{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.0265282583621684, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.944, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Should the Cambridge primary review be wedded to Vygotsky?

The Cambridge Primary Review's (CPR) preference for a Vygotskian model of schools learners and learning rather than a Piagetian is queried. There are weaknesses and uncertainties with major Vygotskian ideas such as the ‘zone of proximal development’, ‘internalisation’, ‘joint construction’, ‘language mediation’ and educational acculturation, relative to the Piagetian, while human scientific research with babies suggesting inherited capability thrust humans forearmed into physical and social worlds gives some succour to Piaget's cause. The Vygotskian and CPR premise that teachers can push learners beyond developmentally set limits is not unadulterated good news, depending on how we judge education's acculturation purposes and depending on the kind of learners we want within our educational system.