Conceptual Change and Developmental Teaching: Comment on Gennen

Abstract

I am happy to provide a commentary on Thomas Gennen’s article (this issue) on the relation between conceptual change research and developmental teaching (DT), the latter referring to what might be described as neo-Vygotskian approaches to educational problems largely instigated in Soviet-era Russian psychology and educational work. To begin, I very strongly resonate with the larger effort behind the work. It is too often the case that research traditions that might productively interact with each other are separated by assumed incompatibilities or mere disconnection of the relevant communities. While it is often difficult to bridge such differences, I feel that there are often cross-paradigm commonalities — or productive differences — that can move the whole field forward. Indeed, I spent several years with a group of educational researchers attempting to bridge “knowledge analysis” (which is the generic term for the work of my own research tradition, known as “knowledge in pieces” — KiP), and “interaction analysis,” which focuses on social interaction. The work resulted in a book (diSessa, et al., 2016) in which we not only explored sensible collaboration but also tried to establish good models of the processes and results of productive engagement. In my own research practice, I try hard to be aware of core ideas in different intellectual traditions, mainly to make use of their insights in my own work.The second sentence in the introduction for that book read, “…at some point, sometimes fractious debate between diverse communities with the same overarching goal …must be replaced by sensible interactions among perspectives and mutual accountability.” I was pleased to see the same phrase, “mutual accountability,” in Gennen’s article. I see Gennen as trying to instigate a similar social movement to connect DT and conceptual change research, without presuming a “fractious” relationship to start with.One of the attractive things I found in his article was a sensible and dispassionate review of the different theoretical strands in conceptual change work. I judge it to be largely fair and free from errors and bias. The world of conceptual change research is fractious and complex, so a sensible review is not a trivial accomplishment. Of course, being a participant in the disputes among points of view on conceptual change (not all “different perspectives” deserve bridging; some need contest and “settling”), I would write the review differently. But Gennen’s “fair and balanced” position is well-suited to his agenda.Aside from my general openness and advocacy of tradition-bridging agendas, I have a slightly special relationship with Vygotskian and neo-Vygotskian approaches. Not intending to evoke a cliché, some of my best friends are in those camps. In particular, I feel I have gotten good personal tutoring on productive, modern uses of those views, somewhat free of some afflictions, such as “the social viewpoint frees us from any obligation to analyze knowledge”; or even (in extreme cases), “sociocultural viewpoints forbid us from considering knowledge.”I feel an affiliation with some particular elements of DT that I find important and also essentially missing from other views of conceptual change – or, indeed, missing from education broadly. So, in essence, with respect to these elements, I feel DT and my own perspective are allies against many other theoretical positions that ignore or devalue these points. Here, to maintain a semblance of simplicity, I will focus on just one point, the idea of “germ cells.” According to Gennen (this issue), germ cells are a result of “delineating the most general and fundamental conceptual interrelation … out of which a series of objects, phenomena, or events are systematically derived and interconnected in a subject area or problem field.” Germ cells are particular parsings of the top-level, most general framing of the relevant intellectual field. According to Davydov, finding “the best,” most appr