Mike,
Can you elaborate. I personally have a hard time seeing authentic being
useful. For me it brings up notions of the eternal child which I find hard
to shallow. With the example of the computers you mentioned earlier that
definately gives us a different view of child within context or activity,
but is it a more authentic view of child or context?
Now, if the kids were simply practicing skills on the computer, not an
approach I'd favor, would that be any less an authentic picture of literacy
practices. I think my dislike with authentic is it positions the child
outside of activity or context to a certain extent. We can see practicing
skills at a computer or internet / disc communication as two activities that
give us different views of children within context / activity without
invoking "authentic".
I guess I'm wondering what we gain with "authentic" and what are its
consequences.
Nate
-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Cole [mailto:mcole@weber.ucsd.edu]
Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2000 7:04 PM
To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
Subject: Re: Pedagogical genres -- the what & the how....
its all real, but a lot of it is not authentic?
mike
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Mar 07 2000 - 17:54:01 PST