[Xmca-l] Re: Email Format Conventions

[mike cole]

David KEL

What sort of organization of poor kids' education do your non-straw people
recommend?  Where might we see it in action today? Is it the strategy
advocated by Engelmann and the DI movement? If not, how does it differ?

A related question. Is the Vivian Paley curriculum that Ageliki has done
extensive research on improperly conceived?

So far as I know, no one in this discussion has advocated free play for the
poor. Not even free straw!

I am way behind the discussion and on the road, but at least free wi-fi in
crowded airports allows a few minutes to read and peck at a keyboard!

Mike





On Sunday, August 17, 2014, David H Kirshner <dkirsh@lsu.edu> wrote:

> David,
> Thanks for your insightful post.
> In scrolling down below your message, to recover the context, I was
> faced--as all of us so often are--with the garbling effect that comes from
> use of the ">" program that separates out the various generations of
> response by inserting a new level of ">" for each new message.
> That formatting option may serve a valuable function in case two or more
> authors are replying to each other with comments embedded in the prior
> text. But that kind of communicative format is not used very frequently,
> and even when it is, the line-break function of the program tends to
> fragment sentences to the point of incoherence (see below).
> I suspect this format continues to be in popular use because people who
> use it feel a sense of comfort with the tradition of usage that trumps
> functionality concerns, or perhaps they just don't know how to change
> formats.
> Are there other reasons?
> David
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <javascript:;> [mailto:
> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <javascript:;>] On Behalf Of David Kellogg
> Sent: Saturday, August 16, 2014 9:27 PM
> To: Mike Cole; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: A request for assistance
>
> It seems to me that no straw man is really necessary here; there are very
> real proponents for the argument that so-called "child-centred" education
> privileges the rich and keeps working class kids in the dark about the
> unwritten gentleman's code that surrounds "humanistic" education. I'm one,
> but I think that Agelika has some more important adversaries.
>
> The first opponent to attack is Vygotsky. In his lecture on psychological
> development (in the untranslated "Foundations of Pedagogy"), he points out
> that children raised in orphanages do not develop speech as well as those
> who are raised in families, and he surmises that it is because that
> children use amongst each other is simply not as demanding as that which
> parents use. He also says that deaf children who are raised with siblings
> will not develop signing as well as those who are raised by deaf parents,
> and from this he concludes that ontogenesis is different from "natural"
> processes like ontogenesis and even sociogenesis, in that the final form
> of development has to be present and in interaction for development to take
> place.
>
> The second person to attack is Halliday (as well as Ruqaiya Hasan, Clare
> Painter, and the whole of the systemic-functional school). Influenced by
> Bernstein, they argued that "child-centred" forms of education supplied
> only implicit knowledge of register and genre which reinforced what middle
> class kids already knew, but was too implicit for kids not previously
> exposed to the genre at home. This argument was violently rejected by Labov
> (who I think did not really understand it). Curiously, though, nobody
> rejects the idea that when a child speaks a foreign language at home, they
> might need more explicit help with academic genres in school.
>
> The third person to attack is Gordon Wells, who demonstrated that
> differences in language surfaced already at three years old, and they were
> traceable to the quality of conversation that children were receiving at
> home. In particular, kids left with televisions or playing with younger
> siblings were at a definite disadvantage in comparison with children who
> were left with books and caring parents.
>
> This is somehow reminiscent of the recent furore over Amy Chua's book
> "Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother". Its follow up "The Triple Package" is
> really about this issue as well. As usual, when there are such strong
> feelings on both sides, it is probable that both have something important
> to contribute. The real problem, and Agelika says, is that only one side is
> really being heard. For all its pleasant air of toleration, academic
> literature can be quite totalitarian.
>
> David Kellogg
> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies.
>
>
>
>
> On 17 August 2014 09:43, mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com <javascript:;>>
> wrote:
>
> > Hmmm. Its not on the front page.     http://www.nifdi.org/about-di
> > mike'
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 5:38 PM, mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >
> > > I am not seeing any cases here where Engelmann, who is behind a lot
> > > of
> > the
> > > direct instruction game, still, is quoted as saying that play is
> > > useless
> > if
> > > not bad for poor/different kids although it might be find for the
> > > loquacious middle class.
> > >
> > > There has to be a smoking gun out there on their website or some
> > > public presentation.
> > > mike
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 1:24 PM, William Blanton
> > > <blantonwe@gmail.com <javascript:;>>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hi Ageliki,
> > >>
> > >> You might take a read of some of Madeline Hunter's writing.
> > >> Attached is two bibs on direct instruction. You might also take a
> > >> look an Ken Goodman's argument against direct instruction. Another
> > >> interesting challenge
> > against
> > >> direct instruction is Cole's idea of basic literacy activity rather
> > >> than basic liter skills.
> > >>
> > >> BB
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 7:59 AM, Carol Macdonald
> > >> <carolmacdon@gmail.com <javascript:;>
> > >
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > Hi Ageliki
> > >> >
> > >> > There was an approach called DISTAR - Direct Instruction Systems
> > >> > for
> > the
> > >> > Teaching of Arithmetic and Reading.  Their claim - 70's and 80's
> > >> > was
> > >> that
> > >> > this was the best way to teach working class children. But this
> > >> > was
> > >> formal
> > >> > instruction at K-6 or so. I cannot think that this could be moved
> > >> > downwards. You can see examples on YouTube, noticing just what
> > >> > the materials look like.
> > >> >
> > >> > Preschool children are building up repertoires of vocabulary and
> > >> > so
> > on,
> > >> and
> > >> > this could hardly be done in a formal way. Reading stories and
> > >> information
> > >> > books would be done in Shared Reading formats.  That's the best I
> > >> > can
> > >> do,
> > >> > but I look forward to other views.
> > >> >
> > >> > Bereiter..
> > >> >
> > >> > Carol
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > On 16 August 2014 16:11, Ageliki Nicolopoulou <agn3@lehigh.edu
> <javascript:;>>
> > wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > > Dear XMCA community,
> > >> > >
> > >> > > I'm looking for a piece of information, and I wonder whether
> > >> > > someone
> > >> on
> > >> > the
> > >> > > XMCA list has it at their fingertips.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > I'm writing something that deals with Vivian Paley's
> > >> > > storytelling
> > and
> > >> > > story-acting practice. Among other things, that activity is an
> > >> example of
> > >> > > child-centered, play-based, and constructivist approaches to
> > >> > > early
> > >> child
> > >> > > education--the kinds of approaches that have been getting
> > >> > > squeezed
> > >> out by
> > >> > > preschool practices that exclusively emphasize
> > >> > > teacher-centered,
> > >> didactic
> > >> > > transmission of specific academic skills by direct instruction.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > A lot of people think that pushing down didacted/academic
> > >> > > teaching practices into preschool education is a good thing in
> general.
> > >> However,
> > >> > > there are some people who might be willing to concede that more
> > >> > > child-centered, play-based, and constructivist might be OK for
> > >> > > young children from educated middle class families ... but that
> > >> > > they won't
> > >> work
> > >> > > for poor and otherwise disadvantaged children. THOSE kids need
> > direct
> > >> > > instruction to transmit "basic skills", and giving them
> > >> > > anything
> > else
> > >> is,
> > >> > > at best, a distraction from giving them what they need for
> > >> > > school readiness.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > My problem is this.  As we all know, a lot of people think
> > >> > > that, and
> > >> they
> > >> > > say it in conversation, and they make written arguments that
> > >> > > rest implicitly on that premise. In fact, this outlook is very
> > >> > > widespread
> > >> and
> > >> > > influential. But I've found that very few of them seem to be
> > >> > > willing
> > >> to
> > >> > > actually SAY it explicitly in their published work. I'm talking
> > about
> > >> > > academics and policymakers. There are pro-direct-instruction
> > websites
> > >> > that
> > >> > > say it pretty straightforwardly. But journals want academic
> > citations
> > >> in
> > >> > > articles, so I'm trying to find one.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > *So does anyone out there know of any published work where
> > >> > > someone
> > >> > actually
> > >> > > SAYS that in writing?  That is, that more child-oriented,
> > play-based,
> > >> and
> > >> > > constructivist preschool practices (however they actually
> > >> > > describe
> > >> them)
> > >> > > might be OK for young children from educated middle-class
> > >> > > homes, but
> > >> are
> > >> > > useless or even harmful for poor and disadvantaged kids, who
> > >> > > need
> > more
> > >> > > teacher-centered, skill-based direct instruction?*
> > >> > >
> > >> > > I figured it couldn't hurt to ask.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Thanks,
> > >> > > Ageliki Nicolopoulou
> > >> > >
> > >> > > ________________
> > >> > > Ageliki Nicolopoulou
> > >> > > Professor of Psychology & Global Studies Personal Webpage:
> > >> http://lehigh.academia.edu/AgelikiNicolopoulou/About
> > >> > > Departmental Webpage:
> > >> http://cas.lehigh.edu/CASWeb/default.aspx?id=1430
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > --
> > >> > Carol A  Macdonald Ph D (Edin)
> > >> > Developmental psycholinguist
> > >> > Academic, Researcher,  and Editor Honorary Research Fellow:
> > >> > Department of Linguistics, Unisa
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>