[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Xmca-l] Re: In defense of Vygotsky [[The fallacy of word-meaning]
- To: <email@example.com>, "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: In defense of Vygotsky [[The fallacy of word-meaning]
- From: Ed Wall <email@example.com>
- Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2014 22:41:23 -0500
- In-reply-to: <544DB590.firstname.lastname@example.org>
- List-archive: <https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l>
- List-help: <mailto:email@example.com?subject=help>
- List-id: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l.mailman.ucsd.edu>
- List-post: <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>
- List-subscribe: <https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca-l>, <mailto:email@example.com?subject=subscribe>
- List-unsubscribe: <https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca-l>, <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=unsubscribe>
- References: <email@example.com> <54489B05.firstname.lastname@example.org> <8EF148FA-21A2-4C87-A365-458C24F79107@manchester.ac.uk> <CAGVMwbVGLGWLrjedY4aDZRr0KnhAxHL01_aAkXdjcwt8u7obdQ@mail.gmail.com> <5448B630.email@example.com> <CAGVMwbUHSd2+HtbRuSaMMu1imvLOkx9vxbmph6nr_anNCUovyQ@mail.gmail.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <49BC6E1396C8F94B92715533ED4D20DC1DAE749B@MBXP03.ds.man.ac.uk> <544911FA.email@example.com>, <firstname.lastname@example.org> <C5E992C0-FEFD-4E41-8730-965752C16996@manchester.ac.uk> <54496BA0.email@example.com> <803A57FD-ED25-490E-847E-71B4E2490A63@umich.edu> <5449BC4B.firstname.lastname@example.org> <15A0050C-24E2-4D3D-A4BD-7C8FBE47F907@umich.edu> <5449F0B6.email@example.com>, <6073CDA7-B612-4CC2-AB79-312CE63F78BB@umich.edu> <firstname.lastname@example.org>, <700B31E6-4D18-43A1-8357-47B8EAF5D08F@umich.edu> <email@example.com> <66AA7EEB-1F34-485D-9227-5F8EB31A56F8@umich.edu> <544DB590.firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Reply-to: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <email@example.com>
- Sender: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Basically you got it Andy although I thought it was problematic because all the students and the teacher didn't engage in discussion so as to share misconceptions and insights.
On Oct 26, 2014, at 10:01 PM, Andy Blunden wrote:
> I'll have a go at your puzzle, Ed.
> You didn't like the lesson because the two parts (1. a lecture on maths, 2. the students talking to each other) did not contain any interaction between student and teacher over the text and the students' interpretations of it. Probably 1. the students didn't understand the lecture and then 2. reinforced each others' misconceptions. Or, he was lecturing them on something they all already understood, but he never knew.
> *Andy Blunden*
> Ed Wall wrote:
>> A number of years ago I was asked to view an 'exemplarily' mathematics class for pre-service teachers taught by a mathematician (he had received a grant to design this special class). He began the class by clearly and succinctly introducing the mathematics problem(s) to be considered and when all seemed to have a good idea what was to be done, the pre-service teachers - about five or six to a table - began talking and working. Students definitely seemed engaged, there was a lot of good discussion, and I think the teacher walked around a bit making comments and asking questions. The class ended and he asked me what I thought. I told him nicely it was among one of the worst taught classes I had ever seen (I did tell him why). Why do you think I said that? Student turns were certainly in the 90s.