Re: [xmca] Kozulin & Feuerstein and the mediated learning paradigm

[mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>]

Larry-- This dialogue goes back a long time and I defer to Alex K. The
attribution to focus on the impact of writing on thought does not easily
square with what i recall the conclusions of Scribner and Cole and Vygotsky
does not emerge from that research as the theoretical lynch pin. Perhaps for
this reasons many of my Russian colleagues firmly disavow our conclusions
regarding "the consequences of literacy."

Perhaps Alex can be more informative.
mike

On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 4:28 PM, Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com> wrote:

> Thought I would ask others to respond to the perspective of Kozulin and
> Feuerstein's Mediated Learning Experience [MLE] paradigm and its contrast
> with the notion of ZPD.
> In the article I've attached on page 5 the authors state,
> "Both MLE and IE focus on the formation of the cognitive prerequisites of
> learning in students.  The process of acquisition of learning material
> requires certain cognitive prerequisites beyond that of the basic functions
> of perception, memory, and attention.  The student is supposed to be able
> to
> DETECT the problem in the pool of raw data, to SELECT the relevant
> parameters, to FORM hypothesis and check them, and so on.  The inadequate
> school performance of the student can easily stem from UNDERDEVELOPMENT of
> these prerequisites rather than poor acquisition of specific rules or
> operations.....IE serves as an operational tool that allows teachers to
> develop these previously lacking prerequisites in a SYSTEMATIC way.
> Though there is an obvious affinity between the Vygotskian notion of
> learning activity and the process of the formation of cognitive
> prerequisites discussed above, there is also a certain difference between
> the goals of MLE-based learning and learning according to the Vygotskian
> paradigm.  According to Feuerstein et al (1980), the acquisition of MLE
> does
> not directly depend on either CONTENT of learning or MODALITY of
> interaction."
>
> This MLE paradigm is contrasted with Vygotsky's approach which emphasizes
> the modality of interection. The authors state,
>
> "Vygotsky (1978) and his followers (Cole and Scribner, 1974: Scribner
> 1997),
> on the contrary [to MLE] place considerable emphasis on changes occurring
> in
> the child's reasoning under the influence of the acquisition of higher
> order
> symbolic tools, first of all literacy and writing.  For them, there is a
> principal distinction between interactions carried out non-verbally,
> orally,
> and with the help of written symbolization.  Writing externalizes thought,
> takes it out of its concrete context, and makes it available for CONSCIOUS
> analysis..  Literacy skills require an analytic approach.  They are
> acquired
> consciously and deliberately, thus shifting cognitive functions from the
> natural responsive mode to the cultural deliberate mode.  One may
> legitimately pose the question of whether the same type of 'transcendence'
> or mediation of meaning can be achieved with and without the experience of
> literacy." (p.6)
>
> The authors emphasize that Vygotsky's approach highlights that each subject
> in school has its own conceptual structure the acquisition of which depends
> on the theoretical mode of learning proposed by Vygotskians. In contrast
> the
> authors suggest MLE is a tool for developing the BASIC COGNITIVE
> PREREQUISITES which interface with the conceptual structure of the
> theoretical mode of learning subject matter, and
>
> "a proper borderline should be found at which the GENERAL FUNCTION promoted
> by IE become absorbed and subjugated by this higher order conceptual
> structure.  Vygotsky (1978) indicated that 'natural' cognitive functions do
> not disappear with the emergence of higher order literacy-based functions,
> but become incorporated and transformed within the new conceptual systems..
> One may say that, in a similar way, BASIC COGNITIVE PREREQUISITES become
> absorbed within the new conceptual systems.. Thus, the last outcome for
> teacher training can be formulated as the necessity for a teacher to
> distinguish BETWEEN THE GENERAL COGNITIVE PREREQUISITES and those higher
> order cognitive systems which alone can support conceptual learning"
>
> I am trying to link these notions of BASIC cognitive prerequisites with
> Lakoff and Johnson's notions of PRIMARY METAPHORS but that is for another
> discussion.  I was wondering what others thought about the assumption of
> basic cognitive prerequisites, [not perception, or attention which are more
> basic and general] that must be mediated PRIOR to theoretical conceptual
> systems of subject matter are taught.?
>
> I have my doubts that content can be separated and basic cognitive
> prerequisites taught PRIOR to teaching conceptual systems but MLE posits
> these underlying basic cognitive prerequisites must be in place BEFORE
> teaching specific theoretical subject matter
>
> Larry
>
> Larry
>
> __________________________________________
> _____
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
>
__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca