[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [xmca] zpd additional comment



Dear Eric,

 

I would certainly be willing to entertain the notion of a specific unit of
analysis in your hypothetical example (although operationalization is not my
field of expertise) if you were to reveal "where" your theoretical
foundations (philosophical, psycho-educational, historical, socio-cultural,
and even mundane) are "situated."

 

Best,

Michael

 

Michael G. Levykh, Ph.D.

 

-----Original Message-----
From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] On
Behalf Of ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 12:28 PM
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: RE: [xmca] zpd additional comment

 

 

Thank you for your reply Michael.  The zpd is one of the most unique and 

hard to qualify concepts.  Indeed I agree that Vygotsky did not want to 

reduce people to their parts but rather take into account the entire 

person, however, he does intimate that different aspects require further 

attention than others.  Much of his theorizing about the zpd was done 

based on the blocks.  Solving the blocks presents a goal oriented 

activity.  Some are quick to solve the blocks (interpreted as having a 

large zpd) while others take more time and require more assistance 

(interpreted as having a more narrow zpd); perhaps?  I am willing to 

accept that I am incorrect on this. 

 

For a specific example lets pick the WHO as being an 18 year old 

functional illiterate who becomes serious about wanting to read. Providing 

numerous hours of tutoring ends in the student  still at the picture stage 

of instruction.  Is there a unit of analysis for this specific example?

 

eric

 

 

 

 

"michael" <mglevykh@telus.net>

Sent by: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu

06/04/2009 02:02 PM

Please respond to "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity"

 

 

        To:     "'eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity'" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>

        cc: 

        Subject:        RE: [xmca] zpd additional comment

 

 

Hello Eric,

 

 

 

Before choosing a specific unit of analysis (which resembles

operationalization, or defining the way how a specific concept can be

observed and measured, which in itself is a reduction since, as Vygotsky

points out, many features of cultural development are not directly

observable), it might be useful to know what (or, in the case of zpd, WHO)

exactly is being analyzed and on what theoretical foundations

(philosophical, psycho-educational, historical, socio-cultural, and even

mundane) these analyses are grounded. 

 

 

 

Claiming that ZPD develops the whole child, on the one hand, and choosing 

a

mere approximation, a measurable unit of analysis that does not quite

address its dynamic and holistic features within and of the dialectical

paradigm, on the other hand, is irresponsible and, in my opinion, is a

complete disregard for the very "Vygotsky" he (Chaiklin, 2003) is trying 

to

"authenticate." 

 

 

 

There is something more to Vygotsky's intended notion of the ZPD (like the

physical, spiritual, aesthetic, and ethical - things that go beyond the

stage of "ethical obedience" -- aspects of the child's personality) and 

its

usage than what is made explicit in his writing. It is possible that

Vygotsky was willing to articulate practical and theoretical matters 

related

to the ZPD in the absence of precise entailments and relations to "other

aspects of the child's personality" because, although he did not have a

chance to do so, he intended to provide a much more detailed account on 

the

ZPD at a later time. Unfortunately, unless and until all the other aspects

of the child's personality (and whether they are specifically addressed by

the ZPD) are made clear, the claim that the ZPD (as interpreted by 

Chaiklin,

2003) addresses the whole child would appear to be unconvincing.

 

 

 

Michael G. Levykh, Ph.D.

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----

From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] On

Behalf Of ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org

Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 6:43 AM

To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity

Subject: RE: [xmca] zpd additional comment

 

 

 

 

 

Hello Michael:

 

 

 

What are your thoughts on the actual unit being analysed?  Like to know 

 

your thoughts on this.

 

eric

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"michael" <mglevykh@telus.net>

 

Sent by: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu

 

06/03/2009 09:00 PM

 

Please respond to "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity"

 

 

 

 

 

        To:     "'eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity'" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>

 

        cc: 

 

        Subject:        RE: [xmca] zpd additional comment

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Ulvi and All (interested in ZPD),

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

While I agree that Chaiklin is "dead on in his analysis on [Vygotsky's]

 

ZPD," his analysis, in my humble opinion, is NOT "ALIVE" either. There is 

 

a

 

clear discrepancy in Chaiklin's (2003) interpretation of the ZPD. While he

 

asserts that "the main features of the analysis of zone of proximal

 

development [concern the] whole child" (p. 50), his account of the whole

 

child does not include explicit consideration of emotion. Yet, for 

 

Vygotsky,

 

affect is the beginning and the end of the child's entire psychological

 

development. Quoting Pistrak (reference unknown), Vygotsky (2004) stated

 

that "The convictions that we may inculcate in school through knowledge,

 

only grow roots in the child's psyche when these convictions are 

 

reinforced

 

emotionally" (p. 55).  Surely, when dealing with the development of the

 

whole child, it is of paramount importance (according to Vygotsky) not to

 

separate intellectual from emotional features of the child's development.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michael G. Levykh, Ph.D.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----

 

From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] On

 

Behalf Of ulvi icil

 

Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2009 12:13 PM

 

To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity

 

Subject: Re: [xmca] zpd

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Many thanks

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On 29/05/2009, ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org <ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org> wrote:

 

 

 

> 

 

 

 

> Ulvi:

 

 

 

> 

 

 

 

> here is a link to a comprehesive analysis of this concept:

 

 

 

> 

 

 

 

> http://lchc.ucsd.edu/MCA/ZOPEDS/Chailklin.pdf

 

 

 

> 

 

 

 

> Seth Chaiklin I believe is dead on in his analysis.

 

 

 

> 

 

 

 

> eric

 

 

 

> _______________________________________________

 

 

 

> xmca mailing list

 

 

 

> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu

 

 

 

> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca

 

 

 

> 

 

 

 

_______________________________________________

 

 

 

xmca mailing list

 

 

 

xmca@weber.ucsd.edu

 

 

 

http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca

 

 

 

_______________________________________________

 

xmca mailing list

 

xmca@weber.ucsd.edu

 

http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca

 

 

 

 

 

_______________________________________________

 

xmca mailing list

 

xmca@weber.ucsd.edu

 

http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca

 

_______________________________________________

xmca mailing list

xmca@weber.ucsd.edu

http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca

 

 

_______________________________________________

xmca mailing list

xmca@weber.ucsd.edu

http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca

_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca