ISSN 03004430 (print)/ISSN 14768275 (online)/05/01003711 2005 Taylor & Francis Group Ltd DOI: 10.1080/0300443042000230311 Constructivism does not only happen in the individual: sociocultural theory and early childhood education Susan Edwards* Monash University, Australia Taylor and Francis Ltd GECD41022.sgm (Received 10 February 2004) 10.1080/0300443042000230311 Early Childhood Development and Care 0300-4430 (print)/1476-8275 (online) Original Article 2004 Taylor & Francis Ltd 174 70000002004 SusanEdwards Faculty of EducationMonash UniversityP.O. Box 527FrankstonVic [email protected] This paper examines recent movements in the early childhood education literature that have began to relate sociocultural explanations for human development to the early childhood curriculum. The paper reports the findings from an investigation conducted to determine early childhood educators conceptions of the curriculum and their understandings of its theoretical informants, including constructivism and developmental theory. This paper reports a small sample of findings from this larger study and examines the conceptions of the term constructivism held by three practicing early childhood educators. In each of these examples, the educators were found to express understand- ings of constructivism that made reference to ideas central to sociocultural explanations for learning and development, such as the zone of proximal development and inter-subjectivity. The paper considers these findings in relation to Vygotskys and Rogoffs theories of development and consid- ers the implications this particular perspective holds for the field of early childhood education when considered in relation to the more traditional cognitive constructivist perspective. Introduction The education of young children from a predominately Western perspective has tradi- tionally occurred with reference to theories of learning and development aimed at describing how young children acquire an awareness and knowledge of their worlds. Historically this influence may be traced to the earliest writings of Rousseau, Pestalozzi and Gesell, with the later theoretical advancement suggested by Piagets genetic epistemology holding a role of fundamental importance to conceptions of early childhood education and curriculum. Here, as noted by many authors (for example, *Corresponding author: P.O. Box 527, Frankston, Victoria 3199, Australia. Email: susan. [email protected] 38 S. Edwards Bredekamp, 1987; de Vries & Kohlberg, 1987; Elkind, 1993; Forman, 1993; Kamii & Ewing, 1996; Bredekamp & Copple, 1997) during the 1980s and 1990s (and in the now ubiquitous Developmentally Appropriate Practice guidelines), Piagets theory was utilized to articulate a view of early childhood education that provided learning experiences to young children that were considered suitable to their ages and levels of development, while simultaneously enabling them to construct their own learning. According to this argument, young children were viewed as needing to actively explore their learning environments in order to build their own understandings of the world and its various phenomena. This particular interpretation of constructivism was somewhat affectionately positioned as one in which children were seen as young scientists busily exploring and experimenting so as to construct a series of mental schemas that were likewise considered representative of their developing understand- ings of the external world. However, more recent theoretical discussion emerging from both the sociocultural and postmodernist literature has served to displace this view and left in its critically deconstructed wake a somewhat forlorn image whereby the active scientist has been repainted as the lone scientist (Dahlberg et al., 2000); and emphasis placed instead on the culturally situated and socially communicated nature of knowledge and knowledge acquisition (see, for example, Lubeck et al., 2001; Wise & Sanson, 2000; Fleer, 2002; Robbins, 2003). Here arguments regarding the social and cultural functions of learning and development have served to empha- size the notion that young children are active participants within their learning communities, more so than they are either young or lonely scientists. To a large extent, this assertion has evolved from Vygotskys fundamental premise that all knowledge, and the knowledge-making tools (e.g. language and symbolism) afforded to a community actually reside within a sociohistorical context (Vygotsky, 1978). Essentially, Vygotskys argument suggests that any given community is likely to hold a series of beliefs and knowledge practices regarding the manner in which the world operates that have developed over the generations that collectively represent its history. In addition, the argument likewise maintains that the beliefs and knowledge practices of a community are located in the social customs and discourses supplied to them via the very language and symbolism they use to communicate these, while simultaneously participating in their continued development over the course of the current generation. Young children, upon being born into their communities, are viewed as gradually appropriating the knowledge, and then the psychological tools of the people comprising their communities (John-Steiner & Mahn, 1996, p. 193). The gradual internalization of the sociohistorical knowledge and tools held by the commu- nity on the childs behalf are argued to occur via an interaction between two planes of psychological development, referred to by Vygotsky as the intrapersonal and inter- personal planes of development (Wertsch & Tulviste, 1994, p. 334), thus giving rise to the commonly quoted explanation: Any function in the childs cultural development appears twice, or on two planes. First it appears on the social plane, and then on the psychological plane. First it appears between people as an interpsychological category, and then within the child as an intrapsychological category. (Vygotsky, 1986, p. 163) Sociocultural theory and early childhood education 39 Accordingly, knowledge acquisition and the development of intellectual capacity are viewed as socially and culturally defined, rather than individually constructed, processes. While this particular view of learning and development has served to remove the active scientist from the early childhood educational literature, Vygotskys theory has nonetheless provided an alternative view in which development itself may viewed as occurring within a zone characterized by the childs indepen- dent abilities and that which he/she is able to achieve with the assistance of a more capable peer and/or adult (Seifert, 1993, p. 18). From this perspective, sociocultural theory represents a view of development in which interactions between children and adults are viewed as crucial to the process of knowledge acquisition, whereby knowl- edge itself is defined according to the sociohistorical practices, beliefs and experiences of the community into which the child is born. This idea is one that has more recently been expanded by Rogoff (1998, 2003), whose version of sociocultural theory argues that development occurs on three planes, rather than the two planes necessarily articulated by Vygotsky. According to Rogoff, the very process of participation (i.e. through observation, social interaction or direct teaching) within a community serves to delineate a childs developmental capacity, to the extent that development itself becomes defined by the childs evolving understanding of the sociocultural context in which he/she lives. As such, Rogoffs view of development identifies three interacting planes at which development is argued to occur: including the individual child himself/herself; the other people within the community in which he/she lives; and the sociocultural context defining the manner in which these same people engage in the processes of knowledge sharing and production. Accordingly, individual development is arguably defined according to the cultural and social contexts in which it occurs; just as the community and its context may be shaped by the interactions of the individuals of which it is comprised. Thus, as Rogoff explains, development is a process of peoples changing participa- tion in the sociocultural activities of their communities (2003, p. 52). When described as function of sociocultural participation, development itself cannot necessarily be considered in universalistic terms with respect to both its purpose and ultimate formation. Rather, it is argued by Rogoff (1990) that development must necessarily involve the acquisition of those skills and knowledge practices that are of importance to the host, rather than a generalized community: Depending on the circumstances, both immediate and societal, as well as the individual characteristics of the person, appropriate development may take many courses. This is not to say that development is aimless. Although chance plays an important role in character- istics of the circumstances and of the person, the activity of individuals and their social partners has purpose. Development involves progress towards local goals and valued skills. (Rogoff, 1990, pp. 5647; emphasis added) As this argument suggests, a consideration of development from the sociocultural perspective sees it defined not only in relation to its sociocultural origins, but also according to the goals and skills of importance to the context from which it originates in the first instance. As a relatively recent informant to early childhood education and curriculum, sociocultural theory therefore raises a number of issues when considered 40 S. Edwards in relation to the education of young children. These are likely to be a particular interest when the traditional strength of the Piagetian and active scientist view of learning and development as informants to the early childhood curriculum are considered. For example, whilse previous considerations of learning and curriculum have emphasized the individual child and the construction of his/her knowledge, how might a consideration of the sociocultural explanation serve to reposition what is considered appropriate developmental progress for a child? In addition, how might a consideration of sociocultural theory in early childhood education serve to redefine what are considered appropriate learning experiences and/or content within the curriculum? Further, what are the implications for the manner in which learning and the acquisition of knowledge are perceived within the early childhood classroom from a sociocultural perspective? Given the recent emphasis placed on sociocultural theory and early childhood education at the theoretical level, such questions may certainly be considered worthy of examination. However, in considering these issues it is perhaps necessary to consider how sociocultural explanations for learning and development are perceived at the level of practice by the educators responsible for the implementation of the early childhood curriculum in the first instance. While consideration of early child- hood educators understanding regarding the curriculum is not necessarily new (Spodek, 1988), the examination of their understandings regarding sociocultural theory, and its relationship to young childrens learning and development, is more contemporary in its orientation than previous research concerned with educators conceptions of curriculum (Clyde, 1989; Isenberg, 1990; Schiller, 1990). While previous studies related to this area of investigation have examined educators conceptions of play (Wood & Bennet, 1998) and their developing understandings of sociocultural theory (Fleer & Richardson, 2004), the focus in this paper is on explor- ing how the term constructivism, and its associated ideas with respect to learning and development, were conceived by early childhood educators from a sociocultural perspective. Methodology The study was conducted within a qualitative framework informed by a post-positivist research paradigm. According to this approach and its associated theoretical princi- ples, research regarding the conceptions individuals hold about their worlds should be sensitive to the notion that reality is an essentially subjective experience (Guba & Lincoln, 1999). By extension, studies seeking to examine the beliefs, conceptions or understanding people hold about their worlds and/or work should reflect this orien- tation and therefore emphasize the collection of data aimed at illuminating the issues as they are perceived or interpreted by the participants of concern. In recognition of this argument, the study employed the open-ended interview schedule as its principal data collection measure. Fourteen early childhood educators participated in detailed interviews aimed at determining their conceptions of the early childhood curriculum and its theoretical informants. All participating educators were selected for inclusion Sociocultural theory and early childhood education 41 in the study on the basis of their previous experience working in the sector (two years minimum) and on their base level qualifications (at least a Bachelor of Education). Participating educators were drawn from early childhood educational settings located in the eastern suburbs of Melbourne, Victoria and were from both independent and government-funded settings. This paper reports the findings from a small section of the larger study and is focused on the responses offered by three early childhood educators (Beth, Maureen and Jill) when they were invited to explain their understandings of the term constructivism in relation to the early childhood curriculum to the inter- viewer. The data recorded during the interviews were transcribed and analyzed within the qualitative data analysis software package NVIVO using principles artic- ulated from grounded theory (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Here, the main themes arising from the data were identified in an open coding process (known as parent nodes in NVIVO) and further defined using axial coding (referred to as child nodes in NVIVO). All data were initially coded according to the developing open and axial codes, and then re-coded in order to ensure that all data were exposed to the same coding process. While the larger study found that the early childhood educators tended to explain their understandings of the term constructivism in relation to both cogni- tive and sociocultural theories (see Edwards, 2003, pp. 212228), the focus in this paper is on exploring the responses offered by those educators whose understand- ings reflected a more sociocultural than cognitive constructivist conception of the term. Findings Coding of the data resulted in the identification of two main themes in which the three educators understandings of the term constructivism were defined according to two main aspects, including a social and a cultural/participatory aspect. Each of these aspects was further characterized by two subthemes determined via the process of axial coding, as demonstrated in Table 1. Table 1. Educators understanding of the term constructivism as dened by open and axial coding Open code (main theme) Axial code (subthemes) 1. Social aspect Learning constructed by children among peers and adults Learning and development supported by adults within the ZPD 2. Cultural and participatory aspect Purpose for learning related to the daily functioning of the childs community Learning characterized by participation in the community and its activities 42 S. Edwards Discussion As can be noted in Table 1, the educators understandings of the term constructivism were defined according to two main aspects: in which the social interactions occur- ring between children and adults were emphasized in the first; and the cultural and participatory aspect of learning emphasized in the second. Each of these aspects will now be discussed in turn. The social aspect The social aspect of the educators understanding of constructivism was represented by their belief that learning occurred among children and adults, and that this in turn was further supported by adults within the zone of proximal development (ZPD). Maureens initial response to questioning regarding her understanding of construc- tivism indicated that she viewed it as an active process on the childs behalf that occurred within a socially supportive context: I guess child initiated learning; having appropriate, facilitating appropriate interactions that allow children to move, scaffold their learning. Providing them with opportunities, I mean I just conjure up with constructivism children constructing their own learning and having the support of a very caring and intuitive people around them. Constructivism doesnt only happen in the individual, it should be, well it can be individual, but it is work- ing with one another and building on concepts, ideas or projects within the team. I just picture a building and in order for it to be constructed you need the scaffolding and you need the team players. In this explanation, Maureens understanding of the term constructivism is expressed in largely social terms. Here, the childrens developing knowledge, defined by Maureen as their concepts, ideas or projects are seen to occur in relation to each other with the support of the adults involved in that environment. Maureens belief that constructivism doesnt only happen in the individual highlights the manner in which she viewed learning as dependent on the social situation. This idea was further supported by Maureens reference to working together, and this in turn to the importance of supporting or scaffolding childrens learning. Importantly, the notion of scaffolding had earlier been associated with allowing children to move forward in their learning. In other words, while Maureens conception of the term constructivism represented a social dimension, it was ulti- mately concerned with the development of learning, rather than having children actively engage with materials or ideas without a sense of where such engagement should be headed. This particular reference to childrens learning was one similarly made by Beth, whose understanding of constructivism was likewise initially social in nature: Constructivism happens by allowing a lot of flexibility in your program, sort of setting up small goals that they can actively, some cant construct up to the same level as others, so we start with the easy and build on it, I think you have to be open-ended, I think children learn a lot from each other and I think you have got to build on that. I think that they will try to do something if they saw another child doing it. Sociocultural theory and early childhood education 43 However, for Beth there was concern that the educator needed to identify or under- stand childrens current levels of thinking via social discourse in order to extend their current conceptualizations of certain topics. This idea was further expressed as Beth explained her understanding regarding the adults role in childrens social interac- tions: I often find that if I have trouble explaining something I will ask the child, what do you think that means? Or what do you think this is? So theyre giving me the answer, so they work, they have an idea of what you are talking about, but they can construct that, they can synthesize all that information and then give it back to you and give it to the other chil- dren. If you give them a few guidelines, then the child will give it back to you and then you know where they are and what to build on. Here Beths reference to providing children with guidelines regarding the interaction in which they are involved is crucial to her later argument that these same guidelines later help the child move forward in his/her understanding of the topic under discus- sion as both the child and adult work to achieve intersubjectivity. In essence, while not necessarily employing the discourse of sociocultural theory, Beth describes an understanding of constructivism that makes reference to the notion of the ZPD as identified by Vygotsky and the role of social interactions in transferring socially held knowledge from the interpersonal to intrapersonal plane of development. Or, as Beth so adroitly described, constructivism represented the learning that occurred in the space between what the children give back to you and then you know where they are and what to build on. According to both Maureen and Beths explanations, constructivism represented the learning they saw occurring between children and adults as each engaged within a particular social interaction. An important component of this interaction, however, was the educators awareness that it be supported in order to extend childrens learn- ing beyond the levels demonstrated by their current social