The List: The Sequel, Part Deux
psmagorinsky who-is-at uoknor.edu
Fri, 26 Jan 96 05:36:16 -0600
>Return-path: <SMAGOR who-is-at aardvark.ucs.uoknor.edu>
>Date: Fri, 26 Jan 1996 05:05:25 -0600 (CST)
>From: psmagorinsky who-is-at uoknor.edu
>Subject: 2
>To: PSMAGORINSKY who-is-at UOKNOR.EDU
>X-Envelope-to: smagor
>X-VMS-To: IN%"PSMAGORINSKY who-is-at UOKNOR.EDU"
>
>Here's the second part of the list. In a moment I'll refer to a
>book by Mikhail Yaroshevsky, called Lev Vygotsky, published by
>Progress Publishers of Moscow--I picked it up in Russia in 1994,
>and think it's a splendid book. Progress has published a number
>of excellent books in English, including one of Leont'ev's
>classic works, that you can find floating around in libraries.
>But I've never found a way to buy one in the U.S. Does anybody
>know how to purchase them on this continent? I keep hoping that
>an American publisher will work out a contract to distribute
>their books.....
>
>
>* This view sees a relationship, rather than dichotomy, between
>cognition and affect. The origins of the conception are in
>Vygotsky's The Psychology of Art in which he says that art is "a
>social technique of emotions" (cited in Yaroshevsky, 1989,
>Moscow: Progress Publishers, p. 157). Other quotes of Vygotsky
>by Yaroshevsky: "Art is the social in us" (p. 148). ". . . art
>is the highest concentration of all the biological and social
>processes in which the individual is involved in society, . . .
>it is a mode of finding a balance between man and the world in
>the most critical and responsible moments of life" (p.149).
>
>McNamee, G. D., McLane, J., Cooper, P. M., & Kerwin, S. M.
> (1985). Cognition and affect in early literacy development.
> Early Child Development and Care, 20, 229-244.
>
>
>
>* Writing to learn: Looks at writing as a mediational tool, one
>with unique capacities for enabling a writer to learn through the
>act of composing. This perspective regards writing as having the
>inherent capacity to mediate learning, moreso than other tools,
>regardless of the cultural values of the learning context.
>
>Durst, R. K. (1992). Promising research: An historical analysis
> of award-winning inquiry, 1970-1989. Research in the
> Teaching of English, 26(1), 41-70.
>Emig, J. (1977). Writing as a mode of learning. College
> Composition and Communcication, May, 122-128.
>Mayher, J. (1992). Symposium on "After Dartmouth: Growth and
> Conflict." College English, 54(6), 702-705.
>Britton, J., Burgess, T., Martin, N., McLeod, A, & Rosen, H.
> (1975). The development of writing abilities, 11-18.
> London: Macmillan.
>Langer, J. A., & Applebee, A. N. (1987). How writing shapes
> thinking: A study of teaching and learning. NCTE Research
> Report No. 22. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of
> English.
>McGinley, W., & Tierney, R. J. (1989). Traversing the topical
> landscape: Reading and writing as ways of knowing. Written
> Communication, 6(3), 243-269.
>Applebee, A. N. (1984). Writing and reasoning. Review of
> Educational Research, 54, 577-596.
>
>
>* This perspective uses Vygotsky's notion of inner speech to
>challenge the "inner/outer" metaphor that dominates many
>conceptions of writing; that is, the solitary writer struggling
>to get what's inside the head to spill out onto a piece of paper.
>This view stands in contrast to Piaget's notion of egocentricism,
>where cognitive growth comes through conflict rather than through
>internalization.
>
>Trimbur, J. (1987). Beyond cognition: The voices in inner
> speech. Rhetoric Review, 5(2), 211-221.
>
>
>
>* This view stands in contrast to the one just articulated--that
>is, it uses Vygotsky's concept of inner speech to justify an
>inner/outer view of writing. Writing, according to this view,
>represents thinking rather than mediating it; thus, beginning
>writers have structural problems because their written speech
>closely resembles the fragmentary qualities of inner speech.
>
>Everson, B. J. (1991). Vygotsky and the teaching of writing.
> The Quarterly of the National Writing Project, 13(3), 8-11.
>
>
>
>* This view examines the distinction between spontaneous (e.g.,
>home-based, situation-specific) concepts and scientific (e.g.,
>school-based, systematic, abstract, symbolic) concepts.
>Typically--and in Vygotsky's work--they are regarded as points in
>a hierarchic continuum, with scientific concepts representing a
>more advanced level of development.
>
>* Articles that support the spontaneous-scientific continuum:
>
>Lunsford, A. (1979). Cognitive development and the basic writer.
> College English, 41, 38-46.
>Fiore, K., & Elsasser, N. (1982). "Strangers no more": A
> libertory literacy curriculum. College English, 44(2), 115-
> 128.
>Jolly, P. (1987). Meeting the challenge of developmental
> writers. Teaching English in the Two-Year College, 14(1),
> 32-40.
>Hillocks, G. (1994). Interpreting and counting: Objectivity in
> discourse analysis. In P. Smagorinsky (Ed.), Speaking
> about writing: Reflections on research methodology, (pp.
> 185-204). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
>Dyson, A. H. (1994). Social worlds of children learning to write
> in an urban primary school. New York, NY: Teachers College
> Press.
>
>
>* Articles that dispute the spontaneous-scientific continuum:
>
>Goodman, Y. M., & Goodman, K. S. (1990). Vygotsky in a whole-
> language perspective. In L. C. Moll (Ed.), Vygotsky and
> education: Instructional implications and applications of
> sociohistorical psychology. (pp. 223-250). New York, NY:
> Cambridge University Press.
>Dixon, K. G. (1989). Intellectual development and the place of
> narrative in "basic" and freshman composition. Journal of
> Basic Writing, 8(1), 3-20.
>
>
>* articles that seek a balance between the two
>
>Au, K. H. (1990). Changes in a teacher's views of interactive
> comprehension instruction. In L. C. Moll (Ed.), Vygotsky
> and education: Instructional implications and applications
> of sociohistorical psychology (pp. 271-286). New York, NY:
> Cambridge University Press.
>Cazden, C. B. (1992). Whole language plus: Essays on literacy
> in the United States and New Zealand. New York, NY:
> Teachers College Press.
>
>
>* In this view the idea of social perspectives on development are
>viewed as control-oriented rather than liberating. Socialization
>and enculturation--central to Vygotsky's notion of the
>development of higher mental processes--become means of social
>control and cultural hegemony, and should be resisted.
>
>Zebroski, J. T. (1989). The social construction of self in the
> work of Lev Vygotsky. The Writing Instructor, 8(4), 149-
> 156.
>Bruffee, K. (1984). Collaborative learning and the "Conversation
> of Mankind." College English, 46, 635-652.
>
>
>*This view looks at how egocentrism affects communication,
>particularly written communication in which there is no immediate
>conversant. Such studies examine what is involved in "audience
>awareness" in writing.
>
>Rubin, D. L. (1984). Social cognition and written communication.
> Written Communication, 1(2), 211-245.
>
>
>
>* This perspective argues that learners who are experiencing
>difficulty with conceptual development will make good recearch
>participants because, like the children in Vygotsky's research,
>they will use more egocentric speech when encountering difficulty
>and therefore be able to articulate tacit concerns.
>Freedman, A., Adam, C., & Smart, G. (1994). Wearing suits to
> class: Simulating genres and simulations as genre. Written
> Communication, 11(2), 193-226.
>
>
>* Thought is language-based, and therefore the study of language-
>-in particular, the grammars that structure it--is important to
>understanding writing.
>Williams, J. D. (1983). Rule-governed approaches to language and
> composition. Written Communication, 10(4), 542-568.
>
>
>* According to this perspective, literacy arises in holistic,
>practical activity. Atomistic reductions of thinking and acting
>to their constituent parts spuriously fragments learning
>processes, particularly when translated into a pedagogy that
>teaches subskills as building blocks towards a whole performance.
>
>Englert, C. S., & Palincsar, A. S. (1991). Reconsidering
> instructional research in literacy from a sociocultural
> perspective. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 6,
> 225-229.
>
>
>* In this position, Vygotsky's Myshlenie i rech':
>Psikhologicheskie issledovaniya should be translated as Thinking
>and Speech rather than Thought and Language.
>
>Cazden, C. B. (1988). Classroom discourse. Portsmouth, NH:
> Heinemann.
>
>
>*This perspective focuses on Vygotsky's notion that researchers
>must study the whole of consciousness, rather than breaking it
>down into parts.
>
>Au, K. H. (1990). Changes in a teacher's views of interactive
> comprehension instruction. In L. C. Moll (Ed.), Vygotsky
> and education: Instructional implications and applications
> of sociohistorical psychology (pp. 271-286). New York, NY:
> Cambridge University Press.
>
>
>
> other references I've run across that we need to find
>Dyson, A. (1983). The role of oral language in early writing
> processes. Research in the Teaching of English, 17, 1-30.
>Galda, L. (1984). Narrative competence: Play, storytelling and
> story comprehension. In A. Pellegrini & T. Yawkey (Eds.),
> The development of oral and written language in social
> context (pp. 105-119). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
>Elsasser, N., & John-Steiner, V. P. (1977). An interactionist
> approach to advancing literacy. Harvard Educational Review,
> 47, 355-69.
>
>
Peter Smagorinsky
University of Oklahoma
College of Education
Department of Instructional Leadership and Academic Curriculum
820 Van Vleet Oval
Norman, OK 73019-0260
(405)325-3533
fax: (405)325-4061
smagor who-is-at aardvark.ucs.uoknor.edu
psmagorinsky who-is-at uoknor.edu