Dewey & Vygotsky 1
Running head: Dewey & Vygotsky: A Comparative Look
Dewey & Vygotsky: A Comparative Look at Curriculum Philosophy
Francisco Gonzalez
Chapman University
EDUC 609
Dr. Cindy Slatinsky
January 6, 2009
Dewey & Vygotsky 2
Dewey & Vygotsky: A Comparative Look at Curriculum Philosophy
This research paper will be a comparison and contrast between John Dewey and Lev
Vygotsky both of which contributed much to the field of constructivist learning theory in
education. To begin, I will briefly describe what constructivism is. Second, I will
discuss John Dewey’s philosophy of curriculum. Third, I shall discuss Lev Vygotsky’s
philosophy of curriculum. Fourth, I will examine common factors that are apparent in the
philosophies of Dewey and Vygotsky. Fifth, I shall contrast the ideas that are different in
the philosophies of Dewey and Vygotsky. Finally, I will conclude by summarizing my
curriculum philosophy as it relates to one of the curriculum philosophies described in this
paper.
The research of Dewey and Vygotsky had blended with Piaget's work in
developmental psychology into the broad approach of constructivism. The basic tenet of
constructivism is that students learn by doing rather than observing. Students bring prior
knowledge into a learning situation in which they must critique and re-evaluate their
understanding of it. This process of interpretation, articulation, and re-evaluation is
repeated until they can demonstrate their comprehension of the subject. Constructivism
often utilizes collaboration and peer criticism as a way of provoking students to reach a
new level of understanding. Active practice is the key of any constructivist lesson. To
make an analogy, if you want to learn how to ride a bike, you don't pick a book on
bicycle theory - you get on the bike and practice it until you get it right. It is this
repetition of practice and review that leads to the greatest retention of knowledge. It is an
experience-based learning theory in which students reflect upon their experiences.
John Dewey (1859-1952), a believer in what he called "the audacity of imagination,"
was one of the first national figures in education policy. He rejected the notion that
schools should focus on repetitive, rote memorization. Instead he proposed a method of
"directed living" in which students would engage in real-world, practical workshops in
which they would demonstrate their knowledge through creativity and collaboration.
Students should be provided with opportunities to think from themselves and articulate
their thoughts. Dewey's theory emphasizes the experiential aspects of learning. In his
theory, learning results from our reflections on our experiences, as we strive to make
sense of them, We can directly sense smells, tastes, and the like, and have visceral
reactions (e.g., danger), but we also confront situations which leave us challenged,
puzzled, or confused. Through our encounters with the world and our reflections upon
these experiences, our current understandings of the world are transformed so that things
make more sense. Our understandings become broader and more coordinated, helping us
to gain greater meaning from our experiences. I will now discuss Dewey’s philosophy of
curriculum.
Dewey believed that humans have a fluid intellect, which grows when challenged by
problems or dilemmas. The role of education is neither to cater completely to a learner's
inclinations nor to attempt to force upon a child a preordained curriculum which takes no
account of the learner. He saw children's minds as flexible, expansive, and unformed.
Educators should structure learning environments that engage children in inquiries which
guide them toward broader knowledge and participation in the larger culture. The rich
learning environments suggested by Dewey should provide ample "time, talk, and tools."
Said another way, Dewey believed that learning and inquiry can't be scheduled--ample
Dewey & Vygotsky 3
and unstructured time is needed for learners to follow their own questions and
investigations. Learners are challenged through questions, discussions, suggestions, and
encouragement from parents, teachers, and peers. Tools, such as the microscopes and
research techniques used by scientists, or the musical instruments and notation used by
composers and musicians, can make the learner's inquiries and investigations in the world
even more engaging and powerful. I shall now discuss Vygotsky’s philosophy of
curriculum.
Lev Vygotsky (1896-1934) pioneered research in learning sciences and made a strong
argument for the need for students to demonstrate their knowledge by creating
explanations and interpreting their work for others. To Vygotsky, teachers served as
mediators who coached and encouraged students to formulate their own level of
understanding. Each student has a base level of knowledge, but they can increase it by
practicing what they know well and adding onto it. The social interaction between the
student, teacher and other students reinforces their increase of knowledge.
Vygotsky developed a socio-cultural theory of cognitive development that is
recognized as a practical theory of learning and teaching in educational and information
technologies literature. He argued that knowledge acquisition is essentially and
inescapably a socio-historical-cultural process. Children are socialized into learning and
using the appropriate cognitive and communicative tools that have been passed down
from generation to generation. This means that children learn cognitive (thinking) and
linguistic skills from more capable caretakers, peers, and teachers who assist and regulate
the child's cognitive and linguistic performance. Through such socialization, children
learn the accumulated ways of thinking and doing that are relevant in their culture/s.
In a culturally diverse society, a person's language and ways of thinking and doing in
one culture are mediated by those of another. For instance, for Australian Aborigines and
Torres Strait Islanders, social activity within their cultures ensures cognitive development
in culturally appropriate ways. Asking questions, particularly "why' questions, is not
condoned in their cultures as a teaching or learning strategy and is met with negative
sanctions. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander learners are also allowed to demonstrate
their understanding and abilities when, how, and in what setting they chose; adults do not
have the right to demand any of these. But questioning strategies and performance of
knowledge and skill acquisition on demand from the teacher are endemic to Western
teaching and learning. Thus, when Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children attend
school in Australia, their cultural ways of thinking and doing are simultaneously
mediated by the different accumulated achievements of (middle class) Anglo-Australian
schooling culture. This means that there is context-specificity of cognitive development.
Scaffolding--supports for learning, such as working cooperatively with peers,
coaching or other learning tools--facilitates the transfer of what visitors already know to
the task at hand. Scaffolding is derived from Vygotsky's idea of the "zone of proximal
development," where a learner can extend his competency beyond his individual reach
with the help of others. This means maintaining optimal levels of challenge. Too little
challenge will prove boring while too much will foster frustration. Scaffolding closes the
gap between task requirements and skill levels. Scaffolding needs to be reduced,
reorganized, adjusted, or eliminated as learners develop a sound understanding of the
particular task or concept being learned. In summary, the cognitive and social
Dewey & Vygotsky 4
development of the learner proceeds as an unfolding of potential through the reciprocal
influences of the learner and the social environment. Through guided intervention,
higher mental functions that are part of the social and cultural heritage of the learner will
shift from the socially regulated to the self-regulated. I will now examine common
factors that are apparent in the philosophies of Dewey and Vygotsky.
Dewey and Vygotsky definitely share some similarities in their philosophy of
curriculum. To begin, they are both proponents of constructivist learning theory. Much
of their research contributed to the development of constructivism. In addition, they
share similar ideas concerning the relationship of activity and learning/development,
especially the roles everyday activities and social environment play in the educational
process. The work of Soviet psychologist Vygotsky has had a growing impact on
education in the United States. Many of Vygotsky’s ideas that have had the greatest
resonance for educators, such as bringing everyday activities into the classroom and
focusing on the importance of social context in learning, bear a striking resemblance to
the work of John Dewey, especially his writings on education (e.g., 1912, 1916). It is
true that Dewey is not a developmentalist in the same way that Vygotsky is. But his
educational theory comes close in spirit toVygotsky’s major questions concerning
education, which were pursued with the greatest vigor by those who followed him. These
questions include: How and why does natural human activity serve as the major impetus
for learning? And how, through understanding that activity, can we promote and guide
human learning?
Dewey and Vygotsky are in agreement concerning the roles of social history,
experience/culture, and human inquiry in the educational process. Both of these theorists
believe that, in the context of educational processes, none of these issues can stand
without the other two. Dewey would applaud Vygotsky’s emphasis on everyday culture
as the lynchpin of the educational process. Dewey’s notion of experience is equivalent to
Vygotsky’s conception of culture. (In his attempt to revise his 1925 book Experience
and Nature 25 years later, Dewey suggested he could use the term culture in place of
experience.) In many ways, these two educational models operationalize the theoretical
underpinnings of the two thinkers. The zone of proximal development, especially as it
has been interpreted in the West, focuses on the role of the adult as social interlocutor
who is also a representative of society. These adults mentor children in specific,
culturally appropriate activity (Berk & Winsler, 1995). The role of the educational
process is to prepare children for more complex activity in the larger social community.
Despite the obvious emphasis of individual over social community by leading
progressives such as Dewey, the progressive movement, and many of the Marxist-based
movements, became political allies in the United States during the early part of the
twentieth century. This may have been the result of the two political movements’ having
only a superficial understanding of each other (Novak, 1975). At the same time there was
a good deal of interest in Dewey among those attempting to modernize the educational
system of pre-Revolutionary Russia, such as the “First Moscow Settlement” (Brickman,
1964; Van Der Veer & Valsiner, 1991). Much of Dewey’s early works were translated
into Russian, including School and Society (1900) and a 50-page booklet based on
Education and Democracy (1916). The combination of these two factors probably led to
a Deweyan influence on early Soviet educators such as Blonsky and the young Vygotsky.
This short history offers some possible reasons for similarities between Dewey and
Dewey & Vygotsky 5
Vygotsky, such as the focus on activity, the importance of the everyday activities of the
child in the educational process, and the importance of history. The young Vygotsky was
working within an educational structure that had been influenced by Dewey’s ideas for a
number of years.
Both Vygotsky and Dewey agree that the human condition is based in social
interactions. Humans are initially social beings who slowly develop their individual
selves through their relationships (experiences) with others. Dewey (1916) makes the
argument that humans are only human through their social interconnectedness with each
other (and actually suggests that helplessness is, in some ways, a positive attribute
because it helps to foster this interconnectedness). The essential questions that need to be
asked involve how these extraordinary connections come about and how the individual
begins to take control of them (Dewey, 1925). Vygotsky suggests that it is the ability to
develop cooperative activity through complex social relationships that separates mature
humans from all other animals (Vygotsky & Luria, 1993). Humans are best understood
as products of these complex relationships.
Vygotsky and Dewey are very similar in approach to experience/culture. If Dewey
could have renamed his conception of experience as culture, Vygotsky might have
renamed his conception of culture as (Dewey’s) experience. Vygotsky recognizes two
levels of culture, much the same way that Dewey sees two levels of experience. There is
the culture that emerges through everyday concepts, and there is the culture that emerges
through scientific concepts (Vygotsky, 1987). They both suggest that a child learns
language in social interaction and then thinks in terms of that language. Vygotsky’s
scientific concepts (Vygotsky, 1987) is in many ways parallel to Dewey’s (1925)
conceptualization of secondary experiences.
Both Vygotsky and Dewey see inquiry as based in progressive problem solving. The
individual is forced to confront issues that are not easily reconciled by current thinking.
Interest is the only true motivation that can force this type of confrontation, pushing the
mind from comfort into conflict. Vygotsky from a very early point saw interest as an
inherent characteristic of the individual, and perhaps the primary driving motivation in
activity. This echoes Dewey’s view of interests as children’s “native urgencies and
needs” (Dewey, 1912, p. 23). Interest for both theorists is intrinsic to the activity and
natural to the child. It cannot be created for the child from without. Vygotsky echoes one
of Dewey’s ideas, when he says, “In youth, one’s eyes are always wide open to the world,
which underscores the greater maturity of youth towards life.” Dewey suggests that it is
in youth that we are truly able to find interest in things with an open awareness, and that
we lose this openness as we mature (Dewey, 1916). I shall now contrast the ideas that
are different in the philosophies of Dewey and Vygotsky.
In many ways the ideas of Dewey and Vygotsky came to the same outcomes in
education. However, they also had different ideas on human thought. Dewey’s ideas on
thought were based on instrumentalism and he focused his educational ideas on this. On
the other hand Vygotsky’s educational ideas revolved around Marxist social ideas.
