[Xmca-l] Re: Thank you to Peter

[Huw Lloyd]

Yes, HMF as something discrete is a red herring (and more a result of
construing it in a categorical fashion). Better to consider it as a
conjoining perspective. The chalk drawing is nicely evocative of different
perspectives at play (what I call active orientation because 'perspective'
and 'goal' connote conscious functions in English). I am working on a
technical account of it all, and so have some confidence in my assertions.

Best,
Huw



On 27 April 2018 at 11:41, Peter Smagorinsky <smago@uga.edu> wrote:

> But I suspect that walking can play a role in developing a higher mental
> process (psych function). A hunter walks in a way quite different from a
> yuppie doing a power walk, and each serves a cultural purpose. There's more
> to the walk than just walking, I think. So yes, I do see a ZND at work when
> learning how to walk in a goal-directed way, mediated by surroundings both
> physical and psychological, that allow for entry into and participation in
> a community of practice.
>
> -----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 <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> 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.
> > >>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>