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

Re: [xmca] Re: microgenesis?



Larry,
Yup, I'm already onto that piece, but thanks for sharing. Nice history of
microgenesis back to Heinz Werner.
-greg



On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 1:12 PM, Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com> wrote:

> Greg
> I'm attaching an article that may be of interest.
> It also may be of interest in furthering the discussion of microgenesis and
> reading.
> The article is titled:
> "Microgenesis, Immediate Experience, and Visual Processes in Reading"
> written by Victor Rosenthal
>
> Larry
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 11:18 PM, Greg Thompson
> <greg.a.thompson@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > and one last pitch for my (blind!) interpretation of "lytic":
> >
> > Lytic as loosening or breaking down before re-incorporation feels to me a
> > lot like Hegel's "aufheben" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aufheben) or
> > "sublation" of the two elements in the dialectic. Lysing as taking apart
> > the pieces and assembling them into something new that couldn't otherwise
> > have been. That is Hegelian genesis, no? The source of creativity?
> > At bottom, all "development" (regardless of timescale) involves the
> problem
> > of change and creativity. How does something new come into being that
> > wasn't already there?
> >
> > And as I said, my interpretation of "lytic" is severely blind and Andy's
> > reading of the text suggests to me that I am connecting a few too many
> > dots. But it is fun business to try to make (new?) sense of these things.
> >
> > I'm currently looking into aktualgenese in the Leipsig tradition, but I
> > don't know the extent of Hegel's influence there. I assume that Vygotsky
> > would have been influenced by folks there, but the names I'm coming
> across
> > there don't seem to come up in Vygotsky's writings much - Wilhelm Wundt,
> > Friederich Sander, Kleine-Hurst, and Erich Wohlfart. Certainly Vygotsky
> > would have known of Wundt, but are there meaningful links here from
> > aktualgenese to Vygotsky's notion of genesis and development?
> >
> > Hopefully tomorrow I'll be able to return to micro-genesis - right now,
> too
> > busy trying to rock my little micro-genetic to sleep. Hard to type while
> > swaying back and forth...
> >
> > -greg
> >
> > On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 11:26 AM, mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks very much Andy and all who jumped in to indicate their interest.
> > > I will replace the file online at lchc website with Andy's improved
> > > version.
> > >
> > > The re-admiration of "lytic" that Greg introduced is really thought
> > > provoking to me. It also puts me in mind of the meaning of culture that
> > > goes with biological research which urges us to think about the
> relation
> > > between culture and "medium." All useful.
> > >
> > > With respect to the polysemy of "development" and "learning." In
> > > *The Construction Zone, *Denis Newman, Peg Griffen, and I struggled
> > > enough so that we often gave up and used "change" which of course
> > > elides the difficulties but does not solve them.
> > >
> > > With respect to this learning/development discussion I think we are
> still
> > > struggling to get ourselves clear about whether the notion of "genetic
> > > domain" or "time scales" matters. In this discussion, at least, I have
> > > been struggling to get us to focus on short time intervals. Very often,
> > > as in Andy's earlier notes and in Helen's recent note with the helpful
> > > reminders about Marianne H's writing, the time scale is *ontogenetic -*
> > > years.
> > >
> > > I am all for discussion of these time scales!! But the issue that Greg
> > put
> > > on the table was about micro time scales (or I thought that was what
> the
> > > topic was).  From our discussion so far (I have not had a chance to
> read
> > > Huw's note carefully and have certainly forgotten other relevant
> > > contribution, so I may be overgeneralizing) I got the strong impression
> > > that
> > > it was being argued that at short time scales, the term development in
> > any
> > > meaningful sense, does not apply.
> > >
> > > So, being interested in notions like a zone of proximal development,
> > which
> > > presumably applies to interactions on a time scale closer to minutes
> than
> > > lifetimes, I have tried to get a focus there.
> > >
> > > I am arguing that if the term, development, is inappropriate at this
> > > briefer time scale, then there should be some very serious
> > reconsideration
> > > of Vygotsky's use of the zone of proximal development, since
> development
> > > would be ruled out in all the examples he gives by virtue of the short
> > time
> > > scale. So people who confuse a zone of proximal learning for a zone of
> > > proximal development have been right all along, just using misleading
> > > terminology.
