Interesting idea about the function of schools, David! I'll bet Yrjo
would agree with you
but if your kid did not learn to add or read, you might get unhappy. :-)
mike
On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 17:42:05 -0400, David Preiss <davidpreiss@puc.cl> wrote:
>
>
> Hi Mike,
> Your description of the breaking away tradition is, I think, what
> explicit instruction should do in the schools. On the other hand, it is
> a very nice proposal of how sociocultural learning can move development
> forward (and not viceversa). Thanks for the clarification, David
>
> David Preiss
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -
> Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile: www.puc.cl
> PACE Center at Yale University: www.yale.edu/pace
> Homepage: http://pantheon.yale.edu/~ddp6/
> Phone: 56-2-3547174
> Fax: 56-2-354-4844
> E-mail: david.preiss@yale.edu, davidpreiss@puc.cl
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Cole [mailto:lchcmike@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, March 25, 2005 4:17 PM
> To: Xmca
> Subject: development: loss, destruction, transformation
>
> Hmmm, David.
>
> Your note concerning whether the transformation of prior knowledge
> systems a la Piaget or Vygotsky as a "synonym" for "development as
> breaking away" (Yrjo
> title) or loss, or
> destruction of the old seems to have fallen on still waters that
> remained unmoved.
>
> I think you have a point. Developmental change in these approaches ( I
> am not sure I would include Siegler here, although I find his work very
> interesting, except his difficulty in acknowledging the source of ideas
> about the use of microgenetic methods) does entail transformation, as
> when LSV talks about scientific concepts reorganizing everyday ones. But
> I don't think that is what Yrjo and others have in mind. They are
> talking about throwing out prior cultural constraints on development
> which presumably means an markedly new process of development.
>
> I would lean toward Peg's idea of mutual appropriation in which both the
> sociocultural enviroment of the child and the child are co-participants
> actively seeking to change the other to their own ends. This process can
> lead to marked discontinuities on both sides and the system as a whole
> through inter-laced processes of transformation.
>
> Another point. Old "stages" do not go away. Scientific concepts do not
> entirely reorganize everyday ones, egocentricism is a life-long issue,
> etc. I have one paper written with Eugene Subbotsky in a Swiss journal
> where I give an example of kids and undergrads playing a game where
> several kinds of activity usually thought of as following each other in
> ontogeny all organize the children's behavior/thinking at different
> moments in a single event at different moments in unpredictable
> sequence. Eugene's example is from his work on moral development.
>
> We some advocate of the strong "breaking awayt" tradition to get into
> the discussion so we can all be pushed in our views. mike
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Apr 01 2005 - 01:00:06 PST