Carole, you wrote:
"BB gave an extended thoughtful analysis here: I think we may be able to get
to "abstract" through "distributed" rather than "situated". However, I am
not entirely sure about this, because right now with my master's students,
we are looking at this and remembering our extended discussing of the zpd.
We have been wondering how learning through the zpd proceeds on this version
of socio-cultural psychology. It may be that its gets shot to pieces on an
individual level, but the group might be able to work toward a "scientific"
What do you think?"
hey, Carole, after your message, Mike put out Mariane Hedegaard's brief article to read to get a common definition of 'abstract' -
so, i just finished reading that - and in regards to your question, Hedegaard suggests that Davydov "succeeded in solving the problem between situated and abstract knowledge".
it's a triangle model similar to Yrjo's model - designating conditions "where the pupils acquire abstract concepts to explore concrete situated knowledge"... "to organize their own situated knowledge with the tools of the key concepts of a science subject."
she further describes "guiding teaching... for students to acquire and use this model as his own tool".
and she describes a dialectec between the abstract and concrete - 1) motive formation, 2)learning tasks and 3)reflection.
and for the teaching activity 1)goal formulation, 2) learning tasks, and 3)evaluation.
this certainly fits other models i'm familiar with - in which the emphasis is for the students to acquire a new/different conceptual framework or understanding.
(words get so damn slippery in all this.)
so, based on what you've briefly described - i think it works on both the individual and group level - what? first the group and then the individual?
reminds me, i just finished reading Nikolai Veresov's "Marxist and non-Marxist aspects of the cultural-historical psychology of L.S. Vygotsky. it was great.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jun 01 2005 - 01:00:04 PDT