Tina Sharpe asked:
"Is it possible for conceptual development to be constructed through
enculturation given the classroom is a social environment within which
students engage in learning?"
Tina, from a crossdisciplinary perspective, yes, students engaged in a
class that is structured according to enculturationist goals can and do
develop conceptually, even though the pedagogy is not designed to support
that form of learning. I call such learning "inadvertant learning." This is
part of what is so seductive about unitary pedagogical formulations. One
can always find and display instances of inadvertant learning in a
classroom setting and then claim that one's pedagogy is widely effective.
However, having inadvertant learning happen is not the same as being able
to structure a curriculum toward particular goals. If one truly wants to
make PARTICULAR conceptual and dispositional (i.e., enculturationist)
learning occur, one finds oneself with the third option (see my previous
post, below) in which one "has to be prepared to juggle priorities and make
many difficult trade-offs."
As to your second question, Tina, "does your response mean my work is
crossdisciplinary?" I'm not quite sure how to answer that question. In
their posts, Bill Barowy and Yrjo suggested that your interpretations of
Yrjo's model are not quite accurate. Perhaps you want to revisit Yrjo's
model and try to reinterpret your work a bit differently within that
framework. Or perhaps you'll find crossdisciplinarity more successfully
addresses your concerns and interests. ...Keep us posted.
David Kirshner
______________
David,
Thank you so much for responding to my email. Your suggestions were helpful
but raises another question for me. Is it possible for conceptual
development to be constructed through enculturation given the classroom is
a social environment within which students engage in learning?
I downloaded your paper yesterday from MCA website and have planned to read
in in the morning when my brain doesn't feel so overloaded. This discussion
is very timely for me so I really appreciate your response.
Also, does your response mean my work is crossdisciplinary?
Tina
David H Kirshner wrote:
> Hi Tina.
>
> The confusion your are experiencing can be interpreted from a
> crossdisciplinary perspective. Your goal of getting students to "begin to
> think like an historian" is, in crossdisciplinary terms, enculturationist
> in nature. You want to have students develop certain culturally specific
> dispositions of the historian. Generally, the pedagogy that supports
> enculturation is to "work" the classroom microculture so that it
gradually
> comes to resemble historians culture with respect to the target
> dispositions. This does not require "some kind of conflict or disharmony
> for participants to reflect and "look outside the box."
>
> Rather, the creation of cognitive conflict is part of a constructivist
> pedagogical strategy for promoting students' conceptual development. The
> important thing to remember, from a crossdisciplinary perspective, is
that
> there is no unitary pedagogy that accomplishes these diverse learning
> intentions. My experience is that pedagogical formulations that attempt
to
> capture this kind of diversity are incoherent in their internal
structure.
> They elide the node points at which priorities must be set, thus they can
> handicap teachers who are trying to use them to guide their teaching.
>
> So the bottom line is you can choose to aim for enculturation in which
case
> there is coherent pedagogical guidance available, or you can choose to
aim
> for conceptual construction in which case there is coherent pedagogical
> guidance available, or you can choose to try to work these agendas
together
> in which case you need to be prepared to juggle priorities and make many
> difficult trade-offs. I think all three options are viable pedagogical
> strategies.
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> David Kirshner
>
> PS. If you're interested in pursuing these ideas further, I think my
> crossdisciplinary paper is still up on the XMCA webpage.
>
> _______________
> Tina Sharpe said:
>
> I viewed Professor Engestrom's video yesterday on the expansive cycles
> in Learning 3 and wondered if someone could help clarify a point for me.
>
> I am researching the role of the teacher in supporting students'
> conceptual development. The students are junior high school history
> students. Before watching the video I thought the expansive cycle was a
> natural stage in development and students could, through dialogue with
> the teacher and other students, co-construct knowledge about the nature
> of history and historical methodology - ie begin to think like an
> historian. Now it seems this expansive cycle needs some kind of conflict
> or disharmony for participants to reflect and "look outside the box". If
> this is the case then in the classroom situation I have described,
> students do not engage in this expansive cycle.
>
> I would really appreciate some clarification on this point.
>
> My second question is the use of multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary
> and crossdisciplinary. If, as a teacher researcher I am drawing on
> linguistic theory (SFL) education theory, sociology and cognitive
> psychology to consider learning in the classroom within a social context
> is my work multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary and crossdisciplinary?
>
> I am not sure of the fine points related to these terms.
>
> Again any comments would be appreciated.
>
> Tina Sharpe
> PhD student
> University of Technology
> Sydney, Australia.
>
> _____________________
> David Kirshner
> Department of Curriculum & Instruction
> Louisiana State University
> Baton Rouge LA 70803-4728
> (225) 578-2332 (225) 578-9135 (fax)
> dkirsh@lsu.edu
> http://www.ednet.lsu.edu/tango3/coedirectory.taf?
>
_function=detail&Faculty_uid1=135&Users_uid2=135&_UserReference=59F4B47FBE3415E138CD68B2
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Mar 01 2002 - 01:00:20 PST