I enjoyed this conference immensely and went to several excellent presentations. One was a presentation about how peer tutors receive training from librarians in how to help students with research projects. The peer tutors conduct reference interviews and can work with students on the research and writing processes. Very cool stuff. I really think this model of peer tutoring is exceptional because it recognizes the interconnectedness of the research and writing processes and helps students get beyond thinking that one simply precedes the other.
A WC director and one of her tutors presented the results of a survey of faculty that indicated that although faculty value in student writing many of the same aspects that WC tutors value, they often don't consider the WC as a place to get help with those concerns (organization, development of ideas, thesis). It indicated that more communication needs to happen between the WC and faculty.
Throughout the conference there were discussions about the extent to which peer tutors serve as "informants" on the practices of certain instructors. Senior peer tutors know which professors want good thesis statements and which ones want particular fonts. Should peer tutors mediate instructors' expectations of students? Hmm...
The conference organizers chose the concept of leadership and many presenters emphasized how peer tutors can take leadership roles through activities such as developing tutor training programs. One peer tutor talked about how her WC uses recorded conferences to discuss ways to improve conferences.
I attended a good presentation by students and tutors who discussed L2 writers in the WC. A student presented about how she improved writing by working closely with a tutor and yet insisted to others that she will always "write with an accent." She realized that writing well did not mean making her "sound" like a native speaker. Tutors discussed the difficulties that are inherent in tutoring L2 writers and how to navigate them.
Monday, November 09, 2009
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Inelegant Variation
A recent conversation reminded me of Fowler's concept of "elegant variation" that today is known as "inelegant variation"--the practice of substituting an awkward word or phrase to avoid repeating a word or phrase in a sentence. In Fowler's day, "elegant" was a pejorative term. Since the word now has a positive meaning, his concept has been renamed. See this headline from Austin American Statesman that Garner cites: "Victim's Family Can Witness Death of Loved One's Killer." The reader must stop to consider whether "Victim" and "Loved One" refer to the same person. (Garner recommends dropping "Victim's.")
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Revisiting Vygotsky and the Forbidden Colors Task
It is fun to read the work of researchers who revisit studies conducted by big-name people in our field of learning theory. In this case someone as returned to study conducted by Leontiev that Vygotsky interpreted.
Recently I came across an article that challenges Vygotsky's conclusions about Leontiev's Forbidden Colors Task--conclusions that are included in Mind in Society. In the Forbidden Colors Task, children of different ages were asked 18 questions in four separate tasks. In the first task, the children were asked the questions; in the second, the children were told two color words that they could not use in their answers. The third task included the same constraint as the second task, but the children were also given nine colored cards to aid them. The fourth task was similar to the third.
What were the results? In short, the elementary-aged children made the same number of errors with and without the cards. Older children (8-9 years) had fewer errors when they could use the cards. Vygotsky believed that the results showed three separate stages of development: in the preschool stage, the child could not organize the external tools (the colored cards) to help with the task. In other words, their answers were not mediated by the external tools. Older children were able to use the external tools to mediate their answers, and adults could use internal tools (psychological tools) to mediate their answers.
When van der Veer replicated the study, he added an instruction phase after the fourth task.
The instruction was in both how to use the cards and how to use verbal strategies in the tasks (such as giving "funny" answers, as in the sky is pink). The number of errors severely dropped for all children after the instruction phase, but a closer analysis showed that there was no relation between errors and card use. Thus, the verbal strategy played a an important role. Van der veer also concluded that it is probably wrong to assume that the older children exclusively relied on the external tools--they most certainly brought internal strategies to the task as well. So does this call into question the simplicity of the non-mediated - external tools - internal tools trajectory of development? It is possible that the children in Leontiev's study relied more on the cards because they weren't given instruction in verbal strategies, but Van der veer seems to believe that Leontiev's study was probably not a good one for studying internalization....
Recently I came across an article that challenges Vygotsky's conclusions about Leontiev's Forbidden Colors Task--conclusions that are included in Mind in Society. In the Forbidden Colors Task, children of different ages were asked 18 questions in four separate tasks. In the first task, the children were asked the questions; in the second, the children were told two color words that they could not use in their answers. The third task included the same constraint as the second task, but the children were also given nine colored cards to aid them. The fourth task was similar to the third.
What were the results? In short, the elementary-aged children made the same number of errors with and without the cards. Older children (8-9 years) had fewer errors when they could use the cards. Vygotsky believed that the results showed three separate stages of development: in the preschool stage, the child could not organize the external tools (the colored cards) to help with the task. In other words, their answers were not mediated by the external tools. Older children were able to use the external tools to mediate their answers, and adults could use internal tools (psychological tools) to mediate their answers.
When van der Veer replicated the study, he added an instruction phase after the fourth task.
The instruction was in both how to use the cards and how to use verbal strategies in the tasks (such as giving "funny" answers, as in the sky is pink). The number of errors severely dropped for all children after the instruction phase, but a closer analysis showed that there was no relation between errors and card use. Thus, the verbal strategy played a an important role. Van der veer also concluded that it is probably wrong to assume that the older children exclusively relied on the external tools--they most certainly brought internal strategies to the task as well. So does this call into question the simplicity of the non-mediated - external tools - internal tools trajectory of development? It is possible that the children in Leontiev's study relied more on the cards because they weren't given instruction in verbal strategies, but Van der veer seems to believe that Leontiev's study was probably not a good one for studying internalization....
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Language, without its outward garb...
is thought, according to Sapir. From Language: "thought is nothing but language denuded of its outward garb." (223)
And he defines language. (Who is bold enough to do that?) "Language is a purely human and non-instinctive method of communicating ideas, emotions, and desires by means of a system of voluntarily produced symbols." (8)
And he defines language. (Who is bold enough to do that?) "Language is a purely human and non-instinctive method of communicating ideas, emotions, and desires by means of a system of voluntarily produced symbols." (8)
Saturday, June 13, 2009
More on Language
Talking about the language of the writing conference: a lot is said during a writing conference, but very little is done in terms of revision. Or perhaps I never noticed that talking about language changes requires a lot of, well, talking.
In the conference I am transcribing now (with 30) there is a lot talk about the lab procedures, the particular tasks they carried out and the correct way to report those results. The tutor is experienced and provides a lot of guidance about what the correct way to to this is. So much about a conference is correctness, the desire to bring things in line, not to push things out of line. At this stage, though, this is what they wanted. And the conversation is about how to bring ideas into alignment with what is expected of them.
I can't think of a time when they reject the advice, except for a time when an idea was expressed and the consultant was suggesting a different phrasing for that idea. Sometimes the consultant stays out of the process of re-phrasing and lets the students figure it out for themselves.
In the conference I am transcribing now (with 30) there is a lot talk about the lab procedures, the particular tasks they carried out and the correct way to report those results. The tutor is experienced and provides a lot of guidance about what the correct way to to this is. So much about a conference is correctness, the desire to bring things in line, not to push things out of line. At this stage, though, this is what they wanted. And the conversation is about how to bring ideas into alignment with what is expected of them.
I can't think of a time when they reject the advice, except for a time when an idea was expressed and the consultant was suggesting a different phrasing for that idea. Sometimes the consultant stays out of the process of re-phrasing and lets the students figure it out for themselves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)