These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes, and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving. Content on this site may not meet current digital accessibility standards. If you require an alternative, accessible format of any information found on this site, please contact Bruce Jones, bjones@ucsd.edu to request an accommodation.
These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes, and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving. Content on this site may not meet current digital accessibility standards. If you require an alternative, accessible format of any information found on this site, please contact Bruce Jones, bjones@ucsd.edu to request an accommodation.
Larry, Can you say more about why you consider posture to be marked? On a (very) quick read through the article, the suggesting seems to be that standing the infant prevents the bodily memory of reaching to A from producing the A-B error. (A variety of other changes have the same effect.) What makes this a ZPD, in your reading? As for the nested character of time... I have to read further (and perhaps in a standing posture). :) Martin On Apr 6, 2011, at 9:58 AM, Larry Purss wrote: > Smith and Thelan's article [attached] highlights some empirical evidence for > the centrality of MARKED activity for development. Refer especially to page > 346 where 10 month old infants do the A not B task and the activity that > becomes MARKED is a shift in posture from a sitting to a standing position. > This marked shift in posture allows the infant to be in a ZPD that allows > the infant to be successful on a task that is thought of as being a later > developing capacity. __________________________________________ _____ xmca mailing list xmca@weber.ucsd.edu http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca