[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Culture as dialogic relation
Eugene wrote much of interest, ending:
For me the
biggest problem with Galperin's dualism is pragmatic and not even
(although it is there as well).
While acknowledging your concerns and problems with developmental
Eugene, it seems to me that the main task in reading Arievitch on
is precisely to consider what G. might in fact bring, *conceptually*,
to the understanding
of internalization. It seems to me that the main immediate task is to
relevance, to our own concrete problems, of at least two aspects of
1) the collective-individual aspect (initiated by Vygotsky, I suppose),
2) the formation of an "internal plane of consciousness" (or some other
putting it) -- which was Gal'perin's particular concern.
My understanding is that 2) was particularly intensively studied in
in the 1950's, by Gal'perin, Davydov, Talyzina, and others, and to some
eclipsed 1) for a while. But that the aspect 2) is perhaps, currently,
in turn, in
Arievitch is raising the interesting question of whether it is
worthwhile to reconsider
the aspect 1) of internalization. Could this in fact lead to some kind
breakthrough in understanding "internalization"?
Also, does not Arievitch point out that Gal'perin did not actually
primarily a pedagogical psychologist?
In this connection, I would also refer people to the very interesting
Davydov and Andronov, which Mike was kind enough to post. For me, one of
the most interesting things about this article is that it is one place
Davydov considers the development of children's *spontaneous* concepts
of addition, in this case, with a special emphasis on how children use
actions and gestures to spontaneously resolve the dialectical conflict
ordinal and cardinal number. This article describes quite detailed
research along the lines sketched out by Gal'perin.
Although Davydov-Andronov makes some mention of possible instructional
applications, it really does seems to focus on a general aspect of
that ought to be considered for its conceptual interest independent of
or of any "agenda" for developing children into adults seen as "better."
What do you think?