Appropriation, Part 2

dkirsh who-is-at lsu.edu
Thu, 16 Jul 1998 21:03:22 -0500

Lest the summer get too restful, perhaps, I'll
say a few words about my particular interest in
appropriation. As I'm reading about the problems
with the construct of internalization (e.g., Arievitch
& van der Veer, 1995), I'm trying to decide to what
extent those problems are the result of trying to
account for what is sometimes called "scientific
thinking" or "higher order cognitive functions" in a
social frame. Gal'perin, for example, struggled
(explicitly) against Cartesian dualism in his account
of three levels of activity: "material" (in which the
activity is carried out in the material world); "ideal
external" (in which the activity is enacted mentally,
but only with the support of material props); and
"ideal internal" (in which no external props are needed).
For Gal'perin appropriation is a more general term that
applies to all three of these sorts of actions; but only
this last one is characteristically human (i.e., higher
order) activity.

What I'm trying to figure out is if appropriation, which
seems like a relatively clear solution to the internalization
problem, achieves its clarity by providing a more general
(less specifically human) account of learning in the ZPD.

Thanks.
David Kirshner

Louisiana State University
dkirsh who-is-at lsu.edu

Arievitch, I., & van der Veer, R. (1995). Furthering
the internalization debate: Gal'perin's contribution.
Human Development, 38, 113-126.