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

[Xmca-l] Re: The Diagnostic Zoped



Greg
Am on phone so finger typing.
Go to academia.edu and sign up. Then search Andy blunden and click "follow" 
Andy shares his articles on that site.
David thanks for the answer and the relevance.
Andy, I appreciated your concise locating of cognitive psychology and the exploration of the "nature" of concepts as always developing and poly. Not dictionary lists of features.

Will stop finger typing but want to say thank you for THIS place
Larry

-----Original Message-----
From: "Greg Mcverry" <jgregmcverry@gmail.com>
Sent: ‎2015-‎04-‎23 4:05 PM
To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Diagnostic Zoped

Larry,

Can you point me to Andy's article this sounds fascinating.

The conversation is a very concise description of the Zoped variants for us
noobs.

Thanks,
Greg

On Thu, Apr 23, 2015, 6:47 PM David Kellogg <dkellogg60@gmail.com> wrote:

> I think that the Vygotskyan version of the Zoped differs from notion of the
> leading activity and of scaffolding in exactly the ways that Seth Chaiklin
> indicated in his 2003 article: it's much more precise. It's a "NEXT zone of
> development" not a vaguely "proximal" one, where the next "fruits" of
> development are stated twice: once as a process of maturing, and once as
> the mature product. For example:
>
> age period    PROCESS  (line of development)                 PRODUCT
> (neoformation)
>
> birth               instinctive forms of extrauterine mental life
> physiological independence
>
> infancy          primary intersubjectivity, imitation
> Ur-wir (the "Proto-We", an undifferentiated "you and me")
>
> crisis 1          autonomous speech,
> locomotion                  babble? crawling?
>
> early child-
> hood            dialogue
>           speech
>
> In the leading activity interpretation, development is inherent in the
> activity itself; there are essentially no internal products (what Chaiklin
> calls the potential assumption). In the scaffolding interpretation, the
> line of development is brought about by outside intervention and not by
> internalization (assistance assumption, in Chaiklin). In both
> interpretations, there is a zone of proximal development for everything
> (generalization assumption in Chaiklin). In Vygotsky, the idea of a zoped
> for everything is like saying that there has to be a blessing for the Tsar.
>
> David Kellogg
>
> On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 2:41 PM, Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > David,
> > What is the relevance you see in showing the disparity between a
> > scaffolding zoped, a leading activity zoped, and a diagnostic zoped?
> > I have just read Andy's article on the "nature" of concepts  as always
> > expressing disparity  This disparity is in their nature as concepts. Or
> in
> > a metaphor you offered describing Vygotsky as like a crow using "words
> [as
> > eggs] that are pilfered and filled with new "sense".
> > Does this disparity in the various meanings of zoped "deepen" our
> > understanding of the concept "zoped?  or are the scaffolding and leading
> > activity versions of zoped "mis-taken" or "mis-guided" or inauthentic
> > versions?
> >
> > Larry
> >
> > On Sun, Apr 19, 2015 at 4:16 PM, David Kellogg <dkellogg60@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I've been comparing the 2001 Korotaeva manuscript of Vygotsky's final
> > > pedological lectures with the version published in Volume Four of the
> > > Russian Collected Works (Volume Five of the English). This kind of
> > > textological comparison is fairly grueling work, and yields few
> dramatic
> > > moments. But the section which is called "The Problem of Age and the
> > > Dynamics of Development" (pp. 199-205) is an exception.
> > >
> > > First of all, the TITLE'S different! The CW has "dynamics", which makes
> > no
> > > sense, because the previous section was about dynamics. The Korotaeva
> > > manuscript makes it clear that this is about diagnostics. Secondly,
> there
> > > are two paras in the CW that don't appear in Korotaeva, and thirteen
> > > paragraphs (!!) in Korotaeva that do not appear in the CW. Thirdly, the
> > > word "pedology", which occurs 32 times in Korotaeva, does not appear
> once
> > > in the CW.
> > >
> > > I've always thought of the Soviet and the Western distortions of the
> > Zoped
> > > as being symmetrical: the Soviets pretended that it was all development
> > and
> > > no learning, dissolving it into the notion of leading activity, while
> the
> > > Americans pretended that it was all learning and no development,
> > dissolving
> > > it into the notion of scaffolding.
> > >
> > > But the Korotaeva manuscript really makes it clear that the Soviets and
> > the
> > > Americans really misconceived the Zoped in exactly the same way: both
> > > ignored the pedological nature of the Zoped--that it wasn't a
> description
> > > of dynamics at all but rather a diagnostic tool to be linked to very
> > > precise ideas about how and above all when neoformations arise, through
> > > lines of development, from the social situation. The Zoped wasn't a
> > fever,
> > > or even a temperature; it was a thermometer.
> > >
> > > David Kellogg
> > >
> >
>