Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development and Scaffolding Theory

ZPD Theory

The zone of proximal development was developed by Soviet psychologist and social constructivist Lev Vygotsky (1896-1934).

Vygotsky introduced the ZPD concept to criticize psychometric testing, which only measured current abilities, not potential for development. He argued that assessment should be collaborative in revealing emerging skills.

The zone of proximal development (ZPD) 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, p. 86).

For teachers, the ZPD is the space between current teaching knowledge and potential new levels with assistance. Willingness to learn enables ZPD progression.

Vygotsky believed that when a student is in the zone of proximal development for a particular task, providing the appropriate assistance will give the student enough of a “boost” to achieve the task.

Key Features

• Dynamic and Changing: The ZPD is not a static space but constantly shifts as the child learns and develops new skills. As a child’s competence grows, their zone of proximal development also expands to encompass new challenges.
• Individualized: While children might share the same actual developmental level, their zones of proximal development can differ based on their experiences, prior knowledge, and learning styles.
• Not Just Procedures: Successful learning within the ZPD involves more than simply teaching a child procedures. Open-ended, problem-solving tasks, rather than those with predetermined solutions, tend to offer richer opportunities for learning within the ZPD.
• Importance of Collaboration: The ZPD highlights the value of collaboration, where each participant contributes to the task goal, fostering a shared understanding through interaction.

Internalization of Knowledge

Internalization involves transforming external, shared experiences into internal, mental functions. This transition often manifests as a progression from reliance on external cues and prompts from the expert to self-directed inner speech (Leontyev, 1981; Rogoff, 1990) 

Vygotsky proposed that a child’s movement through the zone of proximal development (ZPD) is characterized by a transition from social to individual, mirroring the broader social origins of higher mental functions.

Children gradually internalize the knowledge and skills acquired through social interaction within the ZPD. What starts as external guidance becomes internalized, transforming into independent capabilities.

Individuals internalize the dialogue and guidance previously provided by more knowledgeable others, using it to direct their own actions and thought processes. 

This internal dialogue is not simply a repetition of the expert’s words; it undergoes “syntactic and semantic abbreviation,” becoming a more streamlined and personalized tool for thought.

Internalization within the ZPD isn’t a passive transfer of information but a dynamic process where learners actively participate and engage in meaning-making.

This active engagement ensures that learners don’t simply replicate the expert’s actions but develop a deeper understanding of the underlying principles and strategies.

For example, a child learning to solve a problem with a parent’s guidance doesn’t simply memorize the solution but actively constructs their understanding through dialogue and interaction.

This process, often termed scaffolding, underscores the importance of providing support that aligns with the learner’s current capabilities and gradually diminishes as the learner gains mastery.

Scaffolding Theory

The ZPD has become synonymous with the term “scaffolding” in the literature. However, it is important to note that Vygotsky never used this term in his writing; it was introduced by Wood, Bruner, and Ross (1976).

Stone (1998) noted that Wood et al.’s initial description of scaffolding was practical rather than theoretical, and not explicitly connected to the zone of proximal development (ZPD). The link between scaffolding and ZPD was established later by researchers like Bruner (1985) and Cazden (1979).

Wood et al. (1976, p. 90) define scaffolding as a process “that enables a child or novice to solve a task or achieve a goal that would be beyond his unassisted efforts.”

As they note, scaffolds require the adult to “controlling those elements of the task that are initially beyond the learner’s capability, thus permitting him to concentrate upon and complete only those elements that are within his range of competence” (p. 90).

It is important to note that the terms cooperative learning, scaffolding, and guided learning all have the same meaning in the literature.

Scaffolding consists of the activities provided by the educator, or more competent peer, to support the student as he or she is led through the zone of proximal development.

This support can be provided in many different ways, such as modeling or asking questions, and is used across different subjects and age groups.

Scaffolding is a dynamic process that changes based on the student’s progress and the task at hand, so it will look different in different situations.

Intersubjectivity

Intersubjectivity refers to the shared understanding that emerges between a teacher and student when they work together on a task (Behrend, 1990).

This shared understanding is not simply about agreeing on the correct answer or solution; it’s about developing a mutual understanding of the task’s goals, processes, and challenges.

Intersubjectivity ensures that both the expert and learner are invested in the learning process. The expert needs to gauge the learner’s motivation and adjust the support accordingly, while the learner needs to understand the value of the task to be motivated to learn.

Intersubjectivity is crucial for effective scaffolding because it allows the teacher to tailor their support to the student’s individual needs and zone of proximal development (ZPD).

When a teacher and student have intersubjectivity, the teacher can better understand the student’s current level of understanding, anticipate difficulties, and provide appropriate guidance.

Intersubjectivity occurs when two people (e.g., the child and helper) start a task together with different levels of skill and understanding and end up with a shared understanding.

As each member of the dyad adjusts to the perspective of the other, the helper has to translate their own insights in a way that is within the child’s grasp, and the child develops a more complete understanding of the task.

They must work towards the same goal, otherwise there won’t be any collaboration. It is important that they negotiate, or compromise by always working for a shared view.

If you try to force someone to change their mind, you’ll just create conflict. It would be best to stay within the boundaries of the other person’s zone of proximal development.

Challenges related to maintaining intersubjectivity in scaffolding:

1. Peer scaffolding can sometimes lack the sensitivity and effectiveness of adult-child scaffolding. This is because peers might not have the same ability to assess and adjust their support to match their partner’s understanding.
2. Power imbalances, even in peer interactions, can hinder intersubjectivity. If one partner dominates the interaction, the opportunity for genuine shared understanding and co-construction of knowledge is diminished.
3. The increasing use of technology in scaffolding presents challenges to maintaining intersubjectivity. Static tools that don’t adapt to the learner’s understanding miss out on the critical aspects of ongoing diagnosis and calibrated support central to Vygotskian scaffolding.

Contingency

Contingency (or responsiveness) is paramount. This means the teacher continually assesses the learner’s understanding and adjusts their support accordingly.

It’s about providing the right amount of help at the right time.

For example, if a student is struggling, the teacher might offer more direct guidance, while a student demonstrating understanding might receive prompts encouraging independent problem-solving.

This dynamic adaptation ensures that learners are challenged without being overwhelmed.

A key aspect of contingent teaching is the teacher’s ability to recognize and respond to learner cues, both verbal and nonverbal.

This involves carefully attending to learners’ questions, hesitations, partial understandings, and even their emotional responses during the learning process.

By being sensitive to these cues, teachers can provide timely and appropriate support that helps learners overcome impasses and move forward in their understanding.

Enacting contingent teaching in real-world classroom settings demands a high degree of teacher expertise. Teachers must be able to simultaneously monitor the understanding of multiple learners, make rapid judgments about appropriate support, and flexibly adjust their instruction accordingly.

When teachers engage in contingent teaching, consistently adapting their support to the learner’s progress, fading of support occurs naturally as learners demonstrate increasing competence.

This gradual release of responsibility empowers learners to take greater ownership of their learning, ultimately leading to independent mastery of the task or concept.

Fading

Fading represents the gradual withdrawal of external support as the learner internalizes new skills and knowledge, prompting a shift from a reliance on the expert to self-directed learning.

Support is tapered off (i.e., withdrawn) as it becomes unnecessary, much as a scaffold is removed from a building during construction. The student will then be able to complete the task again independently.

As learners progress, the expert can strategically withdraw support, providing opportunities for independent practice and problem-solving.

Transfer of responsibility occurs alongside fading, as the student gradually takes on more responsibility for their learning.

Fading encourages learners to actively apply their burgeoning knowledge and skills, fostering a sense of self-efficacy and promoting the internalization of learned concepts.

The effectiveness of fading hinges on the learner’s active role in the learning process. Learners must actively participate in meaning-making through dialogue, negotiation, and problem-solving alongside the expert.

This active engagement helps learners develop “ownership” of the task and fosters deeper cognitive processing.

Furthermore, the concept of intersubjectivity, or shared understanding between the expert and learner, is vital for effective fading.

When learners and experts share a common understanding of the task’s goals and processes, it facilitates the gradual transfer of responsibility and promotes the internalization of knowledge and skills.

Example of Scaffolding

Vygotsky emphasized scaffolding, or providing support to learners to help them reach higher levels of understanding.

This can be mapped to progressing through Bloom’s taxonomy, where educators scaffold tasks from basic understanding to more complex analysis and creation.

For example, a teacher might start by providing information (Remembering) and then ask questions that require understanding.

As students become more proficient, tasks can be scaffolded to require application, analysis, evaluation, and creation.

Example: In teaching a concept like photosynthesis:

1. 1. Remembering: The teacher provides the basic definition.
   2. Understanding: Students explain the process in their own words.
   3. Application: They might conduct an experiment on plants.
   4. Analysis: Dive deeper into how different variables affect the process.
   5. Evaluation: Debate the most critical components of photosynthesis.
   6. Creation: Design an optimal environment for plant growth.

Each step can be scaffolded, starting with substantial teacher support and gradually releasing responsibility to the students as they climb Bloom’s taxonomy, guiding students from foundational knowledge to higher-order thinking skills.

Wood and Middleton (1975)

The following study provides empirical support for both the practice of scaffolding and the theory of ZPD.

Procedure: 4-year-old children had to use a set of blocks and pegs to build a 3D model shown in a picture. Building the model was too difficult a task for a 4-year-old child to complete alone.

Wood and Middleton observed how mothers interacted with their children to build the 3D model. The type of support included:

• General encouragement e.g., ‘now you have a go.’

• Specific instructions e.g., ‘get four big blocks.’

• Direct demonstration, e.g., showing the child how to place one block on another.

Results: No single strategy was best for helping the child to progress. Mothers whose assistance was most effective were those who varied their strategy according to how the child was doing.

When the child was doing well, they became less specific with their help. When the child started to struggle, they gave increasingly specific instructions until the child started to make progress again.

The study illustrates scaffolding and Vygotsky’s concept of the ZPD. Scaffolding (i.e., assistance) is most effective when the support is matched to the needs of the learner.

This puts them in a position to achieve success in an activity they would previously not have been able to do alone.

Collaborative ZPD

Collaborative ZPD challenges traditional interpretations of Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development (ZPD) that focus on the asymmetry between a more knowledgeable individual and a less knowledgeable learner.

Instead, a collaborative ZPD emphasizes the symmetrical nature of learning within peer interactions, where knowledge is co-constructed through mutual contributions and challenges, even among individuals with comparable expertise.

Collaborative ZPD represents a shift from viewing learning as an individual endeavor to recognizing it as a social practice (Tudge, 1992).

It emphasizes the importance of creating environments where learners, regardless of perceived expertise, can engage in symmetrical interactions, leverage language and other semiotic resources to co-construct knowledge, and benefit from the challenges inherent in collaborative dialogue. 

Moving beyond the “More Knowledgeable Other”:

Traditionally, the ZPD has been defined as the distance between a learner’s independent performance and their potential development with guidance from a more knowledgeable other, often an adult or a more capable peer.

However, this reinforces an individualistic and potentially asymmetrical perspective on learning.

Symmetry and shared understanding:

A collaborative ZPD recognizes that learning is not merely a transmission of knowledge from one individual to another but a process of co-construction where all participants contribute to and benefit from the interaction.

This challenges the notion of a fixed expert-novice dichotomy, acknowledging that even within peer groups, roles can be fluid, with individuals taking turns leading, questioning, and supporting each other.

The role of language and semiotic resources:

Language is crucial in establishing a collaborative ZPD. Through dialogue, learners articulate their thinking, challenge each other’s ideas, and negotiate shared understandings.

This dialogic process, characterized by clarification, elaboration, justification, and critique, is essential for promoting metacognitive awareness and regulation. 

Challenge as a catalyst for learning

A defining characteristic of a collaborative ZPD is the presence of challenge, not from an expert figure, but from within the interaction itself.

When peers challenge each other’s ideas, it compels them to clarify, elaborate, and justify their thinking, leading to deeper understanding and the identification of errors or fruitful strategies.

Conversely, the absence of such challenges can hinder the creation of a ZPD, as learners miss opportunities to refine their understanding through dialogue and mutual critique.

Educational Applications

Vygotsky believes the role of education is to provide children with experiences which are in their ZPD, thereby encouraging and advancing their individual learning (Berk, & Winsler, (1995).

“From a Vygotskian perspective, the teacher’s role is mediating the child’s learning activity as they share knowledge through social interaction” (Dixon-Krauss, 1996, p. 18).

1. Effective Scaffolding

Successful scaffolding often involves dialogue and interaction.

This back-and-forth communication allows for ongoing assessment of the learner’s understanding, adjustment of support, and eventual fading of scaffolding as the learner internalizes the skills and knowledge.

Guidance should not simplify the task but rather support the learner in tackling its inherent complexities. Scaffolding requires a delicate balance between providing support and fostering independence.

The ultimate goal of scaffolding is to empower the learner to take ownership of their learning process. This occurs when the learner internalizes the strategies and knowledge imparted through scaffolding, enabling them to tackle similar tasks or challenges autonomously.

Note: Scaffolding can be challenging due to its dynamic and context-dependent nature. It is not simply a set of techniques but an interactive process between the teacher and learner. The effectiveness of scaffolding lies in the interplay between the teacher’s expert guidance and the learner’s active participation in constructing their understanding.

1. Modeling: The expert initially demonstrates the desired behavior or strategy. This might involve thinking aloud while solving a problem, demonstrating a skill, or providing worked examples that learners can emulate.
2. Hints and Questions: Highlighting the essential aspects of a task helps learners focus on the most important information and processes. Adults can achieve this by emphasizing key concepts, pointing out patterns, or providing examples that illustrate the desired outcome.
3. Increased Responsibility: The learner is gradually encouraged to assume a more active role, eventually taking ownership of the learning process.
4. Gaining and maintaining the learner’s interest in the task: When learners understand the task’s purpose and find it meaningful, they are more likely to be motivated and engaged.
5. Control the child’s level of frustration: Adults should be attentive to the learner’s frustration levels and provide reassurance, adjust the task’s difficulty, or offer breaks when needed. The goal is to prevent discouragement and help learners persevere through challenges.

2. Dynamic Assessment

Dynamic assessment is an interactive approach to conducting assessments that focuses on the student’s ability to respond to intervention. 

While traditional tests primarily focus on what a learner can accomplish independently, dynamic assessment centers on determining the learner’s potential for growth with guidance.

Dynamic assessment is designed to reveal a student’s ZPD by showing what they can do with assistance, which is the essence of Vygotsky’s ZPD concept.

Types of dynamic assessment:

1. Learning Potential Assessment Device (LPAD): Developed by Feuerstein (1981), this model uses IQ-like tasks but incorporates mediation – intentional intervention by the examiner. The examiner observes responses, anticipates difficulties, and adjusts support accordingly.

   Instead of a simple score, the LPAD provides a cognitive map detailing the learner’s strengths, weaknesses, strategies, and responsiveness to mediation.

2. Test-Teach-Retest Format: The assessor first determines what the student can do independently, then provides mediated learning experiences, and finally reassesses to see what the student has learned.

   By comparing performance before and after intervention, dynamic assessment helps identify the student’s learning potential – a key aspect of their ZPD.

3. Microgenetic Analysis: This approach analyzes the process of learning as it unfolds over time, focusing on the subtle changes in a learner’s understanding during interactions.

   It involves frequent observations over a period of rapid change in a specific cognitive skill, allowing researchers to capture the moment-to-moment shifts in thinking and problem-solving strategies. 

Benefits of dynamic assessment:

• Provide a more accurate picture of a learner’s potential: By observing how learners respond to guidance, dynamic assessment can identify emerging abilities that traditional static tests might miss.

• Inform instruction: The insights gained from dynamic assessment can be directly applied to tailor teaching strategies to a learner’s specific needs. By understanding a learner’s ZPD, educators can adjust their level of support and select appropriate interventions to maximize learning.

• Promote self-regulation: The interactive nature of dynamic assessment can encourage learners to become more aware of their own thinking processes, leading to greater self-monitoring and self-correction. This focus on self-regulation aligns with Vygotsky’s emphasis on the internalization of higher mental functions through social interaction.

Practical limitations:

The dynamic and context-dependent nature of dynamic assessment poses challenges for its measurement and widespread implementation.

Unlike standardized tests with their rigid protocols, dynamic assessment requires considerable expertise and flexibility on the part of the assessor.

There’s no one-size-fits-all approach to dynamic assessment; its application must be tailored to the specific task, domain, and individual learner.

However, the rich insights gained from dynamic assessment, particularly its ability to inform instruction and unlock learning potential, make it a valuable tool for educators and researchers alike.

3. Collaborative Learning

Vygotsky’s theories also feed into current interest in collaborative learning, suggesting that group members should have different levels of ability so more advanced peers can help less advanced members operate within their zone of proximal development.

In mixed-ability groups, more advanced students can provide scaffolding for less advanced peers. This peer support helps less advanced students work within their ZPD, tackling tasks they couldn’t manage independently.

This arrangement benefits both the more and less advanced students. Less advanced students gain from peer explanations and modeling, while more advanced students reinforce their own understanding by teaching others.

When explaining concepts to others, more advanced students often need to reformulate their understanding, leading to deeper processing and learning.

Implementation strategies:

1. Thoughtful group composition: Carefully consider how to form groups to ensure a productive mix of abilities without creating too wide a gap.
2. Rotating roles: Assign and rotate specific roles within groups to ensure all students have opportunities to lead and support others.
3. Structured tasks: Design collaborative tasks that require input from all group members, encouraging full participation.
4. Teacher monitoring: While allowing peer scaffolding, monitor groups to ensure accurate information is being shared and all students are engaging appropriately.
5. Reflection and debriefing: Include time for students to reflect on both the content learned and the collaborative process, reinforcing the value of mixed-ability teamwork.

4. The Role of Transactive Discussion in Creating Collaborative ZPDs

Transactive discussion is not merely a helpful addition to collaborative learning environments but an essential component in creating collaborative ZPDs.

Rather than viewing learning as a one-sided transmission from a “more knowledgeable other,” the concept of collaborative ZPDs emphasizes the symmetrical and interactive nature of learning within peer groups, even among individuals with similar levels of expertise.

By fostering environments where learners are encouraged to justify their thinking, challenge each other’s ideas, clarify their understanding, and engage in reciprocal dialogue, educators can leverage the power of transactive discussion to promote deep, meaningful, and collaborative learning experiences.

Encouraging “Reasoned Dialogue”:

Teachers should structure activities that require students to engage in meaningful discussions, moving beyond simple agreement or disagreement to a place of justification and co-construction of ideas.

Frame these discussions as opportunities for collective problem-solving rather than debates to be won or lost.

Teachers should demonstrate how to ask probing questions that elicit deeper thinking, challenge assumptions, and encourage students to provide evidence for their claims.

1. Justification: Unveiling the “Why” and “How” of Thinking: Transactive discussions go beyond simply stating ideas or solutions. Participants are expected to provide reasons for their claims, explaining the “why” and “how” behind their thinking. This process of justification serves multiple purposes:

   • Making Thinking Visible: Justification makes learners’ thought processes explicit and observable, both to themselves and to others. This transparency is essential for identifying potential flaws in reasoning, revealing gaps in understanding, and uncovering different approaches to a problem.
   • Promoting Deeper Analysis: The act of justifying a claim often compels learners to examine their reasoning more closely. They may uncover hidden assumptions, identify weaknesses in their arguments, or discover new connections and insights that they hadn’t considered before.
   • Building a Foundation for Shared Understanding: When learners provide justifications for their ideas, it allows others to follow their line of reasoning, identify points of agreement or disagreement, and engage in a more meaningful exchange. This shared understanding is crucial for collaborative learning to occur.

2. Clarification: Striving for Precision and Shared Meaning: Clarity and precision are paramount in transactive discussions. Participants are encouraged to:

   • Articulate Ideas Clearly: Learners are expected to express their thoughts and ideas in a way that is understandable to others. This may involve using precise language, providing examples, and checking for understanding throughout the discussion.
   • Seek Clarification When Needed: Participants are expected to actively monitor their own understanding and to request clarification when they encounter ambiguity or vagueness. This could involve asking for definitions, requesting examples, or paraphrasing to ensure they’ve grasped the intended meaning.
   • Negotiate Shared Understanding: Clarification isn’t merely about achieving individual understanding; it’s about ensuring that all participants are working from a common ground, using terminology in a mutually agreed-upon way. This shared understanding forms the foundation for meaningful collaboration and knowledge building.

3. Mutual Engagement: Embracing Reciprocity and Diverse Perspectives: Transactive discussions are not about one person imparting knowledge to another; they’re about creating a space where all participants can contribute to and learn from each other. This mutual engagement is characterized by:

   • Reciprocity in Dialogue: In a transactive discussion, there’s a balanced exchange of ideas. Participants take turns leading, responding, questioning, and building on each other’s contributions. This reciprocal nature ensures that all voices are heard and that learning emerges from the interplay of diverse perspectives.
   • Respect for Different Viewpoints: Transactive discussions encourage learners to value and consider alternative viewpoints, even when those viewpoints differ from their own. This open-mindedness is essential for fostering critical thinking, promoting creativity, and arriving at more comprehensive and well-supported conclusions.
   • Joint Responsibility for Learning: In a transactive discussion, learning is a collective endeavor. Participants share responsibility for advancing the conversation, clarifying misunderstandings, and co-constructing knowledge. This shared responsibility fosters a sense of ownership and agency, leading to more engaged and motivated learners.

