ZPD and Scaffolding

When recalling a time I learned something because it was in my ZPD, I came across a conceptual question concerning the ZPD. If the ZPD is understood as the vaguely defined area between what someone is able to do independently and what someone can do with the assistance of an MKO, it seems strange to ask whether a particular thing that one has learned was within their ZPD—are not nearly all things learned within one’s ZPD? Clearly, calculus will not be within the ZPD of a kindergartener, and would be impossible for the kindergartener to learn. More clearly stated, the question I am raising is this: is it possible for someone to learn something outside their ZPD? If the answer is no, then any and all instances of me learning something would have been within my ZPD. If the answer is yes, then to what extent can the ZPD be ignored in someone’s learning process?

Setting aside my minor confusion regarding the ZPD, I would say that the entirety of my mathematics education has been within my ZPD. Math is different from some other subjects in that it can be very clear to both teacher and student that the concepts necessarily and directly build on previous concepts. One cannot really understand addition without first understanding numbers and counting; one cannot understand calculus without first knowing areas and curves and the Cartesian coordinate system. In 1st grade, I had a pretty good grasp of counting numbers; however, I needed help to do formal addition operations. Besides understanding how to count, I was also ready in other aspects to learn addition. While true abstract thinking would not be possible until much later, at this stage, I did have a shallow understanding the use of symbols (numbers). I was cognitively and psychologically ready to learn addition. With help from the teacher, I learned addition within my ZPD.

Related to the concept of the ZPD is scaffolding. In my classroom observation through ATLAS this week, I watched a high school band class practice. While all the students were of a similar age (ranging from sophomores to seniors), it was clear that there was a wide range of skill levels in the band. High-skill students could perhaps be considered MKO peers, but in this classroom it did not seem that they functioned in this way—most of the interactions were between the teacher and students. In particular, I recall an incident where a trombone player was struggling to hit a certain series of notes. With his voice, the teacher sang the individual notes for the student to play, one at a time. After a couple of attempts, the student was able to play the notes properly. This small example is a great illustration of Vygotsky’s developmental theory. It was within the student’s ZPD to be able to play the correct notes, but he just needed a little assistance from the teacher in the form of scaffolding. Once the student learned how to play the notes, the scaffolding would be removed (that is, the teacher will not be singing the notes whenever the student plays them).

While I am not currently tutoring anyone, and thus not acting as an MKO in relation to anyone in particular, I was curious about the dynamic between players of different skill levels within the band. Certainly, the teacher often acts as the MKO in learning situations within the band classroom, but what about the high-skill students? It seems that whenever there is a trombone player who has more “knowledge” than another trombone player does, there is the potential for the former player to act as an MKO who helps the other player to grow in their respective ZPD. Perhaps these peer interactions should be encouraged in such a classroom.

Other observations

Based on my own experience and my classroom observations this week, I think there are many parts of Vygotsky’s theory that can be effectively applied in schools. Examples include scaffolding and the use of MKOs. But Vygotsky’s emphasis on the social and cultural factors seems to suggest that there is a significant part of learning that does not occur or cannot be found in schools. The acquisition of language, for example, is predicated on the student’s family or other social relationships—aspects of life in which teachers and schools have very little say. Is this disheartening to teachers? To what extent can educational problems be attributed to social relationships not related to school?

Obviously, a major goal of this course is to understand the applications of developmental theory in schools by educators; but if the cultural and societal factors are significant, how can parents apply developmental theory? How can older siblings, or anyone else in the relevant social roles, play a part? If our final end is education as a whole, and not just education pertaining to schools, I think that these are serious questions raised by Vygotsky’s theory.

• This topic was modified 4 years, 7 months ago by admin.