I greatly agree with Gordon who wrote,
>are ones that keep coming up in my classes with teachers. Ironically,
>the issue is usually raised after viewing a videotape, or looking at a
>transcript, of a lively school classroom discussion. Somebody remarks:
>"Yes, but what about those who didn't participate?", where this refers to
>those who did not speak during the discussion. I usually point out that,
>in our discussions, there is a sizeable proportion who do not speak, and
>I ask these silent people whether they feel they are participating. The
>answer is almost invariably that they believe it is possible to
>participate without speaking, and some add that they prefer to write
>rather than speak, or that they are just as much involved, through inner
>dialogue, as those who speak aloud.
I think that the issue is that we (researchers and, maybe, even Western
culture in general) focus on what can be called "thick" participation (or
working together) where participants' contributions are bounded in time,
space, activity content, and participants immediately involved. But I
believe, there is what can be called "thin" participation when participants'
contributions may not be bounded in time, space, activity content, or even
participants. For example, Jay Lemke's publications and contributions on
this net led me to change my political argumentation with my politically
conservative friends. Jay might think that I was silient during some of the
discussions (and I was) but it does not mean that I was not an active
participant (at least I like to think that way :-)
Eugene Matusov
UC Santa Cruz
------------------------
Eugene Matusov
UC Santa Cruz