[Xmca-l] Re: thoughts on Mathematics of Mathematics by Wolff-Michael Roth

[Wolff-Michael Roth]

Hi Bill,
it is not so much "socially constructed." My key point in the book is that
it is social BEFORE there can be any construction. It is social, and this
is where I refer to a Vygotsky that has not been taken up, because "every
higher psychological function ... was a social relation between two
people." That is, in this specific case, mathematics is social, was the
relation between two people before you see it in individuals...

I think the construction metaphor breaks down when you look at our species
becoming human. So before there was culture, before we used tools, where
were those tools for constructing anything of the likes that
constructivists say that we use to construct? How can a hominid construct
"meaning" of the branch as tool to start digging for roots or fishing for
termites? And how do they construct meaning of the first sound-words when
they do not have a system that would serve as material and tool for
building anything like "meaning?"

So yes, a learning theory has to be able to explain learning from before
culture (phylogenesis), before language and meaning (ontogenesis).

And about eclecticism---I think we would be a step further if we listened
to and pondered A.N. Leont'ev's complaint about the "eclectic soup
[eklekticheskoj pokhlebke] ... each to his own recipe" that psychologists
are trying to cook (in his foreword to *Activity. Consciousness.
Personality*).

Cheers,
Michael

On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 7:15 PM, Bill Kerr <billkerr@gmail.com> wrote:

> One interpretation of Vygotsky (Wolff-Michael Roth) argues that all
> knowledge is socially constructed and that ethnomethodology, paying
> detailed attention in the now, is the best or only way of detecting and
> evaluating what is going on . Human activity can’t be reduced to individual
> actions. Anything individual originates in the social, be it words,
> mathematics or by implication computer science (mentioned not in the
> original but because it is a current interest of mine). Moreover internal
> representations or schemas seem to be denied because that would be a
> capitulation to dualism, emphasising brain / mind activity whereas the real
> deal is an integrated thinking body.
>
> This world view is critical of other learning theories be they
> behaviourist, cognitivist, enactivist or constructivist.
>
> The question that I want to explore here is the pragmatic one of whether
> and how learning theory (an abstraction) makes a difference in practice,
> for busy, hard working (usually overworked) teachers. An alternative
> epistemology/ies which might appeal more in practice to real teachers under
> pressure is an eclectic one centred around the issue of “what works”.
>
> I believe I am better read on learning theory than most teachers. See
> http://learningevolves.wikispaces.com/learning%20theories
>
> Up until now I've developed an eclectic / pragmatic approach to putting
> learning theory into practice. Take something from Seymour Papert's
> constructionism, something from Dan Willingham's cognitivism, something
> from Dan Dennett's behaviourism, something from Andy Clarke’s enactivism
> and roll them altogether in an eclectic mix. The authors in this list could
> be multiplied. My underlying belief was that it was not possible to develop
> a unified learning theory, that human learning was too complex for that. As
> Marvin Minsky once said in 'Society of Mind', "the trick is there is no
> trick", I think meaning no overarching way in which human's learn.
>
> One big surprise in reading Wolff-Michael Roth is his serious attempt to
> put an end to such eclectism and develop what appears to be a unfied
> learning theory.
>