[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [xmca] Kozulin & Feuerstein and the mediated learning paradigm
Larry,
As I see it, the question of whether we should "'teach' basic cognitive prerequisites [particularly metacognition] or should those prerequisites be built into subject matter content" presents two losing options. Here's how it plays out from a genres perspective:
The first choice presumes that "metacognitive strategies" are skills rather than cultural practices and so can be learned through dedicated practice. This was Ann Brown's initial take before she migrated toward the Fostering a Community of Learners (FCL) model that is enculturationist. Most of the cognitive science community has moved along with her, and standard pedagogical reform methods call for inquiry groups, knowledge building communities, and other approaches that seek to integrate metacognitive learning into conceptual content learning.
The problem with this reform agenda is that metacognition serves contradictory functions across the enculturational and conceptual-construction elements of instruction. From an enculturational perspective, metacognition is a learning outcome. For instance in keeping with socioculturalists, Olson (2003) argues that metacognitive capabilities can emerge within collaborative groups as internalization of argumentation: "The normative practice of reason giving and metacognition run together. Explanation, the giving of explicit or public reasons, is ... the route to metacognition, that is, cognition about cognition" (p. 241).
For the constructivist agenda of concept development, the group discussions and arguments are intended as vehicles for students to come to experience cognitive conflicts between their current understandings and the positions being articulated by others. However, this is a chancy process, as "the effectiveness of cognitive conflict depends on the way comprehension is monitored. It depends, first, on the individual noticing the inconsistency and, second, on the way it is resolved" (Otero, 1998, p. 149). This is evident in Piaget's (1975) notion of reflective abstraction, the primary mechanism for conceptual restructuring: "Reflective abstraction always involves two inseparable features: a 'reflechissement' in the sense of the projection of something borrowed from a preceding level onto a higher one, and a 'reflexion' in the sense of a (more or less conscious) cognitive reconstruction or reorganization of what has been transferred" (p.41, quoted in von Glasersfeld, 1991). In short, whereas metacognition is an instructional outcome with respect to enculturation, it is a prerequisite capability with respect to conceptual construction.
This dual analysis highlights problems of both theory and practice associated with our current integrative discourse about learning and teaching. Because we're committed (implicitly, if not explicitly) to an eventual paradigmatic consensus about learning, we don't look for contradictory theoretical aspects of learning, we look for ways to bridge. On the practice side, we've set up FCL, inquiry groups, knowledge building communities, and the like as dysfunctional pedagogies. We present an illusion that there is a coherent set of pedagogical practices that are being authorized, when in fact, what we have is a pair of independently coherent pedagogical methods that at times will point the teacher in contradictory directions. One addresses valued enculturational learning goals like metacognition, autonomy, and creativity by supporting participation and allowing groups to be self-directing, yet one promotes productive cognitive conflicts by intervening with respect to the group's conversations, highlighting inconsistencies, curtailing unproductive avenues of exploration, and the like.
This doesn't mean reform teaching can never be successful. Indeed, effective reform teachers have learned to support the cultural dynamics of small group interaction while constantly monitoring the conversations, worrying that discussions may not be productive conceptually, and making judicious moment-by-moment decisions about whether (and how) to intervene as a mediator of conceptual construction while doing minimal damage to the agenda of student autonomy and exploration (Ball, 1993; Marshall, 1994; Schifter, 1998; Schön, 1983; Williams & Baxter, 1996). But the imperative of coordinating contradictory agendas is precisely what is curtailed by the discursive assumption of our community that learning is a unitary construct, albeit complex and multifaceted.
David Kirshner
-----Original Message-----
From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Larry Purss
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2011 10:23 AM
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: Re: [xmca] Kozulin & Feuerstein and the mediated learning paradigm
Carol
I intuitively share your perspective not to teach "metacognition" as a
separate topic but Alex Kozulin and Feuerstein seem to take another
perspective when considering REMEDIAL instruction. I respect Kozulin's deep
insights as a scholar so thought it a topic worth exploring. Through the
dialectic of different perspectives clarity may shine a few rays through
the clouds.
Larry.
On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 10:59 PM, Carol Macdonald <carolmacdon@gmail.com>wrote:
> Larry
>
> It's not a good idea to teach metacognitive strategies on their own. They
> should emerge from content learning, so there is a context for them. As you
> can see, the less able students are unable to recognise the occasions for
> the use of the metacognitive strategies, and don't recognisie that their
> cognitive strategies have led them into error. So metacogntition fails to
> kick in when there is cognitive failure. It is precisely these students
> that
> need to be led through the ZPD. As I have said before, metacognitive
> strategy teaching has been very exciting for educational psychologists, and
> there is even a journal called "Metacognition", but I totally fail to
> share their enthusiasm--for one thing, nobody has done a longitudinal study
> on this type of teaching. (Actually, we should share this judgement--has
> anyone done a longitudinal study about the effects of leading learning
> through the ZPD?)
>
> Carol
> On 25 January 2011 03:39, Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Mike
> >
> > I know from this CHAT list that Kozulin and Feuerstein are not accurate
> in
> > their assessment of the CHAT perspective. The broader question I was
> > asking, "Is it useful or helpful to try to "teach" basic cognitive
> > prerequisites or should those prerequisites be built into subject matter
> > content?" Mike, I taught IE 20 years ago and I consider the person who
> > gained the most from this activity was myself as I became more aware of
> > basic cognitive prerequisites. But I always thought these basic
> processes
> > could be incorporated into other school activities such as math or
> language
> > arts. IE does help a teacher become more aware of the complexity of what
> > they are asking students to do but I've often wondered about trying to be
> > content neutral and focusing instruction on the basic cognitive
> > prerequisites which become the object of instruction.
> >
> > I posted this comment because it clearly articulated a tension I've
> > wondered
> > about in teaching "metacognitive strategies" directly as the object of
> > activity in contrast to teaching specific content and leading students to
> > metacognitive perspectives. If I am able to get clearer in these
> > contrasting approaches, I will be better able to talk to staffs about the
> > distinctions.
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 4:47 PM, mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > 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
> > >
> > __________________________________________
> > _____
> > xmca mailing list
> > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >
>
>
>
> --
> WORK as:
> Visiting Lecturer
> Wits School of Education
> HOME (please use these details)
> 6 Andover Road
> Westdene
> Johannesburg 2092
> +27 (0)11 673 9265 <tel:+27116739265> +27 (0)82 562 1050<tel:+27825621050>
> __________________________________________
> _____
> 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
__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca