When I was in the teaching credential program at San Francisco State, I often thought it was odd and even wrong that I was never asked to read the foundational writers of educational theory and child psychology. Students read about Dewey, and Piaget, and Vygotsky, yet we never read the authors themselves.
As I have have forayed into this area of literature since those days, I have discovered one reason why: it's hard to read such work. But surely it's worth the effort. Conversancy with primary sources gives the learner a sense of investment and proprietorship in subject matter.
Given these thoughts, I really don't understand why teaching credential students at State were not assigned Donaldson's slim and relatively accessible 'Children's Minds.' I read it collaboratively with my sister, and have gained considerable insight into the work I do with children
A developmental psychologist writing in the late 70s, Donaldson begins by decisively moving away from the behavioralist movement of preceding decades, and then addressing the challenge to Piaget being taken up by educational theorists of the time who were largely influenced by Lev Vygotsky's 'Mind in Society,' just translated into English nearly a half century after the Russian's death.
Donalson comes down squarely in the revisionist camp, with strong arguments that some Piagetian tasks are faulty as evidence as to what is possible with young children because of Piaget's own adult presumptions. The argument put forth by her and others like Jerome Bruner is that we must direct our attention not just to what children can learn but how and why they learn and understand.
In one example, she refers to Piaget's 'three mountain' task where children's difficulty in switching perspective (what you could see from the other side of the mountain) is used forensically to define the limits of a particular developmental stage. Donaldson cites a counter-task staged by Martin Hughes where the consideration of another viewpoint is framed in terms a child can relate to, the story of a 'naughty boy' who is hiding from the authority figure of a policeman. Children doing this task were more engaged and successful than they were with the 'three mountains.'
I liked the way Donaldson defines the type of language necessary for the type of mental representation required for such sophisticated thinking, what Piaget terms 'formal operational' and Bruner 'symbolic'--'disembedded' language. What a lovely concrete way to describe abstraction, and what a wonderful way to remind us to initially 'embed' the language we employ in teaching children, before we push them to 'disembed.'
Donaldson makes the point that by finding ways to make the tools for deep thinking--reading, reflecting and writing--available to all, we are threatening existing power structures and encroaching on the turf of a 'powerful, intellectual elite.' Although things have changed since the 1970s, this is a point that is, unfortunately, no less valid today.