ELTWeekly Vol. 4 Issue#9 | February 27, 2012 | ISSN 0975-3036
S. Christopher Gnana Seelan, MA; M.Phil; B.Ed; CELTA (UK); has got experience in teaching English Language both at the secondary and tertiary levels for 19 years. Currently, he is an ESL lecturer at Higher College of Technology, Muscat, Sultanate of Oman, and is also a part-time PhD scholar, in the Manonmaniam Sundaranar University, India.
“Learning is more than the acquisition of the ability to think; it is the acquisition of many specialised abilities for thinking about a variety of things.” – Lev Vygotsky
Abstract
This article critically reviews Lev Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development and highlights how appropriate assistance (scaffolding) given to the learner, will in turn, give the learner a boost to complete the language learning tasks successfully.
Index terms:
ZPD (Zone of Proximal Development), scaffolding, reciprocal teaching, adult guidance,
task definition, direct or indirect instruction, specification and sequencing of activities
ICT (Information and Communications Technology),
Introduction:
The Zone of Proximal Development has been defined as “the distance between the actual developmental level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance, or in collaboration with more capable peers” (Vygotsky, 1978, p86). Lev Vygotsky, the Soviet Psychologist who developed the concept of the Zone of Proximal Development, believes that when a student is at the zone of proximal development for a particular task, providing the appropriate assistance (scaffolding) will give the student enough of a “boost” to achieve the task. Once the learner, with the benefit of scaffolding masters the task, the scaffolding can then be removed and the learner will then be able to complete the task again on his/her own. Zone of Proximal Development primarily brings out the difference between what a learner can do without any help, and what he/she can do with help. According to Vygotsky, the Zone of Proximal Development is ‘the distance between the actual development level as determined by independent problem-solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem-solving under adult guidance, or in collaboration with more capable peers”(Lev Vygotsky, 1981).
Scaffolding:
The provision for assisted performance is known as scaffolding. Task definition, direct or indirect instruction, specification and sequencing of activities, provision of materials, equipment and facilities and other environmental contributions are the common elements of scaffolding. Scaffolding may also include assistance with planning, organising, doing and/or reflecting on the specific task. Such assistance is best made available in a timely manner matched to the learning needs and interests of the learner.
Understanding Scaffolding:
Hammondsays that the interpretation and operationalisation of the concept of scaffolding in educational research is highly diverse and “is sometimes used loosely to refer to rather different things” (Hammond, 2002, p.2). Scaffolding has been interpreted in a wide sense as “a form of support for the development and learning of children and young people” (Rasmussen, 2001, p.570). Jacob says that the term ‘scaffolding’ can be used as an umbrella metaphor to describe the way that “teachers or peers supply students with the tools they need in order to learn” (Jacobs, 2001, p.125). The framework of systematic theory, in conjunction with a number of other educational theories, enriches the context of implementation of the scaffolding metaphor but makes it more generic. (Jacobs, 2001; Rasmussen, 2001), Hammond and her colleagues (2002) argue that extended understanding of scaffolding in language and literacy education is needed. They point out the crucial role of language in scaffolding.
Donovan and Smolkin (2002) present a more specific study of scaffolding. They take a critical look at the issue of scaffolding in children’s writing. They research the role of different levels of scaffolding in children’s understanding and demonstration of their knowledge of genre. Tasks presented to the children range from those that provide minimal or low level support to those that provide middle or high levels of support (contextual and visual support). Interestingly, the highest level in their range of scaffolding is described as a “direct instruction with revision” (Donovan & Smolkin, 2002, p.435). Their research has revealed, however, that while scaffolding can assist children it may also, at times, hinder children in demonstrating their full range of genre knowledge (Donovan & Smolkin, 2002, p.428). This finding reveals that scaffolding, though understood as direct instruction, might even become counterproductive. (Berk, 2000, p. 261).
Some see scaffolding as various forms of adult support: demonstration; dividing a task into simpler steps; providing guidelines; keeping attention focused as well as providing examples and questioning etc. Breaking content into manageable pieces also seems to be a common feature of scaffolding that has been emphasised in the texts (Berk, 2002; Eggen & Kauchak, 1999; McDevitt & Ormrod, 2002; Krause et al., 2003).
Scaffolding and its values:
Effective scaffolding makes two major contributions. Firstly, scaffolding makes it easier for the learner to undertake a task successfully and thus expands the possible learning activities and experiences. Secondly, it also increases the rate at which learning may be achieved and thereby extends what is possible for a learner to perform and thus expands the ZPD (Zone of Proximal Development), since the provision of powerful tools and well-formed instructions enable higher order problems to be solved more rapidly. Traditionally, the assistance of scaffolding was provided by a teacher directly to a learner in real time. Scaffolding can also be provided indirectly as in the tutorial materials such as worksheets.
Scaffolding and ICT (Information and Communications Technology):
In class rooms, assistance may be provided to the learner in ways that incorporate some use of ICT (Information and Communications Technology). Technology has the potential to contribute to the provision of scaffolding. When technology is used as scaffolding, it will further expand the learner’s skills in independent problem-solving, and thus, will enhance scaffolding which may reduce the need for assistance and/or extend the range of assisted performance by the learner. It is also proved that Multimedia interactive ICT has increased the possibilities considerably in this regard and will also support a combination of direct and indirect scaffolding and mediation of learning. In addition, Andy Clark puts the case for people being able to scaffold their own learning in his recent book Natural Born Cyborgs [Andy Clark, 2003) Oxford University Press; (April 1, 2003) ISBN: 0195148665] especially with the use of ICT.
In a purely instructional context the teacher provides guided practice to the child with a clear sense of the goals or the outcomes of the learner’s performance. This assistance (scaffolding) is gradually removed so the learner can perform the tasks independently.
Challenges:
There are two related challenges for this to occur and there are several requirements:
- The school/system can address the issue of scaffolding the use of ICT in class programs.
- The teacher has the knowledge, skills strategies and wisdom to be able to use ICT to scaffold learning activities being undertaken in the class
- The learning activities are placed in the zone of proximal development (applies to the specific performance of specific students at specific points in time).
- Developments achieved through effective teacher scaffolding and learner success change the zone of proximal development. Thus, in designing, developing and providing the necessary scaffolding, the teacher has to customise the learning activities to meet the short term needs of the student.
Potentially, a developmental sequence may provide a framework made up of the consecutive changes in a student’s ZPD by addressing ‘windows of opportunity’ for learning.
The Zone of Proximal Development:
The concept of the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) was developed by a Soviet Psychologist, Lev Vygotsky. Vygotsky views interaction with peers as an effective way of developing skills and strategies. He suggests that teachers use cooperative learning exercises where less competent children develop with help from more skilful peers – within the zone of proximal development.
Vygotsky firmly believes that interaction with peers is an effective way to develop skills and strategies. When a language teacher adopts the Zone of Proximal Development concept in a language classroom and uses the cooperative learning strategy, even the less competent learners develop his/her language skills with the ‘scaffolding’ from more skilful peers-within the zone of proximal development. So, in order to help a learner complete his/her language activity, all that the learner needs is a small amount of scaffolding and once the activity is completed, then the scaffolding can be removed. And the learner will, then, be able to do similar activity again without any scaffolding. Vygotsky explains that the scaffolding is nothing but the assistance that a learner gets from a more skilful peer.
‘Reciprocal teaching’ is another feature of the Zone of Proximal Development and as per this feature, the teacher and the learners collaborate in learning and practice four skills of language learning. They are; summarising, questioning, clarifying and predicting. These skills in turn, will help the learners to learn the target language by using these four skills. Besides, Vygotsky’s instructional concepts such as ‘scaffolding’ and ‘apprenticeship’ help a low level learner, to learn the language easily. His collaborative learning is yet another effective language learning strategy. Vygotsky explains that the concept of collaborative learning will be very effective if the members of the group possess different levels of ability to provide scaffolding to the deserving learners.
Thus, the Zone of Proximal Development is the name given by Lev Vygotsky for the wide range of tasks a learner can learn independently, and those completed with the guidance and assistance of a teacher or with the scaffolding of more-skilled learners in the class. ‘Scaffolding’ is changing the level of support. During teaching, a skilful person (either a teacher or a skilful learner) adjusts the amount of guidance to fit the learner’s zone of proximal development. Dialogue is used as an important tool to do this because in a dialogue, a learner’s spontaneous concepts which are basically disorganised and unsystematic, are met with the more organised, systematic, logical and rational concept of the skilful helper.
. According to Vygotsky, for the curriculum to be developmentally appropriate, the teacher must plan activities that encompass not only what children are capable of doing on their own but what they can learn with the help of others (Karpov & Haywood, 1998).
Vygotsky’s theory does not mean that anything can be taught to any child. Only instruction and activities that fall within the zone promote development may be taught. For example, if a child cannot identify the sounds in a word even after many prompts, the child may not benefit immediately from instruction in this skill. Practice of previously known skills and introduction of concepts that are too difficult and complex have little positive impact. Teachers can use information about both levels of Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development in organizing classroom activities in the following ways:
a. Instruction can be planned to provide practice in the zone of proximal development for individual children or for groups of children. For example, hints and prompts that helped children during the assessment could form the basis of instructional activities.
b. Cooperative learning activities can be planned with groups of children at different levels who can help each other learn.
c. Scaffolding (Wood, Bruner, & Ross, 1976) is a tactic for helping the child in his or her zone of proximal development in which the adult provides hints and prompts at different levels. In scaffolding, the adult does not simplify the task, but the role of the learner is simplified “through the graduated intervention of the teacher” (Greenfield, 1984, p. 119).
For example, a child might be shown pennies to represent each sound in a word (e.g., three pennies for the three sounds in “man”). To master this word, the child might be asked to place a penny on the table to show each sound in a word, and finally the child might identify the sounds without the pennies. When the adult provides the child with pennies, the adult provides a scaffold to help the child move from assisted to unassisted success at the task (Spector, 1992). In a high school laboratory science class, a teacher might provide scaffolding by first giving students detailed guides to carrying out experiments, then giving them brief outlines that they might use to structure experiments, and finally asking them to set up experiments entirely on their own.
The Relationship between Scaffolding and the Zone of Proximal development:
There is a consensus that Vygotskian socio-cultural psychology and the notion of the zone of proximal development are at the heart of the concept of scaffolding (Berk, 2001; Daniels, 2001; Wells, 2001; Krause et al, 2003; McDevitt & Ormrod, 2002). However, the interpretations and explanations of the exact ways that scaffolding relates to it have been different. These range from understanding scaffolding as a direct application and
operationalisation of Vygotsky’s concept of teaching in the zone of proximal development (Wells, 1999), to the view that the notion of scaffolding only partially reflects the richness of Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development (e.g. Daniels, 2001). In addition, the limitations of the concept of scaffolding in interpreting the zone of proximal development have been revealed (Stone, 1998). Gordon Wells referred to scaffolding as “a way of operationalising Vygotsky’s (1987) concept of working in the zone of proximal development” (1999, p.127). He identified three important features that give educational scaffolding its particular character: 1) the essentially dialogic nature of the discourse in which knowledge is co-constructed; 2) the significance of the kind of activity in which knowing is embedded and 3) the role of artefacts that mediate knowing (Wells, 1999, p.127) Mercer and Fisher (1993, in Wells, 1999) view the ZPD characteristic of transfer of responsibility for the task to the student as the major goal of scaffolding in teaching. In order to qualify as scaffolding, they propose, a teaching and learning event should: a) enable the learners to carry out the task which they would not have been able to manage on their own; b) be intended to bring the learner to a state of competence which will enable them eventually to complete such a task on their own; and c) be followed by evidence of the learners having achieved some greater level of independent competence as a result of the scaffolding experience (Wells, 1999, p. 221). The emphasis of their definition is on the collaboration between the teacher and the learner in constructing knowledge and skill in the former. Other authors see the metaphor of scaffolding as limited compared to the notion of the ZPD. According to Lave and Wenger (1991, in Daniels, 2002) scaffolding captures teaching performance as a one-way communication process compared to the notion of the ZPD which emphasises teacher-learner collaboration and negotiation. Thus, scaffolding can be seen as a one-way process wherein the scaffolder constructs the scaffold alone and presents it for the use of the novice (Daniels, 2002, p. 59). Stone (1998) explains that narrowness of the term scaffolding is due to the connation of the metaphor itself. He provides a critical analysis of the metaphor of scaffolding in its application to the field of learning disability. Stone pointed out the twofold role of metaphor in scholarly understanding of a phenomenon. On the one hand, “a good metaphor… is more than a novel label or a graphic description of a phenomenon. If it has been aptly chosen, a metaphor can help us to appreciate as yet unanticipated connections or consequences. In this latter sense, a metaphor is not so much descriptive as it is generative of new ideas” (Stone, 1998, p. 344). On the other hand, a metaphor can hinder further understanding of the phenomenon, as the metaphor can be misleading in finding its essential characteristics and connections (Stone, 1998).
Analysing a number of limitations of the scaffolding metaphor, Stone referred to a study of Searle (1984, in Stone, 1998) who expressed the concern that too literal an adherence to a scaffolding metaphor, especially in the hands of insensitive teachers, could result in “the imposition of a structure on the student” (Stone, 1998, p. 349). In other words, the metaphor of scaffolding can lead to viewing the adult-child interaction in the classroom as predominantly adult-driven and one-sided in nature. This view, if applied to classroom
teaching, might take educators back to a pre-Piagetian, traditional way of teaching through direct instruction. In such a case, the concern expressed by Annette, the supervising teacher in our example at the beginning of this paper, can be understood and supported.
The quality of child-adult interaction is seen as crucial when scaffolding children’s learning (Bodrova & Leong, 1996; Fleer, 1992, 1995; Tharp & Gallimore, 1988). Summarising the limitations of the scaffolding metaphor, Stone (1998) reveals that a number of educational and developmental psychologists are questioning the theoretical and practical value of the metaphor. However, he concludes, the metaphor should not be abandoned (Stone, 1998, p.351). At this stage it is difficult to imagine, how the scaffolding metaphor could be abandoned as it has been widely accepted, studied and applied to different KLAs by an increasing number of educational researchers and practitioners (e.g. Devlin, 2000; Dixon- Krauss, 1996; Donovan & Smolkin, 2002; Doolittle, 1997; Hammond, 2002; Jacobs, 2001; Kong, 2002; Rasmussen, 2001 etc). However, it is essential to keep in mind that a literal interpretation of the scaffolding metaphor might lead to a narrow view of child-teacher interaction and an image of the child as a passive recipient of a teacher’s direct instruction. This falls far behind the Vygotskian idea of the ZPD and the Piagetian view of the child as an active self-explorer. A deeper understanding of the theoretical underpinning of the scaffolding metaphor will promote its creative and informed use by educators.
Understanding the Zone of Proximal Development:
In fact, Lev Vygotsky’s concept of the Zone of Proximal Development is an effective language teaching method. Concepts like scaffolding and apprenticeship, which are the by-products of Zone of Proximal Development, will help the learners to develop the level of their language competence. For example, the use of dialogues in classrooms will develop their discourse competence level. They can have student-student interactions as well as teacher- student interactions to do that. Another concept associated with the Zone of Proximal Development is collaborative learning and the learners can get opportunities to know more about the language features of the target language, and with collaborative learning they also learn to repair communication breakdowns. More over, with Zone of Proximal Development, as the learners are expected to follow either the teacher or another skilful learner, it is possible that the learners will become as competent either as the teacher or at least like the other skilful learner in the class. So, the Zone of Proximal Development could seriously be considered as an effective teaching method to teach foreign language.
The zone of proximal development is one of the best known concepts of Vygotskian socio-cultural psychology. Initially, it was elaborated for psychological testing in schools (Vygotsky, 1962). Vygotsky stated else where that testing should be based not only on the current level of a child’s achievements but also (and mainly) on the child’s potential development. The actual level of development does not sufficiently describe the amount of development made. Rather, it indicates what is already developed or achieved. The level of assisted performance indicates what a person can achieve in the near future, what is developing (potential level, “tomorrow of development”, what a person “can be”) (Vygotsky, 1978). Thus, the zone of proximal development is the distance between what a person can do with and without help. The term ‘proximal’ indicates that the assistance provided goes just slightly beyond the learner’s current competence complementing and building on their existing abilities (Cole & Cole, 2001).
The concept of the ZPD can be fully understood only in the context and as part of Vygotskian theory on the whole. “In fact, failure to see the connections between the zone and the theory as a whole means that it is difficult to differentiate Vygotsky’s concept from any instructional technique that systematically leads children, with the help of an adult, through a number of steps in the process of learning some set of skills” (Tudge, 1992, p. 156). Yaroshevky (1989) states that the idea of ZPD, manifests Vygotsky’s position on the issue of links between education and development. To arrive at this position Vygotsky had to overcome two types of reductionism – biological, which is the normal maturing of the physical brain and sociological, the appropriation by the child of society’s cultural assets (language, etc) thrust upon it by adults. It is within this latter area that Vygotsky placed his ZPD by arguing that rather than having education dragging behind in sociological development it must anticipate it – it must “run ahead as the adult helps the child to climb the next step”(Yaroshevsky, 1989, p.277). Vygotsky recognised that the distance between doing something independently and with the help of another indicated stages of development, which do not necessarily coincide in all people. In this way he regarded an instructors “teaching of a student not just as a source of information to be assimilated but as a lever with which the student’s thought, with its structural characteristics, is shifted from level to level”. (Yaroshevsky, 1989, p.283). As pointed out by Stone (1998), Vygotsky never used the scaffolding metaphor (as it wouldn’t make much sense to a Russian-speaking person). However, his notion of the ZPD was of a metaphorical nature itself (Paris & Cross, 1988, in Miller, 1993) and wasn’t elaborated in much detail. There “remain a number of questions about how the concept should be understood” (Wells, 1999, p. 313).
In the last three decades there were a number of significant publications which further
developed theoretical understanding of the ZPD in its connection to instruction (Chaiklin,
2003; Cole, 1996; Tharp & Gallimore, 1988; Tudge, 1999; Wells, 1999; Wertsch, 1985,
1998). Vygotsky has stated that consciousness is constructed through a subject’s interactions with the world. Development cannot be separated from its social and cultural context. This led to the idea that we can only understand mental processes if we understand the social interaction and tools and signs that mediate them. Wertsch (1985) believed that it was with this concept of mediation that Vygotsky made his most important and unique contribution to our understandings of children’s development. According to Vygotsky, the most important part of children’s psychological development is acquisition of the culture to which they belong. Everything that is manufactured and created by people in a culture, that is, all cultural products, is labelled an artefact and it is through these artefacts that the culture influences development. Included are all the things we use, from simple things such as a pen, spoon, or table, to the more complex things such as language, traditions, beliefs, arts, or science (Cole, 1997; Vygotsky, 1982).
Vygotsky states that social interactions are crucial for development from the very beginnings of a child’s life. He stresses that any higher mental function necessarily goes through an external social stage in its development before becoming an internal, truly mental function. Thus, the function is initially social and the process through which it becomes an internal function is known as internalisation (Vygotsky, 1962). The role of social mediation in human activity has been strongly emphasised by Engestrom (1996).
Thus, to understand the complexity of ZPD, it is necessary to take into account such concepts as tool mediation, social mediation of learning, internalisation, intersubjectivity and the active position of the child in learning. When we talk about working in the zone of proximal development, we look at the way that a child’s performance is mediated socially, that is, how shared understanding or intersubjectivity has been achieved. This includes the means by which the teacher reaches and meets the level of the child’s understanding and then leads the child from there to a higher, culturally mediated level of development. This leads to the idea of tool mediation, that is, to a consideration of what cultural tools have been provided for the child to appropriate and use on their own in their independent performance. It also includes a consideration of the conditions that have been created for the tools to be internalised. In other words, it addresses what techniques have been used to ensure the transformation of assisted performance into independent performance.
Summing up:
Thus, this article has presented an analysis of the concept of scaffolding in its connection to the Vygotskian concept of the Zone of Proximal Development. In spite of the obvious limitations of this concept of scaffolding compared to the notion of the ZPD, scaffolding remains increasingly popular among educators – researchers and practitioners. The term appears in the most modern educational psychology textbooks which cover the theory of Vygotsky. As the concept of scaffolding provides an easy to grasp justification of teacher intervention in learning, it can also be a hindrance rather than a help for children’s development depending on the context of its use. Further researches on a deeper understanding of the theoretical underpinning of the concept of scaffolding, will promote its creative and informed use by educators.
References:
Andy Clark (2003) Natural Born CyborgsOxfordUniversity Press;Oxford.
Berk, L. (2002) Child Development. 5th Ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Bodrova, E. & Leong, D. (1996) The Vygotskian Approach to Early Childhood.Columbus,Ohio: Merrill, an Imprint of Prentice Hall
Chaiklin, S. (2003) The Zone of Proximal Development in Vygotsky’s Analysis of Learning and Instruction. In Kozulin, A., Gindis, B., Ageyev, V. & Miller, S. (Eds.)
Cole, M. (1997) Cultural Psychology: A Once and Future Discipline.Cambridge: The
Belknap Press ofHarvardUniversity
Cole, M. & Cole, S. (2001) The Development of Children. 4th Ed.New York: Scientific American Books. Distributed by W.N. Freeman and Company
Lee, C. D. (2000). Signifying in the zone of proximal development. In C. D. Lee & P. Smagorinsky (Eds.), Vygotskian perspectives on literacy research: Constructing meaning through collaborative inquiry (pp. 191-225).Cambridge,UK:CambridgeUniversity Press.
Leont‘eV, D. A. (2003). Activity theory approach: Vygotsky in the present. In D. Robbins.
Mahn, H. (2003). Periods in child development: Vygotsky‘s perspective. In A. Kozulin, B. Gindis, V. Ageyev, & S. Miller (Eds.), Vygotsky’s educational theory in cultural context (pp. 119-137).Cambridge,UK:CambridgeUniversity Press.
Newman, F., & Holzman, L. (1993). Lev Vygotsky: Revolutionary scientist. London: Routledge.
Palincsar, A. S. (1998). Keeping the metaphor of scaffolding fresh—A response to C. Addison Stone‘s ―The metaphor of scaffolding: Its utility for the field of learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31, 370-373.
Peñuel, W. R., & Wertsch, J. V. (1995). Vygotsky, and identity formation: A sociocultural approach. Educational Psychologist, 30, 83-92.
Stone, C. A. (1993). What is missing in the metaphor of scaffolding? In E. A. Forman, N.
Tudge, J. (1992). Vygotsky, the zone of proximal development, and peer collaboration: Implications for classroom practice. In L. C. Moll (Ed.), Vygotsky and education:.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. The development of higher psychological processes. M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman (Eds.).Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversity Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky: Vol. 1. Problems of general psychology, including the volume Thinking and Speech. R. W. Reiber & A. S. Carton (Eds.).New York: Plenum.