Until now, we've focused on the foreground question about zoped.
Switching focus to what was in the background:
This is also an occasion for reflecting on the nature and the use of
theory. One way is to take LSV's or Chaiklin's criteria as something like
the instructions that a judge gives to a jury: "Your verdict must be
determined by your findings on this series of yes/no questions."
Another possibility is to use Chaiklin's list of criteria, but to use them
more heuristically--e.g., in the ways they lead us to investigation of the
variegation of forms/modes of "understanding" that could inform our
conceptualization of "development," and of "zones of proximal
development."
On Mon, 5 Jun 2006, deborah downing-wilson wrote:
> I like this idea. It works well with the notion of a zoped as a place of
> possibility - a place where possibilities are created, glimpsed at, and
> eventually recognized - in all senses of the word.
>
> At some early point it must even be the zone of possibility for
> possibilities..
>
> Possibilities present in Franklin's zoped?
> for the whole child, not one task? Surely.
> for staged development? hmmm
> for functional learning?, yes.
> for agentful, intentional participation? - I think so.
> for a historical dimension?- how can there not be?
> for the material ?- well, its embodied - can't get much more material than
> that.
>
>
> deb
>
>
> On 6/5/06, Tony Whitson <twhitson@udel.edu> wrote:
>>
>> On 6/5/06, bb <xmca-whoever@comcast.net> wrote:
>> > The short answer is "No". . . . . > The
>> > Paula and Randy in me want to vote yes, but Simon Says "No".
>> > bb
>>
>> I wonder if there might not be a problem here with trying to treat this as
>> a
>> dichotomous yes/no question.
>>
>> Consider an infant who does not yet know words, much less writing, whose
>> mother reads with the child on her lap, turning pages in the picture book
>> and vocalizing text.
>>
>> In the ordinary sense we might see the infant "imitating" the mother's
>> activity - turning pages, pointing at the pages, babbling, etc.
>>
>> We might say that this fails the criteria for imitation to qualify for zpd
>> because the infant lacks understanding. But is the infant totally devoid
>> of
>> understanding? Does that not depend on how understanding itself is to be
>> understood?
>>
>> Language acquisition folks might say that the infant is indeed developing
>> the rudimentary pragmatics (vs. syntactics & semantics) of reading. If so,
>> could it be possible to formulate an account of some kind of
>> "understanding"
>> that is essential for this developmentally significant activity?
>>
>> If so, the issue might be less a matter of reaching a "yes" or "know"
>> verdict of the zoped question. Instead, we might consider variation in the
>> kinds and forms of understanding that might be relevant.
>>
>> What do you think?
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] On
>> Behalf Of Mike Cole
>> Sent: Monday, June 05, 2006 5:24 PM
>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>> Subject: Re: [xmca] Did Franklin Participate in a Zoped?
>>
>> Great analysis bb. I agree. It cannot be a zoped by the criteria listed.
>> So now another, really key question.
>> Is there any example, anywhere in any known literature to support the idea
>> that
>> play can create a zone of proximal development? Certainly the example of
>> two
>> sisters playing sister that Vygotsky gives fails the current test. Using
>> McCarthy
>> developmental norms is not play.
>>
>> Or, perhaps, is there something wrong with the specification of criteria?
>> In
>> our chapter
>> on early childhood (In the Development of Children) Sheila and I refer to
>> "Islands of competence," the idea that in some forms of activity little
>> children display new forms of development that will appear more broadly
>> later. Wrong headed, right? If it doesn't appear everywhere, it doesn't
>> count. If it is not willful, it doesn't count, and so on. A neoformation
>> is
>> formed everywhere at once? The social situation of development
>> applies equally at home, at school, in the market, at play, .............
>> Nothing is activity contingent.
>>
>> And I am certainly misunderstaning a lot here even before I get to the
>> complexities that David raises from what his theoretical/methodological
>> perspective. We are left with
>> the possibility that Vygotsky is just plain wrong or self contractictory:
>> play being a specific kind of activity cannot every provide evidence for
>> development or a zoped. Or we have to start to think that some of the
>> criteria are no helpful.
>>
>> Anyone want to float an example that satisfies the criteria so we can work
>> out from there?
>>
>>
>> mike
>> On 6/5/06, bb <xmca-whoever@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > The short answer is "No".
>> >
>> > It always takes some effort to jump into someone else's text/mind, and
>> > this
>> > may be why the answer to Mike's question seems so elusive. I'm going to
>> > try
>> > to stick closely to Chaiklin's text, reserving, not pushing, my own
>> > perspective.
>> >
>> > What Chaiklin is advocating, reading among and between the lines, is
>> that
>> > one
>> > cannot ascribe a zoped without a theoretical framework. First, he
>> > clarifies
>> > development, and I've been able to pull out these aspects, although the
>> > list
>> > may not be complete:
>> >
>> > child development:
>> >
>> > 1) involves the whole child, not one task
>> > 2) is staged
>> > 3) is functional
>> > 4) is agentful (willful)
>> > 5) is historical (need description of the theoretical model)
>> > 6) is material
>> >
>> > Chaiklin states that objective zopeds, while culturally-historically
>> > specific,
>> > are normative, "one can say that the [objective] zone is normative..." p
>> > 49.,
>> > reflecting 'a particular societal tradition of practice."
>> >
>> > So Franklin's definitely not in THAT zone, the objective zone. But what
>> > about
>> > the subjective zone?
>> >
>> > For the subjective zoped, Chaiklin writes the "ability to imitate... is
>> > the
>> > basis for the subjective zoped." p 51. and then "Imitation is
>> possible
>> > only to the extent and in those forms in which it is accompanied by
>> > understanding" p 51-52.
>> >
>> > This IS a very specific delineation of 'imitation', not the normal
>> > cultural
>> > meaning, but I've seen common words used with precise definitions in
>> other
>> > areas ( e.g. force, energy, momentum mean precise things to physicists),
>> > so I
>> > do not find this refinement of 'imitation' peculiar. Rather, the
>> > sub-question to Mike's big one becomes " Is Franklin imitating Paley
>> > imitating Franklin (or imitating himself) when in the circle, or is he
>> > just
>> > copying Paley/himself?"
>> >
>> > For that, we have to try to assess Franklin's understanding of the
>> > situation,
>> > i.e., reading Chaiklin closeley, this seems to mean whether there are
>> > "maturing psychlogical functions that are developing" p 57, to which
>> > Paley's
>> > intervention is directed. The problem is that Paley just does not
>> > articulate
>> > enough of the situation for us to tell, one way or the other. My
>> > conjecture,
>> > reading into the situation, is that there are functions of
>> self-regulation
>> > that are in development concerning Franklin -- he can't self-regulate at
>> > the
>> > blocks, but with the support of a socio-dramatic play context, he is
>> able
>> > to
>> > cooperate with other children. Paley writes ""pretend disarms and
>> > enchants;
>> > it suggests heroic possibilities for making changes, just as in the
>> fairy
>> > tales." Franklin just may be "imitating", with understanding. The only
>> > evidence we seem to have is that he is able to cooperate in one
>> situation,
>> > i.e. socio-dramatic simulation of the building blocks, while not being
>> > able
>> > to cooperate while actually in the building block area.
>> >
>> > But no, this is circumstantial evidence, not conclusive, becuase a
>> > theoretical
>> > model of Franklin's age period for self-regulation in the practice of
>> > building with blocks has not been expressed, at least not in Paley's
>> > paper.
>> > Chaiklin writes "the zone is never located soley in the child, not even
>> > the
>> > subjective zone. the subjective zone is always an evaluation of a
>> child's
>> > capabilities in relation to the theoretical model of the age period. p
>> 58.
>> > Theoretical models for the role of socio-dramatic play have appeared in
>> > the
>> > literature however, e.g. in Cole & Cole, and Leong & Bodrova, et...
>> >
>> > So perhaps Paley knows. Paley wrote: 'A role playing incident may not
>> > alter a
>> > person's manners, but it provides a standard for easy reference. I can
>> > now
>> > speak about Franklin's behaviour in a calm context, and he willingly
>> sees
>> > himself in the picture'. It's not clear whether Paley is evaluated
>> > Franklin's performance in relation to a theoretical model -- she does
>> not
>> > articulate this in such a manner in her text. She does seem to have a
>> > grasp
>> > of the situation, however, writing the first part of her claim in
>> general
>> > terms.
>> >
>> > There is just not enough written about the situation to tell for
>> > sure. The
>> > Paula and Randy in me want to vote yes, but Simon Says "No".
>> >
>> > bb
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > xmca mailing list
>> > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>> > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> xmca mailing list
>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> xmca mailing list
>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Deborah Downing-Wilson
> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
Tony Whitson
UD School of Education
NEWARK DE 19716
twhitson@udel.edu
_______________________________
"those who fail to reread
are obliged to read the same story everywhere"
-- Roland Barthes, S/Z (1970)
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Sep 05 2006 - 08:11:24 PDT