[Xmca-l] Re: Why Doesn't Vygotsky Use "Microgenesis"?

[HENRY SHONERD]

David and all,
Back in the day (the 80s) there were articles on L2 learning on two themes that you might find relevant to the subject line:
1) L2 learning as culture shock. More than one author on this. Culture shock = Crisis maybe.
2) The optimal distance model of L2 learning. H.D. Brown was known for his articles on this. The model, as I recall, explained “foreign accents” not as the inability to attain native pronunciation but as a intra- and inter-subjective need to maintain identity that is closely associated with L1.
May be of interest 
Henry


> On Oct 21, 2016, at 3:11 PM, David Kellogg <dkellogg60@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Mike:  I think the flaws in methodology are exactly what Arturo is talking
> about. In foreign language teaching, the only real acknowledgement of the
> nonlinear nature of language development is in the mysterious "U-shaped
> curve" that seems to accompany the learning of grammar but not vocabulary.
> But the general response to this been to switch the focus in teaching
> to...vocabulary (e.g. Michael Lewis's "Lexical Approach", Nattinger and
> DeCarrico's work on formulaic phrases, Keyword method studies, etc.). Part
> of the problem is that the vast majority of published studies are done by
> professors on their undergraduates.
> 
> A.N. Leontiev's denial of crises is to be found in his book "Problems of
> Development of Mind" (and also in "The Neo-Vygotskyan Approach to Child
> Development" by Yurie Karpov, excellently reviewed for MCA by Bert Oers).
> A.A. Leontiev wrote, as far as I can figure out, one book on foreign
> language teaching. " Psychology and the Language Learning Process", OUP.
> There is very little on age specific teaching at all: he seems to think
> that movies are great way of teaching foreign languages (I think all
> foreign language teachers go through a "movie" phase when they discover how
> difficult it really is to use and teach a language at the same time). But
> it's clear that a lot of his students are adults and not children.
> 
> Not one of the half dozen papers that I submitted on ZPDs and crises of
> language development over the last year has been accepted for publication.
> I had exactly the same problem about fifteen years ago when I first started
> writing about group ZPDs--as soon as you raise the idea that there might be
> a ZPD for a whole class of children, the editor tells you to go and read
> Vygotsky. Now every time you say that real language development entails
> crises, editors ask indignantly where Vygotsky could have said THAT. I
> think the only mention of the crisis in language learning (and not foreign
> language learning) I've managed to get in print  was the Commentary on
> Roth's piece that just came out in MCA (Roth calls everything a crisis,
> even when water turns into ice).
> 
> With the sole exception of MCA (I just got another reject, but it was a
> real, thoughtful and very useful one), I think Huw is right--the system's
> broken. We need new ways of getting ideas around or we're really at the end
> of our own intellectual development. Who will reject the rejecters? Where
> will THEIR crises come from?
> 
> David Kellogg
> Macquarie University
> 
> 
> 
> On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 11:40 AM, mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu> wrote:
> 
>> David & Arturo. You lost me you got to AA Leontiev,
>> David. Which of his writings on the organization of language learning
>> activity can I find that he denied crises in development. In principle,
>> such ideas should show up in flaws in his methodology. How does that work?
>> 
>> I have read more than I have forgotten, but I would like to see how this
>> issue influences the pedagogy.
>> 
>> Maybe you would be interested in helping us identify texts, Arturo.
>> 
>> Note, in our own published work on the acquisition of reading we adopt a
>> developmental model of the process. To tell the truth, the whole process
>> felt like a crisis for us and the kids, but qualitative change, and new
>> modes of diagnosis, emerged. Both microgenetically (in a day's
>> interactions) and in the ontogeny of the child as the new form of behavior
>> spread and solidified.
>> 
>> I have access to articles in Soviet Psychology/Journal of Russian
>> Psychology if the requisite materials are not already in your hands.
>> 
>> Seems like a place where questions of theory and questions of practice come
>> together. David has been teaching L2 for a long time. Others, like Phillip,
>> are teachers in schools where students are highly varied in their
>> acquisition of English.
>> 
>> A lot of others on xmca could also describe (or deny the presence of )
>> crises that arise when there is a qualitative shift in L1-->L2 students. I
>> seemed to go through distinct stages, qualitative shifts, in the
>> acquisition of spoken and written Russian. I acquired the ability to speak
>> more quickly than to write. Reading was the refuge where I had to figure
>> out what people had been saying in the seminar from written texts. I do not
>> remember any moment of crisis (except that of a dumb, dangerous, foreigner,
>> newby) when I became qualitatively different. My best evidence that it was
>> a qualitative shift is that my wife, who went through all these events with
>> me, does not like my personality when I spoke Russian to this day. :~)
>> 
>> It would be totally neat to find convergence around AA Leontiev here that
>> could generate a classic article in *Mind, Culture, and Activity.*
>> 
>> mike
>> 
>> On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 2:39 PM, David Kellogg <dkellogg60@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Arturo:
>>> 
>>> Yes, exactly! As soon as we ripped applied linguistics out of
>> linguistics,
>>> we started down a path of social-behaviourism. The result is, as you say,
>>> that L2 teaching has become behavioristic and naïve in the extreme.
>>> 
>>> Although, as you'll see from the other posting I wrote today, I think
>> it's
>>> important to stress how different learning is from development, I also
>>> think that one thing that all forms of genetic change have (phylo-,
>> socio-,
>>> onto- and micro-) is the crisis: crises are simply inherent in the
>> process
>>> of development itself, because at some point the process of development
>>> turns back on itself and the means of development itself develops. That's
>>> why Vygotsky speaks of "cycles of development".
>>> 
>>> The problem with both Leontievs (A.A. and A.L.) is that they were
>> committed
>>> to demonstrating that development could take place without crises. I
>> think
>>> this was a political commitment, linked to Stalin's declaration of the
>> end
>>> of history. It is always a mistake to declare that history is at an end:
>>> that is one of the main differences between sociogenesis and ontogenesis.
>>> 
>>> David Kellogg
>>> Macquarie University
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 5:21 PM, Arturo Escandon <
>>> arturo.escandon@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Dear David,
>>>> 
>>>> I am laughing load about your exchange with Mike.
>>>> 
>>>> Of course I do not discard microgenetic processes at all. Perhaps my
>>>> "unfortunately" comes from the fact that L2 teaching continuous to be
>>>> so behaviorist and naive. SLA advocates try to go round the notion of
>>>> input-output unsuccessfully. These conditions influence my research as
>>>> any social or production condition does. It is as if one could not
>>>> abstract of the institutional object set for "learning".
>>>> 
>>>> What I have done is base my approach on A.A. Leontiev notions of
>>>> speech activity vis a vis communication activity to determine at least
>>>> four stages that a learner with no knowledge of a L2 must go through
>>>> to master it. Those I renamed substructural, structural, functional
>>>> and rhetorical stages. They all differ in the object of the activity.
>>>> But none of these stages is reached by one single learning activity.
>>>> So no microgenetic process can "trigger" mastery. On the contrary,
>>>> learners need to go through many learning tasks until they develop
>>>> comprehensive conceptual models for each stage. The developments of
>>>> those models run against their very understanding of their own L1. It
>>>> is hard to grasp the actual genesis of that development for the stages
>>>> cannot be clearly separated one another and because instructions is
>>>> distributed. You see, learners learn grammar with L1 speakers and
>>>> conversation with L2 speakers in more or less chaotic and asystematic
>>>> learning settings.
>>>> 
>>>> The question is how one can deal with zones which do not have an age
>>>> crisis that help distinguishing one from the next. Risking deforming
>>>> the notion of zoped,I still prefer to have some kind of developmental
>>>> targets and stages rather than basing instruction on an endless chain
>>>> of learning tasks just to fill teaching time.
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks for providing those Russian excerpts.
