The zone of proximal development is the level of development achieved by a child in the process of his interaction with an adult, realized by a developing personality in the course of joint activity with an adult, but not manifested within the framework of individual activity. The concept of «zone of proximal development» was introduced into the psychological lexicon by L.S. Vygotsky, on the one hand, in order to emphasize the fundamental feature of personality development in the early stages of ontogenesis, when the child learns and appropriates the accumulated social experience, primarily through partner activity and social interaction with an adult, and on the other hand, in order to qualitatively to separate the actual level of development of the child, which is manifested by him in individual activity, and that higher level of development, which is realized by the developing personality, but only within the framework of joint activity with an adult, acting as an “area of immature, but maturing processes” (L.S. Vygotsky ). The concept of «zone of proximal development» is traditionally regarded as one of the most important in developmental and educational psychology. Moreover, such a theoretical and methodological perspective of considering the process of development of a child’s personality makes it possible to build a meaningfully in-depth diagnosis of the level of development of an emerging, emerging personality. “Traditional diagnostics of a child’s mental development focuses on determining the current level of development. But the forecast made on the basis of such methods is not reliable enough. To determine the prospects for development, it is necessary to know the «development tomorrow», and it is determined precisely by measuring the zone of proximal development. So, for example, measuring readiness for school on the basis of abilities already formed in a child turns out to be insufficient. It is necessary to determine how a child can cooperate with an adult, that is, what is his zone of proximal development. The methods developed on this principle for determining readiness for school turn out to be more reliable ”(K.N. Polivanova). In recent years, in addition to developmental psychology and educational psychology, the concept of «zone of proximal development» is often used in the framework of socio-psychological science. It is clear that in this case the usual semantic load of this term acquires a certain originality. So, in relation to the psychology of groups, this term is used when speaking about the prospects for the development of a particular contact community, which it “works out” with an external instance of social control (especially if it is an official community) or with a leader (especially if it is an informal group).
Strictly speaking, the main idea of the theory of the zone of proximal development is aimed at the most adequate assessment of the prospects for the development of the child and his abilities for schooling. As A.V. Brushlinsky, “developing his understanding of the zone of proximal development, Vygotsky seeks, first of all, to overcome the widespread traditional interpretation, according to which it is not the child’s imitation of adults that can be indicative of the mental development of children, but only their independent solution of one or another mental task.” Thus, from the point of view of L.S. Vygotsky, only an idea of the current level of development of the child can be obtained, but in no way about his ability to assimilate new material. In order to assess the potential for development, it is necessary to assess the «gap» between the results of the child’s independent activity and what he can achieve with the help of adults.
This idea L.S. Vygotsky illustrated the results of an experiment in which two boys were asked to complete a standard intelligence test for 8-year-old children (which corresponded to their real age). After each of them successfully completed the task, they were asked to solve more complex problems with the help of the experimenter. At this stage, one of the subjects showed a result corresponding to the level of development of a 9-year-old child, while the other — a 12-year-old. According to L.S. Vygotsky, this is evidence of the different potential for learning in these two children, and the thus revealed “distance between the level of actual (actual) development, determined by the results of independent performance of tasks, and the level of potential development, determined by the results of performing tasks under the guidance of an adult or in cooperation with more capable peers” and is a zone of proximal development.
As an empirical confirmation of the theory of the zone of proximal development, L.S. Vygotsky also cited the results of some foreign studies. So, for example, in the work “Mental Development of Children in the Learning Process,” he writes: “The American researcher McCarthy showed in relation to preschool age that if a child from 3 to 5 years old is subjected to research, then he will have a group of functions that the child already has, but there is also another group of functions that the child does not master independently, but masters under guidance, in a team, in cooperation. It turns out that this second group of functions at the age of 5 to 7 is basically at the level of actual development. This study shows that what a child of 3-5 years old can do only under guidance, in cooperation and collectively, the same child from 5 to 7 years old can do independently … »
“In the theoretical and experimental work of Vygotsky and Shif, an attempt was made to reveal this relationship between the actual (achieved) and potential levels of child development as applied not to preschoolers, but to students in grades II and IV. In this context, a detailed study was carried out in children of the so-called worldly (spontaneous) and scientific (non-spontaneous) concepts. As Vygotsky emphasizes, spontaneous (that is, not yet “socialized”, not yet influenced by adults) concepts were studied in the classic work of J. Piaget, who came to the conclusion that their main feature is the absence of a unified system in them. … In contrast to them, according to the early Piaget, another group of children’s concepts can be singled out, which arose under the decisive influence of knowledge acquired by the child from adults. Such are the “unspontaneous” concepts that are formed in children, for example, in the course of schooling. It was them that Vygotsky characterized as scientific… According to Vygotsky, the level of thinking in a child is higher in the case of the development of scientific concepts (for example, the concept of exploitation or revolution) than spontaneous (everyday) concepts (for example, the concept of “brother”). He believes that Shif’s experiments generally confirmed this assumption.
It should be noted that, having put forward, on the whole, a justified and indisputably promising idea of the child’s zone of proximal development, L. S. Vygotsky considered it, in fact, exclusively in the context of the cognitive development of the individual. At the same time, the emotional and socio-psychological aspects of development were actually ignored. As you know, L. S. Vygotsky was a staunch supporter of formal school education, which is based, first of all, on the “vertical” interaction “teacher-student”, and the assimilation of scientific concepts plays a paramount role. Moreover, according to the authors of the collective monograph “Psychological Science in Russia in the 3th Century: Problems of Theory and History”, “it can be concluded that, from Vygotsky’s point of view, the concepts of learning and the zone of proximal development are synonymous or even tautological. Learning, in his opinion, is specific only to humans, but not to animals, which are only capable of learning through training. … We teach only a person, and at school a child learns, first of all, scientific concepts. In contrast to the latter, everyday concepts … arise, according to Vygotsky, from the child’s own life experience, i.e., at first, outside learning, outside the zone of proximal development, and therefore are not purely social, do not belong to higher mental functions. True, he does not directly call them natural (i.e., lower) psychological functions, but compares them with scientific concepts as lower with higher. It is no coincidence that many critics of L. S. Vygotsky in many respects rightly reproach him for the fact that, calling for “… to study the interaction of both internal and cultural factors, he himself paid attention mainly to the latter”XNUMX.
However, it was L. S. Vygotsky’s concept of education that was subjected to the sharpest and most justified criticism. First of all, critics note that one of the dangers directly related to the zone of proximal development in the interpretation of L.S. Vygotsky, lies in the fact «… that one should not try to push the child forward before he develops abilities corresponding to the stage of development at which he is at the moment.» This is especially important from the point of view of the epigenetic principle formulated by E. Erickson. As shown in the works of E. Erikson himself (published many years after the death of L. S. Vygotsky) and his followers, ignoring the actual needs of development leads to serious personality deformations and, moreover, mental disorders. As practice shows, the extremely “fashionable” attempts of parents today to “develop” their children of preschool age by teaching them counting and writing, foreign languages, music, etc. often often not only cause damage to physical and mental health, but also drastically reduce motivation of the child to learn when he reaches school age.
In fact, another danger is emphasized by some critics of L.S. Vygotsky: “With the help of others, the child is able to solve problems with which he could not cope on his own. In this, Vygotsky is certainly right, but he does not take into account that the constant need for outside help can undermine independence. Proponents of natural development have repeatedly warned that every time we give a child help or guidance, we thereby reinforce his dependence on our opinion about what and how he should think, and undermine his ability to think independently.
Nevertheless, the idea of a zone of proximal development in itself is indisputably fruitful, as evidenced by the interest shown in it not only in our country, but also abroad. Already in our time, a number of practice-oriented studies based on the theoretical ideas of L.S. Vygotsky. So, for example, according to W. Crane, in 1985 A. Brown and R. Ferrara “… made an attempt to assess how much this indicator (the zone of proximal development — V.I., M.K.) really helps to determine the learning potential children, and the results of their studies are optimistic.” In addition, the concept of L.S. Vygotsky “… also stimulated a renewed interest in the learning process itself — in the question of how adults can help children solve problems and use strategies that are currently beyond their individual capabilities. One approach to this problem is proposed by Brown; the teacher shows the children an example of how to explain and summarize a piece of text, after which the method of “mutual learning” is used — the children take turns “becoming a teacher” and lead small groups of their classmates to use the strategies discussed. The teacher continues to lead the process, but seeks to transfer the main responsibility to the students themselves.
The last example seems to be especially important from a practical point of view, since, firstly, it makes it possible to identify clear prospects for implementing the idea of a zone of proximal development in such applied areas of activity as team building and improving management efficiency in organizations, and, secondly, to outline ways to overcome a certain limitation and dogmatism of the interpretation of the concept of «zone of proximal development», inherent in both L.S. Vygotsky and his orthodox followers.
First of all, in the experiment of A. Brown, the external support of the individual’s activity is organized mainly horizontally, not vertically: the main source of the necessary assistance and stimulation is the group of peers, not the teacher. Secondly, the activity organized in this way, being pro-social and bearing an emphatically joint, group character, fully contributes to personal development, including in the psycho-emotional sphere. At the same time, it also meets the actual needs of the development of younger students: it is partly playful in nature, but it is aimed at creating a real socially significant product and allows you to express yourself in interpersonal interaction in a small group. In addition, such an organization of activities allows each participant to “try” himself in the role of the official leader of a small group.
All of these factors should be used in the process of team building. In addition, the idea of a zone of proximal development can be effectively used in the development of internal corporate training programs and increasing employee motivation, when delegating authority, planning a professional career, etc.
A practical social psychologist, if he works in an educational institution or is a family psychologist, should pay close attention to creating all conditions for organizing joint activities of a child with an adult in the form of genuine cooperation, since only in this case will the necessary prerequisites be formed for a consistent increase in the current level of development. child through the formation of a pro-social zone of his proximal development. As for practical social psychologists working with groups, so to speak, in «adult» organizations, his attention should, in particular, be drawn to the direction in which the community is developing and who, to a decisive extent, «sets» him the zone of his nearest development.
The zone of proximal development is a concept introduced by L.S. Vygotsky. Characterizes the process of pulling up mental development after training. This zone is determined by the content of such tasks that the child can solve only with the help of an adult, but after gaining experience in joint activities, he becomes capable of independently solving similar problems.