The study I chose was done by Lev Vygotsky in 1930 that was published in 1978. In this study Vygotsky theorized that learning was best achieved when a subject was just out of reach. That with the help of scaffolding technique the gap of knowledge could be shared form one individual to another and aid in the understanding. That the social interaction of learning it than becomes internalized. This wasn't a study of set amounts of kids. It first originated from observations of his clinical studies of children.

The study I chose was the study by Deanna Kuhn in 1977. This study was done with children ages 6-14 years old. This study was done to test conditional reasoning. The participants were asked classical reasoning questions and the rate at which they responded correctly was measured. The results were that the performance varied depending on the format of the question.

To further test this the study could have been extended to children that were younger as well as children who were older or adults. This would either help to support what the study concluded or prove it to not be true.

If I could design a study I would choose to gather participants that are 3-18 years old. I would ask the same types of questions to keep this variable the same. I would then evaluate if the performance still varies according to the format of the problem or if age plays a factor.

The study I chose was the zone of proximal development by Vygotsky. In this study it is discussed that learners can do tasks outside of their current ability with the support of a skilled partner or teacher. This will help stretch learners current abilities and allow them to continue to grow.  

In this post, I will be discussing the study done by Chavajay & Rogoff (1990) which took a closer look on guided participation and how the amount of a mother’s formal education can influence this learning process. For the study, Chavajay & Rogoff (1990) gave a task of completing a puzzle piece for Guatemalan Mayan mothers and a group of several children to complete. What they found in this study is that the mothers with high levels formal education tend to organize the group hierarchically and give different children a different task. The mothers with less formal education tend to engage with the group of children collaboratively to complete the task. Both type of guided learning are important learning processes for children.

While I am curious to see if this study holds universality where we can see this being replicated in groups of people with different cultural backgrounds, I am more interested to see if the results of this study will be the same if we look into how fathers conduct guided participation in completing a task and if a parent’s experience in teaching might show a different learning experience for children. From my own experience with my father, who is an engineer with no teaching experience, he tends to take charge in completing a task and will attempt to complete this on his own if I take a longer amount of time while doing my part of the task. Another anecdotal example, my husband and I differs in the way we help our child with his homework, where I am a SPED teacher and my husband is a machine operator. Though I know others might have a different experience in this, it is still interesting to see how a child's learning process might differ between each parent and if the parent’s teaching experience might influence this.

For that reason, I have designed a study where we test to see if a parents teaching experience might influence the learning process of children. I will conduct this study similarly to how Chavajay & Rogoff (1990) conducted theirs where I will take different parents, 15 mothers and 15 fathers. Five of the mothers and five of the fathers worked or are working as teachers, five of the mothers and five of the fathers work different jobs, and the rest are stay at home parents. I will assign 7 children (6-12) to each parent and give them the task to finish a lego piece and see what kind of teaching styles each parent will have.

The study i chose was the zone of proximal development by vygotsky. Vygotsky's Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) is the space between what a learner can do independently and what they can acheive with guidance from a more knowledgeable other like a teacher or peer. Within this zone, learning occurs most effectively because tasks are challenging but achievable with support. The ZPD is a dynamic and evolving space, shifting as a learner's skills and understanding grow.

Is there anything else the authors could have explored? Yes children of different cultures with different skills may or couldve been used.

An experiment exploring Vygotsky's Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) could involve a simple task, like building a structure with blocks, and comapring performance when done independently vs with guilded assistance. The ZPD is the space between what a learner can do on their own and what they can achieve with help.

Chavajay and Rogoff assessed the approaches of Guatemalan Mayan and U.S. middle-class families to collaborative problem-solving tasks in their 1990 study. Their findings indicated that Mayan children engaged in more collaborative participation and learned through observation, whereas U.S. children were more often guided by direct verbal instruction. The findings indicated that cultural practices have a significant influence on the ways in which children learn and participate in group activities.

There were multiple avenues for Chavajay and Rogoff to broaden the scope of their investigation. As an illustration, they might have added various age brackets, like that of teens, to determine whether the modes of collaboration and learning evolved as time passed. They may have also examined the differences in how children learned when guided by siblings compared to parents, particularly given that in certain cultures siblings frequently assume a greater teaching role. An alternative method would have been to carry out a longitudinal study, tracking the same children over several years to see how their learning styles evolved. Moreover, they could have explored alternative theories like Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory by investigating the impact of social interaction beyond mere observation on learning within both cultural groups.

My design would involve a longitudinal study tracking Guatemalan Mayan and U.S. middle-class children from early childhood to adolescence. While being observed in their interactions with both siblings and parents, participants would accomplish collaborative problem-solving tasks at various points. Data collection would focus on the evolution of learning styles and participation patterns over time, with comparisons made to theories such as Vygotsky’s sociocultural model. This design would uncover cultural differences as well as developmental changes in learning strategies.

I chose Chavajay and Rogoff's study from 1990. The study evaluated mothers with different educational backgrounds to guide children aged 6-12 years old through solving a puzzle. The results showed that mothers with higher formal education organized their groups hierarchically, so each group member had a different task. Whereas mothers with less formal education engaged with their group altogether. The results showed that even though the mothers had different educational backgrounds, both learning forms have their advantages when learning a new task.

Some things that could be done differently in this study are the tasks that each group participates in. The task could range from similar tasks like puzzles, such as a scavenger hunt. There could be another task related to the core foundation for education, like math, reading, and writing. Also, arrange a range of educated people to guide the children.

If I were to design an experiment based on my critique, I would have 5 groups with education background from no high school diploma to master's and above. I would choose from this range because of the different strategies developed in education that can determine how these guides would interact with the children. I would also choose a range of tasks for the educated guides to teach, such as math, reading, and writing, to the children. I'm curious to see if a more educational background guide will allow them to structure their group of kids differently.The structure can range from teaching age by age or in simply splitting the group in half

In 1981, Resnick and Ford explored the difference in mathematical achievement when the mathematical concept is understood versus memorized. Having teachers teach concepts like subtraction having an inverse relationship to addition helps the child understand math and how to apply those concepts to solve other similar mathematical equations. Resnick and Ford concluded that meaningful learning is achieved when new information is actively connected to existing knowledge making is easier to recall.

To further this test theory of meaningful learning, the study could have followed two groups of children, one taught based on meaningful learning and one group taught with memorization as the basis for instruction in math, from kindergarten to high school and compare the groups at the end of each school year to see which has higher mathematical achievement.

If I could design a study with no budget, I would continue with Resnick and Ford's study but extend the longitudinal aspect of it and continue the study following the two groups of children through high school and beyond. At this point the study will create two new groups totaling four groups. These groups will be self-selected based on which children attend college or go into the work field after high school. The groups would be 1) Children taught meaningful learning in math that attend college, 2) Children taught memorization-based learning that attend college, 3) Children taught meaningful learning that do not attend college, and 4) Children taught memorization-based learning that do not attend college. This study will follow the individuals in the groups to career placement. This study is intended to show the long-term affects of each teaching style measuring wealth, job stability, and job title within five years of employment.

The study I chose was the one done by Vygotsky in 1978. His study was trying to prove that children learn best when they are participating in activities that are just slightly too difficult for them. They haven't quite acquired all the skill sets needed to finish the activity, but they are close enough that they can learn. Especially when they are performing these tasks with an adult or someone who does in fact know how to finish the task.

To test this theory they would need multiple different groups of children of different ages and skill sets. They would need to put children of the same age and academic background in different environments so that their learning ability over time could be tested.

If I were to design an experiment to test this theory, I would have multiple groups of children of the same age. Each group should be given a task. One group will get one that they have learned firmly, one will get a task that maybe they haven’t focused on as much, and then one group will get a task that they don’t have information about at all. I would keep repeating the same steps, and then give the children a test to see how much they are learning based on the difficulty of their task.

Chavajay & Rogoff (1990) gave Guatemalan Mayan mothers the task of constructing a puzzle with a group of children from the ages of 6 to 12 years old. Mothers with higher education took a hierarchical approach while mothers that did not had a more collaborative approach.

I think some other angles they could have explored with this study are if hierarchical structures are innate or if they are influenced by the culture and structures of higher education. Is higher education organized in such a hierarchical way that it influences people to think in this manner? And where did this hierarchical structure of higher education come from? Does it date back to the days of monarchy?

A study that analyzes the hierarchical nature of higher education would involve some participants from all different racial and socioeconomic statuses to organize a group of children to construct a paper tower that can be as tall as possible without falling. One group of children is taught through a Montessori school and has not pursued higher education, and the other is the opposite, so standardized schooling and higher education.

The study conducted by Chavajay and Rogoff (1990) evaluated how the amount of formal education a caregiver has influences the nature of their guided participation with children. They did this by studying Guatemalan Mayan mothers and how they interacted with a group of children, aged 6-12 years old, when constucting a puzzle. They found that there was a difference in guided participation forms between mothers with higher levels of formal education and those with lower levels. Mothers with higher levels of formal education hierarchcally organized the children and had group members perform different tasks based on the organization. However, mothers with less formal education collaboratively engaged with the entire group. Despite the difference, both of these forms are beneficial to children learning new tasks.

I think that the authors may not have accounted for the relationship between the children and the teacher and the differences in tone of the interactions. I'm not sure if the mothers in the study were only interacting with their own children or children of other participants or even children that were unrelated to the participants. I think that this might impact the level of comfort and trust the children have with their teacher in this scenario, which can impact their receptiveness to instruction and how much they benefit from the learning task. Additionally, there seems to be no mention to the tone of the interaction between the mothers and the children. I think that this ties back to the amount of trust the children have with their teacher and how it can impact their performance during the study.

I propose a study that focuses on the impact of parent-child relationships and interactions parent have with children in one-on-one guided participation tasks. The study would observe parents and non-parents with different groups of children they are either familiar with or unfamiliar with. The parents would be with their own child, a child they know but aren't theirs, and a child that they have no relationship with. Non-parents would ideally be closely related to a child, either a niece/nephew or a step-child, but have no children themselves. Non-parents would be observed with a closely-related child, a child they are familiar with but are not closely-related to, and a child they have no relationship with. Their interactions would be evaluated based on performance on the task, the way the task was accomplished, the manner in which the adult interacts with the child, and the amount of trust the child has for the adult. Ideally, all children would be the in middle childhood, between the ages of 6 and 12, for the sake of consistency. The main point of the study is to observe how trust between adult and child impacts the child's learning, while also looking at the ways parents and non-parents interact with children and how the interactions also impact the child's learning.

I chose to discuss the study conducted by Chavajay and Rogoff (1999). In this study, they examined how Guatemalan Mayan mothers with varying levels of formal education guided their children, ages 6 to 12, in solving a puzzle. The study found that mothers who had formal schooling tended to structure the task hierarchically, assigning different roles to each child. On the other hand, mothers with little or no formal education encouraged more collaborative group participation, where children worked together without specific role assignments. Both approaches supported the children's learning and task completion.

One way I feel this study could be expanded is by including other caregivers, such as fathers or older siblings, to explore whether similar patterns emerged across different roles. It would also be interesting to examine how the nature of the task, like telling a story, preparing a meal, or building a structure, might influence the way adults guide children. Studying these interactions over time could offer deeper insight into how different guidance styles impact children's development as they grow.

To investigate these interactions, I would design a cross-cultural, longitudinal study involving families from different cultural and educational backgrounds. Participants would complete both structured tasks, like puzzles, and open-ended ones, like collaborative storytelling. The study would observe how various caregivers guide the group and how children respond. I would also conduct follow-up assessments over several months to measure changes in children’s problem-solving skills and independence, allowing researchers to evaluate the long-term impact of different guidance strategies.

Study Summary
In his theory of the Zone of Proximal Development, Lev Vygotsky evaluated how children learn best when they are supported by a more knowledgeable person such as a teacher or peer, during a task that is just slightly beyond their current ability. He found that children could perform more complex tasks when guided through them than they could on their own. The results showed that learning happens best in this “zone,” between what a child can do independently and what they can do with help.

Further Exploration
One thing Vygotsky could have explored further is how ZPD works in different age groups, especially older children and teenagers. He mostly focused on early childhood, but it would be interesting to see how guidance impacts learning at other developmental stages. He also could have compared ZPD effectiveness across different subjects, like math vs. reading, or looked into cultural influences on guided learning.

New Study Design
I would design an experiment comparing how students in different age groups from elementary, middle, and high school would benefit from support in their ZPD while learning math. Each group would be split into three parts: one learning independently, one learning with peer help, and one with teacher guidance. We would measure improvement in understanding and test scores to see which group made the most progress.

The study I choose is the study by Chavajay and Rogoffs back in 1990. in this study Guatemalan Mayan  mothers were given a puzzle to construct with a group of children ages 6-12 year. This is to help with studying if the amount of formal education influences the nature of guided participation as well as the cultural variation on children’s learning and attention.  The result of this overall study found that those mothers with less formal education tend to engage the entire group collaboratively and overall both forms of learning are benefitcial for learning new tasks.

I think after reviewing this study there are different things they could have done but in my opinion I believe they could have used different age groups and maybe instead of just puzzles run more than just one test, so using more than just puzzles and different age group to see if the results would be differently based on how the mothers would

If I were to conduct my own study in order to examine children learning, attention and memory I would use children between the same ages,6-12, just because I thing that is a good age frame for any study. My study would conduct of two different cultures being split into two groups 10 from one culture and the other 10 from the other , instead of giving them a puzzle I would give them either a list of items to remember and than have them recall the list after a certain amount of time. I believe that doing this type of study will see based on their cultural background if they learn through observation or  under direct instruction.

The study I chose is Chavajay and Rogoff (1990), which investigated how Guatemalan Mayan mothers with different levels of formal education guided groups of children (ages 6–12) in completing a puzzle. Mothers with higher education tended to use hierarchical strategies, while those with less formal education encouraged collaborative problem-solving among the children. Both styles were beneficial and supported the child’s learning while completing the puzzle task.

While the study offers valuable insight into different learning styles, the authors could have examined the effects of other tasks with the mother's guidance approaches. I wonder if the same hierarchical vs. collaborative patterns emerge in academic tasks like reading or math instead of the puzzle. Additionally, including fathers or non-parental caregivers like grandparents or siblings could offer more information on guided learning dynamics with various tasks.

If I were to design an experiment based on these ideas, I would conduct a study involving children ages 6–12 and various caregivers (mothers, fathers, siblings, and maybe grandparents). Each caregiver-child group would complete three tasks: a puzzle, a short story reading with comprehension questions, and basic math problems. Participants would be from at least two distinct cultural backgrounds. Observations and interviews would assess whether the nature of guidance (hierarchical vs. collaborative) changes depending on both the caregiver's role and the type of task. This approach would help us understand not only cultural influences but also task-specific guidance styles.