Benefits for Transactive discussion:

• Transactive discussion as a mechanism for co-construction of knowledge: Transactive discussion provides the framework for co-construction through social interaction and dialogue.

  For example, when learners engage in justification, they must articulate their reasoning, make their thinking visible to others, and open it up for scrutiny.

  This process of making thinking external, of explaining “how” and “why,” is crucial for moving learners beyond their current understandings and toward new insights.

• Transactive challenges as catalysts for metacognitive activity:  In collaborative ZPDs, challenge doesn’t necessarily come from a more knowledgeable other but arises organically from the interaction itself.

  When learners engage in transactive discussion, they naturally challenge each other’s ideas, pushing for clarification, elaboration, and justification.

  This process of questioning and probing acts as a catalyst for metacognitive activity, prompting learners to reflect on their own thinking, identify potential errors, and refine their understanding.

  The absence of such challenges, conversely, can lead to unsuccessful collaboration, as learners miss out on opportunities to deepen their understanding through dialogue and mutual critique.

• Creating a shared conceptual space: Transactive discussion plays a crucial role in establishing a shared understanding in collaborative problem-solving.

  Through clarification and elaboration, learners ensure they are working from a common ground, that they have a shared understanding of the problem, and that they are using terminology in a mutually agreed-upon way.

  This shared conceptual space is essential for meaningful collaboration, as it allows learners to build on each other’s ideas, identify and address misunderstandings, and work together toward a solution.

• Moving beyond individual limitations: The concept of a collaborative ZPD recognizes that individuals, even those with similar levels of expertise, can achieve more together than they can alone. Transactive discussion provides the mechanism for this collective advancement.

  By pooling their knowledge, challenging each other’s assumptions, and engaging in joint problem-solving, learners can push past their individual limitations and reach new levels of understanding that would not be possible in isolation.

  This is not merely a matter of one learner providing support to another but a truly reciprocal process, with all participants contributing to and benefiting from the interaction.

5. Inquiry-Based Learning

Inquiry-based learning is an educational approach where students drive their own learning through questions, research, and problem-solving.

Inquiry-based learning is typically more structured and guided, whereas discovery learning often involves less teacher intervention.

In this method, learners explore topics or issues by posing questions, investigating, drawing conclusions, and reflecting on their findings.

Teachers act as facilitators, guiding students through the inquiry process rather than directly providing information.

This approach emphasizes critical thinking, evidence-based reasoning, and the development of research skills.

Practical challenges:

One significant challenge lies in effectively supporting students as they navigate the complexities of the inquiry process.

Students often require support in managing the multiple processes involved in inquiry, making sense of their work, and articulating their findings.

Students may struggle with process management, sense-making, and articulation in inquiry-based learning.

Another challenge is ensuring that students internalize the skills and knowledge acquired through inquiry-based learning. The ultimate goal of scaffolding is to guide students towards independent learning, enabling them to apply learned skills in novel situations.

Implementing inquiry-based learning environments:

Implementing inquiry-based learning environments requires thoughtful planning and organization.

Teachers should create flexible physical spaces that encourage collaboration and provide access to diverse resources.

The curriculum needs to be designed around essential questions, allowing for multiple paths of inquiry.

Educators must prepare open-ended questions and scaffolding strategies to guide students while developing their research and critical thinking skills.

Technology integration is crucial for research, collaboration, and presentation of findings. Assessment should focus on both process and product, incorporating peer and self-evaluation.

Fostering a classroom culture that embraces risk-taking and values student voice is important. Time management is key, allowing for extended inquiry periods and reflection. Involving parents and community members can enrich the learning experience.

Finally, continuous reflection and refinement of practices ensure the ongoing effectiveness of the inquiry-based approach.

6. Integrating Scaffolding and Discovery Learning

Scaffolding and discovery learning represent distinct but potentially complementary approaches to teaching and learning.

• Scaffolding: Providing temporary support to students as they learn new skills or concepts.
• Discovery Learning: Encouraging students to explore and construct knowledge independently through inquiry and experimentation.

In contrast to the explicitly guided nature of scaffolding, discovery learning emphasizes learner-driven exploration and construction of knowledge through active engagement with the learning environment.

In discovery learning, learners are encouraged to experiment, solve problems, and draw connections between prior knowledge and new experiences, fostering deeper understanding and independent thinking skills.

Even in learner-centered discovery environments, carefully structured scaffolding can support learners’ exploration and knowledge construction.

Teachers can provide scaffolding during discovery activities through open-ended questions, prompts that encourage reflection, and the introduction of tools and resources that support learners’ investigations.

Open-ended Questions

• Encourage deeper thinking without leading to specific answers
• Examples:
  • “What patterns do you notice?”
  • “How might this apply to other situations?”
  • “What would happen if we changed this variable?”

Prompts for Reflection

• Guide students to think about their learning process
• Examples:
  • “What strategy did you use to solve this problem?”
  • “How does this new information relate to what you already knew?”
  • “What surprised you about your findings?”

Research Evidence

Freund (1990) wanted to investigate if children learn more effectively via Piaget’s concept of discovery learning or guided learning via the ZPD.

She asked a group of children between the ages of three and five years to help a puppet decide which furniture should be placed in the various rooms of a doll’s house. First, Freund assessed what each child already understood about the placement of furniture (as a baseline measure).

Next, each child worked on a similar task, either alone (re: discovery-based learning) or with their mother (re: scaffolding / guided learning). To assess what each child had learned, they were each given a more complex, furniture sorting task.

The study’s results showed that children assisted by their mothers performed better at furniture sorting than the children who worked independently.

Examples of ZPD

Example 1

Maria just entered college this semester and decided to take an introductory tennis course.  Her class spends each week learning and practicing a different shot.  Weeks go by, and they learn how to properly serve and hit a backhand.

During the week of learning the forehand, the instructor noticed that Maria was very frustrated because she kept hitting her forehand shots either into the net or far past the baseline.

He examines her preparation and swing.  He notices that her stance is perfect, she prepares early, she turns her torso appropriately, and she hits the ball at precisely the right height.

However, he notices that she is still gripping her racquet the same way she hits her backhand, so he goes over to her and shows her how to reposition her hand to hit a proper forehand, stressing that she should keep her index finger parallel to the racquet.

He models a good forehand for her, and then assists her in changing her grip. With a little practice, Maria’s forehand turns into a formidable weapon for her!

In this case, Maria was in the zone of proximal development for successfully hitting a forehand shot.  She was doing everything else correctly, but just needed a little coaching and scaffolding from a “More Knowledgeable Other” to help her succeed in this task.

When that assistance was given, she was able to achieve her goal. Provided with appropriate support at the right moments, students in classrooms will be able to achieve tasks that would otherwise be too difficult for them.

Example 2

Clinical psychology trainees at the Center for Children and Families at Florida International University are trained using approaches aligned with Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development (Hong & del Busto, 2020).

• Trainees are paired with more senior trainees (e.g., a first-year student with a second or third-year student) for co-therapy sessions. The senior trainee scaffolds the junior trainee’s learning by initially taking the lead and modeling skills, then gradually encouraging the junior trainee to become more independent in leading sessions as they demonstrate competence.
• This allows trainees to be involved in clinical care early in their training, with support and coaching from a more experienced peer. It meets them in their zone of proximal development – what they can do with guidance vs what they cannot yet do independently.
• Supervisors assign trainees different roles based on experience level. More senior trainees are given opportunities to develop supervisory skills by training junior peers. Junior trainees are supported in gaining clinical skills.
• The zone of proximal development concept is applied not just for patients in case conceptualization but also for trainees’ own professional development. Supervisors provide individualized support and scaffolding to help each trainee progress.

Example 3

Social interaction, aided by cultural tools, supports teachers in developing new aspects of their practice and identity. The interpersonal activity facilitates the transformation of their teaching expertise.

This demonstrates the value of mediation through the ZPD (Shabani et al., 2010).

• Collaborative peers and mentors: Observing and discussing teaching practices with experienced colleagues helps teachers learn new instructional approaches and strategies. This social exchange facilitates development within their ZPD.
• Action research: By studying their own teaching through classroom inquiry, teachers can gain insights into improving their methods. The self-reflection shifts their ZPD forward.
• Diaries: Writing reflectively about teaching experiences enables teachers to analyze their development and assumptions. This metacognition expands their ZPD.
• Technology: Using digital tools and platforms introduces teachers to innovative teaching techniques. The technology mediates new pedagogical capabilities.
• TESOL discourse: Engaging with academic research and theory opens teachers to alternative perspectives on teaching and learning. This discourse stretches their ZPD.
• Coursework: Formal professional development courses scaffold teachers’ learning of new knowledge and competencies. The instruction targets their ZPD.
• Student data: Responses and achievement metrics provide feedback to teachers on areas needing growth. This evidence shifts teachers’ self-perception.

•  

References

Behrend, S. D. (1990). Understanding processes in children’s collaborative problem solving. Unpublished manuscript. University of Pittsburgh.

Berk, L., & Winsler, A. (1995). Scaffolding children’s learning: Vygotsky and early childhood learning. Washington, DC: National Association for Education of Young Children.

Bruner, J. S. (1985). Vygotsky: A historical and conceptual perspective. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.), Culture, communication, and cognition: Vygotskian perspectives (pp. 21–34). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Cazden, C. (1979). Peekaboo as an instructional model: Discourse development at home and at school. Stanford Papers and Reports in Child Language Development, 17, 1–19. 

Cho, B.-Y., & Lee, H.-J. (2020). Exploring the use of scaffolding strategies in a virtual learning environment: A sociocultural perspective. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 58(3), 523-545.

Copple, C., & Bredekamp, S. (2009). Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood programs. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.

Dixon-Krauss, L. (1996). Vygotsky in the classroom. Mediated literacy instruction and assessment. White Plains, NY: Longman Publishers.

Eun, B. (2019). The zone of proximal development as an overarching concept: A framework for synthesizing Vygotsky’s theories. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 51(1), 18-30.

Goos, M., Galbraith, P., & Renshaw, P. (2002). Socially mediated metacognition: Creating collaborative zones of proximal development in small group problem solving. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 49, 193-223.

Fawcett, L. M., & Garton, A. F. (2005). The effect of peer collaboration on children’s problem-solving ability. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(2), 157-169.

Feuerstein, R., Rand, Y., & Hoffman, M. B. (1981). The dynamic assessment of retarded performers: The learning potential assessment device, theory, instruments and techniques. International Journal of Rehabilitation Research, 4(3), 465-466.

Freund, L. S. (1990). Maternal Regulation of Children’s Problem-solving behavior and Its Impact on Children’s Performance. Child Development, 61, 113-126.

Hong, N., & del Busto, C. T. (2020). Collaboration, scaffolding, and successive approximations: A developmental science approach to training in clinical psychology. Training and Education in Professional Psychology, 14(3), 228.

Kruger, A. C., & Tomasello, M. (1986). Transactive discussions with peers and adults. Developmental Psychology, 22(5), 681.

Leontyev, A. N. (1981). Problems of the development of the mind. Moscow: Progress Publishers

Mercer, N., & Littleton, K. (2007). Dialogue and the development of children’s thinking: A sociocultural approach. Routledge.

Puntambekar, S., & Hübscher, R. (2005). Tools for scaffolding students in a complex learning environment: What have we gained and what have we missed? Educational Psychologist, 40(1), 1-12.

Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Shabani, K., Khatib, M., & Ebadi, S. (2010). Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development: Instructional implications and teachers’ professional development. English Language Teaching, 3(4), 237-248.

Silver, D. (2011). Using the ‘Zone’Help Reach Every Learner. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 47(sup1), 28-31.

Stone, C. A. (1998). Should we salvage the scaffolding metaphor?. Journal of learning disabilities, 31(4), 409-413.

Stone, C. A. (1998). The metaphor of scaffolding: Its utility for the field of learning disabilities. Journal of learning disabilities, 31(4), 344-364.

Tudge, J. R. (1992). Processes and consequences of peer collaboration: A Vygotskian analysis. Child development, 63(6), 1364-1379.

van de Pol, J., Volman, M., & Beishuizen, J. (2010). Scaffolding in teacher-student interaction: A decade of research. Educational Psychology Review, 22(3), 271-296.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wass, R., & Golding, C. (2014). Sharpening a tool for teaching: the zone of proximal development. Teaching in Higher Education, 19(6), 671-684.

Wood, D., Bruner, J., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Child Psychiatry, 17, 89−100.

Wood, D., & Middleton, D. (1975). A study of assisted problem-solving. British Journal of Psychology, 66(2), 181−191.