Re: [xmca] Bruner on Vygotsky

[mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>]

Whoa, it would be great if you sent along the pdf, Bill.

I am really interested in the AL and DI alternatives, too. Before
commenting, I would rather read and come up to date on what the current
Englemann is about in Australia. Unlike many here, I am an amateur in my
knowledge of Halliday's work which I see as very similar to what I have
been able to put together from the teachings of my colleagues.

I am more or less floored by the idea that the ideas upon which DI were
founded are unexceptional. When you misunderstand things as badly as I
evidently do in this case, best to sit down and wait for
some more information.

A question: What do you believe to be the relationship between the idea of
a Zone of Proximal Develoment and scaffolding? Are they synonyms? Can they
be joined as in Zoped/scaffolding?  If not, why not? I know that views on
this matter differ widely. I think that one's answer might guide the
development of curricula.

All very informative.
mike


On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 5:17 PM, Bill Kerr <billkerr@gmail.com> wrote:

> hi Mike,
>
> Thanks for description of Engelmann's approach. It's not a distraction from
> Bruner or Vygotsky. I did introduce Engelmann's approach at the beginning
> since I'm very interested in the comparison b/w AL and that approach.
>
> Your earlier comment implied a critique of Engelmann. From the extracts you
> provide now I can't see that critique so you will have to spell it out for
> me more.
>
> Sorry, I'm not familiar with the nitty gritty details of the Cape York
> Pearson / Engelmann implementation. I did write up the details of a recent
> speech by Noel Pearson in which he claimed it was working. I posted that
> link in my reply to Helen and will repeat it here:
>
> http://billkerr2.blogspot.com/2011/12/ending-groundhog-day-of-educational.html
>
> Pearson has written an essay called "Radical Hope", which provides the
> background to his choice of Engelmann's DI. I do have it as a pdf so let me
> know if you want to read it. I'm a huge fan of Pearson but of course his
> primary area of expertise is in indigenous affairs, not education. I find
> his writings on indigenous matters quite electrifying. I'm not so sure
> however that his principle of the radical centre has been applied to the
> educational sphere.
>
>  This section of Engelmann's bio, "Teaching Needy Kids in our Backward
> system" goes a long way to explaining his theoretical basis, Theory of
> Instruction, pp. 259-266. I'm definitely interested in continuing this
> conversation.
>
>
>
>
__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca