See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/233309078

Vygotsky's Zone of Proximal Development and Problem-based

Learning: Linking a theoretical concept with practice through
action research

Article in Teaching in Higher Education · April 2003

DOI: 10.1080/1356251032000052483

CITATIONS READS
81 8,372

1 author:

Tony Harland
University of Otago
74 PUBLICATIONS 876 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

High stakes assessment View project

Zone of Proximal Development View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Tony Harland on 01 April 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Teaching in Higher Education, Vol. 8, No. 2, 2003, pp. 263–272

Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal

Development and Problem-based
Learning: linking a theoretical
concept with practice through
action research
TONY HARLAND
Higher Education Development Centre, University of Otago, PO Box 56, Dunedin,
New Zealand

ABSTRACT This paper describes how an influential theory of cognitive development informed
teaching on a problem-based learning (PBL) course in Zoology. Vygotsky’s zone of proximal
development (ZPD) was introduced to the course tutors as a set of ‘common sense’ ideas with
the potential to enhance professional practice and improve teaching in PBL. Through collabo-
rative action-research, a reflexive critique of experiences was systematically documented over 3
years and the present account focuses on three areas of practice influenced by the ZPD. These
were a new emphasis on diagnostic teaching and learning, creating and maintaining instruc-
tional environments centred on authentic activities and supporting students as peer-teachers to
help develop student autonomy in the context of collaborative learning.

Introduction
This paper is about a psychologist’s theory of development and how it informed the
practice of a group of university teachers who were in the process of developing a
zoology problem-based learning (PBL) curriculum using action research. It attempts
to capture the way in which Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development (ZPD,
Vygotsky, 1978) became part of this research and how it offers a possible theoretical
foundation for PBL. The first part of the paper gives an overview of PBL and the
ZPD; the second looks at the outcomes of the research, and provides an analysis of
some relationships between PBL, the ZPD and praxis.

Problem-based Learning and Vygotsky’s ZPD

Students learn in a PBL curriculum through tackling real-life problems. A problem
or challenge is presented to a collaborative group in the same manner in which it
would be met in a genuine professional situation and before any other type of

ISSN 1356-2517 (print)/ISSN 1470-1294 (online)/03/020263-10  2003 Taylor & Francis Ltd
DOI: 10.1080/1356251032000052483
264 T. Harland

instruction takes place (Barrows & Tamblyn, 1980). Students work with the prob-
lem as they undertake systematic enquiry and the group is guided by a tutor. The
aim of PBL is to allow students to develop relevant content knowledge and the
metacognitive skills that will enable them to become good learners and problem-
solvers, an integrated process not unlike research. Facilitating learning in PBL
groups challenges the traditional teacher’s role and teaching becomes more like
research supervision or mentoring.
PBL has been described as ‘an ideology routed in the experiential tradition’
(Savin-Baden, 2000, p. 17). It possesses certain broad characteristics that are
interpreted and modified by individual teachers. As such there are many forms of
PBL, which can prove bewildering to anyone wishing to adopt it as a curriculum
framework or teaching method. Barrows (1986) proposed that we must first under-
stand what we are aiming for in teaching and learning, and then structure our PBL
practice in such a way as to achieve this. To clarify this idea, he produced a
taxonomy of various PBL methods and their possible educational objectives. How-
ever, adopting PBL (particularly in its purest form) clearly requires considerations
that go far beyond aligning teaching with objectives because it is an approach to
education that opposes the dominant culture of teaching and learning in our
universities. Most teaching is still organised along traditional lines with ‘teacher as
expert’ and ‘teaching as telling’; teacher as the creator and disseminator of knowl-
edge. PBL can turn these cultural norms upside down and those who choose to do
so need a good deal of courage. They inevitably face challenges to their beliefs about
education and opposition to change from various quarters of the educational system,
including their students and fellow teachers. Once a practitioner gets used to the
essential idea of learning centred on ‘problem solving in groups’, everything that
follows appears to manifest as a challenging enquiry into personal educational
values.
My own experience of PBL began in 1995 with its introduction to a zoology
field course that later became a full PBL module (Harland, 1998, 2002). This
programme became the focus for a collaborative action-research project that lasted
for 5 years. After the first 2 years, our capacity for development and change had
slowed considerably, and about this time I was introduced to Vygotsky’s zone of
proximal development (ZPD) at a professional development workshop on Learning.
The most enduring memory I have of this experience is that the ZPD struck me as
a set of common sense ideas that might provide a possible explanatory framework for
PBL and new input into our action research.
Vygotsky, from a child psychologist’s perspective, provides a strong argument
that learning and development differ and that learning not only leads development,
but that ‘learning creates […] the zone of proximal development’ (Vygotsky, 1978
p. 90). In the context of working with university students over a relatively short time,
the difference between development and learning was seen as more of a philosoph-
ical exercise and of little practical use in our situation. The theoretical concept was
therefore modified quite freely, with the terms ‘development’ and ‘learning’ used
interchangeably. Vygotsky said that the zone of proximal development:
 Proximal Development and Problem-based Learning 265

FIG. 1. The zone of current development (ZCD) represents the level that a learner can reach through
independent problem solving and the ZPD as the potential distance the learner could reach with the
help of a more capable peer. After successful instruction, the outer edge of the ZPD then defines
the limits of the new ZCD.

… 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 adult guidance or in collabora-
tion with more capable peers. (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 86)

Changes to Curriculum and Practice

Background
The collaborative action-research project involved up to five tutors and the students
from each year group over a 5-year period between 1995 and 2000. It was initially
guided by the works of Jean McNiff and Richard Winter (McNiff, 1993; Winter,
1989) and the focus for enquiry was a better understanding of PBL, and improving
the quality of our teaching and our students’ learning. The project has been
described more fully elsewhere (Harland, 1998, 2002).
For the first 2 years we had been practitioner-researchers constructing personal
theories of practice that were mainly based on our shared experiences and the
literature on PBL. We then encountered Vygotsky’s ZPD concept, which appeared
to be very different from the formal knowledge that we typically interacted with and
it was regarded as the first Theory that might have major relevance to our theories
of practice (to avoid confusing educational theory with personal theory, I now find
it useful to follow Korthagen (2001) and use Theory with a capital T for conceptual
knowledge, generalised over many situations and theory with a small t to represent
personal knowledge derived from enquiry into practice).
Over the next 3 years there was a continual interplay between practice, Theory
and the guiding rules of PBL and because the project developed over such a long
266 T. Harland

period, there will always be some uncertainty about the way in which Theory
influenced practice or how practice informed our interpretation of Theory. How-
ever, even with this caveat, it is possible to look back with confidence and identify
significant changes. Three areas became a focus for enquiry and although they were
never truly seen as discrete, it was helpful to regard each as a separate phenomenon
for research purposes:

1. developing diagnostic teaching strategies (in the zone of current development);

2. the emphasis on authentic activities (in the zone of proximal development);
3. re-thinking the roles of teacher and learner (the more capable peer).

Developing Diagnostic Teaching Strategies (in the Zone of Current Development)

Vygotsky’s starting point for instruction is the learner’s current knowledge and skills.
Similarly, this is also where PBL begins. In both there is an assumption that each
learner brings experience to the learning situation and existing knowledge can be
applied to solve problems that then results in the formation of new knowledge. From
a Constructivist perspective, there is always a strong relationship between what the
learner already knows and can do, and what is to be learned. Whatever strategy a
teacher uses, each student will construct their own meaning based on an interaction
between prior knowledge and current learning experiences.
If I had to reduce all of educational psychology to just one principle, I
would say this: the most important single factor influencing learning is
what the learner already knows. Ascertain this and teach him (sic) accord-
ingly. (Ausubel, 1968, p. vi)
PBL has diagnostic self-assessment built into its curriculum structure. When a
tutorial group is presented with a problem, the first task is for students to discuss
what each member of the group knows about the problem and what they need to
find out, thereby setting their own learning objectives. Ideally, diagnosing one’s own
ZCD becomes embedded in the learner’s repertoire of skills. It follows that at the
start of a PBL programme the task set should be within the range of the majority of
students’ ZCD’s, and initial teaching strategies are aimed at encouraging students to
probe deeply and identify what is genuinely known so that current learning can be
applied to the problem.
Experience showed that students were seldom limited by their disciplinary
knowledge, but nearly always by their metacognitive skills and life skills such as
communication and collaborating in groups. Both types of skills needed careful
support at the start of the programme, partly because students were meeting PBL for
the first time. Becoming critically reflective about learning appeared to be the key to
both successful diagnosis in the ZCD and progression through the ZPD. Through
structured personal enquiry, students could learn to ask questions about their
learning and test them against their own experience, or the accepted wisdom of more
experienced peers or tutors. To help students become adept at these processes, the
rationale had first to be made explicit and then space provided in which the students
 Proximal Development and Problem-based Learning 267

could gain experience. One key strategy was to start the day with a session of writing
in which students could explore their personal learning (Harland, 2002). They were
essentially being asked to consider themselves as ‘students of learning’, as well as
‘students of zoology’.
We aimed for students to attain a high level of independence from tutors and
once there was evidence that they could work independently, we began to progres-
sively ‘let go’ and responsibility for the PBL programme was handed over. At first
diagnostic teaching roles were centred on questioning, casual testing and listening to
ascertain current learning, and to see how close our understanding of a task or
problem was to that of the students. These strategies required frequent conversa-
tions between tutors and students. However, the more autonomous students be-
came, the further tutors were removed from personal interactions and it then
became much more difficult to gain insight into current development. For example,
once students learned how to facilitate their own PBL groups, tutors were not
present at meetings and this required new levels of confidence in our educational
values and a trusting relationship with students. The initial emphasis on supporting
critical self-reflection was seen as essential preparation for this stage of independent
working.

The Emphasis on Authentic Activities (in the Zone of Proximal Development)

Our PBL curriculum was originally organised in two distinct sections. The field
work was done in the Ras Mohammed National Park, a conservation area in the
Sinai desert of Egypt, where students worked on a series of PBL activities and then
undertook a larger project of an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). They
then returned to university to write up the outcomes of these projects (Harland,
1998). Originally, all PBL activities, including the EIA, were ‘real life problems’
designed by course tutors.
When Vygotsky’s ideas were first introduced they provided support for the way
in which we understood the collaborative dimension of PBL and the premise that
learning could be co-constructed through problem-solving. Vygotsky also suggests
that the use of ‘whole and authentic activities’ establish the best environment for
learning. If tasks are broken down and sequenced, key characteristics are lost at the
expense of quality (Doolittle, 1997, p. 87) and the way a problem is perceived is of
paramount importance to subsequent learning; the relevancy of hypotheses and
conceptual structures.
… to set up a problem that does not grow out of an actual situation is to
start a course of dead work, nonetheless dead because the work is ‘busy
work’.

Problems that are self-set are mere excuses for seeming to do something
intellectual, something that has the semblance but not the substance of
scientific activity. (Dewey, 1938, p. 108)
Discussions about ‘whole and authentic activities’ led one tutor to suggest that our
268 T. Harland

complete programme be re-conceptualised as a single activity that would have claim

to authenticity because it grew out of an actual situation. The EIA itself served this
purpose, but rather than have the tutors set the problem it was suggested that it
should be a project set by a manager of the National Park, so that the activity
became a genuine exercise (Harland, 2002).
Our new ‘authentic’ programme required little curriculum change, but a com-
pletely new way of thinking about teaching and what students might now achieve.
Learning was set in the context of genuine enquiry, a situation familiar to tutors
because most of our disciplinary and professional learning was done through
research or enquiry of one form or another. We saw no logical reasons why students
could not learn effectively in the same way. Furthermore, students would gain first-
hand experience of commercial scientific work which gave a particular legitimacy to
learning that could only be achieved through genuine practice. There was no doubt
that this change enriched students’ learning and the freedom we gave students to
work within this environment sustained new levels of energy, excitement and
commitment. Barnett describes an educational ideal of ‘critical being’ (Barnett,
1996) with learners engaged in critical thought, self-reflection and action. To
achieve this, learners must invest something of themselves in this engagement and
this investment appeared to be sustained throughout our PBL curriculum.
In such an environment of enquiry and student autonomy, students were
surprised that they were also free to make errors of judgement when tutor interven-
tion might have prevented these. They quickly came to understand that the experi-
ence of making mistakes can often develop deep understanding and a more critical
approach to work and this strategy was valued as part of our genuine commitment
to supporting independence in learning.
One of the best things was that we were treated as equals, and trusted,
which means a lot to me. (Student, 1997)

Re-thinking the Roles of Teacher and Learner (the More Capable Peer)
The metaphor of ‘scaffolding’ (Bruner, 1975) was useful in discussions about our
changing teaching practices and facilitating PBL groups. Scaffolding was conceptu-
alised as the process of providing higher levels of initial support for students as they
entered the ZPD with the gradual dismantling of the support structure as students
progressed towards independence. Eventually the scaffold would disappear and a
new one be built to help construct the next stage of learning. Importantly, the idea
of ‘scaffolding in the ZPD’ and the technique of ‘facilitating PBL groups’ were seen
as complementary processes. The teacher’s challenge was to ensure that learners had
the opportunity to reach their full potential within this context, with the idea that
‘potential’ was analogous to the next ZCD.
What is the zone of proximal development today will be the actual develop-
mental level tomorrow. (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 87)
In the first instance, tutors provided the scaffold until scaffolding gradually became
 Proximal Development and Problem-based Learning 269

an explicit responsibility for all students. Because we wished to develop a com-

munity of student learners who had confidence in their own abilities, tutors gradu-
ally withdrew from direct teaching as the course progressed and students were left
little choice but to assume greater responsibility for their work. Tutor interventions
were carefully adjusted to maximise roles in both support and emancipation—learn-
ing when to let go and trust student judgement.
Encouraging students to take responsibility for their own learning is very
important but I think there is, perhaps, a fine balance between chaos and
students learning for themselves. It is the fine balance where we act as
facilitators to the students’ learning process that is difficult to achieve. I
think it takes an amount of understanding and empathy towards students
and to the multiplicity of ways in which students learn. (Tutor, 1999)
The term ‘more capable’ continually challenged the idea of equality in working
relationships. As more experienced teachers we were likely to be seen by students as
‘much more capable’ with respect to our disciplinary expertise, life experience and
problem-solving abilities, so withdrawal from direct teaching also allowed students
to operate outside the influence of our authority. However, students knew that we
were never far away, and this gave some security and a safety valve when the going
got too tough.
One of the problems of collaborating with a commercial organisation and the
drive for authenticity was that our reputation as a university was in part tied to the
outcomes of the project. Because of this, tutors had to deal with the conflict between
promoting autonomy and intervening when standards were thought to be slipping.
When we did intervene, the curriculum was seen much more from the teacher’s
perspective. To get the right balance, tutors needed to recognise that the project
should develop from a student perspective and that our primary task was to help
each student move through their ZPD, while they assumed a seminal role in shaping
their own learning and the learning environment.
The Ras Mohammed National Park project manager therefore required a
thorough understanding of our PBL curriculum so that the task of the EIA was not
beyond our students’ capability and so that any expectations of commercial success
were realistic. A measure of success was also seen to be important for students
because of the possible impact on attitudes towards learning through problem
solving. However, in any genuine enquiry there is always an element of doubt about
success or failure, and fear of failure was one reason that students performed to a
very high standard. There were many other dimensions to student motivation, and
we began to see the ZPD in terms of multiple zones of proximal development.
Teaching became more focused on student potential and the distance a learner was
prepared to travel to a chosen destination.
As tutors stepped back students took on the roles of the more capable peer.
This appeared quite easy to facilitate and we came to recognise that motivated
learners tend to find teachers, and that scaffolding occurs quite naturally in informal
settings. The following comment was made in response to a question on learning
from peers:
270 T. Harland

… these things are hard to remember in detail as you often give and take
in little discussions on the side, walking somewhere, you exchange infor-
mation, you learn and teach without noticing. (Student, 1999)
A few found it difficult to accept their classmates in a traditional teaching role.
Those who were willing to assume this generally used ‘telling’ as their dominant
teaching mode (Finkel, 2000), especially when one student had knowledge that
others did not have. Peer teaching could therefore appear quite limiting when
compared to tutor teaching and perhaps students needed to be better informed so
that helping others learn was done in such a way as to support the philosophy
underpinning PBL. More sophisticated student-teachers could be helped to develop
their own critical rationale for teaching (as well as learning), including a consider-
ation of particular value positions with respect to PBL. However, despite possible
shortcomings, there was much evidence that students learned many valuable things
from their more capable peers.
… you learn other things about learning/teaching, living, dealing with
people, ways of solving problems. You also learn a lot about yourself.
(Student, 1999)
Students don’t actually realise that you must invest in both [teaching and
learning]. (Student, 1999)
… trying to explain something you only half understand to somebody that
doesn’t understand it [ ] usually after some struggle you both know what
you are talking about. (Student, 1999)

Conclusions
Embedded in Vygotsky’s social constructivist view of development is the idea that
learning is the outcome of collaborative problem-solving, and that it is best facili-
tated through the use of whole and authentic activities. These concepts appear to
provide one explanatory framework that might guide teaching and learning activities
in PBL. After the initial 2 years of curriculum development, the introduction of the
ZPD concept was ‘timely’ because it gave a much needed boost to our research. The
ensuing interaction between personal knowledge and public knowledge created
opportunities for a much more challenging dialogue than had previously been
experienced, even though the ZPD was taken out of its original context of child
development. Of course the zone concept did not just ‘apply’ to our students; the
teaching team worked within their own zones, which were brought into sharp focus
through our research. The concept itself provided a scaffolding influence that
gradually lessened over time as the ideas in the ZPD became embedded in personal
theories of teaching, which were realised through practice. It was only at this stage
that it was regarded as having genuine utility.
Diagnostic teaching to ascertain the ZCD was a challenging aspect of practice.
We believed that diagnosis was something that ‘we did all the time’, but it became
an issue requiring careful thought in the context of Vygotsky’s ideas. We were
 Proximal Development and Problem-based Learning 271

steeped in a culture in which a science teacher’s dominant role was helping students
acquire new knowledge and skills. Systematically searching for what a student
already knows can appear costly because of the potential to erode the time available
for learning what is often regarded as necessary content. We were happy to allow the
structure of PBL to drive self-diagnosis and this probably accounted for much of the
extra time it took for students to learn factual information in our version of PBL.
Although this provided an opportunity for work at a metacognitive level, more time
spent on formal diagnostic tools would have eroded other dimensions of the
curriculum to unacceptable levels. In part, this view came about because tutors and
students were already experiencing a shift from ‘expertise in subject knowledge’ to
‘expertise in facilitating learning’, which required judgements about the nature of the
experiences and education that a zoology student might expect.
Not surprisingly, many students described their role in peer support in terms of
knowledge transmission. There was some concern among tutors that if this became
the dominant mode of teaching then it could undermine some of the more facilita-
tive practices of scaffolding in the ZPD. Of course, students are not expected to be
experienced teachers, but there is no reason why they should not start to develop a
considered rationale for helping others learn as part of their own development. If this
goal were to be realised, then it would require close tutor support and an explicit
dialogue about the values and concepts that underpin PBL and the role of the more
capable peer. This change would challenge dominant cultures in higher education
by making the practice of peer tutoring more transparent and open to critique.
Our own professional learning was essentially the outcome of research and
scientific enquiry through a process of solving problems, and we wanted this
experience for our students. Yet they still perceived us as authorities from whom it
was easier to seek knowledge. In PBL we countered these perceptions through
explicit dialogue and by guiding students in an enquiry process that provided
opportunities and evidence for the creation of new knowledge. However, in our
desire to encourage autonomy in our curriculum there was one unexpected out-
come. When students arrived at a position where they could function well together
and drive the enquiry forward, they seldom asked for help, and the teaching team no
longer had their old roles and familiar student contact. Paradoxically, we felt some
sense of loss at this stage and concluded that a lot of pleasure in teaching had gone,
despite the fact that we could convince ourselves that students were probably doing
better without us. In fact, we succeeded in separating the learner from the teacher
and this brought into sharp focus the question of what happens to those students
who find this difficult to accept but have relatively little freedom to choose. To
address these problems we would need to gain a better understanding of our
students’ needs (a dimension of diagnostic teaching) and find new ways in which
students and teachers can work together in joint enquiry in PBL.

Acknowledgements
I am indebted to Jon Scaife of the University of Sheffield (UK) for challenging
conversations about Vygotsky and to Peter Davis who recently retired from the
272 T. Harland

University of Glasgow. Peter spent many years setting up the original Ras Mo-
hammed teaching project and never gave up on his dream. Finally, I would like to
thank all the teachers and students who gave their time so willingly to help with this
research.

REFERENCES
AUSUBEL, D.P. (1968) Educational Psychology. A Cognitive View (New York, Holt, Rinehart and
Winston Inc.).
BARNETT, R. (1996) Higher Education: a critical business (Buckingham, Society for Research into
Higher Education/Open University Press).
BARROWS, H.S. (1986) A taxonomy of problem-based learning methods, Medical Education, 20,
pp. 481–486.
BARROWS, H.S. & TAMBLYN, R.M. (1980) Problem-based Learning. An Approach to Medical
Education (New York, Springer).
BRUNER, J. (1975) From communication to language. A psychological perspective, Cognition, 3,
pp. 255–289.
DEWEY, J. (1938) Logic. The Theory of Enquiry (New York, Henry Holt and Company, Inc.).
DOOLITLE, P.E. (1997) Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development as a theoretical foundation for
cooperative learning, Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 8, pp. 83–103.
FINKEL, D.L. (2000) Teaching With Your Mouth Shut (Portsmouth, Heinemann).
HARLAND, T. (1998) Moving towards problem-based learning, Teaching in Higher Education, 3,
pp. 219–229.
HARLAND, T. (2002) Zoology students’ experiences of collaborative enquiry in problem-based
learning, Teaching in Higher Education, 7, pp. 3–15.
KORTHAGEN, F.A.J. (2001) Linking Practice and Theory: the pedagogy of realistic teacher education,
presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association,
Seattle, April 2001.
MCNIFF, J. (1993) Teaching as Learning. An Action Research Approach (London, Routledge).
SAVIN-BADEN, M. (2000) Problem-based Learning in Higher Education: untold stories (Buckingham,
Society for Research into Higher Education/Open University Press).
VYGOTSKY, L.S. (1978) Mind in Society: the development of higher mental processes (Cambridge,
Harvard University Press).
WINTER, R. (1989) Learning from Experience. Principles and Practice of Action-research (London,
Falmer Press).
View publication stats