RE
2) We know that the term 'pedology' and its scientific pursuit was
condemned by
the Soviet government in 1936. Why did the term 'pedology' go into
disrepute in
the **West** as early as WWI? --
For the destiny of "paedology" in the West I would suggest a really
good paper
by see Depaepe "The heyday of
paedology in Belgium (1899–1914): A positivistic dream that did not
come true" :
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VDF-3VGXNNG-5&_user=10&_coverDate=02%2F27%2F1998&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=87dc1e8ac5e3ef6496704546f62cc0b9&searchtype=a
(just in case, see attached). I guess the point is that neither
there were
spokesmen of these nascent discipline there, nor anybody needed the
weird term
after WWI any more. In other words, paedology--as well as several
other
psychoneurological disciplines in the West--calmly died out.
By the way, in a recent paper of mine I made this observation that
several
disciplines similarly--relatively quitely--died out in the Soviet
Union in the
1930s. Among these are a number of victimized and lamented social
movements
such
as paedology and psychotechnics (typically discussed under the
rubric of the
"oppressed science"), or the largely forgotten psychohygiene.
Indeed, all of
these were either formally closed down by a decree or lost support
from the
patrons in power and underwent considerable budgetary cuts, whereas
their
agents fairly easily switched to other disciplines and practices
like pedagogy,
psychology, psychiatry, physiology or medicine. In fact, it was the
decree of
1936 that suggested that paedologists convert into pedagogues (or,
implicitly,
psychologists) and continue their work. Which no doubt most of them
did :). The
decline of these disciplines in the interwar period was followed by
their
reemergence--mainly under the banner of psychology--during and after
the WWII,
in the West and the Soviet Union alike. Which suggests a fairly
universal rule,
independent of the specific localities, I believe.
Hope this helps...
Anton
P.S. Btw, never heard of "Stakhanovist turn in education". Sounds
funny
indeed...
----- Original Message ----
From: Steve Gabosch <stevegabosch@me.com>
To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
Sent: Thu, January 6, 2011 11:13:09 AM
Subject: [xmca] the Stakhanovist turn in education
Thanks, David. The Wikipedia has helpful articles on several of
your points -
zebra crossings, pedology, and the "Stakhanovite movement." I
changed the
thread name because some of the questions your points bring up for
me on these
topics may bring us beyond the aspects of zoped theory that are
usually
discussed on xmca. The last two questions are especially wild
cards, getting a
bit into political theory and history. On certain levels all these
questions
are related, of course. I think I ask 4 questions.
1) How does a zebra crossing capture the idea of the crisis for you?
2) We know that the term 'pedology' and its scientific pursuit was
condemned by
the Soviet government in 1936. Why did the term 'pedology' go into
disrepute in
the **West** as early as WWI?
3) What specific relationship do you see between the "Stakhanovite
movement" and
the increasingly Stalinist policies in education in the late '20's
and early
'30's? That is, what was the "Stakhanovite turn in education?"
According to the wkp, the Stakhanovite movement dates back to 1935,
and was
about adulating Alexey Stakhanov and his reputed accomplishments as
a miner to
encourage Soviet workers to exceed their quotas.
Just a little bit more on Stakhavonism, since you bring it up, and
it offers us
a view of the USSR in the mid-30's. As you know, Trotsky and others
were very
critical of this charade - but not all aspects of that movement.
His son and
close comrade Lev Sedov (1906-1938), writing under the pen name N.
Markin, wrote
an article entitled "The Stakhanovist Movement," published in the New
International in Feb 1936, available online at
http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/newspape/ni/vol03/no01/
markin.htm .
Sedov said: "We believe that the Stalinist leadership is putting the
Stakhanovists in a very privileged position not only in order to
encourage the
rise in the productivity of labor, but for the purpose of favoring,
just as
deliberately, the differentiation of the working class, with the
political aim
of resting upon a base, much narrower no doubt, but also surer: the
labor
aristocracy."
Sedov explains " ... the transition is beginning – and it will
indubitably be
quickly effected wherever it has not been made as yet – to a
differential
piece-work rate, that is to say, each worker will receive pay in
proportion to
what he produces. In proportion as the new technology [modernized
machinery,
such as the pneumatic drill in coal mining -sg] has created the pre-
condition
for the Stakhanovist movement, the piece-work wage, under the
conditions of the
monetary reform, has effectively brought this movement into being.
And in the
contradictory Soviet economic life with its elements of socialism and
capitalism, the Stakhanovist movement has not only become
economically necessary
but to a certain extent also progressive – in that it raises the
productivity of
labor. It is of course not progressive in the sense that it
[supposedly -sg]
“prepares the conditions for the transition from socialism [?] to
communism
[!!]” (Stalin, Pravda, Nov. 22, 1935).
Sedov continues "Piece-work wages were defined by Marx “as the form
of wages
most suited to the capitalist mode of production.” (Capital) And
only a
bureaucrat who has lost the last shred of Marxian honesty can
present this
forced retreat from the allegedly already realized “socialism” back
to money and
piece-work wages (and consequently, to accentuating inequality to the
over-exertion of labor power and to the lengthening of the working
day) as
“preparing the transition to communism”."
