I think I often misunderstand or fail to completely understand the points
my students are trying to make; in these cases, I often try framing the
question back to them as I understand it, and ask them if this is what
they meant, but power works in the classroom in such a way that often
I think they will assume they MUST have meant this, even if they didn't.
The power discrepancy is one of the most difficult to deal with in
undergraduate classes--students often feel that their attempts to
articulate their own thoughts and questions are inadequate and so may
choose to remain silent.
However, in the example I described, I don't think this is what was
happening. I acknowledged the legitimacy of the point regarding
quality of child care, and asked them, "What else? What other factors
might you want to consider when making a decision about whether or
not to return to work and place your infant in daycare?" The articles
we had read listed numerous such factors, but they were suddenly
baffled, and I can only make suppositions as to why.
I'm sorry to be so focused on such practical issues, and to have so
little to contribute to this discussion at the theoretical level.
I would like to understand better: (a) from a Vygotskian perspective,
what would be the most effective way to structure formal education?
(b) how do we conceptualize what it is that we want our students to
be able to do and to think when we say that we want them to "learn"
something? (c) how do I as a professor create a classroom environment
where students are most likely to engage in whatever it is we decide
constitutes "learning"? I don't have any kind of background in
education--but my choice to be "an academic" leaves me struggling
with these questions.
Gordon, I appreciate your comments regarding silent participation.
I see your point that it is indeed possible to participate silently,
and that teaching effectiveness cannot necessarily be measured by
amount of verbal participation by students. I do believe that students
learn better when they are actively engaged; the problem is how to
define active engagement--and also how to gauge its presence or
absence. I feel gratified when students verbally participate because
then I have something tangible by which to gauge what I take to be
"active engagement." I attempt to structure small group components
into my classes for the same reason.
But something bothers me here: we are back to defining learning and
education as something unobservable that goes on inside people's heads;
we present material, and hope that something will happen to the listener
in the process of presentation. Where is the "social" aspect of this
model of learning? It seems to be already internalized: the listener
dialogues inside his or her head as he or she hears a lecture. Perhaps
my understanding of the theory here is inadequate as I attempt to
translate it into highly pragmatic concerns.
Robin