[Xmca-l] Re: The Diagnostic Zoped

[David Kellogg]

Helen:

Yes, the line about play creating the zoped is certainly there. But there
is also a well known line about imitation providing all the actual content
of development. Now, one thing we know for certain about rule-based games
is that the winners do not win by pure imitation: you don't win a race by
JUST by imitating the fellow immediately in front of you. And then there is
Vygotsky's statement (Chapter Six of T &S) that collaboration provides the
content of the ZPD, but that this includes the kind of "collaboration" we
see when a child, doing homework alone by the light of a lamp, remembers an
example done by the teacher on the blackboard during the day.

All of this can and does fit into the framework that Vygotsky outlines
in his final work on Child Development (an edited version of which is in
Volume Five of the English Collected Works, Volume Four of the Russian) and
in the Korotaeva material (which is an apparently unedited  stenogram of
Vygotsky's very last lectures). Play is the central line of development for
the child in preschool. That means that it does create a zoped for
preschool. But it also means that play is NOT a central line of development
in either early childhood (where dialogue is creating speech) or in school
age children (where collaboration is forming the kind of thinking that the
late and much missed Paula Towsey used to refer to as "complexitive").

You can see that in all cases, imitation (that is, cooperation, yea,
even the "collaboration" that Andy refers to every time he says
"collaborative project) does indeed provide some of the actual content, and
that at lower stages of development (e.g. infancy) it might even provide
all thereof (in infancy primary intersubjective responsive imitation is a
central line of development). I think that for Vygotsky imitation is a
specific feature of ontogenesis: that's why he speaks (in "Problem of
the Environment") of the importance of teleology in ontogenesis--that is,
the fact that the final form of development is not only present in the
visual purview of the child but actively guides imitation in the child. So
imitation is not a feature of all sorts of development; but it does appear
to be a feature of all sorts of cultural historical development.

I've always wondered and worried about the passages in HDHMF where Vygotsky
speaks of synthesizing Lamarckianism and Darwinianism. It wasn't originally
his idea: it was Buhler's. But it is worrisome, because of course that's
essentially what the Lysenkoists wanted to do, and it prevented the
emergence of modern genetics in the USSR. But it is also wonderful because
it's a recognition that although the idea that giraffes "learn" to have
long necks by reaching for high-hanging foliage and then pass it onto their
children is not compatible with what we know about biology, it is
wonderfully compatible with what we know about the way in which imitation
works in human culture.

David Kellogg





On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 10:08 AM, Helen Grimmett <helen.grimmett@monash.edu>
wrote:

> Hi David,
>
> I've been waiting with interest to see how you would answer Larry's very
> interesting questions. These are questions I have been pondering for quite
> some time as i was once taken to task by a reviewer who complained that I
> obviously misunderstood the notion of ZPD because I talked about the
> possibility of 'creating the ZPD' (i.e. creating a social activity
> environment in which development could occur) whereas they saw it as only a
> diagnostic tool for measuring/determining development as it occurred.
>
> I actually work on the understanding that the ZPD is all these things (and
> possibly more) simultaneously. Andy once explained to me that Vygotsky's
> Marxist background would lead him to take for granted the simultaneity
> (dialectical nature) of process and product and so he did not spell this
> out in the way that most Western readers would require. (I'm sure Andy will
> pull me up if I've misunderstood him here) Therefore although the reference
> to the ZPD you are referring to in the CW is no doubt talking about
> diagnosis of development isn't it possible the concept also includes the
> process dimension as well as the product?
>
> What are we to make of the mention of the ZPD in Vygotsky, L. S. (1967).
> Play and its role in the mental development of the child. Soviet
> Psychology, 5(3), 6-18.   "Play is the source of development and creates
> the zone of proximal development" (p. 16)?
>
> I suppose what I am asking is can understanding different aspects of the
> ZPD be like understanding fever, temperature and thermometer as different
> aspects that give us a broader understanding of sickness (i.e. its cause,
> its symptoms and the way we diagnose it) or are you saying that the
> dialectical nature of the ZPD should be limited to the simultaneity of the
> process of diagnosing and the product of diagnosis?
>
> This is something I've never come to grips with as.
>
> Cheers,
> Helen
>
>
> Dr Helen Grimmett
> Lecturer
> Professional Experience Liaison - Primary
> Faculty of Education,
> Room 159, Building 902
> Monash University, Berwick campus
> Phone: 9904 7171
>
> *New Book: *
> The Practice of Teachers' Professional Development: A Cultural-Historical
> Approach
> <
> https://www.sensepublishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/professional-learning-1/the-practice-of-teachers-professional-development/
> >
> Helen Grimmett (2014) Sense Publishers
>
>
>
> <
> http://monash.edu.au/education/news/50-years/?utm_source=staff-email&utm_medium=email-signature&utm_campaign=50th
> >
>
> On 24 April 2015 at 08:45, David Kellogg <dkellogg60@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I think that the Vygotskyan version of the Zoped differs from notion of
> the
> > leading activity and of scaffolding in exactly the ways that Seth
> Chaiklin
> > indicated in his 2003 article: it's much more precise. It's a "NEXT zone
> of
> > development" not a vaguely "proximal" one, where the next "fruits" of
> > development are stated twice: once as a process of maturing, and once as
> > the mature product. For example:
> >
> > age period    PROCESS  (line of development)                 PRODUCT
> > (neoformation)
> >
> > birth               instinctive forms of extrauterine mental life
> > physiological independence
> >
> > infancy          primary intersubjectivity, imitation
> > Ur-wir (the "Proto-We", an undifferentiated "you and me")
> >
> > crisis 1          autonomous speech,
> > locomotion                  babble? crawling?
> >
> > early child-
> > hood            dialogue
> >           speech
> >
> > In the leading activity interpretation, development is inherent in the
> > activity itself; there are essentially no internal products (what
> Chaiklin
> > calls the potential assumption). In the scaffolding interpretation, the
> > line of development is brought about by outside intervention and not by
> > internalization (assistance assumption, in Chaiklin). In both
> > interpretations, there is a zone of proximal development for everything
> > (generalization assumption in Chaiklin). In Vygotsky, the idea of a zoped
> > for everything is like saying that there has to be a blessing for the
> Tsar.
> >
> > David Kellogg
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 2:41 PM, Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > David,
> > > What is the relevance you see in showing the disparity between a
> > > scaffolding zoped, a leading activity zoped, and a diagnostic zoped?
> > > I have just read Andy's article on the "nature" of concepts  as always
> > > expressing disparity  This disparity is in their nature as concepts. Or
> > in
> > > a metaphor you offered describing Vygotsky as like a crow using "words
> > [as
> > > eggs] that are pilfered and filled with new "sense".
> > > Does this disparity in the various meanings of zoped "deepen" our
> > > understanding of the concept "zoped?  or are the scaffolding and
> leading
> > > activity versions of zoped "mis-taken" or "mis-guided" or inauthentic
> > > versions?
> > >
> > > Larry
> > >
> > > On Sun, Apr 19, 2015 at 4:16 PM, David Kellogg <dkellogg60@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I've been comparing the 2001 Korotaeva manuscript of Vygotsky's final
> > > > pedological lectures with the version published in Volume Four of the
> > > > Russian Collected Works (Volume Five of the English). This kind of
> > > > textological comparison is fairly grueling work, and yields few
> > dramatic
> > > > moments. But the section which is called "The Problem of Age and the
> > > > Dynamics of Development" (pp. 199-205) is an exception.
> > > >
> > > > First of all, the TITLE'S different! The CW has "dynamics", which
> makes
> > > no
> > > > sense, because the previous section was about dynamics. The Korotaeva
> > > > manuscript makes it clear that this is about diagnostics. Secondly,
> > there
> > > > are two paras in the CW that don't appear in Korotaeva, and thirteen
> > > > paragraphs (!!) in Korotaeva that do not appear in the CW. Thirdly,
> the
> > > > word "pedology", which occurs 32 times in Korotaeva, does not appear
> > once
> > > > in the CW.
> > > >
> > > > I've always thought of the Soviet and the Western distortions of the
> > > Zoped
> > > > as being symmetrical: the Soviets pretended that it was all
> development
> > > and
> > > > no learning, dissolving it into the notion of leading activity, while
> > the
> > > > Americans pretended that it was all learning and no development,
> > > dissolving
> > > > it into the notion of scaffolding.
> > > >
> > > > But the Korotaeva manuscript really makes it clear that the Soviets
> and
> > > the
> > > > Americans really misconceived the Zoped in exactly the same way: both
> > > > ignored the pedological nature of the Zoped--that it wasn't a
> > description
> > > > of dynamics at all but rather a diagnostic tool to be linked to very
> > > > precise ideas about how and above all when neoformations arise,
> through
> > > > lines of development, from the social situation. The Zoped wasn't a
> > > fever,
> > > > or even a temperature; it was a thermometer.
> > > >
> > > > David Kellogg
> > > >
> > >
> >
>