Analyzing the Zone of Proximal Development - Case Study Example

Data analysis The data analysis will present and analyze a specific area of the available data, gathered through the episodes based on Vygosky’s theory that states, “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 peer.” In this case, I am looking at the teacher’s tools while analyzing the ‘Zone of proximal development’ (ZPD). Educational discourse from the point of view of the ZPD is concerned with teachers or peers pulling children into their future (Edwards, 1997). Discourse analysis is therefore quite appropriate exercise for gaining an insight into children education and the related environment. An analysis which does not take the actors’ intent into account is of limited value for educational research (Edwards and Mercer, 1987). The First Student “Sal” Sal is English Language Learner (ELL). He is one of the high achievers in chemistry; however, he did not understand the concept of released energy. This episode went for fourteen minutes in total. Mr. Lopez imported the notes on the smart board and started to explain the concept while Sal was listening to him carefully. After that, Mr. Lopez opened the book and gave another example to Sal to solve it on the smart board. Mr. Lopez: I want you to solve for the actual heat that have been released overall, out of 34.4 gm of ethanol when the temperature is 78- 25 Celsius. … I want you to solve it Sal: First the equation. (Then he wrote it on the smart board.) Mr. Lopez: The specific heat for ethanol is 2.44 joule per gram degree Celsius Sal: Ok (said after he wrote the unit) Mr. Lopez: The circle goes the other way. Sal: Where that? (He pointed at the circle and corrected it.) Mr. Lopez: yeah! Sal: Starts to solve silently. Mr. Lopez asked again: How much heat is released of out of 34.4 gm of ethanol? Sal kept solving, and when he needed to use the temperature he said: I subtract the temperature? Mr. Lopez: Yeah, the final temp. is 78 (Sal was solving, coinciding with teacher’s talk.) Mr. Lopez: Multiply. (He handed the calculator to Sal.) Sal: So and we do that… and he started to think out loud while solving the problem. The Second Student “George” The second student was George, another ELL student. George was an average student in chemistry. He had similar issues in understanding energy and chemical changes. The whole session took twenty minutes. The Teacher applied same strategy in providing examples, reading the problem to the student, and breaking down the solution in order that student gains a better understanding. Mr. Lopez: Can I see your work? George: Yeah sure I finished. Mr. Lopez: OK good. OK Looks good do you understand? George: Yeah. I guess yeah because these two need to be added up to the final equation, so you have that one so you can to both of H’s Mr. Lopez: Ok very good Very good yeah I think you are good. He did not say the two molecules of Hydrogen, rather he said two H’s. That might be because of the language of science or even the specific symbolic language of chemistry made him talk that way, or it might be because the content knowledge was hard to be expressed. On the other hand, the teacher was trying to simplify the language as being the mediator between the content knowledge and the student. Third Student Karen She is sophomore student and she had to solve problems related to the same previous topic. She was an average student in chemistry. Mr. Lopez: OK! Karen what do you have? Karen: What I did is this, and I calculated this. Mr. Lopez: Ah, OK using this example. mmm did it help you out? Karen: Yes Mr. Lopez: OK good Karen: I think I am getting that Mr. Lopez: It looks good now. I want you to close the book. I mean I give another example and close the book Karen: OK Findings There are many variables that were involved in the ZPD in the intended case. First, all three students were ELL, and second, the chemistry language was very hard to express verbally by the students. As a result and based on what I have seen in the tutoring session, the first thing that Mr. Lopez used to do is, read the whole problem to the students. Then, he extracted the variables from the problem and lists them on the solution paper. Therefore, I considered the previous actions to be the scaffolding transitions in the zone of a proximal development. Next, Mr. Lopez guided the students as they were solving the problem positively, such as saying “that’s good” or “OK”. Those encouragements were probably another way of scaffolding their understanding because it might provide confidence to the students. The teacher used several tools in the scaffolding stage: examples from textbook, notes from smart board, and solving through breaking down the problem. Another scaffolding strategy was reading the problem to the students; then, writing down the given variables in the problem. That might have helped the students to know what to look for while solving the problem. What happened in the session? Based on the observations in the tutoring sessions, the ZPD that was distinguished among the three sessions was that the teacher facilitated and provided individualized instructions whenever possible. Teacher was using multi-sensory methods, so that those with variety of strengths and weaknesses receive the important information through either a positive verbal or a visual mode.   Figure 1: ZPD in tutoring session The figure above represents the sequence of the tutoring session. It represents the possible reasons for the three students to attend the sessions. Then, it shows the scaffolding stage with the assistance from the teacher to facilitate the subject to the students, and, lastly, it shows the progress of students in solving the problem independently. Read More