University of Wollongong

Research Online
Faculty of Education - Papers (Archive) Faculty of Social Sciences

2010

Vygotsky in Twenty-First-Century research

Publication Details
Verenikina, I. (2010). Vygotsky in Twenty-First-Century research. In J. Herrington & B. Hunter (Eds.), Proceedings of World
Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications (pp. 16-25). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

Research Online is the open access institutional repository for the University of Wollongong. For further information contact the UOW Library:
[email protected]
 Vygotsky in Twenty-First-Century Research

Dr. Irina Verenikina

At the 2009 Ed-Media conference, a list of most often cited papers in Ed-Media 2004-2008 was revealed
(Ochoa, Mendez & Duval, 2009). Vygotsky’s theoretical work, originally published in Russia in the
1930s, came top of the list by a large margin. This paper examines why, and how this theory still can be
relevant to twenty-first-century research. It is argued that an effective use of modern educational
technologies calls for the use of advanced pedagogies. Vygotsky’s theory provides a profound
understanding of teaching and learning that reflects the complexity of social and cultural contexts in the
modern learner. The most frequently used concepts of Vygotsky’s theory are re-visited in relation to the
research into new educational technologies. Additionally, the potential of some lesser known aspects of
his theory, particularly in relation to educational technology, is explored. The inextricable connections
between the Vygotskian approach and activity theory is discussed.

Introduction
Over the past three decades there has been an increased number of studies that address the role of cultural
contexts and social influences in the use of computer technologies in teaching and learning. This coincides with
a growing interest of educational researchers in Vygotsky's socio-cultural theory, which is widely renowned for
its profound understanding of teaching and learning as embedded in the cultural context of children’s everyday
lives and inextricably linked to the way that children interact with other people. The recently presented statistics
in relation to the most often cited work in Ed-Media 2004-2008 (Ochoa, Mendez & Duval, 2009) confirms this
trend: Vygotsky’s theoretical work, “Mind in Society”, originally published in Russia in the 1930s, came top of
the list by a large margin! This paper explores a variety of classical and modern theoretical constructs relevant
to Vygotsky theory; it further discusses their implications for modern research, and to research into educational
technology in particular such as computers, laptops, wireless connectivity, Interactive White Boards and mobile
communication devices (ICT in education).

Who was Lev Vygotsky

Vygotsky’s theoretical views were shaped by his own background and the social and intellectual context in
which he lived and worked. A brief look into Vygotsky's educational background, as well as his professional
interests and aspirations, will provide a ‘biography of the ideas’ (Kozulin, 1990) and give an insight into the
uniqueness of his theoretical views and beliefs.

Lev Vygotsky (1896-1934) was born to a middle class family of a small town in Tsarist Russia. His father was a
local ‘enlightener’ and a founder of the first public library in the town (Yaroshevsky, 1989). Vygotsky was
educated by a private tutor, whose pedagogical technique was grounded in a form of Socratic dialogue
(Wertsch, 1985) - teaching by engaging in extended critical inquiry and philosophical conversations with
students. Undoubtedly, this kind of teaching influenced Vygotsky's further views on the role of social dialogue
in learning. From young age Vygotsky had become known as a ‘little professor’ (Wertsch, 1985) showing
extensive interests in and knowledge of theatre, literature, history, philosophy and languages. He was fluent in a
number of languages such as German, French, English, and also read in Latin, Greek and Hebrew (Wertsch,
1985; Yaroshevsky, 1989).

Vygotsky started his career as a teacher during a time of dramatic revolutionary change in Russia when the
newly formed government of workers was seeking a comprehensive system of education suitable for all classes
in society. Vygotsky was inspired by the idea of creating a new education system and he took the challenge of
searching for its new theoretical base which provided the groundwork for his book on Educational Psychology,
published in 1926 (Wertsch, 1985; Yaroshevsky, 1989). Vygotsky's innovative ideas on the culturally and
historically mediated nature of the human mind, based on his extensive theoretical knowledge and everyday
immersion in educational practice, resulted in his leading a research group which included such famous scholars
as Luria and Leontiev and later became known as the Vygotskian school of psychology (Yaroshevsky, 1989).

Vygotsky's theory was not known in the English speaking world of educators until the 1960s when the first
translation of his book, Thought and Language, was published in the USA (Vygotsky, 1962). There were
several reasons for such a delay. Firstly, only a few of Vygotsky's scholarly works were published during his
lifetime and these had been left as drafts. Secondly, and most importantly, shortly after Vygotsky's death, his
theory was banned in the Soviet Union for twenty years, with publication of his work not being resumed until
1956 (Yaroshevsky, 1989).

There was renewed interest in the ideas of Vygotsky in the latter part of the twentieth century as demonstrated
by the rise in the number of new translations of his writing and the number of citations of his work (Wertsch &
Tulviste 2005). Wertsch and Tulviste suggest that the major reason for this was the re-emergence in the West of
the study of developmental psychological and the relevance of Vygotsky’s studies to “the social origins of
mental processes” (p. 60).Lev Vygotsky, ‘Mozart of psychology’ (Toulmin, 1978, in Wertsch, 1985), lived a
short but productive life as a truly "revolutionary scientist" (Newman & Holzman, 1993). He had inspired many
generations of educational theorists and practitioners.

