[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [xmca] zpd additional comment
Carol says:
Eric--I doubt if this is the case, as we would be like bees like a honey pot
if it had been written somewhere. There is certainly learning in the method
of double stimulation, but then we need a pretest (difficult to imagine) and
a statement that a special type of learning had occurred. Perhaps transfer
to another d/s task than the blocks could show a general shift.
Carol
2009/6/8 <ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org>
> Good point Michael.
>
> Would it be more specific to say that double-stimulation experiments
> formed the basis for the zpd?
>
> eric
>
>
>
>
> "michael" <mglevykh@telus.net>
> Sent by: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
> 06/05/2009 11:17 AM
> Please respond to "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity"
>
>
> To: "'eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity'" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> cc:
> Subject: RE: [xmca] zpd additional comment
>
>
> Well put, Steve.
>
> By the way, Eric, one of your earlier expressed assumptions that "much of
> his [Vygotsky] theorizing about the zpd was done based on the blocks" is
> not
> quite correct. To understand the basis of Vygotsky's ZPD, one has to go
> beyond what was written in the immediate physical proximity (whether a
> paragraph, section, or a chapter) of his writings on the ZPD. Vygotsky's
> entire theory of cultural development dynamically situated in (created by
> him) dialectically monistic paradigm along with all his analyses in units
> (including the latest, perezhivaniye) served as a platform for his notion
> of
> the ZPD.
>
> 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: Friday, June 05, 2009 8:37 AM
> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> Subject: Re: [xmca] zpd additional comment
>
>
> Very well thought out response Steve. To analyse into units does seem to
> explain better the process of a socio-cultural exploration of development.
>
> Michael, perhaps the scenario of a one-on-one tutor is all wrong. Perhaps
>
> the literature needs to be culturally situated in a manner that isn't
> sterile? With socio-cultural relevance perhaps that 18 year old can move
> to the zpd required for developing the higher psychological process of
> reading?
>
> Just thinking out loud. Moving my inner speech to a cultural context.
>
> eric
>
>
>
>
> Steve Gabosch <stevegabosch@me.com>
> Sent by: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
> 06/05/2009 06:49 AM
> Please respond to "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity"
>
>
> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> cc:
> Subject: 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
--
Visiting Researcher,
Wits School of Education
6 Andover Road
Westdene
Johannesburg 2092
011 673 9265 082 562 1050
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca