[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Xmca-l] Re: The zone of proximal development
Thanks to Greg! Just started Martin’s article. A good start.
> On Jul 6, 2015, at 7:56 PM, Greg Thompson <email@example.com> wrote:
> I've been reading, with some interest, Martin Packer's 2011 paper
> "Schooling: Domestication or Ontological Construction" which speaks to this
> issue of an asymmetrical relationship and is somewhat critical of the
> long-standing CHAT assumptions with regard to this asymmetry. His paper can
> be found under his papers on his academia.edu page:
> I should add that I think that Nicaraguan Sign language may hold particular
> potential for seeing just how creative (poietic) children can be on their
> own - a case in which the end was not present in the beginning, but the
> whole was present before the parts ("whole" in the very Durkheimian sense
> of the whole community). That's just me musing.
> Also, David, I just tried to download the piece you linked to and it says
> it is missing. Any suggestions?
> On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 6:42 PM, David Kellogg <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> Ah, but is it a zone of proximal development--or just a zone of proximal
>> learning? And for whom?
>> Henry asked--some time ago--about the difference between scaffolding and
>> the zoped, and I argued that scaffolding could be seen as one moment--but a
>> rather extreme and externalized moment--of a zone of proximal learning, but
>> not a zone of proximal development.
>> The shape this problem takes in Korea is really a debate over the
>> respective merits of collaboration and cooperation. The idea is that
>> collaboration (which conspicuously contains the word "labor") does not
>> involve the division of labor and does not involve one party making
>> decisions and the other executing them, while cooperation does; ergo,
>> collaboration is a kind of cell for the ideal society and cooperation is a
>> cell for capitalism.
>> Needless to say, Vygotsky doesn't agree with this at all: almost all of his
>> examples are, on the contrary, examples of highly asymmetrical divisions of
>> labor (mother and child, teacher and child doing homework, experimenter and
>> subject, etc.). It is only through the revolutionary graspture and radical
>> restructuring and interior redecoration of the function of the decision
>> maker that we get free will. So cooperation and collaboration turn out to
>> be moments of the same process, but that process is, after all, a zone of
>> proximal learning and not necessarily a zone of proximal development.
>> I guess I find it useful to distinguish between an "everyday concept" of
>> the Zoped and a "scientific concept" of the Zoped. This corresponds more or
>> less the distinction that Seth Chaiklin (2003) makes between the subjective
>> (child by child) zoped and the objective (age cohort) zoped, except that it
>> is functional and genetic in its description rather than structural.
>> We are presenting a longish paper on this on Saturday at a workshop in
>> Kangweondo. Here's the English version!
>> (Warning--it's 33,000 words long, and almost all the examples are from
>> Korean education!)
>> David Kellogg
>> On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 8:21 AM, HENRY SHONERD <email@example.com> wrote:
>>> Thanks for sharing! There may be a similar referendum in Puerto Rico.
>>> a world!
>>>> On Jul 5, 2015, at 3:52 PM, Annalisa Aguilar <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>>>> Clever mom!
>>>> This will likely be a very memorable event for the both of them.
>>>> Actually, I found this photograph quite moving, because, well... for
>>> many many reasons!
>>>> So thanks for letting me share it!
>>>> Kind regards,
> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
> Assistant Professor
> Department of Anthropology
> 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
> Brigham Young University
> Provo, UT 84602