To add to Ana's comments on mediation, and relate them to teaching, there are
two fundamental shifts in thinking that occur with a mediational analysis.
It's not to say that there are not more, but these are the two placed in
focus here. First, the inclusion of mediation changes the unit of
analysis from the individual to one that is supra-individual. Second, to
echo Ana, Mike, Jay, and Gordon, the part played by the mediator is both
tool and sign, with the qualitative balance dependent upon Activity. So
physical changes, as well as psychological changes are caused through
mediators (which i sometimes quite sloppily call "tools").
There are two assumptions deeply embedded in teacher education in the U.S.:
that the teacher's pedagogical knowledge and cognitive skills are the primary
drivers for what happens in the classroom and, consequently, that the
teacher's internal cognitive processes are the primary objects of
development. Traditional thinking of teacher development considers
individual psychological functioning to be disconnected from social and
technological processes, and, commensurately, it considers an individual's
cognitive development to be highly independent from external structures and
processes. Yeah, there are some shifts away from that, by putting student
teachers in real classrooms during their training. There is the recognition
that what a student-teacher learned in the school of education classroom in
the past was isolated from the k-12 contexts in which that learning was
applied -- Nate outlined his extensive practicum / student teaching just
recently. But you see, teacher education is still relying upon what Nate and
other student teachers "internalize", i.e. what they "take away" from those
experiences in terms of their psychological changes alone.
Instead, one can take a supra-individual perspective of classroom practices
and their changes, by defining the teacher-and-classroom as a significant
system of professional development. Taking this perspective allows a
situated consideration for supra-individual elements that mediate teaching
and learning, such as curricula, books, computers, tables, and their layout
in the classroom, as well as the enactment of classroom rituals by teachers
and students, discourse, and systemic structures as school schedules and
budgets. I think it is important to recognize that the extensive ensemble of
"things" that in part constitute this supra-individual unit significantly
contribute to what can happen in the classroom. By "what can happen" I'm
refering to actions and changes that include discourse, semiosis, learning,
and development, so the dual roles of sign and tool played by mediators is an
important inclusion. Traditional teacher education does recognize
supra-individual development to a superficial degree by putting student
teachers like Nate in practicum situations so they can learn the use of the
mediators. But that is not the same as looking at the supra-individual
development that occurs as people like Nate move into teaching professionally
and change not only intra-psychologically, but inter-psychologically with
their colleagues and the things and children in their classrooms. When one
does make that shift, the fact that there is a great diversity in teaching
practices is not surprising.
It is also not suprising to see the "back-burner" kind of slow
supra-ontogenetic development of a teacher's practices over his or her
professional lifetime that accompanies growing experience with children, the
school system and parents, and with the gradual changes of things and their
locations and orientations and uses in the classroom.
There are more consequences that avalanche into consciousness with a
supra-individual analysis. Children entering into a teacher's classroom at
the beginning of the year know very little of the stuff that is in the
classroom and how it is to be used, and they know very little of what rituals
the teacher expects them to enact. The rug in their prior classroom may have
been used for reading, although it may be used for regulative discussion in
their current classroom. Teachers I've talked to have frequently referred to
the first 6 or 8 weeks of a new school year as demanding, that it takes time
for the children to "settle into" the classroom. Consequently, one can
expect that the temporal unit of analysis of "a school year" to be
significant, and the location of discourse in that frame to be an important
consideration in its analysis. My guess is that the ideal
dialog-in-activity, as Judy refers to the episode in Gordon's paper, did not
occur in the beginning of the school year -- and that's just me shooting from
the hip again. So, in addition to the temporal frame of a teacher's
professional lifetime, the shorter time frame of a school year is also
important to include not only when analyzing what happens in the classroom,
but also when one wants to intervene.
bb
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 01:00:07 PST