Talk:Lev Vygotsky

Vygotsky on education
I just added my sandbox to the main article page. A reynolds (talk) 17:06, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

These are references that I intend to use for the expansion of this article.

Gredler, M. (2012). Understanding Vygotsky for the classroom: Is it too late? Educational Psychology Review, 24(1), 113-131. DOI: 10.1007/s10648-011-9183-6

Hattie, J. (2012). Visible learning for teachers: Maximizing impact on learning. New York, NY: Routledge.

Lavery, L. (2008). Self-regulated learning for academic success: An evaluation of instructional techniques. Unpublished Ph.D., University of Auckland.

Nickel, J. (2011). Early childhood educations students’ emergent skills in literacy scaffolding. Canadian Children, 36(1), 13-19.

Reid, K.D. (1998). Scaffolding: A broader view. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31(4), 386-396.

A reynolds (talk) 02:58, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Vygotsky's theory of ZPD can be applied to schools today to improve learning. Scaffolding can lead to differentiated instruction in order to identify peers who are more advanced and those who are lagging behind. Using this method, the student is paired with a peer in order to raise a higher level of development through collaboration.

A reynolds (talk) 03:49, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

tools of the mind
Could someone write something about how Vygotsky's work on early child play and development influenced the tools of the mind program? I'm not qualified to write it myself but think it should be included in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.64.151.59 (talk) 19:55, 3 November 2010 (UTC) I found this good source for tools of the mind: https://toolsofthemind.org/about/history/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbrandner (talk • contribs) 17:44, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Strictly speaking, there is no such thing as "Vygotsky's work on early child play": he and his associates never studied empirically play as such, although --by studying something else--they did frame it as a "game", but never questioned if the participants of the studies really perceived the settings as play. Yet, on a number of occasions Vygotsky did speculatively discuss child play in different contexts using it for illustrative purposes. Curiously, it was in this contexts that Vygotsky made dramatically different, furthermore, self-contradictory statements, such as: in some texts, "everything can be everything in child's play" AND, in other texts, "NOT everything can be everything in child's play". All this hardly qualifies as "Vygotsky's work on early child play" or even, as some say, "Vygotsky's theory of play", -- right?--Yasya (talk) 06:37, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Vygotsky - Piaget question
Is the statment in the article true/misleading: "In the West, most attention was aimed at the continuing work of Vygotsky's Western contemporary Jean Piaget." I thought this was perhaps true for Europe, but the surely the USA had more of a behaviourst focus?--Dave Catlin 08:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I guess, the point is that both Piaget and Vygotsky had initially been virtually unknown and then "discovered" in North America; however, Piaget was discovered earlier. So, I would say the statement imho is partially correct, and should be understood as "[at the time when Vygotsky was discovered in the North America (i.e. publication of Thought and language in 1962)] most attention was aimed at the continuing work, etc." Yasya 23:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Social Psychology question
Should Vygotsky be assiciated with Social Psychology?

I say why not; Lev's weaknesses(and his strength) was his social focus(some might say obsession).Dylanmiller 03:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that would be misleading...Social Psychology is a very broad discipline. My impression has always been that these disciplines developed with little reference to each other. This could largely have been due to the West's rather late discovery of V. Would Vygotsky be useful to current social psychologists--YES, but that is a different question. However, I am not a social psychologist, so there may be links that I am unaware of. --JMM-UVicEdPsych (talk) 02:51, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

totalitarian Vygotsky question
New Question: For those that have read much Vygotsky: do you consider Vygotsky to be an 'advanced human thought is linguistic by nature' totalitarian?Dylanmiller 03:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not sure I understand either the question or even its possible origin... I would say there is nothing totatitarian in LSV, even, on the contrary, I would say his approach is radically anti-totalitarian. Yasya 04:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I would guess that the question is asking for Vygotsky's position on the connection between thought and language. I've come across some discussion recently the causal relationship btwn thought and language. The most intuitive position is that thought precedes, and causes, language. But apparently there is evidence that language also shapes our thought process. I believe DylanMiller is using the word 'totalitarian' to ask whether Vygotsky is a strict adherent to this belief, rather than to ask if he supported political totalitarianism. 70.165.160.13 (talk) 16:04, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Pleae formulate your questions comprehensibly if you are interested in our opinion/.

