Eric:
You wrote:
>>Thereby, it is my opinion that the zpd
>>falls within the ontogentic level of development.
>>Co-construction falls within the phylogenetic
>>level of development.
in response to Armando's saying:
>>I dont like to look at ZPD as individual but as
>>a colective interperson al situation. This means that
>>ZPD do not belong to an individual but it is
>>constructed or co-constructed.
It is interesting that Davydov, in Problems of Developmental
Instruction, writes of the zpd as a concretization of another
of Vygotsky's concepts -- that of the transformation of
interpsychical into intrapsychical processes, i.e.
internalization.
>From that point of view, wouldn't it make sense to
speak of the zpd as belonging not strictly to the individual or
to the collective, but to the transition between them?
(Or their dialectical unity?)
Also -- I am very interested in Armando's question of the relation
of the zpd to the social situation of development. Both Chaiklin
and Davydov speak of the leading activity as a concretization of
the social situation of development, by the way.
But I'm not clear on what is the relation between the zpd and the
social situation of development. Can anyone help on this? Or
supply some references?
Thanks,
Peter
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Feb 01 2007 - 10:11:31 PST