It is interesting how we frame our pressing questions based on our
personal experience. In my experience as a teacher, I see an educational
practice which emphasizes not observables like speaking in class,
but what I like to think of as the "empty cup" metaphor of learning.
The students are all empty cups who sit passively in their seats
while I "pour" knowledge into them through the monologue of my
lecture. This knowledge is a "thing" or a "commodity" that the students
have "paid" for, and they are "consumers" who are "getting their money's
worth" only if I give a lengthy and interesting lecture (i.e., a "thing"
that's worth the money they've spent). Mental engagement? Well, yes,
that is definitely my ideal--but how do I communicate this to students
who seem unacquainted with this as a classroom goal? The only way I
know how to do this is to structure small groups where the emphasis is
on discussion. Obviously, not all students are extraverts, and some
students will choose to be silently engaged, but I hope to somehow
demonstrate that mental engagement is the goal. Whether the students
who speak aloud gain more from the experience than those who don't,
I cannot say, but this is the only way that I know to short-circuit
the passivity of the lecture as I know it, and to encourage true mental
engagement. Perhaps this is fond wishing on my part--or perhaps this
is what works best for me and my particular personality and teaching
style.
Now, back to my confusion about Vugotsky: as I understand it, the zone of
proximal development is a more social idea than the concept of cognitive
readiness a la Piaget. And yet, here I am being told that learning is
generated by the learner, and teachers may or may not be able to
structure things in such a way as to facilitate learning. I am trying
to reconcile these notions with the very social concept of the zone of
proximal development. What am I not understanding here?
Robin