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

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

Hi Julian!

Perhaps in the world dimension of children 7+4 = 10 is empirically true!  :) 

It is its own mathematical law of counting from where you stand. Makes sense to me!

However, perhaps the ideal as Vygotsky means it is more mundane than ideal as it discussed in early Greek philosophy. I haven't done the reading on The Ideal to which Andy directed me (but I will!), so I'm speaking out of turn, most likely, but this never seems to stop me and my curiosity and my question-asking. :)

I mean what does math actually mean to a child? As an ideal, it should be magic! When I say that, it may mean how the child internalizes that magical quality she may see when seeing older children fire off toy rockets and being able to estimate where it will land. Or understanding how math will help in the fabrication of a dress, or learning of a woman astronaut who does biotech research in space. Isn't this what ideal means? It isn't math for math's sake, but what math can do in one's life to provide meaning, which means connected to meaningful others in the life of the child. I could probably find better examples that are more magical, but I think I made the point?

I don't think a lot of kids do math for the intrinsic value, but if that can happen, it is certainly cherished and will likely make such children our next generation of mathematicians. 

I wonder if we are overthinking the ideal as LSV means it?



From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> on behalf of Julian Williams <julian.williams@manchester.ac.uk>
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2014 8:18 AM
To: ablunden@mira.net; eXtended Mind, Culture,  Activity
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: In defense of Vygotsky [[The fallacy of word-meaning]


I would like to expand a bit on Andy's point -

First, I have often had very interesting discussions with children who work out that 7+4 = 10 ... this is usually accomplished by a 'counting on' method, which begins with the 7 ("1") and goes 7 ("1"),8 ("2") ,9 ("3") ,10 "4- there we are, 10!" ...

7 --   8 --- 9 -- 10
1 ...  2 ... 3 ... 4

Similarly 10 - 4 = 7 etc.

(It doesn't really matter whether the teacher accepts the answer or not - the kids keep getting the answer 10... and we have data to prove it; until one day they are told they are hopeless and its time for them to leave and go down the mines/factory. See Billy Connolly's youtube hit  on 'algebra'..)

Second: Im pleased to say that the best arithmetic I am seeing in schools now bears almost no relation to that I experienced 50 odd years ago as a learner, and that I taught as a teacher  30 years ago... although there seems still to be a lot that hasn't changed as much as Id like. Im thinking of a lesson wherein different groups of children modelled their 'proofs' that 3x28 = 84 using various methods, tools, etc.

So Im afraid the story that arithmetic already exists in some ideal form in the social - cultural plane (eg in adult practices?), and so can/has to be somehow made present for the youngster in their earlier stages of development (if that's what Vygotsky really meant) is far too simple for me, and at its worst leads to terrible schooling practices, where there is no room for a child's intelligent argument that 7 + 4 really equals 10



Andy: my sleight of hand here is that I translate your formulation of what leontiev says "there is one true object/ive and the kids should come to know it" into Vygotsky's " ideal form of arithmetic" where child development must end up... thus your critique of Leontiev becomes my complaint about Vygtosky's perezhivanie paper. Im sure you will say "not fair"?

-----Original Message-----
From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Andy Blunden
Sent: 23 October 2014 14:50
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: In defense of Vygotsky [[The fallacy of word-meaning]

Mathematics today is nothing like it was 300 years ago, Carol, even if it is in a South African elementary school. And the teacher wouldn't accept it if Johnny said that apes had evolved from human either or that gravity went clockwise.  The ability to correctly reproduce things like
4+7=11 is not in my experience any evidence that a child has grasped
what + or = means, and certainly no evidence that they have any grasp of mathematics or even number. Of course, we might take the view that they never will anyway, so being able to add is good enough for them.

But if we take the view that it is worthwhile that a child learn what science is and what mathematics is about, then in my view, the problems are essentially the same whichever science it is.

Of course, in general, the attitude a teacher takes to their material is that it is objectively true and the kids should come to know it. But this stance or attitude to knowledge, or science, is a very poor preparation for adult life and citizenship. I don't see mathematics in principle as being an exception. Perhaps a little teaching of the history of mathematics would help? I don't know.

*Andy Blunden*

Carol Macdonald wrote:
> Andy
> I realise that, but it much more robust than orthodox science; i.e. we
> are still doing the same maths as 300 years ago, where normal science
> is very different indeed.
> If Johnny said that 4+7=10, the teacher is not going to accept that,
> is she?
> Carol
> On 23 October 2014 10:02, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net
> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>> wrote:
>     Carol, mathematics is a natural science like any other.
>     It is neither the absolute truth nor merely social convention.
>     Andy
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     *Andy Blunden*
>     http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
>     <http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/>
>     Carol Macdonald wrote:
>         Julian, Andy
>         I think arithmetic is something of a test case. Just as word
>         meaning
>         changes over time in a dynamic way, as recognised by
>         linguists, maths
>         truths don't. It would be difficult to argue that maths truths
>         of basic
>         arithmetic have changed over the centuries. I don't know about
>         maths truths
>         of a higher order.
>         Sorry if I use the terms arithmetic and maths interchangeably;
>         it's a South
>         African usage here in basic education.
>         Carol
>         On 23 October 2014 08:33, Julian Williams
>         <julian.williams@manchester.ac.uk
>         <mailto:julian.williams@manchester.ac.uk>>
>         wrote:
>             Andy
>             Yes, just so,  this is why I go to social theory eg Marx
>             and Bourdieu to
>             find political-economic contradictions within and between
>             activities.
>             But before we go there have we finally dispensed with the
>             notion in
>             Vygotsky's Perezhivanie paper that the situation or
>             environment is given
>             and the same for all, and the final form of development is
>             given in a
>             final, given 'ideal' form right from the beginning ( being
>             then associated
>             with an already given social plane).
>             I'm happy enough to accept that this is a false  and
>             undialectical reading
>             of Vygotsky (after all who knows how the concept of
>             perezhivanie might have
>             matured in his hands)...
>             To return to my case - arithmetic. Many will say this
>             exists in ideal form
>             in the culture and all that needs to be done by
>             development is to bring the
>             child into the culture... Then the child is 'schooled'...
>             Passive, lacking
>             in agency, often failed, and at best made obedient to the
>             cultural legacy.
>             AsBourdieu says, through processes in school the class
>             system is
>             reproduced, and this is enculturation into the cultural
>             arbitrary.
>             Julian
>             On 23 Oct 2014, at 07:08, "Andy Blunden"
>             <ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>> wrote:
>                 No, the point is that for ANL "meaning" refers to the
>                 one true meaning
>             of something. He does not allow that the meaning of
>             something may be
>             contested, and that a meaning may be contested because of
>             heterogeneity in
>             society, different social classes, genders, ethnic groups,
>             social movements
>             and so on. For ANL there is only the one true meaning of
>             something which
>             "everyone knows" or individual, personal meanings, which
>             are therefore
>             taken to be subjective.
>                 Andy
>                 ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>                 *Andy Blunden*
>                 http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
>                 <http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/>
>             Annalisa Aguilar wrote:
>            This continues and extends from my original post concerning Andy's breakdown of ANL vs. LSV. 
>            There are about 8 points total... 
>            [copypasta is a starch of art]
>             --------------------------------------------------- 
>             6. [The
>             fallacy of word-meaning] (see original post below)
>             --------------------------------------------------- 
>             You say: "ANL believes
>             that motivation determines perception. The norm of
>             perception, the "true" meaning of an object, is therefore the meaning  it has for
>             the community as a whole. I am questioning the validity of this concept of
>             "community as a whole" in this context." So is it the case that word-meaning is denied by ANL >             because meaning and symbols "must be" cohesive across
>             the culture and cannot have personal or spontaneous meaning? I can see the
>             reason politically to emphasize this, if the State is sanctioned
>             as the sole arbiter of meaning. --- clip from previous post below Wed,
>             22 Oct 2014 06:28:48 +0000 Annalisa wrote:
>             _6th charge_: The fallacy of word-meaning
>                         ----------
>              ANL believes that the mental representation in a child's awareness must
>             _correspond_ directly to the object in reality, and not just perceptually, but
>             also how the object may relate and associate to other objects and their
>             meanings. The example is a table. Because of this definition of, what I
>             will call here for convenience (i.e., my laziness) "object-awareness",
>             ANL takes exception with LSV's rendering of a _single word_ to stand as a
>             generalization to reference the meaning of the word and as an independent unit
>             (word-meaning). Furthermore, ANL disagrees with the
>             existence of these word-meanings, _as units_, but he also disagrees that they
>             are what construct consciousness as a whole. ANL can say this
>             because he considers consciousness and intellect to be synonymous. ----------
>             Andy's reply to #6 above: 
>             ANL believes that motivation determines perception. The norm of perception, the 
>             "true" meaning of an object, is therefore the meaning it has for the community as a whole.
>             I am questioning the validity of this concept of "community as a whole" in
>             this context.
>            --end