Re: zpd discussion

["Peg Griffin" <Peg.Griffin@worldnet.att.net>]

Hi, Mike and all,
Thanks, especially for the reference to the earlier discussion.
I found it in the archives of xmca for January.
And in that I found the link to http://equity1.clmer.csulb.edu/~xmcacourse
What a goldmine - a terrific 2003 course organized by Kevin Rocap and
colleagues.  I was able to get the Seth Chaiklin paper in component 4.  Then
I got into Peter Moxhay's section on Davydov which includes, among other
papers, two that Mike posted of work by Davydov.

So, I'm thinking that two questions are better than one in virtual
conversations/course/whatevers:  Instead of "What time is it?" should be
made of one: "Time? what is it?"

Lost? or not, in the virtual stacks,
Peg G.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mike Cole" <mcole@weber.ucsd.edu>
To: <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
Sent: Sunday, November 14, 2004 5:50 PM
Subject: zpd discussion


>
> Lots of interesting examples, nate. You put a LOT of work into the blog.
>
> We had some discussion of Seth's paper earlier this, year, around February
> I think, and the issues raised are certainly worth continued discussion. I
> thought your long list of points about development from Valsiner
counterposed
> with Seth's discussion helped clarify the issues at stake considerably.
>
> I did not understand the following: While the re-americanization of the
ZPD could be seen as a positive "development", I argue that negating the
centrality of development that Vygotsky gave to the concept renders it
meaningless.
>
> What did you mean by re-americanization?
> The examples you give a pretty heterogeneous in origin. For example,
Rogoff
> in the work you cite explicitly rejects a distinction between learning and
> development. I can understand how her use of the term could have a quite
> different meaning that (those - judging from Seth's perusal of the
complete
> works) interpreation(s) in LSV, but meaningless?
>
> A related topic that has received a lot of attention (Peg Griffin and I
> wrote about it in 1984, Stone wrote about it in the *Contexts of LEarning*
> book) is the unfortunate equating of zopeds and scaffolding.
>
> It has struck me for some time as odd that in his article on learning aned
> development, LSV does not define development, and his example of a zoped
> is in the context of McCarthy's scales of infant development used as IQ
> tests.
>
> I have also been pondering for some time (inspired by Seth) that learning
> and instruction are the major context for discussions of the zoped, but
> LSV invokes it in his writing on play (an issue Seth does not take up).
>
> I thought your invocation of the social situation of development was very
> important. The collected works appear to have only one index entry for it,
> or I skipped along too quickly, but collecting all the examples where it
is
> there and placing them alongside the references to zopeds would sure be
useful.
> mike
>
>