[Xmca-l] Re: Why Doesn't Vygotsky Use "Microgenesis"?

[Wolff-Michael Roth]

Hi David, I appreciate your response a lot.

And I guess you rightly assumed that I do not think the peer review system
is perfect, and that we need a way, as you suggest, to have ideas out in
the open to be discussed and pondered for their usefulness.

Michael

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor
Applied Cognitive Science
MacLaurin Building A567
University of Victoria
Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2

http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth <http://education2.uvic.ca/faculty/mroth/>
*Concrete Human Psychology* (
https://www.routledge.com/products/9781138833098)

On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 5:12 PM, David Kellogg <dkellogg60@gmail.com> wrote:

> It wasn't me, Michael. To tell you the truth, I am a lousy reviewer, I
> never give anybody an outright rejection, because I assume the editor had a
> good reason for sending it out for review. In fact, what I usually say
> is "publish and I'll write a reply", and as you can see I sometimes get
> a really conscientious, top-notch editor who will acquiesce. A propos, I
> think I remember a wonderful article on the ox-herding pictures which YOU
> once sent to me, and I suggested publishing, but unfortunately, for reasons
> I still can't understand and which were never explained, it got nixed.
> Anyway, I'm afraid I can't share any rejections I've written with you; I
> don't actually write any, or I haven't for a long time anyway.
>
> I am not actually offended by the comparison with Trump, although I don't
> think that was your intention anyway. I certainly agree that America is not
> a democracy and that the elections are a sham, I myself do not intend to
> accept the results, since there will be no working class party
> substantially represented, and I think the exclusion of working class
> parties by itself constitutes a rigging of the election by the American
> bourgeoisie. The fact that Trump is able to garner a full third or even
> more of the electorate simply by being rich, white and male and hang onto
> this third no matter what he says and does is only an epiphenomenal example
> of the much more profound way in which US elections are rigged. And now I
> think we can all agree that if any system is well and truly broken, surely
> this is one.
>
> Like you I delight in a good rejection: they are indeed a good source of
> development and we should revel in the rare ones that show care and
> discrimination. But like anything else, when you get a lot of them, you
> become something of a connoisseur. My least favourite rejections are those
> by editors who ask you to read things they have clearly not read
> themselves, or not read carefully enough. My favourite kind are those that
> come with quite searching questions and specific suggestions, and my last
> rejection from MCA was certainly a case in point. Alas, I must keep it to
> myself; I do intend to resubmit.
>
> Here is one problem that is worth sharing on the list, I think; it's
> related to an exchange that you and Mike had with Matusov, and also to the
> discussion we once had on whether the Chicago system should be adopted for
> footnoting in lieu of APA. Editors will often object to the way I do
> literature reviews, because, like you, I dislike name-dropping. But in
> order to do what Swales used to call CARS ("Create A Research Space") I am
> asked to play a kind of game of "Snowball", where you cite all the work
> that has been done on a particular problem, usually in some very general
> statement like "X has been extensively studied" followed by mammoth
> parentheses stuffed with a dozen names that have nothing whatsoever to do
> with each other. The next writer will have to play the same game and add my
> name, and the result is that the "Research Space" always gets smaller and
> smaller and the statement of common interest gets more and more general.
>
> So instead I tend to select three studies, leave the summary of research
> where the reader can find it (i.e. in the studies cited), subject the
> studies to the kind of criticism they might have from a good reviewer, and
> then try to overcome the perceived weaknesses with my own study. But one of
> the problems is that, for better or worse, the authors I have criticized
> are called in as reviewers. This adds to the piquancy of the review, but it
> also increases the chance of rejection.
>
> David Kellogg
> Macquarie University
>
> On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 10:29 AM, Wolff-Michael Roth <
> wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > David,
> >
> > I am sorry to hear you get all rejects. But concluding the system is
> broken
> > sounds like a Trumpism: I accept peer review as long as I get accepted.
> >
> > The editors may have something when they ask you to re-read. I would say
> > the same with respect to your comment, when you say "Roth calls
> everything
> > a crisis". I do not think that the article you are referring to calls
> > everything a crisis.
> >
> > I was wondering whether you would share with us some of the comments you
> > used to reject the works of others? Does the call to reject the rejectors
> > also apply to you? I was wondering whether you might sound like this
> > reviewer (the metaphor part makes me think of the possibility that you
> > might have written it:
> >
> > *The basic argument is that according to Vygotsky and according to
> > dialectical materialism, development takes place unpredictably as a
> result
> > of continued incremental change. I believe that this is the most barren
> > conception of development possible and greatly under-represents
> Vygotsky's
> > work. The arguments given are in my view very superficial, relying mostly
> > on metaphors and analogies with very little psychological content. Also,
> > almost every quote from Vygotsky, Engels or Hegel was garbled and either
> > lacking in references or given inaccurate references. I do not have the
> > mathematical works at hand to check them. But falsification of sources
> is a
> > serious defect which cannot be published in MCA.*
> > *However, I recommend rejection not so much for the paucity of argument
> or
> > the inaccurate references, but because the basic argument is unworthy of
> > publication.*
> >
> > I tend to take every review to heart and wonder what I can learn from it.
> >
> > Respectfully,
> >
> > Michael
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > --------------------
> > Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor
> > Applied Cognitive Science
> > MacLaurin Building A567
> > University of Victoria
> > Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2
> >
> > http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth <http://education2.uvic.ca/faculty/mroth/>
> > *Concrete Human Psychology* (
> > https://www.routledge.com/products/9781138833098)
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 4:01 PM, HENRY SHONERD <hshonerd@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > David and all,
> > > Back in the day (the 80s) there were articles on L2 learning on two
> > themes
> > > that you might find relevant to the subject line:
> > > 1) L2 learning as culture shock. More than one author on this. Culture
> > > shock = Crisis maybe.
> > > 2) The optimal distance model of L2 learning. H.D. Brown was known for
> > his
> > > articles on this. The model, as I recall, explained “foreign accents”
> not
> > > as the inability to attain native pronunciation but as a intra- and
> > > inter-subjective need to maintain identity that is closely associated
> > with
> > > L1.
> > > May be of interest
> > > Henry
> > >
> > >
> > > > On Oct 21, 2016, at 3:11 PM, David Kellogg <dkellogg60@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Mike:  I think the flaws in methodology are exactly what Arturo is
> > > talking
> > > > about. In foreign language teaching, the only real acknowledgement of
> > the
> > > > nonlinear nature of language development is in the mysterious
> "U-shaped
> > > > curve" that seems to accompany the learning of grammar but not
> > > vocabulary.
> > > > But the general response to this been to switch the focus in teaching
> > > > to...vocabulary (e.g. Michael Lewis's "Lexical Approach", Nattinger
> and
> > > > DeCarrico's work on formulaic phrases, Keyword method studies, etc.).
> > > Part
> > > > of the problem is that the vast majority of published studies are
> done
> > by
> > > > professors on their undergraduates.
> > > >
> > > > A.N. Leontiev's denial of crises is to be found in his book "Problems
> > of
> > > > Development of Mind" (and also in "The Neo-Vygotskyan Approach to
> Child
> > > > Development" by Yurie Karpov, excellently reviewed for MCA by Bert
> > Oers).
> > > > A.A. Leontiev wrote, as far as I can figure out, one book on foreign
> > > > language teaching. " Psychology and the Language Learning Process",
> > OUP.
> > > > There is very little on age specific teaching at all: he seems to
> think
> > > > that movies are great way of teaching foreign languages (I think all
> > > > foreign language teachers go through a "movie" phase when they
> discover
> > > how
> > > > difficult it really is to use and teach a language at the same time).
> > But
> > > > it's clear that a lot of his students are adults and not children.
> > > >
> > > > Not one of the half dozen papers that I submitted on ZPDs and crises
> of
> > > > language development over the last year has been accepted for
> > > publication.
> > > > I had exactly the same problem about fifteen years ago when I first
> > > started
> > > > writing about group ZPDs--as soon as you raise the idea that there
> > might
> > > be
> > > > a ZPD for a whole class of children, the editor tells you to go and
> > read
> > > > Vygotsky. Now every time you say that real language development
> entails
> > > > crises, editors ask indignantly where Vygotsky could have said THAT.
> I
> > > > think the only mention of the crisis in language learning (and not
> > > foreign
> > > > language learning) I've managed to get in print  was the Commentary
> on
> > > > Roth's piece that just came out in MCA (Roth calls everything a
> crisis,
> > > > even when water turns into ice).
