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

[Larry Purss]

Henry,
Is your question possibly reflected within two aspects?
1] zone of proximal *learning*
2] zone of proximal "development"

The distinction Seth was elaborating.

the response may be answered differently within each approach

On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 3:48 PM, HENRY SHONERD <hshonerd@gmail.com> wrote:

> David,
> Thank you for your thoughtful explanation of why fingering of the keys of
> a piano is not a higher psychological function!  You say, “...the goal of
> fingering in piano playing, typing and handwriting is unconscious,
> automatic control.” But is such mastery possible without going through a
> controlled phase? Isn’t such control evidence of a higher psychological
> process? I don’t have my mind made up on this.  But let me suggest that you
> have given prototypical extremes of higher psychological processes and
> motor processes, but I think the difference can be construed as being on a
> continuum. This would be in line with the principle of embodied cognition
> espoused by cogntive linguistics.
>
> My post or may not, be off thread. Or it may be an extension of it. I am
> thinking of the work K.A.Ericsson on deliberate practice, who has
> researched the path to mastery of elite musicians. This seems to connect
> with Ulvi’s start to the thread: Parents vs. music teachers. What kind of
> scaffolding works best, and by whom? And what is the connection between
> comprehension and production of a “complex process”? Isn’t this what you
> are getting at in linking perception and speech?
>
> Henry
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 21, 2015, at 10:37 PM, David Kellogg <dkellogg60@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Henry:
> >
> > a) Complex psychological functions are part and parcel of what Vygotsky
> > calls psychological systems. For example, in an infant, affect and
> > perception are still not differentiated. But in older children affect and
> > perception, differentiated, can be linked up to other functions: affect
> to
> > memory, for example, and perception to speech. This is what makes
> > conscious, de-automatized control of a the different aspects of a complex
> > function possible (we can will ourselves to remember pleasant memories,
> and
> > we can "listen and repeat" in language learning). But the goal of
> fingering
> > in piano playing, typing, and handwriting is unconscious, automatic
> > control.
> >
> > b) Complex psychological functions are mediated and then actually
> initiated
> > by language. For example, in an infant perception is not verbal
> > perception--what the infant sees is not a book but a bound set of paper
> > sheets for tearing; not a watch, but a shiny object that can be mouthed
> and
> > almost but not quite swallowed. For an older child, the word meaning of
> > 'book" calls up certain memories which are often highly colored with
> > imagery (in my case, with my father's voice reading French comic books to
> > me when I was a child). But if I describe a well-ornamented acquaintance
> as
> > a "walking chandelier", it is word meanings that produce visual and sound
> > images. Fingering in piano playing, typing and handwriting, when it is
> > separated from reading sheet music, writing an e-mail, or composing a
> > shopping list, is not mediated or initiated by language.
> >
> > c) Because they have a common basis in word meanings, complex
> psychological
> > functions are easily integrated with each other. For example, an infant
> who
> > learns to recognize her or his mother's voice will not necessarily be
> able
> > to recognize his or her nanny's face. Similarly, a child who knows the
> > fingerings on the piano will not necessarily be able to find similar
> notes
> > on a violin. But a child who can read music can "read" equally well in
> > piano and piccolo.
> >
> > David Kellogg
> >
> > For the adult reading a
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 10:21 AM, HENRY SHONERD <hshonerd@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> How do we know that fingering is NOT a complex psychological function in
> >> the development of ability on the piano?
> >> With respect,
> >> Henry
> >>
> >>> On Sep 21, 2015, at 4:34 PM, Ulvi İçil <ulvi.icil@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I tend to answer your question in the affirmative David, I think that,
> >>> while working alone, the child has the opportunity to think, s/he is
> >>> allowed to think, to evaluate, s/he is free to do so while with parent,
> >>> s/he is constrained to do the best possible. And I think that to be
> able
> >> to
> >>> think makes the child nearer to musicality.
> >>> And this during the lesson with the teacher also that more musicality
> or
> >>> attention to musicality is paid.
> >>>
> >>> For the difference btw bike, golf and piano and writing, may it be too
> >> much
> >>> speculative if I hypothesize that the latter seem to be more
> specifically
> >>> or closely, intensely related with neural substrates.
> >>>
> >>> On 22 September 2015 at 00:57, David Kellogg <dkellogg60@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Dear Ulvi:
> >>>>
> >>>> Well, the literature I've read is contradictory. On the one hand,
> there
> >> is
> >>>> that famous Brazilian study on building model farms. One group was
> >>>> "scaffolded" by their parents and the other by skilled elementary
> school
> >>>> teachers. The parents tended to elbow the children aside and make the
> >>>> models themselves (so as not to waste the precious clay), but the
> >> teachers
> >>>> tended to stand back and let the kids have a go. The result was that
> the
> >>>> teacher scaffolded group attained much higher levels of
> self-regulation.
> >>>>
> >>>> In contrast, Askew et al notes that teachers who are quite skillful at
> >>>> scaffolding their own children at home do not actually use scaffolding
> >>>> strategies in the classroom (because of time pressure and the presence
> >> of
> >>>> too many different learners with different needs). The assumption is
> >> that
> >>>> delicate scaffolding is an effective strategy. Something similar
> appears
> >>>> when we look at "scaffolding" research in foreign language
> learning--the
> >>>> more delicate the scaffolding, the more effective it is, whatever that
> >>>> means.
> >>>>
> >>>> Vygotsky, however, is not contradictory at all. Even in the famous
> >> passage
> >>>> on p. 86, he is very offhand and casual about the different strategies
> >>>> which can be used in teaching (leading questions, starting solutions,
> >> doing
> >>>> demonstrations) and treats the degrees of freedom in collaboration as
> an
> >>>> empirical problem, to be worked out on a case by case basis. He even
> >> points
> >>>> out that a child at home who remembers the way that a teacher solved a
> >> math
> >>>> problem on the board and uses it to solve a problem is "in
> >> collaboration".
> >>>> See also his use of different kinds of "introvolution" at the end of
> >>>> Chapter Five of HDHMF.
> >>>>
> >>>> But--here's MY question. Vygotsky often contrasts particular physical
> >>>> skills (bike riding, playing golf, type-writing) to psychological
> >>>> development, and he makes it very clear that the former play no part
> in
> >> the
> >>>> zone of proximal development, at least for the school age child,
> because
> >>>> they are not developmental. On the other hand, he also compares
> >> learning to
> >>>> play the piano with learning to write, where finger skills do not
> play a
> >>>> part in the zone of proximal development, but the psychological
> >> functions
> >>>> involved in musical and literary awareness do.
> >>>>
> >>>> Instead of considering that what happens when the child works alone
> is a
> >>>> change in the source and the quality of motivation, couldn't we say
> that
> >>>> what happens is that the child is able to get beyond a fixation on
> >>>> fingering and understand music as a complex psychological function?
> >>>>
> >>>> David Kellogg
> >>>>
> >>>> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 6:08 AM, Ulvi İçil <ulvi.icil@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Sorry, at the very end, it should have been, lack of onset of the
> >>>>> functioning...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 22 September 2015 at 00:04, 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
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>
>