Just a very quick note on a moment of insight--
I was reading about schema theory (as discussed by Doug Brent, and also Richard Anderson, but as is rooted in Piaget) for another project, and all of a sudden it really clicked with Shaughnessy. Anderson suggests that teachers often view mistakes as mere "blemishes" when in fact they may be evidence that the student posesses a entirely different schemata.
I'm still not entirely sure what Shaughnessy's approach would look like in concrete practice, but it seems to me it would mandate a lot of conversation as a component of draft reviews.
What an interesting observation. When is a mistake, a "mistake"? Sometimes, great discoveries come from mistakes (e.g. the origins of the microwave, penicillin, vulcanized rubber, etc.). I can just see it now...English teachers who would criticize k.d.lang or e.e. cummings for not using capital letters :-)
ReplyDeleteSteve, you're exactly right! Having my undergrad in psych, I can't help but think of Piaget's schema theory when I read Shaughnessy. Actually, instructional theory in many fields works off this: my physics instructors, for example, notice where their physics students have "built" erroneous schemata about physics principles.
ReplyDeleteI think (don't know, as I haven't read it all) Shaughnessy's book is an extended look at all the different schematas that students might have. In practice, I think it helps us (as instructors) build a new teaching schemata that recognizes these patterns. I think Shaughnessy was trying to make our lives easier by pointing out these patterns and "systematizing" their correction.