Advertisement

The Double Move in Meaningful Teaching Revisited

  • Bert van OersEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Perspectives in Cultural-Historical Research book series (PCHR, volume 6)

Abstract

It can be argued that the appropriation of academic concepts provides students with powerful tools for understanding and improving their life conditions. Since the works of Davydov in the 1970s on the formation of scientific concepts in primary school children, studies on meaningful education debated how academically approved subject matter knowledge can be meaningfully integrated into primary school pupils’ learning. However, Davydov’s solution of going from the abstract to the concrete is disputable. Hedegaard (The qualitative analysis of the development of theoretical knowledge and thinking. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 293–325, 1995), Hedegaard (Learning and child development. Aarhus University Press, Aarhus, 2002) adjusted Davydov’s approach into a dialectic move from the general to the situation specific. This is now known as the ‘double move’. The reconciliation of a pupil’s personal notions and motives with academic concepts is, however, still an issue of struggle between researchers, teachers, teacher educators and curriculum developers. Recent re-conceptualisations of the notions of ‘the abstract’, ‘the concrete’ and the position of subject matter knowledge yield a revision of the double move. On the basis of our implementation of ‘Developmental education’ in primary schools, this article promotes the double move as a dialogic movement between meaning positions of novices and experts, prompting the recontextualisation of available knowledge and skills.

Keywords

Double move Abstracting Germ cell Generalisation Dialogue 

References

  1. Bakhtin, M. (1981). The dialogic imagination. Four essyas. (edited by M Holquist). Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bruner, J. S. (1972). Nature and uses of immaturity. In: J. S. Bruner, A. Jolly, & K. Sylva (Eds.), Play. Its role in development and evolution (pp. 28–64). Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
  3. Bruner, J. S. (1973). Going beyond the information given. In J. M. Anglin (ed), Jerome S. Bruner. Going beyond the information given (pp. 218–238). Toronto: McCleod.Google Scholar
  4. Carpay, J. A. M., & van Oers, B. (1993). Didaktičeskie modeli i problema obučajuščej diskus-sii [Didactic models and the problem of classroom discussions]. Voprosy Psichologii, 4, 20–26.Google Scholar
  5. Carpay, J. A. M. & van Oers, B. (1999). Didactic Models and the problem of intertex-tuality and polyphony. In: Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen, & R.-R. Pu-namäki (Eds.), Perspecti-ves on activity theory (pp. 298–313). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Davydov, (Dawydow), V. V. (1967). Beziehungen zwischen der Theorie der Verallgemeinerung und der Lehrplangestaltung. [Relationships between the theory of generalisation and curriculum development]. In: E. A. Budilova et al. (Ed.), Untersuchungen des Denkens in der Sowjetischen Psychologie (pp. 253–269). Berlin: Volk und Wissen.Google Scholar
  7. Davydov, V. V. (1972). Vidy obobščenie v obučenii [Types of generalisation in teaching]. Moscow: Pedagogika.Google Scholar
  8. Davydov, V. V. (1983). Historičeskie predposylki učebnoi dejatel’nosti [Historical preconditions for learning activity]. In V. V. Davydov (Ed.), Razvitie psichiki škol’nikov v processe učebnoj dejatel’nosti. Moscow: APN.Google Scholar
  9. Davydov, V. V. (1996). Teorija razvivajuščego obučenija [Theory of developmental education]. Moscow: INTOR.Google Scholar
  10. Falmange, R. J. (1995). The abstract and the concrete. In: L. Martin, K. Nelson & E. Tobach (Eds.), Sociocultural psychology. Theory and practice of doing and knowing (pp. 205–228). Cambridge (US): Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Fleer, M. (2010). Early learning and development., Cultural-Historical concepts in play Melbourne/New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Freudenthal, H. (1979). Structuur van de wiskunde en wiskundige structuren [The structure of mathematics and mathematical structures]. Pedagogische Studiën, 56, 17–25.Google Scholar
  13. Hedegaard, M. (1995). The qualitative analysis of the development of theoretical knowledge and thinking. In L. Martin, K. Nelson & E. Tobach (Eds.), Sociocultural psychology. Theory and practice of doing and knowin (pp. 293–325). Cambridge (US): Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Hedegaard, M. (1999). The influence of societal knowledge traditions on children’s thinking and conceptual development. In M. Hedegaard & J. Lompscher (Eds.), Learning activity and development (pp. 22–50). Aarhus: Aarhus University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Hedegaard, M. (2002). Learning and child development. A cultural-historical study. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Hedegaard, M. (2008). Children’s learning through participation in institutional practice. In B. van Oers, W. Wardekker, E. Elbers, & R. van der Veer (Eds.), The transformation of learning. Advances in Cultural-Historical Activity Theory (pp. 294–318). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Hedegaard, M., Chaiklin, S., & Pedraza, P. (2001). Culturally sensitive teaching within a Vygotskian perspective. In M. Hedegaard (ed.), Learning in classrooms. A cultural-historical approach (pp. 121–143). Aarhus: Aarhus University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Hedegaard, M., & Fleer, M. (2013). Play, leaning and Children’s development: everyday life in families and transition to school. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Il’enkov, E. V. (1960). Dialektika abstraktnogo i konkretnogo v ‘Kapitale’ Marksa. [Dialectic of the abstract and concrete in the Marx’ ‘Das Kapital’]. Moscow: Izd-vo Akademia Nauki.Google Scholar
  20. Il’enkov, E. V. (1964). Škola dolžna učit’ myslit’ [Schools should teach thinking]. Narodnoe obrazovanie, 1. (Appendix).Google Scholar
  21. van Oers, B. (1998). From context to contextualizing. Lear-ning and Instruction, 8(6), 473–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. van Oers, B. (2001). Contextualisation for abstraction. Cognitive Science Quarterly, 1(3/4), 279–306.Google Scholar
  23. van Oers, B. (2012a). Culture in play. In J. Valsiner (Ed.), The oxford handbook of culture and psychology (pp. 936–956). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  24. van Oers, B. (2012b). Meaningful cultural learning by imitative participation: the case of abstract thinking in primary school. Human Development, 55(3), 136–158.  https://doi.org/10.1159/000339293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. van Oers, B. (2013). Is it play? Towards a reconceptualisation of role-play from an activity theory perspective. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 21(2), 185–198.  https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2013.789199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. In The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard UP.Google Scholar
  27. Vygotsky, L. S. (1987a). Thinking and speech. In The collected works of Vygotsky, Vol. 1. Translated by N. Minick. New York Plenum.Google Scholar
  28. Vygotsky, L. S. (1987b). The problem of age. In The collected works of Vygotsky, Vol. 5, ch 6. Translated by N. Minick. New York Plenum.Google Scholar
  29. Wertsch, J. (1996). The role of abstract rationality in Vygotsky’s image of mind. In A. Tryphon & J. Vonèche (eds), Piaget- Vygotsky. The social genesis of thought. Hove (UK): Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  30. van Weelie, D. (2014). Recontextualiseren van het concept biodiversiteit [Recontextualising the concept of biodiversity]. Utrecht: Freudenthal Institute for Science and Mathematics Education. FIsme Scientific Library.Google Scholar
  31. Wierdsma, M. (2012). Recontextualising cellular respiration. Utrecht: Freudenthal Institute for Science and Mathematics Education. FIsme Scientific Library.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Free UniversityAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations