vygotsky's approach.
Vygotsky emphasized the dynamic nature of disability and argued that constant
changes take place in the structure and content of disontogenesis during the child’s
development and under the influence of education and remediation. On the one hand the
basic principles of child development, such as the internalization of external cultural
activities and symbolic tools in the form of inner psychological processes, are fully
applicable to children with disabilities. On the other hand, the development of children
with disabilities has major qualitative differences in the means and ways of their
internalization of culture. In Vygotsky's view, the core of disabled children’s
development is the divergence between their natural and social developmental paths. He
pointed to two major differences in the development of a child with a disability in
comparison with his typically developing peers. They are the formation of compensatory
strategies (mechanisms) and the emergence of social complications due to the disability
("secondary defect" in his terminology). No effective remediation is possible without an
understanding of these qualitative differences.
Vygotsky called for developing a disability-specific profile of the discrepancy
between the "natural" and "social" aspects of the development of a child with a particular
disability. As the milestones of this profile he listed the dynamic and forms of
socialization, appropriation of psychological tools, and formation and use of
compensatory strategies (Vygotsky, 1993, pp. 110-122). Compensatory strategies are by
no means mechanical substitutions for impaired functions. Rather they are products of the
15
child's individuality, personal experiences, and what Vygotsky called "the social situation
of development" (for further elaboration see Mann, 2003). Compensatory strategies are
aimed at mastering psychological tools and using them to acquire cultural forms of
behavior. When the direct way of acquiring psychological tools is blocked (e.g., in the
case of blindness), compensatory strategies offer an indirect path to the same goal of
cultural development.
The notion of a "disability-specific psycho-educational profile" has been
elaborated by a number of Vygotsky's followers in Russia. One was suggested by
Lubovsky (1989) and later elaborated by Belopolskaya and Lubovsky (1992). The base
of this model is the relationship between the primary and secondary deficits, as spelled
out in Vygotsky's theory of disontogenesis. The authors point to a complex and dialectic
interrelationship between primary and secondary disabilities. The same primary defect
(organic impairment) may lead to different secondary disabilities and different primary
defects may lead to the same secondary disability. Lubovsky suggested a rather elaborate
and complex schema for a disability profile (in relation to mentally retarded students) that
includes cognitive, emotional, and motivational components. He also made an interesting
and productive attempt to connect his profile with an assessment called "the
teaching/learning experiment," one of the forms of dynamic assessment.
A. Venger (1994) offered his version of disability profile that included three strata
or components of disability. The first is composed of individual characteristics of the
child. The second stratum consists of those characteristics which are disability-specific
or disability dependent. The third includes parameters of social interactions determined
by the child’s individual and disability-specific characteristics. Venger emphasized that
social and cultural interactions influence not only the processes in the third stratum but
the two previous strata as well.
16
The Sociocultural-Developmental Approach to Remediation
The essence of Vygotsky's approach to remedial education is in addressing the secondary
disability, that is, in countering the negative social consequences of the primary
disability. Vygotsky believed that physical and mental impairment could be overcome by
creating alternative but essentially equivalent roads for cultural development. Through
acquiring the psychological tools, disabled children transform their natural abilities into
higher mental functions as do their non-disabled peers.
The concept of the internalization of psychological tools has particular importance
for the remediation process. In this context Vygotsky emphasized the dialectic
relationship between the means (sign, psychological tool) and the content (meaning) of
cultural acquisition. Disability may prevent the child from acquiring psychological tools
similar to his or her non-disabled peers, thus requiring different methods of teaching and
learning for the appropriation of psychological tools. The sociocultural meaning of the
acquired tools remains the same, but they should be delivered via alternative means such
as modified signs or specialized psychological tools. In Vygotsky's analysis, the essence
of any remedial educational program is in the process of substituting signs while
retaining the meaning of the internalization. "Different symbolic systems correspond to
one and the same content of education... Meaning is more important than the sign. Let us
change signs but retain meaning" (Vygotsky, 1983, p. 54).
Vygotsky’s vision of the role of symbolic tools for the remediation of specific
disability has been fully confirmed by current developments in the field of remedial
(special) education and occupational therapy. In addition to such “classical” tools as
Braille, sign language, lip-reading, finger-spelling, etc. that were known in Vygotsky’s
17
time, a host of new symbolic tools, sophisticated electronic gadgets, and means of
mobility have been developed. The crucial question, already formulated by Vygotsky, is
how to turn these symbolic or physical means into real tools aimed at changing the
disabled child’s developmental trajectory.
The process of appropriation of psychological tools is determined by the nature of
the disability and correlated modifications of teaching methods. For example, the concept
of spontaneous and scientific notions in developing higher forms of reasoning has its
specificity in the domain of educational remediation. Everyday (spontaneous) concepts
appear as a product of the child's immediate experience. Usually these concepts are
unsystematic and contextual. "Scientific" concepts (not necessarily science related) are
the result of specialized learning activity; they are systematic and decontextual. In the
course of typical development there is a dynamic interaction between these two kinds of
notions, as analyzed by Vygotsky (1987, pp. 167-240). In the case of children with
handicapping conditions (in particular, those with severe sensory impairments), this
relationship is atypical. Spontaneous notions are limited, extremely immature and
severely distorted (e.g., the case of deaf/blind/mute children or mentally retarded
children). In this situation the meaning and value of scientific notions are increased
tremendously and the teaching methodology must be modified appropriately in
comparison with teaching those for whom spontaneous concepts are ordinary facts of
their daily lives.
For example, the process of concept formation in blind learners who are
integrated into regular schools is dominated by two extremes: abstract verbal notions
acquired at school which have little support in the blind learners’ experience and very
concrete tactile images of the children’s immediate environment which possess little
potential for generalization and transfer (Gouzman & Kozulin, 2000). As a result the
18
middle ground, i.e. everyday concepts that possess a certain degree of generality, are
under-represented in the blind learners’ cognitive repertoire. The notions and operations
that in sighted students appear as a natural outcome of spontaneous daily activities have
to be developed in the blind learners in a deliberate way similar to learning scientific
concepts.
In tracing Vygotsky’s impact on current remediation programs one may
distinguish three broad groups of studies. The first group is a direct continuation of
Vygotsky’s defectology, carried out by his students and his students’ students.
Representative here will be the work of Meshcheryakov (1979), Lubovsky (1996),
Vlasova (1984), Akhutina (1997), Rubinstein (1979), and others. The second group
includes approaches compatible with Vygotsky’s vision but developed in the West,
mostly independently. The most prominent here will be Feuerstein’s mediated learning
and cognitive modifiability approach his applied programs of learning potential
assessment (Feuerstein et al. 1980; 1997; 2003), and his Instrumental Enrichment
(Feuerstein et al., 1980). The third group includes programs that combine Vygotskian
theoretical basis with mediational, information processing, and other approaches. For this
group the work of J. P. Das and his colleagues (Das & Naglieri, 1994; Das & Kendrick,
1997), as well as Haywood, Brooks, Burns (1992) will be representative. Certain attempts
have also been made to look at the existent remediation programs, such as Feuerstein’s
“Instrumental Enrichment” through the lens of Vygotsky’s theory of psychological tools
(Kozulin, 1998, 2003)
One of the most impressive accomplishments of the Russian followers of
Vygotsky’s defectology was the remediation program for the blind, deaf, and mute
children developed by Alexander Meshcheryakov (Meshcheryakov, 1979; Chulkov,
Lubovsky, & Martsinovskaia, 1990; Bakhurst & Padden, 1991). It is based on Vygotsky's
19
concept of psychological tools and his belief that "the development of scientific concepts
begins with verbal definition" (Vygotsky, 1987, p. 168). Meshcheryakov introduced the
notion of "primary gesture" (as an alternative psychological tool for a child who cannot
speak, see, and hear). The "primary gesture" originates from the movements that make up
the shared/joint activity of the handicapped child and his/her teacher. At first it may just
reproduce physical activity (e.g., to move their hands upwards from knees to waist as part
of a "putting on trousers" movement). Later the primary gesture is simplified and
decontextualized by acquiring symbolic meaning (the same abbreviated gesture now
means "we go outside"). Finally it is linked to a dactylic language that makes it possible
"...to form generalized images that reflect the facts of real life correctly and in depth"
(Meshcheryakov, 1979, p. 189).
The concept of psychological tools has also inspired the development of
innovative remedial methods in the education of deaf students (Knox & Kozulin, 1989;
Berk & Winsler, 1995; Zaittseva, Pursglove, & Gregory, 1999). The specific textbooks,
modified curricula, and adapted teaching material developed by the Institute of
Corrective Pedagogy in Moscow (formerly the Institute of Defectology) for mentally
retarded pupils are examples of effective specialized "psychological tools" presented via
mediational techniques (Strebeleva, 2000; Almanah ICP, 2000-2002: electronic version is
available at www.ise.iip.net/almanah).
If we turn to a second group of studies, those compatible with the Vygotskian idea
of psychological tools but developed independently by Feuerstein et al. (1980, 2003),
then the concept of mediation becomes crucial. Non-mediated learning, i.e. immediate
interaction with the environment through independent observation, trials, contacts,
probing, and testing is limited and distorted in a disabled child. Therefore mediated
learning that is conducted through an adult who selects, modifies, and interprets
20
environmental stimuli has a special implication for the disabled child. Remediation as
well as development of higher psychological function in the disabled child depends upon
the quality and quantity of mediating activity personalized in a teacher and in the
structure and organization of the learning environment. The general principles of
mediation are the same for disabled and non-handicapped students. Instead of focusing
exclusively on the delivery of facts and concepts, human mediator infuses the learning
material with intentional teaching strategies and principles. Moreover the mediator takes
care to transfer these cognitive strategies and principles to new learning material and new
situations in different content areas. Since not every act of learning influences the child’s
development, not every act of learning is remedial in itself. To become remedial, learning
should appear in the form of a learning activity (see Zuckerman, 2003) that transforms
and advances the learner’s psychological functions.
Feuerstein and his colleagues (1980) developed a comprehensive system for
mediation of general cognitive strategies and skills to special needs students, called
“Instrumental Enrichment.” The “Instrumental Enrichment” program includes 14
booklets of paper-and-pencil exercises which cover such areas as analytic perception,
orientation in time and space, comparison, categorization, and so on. The program is
taught individually or to a whole classroom of students by teachers specially trained in
the principles of mediated learning and techniques of “Instrumental Enrichment.” The
program proved to be effective in enhancing the cognitive functioning of mentally
retarded, learning disabled, and other groups of special needs students (Arbitman-Smith,
Haywood, & Bransford, 1984; Kozulin 2000).
Though Feuerstein et al. (1980) did not use the concept of psychological tools in
their theoretical introduction to “Instrumental Enrichment,” anyone familiar with the
program would agree that in practice it offers one of the most systematic schemes of
21
psychological tools (Kozulin, 1998). The unity of psychological tools and mediating the
learning experience plays an exceptionally important role in remedial education.
"Symbolic tools have a rich educational potential, but they remain ineffective if there is
no human mediator to facilitate their appropriation by the learner. By the same token,
human mediation that does not involve sophisticated symbolic tools would not help the
learner to master more complex forms of reasoning and problem solving" (Kozulin, 2003,
p.35).
It is the unity of psychological tools and teaching based on "mediated learning"
that makes remediation effectual. The theoretical integration of the Vygotskian concept
of psychological tools with Feuerstein’s notion of mediated learning experience served as
a basis for concrete intervention programs for culturally different deaf children (Lurie &
Kozulin, 1998) and blind students (Gouzman, 2000; Gouzman & Kozulin, 2000).
The third group of remediation studies includes those emerging on the crossroads
of Vygotskian ideas and some additional theoretical principles such as information
processing. An appropriate example here is J.P. Das’s (Das & Kendrick, 1997)
methodology for remediation of such "high incidence" disabilities as reading disability.
The Reading Enhancement Program employs two key Vygotskian concepts:
appropriation of psychological tools and social-cultural mediation. It consists of two
parts, the global cognitive process-training unit that provides students with a guided
opportunity to internalize cognitive strategies and the “bridge unit” that offers training in
specific strategies relevant to reading and writing.
Yet another example could be the Bright Start: Cognitive Curriculum for Young
Children (Haywood, Brooks, Burns, 1992). The mediation of psychological tools in the
context of the zone of proximal development is the essence and major distinctive feature
of the program. Although different theories contributed to the creation of Bright Start,
22
understanding and practical implementation is more efficiently accomplished from a
Vygotskian perspective, according to the clinical experience of the second author (BG).
This methodology is designed for use with children who are at high risk of learning
failure in the primary grades due to severe deprivation and educational neglect in early
childhood (e.g., internationally adopted post-institutionalized children, Gindis, 2001).
The problem of inclusion
One of the “mysterious” aspects of Vygotsky’s scientific legacy is his attention to
questions that were not relevant at his time, but turned out to be of major concern for
educators decades after his death. One of those is the issue of “inclusion,” which was not
even on the agenda of Vygotsky’s contemporaries (McCagg, 1989) but became very
emotionally charged in the early 1990s in the USA. It is difficult to explain why
Vygotsky was so passionate in expressing his thoughts on this subject that was outside of
the mindset of both professionals and the public at large. Vygotsky was not able to escape
the built-in controversy associated with this issue and readers could become quite
confused by him being equally critical of what he called the "unlawful segregation" of the
disabled on the one hand and the lack of differentiated educational environments for
children with special needs on the other. It took Vygotsky several years to develop his
vision for special education that includes "integration based on positive differentiation"
(Vygotsky, 1995, pp. 114, 167).
There is both a philosophical and a practical distinction between the concepts of
mainstreaming and of inclusion as they are used in contemporary special education in
North America. The concept of "mainstreaming" is part of a traditional pattern of special
education service delivery. It means the selective placement of special education students
in general education classes based on their demonstrated ability to function on the same
level as the majority of students in that classroom. Usually mainstreaming presupposes a
23
procedure for declassification of a child as a “special needs” case. The child’s disability
is considered compensated for or remediated to the extent that it does not prevent the
child from benefiting from a regular (mainstreamed) curriculum (Stainback, Stainback &
Forest, 1989). Inclusion as an educational concept rejects the idea of special education
(with the exception of a small number of cases of severe sensory/physical/mental
disability) as a segregated placement. The proponents of this approach believe that a child
with a handicap belongs in general education with support services delivered to the child.
They may agree with the necessity for the partial or temporary provision of special needs
services outside the general education class if the need arises, but only on a limited basis.
Within the inclusion movement there is also a radical trend called "full inclusion" that
insists that all students, regardless of the severity of the handicapping condition, be
placed in a regular classroom or program full time, with all services brought to the child
in that setting (Fuchs & Fuchs, 1994).
In the early stages of his career as a researcher and an educational administrator,
Vygotsky called for "normalization through inclusion" of all children with disabilities,
sometimes going to the extreme. Many aspects of his earlier writing had much in
common with what is now called "The Full Inclusion Model" or "Regular Classroom
Initiative" as described in Lipsky and Gartner (1996). His criticism of the "negative
model of special education" as a combination of lowered expectations, a watered-down
curriculum, and social isolation sounds very much up to date and is enthusiastically cited
by proponents of full inclusion (Fuchs & Fuchs, 1994). Vygotsky argued against what he
called "social prejudices against the handicapped" (Vygotsky, 1993, pp. 65-76). This
appeal fell on a deaf ears in Stalinist Russia (McCagg, 1989), but was fully appreciated
by a broad audience in the USA half a century later (Newman & Holzman, 1993).
24
On the other hand, in his later works Vygotsky expressed the firm conviction that
only a truly differentiated learning environment can fully contribute to the development
of the higher psychological functions and overall personality of a child with a disability.
Special education should be provided in a specially designed setting where the entire staff
is able to exclusively serve the individual needs of a child with a disability. It should be a
special system that employs its own specific methodologies because students with
disabilities require modified and alternative methods of teaching. Students with
disabilities need specially trained teachers, a differentiated curriculum, special
technological auxiliary means, and simply more time to learn. How realistically can these
demands be met in a regular classroom situation? These arguments are used by the
proponents of the current (segregated) system of special education in contemporary
Russia (Knox & Stevens, 1993; Belopolskaya & Grebennikova, 1997; Smith-Davis,
2000).
This obvious contradiction in Vygotsky's position reflects the inherent
controversy over the very notion of inclusion: how to address special needs in a general
school environment; how to integrate specialized and generalized teaching
methodologies; how to escape separation in a "closed society" and attend to exceptional
individual demands at the same time (see Kauffman & Hallahan, 1995). Summarizing
Vygotsky's view on this matter, one can observe that in the process of developing his
approach, Vygotsky moved from understanding inclusion as “topographic” (being in the
same classroom) and temporal (being in the same classroom at the same time) to
developing a sociocultural concept of integration. It is important to understand that
although Vygotsky suggested physical separation in specialized day or boarding schools,
real integration in his view was supposed to be achieved through similar curriculum
content (by providing extra time, adapting specific methods of teaching and providing
25
additional adult mediated assistance) and the appropriation of culturally meaningful
psychological tools. He continued to insist on topographical and temporal proximity of
special needs and general education students in what he called "political and social
activity" (Vygotsky, 1995, pp. 462-467). This idea is similar to what today is called
"social mainstreaming." Non-academic activities such as assemblies, sports, lunch time,
playground games, music, art, etc., provide an opportunity for social learning not only for
children with handicapping conditions but also for their non-disabled peers (Kauffman &
Hallahan, 1995).
Vygotsky's main premise was that a child with a disability must be
accommodated with experiences and opportunities that are as close as possible to the
mainstreamed situation, but not at the expense of "positive differentiation." This should
be based on the children's potential rather than their current limitations. It was
Vygotsky’s firm belief that the future of remedial education lies in employing specific
methods for achieving mainstreamed social and cultural goals. It is a sad irony that
Vygotsky's idea of integration of children with disabilities into the social and cultural life
of their communities as a condition of effective rehabilitation and compensation was
never realized in his native country (Lubovsky, 1996; Smith-Davis, 2000) but was
enthusiastically embraced in US in the last quarter of the 20th century.
Zone of Proximal Development and Psycho-educational Assessment
The assessment of children with handicapping conditions has been a socially and
politically sensitive and emotionally charged issue for a long time. Dissatisfaction with
the existing arsenal of evaluation tools and procedures has spurred the search for more
useful alternatives (Feuerstein et al., 1979; Haywood & Tzuriel, 1992). One of the most
promising options is the so-called "dynamic assessment," of which Vygotsky is rightfully
considered to be the "founding father" (Lidz, 1995). Although Vygotsky had no chance to
26
elaborate on specific assessment procedures, his notion of a "Zone of Proximal
Development" (ZPD) forms the theoretical foundation of a group of approaches now
commonly recognized as "dynamic assessment" (DA).
Parents and teachers have frequently observed that with the appropriate help and
in collaboration with a more experienced partner, a child is capable of more advanced
performance than when functioning independently. It was Vygotsky, however, who
elevated this otherwise trivial observation to the rank of the scientific paradigm known as
ZPD. This is probably the most popular and most discussed of Vygotsky’s concepts, one
which at the same time remains poorly understood and often misinterpreted (Chaiklin
2003; see also the Alvarez & del Rio chapter in this volume).
One apparent reason for difficulty with the notion of ZPD is that it had been used
by Vygotsky in the three interconnected yet separate contexts of developmental theory,
applied research, and school-based concept-formation studies. The developmental aspect
is concerned primarily with the emerging psychological functions of the child. The
applied aspect focuses on the difference between the child’s individual and aided
performance. The concept-formation aspect is related to the interaction between
“scientific” and “everyday” concepts in school learning. In addition to the multiplicity of
contexts there is another problematic point – Vygotsky never proposed any specific
methodology (in the Western sense of this term) for a study of ZPD or its use as an
assessment technique. He suggested various approaches to a study of emergent
psychological functions and various alternatives to standard IQ testing, but not one of
them offered a definitive methodological paradigm. Here are two examples of
Vygotsky’s suggestions:
“We assist each child through demonstration, leading questions, and by
introducing elements of the task’s solution” (Vygotsky, 1934/1987, p. 209). And,
27
describing the action of the examiner: “We show the child how such a problem must be
solved and watch to see if he can do the problem by imitating the demonstration. Or we
begin to solve the problem and ask the child to finish it. Or we propose that the child
solve the problem that is beyond his mental age by cooperating with another, more
developed child or, finally, we explain to the child the principle of solving the problem,
ask leading questions, analyze the problem for him, etc. (Vygotsky, 1934/1998b, p. 202).
One can thus be true to the word and meaning of Vygotsky’s theory of ZPD, but
one cannot follow or deviate from Vygotsky’s ZPD assessment methodology for the
simple reason that he never spelled it out.
According to Vygotsky, assessment is not an isolated activity that is merely
linked to intervention. Assessment, instruction, and remediation can be based on the same
universal explanatory conceptualization of a child’s development (typical and atypical)
and within this model are therefore inseparable. “A true diagnosis must provide an
explanation, prediction, and scientific basis for practical prescription” (Vygotsky,
1934/1998, p. 205). Vygotsky made a clear distinction between what he called
symptomatic and diagnostic assessment:
“A symptomatic assessment focuses on behaviors and characteristics…that are
typical of children of a particular psychological type or developmental stage. In contrast,
a diagnostic assessment relies on an explicit explanatory theory of psychological
development in an attempt to penetrate the internal causal dynamic and genetic
connections that define the process of mental development” (Vygotsky, 1987, p. 135).
Unlike most norm-based, as well as developmentally-based, procedures used in
standard assessments, Vygotskian ZPD- based assessments aspire to offer a theory-based
diagnostic explanation. Such an explanation is based on the following premises:
28
1. Vygotsky insisted that assessment of the child’s ability to learn through the
method of collaborative activity was a better predictor of future cognitive
functioning than a measure of independent performance through such
measures as traditional IQ tests. His explanation was that the greater
number of maturing functions gave the child better opportunities to benefit
from school instruction (see Van der Veer & Valsiner 1991, pp. 336-341
for an elaboration and critique of this claim).
2. The ZPD should be measured in the context of what Vygotsky called
either “shared/joint activity” (sovmestnaya deajtelnost) or “collaboration”
(sotrudnichestvo), using these terms synonymously. He proposed “that an
essential feature of learning is that it creates the zone of proximal
development; that is, learning awakens a variety of developmental
processes that are able to operate only when the child is interacting with
people in his environment and in collaboration with his peers” (Vygotsky,
1935/1978, p. 90).
3. Vygotsky suggested that the “size” of the ZPD was determined by the
child’s ability to benefit from collaboration with an expert in order to
advance the child’s performance beyond what was already achieved by
non-assisted performance. There is nothing in Vygotsky’s texts that
suggests that this “size” is a fixed property of the child, remaining constant
across age periods. DA should be able to measure the child’s ever-
changing ability to learn with assistance/guidance as well as to assess the
individual “length” of ZPD.
At the same time, Vygotsky’s attitude toward standardized (“static”) testing was
somewhat inconsistent. On the one hand, he seemed to uncritically accept two major
29
concepts that have been challenged by contemporary science: “mental age” as a
psychological construct and the validity of standardized tests as reliable measures of fully
developed psychological functions through independent performance. It was rather
contradictory that the concept of “mental age,” seemingly incompatible with Vygotsky’s
own theory of child development, was casually used by him in a number of his works. On
the other hand, Vygotsky offered one of the most original and insightful critiques of
standardized tests. His major objections to standardized tests were that they confused
latent capacities with developed abilities,; they mixed lower (natural) capability with
higher (socially learned) expertise, they had low ecological validity, and they were only
marginally relevant to educational processes. He suggested as an alternative the approach
based on the notion of ZPD, focusing on emergent cognitive functions and the child’s
learning potential.
Not all aspects of the theory of ZPD found expression in current DA procedures,
and not everything that is used in DA is directly derived from Vygotsky’s theory. For
example, Vygotsky was particularly concerned with assessing the child’s readiness for a
qualitative change, for a transition to a new age period. As such his concern was mostly
macro-developmental (see Chaiklin, 2003). Some of the contemporary DA approaches
operate on micro-developmental level, focusing on a specific function or skill. It would
be appropriate to question whether such DA approaches can legitimately be called ZPD-
based. Vygotsky’s notion of ZPD is also intimately linked to the appropriation and
internalization of psychological tools. Not many of the contemporary DA approaches
theoretically acknowledge or operationally use the appropriation of psychological tools as
a part of their procedures.
30
All these difficulties notwithstanding, one can discern a set of assumptions that on
the one hand unite different DA approaches (whether ZPD-based or not) and on the other
distinguish them from traditional standardized testing (Kozulin, 1998).
The traditional testing paradigm includes the notions that:
1. The manifest level of functioning reveals the child's inner abilities
more or less accurately.
2. Unaided performance is the best format for assessment.
3. The primary goal of testing is to predict future functioning and to
classify the child according to level of abilities.
In contrast, DA includes the principles or assumptions that:
l. Cognitive processes are modifiable and an important task of assessment
is to ascertain their degree of modifiability, rather than remain restricted to
estimation of the child’s manifest level of functioning.
2. Interactive assessment that includes a learning phase provides better
insight into the child's learning capacities than unaided performance.
3. The primary goal of assessment is to suggest psycho-educational
interventions aimed at the enhancement and realization of the child’s latent
ability to learn.
Ideally, dynamic testing is intertwined with instruction, and the examinee’s learning
ability is observed carefully during the process of learning. The goal of DA is to discover
whether and how much the examinee will change under the influence of scaffolding
activities (Tzuriel, 2001). As summarized by Lidz and Elliot (2000): “the essential
characteristics of DA are that they are interactive, open ended, and generate information
about the responsiveness of the learner to intervention” (p. 7). As was observed by Lidz
(1995), traditional standardized assessment follows the child's cognitive performance to
31
the point of "failure" in independent functioning, while DA in the Vygotskian tradition
leads the child to the point of success in joint/shared activity.
Currently available DA procedures are not limited to any single domain (e.g.
analogic reasoning), content (e.g. math, language), activity (e.g., testing, teaching), or
age. It is a “family” of different procedures that share a set of principles and formats.
Sternberg and Grigorenko (2002, pp. 27-28) described the two most common formats of
dynamic assessment as “sandwich” design and “cake” design. In the “sandwich” format
of dynamic testing, the instruction is given all at once between the pretest and the
posttest. In the “cake” format the instruction is given in graded layers after each test item,
in response to the examinee's solution to each test item.
Concern regarding the issue of how to provide assistance is far from idle. Because
Vygotsky’s assumption of the social origin of development of higher mental functions is
so central, it is important to discriminate between those interactions which promote such
development and those that do not, assuming that not all interactions are equal. Vygotsky
emphasized the importance of language as a major, if not the primary mechanism of
internalization of experiences, but was not explicit regarding the details of how best to
intervene during the course of the assessment. A number of writers have attempted to fill
this gap. For example, Hogan and Pressley (1997) list a number of techniques that
describe the various approaches to scaffolding. Others who have attempted to describe
the type and nature of assistance provided during the scaffolding process included Tharp
and Gallimore (1988) and Gauvain (2001).
One may distinguish two large groups of DA procedures. The primary
representative of the first group is Feuerstein et al.’s (1979, 2003) Learning Potential
Assessment Device (LPAD). Feuerstein explicitly rejects the task of prediction and
placement as a legitimate goal of DA. For him the only real goal of DA is to identify the
32
child’s learning needs and on this basis to design an appropriate remediation strategy.
The issue of reliability or validity of assessment instruments seems to be irrelevant in his
vision of DA. LPAD is a clinical procedure that emphasizes the flexibility of mediation
provided to children in response to their on-going cognitive performance, repeating the
same test when necessary and adding new instruments from the LPAD battery as the
children progress in their problem solving. Individual LPAD assessment is time
consuming; it is not uncommon for the LPAD assessor to spend 10 or 15 hours working
with a child during 5-10 assessment sessions. The LPAD procedure was applied with
special needs children and adolescents ranging from Down Syndrome, autistic spectrum,
and organic brain disorders to learning disabled and regular underachievers (for relevant
case studies see Feuerstein et al., 2003).
DA procedures belonging to the second group are rarely so radical. Guthke and
Beckmann (2000), for example, suggested that DA is not an alternative, but a supplement
to standard assessment. Moreover, DA is often presented as a better way of fulfilling
traditional assessment goals, including prediction of the child’s future performance and
recommendation for placement. The issue of reliability or validity of assessment
instruments is of considerable importance for this group of DA procedures (Elliott, 2003).
In different countries DA appears under different names (Lidz & Elliott, 2000).
In Russia, assessment techniques derived from the concept of ZPD are rarely called
“dynamic assessment,” though in essence many of them are similar to Western DA
approaches. (A review and critical analysis of these methods may be found in Gindis,
1992; Karpov & Gindis, 2000). There are at least two DA approaches in Russia that
reflect different emphases in methodology and techniques. If the emphasis is on the
"assessment," then it is "diagnistika obuchaemosti," translated as “diagnosis of learning
aptitude” (Ivanova, 1976). If the emphasis is on teaching and learning in ZPD, then it
33
would be called "obuchayuchij experiment," translated as “teaching/learning experiment”
(Galperin, 1969).
In Soviet and now Russian psychology, the nature of the responsiveness of
children to prompts was the basis for differential diagnosis of children with organically-
based mental retardation and children who were educationally neglected or had
temporary delays in cognitive functioning (Gindis, 1986, 1988, 1992). The theoretical
development of DA was undertaken, implicitly or explicitly, by a number of prominent
Vygotskians in Russia such as Luria (1961), Elkonin (1977), Galperin (1969),
Zaporozhets and Elkonin (1971), Lubovsky (1989), and Venger (1988). The fruitfulness
of applying their conceptualizations and methods was convincingly demonstrated by
Bodrova and Leong (1996). Certain aspects of DA, such as the emotional/motivational
components, were particularly emphasized and elaborated in Russian research, while
most Western developers of DA have been focusing on the cognitive aspects of this
assessment procedure.
The best-known method of assessing learning aptitude was developed by the
Moscow psychologist Anna Ivanova in the early 1970s. An example of Ivanova’s
diagnostic procedure includes classification of pictures with geometrical designs of
different forms, sizes, and colors. The child is asked to sort these cards into groups based
on these attributes. In the process of performing this activity the child received prescribed
prompts from the examiner until the assignment was completed. Following this, another
set of cards was offered for the same purpose, but this time without the provision of help.
The “length” of ZPD (explicitly associated with learning aptitude) was determined
through notation of the quality and quantity of prompts that were needed and the child’s
ability to transfer the acquired cognitive skills to a new set of similar tasks (Ivanova,
1976). Karpov (1990) observed that these qualitative and quantitative markers of ZPD
34
may in fact reflect different psychological realities and that the use of a“composite”
indicator therefore may be misleading.
The “teaching/learning experiment,” also theoretically rooted in the concept of
ZPD, was perfected in Russia as a measure of the level of internalization of problem-
solving cognitive strategies (Galperin, 1969). Children's ability to move from one level of
solving problems to the next is one of the most important characteristics of the process of
internalization in their ZPD. In Russian neo-Vygotskian literature, the consecutive levels
of internalization are described as visual-motor (actual manipulations with objects),
visual-imagery (operations with visual images) , and symbolic levels of internalization. In
the course of normal development, children progress to increasingly higher levels of
internalization of their problem-solving activity (Davydov, 1995). In the “teaching/
learning experiment” two characteristics of the child's learning during DA testing are
considered as criteria in determining the cross-domain level of internalization of the
child's problem-solving activity. These characteristics are: (a) the highest initial level
(symbolic, visual-imagery, or visual-motor) at which the child is able to understand the
algorithm for a new problem-solving process and (b) the highest level at which the child
is able to perform a new problem-solving process after planned and prescribed
intervention. These characteristics are related to that child's cross-domain ability to learn
and transfer new knowledge. One can find a detailed description of the procedure in
Karpov and Gindis, 2000.
In Russia, the most comprehensive attempt to create a ZPD theory-driven DA is
the “diagnostic of learning aptitude” procedure developed by Lubovsky (1989, 1990)
and his colleagues (Belopolskay & Lubovsky, 1992). In many ways, their model is
similar to the Campione and Brown (1987) “graduated prompts” method. The similarity
of these two approaches lies in the measurement and quantification of the amount of help
35
that a child needed to perform a given task. The major differences are related to the
elaborated procedures for observing a child’s behavior, the detailed descriptions of
gradually diminishing adult contribution to a joint/shared activity, and the attention to
emotional/motivational aspects.
It must be emphasized that in Russia the emotional/motivational aspect of
assessment has always been at the center of attention both theoretically (Elkonin 1977;
Zaporozhets & Elkonin, 1971) and practically (Lebedinsky, 1985; Belopolskaya &
Lubovsky, 1992). This emphasis can be clearly seen in Elkonin’s study of the
relationships between cognitively-operational and personality-motivational aspects of
children’s development as well as in Venger’s (1988) notion of “sensory standards.”
Research on internal as compared to external sources of motivation, self-esteem, and
reaction to success and failure during a DA experimental situation occupied a prominent
place in the work of Russian followers of Vygotsky. Thus Belopolskaia and
Grebennikova (1997) have differentiated children based on (1) whether motivation was
primarily internal or external, (2) whether the children demonstrated the need for
moderate or strong stimulation, and (3) whether the children showed well-developed or
under-developed self-esteem in the experimental situation. One of the most important
findings that emerged from the works of Russian psychologists in the early 1980s is that
a determining factor in task performance is the nature of the child's "emotional
anticipation" of the process of task performance. According to these studies, task
performance during DA starts with the appearance of emotional anticipation, which may
facilitate or hinder the expression of intellectual abilities (Belopolskaya & Lubovsky,
1992). These and related studies demonstrated that investigating the affective-cognitive
content of children's mental activity was useful in developing diagnostic instruments that
36
more fully and accurately assess intellectual abilities and potential, providing more
specific information regarding learning problems.
Strebeleva’s (2000) system of non-verbal tests developed at the Institute of
Corrective Pedagogy in Moscow may serve as a good example of the DA approach
relevant to the tasks of special education and pre-school learning. Vygotsky’s notions of
ZPD as collaboration (“sovmestnaya deyatelnost”) and imitation served as a theoretical
basis for this system. The test (called “Early Diagnostic Procedure”– EDP) consists of
10 subtests. Each is presented in a classical test-teach-retest format and includes detailed
instructions. The degree of exactness in imitation is measured by assigning points and is
considered to reflect the “depth” of ZPD. According to Strebeleva, this method allows for
differentiation between preschoolers with organically-based mental retardation and those
who are educationally neglected and/or have temporary delays in psychological
development. Strebeva’s work is one of the first attempts to apply the concept of
imitation as the basis of DA in differential diagnostic procedures for children with
different degrees of developmental disorder. However, the EDP subtests are quite
variable in their degree of difficulty of imitation and appear to address diverse cognitive
functions (from elementary visual tracking to rather complex concepts of size,
directionality, and object constancy).
The Application of Cognitive Functions Scale (ACFS) by Lidz and Jepsen (2000)
may serve as an example of a curriculum-based DA procedure that reflects on
Vygotsky’s notion of ZPD and at the same time responds to specific needs and conditions
of pre-school education in the US. ACFS was developed for children functioning at the
level of three to five year olds. The six scales were designed to represent typical tasks,
tapping basic cognitive processes which represent the foundations of learning and which
characterize most preschool curricula throughout the US. As a DA procedure, each task is
37
administered first without intervention, then followed immediately with intervention, and
finally followed immediately by repetition of (or variation on) the pretest without
intervention. The interventions provide mediation for the child through exposure to basic
strategies and principles of task solution on materials which differ from the pretests and
posttests. The intervention for each task represents instructional strategies relevant to that
task. The six tasks of the ACFS include four core scales: classification, auditory memory,
visual memory, and sequential pattern completion, and two supplementary scales: verbal
planning and perspective taking.
The interventions for each of these scales tap the components described as
Mediated Learning Experience by Feuerstein and his colleagues (e.g., 1979, 1980), as
adapted and elaborated by Lidz (1991, 2002). The assessor offers intentional intervention,
assuming a leadership role while being sensitive to the child’s abilities and responses.
The assessor’s behavior is guided by scripted interventions that provide strategies and
principles of task solution intended for generalization from the pre- to the posttest tasks.
These interventions include enhancement of the meaning of the task along with proving
the transcendence of the child’s approach to task solution beyond the current situation.
A Behavior Observation Scale accompanies each task and is completed following
each pretest and intervention phase of the sub-tests. The seven dimensions rated on this
scale include the following: self-regulation, persistence, frustration tolerance, flexibility,
motivation, interactivity, and responsivity. The ACFS yields scores to document the
degree to which the child has mastered each of the tasks, summary scores for pretests and
posttests as well as change or gain scores between pretests and posttests, and behavior
scale ratings. While these scores are useful for research and monitoring, the more
significant value of the ACFS is the possibility of writing descriptive observations of the
38
child in the process of performing each of the tasks independently and in interaction with
a mediator.
As with many other aspects of Vygotsky’s theoretical legacy, the notion of ZPD
not only serves as a direct source of some DA approaches but (probably more important)
also provides a theoretical perspective for the analysis and evaluation of even those DA
approaches that have appeared independently and whose original concept lies outside
Vygotskian theory. One may only hope that DA methods will find wider application in
the practice of special education.
Conclusion
Not many theories formulated over 70 years ago continue to attract attention and provoke
controversy. Vygotsky’s theory of disontogenesis and his blueprints for remedial
pedagogy continue to be in the focus of professional attention. Because of this we see it
befitting to conclude this chapter not with a summary of the past achievements of
Vygotskian approach but with a vision of the possible directions in which this approach
may develop:
Further development of the theory of disontegenesis, including
research on the dialectic relationship between primary and secondary
handicapping conditions, disability-specific "zones of proximal
development," the processes of internalization of external cultural
activities into internal processes via psychological tools, and mediated
learning in relation to high and low incidence disabilities.
Applied studies aimed at creating disability-specific psycho-
educational profiles of different handicapping conditions along with
constructing disability-specific sets of psychological tools and
disability-specific mediation techniques.
39
Perfected “dynamic assessment” procedures for children with
handicapping conditions to effectively connect them with remedial
methodologies.
A. Mediated learning – adequate.
Higher level symbolic tools available and
internalized as psychological tools.
B. Mediated learning – adequate.
Higher level symbolic tools unavailable.
C. Higher level symbolic tools available but fail
to be internalized as psychological tools.
Mediated learning is adequate in activities that
do not require higher level symbolic tools.
D. Mediated learning insufficient.
Higher level symbolic tools unavailable.
Table 1. Matrix of interactions between symbolic tools and mediated learning experience.
40
Cultural development
Superior cultural
development on the
basis of normative
natural functions
Superior natural
abilities and superior
cultural development
Retarded natural
development,
compensated for in
part by the use of
cultural tools
Normative natural
development and
normative
acquisition of
cultural tools
Superior natural
abilities amplified by the
normative acquisition of
cultural tools
Retarded natural
development &
cultural primitivity
Normal natural
development with
cultural primitivity
Culturally primitive
with superior
development of some
natural functions
Natural development
Fig.1. Natural and cultural determinants of development.
41
References:
Akhutina, T.V. (1997). The remediation of executive functions in children with
cognitive disorders: the Vygotsky-Luria neuropsychological approach. Journal
of Intellectual Disability Research, 41 (part 2), 144-151.
ALMANAH (2000-2002). Publication of the Institute of Corrective Pedagogy,
Moscow. Available at: www.ise.iip.net/almanah.
Arbitman-Smith, R., Haywood, C., & Bransford, J. (1984). Assessing cognitive
change. In P. Brooks, R. Sperber, & C. McCauly (Eds.), Learning and
cognition in the mentally retarded (pp. 433-471). Mahwe, N.J.: Erlbaum.
Bakhurst, D. & Padden, C. (1991). The Meshcheryakov experiment: Soviet work on
the education of blind/deaf children. Learning and Instruction, 1, 201-215.
Belopolskay, N.L. & Lubovsky, V. I. (1992). Differentsial’no-psikhologicheskaia
diagnostika deteei s intellektualnoi nedastatochnost’iu [Differential
psychological diagnostics of children with cognitive deficiency].
Psikhologichesky Zhurnal, 4, 98-97.
Belopolskaya, N, L., & Grebennikova, N. V. (1997). Neuropsychology and
psychological diagnosis of abnormal development. In E. L. Grigorenko, P. M.
Ruzgis, & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Russian psychology: Past, present, and future
(pp. 155-179). Commack, NY: Nova Academic Press.
Berk L. & Winsler, A. (1995). Scaffolding children's learning: Vygotsky and early
childhood education. Washington, DC: National Association for the Young
Children..
42
Bodrova, E. & Leong, D.J. (1996). Tools of the mind: The Vygotskian approach to
early childhood education. Columbus, OH: Merrill.
Campione, J.C. & Brown, A.L. (1987). Linking dynamic assessment with school
achievement. In C.S. Lidz (Ed.). Dynamic assessment: An interactional
approach to evaluating learning potential (pp. 82-113). New York: Guilford.
Chaiklin, S. (2003). The Zone of Proximal Development in Vygotsky’s analysis of
learning and instruction. In A. Kozulin, B. Gindis, V. Ageyev & S. Miller,
Eds., Vygotsky’s educational theory in cultural context (pp.39-64). New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Chulkov, V. N., Lubovsky, V. I., & Martsinovskaia, E. N. (Eds.). (1990).
Differentsirovannyi podkhod pri obuchennii i vospitan slepoglukhikry detei
[Differentiative approaches to the teaching and upbringing of deaf-blind
children]. Moscow: Academia Pedagogicheskikh Nauk.
Daniels, H. & Lunt I.. (1993) Vygotskian theory and special education practice in
Russia. Educational Studies, 19 (No. 1), 79-89.
Das, J.P. & Kendrick, M. (1997), PASS Reading Enhancement Program: A short
manual for teachers. Journal of Cognitive Education, 5(3), 193-208.
Das, J.P., Naglieri, J.A., Kirby, J.R. (1994). Assessment of cognitive processes: The
PASS theory of intelligence. MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Davydov, V.V. (1995). The influence of L.S. Vygotsky on education theory, research,
and practice. Educational Researcher, 24 (3), 12-21.
Elkonin, D. (1977). Toward the problem of stages in the mental development of the
child. In M. Cole (Ed.), Soviet developmental psychology (pp.538 -563). White
Plains, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
43
Elliott, J. (2003). Dynamic assessment in educational settings. Educational Review,
55, 15-32.
Feuerstein, R. (1990). The theory of structural cognitive modifiability. In B.
Presseisen (Ed.), Learning and thinking styles: Classroom interaction (pp. 68-
134). Washington, DC: National Education Association.
Feuerstein, R., Rand, Y., & Hoffman M. (1979). Dynamic assessment of retarded
performer. Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.
Feuerstein, R., Rand, Y., Hoffman M. & Miller, R. (1980). Instrumental Enrichment.
Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.
Feuerstein, R., Gross, S. (1997). The Learning Potential Assessment Device. In
Flanagan, D. et al.(Eds.) Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests,
and issues. NY: The Guilford Press.
Feuerstein, R., Rand, Y., Falik, L. & Feuerstein, Ra. (2003). Dynamic assessment of
cognitive modifiability. Jerusalem: ICELP Press.
Fuchs, D. & Fuchs, L. (1994). Inclusive School Movement and the Radicalization of
Special Education Reform. Exceptional Children, 60, 294-309.
Galperin, P. Y. (1969). Stages in the development of mental acts. In M. Cole & I.
Maltzman (Eds.). A handbook of contemporary Soviet psychology (pp. 34-61).
New York: Basic Books.
Gauvain, M. (2001). The social context of cognitive development. New York:
Guilford.
Gindis, B. (1986). Special education in the Soviet Union: Problems and perspectives.
The Journal of Special Education, 20 (3), 375-383.
Gindis, B. (1988). Children with mental retardation in the Soviet Union. Mental
Retardation, 26(6), 381-384.
44
Gindis, B. (1992). Successful theories and practices from Russia: Can they be
adopted in the United States? AAMR News & Notes, 5 (6), pp. 3-5.
Gindis, B. (2001). Detecting and remediating the cumulative cognitive deficit in school
age internationally adopted post-institutionalized children. The Post: Parent
Network for the Post-Institutionalized Child, 271-6.
Gindis, B. (1998). Navigating Uncharted Waters: School Psychologists Working with
Internationally Adopted Post-Institutionalized Children. Communiqué (National
Association of School Psychologists) September (Part l) 27(1), 6-9 and October
(Part (2) 27(2), 20-23.
Gouzman, R. & Kozulin, A. (2000). Enhancing cognitive skills in blind learners. The
Educator, 12, 20-29.
Gouzman, R. (2000). The Instrumental Enrichment program for the blind learners.
The Educator, 12, 30-37.
Grigorenko, E.L., Ruzgis, R. M. & Sternberg, R. J. (Eds.), (1997) Russian
psychology: Past, present, and future. (155-179). Commack, NY: Nova
Academic Press.
Guthke, J. & Beckmann, J. (2000). Learning test concept and dynamic assessment. In
In A. Kozulin & Y. Rand (Eds.), Experience of mediated learning (pp. 175-
190). Oxford: Elsevier Scientific.
Haywood, H. C. & Tzuriel, D. (1992). Interactive assessment. NY: Springer-Verlag.
Haywood, H.C. Brooks, P.H. & Burns, S. (1992). Bright Start: Cognitive curriculum
for young children. Watertown, MA: Charles Bridge Publishers.
Hogan, K. & Pressley, M. (Eds.) (1997). Scaffolding student learning: Instructional
approaches and issues. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.
45
Ivanova, A.Ya. (1976). Obuchaemost kak printsip otsenki ymstvennogo pazvitia u
detei [Learning aptitude as a diagnostic method in cognitive development of
children]. Moscow, Pedagogika.
Karpov, Y.V. & Gindis, B. (2000). Dynamic assessment of the level of internalization
of elementary school children’s problem solving activity. In C.S. Lidz & J.G.
Elliott (Eds.). Dynamic Assessment: Prevailing models and applications (pp.
133-154). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.
Karpov, Y.V. (1990). Obuchaemost kak characteristika umstvennogo razvitia
[Learning aptitude as an indicator of cognitive development]. Psikhologia,
14(2), 3-16.
Kauffman, J.M. & Hallahan, D.P. (1995). The Illusion of Full Inclusion. Austin, TX:
Pro-Ed.
Kaufman, R. & Kozulin, A. (1999). Case studies. In R. Feuerstein and associates,.
Educational intervention with new immigrant students from Ethiopia: Final
report. Jerusalem: ICELP & The Jewish Agency.
Knox, J. & Kozulin, A. (1989). The Vygotskian tradition in Soviet psychological
study of deaf children. In W.O. McCagg & L. Siegelbaum (Eds). The disabled
in the Soviet Union. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press, pp. 63-84.
Knox, J. & Stevens, C. (1993). Vygotsky and Soviet Russian Defectology: An
Introduction. In R. W. Rieber & A.S. Carton (Eds.) The collected works of L.
S. Vygotsky. volume 2: The fundamentals of defectology (Abnormal Psychology
and Learning Disabilities). Plenum Press, New York, pp 1-28.
Kozulin, A. (1990). Vygotsky's psychology: A biography of ideas. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
46
Kozulin, A. & Presseisen, B.Z. (1995). Mediated learning experience and
psychological tools: Vygotsky’s and Feuerstein’s perspectives in a study of
student learning. Educational Psychologist, 30(2), 67-76.
Kozulin, A. (1984). Psychology in Utopia: Toward a social history of Soviet
psychology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kozulin, A. (1986). Vygotsky in Context. In L. S. Vygotsky, Thought and Language,
(pp.xi-lxi), (revised edition). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Kozulin, A. (1998). Psychological tools: A sociocultural approach to education.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Kozulin, A. (2000). Diversity of Instrumental Enrichment applications. In A. Kozulin
& Y. Rand, (Eds.), Experience of mediated learning, (pp. 257-273). Oxford:
Elsevier Scientific.
Kozulin, A. (2003). Psychological tools and mediated learning. In A. Kozulin, B.
Gindis, V. Ageyev & S. Miller (Eds.), Vygotsky’s educational theory in cultural
context (pp.15-38). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Lebedinsky, V. V. (1985). Narushchenia v psikhicheskom razvitii u detei
[Disorders in Children's Psychological Development]. Moscow: MGU Press.
Lidz, C. & Elliott, J. (Eds.) (2000) . Dynamic assessment: Prevailing models and
applications. Oxford: Elsevier Science.
Lidz, C.S. (1991). Practitioner’s guide to dynamic assessment. New York: Guilford.
Lidz, C.S. (1995). Dynamic assessment and the legacy of L.S. Vygotsky. School
Psychology International, 16(2), 143-153.
Lidz, C.S. (2000). The Application of Cognitive Functions Scale (ACFS): An
example of curriculum-based dynamic assessment. In C.S. Lidz & J.G. Elliott
47
(Eds.) Dynamic assessment: Prevailing models and applications (pp.407-439).
Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.
Lidz, C.S. (2002). Mediated Learning Experience (MLE) as a basis for an alternative
approach to assessment. School Psychology International, 23(1), 68-84.
Lipsky, D. & Gartner, A. (1996). Inclusion, School Restructuring, and the Remaking
of American Society. Harvard Educational Review, No. 66, pp. 762-796.
Lubovsky, V. I. (1989). Psikhologicheskie problemy diagnostiki anormalnogo
razvitia detei [Psychological issues in diagnosis of children with abnormal
development]. Moscow: Pedagogika Press.
Lubovsky, V. I. (1990). Psikhologicheskii Experiment v Differentcialnoi
Diagnistike Umstvennoi Otstalosti [Psychological experiment in differential
diagnosis of mental retardation in children]. Defectology, 6, 3-16.
Lubovsky, V. I. (1996). L.S. Vygotsky i spetcialnaya psikhologia. [L.S. Vygotsky and
special psychology]. Voprosy Psikhologii, 6, 118-125.
Luria, A.R. (1961). An objective approach to the study of the abnormal child. Journal
of the American Orthopsychiatric Association, 31, 1-16.
Lurie, L. & Kozulin, A. (1998). The Instrumental Enrichment cognitive intervention
program with deaf Ethiopian immigrant children in Israel. In A. Weisel, Ed.,
Issues unresolved: New perspectives on language and deaf education (pp.161-
170). Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
Mahn, H. (2003). Periods in child development: Vygotsky’s perspective. In A.
Kozulin, B. Gindis, V. Ageyev & S. Miller (Eds.), Vygotsky’s educational
theory in cultural context (pp.119-137). New York: Cambridge University
Press.
48
Malofeev, N.N. (2001). Specialnoe Obuchenie v Rossii I Zagranistei [Special
Education in Russia and Abroad] (Publication of the Institute of Corrective
Pedagogy). Moscow: Pechatnyi Dvor.
McCagg, W.O. (1989). The Origins of Defectology. In W.O. McCagg & L.
Siegelbaum (Eds.), The disabled in the Soviet Union. Pittsburgh, PA: University
of Pittsburgh Press.
Meshcheriakov, A. (1979). Awakening to life: Forming behavior and mind in deaf-
blind children. (K. Judelson, Trans.). Moscow: Progress Publishing.
Newman, F. & Holzman, L. (1993). Lev Vygotsky: Revolutionary scientist. London &
New York: Routledge Press.
Petrova, A. (1925). Peti-primitivy [Primitive children]. In M.O. Gurevich (Ed.),
Voprosy pedologii I detskoi psikhonevrologii [Problems of pedology and child
psychoneurology]. Moscow: Zhizn I Znanie.
Petrovsky, A. & Yaroshevsky, M. (1998). Kratki Psickologicheskii Slovar [Brief
Psychological Encyclopedia], Rostov-na-Dony, Russia: Fenix.
Presseisen, B. & Kozulin A. (1994). Mediated learning: The contribution of Vygotsky
and Feuerstein in theory and practice. In M. Ben-Hur (Ed.), On Feuerstein’s
Instrumental Enrichment. Palatine, IL: IRI/Skylight Publishing.
Rubinshtein, S. Ya. (1979). Psikhologia umstvenno otstalogo shkolnika [Psychology
of a mentally retarded student]. Moscow: Prosvecshenie Press.
Schulte, A., Osborn, S., Erchul, W. (1998). Effective special education: A United
States dilemma. School Psychology Review, 27(1),. 66-77.
Smith-Davis, J. (2000). People with disabilities in Russia: Progress and prospects. In
K. Keith & R. Schalock (Eds.) Cross-Cultural Perspectives on Quality of Life.
Washington, DC: AAMR.
49
Stainback, S., Stainback, W., Forest, M. (1989). Educating all students in the
mainstream of regular education. Baltimore: Brookes Publishing Co..
Sternberg, R. J. & Grigorenko, E. L. (2002). Dynamic testing: The nature and
measurement of learning potential. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Strebeleva, E. A. (2000). Rannyia diagnostika umstvennoi otstalosti [Procedures for
early diagnosis of mental retardation] (Institute of Corrective Pedagogy,
Moscow). Almanah, 2, 2-11. Retrieved 1/9/2002 from:
www.ise.iip.net/almanah/2/st09.htm.
Suddaby, A. (1998). Children with Learning Difficulties. In J. Riordan (Ed.) Soviet
education: The gifted and the handicapped. London: Routlege.
Sutton, A. (1988). Special Education for Handicapped Pupils. In J.Riordan (Ed.)
Soviet education: The gifted and the handicapped. London: Routlege.
Tharp, R.G. & Gallimore, R. (1988). Rousing minds to life: Teaching, learning, and
schooling in social context.
Tzuriel, D. (2001). Dynamic assessment of young children. New York: Kluwer
Academic/ Plenum Publishers.
Van der Veer, R. & Valsiner, J. (1991). Understanding Vygotsky: A quest for
synthesis. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Venger, A.L. (1994). Structura Psychologicheskogo Syndroma [Structure of
Psychological Syndrome]. Voprosy Psichologii, 4, 82-92.
Venger, L. A. (1988). The origin and development of cognitive abilities in preschool
children. International Journal of Behavioral Development, I(2), 147-153.
Vlasova, T.A. (1984). Otbor detei v vspomogatelny shkolu [Screening children for
special schools]. Moscow: Pedagogika.
50
Vygodskaya, G. L., & Lifanova, T. M. (1999). Life and works of L.S. Vygotsky.
Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, 37 (2), 23-81, 37(3), 3-31.
Vygodskaya, G., & Lifanova, T. A (1996). Lev Semenovich Vygotsky: Igo Zhizn i
Dejtelnost. Shtrikhi K Portrery [Lev Semenovich Vygotsky: His life and work.
Brush strokes of the portrait]. Moscow: Smysl.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1983). Sobraniye Sochinenii [Collected Works], Vol. 5. Moscow:
Pedagogika.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1995). Problemy Defectologii [Problems of Defectology]. Moscow:
Prosvecshenie.
Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and language (rev.ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky. Volume 1: Problems
of general psychology. Norris Minick (Trans.), R. W. Rieber & A.S. Carton
(Eds.). New York: Plenum Press.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1993). The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky. Volume 2: The
fundamentals of defectology (Abnormal psychology and learning disabilities).
J. E. Knox & C. B. Stevens (Trans.), R. W. Rieber & A.S. Carton (Eds.).
New York: Plenum Press.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1998) The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky. Volume 5: Child
psychology. R. W. Rieber (Ed.). New York: Plenum Press.
Zaitseva, G, Pursglove, M. & Gregory, S. (1999). Vygotsky, sign language, and the
education of deaf pupils. The Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education. 4(1),
9-15.
Zaporozhets, A. V., & Elkonin, D. B. (Eds.) (1971). The psychology of preschool
children. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. (Original work published 1964).
51
Zuckerman, G. (2003). The learning activity in the first years of schooling. In A.
Kozulin, B. Gindis, V. Ageyev & S. Miller (Eds.), Vygotsky’s educational theory
in cultural context (pp.177-199). New York: Cambridge University Press.
52
... He stated that the dismissive and negative attitudes of society are the reasons for long term feelings of inadequacy and inferiority on the part of an individual with a disability (Bøttcher and Dammeyer 2012;Smagorinsky 2012). According to Vygotsky, this secondary disability is even more disabling to the individual than their primary disability (Kozulin and Gindis 2007), resulting in exclusion and barriers to learning. Thus, his view of disabilities could be seen as more in line with the social model of disability, which focuses on removing physical and attitudinal barriers in society rather than correcting an individual. ...
... However, the term and subsequent practices of segregation and categorisation by disability in the Soviet Union appear to have undermined the initial intent. Current practices in special education seem to have departed from Vygotsky's sociocultural perceptions of special needs resulting in isolation and exclusion in many post-Soviet contexts (Kozulin and Gindis 2007). Giest (2018) suggests that researchers have typically avoided looking deeper into the field to discover Vygotsky's original ideas because of the term 'defectology' , and thus there is a tendency for researchers to avoid referring to the concept altogether. ...
... This is consistent with the findings by Pickl, Holzinger, and Kopp-Sixt (2016) and Robertson et al. (2017) who suggest that special educators may learn by watching more experienced others successfully accommodating a diversity of needs, which did not seem to happen for the participants of the present study in the course of their training and work. Overall, the findings corroborate with the ideas expressed by Bøttcher and Dammeyer (2012), Kozulin and Gindis (2007) and Giest (2018), that the intent of defectology was to take into account social and cultural factors and the way the context can be adapted to the needs of the individual, however, practices of segregation by category or disability are mainly to blame for undermining this initial intent. ...
Article
As Kazakhstan joins the worldwide movement towards inclusive education, many students with special educational needs and disabilities in Kazakhstan continue to be educated in segregated settings. The role of key stakeholders such as special educators (defectologists), are important in the process of educational reform, and their attitudes may support or hinder the progress. Six special educators were voluntarily recruited to participate in one-on-one interviews in this case study research, concerning their perceptions about their role within current inclusive education reforms. The participants in this study perceived their role as solely teaching students with special educational needs and disabilities within the main specialisation of a special educator. However, special educators in Kazakhstan understand disability as a dialectical concept, where biological and social factors are intertwined. Thus, their understanding of the importance of removing environmental and broader societal attitudinal barriers for individuals with special needs may present a valuable resource for change.
... Vygotskian theory, therefore, can be considered relevant to the principle of inclusion (Eun, 2016). Although the term sounds inappropriate to 21 st Century ears, defectology theory (Vygotsky, 1993) serves as a significant contribution to the field and is regarded as a strategic approach in special education (Kozulin and Gindis, 2007). In Vygotsky's (1993) terms, defectology (defektologia) is a discipline originating in Russian research and the study of normatively defined deficiencies. ...
... Following Vygotsky (1978Vygotsky ( , 1993, for special education to be effective, the congruence between the needs of the individuals and an environment designed to enhance their cognitive and social development must be established, thereby activating socio-cultural processes through inclusion initiatives. Vygotsky has offered different perspectives on special education by emphasising inclusivity and special needs through his particular approach to difference, and by linking individual cognitive development with social interactions through socio-cultural theory (Kozulin and Gindis, 2007). This more comprehensive scope of special education provides a framework for evaluating and approaching 2E students. ...
Thesis
Twice-exceptionality (2E) refers to individuals who possess both exceptional intellectual abilities and disabilities. This qualitative exploratory study primarily investigated the experiences of 2E learners and teachers who have previously taught, or currently teach, students with twice-exceptionality. The study examined such lived experiences with reference to philosophical, sociological and socio-cultural theoretical concepts. A combination of interviews and self-administered questionnaires was utilised for data collection following a protracted recruitment process in COVID-19 pandemic and post-pandemic conditions which, it was assumed, had limited consent to participate to seven teachers and five students based primarily in Plymouth. An indicative content analysis of the students` data and reflexive thematic analysis of teachers` data illustrated the importance of acknowledging of paradoxical combinations of ability and disability with additional conditions (e.g., eating disorders and depression). Socialisation difficulties in 2E students with autism and organisational skill problems in high potential students with ADHD were identified. Some teachers observed different characteristics in 2E students such as overconfidence and creative writing skills. However, it was also found that participating teachers were unaware of aspects of 2E and tended to avoid classifying their students as 2E or gifted. Thus, the generation of data on the lack of awareness of 2E provided an additional benefit and contribution to knowledge. The study emphasised the importance of tailored support and inclusive practices, intending to ensure that the voices of 2E students and teachers are heard and to determine their needs. With reference to empirical data and the existing literature, it will contribute the recognition and broader understanding of twice exceptionality, offering valuable insights for educational practitioners, policymakers, and researchers. Further research into this complex intersection of issues in diversity, inclusion, and twice-exceptionality is encouraged to enhance inclusivity and educational systems for 2E individuals.
... Det bör noteras att benämningen "remediering" används i en sociokulturell teoritradition på två olika sätt; det finns alltså två olika medieringsbegrepp i denna tradition. Det vanligast förekommande medieringsbegreppet i denna tradition handlar om vad som benämns "remedial education" (Kozulin & Gindis, 2007), vilket avser kompensatorisk undervisning i vilken samma kulturella innebörd avses kommuniceras med hjälp av andra kulturella redskap (t.ex. bildstöd eller teckenspråk). ...
Article
Full-text available
I den svenska läroplanen för förskolan (Skolverket, 2018) har krav på ett språkutvecklande arbete genom högläsning specificerats samtidigt som förskolans undervisningsuppdrag har förtydligats. Utifrån ett sociokulturellt perspektiv utgår denna artikel från en teoretisk premiss att förskolans professionskunskap befinner sig i en remedieringsprocess, där högläsning som professionellt yrkesutövande omförhandlas i ljuset av ett delvis nytt uppdrag. Syftet är att bidra med kunskap om hur denna remediering går till och vad den resulterar i för förståelse för högläsning i samtida förskola. Det empiriska materialet utgörs av fyra fokusgruppssamtal. Resultatet visar hur förskollärare remedierar professionell högläsning genom att kontrastera och omförhandla innebörden av, villkoren för och deltagandet i förskolans högläsning. I sina resonemang ger förskollärarna uttryck för en vidgad repertoar vad gäller högläsning där traditionella praktiker lever kvar samtidigt som nya praktiker har tillkommit och andra aspekter har blivit till figur för det professionella arbetet. Implikationerna av dessa resultat diskuteras i relation till vad som förväntas av den läsande förskolläraren och det läsande/lyssnande barnet i dessa remedierade högläsningspraktiker. ENGLISH ABSTRACT Professional Read-Aloud in Preschool: Preschool Teachers’ Reasoning About a Contemporary Didactisation In the curriculum for Swedish preschool, working for promoting language development in children through reading aloud has been specified and the teaching task of preschool has been clarified. Theoretically based on a sociocultural perspective, a premise of this study is that the professional knowledge base of the preschool teacher profession is in a process of remediation, where reading aloud as a part of the professional work of preschool teachers is renegotiated in light of a partly new mission statement for the profession. The purpose is to contribute new knowledge on this remediation process and what it implies for contemporary preschool. The empirical data consist of four focus-group conversations. The results show how the preschool teachers remediate professional reading aloud through contrasting and renegotiating the meanings of, the conditions for, and participation in this practice. The preschool teachers’ reasoning implies their collective development of a wider repertoire where older practices co-exist with new ones, and with some shifting in terms of figure and background. Implications of the remediation for preschool teachers and children as participants in read alouds are discussed.
... Vygotsky var med på å opprette Institutt for defektologi ved universitetet i Moskva, og hans videre arbeid med laeringsteori kommer i stor grad fra erfaringene han gjorde seg ved nettopp studier om defektologi (Knox & Stevens, 1993 (Gindis, 1995, s. 77). Til tross for at termen defektologi kan virke støtende for oss i 2020-årene, var det i 1920-årene bred enighet om at man kunne finne, klassifisere og reparere visse menneskelige funksjoner som ikke virket normalt (Kozulin & Gindis, 2007). I Russland dekket slike funksjoner vansker som hørsels-og synshemminger, psykiske utviklingshemminger og talevansker (innenfor fagområdet logopedi), men ikke utfordringer av typen sosioemosjonelle vansker. ...
... Vygotsky var med på å opprette Institutt for defektologi ved universitetet i Moskva, og hans videre arbeid med laeringsteori kommer i stor grad fra erfaringene han gjorde seg ved nettopp studier om defektologi (Knox & Stevens, 1993 (Gindis, 1995, s. 77). Til tross for at termen defektologi kan virke støtende for oss i 2020-årene, var det i 1920-årene bred enighet om at man kunne finne, klassifisere og reparere visse menneskelige funksjoner som ikke virket normalt (Kozulin & Gindis, 2007). I Russland dekket slike funksjoner vansker som hørsels-og synshemminger, psykiske utviklingshemminger og talevansker (innenfor fagområdet logopedi), men ikke utfordringer av typen sosioemosjonelle vansker. ...
Chapter
Full-text available
‘Christmas in school’ is from time to time a heated topic in media and political debates. Schools are criticized either for not being secular enough or for not preserving Christian traditions. This chapter examines school principals’ perspectives on Christmas in the context of school. The empirical material consists of interviews with principals and field visits in Danish and Norwegian schools. Utilizing a Vygotskian perspective on artefact mediation, particularly with Wartofsky’s threefold conceptualization of artefacts, the analysis unpacks how Christmas decoration, Christmas trees, Saint Lucy’s Day parades, Christmas worship services, and alternatives to these services are part of complex negotiations within the schools themselves, as well as with parents, media, and local communities. A common strategy among the principals is to replace controversial elements with less-contested practices. Christmas is important to the principals, but not primarily as religious education. The guiding principle for them is not doing Christmas the ‘right’ way, but rather, finding ways of making it possible for as many pupils as possible to partake. Christmas, with all its different activities, is valuable because it facilitates the experience of school as an inclusive community for all.
... Vygotsky's theory provides theoretical guidance for creating such practices. Indeed, a number of scholars have turned to Vygotsky's defectology (1993) and explored its potential to guide inclusive education in the context of K-12 (Daniels, 2009;Daniels & Hedegaard, 2011;Gindis, 1995Gindis, , 1999Gindis, , 2003Kozulin & Gindis, 2007;Vik & Somby 2018). ...
Article
Higher education institutions are legally bound to provide equal educational opportunities for diverse learners, traditionally materialized as individualized accommodations. This paper contends that despite the growing interest and scholarship in implementing more inclusive pedagogy enabling access to education for all students (e.g. Universal Design for Learning), those efforts still fall short of systematically addressing intersecting, oppressive, and anti-ableist practices in the classrooms. I argue, that in order to develop a truly inclusive, equitable, socially just and transformative pedagogy and teaching practices, we need a theory that posits disability in the context of learning and development, the theory that integrates disability into human development in a manner that overcomes dichotomized and reductionist perspectives of disability and individualistic notions of learning. Drawing on my research on teaching and institutional practices for a student diagnosed with autism, analyzed through the lens of Critical Disability Studies in conjunction with Vygotsky’s theory of defectology and recent advances in cultural-historical activity theory, especially the Transformative Activist Stance (Stetsenko, 2016), this paper offers steps toward integrating these approaches into a transformative pedagogy framework for inclusive, equitable, and anti-ableist pedagogy for all learners.
Chapter
Implementing differentiated learning is an inclusive education perspective which is about incessant, systemic, and continual transformation not only of educational design but also of practices, cultures, and values. It is imperative that educational policies support and make possible inclusive education practices at the school level where modern-day classroom populations are characterized by human diversity that requires inclusive practices such as individualization and differentiation. To ensure successful implementation of differentiated learning, the first port of call is for national policy to unmistakably state that inclusive education is a right for all learners irrespective of their different backgrounds.
Article
Full-text available
This study presents the results of a sequential explanatory mixed-method approach to investigate the Iranian English language non-gainers of a computerized dynamic reading comprehension test (CDRT) by utilizing a learning style survey. Using an interventionist approach, the researchers used the CDRT software to explore English learners’ perceptual learning-style preferences of non-gainers in CDRT. The study participants were selected from among 24 advanced English language learners attending a reading course at a language institute in Iran. The results of Learning Potential Score (LPS) formula categorized six of the participants as non-gainers of CDRT. They were asked to fill out a learning style survey individually and participate in an interview to express their attitudes toward using the software. The findings revealed some common tendencies regarding field-independency, impulsivity/reflectivity, and metaphoric/literal style preferences supported in learners’ interviews. In this study, learners’ style preferences potentially played an important role in reporting learners’ performance; therefore, it is suggested to consider students’ learning styles in making decisions about their abilities and disabilities in CDRT.
Article
Full-text available
During the last decade, more and more Erasmus programs are being implemented in Greek Schools, although not enough programs engaging children with learning difficulties and/or special needs. An Erasmus+ project on Health Education has been implemented in integration primary Schools in Western Greece, were children with special needs and/or learning difficulties were able to enhance their knowledge on food hygiene. The general objective of the project was to restore the place of Food Science Education and related subjects in the culture of the young people, in order of their personal development and wellbeing.
Article
Article provides overview of special education legislation and describes how special education services are typically provided. Reviews research regarding special education efficacy, emphasizing interventions designed to improve the academic functioning of students with mild, high incidence disabilities. Discusses promising instructional interventions for these students, and implications for school psychologists. (Author/JDM)
Book
The terms interactive and dynamic would never have been associated with psychological and psychoeducational assessment a generation ago. They have currency now because of widespread dissatisfaction with the normative, standardized testing model, criticism of theoretical concepts of intelligence, recognition of abuses of standardized intelligence testing, and frustration with prediction and classification as primary goals of assessment. It is almost certainly true that public policy concerns propel scientific activity far more often than science propels public policy! In the case of psychological assessment, public policy concerns have arisen in the last 20 years primarily around issues of possible "discrimination" against members of ethnic minorities. At the same time, there has been a re­ surgence of dedication to "excellence in education" goals. These concerns have led to such extreme measures as prohibition of the use of standard­ ized intelligence tests to determine school placement decisions, especially for minority children. They have led also to a search for alternatives to standardized, normative testing. The chapters in this volume represent a variety of answers to this need.
Chapter
The instrumental enrichment (IE) program is strongly related, both historically and conceptually, to the learning potential assessment device, which provides the framework and set of guidelines for constructing IE intervention techniques. Even though the LPAD is not a prerequisite for the adoption of the IE program, it is of great benefit to have the teacher who is charged with the application of the instrumental enrichment program be exposed to the LPAD. Indeed, the use of the LPAD provides a “minicourse” in mediating learning experience, allowing the IE teacher to experience in vitro, either through observing or administering the LPAD, the kinds of changes that can be produced in the cognitive structures of an individual. From its overall vantage point, the LPAD offers the IE teacher a broad-based view of what the interventional program should be and the results that can be expected if the program is applied in an appropriate way.
Chapter
The two mothers differed in many respects. Peter’s mother made her way to the authors preceded by many letters of appeal since she was well aware that anybody acting on first sight would not become involved with her son, a seemingly hopeless case. A brief examination of the rich file of documents that Peter’s mother brought showed many visits to clinics, pediatricians, and psychologists, all of which concluded with few words of hope for her son and even fewer recommendations for action. It is no wonder that the mother prepared herself with letters of appeal—pleas for help—some signed by family friends, some by prominent individuals, including one from a well-known official that sounded almost like a warning (You better help or ... !).