I took a stab at these issues a few years back, so will attach the paper. I'm pretty overwhelmed by other things at the moment so my regrets for generally sitting this discussion out of late. p -----Original Message----- From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of mike cole Sent: Monday, October 15, 2012 1:06 AM To: ablunden@mira.net; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Cc: David Henry Feldman; Joe Glick Subject: Re: [xmca] Re: microgenesis? well we are sure agreed about the context dependent part. I arrue for different principles of change in what Huw refers to as sociogenesis and I refer to as cultural-historical genesis. I am just real uncertai about how to characterize more micro levels of development/context/historical..... change. Wertsch's paper is one of several treatments of the topic, the only one I could put my bytes on quickly and as a followup to Vera's suggestion. There are other papers with other examples. But first, what about what we have?? mike On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 8:51 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote: > ** > I will read the Wertsch puzzle, Mike. It is good to see (I think) that > we are getting closer to the same page at last. I have reservations > about seeking a context-independent meaning for "development" which > does not constantly refer back to achievement of adult > self-determination qua citizenship, which, as it happens, can be quite > safely taken for granted in the case of elementary school children > learning to read. Could I just mention, on the off-chance that it may > be useful, the allusion I made to the Hegelian concept of "illusory." > This means that a concept (form of activity within a situation) may > appear, but then may turn out to be "illusory," a flash in the pan, so > to speak. This is kind of the other side of "development." It does not provide something which can be built upon. > > I turn to my reading for today ... > Andy > > > mike cole wrote: > > I believe you are correct, Andy, it is indeed a germ cell approach to > the acquisition of reading where "the whole task of reading" is > present as an interactional "force field" within the setting. > Precisely for this reason reading is not reduced to decoding, but no serious literacy scholar does. > The big trick as the matter is usually formulated is that you first > get the decoding right and then when it is automated or as it is > automated, reading as comprending/interpreting the world emerges. That > is sort of the Jean Chall approach, which should not be dismissed > although I disagree with it; she was a very experienced, smart, > scholar. But the problem with treating things in this level 1-level 2, > lower-higher, order in organizing acquistion is that you are missing > the "structure of the whole" at the beginning, reducing, too often, > acquistion of reading to stimulus-response learning -- which in the > cases of acquiring English literacy can be a challenge, ours being a mongrel language. > > But all of this speaks to the question of what is meant by > development in this entire line of discourse. Generality of a > conceptual change is certainly an aspect of what is meant, along with > generality of how one is treated by others. But always and again, at > what scale? In relation to what other scales? > > I am attaching an early Jim Wertsch paper that illustrates clearly > the puzzle experimental procedure and how he and colleagues wrote > about it early on. It is the kind of study Vera was referring to. I > attach it as a means of making it possible to establish joint > reference for those among us who are unfamiliar with the evidence being rererred to. > > mike > > On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 7:50 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote: > >> OK, I get what you want to discuss, Mike. I guess you posed the >> question in terms of learning vs development in response to criticism >> posed in those terms, but the whole controversy seems to function as >> a destraction (Freudian typing mistake), doesn't it? Given all the >> caveats I so heavily laboured in my contributions, there is really no >> problem with learning which is taking place within the ZPD being >> called "microgenesis." The momentary formation of an action which >> lies *outside *the ZPD is not developmental for the child, so the >> situation is "illusory" (to use a Hegelian term), so it makes sense >> to restrict the term "microgenesis" to formation of >> actions-within-a-situation which child-and-carers can and can only >> manage with the carers assisting the child, and the child cannot yet >> manage alone. It is certainly obvious that ontogenetic development cannot happen without such accomplishments. >> >> Going to your PS, David tells us that Vygotsky got the >> one-step-two-step quip from Koffka. It ties up with Vera's observation about "generalisation" >> of a new achievement, doesn't it. I guess that does not happen instantly. >> >> I would like to see you pursue the idea that Davydov's (and Vygotsky >> and Marx and Hegel and Goethe's) idea of "germ cell" contains the >> germ of the question you want answered here. I am a little torn by >> the proposition because, on the one hand, I am drawn back to >> learning-perspectives which have a whole subject matter in mind (e.g. >> comparing objects as the germ cell for mathematical reasoning) and a >> conception of the germ cell which is not just a reified object *or* >> an isolated action, but self-consciously references a *situation. >> *But those two takes on the idea don't really conflict, do they? That what was so impressive about the paper you shared: >> the team went to the whole situation to redefine the problem of >> reading, not just print, but "the world." >> >> I would like to hear your thoughts about this question. Wasn't the >> idea of reading being "*expanding* the ability to mediate one's >> interactions with the environment by interpreting text" the germ cell >> (if only it could be formulated as such) of Question Asking Reading? >> Isn't there a germ cell of microgenesis somewhere in there? >> >> Andy >> >> > > __________________________________________ > _____ > 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
Attachment:
RER2001.pdf
Description: RER2001.pdf
__________________________________________ _____ xmca mailing list xmca@weber.ucsd.edu http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca