RE: Appropriation, Part 2

nate (schmolze who-is-at students.wisc.edu)
Fri, 17 Jul 1998 15:07:37 -0500

In recently reading Vygotsky's text on "defectology", he mentioned a child
can do socially (collective) what s/he can not do individually. Vygotsky
mentioned this in the chapter on the collective. He was talking about
working with children w. cognitive/ learning disabilities. In this context
he did not appear to be arguing his famous line what a child can do socially
today, s/he can do individually tomorrow. He used the collective for the
child w/ a cognitive disability in the same way he argued for Braille for a
child who is blind. Vygotsky's argument appeared to be when biology puts up
a road block culture needs to find another way.

This appears to fit into the Gal'perin definition of appropriation. My
understanding of Vygotsky's thinking about the collective is a child could
achieve an intellectual level in the collective that might not be possible
individually. I am also reminded of Bruner's concrete-graphical-abstract
postulate that he posed originally in "Toward a Theory of Instruction". At
the time he viewed it in a stage like fashion. In his book "Culture of
Education" he argued, concrete-graphical-abstract were different ways of
knowing the world, not necessarily intellectual stages.

I personally like Gal'perin definition that makes up the three levels of
activity he called appropriation. I think the danger is the same as the
Bruner example, looking at it in a stage like way. I don't know if this
definition of appropriation gives a less human version of learning in the
ZPD. My personal feelings are it gives a more human view of the ZPD.
Abstract or what is called higher order thinking is more valued in some
communities or contexts than others. Without a broader view of
appropriation I think its less human not more.

Nate

Nate Schmolze
http://www.geocities.com/~nschmolze/
http://www.geocities.com/~nschmolze/default.htm
schmolze who-is-at students.wisc.edu