Paul, your note was very helpful. Thanks for unpacking somewhat the
problematic of TEACHING.... It's on my mind a lot these days. I share your
reservations about Freedmans's characterization of literacy learning in
terms really of language acquisition. As a teacher educator, still learning
how to teach teachers, I try to keep Hillocks' matrix in mind: students
need both declarative and procedural knowledge of both WHAT they're going to
do/say and HOW - the formal constraints -- i.e., they have to know the
'what' and the 'how' of both the 'what' (content -- what it is and how to go
after it/ invent it) and the 'how' (formal constraints -- what moves they
have to make and how to make those moves). BOTH BOTH -- Schefflin's work w/
the Kaluli is a great reminder that modern societies are not the only ones
that assign great value to formalisms. These pedagogical tensions -
immersion vs explication -- are most stark when previously shut-out
populations enter the classroom & heighten the politics of what counts as
text/knowledge/ & who gets to make it. Bringing Hanks in makes me dizzy --
do you have any recent work that you can send this way? - Judy
George Hillocks, "Writing as reflective practice"
Paul wrote:
>On Aviva Freedman's work. She has made the explicit-implicit distinction
>quite stark in my reading of her work.... however, I think we should see
>direct instruction, rules of thumb, explicitly stated guidance, and
>especially provided models *as* elements of situated learning, part of the
>process, even if analysis makes clear that the rules and models are
>insufficient or even inaccurate...
Judith Diamondstone (732) 932-7496 Ext. 352
Graduate School of Education
Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey
10 Seminary Place
New Brunswick, NJ 08901-1183
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Mar 07 2000 - 17:53:59 PST