Instrumentalism is a way of looking at ideas and thoughts as instruments for action. This
belief led Dewey to believe that vocational studies needed to be a part of the education
system. He thought schools should have a combination of vocational and academic
Dewey & Vygotsky 6
studies. In this way he said students should take part in life like activities that would
promote creativity and cooperation. Dewey saw repetition and memorization as the worst
possible ways to teach people how to do something. An idea he really supported through
out his whole range of research and writings on education was that there need to be a
focus on thought and not strict topics. He thought it was a waste to teach kids how to do
things in just one context. He condemned elitism and felt teachers shouldn’t teach as if
they are all knowing and better then their students. He thought teachers should be
creative and practical in their approach to teaching to provide students with opportunities
to think for themselves.
Vygotsky applied Marxist social ideals to education, believing that a person could
learn more if they were learning in a social situation. His theory of “Zone of Proximal
Development” stated that there was a difference between the level of learning that one
could reach by studying alone and the level they would reach working with a teacher or a
more advanced peer. In this way he believed that education should be formed into a
social process. His ideal class would contain group work, peer review and one on one
contact with the teacher. He too would be against elitism by teachers as Dewey was and
agreed with many of Dewey’s ideas. He was in favor of teaching thinking skills rather
then just topic based lesson.
The two theorists are far apart in their conception of the relationship between process
and goals in education. Dewey concentrates on means in education, believing that it is
the ability of the individual to question through experience that is most important for the
human community. Vygotsky, while recognizing the importance of (especially cultural)
process in education, sees social and cultural goals as being integrated into social
pedagogy. Dewey sees social history as creating a set of malleable tools that are of use in
present circumstances. Vygotsky believes that tools developed through history have a far
more lasting impact on the social community. Dewey sees experience as helping to form
thinking, whereas Vygotsky, in his cultural historical theory, posits culture as the raw
material of thinking. Dewey sees the child as a free agent who achieves goals through
her own interest in the activity. Vygotsky suggests there should be greater control by a
mentor who creates activity that will lead the child towards mastery.
The similarities between Dewey and Vygotsky, however, belie one difference of
extraordinary import to educators in general, but especially for those inclined towards the
use of activity as a major teaching strategy. The difference revolves around the question
of how educators view the process of activity in relation to the consequences of activity.
Are these consequences goals to be carefully planned and then brought about through
active mentoring on the part of the social interlocutor (i.e., a more seasoned member of
the community who fosters social interaction with a purpose)? Or are they temporary
destinations of little educational import in and of themselves? The issues that separate
these two theorists, who see activity as being of such vital importance, could not be more
profound. It raises the question of whether teachers should approach students as mentors
who guide or direct activity, or facilitators who are able to step back from children’s
activity and let it run its own course. It crosses into such areas as culturally and
economically heterogeneous classrooms, and well as cultural/social historical attitudes
towards education. A comparison of Dewey and Vygotsky highlights strong reasons why
Dewey & Vygotsky 7
education should be an active and context specific process, but it also forces educators to
think long and hard about how and why they use activity in the classroom.
For Vygotsky human inquiry is embedded within culture, which is embedded within
social history. The educational process works, more or less, from the outside in. It is
social history, and, most important, the tools developed through our social history that
helps to determine our everyday culture (Vygotsky & Luria, 1993). However, in contrast
to Vygotsky, Dewey emphasizes human inquiry, and the role that it plays in the creation
of experience/culture and, eventually, social tool systems. I believe Dewey would be very
cautious about educators stressing how individual thinking might be embedded within
social history. One of the major purposes of education is to instill the ability and the
desire for change in experience, and possible resultant changes in social history, through
individual inquiry.
The differences between the two theorists are easily recognizable when one compares
Vygotsky’s conception of the “zone of proximal development” (Rogoff & Wertsch,
1984) and the Dewey-inspired model of “long term projects” (Katz & Chard, 1989,
2000). In many ways, these two educational models operationalize the theoretical
underpinnings of the two thinkers. The zone of proximal development, especially as it
has been interpreted in the West, focuses on the role of the adult as social interlocutor
who is also a representative of society. These adults mentor children in specific,
culturally appropriate activity (Berk & Winsler, 1995). The role of the educational
process is to prepare children for more complex activity in the larger social community.
