[Xmca-l] Re: ZPD

[Simangele Mayisela]

Sorry, Marc …

       Dr. Simangele Mayisela
Senior Lecturer, Ed. Psychologist
Department of Psychology, SHCD.
   Wits University, Johannesburg
          Tel: 011 717 4529

From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Simangele Mayisela
Sent: 31 March 2019 08:33 PM
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: ZPD

Dear Wagner, marc and David

Thank for affording us  moment to check what we think we have grasped and got to know. I may be having a primitive understanding of the three concepts, have been consolidated from reading your communique.

I think the PLD level of development is socially determined, however it is also determined by the biological, i.e. phenotypical – which I think it is the one that is  determined by years – since generally human being can develop certain mental skills at particular age ranges, although there are exceptions to the norm – based on cultural exposure of the child.

The ADL is determined as an aftermath –once the child had acquired he skill. It can be determined earlier or later than the PLD depending on whether the child receives social intervention or not, or in the worst case scenario, it may not even come to fruition if there is no stimulation at all.

The ZPD is therefore what happens between the PLD (the goal the teacher is working towards through activity) and the ALD (the acquisition of the skills, which can be measured as whether adequate or not – novice or expert depending on where one is based) to determine further intervention for remaining ZPD to improve the current ALD  towards the PLD.

All the best,
R,
S’ma





       Dr. Simangele Mayisela
Senior Lecturer, Ed. Psychologist
Department of Psychology, SHCD.
   Wits University, Johannesburg
          Tel: 011 717 4529

From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu<mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Marc Clarà
Sent: 30 March 2019 10:59 AM
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu<mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: ZPD

Dear Wagner,
In my view, the ZPD is the dialectical tension between the PLD and the ALD. So the ZPD, in my understanding, is neither the PLD nor the ALD, but the dialectical tension (or distance) between the two, which is what pushes conceptual development through a process of self-development.
In my view, the Social Situation of Development is what makes possible this dialectical tension between the PLD and the ALD. In order to enable this tension, the child must intellectually imitate a meaning at a level of generality which is beyond her ALD. This is only possible if this meaning is formed by others in the Social Situation of Development of the child (a system of social relationships involving the child). So the Social Situation makes the PLD available to the child; that is, the Social Situation offers a meaning which is formed at a level of generality in which the child cannot form meanings, and then the child intellectually imitates this meaning, and this enables a dialectical tension between the PLD and the ALD (a ZPD).
All the best,
Marc.


Missatge de Wagner Luiz Schmit <wagner.schmit@gmail.com<mailto:wagner.schmit@gmail.com>> del dia ds., 30 de març 2019 a les 2:35:
Hello,

So there is only two "concepts", the actual level of development and the zone or level of potential development, both measured in year because of a better way to measure them, right?

Usually I see ZPD (one concept) defined as the distance between actual level of development (another concept) and potential level of development (yet another concept).

And now the Kellogg points out the measure in years, I notice that almost never I saw it used this way, usually it is as if ZPD happens in a meeting, a class, a play... But if it measures the development of mental functions, them years make a lot more of sense.

And what about the relationship between ZPD and Social Situation of Development? I missed the point too much?

Wagner

On Fri, Mar 29, 2019, 18:53 David Kellogg <dkellogg60@gmail.com<mailto:dkellogg60@gmail.com>> wrote:
In his introduction to the Crisis at Three (p. 283 in the English Collected Works), Vygotsky uses "the zone of its (the critical age's) proximal development" to refer to...the subsequent age level, that is, preschool. This is quite consistent with all of the other things we know about the ZPD--it is measured in years (and not months or moments), those years are developmental years and not "passport" (i.e. calendar) years, and it is a diagnostic and not a pedagogical device.

Although both are measured in (develomental) years,  a "level" is not the same thing as a  "zone": the child functioning at the level of two developmental years is not the same thing as the zone of two developmental years which separates that child from the neonate. The level is the age period at which the child can function. The zone is the distance between two levels, e.g. the distance between the child at (developmental age) three and the child at (developmental) preschool age. The level is a milestone, but the zone is the distance between milestones.

The real level or real zone is not the same thing as the potential zone or potential level, precisely because the internalization of a function (vraschivaniya) takes years. If we find, for example, that it is literally true that the function the child can realize with assistance today is a function that the child can realize without assistance tomorrow--literally within twenty-four hours of instruction--all we have demonstrated is that this function is part of the actual level of development and not the next, or proximal, one.

This is why, in order to make the ZPD into a diagnostic and not a pedagogical tool, we need to know the pedological age levels whose zones, measured in years, it was designed to diagnose. We also need some way of diagnosing them that does not depend either on the calendar (passport years) or on the hated Binet-Simon tasks which Vygotsky used and criticized and which were later used to criticize him. These were what the ZPD was designed to replace.

