This article by J.E. Stone from the East Tennessee State University
made a very interesting and challenging reading for me on this rainy
sunday morning in Hamburg, Germany. S/he takes up, it seems to me, some
of the strands of the discussion on education and coercion (that
unwound and rewound in a twisted manner here on x-mca), but with a
different kind of twist. Apparently, judged from his/her self-
references, s/he is working on teaching tools and methods using the=20
framework of behavioral analysis -- a scientific specialty going back=20
to B.F. Skinner that went into an eclipse, now for about two decades,=20
after the cognitivist paradigm change in psychology around 1970.=20
Clearly, stated many times in the article, s/he and her/his colleagues
*suffer* -- from getting not enough respect, and not being able to effect
as much politically as they think their scientifically proven methods
could do in terms of making better schools in the US of America.
The main thrust of the argument then consists of constructing a group
of villains, namely mainly Dewey and Piaget, with Vygotsky thrown in=20
for completeness, also mentioning Rousseau and Vico as oldest, Bruner
as most prominent, and Brooks & Brooks as youngest members. All of
these are said to posit that the "natural course" of learning is the
best one, and, in addition, that the only natural motive for learning=20
is "intrinsic", and that this translates mainly to "having fun". Here=20
are excerpts from the author's first summary:
> In essence, developmentalism leads to schools in which
>attendance is compulsory but study is not. Students are
>expected to make an effort only if they feel interested and
>enthused. [*] Study is expected to be more like fun than work. [*]
...
> Developmentalism's [*] ideal of taking the work out of
>schoolwork [*] may be responsible [...] for poor work habits and
>attitudes beyond the classroom--a problem widely noted by
>employers (Mandel, Melcher, Yang & McNamee, 1995; Survey, 1991).
And here is the first paragraph of the...
> Conclusion
> Developmentalism presumes typical patterns and processes
>of social, emotional, and cognitive change to be optimal
>because they are "natural." It fails to recognize the extent
>to which valued social, emotional, and cognitive attributes
>may be induced and sustained (not merely facilitated) by the
>purposeful actions of teachers and parents. Indeed, it seems
>to underestimate the [*] importance of civilizing influences [*]
>generally. By default, developmentalism ascribes the
>positive effects of unrecognized environmental influences to
>"natural" processes and argues that attempts to alter their
>effects are likely to be harmful.
It is clear from this that the article is based on the polarity
of "nature" versus "civilisation", fused with the folk wisdom
that "fun" is the opposite of "work". The author opts for the
"civilized", disciplined, earnest-work pole of this fused, extremely
dichotomous construct, and against the "natural", enthused, playful
pole. This is a quite classical position; very many educators in=20
the early days of the industrial revolution (1775 onwards) have=20
propagated the "industrious character"; Weber has diagnosed this
spirit as the "protestant work ethics".
That there is no mention of these historical forerunners in
Stone's article is both astonishing, and fitting at the same
time, at least for this reader. Consider...
Another possible polarity could have been "natural" versus=20
"cultural" development, but the author uses the word "culture"=20
only two times as describing the Zeitgeist as s/he sees it;
>As the term is used here, the "ism" in developmentalism is the
>uncontested assumption that the "natural" course of development,
>however conceived in theory, is the optimal possibility. It is an
>obscure but vital form of romantic naturalism--one thoroughly
>embedded in the American **culture**.
>Over a 75 year period
>developmentalism has been a prominent feature of educational
>practice, and from this venue, it has had opportunity to
>thoroughly infuse the American **culture**.
and once in the plural to point to an alternative:
> Given the advantages that industrial and technological
>**cultures** appear to derive from formal instruction afforded in
>a classroom setting, it seems evident that a profitable use
>has been found for the human ability to acquire factual,
>abstract, and decontextualized knowledge and that acquisition
>of such knowledge is a useful prerequisite to real-world,
>problem solving experiences. =20
That is, "culture" is understood as the whole of present habits=20
of a population, not as a system of mediational means and contextual
forms (rituals, genres, sciences, ...). This explains also the most
extreme misunderstanding of Vygotsky that I have ever found in the
literature:
>In contrast to Piaget, Vygotsky argued that
>learning as a result of socio**cultural** experiences played a
>far greater role in the emergence of mature thinking and
>behavior. The influence of experience on behavior, however,
>was limited by a ***biologically governed*** zone of proximal
>development. =20
It is truly inconceivable to me how it was possible to get this
statement through the peer reviewing process of the electronic
journal. Not only the author, but also none of the reviewers=20
evidently ever read more than some lines or paragraphs of the socio-
cultural literature...
Well, well. This does indeed say a lot about the quality of US
American higher education, especially in psychology and educational
studies, doesn't it ??
Nevertheless: If the diagnosis is true that US American schools
suffer from "naturalism", and that protestant work ethics isn't
ruling the schools anymore, then we here on x-mca should be able
to explain that with a better theory than the "unwitting conspiracy=20
of developmentalists" constructed, but not named as such, by Stone.
If indeed the main aim of today's teachers at US schools is to
let students learn under conditions of "intrinsic" fun motivation,
then some effects of the US schooling system that have been puzzling
for me become suddenly explainable. For cultural-historical activity
theory (CHAT) it is a basic tenet that intrinsic motivations are
nowhere near "natural" forces of the direction of activity. Rather,
early practice in the (need I star this?) **cultural** zones of
proximal development decides which motives will be built up, long
before any formal schooling is allowed to set in.
This means that "fun instead of work" conditions in any school will
on the average boost the differences between those that already have
learnt how to have fun at "decontextualized" (formal, game-like,
purely symbolic) tasks, and those that haven't had those cultural
contexts in their early years. Also, the creative, problem-solving,
puzzle-loving individuals will be rewarded while the rule-following,
reproductive, routine-loving ones will be looked at as dull and
unattractive.
This looks like a different sort of elitist system than the one that=20
paid the highest price for the most disciplined engineer and=20
entrepreneur.
But it does produce the world's highest pace in innovations, both
technical ones, and sociopolitical ones (Reaganomics, "Flat Taxes!",
etc.) -- apparently at the cost of not giving enough education
to the masses of people destined for so-called non-creative jobs.
You see: Texts like this one are indeed provoking.
What do you think ?
Arne.
---------------------------------------
Arne Raeithel
Privatdozent am Fachbereich Psychologie
der Universit=E4t Hamburg