Summary Ï Мышление и речь 104


characters Мышление и речь

Summary Ï Мышление и речь 104 » ❴BOOKS❵ ⚣ Мышление и речь Author Lev S. Vygotsky – Goproled.co.uk Since it was introduced to the English speaking world in 1962 Lev Vygotsky's highly original exploration of human mental development has become recognized as a classic foundational work of cSince it was introduced to the English speaking world in Lev Vygotsky's highly original exploration of human mental development has become recognized as a classic foundational work of cognitive science Vygotsky analyzes the relationship between words and consciousness. At a conference I attended recently someone asked a rhetorical uestion – where is the next education theory that will replace Dewey or Vygotsky I wonder how many people outside of education know that these two utterly dominate education theory And amusingly enough the person most people know about as a child and educational psychologist Piaget didn’t even rate a mentionThought and Language is regarded as Vygotsky’s most important work and with good reason This really is a fascinating book What is probably his best known idea – that of the Zone of Proximal Development ZPD – is developed here But this comes in the middle of a fascinating argument and now that I’ve read this book I find pulling the ZPD out of this makes it seem a little out of place The other ideas around the ZPD seem eually important and I wonder why these are never really stressed Vygotsky spends a lot of time in this book discussing Piaget and other theorists from the start of the 20th century To be honest you could probably get away with just reading the last chapter of this book called Thought and Word – as he begins this chapter with a thumbnail rehearsal of the rest of the book This book in the main is available here What is the relationship between thinking and speaking To what extent can we think outside of language It is pretty clear of course that we can think outside of language – if you doubt this perhaps you haven’t listened to Mozart lately or looked at a painting by Turner or even used an iPhone However Vygotsky claims that there is a clear relationship between thought and language and that language is practical thought But language is interesting in many many ways Firstly he is not talking just about words – as if words were somehow fixed in stone What he is interested in is word meanings – and for Vygotsky word meaning change as we grow from children into adults For the child word meanings tend to be what Vygotsky called ‘complexes’ To adults word meanings tend to be much generalisations than mere complexes – that is they tend to be associated with concepts Now we can’t really go on without getting a better idea of the difference between complexes and concepts And the problem here is that these are remarkably similar things and they operate in very similar ways but their differences is the key insight from which Vygotsky builds the rest of his system Take the word ‘brother’ A child has a remarkable amount of lived experience of a word like that The child either has a brother or knows other children who have brothers But the richness of this lived experience is what Vygotsky refers to as a complex Why Well the child’s understanding of what ‘brother’ means is entirely tied up in their practical experience of that word They don’t actually get the concept behind this word And how do we know that Well by how easy it is to confuse the child when asking them uestions about brothers You know ask a young enough child about the ‘brother of someone’s brother’ and they will be uite baffled Because adults have the concept – a brother is a person’s male sibling – that is because we have the word meaning that is generalizable into a concept – talk of a brother’s brother presents us with no problem at all But for a child who is dealing in the mess of practicalities such a concept is utterly beyond them A brother’s brother is a concept with very little practical reality I mean a brother’s brother is also a brother and such a phrase only makes sense at a level of abstraction that is simply unnecessary to most children The point is that you have to get the concept – based on the essential relationship that makes a brother a brother – for a related concept like ‘brother’s brother’ to make senseThere is a lovely experiment in this where they taught young children foreign words for various items of furniture – table chair cabinet and so on– and the children had no real difficulty in learning these words However when they tried to teach the young children the foreign word for furniture itself – that is an abstract word which generalises these various items – the children had much trouble in learning this word His point was that the word as a sound should have been no harder to learn – but because the concept was beyond the children they simply could not learn that sound They had hooks they could use to learn the words for chair or cabinet but no hooks to learn ‘furniture’His point is that all words are generalisations and therefore are related to concepts However children learn – and become adults – by moving their thinking from complexes to concepts But because these two things are remarkably similar – when you speak of a brother and your child speaks of a brother you are superficially at least speaking about the same thing – this similarity hides the profound difference in what you are both actually talking about Essentially Vygotsky is saying that word meanings develop and change through the life history of the child and that this development is linked to the child’s ability to think in increasingly general ways about the world in which they liveSo there is development and there is instruction For Vygotsky development is not automatic Instruction plays an essential role here In fact Vygotsky goes so far as to say that instruction leads development This is an essential point and the key to understanding Vygotsky – this is also where his Zone of Proximal Development ZPD comes in So you’ve got two 8 year olds and you give them an I test and they come out with an I of 100 – that is they are perfectly average 8 year olds But now you go further and you give them some maths problems to solve that are clearly above their ability to solve on their own But instead of leaving them to flounder on their own you offer them some little hints and some help about how they could go about solving those uestions One of these kids you find with a little assistance is able to solve problems that an average 12 year old is able to solve The other is only able to solve with assistance problems an average 10 year old is able to solve Remember we tested their I before and they both got the same score But an I test is done without any assistance – this tests the knowledge that is completely developed in the child This other test Vygotsky is proposing – one where students are given a bit of assistance to see what they can perform – shows not what students have already developed but what they are now on the cusp of being able to learn There is no uestion that although the two students have currently fully developed knowledge at an eual level the child that is able to solve problems four years above their current age with assistance is in a much better place than the other kid who can only solve problems two years above their current ageVygotsky points out that we tend to think that imitation isn’t really learning – but his point is that we seek to imitate that which we can’t uite do right now by ourselves but that we are now ‘ready’ to learn And what does this mean for teaching Well there isn’t much point teaching kids what they already know And there isn’t much point teaching them stuff that is so far beyond them that they can’t do it even with all the assistance in the world But what they can do with assistance today what is in there Zone of Proximal Development they can do without assistance tomorrow – this is what learning means – and structuring their learning so that instruction is always that one or two steps beyond where they are currently at is what learning means That is instruction leads developmentLanguage is central here What is most interesting is the relationship of the child’s language to learning Vygotsky found that what Piaget had referred to as egocentric speech was uite literally children ‘thinking aloud’ He found that children would talk to themselves as they tried to solve problems and that they were likely to do this self talk the harder they found the problem Apparently this self talk goes away as we get older proof I never properly grew up it seems Or rather it changes and becomes internal What is really interesting here is that our self talk changes in very predictable and standard ways Firstly we tend to drop the subjects of our sentences If we are trying to solve a jigsaw puzzle say we are very unlikely to say something like “I wonder where this piece of the jigsaw puzzle is most likely to go” Rather we are probably likely to think “here or what maybe there” We keep the predicates but drop subjects because we know what we are talking about it’s their properties that have become important Interestingly this self talk is following the opposite process to that of our speech for others That speech becomes increasingly clear as we grow older – whereas our self talk becomes and individual and abstract so much so that if it was possible to somehow literally record our thoughts no one else would probably be able to understand them This is because our thoughts are ‘whole’ He has the wonderful metaphor of our conceptual thoughts being like a cloud and our words being like the rain that falls from the cloud Lots of words but in our minds the cloud is grasped as a single wholeWhat is blindingly interesting though is his distinction between ‘scientific’ concepts and pseudo concepts Pseudo concepts are those that are based on complexes – they look like concepts but aren’t really If you give kids objects to group they often get distracted They might start grouping things with straight lines so they will separate out the circles from the suares and triangles but suddenly they might become interested in yellow things and so some circles will end up being grouped with their suares and then the blue triangles will get left out Objects have a vast array of different properties and only a fully formed concept can assist us in grouping things like with like Pseudo concepts make sense of the world by our experience with certain words in the rough and tumble of life But as we have seen this may not be a consistent way of categorising the world as it isn’t really based on a consistent organising conceptHowever children often do better with understanding scientific concepts Vygotsky was living in the Soviet Union – so his definition of a scientific concept relates to exploiting capitalists and exploited workers and peasants – but we can update this to neoliberal concepts of free citizens given incentive through choice if that makes you feel confortable Vygotsky’s point is that kids tend to be able to finish sentences about ‘scientific’ concepts much ‘reasonably’ than they are able to do with pseudo concepts To explain that – Let’s say you try to get a child to finish this sentence ‘The boy that fell off his bike broke his arm because’ The child is likely to finish that sentence by saying something that would be part of their rich experience but not actually related to the causal relationship ‘because’ is asking for That is the child is likely to finish the sentence by saying something like ‘because he went to the hospital’ But if you said to the child “Capitalists are rich because” they are likely to respond “because they live off the sweat and blood of the exploited working classes” Vygotsky makes it clear that kids don’t really have a very strong idea of what this ‘scientific’ concept actually means – but that isn’t the point The point is that they understand the causal relationship for this scientific concept in a way they really struggle to understand the causal relationship in the pseudo concepts even though they have much ‘experience’ with these pseudo ones In fact it is the richness of their life experience that gets in the way of their being able to abstract out the causal relationships in their pseudo concepts So scientific concepts which they learn through instruction give them a model they can then use to structure their pseudo concepts and thereby move these towards being real concepts But look What they have lots of experience with needs to move from the concrete to the abstract To understand what ‘furniture’ is a child first comes into contact with lots of bookcases and beds and chairs and desks – lots of concrete things – and only then are they able to move to the abstract idea of ‘furniture’ But with scientific concepts they move in the opposite direction They have a vague idea of the abstract concept but with virtually no concrete understanding and a depth of understanding of the abstract concept reuires a concrete elaboration of this vague conceptPseudo and scientific concepts both work to help the child develop real concepts – but in opposite directionsThe problem as mentioned before is that neither the child nor the adult is aware that there is a difference between the child’s pseudo concepts and the adults rich concepts – as when they talk to each other they seem to be referring to the same things And as the child grows they are generally unaware that their pseudo concept has been replaced by a rich one as this is a developmental process and it seems to ‘just happen’ Except it doesn’t just happen but rather happens under instruction The point is that education is about developing concepts – but if we don’t realise there is a difference between pseudo scientific and rich concepts and that these are related to a developmental continuum related to the child’s current level of educational development we are unlikely to be able to help the child along that path I can’t recommend this book too highly It is actually much clear than this review I think It is actually a remarkably clear book and a stunningly interesting one too

Мышление и речьSince it was introduced to the English speaking world in Lev Vygotsky's highly original exploration of human mental development has become recognized as a classic foundational work of cognitive science Vygotsky analyzes the relationship between words and consciousness. At a conference I attended recently someone asked a rhetorical uestion – where is the next education theory that will replace Dewey or Vygotsky I wonder how many people outside of education know that these two utterly dominate education theory And amusingly enough the person most people know about as a child and educational psychologist Piaget didn’t even rate a mentionThought and Language is regarded as Vygotsky’s most important work and with good reason This really is a fascinating book What is probably his best known idea – that of the Zone of Proximal Development ZPD – is developed here But this comes in the middle of a fascinating argument and now that I’ve read this book I find pulling the ZPD out of this makes it seem a little out of place The other ideas around the ZPD seem eually important and I wonder why these are never really stressed Vygotsky spends a lot of time in this book discussing Piaget and other theorists from the start of the 20th century To be honest you could probably get away with just reading the last chapter of this book called Thought and Word – as he begins this chapter with a thumbnail rehearsal of the rest of the book This book in the main is available here What is the relationship between thinking and speaking To what extent can we think outside of language It is pretty clear of course that we can think outside of language – if you doubt this perhaps you haven’t listened to Mozart lately or looked at a painting by Turner or even used an iPhone However Vygotsky claims that there is a clear relationship between thought and language and that language is practical thought But language is interesting in many many ways Firstly he is not talking just about words – as if words were somehow fixed in stone What he is interested in is word meanings – and for Vygotsky word meaning change as we grow from children into adults For the child word meanings tend to be what Vygotsky called ‘complexes’ To adults word meanings tend to be much generalisations than mere complexes – that is they tend to be associated with concepts Now we can’t really go on without getting a better idea of the difference between complexes and concepts And the problem here is that these are remarkably similar things and they operate in very similar ways but their differences is the key insight from which Vygotsky builds the rest of his system Take the word ‘brother’ A child has a remarkable amount of lived experience of a word like that The child either has a brother or knows other children who have brothers But the richness of this lived experience is what Vygotsky refers to as a complex Why Well the child’s understanding of what ‘brother’ means is entirely tied up in their practical experience of that word They don’t actually get the concept behind this word And how do we know that Well by how easy it is to confuse the child when asking them uestions about brothers You know ask a young enough child about the ‘brother of someone’s brother’ and they will be uite baffled Because adults have the concept – a brother is a person’s male sibling – that is because we have the word meaning that is generalizable into a concept – talk of a brother’s brother presents us with no problem at all But for a child who is dealing in the mess of practicalities such a concept is utterly beyond them A brother’s brother is a concept with very little practical reality I mean a brother’s brother is also a brother and such a phrase only makes sense at a level of abstraction that is simply unnecessary to most children The point is that you have to get the concept – based on the essential relationship that makes a brother a brother – for a related concept like ‘brother’s brother’ to make senseThere is a lovely experiment in this where they taught young children foreign words for various items of furniture – table chair cabinet and so on– and the children had no real difficulty in learning these words However when they tried to teach the young children the foreign word for furniture itself – that is an abstract word which generalises these various items – the children had much trouble in learning this word His point was that the word as a sound should have been no harder to learn – but because the concept was beyond the children they simply could not learn that sound They had hooks they could use to learn the words for chair or cabinet but no hooks to learn ‘furniture’His point is that all words are generalisations and therefore are related to concepts However children learn – and become adults – by moving their thinking from complexes to concepts But because these two things are remarkably similar – when you speak of a brother and your child speaks of a brother you are superficially at least speaking about the same thing – this similarity hides the profound difference in what you are both actually talking about Essentially Vygotsky is saying that word meanings develop and change through the life history of the child and that this development is linked to the child’s ability to think in increasingly general ways about the world in which they liveSo there is development and there is instruction For Vygotsky development is not automatic Instruction plays an essential role here In fact Vygotsky goes so far as to say that instruction leads development This is an essential point and the key to understanding Vygotsky – this is also where his Zone of Proximal Development ZPD comes in So you’ve got two 8 year olds and you give them an I test and they come out with an I of 100 – that is they are perfectly average 8 year olds But now you go further and you give them some maths problems to solve that are clearly above their ability to solve on their own But instead of leaving them to flounder on their own you offer them some little hints and some help about how they could go about solving those uestions One of these kids you find with a little assistance is able to solve problems that an average 12 year old is able to solve The other is only able to solve with assistance problems an average 10 year old is able to solve Remember we tested their I before and they both got the same score But an I test is done without any assistance – this tests the knowledge that is completely developed in the child This other test Vygotsky is proposing – one where students are given a bit of assistance to see what they can perform – shows not what students have already developed but what they are now on the cusp of being able to learn There is no uestion that although the two students have currently fully developed knowledge at an eual level the child that is able to solve problems four years above their current age with assistance is in a much better place than the other kid who can only solve problems two years above their current ageVygotsky points out that we tend to think that imitation isn’t really learning – but his point is that we seek to imitate that which we can’t uite do right now by ourselves but that we are now ‘ready’ to learn And what does this mean for teaching Well there isn’t much point teaching kids what they already know And there isn’t much point teaching them stuff that is so far beyond them that they can’t do it even with all the assistance in the world But what they can do with assistance today what is in there Zone of Proximal Development they can do without assistance tomorrow – this is what learning means – and structuring their learning so that instruction is always that one or two steps beyond where they are currently at is what learning means That is instruction leads developmentLanguage is central here What is most interesting is the relationship of the child’s language to learning Vygotsky found that what Piaget had referred to as egocentric speech was uite literally children ‘thinking aloud’ He found that children would talk to themselves as they tried to solve problems and that they were likely to do this self talk the harder they found the problem Apparently this self talk goes away as we get older proof I never properly grew up it seems Or rather it changes and becomes internal What is really interesting here is that our self talk changes in very predictable and standard ways Firstly we tend to drop the subjects of our sentences If we are trying to solve a jigsaw puzzle say we are very unlikely to say something like “I wonder where this piece of the jigsaw puzzle is most likely to go” Rather we are probably likely to think “here or what maybe there” We keep the predicates but drop subjects because we know what we are talking about it’s their properties that have become important Interestingly this self talk is following the opposite process to that of our speech for others That speech becomes increasingly clear as we grow older – whereas our self talk becomes and individual and abstract so much so that if it was possible to somehow literally record our thoughts no one else would probably be able to understand them This is because our thoughts are ‘whole’ He has the wonderful metaphor of our conceptual thoughts being like a cloud and our words being like the rain that falls from the cloud Lots of words but in our minds the cloud is grasped as a single wholeWhat is blindingly interesting though is his distinction between ‘scientific’ concepts and pseudo concepts Pseudo concepts are those that are based on complexes – they look like concepts but aren’t really If you give kids objects to group they often get distracted They might start grouping things with straight lines so they will separate out the circles from the suares and triangles but suddenly they might become interested in yellow things and so some circles will end up being grouped with their suares and then the blue triangles will get left out Objects have a vast array of different properties and only a fully formed concept can assist us in grouping things like with like Pseudo concepts make sense of the world by our experience with certain words in the rough and tumble of life But as we have seen this may not be a consistent way of categorising the world as it isn’t really based on a consistent organising conceptHowever children often do better with understanding scientific concepts Vygotsky was living in the Soviet Union – so his definition of a scientific concept relates to exploiting capitalists and exploited workers and peasants – but we can update this to neoliberal concepts of free citizens given incentive through choice if that makes you feel confortable Vygotsky’s point is that kids tend to be able to finish sentences about ‘scientific’ concepts much ‘reasonably’ than they are able to do with pseudo concepts To explain that – Let’s say you try to get a child to finish this sentence ‘The boy that fell off his bike broke his arm because’ The child is likely to finish that sentence by saying something that would be part of their rich experience but not actually related to the causal relationship ‘because’ is asking for That is the child is likely to finish the sentence by saying something like ‘because he went to the hospital’ But if you said to the child “Capitalists are rich because” they are likely to respond “because they live off the sweat and blood of the exploited working classes” Vygotsky makes it clear that kids don’t really have a very strong idea of what this ‘scientific’ concept actually means – but that isn’t the point The point is that they understand the causal relationship for this scientific concept in a way they really struggle to understand the causal relationship in the pseudo concepts even though they have much ‘experience’ with these pseudo ones In fact it is the richness of their life experience that gets in the way of their being able to abstract out the causal relationships in their pseudo concepts So scientific concepts which they learn through instruction give them a model they can then use to structure their pseudo concepts and thereby move these towards being real concepts But look What they have lots of experience with needs to move from the concrete to the abstract To understand what ‘furniture’ is a child first comes into contact with lots of bookcases and beds and chairs and desks – lots of concrete things – and only then are they able to move to the abstract idea of ‘furniture’ But with scientific concepts they move in the opposite direction They have a vague idea of the abstract concept but with virtually no concrete understanding and a depth of understanding of the abstract concept reuires a concrete elaboration of this vague conceptPseudo and scientific concepts both work to help the child develop real concepts – but in opposite directionsThe problem as mentioned before is that neither the child nor the adult is aware that there is a difference between the child’s pseudo concepts and the adults rich concepts – as when they talk to each other they seem to be referring to the same things And as the child grows they are generally unaware that their pseudo concept has been replaced by a rich one as this is a developmental process and it seems to ‘just happen’ Except it doesn’t just happen but rather happens under instruction The point is that education is about developing concepts – but if we don’t realise there is a difference between pseudo scientific and rich concepts and that these are related to a developmental continuum related to the child’s current level of educational development we are unlikely to be able to help the child along that path I can’t recommend this book too highly It is actually much clear than this review I think It is actually a remarkably clear book and a stunningly interesting one too

Download ´ PDF, DOC, TXT or eBook Ä Lev S. Vygotsky

Мышление и речь ¼ At restores the work's complete text and adds materials that will help readers better understand Vygotsky's meaning and intentions Kozulin has also contributed an introductory essay that offers new insight into the author's life intellectual milieu and research method. Dense Hard to read But the theory behind it seems good I'll definitely have to re read after I learn about psychology Download ´ PDF, DOC, TXT or eBook Ä Lev S. Vygotsky

Lev S. Vygotsky Ä 4 Download

Lev S. Vygotsky Ä 4 Download Arguing that speech is social in its origins and that only as children develop does it become internalized Мышление и PDF verbal thoughtNow Alex Kozulin has created a new edition of the original MIT Press translation by Eugenia Hanfmann and Gertrude Vakar th. This was one of the first books I read about linguistics Little did I know when I first started reading it Thought and Language was to start a life long passion for the subject When I was teaching young children every day was a chance to be in a linguistics lab This book is a wonderful way for anyone to start learning about theories of linguistics