University Essay: Contingent Teaching and Proximal Development

This essay discusses contingent teaching, a theory developed by Wood in 1980, emphasizing its effectiveness in promoting learning. The author interprets Wood's statement on children's willingness to learn contingently, highlighting the importance of applying prior knowledge to new tasks. The essay explores the levels of control exerted by teachers and their impact on student learning, referencing Wood's general verbal prompt (GVP), Specific verbal instructions (SVI), indicates materials (IM), prepare for assembly (PFA) and Demonstrates (DEM) and their effect on students. It aligns contingent teaching with the zone of proximal development, advocating for minimal teacher control based on the child's potential. The essay concludes that teachers should provide guidance appropriate to the child's capabilities, fostering independent thinking and interaction for optimal learning. Desklib offers similar essays and study resources for students.

Discussion On Contingent Teaching1
DISCUSSION ON CONTINGENT TEACHING
By Name
Course
Instructor
Institution
Location
Date

Discussion On Contingent Teaching2
Discussion on Contingent Teaching
The theory of contingent teaching was developed by Wood in 1980 where he tried to
explain the differences in the control levels the adults exercise within the zone of proximal
development. In his theory, he suggests that contingent teaching is the most effective form of
teaching (D’Agostino et al, 2016). This essay is a discussion of what I personally think Wood
means when he says: ‘If children are able and willing to be contingent upon the thought process
and actions of another, then learning may proceed. If they are not, then it seems unlikely that
learning will follow.' Wood suggests that those who want effective teaching should practice
contingent teaching.
I think wood in his statement he implied that children should be willing to learn
contingently. If the children do not use what they have learnt previously to solve a given task at
hand then no learning will take place. The teacher or parents would apply different methods such
as demonstrations these methods cannot work effectively without contingent teaching. In his idea
of contingent learning, he demonstrated how the control of the teacher affects the learning and
development of the child. Woods explained general verbal prompt (GVP), Specific verbal
instructions (SVI), indicates materials (IM), prepare for assembly (PFA) and Demonstrates
(DEM) respectively and demonstrated that control was increasing respectively (Broza and
Kolikant, 2015). The children were having a difficulty in learning as the control levels were
increasing, therefore, suggesting that contingent learning is the way to go.
According to his above statement, he implies that even if the teacher or parent tries to
control the learning, the student has to be able to apply knowledge learn before for efficient

Discussion On Contingent Teaching3
learning to take place. The child should have the ability to learn from what others are doing and
be able to apply in the tasks they face. Contingent teaching suggests that the level of control from
the teacher and student should be given in accordance with the level of potential of the child.
This suggestion is in line with the zone of proximal development concept where the potential of
an individual child is considered in giving instruction and guidance to children. The children
potential should be gauged and given as minimal support as possible as we let them use process
thinking and their interaction with other to learn (Hurst, 2017). The children have certain
activities they can do independently without any support from teachers or parents. For those
activities, they require help or guidance the help should be given at an appropriate level which
allows the student to apply their full potential (Ziv et al, 2016). In conclusion, the control given
by teachers in teaching children should be as minimal as possible in accordance with the
children's potential.

Discussion On Contingent Teaching4
Reference
Broza, O., & Kolikant, Y. B. D. (2015). Contingent teaching to low-achieving students in
mathematics: Challenges and potential for scaffolding meaningful learning. ZDM, 47(7), 1093-
1105.
Hurst, C. (2017). Provoking contingent moments: Knowledge for ‘powerful teaching’at the
horizon. Educational Research, 59(1), 107-123.
Rodgers, E., D'Agostino, J. V., Harmey, S. J., Kelly, R. H., & Brownfield, K. (2016). Examining
the nature of scaffolding in an early literacy intervention. Reading Research Quarterly, 51(3),
345-360.
Ziv, Solomon, A., Strauss, S., & Frye, D. (2016). Relations between the development of teaching
and theory of mind in early childhood. Journal of Cognition and Development, 17(2), 264-284.