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.
Hi,
ReplyDeleteYour description of your confusion in high school, re: double-sided journals really brought home for me how important it is to keep communication with students open and constant, so that we can know when they are confused, when they find assignments and activities useful and when they don't, etc. The problem is, it's so hard to get students to be honest about their real views. Many are too shy or embarrassed to admit their lack of understanding, and they are too worried about playing the game of school to admit that they find assignments useless. Most, in pursuit of a good grade, continue to go through the motions even when they are convinced they aren't learning anything.
I don't know how to fix this -- how to get students to tell us what's working and what's not and why. I hope we can talk about this in class in the coming weeks. It will be really relevant to our readings about engagement...
--Jennifer
Hi Ray,
ReplyDeleteI have to admit that many of my experiences with scaffolding for students has been pretty self-centered, but I'm not sure of many other ways to do it. I think through a task or an assignment and I think about ways to turn it into a series of steps and I think about confusions I would have if I were doing the task or assignment. (In fact, when I have larger assignments, I generally try to complete the project myself as a way to clarify what I want students to do and to anticipate any possible confusions students may have.) But it's hard for me to think through lenses other than my own. Yet, I often see moments when a student, especially in my remedial courses, are struggling with something that I didn't anticipate would be a challenge. I suppose one fix I've used is to model/start assignments in class together so students can run into challenges while I'm present, allowing them to ask questions of me before they are off on their own. Ug! Nothing's easy about teaching reading!