Short Reaction to Michael's Definitions of ZPD

I just want to express my first reaction to Michael's definition of ZPD. I think it is very cool to have such two layers of definition of a concept. If I picked up correctly by just hearing it, the first definition is ZPD as the "literate construct" that works for teaching scenarios. It's like what has been mostly discussed. With this definition, we may ask how to assess ZPD or how differences of each person's ZPD can be.

What is cool to me is to have the process-oriented definition of ZPD. It describes individual's creative process towards ZPD which involves intrapersonal processes to interpersonal and to intrapersonal processes.

I feel the important of understanding a concept in a process way more than a product way. The latter is actually conceptually easier due to measurement practice. However, to understand a concept in a process perspective is harder.  This recalled me the idea of random variable in statistics versus random process. Random variables are commonly used in our field in quantitative analysis however random processes are more advanced concept. It's like the function of function. I feel it's very interesting to have this way of theorization and look forward to seeing (and hopefully doing) more based on the process-oriented definition of ZPD (and more other construct).

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

ZPD vs. Scaffolding

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

Learning from teaching vs Impactful experiences from child’s play