2.7.1 Vygotsky’s theory of socio-cultural development. According to Lev Vygotsky (1978), learning and thinking are functions of formal instruction, culture and social interactions (Rowe & Wertsch, 2002), meaning that an individual’s thought patterns will always reflect his/her cultural and social practices. This opinion formed the basis of the development of Vygotsky’s theory of socio-cultural development.
Vygotsky further postulates that within cultures, there are cognitive devices and procedures (such as rules, writings, gestures, numbers etc.) through which people relate with the world around them and which shapes their mental functioning (Grader & Shields, 2004). According to Vygotsky, these cognitive devices and procedures, which he terms “psychological tools”, are introduced to children through social interactions with their parents and formal interactions at school and later on become internalized and automatically form the basis of the child’s cognitive processes (Snowman & McCown, 2013).
Furthermore, unlike most cognitive development theorists, such as Piaget, who assume that social development is aided by cognitive development, Vygotsky believed the opposite is the case, meaning that cognitive development is primarily aided and influenced by social interaction (Snowman & McCown, 2013). Hence, he believed that the rate of cognitive development differs among cultures, forming the basis for the study’s exploration of the effect of demographic variables on the LPCAT scores.
Vygotsky is also credited with the concept of the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD), which is described as the difference between the level of performance that an individual can attain without help and the level that can be attained with help from a more knowledgeable other (Vygotsky, 1978). The ZPD according to Vygotsky, houses the thinking patterns and abilities that are in the process of maturing, therefore, when assistance is offered herein,
33 | P a g e
cognitive development is enhanced (Snowman & McCown, 2013). Vygotsky (1978) therefore opined that rather than basing intelligence on an individual’s current knowledge, it is better to evaluate the ability to solve problems individually and with help.
Figure 3. The Zone of Proximal Development (Campbell, 2008).
Vygotsky (1978) further posited that at least two developmental levels must be determined to ascertain an individual’s level of mental development; the Actual Level of Development (ALD) and the Zonal Level of Proximal Development. At the first level (ALD) are the mental functions that are intact, following completion of developmental cycles, and it is that which is derived from testing (mental age), while the second level (ZPD) is the distance between the ADL and the potential development of a child. The ZPD accounts for abilities that are still in the process of developing. Vygotsky (1978) therefore posits that determining mental ages (ALD) only, rather than the ZPD would only give a summary of development, whereas the ZPD can play an important role in enhancing the effective diagnosis of educational problems, since information will be gathered, not only on how much learning has taking place up to the point in time, but also about how much can be learnt when relevant learning opportunities are provided.
According to Vygotsky’s theory therefore, the ZPD should be considered in the measurement of cognitive ability because;
we can take account not only of the cycles and maturation processes that have already been completed but also those processes that are currently in a state of formation, that are just beginning to mature and develop . . . allowing not only for what already has been achieved developmentally but also for what is in the course of maturing (Vygotsky 1978, p.87).
34 | P a g e
This concept of measuring the individual’s ZPD, in addition to the ALD, therefore forms the theoretical underpinning of the DA method and the current research, since it claims to attempt to guide the individual through their ZPD and evaluate their potential, by including a training within the assessment process; the test-train-retest approach (Murphy, 2002). The test-train-retest approach of DA also seems to be in line with Vygotsky’s theory of socio- cultural development, as dynamic assessments not only measure the individual’s ALD, which could have been influenced by their disadvantaged educational and socio-cultural backgrounds, but also their potential for learning, which is less influenced by previous learning experiences.
Relating the foregoing to the LPCAT, the pre-test aspect therefore signifies the ALD of the individual, as it provides information on the current level of development, while the post- test gives information on the potential for learning, after which training has been given. Therefore, accounting for Vygotsky’s ZPD.
2.7.2 Some criticisms against Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development. Some issues have been identified as limitations of Vygotsky’s concept of the ZPD. The first major criticism is that the identification or evaluation of an individual’s ZPD alone doesn’t give information about the individual’s learning ability, learning style and process nor current developmental level, compared to other individuals of the same age and motivational levels. Thus, only a limited developmental picture of the individual is derived (Chaiklin, 2003).
There is also the argument that there is a lack of a common metric scale to measure an individual’s ZPD. Although Vygotsky measured using age at times, critics argue that this is too general a metric as differences between different ages cannot be considered statistically equal nor generalised (Chaiklin, 2003). Another issue of concern is the generalizability and stability or otherwise, of an individual’s ZPD. This is in the sense that it is difficult to determine if an individual has the same ZPD across all domains, if the size of the ZPD changes or whether the improvement when help is given is short or long-termed (Chaiklin, 2003).
If these criticisms are related to dynamic assessment, then a major concern would be whether the improvement in the individual’s test score, following training or help, can be
35 | P a g e
generalised to other ability arrears that the current test doesn’t measure or whether the improvement is limited to only the current ability tested.