>>"We can do it by kitchen, by color..." (Initiation)
>>The third grader interrupted him, "...by size, by material..." (Response)
>>The fourth grader ended, "yeah, we can do it in many ways.
>>Let's try to find all of them!" (Evaluation)
is in any way "classical." In Eugene's example, in the final, bringing
together/ extending move, the fourth grader utilized
the 3rd grader's contribution _"to guide the task definition."_
This seems very different to me from Gordon's example, where "the teacher
employs the triadic dialogue genre to help Emily and her friends evisage
the problems to be solved in their experiment and the coni\ditions that will
have to be met in order to make their experiment 'a fair test.'" The teacher
here knows what counts as a "fair test" and the IRF serves the students'
acquisition of this knowledge. It is certainly not a "traditional
transmissionary philosophy of practice" but perhaps a _progressive_
transmissionary practice - one that carries on a particular tradition
of inquiry while inviting newcomers' contributions to it.
Back to Eugene's example, the fourth grader, by authorizing _a goal_
that incorporates the younger student's ideas, is potentially unsettling
the definition of what the classroom lesson is about. I don't know if
Eugene would agree that the example he gave has the radical potential
I've ascribed to it, but the issue does seem to be, whose hands are on
the helm? - a point that seques into issues from the adjacent discussions on
power, classroom structure and classroom carnival.
Looking for ward to Gordon's paper of different functions of the F move
& the (1996) articles Eugene cited re: philosophy of teaching and learning.
More later.
- Judy
Judy Diamondstone
diamonju who-is-at rci.rutgers.edu
Rutgers University