In long term projects children are immersed in everyday activities. It is expected that
the activities of the children will eventually coalesce around a topic that is of interest to
them. The topic need not be of any relevance to the demands of the larger social
community, or even have meaning or interest for the teacher. As a matter of fact, the
teacher should step back from the process once children display a relevant interest and act
as facilitator rather than mentor. It is the students who must drive the inquiry based on
their own goals. The children learn that they control and are responsible for inquiry in
their lives, and they determine what goals are important and the ways in which they can
(or can not) be met (Dewey, 1916). It is a process that will be played out over and over
again over the course of their lifetime experience. An important difference between the
two theorists may be partially attributed to the divergence between progressive education
and Marxist ideology on key issues, such as socially determined goals in activity (Novak,
1975; Popkewitz & Tabachnik, 1981).
Dewey (1916) makes the argument that humans are only human through their social
interconnectedness with each other (and actually suggests that helplessness is, in some
ways, a positive attribute because it helps to foster this interconnectedness). The
essential questions that need to be asked involve how these extraordinary connections
come about and how the individual begins to take control of them (Dewey, 1925).
Vygotsky suggests that it is the ability to develop cooperative activity through complex
social relationships that separates mature humans from all other animals (Vygotsky &
Luria, 1993). Humans are best understood as products of these complex relationships.
Dewey & Vygotsky 8
For Dewey culture and history provide a malleable set of means (e.g., tools) that can
be used to achieve immediate or easily viewed ends (see Eldridge, 1998, for an in-depth
discussion of Dewey’s instrumentality). These tools have worth only to the degree to
which they can be used to successfully navigate a given situation. For Vygotsky
(Vygotsky & Luria, 1993) cultural history provides for a (relatively) more static set of
tools and symbols that should eventually enable members of a society to move beyond
pure instrumentality, to a higher level of cognitive awareness. Dewey posits that
education leads to free inquiry, and free inquiry leads to a richer society, but he lacks a
description of exactly what a richer society looks like. Vygotsky, on the other hand, is
susceptible to the criticism Dewey (1964) makes of the entire Soviet educational
system—that social goals can easily be turned into propaganda that services the society.
Whereas Dewey fears progressive human thinking being lost in the shared comfort of
common history, Vygotsky is basically agnostic on the subject. This is because of how
Vygotsky views tools and symbols in the context of development. He believes tools and
symbols are used in the service of culturally defined goals that are far beyond the
immediacy of Dewey’s end-in-view. While Dewey sees experience as focused on the
solving of problems, Vygotsky (1987) sees experience as emerging through direct
communication between social interlocutors and neophytes. Vygotsky does not share
Dewey’s preoccupation with individualism. In Vygotsky’s conception of secondary
experience there is no need for the type of individual reflection (natural, immediate, and
an integral part of activity) explored by Dewey. There is also another important
difference between Dewey and Vygotsky’s thinking as far as education is concerned.
Dewey (1938) believes that doubt is discovered by the individual in unique, naturally
evolving situations. (Dewey explicitly states that the doubt must be the result of the
situation itself.) Problems will necessarily emerge because situations change and
children (as well as adults) will be forced to confront them through the natural
momentum of activity (Dewey, 1916). For Vygotsky the indeterminate situation is the
plan and product of the mentor. Doubt is not discovered by the individual, but sown by
the society through complementary actions of the social interlocutor. Related to this is
Vygotsky’s idea that the social interlocutor takes an active role in guiding the thinking of
the child through the zone of proximal development. “In short, in some way or another I
propose that the children solve the problem with my assistance” (Vygotsky, 1987, p. 86).
To summarize, Dewey and Vygotsky are similar in some aspects of their curriculum
philosophies but different in other ways. For Dewey, education is a bottom-up process
where the individual is central to the process. The purpose of education is to teach the
child to be an individual within the society. Process is more important than product, and
inquiry more important than tool use. In investigating long term projects, the student is
involved in a circular learning process which begins with interest which leads to doubt
(questioning), to problem solving, and renewed interest. The teacher serves as a
facilitator. Tools are intellectual tools (morals, ideas, values and customs) that are used
as reference points. He includes diversity as one of these tools. Dewey considered
experience (culture) as physical action and the consequences of that action. Human
inquiry is the use of thinking for greater social cohesion and advancement of the social
group. Interest is created by needs and instincts, creating situations where the child can
move towards mastery through interactions with the facilitator. For Vygotsky, education
is a top-down process, where the social group is central to the process. The purpose of
Dewey & Vygotsky 9
education is to allow the child to fulfill his developmental potential within the
community and prepare him for complex activity in that community. In the zone of
proximal development the child addresses a problem through doubt (questioning), which
leads to reconstruction of his thinking to complete the activity, which leads to a new
problem to be solved. The teacher serves as a mentor, or interlocutor. Tools and symbols
are used in the service of culturally defined goals, and can give meaning to the activity.
One aim of education is to teach members of the community how to use these tools
effectively. Experience (culture) is the result of direct communication between the learner
and his social mentor, and the zone of proximal development is concerned with
establishing specific tools that can serve the child in his social purposes. Human inquiry
is imbedded within culture, and the use of thinking is for the better living of life. Interest
is created by the interaction the person and the situation. I will now conclude by
summarizing my curriculum philosophy as it relates to one of the curriculum
philosophies described in this paper.
In terms of my own curriculum philosophy, I would say that I have more in common
with Dewey than Vygotsky. Like both of them I consider myself a constructivist, but I
agree with Dewey’s idea that education is a bottom-up process where the individual is
central to the process. Teaching a child to be an individual in society is important to me
as well. I agree that the teacher should be a facilitator in the learning process. I also
agree with Dewey’s concept of experience as culture. Our experiences definitely make
up our culture and who we are. Free inquiry and diversity are absolutely vital for a
democratic society and for true educational experiences.
Dewey & Vygotsky 10
References
Berk, L. E., & Winsler, A. (1995). Scaffolding children’s learning: Vygotsky and early
childhood education. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of
Young Children (NAEYC Research into Practice Series).
Brickman, W. (1964). Introduction. Impressions of Soviet Russia and the revolutionary
world, Mexico, China, Turkey, 1929 (by John Dewey). New York: Teachers College
Press.
Dewey, J. (1912). Interest and effort in education. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York: Free Press.
Dewey, J. (1925). Experience and nature. Chicago: Open Court Publishing.
Dewey, J. (1938). Logic, the theory of inquiry. New York: Holt Publishing.
Dewey, J. (1964). Impressions of Soviet Russia and the revolutionary world, Mexico,
China, Turkey, 1929. New York: Teachers College Press. (Original work published
1928.)
Eldridge, M. (1998). Transforming experience: John Dewey’s cultural instrumentalism.
Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press.
Katz, L., & Chard, S. C. (1989). Engaging children’s minds: The project approach.
Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.
Novak, G. (1975). An appraisal of John Dewey’s philosophy: Pragmatism vs. Marxism.
New York: Pathfinder Press.
Popkewitz, T., & Tabacknik, R. (1981). Soviet and American pedagogical research:
Differences and similarities in the two countries. In B. R. Tabachnick, T. S.
Popkewitz, B. B. Szekely (Eds.), Studying teaching and learning: Trends in Soviet
and American research. New York: Praeger.
Dewey & Vygotsky 11
Rogoff, B., & Wertsch, J. (1984). Children’s learning in the zone of proximal
development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Van Der Veer, J., & Valsiner, J. (1991). Understanding Vygotsky: A quest for synthesis.
Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). The collected works of L.S. Vygotsky: Vol. I Problems of general
psychology. R. Rieber & A. Carton (Eds.) (N. Minick, Trans.). New York: Plenum
Press. (Original work published 1934)
Vygotsky, L. S., & Luria, A. R. (1993). Studies on the history of behavior: Ape, primitive
and child. (Victor I. Golod & Jane E. Knox. Hillsdale, Eds. and Trans.) NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.