2. Vygotsky's zone of proximal development

Definition

Difference between → what learner can do without help + what they can do with help

Overview

• Zone of proximal development → difference between → what a child can do independently + what they can do with adult/expert guidance

  • Current competence level + potential development level

• Area → where sensitive instruction + guidance should be given → allowing child to develop skills → they will use on their own

• Represents tasks → beyond learner’s current abilities → but is attainable → with help + guidance → of more knowledgeable other (MKO)

• ZPD = range of tasks → person cannot complete independently → can accomplish with support

• “Proximal” = skills learning is ‘close’ to mastering

Key features

• Dynamic + changing

• Individualized

• Not just experiences

• Importance of collaboration

Dynamic + changing

• ZPD = not a static space → constantly shifts as child learns + develops new skills

  • As child’s competence level grows → ZPD also expands → to encompass new challenges

Individualized

• Children might share some actual development level → ZPD can differ → based on experiences + prior knowledge + learning styles

Not just experiences

• Successful learning within ZPD → involves more than teaching child procedures

  • Open-ended + problem solving tasks → tend to offer richer learning opportunities → within ZPD → rather than tasks with predetermined solutions

Importance of collaboration

• ZPD highlights importance of collaboration → each ppt. contributes to task goal → fostering shared understanding → through interaction

Internalization

• Involves transforming external, shared experiences → into internal, mental function

  • Progression → from reliance on external cues + prompts from expert → to self-directed inner speech

Internalization of knowledge

• Vygotsky proposed → child’s movement through ZPD = characterized by transition → i.e. social to individual → mirroring broader social origins → of higher mental function

• Internal dialogue ≠ repetition of expert’s words → undergoes “syntactic + semantic abbreviation” → becoming more streamlined + personalized tool for thought

  • Active engagement → ensures learners do not replicate expert’s actions → but develop a deeper understanding → of underlying principles + strategies

    • E.g. child learning to solve a problem → with parents’ guidance → does not simply memorize solution → but actively constructs understanding → through dialogue + interaction

Scaffolding

• Scaffolding → process → enables child to solve tasks/achieve goals → that would be beyond unassisted efforts → Wood et al. (1970)

• Scaffolds require adult → to ‘control elements of the task’ → initially beyond learner’s capability → permitting them to concentrate upon + complete only elements → within range of competence

• Consists of activities → provided by educator/MKO → to support student through ZPI

Example of scaffolding

1. Remembering → teacher provides basic definition

2. Understanding → students explain the process in their own words

3. Application → might conduct an experiment on plants

4. Analysis → dive deeper into how variables affect the process

5. Evaluation → debate the most critical components of photosynthesis

6. Creation → design an optimal environment for plant growth

Intersubjectivity

• Intersubjectivity → shared understanding → emerges between student + teacher → when they work together → on a task → Bernard (1990)

  • Shared understanding → not only about agreeing → on correct answer/solution → also about developing mutual understanding → of task’s goals + processes + challenges

• Expert needs to gauge learner’s motivation + adjust support accordingly

  • Learner needs to understand → value of task → to be motivated to learn

• Intersubjectivity = crucial for effective scaffolding → allows teacher to tailor support → to student’s individual needs + ZPD

Contingency

• Contingency → teacher continually assesses learner’s understanding + adjusts support accordingly

  • Providing right amount of help @ the right time

  • E.g. if student is struggling → teacher might offer more direct guidance

    • Student demonstrating understanding → might receive prompts → encouraging independent problem-solving

Fading

• Fading → gradual withdrawal of external support → as learner internalizes new skills + knowledge → prompting shift from reliance on expert → to self-directed learning

• Support is withdrawn → as it becomes unnecessary

  • Student will be able → to complete task again → independently

• As learners progress → expert can strategically withdraw support → providing opportunities → for independent practice + problem-solving

  • Encourage learners → actively apply burgeoning knowledge + skills → fostering sense of self-efficiency + promoting internalization of learned concepts

Strength → effects of culture = supported in cross cultural research

• Gredler → pointed to primitive counting system → used in Papua New Guinea → as an example → of how culture → can limit cognitive development

• Counting is down →by starting on thumb → going up the arm → down to the other fingers → ending it at 29

  • System makes it difficult → to add + subtract large number

    • Limiting factor → for development → in Papua New Guinea culture

Strength → language + thought are at first independent, then become independent

• Carmichael et al. → gave ppts. 1 of 2 labels → for certain drawings

  • Ppts. → shown a kidney shape → told that either drawing → kidney bean/canoe

  • When ppts. were asked to draw shape → shape differed → according to label ppts. were given

    • Shows that words → affect the way → things are remembered

Strength → educational applications

• Teachers use peer teaching + put children in group → with mixed abilities

Weakness → little research done for Vygotsky, compared to Piaget

• Vygotsky’s theory → difficult to experiment on + test

• Concepts are difficult to operationalize

Weakness → overplayed importance of social influences

• If social influence alone is needed → for child’s cognitive development → children would develop faster → than they actually do

  • Also downplays biological factors → which can also have an effect