The zone of proximal player development

Lev Semenovich Vygotsky lived a short life, but it took years long after his death for his work on developmental psychology to be discovered in the West.

Vygotsky’s general ideas could not be used or indeed published in what would become a totalitarian society, but to understand his theory you need to look at the political environment in which his ideas took seed.

The new Marxist philosophy, which replaced the Tsar’s rule, emphasised socialism and collectivism. Individuals were expected to sacrifice their own goals for the betterment of society as a whole. The emphasis on sharing and cooperation meant that any individual success was seen as a reflection of the culture’s success.

One major aspect of Vygotsky’s theory was the notion that the potential for cognitive development in children depends upon the ‘zone of proximal development’ (ZPD). What the child has already mastered makes up the bottom range of the ZPD and what the child is able to do with assistance from an expert or peer is deemed to be the ceiling.

Full development of the ZPD, therefore, requires full social interaction. In other words the range of skill that can be developed with expert guidance or peer collaboration exceeds what can be attained alone.

Vygotsky’s major insight was that instruction and learning are not a product of development but, rather, suggest a path for development to follow. His thinking on the ZPD began to take shape as he wrestled with problems concerning IQ and IQ testing and the traditional view that testing should reflect the current level of learners’ achievement.

While children are biologically and cognitively different to adults, this has not stopped wider interpretations of Vygotsky’s ZPD theory. As the ZPD implies a collaborative process, Mark Warford coined the term ‘zone of proximal teacher development’ in 2011. This zone represented what teaching candidates could do on their own and a proximal level they could achieve through expert guidance.

News of Lima Sopoaga’s move to Wasps at the conclusion of the 2018 season has led me to another interpretation of Vygotsky’s ZPD: the zone of proximal player development.

(AAP Image/SNPA, Adam Binns)

When looking at your ideal test team, it is easy to focus on the current level of your test incumbents and measure that against your reserves and upcoming players. The latter group is perceived to be the movers and shakers. Reiko Ioane, for example, usurped Julian Savea and Liam Squire knocked Jerome Kaino out of contention.

The danger is to think that the test incumbents remain static in their level and that it is up to the developmental project players to prove their worth. Just like the top-ranked team, the best way to avoid other Test nations catching up is to develop your own game. This is what effectively happened to Savea and Kaino. Their game did not rapidly decline but, rather, their development slowed down in relation to Ioane’s and Squire’s potential development.

The best motivation to improve your game is the sense that the competition is becoming fiercer. I think the All Blacks are at their deadliest when they are thought to be at their most vulnerable. For example, the Wallabies won the first Bledisloe Cup match in Sydney in 2015 and had the chance to land an even bigger psychological blow before the World Cup as well as bring the coveted trophy back to Australian soil.

The same principle applies to individual players. The ideal environment for encouraging team growth is pushing your individual players to develop past their current abilities. The wider the ZPD, the greater growth you can attain. The best way to achieve that is to quietly point out to the incumbents that if things do not improve in key areas, there is somebody waiting in the wings whose ZPD is much wider.

Unfortunately in the case of Lima Sopoaga, in a turbulent year of both enforced and involuntary changes, he had remarkably few minutes in the test arena to prove his worth not only to himself but also to Beauden Barrett. Barrett, in contrast to Sopoaga, had an electric Super Rugby campaign but often fell flat in the test arena.

(AAP Image/SNPA, Ross Setford)

There were certainly moments of individual brilliance, but against the Lions and many other opponents there appeared to be a lack of game management and composure to unlock the rush defence utilised to stifle the All Black attack. Curiously these qualities were considered to be the strengths of Lima Sopoaga, but the lack of game time meant that he found it extremely difficult to find his rhythm.

There can be few places, if any, that are more intimidating to play your test debut than Ellis Park. This is what confronted Lima Sopoaga in the 2015 Rugby Championship. Three conversions and two penalties, but it was the vital break up the middle and the offload to Ben Smith that really capped off a terrific debut performance. This was even more masterful than Colin Slade’s late entry into the game against the Wallabies in 2010 that oozed composure and assuredness.

He never really reached those heights again in the test jersey but nor was he ever really afforded the same amount of game time. It is hard to come off the bench and make an impact when your game is built on steadying the ship and laying a good foundation. Barrett enjoyed great success as an impact player in the early part of his career, but he has a skill set that lends itself to that style of play.

The problem that confronts the All Blacks now with Aaron Cruden and Lima Sopoaga playing in Europe is not just who will be New Zealand’s flyhalves for next year’s World Cup but who will really drive Beauden Barrett to greater heights? Who will widen his ZPD? With the greatest respects to Richie Mo’unga and Damien McKenzie, they do not have the test gravitas of Cruden and Sopoaga, simply because they do not have enough test experience in the flyhalf position.

When you feel your test jersey is at stake it is natural you start to look at your weaknesses and see where you can find improvement. Indeed the same applies to the upcoming players. Vaea Fifita was told to improve his physicality and he produced an eye-catching performance against the Pumas only to go off the boil in subsequent appearances.

The All Blacks stuttered on attack and Barrett evidently found it difficult to operate when his space was shut down. Ineffective chip kicks, laboured passing and lack of patience – I got the impression he was trying to fall back on his natural talents rather than work on his weaknesses. The lack of collaboration meant that he was expected to perform on his own beyond his capabilities.

(AAP Image/Paul Miller)

The Wallabies found themselves in a similar predicament with Bernard Foley. It was as if Michael Cheika was picking off his rivals with a selection sniper rifle. Quade Cooper was eliminated from the picture and it seemed no matter how unconvincing Foley’s performance was – notably his kicking – there did not appear to be any potential challengers to his jersey. Kurtley Beale incredibly was considered to be the backup for the entire season apart from a brief cameo from Reece Hodge in Japan.

The zone of proximal player development is built on collaboration from an expert and a peer of similar skill. The target is to move beyond the player’s current abilities and set up the new proximal level. If you remove that collaborative assistance, you cannot expect to find growth.

Vygotsky argued against the view of Jean Piaget that children were lone scientists and that they should employ discovery learning. With rugby players I tend to share Vygotsky’s view. Kurtley Beale was never going to improve his front-on defence without some expert guidance. I am positive this was something he did not discover all by himself going into that Bledisloe match in Dunedin, so it beggars belief that the same principle was not applied to Bernard Foley’s exit kicking.

Similarly Beauden Barrett is not going to improve his game management all by himself. He is a specialist in unstructured play and makes good attacking choices when he is given space. Steve Hansen seemed to be giving him all the time last year to develop the game management side of his game under pressure. However, I am inclined to agree with Vygotsky’s view that “what the child can do today in collaboration, tomorrow he will be able to do independently”.

I do not begrudge Lima Sopoaga and his wish to provide for his family at the expense of his All Black career, yet I get the distinct impression that heaven and earth were not moved by New Zealand Rugby Union at the prospect of his signing by a Northern club. There was no talk of sabbaticals or pay increases.

That is a judgement call as there are limited resources, but one cannot overstate the importance of those players lurking in the incumbents’ shadows to the development of the team as a whole. If their presence is not felt and their collaboration is taken away, the zone of proximal player development diminishes and the pressure on the other upcoming players intensifies.