Re: [xmca] Fwd: playzone

[mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>]

Too much there for me to grok all at one time, Larry, but starting near the
top I wanted to respond to this:
*"Why do we emphasize the differences between "play" and "learning" which
create historically constituted boundaries?  Could a case be made for
interweaving play and learning into a single dialogical zone of
intersubjective development?"

*Efforts at environmental design such as the playworlds described in some of
the MCA publications (one of which was discussed here, as I recall), the 5th
Dimension project started at LCHC, Eugene's work at Los Redes in Deleware,
Lois and colleagues Allstars project, as well as recent virtual world
efforts such as Quest Atlantis try exactly to * interweave  **"play and
learning into a single dialogical zone of intersubjective development?" .

*Here's a question about all of this work I think needs attention, if only
to dismiss it : How does design research that creates playworlds (broadly
construed) as a mode of theory and practice confront John-Laird's insistence
(reviewing Jim Wertsch's 1985 book on Vygotsky) that if the work does not
adopt the computational approach as both theory and tool-generating
methodology, it does not count as useful theory?
*
*mike
*
*
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 7:49 AM, Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Mike
> Thank you for posting this article
>
>
>  I want to draw attention to Penti's article on the creation of ZPD's as a
> perspective which links up ideas and processes that are so often
> differentiated into what are considered separate world's of existence.  Her
> article has also given me a little window into David Kellogg's passionate
> elaboration of the distinctions between teacher scaffolding of learning and
> creating "zones" of development.
>
> [I will add that Paul Thibault's perspectives {in MCA 2000, Vol. 7, Issue
> 4, p291-311} are lurking in the background of my thoughts but I'm still
> trying to develop the background knowledge required to incorporate his ideas
> as related to ZPD's.
>
> The question that is forming as I read David's, Penti's and Paul Thibault's
> reflexive dialogues on dialogical open ended development is:
>
> "Why do we emphasize the differences between "play" and "learning" which
> create historically constituted boundaries?  Could a case be made for
> interweaving play and learning into a single dialogical zone of
> intersubjective development?
>
> In other words, could the processes amplified in our notions of play
> [narrative intersubjective activity] and the processes amplified in our
> notions of developmental learning [informational propositional cognition] be
> an artifactual dichotomy of how we structure and form our particular
> sociohistorical institutional arrangements.
>
> Is there a possibility that Playworld ZPD's, and school ZPD's are
> describing the SAME underlying processes, but different aspects are
> amplified - and "biased"  as we develop our theories by "looking" for
> different aspects of a common human dialogical process of living in the
> world.  As we "leave play behind" and engage in "formal" learning" in
> "preparation for" WORK are we creating artifactual stages that separate
> vital human processes that are central to development.
>
> Another theme that runs through my question of a single developmental
> process is the human "desire" for PROXIMITY and the creation of zones of
> PROXIMITY [intersubjectivity] and the equally powerful "desire" for
> EXPLORATION and open ended novelty and newness.  This is where my
> speculations from "attachment theory" come in.  Are the PURSUIT of PROXIMITY
> [and the metaphor of "containment] and the desire for exploration LINKED?
> In other words notions such as Winnicott's "holding environment" the
> creation of "third spaces" etc as ZONES of PROXIMAL CONTAINMENT may be
> PRIMARY [in time scale] to create the dialogical space in which a capacity
> for AGENCY is constituted [within top down dialogical scalar level] BEFORE
> the infant or child VENTURES FORTH in exploration and subjective engagement
> in the world.
>
> I recognize I am making a case to BIAS the PURSUIT of PROXIMITY as
> foundational in the zones WE [emphasize WE] constitute and from which we
> venture forth.  In play worlds, when the pursuit of proximity is treatened
> by rupture and separation the "zone" collapses as the play STOPS [until
> through dialogue WE negotiate and find OUR way back to a place of
> CONTAINMENT]  I wonder if LEARNING WORLDS are fundamentally different OR if
> learning zones also need to accomodate the "desire" for the PURSUIT of
> PROXIMITY and CONTAINMENT in the formation of an INTERSUBJECTIVE ZONE of
> learning.  When play AND learning LEAD development is there COMMON GROUND
> [in the PURSUIT of PROXIMITY] that CONSTITUTES AGENTIC CAPACITY.  When
> agentic capacity and a "sense of self" is "internalized" developmentally the
> person is no longer "determined" by the "here & now" pursuit of proximity
> BUT threaten the self's core intersubjective need for proximity and the
> result may be that exploration [learning] is put at risk as the person's
> energy re-orients to attend to the pursuit of proximity.   Play worlds are
> often described as zones of "exploration" and I agree that for development
> to flouish play worlds must constitute exploration and creativity.  However,
> in order for playworlds to constitute exploratory activity there must first
> be constituted a dialogical zone of PROXIMITY that is intersubjective "all
> the way down".
> I think it is easier to make the case for PROXIMITY as the common ground in
> play worlds.  However, as the young child develops and moves into formal
> school settings are the desires for zones of proximity "transcended" when
> "agentic capacity" is "developed" OR does the need for zones of dialogical
> proximity continue to be the common ground for exploration, creativity, and
> emergence.  In other worlds [different from the play world]  do our basic
> needs and desires for zones of proximity become "transcended" or only
> incorporated into new formations [that are constituted by the socio
> historical institutional structures of our cultural worlds]
>
> I am not sure how "basic" are the needs for "containment" {ie metaphors of
> community, home, family, common ground} and "exploration" {creativity,
> imagination etc"} or if they are only my own particular "biases" that have
> emerged from my particular ontogenetic development.  However, the tensions
> and relational links between the concepts of zones of intersubjective
> proximity and the concepts of agentic intentional exploration seem to my
> biased perspective to be "basic" needs. [AND LINKED at multiple scaler
> levels -see Paul Thibault]
>
> Penti Hakkarainen's and Milda Bredikyte's article posted was the trigger
> for this extended reverie.
>
> Larry
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 6:19 PM, mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The attached paper addresses what is common to play and instruction such
>> that they should both
>> be sites for creation of zopeds. It appeared in the Russian,
>> Cultural-Historical Psychology.
>> Pentti is somewhere around xmca I believe
>> mike
>>
>> __________________________________________
>> _____
>> xmca mailing list
>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>
>>
>
>
> On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 6:19 PM, mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The attached paper addresses what is common to play and instruction such
>> that they should both
>> be sites for creation of zopeds. It appeared in the Russian,
>> Cultural-Historical Psychology.
>> Pentti is somewhere around xmca I believe
>> mike
>>
>> __________________________________________
>> _____
>> 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