Naoki wrote,
> I do not read your and Rogoff' s recent papers at all.
> So, this is a good opportunity for me to learn from you and Rogoff.
I feel a bit unease to represent Barbara (Rogoff) not because I disagree
with what I think she says but because I'm not sure she would always agree
with what I say about her position. By no means, I want to monopolize
understanding of Barbara's notion of guided participation. I don't want to
claim that those who disagree with my interpretation of Barbara's concept
are wrong. Please, keep this warning in mind when reading this message.
> Two question.
>
> How you and Rogoff formulate the learning of the side of "adult",
teacher",
> "researcher" and "expert" who try to arrange the structure of tasks or
> the activities?
My understanding of Barbara's notion of "guided participation" is that it is
intended to include all types and sociohistorical/cultural forms of
guidance, including informal learning. Participation is guided not only by
"more knowledgeable others" but also by "less knowledgeable others", by
tools, by texts, by institutional settings, by the cultures, by the
histories, by the anticipated futures, and by the activity itself.
> Do "adult", "teacher" and "researcher" only arrange the structure
> of tasks?
Not at all (see above). Not only "child", "student", and "subject" are
active in interpreting and defining goals but often invisible institution
settings as well. For example, some constructivist-minded teachers, although
conceptually rejecting grading practices, try "to make sense" of them to
avoid fights with their institutional policies. You can check by
yourself -- go to the site of the World Lecture Hall where many college
instructors have posted their syllabi at
http://www.utexas.edu/world/lecture/
> I think their knowing or doing is not static either.
No, not at all.
> Even for only structuring a task, arranging the setting, the side
> of "adults" has to reorganize their way of knowing, and participating,
> and artifacts.
>
> In other words, knowing and doing of the side of "adults",
> "experts" is not static and fixed at all although it is possible
> to produce his/her knowing as if a static knowledge system or
> model depending on interaction.
>
> More generally, learning is not an individual's business.
> It includes reorganization of interaction, mutual constituting,
> or activity system.
Exactly! Let's imagine that I or somebody else would send a message require
each XMCA-er to submit three messages a week each of which will be graded.
I'd imagine what storm it would have created! Even the whole forum could
have collapsed. In the classrooms such storms are often suppressed (and not
only by the teacher) but the dynamics and underground "tectonic" movements
are present.
> If so, scaffolding metaphor looks a static as a model for learning.
Very much so. In my view, scaffolding is a (culturally) specific teaching
strategy -- it does not and cannot even describe guidance processes while
applied.
> It does not have the view point of learning as interactional,
> mutual accomplishment.
> In other words, it seems to regard the "oldtimer" side as the static,
> given something.
Absolutely.
> Second, how do you and Rogoff think about learning by expanding
> or boundary crossing?
>
> At least, scaffolding as metaphor makes me imagine instruction
> within the wall of school.
>
> For example, if you are given the obligation to structure a task
> or to make a scaffold for students in school instruction, will you
> be trapped in the practice of producing the static, fixed knowledge
> system or model ?
When I am "given the obligation to structure a task" I try to use my
institutional power to destroy it by opening control space for students'
collaborative engagement in defining activities. Of course, it is easy to
say than do.
> Of course, although even such case can be regarded as a kind of
> learning.
Yes, this type of teaching model promotes learning about how to subordinate,
ignore, smuggle, and/or rebel. However, there is no teaching model that can
control the content of learning. Even within the transmission of knowledge
model of teaching some students can learn how to collaborate with the
teacher. This miracle can't be predicted or controlled in specific cases
(poor traditional psychology with its dreams of "controlling and predicting
behavior"!). There are no necessary conditions for that.
However, I believe that the teacher can try to facilitate students'
involvement in defining goals and problems.
What do you think?
Eugene
---------------------
Eugene Matusov
Department of Educational Studies
University of Delaware
Newark, DE 19716
Office phone: (302) 831-1266
Fax: (302) 831-4445
email: ematusov who-is-at udel.edu
web: http://www.ematusov.com