[Xmca-l] Re: Thank you to Peter

[Peter Feigenbaum [Staff]]

What I'm about to suggest may seem far afield of the discussion that has
taken place on this
particular topic thus far, but the thought was triggered by Huw's mention
of perspective-taking.

Whenever I think about teaching and learning, I can't help but conjure up
the ideas revealed
by Arthur Reber's work on *implicit* learning. In contrast to didactic
teaching - in this case, the
conscious efforts and aims of the caregivers to teach the child to walk -
there is the child's
own unconscious efforts to understand the activity in which she is engaged.
These two forms
of cognition, one conscious and the other unconscious, are apparently at
odds with one another.

Reber considers implicit learning as "knowledge [that] is optimally
acquired independently of
conscious efforts to learn." Interestingly, when children and adults in his
experiments were asked
to divulge what they were thinking while they were engaged in a task
involving implicit learning
(such as learning the rules of an artificial grammar), they were largely
unable to do so, and
their task performance simultaneously suffered.

For my part, I believe that both of these cognitive processes and
perspectives are operative
in social situations involving teaching and learning. Perhaps others would
find it useful to consider
these competing forms of learning when thinking about the zoped (or should
I say zoned?).

Sorry if this idea is a distraction!

Peter F





On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 6:59 AM, Huw Lloyd <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Yes, HMF as something discrete is a red herring (and more a result of
> construing it in a categorical fashion). Better to consider it as a
> conjoining perspective. The chalk drawing is nicely evocative of different
> perspectives at play (what I call active orientation because 'perspective'
> and 'goal' connote conscious functions in English). I am working on a
> technical account of it all, and so have some confidence in my assertions.
>
> Best,
> Huw
>
>
>
> On 27 April 2018 at 11:41, Peter Smagorinsky <smago@uga.edu> wrote:
>
> > But I suspect that walking can play a role in developing a higher mental
> > process (psych function). A hunter walks in a way quite different from a
> > yuppie doing a power walk, and each serves a cultural purpose. There's
> more
> > to the walk than just walking, I think. So yes, I do see a ZND at work
> when
> > learning how to walk in a goal-directed way, mediated by surroundings
> both
> > physical and psychological, that allow for entry into and participation
> in
> > a community of practice.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@
> > mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of mike cole
> > Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2018 10:59 PM
> > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Thank you to Peter
> >
> > Now of only walking were a higher psychological function, Peg, Peter
> might
> > call that a zone of nearest development!
> >
> > Or it might be seen as a kind of construction forest.  :-)
> >
> > mike
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 5:45 PM, Peg Griffin <Peg.Griffin@att.net>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Apropos of Martin's observation of walking:  Here is a slide of a
> > > Rembrandt drawing.  I use it when starting to work with people who are
> > > or are planning to teach young children, especially if they are quite
> > > convinced that modeling the correct language or other behavior is
> > > essential and pretty much all that is essentially needed.
> > > There are a few casual notes under the slide that are just my attempts
> > > to get them to relax into some disconcerting-for-them viewpoints.
> > > Peg
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@
> > > mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Martin Packer
> > > Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2018 7:11 PM
> > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Thank you to Peter
> > >
> > > I was thinking something similar, Henry. This seems to me one of those
> > > rare occasions where Vygotsky doesn’t have it quite right. I spend
> > > quite a bit of time watching kids walking with adults, because it’s a
> > > phenomenon I find quite fascinating. A child using a table for support
> > > while starting to walk is quite different from the ways that adults
> > > will actively help a child to walk, performing functions, such as
> > > balance, that the child is not yet capable of alone. Then, when the
> > > child *is* capable of walking alone, the adults have to be even more
> > > active: everyone knows that a toddler will head off in any direction
> > > that attracts their interest: now adults need to be what I think Bowlby
> > called an ‘external ego.’
> > >
> > > Martin
> > >
> > > > On Apr 26, 2018, at 5:56 PM, HENRY SHONERD <hshonerd@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Peter, et. al.
> > > > In the text from Vygotsky, the “external objects” the child is
> > > > making
> > > use of might be an “affordance” as per J.J. Gibson?  Something else
> > > comes to my mind in a child learning to walk is the risk of serious
> > > injury. Most adults would probably not knowingly let the child risk
> > > such injury. That would be endangerment in a court of law.
> > > > Henry
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >> On Apr 26, 2018, at 2:02 PM, mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> Thanks Peter!
> > > >> Mike
> > > >>
> > > >> On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 12:59 PM Peter Smagorinsky <smago@uga.edu>
> > > wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> In case anyone is interested in LSV's use of scaffolding, Rene
> > > >>> sent me
> > > the
> > > >>> following. But it seems clear to me that he's not using it as
> > > >>> Bruner
> > > did.
> > > >>> The scaffolding here is not designed by an adult, but rather
> > > >>> involves a child's use of available supports. The words might be
> > > >>> more or less the same, but the concept seems very different to me.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> See p. 226 of my Understanding Vygotsky (1991, with Valsiner),
> > > >>> where I observed that Vygotsky used the scaffolding metaphor in
> > > >>> chapter 3 of Vygotsky & Luria (Studies in the history of
> > > >>> behaviour: Ape, primitive, man,1930, p. 202).
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> And this is the text:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Let us recall how the child gradually learns to walk. As soon as
> > > >>> his muscles are strong enough, he begins to move about on the
> > > >>> ground in the same primitive manner as animals, using a naturally
> > > >>> innate mode of locomotion. He crawls on all fours; indeed one of
> > > >>> the leading
> > > pedologists
> > > >>> of our day says that the very young child reminds us of a small
> > > quadruped,
> > > >>> rather like an “ape-like cat”. [39]That animal continues for some
> > > >>> time
> > > to
> > > >>> move about in the same primitive manner; within a few months,
> > > >>> however,
> > > it
> > > >>> begins to stand up on its legs: the child has started to walk. The
> > > >>> transition to walking is usually not clear-cut. At first the child
> > > makes
> > > >>> use of external objects, by holding on to them: he makes his way
> > > >>> along holding onto the edge of the bed, an adult’s hand, a chair,
> > > >>> pulling the chair along behind him and leaning on it. In a word,
> > > >>> his ability to
> > > walk is
> > > >>> not yet complete: it is in fact still surrounded, as it were, by
> > > >>> the scaffolding of those external tools with which it was created.
> > > >>> Within a month or two, however, the child grows out of that
> > > >>> scaffolding,
> > > discarding
> > > >>> it, as no more external help is needed; external tools have now
> > > >>> been replaced by newly formed internal neurodynamic processes.
> > > >>> Having
> > > developed
> > > >>> strong legs, sufficient stability and coordination of movement,
> > > >>> the
> > > child
> > > >>> has now moved into the stage of definitive walking.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> -----Original Message-----
> > > >>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:
> > > >>> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of mike cole
> > > >>> Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2018 12:58 PM
> > > >>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> > > >>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Thank you to Peter
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Makes good sense to me, Rob.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I do not have the same problem with proximal that Peter does, but
> > > >>> emphasizing the temporal ordering seems certainly right.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> With respect to scaffolding: The russian term is строительные леса
> > > >>> - literally, "construction forests" -- think of the "scaffolding"
> > > >>> around public buildings that block the sidewalks and are a
> > > >>> "forest" of pipes
> > > and
> > > >>> boards.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Beats a gallows by a verst or two!
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> BUT, beware that Vygotsky and Luria, among others, used this very
> > > >>> term
> > > at
> > > >>> times. There is interesting work by Arthur Bakkar and Anna Shvarts
> > > >>> on
> > > this
> > > >>> very topic that I am hoping to get represented in MCA. Arthur has
> > > written
> > > >>> on this topic with empirical work in classrooms and makes a case
> > > >>> for a broad use of the term that converges very closely with. If
> > > >>> there is interest here, let me know, and i can post one of his
> > papers.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> mike
> > > >>>
> > > >>> (the guy who believes that the proper English concept is a zoped)
> > > >>> :-)
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 3:56 AM, robsub@ariadne.org.uk<mailto:
> > > >>> robsub@ariadne.org.uk> < robsub@ariadne.org.uk<mailto:
> > > >>> robsub@ariadne.org.uk>> wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> I just want to say thank you to Peter for introducing me to
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> "Deconflating the ZPD and instructional scaffolding".
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.
> researchgate.net_p&d=DwIFaQ&c=aqMfXOEvEJQh2iQMCb7Wy8l0sPnURk
> cqADc2guUW8IM&r=mXj3yhpYNklTxyN3KioIJ0ECmPHilpf4N2p9PBMATWs&m=
> A0pLAA7WgwdNaLaEVN98QsUJr8_J2xw1Bxg5KM9ej2s&s=
> WSjaQM3CNl982j1B7mkB8BvsZuf0uca_3zOIioVDXkM&e=
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> ublication/320579162_Deconflating_the_ZPD_and_instructional_
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> scaffolding_Retranslating_and_reconceiving_the_zone_of_proxi
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> mal_development_as_the_zone_of_next_development
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> I have felt for a long time that there was something not quite
> > > >>>> right
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> about the way people conceive of both the ZPD (or, as I shall now
> > > >>>> call
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> it, the
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> ZND) and instructional scaffolding, but lacked the expertise to
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> analyse why. Now Peter comes and, with great authority, tells me
> > > >>>> that
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> I was thinking along the right lines. The irony of now being
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> officially A Retired Person is that I have the leisure to study
> > > >>>> these
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> things in the detail I needed when I was working and did not have
> > > >>>> the
> > > >>> time.....
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> Just a couple of random thoughts around my reading of the article.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> I have always felt that "scaffolding" was a misnomer, a bad
> > > >>>> choice of
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> metaphor by those who originally coined it. The point of
> > > >>>> scaffolding,
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> the stuff you put on buildings, is that it is inflexible. It is
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> massive, rigid, and designed never to fall over with a worker on
> it.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> Although I have never quite been in tune with the idea of
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> instructional scaffolding, it has always seemed to me that its
> > > >>>> point
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> must be flexibility - taking bits away from it must be at least
> > > >>>> as
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> important as putting them there in the first place. So, whenever
> > > >>>> I
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> think about instructional scaffolding, I first have to get past
> > > >>>> the
> > > >>> jarring metaphor. Perhaps I am too sensitive to words.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> I wonder also if the popularity of the "assisted-learning-today,
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> independent-performance-tomorrow" model is not just popularity
> > > >>>> with
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> teachers of teaching. Its short term focus and superficial
> > > >>>> specificity
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> make it appear to be very measurable, which makes it popular with
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> policy makers, especially in today's audit culture.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> The introduction of Moll and the idea of context being crucial
> > > >>>> was
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> also very illuminating. Something else for me to examine, dammit.
> > > >>>> But
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> also something that becomes obvious once it is pointed out
> > > >>>> because
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> CHAT and the activity triangle are all about context.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> This quote from p73 gives me pause for thought too. "Assuming
> > > >>>> that
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> instructional scaffolding will work because it is written into a
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> lesson plan overlooks the possibility that teacher and learner
> > > >>>> will
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> approach each other in ways that produce conflict over product
> > > >>>> and
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> process, with the student inevitably losing. Scaffolding, then,
> > > >>>> needs
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> to be viewed as an intensely relational process, one requiring
> > > >>>> mutual
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> understanding and negotiation of goals and practices." Teachers
> > > >>>> know
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> that (I would say) but policy makers, at least in this country,
> > don't.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> They love lesson plans and teachers are coerced into achieving
> > > >>>> the
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> aims in the lesson plan regardless of where the lesson is
> > > >>>> actually
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> going. The disjunction between what we know to be good teaching
> > > >>>> on the
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> one hand, and, on the other, the requirements of neoliberal audit
> > > >>> culture, becomes ever more stark.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> I hope I am making sense.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>



-- 
Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D.
Director,
Office of Institutional Research
<https://www.fordham.edu/info/24303/institutional_research>
Fordham University
Thebaud Hall-202
Bronx, NY 10458

Phone: (718) 817-2243
Fax: (718) 817-3817
email: pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu