Pedro,
I agree very much with the above statement and think Vygotsky would concur.
In re-reading the experiment your statement above would be the criteria in
which concept "development" would be judged. A concept and its development
being very much a process not as product as you point out. I don't believe
Vygotsky saw a concept as being out there (scientific or otherwise) but
rather something in there or between theres which were transformed as a
"process" of development. Vygotsky's distinction of scientific/everyday
seems to be how we can conceptually do things in an academic or scientific
way which we only later can do in an everyday way, if at all.
Nate
----- Original Message -----
From: Dr. Pedro R. Portes <prport01 who-is-at athena.louisville.edu>
To: <xmca who-is-at weber.ucsd.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 1999 12:08 PM
Subject: Re: Double stimulation
> Bill, Nate et al,
>
> I have been lurking with great interest on this welcomed topic of
> discussion, frustrated by my lack of time with back to back daily
teaching.
>
> My understanding of this topic takes me in a different direction, one
where
> the distinction being discussed, and the tall block examples etc appear
to
> miss the issue, which i see as one of agency.
>
> My take on DS is that it offers a paradigm to study the very processes of
> development, regardless of whether it is a spontaneous or scientific
> concept, attitude or skill.
> To me, it expands on the old gestalt notion of the aha! insight
experience
> where the learner appropriates a tool/concept/skill from the
> inter-psychological plane (or reconfigures the stimuli solo) and thus
> alters her own dev. The reason why teaching is not just telling is
relevant
> here. The teacher may tell/explain/co-construct or transmit stimuli/info
> etc, & a zpd construction zone is established thus by a task or problem.
> But in this paradigm, the learner willfully converts the external
> stimulus/ sign/function/ concept etc (as intended by the other or not),
> transforms it often in very idiosyncratic ways, into a stimulus MEANS or
> tool for dealing with the world/problem in a new fashion.
>
> So the product (scientific concept, skill or other) for me is not the
issue
> here but the process through which individual development is advanced. I
> know 'advanced' suggests that there is a closed end point and i don't
mean
> it this way necessarily. A misconception, prejudice may be developed in
> similar fashion also.
>
> btw, in my research on this topic examined 20 transcripts of mother
child
> interaction in a problem solving situation to see if we could find
evidence
> (objective) of DS in action. We looked for instances of that semiotic
> uptake (Wetsch, Minick & Arns) in episodes where mothers'
interventions(or
> teaching/communication/stimuli) were attended and converted by the child
> into a tool through which categorization at a more abstract level was
> evident in solo performance later in the episode.
>
> As noted in the discussion, bound by the operational/behavioral
> constraints we used to establish our criteria, we very likely
> underestimated DS and uptakes yet we addressed two issues at least that
may
> be relevant. First, how could this very fertile paradigm be advanced
(given
> it seems abandoned in spite that it is =/> relevant than the operant
> paradigm etc) and employed to study concept formation and dev, and,
> Second, how prevalent are these uptakes given a short time frame,
> where maternal verbal assistance is conceptualized as the 1st stimulus
> which learners can convert into stimulus means. The answer to the bean
> counting question was roughly 1-2 instances out of the twenty cases
> examined, although like in social learning theory, the learning outcome
may
> not be manifest for days/weeks months etc.
> If interested in more details, see 'Extending the DS Method in CHAT
> Research: Parent-Child Interaction & Cognitive Change MCA 1996 4 (2)
108-123.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> At 03:48 PM 7/26/99 -0500, you wrote:
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: Bill Barowy <wbarowy who-is-at mail.lesley.edu>
> >To: <xmca who-is-at weber.ucsd.edu>
> >Sent: Sunday, July 25, 1999 11:02 PM
> >Subject: Double double stimulation subtle
> >
> >
> >
> >"I don't think Cobb would have used 'double stimulation' in the past.
The
> >emphasis on individual construction seems closer to LSV's 'everyday'
than
> >'scientific'. So using Yrjv's framework, the rules, division of labor,
and
> >artifacts may be quite different between Cobb and Vygotsky, although you
> >could find small groups here and there. But where 'double stimulation'
> >fits in the everyday-scientific dimension has me a bit puzzled. A bit
of
> >both?"
> >
> >In a functional sense "double stimulation" would be more along the lines
of
> >scientific, since by its essence it would be conscious. But, while the
> >words (general-scientific) and goal was given at the outset, the child
> >turned over specific blocks (everyday) and is asked to generalize and
the
> >experimenter turns over another block which either proves the hypotheses
> >correct or wrong. As the experiment continues the child is able to
> >generalize all tall blocks (no matter shape, size, color) are called by
one
> >name. If the concept truly developed the child will be able to
determine
> > (x) tall blocks) to other objects not in the experiment. If we take
> >"double stimulation" as a model in which to understand concept
development
> >it seems it is truly dialectical because the everyday concept was
embedded
> >within the formation of the scientific one.
> >
> >Nate
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> Pedro R. de Portes
> 310 School of Education
> University of Louisville
> Louisville, KY 40292
>
> Fax 502-8520629
> Ph. 502-8520630
>
> Home Page ; http://www.louisville.edu/~prport01
>