[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [xmca] Re: microgenesis?
I would like to mention that I am enjoying *listening in* to this topic.
It is currently outside my ZPD to contribute, so am staying silent.
However, exploring the development of *present moments* [Daniel Stern's
term] is a topic that I'm appreciating trying to grasp through this
dialogue.
Larry
On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 1:42 PM, Huw Lloyd <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com>wrote:
> I was just writing my half-piece, when yours came in, Mike. If you go
> off-line cc me too, please.
>
> Actually, I think this is material that is central (and am busy
> studying/thinking about it). I'd be rather intrigued to hear how this
> topic is not relevant to other XMCAers.
>
> My 1/2 piece:
>
> I think the neoformation comprises the starting point for distinguishing
> development and learning. If one wanted to treat "microdevelopment" as a
> class of development, rather than a contributing (learning) step towards
> development, then microdevelopment would need to make clear this
> occurrence.
>
> Our 17 month year old went through quite a quick transformation of
> competently completing a wooden jigsaw-like puzzle recently (over a period
> of a week). From my observations, I think the key difference was practice
> at looking at photographic pictures and recognising corresponding similar
> objects. The week following a confused and much assisted attempt at the
> puzzles, he sat me down and completed the puzzle five times over
> unassisted. What I noticed is that he was looking much more at the edges
> of the pieces and scanning the slots, in addition to a memory for where
> they belong. I think this kind of looking entailed a new way of completing
> the task. And indeed his confidence in the task transformed his whole
> approach to it -- no more hiding of those frustrating pieces...
>
> I could think of alternative situations in which a learning act does not
> really assist with new set of relations between functions, but rather a
> further bedding down of a particular behaviour. But then there are many
> social occasions in which a refined technical expertise is required that,
> having passed a threshold of acceptance, will then support further
> development.
>
> The problem of ages seems, from my current readings, to be a bit weak.
> Whilst disavowing Piagetian stages it does seem to precariously follow
> along similar lines. The notion of culturally influenced/predicated ages
> seems in general fine to me, but again I would expect more than this, I
> think that for development in its fullness to occur we would need to be
> thinking about the continual demands upon the agent and their change in the
> object of their activity -- a certain degree of "uprooting", of going
> beyond comfort zones.
>
> Huw
>
>
> On 13 October 2012 21:33, mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi Andy--
> >
> > I made it home through a ton of LA traffic alive, which, microgenetically
> > feels good whatever the larger significance.
> >
> > When you write
> > "I personally regard it as a matter or "mere words" whether "child X at
> > last managing to recognize the difference between d and b today," for
> > example, is described as a development" it is clear that you and I are
> not
> > close enough to the same topic for me to know how to make progress.
> >
> > It also appears that no more than four of the some 700 people on xmca
> > give a damn about this topic, so lets go offline about it, cc'ing Greg,
> and
> > David,
> > if he has patience to hang with us.
> >
> > mike
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 8:44 AM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
> >
> > > **
> > > Yeah, whoever translated Vygotsky's "Problem of Age" is responsible. It
> > > just means *gradual*. So in a process of development, you have
> > > alternating critical and lytical phases, as in stepwise processes.
> > >
> > > Andy
> > >
> > > Greg Thompson wrote:
> > >
> > > Apologies for the intrusion, but I had a quick point of clarification,
> > for
> > > the uninitiated, what is meant by "lytic"?
> > > (all I could come up with pertained to "lysis" or the breaking down of
> > > cells - which would seem to suggest a different sense of "development"
> -
> > a
> > > breaking down so that things can be reintegrated. Is that the idea?).
> > > -greg
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 9:15 AM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>
> wrote:
> > >
> > >> I don't know where Americans being dolts comes into it, Mike. Some of
> my
> > >> best friends are Americans. :) But let's move on from that.
> > >>
> > >> The point, as I see it, is trying to extract from what we can
> reaonsably
> > >> understand Vygotsky to be saying, something which we believe could be
> > >> correct and significant. To do this I think we have to understand the
> > >> concept of "development" always in a particular context. A truism for
> > >> anyone here I think. What it means to me is that I cannot just ask:
> what
> > >> transformations in psychological functioning constitutes
> "development"?
> > The
> > >> necessary, relevant context is what role in what cultural and
> historical
> > >> community is the person to play, in the short term and in the longer
> > term.
> > >> So the question of what constitutes development is age-specific,
> > culturally
> > >> specific and future-oriented.
> > >>
> > >> (Of course, the world changes, and what was development yesterday may
> > >> become oppressive and detestable tomorrow and vice versa, but let's
> > >> abstract from cultural and historical change for the moment.)
> > >>
> > >> >From the standpoint of natural science what I have posed is an
> > absurdity
> > >> and incompatible with basic tenets of science ... because I have made
> > >> development dependent on events and relations in the future. In my
> > opinion,
> > >> that is just as it should be: kids go to school "for a purpose" -
> > although
> > >> what we mean by "purpose" in this context (the child's? the parents'?
> > the
> > >> state's? in retrospect? under advice? sponatneous?). But again, let's
> > just
> > >> put the problems arising from the idea of human actions being part of
> > >> object-oriented activities to the side for the moment.
> > >>
> > >> So you ask: "what does the word DEVELOPMENT mean in the concept of a
> > zone
> > >> of proximal DEVELOPMENT?"
> > >>
> > >> I have to ask /which/ zone of proximal development, which crisis or
> > lytic
> > >> period are we talking about. Now I guess we can manage to give a
> general
> > >> answer to the question: general questions require general answers.
> What
> > >> "development" means is relative to which ZPD you are talking about. On
> > the
> > >> other hand, the presence of the ZPD itself depends on the development
> > being
> > >> posed. Achievment of a specific new mode of action with those around
> > you,
> > >> transforming your relations and your identity and your actions in the
> > >> social situation depends on the expectations of those around you,
> > according
> > >> to broader cultural expectations and possibilities.
> > >>
> > >> A teacher or other "helper" interested in fostering development (if
> they
> > >> can be presumed to reflect general, broader cultural expectations) has
> > in
> > >> mind what new functioning will be a necessary step towards the child
> > >> becoming an autonomous citizen of the community.
> > >>
> > >> As Vygotsky insists, this poses for the child and her "helper" two
> > >> different kinds of situation: either /lytical/ development or
> /critical/
> > >> development. Lytical development is gradual and prepares the basis for
> > >> developmental leap. To argue whether the gradual progress made in
> > >> strengthening the relevant psychologhical functions in this phase is
> or
> > is
> > >> not development is in my opinion /just words/. Gradual accumulation of
> > >> strength in those activities which the child is basically able to do,
> > but
> > >> maybe not very confidentally and well is a necessary preparation for
> > >> transcending their age-role and entering into a phase of critical
> > >> development in which they have a chance of successfully coming out the
> > >> other side. It is by completion of the critical phase of development -
> > the
> > >> leap - which transforms the child's identity and role, that "/the
> > >> development" is realised/. All the preparation in the world proves to
> be
> > >> not development if it is not realised in facilitating the critical
> > >> transformation.
> > >>
> > >> So, excuse me please for however imperfectly rehearsing egg-sucking
> for
> > >> grandma's erudition.
> > >>
> > >> I personally regard it as a matter or "mere words" whether "child X
> at
> > >> last managing to recognise the difference between d and b today," for
> > >> example, is described as a development. In the context of course it
> is;
> > it
> > >> is a step. You want to call that a "microgenetic development"?
> > Personally I
> > >> don't have a problem with that. David may, but paraphrasing Oscar
> Wilde:
> > >> "Microgenesis is not one of my words." But if the child at last
> > managed to
> > >> repeat the Gospel According to St Luke by rote, and you wanted to
> > describe
> > >> this as a microgenetic development, I would want to hear the
> > developmental
> > >> plan that made that claim coherent.
> > >>
> > >> Where if anywhere does this leave us?
> > >>
> > >> Andy
> > >> My apologies for using so many words to say so little.
> > >> Just trying to be clear and careful.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> mike cole wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Hi Andy--
> > >>>
> > >>> Well to begin with, thanks for keeping the discussion alive. I am
> away
> > >>> from home without books or control of my time, so I want to ask a
> > question
> > >>> that may highlight what is central to my queries here.
> > >>>
> > >>> If what you write is correct, what does the word DEVELOPMENT mean in
> > the
> > >>> concept of a zone of proximal DEVELOPMENT? Its all fine and dandy to
> > point
> > >>> out what dolts Americans are for not understanding that learning
> leads
> > >>> DEVELOPMENT in classroom instruction, that but classroom lessons are
> > >>> clusters of events that take place in microgenetic time WITHIN
> > ontogenetic
> > >>> lythic periods.
> > >>>
> > >>> Where does that leave us?
> > >>>
> > >>> mike
> > >>>
> > >>> PS- the url below lays out in some detail where the idea of
> acquisition
> > >>> of reading as a cultural-historical developmental process. Old and
> > never
> > >>> published. But at least we might refine what is indexed by the phrase
> > >>> "learning to read."
> > >>>
> > >>> http://lchc.ucsd.edu/People/NEWTECHN.pdf
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 7:32 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net
> > <mailto:
> > >>> ablunden@mira.net>> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> So this thread does not die ...
> > >>> You said, Mike, "So I am seeing the same solution to thinking
> > >>> about the ontogeny/microgenesis relationships by analogy with the
> > >>> phylogeny/cultural-history relation."
> > >>>
> > >>> I don't see the analogy there. Phylogeny and ethnogeny are two
> > >>> (overlapping and mutually determining) processes with two very
> > >>> distinct material bases, viz., genes and artefacts. But learning
> > >>> to read/write and development of abstract thinking (and other
> > >>> leading activities in a developmental ZPD) is not such a
> relation,
> > >>> it is a relation between critical phases and lytic (gradual)
> > >>> phases of development. This is quite a different relationship.
> > >>>
> > >>> The analogy I would see for something which couold be called
> > >>> microgenesis would be the /situation/: a concept develops
> > >>> momentrily in a person and their actions in a situation. The
> > >>> situation is not a factor in phylo- or ethnogensis, it
> essentially
> > >>> belongs to the very short time scale, and its material basis is
> > >>> activity. I grant that no-one might use "microgenesis" in that
> way
> > >>> and no-one may be doing research into that process these days. I
> > >>> don't know. But the situation is a distinct material basis for
> > >>> development and one on which Vygotsky did a great deal of work.
> On
> > >>> the other hand, I think /all/ processes of development have both
> > >>> critical and lytical phases (c.f. Gould's punctuated evolution).
> > >>>
> > >>> What do you think?
> > >>>
> > >>> Andy
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> __________________________________________
> > >> _____
> > >> xmca mailing list
> > >> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > >> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
> > > 883 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
> > > Department of Anthropology
> > > Brigham Young University
> > > Provo, UT 84602
> > > http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > ------------------------------
> > > *Andy Blunden*
> > > Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/
> > > Book: http://www.brill.nl/concepts
> > >
> > > __________________________________________
> > > _____
> > > 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