Re: [xmca] Dynamics of Learning and Development

From: David Kellogg <vaughndogblack who-is-at>
Date: Sun Nov 25 2007 - 16:26:33 PST

Dear Mike:
  Sorry--I meant Zalkind, not Blonsky!
  Apparently, both were pedologists of a distinct vulgar materialist bent, but it's Zalkind who LSV takes to task in the passage a few pages before the one on the internal origins of the crisis and the defense of the bourgeois point of view in child psychology. (Funny, though, the notes to the Russian edition take LSV to task for being insufficiently critical of Zalkind, at least in associating "interest" with a reflexological "dominant"!)
  I also think differently about learning/development depending on which trouser leg I put on first or which side of the bed I get up on. Today I'm not so sure that forgotten knowledge is developmentally inert. After all, LSV says ALL neoformations (e.g. negativism, autonomous speech) disappear entirely and their role is completely catalytic. Forgotten knowledge might play a similar role? (Hope so...I have a terrible memory!)
  I MAILED you the tapes today. I couldn't figure out how to digitalize them!
  David Kellogg
  Seoul National University of Education

Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now.
xmca mailing list
Received on Sun Nov 25 16:28 PST 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Dec 11 2007 - 10:18:42 PST