Two small steps in the direction of our desire are taken by
Michael Halliday and by James Gee in recent articles in
_Linguistics and Education_ (see below). Halliday presents very
interesting arguments that the 'interpersonal' uses of language
are often the 'gateway' to the 'ideational' ones; i.e., roughly,
that we use language interpersonally to make relationships (e.g.
Asker/Answerer, Asserter/Doubter, Promiser/ Threatener,
Delighted-by-it/Appalled-by-it)out of which evolve the general
semantic capabilities of mediation. Halliday bases some of his
argument on first-language acquisition, and Gee takes this
perspective further and considers how various kinds of learning
do or do not fit models of language acquisition. Both articles
basically try to reason from our theories of language in context
to models of learning in general.
Chapter 7 of my _Talking Science_ also makes a few forays in the
direction of extrapolating descriptions of how language is used
in classrooms into recommendations for more effective science
teaching, though only in limited ways because the perspective of
the description was necessarily itself a limited one. A major
recommendation is the reorganization of classroom social
interaction so as to give students more practice 'talking
science'; but while I articulate what seem to me some reasonable
goals and strategeies, I do not develop specific tactics there. I
hope that the logic of the book's subtitle: 'Language, Learning,
and Values' comes through clearly in that discussion as I tried
to make it do also in the other chapters.
If I were to begin from where I left off in _Talking Science_,
adding the further perspectives of _Textual Politics_ (esp. chap
7 again there), I would probably be mainly concerned with value
choices regarding 'transmission' (or 'reproduction') of one
generation's culture, beliefs, and values vs. _transformation_ or
the (inevitably divergent) creation out of the semiotic resources
available in the ZPD (i.e. intergenerational interaction, or its
equivalent) of something new in each next generation. I do not
believe, personally, that maximal reproduction is maximally
ethical, nor maximally beneficial to the species, the next
generation, or the ecosocial system as a whole over time. There
is much in our dominant educational (and parental) values of the
'Dead Hand', and these values in turn support a relative
minimization of radical social, political, and economic change,
supporting many vested interests in which every one of us has a
considerable share, but which are not necessarily shared
interests of children or the world-as-it-could-become.
What kind of education is best when _our_ interests conflict with
_theirs_? We have been discussing social class issues here
lately, and the sort of critique articulated by Lisa Delpit
concerning our right to educate "other people's children" -- but
are there not similar arguments regarding our 'rights' to educate
even our own children? By what right do we try to indoctrinate
them into views consistent with our own interests? We _say_
always that whatever we do is in _their_ best interest, and we
believe it, as we _must_ believe that our interests and theirs in
general coincide. But that cannot be. We shy away from serious
consideration of potential conflicts of interest (long-term, not
just immediate) between parents and children (as categories),
adults and the young, our generation and the next, present
culture and possible future cultures.
If _these_ value questions are posed, then the ZPD is not just a
helping hand upward; it also has a dark side to it. Curriculum
theorists at least note that every curriculum supports specific
social interests and is biased against other interests, but
questions about effective teaching methodology do not generally
go so far as to wonder just how effective we _should_ be in
passing on _any_ curriculum made from the past by our passing
present. We are _not_ the next generation; it is _their_ right to
fashion the culture that will be distinctive to them and adapted
to the world they make. We must offer them the resources they
need, including a dialogue with us, for there are no other
resources from which they _can_ fashion their culture-world. But
we usually go well beyond offering, toward coercing; we also
offer far less than the full range of options known to us (and
not just not to the youngest, but never in formal education). We
fight our Death by trying to coerce their Life.
Are we asking about the most powerful tools for students to learn
whatever they wish to know? in whatever order, by whatever means,
for whatever purpose they desire? Have we built educational
institutions to support their inquiries, their projects? Imagine
you wanted to fashion the ideal educational support system for
your own education, now, or as you were when a bit younger and
more adventurous (or undecided). I would start with a Library,
not a Curriculum. I would want to be able to choose my dialogue
partners in the ZPD (with some allowance for serendipity and
diversity), not just books/authors, but peers, older peers,
experts, mentors. I would want 'maps' of the realms of knowledge,
and 'guides' to alternatives and contradictions. I would want the
skills of exploration, identification, retrieval, access, and
critique of information sources (including people). I would want
some material resources for my 'projects', around which my
inquiries would revolve and from which they would inevitably
spiral outward and transform themselves again and again. I don't
imagine much of this would look anything like what our historical
past has built. I do believe that this sort of institutional
support is perfectly practical and possible in our present day
world, perhaps not quite as lavish or ideal as I would envision,
but the same in spirit.
I recognize that I am describing something like a 'ruling class
ideal' of education. I can believe that some young people would
choose a different kind of institution, and I'm happy for them to
have it. I know that how we are socially positioned, especially
in relation to material resources, has a lot to do with our
'projects' and that some people will want an education to gain
access to resources presently monopolized by others. Some will
seek to subvert or destroy unjust arrangements. Some will seek to
imagine new alternatives. Some will create ideas-artifacts-
institutions I don't see the reasons to imagine.
The basic value-premises of education, in my opinion, are long
overdue for fundamental and radical critique and re-analysis.
This is an opportune time to do so because the new information
technologies have developed from a model much closer to that of
free inquiry in a library than to maximally effective
transmission of a canon. They are potentially in fundamental
conflict with the assumptions of schools and curricula which we
inherit from earlier, and politically uglier, times. From this
conflict and its contradictions some real change may arise. I
think it should. JAY.
Halliday, L&E v5n2, Towards a language-based theory of learning
Gee, L&E v6n4, First-language acquisition as a guide for theories
of learning and pedagogy.
(see also v6n1 for responses to Halliday by Gee and Wells;
responses to Gee by Stubbs, John-Steiner et al. will be
published
in v8 next year)
Lemke, 1990, _Talking Science_ (Ablex)
Lemke, 1995, _Textual Politics_ (Taylor & Francis)
JAY LEMKE.
City University of New York.
BITNET: JLLBC who-is-at CUNYVM
INTERNET: JLLBC who-is-at CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU