Dear Peter and everybody-
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Moxhay [mailto:moxhap@portlandschools.org]
> Sent: Saturday, August 02, 2003 2:20 PM
> To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> Subject: Re: personalizing voice
>
> Eugene (and everybody):
>
> Very very interesting interpretation of Davydov. (I've visited School
> No. 91 and
> would like to hear more about your experience there some time.)
Wow, I would like to hear your impressions. When did you visit it? Was it
still under Davydov's rule (which means before 1983)? Please share you
impressions!
>
> But isn't Davydov's intense interest in developing the child's
> personality
> (lichnost') more in line with developing a personalized voice in the
> world
> rather than a more stereotyped "professional" voice?
You are very right! But do not forget that Davydov treated "theoretical
thinking" as universal. So if you are a good mathematician using
"theoretical thinking" you can easily become a good social scientist and so
on. Davydov, I remember, argued that theoretical thinking is "lichnost'noe"
thinking.
Peter, I'm actually interested in "lischnost'noe" learning. The problem is
that in English it becomes either as "identity-based" learning or
"personalized" learning. Since I hate the notion of identity, I turned to
"personalized" learning. I'd appreciate if you help me to articulate what
"lichnostnoj voice" can mean for English speaking community. Thanks a lot
for raising this issue!
>
> I mean, Davydov writes at length about the importance of developing the
> child's ability to respond to unrepeatable, previously unencountered
> circumstances in his or her life, and that this is one of the goals of
> developing learning activity and theoretical thinking. To me, this
> sounds
> extraordinarily "useful for their lives and the lives of their
> communities."
Yes, yes, yes! I like the direction of Davydov's approach but I do not like
the means like "the universal theoretical thinking." You are also right
about political implications of "the universal theoretical thinking."
Davydov belonged to an informal dissident community. As far as I know, he
was a very courageous man. The institute where he was the director until
1983 was a safe heaven for "politically disloyal" scholars like Shedrovisky
and Michailov. It was interesting that Davydov disagreed with them in his
scholarship but supported them politically and administratively. He was
almost a good illustration to his own theory because "theoretical thinking"
in educational psychology led him to good moral and political judgments.
>
> I also wonder about your statement that the end point of Davydov's math
> curriculum (at least as you experienced it) was for the children to
> become
> members of an existing community of math practice. Do you think that
> this is
> a direct result of the logic of Davydov's curriculum (& its starting
> point in the earliest
> grades) or of the particular environment in which the curriculum was
> implemented? (Russia is a country where strong communities of math
> practice have been systematically encouraged, for example through the
> specialized
> math schools and through a generally high level of math culture among
> secondary school teachers.)
I think that for Davydov "good participation" in any intellectual community
of practice was an entry point for to "the universal theoretical thinking."
>
> I have a feeling that in other environments, e.g. the U.S., one might
> start from
> the same beginning point of Davydov's math curriculum (identifying the
> germ
> cell of math by discovering the action of measuring a quantity using a
> unit)
> and conceivably end up at a qualitatively new end point, e.g. through of
> process of expansion a la Engestrom. That is, the curriculum could end
> up
> at creating some qualitatively new practice rather than being
> integrated inside
> an existing system of math practice.
In my view, this curricula-centered approach leaves away the student (and
the teacher) as lichnost'. Davydov was interested in spending time doing
dialectical analysis of the curriculum content. He was not much interested
in child-in-life or whole-child-in-whole-practice. Also, his dialectical
analysis of the curriculum content was a sort of purification (in Latour's
term) of the practice from other societal realms. It was another (but very
smart) decontextualized approach. Davydov criticized Vygotsky for
prioritization of formal decontextualization. Davydov himself prioritized
dialectical decontextualization. Vygotsky's formal decontextualization was
about the dichotomy of the scientific (i.e., systematically hierarchical)
and everyday concept. Davydov's dialectical decontextualization was about
the dichotomy of the theoretical (i.e., dialectical) and empirical concepts.
>
> What do you think?
This is what I think :-)
What you (i.e., everybody) think?
Eugene
PS Thanks to Bruce and Mike, I'm back to XMCA!!! Bruce said that he does not
know why the Weber system expels people time to time... So, if you are next,
do not take it personally :-)
>
> Peter
>
>
>
>
>
> Dear Peter and everybody-
> >
> > Since I experience Davydov's approach first hand (I was a student in
> > his 91
> > Moscow school), I think your point is very-very interesting. I think
> > Davydov
> > tried to develop "professional practice" voice among students rather
> > than
> > "personal". By "personalized voice" I mean using school curricula for
> > understanding and transforming the world like Friere's famous motto,
> > "reading and writing word to read and write the world." Davydov wanted
> > to
> > develop "universal theoretical thinking" in the students. His idea was
> > that
> > the academic curricula have to become everyday practice for the
> > students.
> > So, for example, kids would involve in math not because math is useful
> > for
> > their lives and lives of their communities but because they become
> > member of
> > community of math practice.
> >
> > However, since Davydov believed that authentic theoretical thinking is
> > universal practicing theoretical thinking in one area would "spill
> > out" into
> > another area. Historically, under Soviet regime it was true to some
> > degree:
> > many famous Soviet mathematicians and physicists became dissidents and
> > had
> > high interests in social sciences and humanities.
> >
> > I try to demonstrate the difference between "personalized teaching" and
> > "practicalized teaching" on the website
> > http://ematusov.soe.udel.edu/cultures/Teaching.htm
> >
> > What do you think?
> >
> > Eugene
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Sep 01 2003 - 01:00:06 PDT