Thanks, Ana!
I think Chaiklin relates the term "maturing" psychological functions
to the restructuring of psychological functions and defines
development as such. But your post makes me want to return to the
text to see when he uses each term, because I think you're right, they
are different concepts.
When you wrote about "restructuring the relationships between
different psychological functions", I focused on the word
relationships. This brings up another question we were discussing in
class: Chaiklin's argument about development of the whole child. I
think he would agree with you that it is not just the restructuring of
individual psychological functions: It is the "integrated structure of
relationships between functions, rather than considering individual
psychological functions in isolation" (p. 46). Would you say that
development is always about the whole or can it also be the
restructuring of relationships between some or a few psychological
functions? Should a model of development "consider the whole child,
as an integral person" (p. 46), as Chaiklin argues?
I really like your description,
In that light, a child does not "receive various methods of assistance" -
> but instead, enters into a new interactive system of relationships and
> processes. Joint activity is one of the ways that child can enter, explore
> and practice this new world in which there are new objects/objectives, new
> relationships and new rules.
Thanks, everyone, for replying to my posts. I'm sharing everything
with the students in my class. For a moment I can say that I stopped
being only a lurker! How cool.
Althea
On 5/31/06, Ana Marjanovic-Shane <ana@zmajcenter.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Althea and all,
> I just wanted to make a small comment on this particular quote from your
> posting:
> if learning occurs
> "... 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
> ."
>
> I have always understood Vygotsky to say that development of "higher
> psychological functions" (such as: memory, reasoning, will, etc) is not a
> type of process which can be looked upon as "MATURATION" or simple "GROWTH",
> but that it always happens through restructuring the relationships between
> different psychological functions. In light of that, the social interactive
> phase of development of either a particular knowledge (math, history,
> science) or skill, or of the whole person, is the starting phase in setting
> the blueprint (relationships, rules, operations) for a new organization of
> psychological processes of what is to become a new psychological function
> (knowledge, skill) or a new psychological "stage" of development.
> In that light, a child does not "receive various methods of assistance" -
> but instead, enters into a new interactive system of relationships and
> processes. Joint activity is one of the ways that child can enter, explore
> and practice this new world in which there are new objects/objectives, new
> relationships and new rules. Psychological functions are not maturing in the
> zone of proximal development, they are reorganizing and creating
> possibilities for new psychological functions, i.e. new psychological acts
> and activities.
>
> Ana
>
>
> Althea Scott Nixon wrote:
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
>
> ________________________________
> Ana Marjanović-Shane,Ph.D. 151 W. Tulpehocken St. Philadelphia, PA 19144
> Home office: (215) 843-2909 Mobile: (267) 334-2905 ana@zmajcenter.org
> http://www.speakeasy.org/~anamshane
-- 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 - 08:02:44 PDT