The ZPD and whole class teaching: Teacher-led and student-led interactional mediation of tasks

Abstract

Vygotsky's `zone of proximal development (ZPD)' has become associated with the individual `scaffolding' of learners. As a result, because teachers need to teach the whole class, many public school teachers have had to dismiss the concept as unworkable. Yet Vygotsky himself was chiefly concerned with public school teaching and firmly rejected the idea of a `pedagogical duet' between learner and teacher. He also dismissed the teacher who attempted to provide the ensemble of learning content by him or herself as a `rickshaw puller', arguing instead that a teacher should be a `tram driver', who organizes the social environment of learning. One way in which the teacher might do this is by mediating a learning task for a single learner or a group of learners, who then mediate the task for their classmates in group-work. We present evidence that in this situation the way in which learners mediate tasks differs from the way in which teachers do, and argue that this suggests learner-to-learner mediation is in important ways closer to what Vygotsky termed `internalization'. We believe that T-S and S-S interactional mediation do not create two different ZPDs but may instead lie within a single, whole class ZPD.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Askew, M. , Bliss, J. and McRae, S. 1995: Scaffolding in mathematics, science and technology. In Murphy, P. , Selinger, M. , Bourne J. and Briggs, M. , editors, Subject learning in the primary curriculum: Issues in English, Science and Mathematics. London and New York: Routledge in association with the Open University, 209—17.

Bakhurst, D. 1991: Consciousness and revolution in Soviet philosophy: From the Bosheviks to Evald Ilyenkov. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Chaiklin, S. 2003: The ZPD in Vygotsky's analysis of learning and instruction . In Kozulin, A. , Gindis, B. , Ageyev, V.S. and Miller, S.M. , editors, Vygotsky's educational theory in cultural context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 39—64.

Donato, R. 1994: Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In Lantolf, J.P. and Appel G. , editors, Vygotskian approaches to second language research. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. 33—56.

Fernandez, M. , Wegerif, R. , Mercer, N. and Rojas-Drummond, S. 2001: Reconceptualizing `scaffolding' and the ZPD in the context of symmetrical collaborative learning. Journal of Classroom Interaction 36(2): 40—54.

Gillen, J. 2000: Versions of Vygotsky. British Journal of Educational Studies 48(2): 183—98.

Goodman, Y.M. and Goodman, K.S. 1990: Vygotsky in a whole language perspective. In Moll, L.C. , editor, Vygotsky and education: Instructional implications and applications of socio-historical psychology . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 223—50.

Halliday, M.A.K. 2003: On language and linguistics. London and New York: Continuum.

Kinginger, C. 2002: Defining the ZPD in US foreign language education. Applied Linguistics 23(2): 240—62.

10.

Kramsch, C. 2002: Introduction: `How can we tell the dancer from the dance ?' In Kramsch, C. , editor, Language acquisition and language socialization: Ecological perspectives. London: Continuum.

11.

Lantolf, J.P. 2003: Intrapersonal communication and internalization in the second language classroom. In Kozulin, A. , Gindis, B. Ageyev, V.S. and Miller, S.M. , editors, Vygotsky's educational theory in cultural context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 349—70.

12.

Langford, P.E. 2005: Vygotsky's developmental and educational psychology. Hove and New York: Psychology Press.

13.

Mercer, N. and Fisher, E. 1997a: The importance of talk. In Wegerif, R. and Scrimshaw, P. , editors, Computers and talk in the primary classroom. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 13—21.

14.

—— 1997b: Scaffolding through talk. In Wegerif, R. and Scrimshaw, P. , editors, Computers and talk in the primary classroom. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 196—210.

15.

Nassaji, H. and Swain, M. 2000: A Vygotskian perspective on corrective feedback in L2 . Language Awareness 9: 34—51.

16.

Ohta, A.S. 2001: From acknowledgment to alignment: a longitudinal study of the development of expression of alignment by classroom learners of Japanese . In Kasper, G. and Rose, K. , editors, Pragmatics in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 103—20.

17.

Poehner, M.E. and Lantolf, J.P. 2005: Dynamic assessment in the language classroom. Language Teaching Research 9(3): 233—65.

18.

Swain, M. 2000: The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In Lantolf, J. , editor, Language learning and sociocultural theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 97—114.

19.

Swain, M. and Lapkin, S. 2000: Task-based second language learning: The uses of the first language. Language Teaching Research 4(3): 251—74.

20.

Valsiner, J. and. van der Veer, R. 2000: The social mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

21.

van der Veer, R. and Valsiner, J. 1993: Understanding Vygotsky: A quest for synthesis. Oxford and Cambridge MA: Blackwell .

22.

Vygotsky, L.S. 1978: Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

23.

—— 1993. Collected works, volume 2. London, Boston, Dordrecht, and Moscow: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.

24.

—— 1997a: Collected works, volume 3. New York and London: Plenum.

25.

—— 1997b: Collected works, volume 4. New York and London: Plenum.

26.

—— 1998: Collected works, volume 5. New York and London: Plenum.

27.

Wegerif, R. and Mercer, N. 1997: A dialogical framework for researching peer talk. In Wegerif, R. and Scrimshaw, P. , editors, Computers and talk in the primary classroom. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 59—61.

28.

Wells, G. 1999: Dialogic inquiry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

29.

Wertsch, J.V. 1985: Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

30.

—— 1998: Mind as action. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

31.

Yi, J. and Kellogg, D. 2006: Beneath higher ground: Vygotsky, Volosinov, and an archaeology of reported speech in primary English writing. Language Awareness 15(1): 38—52.