engagements. In this respect, both Maureen and Beth expressed a conception of constructivism that made reference to key theoretical constructs emerging from Vygotskys account for knowl- edge acquisition, including the intrapersonal and interpersonal planes of develop- ment, the role of social interactions in learning and the ZPD. Accordingly, for these two educators, the term constructivism appeared to represent a view of learning that was essentially social in its origins and continued development. While Maureen and Beth appeared to express this particular view in terms of a primarily Vygotskian perspective, Jill (the third educator of focus in this paper), described an understand- ing of the term constructivism that highlighted the cultural and participatory aspect of development articulated by Rogoff. The cultural and participatory aspect While acknowledging the importance of the sociohistorical context on the intraper- sonal and interpersonal planes of development initially identified by Vygotsky, Rogoff emphasizes the notion that individual, interpersonal and cultural processes are not independent entities (1998, p. 687). Rather, as Rogoff explains, the interaction 44 S. Edwards between all three identified planes of development give rise to the construction of knowledge as the child himself/herself participates within his/her community and so transforms his/her existing abilities and understanding within the context of that community (Rogoff, 1995, p. 141). Thus, participation in the cultural context in which the child resides is seen to be as fundamental to the course of development as the intrapersonal and interpersonal planes of development are considered in Vygotskian theory. The role of childrens participation in their communities as a function of their developing knowledge was one expressed by Jill, whose understanding of the term constructivism was contained within a detailed explanation regarding the relationship between childrens learning and their sociocultural contexts. Here, without explicit reference to sociocultural theory itself, Jill identified each of the intersecting planes of development described by Rogoff (1998, 2003). Reference to the third plane of development was represented by Jill with examples in which she detailed how she attempted to implement learning experiences for young children that reflected the values and process of the communities in which the children lived. Beginning with a description of constructivism that referred to the provision of materials that stimulate inquiry and the need for social opportunity for exploration in language and leadership, Jill offered two examples of her teaching practice that illuminated her understanding of the relationship between childrens learning and their broader cultural experiences and needs: If I highlight one of the things I require of children as part of our society, it is that when we have lunch, we separate our papers and our food scraps. And we have a box for recy- cling paper and we have container to put out in the compost bin outside. That those things arent then just a practice that ends there. Why do we have those bins? What do we do with those bins? We are about to explore making paper, because I want the children to know that the box of paper that we collect doesnt just go into a bin, they need to know what the process is from that point, one because they dont see it. Someone collects that paper and it is taken out, so what do we do with it? So in a small sense then we re-create that in their environment and I say, well I havent got the big machines, but what the big machines will do with it, and so on through the process, and then children get their hands in and they make their own paper. So part of it is them constructing and also to chalk and talk because I need to explain to them what happens, they will see it but we need to explore how, where, tie this simple piece of machinery to the machines that operate in large factories for re- cycled paper for use in machines here and newspapers and paper bags and the like. And the fact that it comes off the supermarket shelves. In this example, Jill quite clearly explained the relationship she perceived between the broader cultural experiences and operations that characterized the childrens host sociocultural contexts and their learning. Here, the links she perceived between the three planes of development were outlined. Reference to the community/institutional plane of development described by Rogoff was established by Jills mention of the chil- dren forming part of our society. The interpersonal plane was likewise identified by Jills reference to the chalk and talk in which she argued she needed to engage in order to explain what happens to the children, before they got their hands in to the activity on the intrapersonal level. Therefore, in this account regarding her understanding of Sociocultural theory and early childhood education 45 the term constructivism, Jill highlighted the manner in which the childrens personal interactions with the material, and the interpersonal interactions between herself and the children were linked to participation and understanding of a particular social activity (in this case, the recycling) that was in turn contextualized according to the broader cultural expectation that such recycled products would be made available on the supermarket shelves. For Jill, the explanation did not end here, with a further example of her teaching practice utilized to emphasize the interpersonal plane and the role of social interactions in childrens learning explored. However, as in her first example, both the sociocultural practices (the community/intuitional plane of devel- opment) and the childrens roles as participants in these practices as learners were evident: The other area is composting. We have our own garden, we are putting out vegetables, the children are actively doing it, and we eat the vegetables at the end of the process. How do they [the vegetables] develop from here to there? And what is that? And what is the compost doing? Because it happens in there, where they cant see it, so we need to give them an open compost that they can see, and is it a scientific experiment and they need to have a hands on involvement in it. So they, part of the hands on is the putting the fruit there, what happens to the fruit scraps? And the food scraps when they go into the compost? If they have been able to visually see it, so pairing those two elements again, so that they have an understanding of a normal everyday process. Things that parents do at home. Who has a compost bin at home? Who has a recycle bin to put out? I wonder what happens to those things? Do you know? And posting questions and letting children think about it. Here, Jills reference to the interpersonal plane of development was represented by the questions she posed to the children while encouraging them to not only participate in a sociocultural activity common to their community (composting), but to simulta- neously consider the purpose, process and outcomes of these same behaviours. Accordingly, while Rogoff (1998) described childrens learning and development as the participatory appropriation of community-held customs and behaviors, so too did Jill explain childrens learning as a function of their exploration and participation within a normal everyday process such as that represented by the composting of waste food. This particular idea is one that Rogoff (1998) has described as the process via which individual children learn as they participate with others in shared endeavors that both constitute and are derived from community traditions (1998, p. 687). Here, as Jills description regarding the recycling of the paper and the composting of the scrap foods indicates, such shared endeavors are necessarily constituted by, and derived from, the community practice of recycling materials for later use. As Rogoffs (1995) argument regarding the sociocultural explanation of development suggests, and Jills references to the child, interpersonal interactions and the larger community indicate, a sociocultural view of learning and development positions growth as contin- gent on the interactions occurring between each plane: It is incomplete to focus only on the relationship of individual development and social interaction without concern for the cultural activity in which personal and interpersonal actions take place. And it is incomplete to assume that development occurs in one plane and not in others. (Rogoff, 1995, p. 141) 46 S. Edwards Jills articulation of her understanding regarding constructivism would suggest that the three planes of development described by Rogoff as central to the process of development and learning are evident in the early childhood classroom. As an aspect of the educators conceptions of the term constructivism, the social and participatory nature of learning was clearly of importance to Jill and formed an important compo- nent of her understandings regarding learning in early childhood education. Conclusion The findings discussed in this paper indicate that the term constructivism was conceived by Beth, Maureen and Jill in relation to key explanatory constructs in sociocultural theory, including the ZPD, inter-subjectivity, scaffolding and the nature of the inter-relationship between the interpersonal, intrapersonal and community/ institutional planes of development. Of interest is the manner in which these constructs were found to be present in the educators understandings of constructiv- ism even where the constructs themselves where referred to without direct reference to the discourse relevant to sociocultural theory. Although the empirical basis of this finding is small, it nonetheless indicates that sociocultural explanations for learning and development are as relevant to the early childhood curriculum as those more traditionally emphasized by the cognitiveconstructivist perspective. The principal implication of this finding is the manner in which it opens consideration of the early childhood curriculum and pedagogy to an alternative perspective to that historically described by Piagetian theory and developmentalism. Obviously the empirical basis of this proposition requires more detailed investigation; however, further examination of the relevance of sociocultural theory to early childhood education may place exist- ing practices and interpretations regarding the manner in which children are seen to construct their learning under greater scrutiny, with a resultant shift in the nature of pedagogy as it has been more traditionally conceived. References Bredekamp, S. (1987) Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood education programs. Serv- ing children from birth through age 8 (Washington, DC, National Association for the Education of Young Children). Bredekamp, S. & Copple, C. (1997) Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood programs. Revised edition (Washington, DC, National Association for the Education of Young Children). Clyde, M. (1989) Curriculum decision making in Australian early childhood settings: do early childhood teachers really plan from a theoretical basis?, paper presented at the Annual International Conference on Early Education and Development, Hong Kong, 1989. Dahlberg, G., Moss, P. & Pence, A. (2000) Beyond quality in early childhood education and care. Postmodern perspectives (London, Falmer Press). de Vries, R. & Kohlberg, L. (1987) Programs of early education: the constructivist view (New York, Longman). Edwards, S. (2003) The curriculum is Early childhood educators conceptions of curriculum and Developmentally Appropriate Practice. A comparative case study across two Victorian early childhood educational settings. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Monash University, Melbourne. Sociocultural theory and early childhood education 47 Elkind, D. (1993) Images of the young child: collected essays on development and education (Report ISBN-0935989587). Fleer, M. (2002) Socio-cultural theory: rebuilding the theoretical foundations of early childhood education, Policy and Practice in Education. Early Education: Policy, curriculum and discourse, 54(1&2), 105121. Fleer, M. & Richardson, C. (2004) Moving from a constructivistdevelopmental framework for planning to a sociocultural approach: foregrounding the tension between the individual and community, Australian Journal of Research in Early Childhood Education, 11(2), 7088. Forman, G. (1993) The constructivist perspective to early education, in: J. Roopnarine & J. Johnson (Eds.) Approaches to early childhood education (2nd edn) (NJ, Merrill). Guba, E., & Lincoln, Y. (1999) Naturalistic and rationalistic enquiry, in: J. Keeves & G. Lakomski (Eds.) Issues in educational research (Oxford, Pergamon), 141150. Isenberg, J. (1990) Teachers thinking and beliefs and classroom practice, Childhood Education, 66(5), 322325. John-Steiner, V. & Mahn, H. (1996) Sociocultural approaches to learning and development: a Vygotskian Framework, Educational Psychologist, 31(3/4), 191206. Kamii, C. & Ewing, J. (1996) Basing teaching on Piagets constructivism, Childhood Education, 72(5), 260268. Lubeck, S., Jessup, P., De Vries, M. & Post, J. (2001) The role of culture in program improvement, Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 16, 499523. Robbins, J. (2003) The more he looked inside the more Piglet wasnt there: what adopting a sociocultural perspective can help us see, Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 28(2), 18. Rogoff, B. (1990) Apprenticeship in thinking. Cognitive development in social context (Oxford, Oxford University Press). Rogoff, B. (1995) Observing socio-cultural activity on three planes: participatory appropriate, guided participation and apprenticeship, in: J. Wertsch., P. Del Rio & A. Alverez (Eds.) Sociocultural studies of mind (New York, University of Cambridge Press). Rogoff, B. (1998) Cognition as a collaborative process, in: W. Damon (Ed.) Handbook of child psychology, Vol. Two: cognition, perception and language (5th edn) (New York, John Wiley and Sons), 679744. Rogoff, B. (2003) The cultural nature of development (Oxford, Oxford University Press). Schiller, W. (1990) Curriculum decision making in early childhood centres in two regions of Australia. In B. Chan (Ed.) Early childhood towards the 21 st century: a worldwide perspective (Hong Kong, Yew Chung Education). Seifert, K. (1993) Cognitive development and early childhood education, in: B. Spodek (Ed.) Handbook of research on the education of young children (New York, Macmillan), 923. Spodek, B. (1988) The implicit theories of early childhood teachers, Early Child Development and Care, 38, 1332. Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1998) Basics of qualitative research. Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd edn) (Thousand Oaks, CA, SAGE Publications). Vygotsky, L. (1978) Mind in society (New York, Harvard University Press). Vygotsky, L. (1986) Thought and language (Cambridge, MA, MIT Press). Wertsch, J. & Tulviste, P. (1994) Lev Semyonovich Vygotsky and contemporary developmental psychology, in: R. Parke., P. Ornstein., J. Rieser & C. Zahn-Waxler (Eds.) A century of developmental psychology (Washington, DC, American Psychological Association), 333355. Wise, S. & Sanson, A. (2000) Child care in cultural context. Issues for new research (Research paper no. 22) (Melbourne, Australian Institute of Family Studies). Wood, E. & Bennett, N. (1998) Teachers theories of play: constructivist or social constructivist?, Early Child Development and Care, 140, 1730.