J. Wertsch's use of the term analytic primacy is useful here. How a new
generation comes to acquire literacy (or literacies, such as sports,
religious related, like reading a horse racing paper for handicapping, etc)
as well as the type of literacy acquired seem to influence the "learning"
style that the child will go to school with.
I would say that literacy acquisition is constrained or freed depending
largely on latent and past historical processes. Prior to 1954, and even
much later, for example, the structural constraints placed on the
African-American population in the US most likely led to group differences
in how some students would learn, but just as important, (Cultural)
differences in expectations, values, goals, motives etc.
Whether bilingual ed. or total immersion noe becomes policy in CA will also
tend to have an impact on literacy acquisition, which in turn, might impact
on how information is processed (or on learning styles' FORMATION).
The so called "learning styles" one finds so often used to explain,
justify or characterize various cultural groups perhaps serve to reminds us
that there is a link between how a particular cultural group has been
treated, (favorably or not, and what conditions are available for
particular paths of cognitive and non-intellective development), and it's
cognitive consequences at the group level.
However, I don't see any more explanatory power in the learning style
discourse than what has already been found in the area of cultural
differences. The problem I find with "that" popular argument (and that of
7+ intelligences, Garner) is that they give learning styles analytic
primacy, as an a priori trait like hair or eye color, rather than a
socially constructed byproduct which has as much to do with the ways a
non-mainstream culture is organized as with the practices and goals of the
dominant culture.
For example, in Dot Robbins' last post, the "overriding goal of lockstep
closure via SAT, ACT tests" reflect on how the learning style notion has
been co-constructed.
In sum, once those styles are constructed, I agree, they tend to perpetuate
themselves inter-generationally, keeping the borders more closed than open.
In what little research I have done on this topic, the most interesting
finding was that some academic disciplines favor one "style" over others
(Physical, social sciences, Arts etc). Students wioth a given style tend to
gravitate toward the disciplines that favors that style. Which comes first?
In order to be successful in a given fields, socio-cognitive adaptation is
required, implying the field has the a priori structure and say over which
types of adaptation will work. Some have to make within group adaptations
while others may have to start with between group/field adaptation, thus
becoming biculturally competent (or bicognitive).
Yet here is another issue, becoming bilingual or bicultural obviously has
cognitive consequences (ie you become "bicognitively competent", which is
what the presenter at AERA was picking up on based on Ramirez& Castaneda,
197x))
But in CHAT, bicultural and bicognitive would seem difficult to separate
since bicultural would mean having competence in more than one symbol, or
cultural (cognitive) tool system or field, meaning that we are all
bicultural (or polycultural) to some extent, even if we are limited in
crossCultural experiences or monoCultural). If this is confusing to some of
us familiar with CHAT, imagine how much more difficult it would appear to
those outside CHAT.
We may have to adopt a new convention perhaps, like
Cultural (always use caps) as in Native or Asian American, Nordic or Latino
Groups..etc. and
cultural (no caps) in the sense of referring to persons acting with a
given set of mediational means, or human made tools.
Clearly, Cultural differences can be understood largely in terms of
cultural differences or differences in culture kits AND also their very
process of formation.
This is such a complex issue... The forms of activity a group engages in,
regardless of the why's, do tend to shape minds in general, which in turn,
shape the Culture of origin and other. In terms of primacy or effect size,
who is to know? The impact made by some cultured individuals have been long
lasting and powerful.So have the impact of less cultured ones. But in
general, it seems to be more prevalent the other way around. This issue can
be related to the first part of Dot's note on Vygotsky-Piaget
regarding "thought to action v.s. action to thought"
The cognitive structuring of a learning style or whatever seems to follow
from the activity patterns prevalent in a culture,
it is a learned style or style learned in a cultural context.
When crossing borders unto another Culture, such "style" may be a resource
or a liability, depending ....on who, what where's of the activity setting
unit of analysis ( values, goals, practices etc of the Other, host
Culture.) Enough baking for today.
pedro
At 06:44 PM 5/3/98 EDT, you wrote:
>In a message dated 5/3/98 11:58:31 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
>prport01 who-is-at homer.louisville.edu writes:
>
><< Elina
> >My apologies for the delay, I've been out.. In any case, re. your question;
> Because I think that within group differences are much more important than
> between groups, particularly when the two groups concerned are
> heteregeneous to begin with. Secondly because the reasoning that current
> tests favor context independent thinking or cog. style and that is why
> groups with context dependent styles are at a disadvantaged (namely
> Spanish-speaking groups etc)is not convincing. I prefer literacy oriented
> explanations more than the learning style discourse / explanations.
> Why? I guess i think literacy acquisition processes shaped
> cognitive/learning "styles" more than vice versa.
> But that is just me, i could be wrong....(like the Sat. nite guy
says)..pedro
>
> >>Pedro et al,
>Thanks. I share your attitude to learning style discourse and any style
>discussion. However, I am really interested in discussion of research
>approaches to the process of internalization and development of higher
>psychological functions in various cultures.
>Yes, I agree with your remark on literacy acquisition. However, I believe
that
>it is a dialectical process and every newly appropriated higher psychological
>fuction changes the whole system of relationships and transforms the existing
>quality. So, in other words literacy acquizition shapes cognitive styles
>(whatever is meant by that), but transformed and internalized cognitive
styles
>shape further process of literacy acquizition. I will never forget a
phrase in
>the letter of Daniil Elkonin to one of the members of the Kharkov
>Developmental Education Laboratory, I was allowed to read , "My friend, do
not
>forget that unit of analysis has its history too... For example, if an agent
>appropriated Learning Activity as a leading one, it will qualitatevely
>transform all the previously mastered activities.." Sometimes I have a
feeling
>that we forget about it. May be I am wrong...
>
>What do you think?
>Elina
>
>Elina Lampert Shepel
>Chairperson of Curricula Committees
>Globe Institute of Technology, Inc.
>291 Broadway, 2nd floor
>New York, NY 10007
>212 349 4330(w.)
>718 833 6960 (h.)
>
>