Overview of the approach

Vygostkian psychology (Vygotsky, 1978) stated that the human mind is constructed through a subject's
interactions with the world and is an attribute of the relationship between subject and object. Consciousness is
neither reducible to behaviour nor separate from it, but instead is an attribute of the organisation of practical
activity. It is the process that organises behaviour. Vygotsky also claimed that consciousness is not an attribute
of any particular state or process, but is an attribute of the way in which states and processes such as attention
and memory, are organised and functionally related both to behaviour and to each other. It was consciousness
that established the connection between the various processes, it both creates them and transforms them. In
particular the nature of a goal-directed activity transforms its user. He thus introduced the idea of externally
mediated activity, actions that involve the use of external means to reach a goal. This led to the idea that mental
processes could only be understood if we understand the tools and signs that mediate them.

Vygotskian theory was built upon the Piagetian idea of the child as an active learner (Piaget, 1959) but with the
emphasis on the role of social interaction in learning and development. However, Vygotsky emphasised that
children and adults are both active agents in the process of the child's development. “Development is, in this
case, co-constructed.” (Cole & Cole, 2001, p.37). For teaching it means that both the teacher and a student are
seen as active agents in children's learning. The teacher's intervention in children's learning is necessary, but it is
the quality of the teacher-learner interaction, which is seen as crucial in that learning (Tharp & Gallimore,
1988). This approach is associated with the term of social constructivism which emphasises the role of social
interaction in development and learning. According to Vygotsky, ‘good learning’ occurs in the Zone of
Proximal Development.

The Zone of Proximal Development

Perhaps the best known concept of Vygotskian theory is that of the zone of proximal or potential development
(ZPD). Initially, it was elaborated for psychological testing at school. Vygotsky stated that testing should be
based not only on the current level of a child’s achievements but also (and mainly) on the child’s potential
development. He claimed that the actual level of development (level of independent performance) does not
sufficiently describe development. Rather, it indicates what is already developed or achieved, it is a ‘yesterday
of development’. The level of assisted performance indicates what a person can achieve in the near future, what
is developing (potential level, ‘tomorrow of development’, what a person ‘can be’). Thus, the ZPD is the
distance between what a person can do with and without help. It is defined as the difference between actual level
of development as determined by independent problem solving and the higher level of potential development as
determined through problem solving under guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers (Vygotsky,
1978). The term proximal (nearby) indicates that the assistance provided goes just slightly beyond the learners
current competence complementing and building on their existing abilities (Cole & Cole, 2001).
Vygotsky spoke about ZPD by arguing that rather than having education dragging behind in sociological
development it must anticipate it - it must "run ahead". This meant distinguishing between actual and potential
development. Actual level is determined by tasks that a person is capable of solving by themselves and
potential, the one at which the help of instruction is necessary. Vygotsky recognised that the distance between
doing something independently and with the help of another indicated stages of development, which do not
necessarily coincide in all people. In this way he regarded an instructors ‘teaching’ of a student not just as a
source of information to be assimilated but as a lever with which the students’ thought, with its structural
characteristics, is shifted from level to level (Yaroshevsky, 1989).

In other words, learning in the ZPD refers to performing a range of tasks that the person cannot yet handle alone
but can accomplish with the help of instructors or more capable peers. As people engage in cooperative
dialogues with more capable partners, they take the language and make it part of their private speech and use
this speech to organise their independent performance in the same way. They acquire the methods of
collaborative performance and use them in their independent performance later.

Learning in the ZPD awakens a variety of internal developmental processes that are able to operate only when
people are interacting with more experienced people. These processes are happening externally, in between two
minds and they are called inter-mental processes. The process when the adult and the instructor come to a
shared understanding is called ‘intersubjectivity’ by contemporary psychologists. It is very important to achieve
intersubjectivity to enable the next stage - internalisation - to occur. The processes then become internalised and
turn into a part of the child’s independent achievement; that is, they become intra-mental (within one mind).
According to Vygotsky (1978), developmental processes do not coincide identically with learning processes.
There is unity but not equivalence of learning and internal developmental processes: it presupposes that the one
is converted into the other.

In summary, internalisation is the transformation of inter-mental, external processes into intra-mental, internal
ones. Internalisation occurs through the means of language (the signal system). Learning is a necessary and
universal aspect of the process of human development, which is culturally and socially determined and
intentionally and systematically governed in society as “human learning presupposes a specific social process by
which children grow into the intellectual life of those around them” (Vygotsky 1978, p. 88).

Post-Vygotskian Studies

Vygotsky’s theory stimulated a wealth of research all over the world with a number of prominent leading
theoretical perspectives today developed from his theory. The numerous concepts and approaches which are
associated with Vygotsky's theory could perhaps be called "post-Vygotskian studies" (Daniels, 2001, p.69).
Because of their shared background they have much in common; in their attempt to investigate the development
of cognition in social, cultural and historical context they interrelate and complement each other. Among such
newly emerged concepts are Barbara Rogoff's (1990) concepts of cognitive apprenticeship and guided
participation based on the idea of the ZPD. They involve collaboration and shared understanding in everyday
problem-solving activities. Adults or more skilled peers assist children in their development by guiding their
participation in relevant activities, helping them to adapt their understanding to a new situation and structuring
their problem-solving attempts (Rogoff, 1990, p.191). Another influential approach is known as situated
cognition (Lave & Wenger, 1991, in Daniels, 2001) which views learning as engaging in problem solving in the
course of participation in ongoing everyday activities. It concerns learning within the communities of practices
in real life situations. The importance of learning in the community and the home is highlighted in the concept
of the households' funds of knowledge (Moll & Greenberg, 1992). This approach aims at establishing cultural
connections between what teachers and students do in classrooms and what students experience in the
community. It focuses on the households’ social histories, methods of thinking and learning and practical skills
related to the community’s everyday life in order to provide teachers with the knowledge of the culture and
history of the students that are being taught. The concept of distributed cognition (Hatchins, 1995, in Daniels,
2001) looks at the phenomenon of cognition as being extended beyond the individuals: the information is
processed between the individual and tools and artefacts provided by the culture, therefore the individual's
abilities and achievements cannot be understood outside of the connections to the society and culture in which
they are immersed (Salomon, 1993, in Daniels, 2001).
Vygotskian Psychology and Activity Theory
Over the past two decades in Western Europe and the US, Activity Theory has gained increasing popularity in
application to the area of human-computer interaction (Engeström, 1996; Nardi, 1996). Recently, an increased
number of researchers adopted various aspects of Activity Theory to the analysis of a wide range of educational
technologies (for example, Lim & Hang, 2003; Karasavvidis, 2009; Murphy & Rodriguez-Manzanares, 2008;
Scanlon & Issroff, 2005; Demiraslan & Koçak Usluel, 2008).

The popularity of Vygotskian psychology and Activity Theory (AT), perhaps can be explained by its broad view
of human learning and behaviour and its well-structured categories for analysis. From an AT perspective, people
are embedded in a socio-cultural context and their behaviour cannot be understood independently of it.
Furthermore, they are not just surrounded by the context of their activities but actively interact with it and
change it. Humans are continually changing their environment and creating artefacts or culturally meaningful
products. This complex interaction of individuals with their surroundings has been called activity and is
regarded as the fundamental unit of analysis. Activity, according to Leontiev, is not a reaction and not a totality
of reactions but a system that has its own structure, internal transitions and transformations and its own
development (Leontiev, 1978).

Activity theory adopts the basic tenet of Vygotsky's theory that tools occupy a mediating role in human reaction
and interaction with the world. Tools therefore are social objects with certain modes of operation developed
socially in the course of labour and are only possible because they correspond to the objectives of a practical
action. Tools can be either external (physical, technical) such as artefacts, instruments and machines or internal
(psychological) such as laws, signs, procedures, methods and language. Physical tools are designed to
manipulate physical objects (e.g. hammer) while psychological tools are used by humans to influence other
people or themselves (e.g. concepts, advertisements, calendars). Since psychological tools are included in the
process of behaviour they alter the entire flow and structure of mental functions. Similarly the physical tool
(including computers) alters the process of natural adaptation by determining the form of labour operations. A
physical tool can be seen as an instrument of labour, a thing which is interposed between a person and the object
of their labour and which 'serves as the conductor' of their activity.

Although tools expand our possibilities to manipulate and transform different objects they also have a limiting
effect in that the object can only be manipulated within the limitation of the tool. His basic idea was of
historically evolving object-oriented practical activity carried out by humans determining the genesis, structure
and contents of the human mind. Vygotsky derived his original ideas from an analysis of the features of
specifically human activity - work activity, productive activity carried on with tools, activity that is indigenously
social i.e. developed under conditions of cooperation and sharing by people. He had isolated the two principal
interrelated features basic to psychology. These were the 'instrumented' (tool mediated) structure of human
activity and its incorporation into the system of interrelationships with other people. This means that the higher
mental functions in humans originate only in the interaction of people with people. Vygotsky did not make a
complete analysis of the specific concept of activity, but his theoretical approach pre-supposed the concept as
one of its fundamental building blocks.

