Nice story Eugene. I'm still confused about the meaning of the words
though, like which is which?
It seems to me that in Case 2, the tutor understood that until he could
find a "project" to which both he (with his aim of teaching) and the kid
with his own aim, could both commit, and collaborate together, then
learning was ruled out. As you correctly said, in case 1, the tutor had his
project worked out and the kids were not part of it, in fact they were
threatening to his project and the kids quickly recognised the adversarial
relation.
The common project constituted a "third" mediating between the two parties;
each committed to this third from their own perspective. This third was the
basis of trust and collaboration and mutual recognition.
Andy
At 04:26 AM 11/11/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>Dear Andy and everybody
>
>Andy asked me,
> > Could you bring out the distinction between
> > "practices/activity" and "instructional strategy"?
>
>Let me try and I hope other people will join to help. I'll tell my
>observations from my in afterschool program at the Latin American Community
>Center. I was more than an observer but it does not much matter...
>
>Case1 (several years ago). A computer instructor tried to teach a sixth
>grade African American boy how to use formatting functions of the Microsoft
>Word program. He used a direct instruction for about 20 minutes with the
>boy: lecturing, demonstrating, ERFs, and scaffolding. The boy made jokes,
>tried to talk with other kids in the computer room, and was not very
>attentive. The instructor was obviously angry with the boy but tried to
>cover up this emotion. The instructor finished his guidance after the boy
>was able to do several simply actions of formatting. He turned and moved
>away from the boy when the boy threw a piece of uneaten apple that was on
>the desk. All kids around laughed. The instructor got mad (almost literally)
>running around the computer lab and asking who did that.... (I pretended
>that I did not see the episode because by that time I was ready to kill the
>instructor myself but it was another story).
>
>Case 2 (several weeks ago). A volunteering adult tried to teach a Latino
>seventh grade boy how to add music to videos using Pinnacle 8 video editing
>software. The adult also used a direct instruction for about 20 minutes with
>the boy: lecturing, demonstrating, ERFs, and scaffolding. The boy was very
>attentive, asked questions time to time. Both of them were highly engaged.
>At some point, the boy asked the volunteer if he wanted to drink. The
>volunteer said yes, the boy ran away and brought soda to him leftover from
>LACC celebration another day. A few other LACC boys came to observe what the
>volunteer and boy were doing and asked the adult to help them to do videos
>as well...
>
>For the instructional point of view, both adults provide the same guidance:
>direct instruction using the same instructional elements. However, the
>result was very different. It is possible to argue that the difference was
>in culture of the kids: Latino kids are more respectful while African
>American kids are more independent. Except... this explanation did not work
>in these cases. The Latino boy had several suspensions from school by that
>time and had a rather negative reputation at LACC as being very unreliable
>and irresponsible, goofy child. The African American boy was at very good
>stand both in school and at the LACC.
>
> It makes much more sense to look how activities were organized in both
>cases. In case 1, the instructor taught Word's functions because he was
>hired to do so by LACC and had the rigidly planned teaching curricula
>projected on the calendar. He started preparation to his lesson by switching
>off all the computers at once (so all games that the kids were playing prior
>disappeared from the screens of their computers). He did not allow kids to
>play during the lesson but instead they all had to learn the Word functions.
>Adversary relations with the kids and their organized resistance and
>solidarity were both the historical and dynamic contexts of his guidance.
>
>In case 2, the Latino boy came to the adult asked the adult to teach him how
>to add rap music to his video. Despite warning from some LACC officers, the
>volunteer trusted the boy an expensive digital video camera to make his own
>video the activity considered to be cool at the LACC among the children.
>The boy made a very provocative, critical video about local community and,
>by doing that, he put himself into trouble with some LACC officers who
>expected the trouble. However, after the adult volunteer learned what
>exactly video the boy made was about, he convinced the LACC officers that
>their concerns were not grounded. The volunteer discussed with the boy what
>kind of video he wanted to make after which the boy asked the adult
>volunteer to show how add music. Trusting and collaborative relations
>between the boy and the volunteer made direct instruction quite successful.
>
>Yrjö would probably draw his famous triangles to demonstrate how these two
>activity systems in the Case 1 and 2 were different, producing different
>contradictions. This can be helpful. What is not helpful, in my view, is to
>analyze elements of instruction (as traditional teacher education does) or
>assign different types of instruction to different cultures (as Lisa Delpit
>seems to do).
>
>What do you think?
>
>Eugene
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Dec 01 2003 - 01:00:11 PST