Developing Reflective Thinking in the Process of Learning Activity

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size

Notes

1. Here, “object-related” and “object-relatedness” are used to translate “predmetnyi” and “predmetnost’,” which are sometimes translated as “objective” and “objectivity.” For a discussion of the translation difficulties posed by these terms, see Note 17, pp. 384 – 385, in L.S. Vygotsky’s The Collected Works of L. S. Vygotsky: Problems of the Theory and History of Psychology, vol. 3, ed. Robert W. Rieber and Jeffrey Wollock. “Contentful” is used here as a translation of soderzhatel’nyi.—Trans.

2. For a more detailed critical analysis of methods that we conducted previously, see Nezhnov and Medvedev 1988.

3. V.Kh Magkaev addresses this approach to studying thinking in Part I (Chapter 1) of this book.

4. Here “(field of knowledge)” has been added by the translator as a clarification. Throughout this book, the Russian word predmet is always translated as “object” for consistency, but in some cases it could just as easily be translated as “field of knowledge” or “subject matter” (wording added parenthetically below).—Trans.

5. In light of Postulate 7 and Theorem II, we do not address the inverse relations.

6. In the Soviet/Russian system, five is the highest grade and four, three, and two are roughly equivalent to B, C, and D.—Trans.

7. These problems are used in an experimental physics program for grades six and seven and were developed under the leadership of V.V. Rubtsov in 1976 – 1978 (see Mul’darov 1987; Mul’darov and Rubtsov 1987; Rubtsov 1975).

8. I.S. Iakimanskaia argues that the image and the concept should not be treated as separate. From her perspective: “In the actual process of thinking (the assimilation of knowledge), both ‘figurative’ and ‘conceptual’ logic are simultaneously present (and actually functioning); furthermore, these are not two independent logics (although their specific nature is obvious), but rather the unified logic by which the thinking process occurs. If they are the slightest bit in conflict, the formation and usage of scientific knowledge will inevitably be distorted” (Iakimanskaia 1985, 7).

9. A similar structure is used in the research of N.G. Salmina, who relies on the triad of “reality–meaning–sign.” In examining children’s sign/symbol activity, Salmina describes its various forms, such as modeling, coding, schematization, and substitution (Salmina 1988).

10. We find a distinguishing between the model and the image, in particular, in a series of works by A.N. Leontiev. He points out that a model does not have the property of subjectivity and represents “a system (set) whose elements are in a relationship of likeness (homomorphism, isomorphism) with elements of a certain other system (what is being modeled)” (Leontiev 1970, 40). He continues: “The mental image is not something passively mirrored in the language of its own modalities, something that reproduces in its own ‘subjective code’ the parameters of an isolated object acting on sense organs. It is in this regard that the mental image can be poorer than a possible mathematical or physical model of a given object. But it is infinitely richer than any model because it reflects the object incorporated into the system of connections and relationships of objective reality. In this sense, the sensory image of an object is not ‘isolate’; instead, it is an element of a picture of the world opening up before a human being” (Leontiev 1970, 44).

11. Henceforth, we will use the following abbreviations of terms: R for reality, M for model, and S for sign.

12. In our time, the phenomenon of “functional illiteracy” — an inability (despite having received an education) to read and write to the extent necessary to use these skills in a work environment — has become increasingly widespread.

13. Word as sign is “being for the other” or “immediate contemplation representing an absolutely different content than the one that it has for the self” (Hegel 1973, 414).

14. It is telling that at this stage, children show an interest in producing their own symbolism, codes, and ciphers that can be used to figure out words.

15. Form I is the infinitive without “to,” Form II is the past simple tense form, and Form III is the past participle.—Trans.

16. Series 6 used a separate contingent of students and only on an individual basis. It had to use a new contingent so that when these students constructed a prompt they would not be able to use the models and their elements that the experimenter gave subjects in the previous series. The individuality with which Series 6 exercises were completed was determined by the fact that the complexity of the assignment itself (it took approximately 40 minutes to complete) and the frontality with which it was conducted did not provide for a clear delineation or registration of the ways in which individual actions were divided up in cooperative work or their dynamic and effectiveness at various stages of problem solving.

17. The Yamaha computer program is based on a computer method jointly developed by N. Ermekov, B. Zezev, and M. Stepanskii.

18. A.L. Pazhitnov assisted in developing the method. He also provided the necessary computer programming.