Two heads are better than one:
Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development classroom application

A student given algebra equations for the first time is likely to already possess a decent comprehension of basic arithmetic as a foundation from which to build onto. Even so, algebra is likely to appear as foreign and indecipherable. A decent instructor will offer clues and hints so that student is able to fill the voids of understanding within those first algebraic equations. By combining the previous experience of the student with the assisting expertise of the instructor, the aspiring student is able to master a new concept. The Russian developmentalist, Lev Vygotsky, emphasized the social contexts of learning and the construction of knowledge through social interaction (Santrock, 2014). Vygotsky’s concept of the Zone of proximal development (ZPD) is defined as the gap between what a learner has already mastered, the actual level of development, and what he or she can achieve when provided with educational support, potential development (Coffey 2015). According to Vygotsky, the most effective method of instruction is aimed not at what a student can do independently or that which they already comprehend, but at the student’s ZPD. Vygotsky’s ZPD theory has drastically altered our approach to education in the classroom setting. Classroom tools developed and implemented along the lines of Vygotsky’s ZPD, such as Scaffolding, group projects, and encouraging private speech have proved largely beneficial over independent assessment alone. In construction terms, scaffolding refers the assembled structures placed adjacent or alongside a building project. They stretch from the building’s foundation at the ground level to the building’s highest floor. Scaffolding as an educational tool utilized in the classroom draws its name due to similarities of intended purpose, except it’s used to construct knowledge versus sky scrapers. The scaffolding approach in the classroom is directly derived from the ZPD theory in that scaffolding aims at gap of knowledge yet to be constructed (McKenzie 2000). Via scaffolding, the instructor or teacher is able to provide an organized structure with pre-set parameters from which the students can construct or learn new concepts. Effective scaffolding technique calls for clear and concise instruction that provides the tools and guidelines necessary. Explanation of purpose behind a given concept is also crucial; once a purpose is made clear, student is more likely understand the possible relevance. Effective scaffolding also provides “walkways” or guidelines to keep students on task versus allowing them to wander over the edge into oblivion or inactivity. Similar to the blueprints of what a constructed building should look like at completion, scaffolded lessons provide examples of quality work done by previous students (McKenzie 2000). By showing such examples, students have a clear picture of what they are building or working towards. This method suggests using a level of support that changes based on mastery level of the student; in other words, just enough that the student is able to complete the task. Perhaps a little closer the core concept of social interaction as an engine for learning and cognitive development in Vygotsky’s ZPD theory is the utilization of group projects. The focus described just previous was that of the instructor as a facilitator of learning in scaffolding, however, students also learn from their peers. Every student is unique with their own set of experiences, learning styles, intellectual aptitude, and background knowledge. Combining small numbers of students to work together on group projects allow the students to gain possession of the knowledge that they might not have grasped as quickly on their own. In this dynamic, the slightly more skilled students or peers become teachers in their own right. The benefits of peer to peer learning can prove beneficial to cognitive development, let alone whatever happens to be the assigned topic of study to the group. There was a time, not so long ago, that students were expected to remain absolutely quiet in the classroom unless they had been called upon by the instructor answer a question. Social interaction’s role in learning, with some due credit to Vygotsky, has in large part shifted the view of having a completely quiet classroom of students; student’s are now encouraged to interact amongst their peers about their given topic. The low volume course relevant conversations encouraged by many instructors correlates with intent behind using group activities to spur learning. While the assistance of an instructor or slightly more skilled peer can be helpful, so can internal or private speech. Talking to oneself externally during the preschool years and internally during the early elementary years is an important aspect of problem solving (Santrock 2014). Encouraging internal speech can be beneficial towards self-regulation, ability to communicate well with others, and, critical thinking. To Vygotsky, private speech represents an early transition toward becoming more socially communicative and that those that use it more often are more competent versus those that do not (Santrock 2014). Even when considering the utilization of tools and techniques like scaffolding, group projects, and the encouragement of private speech, there are still hold outs in the educational world. Vygotsky would definitely not approve of the strong focus placed on standardized tests as the preferred assessment tool. Standardized tests are not tailored to the individual’s learning style; instead they served as a one-size fits all. Imagine being given an algebraic equation for the first time, then being instructed to complete the equation without any assistance. Independent assessment alone is not always the best assessment tool. For quite some time, if a student failed to complete a task independently it was generally accepted as a truthful picture of their mental development. More recently, there is a grown sentiment that perceives the ZPD and the zone of actual development as almost one in the same. That information that could be considered part of a child’s ZPD, today, will be their actual zone of development tomorrow (Vygotsky 1978). That is to say, that tasks performed and completed successfully with the assistance of such tools as scaffolding or group projects might be a truer indication of mental development versus an independent assessment, i.e. a state sponsored proficiency test required to move on to the next grade. If what a student can do with assistance is indeed a better indication of competence, standardized tests should go the way of the Dodo bird. One could only hope that in the future, there will be a shift away such standardized tests. Had Vygotsky never came along and published his ideas on ZPD, the classroom environment might have not underwent the massive shift that it has in the last 80 years or so. While independent assessment certainly has an important role in proving what the individual is capable, it is but one way to learn and assess a student or child’s progress. Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal development has changed how teachers engage their students; it is through the utilization of educational tools like scaffolding, group projects, and the encouragement of private speech that teachers have found new and better ways to enrich the education they provide.

Words Cited

Coffey, H. (n.d.). Scaffolding. Retrieved April 21, 2015, from http://www.learnnc.org/lp/pages/5074
McKenzie, J. (2000). Beyond technology: Questioning, research and the information literate school. Bellingham, WA: FNO Pess.
Santrock, J. (2014). Physical and Cognitive Development in Early Childhood. In Essentials of life-span development (3rd ed., pp. 144-145). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Interaction between Learning and Development. In Readings on the development of children (2nd ed., pp. 79-91). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.