Thank you so much for your support.
I do not read your and Rogoff' s recent papers at all.
So, this is a good oppoutunity for me to learn from you and Rogoff.
Two question.
How you and Rogoff formulate the learning of the side of "adult", teacher",
"researcher" and "expert" who try to arrange the structure of tasks or
the activities?
Do "adult", "teacher" and "researcher" only arrange the structure
of tasks?
I think their knowing or doing is not static either.
Even for only structuring a task, arranging the setting, the side
of "adults" has to reorganize their way of knowing, and participating,
and artifacts.
In other words, knowing and doing of the side of "adults",
"experts" is not static and fixed at all althoughit is possible
to produce his/her knowing as if a static knowldge system or
model depending on interaction.
More generally, learning is not an individual's business.
It includes reorganiation of interaction, mutual constituting,
or activity system.
If so, scaffolding metaphor looks a static as a model for learning.
It does not have the view point of learning as interactional,
mutual accomplishment.
In other words, it seems to regard the "oldtimer" side as the static,
given something.
Second, how do you and Rogoff think about learning by expanding
or boundary crossing?
At least, scaffolding as metaphor makes me imagine instruction
within the wall of school.
For example, if you are given the obligation to structure a task
or to make a scaffold for students in school instruction, will you
be trapped in the practice of producing the static, fixed knowldge
system or model ?
Of course, although even such case can be regarded as a kind of
learning.
Naoki Ueno
NIER, Tokyo