Sie sind auf Seite 1von 20

Scaffolding critical thinking in the zone of proximal development

Rob Wassa*, Tony Harlandb and Alison Mercera


Department of Zoology, bHigher Education Development Centre, University of Otago, New

(Received 15 December 2009; final version received 17 April, 2010)

This paper explores student experiences of learning to think critically. Twenty six zoology
undergraduates took part in the study for 3 years of their degree at the University of Otago, New
Zealand. Vygotskys developmental model of the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) provided
a framework as we examined how critical thinking was developed. There was very little evidence
of critical thinking at 1st year as students experienced a high-level of material scaffold in the form
of course documents, textbooks, problem solving-exercises and discussions that were primarily
aimed at the acquisition of factual knowledge. In large classes students were anonymous to
lecturers and they relied on each other for support. In years 2 and 3, learning to do research
became the main scaffold for critical thinking and students gradually changed their views about
the nature of knowledge. Verbal scaffolding and conversation with lecturers and peers allowed
students to extend their ZPD for critical thinking. They began to accept responsibility for their
own and their peers learning as they practiced being a zoology researcher. These findings are
discussed in relation to two approaches to scaffolding in the ZPD and it is suggested that research
should be an integral part of 1st year if critical thinking remains a key aim for higher education.
Keywords: critical thinking; Vygotsky; zone of proximal development; scaffold

According to Ramsden (1992) the aim of higher education has remained relatively unchanged
over the years and he cites A.N. Whitehead who wrote in 1929 that students in higher
education should develop the ability to think critically. This ability is still considered
integral to reasoning within a discipline and essential for advancing knowledge. However,
thinking critically can also be seen as context-independent (Winch, 2006) and as such, a lifelong learning skill. This conception addresses concerns that much of the factual material
taught at university is soon forgotten, or becomes outdated, and that the ability to think
critically is a longer-lasting legacy of higher education (Terenzini et al., 1995). Critical
thinking has also been rationalised in political terms, with the ability seen as an important
response to the economic needs of students, national governments, employers and other
stakeholders who have argued for all educational sectors to prepare individuals who are able

*Corresponding author. Email:

to contribute to a successful economy (Harland, 2009). Critical thinkers who can reason well
and make good judgments should also be able to contribute to a more rational, civilized
society (Barnett, 1997).
Although the idea of critical thinking is notoriously difficult to specify with precision
(Kuhn, 1999) a definition is needed if we wish to avoid uncritical acceptance of the concept.
Pascarella & Terenzini (1991) define critical thinking as the ability to do some or all of the
[ ] identify central issues and assumptions in an argument, recognise important
relationships, make correct inferences from data, deduce conclusions from
information or data provided, interpret whether conclusions are warranted on the
basis of the data given, and evaluate evidence or authority. (p. 118)

These are the same skills a research academic would be expected to have as they determine
the accuracy and worth of a knowledge claim (Beyer, 1985). Critical thinking also aims to
improve the quality of thought by developing the capacity for evaluating ones own thinking
in reading, writing, listening and speaking (Scriven & Paul, 2007). In addition, it has been
argued that critical thinking also requires certain attitudes or dispositions such as empathy,
humility, integrity, perseverance and fairness (Reed, 1998). These attributes enable the
critical thinker to apply rational criteria (Pithers, 2000; Browne, 2000). According to Facione

[ ] the ideal critical thinker is habitually inquisitive, well-informed, trustful of

reason, open-minded, flexible, fair minded in evaluation, honest in facing
personal biases, prudent in making judgements, willing to reconsider, clear about
issues, orderly in complex manners, diligent in seeking relevant information,
reasonable in the selection of criteria, focused in inquiry, and persistent in seeking
results which are as precise as the subject and the circumstances of inquiry
permit. (p. 3)

However, Barnett (1997) re-conceptualised critical thinking by merging thinking skills with
social action to shape the idea of critical being. The critical being is seen as the integration
of three forms of criticality: critical reason, critical self-reflection and critical action. In this
view, critical thinkers not only reflect critically as they evaluate knowledge, but they also

develop powers of critical self-reflection and are then prepared to take critical action. An
important characteristic of Barnetts critical being is that thinking is collaborative in character
and must be sustained through shared activity and discourse around collective standards
within a community (Barnett, 1997).
The work of Vygotsky anticipated such a social construction of critical thinking
(Schunk, 2004). Vygotsky believed that development is not simply facilitated by social
interaction but that social interactions fundamentally shape and transform the way we think
(Cole & Wertsch, 1996). A key theoretical model devised by Vygotsky to explain this was
the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD). The ZPD is defined by Vygotsky 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).

In the ZPD, the more capable peer and the learner work on a task that the learner could not
perform independently because of the difficulty level. At a later stage, the learner will be able
to perform this same task without assistance (Doolittle, 1997). Vygotsky never thoroughly
defined what constitutes a more capable peer but it is likely to refer to more than someone
from a peer group and, in a university context, must include direct and indirect assistance
from other students, teachers, lecturers and researchers.
If the ZPD is the potential distance the learner could reach with the help of a more
capable peer, then the Zone of Current Development (ZCD) represents the level that the
learner can reach through independent problem solving. In order to help a teacher provide for
the optimal ZPD, the metaphor of scaffolding has been proposed as a guide to thinking
through this practice (Bruner, 1975). Scaffolding represents the support a learner is given to
attain a goal or engage in a task otherwise out of reach (Davis & Miyake, 2004). For
example, as the learner masters each element of the task, the teacher may remove the

scaffold support and gradually pass more control to the learner. After successful scaffolding,
the outer edge of the ZPD defines the limits of the new ZCD (see Figure 1).
Aim of study
As a defining concept of a university education, critical thinking needs to be understood so it
can be better supported (Barnett, 1997). Although much research has been done to this end,
critical thinking remains a difficult concept to define and outside the fields of education,
psychology and cognitive development we lack studies on the developmental nature of this
concept (see Kuhn, 1999). The present paper seeks to provide an account of the development
of critical thinking from the students perspective. The research examines the educational
experiences of zoology students over 3 years and it adopts a theoretical position that
knowledge is socially constructed and that the ZPD model has value for enhancing our
understanding of learning development. At the same time it was recognised that students
reported experiences would allow us insight into the utility of the model. In particular, we
were interested in how students developed critical thinking in the ZPD, how this changed
over time and the decisions teachers, students and others made to scaffold this process.
The study took place in the Department of Zoology, University of Otago between 2006 and
2008. The Zoology programme consists of lectures, tutorials, laboratory-work and field
courses. At 1st year, the laboratory sessions are hands-on with numerous dissections,
experimental work and computer simulations. The students often work in pairs during these
sessions, but groups of up to four are common. Although lecturers teach from their own
research experience they also teach basic biological concepts from a core textbook and
PowerPoint slides for lectures are provided on the course management system. At 2nd year,

students experience field-work and there is a focus on writing laboratory reports. There is a
textbook but students are also required to review original research articles. In 3rd year, group
project work features strongly. A supervisor is assigned to each group but there is a great deal
of ownership of projects by students. They may, for example, come up with original research
questions, gather data, write-up and interpret results. All the project groups report their
findings in seminars and class discussions are encouraged.
The 1st year cohort has an enrolment of around 300. About 80% enter University
directly from high school and the majority of these will not go on to study Zoology. As a
consequence, only those majoring in Zoology were selected for this research and 26
volunteered to take part in the 3-year study. They were interviewed in each year using a semistructured technique that aimed to discover what had scaffolded their learning over the
previous 12 months and how this had supported the development of critical thinking. The
open interview framework enabled students to explore their thoughts and carefully reflect on
issues that they determined as important. In addition, one 3rd year tutorial was video-taped for
the purposes of allowing students to take part in an in-depth exploration of their experiences
using the technique of Interpersonal Process Recall (IPR) (Kagan et al., 1969).
Transcripts were analysed using Thomass general inductive approach (Thomas,
2006) which seeks to develop a framework of the underlying experiences evident in the raw
data while recognising that interpretation is also shaped by theory and the experiences,
knowledge and beliefs of the researchers. With regard to scaffolding, we recognised that it is
a difficult concept to define (Granott, 2005). For the purpose of this study, we examined all
of the support structures students identified as helping them develop as critical thinkers. It
should be noted that these supports (material or social) all had a social origin. For instance, a
textbook was considered a scaffold when set as a prescribed or recommended reading by a
lecturer to help a student learn. Critical thinking was viewed as an evaluative process that

involved an interdependent array of abilities and dispositions. These included (but were not
limited to): judging the quality of evidence and the credibility of sources, asking appropriate
questions, being open minded, being aware of assumptions and seeing things from others
points of view (Ennis, 1993). We were particularly alert to evidence that showed students
developing as Barnetts critical being (Barnett, 1997).
Results and discussion
The data showed a clear critical thinking development pattern over the three years of the
study. Students attributed changes to both curriculum experiences and interpersonal factors,
such as their relationships with teachers or peers. The key themes that emerged were how
engaging with research activities altered student perceptions of knowledge as a key
determinant of critical thinking, and how relationships were crucial to this process.

1 Scaffolding critical thinking through research

This theme examines the way in which the curriculum provided scaffolding in each of the
three years of the degree programme. The overarching concept was that learning to become a
zoology researcher would develop the required critical attributes of higher education. It was
organised around the idea that factual knowledge needed to be acquired before critical
thinking was achievable. First-year students concentrated on learning facts and theories and
were then expected to apply these as they gradually developed their critical capacities
through research training that culminated in an independent project in year 3 (see Willison &
ORegan, 2007).
When students were first interviewed most compared their experiences with high
school and reported that while they had expected something different at University, it seemed
to be an extension of school, although the context for learning was radically different because

of the freedom to choose whether or not to study. Learning, however, was still described as
memorising information to satisfy course requirements and pass exams:
The grades that you get in university are quite different to what I'm used to
getting. You don't get any feedback and you can't discuss it [ ] You may need
to just have to go, well, I'll just work as hard I can and learn as much as I can
about the topic and then hopefully, whatever grade I get will reflect that.
[Angela, 1st year]

All students found it hard to define critical thinking at this stage and there was very little
evidence from the way in which they described their learning that what they were doing
required much in the way of reasoning or evaluation of knowledge. Their learning was highly
scaffolded through written or digital artefacts, such as textbooks, handouts, laboratory
workbooks and computer simulations. Students commented that support materials, especially
the laboratory workbook and simulations, provided alternative ways to understand lecture
content and served to structure their thinking. In addition, students felt that they were learning
material for themselves, which increased motivation.
The sheer volume of information they were asked to assimilate and master seemed to
preclude spaces for other types of learning. Most felt little ownership of either the process or
outcomes of learning. Combined with a high level of material scaffold, this may have made
students over-reliant on declarative and procedural forms of knowledge that are unlikely to be
appropriate as a foundation for critical thinking (Pithers, 2000). Furthermore, the data also
showed that a students ZCD, in terms of their prior experiences, knowledge and cognitive
abilities, was not taken as a genuine starting point for teaching in the large 1st year classes.
Learning through research appeared to scaffold a change in 2nd year. All students who
took part in the study moved from a view of knowledge as something uncontestable, to a
position where epistemological uncertainty became an important part of their emerging
identity as inquirers.
Just because they are the teacher, they dont know everything. Theyre not
always right which is a really mean thing to say, but just because you are taught

it, it doesnt mean that its right because science is always subject to change.
Thats why they cant give us textbooks anymore. They just give us these
scientific articles and thats a great way to learn. [Mel, 3rd year]

They began to see a new purpose in developing skills to challenge knowledge, in particular
knowledge represented in textbooks and journal articles. Critical thinking was described as
critiquing things, independent thinking and developing their own ideas. Some
recognised their thinking changed because of the increased confidence that came from
success in research tasks, and the insight that their own ideas could be valued by others. This
important development was clearly seen as part of professional formation and students
reported that they needed to think like a zoologist to be successful. Most recognized that
such thinking could also be transferred to other inquiry situations. In 2nd year, students were
reviewing primary literature to learn evaluative skills:

It's almost like, I've slowly, I can imagine slowly picking up a sense of criticism
towards the experiment. So I'm sort of developing a, a critical eye on how
they've, they've gone through the experiment and if they've kept it all constant. I
mean, you assume they will because they're usually produced through an
academic institution, but I'd like to, I feel like I'm sort of getting more critical
of the experiments [Tom, 2nd year]

Here Tom is developing inferences about methods and feeling more confident to challenge
scientific authority. Yet there was also an indication that some students still saw themselves
as novices and that knowledge was created by and belonged to others:
you kind of get an impression that you're just meant to not think for yourself
yet and still have to just look at everyone else's research and see what they're
doing and just say what everyone else has come up with rather than actually
putting your own ideas in there and I think, in a way, that's true because we
haven't actually done any research into our own areas yet [Angela, 2 nd year]

Angela seems to accept that original research creates new knowledge but that this exists
outside of her, as opposed to something related to her own learning experiences and emerging
desire to create her own ideas. Yet the data suggested that research activity was central to
knowledge-making and the primary scaffold for a students journey through their ZPD for
critical thinking. If we accept the logic of Vygotskys social learning theory, doing research

will always start with a students ZCD and when the learner takes part in authentic inquiry
activities, the ZPD is maximised (Harland, 2003).
A key dimension of all research exercises was writing. Students wrote research-based
essays, critiques of papers and research reports. Writing was viewed as an act of critical
thought and knowledge construction, rather than an outcome of these processes (Emig, 1977).
There was little mention of how teachers contributed to this experience but any writingintervention is likely to affect the outcomes for the ZPD. As such, any teacher-scaffold for
writing needs to be carefully thought out because of writings potential as a tool for
supporting the process of learning to think critically (Allen et al., 1989; Hobson &
Schafermeyer, 1994).
When the 2nd and 3rd year students were asked to reflect on their 1st year experiences
they suggested that a foundation of factual information had been necessary and they
supported the status quo that facts must come before thinking and that it was the teachers
role to provide this knowledge. At the same time they also believed that what was important
for them to take away from university was the ability to evaluate, make judgements and
create their own factual knowledge.

Third year

Third year

it was hard to go through that rote learning stage [ ] I dont

think Id be where I am now and as confident in doing
research and [ ] my own project if I didnt have that base
perhaps it does not have to be separated out as much?
the knowledge is very important but the fact is that it was
knowledge without thinking for yourself or any kind of

In this example, the student supports the 1st year experience while recognising the difficulty
associated with it. If learning through being actively engaged in research was used more in 1st
year, dispositions necessary for critical thinking development might be formed earlier.
However, there would inevitably be less space for subject knowledge, and there is a widely
held assumption that without a sufficient store of factual knowledge, critical thinking

becomes difficult (Kuhn, 1999). Yet knowledge in the context of discovery and knowledge
in the context of transmission are entirely different enterprises (Barnett, 1992, p. 623). If this
idea is accepted, teachers could seek a new equilibrium with more research inquiry and less
factual information, and then test the new enterprise to see what difference it makes to
student learning and critical thinking. However, it is hard to see how such a change could be
resourced with large 1st year classes that are ever increasing in size because of the continued
shift to mass-higher education and concurrent rationalisation of courses. It may be much
easier for academics to provide a facts first, inquiry later curriculum and believe that this is
the correct educational philosophy, even when there is evidence that potential for critical
thinking is lost. The model below illustrates this tension by showing alternative ZPD
Figure 2 originates in the work of Reiser (2004) who identified two distinct approaches to
scaffolding in science education. With respect to critical thinking, ZPD 1 shows the outcome
of structured support in which the aim is to simplify the task for the learner and reduce
complexity. In our study, scaffolding in large first year classes included using guided
textbooks, course materials and supported problem-solving exercises, with a move from high
to low teacher-dependence. The second approach focuses on problematizing the learning
experience, which is seen to be more productive in terms of developing evaluation, thinking
and reasoning skills, extending the zone for critical thinking (ZPD 2). Learning through
research provides an example of a problematized ZPD because it requires students to take
responsibility for their own thinking and maintain engagement with complex issues. Both are
seen as an essential part of developing higher thought processes through inquiry (see Dewey,
1938). ZPD 2 requires teachers to stand back from interventions to allow student-struggle and
thus foster the development of thinking for oneself and a disposition towards education as a


process rather than an outcome. However, Reiser (2004) cautions that in a curriculum we
need balance in our scaffolding approaches. Learners will not be served well by
overwhelming complexity without suitable structure or a structured approach that strips away
complexity altogether. The question remains what difference would it make to critical
thinking in both the short and long term if a ZPD 2 strategy was adopted more often at first
A key difficulty with the ZPD 2 model is that it requires students to be pro-active in
their quest for learning and not all will feel comfortable with this approach. In the modular
system found at Otago, students have choice in which courses they take and we have
anecdotal evidence that some programmes with a reputation for self-directed learning and
inquiry are avoided. Not all 1st years seem to want control of their learning which would
negate certain forms of scaffolding for critical thinking and therefore result in a different
potential for their ZPD.
2 Conventional and informal scaffolds
Although curriculum planning and course activities scaffolded the development of critical
thinking over the 3 years, data showed that less formal or unplanned social experiences were
also essential. These included peer support, peer and teacher conversation, teachers acting as
role models and changing perceptions of the programme culture. Most students started off by
viewing knowledge as a personal construction but by 3rd year all but one had changed their
ideas about the social nature of learning. Teachers and student-peers became more important
to each other and there was evidence that both groups became a necessary part of an
individuals ZPD and essential for the development of critical thinking.
In 1st year there was no culture of student-lecturer interactions, in part because of the
large class size, but mainly because students were reluctant to engage with lecturers. By year
3, this situation had changed:


We've just been three years in the same class and we know all the lecturers now
and been through them all but they've been a bit more sociable, you know,
recognise you and talk to you and the funny thing is that that is such an
important part of the learning process because if you didn't know any of these
people, it means it's more difficult to talk about what you're doing academically
[Tom, 3rd year]

Tom recognises the consequence of the informal interpersonal role of the lecturer. Some may
have been more receptive to getting to know students or this change may simply have been a
function of smaller-class sizes and prolonged contact time. Nevertheless, students reported
that their changing relationship with lecturers was both subtle and central to higher-order
thinking. Improved access to teaching staff allowed them to explore their understanding of
the course material at a much deeper level and some reported that their questions gradually
became more sophisticated as confidence in their relationship with the lecturer increased. It
was also quite common for lecturers to scaffold students through student-led conversations
rather than teacher-led assumptions. These conversations often included careful questioning
and then direction by the teacher, and data showed that students could be keen observers of
this process.
Its like hes getting at something and I knew because he started directing the
question and I had forgotten that that was what the study was all heading
towards. You know, you get tied up with doing a study; you forget that you
asked a question and thats why youre doing it in the first place. So the whole
time I think he kept going back to what was the question [IPR tutorial

Lecturers were clearly seen as role models at 3rd year as students undertook their research
inquiries with support coming mainly from conversations with supervisors.

I think that it is funny learning from someone like [the supervisor] because you
can sit there and look quite passive but at the same time, I have written two
pages because he is structuring my thoughts. He isnt necessarily giving out the
answers but he is helping us lead up the process of getting somewhere [IPR
tutorial transcript]

Teachers who supervised student research needed a different set of scaffolding skills. They
diagnosed student learning and developmental needs in the ZCD before taking appropriate


action and this contrasted markedly with the support provided at 1st year, in which a highly
structured pre-determined curriculum regarded student knowledge, skills, abilities and
dispositions as similar across a large cohort. Students commented that after a conversation
with a lecturer (or sometimes a peer) it was much easier to recall knowledge and they also
talked to lecturers about other things that were important to them, such as careers and
qualifications. Relationships with laboratory demonstrators were also valuable, especially at
1st year when they were more accessible than lecturing staff. Demonstrators would talk about
how to study and typically sort out a students problem when they were stuck. However, they
tended to go no further in their teaching than providing basic support or help with study skills
and this situation was recognised by one student as inadequate to their learning needs.
Similarly, students as more-capable peers tended to provide only factual help in the
early stages but in later years talking to peers became an active way of rehearsing ideas and
reinforcing new knowledge. Friends were generally more willing to put in effort to help and
students perceived that peers would not judge them in the same way as a lecturer. Comparing
knowledge to that of ones peers was also important and such comparative evaluation could
have unexpected outcomes for critical thinking. For example, one student observed that
several individuals writing-up a group research project had produced completely different
accounts from the same data, and from this experience they became aware that the principle
of researcher interpretation must also hold for papers published in science journals.
However, peer interaction tended to be limited to affirmation or simple compromise
rather than a situation where ideas were subject to robust challenge. In this sense the ZPD is
likely to be attenuated, as challenge must be an important scaffold for the development of
critical thinking. Furthermore, peers were not always suitable scaffolders as data showed that
those who seemed more knowledgeable could irritate those who were not up to their level
and also that peer-knowledge might not be trusted, especially in the early years.


I'm always suspicious of my friends when they tell me stuff in regards to a

course because I've known them to be wrong. I'm always thinking, well that
might be true but it might not be. I'm always very suspicious of people my own
age that are telling me things about biological systems or whatever and saying
this is what it is. I don't trust that sort of information [Tom, 1 st year]

Of course Toms suspicion also shows a critical mind that would presumably be applied later
to the critique of journal articles, a lecturers knowledge claims or his own work. Overall,
these social interactions changed students as learners and from 2nd year there was a notable
shift in focus from self to a more collaborative environment.

So just being in university, you [learn that you] can rely on other people to do
what they say they'll do and to turn up for group meetings and stuff and you
learn that other people do care about their education which I think is pretty
important because it changes your attitude towards working with people [Anna,
3rd year]

In the wider group there was evidence that some students were prepared to make time to
support their peers, and this change could be interpreted as an example of critical action
(Barnett, 1997). These formal and informal conversation helped students towards what one
described as thinking like a researcher. Curriculum components that provided
conversational space included fieldwork, research training exercises and group research
projects. These supported changing dispositions as students matured and formed new
attitudes towards their own learning and that of their peer group. Attitude has been seen as a
form of self-scaffolding (Bickhard, 2005) when it leads the student to use self-evaluation or a
skill, such as breaking a task down into more manageable components, in order to extend
their ZCD.
Willingness to take responsibility for others was a key dimension of both learning and
critical thinking at 2nd and 3rd year because students were required to collaborate in research.
It has been suggested that scaffolding in the ZPD is dependent on an individuals history and
cultural circumstances (Duffy & Cunningham, 1996) and there is concern that if students take


forward the individualistic culture observed in 1st year, then the collaborative dimension of
critical thinking (Barnett, 1997) typical of later years becomes more difficult to accomplish.
The purpose of this study was to explore the student perspective of learning to be critical
thinkers and the different ways in which this was scaffolded in the ZPD. The logic of the
curriculum was to treat students as academics in training and in this context research
development, culminating in authentic research experience, was part of the educational
process. Research inquiries provided students with evaluative skills and the opportunity to
develop new attitudes to knowledge congruent with the broad aims of critical thinking. A
summary of the research outcomes that capture the key changes in student experiences of
critical thinking are provided in Figure 3 below.
At 1st year the key scaffolds were formal laboratory problem-solving exercises that aimed
primarily at testing theory and knowledge. Students in large classes tended to be relatively
anonymous to teachers and most other students, and in this context, any peer relationship was
valued for learning, even if this only served to confirm or validate factual knowledge. In 2nd
and 3rd year, research activities and easier access to teachers changed the student experience
radically. Teacher conversations were crucial to scaffolding and maximising the ZPD for
evaluation and critical reflection. Peer conversation altered in focus during this period and
some began to take more responsibility for others with respect to consciously trying to
develop higher-order learning. These students were able to integrate ideas, apply critical
thinking to new contexts and take critical action when scaffolding others, although such
actions often seemed limited in their impact on others critical thinking development.
However, such actions provide some evidence to support Barnetts idea of critical being


(1997). We question what impact there would be on critical thinking if students, rather than
focusing exclusively on obtaining core-factual knowledge, started doing research on the day
they entered university, so that knowledge is produced in the context of discovery rather than

Allen, D.G., Bowers, B., & Diekelmann, N. (1989). Writing to learn: a reconceptualization of
thinking and writing in the nursing curriculum. Journal of Nursing Education, 28(1)
Barnett, R. (1992). Linking teaching and research: A critical inquiry. Journal of Higher
Education, 63(6), 619-636.
Barnett, R. (1997). Higher education: A critical business. Buckingham: Open University
Beyer, B. (1985). Critical thinking: What is it? Social Education, 49(4), 270-276.
Bickhard, M. H. (2005). Functional scaffolding and self-scaffolding. New Ideas in
Psychology, 23(3), 166-173.
Browne, M. N., & Freeman, K. (2000). Distinguishing features of critical thinking
classrooms. Teaching in Higher Education, 5(3), 301-309.
Bruner, J. (1975). From communication to language. A psychological perspective. Cognition
3, 255-289.
Cole, M., & Wertsch, J. (1996). Beyond the individual-social antimony in discussions of
Piaget and Vygotsky. Human Development, 39, 250-256.
Davis, E. A., & Miyake, N. (2004). Explorations of scaffolding in complex classroom
systems. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 265-272.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Collier Books, Macmillan.
Doolittle, P. (1997). Vygotsky's zone of proximal development as a theoretical foundation for
cooperative learning. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 8, 83-102.
Duffy, T., & Cunningham, D. (1996). Constructivism: Implications for the design and
delivery of instruction. In D.H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational
communications and technology, (pp. 170-198). New York: Scholastic.
Emig, J. (1977). Writing as a Mode of Learning. College Composition and Communication,
28(2), 122-128.
Ennis, R. H. (1993). Critical thinking assessment. Theory Into Practice, 32(3), 179.
Facione, P. A. (1990). Critical thinking: A statement of expert consensus for purposes of
educational assessment and instruction. Research findings and recommendations.
Newark: American Philosophical Association.
Granott, N. (2005). Scaffolding dynamically toward change: Previous and new perspectives.
New Ideas in Psychology, 23(3), 140-151.
Harland, T. (2009). The university, neoliberal reform and the liberal educational ideal. In
M.Tight, J. Huisman, Ka Ho Mok & C.C. Morphew (Eds.), The Routledge
International Handbook of Higher Education, (pp. 511-521). London: Routledge.
Harland, T. (2003). Vygotsky's zone of proximal development and problem-based learning:
Linking a theoretical concept with practice through action research. Teaching in
Higher Education, 8(2), 263-272.

Hobson, E.H., & Schafermeyer, K.W. (1994). Writing and critical thinking: writing to learn
in large classes. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 58, 423-427.
Kagan, N., Schauble, P., Resnikoff, A., Danish, S., & Krathwohl, D. (1969). Interpersonal
process recall. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease. 148(4), 365.
Kuhn, D. (1999). A developmental model of critical thinking. Educational Researcher. 28(2),
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1991). How college affects students: Findings and
insights from twenty years of research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc.
Pithers, R. T. (2000). Critical thinking in education: A review. Educational Research, 42(3),
Ramsden, P. (1992). Learning to teach in higher education. London: Routlege.
Reed, J. H. (1998). Effect of a model for critical thinking on student achievement in primary
source document analysis and interpretation, argumentative reasoning, critical
thinking dispositions, and history content in a community college history course.
Unpublished Doctor of Philosophy thesis, University of South Florida.
Reiser, B.J. (2004). Scaffolding complex learning: The mechanisms of structuring and
problematizing student work. Journal of The Learning Sciences, 13(3), 273-304.
Schunk, D. (2004). Learning theories: An educational perspective (Fourth ed.). Upper Saddle
River, N.J: Pearson/Merrill/Prentice Hall.
Scriven, M. & Paul, R. (2007). Defining critical thinking. Retrieved November 27th 2009,
Terenzini, P. T., Springer, L., Pascarella, E. T., & Nora, A. (1995). Influences affecting the
development of students critical thinking skills. Research in Higher Education, 36,
Thomas, D. (2006). A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data.
American Journal of Evaluation, 27(2), 237-246.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Willison, J., & O'Regan, K. (2007). Commonly known, commonly not known, totally
unknown: a framework for students becoming researchers. Higher Education
Research & Development, 26(4), 393-409.
Winch, C. (2006). Education, autonomy and critical thinking. Abingdon, Oxford: Routledge.




Figure 1. Movement through the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) from

the Zone of Current Development (ZCD) after successful scaffolding (from
Harland, 2003)




Figure 2. Structured (ZPD 1) and problematized (ZPD 2) scaffold strategies

and their impacts on critical thinking


scaffolding of
critical thinking

scaffolding of
critical thinking

Impact on ZPD
for critical

1st year


Rare lecturer and


Assumptions about Applying formal

student ZCD and
knowledge to
unlikely to
maximise ZPD

2nd year

Research training

Lecturer and peer

some selfscaffolding

Learning to
diagnose ZCD and
maximising ZPD

embedded in

3rd year


Lecturer and peer

peers take more
responsibility for
others; selfscaffolding

Diagnosing ZCD
is necessary and
maximising ZPD

Evaluation of
embedded in
subject; used in
different contexts;
taking action

research in
teams; lectures

critical thinking

Figure 3. Key developmental stages and scaffolding support for critical

thinking in the zoology programme and the possible impact on Vygotskys