I am way behind with many of my readings for Manitoba but I am reading an article by Gordon Wells called “Dialogic Inquiry in Education: Building on the Work of Vygotsky”.
His statement, referring to Vygotsky 1978 chapter 8, that curriculum needs to be reconceptualized in terms of “a negotiated selection of activities that challenge students to go beyond themselves towards goals that have personal significance for them.” This seems to articulate so much of what my vision is in the classroom.
Wells argues that the curriculum should be arranged around what he calls real questions – those that “correspond to or awaken a wondering on the part of the student”. Here I am reminded of students who were reading and discussing Thomas L.Friedman's 'The World is Flat' in their JH sessions with me. They said that a key component of their discussion was the personal implications of the changing nature of work. Will they get a job, will the job be temporary, how will they acquire 'expertise'. (comment on connectivism) It is not surprising in the context of changing global economics. Given whats happening to the worlds banking system, perhaps a few more people (myself included) should be a little more concerned and think through the implications of radical change towards my economic well being. The adoption of an ill-defined question for group discussion (elaborate on EBL/IBL)
Another question for me is Wells’ insistence that “the goal of inquiry is making not learning”, and thus the construction of an artifact is necessary. The artifact can be a material object, an explanatory demonstration or a theoretical formulation. The problem with discussion on its own is that it leaves no record of what has been jointly constructed from the perspective of meaning.
In another section he writes about inquiry not being a method rather it is an “approach” in which “tentative answers are taken seriously” and the teacher should be involved as a co-inquirer. As well, the importance of dialogue in coming to understanding is stressed. Wells writes on what he calls “progressive discourse… the process by which the sharing, questioning and revising of opinions leads to a new understanding that everyone involved agrees is superior to their own previous understanding,” and it would seem that recording a discussion would be important to show this happening.
If we see knowledge as being (re)created in the school setting, which is the group of students pursuing their common goal of developing as a professional teacher through evidencing the 33 standards. What would the students say it is?
Wells discusses writing as a tool for thinking: the old quote, “how do I know what I think till I see what I say,” quoted from Forster in 'Aspects of the Novel'. Wells sees that “few students seem to have discovered that writing can function as a ‘thinking device’. Wells sees this as “knowledge transformation” where the writer tries to anticipate the likely response of the envisaged audience (teachers and others interested in education - presumably) and “carries on a dialogue with the text being composed.” Can the English PGCE students be convinced by this argument (and Jenny Moon's work) to experiment with Ning and the reflection rubric?
