David and Ana
I thought I would start a new post so we don't loose focus on the dialogical functions of development in the other thread. I've attached the Chaiklin article on the ZPD to help clarify David's recommendation we not loose focus on the notion of development of higher mental functions.
However the place of emotions in development also needs articulation and therefore this new thread that focuses more centrally on pesky emotions.
I want to quote a passage from Gordon Well's and Guy Claxton's edited volume Learning For Life in the 21st Century on page 8 of the introduction which is inviting reflection on e-motions and identity formation.
"We must ask how can the concept of individual agency be reconciled with the strong emphasis on socialization/enculturation that is taken to be a central feature of sociocultural theory, as well as of most public education.? We might also note here that traditionally education has tended to IGNORE social and emotional development, concentrating almost exclusively on intellectual development, and, more specifically, on the acquisition of bodies of formalized knowledge. From a CHAT perspective, however, all human activity is inherently social and IMBUED WITH EMOTION. Along with other more HUMANISTIC perspectives, which are also challenging the status quo, CHAT therefore invites us to inquire how educational activities can be designed to engage the active involvement of the student as a 'whole person' and to contribute positively to IDENTITY FORMATION." (page 8, emphasis added)
Wells and Claxton also quote Vygotsky on this same theme.
"Thought has its origins in the MOTIVATING sphere of consciousness; a sphere that includes our inclinations and needs, our interests and impulses, and our AFFECT and EMOTION ... A true and complex understanding of another's thought becomes possible ONLY when we discover its real AFFECTIVE-VOLITIONAL basis. (Vygotsky, 1987, page 282, emphasis added)
As Vygotsky, Wells, Claxton, (and many others in the CHAT community, the larger sociocultural community, and the even larger humanistic community) make clear those pesky emotions have a place in our ongoing discourse on the ZPD.
Ana's account of the complexity of the ZPD and the many functions and dimensions of development (not learning) of the whole person invites us to elaborate the "affective-volitional basis" as foundational to our continuing dialogue.
Larry