The Zone of Proximal Development

The Zone of Proximal Development

Vygotsky gives extensive treatment to the zona blizaishevo razvitiya twice in his published work: in an essay published in Mental Development of Children and the Process of Learning published posthumously in 1935 and translated as “Interaction between Learning and Development” in Mind in Society in 1978; and in Chapter 6, Part 4.4 of Thinking and Speech (1987) as part of his discussion of scientific concepts. The ZPD has become, in all likelihood, Vygotsky’s most widely referenced notion, serving as what DiPardo has described as a gratuitous “drive-by reference” for many who quote him (A. DiPardo, personal communication, October 23, 1995). The ZPD has seemed at times like all things to all people; Cazden (1996), in surveying modern citations to Vygotsky, has argued that most readings of his ideas are selective, that is, taken to fortify an author’s perspective rather than to delineate Vygotsky’s theories based on a careful and extensive reading of his work.

Vygotsky (1987) describes the ZPD as the difference “between the child’s actual level of development and the level of performance that he achieves in collaboration with the adult” (p. 209) during a pedagogical process. Vygotsky’s outline of the ZPD occurs solely within the context of a teaching-learning relationship between a pair of people, one more and one less knowledgeable. During this process “a central feature for the psychological study of instruction is the analysis of the child’s potential to raise himself to a higher intellectual level of development through collaboration to move from what he has to what he does not have through imitation” (p. 210).

Vygotsky defines imitation as a process in which “there must be some possibility of moving from what I can do to what I cannot”; he explicitly distances himself from imitation as “mechanical activity” (p. 209) which better characterizes the training of animals. Imitation, in contrast to the mimetic habituation involved in training, is part of what Vygotsky calls “instruction” in which one learns something “fundamentally new” (p. 210). Van der Veer and Valsiner (1991), relying on papers written by Vygotsky around the time he was working on Thinking and Speech (Vygotsky, 1933/1966, 1933/1984, 1935 [which includes “Interaction between Learning and Development” in Vygotsky, 1987]), describe this distinction as being “between insightful learning and trial-and-error learning. . . . children are capable of intellectual, insightful imitation. . . . teaching can evoke and promote their cognitive development” (pp. 344-345).

The zone described by Vygotsky (1987) is a set of parameters that defines what is accessible to the learner. Instruction should fall neither below the lower threshold nor above the upper threshold of the learner’s parameters: “Productive instruction can occur only within the limits of these two thresholds” (p. 211). Between these boundaries is a “sensitive period” or “optimal [period] for instruction” (p. 212). Here “The teacher must orient his work not on yesterday’s development in the child but on tomorrow’s” (p. 211; emphasis in original); that is, on the buds that produce the fruits of learning. Instruction should therefore be pitched to the upper threshold so that it leads development toward culturally valued knowledge and concepts.

This capacity for insightful imitation is illustrated by the role of play or experimentation as a way of helping to create a zone of proximal development, i.e., to push its upper threshold through “the active imitation of a model through play” (p. 345). Both instruction and play, then, can push and extend one’s threshold for learning toward something fundamentally new, revealing the dynamic, flexible, and progressive nature of the ZPD. The idea of learning something new is central to Vygotsky’s genetic (i.e., developmental) method. Vygotsky thus characterizes the ZPD as an individual learner’s bounded “zone of . . . intellectual potential” (p. 209). The goal of a teacher, adult, or more capable peer should be to help learners do more—although not infinitely more—and solve more difficult tasks than they can independently.

Vygotsky’s (1978, 1987) own postulation of the ZPD is actually quite limited compared to the more scopious interpretations developed by his theoretical progeny. How, then, to make the theoretical leap from Vygotsky’s dyadic pedagogical outline of the ZPD to such formulations as Moll’s (1990) idea that the ZPD connects the learner with broader social contexts that mediate intellectual potential toward cultural frameworks for thinking? Vygotsky (1987) hints at this broader perspective by acknowledging that “our research demonstrates that these sensitive periods are associated with the social processes involved in the development of the higher mental functions” (p. 213). Yet this hint does little to account for what appears to be a major shift by Moll and others. Moll, rather than seeing the ZPD as a learner’s zone of intellectual potential, views it as “social contexts . . . for mastery of and conscious awareness in the use of . . . cultural tools” (p. 12).

We use Zinchenko’s (1995) distinction between Vygotsky (1978, 1987) and Leont’ev’s (1981) activity theory to identify the theoretical bridge needed to adopt the broader postulation of the ZPD proposed by Moll (1990). While grounded in Vygotskian principles, activity theory emphasizes volitional, goal-directed, tool-mediated action in the development of consciousness and higher mental functions (Wertsch, 1981). Zinchenko describes Leont’ev’s departure from Vygotsky as follows: “[Vygotsky’s] Cultural-historical psychology was concerned with the problem of ideal mediators that exist between humans and between humans and the world. . . . The psychological theory of activity was concerned with the problem of real (i.e., concrete) tools and objects that humans . . . place between themselves and nature” (p. 44). The ideal mediators described by Zinchenko were words and their meaning, which Vygotsky regarded as the unit of analysis for understanding the development of human consciousness. Activity theory as outlined by Leont’ev was more concerned with human action in the world as mediated by various tools, including psychological tools such as speech but also including more tangible mediational means such as a pencil or loom. From a semiotic standpoint, in the development of consciousness, Vygotsky’s cultural-historical psychology foregrounds the sign, particularly the word which represents the conceptual or the ideal. Leont’ev’s activity theory foregrounds tool-mediated action and thus focuses on the material rather than the ideal. Neither sees the two as separate but rather emphasizes one to account for the other.

Leont’ev’s (1981) emphasis on tool-mediated action shifted the unit of analysis to action rather than the signs produced by action. “Consciousness,” he argued, “was not freed from the short rein of activity. Rather than giving rise to activity, consciousness was a secondary, though not second-rate, reflection of it” (p. 44). Leont’ev’s concern was thus with the ways in which social action produces changes in consciousness. This emphasis in turn requires attention to the cultural and historical ways in which social action has become patterned, habitual, and proleptic (i.e., assumed as natural; Cole, 1996) and to the particular tools—and ways of using tools—sanctioned in different settings.

Attending to the role of cultural tools and practices suggests that activity is intimately tied to the cultural settings in which social action occurs. Wertsch (1985) argues that the term “activity” refers to

a social institutionally defined setting [in which] the implicit assumptions . . . determine the selection of actions and their operational composition. The guiding and integrating force of these assumptions is what Leont’ev called the motive of an activity. For Leont’ev a motive is not a construct that can be understood in biological or even psychological terms. Rather, it is an aspect of a sociohistorically specific, institutionally defined setting. Among other things, the motive that is involved in a particular activity setting specifies what is to be maximized in that setting. By maximizing one goal, one set of behaviors, and the like over others, the motive also determines what will be given up if need be in order to accomplish something else. (p. 212)

The principles of activity theory have enabled current interpreters of Vygotsky to view the ZPD more in terms of settings than individual learners’ zones of potential. Leont’ev (1981) has provided the grounds for viewing the ZPD as distributed throughout a setting rather than merely circumscribing an individual’s intellectual potential (cf. Salomon, 1993). Moll (1990; cf. Engeström, 1987) describes the social system that constitutes the ZPD: “[W]e should think of the zone as a characteristic not solely of the child or of the teaching but of the child engaged in collaborative activity within specific social environments. The focus is on the social system within which we hope children learn, with the understanding that this social system is mutually and actively created by teachers and students” (p. 11; emphasis in original).

For Moll and Newman et al. (cf. Newman, Griffin, & Cole, 1989; Author 2, 1995) the ZPD is a tool-mediated setting in which activity is directed toward cultural goals. The focus for these theorists is on the social systems in which human development takes place, making the cultural-historical setting of learning itself the zone of proximal development. Activity theory thus enables an explanation of learning without the mediation of explicit instruction; learning can be explained through the learner’s engagement with other cultural mediators.

We use activity theory’s more distributed notion of the ZPD in this study, in which we focus on Leigh’s appropriation of the pedagogical tool of the five-paragraph theme for teaching her eighth-grade students how to write. She does so within several ZPDs: the teacher education program from which she earned her credentials, her middle school and its various idiocultures (her departmental colleagues, her middle school team, and her state-supported entry-year support committee), and the policy context that mandated a state writing test predicated on students’ production of five-paragraph themes. She entered these social contexts with a unique interpsychological system formed through her prior experiences with school and an ethic of care that affected her disposition to gravitate toward the five-paragraph theme as a principle instructional tool.

References

Adler, J. C. (1959). The metatextbook factor in writing. The English Journal, 48, 511-517.

Anderson, R. D., & Wigington, R. (1962). An aid in the teaching of writing. The English Journal, 51, 568-571.

Applebee, A. N. (1984). Contexts for learning to write: Studies of secondary school instruction.Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Applebee, A. N. (1986). Problems in process approaches: Toward a reconceptualization of process instruction. In A. R. Petrosky & D. Bartholomae (Eds.), The teaching of writing. 85th yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (pp. 95-113). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays by M. M. Bakhtin. (M. Holquist, Ed.; C. Emerson & M. Holquist, Trans.). Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.

Bazerman, C. (1994). Where is the classroom? In A. Freedman & P. Medway (Eds.), Learning and teaching genre (pp. 25-30). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Beach, R., & Marshall, J. (1991). Teaching literature in the secondary school. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Calkins, L. M. (1986). The art of teaching writing. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Cazden, C. B. (1988). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Cazden, C. B. (1996). Selective traditions: Readings of Vygotsky in writing pedagogy. In D. Hicks (Ed.), Discourse, learning, and schooling (pp. 165-185). New York: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Coe, R. M. (1994). Teaching genre as process. In A. Freedman & P. Medway (Eds.), Learning and teaching genre (pp. 157-169). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Cole, M. (1996). Cultural psychology: A once and future discipline. Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press.

Darling, C. (n.d.). The five-paragraph essay. In Guide to grammar and writing.

Dean, D. M. (2000). Muddying boundaries: Mixing genres with five paragraphs. English Journal, 90(1),53-56.

Devitt, A. J. (1997). Genre as language standard. In W. Bishop & H. Ostrom (Eds.), Genre and writing: Issues, arguments, alternatives (pp. 45-55). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Emig, J. (1971). The composing processes of twelfth graders(NCTE research report no. 13). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research.Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit.

Freedman, A., & Medway, P. (1994). Introduction: New views of genre and their implications for education. In A. Freedman & P. Medway (Eds.), Learning and teaching genre (pp. 1-22). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Gallimore, R., & Tharp, R. (1990). Teaching mind in society: Teaching, schooling, and literate discourse. In L. C. Moll (Ed.), Vygotsky and education: Instructional implications and applications of sociohistorical psychology (pp. 175-205). New York: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Goldblatt, E. (1995). ‘Round my way: Authority and double-consciousness in three urban high school writers. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.

Grossman, P. L. (1990). The making of a teacher: Teacher knowledge and teacher education. New York: Teachers College Press.

Grossman, P. L., Valencia, S. W., Evans, K., Thompson, C., Martin, S., & Place, N. (2000). Transitions into teaching: Learning to teach writing in teacher education and beyond. Journal of Literacy Research, 32, 631-662.

Hillocks, G. (1986). Research on written composition: New directions for teaching. Urbana, IL: National Conference on Research in English and Educational ResourcesInformationCenter.

Hillocks, G. (1995). Teaching writing as reflective practice. New York: Teachers College Press.

Hillocks, G. (1999). Ways of thinking, ways of teaching. New York: Teachers College Press.

Hillocks, G. (2002). The testing trap: How state writingassessments control
learning. New York: Teachers College Press.

Kennedy, M. N. (1998). Learning to teach writing: Does teacher education make a difference? New York: Teachers College Press.

Kirby, D., Liner, T., & Vinz, R. (1988). Inside/out: Developmental strategies for teaching writing. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Kohl, H. R. (1971). The open classroom: A practical guide to a new way of teaching.New York: Vintage Books.

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

Lewis, S. (2001). Ten years of puzzling about audience awareness. Clearing House, 74(4), 191-197.

Lott, J. G. (1996, March). High schools are from Mars, colleges from Greece: Why we exist eons apart. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Conference on College Composition and Communication, Milwaukee. ED 402 613.

Lortie, D. C. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Marshall, J. D. (1984). Schooling and the composing process. In A. N. Applebee, Contexts for learning to write: Studies of secondary school instruction (pp. 103-119). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Miller, C. R. (1984). Genre as social action. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 70, 151-167.

Moll, L. C. (1990). Introduction. In L. C. Moll (Ed.), Vygotsky and education: Instructional implications and applications of sociohistorical psychology (pp. 1-27). New York: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Newman, D., Griffin, P., & Cole, M. (1989). The construction zone: Working for cognitive change in school. New York: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Nunnally, T. E. (1991). Breaking the five paragraph theme barrier. English Journal 80(1), 67-71.

Nystrand, M., Greene, S., & Wiemelt, J. (1993). Where did composition studies come from? An intellectual history. Written Communication, 10, 267-333.

Perrin, R. (2000). 10:00 and 2:00: A ten-paragraph defense of the five-paragraph theme. Teaching English in the Two-YearCollege, 27, 312-314.

Rosenwasser, D., & Stephen, J. (1997). Writing analytically. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace & Company.

Russell, D. (1997). Rethinking genre in school and society: An activity theory analysis. Written Communication 14, 504-554.

Rust, F. O. (1994). The first year of teaching: It’s not what they expected. Teaching and Teacher Education, 10, 205-217.

Salomon, G. (1993). Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations. New York: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.

Smyth, R. (1994). Renaissance mnemonics, poststructuralism, and the rhetoric of hypertext composition. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Florida.

Tindal, G., & Haladyna, T. M. (2002). Large-scale assessment programs for all students: Validity, technical adequacy, and implementation. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Tremmel, R. (2001). Seeking a balanced discipline: Writing teacher education in first-year composition and English education. English Education, 34, 6-30.

Tulviste, P. (1991). The cultural-historical development of verbal thinking. Commack, NY: Nova Science Publishers.

van der Veer, R., & Valsiner, J. (1991). Understanding Vygotsky: A quest for synthesis. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

Van Gilst, L., & Villalobos, J. (1996, March). The five-paragraph essay: Legacy or liability in English writing classrooms outside the U. S. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Conference on College Composition and Communication, Milwaukee. ED 401 537.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1933/1966). Igra i ee rol’v psikhicheskom razvitii rebenka. Voprosy Psikhologii, 62-76.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1933/1984). Problema vozrasta. In L. S. Vygotsky, Sobranie sochinenij. Tom 4. Detskaja psikhologija (pp. 244-268). Moscow: Pedagogika.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1935). Umstvennoe razvitie detej v processe obuchenija. Moscow-Leningrad: Uchpedgiz.

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). Thinking and speech. In L. S. Vygotsky, Collected works (vol. 1, pp. 39-285) (R. Rieber & A. Carton, Eds; N. Minick, Trans.). New York: Plenum.

Wallace, K. R. (1964). The primacy of substance and ideas in the teaching of practical discourse. The English Journal, 53(1), 1-9.

Warriner, J. E. & F. J. Griffith (1963). English grammar and composition. New York: Harcourt Brace and World.

Warriner, J. E. (1977). English grammar and composition. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Warriner, J. E. (1982). English grammar and composition. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Warriner, J. E. (1986). Warriner's English grammar and composition. Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Warriner, J. E. (1988). English composition and grammar. Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Wertsch, J. V. (Ed.) (1981). The concept of activity in Soviet psychology. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.

Wertsch, J. V. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press.

Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action.Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press.

Wesley, K. (2000). The ill effects of the five paragraph theme. English Journal, 90(1), 57-60.

Wideen, M., Mayer-Smith, J., & Moon, B. (1998). A critical analysis of the research on learning to teach: Making the case for an ecological perspective on inquiry. Review of Educational Research, 68, 130-178.

Wiley, M. (2000). The popularity of formulaic writing (and why we need to resist). English Journal, 90(1), 61-67.

Zeichner, K. M., & Gore, J. M. (1990). Teacher socialization. In W. R. Houston (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp.329-348). New York: Macmillan

Zinchenko, V. (1995). Cultural-historical psychology and the psychological theory of activity: Retrospect and prospect. In J. V. Wertsch, P. del Río, & A. Alvarez (Eds.), Sociocultural studies of mind (pp. 37-55). New York: CambridgeUniversity Press.