Thanks, Joe and Michael.
I like, Joe, what you write about too much of a ZPD as "movement" from
down here to up there.
In fact I was the third member of the "Doise Mugny Perret-Clermont"
triad that you mention studying social interaction in children (Doise
Mugny Perret-Clermont 1976, Perret-Clermont 1980, Doise Mugny 1984,
etc). But I must confess that in those days we did not speak of
dialogicality. This was done later in joint work with Michele Grossen.
We did see that persons engaged here and now in a socio-cognitive
conflict and willing to maintain the relation had to find "a way out".
But in those days our model (a mixure of piaget and Vygostky) expected
a "cognitive growth" in the direction of higher cognitive processes and
more powerful cognitive operations to integrate the various
perspectives in a structure that could account for each of them.
What do you mean by "working against it" when you say:""how do you
create a dialogical space in places where everything is working against
it" ? I would be interested in a concrete example.Could it be, for
instance, a therapeutical setting in which a dialogical space is created
to talk about matters that have had to be repressed in other contexts?
And yes, Michael, "cultural effects OF AND ON phylogeny" are not
discussed. Perhaps in Switzerland we have had too much of it in the
Piagetian tradition and we are still trying to recover from discovering
how much ethnocentric this tradition was in its understanding of what a
good development is. Something to think about again.
Prof. Anne-Nelly Perret-Clermont
Directrice de l'Institut Psychologie et Education
Faculté des Lettres et Sciences humaines
Université de Neuchâtel
Espace L. Agassiz 1 CH 2000 Neuchâtel (Switzerland)
tel.:+41 32 718 18 56 fax: +41 32 718 18 51
> Happy New Year to all:
> I've begun to think about the ZPD as having been too much defined in
> educational terms - as "movement" from here to there (intellectually).
> I think that the essential feature of the ZPD could/should be the
> "dialogicality" of it. From a dialogical perspective it is not one
> person moving another to a place where they were not, but rather an
> engagement between two people - both of whom must be affected by that
> engagement. I think that the original Doise and Mugny studies pointed
> in that direction.
> Perhaps I am speaking too much from a U,S. perspective but the way
> that Vygotsky was "reintroduced" in 1978 in "Mind in Society" shifted
> a great deal of focus on to ZPD as education. It was only later, in
> 1985 when Wertsch began to introduce the dialogical notion of the ZPD
> (seconded, interestingly in the introduction to "Vygotsky: The Social
> Formation of Mind" by Zinchenko and Davydov) who seemed to resisting
> the shift of the interpretation of Vygotsky in the direction of
> Activity Theory - with not enough Bakhtin - too much object related
> action and not enough consciousness. Of course, that was 1985 when
> consciousness could more comfortably take its place along with
>> From a dialogical view of the ZPD the question of "who benefits"
> shifts to other questions such as "What are the conditions of
> participation, either focal or peripheral?" "What does it mean to have
> a dialogic encounter - especially when the institutional framework is
> (too often) seen as education of the unknowing by those who know - or
> think they do." In sum the issue might be framed as "how do you create
> a dialogical space in places where everything is working against it."
> Perhaps it requires both the wonderful wine and some of that wonderful
> Joe Glick
> On 1/3/07, Anne-Nelly Perret-Clermont
> <Anne-Nelly.Perret-Clermont@unine.ch> wrote:
>> Dear All,
>> I am a member of the (numerous!) red dots along the Alpine lakes and
>> Rhein Walley (I suppose, but I am not sure because this map is not as
>> precise as the satellite maps. If it were you might discover that the
>> red color is due to the good red wine of our local vinyards in the area,
>> I suppose).
>> I enjoy the discussions but very seldom manage to pop in as they go very
>> fast and my administrative duties seem to slow me down terribly. I would
>> enjoy coming back on the effects of peer interactions and the learning
>> that can occur also with less advanced peers, as already described in
>> the late '70. It raises a lot of questions about the ZPD: why would the
>> development follow a predictable line? For psychological (Piaget would
>> say for logical) reasons? Or for cultural reasons? If the direction of
>> the line of development is largely given culturally then the credibility
>> of peers in different cultural contexts might be quite different . In
>> could be the social milieu at large, but also the micro context created
>> by gender when the interacting peers are same sex or note (as Charis
>> Psaltis's beautiful dissertation in Cambridge has shown).
>> Is development following a line...is another questions. What is/are the
>> relevant dimension(s) on which we project it to see line(s)? How does
>> the adult who reaches in the ZPD of the subject know that he is bringing
>> the subject "next step" (on the line)?
>> I'd like to hear you Aleksandar tell us more on how to map human
>> cultural tools. Including those tools can make life livable in difficult
>> situations. And what do they have to do with devlopment.
>> Best greetings,
>> Prof. Anne-Nelly Perret-Clermont
>> Institut Psychologie et Education
>> Faculté des Lettres et Sciences humaines
>> Université de Neuchâtel
>> Espace L. Agassiz 1 CH 2000 Neuchâtel (Switzerland)
>> tel.:+41 32 718 18 56 fax: +41 32 718 18 51
>> email: firstname.lastname@example.org
xmca mailing list
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Feb 01 2007 - 10:11:31 PST