After reading your message, I realized that there is unnecessary opposition
between apprenticeship as both historical practice and type of guidance and
direct instruction as an organizational element of guidance. I think that
direct instruction like story telling or even lecturing can be a part of
apprenticeship if guidance is still shaped by the activity, newcomer and
oldtimers together. I think, in general, any organizational element (such
as discussion, lecture, observation, demonstration, hands-on activity,
etc.) can belong to any of types of guidance (e.g., informal learning,
collaborative apprenticeship, authoritative apprenticeship, scaffolding).
Of course, each type of guidance utilizes the same organizational element
differently. For example, scaffolding would, probably, promote controlled
close-ended discussion, unlike informal learning or collaborative
apprenticeship. However, it is true that some types of guidance prefer
specific organizational elements. For example, scaffolding likes
lecturing, informal learning likes hands-on activities, and collaborative
apprenticeship likes "instructional conversations" (using Tharp &
Gallimore's term).
What do you think?
Eugene
>On the other hand, I am going to argue in a paper in Tucson next month, as
>I have I think here in times gone by, that in some fields apprenticeship is
>not enough, that specialized gateway institutions are needed to get to the
>point where the experiences of peripheral participation will in fact move
>one toward competent membership in a community. Textbooks in fields like
>science and mathematics are good candidates for such institutions (or their
>artifacts).
>
-----------------------------------------------
Eugene Matusov
Willard Hall Educational Bldg., Room 206G
Department of Educational Studies
University of Delaware
Newark, DE 19716-2920
Phone: (302) 831-1266
Fax: (302) 831-4445
e-mail: ematusov who-is-at udel.edu
http://www.ematusov.com
------------------------------------------------