Re: David Kirshner <CIKIRS who-is-at LSUVM.SNCC.LSU.EDU>

David Kirshner (CIKIRS who-is-at LSUVM.SNCC.LSU.EDU)
Mon, 22 Dec 97 16:09:42 CST

Thanks Vera.
The days I had anticipated needing to respond to your note have turned
into weeks. But I'm glad to finally have had a chance to read your
article with Mahn (_Educational Psychologist, 3_, 191-206). I'd like to
consider briefly Cobb and Yackel's evaluation of internalization as
unidirectional transmission, which you see as "distorting sociocultural
theorists' views" (p. 197). In making this argument, you examine the
ways in which Leontiev and Chang-Wells & Wells have characterized the
notion of internalization in their work. You then go on to summarize
your own view that, in sociocultural theory
internalization is simultaneously an individual and a social process.
In working with, through, and beyond what they have appropriated in
social participation and then internalized, individuals coconstruct
new knowledge. (p. 197)
While I agree with you that sociocultural theorists have presented a
dynamic picture of internalization as a constructive process (rather
than as a transmissive process), I am also sympathetic to Cobb and
Yackel's conclusions. Without speaking for Cobb and Yackel, I can
guess that it is the _result_ of internalization that leads them to
their conclusion, not the process as characterized by sc theorists.
As long as the knowledge state of the individual changes to approximate
more closely that of the general cultural (as represented by the teacher
or an advanced peer) one can see in internalization a certain social
determinism. The issue, as I see Cobb and Yackel engaging with it,
is whether the knowledge of the community is reflexively constituted
with that of the individual. Their
solution in the "Emergent Approach" is to distinguish between the
"local community" (which is reflexively constituted) and the
broader cultural community (which is not). I know that sc theorists
claim that processes like internalization and appropriation are
not one-way streets, with unidirectional influence. For instance
in the _Construction Zone_ Newman, Griffin, and Cole (1989) note that
The appropriation process is always a two-way one. The tool
may also be transformed, as it is used by a new member of the
culture; some of these changes may be encoded in the culturally
elaborated tool, as the current sociohistorical developments
allow. (p. 63)
But it is difficult to understand how such bidirectional influence
is actually manifest. Thus the most significant difference between
Cobb and Yackel and sc theorists is their (C&Y) local community is a peer
community, whereas the ZPD in sociocultural theory is hierarchical:
learning is "under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable
peers" (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 86).

As I noted in my previous post, some sc theorists have engaged with
other parts of Vygotsky's legacy to focus on a text mediational view
(see Wertsch & Bivens, 1992, article in _Quarterly Newsletter_)
in which peer relations are more easily accounted for. This is in
contrast to a "modeling interpretation" which more easily accommodates
hierarchical relations. So I think that Cobb and Yackel are really
responding to an incomplete characterization of sociocultural theory.
But I'm not sure how --or even if-- the two sides of sc theory
can be reconciled.

Thanks again for the pointer to your very helpful _EP_ article.
All the best for the holiday, and my regards to RH.

David Kirshner

Department of Curriculum & Instruction
Louisiana State University
Baton Rouge LA USA 70803-4728
(504) 388-2332

On Mon, 8 Dec 1997 11:16:12 -0800 (PST) vera p john-steiner said:
>David,
>In the same issue of the Educational Psychologist that you mention in
>summarizing Cobb and Yackel, we address the issues they raise, and
>contrast it with our own interpretation of sociocultural theory
>(John-Steiner and Mahn). I would be very interested in your reaction to
>the section on internalization and on dialectics. (Both were cut by the
>editor, who also helped us to clarify some of the dense prose that these
>subjects tend to elicit.)
>Anyhow, I, too, am glad to have you back,
>Vera
>
>
>---------------------------------
>Vera P. John-Steiner
>Department of Linguistics
>Humanities Bldg. 526
>University of New Mexico
>Albuquerque, NM 87131
>(505) 277-6353 or 277-4324
>Internet: vygotsky who-is-at unm.edu
>---------------------------------
>
>