However, what is interesting is that the implication here is then, 'why not
adopt such theoretical learning approaches across a variety of tasks and
content areas, in reforming education. The Soviets apparently attempted to
do in reforming their teacher education etc..
The problem however is that it is not only difficult to find the
theoretical learning shortcuts for the whole K-12 curriculum, lesson by
lesson (some of which many experienced teachers develop "instinctively"
from practice, reflection, experimentation) but that teachers and teacher
educators would have to become sufficiently developed or advanced to
appreciate the significance of theory in finding/constructing the
theoretical learning algorithms needed constantly for various school
tasks, skills, objectives etc.
What I learned in Aarhus and in Cuba about the Soviet experience was that
student teachers and teacher educators needed much much assistance in
getting this and other abstract concepts to the point where the fruits
appeared solo in practice, from other- to self- regulation.
Decontextualization of this abstract concept or theoretical learning
approach (a concept / tool actually)
in solo practice did not appear feasible nor cost-effective. Maybe this was
because in trying to harness the tool for teacher education, a regression
to ye old, "let's see if you can go from this theory of theoretical
learning (X) to practice (y) did not work for a very ironic reason.
Teaching the theory of theoretical learning requires more than just
practice of exemplifying from old, established shortcuts, it requires
applying theoretical learning unto itself to produce a host of new ones. It
takes time and too much effort. So we leave it to the labs to published
lessons plans sometimes or to the assistance from more experienced master
teachers randomly...
Here we see the practice to theory to activity loop. Unless the educator
"groks" the concept of theoretical learning and experiments in practice to
find other shortcuts for new skills etc, chances are that resorting to the
traditional approaches will prevail out of convenience, habit and the
current task demands.
My students who are experienced Master's level, K-12 teachers undertstand
the gist and implications of this article or the promise of theoretical
learning as a skill/tool for teachers. Yet, they have difficulty
formulating new algorithms for their daily teaching practices. But now at
least they are more aware of their own practice, the advantages of such
shortcuts they can offer students and recognize/instantiate many such
algorithm/rules (Gagne' revisited?) in the field like;
any (small) number multiplied by 9 = a product that adds to 9 , in
learning the multiplication table ...etc 9 X 7 = 63 6+3=9 and so on as
examples of this genre of theoretical learning.
This metacognitive aid/theoretical tool probably leads to faster learning
than the alternative of empirical learning.
It would seem that experienced teachers who have spontaneously discovered
and developed such algotrithms have a wealth of such and much to offer
teacher education, learning and cognition folks etc. which goes untapped.
However, like noted earlier, the trap of thinking that x before y always,
appears at different levels.
Do we seem caught in a romantic period where the native is the teacher in
the trenches and the contribution of lab or experiment based research by
"them" (academic researchers as opposed to practioners) is much less
welcomed or considered useful?
Experience may not always be the best teacher, from it flows mediated
learning and more sophisticated teaching/learning.
Historically, of course, the actual national trend of " experimental
research has little to offer" is understandable after years of
functionalist, positivist orthodoxy, arbitrary siuatedness and top down
practices. Lest we repeat the errors reactively from the other side,
synthesis, synthesis and more synthesis, particularly before evaluation.
Maybe Bloom was partially right.
And to close, in a recent ER article by Darling-Hammond, teacher knowledge
and expertise was shown to be, by far, the most significant variable "in"
school when predicting student learning.
approachesAt 01:16 PM 5/20/99 -0500, you wrote:
>You are right, sorry. From reading Construction Zone which is the
>reference I interpreted it similarly as lower being embedded and non stage
>like. I assumed, wrongly, that the reference was to other material that I
>had not read. It does in an ironic sort of way validate the point that
>"knowledge" can be appropriated in the educational sphere is ways that are
>very contradictory to the way it was originally intended, like Bruner's
>work.
>
>What Mike, Newman, Griffin actually said,
>
>Construction Zone (155)
>
>"We do not deny that having automized knowledge of multiplication facts
>helps children learn the algorithm. We want to point out, however, that it
>also works the other way. Confronting the algorithm organizes and
>motivates the math facts. The facts and their organization are given,
>perhaps for the first time, a clear function."
>
>"Under conditions of an expert of an expert providing support for the
>"lower level" components, the child may profit by a reversal of the
>sequence. At least, it should not automatically be assumed that failure to
>learn a complex algorithm indicates the need to do more rote work on the
>basic skills. A reordering such that the higher level actions give
>functional significance to the lower operations may be far more valuable".
>
>Nate
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Mike Cole <mcole who-is-at weber.ucsd.edu>
>To: <xmca who-is-at weber.ucsd.edu>
>Sent: Thursday, May 20, 1999 11:00 AM
>Subject: in the context of, not before
>
>
>>
>> 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
>>
>
>
Pedro R. Portes,
Professor of Educational %
Counseling Psychology
310 School of Education
University of Louisville
Fax 502-852-0629
Office 502-852-0630
Web at www.makingkidssmarter.com (under construction)