[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [xmca] Elkonin's dominant activity as Vygotsky's *leading* activity
On 2 February 2013 20:04, White, Phillip <Phillip.White@ucdenver.edu> wrote:
> Carol McD wrote:
> I think that is both. Both are artefact-based mediation. Leading is
> reflective in a way that activity may not be. Learning leads development.
> Activity based learning may not constitute development in the same way,
> because the leading may be plum in the middle of the ZPD.
> a rather fruitful metaphor here, and if there were a middle of a ZPD i
> suspect that the plum could be plumb in the center.
> still, is this not just a flight of fancy, construing metaphor with
I read these as appropriate "reality check" questions. A few thoughts and
i) The centre of the proximal is, by definition, proximal.
ii) To harness the theory with insight is to concern ourselves with the
qualitative changes we are interested in facilitating. This goes beyond
metaphor, although metaphor is a necessary part of science. The difficulty
does not preclude the theoretic value rather it invites us to work upon our
methods -- such as how to employ these insights in real-time circumstances,
in addition to policy making. The methods are also probably the most
direct form of extra-disciplinary influence (a communicable invention) and
proof against flights of fancy.
iii) ZPD as a device for translating between the complexities of genesis,
ecology and conscious and that of the instruction dynamic. In this sense
ZPD can be used as a metaphor to state simply "there's more to it", but one
is not exactly leading by employing the notion in this way.
> xmca mailing list
xmca mailing list