You wrote,
> I am wondering how any type of
> "looping" principle (be it recursivity, reflexivity, environmental
> afferentiation, etc.) can remain dynamic, based within the overwhelming
> "passive" structures of most schooling?;
I think traditional school based on the transmission of knowledge
educational philosophy (which is never possible in its literal sense --
suspect an ideology) is extremely dynamic and not passive at all. However,
it processes often produce of what Marie calls "negative spirals." I think
she recently nicely illustrated this point.
>and, I am asking for your help
> regarding the principles of "interaction," often discussed within
> constructivism.
I have no clue what it means in constructivist jargon and terminology (this
is not a critique of constructivist movement but just acceptance of my own
ignorance). My students (preservice teachers) interpret that as allowing
kids to chat and work in groups. Maybe they are right. Recently, I become
more sensitive and open-minded toward my students' interpretations. They
often have practitioners' guts. Indeed, try to let kids chat and do
groupwork together and the traditional classroom order is broken. It can be
a nice beginning, I guess, for an innovation.
> It is clear that since much understanding of "community"
> has disappeared within the last few years,
My first reaction was to disagree with you but maybe you are right or maybe
we do not read current researchers and thinkers in a "community approach."
Is the term "community" less "sexy" than five years ago? Interesting
question.
>there is an attempt to
> recapture "community" within the classroom via interaction.
Yes, this is a very good point. So, is community in this discourse just
communication (i.e., bla-bla-bla)?
>Yet, I feel
> a sense of unease, as well as a static understanding of various terms
> such as the ZPD, constructivism, etc. related to the classroom. Of
> course there are many ZPDs, yet the initial focus on real, individual
> "potentiality" seems left out of many of today's classrooms
i see what you mean and agree
>(as well as
> neglecting the Vygotskian focus on individual "personality
> development").
It is not "personality" but "lichnost'" These are very different concepts.
The Russian notion of lichnost' is about a moral act of overcoming available
circumstances, backgrounds, and tools. It is often a tragic sacrifice.
Louis Holezman nicely captured that notion in her preface dedication to her
new book of Radical school alternative by saying, "To the young people of
the All Stars Talent Show Network-who create hope and possibility each day
as they build environments in which they can grow in a deadly and violent
world."
>Certainly ideas such as "legitimate peripheral
> participation" are working for me on an every day basis; and books like
> "Dynamic Assessment" (Lidz, 1987) have pushed me to do things such as
> show beginning Spanish students the test on a transparency before the
> test--with very positive feedback.
What if to show kids test on a transparency and not give the test? :-) How
can be test LPP? What practice we are talking about?
>Then there is excitment with new ideas
> such as the "Zone of Proximal Adjusting" (by Tim Murphy), creating a
> new, fluid feel of movement. There is also a positive feel with terms
> such as "Construction Zone" (Newman, Griffin and Cole); and the "Zone of
> Free Movement" (Jaan Valsiner), etc. However, my general question
> regards the transition from the classroom to everyday life, where
> "community" of the classroom via the ZPD/ZPA or constructivism
> etc.,transcends schooling, affecting and changing real life.In other
> words, how much of the dynamic potentiality, and dynamic interaction is
> transferable from school to life?
I thought that it is school has a problem of not having enough life in it
rather than other way around. Did I miss something?
>Much of Vygotskian thought and
> constructivist thought remains solely in the classroom, or?
Good point. But what about parenting? Do we have constructivist parenting?
I guess not. This is a very good suspicion of schooling flavor of
constructivism (and even Vygotsky?).
Dot, thanks a lot for your description of your German educational
experience! I've learned a lot from it. Sounds like it a mixture of
"adult-run" and "children-run" approaches. Some students could found enough
guidance in peers, readings, and lectures but some couldn't. I agree with
you that the system is more active than US, at least from your description.
But it is active for some. I guess my question is German system polarizes
and divides students on elite and drop-outs while US system bell-curves for
economy needs?
Eugene
>My question
> is: can there be a dynamic, asymmetrical "revolution" in education
> without a real "parameter collapse"??? I will give my own example of
> what education meant in Germany many years ago (I seriously doubt that
> it could be found in most, or any, German universities today, since many
> German universities are turning to the American model in some respects).
> In my very early twenties, with not one word of any foreign language, I
> found myself in Germany. After a couple of years, I applied to study at
> a German university, primarily for tax purposes (students did not have
> to pay much in taxes, even if they had a regular job). Within the
> humanities (not sciences), no tests were given within regular courses,
> only after two years of study were offical tests given (two weeks
> written, two weeks oral). Then it was "all" or "nothing". So, seminars
> were great...no attendance policy, no homework, etc.However, one needs
> to know that a German high school leaving exam, Abitur, is the
> equivalent of two years of American college; sometimes the equivalent of
> a B.A. degree. Therefore, no need for general education courses.
> Students would select a topic to prepare in most seminars, read about 20
> books, prepare a ten to twenty page paper, and present the results to
> the class, with questions asked by everyone. Grades were not given
> unless asked for...a sheet of paper was issued by the professor with
> "excellent", "very good", "good", etc., if the student so chose. A
> student then collected approx. 12 of these pieces of paper (Scheine),
> and presented them to the examination board in order to apply for formal
> testing every two years. Interaction was not built into the classroom,
> and most of the professors had no understanding of making the class fun,
> or motivating. The professors were so intellectual and well read that
> attending class was considered to be a privilege in many cases (not
> always). The motivation was within the subject matter, not within the
> mode of entertainment of the professor. The classroom was not a place
> for community, but students used friendships made in the classroom to
> build a community outside, discussing topics usually all afternoon,
> often into the late evening. Maybe at one point the professor would join
> in for coffee or wine. Outside the classroom, discussions, and a real
> sense of "personality formation" were fostered within the student
> "community"; teachers did not design projects or modes of interaction,
> and in these communities, students were in charge of things. Now, most
> students at university in Germany were older. This was during the early
> 1980s. The discussions were dynamic, inspiring, active, asymmetrical,
> and experiential. Once the report was given within the semester,
> students were actually free to leave, and only attend the seminar if
> they wanted to. The classroom sessions were most interesting, since
> students selected topics they wanted to research. However, during the
> semester, many of us would go to Greece or Italy, etc. Personally I
> learned more from that type of education and freedom than I could ever
> explain. Now, I am not totally praising the German system, as a student
> was left to his or her own devices to graduate (i.e. no advisors,
> counseling, etc.), and many students simply gave up because of the lack
> of structure. This is true today as well. However, it was real learning
> for learning's sake...of course, the German government was most generous
> with grant money. Years later, it was so inspiring to read about
> Vygotsky's education, which at one point was private tutoring by Solomon
> Aspiz, a scholar in his own right. Aspiz would offer information (which
> had to be assimilated, memorized, etc.) fostering the socratic method.
> Then, the understanding of community and interaction took place with
> Vygotsky and his friends (as teenagers) re-enacting debates of
> historical figures, dividing up the roles, for example, or reciting
> memorized poetry; or establishing "Days and Ages", etc. All of this
> learning was not viewed as an end in itself, but as a beginning point of
> individual creation. The concept of "disobjectivation" was in place
> ("the problem of grasping thought and life in their dynamic and "open"
> form before they are "finished"...Kozulin 1990, Vygotsky's psychology: a
> biography of ideas, p. 22). The ZPD/ZPA was indeed a feel of developing
> one's own potential; yet, the competent professor was truly looked up
> to, and "memorizing" and "imitation" were viewed as a prerequisite for
> authentic creation. For Vygotsky, there was a sense of affordance of
> "space".....Kris Gutierrez, et al. calls it "official and unofficial
> space"; Claire Kramsch (borrowing from Homi Bhabba) calls it the "third
> space"; Jean Delacour speaks of the "internal space" (which includes
> processes independent in the unconscious state which interact,
> communicate); Vygotsky used the "sub"-"un"-"pre"-"non"-conscious as the
> origin of creativity...perhaps it is the return to the unconscious,
> where much cannot be explained in terms of conscious understanding. I am
> often struck by my understanding of Vygotsky having explained much of
> the "conscious" element of thought and speech via the un-conscious;
> while Chomsky, for example, tends to explain the un-conscious elements
> via conscious linguistic structures. An active, dynamic, asymmetrical
> ZPD/ZPA needs to have competent teachers and peers to "lift" students up
> to their potential; then the students can "lift" themselves up to higher
> levels outside of the classroom, or? isn't the important thing to
> recapture the feel of "self-regulation" (on a personal level), and
> "community" (on a social level)? and how can this spill over into life
> after school? I only had a short breath of freedom within education
> while in Germany (something I never experienced once in the United
> States, which was perhaps my fault), and it was the greatest freedom one
> could have. There was very little sense of "ego" (as I see it today),
> with people wanting to communicate, recognizing the "other", not just
> selling "me". It was a feel of being in touch with the core of life....I
> am wondering if anything like that can be recaptured in today's world?
> It appears that much of what is stated in theory is often "jargon",
> which could become linguistic double talk. So, can one revolutionize
> education within the current structures? It is strange, but when I
> reflect upon my few years of educational freedom, I has beyond the
> Cartesian hold on dualism...for a short time...all of which is now lost
> in history.I have found no tools which would help me pass on the joy I
> experienced to my students...and I rarely see them filled with joy from
> learning. Thanks for your patience. Don't mean to be pessimistic, but it
> feels that today learning is not for learning's sake; however, education
> appears to be for education's sake. Best, Dot
>