>
>I have read the articles by teachers Gordon has worked with, and I was duly
>impressed then by what they were achieving. Still, like Nate and others
>here, I want to see more of the way these and other teachers create the
>conditions for collaborative inquiry, especially in inner city schools in
>the U.S., which are less cosmopolitan than Toronto schools -- how they deal
>with disruption, and how they do all this in different domains. I wonder if
>Helena Wortham, who regularly observes interactions over ideologically riven
>objects materials might say more about the negotiations she observes. I
>would like to hear more about the sorts of objects that get constructed in
>heterogeneous work settings....
>
Judy,
I don't think the distinction you imply between Canada and the US is
as great as you seem to think. Certainly, in the US (or at least in
California) teachers are being railroaded into focusing exclusively
on scripted teaching which is supposed to lead to better test scores.
But the same is happening in Canada, Britain and elsewhere.
You are right, I'm sure, to ask about how the sort of classroom
communities are brought about by the teachers I work with. The
answer, I think, is that, as a group, the teachers are committed to
putting into practice their understanding of CHAT principles, by
building into their programs multiple opportunities for collaborative
work on joint activities, open-ended class discussions, and an
overall "inquiry" approach to the topics they address (hence the name
of the group: Developing Inquiring Communities in Education). Early
in 2003 there will be a special issue of Networks
(http://www.oise.utoronto.ca/~ctd/networks/) that will feature
articles by this group, in which they address the theme of
co-research with their students. I think these articles, taken
together, will give a good idea of the ways in which they approach
their work with students and how the students grow into the values
and practices of the community. (Already in the first issue of
Networks (1998) there were articles by two of the teachers, Karen
Hume and Zoe Donoahue, that give a good idea of how they work.)
One thing that is very obvious from their writings and from the hours
of videorecordings I have from their classrooms is that, as Mike
says, cognition and emotion are fused in the social interaction
through which learning and teaching are enacted. It is significant,
I think, how often kids describe a really interesting and challenging
activity in which they have engaged productively in terms of it being
fun. One of my most vivid memories is of a grade three teacher
telling her class, as they began work on their individual projects on
animals of their choice, "You must care about your topic. I don't
want anybody to work on a topic that they don't really care about."
(I have this on videotape!!) She is so right. The current gradgrind
emphasis on facts and skills devoid of personal interest and purpose
is the antithesis of true education. Remember Vygotsky's advice on
teaching writing: "teaching should be organized in such a way that
reading and writing are necessary for something Š Writing should be
incorporated into a task that is relevant and necessary for life"
(1978, pp.117-118).
But I am getting on to my hobby-horse ...!!
Gordon
-- Gordon Wells UC Santa Cruz. gwells@cats.ucsc.edu http://people.ucsc.edu/~gwells/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Dec 01 2002 - 01:00:07 PST