Vygotsky: Genetic and Linguistic Theories
From CS260SP09
Readings
Chapters 2, 3 of Vygotsky and the Social Formation of Mind, James Wertsch, Harvard U. Press, 1985.
Discussions
Please post your critiques/commments on the required readings below. To do that, first login by using your user name and password, then click the "edit" tab on the top part of this page (between the "discussion" page and the "history" page), New to wikis? Read the Wiki editing guide. . Hint - Please put a whole line == ~~~~ == (literally) at the beginning of your submitted critique, so the wiki system will index, sign and date your submission automatically.
KetrinaYim 22:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
After reading about the attempts to correlate IQ scores with learning speed, I was left wondering how exactly IQ tests, particularly those administered to children, worked. We're often told that an IQ of 100 reflects an average intelligence. However, there are many different types of IQ tests, and an individual can score differently on each of them. What is the "intelligence" that is being measured by these tests, and does an IQ score necessarily reflect how smart someone is? The fact that a significant fraction of the children in the study described "had learning speeds not predictable from their IQ scores" tells me no.
On a different note, I found the study of schooled versus nonschooled literacy slightly problematic. Though it was probably not their intention, the conclusion arrived at in the study suggests the rather imperialistic notion that literacy in English is superior to literacy in Vai or Arabic. The study would certainly have been more convincing to me if it had been between those formally schooled in a language and those who informally gained literacy in the same language.
Nicholas Kong 02:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
@Ketrina I've never given much credence to the results of IQ tests, precisely because of the reason you mention. I must admit I am not familiar with the methodology in developing IQ tests, but I would postulate that they test a very strict definition of "intelligence". At best I would say they test the ability to take IQ tests, and nothing more. Brown and Ferrara's results were interesting in that they showed that high IQ scores did not correlate with learning speed. The notion of intelligence is a tricky one to define, and perhaps not even a worthwhile one, unless we can use that notion to help people learn. In that sense I would value Brown and Ferrara's metrics over the standard IQ metric.
On the subject of literacy in Vai, Arabic, and English, I don't think Scribner and Cole were making a value judgment on the merits of one language over another. Rather, they were trying to tease out whether literacy and decontextualization were directly related. Instead, I think their results showed that the cultural context in which the language is acquired and used is more relevant. Vai was acquired outside a formal schooling context; Arabic was used exclusively for reading the Quran; English was transmitted through a school setting. Because decontextualization was only observed in the English literate, it was likely the formal schooling which helped form these "higher-order" intellectual functions. It's my guess that if schooling had occurred in Vai or Arabic, similar development of higher-order cognition would have been observed.
David (Tavi) Nathanson 10:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
@Ketrina Of course, who's to say that learning speed is a good measure of intelligence, either? Some people are extremely "intelligent" by some standards, yet take a while to process/absorb information.
I was particularly fascinated by the discussion of biological vs. cultural development, spurred by Vygotsky's view that organic evolution proceeds up to a point where culture emerges and then stops. I typically think of culture as being a more recent development than the human body, and that it is based on our biology. However, it was stated in Chapter 2 that some mental processes may have emerged in *response* to culture! I never considered that culture did exist before humans reached their current biological state, and could *influence* organic evolution.
Seth Horrigan 10:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I found the distinction the author drew between development due to schooling and development due to language apropos. I had personally been wondering if that might be the case. As the article mentioned, when studying ontogenetic development, there are many factors contributing to any change. Although I share Vygotsky's fascination with language and language learning, I was suspicious of the weight he gave to linguistic development in the development of the mind. It was interesting to see the case of the Vai, Arabic, and English literacy versus illiteracy that Nick mentioned. The development of mental patterns and logical thought followed the formal schooling as I would have expected, not the literacy or language development itself. When studying an environment with the two inextricably bound, such as the formal state schooling that Vygotsky observed, it is impossible to distinguish between the effects of the two, but Scribner and Cole's study did allow for such a distinction. Even more interesting to me was the fact that the effects of schooling (on mental processes) may be transient if not continually reinforced through an environment fostering formal thought, but even so the development of new linguistic patterns seemed to remain evident in discourse over time.
P.S. David, what are the chances that we would both try submit comments at 3 am? Wiki conflict resolution gave your comment priority, and I almost lost what I had typed (hooray "back" button).
Himanshu Sharma 12:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
It seems the role of language in human development has been overemphasized by Vygotsky. For me, the most important contribution is the concept of zone of proximal development to explain the potential of learning. But, equating IQ - intelligence with speed of learning appears inappropriate.
Brian Tran 13:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I would argue that language is crucial to development because of the principle of decontextualization of mediational means. The example given in the readings is how numbers can be represented without any concrete items so we can just say the number four rather than four apples. The principle of decontextualization is crucial to the sociocultural development because it lends itself to abstract thought. I do think enough has been said to say that language affects physical evolution of people, but Vygotsky made the case that development comprises of both biological and cultural development in which neither dominates at any particular time.
Priyanka Reddy 14:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I thought the idea of the impermanence of the effects of schooling and literacy was really interesting. I had never thought that the effects of schooling would ever wear off. For certain, one forgets the details of what they learned, but i didn't think you could forget the general concepts you get taught as well as how to learn. I wonder if there's been studies done on literate users to test if the effect of schooling really does wear off after you finish school.
With regards to learning speed as a measure of intelligence, I agree that it's not a good measurement. However, it is a component - all things equal (ie. depth of knowledge, retention of concepts, application of concepts) , I would say that someone who learns faster is more intelligent.
Junda Liu 18:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
IQ is usually an average of several types of intelligence. So it only reflects the average intelligence, not any particular one. Regarding learning speed, I think it is very different because it represents how fast new information is absorbed, while IQ is a test about existing knowledge. Although with more knowledge, a person may understand new knowledge more easily by finding similarity between old and new, it's not convincing enough to argue the correlation between IQ and learning speed. In effect, it's possible because a person learns fast, he/she learns more given same time, resulting a higher IQ than others.
Anuj 18:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
@Nick: I totally agree with the point that IQ tests are nothing but methods of testing how good one is at taking the tests. Same holds for all the tests I guess. With regards to the definition of "intelligence", I believe the one that we discussed in the second lecture, makes a lot of sense to me. Intelligence can exist in a lot of forms (bodily, interpersonal, musical etc), and should not be evaluated through tests/exams. They have their own restrictions, and all that they evaluate is if a candidate is fast enough in solving a problem in a specified time duration.
With regards to the correlation between learning and cognitive development (or development otherwise), I believe that there is certainly a lot in common. Vygotsky's theory at the core says that a child's development process is affected by her social interactions with the environment around her, and therefore language serves as a strong element if not the only element. Though the importance of language might seem a little overemphasized, we should not forget that it has been some years, since these theories came into existence, and some nuts and bolts are bound to change. However, the crux of the theory does make a lot of sense to me.
Simon Tan 10:10, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that a few of Vygotsky's theories seem influenced by concepts found in Marxism, which is interesting as the reading details Vygotsky's background and brings this to light. For example, there is the insistence that the development of labor with tools is what separates humans from the apes. Also, that tools are labeled as a prerequisite (at least necessary) of the higher mental functions we have.
I'm not sure to what extent the authors are leading me on, but I do believe Marxism holds a "sympathy for the working class" and may have driven Vygotsky to propound some of his ideas a little more vigorously than he would have had he lived in a different place and time.
As to the issue of intelligence, I agree with the notion that there are "multiple intelligences" and it would take many kinds of "IQ" tests to really measure them all in any one person.
