[Xmca-l] Re: The zone of proximal development

[Huw Lloyd]

Henry,

>From recollection, a key difference is the lack of conception of motive
with respect to a scaffold.

Goals are a function of motive and as such are distinct from appointed
goals that a teacher/manager may provide.

The 'scaffold' is a (re)structuring that helps to achieve the goal or the
appointed 'goal'.  Hence it is external to the dynamics of the subject's
own motive.

Best,
Huw

On 7 July 2015 at 02:45, HENRY SHONERD <hshonerd@gmail.com> wrote:

> About what David has just written:
>
> Seeing scaffolding as a moment in a zone of proximal learning works for
> me, but why is it “a rather extrreme and externalized moment"?
>
> I like the return to freedom a lot. Can’t talk about that too much.
>
> But I couldn’t pull up the paper he linked us up to, not a single one of
> the 33,000 words! What’s wrong with me?
>
> Henry
>
> > On Jul 6, 2015, at 6:42 PM, David Kellogg <dkellogg60@gmail.c <mailto:
> dkellogg60@gmail.c>,om> wrote:
> >
> > Ah, but is it a zone of proximal development--or just a zone of proximal
> > learning? And for whom?
> >
> > Henry asked--some time ago--about the difference between scaffolding and
> > the zoped, and I argued that scaffolding could be seen as one
> moment--but a
> > rather extreme and externalized moment--of a zone of proximal learning,
> but
> > not a zone of proximal development.
> >
> > The shape this problem takes in Korea is really a debate over the
> > respective merits of collaboration and cooperation. The idea is that
> > collaboration (which conspicuously contains the word "labor") does not
> > involve the division of labor and does not involve one party making
> > decisions and the other executing them, while cooperation does; ergo,
> > collaboration is a kind of cell for the ideal society and cooperation is
> a
> > cell for capitalism.
> >
> > Needless to say, Vygotsky doesn't agree with this at all: almost all of
> his
> > examples are, on the contrary, examples of highly asymmetrical divisions
> of
> > labor (mother and child, teacher and child doing homework, experimenter
> and
> > subject, etc.). It is only through the revolutionary graspture and
> radical
> > restructuring and interior redecoration of the function of the decision
> > maker that we get free will. So cooperation and collaboration turn out to
> > be moments of the same process, but that process is, after all, a zone of
> > proximal learning and not necessarily a zone of proximal development.
> >
> > I guess I find it useful to distinguish between an "everyday concept" of
> > the Zoped and a "scientific concept" of the Zoped. This corresponds more
> or
> > less the distinction that Seth Chaiklin (2003) makes between the
> subjective
> > (child by child) zoped and the objective (age cohort) zoped, except that
> it
> > is functional and genetic in its description rather than structural.
> >
> > We are presenting a longish paper on this on Saturday at a workshop in
> > Kangweondo. Here's the English version!
> >
> >
> https://www.academia.edu/13724420/Between_Lessons_The_Zone_of_Proximal_Development_in_Korean_Schools
> >
> > (Warning--it's 33,000 words long, and almost all the examples are from
> > Korean education!)
> >
> > David Kellogg
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 8:21 AM, HENRY SHONERD <hshonerd@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Annalisa,
> >> Thanks for sharing! There may be a similar referendum in Puerto Rico.
> What
> >> a world!
> >> H
> >>
> >>> On Jul 5, 2015, at 3:52 PM, Annalisa Aguilar <annalisa@unm.edu> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Henry,
> >>>
> >>> Clever mom!
> >>>
> >>> This will likely be a very memorable event for the both of them.
> >>>
> >>> Actually, I found this photograph quite moving, because, well... for
> >> many many reasons!
> >>>
> >>> So thanks for letting me share it!
> >>>
> >>> Kind regards,
> >>>
> >>> Annalisa
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>