Theories and issues of Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD)

Vygotsky (1978) defined the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) as follows:

It is 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. (p. 86)

Thus, the ZPD is a construct which depicts the learner’s ability to learn

(especially in the area of problem solving) with assistance so that subsequently s/he can do the task independently, without assistance. According to Vygotsky (1978), the learning process occurs in two stages within the ZPD framework. The first stage involves the interaction between people, mediated by cultural tools, both material - such as physical artefacts - and symbolic, the most important of which is language. The second stage involves interaction within the self (mental activity). Once the learner has internalised the knowledge through self-regulation and inner speech, s/he should be able to perform the task without the scaffolding (Van Lier, 1996) provided by experts.

In terms of applying the concept of ZPD in the area of assessment and feedback, the lecturers would be seen to be the experts, while the students would be the novices. Assessment and writing are perceived in the ZPD framework to be the activity in which the learners are involved, and the feedback is the form of scaffolding provided by the lecturers in assisting students’ learning and writing. Figure 2 on the following page illustrates the activity of assessment within the ZPD framework.

81

Tools and symbols

Subjects Object Outcome

Figure 2 : A basic model of the ZPD, [adapted from] Vygotsky (1978)

To explain the model above in detail, the symbols refer to language, in the form of both the students’ assignments and the lecturers’ written feedback. The tools refer to instruments used in the provision of feedback, for example, pens, pencils, and the marking criteria. The subject represents lecturers, while the object refers to the students’ written competence as evidenced in the submitted assignments, and the outcome refers to improved writing or other forms of learning to be achieved.

Bruner (1983) applied the ZPD concept described by Vygotsky within the education context and coined the term “scaffolding.” The term scaffolding means to provide support to learners to assist them to achieve a task which is beyond their current ability (Barab & Duffy, 2000). Scaffolding is a process whereby the expert (the teacher or the more capable peer) performs actions for the novice (the learner, or weaker student) to imitate and learn (Daniels, 2008). According to Van Lier (1996, p. 151), successful scaffolding involves six principles, which are (1) the principle of contextual support; (2) the principle of continuity; (3) the principle of intersubjectivity; (4) the principle of flow; (5) the principle of contingency; and (6) the principle of handover. The principle of contextual support refers to a mutual agreement, whereby all the participants involved in an activity feel challenged in the learning process, yet also feel supported. The principle of continuity means that varied and complex learning activities are introduced, and go through a series of repetitions within a specific time frame. During the process of learning, mutual engagement and support between the novice and the expert is secured through the principle of

intersubjectivity. During the learning activity, it is also essential to have natural and ongoing, flowing communication between the novice and the expert. Based on the novices’ responses towards the learning tasks and objectives, the expert modifies the process of scaffolding in a variety of ways, which might include

82

abandoning, changing or repeating the learning activity (the principle of contingency). Once the expert is assured that the novice’s self-confidence has increased so that no further guidance is needed, the expert needs to hand over the task completely to the learners.

The activity of providing formative feedback from the lecturers (experts) to assist students’ (novice) learning and writing may be seen as a form of scaffolding. Based on Van Lier’s (1996) principles of successful scaffolding, formative feedback is intended to provide learning support for students to assist them in their writing and the understanding of content knowledge based on different academic fields. Formative feedback should be provided continually, based on the various on-going assessments. According to the principle of intersubjectivity, the type of feedback ought to encourage students’ learning by providing motivation, and feedback should encourage students to be

responsible for their own error corrections. However, the student needs to comprehend the feedback provided by the expert in order to ensure effective learning. If lecturers perceive that their feedback is not effective –for instance, when the students continue to make the same errors highlighted by the lecturers ––then the lecturers should change the type of feedback they provide, in line with the principle of contingency. Once learning is achieved, lecturers would be confident that their students could correct their errors.

The extent to which the feedback provided by the lecturers in the present study can be considered to be effective scaffolding will be discussed in Chapter 5.

The concepts of ZPD and scaffolding in the relevant literature have raised several issues, among them: whether the ZPD can be applied to a group of learners as well as to individuals; the power relationships within a ZPD; and whether corrective feedback leads to productive outcomes within a ZPD.

Vygotsky (1978) emphasised that “for each discipline and each student the interacting curves of learning and development need to be plotted individually” (Kozulin, 1990, p. 171). Thus, Vygotsky’s (1978) statement illustrates the importance of guiding students individually in their learning. This presents problems for teachers working with groups of students, because each student

83

has different background knowledge, goals and motivations for learning (Newman, Griffin, & Cole, 1989). Each student’s language proficiency, which influences the understanding and interpretation of knowledge, is inevitably different from those other students within the same context. This implies that the teacher needs to adjust the scaffolding to cater for the fact that students’ core skills of knowledge will develop at different points in the ZPD, with different degrees of outcome.

Another issue is that Vygotsky (1978) did not discuss the impact of power relationships within a ZPD where the co-construction of knowledge and mutual learning are intended outcomes (Lantolf & Thorne, 2007). According to

Bronfenbrenner (1979), when learning among equal peers takes place, “if one member of a dyad undergoes developmental change, the other is also likely to do so” (p. 65). However, in a formal educational context, such as a university, the difference in status between the strong (lecturer) and the weak (student) is asymmetrical; thus any interaction is heavily biased towards the exercise of power by the lecturer, so that the extent to which mutual learning occurs is open to question.

From a sociocultural perspective, to the best of my knowledge, only two studies on written corrective feedback have been conducted from a ZPD perspective. Plonsky and Mills (2006) in the American context acknowledged the

mismatches of a Spanish lecturer’s WCF practices and the students’

expectations of feedback in four areas, namely (1) student discouragement in learning due to the WCF provided by the lecturer; (2) learner readiness to learn from their errors; (3) the importance of writing clearly, without ambiguity; and (4) writing accurately in terms of using correct grammar. In order to reduce the gaps mentioned, the Spanish lecturer provided additional scaffolding to guide students in applying his feedback in subsequent assignments. The outcome of this experimental study indicated that a gap existed, between the perceived importance of writing knowledgeably and using correct grammar. It seemed that after the scaffolding process, students appeared to be both more ready to learn and to be more accurate in their use of grammar. Although few changes were apparent in terms of the focus on meaning and student motivation, this study indicated the importance of open communication between lecturers and

84

students, in order to reduce mismatches in feedback that might compromise the learning process. Another important finding of this study was the need to train students to apply their lecturer’s feedback in practice. This study, however, was limited to the teaching of the Spanish language, and the methods used were based on an experimental design. In a more recent ZPD study, Rassaei (2014) reported an experimental study on 78 EFL Persian students on error corrective feedback. The findings suggested that students who received scaffolding feedback produced better results in terms of their grammar and oral

presentation skills and were able to retain the information. These students were also more autonomous in their learning, compared to the students who did not receive feedback.

From a socio-cultural perspective, one limitation of these studies is that they did not include the learners’ perceptions of assessment within a ZPD. This omission is typical of most studies of assessment. Also, to the best of my knowledge, no studies have been conducted to examine the approach of conducting written feedback in ZPDs involving second language learners. In summary, the ZPD focusses on the role of the human mediator in teacher- student interaction; thus the application of principles of the ZPD will assist in addressing the research questions (a), (b), (d) and (e) in Section 2.7