RE: [xmca] method of double stimulation

On March 1, 2008 Peter Smagorinsky Wrote:

"I don't think I'd characterize my research as employing a
double-stimulation, if it means a situation "in which children convert
external assistance into means that lead to task success."
(http://www.leaonline.com/doi/abs/10.1207/s15327884mca0402_4) Rather, I
study (at least in the work that Eric refers to) what I'd term situated
cognition in a classroom setting. While collaboration does take place and
while I attempt to situate the students' work as well as I can
culturally-historically and in relation to the teacher's instruction, I
don't do an intervention. Rather, I study how students work in relation to
routine classroom instruction designed by the teacher (for the most
part)--a
major reason that the teacher is almost always credited as a coauthor in
the
publications and presentations."

Such an important statement - placing practice as THE primary research
tool. Perhaps, the intervention is so subtle it is difficult to discern?
"student's work (unit of analysis)" being the goal of the student (?)
"effectiveness of instruction (unit of analysis) being the goal of the
teacher (?)

the dialectic being the different unit of measuring instruction and a
different unit of measuring learning: however, in both cases 'word
meaning' is the methodology (?)

any sense at all?????

eric

_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
Received on Sat Mar 1 18:38 PST 2008