(It seems to me that these two problems might make good special issues for MCA! I wonder....)

David Kellogg
Sangmyung University

New Article;

 David Kellogg (2019) THE STORYTELLER’S TALE: VYGOTSKY’S ‘VRASHCHIVANIYA’, THE ZONE OF PROXIMAL DEVELOPMENT AND ‘INGROWING’ IN THE WEEKEND STORIES OF KOREAN CHILDREN, British Journal of Educational Studies, DOI: 10.1080/00071005.2019.1569200<https://doi.org/10.1080/00071005.2019.1569200>

Some e-prints available at:

https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/GSS2cTAVAz2jaRdPIkvj/full?target=10.1080/00071005.2019.1569200




On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 5:22 AM Marc Clarà <marc.clara@gmail.com<mailto:marc.clara@gmail.com>> wrote:
Dear Wagner and other colleagues,
I'll try to briefly share my interpretation about this issue. In my understanding, the formation of a ZDP implies the intellectual (or meaningful) imitation (p.210) by the child of a meaning that has a level of generality at which the child cannot form meanings. For example, an adult publicly form the "true concept" of "living being", and a child at the stage of "complexes" forms an intellectual imitation of that meaning (which will be a "functional equivalent" of it). So, the child forms a meaning with a level of generality that is beyond her actual level of development. This enables a dialectic tension between this meaning, formed through intellectual imitation, and the meanings that the child can form spontaneously. This dialectic tension between meanings of different levels of generality generates a process of self-development (p.229) leading to the structural emergence of a new level of generality (p.231), at which the child will be now able to form meanings spontaneously.
So, when a child intellectually imitates a meaning at a level of generality at which she cannot form meanings spontaneously, this meaning shows the PLD of the child: the next level of generality at which the child will be able to spontaneously form meanings. This meaning enters into a dialectical tension with meanings that the child is already able to form spontaneously (her ALD). This dialectical tension between the PLD and the ALD is what pushes development and what turns the PLD of the child into her next ALD.
I have further developed this interpretation in the following paper:

Clarà, M. (2017). How Instruction Influences Conceptual Development: Vygotsky’s Theory Revisited. Educational Psychologist, 52(1), 50-62, DOI:10.1080/00461520.2016.1221765

(I can privately sent the manuscript if needed)

Best,
Marc Clarà
University of Lleida


Missatge de Wagner Luiz Schmit <wagner.schmit@gmail.com<mailto:wagner.schmit@gmail.com>> del dia dv., 29 de març 2019 a les 18:34:
Hello,

What is the difference between Zone of proximal development (ZPD) and Potential Level of Development (PLD)?

In thinking and speech (in the collected works v1 in English) Vygotsky defines ZPD and in page 209. It seems to me that he writes about the PLD also in page 211.

At page 209 PLD seems to be what children can do with the guidance of an adult. And that ZDP is the exact same thing.

At page 211 PLD can be understood as something that can enter the ZPD, so not the same as ZPD, so something that children can learn soon, but can not do even with help now (ZPD) and surely not alone. For me this makes more sense, since in this case the PLD would match the Social Situation of Development (SSD - collected works v5 pg 198), and the ZPD would be what is between the PLD and the Actual Level of Development (ALD). In other words the ZPD is the dialectical movement towards the devir, the PLD/SSD.

But at the same time in Mind in society (page 86) the same text is edited in a different way, stating that the PLD is what is written in page 209  from above, but, that the ZPD is what is between ALD and this PLD, i.e., what is between what children can do with help and what they can do alone. What exactly is this "between"?

Sorry if the answer seem to be obvious, but I am a bit lost here.

All the best,

Wagner Luiz Schmit
UNESP - Brazil
This communication is intended for the addressee only. It is confidential. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and destroy the original message. You may not copy or disseminate this communication without the permission of the University. Only authorised signatories are competent to enter into agreements on behalf of the University and recipients are thus advised that the content of this message may not be legally binding on the University and may contain the personal views and opinions of the author, which are not necessarily the views and opinions of The University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg. All agreements between the University and outsiders are subject to South African Law unless the University agrees in writing to the contrary.
This communication is intended for the addressee only. It is confidential. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and destroy the original message. You may not copy or disseminate this communication without the permission of the University. Only authorised signatories are competent to enter into agreements on behalf of the University and recipients are thus advised that the content of this message may not be legally binding on the University and may contain the personal views and opinions of the author, which are not necessarily the views and opinions of The University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg. All agreements between the University and outsiders are subject to South African Law unless the University agrees in writing to the contrary.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190331/993bf648/attachment.html