Human-computer interaction, activity, interactivity and pedagogy

Instead of the view of the computer and its human operator as equal parts in their interaction, which originates
from the traditional Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) approach, Vygtosky’s psychology and Activity Theory
look at the way that the computer as a tool meshes into the user’s real life activities thereby helping to improve
their performance. It is essential to explore the processes where information technology intercedes in the
practices of humans if these practices are to be enhanced by the ICT. A branch of psychology originated by
Vygotsky in the beginning of this century provides a philosophical approach that opens new perspectives for
constructing experimental research into this problem. Vygotskian psychology and activity theory take a broader
view of the human mind as being the product of cultural and social forces (Vygotsky, 1978). From its
perspective people are not a collection of cognitive processes but in a complex interaction with the world
directed to the process of living. In this approach the main feature of the psyche is the active position of human
beings toward the world in which they live. This world and its social context is referred to as 'objective reality'
and consists of all the things (objects) which contribute to human existence such as events, happenings,
interactions, etc. Humans are continually changing the objects and creating artefacts - tools. This complex
interaction of individuals with their surrounding, called activity, is regarded as the fundamental unit of analysis
of the human mind (Leontiev, 1978). Activity is motivated by the objects to be changed. Object orientedness
and mediation by tools is one of the most distinguishing characteristics of activity. Tools are seen as having
extended human ability to achieve the goals of an activity, that is, to change objects in the world. This theory
treats tools as a means of meeting real needs and achieving corresponding goals. This leads us to a different
research approach, one with many more elements which emphasise the role of the computer as a tool embedded
in human activity, both mental and physical.

In spite of the advantage (and the common sense) of looking at the computer as a tool which enhances human
activity, it is still common to analyse the role of the computer technologies in their interaction with its user such
as a teacher or student (Westin, 2009). This, in turn, leads to a particular view the role of computer technologies
in enhancing teaching and learning. To judge on the effectiveness of a particular piece of technologies,
educational researchers, and designers, turn towards studying the characteristics of that particular piece of
technology. Obviously, it is important to study the characteristics of the ‘tool’, however, this approach does not
guarantee a manufacturer (or a manager of the school who purchased it!) that the product will be successfully
used by its consumers (such as teachers or lecturers, or students) in a real life setting such as a school or a
tertiary institution. To this end, it is interesting to re-visit research reported by Engestrom and Escalante (1996),
who vividly described a case of a vending machine named ‘postal buddy’ which was manufactured to substitute
for a salesperson in the Post Office. It was anticipated that the ‘postal buddy’, which was designed to talk and
interact with the customers, and offer them a variety of merchandise, would welcome the buyers, friendly
communicate with them and therefore sell the products just as successfully as an experienced salesperson! It
turned out to become a commercial failure, as the customers reflection was that they did not come to the Post
Office to communicate but they just wanted to buy stamps, envelopes and greeting cards. The goal of the
manufactures to enhance the interactivity between the human (buyer) and the computer (the postal buddy) failed
to meet user’s specific needs.

Activity theory provides us with a view of the ICT user, as an active entity in their real life setting, whose
behaviour is driven by their needs and motivation. In their life, and at their work place, people perform a
number of different activities to achieve goals and satisfy their needs. Interacting with a computer as an isolated
act, obviously, is not a goal of high priority. People need to see the advantage of using ICT to achieve their real
life goals and satisfy their existing needs in a more effective manner.

This approach can be extended to understanding recently emerged interactive technologies such as Interactive
White Boards (IWBs) which are rapidly becoming a necessary attribute of a modern classroom. The view of
ICT as a teaching tool is important in educational research as it urges a re-examination of the notion of
interactivity. “Interactivity is a widely used term of great concern to researchers and practitioners in
communication theory and human–computer interaction (Steuer 1992) and the idea of interactivity certainly
appeals to the broad public, as indicated by the attention that the term has received over the last few years
(Rafaeli, 1988)” (Roussou, Oliver & Slater, 2008, p.142). Although there is no agreement as to what
interactivity (and interaction) mean in educational literature (Roussou et al, 2008; Kahveci, 2007), “researchers
are in agreement that both terms are vital for teaching and learning one way or another” (Kahveci, 2007, p. 809).

Should interactivity be viewed as an attribute of the technology, or as an interaction between the student and the
technology? Or does it belong to teachers’ pedagogy and their interpretation of curricula? If we accept the
“tools’ based philosophy of technology” (Verenikina & Gould, 1998), the latter is the most productive, as it is
the teacher who orchestrates the classroom learning environment by making everyday decisions on
pedagogically appropriate interaction arrangements.

If the teacher’s pedagogical goal is to use group work to enhance students’ learning by bouncing their ideas
against each other in a group of peers in order to ‘co-construct’ their views, then the teacher would look for an
appropriate piece of technology to enhance this process. If the teacher’s goal is to use a computer as a tutor
(Taylor, 1980) then the notion of ‘digital interactivity’ (Westin, 2009) between the learner and the technology
becomes appropriate. However, it is important to keep in mind the most recent findings which indicate that
interactivity, in fact, can be limiting: “Current digital interactivity enables only reactive behavior of the user but
not an active choice and interpretation” (Westin, 2009, p. 3).

It is no surprise that the research which asks the question whether IWBs can enhance interactivity in the
classroom, or increase the students’ academic achievements, does not always get a positive answer. For
example, Moss and colleagues’ (2007) recent statistical study of the relationship between IWB installation
levels and pupil performance “failed to find any evidence that the increase in the installation of interactive
whiteboards (IWBs) in London schools has increased pupil performance in Key Stage tests” (Moss et al., 2007,
p.72). We cannot expect the tool substitute for a robust pedagogical approach. To be successful, the new
technologies call for the use of advanced pedagogies. “To a large extent the kinds of changes the technology
fosters depend on what teachers think it is for… When use of the technological tools took precedence over a
clear understanding of pedagogic purpose, the technology was not exploited in a way that would or could
substantially enhance subject learning.” (Moss et al, 2007, pp. 6-7)

Activity theory model and ICT in education

A significant number of current studies into educational technologies consider Activity theory as a robust
theoretical framework for research. “There is certainly no doubt that activity theory has significant influence in
contemporary educational discourses and has become an influential tool for the analysis and transformation of
practices” (Martin & Peim, 2009, p.131). The potential of activity theory is that, “…it affords a holistic
description of an activity system in terms of its basic components and interrelations” (Karasavvidis, 2009, p.
438).

Activity Theory (AT) allows us to conceptualise technology as a tool within a complex system of goal oriented
activities at both the individual level of a teacher or a learner and at a broader level of an organisation such as
school (Murphy & Rodriguez-Manzanares, 2008).

The model of AT developed by Engestrom (2001, as shown in Figure 1) enables researchers to systematically
analyse “the whole configuration of events, activities, contents, and interpersonal processes taking place in the
context that ICT is used” (Demiraslan & Koçak Usluel, 2008, p.460).

The model represents activity as a dynamic unity of several elements which interact with each other as an
activity develops. The subject of activity can be either a teacher or a learner depending on the purposes of
analysis. When considering a teacher’s activity the object of the activity can be seen as enhanced teaching using
digital technologies as a pedagogical tool. Each teacher operates within a community which refers to the wider
school community, and includes the students in the classrooms, other teachers in the school, administration staff
and school leaders.

Figure 1. Activity system model: A teacher’s activity mediated by ICT within a school community (adapted
from Engestrom, 2001)

The tools used by the teachers include technology, lesson materials, assessment and teaching functions. For the
purposes of this study, we focus on tools of digital technologies and their use within pedagogical practices. The
object of the activity here is enhanced teaching using newer communications technologies. Rules refer to
classroom regulations and conventions (for example, expected student behaviour, promoted learning theories),
as well as school technology and educational policies and regulations (for example, perceived demands, the
regulations of accessibility, professional development). Rules can be implicit, for example, normative practices,
social standards, or simply the way things are done. They can be either malleable or fixed, and are often a
source of tension as they can afford, or constrain what is allowed within the Activity System.
The division of labour refers to the social reality of technology use such as the division of power between the
subject (teacher) and the community (eg students in the classrooms); the implementation of the objectives of the
use of technology items (and how the objectives change the nature of learning experiences through the
integration of technology); the manifestation of the implicit and explicit objectives (beliefs) teachers have when
teaching and learning with technology. The outcome of the activity system would be enhanced (or not
enhanced) teaching and learning with technology in the classrooms.

Activity theory provides a framework for understanding the dynamic relationship between the elements of
activity system. It allows us to examine the social tensions involved in the networks of human activity and how
elements seemingly individual are interconnected (Yamagata-Lynch & Haudenschild, 2009). The analysis of
tensions offers researchers the opportunity to explore potential barriers (Zevenbergen & Lerman, 2007) such as
those anticipated to occur when ICT are introduced into an established school environment. Additionally, the
view of contradictions as the driving force of change within an Activity System, provides a versatile tool to
inquire into various aspects of educational technology use and its evolution over time.

Cases of Implementation
This section presents an overview of a number of research studies conducted in the Faculty of Education,
University of Wollongong, which utilise Vygtosky’s psychology and Activity theory in researching the use of
ICT in various educational settings.

The use of ICT in teaching English for Specific Purposes (ESP) in a tertiary institution in Saudi Arabia

The study of Ibrahim Shaabi (2010) was focussed on the role of socio-cultural factors in the success of ICT
integration in a tertiary institution in a Saudi Arabian context. The research which analysed the use of ICT in
ESP teaching in an English Language Centre through the lens of the Activity theory model, demonstrated that
the adoption of traditional social patterns in changing teaching environments is not efficient for the
implementation of technology and that socio-cultural change in educational institutions is essential for smooth
technology integration (Hayes, 2007; Hu & Webb, 2009). The implementation of technological change was not
a simple matter of providing a set of new instructional resources to be added within traditional methods. The
existing socio-cultural environment in the study of the ICT ESP context in a Saudi Arabian institution was
found to be centralised, fixed and not easily adaptable to new elements. Consequently, the employment of ICT
in such context was not fully supported at all the levels of the organisation. The Activity system analysis
allowed the identification of significant contradictions between the decision making processes at the level of
administration, the lack of coordination between the technical support team and individual teachers, as well as a
lack of communication between the members of the teachers’ community. Additionally, a restrictive policy of
the use of the ICT such as the Internet, contradicted the pedagogical goals of ESP teachers. It was concluded
that effective ICT integration requires a critical level of planning, coordination, and cultural adaptation.

The study of computer-mediated learning in a social constructivist environment

The doctoral study of Tony Stojkovski (2010) examined computer-supported learning in a socio-constructivist
environment in an Australian high school classroom. The study is based in the pedagogical approach of social
constructivism (Palincsar, 2005; Smagorinsky, 2007) where the communication with more knowledgeable
members of society is the underlying premise of learning and development (Vygotsky, 1978). Learning is seeing
as a process of social negotiation or collaboratively making sense of theories, mentoring, and joint knowledge
construction. The study also drew on Vygotsky’s ideas of the role of language in learning (Vygotsky, 1978).

The social constructivist approach to learning has been applied by Scardamalia and Berieter (1994) in computer
mediated (online) communication in a purposefully designed Computer Supported Intentional Learning
Environment (CSILE). The study drew on the role of written language in enhancing both the understanding of
the content and the development of higher order thinking in students (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1994; Chan,
Burtis, Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1992). The researchers found that written communication provided an
opportunity for students to give elaborate explanations of their thoughts. However, communication in these
studies was restricted to online interactions only. The study of Stojkovski (2010) extended this line of research
by investigating learning and communication in a computer-mediated social constructivist environment that
supported both oral and written communication in an authentic classroom setting. A computer-mediated socio-
constructivist environment (CMSCE) was created to incorporate writing in the process of exchanging of ideas
and, as such, to enhance the co-construction of knowledge by drawing on the strength of written language as a
powerful complementary learning tool to oral communication (Shy-Jong, 2007). Over a period of eight weeks
the participants (nine Year 11 students) were required to complete a research project on a topic in an area of
physical health, social drugs and physical activity. The students had to enter their work into their CMSCE page.
This ‘work in progress’ was available to be viewed by all members of the class, and allowed the teacher and
other students to provide feedback. The study allowed the capture of a significant number of episodes of social
construction of knowledge among the participating students in their communication with the teacher and peers
in both oral and written modes of communication.

The study of contradictions in the use of the Interactive Whiteboard (IWB) in literacy teaching

A project that studied the implementation and the use of IWBs in literacy teaching in an Australian primary
school, explored how interactive learning technology represented in the IWB mediates literacy teaching from
the perspective of an Activity System (Kervin & Jones, 2009; Verenikina, Wrona, Jones & Kervin, 2010).
Activity Theory allowed the researchers to holistically explore the different factors that influence the use of
technology as a tool within literacy teaching: the individual beliefs and motivation, the interactions within the
class and school community, the rules and regulations of technology use and the rules and traditions in an
organisation. The analysis of teaching literacy activity indicated that the subject brings biases and beliefs to the
literacy experience, which influences views regarding the ability of technology to mediate successful literacy
outcomes. In addition, the subject’s underlying pedagogical beliefs influence how the tool will be used to
mediate the literacy experience. That is, for personal or pragmatic reasons teachers may employ pedagogical
practices that vary in their level of interactivity, which consequently impact upon how a technological tool will
be used in the literacy session.

The study explored the rules of the literacy Activity System. It was found that the rules embedded in IWBs
technology do not necessarily encourage pedagogical practices which employ interactivity. For example, in the
study, the IWB software would only allow one student at a time to engage with the board. Thus, although the
technology was by definition interactive, the interactivity did not support the features of interactive learning,
which was confusing for the teachers. The rules that make up the curriculum were influential in determining
both how technology could mediate practice, and which types of practices teachers employed. For instance,
explicit or implicit rules found within the curriculum motivated teachers to use pedagogical styles, which varied
in their degree of interactivity. That is, if the achievement of a specific learning outcome does not require a
highly interactive teaching style there is little reason for an educator to use highly interactive tools or methods.

It was found that the division of labour between the teacher and students within the classroom limited or
dictated the type of pedagogical and technological interactivity that was used. For instance, it was more
pragmatic for a teacher to employ a less interactive practice when explaining general information to a whole
class. However, deep interactive learning that focuses on the co-construction of knowledge, collaborative
working practices and discovery problem solving, required everyone to have a shared role in activity. Overall,
the results suggested that technology alone is not the remedy to a quality education system rather that
technology is useful relative to its need in achieving a learning outcome. It re-examined the importance of
pedagogy by arguing that interactive technology will not necessarily result in deep and interactive student
learning.

Technology support in learning of children with Autism Spectrum Disorders

The current study of the use of technologies in learning of children with Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD)
identified the need for a holistic approach to address the problem (Tanner, Dixon & Verenikina, 2010). The
analysis of the literature demonstrated that commonly the students with ASD eagerly engage in working with
technology as the clear rule-based systems used by digital and visual technology make them highly suitable for
such individuals. It has been found in clinical trials that the use of predictable, routine, systems-oriented visual
technologies can help support the learning of students with ASD (Tanner et al., 2010). However, the researchers
express caution about the generalisation of such findings to the applied setting of the classroom and suggest that
there may be some barriers that classroom teachers might face if applying these research findings to their
teaching practice.

Because of the emphasis on a strictly controlled single subject multiple baseline methodology, there is little data
as to how digital technologies can improve learning in group situations in classroom settings which is the most
common educational placement for students with ASD. There is little research that addresses teacher
competency in digital technologies and students with ASD. The research project undertakes an investigation of
the use of technologies in children with autism spectrum disorders in a natural educational settings and examine
the implementation of the technology from the perspective of classroom teachers as they orchestrate the learning
environment in their classroom in collaboration with the school administration, fellow teachers and the students.

Conclusion

In his recent paper in the Computers & Education Journal, Karasavvidis (2009) refers to a number of studies
which demonstrated that “for the most part teachers used technology to enhance traditional practices rather than
transforming them” (p.436). It was suggested that, thus, the mere availability of technology did not result in any
substantial change in terms of teaching practices. Indeed, new technologies call for advanced pedagogies to
ensure their effective use. The theory of Vygotsky, which has gained an increased popularity in the past three
decades, provides a rich, comprehensive and well established framework for an advanced pedagogy of this kind.
A number of prominent leading theoretical perspectives which stemmed from the theory of Vygotsky provide a
wealth of ideas and approaches to support and substantiate such pedagogy.

Acknowledgements

I am thankful to the staff members and higher research degree students in the Faculty of Education and the
Faculty of Commerce, University of Wollongong, for collaborative research which I drew upon in this paper:
Dr. Rose Dixon, Dr. Edward Gould, Dr. Helen Hasan, Dr. Pauline Jones, Dr. Lisa Kervin, Ibrahim Shaabi, Tony
Stojkovski, Dr. Kath Tanner, Dr. Wilma Vialle and Kris Wrona.

