RE: Are kids naturally good with computers?

From: Eugene Matusov (ematusov@udel.edu)
Date: Tue Nov 11 2003 - 01:26:57 PST


Dear Andy and everybody–

Andy asked me,
> Could you bring out the distinction between
> "practices/activity" and "instructional strategy"?

Let me try and I hope other people will join to help. I'll tell my
observations from my in afterschool program at the Latin American Community
Center. I was more than an observer but it does not much matter...

Case1 (several years ago). A computer instructor tried to teach a sixth
grade African American boy how to use formatting functions of the Microsoft
Word program. He used a direct instruction for about 20 minutes with the
boy: lecturing, demonstrating, ERFs, and scaffolding. The boy made jokes,
tried to talk with other kids in the computer room, and was not very
attentive. The instructor was obviously angry with the boy but tried to
cover up this emotion. The instructor finished his guidance after the boy
was able to do several simply actions of formatting. He turned and moved
away from the boy when the boy threw a piece of uneaten apple that was on
the desk. All kids around laughed. The instructor got mad (almost literally)
running around the computer lab and asking who did that.... (I pretended
that I did not see the episode because by that time I was ready to kill the
instructor myself but it was another story).

Case 2 (several weeks ago). A volunteering adult tried to teach a Latino
seventh grade boy how to add music to videos using Pinnacle 8 video editing
software. The adult also used a direct instruction for about 20 minutes with
the boy: lecturing, demonstrating, ERFs, and scaffolding. The boy was very
attentive, asked questions time to time. Both of them were highly engaged.
At some point, the boy asked the volunteer if he wanted to drink. The
volunteer said yes, the boy ran away and brought soda to him – leftover from
LACC celebration another day. A few other LACC boys came to observe what the
volunteer and boy were doing and asked the adult to help them to do videos
as well...

For the instructional point of view, both adults provide the same guidance:
direct instruction using the same instructional elements. However, the
result was very different. It is possible to argue that the difference was
in culture of the kids: Latino kids are more respectful while African
American kids are more independent. Except... this explanation did not work
in these cases. The Latino boy had several suspensions from school by that
time and had a rather negative reputation at LACC as being very unreliable
and irresponsible, goofy child. The African American boy was at very good
stand both in school and at the LACC.

 It makes much more sense to look how activities were organized in both
cases. In case 1, the instructor taught Word's functions because he was
hired to do so by LACC and had the rigidly planned teaching curricula
projected on the calendar. He started preparation to his lesson by switching
off all the computers at once (so all games that the kids were playing prior
disappeared from the screens of their computers). He did not allow kids to
play during the lesson but instead they all had to learn the Word functions.
Adversary relations with the kids and their organized resistance and
solidarity were both the historical and dynamic contexts of his guidance.

In case 2, the Latino boy came to the adult asked the adult to teach him how
to add rap music to his video. Despite warning from some LACC officers, the
volunteer trusted the boy an expensive digital video camera to make his own
video – the activity considered to be cool at the LACC among the children.
The boy made a very provocative, critical video about local community and,
by doing that, he put himself into trouble with some LACC officers who
expected the trouble. However, after the adult volunteer learned what
exactly video the boy made was about, he convinced the LACC officers that
their concerns were not grounded. The volunteer discussed with the boy what
kind of video he wanted to make after which the boy asked the adult
volunteer to show how add music. Trusting and collaborative relations
between the boy and the volunteer made direct instruction quite successful.

Yrjö would probably draw his famous triangles to demonstrate how these two
activity systems in the Case 1 and 2 were different, producing different
contradictions. This can be helpful. What is not helpful, in my view, is to
analyze elements of instruction (as traditional teacher education does) or
assign different types of instruction to different cultures (as Lisa Delpit
seems to do).

What do you think?

Eugene

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andy Blunden [mailto:ablunden@mira.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2003 1:03 AM
> To: ematusov@UDel.Edu
> Subject: RE: Are kids naturally good with computers?
>
> That sounds good Eugene. Could you bring out the distinction between
> "practices/activity" and "instructional strategy"?
> Andy
> At 12:58 AM 11/11/2003 -0500, you wrote:
> >Dear Philip and everybody-
> >
> >Like David, I think "we should look at practices/activity" rather on
> >instructional strategies. I think that it is always possible to imagine
(or
> >find) activity contexts in which direct instruction, Distar, scripted
> >behaviorist instruction are useful and other contexts in which whole
> >language instruction is not useful (let me know and I can give such
> >examples). I disagree with Lisa Delpit not so much because she is against
> >using a whole language approach for African American low-income kids but
> >because her analysis is often not contextual, not relational, and not
> >activity/practice-based. Her approach seems to me too cultural
determinism
> >and essentialism.
> >
> >What do you think?
> >
> >Eugene
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: White, Phillip [mailto:Phillip.White@cudenver.edu]
> > > Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2003 10:22 PM
> > > To: ematusov@UDel.Edu; xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > > Cc: PIG
> > > Subject: RE: Are kids naturally good with computers?
> > >
> > > Eugene wrote:
> > >
> > > LACC kids told me that many of them have very
> > > little access to computers in their schools but when they have access
it
> >is
> > > very low quality access described nicely in Mike's old but
unfortunately
> > > still relevant article:
> > >
> > > Cole, M. & LCHC (1989). Kids and computers: A positive vision of the
> >future.
> > > Harvard Educational Review, 59, 73-86.
> > >
> > > In many schools with low income kids, computers often replace
worksheets
> >(or
> > > workshits?? - pardon my French :-)/dittos to do drills or other
> > > decontextualized activities using a "bottom-up" approach described in
> >Mike's
> > > paper. Meanwhile in many schools with middle and upper income kids,
> > > computers are often used to promote creativity and higher level
skills...
> > >
> > > What do you think?
> > >
> > > this play out across the academic board - bad metaphor - but,
there
> >is a deep believe
> > > amongst many educators - and in a sense Lisa Delpit valorized this -
> >writing that Black
> > > american students need direct instruction of skills rather than
> >touchy-feely whole language
> > > - her example of a reading program to use, Distar, is a scripted,
> >behaviorist, phonics/skills
> > > based instructional program.
> > >
> > > it is terribly complex - all these people/researchers/academics
telling
> >teachers what they
> > > should be doing.
> > >
> > > phillip
> > >
> > > phillip white
> > > university of colorado at denver
> > > school of education



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Dec 01 2003 - 01:00:11 PST