Thanks Ann, Mike, Jay, et al.
I'm very interested in this conversation. Let me try to counterpose the
problematic a bit. What we've been talking about is a mismatch between
domains of knowledge: what I'm thinking about and experiencing is one
domain of knowledge; what I have accessible to my introspection about my
thinking and experiencing is another domain of knowledge. The 2nd is not a
veridical representation of the 1st--it's its own cognitive practice.
From a pedagogical point of view, however, I would argue the mismatch is
being transposed to the psychological (intracranial) realm from the
social/cultural realm where it lives. The problematic is a pedagogical
problematic. As a teacher interested in students engaging with certain
ideas and experiences, I work to create a classroom microculture in which
those ideas and experiences can emerge and develop within the classroom
community. The real question is to what extent, and at what cost, can I
simultaneously create a classroom microculture in which the processes of
expressive reflection also can emerge.
Elsewhere I've argued that in the general scheme of pedagogical reform
enculturationist agendas tend to get "short-shrifted" (sorry to make up
terms as I go). We would consider it highly problematic, not to mention
eccentric, to attempt to teach two concepts together--say the physics
concept of momentum and the biological concept of mitosis. We would
recognize that each concepts needs a certain groundwork to become
established, and we'd inquire as to whether there would be coherent ways to
link these two concepts within a single instructional activity (assuming we
decided we wanted to). But in the case of enculturational objectives, we
tend to assume everything can fit into the tent.
In the case of addressing cognitive and metacognitive enculturational
agendas, we're probably not treading into the kind of eccentric ambitions
discussed above. But the fact still remains that cognitive communities and
metacognitive communities are not self-same. We need to work in order to
create a classroom microculture that coherently supports both. Otherwise we
will find ourselves making reflective demands of our students that are not
coherent with the microculture we have created to engage them cognitively.
The reflective demands will seem irrelevant or artificial. The fact that
Mike with his talent and experience can demonstrate ways to make these
agendas work together doesn't negate the fact that a complicated
enculturationist problem of pedagogy has been solved. I think what Ann is
bothered by (surely, what I am bothered by) is the assumption that somehow
these are supposed to work together "naturally."
David Kirshner
mcole@weber.ucsd.
edu To: feldman@uic.edu
cc: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu, (bcc: David H
07/15/2004 02:32 Kirshner/dkirsh/LSU)
PM Subject: RE: reflective writing
Please respond to
xmca
Ann-- and Jay-- and
I cannot integrate Jay's comments here, perhaps
because they seem to have preceeded what I wrote last
time. And I am concerned about not making the notes
too long. So I am going to pick out one fragment of
what you responded and respond to that because I
think its important and I might have something useful
to say:
I want to dig deeper into what we mean when we say,
as you did, "We encourage students to reflect both on
the connection between their academic reading . . . .
and their experiences at the site. . ." Here's my
question:
Doesn't the very nature of embedded participation
belie the ability to reflect on it in any veridical
sense? Isn't the reflection always a construction?
And if so, what difference does it make for how we
ask
students to reflect?
We work so hard to design educational contexts in
which students can learn in a rich context of lived
participation and come to understand that what
may have been characterized narrowly as individual
development is now seen as part of a complex scene.
--------------
What caught my attention first, was the notion of
"reflect in a veridical sense." I am not sure I would
know what that means but have been thinking about it.
Here is what I observe (I can dig an example out and
send it to your or post it on xmca if there is
interest).
Students have been writing notes since their first
experience at the site. They are asked at the end of
the quarter to read them sequentially and summarize
what patterns of change they see in themselves on the
basis of what they read. What comes out about 80% of
the time is a narrative. The early notes indicate
uncertainty, anxiety, confusion" "Why didn't Cole
tell us what we were getting in to?" Then they see a
change in their own understanding, a new way of being
with kids, evidence of their own childhood coming out
in the interactions, a new orientation to fellow
students, a new orientation to their roles. At the
same time, the affective character of the notes
changes and the student narratives pick up on this
with a sense of some wonderment. Many, at the end,
are still uncertain of exactly what all of this was
about, but they belive (and the evidence of their
notes backs them up) that they have undergone a big
change along
several dimensions.
I think this is a form of reflective writing, but I
am not sure that I have pulled them so out of the
context that authentic connection to the experience
is lost.
There is also a reflection section in each day's
notes. This is a different matter. It is still based
on their own narratives and this aspect of their
writing seems to change more slowly. But one trend is
interesting vis a vis the theory-practice aspect of
the course. They are most likely to bring theoretical
concepts into their daily note in the reflection
section and only later, and often, only if they take
a second quarter of the practicum, do theoretical
concepts move up to become descriptors. And when they
do, they often enter transformed in interesting ways.
For example, students create expressions like "I saw
(the undergraduate) Suzie "zopeding" with (two
children) Aaron and George.
Anyway, I think that reflection can become a regular
part of the practice of the course just as we seek to
provide opportunities for it among the kids in the
way we organize the rules of participation in the
local
idioculture, even if the specific kinds of reflection
are different.
I also find using a webboard where students see each
others' notes and can comment very helpful in this
regard. There is an authentic reason having to do
with the practices at the site-- students go twice a
week and can check on what kids have been doing with
others in their absence so that they key in more
effectively-- and they often make helpful comments on
others' notes or, even, say that the other notes
helped them to understand something new......
distributed reflection?
I hope this is not too far off track.
mike
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Nov 09 2004 - 11:42:59 PST