Chapt. 5 Experimental Study of Concept Development
Dr. Elina Lampert-Shepel
April 16, 2010
Introduction
Vygotskianism is a way of life ( Jacques Carpey). Practicing cultural-historical psychology leads to the crises of your own development.
To learn cultural-historical psychology of L.S. Vygotsky means to become capable of asking critical questions to its foundations.
Learning Task
Ask your own question(s) to Chapter 5.
Write it down on a separate piece of paper.
Philosophical traditions applied to the analysis of concept development in Ch.
Dialectics of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel: (1) analysis-synthesis; (2) mediation; (3) history
Karl Marx :(2)understanding of abstract-concrete relationship; (3) ascending from abstract to concrete ( Hegel-Marx)
Vygotskian idea of human development as self-transformation, mastery of your own behavior. Human freedom as grounded on the ability of humans to transform the given . How? – With the power of human spirit, ability of human consciousness to self –regulate, master one’s own behavior. This is only possible if humans develop conceptual thinking able to reveal the essential, concealed nature of reality.
So, how does conceptual thinking develop?
Methods for studying conceptual thinking. Vygotskian critique of previously used experimental methods.
Traditional methods for studying concepts:
Method of definition. “This method deals with the results of the completed method process of concept formation, with the ready-made product of this process.” ( p.121)
Method of definition
Flaws:
“…in studying definition of developed concepts, we are frequently dealing less with the child’s thinking than with his reproduction of fully formed knowledge and definitions.” ( Ibid.)
Relies on the word, ignores child’s reliance on sensual material, “…the perception and transformation of which gives rise to the concept itself.” ( p.121)
The most important , essential to the concept connection with reality remains unexplored. Verbal definition does not reveal child’s concepts and the process of their formation.
Method of exploring elementary mental functions that underlie the concept
Children’s task is to isolate and generalize
some general feature from several concrete
impressions
Flaws:
A complex synthetic process is replaced with an elementary one;
The role of word/sign is ignored;
The process of abstraction is oversimplified
Synthetic-genetic method of N.Ach (1871-1946)
Vygotsky argued that Ach’s method allowed to examine the process of concept formation rather than studying the fully developed concept, to study the process “through which the initially meaningless word acquires meaning( i.e. concept’s formation” (p.122).
Ach conducted experiments not only with adults but also with children.
His method of studying concepts, the so-called search method
[Suchmethode], was based on the following theoretical postulates, the formulation of which was doubtless one of Ach’s merits:
One cannot be limited to the study of ready made concepts; the process of formation of new concepts is important.
The method of experimental investigation should be genetic-synthetic; during the course of the experiment, the subject must gradually arrive at the construction of a new concept – hence the need to create experimental concepts with an artificial grouping of attributes that belong to them.
It is necessary to study the process by which words acquire significance, the process of transformation of a word into a symbol and a representation of an object or of a group of similar objects – hence the necessity of using artificial experimental words that are initially nonsense to the subject, but acquire meaning for him during the course of the experiment.
Concepts cannot be regarded as closed, self-sufficient structures, and they cannot be abstracted from the function they serve in the sequence of mental processes. The processes of the objective conditions, i.e. a set of objects possessing common properties, is not sufficient for concept formation.
A human being cannot be visualized as a passive photographic plate on which images of objects fall, reinforcing one another in their similar parts and forming a concept, like Galton’s collective photograph. Concept formation also has subjective preconditions and requires the presence of a definite (psychological) need, which it is the function of the concept to satisfy.
In thought and action, the development of a concept plays the role of an instrument for achieving certain ends. This functional aspect must be taken into account in an investigatory procedure; a concept must be studied in its functional context.
Similarly, in an experiment, the subject must be confronted with tasks that can be accomplished only if the subject develops certain concepts. The development of those concepts will require the use of a series of nonsense verbal signs to solve the problem, and as a result those signs will acquire a specific sense for the subject.
Experimental method of concept formation
Task:
Develop such an experimental method of concept formation that would reveal the genetic process of concept formation in all its complexity , not simply establish the presence or absence of this process. (p.126);
Such method should explain the use of sign as a means of directing and mastering conceptual thinking (Ibid.);
Such method should “offer a causal-dynamic explanation of concept formation.” ( p.127)
The Functional Method of Dual Stimulation Sakharov-Vygotsky
On a game board divided up into fields, about 20-30 wooden figures resembling are placed in one field. These figures are differentiated as follows:
(1) by color (yellow, red, green, black, white),
(2) by shape (triangle, pyramid, rectangle, parallelepiped, cylinder),
(3) by height (short and tall),
(4) by planar dimensions (small and large).
A test word is written on the bottom of each figure. There are four different test words: ‘bat’ written on all the figures small and short, regardless of their color and shape; ‘dek’, small and tall; ‘rots’, large and short; ‘mup’, large and tall.
The figures are arranged in random order. The number of figures of each color, shape and of each of the other attributes varies.
The experimenter turns over one figure – a red, small, short parallelepiped – and asks the child to read the word ‘bat’ written on its exposed underside. Then the figure is placed in a special field on the board.
The experimenter tells the child that he has before him toys that belong to children from some foreign country. Some toys are called ‘bat’ in the language of this people, for example, the upturned figure; others have a different name. There are other toys on the board that are also called ‘bat’. If the child guesses after thinking carefully where there are other toys called ‘bat’ and picks them up and places them on a special field of the board, he receives the prize lying on this field. The prize may be a sweet, a pencil, etc. The toys cannot be turned upside down to read what is written on them.
Description of the Experiment
The child must work without hurrying, as well as possible, so as not to pick up any toy that has another name and so as not to leave any toy in place that should be taken away.
The child rehearses the conditions of the game and removes a group of figures.
The time and the order in which the child removes the figures are recorded.
The most varied types of responses are observed: test reactions without any reasons, choice on the basis of a set (e.g. forming a collection), choices on the basis of maximum similarity, on the basis of similarity with regard to one attribute, etc.
The experimenter asks why the child picks up these toys and what toys were called ‘bat’ in the language of the foreign people. Then he has the child turn over one of the figures not removed and finds that ‘bat’ is written on it. ‘Here, you see, you made a mistake; the prize isn’t yours yet’. For example, if the child picks up all the parallelepipeds regardless of their color and size on the basis of the fact that the model is a parallelepiped, the experimenter has him expose the unresolved small short red circle ‘bat’ similar to the model in color.
The overturned figure is placed with the inscription up alongside the recumbent model, the figures removed by the child are taken back, and he is asked again to try to win the prize by picking all the ‘bat’ toys on the basis of the two toys known to him. One child will remove all red figures; another, all parallelepipeds and cylinders; a third will select a collection of figures of different shapes; still others will repeat their preceding response; a fifth will make a completely arbitrary choice of figures, etc. The game continues until the child picks up all the figures correctly and gives a correct definition of the concept ‘bat’.
Thus, the basic principle of our procedure is that the series of objects is given in complete form at the very beginning of the game, but the verbal series is gradually augmented; all the new items of this series gradually enter into the game one by one. After each change in the verbal series, i.e. after each change in the nature of the double stimulation, the child gives us his free reaction, on the basis of which we can evaluate the degree of functional utilization of the items in the verbal series and the child’s psychological reactions to the series of objects. (Sakharov, L. S. 1930: On the methods of investigating concepts. Psychological, 3, this translation first published in Soviet Psychology, July/August 1990. )
Comparison Ach/Vygotsky-Sakharov experiment
Ach’s experiment
—Begins with a learning period ( no task assigned to the subject).
—The means ( words) are given in a direct associative connection with stimulus objects
—“…impossible to explain …why there are such profound differences in the forms of thinking which the child approaches these tasks at various stages of development” ( p.127)
Vygotsky-Sakharov experiment
The task is presented fully at the very beginning. The task is constant and the means is a variable.
The means ( words) are introduced gradually
Possible to study how subject uses the sign to direct his intellectual operations, i.e. how the process of concept formation proceeds and develops.
Explained causal-dynamic and genetic relationships of the process of concept formation;
Provided data to understand concept formation as a function of socio-cultural development;
Provided data to conceptualize process of concept formation as the sign-mediated activity, “…the individual mastery of one’s [ELS for his] own mental [psychological in Russian – ELS] processes through the functional use of the word or sign.” (p.132)
Findings
In genetic terms, the basic conclusion of our research can be formulated in the following way: The development of the processes that eventually lead to the formation of concept has it roots in early childhood. However, these processes mature only in the transitional age. It is only at this point that the intellectual functions which form the mental basis for the process of concept formation are constituted and developed.
Vygotsky ( 1982), p.130
“…fundamental and necessary part of the process [of concept formation – E.L.S.] is the functional use of words or other signs as means of actively directing attention, partitioning and isolating attributes, abstracting these attributes, and synthesizing them. The formation of the concept and the acquisition of word meaning is the result of complex activity…in which all the basic intellectual functions participate in unique combination.” ( pp.130-131)
“ The development from lower to higher forms of concepts [from lower to higher psychological functions as well – ELS] does not occur through quantitative increase in the number of connections. It involves the emergence of a qualitatively new type of formation.” (p.133)
Three phases of concept development
The first phase: The formation of the syncretic images
Syncretic Image
In this phase the child mediates the task to group the objects with the word meaning in a form of syncretic image, i.e. unstable, randomly formed heap of objects. These objects are accidentally connected in the consciousness of the child as a result of the individual perceptive experience.
See example of the child’ use of word “vau-vau” and “kva” ( p. 148)
Syncretic Image Phase
The first stage. Trial and error; the child moves from one attempt to select objects to another randomly when he discovers the erroneous choice.
The second stage. Still trial and error, but the child is able to capture in the syncretic image the spatial and time connections among the elements he operates with. These are subjective relationships.
The third stage. The syncretic image as a meaning of the word is formed as a result of a two-step process: (1) syncretic groups of objects are formed; (2) individual objects are selected from the existing “heap” and then included again in the “heap” on the grounds of random perception, syncretic relationship. The difference is that at this stage the meaning of the word acquires perspective, it is not simply a flat plane.
The second phase: The formation of complexes
Thinking in complexes
For Vygotsky, complex is an empirical generalization of “…heterogeneous concrete objects.” (p.137) The difference with the syncretic image phase is that in complexes the child groups individual objects not only on the basis of subjective perception, but also on the basis of objective relationships existing among these objects.
The child at this stage overcomes egocentrism and stops interpreting the connections created as a result of personal impressions as objectively existing connections among things. This is the significant step in concept development of overcoming syncretic phase.
Factual relationships among objects discovered through natural experiences are the foundations of any complex. As this is empirical relationship, any existing connection can be included in the complex. The relationship is occasional, random, concrete.( Differs from the scientific concept where only essential relationships are included)
Types of Complexes
Associative Complex
Associative Complex – “…based on associative connection between an object that is included in the complex and any of the features that the child notices in the object that acts in the object nucleus.” ( p.137) E.g. some objects are included as they have common color, others, because the shape is the same, or size, etc. Any feature that catches the eye of the child.
Elements of the complex do not have to be united among themselves, the only ground for their inclusion to complex is their connection to the nucleus.
At this stage, words do not designate concrete object, but become family names. Word’s meaning reflects the particular complex.
Collection
“The various concrete objects are united in accordance with a single feature, i.e. on the basis of reciprocal complementation.” ( p.138)
The basis of collection: heterogeneous nature of its constituents, reciprocal supplementation, and their unification ( e.g. family, clothes, food, etc.; collections the child acquire in the course of everyday experience)
Differs from association: The child does not include twice the objects that have the same feature. He selects single representative of the group with this feature.
“Complex-collection is a generalization of things based of their co-participation in a single practical operation.” ( p.139) Generalization based on experiential functionality of things.
Chain Complex
“The chain complex is constructed in accordance with the principle of dynamic, temporal [ emphasis is mine- ELS] unification of isolated elements in a unified chain, and a transfer of meaning through the elements of that chain.”(p.139)
The foundation of the complex is still associative connections among separate concrete elements that form it. ( see example on p.139)
Different genetic paths are leading to a single point, the transition from one feature to another.
What is added here is the child’s ability to refer to the previously discovered feature even if it is not included in the immediate model ( ability to consider the previously discovered genetic connection) and to substitute one feature with another due. The significance of feature is functional in nature, no single feature is abstracted from others to play a unique role.
The purest form of complexive thinking, as there is no central element that acts as a model as in associative complex.
Diffuse Complex
The elements in the complex are diffuse, undefined, and vague.
The boundaries of the complex are undefined, new concrete objects are included within the basic family continually on no clear grounds. “Unbounded complexes govern” ( p.141)
At this stage the child for the first time is capable of including objects that are outside of his practical knowledge.
Pseudoconcept
Psudoconcept is a bounded associative complex that can be easily confused with concept. ( e.g. the child selects triangles of different colors when given a tringle).
The child operates on the basis of concrete, empirical connections rather than conceptual grounds. The genetical and functional process of thinking here is complexive and associative rather than conceptual.
Pseudoconcept is the most widely used form of thinking of the preschool child. Children acquire word meaning that mediates the activity from adults but in their absence they use it as a associative complex.
Pseudoconcept is a link between complexive and conceptual thinking.
Pseudoconcept is not included in the system of concepts, that is characterized by hierarchy and dynamically changing systemic relationships among them. Therefore it is not a true concept.
“The activity of thinking in complexes will unfold differently than the activity of thinking in concepts.” ( p.148)
In pseudoconcept the elements of generalization/ complex preserve their individual uniqueness and concrete independence rather than merging with other elements of the complex. Single word can still have different meanings and indicate different things in different situations.
The third stage: The formation of concepts
Conceptual thinking
The true concept depends equally on the processes of analysis and synthesis.
Theoretical generalization ( true or scientific concepts in Vygotskian language) is fundamentally different from empirical one ( complexive thinking).
Theoretical concept is a system of meanings that are historically developing and dynamically changing, in which the nature of the relationships among elements holds the cultural meaning of the concept. Empirical concepts can be discrete units, used separately, that require definition and are part of classification or typology.
“The primary distinction between complexes and concepts is that these two forms of generalization are the result of different functional uses of the word.”(p.160) The word as a sign can be used in different ways.
Vygotsky distinguishes natural forms of thinking ( as a result of evolution, i.e. biological/natural) from historically emerging forms of human intellect ( as a result of historical and socio-cultural development). In this sense complexive thinking belongs to the first group and conceptual to the second one.
Develops in adolescence as a means to solve specific social or other tasks that adolescent faces in the process of development. Concept develops as a result of solving these tasks.
Difference between concept formation and verbal definition.
Methodological issues
Experimental approach to reveal the genesis of conceptual thinking.
Process of transition from one form of thinking to another is not mechanical, and does not imply pure quantitative accumulation. For example, transition from complexive thinking to thinking in concepts is revolutionary, it restructures the whole system of relationships among various higher psychological functions in the consciousness of the human being.
Genetic functional analysis of concept formation
The development of concepts is analyzed simultaneously from two directions, the general and the particular
Limitations of the experiment
The word meaning - concept
“…the use of the word acts as means of forming the concept, how from syncretic images and connections, complexive thinking, and potential concepts there arises that unique signifying structure that we may call a concept in a true sense of the word.” ( p.166)
Reflection of the learning task
Go back to your question and analyze it. What type of thinking did you use to formulate it?
Did your question help to discover the fundamental relationships, essential contradictions and/or meanings of Vygotskian theory of conceptual development?
If possible/applicable, how would you reformulate your question now ? What are the new questions that emerged?
