Vygotsky’s Sociocultural Theory

Introduction

View this video for a quick introduction to Sociocultural Theory.

Overview

The sociocultural theory of learning and teaching is widely recognized in fields of educational psychology and instructional technology. The focus of this theory is on the role social interaction and culture play in the development of higher-order thinking skills. Lev Vygotsky (1978), a Russian psychologist and the founder of sociocultural theory, believed that human development and learning originate in social and cultural interaction. In other words, the ways people interact with others and the culture in which they live shape their mental abilities.

Importance

Most instructional design models, such as ADDIE, take into consideration only the common learner, tying learning with concrete and measurable objectives. Recently, a strong call has been issued for a complete shift in our education and instructional design approaches requiring a learner-centered instruction to reflect our society’s changing educational needs (Watson & Reigeluth, 2016). New methodologies, such as Universal Design for Learning, based in the learning sciences recognize that every learner is unique and strives to provide challenging and engaging curricula for diverse learners. Watson and Reigeluth (2016) mention that there are two important features of learning-centered instruction: a focus on the individual learner and a focus on effective learning practices. Sociocultural theory and related methodologies may provide a valuable contribution to this effort as they focus on a learner in their social, cultural, and historical context and also offer sound pedagogical solutions and strategies that facilitate development of critical thinking and encourage lifelong learning (Grabinger, Aplin, & Ponnappa-Brenner, 2007).

Sociocultural theory allows instructional designers to apply principles of collaborative practice that go beyond social constructivism and create effective communities of learners through successful pedagogies. The sociocultural perspective views learning as taking place through interaction, negotiation, and collaboration in solving authentic problems while emphasizing learning from experience and discourse. This is visible, for example, in Situated Learning Theory and Cognitive Apprenticeship. They encul

turate learners into the community of practice, highlighting the importance of effective pedagogical practices, quality of content, as well as strong social presence to increase the effectiveness of learning experiences. Moreover, they successfully facilitate critical thinking and higher-order learning outcomes (Garrison & Akyol, 2013). The emergence of new communication technologies and increased attention to computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) create new opportunities for applying sociocultural methodologies as their affordances allow quality collaboration and new ways of interacting in face-to-face, blended, and online environments (Garrison & Akyol, 2013).

Current instructional methodologies generally do not give much consideration for learner’s funds of knowledge – existing knowledge, established relationships, or cultural richness. Garrison and Akyol (2013) explained that when social presence is established as part of a community of inquiry, which requires recognition and use of these funds of knowledge, “collaboration and critical discourse is enhanced and sustained” (p. 108). Establishment of solid social presence further reflects in positive learning outcomes, increased satisfaction, and improved retention (Garrison & Akyol, 2013). Integrating sociocultural practices into learning design, for example through creation of communities of inquiry, spontaneously integrates a learner’s previous knowledge, relationships, and cultural experiences into the learning process and enculturates the learner into the new community of practice through relevant activities and experiences (Grabinger et al., 2007).

Origins of the Learning Theory

Growing up in a middle-class Jewish family, his interest in psychology was shaped by the intellectual Russian environment at the beginning of the century, a time characterized by profound social and political changes (Bassett, 2024). This socio-political context is noteworthy for the influence of Soviet Russian Marxist ideas, which held that people’s material environment gives rise to their identity (Marx, 1845). Though Vygotsky graduated with a law degree from Moscow University, in 1925, he began a research project that focused on the psychology of art. Shortly thereafter, he pursued a career as a psychologist and worked with Alexander Luria and Alexei Leontiev. Together, they began the Vygotskian approach to psychology (Bassett, 2024).

After Vygotsky’s death, his manuscripts were banned in the USSR because Stalin labeled his work “bourgeois thinking’. This is because it incorporated ideas from European and American ideologies (EduBirdie, 2022). It was not until the late 1960s when his work was allowed to be published again. His work continues to be disseminated through efforts of scholars such as Cole, Wertsch, John-Steiner, Lantolf, and Rogoff (Miller, 2011). Vygotsky’s ideas markedly influenced theories of psychology and education (Driscoll, 2000) and continues to significantly affect educational practices today (Miller, 2011).

Comparison with Other Theories

This Vygotskian notion of social learning stands in contrast to some of Piaget’s more popular ideas of cognitive development, which assume that development through certain stages is biologically determined, originates in the individual, and precedes cognitive complexity. This difference in assumptions has significant implications to the design and implementation of learning experiences. If we believe, as Piaget did, that development precedes learning, then we will make sure that new concepts and problems are not introduced until learners have first developed the capabilities to understand them. On the other hand, if we believe as Vygotsky did that learning drives development and that development occurs as we learn a variety of challenging concepts and principles with others, then we will ensure that activities are structured in ways that promote interaction. We will know that it is the process of learning that enables achievement of higher levels of development, which in turn affects a child’s “readiness to learn a new concept” (Miller, 2011).

Fundamental Tenets of the Theory

Key Concepts

There are three fundamental concepts that define sociocultural theory: (1) social interaction plays an important role in learning, (2) language is an essential tool in the learning process, and (3) learning occurs within the Zone of Proximal Development.

Social interaction plays an important role in learning. Vygotsky believed that thinking has social origins and that cognitive development cannot be understood without reference to the social context within which it is embedded. He proposed that social interaction plays a critical role in the process of cognitive development, especially in the development of higher order thinking skills. Social activity between a parent and a child or a teacher and a learner lays a foundation for how and what the child will think and do in other situations (Driscoll, 2000).

Vygotsky wrote: “Every function in the child’s cultural development appears twice: first, on the social level, and later, on the individual level” (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 57). This process is characterized as guided participation where a child actively acquires new cognitive skills and problem-solving capabilities through a meaningful collaborative activity with an assisting adult (Rogoff, 1990). It is through working together on a variety of tasks that a learner internalizes or adopts socially shared experiences and associated effects and acquires useful strategies and knowledge (John-Steiner & Mahn, 1996). The processes of guided participation and internalization reveal the Vygotskian view of cognitive development “as the transformation of socially shared activities into internalized processes,” or, as an act of enculturation (John-Steiner & Mahn, 1996, p. 192).

The second important notion on which Vygotsky elaborated is related to the role of language in the learning process. Vygotsky reasoned that social structures determine people’s working conditions and social interactions, which in turn shape their cognition, beliefs, attitudes, and perception of reality (Miller 2011). He extended his reasoning further with a notion that human action on both the social and individual planes is mediated by tools and signs, or semiotics, such as language, systems of counting, conventional signs, works of art, etc. Vygotsky suggested that through the use of these tools, co-construction of knowledge is facilitated such that social and individual functioning is developed. These semiotic means play an important role in development and learning through appropriation, a process of adopting or internalizing these socially available psychological tools by an individual to assist future independent problem solving (John-Steiner & Mahn, 1996). This means that children and learners do not need to reinvent already existing tools in order to be able to use them.

Vygotsky viewed language as a direct result of the symbols and tools that emerge within a culture. It is potentially the greatest tool at our disposal, a form of a symbolic mediation that plays two critical roles in development: to communicate with others and to construct meaning (McLeod, 2014). First, language is used to assign meaning during social interaction to facilitate communication in social settings. This occurs as a child engages in the environment and through a variety of social events and processes acquires language of their closest community, the family. Generally, this so-called social speech emerges around age two, and it is a form of an external or overt speech directed toward others with a communicative function (McLeod, 2014). A child discovers that words have meaning, realizes that this meaning is shared within the language community, and begins to use these words to communicate with others to fulfill their needs. During this process of development a child also internalizes the tone of voice, the way concepts are talked about, and the signs and symbols used to attach value to things and events, which eventually shapes the value sets of that individual (Miller, 2011). Vygotsky believed that language and thought are two separate systems at this initial stage (Vygotsky, 1962).

Probably the most widely adopted concept related to sociocultural theory is the concept of the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD). It is “the distance between the actual developmental level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers” (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 86). It is essentially the zone where learning takes place. Vygotsky strongly believed that learning should be matched with a child’s developmental level and suggested that in order to understand the connection between development and learning it is necessary to distinguish the actual and the potential levels of development.

Vygotsky viewed the application of ZPD broadly, referring to “any situation in which some activity is leading children beyond their current level of functioning. Thus the zone can operate during play, work, school studies, and other … activities” (Miller, 2011, p. 178). Providing sensitive instruction and guidance within the ZPD allows a learner to develop skills and strategies they will eventually apply on their own in other situations, which is characteristic of developing higher cognitive skills (Vygotsky, 1978). The role of a learner’s social partner is also critical since the type of social interactions, tools they use, and skills they practice determine the outcome of the collaborative experience, which could lead to a normal and accelerated development as well as to developmental delays and an abnormal development (Driscoll, 2011). Thus an ideal partner, whether an adult or a peer, should be advanced enough in knowledge or skill to promote learning and at the same time be able to interact within the zone not too far beyond the learner’s reach. Additionally, partners in a successful collaborative activity share a degree of common understanding about the task, a common goal, described as intersubjectivity. It is not sufficient for the partners to merely work together, they must co-construct the problem’s solution through coordinated effort, which implies shared power and authority over the process (Driscoll, 2011).

Supporting Mechanisms

Researchers have applied the metaphor of scaffolds (the temporary platforms on which construction workers stand) to this way of teaching. Scaffolding is the temporary support that caregivers give a child to do a task. ​​Scaffolding represents the way in which a caregiver guides a child’s learning during a goal-oriented task by offering or withdrawing support at different levels depending on the child’s individual developmental level and learning needs. Scaffoldings typically include a mutual and dynamic nature of interaction where both the learner and the one providing the scaffold influence each other and adjust their behavior as they collaborate. In an interactive game of peek-a-book, a caregiver can scaffold an infant’s attention and understanding of object permanence by changing the length of time they stay hidden and by changing how they reveal themselves (e.g., using their hands or another object to hide behind). Research suggests that even in infancy scaffolding plays an important role in the development of cognitive abilities (​​Neale & Whitebread, 2019). Ideas such as the ZPD and scaffolding bring to light a fundamentally different view of a caregiver who serves more as a facilitator of learning rather than someone providing general knowledge. Likewise, the learner takes on more responsibilities such as determining their learning goals, becoming a resource of knowledge for peers, and actively collaborating in the learning process (Grabinger et al., 2007). This often contrasts with how many people perceive education–as the teacher being the source of knowledge and the teacher directly giving their knowledge to the children.

Check your understanding for some key words below, by dragging the correct term into the blank to complete the sentence.

Strengths and Limitations of the Theory

Strengths

Sociocultural theory is sensitive to individual and cross-cultural diversity. In contrast to many other universalist theories, sociocultural theory acknowledges both differences in individuals within a culture and differences in individuals across cultures. It recognizes that “different historical and cultural circumstances may encourage different developmental routes to any given developmental endpoint” (Miller, 2011, p. 198) depending on particular social or physical circumstances and tools available.

Traditional methods rely on individualistic learning driven by set learning objectives and strands of often context-deprived topics being presented in a logical and structured sequence. Generally there is little or no consideration for already existing knowledge, relationships, or cultural richness. Systematic approaches to instructional design, often rooted in behaviorist theory, may be valuable for “teaching concepts, procedures and basic skills” (Grabinger et al., 2007, p.1). But Grabinger, Aplin, and Ponnappa-Brenner (2007) further propose that in order to meet the goal of ‘preparing people for an ever-changing world’, instructional programs need to apply strategies that focus on the development of critical thinking, problem solving, research, and lifelong learning, which require a sociocultural approach to instruction emphasizing learning from experience and discourse.

Limitations

There are critical limitations to the sociocultural perspective. The first limitation is related to Vygotsky’s premature death, as many of his ideas remained incomplete. Furthermore, his work was largely unknown until fairly recently due to political reasons and issues with translation. The second major limitation is associated with the vagueness of the ZPD. Individuals may have wide or narrow zones, which may be both desirable and undesirable, depending on the circumstances. Knowing only the width of the zone “does not provide an accurate picture of a child’s learning, ability, style of learning, and current level of development compared to other children of the same age and degree of motivation” (Miller, 2011). Additionally, there is little known about whether a child’s zone is comparable across different learning domains, with different individuals, and whether the size of the zone changes over time. And importantly, there is not a common metric scale to measure ZPD.

Select the correct answers in the following questions.

Instructional Design Implications

Practical Applications

An important implication of the above ideas is that there is much opportunity through the school system to influence the cognitive development of children. For example, through language, the presentation and interpretation of history and current affairs, and the attitudes, beliefs and values of teachers (or significant others), the thought patterns and beliefs of students may be shaped. Vygotsky’s ideas suggest that student-teacher and student-peer relationships are of prime importance of generating and facilitating new ideas, perspectives, and cognitive strategies. Furthermore, the student apprentice can be seen to be active within their learning environments, attempting to construct understanding where possible, and possibly contribute to or affirm with the adopted culture. In turn, this aspect of human development inevitably has influence on the environment itself, and thus a dialectic process in which learning and development is affected by the social world, and the social world changed through learning and development (Tudge & Winterhoff, 1993). In a similar way, Vygotsky has argued that natural (i.e. biological) and cultural development coincide and merge to form a dynamic and integrated sociobiological influence on personality (Vygotsky, 1962).

Alternative examples of guided participation can be seen when caregivers involve infants and toddlers in everyday routines. In her research with Mayan families in Guatemala, Rogoff et al., (1993) reported mothers guiding their toddlers through the process of making tortillas. Mothers would give the toddlers small balls of dough to practice rolling and flattening. This cultural practice both contributed to the child’s cognitive development and their learning of practices important for their culture. As another example, consider a group care setting during meal time where toddlers are seated with a caregiver and the meal is separated into larger bowls on the table where the toddlers are seated. The toddlers are able to participate in the routine by serving themselves using the serving spoons and then feed themselves using the utensils. The first few times this routine is started, the caregiver may do more serving and guiding, but eventually, through practiced participation, toddlers are able to participate more deeply, all the while learning culturally-valuable skills such as turn-taking, conversation around a meal, vocabulary and the motor skills needed to serve and eat.

Strategies

Students should be given frequent opportunities to express understanding, and learning tasks fine-tuned by the teacher to address individual capabilities. Social interaction is a key emphasis in the learning process, and therefore the student needs to be active in the learning interaction, and in collaboration with the teacher. Where teaching logistics dictate large classes, small group work should be encouraged whereby peer-support and improved teacher interaction can be maintained. However, overt reliance on peer-support could cause regression in some cases, and requires careful evaluation and support by the teacher. Furthermore, in an educational context, a teacher is likely to prove the best role model, i.e. the best conveyer of culturally esteemed factors pertaining to education.

Contexts

Sociocultural theory encourages instructional designers to apply principles of collaborative practice that go beyond social constructivism to create learning communities. The sociocultural perspective views learning taking place through interaction, negotiation, and collaboration in solving authentic problems while emphasizing learning from experience and discourse, which is more than cooperative learning. This is visible, for example, in the ideas of situated cognition (situated learning), cognitive apprenticeships, and third-space integration.

Brown, Collins, and Duguid (1989), seminal authors on situated cognition, contended  that “activity and situations are integral to cognition and learning” (p. 32). By socially interacting with others in real life contexts, learning occurs on deeper levels. They explained that “people who use tools actively rather than just acquire them, by contrast, build an increasingly rich implicit understanding of the world in which they use the tools and of the tools themselves” (Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989, p. 33). This implicit understanding of the world around them influences how learners understand and respond to instruction. In one study, Carraher, Carraher, and Schliemann (1985) researched Brazilian children solving mathematics problems while selling produce. While selling produce, the context and artifacts positively influenced a child’s ability to work through mathematics problems, use appropriate strategies, and find correct solutions. However, these children failed to solve the same problems when they were presented out of context in conventional mathematical form. Lave (1988) studied tailors in Liberia and found that while the tailors were adept at solving mathematics problems embedded in their daily work, they could not apply those same skills to novel contexts. In addition, Collins (1988) and identified four benefits of using situated cognition as a theory guiding teaching and instructional design: (1) learners develop the ability to apply knowledge; (2) learners become effective problem solvers after learning in novel and diverse settings; (3) learners are able to see the implications of knowledge; and (4) learners receive support in organizing knowledge in ways to use later.

Cognitive apprenticeships, meanwhile, acknowledge the situated nature of cognition by contextualizing learning (Brown et al., 1989) through apprenticing learners to more experienced experts who model and scaffold implicit and explicit concepts to be learned. Lave and Wenger (1991) wrote about the work of teaching tailors in Liberia and found that new tailors developed the necessary skills by serving as apprenticeships and learning from experienced tailors.

Third-space discourse encourages instructors and instructional designers to create learning experiences that provide opportunities to build off of learners’ primary discourses (related to informal settings such as home and the community) and students’ secondary discourses (related to formal learning settings such as schools) (Soja, 1998). Studies that have examined learning experiences grounded in the construct of third space discourse benefited learners through demonstrated gains in their conceptual understanding and use of academic language  (Maniotes, 2005). As an example, Mojé et al. (2001) wrote: weaving together of counter scripts [student personal discourses] and official scripts [school science discourses] constructs a Third Space in which alternative and competing discourses and positionings transform conflict and difference into rich zones of collaborative learning … (p. 487).

Conclusion

The dynamic relationships between culture, history, interpersonal interactions and psychological development have been described, and the important role of language as a common and conducting medium discussed. One specific educational application of such ideas is through the ZPD, which emphasizes the importance of the social aspect of learning, and particularly the student-centered and co-constructivist basis of learning in which the individual’s potential within the social context is addressed. If we believe as Vygotsky did that learning drives development and that development occurs as we learn a variety of concepts and principles, recognizing their applicability to new tasks and new situations, then our instructional design will look very different.

Students have robust opportunities to experience meaningful collaborative learning in both physical and virtual settings that embody the tenets of sociocultural learning. Different technological and online tools can assist with greater communication strategies, more realistic simulations of real-world problem scenarios, and even greater flexibility when seeking to scaffold instruction within students’ ZPD. Embracing the use of technology within collaborative learning can also foster a more equal distribution of voices as compared to in-person groupings (Deal, 2009), potentially providing greater opportunity to ensure active participation among all students.Through using technology to support the implementation of social learning theories in the classroom, students experience collaboration while refining 21st century skills.

Read the statements below and choose the correct one.

References

Basilio, M. & Rodriguez, C. (2017). How toddlers think with their hands: social and private gestures as evidence of cognitive self-regulation in guided play with objects. Early Child Development and Care, 187(12), 12. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2016.1202944

Bassett, Jane (2024, April 1). For a progressive pedagogy: why we need Vygotsky. International Socialism. https://isj.org.uk/progressive-pedagogy-vygotsky/#:~:text=Vygotsky%20was%20born%20in%201896,communities%20were%20on%20the%20rise. Biggs, J. B., & Moore, P. J. (1993). Process of learning (3rd ed.). London: Prentice Hall.

Brown, J.S., Collins, A., Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1). pp. 32-42

Carraher, T. N., Carraher, D. W., & Schliemann, A. D. (1985). Mathematics in the streets and in schools. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 3(1), 21–29. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-835x.1985.tb00951.x

Deal, A. D. (2009). Collaboration tools. In Eberly Center. Carnegie Mellon University. Retrieved March 16, 2025, from https://www.cmu.edu/teaching/technology/whitepapers/

Driscoll, D. L. (2011). Connected, Disconnected, or Uncertain: Student Attitudes about Future Writing Contexts and Perceptions of Transfer from First Year Writing to the Disciplines. Across the Disciplines, 8(2), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.37514/atd-j.2011.8.2.07

Driscoll, M. P. (2000). Psychology of learning for instruction. Allyn & Bacon.

Edubirdie. (2022, September 27). Analysis of Lev Vygotsky’s Theory: Biography and Activity. Retrieved March 8, 2025, from https://hub.edubirdie.com/examples/critical-analysis-of-lev-vygotskys-theory-general-overview-of-biography-and-activity/

Garrison, D. R., & Akyol, Z. (2013). The community of inquiry theoretical framework. Handbook of Distance Education, 3, 104-120.

Grabinger, S., Aplin, C., & Ponnappa-Brenner, G. (2007). Instructional design for sociocultural learning environments. W-Journal of Instructional Science and Technology, 10(1), n1.

John-Steiner, V., & Mahn, H. (1996). Sociocultural approaches to learning and development: A Vygotskian framework. Educational psychologist, 31(3-4), 191-206.

Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice: Mind, mathematics and culture in everyday life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Maniotes, L. K. (2005). The transformative power of literary third space. Doctoral dissertation, School of Education, University of Colorado, Boulder.

Maniotes, L. K. (2005). The transformative power of literary third space [Ph. D. Thesis]. University of Colorado.

Marx, K. (1845). The German ideology. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01a.htm

McLeod, S. A. (2014). Lev Vygotsky. Simply Psychology. Retrieved from www.simplypsychology.org/vygotsky.html

Miller, P. H. (2011). Theories of Developmental Psychology (5th ed.). Worth Publishers. https://davcollegekanpur.ac.in/assets/ebooks/Psychology/Theories%20of%20Developemental%20Psychology%20by%20Miller.pdf 

Moje, E. B., Collazo, T., Carrillo, R., & Marx, R. W. (2001). “Maestro, what is ‘quality’?”: Language, literacy, and discourse in project‐based science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(4), 469–498. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.1014

Neale, D., & Whitebread, D. (2019). Maternal scaffolding during play with 12- to 24-month-old infants: stability over time and relations with emerging effortful control. Metacognition and Learning, 14(3), 265–289. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-019-09196-6

Piaget, J. (1959). The language and thought of the child (3rd ed.) (M. Gabain & R. Gabain, Trans.). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.

Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: cognitive development in social context. Choice Reviews Online, 28(01), 28–0612. https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.28-0612 

Rogoff, B., Mistry, J., Göncü, A., Mosier, C., Chavajay, P., Heath, S. B., & Goncu, A. (1993). Guided participation in cultural activity by toddlers and caregivers. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 58(8), i. https://doi.org/10.2307/1166109

Soja, E. W. (1998). Thirdspace: Journeys to Los Angeles and other Real-and-Imagined Places. Capital & Class, 22(1), 137–139. https://doi.org/10.1177/030981689806400112

Sole, M. (2016). Crib song: Insights into functions of toddlers’ private spontaneous singing. Psychology of Music, 45(2), 172–192. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735616650746

Tudge, J. R. H., & Winterhoff, P. A. (1993). Vygotsky, Piaget, and Bandura: Perspectives on the relations between the social world and cognitive development. Human Development, 36, 61.

Vygotsky, L. (1962). Thought and language. http://ci.nii.ac.jp/ncid/BA07207011

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in Society: the development of higher psychological processes. https://ci.nii.ac.jp/ncid/BA03570814

Watson, S. L., & Reigeluth, C. M. (2016). The Learner-Centered paradigm of education. In Routledge eBooks (pp. 21–48). https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315795478-10 

Further Readings

Antil, L. R., Jenkins, J. R., Wayne, S. K., & Vadasy, P. F. (1998). Cooperative Learning: Prevalence, Conceptualizations, and the Relation between Research and Practice. American Educational Research Journal, 35(3), 419. https://doi.org/10.2307/1163443

Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. General Learning Press.

Donald J. Cunningham, Bonk, C. J., & Cunningham, D. J. (1998). Searching for Learner-Centered, constructivist, and sociocultural components of collaborative educational learning tools. In Electronic collaborators: Learner-centered technologies for literacy, apprenticeship, and discourse (pp. 25–50). Indiana University. https://www.publicationshare.com/docs/Bon02.pdf 

Brame, C. (2013). Flipping the classroom. Vanderbilt University Center for Teaching. Retrieved from http://cft.vanderbilt.edu/guides-sub-pages/flipping-the-classroom/.

Bransford, J. D., Sherwood, R. D., Hasselbring, T. S., Kinzer, C. K., & Williams, S. M. (1990). Anchored instruction: Why we need it and how technology can help. In D. Nix & R. Sprio (Eds.), Cognition, education and multimedia (pp. 115-141). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.

Capraro, R. M., Capraro, M. M., Morgan, J. R. (2013). STEM project-based learning: An integrated science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) approach. Sense Publishers.

Faukner, D., Littleton, K., & Woodhead, M. (Eds.). (2013). Learning relationships in the classroom. Routledge.

Fogleman, J., McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2011). Examining the effect of teachers’ adaptations of a middle school science inquiry-oriented curriculum unit on student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(2), 149-169.

Garcia, E. (2017). A starter’s guide to PBL fieldwork. Retrieved from: https://www.edutopia.org/article/starters-guide-pbl-fieldwork.

Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2-3), 87-105.

Hickey, D. T., Moore, A. L., & Pellegrino, J. (2001). The motivation and academic consequences of elementary mathematics environments: Do constructivist innovations and reforms make a difference? American Educational Research Journal, 38(3), 611-652.

James, W., (1950, originally published 1890). The principles of psychology. Dover.

Kagan, S. (1999). The “E” of PIES. Retrieved from: https://www.kaganonline.com/free_articles/dr_spencer_kagan/ASK05.php.

Kagan, S. (1994). Cooperative Learning. Kagan Publishing.

Kozulin, A. (1990). Vygotsky’s psychology: A biography of ideas. Harvard University Press.

Lally, M., & Valentine-French, S. (2019). Lifespan development: A psychological perspective (2nd ed.). OpenStax.

Lefrancois, G. R. (1999). Psychology for teaching (10th ed.). Wadsworth Thomson Learning.

Lou, N. & Peek, K. (2016, February 23). By the numbers: The rise of the makerspace. Popular Science, March/April 2016. Retrieved from http://www.popsci.com/rise-makerspace-by-numbers

Matusov, E. (2015). Comprehension: A dialogic authorial approach. Culture & Psychology, 21(3), 392-416.

Matusov, E. (2015). Vygotsky’s Theory of Human Development and New Approaches to education. In Elsevier eBooks (pp. 316–321). https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-08-097086-8.92016-6 

Miller, R. (2011). Vygotsky in perspective. Cambridge university press.

Oliver, K. M. (2016). Professional development considerations for makerspace leaders, part one: Addressing “what?” and “why?” TechTrends, 60 (2).  pp. 160–166.

Palinscar, A. S. (1998). Keeping the metaphor of scaffolding fresh: A response to C. Addison Stone’s The metaphor of scaffolding: Its utility for the field of learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31, 370-373.

Palincsar, A. S. (1998). Social constructivist perspectives on teaching and learning. Annual Review of Psychology, 49. pp. 345-375.

Resta, P. & Laferriere, T. (2007). Technology in support of collaborative learning. Educational Psychology Review, 19(1), 65-83.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-007-9042-7

Scardamalia, M. & Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer support for knowledge building communities. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(3), 265-283.

Stahl, G., Koschmann, T., & Suthers, D. (2006). Computer-supported collaborative learning: An historical perspective. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 409-426). Cambridge University Press.

Tomasello, M., Kruger A. C., & Ratner, H. H. (1993). Cultural learning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 16(1), 495-552.

Wood, D. (1998). How children think and learn (2nd ed.). Blackwell.