Hello, Eva, Gordon, Rolfe, Dewey, Judy, Ellice, and other xmca-ers--
1. Gordon, thank you for detail summarizing of your paper (Linguistics =
and Education, 5 (1993)) that I did not read but remember from Madrid I =
Sociocultural conference. Your message clarified for me a lot. If I =
understood it correctly you argue that the IRF micro-discursive analysis =
does not culture sufficiently the nature of guidance. This was exactly =
my point. For now I try to entertain the notion of "philosophy of =
practice" as unit of analysis of guidance and practice in general.
You can successfully ban IRF/IRE or any other discursive form from the =
classroom but you can't ban unilateral guidance (or "adult-run" =
philosophy of teaching) from the classroom because the act of banning =
belongs to that unilateral philosophy of teaching.
What I call "philosophy of practice" is its spirit while discursive and =
other forms is its letter. Eva gives a nice example of this in her =
yesterday message,
>As for the "knowing the answer" of the questions in reading they seem =
to me
>to have again a function that is a bit different from the classroom =
where
>the teacher does some kind of sampling of who possesses which piece of
>knowledge. To my understanding it is very characteristic of family =
reading
>that parents read (children demand) the same books over and over. So
>everybody basically knows everything, and knows that the others know... =
I
>think the questioning also has a phatic or "community building" =
function of
>pulling everybody in to contribute... Questions/ /Initiations may be
>"invitations". Hmmm... interesting... how closely "cognitive testing"
>(mutual) is linked to the building of closeness here. Knowledge as =
bonding,
>huh...
Eva is right that the "knowing the answer" form of discourse does not =
necessarily captures a philosophy of practice of a unilateral guidance. =
This type of discourse can be used in different philosophies of =
practice, as Eva nicely illustrates. One thing is important to consider =
to define a philosophy of teaching is a shared space of participants' =
interests -- what are participants after in the activity. For example, =
let's consider another Eva's example,
>AL: Are we going to read?
>E: Sure: "Teodor the Teddybear had become old.
> He had lost an eye and an ear.
> And Mother has thrown him in the wastebin"=3D
>AL: =3DYes! //Mo-
>E: //"because she doesn't want any broken toys around."
>AL: Noo! We don't either! When our toys break
> then we'll throw them away ar- arSELVES!
> We too are going to throw them away.
>E: Yes. Although if they're just a little broken,
> then we usually keep them.
> Cause you can play with them quite well anyway.
>AL: Yes...
>E: (goes on reading)
My interpretation is that the child (AL) sets the agenda of comparing a =
book story with their home traditions. The mother (E) picks up this =
agenda to elaborate their home rules/norms about broken toys. Of =
course, we don't know much about "hidden agendas" that can be =
communicated by Al and E. A "face value" shared space of participants' =
interests seems to be rules/norms about broken toys but testing =
student's knowledge to insure teacher's guidance.
Rolfe wrote,
>I find the notion of educational "philosophy" useful in my own teaching =
and
>research in any case, although metaphysics might be closer -- more
>expansive than epistemology anyway since it's more than what one knows; =
it's
>somehow the way the world works, what surprises, does not surprise, or =
is
>even recognized as extant.=20
I think it is nice description of "shared space of participants' =
interests." Interests might not be shared but the joint activity =
creates a space for coordination of interests. In a philosophy of =
unilateral guidance in a traditional classroom, a shared space of =
interests often involves testing students' knowledge against teacher's =
expectations and student's guessing what teacher's expects from him/her. =
An alternative philosophy of guidance was nicely expressed by Dewey, who =
wrote,
>I've found it essential to understand the _students'_ understanding of =
the world. >This is different than knowing what of the "adult world" =
the students do not >"know." If our goal is to assist the students to =
_understand_ then it is _their_ >understanding which must be the center =
of both their and our attention and >which must be the 'manipulated' =
entity. I have quit trying to focus on _our_ >understanding which we =
must give them or which they must get somehow >because this is the =
prevailing approach which has had such disappointing >results.
I believe that Dewey's philosophy of guidance can be realized with or =
without using IRE/IRF.
I agree with Eva that
> Thinking vaguely of the "No bedtime
> story..." by S.B. Heath I wonder if children do not just come to =
school
> differently prepared for IRE or not IRE, but also for more or less =
rigid/
> /flexible versions of the IRE -- could it even be offensive to some =
kids
> letting learners usurp the position of initiating?
Yes, indeed. My reading Susan Philips (1983) "The invisible culture: =
Communication in classroom and community on the Warm Springs Indian =
reservation" makes me think that children from some culture may not feel =
comfortable to participate in IRF/IRE at least initially.
2. Judy wrote,
>However, I would not agree that the follow up move in the=20
>example she cited above (from Eugene's message)=20
>>"We can do it by kitchen, by color..." (Initiation)
>>The third grader interrupted him, "...by size, by material..." =
(Response)
>>The fourth grader ended, "yeah, we can do it in many ways.
>>Let's try to find all of them!" (Evaluation)
>is in any way "classical." In Eugene's example, in the final, bringing
>together/ extending move, the fourth grader utilized=20
>the 3rd grader's contribution _"to guide the task definition."_ =20
>This seems very different to me from Gordon's example, where "the =
teacher
>employs the triadic dialogue genre to help Emily and her friends =
evisage=20
>the problems to be solved in their experiment and the conditions that =
will=20
>have to be met in order to make their experiment 'a fair test.'" The =
teacher
> here knows what counts as a "fair test" and the IRF serves the =
students'
> acquisition of this knowledge. It is certainly not a "traditional
>transmissionary philosophy of practice" but perhaps a _progressive_
>transmissionary practice - one that carries on a particular tradition=20
>of inquiry while inviting newcomers' contributions to it.=20
>Back to Eugene's example, the fourth grader, by authorizing _a goal_
>that incorporates the younger student's ideas, is potentially =
unsettling
> the definition of what the classroom lesson is about. I don't know if
> Eugene would agree that the example he gave has the radical potential
>I've ascribed to it, but the issue does seem to be, whose hands are on
>the helm? - a point that seques into issues from the adjacent =
discussions on
>power, classroom structure and classroom carnival.
Judy, you are absolutely right that my intent was to bring =
"non-classical" IRE/IRF to the people's attention. What was going in my =
example is goal negotiation among the children with forth grader guiding =
the third grader through this negotiation. I, as a researcher and =
designer of the task, had not foreseen kids' definition of the task. I =
agree that this example seems to be different from ones that Gordon =
brought (at least those I've read of) because it goes beyond kids' =
creative solving of the adult's problem but instead it involves =
redefining the inquiry itself. Ellice's examples in 1993 (being written =
in draft form) actually inspired me and my collaborators Barbara Rogoff =
and Nancy Bell to the study, example from which I presented. I agree =
with Ellice that in the goal development process it is often difficult =
to judge who is responsible for emerging goal even if one participant =
assumes more responsibility for guidance.=20
3. Judy also wrote,
>Several different philosophies
>of practice have been introduced in the recent strands of XMCA =
discussion.
>At one level, they all can be thrown into two different bins:=20
>1. Education as service to students (the _next_ generation).=20
>The educational project might be to empower students academically,
> in the acquisition of cultural capital via the school, or it might=20
>be to empower students in some broader sense, in the acquisition of=20
>resources to reproduce/resist/remake culture on their own terms=20
>2. Education as service to a profession, a field of practice.=20
>The educational project would be to specify the field to newcomers=20
>so that they can participate and the field can flourish. =20
>I'm wondering if these approaches are always separable, if they=20
>don't overlap, intersect, in actual practice, at least at the
>university level. I'm wondering what XMCA participants' classroom=20
>practice looks like.
I'm not sure that education is a service or at least "service" part of =
education is the primary function of education. I would call dad's =
reading a book to his son as a "service." Although I would not claim =
that I understand my self what I "really" like as educational philosophy =
(no more capable of doing it!), but so far formula of "sharing =
interests" (in terms of being involved in each other interests) sounds =
reasonable for me so far. Dewey (see above) provided elaborate =
description of this philosophy.
Happy Western :-) New Year,
Eugene Matusov
UC Santa Cruz