- Allan Collins
This article was fascinating - a measured, and nuanced treatment of how to best provide instruction. The idea of helping students 'see' how experts think seems like a reasonable approach and, intuitively, the argument works on many levels.
My only criticisms are minor:
1) Difference between Scaffolding and Coaching - Coaching was described as the thread that ran through all three steps (modeling, scaffolding, and fading). However, if scaffolding is providing aid then why not just say there are three steps (any intervention in the learner's attempts to perform should be labeled scaffolding - this includes providing encouragement!) I'm adament about this because it seems of limited value to distinguish between the types of help the learner gets - it serves to complicate instead of facilitate understanding.
2) Graduated steps to expertise - it seemed that all examples (math, writing, reading) were oriented towards revealing the expert's thinking process. However, experts had to reach their heuristics the honest way and it seems to have served them well. Is it perhaps better to think of a 'learner level + 1' approach to teaching thinking...gradual steps to the expert's approach so that nothing is missed along the way? It seems like an ideal way to introduce multiple examples too.
C'est tout!
Greg
In summary... (quoting the report...)
In general, correctional programs can increase postrelease employment and reduce recidivism, provided the programs are well designed and implemented.
A range of methodological limitations preclude any assessment of direct and unequivocal beneficial effect of prison programming.
Promising programs in terms of post-release outcomes include general characteristics, what also might be called principles of effective intervention: