Re: [xmca] neoformation / zpd

From: <ERIC.RAMBERG who-is-at>
Date: Mon Feb 11 2008 - 07:19:29 PST

Hmmm. . indeed lisa. . .distinction may not be the correct word either but
yet there is the contradiction between concrete activities and the
sophisticated aspect of abstract thought. Luria writes in 1976 about the
Uzbekistan study,

"Naturally, in making the transition from concrete to theoretical thinking,
people do not immediately acquire an ability to formulate their ideas
succinctly. They exhibit much the same tendency to discursiveness that
characterized their previous habits of thought. IN the course of time,
however, they overcome the inclination to think in visual terms and can
render abstraction in sophisticated manner. (p. 99)"

this I believe summarizes how the Uzbekistan study provides a snapshot of
the genesis of human conscious development. ZPDs being dependant of the
context (i.e. schooling or herding).


                      "Lisa Kuh"
                      <lpk2@u.washingt To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <>
            > cc:
                      Sent by: Subject: Re: [xmca] neoformation / zpd
                      02/10/2008 09:01
                      Please respond
                      to "eXtended
                      Mind, Culture,

Hmm....I want to make sure that we are indeed making a distinction between
learning and development and not polarizing them. My thought is that in
ZPD paradigm, if "learning leads development", then there is a complex
relationship between the learning and development....perhaps as others have

offered where learning seems to indicate acquisition and development a
change in structure of some sort. However, my sense is that within the
both learning and development share the stage, not just hierarchically, but

in relationship to each other within the context of the situation.
Still pondering this distinction....

Lisa P. Kuh, M.Ed.
Head Teacher, Eliot-Pearson Children's School
Tufts University
PhD Candidate, Teacher Education
University of Washington
146 Allston Street
Medford, MA 02155
206-406-0134 781-391-1533

----- Original Message -----
From: "Elinami Swai" <>
To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <>
Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2008 8:55 AM
Subject: Re: [xmca] neoformation / zpd

>I also like the way people are making distinction btn learning and
> development.But must one loose some skills as he/she develops? Can we
> say, those skills are just being peripherised, and can still be used
> when needed? (one does not forget a certain skill or how he/she used
> to think, just by knowing it in a different way). Development can then
> be adding new skills and learning, transforming those skills. ZPD can
> be seen more clearly on development part -- the difference between
> what one knew and what is now known. But in learning, how a skill was
> transformed--the difference might not be very clear.
> Elinami.
> On 2/9/08, Worthen, Helena Harlow <> wrote:
>> I like Andy's way of making a distinction between "learning" and
>> "development."
>> I'd venture that "development" is more likely to occur in a zpd-rich
>> context.
>> Michael Glassman mentions the "individualist box." What if we try using
>> this distinction -- development is "a step foward that entails
>> restructuring/losing some abilities while gaining others, while
>> "learning" is adding skills -- doesn't that get us out of the box?
>> Helena
>> ________________________________________
>> From: [] On
>> Of Andy Blunden []
>> Sent: Friday, February 08, 2008 7:10 PM
>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>> Subject: Re: [xmca] neoformation / zpd
>> "Listening" to what everyone is saying about zpd, it seems that people
>> see
>> zpd as relevant to learning in general, and not tied to development. Is
>> this true?
>> If I ask myself what it is that make a step forward *development* rather
>> than *learning*, then I'd say it's a step forward that entails *losing*
>> some abilities while acquiring new ones, whereas learning means just
>> adding
>> new skills., not losing them Whenever a development first takes place,
>> that
>> is to say we have a *re*-structuring taking place, then necessarily
>> other aspect of a person's activity and their relations to others around
>> them has to change / restructure as well. That's the nature of
>> after all. So what was learnt has to grow over into other areas of
>> activity. But isn't this process an important aspect of the concept of
>> zpd?
>> Or is that just incidental? Given that development is definitively and
>> a
>> much more profound way, something that is driven by the demands and
>> expectations of others and the person's relation to others, it would
>> that zpd is a concept which ought to have special significance for
>> development, not just learning.
>> How do people see the concept of zpd in relation to *development*
>> specifically?
>> Andy
>> At 02:55 PM 8/02/2008 -0800, you wrote:
>> >Yes, XMCA is a zoped, though it can also be a confessional and a
>> >tribunal
>> >too. I think the main reason why XMCA is a zoped and the confessional
>> >and
>> >tribunal are not is that the latter have an EVALUATIVE rather than a
>> >DEVELOPMENTAL function. So the proper function of a confessional and a
>> >tribunal (and SOME forms of teaching) is ASSESSMENT rather than
>> >That's what I meant about having our backs to the future.
>> >
>> > Many of the on-line presentations (Mike's, Pentti Hakarainnen's, and

>> > of
>> > course the Seoul presentations) have to do with a text called "Problem

>> > of
>> > Age" in Volume Five of the Collected Works, eric. In it, LSV really
>> > does
>> > describe disappearing neoformations ("autonomous speech" and
>> > "negativism"
>> > are mentioned, and that's why Dr. Subbotsky talks about negativism in
>> > his
>> > remarks at the on-line seminar). And of course in Chapter Five and Six

>> > of
>> > Thinking and Speech he also talks about everyday concepts "blazing a
>> > trail" for scientific concepts.
>> >
>> > That's for the tribunal. Now for the confessional part! My statement
>> > that the "Goliath" was developmentally inert but the "Feast of
>> > Belshazzar" is somehow catalytic was simply wrong: I think they were
>> > BOTH
>> > catalytic, but only ontogenetically. Neither one was catalytic
>> > socioculturally; neither one really had a future with other painters.
>> > (I
>> > certainly don't want to paint bug-eyed Belshazzars with bunches of
>> > bananas on the ends of their arms.)
>> >
>> > An example of a socioculturally catalytic form of painting would be
>> > the
>> > small devotional miniatures which Elsheimer did. They were so small
>> > people wouldn't pay good prices for them, and Elsheimer died of
>> > starvation with his whole family. His art prefigured the slightly
>> > larger
>> > devotional works that made Poussin's fortune, and even today it
>> > survives
>> > in cameo art.
>> >
>> > (I even knew a guy in Paris who survived by frequenting auctions
>> > where
>> > they would calculate how much money you got per square inch for your
>> > last
>> > canvas and then start bidding with that price for your next one. He'd
>> > show up with a tiny canvas and bid the price up ridiculously high, and
>> > then come the next week with an ENORMOUS one!)
>> >
>> > David Kellogg
>> > Seoul National University of Education
>> >
>> >
>> >---------------------------------
>> >Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo!
>> >Search.
>> >_______________________________________________
>> >xmca mailing list
>> >
>> >
>> Andy Blunden : tel (H) +61 3 9380 9435,
>> mobile 0409 358 651
>> _______________________________________________
>> xmca mailing list
>> _______________________________________________
>> xmca mailing list
> --
> Dr. Elinami Swai
> Womens' and Gender Studies
> University Hall 4220-A
> The University of Toledo
> Toledo, OH, 43606
> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list

xmca mailing list

xmca mailing list
Received on Mon Feb 11 11:22 PST 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Apr 09 2008 - 08:03:11 PDT