Re: direct instruction/ Applebee's curriculum

smagor who-is-at aardvark.ucs.uoknor.edu
Thu, 25 Apr 96 21:14:47 -0500

At 11:15 AM 4/25/96 -0400, you wrote:
>
>Peter, I had the impression from reading your review that Applebee
>would be in favor of instructional strategies. However, it is especially
>with respect to tacit conventions at the level of discourse that I think
>explication is needed, partly to economize the acquisition process,
>partly to demystify the discourse requirements, and most importantly,
>to make the conventions available for questioning & critique.
>
>What do you think?
>- Judy

Judy, it's an interesting question. I don't quite agree with Applebee that
learning disciplinary discourse should be a primary goal of schooling. To
take literature discussions as an example: college English classes tend to
discuss literature in very formal and analytic ways. I don't think this
always makes the best model for secondary school discussions of literature,
where many students are not college bound and therefore don't really need to
become immersed in English as a discipline. I think there are other models
of expertise in literature discussions that are appropriate, such as the
less formal, more affective discourse of adult reading groups--the kinds of
literary discussions that most readers are likely to engage in when outside
school.

As far as the need for explicit instruction in "how to do school"--probably
some would be beneficial, though I think it ends up being learned through
participation.

Peter

Peter Smagorinsky
University of Oklahoma
College of Education
Department of Instructional Leadership and Academic Curriculum
820 Van Vleet Oval
Norman, OK 73019-0260
(405)325-3533
fax: (405)325-4061
smagor who-is-at aardvark.ucs.uoknor.edu
psmagorinsky who-is-at uoknor.edu