I don't know what I wrote that caused this conclusion, David:
In your note, you characterize psychological-constructivist pedagogy as
an instance of "transmission teaching," but I would disagree. There is no
direct communication conceived within a psychologcial-constructivist
perspective.
Since the core idea of psychological constructivism is that the child
must construct knowledge, how could it support a transmission pedagogy
which priveleges accomodation over assimilation?
I am curious about the relationship between your enculturationalist
perspective and what once was referred to as cognitive apprenticeship.
I am also curious about others view on the distinction you draw between
an enculturationist versus critical pedagogy approach. Now, off to
other chores. Thanks for the interesting discussion.
mike
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Oct 01 2003 - 01:00:08 PDT