First thoughts about Apprenticeship in Thinking

I really didn't think this book was as good as the Heath book. As I stated in class, Rogoff isn't quite as diplomatic or emotionally removed from her stance as Heath. It didn't have the same ethonography-feel that Heath was able to maintain througout the book.

Overall, I do think it has some good information. The background on Piaget and Vygotsky, and comparing their work to hers was interesting. However, I do think that this should be a comparison someone else makes - it seems a bit presumptious to say you're next in line behind two world-famous developmental psychologists/theorists.

I don't know as much about Piaget as Vygotsky. I've read more Vygotsky in the time I've been in grad school. He's pretty hot in literacy right now, so I've seen his work more than others.

On 192, Rogoff states that "the metaphor of apprenticeship stresses children's active role in learning the lessons of their culture, through guided participation with more skilled companions." In this statement, there is a lot that I do like about this metaphor. While I don't know if we are curious by nature - pre-programmed to make sense of our world - it does seem that children are meaning makers. What I kept thinking during class is that in many ways this makes sense, but since I am not a geneticist, I don't know about the scientific determinism. It does seem that cultures all have varying ways of making sense of their world and seek to explain how things have come to be.

The other thing I kept thinking in class was that children are curious, and remain so as long as they are encouraged to keep asking why. Maybe so many of us in the class were struggling because we are thinking of public schooling. Endless, mindless standardized tests seem to beat the curiosity and inquisitiveness right out of kids.