[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [xmca] Kindergarten Cram: When is play?
I ve been reading the posts regarding play in kindergarten. And the question of the subject made me realize a time of playing in kindergarten.
Why not ask when is not play? I
It is interesting to compare conexts regargind the ways different professional observe the same behavior in chidren ´s play at kinder.
They are controlled and evaluate.
Play is used only for educational purposes: Teachers use some "techniques" as if they are play.
The objects are always the same. Literate props are not incorporated in play frames ( Sutton- Smith, 1997).
And the most important thing to consider, teachers´training in play and research James Christie ( Tempe, USA) has made some researches trying to find out the ideas about play. the results suggested the lack of using teachers´representations about what is play for them.
There are lots of critiques about natural way of playing in a context of schooling, but actually children play with mobiles. And how a play in mobile may be used by the teacher to develop language and cognition.
I remember vygotksy´s chapter in mind in society. It would be great to review it.
Ignacio Dalton, Ed. M.
Universidad del Salvador
--- On Fri, 5/8/09, Mike Cole <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
From: Mike Cole <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: [xmca] Kindergarten Cram: When is play?
To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Friday, May 8, 2009, 9:20 PM
A lull in the local grad student work storm, so a few comments until the
wind rises, which may be at any moment, more or less literally.
On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 2:50 AM, David Kellogg <email@example.com>wrote:
> Yes. One fact I forgot to cite is that the closer the kids get to the
> college entrance exam, the less impressive their performances get on those
> international student evaluations that PISA and Stevenson were so impressed
> What's true of the kids is truer of their schools. We have the very best
> elementary school on earth (in my humble opinion) and every single
> elementary school teacher has liftime tenure, and is part of a career
> structure that professors in the USA would envy (low tuition in school,
> three months paid vacation a year, time off for further education, etc.)
> Until the last few years, our elementary schools were virtually test free.
> Middle school teachers are treated much less well, and high school teachers
> downright shabbily, and of course the testing system, for all the excitement
> generated (airplanes grounded, traffic rerouted, police and even troops
> mobilized to get the nation's kids to the testing centres on time) at bottom
> enforces mediocrity, which is the baseline of our disgraceful university
> It's for PRECISELY this reason that I don't believe it has anything to do
> with traditional Confucian testing. The Confucian tests were based on essay
> writing, and required analysis and synthesis of ancient texts and their
> creative interpretation and presentation. The current exams are multiple
> choice, "skills-based" and psychometric tests that Binet and Simon would
> easily recognize and of which Thorndike would heartily approve. Items are
> statistically independent (so much so that several attempts to
> factor-analyze the test have turned up absolutely nothing)
> This kind of statistical independence is exactly what Vygotsky denies in
> Chapter Six, Section Four, (p. 267 of the Meccaci translation, pp. 207-208
> in Minick):
> "The research has shown that the different materials of school learning
> enter into reciprocal interactions during the course of the development of
> the child. This development appears in a mode which is more unified than
> that which we might suppose on the basis of the experiments of Thorndike
> according to which development acquires an atomistic character. The
> experiments of Thorndike have shown that the development of any partial
> knowledge or capacity consists of the formation of an independent chain of
> associations, which cannot in any way aid the appearance of another
> associative chain. All development would be independent, isolated and
> autonomous and would be realized equally on the basis of associative links."
Here is where the distinction between learning and development becomes
essential and the link to gestalt..... now the sum of the parts is/becomes
equal to, not less than, the whole.
> Instead, in the quotes I talked about last time, Vygotsky argues for
> "abstraction" that is brought about through the realization of both LINKS
> and DIVERGENCES between mathematical thinking (- x - = +) and written speech
> ("It's NOT worth nothing"). I think Vygotsky uses the word “abstract” in two
> linked but nevertheless distinguishable senses, one having to do with
> capacity and the other having to do with actual performance.
> On the one hand, “abstract” refers to DECONTEXUALIZEABLE knowledge, e.g.
> written language as opposed to spoken language. This is abstract because it
> is IDEAL; when we write, we take away the SENSUOUS, material form of words,
> we take away the SENSES we create because we are talking to a real,
> immediate person, and we take away the SENSIBLE purposes of language use
> because there is no question to which we are replying, no command which we
> obey, no request we must respond to, etc.
Is this reformulatable, David? Sure you do not mean that written words on
pages are not sensuous, are not material and are purely ideal? And the
"sense" able aspect of words may be reduced, meaning being the most stable
aspect of sense, but absent entirely?
And there is NO, however indirect and ephemeral "request to respond"? If all
of this were pushed too far, I could make neither sense nor meaning of what
you wrote and would not be answering.
> On the other, “abstract” refers to RECONTEXTUALIZEABLE knowledge, e.g.
> actual writing as opposed to actual speech. This is abstract because it is
> VOLITIONAL, it does not depend on response to an immediate environment. But
> it DOES depend on choice, selection, and free will constrained by the
> writer’s purposes. When we actually write we choose particular sequences of
> letters to form words, and it is possible to think of idiosyncratic
> spellings like “doe a dear” which give us access to our volitional memory
> and focus our volitional attention.
Again, I understand the biased relations you are talking about ( I think)
but balk at the extremes to which they are taken. no written language no
We only respond to the "immediate environment" (what is a non-mediated
experience of the environment for an enculturated person?). If "in the
beginning is the act," why such a sharp divide here between orgal face to
face and written xmca discourse??
> When we actually write we select sequences of words to form sentences; at
> the level of grammar innovation becomes not simply an option but a virtual
> necessity, because unlike spelling there is no ready reserve of preset
> sentences which will tell us exactly what to say in every situation.
> Finally, when we actually write we are free to create our own EXCHANGES and
> not simply our own sentences, creating the need for language use as well as
> fulfilling it; If at the level of lexicogrammar, written language tends
> “znachenie”, at the level of the text, it tends towads “smysl”.
The "tends toward" phrasing here is much more in line with my intuitions.
> The distinction seems important to me, because Bakhtin (and even Volosinov)
> does not really recognize that the latter form of abstract thinking, which
> allows the individual to realize free choice, rests on the former, which
> makes thinking available in a new context precisely by tearing it from an
> old one. It seems to me, though, that this kind of abstraction is actually
> what we see in the old kind of Confucian testing.
Isn't "the latter form" also rising to the concrete?
e.g. abstraction a la Marx, ilyenkov etc.?
> cool fingered mike
> David Kellogg
> Seoul National University of Education
> xmca mailing list
xmca mailing list
xmca mailing list