I too have mixed feeling on what you call prescriptive
constructivism. Too often constructivism is perceived as a mind
game a teacher plays on the students. My experience is that
while many teachers in training tend to be constructivist in
their theoretical framework, they become very resentful when its
done to them. One of the biggest objections to paper
assignments is that the professor's objectives are not clear and
are perceived as playing mind games. With any theory there are
winners and losers, and not all children learn through "active
exploration" that often goes with constructivism. When I was
doing my student teaching it was interesting to see how the
constructivist teaching and skill and drill went together. As
the year progressed more and more skill and drill excersizes
went home with the kids as homework.
What I enjoy about Tom's views is seeing that basis of
constructivism as a social construction not a natural one. The
"active child" is something that has been invented at a specific
time in history that has its roots and implications that go far
deeper than education. In preschool and Kindergarten my son was
seen as bright because he was active and engaged with phsyical
objects, but now that he is in first grade that activeness is
seen as a defect with regular notes from his teacher. On the
other hand, in preschool my daughter was seen as problematic
because the norm was engagement with objects and other children,
and her preference was interaction with adults in joint
activity. Constructivism to a certain extent like the
traditional system is a view from above in what El'konin would
refer to as the "eternal child".
"Do not forget, please, that Lev Vygotsky proposed his concept
of the "zone of
proximal development" as a more accurate (than IQ) intelligence
test for
better tracking kids in (trad.) schools. Yes, we have done a
big job of
reinterpreting!
What do you think?"
I agree that Vygotsky defined the ZPD in a context which
primarily focused on I.Q., and instruction but he even realized
it had broader applications (Child Psychology for example).
Yaroshensky for example makes the argument that his whole theory
embraced the ZPD and a view of development as a stage in which
the social and individual planes are continually restructuring
and transforming each other. On the other hand, Van Der Veer
and Valisiner hint that there were various opportunities (the
role of the collective) in which Vygotsky could have explicated
the ZPD, but attributed it to McCarthy (not the Senator from
Wisconsin) an American. While I think its fair to argue that
Vygotsky defined the ZPD in a limited top-down fashion, it is
difficult, at least for me, to not see a broad conception of the
ZPD run throughout all his work.
Nate
Nate Schmolze
http://www.geocities.com/~nschmolze/
schmolze who-is-at students.wisc.edu
People with great passions, people who accomplish great deeds,
People who possess strong feelings even people with great minds
and a strong personality, rarely come out of good little boys
and girls
L.S. Vygotsky