[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [xmca] Re: SV: One SSD or muliple SSD's or?

Hi Marianne and Larry [and everyone else] -- too!
I have just been reading the Bozhovich article from JREEP 2009 that Marianne
pointed us to, and before that, the Kravstova article. What follows is not a
response to Larry's note, which raises many interesting and important
questions in terms of cultural imaginaries, how the idea
of social representations is related to CHAT, and others. It is, however, a
continuation of the discussion of one SSD or many, and how we can become
more systematic in our ways of thinking about this issue. In what follows I
will use capital letters for the "overall" SSD and ssd for local,
activity-centered, institutionally differentiated one(s).

What really impressed me about the Bozhovich article (I can send to
individuals interested in pursuing this issue, but best not to bother xmca
as a whole) is that she provides a lot of examples of the way that
individual children experience a variety of ssds while continuing to insist
that it is possible from the welter of variation to discern something like
an overall SSD (what Jay Lemke referred to in a note to LCHC as a
"multiplex" SSD).

For example, she writes (this is just two fragments):

Here complex contradictions might emerge in the objective demands placed

on a child. For example, teachers, even in kindergarten, as a rule, see any

child first and foremost as a pupil, a schoolchild. Parents might see

first and foremost as a household helper and consider education as something

secondary and optional. Finally, there might be a third force at work—the

child collective, if it confronts its members with special demands that do

correspond to the demands of teachers and parents. It is worth mentioning

here that this third force can be decisive, especially for adolescents, for

their place within the collective, their relationship with their colleagues,

often of primary importance. All of this creates a very complex situation

that must be carefully analyzed and considered in examining the objective

circumstances influencing the formation of child personality. And although

it becomes difficult to determine a child’s place within the system of

relationships in cases where there are such conflicting demands, since

this position is expressed less clearly, this approach to investigating the

development situation is still just as important.


Consequently, although Vygotsky advanced a general thesis that children’s

experience and the entire course of their mental development are determined

by their level of understanding of the environment, essentially, in order to

explain the case he described, he nevertheless analyzed the real position

each of the children occupied within their circumstances and that

defined both the experience of each of them and their behavior and the

features of their development.

These considerations induce Bozhovich to refer to the fuzziness and
uneveness of border between stages and the possibility of children behaving
at different "levels/stages" depending upon content and structure of
activity (here referring to work of Davydov and Zaporozhets).

Perhaps in a manner suggested by Larry, part of our ongoing confusions in
discussion arise because terms like "age" get subtly displaced in different
readings. In his article on the "problem of age" Vygotsky wrote that the
major criterion for specifying an "age" is the neoformation children
manifest, not chronological age. But my reading of that and several other
articles on this topic (certainly including Kravstova) is that there is
slippage in the way people write so that sometimes age DOES appear to be at
least implicitly invoked.

This topic seems like one it would be good to focus on with a core set of
readings, but the odds of even a subset of XMCA being able to focus on it in
a sufficiently coordinated and extended manner to provide useful consistency
seems kinda remote.

To be continued.


On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 10:00 AM, Larry Purss <lpurss@shaw.ca> wrote:

> Hi Mariane and Mike [and everyone else]
> I wanted to reflect on some relationships between themes that have been
> posted on CHAT and make some linkages.
> Mariane, I appreciate your differentiating practices from activities.  You
> mention that institutions HAVE perspectives which can be different from the
> child whose phenomenological way of viewing the situation [perspective]
> leads to activity. The question then becomes the interplay between practices
> and activity.
> You also mention that this theoretical model does not need a notion of
> INTERNALIZATION.  The activities Andrew brings from home come into tension
> with the practices Andrew is thrown into at school.
> Now Mike 's article in MIND Culture, Activity. "The perils of Translation:
> A First Step in Reconsidering Vygotsky's Theory of Development in Relation
> to Formal Education" picks up on the tension between practices and
> activities in the concept of obuchenie.  In American psychology the focus is
> on the CHILD's phenomenological LEARNING activity [learning as a relatively
> permanent change in behavior brought about by experience of events in the
> environment.  In contrast to the American BIAS to understand and focus on
> the child's individual development and activities the Russian models of
> "obuchenie" are biased towards the practices of teaching and instruction.
>  The emphasis is on the adult's ORGANIZATION and formation of practices.
> [interaction]
> Obuchenie is a two-sided process but something gets lost in translation
> from Russian into English. As Mike points out these tensions can be
> articulated and made explicit and an attempt at a more balanced
> understanding of obuchenie be developed but there seems to be some factor
> beyond mere translation that causes American audiences to not "hear" or
> interpret but is being made explicit.  This "factor" whatever it is changes
> the entire MEANING of obuchenie when it gets intertwined with American child
> psychology and learning theory.
> This is where the notions of "cultural IMAGINARIES' may help to explain how
> ideas get lost in translation.  Hermeneutical Realism is one tradition that
> could explicate this dynamic, but for today I want to link in Moscovici's
> notions of social REPRESENTATIONS and his concept of ANCHORING.
>  [I see many parallels between hermeneutical realism and social
> representations.  Both acknowledge the REALITY of social OBJECTS that exist
> in TRADITIONS Both these traditions may also be useful for making
> developmental linkages between practices and activities.]
>  Moscovici's concept of ANCHORING suggests that newly generated social
> representations [such as obuchenie when translated into American learning
> theory] are always anchored to already existing social objects [and
> practices] which are activated in order to DESCRIBE the new social object.
>  The new concept must be anchored [interconnected] to the existing COMMON
> KNOWLEDGE [traditions] that forms or institutionally structures a shared
> identity structure. Only this common CODE [knowledge] allows for shared
> knowledge, communication and shared practices and thus maintains the group's
> cohesion.  In other words we GROW INTO SPECIFIC SEMANTIC SPACES. "We stand
> in a context of COLLECTIVE IMAGERY" [Slunecko & Hengl chapter 2  in Handbook
> of Sociocultural Psychology] {emphasis added}  Individual experience can
> only be comprehended in the light of collective experiential spaces and
> individual activity cannot be detached from its collective FRAMES of
> reference.  Social objects structure our social situation of development and
> our communication processes.  We ALWAYS stand in a CONTEXT OF COLLECTIVE
> IMAGERY and individual activity can only be comprehended within a collective
> frame of reference.  This is a rejection of one person psychology that
> focuses on learning theories and bias on "thinking" and refocuses on
> discursive activity within institutional practices.
> Now I'm wondering if the term "representations" carries so much historical
> baggage because of its being linked to intrapsychic internal
> "representations" or if our horizon of understanding can be expanded to see
> representations as existing in traditions and social situations of
> development.
> Andrew when moving from his home institutional practices and being thrown
> into the schools institutional practices has to develop new activities that
> are ANCHORED to his previous social representations. In the same way
> obuchenie, when translated into American child development looses the rich
> meaning of obuchenie as practices which exist within COLLECTIVE IMAGINARIES.
> For another post is the exploration of the teacher's or instructors
> PHENOMENOLOGICAL ways of imagining the frames or open spaces which see
> attempts to FORM or STRUCTURE as her/his activity within the institutional
> practices.  The instructor's activity [as imagination] is where
> hermeneutical realism has much to offer.
> I hope I've been able to smoothly link these various notions [and
> traditions]
> What do others think
> My summary of Moscovici's ideas came from Slunecko and Hengl.
> Larry
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Mariane Hedegaard <Mariane.Hedegaard@psy.ku.dk>
> Date: Tuesday, May 18, 2010 12:06 am
> Subject: SV: One SSD or muliple SSD's or?
> To: lchcmike@gmail.com, ablunden@mira.net, "eXtended Mind, Culture,
> Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> Cc: Larry Purss <lpurss@shaw.ca>, Marilyn Fleer <
> marilyn.fleer@education.monash.edu.au>
> > Dear All
> > I am very glad you discus our article.
> > I will do my best to clear some points starting with the social
> > situation of development.
> > When Vygotsky introduced this concept it was to get the child's
> > experience into the picture of development. He relates this to
> > the child's age periods, so that the child's social situation is
> > quite different for children in different age periods. Here we
> > have to acknoowledge Elkonin's description of how a child's age
> > periods are related to the different form of institutional
> > practice that a child will partipate in through his life
> > trajectory.  For Vygotsky the child's ssd is a concept
> > of  how children experience the world in relation to how
> > they are positioned in the world through the societal traditions
> > for practice they particpate in.
> > Boszhovich  clarify this in:
> >
> > Boszhovich, L.I. (2009). The social situation of child
> > development. Journal of Russian and East European Psychology,
> > 47, 59-86.
> >
> > In this article she takes a step further than Vygotsky, that the
> > child's social situation of development also positions the child
> > in the social situation.
> >
> > This I have developed further in relation to distingues between
> > practice, and activity, the practice is the process from the
> > institutions perspective the activity is the perspective from
> > the child's perspective. This means that different person's can
> > have different activity in the same practice, i.e. school
> > practice or home practice.
> >
> > Activity has to be seen from the motives, I prefer sometmes to
> > call this the child's motive orientation or intentional
> > orientation to the world. If we go to Andrew he has motive
> > orientation at home that he has to follow evrything (not to miss
> > the food or goodies, and what goes on), a way the children in
> > this family orient themselves. The do this by running and
> > walking around in the house. Andrew brings this activity with
> > him to school but here it cannot be realised through the same
> > actions as at home, so he do it with his gaze, but it is the
> > same motive orientation to follwo evrything. This we can see
> > creates a conflict for him in school, the teacher starts to
> > evaluate him as ADD as a child that cannot pay attention to the
> > activities she introduce. This evaluation goes home, and the
> > mother starts to pay attention at home to support him in school.
> >
> >
> >
> > You have to interpret Andrew from his activities in the settings
> > and not from his actions then one can see how he takes home
> > activies into school and how this create conflict.
> >
> > The social situation of development is a description of a
> > child's position from the child's perspective, how this will
> > change in relation to how Andrew's conflicts evolves wil
> > charaterise how he enters the next age period. How he developes.
> >
> >
> >
> > The concept of setting is inspired by Barker and White as Mike
> > hinted. But instead of behavior setting I prefer Activity
> > setting. For more information about this I will point to the
> > scheme page 17 table 2.1 in
> >
> >
> >
> > Hedegaard, M. & Fleer, M. (2008). Studying children. A cultural-
> > historical approach. London: Open University Press.
> >
> >
> >
> > Furthermore I  do not need the conepts of internalisation
> > in this description and I agree completly with Zinchenko when he
> > try to get rid of this doubleness of conceptualisation of the
> > human psyche.
> >
> >
> >
> > Zinchenko, V.P. (2005) In D. Robbins & A. Stetsenko (Eds.),
> > Voices within Vygotsky's non-classical psychology: Past,
> > present, future (pp. 63-76). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science.
> >
> > I hope this answer some of your questions
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> > Fra: mike cole [mailto:lchcmike@gmail.com]
> > Sendt: lø 15-05-2010 18:44
> > Til: ablunden@mira.net; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> > Cc: Larry Purss; Marilyn Fleer; Mariane Hedegaard
> > Emne: One SSD or muliple SSD's or?
> >
> >
> > LCHC read the Fleer and Hedegaard paper and part of my weekend
> > plan of work is to post some comments on it. It is a HUGE
> > undertaking of which we are seeing only a part, and it raises a
> > great variety of issues worth deeper consideration. Just
> > thinking of how much work went into taping the 20 hours for this
> > paper boggles my mind, never mind the amount it requires to
> > study the entire corpus. Its a really heroic project.
> >
> > Here i want to restrict myself to a raising a single question. I
> > have long been interested in the issue of SSD which is not
> > extensively discussed by LSV. I was glad to be pointed at the
> > Kravstova article in JREEP 2006 which I had not read. (I have a
> > pdf that I will send to individuals who ask for it; it does not
> > seem legitimate to post on XMCA until or unless Lena K
> > gives her ok - If you want it, write to mcole@ucsd.edu).
> >
> > I was excited to read the F&H article, because it appeared to
> > promise a way to look at "SSD" as a heterogeneous complex (yep,
> > that word). But when I got to the end, I was not at all sure
> > that it answered its own basic research question (p. 153)
> > although it clearly demonstrated differences between home and
> > school that several have comment on.
> >
> > Here is what the authors tell us their main research question was:
> >  The study reported in this article focused on how
> > practices at home influence the child's activity in school, and
> > how practices in school influence the demands on the child at
> > home. The study also sought to follow the transition of the
> > child across these institutions in order to see how different
> > demands influence a child's social situation of development.
> >
> > 1. I can see how Andrew's mother was influenced by the demands
> > of the school and share her concerns about medication (more on
> > that in a later note). I can see how Andrew's behavior is
> > different at school than it is at home. But I do not see how
> > home practices influenced school behavior or vice versa.
> >
> > 2. I can see how the school is one social situation of
> > development and the home another for Andrew, but I do not
> > understand how knowledge of these two situationS of development
> > tell us about THE situation of development (singular).
> >
> > 3. THE situation development is presumably (this is an issue I
> > have been unable to resolve for myself) of all the situationS of
> > development that Andrew experiences. These include the
> > transitions to and from school, visits to sporting events, and
> > going shopping which i look forward to reading about.
> >
> > So, my main question is how we arrive at THE SSD from
> > observations in two different institutions, home and school, and
> > by extension to all the other forms of activity Andrew
> > experiences. I imagine it might be conceptualized something like
> > Figure 1, but that figure is not designated as THE SSD.
> >
> > Can the authors or fellow readers help me out here?
> > mike
> > (PS-- reading this on gmail, I note an advertisement for "Super
> > SSD"-
> > I am afraid to look!) :-)
> >
> >
> > On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 9:18 PM, Andy Blunden
> > <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Again, apologies for the pedantry ...
> > Larry Purss wrote:
> >
> >
> >          Andy
> >
> >          I do see your
> > point about seeing an authors concepts as situated in a network
> > or constellation of normative practices.
> >
> >
> >
> > No. Two things: a constellation of artefacts on one hand,
> > and  on the other, a network of practices. In my view it
> > important to distinguish these two clearly.
> >
> > And No. Not "situated in", a situation.
> >
> >
> > Andy
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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