[Xmca-l] Re: Thank you to Peter

[Peg Griffin]

Whenever I see the drawing, Mike, I get pulled in by the direction of the arms and of the feet that are poking at the bottom of the gowns. 
I think I see three psyches in a moment of a little everyday struggle. 
Not sure how high the psychological functions are though, or even how many we should count them as.  The two women seem to be a nice example of distributed cognition with shared goals and impromptu coordinated actions but the little one seems headed in a different direction (to say nothing of a possible fall).  The women are already losing in the struggle as far as moving to their preferred location goes!  They aren't even looking where they're going.  But they are all three on a longer journey toward independent walking for all and both women are  looking at the little one who is, after all, the instantiation of that longer term goal, the independent walker whose walking will fade into an unnoticed operation unless troublesome circumstances bring it to the forefront.  

It certainly is magic and a bit mysterious, so a Zo-ped.  And unlike building construction scaffolding, not purpose made for a specific building with a pre-ordained shape and size.   Not sure I'd know a construction forest if I came upon one, so...  If by "forest" it means to call to mind some entity that is not bespoke and that allows for creative novel outcomes (i.e., our socio-cultural future!), then I'd like to think more about that.

Just outside of my seeing right now is something from Luria, too, about "disorganization" of closely related systems.  As my notes under the slide suggest, I regularly see in parent-child and teacher-child interactions that the parent or teacher gets messed up when they are acting in the development of the child.  For examples:  The mother knows verbatim a short book that the baby loves but she messes up the page turning.  At the end, when she just read the last page aloud, she turns the page, surprised to see it is the back cover so she ad-libs, "The end."   In the middle of the book, she turns a page, glances at the writing and then tries to "unstick" two pages as if she had skipped a page. Each time she has a small laugh at/with herself when she recognizes she was wrong. 

Peg

-----Original Message-----
From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of mike cole
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2018 10:59 PM
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Thank you to Peter

Now of only walking were a higher psychological function, Peg,
Peter might call that a zone of nearest development!

Or it might be seen as a kind of construction forest.  :-)

mike



On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 5:45 PM, Peg Griffin <Peg.Griffin@att.net> wrote:

> Apropos of Martin's observation of walking:  Here is a slide of a
> Rembrandt drawing.  I use it when starting to work with people who are or
> are planning to teach young children, especially if they are quite
> convinced that modeling the correct language or other behavior is essential
> and pretty much all that is essentially needed.
> There are a few casual notes under the slide that are just my attempts to
> get them to relax into some disconcerting-for-them viewpoints.
> Peg
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@
> mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Martin Packer
> Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2018 7:11 PM
> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Thank you to Peter
>
> I was thinking something similar, Henry. This seems to me one of those
> rare occasions where Vygotsky doesn’t have it quite right. I spend quite a
> bit of time watching kids walking with adults, because it’s a phenomenon I
> find quite fascinating. A child using a table for support while starting to
> walk is quite different from the ways that adults will actively help a
> child to walk, performing functions, such as balance, that the child is not
> yet capable of alone. Then, when the child *is* capable of walking alone,
> the adults have to be even more active: everyone knows that a toddler will
> head off in any direction that attracts their interest: now adults need to
> be what I think Bowlby called an ‘external ego.’
>
> Martin
>
> > On Apr 26, 2018, at 5:56 PM, HENRY SHONERD <hshonerd@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Peter, et. al.
> > In the text from Vygotsky, the “external objects” the child is making
> use of might be an “affordance” as per J.J. Gibson?  Something else comes
> to my mind in a child learning to walk is the risk of serious injury. Most
> adults would probably not knowingly let the child risk such injury. That
> would be endangerment in a court of law.
> > Henry
> >
> >
> >> On Apr 26, 2018, at 2:02 PM, mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu> wrote:
> >>
> >> Thanks Peter!
> >> Mike
> >>
> >> On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 12:59 PM Peter Smagorinsky <smago@uga.edu>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> In case anyone is interested in LSV's use of scaffolding, Rene sent me
> the
> >>> following. But it seems clear to me that he's not using it as Bruner
> did.
> >>> The scaffolding here is not designed by an adult, but rather involves a
> >>> child's use of available supports. The words might be more or less the
> >>> same, but the concept seems very different to me.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> See p. 226 of my Understanding Vygotsky (1991, with Valsiner), where I
> >>> observed that Vygotsky used the scaffolding metaphor in chapter 3 of
> >>> Vygotsky & Luria (Studies in the history of behaviour: Ape, primitive,
> >>> man,1930, p. 202).
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> And this is the text:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Let us recall how the child gradually learns to walk. As soon as his
> >>> muscles are strong enough, he begins to move about on the ground in the
> >>> same primitive manner as animals, using a naturally innate mode of
> >>> locomotion. He crawls on all fours; indeed one of the leading
> pedologists
> >>> of our day says that the very young child reminds us of a small
> quadruped,
> >>> rather like an “ape-like cat”. [39]That animal continues for some time
> to
> >>> move about in the same primitive manner; within a few months, however,
> it
> >>> begins to stand up on its legs: the child has started to walk. The
> >>> transition to walking is usually not clear-cut. At first the child
> makes
> >>> use of external objects, by holding on to them: he makes his way along
> >>> holding onto the edge of the bed, an adult’s hand, a chair, pulling the
> >>> chair along behind him and leaning on it. In a word, his ability to
> walk is
> >>> not yet complete: it is in fact still surrounded, as it were, by the
> >>> scaffolding of those external tools with which it was created. Within a
> >>> month or two, however, the child grows out of that scaffolding,
> discarding
> >>> it, as no more external help is needed; external tools have now been
> >>> replaced by newly formed internal neurodynamic processes. Having
> developed
> >>> strong legs, sufficient stability and coordination of movement, the
> child
> >>> has now moved into the stage of definitive walking.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:
> >>> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of mike cole
> >>> Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2018 12:58 PM
> >>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> >>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Thank you to Peter
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Makes good sense to me, Rob.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I do not have the same problem with proximal that Peter does, but
> >>> emphasizing the temporal ordering seems certainly right.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> With respect to scaffolding: The russian term is строительные леса  -
> >>> literally, "construction forests" -- think of the "scaffolding" around
> >>> public buildings that block the sidewalks and are a "forest" of pipes
> and
> >>> boards.
> >>>
> >>> Beats a gallows by a verst or two!
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> BUT, beware that Vygotsky and Luria, among others, used this very term
> at
> >>> times. There is interesting work by Arthur Bakkar and Anna Shvarts on
> this
> >>> very topic that I am hoping to get represented in MCA. Arthur has
> written
> >>> on this topic with empirical work in classrooms and makes a case for a
> >>> broad use of the term that converges very closely with. If there is
> >>> interest here, let me know, and i can post one of his papers.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> mike
> >>>
> >>> (the guy who believes that the proper English concept is a zoped)  :-)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 3:56 AM, robsub@ariadne.org.uk<mailto:
> >>> robsub@ariadne.org.uk> < robsub@ariadne.org.uk<mailto:
> >>> robsub@ariadne.org.uk>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> I just want to say thank you to Peter for introducing me to
> >>>
> >>>> "Deconflating the ZPD and instructional scaffolding".
> >>>
> >>>> https://www.researchgate.net/p
> >>>
> >>>> ublication/320579162_Deconflating_the_ZPD_and_instructional_
> >>>
> >>>> scaffolding_Retranslating_and_reconceiving_the_zone_of_proxi
> >>>
> >>>> mal_development_as_the_zone_of_next_development
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>> I have felt for a long time that there was something not quite right
> >>>
> >>>> about the way people conceive of both the ZPD (or, as I shall now call
> >>>
> >>>> it, the
> >>>
> >>>> ZND) and instructional scaffolding, but lacked the expertise to
> >>>
> >>>> analyse why. Now Peter comes and, with great authority, tells me that
> >>>
> >>>> I was thinking along the right lines. The irony of now being
> >>>
> >>>> officially A Retired Person is that I have the leisure to study these
> >>>
> >>>> things in the detail I needed when I was working and did not have the
> >>> time.....
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>> Just a couple of random thoughts around my reading of the article.
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>> I have always felt that "scaffolding" was a misnomer, a bad choice of
> >>>
> >>>> metaphor by those who originally coined it. The point of scaffolding,
> >>>
> >>>> the stuff you put on buildings, is that it is inflexible. It is
> >>>
> >>>> massive, rigid, and designed never to fall over with a worker on it.
> >>>
> >>>> Although I have never quite been in tune with the idea of
> >>>
> >>>> instructional scaffolding, it has always seemed to me that its point
> >>>
> >>>> must be flexibility - taking bits away from it must be at least as
> >>>
> >>>> important as putting them there in the first place. So, whenever I
> >>>
> >>>> think about instructional scaffolding, I first have to get past the
> >>> jarring metaphor. Perhaps I am too sensitive to words.
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>> I wonder also if the popularity of the "assisted-learning-today,
> >>>
> >>>> independent-performance-tomorrow" model is not just popularity with
> >>>
> >>>> teachers of teaching. Its short term focus and superficial specificity
> >>>
> >>>> make it appear to be very measurable, which makes it popular with
> >>>
> >>>> policy makers, especially in today's audit culture.
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>> The introduction of Moll and the idea of context being crucial was
> >>>
> >>>> also very illuminating. Something else for me to examine, dammit. But
> >>>
> >>>> also something that becomes obvious once it is pointed out because
> >>>
> >>>> CHAT and the activity triangle are all about context.
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>> This quote from p73 gives me pause for thought too. "Assuming that
> >>>
> >>>> instructional scaffolding will work because it is written into a
> >>>
> >>>> lesson plan overlooks the possibility that teacher and learner will
> >>>
> >>>> approach each other in ways that produce conflict over product and
> >>>
> >>>> process, with the student inevitably losing. Scaffolding, then, needs
> >>>
> >>>> to be viewed as an intensely relational process, one requiring mutual
> >>>
> >>>> understanding and negotiation of goals and practices." Teachers know
> >>>
> >>>> that (I would say) but policy makers, at least in this country, don't.
> >>>
> >>>> They love lesson plans and teachers are coerced into achieving the
> >>>
> >>>> aims in the lesson plan regardless of where the lesson is actually
> >>>
> >>>> going. The disjunction between what we know to be good teaching on the
> >>>
> >>>> one hand, and, on the other, the requirements of neoliberal audit
> >>> culture, becomes ever more stark.
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>> I hope I am making sense.
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >
> >
>