[Xmca-l] Re: basic prerequisites for CHAT supervision?

[mike cole]

Your question is very difficult to answer, Huw, because it takes us to the
question of "education for what," and I strongly suspect that a lot of work
would have to be done to arrive at a coherent, finite, concensus.

I am on board myself with the impulses in 2-4, although their
interpretation, too, is likely to be variable.

I would be interested in the extent to which CRADLE already follows an
approach such as you are proposing. I have not read their documents
recently and do not know their pedagogical credo, but given Yrjo's
proclivity to view development as breaking away and creating the new, I
imagine some such processes are in that approach.
mike


On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 10:33 AM, Huw Lloyd <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com>
wrote:

> In consideration of a simple list of requirements for good supervision in
> CHAT, the following criteria seem important to me.  Has anyone else thought
> about this or tried to formulate it?  What would people amend?  Is there a
> shared sense of what is important?
>
> 1. Personal commitment to a "pedagogic oath".
> 2. Thoroughgoing appreciation of cultural-historical conceptions and their
> disparity from the norms of induction into social science, such as the more
> profound notion of qualitative research on the basis of dialectical and
> genetic considerations.
> 3. Interpersonal commitments informed by the intellectual knowledge, i.e. a
> practicing awareness of ZPD that informs the vocational commitment (item
> 1).
> 4. A present social situational disposition to engage in interested
> dialogue with the student that has substantive benefits for the supervisor
> too (i.e not merely administrative ones).
>
> Best,
> Huw
>