Ha.. Can I understand scaffolding as a proper help in ZPD?

I'm still trying to become clearer in understanding the difference between ZPD and scaffolding. Knowing that scaffolding is helpful especially when you would need some external help/stimuli/clues to connect or rely on for completing a certain work, I cannot help thinking in line with this concept of ZPD.

This is from a googling, btw;

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).

It feels like ZPD refers to the distance between the point where you are currently at, and where you are targeted/aiming to reach. If the existence of external help is needed to achieve/solve any task is the core criterion to define ZPD, can I understand scaffolding as procedural needs or elements that are helpful in the area of ZPD?

I know what they refer individually, are different, but I cannot keep thinking about the close connections they (may) have between them.

For instance, I try to learn statistics whenever I can, because it is one of the skill sets needed in my field. However, taking the course per se does not guarantee the acquisition of statistics knowledge or skills. I know the course content and the assignment has been designed to help the process, but it is not necessarily something that comes naturally. I may need to ask more questions to the instructor when I am solving problems (trying to use appropriate statistics in analyses and interpretations), but once I am receiving extra support, I would be able to handle it. Then, I guess whatever tasks that I can solve with a bit of help are in my ZPD; Here, I understand any external clues, hints, or help are scaffolding.

Isn't it??


In regard to effectiveness in instructional approach in helping students with grasping concepts better to the level they would not even need external help from teachers or peers, I was thinking about using more of project-based learning and I also thought if we incorporate the elements to intrigue students' interests as if it were a play, then it would bring more successful student outcomes. One of the reasons why students keep attending in class for so long (the mandatory school year is pretty long) but continuously fail to connect what they learn and what they can actually solve lies in too much direct instruction based on a unidirectional approach. If students learn things by doing as in a problem or project-based learning, I guess they would do the tasks equally well even with less help because the time spent in projects gives students more space and room to integrate and try their learned knowledge into practice/application, which itself can serve a function of scaffolding or stimulated help.







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