Showing posts with label TEORI. Show all posts
Showing posts with label TEORI. Show all posts

22 December, 2009

TPCK: Technology Pedagogical Content Knowledge


Menurut Lampert dan Ball (1999), persediaan profesional guru-guru baru selalunya tidak bermakna atau tidak praktikal dan bakal-bakal guru ini sering dipengaruhi oleh apa yang mereka lihat apabila guru mereka mengajar. Ekoran itu, sepanjang lima tahun lepas penyelidik telah memulakan program penyelidikan yang sistematik dalam usaha untuk mengenal pasti kekurangan kerangka teori untuk membimbing guru pelatih dalam penyepaduan teknologi.

Tujuan program penyelidikan tersebut adalah untuk memperkembangkan teori dan model-model untuk penyelidikan yang menyeluruh dalam bidang pendidikan guru tentang penyepaduan teknologi ( Mishra & Koehler, 2006; Angeli, 2008). Usaha mereka telah menghasilkan konsep pengetahuan teknologi pedagogi kandungan atau TPCK yang memberi perhatian kepada merancang dan mengajar secara efektif menggunakan teknologi (Mishra & Koehler, 2006; Niess, 2005).
Menurut Mishra dan Koeler (2006), secara praktiknya, TPCK merupakan gabungan elemen kandungan, pedagogi dan teknologi. Konsep ini mengutarakan kemahiran penggunaan teknologi dalam pendidikan haruslah memberi perhatian kepada ketiga aspek ini supaya tidak terbatas kepada kemahiran teknologi sahaja sehingga penggunaan teknologi dalam bilik darjah tidak berkesan. TPCK boleh dilihat sebagai jelmaan daripada Pengetahuan Pedagogi Kandungan (PCK), Pengetahuan Teknologi Kandungan (PTC), Pengetahuan Teknologi Pedagogi (PTK), dan apabila digabungjalinkan ia menjadi Pengetahuan Teknologi Pedagogi Kandungan (TPCK)
Dipetik dari: eprints.utm.my/7671/1/P18-Zaleha&NurulAin



Read More...

PCK: Pengetahuan Pedagogikal Kandungan: (Pedagogical Content Knowledge)


Pengetahuan Pedagogikal Kandungan diketengahkan oleh Shulman (1986) dan dikembangkan bersama rakan-rakannya dalam projek The Knowledge Growth in Teaching (Shulman & Grossman, 1988; Grossman 1987; Wilson et al., 1987; Shulman, 1986). Shulman (1986) telah mengkaji beberapa kemungkinan sebab pengetahuan guru telah merosot pada masa lalu. Dalam semua ujian yang telah dijalankan, 90% hingga 95% dapatan menunjukkan guru-guru perlu menguasai sama ada pengetahuan mata pelajaran atau asas pengetahuan am. Persoalan utama kajian beliau ialah tentang bagaimana untuk mengubah daripada seseorang yang pintar (dengan pengetahuan kandungan) menjadi guru baru.


Untuk mengkaji persoalan ini Shulman (1986) telah membina kerangka teori kajian untuk menilai guru baru. Beliau telah melihat unsur pengetahuan kandungan mata pelajaran, pengetahuan pedagogikal kandungan dan pengetahuan kurikulum untuk menilai persediaan guru baru dan mempertimbangkan kajian dengan memberi fokus kepada pengetahuan tentang permasalahan, pengetahuan kes dan pengetahuan strategi. Menurutnya, pengetahuan tentang permasalahan ialah tentang fakta sama ada fakta berkaitan isi kandungan atau pedagogi. Manakala pengetahuan kes pula merujuk kepada bagaimana guru mengelola kes-kes khas daripada pelbagai ragam pelajar atau emosi dalam bilik darjah. Manakala pengetahuan strategi pula bermaksud kebolehan untuk menyelesaikan konflik dengan mengetahui fakta dan kes. Pengetahuan ini dianggap pengetahuan peringkat tertinggi dalam paradigmanya.

Pengetahuan pedagogikal kandungan adalah konstruk yang digunakan

untuk menjelaskanbidang pengetahuan guru mengenai isi kandungan (mata pelajaran) dan pedagogi (strategi pengajaran). Ia adalah pemahaman guru mengenai cara membantu pelajar memahami sesuatu mata pelajaran secara khusus. Ini termasuk pengetahuan tentang bagaimana tajuk-tajuk tertentu dalam sesuatu mata pelajaran, masalah dan isu-isu boleh disusun, dipersembah dan disesuaikan dengan pelbagai minat dan kebolehan pelajar dalam pengajaran dan pembelajaran. Pengetahuan pedagogikal kandungan akan membantu guru-guru dalam membuat analogi, metafora, memberi contoh, mengadakan pelbagai aktiviti dan tunjuk cara bagi membantu kejayaan pelajar (Shulman, 1986). Grossman (1990) pula menjelaskan salah satu domain pengetahuan guru ialah pengetahuan pedagogikal kandungan yang mengandungi empat komponen, iaitu pengetahuan tentang konsepsi dan tujuan mengajar sesuatu mata pelajaran, pengetahuan tentang kefahaman pelajar, pengetahuan kurikulum dan pengetahuan tentang strategi pengajaran.
Pengetahuan pedagogikal kandungan menurut Carter (1990) pula adalah mengenai apa yang guru-guru tahu mengenai mata pelajaran yang diajar dan bagaimana mereka mengaplikasikannya ketika mengajar di bilik darjah berdasarkan kurikulum. Menurutnya, belajar untuk mengajar adalah persoalan dalam mengubah pengetahuan dari satu bentuk kepada yang lain, dari cadangan kepada aplikasi yang akan bermakna kepada pelbagai pengalaman.

Pengertian tentang pengetahuan pedagogikal kandungan berkait dengan proses transformasi daripada pengetahuan isi kandungan dan pengetahuan pedagogi untuk dipermudahkan dalam pengajaran dan pembelajaran (Gudmundsdottir, 1995; Magnusson et al., 1994; Carter, 1990; Shulman, 1987). Gudmundsdottir (1995) menjelaskan bahawa pengetahuan pedagogikal kandungan adalah pengetahuan isi kandungan guru yang telah dipindahkan menjadi sesuatu yang berbeza daripada sebelumnya berbentuk aplikasi yang praktikal dalam pengajaran. Oleh itu, guru perlu meluaskan prinsip, strategi pengurusan bilik darjah dan mengorganisasikan sesuatu mata pelajaran untuk disampaikan kepada pelajar dengan mudah difahami (McDiarmid et al.,1989) dan membolehkan guru mengesan atau mendiagnos pemahaman dan miskonsepsi di kalangan pelajar (Bennet et al., 1993). Magnusson et al. (1994) pula menyatakan bahawa pengetahuan pedagogikal kandungan sebagai konstruk yang penting untuk menjelaskan peranan pengetahuan guru dalam memudahkan perkembangan pengetahuan murid, khususnya untuk mata pelajaran yang kompleks seperti sains.

Definisi dan takrifan di atas sebenarnya telah menjelas dan memperakukan apa yang telah dikatakan oleh Shulman (1987) iaitu, pengetahuan pedagogikal kandungan sebagai pengetahuan khusus menggabungkan pengetahuan isi kandungan dan pedagogi melalui kefahaman tentang cara mengajar tajuk-tajuk tertentu, masalah-masalah atau isu mengikut minat dan kebolehan pelajar. Kepentingan pengetahuan pedagogikal kandungan memang tidak dapat dinafikan lagi berdasarkan bukti daripada beberapa kajian lampau. Kajian Gudmundsdottir (1990) di sekolah tinggi di San Francisco, terhadap empat orang guru cemerlang yang mengajar Bahasa Inggeris dan Sejarah Amerika menggunakan kaedah kajian kes telah mengambil masa selama lima bulan. Antara dapatan kajiannya ialah perspektif guru terhadap kandungan mata pelajaran akan mempengaruhi pengajaran dan interpretasi mereka. Keempat-empat orang guru tersebut menyatakan minat mereka terhadap mata pelajaran yang diajar dan sentiasa memastikan pengajaran mereka bermakna kepada pelajar.

Pengetahuan pedagogikal kandungan guru adalah komponen yang amat signifikan mempengaruhi pengajaran dan pembelajaran seperti yang dibincangkan di atas. Kajian menunjukkan guru Pendidikan Moral lebih menekankan akademik berbanding pembinaan perwatakan (Laud, 2000). Malah kajian Wan Hasmah Wan Mamat (2000) mendapati, tumpuan lebih diberikan kepada akademik bertujuan untuk menyediakan pelajar menghadapi peperiksaan dan mengabaikan penekanan komponen nilai. Ball (1988) telah mengkaji keperluan seorang guru matematik mendapati pengetahuan matematik ternyata menjadi pokok untuk membolehkan guru membantu pelajarnya mempelajari sesuatu. Oleh itu, guru-guru perlu memahami konsep matematik dan prosedur bertujuan untuk menyediakan pembelajaran dan aktiviti kepada pelajarnya. Guru mesti mempunyai pengetahuan yang mendalam untuk membolehkan mereka menerang dan menilai idea-idea yang dikeluarkan oleh pelajar. Perbincangan seterusnya akan cuba membandingkan pengetahuan pedagogikal kandungan antara guru pengkhususan dengan guru bukan pengkhususan dan guru berpengalaman dengan guru baru berdasar kajian lampau.

Di petik dari : TESIS PhD DR. ABD. SHATAR BIN CHE ABD. RAHMAN:
PENGETAHUAN KANDUNGAN DAN PEDAGOGI GURU PENDIDIKAN MORAL
TINGKATAN EMPAT DI SEBUAH SEKOLAH



Read More...

14 December, 2009

Pedagogical content knowledge (PCK)


Artikel di petik dari : http://eduspaces.net/edutech/weblog/28667.html
Pedagogical content knowledge
Pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) as described by Lee Shulman, is essentially the ability for teachers to reason pedagogically, and for them to adapt the practice of their own pedagogy when necessary - to "elucidate subject matter in new ways".
So we know that ICT is an ever-changing beast, with new technological developments emerging at an astonishing pace. As ICT practitioners we need to be abreast of these technologies. However there surely comes a time when we need to ponder how these technologies impact the practice of teaching itself - the way in which we teach, assess, communicate; the pedagogical content knowledge.
Back in the 1970s Shulman noticed that the late 19th Century teaching emphasis upon content knowledge was being superseded by more pupil-centred approaches, which accounted for such things as social awareness, individual needs, and (oh we like this one) a growing need to adhere to educational procedure. I was a child of the 1980s, the first year to take GCSEs, and the increasing drive for firm following of educational policies since then has led us to a situation today where there is a bewildering amount of policies and recommendations to follow. Nevertheless it did stamp out a good deal of lazy teaching and poor practice. As a pupil I knew the good teachers from the bad ones - the teachers who would motivate and inspire and illustrate, in contrast to the ones who taught from the book and who gave us rote learning tasks.
Anyway, for Shulman that are three types of content knowledge:
(1) Subject matter content knowledge - the skills and the understanding of computer technology that all good ICT teachers should have as a matter of course. If I am unable to demonstrate or explain to children how to create a nested IF statement in Excel, it is up to me as a good ICT teacher to figure it out in order to be able to teach it.
(2) Pedagogical content knowledge allows me to repackage this knowledge that I now have about nested Ifs, and deliver it effectively to a wide range of students. I need to account for different ages and abilities, I need to be able to communicate something that might be quite complicated into something my pupils will understand. I also need to stretch the ones who will figure it out in just a couple of minutes. This of course is what many people see as good teaching and it is the kind of knowledge that good teachers pick up as they become more experienced.
(3) Curricular content knowledge - knowledge of the programmes of study, schemes of work etc etc that now exist.
The Pedagogical content knowledge is the one that interests me the most because it is essentially about how we enable children to learn within the context of NC schemes and subject matter knowledge. A large amount of 'average' teaching takes a very generic approach and one reason is the great teaching bugbear - time. CPD in schools rarely addreses pedagogic content knowledge and we have all experienced INSET sessions that are pretty much a waste of time for 90% of the audience when we have more pressing things to do. However lack of time should not be an excuse - when we have technologies emerging know that can impact significantly on our pedagogy then we absolutely have to address this and move away from a generic approach.
Advanced Skills Teachers are an interesting step in the right direction and are assigned 20% non contact time in order to disseminate high quality practice. However I would like to see more whole-school CPD which specifically address pedagogy and which examines such emerging technologies as VLEs to see how they impact upon our PCK.
Various national bodies such as QCA, the National Curriculum and so on are still emphasising ICT capability and skills. The UK curriculum seems to be obsessed with outcomes, with nods towards knowledge and understanding. They feel like mere nods. Having taught a Keystage 3 ICT curriculum for a number of years, I really need to work hard to get good theoretical discussions out of the pupils - to move beyond merely 'producing' something at the end of a unit, and towards actually discussing and reflecting upon ICT at the conceptual level. Even if I achieve that, I have to work all the harder to consider my pedagogical approach and to see if I as a teacher can communicate such concepts in a more effective way - from using a variety of metaphors and exercises to harnessing the power of new technologies such as moodle. Relying on PowerPoint slides or turning pages in a textbook to see you through a lesson does not count.
Having taught Edexcel GCSE ICT for a number of years, I know from experience that a huge amount of lesson time is necessarily devoted to the 4 projects that comprise 60% of the pupils' total marks. Again I have to push hard to have interesting and meaningful theoretical discussions. If I don't work to get these into my teaching, if I just teach to the syllabus, then I am an average teacher. Not a poor teacher - just an average one. I have seen a lot of average teachers. Is this because the subject of ICT is so new? Partly. Is it because we are lacking a clear pedagogic focus? Definitely.


Read More...

07 May, 2009

Teori Konstruktivisme



Secara perspektifnya teori konstruktivis kognitif ini, pembelajaran dianggap satu proses aktif yang melibatkan memperoleh pengetahuan baru dan mengubahsuai pengetahuan sedia ada. Menurut Piaget (1967), penyesuaian merupakan fungsi yang mengawal semua perkembangan manusia, termasuk pembelajaran. Penyesuaian dikatakan berlaku melalui dua proses asas iaitu asimilasi dan akomodasi. Asimilasi adalah proses memadankan pengetahuan baru ke dalam skema sedia ada manakala akomodasi adalah pengubahsuaian skema buat sementara waktu atau secara tetap. Kedua-dua proses ini dianggap penting dalam mengurangkan sebarang konflik kognitif yang mungkin wujud lalu membawa kepada pembelajaran yang berguna.
Dari perspektif teori konstruktivis sosial pula, interaksi sosial dapat mempengaruhi perkembangan kognitif pelajar (Vygotsky, 1978). Ini disebabkan apabila berlakunya interaksi sosial, seseorang pelajar dipaksa memasuki zon perkembangan proksimal iaitu pelajar diberi peluang mencapai potensi perkembangan mental yang wujud sama ada dengan bimbingan seorang dewasa atau melalui kolaborasi dengan rakan-rakan sebaya yang lebih matang inteleknya. Alat-alat psikologi serta komunikasi interpersonal dikatakan menolong menyumbang kepada fungsi mental yang lebih tinggi.
Menurut Phillips (1995), terdapat tiga ciri utama pada seseorang pelajar konstruktivis iaitu bersifat aktif, sosial dan kreatif. Hasil penyelidikan menunjukkan bahawa pembelajaran yang bersifat aktif mungkin membolehkan seseorang pelajar mengingati dan memahami pelajaran dengan lebih baik serta dapat menggunakan pengetahuan yang diperoleh dengan aktif. Pembelajaran yang bersifat sosial pula dikatakan biasanya memupuk pembelajaran manakala pembelajaran yang bersifat kreatif memberi semangat belajar kepada pelajar dan membolehkan pelajar memahami pelajaran dengan lebih mendalam (Perkins, 1999). Ini selaras dengan pendapat Confrey (1990) yang menyatakan bahawa seseorang pelajar konstruktivis serba sedikit sedar akan proses pembinaan pengetahuan dan dapat mengubah/meminda proses tersebut melalui refleksi yang disedari oleh diri sendiri. von Glasersfeld (1995) turut percaya bahawa pembelajaran bukan fenomena yang melibatkan rangsangan-gerak balas; malah ia memerlukan kawalan kendiri dan pembinaan struktur-struktur konseptual melalui proses refleksi dan abstraksi.
Menurut teori keluwesan kognitif yang dikemukakan oleh Spiro dan Jehng (1990), “keluwesan kognitif” merujuk kepada kebolehan untuk menstruktur semula pengetahuan secara spontan dalam banyak cara, sebagai tindak balas penyesuaian terhadap tuntutan

yang berubah secara radikal mengikut keadaan/situasi. Keluwesan kognitif ini bergantung kepada cara pengetahuan diwakili dan proses yang beroperasi berdasarkan perwakilan mental tersebut. Perhimpunan skema (schema assembly) dititikberatkan berbanding pemerolehan semula sesuatu skema secara bulat (intact schema retrieval). Dari itu, bukan sahaja pemahaman dibina dari pengetahuan sedia ada, tetapi pengetahuan sedia ada juga dibina bersesuaian dengan tuntutan pembelajaran. Unsur penting adalah penggunaan semula pengetahuan sedia ada secara luwes. Seseorang pelajar dapat memahami sesuatu yang baru dengan memperolehi semula dan menghimpun skema-skema yang berkaitan dengan situasi pembelajaran untuk membina pengetahuan baru.
Teori keluwesan kognitif berfokus kepada pembelajaran di mana domain pengetahuan adalah kompleks dan kurang berstruktur (ill-structured) (Spiro, Coulson, Feltovich dan Anderson, 1992). Teori ini dengan sengajanya menyediakan pelbagai perspektif atau tafsiran isi kandungan yang ingin diajar. Metafora “silang-menyilang pemandangan pedalaman” atau “thematic criss -crossing” diguna pakai kerana pelajar digambarkan silang-menyilang intelek domain pengetahuan dengan meninjaunya dari pelbagai perspektif atau melalui pelbagai tema.
Teori ini memberi model konseptual untuk mereka bentuk persekitaran pembelajaran untuk menyokong pemerolehan pengetahuan pada peringkat lanjutan. Ia memberi penekanan kepada konteks pembelajaran kerana ia menganggap maklumat yang diperoleh dalam konteks dunia nyata lebih senang disimpan. Juga, ini menghasilkan pembelajaran yang lebih generatif, pada aras yang lebih tinggi serta lebih bermakna. Apa yang dipelajari dapat dipindahkan dengan lebih meluas dan lebih jitu (Spiro et al., 1991).

Read More...

22 October, 2008

TEORI VYGOTSKY

The Life of Vygotsky -- This box somewhere on the page
Lev Vygotsky was born in 1896 in Russia, and grew up in the city of Gomel. After graduating in history and philosophy, he taught at a variety of schools in his home town, where he was also active in theatrical and literary circles, before moving in 1924 to work in the Institute of Psychology in Moscow.
Over the next ten years, he produced several seminal works, including Thought and Language (1932). Around him gathered a circle of brilliant young scholars, including Luria and Leontiev, who created a school of Soviet psychology based on his work. Vygotsky himself died of tuberculosis in 1934, at only 38 years of age.
Sadly, his genius coincided with Stalin’s regime. The work of the Vygotskyan school was deemed ‘reactionary bourgeois pseudo-science’ and was repressed. For twenty years after Vygotsky’s death, it was forbidden to discuss, disseminate or reprint any of his writings.
In the mid 50s, the major works reappeared in print, and their translations in the 1960s led to worldwide interest in Vygotsky. The work of many modern-day educational theorists, including Jerome Bruner, owes much to his influence.
However, some works remained undiscovered for another twenty years, including the outstanding book, Pedagogical Psychology (1926), finally published in 1991. Though little known in the West, this work has had considerable impact on contemporary reform of Russian education.

He lived for only 38 years, but in his last decade (1924 – 1934), the Russian thinker Lev Vygotsky transformed the study of developmental psychology. His Cultural-Historical Theory caused an explosion of interest in Russia, and inspired much original research by other psychologists. Tragically, these innovative and inspirational ideas were immediately suppressed. In Stalinist Russia, suggestions for teaching children – indeed anyone – to think for themselves were not acceptable. For many years, Vygotsky’s works could be read only in a single central library in Moscow, by special permission of the secret police.
After Stalin’s death, however, Vygotsky was rediscovered by another generation of psychologists and teachers. When his work was translated in the 1 960s, the depth and scope of his educational vision dazzled academics around the world. American scientist Stephen Toulmin called him ‘the Mozart of psychology’ and Jerome Bruner wrote that “Vygotsky’s Theory of Development is at the same time the Theory of Education”.

For teachers, Vygotsky provides a theoretical underpinning for effective practice. He identifies the key elements in successful teaching, learning and development – so that one says to oneself, “Ah, that’s why I’m doing it! That’s what’s happening inside the child’s head!”
Cultural tools and the development of higher mental functions
Vygotsky believed that true education is not the mere learning of specific knowledge and skills. It is the development of children’s learning abilities – that is, their capacity to think clearly and creatively, plan and implement their plans, and communicate their understanding in a variety of ways. He believed this could be done by providing them with a set of ‘cultural tools’ for thinking and creating.
The key to human intelligence – the characteristic that makes us different from animals – is the ability to use various types of tools. Vygotsky claimed that, just as humans use material tools (such as knives and levers) to extend our physical abilities, we invented psychological tools to extend our mental abilities. These tools are the symbolic systems we use to communicate and analyse reality. They include signs, symbols, maps, plans, numbers, musical notation, charts, models, pictures and, above all, language.
Cultural tools are not inherited genetically. They are developed and preserved in our culture. Vygotsky believed that the purpose of education is to introduce children to the full range of cultural tools and, show how to use them to analyse reality quickly and successfully. Children can then look at the world, as Vygostkyan scholar Zaporozhets put it, through “the glasses of human culture.”
Using cultural tools, children develop new psychological qualities, which we call abilities. These are the mental habits people need to be successful in particular intellectual or creative fields. The better children’s grasp of the appropriate cultural tools, the greater their abilities in any field.
The development of abilities leads to a flowering of children’s personalities. They begin to plan and organize their own activities, openly express their point of view, provide non-standard solutions for problems, interact freely with other people and, most importantly, believe in themselves and their own abilities.
Thought and language
The main premise of Vygotsky’s most famous work is the interrelationship between thought and that most universal of cultural tools – language. He maintained that thought is ‘internalized language’.
When small children are playing, they often keep up a running commentary on what is happening: “And now the train’s going round the tower, and it’s banging in to the tower, and – oh no – the tower’s toppling down…”. Vygotsky calls this an external monologue. As time goes on, the external monologue is internalized as thought. (When dealing with a challenging situation, children and adults often find it helps to externalize their thoughts again: they begin ‘thinking aloud’ to clarify what they are doing or trying to understand.)
The speech structures mastered by children therefore become the basic structures of their thinking. This means that the development of thought is to a great extent determined by the linguistic ability of the child. This in turn is dependent upon the child’s socio-cultural experience – so one of the most important functions of education is to facilitate the development of rich, effective spoken language.
The Zone of Proximal Development
One widely used term from Vygotsky’s writing is ‘the zone of proximal development’ (ZPD). As contemporary Vygotskyan scholar, Nickolai Veraksa says, the ZPD as “the place where the child and adult meet.”
Vygotsky believed that the role of the teacher in education is crucial. In developing children’s abilities, teachers can guide them towards performing actions or tasks which are just beyond their current capacity. With such guidance, children can perform beyond their own ability – within certain limits. Vygotsky defined these limits as the zone of proximal development, which he described as the “difference between the level of solved tasks that can be performed with adult guidance and help, and the level of independently solved tasks”. The most effective teaching is aimed at the higher level of the child’s ZPD, the edge of challenge.
The ZPD defines the higher mental functions in a learner that are in the process of maturation, functions that will mature tomorrow but are currently in an embryonic state. They are the ‘buds’ or ‘flowers’ of development, rather than the ‘fruits’. Vygotsky maintained that conventional measures of educational achievement (for instance, test scores) characterize mental development retrospectively, while the ZPD characterizes mental development prospectively.
The Vygotskyan philosopher Mamardashvili summed it up: “The human being is a possibility.”
The role of play in mental development
In his last lecture, Play and the Psychological Development of the Child, Vygotsky emphasized the importance of play during the early years: “Play also creates the zone of proximal development of the child. In play, the child is always behaving beyond his age, above his usual everyday behaviour; in play he is, as it were, a head above himself. Play contains in a concentrated form, as in the focus of a magnifying glass, all developmental tendencies; it is as if the child tries to jump above his usual level. The relationship of play to development should be compared to the relationship between instruction and development.”
In play, children are involved in an imaginary situation, with explicit roles and implicit rules. For instance, when playing ‘families’ they take on clearly understood roles and their actions are determined by those roles. This leads to a greater degree of self-regulation, the children’s actions being determined by the rules of the game. When involved in play, children’s concentration and application to the task are much greater than in academically-directed activities contrived by the teacher. After Vygotsky’s death, Leontiev crystallized Vygotskyan thinking: “Western

researchers are constantly seeking to discover how the child came to be what he is. We in Russia are striving to discover not how the child came to be what he is, but how he can become what he not yet is.”
Vygotsky in his own words:
Education must be orientated not towards the yesterday of a child’s development, but towards its tomorrow.
It is through others that we become ourselves.
What a child can do in cooperation today he can do alone tomorrow. Therefore the only good kind of instruction is that which marches ahead of development, and leads it.
A child’s greatest achievements are possible in play, achievements that will tomorrow become his basic level of real action and morality. It is the essence of play that a new relation is created… between situations in thought and real situations.



DIPETIK DARI: Galina Dolya and Sue Palmer (TES Primary Forum, 2004)

Galina Dolya is a researcher at the Russian Academy of Education and co-author (with Professor Nickolai Veraksa) of the Key to Learning developmental cognitive curriculum for early years.
Sue Palmer is an independent writer and teacher.
© Galina Dolya and Sue Palmer, 2003


Read More...