In a message dated 2/21/2002 11:56:15 AM Central Standard Time,
dkirsh@lsu.edu writes:
> The point of highlighting this is that very
> different principles go into designing instruction toward these different
> forms of learning. If one aims instruction toward both conceptual and
> enculturationist goals, one needs to expect to encounter node points at
> which priorities need to be set with one of these agendas winning out at
> the expense of the other. Thus crossdisciplinarity is different from other
> theorizations of pedagogy in which "good teaching" is reified as a unitary
> construct or goal.
>
David,
All due respect to your thinking regarding curriculum but I have a hard time
believeing that 'best practice' is the goal. The achievement of success in a
goal oriented activity system can only be measured by the person achieving
the success. Therefore, the student can truely only be the measure of what is
successful in the classroom.
If one is to provide proff of successful teaching the only meaure worth
anything is the actual student arriving at the concusion that the instruction
was beneficial or not. Learning does not always follow instruction as you
pointed out in your paper regarding the 'inadvertant' learning that takes
place.
Tying this in Yro. I see the double bind as a nice metaphor but having spent
a great deal of time I must say that 'expansive learning does not adequately
provide the methodological structure that LSV so greatly emphasized.
I beleive Valsiner's Zone theory (ZFM/ZPA dichotomy that can lead to ZPDs,
anybody else familiar with Valsiner's approach to Bateson's Double Bind?
Valsiner of course does not promote it as a solution to Bateson's double bind
but in keeping with the Yro discussion I thought this the best way to
introduce Valsiner into the conversation.
Always a little off,
Or is it the road less traveled?
Eric
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Mar 01 2002 - 01:00:21 PST