Question

Why did Vygotsky believe the “zone of proximal development” provides a better indication of students’ potential than conventional achievement tests? In the evaluation section of Chapter 10 of Crain, the author presents a Rousseauist critique of this concept. Discuss one (1) of the points the author makes. Please do not forgot CITE。

Chapter 10,

EVALUATION

Vygotsky’s work has generated great excitement because it suggests important ways to expand traditional developmental theory. Vygotsky recognized that intrinsic development, as studied by Gesell, Piaget, and others, is important; children do grow and learn from their inner maturational promptings and inventive spirit. But these forces alone, Vygotsky said, will not take children very far. To develop their minds fully, children also need the intellectual tools provided by their cultures—tools such as language, memory aids, numerical systems, writing, and scientific concepts. A major task of developmental the- ory is to understand how these tools are acquired.

But Vygotsky did more. He suggested we should study how intrinsic developmental and cultural forces interact and produce new transformations. It is the interaction between these conflicting forces that psychology must eventually understand.

Vygotsky’s suggestion is more impressive than it might initially sound. Many psychologists have called for eclectic approaches, saying we need to con- sider a variety of intrinsic and environmental variables when we study devel- opment. Such statements sound reasonable, but they overlook the legitimate conflicts between theorists who emphasize one force or the other. Piagetians believe the child grasps a concept on her own; environmentalists believe she learns it from others; how can both be right? There is a logical contradiction.

Vygotsky, as a dialectical theorist, offered a new perspective. According to dialectical theory, life is full of contradictions, and what we need to study is what happens when opposing forces meet. We need to see what happens when the growing child, trying to figure things out for herself, encounters adults who try to teach her things. These interactions, Vygotsky observed, are complex and largely hidden from view. Indeed, Vygotsky frequently used the metaphors of magnifying glasses, X-rays, and telescopes to convey the need to get a better view of them (Cole & Scribner, 1978, p. 12; Vygotsky, 1933, p. 102; 1935, p. 91). But although these interactions are difficult to study, they are very important.

At the same time, Vygotsky’s work suffers from one-sidedness. As James Wertsch (1985, pp. 40–49) points out, Vygotsky’s accounts about intrinsic or natural development—that which comes from the children themselves—were vague. Moreover, when it came to the interactions between these intrinsic forces and cultural forces, Vygotsky’s own research focused largely on cul- tural forces. For example, he studied the ways in which memory aids, writ- ing, and scientific concepts transform the child’s mind, but he didn’t examine the ways in which the child’s inner, spontaneous development might affect cultural forces. He gave us a good picture of how children internalize their cul- ture, but he told us little about how they might challenge or criticize their cul- ture, as an idealistic adolescent might do.

It is easy to forgive any one-sidedness in Vygotsky’s own research. A person can only do so much in his or her research career, and Vygotsky’s career was cut tragically short. Others can study the interactions between development and culture in fuller and more balanced ways.

The problem is that Vygotsky did not restrict himself to academic mat- ters. He also tried to shape educational practices, and his educational ideas are rapidly gaining popularity. In this realm, any one-sidedness becomes a more urgent matter, and we need to take a close look at it. In the following com- ments, I evaluate Vygotsky’s educational theory from a strongly develop- mental perspective—that of writers such as Rousseau, Montessori, and Piaget.

Vygotsky, compared to these developmentalists, was enthusiastic about school instruction. Instruction, he said, gives development a forward thrust. It “does not preclude development, but charts new paths for it” (1934, p. 152).

On a day-to-day basis, the teacher moves the child forward by working within the zone of proximal development. That is, the teacher does not just give children tasks that they can solve by themselves, but more difficult tasks—tasks they can solve only with some assistance. In this way, instruction stimulates capacities that are still in an embryonic state and pushes develop- ment forward.

At first glance, this kind of forward-looking instruction would seem desirable. But many developmental scholars have been wary of attempts to accelerate development. One danger is that we can push children forward before we give them the chance to develop their potentials fully at their pres- ent stage.

As an example, Vygotskians are attempting to promote goal-directed, self-regulated thinking in 3- to 5-year-olds. Left on their own, children at this age aren’t very focused or deliberate in their approach to tasks. They don’t screen out irrelevant information, and they don’t monitor their progress. Because these self-regulation skills will be essential for future school success, Vygotskian educators are trying to help children acquire them early on.

But this forward-looking instruction overlooks a potential strength of early childhood—an open-minded receptivity to the world in all its richness and variety. Young children love to wander about without any goal in mind, taking delight in whatever they find. They become enthralled by their discoveries—a shiny rock, a bird, a fish in a shallow brook. The world is full of enchantment. Adult poets, artists, and naturalists try to recapture this fresh openness and sense of wonder. Naturalist Cathy Johnson (1990) says she tries to reduce the narrow, goal-directed approach that we associate with cognitive maturity. Johnson says that if she wants to make serendipi- tous discoveries, she needs to allow herself to wander about and be open to whatever she encounters. Thus, the young child’s unfocused approach to the world has its benefits. If we stress goal-directed behavior too early, we curtail a valuable approach to life. (For more on the young child’s open- ness to the world, see Crain, 2003, and Gopnik, 2009.)

Vygotsky’s educational philosophy contains a second danger. Instruc- tion, Vygotsky said, propels the child forward because teachers and more capable peers give the child assistance. With the help of others, children can solve problems that are beyond them as individuals. Vygotsky was undoubt- edly correct about this, but he overlooked the extent to which outside assis- tance undermines the child’s independence. Developmentalists have repeatedly warned that when we give children assistance and direction, we encourage them to depend on others to know what and how to think, under- mining their ability to think for themselves.

Vygotsky, to be sure, usually recommended that we provide children only with slight amounts of assistance (such as a leading question or the first step in a solution). In such cases, the threat to the child’s independence does not seem to be too great. But on occasion, Vygotsky implied that we might give the child a great deal of assistance. He implied this, for example, when discussing his research on the concept of because.

Vygotsky found that 8-year-olds frequently use because correctly when speaking on theoretical topics learned in school before they do so with respect to their everyday concerns. For example, a girl might correctly say, “Planned economy in the USSR is possible because there is no private property” (Vygotsky, 1934, p. 191). The reason for the girl’s success, Vygotsky said, is that “the teacher, working with the child, has explained, supplied information, questioned, corrected, and made the pupil explain” (p. 191). So, when the girl responds alone, she speaks correctly because the teacher’s help is “invisibly present” (p. 191).

But to those who value independent thinking the girl’s correct response is no cause for celebration. When the teacher’s assistance is this pervasive, it is difficult to imagine that the girl is in any way thinking for herself. She is more like a toy puppet that is saying what it has been programmed to say.

Vygotsky (1935) had little patience with such objections. Many devel- opmentalists, he said, are so worried about the harmful effects of instruction that they constantly keep it at bay. They introduce instruction only when the child is “ready” for it, which usually means waiting for a capacity to fully mature before adding any relevant instruction. Instruction then becomes superfluous, doing nothing to move the child forward.

Actually, developmental educators in the tradition of Montessori, Dewey, and Piaget believe that children sometimes consolidate current capacities and sometimes move forward. These educators believe that children themselves tell us which tasks they need. They take a keen interest in such tasks and work on them with great energy and concentration. For example, Montessori found that children of 4 years or so become deeply engrossed in cutting vegetables and other practical activities, probably because these activities help them develop their perceptual-motor skills. The teacher’s job is to observe the child’s interests and inclinations and to provide activities that engage the child in a full way.

Teachers will, of course, be tempted to introduce materials that they know the child will need in the future. But education is most effective when it is geared to the child’s own interests and inclinations, not the teacher’s goals for the future. And in no case should the teacher present tasks that are so far ahead of the child that the child can solve them only with the teacher’s assis- tance. The teacher should introduce activities that stimulate, challenge, and engage the child, and then let the child solve them on his or her own.

Some of Vygotsky’s followers have narrowed the gap between Vygotsky and the strong developmentalists. They point to instruction that pays close attention to the child’s interest and enthusiasm as it leads the child through tasks (Griffin & Cole, 1984; Rogoff, 1998). These investigators do not want to squash the child’s creativity or participation in the learning process. In fact, in one essay, Vygotsky (1935, pp. 116–119) himself argued that instruction should arouse the child’s vital interests and correspond to the child’s natural way of learning.

One Vygotskian, Barbara Rogoff (2003, chap. 8), suggests that part of the problem is that Vygotsky focused on schools, where learning is predominantly adult directed. In many non-Western communities, children more frequently learn through participation in work-related activities and take more initiative with respect to the tasks. For example, young Mayan children decide on their own to make tortillas, with mothers giving them any assistance they need. In many communities, children are expected to initially learn adult work through observation, and “children take a leading role in managing their own atten- tion, motivation, and involvement in learning, through their observation and participation in ongoing mature activities” (Rogoff, 2003, p. 301).

Rogoff, then, shares the developmentalists’ emphasis on children tak- ing the initiative in their learning. But neither she nor other Vygotskians endorse a really strong developmental position. They particularly object to Piaget. As Bruner (1984, p. 96) has said, they oppose Piaget’s “image of human development as a lone venture for the child,” in which the child must figure everything out on her own. Instead, society has a responsibility to provide the child with the intellectual tools it has developed, and this means provid- ing her with instruction and assistance. If this assistance forces the child to lean on others for intellectual support, so be it. Children simply cannot dis- cover everything on their own. To develop their minds they need the help of adults and more capable peers.

In the last analysis, then, Vygotsky and the developmentalists disagree over the extent to which development can be entrusted to the child, to the child’s own interests and efforts. And this disagreement is likely to continue for a long time. But this may be a good thing. For disagreement can be part of an ongoing dialectic, a series of challenges and responses that keep both sides thinking and coming up with new ideas.

Answer 1

Lev Vygotsky, designed up a totally definitely exclusive reason of study on gaining knowledge of in immature folks. He bestowed the notion of intellectual item point of view in gaining knowledge of. The intellectual item reason of study underscores at the significance of the social foundation .

As indicated via way of means of Vygotsky, the everyday accomplishment exams are a helpless influence of a person's capacities. this may be seeing that he contended that development isn't partner diploma both or phenonmena and it can't be notion of in outright terms.

This method is thought to empower simple and innovative reasoning, and is beneficial in any order with a big humanistic or aesthetic sciences reason of study, as it poses inquiries as opposed to giving solutions, empowering banter, accordingly college students will find out for themselves the many-sided nature and trouble of precise problems. throughout this mode, college students similarly comprehend their personal predispositions, that may shading their comprehension. Coherently, similarly, understudies have to paintings to be regular of their solutions and on those lines, they broaden their comprehension. By developing college students' reasoning processes obvious, understudies could then be geared up to make use of the records as a metacognitive formative evaluation to screen, adjust, or refine their reactions for any viable predispositions, pre-originations or rate irregularities .

The rationalization, to a confined volume, is that numerous investigations have excluded value determinations of the kid's unfastened execution, and throughout this way they want given no chance to induce of understanding whether or not or now no longer the kid has disguised additives of the floor course. Be that as it could, the investigations that remembered value determinations of the influences of social association for resulting self reliant execution have yielded conflicting discoveries. To Illustrate, Kontos determined that youngsters connecting with their folks on a riddle project vie out no maximum famous on partner diploma succeeding venture over children working alone, however Freund and Baker, Gilat, and positioned that youngsters accomplished better on category and plan gaining knowledge of errands inside the wake of working with their mothers than as soon as running alone.

Thanks