[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Xmca-l] Re: Objective and Subjective ZPDs
- To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <email@example.com>
- Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Objective and Subjective ZPDs
- From: Andy Blunden <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2015 14:19:03 +1000
- In-reply-to: <CACwG6DtUwaE_Y+qmMm_UA-m4Yzx81v_VuW6kRDjrCaoKtZAv4A@mail.gmail.com>
- List-archive: <https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l>
- List-help: <mailto:email@example.com?subject=help>
- List-id: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l.mailman.ucsd.edu>
- List-post: <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>
- List-subscribe: <https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca-l>, <mailto:email@example.com?subject=subscribe>
- List-unsubscribe: <https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca-l>, <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=unsubscribe>
- References: <CACwG6Du3hMwD8c9DQLr2oYCcDnHV3dfHKwwEchQRDSaCVeAxMg@mail.gmail.com> <55EC0DD8.email@example.com> <CACwG6DtUwaE_Y+qmMm_UA-m4Yzx81v_VuW6kRDjrCaoKtZAv4A@mail.gmail.com>
- Reply-to: <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <email@example.com>
- Sender: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0
Great article by Seth, David. So thoroughly researched and
I think the problem with the notion of subjective and
objective ZPDs is that like many others before him Seth has
mixed up the subjective/objective distinction with the
categories of universal, individual and particular, which is
also why we get the "more or less" entering into what is
supposed to be objective. A N Leontyev does the same thing
with meanings which are "more or less objective".
The culturally and historically normative is universal; that
is what "universal" means. Like "normative" it does not mean
"objective", as if every individual had the same one. They
What Seth calls the "subjective" ZPD should be called
"individual." It is no more subjective than the so-called
What is missing is that the universal it only manifested in
the "particular" conditions of each family, school, etc.,
and it is this particular which is actual (=acting) for the
given child, and not "more or less" active.
ZPD is best retained, I think, as the concept which is both
subjective and objective and inseparably so. Talking about
subjective *and* objective ZPDs may have heuristic and
pedagogical value, but I think it can, in the end, also
contribute to confusion.
On 6/09/2015 9:44 PM, David Kellogg wrote:
Sure, Andy. I think there's a copy on the lchc discussions
site. But here's a pdf of an early draft from Gordon
Wells' course pack.
On Sun, Sep 6, 2015 at 6:56 PM, Andy Blunden
<email@example.com <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>> wrote:
David, do you have a PDF of an article which explains
this double-barrelled concept?
On 6/09/2015 6:26 PM, David Kellogg 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
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.