Summaries

Puig, E.A. (2019). Rethinking the intersectionality of the Zone of Proximal Development: The Challenges of Disruptive and Transformative Change to Improve Instruction.

1

Introduction

If good instruction has the potential to lead development (Vygotsky, 1978), then school

systems, practitioner-scholars, and university-scholars have the transformational challenge of

assessing and inventorying the intersectionality of students’ Zones of Distal Development

(Spear-Ellinwood, 2011), Zones of Proximal Development (Vygotsky, 1978) and Zones of Mesial

Development to improve instruction. Consequently, the challenges of transformative change to

improve instruction have to be realigned with a growth mindset (Dweck, 2012) where the focus

is not on how educators teach, but rather on how students learn. An issue that may be

plaguing instruction is that a lot of attention has been given to understanding the students’

Zones of Proximal Development (Vygotsky, 1978) with little to no attention given to what

students can and cannot accomplish independently.

The purpose of this chapter is to disrupt and problematize the practice of assuming that

identifying a student’s Zone of Proximal Development (Vygotsky, 1978) is sufficient to employ

effective instructional practices informed by assessment. The chapter addresses both

problematic and productive sides of current professional learning opportunities, instructional

practices, and assessment. The author addresses these topics on the basis of a micro-

ethnography through qualitative interviews, classroom observations, and student data with

Foucault (1977) as a theoretical tool and lens. A goal of the chapter is to illustrate how it can

contribute to the discourse of both productive sides and issues with assessment in literacy

acquisition and instruction; regardless of core content area (e.g. English language arts,

mathematics, science, and social studies) and its impact on professional learning.

Puig, E.A. (2019). Rethinking the intersectionality of the Zone of Proximal Development: The Challenges of Disruptive and Transformative Change to Improve Instruction.

2

Contemporary political and pedagogical agendas are briefly discussed as a way of

establishing relevancy. Existing assessment literature and Foucault’s (1977) theories

encompassing power, disciplining technologies, discourse and panopticism are used as an

analytical framework in order to demonstrate and enable an understanding of transformative

challenges and potentials concerning literacy acquisition, assessment, instruction, and

professional learning opportunities.

Adaptive challenge

Heifetz and Linsky (2002), argue that adaptive challenges demand a transformation in

beliefs and approaches that can take a long time to unravel and implement. The challenges of

transformative change to improve instruction are adaptive challenges that necessitates

disrupting and problematizing an issue in numerous spaces (i.e. classrooms, schools, districts)

and across organizational borders (i.e. universities, school systems, state departments). The

adaptive challenge and issue addressed in this chapter is the practice of assuming that

identifying a student’s Zone of Proximal Development (Vygotsky, 1978) is sufficient to employ

effective instructional practices informed by assessment.

International, national, and state data are showing low progress in student learning and

literacy acquisition over time; although certain studies illustrate students are currently reading

and writing far more than the previous generation. Additionally, district administrators and

classroom teachers are expressing that students are not making the accelerated progress

demanded by national and state standards.

In the United States, in an attempt to improve literacy acquisition and instruction many

states and districts to ensure funding are required to employ high stakes static assessments

Puig, E.A. (2019). Rethinking the intersectionality of the Zone of Proximal Development: The Challenges of Disruptive and Transformative Change to Improve Instruction.

3

that highlight student deficits as a solution to improve instruction and over time have become a

systematic impediment to literacy acquisition, instruction, and professional learning.

Consequently, static assessments such as state standardized assessments and end of course

exams have become a “technology of domination” (Foucault, 1977) over teachers and students

used to engineer a conceptual panopticon to monitor school and classroom activities under a

mantle of systematic and explicit instruction void of intention or thought and coherence. Along

with punitive evaluations and school grading, years of leaving no child behind and racing to the

top has shown that a strong focus on high stakes testing is not the answer to improving either

instruction, students’ literacy acquisition, or practitioner-scholars’ professional learning.

Part of the concern with employing technologies of domination to control curriculum is

narrowing definitions to increase control. Experienced educators understand that narrow

definitions of instructional practices will not engage all learners (Clay, 2015). Currently, one

term in particular is used extensively in the hopes of improving instruction – Vygotsky’s Zone of

Proximal Development (ZPD) (1978). The zone where learners can learn with the support of a

more knowledgeable other or some other external mediator to learning such as electronic

devices. At present, quite a few schools and parents are receiving misnamed diagnostic reports

that equate students’ ZPD to a grade equivalent (e.g. 2.4 – 3.4) based on a computer

administered reading test without taking into account what students can do and cannot do;

much less, how are they processing information or a practitioner-scholars professional opinion

grounded in day-to-day interactions with students. Figure 1, is an actual example of part of a

diagnostic report teachers and parents receive equating the Zone of Proximal Development to a

grade equivalent.

Puig, E.A. (2019). Rethinking the intersectionality of the Zone of Proximal Development: The Challenges of Disruptive and Transformative Change to Improve Instruction.

4

Figure 1

Without accounting for students’ funds of knowledge (what they know and/or can do)

and what is completely out of their reach, identifying a student’s ZPD in the hopes of guiding

instruction effectively and responsively may be misleading and misinforming practitioner-

scholars and parents on how to support their children’s literacy acquisition. Furthermore, to

add to the confusion of understanding the Zone of Proximal Development, Figure 2 shows that

the same diagnostic report mentioned above associates the ZPD with what a student can do

independently. This is a blatant and confusing contradiction in terms. The ZPD does not define

independent learning but does take into account what a student can do with the support of a

more knowledgeable other (Vygotsky, 1978). How “proximal” is being defined may be the

issue.

Figure 2

These “diagnostic” reports, distributed at a national level, caused the researcher to

investigate practitioner-scholars concepts of not only of the ZPD, but what their understandings

of what can students do or not independently. The following questions guided the work:

1. What are practitioner-scholars’ understanding of the Zone of Proximal Development?

Puig, E.A. (2019). Rethinking the intersectionality of the Zone of Proximal Development: The Challenges of Disruptive and Transformative Change to Improve Instruction.

5

2. What are practitioners’-scholars’ understanding of how students process information to

identify students’ strengths and needs to inform instruction?

3. What are practitioner-scholars’ understanding of the Zone of Distal Development?

Methods

The concept of a formative experiment framed this investigation. A benefit of using

classroom research from a formative experiment perspective is that the effects of instruction

are recognized to be the product of a network of interacting variables within the school and the

classroom environment. Formative experiments explore how potentially positive practices can

be applied to attain highly regarded pedagogical objectives that are often disruptive or

transformative (Reinking & Bradley, 2008). Formative experiments aim to align theory,

research, and practice by designing instructional practices in realistic contexts.

A formative experiment is one among many methodological approaches that are within

a more comprehensive classification usually referred to as design-based research (van den

Akker, Gravemeijer, McKenny, & Nieveen, 2006) or design experiments (Brown, 1992). Design-

based research, and subsequently formative experiments, see education research as similar to

engineering where theories are put into practice, testing and refining those theories

systematically through the methodical design of practical solutions to achieve precise

objectives (Sloan & Gorard, 2003). Formative experiments have developed as an alternative to

conventional experimental or naturalistic methodological approaches that have not

satisfactorily linked the gap between research and practice (Bradley & Reinking, 2010; Reinking

& Bradley, 2008).

Puig, E.A. (2019). Rethinking the intersectionality of the Zone of Proximal Development: The Challenges of Disruptive and Transformative Change to Improve Instruction.

6

In a formative experiment, systematic data collection highlights features that augment

or hinder the effectiveness of the instructional practice in accomplishing the objective and that

data informs on-going adaptations of the instructional practice. Although design-based

research, including formative experiments, often involves mixed methods of data collection,

the present study employed a micro-ethnography approach to accumulate and examine data.

The present study, was also informed by Reinking and Bradley’s (2008) guiding questions for

creating, facilitating, and reporting a formative experiment, which follows:

1. What is the pedagogical goal of the experiment and what pedagogical theory establishes

its value?

2. What is an instructional intervention that has potential to achieve the identified

pedagogical goal?

3. As the instructional practice is implemented, what factors enhance or inhibit its

effectiveness in achieving the pedagogical goal?

4. How can the instructional practice and its implementation be modified to achieve more

effectively the pedagogical goal?

5. What unanticipated positive or negative outcomes does the instructional practice

produce?

6. Has the learning environment changed as a result of the instructional practice?

Using a hybrid of traditional ethnographic approaches of triangulating participant

observations, non-participant observations and artifacts, the researcher employed a mixed

method design of qualitative and quantitative assessments. Data was collected during all

phases of the study to provide and obtain timely formative feedback. Constant comparative

Puig, E.A. (2019). Rethinking the intersectionality of the Zone of Proximal Development: The Challenges of Disruptive and Transformative Change to Improve Instruction.

7

analysis (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Strauss, 1987; Strauss & Corbin, 1990) was used to analyze the

data. Although it may appear that grounded theory was at the forefront of the study to

generate and ground theoretical understandings, the author’s primary purpose was to bring

particular perspectives to the analysis based on current assessments provided to practitioner-

scholars to inform instruction. In addition to student assessments, data collection methods

included field notes and a schedule of observation dates. These methods coupled with

observations, and semi-structured focus group conversations helped the researcher develop a

holistic perspective, and a better understanding of the phenomena assessed. On the surface,

the study and analyses comes across as linear. As most micro-ethnography, it was cluttered,

recursive, at times random, and dialogical.

The study is confidential: although the researcher will know the identity of subjects but

will not divulge identity or private information to others without permission as agreed upon

when information was given. The participant and non-participant field notes from classroom

observation do not identify students or teachers by name. Field notes were coded with a T for

teacher discourse and S1, S2, S3, etc. was used to distinguish student responses. No sensitive

information on either teachers or students was collected in this study to identify individuals.

Theoretical Perspective: Triadic Zones of Development Theory

When we define literacy as the ability to characterize, confirm, comprehend, clarify,

create, calculate, interpret, critique and convey information by whatever sources and resources

available for individuals to thrive in a given society and culture; all assessment and evaluation of

literate behaviors is dependent on language and theory. This broad definition of literacy serves

as a guiding force to investigate instructional practices that take into account students’

Puig, E.A. (2019). Rethinking the intersectionality of the Zone of Proximal Development: The Challenges of Disruptive and Transformative Change to Improve Instruction.

8

strengths as well as their needs. The proposed triadic model of dynamic learning and teaching is

grounded on funds of knowledge theory from a socio-cultural and historical perspective. It

introduces a framework for thinking about assessment and instruction that disrupts and

problematizes instruction in Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) (1978/1933) and

accounts for independent learning behaviors as well as learning behaviors associated with

learners’ ability to recognize the unknown.

As explained by Vygotsky (1978), learning opportunities occur in the ZPD with the

support of a more knowledgeable other or other forms of external mediators. As language and

knowledge is acquired and consistently employed, it becomes “fossilized” in what the

researcher/author terms the Zone of Mesial Development (ZMD) fostering agentic autodidactic

behavior through self-regulation, self-monitoring, and self-directing. Borrowing from the

medical field, the term “mesial” illustrates the opposite of distal. It is used in this chapter to

describe another conceptual space where learners accumulate and store funds of knowledge

(Moll, Amanti, Neffe, & González, 1992) and become critical autodidactic learners taking on

responsibilities for their own acquisition of knowledge and physical abilities. I use the term

“mesial” to define a core zone or foundation of knowledge and abilities situated in a conceptual

center.

Simultaneously, proficient learners recognize that there is more to learn that they do

not know or cannot do alone. This acknowledgement of the unknown occurs in the Zone of

Distal Development (ZDD) (Spear-Ellinwood, 2011; Moll, 2014) and nurtures curiosity, wonder,

goal setting, and potentially motivation to sustain learning over time. The term ZDD (Spear-

Ellinwood, 2011) describes another conceptual third space in a triadic model where learners

Puig, E.A. (2019). Rethinking the intersectionality of the Zone of Proximal Development: The Challenges of Disruptive and Transformative Change to Improve Instruction.

9

cannot construct any new learning or accomplish any new task even with the support of a more

knowledgeable other or any external mediators but may serve as a springboard for motivation

or feedforward mechanism in a learning environment primed for learning.

Within each identified “zone” there is a sub-text, text, and hyper-text. From a learner’s

perspective sub-texts are inferences constructed from lived experiences in the learning

environment and usually are accompanied by an emotional response; texts can be conceptual

or concrete but either are content for dissection and discussion; and hyper-texts are the

genuine questions prompted by engagement with either the texts or sub-texts. The

aforementioned learning environment can be either in a traditional school setting or outside of

the traditional school setting. From an instructional perspective, if subtexts, texts, and

hypertexts are to inform instruction they have to be assessed dynamically and statically. In this

case, the sub-texts are the inferences or conclusions an observant practitioner-scholar makes,

while the texts are usually observable and evident. Hyper-texts in this theoretical construct are

the unanswered questions raised by observant educators.

Effective educators triangulate all three types of texts seamlessly to ground instruction

on students’ strengths before determining needs. Unfortunately, many practitioner-scholars

jump quickly to addressing student needs without accounting for their strengths. In many cases,

we have observed misinterpretation of assessments translate into what Paolo Freire (1970)

termed a “banking” model of instruction where item knowledge is continuously “deposited”

into the learners’ head. When this occurs, valuable instructional time is wasted and

acceleration in learning is delayed or hindered. Note that the term texts in this context are not

restricted to print.

Puig, E.A. (2019). Rethinking the intersectionality of the Zone of Proximal Development: The Challenges of Disruptive and Transformative Change to Improve Instruction.

10

Under the proposed triadic model of learning, all three “zones” of a learner needs to be

taken into account for instruction to be effective and efficient to support the development of a

self-extending system for learning (Clay, 2005) and a growth mindset for instruction (Johnston,

2012; Dweck, 2012). Figure 3 provides a graphic representation of the concept. The author

proposes that effective informed instruction occurs when practitioner-scholars recognize

students’ strengths and needs and the intersectionality of the ZMD, ZPD, and ZDD.

Figure 3

Assessments that document and report students’ deficits are counter-productive to

developing a growth mindset. Identifying and capitalizing on all three zones can bolster

positive change in students’ education. If learners grow into the intellectual environment

they’re in (Vygotsky, 1978), focusing instruction in one zone without assessing, evaluating, and

considering the others has the potential to disable learners by the conditions of learning that

Puig, E.A. (2019). Rethinking the intersectionality of the Zone of Proximal Development: The Challenges of Disruptive and Transformative Change to Improve Instruction.

11

are engineered into the environmental design of a classroom (Clay, 1987). Consequently, all

three zones are dependent on the Conditions of Learning (Cambourne, 1995) that are in place.

Cambourne’s Conditions of Learning is explained further under the section for implications for

instruction and professional learning.

On the other hand, if extensive or ongoing instruction focuses solely on a learner’s ZPD,

learners may become dependent with the dependence potentially manifesting itself as a

labeled disability of environmental nature. However, if extensive or ongoing instruction

focuses solely on a learner’s ZMD learning may become stagnant and limiting; and if extensive

ongoing instruction focuses solely on the ZDD learners will be frustrated and develop a sense of

helplessness over time with diminishing interest and motivation.

Relying solely on static assessments such as state standardized assessments has

provided a skewed understanding of where instruction needs to be. Currently and erroneously,

high-stakes and static assessments are used to determine a student’s Zones of Proximal

Development void of the professional opinion of the practitioner-scholar supported by dynamic

assessments. Determining a student’s “next” zone of development or ZPD requires engaging

with students and employing dynamic assessments by an observant knowledgeable educator.

Utilizing an observant and knowledgeable educator, data can then be used to make informed

decisions about appropriate effective and efficient instruction based on students’ strengths and

needs.

Generally, static assessments potentially identify a learner’s ZDD. To provide data-

informed instruction, educators need to become familiar with various dynamic assessments

and static assessments; and triangulate conclusions that bring to the forefront the learner’s

Puig, E.A. (2019). Rethinking the intersectionality of the Zone of Proximal Development: The Challenges of Disruptive and Transformative Change to Improve Instruction.

12

ZDD, ZPD and ZMD. The plural “zones” is used intentionally throughout this chapter since each

academic and social context creates a variety of zones with all learners. In other words,

proficient learners have many Zones of Mesial Development, many Zones of Proximal

Development, and many Zones of Distal Development that are dependent on the context and

the content in which learning takes place and the learning environment for the learning to take

place.

Zones of Distal Development (ZDD)

As educators and learners assess and inventory Zones of Proximal Development, we

must be conscious of the Zones of Distal Development (ZDD) when teaching towards students’

next zone of development. The ZDD is the conceptual zone of learning originating at the outer

limits of what the learner can learn in cooperation with a more knowledgeable other or

external mediator/s and extending beyond what is completely out of reach or unattainable,

even with the support of a more knowledgeable other (Spear-Ellinwood, 2011). Without a

working understanding of students’ ZDD, determining the ZPD will be challenging.

The ZDD requires the learner to acquire knowledge in the ZPD and potentially develop

distal goals with or without assistance. Educators should consider how to organize free-to-take-

risks learning environment acknowledging Zones of Distal Development, mindful of the

intentional guidance to build on knowledge and practices acquired in successive experiences -

the culmination of which brings the distal goal – critical competence - within proximal reach in

the final analysis. Ultimately, curiosity, imagination and a cognitive feedforward/feedback

mechanism develops in part in the ZDD to enable learners to be able to predict and anticipate,

monitor understanding, and search for more information.

Puig, E.A. (2019). Rethinking the intersectionality of the Zone of Proximal Development: The Challenges of Disruptive and Transformative Change to Improve Instruction.

13

Zones of Proximal Development (ZPD)

The Zone of Proximal Development, often abbreviated as ZPD, is the difference between

what a learner can do without support and what a learner can do with support. It is a concept

proposed, but not fully expanded, by the Russian psychologist Lev Vygotsky (1896–1934) during

the last ten years of his life. The Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) is defined as: "the

distance between the actual developmental level as determined by independent problem

solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving under

adult guidance, or in collaboration with more capable peers" (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 86).

Vygotsky regarded interaction with peers as an operative manner of developing

executive cognitive function. He suggested that educators use cooperative learning practices

where less knowledgeable learners develop scientific or academic concepts and vocabulary

with assistance from more knowledgeable others - within the Zone of Proximal Development.

With the advent of technology in our lives and educational learning environments, external

mediators to learning extend beyond more knowledgeable others.

Vygotsky espoused that when a learner is learning in the ZPD a specific task or concept,

providing the appropriate assistance will give the learner enough of an advantage to accomplish

the task or grasp the concept more easily. Because of the following statements from Vygotsky’s

work (1986), the author defines the term proximal to mean “next”. Consequently, the Zone of

Proximal Development is defined to mean a learner’s next zone of development with the

support of a more knowledgeable other or external mediator/s. The following Vygotskian

principles guides our thinking into how learning should occur in the ZPD and underscores the

concept of a learner’s “next” zone of development:

Puig, E.A. (2019). Rethinking the intersectionality of the Zone of Proximal Development: The Challenges of Disruptive and Transformative Change to Improve Instruction.

14

1. What a child can do in cooperation today, he can do alone tomorrow.

2. The only good kind of instruction is that which marches ahead of development and

leads it.

3. Instruction must be oriented toward the future, not the past.

4. Instruction does not begin in school.

5. Instruction given in one area can transform and reorganize other areas.

Zones of Mesial Development (ZMD)

The Oxford Dictionary defines mesial as “relating to or directed towards the middle line

of a body”. In this chapter, I repurpose the word “mesial” to indicate a central or middle space

of autodidactic learning and introduce the term Zones of Mesial Development. It may appear

that the Zones of Mesial Development has been historically labeled as the independent learning

area or third space. Upon a closer inspection, by introducing the term ZMD, the author’s goal is

to disrupt and further the discourse on the importance of taking into account learners’ funds of

knowledge as an instrument for self-teaching and development. Since Vygotsky ((1978)

introduced the concept of the Zone of Proximal Development and Spear-Ellinwood (2011)

brought us the Zone of Distal Development, the field was ripe for the introduction of the term

Zone of Mesial Development into the discourse. Professional conversations that lack discourse

on students’ strengths, or funds of knowledge, focuses educators/practitioner-scholars on

assessment and instruction from a deficit model that fosters a fixed mindset that has the

potential to hinder present and future learning.

In the ZMD, learners develop agentic behaviors that promote self-monitoring, self-

regulating, and self-extending behaviors through an increase in language acquisition and

Puig, E.A. (2019). Rethinking the intersectionality of the Zone of Proximal Development: The Challenges of Disruptive and Transformative Change to Improve Instruction.

15

experiences. In literate enterprises, the ZMD becomes visible when students self-correct and

self-engage in searching behaviors to gather more information to support a defensible

interpretation of texts. It is worth noting that as the ZPD expands so does the ZMD and ZDD.

Generally, an increase in the ZMD is accompanied by an increase in vocabulary or language

which exponentially increases the potential to expand the ZPD and ZDD. The adage, “the more

you know the more you don’t know” illustrates the synergistic nature and orchestration of all

three zones (ZDD, ZPD, & ZMD).

Implications and Potential Impact on Assessment

Assessment and evaluation in education are critical to inform public policy in education,

funding, and instruction; but what is not explicitly assessed and evaluated is just as critical in

informing public policy in education, funding, and instruction. Coined by the sociologist Daniel

Yankelovich (1972), the McNamara fallacy (also known as quantitative fallacy), named for

Robert McNamara, the United States Secretary of Defense from 1961 to 1968, describes

constructing a conclusion founded exclusively on quantitative assessments and disregarding all

others which has the potential to misinform and mislead. The logic assumed is that these other

assessments cannot be proven.

Education is not a business endeavor that produces products. Education is in the

business of producing complex humans that think critically to become productive and caring

citizens in a given culture and society. Experienced and effective educators know that looking at

just the “numbers” does not tell the whole story of a complex process that involves broad-

spectrum overlapping systems for learning when the goal is to inform instruction; especially

when assessing and evaluating the literacy acquisition of students from diverse cultures.

Puig, E.A. (2019). Rethinking the intersectionality of the Zone of Proximal Development: The Challenges of Disruptive and Transformative Change to Improve Instruction.

16

Yankelovich’s McNamara’s fallacy logic model follows:

• The first step is to measure whatever can be measured easily. Although convenient, it

may be misleading. Using Words Correct Per Minute as a sole measurement to report

students’ reading fluency is one example of something that can be easily measured but

misleading. The use of pseudo or nonsense words to measure a young student’s

phonological knowledge may be another misleading assessment when taken in isolation

from real reading and writing.

• The second step is to disregard that which can't be easily measured or to give it an

arbitrary quantitative value. For example, using a rubric to document how a student is

processing information may be artificial and misleading; especially if we subscribe to the

idea that literacy acquisition is a non-linear and complex process.

• The third step is to presume that what can't be measured easily really isn't important.

Comprehension and fluency can’t be truly measured easily, but no one in education will

deny their importance. The author acknowledges that some colleagues will argue that

comprehension and fluency can be easily measured. Accurate word calling and words

correct per minute are not effective measures of deeply comprehending a text.

• The fourth step is to say that what can't be easily measured really doesn't exist. In

education, this mindset is the antithesis of good instruction.

McNamara’s Fallacy is highlighted under implications for assessments in this chapter

because a triadic model that accounts for zones of development cannot easily be measured but

is critical to inform instruction. The author argues that to genuinely assess and inventory a

student’s ZDD, ZPD, and ZMD static and dynamic assessments have to be employed by a

Puig, E.A. (2019). Rethinking the intersectionality of the Zone of Proximal Development: The Challenges of Disruptive and Transformative Change to Improve Instruction.

17

knowledgeable, observant and mindful educator to improve instruction. Although reliability on

static assessments is usually higher than dynamic assessments, it is a broad dipstick to inform

instruction. Numbers alone will not tell the whole story of a student’s strengths and needs.

Implications and Potential Impact on Professional Learning and Instruction

John Hattie’s (2009) synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses on learning, tells us that

teacher interaction with students and quality professional learning opportunities for educators

has a high impact on student learning. Consequently, Hattie’s work should serve as a beacon

leading us to the understanding that we have to invest in professional learning opportunities

for practitioner scholars.

If we want practitioner-scholars to have a growth mindset and build on students’

strengths, responsive and contingent teaching cannot take place unless a teacher has a working

knowledge of a student’s ZDD, ZPD, and ZMD. By having a working and developing knowledge

of a student’s ZDD, ZPD, and ZMD, educators can focus on the learner’s repertoire of responses,

respond without delay with the utmost relevancy, provide provisional support, and modify vital

instruction as needed. Armed with the tentative understanding of a student’s ZDD, ZPD, and

ZMD educators can more likely proceed with immediate intensive instruction to promote

acceleration in learning. Marie Clay tells us that, “It is much easier to learn about the unknown

from the very well known” (2005, p. 174). Yet, current static assessment practices focus on

what students do not know rather than what is very well known to determine the unknown and

perpetuates Freire’s (1970) concept of a banking model in education where item knowledge is

perpetually deposited into students’ heads.

Puig, E.A. (2019). Rethinking the intersectionality of the Zone of Proximal Development: The Challenges of Disruptive and Transformative Change to Improve Instruction.

18

Professional learning and quality instruction go hand in hand. Introducing the ZDD, ZMD,

and reviewing the ZPD has complex but manageable implications for creating professional

learning opportunities to support practitioner-scholars in becoming keen observers of students’

strengths and needs to improve instruction. Guided by the work of Malcom Knowles (1978) on

adult learners some key features and questions for consideration are:

1. Professional language needs to be updated to “upgrade” thinking regarding ZDD,

ZPD, and ZMD

2. A powerful and clear focus on understanding literacy learning as a process needs to

be developed and repeatedly addressed grounded in the work with students

a. What is occurring in the learner’s head?

i. What source/s of information is the student using to predict and

anticipate?

ii. How and what source/s of information are they monitoring to

generate a defensible of texts?

iii. What sources of information do they rely on or neglect to search to

comprehend?

iv. What sources of information do they rely on or neglect to self-

correct?

b. How do I as the teacher, interact with what is occurring?

i. Is my language as the teacher assisting or assessing the students’

performance?

Puig, E.A. (2019). Rethinking the intersectionality of the Zone of Proximal Development: The Challenges of Disruptive and Transformative Change to Improve Instruction.

19

3. Ongoing job-embedded professional learning opportunities that ground theory into

practice should be employed

4. Ongoing professional discourse on the impact of the intersectionality of the ZMD,

ZPD, and ZDD to improve instruction.

5. Continuous review of Cambourne’s Conditions of Learning in designing multisensory

learning environments that take into account –

a. What demonstrations are being provided for students?

b. How are students being immersed in content?

c. What responses are students receiving during the process of learning?

d. Who is being held responsible for learning?

e. How are students’ approximations addressed in the learning environment?

f. How are students engaged in the learning environment?

g. What opportunities are being provided for students to use what they are

learning?

h. How are students’ interpreting expectations in the learning environment?

Summary

Disrupting and problematizing instruction using Vygotsky’s (1978) Zone of Proximal

Development as a springboard through Foucault’s (1977) lens of power and education has

implications and transformative adaptive challenges for assessment, instruction, and

professional learning opportunities for university-scholars, and practitioner-scholars who work

with students on a daily basis. Using a formative experiment model, this micro-ethnography

included interviews and hours of classroom observations and interactions in both elementary

Puig, E.A. (2019). Rethinking the intersectionality of the Zone of Proximal Development: The Challenges of Disruptive and Transformative Change to Improve Instruction.

20

(grades 2-5) and secondary (grades 11-12) classrooms. It demonstrates that solely using static

assessments and looking at the ZPD alone to inform instruction may have limited potential and

misleading results creating dependent learners rather than independent critical thinkers and

future citizens. The author found that when practitioner-scholars employed static (e.g.

summative assessments, standardized assessments) AND dynamic assessments (e.g. running

records, student writing samples) to determine the intersectionality of students’ Zones of Distal

Development (Spear-Ellinwood, 2011) and Zones of Mesial Development (in addition to the

ZPD), it increased the likelihood of more effective and efficient instruction to promote

independent critical learners.

