Dear L Coons;
Thanks for your note and follow up.
This is strange for I did not have this problem earlier. The message below
was sent earlier in the week and again, it seems to not have been received
by xmca, yet it did not bounce here???
My new address is homer.louisville.edu
I will check on my end in the meantime till we figure this out, I'll be
glad to resubscribe if that is easier. How do I do that again please? Type
subscribe on the subject line?
thanks, pedro
Date: Sun, 22 Feb 1998 13:00:19 -0500
>To: xmca who-is-at weber.ucsd.edu
>From: "Dr. Pedro R. Portes" <prport01 who-is-at homer.louisville.edu>
>Subject: Re: Theoretical Knowing
>
>Don, Vera et al;
>I too finally finished Two Ways to Elaborate Vygotsky's Concept of
Mediation too on my way to Cuba last 2/6 and been wanting to get back to
this discussion. It seems to me that this article presents a very
predictable, common sense alternative to the old debate between the
transmission/instructional design based on learning theory/ cognitive
research and guided discovery and later, and
>cooperative and constuctivist schools in education. Each has a different
model of the learner, (Bruner, 198x) in mind. Theoretical learning seems to
be the Russian equivalent to the conditions of learning for rules and
cognitive strategies through what became known as metacognitive assistance
(rather than instructions)but is much more specific at first glance.
>
>Karpov and Haywood have found a very predictable, an easy solution to the
pseudo debate about strict direct instruction and constructivism (which is
still raging in this State's reform) ,on the surface , but the problem
seems much more complex.
>
>A Cuban psych. colleague I know at the U of H, trained in Moscow, well
versed in Davydoff agreed with Vera's observation immediately and recounted
a tale which suggested that the advances by the theoretical learning lab
were real but never were or could be infused or applied in public schools
because of the cost or work it would take to change the status quo set(of
direct instruction without theoretical learning). Much of the R & D work
that supported the success of the theoretical learning approach was content
specific and oriented towards the mastery of a physical and cultural
knowledge base. Many theoretical learning examples were developed for
different grade levels and content areas but getting the heuristic across
to teachers remained a problem. We discussed the tremendous amount of work
involved in the cognitive re-socialization of teachers/students and teacher
educators which presents a pessimistic picture. This seems like a
metaproblem that tests the theoretical learning camp as much as the
>My sense is that the U.S. counterpart work in cognitive science, including
computer assisted instruction, the heirs to learning theory-based pedagogy,
even tough
>different, has suffered a similar fate.Neither has trickled down much.
>
>The problem about teaching students about how to practice theoretical
learning is that the very process requires theoretical learning/teaching at
every turn, practically at every content area and levels within each.
Nevertheless, it seems that the heuristic or cognitive strategy of
practicing theoretical learning across contexts (diversity of learning
contexts was a condition for guided discovery after all) may be a product
or trait that is gradually developed by discovering theoretical learning
tools in one's content areas in teaching.
>
>2. Ironically, the authors wrote "Social Progress, in general, comes when
every new generation receives ready-made the essence of knowledge
accumulated by previous generation....Why should we require students to
reinvent this knowledge, even if guided by the teacher...."p.33).
>
>The above struck me as saying, that regardless of the history of
theoretical learning itself,
> as a tool, it was discovered as a useful way to transmit essential
knowledge effectively, thus it becomes part of the cultural knowledge base
to be passed on in the future. and
>The independence of the learner is the result of gradually promoting the
development of a scientific approach/analysis zone in the learner through
this approach.
>
>The last point i wondered bout was that the critique of the theoretical
learning camp's was based on skipping of a "regulating others" stage in
gaining independent control of a zpd, which is found in the GDCL approach
(Guided discovery in a community of learners).
>
>However, although GDCL is limited in that it does not teach a set for
approaching certain task demands, such as attention to essential aspects of
a "why" question for instance,
>I really wonder how original the ideas are based on the history of what i
refer to as the Learning Theory (LT)
>which has now become passe'?
>
>However, I see this article as providing strong support to those of us
who have favored & generally allowed room for students to teach others and
us and elaborate on what has been constructed or taught/learned.
>
>Enough, sorry for the delay Don, pedro
>
>
>At 05:05 PM 2/11/98 -0700, you wro
>
>
>
>
>te:
>>Don,
>>I finally got to read the Karpov-Haywood article. I think they are relying
>>more on Davydov than on Vygotsky. I am familiar with the Schmittau
>>findings, they are quite impressive
>>I need to clean up my disk quota, so I will return to this theme soon
>>Vera
>>.
>>
>>---------------------------------
>>Vera P. John-Steiner
>>Department of Linguistics
>>Humanities Bldg. 526
>>University of New Mexico
>>Albuquerque, NM 87131
>>(505) 277-6353 or 277-4324
>>Internet: vygotsky who-is-at unm.edu
>>---------------------------------
>>
>>
>>