References

Chan C.K.K., Burtis, P.J., Scardamalia, M. & Bereiter, C. (1992). Constructive activity in learning from text. American
Educational Research Journal. 29(1), 97-118.
Cole, M. & Cole, S. (2001) The Development of Children. 4th Ed. New York: Scientific American Books. Distributed by
W.N. Freeman and Company
Daniels, H. (2001). Vygotsky and Pedagogy London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Demiraslan, Y. & Koçak Usluel, Y. (2008). ICT integration processes in Turkish schools: Using activity theory to study
issues and contradictions. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology. 24(4), 458-474
Engestrom, Y. (2001). Expansive Learning at Work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualisation. Journal of
Education and Work, 14 (1), 133 – 155.
Engeström, Y. & Escalante, V. (1996). Mundane Tool or Object of Affection? The Rise and Fall of the Postal Buddy. In
Nardi, B. (Ed.). Context and Consciousness: Activity Theory and Human-Computer Interactions. Cambridge,
Mass: The MIT Press.
Engeström,Y. (1996). Developmental Studies of Work as a Testbench of Activity Theory: the Case of Primary Care Medical
Practice. In Chaiklin, S. and Lave, J. (Eds.) Understanding Practice: Perspectives on Activity and Context,
Cambridge University Press.
Hayes, D. N. A. (2007). ICT and learning: Lessons from Australian classrooms. Computers & Education, 49, 385-395.
Hu, L. & Webb, M. (2009). Integrating ICT to higher education in China: From the perspective of Activity Theory.
Education and Information Technologies, 14, 143-161.
Kahveci, M. (2007). An Instrument Development: Interactivity Survey (the IS). In R. Carlsen et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of
Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2007, 809-819. Chesapeake,
VA: AACE.
Karasavvidis, I. (2009). Activity Theory as a Conceptual Framework for Understanding Teacher Approaches to Information
and Communication Technologies. Computer and Education, 53, 436 – 444
Kervin, L. K. & Jones, T. (2009). One teacher's response to literacy learning and teaching using technology. In A. Moult
(Ed.), Bridging Divides: National Conference for Teachers of English and Literacy (pp. 1-14). AATE/ALEA.
Kozulin, A. (1990) Vygotsky’s Psychology: A biography of ideas. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
Leontiev, A.N.(1981). Problems of the Development of the Mind. Moscow: Progress Publishers
Leontiev, A. N. (1978). Activity, Consciousness and Personality. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Lim, C. & Hang, D. (2003). An Activity Theory Approach to Research of ICT Integration in Singapore Schools. Computers
and Education, 41, 49 – 63.
Martin, D. & Peim, N. (2009). Critical perspectives on activity theory. Educational Review, 16(2), 131-138.
Mol, L. & Greenberg, J. (1990). Creating zones of possibilities: combining social contexts for instruction. In Moll, L. (Ed.).
Vygotsky and Education: Instructional Implications and Applications of Sociohistorical Psychology, MA:
Cambridge University Press,
Moss, G, Jewitt, C, Levačić, R, Armstrong, V, Cardini, A. & Castle, F. (2007). The Interactive Whiteboards, Pedagogy and
Pupil Performance Evaluation: An Evaluation of the Schools Whiteboard Expansion (SWE) Project: London
Challenge http://www.dfes.gov.uk/research/data/uploadfiles/RR816.pdf  
Murphy,  E.  &  Rodriguez-­‐Manzanares,  M.  A.  (2008).  Using  activity  theory  and  its  principle  of  contradictions  to  guide  
research  in  educational  technology.  Australasian  Journal  of  Educational  Technology,  24(4),  442-­‐457  
Nardi, B.A. (2006) (Ed.). Context and Consciousness: Activity Theory and Human-Computer Interaction. Cambridge: MIT
Press
Newman,F. & Holzman, L. (1993) Lev Vygotsky: Revolutionary scientist. London: Routledge
Ochoa, X., Méndez, G. & Duval, E. (2009). Who We Are: Analysis of 10 Years of the ED-MEDIA Conference. In Fulford,
C. & Siemens, G. (Eds.) Proceedings of EdMedia 2009: World Conference on Educational Multimedia,
Hypermedia & Telecommunications. Chesapeake, VA: AACE, 189-200.
Palincsar, A. S. (2005) Social constructivist perspectives on teaching and learning. In Daniels, H. An introduction to
Vygotsky 2nd Ed. NY: Routledge. 285-314
Piaget, J. (1959) The Language and Thought of the Child. 3rd ed. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul
Rogoff, B. (1990) Apprenticeship in Thinking: Cognitive Development in Social Context. New York: Oxford University
Press
Roth, W. (2004). Activity Theory and Education: An introduction. Mind, Culture and Activity, 11 (1), 1 – 8.
Roussou, M., Oliver, M. & Slater, M. (2008). Exploring activity theory as a tool for evaluating interactivity and learning in
virtual environments for children. Cognition, Technology & Work, 10,141–153. DOI 10.1007/s10111-007-0070-3
Scanlon,   E.   &   Issroff,   K.   (2005).   Activity   Theory   and   Higher   Education:   evaluating   learning   technologies.   Journal   of  
Computer  Assisted  Learning,  21,  430  –  439  
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer support for knowledge-building communities. The Journal of the
Learning Sciences, 3(3), 265-283
Shaabi, I. (2010). ESP Community in Transition: A Study of ICT Use in a Tertiary Context in Saudi Arabia. PhD thesis,
University of Wollongong. http://ro.uow.edu.au/theses/
Shy-Jong, J. (2007). A study of students’ construction of science knowledge: talk and writing in a collaborative group.
Educational Research. 49(1): 65-81.
Stojkovski, T. (2010) Computer-mediated Learning in a Social Constructivist Environment. Doctoral thesis. University of
Wollongong. http://ro.uow.edu.au/theses/ http://ro.uow.edu.au/theses/
Smagorinsky, P. (2007). Vygotsky and the social dynamics of classrooms. English Journal. 87(2), 61-66.
Tanner, K., Dixon, R. & Verenikina, I. (2010, in press). The Digital Technology in the Learning of Students with Autism
Spectrum Disorders (ASD) in Applied Classroom Settings. Proceedings of EdMedia 2010, Accepted in April
2010. Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
Taylor, R. (1980). (Ed.) The Computer in the School: Tutor, tool, tutee. NY: Teachers College press, Columbia University.
Tharp, R. & Gallimore, R. (1988) Rousing Minds to Life: Teaching, Learning, and Schooling in Social Context. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Verenikina, I. & Gould, E. (1998). Tool Based Psychology As a Philosophy of Technology, Australian Journal of
Information Systems, 6 (1): 136-145
Verenikina, I., Wrona, K., Jones, P. & Kervin, L. (2010, in press). Interactive Whiteboards: Interactivity, Activity and
Literacy Teaching. Proceedings of EdMedia 2010, Accepted in April 2010. Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1962) Thought and Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978) Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S.
Scribner, & E. Souberman, transl.) Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
Wertsch, J. V. (1985). Vygotsky and the Social Formation of Mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wertsch, J. V. (1998). Mind as Action. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wertsch, J.V. & Tulviste, P. (2005). L.S. Vygotsky and Contemporary Developmental Psychology, in H Daniels (Ed.) An
Introduction to Vygotsky, (2nd ed), Routledge, New York, 59-80.
Westin, J. (2009). Interactivity, Reactivity and Activity: Thoughts On Creating a Digital Sphere For an Analogue Body. In
G. Siemens & C. Fulford (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and
Telecommunications 2009 (pp. 814-829). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
Yamagata-Lynch, L. C. & Haudenschild, M. (2009) Using activity systems analysis to identify inner contradictions in
teacher professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25 (3), 507-517
Yaroshevsky, M. (1989). Lev Vygotsky. Moscow: Progress Publishers
Zevenbergen,   R.   &   Lerman,   S.   (2007).   Proceedings   of   the   30th   Annual   conference   of   the   MERGA:   Essential   Research,  
Essential  Practice,  2,  853  –  862.