RE: [xmca] empirical evidence (Kohlberg et al., 1968 testing Vygotsky)

[Peter Smagorinsky <smago@uga.edu>]

Interesting, I've always known Kohlberg as very Piagetian moral reasoning researcher, upon whose work the very Piagetian field of character education often builds (it tends to insist that there are culture-free, universal character traits--an easy claim to contest given that other moral/character systems are available from cross-cultural studies). 

-----Original Message-----
From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Anton Yasnitsky
Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2012 8:38 PM
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: Re: [xmca] empirical evidence (Kohlberg et al., 1968 testing Vygotsky)

Just a comment on Kohlberg testing Vygotsky in mid-1960s. The study in question is --


Kohlberg, L., Yaeger, J., & Hjertholm, E. (1968). Private speech: Four studies and a review of theories. Child Development, 39, 691-736


Google Scholar citation count -- 261 as of now: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=8982706064146684803&as_sdt=2005&sciodt=0,5&hl=en


Kohlberg et al. addressed the controversy between Piaget and, on the other hand Vygotsky-Luria as it emerged in the presentation of the 

latter at the IX International Congress of Psychology. The references to the two Soviet authors mentioned in the Kohlberg et al. paper are:

* Vygotsky, L. Thought and language. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press, 1962.
* Vygotsky, L., & Luria, A. The function and fate of egocentric speech. Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Psychology [New Haven, Conn., 1929]. Princeton: Psychological Review Co., 1930.
AND
* Luria, A. R. The role of speech in the regulation of normal and abnormal behavior. New York: Liveright, 1961.

For Vygotsky, Kohlberg, of Harvard, certainly would not need mediation of Flavell: the book had come out in 1962, and was orchestrated by the bunch of guys at Harvard, which clearly was a stronghold of Vygotsky's admirers back then, i.e. in 1960s and 1970s. 

Generally, from historical perspective this looks like a very interesting study that deserves serious consideration from scholars interested in the history of the dissemination of Soviet/Vygotsky's psychological ideas. Thanks, Francine, for very interesting reference.

AY



________________________________
 From: Martin Packer <packer@duq.edu>
To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2012 4:51:35 PM
Subject: Re: [xmca] empirical evidence
 
I've been following up on some of Francine's leads, reading Furster's book on-line, together his 2001 article on the prefrontal cortex, reading which has fit nicely with my plan to catch up on the literature about X-system and C-system in social neuroscience, and systems 1 and 2 in cognitive science. A couple of observations...

First, I have some sympathy with Anton's view that the lower/higher functions distinction can be an overly simple dichotomy, and that LSV was in the process of at least revising it, and perhaps replacing it, when he died. But if so it is ironic that right now several areas of psychology are in the middle of a grand exploration of "dual systems" - of automatic and controlled psychological processes, with different neural substrates - and LSV's work has, as Francine points out, some direct relevance there. One might argue that we should hold onto LSV's terminology at least long enough to engage those researchers in a debate that both we and they could learn from.

Second, I am starting to think that a decade or more of brain research has led, seemingly paradoxically, to a greater appreciation of the role of culture in psychological functioning and development, rather than to more biological reductionism. Reflecting on the kinds of things that have been found by brain researchers that implicate culture, this is my list so far - I am sure more can be added: Plasticity, at the cost of innate capability; extended course of synaptogenesis and myelination; the importance of functional units, integrated assemblies, networked and hierarchical; brain development requires adequate stimulation, provided by adults, directly and by creating the environment; limbic structures have social & familiar functions; frontal cortex depends on both lower cortical regions and external structuring; brain changes associated with tool use.

What else have we learned about the brain that implies the centrality of culture? And what other empirical evidence do we have? And I will start to work around to the self-directed speech literature that Francine has pointed to. (How was it that Kohlberg was testing LSV in 1968?? Was it Flavell's influence?)

Martin


On Jun 24, 2012, at 10:04 AM, larry smolucha wrote:

> 
> Message from Francine:
> Martin,
> Another book that has is excellent review of the research literature on private speech isPrivate Speech: From Social Interaction to Self-Regulation Diaz & Berk Eds. 1992.Chapter 5 is my contribution to that book based on my dissertation (1991) at the U. of Chicago(Chapter 5  titled Social Origins of Private speech in Pretend Play, pp 123-143).
> Laura Berk (Illinois State University) authored some excellent research documentingthe emergence of private speech (in Appalacian whites) and its beneficial role for hyperactive individuals.And, there is also the earlier Kohlberg, et. a. study of private speech published in 1968.
> My dissertation played a pivotal role in changing the pretend play paradigm because it providedincontestable empirical evidence of how mothers show toddlers (age 14 to 28 months) how to use objectsubstitutions during pretend play (and then gradually diminish their supportive role.)The field of pretend play research in the USA had been dominated by the Piagetian paradigm. A detailed review of the pretend play research literature,, documenting the shift from Piagetian to Vygotskian perspectives is found in Smolucha & Smolucha Social Origins of Mind: Post-Piagetian Perspectives on Pretend Play in Multiple perspectives on play in Early Childhood (Saracho & Spodek Eds.) 1998, pp.34-58. 
> David Wood's (University of Nottingham) research on how mother's scaffold a construction task with blocksis also excellent (book titled How Children Learn). And there is Jim Wertsch's early study on the development ofprivate speech and its self-guiding role during puzzle assembly.
>> Subject: Re: [xmca] empirical evidence
>> From: packer@duq.edu
>> Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 22:22:34 -0500
>> To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>> 
>> Thanks, Francine. These are very helpful suggestions.
>> 
>> Martin
>> 
>> On Jun 23, 2012, at 7:12 PM, larry smolucha wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> Message from Francine regarding Martin's question about citing the strongestempirical evidence that deliberate and conscious systems require cultural mediation:
>>> Once again, I mention the substantial research literature on verbal regulation ofpsychological functions and its relation to the maturation of the prefrontal cortices. The research literature on how the verbal guidance of a more knowledgeable personis internalized as private self-guiding speech, and then as silent inner speech, hasbeen supported by developmental neuroscience on the maturation of theprefrontal cortices. 
>>> See Smoluchas 2012 publication Vygotsky's Theory of Creativity: Figurative Thinking Allied with Literal Thinking -p. 66 cites a recent review of the research literature on private speech by Winsler et. al. (2009) Private SpeechExecutive Functioning, and the Development of Verbal Self Regulation and p. 81 cites Joaquin Fuster's bookThe Prefrontal Cortex which even contains a discussion of Vygotsky-Luria's model of self-regulatory inner speechas it relates to the creative imagination and the distinct maturation of the left and right prefrontal cortices. Note: the left and right prefrontal cortices do not communication directly to one another and have been shownto have different executive functions. My 2012 paper also cites Adele Diamond's neuroscience research on the self-regulatory benefits of verbally guided pretend play in the Tools of the Mind curriculum (Bodrova & Leong).But then none of this is Activity Theory.
>>> Is there a prevalent bias among Activity Theory proponents to 
>>> disregard substantial empirical research supportingVygotsky's 
>>> traditional concepts?When I was presenting at the ISCRAT conference 
>>> in 2002 in Amsterdam, there was a session on play -the moderator 
>>> made the uninformed claim that Vygotsky's theory of play had been 
>>> overlooked by researchers.On the contrary, there already was an 
>>> extensive research literature on Vygotsky's theory of play - but it 
>>> was from the traditionalVygotsky theory not Activity Theory. 
>>> Never-the-less, that traditional view of Vygotsky's theory of play 
>>> had madeVygotsky's theory one of the most influential theories in 
>>> preschool education (based on substantial empirical evidence 
>>> ofculturally mediated play activities.)
>>>> From: packer@duq.edu
>>>> Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 16:26:07 -0500
>>>> To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>> Subject: [xmca] empirical evidence
>>>> 
>>>> We had about 5 topics swirling around together over the past few days, and I hope the discussions continue. But somewhere in the middle I sent the message copied below, which seems not to have arrived on the XMCA server. Someone recently asked me what evidence I have that culture makes a difference to human psychological functioning, and I want to pass the question along. What do each of you consider to be the best evidence we have that culture is constitutive of psychology?
>>>> 
>>>> Martin
>>>> 
>>>> Here's what I sent two days ago:
>>>> 
>>>> What would people say is the strongest empirical evidence we have that LSV was correct in his claim that the HPFs, deliberate and conscious systems, require cultural mediation?
>>>> 
>>>> Martin
>>>> 
>>>> On Jun 21, 2012, at 8:42 AM, Peter Smagorinsky wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks Anton. I'm working from Smolucha's translation and accompanying commentary, so perhaps am not so much looking for additional proof, but rather trying to grasp the claim as made and illustrated in her article on creativity.
>>>>> 
>>>>> But then, perhaps that's too limiting. I must wonder about my own reading of LSV if I've missed all the different versions of higher mental processes. It's possible that I seized on the first notion I could understand--that higher mental processes are those specific to a culture, and thus those that embody cultural concepts so that they guide activity--and interpreted the others in light of that schema. 
>>>>> 
>>>>> I see creativity as being a capability through which such concepts may be developed, within existing channels and contours. But--and I hope I'm not repeating myself excessively--creativity itself seems more the engine of development than the product of development. Particular sorts of creativity seem cultural, if national art forms are taken as examples (Dutch painters chose topics, styles, and forms quite different from those that occupied French impressionists or Magdalenian cave wall artists). But creativity itself doesn't strike me as the cultural framework through which these genres of expression were produced, but rather a "lower" psychological process that is widely shared rather than culturally specific.
>>>>> 
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu 
>>>>> [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Anton Yasnitsky
>>>>> Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2012 9:06 AM
>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>>>>> Subject: Re: [xmca] Smolucha - pronunciation/genealogy
>>>>> 
>>>>> Like I said, I am under the impression that Vygotsky's expression 
>>>>> "higher psychological [mental] functions" for Vygotsky means so 
>>>>> many things (although in different texts authored in different 
>>>>> periods of his life) that it is bordering on total 
>>>>> meaninglessness. Therefore, rephrasing our character, "everything 
>>>>> can be ... higher mental function", no problem with that :)
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thus, if I may reformulate the question, we are looking for the textual proof that Vygotsky did refer to creativity as higher mental/psychological function, right, Peter?
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> AY
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> P.S.
>>>>> 
>>>>> By the way, speaking of mental/psychological, here is a funny thing: despite his virtually boundless flexibility in many respects, Vygotsky NEVER used the word "mental" (literally: psychic, psychical -- psikhicheskie) when he referred to functions, but only "psychological". Later on, this phrase was pretty consistently "corrected" by his devoted best students in many --but not all--of his posthumous publications of  Soviet period. Curious detail, isn't it? A recent study that has been done back in Germany demonstrates this mysterious peculiarity of Vygotsky's discourse of his lifetime period as opposed to his posthumous publications, and will be published shortly in several international languages in PsyAnima, Dubna Psychological Journal ( http://www.psyanima.ru/journal/2011/4/index.php ).
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>> From: Peter Smagorinsky <smago@uga.edu>
>>>>> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>>>>> Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2012 6:23:57 AM
>>>>> Subject: RE: [xmca] Smolucha - pronunciation/genealogy
>>>>> 
>>>>> In any case, in service of the scholarly discussion, I'm genuinely 
>>>>> puzzled by the idea that creativity is a higher mental function, 
>>>>> and would appreciate further clarity to that provided by Anton. 
>>>>> Thx,p
>>>>> 
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu 
>>>>> [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Peter 
>>>>> Smagorinsky
>>>>> Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2012 6:20 AM
>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>>>>> Subject: RE: [xmca] Smolucha - pronunciation/genealogy
>>>>> 
>>>>> My apologies to Francine if my mnemonic sounded snide--I was going 
>>>>> from the pronunciation guide on the article that I had scanned, 
>>>>> and I have no idea of who put it there. With a name like 
>>>>> Smagorinsky (which also might be an Ellis Island adjustment), 
>>>>> making fun of people's names is not usually part of my approach. 
>>>>> I'm glad to have the correction. Peter
>>>>> 
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu 
>>>>> [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of larry smolucha
>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2012 9:22 PM
>>>>> To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>>> Subject: [xmca] Smolucha - pronunciation/genealogy
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Message from Francine Smolucha:
>>>>> I have been a member of XMCA for several years - anyone could haveasked me how to pronounce my last name.
>>>>> I not surprised that the discussion of the work my husband and I have donebegins with a snide comment about our last name.Growing up in Chicago as a Polish-American, other ethnic groupswould often make fun of your last name, and tell insulting Polish jokes abouthow stupid Poles are. Polish immigrants often had their last names Americanizedby immigration officials at Ellis Island. In order for other ethnic groups to be able topronounce, and spell a Polish last name, Poles would typically use an easy English pronunciation.
>>>>> My husband's family would usually say Smo-lou-ka.Some family members would say Smo-lou-cha.The proper Polish pronunciation is Smo-whoo-ha (Smolucha has an umlaut over the u).The Smolucha family 'Y' chromosome is Scandinavian (Vikings who settled Eastern Europecirca 800 A.D.) - we had the National Geographic Society's Genoanthropology project do aDNA analysis.
>>>>> When I married into the Smolucha family, I chose to use my married name out of respect formy husband's family. By the way, my maiden name is Polish too.
>>>>> As I have been working on my new paper titled "A Vygotskian Theory of Cultural Synergy andCultural Creativity", my conversation with a Latin-American colleague required that I debunksome popular misconceptions about 'white ethnics.' So I retell the story here:
>>>>> My own family is 'Celtic' Polish in origin (the Krakov area was 
>>>>> settled by Celts, Vienna was originally a Celtic village). The 
>>>>> European Celts disappeared from history. Poland itself did not 
>>>>> existfor over 150 years (from approximately 1760 until 1918) - 
>>>>> while it was divided among Prussia(then Germany), Austria, and 
>>>>> Russia. [The Palestinian loss of statehood is not unique in 
>>>>> history.]One of my great grandmothers ran an illegal underground 
>>>>> school in her farmhouse near Vilna where she taught children how 
>>>>> to read and write the Polish language. The Czar had orderedanyone 
>>>>> doing so to be shot. Her son (my grandfather) had to be smuggled 
>>>>> out of St. Petersburgon a cattle ship bound for Canada after the 
>>>>> aborted 1905 Russia revolution - he was a memberof a student group 
>>>>> being hunted down by the Czar's orders. Back in Krakov, my other 
>>>>> grandfatherwas serving in Austrian Emperor Franz Joseph's 'Polish' 
>>>>> cavalry (Austrian occupied Poland beingrenamed Galactia) -
 grandpa's wife was Spanish Hapsburg.
>>>>> My parents, both first generation Americans, did not attend high school, instead my Dad worked in the Chicago Stock Yards as a teenager (you might recall Upton Sinclair's book The Jungle.)My mom was a factory girl. They grew up in that famous Chicago ghetto known as Back-of-the-Yards.Five months after they were married, Pearl Harbor was attacked -  my Dad served in the Army fieldartlllery, doing four beachheads in the South Pacific (Aleutians, Kwajelian, Philippines, & Okinawa).His unit would have landed in the first wave in the Invasion of Japan - which was cancelled whenJapan surrendered after the atomic bombs were dropped. Mom spent the war years building fighterplanes in a defense plant - yes, Rosie the Riveter.
>>>>> We come from a family heritage of people who think for themselves and are honor bound to do theright thing.
>>>>> If anyone is interested in discussing the Vygotsky Theory of Creativity that we have been publishing in thelast 27 years, I welcome the scholarly discourse. In addition to my 1992 Reconstruction of Vygotsky'sTheory of Creativity, you might read our 2012 publication Vygotsky's Theory of Creativity: Figurative thinking Allied withLiteral Thinking [in Contemporary Perspectives on Research in Creativity in Early Childhood Education}.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>                        __________________________________________
>>>>> _____
>>>>> 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


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