I'm not certain if Smagorinsky intended to reiterate some of Anne Dyson's ideas of instruction, but his notion of an organic, protean instructional scaffold sounded very similar to Dyson's metaphor of weaving: the teachers and learners are both "alive and animated." Teachers are expected to learn from their students' own learning processes and adjust their material or methods in order to ensure that students are learning and retaining the material. I like to think that I've tutored with Smagorinsky's idea of instructional scaffolding in mind. I can't say that I've applied a strategy similar to scaffolding, but I tried to work with my students in a way that encouraged them to begin to think for themselves. I reasoned that our sessions would have meant nothing if they couldn't apply the same strategies/knowledge on their own. Despite my inability to specify how I did what I did, I can take some comfort in the fact that I wasn't trying to have my students work on their declarative knowledge.
The description of the double-column response log brought up some similar questions that I've struggled with before. I remember doing such logs during my AP English class in high school, but I don't think it helped me learn anything. I never understood the purpose behind the assignment and spent the vast majority of the class confused. I've progressed since then, but it makes me question how much of that progress was a result of my teachers' efforts and how much of it was just me maturing as a student.
The description of the double-column response log brought up some similar questions that I've struggled with before. I remember doing such logs during my AP English class in high school, but I don't think it helped me learn anything. I never understood the purpose behind the assignment and spent the vast majority of the class confused. I've progressed since then, but it makes me question how much of that progress was a result of my teachers' efforts and how much of it was just me maturing as a student.
