I knew I was stepping into a hornets' nest. I should have been more
cautious!
Let me briefly restate the main points I was trying to make:
1. I do not want to abolish the distinction between: individual person,
interacting individuals, and the culture of which they are constitutive
members (see the preceding section of the paper from which the quote was
taken).
2. I do believe that the individual develops through participation in
joint activities with other members of the culture and actively constructs
his/her motivations, values, identity, and resources for meaning making in
and through that participation.
3. In this sense, the development of all individuals is co-constructive
of each other as well as of themselves.
4. I also believe that 'who the individual is/has become' contributes in
important ways to the nature of the co-construction on any particular
occasion so that, despite the shared participation in particular
activities, s/he constructs a unique developmental trajectory.
If that corresponds (in large measure) to what you mean by
"internalization", Nate, I am not in disagreement with you.
The problem I was trying to address is the danger of "internalization"
being interpreted, on the one hand, as a warrant for "transmission" (often
renamed "scaffolding"), which in practice denies the agentive role of the
individual learner in constructing his/her motivations, values ... etc.
and, on the other, a downplaying of the significant contribution of the
individual's current personality, skills, knowledge, etc. to the
co-construction of his/her development.
I also have problems with the "first social, then individual" way of
expressing the co-construction, since on every occasion, however immature
one of the participants may be, the joint activity as well as the
participation is always both social and individual - as well as inherently
cultural, in that it is mediated by cultural artifacts and practices.
My choice of 'learning to dance' was deliberate. While it can be seen as
learning physical skills, dancing is very much a cultural activity, with
specific meaning/value for the participants. At the same time, to learn
through participation with others does not require that there be explicit
teaching. Nor is it unreasonable, in my view, to think of the dancer
developing a personal repertoire ('internal', if you will) of ways of
participating of which he or she can be more or less aware and able to
reproduce and modify in solo activity, or demonstrate to others, if
required.
Dancing is also a good candidate for a universal form of cultural activity
(in many specific forms), but not one that gets "curricularized", taught
and tested. So it may be useful as a point of reference when we come to
deal with those forms of cultural knowledgeable skills that attract so
much "educational" attention.
Does the above make my (current) position clearer?
Gordon
Gordon Wells
gwells who-is-at oise.utoronto.ca
http://www.oise.utoronto.ca/~gwells
Visit Networks, the Online Journal for Teacher Research
http://www.oise.utoronto.ca/~ctd/networks