Vygotsky has had his excellent reputation
in the field of education for a while. When we talk about human development,
Vygotsky is mentioned; when we explore how human beings make sense of
everything and make meaning out of everything, Vygotsky is thought of; when we
examine the influence of society and culture upon an individual or a group of
people, Vygotsky is noted; when we say social interaction is crucial for
teaching and learning, Vygotsky is revived. Undoubtedly, zone of proximal
development (ZPD) belongs to Vygotsky, and scaffolding is a direct link to
Vygotsky. In his text, Smagorinsky has elaborated explicitly what Vygotsky has
offered and will continue to be offering for teachers, educators, and
researchers.
If Smagorinsky’s elucidation on Vygotsky’s thoughts
and ideas provide theoretical accounts for many teaching and learning practices,
then Lapp and Fisher’s text shows an example of Vygotskyan approach of teaching
and learning. Though there are many interesting points in both texts, my
attention is caught by the connection between ZPD and strategies used in Lapp Fisher’s
article.
Smagorinsky’s explanation on Vygotsky’s ZPD
indicates that “the ZPD exists as an individual’s zone of potential that can be
scaffolded into something new by a skilled adult or more competent peer,
resulting in tomorrow’s new, individual competencies” (p. 199). In other words,
it implies that every student has different personal potential and ZPD, and
thus, every student might need different scaffolding to make him/her reach
his/her potential. If this is the case, strategies used and mentioned in Lapp
and Fisher’s article make sense for teaching English/Language Arts. In their
curriculum design, Lapp and Fisher incorporate a variety of strategies and
activities, such as read-alouds, think-alouds, independent reading, book club
reading, self-selecting books, and teachers’ remarks as motivation, to assist
students at varied levels in understanding the content of reading, the routine
of the class, and the expectation of teachers. Also, such way also encourages
students to participate in discussion and engages students in continuing
exploration of personal reading interests. In the words Lapp and Fisher, “They[Students]
have to be challenged, supported, and encouraged but at the end of the day,
they need to have their say about the text” (p. 561). Therefore, regardless of
students’ diverse background, their learning is supported in one way or
another.
Zone of Proximal Development
I think Smagorinsky’s article is very informative
in many ways. He let us know what is in Vygotsky’s work with a comparison of different
versions of Vygotsky’s publications; how Vygotsky has a great impact on English
education, especially when teaching English involves in teaching thinking,
perspectives, and all sort of works of art; and the possibility of Vygotsky’s
work might maintain its influential application to the field of education given
the growing diverse student population. We will be blessed by Vygotsky for
another while.
Question:
How do you perceive the role of Vygotsky in the field of education, in theory and/or practice?
Vygotsky's theories allow for learning, great learning, to be available to every student. If educators remember that philosophy, that with the appropriate guidance every student can learn, we can be empowered to teach every student.
ReplyDeleteEspecially after reading this article, I think his role is SO important to consider, I just question whether or not other teachers see such a strong value in this. I think many teachers are open to the idea of recognizing student background, but I think it often gets pushed aside as standards become stricter and teachers feel overwhelmed with the material they need to cover.
ReplyDeleteYing--I think you are right. Vygotsky's influential ideas will be with us for a long long while. You pointed out that each student probably has his/her own ZPD, and that teachers might need to scaffold learning differently for varying students. This idea is at work in Bomer's idea of the Writing Workshop. The element of choice was so strong in his workshop, that students were able to choose what was the best fit for them. Also, Bomer was able to scaffold learning for his students based on their needs in the individual writing conferences.
ReplyDelete