[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Xmca-l] Re: Objective and Subjective ZPDs
Hi David-- I am lousy and figuring out what is objective or subjective
about a zoped so I can't help a lot here.
I habitually have difficulty with the extension of the term, social
situation of development. In particular, I worry about this way of
a) given by the social situation of development (and therefore more or less
the same for a whole age group of children).
Its the "more or less the same" part that drives me bananas. I was just
sent the following blog entry which gives you some idea of the sort of
issue I am referring to, but the concerns are there in my work for decades,
so no surprise.
Putting that sort of concern aside (after all, its more or less, the
influence of the activities that different kids the same age are placed
into might not be critical for the phenomenon in question), I don't know
what to do with the idea that "lines of development" (locomotion, feeding
behaviors,,,,,,,,,,) are the domain of the subjective. And of course, all
communicative behaviors are a line (or lines?) of development.
Lost at sea.
On Sun, Sep 6, 2015 at 1:26 AM, David Kellogg <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Martin, Andy, Mike...and Others:
> I've been trying to make sense out of Seth Chaiklin's distinction between
> the "objective" ZPD and the subjective one. He's obviously got in mind
> exactly the material we are now translating: Vygotsky's attempt to render
> the ZPD as a "next zone of development", where the next zone of development
> is either
> a) given by the social situation of development (and therefore more or less
> the same for a whole age group of children).
> b) given by the "ripening functions" in the lines of development (and
> therefore different for every individual child).
> So here's what I've got in chart form. As you'll see, it's very different
> from the chart that Andy had in his 2009 article, and also somewhat
> different from the very elegant formulations that Martin had (which to my
> chagrin I can't remember very well).
> I've added a column of linguistic indicators taken from Halliday's 2002
> volume on early childhood language, because I have to be able to apply all
> this to data some day very soon.....
> This is a very sketchy schematicky sort of preliminary draft, and
> criticisms, objections, imprecations, and even just gutteral mutterings
> would be most welcome.
> David Kellogg
It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an
object that creates history. Ernst Boesch