Sorry the question troubles you. Seems like we at an impasse, Andy.
No point of the two of us flailing around on xmca. We can chat about it
when we get a chance.
mike
On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 5:39 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net
<mailto:ablunden@mira.net>> wrote:
I am troubled by the question, Mike, because so much is swinging
on interpretation of words which apparently signal disputes over
entire concrete concepts (theories of learning) which lie out of
sight behind the question.
Insofar as we confine ourselves to "the temporal scale of events
that involve teaching/learning" we put out of sight the
developmental life course of a person, so an answer I might give
is subject to misinterpretation, because I would hold that one of
the features of what we call development is that it is meaningful
only within the temporal context of a person's development into a
citizen. That does not negate the irreducible fact, however, that,
like every other process, it takes place "minute by minute,"
"event by event" or "situation by situation."
So with those qualifications, if we have just been through an
episode with a young child, in the course of struggling with a
particularly stubborn learning difficulty, and we say: "I think we
made a development there," what we mean is that the child did
something under our stimulus which he could not have done without
it, but we have reason to believe that henceforth he will be able
to do it without our assistance, that is, outside the classroom
context which made it possible. I guess there are moments, aren't
there, when you know that, without waiting to see what the child
is like the next day. Sometimes I look back onmy own life and can
see that I made a development on a certain day, but I don't think
I knew it then.
Andy
mike cole wrote:
Andy-- I am concerned, among other things, with the question
of whether and under what conditions it is useful to make a
distinction between learning and development and in particular
whether, at the temporal scale
of events that involve teaching/learning a form of change
those adopting a Vygotskian view would designate as
development is possible.
If not, then I suggest that the notion of zone of proximal
development is a non-starter. Criticizing those who mistake a
zone of proximal development from a zone of proximal learning
seems somehow irrelevant unless development can be said to
occur in teaching/learning interactions.
mike
__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca