The concept of learning critical period first appeared in the theory of "zone of proximal development" put forward by Vygotsky, an educator in the former Soviet Union.

Vygotsky's "theory of the zone of proximal development" holds that the development of students has two levels: one is the current level of students, which refers to the level of problem-solving that can be achieved when they are independent; The other is the possible development level of students, that is, the potential gained through teaching. The difference between them is the nearest development zone.

Teaching should focus on students' recent development zone, provide students with difficult contents, arouse students' enthusiasm, give full play to their potential, surpass their recent development zone and reach the level of the next development stage, and then carry out the development of the next development zone on this basis.

In other words, according to the stage of students' physical and mental development, we should grasp the critical period and the best development period for teaching.

The critical period was first proposed by Austrian ecologist Konrod Lorenz (1937).

When observing the natural habits of birds, he found that newly hatched young birds, such as chickens and goslings, will learn to chase after the same kind or different kinds in a short time after birth. After this period, they can no longer learn this behavior, and they can no longer leave a mark on their mothers. Moreover, this period is very short, so it is called the critical period of human beings, also known as the optimal period, sensitive period, critical period and turning period.

Later, psychologists borrowed this research into the study of children's early development and put forward the critical period of children's psychological development. For example, 2 ~ 3 years old is the key period for children's oral development, and 4 ~ 5 years old is the key period for children to learn written language.

Extended data

Before Vygotsky put forward the concept of "zone of proximal development", people had great differences on the relationship between teaching and children's development. This difference is mainly manifested in the following three different opinions:

The first view is "irrelevant", that is, teaching and children's development are two different and basically unrelated processes. Teaching will not promote the development of children, nor will it change the direction of their development. At most, it only uses the achievements of children's intellectual development.

In other words, teaching should consider children's current development level as much as possible, and strive to make the difficulty and progress of teaching equal to children's current intelligence level. The representative of this view is Piaget.

This view is reasonable and based on objective facts. It is indeed necessary to consider the development level that children have reached first in teaching, but it is unrealistic to take development as the premise of teaching and only consider the development level that children have reached in teaching, thus denying the positive role that teaching can play.

Because there are undeniable obvious differences in cognitive development between educated people and uneducated people. Vygotsky holds that children's development is definitely not an independent and spontaneous development process from the basic viewpoint of his social-historical-cultural theory. It can be said that without teaching and interaction between children and social environment (including adults and peers), children cannot obtain the advanced mental functions needed for social survival.

It can be seen that Vygotsky first affirmed the positive role of teaching (a typical form of external social environment) in promoting children's development, and affirmed that "teaching is an inherent, necessary and universal factor for children's acquired and historical development".

The second view is the theory of identity, that is, teaching and children's development are the same process. Where there is teaching, there is children's development, and for children, the so-called development is the accumulation of various habits, learning to establish a connection between external stimuli and correct reactions. The typical example of this view is the behaviorism school represented by Watson and Thorndike.

Although this view attaches importance to the positive and decisive role of teaching in children's development, it simply boils down to external indoctrination and passive absorption, completely ignoring the initiative and particularity of children's development, the internal psychological process of children's development, and the necessary intermediary for the transformation of external effects into children's psychology, which is also incorrect.

In this regard, Vygotsky agrees with Piaget that children's development must be the process and result of children's active construction, and external teaching can never replace or cover up children's development.

This is the second basic meaning of the concept of the zone of proximal development, which affirms the equal status of children in social interaction with adults or more capable peers, and enjoys equal opportunities and freedom to express and exchange their thoughts and feelings, that is, active children develop in cooperation with a positive social environment.

The third view is eclecticism, which holds that teaching and children's development are independent and interrelated. The so-called mutual independence means that teaching and development are two different processes after all, and development directly depends on the maturity of the nervous system rather than teaching; The so-called interconnection means that teaching can make children form a series of new behaviors and promote their development, and at the same time, children's development makes certain teaching forms possible. Kaufka is the representative of this view.

This eclecticism seems to be dialectical unity, but because it only points out the independent and interrelated relationship between them, it fails to correctly point out how teaching brings new things to development in principle, that is, it fails to really explain the conditions, ways and mechanisms for teaching to actively promote children's development.

Therefore, the dialectical unity relationship between teaching and development has not been really explained: due to the lack of contact intermediary, the two cannot be truly unified.

This is the third basic meaning of the concept of zone of proximal development put forward by Vygotsky, that is, on the basis of affirming the positive role of teaching in development and that children are the main body of their own development, the concept of zone of proximal development is used to reveal the conditions, ways and mechanisms for teaching to promote children's development.

References:

Baidu Encyclopedia-Critical Period

References:

Baidu encyclopedia-the nearest development zone