This week we read Vygotsky’s Mind in Society and discussed the 4th design Principle. The most resonant concept I have taken is what Vygotsky referred to as the zone of proximal development. In class, we used the helping of a child to cross a river as a metaphor. On one side of the river is the child’s actual developmental level or mental age. The other side is the child’s potential developmental level. It is a place the child can go with adult guidance. The developmental level lags behind the potential level. Once a concept can be achieved independently it becomes their actual level. Our job is to keep pulling them along into the edge of their learning. We model, coach, and fade.
I try every week to relate what we learn in class to my
daily activities in my elementary music class.
To some degree I have been using the 4th design
principal. With musical concepts that
involve actual music fluency or performing like singing, playing musical
instruments, or purposeful movement I am good at discovering where each child’s
ability is and pushing them to the edge of their potential. I model, coach, and fade. Where I have
severely lacked using good design principles is I don’t design my lessons to
tie cultural and historic SOL’s to the performance piece. I have been teaching
them as separate units that I realize aren’t meaningful and definitely not authentic.
I have a question about the
zone of proximal development. Why does it have to be an adult to guide the
child? If a child in the class can demonstrate mastery, independently on a task
why can’t they guide another child who is on the other side of the river?
Jon, I'm not sure that it has to be an adult to guide a student across the zone. I feel like the model, coach, and fade can be done by anyone who has mastery, be it a child of an adult. Maybe it is the coach piece that needs to be done by someone who has the cognitive knowledge and can explain it. You have a great question. Now, I am wondering the same thing. Does the guide need to be an adult?
ReplyDeleteI agree. When Vygotsky says, "What a child can do today with assistance, she will be able to do by herself tomorrow", I don't think this has to be restricted to an adult, but, rather, to an appropriate mentor who has developed mastery of the skills and who can further promote internalization of thoughts and tools. If a peer could assist in allowing a classmate to develop his/her ability to think more deeply, during social play, for example, it seems as if that student would then be more ready to have a mind in society and think on their own to solve real-world problems.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed how you challenged my notion about who can model for a student to help them cross the ZPD. I was simply thinking teacher as a model / coach, but I certainly believe that this could be another student or sibling. I think it would require awareness to pull back and let the fading begin.
ReplyDeleteI also found the notion of ZPD to be an important concept, and your question made me reflect on how the ZPD works. Traditionally is just took a child observing his environment and gaining meaning from it when they were ready. I don't think that this just happens by interacting with adults but also by playing with peers. It would mean that peers that have already internalized a concept could mentor others.
ReplyDelete“Why does it have to be an adult to guide the child?” is a great question! I think that a collaborative element should be included in the practice of modeling, coaching and fading. Sometimes a peer can do a better job coaching than a teacher. Collaboration is also a must when solving an authentic problem.
ReplyDelete