Re: [xmca] The Russian Method

["Mike Cole" <lchcmike@gmail.com>]

Davydov is very far from American learning theory.
Interesting about the varying semantic fields of vospitanie.
Nevospitani= badly brought up, perhaps? Uncouth?
mike

On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 7:11 PM, Sidorkin, Alexander <
Alexander.Sidorkin@unco.edu> wrote:

>  Mike and all:
> Upbringing is not a good translation for sure, so I prefer to first explain
> that this refers to the part of education that deals with values, attitudes,
> and character, and is carried mainly, but not exclusively through community
> building, social activism and extracurricular activities. And then I just
> use the Russian word, *vospitaniye.*
> There is no agreement among Russians about what this word actually means.
> Some use a very broad definition (Liymets, Novikova, and Mudrik), as the
> relatively organized and managed portion of socialization. Or, as Liymets
> put it laconically and tongue-in-cheek, "Vospitanie is management of
> development of the self." The academic side of education is then included.
> Others use it in a more narrow sense that I define above. Like all
> irreplaceable words, it mean different things to different people.
>
> As for Davydov, sure, it is an important part of the Russian educational
> discourse, and I omitted him because I don't think it is somehow very
> different from the multitude of Western learning theories. I might be wrong
> on this.
> The "germ cell" is really a Hegelian idea that Marx also used in das
> Kapital as an epistemological move. Davydov, as far as I understand, applied
> it successfully to learning and teaching. This may or may not be
> intrinsically connected to what I tried to tag a "Russian Method."
>
> A few Russians who read it, hated my description because it is too
> simplistic. It probably is, but I prefer simplification when dealing with
> translations. Russians love their complexity, but often fail to see that
> their idiosyncratic conceptual  language creates additional barriers for
> non-Russian speakers.
>
>          Thanks,
>         Sasha
> Alexander (Sasha) Sidorkin <http://sidorkin.net/>, Director
> School of Teacher Education <http://www.unco.edu/teach>
> University of Northern Colorado
> McKee 216 Greeley, CO 80639
>
> 970-351-2701
> Check my calendar
> <https://calendars.office.microsoft.com/en-us/pubcal/viewer.aspx?path=/pubcalstorage/j9dl8qxz759289/Sidorkin_Alexander_Calendar.ics&tzid=10&vw=1>to
> make an appointment
> The Russian Bear's Diaries <http://sidorkin.blogspot.com/>
>  Education Reform Examiner<http://www.examiner.com/x-661-Education-Reform-Examiner>
> Support http://www.thebearhug.org/
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Mike Cole
> *Sent:* Tue 1/6/2009 5:51 PM
> *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> *Cc:* Sidorkin, Alexander
> *Subject:* Re: [xmca] The Russian Method
>
> I am surprised that no one responded this note from a few months ago since
> it is relevant to a number of ongoing discussions.
>
> Alexander. We have had a lot of discussions recently about issues of
> translation and your thoughts would be most welcome.
>
> A good deal of local attention has gone toward the work of Vasilii Davydov,
> yet I do not see his emphasis on the teaching of theoretical concepts, or
> use
> of a "germ cell" method in your list of current Russian ideas. For example,
> in English, this work is carried out by Jean Schmittau, and, I hear, has
> been
> attended to seriously by Catherine Sophian.
>
> I do see combinations of Davydov and emphasis on the organization of
> peer group activity in the earlier work of Rubtsov and the current work
> of Tsukerman, whose work has appeared in English.
>
> There have also been a good number of translation in Soviet Psychology
> (now J. of Russian and East European Psych. and Russian Education).
>
> Since the time of Bronfenbrenner's work in the 1960's, vospitanie has
> ordinarily been translated as "upbringing." Not a popular term in English.
> How do you translate it??
>
> Thanks, Dana, for this note.
> mike
>
> On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 3:22 PM, Dana Walker <Dana.Walker@unco.edu> wrote:
>
>>
>> Our faculty recently spent a week with a group of Russian educators from
>> Novosibersk, from the College of Psychology of Pedagogy. I thought some of
>> you might be interested in comments made by Sasha Sidorkin, Director of
>> our
>> School of Teacher Education, in his blog, subsequent to their visit.
>>
>> Dana Walker
>> Assistant Professor
>> University of Northern Colorado
>>
>>
>>
>> Friday, October 24, 2008
>> The Russian Method
>>
>> The group of Russians just left UNC a couple of days ago; they were here
>> for
>> a conference on teacher education. The visit was a lot of fun; we went to
>> different places and talked about our work. I got to translate 9
>> presentations, which again brought me to the problem of translation. If
>> Russian psychology can be translated (Vygotsky and Leontyev, for example),
>> its educational theory and practice remains almost completely unknown in
>> the
>> English-speaking world. Rooted in the same Progressive education ideas of
>> the early 20-th century, Russian educational tradition then developed
>> largely independent of the West, and produces both the most authoritarian
>> forms of education, and some of the freest and most creative. The problem
>> is
>> what the Russian educators use a completely idiosyncratic terminology and
>> conceptual frameworks that are hard to translate. I discovered it very
>> early
>> in my American career, because virtually nothing from my Russian
>> publications could be used for my American dissertation. I had to start
>> from
>> scratch. The literal translation just does not make much sense. For
>> example,
>> English does not have a word for Russian vospitaniye. It is a term for the
>> part of educational theory and practice that is not about knowledge and
>> skills, but is about attitudes, dispositions, and character. Vospitanie is
>> sometimes defined as helping a person to grow, and in a sense, wider than
>> education. Another problem is that Russian theorists tend to use awful
>> jargon, which does not make much sense in Russian either, and certainly
>> does
>> not help people understand the discoveries Russian practitioners made. So,
>> OK here is my attempt to summarize the Russian method in a few lines:
>>
>>   1. Transformation of peer culture into an educationally sound community.
>> This is, of course, not a new idea; it was known to Jesuits for sure, and
>> to
>> many Progressives; it was and is used by Boy Scouts and many other
>> children
>> groups. The difference is that the Russians for the first time figured out
>> a
>> way of creating such peer communities without religious undertones, and
>> make
>> it inclusive. They also created a number of techniques that can be
>> reproduced ­ the communities do not depend on a charismatic leader.
>> Apparently, this works in both the K-12 and Higher Education world. The
>> student communities can be integrated with the academic learning. Adults
>> and
>> children build relational network which them create additional motivation
>> to
>> learn.
>>   2. The next discovery did not come until late 50-s. An educational
>> community needs a project, a goal larger than itself. It is hard to
>> provide
>> such a goal for children and adolescents, because they are largely
>> excluded
>> from production, nor do they need to sacrifice themselves in a war, or
>> help
>> others. If religion is out also, it is not easy to find a project that
>> would
>> require working together. A number of Russian educators stumbled upon the
>> same idea: they used techniques borrowed from the Russian theater actor
>> training tradition (Stanislavsky, Meyerhold, Mihail Chekhov), and from
>> some
>> cultural forms of Russian intelligentsia. They invented the so-called
>> collective creative activity ­ something between improvisational theater,
>> an
>> elaborated game, or an invented celebration. It is hard to explain, and
>> was
>> not really explained well in the literature, but this strange activity
>> provides enough social glue to hold these communities together. I suspect
>> the exact configuration of the collective creative activity depends on the
>> Russian cultural stereotypes and traditions, so it is not easily
>> exportable.
>>   3. The Russians re-discovered group therapy methods. Basically, if you
>> consistently discuss with kids the relational side of things, it helps to
>> accelerate the community development. Again, over the years, these
>> techniques were standardized to a point where almost any competent adult
>> could do it.
>>   4. And finally, just in the recent decades, it became apparent that the
>> method works better if weaker dozes, where communities are not as strong
>> and
>> tight, but still "good enough" to allow for the level of safety,
>> engagement,
>> and satisfaction to keep most children happy.
>>
>> I am not sure if any of this makes any sense, but here it is. Is there a
>> potential book here?
>>
>> http//:sidorkin.blogspot.com
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> xmca mailing list
>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>
>
>
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca