Vygotsky’s Developmental Pedagogy Recontextualised as Hedegaard’s Double-Move: Science Teaching in Grades 1 and 2 in a Disadvantaged School in South Africa

  • Joanne HardmanEmail author
  • Natasha Teschmacher
Part of the Perspectives in Cultural-Historical Research book series (PCHR, volume 6)


Fleer & Raban (2007) notes that science teachers generally feel underprepared to teach science at the early years stage and argues for the importance of developing a philosophy for pedagogy that pays more attention to schooled or scientific concepts. The importance of science teaching cannot be underestimated in a country such as South Africa that has been noted as being unable to keep up with the ‘average levels of science attainment in certain other industrial and technologically developed countries’ (Wilcox, On Mathematics education in SA and the relevance of popularising mathematics, 2003:9). Indeed, South Africa is still struggling to increase its basic literacy and numeracy levels as its apartheid legacy has left it with numerous shortages, not only in facilities and resources but also in skilled mathematics and science teachers (Wilcox, On Mathematics education in SA and the relevance of popularising mathematics, 2003). Research (Asoko in Cambridge Journal of Education, 32:2, 2002; Driver in Educational Researcher, 23:5–12, 1994; Fleer, 2009) indicates that the mediation of scientific (schooled) concepts is necessary for conceptual development. The acquisition of school-based concepts in the Foundation Phase (Grades 1 and 2) in the Beginning Knowledge unit of CAPS (Curriculum Assessment Policy Standards) pertaining to science teaching is of special relevance to this chapter, where we discuss the science teaching pedagogy of two foundation stage teachers. We conclude that the Vygotsky-based radical-local approach to curriculum and pedagogy developed by Hedegaard and Chaiklin has much to offer how science teaching is approached in ways that respect cultural heritages in South Africa and enable the decolonising of the current curriculum.


Mediation Radical-local teaching and learning Scientific and everyday concepts Science teaching 


  1. Asoko, H. (2002). Developing conceptual understanding in primary science. Cambridge Journal of Education, 32, 2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Berger, C. H. (2005). Interpersonal communication: Theoretical perspectives, future prospects. Journal of Communication, 55(3), 415–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bhorat, H. (2015). Is South Africa the most unequal society in the world? The Mail and Guardian, 30 September, 2015.Google Scholar
  4. Biology Online. (2014). Retrieved January 7th 2018:
  5. Chaiklin, S., Hedegaard, M. (2013). Cultural-historical theory and education practice: Some radical-local considerations. Nuances: estudos sobre Educação, Presidente Prudente, SP, 24(1), 30–44.Google Scholar
  6. Curriculum Assessment Policy Statements. (2011). Retrieved 20th January 2018.
  7. Dani, D. (2009). Scientific literacy and purposes for teaching science: A case study of lebanese private school teachers. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 4(3), 289–299.Google Scholar
  8. Daniels, H. (2001). Vygotsky and pedagogy. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. Davydov, V. (1990). Soviet studies in mathematics education: volume 2. Types of generalizations in instruction: logical and psychological problem in the structuring of school curricula. Reston, Virginia: The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  10. Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer E., & Scott, P. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 5–12.Google Scholar
  11. Fleer, M. (2009). Understanding the dialectical relations between everyday concepts and scientific concepts within play-based programs. Researching Science Education, 39, 281–306.Google Scholar
  12. Fleer, M. & Raban, B. (2007). Constructing cultural-historical tools for supporting young children’s concept formation in early literacy and numeracy. Early Years, 27(2), 103–118.Google Scholar
  13. Francis, S. & Hardman, J. (2018). Rhodesmustfall: Using social media to “decolonise” learning spaces for South African higher education institutions: A cultural historical activity theory approach. Sajhe, 32(4), 66–80Google Scholar
  14. Freire, P. (1998). Pedagogy of Freedom. Ethics, democracy and civic courage. New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.Google Scholar
  15. Hamlin, M., & Wisnoski, D. B. (2012). Supporting scientific thinking and enquiry of toddlers and pre-schoolers through play. Young Children May 2012.Google Scholar
  16. Hardman, J. (2015). Pedagogical variation with computers in mathematics classrooms: A cultural historical activity theory analysis. PINS, 48, 47–76.Google Scholar
  17. Harlen, W. (1993). Education for teaching science and maths in primary school. France: Unesco Publishing.Google Scholar
  18. Harper-Collins, (2009). Collins english dictionary and thesaurus. London, United Kingdoms.Google Scholar
  19. Hedegaard, M. (1998). Situated learning and cognition: Theoretical learning and cognition. Mind, Culture and Activity, 5(2), 114–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hedegaard, M. (2002). Learning and child development: a cultural–historical study. Aarhus, Denmark: Aarhus University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Hedegaard, M. (2009). Children’s development from a cultural-historical approach: Children’s activity in everyday local settings as foundation for their development. Mind, Culture and Activity, 16, 64–81. Scholar
  22. Hedegaard, M., & Chaiklin, S. (2005). Radical-local teaching and learning. Aarhus: University of Aarhus Press.Google Scholar
  23. Karpov, V., Y. (2005). The Neo-Vygotskian approach to child development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Morris, C. G. (Ed.). (1992). Academic press dictionary of science and technology. San Diego, California: Academic Press, Inc.Google Scholar
  25. Morris, A., Hardman, J., & Jacklin, H. (2016). School Science for six ear olds: A neo-Vygotskian approach to curriculum analysis. Journal of Education, 64, 1–26.Google Scholar
  26. Muwanga-Zake, J. W. F. (1998). Is Science Education in a crisis? Some of the problems in South Africa. Rhodes University. Retrieved January 17th 2018.
  27. Terre Blanche, M., & Durrheim, K. (2002). Research in practice: Applied methods for the social sciences. Cape Town: Oxford Press.Google Scholar
  28. Veriava, F. (2010). The resourcing of public schools: an analysis of compliance with, and measurement of the state’s constitutional obligations. Research paper for the studies in poverty and inequality institute. Johannesburg.Google Scholar
  29. Vosniadou, S., Ioannides, C., Dimitrakpoulou, A., & Papademetriou, E. (2001). Designing learning environments to promote conceptual change in science. Learning and Instruction, 11, 381–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language. (E. Hanfmann & G. Vakar, Trans.). (Eds.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  32. Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). The collective works of L. S. Vygotsky Volume 2, in The fundamentals of defectology abnormal psychology and learning disabilities translated by J. E. Knox & C. B. Stevens (Eds.) Robert W Reiber, Aarons Carton. Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  33. Wilcox, D. (2003). On Mathematics education in SA and the relevance of popularising mathematics. Retrieved 17th January 2018.

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Cape TownCape TownUAE

Personalised recommendations