Don,
Before we get to far I want to point out there is a lengthy discussion on
this in Chapter 2.
Nate
-----Original Message-----
From: Cunningham, Donald [mailto:cunningh@indiana.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2001 10:20 AM
To: 'xmca@weber.ucsd.edu'
Subject: RE: who said?
Showing my ignorance here (perhaps I've already let that slip) but I have a
question concerning Davydov. In an article in the American Psychologist a
few years ago that was based in part of Davydov's work, I was struck by the
similarity between his scientific concept and Gagne's defined concept. The
authors of that article argued that while "guided discovery in a community
of learners" is fine for acquiring spontaneous concepts and certain
metacognitive skills of self regulation, theoretical/didactic/direct
teaching is necessary for acquiring scientific
concepts. Theoretical learning, it was argued, is a more effective (and
efficient) way of mediating students cognitive outcomes of linking student
declarative knowledge with procedural knowledge. This sounds to me at least
as reactive as Gagne's model.
Of course we haven't actually raised the issue yet as to whether CHAT is or
can be used as an instructional theory...........djc
-----Original Message-----
From: Stetsenko, Anna [mailto:AStetsenko@gc.cuny.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 3:18 PM
To: 'xmca@weber.ucsd.edu'
Subject: RE: who said?
Mike, one thing for sure - you never said or implied this. "OVER".
I think I reacted to this posting by Eugene Matusov:
"US Vygotskian school (or better to say a family of approaches) rejects the
Hegel-Marx-Vygotsky idea of one historical development of society and focus,
instead, on relations among cultures." Given that "the Hegel-Marx-Vygotsky
idea of one historical development" was meant to be the centerpiece of the
Russian school (in the same message), this did sound as a REJECTION, didn't
it? And rejection can't be done without this 'over' and this 'abandonment',
can it? And rejection is opposite to a dialogue, isn't it? -- this being my
main message, by the way. Or otherwise, I do not know what rejection is
about...
As to Davydov: I happened to see him giving talks in Germany, for example. I
was struck by how difficult it was for people there to make sense of his
words... I do blame the effects of being taken out of context (in many
senses of this expression, e.g., of him talking in an alien context with
often bad translation, of others not knowing his philosophy and
psychological framework etc) for this. As to 'a la Spencer', I think, in
essence, nothing can be farther away from Spencer's evolutionary thinking
than Davydov's cultural-historical view of learning as the pathway of
development and of mind as formed by cultural tools.
Anna
-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Cole [mailto:mcole@weber.ucsd.edu]
Sent: Monday, April 02, 2001 6:44 PM
To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
Subject: who said?
Anna--
Where did this appear in the discussion?
By the way, setting a clear preference of
the latter OVER the former, and claiming that the cultural-historical view
should be COMPLETELY abandoned in favor of the sociocultural view isn't
perhaps a best way to pursue diversity and dialogue?
About Davydov. He was speaking to an ethnically diverse group of people
at LCHC the first time I heard him speak this way. The second time was
at a developmental conference in Moscow where he took a strong hegelian
stance that primitive peoples indeed think primitively, a la Spencer/
Contextaualizing Vasilii Vasilievitch's view is a big help, thanks.
mike
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 01 2001 - 01:01:42 PDT