[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Xmca-l] Re: In defense of Vygotsky [[The fallacy of word-meaning]



Paul Ernest has a position on the unit of analysis for mathematics teaching:
http://www.esri.mmu.ac.uk/mect/papers_11/Ernest.pdf

Andy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Andy Blunden*
http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/


Julian Williams wrote:
Andy:

Now I feel we are nearly together, here. There is no 'final' form even of simple arithmetic, because it is (as social practices are) continually evolving.

Just one more step then: our conversation with the 7 year old child about the truth of 7plus 4 equals 10 is a part of this social practice, and contributes to it....? The event involved in this Perezhivanie here involves a situation that is created by the joint activity of the child with us?

Peg: Germ cell for the social practice of mathematics... I wonder if there is a problem with Davydov's approach, in that it requires a specification of the final form of the mathematics to be learnt (a closed curriculum). But let me try: One candidate might be the 'reasoned justification for a mathematical use/application to our project' ... Implies meaningful verbal thought/interaction, and collective mathematical activity with others. Not sure how this works to define your curriculum content etc.

Julian


On 23 Oct 2014, at 16:28, "Peg Griffin" <Peg.Griffin@att.net> wrote:

And thus the importance of finding a good germ cell for mathematics pedagogy
-- because a germ cell can "grow with" and "grow" the current "social
practice of mathematics." Whether someone agrees with the choice of germ
cell made by Davidov (or anyone else), a germ cell needs to be identified,
justified and relied on to generate curriculum content and practice, right?
PG