I have been lurking with great interest on this welcomed topic of
discussion, frustrated by my lack of time with back to back daily teaching.
My understanding of this topic takes me in a different direction, one where
the distinction being discussed, and the tall block examples etc appear to
miss the issue, which i see as one of agency.
My take on DS is that it offers a paradigm to study the very processes of
development, regardless of whether it is a spontaneous or scientific
concept, attitude or skill.
To me, it expands on the old gestalt notion of the aha! insight experience
where the learner appropriates a tool/concept/skill from the
inter-psychological plane (or reconfigures the stimuli solo) and thus
alters her own dev. The reason why teaching is not just telling is relevant
here. The teacher may tell/explain/co-construct or transmit stimuli/info
etc, & a zpd construction zone is established thus by a task or problem.
But in this paradigm, the learner willfully converts the external
stimulus/ sign/function/ concept etc (as intended by the other or not),
transforms it often in very idiosyncratic ways, into a stimulus MEANS or
tool for dealing with the world/problem in a new fashion.
So the product (scientific concept, skill or other) for me is not the issue
here but the process through which individual development is advanced. I
know 'advanced' suggests that there is a closed end point and i don't mean
it this way necessarily. A misconception, prejudice may be developed in
similar fashion also.
btw, in my research on this topic examined 20 transcripts of mother child
interaction in a problem solving situation to see if we could find evidence
(objective) of DS in action. We looked for instances of that semiotic
uptake (Wetsch, Minick & Arns) in episodes where mothers' interventions(or
teaching/communication/stimuli) were attended and converted by the child
into a tool through which categorization at a more abstract level was
evident in solo performance later in the episode.
As noted in the discussion, bound by the operational/behavioral
constraints we used to establish our criteria, we very likely
underestimated DS and uptakes yet we addressed two issues at least that may
be relevant. First, how could this very fertile paradigm be advanced (given
it seems abandoned in spite that it is =/> relevant than the operant
paradigm etc) and employed to study concept formation and dev, and,
Second, how prevalent are these uptakes given a short time frame,
where maternal verbal assistance is conceptualized as the 1st stimulus
which learners can convert into stimulus means. The answer to the bean
counting question was roughly 1-2 instances out of the twenty cases
examined, although like in social learning theory, the learning outcome may
not be manifest for days/weeks months etc.
If interested in more details, see 'Extending the DS Method in CHAT
Research: Parent-Child Interaction & Cognitive Change MCA 1996 4 (2) 108-123.
At 03:48 PM 7/26/99 -0500, you wrote:
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Bill Barowy <wbarowy who-is-at mail.lesley.edu>
>To: <xmca who-is-at weber.ucsd.edu>
>Sent: Sunday, July 25, 1999 11:02 PM
>Subject: Double double stimulation subtle
>
>
>
>"I don't think Cobb would have used 'double stimulation' in the past. The
>emphasis on individual construction seems closer to LSV's 'everyday' than
>'scientific'. So using Yrjv's framework, the rules, division of labor, and
>artifacts may be quite different between Cobb and Vygotsky, although you
>could find small groups here and there. But where 'double stimulation'
>fits in the everyday-scientific dimension has me a bit puzzled. A bit of
>both?"
>
>In a functional sense "double stimulation" would be more along the lines of
>scientific, since by its essence it would be conscious. But, while the
>words (general-scientific) and goal was given at the outset, the child
>turned over specific blocks (everyday) and is asked to generalize and the
>experimenter turns over another block which either proves the hypotheses
>correct or wrong. As the experiment continues the child is able to
>generalize all tall blocks (no matter shape, size, color) are called by one
>name. If the concept truly developed the child will be able to determine
> (x) tall blocks) to other objects not in the experiment. If we take
>"double stimulation" as a model in which to understand concept development
>it seems it is truly dialectical because the everyday concept was embedded
>within the formation of the scientific one.
>
>Nate
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Pedro R. de Portes
310 School of Education
University of Louisville
Louisville, KY 40292
Fax 502-8520629
Ph. 502-8520630
Home Page ; http://www.louisville.edu/~prport01