-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: "Althea Scott Nixon" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
In short, zone of
> proximal development is not concerned with the development of skill of
> any particular task" (p. 43).
Nice provocative post!
Without having read Chaiklin, I'm relying upon your report of what he wrote. Methodologically, this anti-formulation of zoped is problematic for research and for assessment of learning and development: Beside pushing zoped beyond the reach of observation, this statement is only a "negative definition" i.e. there exists no positive suggestion for what exactly does qualify as a zoped. So maybe there is some more reading to do. Does Chaiklin offer something positive?
As an opposing thought, Engesgtrom's treatment of zoped in 'learning by expanding", chp 3., points out a functional orientation that, while 'speaking to broader issues', <s> could quite possibly lead to</s> has led to particulars:
'According to Vygotsky, the zone of proximal development defines those functions that will "mature tomorrow but are currently in an embryonic state", i.e., the 'buds' of development (Vygotsky 1978, 86). Vygotsky claimed that primates and other animals cannot have a zone of proximal development. Human children, on the other hand, can "go well beyond the limits of their own capabilities", they "are capable of doing much more in collective activity" (Vygotsky 1978, 88). '
Reading further in this chapter, one sees the differentiation of zoped from pipes, bricks, and mortar, although excluding pipes, bricks and mortar from a zoped <s>could also be</s> problematic. For me "pipes, bricks and mortar" is an important choice of words, because I remember many stories of my father, who left school after 6th grade, to apprentice as a "hod carrier", on his way to becoming a mason. Wikipedia offers a pithy definition.
xmca mailing list
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 02 2006 - 08:02:43 PDT