Re: [xmca] Re: microgenesis?

[Stan Barrera <esbarreraiv@lsu.edu>]

Same here. 

Sent from my iPhone 4S

On Oct 13, 2012, at 4:29 PM, "Rémi A. van Compernolle" <compernolle@gmail.com> wrote:

> As a fellow lurker, I'd support the public continuation of the discussion, too. I think there's something to be said for this type of "active reception" and our own microgenetic developmental potential...
> 
> Rémi A. van Compernolle
> Assistant Professor of Second Language Acquisition & French and Francophone Studies
> Department of Modern Languages
> Carnegie Mellon University
> Baker Hall A60M
> 412-268-1122
> 
> 
> 
> On Oct 13, 2012, at 5:20 PM, C Barker <C.Barker@mmu.ac.uk> wrote:
> 
>> I'm a silent watcher and listener too. I'd be sorry if you all went 'off line'.
>> I found Andy's distinction between types of development - 'gradual' or 'lytic' vs 'leaping' - provocaztive and rewarding.
>> Colin Barker
>> ________________________________________
>> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] on behalf of Larry Purss [lpscholar2@gmail.com]
>> Sent: 13 October 2012 22:07
>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>> Subject: Re: [xmca] Re: microgenesis?
>> 
>> I would like to mention that I am enjoying *listening in* to this topic.
>> It is currently outside my ZPD to contribute, so am staying silent.
>> However, exploring the development of *present moments* [Daniel Stern's
>> term] is a topic that I'm appreciating trying to grasp through this
>> dialogue.
>> 
>> Larry
>> 
>> On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 1:42 PM, Huw Lloyd <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com>wrote:
>> 
>>> I was just writing my half-piece, when yours came in, Mike.  If you go
>>> off-line cc me too, please.
>>> 
>>> Actually, I think this is material that is central (and am busy
>>> studying/thinking about it).  I'd be rather intrigued to hear how this
>>> topic is not relevant to other XMCAers.
>>> 
>>> My 1/2 piece:
>>> 
>>> I think the neoformation comprises the starting point for distinguishing
>>> development and learning.  If one wanted to treat "microdevelopment" as a
>>> class of development, rather than a contributing (learning) step towards
>>> development, then microdevelopment would need to make clear this
>>> occurrence.
>>> 
>>> Our 17 month year old went through quite a quick transformation of
>>> competently completing a wooden jigsaw-like puzzle recently (over a period
>>> of a week).  From my observations, I think the key difference was practice
>>> at looking at photographic pictures and recognising corresponding similar
>>> objects.  The week following a confused and much assisted attempt at the
>>> puzzles, he sat me down and completed the puzzle five times over
>>> unassisted.  What I noticed is that he was looking much more at the edges
>>> of the pieces and scanning the slots, in addition to a memory for where
>>> they belong.  I think this kind of looking entailed a new way of completing
>>> the task.  And indeed his confidence in the task transformed his whole
>>> approach to it -- no more hiding of those frustrating pieces...
>>> 
>>> I could think of alternative situations in which a learning act does not
>>> really assist with new set of relations between functions, but rather a
>>> further bedding down of a particular behaviour.  But then there are many
>>> social occasions in which a refined technical expertise is required that,
>>> having passed a threshold of acceptance, will then support further
>>> development.
>>> 
>>> The problem of ages seems, from my current readings, to be a bit weak.
>>> Whilst disavowing Piagetian stages it does seem to precariously follow
>>> along similar lines.  The notion of culturally influenced/predicated ages
>>> seems in general fine to me, but again I would expect more than this, I
>>> think that for development in its fullness to occur we would need to be
>>> thinking about the continual demands upon the agent and their change in the
>>> object of their activity -- a certain degree of "uprooting", of going
>>> beyond comfort zones.
>>> 
>>> Huw
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 13 October 2012 21:33, mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Hi Andy--
>>>> 
>>>> I made it home through a ton of LA traffic alive, which, microgenetically
>>>> feels good whatever the larger significance.
>>>> 
>>>> When you write
>>>> "I personally regard it as a matter or "mere words" whether "child  X at
>>>> last managing to recognize the difference between d and b today," for
>>>> example, is described as a development" it is clear that you and I are
>>> not
>>>> close enough to the same topic for me to know how to make progress.
>>>> 
>>>> It also appears that no more than four of the some 700 people on xmca
>>>> give a damn about this topic, so lets go offline about it, cc'ing Greg,
>>> and
>>>> David,
>>>> if he has patience to hang with us.
>>>> 
>>>> mike
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 8:44 AM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> **
>>>>> Yeah, whoever translated Vygotsky's "Problem of Age" is responsible. It
>>>>> just means *gradual*. So in a process of development, you have
>>>>> alternating critical and lytical phases, as in stepwise processes.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Andy
>>>>> 
>>>>> Greg Thompson wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Apologies for the intrusion, but I had a quick point of clarification,
>>>> for
>>>>> the uninitiated, what is meant by "lytic"?
>>>>> (all I could come up with pertained to "lysis" or the breaking down of
>>>>> cells - which would seem to suggest a different sense of "development"
>>> -
>>>> a
>>>>> breaking down so that things can be reintegrated. Is that the idea?).
>>>>> -greg
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 9:15 AM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> I don't know where Americans being dolts comes into it, Mike. Some of
>>> my
>>>>>> best friends are Americans. :) But let's move on from that.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The point, as I see it, is trying to extract from what we can
>>> reaonsably
>>>>>> understand Vygotsky to be  saying, something which we believe could be
>>>>>> correct and significant. To do this I think we have to understand the
>>>>>> concept of "development" always in a particular context. A truism for
>>>>>> anyone here I think. What it means to me is that I cannot just ask:
>>> what
>>>>>> transformations in psychological functioning constitutes
>>> "development"?
>>>> The
>>>>>> necessary, relevant context is what role in what cultural and
>>> historical
>>>>>> community is the person to play, in the short term and in the longer
>>>> term.
>>>>>> So the question of what constitutes development is age-specific,
>>>> culturally
>>>>>> specific and future-oriented.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> (Of course, the world changes, and what was development yesterday may
>>>>>> become oppressive and detestable tomorrow and vice versa, but let's
>>>>>> abstract from cultural and historical change for the moment.)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> From the standpoint of natural science what I have posed is an
>>>> absurdity
>>>>>> and incompatible with basic tenets of science ... because I have made
>>>>>> development dependent on events and relations in the future. In my
>>>> opinion,
>>>>>> that is just as it should be: kids go to school "for a purpose" -
>>>> although
>>>>>> what we mean by "purpose" in this context (the child's? the parents'?
>>>> the
>>>>>> state's? in retrospect? under advice? sponatneous?). But again, let's
>>>> just
>>>>>> put the problems arising from the idea of human actions being part of
>>>>>> object-oriented activities to the side for the moment.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> So you ask: "what does the word DEVELOPMENT mean in the concept of a
>>>> zone
>>>>>> of proximal DEVELOPMENT?"
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I have to ask /which/ zone of proximal development, which crisis or
>>>> lytic
>>>>>> period are we talking about. Now I guess we can manage to give a
>>> general
>>>>>> answer to the question: general questions require general answers.
>>> What
>>>>>> "development" means is relative to which ZPD you are talking about. On
>>>> the
>>>>>> other hand, the presence of the ZPD itself depends on the development
>>>> being
>>>>>> posed. Achievment of a specific new mode of action with those around
>>>> you,
>>>>>> transforming your relations and your identity and your actions in the
>>>>>> social situation depends on the expectations of those around you,
>>>> according
>>>>>> to broader cultural expectations and possibilities.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> A teacher or other "helper" interested in fostering development (if
>>> they
>>>>>> can be presumed to reflect general, broader cultural expectations) has
>>>> in
>>>>>> mind what new functioning will be a necessary step towards the child
>>>>>> becoming an autonomous citizen of the community.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> As Vygotsky insists, this poses for the child and her "helper" two
>>>>>> different kinds of situation: either /lytical/ development or
>>> /critical/
>>>>>> development. Lytical development is gradual and prepares the basis for
>>>>>> developmental leap. To argue whether the gradual progress made in
>>>>>> strengthening the relevant psychologhical functions in this phase is
>>> or
>>>> is
>>>>>> not development is in my opinion /just words/. Gradual accumulation of
>>>>>> strength in those activities which the child is basically able to do,
>>>> but
>>>>>> maybe not very confidentally and well is a necessary preparation for
>>>>>> transcending their age-role and entering into a phase of critical
>>>>>> development in which they have a chance of successfully coming out the
>>>>>> other side. It is by completion of the critical phase of development -
>>>> the
>>>>>> leap - which transforms the child's identity and role, that "/the
>>>>>> development" is realised/. All the preparation in the world proves to
>>> be
>>>>>> not development if it is not realised in facilitating the critical
>>>>>> transformation.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> So, excuse me please for however imperfectly rehearsing egg-sucking
>>> for
>>>>>> grandma's erudition.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I personally regard it as a matter or "mere words" whether "child  X
>>> at
>>>>>> last managing to recognise the difference between d and b today," for
>>>>>> example, is described as a development. In the context of course it
>>> is;
>>>> it
>>>>>> is a step. You want to call that a "microgenetic development"?
>>>> Personally I
>>>>>> don't have a problem with that. David may, but paraphrasing Oscar
>>> Wilde:
>>>>>> "Microgenesis is not one of my words."  But if the child at last
>>>> managed to
>>>>>> repeat the Gospel According to St Luke by rote, and you wanted to
>>>> describe
>>>>>> this as a microgenetic development, I would want to hear the
>>>> developmental
>>>>>> plan that made that claim coherent.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Where if anywhere does this leave us?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Andy
>>>>>> My apologies for using so many words to say so little.
>>>>>> Just trying to be clear and careful.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> mike cole wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Hi Andy--
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Well to begin with, thanks for keeping the discussion alive. I am
>>> away
>>>>>>> from home without books or control of my time, so I want to ask a
>>>> question
>>>>>>> that may highlight what is central to my queries here.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> If what you write is correct, what does the word DEVELOPMENT mean in
>>>> the
>>>>>>> concept of a zone of proximal DEVELOPMENT? Its all fine and dandy to
>>>> point
>>>>>>> out what dolts Americans are for not understanding that learning
>>> leads
>>>>>>> DEVELOPMENT in classroom instruction, that but classroom lessons are
>>>>>>> clusters of events that take place in microgenetic time WITHIN
>>>> ontogenetic
>>>>>>> lythic periods.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Where does that leave us?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> mike
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> PS- the url below lays out in some detail where the idea of
>>> acquisition
>>>>>>> of reading as a cultural-historical developmental process. Old and
>>>> never
>>>>>>> published. But at least we might refine what is indexed by the phrase
>>>>>>> "learning to read."
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> http://lchc.ucsd.edu/People/NEWTECHN.pdf
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 7:32 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net
>>>> <mailto:
>>>>>>> ablunden@mira.net>> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>   So this thread does not die ...
>>>>>>>   You said, Mike, "So I am seeing the same solution to thinking
>>>>>>>   about the ontogeny/microgenesis relationships by analogy with the
>>>>>>>   phylogeny/cultural-history relation."
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>   I don't see the analogy there. Phylogeny and ethnogeny are two
>>>>>>>   (overlapping and mutually determining) processes with two very
>>>>>>>   distinct material bases, viz., genes and artefacts. But learning
>>>>>>>   to read/write and development of abstract thinking (and other
>>>>>>>   leading activities in a developmental ZPD) is not such a
>>> relation,
>>>>>>>   it is a relation between critical phases and lytic (gradual)
>>>>>>>   phases of development. This is quite a different relationship.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>   The analogy I would see for something which couold be called
>>>>>>>   microgenesis would be the /situation/: a concept develops
>>>>>>>   momentrily in a person and their actions in a situation. The
>>>>>>>   situation is not a factor in phylo- or ethnogensis, it
>>> essentially
>>>>>>>   belongs to the very short time scale, and its material basis is
>>>>>>>   activity. I grant that no-one might use "microgenesis" in that
>>> way
>>>>>>>   and no-one may be doing research into that process these days. I
>>>>>>>   don't know. But the situation is a distinct material basis for
>>>>>>>   development and one on which Vygotsky did a great deal of work.
>>> On
>>>>>>>   the other hand, I think /all/ processes of development have both
>>>>>>>   critical and lytical phases (c.f. Gould's punctuated evolution).
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>   What do you think?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>   Andy
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> __________________________________________
>>>>>> _____
>>>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> --
>>>>> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
>>>>> 883 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
>>>>> Department of Anthropology
>>>>> Brigham Young University
>>>>> Provo, UT 84602
>>>>> http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> --
>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>> *Andy Blunden*
>>>>> Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/
>>>>> Book: http://www.brill.nl/concepts
>>>>> 
>>>>> __________________________________________
>>>>> _____
>>>>> 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
>> "Before acting on this email or opening any attachments you should read the Manchester Metropolitan University email disclaimer available on its website http://www.mmu.ac.uk/emaildisclaimer "
>> __________________________________________
>> _____
>> 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