Education, Part 7b
ZPD (“Zone of Proximal
Development”) Diagram from “Afl” programme material
A Misunderstanding
To conclude this part we will
show how different and even opposite interpretations of learning theories can
arise. We will try to show that the theory of Vygotsky, famous as it now is,
can be followed in name, even while other, and even contrary, theories are
being advanced.
Our text (attached) consists
of excerpts from Module 1 of the Assessment for Learning (Afl) programme, which
was, in 2013, in its second year. The programme is run by the South African
Democratic Teachers’ Union (SADTU) via its Curtis Nkondo Professional
Development Institute. It was developed by staff of the Tshwane University of
Technology.
This programme is admirable
in many ways, and it is successful. It also marks a clear advance for SADTU
into the overall leadership of education, above and beyond its role as a trade
union and as a professional association, as previously conceived. With the Afl
programme, SADTU is moving confidently on to ground that it did not fully
occupy before, and it is doing so at a crucial moment in South Africa’s
history.
Quantity and Quality
However, in this course of
ours (now coming to the conclusion of its 7th part out of ten weekly
parts) we are focussed on certain matters, which we have hitherto illustrated
by comparing the ideas of Lev Vygotsky and those of Jean Piaget. The Afl
document we are quoting has a section headed “Theories of Learning”. It sets
out the rational basis for the further proceedings of its course. It does not
mention Piaget. It does rely quite heavily on Vygotsky, but in a strangely
misunderstood fashion.
This misunderstanding reveals
a particular difficulty in education.
Vygotsky was concerned to
discover how children can, and do, successfully develop into mature adult
members of society, which in his case was a dynamic, optimistic, revolutionary
society – the Soviet Union, in its early years.
Vygotsky distinguished
between qualitative development and quantitative learning. Like all communists,
his presumption was that qualitative, substantive change of nature is always
the product of revolutionary crisis, whereas quantitative change is marginal,
incremental, gradual and cumulative.
There is a relationship between
the two kinds of change. In any given case, quantitative change will bring
matters to the point where qualitative change is possible, and therefore, at
once, inevitable. This understanding of gradual, quantitative change, leading
to precipitate, revolutionary change, is one of the “tools of analysis” of
Marxist practice.
Vygotsky studied the crises
of childhood and adolescence, and found much more in them than trouble. He
found that this is where the most important gains are made. This is where “development”
happens, and where development means something different and greater than
learning.
Learning knowledge, of itself,
does not cause a child to “grow up”. Accumulated knowledge only causes the
child to complete tasks which, being complete, present the child with what
Vygotsky calls a “predicament”. This means that the child cannot go on living
in its old way, but must make a risky, frightening jump into a new way of
living and being (“neoformation”).
Now see how our Afl document
describes Vygotsky’s ideas:
“Vygotsky
argues that it is within the ZPD that all learning takes places. The
implications of Vygotsky's theories for teachers is noted by Allrich (n.d.) who
notes that as learning proceeds, a portion of the Proximal Zone becomes part of
the Present Knowledge, and as a consequence, a smaller Proximal Zone remains.”
This is a misunderstanding.
Vygotsky actually says that most learning takes place between crises. The kind
of learning that takes place between crises is measurable, because it is by
nature quantitative.
The much more important qualitative
kind of change requires a special kind of attention. It is not like “all
learning”. Vygotsky calls it “neoformation”, and he says that when such a
transition is approaching, it is not helpful to expend a lot of energy on other
things.
Let us now look at what Andy
Blunden wrote in an e-mail to the CU:
“The problem
is that zoped [“Zone of Proximal
Development”] was not a big concept for
Vygotsky or his following, but when the theory got to the US (which as it
happens is where Vygotsky got the concept in the first place) it really took
hold. So in American renditions of Vygotsky's ideas, ZPD is transformed into
the key concept. But like I said in my speech on Child Development, who would
try to teach kids things they either couldn't do even when you helped them, or
something they could do already without help?
“The point is
to be aware of that obvious fact, and not wait until development happens
somehow unaided, and the teacher can say "Oh Johnny can now add up so
let's teach him addition." (which is what Piaget tends to tell us.) The
tricky bit, which is what Vygotsky was concerned with, is to know just which
activity learning will bring in its wake a qualitative development - when a
penny's worth of learning turns into a pound’s worth of development. It is also
a good idea to keep in mind when you are teaching a group (as you always are)
and the kids are helping each other.”
The above should be
sufficient to defend Vygotsky’s ideas, and to show that it is not all right to
exchange, as in the diagram shown at the top (and again in the attached
document), the word “development” for “learning goals”, or vice versa, and
still attribute the idea to Vygotsky.
Learning goals are nominated
by teachers or perhaps by the Department of Basic Education. Development, on
the other hand, is a matter of necessity. The necessity is primarily social, and
is bound up with biology and with aging. Development is not about facts and
information.
In terms of the Afl, not much
harm is done by this misunderstanding. The brief setting-out of the theoretical
stall, even if it falsifies Vygotsky, serves the good purpose of preparing the
ground for a necessary and beneficial discussion of Learning Intentions and
Success Criteria. These are undoubtedly vital pedagogical tools, and crucial to
the assessment of learning, which is a good thing.
But the document fails to
understand Vygotsky, and it therefore leaves unfinished business that is
arguably even more important than the kind of learning that is being assessed
and measured. This unfinished business is the growing-up of children into
society as mature adults.
There is an assumption that
those who get jobs, will be all right. And there is a second assumption, that
if the children are well prepared they will all get jobs. Whereas there is
nothing in history, or in logic, that makes either of these propositions to be any
more than very unsafe assumptions.
What can teachers do about
that? Vygotsky suggests that teachers should first keep their eyes on another
prize, which is development of the personality within society.
Vygotsky’s is a revolutionary
suggestion. When teachers are ready for it, they will have to take it up. To
paraphrase Vygotsky, this is a neoformation waiting to happen.
·
The above is to
introduce the original reading-text: First Module
of Assessment for Learning, SADTU, 2012, Excerpts.
No comments:
Post a Comment