Yeh Hsueh sent me two messages that, I assume, were on the xlchc net =
last May. I found them really interesting so I decided to forward them =
to xmca together with my response.
----------------
Message #1 from Bill Penuel (May 4, 1995)
Date: Thu, 4 May 1995 06:06:42 -0700
From: BPenuel who-is-at aol.com
Date: Thu, 4 May 1995 09:06:08 -0400
To: xlchc who-is-at weber.ucsd.edu, xedu@weber.ucsd.edu
Subject: teachers, us, collaboration
Hello Jay and everyone else-
Jay, you mention the different cultures of teachers and university =
researchers, and one of the striking differences to me between the two =
cultures is the fact that rarely, perhaps even in collaborative settings =
I've observed, do university people identify themselves as teachers. =
And yet many (if not most of them) teach in addition to conducting =
research. I wonder what consequences this has for the possibilities of =
collaboration?
Bill Penuel
Department of Psychology
Clark University
950 Main Street
Worcester, MA 01610
------------------------------------
Message #2 from Jay Lemke (some time in May, 1995 -- I assume)
From: Yeh Hsueh (617)495-9505[SMTP:HSUEHYE who-is-at HUGSE1.HARVARD.EDU]
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 1995 11:16 AM
To: pruyneel who-is-at HUGSE1.HARVARD.EDU; ebtehafa@HUGSE1.HARVARD.EDU; =
saitona who-is-at HUGSE1.HARVARD.EDU; briemra@HUGSE1.HARVARD.EDU; =
randolpe who-is-at HUGSE1.HARVARD.EDU; xlchc@weber.ucsd.edu
Cc: xedu who-is-at weber.ucsd.edu
Subject: Teachers, us, and collaboration
Eugene Matusov, commented on the perennial problem of academics vs =
teachers cultures and the problems of true collaboration between us, =
i.e. collaboration in which each of our core agendas is subject to =
change from the input of the other's.
In a way this reminded me of the theme of my AERA roundtable with Gordon =
Wells (which should have included Eugene and a couple others as =
originally planned), which was, for my part, that the agendas of =
genuinely collaborative activity are much more unpredictable than we =
might like to imagine, and more at variance with the =
predictable/controllable models of curricula/outcomes that our =
middle-class culture thrives on (and many other cultures do not). In a =
separate session, Wolf-Michael Roth presented an analysis (my paper was =
based on some of the same data) that proposed that middle-class students =
lose much of their inherent cultural advantages when school tasks are =
open-ended and extended, rather than having some hidden solution-key =
(algorithm) that leads to the 'right answer' and which they are usually =
better prepared to 'discover' (i.e. culturally reconstruct).
In much the same way, I think, academics are the super-middle- class =
students in academic-teacher collaborative projects, and we too often =
prefer somewhat predictable responses on the part of teachers -- we call =
it being cooperative and professional, when it is really just being =
junior versions of ourselves, effacing any genuine Otherness that their =
different experience and positioning may lend them. We probably even =
tend to select teacher partners on such criteria. I have consulted on =
several projects of this kind, and in most of them there were one or =
more teacher 'rebellions' against the academics -- even where the =
academics were as liberal and pro-teacher as you could ask for. Even =
when the teachers were constantly invited to give 'input' to the =
project, and constructed (at least in principle) as 'partners'.
These experiences have led me to see a certain inherent conflict between =
teachers' culture and our own. We do not share common interests or =
viewpoints, or experiences, or social positions, nearly to the extent we =
(academics) like to pretend we do. I think that we prefer to ignore the =
differences and conflicts, to construct them as somehow marginal or =
irrelevant, to brandish slogans about our common agendas to 'improve =
education' or 'help the kids' -- when these goals really mean very =
different things to them and to us in any case where we really get =
specific and practical.
This was also the conclusion of my roundtable paper: that shared goals =
are often merely useful illusions, born of the productive ambiguity of =
abstract semiotic formulations of these goals (which are correspondingly =
vague enough, like the language of diplomacy, to conceal real =
differences), and that as activity develops unpredictably toward =
specificity of realization of goals, that the hidden conflicts emerge =
and must be dealt with. Where there are sufficient power differentials, =
often they are not dealt with: the powerful pretend they don't exist, =
the subordinate know they do exist but find it easier not to push, and =
collaboration unravels into a sham. (Don't we see this between teachers =
and students in many classrooms?) Even in successful collaboration, =
where all parties undergo unpredictable and mutually interdependent =
changes in their orientations and agendas, semiotic vagueness plays a =
necessary role in making us think that we agree more than we do, that we =
have a better idea where we are going than we possibly could have, and =
so ennabling us to undertake collaborative activity under the illusion =
that we share a goal and are going to get there. Without these =
illusions, we would probably not even begin.
[The need for the illusions itself raises fascinating questions about =
our middle-class culture of control and predictability, about ends-means =
rationality, about masculine fears of loss of control, etc.]
I wonder what others', especially teachers', perceptions are of the =
relations between teachers and academics attitudes and cultures? and =
what any of us may know about cultural, social class, and =
gender/sexuality differences in attitudes to sharedness of goals, =
specificity of goals, control vs. unpredictability of the course of =
collaborative activity? Surely these are important issues for the =
potential success of efforts at bring research and practice together in =
education. JAY.
JAY LEMKE.
City University of New York.
BITNET: JLLBC who-is-at CUNYVM
INTERNET: JLLBC who-is-at CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU
-----------------
Message #3 from Eugene Matusov (October 11, 1995)=20
At a recent small meeting of educational psychologists, I overheard an =
interesting conversation between two researchers about relationship =
between teachers and educational psychologists. An argument of one of =
the researcher was that teachers (and, I'd add, general public at some =
degree) mistrust educational psychologists nowadays because of shifts of =
paradigms time-to-time occurring in educational psychology. Two names =
of famous educational psychologists who thought teachers behaviorism in =
early 60s and now they teach the teachers constructivism were used as an =
example.
I see at least two different solutions of how to gain teachers' (and =
public) trust again:
1. We (i.e., educational psychologists) should explain teachers that =
the last paradigm shift has been the final shift and the future =
development of educational psychology is accumulative rather than =
revolutionary. Constructivism is the truth. We also should explain why =
the behaviorist mistake was possible and how to prevent educational =
psychology from similar mistakes in the future. This solution I don't =
like because I expect more paradigm shifts in the future.
2. An alternative approach is to recognize that the paradigm shifts are =
expected and "normal" in any science including educational psychology. =
If we accept this road, we should acknowledge that behaviorism was not a =
mistake on the road of seeking The Truth but a historic form of =
knowledge about education and psychology in a specific historic and =
cultural time. Similarly with constructivism. Of course, this =
acknowledgment has to be supported by a historic analysis of why =
behaviorism in educational psychology of the early 1960s in the US, as a =
form of scientific knowledge, fit practices and ideologies of the =
broader society. Similar analysis is needed for constructivism of =
nowadays. If what I said sounds reasonable, then the nature of =
teachers' trust has to be revisited. In the early 1960s, teachers' (and =
public's) trust was based on the authority of the science in general and =
educational psychology in specific: the truth was found by the experts =
and disseminated in the society. In the late 1980s -- early 1990s, =
teachers' trust is supposed to be based on collaboration =
(co-construction) among all involved parties: the truth is constructed =
by the participants. However, if we reflect on *historical* shifts of =
paradigms in science, we probably will not satisfy with the =
constructivist notions of collaboration, trust, and truth either.
If we seriously want to consider the option #2, I guess we should shift =
from the notion of the objective truth to the notion of historical =
truths (plural). I see the following difference between the objective =
truth and historical truths. The objective truth is final =
(non-reducible) justification of our actions with reference to =
context-free universal statements such as "educated people are better =
adjusted to society than non-educated people" or "genuine education is =
based on learning concepts not facts" or "effective education is based =
on critical thinking and collaboration" and etc. It seems to me that =
historical truths are also final (non-reducible) justifications of our =
actions but, unlike the objective truth, they refer to who we are *now* =
and who we *now* want to be in the future. In short, our current pains, =
fears, dreams, values, and desires constitute our historical truths. I =
use the word "truths" in the plural form because "we" are plural.=20
What do you think, folks?
Eugene Matusov
Psychology Department
UC Santa Cruz
Santa Cruz, CA 95064, USA
PS Jay, could you send me Wolf-Michael Roth's paper, you mentioned =
above, please?