Conflating ZPD and scaffolding

I think last class was really helpful with respect to decoding the actual difference between scaffolding and ZPD. For me, what popped up in my head was mainly associated with direct, top-down instruction and contrasting its effects with democratic classrooms towards achieving ZPD.  Starting from recruitment and ending at preventing frustration, the process of scaffolding is often conflated with the Zone of Proximal Development. Why is this? Well, the literature that scholars such as Freire and Faundez, and McLaren have put out about the perceptions of teachers as titular leaders may go to explain this. As Michael said, top-down processes, where more knowledgable others scaffold individuals to be better at something for which there are rigid expectations laid out is in our DNA! The scaffolding acts as a sort of facade to support someone and make them reach point B from point A by obtaining help. The nature of scaffolding is top-down, and it does not necessarily involve merging scientific and everyday concepts.
Scaffolding is like climbing a ladder while being held by someone, to reach from point A to B.

However, when we look at situations where instructors integrate concepts into the everyday lives of their students rather than letting them climb on a pre-made scaffold, the serendipity that the previous article we read comes to life. Students then have the ability to understand how they can use bing in the zone of proximal development to change their own environments with the concepts they have interiorized. This means that ZPD can adopt a Deweyian, no-experts approach where individuals with similar interests and desires are connected to one another, and can teach one another while giving one another freedom to be where they need to be after learning the concept at hand. Opposed to this, scaffolding takes a student where a teacher wants them to be. There is one ideal outcome, it is not variegated.

ZPD involves integrating information from our scientific and everyday concepts.

This made me go down a rabbit hole to think of how the idea of scaffolding is drilled into our minds because of the way cultural production has made education be today, with teachers lecturing students being the most common format. Over here, the chance to conflate the two concepts is even larger. Maybe we need some change to allow students to have autonomy to understand where they would like to make use of their knowledge, by carefully weighing out the concepts they have interiorized through spontaneous and non-spontaneous processes.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

ZPD vs. Scaffolding

Reading Wood et al.'s (1976) original article in which they introduce the metaphor of "scaffolding" really makes clear how different this is from ZPD.  There is no collaboration (perhaps a better word is co-operation) between the expert and the child... the expert guides the child's actions through controlling their immediate problem-solving experience. The model of scaffolding assumes that the expert is, in a sense, all-knowing in relation to the problem and is not an active participant in the actions of problem-solving.  Vygotsky's theory really seems to require a much more dynamic social interaction or series of social interactions. I also question to what extent a tutor operating in this way can engage with a child's everyday and scientific concepts in a meaningful way. Having read Smagorinsky's (2018) article once more, it is hard not to be convinced of his position. He confirmed with Anna Stetsenko at CUNY (who earned her PhD in Psychology at Mosco...
Read more

Can scientific concepts be taught as everyday concepts? My middle school physics teacher

Image
I began reading the chapter on the development of scientific concepts and it was interesting to see how Vygotsky differentiates between scientific and everyday concepts. Scientific concepts are simply learned or received in completed form (most commonly introduced as a term along with its definition) which in turn leads to understanding, learning, and comprehension. Whereas, everyday concepts do not have a formal definition, need not be universal but still helps us understand the functioning of the society and the world in which we live. When reflecting on all this, I was reminded of a middle school physics teacher I had (Sadly, we had her only for one year), who would not introduce new concepts as 'words' and definitions but instead, would begin class with a demonstration. One of which is depicted below. I so vividly remember her explaining inertia through this method:                                 ...
Read more

Learning from teaching vs Impactful experiences from child’s play

I remember very little about my past schooling and I am not sure if it is because I have this belief that we should spend little time reminiscing on the past and looking towards the future or is it that my classroom experiences were all “traditional” and are not stored in my active memory. The latter would seem applicable as I really do remember more key events from my “play times” but very few from the formal school settings. Lev S. Vygotsky states: “In play a child is always above his average age, above his daily behavior; in play it is as though he were a head taller than himself. As in the focus of a magnifying glass, play contains all developmental tendencies in a condensed form; in play it is as though the child were trying to jump above the level of his normal behavior” (1967, 16). The interpretation of the above quote can and has taken many forms but I do not agree that children learn more from play and interactions with their peers than in a formal environment. My ...
Read more