Re(2): another side of LSV and Context

Gordon Wells (gwells who-is-at oise.utoronto.ca)
Thu, 25 Mar 1999 09:49:50 -0500

xmca who-is-at weber.ucsd.edu writes:
>the child teaches himself (...) in educational process, the student's
>individual experience is everything (...)The educational process must be
>based on the student's individual activity, and the art of education
>should involve nothing more than guiding and monitoring this activity
>(...)KNOWLEDGE THAT IS NOT GAINED THROUGH PERSONAL EXPERIENCE IS NOT
>KNOWLEDGE AT ALL (...)the teacher is the director of the social
>enviroment in the classroom, the governor and guide of the interaction
>between the educational process and the student (...)Education is
>realized through the student's own experience, which is wholly
>determined by the environment, and" (Ch. 4, p. 47-50)

Thanks for the fascinating set of quotes from Vygotsky's 'Educational
Psychology" (btw, could you please provide publication details). The
emphasis on the primacy of experience is very reminiscent of Dewey. But
what I find surprising in the above passage is the playing down of the
role of co-participation in social activity and hence of the contribution
of others in the zpd. Dewey, too, would place more emphasis on the
interactional role of the teacher, I think, than is suggested in this
quote.

>THE ROLE OF THE TEACHER THEN
>REDUCES TO DIRECTING AND GUIDING THE ENVIRONMENT.
This sentence sounds more like the child-centred pedagogical approach
derived from Piaget than the Vygotsky who wrote: "The teacher, working
with the school child on a given question, explains, informs, inquires,
corrects, and forces the child himself to explain. All this work on
concepts, the entire process of their formation, is worked out by the
child in collaboration with the adult in instruction." (Thinking and
Speech, pp.215-6, Minick's translation, 1987).

What I find surprising is that the passage quoted came from a text
explicitly addressed to the practicalities of using psychological
understandings in educational contexts. It seems almost diametrically
opposed to the more theoretical account quoted above from Thinking and
Speech.

Do other share my surprise?

Gordon Wells
OISE/University of Toronto