Dear Steve-
You are right, I did not read the article (but it is on my list!) and did
not do my homework :-) Thanks a lot for helpful discussion of the paper -
I'll try to read it as soon as possible.
However, being Barbara's students I'm a bit familiar with her use of the
term "appropriate" (and "appropriation"). And I have still a problem with
that.
You wrote,
> 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."
Of course, you are right that Barbara and Cris do not mean conformity in
school. However, in my view, they objectivize and finalize appropriateness
(and competence) as a state rather than a boundary and a struggle.
Ontologically, "appropriateness" (and competence) exists only as a problem
of disrupting power relations of "we" recognized as such through
oppositional solidarity. Moreover, I think that it is at best an illusion or
at worse coercion to claim that appropriateness (and competence) pre-exists
the conflict I refer to.
Bruno Latour wrote about science-in-action (in my words, I do not have the
book with me for the exact quote) "machine works when relevant people are
convinced that it works". I would paraphrase him as "children competently
employ a variety of repertoires in the numerous contexts they deal with WHEN
relevant (and powerful) adults are convinced that they do so." For me the
most interesting and thought provoking part of Barbara's statement is at its
beginning "we would then be able to characterize a child's..." as an
opposition of powerful "we" to less powerful "child" who supposed to be
"characterized" ("finalized" in Bakhtin's term) for a certain, probably
institutional, reason. However, I definitely need to read the article to
move any further. Thanks, Steve, again for your summary and please excuse me
if my comments are off your target because I did not read the article.
What do you think?
Eugene
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steve Gabosch [mailto:bebop101@comcast.net]
> Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 5:21 AM
> To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> Subject: RE: enculturation, ethnemes, pedagogy, research
>
> 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