[Xmca-l] Davydov mathematics
Andy Blunden
ablunden@mira.net
Sun Nov 2 22:17:14 PST 2014
The article by Peter Moxhay is wonderful, Natalia! Thank you.
Despite my reservations (which would be relevant teaching and learning
at a higher level), I am willing to pin Davydov's flag to my flagpole.
It seems that the task of extending the idea set out so clearly here for
arithmetic, to algebra, and beyond, is still a task to be solved, but I
guess that any child who had acquired the concept of number by Davydov's
method in primary school, is probably not going have trouble with
algebra later on.
It would be an interesting exercise to render Davydov's method as a
"unit of analysis", and that would perhaps indicate how the idea could
be extended.
Also, to Haydi, it is worth noting that Davydov is an example of a CHAT
theorist, i.e., someone who values and builds on both Vygotsky and Leontyev.
Andy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Andy Blunden*
http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
Natalia Gajdamaschko wrote:
> Hi Dear All,
> I am a lurker in this discussion thread on math education but find it very interesting!
> just to add to those two articles that Mike send of Jean Schmittau on Vygotsky/Davydov math curriculum, please, see attached another article Jean wrote with lots of good examples plus Peter's article.
> I use both of them in my class when it comes to discuss math curriculum done differently in my Vygotsky seminar.
> Cheers,
> Natalia.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "mike cole" <mcole@ucsd.edu>
> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> Sent: Sunday, November 2, 2014 1:45:28 PM
> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: units of mathematics education
>
> As a small contribution to this interesting thread, two of Jean Schmittau's
> writings. She has done a lot work with Davydov's ideas in math ed that may
> give those following the discussion some useful info.
> mike
>
> On Sun, Nov 2, 2014 at 12:03 PM, Ed Wall <ewall@umich.edu> wrote:
>
>
>> Peg
>>
>> By ''formal arithmetic' I mean the usual US curriculum to which you
>> refer to below; I wasn't talking about 'formal mathematics' when I
>> mentioned Benezet. The point Devlin makes (and I'm not sure I entirely
>> agree) is that the Davydov curriculum is about real number versus counting
>> number. While Devlin and I both have problems with the usual US curriculum
>> it is not entirely evident mathematically why one approach (counting number
>> versus real number) is better than the other.
>>
>> I am confused by the statement below concerning an example you gave
>> 'earlier about US fourth graders.' The only example I remember was the one
>> using the Davydov approach with participants Alyosha and Borja.
>>
>> I would appreciate it if you would say a bit more about why "I
>> don't know" is a 'mathematically' correct and 'impersonal' answer in some
>> 'little systems.' I would tend to think otherwise about "We can't know.' in
>> some little (and some large) systems; however, I may misunderstand.
>>
>> Ed
>>
>> On Nov 2, 2014, at 9:42 AM, Peg Griffin wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Thanks for this and the Hawaii information, Ed. I had looked into the
>>> Hawaii work before but I know nothing at all of Benezet, I'm afraid.
>>>
>>> I'm not sure what you (or Benezet) mean by "formal arithmetic," so I
>>>
>> don't
>>
>>> know what to make of the implication that the early Davidov mathematics
>>> educators were "something like" an approach that lacked it.
>>> In my understanding, the Davidov mathematics is essentially all about
>>> formal mathematics --symbols and systems of symbols are developed with
>>>
>> the
>>
>>> children for relations (=≠ ><) and operations (+ =). Ignoring numbers
>>> until later allows teachers to avoid an epigenetic byway we often see in
>>>
>> US
>>
>>> elementary schools where counting relations among number symbols
>>>
>> overshadow
>>
>>> other aspects of mathematics. The example I gave earlier is about the
>>> fourth graders in US schools who seem to understand > and < than
>>>
>> relations
>>
>>> in a little system of three mathematical statements but they do not
>>> understand that "don't know" is a mathematically correct answer in some
>>>
>> of
>>
>>> the little systems -- for them don't know is essentially a personal thing
>>> not a mathematics thing.
>>> PG
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Ed Wall
>>> Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2014 10:45 PM
>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: units of mathematics education
>>>
>>> Something like this - i.e. lack of formal arithmetic until 7th -
>>>
>> (although
>>
>>> the details are a little unclear) was done in the US in the 1920s by a
>>>
>> Louis
>>
>>> Benezet. My impression is that he was building on ideas of Dewey.
>>>
>>> Ed
>>>
>>> On Nov 1, 2014, at 8:48 PM, Peg Griffin wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> No move from numbers to x. No numbers to begin with in mathematics
>>>> education. Kids count in everyday life but no numbers in the
>>>> beginning mathematics classes. It really is strings! Not even rulers
>>>> or tape measures of strings.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>>> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Andy Blunden
>>>> Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2014 7:12 PM
>>>> To: 'eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity'
>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: units of mathematics education
>>>>
>>>> Phew! So I was not the only one mystified by that expression. However,
>>>> wouldn't the kids have been confused by it as well? Or would they
>>>> react by
>>>> saying: "Hey, Teacher! That's stupid!"?
>>>> But certainly making the move to using letters only when the children
>>>> are reaching out for some more convenient symbol seems the right way
>>>> to go. I used to teach the first lesson in algebra by playing "Think
>>>> of a number, double it, ..., what's the number he first thought of?"
>>>> with a classroom of kids and then introducing x for the number you
>>>> first thought of. Vygotsky tells us to provide the symbol as a means of
>>>>
>>> solving an existing problem.
>>>
>>>> How did Davydov make the move from numbers to x?
>>>>
>>>> Andy
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> --
>>>> *Andy Blunden*
>>>> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Peg Griffin wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The * was an intrusion! The expression is just paradoxical. There
>>>>> cannot be a concrete world such that "Alyosha's string is greater
>>>>> than Boya's string equals Alyosha's string is less that Borya's
>>>>>
>> string."
>>
>>>>> (By the way, in case you want a smile on this November day, my
>>>>> favorite paradox is the pragmatic one: " Inform all the troops that
>>>>> communication has broken down." Can't remember who is the originator
>>>>> of it, though!)
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>>>> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu] On
>>>>> Behalf Of Andy Blunden
>>>>> Sent: Friday, October 31, 2014 7:58 PM
>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: units of mathematics education
>>>>>
>>>>> Could you elaborate on what is meant by this passage, Peg? I am not
>>>>> familiar with this use of * in mathematics, and I am not sure how the
>>>>>
>>>>>> and < relations are being evaluated here. Andy
>>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> -
>>>>> --
>>>>> *Andy Blunden*
>>>>> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Peg Griffin wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> ... That mathematical model (*A>B=A<B) DOES NOT have a concrete
>>>>>> world to rise to! Instead, the children see/feel/perceive the
>>>>>> strings and symbols having a relation among relations: A>B = B<A.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
More information about the xmca-l
mailing list