RESEARCH IN PROGRESS

Impact of Vygotskian Intervention on Persons with IntellectualImpairment

Payel Dey & Amrita Panda & Mallika Banerjee

Received: 7 October 2013 /Accepted: 7 April 2014# National Academy of Psychology (NAOP) India 2014

Abstract Vygotskian mode of intervention is a suitabletechnique for teaching. This study is an attempt to explorethe role of Vygotskian mode of intervention in facilitatingcognitive development of persons with intellectual impair-ment. Thirty individuals with mild intellectual impairment(IQ 50–69) from various organizations at Kolkata, India,participated in this study. An intervention program basedon Vygotskian principles was run. Findings of the studyshowed that this method was able to accelerate cognitivefunctioning of the participants. It is suggested that scaf-folding may be used as a rehabilitation method for thepersons with intellectual impairment.

Keywords Vygotsky . Scaffolding . Intellectual Impairment .

Cognitive function

Cognitive development of a person with IntellectualImpairment is delayed compared to their normal counterpart,though both of them pass through cognitive developmental

stages in an identical order (Zigler 1969). These stages areusually defined as described by Piaget (1964, 1970).However, persons with Intellectual Impairment are said totraverse these stages slowly and attain a lower upper limitthan persons with average intelligence (Zigler 1969).Woodworth (1959) also found that the development of chil-dren with Intellectual Impairment parallels that of childrenwith average intelligence but at a slower rate and reaches aceiling at a lower level. According to Piagetian perspective,two processes which play significant role in cognitive devel-opment are assimilation and accommodation (both of them arepart of adaptation). Assimilation means using existingschemas while encountering new objects and accommodationmeans changes or adjustments that occur when one assimi-lates something new. In children with intellectual impairmentonly assimilation dominates. They repeat old schemas whileencountering new objects and use a little amount of accom-modation. Later, there are slow cognitive changes as there isno benefit or growth from past experiences. They tend toperseverate on a task and use a little amount of new informa-tion. As a result, development occurs but very slowly(Baumeister and Brooks 1981).

Vygotsky believed that psychological tests are the startingpoint of teaching instead of the ending point (Yan-bin 2009).In his opinion, the psychological tests can only measure thechildren’s real level of development, which shows their ca-pacity without others’ assistance. The capacity displayed bychildren in others’ assistance is the object of teaching (Yan-bin2009).

Vygotsky in his socio-cultural concept theorized that“…..learning occurs through participation in social or cultur-ally embedded experiences” (Raymond 2000). The learnerdoes not learn alone. Instead, social interactions stronglyinfluence learning. Children’s social interaction with more

P. DeyDepartment of Psychology, University of Calcutta,92 Acharya Prafulla Chandra Road, Kolkata 700009,West Bengal, Indiae-mail: payeldey19@yahoo.com

A. Panda (*) :M. BanerjeeCentre for the Study of Developmental Disability,Department of Psychology, University of Calcutta,92 Acharya Prafulla Chandra Road, Kolkata 700009,West Bengal, Indiae-mail: amrita_panda_psy@yahoo.co.in

M. Banerjeee-mail: mallib@hotmail.com

Psychol StudDOI 10.1007/s12646-014-0252-z

knowledgeable or capable persons and their environmentsignificantly influence their ways of thinking and interpretingsituations. A child develops his or her intellect throughinternalizing concepts based on his or her own interpre-tation of an activity that occurs in a social setting (VanDer Stuyf 2002).

Internalization occurs in the zone of proximal develop-ment (ZPD). According to Vygotsky, development can beclassified into two levels. One is the real level of devel-opment, on which children can solve problems indepen-dently; the other is potential level of development, onwhich children can solve problem under the guidance ofadult people or in cooperation with peers with highercapability. The difference between the two levels is theZPD (Vygotsky 1978). ZPD helps in determining a child’smental functions that have not yet matured but are in theprocess of maturation (Turuk 2008). Vygotsky believedthat both the current level of development and the poten-tial level of development are the basis of teaching becausethis potential level of development indicates what thechild can achieve in near future.

Scaffolding is the teaching strategy that provides individu-alized support based on the learner’s ZPD (Chang et al. 2002).In scaffolding a more knowledgeable other provides scaffoldsor supports to facilitate the learner’s development. The scaf-folds facilitate a student’s development based on prior knowl-edge and internalize new information. The activities providedin scaffolding instruction are just beyond the level of what thelearner can do alone (Olson and Platt 2000). Themore capableother provides the scaffolds in such a way that the learner canaccomplish (with assistance) the tasks that he or she couldotherwise not complete, thus helping the learner through theZPD (Bransford et al. 2000).

Vygotsky defined scaffolding as the role of teachersand others in supporting the learner’s development andproviding support structures to get to that next stage orlevel (Raymond 2000). One important point about scaf-folding is that the support is required for a temporaryperiod. As the learner’s abilities increase the dependencyon scaffolding provided by the more knowledgeable oth-er gradually decreases. Finally, the learner is able tomaster the concepts independently (Chang et al. 2002).Therefore, the purpose of the scaffolding is for the stu-dent to become an independent and self-regulating learn-er and problem solver (Hartman 2002).

Scaffolding helps the child to develop inner or egocentricspeech. Inner speech develops as the adult initially models acognitive process and communicates the steps. Over time andthrough repeated experiences, the child begins to internalizeand it becomes private speech, which directs the child’s cog-nitive activities (Ellis et al. 2002). Thus by applying scaffold-ing at ZPD learners can be taught concepts that are just abovetheir current skills and knowledge and motivates them to excel

beyond their current skill level (Jaramillo 1996). In this way,learner constructs new understanding by elaborating on theirprior knowledge through support provided by more capableothers (Raymond 2000). Several studies have been conductedto support this view. Freund (1990) conducted a study to findout whether children learn effectively via Piaget’s concept ofdiscovery learning or by guided learning. She worked withchildren (3–5 years) and asked them to help a puppet to decidewhich furniture should be placed in various rooms of a doll’shouse. Each child worked on a similar task, either alone (re:discovery based learning) or with their mother (Each childworked on a similar task, either alone (discovery based learn-ing) or with their mother (scaffolding). Each of them weregiven a more complex, furniture-sorting task to assess whateach child had learned. The results of the study showed thatchildren assisted by their mother performed better at thefurniture sorting than the children who worked independently.

The concept of scaffolding is also true in case of learning ofPersons with Disability (PWD). Vygotsky used the term‘Defectology’ which reflects his research in the area ofSpecial education. According to him, it is social factors thataggravate organic impairment and cause developmental delayin the children with Intellectual Impairment. Because of theirorganic impairment, children with disability fail to mastersome or most social skills, at the same time they fail to acquireknowledge at a proper rate and in acceptable form.Divergences in social and natural development cause socialdeprivation. This social deprivation in turn affects the devel-opmental process and causes delay and deficiencies in devel-opment i.e. defective development.

Vygotsky (1983) stressed that the main objective in thefield of special education should be the creation of ‘positivedifferential approach’. In other words, it is necessary to iden-tify the strength of the children with disability, i.e., to identifythe levels of overall independence in children with IntellectualImpairment.

Therefore, persons with Intellectual Impairment may belate in attaining developmental stages, but intervention basedon their ZPD can accelerate cognitive functioning of them.Scaffolding based on their ZPD may help them to internalizethe external cultural concepts just like their non-disabledpeers. Thus, it may develop private speech, which will extendtheir ZPD and may help them to reach the next level ofcognitive development.

Although there are many studies, which investigate theeffect of Vygotsky’s concepts of the ZPD and scaffolding onteaching persons with average intelligence (Azih and Nwosu2011; Doering and Veletsianos 2007; Chang et al. 2001),studies that investigate its relevance in case of person withIntellectual Impairment are limited. Against this backdrop thisstudy aimed at investigating the effect of scaffolding as aVygotskian intervention technique on cognitive developmentin children with intellectual impairment.

Psychol Stud

Method

Participants

The participants with mild Intellectual Impairment (IQ 50–69) (Mean age =18 years, SD =6.66 years) were drawnfrom the private as well as government hospitals, clinicsand special schools of Kolkata, West Bengal. Among 30participants 18 were boys and 12 girls. All the participantswere undergoing specialized training in different specialschools of Kolkata. The participants belonged to middlesegment socioeconomic class (Market Research Society ofIndia 1988).

Selection Criteria

Inclusion criteria

Individuals with 50 to 69 IQ, social age between 6 years6 months to 13 years 3 months and language score (as mea-sured by Basic MR) ranging within 130 to 185 were includedin the study.

Exclusion Criteria

Individuals with any physical disability and specific learningdisability were excluded.

Measures

Information Schedule An information schedule is used tocollect socio-demographic details including personal and fa-milial information of each participant of each group in thepresent study.

Binet Kamat Test of Intelligence (BKT) It is revised andadopted version of Stanford Binet scale (1916). This isadapted to Indian Conditions. It has been translated in Hindi,Gujrati, Marathi and Kannada version. BKT is an extensivelyused verbal test for persons with Intellectual Impairment. Itgives a pattern analysis for 7 primary abilities; language,memory, conceptual thinking, reasoning, visuo-motor coordi-nation, and social intelligence. The test consists of 90 itemscovering age group of 3 to 22 years (Kulkarni 2008). Aworking translation of the Hindi version to Bengali languagehas been used for this study. The translation has been donefollowing the EORTC quality of life group translation proce-dure by Cull et al. (2002).

Vineland Social Maturity Scale The Vineland SocialMaturity Scales (VSMS) was originally devised by Doll(1935). The Indian adaptation of the scale was done byMalin (1992) while working at the Nagpur Child Guidance

Centre. It measures social maturity or social competence inindividuals from birth to adulthood. It is used to assess thesocial adaptive functioning of individuals with IntellectualImpairment.

Basic MR The behavioral assessment scale for Indian childrenwith Mental Retardation developed by Peshawaria andVenkatesan (1992) has been used to elicit systematic informa-tion on current level of behavior in school going children withmental impairment. The scales are suitable for mentallyhandicapped children between 3 to 16 years (or 18 years).Basic MR has been developed in two parts:

Part A: Items included in scales under this part helps to assesscurrent level of skill behaviors in the child.Part B: Items included in this part of the scale helps to assessthe current level of problem behavior of the child.

Southern California This test was developed by Ashurst et al.(1985). One subtest [developmental scale of Cognition] of thisscale draw extensively on the theories of Jean Piaget and itcombine Piagetian approaches with assessment technique thataim at minimize the constraint of traditional standardizedability testing. In the present study, it is used to determine aparticipant’s level of cognitive functioning and to assess thequality of sensory and information processing at a particularlevel. At each stage of development, the items are categorizedby core areas. The items in each scale contain detailed proce-dure and criteria intended to direct experimenter’s observa-tions and, whenever necessary, assist in structuring or modi-fying the environment in order to assess particular concepts,processes or abilities.

Procedure

It was a pre-post study. Between pre and post testing sessions,an intervention based on Vygotskian principles was adminis-tered. Detail procedure for pre and post testing sessions andintervention program is given below:

1. The participants were assessed according to their intelli-gence, social adaptive functioning and language capacity.Instead of age, intellectual capacity and adaptive function-ing has been considered as selection criteria. Measures onall these variables were controlled statistically.

2. It was ensured that the ethical standard of the participantsat the same time confidentiality of the information weremaintained. Permissions were taken from parents andschool authorities.

3. At first, the intelligence capacity of the participants wasassessed by using Binet Kamat Intelligence Test. Onlyparticipants with mild intellectual impairment (IQ50-69)were included in the final study

Psychol Stud

4. The social adaptive functioning was assessed by usingVineland Social Maturity Scale. The participants’ socialage range lies within 6 years 6 months to 13 years3 months.

5. Development of language was assessed by Basic MR, theparticipants’ total score ranged within 130 to 185.

6. During pre-session, items of preconceptual stage ofSouthern California Test were administered. Each itemwas administered according to the procedures detailed forcorresponding items in the test booklet. A single subjectwas administered with every item of a particular stage.First the basal cognitive stage of an individual was deter-mined. Basal cognitive stage is that stage where an indi-vidual passed all the items. If the subject failed in any itemof a particular stage then next stage was not administeredto them. On the other hand, if the subject could pass all theitems of a particular stage then testing proceeded to thenext stage and continued until they failed an item of aparticular stage.

Two stages of Cognitive Task were used in the presentstudy. The first stage was Preconceptual thought. Inpreconceptual level participants have to discriminate sizeand quantity, maintain spatial relationship, match andclassify objects, recognize part/whole relationship, useobject in coordinated symbolic play, symbolic languageattachment which includes using receptive and expressivelanguage. The second level was intuitive thought. Thislevel includes understanding ordinal relationship by es-tablishing one to one correspondence and putting objectsin serial order. It also includes classification by represen-tational properties and bymultiple class membership. Thefinal task of this stage was intuitive reasoning. Hereparticipants have to use intuitive reasoning to explainresult of an experiment and causes of commonphenomena.

7. In the next stage, an intervention program i.e. Scaffoldingtraining based on Vygotskian principle was provided tothe participants by a trained Psychologist for item (s) theycould not pass. The main aim of this training was to helpparticipants to develop skill to enable them to performtasks on their own that are within their capabilities.Training was provided in the following four stages:

i. “I DO, YOU WATCH”ii. “YOU DO WITH ME”iii. “YOU DO, I HELP”iv. “YOU DO, I WATCH”

(Here, I/ME: experimenter; YOU: subject)The above mentioned four stages are based onVygotskian concepts of Zone of Proximal Development,and scaffolding. In the first stage, the experimenter solvedand explained the problem in front of the participantwhile the participant observed. In the second stage, the

participant was encouraged by the experimenter to solvethe problem along with the experimenter and at the sametime help the participant to understand the solving proce-dure where he could not move forward. In the third stageof the training program, the participant performed the taskof solving problem, along with prompt and encourage-ment from the experimenter whenever required. Thus theexperimenter tried to teach skills to the subject. In thefinal stage of intervention program the participant wasasked to solve the same problem individually without anyhelp while the experimenter observed.

For example

Stage 1 At first, the experimenter took one set ofobject of graduated sizes (nesting bowls)and demonstrated by arranging nestingbowls in a serial order by size. Here ob-jects were arranged in the progression of‘little, bigger, bigger, biggest’.

Stage 2 In this stage, the experimenter arranged theobjects along with encouraging the participantto choose the correct size. If the participantstuck at any point during this stage, the exper-imenter encouraged him (her) with necessaryprompts like “You can see that these object varyin size. So you have to keep this in your mindbefore arranging them.”

Stage 3 In this stage the participant arranged the objectaccording to their size. If the participant madeany mistake, the experimenter corrected it withnecessary prompt.

Stage 4 This is the final stage of training where thesubject arranged the objects individuallywithout any sort of prompt from the exper-imenter and also explained the process ofarranging the bowls. Only, after the suc-cessful learning of previous three stages,the experimenter could move to the finalstage of intervention.

8. After successful completion of four stage interventionprogram, the experimenter moved to the post assessmentsession of the study.

The post session was administered to subjects with agap of 3 to 7 days after the intervention program. In thepost session testing period, participants were providedwith an analogous problem and required to solve it indi-vidually by applying skills learned in the training pro-gram.

For example, the participants were presented with adoll family (Analogous problem). They had to arrangethem individually without any sort of prompt from theexperimenter and also explained how they arranged theobjects.

Psychol Stud

If the subject could perform successfully in paralleltest, it indicated generalization of learned skills. Thus,effectiveness of scaffolding training was proved as men-tioned by Vygotsky in his sociocultural theory.

Results

Paired ‘t’ test between the pre and post scores on cognitivetasks show a significant difference between the two meanswhich indicates Vygotskian intervention results in significantimprovement. The post test scores on the measure of cognitivetasks were greater (M=92.22, SD =11.99) than the pretestscores (M=80.36, SD =8.84), t (29)=7.34, p<0.01.

Discussion

Vygotsky’s theory stresses the fundamental role of socialinteraction in the development of cognition. According toVygotsky (1978), much important learning by the child occursthrough social interaction with a skillful tutor. The tutor maymodel behaviors and/or provide verbal instructions for thechild. He refers to this as co-operative or collaborative dia-logue. The child seeks to understand the actions or instruc-tions provided by the tutor (often the parent or teacher) theninternalize the information, using it to guide or regulate theirown performance. This internalization i.e. acquisition ofknowledge from the context, helps in cognitive development.Vygotsky also said that the new learning take place in the zoneof proximal development — the distance between what chil-dren can do by themselves and the next learning that they canbe helped to achieve with competent assistance (Raymond2000).

This study illustrates that the effectiveness of Vygotskianintervention is not limited to adults with normal intelli-gence; it is also beneficial for persons with disability.From the result of the present work it can be said thatintervention based on their ZPD can improve their per-formance on cognitive task i.e., is capable to acceleratetheir cognitive functioning.

Moreover, it is evident that a person with intellectual im-pairment can perform independently up to ‘Preconceptualthought’ level but with the assistance of competent adult theycan perform up to ‘Intuitive thought’ level. It means their ZPDlies within these two levels. Intervention helps them to extendtheir ZPD and reach into the next level.

The guidance, which is given in ZPD, is called scaffolding.Thus, by demonstrating problem solving, providing feedbackand assistance, competent adult helps the persons with intel-lectual impairment to develop concepts that are just abovetheir current skills and knowledge level. Through scaffolding,

their inner speech develop and repetition helps them in inter-nalization and turns their inner speech into private speech .Eventually it guides their cognitive activities. In this way,scaffolding activates their ZPD and accelerates cognitivefunctioning.

In this study, communication is used as a tool of scaffold-ing. Prompt, hints, feedback are given. From the result it canbe said that communication which occurs in this setting withmore knowledgeable others provides the labels and meaningfor the objects and ideas in participant’s world. Thus, throughcommunication they develop understanding of their own en-vironment. It helps them to organize new concepts and de-velops inner or egocentric speech. Eventually, this egocentricspeech directs personal cognitive activities. Over time, inter-nalization occurs through repeated experiences and innerspeech becomes a “private speech” spoken aloud by them todirect personal cognitive activity. The amount of guidanceprovided by the more knowledgeable other is gradually de-creased as their competency increases. In this way, new learn-ing takes place in ZPD.

Therefore, the present study shows that scaffolding helpsthe persons with intellectual impairment to move through theirZPD and accelerates their cognitive functioning.

From this finding, it can be said that persons with intellec-tual impairment are capable of much more learning withproper guidance of a competent person than on his/her own.Vygotskian intervention can bring about abilities that havebeen in the process of emerging and thus unfold the covertpotential of those persons. It can be used as a method ofeducation for the person with special needs.

So far scaffolding has been used as a teaching methodfor the persons with average intelligence only. But pres-ent study shows that scaffolding can be used for teachingcognitive skills to the persons with IntellectualImpairment. It can bring forward their hidden potentials,just like their normal counterparts. Though the samplesize is not too small being a study on individuals withIntellectual Impairment, still a bigger sample size wouldhave made an attempt of generalization stronger.Moreover, if the study could have included more variedintellectual impairment levels and social adaptive func-tioning then effectiveness of scaffolding could have beenobserved more systematically. Still, the study bears astrong promise for future research in the domain ofscaffolding and individuals with intellectual impairmentand instills hope for rehabilitation of individuals withintellectual impairment.

Acknowledgement The study has been funded by University GrantsCommission, India under Major Research Project scheme. We are thank-ful to Department of Psychology, University of Calcutta for providinginfrastructural facilities to this study.We thank the special schools Riddhi,Prerona and NIMH for allowing us to collect data in their institutions.

Psychol Stud

References

Ashurst, et al. (1985). Southern California Ordinal Scales ofDevelopment. Portland, OR: Foreworks Publication

Azih, N., & Nwosu, B. O. (2011). Effects of Instructional Scaffolding onthe Achievement of Male and Female Students in FinancialAccounting in Secondary Schools in Abakaliki Urban of EbonyiState, Nigeria. Journal of Social Sciences, 3(2), 66–70.

Baumeister, A. A. & Brooks, H. P. (1981). Cognitive deficits in MentalRetardation. Edited by J.M. Kaufmann & D.P. Hallahan. Handbookof Special Education (pp87-107). Prentice- Hall, Inc., Englewoodcliffs, Newjersey0762.

Binet, A., & Simon, T. (1916). The development of intelligence inchildren (E. Kit, Trans.). Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins.

Bransford, J., Brown, A., & Cocking, R. (2000). How People Learn:Brain, Mind and Experience & School. Washington: NationalAcademy Press.

Chang, K. E., Sung, Y. T., & Chen, S. F. (2001). Learning ThroughComputer-based Concept Mapping with Scaffolding aid. Journalof Computer Assisted Learning, 17(1), 21–33.

Chang, K., Chen, I., & Sung, Y. (2002). The effect of ConceptMapping toEnhance text Comprehension and Summarization. The Journal ofExperimental Education, 71(1), 5–23.

Cull, A., Sprangers, M. A. G., Bjordal, K., Aaronson, N. K., West, K., &Bottomley, A. (2002). On behalf of the EORTC Quality of LifeGroup. EORTC Quality of Life Group Translation Procedure (2nded.). Brussels: EORTC Quality of Life Group Publication. ISBN 2-930064-28-5.

Doering, A., & Veletsianos, G. (2007). Multi-Scaffolding Environment:an Analysis of Scaffolding and its Impact on Cognitive Load andProblem-Solving Ability. Journal of Educational ComputingResearch, 37(2), 107–129.

Doll, E. A. (1935). A genetic scale of social maturity. The AmericanJournal of Orthopsychiatry, 5, 180–188.

Ellis, E., Larkin, M., & Worthington, L. (2002). Executive sum-mary of the research synthesis on effective teaching princi-ples and the design of quality tools for educators. AL:University of Alabama.

Freund, L. S. (1990). Maternal Regulation of Children’s Problem-solvingBehavior and its Impact on Children’s Performance. ChildDevelopment, 61, 113–126.

Hartman, H. (2002). Scaffolding & Cooperative Learning. HumanLearning and Instruction (pp. 23–69). New York: City College ofCity University of New York.

Jaramillo, J. (1996). Vygotsky’s Socio Cultural theory and Contributionsto the Development of Constructivist Curricula. Education, 117(1),133–140.

Kulkarni, M. (2008). Development- Its assessment and different aspects:Clinical Methods in Paediatrics Physical Examination of Children.Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd New Delhi: 110002,Vol-2 Part A.

Malin, A. J. (1992). Vineland Social Maturity Scale and Manual, IndianAdaptat ion . Nagpur: SWAYAMSIDDHA-Prakashana.Saraswathipuram, Mysore, Karnataka, India.

Market Research Society of India (1988). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEC_Classification

Olson, J., & Platt, J. (2000). The Instructional Cycle. Teaching Childrenand Adolescents with Special Needs (pp. 170–197). Upper SaddleRiver: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Peshawaria, R., & Venkatesan, S. (1992). Behavioral Assessment Scalesfor Indian Children with Mental Retardation (Basic-MR). NationalInstitute for the Mentally. India: Handicapped.

Piaget, J. (1964). Cognitive development in children: The Piaget papers. InR. E. Ripple& V. N. Rockcastle (Eds.), Piaget rediscovered (pp 7–20);A report of the Conference on Cognitive Studies and CurriculumDevelopment. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University, School of Education

Piaget, J. (1970). Piaget’s theory. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.), Carmichael’smanual of child psychology (3rd ed., Vol. I, pp. 703–732). NewYork: Wiley.

Raymond, E. (2000). Cognitive Characteristics. Learners with MildDisabilities (pp. 169–201). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn &Bacon, A Pearson Education Company.

Turuk, M. C. (2008). The Relevance and Implications of Vygotsky’sSociocultural Theory in the Second Language Classroom.ARECLS, 5, 244–262.

Van Der Stuyf, R. R. (2002). Scaffolding as a Teaching Strategy.Adolescent Learning and Development. Section 0500A - Fall 2002.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. The development of higher psy-chological processes Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversity Press, 8620.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1983). Sobraniye Sochinenii [Collective works] (vol.5).Moscow: Pedagogika.

Woodworth, M. (1959). The behavior of Idiots Interpreted by Piaget’sTheory of Sensorimotor Development. British Journal ofEducational Psychology, 29, 60–71.

Yan-bin, W. (2009). Impact of Lev Vygotsky on Special Education.Canadian Social Science, 5(5), 100–103.

Zigler, E. (1969). Developmental versus Difference Theories of MentalRetardation and the Problem of Motivation. American Journal ofMental Deficiency, 73, 536–556.

Psychol Stud