Re: Theoretical Knowing

Dr. Pedro R. Portes (prport01 who-is-at homer.louisville.edu)
Mon, 19 Jan 1998 17:43:15 -0500

At 11:49 AM 1/19/98 -0500, you wrote: Gordon is surely right that
>context is the key, yet the juxtaposition of Gagne and Vygotsky
>was jarring. I should add that Karpov and Haywood conclude
>that both methods should be used: in an example of teaching
>6 year olds to write letters of the alphabet "The children
>would work in groups, each of them in turn analyzing the letter
> to be copied and constructing its model, whereas the others would be
>planning, monitoring, checking and evaluating that child's
>performance"
>
>djc
>
Well Don, I sense that the main reason for finding that juxtaposition
jarring is the need for a dialectical view. I am aware that now that the
water has been thrown out with respect to ALL things bevavioral, and more
recent computational cognitive models, direct instruction and instructional
design, it may not be popular to defend Bob G..
As his former student, however, I must note that in conversations regarding
LSV, Gagne was quite open to CH ideas (in the context of our limited
understanding back then). In the context that Gagne dealt with, which had
to do with maximizing learning performance (beginning with the military and
later, corporate as well as schools), some aspects of the learning
processes (hierarchies) and domains still stand to contribute to working
with or scaffolding 25+ zpd's in any classroom-like environment (ie.
presuming a common set of goals). The split in practices seems based on
differences in goals, beliefs we know. As Gordon reminds us of, (and you
agree) context is the key. Given the social organization of schools,
teacher student ratios etc, the political economy of the school systems
around us, forcing age segregation in neat 25+, often undersocialized
students to stressed teach ratio, etc, is such a context.
So I would argue that some expertise in instructional models/ direct
practices might be developed, mastered and valued (in us,teachers) rather
than abandoned (often for 1/2 baked poorly defined concepts folks have of
these), we (All of us in society) stand to gain even if our model of the
learner, and the goals of education change.

What I wish to convey is that this is still a rich mine to exploit IF one
takes it in context, much of bob's work represents precisely theoretical
knowledge that teacher educators and student teachers need to be aware of
and expert in as part of a tool kit that also includes co-construction,
scaffolding etc.
We do not exactly know how lsv would respond, but my sense of Russian work
in this area is that it is more juxtaposed with some of the less direct
practices operating today than with Gagne's whom I regard as a master
constructivist in the contexts of negotiating different types of learning
outcomes. I take him as saying something like " first tell me what type of
knowledge you wish to construct and we can work on developing some
effective practices'. Of course, I know he is not regarded that way. I
wonder if the schism in more based on an ideology of the learner for one
camp and a focus on a technology of teaching model based on a particular
set of theoretical knowledge for teaching/learning practices .

>I hope some of you will get a chance to look at the Karpov
>and Haywood article.

I am, thanks for it, more later.

My sense was that they had indeed conflated
>spontaneous/scientific concepts with discovery/direct instruction.
>For example, they identify a strong resemblance between
>scientific concepts and Gagne's notion of "defined concept".
>Scientific concepts are best taught by demonstrating the
>links between concepts and procedures. They worry that if
>scientific concepts are taught by guided discovery, errors
>will be made and students will be left with misconceptions.
>"Theoretically, sooner or later, the teacher in a [discovery]
>classroom will have an opportunity to guide students to develop
>the correct concept, but in practice it might not happen" (p 31)
>
>I suppose what struck me as much as anything in reading this article
>is how the body of knowledge that many of us cite to support
>more learner centered, knowing, discursive, semiotic, constructivist,
>proscriptive, etc. centered instructional practices can be used
>so easily to support teacher centered, transmission, direct,
>prescriptive instruction as well. Gordon is surely right that
>context is the key, yet the juxtaposition of Gagne and Vygotsky
>was jarring. I should add that Karpov and Haywood conclude
>that both methods should be used: in an example of teaching
>6 year olds to write letters
same as 1995 article then?
of the alphabet "The children
>would work in groups, each of them in turn analyzing the letter
> to be copied and constructing its model, whereas the others would be
>planning, monitoring, checking and evaluating that child's
>performance"
>
>Sounds like Skinner's _Walden 2_ to me.......djc
>
OH no! But Walden I contexts are tough to construct these days. But
seriously, it seems that preparing teachers for both contexts or
approaches, inclusive of each's model of the learner, represents
theoretical knowledge in a broader sense. Both are needed and perhaps that
it is our responsibility to
educate teachers ib both, so they understand and even practice
dialectically an on toward synthesis... pedro
>Don Cunningham
>School of Education
>Indiana University
>Bloomington, IN 47405
>
>Phone: 812-856-8540
>Email: cunningh who-is-at indiana.edu
>Homepage: http://php.indiana.edu/~cunningh
>
>
Dr. Pedro R. Portes
University of Louisville
http://www.louisville.edu/~prport01
Office: (502)852-0630