So that is a little on how Trotsky and his close colleagues were
viewing
Stakhanovism at the time, to offer some political history.
An aspect that especially draws my attention with regard to
Stakhavonism, and
how it might relate to the question of Stalinist changes to
education policy,
was the motion toward creating a highly privileged sector of the
working class.
Sedov, as quoted above, suggested this was politically aimed at
creating a labor
aristocracy, a social base for those in power, which Trotsky
analyzed as a
petty-bourgeois bureaucratic caste, led by Stalin. This raises
interesting
questions about how education policy may have been specifically bent
to serve
this and other bureaucratic perspectives.
4) Which brings me back to my questions. More generally, David, how
do you see
Vygotsky's theory of zoped as a response to Stalinism?
- Steve
On Jan 6, 2011, at 12:45 AM, David Kellogg wrote:
I have no excuse for my use of "zebra crossing" except that "zebra"
is the term
the Brits use for a pedestrian crossing. It refers to the stripes
on the road,
and it captures, at least in my mind, the idea of the crisis.
But I intend to use Mike and Peg's "Zoped" from now on, not simply
for the
inside joke that he gives ("zo"), but for an inside joke of my own.
"Ped" stands for "pedogogy" in Mike's term. But for me it will
always stand for
"pedology", the martyred once-and-future discipline for which
Vygotsky and
Sakharov sacrificed their lives.
I think this is the real secret of the "Zoped". It was a brilliant
tactical
maneuver, which allowed Vygotsky to pursue his pedological ideas
under extremely
unfavorable, actually REACTIONARY "pedagogical" conditions (the
Stakhnovite turn
in education, which was forced by Stalin on Vygotsky and his
collaborators in
the early 1930s).
By appealing to the future in the present, he was able to continue
using the
same idea of building on the child's own logical creations under
the guise that
it was not complexive pedology but pre-conceptual pedagogy.
David Kellogg
Seoul National University of Education.
--- On Thu, 1/6/11, Steve Gabosch <stevegabosch@me.com> wrote:
From: Steve Gabosch <stevegabosch@me.com>
Subject: Re: [xmca] zpd zbr zedpd and zoped
To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
Date: Thursday, January 6, 2011, 12:25 AM
So I have a few questions prompted from recent threads on zpd and
Mike's video
on zoped.
First, what does ZBR mean?
Wondering this got me to try to do some catching up of some xmca
posts in
recent weeks, figuring I'd missed something obvious. It may be
more of a case
of subtle humor. ZBR seems connected to a Nov 16 post by David Kel
where he
said: "PS: I think we should refer to the Zoped as a Zebra Raising,
or maybe
just a Zebra Crossing. But what we really need is a new name for
the functional
method of dual stimulation. The Fumedvastym? Fume Distillation?"
Some of this
had come up in some joking between David Kel and Mike a few days
earlier about
Mike's use of the term "zoped" instead of "zpd" ... but it gets
lost for me
beyond that.
So ZBR seems to mean ... ZeBra Raising or ZeBra cRossing ... and
has become a
joking substitute for zpd and zoped. But I seem to be missing
something. It
sort of spoils jokes when you have to explain them, but you know
how e-mail text
can be ...
On the use of the term 'zoped' (as opposed to 'zpd,') which David
had asked
Mike about, there is some subtle humor in that term, too. Mike
explains his
preference for the term zoped in the post copied below, where he
adds a reason I
hadn't heard - or more likely, recalled. "Zo" is a term used in
Liberia for a
village shaman, who among other things, is highly respected as a
teacher.
Thinking about this, and knowing Mike's penchant for playing, "ped"
derives from
Greek for "child," so the pronunciation of "ZPD" as "zo-ped" has
some word play
going on - "teacher + child" (a combination of meanings to which
one might
further ask, who is teaching who?). But this playful pronunciation
of an
acronym seems to have taken on some seriousness, in the form of the
connection
between 1) Vygotsky's proposition that learning leads development -
which is at
the heart of the concept of the zone of proximal development, and
2) Vygotsky's
theoretical approach to
play, both of which are emphasized in Mind In Society. And this
resonates not
just theoretically, but also pedagogically. As Mike says, "when I
organize
obrazovanie [education -sg], I like to mix serious stuff with
play ..." And so,
among some Vygotskian scholars and teachers, these plays on words
from other
languages have entered English as a technical term, a two-syllable
**word** -
zoped - with its subtle reference to playfulness (if you know the
playful
etymology), in place of the flat, three-syllable **acronym** - zpd,
or worse,
ZPD. Besides, as Mike points out, 'zoped' IS easier to
say ... :-)) As has
been pointed out on xmca before, the concept deserves a word. Just
when the
concept and a word for it winds up in Merriam's, of course, remains
to be seen.
It is still both a concept and a word in the making.
What provoked some of that joking about zebras and ZBR, ZPD and
zoped seems to
have been Mike's video "Mike Cole On Zoped" at
http://vimeo.com/groups/39473/videos/16714151
which Andy posted Nov 10.
This is a talk with slides that Mike recently gave in a live feed
to the Nov
2010 Vygotsky Memorial conference in Moscow, which I just listened
to.
Some highlights:
Mike suggests that Vygotsky's concept of zoped is different from the
"scaffolding" concept, a term first initiated, to Mike's knowledge,
by Robert
Wood in 1966. Mike asks how is the scaffolding metaphor different
from the
usual 'N, N+1' approach to understanding teaching situations. Mike
suggests
that this and some of the other varieties of Western learning
theory that limit
the zpd concept to this "construction" perspective do not
sufficiently take into
account the **dynamics of change**.
Mike then distinguishes Vygotsky's concept of **learning leads
development**
from
1) Piaget's concept that **development must precede learning**, and
2) the views of many American learning theorists that take the
position
**development equals the amount of learning**.
Another question Mike addresses is can zpd's or zopeds appear
outside the
classroom, for example, in children's play - or does this process
**only** apply
to school, to instruction. Connected to this question of where can
the zoped
occur is the sometimes perplexing meaning of the Russian word
'obuchenie', which
Vygotsky uses in his explanation of zoped. Mike explains that
'obuchenie' can
mean two different but related concepts - 'instruction' or
'learning' - and that
this term has been translated from R to E both ways - and in
reverse, the
English terms 'instruction' and 'learning' have both been
translated from E to R
as 'obuchenie' - creating some confusion about Vygotsky's original
meaning over
the years in both languages as Vygotsky has been translated back
and forth.
Whatever meanings Vygotsky intended in his brief but influential
writings on
the zone of proximal development, Mike, of course, has strong
suspicions that
learning can indeed lead development in many kinds of situations
outside of
formal instruction in school.
Which leads me to my next question - which I am taking the long
route to get
to.
One of Mike's concluding points is the challenge of how to
generalize on
Vygotsky's principle of dual stimulation, which Mike argues
underlies Vygotsky's
concept of the zone of proximal development. Mike points out that
he, Yrjo, and
other researchers have been focused on this aspect of zoped for
some time.
Mike's slide on this reads:
"Generalizing Dual Stimulation.
* The ur characteristic of higher psychologically (culturally
mediated) human
action is that it operates indirectly, through the environment.
* DS method is the ur model of human action incorporates the
environment as
tools for action. But it must be generalized into group as well as
individual
circumstances."
Mike urges the non-Russians at the conference to ask their fellow
Russian
attendees what 'ur' means.
So - to our fellow Russian speakers - what does 'ur' mean in Mike's
slide?
And, Mike, if you have a moment, could you spell out your
statements in that
slide a little - such as what the referents "it" refer to in the
first and last
sentences, what you mean by "operates indirectly, through the
environment,"
etc.?
Finally, Mike, could you post up your whole ppt slide set? You
mentioned in
your talk there was a larger ppt set than could be presented in the
20 minute
talk. Really good talk, by the way - thank you much for putting it
on Vimeo.
- Steve
On Nov 12, 2010, at 5:23 PM, mike cole wrote:
Subject: zpd zbr zedpd and zoped
I am answering David's question about "why zoped." I did not
include it in
my talk because I am uncertain of the audience's national
backgrounds and was assuming "mixed but mostly Russian speakers".
The talk
was supposed to be about 20 minutes long and I was
uncertain of the time. And I was also mindful of the fact that on
Tuesday
following its showing at the Vygotsky readings, I will be
discussing the
issues raised, and whatever people feel like talk about via skype,
sooooooo.
As many know, when i organize obrazovanie, I like to mix serious
stuff with
play. Also, I have a long term interest in the the enculturation
practices and processes of peoples for whom literacy has not been
a central
part of enculturation until, perhaps, recent times. And, I enjoy
participating in the forms of activity that emerge when zopeds are
created
as a part of our research and educational practices.
With that context (add or subtract to taste) the notion of a zoped
came from
two sources. First of all, it IS easier to say! :-)
Secondly, it involves forms of pedagogy -- arranging for the young
to
acquire valued skills, knowledge, belief, behaviors, etc --
Third, when it works, it seems like "something happened," a
qualitative
field that sometimes can be like flow, sometimes can be
triggered by timely juxtapositions, montage-like. And it seems to
lead to a
more inclusive, more integrated way of relating to the world at
least
in that setting. Whatever this "something" is, it has a magical
quality to
it.
In Liberia when and where I pretended to work once upon a time the
most
respected, revered, and feared members of the community were
shamen, a concept referred to in Liberia at the time (across
language
groups, so far as I could tell) as a Zo, what popular culture
refers to
as "witch doctors." They were THE teachers. But they worked
through magic.
That about sums up my idea of the zone of proximal development. It
requires
sage pedagogy and a touch of magic. When those are combined,
they, of course, constitute a zo-ped.
I personally recommend spending time in such third spaces. :-))
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
__________________________________________
_____
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
<Depaepe, Marc (1998). The heyday of paedology in Belgium
(1899-1914) -- a positivistic dream that did not come
true.pdf>__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca