To the extent that LSV's original formulation was designed to be
dialectical, there ought to be at least some role for reciprocal 'push and
pull' in the ZPD. But I mainly remember paradigms of learning in the ZPD as
cases of the learning of motor skills, or problem-solving techniques ...
matters where if there is agreement as to the goal, then the actions which
are scaffolded become self-justifying insofar as they achieve the shared
object/ive. Such cases, however, are not an adequate general model for
teaching-learning interactions where what is being taught comes to be
resisted by the learner.
One can push the question back in part to the matter of the shared
definition of the goal, and to negotiation about this. But longtime readers
of xmca will recall my wariness toward the notion that human interactivity
can be described adequately by notions of pre-determined goals, and my
general sense that we need to take into account the emergence of goals
during activity (and often their retrospective accounting as 'having been'
the goal all along, when this is not very plausible). We also need to be
critical of any implicit separation of means and ends that would be implied
by a notion of goals being negotiated, and then means being no longer a
matter for conflict or resistance. In the ZPD model this is a crucial
issue, because what is _learned_ primarily are the actions or means, toward
some goal -- i.e. how-to.
So let us imagine that goals are a bit nebulous and not effectively agreed
on, and that even if they are, actions to be taught/learned are not
uniformly dictated by the choice of goal, the goals shift somewhat during
interaction for both parties, there are multiple goals -- and the learner
at some point resists what is being scaffolded. I think this happens from
infancy onwards in actual practice.
We can interpret what happens as conflict, but I find this metaphor a
little too overloaded with connotations of a culturally sensitive kind. I
would rather just say there is a divergence, perhaps of goals, or of the
on-going trajectories of always emergent goals (immediate and
longer-range). There is still interaction now, and there is still some sort
of learning possible, but there is no longer smooth cooperative activity
limited only by the competence of the junior partner.
In this sort of interaction, a lot depends on the willingness of the senior
partner to 'go with the flow' and not insist on prior goals determining
present action. Thus what will be learned in the interaction is no longer
as predictable as the ZPD model usually imagines it. ZPDs are
multi-dimensional; the senior partner knows a lot of things the junior
partner might find useful in relation to various goals. Insofar as the
junior partners goals are outside the repertory of the senior partner
(strong divergence, of kind, not just degree), which skills may get taught
en route to the new goal may not be known in advance even to the senior
partner who is competent in them. This assumes a very accomodating senior
partner. In reality, learning is always contextualized by larger cultural
projects of reproduction (or something more complex but similar for present
purposes) ... adults will not simply teach children how to do anything the
kids want to learn to do (usually), and I suspect this is true of
apprenticeship into any community that has values, taboos, etc.
We tend to assign dominant agency to the senior partner, and so initiative
and well-formed goals; we then see divergence as 'resistance', but if we
give equal agency to the junior partner, then divergence implies an active
impulse in another direction, not mere reaction against (though this
exists). It trivializes divergent projects to see them solely in terms of
their accomodation or resistance to our own projects.
So, some questions.
How do we learn to 'resist'? is this skill taught in the ZPD?
When we go beyond the teaching of skills that clearly get us to mutually
agreed objectives, and begin to teach discourses and practices that are
representations of a view of the world, rather than pure instrumentalities
for action, is divergence and resistance more common?
What are the principle sources of divergence? differences in the lived
experiences and 'interestednesses' of junior/senior partners widely
separated in age, class, culture, ...? direct reactive resistances to
something (what?) about the proposed to-be-learned?
Are there substantial differences in cultural (class, gender, age, ...)
styles and preferences for responding to divergence in ZPD interactions?
authoritarian-conflictual, passive-aggressive, dilatory, dissembling,
accomodative ...? I think here we have a considerable literature on
enculturation practices to draw on, from mother-infant 'control' practices
across cultures, to those of various informal and formal educational systems.
A large subject, but seemingly a very important one. JAY.
---------------------------
JAY L. LEMKE
CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK
JLLBC who-is-at CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU
---------------------------