There is a sliver of time for me to respond to Carol's article, and please
forgive the typos, they will be worse than usual.
First, I think Carol makes an important contribution to the various fields of
educational design and further presents all educators with challenges. But
then in contrast, personally, I don't think another theoretical framework is
necessary for culturally responsive design. My *choice* has been to work
within CHAT, to extend its scope and depth in a manner informed by work
"inside" and "outside" CHAT. Carol's work is nearly parallel in this
respect, although her focus is to develop a new framework that draws upon
CHAT and others. I think it is important to note this difference up front.
The use of computers in schools offers some interesting theoretical problems.
Like Carol, I think many of these problems are not isolated to computers, but
extend across many technologies (her use of the word "technologies" is
similar to artifacts, if we follow Wartofsky's triloogy of categories), such
as curricula, textbooks, methods, etc. From an activity systems perspective,
a major source of trouble comes from these artifacts being designed
(historically shaped) in one system that is isolated, more or less, from the
system in which they are used. Yrjo's "Learning by expanding" treats this
issue to a degree.
This has not always been the case for humans. Lots of anthropological studies
of early humans tie the use and users of tools to the toolmakers within the
same social group. That is to say, the tool maker resided within the social
group using the tool. This is not the situation now. as our societies have
developed there are specialized divisions of labor (arguably increasingly
spcialized) and technologies are often developed outside of the context of
their use. Alienation writ large. Giddens, Weber et al. have useful
discussions on this topic. Tensions have consequently emerged and such
appeoches as Schneidermans Usability Design (involving thr user in the design
of software) or "field testing" and "formative evaluation" of curricula have
resulted to try to resolve thse tensions.
But Carol makes another important point. Children are also shaped by their
participation in systems of activity other than school. For someone studying
child development from cultural perspective (this definition seesm to exclude
most educational tech designers) this is a no brainer. Bronfenbrenner has a
useful (child centered) diagram that indicates the typical microsystems a N.
American child participates in. The introductory text by Cole and Cole is
replete with research and examples of childrens development by participation
across many situations (including an reference to Barker and wright's
illuminating study of one child in one day). So what's the big deal?
The frist part big deal is that, if we apply an activity systesm perspective,
the design of technologies (writ large in Carol's usage) face enormous
complexities. Computers are made by one industry. Software by another.
Textbooks by yet another. Most of the time the work within thse industries
(within ny one company) is argualby isolatd from the day to day practices of
school work. In the past people within those industries have pretty much
assumed a uniformity of people uing the tools they create. While this might
capture the "mainstream", there are people that such technologies do not
reach. Univeral design approaches and places as the Center for Applied
Special Technology (CAST) attempt to bridge the resulting gaps.
The second part of the big deal are the consequneces of Carols point that
children come from a diversity of home and community contexts. In the US,
the classroom is expected to be the melting pot into which all children will
blend and, being poured out, uniformly pass the quality control tests to
meet academic expectations (which are increasingly being generated further
and further from the childrens immediate contexts, in state and government).
Yet each of the children in a diverse classroom come from different home
contexts, from a mom, dad and siblings setting, to one with a new baby, to a
divorced single parent (or being divorced) to an adopted home. And on top of
THAT, each of those families come from and participate in different local
cultures, shaping, as Carol indicates, what the child thinks is relevant to
learn.
Triangle artists can have a field day creating a sort of abstract
impressionist rendition of the complexity of a teachers work. Imagine a
canvas against which Jackson Pollack is throwing triangles with passionate
spontaneity. Red, white, and blue triangles; black, yellow, and tan colors,
distorted triangles, triangles filled to the brim and others anorexic, some
intersecting and others in relative isolation. And then, as if the sheer
number and diveristy were not enough, Pollacks triangles are in motion,
randomly and chaotically, and perhaps in mass drifting to the right, with
some being left behind.
(Try diagramming that, BB ;-)
I think in part, the implication of Carol's work for me is that this melee of
triangles penetrating into the classroom needs to somehow be accounted for
in the design (and application) of technologies, and lets not forget, in the
way people are taught and learn to use the technologies, including "teacher
development". That doing so is *cumbersome* is a critque challenged by
Carol, but perhaps not fully enough. Placing culture at the center is
definitely a hopeful strategy I've heard echoed here on xmca. Rather than
coming up with yet another framework, I'd prefer to build on CHAT as the
foundation, but I have to admit that CHAT per se is just one triangle in the
choices available.
-----------------
bb
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Dec 01 2003 - 01:00:11 PST