[Xmca-l] Re: Over or excess involvement of parent - ZPD

[Lplarry]

I want to focus on another key notion in Seth's interpretation of the phrase ( development within a given age).
This is not only a temporal characteristic. It is also a psychological CATEGORY. (see page 7)
This phrase indicates a period of development as a category with particular characteristics.
These characteristic functions are not *pure* categories. Rather these psychological categories were formed historically in development of human societies and also formed in individual ontogenetic development of persons *within* THESE societies.
Therefore the age periods will be expressing *regional* variations and do not express *universal* age periods. The social situation of development may shift characteristics of the indicated age periods and the indicated psychological *categories* assumed to be general categories.

The relation of the temporal to the psychological in the concept of *age periods* seems an interesting question?
Larry


-----Original Message-----
From: "Lplarry" <lpscholar2@gmail.com>
Sent: ‎2015-‎09-‎21 7:30 PM
To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
Subject: RE: [Xmca-l] Re: Over or excess involvement of parent - ZPD

Ulvi,
This question of when to assist the child  and when to allow independent struggle I find a complex question that is answered within the event of instruction in a moment by moment undergoing.
If we take the common sense model (scaffolding) there are 3 assumptions.
* generality assumption - scaffolding applies to all kinds of learning/instruction.
* assistance assumption - learning is DEPENDENT on interventions by more competent others.
* potential assumption - potential is a character of the individual (the subject)

This common sense scaffolding notion of ZPD focuses on *tasks* learned.

Seth Chaiklin challenges these 3 common sense assumptions, and shifts to "imitation" but this is not a shift to "copying" what is modeled. For Seth imitation requires previous *understanding* and without this previous *fore* - structure then imitation is not possible.
So the potential assumption is located in previous "understanding" that is not yet under intentional direction or control.
IF the child is capable of using the others guidance to then do the task *independently* then there is *understandable* imitation.
The question then is to analyze whether the child already *understands* but is not yet able to articulate or interpret this acquired *understanding*. ( bring into a discourse gestalt or a verbal thought process that reflects the child developing a new quality (developments) to the *felt* understanding that can be imitated (not copied) as the expression of being in transition to developing a new formation that brings what is already a *felt* understanding to conscious awareness and use.
This is how I interpret reading Seth's article.
Larry




From: HENRY SHONERD
Sent: ‎2015-‎09-‎21 6:10 PM
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Over or excess involvement of parent - ZPD


Great questions and answers! I am wondering about personality, age and cultural differences here. And don’t crises affect both the child and the adult in ways that make development difficult, no matter how sensitive the adult is. I have a feeling we’re back to a nuanced understanding/interpretation of Chaiklin on the ZPD. It’s not just scaffolding.  
Henry

> On Sep 21, 2015, at 4:40 PM, Ulvi İçil <ulvi.icil@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I completely agree what you wrote Huw, and yes, you are right there is a
> resistance story also.
> 
> I think that the parent needs to observe when it is the right time to go
> out rather than to stay in.
> 
> Because at some point this may turn out to be a vicious circle. Not to
> leave the child on his own for fear of unsuccess, whereas in fact it is
> improvement in self-regulation (executive functions) who is to make the
> child more successful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 22 September 2015 at 01:12, Huw Lloyd <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Yes, Ulvi, that seems like a reasonable hypothesis.  Though there remains a
>> great deal of scope for ambiguity.  I wonder whether the dynamics you are
>> exploring may be attributed to a somewhat mediocre motive vs a motive that
>> would lean towards ignoring or contesting the parental mediation rather
>> than passively submitting to it.  Equally it seems reasonable that a
>> student may sulkily submit to a passive role in response to an overbearing
>> parent, but I suspect there would be a history of resistance to that.
>> 
>> The kinds of transfers one can gain from learning physical skills include a
>> confidence in successful learning strategies -- to discover that heartily
>> getting involved in an undertaking is good, rather than sitting on the
>> hands and doing as one is told.
>> 
>> Best,
>> Huw
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 21 September 2015 at 22:04, Ulvi İçil <ulvi.icil@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Life and new trials and experiences may have the potential for
>> illimunating
>>> certain facts otherwise staying unresolved.
>>> 
>>> Suppose that a parent supports his child for piano lessons at home. The
>>> child, unlike other,needed a lot of parent support until then to succeed
>> in
>>> conservatory and the parent always though that without him/her, the child
>>> is not able to remember teacher's latest lesson's directives, to apply
>> them
>>> etc.
>>> 
>>> But this means that the child finds every time the parent besides him
>>> during lessons at home (even the parent takes not during the lesson with
>>> teacher) and the child is used to be reminded by the parent for the most
>>> critical things to be newly learned.
>>> 
>>> The lesson before the last one is not so successful. Until that lesson
>> the
>>> child and the parent worked again together. So many mistakes on the part
>> of
>>> the child.
>>> 
>>> But then, at return at home, they decide the child works on his own for
>>> three days. Then the new lesson with teacher takes place. Zero parent
>>> involvement.
>>> 
>>> Then, this same passage is very well done and appreciated by the teacher
>>> and the teacher says, is this the same child, do you have another
>> identical
>>> one at home.
>>> 
>>> *
>>> 
>>> So, my hypothesis is that, with such an excessinve parent involvement,
>> who
>>> does not possess confidence in the child to study appropriately, the
>> child
>>> may be chained and the process of  developing his potential with adult
>> may
>>> turn to a lack of opportunity to develop his potential on his own, which
>>> may be quite harmful for the child.
>>> 
>>> May this hypothesis verified: when working with the parent, the child
>> hands
>>> over his attention ability to the adult, he shares this ability with him,
>>> he delivers himself to the adult and is unable to take any initiative, is
>>> not the manager of the learning process.
>>> 
>>> But, as soon as the parent goes out, he knows that he is the sole
>>> responsible for his own learning process and pays much more attention to
>>> what he does, makes maximum effort to learn during the lesson with the
>>> teacher, and to remember at home what the teacher taught during the
>> lesson.
>>> 
>>> In this case, I think the mistake on the part of the parent is the onset
>> of
>>> the functioning of self regulation during learning process.
>>> 
>>> Does this over or excess involvement make any sense, or a place in the
>>> literature?
>>> 
>>> Ulvi
>>> 
>>