|
5-6까지가 WEEK 6 였다니.....
이것이 한 주 분량의 숙제였던가....
아무튼 5-6까지 읽은 것 만으로도 기쁘다. ㅋㅋㅋ
I think it’s useful for EVERYBODY to go back and go through the first part of Chapter Five again. Even me. Your notes are a good excuse for doing that.
1. 혼합주의 - 무리 - 주관적 기준...
Yes, that’s the key. Now, it might seem that by accepting syncretism and the heap and by attributing it to the child’s SUBJECTIVISM, Vygotsky is really accepting Piaget’s concept of egocentrism.
Not so! First of all, Vygotsky does not accept Piaget’s concept of “ego”, because Vygotsky believes the child has not really differentiated between himself and other people; the idea of a self is really alien to the child.
We see this idea of a “Big We” very clearly in young children who do not really understand that other people cannot see their dreams. But even older children do not understand the whole IDEA of communication as opposed to intersubjectivity; they do not tell stories, they just attract joint attention to different things and facts.
Secondly, Vygotsky does not accept Piaget’s concept of “centrism”, because Vygotsky believes the child is basically a realist, with an orientation towards real needs and real wants and real wishes.
We see this orientation very clearly in precisely the child’s “heaping” actions. The child thinks these wants and these wishes are all we know on earth and all we need to know.
(1) 무리 (heap) - 아무런 이유없이 감정적인 연합
Remember that LSV pointed out in Chapter Four that ANIMALS do this. A magpie nest is a heap, and so in a pig pen. The magpie does not care whether the twigs in his nest match in color, and the pig does not notice the shape of the mud and dung in the pigsty.
Now, what this means in the context of the Sakharov-Vygotsky blocks is that the child does not really CARE whether the blocks match or not. Remember that in Paula’s test, the three-year-olds just played with the blocks. When Paula asked if the block was a mur or a lag or a bik or a cev, the children would just guess, and guess again without remembering whether their first guess was right or wrong.
Remember that LSV pointed out in Chapter Four that every internalized function has a NATURAL stage and that this stage corresponds to TRIAL and ERROR. Teachers sometimes do this too, of course.
T: Look! This is a boy. Can you guess his name?
Certainly not!
(2) 공간적 분포
Now, you might think this is in no way a higher stage of thinking, and you are right. Except that it DOES involve some kind of principle. Those blocks over there are mur, these over here are lag, and so on. There is a kind of theory here, although it is a theory which really, at bottom depends on a PURELY subjective point of view (“there”, “here”, “now”, “then”)
(3) ?????
We can call this a “two-stage” heap.
Yes, this is a rather strange thing! Vygotsky says that the child sometimes forms a bunch of heaps, and then takes blocks from each heap to form another heap.
Remember what Paula’s BOARD looked like? It has four corners, and then a CIRCLE in the middle. So the child puts a bunch of blocks in each corner, and then chooses one or two blocks from each corner and puts them in the middle.
Why? When we ask the child this question, the child cannot explain. There is no reason, and so we have to say that the reasoning is subjective and syncretic. But nevertheless the process does suggest a SORTING, and even a matching of blocks to categories (the spaces on the board).
I guess I would NOT consider this syncretic heap anything other than a spatial heap (with FIVE spatial groups instead of four). But Vygotsky thinks it is a step towards making a complex, and of course he’s right: the child is matching blocks to spaces, but spaces are considered to belong to the board and not to the child.
2. 복합체 - 주관적 연합 때문만이 아니라 대상들 사이에 실제로 존재하는 객관적 연결을 토대로 함.
(1) 연합적 복합체 - 가족의 성처럼 전체와 연결될 수 있는 요소를 찾는다.
(2) 수집체 복합체 - 직관적 경험, 실제적 활동에서 확립된 사물들 사이의 연결........포크, 접시, 컵, 숟가락...
We’ve got THREE more groups of complexes to look at, Kitty! And then there are the potential concepts. The concept is not built in a day!
3. 개념
......................
아동들이 어른들과 의사소통을 할 수 있는 것은 개념 비슷한 것을 가지고 있기 때문이지만, 이것은 결코 개념이 아니다.
Good. Ms. Choe says 통상이몽, we sleep on the same bed but dream different dreams. We can see this in our data—a lot! The child says “continent” but thinks “country”. The child says “nuclear” but thinks “Starcraft”.
청소년기 이후에만 형성될 수 있는 개념과는 본질적으로 다르다.
You know and I know that the problem of “fossilization” is one of the key problems in English teaching. WHY, we ask ourselves, are there certain things that we hear a hundred times a day and NEVER remember (e.g. articles like “a” and “the” and prepositions like “of” and “for” and so on)?
Two explanations have been given, but they are both INADEQUATE:
Number ONE: The child does not use particles because the child doesn’t notice them. But we make sure, on tests, that they are noticeable, and the child STILL doesn’t use them.
Number TWO: The child does not use particles because the child is not given enough “comprehensible input”. But there are many things we learn once and NEVER forget (e.g. large numbers, addresses, names of important people, rules of politeness, where to put your shoes when you go into a room). Particles are MUCH more frequent in the input and they are still not learnable.
So Vygotsky has a more interesting explanation. Maybe the child does not use articles like “a” and “the” and prepositions like “of” and “for” because the CONCEPTUAL structures which underlie the use of these terms is simply not there; they are replaced by more familiar conceptual structures from Korean (abstraction instead of generalization) and they are unnecessary and alien to the child.
개념 형성을 위해서는 어른과 사회가 목적을 제공해야한다.
These are questions we will ask and answer in Chapter Six. It’s good that you are thinking about them now, though.
이러한 개념형성의 발달 단계를 세분하는 이유는 발달 단계에 알맞은 목적(또는 도움?)을 제공하기 위해서일까?
There is always a lot in the data that we don’t really understand. I think that the three BASIC categories (syncretism, complexes, and concepts) are GIVEN by Hegel (see the note on p. 272). But the subcategories (association, collections, chain, diffuse, and pseudoconcept) are things that actually arose in the data.
이것이 근접발달영역과 연관되는 것일까??
It’s a good question, Kitty. Actually, Vygotsky doesn’t talk about the ZPD at all in this chapter. Not once.
There’s a simple historical reason for that, but there is also a much more complex one. The simple reason is that he did not formulate the idea of the ZPD until late 1932, about a year and a half before he died, and this chapter was written sometime in 1930, after Sakharov killed himself, and published in 1931, as part of Vygotsky’s correspondence course for Soviet teachers.
But, you might say, the ZPD is a VERY important part of Vygotsky’s thinking. Why didn’t he REWRITE this chapter, so that the different kinds of complex are joined in a clear developmental sequence? For example, when the child is making associations, then the child can, with some help, use a collection complex but not a chain. When the child is using a chain complex, the child can learn the diffuse complex but not the pseudoconcept.
I think the answer is that that is simply NOT true empirically. Remember that Vygotsky says that even Idelberger’s two year old and Darwin’s grandson (see Section 12) can use chain complexes, although they are mostly using syncretisms. The truth appears to be that children can use pseudoconceptual reasoning even in preschool.
Real development is MUCH messier; it’s a complex palimpsest of different kinds of structures scribbled and partially erased on the same sheet of paper. This is a simple experiment, and it is meant to reveal some “classic” and clear forms of reasoning. But it’s not at all clear that these forms of reasoning appear in this form and in this order when the child actually develops in rough and random events of every day life.
Now, in the NEXT chapter, Chapter Six, we will be looking in the classroom. And we’ll see some things that are familiar from this chapter, as well as a great deal that is not. You see, in addition to everything else, Vygotsky had to stop talking about complexes because in 1930 the Communist Party claimed that “complexes” were holding back education in elementary school and elementary schools should teach “concepts”.
We know this from our own time! It often happens that the government, for one reason or another, decides that we are not teaching hard enough or the children are not learning hard enough, and suddenly, for some reason, the curriculum goals of middle school become the goals of sixth grade, the fifth grade goals are moved down to fourth grade, etc.
That’s what happened to Vygotsky! So in Chapter Six, we learn about “preconcepts” rather than complexes. Are they the same? Or did Vygotsky change his mind?
Nobody really knows. Paula thinks they are the same. Mike thinks that Vygotsky changed his mind. I am not sure, and that is why I am right in the MIDDLE in this presentation. Have a look!
K-Dragon!