[Xmca-l] Re: Why Doesn't Vygotsky Use "Microgenesis"?

[mike cole]

A note on formatting. I left David's formatting in place to illustrate the
problem I was referring to and which Ed commented on. When I went and
fetched the Angelus Novus quotation, I first copied from a PDF, then put
into word to get reasonable font size, and the cut and pasted it into my
message. By cutting and pasting from word into gmail I created exactly the
runover lines that David, Michael and others are manifesting. Might it be
for the same reason? I do not recall this problem from either David or
Michael in earlier times. A local pathogenesis?

On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 5:27 PM, mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu> wrote:

> I did not intend to demean your mother's situation, David.
> And the following makes your examples concrete:
>
>  I think that the three
> strategies I gave you (pronouns, delight that masks astonishment, and
> avoiding explanations) really are rooted in the lower psychological
> functions and not in higher functions:* pronominal meaning can be simply*
>
>
>
>
> *indicative rather than nominative, delight is an example of her
> inabilityto divide affect from will, and avoiding "why" is an example of
> the loss ofsemantic meaning and reliance on the visual purview alone. The
> last time Itook language samples from her, they were comparable to those of
> a two yearold. *
>
> But if one adopts your view, why do you liken the deteriorization of her
> higher psychological functions to the kind of work around
> illustrated by prototyping under difficult conditions?
>
> *Perhaps its because you view sociogenesis as  "the very*
> *opposite: public health, compulsory education, and the knowledge that
> it​ is precisely our ability to provide circuitous ways of helping the
> very​ young and the very old that will ultimately make life better for
> everybody,and not simply the very young and very old.*
>
> *​*With respect to public health the evidence I know of indicate that the
> agricultural revolution, and subsequent urbanization led to a
> deteriorization of life expectancy and health for the population as a whole
> (however much it benefited the elites). *​*(As a priveleged member of the
> privileged classes I would have been dead several times in the last couple
> of decades had it not been for modern medicine-- my younger brother died 40
> years before me of pancreatitis which is now routinely treatable).
>
>
> The high high and highest level of civilization of Germany in 1930 did
> nothing to prevent the rise of Hitler and its aftermath -- and we can see
> that scenario playing out daily in the US at present,,,, hopefully to a
> different conclusion.
>
> With respect to the microgenesis/ontogeny issue, I gave yet to figure out
> the source of your confidence in their dissimilarity. I brought up Franklin
> in the blocks (again - its a part of your ontogeny but not that of most who
> participate on xmca at present) because it seems to be an example of
> microgenesis-as-developmental change.
>
> With respect to the idea that humans now exhibit the
>  ability to provide circuitous ways of helping the very
> ​
> young and the very old that will ultimately make life better for everybody,*and
> not simply the very young and very old.*
> *​ ​-- *I really am not sure
> what you are referring to.
>
> As always, your ideas are interesting and enlightening, even when I do not
> properly understand them. Exhibiting my ignorance has the virtue of
> provoking the conditions for deeper understanding. My likening your
> mother's loss of semantic meaning to my (so far normal) "senior moments"
> did not envision an (almost) total loss of functions, higher and lower by
> Vygotky's reckoning. It is as if the multiple layers of history to be seen
> in Rome were reduced by war and weather to the bottom-most stratum of the
> pre-Etruscan.
>
> ​mike​
>
> PS-- With regard to cultural-historical/societal genesis Benjamin's
> Angelus Novus often comes to mind.
>
>  A Klee painting "Angelus Novus" shows an angel looking as though he is
> about to move away from something he is fixedly contemplating. His eyes are
> staring, his mouth is open, his wings are spread. This is how one pictures
> the
>
> angel of history. His face is turned toward the past. Where we perceive a
> chain
> ​
> of events, he sees one single
> ​
> catastrophe which keeps piling wreckage upon
> ​
>
> wreckage and hurls it in front of his feet. The an
> ​ ​
> gel would like to stay, awaken
> ​
> the dead, and make whole what has been smashed. But a storm is blowing
> ​
> from Paradise; it has got caught in his wings with such violence that the
> angel
> ​
> can no longer close them. This storm irresistibly propels him into the
> future
> ​
> to which his back is turned, while the pile of debris before him grows
> skyward.
>
> This storm is what we call progress. (pp. 257-58)
>
>
>
> ​​
>
>
> PS--
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 3:15 PM, David Kellogg <dkellogg60@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Mike:
>>
>> My mother was a psychologist too--like you, trained as a behaviourist, but
>> unlike you she got off into Piaget in the early sixties. Then she moved on
>> to other things: she wrote a biography of Ada, Countess of Lovelace, which
>> was published by MIT Press and got her some notoriety, mostly because she
>> showed that Byron's daughter, who everyone has assumed to be a kind of
>> feminist icon and the world's first computer programmer, didn't actually
>> know any mathematics! She told me a lot about Piaget and Lawrence Kohlberg
>> (who she briefly studied with). But I was unable to interest her in
>> Vygotsky or in cultural historical psychology: she saw it, perhaps
>> correctly, as nothing more than an attempt to prolong what she considered
>> the crazy Bolshevism of my youth.
>>
>> Herr first response to losing her higher mental functions (when we walked
>> to the Tate Art Gallery near her home in London and she forgot her way
>> home) was simply horror. She went through a difficult period of terrors
>> (curiously, mostly concerned with money, of which she still has a great
>> deal more than she needs). Now she has stabilized (and she is actually
>> much
>> happier than I ever remember her). But she has completely forgotten that
>> she ever had children, doesn't know her age or history, and also lacks
>> control over basic physiological functions. I think that the three
>> strategies I gave you (pronouns, delight that masks astonishment, and
>> avoiding explanations) really are rooted in the lower psychological
>> functions and not in higher functions: pronominal meaning can be simply
>> indicative rather than nominative, delight is an example of her inability
>> to divide affect from will, and avoiding "why" is an example of the loss
>> of
>> semantic meaning and reliance on the visual purview alone. The last time I
>> took language samples from her, they were comparable to those of a two
>> year
>> old.
>>
>> Unfortunately is the word! And yet...perhaps this is something else we can
>> all learn from Vygotsky. I don't just mean the way he faced death: he died
>> young, at the very height of his powers, and he had been practicing dying
>> for the whole of his adult life, so the comparison with my mother is
>> manifestly unfair. I mean first of all the way that Vygotsky really does
>> use "pathogenesis", not as a new form of development but rather as a way
>> of
>> examining the real prior processes of development (which, as a Spinozan,
>> he
>> believed always involved the expansion of potential rather than its
>> contraction). That's why Vygotsky ends almost every single chapter in the
>> second part of HDHMF with a pathological example, why never gives up
>> on "defektology", and I also think that is why he started studying
>> medicine
>> even when he knew there was no hope for himself: it offers a way of
>> looking
>> at the lower layers of development and how they subtend or fail to subtend
>> the higher ones.
>>
>> The second thing, though, was what I think he discovered through his
>> pathogenetic analyses: that there is a very real difference between
>> phylogenesis and sociogenesis, between sociogenesis and ontogenesis...and
>> also, as I am now quite sure, between ontogenesis and microgenesis. In
>> phylogenesis: descent through modification--i.e. through the ruthless
>> destruction of individuals and whole species. In sociogenesis, the very
>> opposite: public health, compulsory education, and the knowledge that it
>> is precisely our ability to provide circuitous ways of helping the very
>> young and the very old that will ultimately make life better for
>> everybody,
>> and not simply the very young and very old. The end of ontogenesis is not
>> simply death--it is the decline that it inevitable after roughly the age
>> that Vygotsky died. But with literacy, we are able to pass on our very
>> best
>> to the next generation. I don't know if Vygotsky really believed that
>> these
>> last lectures of his would be translated and read by thousands of teachers
>> in some totally foreign land eight decades after his death--he believed
>> in internationalism, so I think it's at least possible that he did. But
>> whether he believed it or not, that is what is going to happen, and it's
>> why I think that cultural-historical psychologists, unlike Piagetians, can
>> face decline and death with a certain equanimity and acceptance.
>>
>> But it is also why I'm not really sure that Dorothy Kellogg Stein's
>> biography of Ada Lovelace was such a terrible mistake, Mike. When I take
>> it
>> off the shelf and read it, I  can still hear her voice, feel her
>> razor-like
>> intellect, and even remonstrate with her individualistic and biologizing
>> psychology. When I go and actually visit her at Lord Wandsworth's Home for
>> Aging Jewry in Clapham I cannot.
>>
>> David Kellogg
>> Macquarie University
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 5:17 AM, mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu> wrote:
>>
>> > David -
>> >
>> > I think it is unfortunate to link workarounds with a loss of higher
>> > psychological functions. Again, it seems like ontogeny recapitulates
>> > history. The end of ontogeny is death. Ditto history?
>> >
>> > By any account I can think of, your mother is using higher higher
>> > psychological functions to work around the inability to retrieve
>> vocabulary
>> > at a conventional level of abstraction. I am of an age where the same
>> > problem can be noticed. Nice that I can, for the time being, understand
>> > enough to be able to study development in decline in real life in
>> addition
>> > to experiencing it. Hmm, that means I have some higher higher functions
>> to
>> > draw upon!
>> >
>> > In our own work, the workarounds needed to solve the failure of a
>> gifted,
>> > "promising" technology under high pressure to succeed created both a
>> > successful product and resulted in productive education for all
>> involved.
>> >
>> > To me, a great example of pathogenisis is the use of the highly
>> developed,
>> > highly admired, highly financed, digital technologies of cyberspace.
>> > Clearly an advance over atomic bombs- cleaner, faster, more efficient.
>> >
>> > Where I think there is something distinctly unusual in Zaza's
>> prototyping
>> > example is that the prototyping itself, even if it
>> > had been accomplishable easily with strong technological/resource
>> backing,
>> > is a work around for the inability to confront directly the cultural
>> > beliefs that make it shameful for a woman with HIV to bottle feed her
>> baby.
>> > We rarely discuss the power of cultural norms in constraining cultural
>> > change even when the current practices threaten reproduction of the
>> social
>> > group. It seems, perhaps, an intractable problem. The US appears unable
>> to
>> > give up on putting water in disposable plastic bottles. Pathogenesis?
>> >
>> > I'll follow my habit of sorting things out by responding vis a vis
>> > Franklin in Larry's note below. I will respond on a thread called
>> > microgenesis/ontogenesis.
>> >
>> > Compensatorily yours.
>> > mike
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 1:15 PM, David Kellogg <dkellogg60@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > Mike likes a discussion to be, as Bernstein put it, well framed and
>> well
>> > > classified; or at least he likes the threads to be well disentangled
>> and
>> > > properly subject lined. But perhaps we shouldn't give up on the "The
>> > > Prototyping Mind" too quickly! As you can see from Molly's careful
>> > perusal
>> > > and forceful restatement of Zaza's major themes, there is still a lot
>> in
>> > > Zaza's prototyping bin to talk about.
>> > >
>> > > The one that interests me, that I think is relevant to the
>> "microgenesis"
>> > > thread, is what learning means when it means adapting to
>> > anti-development.
>> > > For example, there are undoubtedly work-arounds that people use when
>> > their
>> > > higher psychological functions start to shut down (I watched my
>> mother do
>> > > quite a few of these, addressing everyone as "you" instead of using
>> > names,
>> > > reacting to novel situations with a delight which effectively hides
>> her
>> > > astonishment, and above all refraining from trying to understand the
>> > > reasons for present situations).
>> > >
>> > > Similarly, there are ontogenetic work-arounds that people use when
>> > > commodity production shuts down. But in both cases, we have a kind of
>> > > development which forgoes time's arrow; we have a notion of
>> development
>> > > that works backwards and forwards (like the laws of physics as
>> opposed to
>> > > the laws of thermodynamics). I won't say that suggests relativism
>> (that
>> > > would be, I think, too moralistic an argument, and it is a rabbit
>> hole we
>> > > have been down already anyway). But it suggests an atomism that I
>> > disagree
>> > > with (in addition to eschewing time, the laws of physics don't combine
>> > > matter and meaning the way that the laws of thermodynamics do!)
>> > >
>> > > Mike has offered Franklin as an example of a Zoped before (I remember
>> > once
>> > > thinking that he directed it to ME as a way of getting ME to think a
>> bit
>> > > about listening to others on this list, but in fact he's used it in
>> print
>> > > on at least one occasion). Whenever he offers it, he does the exact
>> > > opposite of what he usually does with xmca threads: instead of asking
>> us
>> > to
>> > > disentangle threads, he invites us to combine them. Franklin is
>> learning
>> > > (to listen to others). But he is also developing, on at least three
>> > counts:
>> > > by learning to listen to others, he is acquiring new forms of meaning
>> > > potential; by learning to recognize himself when it is "played back"
>> to
>> > > him, he is acquiring a new form of reflecting on experience; and
>> (this is
>> > > the one I really want to talk about) he is learning that play is not
>> > simply
>> > > the manipulation of objects but also the manipulation of social roles
>> > > according to abstract rules (such as reciprocity and mutuality).
>> > >
>> > > Now, you can see that I'm trying to disentangle things that are not
>> > really
>> > > that distinct (reciprocity is really a form of serial mutuality, and
>> both
>> > > of them are simply abstract forms of listening to others). The
>> Vygotsky
>> > > lectures I'm working with are a little similar: in his work on the
>> Crisis
>> > > at Three (Franklin's Crisis, I suspect), he is trying to disentangle
>> the
>> > > "seven stars" of bad behaviour (folk concepts that nursemaids and
>> mothers
>> > > use--I notice there is even a Russian Wikipedia page!) from what he
>> > thinks
>> > > is the key neoformation of Three, the separation of affect and will.
>> > >
>> > > For example, negativism is not just saying "no". It's saying "no" when
>> > the
>> > > child really wants to say "yes", because although the child wants to
>> say
>> > > "yes", the others in the social milieu also want him to say "yes", and
>> > the
>> > > child is more interested in self-assertion than in self-gratification.
>> > > Obstinacy is not just tenacity. It's actually the negation of
>> negativism:
>> > > saying "yes" when the child really wants to "no", or maybe "who
>> cares?",
>> > > simply because the child has already said "yes" and once again the
>> child
>> > is
>> > > more interested in will than in affect. And so on.
>> > >
>> > > How is this connected with the next zone of development? Perhaps the
>> next
>> > > zone of development is preschool, and preschool depends on the
>> separation
>> > > of the semantic and the visio-graphic field of action in play. If so,
>> > > Franklin's ability to interpret the teacher's imitation of his own
>> > actions
>> > > is a "trailer" of that next zone of development and no mere act of
>> > > learning.  Or, maybe this is happening in a preschool, and the next
>> zone
>> > of
>> > > development is actually the Crisis at Seven. If so, Franklin's
>> ability to
>> > > recognize himself is a "trailer" of the next zone of development:
>> acting
>> > a
>> > > role that is not really a role, but in fact a prototype self.
>> > >
>> > > But that's my problem, Molly. What do I do when the prototype self
>> comes
>> > to
>> > > me from the past and not the future? Can we really call this
>> development?
>> > > Isn't it really a form of pathogenesis?
>> > >
>> > > David Kellogg
>> > > Macquarie University
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 6:29 AM, molly shea <mvshea@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Dear Zaza and Mike,
>> > > >
>> > > > My apologies for entering the conversation on Kukiya-kiya late,
>> > however,
>> > > > the article was so compelling I feel I should still enter. First, to
>> > > Zaza,
>> > > > thank you for writing such a forceful analysis of learning through
>> > > > prototyping. I especially like the ways in which your analytical
>> lens
>> > > > included the political dimensions of problem solving and invoking
>> > > > expertise. There are two ideas within the article that I hope to use
>> > and
>> > > > extend in my work as well, and a question for Zaza, Mike, and
>> others at
>> > > the
>> > > > end of my second musing.
>> > > >
>> > > > The first is your discussion of disinheritance as *an attention to
>> > > > materials—a way of looking at materials that allows the beholder to
>> > > > recognize transience, mutability, intermediateness—that allows
>> > > Zimbabweans
>> > > > to employ novel and unexpected ways to act within and around the
>> > > > constraints of their material conditions.* By pointing out the
>> separate
>> > > > cognitive practice associated with seeing through disinheritance,
>> the
>> > > > analysis draws attention to the political dimension of learning. The
>> > > > possible activities and therefore learning opportunities that arise
>> > > through
>> > > > this historical perception change and assumptions about designing
>> > > learning
>> > > > environments then shifts with these methods of seeing and using
>> > > materials.
>> > > > It also draws another potential distinction between the Maker
>> Movement
>> > > and
>> > > > Kukiya—kiya. The Makers Movement doesn’t necessarily claim a
>> political
>> > > > agenda, however, by claiming something a-political or claiming an
>> > agenda
>> > > of
>> > > > advancing technological skills in the name of progress, it has a
>> > > historical
>> > > > and political situated set of values that may be in opposition to
>> those
>> > > of
>> > > > Kukiya—kiya that suffer the consequences of material disinheritance
>> > > arising
>> > > > in the context of economic crisis. Vossoughi, Hooper, and Escudé
>> (2016)
>> > > do
>> > > > a wonderful job of pointing out many of the neoliberal consequences
>> of
>> > a
>> > > > maker movement that does not see the lineage of prototyping
>> expertise
>> > > > coming from many low-income communities living in “tight
>> > circumstances”.
>> > > > The power of the design of this prototyping project, for me, comes
>> from
>> > > > centering local expertise in the design of the learning environment.
>> > > > Although prototyping is at the center of both “making” and
>> > “kukiya—kiya”
>> > > > practices, it seems the political sense making between settings
>> > couldn’t
>> > > be
>> > > > more different. Even within the Zaza paper, the participants
>> question
>> > how
>> > > > invention might or might not lead to liberation. I appreciate Zaza's
>> > > > attention to how participants questioned invention and business
>> acumen
>> > > as a
>> > > > means to “extricate Zimbabwe from its economic quandary”. A lesser
>> > > > researcher may have ignored this comment as outside of the design
>> > process
>> > > > and therefore the data set to be analyzed.
>> > > >
>> > > > The second idea, related to the political dimensions of cognition
>> that
>> > > are
>> > > > often overlooked, is your analysis of gender and expertise in the
>> > design
>> > > > process. I am struck by how the performance of gender and
>> > > design-expertise
>> > > > came in the form of whispers and informal conversations about
>> > hand-bags.
>> > > It
>> > > > would be great to have more analysis like this one where gender
>> > networks
>> > > > inform design. In fact, it seems gender (man/woman/trans/other) is
>> > always
>> > > > informing design, but perhaps performance of expertise that is
>> cis-male
>> > > is
>> > > > sometimes confused with having expertise at all. You analysis offers
>> > more
>> > > > nuance about other kinds of performance of expertise. I wonder if
>> > > > discussions about hand-bags creates the intimacy necessary to share
>> > > > female-cis gendered understandings of design problems. I would love
>> to
>> > > hear
>> > > > your thinking on this matter.
>> > > >
>> > > > Again, thank you for your work and for the insights that this
>> article
>> > has
>> > > > provided me.
>> > > >
>> > > > - Molly Shea
>> > > >
>> > > > On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 5:46 PM, mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > ​Since it appears that people have completed discussion of Zaza's
>> > paper
>> > > > > (and of course, anyone is free to add to the discussion at any
>> > time), I
>> > > > > feel freer to engage the microgenesis/ontogenesis relationship.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I know too little about L1/L2 discussions to contribute there,
>> but as
>> > > > life
>> > > > > allows I will try to suggest that microgenesis can be shown, in at
>> > > least
>> > > > > some circumstances, to involve both learning and development.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > So I attach an example from the work of Vivian Paley. It
>> addresses (I
>> > > > > believe) Vygotsky's idea that play creates a Zoped in which a
>> child
>> > is
>> > > "a
>> > > > > head taller than herself."
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Perhaps the example is inappropriate to the discussion or my
>> > > > interpretation
>> > > > > of it is bonkers. To me it illustrates both LSV's claim about the
>> > zoped
>> > > > and
>> > > > > play and is a case of microgenesis with ontogenetic implications.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > See what you think. its 4 pages long.
>> > > > > mike
>> > > > >
>> > > > > On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 5:33 PM, David Kellogg <
>> dkellogg60@gmail.com
>> > >
>> > > > > wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > Arturo:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Thanks for the very thoughtful reply. I think the only word I
>> might
>> > > > > > possibly disagree with is "unfortunately". I suppose there may
>> also
>> > > be
>> > > > a
>> > > > > > "zone of proximal learning", just as there is a zone of proximal
>> > > > > evolution
>> > > > > > (I suspect, given the mass extinctions which are going on in the
>> > > > > > Anthropocene, that we are in one of these at present), and a
>> zone
>> > of
>> > > > > > proximal social progress (these have turned out to be far longer
>> > > than I
>> > > > > > ever thought as a young person). But I think for now it's a very
>> > good
>> > > > > idea
>> > > > > > to focus on the D in ZPD, and not to forget that it's for
>> > > "development"
>> > > > > and
>> > > > > > not for learning.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Let me give three reasons. First of all, if we are interested in
>> > the
>> > > > what
>> > > > > > word value looks like when we remove the sound that realizes
>> it, we
>> > > are
>> > > > > > necessarily interested in a psychological rather than an
>> > > interpersonal
>> > > > > > phenomenon. Secondly, the focus on quick results in learning
>> very
>> > > often
>> > > > > > ends up victimizing teachers for problems in development that
>> have
>> > > > > nothing
>> > > > > > to do with teaching methods and are really developmentally
>> rooted.
>> > > > > Thirdly,
>> > > > > > just as we need to understand exactly what teachers are doing
>> > before
>> > > we
>> > > > > go
>> > > > > > about introducing interested changes, we also need to understand
>> > what
>> > > > > > Vygotsky was trying to do before we decide it is irrelevant to
>> our
>> > > > > teaching
>> > > > > > needs.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > This morning I was working on the beginning of the "Crisis at
>> > Three",
>> > > > > part
>> > > > > > of which (but not the good part) can be read in Vol. Five of the
>> > > > > Collected
>> > > > > > Works in English (Vol. Four in Russian):
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Во-первых, мы должны предположить, что все перемены, все
>> события,
>> > > > > > совершающиеся в период этого кризиса, группируются вокруг
>> > какого-либо
>> > > > > > новообразования переходного типа. Следовательно, когда мы будем
>> > > > > > анализировать симптомы кризиса, мы должны хотя бы
>> предположительно
>> > > > > ответить
>> > > > > > на вопрос, что нового возникает в указанное время и какова
>> судьба
>> > > > > > новообразования, которое исчезает после него. Затем мы должны
>> > > > > рассмотреть,
>> > > > > > какая смена центральных и побочных линий развития здесь
>> > происходит. И
>> > > > > > наконец, оценить критический возраст с точки зрения зоны его
>> > > ближайшего
>> > > > > > развития, т. е. отношения к следующему возрасту.
>> > > > > > "Firstly, we must presume that all of the transformations, all
>> the
>> > > > > > happenings, that take place during the period of the crisis may
>> be
>> > > > > grouped
>> > > > > > around some sort of neoformation of the transitional type.
>> > > > Consequently,
>> > > > > > when we analyse the symptoms of the crisis, we must at the very
>> > least
>> > > > > > presume to answer the question of what newness emerges at this
>> > > > appointed
>> > > > > > time and what the fate of these neoformations which disappear
>> > > > afterwards
>> > > > > > might be. Next, we should consider how the central and
>> peripheral
>> > > lines
>> > > > > of
>> > > > > > development here will unfold. And lastly, we ought to evaluate
>> the
>> > > > > critical
>> > > > > > age from the point of view of the zone of its proximal
>> development,
>> > > > i.e.
>> > > > > > its relationship to the subsequent age."
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > "The zone of its proximal development" is its relationship to
>> the
>> > > > > > subsequent age! Almost by definition, if you present some
>> > > > > > pedagogical intervention and it immediately becomes part of the
>> > > child's
>> > > > > > psychological system, you are looking at the zone of actual
>> > > > development,
>> > > > > > and not the zone of proximal development at all.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Years ago, I told Mike that I kept mixing up microgenesis and
>> > > learning.
>> > > > > He
>> > > > > > told me "Don't do that!" but he didn't exactly spell out how to
>> > avoid
>> > > > it:
>> > > > > > instead, he arranged for me to review a book on
>> Ganzheitpsychologie
>> > > > that
>> > > > > > left me more confused than ever. So I think that's still what we
>> > need
>> > > > to
>> > > > > do
>> > > > > > now: but one way to start is simply to kick learning out of the
>> > ZPD.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > David Kellogg
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Macquarie University
>> > > > > > .
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 1:44 AM, Arturo Escandon <
>> > > > > > arturo.escandon@gmail.com>
>> > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Thank you for this David.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > I agree with what you are saying at many levels.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Unfortunately, the kind of assessment I introduced did not
>> have
>> > > > > > > significant learning components. So the evaluation part of the
>> > > > > > > assessment is not giving me much data about microgenesis but
>> > about
>> > > > > > > ontogenesis. The "outcome" is not the result of the learning
>> > > > component
>> > > > > > > for sure.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > My bet is that the links between L1 and L2 (which allow
>> students
>> > to
>> > > > go
>> > > > > > > beyond sound perception of words) are possible because of
>> > > development
>> > > > > > > in high school. More to do with L1 development. Again, the
>> kind
>> > of
>> > > > > > > interventions I am allowed to make in the classroom are very
>> > narrow
>> > > > > > > and the structure and shape of the study programme prevents me
>> > from
>> > > > > > > doing large longitudinal studies.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > I agree the notion of DA as it is used in the SLA literature
>> > > presents
>> > > > > > > many problems.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Arturo
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > On 11 October 2016 at 05:17, David Kellogg <
>> dkellogg60@gmail.com
>> > >
>> > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > Arturo:
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > Dynamic assessment is a really good example of what I'm
>> talking
>> > > > > about.
>> > > > > > > > Dynamic assessment is supposedly based on the ZPD. But I
>> think
>> > > > there
>> > > > > > are
>> > > > > > > > three linked ways in which it is actually based on a
>> distortion
>> > > of
>> > > > > the
>> > > > > > > ZPD.
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > a) Dynamic assessment looks at microgenesis, not
>> ontogenesis. I
>> > > > think
>> > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > idea was originally that the microgenetic perturbations that
>> > were
>> > > > > > picked
>> > > > > > > up
>> > > > > > > > in DA were, actually, predictive of the "next zone of
>> > > development".
>> > > > > But
>> > > > > > > > there are two reasons why this has not happened. Firstly,
>> there
>> > > > > hasn't
>> > > > > > > been
>> > > > > > > > a clear demarcation between learning and development, and
>> the
>> > > idea
>> > > > > > > > that what the child can do today with assistance will be
>> done
>> > by
>> > > > the
>> > > > > > > child
>> > > > > > > > independently tomorrow--literally, in twenty-four hours--is
>> > just
>> > > > too
>> > > > > > > > attractive to people like Matt Poehner and Jim Lantolf.
>> > Secondly,
>> > > > > there
>> > > > > > > > hasn't been a clear scheme for figuring out what the next
>> zone
>> > of
>> > > > > > > > development really is (it's there in Vygotsky's pedological
>> > > > lectures,
>> > > > > > but
>> > > > > > > > these haven't been translated yet).
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > b) Dynamic assessment is "dynamic" and not diagnostic. It's
>> > > > > interesting
>> > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > > > compare the two Russian versions of Vygotsky's pedological
>> > > > lectures:
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > https://www.marxists.org/russkij/vygotsky/pedologia/
>> > > > > > > lektsii-po-pedologii.pdf
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > https://www.marxists.org/russkij/vygotsky/cw/pdf/vol4.pdf
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > Compare 2001: 191 with 1984: 260 (and also the English
>> version,
>> > > > 1998:
>> > > > > > > > 199!). It's not just that the Russian editors insist on
>> > replacing
>> > > > > > "test"
>> > > > > > > > with "task"--it's that they consistently replace
>> "diagnostic"
>> > > with
>> > > > > > > > "dynamic", even where this leads to redundant headings and
>> > total
>> > > > > > > nonsense.
>> > > > > > > > Why? Well, because in the Soviet scheme of things, the ZPD
>> is
>> > NOT
>> > > > > > > > diagnostic: it's dynamic. That means that a personality is
>> > > > infinitely
>> > > > > > > > malleable and tomorrow's development, with the right kind of
>> > > > > mediation,
>> > > > > > > can
>> > > > > > > > become today's. This is something that DA has largely
>> adopted
>> > > from
>> > > > > its
>> > > > > > > > Soviet roots....but it's not Vygotsky.
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > c) As a result DA has to reject the core of Vygotsky's
>> method:
>> > > for
>> > > > > > > > Vygotsky, structure is to be explained by function, but
>> > function
>> > > > MUST
>> > > > > > be
>> > > > > > > > explained by history, by development. Suppose I have two
>> > > children.
>> > > > > One
>> > > > > > > > learns, the other doesn't. The structural explanation is
>> simply
>> > > > that
>> > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > first one has the right mental structures to learn and the
>> > second
>> > > > > does
>> > > > > > > not.
>> > > > > > > > The functional explanation is that the first has the right
>> > > > functional
>> > > > > > > > motivation (putative career, middle class aspirations, etc)
>> > while
>> > > > the
>> > > > > > > other
>> > > > > > > > does not. But the sad truth is that the vast majority of
>> > learning
>> > > > > > > > difficulties really are developmental. I don't think that
>> means
>> > > > that
>> > > > > > they
>> > > > > > > > are destiny. But I do think it means that prevention is a
>> whole
>> > > lot
>> > > > > > > easier
>> > > > > > > > than cure. In DA, development is Markovian: the present and
>> the
>> > > > > future
>> > > > > > > are
>> > > > > > > > linked causally--but not the past and the present: it's a
>> weird
>> > > > > > inversion
>> > > > > > > > of Aristotle's belief that the past was determined but the
>> > future
>> > > > is
>> > > > > > > > intrinsically non-determinable.
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > David Kellogg
>> > > > > > > > Macquarie University
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 3:52 PM, Arturo Escandon <
>> > > > > > > arturo.escandon@gmail.com>
>> > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >> David,
>> > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > >> In my research about dynamic assessment I have been able to
>> > > spot a
>> > > > > > > >> moment students reorganise L1 and L2 concepts (related to
>> > > > urbanistic
>> > > > > > > >> and architectural city features) in such a way that they no
>> > > longer
>> > > > > > > >> "perceive" the sounds of words. Students who do not arrive
>> to
>> > > that
>> > > > > > > >> reorganisation are not able to escape from the perceptual
>> > > > challenge
>> > > > > of
>> > > > > > > >> oral utterances.
>> > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > >> The first group of students tend to mediate their
>> linguistic
>> > > > > > > >> production either in ideograms or Spanish-alphabet written
>> > words
>> > > > > when
>> > > > > > > >> asked to take notes. The second group tend to use the
>> Japanese
>> > > > > > > >> syllabic system to transliterate sounds.
>> > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > >> Best
>> > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > >> Arturo Escandón
>> > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > >> On 9 October 2016 at 07:21, David Kellogg <
>> > dkellogg60@gmail.com
>> > > >
>> > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > >> > When I read materials on Vygotsky, particularly in
>> applied
>> > > > > > > linguistics or
>> > > > > > > >> > TESOL, I always get the "four timescales" (phylogenetic,
>> > > > > > sociogenetic,
>> > > > > > > >> > ontogenetic, and microgenetic) from Mescharyakov's
>> wonderful
>> > > > > article
>> > > > > > > on
>> > > > > > > >> > Vygotsky's terminology. At first, in the vain hope that
>> it
>> > > would
>> > > > > > help
>> > > > > > > us
>> > > > > > > >> to
>> > > > > > > >> > distinguish better between ontogenetic development and
>> > > > > microgenetic
>> > > > > > > >> > learning, I used this myself (see Song and Kellogg 2011).
>> > > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > > > >> > Now I think that was a mistake. The term "microgenesis"
>> was
>> > > > around
>> > > > > > > when
>> > > > > > > >> > Vygotsky was alive and he certainly knew about it: it's a
>> > > > constant
>> > > > > > > >> feature
>> > > > > > > >> > of Gestaltist studies of perception. It's also strongly
>> > > > associated
>> > > > > > > with
>> > > > > > > >> the
>> > > > > > > >> > Nazi psychology of Leipzig. Vygotsky knows about the term
>> > and
>> > > > > > doesn't
>> > > > > > > use
>> > > > > > > >> > it, and I think he's got good reasons.
>> > > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > > > >> > Even where LSV agrees with the Gestaltists (Kohler,
>> Koffka,
>> > > > Lewin,
>> > > > > > > >> > Wertheimer, Selz--they weren't all Nazis!) he doesn't
>> seem
>> > to
>> > > > use
>> > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > >> term
>> > > > > > > >> > microgenesis. And actually, he's quite interested in Nazi
>> > > > > psychology
>> > > > > > > and
>> > > > > > > >> > not afraid to quote it, although he bitterly, scathingly,
>> > > > > denounces
>> > > > > > > >> > Jaensch, Krueger, Ach, Kroh and others in "Fascism in
>> > > > > > > Psychoneurology". I
>> > > > > > > >> > think he doesn't use "microgenesis" because it conflates
>> > > > external
>> > > > > > > >> > perception with perceiving meaning.
>> > > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > > > >> > Halliday, who also uses "phylogenetic" and "ontogenetic",
>> > > calls
>> > > > > his
>> > > > > > > >> "micro"
>> > > > > > > >> > scale logogenesis: the creation of semantics (as opposed
>> to
>> > > > > > > biological,
>> > > > > > > >> > social, or psychological semiosis). Take Zaza's article.
>> At
>> > a
>> > > > > > > particular
>> > > > > > > >> > point, the participants become uninterested in perceptual
>> > high
>> > > > > > > fidelity
>> > > > > > > >> and
>> > > > > > > >> > much more interested in meaning--what will Gogo think if
>> she
>> > > > sees
>> > > > > > that
>> > > > > > > >> her
>> > > > > > > >> > daughter-in-law is using mechanical means for nursing?
>> > > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > > > >> > Of course, semantic meaning is always linked to
>> perceptual
>> > > > > meaning.
>> > > > > > > But
>> > > > > > > >> > "linked" never means equal or mutual or fully reciprocal:
>> > the
>> > > > > > specific
>> > > > > > > >> > weight is first on one side and then on the other.
>> > > Microgenesis
>> > > > is
>> > > > > > > what
>> > > > > > > >> you
>> > > > > > > >> > get in eye tests, and logogenesis is what you get when
>> you
>> > are
>> > > > > > reading
>> > > > > > > >> > Zaza's article (and when you are reading this post).
>> > > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > > > >> > David Kellogg
>> > > > > > > >> > Macquarie University
>> > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > --
>> > > > >
>> > > > > It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with
>> an
>> > > > object
>> > > > > that creates history. Ernst Boesch
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> >
>> > It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an
>> object
>> > that creates history. Ernst Boesch
>> >
>>
>
>
>
> --
>
> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an object
> that creates history. Ernst Boesch
>
>
>


-- 

It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an object
that creates history. Ernst Boesch