The authoritarian school was (and is) a reflection of the society in whole? And how it was in the family, or vice versa: people looked up at teachers as authorities and representatives for the power? Now it's almost the opposite? I have started to read the book about Lev Vygotsky “Vygotskij i praktiken – bland plugghästar och fusklappar” or “Vygotsky in praxis – among swots and crib slips” written by the psychologist Leif Strandberg (here more about him and his ideas - in Swedish though, and here about “The Swedish National Agency for School Improvement” in English).
Strandberg starts his book with a story from his first year in school (1957), when he was 7. His female teacher asked Leif how much four plus four was. Leif looked at his fingers. He bent his thumbs into the palm of his hands and saw four fingers on each hand. “Eight!”
he replied.
“That’s right!”
his teacher said. “But try to count in your head! So, hands on your back and now I ask again; what’s four plus three?”
Now it became more difficult for the small Leif. Having his hands on his back was difficult too in those desks then. And it was harder just counting in his head. But he managed and the teacher said he was right and that it was good he counted in his head, and that this was a sign he had “a good head for studying.”
He doesn’t know if his teacher was aware that the small boy still used his hands and fingers behind his back, but he himself started to doubt if he actually had a good head for studying!
Crib slips (fusklappar) and counting on your fingers were bad. This was almost even sinful then he writes. It was wrong whispering, wrong sending notes, wrong helping a mate, wrong taking help from a classmate and it was definitely wrong moving around the desks and in the class room.
One should sit down, all by her/himself and work silently.
One should have things in ones head. If one didn’t one had to “have it in ones legs,” and in the best case this was a sort of talent too - but of a lower quality – in the worst a defect. Some had it in the head and others in their legs.
This apprehension stamped what people in general thought about what talent was. It also stamped what science had to say about talent and intelligence; that it was something inherent. It also stamped how societies were built. In industrial communities (here at least) the ones with “heads for studying” lived highest up in beautiful villas, under them there was a wreath of talented clerks (employees?) and near the factory – where most people lived – the body of workers lived.
The notion about talent as an inner mental state of course formed how schools were organized. There were many methods for judgment, differentiation and sorting so one could "sift the wheat from the chaff" (sålla agnarna från vetet); the ones who "had it in their heads" from "practicians," secondary modern school (realskolor) from vocational schools (yrkesskolor), general courses from special courses. And at last this division felt natural and also suited the society which didn’t need so much thought-power (tankekraft) but a lot of people working with their bodies (this is different today?).
In this historical context psychological theories which confirmed intelligence as an inner mental state had a given place he thinks.
Now it looks as there is a backlash in this respect: a division AGAIN. Classifications! Not developing the whole human being any more! I wonder quite frankly if this reflects how limited our politicians are (too many of them)? And this also seems to be applauded by many other in society, not least those voting on those politicians. This is scary I think! Haven't we understood more, hasn't the society developed more, hasn't child-raising and the awareness become developed more? There are many harmed, hurt? Who don’t begrudge children possibilities in growing up in freedom to living human beings? And not begrudging other grown up people being or becoming alive?
When I read pedagogy long ago we spoke about that what sort of view on society (samhällssyn), man (människosyn) and knowledge (kunskapssyn) one has is (of course) reflected in how one handle things: how teachers meet their pupils, how schools are organized, our views on learning, peoples' inner drives etc. etc. etc. And that there exists different views on society, man and knowledge.
Strandberg meets these old views still today he thinks; views on learning, how many see learning still, and talent etc. A view on thinking and talent as inner qualities, a view that has a strong hold over our notions still he thinks.
And I know of a girl who had it easy in school, her first teacher said to her parents that she was talented. They hadn't really thought of this earlier, not really being aware of it, but she spoke early, very early. She had it easy with practical things too - and had creative talents, as in music, dancing, drawing, theater etc. Of some reasons she was allowed developing all those sides, but in other ways she was held hard and limited, restricted... Later on she sat silently at school, didn't ask the teachers for help, tried on her own, with almost everything... She didn't continue with being the one she once was... Active, creative, fantasizing...Our current school minister want an authoritarian school back in my view and feeling to say it straight. Is it what Miller wrote: about the wild youth being a sign that they haven’t been held enough hard? When it maybe is the opposite? But held hard in other ways than earlier or mistreated in other ways, neglected etc.? Or treated in other ways with the results we see today. So what would the right medicine be? I don’t like his ideas AT ALL. And he is younger than Leif Strandberg, the author of the book I'm referring to, born 1962, thus 12 years younger than Strandberg!! What has he been exposed to during his childhood? I get so upset and filled with feelings, emotions so I don't find the words!
Strandberg wonders if we are focussing on the wrong part of the body.Think if the division in a good head for studying or practicians is a mistaken, faulty classification, and that our notion that one shall have things in the head isn’t correct and if the idea that children shall sit still, not use crib slips, not cheat and not ask class mates is wrong, yes, even mad.
Even IF the head plays a role, WHAT role does it play? How do things get into the head? Seeds planted and growing there? Is it something inherited? Does it come from the heaven?
Vygotsky meant that inner processes - what’s in the head - have been preceded by outer activities together with other people, with the support of different tools, in specific cultural contexts, milieus.
Vygotsky means that it is in peoples' factual and practical world psychological processes have their ground, has their origin.
He talks about "activities between the heads"; what people do together. For the first, it is always about something social; our individual competences comes from different forms of interactions with other people. I learn together with others what I can do myself later. My inner thinking has been preceded by outer thinking together with others. What does reading books mean in this? Through books learning about other worlds?
Outer activities with the help of tools precedes inner work of thoughts. Without counting on the fingers, no counting in the head.
Human beings activities are always situated; they take place in specific situations such as cultural contexts, rooms, places.
The fourth characteristic for activities leading to learning and development is that they are creative; they step over given boundaries. Human beings can use not only relations, tools and situations but also recreate them. Here is a great potential for development; in peoples' creative participation in development work. See earlier posting on creativity and stress.
This with what sin is, shame, perfectionism, for your own good...
Inlägg
Inga kommentarer:
Skicka en kommentar