[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [xmca] zpd additional comment
Dear Eric
I think it would be harder to view a zone of proximal development as forming
a basis of some sorts stemming from the blocks experiment (as an example of
a method of double stimulation) than it would be in the intricate dialectic
between "scientific" and "spontaneous" concepts. Although it is true that
the way in which participants in my study related to - or were able to
benefit from - the dual stimulation offered in the blocks experiment
(embodied in words and objects of the task), the blocks method appears
explicitly as an activity geared to show us what children's
meaning-making/thought processes would look like without historical,
socio-cultural guidance. Some of this - school-like discourse, geometric
shapes and colours, lettering, and so on notwithstanding - has to do with
generalisations and hierarchy.
What do generalisations and hierarchy have to do with a zpd, one may ask.
Please forgive me if it looks like I'm cutting and pasting quotations, but
the two examples I give here are very important observations about the
difference between how adults form concepts and how children do.
"Only under experimental conditions was the child, freed from the directing
influences of well-established verbal connections, able to develop word
meanings and to form complex [ie, complexive] generalizations according to
his own preferences. This fact shows us the importance of experimental
study, which alone can reveal the spontaneous [not to be conflated with
"everyday" as in everyday concepts] activity of the child in mastering the
language of adults. Experimental study shows us what the child's language
and concept formation would look like if they were freed from the directing
influence of the linguistic milieu." (Kozulin's T&L, 1986, p.120)
Minick puts it this way:
"It is only in the experiment that we free the child from the directing
influence of the words of adult language with their developed and stable
meanings. It is only here that we allow the child to develop word meanings
and create complexive generalizations in accordance with his own free
judgment. The experiment is of tremendous significance in this sense. It
allows us to discover how the child's own activity in manifested in learning
adult language. The experiment indicates what the child's language would be
like and the nature of the generalizations that would direct his thinking if
its development were not directed by an adult language that effectively
predetermines the range of concrete objects to which a given word meaning
can be extended."
(Minick's T&S, 1987, p.143)
Words are supplied in the blocks experiment (they are written underneath the
blocks) but it is up to the participants to work out what the words mean in
the process of solving the problem of the blocks. Also, the adults in the
experiment don't provide a context for word meanings (as they would in "In
summer the ice lollies melt because it is very hot") - so it's more like a
dictionary entry and then you don't understand the words used to explain to
explain the first one and you still have to work it out for yourself. This
aspect is an intentional design in the blocks study, even though the method
didn't manage to shed light on the way in which generalisations and
hierarchically abstracted characteristics are built upon in forming "true"
or "real" concepts (LSV's self acknowledged awareness of the "limitations"
of the blocks).
Generalizations and hierarchies of abstracted characteristics are both
necessary in the formation of "scientific" concepts, and this form of
thinking can most easily seen in schooling environments most days of the
week. In this case, explanations of words like "brother" and "hibernation"
would probably show a more clearly tangible picture of the thinking involved
in how these concepts were formed. And this is quite apart from how they
would appear if the same children were asked to use the same words in
stories involving "because" and "although".
Regards
Paula
-----Original Message-----
From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] On
Behalf Of ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org
Sent: 08 June 2009 02:42 PM
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: RE: [xmca] zpd additional comment
Good point Michael.
Would it be more specific to say that double-stimulation experiments
formed the basis for the zpd?
eric
"michael" <mglevykh@telus.net>
Sent by: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
06/05/2009 11:17 AM
Please respond to "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity"
To: "'eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity'" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
cc:
Subject: RE: [xmca] zpd additional comment
Well put, Steve.
By the way, Eric, one of your earlier expressed assumptions that "much of
his [Vygotsky] theorizing about the zpd was done based on the blocks" is
not
quite correct. To understand the basis of Vygotsky's ZPD, one has to go
beyond what was written in the immediate physical proximity (whether a
paragraph, section, or a chapter) of his writings on the ZPD. Vygotsky's
entire theory of cultural development dynamically situated in (created by
him) dialectically monistic paradigm along with all his analyses in units
(including the latest, perezhivaniye) served as a platform for his notion
of
the ZPD.
Best,
Michael
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: Friday, June 05, 2009 8:37 AM
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: Re: [xmca] zpd additional comment
Very well thought out response Steve. To analyse into units does seem to
explain better the process of a socio-cultural exploration of development.
Michael, perhaps the scenario of a one-on-one tutor is all wrong. Perhaps
the literature needs to be culturally situated in a manner that isn't
sterile? With socio-cultural relevance perhaps that 18 year old can move
to the zpd required for developing the higher psychological process of
reading?
Just thinking out loud. Moving my inner speech to a cultural context.
eric
Steve Gabosch <stevegabosch@me.com>
Sent by: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
06/05/2009 06:49 AM
Please respond to "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity"
To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
cc:
Subject: Re: [xmca] zpd additional comment
Discussions on xmca about units of analysis always get me thinking.
Michael's response is a good reminder that a scientific unit of
analysis for a given situation is derived not just from the
**objects** under investigation, but also from the methodological
perspective of the **investigator**. Always very good to keep this in
mind.
A thought this conversation brings up for me stems from a point
Holbrook Mahn made in a recent paper at ISCAR, **Vygotsky's Analysis
of the Unit "System of Meaning"**. He suggests that the term "unit of
analysis" is not actually a correct translation of Vygotsky's
discussion of this concept. Better might be "analysis into units."
"The phrase "unit of analysis" is often used in cultural-historical,
sociocultural research, usually
with an assumption that it is based on Vygotsky's methodological
approach. In several places in
the 1987 English translation of Thinking and Speech, the phrase "unit
of analysis" is used in
describing Vygotsky's analytical approach, even though this phrase
does not appear in the
Russian text. For example, the phrase "unit of analysis" occurs in
Chapter 1 of Thinking and
Speech on page 47. This phrase does not occur in the source text; the
words that Vygotsky uses are: "eto otnosheniye soderzhitsya v
izbrannoj nami yedinitse" (Vygotskij, 1934/2001, p. 13).
Translated word for word, this phrase is: "this relationship is
contained in the unit selected by
us" ? the word which has been transformed into "of analysis" can only
be the adjective
"izbrannoj" which indicates that the unit is "selected." "
Mahn goes on to discuss Vygotsky's method.
"Vygotsky's use of "analysis into units" to examine the origin and
development of entities that result from the unification of distinct
processes such as those of thinking and speaking that yield "the
unified psychological formation of verbal thinking" (Thinking and
Speech, [Plenum], 1987, p. 44) is often overlooked by researchers who
use the concept "unit of analysis." "
My take on Mahn's discussion is to view Vygotsky's approach as seeking
more than just analytical "units" per se. Or, put another way, these
"units" are much more complex and dynamic than meets the eye. This
approach seeks to understand "units" as dialectical **unities** of
opposing processes. In this view, the water molecule is not just an
indivisible unit comprised of the elements oxygen and hydrogen. It is
also a complex chemical process that is a **dialectical unity**, a
transformation (sublation) of these elements, which are processes
themselves, into a new kind of entity, a new kind of process.
"Analysis into units" might be even more precisely expresses as
"analysis into dialectical unities," which forces the question "what
is a dialectical unity?", and especially, what is the dialectical
unity **in this case**?
I believe that CHAT researchers and practitioners, as a rule, in
practice, and many also explicitly, follow this dialectical approach.
But the heritage of the Western ideological traditions behind
mainstream social theory has a way of providing a manner of speaking
that tends to reduce processes, especially opposing processes, to just
"things" or "units," such as oxygen and hydrogen "atoms" and water
"molecules". But this is just a bare starting point. What can get
lost in such a manner of speaking is how Vygotskians try to search for
the **opposing processes** that are being transformed (sublated) into
new entities, new kinds of processes. Lacking dialectical
terminology, methodological descriptions typical of Western bourgeois
science can leave out things like motion and transformation, pointing
to only static objects. This is why taking a careful look, as Mahn
does, of what is meant by the term "unit of analysis" is helpful.
So when Eric asks:
" ... [take the example of an] 18 year old functional illiterate who
becomes serious about wanting to read. Providing numerous hours of
tutoring ends in the student still at the picture stage of
instruction. Is there a unit of analysis for this specific
example?" ...
... I interpret this as asking about the contradictory processes that
are involved in the relevant dialectical "unities" in this situation.
For example, what are the opposing processes at work that are driving
(or could drive - or for that matter, hinder) this student in moving
from one developmental zone to another? What transformation will take
place when these opposing processes combine into something new?
Some of these same (very abstract) kinds of questions may also be
relevant for Mike's situation with his 4th grade friend who is
struggling with multiplying minus numbers. I certainly have no
particular insights into these situations, which others on this list
have far more experience in than I do.
But I will venture one general idea. There may be some useful
universal teaching principles involved, applicable to students of this
or that age or situation, but there also may be some very individual
questions of personal sense and meaningful experience (perezhivanie,
another difficult to translate term Mahn discusses) involved, too,
that must be taken carefully into account along with the content of
the culturally established material. I am referring of course to
Vygotsky's very enlightening distinction between personal sense and
social meaning.
And therein lies the rub. Here, the teacher may have to be the one to
do some developing and let the student teach them. This of course is
part of the art of teaching, to figure out, by understanding the
student (and the material), how to reach them **concretely**. At the
same time, the personal sense of the student cannot really be conveyed
in socially meaningful words because that is part of the nature of
personal sense. So the teacher (as a teacher) can only reach out to
it and interact with it by seeking to transform it. The consequence
is a highly contradictory process for both the teacher and the
student. An easy thing to cheer both of them on to work out! And
sometimes, so terribly difficult and seemingly impossible a thing to
do in practice ...
- Steve
On Jun 4, 2009, at 1:58 PM, michael wrote:
> Dear Eric,
>
>
>
> I would certainly be willing to entertain the notion of a specific
> unit of
> analysis in your hypothetical example (although operationalization
> is not my
> field of expertise) if you were to reveal "where" your theoretical
> foundations (philosophical, psycho-educational, historical, socio-
> cultural,
> and even mundane) are "situated."
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Michael
>
>
>
> 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 12:28 PM
> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> Subject: RE: [xmca] zpd additional comment
>
>
>
>
>
> Thank you for your reply Michael. The zpd is one of the most unique
> and
>
> hard to qualify concepts. Indeed I agree that Vygotsky did not want
> to
>
> reduce people to their parts but rather take into account the entire
>
> person, however, he does intimate that different aspects require
> further
>
> attention than others. Much of his theorizing about the zpd was done
>
> based on the blocks. Solving the blocks presents a goal oriented
>
> activity. Some are quick to solve the blocks (interpreted as having a
>
> large zpd) while others take more time and require more assistance
>
> (interpreted as having a more narrow zpd); perhaps? I am willing to
>
> accept that I am incorrect on this.
>
>
>
> For a specific example lets pick the WHO as being an 18 year old
>
> functional illiterate who becomes serious about wanting to read.
> Providing
>
> numerous hours of tutoring ends in the student still at the picture
> stage
>
> of instruction. Is there a unit of analysis for this specific
> example?
>
>
>
> eric
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "michael" <mglevykh@telus.net>
>
> Sent by: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
>
> 06/04/2009 02:02 PM
>
> Please respond to "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity"
>
>
>
>
>
> To: "'eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity'" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >
>
> cc:
>
> Subject: RE: [xmca] zpd additional comment
>
>
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> 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
_______________________________________________
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