Gordon,
Why is talk of internalization unnecessary? It is important to remember
for Vygotsky internalization was not just skills, but motivation, emotions
etc. He referred to emotions as a higher "psychological" processes. I
remember you recently discussing "ownership" how would that be different
than internalization. There's alot of terms identity formation, ownership,
or appropriation which seem to me to describe internalization in a variety
of ways.
Why would internalization no longer be necessary if we are talking about
activity instead of novice-expert. I agree such a power relationship is
inefficient to describe the learning process, but internalization still
exists without such a relationship. Reasoning via constructivism also has
problems as in the "post-modernist" critiques of naturalizing cultural
reproduction through an active subject and development. I suppose we can
reason about ones interactions via constructions, but that seems to ignore
how cultural tools, activity etc. mold those constructions. As teachers we
are not just acknowledging the students motivations, needs etc, but also
constructing them. It seems by talking of construction without
internalization we are missing half the picture like the critique of
internalization pointed out. The conclusion actually caught me off guard,
because it seemed out of place with your emphasis on inquiry and ownership.
I hope its not taken the wrong way, but I have always seen the "Gordon
Method" :) more as co-constructivism and the conclusion felt it was moving
away from that approach.
This may have something to do with how I see internalization. Its kind of
difficult to passively internalize, we are not not empty vessels. To
internalize would assume an active subject. I don't mean to play with
words, but internalization doesn't make sense if we assume a passive
individual. I find internalization/externalization as a useful way to
conceptualize ones engagement in activity without resorting to
"constructivism" which for me embodies a dualism between subject and
activity.
Thanks for the very interesting paper.
Nate