For nearly four decades, a variety of social science disciplines have assumed that the zone of proximal development (ZPD) and the metaphor of scaffolding reflect more or less the same process. However, we will argue that any similarity is at best partial and at worst superficial. Equating the processes adds nothing to Vygotsky's general theory and in fact may weaken and dilute the robustness of the theory. To make the non‐equivalence case, the paper first presents an overview of Vygotsky's approach to psychology that includes an expansive discussion of the ZPD not only as the activity in which instruction leads development, but also as the key to his approach to experimental research. This is followed by a critical review of the relevant statements that have appeared in the literature on the nature of scaffolding, its presumed link to the ZPD and that brings to the fore the inadequacies of the metaphor itself that disqualify it as an equivalent process. While the ZPD can be understood to include the kind of interaction that is described in the scaffolding literature, it is a much broader and far more robust process than scaffolding, as is made apparent when the two processes are compared, which is the focus of the concluding section of the article. In the comparison we summarize the analyses presented, especially with regard to the implications and relevance of the metaphors underlying each concept.

中文翻译：

---

脚手架和近端发展区：一个有问题的关系

近四十年来，各种社会科学学科都假设近端发展区（ZPD）和脚手架的隐喻或多或少地反映了相同的过程。但是，我们将争辩说，任何相似性充其量都是部分的，而最糟糕的是表面的。等同于过程不会对Vygotsky的一般理论产生任何影响，实际上可能会削弱和削弱该理论的鲁棒性。为了说明非对等情况，本文首先概述了维果茨基的心理学方法，其中包括对ZPD的广泛讨论，这不仅是指导发展的活动，而且是他进行实验研究的方法的关键。随后，对文献中有关脚手架性质的相关陈述进行了严格的审查，它与ZPD的假定链接，并且使隐喻本身的不足之处脱颖而出，从而使它失去了等效过程的资格。虽然可以将ZPD理解为包括脚手架文献中描述的那种相互作用，但是它是比脚手架更广泛，更强大的过程，这在比较这两个过程时很明显，这是该研究的重点。本文的结论部分。在比较中，我们总结了提出的分析，尤其是关于每个概念所隐喻的含义和相关性。与脚手架相比，它是一个范围更广，功能更强大的过程，这在比较这两个过程时显而易见，这是本文结论部分的重点。在比较中，我们总结了提出的分析，尤其是关于每个概念所隐喻的含义和相关性。与脚手架相比，它是一个范围更广，功能更强大的过程，这在比较这两个过程时显而易见，这是本文结论部分的重点。在比较中，我们总结了提出的分析，尤其是关于每个概念所隐喻的含义和相关性。