Eugene Matusov wrote:
> My take on your example is that the quality of teaching (from whatever
> values) is not solely defined by teacher's actions but by what happens
> between the teacher and the students. That is why I think it doesn't matter
> what pedagogical tools the teacher uses but whether learning collaboration
> between the teacher and the students occurs.
>
> What do you think?
>
I agree that the basis for teaching/learning is the collaboration between
teacher and the students. However, that doesn't explain details. For instance, I
think that there was a great attempt to establish collaboration with the
students by the substitute teacher who came with his wire models and new
teaching methodology. But he did not succeed with many students. Yet in any
other way - as a person, as a "good guy", as somebody "on our side", he did
succeed.
Collaboration is a multilevel process. Like communication. There is more than
one focus and more than one agenda. And of course, you have to establish a
common view and understanding of what is the topic, in order to move with it
anywhere.
This is also partly in response to Naoki who said:
"For example, I think that "structuring tasks" is always a reciprocal
activity. So, it is possible to say that "adult's structuring task" is
structured by a child's actions. That is really interactionist view."
I look at interaction (and more specifically collaboration) as a series of moves
by all the parties in which some moves are directed toward establishing a common
understanding of whatever is in the focus, and other moves are intended to add
or change this common understanding by highlighting previously unknown (unseen)
aspects, or by making new relationships between the "topic" (phenomenon in the
focus) and other things. But the crucial is that the communication has to always
reestablish some common views and always at a new "level" (or new point etc.).
In other words, for a good collaboration, one has to make sure that all the
participants have a good view of everyone's "cards" (so to speak). Interactions
are almost never as smooth as we tend to imagine in making our theories. There
are all kinds of misunderstandings which sometimes break the interaction and
sometimes, may stay hidden! For instance - in my previous example: our first
teacher (who taught the set of practical steps) may have thought that she was
teaching us understanding of space relationships, but with her method and with
the obtained surface results she could never find out if anyone had or had not
understood space concepts. However, and on the other hand, if her goal was to
teach students how to perform to get good grades, that certainly was the same
goal the students had - and therefore the collaboration was successful. The
problem is that from the interactionist point of view, one cannot explain
presence or absence of "theoretical" or "conceptual" knowledge. So to speak,
interaction has to become a collaboration, but the goal of that collaboration
may and does differ. And establishing a common goal may take a longer time than
just establishing collaboration. This is clear when one looks at the method of
the other teacher (the one with wires): his goal was to tech students to
understand space, but the students' goal was to get a good grade with the least
possible effort. His task, in fact should have been to bring the students into a
position to agree that once you understand space relations it will be much
easier to solve the problems then, as they were doing, to memorize a long list
of unrelated and mysterious procedures. This task in itself is very difficult
because you effectively have to collaborate while deconstructing a whole set of
students' assumptions, expectations and habits before you can even begin to
build a new collaborative task.
I have mentioned a lot of things here. Or just hinted at them. But my main point
is that learning cannot be completely explained just by good collaboration. This
is more sort of a medium for learning. What is learned is never exactly the same
as what is taught - but it will be to some extent defined by what is really the
common goal of the interaction. If the teacher's goal is to see that the
students can construct concepts, can think critically, can ask questions without
fears of being judged as ignorant, that will open up different possibilities,
then if the teacher's goal is to make students perform well on tests. However,
both students and the teacher (and also of course the whole educational system)
have to agree on what is the goal in the first place. And if it is their common
goal to get good grades on tests, then they will collaborate successfully even
without anyone having to learn "conceptual" or "theoretical" stuff. Those would
be sort of by-products if they sporadically appear.
(This for some reason reminds me of Yrjo's and Eugene's notions about conflicts
and disagreements in the process of development.)
Ana
-- ________________________________________________________________________ Dr. Ana Marjanovic-Shane151 W. Tulpehocken St. City of Philadelphia Philadelphia, PA 19144 OMH/MR - Research & Information (215) 843-2909 [voice] 1101 Market St. 7th Floor (215) 843-2288 [fax] Philadelphia, PA 19107 (215) 685-4767 [v] (215) 685-5581 [fax] ________________________________________________________________________ pshane who-is-at andromeda.rutgers.edu anchi who-is-at geocities.com http://www.geocities.com/~anchi/ ----------------------------------------------------------- The 7th International Kurt Lewin Conference on the Web http://www.geocities.com/~anchi/confprg1.html SAFT Newsletter on the web http://www.geocities.com/~anchi/SAFT/index.html _________________________________________________________________________