Hi Phillip,
Here is a penny's worth. Your comments made me want to go back to Lee's
article to confirm just who her research work is really for. As you point
out, she does not begin with the perspective of being a teacher. In my
opinion, she begins from the point of view of students, and in particular,
students living in poverty and students of color. Below are some quotes
from Lee on this. I like her focus both on students and the question of
resources. At the same time, your stress on the importance of closely
involving teachers in research and implementation is very important, and I
heartily agree.
- Steve
Philip writes:
Her research work is clearly not for teachers, even though it is teachers
who in the final result would be the implementers of such a project. I
also wonder if Lee’s piece is even for teachers in teacher education. For
if this project that Lee’s proposing is so valuable, where is the call and
recognition for such a project to be implemented in our community colleges,
four year colleges and universities?
from Lee's article:
page 43
... in light of political inequities, this article emphasizes the
importance of attending to the cultural worlds of students who have been
traditionally underserved by public education and have been largely denied
access to new computer-based technologies being developed to support
complex problem solving.
page 58
We know there are serious issues of equity in terms of computer uses in
schools serving students of color and students living in poverty. Such
students are more likely to have less access to high-end hardware and are
more likely to use computers for low-level tasks. Yet, to assume that the
many sophisticated constructivist, knowledge-rich, computer-based tools
currently being used in schools are culturally neutral may steer us to miss
important basic questions.
... the methods by which we evaluate how such computer-based tools are
appropriated and their impact on learning, on the whole, do not take into
consideration differential effects for groups that differ by ethnicity,
race, language use, or class. It is quite possible that the tremendous
funding being invested in the development of such computer-based tools in
education may be simply reinforcing current inequities in opportunities to
learn, unintentionally widening the achievement gap.
<end>
At 03:01 PM 11/14/03 -0700, you wrote:
>Dear fellow xmca-ers -
>
>i'm responding in particular to Bill's posting, and in general to Luiz,
>Eugene, Peter and others interested.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Bill Barowy [mailto:wbarowy@attbi.com]
>Sent: Thu 11/13/2003 9:12 AM
>To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>Cc:
>Subject: Carol Lee's article
>
>First, I think Carol makes an important contribution to the various fields of
>educational design and further presents all educators with challenges.
>
>and Bill continued -
>
>I think in part, the implication of Carol's work for me is that this melee of
>triangles penetrating into the classroom needs to somehow be accounted for
>in the design (and application) of technologies, and lets not forget, in the
>way people are taught and learn to use the technologies, including "teacher
>development". That doing so is *cumbersome* is a critque challenged by
>Carol, but perhaps not fully enough. Placing culture at the center is
>definitely a hopeful strategy I've heard echoed here on xmca.
>
>I'd like to expand on Bill's points by first re-emphasizing that Lee's
>article presents all educators with challenges.
>
>There are some other points I’d like to make as well about the Carol Lee
>article. With all of the major points I was never in disagreement. Yes,
>technology, as with any other cultural artifact in a public school, should
>be child friendly supportive nurturing culturally flexible. At the same
>time, public schools are not just for children. Public schools are also
>for the parents as well as the other adults and institutions, religious
>and commercial and political. There is no stable consensus about what
>constitutes an appropriate education for children and as a result schools
>as institutions and teachers personally are caught up in multiple figured
>worlds (Holland, et. al., 1998). As noted in Peter’s article “Rethinking
>Rhizomes …”coauthoring research with teachers “has increased our sympathy
>for their situations and forced us into taking as much of an emic, or
>insider’s, perspective on their work as we can muster given that we are
>inherently outsiders to their teaching.”
>Lee’s work is an unacknowledged outsider’s view of teaching. As such, it
>is really then a performance piece for fellow researchers in
>education. By performance, I mean that it is a method of defining,
>redefining, and maintaining her figured world identity as a researcher in
>education (McAloon, Singer, Butler are only three of many who work with
>the notion of performance as a way of constructing cultural identity and
>social selves). Her research work is clearly not for teachers, even
>though it is teachers who in the final result would be the implementers of
>such a project. I also wonder if Lee’s piece is even for teachers in
>teacher education. For if this project that Lee’s proposing is so
>valuable, where is the call and recognition for such a project to be
>implemented in our community colleges, four year colleges and
>universities? Those of you who are teachers in higher education, when you
>consider Lee’s suggestions for implementing more culturally friendly
>technology and programs, what do you see in your classroom? Short of
>sending the students to the computer lab.
>I think that if researchers in education really want to see changes in the
>classroom that then need to be working in the classroom, collaboratively
>researching with the classroom teachers, coauthoring their work with those
>teachers, and figuring out as well how to implement the implications of
>the research in their own professional site of education.
>
>
>My four bits worth.
>
>What do you think?
>
>Phillip
>
>Phillip White
> University of Colorado at Denver
>School of Education
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Dec 01 2003 - 01:00:11 PST