>>>> 
>>>> All the best.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Arturo
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On 18 October 2016 at 09:33, David Kellogg <dkellogg60@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>>> Arturo:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks for the very thoughtful reply. I think the only word I might
>>>>> possibly disagree with is "unfortunately". I suppose there may also
>> be
>>> a
>>>>> "zone of proximal learning", just as there is a zone of proximal
>>>> evolution
>>>>> (I suspect, given the mass extinctions which are going on in the
>>>>> Anthropocene, that we are in one of these at present), and a zone of
>>>>> proximal social progress (these have turned out to be far longer
>> than I
>>>>> ever thought as a young person). But I think for now it's a very good
>>>> idea
>>>>> to focus on the D in ZPD, and not to forget that it's for
>> "development"
>>>> and
>>>>> not for learning.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Let me give three reasons. First of all, if we are interested in the
>>> what
>>>>> word value looks like when we remove the sound that realizes it, we
>> are
>>>>> necessarily interested in a psychological rather than an
>> interpersonal
>>>>> phenomenon. Secondly, the focus on quick results in learning very
>> often
>>>>> ends up victimizing teachers for problems in development that have
>>>> nothing
>>>>> to do with teaching methods and are really developmentally rooted.
>>>> Thirdly,
>>>>> just as we need to understand exactly what teachers are doing before
>> we
>>>> go
>>>>> about introducing interested changes, we also need to understand what
>>>>> Vygotsky was trying to do before we decide it is irrelevant to our
>>>> teaching
>>>>> needs.
>>>>> 
>>>>> This morning I was working on the beginning of the "Crisis at Three",
>>>> part
>>>>> of which (but not the good part) can be read in Vol. Five of the
>>>> Collected
>>>>> Works in English (Vol. Four in Russian):
>>>>> 
>>>>> Во-первых, мы должны предположить, что все перемены, все события,
>>>>> совершающиеся в период этого кризиса, группируются вокруг какого-либо
>>>>> новообразования переходного типа. Следовательно, когда мы будем
>>>>> анализировать симптомы кризиса, мы должны хотя бы предположительно
>>>> ответить
>>>>> на вопрос, что нового возникает в указанное время и какова судьба
>>>>> новообразования, которое исчезает после него. Затем мы должны
>>>> рассмотреть,
>>>>> какая смена центральных и побочных линий развития здесь происходит. И
>>>>> наконец, оценить критический возраст с точки зрения зоны его
>> ближайшего
>>>>> развития, т. е. отношения к следующему возрасту.
>>>>> "Firstly, we must presume that all of the transformations, all the
>>>>> happenings, that take place during the period of the crisis may be
>>>> grouped
>>>>> around some sort of neoformation of the transitional type.
>>> Consequently,
>>>>> when we analyse the symptoms of the crisis, we must at the very least
>>>>> presume to answer the question of what newness emerges at this
>>> appointed
>>>>> time and what the fate of these neoformations which disappear
>>> afterwards
>>>>> might be. Next, we should consider how the central and peripheral
>> lines
>>>> of
>>>>> development here will unfold. And lastly, we ought to evaluate the
>>>> critical
>>>>> age from the point of view of the zone of its proximal development,
>>> i.e.
>>>>> its relationship to the subsequent age."
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> "The zone of its proximal development" is its relationship to the
>>>>> subsequent age! Almost by definition, if you present some
>>>>> pedagogical intervention and it immediately becomes part of the
>> child's
>>>>> psychological system, you are looking at the zone of actual
>>> development,
>>>>> and not the zone of proximal development at all.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Years ago, I told Mike that I kept mixing up microgenesis and
>> learning.
>>>> He
>>>>> told me "Don't do that!" but he didn't exactly spell out how to avoid
>>> it:
>>>>> instead, he arranged for me to review a book on Ganzheitpsychologie
>>> that
>>>>> left me more confused than ever. So I think that's still what we need
>>> to
>>>> do
>>>>> now: but one way to start is simply to kick learning out of the ZPD.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> David Kellogg
>>>>> 
>>>>> Macquarie University
>>>>> .
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 1:44 AM, Arturo Escandon <
>>>> arturo.escandon@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thank you for this David.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I agree with what you are saying at many levels.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Unfortunately, the kind of assessment I introduced did not have
>>>>>> significant learning components. So the evaluation part of the
>>>>>> assessment is not giving me much data about microgenesis but about
>>>>>> ontogenesis. The "outcome" is not the result of the learning
>> component
>>>>>> for sure.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> My bet is that the links between L1 and L2 (which allow students to
>> go
>>>>>> beyond sound perception of words) are possible because of
>> development
>>>>>> in high school. More to do with L1 development. Again, the kind of
>>>>>> interventions I am allowed to make in the classroom are very narrow
>>>>>> and the structure and shape of the study programme prevents me from
>>>>>> doing large longitudinal studies.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I agree the notion of DA as it is used in the SLA literature
>> presents
>>>>>> many problems.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Arturo
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 11 October 2016 at 05:17, David Kellogg <dkellogg60@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> Arturo:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Dynamic assessment is a really good example of what I'm talking
>>> about.
>>>>>>> Dynamic assessment is supposedly based on the ZPD. But I think
>> there
>>>> are
>>>>>>> three linked ways in which it is actually based on a distortion of
>>> the
>>>>>> ZPD.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> a) Dynamic assessment looks at microgenesis, not ontogenesis. I
>>> think
>>>> the
>>>>>>> idea was originally that the microgenetic perturbations that were
>>>> picked
>>>>>> up
>>>>>>> in DA were, actually, predictive of the "next zone of
>> development".
>>>> But
>>>>>>> there are two reasons why this has not happened. Firstly, there
>>> hasn't
>>>>>> been
>>>>>>> a clear demarcation between learning and development, and the idea
>>>>>>> that what the child can do today with assistance will be done by
>> the
>>>>>> child
>>>>>>> independently tomorrow--literally, in twenty-four hours--is just
>> too
>>>>>>> attractive to people like Matt Poehner and Jim Lantolf. Secondly,
>>>> there
>>>>>>> hasn't been a clear scheme for figuring out what the next zone of
>>>>>>> development really is (it's there in Vygotsky's pedological
>>> lectures,
>>>> but
>>>>>>> these haven't been translated yet).
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> b) Dynamic assessment is "dynamic" and not diagnostic. It's
>>>> interesting
>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> compare the two Russian versions of Vygotsky's pedological
>> lectures:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> https://www.marxists.org/russkij/vygotsky/pedologia/
>>>>>> lektsii-po-pedologii.pdf
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> https://www.marxists.org/russkij/vygotsky/cw/pdf/vol4.pdf
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Compare 2001: 191 with 1984: 260 (and also the English version,
>>> 1998:
>>>>>>> 199!). It's not just that the Russian editors insist on replacing
>>>> "test"
>>>>>>> with "task"--it's that they consistently replace "diagnostic" with
>>>>>>> "dynamic", even where this leads to redundant headings and total
>>>>>> nonsense.
>>>>>>> Why? Well, because in the Soviet scheme of things, the ZPD is NOT
>>>>>>> diagnostic: it's dynamic. That means that a personality is
>>> infinitely
>>>>>>> malleable and tomorrow's development, with the right kind of
>>>> mediation,
>>>>>> can
>>>>>>> become today's. This is something that DA has largely adopted from
>>> its
>>>>>>> Soviet roots....but it's not Vygotsky.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> c) As a result DA has to reject the core of Vygotsky's method: for
>>>>>>> Vygotsky, structure is to be explained by function, but function
>>> MUST
>>>> be
>>>>>>> explained by history, by development. Suppose I have two children.
>>> One
>>>>>>> learns, the other doesn't. The structural explanation is simply
>> that
>>>> the
>>>>>>> first one has the right mental structures to learn and the second
>>> does
>>>>>> not.
>>>>>>> The functional explanation is that the first has the right
>>> functional
>>>>>>> motivation (putative career, middle class aspirations, etc) while
>>> the
>>>>>> other
>>>>>>> does not. But the sad truth is that the vast majority of learning
>>>>>>> difficulties really are developmental. I don't think that means
>> that
>>>> they
>>>>>>> are destiny. But I do think it means that prevention is a whole
>> lot
>>>>>> easier
>>>>>>> than cure. In DA, development is Markovian: the present and the
>>> future
>>>>>> are
>>>>>>> linked causally--but not the past and the present: it's a weird
>>>> inversion
>>>>>>> of Aristotle's belief that the past was determined but the future
>> is
>>>>>>> intrinsically non-determinable.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> David Kellogg
>>>>>>> Macquarie University
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 3:52 PM, Arturo Escandon <
>>>>>> arturo.escandon@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> David,
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> In my research about dynamic assessment I have been able to spot
>> a
>>>>>>>> moment students reorganise L1 and L2 concepts (related to
>>> urbanistic
>>>>>>>> and architectural city features) in such a way that they no
>> longer
>>>>>>>> "perceive" the sounds of words. Students who do not arrive to
>> that
>>>>>>>> reorganisation are not able to escape from the perceptual
>> challenge
>>>> of
>>>>>>>> oral utterances.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> The first group of students tend to mediate their linguistic
>>>>>>>> production either in ideograms or Spanish-alphabet written words
>>> when
>>>>>>>> asked to take notes. The second group tend to use the Japanese
>>>>>>>> syllabic system to transliterate sounds.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Best
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Arturo Escandón
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On 9 October 2016 at 07:21, David Kellogg <dkellogg60@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> When I read materials on Vygotsky, particularly in applied
>>>>>> linguistics or
>>>>>>>>> TESOL, I always get the "four timescales" (phylogenetic,
>>>> sociogenetic,
>>>>>>>>> ontogenetic, and microgenetic) from Mescharyakov's wonderful
>>>> article
>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>> Vygotsky's terminology. At first, in the vain hope that it
>> would
>>>> help
>>>>>> us
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> distinguish better between ontogenetic development and
>>> microgenetic
>>>>>>>>> learning, I used this myself (see Song and Kellogg 2011).
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Now I think that was a mistake. The term "microgenesis" was
>>> around
>>>>>> when
>>>>>>>>> Vygotsky was alive and he certainly knew about it: it's a
>>> constant
>>>>>>>> feature
>>>>>>>>> of Gestaltist studies of perception. It's also strongly
>>> associated
>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> Nazi psychology of Leipzig. Vygotsky knows about the term and
>>>> doesn't
>>>>>> use
>>>>>>>>> it, and I think he's got good reasons.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Even where LSV agrees with the Gestaltists (Kohler, Koffka,
>>> Lewin,
>>>>>>>>> Wertheimer, Selz--they weren't all Nazis!) he doesn't seem to
>> use
>>>> the
>>>>>>>> term
>>>>>>>>> microgenesis. And actually, he's quite interested in Nazi
>>>> psychology
>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> not afraid to quote it, although he bitterly, scathingly,
>>> denounces
>>>>>>>>> Jaensch, Krueger, Ach, Kroh and others in "Fascism in
>>>>>> Psychoneurology". I
>>>>>>>>> think he doesn't use "microgenesis" because it conflates
>> external
>>>>>>>>> perception with perceiving meaning.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Halliday, who also uses "phylogenetic" and "ontogenetic", calls
>>> his
>>>>>>>> "micro"
>>>>>>>>> scale logogenesis: the creation of semantics (as opposed to
>>>>>> biological,
>>>>>>>>> social, or psychological semiosis). Take Zaza's article. At a
>>>>>> particular
>>>>>>>>> point, the participants become uninterested in perceptual high
>>>>>> fidelity
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> much more interested in meaning--what will Gogo think if she
>> sees
>>>> that
>>>>>>>> her
>>>>>>>>> daughter-in-law is using mechanical means for nursing?
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Of course, semantic meaning is always linked to perceptual
>>> meaning.
>>>>>> But
>>>>>>>>> "linked" never means equal or mutual or fully reciprocal: the
>>>> specific
>>>>>>>>> weight is first on one side and then on the other. Microgenesis
>>> is
>>>>>> what
>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>> get in eye tests, and logogenesis is what you get when you are
>>>> reading
>>>>>>>>> Zaza's article (and when you are reading this post).
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> David Kellogg
>>>>>>>>> Macquarie University
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> 
>> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an object
>> that creates history. Ernst Boesch
>>