> > > >
> > > > With the sole exception of MCA (I just got another reject, but it
> was a
> > > > real, thoughtful and very useful one), I think Huw is right--the
> > system's
> > > > broken. We need new ways of getting ideas around or we're really at
> the
> > > end
> > > > of our own intellectual development. Who will reject the rejecters?
> > Where
> > > > will THEIR crises come from?
> > > >
> > > > David Kellogg
> > > > Macquarie University
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 11:40 AM, mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> David & Arturo. You lost me you got to AA Leontiev,
> > > >> David. Which of his writings on the organization of language
> learning
> > > >> activity can I find that he denied crises in development. In
> > principle,
> > > >> such ideas should show up in flaws in his methodology. How does that
> > > work?
> > > >>
> > > >> I have read more than I have forgotten, but I would like to see how
> > this
> > > >> issue influences the pedagogy.
> > > >>
> > > >> Maybe you would be interested in helping us identify texts, Arturo.
> > > >>
> > > >> Note, in our own published work on the acquisition of reading we
> > adopt a
> > > >> developmental model of the process. To tell the truth, the whole
> > process
> > > >> felt like a crisis for us and the kids, but qualitative change, and
> > new
> > > >> modes of diagnosis, emerged. Both microgenetically (in a day's
> > > >> interactions) and in the ontogeny of the child as the new form of
> > > behavior
> > > >> spread and solidified.
> > > >>
> > > >> I have access to articles in Soviet Psychology/Journal of Russian
> > > >> Psychology if the requisite materials are not already in your hands.
> > > >>
> > > >> Seems like a place where questions of theory and questions of
> practice
> > > come
> > > >> together. David has been teaching L2 for a long time. Others, like
> > > Phillip,
> > > >> are teachers in schools where students are highly varied in their
> > > >> acquisition of English.
> > > >>
> > > >> A lot of others on xmca could also describe (or deny the presence
> of )
> > > >> crises that arise when there is a qualitative shift in L1-->L2
> > > students. I
> > > >> seemed to go through distinct stages, qualitative shifts, in the
> > > >> acquisition of spoken and written Russian. I acquired the ability to
> > > speak
> > > >> more quickly than to write. Reading was the refuge where I had to
> > figure
> > > >> out what people had been saying in the seminar from written texts. I
> > do
> > > not
> > > >> remember any moment of crisis (except that of a dumb, dangerous,
> > > foreigner,
> > > >> newby) when I became qualitatively different. My best evidence that
> it
> > > was
> > > >> a qualitative shift is that my wife, who went through all these
> events
> > > with
> > > >> me, does not like my personality when I spoke Russian to this day.
> :~)
> > > >>
> > > >> It would be totally neat to find convergence around AA Leontiev here
> > > that
> > > >> could generate a classic article in *Mind, Culture, and Activity.*
> > > >>
> > > >> mike
> > > >>
> > > >> On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 2:39 PM, David Kellogg <
> dkellogg60@gmail.com>
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> Arturo:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Yes, exactly! As soon as we ripped applied linguistics out of
> > > >> linguistics,
> > > >>> we started down a path of social-behaviourism. The result is, as
> you
> > > say,
> > > >>> that L2 teaching has become behavioristic and naïve in the extreme.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Although, as you'll see from the other posting I wrote today, I
> think
> > > >> it's
> > > >>> important to stress how different learning is from development, I
> > also
> > > >>> think that one thing that all forms of genetic change have (phylo-,
> > > >> socio-,
> > > >>> onto- and micro-) is the crisis: crises are simply inherent in the
> > > >> process
> > > >>> of development itself, because at some point the process of
> > development
> > > >>> turns back on itself and the means of development itself develops.
> > > That's
> > > >>> why Vygotsky speaks of "cycles of development".
> > > >>>
> > > >>> The problem with both Leontievs (A.A. and A.L.) is that they were
> > > >> committed
> > > >>> to demonstrating that development could take place without crises.
> I
> > > >> think
> > > >>> this was a political commitment, linked to Stalin's declaration of
> > the
> > > >> end
> > > >>> of history. It is always a mistake to declare that history is at an
> > > end:
> > > >>> that is one of the main differences between sociogenesis and
> > > ontogenesis.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> David Kellogg
> > > >>> Macquarie University
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 5:21 PM, Arturo Escandon <
> > > >>> arturo.escandon@gmail.com>
> > > >>> wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> Dear David,
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> I am laughing load about your exchange with Mike.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Of course I do not discard microgenetic processes at all. Perhaps
> my
> > > >>>> "unfortunately" comes from the fact that L2 teaching continuous to
> > be
> > > >>>> so behaviorist and naive. SLA advocates try to go round the notion
> > of
> > > >>>> input-output unsuccessfully. These conditions influence my
> research
> > as
> > > >>>> any social or production condition does. It is as if one could not
> > > >>>> abstract of the institutional object set for "learning".
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> What I have done is base my approach on A.A. Leontiev notions of
> > > >>>> speech activity vis a vis communication activity to determine at
> > least
> > > >>>> four stages that a learner with no knowledge of a L2 must go
> through
> > > >>>> to master it. Those I renamed substructural, structural,
> functional
> > > >>>> and rhetorical stages. They all differ in the object of the
> > activity.
> > > >>>> But none of these stages is reached by one single learning
> activity.
> > > >>>> So no microgenetic process can "trigger" mastery. On the contrary,
> > > >>>> learners need to go through many learning tasks until they develop
> > > >>>> comprehensive conceptual models for each stage. The developments
> of
> > > >>>> those models run against their very understanding of their own L1.
> > It
> > > >>>> is hard to grasp the actual genesis of that development for the
> > stages
> > > >>>> cannot be clearly separated one another and because instructions
> is
> > > >>>> distributed. You see, learners learn grammar with L1 speakers and
> > > >>>> conversation with L2 speakers in more or less chaotic and
> > asystematic
> > > >>>> learning settings.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> The question is how one can deal with zones which do not have an
> age
> > > >>>> crisis that help distinguishing one from the next. Risking
> deforming
> > > >>>> the notion of zoped,I still prefer to have some kind of
> > developmental
> > > >>>> targets and stages rather than basing instruction on an endless
> > chain
> > > >>>> of learning tasks just to fill teaching time.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Thanks for providing those Russian excerpts.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> All the best.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Arturo
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> On 18 October 2016 at 09:33, David Kellogg <dkellogg60@gmail.com>
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >>>>> Arturo:
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Thanks for the very thoughtful reply. I think the only word I
> might
> > > >>>>> possibly disagree with is "unfortunately". I suppose there may
> also
> > > >> be
> > > >>> a
> > > >>>>> "zone of proximal learning", just as there is a zone of proximal
> > > >>>> evolution
> > > >>>>> (I suspect, given the mass extinctions which are going on in the
> > > >>>>> Anthropocene, that we are in one of these at present), and a zone
> > of
> > > >>>>> proximal social progress (these have turned out to be far longer
> > > >> than I
> > > >>>>> ever thought as a young person). But I think for now it's a very
> > good
> > > >>>> idea
> > > >>>>> to focus on the D in ZPD, and not to forget that it's for
> > > >> "development"
> > > >>>> and
> > > >>>>> not for learning.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Let me give three reasons. First of all, if we are interested in
> > the
> > > >>> what
> > > >>>>> word value looks like when we remove the sound that realizes it,
> we
> > > >> are
> > > >>>>> necessarily interested in a psychological rather than an
> > > >> interpersonal
> > > >>>>> phenomenon. Secondly, the focus on quick results in learning very
> > > >> often
> > > >>>>> ends up victimizing teachers for problems in development that
> have
> > > >>>> nothing
> > > >>>>> to do with teaching methods and are really developmentally
> rooted.
> > > >>>> Thirdly,
> > > >>>>> just as we need to understand exactly what teachers are doing
> > before
> > > >> we
> > > >>>> go
> > > >>>>> about introducing interested changes, we also need to understand
> > what
> > > >>>>> Vygotsky was trying to do before we decide it is irrelevant to
> our
> > > >>>> teaching
> > > >>>>> needs.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> This morning I was working on the beginning of the "Crisis at
> > Three",
> > > >>>> part
> > > >>>>> of which (but not the good part) can be read in Vol. Five of the
> > > >>>> Collected
> > > >>>>> Works in English (Vol. Four in Russian):
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Во-первых, мы должны предположить, что все перемены, все события,
> > > >>>>> совершающиеся в период этого кризиса, группируются вокруг
> > какого-либо
> > > >>>>> новообразования переходного типа. Следовательно, когда мы будем
> > > >>>>> анализировать симптомы кризиса, мы должны хотя бы
> предположительно
> > > >>>> ответить
> > > >>>>> на вопрос, что нового возникает в указанное время и какова судьба
> > > >>>>> новообразования, которое исчезает после него. Затем мы должны
> > > >>>> рассмотреть,
> > > >>>>> какая смена центральных и побочных линий развития здесь
> > происходит. И
> > > >>>>> наконец, оценить критический возраст с точки зрения зоны его
> > > >> ближайшего
> > > >>>>> развития, т. е. отношения к следующему возрасту.
> > > >>>>> "Firstly, we must presume that all of the transformations, all
> the
> > > >>>>> happenings, that take place during the period of the crisis may
> be
> > > >>>> grouped
> > > >>>>> around some sort of neoformation of the transitional type.
> > > >>> Consequently,
> > > >>>>> when we analyse the symptoms of the crisis, we must at the very
> > least
> > > >>>>> presume to answer the question of what newness emerges at this
> > > >>> appointed
> > > >>>>> time and what the fate of these neoformations which disappear
> > > >>> afterwards
> > > >>>>> might be. Next, we should consider how the central and peripheral
> > > >> lines
> > > >>>> of
> > > >>>>> development here will unfold. And lastly, we ought to evaluate
> the
> > > >>>> critical
> > > >>>>> age from the point of view of the zone of its proximal
> development,
> > > >>> i.e.
> > > >>>>> its relationship to the subsequent age."
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> "The zone of its proximal development" is its relationship to the
> > > >>>>> subsequent age! Almost by definition, if you present some
> > > >>>>> pedagogical intervention and it immediately becomes part of the
> > > >> child's
> > > >>>>> psychological system, you are looking at the zone of actual
> > > >>> development,
> > > >>>>> and not the zone of proximal development at all.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Years ago, I told Mike that I kept mixing up microgenesis and
> > > >> learning.
> > > >>>> He
> > > >>>>> told me "Don't do that!" but he didn't exactly spell out how to
> > avoid
> > > >>> it:
> > > >>>>> instead, he arranged for me to review a book on
> Ganzheitpsychologie
> > > >>> that
> > > >>>>> left me more confused than ever. So I think that's still what we
> > need
> > > >>> to
> > > >>>> do
> > > >>>>> now: but one way to start is simply to kick learning out of the
> > ZPD.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> David Kellogg
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Macquarie University
> > > >>>>> .
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 1:44 AM, Arturo Escandon <
> > > >>>> arturo.escandon@gmail.com>
> > > >>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Thank you for this David.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> I agree with what you are saying at many levels.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Unfortunately, the kind of assessment I introduced did not have
> > > >>>>>> significant learning components. So the evaluation part of the
> > > >>>>>> assessment is not giving me much data about microgenesis but
> about
> > > >>>>>> ontogenesis. The "outcome" is not the result of the learning
> > > >> component
> > > >>>>>> for sure.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> My bet is that the links between L1 and L2 (which allow students
> > to
> > > >> go
> > > >>>>>> beyond sound perception of words) are possible because of
> > > >> development
> > > >>>>>> in high school. More to do with L1 development. Again, the kind
> of
> > > >>>>>> interventions I am allowed to make in the classroom are very
> > narrow
> > > >>>>>> and the structure and shape of the study programme prevents me
> > from
> > > >>>>>> doing large longitudinal studies.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> I agree the notion of DA as it is used in the SLA literature
> > > >> presents
> > > >>>>>> many problems.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Arturo
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> On 11 October 2016 at 05:17, David Kellogg <
> dkellogg60@gmail.com>
> > > >>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>> Arturo:
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> Dynamic assessment is a really good example of what I'm talking
> > > >>> about.
> > > >>>>>>> Dynamic assessment is supposedly based on the ZPD. But I think
> > > >> there
> > > >>>> are
> > > >>>>>>> three linked ways in which it is actually based on a distortion
> > of
> > > >>> the
> > > >>>>>> ZPD.
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> a) Dynamic assessment looks at microgenesis, not ontogenesis. I
> > > >>> think
> > > >>>> the
> > > >>>>>>> idea was originally that the microgenetic perturbations that
> were
> > > >>>> picked
> > > >>>>>> up
> > > >>>>>>> in DA were, actually, predictive of the "next zone of
> > > >> development".
> > > >>>> But
> > > >>>>>>> there are two reasons why this has not happened. Firstly, there
> > > >>> hasn't
> > > >>>>>> been
> > > >>>>>>> a clear demarcation between learning and development, and the
> > idea
> > > >>>>>>> that what the child can do today with assistance will be done
> by
> > > >> the
> > > >>>>>> child
> > > >>>>>>> independently tomorrow--literally, in twenty-four hours--is
> just
> > > >> too
> > > >>>>>>> attractive to people like Matt Poehner and Jim Lantolf.
> Secondly,
> > > >>>> there
> > > >>>>>>> hasn't been a clear scheme for figuring out what the next zone
> of
> > > >>>>>>> development really is (it's there in Vygotsky's pedological
> > > >>> lectures,
> > > >>>> but
> > > >>>>>>> these haven't been translated yet).
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> b) Dynamic assessment is "dynamic" and not diagnostic. It's
> > > >>>> interesting
> > > >>>>>> to
> > > >>>>>>> compare the two Russian versions of Vygotsky's pedological
> > > >> lectures:
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> https://www.marxists.org/russkij/vygotsky/pedologia/
> > > >>>>>> lektsii-po-pedologii.pdf
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> https://www.marxists.org/russkij/vygotsky/cw/pdf/vol4.pdf
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> Compare 2001: 191 with 1984: 260 (and also the English version,
> > > >>> 1998:
> > > >>>>>>> 199!). It's not just that the Russian editors insist on
> replacing
> > > >>>> "test"
> > > >>>>>>> with "task"--it's that they consistently replace "diagnostic"
> > with
> > > >>>>>>> "dynamic", even where this leads to redundant headings and
> total
> > > >>>>>> nonsense.
> > > >>>>>>> Why? Well, because in the Soviet scheme of things, the ZPD is
> NOT
> > > >>>>>>> diagnostic: it's dynamic. That means that a personality is
> > > >>> infinitely
> > > >>>>>>> malleable and tomorrow's development, with the right kind of
> > > >>>> mediation,
> > > >>>>>> can
> > > >>>>>>> become today's. This is something that DA has largely adopted
> > from
> > > >>> its
> > > >>>>>>> Soviet roots....but it's not Vygotsky.
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> c) As a result DA has to reject the core of Vygotsky's method:
> > for
> > > >>>>>>> Vygotsky, structure is to be explained by function, but
> function
> > > >>> MUST
> > > >>>> be
> > > >>>>>>> explained by history, by development. Suppose I have two
> > children.
> > > >>> One
> > > >>>>>>> learns, the other doesn't. The structural explanation is simply
> > > >> that
> > > >>>> the
> > > >>>>>>> first one has the right mental structures to learn and the
> second
> > > >>> does
> > > >>>>>> not.
> > > >>>>>>> The functional explanation is that the first has the right
> > > >>> functional
> > > >>>>>>> motivation (putative career, middle class aspirations, etc)
> while
> > > >>> the
> > > >>>>>> other
> > > >>>>>>> does not. But the sad truth is that the vast majority of
> learning
> > > >>>>>>> difficulties really are developmental. I don't think that means
> > > >> that
> > > >>>> they
> > > >>>>>>> are destiny. But I do think it means that prevention is a whole
> > > >> lot
> > > >>>>>> easier
> > > >>>>>>> than cure. In DA, development is Markovian: the present and the
> > > >>> future
> > > >>>>>> are
> > > >>>>>>> linked causally--but not the past and the present: it's a weird
> > > >>>> inversion
> > > >>>>>>> of Aristotle's belief that the past was determined but the
> future
> > > >> is
> > > >>>>>>> intrinsically non-determinable.
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> David Kellogg
> > > >>>>>>> Macquarie University
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 3:52 PM, Arturo Escandon <
> > > >>>>>> arturo.escandon@gmail.com>
> > > >>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> David,
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> In my research about dynamic assessment I have been able to
> spot
> > > >> a
> > > >>>>>>>> moment students reorganise L1 and L2 concepts (related to
> > > >>> urbanistic
> > > >>>>>>>> and architectural city features) in such a way that they no
> > > >> longer
> > > >>>>>>>> "perceive" the sounds of words. Students who do not arrive to
> > > >> that
> > > >>>>>>>> reorganisation are not able to escape from the perceptual
> > > >> challenge
> > > >>>> of
> > > >>>>>>>> oral utterances.
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> The first group of students tend to mediate their linguistic
> > > >>>>>>>> production either in ideograms or Spanish-alphabet written
> words
> > > >>> when
> > > >>>>>>>> asked to take notes. The second group tend to use the Japanese
> > > >>>>>>>> syllabic system to transliterate sounds.
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> Best
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> Arturo Escandón
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> On 9 October 2016 at 07:21, David Kellogg <
> dkellogg60@gmail.com
> > >
> > > >>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>> When I read materials on Vygotsky, particularly in applied
> > > >>>>>> linguistics or
> > > >>>>>>>>> TESOL, I always get the "four timescales" (phylogenetic,
> > > >>>> sociogenetic,
> > > >>>>>>>>> ontogenetic, and microgenetic) from Mescharyakov's wonderful
> > > >>>> article
> > > >>>>>> on
> > > >>>>>>>>> Vygotsky's terminology. At first, in the vain hope that it
> > > >> would
> > > >>>> help
> > > >>>>>> us
> > > >>>>>>>> to
> > > >>>>>>>>> distinguish better between ontogenetic development and
> > > >>> microgenetic
> > > >>>>>>>>> learning, I used this myself (see Song and Kellogg 2011).
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> Now I think that was a mistake. The term "microgenesis" was
> > > >>> around
> > > >>>>>> when
> > > >>>>>>>>> Vygotsky was alive and he certainly knew about it: it's a
> > > >>> constant
> > > >>>>>>>> feature
> > > >>>>>>>>> of Gestaltist studies of perception. It's also strongly
> > > >>> associated
> > > >>>>>> with
> > > >>>>>>>> the
> > > >>>>>>>>> Nazi psychology of Leipzig. Vygotsky knows about the term and
> > > >>>> doesn't
> > > >>>>>> use
> > > >>>>>>>>> it, and I think he's got good reasons.
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> Even where LSV agrees with the Gestaltists (Kohler, Koffka,
> > > >>> Lewin,
> > > >>>>>>>>> Wertheimer, Selz--they weren't all Nazis!) he doesn't seem to
> > > >> use
> > > >>>> the
> > > >>>>>>>> term
> > > >>>>>>>>> microgenesis. And actually, he's quite interested in Nazi
> > > >>>> psychology
> > > >>>>>> and
> > > >>>>>>>>> not afraid to quote it, although he bitterly, scathingly,
> > > >>> denounces
> > > >>>>>>>>> Jaensch, Krueger, Ach, Kroh and others in "Fascism in
> > > >>>>>> Psychoneurology". I
> > > >>>>>>>>> think he doesn't use "microgenesis" because it conflates
> > > >> external
> > > >>>>>>>>> perception with perceiving meaning.
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> Halliday, who also uses "phylogenetic" and "ontogenetic",
> calls
> > > >>> his
> > > >>>>>>>> "micro"
> > > >>>>>>>>> scale logogenesis: the creation of semantics (as opposed to
> > > >>>>>> biological,
> > > >>>>>>>>> social, or psychological semiosis). Take Zaza's article. At a
> > > >>>>>> particular
> > > >>>>>>>>> point, the participants become uninterested in perceptual
> high
> > > >>>>>> fidelity
> > > >>>>>>>> and
> > > >>>>>>>>> much more interested in meaning--what will Gogo think if she
> > > >> sees
> > > >>>> that
> > > >>>>>>>> her
> > > >>>>>>>>> daughter-in-law is using mechanical means for nursing?
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> Of course, semantic meaning is always linked to perceptual
> > > >>> meaning.
> > > >>>>>> But
> > > >>>>>>>>> "linked" never means equal or mutual or fully reciprocal: the
> > > >>>> specific
> > > >>>>>>>>> weight is first on one side and then on the other.
> Microgenesis
> > > >>> is
> > > >>>>>> what
> > > >>>>>>>> you
> > > >>>>>>>>> get in eye tests, and logogenesis is what you get when you
> are
> > > >>>> reading
> > > >>>>>>>>> Zaza's article (and when you are reading this post).
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> David Kellogg
> > > >>>>>>>>> Macquarie University
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> --
> > > >>
> > > >> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an
> > > object
> > > >> that creates history. Ernst Boesch
> > > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>