The zone of proximal development in play and learning

The necessity of the second step is clearly visible in the experiment of Strelkova [38], in which six years olds demonstrated helping behavior when role relations sup ported it, but helping disappeared after eliminating role relations. In this case play creates the ZPD as a potential, but not as a new formation of personality structure. We propose that the full definition of the ZPD taking into account Vygotsky's general methodological approach to human development includes two steps: (1) from joint dra matic collisions (problems) to potential developmental changes, and (2) from joint supported action to individual or collective experimentation and personality change. The result of the first step can be a new potential. The second step result in qualitative change of personality structure.

The second step is lacking in the play world method Lindqvist (1995) developed. Developmental effects of children's and adults' joint drama and play are not studied systematically in children's experimentation in childinitiated play after play world experience. We know from parents' reports that our play world “Alien R2” launched children's own afterschool yard play based on enacted themes, which lasted for half a year. But this independent experimentation was not docu mented, because we focused on play world development.

Later we have collected some qualitative data describing this stage. The teacher of the educational team wrote in her field notes about the childinitiated play after the introduction of the main characters in the «Rumpelstiltskin».

Pentti Hakkarainen, Milda Bredikyte

She reported that all school classroom (vertically integrated group of 4--8 years) par ticipated the play «The Court of Surmundia» every moment when only possible in the play corner. The theme of play was almost always the same: the princess Alexandra has escaped and Rumpelstiltskin was chasing her. Parents of the royal family were worried and sent riding valets and guards looking for the girl. Role characters were different from time to time, but the basic story line remained the same. All the school age children (14 children, half of the class) participated, girls as well as boys. Roles were negoti ated, even quarreled, but the whole group was involved in the play and nobody was left out any time.

In the study of this experimenting in play context Vygotsky's general approach to experimentalgenetic method is helpful. He wrote:

The method we use can be named an experimental genetic method in the sense that it artificially causes and creates genetic process of mental development... The task of the experiment consists in fusing each stif fened and hardened psychological form, to transform it into a moving, current stream of the separate moments replacing each other... The task of such an analysis is to present experimentally of the higher form of behavior not as a thing, but as a process, to take it in movement, going not from the whole to the parts, but from the process to its separate moments» [47, p. 641].

In order to study the ZPD and creativity in play, we must experimentally construct environments by pro moting new creative forms of play. We have attempted to balance children's free choice between different avail able activities by offering new challenging play opportu nities. In most cases, play is promoted by the use of indi rect guidance methods.

Methodologically speaking, our empirical work does not meet the criteria of traditional experimental research. We do not have clear independent and dependent variables, but a variety of activity settings (e.g. joint play of adults and chil dren in play worlds and creative activity corners) and diffe rent types of interaction within them. The impact of settings cannot be controlled in the traditional way. But we still think that this kind of environment is appropriate for the empirical study of play and creativity. The traditional model of experiment does not offer opportunity for social experi menting and initiatives for children. The main difference from the traditional idea of experiment is that here children can choose between many different «independent variables».

The comparison of two main definitions of the ZPD demonstrated that they emphasize different aspects and levels of human development. The definition in school e development of psychological functions and in play context on system level connec tions between functions and personality. On the basis of published texts we can conclude that Vygotsky aimed at unified concept of the ZPD. In both contexts the rela tions between learning and development was empha.

In order to elaborate the proposed unified concept of the ZPD it is necessary to specify and update our under standing of learning as the key to developmental changes. Vygotsky's approach to learning as joint, collabora tive activity is seminal, but problem solving context in school setting is trivial in comparison to his theoretical frame. In western interpretations problem solving is an individual enterprise and the teacher is just a helper, not a learning partner. Adult help is not a mutual process in these interpretations as Zuckerman [53] proposes.

Learning in play is an uncharted territory in psycholo gy and educational theory. One of the most famous repre sentatives of play theory, Brian SuttonSmith [40] argues that (western) play research has not been able to reveal the essence of play. The same can be said about learning in play, which is most often evaluated using formal cognitive criteria of school learning. Central aspects of development in Vygotsky's definition are not present in this evaluation. Learning is not connected to “action in the imaginary field, in the imagined situation, building of voluntary intention, the construction of lifeplan, motives of willing”, which were listed as central features of the ZPD in play. Learning in play is first of all connected to the development of lear

We propose an expanded definition of the ZPD com bining the two original definitions. This definition pro poses two distances: 1) between individual action and joint higher level potential, and 2) between joint higher level potential and qualitative change in personality. Learning is not limited in this definition to individual or joint problem solving. A decisive step is learning, which leads from potentials to personality change. If we are sa tisfied with correct problem solving we can talk about changes in problem solving, not about development. Applied to play development we propose three qualita tively different types of zones of proximal development for the whole play age from three to seven years. As far we understand Vygotsky was talking about the last type of ZPD in his lectures on play. An important aspect in our typology is the social situation of development and qua litative changes in adult help. Different types of adult help focus on different aspects of learning in play context.

Our proposals aiming at integration of two original definitions of the ZPD have a preliminary character. We understand that much research work has to be done for revealing the whole picture of learning in play and its children of experimental context focuses on th sized as the main developmental factor.

References

1. Bredikyte M. (2001). Dialogical drama with puppets and children's creation of sense.

2. Carruthers P. (2002). Human creativity: Its evolution, its cognitive basis and its connection with childhood pretense // British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 53, 1--25.

3. Chaiklin S. (2003). The zone of proximal development in Vygotsky's analysis of learning and instruction // A. Kozulin (ed.) Vygotsky's Educational Theory in Cultural Context., Pp. 39--64. Cambridge.

4. Daniels H. (1996). An introduction to Vygotsky. New York: Routledge.

5. Davydov V. V. (1996). Teoriya razvivayushego obuceniya. Moscow: Pedagogika.

6. Del Rio P., Alvarez A.(2007). Inside and outside of the Zone of Proximal Development: An ecofunctional reading of Vygotsky // Daniels H., Cole M., Wertsch J. W. (eds.). The Cambridge compan ion to Vygotsky 276--303. New York: Cambridge University Press.7. El'konin B. D. (1994). Vvedenyje v psichologiju razvityja [Introduction to Developmental Psychology]. Moscow: Trivola. 8. El'konin D. B. (1978). Psikhologiya igry. Moscow: Pedagogika.

9. El'konin D. B. (1989). Izbrannye psikhologiceskie trudy. Moscow: Pedagogika.

10. El'konin D. B. (1995): Psikhologiceskie voprosy doshkol'noi igry // Leontiev A. N. and Zaporozhets A. V. (eds.). Voprosy psikhologii rebenka doshkol'nogo vozrasta. Moscow.

11. El'konin D. B. (1999): The Development of Play in Preschoolers // Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, Vol. 37, № 6, 31--70.

12. El'konin D. B. (2005). Psychology of play I--II // Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, Vol. 43, 1--2.

13. El'koninova L. I. (2001). The Object Orientation of Children's Play in the Context of Understanding Imaginary Space -- Time in Play and Stories // Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, 39, 2, 30--51.

14. El'koninova L. I., Bazanova T. V. (2004). K probleme prisvoeniya smyslov v syushetnorolevoi igre doshkol'nikov [On the problem of forming sense in pretend role play of preschoolers]. Vestnik Moskovskogo Universiteta. Ser. 14. Psikhologiya № 3, 97--105.15. Feinstein S. (2006). The Praeger Handbook of Learning and the Brain. 2 Vol. CT: Praeger Publishing.

16. Fisher W. (1987). Human communication as narration: Toward a philosophy of reason, value, and action. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.

17. Goswami U. (2007). Cognitive Development: The Learning Brain. Hove: Psychology Press.

18. Goncu A., Gaskins S. (2007). (еds.). Play and develop ment. Evolutionary, Sociocultural, and Functional Perspectives. Hove: Psychology Press.

19. Hakkarainen P. (1990). Motivaatio, leikki ja toiminnan kohtellisuus. [Motivation, play and object orientation of play]. Helsinki: Orienta Konsultit Oy.

20. Hakkarainen P. (1991). Joint Construction of the Object of Educational Work in Kindergarten // The Quarterly Newsletter of the Laboratory of Comparative Human Cognition, 13, 4, 80--87.

21. Hakkarainen P. (1998). Play and expansive learning in day care // Hakkarainen P. & Saar A. (еds.). Play in Cultural Contexts. Humaniora A 12. Tallinn: Tallinn University of Social and Educational Sciences, 35--49.

22. Hakkarainen P. (1999). Play and motivation. In Engestrom Y. & Miettinen R. & Punamaki RL (еds.). Perspectives on activi ty theory. New York: Cambridge University Press.

a. Hakkarainen P. (2004). Narrative learning in the Fifth Dimension// Outlines, 4, 1, 5--20.

b. Hakkarainen P. (2006). Learning and development in play // In Einarsdottir J., Wagner J. (еds.). Nordic childhoods and early education. 183--222. Conneticut: Information Age Publishing.

23. Hakkarainen P. (2007). Narrative learning and its chal lenges for the Finnish early education. Submitted for International Journal of Educational Research.

24. Hakkarainen P., Hannikainen M. (1996). Developmental transitions in children's play in day care centers. Moscow: Proceedings of Centennial Vygotsky Conference.

25. Hakkarainen P., Rainio A. (2007) Playworld as a tool of transitory activity. Submitted for Mind, Culture, and Activity.

26. Hendy L. & Toon L. (2001). Supporting drama and imaginative play in the early years. Buckingham: Open University Press.

27. Huizinga J. (1971). Homo ludens: a study of the play element in culture. Boston: Beacon Press.

28. Lindqvist G. (1995). The Aesthetics of Play. A Didactic Study of Play and Culture in Preschools. Acta Universitatis Uppsaliensis. Uppsala Studies in Education 62. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.

29. Lindqvist G. (2000). Drama som leklekens estetik. [Drama as play -- the aesthetics of play] // Helander, K. (еd.) Barn, teater, drama. Centrum for barnkulturforskning. № 32. Stockholm: Stockholms Universitet.

30. Losev A. F. (1982). Dialektika tvorceskogo akta (kratkyi ocerk) [Dialectics of creative act]. Moscow: Kontekst.

31. Mihailenko N. Ya., Korotkova N. A. (2001). Kak igrat s det mi [How to play with children]. Moskva: Akademiceski Project.

32. Podd'iakov N. N. (1996). Osobennosti psikhicheskogo razvitiia detei doshkol'nogp vozrasta. Moskva: Pedagogika.

33. Politzer G. (1980). Izbrannye filosofskie I psikholo giceskye trudy. Moscow: Progress.

34. Propp V. (1968). Morphology of the folktale. Austin, TX.: University of Texas Press.

35. Sawyer K. (1997). Play as improvisation Mahwah: LEA.

36. Sawyer K. (2003). Group creativity. Mahwah, NJ.: LEA.

37. Steen F.(2005). The paradox of narrative thinking // Journal of Cultural and Evolutionary Psychology, Vol 3,1, 87-- 105.

38. Strelkova L. P. (1986). Usloviya razvityi empatii pod vliyaniem hudozestvennogo proizvedeniya. In Zaporozhets A. V. & Neverovic Ya. Z. (еds.). Razvytie sotsialnyh emotsii u detei doshkolnogo vozrasta, 70--99. Moscow: Pedagogika.

39. SuttonSmith B. (1977). Towards an anthropology of play. In Stevens P. Jr. (ed.). Studies in the anthropology of play, 222--232. West Point, NY.; Leisure Press.

40. SuttonSmith B. (1997). Ambiguity of play. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

41. Valsiner J. (1997). Culture and the development of children's action. 2nd edn. New York: Wiley.

42. Valsiner J. (2000). Culture and human development. London: Sage Publications.

43. Van der Veer R., Valsiner J. (1991). Understanding Vygotsky. Oxford: Blackwell.

44. Veresov N. (2004). Zone of proximal development (ZPD): the hidden dimension? AnnaLena Ostern & Ria HeilaYlikallio (еds.). Language as culture tensions in time and space. Vol. 1, p. 13--30 Vasa, ABO Akademi.

45. Vygotsky L. S. (1966). Igra i ee rol' v psikhiceskom razvitii rebenka // Voprosy psikhologii, No 6, 62--76.

46. Vygotsky L. S. (1978). Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.

47. Vygotsky L. S. (1983). Sobrannye sochinenii. Vol. 3. Moscow: Pedagogika.

48. Vygotsky L. S. (1984). Sobranie sochinenii. Vol. 4. Moscow: Pedagogika.

49. Vygotsky L. S. (1987). The collected works of

L. S. Vygotsky. Vol. 1: Problems of general psychology.

R. W. Rieber & A. S. Carton (еds.). NY: Plenum Press.

50. Vygotsky L. S. (2004). Imagination and Creativity in Childhood (L. R. Stone, Trans.) // Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, 42 (1), 7--97.

51. Wood D., Bruner J., & Ross G. (1976). The role of tutor ing in problem solving // Journal of child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89--100.

52. Zaporozhets A. V. (1986). Izbrannye psikhologicheskie trudy. Tom 1. [Collected Psychological Works, Vol. 1]. Moscow: Pedagogika.

53. Zuckerman G. (2007). Childadult interaction that cre ates a zone of proximal development. Journal of Russian and East European PsychologyVol. 45 (3) 38--64.

Размещено на Allbest.ru