Dear Natalia,
Thanks - you cleared up your point for me (I was probably the only
confused one) and gave some great examples from LSV. I am in agreement
that some sort of clarity for the construct of development is an
important question. My interest here would be clarifying
teaching/learning/development in the dialectical mode you
explain...after all, there is development on the microgenetic and
ontogenetic levels, apart from others.
Phil
On 13/09/2005, at 7:55 AM, Natalia Gajdamaschko wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 19:18:17 +0700 philchappell@mac.com wrote:
>>
>> On 12/09/2005, at 10:12 AM, Natalia Gajdamaschko wrote:
>>
>>> I am always curious why people don't, for example, discuss the
>>> development
>>> of higher psychological functions versus lower psychological
>>> functions? Is
>>> Vygotsky's concept obsolete, not deserving, or falsified (if so, by
>>> whom?)?
>>
>> Dear Natalia,
>>
>> I'm unclear here - in my readings I see many references to the
>> development of both functions. Are you referring to the less common
>> phenomena of discussions of the dialectical developmental relationship
>> between the two? If so, this is certainly something I'm interested in,
>> too.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Phil
>>
>
> Hi Phill, Lois and Dear ALL,
>
> But Phill, don’t you agree --- this was exactly my question – IF the
> literature you mention discussed development of higher psychological
> functions (or lower psychological functions) WITHOUT discussing of
> "dialectical developmental relationship between the two", than ...
> that type
> of literature fails to excite me. (sorry)
> Or, to put it differently --perhaps, we do, indeed, "entertain
> different
> units of development when we speak of development?" here, as Lois
> formulated
> it in her message.
>
> How about development IS a formation of new functional systems,
> changing
> interfunctional dialectical relationships? Neoformation
> (novoobrazovanie)?
> Crisis of development? Do we really have a lot of literature discussing
> those issues?
>
> Yes, I do think that Vygotsky’s dialectical approach to development
> contrasts with traditional, more or less linear approaches that analyze
> development but do not explain the origins of the new psychological
> structures. I agree with Lois here.
>
> The issue is very complicated ... but may be only for me (??? cheers).
>
> Vygotsky wrote that:
> "if one holds the point of view [that] the process of intellectual
> changes
> that occur at adolescence can be reduced to a simple quantitative
> accumulation of characteristics already laid down in the thinking of a
> three-year old...the word development does not apply" (p. 29, Vol.5 ).
>
> Instead LSV suggested that
>
> “The age levels represent the integral, dynamic formation, the
> structure,
> which determines the role and relative significance of each partial
> line of
> development” (p. 196).
>
> At any given age we have so called central and peripheral lines of
> development:
> "The processed of development that are more or less directly connected
> with
> basic neoformation we shall call central lines of development and the
> given
> age and all other partial processes and changes occurring at the given
> age,
> we shall call paripheral lines of development. Processes that are
> central
> lines of development at one age become peripheral lines of development
> at
> the following age and conversely, peripheral lines of development of
> one age
> are brought to the forefront and become central lines since their
> meaning
> and relative significance in the total structure of development
> changes..."
> (p. 197 Vol.5).
>
> And Vygotsky formulated “the first law of the development and
> structure of
> higher mental functions which
> can be called the law of the transition from
> direct, innate, natural forms and methods of behavior to mediated,
> artificial mental functions that develop in the process of cultural
> development” (p. 167-168, Vol.5).
>
> In addition, I think that one of utmost important to LSV concept of
> development is the idea of “crisis of development.”
> Vygotsky wrote:“ Crisis are not temporary state, but the path of inner
> life.
> When we move from systems to destinies,
> to the birth and death of systems,
> we shall see this with our own eyes.”
>
>
> Cheers,
> Natalia.
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Oct 01 2005 - 01:00:11 PDT