Vygotsky (1987) has stated that it is important that theoretical knowledge does not

become the end goal, but that the knowledge garnered be targeted at effective and responsible

actions toward practical activity. A lot has been written and discussed about a potential “third

space” where learners create an identity for learning within classrooms (Moje et al, 2004; Cook,

2005, Gutierrez et all, 2000). Heeding Vygotsky’s advice (1987), it may be that by shifting the

pedagogical discourse to include three broad-spectrum “zones” or third spaces, university-

scholars and practitioner-scholars will more readily adopt and adapt a growth mindset to

improve the practical activity of instruction over time. This may also have an impact on the

professional learning opportunities that teachers are offered to begin focusing on students’

strengths as well as needs. Consequently, in an epoch enamored with assessments it may be

that future studies on the intersectionality of the ZMD, ZPD, and the ZDD is the next frontier for

university-scholars and practitioner-scholars to investigate to improve instruction, assessment

and professional learning.

Puig, E.A. (2019). Rethinking the intersectionality of the Zone of Proximal Development: The Challenges of Disruptive and Transformative Change to Improve Instruction.

21

References

Bradley, B.A., & Reinking, D. (2010). Enhancing research and practice in early childhood through formative and design experiments. Early Child Development and Care, 181(3), 305-319.

Cambourne, B. (1995). Toward an educationally relevant theory of literacy learning: Twenty

years of inquiry. The Reading Teacher, vol. 49(3), pp. 182-190.

Clay, M.M. (1987). Learning to be learning disabled. New Zealand Journal of Educational

Studies, 22(2).

Clay. M. (2015). Change over time in children’s literacy development. Portsmouth, NH.

Heinemann.

Clay, M.M. (2005). Literacy lessons designed for individuals: Part two, teaching procedures.

Portsmouth, NH. Heinemann.

Cook, M. (2005). ‘A place of their own’: Creating a classroom‘third space’ to support a

continuum of text construction between home and school. Literacy, UKLA.

Dweck, C. (2012). Mindset: The new psychology of success, 2ed.

Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish; Birth of the prison. Toronto: Random House, Inc.

Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Herder and Herder.

Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative

research. New York: Aldine.

Gutierrez, K., Baquedano-Lopez, P. & Tejeda, C. (2000). Rethinking diversity: Hybridity and

hybrid language practices in the third space. Mind and Culture and Activity: an

International Journal, 6(4), pp. 286–303.

Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to

achievement. Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.

Heifetz, R. A. & Linsky, M. (2002). Leadership on the line. Harvard Business School Press.

Knowles, M. S. (1978). The adult learner: A neglected species. Houston, TX: Gulf.

Moll, L.C., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & González, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: A

qualitative approach to connect households and classrooms. Theory Into Practice, 31(2),

132-41.

Moll, L. C. (2014). L.S. Vygotsky and education. Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.

Puig, E.A. (2019). Rethinking the intersectionality of the Zone of Proximal Development: The Challenges of Disruptive and Transformative Change to Improve Instruction.

22

Moje, E. B., Ciechanowski, K.M., Kramer, K., Ellis, L., Carrillo, R., & Collazo,T. (2004). Working

toward third space in content area literacy: An examination of everyday funds of

knowledge and Discourse. Reading Research Quarterly, 39(1), 38-70.

Reinking, D., & Bradley, B.A. (2008). Formative and design experiments: Approaches to language and literacy research. New York: Teachers College Press.

Sloan, F.C., & Gorard, S. (2003). Exploring modeling aspects of design experiments. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 29-31.

Spear-Ellinwood, K. (2011). Re-conceptualizing the organizing circumstance of learning.

Unpublished doctoral dissertation, College of Education, University of Arizona, USA.

Strauss, A. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge, England: Cambridge

University Press.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and

techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

van den Akker, J., Gravemeijer, K., McKenny, S., Nieveen, N. (Eds.). (2006). Educational design research. London and New York: Routledge.

Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Vgotsky, L.S. (1986). Thought and language (A. Kozuin, Ed. & Trans.) Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Vygotsky, L.S. (1987). Thinking and speech. In L. S. Vygotsky, Collected works (Vol.1, pp. 39-285)

(R. Rieber & A. Caron, Eds.: N. Minich, Trans.). New York: Plenum.

Yankelovich, D. (1972). Corporate priorities: A continuing study of the new demands on

business. Daniel Yankelovich Inc., Stamford, CT.