Hi Eugene,
Your question challenging the notion of "appropriateness" in the quote I
posted is really good, thank you for the thought-provoker. But the brief
quote I provided may have led you astray. "Appropriateness" in the
classroom is not the focus in that article. Please allow me to spend a few
moments drawing out the idea of repertoires (as I see it) a little better,
quoting from the article at a little more length.
Kris Gutierrez and Barbara Rogoff wrote their article "Cultural Ways of
Learning: Individual Traits or Repertoires of Practice" as both a critique
of the individual traits, or cultural styles thesis - the "widespread
assumption that characteristics of cultural groups are located *within*
individuals as "carriers" of culture" - and also as a promotion of an
alternative approach - a cultural-historical based thesis they call
"repertoires of practice."
Their overriding concern in the article is the question "how to
characterize regularities of individuals' [learning] approaches according
to their cultural background."
They offer a cultural-historical approach, which they explain can focus
"researchers' and practitioners' attention on variations in individuals'
and groups' histories of engagement in cultural practices ...".
Kris and Barbara argue that these "variations reside not as traits of
individuals or collections
of individuals, but as proclivities of people with certain histories of
engagement with specific cultural activities."
It is these proclivities of individual people that they are suggesting as
being key to characterizing the regularities and variations in individuals'
approaches to learning. They suggest, as a way of understanding these
proclivities, attention should be placed on "individuals' linguistic and
cultural-historical repertoires" - their repertoires for participating in
cultural practices in general.
They explain: "By "linguistic and cultural-historical repertoires, we mean
the ways of engaging in activities stemming from observing and otherwise
participating in cultural practices."
This was the context in the article for the quote from my earlier post:
"Individuals' background experiences, together with their interests, may
prepare them for knowing how to engage in particular forms of language and
literacy activities, play their part in testing formats, resolve
interpersonal problems according to specific community-organized
approaches, and so forth. An important feature of focusing on repertoires
is encouraging people to develop dexterity in determining which approach
from their repertoire is appropriate under which circumstances (Rogoff,
2003)."
They continue, stressing the importance of personal and community history:
"Characterizing children's repertoires or proclivities would involve
characterizing their experience and initiative in prior cultural
activities (Rogoff, 1997). We would characterize their repertoires
in terms of their familiarity with engaging in particular practices
on the basis of what is known about their own and their community's
history."
The following is a key paragraph. It demonstrates the notion of repertoire
with examples of common areas where various cultural traditions may show
variations in patterns.
"For example, students who have participated in varying
cultural traditions would differ in repertoires for engaging in
discussions with authority figures, answering known-answer questions,
analyzing word problems on the basis of counterfactual
premises, seeking or avoiding being singled out for praise, spontaneously
helping classmates, observing ongoing events without
adult management, responding quickly or pondering ideas before
volunteering their contributions, and many other approaches that
are sometimes treated as characteristics of individuals."
The crucial idea is that these are examples of repertoires that are
absorbed by individuals from their participation in community practices and
traditions, but they are not inherent traits or characteristics of
individuals.
Kris and Barbara also emphasize taking into account "the development of the
cultural
activities" as well.
They stress "To understand both individual and community
learning it is necessary to examine the nature and forms
of cultural artifacts and tools used; the social relations, rules, and
division of labor; and the historical development of individuals
and communities."
And here is another use of the term "appropriate" that conveys the more
general context they are referring to. The authors continue:
"We would then be able to characterize a child's repertoires and dexterity
in moving between approaches appropriate to varying activity settings."
They aren't referring to "appropriate" activity in a classroom (such as
obeying the rules) as much as they are referring to the necessity for any
individual to competently employ a variety of repertoires in the numerous
contexts they deal with. Learning how to apply known repertoires in new
settings and developing new repertoires as needed is what I believe the
authors mean by the term "dexterity."
They maintain that by understanding and characterizing repertoires and
dexterity in this way, researchers could contribute toward developing an
"historical developmental account of that child's or that community's
familiar, value-laden experience" and "would then be able to speak about
the usual, customary, or even habitual approaches taken by individuals (and
communities) in known circumstances."
The authors finish the article up with some suggestions for both teachers
and researchers for proceeding with this "repertoires of practice" idea,
such as not teaching to students' supposed traits based on their ethnicity,
but instead "helping students develop dexterity in using both familiar and
new approaches."
What do you think?
Best,
- Steve
PS: Eugene, your story about Hector and his science article assignment was
a pure delight!
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Nov 01 2003 - 01:00:07 PST