Re: [xmca] Fwd: playzone

[Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com>]

Hi Mike
Thank you for posting this article


 I want to draw attention to Penti's article on the creation of ZPD's as a
perspective which links up ideas and processes that are so often
differentiated into what are considered separate world's of existence.  Her
article has also given me a little window into David Kellogg's passionate
elaboration of the distinctions between teacher scaffolding of learning and
creating "zones" of development.

[I will add that Paul Thibault's perspectives {in MCA 2000, Vol. 7, Issue 4,
p291-311} are lurking in the background of my thoughts but I'm still trying
to develop the background knowledge required to incorporate his ideas as
related to ZPD's.

The question that is forming as I read David's, Penti's and Paul Thibault's
reflexive dialogues on dialogical open ended development is:

"Why do we emphasize the differences between "play" and "learning" which
create historically constituted boundaries?  Could a case be made for
interweaving play and learning into a single dialogical zone of
intersubjective development?

In other words, could the processes amplified in our notions of play
[narrative intersubjective activity] and the processes amplified in our
notions of developmental learning [informational propositional cognition] be
an artifactual dichotomy of how we structure and form our particular
sociohistorical institutional arrangements.

Is there a possibility that Playworld ZPD's, and school ZPD's are describing
the SAME underlying processes, but different aspects are  amplified - and
"biased"  as we develop our theories by "looking" for different aspects of a
common human dialogical process of living in the world.  As we "leave play
behind" and engage in "formal" learning" in "preparation for" WORK are we
creating artifactual stages that separate vital human processes that are
central to development.

Another theme that runs through my question of a single developmental
process is the human "desire" for PROXIMITY and the creation of zones of
PROXIMITY [intersubjectivity] and the equally powerful "desire" for
EXPLORATION and open ended novelty and newness.  This is where my
speculations from "attachment theory" come in.  Are the PURSUIT of PROXIMITY
[and the metaphor of "containment] and the desire for exploration LINKED?
In other words notions such as Winnicott's "holding environment" the
creation of "third spaces" etc as ZONES of PROXIMAL CONTAINMENT may be
PRIMARY [in time scale] to create the dialogical space in which a capacity
for AGENCY is constituted [within top down dialogical scalar level] BEFORE
the infant or child VENTURES FORTH in exploration and subjective engagement
in the world.

I recognize I am making a case to BIAS the PURSUIT of PROXIMITY as
foundational in the zones WE [emphasize WE] constitute and from which we
venture forth.  In play worlds, when the pursuit of proximity is treatened
by rupture and separation the "zone" collapses as the play STOPS [until
through dialogue WE negotiate and find OUR way back to a place of
CONTAINMENT]  I wonder if LEARNING WORLDS are fundamentally different OR if
learning zones also need to accomodate the "desire" for the PURSUIT of
PROXIMITY and CONTAINMENT in the formation of an INTERSUBJECTIVE ZONE of
learning.  When play AND learning LEAD development is there COMMON GROUND
[in the PURSUIT of PROXIMITY] that CONSTITUTES AGENTIC CAPACITY.  When
agentic capacity and a "sense of self" is "internalized" developmentally the
person is no longer "determined" by the "here & now" pursuit of proximity
BUT threaten the self's core intersubjective need for proximity and the
result may be that exploration [learning] is put at risk as the person's
energy re-orients to attend to the pursuit of proximity.   Play worlds are
often described as zones of "exploration" and I agree that for development
to flouish play worlds must constitute exploration and creativity.  However,
in order for playworlds to constitute exploratory activity there must first
be constituted a dialogical zone of PROXIMITY that is intersubjective "all
the way down".
I think it is easier to make the case for PROXIMITY as the common ground in
play worlds.  However, as the young child develops and moves into formal
school settings are the desires for zones of proximity "transcended" when
"agentic capacity" is "developed" OR does the need for zones of dialogical
proximity continue to be the common ground for exploration, creativity, and
emergence.  In other worlds [different from the play world]  do our basic
needs and desires for zones of proximity become "transcended" or only
incorporated into new formations [that are constituted by the socio
historical institutional structures of our cultural worlds]

I am not sure how "basic" are the needs for "containment" {ie metaphors of
community, home, family, common ground} and "exploration" {creativity,
imagination etc"} or if they are only my own particular "biases" that have
emerged from my particular ontogenetic development.  However, the tensions
and relational links between the concepts of zones of intersubjective
proximity and the concepts of agentic intentional exploration seem to my
biased perspective to be "basic" needs. [AND LINKED at multiple scaler
levels -see Paul Thibault]

Penti Hakkarainen's and Milda Bredikyte's article posted was the trigger for
this extended reverie.

Larry






On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 6:19 PM, mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com> wrote:

> The attached paper addresses what is common to play and instruction such
> that they should both
> be sites for creation of zopeds. It appeared in the Russian,
> Cultural-Historical Psychology.
> Pentti is somewhere around xmca I believe
> mike
>
> __________________________________________
> _____
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
>


On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 6:19 PM, mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com> wrote:

> The attached paper addresses what is common to play and instruction such
> that they should both
> be sites for creation of zopeds. It appeared in the Russian,
> Cultural-Historical Psychology.
> Pentti is somewhere around xmca I believe
> mike
>
> __________________________________________
> _____
> 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