RE: beeeeutifully said, Genevieve

Eugene Matusov (ematusov who-is-at udel.edu)
Tue, 28 Sep 1999 12:40:18 -0400

Hi Peter and everybody--

Peter, I really like your thought provoking questions.

> I'll bet, for instance, that for those of us who work in
> universities, it's
> widely assumed that people should do coursework before writing
> dissertations. Furthermore, they should pass a comprehensive
> exam of some
> sort before writing a dissertation. The inability to pass
> courses or comps
> always disqualifies a student from proceeding to the dissertation
> stage. And I fully support this set of assumptions, assuming that the
> course work and comps are authentic indicators of someone's ability to
> write a dissertation.

Vygotsky received his Ph.D. without any coursework or even without writing a
dissertation. He was awarded his Ph.D. for his book "Psychology of Art".
What does it mean? One possible meaning making is that Vygotsky was a
genius. Another is that when institutional structure is being disrupted (by
revolution) other pathways to practice become possible. Our
institutionalized learning pathways are often gatekeepers against other
(maybe no less effective) learning pathways. THE pathways are often
insensitive to some students or even groups students. For example, US
graduate school is very insensitive to students with families in general and
to female graduate students (especially with kids).

> So my question is, what's really at stake in this discussion? Are
> we really
> saying that background knowledge doesn't matter? Or that background
> knowledge as embodied in rigid stage theories is misguided?

I think background knowledge does matter but for me background knowledge is
not equal to coursework or passing qualifying exams.

As to your, Peter, example of learning three-digit addition after one-digit
addition, I'm not a specialist on math education but after I saw Vasilii
Davydov's classrooms where first graders successfully learned algebra and
fractions before "simple" arithmetic, I do not trust my intuition about
teaching sequences anymore :-)

What do you think?

Eugene

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Smagorinsky [mailto:smago@peachnet.campuscwix.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 1999 8:51 AM
> To: xmca who-is-at weber.ucsd.edu
> Subject: Re: beeeeutifully said, Genevieve
>
>
> I think these points would benefit from some interrogation. I'm not sure
> just where I'd draw the line in following Mike's view of stage
> theories. I
> agree that theories such as Mastery Learning, which used a
> staircase as its
> learning metaphor, can lead to some pretty rigid and disenabling
> teaching. On the other hand, most educational systems that I'm familiar
> with assume that learning takes place in some kind of sequence, and that
> some sequences work better than others, and that for at least
> some learning it's hard to do Thing B unless you can do Thing A fairly
> well. If you can't add single-digit numbers, I suspect that it's hard to
> add triple-digit numbers. (if this example is misguided, please pardon me
> for relying on folk wisdom and personal experience)
>
> I'll bet, for instance, that for those of us who work in
> universities, it's
> widely assumed that people should do coursework before writing
> dissertations. Furthermore, they should pass a comprehensive
> exam of some
> sort before writing a dissertation. The inability to pass
> courses or comps
> always disqualifies a student from proceeding to the dissertation
> stage. And I fully support this set of assumptions, assuming that the
> course work and comps are authentic indicators of someone's ability to
> write a dissertation.
>
> So my question is, what's really at stake in this discussion? Are
> we really
> saying that background knowledge doesn't matter? Or that background
> knowledge as embodied in rigid stage theories is misguided?
>
> Peter
> At 08:11 PM 9/27/99 -0700, you wrote:
>
> >Hi All-- I have been following fleetingly, but am swamped with quarter
> >beginning
> >
> >Genevieve wrote:
> >
> > Essentially, the department had carved out
> >a kind of 'instructional space' for developmental
> >students that broke with the rigid 'Step A goes to
> >Semester 1, Step B goes to Semester 2 and if you can't
> >follow you fail' flow of student bodies in the writing
> >curriculum. Basically, this was a form of retention.
> >Then, about 3 or 4 semesters into the experience, the
> >Chancellor's Office told us to shape up and cut out
> >all the parallel courses. We were being very bad boys
> >& girls for keeping qualified students back, and a
> >student who passes a particular level is by definition
> >qualified to tackle the next.
> >
> >
> >For a long time we at LCHC have railed againt all forms of
> >"Level 1 before Level 2" stage theories of literacy and
> >numeracy acquition. They are built for domination and conservatism.
> >They select in a deadly way.
> >
> >My colleagues and I have written about this pernicious form of
> >pedagogy/selction in a number of places. Getting this message
> >straight would be, in my opinion, very helpful. But maybe its
> >crooked by nature?
> >
> >This discussion is getting close to what I consder the heart of the
> >matter: the essential duality of formal education FROM THE BEGINNING:
> >its entwinement with (literally) middle class and its double message"
> >transform AND select. Teachers live at the contradictory heart of that
> >matter.
> >
> >Can we make it beyond chaining?
> >mike