IN GENERAL, (and pardon me for butting in) I don't think the issue is a
paradox, Eugene, as much as it reflects the tensions between making theory
and making observations of learning and development. There do seem to be
patterns that cross cultures, such as the development of secondary
intersubjectivity prior to, and seemingly necessary for, the development of
language abilities. Now, to the best of my knowledge, there is no robust
evidence of this stated progression and necessity across all cultures, but it
does seem plausible. And I think there may be some important theoretical
relations between this progression and Vygotsky's general genetic law, which
also describes a plausible pattern. Both are underlayed by a theoretical
orientation of looking beyond just within the individual for those patterns.
If one does not take that theoretical orientation of looking at learning, one
does not see those patterns. So, I argue that what we can see, and can
formulate, is a function of how we look. How we look is a function of how we
think. Sound circular? I think so.
On Thursday 02 October 2003 11:51 am, Eugene Matusov promulgated:
> Dear David-
>
> Thanks a lot for your helpful clarification. You wrote,
>
> > To clarify, I am talking about coercion within learning pedagogies. I'm
>
> not
>
> > talking about the effects of schooling broadly. That is, I'm talking
> > about the effects of pedagogical strategies designed to promote learning
> > of various sorts. Thus, I may not be addressing your concerns about
> > whether students are coerced by general institutional norms and
> > practices.
>
> Here is where I see a problem. I wonder if we can consider learning IN
> GENERAL outside its cultural and institutional contexts or not. On one
> hand, we try to develop general concepts such as "legitimate peripheral
> participation", "guided participation" and so on that aimed to apply for
> general contexts. On the other hand, research in different cultural
> communities such as Shirley Brice Heath or Mariette de Haan warns us
> against "general" concepts and definitions. The latter creates an
> interesting paradox (although well known by Ancient Greek philosophers). To
> study learning we seem to need to know what it is. But the study of
> learning changes what we think learning is. For that reason, I really like
> Mike Cole's research narrative in his books and oral presentations that can
> simplified as following: We tried to find xyz in this community but we
> could not but instead of thinking that community does not have we started
> thinking that our definition of xyz is ethnocentric (sorry, Mike, for
> caricaturing your narrative, but would you agree with my observation?). It
> is difficult for me to think about learning "in general" without thinking
> of specific institutional and cultural contexts and practices.
>
> David wrote,
>
> > My point is simple. First, my framework seeks to pull apart the notion of
> > learning into 3 discrete metaphors, learning as habituation, (conceptual)
> > construction, and enculturation. Teaching toward students' enculturation
> > seeks to have students gain cultural dispositions of a target culture.
> > For instance, a mathematics teacher may seek to have students come to
> > participate in the specialized mathematical form of argumentation known
> > as proof.
>
> I wonder whether we can understand metaphors of learning that teachers use
> without considering institutional constraints in which they work. For
> example, what becomes meaning of "mathematical form of argumentation known
> as proof" if learning institutionally defined by passing high stake tests?
> Who demands "proof" and judges when "proof" is successful? What counts as
> "proof"? Many of my preservice teachers told me that it is "forbidden" to
> divide by zero. I asked them who forbade that and they replied "people".
> In their school contexts, math seems to be discipline of mind (in
> Foucault's sense) to follow what people allow and what they forbid to do
> with numbers.
>
> However, I think it will be interesting to consider historical and cultural
> metaphors of learning and to do "genealogical" analysis of metaphors of and
> narrative about learning (in Foucault's sense). For example, Bible's
> approach to learning is very interesting and different from current
> metaphors of learning. Jesus' students misunderstood and violated their
> teacher's curricula. They failed all high stake assessment tests. But
> nevertheless they were considered to be "model learners".
>
> What do you think?
>
> Eugene
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: David H Kirshner [mailto:dkirsh@lsu.edu]
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 4:57 PM
> > To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > Subject: RE: [Fwd: ethnicity and pedagogy?]
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Eugene asked:
> > David, can you elaborate on your statement, "What I think is new in this
> > analysis is the possibility of facilitating cultural transformation in a
> > way
> > that does not coerce identity", please? I'm not sure I understand what
> > you mean by "in a way that does not coerce identity" (of students, I
> > assume?). Also, what do you mean by "facilitating cultural
> > transformation"? Can you give examples please so I can visualize the
> > terms, please?
> >
> > Hi Eugene et al.
> > To clarify, I am talking about coercion within learning pedagogies. I'm
>
> not
>
> > talking about the effects of schooling broadly. That is, I'm talking
> > about the effects of pedagogical strategies designed to promote learning
> > of various sorts. Thus, I may not be addressing your concerns about
> > whether students are coerced by general institutional norms and
> > practices.
> >
> > My point is simple. First, my framework seeks to pull apart the notion of
> > learning into 3 discrete metaphors, learning as habituation, (conceptual)
> > construction, and enculturation. Teaching toward students' enculturation
> > seeks to have students gain cultural dispositions of a target culture.
> > For instance, a mathematics teacher may seek to have students come to
> > participate in the specialized mathematical form of argumentation known
> > as proof. There are two kinds of legitimate strategies--a student
> > centered strategy and a teacher centered strategy--that can be used
> > toward this
>
> end,
>
> > depending on how the teacher assesses the students. A student centered
> > enculturationist pedagogy builds on the dispositional characteristics
> > already present in the classroom microculture. For instance, the teacher
> > asks for students to explain and justify their assertions and finds that
> > students' arguments tend to involve material, rather than logical,
> > inferences, have recourse to authority, and the like. Then she or he
> > seeks to support the evolution of more sophisticated forms of
> > argumentation
>
> (from
>
> > a mathematical point of view) within the classroom microculture. This is
> > a form of pedagogy that does not rely on the students' identification of
> > themselves as a proto-mathematician, nor does it try to instill that kind
> > of identity.
> >
> > Next, consider a teacher of masters level mathematics students, who makes
> > the (reasonable) assumption that the students in her or his class are
> > identified as mathematicians, and are interested in acculturating
> > themselves to mathematical culture. In this case, it suffices for the
> > teacher to model appropriate proving behaviors, and to rely on the
> > students' eagerness to emulate that form of participation. Indeed, many
> > excellent and generous university faculty support their graduate
> > students' enculturation in exactly this way.
> >
> > However, in our integrative pedagogical discourse, we tend not to be very
> > analytical about the forms of learning we're supporting or the basic
> > pedagogical options we're working with. Thus we usually organize
> > enculturationist pedagogies as a mix of Enculturationist and
> > Acculturationist strategies. (In fact, the miserable truth is that proof
>
> is
>
> > usually taught--with startlingly poor results--through habituationist
>
> means
>
> > by doing repetitive practice of proof exercises--but that's another
>
> story.)
>
> > The result is that we engage in a coercion of students' identities,
> > creating an expectation they should be culturally identifying themselves
>
> as
>
> > mathematicians (or scientists, or historians, ...), rewarding those who
>
> are
>
> > so identified, because they are the ones who benefit most from such a
> > pedagogy, and creating subtle pressures with many reverberations on
> > students' identity structures. So this analysis of pedagogical intentions
> > and related assumptions about students gives us a new ethical standard
> > related to coercion of identity that is tied directly to instructional
> > practices rather than to the more general institutional structures of
> > schooling that you voiced concern about in your note.
> >
> > Thanks for your question. Hope this helps.
> >
> > David Kirshner
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "Eugene Matusov"
> > <ematusov who-is-at udel.e To:
>
> <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>
> > du> cc: (bcc: David H
>
> Kirshner/dkirsh/LSU)
>
> > Subject: RE: [Fwd:
>
> ethnicity and pedagogy?]
>
> > 10/01/2003 02:15
> > PM
> > Please respond
> > to ematusov
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Dear David and everybody-
> >
> > David, can you elaborate on your statement, "What I think is new in this
> > analysis is the possibility of facilitating cultural transformation in a
> > way
> > that does not coerce identity", please? I'm not sure I understand what
> > you mean by "in a way that does not coerce identity" (of students, I
> > assume?). Also, what do you mean by "facilitating cultural
> > transformation"? Can you give examples please so I can visualize the
> > terms, please?
> >
> > I feel that what you are talking about is very important for me but I
> > need more clarity. I teach future teachers and I hate (traditional?)
> > schooling. Using a binary language, I teach future oppressors-oppressed
> > and I'm their current oppressor*. My intentions are often (not always)
> > good but my deeds are not. I'm a part of the system (but maybe not a very
> > good citizen of it or it can be one of my illusions). My students and I
> > are "thrown" into semester by institutional impersonal forces. We impose
> > our "projects" on each other (using Heidegger's terms).
> >
> > Now, where is in this picture "facilitating cultural transformation"? And
> > why should I be concerned with not coercing students' (and my own?)
> > identities? Please help.
> >
> > Eugene
> > * My simplistic "test" on oppression is very simple: students are not
> > oppressed if they come to class and do work for the class because they
> > freely choose to do that. I doubt that my classes can pass this test.
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: David H Kirshner [mailto:dkirsh@lsu.edu]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2003 2:26 PM
> > > To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > > Subject: Re: [Fwd: ethnicity and pedagogy?]
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Juanita Cole asked:
> > > how can students' racial/ethnic culture be remote
> > > from target disciplinary culture? This sounds
> > > confusing especially when considering, for example,
> > > Ancient Egyptians and "mathematical culture".
> > >
> > > Juanita, this is a complicated question you ask.
> > > My post to which you responded said:
> > > I generally take the reference culture for enculturationist pedagogies
>
> to
>
> > > be disciplinary cultures (e.g., mathematical culture, historiographical
> > > culture, etc.) that are presumed to be specialized cultures remote from
> >
> > the
> >
> > > varied ethnic and racial cultures in which students' identities are
> >
> > vested.
> >
> > > Thus I'm not really making the claim that disciplinary cultures are
> >
> > remote
> >
> > > from ethnic and racial cultures--they're not!--, only that for the
> >
> > purposes
> >
> > > of enculturationist pedagogy they are treated as remote. My
> >
> > reasons--still
> >
> > > being formulated, and certainly subject to review--have to do with the
> > > framework for pedagogical methods I'm constructing. The framework
> > > articulates 6 pedagogical methods that constitute what I call the
> >
> > "learning
> >
> > > pedagogies" aimed at individual learning, to distinguish them from
> >
> > critical
> >
> > > and liberatory pedagogies aimed at social transformation.
> > >
> > > In a previous post (which I've appended below), I outlined an
> > > Enculturationist and an Acculturationist pedagogy each aiming to
> > > enculturate students to disciplinary cultures. [take a moment to read
> >
> > this
> >
> > > post, or the following won't make sense.]
> > > What's tricky is that critical pedagogies also make use of
> >
> > enculturationist
> >
> > > learning techniques. Generally critical pedagogies employ one (or a
> > > combination) of the following approaches to influence the broader
> >
> > society:
> > > (a) create a microcosm of a utopian society in the classroom, or (b)
> >
> > create
> >
> > > a subculture of resistance to mainstream culture. The first approach
> >
> > relies
> >
> > > on an enculturationist pedagogy, whereas the second relies on an
> > > acculturationist pedagogy.
> > >
> > > My strategy for distinguishing enculturationist/acculturationist
>
> critical
>
> > > pedagogies from enculturationist/acculturationist learning pedagogies
> > > is with respect to the target culture: critical pedagogies target
> > > utopian
>
> or
>
> > > resistance cultures; learning pedagogies target disciplinary cultures
> > > (e.g., mathematical culture, historiographical culture, scientific
> >
> > culture,
> >
> > > literary criticism culture...). My reason for adopting this strategy is
> > > essentially traditionalist: disciplinary cultures are of transcendent
> >
> > value
> >
> > > to a society. A society has an obligation to reproduce disciplinary
> > > cultures through institutions of public education so that all members
> > > of the society have an opportunity to participate in the disciplines.
> > >
> > > The fact that students' different cultural backgrounds may tend to
>
> locate
>
> > > them differently with respect to disciplinary cultures shows that it is
> > > almost always a bad idea to use acculturationist teaching strategies in
> > > schools--such pedagogies build on students' cultural identification.
> > > However, enculturationist strategies are the pedagogical vehicles par
> > > excellence for bridging cultural gaps and creating equity of
> > > opportunity
> >
> > to
> >
> > > participate in the disciplines. In such a pedagogy, the teacher is
> >
> > focused
> >
> > > on supporting the evolution and consolidation of more sophisticated
>
> forms
>
> > > of participation (dispositions) within the classroom microculture. This
> >
> > is
> >
> > > done by working to ensure that all individuals are active participants
>
> in
>
> > > the classroom microculture, and by sanctioning increasingly
>
> sophisticated
>
> > > practices. It's true that there may be systematic differences in the
> >
> > level
> >
> > > of contribution that students of different backgrounds make to the
> > > evolutionary process. But because disciplinary cultures are highly
> > > specialized, becoming enculturated will be a stretch for all students.
>
> It
>
> > > is in this limited sense that the teacher can be said to exploit the
> > > differential cultural resources that the students provide, while
> > > viewing all of the students as entering a new or remote culture.
> > >
> > > What I think is new in this analysis is the possibility of facilitating
> > > cultural transformation in a way that does not coerce identity.
> > > Usually, when we think about enculturationist pedagogy we think about a
> > > melding
>
> of
>
> > > Enculturation and Acculturation. Thus a degree of coercion is assumed.
> > > Indeed, by building on the students' current cultural location,
> > > acculturationist pedagogies can really be pernicious w.r.t. magnifying
> > > cultural advantages rather than reducing them. In fact, my tendency is
>
> to
>
> > > want to discourage acculturationist pedagogies--to create an
> > > educational ethic (at least a K-12 education ethic) against pedagogies
> > > that seek to influence students' cultural location. However, this move
> > > would
>
> seriously
>
> > > limit the possibilities for critical pedagogy. That's because critical
> > > pedagogies seem to have to rely on acculturation to a much greater
>
> extent
>
> > > than do learning pedagogies. The primary strategy of critical pedagogy
>
> is
>
> > > (b), above. Creating a culture of resistance entails winning the
>
> students
>
> > > over to a new cultural identification. Even in the case of (a),
> > > creating
> >
> > a
> >
> > > utopian microculture in the classroom doesn't seem like it provides an
> > > effective means for social transformation unless the students identify
> > > themselves with a utopian mission. Thus the framework of learning
> > > pedagogies I'm formulating seem, potentially, to threaten or undermine
> >
> > the
> >
> > > projects of critical pedagogy. I'm going to be presenting these ideas
> > > at the Bergamo curriculum theory conference this week, and am very
> > > grateful
> >
> > to
> >
> > > you, Juanita, Mike, and others, for encouraging me to articulate these,
> > > still very tentative, thoughts.
> > >
> > > David Kirshner
> > >
> > > __________________________________________________
> > > Previous Posting on Enculturationist and
> > > Acculturationist Pedagogy
> > > __________________________________________________
> > >
> > >
> > > Enculturation
> > >
> > > All of these pedagogical methods are conceived within the dominant
> > > discourse focused on individual student learning. However,
> >
> > enculturationist
> >
> > > learning techniques also turn out to be central to critical pedagogies
> >
> > that
> >
> > > aim for social transformation. Thus, following is an introduction to
>
> this
>
> > > learning metaphor and its associated learning pedagogies. Enculturation
> >
> > is
> >
> > > the process of acquiring cultural dispositions through enmeshment in a
> > > cultural community. I interpret dispositions broadly as inclinations to
> > > engage with people, problems, artifacts, or oneself in culturally
> > > particular ways. Thus, for example, the NCTM's (1991) objectives that
> > > students come to "explore, conjecture, reason logically; to solve
> > > non-routine problems; to communicate about and through mathematics ...
> >
> > [as
> >
> > > well as] personal self-confidence and a disposition to seek, evaluate,
> >
> > and
> >
> > > use quantitative and spatial information in solving problems and in
> >
> > making
> >
> > > decisions" (p. 1) all reflect an enculturationist learning agenda.
> >
> > (Recall
> >
> > > that the cognitive dispositions like critical thinking and problem
> >
> > solving
> >
> > > are understood as culturally located in the crossdisciplinary
> > > framework, and hence are addressed through
> > > enculturationist/acculturationist pedagogies.)
> > >
> > > A paradigm example of enculturation is explored by social psychologists
> > > under the rubric of proxemics (Hall, 1966; Li, 2001). Proxemics, or
> > > personal space, is the tendency for members of different national
> >
> > cultures
> >
> > > to draw differing perimeters around their physical bodies for varying
> > > social purposes. Thus, natives of France tend to prefer closer physical
> > > proximity for conversation than do Americans (Remland, Jones, &
>
> Brinkman,
>
> > > 1991). I count coming to participate in this cultural norm a
>
> particularly
>
> > > pure instance of enculturation because it is accomplished without
> > > volitional participation. Generally people within a national culture
> > > acquire proxemic dispositions through culture enmeshment without
> >
> > intending
> >
> > > it, and even without awareness of the cultural norm.
> > >
> > > This pure form of enculturation is possible in a unitary culture in
>
> which
>
> > > only a single dispositional variation is present. However, one also can
> > > come to be enculturated into a subculture whose dispositional
> > > characteristics are distinctive among a range of other subcultures'
> >
> > (e.g.,
> >
> > > being a scientist, being a punk rocker, etc.). In such instances,
> >
> > inductees
> >
> > > often seek to actively acculturate themselves to a subculture, thereby
> > > bringing volitional resources to the task of acquiring the subculture's
> > > dispositional characteristics. Acculturation is intentionally "fitting
> >
> > in"
> >
> > > to a cultural milieu by emulating the cultural dispositions displayed
> > > therein. However, this process needs to be understood as supplementary
>
> to
>
> > > the more basic unconscious processes of enculturation going on around
> > > it all the time. A cultural milieu is constituted of innumerable
> > > cultural dispositions, of which only a limited number can be
> > > consciously
>
> addressed
>
> > > through strategies of acculturation.
> > >
> > > Enculturationist Pedagogy: This distinction points to two pedagogical
> > > strategies that can be discerned in the education literature. In
> > > enculturationist (student centered) teaching, the teacher begins by
> > > identifying a target culture and target dispositions within that
>
> culture.
>
> > > The instructional focus is on the classroom microculture, which the
> >
> > teacher
> >
> > > works to shape so that it comes to more closely resemble the target
> >
> > culture
> >
> > > with respect to the target dispositions. In a pure enculturationist
> > > pedagogy, students "learn" through their enmeshment in the cultural
> >
> > milieu
> >
> > > of the classroom rather than from motivated efforts at becoming
> > > acculturated to some other cultural milieu for which the classroom
> > > interaction is an entryway.
> > >
> > > Often disciplinary cultures are targeted in enculturationist pedagogy.
> >
> > For
> >
> > > instance, Sexias (1993) sought to organize instruction to establish
> > > "criteria for historical evidence, methods of determining historical
> > > significance, and limits on interpretive license" (Windschitl, 2002, p.
> > > 149)-dispositions of historiographers. Similarly, Lampert (1990) and
> > > Schoenfeld (1994) have worked to establish mathematical communities in
> > > their classrooms so that students can acquire characteristically
> > > mathematical modes of argumentation and problem solving, as well as
>
> other
>
> > > mathematical dispositions. Yackel and Cobb (1996) most clearly
>
> articulate
>
> > > an enculturationist pedagogical agenda in their discussion of
> > > sociomathematical norms as the targeted dispositions of mathematical
> > > culture (e.g., the preference for mathematically elegant solutions)
> > > that come to be "interactively constituted by each classroom community"
> > > (p. 475). Implementing this kind of pedagogy requires sensitivity to
> > > the current dispositional character of the classroom microculture
> > > relative
>
> to
>
> > > the target dispositions, and the ability to work over an extended
> > > period
> >
> > of
> >
> > > time (the duration of a course) to nurture increasingly sophisticated
> > > cultural norms.
> > >
> > > Acculturationist Pedagogy: Often the enculturationist teacher helps
> >
> > develop
> >
> > > the dispositional character of the classroom by positioning her or
> >
> > himself
> >
> > > as a central participant in the evolving classroom microculture (for
> > > example, by regularly signaling deep appreciation of student solutions
> >
> > that
> >
> > > tend toward mathematical elegance). However, the teacher need not
>
> signify
>
> > > as a representative of the target culture for such cultural
> > > dispositions
> >
> > to
> >
> > > take root within the classroom microculture. Students are learning from
> > > their enmeshment in the classroom microculture, not from their efforts
>
> to
>
> > > acculturate to the disciplinary norms. This can be distinguished from
> > > acculturationist pedagogy in which the teacher overtly models cultural
> > > dispositions for the benefit of students who are culturally identified
> >
> > with
> >
> > > the target culture. For instance, a science teacher may stress the lab
> > > procedures he/she is modeling are the authentic methods of science, so
> >
> > that
> >
> > > students who are self-identified as novice-scientists can have access
> > > to these valued cultural practices to further their own scientific
> > > acculturation. Or acculturationist pedagogies may seek to encourage
> > > cultural identification, for instance by positioning students as
> > > experts
> >
> > on
> >
> > > a particular scientific topic and involving them in email collaboration
> > > with actual scientists (Brown & Campione, 1996). Concern for "authentic
> > > practice," (e.g., in apprenticeship models of pedagogy inspired by
> >
> > situated
> >
> > > cognition theory, Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989, p. 34), is a hallmark
> >
> > of
> >
> > > an acculturationist agenda (though cognitive apprenticeship also
> > > employs enculturationist strategies).
-- ----------------- bb
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Nov 01 2003 - 01:00:07 PST