[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [xmca] zpd additional comment

Discussions on xmca about units of analysis always get me thinking. Michael's response is a good reminder that a scientific unit of analysis for a given situation is derived not just from the **objects** under investigation, but also from the methodological perspective of the **investigator**. Always very good to keep this in mind.
A thought this conversation brings up for me stems from a point Holbrook Mahn made in a recent paper at ISCAR, **Vygotsky’s Analysis of the Unit “System of Meaning”**. He suggests that the term "unit of analysis" is not actually a correct translation of Vygotsky's discussion of this concept. Better might be "analysis into units."
"The phrase “unit of analysis” is often used in cultural-historical, sociocultural research, usually with an assumption that it is based on Vygotsky's methodological approach. In several places in the 1987 English translation of Thinking and Speech, the phrase “unit of analysis” is used in describing Vygotsky's analytical approach, even though this phrase does not appear in the Russian text. For example, the phrase “unit of analysis” occurs in Chapter 1 of Thinking and Speech on page 47. This phrase does not occur in the source text; the words that Vygotsky uses are: “eto otnosheniye soderzhitsya v izbrannoj nami yedinitse" (Vygotskij, 1934/2001, p. 13). Translated word for word, this phrase is: “this relationship is contained in the unit selected by us” – the word which has been transformed into “of analysis” can only be the adjective 
“izbrannoj” which indicates that the unit is “selected.” "

Mahn goes on to discuss Vygotsky's method.
"Vygotsky’s use of “analysis into units” to examine the origin and development of entities that result from the unification of distinct processes such as those of thinking and speaking that yield “the unified psychological formation of verbal thinking” (Thinking and Speech, [Plenum], 1987, p. 44) is often overlooked by researchers who use the concept “unit of analysis.” "
My take on Mahn's discussion is to view Vygotsky's approach as seeking more than just analytical "units" per se. Or, put another way, these "units" are much more complex and dynamic than meets the eye. This approach seeks to understand "units" as dialectical **unities** of opposing processes. In this view, the water molecule is not just an indivisible unit comprised of the elements oxygen and hydrogen. It is also a complex chemical process that is a **dialectical unity**, a transformation (sublation) of these elements, which are processes themselves, into a new kind of entity, a new kind of process. "Analysis into units" might be even more precisely expresses as "analysis into dialectical unities," which forces the question "what is a dialectical unity?", and especially, what is the dialectical unity **in this case**?
I believe that CHAT researchers and practitioners, as a rule, in practice, and many also explicitly, follow this dialectical approach. But the heritage of the Western ideological traditions behind mainstream social theory has a way of providing a manner of speaking that tends to reduce processes, especially opposing processes, to just "things" or "units," such as oxygen and hydrogen "atoms" and water "molecules". But this is just a bare starting point. What can get lost in such a manner of speaking is how Vygotskians try to search for the **opposing processes** that are being transformed (sublated) into new entities, new kinds of processes. Lacking dialectical terminology, methodological descriptions typical of Western bourgeois science can leave out things like motion and transformation, pointing to only static objects. This is why taking a careful look, as Mahn does, of what is meant by the term "unit of analysis" is helpful. 

So when Eric asks:
" ... [take the example of an] 18 year old functional illiterate who becomes serious about wanting to read. Providing numerous hours of tutoring ends in the student still at the picture stage of instruction. Is there a unit of analysis for this specific example?" ...
... I interpret this as asking about the contradictory processes that are involved in the relevant dialectical "unities" in this situation. For example, what are the opposing processes at work that are driving (or could drive - or for that matter, hinder) this student in moving from one developmental zone to another? What transformation will take place when these opposing processes combine into something new?
Some of these same (very abstract) kinds of questions may also be relevant for Mike's situation with his 4th grade friend who is struggling with multiplying minus numbers. I certainly have no particular insights into these situations, which others on this list have far more experience in than I do.
But I will venture one general idea. There may be some useful universal teaching principles involved, applicable to students of this or that age or situation, but there also may be some very individual questions of personal sense and meaningful experience (perezhivanie, another difficult to translate term Mahn discusses) involved, too, that must be taken carefully into account along with the content of the culturally established material. I am referring of course to Vygotsky's very enlightening distinction between personal sense and social meaning.
And therein lies the rub. Here, the teacher may have to be the one to do some developing and let the student teach them. This of course is part of the art of teaching, to figure out, by understanding the student (and the material), how to reach them **concretely**. At the same time, the personal sense of the student cannot really be conveyed in socially meaningful words because that is part of the nature of personal sense. So the teacher (as a teacher) can only reach out to it and interact with it by seeking to transform it. The consequence is a highly contradictory process for both the teacher and the student. An easy thing to cheer both of them on to work out! And sometimes, so terribly difficult and seemingly impossible a thing to do in practice ... 

- Steve



On Jun 4, 2009, at 1:58 PM, michael wrote:


Dear Eric,
I would certainly be willing to entertain the notion of a specific unit of analysis in your hypothetical example (although operationalization is not my 
field of expertise) if you were to reveal "where" your theoretical
foundations (philosophical, psycho-educational, historical, socio- cultural, 
and even mundane) are "situated."



Best,

Michael



Michael G. Levykh, Ph.D.



-----Original Message-----
From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca- bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] On 
Behalf Of ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 12:28 PM
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: RE: [xmca] zpd additional comment
Thank you for your reply Michael. The zpd is one of the most unique and
hard to qualify concepts. Indeed I agree that Vygotsky did not want to 

reduce people to their parts but rather take into account the entire
person, however, he does intimate that different aspects require further 

attention than others.  Much of his theorizing about the zpd was done

based on the blocks.  Solving the blocks presents a goal oriented

activity.  Some are quick to solve the blocks (interpreted as having a

large zpd) while others take more time and require more assistance

(interpreted as having a more narrow zpd); perhaps?  I am willing to

accept that I am incorrect on this.



For a specific example lets pick the WHO as being an 18 year old
functional illiterate who becomes serious about wanting to read. Providing
numerous hours of tutoring ends in the student still at the picture stage
of instruction. Is there a unit of analysis for this specific example? 



eric









"michael" <mglevykh@telus.net>

Sent by: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu

06/04/2009 02:02 PM

Please respond to "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity"
To: "'eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity'" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu > 

       cc:

       Subject:        RE: [xmca] zpd additional comment





Hello Eric,







Before choosing a specific unit of analysis (which resembles

operationalization, or defining the way how a specific concept can be
observed and measured, which in itself is a reduction since, as Vygotsky 

points out, many features of cultural development are not directly
observable), it might be useful to know what (or, in the case of zpd, WHO) 

exactly is being analyzed and on what theoretical foundations
(philosophical, psycho-educational, historical, socio-cultural, and even 

mundane) these analyses are grounded.
Claiming that ZPD develops the whole child, on the one hand, and choosing 

a

mere approximation, a measurable unit of analysis that does not quite
address its dynamic and holistic features within and of the dialectical 

paradigm, on the other hand, is irresponsible and, in my opinion, is a
complete disregard for the very "Vygotsky" he (Chaiklin, 2003) is trying 

to

"authenticate."
There is something more to Vygotsky's intended notion of the ZPD (like the
physical, spiritual, aesthetic, and ethical - things that go beyond the
stage of "ethical obedience" -- aspects of the child's personality) and 

its

usage than what is made explicit in his writing. It is possible that

Vygotsky was willing to articulate practical and theoretical matters

related
to the ZPD in the absence of precise entailments and relations to "other
aspects of the child's personality" because, although he did not have a
chance to do so, he intended to provide a much more detailed account on 

the
ZPD at a later time. Unfortunately, unless and until all the other aspects
of the child's personality (and whether they are specifically addressed by 

the ZPD) are made clear, the claim that the ZPD (as interpreted by

Chaiklin,

2003) addresses the whole child would appear to be unconvincing.







Michael G. Levykh, Ph.D.







-----Original Message-----
From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca- bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] On 

Behalf Of ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org

Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 6:43 AM

To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity

Subject: RE: [xmca] zpd additional comment











Hello Michael:
What are your thoughts on the actual unit being analysed? Like to know 



your thoughts on this.



eric



















"michael" <mglevykh@telus.net>



Sent by: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu



06/03/2009 09:00 PM



Please respond to "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity"
To: "'eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity'" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu > 



       cc:



       Subject:        RE: [xmca] zpd additional comment











Dear Ulvi and All (interested in ZPD),
While I agree that Chaiklin is "dead on in his analysis on [Vygotsky's]
ZPD," his analysis, in my humble opinion, is NOT "ALIVE" either. There is 



a
clear discrepancy in Chaiklin's (2003) interpretation of the ZPD. While he 



asserts that "the main features of the analysis of zone of proximal
development [concern the] whole child" (p. 50), his account of the whole 



child does not include explicit consideration of emotion. Yet, for



Vygotsky,
affect is the beginning and the end of the child's entire psychological
development. Quoting Pistrak (reference unknown), Vygotsky (2004) stated
that "The convictions that we may inculcate in school through knowledge, 



only grow roots in the child's psyche when these convictions are



reinforced
emotionally" (p. 55). Surely, when dealing with the development of the
whole child, it is of paramount importance (according to Vygotsky) not to
separate intellectual from emotional features of the child's development. 















Michael G. Levykh, Ph.D.























-----Original Message-----
From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca- bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] On 



Behalf Of ulvi icil



Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2009 12:13 PM



To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity



Subject: Re: [xmca] zpd























Many thanks















On 29/05/2009, ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org <ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org> wrote:


















Ulvi:



















here is a link to a comprehesive analysis of this concept:



















http://lchc.ucsd.edu/MCA/ZOPEDS/Chailklin.pdf



















Seth Chaiklin I believe is dead on in his analysis.



















eric









_______________________________________________









xmca mailing list









xmca@weber.ucsd.edu









http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca


















_______________________________________________







xmca mailing list







xmca@weber.ucsd.edu







http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca







_______________________________________________



xmca mailing list



xmca@weber.ucsd.edu



http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca











_______________________________________________



xmca mailing list



xmca@weber.ucsd.edu



http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca



_______________________________________________

xmca mailing list

xmca@weber.ucsd.edu

http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca





_______________________________________________

xmca mailing list

xmca@weber.ucsd.edu

http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca

_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca


_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca