Zone of Proximal Development, Scaffolding and Teaching Practice

The construction of the zone of proximal development (ZPD) in the context of teaching activity is discussed in the paper.ZPD is compared and contrasted with the concept of scaffolding as introduced by Jerome Bruner. In the context of its potential for operationalisation in the form of teacher activities, the author examines key ZPD content given by Lev Vygotsky in terms of the complex interaction of spontaneous (everyday) concepts formed prior to the beginning of school education with scientific (theoretical) concepts formed during schooling. Vygotsky’s main idea about the leading role of scientific concepts in the restructuring of previously formed spontaneous concepts, as well as in the development of the child’s holistic thinking, leads to the conclusion that it is possible also to directly influence the spontaneous formation concepts change through the organisation of collectively distributed forms of educational activity and in a polylogue based the Socratic method. The leading psychological processes, which ensure the development of spontaneous concepts through their greater generalisation and awareness, comprise the processes of exteriorisation of spontaneous concepts, reflection and subsequent interiorisation of a collectively constructed concept. Therefore, the activities of teaching in constructing a ZPD include providing conditions for the distribution of individual operations in the course of a joint learning action and facilitating a polylogue to ensure the effective functioning of these psychological processes in the course of specifically organised learning activities.

In the context of child development, one of the most cited concepts in Lev Vygotsky’s cultural-historical psychology is the zone of proximal development (ZPD). ZPD continues to arouse research and practical interest due to its role in constructing a model of education that is aimed at developing a student’s thinking and personality rather than memorising and reproducing information.

1. Berlyand I.E. Uchebnaya deyatelnost v shkole razvivayushchego obucheniya i v shkole dialoga kultur [Educational activity in the school of developing education and in the school of dialogue of cultures]. Discourse, 1997, no. 3—4, p. 117. (In Russ.).
2. Bibler V.S. Dialog kultur I shkola 21 veka: idei, opyt, problemy [Dialogue of cultures and school of the XXI century]. In Bibler V.S. (ed.), School of dialogue of cultures: ideas, experience, problems. Kemerovo: ALEF, 1993. 414 p.
3. Vygotsky L.S. Razvitie zhiteyskikh i nauchnykh ponyatiy v shkolnom vozraste [The development of everyday and scientific concepts at school age (transcript of the report at the Leningrad Pedological Institute 05/20/1933). Mental development of children in the learning process]. Мoscow: Uchpedgis, 1935. (In Russ.).
4. Vygotsky L.S. Razvitiye nauchnikh ponyatiy u shkolnika [The development of scientific concepts at school age]. Мoscow: Preface. Shif., 1935. 80 p. (In Russ.).
5. Vygotsky L.S. Lektsii po psikhologii. Mishleniye I rech. [Lectures on psychology. Thought and Language], 2018. 459 p. (In Russ.).
6. Kurganov S.Yu. Experimentalnaya programma shkoli dialoga kultur I—IV klassi. shkola dialoga kultur. Idei, opyt, perspectivy [Experimental program of the school of the dialogue of cultures I-IV classes. School of the dialogue of cultures: Ideas, experience, problems: collection of articles.]. Bibler V.S. (ed.). Kemerovo: ALEF. 1993. 414 p. (In Russ.).
7. Rubtsov V.V., Margolis A.A., Shvedovskaya A.A., Ponomareva V.V. Naukometricheskiy analis kulturno-istoricheskogo napravleniya v nauchnikh publicatsiyakh. 2009-2019 years. [Scientometric analysis of the cultural and historical direction in scientific publications in 2009—2019]. Kulturno-istoricheskaya psikhologiya = Cultural-historical psychology. 2019. Vol. 15, no. 4, p. 119—132. DOI:10. 17759/ chp. 2019150412 (In Russ.).
8. Shif J.I. Razvitiye nauchnikh ponyatiy u shkolnika. [The development of scientific concepts in the student]. Мoscow, 1935. 80 p. (In Russ.).
9. Cazden C. Peekaboo as an Instructional Model: Discourse Development at Home and at School. Papers and Reports on Child Language Development, 1979, no. 17.
10. Lajoie S.P. Extending the scaffolding metaphor. Instructional Science, 2005. Vol. 33, no. 5—6, pp. 541—557.
11. Macrine S.L., Sabbatino E.D. Dynamic assessment and remediation approach: Using the DARA approach to assist struggling readers. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 2008. Vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 52—76.
12. Many J.E. An exhibition and analysis of verbal tapestries: Understanding how scaffolding is woven into the fabric of instructional conversations. Reading Research Quarterly, 2002. Vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 376—407.
13. Moll L.C. Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development: Rethinking its instructional implications. Infancia y Aprendisaje, 1990. Vol. 13, no. 51—52, pp. 157—168.
14. Palincsar A.S. The role of dialogue in providing scaffolded instruction. Educational Psychologist, 1986. Vol. 21, no. 1—2, pp. 73—98.
15. Pea R.D. The social and technological dimensions of scaffolding and related theoretical concepts for learning, education, and human activity. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2004. Vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 423—451.
16. Puntambekar S., Hubscher R. Tools for scaffolding students in a complex learning environment: What have we gained and what have we missed? Educational Psychologist, 2005. Vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 1—12.
17. Silliman E.R. et al. Scaffolds for learning to read in an inclusion classroom. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 2000. Vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 265—279.
18. Smagorinsky P. Is Instructional Scaffolding Actually Vygotskian, and Why Should It Matter to Literacy Teachers? Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 2018. Vol. 62, no. 3, pp. 253—257.
19. Smagorinsky P. Is Instructional Scaffolding Actually Vygotskian, and Why Should It Matter to Literacy Teachers? Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 2018. Vol. 62, no. 3, pp. 253—257.
20. Stone C.A. What is missing in the metaphor of scaffolding. Contexts for Learning: Sociocultural Dynamics in Children’s Development, 1993, pp. 169—183.
21. Swanson H.L., Lussier C.M. A selective synthesis of the experimental literature on dynamic assessment. Review of Educational Research, 2001. Vol. 71, no. 2, pp. 321—363.
22. Tabak I., Baumgartner E. The teacher as partner: Exploring participant structures, symmetry, and identity work in scaffolding. Cognition and Instruction, 2004. Vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 393—429.
23. Tharp R.G., Gallimore R. Rousing minds to life: Teaching, learning, and schooling in social context. Cambridge University Press, 1991.
24. Valsiner J., Van der Veer R. The encoding of distance: The concept of the zone of proximal development and its interpretations. Lev Vygotsky: Critical Assessments, 1999. Vol. 3, pp. 3—31.
25. Van de Pol J., Volman M., Beishuisen J. Scaffolding in teacher—student interaction: A decade of research. Educational Psychology Review, 2010. Vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 271—296.
26. Verenikina I. Understanding scaffolding and the ZPD in educational research, 2003.
27. Veresov N.N. ZBR and ZPD: Is there a difference? Кul’turno-istoricheskaya psikhologiya = Cultural-Historical Рsychology, 2017. Vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 23—36. DOI: 10. 17759/ chp. 2017130102 (In Russ).
28. Wood D., Bruner J.S., Ross G. The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 1976. Vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 89—100.