Now, my hat off to the authors of this paper. I am sure others on this list knew about *Question Asking Reading*, but I was not one of them. You define reading as "/expanding/ the ability to mediate one's interactions with the environment by interpreting text." You recognise that a child already has an ability to "read the world" and is probably already proficient in mediating their reading of the world by interacting with adults, so learning to read is constructed upon this base. This is clearly drawing on Vygotsky (credit to Piaget as well), and taking reading as a specific kind of collaborative process rather than just a technical process of decoding. You call on Luria's idea of "combined motor method" to introduce an approach to combining diagnostic tasks with teaching tasks. And you call on A N Leontyev to solve the crucial problem of the child's motivation for learning to read.
(As an aside I much enjoyed the observation of how prominent it was for the children to engage in discussion about the relation between "growing up" and learning to read. My one and only experience of teaching a child to read hinged around this discussion. We were living in a very remote location in the UK and her older brother was old enough to attend the mixed-age primary school, but Sam was too young. This hyperactive, very physical child suddenly focused on reading with startling intensity and learnt to read fluently inside of a week. ... despite our explanations about the legal age of public school attendance. But very soon the school willingly bent a rule or two and admitted her. :) )
Now I grant that my contributions to this thread have not gone within a mile of the issues raised in this paper. But my interests and experience are in social transformation, not teaching and learning in elementary schools. But I am willing to listen and learn.
A point of clarification on my side.ZPD. I have heard it said that ZPD is relevant only to the critical phases of development. I have also heard that ZPD was not a discovery of Vygotsky. For my part, I don't see any reason why this simple idea is not applicable to any learning situation. And likwise if you want to introduce the concept of "development" into qualitative achievements in the lytical phase of development under the heading of "microgenesis" to distinguish it from the whole process of growing into an adult citizen through a series of distinct social roles, I see no problem with this. ... Only provided we understand that if a child soldier who learns one day how to torture a prisoner, which they were formerly reluctant to do, this is "development" in a different sense, because it creates only a barrier to becoming a citizen of a community governed by democratic norms. But it would remain "microgenesis" if considered in cultural isolation. What makes every step along the road of learning to read in countries like ours /development/ is that (as you discussed with the kids) being able to read is a /sine qua non/ of being a grown up in our world. Torturing your peers is not.
In your message of almost 24 hours ago you said: "If what you write is correct, what does the word DEVELOPMENT mean in the concept of a zone of proximal DEVELOPMENT? ... classroom lessons are clusters of events that take place in microgenetic time WITHIN ontogenetic lythic periods.Where does that leave us?"I am perfectly prepared to live with a lot of polysemy with a word like "development" when one moves from context to context. Provided only we don't claim that there is /no qualitative distinction/ between the little developments that add up to development during a lytic phase, and the change in social position of a child which is constituted by successful completion of both lytic and critical phases of development. In that sense there is development and development. If that is how you are deploying the word "microgenesis," then fine. I just don't see any real disagreement.
Andy mike cole 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 xmcagive a damn about this topic, so lets go offline about it, cc'ing Greg, and David,if he has patience to hang with us. mikeOn Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 8:44 AM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net <mailto: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 <mailto: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> <mailto: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 <mailto: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/ <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/> Book: http://www.brill.nl/concepts __________________________________________ _____ xmca mailing list xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Andy Blunden* Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/ Book: http://www.brill.nl/concepts
Attachment:
Cole-learning-to-read.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document
__________________________________________ _____ xmca mailing list xmca@weber.ucsd.edu http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca