Dear Andy–
I was bringing the examples of two behaviorally similar instructions that
have different activity systems in my view. I'm not argue that the Case2 is
the best way of organizing guidance but, of course, I think that Case 2 is
much better than Case 1 with regard of what the kids learn in both cases and
what relations emerge between the children and the adults.
I have a few comments:
1) I'd not use the term "tutor" for both of the cases. Tutors at LACC often
called those who help kids with their homework. It is too bad that there is
not a term referring to a person providing guidance in general without forms
of guidance and circumstances.
2) I do not think that in the Case2 teaching was the goal (or primary goal)
of the adult. I think that the goal was to help the child to make his video.
I think teaching and learning were by-products of the working together on
the video project.
3) In Case1, teaching was alienated not only from the child but also from
the adult: it was not the case that the adult honestly wanted to share what
he was excited about...
What do you think?
Eugene
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andy Blunden [mailto:ablunden@mira.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2003 4:41 AM
> To: ematusov@UDel.Edu
> Subject: RE: Are kids naturally good with computers?
>
> Nice story Eugene. I'm still confused about the meaning of the words
> though, like which is which?
>
> It seems to me that in Case 2, the tutor understood that until he could
> find a "project" to which both he (with his aim of teaching) and the kid
> with his own aim, could both commit, and collaborate together, then
> learning was ruled out. As you correctly said, in case 1, the tutor had
his
> project worked out and the kids were not part of it, in fact they were
> threatening to his project and the kids quickly recognised the adversarial
> relation.
>
> The common project constituted a "third" mediating between the two
parties;
> each committed to this third from their own perspective. This third was
the
> basis of trust and collaboration and mutual recognition.
>
> Andy
>
>
> At 04:26 AM 11/11/2003 -0500, you wrote:
> >Dear Andy and everybody
> >
> >Andy asked me,
> > > Could you bring out the distinction between
> > > "practices/activity" and "instructional strategy"?
> >
> >Let me try and I hope other people will join to help. I'll tell my
> >observations from my in afterschool program at the Latin American
Community
> >Center. I was more than an observer but it does not much matter...
> >
> >Case1 (several years ago). A computer instructor tried to teach a sixth
> >grade African American boy how to use formatting functions of the
Microsoft
> >Word program. He used a direct instruction for about 20 minutes with the
> >boy: lecturing, demonstrating, ERFs, and scaffolding. The boy made jokes,
> >tried to talk with other kids in the computer room, and was not very
> >attentive. The instructor was obviously angry with the boy but tried to
> >cover up this emotion. The instructor finished his guidance after the boy
> >was able to do several simply actions of formatting. He turned and moved
> >away from the boy when the boy threw a piece of uneaten apple that was on
> >the desk. All kids around laughed. The instructor got mad (almost
literally)
> >running around the computer lab and asking who did that.... (I pretended
> >that I did not see the episode because by that time I was ready to kill
the
> >instructor myself but it was another story).
> >
> >Case 2 (several weeks ago). A volunteering adult tried to teach a Latino
> >seventh grade boy how to add music to videos using Pinnacle 8 video
editing
> >software. The adult also used a direct instruction for about 20 minutes
with
> >the boy: lecturing, demonstrating, ERFs, and scaffolding. The boy was
very
> >attentive, asked questions time to time. Both of them were highly
engaged.
> >At some point, the boy asked the volunteer if he wanted to drink. The
> >volunteer said yes, the boy ran away and brought soda to him leftover
from
> >LACC celebration another day. A few other LACC boys came to observe what
the
> >volunteer and boy were doing and asked the adult to help them to do
videos
> >as well...
> >
> >For the instructional point of view, both adults provide the same
guidance:
> >direct instruction using the same instructional elements. However, the
> >result was very different. It is possible to argue that the difference
was
> >in culture of the kids: Latino kids are more respectful while African
> >American kids are more independent. Except... this explanation did not
work
> >in these cases. The Latino boy had several suspensions from school by
that
> >time and had a rather negative reputation at LACC as being very
unreliable
> >and irresponsible, goofy child. The African American boy was at very good
> >stand both in school and at the LACC.
> >
> > It makes much more sense to look how activities were organized in both
> >cases. In case 1, the instructor taught Word's functions because he was
> >hired to do so by LACC and had the rigidly planned teaching curricula
> >projected on the calendar. He started preparation to his lesson by
switching
> >off all the computers at once (so all games that the kids were playing
prior
> >disappeared from the screens of their computers). He did not allow kids
to
> >play during the lesson but instead they all had to learn the Word
functions.
> >Adversary relations with the kids and their organized resistance and
> >solidarity were both the historical and dynamic contexts of his guidance.
> >
> >In case 2, the Latino boy came to the adult asked the adult to teach him
how
> >to add rap music to his video. Despite warning from some LACC officers,
the
> >volunteer trusted the boy an expensive digital video camera to make his
own
> >video the activity considered to be cool at the LACC among the
children.
> >The boy made a very provocative, critical video about local community
and,
> >by doing that, he put himself into trouble with some LACC officers who
> >expected the trouble. However, after the adult volunteer learned what
> >exactly video the boy made was about, he convinced the LACC officers that
> >their concerns were not grounded. The volunteer discussed with the boy
what
> >kind of video he wanted to make after which the boy asked the adult
> >volunteer to show how add music. Trusting and collaborative relations
> >between the boy and the volunteer made direct instruction quite
successful.
> >
> >Yrjö would probably draw his famous triangles to demonstrate how these
two
> >activity systems in the Case 1 and 2 were different, producing different
> >contradictions. This can be helpful. What is not helpful, in my view, is
to
> >analyze elements of instruction (as traditional teacher education does)
or
> >assign different types of instruction to different cultures (as Lisa
Delpit
> >seems to do).
> >
> >What do you think?
> >
> >Eugene
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Andy Blunden [mailto:ablunden@mira.net]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2003 1:03 AM
> > > To: ematusov@UDel.Edu
> > > Subject: RE: Are kids naturally good with computers?
> > >
> > > That sounds good Eugene. Could you bring out the distinction between
> > > "practices/activity" and "instructional strategy"?
> > > Andy
> > > At 12:58 AM 11/11/2003 -0500, you wrote:
> > > >Dear Philip and everybody-
> > > >
> > > >Like David, I think "we should look at practices/activity" rather on
> > > >instructional strategies. I think that it is always possible to
imagine
> >(or
> > > >find) activity contexts in which direct instruction, Distar, scripted
> > > >behaviorist instruction are useful and other contexts in which whole
> > > >language instruction is not useful (let me know and I can give such
> > > >examples). I disagree with Lisa Delpit not so much because she is
against
> > > >using a whole language approach for African American low-income kids
but
> > > >because her analysis is often not contextual, not relational, and not
> > > >activity/practice-based. Her approach seems to me too cultural
> >determinism
> > > >and essentialism.
> > > >
> > > >What do you think?
> > > >
> > > >Eugene
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: White, Phillip [mailto:Phillip.White@cudenver.edu]
> > > > > Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2003 10:22 PM
> > > > > To: ematusov@UDel.Edu; xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > > > > Cc: PIG
> > > > > Subject: RE: Are kids naturally good with computers?
> > > > >
> > > > > Eugene wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > LACC kids told me that many of them have very
> > > > > little access to computers in their schools but when they have
access
> >it
> > > >is
> > > > > very low quality access described nicely in Mike's old but
> >unfortunately
> > > > > still relevant article:
> > > > >
> > > > > Cole, M. & LCHC (1989). Kids and computers: A positive vision of
the
> > > >future.
> > > > > Harvard Educational Review, 59, 73-86.
> > > > >
> > > > > In many schools with low income kids, computers often replace
> >worksheets
> > > >(or
> > > > > workshits?? - pardon my French :-)/dittos to do drills or other
> > > > > decontextualized activities using a "bottom-up" approach described
in
> > > >Mike's
> > > > > paper. Meanwhile in many schools with middle and upper income
kids,
> > > > > computers are often used to promote creativity and higher level
> >skills...
> > > > >
> > > > > What do you think?
> > > > >
> > > > > this play out across the academic board - bad metaphor - but,
> >there
> > > >is a deep believe
> > > > > amongst many educators - and in a sense Lisa Delpit valorized this
-
> > > >writing that Black
> > > > > american students need direct instruction of skills rather than
> > > >touchy-feely whole language
> > > > > - her example of a reading program to use, Distar, is a scripted,
> > > >behaviorist, phonics/skills
> > > > > based instructional program.
> > > > >
> > > > > it is terribly complex - all these people/researchers/academics
> >telling
> > > >teachers what they
> > > > > should be doing.
> > > > >
> > > > > phillip
> > > > >
> > > > > phillip white
> > > > > university of colorado at denver
> > > > > school of education
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Dec 01 2003 - 01:00:11 PST