Eugene (and everybody):
Very very interesting interpretation of Davydov. (I've visited School
No. 91 and
would like to hear more about your experience there some time.)
But isn't Davydov's intense interest in developing the child's
personality
(lichnost') more in line with developing a personalized voice in the
world
rather than a more stereotyped "professional" voice?
I mean, Davydov writes at length about the importance of developing the
child's ability to respond to unrepeatable, previously unencountered
circumstances in his or her life, and that this is one of the goals of
developing learning activity and theoretical thinking. To me, this
sounds
extraordinarily "useful for their lives and the lives of their
communities."
I also wonder about your statement that the end point of Davydov's math
curriculum (at least as you experienced it) was for the children to
become
members of an existing community of math practice. Do you think that
this is
a direct result of the logic of Davydov's curriculum (& its starting
point in the earliest
grades) or of the particular environment in which the curriculum was
implemented? (Russia is a country where strong communities of math
practice have been systematically encouraged, for example through the
specialized
math schools and through a generally high level of math culture among
secondary school teachers.)
I have a feeling that in other environments, e.g. the U.S., one might
start from
the same beginning point of Davydov's math curriculum (identifying the
germ
cell of math by discovering the action of measuring a quantity using a
unit)
and conceivably end up at a qualitatively new end point, e.g. through of
process of expansion a la Engestrom. That is, the curriculum could end
up
at creating some qualitatively new practice rather than being
integrated inside
an existing system of math practice.
What do you think?
Peter
Dear Peter and everybody-
>
> Since I experience Davydov's approach first hand (I was a student in
> his 91
> Moscow school), I think your point is very-very interesting. I think
> Davydov
> tried to develop "professional practice" voice among students rather
> than
> "personal". By "personalized voice" I mean using school curricula for
> understanding and transforming the world like Friere's famous motto,
> "reading and writing word to read and write the world." Davydov wanted
> to
> develop "universal theoretical thinking" in the students. His idea was
> that
> the academic curricula have to become everyday practice for the
> students.
> So, for example, kids would involve in math not because math is useful
> for
> their lives and lives of their communities but because they become
> member of
> community of math practice.
>
> However, since Davydov believed that authentic theoretical thinking is
> universal practicing theoretical thinking in one area would "spill
> out" into
> another area. Historically, under Soviet regime it was true to some
> degree:
> many famous Soviet mathematicians and physicists became dissidents and
> had
> high interests in social sciences and humanities.
>
> I try to demonstrate the difference between "personalized teaching" and
> "practicalized teaching" on the website
> http://ematusov.soe.udel.edu/cultures/Teaching.htm
>
> What do you think?
>
> Eugene
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Sep 01 2003 - 01:00:06 PDT