I'd like to respond to Judy's thoughtful comments:
At 09:48 AM 4/19/96 -0400, Judy Diamondstone wrote:
>I am responding belatedly (sorry) to Eugene's last posting. I am
>happy to envision an educational environment that is free of
>oppression and free of coercion that is oppressive. But my own,
>internalized "have to's" are too important to my own learning
>and self-realization to agree that "have-to's" are in themselves
>bad. So I'm wondering if pain, in the sense of an imposition by
>others or from outside us of what we have to endure, is bad. There
>are certain kinds of pain that are bad, destructive of persons, but
>certain kinds of pain that may fuel the development of agency. I have
>trouble with an ideology of painless learning, with an economy free of
>pain, because it smacks of nostalgia for what never was. The issue
>seems to be more complicated.
Excellent point! I guess I was not articulated enough in my previous
message. I did not argue against pain in general but against
institutionalized pain in educational institutions which results in
"acquisition of students by learning disability" (using Ray McDermott's
terms). Together with Ray McDermott, I do believe that it is possible to
"plant" (Mike Cole's term) an educational institution without
institutionalized pain disabling people to learn in specific domains of
human practices. This believe and direction of theorazing I call "ideology
of painless education." There is a possibility that both Ray and I (and
other people thinking the same way) can be wrong and painless
institutionalized education is impossible but let see and examine that in
practice. Also, I think that traditional school is not investigated enough
to document and understand in-built institutionalized pain and disabiling in
its practice (again Ray McDermott, Norris Minick, Mike Cole, Jay Lemke
started with interesting work on that which necessary to continue).
>Yeah, learners have to grab their learning, but grabbing for
>me anyway implies a willing acceptance of sometimes painful struggle.
>I find some pleasure in it, obviously, but pleasure derived from, made
>possible by, the effort that is not easy.
Oh, I agree but I'd change the word "pain" for "frustration." I see role of
the teacher in guiding students how to manage their own frustration in
learning by involving students in teacher's management of his her own
frustration in teaching (see Sam Wineburg's 1990 paper on that).
>Eugene wrote:
>Since I got convinced by
>>>several writers working in sociocultural frameworks that we should reject
>>>reification of semiotic mediation and acknowledge that knowledge does not
>>>exist separately from people actively engaged in sociocultural practices,
>>>the issue of what is the goal (or goals, or directions) of education become
>>>very important.
I just want to provocatively elaborate that I'd not surprise if it would be
found that the primary goal of Western school education is to babysit with
children while parents work outside home domain.
>If the goal is painless engagement children (or people in
>>>general) in some sociocultural practices than teacher's focus should be on
>>>student's comfort of engagement.
>
>Well, I think the issue here is one of terminology. My goal would be
>children's pleasurable engagement, not necessarily pain-free engagement.
Judy, I think that I made clear in my comment above that I mean
institutionalized disabiling pain by talking about pain-free education.
However, I want to add that I do not believe in teaching and learning by
pain anyway -- I don't believe if people intentionally create painful
situations for each other for providing learning opportunities. My
disagreement with such practices is based on moral ethical ground rather
than on the idea of efficiency (yes, people learn by pain but learning for
me not moral priority).
> Another implication of
>>>considering the purpose of education in person-in-sociocultural-practices
>>>rather than knowledge disassociated from people is that the teacher is the
>>>final agency for his or her own teaching and the student is the final agency
>>>for his or her own learning. Neither teachers are conductors of state- or
>>>local community- defined curricula nor students are receptacles of such
>>>curriculum.
>
>and later, Eugene expands on the implications of this notion of
>"final agency"
>
>If we assume that the
>>>student is the final agency for his or her own learning it means that the
>>>teacher can't control (and should not try to control) the content of
>>>learning curriculum (see Lave, 1992). What is learned from the teaching
>>>curriculum is up to the student. The teacher's role is to share is his or
>>>her own interests and concern with the student, to facilitate and support
>>>learning experiences and promoting student's zones of comfortable engagement
>>>into sociocultural practices (the zones have different levels as well as
>>>different contextual and time scales).
>
>Here, I think Eugene and I might disagree. If one of my goals is to make
>participation in privileged sociocultural practices more possible
>for students (and it is), then it is my job to bring to attention the
>disciplinary constraints & social practices that a curriculum SHOULD
>be designed to approximate and to invite engagement with these
>externally imposed constraints in ways that allow for students'
>transformative appropriation of them.
>
Judy, it is another excellent point and, maybe, the base for real
disagreement between us. Sorry Judy and Jay (who, I believe, coined the
term "transformative appropriation" on the net) but I think that notions
like "internalization," "appropriation," and "mastery" are not very useful
for describing human development and learning. In my view, the metaphor of
"appropriation" is "exactly wrong" (speaking in Russian, or "not useful"
speaking in English :-) because it implies control of the form and content
of student's participation. I believe that people can appropriate only
material things from each other (but not even meaning of these things).
Rather, in my view, people "participate in" and "contribute to"
sociocultural activities and practice. They also change their
"participation" and "contributions" which also changes the activities.
So as a teacher, I see my own role in:
1) helping my future students with management of their own learning;
2) sharing my own biases, passions, and interests with my students;
3) learning my students' biases, passions, and interests.
I consider my teaching curriculum as an "appetizer" (using Galina Zukerman's
term) or invitation to my interests in order for learning curriculum to
initiate. As to "disciplinary constraints & social practices," they are a
part of my concerns just because I'm involved in them.
Eugene Matusov
UC Santa Cruz
------------------------
Eugene Matusov
UC Santa Cruz