Vygotsky: Zone of Proximal Development Madeline Oi and Mariana Esparza

Our Friend Vygotsky Born November 5, 1896, in Orsha, Russia 1913: Won the “jewish lottery” and was admitted to Moscow State University. 1917-1923: Taught literature and psychology in a school in Gomel, where he grew up. Notable works during this time were Verasak, A literary Journal The Psychology of Art Pedagogical Psychology, Course 1924: Moved to Moscow and began work at the Institute of Psychology.

Our Friend Vygotsky continued… 1924-1934: He worked with young scientists in the areas of psychology, defectology, and mental abnormality. Gave psychology course at Ukrainian Psychoneurological Academy. Invited to head the department of psychology in the All-Union Institute of Experimental medicine. 1934: Died of tuberculosis on June 11.

Political and historical theory Marx believed that by using tools humans are able to master their environment. He also believed that production is a social process Vygotsky intended to reorganize psychology on Marxist fundamentals. Dialectic movement: One process of development dialectically paves the way for the following and is transformed and crosses over to a new type of development Influence of Marxism “Vygotsky was the leading Marxist theoretician among us...in his hands, Marx’s methods of analysis did serve a vital role in shaping our course” (1979, p. 43)

Sociocultural Theory of Cognitive development Development is a social process Social influence: A child learns through the assistance of a skillful tutor. The child seeks to understand the instruction of the tutor in order to internalize the information. cooperative dialogue: interaction allows for cognitive development cultural influence (tools): schools allow children to guide their development. Instruction is valuable in learning. Social interaction leads to a change in the development of a child

The Zone of Proximal Development Actual Development- “the level of development of a child’s mental functions that has been established as a result of certain already completed developmental cycles” (Vygotsky, 85) The Zone of Proximal Development- “The distance between the actual development 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, 86)

Theory of the Zone of Proximal Development Vygotsky mentioned an American researcher, Dorothea McCarthy, who showed that among children between the ages 3 and 5 could do in group collaboration of what a child of a mental level of age 5-7 could do independently. Scaffolding- Support from a more capable peer or teacher to perform a task.

Erikson’s Stages

Aspects from Erik Erikson Industry vs. Inferiority A child wants to be shown in this stage- “I am what I learn” (Erikson, p. 87) In a study quoted in Identity and the Life Cycle by Erikson, Children were encouraged to do whatever they wanted in Grammar School, and a child said this “Teacher, must we do today what we want to do? But one must avoid the other extreme of conditioning children to do only prescribed duties. Find the middle ground in order to find the “just right” amount of direction. children do find learning what they can not think up on their own is interesting to them. They would like to feel this sense of participation in the adult world.

Main question of Interest Does the Zone of Proximal development come with certain degrees of frustration, interest, or motivation when completing a task? In other words... Does the level of frustration change when working on a task alone vs. with a more competent peer? Does interest in a task increase when working with extra assistance? Is there more motivation in a child working alone vs. with a more competent peer?

Data collection

Hypotheses Frustration level will be most high when working alone Interest level will be most high when working with the researches. Motivation level will be most high when working in a group.

Frustration Levels With Increasing Assistance

Graph of Frustration with Increasing Assistance Frustration seems to dissipate at the Group assistance level. Recalling on my observations they were happy and having fun working together, but still no correct results were produced for the problem.

Interest Levels with Increasing Assistance

Graph of Interest Levels with Increasing Assistance Student 5 seems to have lost interest when we were to instruct the students on how to do the lesson. Student 4 Maintained interest at a level of 5 throughout the research period. Student 3’s interest increased as more assistance was brought on Student 2’s interest seem to increase when moving from individual work to group work, but interest decreased a little when having to be instructed by the researchers. Overall, it seems that when in a group setting is when a majority of students interests are emerging or already at its peak.

Motivation Level with Increasing Assistance

Graph of Motivation with Increasing Assistance

Observations of the kids working individually Children asked questions from the very beginning Student #3 visibly frustrated The worksheets demonstrated that the children did not attempt to show work, they did not know how to do the problem so they did not even try

Observations for working in a group one girl came up to us and asked if she could change her previous answer from working independently because she believed the group answer was the correct one children didn’t ask us questions saw a lot of group discussion “collaboration with another person, either an adult or more competent peer, in the zone of proximal development thus leads to development in culturally appropriate ways” (Moll pg. 157)

Observation for extra assistance children followed all of our instructions some children needed extra individual help helped when Madeline drew diagrams they all wanted to make sure they got the right answer “If a child is having difficulty with a problem in arithmetic and the teacher solves it on the blackboard, the child may grasp the solution in an instant” (Mind in Society pg 88).

Conclusion of Hypothesis We were correct, frustration levels as a whole seemed to be most high when working alone on the worksheet. Interest levels seemed to vary as a whole, but they were most high when the children worked in a group and with researcher assistance. We were correct, as a whole motivation was most high when working in a group

Conclusions The role of the teacher is a very important factor in the development of a child. A child is able to increase their personal development through the help of a more capable peer. Social influences and interactions are vital for development. Learning in a social environment can reduce frustration and help the child to approach learning in a more positive way.

Nature Vs. Nurture nature Nurture

Limitations Small amount of Children Tested the kids during gym class Children didn’t understand the questionnaire (“what does frustration mean?”) Didn’t take the questionnaire seriously Could have had a math problem they were actually learning in class Could have used a different system for measuring frustration, influence, and motivation

Bibliography Works Cited Crain, William. "Vygotsky's Social- Historical Theory of Cognitive Development." Theories of Development. 6th ed. New York: Prentice Hall, n.d. 224-52. Print. Gallagher, Christina. "Lev Semyonovich Vygotsky." Psychology History. N.p., 1999. Web. 17 Nov. 2015. Moll, Luis C. Vygotsky and Education: Instructional Implications and Applications of Sociohistorical Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1990. Print. Vygotskiĭ, L. S., and Michael Cole. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1978. Print. Wertsch, James V. Vygotsky and the Social Formation of Mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 1985. Print.