VygotskyOSU

- Learning vs. Development I just found that Vygotsky refreshed my way of perceiving two words, learning and development, which I always blended them. One of the take-home messages from the discussion was that, based on Vygotsky's theory, the influence of learning and development might occur under different mechanisms. The process of learning emphasizes memorization, recitation, and accommodation. A person can learn to gain a mastery of a specific domain if spend time memorizing knowledge. One can learn to be knowledgeable because he/she accommodate information to one's present schema (Might that be the reason why I am in pursuit of a master's degree?) However, development does not take place in the same way. Development refers to that one changed the structure and generate a more reflective way of thinking. - Could class teaching promote development? I wondered how a class could promote one's development process, not limited to learning? It is possible. The...

I just want to express my first reaction to Michael's definition of ZPD. I think it is very cool to have such two layers of definition of a concept. If I picked up correctly by just hearing it, the first definition is ZPD as the "literate construct" that works for teaching scenarios. It's like what has been mostly discussed. With this definition, we may ask how to assess ZPD or how differences of each person's ZPD can be. What is cool to me is to have the process-oriented definition of ZPD. It describes individual's creative process towards ZPD which involves intrapersonal processes to interpersonal and to intrapersonal processes. I feel the important of understanding a concept in a process way more than a product way. The latter is actually conceptually easier due to measurement practice. However, to understand a concept in a process perspective is harder.  This recalled me the idea of random variable in statistics versus random process. Random varia...

The article talks about four psychological stages for cultural development as primitive psychology, native psychology, external cultural method, and ingrowing or internal stage. The first stage is often determined by the child's capacity in memory or interest according to the experiment in the article. The child reaches the second stage with the assistance of the mnemotechnical method. The article pointed out that the child will move to the second stage when he met with difficulties after trials. Does it mean that most of the children can automatically transit to this stage when they find it difficult to memorize things or they will need external assistance in order to reach the stage? From my understanding, I think a teacher may need to intervene in the development with some introduction of a cultural mnemotechnical method to help students to reach the second stage. It could also be possible that the kid can figure it out after trials and observing how others memorize stuff, but i...

"When we purposely interfere with the course of the processes of behavior, we can do so only in conformance with the same laws which govern these processes in their natural course, just as we can transform outward nature and make it serve our ends only in conformance with the laws of nature.  "---- From Vygotsky "The problem of the cultural development of the child."  Vygotsky mentioned Bacon's principle---'Natura parendo vincitur', to demonstrate the way of people mastering of behaviors as well as the mastering of forces of nature. In a very long time, scientists have been following the Aristotelian way of doing research. In the educational field, people also try to teach children to think like adults and train them in logical thinking. I'm not familiar with logic still, but I feel like 'syllogism' which is originated from Aristotle is widely spread among teaching and researching. However, I'm questioning whether that is the most right...

I found this week's reading to be rather difficult to follow. I'm not sure I entirely understood Vygotsky's main point with this chapter, but this was one passage that I found interesting. "A sign or an auxiliary means of a cultural method thus forms a structural and functional centre, which determines the whole composition of the operation and the relative importance of each separate process. The inclusion in any process of a sign remodels the whole structure of psychological operations, just as the inclusion of a tool remodels the whole structure of a labour operation"[Vygotsky, 1929, p. 61]. I think Vygotsky is talking about the idea that internalization of cultural signs and symbols causes (and/or is caused by?) a fundamental, qualitative psychological reframing. This reminded me of a quote that I read last year when first learning about Vygotsky, and upon looking up that quote I found more interesting text that I thought I would share. "Vygots...

Heterogeneous language systems hinder culture development via mismatch in communication   "Features form in the structure of cultural methods rather than elements." What the claim is expected to be conveyed through this sentence might be that forms of interpretation decide the characteristics of the culture.  If the same problem is solved by different means, it will have a different structure. In other words, it is the diverse approaches, which different people use to interpret the meaning based on identical elements, that lead to different features. The first instance came out to me is the mutual misunderstanding caused by different language system. Even though people share the same idea (e.g., a wish: happy birthday), however, they are not able to express it to others. A s a cultural carrier, language makes different sense based on the specific application If a child turns to the aid of external memorizing means, the whole structure of his pro...

I love the way Vygotsky distinguishes between two lines of development, natural and cultural. A lack of development in any of them, could lead to retardation or weak mindedness respectively. In other words, retardation would primarily have an organic basis to it and weak mindedness would primarily have a cultural and social basis to it. Although most of what Vygotsky wrote was in relation to memory, I am curious to know if weak mindedness and street smartness can be seen as two ends of the spectrum of cultural development and cultural reasoning?? I have a cousin brother (age 39/40) who can be seen as weakminded, he has no biological/organic problem but his thoughts, communication and behaviors are not apt and quick enough to meet situational demands.   He takes a relatively long time to process things. Some examples, when his mom was having a medical crisis, he called my dad and asked what to do as opposed to calling the ambulance first. Another example is that he is not marr...

I had to read this a couple of times to grasp what Vygotsky was saying; it felt like we read an excerpt of a larger work and were thrown in the middle without much context. That being said, after reading it the second time for some reason Common Core math popped into my head (for anyone unfamiliar I have pasted an example below). The worksheet turns simple addition into addition, subtraction, and division for some unfathomable reason, but I digress. What stood out to me from Vygotsky’s short discussion of structure is that the way in which a child approaches a problem or the process he uses for remembering while solving will depend on the signs he employs, which determines how the problem solving unfolds, if I understood him correctly. When we make children do math following Common Core, it restricts the tools that a child can use, while at the same time expanding the number of problems that actually have to be solved, since, in the example below, the child also has to subtract and ...

"At the same time it is not a simple accumulation of experience as was stated above. It contains a series of inner changes which fully correspond to the process of development in the proper sense of that word."  From this statement above, it seems right and reasonable to understand that not every experience becomes meaningful in contributing to children's development. Only when any experience children have gets connected to their mental state and dynamics, does it actually make a difference in terms of developmental stage. That is, experience per se is necessary but we need to think more actively on how we can make it 'meaningful' and 'proper' in interaction with the world that children are surrounded by. What does it mean to make experiences meaningful to children? Even if we try hard enough to provide an intellectually stimulating or culturally responsive experience, it is up to a child who actually can make the experience linked and intertwined t...

I found this short piece to be a bit hard to follow.  The four stages of the child's cultural development make sense, but how LV got there made me scratch my head a bit.  As we read last week, memory (which has a strong connection with language) is an essential component of the associative and dissociative processes of imagination. One of the things I thought about as I read was how the two forms of development  (cultural and natural/ biological) are related to imagination and its development.  I know that (as Vygotsky points out) imagination is cultural in nature and is a product of accumulated experiences, but to what extent are elements of the earliest forms of the development of the imagination related to "the process of the general organic growth of the child?" Perhaps they aren't related at all, but it seems that the minds of babies could begin associating and dissociating images, feelings, and even blurry faces prior to the development of language. ...

Imagination is something that may be real, or may not be real. While this is a confusing and loaded statement, I could not agree with it more. Imagination is pretty much; everything. We often say that a child's imagination is "wild" and laugh at it. Why is this? Why is it that we perceive ourselves to lack vivid imaginations? Well, that's because we have accrued more everyday experiences and scientific concepts, unlike children. While a child's imagination of say a pirate might be mostly accurate, if you probe them further, there might be some things that emerge that don't seem very right. This makes us label it as a "wild imagination". Now, an adult has an active imagination that is more cohesive. It has a multitude of experiences to draw upon. This can actually create meaningless but beautiful things when one gets lost in the voluminous oceans of mental data we possess as a result of plasticity and our nerves being scarred softly and tenderly with ...

"If you see a moon as a moon, you are not there yet". This is what my Chinese literature teacher said in the class 15 years ago and I've been thinking about the sentence ever after she said that. We were studying the ancient prose at that time and she tried to emphasize the importance of synaesthesia and guide us to learn the beauty of language art. The point is that if you have stored enough knowledge for Chinese literature, you will no longer take the objective thing as-is, but instead, you get associated/emotionalized with the objectives with your personal experience, feeling, and situations by using a symbolized image. This is where imagination happens.  I am resonated with the point Vygotsky made that imagination is taken based on reality and previous experience, which provides the material the imagination has access to. I also think writing is a way to materialize the imagination. I believe that only when the students have made the sense of language art, will the...

Writing a lesson plan for me was always about using my imagination. My students ranged from grades 7-13 and I knew that attending class would have to be a planned experience for both of us and therefore I used to sit for hours and think of ways that I could take the class activities out of the box so as not to bore them to tears. I knew the strategies   and activities admin wanted me to use but I wanted to give a different experience to my ‘short attention span students’. Imagination for me is the action of forming new ideas from my ‘learned experiences’. In my classes I know of many instances where my imagination got the best of me and during the middle of the lesson I realize the plan was not going to work out and I had to say things like “OK let’s forget all of what we have done so far and try this instead” and sometimes it was a smooth transition, sometimes it was not and even I had instances of students figuring out and completing what I wanted to do even before I saw it...

Reading this week's piece, I was intrigued with several things. 1. How can we better/clearly understand the relationship between experience and imagination? In this week's reading, the experience based on imagination and the imagination based on experience were both mentioned, which I believe would be possible to happen. In relation to the comparison of child vs. adult in terms of imagination, it makes sense to argue that the more experienced adults are better at imagination (assuming that imagination is rooted in experience). Intuitively, I thought children's imagination would be wider in range and novel in creativity aspects. However, the reverse relationship also sounds rational in that our imagination is not necessarily out of blue, but we can only think of what we have experienced, or what we have thought based on our lives up to now.  Along the same line, my second question arises.  2. How do we differentiate 'imagination' and 'simulation...

Vygotsky says: Many authors, with complete justification, suggest that the roots of such creative combination may be noted in the play of animals. Animal play very often represents the product of motor imagination. However, these rudiments of creative imagination in animals cannot lead to any stable or major developments in the conditions under which they live; only man has developed this form of activity to its true height. This leads me to question, why? My first thought is perhaps this is due to the union of thought and word, supposedly a uniquely human trait. On the other hand, I suppose if we were to assume the contrary, that other animals could use their imaginative thinking to create stable and major developments in the conditions in which they live, we would likely see them, yet (to my knowledge) we generally do not. I found Vygotsky's claims regarding dissociation to be very interesting and reminded me of a discussion during one of our early sessions. He writes: In ...

To explain the development of Imagination and Creativity in Childhood, Vygotsky put forward a curve constructed by Ribot which shows different components as well as stages of the development of imagination. "The curve IM represents the course of development of the imagination during the first period. It rises sharply and then remains at the level achieved for a relatively long period of time. The dotted line RO represents the development of the intellect or reason. This development, as the figure shows, starts later and rises more slowly because it requires a greater accumulation of experience and more complex transformations of this experience. Only at point M do the two lines—development of the imagination and development of reason—coincide. " --- Vygotsky  Imagination and Creativity in Childhood As Vygotsky argued, he didn't think children's' imagination is superior to adults due to the limited experiences and simple perceptions which are mainly based o...

This post isn't really about art, I was just having trouble coming up with a clever title and I saw that on a meme earlier today, plus it's past my bedtime, so here we are.  In this week’s reading, Tolstoy’s account of creative writing with the peasant children stood out to me. After engaging with the peasant children Tolstoy concludes, “we must not try to teach children in general and particularly peasant children how to write and compose, how to set about writing.” I was curious why he specified peasant children, but, that aside, his distinction about peasant children made me pause to consider the interaction of class and education in the United States from a different perspective than I have before. After using the example of Tolstoy and the peasant children to demonstrate that the children were, in fact, being taught by Tolstoy (since they were co-operating), Vygotsky goes on to discuss how street children express themselves in woeful song reflecting their realities. ...

After our conversation last week, I tried to take a new approach to when and how I write my blog post.  I read the text yesterday, and had some ideas about what and how to write the piece for this week.  I decided to give myself a 24 hour (probably not enough time) "incubation period" after this experience, which Vygotsky cites from Ribot, but alas--it's 24 hours later and as I come back to the text, my ideas feel less organized and less ready to articulate than they did yesterday:). Here goes nothing : As I read the chapter yesterday, and pondered Vygotsky's points about how imagination is determined by the accrual of experiences in a person's life, I began to think about the ways in which trauma may play into this.  That is, what affects (emotional, behavioral, and particularly on the combinatorial imagination) does trauma have if, through a Vygotskian lens, "imagination primarily uses the data provided by external impressions." (p. 30ish) This id...

I think last class was really helpful with respect to decoding the actual difference between scaffolding and ZPD. For me, what popped up in my head was mainly associated with direct, top-down instruction and contrasting its effects with democratic classrooms towards achieving ZPD.  Starting from recruitment and ending at preventing frustration, the process of scaffolding is often conflated with the Zone of Proximal Development. Why is this? Well, the literature that scholars such as Freire and Faundez, and McLaren have put out about the perceptions of teachers as titular leaders may go to explain this. As Michael said, top-down processes, where more knowledgable others scaffold individuals to be better at something for which there are rigid expectations laid out is in our DNA! The scaffolding acts as a sort of facade to support someone and make them reach point B from point A by obtaining help. The nature of scaffolding is top-down, and it does not necessarily involve merging scien...

At first, I would like to share my understanding of what Vygotsky said, which I think is interesting. From the title, the article seemed to mainly discuss the imagination and creativity in childhood, however, I think the underlying mechanism of the mental effort is not limited to childhood. Vygotsky quoted many adults' work as examples for his claims, including Riobt, Tolstoy and Pushkin and so forth. I could understand better with the instances of more sophisticated creative imagination activity, such as from works of literature. The elements elaborated in the literature are much more clear and obvious to grasp, while children have not reached the sophisticated ability to display their product. As for two different developmental stages of childhood and adulthood, Vygotsky emphasized the different traits of mental competence. From the start, he stated that the compacity of imagination greatly depends on the richness of experience, Because imagination is a process of combini...

I really liked this week's readings on creativity and imagination! Vygotsky offers an interesting perspective on how creativity can also be seen as an everyday and scientific concept. He says everyone uses creativity and imagination and that it is not limited to a few individuals who propose inventions and discoveries. It is in some way our ability to make connections, especially between things that are seemingly unrelated. He also says that richer the person's experiences, social interactions, richer their imagination and ability to make connections (since the elements used to be creative are often rooted in reality). However, in the society, why are children then considered as the ultimate expression of imagination and creativity in most cases? Adults definitely have more experiences, maturity and knowledge, but why then do we place limits on our imagination?                                    ...

What stands out most to me after reading Wood et al (1976)’s article is the emphasis on controlling in scaffolding. It's the expert that decide what “treatment” they decide to use to improve the performance. They talk about scaffolding from teaching’s perspective which cares about the procedures and methods an expert follows when communicate with a child. Another point that I found interesting is the “recognizable-for-him-solution”. I think the concept is essential in understanding the relationship between scaffolding and zpd. When a teacher start to consider how much a child can understand and what solution is useful to him to proceed to next step, effective scaffolding can happen. I found this concept is closely related to the conscious teaching that was mentioned in Vygotsky’s article. I didn’t get a clear understanding of what conscious teaching is, but now I think a conscious teaching is a balanced attention to a child’s zpd and the way of scaffolding. Scaffolding, if from Vyg...

Memories from my experiences while reading the role of tutoring in problem solving came up at many intervals. I think the activity having the children play with the blocks and then receive guidance or hints after a certain amount of time to see their reaction and record their processing and constructions and deconstructions was rather interesting. Some questions that came up for me – How would I have played would those blocks? - What type of students was I at that stage?  Would I have followed the teacher or explored the block she had joined? I knew I would not ignore her as my parents would not be pleased and our culture gives adults power so I would do as instructed. Were these activities done with me as a child during my learning and development phases or seen as a waste of time? How will I change my views from direct instruction (which I know is backward) but helps me to achieve my goals to using and encouraging a more constructivist approach regardless of...

Reading Wood et al.'s (1976) original article in which they introduce the metaphor of "scaffolding" really makes clear how different this is from ZPD.  There is no collaboration (perhaps a better word is co-operation) between the expert and the child... the expert guides the child's actions through controlling their immediate problem-solving experience. The model of scaffolding assumes that the expert is, in a sense, all-knowing in relation to the problem and is not an active participant in the actions of problem-solving.  Vygotsky's theory really seems to require a much more dynamic social interaction or series of social interactions. I also question to what extent a tutor operating in this way can engage with a child's everyday and scientific concepts in a meaningful way. Having read Smagorinsky's (2018) article once more, it is hard not to be convinced of his position. He confirmed with Anna Stetsenko at CUNY (who earned her PhD in Psychology at Mosco...

For me, I feel like the development in ZPD is entirely different from scaffolding regarding whether students could develop mastery competency of their consciousness or not. The abstraction and generalization of thought enable people to be isolated from objects which allows them to have more mastery in directing their thoughts and actions. And he also mentioned the psychological structure witnesses huge change when children begin to differentiate similarities. It's a more complex structure that is activated in encountering differences since it needs abstract concepts that mediate understanding of similarities. In ZPD, I'm considering that students have more voluntary attention and memory in developing their own psychological structure that also helps them grasping more abstract concepts in other domains. However, in scaffolding, I'm not quite sure how educators and researchers define it. If teachers provide learning structures directly, then I would consider this may not h...

I'm still trying to become clearer in understanding the difference between ZPD and scaffolding. Knowing that scaffolding is helpful especially when you would need some external help/stimuli/clues to connect or rely on for completing a certain work, I cannot help thinking in line with this concept of ZPD. This is from a googling, btw; The zone of proximal development (ZPD) has been defined as: "the distance between the actual developmental level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem-solving under adult guidance, or in collaboration with more capable peers" (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 86). It feels like ZPD refers to the distance between the point where you are currently at, and where you are targeted/aiming to reach. If the existence of external help is needed to achieve/solve any task is the core criterion to define ZPD, can I understand scaffolding as procedural needs or elements that are help...

Reading the Woods, Bruner and Ross (1976) article helped to clarify some of the differences between ZPD and scaffolding. Based on Vygotsky’s description of learning versus training, the idea of scaffolding, especially given how the block task was described, seemed like the latter. I do find myself questioning the role of experts, because Vygotsky too describes meaningful imitation stemming from collaboration with experts. What I think Vygotsky adds that Bruner does not is a broader conception of who can serve as an expert. For Bruner, it sounded like only a teacher/tutor could serve as an expert, while Vygotsky allows for peers in the equation. One place I see this potentially making a substantial difference is when offering help. An example from Bruner really stood out to me, when he described the tutor’s help giving behavior. He writes, “When, for example, she [tutor] offered a block rather than asking the child to find one, she would invariably transgress in this way when the part...

When reading Wood et al (1976)’s article, the point came out to me most was that children would imitate doing something that they have already been able to do. In other words, during the process of imitation, which happens at the very first developmental stage of learning, an individual does not generate the process of thinking and meaningful learning by oneself, but simply parrot-like, copy-and-paste behavior. It seems plausible at the first glance, with the provided instance, “they can already do fairly well” when imitating. To me, imitation is a natural response and inevitable behavior when an individual sees something he or she hasn’t seen before. But I don’t perceive it as a unconscious action.  It is pretty common in early children from my personal observation in the kindergarten. Children had lots of fun imitating the teacher’s or peers’ behaviors, without thinking the meaning of them. For example, they would imitate the action of pooping when they read a picture book abou...

Let me tell my example. An American college student who has never been to China was taught by a professor in the class that Chinese are all liars. The student then has a chance to go to China. The first business she did was to buy a flight ticket from a Chinese travel agent. The ticket turned out to be not as described. She thought the Chinese agent lied to her. She thought about what she was taught in the class and she realized that "Yes, Chinese are liars. I shouldn't trust Chinese that easily." In this case, does the nonspontaneous concepts introduced by the professor influence the students' spontaneous concepts of Chinese? How would Vygotsky explain this? Note: This example is based on real story. I was in the class where the professor directly yelled to the class that Chinese are all liars. This makes me think about how people would still be influenced by the concept they don't actually understand.

Wood, Bruner and Ross present a compelling argument about the capacity of humans to teach, and the role of instruction in helping us interiorize knowledge. Scaffolding to them, involves moderating aspects associated with the task that are beyond the learner's capacity. However, the Zone of Proximal Development requires learners to understand both scientific and everyday concepts, and be on the cusp between uniting them. Thus, a child must be on the verge of seeing possible solution for the moderation of elements to work in his or her favor towards solving a particular problem to be inside the ZPD. Knowledge, here becomes a social process that requires the presence of an adult, accompanied by meaningful social interactions as opposed to merely " direct instruction" about a task. A child can totally be scaffolded by an adult, but he or she may even reach the ZPD independent of instruction then, right? We need to understand how to make social interactions meaningful in ...