Dear colleagues, in Learning by Expanding, I mainly discuss Davydov in
Chapter 3 (p. 188 and on, focusing on learning actions) and Chapter 3 (from
p. 239 on, focusing on the formation of theoretical concepts).
A fairly accessible and concise discussion of Davydov's relevance to
instruction and schooling (as related to ideas of situated learning) can be
found in the following article of mine:
Engestrom, Y. (1991). Non scolae sed vitae discimus: Toward overcoming the
encapsulation of school learning. Learning and Instruction, 1, 243-259.
I believe this article was also republished in a book on Vygotsky and
education edited by Harry Daniels.
Cheers,
Yrjo Engestrom
> From: "Nate" <vygotsky@home.com>
> Reply-To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 22:19:42 -0500
> To: <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> Subject: RE: who said?
> Resent-From: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 20:15:09 -0700 (PDT)
>
> Don,
>
> Sorry I checked and its not covered in chapter 2. Davydov is mentioned in
> one of the chapters but not in relation to Gagne.
>
> Renshaw has an interesting piece on Davydov which can be found at,
> http://members.home.net/vygotsky/renshaw.html. The reference to Cole - The
> Construction Zone - is not entirely accurate though.
>
> What I found interesting was the linking of theoretical/didactic/direct
> teaching which I am not that sure about. What - at least in the Renshaw
> piece - is emphasized is a certain language - mathematical language - which
> I think is essential. Too often direct teaching does not include that
> dialogic element that I see emphasized in Renshaw's reflection of Davydov.
>
> Discovery learning in my view is a very ahistorical way of viewing what
> actually occurs. It is or can be as systematic as direct instruction.
> Teachers spend hours organizing, setting up classrooms so kids can have a
> "community of learning" or so called "discovery" learning environment. For
> me conscious or unconscious would be a better starting point - as with
> Vygotsky's scientific / everyday concepts (conscious / unconscious).
>
> I don't know much about Gagne, but problem solving seems not to have this
> material aspect or is it more like the tin man - it was there all along. I
> think the American answer has been the tin man answer and that is very
> problematic for me.
>
> Too often educational programs that come into schools that emphasize
> problems solving classize, and racialize the classroom. Its still rather
> mystical in many ways - we know some kids do rather well at it and for
> others its frustrating. The CW of course is that this is process and
> therefore inside the individual, which I don't find acceptable. The tin man
> did not come into oz with a heart he got it from the journey.
>
> YE talks about models and I assume problem solving itself can be modeled or
> we can create educational settings / activities where that can occur. I'm
> not sure Gagne would agree its almost as problem solving is needed to
> express genius yet at the same time it can not be developed (discovery
> learning in this case). I think Vera's "notebooks" is beautiful in this
> regard and for me takes some of the mysticism but not the beauty out of the
> process.
>
> Which is to say I think there are some implications for education especially
> to counter the dominant field of cognitive psychology.
>
> Nate
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Showing my ignorance here (perhaps I've already let that slip) but I have a
> question concerning Davydov. In an article in the American Psychologist a
> few years ago that was based in part of Davydov's work, I was struck by the
> similarity between his scientific concept and Gagne's defined concept. The
> authors of that article argued that while "guided discovery in a community
> of learners" is fine for acquiring spontaneous concepts and certain
> metacognitive skills of self regulation, theoretical/didactic/direct
> teaching is necessary for acquiring scientific
> concepts. Theoretical learning, it was argued, is a more effective (and
> efficient) way of mediating students cognitive outcomes of linking student
> declarative knowledge with procedural knowledge. This sounds to me at least
> as reactive as Gagne's model.
>
> Of course we haven't actually raised the issue yet as to whether CHAT is or
> can be used as an instructional theory...........djc
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stetsenko, Anna [mailto:AStetsenko@gc.cuny.edu]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 3:18 PM
> To: 'xmca@weber.ucsd.edu'
> Subject: RE: who said?
>
>
> Mike, one thing for sure - you never said or implied this. "OVER".
>
> I think I reacted to this posting by Eugene Matusov:
> "US Vygotskian school (or better to say a family of approaches) rejects the
> Hegel-Marx-Vygotsky idea of one historical development of society and focus,
> instead, on relations among cultures." Given that "the Hegel-Marx-Vygotsky
> idea of one historical development" was meant to be the centerpiece of the
> Russian school (in the same message), this did sound as a REJECTION, didn't
> it? And rejection can't be done without this 'over' and this 'abandonment',
> can it? And rejection is opposite to a dialogue, isn't it? -- this being my
> main message, by the way. Or otherwise, I do not know what rejection is
> about...
>
> As to Davydov: I happened to see him giving talks in Germany, for example. I
> was struck by how difficult it was for people there to make sense of his
> words... I do blame the effects of being taken out of context (in many
> senses of this expression, e.g., of him talking in an alien context with
> often bad translation, of others not knowing his philosophy and
> psychological framework etc) for this. As to 'a la Spencer', I think, in
> essence, nothing can be farther away from Spencer's evolutionary thinking
> than Davydov's cultural-historical view of learning as the pathway of
> development and of mind as formed by cultural tools.
> Anna
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Cole [mailto:mcole@weber.ucsd.edu]
> Sent: Monday, April 02, 2001 6:44 PM
> To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> Subject: who said?
>
>
>
> Anna--
>
> Where did this appear in the discussion?
> By the way, setting a clear preference of
> the latter OVER the former, and claiming that the cultural-historical view
> should be COMPLETELY abandoned in favor of the sociocultural view isn't
> perhaps a best way to pursue diversity and dialogue?
>
>
> About Davydov. He was speaking to an ethnically diverse group of people
> at LCHC the first time I heard him speak this way. The second time was
> at a developmental conference in Moscow where he took a strong hegelian
> stance that primitive peoples indeed think primitively, a la Spencer/
>
>
> Contextaualizing Vasilii Vasilievitch's view is a big help, thanks.
> mike
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 01 2001 - 01:01:44 PDT