On This Page:ToggleZPD TheoryScaffoldingCollaborative ZPDEducational ApplicationsExamples
On This Page:Toggle
On This Page:
The zone of proximal development (ZPD) is the difference between what a learner can do without help and what they can do with guidance and encouragement from a skilled partner.It’s the area where the most sensitive instruction or guidance should be given, allowing the child to develop skills they will then use on their own.It represents tasks beyond the learner’s current abilities but is attainable with the help and guidance of the more knowledgeable other (MKO). The ZPD is the range of tasks a person can’t complete independently but can accomplish with support.Thus, “proximal” refers to skills the learner is “close” to mastering.ZPD is the zone where instruction is the most beneficial, as it is when the task is just beyond the individual’s capabilities. Challenging tasks promote maximum cognitive growth.The ZPD bridges the gap between current and potential ability. What a learner does with help today, they will be able to do independently tomorrow. The ZPD defines the parameters of the learner’s immediate future development. (Image source:Dastranj & Helali, 2016)
The zone of proximal development (ZPD) is the difference between what a learner can do without help and what they can do with guidance and encouragement from a skilled partner.
It’s the area where the most sensitive instruction or guidance should be given, allowing the child to develop skills they will then use on their own.
It represents tasks beyond the learner’s current abilities but is attainable with the help and guidance of the more knowledgeable other (MKO). The ZPD is the range of tasks a person can’t complete independently but can accomplish with support.
Thus, “proximal” refers to skills the learner is “close” to mastering.
ZPD is the zone where instruction is the most beneficial, as it is when the task is just beyond the individual’s capabilities. Challenging tasks promote maximum cognitive growth.
The ZPD bridges the gap between current and potential ability. What a learner does with help today, they will be able to do independently tomorrow. The ZPD defines the parameters of the learner’s immediate future development. (Image source:Dastranj & Helali, 2016)
ZPD Theory
Vygotsky introduced the ZPD concept to criticize psychometric testing, which only measured current abilities, not potential for development. He argued that assessment should be collaborative in revealing emerging skills.
The zone of proximal development (ZPD) has been defined as:
For teachers, the ZPD is the space between current teaching knowledge and potential new levels with assistance. Willingness to learn enables ZPD progression.
Vygotsky believed that when a student is in the zone of proximal development for a particular task, providing the appropriate assistance will give the student enough of a “boost” to achieve the task.
Key Features
Internalization of Knowledge
Internalization involves transforming external, shared experiences into internal, mental functions.This transition often manifests as a progression from reliance on external cues and prompts from the expert to self-directed inner speech (Leontyev, 1981; Rogoff, 1990)
Children gradually internalize the knowledge and skills acquired through social interaction within the ZPD. What starts as external guidance becomes internalized, transforming into independent capabilities.
This internal dialogue is not simply a repetition of the expert’s words; it undergoes “syntactic and semantic abbreviation,” becoming a more streamlined and personalized tool for thought.
Internalization within the ZPD isn’t a passive transfer of information but a dynamic process where learners actively participate and engage in meaning-making.
This active engagement ensures that learners don’t simply replicate the expert’s actions but develop a deeper understanding of the underlying principles and strategies.
For example, a child learning to solve a problem with a parent’s guidance doesn’t simply memorize the solution but actively constructs their understanding through dialogue and interaction.
This process, often termed scaffolding, underscores the importance of providing support that aligns with the learner’s current capabilities and gradually diminishes as the learner gains mastery.
Scaffolding Theory
Wood et al. (1976, p. 90) define scaffolding as a process “that enables a child or novice to solve a task or achieve a goal that would be beyond his unassisted efforts.”
As they note, scaffolds require the adult to “controlling those elements of the task that are initially beyond the learner’s capability, thus permitting him to concentrate upon and complete only those elements that are within his range of competence” (p. 90).
It is important to note that the terms cooperative learning, scaffolding, and guided learning all have the same meaning in the literature.
This support can be provided in many different ways, such as modeling or asking questions, and is used across different subjects and age groups.
Scaffolding is a dynamic process that changes based on the student’s progress and the task at hand, so it will look different in different situations.
Intersubjectivity
Intersubjectivity refers to the shared understanding that emerges between a teacher and student when they work together on a task (Behrend, 1990).
This shared understanding is not simply about agreeing on the correct answer or solution; it’s about developing a mutual understanding of the task’s goals, processes, and challenges.
Intersubjectivity ensures that both the expert and learner are invested in the learning process.The expert needs to gauge the learner’s motivation and adjust the support accordingly, while the learner needs to understand the value of the task to be motivated to learn.
Intersubjectivity is crucial for effective scaffolding because it allows the teacher to tailor their support to the student’s individual needs and zone of proximal development (ZPD).
When a teacher and student have intersubjectivity, the teacher can better understand the student’s current level of understanding, anticipate difficulties, and provide appropriate guidance.
Intersubjectivity occurs when two people (e.g., the child and helper) start a task together with different levels of skill and understanding and end up with a shared understanding.
As each member of the dyad adjusts to the perspective of the other, the helper has to translate their own insights in a way that is within the child’s grasp, and the child develops a more complete understanding of the task.
If you try to force someone to change their mind, you’ll just create conflict. It would be best to stay within the boundaries of the other person’s zone of proximal development.
Contingency
Contingency (or responsiveness) is paramount.This means the teacher continually assesses the learner’s understanding and adjusts their support accordingly.
It’s about providing the right amount of help at the right time.
For example, if a student is struggling, the teacher might offer more direct guidance, while a student demonstrating understanding might receive prompts encouraging independent problem-solving.
This dynamic adaptation ensures that learners are challenged without being overwhelmed.
A key aspect of contingent teaching is the teacher’s ability to recognize and respond to learner cues, both verbal and nonverbal.
This involves carefully attending to learners’ questions, hesitations, partial understandings, and even their emotional responses during the learning process.
By being sensitive to these cues, teachers can provide timely and appropriate support that helps learners overcome impasses and move forward in their understanding.
Enacting contingent teaching in real-world classroom settings demands a high degree of teacher expertise. Teachers must be able to simultaneously monitor the understanding of multiple learners, make rapid judgments about appropriate support, and flexibly adjust their instruction accordingly.
When teachers engage in contingent teaching, consistently adapting their support to the learner’s progress, fading of support occurs naturally as learners demonstrate increasing competence.
This gradual release of responsibility empowers learners to take greater ownership of their learning, ultimately leading to independent mastery of the task or concept.
Fading
Fading represents the gradual withdrawal of external support as the learner internalizes new skills and knowledge, prompting a shift from a reliance on the expert to self-directed learning.
Support is tapered off (i.e., withdrawn) as it becomes unnecessary, much as a scaffold is removed from a building during construction. The student will then be able to complete the task again independently.
As learners progress, the expert can strategically withdraw support, providing opportunities for independent practice and problem-solving.
Transfer of responsibilityoccurs alongside fading, as the student gradually takes on more responsibility for their learning.
Fading encourages learners to actively apply their burgeoning knowledge and skills, fostering a sense of self-efficacy and promoting the internalization of learned concepts.
The effectiveness of fading hinges on the learner’s active role in the learning process.Learners must actively participate in meaning-making through dialogue, negotiation, and problem-solving alongside the expert.
This active engagement helps learners develop “ownership” of the task and fosters deeper cognitive processing.
Furthermore, the concept of intersubjectivity, or shared understanding between the expert and learner, is vital for effective fading.
When learners and experts share a common understanding of the task’s goals and processes, it facilitates the gradual transfer of responsibility and promotes the internalization of knowledge and skills.
Example of Scaffolding
Vygotsky emphasized scaffolding, or providing support to learners to help them reach higher levels of understanding.
This can be mapped to progressing throughBloom’s taxonomy, where educators scaffold tasks from basic understanding to more complex analysis and creation.
As students become more proficient, tasks can be scaffolded to require application, analysis, evaluation, and creation.
Each step can be scaffolded, starting with substantial teacher support and gradually releasing responsibility to the students as they climb Bloom’s taxonomy, guiding students from foundational knowledge to higher-order thinking skills.
Wood and Middleton (1975)
The following study provides empirical support for both the practice of scaffolding and the theory of ZPD.
Procedure: 4-year-old children had to use a set of blocks and pegs to build a 3D model shown in a picture. Building the model was too difficult a task for a 4-year-old child to complete alone.
Wood and Middleton observed how mothers interacted with their children to build the 3D model. The type of support included:
• General encouragement e.g., ‘now you have a go.’
• Specific instructions e.g., ‘get four big blocks.’
• Direct demonstration, e.g., showing the child how to place one block on another.
Results: No single strategy was best for helping the child to progress. Mothers whose assistance was most effective were those who varied their strategy according to how the child was doing.
When the child was doing well, they became less specific with their help. When the child started to struggle, they gave increasingly specific instructions until the child started to make progress again.
The study illustrates scaffolding and Vygotsky’s concept of the ZPD. Scaffolding (i.e., assistance) is most effective when the support is matched to the needs of the learner.
This puts them in a position to achieve success in an activity they would previously not have been able to do alone.
Collaborative ZPD
Collaborative ZPD challenges traditional interpretations of Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development (ZPD) that focus on the asymmetry between a more knowledgeable individual and a less knowledgeable learner.
Instead, a collaborative ZPD emphasizes the symmetrical nature of learning within peer interactions, where knowledge is co-constructed through mutual contributions and challenges, even among individuals with comparable expertise.
Collaborative ZPD represents a shift from viewing learning as an individual endeavor to recognizing it as a social practice (Tudge, 1992).
It emphasizes the importance of creating environments where learners, regardless of perceived expertise, can engage in symmetrical interactions, leverage language and other semiotic resources to co-construct knowledge, and benefit from the challenges inherent in collaborative dialogue.
Moving beyond the “More Knowledgeable Other”:
Traditionally, the ZPD has been defined as the distance between a learner’s independent performance and their potential development with guidance from a more knowledgeable other, often an adult or a more capable peer.
However, this reinforces an individualistic and potentially asymmetrical perspective on learning.
Symmetry and shared understanding:
A collaborative ZPD recognizes that learning is not merely a transmission of knowledge from one individual to another but a process of co-construction where all participants contribute to and benefit from the interaction.
This challenges the notion of a fixed expert-novice dichotomy, acknowledging that even within peer groups, roles can be fluid, with individuals taking turns leading, questioning, and supporting each other.
The role of language and semiotic resources:
Language is crucial in establishing a collaborative ZPD. Through dialogue, learners articulate their thinking, challenge each other’s ideas, and negotiate shared understandings.
Challenge as a catalyst for learning
A defining characteristic of a collaborative ZPD is the presence of challenge, not from an expert figure, but from within the interaction itself.
When peers challenge each other’s ideas, it compels them to clarify, elaborate, and justify their thinking, leading to deeper understanding and the identification of errors or fruitful strategies.
Conversely, the absence of such challenges can hinder the creation of a ZPD, as learners miss opportunities to refine their understanding through dialogue and mutual critique.
Educational Applications
“From a Vygotskian perspective, the teacher’s role is mediating the child’s learning activity as they share knowledge through social interaction” (Dixon-Krauss, 1996, p. 18).
1.Effective Scaffolding
Successful scaffolding often involves dialogue and interaction.
This back-and-forth communication allows for ongoing assessment of the learner’s understanding, adjustment of support, and eventual fading of scaffolding as the learner internalizes the skills and knowledge.
Guidance should not simplify the task but rather support the learner in tackling its inherent complexities. Scaffolding requires a delicate balance between providing support and fostering independence.
The ultimate goal of scaffolding is to empower the learner to take ownership of their learning process.This occurs when the learner internalizes the strategies and knowledge imparted through scaffolding, enabling them to tackle similar tasks or challenges autonomously.
Note: Scaffolding can be challenging due to its dynamic and context-dependent nature. It is not simply a set of techniques but an interactive process between the teacher and learner.The effectiveness of scaffolding lies in the interplay between the teacher’s expert guidance and the learner’s active participation in constructing their understanding.
2.Dynamic Assessment
Dynamic assessment is an interactive approach to conducting assessments that focuses on the student’s ability to respond to intervention.
While traditional tests primarily focus on what a learner can accomplish independently, dynamic assessment centers on determining the learner’s potential for growth with guidance.
Instead of a simple score, the LPAD provides a cognitive map detailing the learner’s strengths, weaknesses, strategies, and responsiveness to mediation.
Test-Teach-Retest Format: The assessor first determines what the student can do independently, then provides mediated learning experiences, and finally reassesses to see what the student has learned.
By comparing performance before and after intervention, dynamic assessment helps identify the student’s learning potential – a key aspect of their ZPD.
Microgenetic Analysis: This approach analyzes the process of learning as it unfolds over time, focusing on the subtle changes in a learner’s understanding during interactions.
It involves frequent observations over a period of rapid change in a specific cognitive skill, allowing researchers to capture the moment-to-moment shifts in thinking and problem-solving strategies.
Provide a more accurate picture of a learner’s potential:By observing how learners respond to guidance, dynamic assessment can identify emerging abilities that traditional static tests might miss.
Inform instruction:The insights gained from dynamic assessment can be directly applied to tailor teaching strategies to a learner’s specific needs. By understanding a learner’s ZPD, educators can adjust their level of support and select appropriate interventions to maximize learning.
Promote self-regulation:The interactive nature of dynamic assessment can encourage learners to become more aware of their own thinking processes, leading to greater self-monitoring and self-correction. This focus on self-regulation aligns with Vygotsky’s emphasis on the internalization of higher mental functions through social interaction.
The dynamic and context-dependent nature of dynamic assessment poses challenges for its measurement and widespread implementation.
Unlike standardized tests with their rigid protocols, dynamic assessment requires considerable expertise and flexibility on the part of the assessor.
There’s no one-size-fits-all approach to dynamic assessment; its application must be tailored to the specific task, domain, and individual learner.
However, the rich insights gained from dynamic assessment, particularly its ability to inform instruction and unlock learning potential, make it a valuable tool for educators and researchers alike.
3.Collaborative Learning
Vygotsky’s theories also feed into current interest in collaborative learning, suggesting that group members should have different levels of ability so more advanced peers can help less advanced members operate within their zone of proximal development.
In mixed-ability groups, more advanced students can provide scaffolding for less advanced peers. This peer support helps less advanced students work within their ZPD, tackling tasks they couldn’t manage independently.
When explaining concepts to others, more advanced students often need to reformulate their understanding, leading to deeper processing and learning.
4.The Role of Transactive Discussion in Creating Collaborative ZPDs
Transactive discussion is not merely a helpful addition to collaborative learning environments but an essential component in creating collaborative ZPDs.
Rather than viewing learning as a one-sided transmission from a “more knowledgeable other,” the concept of collaborative ZPDs emphasizes the symmetrical and interactive nature of learning within peer groups, even among individuals with similar levels of expertise.
By fostering environments where learners are encouraged to justify their thinking, challenge each other’s ideas, clarify their understanding, and engage in reciprocal dialogue, educators can leverage the power of transactive discussion to promote deep, meaningful, and collaborative learning experiences.
Teachers should structure activities that require students to engage in meaningful discussions, moving beyond simple agreement or disagreement to a place of justification and co-construction of ideas.
Frame these discussions as opportunities for collective problem-solving rather than debates to be won or lost.
Teachers should demonstrate how to ask probing questions that elicit deeper thinking, challenge assumptions, and encourage students to provide evidence for their claims.
Justification: Unveiling the “Why” and “How” of Thinking:Transactive discussions go beyond simply stating ideas or solutions. Participants are expected to provide reasons for their claims, explaining the “why” and “how” behind their thinking. This process of justification serves multiple purposes:
Clarification: Striving for Precision and Shared Meaning:Clarity and precision are paramount in transactive discussions. Participants are encouraged to:
Transactive discussion as a mechanism for co-construction of knowledge:Transactive discussion provides the framework for co-construction through social interaction and dialogue.
For example, when learners engage in justification, they must articulate their reasoning, make their thinking visible to others, and open it up for scrutiny.
This process of making thinking external, of explaining “how” and “why,” is crucial for moving learners beyond their current understandings and toward new insights.
Transactive challenges as catalysts for metacognitive activity:In collaborative ZPDs, challenge doesn’t necessarily come from a more knowledgeable other but arises organically from the interaction itself.
When learners engage in transactive discussion, they naturally challenge each other’s ideas, pushing for clarification, elaboration, and justification.
This process of questioning and probing acts as a catalyst for metacognitive activity, prompting learners to reflect on their own thinking, identify potential errors, and refine their understanding.
The absence of such challenges, conversely, can lead to unsuccessful collaboration, as learners miss out on opportunities to deepen their understanding through dialogue and mutual critique.
Creating a shared conceptual space:Transactive discussion plays a crucial role in establishing a shared understanding in collaborative problem-solving.
Through clarification and elaboration, learners ensure they are working from a common ground, that they have a shared understanding of the problem, and that they are using terminology in a mutually agreed-upon way.
This shared conceptual space is essential for meaningful collaboration, as it allows learners to build on each other’s ideas, identify and address misunderstandings, and work together toward a solution.
Moving beyond individual limitations:The concept of a collaborative ZPD recognizes that individuals, even those with similar levels of expertise, can achieve more together than they can alone. Transactive discussion provides the mechanism for this collective advancement.
By pooling their knowledge, challenging each other’s assumptions, and engaging in joint problem-solving, learners can push past their individual limitations and reach new levels of understanding that would not be possible in isolation.
This is not merely a matter of one learner providing support to another but a truly reciprocal process, with all participants contributing to and benefiting from the interaction.
5.Inquiry-Based Learning
Inquiry-based learning is an educational approach where students drive their own learning through questions, research, and problem-solving.
Inquiry-based learning is typically more structured and guided, whereas discovery learning often involves less teacher intervention.
Teachers act as facilitators, guiding students through the inquiry process rather than directly providing information.
This approach emphasizes critical thinking, evidence-based reasoning, and the development of research skills.
One significant challenge lies in effectively supporting students as they navigate the complexities of the inquiry process.
Students often require support in managing the multiple processes involved in inquiry, making sense of their work, and articulating their findings.
Students may struggle with process management, sense-making, and articulation in inquiry-based learning.
Another challenge is ensuring that students internalize the skills and knowledge acquired through inquiry-based learning. The ultimate goal of scaffolding is to guide students towards independent learning, enabling them to apply learned skills in novel situations.
Implementing inquiry-based learning environments requires thoughtful planning and organization.
Teachers should create flexible physical spaces that encourage collaboration and provide access to diverse resources.
The curriculum needs to be designed around essential questions, allowing for multiple paths of inquiry.
Educators must prepare open-ended questions and scaffolding strategies to guide students while developing their research and critical thinking skills.
Technology integration is crucial for research, collaboration, and presentation of findings. Assessment should focus on both process and product, incorporating peer and self-evaluation.
Fostering a classroom culture that embraces risk-taking and values student voice is important. Time management is key, allowing for extended inquiry periods and reflection. Involving parents and community members can enrich the learning experience.
Finally, continuous reflection and refinement of practices ensure the ongoing effectiveness of the inquiry-based approach.
6.Integrating Scaffolding and Discovery Learning
Scaffolding and discovery learning represent distinct but potentially complementary approaches to teaching and learning.
In contrast to the explicitly guided nature of scaffolding, discovery learning emphasizes learner-driven exploration and construction of knowledge through active engagement with the learning environment.
In discovery learning, learners are encouraged to experiment, solve problems, and draw connections between prior knowledge and new experiences, fostering deeper understanding and independent thinking skills.
Even in learner-centered discovery environments, carefully structured scaffolding can support learners’ exploration and knowledge construction.
Teachers can provide scaffolding during discovery activities through open-ended questions, prompts that encourage reflection, and the introduction of tools and resources that support learners’ investigations.
Freund (1990) wanted to investigate if children learn more effectively viaPiaget’s concept of discovery learningor guided learning via the ZPD.
She asked a group of children between the ages of three and five years to help a puppet decide which furniture should be placed in the various rooms of a doll’s house. First, Freund assessed what each child already understood about the placement of furniture (as a baseline measure).
Next, each child worked on a similar task, either alone (re: discovery-based learning) or with their mother (re: scaffolding / guided learning). To assess what each child had learned, they were each given a more complex, furniture sorting task.
Examples of ZPD
Example 1
During the week of learning the forehand, the instructor noticed that Maria was very frustrated because she kept hitting her forehand shots either into the net or far past the baseline.
He examines her preparation and swing. He notices that her stance is perfect, she prepares early, she turns her torso appropriately, and she hits the ball at precisely the right height.
However, he notices that she is still gripping her racquet the same way she hits her backhand, so he goes over to her and shows her how to reposition her hand to hit a proper forehand, stressing that she should keep her index finger parallel to the racquet.
He models a good forehand for her, and then assists her in changing her grip. With a little practice, Maria’s forehand turns into a formidable weapon for her!
In this case, Maria was in the zone of proximal development for successfully hitting a forehand shot. She was doing everything else correctly, but just needed a little coaching and scaffolding from a “More Knowledgeable Other” to help her succeed in this task.
When that assistance was given, she was able to achieve her goal. Provided with appropriate support at the right moments, students in classrooms will be able to achieve tasks that would otherwise be too difficult for them.
Example 2
Clinical psychology trainees at the Center for Children and Families at Florida International University are trained using approaches aligned with Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development (Hong & del Busto, 2020).
Example 3
This demonstrates the value of mediation through the ZPD (Shabani et al., 2010).
References
Behrend, S. D. (1990).Understanding processes in children’s collaborative problem solving.Unpublished manuscript. University of Pittsburgh.
Berk, L., & Winsler, A. (1995). Scaffolding children’s learning: Vygotsky and early childhood learning.Washington, DC: National Association for Education of Young Children.
Bruner, J. S. (1985). Vygotsky: A historical and conceptual perspective. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.), Culture, communication, and cognition: Vygotskian perspectives (pp. 21–34). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Cazden, C. (1979). Peekaboo as an instructional model: Discourse development at home and at school.Stanford Papers and Reports in Child Language Development,17, 1–19.
Cho, B.-Y., & Lee, H.-J. (2020). Exploring the use of scaffolding strategies in a virtual learning environment: A sociocultural perspective.Journal of Educational Computing Research, 58(3), 523-545.
Copple, C., & Bredekamp, S. (2009).Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood programs. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.
Dixon-Krauss, L. (1996).Vygotsky in the classroom. Mediated literacy instruction and assessment.White Plains, NY: Longman Publishers.
Eun, B. (2019). The zone of proximal development as an overarching concept: A framework for synthesizing Vygotsky’s theories.Educational Philosophy and Theory, 51(1), 18-30.
Goos, M., Galbraith, P., & Renshaw, P. (2002). Socially mediated metacognition: Creating collaborative zones of proximal development in small group problem solving.Educational Studies in Mathematics,49, 193-223.
Fawcett, L. M., & Garton, A. F. (2005). The effect of peer collaboration on children’s problem-solving ability.British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(2), 157-169.
Feuerstein, R., Rand, Y., & Hoffman, M. B. (1981). The dynamic assessment of retarded performers: The learning potential assessment device, theory, instruments and techniques.International Journal of Rehabilitation Research,4(3), 465-466.
Freund, L. S. (1990). Maternal Regulation of Children’s Problem-solving behavior and Its Impact on Children’s Performance.Child Development, 61, 113-126.
Hong, N., & del Busto, C. T. (2020). Collaboration, scaffolding, and successive approximations: A developmental science approach to training in clinical psychology.Training and Education in Professional Psychology,14(3), 228.
Kruger, A. C., & Tomasello, M. (1986). Transactive discussions with peers and adults.Developmental Psychology,22(5), 681.
Leontyev, A. N. (1981).Problems of the development of the mind.Moscow: Progress Publishers
Mercer, N., & Littleton, K. (2007).Dialogue and the development of children’s thinking: A sociocultural approach. Routledge.
Puntambekar, S., & Hübscher, R. (2005). Tools for scaffolding students in a complex learning environment: What have we gained and what have we missed?Educational Psychologist, 40(1), 1-12.
Rogoff, B. (1990).Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Shabani, K., Khatib, M., & Ebadi, S. (2010). Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development: Instructional implications and teachers’ professional development.English Language Teaching,3(4), 237-248.
Silver, D. (2011). Using the ‘Zone’Help Reach Every Learner.Kappa Delta Pi Record, 47(sup1), 28-31.
Stone, C. A. (1998). Should we salvage the scaffolding metaphor?.Journal of learning disabilities,31(4), 409-413.
Stone, C. A. (1998). The metaphor of scaffolding: Its utility for the field of learning disabilities.Journal of learning disabilities,31(4), 344-364.
Tudge, J. R. (1992). Processes and consequences of peer collaboration: A Vygotskian analysis.Child development,63(6), 1364-1379.
van de Pol, J., Volman, M., & Beishuizen, J. (2010). Scaffolding in teacher-student interaction: A decade of research.Educational Psychology Review, 22(3), 271-296.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978).Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wass, R., & Golding, C. (2014). Sharpening a tool for teaching: the zone of proximal development.Teaching in Higher Education,19(6), 671-684.
Wood, D., Bruner, J., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving.Journal of Child Psychology and Child Psychiatry, 17, 89−100.
Wood, D., & Middleton, D. (1975). A study of assisted problem-solving.British Journal of Psychology, 66(2), 181−191.
Further ReadingEducational implications of Vygotsky’s ZPDVygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development: Instructional Implications and Teachers” Professional DevelopmentScaffolds for Learning: The Key to Guided Instruction
Further Reading
Educational implications of Vygotsky’s ZPDVygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development: Instructional Implications and Teachers” Professional DevelopmentScaffolds for Learning: The Key to Guided Instruction
Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc
BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education
Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.
Saul McLeod, PhD
BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester
Saul McLeod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.
