Citation:
Summary:
Zebroski is concerned with theory as practice, what kind of intellectual work theory accomplishes, and how theory informs the writing and teachng practices of teachers and students. Zebroski discusses theory from Volosinov, Bakhtin, and other major composers of language theory, but specifically focus on Vygotsky. In each chapter, he applies his readings of each theorist to classroom practices and attempts to determine what can be learned from the theory in application. Of particular interest, the chapter titled "Where Words Fail" questions what "theory" means and what happens when we discuss theory without having a common definition. On a broader level, he describes the problem of words failing as something we need to accept and move past in teaching by moving from a belief system where words cannot fail to one that assumes their failure and priveledges valuing the process of communicative exchange over the clarity of the exchange.
Response: On page 143, Zebroski explains that we need the developmental gap created by words failing to create the space where the student can construct meaning for his or herself (where learning can occur). Communication has to be mediated. We move through different spaces (our experiences differ), and the ambiguity caused by our differing experieces demands agknowledgment of a gap. Meaning takes place through mediating our different positions. Thus theory provides an argument for patience and trust in a classroom.
Connections/Questions:
If the term "theory" is socially mediated, what is the relationship between theory and methodology? Theory motivates through ambiguity. Without the gap caused by ambiguity, we wouldn't have theory. I've been thinking about Ender's Game by Orson Scott Card lately, and the imaginary alien race he creates called "the buggers." They communicate instantaenously through hive mentality where they experience all of the same experiences and thus communication is a more simple task, similiar to the head (the queen) reaching down to the fingers and arms to tell them what to do. If people didn't have to navigate ambiguity, would theory even be possible? Theory demands some sort of abstraction and if we didn't have the ambiguity caused by the gap in experience, we wouldn't have abstraction.
