[Xmca-l] Fwd: Re: Zuckerman's 2016 article and "what would aneducationbe?"

[mike cole]

Dear Colleagues -- Here is my quick translation of Galina's response to my
invitation to join the discussion of her paper. (Note that she refers to
reflexive thinking which is the topic of a second paper I am not sure
everyone has obtained).

I would emphasize her point that this work was written in the 1980's,
published in 2000, and available to us only now in English. These temporal
facts and their implications in terms of judgments about the political
context of the work ought to be kept in mind when interpreting aspects of
the text. Speaking personally, Phillip's comments about the common values
across different systems of state sponsored mass education provide a
reasonable interpretive framework.

Here are Galina's comments:

Michael -

I send you a book file, part of which has been translated and is now being
discussed. I am of two minds about participating in the discussion. Do I
want to participate in the discussion? Yes and no. Yes, because I have
never tired of learning. No, because I am tired of the socio-political
myths that gradually sinks discussion.



With regard to the politics. El'konin and Davydov were and remain
dissidents both in relation to their own times, and in the new millennium;
and in their personal behavior and professional accomplishments are
important for me, because I love these people and their ideas.



The book *How do younger school children learn to learn?* (from which the
article was selected). It was published in 2000 and written in the late
80s. Is it outdated? Yes and no. Obsolete are the specific examples of
learning situations I used to illustrate various pedagogical ideas. But the
specific instructional situations described, as a rule, were recorded on
the day of testing: the result of the main lessons from a good teacher - an
understanding of how today's ideas could be implemented better, fuller, and
more clearly remain useful. What has not aged are ideas about interpsychic
action, illustrated by these learning situations. At present I will mention
only two:



1) Education always introduces asymmetries into development, supporting
some potential opportunities and age not supporting others. The dream of
all-round harmonious development is unattainable due to the specific
relationship of instruction and development.



2) For the *reflexive development* of the child, interaction with adults
who are familiar and knowledgeable about the subject matter needs to be
supplemented by interaction with peers who do not know the answers and are
not more knowledgeable. This [dual necessity] is on the one hand, well
known and repeatedly demonstrated, but on the other hand, it is constantly
ignored. For me, this is important because it makes re-think one of the
most quoted sayings of Vygotsky: "Zone of Proximal Development - is the
distance between the level of a child's actual development as determined by
the tasks presented that are accomplished independently, and the level of
potential development, determined by means of a procedure in which problems
are solved under the leadership of adults or in collaboration with more
knowledgeable peers."



​Is this another way of formulating Ed Wall's idea of rigor and
responsiveness in pedagogical terms? Sort of like modes and relations of
production one might say.

mike​

​
 21-kak-mlsch-uchatsa_2000.pdf
<https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7y1a3DKSsQJWTNSN3BRNll0Znc/view?usp=drive_web>
​

>
>>>
>>>