>The Other does not have to be more-knowledgeable, we can learn from
>infants, dogs, and hot radiators ... but are we learning in the same sense,
>in the same way, as with the more-knowledgeable partner? and what is the
>nature of this knowledge? suppose it is not consciously held, but tacit
>knowledge: someone can show us what they do, but not tell us how they do it
>... we can still learn from tacit knowers, but somewhat differently, and
>they still seem to me to fit the ZPD model -- but learning from infants,
>dogs, and hot radiators does not fit the model at all. What do you think?
I could derive explicit understandings from interaction with my
dog (Mush), as I have from sitting across the cut-bank of a river,
or watching ice floes move in the midnight sun, etc. It's interesting
that I think of Alaska [minus the people] to conjure zpd's with Others
whose knowledge about a cultural project can not be said to be
more than my own. But in each of the cases I mentioned above,
the interaction from which I _formulate_ my knowledge (about
relationship; about time; whatever) takes place through internal
dialog. So where's the zpd? Where it always is.... constituted
at the intersection of history & environment? time and place?
then & now? Is more than one speaking history necessary
for a zpd? More than one version of a cultural project?
Judith Diamondstone
* NOTE CHANGE OF AREA CODE * (732) 932-7496 Ext. 352
MAILING ADDRESS:
Graduate School of Education
Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey
10 Seminary Place
New Brunswick, NJ 08901-1183
* NOTE CHANGE OF ZIP CODE *