>The scenarials were also not entirely severed from teacher directed,
>interactional, and other small group activities because as in the IEP there
>was an historical context that was delivered through audio-visual means and
>lectures. In this sense, for me, there is an important relational aspect
>between the various activities including the one more similar to PBL. So,
>PBL rather than just a different type of activity, can also be a boundry
>object in which the variety of activity settings in a classroom can be
>integrated.
>
The idea of 'PBL as boundary object' sounds pretty nifty. Would you like
to expand that on that a bit?
>Vygotsky's ZPD is a useful way for me to look at this relational process.
>First, there is the instruction leading development in that what a teacher
>explicitly teaches can have a transformative impact on the child in many
>ways. Good instruction can be revolutionary activity. Second, there is
>joint activity which Wertsch, Cole, Vera and others discuss as in the
>concept co-construction, construction zone etc. in which an activity is
>transformed and transforming for both teacher and students. Lastly, there
>is the ZPD in play or performance in which particular activities are truely
>revolutionary in that the student/s are able to be a head taller than
>themselves. Holzman and Newman discuss this in reference to their tool and
>result methodology in which theory - practice come about in one process
>rather than theory being a priori to practice. The revultionariness of this
>type of activity can be negatively impacted by theory "teacher directed"
>being a priori to practice itself.
>
>I do not see these activities as exclusive but rather each having its
>revolutionary characteristics in which in a good activity they have a
>"positive feedback" influence on each other. Our concern then would be how
>we organize activities in which the revolutionary nature is central. In
>reference to PBL I see it as an activity in Vygotsky's "play sense" in
>which it can be revolutionary. Just like not all instruction, or joint
>activity is revolutionary, not all "student based (power neutral) learning"
>is. PBL has many characteristic which I see gives it a revolutionary
>nature. It appears to be collaborative, problem or goal based, and
>relational as in bringing a variety of "funds of knowledge" together. I
>have nothing against "student centeredness" in itself, but dislike its
>oppositional stance to teacher directed, as it fails to see the relational
>nature of the "triad", teacher, joint, student. Sorry, this was so long.
This has come up several times and I am still not sure I understand your
objection. Is it the reduction to a dicotomous choice (i.e.,
student-centered or teacher-directed) or is it the fact that the model is
promoted as an alternative to (reaction to?) lecture-based instruction?
I like your points about the revolutionary nature of the activity. I do
believe that, done well, PBL can be transformative, not only WRT the
learning process, but also WRT the roles of the partipicants (students and
teachers alike).
---Tim