Common Conceptions of the Zone of Proximal Development

The common conception of the zone of proximal development presupposes an interaction between a more competent person and a less competent person on a task, such that the less competent person becomes independently proficient at what was initially a jointly-accomplished task. Within this general conception, three main aspects are often highlighted or emphasized (though not necessarily all three by a single researcher). For the sake of discussion, these three aspects together represent an ‘ideal type’ that will be called the ‘common interpretation’ of the zone of proximal development. For ease of reference, the three aspects will be named generality assumption (i.e., applicable to learning all kinds of subject matter), assistance assumption (learning is dependent on interventions by a more competent other), and potential assumption (property of learner, which enables best and easiest learning).

The first aspect focuses on the idea that a person is able to perform a certain number of tasks alone, while in collaboration, it is possible to perform a greater number of tasks. The “range of tasks” performed in collaboration is sometimes presented as the definition of zone of proximal development (e.g., Berk, 1997, p. 248), but this is surely mistaken. Even the classic definition refers to levels of development, not tasks. At best, the number (or kinds) of tasks must be taken as indicators to be interpreted in relation to a level of development. A related issue is what kinds of tasks involve a zone of proximal development. It is often assumed that the zone of proximal development is meant to be applied to any kind of learning task. ‘For any domain of skill, a ZPD can be created’ (Tharp & Gallimore, 1998, p. 96) or in an ‘expanded’ conception formulated by Wells (1999), zone of proximal development applies to ‘any situation in which, while participating in an activity, individuals are in the process of developing mastery of a practice or understanding a topic’ (p. 333).

The second aspect emphasizes how an adult/teacher/more competent person should interact with a child. Sometimes this aspect is presented as the defining characteristic. “Arguably, the notion of the zone of proximal development is little more meaningful than that of a learning situation presented to a child, where adults and/or more advanced children directly or indirectly have a positive influence on the child” (Gillen, 2000, pp. 193-194).

The third aspect focuses on “properties of the learner”, including notions of a learner’s potential and/or readiness to learn. This aspect often seems to inspire the idea or expectation that it will be possible to greatly accelerate or facilitate a child's learning, if the zone can be identified properly. Here are two illustrations from recent textbook discussions: “It is within this zone that a person’s potential for new learning is strongest” (Fabes & Martin, 2001, p. 42) or “Vygotsky’s phrase for the individual’s current potential for further intellectual development, a capacity not ordinarily measured by conventional intelligence tests.” (LeFrancois, 2001, p. 587). Sometimes this aspect is interpreted to mean that teaching in the zone of proximal development should result in the easiest or most effortless form of learning for the child (e.g., “a student's zone of proximal development is the range of book readability levels that will challenge a student without causing frustration or loss of motivation” 1998 abstract in ERIC database).