I just want to attract attention to some limits of the notion of ZPD that
are evident in our ongoing discussion. Of course, there is an issue that
different people have different ideas about what is ZPD but I still think
that the ZPD discourse has some common threads and constraints.
1) ZPD is very dyadic concept especially in Vygotsky's original formulation
(however, Vygotsky seemed to have several very different formulation of ZPD
including his famous "ZPD by play" or by other activity rather than by
"more knowledgeable other". There are two actors: "more knowledgeable" and
"less knowledgeable." There have been attempts to broaden the ZPD concept
to include other people besides these two (e.g., Tharp and Gallimore) but
in my view it requires to radically redefine what is ZPD about.
2) ZPD is very interactionist concept. There is too much focus on what is
going on here and now, especially on communication aspect, at expense of a
"bigger"picture of sociocultural practices as well as instrumentality.
Again several neo-Vygotskian researchers try to overcome this problem by
focusing on different ZPD in different cultures.
3) ZPD stresses unilateral process of student's learning of existing
practices. Mike Cole and his colleagues try to address this issue by
focusing on open character of student's learning and stressing uncertainty
in providing guidance (ZPD for a teacher). when future is open for change
the quantitative notions like "more knowledgeable" and "less knowledgeable"
lose their meaning.
4) ZPD disregards individual learning and learning from activity. It is
pretty obvious that people not only learn from each other but from
themselves in the activities. This observation belongs to Vygotsky's
himself and was promoted by Leont'ev in his notion of "leading activities."
Tharp and Gallimore (1988) add three more "stages" to the traditional
notion of ZPD to explain learning: guidance provided by learner
him/herself, automatization of learned actions, and problimatization of
taken for granted.
5) ZPD suspiciously sounds similar to scaffolding (aka traditional Western
teaching) (maybe thanks to Bruner). Mike Cole and his colleagues, Barbara
Rogoff, and recently Marietta de Haan provide both good argumentation and
solid evidence that the notion of scaffolding is culturally situated in
Western practices (especially, in traditional schooling).
In sum, I think that the notion of ZPD is very useful for raising "really
good" issues such as, for example, how learning is grounded in a
sociocultural and historical contexts. But I doubt that this notion is
helpful in answering to these issues. I like much more the notion of
transformation of participation in a sociocultural activity developed by
Lave and Rogoff as more promising one.
What do you think?
Eugene
-----------------------------------------------
Eugene Matusov
Willard Hall Educational Bldg., Room 206G
Department of Educational Studies
University of Delaware
Newark, DE 19716-2920
Phone: (302) 831-1266
Fax: (302) 831-4445
e-mail: ematusov who-is-at udel.edu
http://www.ematusov.com
------------------------------------------------