Thanks so much, Bill! Yes, Chaiklin offers positive definitions for
the zone of proximal development. I re-read his piece to find what I
think to be the most direct definition in the text. On p. 50, he
writes: "Zone of proximal development is a way to refer to both the
functions that are developing ontogenetically for a given age period
(objective) and a child's current state of development in relation to
the functions that ideally need to be realized (subjective). In this
respect, the zone of proximal development is both a theoretical and an
empirical discovery".
Chaiklin explains that empirically, one can use imitation to assess
the zone of proximal development. He reasons that if through
collaboration, a child can understand (and not just copy) some
activity then there is evidence of maturing psychological functions.
Speaking of substituting different words, I wanted to substitute
Chaiklin's use of "imitation" for a type of "learning" throughout his
extended explanation of assessing zones of proximal development. I
would therefore read his explanation to mean that if learning occurs
when a child receives varied methods of assistance through joint
activity, then there is evidence of maturing psychological functions…
and therefore, evidence of zones of proximal development.
Thanks for the quotes from Vygotsky and the Engestrom reference. I
really liked the metaphor of learning as a voyage across the zone of
proximal development.
Althea
On 5/29/06, bb <xmca-whoever@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> -------------- Original message ----------------------
> From: "Althea Scott Nixon" <althea.nixon@gmail.com>
> In short, zone of
> > proximal development is not concerned with the development of skill of
> > any particular task" (p. 43).
>
> Hi Althea,
>
> 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.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hod_carrier
> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
-- Althea Scott Nixon 1022A Moore Hall University of California, Los Angeles Graduate School of Education and Information Studies Los Angeles, CA 90095-1521 (310) 309-7991 _______________________________________________ xmca mailing list xmca@weber.ucsd.edu http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 02 2006 - 08:02:43 PDT