> > >
> > > mike
> > > PS-- And while we are at it, a reconsideration of LSV's idea that in a
> > > zoped "one step in learning" should produce "two steps in development"
> > also
> > > seems in order. My intuition is that Davydov was trying to point us
> right
> > > at that problem, and that his germ cell approach to development was his
> > way
> > > of trying to deal with the issue, but others could probably speak to
> that
> > > better than I.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > *
> > > *
> > >
> > > On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 2:47 AM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Mike, I have attached a modified version of the document about
> > "Question
> > > > Asking Reading." Two pages which were out of order have been replaced
> > in
> > > > order and I have embedded OCR so it should be searchable. Perhaps you
> > > could
> > > > replace NEWTECHN.pdf <http://lchc.ucsd.edu/People/**NEWTECHN.pdf<
> > > http://lchc.ucsd.edu/People/NEWTECHN.pdf>>
> > > > on the server with this one?
> > > >
> > > > Now, my hat off to the authors of this paper. I am sure others on
> this
> > > > list knew about *Question Asking Reading*, but I was not one of them.
> > You
> > > > define reading as "/expanding/ the ability to mediate one's
> > interactions
> > > > with the environment by interpreting text." You recognise that a
> child
> > > > already has an ability to "read the world" and is probably already
> > > > proficient in mediating their reading of the world by interacting
> with
> > > > adults, so learning to read is constructed upon this base. This is
> > > clearly
> > > > drawing on Vygotsky (credit to Piaget as well), and taking reading
> as a
> > > > specific kind of collaborative process rather than just a technical
> > > process
> > > > of decoding. You call on Luria's idea of "combined motor method" to
> > > > introduce an approach to combining diagnostic tasks with teaching
> > tasks.
> > > > And you call on A N Leontyev to solve the crucial problem of the
> > child's
> > > > motivation for learning to read.
> > > >
> > > > (As an aside I much enjoyed the observation of how prominent it was
> for
> > > > the children to engage in discussion about the relation between
> > "growing
> > > > up" and learning to read. My one and only experience of teaching a
> > child
> > > to
> > > > read hinged around this discussion. We were living in a very remote
> > > > location in the UK and her older brother was old enough to attend the
> > > > mixed-age primary school, but Sam was too young. This hyperactive,
> very
> > > > physical child suddenly focused on reading with startling intensity
> and
> > > > learnt to read fluently inside of a week. ... despite our
> explanations
> > > > about the legal age of public school attendance. But very soon the
> > school
> > > > willingly bent a rule or two and admitted her. :) )
> > > >
> > > > Now I grant that my contributions to this thread have not gone
> within a
> > > > mile of the issues raised in this paper. But my interests and
> > experience
> > > > are in social transformation, not teaching and learning in elementary
> > > > schools. But I am willing to listen and learn.
> > > >
> > > > A point of clarification on my side.
> > > >
> > > > ZPD. I have heard it said that ZPD is relevant only to the critical
> > > phases
> > > > of development. I have also heard that ZPD was not a discovery of
> > > Vygotsky.
> > > > For my part, I don't see any reason why this simple idea is not
> > > applicable
> > > > to any learning situation. And likwise if you want to introduce the
> > > concept
> > > > of "development" into qualitative achievements in the lytical phase
> of
> > > > development under the heading of "microgenesis" to distinguish it
> from
> > > the
> > > > whole process of growing into an adult citizen through a series of
> > > distinct
> > > > social roles, I see no problem with this. ... Only provided we
> > understand
> > > > that if a child soldier who learns one day how to torture a prisoner,
> > > which
> > > > they were formerly reluctant to do, this is "development" in a
> > different
> > > > sense, because it creates only a barrier to becoming a citizen of a
> > > > community governed by democratic norms. But it would remain
> > > "microgenesis"
> > > > if considered in cultural isolation. What makes every step along the
> > road
> > > > of learning to read in countries like ours /development/ is that (as
> > you
> > > > discussed with the kids) being able to read is a /sine qua non/ of
> > being
> > > a
> > > > grown up in our world. Torturing your peers is not.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > In your message of almost 24 hours ago you said:
> > > >
> > > >    "If what you write is correct, what does the word DEVELOPMENT mean
> > > >    in the concept of a zone of proximal DEVELOPMENT? ... classroom
> > > >
> > > >    lessons are clusters of events that take place in microgenetic
> time
> > > >    WITHIN ontogenetic lythic periods.Where does that leave us?"
> > > >
> > > > I am perfectly prepared to live with a lot of polysemy with a word
> like
> > > > "development" when one moves from context to context. Provided only
> we
> > > > don't claim that there is /no qualitative distinction/ between the
> > little
> > > > developments that add up to development during a lytic phase, and the
> > > > change in social position of a child which is constituted by
> successful
> > > > completion of both lytic and critical phases of development. In that
> > > sense
> > > > there is development and development. If that is how you are
> deploying
> > > the
> > > > word "microgenesis," then fine. I just don't see any real
> disagreement.
> > > >
> > > > Andy
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > mike cole wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Hi Andy--
> > > >>
> > > >> I made it home through a ton of LA traffic alive, which,
> > > microgenetically
> > > >> feels good whatever the larger significance.
> > > >>
> > > >> When you write "I personally regard it as a matter or "mere words"
> > > >> whether "child  X at last managing to recognize the difference
> > between d
> > > >> and b today," for example, is described as a development" it is
> clear
> > > that
> > > >> you and I are not close enough to the same topic for me to know how
> to
> > > make
> > > >> progress.
> > > >> It also appears that no more than four of the some 700 people on
> xmca
> > > >> give a damn about this topic, so lets go offline about it, cc'ing
> > Greg,
> > > >> and David,
> > > >> if he has patience to hang with us.
> > > >>
> > > >> mike
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 8:44 AM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net
> > <mailto:
> > > >> ablunden@mira.net>> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>     Yeah, whoever translated Vygotsky's "Problem of Age" is
> > > >>     responsible. It just means /gradual/. So in a process of
> > > >>
> > > >>     development, you have alternating critical and lytical phases,
> as
> > > >>     in stepwise processes.
> > > >>
> > > >>     Andy
> > > >>
> > > >>     Greg Thompson wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>>     Apologies for the intrusion, but I had a quick point of
> > > >>>     clarification, for the uninitiated, what is meant by "lytic"?
> > > >>>     (all I could come up with pertained to "lysis" or the breaking
> > > >>>     down of cells - which would seem to suggest a different sense
> of
> > > >>>     "development" - a breaking down so that things can be
> > > >>>     reintegrated. Is that the idea?).
> > > >>>     -greg
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>     On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 9:15 AM, Andy Blunden <
> ablunden@mira.net
> > > >>>     <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>> wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>         I don't know where Americans being dolts comes into it,
> Mike.
> > > >>>         Some of my best friends are Americans. :) But let's move on
> > > >>>         from that.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>         The point, as I see it, is trying to extract from what we
> can
> > > >>>         reaonsably understand Vygotsky to be  saying, something
> which
> > > >>>         we believe could be correct and significant. To do this I
> > > >>>         think we have to understand the concept of "development"
> > > >>>         always in a particular context. A truism for anyone here I
> > > >>>         think. What it means to me is that I cannot just ask: what
> > > >>>         transformations in psychological functioning constitutes
> > > >>>         "development"? The necessary, relevant context is what role
> > > >>>         in what cultural and historical community is the person to
> > > >>>         play, in the short term and in the longer term. So the
> > > >>>         question of what constitutes development is age-specific,
> > > >>>         culturally specific and future-oriented.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>         (Of course, the world changes, and what was development
> > > >>>         yesterday may become oppressive and detestable tomorrow and
> > > >>>         vice versa, but let's abstract from cultural and historical
> > > >>>         change for the moment.)
> > > >>>
> > > >>>         >From the standpoint of natural science what I have posed
> is
> > > >>>         an absurdity and incompatible with basic tenets of science
> > > >>>         ... because I have made development dependent on events and
> > > >>>         relations in the future. In my opinion, that is just as it
> > > >>>         should be: kids go to school "for a purpose" - although
> what
> > > >>>         we mean by "purpose" in this context (the child's? the
> > > >>>         parents'? the state's? in retrospect? under advice?
> > > >>>         sponatneous?). But again, let's just put the problems
> arising
> > > >>>         from the idea of human actions being part of
> object-oriented
> > > >>>         activities to the side for the moment.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>         So you ask: "what does the word DEVELOPMENT mean in the
> > > >>>         concept of a zone of proximal DEVELOPMENT?"
> > > >>>
> > > >>>         I have to ask /which/ zone of proximal development, which
> > > >>>         crisis or lytic period are we talking about. Now I guess we
> > > >>>         can manage to give a general answer to the question:
> general
> > > >>>         questions require general answers. What "development" means
> > > >>>         is relative to which ZPD you are talking about. On the
> other
> > > >>>         hand, the presence of the ZPD itself depends on the
> > > >>>         development being posed. Achievment of a specific new mode
> of
> > > >>>         action with those around you, transforming your relations
> and
> > > >>>         your identity and your actions in the social situation
> > > >>>         depends on the expectations of those around you, according
> to
> > > >>>         broader cultural expectations and possibilities.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>         A teacher or other "helper" interested in fostering
> > > >>>         development (if they can be presumed to reflect general,
> > > >>>         broader cultural expectations) has in mind what new
> > > >>>         functioning will be a necessary step towards the child
> > > >>>         becoming an autonomous citizen of the community.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>         As Vygotsky insists, this poses for the child and her
> > > >>>         "helper" two different kinds of situation: either /lytical/
> > > >>>         development or /critical/ development. Lytical development
> is
> > > >>>         gradual and prepares the basis for developmental leap. To
> > > >>>         argue whether the gradual progress made in strengthening
> the
> > > >>>         relevant psychologhical functions in this phase is or is
> not
> > > >>>         development is in my opinion /just words/. Gradual
> > > >>>         accumulation of strength in those activities which the
> child
> > > >>>         is basically able to do, but maybe not very confidentally
> and
> > > >>>         well is a necessary preparation for transcending their
> > > >>>         age-role and entering into a phase of critical development
> in
> > > >>>         which they have a chance of successfully coming out the
> other
> > > >>>         side. It is by completion of the critical phase of
> > > >>>         development - the leap - which transforms the child's
> > > >>>         identity and role, that "/the development" is realised/.
> All
> > > >>>         the preparation in the world proves to be not development
> if
> > > >>>         it is not realised in facilitating the critical
> > transformation.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>         So, excuse me please for however imperfectly rehearsing
> > > >>>         egg-sucking for grandma's erudition.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>         I personally regard it as a matter or "mere words" whether
> > > >>>         "child  X at last managing to recognise the difference
> > > >>>         between d and b today," for example, is described as a
> > > >>>         development. In the context of course it is; it is a step.
> > > >>>         You want to call that a "microgenetic development"?
> > > >>>         Personally I don't have a problem with that. David may, but
> > > >>>         paraphrasing Oscar Wilde: "Microgenesis is not one of my
> > > >>>         words."  But if the child at last managed to repeat the
> > > >>>         Gospel According to St Luke by rote, and you wanted to
> > > >>>         describe this as a microgenetic development, I would want
> to
> > > >>>         hear the developmental plan that made that claim coherent.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>         Where if anywhere does this leave us?
> > > >>>
> > > >>>         Andy
> > > >>>         My apologies for using so many words to say so little.
> > > >>>         Just trying to be clear and careful.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>         mike cole wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>             Hi Andy--
> > > >>>
> > > >>>             Well to begin with, thanks for keeping the discussion
> > > >>>             alive. I am away from home without books or control of
> my
> > > >>>             time, so I want to ask a question that may highlight
> what
> > > >>>             is central to my queries here.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>             If what you write is correct, what does the word
> > > >>>             DEVELOPMENT mean in the concept of a zone of proximal
> > > >>>             DEVELOPMENT? Its all fine and dandy to point out what
> > > >>>             dolts Americans are for not understanding that learning
> > > >>>             leads DEVELOPMENT in classroom instruction, that but
> > > >>>             classroom lessons are clusters of events that take
> place
> > > >>>             in microgenetic time WITHIN ontogenetic lythic periods.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>             Where does that leave us?
> > > >>>
> > > >>>             mike
> > > >>>
> > > >>>             PS- the url below lays out in some detail where the
> idea
> > > >>>             of acquisition of reading as a cultural-historical
> > > >>>             developmental process. Old and never published. But at
> > > >>>             least we might refine what is indexed by the phrase
> > > >>>             "learning to read."
> > > >>>
> > > >>>             http://lchc.ucsd.edu/People/**NEWTECHN.pdf<
> > > http://lchc.ucsd.edu/People/NEWTECHN.pdf>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>             On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 7:32 PM, Andy Blunden
> > > >>>             <ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>
> > > >>>             <mailto:ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>>>
> > > >>> wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>                 So this thread does not die ...
> > > >>>                 You said, Mike, "So I am seeing the same solution
> to
> > > >>>             thinking
> > > >>>                 about the ontogeny/microgenesis relationships by
> > > >>>             analogy with the
> > > >>>                 phylogeny/cultural-history relation."
> > > >>>
> > > >>>                 I don't see the analogy there. Phylogeny and
> > > >>>             ethnogeny are two
> > > >>>                 (overlapping and mutually determining) processes
> with
> > > >>>             two very
> > > >>>                 distinct material bases, viz., genes and artefacts.
> > > >>>             But learning
> > > >>>                 to read/write and development of abstract thinking
> > > >>>             (and other
> > > >>>                 leading activities in a developmental ZPD) is not
> > > >>>             such a relation,
> > > >>>                 it is a relation between critical phases and lytic
> > > >>>             (gradual)
> > > >>>                 phases of development. This is quite a different
> > > >>>             relationship.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>                 The analogy I would see for something which couold
> be
> > > >>>             called
> > > >>>                 microgenesis would be the /situation/: a concept
> > > develops
> > > >>>                 momentrily in a person and their actions in a
> > > >>>             situation. The
> > > >>>                 situation is not a factor in phylo- or ethnogensis,
> > > >>>             it essentially
> > > >>>                 belongs to the very short time scale, and its
> > > >>>             material basis is
> > > >>>                 activity. I grant that no-one might use
> > > >>>             "microgenesis" in that way
> > > >>>                 and no-one may be doing research into that process
> > > >>>             these days. I
> > > >>>                 don't know. But the situation is a distinct
> material
> > > >>>             basis for
> > > >>>                 development and one on which Vygotsky did a great
> > > >>>             deal of work. On
> > > >>>                 the other hand, I think /all/ processes of
> > > >>>             development have both
> > > >>>                 critical and lytical phases (c.f. Gould's
> punctuated
> > > >>>             evolution).
> > > >>>
> > > >>>                 What do you think?
> > > >>>
> > > >>>                 Andy
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>         ______________________________**____________
> > > >>>         _____
> > > >>>         xmca mailing list
> > > >>>         xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>         http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/**listinfo/xmca<
> > > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>     --     Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
> > > >>>     883 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
> > > >>>     Department of Anthropology
> > > >>>     Brigham Young University
> > > >>>     Provo, UT 84602
> > > >>>     http://byu.academia.edu/**GregoryThompson<
> > > http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>     --
> > > ------------------------------**------------------------------
> > > >> **------------
> > > >>
> > > >>     *Andy Blunden*
> > > >>     Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/
> > > >>     <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/**>
> > > >>
> > > >>     Book: http://www.brill.nl/concepts
> > > >>
> > > >>     ______________________________**____________
> > > >>     _____
> > > >>     xmca mailing list
> > > >>     xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> > > >>     http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/**listinfo/xmca<
> > > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > > --
> > > > ------------------------------**------------------------------**
> > > > ------------
> > > >
> > > > *Andy Blunden*
> > > > Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/
> > > > Book: http://www.brill.nl/concepts
> > > >
> > > > __________________________________________
> > > > _____
> > > > 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
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
> > 883 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
> > Department of Anthropology
> > Brigham Young University
> > Provo, UT 84602
> > http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson
> > __________________________________________
> > _____
> > 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
>
>


-- 
Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
883 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
Department of Anthropology
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson
__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca