PAPER

Annotated Bibliography

Student’s Name

University Affiliation

Running head: Annotated Bibliography

Yvon, F., Chaiguerova, L. A., & y Newnham, D. S. (2013, November 11). Vygotsky under debate: two points of view on school learning. Psychology of Education and Learning, 6(2).

The purpose of the article is to expose the different points of view on Vygotsky’s works. The article does this by not only giving the two major perceptions of his work but also some of the major theories that have emerged from those perceptions. The authors have used the article to describe ways through which Vygotsky’s works have brought about a major debate based on the different points of view on his work.

On the first point of view on education, the debate of whether schools are supposed to ensure that knowledge is transmitted to leaners or whether schools need to provide an environment for the learners to learn both from the school and through their peers. Besides that, the article explains the various phases of Vygotsky’s thinking on mental functions. The first phase is based on the instrument, the second on the various relationships that mental functions have and the last that is based on language. Apart from that, the article discusses the various movements that originated from Vygotsky’s works such as the developmental learning theory ( Yvon, Chaiguerova, & y Newnham, 2013).

The authors well-informed on Vygotsky’s works as they have spent many years conducting research on the various works by that psychologist and used those works to unravel that debate on the various perceptions that surround his works. The article has been written for a broad audience and is very relevant to the subject as it has explained the perceptions of Vygotsky’s works in a very interactive manner by giving the various perceptions of his works as a debate.

Veer, R. v., & Yasnitsky, A. (2011, May 28). Vygotsky in English: What Still Needs to Be Done. pp. 475–493.

The purpose of the article is to explain the limitations that English readers face as they try to access Vygotsky’s readings. The article explains how the limitations occur as the translation process has resulted into errors that English readers have to contend with. The article goes on to explain that the English readers are restricted to the English translations of Vygotsky’s works which poses some challenges.

The authors go further to give an in-depth analysis of the errors that exist as well as the information that’s prensent and the information that’s missing. The article then concludes by attempting to correct some of the errors and distortions that were indentified and also provides recommendations on how to resole the problems that have been indetifies which is fresh translation from the original Russian Vygotsky’s works(Veer & Yasnitsky, 2011).

The authors are well known and have made a lot of contributions in the field of psychology with their research works. This article specifically has been written with scholars and researchers in mind as it gives an in-depth analysis of the discrepancies that occur when Vygotsky’s Russian works are compared with their English equivalents. The unique feature about the article when compared with the rest of the articles, is the fact that it’s trying to rectify errors that have occurred in the translation process over the years.

Based on my own assessment of this article, I think its relevant to the field of study as it seeks to not only get Vygotsky’s works accessible to readers, but also seeks to resolve inconsistencies which would later mislead English readers. However, the article has not gone further into Vygotsky’s works which in my own opinion I think is the sole weakness.

Alves , P. F. (2014, September 30). Vygotsky and Piaget: Scientific concepts. Psychology in Russia: State of the Art, 7(3).

The purpose of this article is to explain the similarities and differences between the concepts proposed by Piaget and Vygotsky. The article goes straight to the point as it first describes the differences between the scientific concepts of these two great psychologists and researchers. Alves, the author of the article then uses two different hypotheses while conducting studies on those concepts (using tests such as class inclusions) and the article concludes with the findings that were noted and whether the hypotheses were found to be correct or not.

Some of the notable differences between Piaget’s and Vygotsky’s scientific concepts arise as Vygotsky supported the fact that for new information to be assimilated a person doesn’t have to wait until the right stage of development but could be achieved through instruction. Piaget had a different opinion on the matter. However, the author agrees that both Piaget and Vygotsky were in agreement on the role of children in the process of knowledge construction.

This article was written with scholars in mind as it seeks to establish the truth between Piaget’s and Vygotsky’s scientific concepts. The article establishes the truth through an experimental approach. An experiment is conducted to establish whether either of the hypotheses is satisfied, which in my own opinion, I think is a great approach of conducting research. Therefore, I think Alves’ work is relevant to the subject as it gives an in-depth analysis of the concepts that were supported by Vygotsky and Piaget who were both very influential researchers in the field of psychology.

The article’s greatest strength is the fact that it has used an experimental approach that has been combined with a descriptive approach that explains the differences between Vygotsky’s and Piaget’s scientific concepts. On the other hand, its greatest weaknesses is the fact that it has not delved deeper into the concepts of each researcher.

Bibace, R. (2012, June 26). Challenges in Piaget’s Legacy. pp. 167-175.

The purpose of the article is to give a summarized analysis of some of Piaget’s greatest works in the field of psychology and giving reflections on those works. The article is brief and talks about many of the concepts that Piaget addressed such as the issue of development and the role of human will in learning. Besides that, the author gives an analysis of some of the works that he discontinued in the course of his research.

The article has been written for scholars and other practitioners that are already serving in the field of psychology. Besides that, it can be read by anyone who wants to understand Piaget’s contributions to the field of psychology which makes the source very viable for this course as it gives some of the various concepts that are applied currently. Besides that, the article gives a critique to some of the works which gives an opportunity for the reader to conduct further research on the subject matter.

Some of the strengths that the source has, is the fact that it has summarized all Piaget’s works in such a manner that any person that reading the article would understand. Besides that, the article gives practical examples of some of the concepts that are proposed by Piaget to further support or disagree with his point of view (Bibace, 2012). Therefore, in my own opinion, I think Bibace has maintained a neutral point of view in the article by critiquing Piaget’s work as a psychologist and researcher which makes the source very useful.

Bruner, J. (1997, April). Celebrating divergence: Piaget and Vygotsky. Human Development, pp. 63-73.

The purpose of Bruner writing that article is to explain the perspectives that Piaget and Vygotsky had on the issue of the development of the human mind. The author acknowledges that Piaget and Vygotsky have inspired many psychologists to conduct studies on the human mind and how it develops based on the principles that the two psychologists have discovered in the course of their research. Bruner acknowledges that Vygotsky’s perspectives are divergent with those proposed by Piaget.

The main reason is, Piaget emphasizes on the role of logic that is invariant in nature on growth while Vygotsky’s perspective emphasizes the role of dialogue that has been patterned culturally in growth according to (Bruner, 1997). This means, Piaget is trying to give an explanation of how the human mind operates during growth while Vygotsky is trying to give an interpretation of why certain things happen growth. According to the author, these two great psychologists are solving the same problem through in different ways.

The article has been written for scholars who have in-depth knowledge in the field of psychology. The main reason is, it has used some complex jargon that only psychologists could understand. Nonetheless, I think the article is relevant to the subject as it gives a deep analysis of the perceptions that Piaget and Vygotsky had and their differences which made them divergent. The article has explained those perceptions very well and has supported those perceptions with examples making the source very viable.

Fox, E. (2008, July 24). Metacognition and Self-Regulation in James, Piaget and Vya. pp. 373-389.

The purpose of this article is to give an in-depth analysis of the theories that were proposed by the world’s most famous psychologists: Piaget, James and Vygotsky. The purpose of the author is to not only give the readers the chance to understand the perceptions of these psychologists, but also to understand how the psychologists addressed the issues of metacognition and self-regulation.

The article does not get into the details of each theorists perceptions but the author summarizes the theories proposed by the psychologists and critiques those works. The author, Emily Fox is an experienced researcher on the field of psychology and based on her work, I know that she is experienced in that field of psychology based on how she has explained how the theorists have addressed the issue of metacognition and self-regulation(Fox, 2008).

The article has been written in such a manner that it could be read by anyone regardless of whether the reader has knowledge in the field of psychology or not. Besides that, the article has used an interpretive approach as it gives the theorists’ thoughts on the issues of metacognition and self-regulation and an interpretation of the theorists’ views. This approach makes the article very comprehensible which makes it its greatest strength.

References Yvon, F., Chaiguerova, L. A., & y Newnham, D. S. (2013, November 11). Vygotsky under debate: two points of view on school learning. Psychology of Education and Learning, 6(2). Alves , P. F. (2014, September 30). Vygotsky and Piaget: Scientific concepts. Psychology in Russia: State of the Art, 7(3). Bibace, R. (2012, June 26). Challenges in Piaget’s Legacy. pp. 167-175. Bruner, J. (1997, April). Celebrating divergence: Piaget and Vygotsky. Human Development, pp. 63-73. Fox, E. (2008, July 24). Metacognition and Self-Regulation in James, Piaget and Vya. pp. 373-389. Veer, R. v., & Yasnitsky, A. (2011, May 28). Vygotsky in English: What Still Needs to Be Done. pp. 475–493.