Belarussian psychologist
No, not Belarussian at all. One might call LSV a Russian or a Soviet psychologist, but definitely not a Belarussian one (despite the fact that he was born in Belarus, indeed). I am changing this into "Soviet" Yasya 04:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Similarities between Piaget and Vygotsky
What are the similarities between the Piaget's Cognitive development theory and Vygotsky's Social development concept?
 * For some similarities as well as major differences between Piaget and Vygotsky see, e.g., Vygotsky, Thought and language, chapter 2. Yasya 20:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I miss some of Vygotsky's most brilliant insights
The most important, i think, is his notion that every thought is an internalization of two prior external events. One is the physical movement of the child. And one is the physical response from the environment. Vygotsky mentions for instance how a child learns to point with his finger. It starts with stretching out the full hand ; next comes the mother to the child's aid ; and then all is internalized as pointing - aka building up expectation "the environment moves in the mind, but not (yet) in reality"

PS: i would like to add that 17th century philosopher Spinoza, in his work Ethics , created a philosophical structure where the above notion is formalized - ofcourse you need to accept his axioma first. The proposition is then something along the lines of : if a body is associated in the mind with another body, and at some later moment one body is encountered , then "automatically" the second body is recalled in the mind. I'd have to look up the exact proposition number - maybe someone can help out? Best regards, Ron

Are these insights little known, are they of no interest, or is there another reason perhaps? woepwoep 18:19, 29 April 2006 (GMT+2)

 Birthday cake example and explanation  I hope my additions helped clarify the meaning of cultural mediation. If it is not clear, please let me know the problems so we can work on them-jake

Books and Articles about Vygotsky's Work
I suggest keeping only the most important monographs (btw, quite numerous, so far) in this section with rare exception given to the most outstanding articles. Yasya 06:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

This article once had a number of useful external links, now removed. IMHO an encyclopedia SHOULD provide such links as long as they lead to material that is relevant, NPOV, and accurate. Whoever removed them might consider restoring those that meet Wikipedia crieteria. frankatca; 19 Sept. 06


 * What exactly article do you mean? Yasya 00:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, I see what you mean. You are talking not about bibliography on Vygotsky, but the external web sources... I restored this section as well as categories and links to the article in other languages. Yasya 03:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Major cleaning has started
The article, overall, has always seemed quite confusing and hardly readable to me. So, I am announcing the beginning of a major clean-up. Suggestions are welcome! Yasya 14:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Yasya, I am willing to contribute. I have studied Vygotsky's work for some time now. Let us know which direction your clean-up is taking.  (Btw, did you say you had put the references back? I only see then in the History of the page. I agree that the original list is a bit too much but some source references and the link to Vygotsky's archive online seem useful to me). Jsarmi 15:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess, somebody's been very creative with the article: I reverted it to the older, 'normal' version. Please have a look at it and you'll have all the references, interwiki and other stuff restored. Generally, I think, since last September the article has improved to certain; however, there is yet a lot to do. Presently, we need to improve the quality of the sections that we have so far as well as to add several other ones, like, Defectology or Vygotsky's Brain studies, etc. I think the best strategy in doing this would be to rely on the authoritative scholarly works, those by van der Veer & Valsiner (1991, 1994), Veresov (1999), Lifanova & Vygodskaya (1996/1999) (see the reference section of the article) as well the various stuff done by Cole and Wertsch definitely being my favourites. --Yasya 17:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Critiques of Vygotsky section
Tetzchner is leaving the party: whereas his(?) criticism of "the social constructivist field of psychology in general" might well be justified in general, it has nothing to do with Vygotsky proper and overall Vygotskian paradigm psychology. A new although brief version of the critiques of Vygotsky is introduced. --Yasya 18:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I added the Tetzchner section back. It is relevant, and it comes from a published source, which is referenced.
 * Tetzchner should reread Vygotsky's Thinking and Speech, specifically, the part where he describes experiments conducted by R. Levina under the supervision of Vygotsky (the list of specific references available upon request). There, Vygotsky is discussing exactly what Tetzchner is saying he never did: the experiments on problem-solving in small children, i.e. the "exploration the child does on its own". The changing role of speech--from "egocentric" to internal speech is the issue that Vygotsky discusses at length. This is just one example out of a great many. Tetzchner might be right about "the social constructivist field of psychology in general", but has no clue about Vygotsky's work, specifically. It is both a published source and a referenced one, but still - totally irrelevant. All respect to Tetzchner, yet - deleted. --Yasya 22:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * How about adding some summary of published refutation of Tetzchner to the article, instead of just deleting a large section, based on what seems to be your own original research ?
 * Indeed, my research has a lot to do with the topic discussed. Anyway, none of the arguments presented here was not published. Yet again, I need to say that I believe the source in question is irrelevant for a number of reasons. However, I am ready to admit that I am wrong if anybody convinces me in the opposite. Unfortunately, I can not read in Swedish and would love if anybody could direct me to a relevant English-language source by this author. Apart from a bit obscure second-hand rendering of Tetzchner's criticue of "social constructivism", there is one direct quotation from the original text. Here it is: "A theory about cognitive development must comprise both the exploration the child does on its own and the knowledge mediated through cooperation with adults". -- To keep the ball rolling and as the evidence of the published and referenced studies on the topic, here is an article written by Vygotsky's student who personally conducted the experiments in 1931 that are described in Vygotsky's "Thinking and speech" (1934). As a response to Tetzchner's critique of--presumably--Vygotsky consider, please, the following. Quote: "At first the study was conducted without any interference on the part of the investigator. This was done so that we would have an opportunity to observe the child's natural behaviour. If the child did not complete the task, the experimenter began to provide instructions, etc." (p. 283). The article was first published in Russian in the journal of Voprosy psikhologii, 1968, No. 4, pp. 105-115. However, since I believe Russian still remains a somewhat exotic language in the West--and even in the field of Vygotskian studies!--consider, please, translation into English first published by James Wertsch in 1979. Here it is: Levina, R. E. (1981). Vygotsky's ideas about the planning function of speech in children. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.), The concept of activity in Soviet psychology (pp. 279-299). Armont, NY: Sharpe. One might also want to consider the references to the article. I will be happy to discuss the relevance of Tetzchner's critique whatsoever with respect to this source. --Yasya 22:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not have time to delve into the matter for now, and will leave it up to your judgement to do as you please with the article. But I still think the critique section of the article is lacking. The most common criticism I have seen against him is criticism from more Piaget-oriented theorists who think he puts too much emphasis on the social part of the development of concepts, and too little on the childs individual exploration of the world around it and/or the childs biological development. Regardless if their opinions are based on misunderstanding of Vygotsky or not, I think this form of critique is common enough to merit mention.

Needed 2 say
There seems to be a mistake in when Vygotsky died. According to the page at the moment, he died of Tuberculosis in 1934. However, throughout the text, most of the reference to his work is to 1978.

Frankatca 17:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC) ]]

Thought this should be mentioned, though I don't know too much about it all yet —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.53.56.116 (talk) 20:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC).
 * For the history of Vygotsky's translations into English see Influence and development of Vygotsky's ideas in the West. --Yasya 14:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Confirmation of importance of speech to cognition
A mention of the famed '30 million words-heard gap by age three' study(1)of Drs. Betty Hart and Todd Risley -- an analysis of thousands of hours of recorded conversations in a mix of 42 Kansas City homes, professional, middle-class, and welfare, with follow-up, showing up to a 20 I.Q. point difference, two standard deviations, directly attributable to children's home language environment may be worth including in this article as confirmation of Vygotsky's evidence of the profound connection between speech and cognition. However as this is not Vygotsky's work, it may not qualify. Your thoughts? Frankatca (talk) 19:55, 28 April 2012 (UTC) 1 - http://www.ipoddess.com/iPoddess/Resources/Entries/2008/10/23_The_Very_Best_of_iPod_and_Podcasting_files/30MillionWordGap-by-age3.pdf

Bibliography?
This article would be improved by an explicit bibliography of Vygotsky's published work. And known [English] translations.

Should the following be listed, for which Vygotsky is an author?

Thought and Language by Lev Semenovich Vygotsky

Educational Psychology (Classics in Soviet Psychology Series) by L.S. Vygotsky

Mind in Society: Development of Higher Psychological Processes by L. S. Vygotsky, Michael Cole, Vera John-Steiner, and Sylvia Scribner

The Collected Works of L.S. Vygotsky: Volumes 1, 2 & 3: Problems of the Theory and History of Psychology (Cognition and Language: A Series in Psycholinguistics) by L.S. Vygotsky, Robert W. Rieber, and Jeffrey Wollock

And the following, for which Vygotsky is the principal subject?

Lev Vygotsky: Critical Assessments: 4 Volume Set (Critical Assessments) by Peter Lloyd

Lev Vygotsky: Revolutionary Scientist (Critical Psychology) by Lois Holzman

The Cambridge Companion to Vygotsky by Harry Daniels, Michael Cole, and James V. Wertsch

Vygotsky's Psychology-Philosophy: A Metaphor for Language Theory and Learning (Cognition and Language: A Series in Psycholinguistics) by Dorothy Robbins

Lev Vygotsky (Continuum Library of Educational Thought) by Rene Van Der Veer

The Essential Vygotsky (Vienna Circle Collection) by Robert W. Rieber and David K. Robinson

Vygotsky and Pedagogy by Harry Daniels

Vygotsky and the Social Formation of Mind by James V. Wertsch

Parallel Paths to Constructivism: Jean Piaget and Lev Vygotsky by Susan Pass

Vygotsky's Educational Theory in Cultural Context (Learning in Doing: Social, Cognitive and Computational Perspectives) by Alex Kozulin, Boris Gindis, Vladimir S. Ageyev, and Suzanne M. Miller

Frankatca 17:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 04:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Vygotsky and adult learning theory
As I read though "Mind in Society, the development of higher psychological processes" (Vygotsky, 1978), I am impressed with the idea that much of his work could potentially be applied to adult learning theory as well. We tend to revert back to 19th century learning models when we are in higher education environments. I wonder what Vygotsky would have thought of this. I welcome comments and feedback. Echoecharlie (talk) 23:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

External links?
An anonymous editor [12.219.16.217] deleted the valuable external links on this page. Is this vandalism? Or a valid and helpful edit? I consider it vandalism. Frankatca (talk) 13:54, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Maturation and environmentalism
I suggest that the above stub be merged here, as it is a statement about Vygotskyan psychology. That's if there is anything worth saving at all. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Link removed
I removed this from the external links: http://www.uga.edu/columns/102797/bboard.html. The relevant context seems to be the announcement of the conference. I suppose this could be used as a biography reference due to the information about Vygotsky's family, though I imagine there are far better sources for that. Otherwise it seems like a deadend, aside from the fact that such a conference happened. Maybe its proceedings would be more relevant?

"Cognitive Studies conference The Cognitive Studies Group of the Institute for Behavioral Research will hold its annual mini-conference Oct. 29 from 1 to 4 p.m. at the Athena Room of the Horence is open free to the public.Vygotsky, Culture and Children's Learning." The conference is open free to the public.

Speakers include Gita L. Vygodskaya, retired senior research associate at the Academy of Education, Moscow, and daughter of Lev Vygotsky; Jon Tudge, associate professor of human development and family study at the University of North Carolina-Greensboro; Elena Kravtsova, granddaughter of Lev Vygotsky and co-director of Project Golden Key, an alternative educational approach implemented in more than 30 child centers in Russia; and Ann Cale Kruger, associate professor of educational psychology and special education at Georgia State University. For more info, contact Paula J. Schwanenflugel by phone (542-4273) or e-mail." Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 08:30, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Vygotsky citation issue: Miller 2002
Miller, 2002 is repeated cited in the section: criticisms of Vygotsky. But Miller 2002 is not listed under the references. Can anyone clarify this issue? I would like to read Miller 2002. 204.15.27.108 (talk) 17:15, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I assume that it's this: Miller, P.H. (2002), Theories of developmental psychology (4th ed ), New York: Worth Publishers. I do not have a copy and have never read it, but I have added this now after first instance, as it's the only authour and date that seems to fit. I am surprised this is being used as the principal in-line ref when it seems to be a general work and not specific to Vygotsky. BridesheadRecarpeted (talk) 11:29, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Spelling of middle name
Multiple versions. I have made one adjustment per Mind in Society. If you are a Russian-English translator would you please provide the standard format for transliteration?--Te Karere (talk) 03:01, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * As a result of finding multiple sources with shared spelling - Wertsch (1985) and Moll (1992) - I have changed the spelling from the Mind in Society version. Assistance from translator still welcome.--Te Karere (talk) 20:38, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

A few of the references aren't Wikipedia-standard
I've noticed that some of the references aren't using Wikipedia's system; I saw Miller (2002) at one point instead of the superscript [#] and the full reference below. Is this okay? I have no idea how to go about rectifying this but I thought I'd bring it to attention. Cheers. Frosty050 (talk) 09:13, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Weight issue and possible COI
is inserting a very large section on what is apparently a paradigm shift in thew making in Vygotsky studies, the section is almost entirely based on very recent articles by A Yasnitsky and R Van der Veer. According to his user page User:Yasya is identical with A. Yasnitsky and the section seems to be a likely breach of WP:SELFCITE and WP:Weight. I may be wrong but I would be more comfortable if someone other than the author in question would comment on whether there are possible weight issues in the way this revisionist movement is portrayed. The further reading section is almost entirely populated with publicatyions by Dr. Yasnitsky. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:26, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * the section is almost entirely based on very recent articles by A Yasnitsky and R Van der Veer -- Not correct, which is obvious to anybody willing to inspect the references to the sections in question, namely, 5 Criticisms of North American "Vygotskian" legacy & 6 Criticisms of available Vygotsky's texts. Please feel free to remove any or all publications by Dr. Yasnitsky if only it makes any sense.--Yasya (talk) 18:38, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * if, as our lead says "Vygotsky is the most popular Russian psychologist in Russia and North America" then there should be LOTS of different sources and the article should widely reflect the various scholarly takes. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  19:46, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure. Not only the most popular, but also, apparently, the most controversial. And the article does quote quite a number of these different sources, I believe. Please feel free to check out Lev Vygotsky. --Yasya (talk) 20:03, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Proposed revision to Cultural mediation and internalization
Cultural mediation and internalization Vygotsky investigated child development and the important roles of cultural mediation and interpersonal communication. Through cultural mediation, not only was knowledge accumulated and passed on, but the means of furthering an individual’s cognitive capabilities were transmitted to the next generation as well. This was done through the use of symbolic systems that naturally develop within a culture – “cultural semiotic systems” (Gosawmi, 2008, p. 391).

These cultural semiotic systems allowed for symbolic representations of knowledge to be developed, which would then act as tools children would use to further their own cognitive development. Thus, these systems were seen as a means of cognitive behavior organization by Vygotsky. As the brain develops, these cultural semiotic systems would work congruently with the elementary mental functions that Vygotsky believed all infants were born with to guide cognitive development. The means in which this occurred was through parent-child interaction in which the child would pick up and internalize the tools of the cultural semiotic system. Internalization can be understood in one respect as "knowing how". For example, riding a bicycle or pouring a cup of milk are tools of the society and initially outside and beyond the child. The mastery of these skills occurs through the activity of the child within society.

“Because these symbol systems are the product of sociocultural evolution (they are not reinvented by each individual), Vygotsky saw sign systems as social in nature” (Gosawmi, 2008, p. 391). Because of this, Vygotsky viewed sociocultural mediation as key to cognitive development in children. The symbolic tools transmitted by adults, which were created through the development of the culture, guided cognitive development in the child, who would then use those tools as a means of organizing/structuring cognitive behavior. Vygotsky believed that it was those symbolic tools created within a culture that allowed for those mental functions to move beyond their basic capabilities. This is a further aspect of internalization, that is appropriation, in which the child takes a tool and makes it his own, perhaps using it in a way unique to himself. Internalizing the use of a pencil allows the child to use it very much for his own ends rather than drawing exactly what others in society have drawn previously.

Goswami, U. (2008). Cognitive development: The learning brain. (pp. 391 - 392). New York, NY: Psychology Press. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elli7047 (talk • contribs) 02:37, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Goswami might be a really smart guy, but I am just wondering how exactly this stream of consciousness is reflected in Vygotsky's own -- rather than Goswami's -- writings. Generally, looking at a person (i.e, Vygotskii in our case) through the eyes of another person (i.e, Goswami in our case) is not a particularly rigorous method and reliable practice, I guess. --Yasya (talk) 14:52, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

marx
Shouldn't Marx be mentioned in the side panel as an influence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.70.94.185 (talk) 23:41, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you have any source to support this? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:53, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

External site plagiarizing this article: not a copyvio
This site http://downloadgratizzz.blogspot.com/2013/05/perkembangan-anak-menurut-vigotsky.html includes a copy of some of the material from this article, but it is copied from herewhich can be verified by comparing the dates in which the text was online. Just to note that this material is not plagiarized in this article but the plagiarism is the other direction.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:44, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I thought that everything at Wikipedia was free for anyone to use and was wholly without copyright? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:53, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It is not without copyright it is a license that requires attribution. I.e. you can use it if you say you got it from wikipedia. But my point here is mainly that it is that site copying us and not vice versa.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:54, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, good point. Does Mr Wales pursue offenders, relentlessly, through the law courts, on our behalf? When was the last multi-million dollar out-of-court-settlement that we've all missed? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:16, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If they did it I'd be a rich man by now.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:42, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Yasnitsky, A. (2018). Vygotsky: An Intellectual Biography
Sure, Martinevans123, you are absolutely right, mea culpa :) -- The book has not been printed yet, but when it does, -- as some people who have read it say -- it is going to be a nice thing. Well, we'll see. In the meantime, thanks for removing the reference. One might want to restore it, in due time :). --Yasya (talk) 23:01, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Lev Vygotsky. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130204083839/http://www.psyanima.ru/journal/2012/1/index.php to http://www.psyanima.ru/journal/2012/1/index.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130204083839/http://www.psyanima.ru/journal/2012/1/index.php to http://www.psyanima.ru/journal/2012/1/index.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130204083839/http://www.psyanima.ru/journal/2012/1/index.php to http://www.psyanima.ru/journal/2012/1/index.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140529234220/http://www.toolsofthemind.org/philosophy/vygotskian-approach/ to http://www.toolsofthemind.org/philosophy/vygotskian-approach/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:00, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Lev Vygotsky. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130921060750/http://www.psyanima.ru/journal/2012/1/2012n1a1/2012n1a1.1.pdf to http://www.psyanima.ru/journal/2012/1/2012n1a1/2012n1a1.1.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131220025809/http://www.psyanima.ru/journal/2011/4/index.php to http://www.psyanima.ru/journal/2011/4/index.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131220025809/http://www.psyanima.ru/journal/2011/4/index.php to http://www.psyanima.ru/journal/2011/4/index.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131220025809/http://www.psyanima.ru/journal/2011/4/index.php to http://www.psyanima.ru/journal/2011/4/index.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:14, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

POV and COI tags
It seems to be that this article now has a significant overreliance on the specific revisionist perspective of Yasnitsky and this may be due to the fact that Yasnitsky himself has largely reritten the article to conform to this perspective. Without being an expert on Vygotsky scholarship, I think Yasnitsky's revisionist perspective should only have the amount of weight that it is significance merits as evidenced by other sources about Vygotsky. If his perspective has in fact revolutionized the field of Vygotsky studies so that it is now the mainstream view then this should be evidenced in recent publications that are not by Yasnitsky himself. Expert scholars of course are highly encouraged to write about their firled of expertise, but when they do they have a special responsibility to portray the field objectively without overemphasizing their own views or contributions - I think there is a risk that this has happened here, though I am not equipped to assess it right now. Some reviews of Yasnitsky's work from other Vygotsky scholars would be a good way to assess its reception in the field. In any case the article should explicitly distinguish between traditional and revisionist views in the literature, and represent them both objectively. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:15, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Please consider reviews:
 * "This is the first thorough coverage of the life and work of this Russian-Jewish scholar since my work with René van der Veer over twenty-five years ago (Understanding Vygotsky, 1991). Vygotsky’s psychological theories, based on his deep feelings on theatre and literature, continue to fascinate scholars worldwide. Yasnitsky has clearly emerged as the new world leader in doing careful analytic work on Vygotsky’s heritage." - Jaan Valsiner, Aalborg University, Denmark [ https://www.routledge.com/Vygotsky-An-Intellectual-Biography/Yasnitsky/p/book/9781138806740 ]
 * "This feisty collection is compulsory reading for anyone interested in Vygotsky’s legacy, and Vygotskians should be prepared to be, by turns, intrigued, enlightened and infuriated by its revelations. Will the ‘revisionist revolution’ in Vygotsky studies ultimately triumph? Or will the revolutionaries eventually turn on one another? That remains to be seen. But whatever the revolution’s fate, Anton Yasnitsky and his colleagues have ushered in a new era in Vygotsky scholarship." – David Bakhurst, Queen’s University, Canada [ https://www.routledge.com/Questioning-Vygotskys-Legacy-Scientific-Psychology-or-Heroic-Cult/Yasnitsky/p/book/9781138481275 ]
 * --Yasya (talk) 14:18, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for those review bits. Those look very promising for your work eventually having the desired effect of revolutionizing the field of Vygotsky studies. However there are two principles at stake here: The first is that Wikipedia needs to be neutral in cases where the repredsentation of a topic is contested, corroloaries to this is that Wikiepdia must be conservative in representing major shifts in the general consensus about a topic, only when the shift has occurred and a new mainstream view is established - Wikipedia should not be ahead of the curve in such cases. That means that excellent reviews are not enough to demonstrate that a change has happened, Wikipedia should reflect the consensus as expressed in generalist treatments of the topic, discussing alternative views as necessary, but mentioning their status as such. Secondly, another principle is that a scholar should of course write about topics of their expertise, but that they cannot be expected to have a neutral perspective on the standing of their own work within the braoder field. Therefore extensively referring to one's own work in Wikipedia is generally fronwed upon, because it makes it hard for others to assess the neutrality of the article. For this reason I think this article needs to undergo a check for neutrality, by seeing whether the representation of Vygotsky's thought in this article is in line with the general trends in representations (as found for example in recent psychology textbooks and other secondary and tertiary sources, rather than in primary research literature).·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:22, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Sorry Dr. Yasnitsky, but this will not do. These are simply reviews of your own scholarship, not a scholarly wide consensus which would merit you to edit the introductory paragraph on Vygotsky to skew the focus away from developmental. cognitive psychology and psycholinguistics, which Vygotsky is known for worldwide, toward an overemphasis on Spinoza and notions of the "Superman". Yes, perhaps he was influenced by Spinoza, but he was also influenced by Kohler, Humboldt and others. I propose that you move the theoretical scholarship reflecting your views to further sections, and dedicate the introductory paragraph to objective facts about his legacy, focusing in on developmental, cognitive and pedagogical work. If you are a person who values peer-review and weighted scholarship, you would not edit the introductory paragraph to reflect your own tendentiousness, just like you would not do that for Darwin or Pavlov. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.245.133.13 (talk) 15:26, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Dear unsigned contributor 146.245.133.13 (talk), --It is really hard to disagree with you,--so, I definitely won't.
 * Indeed, you are right on Humboldtian influences on Vygotsky; for that we have a nice exposition of this influence, and the not unknown to you Dr. Yasnitsky would certainly agree with you. For the evidence, see, for instance, a chapter in a Yasnitsky-edited book: Bertau, M.-C. (2014). Inner form as a notion migrating from West to East: Acknowledging the Humboldtian tradition in cultural-historical psychology. In A. Yasnitsky, R. Van der Veer & M. Ferrari (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Cultural-Historical Psychology (247-271). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
 * Then, "an overemphasis on Spinoza" was added by a bunch of wiki-contributors, with whom I would not necessarily agree, too. Furthermore, I do embrace you for your indication of the "overemphasis"--which, I believe, is not really evident in Vygotsky's own writings and is ascribed to him by a number of authors, who follow and advocate for a relatively recent trend in Vygotskiana associated with a discussion of the notion of "perezhivanie" (a borrowing from interbellum mainstream German psychology notion of "Erlebnis").
 * Finally, the ideas of "Superman" (as a "genius" and the "new man" of Communist future), the "socialist alteration of man" and "peak psychology", however, seem to have been really very important to Vygotsky; for discussion and evidence please see: Yasnitsky, A. (2018). Vygotsky: An Intellectual Biography. London and New York: Routledge BOOK PREVIEW, specifically, pages 57-62, 83-87, 115-118 and elsewhere.--Yasya (talk) 20:49, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The article should be a summary of all the literature on Vygotsky, and it should present the readers his most inmportant ideas - but important in the context of an encyclopedia article are the ideas that are most prominent in the literature and for which he is best known, not the ones he necessarily may have considered himself to be the most important ones. So even if we accept that your revisionist perspective is absolutely right and will characterize Vygotsky studies in the future, right now I still think we must have an article that describes the concepts he is most widely known for: ZPD etc. Then in the article we may discuss other understandings of his legacy, but we are not helping our readers if we simply adopt the revisionist perspective.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:15, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Dr. Yasnitsky. I have a tremendous amount of respect for you and your dedication to Vygotsky studies, however, I still think that you should move sections about Superman to a further paragraph. The introductory paragraph should have a summary of his contributions to pedagogy, psycholinguistics and social theory, for which he is widely known and respected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.245.133.69 (talk) 17:09, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

The first and second paragraph of the article are presented from a biased perspective. The "revisionist take" on Vygotsky's work and the idea of the "decline of Vygotsky's popularity" are exaggerated. The "Vygotsky's bubble" is a subjective coinage, which is not widely accepted in the scholarly literature. The paragraphs include the traces of trolling activities, particularly the link to the "revisionist" page of the Russian social media site "V kontakte" (VK) "vygo_bubble" (https://vk.com/vygo_bubble ) filled with obscene words and offensives addressed to Vygotsky. I wonder how to inform the Wikipedia admins about this trolling User:Palisandria —Preceding undated comment added 17:11, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The point on "vygo_bubble" is well taken, -- Cheers,--Yasya (talk) 23:46, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * For the actual Vygotsky bubble -- regardless of how else it can be called and/or referred to -- feel free to enjoy the chart: "Vygotsky at Google Scholar", https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=L4S0dT0AAAAJ . Best regards,--Yasya (talk) 00:52, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Introduction
It seems like the introduction to this article would be confusing to an ordinary reader who does not have a great understanding of psychology. Perhaps the main points of the article could be summarized more clearly and in a way that is easier to read? I find that most readers of Wikipedia read the introduction to the page and nothing else, so this should be kept in mind as the article is edited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emilyavr (talk • contribs) 23:33, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Maybe we could move the middle name, Russian translation, and dates of birth from the introductory section to the Biography section? This would result in an introduction that is less clunky grammatically and easier for the everyday person to read. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emilyavr (talk • contribs) 14:31, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, I cannot agree more with Emilyavr. I came to this page as exactly that: an ordinary (albeit moderately well educated) reader who does not have a great baseline understanding of psychology, and had not heard of Vygotsky until recently. I found myself having to look elsewhere to gain a basic understanding of what he is most widely know for. Can we not simply state that he was a Soviet psychologist, who is perhaps best known for his theories about early language development and the idea of the "zone of proximal development," and whose influence and legacy remains widely debated among academics and social theorists? If I am wrong about any of this, please clarify in language a lay person (or better yet, a small child) could understand. This laundry list of theoretical concepts and associated caveats is best saved for the body of the article. Dhakanista (talk) 00:57, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Soviet vs. Belarusian (again)
He is not Soviet, anymore. He is Belarusian. Please refer to him as a Belarusian psychologist, instead of a Soviet psychologist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:446:8201:2630:1A:D0DB:861B:A074 (talk • contribs) 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, he is dead. Through most part of his life, there was the Soviet Union, so I think it's very okay to call him a Soviet. The article itself states "was born ... in the town of Orsha, Belarus (then belonging to Russian Empire) into a non-religious middle-class family of Russian Jewish extraction". Also, see Talk:Lev Vygotsky. I think Wikipedia should not be a platform for promoting revisionist patriotic sentiments. -- marilyn.hanson (talk) 02:23, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Vygotsky's Works
I was reading the complete works section and noticed that only one of his scientific publishings was listed; I am going to search out his work and attempt to catalog as many as I can find throughout the availability of the internet. Any who find sources confirmed to be written and published by him should aid this catalogue as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nstanton99 (talk • contribs) 22:19, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Lead section cleanup
As you can read in WP:Manual of Style/Lead section, the lead section is supposed to be a fair summary of the subject. Some consequences of this fact:
 * 1) There shouldn't be anything in the lead that isn't reflected in the rest of the article
 * 2) Usually, citations in the lead are redundant, unless it concerns statements that have been challenged or are likely to be challenged
 * 3) The lead should be very neutral and it should focus on the most relevant things

Currently, the lead is very much not that:
 * The second paragraph was simply moved in there from somewhere else
 * The second paragraph is written from one perspective and goes into way too much detail
 * The first paragraph is one long sentence that mentions some things that are not what Vygotsky is most known for, in a lot of detail, yet seems to leave out the things that he is most known for

So, here's what I'll do:
 * 1) Move text that belongs elsewhere in the article from the lead to there
 * 2) Rewrite the lead almost from scratch

I plan on doing this soon. Yasya, please don't undo my edit or parts of it without discussing it first; as it is quite impactful, others will be scrutinising it too, so if it really is bad, someone other than you will do something about it. Of course, I cannot force you not to undo, but given that it's your mess that I'll be cleaning up and that it is definitely perceived as a mess by other editors, your undo would probably be undone itself and the discussion would take place anyway.

There is also a bunch of stuff in the lead that should not be in the article at all, but cleaning that up is a matter for later. Kind regards from PJvanMill (talk) 13:40, 16 May 2020 (UTC)


 * OK, PJvanMill. We all rely on your well-informed, expert and fair judgement. Good luck!--Yasya (talk) 20:26, 16 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Yasya, am I correct in seeing a hint of sarcasm there? Obviously, I am not an expert like you, but I will certainly try to be fair. Thanks for your cooperation and sorry if I was a bit harsh. Kind regards from PJvanMill (talk) 10:07, 17 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Dear User talk:PJvanMill, I can only repeat that I fully rely on your respected judgement and take no offense, thus, no apology is needed. Furthermore, I greatly appreciate the quality, style and, especially, the neutrality of your recent changes! Frankly, I see the entry is in really good hands from now on, and am fully withdrawing from watching and editing this entry. Please rest assured that no irony or sarcasm whatsoever is meant or implied here. Staying respectfully yours,--Yasya (talk) 14:54, 19 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the kind words, Yasya. In line with the WP:COI policy, I think withdrawing from editing this article is a wise decision. I suppose that means the COI tag at the top of the page can now be removed. Kind regards from PJvanMill (talk) 15:22, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Pronunciation
How's Vygotsky pronounced in, say AmE? Backinstadiums (talk) 17:18, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Removing section about "Vygotsky studies"
There is no "Vygotsky Studies" according to Google Scholar but very few people talking about it. There are also no "Freud Studies" or "Pavlov Studies" in similar wiki pages. Vygotsky page is not the place to talk about which sources are better - just point to the proper source. 72.85.191.143 (talk) 22:29, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Attention - major rewrite is in progress
It is a shame how poor is this article written and organized. Luckily, there is a Russian version in pretty good shape. Please check it for yourself with Google translator. It is informative, clear written, and well researched. I will try to take it as basis to rewrite an English version. Any help is appreciated.

Links may be in disarray for some time, but I will clean them up after the work is done.

If you think it is not a good plan and you have one better - do tell. 72.85.191.143 (talk) 03:08, 6 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Please have a look at Copying within Wikipedia and fix the attribution issue. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:21, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pointing that out. I am using Russian version of the page as guidelines to keep structure clear and to hit all major topics, but text itself gets rewritten and updated, trying to avoid copying any expression or formulations. 72.85.191.143 (talk) 02:43, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah, okay, thank you for the clarification. I think to be on the safe side, I'll later add attribution in an edit summary and at the top of this talk page. The general approach is fine copyright-wise at least because the origin is a Wikipedia page. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:58, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Vygotsky's works being banned in the Soviet Union.
I could find no source for Vygotsky's works being banned in the Soviet Union. I've seen multiple works claiming this, but none cite an actual source. 2001:1970:5CD7:6500:0:0:0:DE60 (talk) 19:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Here's one, but admittedly not brilliant. But here's quite a good book source. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:44, 29 March 2024 (UTC)