Hi,
I think that Vygotsky was not a contextualist in a traditional sense of the
word. He did not talk of an individual developing within a context as a
mere background for the development. In Vygotsky's theory, the interaction
between an individual and her/his social-cultural-historical environment is
not just a background for an essentially inner-driven development, but
instead it (this interaction) is the "motor" and the "fuel" for the
development of an individual into a human person. I think that Vygotsky
(and perhaps G.H. Mead) saw the "social" , the "group", the "community"
aspect of phylogenetic development as a precursor to the development of
individuality. The individual grows "out of" the social "context" or group,
and becomes a person because it starts her/his own history.
Does it make sense?
What do you think?
Ana
At 07:48 PM 6/9/2003 -0700, you wrote:
>I would greatly appreciate people's ideas about whether or not you consider
>Vygotsky to have been a contextualist. I have been surveying books on
>theories of cognitive development where he is so considered. But isn't
>LSV that person who said that the special characteristic of humans is to
>supercede local context? On the surface at least, this seems like a
>contradiction or a misunderstanding.
>
>This question is not motivated by the question on assessment that appeared
>earlier today. But the two issues are not independent of each other. K Vann
>in an ealier issue of MCA reviewed the *Contexts of Learning" book and
>noted that issues of assessment seemed conspicuosly absent.
>
>The race for common discussion of the post Foot discussion is running neck
>and neck. Vote early, and vote often, if you come from Chicago and can
>hack the system! :-)
>mike
----------
Ana Marjanovic-Shane
215-843-2909 (h)
267-334-2905 (m)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jul 08 2003 - 11:29:44 PDT