"However, in using the term "internalization" to describe this
transformation in and of participation, Vygotsky also appears to be
proposing a temporal sequence on the microgenetic plane, such that, in
learning, there is a stage at which the higher mental functions are
external to the learner and a subsequent stage at which they are internal.
The problem with this latter proposition is that it also implies a spatial
movement in which what is learned passes from outside to inside the skin of
the learner. And it is this that many commentators find objectionable."
"In explaining this learning process, talk of internalization seems
unnecessary; no knowledge passes explicitly to the novice from the more
expert participants, as they move together with increasing synchrony.
Rather, within the framework provided by the structure of the activity as a
whole, of which the entraining movements of the other participants are just
one part, the novice gradually constructs the organizing cognitive
structures for him or herself and brings his or her actions into conformity
with the culture-given pattern."
In reading Gordon's paper, I keep going back to these two comments and
struggle with how they are saying different things. The only difference I
can see is the subsitution of the word ""internalization' with
"constructivism". Maybe one reason for the struggle is for me it brings up
a passive-active dualism that no longer seems pertinent. Even in scope and
sequence teacher dominated educational arrangement it is only successful if
the child "constructs".
I understand Vygotsky's use of "internalization" as having its root in
Marx. By this I am referring to an explanation of the "individual" through
a cultural-historical rather than biological history. The aim is to
explain the individual in cultural-historical terms that puts the notion of
mind as a priori (Kant) to rest. It is in this way Vygotsky's use of
"internalization" has never bothered me because as Gordon mentions it is
the individual side of transformation.
Constructivism or at least the "meaning" it normally implies takes a
certain unfolding or inside the head restructuring as its basis. The child
being here and not there is seen as a problem of the individual - a product
of their mind - as apposed to the structure of society or instruction.
What concerns me with talk of "constructivism" and the student constructing
cognitive structures that bring him/her into culturally-given patterns is
reproduction becomes naturalized. We give cultural reproduction or
institutional structures a biological legitimacy.
For me, it is not so much a passive vs active debate, but rather the active
side or construction can be a technique as descructive as
"internalization". What's the difference between having children passively
memorize culturally given patterns or if we create contexts or activities
in which they actively construct those patterns. As with Shif's work on
the relationship between scientific and everyday concepts, the active child
or everyday concepts emerge from the perceived failure of the
"internalization" approach to schooling.
It is in this sense, I have concerns when we talk of students constructing
or negotiation with students because it gives a priori sense of needs,
wants, desires that are somehow above their cultural-historical
environment. For me, it also leaves out the ways we are, students are
tranformed in which there may not be conscious awareness or active
engagement. I think of Luria's (The Making of Mind) mentioning of the
Doctor's artifacts (technology) as turning them into a machine or a slave
to technology. The artifact had an influence on behavior and practice in
ways Doctor's were most likely not conscious of. This is getting past the
ZPD chapter and more into Gordon's discussion of artifacts in the book, but
it seems if we think totally in the frame of "constructing" the silent,
quiet, invisable ways culture makes us or we make our students gets left
unchallenged.
I do want to add to Gordon that I found the text very useful in thinking
through these issues. I continually had to ask myself if the disagreements
were simply technical or substantial pedogogical ones. I have over the
years read several of the articles on your website and it was useful seeing
the ideas put together in a more unified fashion in book form.
/\ / /\ | /-----
/ \ / /__\ ---|--- /---
/ \/ / \ | /----
Nate Schmolze
http://www.geocities.com/~nschmolze/
schmolze who-is-at students.wisc.edu
*******************************************************************
"Pedogogics is never and was never politically indifferent,
since, willingly or unwillingly, through its own work on the psyche,
it has always adopted a particular social pattern, political line,
in accordance with the dominant social class that has guided its
interests".
L.S. Vygotsky
********************************************************************