Thanks for the link to your paper, Eugene, and for your
thought-provoking reply. As I said in my post, I kind of skimmed
Vladimir's paper and then sat back and got thinking. Earlier this week
I presented at a conference on English as another language development,
mainly from a genre/Bakhtinian/Hallidayan perspective, but I brushed
the zpd and "scaffolding". At the end of the presentation I fielded all
kinds of questions from teachers (mainly from SE Asian teaching
contexts) who wanted more on the zpd as a means for assessment (and
testing). I'm not about to make general statements about SE Asian
lenses, but this will be a particularly interesting time for us as
Vygotsky's work becomes better known in newer areas, at more
operational levels...cross-cultural and cross-historical Vygotskiology
is a rather nice term for that! As well as the volume I mentioned
containing works by more Russian scholars, I was delighted to see a
paper on second language development by one of the key (for me)
proponents of moving on from the acquisition metaphor to a
transformation-in-participation metaphor (Jim Lantolf).
Your paper will be read on a plane trip to Sydney in a couple of days,
meanwhile, I hope we can hear from others.....
Phil
On Dec 19, 2003, at 4:40 AM, Eugene Matusov wrote:
> Thanks A LOT, Phil, for the useful review of the book! It is now on my
> reading list….
>
>
>
> I agree with Vladimir Ageyev's claim that some US translations of
> Vygotsky de-emphasized his poetic and metaphorical style that deeply
> embedded in his paradigm and research program (e.g., what Vygotsky
> considered as a psychological phenomenon and evidence and what
> mainstream American psychology considers as a psychological phenomenon
> and evidence). I think Mike wrote about that several months ago about
> his own difficulties to introduce poetry in his academic writing and
> research. I'm glad that Vladimir brought that to public debate (I'm
> unaware about any other publication discussing this issue – but I can
> be wrong). In general I think psychology should learn from
> anthropology how to become sensitive to own scientific writing and
> narratives. I think that this is especially true for psychologists
> with sociocultural (or whatever you call it) orientation like ours
> (xmca-ish). It is time to develop cross-cultural "psycholo-logy?" (a
> science comparing how psychology practice is defined and viewed in
> different cultures) and specifically "cross-cultural and
> cross-historical Vygotskiology" (a field of cross cultural
> psycholology comparing how Vygotsky’s writings treated in different
> national psychology sciences and across time).
>
>
>
> Phil wrote,
>
> > Several students I have worked with recently, in the context of
>
> > learning theory for developing abilities in using another language,
>
> > have posed questions such as "How do we know when a learner is in the
>
> > zpd?", How can we measure progress through the zpd?" and "When
> learners
>
> > are interacting, whose zpd is it?". Similar questions from US
> students
>
> > are outlined by Ageyev. I have always had difficulties myself in
>
> > answering these questions, and have replied with vacuous statements
>
> > such as, "Think of the zpd metaphorically", etc. Ageyev provides some
>
> > good fodder to think over, notably for me...
>
>
>
> Although I did not read Vladimir's chapter and judge only from Phil's
> summary, I disagree a bit with portraying an inquiry of "measuring
> ZPD" as a specifically American inquiry (here I'm going again –
> judging a text without reading it! :-). In my view, Vygotsky himself
> really believed that ZPD can be operationalized and become a
> psychological measurement like IQ tests. It is true that he had
> several different definitions of ZPD (at least two) probably referring
> to different psychological phenomena: 1) ZPD as a distance between
> child's solo and joint performance and 2) ZPD as a leading activity
> where child demonstrates most advanced psychological functions. But I
> do not have doubts that Vygotsky badly wanted to operationalize the
> ZPD to measure proximal development. I privately discussed this issue
> with Jaan Valsiner (who is very knowledgeable about the historical
> context of Vygotsky's writings) and he seemed to think similarly. In
> my view, we are moving he notion of ZPD to more exciting directions
> that Vygotsky himself did not envision (e.g., ZPD in areas of
> diversity and multiculturalism).
>
>
>
> Now, I wrote "I disagree *a bit*" because, in my view, it is true that
> there is not any other country where desire to develop a ZPD test has
> not been taken so seriously and with such a zest as in US. According
> to Jaan, the first American attempts to design "ZPD test" were
> undertaken in the end of 30s. The attempts failed because of lack of
> reliability (surprise-surprise!).
>
>
>
> It is funny (but not for everybody) that a few days ago, graduates
> students at my school told me that my colleague assigned my article on
> Vygotsky where I discuss the issue of "ZPD test" and asked the
> students to operationalize the notion of ZPD (that was a question of
> the final exam)! He seems to argue that if a notion can't be reliably
> operationalize, it does not exist (or not scientific).
>
>
>
> What do you think?
>
>
>
> Eugene
>
>
>
> PS The article I referred to is
>
> Matusov, E. (2001).Vygotskij's theory of human development and new
> approaches to education. In N. J. Smelser and P. B. Baltes
> (Eds),International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral
> Sciences. Elsevier Science Ltd, Oxford.
>
>
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
>
> > From: Phil Chappell [mailto:phil_chappell@access.inet.co.th]
>
> > Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2003 7:04 AM
>
> > To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>
> > Subject: Cultural biases in understanding Vygotsky
>
> >
>
> > I just received a copy of "Vygotsky's Educational Theory in Cultural
>
> > Context" (Ed's Kozulin, Gindis, Ageyev and Miller) Cambridge 2003,
> and
>
> > while flicking through the volume, I was drawn to the final chapter
> by
>
> > Vladimir Ageyev, entitled, "Vygotsky in the Mirror of Cultural
>
> > Interpretations". Ageyev has taught courses on LSV's work both in
>
> > Russia and the US, and his aim in the chapter is to outline some of
> the
>
> > cultural biases that he has noticed in the US context of students'
>
> > understandings of Vygotsky's ideas. Ageyev begins by claiming that
>
> > LSV's ideas underwent a strong Americanisation through filtering out
>
> > most "poetic, philosophical and historical images", especially from
> the
>
> > first edition of "Thought and Language" (1962)....I do recall this
> was
>
> > a point of discussion during the xmca on-line course earlier this
> year.
>
> >
>
> > Several students I have worked with recently, in the context of
>
> > learning theory for developing abilities in using another language,
>
> > have posed questions such as "How do we know when a learner is in the
>
> > zpd?", How can we measure progress through the zpd?" and "When
> learners
>
> > are interacting, whose zpd is it?". Similar questions from US
> students
>
> > are outlined by Ageyev. I have always had difficulties myself in
>
> > answering these questions, and have replied with vacuous statements
>
> > such as, "Think of the zpd metaphorically", etc. Ageyev provides some
>
> > good fodder to think over, notably for me...
>
> >
>
> > 1. Doing some critical self-reflection on how I myself interpret
> LSV's
>
> > work, as he claims that 100 years of positivism and behavioursim
> can't
>
> > be shrugged off too readily, especially considering my own
>
> > socio-historical background as a privileged middle class, white male
>
> > from Australia (although Ageyev is referring to US contexts)
>
> > 2. Revisiting the relationship between LSV's work and Marxism. LSV's
>
> > work is usually held by new students in a positive light, and Marx is
>
> > usually associated with "negatives", such as communism. Some of the
>
> > more powerful metaphors that Marx created and which were appropriated
>
> > by LSV (e.g. tools) could do with a critical historical overview.
>
> > 3. Gain a better understanding of the context within which LSV was
>
> > working, and which was shaping his ideas and "experiments". As Ageyev
>
> > notes, we need to move beyond good linguistic translations of LSV's
>
> > works (he seems to assume that we have these available - I can't
> make a
>
> > comment there) to better cultural interpretations of his ideas. This
>
> > final point rings loudly to me, as the zpd becomes a popularised
>
> > metaphor for successful transmission or acquisition of knowledge and
>
> > skills. I can't help thinking of homogenised fat-free milk!!!
>
> >
>
> > Just some thoughts on a chapter that I skimmed.
>
> >
>
> > Phil
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jan 01 2004 - 01:00:09 PST