Following Eugene Matusov's AERA paper on Tuesday morning, there was some
discussion about differences of focus which I have continued to think
about. The metaphor that occurred to me (based on actually making
classroom obsservations) was of a video camera with a very versatile zoom
lens.
Imagine a classroom in which groups of students are working
collaboratively on different tasks under an umbrella theme, using a
variety of artifacts and practices, including texts and talk. The teacher
is moving from group to group, observing and contributing when this seems
appropriate. A camera mounted high on one wall can, through manipulation
of the zoom lens, focus on the whole class, a group, or any individual
participant. Different focuses yield different perspectives on the
nature of the learning through participation that is going on, ranging
from the transformation of the potential for participation of a single
individual to the emerging coconstructed understanding of the theme in
the class as a whole.
Of course, the picture needs to be further complicated. The classroom is
located in a school, which is itself located both in a local community of
families and in the jurisdiction of a school district; and both form part
of the complex political, economic, moral, etc. web that constitutes the
culture. It would take a quite exceptional video camera to handle
this range of depth of focus, but, metaphorically, it is possible.
However, there is a further complication. Each participant in the
classroom brings to the current activity the potential for participation
that he or she has transformatively appropriated through engagement in
other activities - both similar and different - with other co-participants,
both inside and outside the classroom. And this, of course, goes for the
teacher as well as the students; also for the parents, the district
superintendant of curriculum, the politician, etc.
This recognition highlights the further dimension of change over
time on different scales. Each depth of focus - on artifacts as
well as on human participants, and on groups as well as on individuals -
has an associated historical trajectory. These, too - at least
metaphorically - are also captured by the video camera.
The point of this zoom lens metaphor - for me - is this. It emphasizes
that, while the perspectives afforded by different settings of the lens
seem to be rather different and to require different modes of explanation,
they are all equally and simultaneously valid. What is more, they are _all_
necessary if we are to construct satisfactory answers to the questions
we ask about learning through participation. The metaphor also raises
interesting questions about who chooses what to focus the camera on, at
what depth of focus, and on what time scale.
Does anyone have one of these cameras? I could really make use of it for
my next classroom observation.
Gordon Wells, gwells who-is-at oise.on.ca
Department of Curriculum and
Joint Centre for Teacher Development, Tel: (416) 923-6641 x2634
Ontario Institute for Studies in Education,
252 Bloor St. W., FAX: (416) 926-4744
Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 1V6.