[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Xmca-l] Re: Objective and Subjective ZPDs

Great article by Seth, David. So thoroughly researched and clearly explained. 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 don't. What Seth calls the "subjective" ZPD should be called "individual." It is no more subjective than the so-called "objective ZPD. 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.

*Andy Blunden*
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.

David Kellogg

On Sun, Sep 6, 2015 at 6:56 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>> wrote:

    David, do you have a PDF of an article which explains
    this double-barrelled concept?
    *Andy Blunden*
    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
        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