LBEers
I am not sure that we have finished with Chapter 2. Regardless, Paul has
emerged as coach of the team and sent me into the huddle. We can replay
Chapter 2 later.
Up to Chapter 3, YE has located learning activity in two sources: the
concept of activity and the cultural historical evolution of historically
earlier activity. He will now propose that a new form learning activity is
emerging, LEARNING BY EXPANDING, and he will propose that the zone of
proximal development is the basic category of inquiry. In this chapter, he
develops answers to three central questions. Since the chapter is lengthy,
it may be easier to discuss one question at a time, evaluating the
strengths and weaknesses of each answer, transforming the discussion into
understanding, and exploring possible applications.
Question I: What is the relation of learning activity to other 'lower'
forms of human learning?
The answer to this question is pulled from Bateson's levels of learning.
Zero Learning is described as response without reinforcement. Learning I
is characterized as conditioned, non-meaningful learning by the
subject. Learning II is a change in the process of Learning I, as the
subject engages in solving problems or completing tasks that are
presented. However, when problems and tasks are given, there is limited
material to be transformed. When dealing with the givens of Learning II,
the subject's learning activity is disrupted by asking questions, such as
why is the problem or task important? Here the subject learns habits. These
disruptions/inner contradictions propel Learning III. There is also a
suggestion that Learning III is self-regulated or similar to
metacognition. Learning IV involves changes in Learning III, although it
rarely occurs. Bateson later proposed that the disruptions/contradictions
associated with Learning II were a double bind.
Next, LBE returns to Leont'ev's tri-stratal model of activity. He notes
that the levels of activity, action, and operation are not static. Rather
activity is iterative transformations between the levels. From the
perspective of Bateson's levels, development involves transforming the
levels of learning. From a Leont'evian view, learning involves the subject
generating learning activity, through the transformation of activity,
action, and operation.
To find the instrument for explaining the movement between levels in the
above models, YE takes up Wartofsky's outline of levels of
artifacts. Primary artifacts are used at the level of operations and
Learning I. Secondary artifacts are used at a the level of action and
Learning II. Transformation of Learning III and the creation of new
activity require a tertiary artifact. Tertiary artifacts mediate the
suspension of normative rules and expectations, a new understanding of
activity, and the creation of new conceptual tools.
The beginning of an answer to this question ends with the idea that
learning must precede development. With regard to criteria for learning
and development, YE argues that Ann Brown's idea that development is
"formation of context-free structures and skills" and Wertsch's suggestion
of "decontextualization of mediational means are ahistorical. Cognitive
structures and skills are situation-specific and located in societal
context. A solid criterion for learning will come later in the chapter.
My question for the group is how well does this chapter explain the
historical transformation activity to learning by expanding? Table 3.1 is
informative. Are there other models that run the same transformational
track and support YE's proposition?
Bill Blanton
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 01 2001 - 01:01:55 PDT