These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,
and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving.
Content on this site may not meet current digital accessibility standards.
If you require an alternative, accessible format of any information found on this site,
please contact Bruce Jones, bjones@ucsd.edu to request an accommodation.
These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,
and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving.
Content on this site may not meet current digital accessibility standards.
If you require an alternative, accessible format of any information found on this site,
please contact Bruce Jones, bjones@ucsd.edu to request an accommodation.
Why Ask Andy? What does Anna say? :-) mike On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 9:43 PM, Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com> wrote: > Andy, some further thoughts on the topic you opened up on contrasting > Anna's > and Davydov's approaches to learning. > I was not able to download Anna's article because of the way its formatted. > However I went to Anna's website and have downloaded two of her articles > and > also the introductory chapter of her book written in 2008. [The first half > of this book is elaborating her theoretical position that thinking IS > communication, as particular forms of discourse] > She says her approach is similar to Harre's approach to "discursive > psychology" and both Anna and Harre definitely view thinking in a > dialogical > way as a particular form of conversation with one's self. Anna sees this > communicative perspective on thinking as learning particular "forms of > discourse" which have developed historically and now children must learn > these particular discourse procedures through entering mathematical > conversations as forms of social interaction in order to learn to think > "mathematically". > > Andy, my understanding of Davydov and Gal'perin is that once "systems of > discourse" have developed historically as "systems of meaning" it is far > more efficient to start from the very beginning to introduce the entire > system and not build up to the system perspective FROM the more concrete > procedures such as counting objects. Therefore measurement [as > fundamentally relational] is prior to counting. > > If I've got these basic premises of Anna's and Davydov's procedures > accurate, do you see these procedural approaches as complimentary or are > they challenging each others basic assumptions. If they are pointing to > different procedures and assumptions of the best way to approach learning, > then definitely this is a topic to tease out assumptions about fundamental > concepts of learning? > > 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