Formal schooling and self construction: a historical-cultural narrative approach

99 CHAPTER 5 FORMAL SCHOOLING AND SELF CONSTRUCTION: A HISTORICAL-CULTURAL NARRATIVE APPROACH Manuel L. de la Mata Benítez Andrés Santamaría Santigosa Mercedes Cubero Pérez Introduction The aim of this chapter is to present a Historical-cultural approach to the relationship between formal education, conceived as a sociocultural activity (Leont’ev, 1981; Wertsch, 1985), and self. Although the two terms, formal schooling and self have been the object of extensive research by scholars interested in the relationship between culture and mind, the specific connection between them has not traditionally been studied within the Historical-cultural perspective. There is a long tradition within this approach of research about how formal schooling influences mental processes such as perception, categorization and concept formation, memory, reasoning and problem solving that can be traced back to Luria’s expedition to Central Asia. However, the specific topic of self and identity has not received equal attention. In contrast, the self has become a central topic of research in cross-cultural psychology (see, for instance, Kitayama, Duffy and Uchida, 2007, for a review of this tradition). Despite the fact that one of the chapters in Luria’s (1976) work was devoted to the analysis of how cultural experiences such as formal schooling influenced self-definition and self-consciousness, this problem has received less attention than deserved within the historical-cultural tradition. In this Chapter, we aim to contribute to this field. To do so, we shall start by presenting the main research findings about formal schooling and mental processes in historicalcultural psychology, including Luria’s seminal study. Once we have presented these findings and the predominant explanations proposed in this tradition (in terms of ways of thinking) we shall focus on the self. After reviewing cross-cultural research about self-construal (based on Markus and Kitayama’s distinction between independent and interdependent self) we will outline the theoretical notion of self that we assume cultural-historical approach 100 and present some studies developed in our research group (Laboratorio de Actividad Humana) aimed at exploring how formal schooling may influence self-construction. To end the chapter we include a first attempt at making sense of our study data by integrating ideas from Olson (1994, 1997) Greenfield (2009, Greenfield, Keller, Foligni and Maynard, 2003) and her notion of “cultural pathways to development” with other concepts from the historical-cultural tradition. Formal schooling and mental processes: evidence from (cross)-cultural research There is a long tradition of research into the impact of formal schooling on mental processes. In this section we review this literature, and we start with the classical and well-known study of Alexander Luria (1976) in Central Asia. Luria’s classical studies about culture and mental processes The goal of these studies was to demonstrate the historical nature of psychological processes; in other words, the way that changes in the conditions of social practice created new activity motives and, thereby, transformed mental processes. For that purpose, Luria organized an expedition to Central Asia (part of the Soviet Union at that time) to investigate different groups of people living in the Republics of Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan. These people were immersed, in different ways and degrees, in a process of socio-economic and cultural change as a result of the Socialist Revolution in the Soviet Union. Hence, the participants differed in their level of schooling and their integration into the new forms of social distribution of labor. In his study of categorization and concept formation the conclusions were that for participants who lived in more “traditional” life conditions (non-literate peasants in subsistence economy) practical utility seemed to be the general principle that organized all their classifications. In contrast, the participants who lived in “modern” life-conditions (working on collective farms and literate) used formal categories as a criterion for clustering. Similar observations were made by Luria when he presented the participants with problem solving tasks, such as syllogisms and others. While literate schooled participants solved the problems by relying on the conditions of the task, the answers provided by non-literate participants ignored these conditions (i.e., the premises of the syllogisms) and refused to draw conclusions from them; instead they appealed to their lack of personal experience about the case to justify their incapacity to answer. For Luria, these participants did not stay within the limits imposed by the problem, conceived as a “logical space”, regardless of the eventual existence of practical experience. formal schooling and self construction 101 As a general conclusion, Luria thought that the Cultural Revolution associated to the Socialist Revolution (that included, among other changes, the extension of formal schooling) promoted new ways of thinking that enabled these people to go beyond the constraints of everyday concrete experience and base their thinking on logical operations. The differences observed by Luria in the ways schooled and non-schooled people solved cognitive tasks have been replicated in cross-cultural and cultural research. We shall now focus on some of these studies. (Cross-) Cultural studies about formal schooling and mental processes Numerous studies have been conducted in cross-cultural psychology analyzing the influence of cultural factors and experiences on mental processes. Let us look at some of the main findings on the role of formal schooling on cognitive processes. With regard to classification, cross-cultural studies have focused on three specific topics: the type of classification, the possibility of changing clustering criteria, and the use of language to explain the criteria. The results of these studies have evidenced differences between schooled and non-schooled participants in all these aspects. In this sense, children and adults with experience in formal schooling tend to use form and function as the predominant criteria for clustering. In contrast, the performance of non-schooled participants is based on concrete psychological operations (Bruner, Oliver and Greenfield, 1966; Greenfield and Bruner, 1966, Lin, Schwanenflugel and Wisenbaker, 1990; Mishra, 1997…). In a similar vein, schooled participants are more likely to vary the criteria (Cole and Scribner, 1974) and to provide verbal explanations for their categorizations (Scribner, 1968/1992, 1977; Scribner and Cole, 1981; Cole and Scribner, 1974). Non-schooled participants, in contrast, tend to explain their clustering by referring to the participation of the objects in the same practical activity. In the same way, the general conclusion from the studies on problem-solving is that schooled children and adults, unlike non-schooled participants, tend to consider that these problems could be solved by applying a general rule (Cole and Scribner, 1974; Scribner and Cole, 1973, 1981). Later studies conducted in other cultures evidence the difficulties of non-schooled participants to generalize rules from one situation to another (Mishra, 1997; Olson and Torrance, 1996; see also Carraher, 1991; Schliemann, Carraher and Ceci, 1997; Saxe, 1991). With regard to another related topic, syllogistic reasoning, studies conducted in diverse countries and contexts (Cole, Gay, Click and Sharp, 1971; Sharp, Cole and Lave, 1979; Luria, 1976; Scribner, 1977; Scribner and Cole, 1981) have evidenced differences in the responses to verbal logic problems, such as syllogisms, depending on the schooling experience of the participants. Non-literate participants do not usually answer these cultural-historical approach 102 problems, and when they do so, their response is based on the data from their experience. Schooled participants, in contrast, do not only answer with more frequency than nonschooled individuals, but they also tend to base their answer on theoretical reasoning (Sharp et al., 1979; Scribner, 1977; Scribner and Cole, 1981). Among the memory tasks employed in cross-cultural research, free-recall is the one that has generated the greatest number of studies. Cole et al. (1971), for instance, carried out a study comparing schooled and non-schooled children, adolescents and adults from California and Senegal. Results showed that schooled participants recalled more objects and words than those without schooling experience. Similar results were found by Sharp et al. (1979) in a large study in Yucatan (Mexico), where participants with extensive schooling experience recalled more items than those with less schooling experience. Categorical clustering was extensively observed in those who had attended secondary school. One of the questions which has provoked a great deal of controversy in cross-cultural research concerns the mechanisms that may explain the above differences. The study conducted by Scribner and Cole (1981) in Liberia among the members of the Vai group shed critical light on this issue. According to Scribner and Cole, the differences must be explained by the nature of the cultural practices or activities carried out in schools. These activities, rather than the use of specific technologies such as literacy, explain the cognitive changes associated to formal schooling. These activities would promote different ways of thinking. These ways of thinking have been called scientific thinking (implying the predominant use of “scientific concepts”) (Vygotsky, 1986), theoretical argumentation (Scribner, 1992) or propositional thought (Bruner, 1986; 1990). Let us take a brief look at what is meant by these terms. Vygotsky (1986) assumed the existence of different ways of thinking, as he showed in his analysis of concept development. He distinguished between everyday and scientific concepts. Everyday concepts consist of a set of specific objects that may constitute a concept, at least in relation to its external characteristics, (i.e. the elements included in the same category). However, because of the criteria used to put the objects together in the same group, it is far from being a scientific concept. Scribner (1977), also from historical-cultural psychology, has formulated a second classification and she distinguishes between empirical or functional and theoretical argumentation. For this author, empirical or functional argumentation, a characteristic of non-schooled people, relies on the information coming from experience (functional evidence). Theoretical argumentation, on the other hand, is characteristic of schooled people, because they understand the demands and requirements of the logical genre and are able to argue on the basis of the limits imposed by this genre. Argumentation is based on formal evidence, coming from the information that is presented in the premises. A third classification was formulated by Bruner (1986; 1996). He has distinguished between narrative and propositional thinking. They are two forms of meaning formal schooling and self construction 103 construction, of understanding reality and, therefore, ways of making sense of experience. Narrative thinking orders experience temporarily to create a story in which two landscapes must be constructed. One is the landscape of action, where the constituents are the arguments of action (agent, goal intention, situation, instrument). The other is the landscape of consciousness, including the motivations, mental states and emotions of those involved in the action. In the propositional system, meaning is achieved by abstraction, sacrificing temporality, personalization and context. Particular instances are placed into larger and more general category systems. The propositional system shapes meaning-making through the structured network of symbolic, syntactic and conceptual rules governing language and common sense logic. In short, causal necessity (as opposed to narrative necessity) is established through this system. Studies conducted by the Laboratory of Human Activity (LAH, in Spanish) with people attending adult schools in Andalusia have also provided evidence of the relationship between formal schooling and different mental processes: clustering, concept formation, memory, etc. (L.A.H., 1988; de la Mata and Sánchez, 1991; Sánchez and de la Mata, 2005, Cubero and de la Mata, 2001, Cubero, de la Mata and Cubero, 2008; Santamaría, Cubero and de la Mata, 2010). Again, results have evidenced differences in the way people solve different tasks. While more schooled people used what Bruner called propositional thinking, the participants with very little educational experience, in contrast, used a narrative way of thinking. Self in cultural context: cultural research about the self The influence of formal education on mental processes does not seem to be the only one that this institution and the cultural practices associated with it exert. From psychology and the social sciences, in general, it is claimed that literacy and formal schooling have played a fundamental role in the constitution of the modern subject (Olson, 1994, 1997; Ramírez, 1995). Thus, for example, Olson (1994) claims that the modern mind has been constituted since Descartes and authors like Hume, Berkeley and Kant and the ideal of the Enlightenment. These authors emphasize the notion of an autonomous subject, whose acts are governed by a mind populated with ideas, beliefs, desires, memories, etc. For Olson, these notions of subject and mind are related to the cultural changes that have arisen in the Western world since the extension of literacy at the beginning of Modernity (linked to the Protestant Reformation and the origins of capitalism). More specifically, Olson claims that literacy and literate practices permitted the separation of things and their representations, so that thinking became an “autonomous” activity about the world, in other words, an “epistemic” activity, with mind an object defined by mental states. cultural-historical approach 104 We believe that in psychology, despite its importance, this issue has not received the attention that it requires. Let us look at some data to support up this claim. Firstly, in one of the studies carried out by Luria (1976) the participants were asked to define themselves. This study evidenced the difficulties experienced by illiterate nonschooled peasants from Uzbekistan to define themselves as individuals, regardless of their groups of belongingness (family, village…). In contrast, the participants living in “modern” conditions (i.e. working on collective farms and with some school experience) evidenced a higher tendency towards self-analysis and self-consciousness, providing self-descriptions in terms of abstract psychological traits. More recently, cross-cultural research in psychology has shown differences in the conception of the self (self-construal) that is characteristic of different cultures. In this sense, Markus and Kitayama (1991) have distinguished between independent and interdependent self-construal. According to Markus and Kitayama, independent selfconstrual is characteristic of Anglo-American, Northern and Central European cultures. This independent self is conceived as a separate and autonomous entity, defined by a unique repertoire of traits, capacities, thoughts and feelings. The focus tends to be on asserting one´s needs, as well as preserving individuality, uniqueness and independence. In contrast, the interdependent self is characteristic of non-Western cultures (Asian, African, and Latin American cultures). In this case, the self is experienced as part of a social web (Cross and Markus, 1999; Markus and Kitayama, 1991; Kagitçibasi, 1997, 2005; Triandis, 1995). For a person with a highly interdependent self-construal, the boundaries of the self tend to be more fluid and include significant others in specific situations; the concept of the self tends to be less static and more contextualized and situated. These differences in the emphasis on independence vs. interdependence are evidenced in diverse aspects of the self, such as the experience and expression of emotions, cognitive processes, attributions, and moral reasoning or achievement motivation, among others (Markus and Kitayama, 1991). Notwithstanding, authors like Kagitçibasi (1997, 2005, 2007) have rejected the traditional consideration of autonomy as opposed to relatedness, which is characteristic of Western psychology. For Kagitçibasi, the Western individualistic concept of autonomy connotes two different meaning dimensions. One is related to personal separateness-relatedness (the degree of distancing the self from others). She calls this the “interpersonal distance” dimension, with two poles (separatedness and relatedness). The other is the “agency” dimension, which extends from agency (autonomy) to dependency (heteronomy). For Kagitçibasi these two dimensions are independent, so that agency does not necessarily mean separateness. Kagitçibasi proposes the construct of autonomous-related self that is based on a reconceptualization of autonomy, evoking its meaning of agency and untangling it from personal distance. The model of the autonomous-related self would be prevalent in urban contexts of formal schooling and self construction 105 traditionally collectivist cultures in the “Majority world.” It is emerging from socioeconomic development and urbanization in these societies (i.e. Mexico). The relationship between culture and self is closely connected to the relationship between autobiographical memory and culture. In these studies, one of the aspects that has received most attention is the age at the earliest memory (Wang, 2001, 2006; Wang and Conway, 2004). Evidence shows that the first memory of individuals from cultural groups that emphasize the importance of the personal past is earlier than in other cultural groups (Mullen, 1994; MacDonald, Uesiliana and Hayne., 2000; with additional support in Harpaz- Rotem and Hirst, 2005). When asked to recall their earliest childhood memory, Europeans and Caucasian Americans remember events back to, on average, age 3.5, whereas Asian adults’ first memories are dated about 6 months later (MacDonald et al., 2000; Mullen, 1994; Wang, 2001; Wang and Ross, 2005). The cultural variation in the age at the earliest memory is thought to stem from different cultural conceptions of self (Markus and Kitayama, 1991; Mullen, 1994; Wang, 2001, 2003). The autonomous self-construal characteristic of Western cultures may drive the early emergence of an organized, articulated, durable memory system for events that happened to “me”. In contrast, a relational self-construal that focuses on community rather than agency may de-emphasize individuality and promote social integration and dependence. Consistently, earliest memories reported by Caucasian Americans are more elaborated, specific, self-focused, emotionally elaborate, and less socially oriented than those reported by Asian people (Han, Leichtman, and Wang, 1998; Leitchman, Wang and Pillemer, 2003; Fivush, 2011). From our perspective, the studies mentioned above represent a precedent for the study of how cultural experiences may influence autobiographical memory and the self. Among these cultural experiences, our interest focuses on formal schooling. Before coming to this issue, we would like to outline our theoretical approach to the self. In this sense, we want to emphasize that we do not conceive the self as a homogeneous and stable entity, a sort of unified support of individual acts. On the contrary, we agree with many scholars who define the self as distributed and dialogical. Bruner (1996), for instance, defends the existence of a distributed self, and considers it as “a swarm” of participations that is the product of the situations in which the person participates. The person, from this perspective, constructs his/her identity as an individual differentiated from others. On the other hand, Bruner claims that the self takes its meaning from the historical circumstances of culture. It rests on meanings, languages and narratives which are culturally and historically specific (Bruner, 1996; 2003). In a related vein, one of the most significant characteristics of the self is its narrative structure (the storied self, according to Bruner). When people are asked what they are like, individuals usually tell a great variety of stories, by using traditional elements of narrative. As we said above, Bruner (1986; 1990) considers narrative both as a discourse mode and as a way of organizing experience. The story, as a whole, has cultural-historical approach 106 a meaning or gist. The intelligibility of narrative is based on verisimilitude: that is, its content must be taken as something that is likely to happen, something that “may happen to me”. Narratives, thus, provide an interpretation of events, rather than an explanation (Bruner, 1996). As Bruner himself states, a story involves an action carried out by an agent in a scenario where normative expectations have been breached. As we said before, any narrative involves a dual landscape: the landscape of action and the landscape of consciousness. Thus, we assume that the self can be understood as a personal, self-making narrative that provides meaning to the individual’s life (Bruner, 2003). Put another way, we conceive self narratives as the tools that permit the existence of a (perceived as) continuous and “coherent” self. They are discursive constructions mediated, like any other narrative, by the semiotic tools the individuals must appropriate throughout their lives (Santamaría and Martínez, 2005). The appropriation of these semiotic tools is related to participation in different socio-cultural settings. This participation involves the appropriation of discourses both from other individuals (the “significant others”) and from social institutions (school, religion…). The former implies that self-narratives are rooted in more or less implicit cultural models of what a person is and should be. These models provide the guidelines for self-making (Bruner, 2003). As Hermans (2003) states: “Collective voices are not simply outside the self as an external community, but they are part of the individual self, and, at the same time, transcend it as a part of a broader historical and social community” (p.105). The above conception of the self has been developed in a series of studies conducted by the LAH. These studies have focused on two main topics: • Studies about identity reconstruction in a cultural context. This includes issues such as the construction of lesbian identity in a cultural context (Sala, 2008; Sala and de la Mata, 2009), identity reconstruction and empowerment of women after suffering gender violence (Cala et al., 2011) or the process of acculturative integration of Moroccan women, conceived as a process of personal and community empowerment (García-Ramírez, de la Mata, Paloma and Hernández, 2011). In all these studies, the authors have applied a narrative analysis to reveal some of the discursive mechanisms and resources involved in narrative self-making (Bruner, 2003). • Studies about the influence of formal schooling on self construction. More specifically, these studies have tried to examine how formal schooling, together with other cultural factors, such as culture of origin or generation influence the self, identity and autobiographical memory (de la Mata, Santamaría, Hansen, Ruiz and Ruiz, 2011; Ruiz, 2007; Santamaría, de la Mata, formal schooling and self construction 107 Hansen and Ruiz, 2010; Santamaría, de la Mata and Ruiz, 2012; Contreras and Cubero, 2009). In the next section, we shall focus on some of these studies. Formal education, autobiographical memory and self In the previous section we presented our approach to the self. This conception integrates the classical ideas from Historical-Cultural Psychology with other notions about the narrative construction of self in cultural settings. In this section we are going to present some studies developed by the LAH about the the influence of sociocultural activities such as formal schooling on the development of a notion of self, characterized by an emphasis on autonomy and agency. As we shall discuss in the last section, this notion of self has many points in common with Olson’s (1994) notion of literate mind and subjectivity. We are going to start with a study that examined the role of formal schooling, culture of origin and generation in the notions of “border” and “resident on the border” of people living on the two sides of the Rio Grande border (between Tamaulipas, Mexico and Texas, US) (Contreras and Cubero, 2009). For this chapter, we focus on the results about the relations between formal schooling experience and the way the participants defined those notions. The results of the study are completely coincident with (cross-) cultural research presented in Section 2. The classical studies by Luria (1976), Bruner (Bruner, Oliver & Greenfield, 1966 and Greenfield and Bruner, 1966), and more recent studies by Cole (Cole and Cigagas, 2010; Cole and Parker, 2011); Cubero (Cubero and de la Mata, 2001; Cubero et al., 2008); Medin, Unsworth and Hirschfeld, (2007) or Schlieman and Carraher (2001), as well as the study reported here, all found differences associated to the educational experience of the participants in the type of concepts elaborated and, particularly, in the verbal explanations of concepts. In our case, scientific concepts (in Vygotsky’s 1986 terminology), or theoretical argumentation (Scribner, 1977) or propositional thinking (Bruner, 1986; 1990) were mostly employed by the participants from the higher educational level when defining a resident on the border. They tended to speak about residents on the border in the following terms “… she/he is from two places, form two cultures simultaneously” or “they are people that, yet administratively belonging to a country, they participate in services and activities of the other”. This way of constructing arguments, in Bruner’s (1996) terms, as the people in the higher educational level did, seems to reflect general formulations that can be applied to a broad set of situations, going beyond concrete and particular data, towards higher levels of abstraction. Moreover, in these responses we can observe some characteristics of propositional thinking or theoretical argumentation (Bruner, 1986; 1996; Scribner, cultural-historical approach 114 autobiographical remembering characterized by self-focusing, autonomy and attention to the individual’s preferences and mental states (Keller, 2007; Schroder et al., 2013). Greenfield (2009) has postulated that movement of any ecological variable in a Gesellschaft direction shifts cultural values in an individualistic direction and developmental pathways toward independent social behavior and more abstract cognition (independent mode of being, Kitayama, Duffy and Uchida, 2007). Therefore, this model predicts that changes such as the extension of formal schooling would affect self-construal and human cognition and, hence, autobiographical memory. Thiswould promote the “developmental pathway” to autonomy and thus, a cultural notion of self that enhances the individual’s autonomy (Kagitçibasi, 2005, 2007; Keller, 2007; Greenfield, 2009) and forms of remembering that resemble those reported in crosscultural research as characteristics of cultures of independence (Leitchman, Wang and Pillemer, 2003; de la Mata, Santamaría, Hansen, Ruiz & Ruiz, 2011; Fivush, 2011). Some final remarks about formal schooling and self-construal The above theoretical ideas may help us make sense of the findings of the studies reported in Section Four. The theory of the developmental pathways to independence may account for the tendency to define the self in terms of abstract attributes and the use of theoretical argumentation in cultural self-definition, as well as for the forms of autobiographical remembering that enhance autonomy and individual agency. At the same time, Olson’s ideas about the emergence of the literate mind would provide conceptual tools to understand how formal schooling and literacy may allow the rise of a notion of mind populated by mental states and a notion of the subject who is selfconscious and responsible for his/her beliefs, memories, affects and actions. Although promising, the above ideas need further development and clarification. From a historical-cultural perspective, the consideration of formal schooling as a mere sociodemographic variable represents a limitation of the theory. Beyond that and to overcome the well-known criticisms of the conceptualization of culture as an independent variable in cross-cultural research (see Rogoff, 1981; Cole, 1996 for a review of these arguments), it is necessary to analyze the activities of formal schooling and how these activities shape self-construal and autobiographical memory. In a related vein, and consistent with the notion of self presented in Section 3, we must consider the situated nature of self-construal. Rather than considering a stable configuration of attributes, many authors have emphasized contextual variations in self-construal (Matsumoto, 1999). From this standpoint, the notion of situatedness may capture that complexity and provide new insights into the analyses of the relationship between self and culture. But what does situatedness as a characteristic of self-construal formal schooling and self construction 115 designate? For us, situatedness is related to both between-culture and within-culture variations. On the one hand, we must not forget that cultures and societies are dynamic, typically moving towards more individualism (e.g. Greenfield, 2009); this seems to be, for instance, the case of Spain, moving away from a more collectivistic to a more individualistic country (de la Mata, Santamaría, Ruiz, and Hansen, 2014). On the other, situatedness may also imply within-individual variations, in the sense that any individual participates in diverse cultural practices (family, school, work…). If we assume that selfconstrual is situated in relation to culture, the fact that every individual participates in different activities in which the relative importance of issues concerned with autonomy/ agency and relation/communion, power, and other basic human needs (Kagitçibasi, 2005) vary, leads us to assume that self-construal also vary across cultural. In the field of autobiographical memory, for instance, Wang and Ross (2005) have demonstrated the possibility of “priming” collective or private self-construal. Besides the usual differences between Eastern and Western participants in self-construal and autobiographical memories, the authors demonstrated that priming different dimensions of self-construal influenced autobiographical memories of the participants in the directions predicted. A study conducted by Antalíková, Hansen, Gulbrandsen, de la Mata and Santamaría (2011) with the participation of two of the authors of this chapter provided additional evidence of this situatedness. In this explorative study with young Norwegians and Slovaks, memories from school also seemed to represent less relatedness (i.e., contained fewer references to other people) than the memories from another two settings. This preliminary finding is consistent with the consideration of school as an activity setting associated to autonomous dimensions of self-construal and, from a more theoretical perspective, with the notion of the self as situated and context (i.e. activity) dependent. More studies are needed to delve further into the situated character of self-construal and how the activities involved in formal schooling may promote the emergence of a specific model of selfhood. In drawing this Chapter to a close, we would like to stress the need for more detailed analysis of the links between formal schooling activities and the development of the independent model of self. Our theoretical framework predicts this, and the evidence presented in Section 4 seems to support these links. However, while this evidence is promising, it only represents a first step in the analysis of the relationship between formal education activities and autobiographical memory and self-construal. There is much ground still to be covered in that area. As we said earlier, a more detailed examination of the way school activities influence autobiographical memory and self is also needed. This highlights the need for research to establish what happens within schools (with a particular focus on discourse and interaction in the classroom). cultural-historical approach 116 References ANTALÍKOVÁ, R.; HANSEN, T.G.B.; GULBRANDSEN, K.; DE LA MATA, M. & SANTAMARÍA, A. (2011) Adolescents’ meaningful memories reflect a trajectory of self-development from family over school to friends. Nordic Psychology, 63, 4-24. BROCKMEIER, J., & OLSON, D.R. (2002). Introduction: What is a culture of literacy? In J. Brockmeier, M. Wang & D.R. Olson (eds.), Literacy, narrative and culture (pp. 1-14). Richmon, Surrey: Curzon Press. BRUNER, J. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. BRUNER, J. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. BRUNER, J. (1996). Frames for thinking: Ways of making meanings. In D. Olson & N. Torrance (Eds.), Modes of thought: Explorations in culture and cognition (pp. 95-105). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. BRUNER, J.S. (2003). Making stories: law, literature, life. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. BRUNER, J.; OLVER, R., & GREENFIELD, P. (1966). Studies in cognitive growth. New York: Wiley. CALA, M.J., et al. (2011). Recuperando el control de nuestras vidas. Reconstrucción de identidades y empoderamiento de mujeres víctimas de violencia de género. Unpublished Research Report. Instituto de la Mujer. CARRAHER, S.M. (1991) Dimensionality of the pay satisfaction questionnaire. Psychological Reports, 69, 887-890 COLE, M. (1996). Cultural psychology: A once and future discipline. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. COLE, M., & CIGAGAS, X.E. (2010). Culture and Cognition, In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of cultural developmental science (pp. 127-142). New York, NY, US: Psychology Press. COLE, M., & PARKER, M. (2011). Culture and cognition. In K. D. Keith (Ed.), Cross-cultural psychology: Contemporary themes and perspectives (pp. 133–159). Chichester, UK: Wiley Blackwell. CONTRERAS, R., & CUBERO, M. (2009). Un Análisis de la Construcción del Concepto Frontera desde una Visión Histórica-Cultural de la Mente. Sociotam: Revista Internacional de Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades. Vol. XIX. Núm. 2, 9-34. COLE, M. & SCRIBNER, S (1974). Culture and thought: a psychological introduction. New York. COLE, M., GAY, J., GLICK, J., & SHARP, D. W. (1971). The cultural context of learning and thinking. New York: Basic Books. CROSS, S. E., & MARKUS, H. R. (1999). The cultural constitution of personality. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research. New York: The Guilford Press. formal schooling and self construction 117 CUBERO M., & DE LA MATA, M.L. (2001). Activity settings, ways of thinking and discourse modes: An empirical investigation of the heterogeneity of verbal thinking. In S. Chaiklin (Ed.), The theory and practice of Cultural-historical psychology (pp. 218-237). Aarhus: Aarhus University Press. CUBERO, M., DE LA MATA, M.L., & CUBERO, R. (2008). Activity settings, discourse modes and ways of understanding: On the heterogeneity of verbal thinking. Culture & Psychology, 14, 403-430. CUBERO, M., & RAMÍREZ, J.D. (2005). Vygotsky y la psicología contemporánea. Buenos Aires: Editorial Miño y Dávila. DE LA MATA, M.L., & SÁNCHEZ, J.A. (1991). Educación formal y acciones de agrupación y memoria en adultos: un estudio microgenético. Infancia y Aprendizaje, 53, 75-97. DE LA MATA, M.L.; SANTAMARÍA, A; HANSEN, T.G.B.; Ruiz, L. y RUIZ, M.L. (2011). Formal schooling and autobiographical memory: towards independent self-construal. Development of self in culture. Self in culture in mind. Vol. 1. (pp.145-158. In T.G.B. Hansen & K. Jensen de López (eds.)., Alborg: Alborg University Press. DE LA MATA, M.L., SANTAMARÍA, A., RUIZ L. & HANSEN, T.G.B., (2014). Earliest autobiographical memories in college student from three countries: towards a situated view. Memory Studies, 31, 1-18. FIVUSH, R. (2011). The development of autobiographical memory. Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 559-582. GARCÍA-RAMÍREZ, M.; DE LA MATA, M.L.; PALOMA, V., & HERNÁNDEZ-PLAZA, S. (2011). A liberation psychology approach to acculturative integration of migrant populations. American Journal of Community Psychology, 47, 86-97. GREENFIELD, P. M. (2009). Linking social change and developmental change: Shifting pathways of human development. Developmental Psychology, 45, 401-418. GREENFIELD, P., & BRUNER, J. (1966). Culture and cognitive growth. International Journal of Psychology, 1, 89–107. GREENFIELD, P. M., KELLER, H., FULIGNI, A., & MAYNARD, A. (2003). Cultural pathways through universal development. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 461-490. HAN, J. J., LEICHTMAN, M. D., y WANG, Q. (1998). Autobiographical memory in korean, Chinese and American children. Developmental Psychology, 34, 701 713. HARPAZ-ROTEM, I., & HIRST, W. (2005). The earliest memory in individuals raised in either traditional and reformed kibbutz or outside the kibbutz. Memory, 13 (1), 51-62. HERMANS, H. J. M. (2003). The construction and reconstruction of a dialogical self. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 16, 89–130. KAGITÇIBASI, C. (1997). Individualism and colectivism. In J. Berry, M. Segal y C. K. Kagictcibasi (eds). Handbook of cross-cultural psychology. Vol 3 (pp. 1-49), Londres: Allyn & Bacon. cultural-historical approach 118 KAGITÇIBASI, C. (2005). Autonomy and relatedness in cultural context. Implications for self and family. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 36, 403-422. KAGITÇIBASI, C. (2007). Family, self, and Human development across Cultures. Theory and Applications. New Jersey: Laurence Erlbaum. KELLER, H. (2007). Children development across cultures. New York: L.E.A. KITAYAMA, S., & COHEN, D. (2007). Handbook of cultural psychology. New York: Guilford Press. Kitayama, S., Duffy, S., & Uchida, Y. (2007). Self as Cultural Mode of Being. In S. Kitayama & D. Cohen (Eds.), Handbook of cultural psychology (pp. 136-174). New York: Guilford Press. Laboratorio de Actividad Humana (LAH) (1988). Educación y procesos cognitivos: Una aproximación sociocultural [Education and cognitive processes: A sociocultural approach]. Seville, Spain: Junta de Andalucía. LAH (1993). La educación de adultos y el cambio de valores, actitudes y modos de pensamiento de la mujer: un estudio etnográfico del discurso, Memoria de Investigación. LEITCHMAN, M.D., WANG, Q., & PILLEMER, D.B. (2003). Cultural variations in interdependence and autobiographical memory: Lessons from Korea, China, India and the United States. In R. Fivush & C.A. HADEN (eds.), Autobiographical memory and the construction of a narrative self. Developmental and cultural perspectives. (pp. 73-97) Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. LIN, P.J., SCHWANENFLUGEL, P.J., & WISENBAKER, J.M. (1990) Category typicality, cultural familiarity, and the development of category knowledge. Developmental Psychology, 26, 85-813. LEONT’EV, A.N. (1981). The problem of activity in psychology. In J.V. Wertsch (Ed. and Trans.), The concept of activity in Soviet psychology (pp. 37-71). Armonk, NY: Sharpe. LURIA, A.R. (1976). Cognitive development: Its cultural and social foundations. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. MACDONALD, S.; UESILIANA, K. & HAYNE, H. (2000). Cross-cultural and gender differnces in childhood amnesia. Memory, 8 (6), 365-376. MARKUS, H.R. & KITAYAMA, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for Cognition, Emotion, and Motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224-253. MATSUMOTO, D. (1999). Culture and the self: An empirical assessment of Markus and Kitayama’s theory of independent and interdependent self-construals. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 2, 289-310. MATSUMOTO, D. (2001). The handbook of culture and psychology. New York: Oxford University Press. MATSUMOTO, D. (2006). Culture and Cultural Worldviews: Do Verbal Descriptions about Culture Reflect Anything Other Than Verbal Descriptions of Culture? Culture & Psychology, 12 (1), 33–62. formal schooling and self construction 119 MEDIN, D.L., UNSWORTH, S., & HIRSCHFELD, L. (2007). Culture, categorization, and reasoning. In S. KITAYAMA, & D. COHEN (Ed.), Handbook of cultural psychology (pp. 615- 644) New York: Guilford Press. MISHRA, R.C. (2001). Cognition across Culture. In D. Matsumoto (Ed.), The handbook of culture and psychology (pp. 119-137). New York: Oxford University Press. MULLEN, M.K. (1994). Earliest recollections of childhood: A demographic analysis. Cognition, 52 (1), 55-79. OLSON, D.R. (1994). The world on paper. New York: Cambridge University Press. OLSON, D. (1997). La escritura y la mente. In J.V. Wertsch, P. del Río & A. Álvarez (eds.), La mente sociocultural (pp. 77-97). Madrid: Fundación Infancia y Aprendizaje. OLSON, D. (2009). Education and Literacy. Infancia y Aprendizaje, 32, 141-151. OLSON D.R., & TORRANCE N. (Eds.) (1996). Modes of thought. Explorations in Culture and Cognition. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. RAMÍREZ, J.D. (1995). Usos de la Palabra y sus Tecnologías. Una aproximación dialógica al estudio de la alfabetización. Buenos Aires: Miño y Dávila. RUIZ CANSINO, M. L. (2007). El efecto de la experiencia educativa, la generación y el género en las narraciones autobiográficas de los recuerdos más tempranos. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Seville. SAXE, G. (1991). Culture and Cognitive Development: Studies in mathematical understanding. Hillsdale NJ: LEA. SALA, A. (2008). Construcciones identitarias en el contexto histórico-cultural: Identidades lésbicas, historias de vida y discursos sociales. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Universidad de Sevilla. SALA, A, DE LA MATA, M.L. (2009). Developing Lesbian Identity: a Sociohistorical Approach. Journal of Homosexuality, 56, 819-838. SÁNCHEZ, E.S. y DE LA MATA, M.L. (2005). Experiencia socio-educativa y acciones de memoria en adultos. Avances en Psicología Latinoamericana, 23, 91-101. SANTAMARÍA, A., CUBERO, M., & DE LA MATA, M.L. (2010). Thinking as action: Theoretical and methodological requirements for Cultural Psychology. Theory & Psychology, 20, 76-101. SANTAMARÍA, A., DE LA MATA, M. L., HANSEN, T. & RUIZ, L. (2010). Cultural self-construals of Mexican, Spanish and Danish college students: Beyond independent and interdependent self. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 41, 471-477. SANTAMARÍA, A., DE LA MATA, M.L., & RUIZ, M.L. (2012). Escolarización formal, memoria autobiográfica y concepciones culturales del yo. Infancia y Aprendizaje, 35, 73-86. SANTAMARÍA, A. & MARTÍNEZ, MA: (2005) La construcción del significado en el marco de una psicología cultural: el pensamiento narrativo. In M. Cubero & J.D. Ramírez (eds.), Vygotski en la psicología contemporánea) pp. 141-167). Buenos Aires: Editorial Miño y Dávila. cultural-historical approach 120 SCHLIEMANN, A.D., & CARRAHER, D.W. (2001). Everyday Cognition: Where Culture, Psychology and Education come Together. In D. Matsumoto (Ed.), The handbook of culture and psychology (pp. 137-151). New York: Oxford University Press. SCHLIEMANN, A.D., CARRAHER, D., & CECI, S.J. (1997). Everyday cognition. In, John Widdup Berry,Ype H. Poortinga, Janak Pandey (eds.), Handbook of Cross-Cultural Psychology: Basic Processes and Human (vol.2) (pp. 177-216). Allyn & Bacon. SCRIBNER, S.(1977). Modes of Thinking and Ways of Speaking. In P. N. Johnson- Laird & P. C. Wason (eds.), Thinking: Readings in Cognitive Science (pp. 483-500). New York.: Cambridge University Press. SCRIBNER, S. (1992). Mind in action: A functional approach to thinking. The Quarterly newsletter of L.C.H.C., 14, 103-109. SCRIBNER, S., & COLE, M. (1973). Cognitive consequences of formal and informal education. Science, 182, 553-559. SCRIBNER, S., & COLE, M. (1981). The psychology of literacy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. SHARP, D., COLE, M., & LAVE, C. (1979). Education and cognitive development: The evidence from experimental research. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 44 (1-2, Serial no. 178). SCHRÖDER, L., KELLER, H., KÄRTNER, J., KLEIS, A., ABELS, M., YOVSI, R. D., CHAUDHARY, N., JENSEN, H., PAPALIGOURA, Z. (2013). Early reminiscing in cultural context: Cultural models, maternal reminiscing styles, and children’s memories. Journal of Cognition and Development, 14, 10-34. TRIANDIS, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview. VYGOTSKY, L.S. (1986). Thought and language (A. Kozulin, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. (Original work published 1934). WANG, Q. (2001). Culture effects on adult’s earliest childhood recollection and selfdescription: Implications for the relation between memory and the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 220-233. WANG, Q. (2003). Emotion situation knowledge in American and Chinese preschool children and adults. Cognition & Emotion, 17, 725-746. WANG, Q. (2006). Earliest recollections of self and others in European American and Taiwanese young adults. Psychological Science, 17, 708-714. WANG, Q., & CONWAY, M. (2004). The stories we keep: autobiographical memory in American and Chinese middle-aged adults. Journal of Personality, 72, 911-938. WANG, Q. & ROSS, M. (2005). What we remember and what we tell: The effects of culture and self-priming on memory representations and narratives. Memory, 13, 594-606. WERTSCH, J.V. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.