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

[Xmca-l] Re: Why Doesn't Vygotsky Use "Microgenesis"?



Apropos of the wreckage of sense-making and development in relation to AT,
the following may provide some historical clarification:

https://www.academia.edu/24660665/A_Comparison_of_Seven_Historical_Research_Orientations_within_CHAT_up_to_2001_

Best,
Huw

On 20 October 2016 at 01:27, mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu> wrote:

> I did not intend to demean your mother's situation, David.
> And the following makes your examples concrete:
>
>  I think that the three
> strategies I gave you (pronouns, delight that masks astonishment, and
> avoiding explanations) really are rooted in the lower psychological
> functions and not in higher functions:* pronominal meaning can be simply*
>
>
>
>
> *indicative rather than nominative, delight is an example of her
> inabilityto divide affect from will, and avoiding "why" is an example of
> the loss ofsemantic meaning and reliance on the visual purview alone. The
> last time Itook language samples from her, they were comparable to those of
> a two yearold. *
>
> But if one adopts your view, why do you liken the deteriorization of her
> higher psychological functions to the kind of work around
> illustrated by prototyping under difficult conditions?
>
> *Perhaps its because you view sociogenesis as  "the very*
> *opposite: public health, compulsory education, and the knowledge that
> it​ is precisely our ability to provide circuitous ways of helping the
> very​ young and the very old that will ultimately make life better for
> everybody,and not simply the very young and very old.*
>
> *​*With respect to public health the evidence I know of indicate that the
> agricultural revolution, and subsequent urbanization led to a
> deteriorization of life expectancy and health for the population as a whole
> (however much it benefited the elites). *​*(As a priveleged member of the
> privileged classes I would have been dead several times in the last couple
> of decades had it not been for modern medicine-- my younger brother died 40
> years before me of pancreatitis which is now routinely treatable).
>
>
> The high high and highest level of civilization of Germany in 1930 did
> nothing to prevent the rise of Hitler and its aftermath -- and we can see
> that scenario playing out daily in the US at present,,,, hopefully to a
> different conclusion.
>
> With respect to the microgenesis/ontogeny issue, I gave yet to figure out
> the source of your confidence in their dissimilarity. I brought up Franklin
> in the blocks (again - its a part of your ontogeny but not that of most who
> participate on xmca at present) because it seems to be an example of
> microgenesis-as-developmental change.
>
> With respect to the idea that humans now exhibit the
>  ability to provide circuitous ways of helping the very
> ​
> young and the very old that will ultimately make life better for
> everybody,*and
> not simply the very young and very old.*
> *​ ​-- *I really am not sure
> what you are referring to.
>
> As always, your ideas are interesting and enlightening, even when I do not
> properly understand them. Exhibiting my ignorance has the virtue of
> provoking the conditions for deeper understanding. My likening your
> mother's loss of semantic meaning to my (so far normal) "senior moments"
> did not envision an (almost) total loss of functions, higher and lower by
> Vygotky's reckoning. It is as if the multiple layers of history to be seen
> in Rome were reduced by war and weather to the bottom-most stratum of the
> pre-Etruscan.
>
> ​mike​
>
> PS-- With regard to cultural-historical/societal genesis Benjamin's Angelus
> Novus often comes to mind.
>
>  A Klee painting "Angelus Novus" shows an angel looking as though he is
> about to move away from something he is fixedly contemplating. His eyes are
> staring, his mouth is open, his wings are spread. This is how one pictures
> the
>
> angel of history. His face is turned toward the past. Where we perceive a
> chain
> ​
> of events, he sees one single
> ​
> catastrophe which keeps piling wreckage upon
> ​
>
> wreckage and hurls it in front of his feet. The an
> ​ ​
> gel would like to stay, awaken
> ​
> the dead, and make whole what has been smashed. But a storm is blowing
> ​
> from Paradise; it has got caught in his wings with such violence that the
> angel
> ​
> can no longer close them. This storm irresistibly propels him into the
> future
> ​
> to which his back is turned, while the pile of debris before him grows
> skyward.
>
> This storm is what we call progress. (pp. 257-58)
>
>
>
> ​​
>
>
> PS--
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 3:15 PM, David Kellogg <dkellogg60@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Mike:
> >
> > My mother was a psychologist too--like you, trained as a behaviourist,
> but
> > unlike you she got off into Piaget in the early sixties. Then she moved
> on
> > to other things: she wrote a biography of Ada, Countess of Lovelace,
> which
> > was published by MIT Press and got her some notoriety, mostly because she
> > showed that Byron's daughter, who everyone has assumed to be a kind of
> > feminist icon and the world's first computer programmer, didn't actually
> > know any mathematics! She told me a lot about Piaget and Lawrence
> Kohlberg
> > (who she briefly studied with). But I was unable to interest her in
> > Vygotsky or in cultural historical psychology: she saw it, perhaps
> > correctly, as nothing more than an attempt to prolong what she considered
> > the crazy Bolshevism of my youth.
> >
> > Herr first response to losing her higher mental functions (when we walked
> > to the Tate Art Gallery near her home in London and she forgot her way
> > home) was simply horror. She went through a difficult period of terrors
> > (curiously, mostly concerned with money, of which she still has a great
> > deal more than she needs). Now she has stabilized (and she is actually
> much
> > happier than I ever remember her). But she has completely forgotten that
> > she ever had children, doesn't know her age or history, and also lacks
> > control over basic physiological functions. I think that the three
> > strategies I gave you (pronouns, delight that masks astonishment, and
> > avoiding explanations) really are rooted in the lower psychological
> > functions and not in higher functions: pronominal meaning can be simply
> > indicative rather than nominative, delight is an example of her inability
> > to divide affect from will, and avoiding "why" is an example of the loss
> of
> > semantic meaning and reliance on the visual purview alone. The last time
> I
> > took language samples from her, they were comparable to those of a two
> year
> > old.
> >
> > Unfortunately is the word! And yet...perhaps this is something else we
> can
> > all learn from Vygotsky. I don't just mean the way he faced death: he
> died
> > young, at the very height of his powers, and he had been practicing dying
> > for the whole of his adult life, so the comparison with my mother is
> > manifestly unfair. I mean first of all the way that Vygotsky really does
> > use "pathogenesis", not as a new form of development but rather as a way
> of
> > examining the real prior processes of development (which, as a Spinozan,
> he
> > believed always involved the expansion of potential rather than its
> > contraction). That's why Vygotsky ends almost every single chapter in the
> > second part of HDHMF with a pathological example, why never gives up
> > on "defektology", and I also think that is why he started studying
> medicine
> > even when he knew there was no hope for himself: it offers a way of
> looking
> > at the lower layers of development and how they subtend or fail to
> subtend
> > the higher ones.
> >
> > The second thing, though, was what I think he discovered through his
> > pathogenetic analyses: that there is a very real difference between
> > phylogenesis and sociogenesis, between sociogenesis and ontogenesis...and
> > also, as I am now quite sure, between ontogenesis and microgenesis. In
> > phylogenesis: descent through modification--i.e. through the ruthless
> > destruction of individuals and whole species. In sociogenesis, the very
> > opposite: public health, compulsory education, and the knowledge that it
> > is precisely our ability to provide circuitous ways of helping the very
> > young and the very old that will ultimately make life better for
> everybody,
> > and not simply the very young and very old. The end of ontogenesis is not
> > simply death--it is the decline that it inevitable after roughly the age
> > that Vygotsky died. But with literacy, we are able to pass on our very
> best
> > to the next generation. I don't know if Vygotsky really believed that
> these
> > last lectures of his would be translated and read by thousands of
> teachers
> > in some totally foreign land eight decades after his death--he believed
> > in internationalism, so I think it's at least possible that he did. But
> > whether he believed it or not, that is what is going to happen, and it's
> > why I think that cultural-historical psychologists, unlike Piagetians,
> can
> > face decline and death with a certain equanimity and acceptance.
> >
> > But it is also why I'm not really sure that Dorothy Kellogg Stein's
> > biography of Ada Lovelace was such a terrible mistake, Mike. When I take
> it
> > off the shelf and read it, I  can still hear her voice, feel her
> razor-like
> > intellect, and even remonstrate with her individualistic and biologizing
> > psychology. When I go and actually visit her at Lord Wandsworth's Home
> for
> > Aging Jewry in Clapham I cannot.
> >
> > David Kellogg
> > Macquarie University
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 5:17 AM, mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu> wrote:
> >
> > > David -
> > >
> > > I think it is unfortunate to link workarounds with a loss of higher
> > > psychological functions. Again, it seems like ontogeny recapitulates
> > > history. The end of ontogeny is death. Ditto history?
> > >
> > > By any account I can think of, your mother is using higher higher
> > > psychological functions to work around the inability to retrieve
> > vocabulary
> > > at a conventional level of abstraction. I am of an age where the same
> > > problem can be noticed. Nice that I can, for the time being, understand
> > > enough to be able to study development in decline in real life in
> > addition
> > > to experiencing it. Hmm, that means I have some higher higher functions
> > to
> > > draw upon!
> > >
> > > In our own work, the workarounds needed to solve the failure of a
> gifted,
> > > "promising" technology under high pressure to succeed created both a
> > > successful product and resulted in productive education for all
> involved.
> > >
> > > To me, a great example of pathogenisis is the use of the highly
> > developed,
> > > highly admired, highly financed, digital technologies of cyberspace.
> > > Clearly an advance over atomic bombs- cleaner, faster, more efficient.
> > >
> > > Where I think there is something distinctly unusual in Zaza's
> prototyping
> > > example is that the prototyping itself, even if it
> > > had been accomplishable easily with strong technological/resource
> > backing,
> > > is a work around for the inability to confront directly the cultural
> > > beliefs that make it shameful for a woman with HIV to bottle feed her
> > baby.
> > > We rarely discuss the power of cultural norms in constraining cultural
> > > change even when the current practices threaten reproduction of the
> > social
> > > group. It seems, perhaps, an intractable problem. The US appears unable
> > to
> > > give up on putting water in disposable plastic bottles. Pathogenesis?
> > >
> > > I'll follow my habit of sorting things out by responding vis a vis
> > > Franklin in Larry's note below. I will respond on a thread called
> > > microgenesis/ontogenesis.
> > >
> > > Compensatorily yours.
> > > mike
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 1:15 PM, David Kellogg <dkellogg60@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Mike likes a discussion to be, as Bernstein put it, well framed and
> > well
> > > > classified; or at least he likes the threads to be well disentangled
> > and
> > > > properly subject lined. But perhaps we shouldn't give up on the "The
> > > > Prototyping Mind" too quickly! As you can see from Molly's careful
> > > perusal
> > > > and forceful restatement of Zaza's major themes, there is still a lot
> > in
> > > > Zaza's prototyping bin to talk about.
> > > >
> > > > The one that interests me, that I think is relevant to the
> > "microgenesis"
> > > > thread, is what learning means when it means adapting to
> > > anti-development.
> > > > For example, there are undoubtedly work-arounds that people use when
> > > their
> > > > higher psychological functions start to shut down (I watched my
> mother
> > do
> > > > quite a few of these, addressing everyone as "you" instead of using
> > > names,
> > > > reacting to novel situations with a delight which effectively hides
> her
> > > > astonishment, and above all refraining from trying to understand the
> > > > reasons for present situations).
> > > >
> > > > Similarly, there are ontogenetic work-arounds that people use when
> > > > commodity production shuts down. But in both cases, we have a kind of
> > > > development which forgoes time's arrow; we have a notion of
> development
> > > > that works backwards and forwards (like the laws of physics as
> opposed
> > to
> > > > the laws of thermodynamics). I won't say that suggests relativism
> (that
> > > > would be, I think, too moralistic an argument, and it is a rabbit
> hole
> > we
> > > > have been down already anyway). But it suggests an atomism that I
> > > disagree
> > > > with (in addition to eschewing time, the laws of physics don't
> combine
> > > > matter and meaning the way that the laws of thermodynamics do!)
> > > >
> > > > Mike has offered Franklin as an example of a Zoped before (I remember
> > > once
> > > > thinking that he directed it to ME as a way of getting ME to think a
> > bit
> > > > about listening to others on this list, but in fact he's used it in
> > print
> > > > on at least one occasion). Whenever he offers it, he does the exact
> > > > opposite of what he usually does with xmca threads: instead of asking
> > us
> > > to
> > > > disentangle threads, he invites us to combine them. Franklin is
> > learning
> > > > (to listen to others). But he is also developing, on at least three
> > > counts:
> > > > by learning to listen to others, he is acquiring new forms of meaning
> > > > potential; by learning to recognize himself when it is "played back"
> to
> > > > him, he is acquiring a new form of reflecting on experience; and
> (this
> > is
> > > > the one I really want to talk about) he is learning that play is not
> > > simply
> > > > the manipulation of objects but also the manipulation of social roles
> > > > according to abstract rules (such as reciprocity and mutuality).
> > > >
> > > > Now, you can see that I'm trying to disentangle things that are not
> > > really
> > > > that distinct (reciprocity is really a form of serial mutuality, and
> > both
> > > > of them are simply abstract forms of listening to others). The
> Vygotsky
> > > > lectures I'm working with are a little similar: in his work on the
> > Crisis
> > > > at Three (Franklin's Crisis, I suspect), he is trying to disentangle
> > the
> > > > "seven stars" of bad behaviour (folk concepts that nursemaids and
> > mothers
> > > > use--I notice there is even a Russian Wikipedia page!) from what he
> > > thinks
> > > > is the key neoformation of Three, the separation of affect and will.
> > > >
> > > > For example, negativism is not just saying "no". It's saying "no"
> when
> > > the
> > > > child really wants to say "yes", because although the child wants to
> > say
> > > > "yes", the others in the social milieu also want him to say "yes",
> and
> > > the
> > > > child is more interested in self-assertion than in
> self-gratification.
> > > > Obstinacy is not just tenacity. It's actually the negation of
> > negativism:
> > > > saying "yes" when the child really wants to "no", or maybe "who
> > cares?",
> > > > simply because the child has already said "yes" and once again the
> > child
> > > is
> > > > more interested in will than in affect. And so on.
> > > >
> > > > How is this connected with the next zone of development? Perhaps the
> > next
> > > > zone of development is preschool, and preschool depends on the
> > separation
> > > > of the semantic and the visio-graphic field of action in play. If so,
> > > > Franklin's ability to interpret the teacher's imitation of his own
> > > actions
> > > > is a "trailer" of that next zone of development and no mere act of
> > > > learning.  Or, maybe this is happening in a preschool, and the next
> > zone
> > > of
> > > > development is actually the Crisis at Seven. If so, Franklin's
> ability
> > to
> > > > recognize himself is a "trailer" of the next zone of development:
> > acting
> > > a
> > > > role that is not really a role, but in fact a prototype self.
> > > >
> > > > But that's my problem, Molly. What do I do when the prototype self
> > comes
> > > to
> > > > me from the past and not the future? Can we really call this
> > development?
> > > > Isn't it really a form of pathogenesis?
> > > >
> > > > David Kellogg
> > > > Macquarie University
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 6:29 AM, molly shea <mvshea@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Dear Zaza and Mike,
> > > > >
> > > > > My apologies for entering the conversation on Kukiya-kiya late,
> > > however,
> > > > > the article was so compelling I feel I should still enter. First,
> to
> > > > Zaza,
> > > > > thank you for writing such a forceful analysis of learning through
> > > > > prototyping. I especially like the ways in which your analytical
> lens
> > > > > included the political dimensions of problem solving and invoking
> > > > > expertise. There are two ideas within the article that I hope to
> use
> > > and
> > > > > extend in my work as well, and a question for Zaza, Mike, and
> others
> > at
> > > > the
> > > > > end of my second musing.
> > > > >
> > > > > The first is your discussion of disinheritance as *an attention to
> > > > > materials—a way of looking at materials that allows the beholder to
> > > > > recognize transience, mutability, intermediateness—that allows
> > > > Zimbabweans
> > > > > to employ novel and unexpected ways to act within and around the
> > > > > constraints of their material conditions.* By pointing out the
> > separate
> > > > > cognitive practice associated with seeing through disinheritance,
> the
> > > > > analysis draws attention to the political dimension of learning.
> The
> > > > > possible activities and therefore learning opportunities that arise
> > > > through
> > > > > this historical perception change and assumptions about designing
> > > > learning
> > > > > environments then shifts with these methods of seeing and using
> > > > materials.
> > > > > It also draws another potential distinction between the Maker
> > Movement
> > > > and
> > > > > Kukiya—kiya. The Makers Movement doesn’t necessarily claim a
> > political
> > > > > agenda, however, by claiming something a-political or claiming an
> > > agenda
> > > > of
> > > > > advancing technological skills in the name of progress, it has a
> > > > historical
> > > > > and political situated set of values that may be in opposition to
> > those
> > > > of
> > > > > Kukiya—kiya that suffer the consequences of material disinheritance
> > > > arising
> > > > > in the context of economic crisis. Vossoughi, Hooper, and Escudé
> > (2016)
> > > > do
> > > > > a wonderful job of pointing out many of the neoliberal consequences
> > of
> > > a
> > > > > maker movement that does not see the lineage of prototyping
> expertise
> > > > > coming from many low-income communities living in “tight
> > > circumstances”.
> > > > > The power of the design of this prototyping project, for me, comes
> > from
> > > > > centering local expertise in the design of the learning
> environment.
> > > > > Although prototyping is at the center of both “making” and
> > > “kukiya—kiya”
> > > > > practices, it seems the political sense making between settings
> > > couldn’t
> > > > be
> > > > > more different. Even within the Zaza paper, the participants
> question
> > > how
> > > > > invention might or might not lead to liberation. I appreciate
> Zaza's
> > > > > attention to how participants questioned invention and business
> > acumen
> > > > as a
> > > > > means to “extricate Zimbabwe from its economic quandary”. A lesser
> > > > > researcher may have ignored this comment as outside of the design
> > > process
> > > > > and therefore the data set to be analyzed.
> > > > >
> > > > > The second idea, related to the political dimensions of cognition
> > that
> > > > are
> > > > > often overlooked, is your analysis of gender and expertise in the
> > > design
> > > > > process. I am struck by how the performance of gender and
> > > > design-expertise
> > > > > came in the form of whispers and informal conversations about
> > > hand-bags.
> > > > It
> > > > > would be great to have more analysis like this one where gender
> > > networks
> > > > > inform design. In fact, it seems gender (man/woman/trans/other) is
> > > always
> > > > > informing design, but perhaps performance of expertise that is
> > cis-male
> > > > is
> > > > > sometimes confused with having expertise at all. You analysis
> offers
> > > more
> > > > > nuance about other kinds of performance of expertise. I wonder if
> > > > > discussions about hand-bags creates the intimacy necessary to share
> > > > > female-cis gendered understandings of design problems. I would love
> > to
> > > > hear
> > > > > your thinking on this matter.
> > > > >
> > > > > Again, thank you for your work and for the insights that this
> article
> > > has
> > > > > provided me.
> > > > >
> > > > > - Molly Shea
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 5:46 PM, mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > ​Since it appears that people have completed discussion of Zaza's
> > > paper
> > > > > > (and of course, anyone is free to add to the discussion at any
> > > time), I
> > > > > > feel freer to engage the microgenesis/ontogenesis relationship.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I know too little about L1/L2 discussions to contribute there,
> but
> > as
> > > > > life
> > > > > > allows I will try to suggest that microgenesis can be shown, in
> at
> > > > least
> > > > > > some circumstances, to involve both learning and development.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So I attach an example from the work of Vivian Paley. It
> addresses
> > (I
> > > > > > believe) Vygotsky's idea that play creates a Zoped in which a
> child
> > > is
> > > > "a
> > > > > > head taller than herself."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Perhaps the example is inappropriate to the discussion or my
> > > > > interpretation
> > > > > > of it is bonkers. To me it illustrates both LSV's claim about the
> > > zoped
> > > > > and
> > > > > > play and is a case of microgenesis with ontogenetic implications.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > See what you think. its 4 pages long.
> > > > > > mike
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 5:33 PM, David Kellogg <
> > dkellogg60@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Arturo:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks for the very thoughtful reply. I think the only word I
> > might
> > > > > > > possibly disagree with is "unfortunately". I suppose there may
> > also
> > > > be
> > > > > a
> > > > > > > "zone of proximal learning", just as there is a zone of
> proximal
> > > > > > evolution
> > > > > > > (I suspect, given the mass extinctions which are going on in
> the
> > > > > > > Anthropocene, that we are in one of these at present), and a
> zone
> > > of
> > > > > > > proximal social progress (these have turned out to be far
> longer
> > > > than I
> > > > > > > ever thought as a young person). But I think for now it's a
> very
> > > good
> > > > > > idea
> > > > > > > to focus on the D in ZPD, and not to forget that it's for
> > > > "development"
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > not for learning.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Let me give three reasons. First of all, if we are interested
> in
> > > the
> > > > > what
> > > > > > > word value looks like when we remove the sound that realizes
> it,
> > we
> > > > are
> > > > > > > necessarily interested in a psychological rather than an
> > > > interpersonal
> > > > > > > phenomenon. Secondly, the focus on quick results in learning
> very
> > > > often
> > > > > > > ends up victimizing teachers for problems in development that
> > have
> > > > > > nothing
> > > > > > > to do with teaching methods and are really developmentally
> > rooted.
> > > > > > Thirdly,
> > > > > > > just as we need to understand exactly what teachers are doing
> > > before
> > > > we
> > > > > > go
> > > > > > > about introducing interested changes, we also need to
> understand
> > > what
> > > > > > > Vygotsky was trying to do before we decide it is irrelevant to
> > our
> > > > > > teaching
> > > > > > > needs.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This morning I was working on the beginning of the "Crisis at
> > > Three",
> > > > > > part
> > > > > > > of which (but not the good part) can be read in Vol. Five of
> the
> > > > > > Collected
> > > > > > > Works in English (Vol. Four in Russian):
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Во-первых, мы должны предположить, что все перемены, все
> события,
> > > > > > > совершающиеся в период этого кризиса, группируются вокруг
> > > какого-либо
> > > > > > > новообразования переходного типа. Следовательно, когда мы будем
> > > > > > > анализировать симптомы кризиса, мы должны хотя бы
> > предположительно
> > > > > > ответить
> > > > > > > на вопрос, что нового возникает в указанное время и какова
> судьба
> > > > > > > новообразования, которое исчезает после него. Затем мы должны
> > > > > > рассмотреть,
> > > > > > > какая смена центральных и побочных линий развития здесь
> > > происходит. И
> > > > > > > наконец, оценить критический возраст с точки зрения зоны его
> > > > ближайшего
> > > > > > > развития, т. е. отношения к следующему возрасту.
> > > > > > > "Firstly, we must presume that all of the transformations, all
> > the
> > > > > > > happenings, that take place during the period of the crisis may
> > be
> > > > > > grouped
> > > > > > > around some sort of neoformation of the transitional type.
> > > > > Consequently,
> > > > > > > when we analyse the symptoms of the crisis, we must at the very
> > > least
> > > > > > > presume to answer the question of what newness emerges at this
> > > > > appointed
> > > > > > > time and what the fate of these neoformations which disappear
> > > > > afterwards
> > > > > > > might be. Next, we should consider how the central and
> peripheral
> > > > lines
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > development here will unfold. And lastly, we ought to evaluate
> > the
> > > > > > critical
> > > > > > > age from the point of view of the zone of its proximal
> > development,
> > > > > i.e.
> > > > > > > its relationship to the subsequent age."
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "The zone of its proximal development" is its relationship to
> the
> > > > > > > subsequent age! Almost by definition, if you present some
> > > > > > > pedagogical intervention and it immediately becomes part of the
> > > > child's
> > > > > > > psychological system, you are looking at the zone of actual
> > > > > development,
> > > > > > > and not the zone of proximal development at all.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Years ago, I told Mike that I kept mixing up microgenesis and
> > > > learning.
> > > > > > He
> > > > > > > told me "Don't do that!" but he didn't exactly spell out how to
> > > avoid
> > > > > it:
> > > > > > > instead, he arranged for me to review a book on
> > Ganzheitpsychologie
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > left me more confused than ever. So I think that's still what
> we
> > > need
> > > > > to
> > > > > > do
> > > > > > > now: but one way to start is simply to kick learning out of the
> > > ZPD.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > David Kellogg
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Macquarie University
> > > > > > > .
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 1:44 AM, Arturo Escandon <
> > > > > > > arturo.escandon@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thank you for this David.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I agree with what you are saying at many levels.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Unfortunately, the kind of assessment I introduced did not
> have
> > > > > > > > significant learning components. So the evaluation part of
> the
> > > > > > > > assessment is not giving me much data about microgenesis but
> > > about
> > > > > > > > ontogenesis. The "outcome" is not the result of the learning
> > > > > component
> > > > > > > > for sure.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > My bet is that the links between L1 and L2 (which allow
> > students
> > > to
> > > > > go
> > > > > > > > beyond sound perception of words) are possible because of
> > > > development
> > > > > > > > in high school. More to do with L1 development. Again, the
> kind
> > > of
> > > > > > > > interventions I am allowed to make in the classroom are very
> > > narrow
> > > > > > > > and the structure and shape of the study programme prevents
> me
> > > from
> > > > > > > > doing large longitudinal studies.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I agree the notion of DA as it is used in the SLA literature
> > > > presents
> > > > > > > > many problems.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Arturo
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On 11 October 2016 at 05:17, David Kellogg <
> > dkellogg60@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Arturo:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Dynamic assessment is a really good example of what I'm
> > talking
> > > > > > about.
> > > > > > > > > Dynamic assessment is supposedly based on the ZPD. But I
> > think
> > > > > there
> > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > three linked ways in which it is actually based on a
> > distortion
> > > > of
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > ZPD.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > a) Dynamic assessment looks at microgenesis, not
> > ontogenesis. I
> > > > > think
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > idea was originally that the microgenetic perturbations
> that
> > > were
> > > > > > > picked
> > > > > > > > up
> > > > > > > > > in DA were, actually, predictive of the "next zone of
> > > > development".
> > > > > > But
> > > > > > > > > there are two reasons why this has not happened. Firstly,
> > there
> > > > > > hasn't
> > > > > > > > been
> > > > > > > > > a clear demarcation between learning and development, and
> the
> > > > idea
> > > > > > > > > that what the child can do today with assistance will be
> done
> > > by
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > child
> > > > > > > > > independently tomorrow--literally, in twenty-four hours--is
> > > just
> > > > > too
> > > > > > > > > attractive to people like Matt Poehner and Jim Lantolf.
> > > Secondly,
> > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > > hasn't been a clear scheme for figuring out what the next
> > zone
> > > of
> > > > > > > > > development really is (it's there in Vygotsky's pedological
> > > > > lectures,
> > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > these haven't been translated yet).
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > b) Dynamic assessment is "dynamic" and not diagnostic. It's
> > > > > > interesting
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > compare the two Russian versions of Vygotsky's pedological
> > > > > lectures:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > https://www.marxists.org/russkij/vygotsky/pedologia/
> > > > > > > > lektsii-po-pedologii.pdf
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > https://www.marxists.org/russkij/vygotsky/cw/pdf/vol4.pdf
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Compare 2001: 191 with 1984: 260 (and also the English
> > version,
> > > > > 1998:
> > > > > > > > > 199!). It's not just that the Russian editors insist on
> > > replacing
> > > > > > > "test"
> > > > > > > > > with "task"--it's that they consistently replace
> "diagnostic"
> > > > with
> > > > > > > > > "dynamic", even where this leads to redundant headings and
> > > total
> > > > > > > > nonsense.
> > > > > > > > > Why? Well, because in the Soviet scheme of things, the ZPD
> is
> > > NOT
> > > > > > > > > diagnostic: it's dynamic. That means that a personality is
> > > > > infinitely
> > > > > > > > > malleable and tomorrow's development, with the right kind
> of
> > > > > > mediation,
> > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > become today's. This is something that DA has largely
> adopted
> > > > from
> > > > > > its
> > > > > > > > > Soviet roots....but it's not Vygotsky.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > c) As a result DA has to reject the core of Vygotsky's
> > method:
> > > > for
> > > > > > > > > Vygotsky, structure is to be explained by function, but
> > > function
> > > > > MUST
> > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > explained by history, by development. Suppose I have two
> > > > children.
> > > > > > One
> > > > > > > > > learns, the other doesn't. The structural explanation is
> > simply
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > first one has the right mental structures to learn and the
> > > second
> > > > > > does
> > > > > > > > not.
> > > > > > > > > The functional explanation is that the first has the right
> > > > > functional
> > > > > > > > > motivation (putative career, middle class aspirations, etc)
> > > while
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > other
> > > > > > > > > does not. But the sad truth is that the vast majority of
> > > learning
> > > > > > > > > difficulties really are developmental. I don't think that
> > means
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > they
> > > > > > > > > are destiny. But I do think it means that prevention is a
> > whole
> > > > lot
> > > > > > > > easier
> > > > > > > > > than cure. In DA, development is Markovian: the present and
> > the
> > > > > > future
> > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > linked causally--but not the past and the present: it's a
> > weird
> > > > > > > inversion
> > > > > > > > > of Aristotle's belief that the past was determined but the
> > > future
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > intrinsically non-determinable.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > David Kellogg
> > > > > > > > > Macquarie University
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 3:52 PM, Arturo Escandon <
> > > > > > > > arturo.escandon@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> David,
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> In my research about dynamic assessment I have been able
> to
> > > > spot a
> > > > > > > > >> moment students reorganise L1 and L2 concepts (related to
> > > > > urbanistic
> > > > > > > > >> and architectural city features) in such a way that they
> no
> > > > longer
> > > > > > > > >> "perceive" the sounds of words. Students who do not arrive
> > to
> > > > that
> > > > > > > > >> reorganisation are not able to escape from the perceptual
> > > > > challenge
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > >> oral utterances.
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> The first group of students tend to mediate their
> linguistic
> > > > > > > > >> production either in ideograms or Spanish-alphabet written
> > > words
> > > > > > when
> > > > > > > > >> asked to take notes. The second group tend to use the
> > Japanese
> > > > > > > > >> syllabic system to transliterate sounds.
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> Best
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> Arturo Escandón
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> On 9 October 2016 at 07:21, David Kellogg <
> > > dkellogg60@gmail.com
> > > > >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> > When I read materials on Vygotsky, particularly in
> applied
> > > > > > > > linguistics or
> > > > > > > > >> > TESOL, I always get the "four timescales" (phylogenetic,
> > > > > > > sociogenetic,
> > > > > > > > >> > ontogenetic, and microgenetic) from Mescharyakov's
> > wonderful
> > > > > > article
> > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > >> > Vygotsky's terminology. At first, in the vain hope that
> it
> > > > would
> > > > > > > help
> > > > > > > > us
> > > > > > > > >> to
> > > > > > > > >> > distinguish better between ontogenetic development and
> > > > > > microgenetic
> > > > > > > > >> > learning, I used this myself (see Song and Kellogg
> 2011).
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > Now I think that was a mistake. The term "microgenesis"
> > was
> > > > > around
> > > > > > > > when
> > > > > > > > >> > Vygotsky was alive and he certainly knew about it: it's
> a
> > > > > constant
> > > > > > > > >> feature
> > > > > > > > >> > of Gestaltist studies of perception. It's also strongly
> > > > > associated
> > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > > >> > Nazi psychology of Leipzig. Vygotsky knows about the
> term
> > > and
> > > > > > > doesn't
> > > > > > > > use
> > > > > > > > >> > it, and I think he's got good reasons.
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > Even where LSV agrees with the Gestaltists (Kohler,
> > Koffka,
> > > > > Lewin,
> > > > > > > > >> > Wertheimer, Selz--they weren't all Nazis!) he doesn't
> seem
> > > to
> > > > > use
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> term
> > > > > > > > >> > microgenesis. And actually, he's quite interested in
> Nazi
> > > > > > psychology
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > >> > not afraid to quote it, although he bitterly,
> scathingly,
> > > > > > denounces
> > > > > > > > >> > Jaensch, Krueger, Ach, Kroh and others in "Fascism in
> > > > > > > > Psychoneurology". I
> > > > > > > > >> > think he doesn't use "microgenesis" because it conflates
> > > > > external
> > > > > > > > >> > perception with perceiving meaning.
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > Halliday, who also uses "phylogenetic" and
> "ontogenetic",
> > > > calls
> > > > > > his
> > > > > > > > >> "micro"
> > > > > > > > >> > scale logogenesis: the creation of semantics (as opposed
> > to
> > > > > > > > biological,
> > > > > > > > >> > social, or psychological semiosis). Take Zaza's article.
> > At
> > > a
> > > > > > > > particular
> > > > > > > > >> > point, the participants become uninterested in
> perceptual
> > > high
> > > > > > > > fidelity
> > > > > > > > >> and
> > > > > > > > >> > much more interested in meaning--what will Gogo think if
> > she
> > > > > sees
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > >> her
> > > > > > > > >> > daughter-in-law is using mechanical means for nursing?
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > Of course, semantic meaning is always linked to
> perceptual
> > > > > > meaning.
> > > > > > > > But
> > > > > > > > >> > "linked" never means equal or mutual or fully
> reciprocal:
> > > the
> > > > > > > specific
> > > > > > > > >> > weight is first on one side and then on the other.
> > > > Microgenesis
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > >> you
> > > > > > > > >> > get in eye tests, and logogenesis is what you get when
> you
> > > are
> > > > > > > reading
> > > > > > > > >> > Zaza's article (and when you are reading this post).
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > David Kellogg
> > > > > > > > >> > Macquarie University
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with
> > an
> > > > > object
> > > > > > that creates history. Ernst Boesch
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an
> > object
> > > that creates history. Ernst Boesch
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
>
> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an object
> that creates history. Ernst Boesch
>