Well, like a good Progressive teacher, Victor succeeded in sowing doubts in
my mind, "disturbing" my behaviour, and doubtless opening the possibility
of development. When I first started reading Vygotsky's article on Ethical
Education, I was actually expecting something much more conformist, and I
was delighted by the boldness of his vision. I think I exaggerated it in my
earlier post, and re-reading it reminds me of Vygotsky's criticism of the
individualist model of learning. I think one would have to have a more
concrete knowledge of Vygotsky as a teacher to know what it really added up to.
Also, I only recently learnt, from reading Putnam, how really profoundly
the Progressive Education movement affected Americans, and now I learn that
Dewey also directly impacted on Soviet-Vygotsky ideas on education! But I
guess there's a sneaking suspicion in me that Americans have "pragmatised"
Vygotsky. Certainly, my reading of Novack on pragmatism could be summarised
as "pragmatism is only an inch short of Marxism". While I think Pragmatism
a la Peirce or Dewey or Bridgman was certainly a great achievement, I have
always regarded both Marx and Vygotsky as qualitatively different from
Pragmatism. My current reading of Axel Honneth has forced me to revisit my
ideas about Pragmatism though.
The extended project method of teaching mentioned by Glassman, I am
familiar with, and I can't see any source for this in Vygotsky. I think
it's a great method, and it clearly comes from Dewey.
I can see that the extreme "free" education of Dewey's schools is different
from Vygotsky, but it didn't seem fair to me to characterise Vygotsky as
"top-down/determinate". It seems to me that Vygotsky has a teacher setting
problems not giving solutions, and mutual critique - student-student and
teacher-student and student-teacher - to be very much a part of what I see
as the Vygotsky tradition. Surely the idea of performance is that emulation
only creates the conditions for development, not the development as such ...
Andy
At 06:44 PM 18/10/2003 +0700, you wrote:
>At 11:30 18/10/03 +1000, Andy wrote:
>>The article is about pedagogy and is probably addressed to teachers, so
>>it is natural that it should focus on the role and intentions of the
>>teacher. However, it seems to me that Vygotsky is not just a teacher of
>>teachers. There seems to be a school of interpretation of Vygotsky which
>>emphasises the two-sided negotiation involved in learning and
>>development. But surely this is just the product of "teachers eye view"
>>when reading Vygotsky.
>
>Andy, as I sit here tapping out endless papers for my course work, I
>relish the opportunity to add a tuppence worth to your interesting
>dilemma. I guess if we're interpreting Vygotsky's work, we need to situate
>the work and him in the appropriate historical context, as I think you
>have. However, I think it's important to remember that Vygotsky was first
>and foremost a teacher before becoming a psychologist. I have always been
>inspired by his work for highlighting students/learners as active agents
>in the educational process. In my own context, I recognise (on a
>simplistic level) that teaching does not equate to learning for a
>fundamental reason - learners individualise in a creative process the
>teaching activities they are engaged in. I'm not sure that we teachers
>need to have cognitive psychologists hanging around waiting to advise us
>or our learners, but I am sure that if teachers are aware that learning
>pulls along development behind it, and that opportunities to experiment
>and play with the curriculum content are aplenty, that our learners will
>become much more than socialised subjects.
>
>Not really related to your problem, but it might inspire some others into
>the discussion!
>
>And thanks to you and Victor for some articles for Sunday reading.
>
>Phil
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Nov 01 2003 - 01:00:08 PST