Educational researchers have traditionally drawn on procedures and metaphors
from the hard sciences to guide their thinking about methodological
issues. One frequently invoked metaphor is that of the purity of data, which
a researcher can contaminate through the process of investigation. This
article questions the appropriateness of the purity metaphor, using a perspective
provided by Vygotsky 's notion of the zone ofproximal development (ZPD)
and its emphasis on a genetic method in which development is mediated by
cultural tools and signs. Methodological problems emerging from this conception
of the ZPD-including problems of defining research, identifying an
appropriate unit of analysis, considering the relationship between evidence
and telos (an optimal sense ofdevelopment), and accountingfor the mediational
role of assessment-are reviewed. Finally, the work of Luria (1976) is
examined from the neo-Vygotskian perspective developed in this article.
Educational researchers have traditionally drawn on procedures and metaphorsfrom the hard sciences to guide their thinking about methodologicalissues. One frequently invoked metaphor is that of the purity of data, whicha researcher can contaminate through the process of investigation. Thisarticle questions the appropriateness of the purity metaphor, using a perspectiveprovided by Vygotsky 's notion of the zone ofproximal development (ZPD)and its emphasis on a genetic method in which development is mediated bycultural tools and signs. Methodological problems emerging from this conceptionof the ZPD-including problems of defining research, identifying anappropriate unit of analysis, considering the relationship between evidenceand telos (an optimal sense ofdevelopment), and accountingfor the mediationalrole of assessment-are reviewed. Finally, the work of Luria (1976) isexamined from the neo-Vygotskian perspective developed in this article.
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..
