[Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: Re: Zuckerman's 2016 article and "what wouldaneducationbe?"

[Huw Lloyd]

Hi Larry,

Regarding the distinction of four layers, I understand these to be indices
of differentiation concomitant with psychological development (i.e.
Vygotsky's genesis of functional systems) or as Galina wrote: "rather than
replacing the previous developmental stage, the new one merges with it".
This does not mean that they cannot ever be treated in separation, however,
as this structuring is conceived of as being somewhat dynamic, hence we
have different conscious states through a day's cycle.  Elkonin's stages
paper may be of help.

With respect to basic maternal relations, for example, I personally relate
this to active orientation, which is compatible with the object of activity
in activity theory, but as the child grows up one expects to see much more
cognitive structure permeating that orientation, with greater scope for
re-orienting.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/elkonin/works/1971/stages.htm
https://www.academia.edu/24660557/Active_Orientation

Best,
Huw


On 6 December 2016 at 16:06, <lpscholar2@gmail.com> wrote:

> Huw,
>
> You mention how toddlers love scripts. They also seem to love (pairings)
> which are an example of (overlaying).
>
> EXAMPLE: The relationship of shoes to one another as an illustration of
> pairing. The toddler, finding a left shoe is upset because she cannot find
> her shoes. The toddler does not see **a** shoe, she sees **the** left
> shoe. Whether this is pre-linguistic i will put aside to focus on the
> overlaying as pairing phenomena.
>
>
>
> The Zuckerman article explores the theme of layers  (stages) that leave
> traces that may be **dormant** but able to reawaken through attachment
> (level 1) imitation/repetition (level 2) play (level 3 including
> playworlds) and learning to learn ability (level 4).
>
>
>
> The Zuckerman article is exploring the (overlaying) expression of these *
> *traces** that may be **dormant** but nevertheless continue to function
> and continue to **institute** new forms of meaning.
>
>
>
> The question of (voices) in the Zuckerman article focuses on honouring the
> young child’s voice which calls to the adult and orients or moves the adult
> as a (pairing/overlaying). The child’s voice is taking the lead, and the
> adult (voice) overlays with the child’s – in response.
>
> This child’s voice may be expressing attachment, imitation, play or
> learning ability.
>
> Merleau-Ponty may have something to add to this exploration of
> overlayering of developmental stages if we substitute the word (psychology)
> where M-P uses the word (philosophy):
>
>
>
> Philosophy/psychology is not a rupture with the world, not a coinciding
> (coincidence) with it, but it is not the alteration of rupture and
> coincidence either .... Philosophy/psychology does not decompose our
> relationship with the world into real elements, or even into ideal
> references, which would make it an ideal object, but it (discerns)
> articulations in the world, it awakens in it regular relations of –
> PREPOSSESSION, OF RECAPITULATION, OF OVERLAPPING (d’enjambement), which are
> as (dormant) in our ontological landscape, subsist there only in the form
> of (traces) and nevertheless continue to function there, continue to
> (institute) the new there.
>
>
>
> To abbreviate: The concept of layers in the Zukerman article (in four
> layers discerned as stages) and the notion of overlayering may be
> intimately related.
>
> The example of the toddler who when locating the left shoe does not notice
> **a** shoe but awakens the search for my shoe(s).
>
>
>
> I hope that overlapping is clear in exploring the intermental and the
> ability of the young school child to engage the adult as an **ability to
> learn** emerging from the ability to attach, ability to imitate, and
> ability to play, that may be dormant, but leave traces that continue to
> function to **institute** the new.
>
>
>
> Sent from my Windows 10 phone
>
>
>
> *From: *Huw Lloyd <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com>
> *Sent: *December 6, 2016 4:41 AM
> *To: *eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> *Subject: *[Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: Re: Zuckerman's 2016 article and "what
> wouldaneducationbe?"
>
>
>
> Well, here is a speculative question which may interest Galina: to what
>
> degree is "voice" (situated identity and active orientation towards
>
> particular role-meanings) considered in the platform (the group sustaining
>
> their inquiry) established?
>
>
>
> >From one perspective it does not matter too much whether it is considered,
>
> so long as the students attend and respond to the imagery they experience.
>
> Does one even try to distinguish "active persona" on a
>
> scientific/repeatable basis?
>
>
>
> On the other hand it may lend further leverage into discerning the
>
> conflicts and associations between "voice".  E.g. whether the direct
>
> (rather than group-mediated) voice of the teacher does not directly block
>
> the students creative and reflexive consideration, but rather that it
>
> powerfully evokes a particular formalised voice on the part of the student.
>
> The consideration was that this might be an appropriate way to link
>
> dialogical (i.e. Bakhtin) considerations to the cognitive aspects of AT and
>
> (perhaps) the implicit thought modes accompanying them.
>
>
>
> As I see it, this still supports the adult-child participations,
>
> particularly with respect to directives, e.g. the short verb phrases
>
> commonly acquired by infants/toddlers.  At home we have a delightful phrase
>
> that moved from a caution to mocking (which I think may have been started
>
> by our youngest) which is "Tell-you-off!" it is full off mock reprimand and
>
> gruffly spoken when someone isn't following the script (toddlers love
>
> scripts).
>
>
>
> Another thought I had regarding platforms was that when I was at
>
> primary/middle school computers were practically shunned by adults, which
>
> was brilliant. Not only could one devote lots of uninterrupted time to
>
> building things that worked out of one's imagination, the adults would nod
>
> approvingly and say to themselves that the child was learning "computer
>
> skills".  Micro-computers at that juncture not only provided an operating
>
> system platform (usually manifesting as a little blinking cursor, inviting
>
> you to write a program) they established a social space/platform too.  But
>
> not only that, the computer housed the reflections of one's ideas which,
>
> just like one's attention, could be brought to life in an instant.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Huw
>
>
>
> On 5 December 2016 at 17:02, mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Dear Colleagues -- Here is my quick translation of Galina's response to
> my
>
> > invitation to join the discussion of her paper. (Note that she refers to
>
> > reflexive thinking which is the topic of a second paper I am not sure
>
> > everyone has obtained).
>
> >
>
> > I would emphasize her point that this work was written in the 1980's,
>
> > published in 2000, and available to us only now in English. These
> temporal
>
> > facts and their implications in terms of judgments about the political
>
> > context of the work ought to be kept in mind when interpreting aspects of
>
> > the text. Speaking personally, Phillip's comments about the common values
>
> > across different systems of state sponsored mass education provide a
>
> > reasonable interpretive framework.
>
> >
>
> > Here are Galina's comments:
>
> >
>
> > Michael -
>
> >
>
> > I send you a book file, part of which has been translated and is now
> being
>
> > discussed. I am of two minds about participating in the discussion. Do I
>
> > want to participate in the discussion? Yes and no. Yes, because I have
>
> > never tired of learning. No, because I am tired of the socio-political
>
> > myths that gradually sinks discussion.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > With regard to the politics. El'konin and Davydov were and remain
>
> > dissidents both in relation to their own times, and in the new
> millennium;
>
> > and in their personal behavior and professional accomplishments are
>
> > important for me, because I love these people and their ideas.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > The book *How do younger school children learn to learn?* (from which the
>
> > article was selected). It was published in 2000 and written in the late
>
> > 80s. Is it outdated? Yes and no. Obsolete are the specific examples of
>
> > learning situations I used to illustrate various pedagogical ideas. But
> the
>
> > specific instructional situations described, as a rule, were recorded on
>
> > the day of testing: the result of the main lessons from a good teacher -
> an
>
> > understanding of how today's ideas could be implemented better, fuller,
> and
>
> > more clearly remain useful. What has not aged are ideas about
> interpsychic
>
> > action, illustrated by these learning situations. At present I will
> mention
>
> > only two:
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > 1) Education always introduces asymmetries into development, supporting
>
> > some potential opportunities and age not supporting others. The dream of
>
> > all-round harmonious development is unattainable due to the specific
>
> > relationship of instruction and development.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > 2) For the *reflexive development* of the child, interaction with adults
>
> > who are familiar and knowledgeable about the subject matter needs to be
>
> > supplemented by interaction with peers who do not know the answers and
> are
>
> > not more knowledgeable. This [dual necessity] is on the one hand, well
>
> > known and repeatedly demonstrated, but on the other hand, it is
> constantly
>
> > ignored. For me, this is important because it makes re-think one of the
>
> > most quoted sayings of Vygotsky: "Zone of Proximal Development - is the
>
> > distance between the level of a child's actual development as determined
> by
>
> > the tasks presented that are accomplished independently, and the level of
>
> > potential development, determined by means of a procedure in which
> problems
>
> > are solved under the leadership of adults or in collaboration with more
>
> > knowledgeable peers."
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > ​Is this another way of formulating Ed Wall's idea of rigor and
>
> > responsiveness in pedagogical terms? Sort of like modes and relations of
>
> > production one might say.
>
> >
>
> > mike​
>
> >
>
> > ​
>
> >  21-kak-mlsch-uchatsa_2000.pdf
>
> > <https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7y1a3DKSsQJWTNSN3BRNll0Znc/
>
> > view?usp=drive_web>
>
> > ​
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> > >>>
>
> > >>>
>
> >
>
>
>