I was thinking of concepts such as "constructivism", "learner
centered", "democracy" etc. in reference to Action Research and
Critical Practitioner Research in Namibia (Dahlstrom, Swarts,
Zeichner 1999). In many ways, I saw it (Action Research) as
being a tool and result methodology as outlined by Newman and
Holzman (1993) in that theory was a tool within practice to
critically reflect and transform practice rather than a theory
coming from above (ivory tower) to change practice. But I also
saw that terms such as "constructivism" were being seen as in
opposition to a racist authoritarian education system without
critically examining the concepts themselves.
I will use some contemporary Russian preschool programs as an
example to demonstrate how I am thinking about this. In reading
two manuscripts "The Developmental Program", and "The Golden Key
Program" they may not be considered as constructivist or learner
centered because the concepts carry a value system of the United
States and other western countries about the relationship
between children and adults. Constructivism or learner centered
has embedded in it an idea of the child acting person solo in
the world. Within both these programs an active triad was
mentioned; active child, active teacher, and active environment.
This reminds of Ricardo's comment:
"Valsiner's notion proposal of "co-constructivism" (the building
of knowledge with the others, with someone's else perspective
help) sounds very different from "constructivism" (something
related to one oneself) to me and other fellows here, as we
understand it. Am I wrong or equivocated,as to say, mistaken?"
The whole notion of constructivism has ceratin values enbedded
in it, so when we use terms such as co-constructivism or the
construction zone they sound kind of strange.
When I did my student teaching (University of Wisconsin
Preschool Lab), the children came from all over the world
(Africa, Eastern Europe, Asia etc.) and there was a clash with
the U.S. system. For example, while we tend to value child to
child interaction, many of these parents and children preferred
and valued adult-child interactions. Were these interactions
any less constructivist or learner centered? In many ways no,
but how we tend to think of these concepts embody a specific
type of interaction or constructivism. While as Poppkewitz
mention it creates spaces even within the contexts the concepts
originated, I think we need to be extra careful on how we define
such concepts in contexts that embody different value systems.
Back to Namibia, if these concepts themselves are not critically
examined when they are implemented in contexts other than where
they originated they can be seen as a form of colonialization
in which Action Research and Critical Practitioner Research see
themselves in opposition to. Actually "ideal" was not the right
tool to look at this. Marx's manuscript on Andy's Hegel site
http://werple.net.au/~deller/melt/44labour.htm
on Estranged Labor (Marx 1844) and alienation is probably a
better tool for thinking about this. If we substitute labor for
"constructivism" or "learner centered" it makes sense.
Marx asks: If constructivism, learner centered, and democracy
are alien to me, and confronts me as an alien power, to whom do
they belong? To a being other than me. Who is this being?
Marx answers: The one to whom the concepts belong, in whose
service they are performed, and for whose enjoyment the concepts
are created, can be none other than the "colonizer" him/herself
Nate
Nate Schmolze
http://www.geocities.com/~nschmolze/963.html
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
-----Original Message-----
From: Elsa de Mattos <emattos who-is-at magiclink.com.br>
To: xmca who-is-at weber.ucsd.edu <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
Date: Sunday, March 07, 1999 10:15 AM
Subject: Re: ideal
Nate:
I am interested in understanding more of the comments you made
in the
massage bellow. I am particularly interested in what you think
about "the
recent discussion of constructivism and the concepts of
constructivism,
learner centered etc being applied in contexts (traditional
societies) from
which the concepts did not originate".
I wish you could develop more your commentary on "looking at how
concepts
such as
constructivism, learner centered etc. serve as a tool for social
production
of a dominant culture in a "third world context". I was curious
if ideality
was the right conceptual tool for looking at this process.
Thank You,
Elsa
-----Mensagem original-----
De: nate <schmolze who-is-at students.wisc.edu>
Para: XMCA <xmca who-is-at weber.ucsd.edu>
Data: Sabado, 6 de Margo de 1999 15:56
Assunto: ideal
>I was re-reading Peter's paper on ideality which he posted
quite
>along time ago and some questions came up.
>
>http://www.geocities.com/~nschmolze/toolssi.html
>
>I was wondering if the notion of ideality had something to say
>about the recent discussion of constructivism. I am
>particularly thinking of concepts of constructivism, learner
>centered etc being applied in contexts (traditional societies)
>from which the concepts did not originate. I am also thinking
>on the line of Newman and Holzman's differentiation between
>tools in that tool for results are tools that come socially
>reified. Would it be resonable to use the Marxian notion of
>"ideality" to say to look at how concepts such as
>constructivism, learner centered etc. serve as a tool for
social
>production of a dominant culture in a "third world context". I
>was curious if ideality was the right conceptual tool for
>looking at this process.
>
>
>Paragraph from Peter's paper:
>"The crucial point is not that tools embody human aims and that
>this is what makes them ideal; the point is that human aims -
>the conscious aims with which humans act to produce what they
>need - are themselves ideal: human aims are nothing but the
>material process and outcome of activity in ideal form. The
>ideal image is the object of production (ie the outcome of
>productive activity) converted into (or ideally posited as)
>an internal image, as a need, as a drive and as purpose
>(1977a: 260, quoting from Marx, Grundrisse). The distinction
>between things that are material and things that are ideal is
>not, therefore, a question of what is in the heads of the users
>of such things, but is a fact about how things function in the
>real process of social production - a material (not conceptual
>or semiotic) process which, in its own self-development and
>differentiation, generates an ideal (or semiotic) image in
the
>form of a relation in which some things (words, pictures, money
>etc) come to stand for other things. This, indeed is the
special
>and vital function which ideal forms fulfill in human
>life-activity: they allow the goals, aims, drives, purposes,
>strategies and forms of action and cooperation of social
>humanity to be represented outside of, prior to and
>independently of the real activities which engender them:"
>
>
>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
>
>
>
>