in the context of, not before
Mike Cole (mcole who-is-at weber.ucsd.edu)
Thu, 20 May 1999 09:00:10 -0700 (PDT)
Nate--
You quote Renshaw as follows:
This reversal of the common-sense assumption that higher-order thinking
must be built up piecemeal by mastering lower order procedures, is
reflected also in the work of Newman Griffin and Cole (1989). They worked
with children on division and multiplication problems. The children who
experienced most difficulty with division seemed to lack an understanding
of the functional significance of the multiplication facts. Confronting the
division algorithm organised the multiplication facts, according to Newman
et al, giving the facts for the first time a clear functional significance
for some children. They suggest a re-ordering of curriculum content where
higher level actions (concepts) are taught prior to lower level operations
(Newman Griffin and Cole, 1989, p.155).functional significance
for some children. They suggest a re-ordering of curriculum content where
higher level actions (concepts) are taught prior to lower level operations
(Newman Griffin and Cole, 1989, p.155).
This passage somewhat misrepresents our views, despite the page citation.
In that work and in our work on reading we have argued, and developed
procedures, which embed "lower order" skills in a context which makes clear
the higher level goals which they enable. This is seen most clearly perhaps
in our work on re-mediation of reading instruction described in Cultural
Psychology, but it is a pretty consistent strategy in our work. It is
part of our long term unhappiness with all pedagogical strategies that
work from "level 1"-->"level 2" assumptions which we see as generally
pernicious.
mike