"Twisted" manner has somewhat negative connotations for me, and
I don't know if you meant it that way or not. Do you feel that our
discussion of these matters has been as wrong-headed as you feel
that J.E. Stone's paper is? Or do you mean something else by "twisted"?
I haven't had a chance to read the paper in question, so I can't
comment in that regard. However, correct me if I'm oversimplifying
and misreading the difference between Piaget and Vygotsky, but, from a
Piagetian perspective, doesn't learning follow development, whereas
from a Vygotskian perspective, doesn't development follow learning?
I would argue that there are many reasons behind the achievement lag
demonstrated by American students--Stigler and Stevenson in their
paper,"How Asian teachers polish each lesson to perfection", do a
nice job of elucidating many of those factors. However, I personally
have wondered what effects an extreme (mis)application of the
Piagetian approach may also have on our educational system? In
particular, the concept of "cognitive readiness" (which again I
believe is a misapplication of Piaget) seems invested in "not pushing"
children to learn till they're "ready", and one result of this is
to dilute the curriculum down to its lowest common denominators.
Now, I suppose the corollary of this would be that a (mis)application
of the Vygotskian approach would call for "pushing" children
at the upper end of their "zone." But perhaps there has been
some ghost of this lurking about in our discussions: do we "push"
children or do we not "push" children?
Arne, perhaps you can provide a better frame for our discussions?
Robin