Greg I'm attaching an article that may be of interest. It also may be of interest in furthering the discussion of microgenesis and reading. The article is titled: "Microgenesis, Immediate Experience, and Visual Processes in Reading" written by Victor Rosenthal Larry On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 11:18 PM, Greg Thompson <greg.a.thompson@gmail.com>wrote: > and one last pitch for my (blind!) interpretation of "lytic": > > Lytic as loosening or breaking down before re-incorporation feels to me a > lot like Hegel's "aufheben" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aufheben) or > "sublation" of the two elements in the dialectic. Lysing as taking apart > the pieces and assembling them into something new that couldn't otherwise > have been. That is Hegelian genesis, no? The source of creativity? > At bottom, all "development" (regardless of timescale) involves the problem > of change and creativity. How does something new come into being that > wasn't already there? > > And as I said, my interpretation of "lytic" is severely blind and Andy's > reading of the text suggests to me that I am connecting a few too many > dots. But it is fun business to try to make (new?) sense of these things. > > I'm currently looking into aktualgenese in the Leipsig tradition, but I > don't know the extent of Hegel's influence there. I assume that Vygotsky > would have been influenced by folks there, but the names I'm coming across > there don't seem to come up in Vygotsky's writings much - Wilhelm Wundt, > Friederich Sander, Kleine-Hurst, and Erich Wohlfart. Certainly Vygotsky > would have known of Wundt, but are there meaningful links here from > aktualgenese to Vygotsky's notion of genesis and development? > > Hopefully tomorrow I'll be able to return to micro-genesis - right now, too > busy trying to rock my little micro-genetic to sleep. Hard to type while > swaying back and forth... > > -greg > > On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 11:26 AM, mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Thanks very much Andy and all who jumped in to indicate their interest. > > I will replace the file online at lchc website with Andy's improved > > version. > > > > The re-admiration of "lytic" that Greg introduced is really thought > > provoking to me. It also puts me in mind of the meaning of culture that > > goes with biological research which urges us to think about the relation > > between culture and "medium." All useful. > > > > With respect to the polysemy of "development" and "learning." In > > *The Construction Zone, *Denis Newman, Peg Griffen, and I struggled > > enough so that we often gave up and used "change" which of course > > elides the difficulties but does not solve them. > > > > With respect to this learning/development discussion I think we are still > > struggling to get ourselves clear about whether the notion of "genetic > > domain" or "time scales" matters. In this discussion, at least, I have > > been struggling to get us to focus on short time intervals. Very often, > > as in Andy's earlier notes and in Helen's recent note with the helpful > > reminders about Marianne H's writing, the time scale is *ontogenetic -* > > years. > > > > I am all for discussion of these time scales!! But the issue that Greg > put > > on the table was about micro time scales (or I thought that was what the > > topic was). From our discussion so far (I have not had a chance to read > > Huw's note carefully and have certainly forgotten other relevant > > contribution, so I may be overgeneralizing) I got the strong impression > > that > > it was being argued that at short time scales, the term development in > any > > meaningful sense, does not apply. > > > > So, being interested in notions like a zone of proximal development, > which > > presumably applies to interactions on a time scale closer to minutes than > > lifetimes, I have tried to get a focus there. > > > > I am arguing that if the term, development, is inappropriate at this > > briefer time scale, then there should be some very serious > reconsideration > > of Vygotsky's use of the zone of proximal development, since development > > would be ruled out in all the examples he gives by virtue of the short > time > > scale. So people who confuse a zone of proximal learning for a zone of > > proximal development have been right all along, just using misleading > > terminology. > > > > mike > > PS-- And while we are at it, a reconsideration of LSV's idea that in a > > zoped "one step in learning" should produce "two steps in development" > also > > seems in order. My intuition is that Davydov was trying to point us right > > at that problem, and that his germ cell approach to development was his > way > > of trying to deal with the issue, but others could probably speak to that > > better than I. > > > > > > > > > > * > > * > > > > On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 2:47 AM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote: > > > > > Mike, I have attached a modified version of the document about > "Question > > > Asking Reading." Two pages which were out of order have been replaced > in > > > order and I have embedded OCR so it should be searchable. Perhaps you > > could > > > replace NEWTECHN.pdf <http://lchc.ucsd.edu/People/**NEWTECHN.pdf< > > http://lchc.ucsd.edu/People/NEWTECHN.pdf>> > > > on the server with this one? > > > > > > Now, my hat off to the authors of this paper. I am sure others on this > > > list knew about *Question Asking Reading*, but I was not one of them. > You > > > define reading as "/expanding/ the ability to mediate one's > interactions > > > with the environment by interpreting text." You recognise that a child > > > already has an ability to "read the world" and is probably already > > > proficient in mediating their reading of the world by interacting with > > > adults, so learning to read is constructed upon this base. This is > > clearly > > > drawing on Vygotsky (credit to Piaget as well), and taking reading as a > > > specific kind of collaborative process rather than just a technical > > process > > > of decoding. You call on Luria's idea of "combined motor method" to > > > introduce an approach to combining diagnostic tasks with teaching > tasks. > > > And you call on A N Leontyev to solve the crucial problem of the > child's > > > motivation for learning to read. > > > > > > (As an aside I much enjoyed the observation of how prominent it was for > > > the children to engage in discussion about the relation between > "growing > > > up" and learning to read. My one and only experience of teaching a > child > > to > > > read hinged around this discussion. We were living in a very remote > > > location in the UK and her older brother was old enough to attend the > > > mixed-age primary school, but Sam was too young. This hyperactive, very > > > physical child suddenly focused on reading with startling intensity and > > > learnt to read fluently inside of a week. ... despite our explanations > > > about the legal age of public school attendance. But very soon the > school > > > willingly bent a rule or two and admitted her. :) ) > > > > > > Now I grant that my contributions to this thread have not gone within a > > > mile of the issues raised in this paper. But my interests and > experience > > > are in social transformation, not teaching and learning in elementary > > > schools. But I am willing to listen and learn. > > > > > > A point of clarification on my side. > > > > > > ZPD. I have heard it said that ZPD is relevant only to the critical > > phases > > > of development. I have also heard that ZPD was not a discovery of > > Vygotsky. > > > For my part, I don't see any reason why this simple idea is not > > applicable > > > to any learning situation. And likwise if you want to introduce the > > concept > > > of "development" into qualitative achievements in the lytical phase of > > > development under the heading of "microgenesis" to distinguish it from > > the > > > whole process of growing into an adult citizen through a series of > > distinct > > > social roles, I see no problem with this. ... Only provided we > understand > > > that if a child soldier who learns one day how to torture a prisoner, > > which > > > they were formerly reluctant to do, this is "development" in a > different > > > sense, because it creates only a barrier to becoming a citizen of a > > > community governed by democratic norms. But it would remain > > "microgenesis" > > > if considered in cultural isolation. What makes every step along the > road > > > of learning to read in countries like ours /development/ is that (as > you > > > discussed with the kids) being able to read is a /sine qua non/ of > being > > a > > > grown up in our world. Torturing your peers is not. > > > > > > > > > In your message of almost 24 hours ago you said: > > > > > > "If what you write is correct, what does the word DEVELOPMENT mean > > > in the concept of a zone of proximal DEVELOPMENT? ... classroom > > > > > > lessons are clusters of events that take place in microgenetic time > > > WITHIN ontogenetic lythic periods.Where does that leave us?" > > > > > > I am perfectly prepared to live with a lot of polysemy with a word like > > > "development" when one moves from context to context. Provided only we > > > don't claim that there is /no qualitative distinction/ between the > little > > > developments that add up to development during a lytic phase, and the > > > change in social position of a child which is constituted by successful > > > completion of both lytic and critical phases of development. In that > > sense > > > there is development and development. If that is how you are deploying > > the > > > word "microgenesis," then fine. I just don't see any real disagreement. > > > > > > Andy > > > > > > > > > > > > mike cole 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 > <mailto: > > >> 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 > > >>> <mailto: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< > > 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> > > >>> <mailto: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 <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu> > > >>> > > >>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/**listinfo/xmca< > > 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< > > http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson> > > >>> > > >>> > > >> -- > > ------------------------------**------------------------------ > > >> **------------ > > >> > > >> *Andy Blunden* > > >> Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/ > > >> <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/**> > > >> > > >> Book: http://www.brill.nl/concepts > > >> > > >> ______________________________**____________ > > >> _____ > > >> xmca mailing list > > >> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu> > > >> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/**listinfo/xmca< > > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > -- > > > ------------------------------**------------------------------** > > > ------------ > > > > > > *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 > > > > > > -- > Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. > 883 Spencer W. Kimball Tower > Department of Anthropology > Brigham Young University > Provo, UT 84602 > http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson > __________________________________________ > _____ > xmca mailing list > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca >
Attachment:
OCTOBER 15 2912 ROSENTHAL VICTOR Microgenesis and Visual Processes in Reading FREE.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document
__________________________________________ _____ xmca mailing list xmca@weber.ucsd.edu http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca