You are on page 1of 15

Educ Psychol Rev (2008) 20:133147

DOI 10.1007/s10648-007-9064-1

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Reconceptualizing the Zone of Proximal Development:


The Importance of the Third Voice

Barohny Eun & Steven E. Knotek &


Audrey L. Heining-Boynton

Published online: 29 December 2007


# Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2007

Abstract A reconceptualization of the zone of proximal development (ZPD) is proposed


by introducing the notion of dialogicality and voice. Drawing on Bakhtins semiotics, it is
argued that the dialogical interactions occurring within the ZPD must be understood in a
larger context to go beyond the visible and audible participants. More specifically, in
addition to the first voice of the more capable participant and the second voice of the less
competent participant, there is a third voice that serves as an immediate agenda of the ZPD.
The third voice exerts its influence through the first voice by mediating the latters
intrapsychological functioning. The compatibility between the agenda of the third voice and
the developmental goals of the zone determines whether the progression through the ZPD is
enhanced or constrained. Standardized testing is given as an example of the third voice with
a focus on its compatibility with the developmental goal of the ZPD.

Keywords Vygotsky . The zone of proximal development . Socio-cultural theories


of development . Dialogicality . Voice

One of the major concepts proposed by Vygotsky, and the most often investigated and cited
in educational literature (Ageyev 2003), is the zone of proximal development (ZPD). As
Bruner (1987, 2004) notes, this concept is not only stunning on its own, but it also
connects all of Vygotskys ideas and thoughts regarding the moving inward of
psychological functions. The implications derived from this theory for the teaching and
learning process are also diverse (e.g., scaffolded instruction). A highly influential and well-
developed theory as it is, like any theory, Vygotskys ZPD may be revised for an improved

Barohny Eun is mainly interested in developing an instructional model for K-5 English as a Second
Language (ESL) students based on the sociocultural theories of Vygotsky. Steven E. Knotek is mainly
interested in early intervention and literacy. Audrey L. Heining-Boynton is mainly interested in foreign and
second language education.
B. Eun (*) : S. E. Knotek : A. L. Heining-Boynton
School of Education, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
e-mail: eun@email.unc.edu
134 Educ Psychol Rev (2008) 20:133147

conceptualization. When working with Vygotskys theories in particular, the following


complexities should be kept in mind.
When translating a text from one language to another, there is always a risk of losing
some of the original intentions and meanings of the author. This is inevitable since no one
language is identical to another in terms of vocabulary, grammar, or other structural
variables. With works of Vygotsky, however, the potential for this risk increases for the
following three reasons. First, Vygotskys writings, in many cases, require socio-cultural as
well as linguistic translations. Second, there are many concepts that Vygotsky developed in
his writings without giving detailed definitions and descriptions. Finally, many of
Vygotskys writings still remain unpublished both in Russian as well as in translations
(Blanck 1990; Wertsch, 1980; Wertsch 1984).
Within the context of discussing the difficulties involved in understanding and
interpreting Vygotskys works, Ageyev (2003) provided a detailed description of the
context of Vygotskys writings. A major characteristic of Vygotskys writings stems from
the fact that Vygotsky was rooted in the traditions of high-context cultures. Writers within
this tradition often omit or do not elaborate on concepts that are self-evident to them. The
influences from other socio-cultural factors that were self-evident to Vygotsky were not
clearly incorporated within the formulation of his psychological concepts. Furthermore,
Vygotsky was developing his ideas in a socio-cultural context that was drastically different
from the present situation, both in the West and the former Soviet Union. This is why it
becomes imperative to investigate the broader context of Vygotskys writings in order to
fully comprehend his psychological concepts.
This paper provides a means to better understand the ZPD by taking into account the
socio-cultural context of Vygotskys writings to emphasize the social genesis of human
cognitive processes and its implications for the process of teaching and learning (Griffin
and Cole 1984). In other words, by considering the intellectual forces affecting the creation
of the ZPD, the concept itself will become clearer. The new conceptualization in turn will
make the implicit assumptions more explicit, thereby offering new directions and
suggestions for the teaching and learning process.

From a Traditional Conceptualization to a Reconceptualization of the Zone


of Proximal Development

Reconceptualization, by definition, presupposes a conceptualization. Therefore, this part of


the paper will explore the usual conceptualization of the ZPD. This task will begin by
identifying and defining the key constructs involved in the delineation of the ZPD, given by
Vygotsky.
According to Vygotskys most explicit definition of the ZPD, it is the distance between
the actual development level as determined by independent problem solving and the level
of potential development as determined through problem solving under guidance or in
collaboration with more capable peers. (Vygotsky 1978) Although not explicitly stated
within this context of the definition, it is thought that development for Vygotsky meant
internalizing the psychological tools of ones society to achieve cultural competence
(Wertsch 1981). This internalization process may not be accomplished without the human
mediation of more culturally competent being, which is emphasized in the collaborative
nature of the ZPD.
Internalization, more specifically, is a process that involves the creation of a new plane
of individual mental functioning (i.e., intramental), based on the plane of social practice, or
Educ Psychol Rev (2008) 20:133147 135

interaction among people (i.e., intermental). Leontev (1981) emphasized the importance of
the creation of a new plane within the individual, as he defined this as the distinctive
characteristic of internalization, as opposed to the mere transfer of a social plane to an
existing individual plane. The collaborative work and co-construction of knowledge among
individuals become the tools of mind for each individual that engaged in the interactional
process. Although social in origin and nature, the products of collaboration are used to
serve the purposes of individual human mind when the process of internalization has
occurred. The individual is now able to use forms of knowledge that were once only
possible when assisted by others.
In the context of peer assistance, Donato (1994) notes how students acquiring French as
a foreign language were able to produce complex structures that were beyond their
proficiency levels when guided by their peers. The language structures that were initially
provided by a more capable student were internalized by the assisted peer. The evidence for
internalization was found when the same structures were used as a part of an individual oral
performance that took place much later in time. Donato interpreted his findings as an
instance of peer assistance and the ensuing dialogic interaction leading to linguistic
development.
The current conceptualization of the ZPD has identified three key elements: (a) the goal
(i.e., cognitive or cultural development), (b) the individual who is going through the
cognitive development (e.g., child, tutee, novice), and (c) the guide or mediator who is
more competent (e.g., adult, tutor, more capable peers). Studies conducted within this
paradigm have emphasized the nature of the interactions occurring between the two active
participants as this was interpreted to be a critical factor in determining whether the goal of
the ZPD is achieved or not. (For examples of peer interactions and collaboration see:
Donato 1994, Forman and Cazden 1985, Tudge 1990 and for examples of adultchild
interactions, see Rogoff et al. 1984 and Wood et al. 1976).
More specifically, studies within this framework have focused on the relationships
occurring between the childadult or childmore capable peer pairs and how their
interactions contribute to the development of the child. Notwithstanding the acknowledge-
ment of childrens own role in their development as well as the changes that occur within
the more knowledgeable adult or peer (Rogoff et al. 1984), the focus of this research stream
has been mainly on the role of the more capable participant and the quality of the verbal
support provided by him/her (Palincsar 1986, Wood et al. 1976).
Consequently, many studies have been devoted to exploring the role of the adult (tutor)
in guiding the child (tutee) through a problem solving process (e.g., Wood et al. 1976).
Results from these studies indicated that the qualities of the tutor are crucial in guiding the
development of the tutee. The most important quality has been identified as the tutors
ability to adjust his or her level of guidance to the current level of childs psychological
functioning. It is not difficult to understand that support which is beyond the childs
comprehension level, or support which is redundant would do little to stimulate the
development of the child.

Reconceptualization

A reconceptualization of the ZPD must consider causal elements not included in prior
models and offer additional insight into the processes and elements that define its
functioning. Prior interpretations may be limited in their understanding of the elements
necessary to create truly effective zones of proximal development. More specifically, less
visible constraining factors such as the more immediate agenda within the zone have been
136 Educ Psychol Rev (2008) 20:133147

left out from the current conceptualizations. These factors are crucial in determining
whether the ultimate goal of the zone (i.e., development) is achieved or not.
As will be discussed in more detail later on, the notion of a broader linguistic context
and an emphasis on hidden dialogicality that involves an inaudible voice may help to
expand the current conceptualization of the ZPD by making explicit the factors that
influence the mechanism of development within the zone. Previously, it was mentioned that
the current conceptualization of the ZPD defines the verbal interaction between the more
capable and less capable participants within the ZPD as the main mechanism of
development. These dialogic interactions are based on the first voice of the more capable
participant and the second voice of the less capable participant. In addition, there is an
inaudible third voice that mediates the perceptions and interpretations of the first voice
within the zone. This third voice is based on a larger linguistic context, in which it engages
in dialogic interactions with the first voice. A more complete understanding of these
dialogic interactions and Vygotskys sense of the causes of development within the ZPD
may be made by consulting the broader socio-cultural context in which Vygotsky lived and
worked.

The Socio-Cultural Context of the Zone of Proximal Development

Vygotsky lived a relatively short life in a society that was undergoing rapid changes in
various domains of life, including the field of psychological science. Within this social
climate, Vygotsky worked fervently to develop a new psychology based on the Marxist
dialectical materialism (Levitin 1982, Yaroshevsky 1989). Based on this broad philosoph-
ical foundation, Vygotsky developed many ideas within his theories of human development,
ZPD being one among the many. These ideas and theoretical frameworks have led to many
significant research studies and findings that shed light on the nature and mechanism of
human development. However, some of his original conceptualizations may serve as more
powerful instruments of practice when further elaborated to more clearly reflect the nature
of the mechanisms underlying their application. Many researchers (e.g., Chaiklin 2003)
have identified the underspecified nature of Vygotskys original formulation as one of the
major reasons the ZPD has been interpreted diversely. According to Ageyev (2003), the
main reason underlying the inexplicitness in Vygotskys texts is that the concepts Vygotsky
was formulating might have been self-evident to him, needing no further explanations.
Within the context of discussing the difficulties involved in comprehending Vygotskys
writings, Ageyev (2003) makes a distinction between high-context and low-context
communication cultures. In high-context communication cultures, most of the information
is conveyed by indirect means by relying on the broader cultural, social, and historical
context. In contrast, within low-context communication cultures, information is conveyed
in a direct, precise, and clear manner (Gudykunst 1998). American culture, along with most
western cultures, is generally defined as a low-context communication culture, where direct
communication with the least ambiguity is the norm. The opposite is true of the Russian
and other East European cultures where indirect communication pattern relying on the
contextualized information or the internalized information of the interlocutors is the norm.
Although to a lesser degree than in interpersonal communication, academic texts also
show evidence of their cultural origin. This is why Ageyev (2003) emphasizes the fact that
Vygotsky was from a high-context culture, which necessitates the readers of his writings to
pay more attention at times to what has not been said, than what has been said. In many
Educ Psychol Rev (2008) 20:133147 137

instances, the words that have not been said (or written) pertain to things that are self-
evident by the immediate physical setting or the broader socio-cultural context.
It is this line of thought that requires an understanding of the socio-cultural context of
early twentieth century Russia in which Vygotsky was working and writing. The time and
place in which Vygotsky was developing his ideas were radically different from the current
contexts in which his concepts are being applied. This discrepancy is important to note
because as Vygotsky emphasized, the socio-cultural context shapes ones theoretical
perspectives as well as defines the problems that need to be addressed with that theoretical
lens. Accordingly, it is necessary to clarify the socio-cultural context in which Vygotsky
formulated and specified his theoretical concepts.
Biographical sketches of Vygotsky (Lantolf and Appel 1994; Kozulin 1986; Levitin
1982; Yaroshevsky 1989; Wertsch 1986) often emphasize the unusual manner in which
Vygotsky became a psychologist. According to Kozulin, even though Vygotsky was an
original thinker with many significant contributions to the field of psychology, he never
received a formal psychological training. Vygotsky first started out as a literary critic with
main interests in literature, linguistics, and the arts (Rosa and Montero 1990), and
considered psychology to be a temporary diversion. Although it is in the field of
psychology that he devoted much of his work and writing in the latter part of his life, the
connection to his former passion was never lost (Yaroshevsky 1989).
In the post-revolutionary Russia, during the period when Vygotsky was actively
developing his psychological concepts, there were concurrent revolutionary developments
within the eras literature and literary criticism. As Wertsch (1986) notes, the period
following the 1917 Revolution provided a milieu that was supportive in reformulating
diverse disciplines as the intellectual excitement and freedom were at their peak. In
literature, formalism was taking its place as the dominant theoretical perspective in
analyzing and interpreting literary works. Formalism is a school in Russian literary
scholarship that sought to place the study of literature on a scientific footing by defining the
internal laws that govern any piece of literary work. In defining these intrinsic laws, the
formalists focused on the unique poetic nature of the literary language and established this
feature as the most distinguishing characteristic of literature (Kolesnikoff 1993).
Alongside the rise of formalism was the study of the factors involved in giving meaning
in communications, more formally known as semiotics (Holquist 1981). The most
influential among the Soviet semioticians was Mikhail Bakhtin who proposed the concept
of dialogicality as a basic principle in interpreting the utterances involved in any type of
discourse. More specifically, this means that no discourse stands in isolation and is always
embedded in a larger context of the language world. For example, an utterance is a response
to a previous utterance as well as an anticipation of a future response. These utterances may
be separated by both time and space and the interlocutors may not be consciously aware of
each others presence. Furthermore, these utterances may not even be actual verbal
interactions (e.g., readers responding to texts, writing influenced by established genres,
etc.). Nonetheless, every utterance must be interpreted within the specific context in which
it is connected with other utterances (Knotek 2003), both past and future as well as
immediate and distant.
Language also has an important role in Vygotskys analysis of human psychological
functioning as it serves as one of the most important mediators in the process of
development. As mentioned previously, both formalism and semiotics emphasized the
centrality of language, the former defining it as the distinguishing characteristic of literature
and the latter emphasizing its role as a context of human discourse. Vygotskys ideas
138 Educ Psychol Rev (2008) 20:133147

regarding the role of signs in regulating human activity (Wertsch 1986) were based on these
trends in linguistics and literature.
There is direct evidence that Vygotsky was acquainted with the tenets of formalism (e.g.,
his work on the Psychology of Art 1971) as well as the formalists themselves (Kozulin
1986). In addition, there is speculation (Cheyne and Tarulli 1999; Wertsch 1980, 1981,
1990) that Vygotsky might have been in close contact wit the Soviet semiotician Bakhtin
and may have been influenced by his concept of dialogicality. Basically, this notion refers
to the idea that human psychological functioning is inherently dialogic, and therefore the
unit of analysis of human consciousness should be dialogue (Radzikhovskii 1991).
The insistence on the nature of language as being a defining characteristic of literature,
and the emphasis on the consideration of a larger linguistic context in interpreting
individual utterances have important implications for understanding the concepts Vygosky
formulated as a psychologist. Wertsch (1980) in discussing the possible interpretations of
Vygotskys account of egocentric and inner speech emphasized the importance of including
these influences from the literary studies. In other words, when considering Vygotskys
theories, one must consider the fact that he did not treat psychological issues apart from
other intellectual forces that were occupying the revolutionary times in Russia (Bruner
2004).

Dialogue in the Zone of Proximal Development

The concepts of dialogicality and voice may be used to explain the mechanism of proximal
development within the zone created by the more competent adult and the less competent
child. As Vygotsky emphasized many times throughout his various writings, the child
cannot enter into relations with the problem solving situation directly. This must be done
through the medium of another person (Vygotsky and Luria 1994). The dialogue that occurs
between the mediating person (the tutor) and the child (the tutee) becomes the decisive and
single most important factor in the childs development. As the child internalizes the
medium of social interaction (i.e., dialogue) with the tutor, he or she becomes capable of
controlling his or her own problem solving methods and behavior. Namely, this is how the
child gradually proceeds to the next stage of (i.e., proximal) development.
The emphasis on the importance of the dialogue occurring between the tutor and the
tutee within the zone of proximal development may seem somewhat redundant as the role
of this interaction process has been under thorough investigation and its importance in child
development established. However, as mentioned previously, the concept of dialogicality
extends beyond the interactions occurring between the already known two participants (i.e.,
the tutor and the tutee). More specifically, it includes a hidden voice that may not be related
to a visibly present interlocutor, but nonetheless exerts an overarching influence within
every phase of the zone of proximal development (Cheyne and Tarulli 1999).
As Bakhtin (1981) noted, in any dialogic interaction, each utterance is given a voice,
whether in speech or writing. Voice is the actual embodiment of a specific utterance. The
presence of more than one voice is what makes the interaction dialogic. Even when there is
only one visible interlocutor (e.g., the phenomenon of egocentric or inner speech),
Bakhtinian linguistic analyses would reveal the presence of more than one voice. This is
because of a reliance on the broader linguistic context, which exerts its influence within the
immediate communicative situation. The invisible interlocutors or the inaudible voices
within the larger linguistic context influence the interactions within the immediate linguistic
setting. The voice that is heard is actually a response to or an anticipation of past and future
Educ Psychol Rev (2008) 20:133147 139

utterances, respectively. The notion that even when one is talking to oneself, one is engaged
in a dialogue, is in accordance with Vygotskys view that human consciousness is
essentially dialogic (Vygotsky 1987). People, even in their innermost planes of the psyche,
such as the plane of thinking, retain their essential dialogism.
Bearing Bakhtins dialogism in mind, Werstch (1991) argued that what is termed as
intrapsychological functioning by Vygotsky may be understood in relation to Bakhtins
notion of hidden dialogicality. Bakhtins key idea, that unites all of his writings, is the
notion of every utterance being essentially dialogic, no matter how monologic or univocal
its external representation may be (Bakhtin 1981). Every utterance presumes another
utterance, whether they are immediately linked in time and space or not. More importantly,
the participant-interlocutor may also be an indefinite, unconcretized other (Bakhtin 1986,
p. 95, cited in Cheyne and Tarulli 1999). This is why Bakhtin considered it essential to
consider the broader context of language or discourse when interpreting individual
utterances.

The third voice

These ideas provide the foundation for Cheyne and Tarulli (1999) argument that there is a
third voice present, in addition to the first voice of the tutor and the second voice of the
tutee within the ZPD. This hidden voice may have authority that extends beyond the
particularity of the dialogue as a kind of reference and speaks through the voice of the tutor
(i.e., the first voice) as an instance of ventriloquation (Bakhtin 1981).
The authority of the third, hidden, voice acting through the first (the voice of the tutor)
makes the acquisition of knowledge and development possible. It is this third voice that
mediates the knowledge and capabilities of the tutor within the ZPD. Consequently, what is
internalized by the tutee within the ZPD is also ultimately based on the third voice. This is
because the agenda of the tutor, however implicit it may be, is also based on the authority of
the third voice (Cheyne and Tarulli 1999). Stated simply, the third voice provides the scope
and direction for potential development within the ZPD.
The inclusion of the third voice is essential in reconceptualizing the ZPD because of its
overarching and foundational influence. The influence may be so pervasive that it frames
the majority of interactions within the ZPD, regardless of whether or not the third voice is
compatible with the developmental goal of the zone. When the goals of the third voice are
compatible with the ultimate goal of the ZPD (i.e., development), then the voice serves to
enhance the journey through the zone. In contrast, when the agenda or the immediate goals
of the third voice are incompatible with the goal of the ZPD, it may serve to limit and
constrain the journey of the first and second voices.
As an example, instructional contexts that are initially created with developmental goals
may gradually become constrained by the overarching third voice of high-stakes testing. In
this case, it is not high-stakes testing per se that constrains the progression within the ZPD,
but how it impacts the psychological functioning of the first voice in its mediating role.
Previously, it was pointed out that Wertsch (1991) attempted to understand intrapsycho-
logical functioning in terms of Bakhtins notion of hidden dialogicality. This means that
even the innermost psychological mechanisms of an individual are determined by a larger
context of dialogue. Consequently, the third voice serves to shape the perceived roles of the
first voice within the ZPD.
In the example given above, the third voice may be defined as those aspects of high-
stakes testing that gets incorporated within the ZPD to influence the interpretation and
perception of the first voice with regard to its role as a mediator within the zone. High-
140 Educ Psychol Rev (2008) 20:133147

stakes testing that puts heavy emphasis on passing scores may pressure the teachers to
resort to teaching to the test, in which case the third voice of testing would speak through
the first voice of teaching. Within this context, teachers may redefine their roles from
people who provide assistance to students for achieving their potential development to
those who support students in obtaining passing scores on the test. This practice becomes
problematic when the content and format of the tests are not aligned with developmental
goals that aim for cultural competence. It is in these cases where the progression through
the ZPD becomes constrained by the third voice.
It is important to emphasize the authoritative nature of the third voice within the ZPD.
As aforementioned, the third voice plays the role of mediating the intrapsychological
functioning of the first voice. It speaks through the first voice, so to speak. In order to be
able to attain this mediating role, the third voice must have the potential to impact the
thoughts and perceptions of the first voice. In the given example of testing, it is not any
type of testing, but testing that has the potential to influence how the instructional role gets
defined that may serve as the third voice.
In the context of emphasizing the situatedness of teaching and learning processes,
Bruner (1996) has argued that educational practices are fundamentally based on the larger
cultural frameworks. What is considered to be the aim and purpose of education will differ
from one culture to another, and the means to achieve these educational aims will also
depend on a particular culture. However, the main premise is that these culturally based
aims and purposes and their means of realization have significant impact on specific
instructional contexts. In the aforementioned example, the purpose of education may be to
impart knowledge on students and the means to verify whether this aim has been achieved
or not may be through standardized testing. The important issue here is whether and how
these culturally framed purposes get incorporated into instruction and consequently affect
the development of the learner.

Focus on development

Development was always at the core of Vygotskys work (DiPardo and Potter 2003),
whether in formulating theoretical concepts or conducting empirical studies. Accordingly, it
should be recalled that the ultimate goal for the creation of the ZPD is development. As
Chaiklin (2003) notes, this is why Vygotsky explicitly used the word razvitie (the Russian
word for development) instead of any other terms that might have a similar meaning (e.g.,
learning, skills acquisition, etc). At the beginning of this paper, it was emphasized that
development for Vygotsky meant becoming a culturally competent independent being. By
internalizing the cultural tools generated over the history of his or her society, a child
eventually becomes able to function independently in his or her own time and place. The
basic mechanism for the internalization process is mediation, which is offered through both
human and symbolic means. Later on, it will also be noted that the ability to generalize to
other tasks and situations that require similar intellectual functioning is an important
requirement and distinctive characteristic of development (Lantolf and Thorne 2006) that
distinguish it from other similar concepts, such as learning.
The third voice becomes detrimental to development within the zone when it serves as a
constraining force due to the incompatible goals it holds with the broader goal of the zone,
which is none other than development. Too often, researchers applying the notion of ZPD
within educational contexts ignore the potential negative (or beneficial) effects of the third
voice, stemming from their neglect of the more immediate agenda of the zone. Ignoring this
influential source of constraint (or enhancement) leads to illusionary effects of the ZPD
Educ Psychol Rev (2008) 20:133147 141

solely based on the two visible participants (i.e., the tutor and the tutee), or the two audible
voices (i.e., the first and the second).

Internalization and independent problem-solving are insufficient

When the focus of the ZPD framework is on the two visible participants or the two audible
voices (i.e., the tutor and the tutee or the first and second voices), internalization and
independent problem-solving are seen as sufficient conditions of a successful journey
through the zone. Vygotsky himself, in his most explicit definition of the ZPD, commented
on these two conditions as indicators of reaching the goal of the zone. However, it should
be remembered, that when trying to understand Vygotskys texts, one must go beyond the
immediate words of the text and into the larger context that frames the specific text. As
with any piece of writing, a specific piece of text is always framed by the larger socio-
cultural context in which it has been written. The stylistic differences may stem from the
fact that in low-context cultures, even the cultural frameworks are explicitly incorporated
into the writings, whereas in high-context cultures, they are omitted based on the
assumption that both the writer and reader have shared understandings of a common
culture.
What is left out even in the most explicit conceptualization of the ZPD, given by
Vygotsky himself, is the notion of the third voice. Vygotsky did not explicitly frame his
writings on the ZPD around the concepts of dialogicality or voice. Nowhere in his writings
can one find the connections between the dialogism of Bakhtin and the ZPD. Yet, many
Vygotskian researchers (e.g., Cheyne and Tarulli 1999; Wertsch 1991) have found this
connection to be essential in understanding many aspects of Vygotskys works (e.g.,
egocentric and inner speeches, the nature of human consciousness, and the ZPD). The
attempt at integrating the two theoretical frameworks stems from the fact that they were
both grounded in a larger socio-cultural trend of the time that emphasized the human
linguistic discourse (Lantolf and Thorne 2006).
In advocating the utterance as the essential unit of language, Bakhtin was emphasizing
the importance of the dialogism inherent in any use of language. As mentioned previously,
a linguistic utterance can only be understood in relation to other utterances preceding or
following the words uttered. Similarly, as Lantolf and Thorne (2006) note, Vygotsky argued
that even writing is a conversation with a white sheet of paper. Monologic utterances (i.e.,
words that are spoken to oneself) and inner speech (i.e., speech that regulates intra-
psycholgocial functioning of an individual) are all essentially dialogic in the sense that they
are framed within a larger communicative context.
The fact that the tutees intrapsychological functioning is influenced by the tutor has
already been established in the definition of the ZPD. However, the question of what
influences the intrapsycholgical functioning of the tutor has not been answered by the
current conceptualization of the ZPD. More specifically, how the tutor interprets his or her
role to be within the ZPD is a crucial factor in achieving the ultimate goal of the zone,
which is none other that development. There needs to be a causal mechanism that explains
the tutors interpretations and perceptions. The notion of a larger communicative (dialogic)
context, which necessitates an understanding that the voice of the tutor is also a response to
another voice, although inaudible in the immediate setting, provides a means to explicating
this mechanism.
Continuing with the high-stakes standardized testing example, if the tutor (i.e., the first
voice) interprets his or her role to be helping the students (i.e., the second voice) get passing
scores by teaching them test-taking strategies, then the evidence of internalization and
142 Educ Psychol Rev (2008) 20:133147

independent problem-solving will not be indicators of development. This is because what


the students are internalizing are test taking strategies and their independent problem-
solving will not generalize to other contexts. These would indicate that the students have
not acquired cultural competence, which in turn would indicate that no development has
occurred within the zone.

Incongruence

High-stakes standardized testing, that rely on formats (e.g., multiple choices) and content
(e.g., removed from real-life situations) that are not compatible with developmental goals, is
given as an exemplar of a third voice in the present paper because it clearly illustrates how
an authoritative voice may constrain the progression through the ZPD by influencing the
role of the first voice (e.g., the teacher of the tutor). Certainly, not all high-stakes testing are
incompatible with the goal of the ZPD (i.e., development), nor is it the only form the third
voice may take.
If after achieving a perfect score on such tests students cannot generalize what they have
learned to other real-life situations, a mastery of the test would not indicate development, or
cultural competence. Being able to generalize and apply knowledge to situations and tasks
that require similar intellectual functioning is an important requirement of development
(Lantolf and Thorne 2006). The lack of generalization stems from the lack of congruence
between the content, format, and the rationale of the test, and the goal of the ZPD, which is
development or attaining cultural competence.
Within an instructional setting created with development as its goal, the test may serve as
an immediate agenda that influences how the teacher or the tutor interprets his or her role.
Depending on how the tutors role is perceived, this in turn influences what type of
guidance is provided to the tutee or the student. In the context of high-stakes testing
example, when the pressure is on achieving passing scores on tests that do not require
generalizable intellectual skills and cultural competence, the role of the teacher may be
perceived as imparting test taking strategies in order to achieve passing scores, regardless of
whether the high scores indicate attaining cultural competence or not.

Discussion

As emphasized throughout this paper, a ZPD is created with development as its ultimate
goal. For Vygotsky, development is considered to be acquiring cultural competence, to be
able to function as competent and independent individuals in his or her given society by
acquiring the tools made by people of that society and handed down in history
(Yaroshevsky 1989). It was also noted that generalizability of skills is an important
indicator of cultural competence. Therefore, children who have successfully progressed
through the ZPD (i.e., who have reached its endpoint of proximal development) should be
able to generalize skills they have acquired within the zone to other real-life situations that
require similar psychological functioning.
On the other hand, if children evidence independent problem solving that is guided by
the internalization of skills transmitted by the more capable person within the ZPD, but
cannot generalize these skills, there is no basis to claim that development has indeed
occurred. The first author of the present paper has witnessed this type of phenomenon
within the context of tutoring sessions for English as a Second Language (ESL) students
who were offered guidance in order to prepare for high-stakes standardized testing.
Educ Psychol Rev (2008) 20:133147 143

Although these ESL students were internalizing the skills offered by the tutor through
their interactions within the ZPD and demonstrating independent problem-solving
afterwards, these skills did not generalize to other real-life situations that demanded similar
intellectual functioning. For example, knowing that 32F is the freezing point did not assist
the students in deciding what would be an appropriate weather for snowball fighting. Being
able to add decimals did not help these students when faced with the difficulty of figuring
out how much money they would need to buy three items of school supplies.
Relying on the concept of the ZPD that focuses on the two visible participants (i.e., the
tutor and the tutee), the situation just described is difficult to interpret. This is because
the more capable person (i.e., the tutor) has indeed guided the less capable participant (i.e.,
the tutee) in their journey through the zone, by transmitting the tools of intellectual
functioning that were internalized by the child. The child is now able to solve problems on
his or her own that were only solvable with the assistance of the adult prior to moving
through the zone. According to the description of the ZPD given by Vygotsky himself,
along with the research paradigms that rely on this explicit definition of the ZPD, this
phenomenon should be evidence of development.
The purpose of this paper is precisely to arrive at a possible solution out of this
seemingly paradoxical situation, where the conceptualization of the ZPD focusing on the
visible participants does not yield a picture of true development, with its explicit indicators
of internalization and independent problem solving. The notions of dialogicality and voice
emphasize the essence of human consciousness and intrapsychological functionings being
dialogic, of their being formed through concrete verbal interactions among real social
relations. The fact that the intrapsychological functions of the tutee or the student (i.e., the
second voice) are determined and shaped by the tutor or the teacher (i.e., the first voice) has
already been established by the definition of the ZPD itself. It has also been supported in
numerous empirical studies. However, less attention has been paid to what determines the
intrapsychological functioning of the first voice. This is important in its turn, because the
dialogic interaction that shapes the intrapsychological functioning of the tutor is what
defines the dialogue within the zone between the tutor and the tutee. As Cheyne and Tarulli
(1999) noted, the tutor (i.e., first voice) does not think or act in a social vacuum. His or her
thinking and actions are framed by a cultural, social, and historical context.
In contrast to the visible participants and the audible voices of the tutor and the tutee, the
voice that shapes the thinking and perception of the tutor is inaudible, and it stems from a
source that is not a direct participant within the ZPD. This is where Bakhtins notion of a
distant interlocutor may become useful. Although not directly participating in the dialogues
(i.e., verbal interactions between the first and the second voices), the third voice indirectly
influences the intrapsychological functioning of the second voice (i.e., tutee) by impacting
the thoughts and perceptions of the first voice (i.e., tutor).
Previous studies that have not addressed the notion of the third voice thus may have
neglected to note the significance of the source that may hinder (or enhance) the
progression through the zone. When this source is in accordance with the developmental
goals of the zone (i.e., attaining cultural competence), the progression is enhanced. The first
voice perceives his or her role to be transmitting psychological tools that will be used by the
child to become an effective and independent being in his or her socio-cultural context. It is
only when the third voice has its own immediate agenda that is not in accordance with the
zones developmental goals that problems arise and the journey through the zone is
blocked.
In the example given throughout this paper, high-stakes testing (its purpose, format, and
content) served as the third voice indirectly influencing the intrapsychological functioning
144 Educ Psychol Rev (2008) 20:133147

of the ESL students by directly impacting the intrapsychological functioning of the tutor.
Within the socio-cultural context of testing, the tutor perceived her role as a person that
helps ESL students to pass the tests, and what was transmitted within the zone, accordingly,
were test taking strategies that would not generalize to other real-life situations requiring
similar intellectual tasks.
The reconceptualization of the ZPD, as proposed in the current paper, first and foremost
addresses the need to make the hidden dialogicality explicit. The more capable participant
within the zone, whether that person is an adult or a more competent peer, should become
consciously aware of the factors that are influencing his or her mediational role within the
zone. Conscious awareness of the factors that either enhance or impede the journey through
the zone may not necessarily guarantee that development will result. However, it will
safeguard against false positives, namely, declaring that the developmental goal has been
reached, when in fact it has not been reached. Making explicit the factors that mediate ones
guiding role within the zone will also create possibilities to build on or challenge those factors.

Future Research

An agenda for future research on the impact of the third voice upon the dialogical
interactions occurring within the ZPD should conceptually consider both process and
outcome issues. First, in terms of investigating processes, special attention must be paid to
the mediational mechanisms that are occurring at multiple levels (i.e., between different
voices) within the zone. Some of the issues that must be addressed in this context relate to
describing the psychological tools that are used in the mediation processes and explaining
how they relate to the ultimate goal of the zone (i.e., development). Outcome studies
between the first and second voices within the ZPD are numerous and further investigation
should include examination of how variations in the third voice/ first voice dialogue
impacts the second voice/tutee. Ultimately, if significant and meaningful differences across
dialogues can be found to impact second voice outcomes, then interventions may be
designed and further efficacy and effectiveness research conducted.

Conclusions

The purpose of this paper was to expand the concept of the zone of proximal development
by answering the following question: What determines the intrapsychological functioning
of the more capable participant as he or she guides the less capable participant through the
ZPD? This question is important to ask in expanding the theoretical framework of the ZPD
as the answer to this question provides a means to understand what mediates and regulates
the intentions, perceptions, and thinking of the adult in his or her interactions with the child
within the zone. This understanding in turn sheds light on the processes that occur within
the child as he or she attempts to reach his or her potential development within the zone.
The concepts of dialogicality and voice are essential in enriching the current
conceptualization of the ZPD because they offer a way to concretize the mechanism of
human consciousness. It highlights the fact that even in the most inner and private spheres
of thinking and perception, human beings are responding to or anticipating past and future
utterances. More specifically, within the context of the ZPD, the intrapsychological
functioning of the first voice is a direct dialogic response to another voice, although not
directly and immediately audible. This is what prompted Wertsch (1991) to argue for an
Educ Psychol Rev (2008) 20:133147 145

understanding of intrapsychological functioning in terms of Bakhtins notion of hidden


dialogicality. Therefore, an expanded conceptualization of the ZPD must be able to explain
how the social, cultural, and historical factors, which create an immediate agenda of the
zone, influence the intrapsychological functioning of the tutor within the zone.
Previous studies within the ZPD framework, focusing on the first and second voices,
have revealed many important pieces of information including: the characteristics of the
tutor that lead to effective guidance within the zone (e.g., Wood et al. 1976); the types of
dyads or collectives that are conducive to progression through the zone (e.g., Donato 1994;
Forman and Cazden 1985); the type of interactions between the participants of the zone that
enhance the movement along the zone (e.g., Collignon 1994). The common thread that
unites these investigations was the focus on the immediate context of social (verbal)
interaction with limited regard for a larger linguistic context that may play a significant role
in defining the ZPD. The result has been that there has been a lack of research into the
mechanism that defines and regulates the psychological functioning within the tutor. By
exploring into the areas of formalism, which insists on specific linguistic forms and
functions as powerful tools that mediate human consciousness, and semiotics, which
emphasizes the role of the larger communicative context in understanding any dialogue,
one is able to gain an insight into the mechanism that mediates the thinking and perceptions
of the more capable participant within the zone.
As Yaroshevsky (1989) emphasizes many times throughout his biographical sketches of
Lev Vygotsky as a psychologist, Vygotskys psychological ideas cannot be understood apart
from other intellectual forces that were on the socio-cultural scene of the post-revolutionary
Russia. Vygotskys personal passions toward some of these intellectual forces within the
areas of linguistics, literary criticism, and the arts, influences that may have been quite
obvious to Vygotsky himself, must be explicitly taken into account in any attempts to
understand the products of his theoretical work within the field of psychology. This
integration or the reconceptualization of Vygotksys psychological concepts by putting
together the missing pieces that may have been self-evident to Vygotsky himself, may lead
to a deeper and broader understanding of Vygotskys psychological theories, including the
concept of the zone of the proximal development. This enriched understanding of the
theoretical concept, in turn, will lead to a more effective practice of teaching and learning,
benefiting all participants engaged within the Zone.

References

Ageyev, V. S. (2003). Vygotsky in the mirror of cultural interpretations. In A. Kuzulin, B. Gindis, V. S.


Ageyev, & S. M. Miller (Eds.) Vygotskys educational theory in cultural context (pp. 432449).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogical imagination (C. Emerson & M. Holquist, Trans.). In M. Holquist
(Ed.). Austin: University of Texas Press.
Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays (V. W. McGee, Trans.). In C. Emerson & M.
Holquist (Eds.). Austin: University of Texas Press.
Blanck, G. (1990). (3158). Vygotsky: The man and his cause. In L. C. Moll (Ed.) Vygotsky and education:
Instructional implications and applications of sociohistorical psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Bruner, J. (1987). Prologue to the English edition. In R. W. Rieber, & A. S. Carton (Eds.) The collected
works of L. S. Vygotsky. Problems of general psychology (vol. vol. 1, (pp. 116)). New York: Plenum.
Bruner, J. (1996). The culture of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bruner, J. (2004). Introduction to thinking and speech. In R. W. Rieber, & D. K. Robinson (Eds.) The
essential Vygotsky (pp. 925). New York: Kluwer.
146 Educ Psychol Rev (2008) 20:133147

Chaiklin, S. (2003). The zone of proximal development in Vygotskys analysis of learning and instruction. In
A. Kozulin, B. Gindis, V. S. Ageyev, & S. M. Miller (Eds.) Vygotskys educational theory in cultural
context (pp. 3964). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cheyne, J. A., & Tarulli, D. (1999). Dialogue, difference and voice in the zone of proximal development.
Theory and Psychology, 9(1), 528.
Collignon, F. F. (1994). From Paj Ntaub to paragraphs: Perspectives on Hmong processes of composing. In
V. John-Steiner, C. P. Panofsky, & L. W. Smith (Eds.) Socio-cultural approaches to language and
literacy: An interactionist approach (pp. 331346). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
DiPardo, A., & Potter, C. (2003). Beyond cognition: A Vygotskian perspective on emotionality and teachers
professional lives. In A. Kozulin, B. Gindis, V. S. Ageyev, & S. M. Miller (Eds.) Vygotskys educational
theory in cultural context (pp. 317345). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In J. P. Lantolf, & G. Appel (Eds.)
Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp. 3356). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Forman, E. A., & Cazden, C. B. (1985). Exploring Vygotskian perspectives in education: The cognitive value
of peer interaction. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.) Culture, communication, and cognition: Vygotskian
perspectives (pp. 323347). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Griffin, P., & Cole, M. (1984). Current activity for the future: The Zo-ped. In B. Rogoff, & J. Wertsch (Eds.)
Childrens learning in the zone of proximal development (pp. 4564). San Francisco: Josey-Bass.
Gudykunst, W. B. (1998). Bridging differences: Effective intergroup communication. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Holquist, M. (1981). Introduction. In M. M. Bakhtin (Ed.) The dialogic imagination (pp. xvxxxiii). Austin:
University of Texas Press.
Knotek, S. E. (2003). Bias in problem solving and the social process of student study teams: A qualitative
investigation of two ssts. Journal of Special Education, 37, 214.
Kolesnikoff, N. (1993). Russian Formalism. In I. R. Makaryk (Ed.) Encyclopedia of contemporary literary
theory: Approaches, scholars, terms (pp. 5360). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Kozulin, A. (1986). Vygotsky in context. In A. Kozulin (Ed.) Thought and language (pp. xilvi). Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Lantolf, J. P., & Appel, G. (1994). Theoretical framework: An introduction to Vygotskian approaches to
second language research. In J. P. Lantolf, & G. Appel (Eds.) Vygotskian approaches to second language
research (pp. 132). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne, S. L. (2006). Socio-cultural theory and the genesis of second language development.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Leontev, A. N. (1981). The problem of activity in psychology. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.) The concept of activity
in Soviet psychology. Armonk, NY: Sharpe.
Levitin, K. (1982). One is not born a personality: Profiles of Soviet education psychologists. Moscow:
Progress.
Palincsar, A. S. (1986). The role of dialogue in providing scaffolded instruction. Educational Psychologist,
26, 7398.
Radzikhovskii, L. A. (1991). Dialogue as a unit of analysis of consciousness. Soviet Psychology, 29(3), 821.
Rogoff, B., Malkin, C., & Gilbride, K. (1984). Interaction with babies as guidance in development. In B.
Rogoff, & J. V. Wertsch (Eds.) Childrens learning in the zone of proximal development (pp. 3144).
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Rosa, A., & Montero, I. (1990). The historical context of Vygotskys work: A sociohistorical approach. In L.
C. Moll (Ed.) Vygotsky and education: Instructional applications of sociohistorical psychology (pp. 59
88). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tudge, J. (1990). Vygotsky, the zone of proximal development, and peer collaboration: Implications for
classroom practice. In L. C. Moll (Ed.) Vygotsky and education: Instructional applications of
sociohistorical psychology (pp. 155172). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1971). The psychology of art (Scripta Technica, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky (Vol. 1). Problems of general psychology (N.
Minick, Trans.). In R. W. Rieber & A. S. Carton (Eds). New York: Plenum.
Vygotsky, L. S., & Luria, A. (1994). Tool and symbol in child development. In R. Van der Veer, & J. Valsiner
(Eds.) The Vygotsky reader (pp. 99174). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Wertsch, J. V. (1980). The significance of dialogue in Vygotskys account of social, egocentric, and inner
speech. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 5, 150162.
Wertsch, J. V. (1981). The concept of activity in Soviet psychology. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.) The concept of
activity in Soviet psychology (pp. 336). Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
Educ Psychol Rev (2008) 20:133147 147

Wertsch, J. V. (1984). The zone of proximal development: Some conceptual issues. In B. Rogoff, & J. V.
Wertsch (Eds.) Childrens learning in the zone of proximal development (pp. 718). San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Wertsch, J. V. (1986). Introduction. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.) Culture, communication, and cognition:
Vygotskian perspectives (pp. 118). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wertsch, J. V. (1990). The voice of rationality in a socio-cultural approach to mind. In L. C. Moll (Ed.)
Vygotsky and education: Instructional implications and applications of sociohistorical psychology (pp.
111126). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voices of the mind: A socio-cultural approach to mediated action. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89100.
Yaroshevsky, M. Y. (1989). Lev Vygotsky. Moscow: Progress.

You might also like