“Chapter 4 | Theoretical Framing— Vygotsky, Post-Vygotsky, and TAS-based Critical Theoretical Pedagogy” in “I Wake Up Counting: A Transformative Guide to Teaching and Learning in the Humanities and Social Sciences” on Manifold @CUNY

Chapter 4

Vygotskian, Post-Vygotskian Approaches, & TAS-based Critical Theoretical Pedagogy

“Learning is not development. However, properly organized learning results in mental development and sets in motion a variety of developmental processes that would be impossible apart from learning.” — Vygotsky, Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes, 1978.

“From this perspective, educational research always is, and invariably has to be, an activist endeavor too. It is based on researchers and participants working out together and committing to a common project of social transformation that contributes to creating a future viewed by researchers and participants as worthwhile and desirable. In this process, learning is utilized to provide and co-construct critical-theoretical tools necessary for researchers and participants to position themselves vis-à-vis current community practices and their histories, while at the same time developing activist commitments to how these practices can and ought to be changed.” — Vianna & Stetsenko “Research with a Transformative Activist Agenda: Creating the Future for Education through Social Change”

Description

This chapter combines two classes led by professor and Vygotsky expert Eduardo Vianna. During these two classes, students learned about Vygotsky and post-Vygotskian approaches in educational psychology and considered the importance of TAS or Transformative Activist Stance as per the work of Anna Stetsenko and Eduardo Vianna. Lastly, students considered their new theoretical tools in relation to previous readings on indigenous pedagogies.

Eduardo’s Thought-Experiment

Where would we place the five pillars and the three approaches that Engeström reviews in his paper (teaching theoretical concepts, situated learning, and learning by expanding), based on the model on page 34 of Stop Talking: Indigenous Ways of Teaching and Learning and Difficult Dialogues in Higher Education comparing Indigenous and western cultures? Are these discrete? Do we need new columns? How would you organize it? The Western and Indigenous approaches are widely opposing models. Can they be reconciled, and can the other ones be reconciled? Are the pillars and approaches in Engeström closer to the Western or Indigenous model(s)? In other words, we propose that students apply the categories on the table from page 34 of Stop Talking (e.g., basic question, foundation, concept of knowledge) to those other 4 approaches.

Class 4

Agenda

Theoretical Framing: “Vygotskian and Post-Vygotskian approaches: theoretical concepts as efficient (higher-order) cultural tools” | Slides

2:00–2:05 Roll, adjustments, announcements, Lost & Found reminder, Kendra Announcement

By next class, Group 1 (and ideally all the Groups) need to submit a copy of their required readings/viewings/links for their Group class facilitation.

Who in your Group is responsible for submitting the assigned readings?

Group 1: _____________________________

Group 2: _____________________________

Group 3: _____________________________

2:05–2:10 The fallacy of IQ tests slide (“The Tyranny of Meritocracy”)

2:10–2:35 Vygotskian Foundations; (On Google Slides so you can annotate and follow along) https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1U91FsiwItanrJ5U4SdxN_ZjgDhRcWOeBZXtkmD5Exi0/edit

2:35–3:15 Video about an Afterschool Program in NJ that uses Vygotskian and Post-Vygotskian approaches

3:15–3:45 Discussion about readings, lecture, and video

3:45–4:00 Groups assemble

Texts

Required Readings:

Engeström, Y. (1991). “Non scolae sed vitae discimus: Toward overcoming the encapsulation of school learning.” Learning and instruction, 1(3), 243-259.
Lave and Wegner
Stetsenko, A., & Arievitch, I. (2002). “Teaching, learning, and development: A post-Vygotskian perspective.” Learning for life in the 21st century: Sociocultural perspectives on the future of education, 84-96.
Arievitch, I. M., & Haenen, J. P. (2005). “Connecting sociocultural theory and educational practice: Galperin's approach.” Educational Psychologist, 40(3), 155-165.
Stetsenko (2010). “Teaching-Learning and Development as activists projects of historical becoming: Expanding Vygotsky's approach to pedagogy.” Pedagogies: An International Journal, 5, pp. 6-16.
Lave, Jean. (1996). “Teaching as Learning, In Practice.” Mind, Culture, and Activity, 149-164.