First Reading- Comments
I have a problem with the idea that there are some inherent traits in people of a certain age-- the whole idea of "net gen" and its complements (x, y, etc) has certainly sold more than a few books, articles, and seminars, but seems to ignore empirical data and historical contexts. Is net gen more ethnically diverse than gen x? On what basis do we determine that it multitasks more? Weren't the framers of the Constitution interested in group-oriented activity? Wasn't the enlightenment "heavily reliant on network access" -- using an earlier technology, to be sure. And how helpful are these concepts when they lump all Americans (is it thus?) of a certain age together-- inner city kids in North Philadelphia, Amish kids in Ohio, and young denizens of 90210?
I think Rogoff might also reject this notion, as found in Brown's piece. After all, the whole point of her article is to show how individual personalities are co-created with their various environments and contexts. Here we have room for difference among individuals and among communities, even those of the same age or race or historical period. In other words, here we have an analytical framework for understanding emprical data, rather than a way of labeling away a whole segment of society. (My only bone to pick with Rogoff is stylistic- I think her article could have been far shorter, and I rather she had said "creation of personas" or something similar rather than "creation of people" which sounds like procreation.)
The issue of context also reappears in How People Learn. I like that HPL also specifically calls out the need for teachers to "establish a community of learners among themselves" (25). Often (in my experience) we talk a lot about the context and community for kids (in K12), but then leave teachers alone as lone "delivery agent" rangers.
-MB
Dan Gilbert Mark, this is some very thoughtful work, thanks for sharing. You are right to point out the extreme contrasts between the generalizing of entire groups of people based on only one characteristic - age - and Rogoff's approach about just how granular learning and development are. My own critique of Rogoff is complementary to yours of Brown's table in that her view of development is so personalized and granular that it is near impossible for decisionmakers to actually implement something. I realize her role as a theorist is opposite that of Brown's as an administrator but as you suggested in your freewrite there has to be room to include components of the sweeping generalizations and the individual notions of learning. Again, Nice work.