RE: [xmca] zpd additional comment

["michael" <mglevykh@telus.net>]

Hello Eric,

 

Before choosing a specific unit of analysis (which resembles
operationalization, or defining the way how a specific concept can be
observed and measured, which in itself is a reduction since, as Vygotsky
points out, many features of cultural development are not directly
observable), it might be useful to know what (or, in the case of zpd, WHO)
exactly is being analyzed and on what theoretical foundations
(philosophical, psycho-educational, historical, socio-cultural, and even
mundane) these analyses are grounded. 

 

Claiming that ZPD develops the whole child, on the one hand, and choosing a
mere approximation, a measurable unit of analysis that does not quite
address its dynamic and holistic features within and of the dialectical
paradigm, on the other hand, is irresponsible and, in my opinion, is a
complete disregard for the very "Vygotsky" he (Chaiklin, 2003) is trying to
"authenticate." 

 

There is something more to Vygotsky's intended notion of the ZPD (like the
physical, spiritual, aesthetic, and ethical - things that go beyond the
stage of "ethical obedience" -- aspects of the child's personality) and its
usage than what is made explicit in his writing. It is possible that
Vygotsky was willing to articulate practical and theoretical matters related
to the ZPD in the absence of precise entailments and relations to "other
aspects of the child's personality" because, although he did not have a
chance to do so, he intended to provide a much more detailed account on the
ZPD at a later time. Unfortunately, unless and until all the other aspects
of the child's personality (and whether they are specifically addressed by
the ZPD) are made clear, the claim that the ZPD (as interpreted by Chaiklin,
2003) addresses the whole child would appear to be unconvincing.

 

Michael G. Levykh, Ph.D.

 

-----Original Message-----
From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] On
Behalf Of ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 6:43 AM
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: RE: [xmca] zpd additional comment

 

 

Hello Michael:

 

What are your thoughts on the actual unit being analysed?  Like to know 

your thoughts on this.

eric

 

 

 

 

"michael" <mglevykh@telus.net>

Sent by: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu

06/03/2009 09:00 PM

Please respond to "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity"

 

 

        To:     "'eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity'" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>

        cc: 

        Subject:        RE: [xmca] zpd additional comment

 

 

Dear Ulvi and All (interested in ZPD),

 

 

 

While I agree that Chaiklin is "dead on in his analysis on [Vygotsky's]

ZPD," his analysis, in my humble opinion, is NOT "ALIVE" either. There is 

a

clear discrepancy in Chaiklin's (2003) interpretation of the ZPD. While he

asserts that "the main features of the analysis of zone of proximal

development [concern the] whole child" (p. 50), his account of the whole

child does not include explicit consideration of emotion. Yet, for 

Vygotsky,

affect is the beginning and the end of the child's entire psychological

development. Quoting Pistrak (reference unknown), Vygotsky (2004) stated

that "The convictions that we may inculcate in school through knowledge,

only grow roots in the child's psyche when these convictions are 

reinforced

emotionally" (p. 55).  Surely, when dealing with the development of the

whole child, it is of paramount importance (according to Vygotsky) not to

separate intellectual from emotional features of the child's development.

 

 

 

Michael G. Levykh, Ph.D.

 

 

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----

From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] On

Behalf Of ulvi icil

Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2009 12:13 PM

To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity

Subject: Re: [xmca] zpd

 

 

 

 

 

Many thanks

 

 

 

On 29/05/2009, ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org <ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org> wrote:

 

> 

 

> Ulvi:

 

> 

 

> here is a link to a comprehesive analysis of this concept:

 

> 

 

> http://lchc.ucsd.edu/MCA/ZOPEDS/Chailklin.pdf

 

> 

 

> Seth Chaiklin I believe is dead on in his analysis.

 

> 

 

> eric

 

> _______________________________________________

 

> 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

 

 

_______________________________________________

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