From pmocombe@mocombeian.com Tue Jul 1 15:08:29 2014 From: pmocombe@mocombeian.com (Dr. Paul C. Mocombe) Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2014 18:08:29 -0400 Subject: [Xmca-l] Fwd: Invitation from the University of Nottingham BME Staff Network Message-ID: Fyi...for those in Europe... Dr. Paul C. Mocombe President The Mocombeian Foundation, Inc. www.mocombeian.com? www.readingroomcurriculum.com? www.paulcmocombe.info?
-------- Original message --------
From: Carol Tomlin
Date:07/01/2014 5:57 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: Festus Akinfemiwa , Funmi Adeyi , Anthony Kelly , Dr Joe Aldred , Anna ?afr?nkov? , Annecka L MARSHALL , Janet Bailey , Bev Thomas , bola2096 Akintola , benjamin.zephaniah@brunel.ac.uk, beverley.crooks@brunel.ac.uk, Beverley A BRYAN , Becky.Francis@kcl.ac.uk, YVONNE BRUCE , Rosemary Campbell-Stephens , Christine Callender , cbennett@morehouse.edu, dorothybrown831@btinternet.com, Heather Douglas , Deseta Davis , Delroy Hall , delroyhall51@gmail.com, dhroberts2278@hotmail.com, evonne.veronica@gmail.com, emmanuel@christianlifecentre.com, Gerald Nembhard , Geoerge Oliver , "Tiara S. Harris-Mocombe" , Paul Mocombe , PATSY SPENCER , loreendalelad@yahoo.com, "sydenham n.t.c.o.g." , Sylvia Lynch , sharon@cblcuk.com, Tosin Vic Lawrence , Uvanney Maylor , yvonne.mosquito@googlemail.com, yvonne.coghill@leadershipacademy.nhs.uk, martin glynn , marciadixon@aol.om
Subject: Fwd: Invitation from the University of Nottingham BME Staff Network
Please circulate Dear Carol, The University of Nottingham BME Staff Network warmly invites you to the launch of ?Race and Class Distinctions within Black Communities: a Racial Caste-in-Class? by Paul Camy Mocombe, Carol Tomlin and Cecile Wright. Please RSVP to claire.henson@nottingham.ac.uk. Kind regards, Claire Henson Equality and Diversity Events Co-ordinator The University of Nottingham King?s Meadow Campus Lenton Lane Nottingham NG7 2NR (0115) 9515783 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Book launch invite.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 246938 bytes Desc: not available Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20140701/d2ad72ed/attachment.pdf From swaiev@gmail.com Tue Jul 1 16:39:04 2014 From: swaiev@gmail.com (Elinami Swai) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2014 02:39:04 +0300 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Help with Plagiarism software Message-ID: My university is in the process of instituting plagiarism check for all the MA and PhD theses and dissertations. The IT guys say it is too expensive (about US $ 50,000) and this has led to shelving the idea for now. I will appreciate if anybody can give me a pointer and options. Kind Regards. Elinami -- Dr. Elinami Swai Senior Lecturer Associate Dean Coordinator, Postgraduate Studies Faculty of Education Open University of Tanzania P.O.Box 23409 Dar-Es-Salaam Tell:255-022-2668992/2668820/2668445/26687455 Fax:022-2668759 Cell: (255) 076-722-8353; (255) 068-722-8353 http://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Womens-Empowerment-Africa-Dislocation/dp/ 0230102484 From boblake@georgiasouthern.edu Tue Jul 1 20:08:26 2014 From: boblake@georgiasouthern.edu (Robert Lake) Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2014 23:08:26 -0400 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Help with Plagiarism software In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Google scholar works pretty well On Jul 1, 2014 7:41 PM, "Elinami Swai" wrote: > My university is in the process of instituting plagiarism check for > all the MA and PhD theses and dissertations. > The IT guys say it is too expensive (about US $ 50,000) and this has > led to shelving the idea for now. I will appreciate if anybody can > give me a pointer and options. > > Kind Regards. > Elinami > > -- > Dr. Elinami Swai > Senior Lecturer > Associate Dean > Coordinator, Postgraduate Studies > Faculty of Education > Open University of Tanzania > P.O.Box 23409 > Dar-Es-Salaam > Tell:255-022-2668992/2668820/2668445/26687455 > Fax:022-2668759 > Cell: (255) 076-722-8353; (255) 068-722-8353 > http://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Womens-Empowerment-Africa-Dislocation/dp/ > 0230102484 > From lchcmike@gmail.com Tue Jul 1 20:14:47 2014 From: lchcmike@gmail.com (mike cole) Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2014 20:14:47 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Beyond Flynn Effect - Of possible interest Message-ID: Forwarded from the Russian methodology facebook site. fyi mike http://www.psychometrics.cam.ac.uk/about-us/directory/beyond-the-flynn-effect From bazerman@education.ucsb.edu Tue Jul 1 20:43:40 2014 From: bazerman@education.ucsb.edu (Charles Bazerman) Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2014 20:43:40 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Help with Plagiarism software In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: There was some discussion of this issue on the Writing list WPA-L some time ago and the archives are open if you want to search. if I remember the gist it was that google scholar searches were much more reliable as were several open access alternatives to Turnitin and similar products. In my own experience i found a simple system of doing exact word searches on the most sophisticated formulations, of perhaps a sentence or long phrase in length, from papers I suspected. It almost always took me rapidly to the copied source. Then once the suspicion was confirmed I could do more thorough text comparisons, as well as looking for other cut and paste sources. Chuck ----- Original Message ----- From: Robert Lake Date: Tuesday, July 1, 2014 8:09 pm Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Help with Plagiarism software To: "eXtended Mind, Culture Activity" > Google scholar works pretty well > On Jul 1, 2014 7:41 PM, "Elinami Swai" wrote: > > > My university is in the process of instituting plagiarism check for > > all the MA and PhD theses and dissertations. > > The IT guys say it is too expensive (about US $ 50,000) and this has > > led to shelving the idea for now. I will appreciate if anybody can > > give me a pointer and options. > > > > Kind Regards. > > Elinami > > > > -- > > Dr. Elinami Swai > > Senior Lecturer > > Associate Dean > > Coordinator, Postgraduate Studies > > Faculty of Education > > Open University of Tanzania > > P.O.Box 23409 > > Dar-Es-Salaam > > Tell:255-022-2668992/2668820/2668445/26687455 > > Fax:022-2668759 > > Cell: (255) 076-722-8353; (255) 068-722-8353 > > http://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Womens-Empowerment-Africa-Dislocation/dp/ > > 0230102484 > > From swaiev@gmail.com Tue Jul 1 23:33:53 2014 From: swaiev@gmail.com (Elinami Swai) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2014 09:33:53 +0300 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Help with Plagiarism software In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thank you Bob and Chuck. I had suspected there would be an easier way than paying so much money. Elinami On 7/2/14, Charles Bazerman wrote: > There was some discussion of this issue on the Writing list WPA-L some time > ago and the archives are open if you want to search. if I remember the gist > it was that google scholar searches were much more reliable as were several > open access alternatives to Turnitin and similar products. In my own > experience i found a simple system of doing exact word searches on the most > sophisticated formulations, of perhaps a sentence or long phrase in length, > from papers I suspected. It almost always took me rapidly to the copied > source. Then once the suspicion was confirmed I could do more thorough text > comparisons, as well as looking for other cut and paste sources. > > Chuck > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Robert Lake > Date: Tuesday, July 1, 2014 8:09 pm > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Help with Plagiarism software > To: "eXtended Mind, Culture Activity" > >> Google scholar works pretty well >> On Jul 1, 2014 7:41 PM, "Elinami Swai" wrote: >> >> > My university is in the process of instituting plagiarism check for >> > all the MA and PhD theses and dissertations. >> > The IT guys say it is too expensive (about US $ 50,000) and this has >> > led to shelving the idea for now. I will appreciate if anybody can >> > give me a pointer and options. >> > >> > Kind Regards. >> > Elinami >> > >> > -- >> > Dr. Elinami Swai >> > Senior Lecturer >> > Associate Dean >> > Coordinator, Postgraduate Studies >> > Faculty of Education >> > Open University of Tanzania >> > P.O.Box 23409 >> > Dar-Es-Salaam >> > Tell:255-022-2668992/2668820/2668445/26687455 >> > Fax:022-2668759 >> > Cell: (255) 076-722-8353; (255) 068-722-8353 >> > http://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Womens-Empowerment-Africa-Dislocation/dp/ >> > 0230102484 >> > > -- Dr. Elinami Swai Senior Lecturer Associate Dean Coordinator, Postgraduate Studies Faculty of Education Open University of Tanzania P.O.Box 23409 Dar-Es-Salaam Tell:255-022-2668992/2668820/2668445/26687455 Fax:022-2668759 Cell: (255) 076-722-8353; (255) 068-722-8353 http://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Womens-Empowerment-Africa-Dislocation/dp/ 0230102484 ...this faith will still deliver If you live it first to last Not everything which blooms must wither. Not all that was is past From nancy.mack@wright.edu Wed Jul 2 09:30:01 2014 From: nancy.mack@wright.edu (Mack, Nancy J.) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2014 16:30:01 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Help with Plagiarism software In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: <1404318600710.13529@wright.edu> See the work of Weber and Wuff for a study about the ineffectiveness of software. Nancy Dr. Nancy Mack Professor of English ________________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces+nancy.mack=wright.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Charles Bazerman Sent: Tuesday, July 1, 2014 11:43 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Help with Plagiarism software There was some discussion of this issue on the Writing list WPA-L some time ago and the archives are open if you want to search. if I remember the gist it was that google scholar searches were much more reliable as were several open access alternatives to Turnitin and similar products. In my own experience i found a simple system of doing exact word searches on the most sophisticated formulations, of perhaps a sentence or long phrase in length, from papers I suspected. It almost always took me rapidly to the copied source. Then once the suspicion was confirmed I could do more thorough text comparisons, as well as looking for other cut and paste sources. Chuck ----- Original Message ----- From: Robert Lake Date: Tuesday, July 1, 2014 8:09 pm Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Help with Plagiarism software To: "eXtended Mind, Culture Activity" > Google scholar works pretty well > On Jul 1, 2014 7:41 PM, "Elinami Swai" wrote: > > > My university is in the process of instituting plagiarism check for > > all the MA and PhD theses and dissertations. > > The IT guys say it is too expensive (about US $ 50,000) and this has > > led to shelving the idea for now. I will appreciate if anybody can > > give me a pointer and options. > > > > Kind Regards. > > Elinami > > > > -- > > Dr. Elinami Swai > > Senior Lecturer > > Associate Dean > > Coordinator, Postgraduate Studies > > Faculty of Education > > Open University of Tanzania > > P.O.Box 23409 > > Dar-Es-Salaam > > Tell:255-022-2668992/2668820/2668445/26687455 > > Fax:022-2668759 > > Cell: (255) 076-722-8353; (255) 068-722-8353 > > http://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Womens-Empowerment-Africa-Dislocation/dp/ > > 0230102484 > > From r.j.s.parsons@open.ac.uk Wed Jul 2 10:30:45 2014 From: r.j.s.parsons@open.ac.uk (rjsp2) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2014 18:30:45 +0100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Help with Plagiarism software In-Reply-To: <1404318600710.13529@wright.edu> References: , <1404318600710.13529@wright.edu> Message-ID: <53B441C5.3040606@open.ac.uk> It's Weber-Wulff. Though Wuff sounds nice :-) An example: https://www.ephorus.com/news/plagiarism-detection-software-test-2013/ Rob On 02/07/2014 17:30, Mack, Nancy J. wrote: > See the work of Weber and Wuff for a study about the ineffectiveness of software. > > Nancy > > Dr. Nancy Mack > Professor of English > > ________________________________________ > From: xmca-l-bounces+nancy.mack=wright.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Charles Bazerman > Sent: Tuesday, July 1, 2014 11:43 PM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Help with Plagiarism software > > There was some discussion of this issue on the Writing list WPA-L some time ago and the archives are open if you want to search. if I remember the gist it was that google scholar searches were much more reliable as were several open access alternatives to Turnitin and similar products. In my own experience i found a simple system of doing exact word searches on the most sophisticated formulations, of perhaps a sentence or long phrase in length, from papers I suspected. It almost always took me rapidly to the copied source. Then once the suspicion was confirmed I could do more thorough text comparisons, as well as looking for other cut and paste sources. > > Chuck > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Robert Lake > Date: Tuesday, July 1, 2014 8:09 pm > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Help with Plagiarism software > To: "eXtended Mind, Culture Activity" > >> Google scholar works pretty well >> On Jul 1, 2014 7:41 PM, "Elinami Swai" wrote: >> >>> My university is in the process of instituting plagiarism check for >>> all the MA and PhD theses and dissertations. >>> The IT guys say it is too expensive (about US $ 50,000) and this has >>> led to shelving the idea for now. I will appreciate if anybody can >>> give me a pointer and options. >>> >>> Kind Regards. >>> Elinami >>> >>> -- >>> Dr. Elinami Swai >>> Senior Lecturer >>> Associate Dean >>> Coordinator, Postgraduate Studies >>> Faculty of Education >>> Open University of Tanzania >>> P.O.Box 23409 >>> Dar-Es-Salaam >>> Tell:255-022-2668992/2668820/2668445/26687455 >>> Fax:022-2668759 >>> Cell: (255) 076-722-8353; (255) 068-722-8353 >>> http://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Womens-Empowerment-Africa-Dislocation/dp/ >>> 0230102484 >>> -- The Open University is incorporated by Royal Charter (RC 000391), an exempt charity in England & Wales and a charity registered in Scotland (SC 038302). The Open University is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. From lchcmike@gmail.com Wed Jul 2 11:41:21 2014 From: lchcmike@gmail.com (mike cole) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2014 11:41:21 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] LSV on language as a model of development Message-ID: I am seeking to find a quotation from Vygotsky where he asserts that the development of language offers a general model for human development more generally. My fantasy, or can someone help me find it? mike From kbooten@gmail.com Wed Jul 2 12:13:44 2014 From: kbooten@gmail.com (Kyle Booten) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2014 12:13:44 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: LSV on language as a model of development In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Perhaps this? "The acquisition of language can provide a paradigm for the entire problem of the relation between learning and development. Language arises initially as a means of communication between the child and the people in his environment. Only subsequently, upon conversion to internal speech, does it come to organize the child's thought, that is, become an internal mental function." (seventh from last paragraph in "Interaction Between Learning and Development," pg. 89 in Mind in Society, 1978) -Kyle On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 11:41 AM, mike cole wrote: > I am seeking to find a quotation from Vygotsky where he asserts that the > development of language offers a general model for human development more > generally. My fantasy, or can someone help me find it? > mike > From james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk Wed Jul 2 12:57:25 2014 From: james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk (Ma, James (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk)) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2014 19:57:25 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: LSV on language as a model of development In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: <1404331057540.8523@canterbury.ac.uk> Hello, this was the exact quote I thought about (I noticed Mike's email on my mobile when walking in the country). Best, James ________________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Kyle Booten Sent: 02 July 2014 20:13 To: Mike Cole; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: LSV on language as a model of development Perhaps this? "The acquisition of language can provide a paradigm for the entire problem of the relation between learning and development. Language arises initially as a means of communication between the child and the people in his environment. Only subsequently, upon conversion to internal speech, does it come to organize the child's thought, that is, become an internal mental function." (seventh from last paragraph in "Interaction Between Learning and Development," pg. 89 in Mind in Society, 1978) -Kyle On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 11:41 AM, mike cole wrote: > I am seeking to find a quotation from Vygotsky where he asserts that the > development of language offers a general model for human development more > generally. My fantasy, or can someone help me find it? > mike > From dkellogg60@gmail.com Wed Jul 2 13:42:57 2014 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2014 05:42:57 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: LSV on language as a model of development In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Mike: My favorite is on pp. 347-349 of the Vygotsky Reader, "The Problem of the Environment". It's too long to quote here, so I summarize. Vygotsky is making the point that unlike phylogenetic development, ontogenetic development is teleological. He asks his students if they can imagine a situation in phylogenetic development where the end-point of development is co-present with its beginning and is actually capable of guiding its steps. (Since even the unimaginable has to be somehow come to mind, Vygotsky probably has in mind, probably, the USSR, where the most advanced form of social organization is co-present with hunter-gatherer societies in the North, pastoral societies in Central Asia, and subsistence agriculture in the Caucasus. When I try to do this, I somehow see flying saucers landing at Stonehenge!) He concludes that no such situation is imaginable. But then--he points out that the mere fact that something is unimaginable does nothing to prevent it from actually happening, because precisely this situation obtains with speech--that is, the "ideal, complete" form is present alongside the most basic forms and help to guide their first stumbling steps. As T.S. Eliot says: In my beginning is my end. In succession Houses rise and fall, crumble, are extended Are removed, destroyed, restored or in their place Is an open field, or a factory, or a by-pass (East Coker) David Kellogg Hankuk University of Foreign Studies On 3 July 2014 03:41, mike cole wrote: > I am seeking to find a quotation from Vygotsky where he asserts that the > development of language offers a general model for human development more > generally. My fantasy, or can someone help me find it? > mike > From tom.richardson3@googlemail.com Wed Jul 2 13:54:14 2014 From: tom.richardson3@googlemail.com (Tom Richardson) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2014 21:54:14 +0100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: LSV on language as a model of development In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: "situation in phylogenetic development where the end-point of development is co-present with its beginning..." reminds me of an Hegelian formulation,conceptualisation, (but standing on its own feet?) Tom On 2 July 2014 21:42, David Kellogg wrote: > Mike: > > My favorite is on pp. 347-349 of the Vygotsky Reader, "The Problem of the > Environment". It's too long to quote here, so I summarize. > > Vygotsky is making the point that unlike phylogenetic > development, ontogenetic development is teleological. He asks his students > if they can imagine a situation in phylogenetic development where the > end-point of development is co-present with its beginning and is actually > capable of guiding its steps. > > (Since even the unimaginable has to be somehow come to mind, Vygotsky > probably has in mind, probably, the USSR, where the most advanced form of > social organization is co-present with hunter-gatherer societies in the > North, pastoral societies in Central Asia, and subsistence agriculture in > the Caucasus. When I try to do this, I somehow see flying saucers landing > at Stonehenge!) > > He concludes that no such situation is imaginable. But then--he points out > that the mere fact that something is unimaginable does nothing to prevent > it from actually happening, because precisely this situation obtains with > speech--that is, the "ideal, complete" form is present alongside the most > basic forms and help to guide their first stumbling steps. > > As T.S. Eliot says: > > In my beginning is my end. In succession > Houses rise and fall, crumble, are extended > Are removed, destroyed, restored or in their place > Is an open field, or a factory, or a by-pass (East Coker) > > David Kellogg > Hankuk University of Foreign Studies > > > On 3 July 2014 03:41, mike cole wrote: > > > I am seeking to find a quotation from Vygotsky where he asserts that the > > development of language offers a general model for human development more > > generally. My fantasy, or can someone help me find it? > > mike > > > From lchcmike@gmail.com Wed Jul 2 19:59:51 2014 From: lchcmike@gmail.com (mike cole) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2014 19:59:51 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: LSV on language as a model of development In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Oh! Sometimes I just love this list/community. What a great range of answers. Kyle nailed just the passage that I was thinking of but could not locate. David linked the question to the idea/real being the environment that allows the end to be in the beginning, Tom notes the link back to Hegel. Whoa, what a tasty repast. Thank you all. Here is something interesting to me-- No one mentioned the linkage of these ideas to the spiral of development. I am sensitive to this point because when the new LCHC generation brought the webpage out of the 1990's, none of those who rescued it from decrepitude knew what the spiral of development on the home page meant..... except that it was difficult to navigate along it (having to read upside down and all that). It remains, as a pale imitation of itself. Although it, too , can be found in Eliot! Which brings us to affinities between the judeo-christian tradition and marxism! Anyway, thanks on all accounts. mike On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 1:54 PM, Tom Richardson < tom.richardson3@googlemail.com> wrote: > "situation in phylogenetic development where the > end-point of development is co-present with its beginning..." reminds me > of an Hegelian formulation,conceptualisation, (but standing on its own > feet?) > Tom > > > On 2 July 2014 21:42, David Kellogg wrote: > >> Mike: >> >> My favorite is on pp. 347-349 of the Vygotsky Reader, "The Problem of the >> Environment". It's too long to quote here, so I summarize. >> >> Vygotsky is making the point that unlike phylogenetic >> development, ontogenetic development is teleological. He asks his >> students >> if they can imagine a situation in phylogenetic development where the >> end-point of development is co-present with its beginning and is actually >> capable of guiding its steps. >> >> (Since even the unimaginable has to be somehow come to mind, Vygotsky >> probably has in mind, probably, the USSR, where the most advanced form of >> social organization is co-present with hunter-gatherer societies in the >> North, pastoral societies in Central Asia, and subsistence agriculture in >> the Caucasus. When I try to do this, I somehow see flying saucers landing >> at Stonehenge!) >> >> He concludes that no such situation is imaginable. But then--he points out >> that the mere fact that something is unimaginable does nothing to prevent >> it from actually happening, because precisely this situation obtains with >> speech--that is, the "ideal, complete" form is present alongside the most >> basic forms and help to guide their first stumbling steps. >> >> As T.S. Eliot says: >> >> In my beginning is my end. In succession >> Houses rise and fall, crumble, are extended >> Are removed, destroyed, restored or in their place >> Is an open field, or a factory, or a by-pass (East Coker) >> >> David Kellogg >> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies >> >> >> On 3 July 2014 03:41, mike cole wrote: >> >> > I am seeking to find a quotation from Vygotsky where he asserts that the >> > development of language offers a general model for human development >> more >> > generally. My fantasy, or can someone help me find it? >> > mike >> > >> > > From carolmacdon@gmail.com Wed Jul 2 23:29:08 2014 From: carolmacdon@gmail.com (Carol Macdonald) Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2014 07:29:08 +0100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: LSV on language as a model of development In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Mike I think we share the sentiments of Oh! I love this community! Best Carol On 3 July 2014 03:59, mike cole wrote: > Oh! Sometimes I just love this list/community. What a great range of > answers. > Kyle nailed just the passage that I was thinking of but could not locate. > David > linked the question to the idea/real being the environment that allows the > end to be in the beginning, Tom notes the link back to Hegel. > > Whoa, what a tasty repast. Thank you all. > > Here is something interesting to me-- No one mentioned the linkage of these > ideas to the spiral of development. I am sensitive to this point because > when the new LCHC generation brought the webpage out of the 1990's, none of > those who rescued it from decrepitude knew what the spiral of development > on the home page meant..... except that it was difficult to navigate along > it (having to read upside down and all that). It remains, as a pale > imitation of itself. Although it, too , can be found in Eliot! > > Which brings us to affinities between the judeo-christian tradition and > marxism! > > Anyway, thanks on all accounts. > mike > > > On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 1:54 PM, Tom Richardson < > tom.richardson3@googlemail.com> wrote: > > > "situation in phylogenetic development where the > > end-point of development is co-present with its beginning..." reminds me > > of an Hegelian formulation,conceptualisation, (but standing on its own > > feet?) > > Tom > > > > > > On 2 July 2014 21:42, David Kellogg wrote: > > > >> Mike: > >> > >> My favorite is on pp. 347-349 of the Vygotsky Reader, "The Problem of > the > >> Environment". It's too long to quote here, so I summarize. > >> > >> Vygotsky is making the point that unlike phylogenetic > >> development, ontogenetic development is teleological. He asks his > >> students > >> if they can imagine a situation in phylogenetic development where the > >> end-point of development is co-present with its beginning and is > actually > >> capable of guiding its steps. > >> > >> (Since even the unimaginable has to be somehow come to mind, Vygotsky > >> probably has in mind, probably, the USSR, where the most advanced form > of > >> social organization is co-present with hunter-gatherer societies in the > >> North, pastoral societies in Central Asia, and subsistence agriculture > in > >> the Caucasus. When I try to do this, I somehow see flying saucers > landing > >> at Stonehenge!) > >> > >> He concludes that no such situation is imaginable. But then--he points > out > >> that the mere fact that something is unimaginable does nothing to > prevent > >> it from actually happening, because precisely this situation obtains > with > >> speech--that is, the "ideal, complete" form is present alongside the > most > >> basic forms and help to guide their first stumbling steps. > >> > >> As T.S. Eliot says: > >> > >> In my beginning is my end. In succession > >> Houses rise and fall, crumble, are extended > >> Are removed, destroyed, restored or in their place > >> Is an open field, or a factory, or a by-pass (East Coker) > >> > >> David Kellogg > >> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies > >> > >> > >> On 3 July 2014 03:41, mike cole wrote: > >> > >> > I am seeking to find a quotation from Vygotsky where he asserts that > the > >> > development of language offers a general model for human development > >> more > >> > generally. My fantasy, or can someone help me find it? > >> > mike > >> > > >> > > > > > -- Carol A Macdonald Ph D (Edin) Developmental psycholinguist Academic, Researcher, and Editor Honorary Research Fellow: Department of Linguistics, Unisa From james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk Thu Jul 3 01:46:51 2014 From: james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk (Ma, James (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk)) Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2014 08:46:51 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: LSV on language as a model of development In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: <1404377223637.27381@canterbury.ac.uk> Mike, I?d like to resonate with your last point. For me, the spiral of development is an end in itself, at least viewed in the grand vision of Hegelian metaphysics. Currently I?m writing a manuscript on the word-image complementarity (as a sequel to my recent article in MCA). What?s fascinating to me is that both word and image are elusive as well as subjective, which opens up an immense scope for abductive semiotic thinking. The approach to word concepts seems to be linear, whereas the approach to visual images takes the form of circumnavigation, spiralling outward from the centre to the periphery and simultaneously inward from the periphery to the centre. What?s more, when word and image work to absorb each other, they?re both outside themselves, so to speak. This creates a profound aporia, a term used in philosophy of language. Say, when a visual image is absorbed by a word concept, we?re confronted with the inadequacy of figurative language to coincide with the world it may wish to delineate. Such word-image complementarity and dissonance can be all the more captivating should it be examined through the prism of Peirce-Vygotsky synergy (http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10749039.2014.913294). Best wishes, James ________________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of mike cole Sent: 03 July 2014 03:59 To: Tom Richardson Cc: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: LSV on language as a model of development Oh! Sometimes I just love this list/community. What a great range of answers. Kyle nailed just the passage that I was thinking of but could not locate. David linked the question to the idea/real being the environment that allows the end to be in the beginning, Tom notes the link back to Hegel. Whoa, what a tasty repast. Thank you all. Here is something interesting to me-- No one mentioned the linkage of these ideas to the spiral of development. I am sensitive to this point because when the new LCHC generation brought the webpage out of the 1990's, none of those who rescued it from decrepitude knew what the spiral of development on the home page meant..... except that it was difficult to navigate along it (having to read upside down and all that). It remains, as a pale imitation of itself. Although it, too , can be found in Eliot! Which brings us to affinities between the judeo-christian tradition and marxism! Anyway, thanks on all accounts. mike On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 1:54 PM, Tom Richardson < tom.richardson3@googlemail.com> wrote: > "situation in phylogenetic development where the > end-point of development is co-present with its beginning..." reminds me > of an Hegelian formulation,conceptualisation, (but standing on its own > feet?) > Tom > > > On 2 July 2014 21:42, David Kellogg wrote: > >> Mike: >> >> My favorite is on pp. 347-349 of the Vygotsky Reader, "The Problem of the >> Environment". It's too long to quote here, so I summarize. >> >> Vygotsky is making the point that unlike phylogenetic >> development, ontogenetic development is teleological. He asks his >> students >> if they can imagine a situation in phylogenetic development where the >> end-point of development is co-present with its beginning and is actually >> capable of guiding its steps. >> >> (Since even the unimaginable has to be somehow come to mind, Vygotsky >> probably has in mind, probably, the USSR, where the most advanced form of >> social organization is co-present with hunter-gatherer societies in the >> North, pastoral societies in Central Asia, and subsistence agriculture in >> the Caucasus. When I try to do this, I somehow see flying saucers landing >> at Stonehenge!) >> >> He concludes that no such situation is imaginable. But then--he points out >> that the mere fact that something is unimaginable does nothing to prevent >> it from actually happening, because precisely this situation obtains with >> speech--that is, the "ideal, complete" form is present alongside the most >> basic forms and help to guide their first stumbling steps. >> >> As T.S. Eliot says: >> >> In my beginning is my end. In succession >> Houses rise and fall, crumble, are extended >> Are removed, destroyed, restored or in their place >> Is an open field, or a factory, or a by-pass (East Coker) >> >> David Kellogg >> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies >> >> >> On 3 July 2014 03:41, mike cole wrote: >> >> > I am seeking to find a quotation from Vygotsky where he asserts that the >> > development of language offers a general model for human development >> more >> > generally. My fantasy, or can someone help me find it? >> > mike >> > >> > > From achilles@delari.net Thu Jul 3 06:20:28 2014 From: achilles@delari.net (Achilles Delari Junior) Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2014 10:20:28 -0300 Subject: [Xmca-l] Vygotsky and social insurgence process? [compiling some posts] In-Reply-To: CAEUxSQEaG04+goJNOEQ4NckzTRPpm2Q1P_mypaGOJ-YhFGKRzw@mail.gmail.com Message-ID: <53b5589cb13aa_6b042fcb03c5466@a4-winter4.mail> David, Bella and Valerie, I put all our posts together in time order, it was important to me and I want to share, and thank you again. Best wishes. See you. >From Brazil, still with very much to lost beyond our chains. =] ? -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Vygotsky_and_insugence_[question].pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 270025 bytes Desc: not available Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20140703/64740c75/attachment.pdf From s.franklin08@btinternet.com Thu Jul 3 06:41:09 2014 From: s.franklin08@btinternet.com (Shirley Franklin) Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2014 14:41:09 +0100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vygotsky and social insurgence process? [compiling some posts] In-Reply-To: <53b5589cb13aa_6b042fcb03c5466@a4-winter4.mail> References: <53b5589cb13aa_6b042fcb03c5466@a4-winter4.mail> Message-ID: <86CFE18E-AD4C-4298-9000-E03DA099EBFE@btinternet.com> Brilliant, Archilles. Thanks so much Shirley Sent from my iPhone > On 3 Jul 2014, at 14:20, Achilles Delari Junior wrote: > > David, Bella and Valerie, > > I put all our posts together in time order, it was important to me and I want to share, and thank you again. > > Best wishes. > See you. > >> From Brazil, still with very much to lost beyond our chains. =] > > ? > From achilles@delari.net Thu Jul 3 06:59:47 2014 From: achilles@delari.net (Achilles Delari Junior) Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2014 10:59:47 -0300 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vygotsky and social insurgence process? [compiling some posts] In-Reply-To: 86CFE18E-AD4C-4298-9000-E03DA099EBFE@btinternet.com Message-ID: <53b561d34f19d_34d2b4e183456126@a4-winter5.mail> Ow, thank you for thanks me... I was only a little retribution. =] ? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? De: "Shirley Franklin" Em: Quinta-feira 03 de Julho de 2014 10:45, Para: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu Assunto: [Xmca-l] Re: Vygotsky and social insurgence process? [compiling some posts]Brilliant, Archilles. Thanks so muchShirleySent from my iPhone> On 3 Jul 2014, at 14:20, Achilles Delari Junior wrote:> > David, Bella and Valerie, > > I put all our posts together in time order, it was important to me and I want to share, and thank you again.> > Best wishes.> See you.> >> From Brazil, still with very much to lost beyond our chains. =]> > ?> From a.g.jornet@iped.uio.no Thu Jul 3 07:19:56 2014 From: a.g.jornet@iped.uio.no (Alfredo Gil Jornet) Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2014 14:19:56 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: LSV on language as a model of development In-Reply-To: <1404377223637.27381@canterbury.ac.uk> References: , , <1404377223637.27381@canterbury.ac.uk> Message-ID: <036576d347c948c1a3a1a8f9979f3f0f@mail-ex02.exprod.uio.no> Hi all, I am new here, but have been following xmca threads for some weeks now. I just want to highlight yet another connection with regard to Vygotsky's discussion in "the problem of the environment", this time (and not surprisingly after the already mentioned connections with Hegel), with Dewey. Although probably most of you are already aware of such connection, I thought it was worth mentioning it: During my studies as PhD student I have been articulating connections between Vygotsky's ideas and Dewey's notion of "experience". I have done so (together with WM Roth) as part of my efforts to analytically address the emergent and unexpected character of the learning episodes that I could observe taking place in inquiry-based science classroom activities in K-12: The students were often surprised by the outcomes of their own actions. Yet, it was by virtue of being already immersed in the new (unknown and unexpected) situations that their own actions had brought them into, that new understandings about such situations begun to emerge. I have seen similar instances in my own daughter's development. In these examples, the conditions for growing intellectually where already present in the material situations that the learners' joint actions had brought them into (I am aware that there are some phenomenological resonances in this too). Dewey may be accounting for something like these examples with his notion of continuity of experience, when he discusses the relation between anticipation and consummation, and between the doing and the undergoing of situations (both in "Art as Experience" and in the "Logic a theory of Inquiry"). If, as he argued, experience is a unit of doing and undergoing, experience already contains both the initial and final forms. All that resonates well with Vygotsky's words that "something which is only supposed to take shape at the very end of development, somehow influences the very first steps in this development" I thought that these ideas made sense with regard to your ongoing discussion. Best, Alfredo ________________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Ma, James (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk) Sent: 03 July 2014 10:46 To: Tom Richardson; lchcmike@gmail.com; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: LSV on language as a model of development Mike, I?d like to resonate with your last point. For me, the spiral of development is an end in itself, at least viewed in the grand vision of Hegelian metaphysics. Currently I?m writing a manuscript on the word-image complementarity (as a sequel to my recent article in MCA). What?s fascinating to me is that both word and image are elusive as well as subjective, which opens up an immense scope for abductive semiotic thinking. The approach to word concepts seems to be linear, whereas the approach to visual images takes the form of circumnavigation, spiralling outward from the centre to the periphery and simultaneously inward from the periphery to the centre. What?s more, when word and image work to absorb each other, they?re both outside themselves, so to speak. This creates a profound aporia, a term used in philosophy of language. Say, when a visual image is absorbed by a word concept, we?re confronted with the inadequacy of figurative language to coincide with the world it may wish to delineate. Such word-image complementarity and dissonance can be all the more captivating should it be examined through the prism of Peirce-Vygotsky synergy (http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10749039.2014.913294). Best wishes, James ________________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of mike cole Sent: 03 July 2014 03:59 To: Tom Richardson Cc: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: LSV on language as a model of development Oh! Sometimes I just love this list/community. What a great range of answers. Kyle nailed just the passage that I was thinking of but could not locate. David linked the question to the idea/real being the environment that allows the end to be in the beginning, Tom notes the link back to Hegel. Whoa, what a tasty repast. Thank you all. Here is something interesting to me-- No one mentioned the linkage of these ideas to the spiral of development. I am sensitive to this point because when the new LCHC generation brought the webpage out of the 1990's, none of those who rescued it from decrepitude knew what the spiral of development on the home page meant..... except that it was difficult to navigate along it (having to read upside down and all that). It remains, as a pale imitation of itself. Although it, too , can be found in Eliot! Which brings us to affinities between the judeo-christian tradition and marxism! Anyway, thanks on all accounts. mike On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 1:54 PM, Tom Richardson < tom.richardson3@googlemail.com> wrote: > "situation in phylogenetic development where the > end-point of development is co-present with its beginning..." reminds me > of an Hegelian formulation,conceptualisation, (but standing on its own > feet?) > Tom > > > On 2 July 2014 21:42, David Kellogg wrote: > >> Mike: >> >> My favorite is on pp. 347-349 of the Vygotsky Reader, "The Problem of the >> Environment". It's too long to quote here, so I summarize. >> >> Vygotsky is making the point that unlike phylogenetic >> development, ontogenetic development is teleological. He asks his >> students >> if they can imagine a situation in phylogenetic development where the >> end-point of development is co-present with its beginning and is actually >> capable of guiding its steps. >> >> (Since even the unimaginable has to be somehow come to mind, Vygotsky >> probably has in mind, probably, the USSR, where the most advanced form of >> social organization is co-present with hunter-gatherer societies in the >> North, pastoral societies in Central Asia, and subsistence agriculture in >> the Caucasus. When I try to do this, I somehow see flying saucers landing >> at Stonehenge!) >> >> He concludes that no such situation is imaginable. But then--he points out >> that the mere fact that something is unimaginable does nothing to prevent >> it from actually happening, because precisely this situation obtains with >> speech--that is, the "ideal, complete" form is present alongside the most >> basic forms and help to guide their first stumbling steps. >> >> As T.S. Eliot says: >> >> In my beginning is my end. In succession >> Houses rise and fall, crumble, are extended >> Are removed, destroyed, restored or in their place >> Is an open field, or a factory, or a by-pass (East Coker) >> >> David Kellogg >> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies >> >> >> On 3 July 2014 03:41, mike cole wrote: >> >> > I am seeking to find a quotation from Vygotsky where he asserts that the >> > development of language offers a general model for human development >> more >> > generally. My fantasy, or can someone help me find it? >> > mike >> > >> > > From bella.kotik@gmail.com Thu Jul 3 07:50:04 2014 From: bella.kotik@gmail.com (Bella Kotik-Friedgut) Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2014 17:50:04 +0300 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vygotsky and social insurgence process? [compiling some posts] In-Reply-To: <53b561d34f19d_34d2b4e183456126@a4-winter5.mail> References: <53b561d34f19d_34d2b4e183456126@a4-winter5.mail> Message-ID: Achilles I can understand your perezhyvanie and hope you will overcome this legitimate crises. Growing up long after the Revolution with so much empty talks about Revolution, I as many of my generation stopped to listen to official talks, and only at some later points in life the real meaning just stroke me. Once (seems sometime in 1970th) a student from Afghanistan in Moscow at the starting point of turmoils at her homeland said in deep depression: "Do you know what does it mean Revolution? It is when you see a carpet from your home at the home of your neighbour". and another time at the beginning of 90th when I met a group of young drunk "kozaks" who looked as dressed for a kind of carnival, I felt real fear thinking that ????????? ????????????, so much officially praised could mean that tomorrow these boys would start to dictate me the way of life and activities, like in happened once in China. These is my small contribution to the discussion on "The role of perezhyvanija in concept development". You can find: ???? ? ??????? http://magazines.russ.ru/nlo/2007/85/za7.html Theater and Revolution I have to look for better copy, meanwhile repeated attachment (Hebrew is only at the cover page, paper is in English). Sincerely yours Bella Kotik-Friedgut On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Achilles Delari Junior wrote: > > Ow, thank you for thanks me... I was only a little retribution. =] > > > ? > > > > > ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? > De: "Shirley Franklin" > Em: Quinta-feira 03 de Julho de 2014 10:45, > Para: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > Assunto: [Xmca-l] Re: Vygotsky and social insurgence process? [compiling > some posts]Brilliant, Archilles. Thanks so muchShirleySent from my > iPhone> On 3 Jul 2014, at 14:20, Achilles Delari Junior wrote:> > David, > Bella and Valerie, > > I put all our posts together in time order, it was > important to me and I want to share, and thank you again.> > Best wishes.> > See you.> >> From Brazil, still with very much to lost beyond our chains. > =]> > ?> > > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: earlyLSVreviews.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 361265 bytes Desc: not available Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20140703/a942ff91/attachment-0001.pdf From ablunden@mira.net Thu Jul 3 08:17:29 2014 From: ablunden@mira.net (Andy Blunden) Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2014 01:17:29 +1000 (EST) Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: LSV on language as a model of development In-Reply-To: <036576d347c948c1a3a1a8f9979f3f0f@mail-ex02.exprod.uio.no> References: , , <1404377223637.27381@canterbury.ac.uk> <036576d347c948c1a3a1a8f9979f3f0f@mail-ex02.exprod.uio.no> Message-ID: <55415.101.176.84.138.1404400649.squirrel@wm4.pacific.net.au> Alfredo, what did you mean by: > ... as he argued, experience is a unit of doing and undergoing, Andy From a.g.jornet@iped.uio.no Thu Jul 3 08:54:43 2014 From: a.g.jornet@iped.uio.no (Alfredo Gil Jornet) Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2014 15:54:43 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: LSV on language as a model of development In-Reply-To: <55415.101.176.84.138.1404400649.squirrel@wm4.pacific.net.au> References: , , <1404377223637.27381@canterbury.ac.uk> <036576d347c948c1a3a1a8f9979f3f0f@mail-ex02.exprod.uio.no>, <55415.101.176.84.138.1404400649.squirrel@wm4.pacific.net.au> Message-ID: <4f4922e4b47f4edc8e4d8d25915a653b@mail-ex02.exprod.uio.no> Dewey, most extensively in chapter 3 of "Art as experience", makes a distinction between the general stream of experience, and an experience, which, according to him, is the experience that "is a whole and carries with it its own individualizing quality and self-sufficiency". After the fact, an experience "has a unity that gives it its name, that meal, that storm, that rupture of friendship", Dewey writes. He further says that, within that unity, there is both an aspect of doing, of initiation, and another of undergoing, "of suffering in its large sense". He further articulates the relation between the doing and the undergoing in terms of "anticipation" and "consummation" "Anticipation" he writes "is the connecting link between the next doing and its outcome for sense. What is done and what is undergone are thus reciprocally, cumulatively, and continuously instrumental to each other" Although in most passages these notes have a rather individualistic taste, he goes on to clarify that there is a prominent public character in experience: "without external embodiment, an experience remains incomplete" he says. In the same chapter, he also argues that "it is not possible to divide in a vital experience the practical, emotional, and intellectual from one another." Both these conditions may make it possible to draw connections between Dewey's notion of experience and Vygotsky's perezivanie. In any case, I find interesting the dialectic Dewey proposes between doing and undergoing as aspects of a minimal unit of sense-full experience because it allows for thinking of being immersed in a developmental situation in which the final form already exists before the intellect grasps it, so that we do not need to put individual knowledge constructions as who puts the cart before the horse. But this is my reading, which may have obviated other aspects that would preclude this reading? Hope this was of help. Best, Alfredo ________________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Andy Blunden Sent: 03 July 2014 17:17 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: LSV on language as a model of development Alfredo, what did you mean by: > ... as he argued, experience is a unit of doing and undergoing, Andy From lspopov@bgsu.edu Thu Jul 3 09:52:19 2014 From: lspopov@bgsu.edu (Lubomir Savov Popov) Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2014 16:52:19 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] About experience Message-ID: <4ae05d88883c41f3853b6c950e3d3e1b@CO2PR0501MB855.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> Just a word of caution about using the term experience when talking about LSV and Soviet/East European research. In English, experience can mean both an activity-acquired expertise and a mental/emotional way of experiencing a situation. In Russian, there are two separate words for this, very distinct from each other. One is opit and the other is perezhivanie. My talk here is a bit rough and I don't go in the finest details of this subject matter. Opit is something like expertise, but still different and might be used for phenomena that are very different from experience. In relation to perezhivanie, there is a system of several related psychological categories starting with oschushchenie and going to perezhivanie. The literature on perezhivanie discusses this system of related phenomena/categories that build upon each other. I have always been baffled by the use of experience in English, because of the very different meanings that depend on the social and narrative contexts. I wish that there are different terms for work/life experience and experiencing a situation. The nature of these phenomena is very different. This difference drives the need for different epistemological and methodological approaches for the study of these phenomena. Best wishes, Lubomir Popov, Ph.D. From greg.a.thompson@gmail.com Thu Jul 3 15:04:03 2014 From: greg.a.thompson@gmail.com (greg.a.thompson@gmail.com) Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2014 17:04:03 -0500 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: LSV on language as a model of development In-Reply-To: <1404377223637.27381@canterbury.ac.uk> References: <1404377223637.27381@canterbury.ac.uk> Message-ID: <7A153813-803C-48F3-9A96-26AEE1B2E65F@gmail.com> James, might you be able to ascend to the concrete for a moment and give an example of what you mean when you say that word and image "work to absorb each other" and thus create an aporia? All sounds very interesting but it is difficult to tell if we are abstracting these words in quite the same way. An example might help us calibrate our abstractions. Greg Sent from my iPhone > On Jul 3, 2014, at 3:46 AM, "Ma, James (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk)" wrote: > > Mike, I?d like to resonate with your last point. > > For me, the spiral of development is an end in itself, at least viewed in the grand vision of Hegelian metaphysics. Currently I?m writing a manuscript on the word-image complementarity (as a sequel to my recent article in MCA). What?s fascinating to me is that both word and image are elusive as well as subjective, which opens up an immense scope for abductive semiotic thinking. The approach to word concepts seems to be linear, whereas the approach to visual images takes the form of circumnavigation, spiralling outward from the centre to the periphery and simultaneously inward from the periphery to the centre. What?s more, when word and image work to absorb each other, they?re both outside themselves, so to speak. This creates a profound aporia, a term used in philosophy of language. Say, when a visual image is absorbed by a word concept, we?re confronted with the inadequacy of figurative language to coincide with the world it may wish to delineate. > > Such word-image complementarity and dissonance can be all the more captivating should it be examined through the prism of Peirce-Vygotsky synergy (http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10749039.2014.913294). > > Best wishes, James > > ________________________________________ > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of mike cole > Sent: 03 July 2014 03:59 > To: Tom Richardson > Cc: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: LSV on language as a model of development > > Oh! Sometimes I just love this list/community. What a great range of > answers. > Kyle nailed just the passage that I was thinking of but could not locate. > David > linked the question to the idea/real being the environment that allows the > end to be in the beginning, Tom notes the link back to Hegel. > > Whoa, what a tasty repast. Thank you all. > > Here is something interesting to me-- No one mentioned the linkage of these > ideas to the spiral of development. I am sensitive to this point because > when the new LCHC generation brought the webpage out of the 1990's, none of > those who rescued it from decrepitude knew what the spiral of development > on the home page meant..... except that it was difficult to navigate along > it (having to read upside down and all that). It remains, as a pale > imitation of itself. Although it, too , can be found in Eliot! > > Which brings us to affinities between the judeo-christian tradition and > marxism! > > Anyway, thanks on all accounts. > mike > > > On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 1:54 PM, Tom Richardson < > tom.richardson3@googlemail.com> wrote: > >> "situation in phylogenetic development where the >> end-point of development is co-present with its beginning..." reminds me >> of an Hegelian formulation,conceptualisation, (but standing on its own >> feet?) >> Tom >> >> >>> On 2 July 2014 21:42, David Kellogg wrote: >>> >>> Mike: >>> >>> My favorite is on pp. 347-349 of the Vygotsky Reader, "The Problem of the >>> Environment". It's too long to quote here, so I summarize. >>> >>> Vygotsky is making the point that unlike phylogenetic >>> development, ontogenetic development is teleological. He asks his >>> students >>> if they can imagine a situation in phylogenetic development where the >>> end-point of development is co-present with its beginning and is actually >>> capable of guiding its steps. >>> >>> (Since even the unimaginable has to be somehow come to mind, Vygotsky >>> probably has in mind, probably, the USSR, where the most advanced form of >>> social organization is co-present with hunter-gatherer societies in the >>> North, pastoral societies in Central Asia, and subsistence agriculture in >>> the Caucasus. When I try to do this, I somehow see flying saucers landing >>> at Stonehenge!) >>> >>> He concludes that no such situation is imaginable. But then--he points out >>> that the mere fact that something is unimaginable does nothing to prevent >>> it from actually happening, because precisely this situation obtains with >>> speech--that is, the "ideal, complete" form is present alongside the most >>> basic forms and help to guide their first stumbling steps. >>> >>> As T.S. Eliot says: >>> >>> In my beginning is my end. In succession >>> Houses rise and fall, crumble, are extended >>> Are removed, destroyed, restored or in their place >>> Is an open field, or a factory, or a by-pass (East Coker) >>> >>> David Kellogg >>> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies >>> >>> >>>> On 3 July 2014 03:41, mike cole wrote: >>>> >>>> I am seeking to find a quotation from Vygotsky where he asserts that the >>>> development of language offers a general model for human development >>> more >>>> generally. My fantasy, or can someone help me find it? >>>> mike > From lchcmike@gmail.com Thu Jul 3 15:50:08 2014 From: lchcmike@gmail.com (mike cole) Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2014 15:50:08 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: About experience In-Reply-To: <4ae05d88883c41f3853b6c950e3d3e1b@CO2PR0501MB855.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> References: <4ae05d88883c41f3853b6c950e3d3e1b@CO2PR0501MB855.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> Message-ID: Interesting point, Lubomir. An "opyitni" person is a person with "a lot of experience." But i am pretty sure that sense of experience is not messing up the discussion of perezhivanie/experience/LSV-Dewey/etc. A lot of other issue are making it complicated enough! mike On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 9:52 AM, Lubomir Savov Popov wrote: > Just a word of caution about using the term experience when talking about > LSV and Soviet/East European research. In English, experience can mean both > an activity-acquired expertise and a mental/emotional way of experiencing a > situation. In Russian, there are two separate words for this, very distinct > from each other. One is opit and the other is perezhivanie. My talk here is > a bit rough and I don't go in the finest details of this subject matter. > > Opit is something like expertise, but still different and might be used > for phenomena that are very different from experience. > > In relation to perezhivanie, there is a system of several related > psychological categories starting with oschushchenie and going to > perezhivanie. The literature on perezhivanie discusses this system of > related phenomena/categories that build upon each other. > > I have always been baffled by the use of experience in English, because of > the very different meanings that depend on the social and narrative > contexts. I wish that there are different terms for work/life experience > and experiencing a situation. The nature of these phenomena is very > different. This difference drives the need for different epistemological > and methodological approaches for the study of these phenomena. > > Best wishes, > > Lubomir Popov, Ph.D. > > > From achilles@delari.net Thu Jul 3 18:00:16 2014 From: achilles@delari.net (Achilles Delari Junior) Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2014 22:00:16 -0300 Subject: [Xmca-l] Vygotsky and social insurgence process? [thank you Bella] In-Reply-To: CAEUxSQHZ-=Cg4hY3iURJKJ9AEKnjD-vwK_cAqHJakTXpzRA=-w@mail.gmail.com Message-ID: <53b5fca06f311_5adb2fcb03c59a6@a4-winter4.mail> Thank you very much, Bella, It's very sad, but false claims for freedom to everybody (only for change roles in slave-master play) had being very common around the world, along centuries. I am far way from first plane in public life, because I am a solitary pensioner. And almost all public affairs turns something pathogenic for me, unfortunately. But I have some free time, and can try to understand better the world around and inside - and write, there is no more social spaces available for "public exercise of Reason" (Kant). =] Therefore, at least, I may dialogue with my son and try to help him to have a better life than I had. I wonder all young people must have the right to dream, because dreams also creates "zones of proximal development" - but take care for not leave deep dreams because superficial illusions and/or ambition. I am fine. Crisis are a way to inner life - a way of development - I repeat from Vygotsky. In any situation, we must remain in movement: reading, writing, talking to, asking for, answering about some subjects really important for us. This is very good for our health. Ow... Thank you very much for your so deep and meaningful contributions - talking us about your experiencing and that of close people, in so hard times. Thank you for your text in English, is still easier for me. My Russian is nowadays better than before, but I remain a beginner. I saw that you publish, I guess, about the same subject, also in PsyAnima. Congratulations. The links and other indications will be very important too. Thank you a lot. My copy of "Teatr i revolutsia" is here = https://mega.co.nz/#!b8RRzYba!mFhzH3TU0zvUENWoK7Q53irrpO78ZonuAiGXdgc6khI (Megaupload). It's very interesting, it is in the old alphabet yet... but with dictionary and help of my Russian teacher (by Skype) I can translate. It's very nice to learn about Vygotsky and to learn Russian Language at the same time. Well, things are not so bad, at the end. I hope to help, at least, closest people to not listen so seriously some kinds of "revolutionary" proposals... I already listen some false claims for freedom. I fight many more than the propagandists to finish very worse than them. I was so naive. =] Best wishes. Shalom! [I'm not secure if is respectful a Christian say "Shalom", but, please listen as a respectful act] Achilles from Brazil. ? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? De: "Bella Kotik-Friedgut" Em: Quinta-feira 03 de Julho de 2014 11:52, Para: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu Assunto: [Xmca-l] Re: Vygotsky and social insurgence process? [compiling some posts] Achilles I can understand your perezhyvanie and hope you will overcome thislegitimate crises. Growing up long after the Revolution with so much empty talks aboutRevolution, I as many of my generation stopped to listen to official talks,and only at some later points in life the real meaning just stroke me. Once (seems sometime in 1970th) a student from Afghanistan in Moscow atthe starting point of turmoils at her homeland said in deep depression: "Doyou know what does it mean Revolution? It is when you see a carpet fromyour home at the home of your neighbour". and another time at thebeginning of 90thwhen I met a group of young drunk "kozaks" who looked as dressed for a kindof carnival,I felt real fear thinking that ????????? ????????????, so much officiallypraised could mean that tomorrow these boys would start to dictate me theway of life and activities, like in happened once in China. These is mysmall contribution to the discussion on "The role of perezhyvanija inconcept development".You can find:???? ? ??????? http://magazines.russ.ru/nlo/2007/85/za7.htmlTheater and Revolution I have to look for better copy, meanwhile repeatedattachment (Hebrew is only at the cover page, paper is in English).Sincerely yours Bella Kotik-FriedgutOn Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Achilles Delari Junior wrote:>> Ow, thank you for thanks me... I was only a little retribution. =]>>> ?>>>>> ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????> De: "Shirley Franklin"> Em: Quinta-feira 03 de Julho de 2014 10:45,> Para: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu> Assunto: [Xmca-l] Re: Vygotsky and social insurgence process? [compiling> some posts]Brilliant, Archilles. Thanks so muchShirleySent from my> iPhone> On 3 Jul 2014, at 14:20, Achilles Delari Junior wrote:> > David,> Bella and Valerie, > > I put all our posts together in time order, it was> important to me and I want to share, and thank you again.> > Best wishes.>> See you.> >> From Brazil, still with very much to lost beyond our chains.> =]> > ?>>> From ablunden@mira.net Thu Jul 3 18:23:58 2014 From: ablunden@mira.net (Andy Blunden) Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2014 11:23:58 +1000 (EST) Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: About experience In-Reply-To: <4ae05d88883c41f3853b6c950e3d3e1b@CO2PR0501MB855.namprd05.prod.outlook .com> References: <4ae05d88883c41f3853b6c950e3d3e1b@CO2PR0501MB855.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> Message-ID: <55438.101.176.84.138.1404437038.squirrel@wm4.pacific.net.au> Well said, Lubomir! Generally, understanding what English-speakers mean by "experience" is just a matter of paying attention to the articles and specifiers (the, an, some, this, that, etc.), but if the English speaker in question has been too much Russian in translation, one can never be sure! Andy > Just a word of caution about using the term experience when talking about > LSV and Soviet/East European research. In English, experience can mean > both an activity-acquired expertise and a mental/emotional way of > experiencing a situation. In Russian, there are two separate words for > this, very distinct from each other. One is opit and the other is > perezhivanie. My talk here is a bit rough and I don't go in the finest > details of this subject matter. > > Opit is something like expertise, but still different and might be used > for phenomena that are very different from experience. > > In relation to perezhivanie, there is a system of several related > psychological categories starting with oschushchenie and going to > perezhivanie. The literature on perezhivanie discusses this system of > related phenomena/categories that build upon each other. > > I have always been baffled by the use of experience in English, because of > the very different meanings that depend on the social and narrative > contexts. I wish that there are different terms for work/life experience > and experiencing a situation. The nature of these phenomena is very > different. This difference drives the need for different epistemological > and methodological approaches for the study of these phenomena. > > Best wishes, > > Lubomir Popov, Ph.D. > > From ablunden@mira.net Thu Jul 3 18:26:01 2014 From: ablunden@mira.net (Andy Blunden) Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2014 11:26:01 +1000 (EST) Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: About experience In-Reply-To: References: <4ae05d88883c41f3853b6c950e3d3e1b@CO2PR0501MB855.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> Message-ID: <62966.101.176.84.138.1404437161.squirrel@wm4.pacific.net.au> On the contrary, Greg, a lot of the confusion about perezhivanie is precisely tied up with the issue Lubomir raised, Andy > Interesting point, Lubomir. An "opyitni" person is a person with "a lot > of > experience." > > But i am pretty sure that sense of experience is not messing up the > discussion of perezhivanie/experience/LSV-Dewey/etc. A lot of other issue > are making it complicated enough! > mike > > > On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 9:52 AM, Lubomir Savov Popov > wrote: > >> Just a word of caution about using the term experience when talking >> about >> LSV and Soviet/East European research. In English, experience can mean >> both >> an activity-acquired expertise and a mental/emotional way of >> experiencing a >> situation. In Russian, there are two separate words for this, very >> distinct >> from each other. One is opit and the other is perezhivanie. My talk here >> is >> a bit rough and I don't go in the finest details of this subject matter. >> >> Opit is something like expertise, but still different and might be used >> for phenomena that are very different from experience. >> >> In relation to perezhivanie, there is a system of several related >> psychological categories starting with oschushchenie and going to >> perezhivanie. The literature on perezhivanie discusses this system of >> related phenomena/categories that build upon each other. >> >> I have always been baffled by the use of experience in English, because >> of >> the very different meanings that depend on the social and narrative >> contexts. I wish that there are different terms for work/life experience >> and experiencing a situation. The nature of these phenomena is very >> different. This difference drives the need for different epistemological >> and methodological approaches for the study of these phenomena. >> >> Best wishes, >> >> Lubomir Popov, Ph.D. >> >> >> > From ablunden@mira.net Thu Jul 3 18:45:19 2014 From: ablunden@mira.net (Andy Blunden) Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2014 11:45:19 +1000 (EST) Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: LSV on language as a model of development In-Reply-To: <4f4922e4b47f4edc8e4d8d25915a653b@mail-ex02.exprod.uio.no> References: , , <1404377223637.27381@canterbury.ac.uk> <036576d347c948c1a3a1a8f9979f3f0f@mail-ex02.exprod.uio.no>, <55415.101.176.84.138.1404400649.squirrel@wm4.pacific.net.au> <4f4922e4b47f4edc8e4d8d25915a653b@mail-ex02.exprod.uio.no> Message-ID: <60103.101.176.84.138.1404438319.squirrel@wm4.pacific.net.au> I am familiar with Dewey's work on this, Alfredo, and I too have found it very useful. That was not my problem. But thinking about it, I suspect it was just an English expression problem. You said "experience is a unit of doing and undergoing". But I think you meant to say "experience is a unity of doing and undergoing," which is certainly true. Just as activity is a unity of consciousness and behaviour, or identity is a unity of recognition and self-consciousness, etc. But a *unit* is something different from *unity*. "Experience" in this sense is not a unit at all; "an experience" can be a unit, but not a unit of doing and undergoing. Is that right, Alfredo? Andy > Dewey, most extensively in chapter 3 of "Art as experience", makes a > distinction between the general stream of experience, and an experience, > which, according to him, is the experience that "is a whole and carries > with it its own individualizing quality and self-sufficiency". After the > fact, an experience "has a unity that gives it its name, that meal, that > storm, that rupture of friendship", Dewey writes. He further says that, > within that unity, there is both an aspect of doing, of initiation, and > another of undergoing, "of suffering in its large sense". He further > articulates the relation between the doing and the undergoing in terms of > "anticipation" and "consummation" "Anticipation" he writes "is the > connecting link between the next doing and its outcome for sense. What is > done and what is undergone are thus reciprocally, cumulatively, and > continuously instrumental to each other" > > Although in most passages these notes have a rather individualistic taste, > he goes on to clarify that there is a prominent public character in > experience: "without external embodiment, an experience remains > incomplete" he says. In the same chapter, he also argues that "it is not > possible to divide in a vital experience the practical, emotional, and > intellectual from one another." Both these conditions may make it possible > to draw connections between Dewey's notion of experience and Vygotsky's > perezivanie. > > In any case, I find interesting the dialectic Dewey proposes between doing > and undergoing as aspects of a minimal unit of sense-full experience > because it allows for thinking of being immersed in a developmental > situation in which the final form already exists before the intellect > grasps it, so that we do not need to put individual knowledge > constructions as who puts the cart before the horse. > > But this is my reading, which may have obviated other aspects that would > preclude this reading? > Hope this was of help. > Best, > > Alfredo > ________________________________________ > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on > behalf of Andy Blunden > Sent: 03 July 2014 17:17 > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: LSV on language as a model of development > > Alfredo, what did you mean by: >> ... as he argued, experience is a unit of doing and undergoing, > > Andy > > > From lchcmike@gmail.com Thu Jul 3 19:22:33 2014 From: lchcmike@gmail.com (mike cole) Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2014 19:22:33 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: LSV on language as a model of development In-Reply-To: <60103.101.176.84.138.1404438319.squirrel@wm4.pacific.net.au> References: <1404377223637.27381@canterbury.ac.uk> <036576d347c948c1a3a1a8f9979f3f0f@mail-ex02.exprod.uio.no> <55415.101.176.84.138.1404400649.squirrel@wm4.pacific.net.au> <4f4922e4b47f4edc8e4d8d25915a653b@mail-ex02.exprod.uio.no> <60103.101.176.84.138.1404438319.squirrel@wm4.pacific.net.au> Message-ID: That is how I interpreted Alfredo, Andy. (signed) an *in*-experienced oldtimer mike On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 6:45 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: > I am familiar with Dewey's work on this, Alfredo, and I too have found it > very useful. That was not my problem. But thinking about it, I suspect it > was just an English expression problem. > You said "experience is a unit of doing and undergoing". But I think you > meant to say "experience is a unity of doing and undergoing," which is > certainly true. Just as activity is a unity of consciousness and > behaviour, or identity is a unity of recognition and self-consciousness, > etc. > But a *unit* is something different from *unity*. "Experience" in this > sense is not a unit at all; "an experience" can be a unit, but not a unit > of doing and undergoing. > > Is that right, Alfredo? > Andy > > > Dewey, most extensively in chapter 3 of "Art as experience", makes a > > distinction between the general stream of experience, and an experience, > > which, according to him, is the experience that "is a whole and carries > > with it its own individualizing quality and self-sufficiency". After the > > fact, an experience "has a unity that gives it its name, that meal, that > > storm, that rupture of friendship", Dewey writes. He further says that, > > within that unity, there is both an aspect of doing, of initiation, and > > another of undergoing, "of suffering in its large sense". He further > > articulates the relation between the doing and the undergoing in terms of > > "anticipation" and "consummation" "Anticipation" he writes "is the > > connecting link between the next doing and its outcome for sense. What is > > done and what is undergone are thus reciprocally, cumulatively, and > > continuously instrumental to each other" > > > > Although in most passages these notes have a rather individualistic > taste, > > he goes on to clarify that there is a prominent public character in > > experience: "without external embodiment, an experience remains > > incomplete" he says. In the same chapter, he also argues that "it is not > > possible to divide in a vital experience the practical, emotional, and > > intellectual from one another." Both these conditions may make it > possible > > to draw connections between Dewey's notion of experience and Vygotsky's > > perezivanie. > > > > In any case, I find interesting the dialectic Dewey proposes between > doing > > and undergoing as aspects of a minimal unit of sense-full experience > > because it allows for thinking of being immersed in a developmental > > situation in which the final form already exists before the intellect > > grasps it, so that we do not need to put individual knowledge > > constructions as who puts the cart before the horse. > > > > But this is my reading, which may have obviated other aspects that would > > preclude this reading? > > Hope this was of help. > > Best, > > > > Alfredo > > ________________________________________ > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on > > behalf of Andy Blunden > > Sent: 03 July 2014 17:17 > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: LSV on language as a model of development > > > > Alfredo, what did you mean by: > >> ... as he argued, experience is a unit of doing and undergoing, > > > > Andy > > > > > > > > > From achilles@delari.net Thu Jul 3 19:56:53 2014 From: achilles@delari.net (Achilles Delari Junior) Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2014 23:56:53 -0300 Subject: [Xmca-l] "Crises as way for inner life" (Vygotsky apud Asmolov) In-Reply-To: CAHCnM0B2WytxiU_xiLSL+u2bvFHzsmZ_N73xZfjuPrgaDajZkg@mail.gmail.com Message-ID: <53b617f5d275e_2e9644ee838568ef@a4-winter2.mail> Excuse me, once more In the preface for 1993 Russian edition of "Vygotsky and Luria. Studies about history of behavior [...]" Moscow: Pedagogika-Press", Aleksandr Asmolov quotes in epigraph: "??????? ? ??? ?? ????????? ?????????, ? ???? ?????????? ?????." (?. ?????????). Something like this: "Crises - this is not a temporary situation, but a way for inner life" (L. Vygotsky) This can not sound more Vygotskyan to me. But I guess I never read this before anywhere. And Asmolov did not put the actual bibliographic reference. I begin searching in entire Tom IV, where the problem of "Vozrastny Krizis" (Age crises) is very important for the more advanced Vygotsky's concept of development. But the exact entry was not there. Somebody have any suggestion? Off course, I will search another five volumes as well, but I guess I never read this before... My memory is not so good nowadays, but this phrase is specially impressive. This is also methodologically important. Because here we have a more productive, not mechanistic, interpretation of dialectical human condition as permanent conflict understood as social/personal way to we became what we not was until now... In my point of view. Thank you, again. Achilles from Brazil, always in the "way"... From lchcmike@gmail.com Thu Jul 3 20:25:57 2014 From: lchcmike@gmail.com (mike cole) Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2014 20:25:57 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: "Crises as way for inner life" (Vygotsky apud Asmolov) In-Reply-To: <53b617f5d275e_2e9644ee838568ef@a4-winter2.mail> References: <53b617f5d275e_2e9644ee838568ef@a4-winter2.mail> Message-ID: Ask an Asmolov! mike On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 7:56 PM, Achilles Delari Junior wrote: > Excuse me, once more > > In the preface for 1993 Russian edition of "Vygotsky and Luria. Studies > about history of behavior [...]" Moscow: Pedagogika-Press", Aleksandr > Asmolov quotes in epigraph: > > "??????? ? ??? ?? ????????? ?????????, ? ???? ?????????? ?????." (?. > ?????????). > > Something like this: > > "Crises - this is not a temporary situation, but a way for inner life" (L. > Vygotsky) > > This can not sound more Vygotskyan to me. But I guess I never read this > before anywhere. And Asmolov did not put the actual bibliographic > reference. I begin searching in entire Tom IV, where the problem of > "Vozrastny Krizis" (Age crises) is very important for the more advanced > Vygotsky's concept of development. But the exact entry was not there. > Somebody have any suggestion? Off course, I will search another five > volumes as well, but I guess I never read this before... My memory is not > so good nowadays, but this phrase is specially impressive. This is also > methodologically important. Because here we have a more productive, not > mechanistic, interpretation of dialectical human condition as permanent > conflict understood as social/personal way to we became what we not was > until now... In my point of view. > > Thank you, again. > > Achilles from Brazil, always in the "way"... From ablunden@mira.net Thu Jul 3 20:27:20 2014 From: ablunden@mira.net (Andy Blunden) Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2014 13:27:20 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: "Crises as way for inner life" (Vygotsky apud Asmolov) In-Reply-To: <53b617f5d275e_2e9644ee838568ef@a4-winter2.mail> References: <53b617f5d275e_2e9644ee838568ef@a4-winter2.mail> Message-ID: <53B61F18.5030707@mira.net> ... which raises the intriguing question, Achilles, as to what Vygotsky meant exactly by "lytical" or "gradual" development. Is this also nevertheless a form of crisis? Andy ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Andy Blunden* http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ Achilles Delari Junior wrote: > Excuse me, once more > > In the preface for 1993 Russian edition of "Vygotsky and Luria. Studies about history of behavior [...]" Moscow: Pedagogika-Press", Aleksandr Asmolov quotes in epigraph: > > "??????? ? ??? ?? ????????? ?????????, ? ???? ?????????? ?????." (?. ?????????). > > Something like this: > > "Crises - this is not a temporary situation, but a way for inner life" (L. Vygotsky) > > This can not sound more Vygotskyan to me. But I guess I never read this before anywhere. And Asmolov did not put the actual bibliographic reference. I begin searching in entire Tom IV, where the problem of "Vozrastny Krizis" (Age crises) is very important for the more advanced Vygotsky's concept of development. But the exact entry was not there. Somebody have any suggestion? Off course, I will search another five volumes as well, but I guess I never read this before... My memory is not so good nowadays, but this phrase is specially impressive. This is also methodologically important. Because here we have a more productive, not mechanistic, interpretation of dialectical human condition as permanent conflict understood as social/personal way to we became what we not was until now... In my point of view. > > Thank you, again. > > Achilles from Brazil, always in the "way"... From ablunden@mira.net Thu Jul 3 22:25:45 2014 From: ablunden@mira.net (Andy Blunden) Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2014 15:25:45 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: LSV on language as a model of development In-Reply-To: References: <1404377223637.27381@canterbury.ac.uk> <036576d347c948c1a3a1a8f9979f3f0f@mail-ex02.exprod.uio.no> <55415.101.176.84.138.1404400649.squirrel@wm4.pacific.net.au> <4f4922e4b47f4edc8e4d8d25915a653b@mail-ex02.exprod.uio.no> <60103.101.176.84.138.1404438319.squirrel@wm4.pacific.net.au> Message-ID: <53B63AD9.9000202@mira.net> Maybe, but Alfredo has been working with W-M Roth, and in a recent paper Roth claims to quote Vygotsky saying that experience is "the dynamic unit of affective and intellectual processes" (Roth's translation) and goes on to make it clear that this was not a slip of the pen, but he means "unit". Andy ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Andy Blunden* http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ mike cole wrote: > That is how I interpreted Alfredo, Andy. > (signed) > > an /in/-experienced oldtimer > mike > > > On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 6:45 PM, Andy Blunden > wrote: > > I am familiar with Dewey's work on this, Alfredo, and I too have > found it > very useful. That was not my problem. But thinking about it, I > suspect it > was just an English expression problem. > You said "experience is a unit of doing and undergoing". But I > think you > meant to say "experience is a unity of doing and undergoing," which is > certainly true. Just as activity is a unity of consciousness and > behaviour, or identity is a unity of recognition and > self-consciousness, > etc. > But a *unit* is something different from *unity*. "Experience" in this > sense is not a unit at all; "an experience" can be a unit, but not > a unit > of doing and undergoing. > > Is that right, Alfredo? > Andy > > > Dewey, most extensively in chapter 3 of "Art as experience", makes a > > distinction between the general stream of experience, and an > experience, > > which, according to him, is the experience that "is a whole and > carries > > with it its own individualizing quality and self-sufficiency". > After the > > fact, an experience "has a unity that gives it its name, that > meal, that > > storm, that rupture of friendship", Dewey writes. He further > says that, > > within that unity, there is both an aspect of doing, of > initiation, and > > another of undergoing, "of suffering in its large sense". He further > > articulates the relation between the doing and the undergoing in > terms of > > "anticipation" and "consummation" "Anticipation" he writes "is the > > connecting link between the next doing and its outcome for > sense. What is > > done and what is undergone are thus reciprocally, cumulatively, and > > continuously instrumental to each other" > > > > Although in most passages these notes have a rather > individualistic taste, > > he goes on to clarify that there is a prominent public character in > > experience: "without external embodiment, an experience remains > > incomplete" he says. In the same chapter, he also argues that > "it is not > > possible to divide in a vital experience the practical, > emotional, and > > intellectual from one another." Both these conditions may make > it possible > > to draw connections between Dewey's notion of experience and > Vygotsky's > > perezivanie. > > > > In any case, I find interesting the dialectic Dewey proposes > between doing > > and undergoing as aspects of a minimal unit of sense-full experience > > because it allows for thinking of being immersed in a developmental > > situation in which the final form already exists before the > intellect > > grasps it, so that we do not need to put individual knowledge > > constructions as who puts the cart before the horse. > > > > But this is my reading, which may have obviated other aspects > that would > > preclude this reading? > > Hope this was of help. > > Best, > > > > Alfredo > > ________________________________________ > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > on > > behalf of Andy Blunden > > > Sent: 03 July 2014 17:17 > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: LSV on language as a model of development > > > > Alfredo, what did you mean by: > >> ... as he argued, experience is a unit of doing and undergoing, > > > > Andy > > > > > > > > > From james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk Fri Jul 4 03:04:51 2014 From: james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk (Ma, James (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk)) Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2014 10:04:51 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: LSV on language as a model of development In-Reply-To: <7A153813-803C-48F3-9A96-26AEE1B2E65F@gmail.com> References: <1404377223637.27381@canterbury.ac.uk>, <7A153813-803C-48F3-9A96-26AEE1B2E65F@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1404468305411.20407@canterbury.ac.uk> Hi Greg, you might like to take a look at a picture-induced example in http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10749039.2014.913294 from p. 9., or I could share with you some more examples later on regarding the word-image complementarity, some of which are aporia-related (since I'm currently preparing this manuscript for Harvard Educational Research). James ________________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces+james.ma=canterbury.ac.uk@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of greg.a.thompson@gmail.com Sent: 03 July 2014 23:04 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: LSV on language as a model of development James, might you be able to ascend to the concrete for a moment and give an example of what you mean when you say that word and image "work to absorb each other" and thus create an aporia? All sounds very interesting but it is difficult to tell if we are abstracting these words in quite the same way. An example might help us calibrate our abstractions. Greg Sent from my iPhone > On Jul 3, 2014, at 3:46 AM, "Ma, James (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk)" wrote: > > Mike, I?d like to resonate with your last point. > > For me, the spiral of development is an end in itself, at least viewed in the grand vision of Hegelian metaphysics. Currently I?m writing a manuscript on the word-image complementarity (as a sequel to my recent article in MCA). What?s fascinating to me is that both word and image are elusive as well as subjective, which opens up an immense scope for abductive semiotic thinking. The approach to word concepts seems to be linear, whereas the approach to visual images takes the form of circumnavigation, spiralling outward from the centre to the periphery and simultaneously inward from the periphery to the centre. What?s more, when word and image work to absorb each other, they?re both outside themselves, so to speak. This creates a profound aporia, a term used in philosophy of language. Say, when a visual image is absorbed by a word concept, we?re confronted with the inadequacy of figurative language to coincide with the world it may wish to delineate. > > Such word-image complementarity and dissonance can be all the more captivating should it be examined through the prism of Peirce-Vygotsky synergy (http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10749039.2014.913294). > > Best wishes, James > > ________________________________________ > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of mike cole > Sent: 03 July 2014 03:59 > To: Tom Richardson > Cc: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: LSV on language as a model of development > > Oh! Sometimes I just love this list/community. What a great range of > answers. > Kyle nailed just the passage that I was thinking of but could not locate. > David > linked the question to the idea/real being the environment that allows the > end to be in the beginning, Tom notes the link back to Hegel. > > Whoa, what a tasty repast. Thank you all. > > Here is something interesting to me-- No one mentioned the linkage of these > ideas to the spiral of development. I am sensitive to this point because > when the new LCHC generation brought the webpage out of the 1990's, none of > those who rescued it from decrepitude knew what the spiral of development > on the home page meant..... except that it was difficult to navigate along > it (having to read upside down and all that). It remains, as a pale > imitation of itself. Although it, too , can be found in Eliot! > > Which brings us to affinities between the judeo-christian tradition and > marxism! > > Anyway, thanks on all accounts. > mike > > > On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 1:54 PM, Tom Richardson < > tom.richardson3@googlemail.com> wrote: > >> "situation in phylogenetic development where the >> end-point of development is co-present with its beginning..." reminds me >> of an Hegelian formulation,conceptualisation, (but standing on its own >> feet?) >> Tom >> >> >>> On 2 July 2014 21:42, David Kellogg wrote: >>> >>> Mike: >>> >>> My favorite is on pp. 347-349 of the Vygotsky Reader, "The Problem of the >>> Environment". It's too long to quote here, so I summarize. >>> >>> Vygotsky is making the point that unlike phylogenetic >>> development, ontogenetic development is teleological. He asks his >>> students >>> if they can imagine a situation in phylogenetic development where the >>> end-point of development is co-present with its beginning and is actually >>> capable of guiding its steps. >>> >>> (Since even the unimaginable has to be somehow come to mind, Vygotsky >>> probably has in mind, probably, the USSR, where the most advanced form of >>> social organization is co-present with hunter-gatherer societies in the >>> North, pastoral societies in Central Asia, and subsistence agriculture in >>> the Caucasus. When I try to do this, I somehow see flying saucers landing >>> at Stonehenge!) >>> >>> He concludes that no such situation is imaginable. But then--he points out >>> that the mere fact that something is unimaginable does nothing to prevent >>> it from actually happening, because precisely this situation obtains with >>> speech--that is, the "ideal, complete" form is present alongside the most >>> basic forms and help to guide their first stumbling steps. >>> >>> As T.S. Eliot says: >>> >>> In my beginning is my end. In succession >>> Houses rise and fall, crumble, are extended >>> Are removed, destroyed, restored or in their place >>> Is an open field, or a factory, or a by-pass (East Coker) >>> >>> David Kellogg >>> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies >>> >>> >>>> On 3 July 2014 03:41, mike cole wrote: >>>> >>>> I am seeking to find a quotation from Vygotsky where he asserts that the >>>> development of language offers a general model for human development >>> more >>>> generally. My fantasy, or can someone help me find it? >>>> mike > From a.g.jornet@iped.uio.no Fri Jul 4 04:31:50 2014 From: a.g.jornet@iped.uio.no (Alfredo Gil Jornet) Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2014 11:31:50 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: LSV on language as a model of development In-Reply-To: <53B63AD9.9000202@mira.net> References: <1404377223637.27381@canterbury.ac.uk> <036576d347c948c1a3a1a8f9979f3f0f@mail-ex02.exprod.uio.no> <55415.101.176.84.138.1404400649.squirrel@wm4.pacific.net.au> <4f4922e4b47f4edc8e4d8d25915a653b@mail-ex02.exprod.uio.no> <60103.101.176.84.138.1404438319.squirrel@wm4.pacific.net.au> , <53B63AD9.9000202@mira.net> Message-ID: Initially, I meant unity of doing and undergoing in the sense that, in an experience, the one aspect cannot be reduced to the other. So, doing and undergoing, as I read them in Dewey, and as you agree, constitute a unity. It is precisely in the difference/distance between the doing and the undergoing that an experience extends in time and action as a real, dynamic, but unitary phenomenon. I guess we all agree on this. I acknowledge my loose use of the term "unit" in the previous description, and understand your concern about it. So far, I have been using the notion "unit" to mean "unit of analysis." As unit, an experience may be thought as "a product of analysis which, unlike elements, retains all the basic properties of the whole and which cannot be further divided without losing them." That is how we attempt to articulate it here in the context of science education: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/enhanced/doi/10.1002/sce.21085/ I have further expanded those ideas in other works under review. However, after Andy raised concern about the difference between "unit" and "unity," I realized that I had not a clear-enough answer as to the differences between the two. So I quickly went to the literature to make my mind clearer before answering. Following an initial reading, here is my attempt to be more specific about it: One could argue that "an experience", rather than "experience" as general conception (and this difference may not be clear enough in any of my previous writings), could be thought of as a unit of analysis for the relation between doing and undergoing, which is a "microcosm" of human experience during episodes of joint development. Obviously, here I am trying to roughly follow a scheme you provide in "Outlines" (2009). Does this line of thought make sense? Thanks to this discussion, I realize that I need to make clearer statements about how the connections that I entertain between Dewey and Vygotsky in my dissertation constitute a "unit", a "substance", or neither of them. Thank you very much for opening this dimension of inquiry to me! Best, Alfredo ________________________________________ From: Andy Blunden Sent: 04 July 2014 07:25:45 To: lchcmike@gmail.com Cc: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity; Alfredo Gil Jornet Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: LSV on language as a model of development Maybe, but Alfredo has been working with W-M Roth, and in a recent paper Roth claims to quote Vygotsky saying that experience is "the dynamic unit of affective and intellectual processes" (Roth's translation) and goes on to make it clear that this was not a slip of the pen, but he means "unit". Andy ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Andy Blunden* http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ mike cole wrote: > That is how I interpreted Alfredo, Andy. > (signed) > > an /in/-experienced oldtimer > mike > > > On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 6:45 PM, Andy Blunden > wrote: > > I am familiar with Dewey's work on this, Alfredo, and I too have > found it > very useful. That was not my problem. But thinking about it, I > suspect it > was just an English expression problem. > You said "experience is a unit of doing and undergoing". But I > think you > meant to say "experience is a unity of doing and undergoing," which is > certainly true. Just as activity is a unity of consciousness and > behaviour, or identity is a unity of recognition and > self-consciousness, > etc. > But a *unit* is something different from *unity*. "Experience" in this > sense is not a unit at all; "an experience" can be a unit, but not > a unit > of doing and undergoing. > > Is that right, Alfredo? > Andy > > > Dewey, most extensively in chapter 3 of "Art as experience", makes a > > distinction between the general stream of experience, and an > experience, > > which, according to him, is the experience that "is a whole and > carries > > with it its own individualizing quality and self-sufficiency". > After the > > fact, an experience "has a unity that gives it its name, that > meal, that > > storm, that rupture of friendship", Dewey writes. He further > says that, > > within that unity, there is both an aspect of doing, of > initiation, and > > another of undergoing, "of suffering in its large sense". He further > > articulates the relation between the doing and the undergoing in > terms of > > "anticipation" and "consummation" "Anticipation" he writes "is the > > connecting link between the next doing and its outcome for > sense. What is > > done and what is undergone are thus reciprocally, cumulatively, and > > continuously instrumental to each other" > > > > Although in most passages these notes have a rather > individualistic taste, > > he goes on to clarify that there is a prominent public character in > > experience: "without external embodiment, an experience remains > > incomplete" he says. In the same chapter, he also argues that > "it is not > > possible to divide in a vital experience the practical, > emotional, and > > intellectual from one another." Both these conditions may make > it possible > > to draw connections between Dewey's notion of experience and > Vygotsky's > > perezivanie. > > > > In any case, I find interesting the dialectic Dewey proposes > between doing > > and undergoing as aspects of a minimal unit of sense-full experience > > because it allows for thinking of being immersed in a developmental > > situation in which the final form already exists before the > intellect > > grasps it, so that we do not need to put individual knowledge > > constructions as who puts the cart before the horse. > > > > But this is my reading, which may have obviated other aspects > that would > > preclude this reading? > > Hope this was of help. > > Best, > > > > Alfredo > > ________________________________________ > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > on > > behalf of Andy Blunden > > > Sent: 03 July 2014 17:17 > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: LSV on language as a model of development > > > > Alfredo, what did you mean by: > >> ... as he argued, experience is a unit of doing and undergoing, > > > > Andy > > > > > > > > > From achilles@delari.net Fri Jul 4 04:38:01 2014 From: achilles@delari.net (Achilles Delari Junior) Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2014 08:38:01 -0300 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: "Crises as way for inner life" (Vygotsky apud Asmolov) In-Reply-To: CAHCnM0AMSfjJA2nP+sGSnP952y3cAuZ4H=4fkJJVOUrKiKJwjQ@mail.gmail.com Message-ID: <53b69219f3458_3cc4cd310388956a@a4-wakko3.mail> OW! And is he alive? I did not know!!! Thank you, Mike. Life have many surprises! ? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? De: "mike cole" Em: Sexta-feira 04 de Julho de 2014 00:27, Para: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu Assunto: [Xmca-l] Re: "Crises as way for inner life" (Vygotsky apud Asmolov)Ask an Asmolov!mikeOn Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 7:56 PM, Achilles Delari Junior wrote:> Excuse me, once more>> In the preface for 1993 Russian edition of "Vygotsky and Luria. Studies> about history of behavior [...]" Moscow: Pedagogika-Press", Aleksandr> Asmolov quotes in epigraph:>> "??????? ? ??? ?? ????????? ?????????, ? ???? ?????????? ?????." (?.> ?????????).>> Something like this:>> "Crises - this is not a temporary situation, but a way for inner life" (L.> Vygotsky)>> This can not sound more Vygotskyan to me. But I guess I never read this> before anywhere. And Asmolov did not put the actual bibliographic> reference. I begin searching in entire Tom IV, where the problem of> "Vozrastny Krizis" (Age crises) is very important for the more advanced> Vygotsky's concept of development. But the exact entry was not there.> Somebody have any suggestion? Off course, I will search another five> volumes as well, but I guess I never read this before... My memory is not> so good nowadays, but this phrase is specially impressive. This is also> methodologically important. Because here we have a more productive, not> mechanistic, interpretation of dialectical human condition as permanent> conflict understood as social/personal way to we became what we not was> until now... In my point of view.>> Thank you, again.>> Achilles from Brazil, always in the "way"... From achilles@delari.net Fri Jul 4 04:40:36 2014 From: achilles@delari.net (Achilles Delari Junior) Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2014 08:40:36 -0300 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: "Crises as way for inner life" (Vygotsky apud Asmolov) In-Reply-To: 53B61F18.5030707@mira.net Message-ID: <53b692b49a58e_1b27bc4703881815@a4-winter11.mail> Sure, Andy. Contradiction can not be only an accident - but the very way of reality exist. ? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? De: "Andy Blunden" Em: Sexta-feira 04 de Julho de 2014 00:28, Para: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu Assunto: [Xmca-l] Re: "Crises as way for inner life" (Vygotsky apud Asmolov)... which raises the intriguing question, Achilles, as to what Vygotsky meant exactly by "lytical" or "gradual" development. Is this also nevertheless a form of crisis?Andy------------------------------------------------------------------------*Andy Blunden*http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/Achilles Delari Junior wrote:> Excuse me, once more>> In the preface for 1993 Russian edition of "Vygotsky and Luria. Studies about history of behavior [...]" Moscow: Pedagogika-Press", Aleksandr Asmolov quotes in epigraph: >> "??????? ? ??? ?? ????????? ?????????, ? ???? ?????????? ?????." (?. ?????????). >> Something like this: >> "Crises - this is not a temporary situation, but a way for inner life" (L. Vygotsky)>> This can not sound more Vygotskyan to me. But I guess I never read this before anywhere. And Asmolov did not put the actual bibliographic reference. I begin searching in entire Tom IV, where the problem of "Vozrastny Krizis" (Age crises) is very important for the more advanced Vygotsky's concept of development. But the exact entry was not there. Somebody have any suggestion? Off course, I will search another five volumes as well, but I guess I never read this before... My memory is not so good nowadays, but this phrase is specially impressive. This is also methodologically important. Because here we have a more productive, not mechanistic, interpretation of dialectical human condition as permanent conflict understood as social/personal way to we became what we not was until now... In my point of view.>> Thank you, again.>> Achilles from Brazil, always in the "way"... From ablunden@mira.net Fri Jul 4 05:22:50 2014 From: ablunden@mira.net (Andy Blunden) Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2014 22:22:50 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: LSV on language as a model of development In-Reply-To: References: <1404377223637.27381@canterbury.ac.uk> <036576d347c948c1a3a1a8f9979f3f0f@mail-ex02.exprod.uio.no> <55415.101.176.84.138.1404400649.squirrel@wm4.pacific.net.au> <4f4922e4b47f4edc8e4d8d25915a653b@mail-ex02.exprod.uio.no> <60103.101.176.84.138.1404438319.squirrel@wm4.pacific.net.au> , <53B63AD9.9000202@mira.net> Message-ID: <53B69C9A.6030102@mira.net> Thank you, Alfredo, I think you have made a lot of progress in clarifying these problems and these formulations I do find much more satisfactory. Thank you, because in taking my apparently petty and nit-picking criticism seriously, some real steps towards clarity have been made. But there is still some more to do. :) Here's Dewey's "Having An Experience" by the way: http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/us/an-experience.htm A unit is always *also a unity*. "An experience" is a unity in the sense which Dewey so graphically describes, in that it marks itself off from the general background of experience and has an inherent completeness about it: "complete in itself, standing out because marked out from what went before and what came after." And it is invariably is also a unity of disparate elements, such as sound and meaning, recognition and self-consciousness, doing and suffering,defect andf compensation, use and exchange-value, etc.. Generally, I think people recognise this aspect of units. What is I think widely not understood is the relation of the unit to the whole process. Unit is always a relative term, i.e., it is a unit of some complex process whose analysis is at issue: the process at issue is seen to be made up of a large number of said units. Your claim is that an experience is "a unit of analysis for the relation between doing and undergoing." But I find this "relation between doing and undergoing" an entirely unclear concept. It sounds more like a readymade answer than a question or problem to be solved. Usually, if there is a concept, there is a word for it already at hand. Who asked for an analysis of the relation-between-doing-and-undergoing? When Vygotsky posed the problem of the relation of thinking and speaking this question already had a long and well-known history in Western philosophy and psychology, and I believe it was already understood to be related to the problem of the intellect. I think Dewey was prompted to write this article by a consideration of *art*: "Every work of art follows the plan of, and pattern of, a complete experience, rendering it more intensely and concentratedly felt." But Dewey's article has lately been picked up out of interest in perezhivanie, hasn't it? For me, it was because Dewey reminded us that "an experience" can have a meaning and power much like the Russian perezhivanie, and that it is very different from "experience." So I question this supposed definition of the problem - "the relation of doing and undergoing." The unit of analysis is a singular concept of the process as a whole, and if we do not have a provisional concept of the process as a whole, then I think we are on very uncertain ground. Also, in the article you cited, I was at pains to point out that a "unit" is *not* a "microcosm." Marx selected a commodity as the unit of bourgeois society; if he had wanted a *microcosm* he would have selected a capitalist firm (= a unit of capital), the *highest* product, a whole "world" in which the entire process (bourgeois society = the world market) is contained complete in miniature form - the most developed relation of the whole process. The commodity only contains all the phenomena of bourgeois society *in embryo* (=cell form). But did you mean that "the relation of doing and undergoing" is the microcosm? Not clear on that. You refer to "joint development". Is this the subject matter of interest? What *is* the problem in fact? Until we are clear on that units of analysis are not in the frame. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Andy Blunden* http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ Alfredo Gil Jornet wrote: > Initially, I meant unity of doing and undergoing in the sense that, in > /an/ experience, the one aspect cannot be reduced to the > other. So, doing and undergoing, as I read them in Dewey, and as you > agree, constitute a unity. It is precisely in the difference/distance > between the doing and the undergoing that an experience extends in > time and action as a real, dynamic, but unitary phenomenon. I guess we > all agree on this. > > I acknowledge my loose use of the term "unit" in the > previous description, and understand your concern about it. So far, I > have been using the notion "unit" to mean "unit of analysis." As unit, > /an/ experience may be thought as "a product of analysis which, unlike > elements, retains all the basic properties of the whole and which > cannot be further divided without losing them." That is how we attempt > to articulate it here in the context of science education: > http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/enhanced/doi/10.1002/sce.21085/ I have > further expanded those ideas in other works under review. > > However, after Andy raised concern about the difference between "unit" > and "unity," I realized that I had not a clear-enough answer as to the > differences between the two. So I quickly went to the literature to > make my mind clearer before answering. Following an initial reading, > here is my attempt to be more specific about it: One could argue that > "an experience", rather than "experience" as general conception (and > this difference may not be clear enough in any of my previous > writings), could be thought of as a unit of analysis for the relation > between doing and undergoing, which is a "microcosm" of human > experience during episodes of joint development. Obviously, here I > am trying to roughly follow a scheme you provide in "Outlines" (2009). > Does this line of thought make sense? > > Thanks to this discussion, I realize that I need to make clearer > statements about how the connections that I entertain between Dewey > and Vygotsky in my dissertation constitute a "unit", a "substance", or > neither of them. Thank you very much for opening this dimension of > inquiry to me! > > Best, > Alfredo > > > > > ________________________________________ > From: Andy Blunden > Sent: 04 July 2014 07:25:45 > To: lchcmike@gmail.com > Cc: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity; Alfredo Gil Jornet > Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: LSV on language as a model of development > > Maybe, but Alfredo has been working with W-M Roth, and in a recent paper > Roth claims to quote Vygotsky saying that experience is "the dynamic > unit of affective and intellectual processes" (Roth's translation) and > goes on to make it clear that this was not a slip of the pen, but he > means "unit". > Andy > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *Andy Blunden* > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > > mike cole wrote: > > That is how I interpreted Alfredo, Andy. > > (signed) > > > > an /in/-experienced oldtimer > > mike > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 6:45 PM, Andy Blunden > > wrote: > > > > I am familiar with Dewey's work on this, Alfredo, and I too have > > found it > > very useful. That was not my problem. But thinking about it, I > > suspect it > > was just an English expression problem. > > You said "experience is a unit of doing and undergoing". But I > > think you > > meant to say "experience is a unity of doing and undergoing," > which is > > certainly true. Just as activity is a unity of consciousness and > > behaviour, or identity is a unity of recognition and > > self-consciousness, > > etc. > > But a *unit* is something different from *unity*. "Experience" > in this > > sense is not a unit at all; "an experience" can be a unit, but not > > a unit > > of doing and undergoing. > > > > Is that right, Alfredo? > > Andy > > > > > Dewey, most extensively in chapter 3 of "Art as experience", > makes a > > > distinction between the general stream of experience, and an > > experience, > > > which, according to him, is the experience that "is a whole and > > carries > > > with it its own individualizing quality and self-sufficiency". > > After the > > > fact, an experience "has a unity that gives it its name, that > > meal, that > > > storm, that rupture of friendship", Dewey writes. He further > > says that, > > > within that unity, there is both an aspect of doing, of > > initiation, and > > > another of undergoing, "of suffering in its large sense". He > further > > > articulates the relation between the doing and the undergoing in > > terms of > > > "anticipation" and "consummation" "Anticipation" he writes "is the > > > connecting link between the next doing and its outcome for > > sense. What is > > > done and what is undergone are thus reciprocally, > cumulatively, and > > > continuously instrumental to each other" > > > > > > Although in most passages these notes have a rather > > individualistic taste, > > > he goes on to clarify that there is a prominent public > character in > > > experience: "without external embodiment, an experience remains > > > incomplete" he says. In the same chapter, he also argues that > > "it is not > > > possible to divide in a vital experience the practical, > > emotional, and > > > intellectual from one another." Both these conditions may make > > it possible > > > to draw connections between Dewey's notion of experience and > > Vygotsky's > > > perezivanie. > > > > > > In any case, I find interesting the dialectic Dewey proposes > > between doing > > > and undergoing as aspects of a minimal unit of sense-full > experience > > > because it allows for thinking of being immersed in a > developmental > > > situation in which the final form already exists before the > > intellect > > > grasps it, so that we do not need to put individual knowledge > > > constructions as who puts the cart before the horse. > > > > > > But this is my reading, which may have obviated other aspects > > that would > > > preclude this reading? > > > Hope this was of help. > > > Best, > > > > > > Alfredo > > > ________________________________________ > > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > > > > on > > > behalf of Andy Blunden > > > > > Sent: 03 July 2014 17:17 > > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: LSV on language as a model of development > > > > > > Alfredo, what did you mean by: > > >> ... as he argued, experience is a unit of doing and undergoing, > > > > > > Andy > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From glassman.13@osu.edu Fri Jul 4 07:45:06 2014 From: glassman.13@osu.edu (Glassman, Michael) Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2014 14:45:06 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: LSV on language as a model of development In-Reply-To: <53B69C9A.6030102@mira.net> References: <1404377223637.27381@canterbury.ac.uk> <036576d347c948c1a3a1a8f9979f3f0f@mail-ex02.exprod.uio.no> <55415.101.176.84.138.1404400649.squirrel@wm4.pacific.net.au> <4f4922e4b47f4edc8e4d8d25915a653b@mail-ex02.exprod.uio.no> <60103.101.176.84.138.1404438319.squirrel@wm4.pacific.net.au> , <53B63AD9.9000202@mira.net> , <53B69C9A.6030102@mira.net> Message-ID: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F901625C@CIO-TNC-D2MBX01.osuad.osu.edu> I thought I might make a few comments on experience both because it seems to be Dewey's most important concept and because figuring it out really helps a great deal in understanding Dewey (I admit I am still in the process but have been going deeply into it the last year reading Experience and Nature with a student which I think has his best - I don't want to say description or definition because Dewey didn't do that - we have to deal with this - I would say the laying out of not what experience is but what is means in our day to day life. First I would say that maybe that Art as Experience is not the best place to go for a comprehensive understanding of Dewey's experience. As said in the piece Andy sent along it was written in the later stages of Dewey's life (I don't much like the term late Dewey because that suggests his thinking development was linear which I'm not sure it was). It was also in response to an argument he was having with Stephen Pepper (or so I am led to believe) about a Pragmatists view of art. Pepper makes the argument that beauty in art is contextual while Dewey really wants to say that there is such a thing as beauty in art. It's probably a really complicated argument that I don't have the ability to discuss with any intelligence - but Pepper and other Pragmatists of the time I guess were arguing that Dewey's view of art may have been a step away from Pragmatism - so his use of experience may not completely represent his overall thinking about experience. The second thing about experience is something I noticed recently. I a class we had been discussing how precise Dewey so often way in the way he wrote things (this is why you can't read him once) and a student asked why he called one of his great books Democracy and Education instead of Education and Democracy (which is seems would have made more sense). We spent three hours discussing this, but it made me think of the way Dewey used Experience in his titles. When the conjunction (is that right?) is and, Experience always comes first. Experience and Nature, Experience and Understanding. I am not sure about this, and if anybody has something different please let me know. The book under discussion is Art AS Experience, which I think is very different. But to the point I think this suggests that experience is very much the original sin of the human condition. I wonder if it can be related to the way Vygotsky sees the Word as the original sin of the human condition. Experience is always where we start and where we end, if vital experience always coming from somewhere and always going somewhere. I am not quite sure how this would fit with the concept of unit. As a matter of fact if you define it as a unit for analysis you are taking it out of its context and making it separate from its role in ongoing human action, which at least in Experience and Nature is an idea he absolutely hates (thinks it smacks of intellectual elitism). Again, where he is talking about true experience or vital experience he is talking about a sequence of events leading to a proximal goal. What is important (and it has taken me a long time to get this, and perhaps I have it wrong but I'm becoming more confident) is the sequence and finding satisfaction in the sequence rather than the actual goal. The reason turning away from a plow is not vital experience is not because they have given up on the goal per se, but in the fact that they do not see the joy in the sequence of actions moving towards the goal so the activity itself become unimportant to them. My favorite example right now is people who love crossword puzzles. My dad used to love crossword puzzles. I would pick them up because people seemed to enjoy them so much. I would then be focused on getting the answers asking different people questions, or copying from my dad. I would finish the puzzles but there was no joy in it. I soon started putting down crosswords a few minutes after I picked them up. I knew how to get the answer but there was no vision, let alone satisfaction of the sequence leading to achieving the goal. The goal was meaningless. Experience then, at least the best of experience is in the goal. I sometimes think about what this means with testing these days. The goal is to get children to do well on tests. The sequence of learning is treated as unimportant. After the test the students will never go back to learning. Anyway my thinking right now on experience (and remember late in life Dewey regretted using that word. But if he used a new word like transactional nobody would know what he meant. Damned if you do and damned if you don't). Michael ________________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] on behalf of Andy Blunden [ablunden@mira.net] Sent: Friday, July 04, 2014 8:22 AM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: LSV on language as a model of development Thank you, Alfredo, I think you have made a lot of progress in clarifying these problems and these formulations I do find much more satisfactory. Thank you, because in taking my apparently petty and nit-picking criticism seriously, some real steps towards clarity have been made. But there is still some more to do. :) Here's Dewey's "Having An Experience" by the way: http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/us/an-experience.htm A unit is always *also a unity*. "An experience" is a unity in the sense which Dewey so graphically describes, in that it marks itself off from the general background of experience and has an inherent completeness about it: "complete in itself, standing out because marked out from what went before and what came after." And it is invariably is also a unity of disparate elements, such as sound and meaning, recognition and self-consciousness, doing and suffering,defect andf compensation, use and exchange-value, etc.. Generally, I think people recognise this aspect of units. What is I think widely not understood is the relation of the unit to the whole process. Unit is always a relative term, i.e., it is a unit of some complex process whose analysis is at issue: the process at issue is seen to be made up of a large number of said units. Your claim is that an experience is "a unit of analysis for the relation between doing and undergoing." But I find this "relation between doing and undergoing" an entirely unclear concept. It sounds more like a readymade answer than a question or problem to be solved. Usually, if there is a concept, there is a word for it already at hand. Who asked for an analysis of the relation-between-doing-and-undergoing? When Vygotsky posed the problem of the relation of thinking and speaking this question already had a long and well-known history in Western philosophy and psychology, and I believe it was already understood to be related to the problem of the intellect. I think Dewey was prompted to write this article by a consideration of *art*: "Every work of art follows the plan of, and pattern of, a complete experience, rendering it more intensely and concentratedly felt." But Dewey's article has lately been picked up out of interest in perezhivanie, hasn't it? For me, it was because Dewey reminded us that "an experience" can have a meaning and power much like the Russian perezhivanie, and that it is very different from "experience." So I question this supposed definition of the problem - "the relation of doing and undergoing." The unit of analysis is a singular concept of the process as a whole, and if we do not have a provisional concept of the process as a whole, then I think we are on very uncertain ground. Also, in the article you cited, I was at pains to point out that a "unit" is *not* a "microcosm." Marx selected a commodity as the unit of bourgeois society; if he had wanted a *microcosm* he would have selected a capitalist firm (= a unit of capital), the *highest* product, a whole "world" in which the entire process (bourgeois society = the world market) is contained complete in miniature form - the most developed relation of the whole process. The commodity only contains all the phenomena of bourgeois society *in embryo* (=cell form). But did you mean that "the relation of doing and undergoing" is the microcosm? Not clear on that. You refer to "joint development". Is this the subject matter of interest? What *is* the problem in fact? Until we are clear on that units of analysis are not in the frame. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Andy Blunden* http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ Alfredo Gil Jornet wrote: > Initially, I meant unity of doing and undergoing in the sense that, in > /an/ experience, the one aspect cannot be reduced to the > other. So, doing and undergoing, as I read them in Dewey, and as you > agree, constitute a unity. It is precisely in the difference/distance > between the doing and the undergoing that an experience extends in > time and action as a real, dynamic, but unitary phenomenon. I guess we > all agree on this. > > I acknowledge my loose use of the term "unit" in the > previous description, and understand your concern about it. So far, I > have been using the notion "unit" to mean "unit of analysis." As unit, > /an/ experience may be thought as "a product of analysis which, unlike > elements, retains all the basic properties of the whole and which > cannot be further divided without losing them." That is how we attempt > to articulate it here in the context of science education: > http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/enhanced/doi/10.1002/sce.21085/ I have > further expanded those ideas in other works under review. > > However, after Andy raised concern about the difference between "unit" > and "unity," I realized that I had not a clear-enough answer as to the > differences between the two. So I quickly went to the literature to > make my mind clearer before answering. Following an initial reading, > here is my attempt to be more specific about it: One could argue that > "an experience", rather than "experience" as general conception (and > this difference may not be clear enough in any of my previous > writings), could be thought of as a unit of analysis for the relation > between doing and undergoing, which is a "microcosm" of human > experience during episodes of joint development. Obviously, here I > am trying to roughly follow a scheme you provide in "Outlines" (2009). > Does this line of thought make sense? > > Thanks to this discussion, I realize that I need to make clearer > statements about how the connections that I entertain between Dewey > and Vygotsky in my dissertation constitute a "unit", a "substance", or > neither of them. Thank you very much for opening this dimension of > inquiry to me! > > Best, > Alfredo > > > > > ________________________________________ > From: Andy Blunden > Sent: 04 July 2014 07:25:45 > To: lchcmike@gmail.com > Cc: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity; Alfredo Gil Jornet > Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: LSV on language as a model of development > > Maybe, but Alfredo has been working with W-M Roth, and in a recent paper > Roth claims to quote Vygotsky saying that experience is "the dynamic > unit of affective and intellectual processes" (Roth's translation) and > goes on to make it clear that this was not a slip of the pen, but he > means "unit". > Andy > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *Andy Blunden* > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > > mike cole wrote: > > That is how I interpreted Alfredo, Andy. > > (signed) > > > > an /in/-experienced oldtimer > > mike > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 6:45 PM, Andy Blunden > > wrote: > > > > I am familiar with Dewey's work on this, Alfredo, and I too have > > found it > > very useful. That was not my problem. But thinking about it, I > > suspect it > > was just an English expression problem. > > You said "experience is a unit of doing and undergoing". But I > > think you > > meant to say "experience is a unity of doing and undergoing," > which is > > certainly true. Just as activity is a unity of consciousness and > > behaviour, or identity is a unity of recognition and > > self-consciousness, > > etc. > > But a *unit* is something different from *unity*. "Experience" > in this > > sense is not a unit at all; "an experience" can be a unit, but not > > a unit > > of doing and undergoing. > > > > Is that right, Alfredo? > > Andy > > > > > Dewey, most extensively in chapter 3 of "Art as experience", > makes a > > > distinction between the general stream of experience, and an > > experience, > > > which, according to him, is the experience that "is a whole and > > carries > > > with it its own individualizing quality and self-sufficiency". > > After the > > > fact, an experience "has a unity that gives it its name, that > > meal, that > > > storm, that rupture of friendship", Dewey writes. He further > > says that, > > > within that unity, there is both an aspect of doing, of > > initiation, and > > > another of undergoing, "of suffering in its large sense". He > further > > > articulates the relation between the doing and the undergoing in > > terms of > > > "anticipation" and "consummation" "Anticipation" he writes "is the > > > connecting link between the next doing and its outcome for > > sense. What is > > > done and what is undergone are thus reciprocally, > cumulatively, and > > > continuously instrumental to each other" > > > > > > Although in most passages these notes have a rather > > individualistic taste, > > > he goes on to clarify that there is a prominent public > character in > > > experience: "without external embodiment, an experience remains > > > incomplete" he says. In the same chapter, he also argues that > > "it is not > > > possible to divide in a vital experience the practical, > > emotional, and > > > intellectual from one another." Both these conditions may make > > it possible > > > to draw connections between Dewey's notion of experience and > > Vygotsky's > > > perezivanie. > > > > > > In any case, I find interesting the dialectic Dewey proposes > > between doing > > > and undergoing as aspects of a minimal unit of sense-full > experience > > > because it allows for thinking of being immersed in a > developmental > > > situation in which the final form already exists before the > > intellect > > > grasps it, so that we do not need to put individual knowledge > > > constructions as who puts the cart before the horse. > > > > > > But this is my reading, which may have obviated other aspects > > that would > > > preclude this reading? > > > Hope this was of help. > > > Best, > > > > > > Alfredo > > > ________________________________________ > > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > > > > on > > > behalf of Andy Blunden > > > > > Sent: 03 July 2014 17:17 > > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: LSV on language as a model of development > > > > > > Alfredo, what did you mean by: > > >> ... as he argued, experience is a unit of doing and undergoing, > > > > > > Andy > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From ablunden@mira.net Fri Jul 4 07:57:19 2014 From: ablunden@mira.net (Andy Blunden) Date: Sat, 05 Jul 2014 00:57:19 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: LSV on language as a model of development In-Reply-To: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F901625C@CIO-TNC-D2MBX01.osuad.osu.edu> References: <1404377223637.27381@canterbury.ac.uk> <036576d347c948c1a3a1a8f9979f3f0f@mail-ex02.exprod.uio.no> <55415.101.176.84.138.1404400649.squirrel@wm4.pacific.net.au> <4f4922e4b47f4edc8e4d8d25915a653b@mail-ex02.exprod.uio.no> <60103.101.176.84.138.1404438319.squirrel@wm4.pacific.net.au> , <53B63AD9.9000202@mira.net> , <53B69C9A.6030102@mira.net> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F901625C@CIO-TNC-D2MBX01.osuad.osu.edu> Message-ID: <53B6C0CF.2060801@mira.net> Michael, I think this is quite wrong. The idea of writing "Thinking and Speech" was to solve one problem, a problem which had eluded science for centuries, and thereby establish an exemplar as to how to tackle problems of psychology, *not* as a intellecualist reductionism. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Andy Blunden* http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ Glassman, Michael wrote: > ... the way Vygotsky sees the Word as the original sin of the human condition. > From glassman.13@osu.edu Fri Jul 4 08:00:06 2014 From: glassman.13@osu.edu (Glassman, Michael) Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2014 15:00:06 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: LSV on language as a model of development In-Reply-To: <53B6C0CF.2060801@mira.net> References: <1404377223637.27381@canterbury.ac.uk> <036576d347c948c1a3a1a8f9979f3f0f@mail-ex02.exprod.uio.no> <55415.101.176.84.138.1404400649.squirrel@wm4.pacific.net.au> <4f4922e4b47f4edc8e4d8d25915a653b@mail-ex02.exprod.uio.no> <60103.101.176.84.138.1404438319.squirrel@wm4.pacific.net.au> , <53B63AD9.9000202@mira.net> , <53B69C9A.6030102@mira.net> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F901625C@CIO-TNC-D2MBX01.osuad.osu.edu>, <53B6C0CF.2060801@mira.net> Message-ID: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F901627C@CIO-TNC-D2MBX01.osuad.osu.edu> Okay Andy, not sure how one relates to the other, but I'll bite. Michael ________________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] on behalf of Andy Blunden [ablunden@mira.net] Sent: Friday, July 04, 2014 10:57 AM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: LSV on language as a model of development Michael, I think this is quite wrong. The idea of writing "Thinking and Speech" was to solve one problem, a problem which had eluded science for centuries, and thereby establish an exemplar as to how to tackle problems of psychology, *not* as a intellecualist reductionism. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Andy Blunden* http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ Glassman, Michael wrote: > ... the way Vygotsky sees the Word as the original sin of the human condition. > From lspopov@bgsu.edu Fri Jul 4 08:04:04 2014 From: lspopov@bgsu.edu (Lubomir Savov Popov) Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2014 15:04:04 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Unit of analysis RE: experience Message-ID: <16f1eac230074659af10a179ca869b11@CO2PR0501MB855.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> Hello every one, The unit of analysis is conceptualized in relation to the nature of phenomenon, the paradigm selected, and the objectives of the project, to name just a few. There is no problem in conceptualizing experience as an unit of analysis. The questions are: in what projects, regarding which situations, etc. We can conceptualize alternative units of analysis regarding one project. The issue is which of them will be more heuristic or more productive regarding our project. There are always competing conceptualizations, coming from different paradigmatic traditions or ways to look at the phenonon that is studied. We have to make a choice based on our epistemological and methodological expertese. Just a few thoughts, Lubomir From glassman.13@osu.edu Fri Jul 4 08:10:51 2014 From: glassman.13@osu.edu (Glassman, Michael) Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2014 15:10:51 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Unit of analysis RE: experience In-Reply-To: <16f1eac230074659af10a179ca869b11@CO2PR0501MB855.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> References: <16f1eac230074659af10a179ca869b11@CO2PR0501MB855.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> Message-ID: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9016298@CIO-TNC-D2MBX01.osuad.osu.edu> Hi Lubomir, My feeling right now is that Dewey might disagree with your argument. It's a pretty compelling argument and I probably cannot do it justice. Dewey thinks that one of the mistakes we have made in the progress of human society is in creating a knowledge base that is in some way separate from what people are actually doing to solve problems. This create an elite population of people who have knowledge, based on what other people do, and then use that knowledge as a form of control. This is seems happened first in religion and then in academics. The intellectual elites (Dewey doesn't use that word and I wish I could come up with a better one right now) develop a knowledge pool separate from the actual activity of problem solving that is then used to control those very problem solvers. It's a pretty radical idea (I have been surprised how radical a book Experience and Nature actually is, but also how prescient it is). Michael ________________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] on behalf of Lubomir Savov Popov [lspopov@bgsu.edu] Sent: Friday, July 04, 2014 11:04 AM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity; ablunden@mira.net Subject: [Xmca-l] Unit of analysis RE: experience Hello every one, The unit of analysis is conceptualized in relation to the nature of phenomenon, the paradigm selected, and the objectives of the project, to name just a few. There is no problem in conceptualizing experience as an unit of analysis. The questions are: in what projects, regarding which situations, etc. We can conceptualize alternative units of analysis regarding one project. The issue is which of them will be more heuristic or more productive regarding our project. There are always competing conceptualizations, coming from different paradigmatic traditions or ways to look at the phenonon that is studied. We have to make a choice based on our epistemological and methodological expertese. Just a few thoughts, Lubomir From helenaworthen@gmail.com Fri Jul 4 08:16:45 2014 From: helenaworthen@gmail.com (Helena Worthen) Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2014 11:16:45 -0400 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Unit of analysis RE: experience In-Reply-To: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9016298@CIO-TNC-D2MBX01.osuad.osu.edu> References: <16f1eac230074659af10a179ca869b11@CO2PR0501MB855.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9016298@CIO-TNC-D2MBX01.osuad.osu.edu> Message-ID: <872AE5F5-0E3F-46EB-B655-A9E6781B0FC2@gmail.com> Michael -- Isn't this the basic idea behind Scientific Management? Helena Helena Worthen helenaworthen@gmail.com On Jul 4, 2014, at 11:10 AM, Glassman, Michael wrote: > Hi Lubomir, > > My feeling right now is that Dewey might disagree with your argument. It's a pretty compelling argument and I probably cannot do it justice. Dewey thinks that one of the mistakes we have made in the progress of human society is in creating a knowledge base that is in some way separate from what people are actually doing to solve problems. This create an elite population of people who have knowledge, based on what other people do, and then use that knowledge as a form of control. This is seems happened first in religion and then in academics. The intellectual elites (Dewey doesn't use that word and I wish I could come up with a better one right now) develop a knowledge pool separate from the actual activity of problem solving that is then used to control those very problem solvers. > > It's a pretty radical idea (I have been surprised how radical a book Experience and Nature actually is, but also how prescient it is). > > Michael > ________________________________________ > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] on behalf of Lubomir Savov Popov [lspopov@bgsu.edu] > Sent: Friday, July 04, 2014 11:04 AM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity; ablunden@mira.net > Subject: [Xmca-l] Unit of analysis RE: experience > > Hello every one, > > The unit of analysis is conceptualized in relation to the nature of phenomenon, the paradigm selected, and the objectives of the project, to name just a few. There is no problem in conceptualizing experience as an unit of analysis. The questions are: in what projects, regarding which situations, etc. We can conceptualize alternative units of analysis regarding one project. The issue is which of them will be more heuristic or more productive regarding our project. There are always competing conceptualizations, coming from different paradigmatic traditions or ways to look at the phenonon that is studied. We have to make a choice based on our epistemological and methodological expertese. > > Just a few thoughts, > > Lubomir > > From glassman.13@osu.edu Fri Jul 4 08:27:08 2014 From: glassman.13@osu.edu (Glassman, Michael) Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2014 15:27:08 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Unit of analysis RE: experience In-Reply-To: <872AE5F5-0E3F-46EB-B655-A9E6781B0FC2@gmail.com> References: <16f1eac230074659af10a179ca869b11@CO2PR0501MB855.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9016298@CIO-TNC-D2MBX01.osuad.osu.edu>, <872AE5F5-0E3F-46EB-B655-A9E6781B0FC2@gmail.com> Message-ID: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F90162CD@CIO-TNC-D2MBX01.osuad.osu.edu> Hi Helena, I'm not familiar with scientific management. If you mean Argyris' action science than the answer would be yes. That is because Action Science is based on Lewin's Action Research, which in turn was strongly influenced by Dewey (not through Lewin but other members of the originating team). Otherwise you'll have to explain to me what scientific management is. Michael ________________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] on behalf of Helena Worthen [helenaworthen@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, July 04, 2014 11:16 AM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Unit of analysis RE: experience Michael -- Isn't this the basic idea behind Scientific Management? Helena Helena Worthen helenaworthen@gmail.com On Jul 4, 2014, at 11:10 AM, Glassman, Michael wrote: > Hi Lubomir, > > My feeling right now is that Dewey might disagree with your argument. It's a pretty compelling argument and I probably cannot do it justice. Dewey thinks that one of the mistakes we have made in the progress of human society is in creating a knowledge base that is in some way separate from what people are actually doing to solve problems. This create an elite population of people who have knowledge, based on what other people do, and then use that knowledge as a form of control. This is seems happened first in religion and then in academics. The intellectual elites (Dewey doesn't use that word and I wish I could come up with a better one right now) develop a knowledge pool separate from the actual activity of problem solving that is then used to control those very problem solvers. > > It's a pretty radical idea (I have been surprised how radical a book Experience and Nature actually is, but also how prescient it is). > > Michael > ________________________________________ > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] on behalf of Lubomir Savov Popov [lspopov@bgsu.edu] > Sent: Friday, July 04, 2014 11:04 AM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity; ablunden@mira.net > Subject: [Xmca-l] Unit of analysis RE: experience > > Hello every one, > > The unit of analysis is conceptualized in relation to the nature of phenomenon, the paradigm selected, and the objectives of the project, to name just a few. There is no problem in conceptualizing experience as an unit of analysis. The questions are: in what projects, regarding which situations, etc. We can conceptualize alternative units of analysis regarding one project. The issue is which of them will be more heuristic or more productive regarding our project. There are always competing conceptualizations, coming from different paradigmatic traditions or ways to look at the phenonon that is studied. We have to make a choice based on our epistemological and methodological expertese. > > Just a few thoughts, > > Lubomir > > From lspopov@bgsu.edu Fri Jul 4 08:31:41 2014 From: lspopov@bgsu.edu (Lubomir Savov Popov) Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2014 15:31:41 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Unit of analysis RE: experience In-Reply-To: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9016298@CIO-TNC-D2MBX01.osuad.osu.edu> References: <16f1eac230074659af10a179ca869b11@CO2PR0501MB855.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9016298@CIO-TNC-D2MBX01.osuad.osu.edu> Message-ID: Hi Michael, Dewey has interpreted and explicated a real situation and I don't have a problem with that. We have to allow for multiple interpretations for the reasons I mentioned in my mail on the unit of analysis. Now, when we talk about control and the related categories, we enter into the realm of ideology. I personally do not see a problem with elitarian academism, as long as it is productive and contributes to the development of technology, culture, and society. One of my problems with Dewey is that he puts too much emphasis on hands-on thinking. Or at least, his followers create such an impression. I believe that abstract thinking is at the foundation of the human condition. Hi Helena, There is nothing wrong with scientific management, except that it could not break the ceiling and could not become scientific. For a beginning, it wasn't bad, but it didn't grow to the level of its aspirations. As a result, the scientific was compromised and the management became a game of politicking as well as a kind of a neoslavery. But these are not scientific. The role of the expert in current management is minimal. The expert is controlled by the manager and abused both professionally and ethically. The manager uses the expert to provide a scientific face of decisions that are based on instinct and economic interests. Then, blame the expert. This is another topic, and quite important, I think. It has nothing to do with empowerment ideology. It has to be resolved within the framework of expert society. I would stop short of using the term technocracy because just like scientific management it is compromised by incompetence and power games. But I would like a term that reflects the governance by expertise. There is nothing bad in socially responsive expert society. It is not unusual that when politicians fail in government, they appoint an expert government to stabilize the country and the economy and then they take over again to play their games. Best wishes, Lubo -----Original Message----- From: xmca-l-bounces+lspopov=bgsu.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+lspopov=bgsu.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Glassman, Michael Sent: Friday, July 04, 2014 11:11 AM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Unit of analysis RE: experience Hi Lubomir, My feeling right now is that Dewey might disagree with your argument. It's a pretty compelling argument and I probably cannot do it justice. Dewey thinks that one of the mistakes we have made in the progress of human society is in creating a knowledge base that is in some way separate from what people are actually doing to solve problems. This create an elite population of people who have knowledge, based on what other people do, and then use that knowledge as a form of control. This is seems happened first in religion and then in academics. The intellectual elites (Dewey doesn't use that word and I wish I could come up with a better one right now) develop a knowledge pool separate from the actual activity of problem solving that is then used to control those very problem solvers. It's a pretty radical idea (I have been surprised how radical a book Experience and Nature actually is, but also how prescient it is). Michael ________________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] on behalf of Lubomir Savov Popov [lspopov@bgsu.edu] Sent: Friday, July 04, 2014 11:04 AM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity; ablunden@mira.net Subject: [Xmca-l] Unit of analysis RE: experience Hello every one, The unit of analysis is conceptualized in relation to the nature of phenomenon, the paradigm selected, and the objectives of the project, to name just a few. There is no problem in conceptualizing experience as an unit of analysis. The questions are: in what projects, regarding which situations, etc. We can conceptualize alternative units of analysis regarding one project. The issue is which of them will be more heuristic or more productive regarding our project. There are always competing conceptualizations, coming from different paradigmatic traditions or ways to look at the phenonon that is studied. We have to make a choice based on our epistemological and methodological expertese. Just a few thoughts, Lubomir From glassman.13@osu.edu Fri Jul 4 08:39:54 2014 From: glassman.13@osu.edu (Glassman, Michael) Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2014 15:39:54 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Unit of analysis RE: experience In-Reply-To: References: <16f1eac230074659af10a179ca869b11@CO2PR0501MB855.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9016298@CIO-TNC-D2MBX01.osuad.osu.edu>, Message-ID: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F90162F5@CIO-TNC-D2MBX01.osuad.osu.edu> Hi Lubrimor, Yeah, I think Dewey might scoff at the idea that abstract thinking separated from the activity we do is the foundation of the human condition. Or if is the foundation it is because those who make their bread and butter off of abstract thinking make it that way. There's nothing wrong with abstract thinking and learning about how the world works, just don't give it a position separate from and especially above the real problem solving that people do. Hi Helena, If scientific management is separate management by experts then yes, I think this is what Dewey was talking about. And I think we can definitely see how this has played out in the way MBAs are destroying so much including education and the way economists destroyed the financial world. They have power because they claim they have the abstract knowledge and we defer to them based on their degrees. Michael ________________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] on behalf of Lubomir Savov Popov [lspopov@bgsu.edu] Sent: Friday, July 04, 2014 11:31 AM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Unit of analysis RE: experience Hi Michael, Dewey has interpreted and explicated a real situation and I don't have a problem with that. We have to allow for multiple interpretations for the reasons I mentioned in my mail on the unit of analysis. Now, when we talk about control and the related categories, we enter into the realm of ideology. I personally do not see a problem with elitarian academism, as long as it is productive and contributes to the development of technology, culture, and society. One of my problems with Dewey is that he puts too much emphasis on hands-on thinking. Or at least, his followers create such an impression. I believe that abstract thinking is at the foundation of the human condition. Hi Helena, There is nothing wrong with scientific management, except that it could not break the ceiling and could not become scientific. For a beginning, it wasn't bad, but it didn't grow to the level of its aspirations. As a result, the scientific was compromised and the management became a game of politicking as well as a kind of a neoslavery. But these are not scientific. The role of the expert in current management is minimal. The expert is controlled by the manager and abused both professionally and ethically. The manager uses the expert to provide a scientific face of decisions that are based on instinct and economic interests. Then, blame the expert. This is another topic, and quite important, I think. It has nothing to do with empowerment ideology. It has to be resolved within the framework of expert society. I would stop short of using the term technocracy because just like scientific management it is compromised by incompetence and power games. But I would like a term that reflects the governance by expertise. There is nothing bad in socially responsive expert society. It is not unusual that when politicians fail in government, they appoint an expert government to stabilize the country and the economy and then they take over again to play their games. Best wishes, Lubo -----Original Message----- From: xmca-l-bounces+lspopov=bgsu.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+lspopov=bgsu.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Glassman, Michael Sent: Friday, July 04, 2014 11:11 AM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Unit of analysis RE: experience Hi Lubomir, My feeling right now is that Dewey might disagree with your argument. It's a pretty compelling argument and I probably cannot do it justice. Dewey thinks that one of the mistakes we have made in the progress of human society is in creating a knowledge base that is in some way separate from what people are actually doing to solve problems. This create an elite population of people who have knowledge, based on what other people do, and then use that knowledge as a form of control. This is seems happened first in religion and then in academics. The intellectual elites (Dewey doesn't use that word and I wish I could come up with a better one right now) develop a knowledge pool separate from the actual activity of problem solving that is then used to control those very problem solvers. It's a pretty radical idea (I have been surprised how radical a book Experience and Nature actually is, but also how prescient it is). Michael ________________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] on behalf of Lubomir Savov Popov [lspopov@bgsu.edu] Sent: Friday, July 04, 2014 11:04 AM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity; ablunden@mira.net Subject: [Xmca-l] Unit of analysis RE: experience Hello every one, The unit of analysis is conceptualized in relation to the nature of phenomenon, the paradigm selected, and the objectives of the project, to name just a few. There is no problem in conceptualizing experience as an unit of analysis. The questions are: in what projects, regarding which situations, etc. We can conceptualize alternative units of analysis regarding one project. The issue is which of them will be more heuristic or more productive regarding our project. There are always competing conceptualizations, coming from different paradigmatic traditions or ways to look at the phenonon that is studied. We have to make a choice based on our epistemological and methodological expertese. Just a few thoughts, Lubomir From lspopov@bgsu.edu Fri Jul 4 08:47:39 2014 From: lspopov@bgsu.edu (Lubomir Savov Popov) Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2014 15:47:39 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Unit of analysis RE: experience In-Reply-To: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F90162F5@CIO-TNC-D2MBX01.osuad.osu.edu> References: <16f1eac230074659af10a179ca869b11@CO2PR0501MB855.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9016298@CIO-TNC-D2MBX01.osuad.osu.edu>, <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F90162F5@CIO-TNC-D2MBX01.osuad.osu.edu> Message-ID: <94b2f9a35490425fa92119de9f2752ab@CO2PR0501MB855.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> Hi Michael, We can separate abstract thinking as an object of study and training. However, I don't see any problem if we acknowledge abstract thinking as a component of activity. Thinking is a component of activity, and there is no reason to separate abstract thinking from activity. In this regard, it becomes reflection or at least a component of reflection. It has its own role, and its own life; but it has also a joint role and a joint life. I am not propagating extremes. I envisage a more balanced system of doing and reflecting. Not just doing. And of course, not only reflecting. Best, Lubo -----Original Message----- From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Glassman, Michael Sent: Friday, July 04, 2014 11:40 AM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Unit of analysis RE: experience Hi Lubrimor, Yeah, I think Dewey might scoff at the idea that abstract thinking separated from the activity we do is the foundation of the human condition. Or if is the foundation it is because those who make their bread and butter off of abstract thinking make it that way. There's nothing wrong with abstract thinking and learning about how the world works, just don't give it a position separate from and especially above the real problem solving that people do. Hi Helena, If scientific management is separate management by experts then yes, I think this is what Dewey was talking about. And I think we can definitely see how this has played out in the way MBAs are destroying so much including education and the way economists destroyed the financial world. They have power because they claim they have the abstract knowledge and we defer to them based on their degrees. Michael ________________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] on behalf of Lubomir Savov Popov [lspopov@bgsu.edu] Sent: Friday, July 04, 2014 11:31 AM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Unit of analysis RE: experience Hi Michael, Dewey has interpreted and explicated a real situation and I don't have a problem with that. We have to allow for multiple interpretations for the reasons I mentioned in my mail on the unit of analysis. Now, when we talk about control and the related categories, we enter into the realm of ideology. I personally do not see a problem with elitarian academism, as long as it is productive and contributes to the development of technology, culture, and society. One of my problems with Dewey is that he puts too much emphasis on hands-on thinking. Or at least, his followers create such an impression. I believe that abstract thinking is at the foundation of the human condition. Hi Helena, There is nothing wrong with scientific management, except that it could not break the ceiling and could not become scientific. For a beginning, it wasn't bad, but it didn't grow to the level of its aspirations. As a result, the scientific was compromised and the management became a game of politicking as well as a kind of a neoslavery. But these are not scientific. The role of the expert in current management is minimal. The expert is controlled by the manager and abused both professionally and ethically. The manager uses the expert to provide a scientific face of decisions that are based on instinct and economic interests. Then, blame the expert. This is another topic, and quite important, I think. It has nothing to do with empowerment ideology. It has to be resolved within the framework of expert society. I would stop short of using the term technocracy because just like scientific management it is compromised by incompetence and power games. But I would like a term that reflects the governance by expertise. There is nothing bad in socially responsive expert society. It is not unusual that when politicians fail in government, they appoint an expert government to stabilize the country and the economy and then they take over again to play their games. Best wishes, Lubo -----Original Message----- From: xmca-l-bounces+lspopov=bgsu.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+lspopov=bgsu.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Glassman, Michael Sent: Friday, July 04, 2014 11:11 AM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Unit of analysis RE: experience Hi Lubomir, My feeling right now is that Dewey might disagree with your argument. It's a pretty compelling argument and I probably cannot do it justice. Dewey thinks that one of the mistakes we have made in the progress of human society is in creating a knowledge base that is in some way separate from what people are actually doing to solve problems. This create an elite population of people who have knowledge, based on what other people do, and then use that knowledge as a form of control. This is seems happened first in religion and then in academics. The intellectual elites (Dewey doesn't use that word and I wish I could come up with a better one right now) develop a knowledge pool separate from the actual activity of problem solving that is then used to control those very problem solvers. It's a pretty radical idea (I have been surprised how radical a book Experience and Nature actually is, but also how prescient it is). Michael ________________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] on behalf of Lubomir Savov Popov [lspopov@bgsu.edu] Sent: Friday, July 04, 2014 11:04 AM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity; ablunden@mira.net Subject: [Xmca-l] Unit of analysis RE: experience Hello every one, The unit of analysis is conceptualized in relation to the nature of phenomenon, the paradigm selected, and the objectives of the project, to name just a few. There is no problem in conceptualizing experience as an unit of analysis. The questions are: in what projects, regarding which situations, etc. We can conceptualize alternative units of analysis regarding one project. The issue is which of them will be more heuristic or more productive regarding our project. There are always competing conceptualizations, coming from different paradigmatic traditions or ways to look at the phenonon that is studied. We have to make a choice based on our epistemological and methodological expertese. Just a few thoughts, Lubomir From helenaworthen@gmail.com Fri Jul 4 09:19:00 2014 From: helenaworthen@gmail.com (Helena Worthen) Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2014 12:19:00 -0400 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Unit of analysis RE: experience In-Reply-To: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F90162CD@CIO-TNC-D2MBX01.osuad.osu.edu> References: <16f1eac230074659af10a179ca869b11@CO2PR0501MB855.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9016298@CIO-TNC-D2MBX01.osuad.osu.edu>, <872AE5F5-0E3F-46EB-B655-A9E6781B0FC2@gmail.com> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F90162CD@CIO-TNC-D2MBX01.osuad.osu.edu> Message-ID: Hi - I think we're talking about the same thing. Only "scientific management" is how " a knowledge pool separate from the actual activity of problem solving...is then used to control those very problem solvers" in the workplace. http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/economics/taylor It was the creation of Frederick Winslow Taylor (1856-1915) -- lots about him on wikipedia. He was a mechanical engineer who worked in the steel industry in Pennsylvania (steel = railroads at that time) and did observations of workers, abstracted their motions, designed "perfect" motions, then taught those "perfect" motions to other workers. This was the basis for profound re-design of workplaces. He is famous for saying, "The worker's brain in on the boss's shoulders." His technique made it possible to chop craft work (which required many years of experience and practice) into tiny patterned snips which would be then taught to a less experienced -- and less expensive -- worker. We say that certain jobs have been "taylorized" -- meaning that what was originally (or what could have been) a job that combined both finger or muscle skills with complex judgment becomes cut up into tiny bits and the judgment is left to the management. Organizational implications: the assembly line becomes possible, middle management comes into existence to manage the taylorized workers. You can see taylorization in education as teachers are required to "teach to the test." And in many other workplaces, too. Helena Helena Worthen helenaworthen@gmail.com On Jul 4, 2014, at 11:27 AM, Glassman, Michael wrote: > Hi Helena, > > I'm not familiar with scientific management. If you mean Argyris' action science than the answer would be yes. That is because Action Science is based on Lewin's Action Research, which in turn was strongly influenced by Dewey (not through Lewin but other members of the originating team). > > Otherwise you'll have to explain to me what scientific management is. > > Michael > ________________________________________ > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] on behalf of Helena Worthen [helenaworthen@gmail.com] > Sent: Friday, July 04, 2014 11:16 AM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Unit of analysis RE: experience > > Michael -- > > Isn't this the basic idea behind Scientific Management? > > Helena > > > Helena Worthen > helenaworthen@gmail.com > > On Jul 4, 2014, at 11:10 AM, Glassman, Michael wrote: > >> Hi Lubomir, >> >> My feeling right now is that Dewey might disagree with your argument. It's a pretty compelling argument and I probably cannot do it justice. Dewey thinks that one of the mistakes we have made in the progress of human society is in creating a knowledge base that is in some way separate from what people are actually doing to solve problems. This create an elite population of people who have knowledge, based on what other people do, and then use that knowledge as a form of control. This is seems happened first in religion and then in academics. The intellectual elites (Dewey doesn't use that word and I wish I could come up with a better one right now) develop a knowledge pool separate from the actual activity of problem solving that is then used to control those very problem solvers. >> >> It's a pretty radical idea (I have been surprised how radical a book Experience and Nature actually is, but also how prescient it is). >> >> Michael >> ________________________________________ >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] on behalf of Lubomir Savov Popov [lspopov@bgsu.edu] >> Sent: Friday, July 04, 2014 11:04 AM >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity; ablunden@mira.net >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Unit of analysis RE: experience >> >> Hello every one, >> >> The unit of analysis is conceptualized in relation to the nature of phenomenon, the paradigm selected, and the objectives of the project, to name just a few. There is no problem in conceptualizing experience as an unit of analysis. The questions are: in what projects, regarding which situations, etc. We can conceptualize alternative units of analysis regarding one project. The issue is which of them will be more heuristic or more productive regarding our project. There are always competing conceptualizations, coming from different paradigmatic traditions or ways to look at the phenonon that is studied. We have to make a choice based on our epistemological and methodological expertese. >> >> Just a few thoughts, >> >> Lubomir >> >> > > > From lspopov@bgsu.edu Fri Jul 4 09:54:42 2014 From: lspopov@bgsu.edu (Lubomir Savov Popov) Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2014 16:54:42 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Unit of analysis RE: experience In-Reply-To: References: <16f1eac230074659af10a179ca869b11@CO2PR0501MB855.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9016298@CIO-TNC-D2MBX01.osuad.osu.edu>, <872AE5F5-0E3F-46EB-B655-A9E6781B0FC2@gmail.com> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F90162CD@CIO-TNC-D2MBX01.osuad.osu.edu> Message-ID: <71e046598be54134929fb9f6ea728b32@CO2PR0501MB855.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> Hello everyone, I proposed expert management, envisaging the alternative attempts by the the Moscow Methodological Circle (MMC) and the movement for evidence-based practice. Although these are very different approaches, they are based on the belief that science (as a social institution, not just Positivism) can contribute to more efficient and productive problem solving. What about activity theory as a new way to organize? A new way to manage? One of the big contributions of activity theory can happen in that field. The Moscow Methodological Circle (MMC) developed a new type of activity theorizing that can be used as a methodological tool for improving activities and their organization. The work of MMC is very different from the tradition of mainstream Soviet psychologists, including LSV, Luria, Lentiev, Rubinshtein, although they have started with their ideas. In most cases, MMC theorists come from different disciplines but share a philosophical background and affiliations. This makes them very different from psychologists and psychology trained scholars. The MMC were dissidents in science and in politics. While they were revolutionary in science, they were not vocal at all on the political arena. They proposed the idea of expert government and management. Of course, this idea was threatening to the political establishment in the Soviet Union because they were managing by objectives, enslaving experts with the help of the commissar institution in factories, universities, and all spheres of life. The MMC tried to live by proposing new social technologies. They were among the first to propose the idea of social design and the role of activity theory in that realm. The paradox was that although they were strongly against the establishment, they were developing tools for this establishment. This is the tragedy of the experts who in order to work and grow professionally, have to serve politicians whom they despise. Best wishes, Lubomir -----Original Message----- From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Helena Worthen Sent: Friday, July 04, 2014 12:19 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Unit of analysis RE: experience Hi - I think we're talking about the same thing. Only "scientific management" is how " a knowledge pool separate from the actual activity of problem solving...is then used to control those very problem solvers" in the workplace. http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/economics/taylor It was the creation of Frederick Winslow Taylor (1856-1915) -- lots about him on wikipedia. He was a mechanical engineer who worked in the steel industry in Pennsylvania (steel = railroads at that time) and did observations of workers, abstracted their motions, designed "perfect" motions, then taught those "perfect" motions to other workers. This was the basis for profound re-design of workplaces. He is famous for saying, "The worker's brain in on the boss's shoulders." His technique made it possible to chop craft work (which required many years of experience and practice) into tiny patterned snips which would be then taught to a less experienced -- and less expensive -- worker. We say that certain jobs have been "taylorized" -- meaning that what was originally (or what could have been) a job that combined both finger or muscle skills with complex judgment becomes cut up into tiny bits and the judgment is left to the management. Organizational implications: the assembly line becomes possible, middle management comes into existence to manage the taylorized workers. You can see taylorization in education as teachers are required to "teach to the test." And in many other workplaces, too. Helena Helena Worthen helenaworthen@gmail.com On Jul 4, 2014, at 11:27 AM, Glassman, Michael wrote: > Hi Helena, > > I'm not familiar with scientific management. If you mean Argyris' action science than the answer would be yes. That is because Action Science is based on Lewin's Action Research, which in turn was strongly influenced by Dewey (not through Lewin but other members of the originating team). > > Otherwise you'll have to explain to me what scientific management is. > > Michael > ________________________________________ > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] on behalf of Helena Worthen [helenaworthen@gmail.com] > Sent: Friday, July 04, 2014 11:16 AM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Unit of analysis RE: experience > > Michael -- > > Isn't this the basic idea behind Scientific Management? > > Helena > > > Helena Worthen > helenaworthen@gmail.com > > On Jul 4, 2014, at 11:10 AM, Glassman, Michael wrote: > >> Hi Lubomir, >> >> My feeling right now is that Dewey might disagree with your argument. It's a pretty compelling argument and I probably cannot do it justice. Dewey thinks that one of the mistakes we have made in the progress of human society is in creating a knowledge base that is in some way separate from what people are actually doing to solve problems. This create an elite population of people who have knowledge, based on what other people do, and then use that knowledge as a form of control. This is seems happened first in religion and then in academics. The intellectual elites (Dewey doesn't use that word and I wish I could come up with a better one right now) develop a knowledge pool separate from the actual activity of problem solving that is then used to control those very problem solvers. >> >> It's a pretty radical idea (I have been surprised how radical a book Experience and Nature actually is, but also how prescient it is). >> >> Michael >> ________________________________________ >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] on behalf of Lubomir Savov Popov [lspopov@bgsu.edu] >> Sent: Friday, July 04, 2014 11:04 AM >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity; ablunden@mira.net >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Unit of analysis RE: experience >> >> Hello every one, >> >> The unit of analysis is conceptualized in relation to the nature of phenomenon, the paradigm selected, and the objectives of the project, to name just a few. There is no problem in conceptualizing experience as an unit of analysis. The questions are: in what projects, regarding which situations, etc. We can conceptualize alternative units of analysis regarding one project. The issue is which of them will be more heuristic or more productive regarding our project. There are always competing conceptualizations, coming from different paradigmatic traditions or ways to look at the phenonon that is studied. We have to make a choice based on our epistemological and methodological expertese. >> >> Just a few thoughts, >> >> Lubomir >> >> > > > From lchcmike@gmail.com Fri Jul 4 14:33:48 2014 From: lchcmike@gmail.com (mike cole) Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2014 14:33:48 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Fwd: "Crises as way for inner life" (Vygotsky apud Asmolov) In-Reply-To: <5893EF90-E236-40ED-B90C-9A086A509696@mail.ru> References: <53b617f5d275e_2e9644ee838568ef@a4-winter2.mail> <5893EF90-E236-40ED-B90C-9A086A509696@mail.ru> Message-ID: Sasha Asmolov writes that the comments you asked about are in a letter from Vygotsky's to Morozova. Mike ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *Alexander Asmolov* Date: Friday, July 4, 2014 Subject: [Xmca-l] "Crises as way for inner life" (Vygotsky apud Asmolov) To: "lchcmike@gmail.com" ?????! ??? ???? ???????? ?? ????. ????? ???? ??????? ?? ???????? ?? ???? ? 6 ?????. ??? ?????? ?? ?????? ?????????? ?????????. ???? ????. 04.07.2014, ? 7:25, mike cole > ???????(?): Ask an Asmolov! mike On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 7:56 PM, Achilles Delari Junior > wrote: > Excuse me, once more > > In the preface for 1993 Russian edition of "Vygotsky and Luria. Studies > about history of behavior [...]" Moscow: Pedagogika-Press", Aleksandr > Asmolov quotes in epigraph: > > "??????? ? ??? ?? ????????? ?????????, ? ???? ?????????? ?????." (?. > ?????????). > > Something like this: > > "Crises - this is not a temporary situation, but a way for inner life" (L. > Vygotsky) > > This can not sound more Vygotskyan to me. But I guess I never read this > before anywhere. And Asmolov did not put the actual bibliographic > reference. I begin searching in entire Tom IV, where the problem of > "Vozrastny Krizis" (Age crises) is very important for the more advanced > Vygotsky's concept of development. But the exact entry was not there. > Somebody have any suggestion? Off course, I will search another five > volumes as well, but I guess I never read this before... My memory is not > so good nowadays, but this phrase is specially impressive. This is also > methodologically important. Because here we have a more productive, not > mechanistic, interpretation of dialectical human condition as permanent > conflict understood as social/personal way to we became what we not was > until now... In my point of view. > > Thank you, again. > > Achilles from Brazil, always in the "way"... From a.g.jornet@iped.uio.no Sat Jul 5 00:51:52 2014 From: a.g.jornet@iped.uio.no (Alfredo Gil Jornet) Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2014 07:51:52 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: LSV on language as a model of development In-Reply-To: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F901625C@CIO-TNC-D2MBX01.osuad.osu.edu> References: <1404377223637.27381@canterbury.ac.uk> <036576d347c948c1a3a1a8f9979f3f0f@mail-ex02.exprod.uio.no> <55415.101.176.84.138.1404400649.squirrel@wm4.pacific.net.au> <4f4922e4b47f4edc8e4d8d25915a653b@mail-ex02.exprod.uio.no> <60103.101.176.84.138.1404438319.squirrel@wm4.pacific.net.au> , <53B63AD9.9000202@mira.net> , <53B69C9A.6030102@mira.net>, <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F901625C@CIO-TNC-D2MBX01.osuad.osu.edu> Message-ID: I wish to follow up on Michael's interesting (and I believe, correct) comment that experience is "always coming from somewhere and always going somewhere". Michael seems to suggest that turning that into a "unit" may be problematic, but I think that precisely what Dewey offers, and which might be interesting connecting to Vygotskyan notions, is a way of thinking/theorizing of activity as a becoming, as going through, which perhaps is an aspect not so evident in other articulations of activity theory that have followed. With regard to the note that Dewey "regretted" using experience, I'd like to quote Dewey & Bentley (1949): "Experience: This word has two radically opposed uses in current discussion. These overlap and shift so as to cause continual confusion and unintentional misrepresentation. One stands for short extensive-durational process, an extreme form of which is identification of an isolated sensory event or ?sensation? as an ultimate unit of inquiry. The other covers the entire spatially extensive, temporally durational application; and here it is a counterpart for the word ?cosmos.? The word ?experience? should be dropped entirely from discussion unless held strictly to a single definite use: that, namely, of calling attention to the fact that Existence has organism and environment as its aspects, and can not be identified with either as an independent isolate" In the quote, the temporal/spatial extension of experience is clearly that which makes a difference between experience in the empiricist tradition (first sense in the quote), and experience as "transaction", which is "counterpart for the word "cosmos". I think there is here both a possibility of talking both of unit, and of unity: experience "has organism and evironment as its aspects." To agree with you that taking experience as a unit would be taking out of the analysis the context would be to assume experience from the first sense in Dewey & Bentley's quote, that is, the empiricist sense. If, on the contrary, one takes the general conception of experience to be what the authors articulate at the end of the quote, I think that a unit of analysis should retain precisely those temporal and social dimensions that Dewey articulates in several of his works. I find very interesting the examples of doing crossword puzzles, and your following thoughts on testing, and I think they capture a lot of what I read Dewey aims to point at. Alfredo ________________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Glassman, Michael Sent: 04 July 2014 16:45 To: ablunden@mira.net; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: LSV on language as a model of development I thought I might make a few comments on experience both because it seems to be Dewey's most important concept and because figuring it out really helps a great deal in understanding Dewey (I admit I am still in the process but have been going deeply into it the last year reading Experience and Nature with a student which I think has his best - I don't want to say description or definition because Dewey didn't do that - we have to deal with this - I would say the laying out of not what experience is but what is means in our day to day life. First I would say that maybe that Art as Experience is not the best place to go for a comprehensive understanding of Dewey's experience. As said in the piece Andy sent along it was written in the later stages of Dewey's life (I don't much like the term late Dewey because that suggests his thinking development was linear which I'm not sure it was). It was also in response to an argument he was having with Stephen Pepper (or so I am led to believe) about a Pragmatists view of art. Pepper makes the argument that beauty in art is contextual while Dewey really wants to say that there is such a thing as beauty in art. It's probably a really complicated argument that I don't have the ability to discuss with any intelligence - but Pepper and other Pragmatists of the time I guess were arguing that Dewey's view of art may have been a step away from Pragmatism - so his use of experience may not completely represent his overall thinking about experience. The second thing about experience is something I noticed recently. I a class we had been discussing how precise Dewey so often way in the way he wrote things (this is why you can't read him once) and a student asked why he called one of his great books Democracy and Education instead of Education and Democracy (which is seems would have made more sense). We spent three hours discussing this, but it made me think of the way Dewey used Experience in his titles. When the conjunction (is that right?) is and, Experience always comes first. Experience and Nature, Experience and Understanding. I am not sure about this, and if anybody has something different please let me know. The book under discussion is Art AS Experience, which I think is very different. But to the point I think this suggests that experience is very much the original sin of the human condition. I wonder if it can be related to the way Vygotsky sees the Word as the original sin of the human condition. Experience is always where we start and where we end, if vital experience always coming from somewhere and always going somewhere. I am not quite sure how this would fit with the concept of unit. As a matter of fact if you define it as a unit for analysis you are taking it out of its context and making it separate from its role in ongoing human action, which at least in Experience and Nature is an idea he absolutely hates (thinks it smacks of intellectual elitism). Again, where he is talking about true experience or vital experience he is talking about a sequence of events leading to a proximal goal. What is important (and it has taken me a long time to get this, and perhaps I have it wrong but I'm becoming more confident) is the sequence and finding satisfaction in the sequence rather than the actual goal. The reason turning away from a plow is not vital experience is not because they have given up on the goal per se, but in the fact that they do not see the joy in the sequence of actions moving towards the goal so the activity itself become unimportant to them. My favorite example right now is people who love crossword puzzles. My dad used to love crossword puzzles. I would pick them up because people seemed to enjoy them so much. I would then be focused on getting the answers asking different people questions, or copying from my dad. I would finish the puzzles but there was no joy in it. I soon started putting down crosswords a few minutes after I picked them up. I knew how to get the answer but there was no vision, let alone satisfaction of the sequence leading to achieving the goal. The goal was meaningless. Experience then, at least the best of experience is in the goal. I sometimes think about what this means with testing these days. The goal is to get children to do well on tests. The sequence of learning is treated as unimportant. After the test the students will never go back to learning. Anyway my thinking right now on experience (and remember late in life Dewey regretted using that word. But if he used a new word like transactional nobody would know what he meant. Damned if you do and damned if you don't). Michael ________________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] on behalf of Andy Blunden [ablunden@mira.net] Sent: Friday, July 04, 2014 8:22 AM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: LSV on language as a model of development Thank you, Alfredo, I think you have made a lot of progress in clarifying these problems and these formulations I do find much more satisfactory. Thank you, because in taking my apparently petty and nit-picking criticism seriously, some real steps towards clarity have been made. But there is still some more to do. :) Here's Dewey's "Having An Experience" by the way: http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/us/an-experience.htm A unit is always *also a unity*. "An experience" is a unity in the sense which Dewey so graphically describes, in that it marks itself off from the general background of experience and has an inherent completeness about it: "complete in itself, standing out because marked out from what went before and what came after." And it is invariably is also a unity of disparate elements, such as sound and meaning, recognition and self-consciousness, doing and suffering,defect andf compensation, use and exchange-value, etc.. Generally, I think people recognise this aspect of units. What is I think widely not understood is the relation of the unit to the whole process. Unit is always a relative term, i.e., it is a unit of some complex process whose analysis is at issue: the process at issue is seen to be made up of a large number of said units. Your claim is that an experience is "a unit of analysis for the relation between doing and undergoing." But I find this "relation between doing and undergoing" an entirely unclear concept. It sounds more like a readymade answer than a question or problem to be solved. Usually, if there is a concept, there is a word for it already at hand. Who asked for an analysis of the relation-between-doing-and-undergoing? When Vygotsky posed the problem of the relation of thinking and speaking this question already had a long and well-known history in Western philosophy and psychology, and I believe it was already understood to be related to the problem of the intellect. I think Dewey was prompted to write this article by a consideration of *art*: "Every work of art follows the plan of, and pattern of, a complete experience, rendering it more intensely and concentratedly felt." But Dewey's article has lately been picked up out of interest in perezhivanie, hasn't it? For me, it was because Dewey reminded us that "an experience" can have a meaning and power much like the Russian perezhivanie, and that it is very different from "experience." So I question this supposed definition of the problem - "the relation of doing and undergoing." The unit of analysis is a singular concept of the process as a whole, and if we do not have a provisional concept of the process as a whole, then I think we are on very uncertain ground. Also, in the article you cited, I was at pains to point out that a "unit" is *not* a "microcosm." Marx selected a commodity as the unit of bourgeois society; if he had wanted a *microcosm* he would have selected a capitalist firm (= a unit of capital), the *highest* product, a whole "world" in which the entire process (bourgeois society = the world market) is contained complete in miniature form - the most developed relation of the whole process. The commodity only contains all the phenomena of bourgeois society *in embryo* (=cell form). But did you mean that "the relation of doing and undergoing" is the microcosm? Not clear on that. You refer to "joint development". Is this the subject matter of interest? What *is* the problem in fact? Until we are clear on that units of analysis are not in the frame. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Andy Blunden* http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ Alfredo Gil Jornet wrote: > Initially, I meant unity of doing and undergoing in the sense that, in > /an/ experience, the one aspect cannot be reduced to the > other. So, doing and undergoing, as I read them in Dewey, and as you > agree, constitute a unity. It is precisely in the difference/distance > between the doing and the undergoing that an experience extends in > time and action as a real, dynamic, but unitary phenomenon. I guess we > all agree on this. > > I acknowledge my loose use of the term "unit" in the > previous description, and understand your concern about it. So far, I > have been using the notion "unit" to mean "unit of analysis." As unit, > /an/ experience may be thought as "a product of analysis which, unlike > elements, retains all the basic properties of the whole and which > cannot be further divided without losing them." That is how we attempt > to articulate it here in the context of science education: > http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/enhanced/doi/10.1002/sce.21085/ I have > further expanded those ideas in other works under review. > > However, after Andy raised concern about the difference between "unit" > and "unity," I realized that I had not a clear-enough answer as to the > differences between the two. So I quickly went to the literature to > make my mind clearer before answering. Following an initial reading, > here is my attempt to be more specific about it: One could argue that > "an experience", rather than "experience" as general conception (and > this difference may not be clear enough in any of my previous > writings), could be thought of as a unit of analysis for the relation > between doing and undergoing, which is a "microcosm" of human > experience during episodes of joint development. Obviously, here I > am trying to roughly follow a scheme you provide in "Outlines" (2009). > Does this line of thought make sense? > > Thanks to this discussion, I realize that I need to make clearer > statements about how the connections that I entertain between Dewey > and Vygotsky in my dissertation constitute a "unit", a "substance", or > neither of them. Thank you very much for opening this dimension of > inquiry to me! > > Best, > Alfredo > > > > > ________________________________________ > From: Andy Blunden > Sent: 04 July 2014 07:25:45 > To: lchcmike@gmail.com > Cc: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity; Alfredo Gil Jornet > Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: LSV on language as a model of development > > Maybe, but Alfredo has been working with W-M Roth, and in a recent paper > Roth claims to quote Vygotsky saying that experience is "the dynamic > unit of affective and intellectual processes" (Roth's translation) and > goes on to make it clear that this was not a slip of the pen, but he > means "unit". > Andy > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *Andy Blunden* > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > > mike cole wrote: > > That is how I interpreted Alfredo, Andy. > > (signed) > > > > an /in/-experienced oldtimer > > mike > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 6:45 PM, Andy Blunden > > wrote: > > > > I am familiar with Dewey's work on this, Alfredo, and I too have > > found it > > very useful. That was not my problem. But thinking about it, I > > suspect it > > was just an English expression problem. > > You said "experience is a unit of doing and undergoing". But I > > think you > > meant to say "experience is a unity of doing and undergoing," > which is > > certainly true. Just as activity is a unity of consciousness and > > behaviour, or identity is a unity of recognition and > > self-consciousness, > > etc. > > But a *unit* is something different from *unity*. "Experience" > in this > > sense is not a unit at all; "an experience" can be a unit, but not > > a unit > > of doing and undergoing. > > > > Is that right, Alfredo? > > Andy > > > > > Dewey, most extensively in chapter 3 of "Art as experience", > makes a > > > distinction between the general stream of experience, and an > > experience, > > > which, according to him, is the experience that "is a whole and > > carries > > > with it its own individualizing quality and self-sufficiency". > > After the > > > fact, an experience "has a unity that gives it its name, that > > meal, that > > > storm, that rupture of friendship", Dewey writes. He further > > says that, > > > within that unity, there is both an aspect of doing, of > > initiation, and > > > another of undergoing, "of suffering in its large sense". He > further > > > articulates the relation between the doing and the undergoing in > > terms of > > > "anticipation" and "consummation" "Anticipation" he writes "is the > > > connecting link between the next doing and its outcome for > > sense. What is > > > done and what is undergone are thus reciprocally, > cumulatively, and > > > continuously instrumental to each other" > > > > > > Although in most passages these notes have a rather > > individualistic taste, > > > he goes on to clarify that there is a prominent public > character in > > > experience: "without external embodiment, an experience remains > > > incomplete" he says. In the same chapter, he also argues that > > "it is not > > > possible to divide in a vital experience the practical, > > emotional, and > > > intellectual from one another." Both these conditions may make > > it possible > > > to draw connections between Dewey's notion of experience and > > Vygotsky's > > > perezivanie. > > > > > > In any case, I find interesting the dialectic Dewey proposes > > between doing > > > and undergoing as aspects of a minimal unit of sense-full > experience > > > because it allows for thinking of being immersed in a > developmental > > > situation in which the final form already exists before the > > intellect > > > grasps it, so that we do not need to put individual knowledge > > > constructions as who puts the cart before the horse. > > > > > > But this is my reading, which may have obviated other aspects > > that would > > > preclude this reading? > > > Hope this was of help. > > > Best, > > > > > > Alfredo > > > ________________________________________ > > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > > > > on > > > behalf of Andy Blunden > > > > > Sent: 03 July 2014 17:17 > > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: LSV on language as a model of development > > > > > > Alfredo, what did you mean by: > > >> ... as he argued, experience is a unit of doing and undergoing, > > > > > > Andy > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From a.g.jornet@iped.uio.no Fri Jul 4 23:58:34 2014 From: a.g.jornet@iped.uio.no (Alfredo Gil Jornet) Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2014 06:58:34 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: LSV on language as a model of development In-Reply-To: <53B69C9A.6030102@mira.net> References: <1404377223637.27381@canterbury.ac.uk> <036576d347c948c1a3a1a8f9979f3f0f@mail-ex02.exprod.uio.no> <55415.101.176.84.138.1404400649.squirrel@wm4.pacific.net.au> <4f4922e4b47f4edc8e4d8d25915a653b@mail-ex02.exprod.uio.no> <60103.101.176.84.138.1404438319.squirrel@wm4.pacific.net.au> , <53B63AD9.9000202@mira.net> , <53B69C9A.6030102@mira.net> Message-ID: Thank you Andy for furthering the discussion. I was trying to quickly follow the scheme of thinking presented in your paper when I typed that "doing and undergoing" was a microcosm, and I realize now (and agree with you) that that was not correct. If a unit is relative to "some complex process whose analysis is at issue," I find the unit that Dewey proposes in defining "/an/ experience" as being relative not only to the process of producing/interpreting a work of art, but to the more general human sense-full experience, as opposed to "incohate" experience. Is not there something common to art-making in any making? I find formulations very close to his notion of /an/ experience in "Experience and Education" and in "Logic: theory of inquiry," where the complex process whose analysis is at issue is not art. The most prevalent topic is that experience extends both temporally and socially. In following up the discussion on unity and unit, I suggest that what Dewey defines as /an/ experience can be thought as a microcosm of human sense-full experience during joint activity, and that is the problem that I attempt to address my self in the episodes of interest in my own research, which all have in common people together doing things and thereby changing both themselves and their settings in the making. I guess that a larger question would be how well the unit that we may call /an/ experience retains all the aspects of the complex phenomenon of sense-full experience in activity. I think we do part of the work with regard to that discussion in the paper the link of which I have given before by drawing possible connections between Dewey, Vygotsky, and other phenomenological thinking. I think the issue of unit/unity is important, and will continue elaborating on it in my further thinking/writing/doing. Best, Alfredo ________________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Andy Blunden Sent: 04 July 2014 14:22 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: LSV on language as a model of development Thank you, Alfredo, I think you have made a lot of progress in clarifying these problems and these formulations I do find much more satisfactory. Thank you, because in taking my apparently petty and nit-picking criticism seriously, some real steps towards clarity have been made. But there is still some more to do. :) Here's Dewey's "Having An Experience" by the way: http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/us/an-experience.htm A unit is always *also a unity*. "An experience" is a unity in the sense which Dewey so graphically describes, in that it marks itself off from the general background of experience and has an inherent completeness about it: "complete in itself, standing out because marked out from what went before and what came after." And it is invariably is also a unity of disparate elements, such as sound and meaning, recognition and self-consciousness, doing and suffering,defect andf compensation, use and exchange-value, etc.. Generally, I think people recognise this aspect of units. What is I think widely not understood is the relation of the unit to the whole process. Unit is always a relative term, i.e., it is a unit of some complex process whose analysis is at issue: the process at issue is seen to be made up of a large number of said units. Your claim is that an experience is "a unit of analysis for the relation between doing and undergoing." But I find this "relation between doing and undergoing" an entirely unclear concept. It sounds more like a readymade answer than a question or problem to be solved. Usually, if there is a concept, there is a word for it already at hand. Who asked for an analysis of the relation-between-doing-and-undergoing? When Vygotsky posed the problem of the relation of thinking and speaking this question already had a long and well-known history in Western philosophy and psychology, and I believe it was already understood to be related to the problem of the intellect. I think Dewey was prompted to write this article by a consideration of *art*: "Every work of art follows the plan of, and pattern of, a complete experience, rendering it more intensely and concentratedly felt." But Dewey's article has lately been picked up out of interest in perezhivanie, hasn't it? For me, it was because Dewey reminded us that "an experience" can have a meaning and power much like the Russian perezhivanie, and that it is very different from "experience." So I question this supposed definition of the problem - "the relation of doing and undergoing." The unit of analysis is a singular concept of the process as a whole, and if we do not have a provisional concept of the process as a whole, then I think we are on very uncertain ground. Also, in the article you cited, I was at pains to point out that a "unit" is *not* a "microcosm." Marx selected a commodity as the unit of bourgeois society; if he had wanted a *microcosm* he would have selected a capitalist firm (= a unit of capital), the *highest* product, a whole "world" in which the entire process (bourgeois society = the world market) is contained complete in miniature form - the most developed relation of the whole process. The commodity only contains all the phenomena of bourgeois society *in embryo* (=cell form). But did you mean that "the relation of doing and undergoing" is the microcosm? Not clear on that. You refer to "joint development". Is this the subject matter of interest? What *is* the problem in fact? Until we are clear on that units of analysis are not in the frame. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Andy Blunden* http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ Alfredo Gil Jornet wrote: > Initially, I meant unity of doing and undergoing in the sense that, in > /an/ experience, the one aspect cannot be reduced to the > other. So, doing and undergoing, as I read them in Dewey, and as you > agree, constitute a unity. It is precisely in the difference/distance > between the doing and the undergoing that an experience extends in > time and action as a real, dynamic, but unitary phenomenon. I guess we > all agree on this. > > I acknowledge my loose use of the term "unit" in the > previous description, and understand your concern about it. So far, I > have been using the notion "unit" to mean "unit of analysis." As unit, > /an/ experience may be thought as "a product of analysis which, unlike > elements, retains all the basic properties of the whole and which > cannot be further divided without losing them." That is how we attempt > to articulate it here in the context of science education: > http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/enhanced/doi/10.1002/sce.21085/ I have > further expanded those ideas in other works under review. > > However, after Andy raised concern about the difference between "unit" > and "unity," I realized that I had not a clear-enough answer as to the > differences between the two. So I quickly went to the literature to > make my mind clearer before answering. Following an initial reading, > here is my attempt to be more specific about it: One could argue that > "an experience", rather than "experience" as general conception (and > this difference may not be clear enough in any of my previous > writings), could be thought of as a unit of analysis for the relation > between doing and undergoing, which is a "microcosm" of human > experience during episodes of joint development. Obviously, here I > am trying to roughly follow a scheme you provide in "Outlines" (2009). > Does this line of thought make sense? > > Thanks to this discussion, I realize that I need to make clearer > statements about how the connections that I entertain between Dewey > and Vygotsky in my dissertation constitute a "unit", a "substance", or > neither of them. Thank you very much for opening this dimension of > inquiry to me! > > Best, > Alfredo > > > > > ________________________________________ > From: Andy Blunden > Sent: 04 July 2014 07:25:45 > To: lchcmike@gmail.com > Cc: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity; Alfredo Gil Jornet > Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: LSV on language as a model of development > > Maybe, but Alfredo has been working with W-M Roth, and in a recent paper > Roth claims to quote Vygotsky saying that experience is "the dynamic > unit of affective and intellectual processes" (Roth's translation) and > goes on to make it clear that this was not a slip of the pen, but he > means "unit". > Andy > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *Andy Blunden* > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > > mike cole wrote: > > That is how I interpreted Alfredo, Andy. > > (signed) > > > > an /in/-experienced oldtimer > > mike > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 6:45 PM, Andy Blunden > > wrote: > > > > I am familiar with Dewey's work on this, Alfredo, and I too have > > found it > > very useful. That was not my problem. But thinking about it, I > > suspect it > > was just an English expression problem. > > You said "experience is a unit of doing and undergoing". But I > > think you > > meant to say "experience is a unity of doing and undergoing," > which is > > certainly true. Just as activity is a unity of consciousness and > > behaviour, or identity is a unity of recognition and > > self-consciousness, > > etc. > > But a *unit* is something different from *unity*. "Experience" > in this > > sense is not a unit at all; "an experience" can be a unit, but not > > a unit > > of doing and undergoing. > > > > Is that right, Alfredo? > > Andy > > > > > Dewey, most extensively in chapter 3 of "Art as experience", > makes a > > > distinction between the general stream of experience, and an > > experience, > > > which, according to him, is the experience that "is a whole and > > carries > > > with it its own individualizing quality and self-sufficiency". > > After the > > > fact, an experience "has a unity that gives it its name, that > > meal, that > > > storm, that rupture of friendship", Dewey writes. He further > > says that, > > > within that unity, there is both an aspect of doing, of > > initiation, and > > > another of undergoing, "of suffering in its large sense". He > further > > > articulates the relation between the doing and the undergoing in > > terms of > > > "anticipation" and "consummation" "Anticipation" he writes "is the > > > connecting link between the next doing and its outcome for > > sense. What is > > > done and what is undergone are thus reciprocally, > cumulatively, and > > > continuously instrumental to each other" > > > > > > Although in most passages these notes have a rather > > individualistic taste, > > > he goes on to clarify that there is a prominent public > character in > > > experience: "without external embodiment, an experience remains > > > incomplete" he says. In the same chapter, he also argues that > > "it is not > > > possible to divide in a vital experience the practical, > > emotional, and > > > intellectual from one another." Both these conditions may make > > it possible > > > to draw connections between Dewey's notion of experience and > > Vygotsky's > > > perezivanie. > > > > > > In any case, I find interesting the dialectic Dewey proposes > > between doing > > > and undergoing as aspects of a minimal unit of sense-full > experience > > > because it allows for thinking of being immersed in a > developmental > > > situation in which the final form already exists before the > > intellect > > > grasps it, so that we do not need to put individual knowledge > > > constructions as who puts the cart before the horse. > > > > > > But this is my reading, which may have obviated other aspects > > that would > > > preclude this reading? > > > Hope this was of help. > > > Best, > > > > > > Alfredo > > > ________________________________________ > > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > > > > on > > > behalf of Andy Blunden > > > > > Sent: 03 July 2014 17:17 > > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: LSV on language as a model of development > > > > > > Alfredo, what did you mean by: > > >> ... as he argued, experience is a unit of doing and undergoing, > > > > > > Andy > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From ablunden@mira.net Sat Jul 5 01:43:29 2014 From: ablunden@mira.net (Andy Blunden) Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2014 18:43:29 +1000 (EST) Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: LSV on language as a model of development In-Reply-To: References: <1404377223637.27381@canterbury.ac.uk> <036576d347c948c1a3a1a8f9979f3f0f@mail-ex02.exprod.uio.no> <55415.101.176.84.138.1404400649.squirrel@wm4.pacific.net.au> <4f4922e4b47f4edc8e4d8d25915a653b@mail-ex02.exprod.uio.no> <60103.101.176.84.138.1404438319.squirrel@wm4.pacific.net.au> , <53B63AD9.9000202@mira.net> , <53B69C9A.6030102@mira.net> Message-ID: <65445.101.176.84.138.1404549809.squirrel@wm4.pacific.net.au> For sure Alfredo, Dewey seems to be suggesting that "an experience" is what we would call a unit of artistic creation or appreciation, and if this is the case, then certainly his concept of "an experience" would have a much wider application. But I am hesitant to go too far into this just now because (1) I don't think Dewey was himself entirely clear on this concept of "unit", and (2) most of the CHAT people who are participating in this discussion around perezhivanie are certainly confused about what Vygotsky meant by "unit." Vygotsky was not confused, but Nikolai Veresov has drawn my attention to the fact that even the authoritative Minnick translation of "Thinking and Speech" has, on occasion, mixed up 'unit' and 'unity' in the process of translating into English. So before we get into Dewey on units and experiences, I am very concerned that we are all very clear on what Vygotsky said on the subject! Andy > Thank you Andy for furthering the discussion. I was trying to quickly > follow the scheme of thinking presented in your paper when I typed that > "doing and undergoing" was a microcosm, and I realize now (and agree with > you) that that was not correct. If a unit is relative to "some complex > process whose analysis is at issue," I find the unit that Dewey proposes > in defining "/an/ experience" as being relative not only to the process of > producing/interpreting a work of art, but to the more general human > sense-full experience, as opposed to "incohate" experience. Is not there > something common to art-making in any making? I find formulations very > close to his notion of /an/ experience in "Experience and Education" and > in "Logic: theory of inquiry," where the complex process whose analysis is > at issue is not art. The most prevalent topic is that experience extends > both temporally and socially. In following up the discussion on unity and > unit, I suggest that what Dewey defines as /an/ experience can be thought > as a microcosm of human sense-full experience during joint activity, and > that is the problem that I attempt to address my self in the episodes of > interest in my own research, which all have in common people together > doing things and thereby changing both themselves and their settings in > the making. I guess that a larger question would be how well the unit that > we may call /an/ experience retains all the aspects of the complex > phenomenon of sense-full experience in activity. I think we do part of the > work with regard to that discussion in the paper the link of which I have > given before by drawing possible connections between Dewey, Vygotsky, and > other phenomenological thinking. I think the issue of unit/unity is > important, and will continue elaborating on it in my further > thinking/writing/doing. > > Best, > Alfredo > > > ________________________________________ > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on > behalf of Andy Blunden > Sent: 04 July 2014 14:22 > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: LSV on language as a model of development > > Thank you, Alfredo, I think you have made a lot of progress in > clarifying these problems and these formulations I do find much more > satisfactory. Thank you, because in taking my apparently petty and > nit-picking criticism seriously, some real steps towards clarity have > been made. But there is still some more to do. :) > > Here's Dewey's "Having An Experience" by the way: > http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/us/an-experience.htm > > A unit is always *also a unity*. "An experience" is a unity in the sense > which Dewey so graphically describes, in that it marks itself off from > the general background of experience and has an inherent completeness > about it: "complete in itself, standing out because marked out from what > went before and what came after." > > And it is invariably is also a unity of disparate elements, such as > sound and meaning, recognition and self-consciousness, doing and > suffering,defect andf compensation, use and exchange-value, etc.. > Generally, I think people recognise this aspect of units. What is I > think widely not understood is the relation of the unit to the whole > process. > > Unit is always a relative term, i.e., it is a unit of some complex > process whose analysis is at issue: the process at issue is seen to be > made up of a large number of said units. Your claim is that an > experience is "a unit of analysis for the relation between doing and > undergoing." But I find this "relation between doing and undergoing" an > entirely unclear concept. It sounds more like a readymade answer than a > question or problem to be solved. Usually, if there is a concept, there > is a word for it already at hand. Who asked for an analysis of the > relation-between-doing-and-undergoing? When Vygotsky posed the problem > of the relation of thinking and speaking this question already had a > long and well-known history in Western philosophy and psychology, and I > believe it was already understood to be related to the problem of the > intellect. I think Dewey was prompted to write this article by a > consideration of *art*: "Every work of art follows the plan of, and > pattern of, a complete experience, rendering it more intensely and > concentratedly felt." > > But Dewey's article has lately been picked up out of interest in > perezhivanie, hasn't it? For me, it was because Dewey reminded us that > "an experience" can have a meaning and power much like the Russian > perezhivanie, and that it is very different from "experience." So I > question this supposed definition of the problem - "the relation of > doing and undergoing." The unit of analysis is a singular concept of the > process as a whole, and if we do not have a provisional concept of the > process as a whole, then I think we are on very uncertain ground. > > Also, in the article you cited, I was at pains to point out that a > "unit" is *not* a "microcosm." Marx selected a commodity as the unit of > bourgeois society; if he had wanted a *microcosm* he would have selected > a capitalist firm (= a unit of capital), the *highest* product, a whole > "world" in which the entire process (bourgeois society = the world > market) is contained complete in miniature form - the most developed > relation of the whole process. The commodity only contains all the > phenomena of bourgeois society *in embryo* (=cell form). But did you > mean that "the relation of doing and undergoing" is the microcosm? Not > clear on that. > > You refer to "joint development". Is this the subject matter of > interest? What *is* the problem in fact? Until we are clear on that > units of analysis are not in the frame. > > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *Andy Blunden* > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > > Alfredo Gil Jornet wrote: >> Initially, I meant unity of doing and undergoing in the sense that, in >> /an/ experience, the one aspect cannot be reduced to the >> other. So, doing and undergoing, as I read them in Dewey, and as you >> agree, constitute a unity. It is precisely in the difference/distance >> between the doing and the undergoing that an experience extends in >> time and action as a real, dynamic, but unitary phenomenon. I guess we >> all agree on this. >> >> I acknowledge my loose use of the term "unit" in the >> previous description, and understand your concern about it. So far, I >> have been using the notion "unit" to mean "unit of analysis." As unit, >> /an/ experience may be thought as "a product of analysis which, unlike >> elements, retains all the basic properties of the whole and which >> cannot be further divided without losing them." That is how we attempt >> to articulate it here in the context of science education: >> http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/enhanced/doi/10.1002/sce.21085/ I have >> further expanded those ideas in other works under review. >> >> However, after Andy raised concern about the difference between "unit" >> and "unity," I realized that I had not a clear-enough answer as to the >> differences between the two. So I quickly went to the literature to >> make my mind clearer before answering. Following an initial reading, >> here is my attempt to be more specific about it: One could argue that >> "an experience", rather than "experience" as general conception (and >> this difference may not be clear enough in any of my previous >> writings), could be thought of as a unit of analysis for the relation >> between doing and undergoing, which is a "microcosm" of human >> experience during episodes of joint development. Obviously, here I >> am trying to roughly follow a scheme you provide in "Outlines" (2009). >> Does this line of thought make sense? >> >> Thanks to this discussion, I realize that I need to make clearer >> statements about how the connections that I entertain between Dewey >> and Vygotsky in my dissertation constitute a "unit", a "substance", or >> neither of them. Thank you very much for opening this dimension of >> inquiry to me! >> >> Best, >> Alfredo >> >> >> >> >> ________________________________________ >> From: Andy Blunden >> Sent: 04 July 2014 07:25:45 >> To: lchcmike@gmail.com >> Cc: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity; Alfredo Gil Jornet >> Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: LSV on language as a model of development >> >> Maybe, but Alfredo has been working with W-M Roth, and in a recent paper >> Roth claims to quote Vygotsky saying that experience is "the dynamic >> unit of affective and intellectual processes" (Roth's translation) and >> goes on to make it clear that this was not a slip of the pen, but he >> means "unit". >> Andy >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> *Andy Blunden* >> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ >> >> >> mike cole wrote: >> > That is how I interpreted Alfredo, Andy. >> > (signed) >> > >> > an /in/-experienced oldtimer >> > mike >> > >> > >> > On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 6:45 PM, Andy Blunden > > > wrote: >> > >> > I am familiar with Dewey's work on this, Alfredo, and I too have >> > found it >> > very useful. That was not my problem. But thinking about it, I >> > suspect it >> > was just an English expression problem. >> > You said "experience is a unit of doing and undergoing". But I >> > think you >> > meant to say "experience is a unity of doing and undergoing," >> which is >> > certainly true. Just as activity is a unity of consciousness and >> > behaviour, or identity is a unity of recognition and >> > self-consciousness, >> > etc. >> > But a *unit* is something different from *unity*. "Experience" >> in this >> > sense is not a unit at all; "an experience" can be a unit, but not >> > a unit >> > of doing and undergoing. >> > >> > Is that right, Alfredo? >> > Andy >> > >> > > Dewey, most extensively in chapter 3 of "Art as experience", >> makes a >> > > distinction between the general stream of experience, and an >> > experience, >> > > which, according to him, is the experience that "is a whole and >> > carries >> > > with it its own individualizing quality and self-sufficiency". >> > After the >> > > fact, an experience "has a unity that gives it its name, that >> > meal, that >> > > storm, that rupture of friendship", Dewey writes. He further >> > says that, >> > > within that unity, there is both an aspect of doing, of >> > initiation, and >> > > another of undergoing, "of suffering in its large sense". He >> further >> > > articulates the relation between the doing and the undergoing in >> > terms of >> > > "anticipation" and "consummation" "Anticipation" he writes "is >> the >> > > connecting link between the next doing and its outcome for >> > sense. What is >> > > done and what is undergone are thus reciprocally, >> cumulatively, and >> > > continuously instrumental to each other" >> > > >> > > Although in most passages these notes have a rather >> > individualistic taste, >> > > he goes on to clarify that there is a prominent public >> character in >> > > experience: "without external embodiment, an experience remains >> > > incomplete" he says. In the same chapter, he also argues that >> > "it is not >> > > possible to divide in a vital experience the practical, >> > emotional, and >> > > intellectual from one another." Both these conditions may make >> > it possible >> > > to draw connections between Dewey's notion of experience and >> > Vygotsky's >> > > perezivanie. >> > > >> > > In any case, I find interesting the dialectic Dewey proposes >> > between doing >> > > and undergoing as aspects of a minimal unit of sense-full >> experience >> > > because it allows for thinking of being immersed in a >> developmental >> > > situation in which the final form already exists before the >> > intellect >> > > grasps it, so that we do not need to put individual knowledge >> > > constructions as who puts the cart before the horse. >> > > >> > > But this is my reading, which may have obviated other aspects >> > that would >> > > preclude this reading? >> > > Hope this was of help. >> > > Best, >> > > >> > > Alfredo >> > > ________________________________________ >> > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >> > >> > > > > on >> > > behalf of Andy Blunden > > > >> > > Sent: 03 July 2014 17:17 >> > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: LSV on language as a model of development >> > > >> > > Alfredo, what did you mean by: >> > >> ... as he argued, experience is a unit of doing and undergoing, >> > > >> > > Andy >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> > > From carolmacdon@gmail.com Sat Jul 5 10:06:41 2014 From: carolmacdon@gmail.com (Carol Macdonald) Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2014 18:06:41 +0100 Subject: [Xmca-l] The Importance of Play Message-ID: Here is a very interesting link to research done at Cambridge UK. Non-technical but there you are. *http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/discussion/school-starting-age-the-evidence * Carol -- Carol A Macdonald Ph D (Edin) Developmental psycholinguist Academic, Researcher, and Editor Honorary Research Fellow: Department of Linguistics, Unisa From dkellogg60@gmail.com Sat Jul 5 14:17:54 2014 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2014 06:17:54 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: LSV on language as a model of development In-Reply-To: References: <1404377223637.27381@canterbury.ac.uk> <036576d347c948c1a3a1a8f9979f3f0f@mail-ex02.exprod.uio.no> <55415.101.176.84.138.1404400649.squirrel@wm4.pacific.net.au> <4f4922e4b47f4edc8e4d8d25915a653b@mail-ex02.exprod.uio.no> <60103.101.176.84.138.1404438319.squirrel@wm4.pacific.net.au> Message-ID: I don't see anything wrong with the idea that "felt experience" or "thought-over experience" or "contemplated experience" (i.e. perezhivanie, which develops in time) is always and everywhere a unit of doing and undergoing, just as Alfredo says. In fact, it seems to me to be exactly what Vygotsky says. Here is the nineteenth paragraph of Vygotsky's lecture "The Problem of the Environment". ? ????? ??????? ?? ?????????? ??????? ?????? ? ????? ???????? ??? ????????? ????? ??????, ???????? ????????? ??????????????? ????????????. ???????? ????? ?????? ????? ??????? ???????????. ??????????? ???? ???????, ? ??????? ? ???????????? ???? ???????????? ? ????? ??????? ?????, ??, ??? ????????????, - ??????????? ?????? ????????? ? ????-??, ???????????? ??? ????????, - ? ?????? ??????? ???????????? ??, ??? ? ????????? ???, ?.?. ??? ??????????? ???????? ? ??? ??????????? ????? ???????????? ? ???????????, ??, ??? ???????? ?? ?????, ??? ?? ???????, ??????? ????? ????????? ? ?????? ???????? ? ???????? ?? ????????, ??? ?? ????? ?? ?????????, ?????????????????? ?????, ??????? ????? ????????? ? ??????? ???????. ????? ???????, ? ??????????? ?? ?????? ????? ???? ? ???????????? ????????? ???????????? ???????? ? ???????????? ????????, ??????? ???????????? ? ???????????. ??????? ???????? ??????????? ? ???????????? ????????? ????? ??????, ????? ?? ??????? ???? ????? ? ???????? ???????, ????? ?????? ? ????? ?????? ??????????? ???????, ?????? ??? ? ??????????? ???????, ??? ? ??? ???????, ??????????? ??? ?????? ??????????? ???????, ??????? ??????????? ? ??????????? ??? ????????? ? ?????? ????????. ????????, ??? ?? ??? ?????? ?????????????????? ??????????? ??????? ???? ????????? ??????? ? ?? ?????? ???????? ???????, ???. ? ????? ???????? ???? ??? ?????????????????? ??????????? ?????? ?????? ????, ? ?????? ??????? ?????? ?????? ????, ? ? ?????? ?????? ??? ????? ? ?? ??????????? ?????. ??? ????? ????? ?? ?????? ???? ?? ???? ?????????????????? ??????????? ???????, ? ??? ????? ?????, ????? ?? ???? ?????????????????? ???????????? ??????? ???????? ???? ??? ??????????? ????????? ??????? ? ?????? ????????, ? ?????? ???????? ??? ?????? ?????????????????? ??????????? ??????? ????. What this says (I think) is this: "I wish today as a concrete example of the teaching on the environment to show you a few of these units (??????) with which psychological research operates. An example of such a unit which might serve is lived experience ( ??????????? ). Lived experience is a unit whose form presents in an non-decomposable way, on the one side, the environment that is live-experienced?lived experience always refers to something that is external to the person?and on the other side represents the way that I live-experience it, i.e. all the features of the personality and all the features of the environment presented in the lived experience, what was selected from the environment, all the moments which are related to a given personality and selected in the personality, all of the features of its (i.e. the personality?s?DK) character, all its constituent features related to this event. Thus, in lived experience we are always dealing with the irreducible unity of features of personality and features of the situation, which is presented in lived experience. For this reason it is methodologically advantageous to carry out our analysis, when we study the role of the environment in the development of the child, from the point of view of the lived experience of the child, because the lived experience of the child, as I have already said, takes in all of the personality characteristics of the child which participate in the definition of his relationship to a given situation. Do, for example, all of the constituent features of my personality of every type participate fully and on an equal footing? Of course not. In one situation, one of my constituent features plays the first role, and in another, another plays the first role where in the first case it may not appear at all. To us it is not important to know the constituent features of the child in themselves, but to us it is important to know which of these constituent features plays the decisive role in determining the child?s relationship to a given situation where in other situations other constituent features have played a role." Of course, it's very hard (and not always necessary) to summarize all that in a single pithy expression. But it seems to me that when Andy uses the expression "radius of subjectivity" and Alfredo uses the expression "a unit of doing and undergoing" they are saying essentially the same thing. David Kellogg Hankuk University of Foreign Studies On 4 July 2014 11:22, mike cole wrote: > That is how I interpreted Alfredo, Andy. > (signed) > > an *in*-experienced oldtimer > mike > > > On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 6:45 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: > > > I am familiar with Dewey's work on this, Alfredo, and I too have found it > > very useful. That was not my problem. But thinking about it, I suspect it > > was just an English expression problem. > > You said "experience is a unit of doing and undergoing". But I think you > > meant to say "experience is a unity of doing and undergoing," which is > > certainly true. Just as activity is a unity of consciousness and > > behaviour, or identity is a unity of recognition and self-consciousness, > > etc. > > But a *unit* is something different from *unity*. "Experience" in this > > sense is not a unit at all; "an experience" can be a unit, but not a unit > > of doing and undergoing. > > > > Is that right, Alfredo? > > Andy > > > > > Dewey, most extensively in chapter 3 of "Art as experience", makes a > > > distinction between the general stream of experience, and an > experience, > > > which, according to him, is the experience that "is a whole and carries > > > with it its own individualizing quality and self-sufficiency". After > the > > > fact, an experience "has a unity that gives it its name, that meal, > that > > > storm, that rupture of friendship", Dewey writes. He further says that, > > > within that unity, there is both an aspect of doing, of initiation, and > > > another of undergoing, "of suffering in its large sense". He further > > > articulates the relation between the doing and the undergoing in terms > of > > > "anticipation" and "consummation" "Anticipation" he writes "is the > > > connecting link between the next doing and its outcome for sense. What > is > > > done and what is undergone are thus reciprocally, cumulatively, and > > > continuously instrumental to each other" > > > > > > Although in most passages these notes have a rather individualistic > > taste, > > > he goes on to clarify that there is a prominent public character in > > > experience: "without external embodiment, an experience remains > > > incomplete" he says. In the same chapter, he also argues that "it is > not > > > possible to divide in a vital experience the practical, emotional, and > > > intellectual from one another." Both these conditions may make it > > possible > > > to draw connections between Dewey's notion of experience and Vygotsky's > > > perezivanie. > > > > > > In any case, I find interesting the dialectic Dewey proposes between > > doing > > > and undergoing as aspects of a minimal unit of sense-full experience > > > because it allows for thinking of being immersed in a developmental > > > situation in which the final form already exists before the intellect > > > grasps it, so that we do not need to put individual knowledge > > > constructions as who puts the cart before the horse. > > > > > > But this is my reading, which may have obviated other aspects that > would > > > preclude this reading? > > > Hope this was of help. > > > Best, > > > > > > Alfredo > > > ________________________________________ > > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > on > > > behalf of Andy Blunden > > > Sent: 03 July 2014 17:17 > > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: LSV on language as a model of development > > > > > > Alfredo, what did you mean by: > > >> ... as he argued, experience is a unit of doing and undergoing, > > > > > > Andy > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From lchcmike@gmail.com Sat Jul 5 17:09:06 2014 From: lchcmike@gmail.com (mike cole) Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2014 17:09:06 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: LSV on language as a model of development In-Reply-To: <65445.101.176.84.138.1404549809.squirrel@wm4.pacific.net.au> References: <1404377223637.27381@canterbury.ac.uk> <036576d347c948c1a3a1a8f9979f3f0f@mail-ex02.exprod.uio.no> <55415.101.176.84.138.1404400649.squirrel@wm4.pacific.net.au> <4f4922e4b47f4edc8e4d8d25915a653b@mail-ex02.exprod.uio.no> <60103.101.176.84.138.1404438319.squirrel@wm4.pacific.net.au> <53B63AD9.9000202@mira.net> <53B69C9A.6030102@mira.net> <65445.101.176.84.138.1404549809.squirrel@wm4.pacific.net.au> Message-ID: The Russian language has more than a little ambiguity here as well, Andy. Check out David's translation and how/when Vygotsky moves from using edinitsa (translated as unit) to edinstvo (translated as unity). Then look at how google translate indicates the overlap between these two terms. Translations of ??????? (edinitsa) unit ????, ???????, ?????????????, ???????, ????, ????? unity ????????, ???????, ????????, ????????????, ????????, ????????? one ???????, ????????, ????? ???? Translations of ???????? (edinstvo) noun unity ????????, ???????, ????????, ????????????, ????????, ????????? oneness ????????, ????????????????, ?????????, ???????????, ????????, ??????????? solidarity ????????????, ????????????, ????????, ????????, ???????? accord ????????????, ????????, ??????????, ??????????????, ??????, ???????? So far as I can tell, the Russians are no clearer on this matter than those trying to sort through the matter in English. mike On Sat, Jul 5, 2014 at 1:43 AM, Andy Blunden wrote: > For sure Alfredo, Dewey seems to be suggesting that "an experience" is > what we would call a unit of artistic creation or appreciation, and if > this is the case, then certainly his concept of "an experience" would have > a much wider application. But I am hesitant to go too far into this just > now because (1) I don't think Dewey was himself entirely clear on this > concept of "unit", and (2) most of the CHAT people who are participating > in this discussion around perezhivanie are certainly confused about what > Vygotsky meant by "unit." Vygotsky was not confused, but Nikolai Veresov > has drawn my attention to the fact that even the authoritative Minnick > translation of "Thinking and Speech" has, on occasion, mixed up 'unit' and > 'unity' in the process of translating into English. > So before we get into Dewey on units and experiences, I am very concerned > that we are all very clear on what Vygotsky said on the subject! > Andy > > > > Thank you Andy for furthering the discussion. I was trying to quickly > > follow the scheme of thinking presented in your paper when I typed that > > "doing and undergoing" was a microcosm, and I realize now (and agree with > > you) that that was not correct. If a unit is relative to "some complex > > process whose analysis is at issue," I find the unit that Dewey proposes > > in defining "/an/ experience" as being relative not only to the process > of > > producing/interpreting a work of art, but to the more general human > > sense-full experience, as opposed to "incohate" experience. Is not there > > something common to art-making in any making? I find formulations very > > close to his notion of /an/ experience in "Experience and Education" and > > in "Logic: theory of inquiry," where the complex process whose analysis > is > > at issue is not art. The most prevalent topic is that experience extends > > both temporally and socially. In following up the discussion on unity and > > unit, I suggest that what Dewey defines as /an/ experience can be thought > > as a microcosm of human sense-full experience during joint activity, and > > that is the problem that I attempt to address my self in the episodes of > > interest in my own research, which all have in common people together > > doing things and thereby changing both themselves and their settings in > > the making. I guess that a larger question would be how well the unit > that > > we may call /an/ experience retains all the aspects of the complex > > phenomenon of sense-full experience in activity. I think we do part of > the > > work with regard to that discussion in the paper the link of which I have > > given before by drawing possible connections between Dewey, Vygotsky, and > > other phenomenological thinking. I think the issue of unit/unity is > > important, and will continue elaborating on it in my further > > thinking/writing/doing. > > > > Best, > > Alfredo > > > > > > ________________________________________ > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on > > behalf of Andy Blunden > > Sent: 04 July 2014 14:22 > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: LSV on language as a model of development > > > > Thank you, Alfredo, I think you have made a lot of progress in > > clarifying these problems and these formulations I do find much more > > satisfactory. Thank you, because in taking my apparently petty and > > nit-picking criticism seriously, some real steps towards clarity have > > been made. But there is still some more to do. :) > > > > Here's Dewey's "Having An Experience" by the way: > > > http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/us/an-experience.htm > > > > A unit is always *also a unity*. "An experience" is a unity in the sense > > which Dewey so graphically describes, in that it marks itself off from > > the general background of experience and has an inherent completeness > > about it: "complete in itself, standing out because marked out from what > > went before and what came after." > > > > And it is invariably is also a unity of disparate elements, such as > > sound and meaning, recognition and self-consciousness, doing and > > suffering,defect andf compensation, use and exchange-value, etc.. > > Generally, I think people recognise this aspect of units. What is I > > think widely not understood is the relation of the unit to the whole > > process. > > > > Unit is always a relative term, i.e., it is a unit of some complex > > process whose analysis is at issue: the process at issue is seen to be > > made up of a large number of said units. Your claim is that an > > experience is "a unit of analysis for the relation between doing and > > undergoing." But I find this "relation between doing and undergoing" an > > entirely unclear concept. It sounds more like a readymade answer than a > > question or problem to be solved. Usually, if there is a concept, there > > is a word for it already at hand. Who asked for an analysis of the > > relation-between-doing-and-undergoing? When Vygotsky posed the problem > > of the relation of thinking and speaking this question already had a > > long and well-known history in Western philosophy and psychology, and I > > believe it was already understood to be related to the problem of the > > intellect. I think Dewey was prompted to write this article by a > > consideration of *art*: "Every work of art follows the plan of, and > > pattern of, a complete experience, rendering it more intensely and > > concentratedly felt." > > > > But Dewey's article has lately been picked up out of interest in > > perezhivanie, hasn't it? For me, it was because Dewey reminded us that > > "an experience" can have a meaning and power much like the Russian > > perezhivanie, and that it is very different from "experience." So I > > question this supposed definition of the problem - "the relation of > > doing and undergoing." The unit of analysis is a singular concept of the > > process as a whole, and if we do not have a provisional concept of the > > process as a whole, then I think we are on very uncertain ground. > > > > Also, in the article you cited, I was at pains to point out that a > > "unit" is *not* a "microcosm." Marx selected a commodity as the unit of > > bourgeois society; if he had wanted a *microcosm* he would have selected > > a capitalist firm (= a unit of capital), the *highest* product, a whole > > "world" in which the entire process (bourgeois society = the world > > market) is contained complete in miniature form - the most developed > > relation of the whole process. The commodity only contains all the > > phenomena of bourgeois society *in embryo* (=cell form). But did you > > mean that "the relation of doing and undergoing" is the microcosm? Not > > clear on that. > > > > You refer to "joint development". Is this the subject matter of > > interest? What *is* the problem in fact? Until we are clear on that > > units of analysis are not in the frame. > > > > Andy > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > *Andy Blunden* > > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > > > > > Alfredo Gil Jornet wrote: > >> Initially, I meant unity of doing and undergoing in the sense that, in > >> /an/ experience, the one aspect cannot be reduced to the > >> other. So, doing and undergoing, as I read them in Dewey, and as you > >> agree, constitute a unity. It is precisely in the difference/distance > >> between the doing and the undergoing that an experience extends in > >> time and action as a real, dynamic, but unitary phenomenon. I guess we > >> all agree on this. > >> > >> I acknowledge my loose use of the term "unit" in the > >> previous description, and understand your concern about it. So far, I > >> have been using the notion "unit" to mean "unit of analysis." As unit, > >> /an/ experience may be thought as "a product of analysis which, unlike > >> elements, retains all the basic properties of the whole and which > >> cannot be further divided without losing them." That is how we attempt > >> to articulate it here in the context of science education: > >> http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/enhanced/doi/10.1002/sce.21085/ I have > >> further expanded those ideas in other works under review. > >> > >> However, after Andy raised concern about the difference between "unit" > >> and "unity," I realized that I had not a clear-enough answer as to the > >> differences between the two. So I quickly went to the literature to > >> make my mind clearer before answering. Following an initial reading, > >> here is my attempt to be more specific about it: One could argue that > >> "an experience", rather than "experience" as general conception (and > >> this difference may not be clear enough in any of my previous > >> writings), could be thought of as a unit of analysis for the relation > >> between doing and undergoing, which is a "microcosm" of human > >> experience during episodes of joint development. Obviously, here I > >> am trying to roughly follow a scheme you provide in "Outlines" (2009). > >> Does this line of thought make sense? > >> > >> Thanks to this discussion, I realize that I need to make clearer > >> statements about how the connections that I entertain between Dewey > >> and Vygotsky in my dissertation constitute a "unit", a "substance", or > >> neither of them. Thank you very much for opening this dimension of > >> inquiry to me! > >> > >> Best, > >> Alfredo > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> ________________________________________ > >> From: Andy Blunden > >> Sent: 04 July 2014 07:25:45 > >> To: lchcmike@gmail.com > >> Cc: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity; Alfredo Gil Jornet > >> Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: LSV on language as a model of development > >> > >> Maybe, but Alfredo has been working with W-M Roth, and in a recent paper > >> Roth claims to quote Vygotsky saying that experience is "the dynamic > >> unit of affective and intellectual processes" (Roth's translation) and > >> goes on to make it clear that this was not a slip of the pen, but he > >> means "unit". > >> Andy > >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >> *Andy Blunden* > >> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > >> > >> > >> mike cole wrote: > >> > That is how I interpreted Alfredo, Andy. > >> > (signed) > >> > > >> > an /in/-experienced oldtimer > >> > mike > >> > > >> > > >> > On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 6:45 PM, Andy Blunden >> > > wrote: > >> > > >> > I am familiar with Dewey's work on this, Alfredo, and I too have > >> > found it > >> > very useful. That was not my problem. But thinking about it, I > >> > suspect it > >> > was just an English expression problem. > >> > You said "experience is a unit of doing and undergoing". But I > >> > think you > >> > meant to say "experience is a unity of doing and undergoing," > >> which is > >> > certainly true. Just as activity is a unity of consciousness and > >> > behaviour, or identity is a unity of recognition and > >> > self-consciousness, > >> > etc. > >> > But a *unit* is something different from *unity*. "Experience" > >> in this > >> > sense is not a unit at all; "an experience" can be a unit, but not > >> > a unit > >> > of doing and undergoing. > >> > > >> > Is that right, Alfredo? > >> > Andy > >> > > >> > > Dewey, most extensively in chapter 3 of "Art as experience", > >> makes a > >> > > distinction between the general stream of experience, and an > >> > experience, > >> > > which, according to him, is the experience that "is a whole and > >> > carries > >> > > with it its own individualizing quality and self-sufficiency". > >> > After the > >> > > fact, an experience "has a unity that gives it its name, that > >> > meal, that > >> > > storm, that rupture of friendship", Dewey writes. He further > >> > says that, > >> > > within that unity, there is both an aspect of doing, of > >> > initiation, and > >> > > another of undergoing, "of suffering in its large sense". He > >> further > >> > > articulates the relation between the doing and the undergoing in > >> > terms of > >> > > "anticipation" and "consummation" "Anticipation" he writes "is > >> the > >> > > connecting link between the next doing and its outcome for > >> > sense. What is > >> > > done and what is undergone are thus reciprocally, > >> cumulatively, and > >> > > continuously instrumental to each other" > >> > > > >> > > Although in most passages these notes have a rather > >> > individualistic taste, > >> > > he goes on to clarify that there is a prominent public > >> character in > >> > > experience: "without external embodiment, an experience remains > >> > > incomplete" he says. In the same chapter, he also argues that > >> > "it is not > >> > > possible to divide in a vital experience the practical, > >> > emotional, and > >> > > intellectual from one another." Both these conditions may make > >> > it possible > >> > > to draw connections between Dewey's notion of experience and > >> > Vygotsky's > >> > > perezivanie. > >> > > > >> > > In any case, I find interesting the dialectic Dewey proposes > >> > between doing > >> > > and undergoing as aspects of a minimal unit of sense-full > >> experience > >> > > because it allows for thinking of being immersed in a > >> developmental > >> > > situation in which the final form already exists before the > >> > intellect > >> > > grasps it, so that we do not need to put individual knowledge > >> > > constructions as who puts the cart before the horse. > >> > > > >> > > But this is my reading, which may have obviated other aspects > >> > that would > >> > > preclude this reading? > >> > > Hope this was of help. > >> > > Best, > >> > > > >> > > Alfredo > >> > > ________________________________________ > >> > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > >> > > >> > >> > > on > >> > > behalf of Andy Blunden >> > > > >> > > Sent: 03 July 2014 17:17 > >> > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > >> > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: LSV on language as a model of development > >> > > > >> > > Alfredo, what did you mean by: > >> > >> ... as he argued, experience is a unit of doing and undergoing, > >> > > > >> > > Andy > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > From ablunden@mira.net Sat Jul 5 05:37:38 2014 From: ablunden@mira.net (Andy Blunden) Date: Sat, 05 Jul 2014 22:37:38 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: LSV on language as a model of development In-Reply-To: References: <1404377223637.27381@canterbury.ac.uk> <036576d347c948c1a3a1a8f9979f3f0f@mail-ex02.exprod.uio.no> <55415.101.176.84.138.1404400649.squirrel@wm4.pacific.net.au> <4f4922e4b47f4edc8e4d8d25915a653b@mail-ex02.exprod.uio.no> <60103.101.176.84.138.1404438319.squirrel@wm4.pacific.net.au> Message-ID: <53B7F192.3080209@mira.net> Thank you for introducing this passage, David. What is Vygotsky's interest here, do you think? If I were to say "Vygotsky is interested in investigating the relation between doing and undergoing" I don't think we'd be any the clearer, even though it it formally true and accords with the title of the article. I suggest that Vygotsky's interest is continuing his work on child development (where he used the concept of Social Situation of Development) to find a foundation for a theory of *personal development* which would be adequate beyond childhood. This would mean that if we ask "What is an experience or a perezhivanie a unit of?" we would answer "personality" or what is the same thing "personal development" - since to understand the product of a process of development (a personality) is to understand the process itself. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Andy Blunden* http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ David Kellogg wrote: > I don't see anything wrong with the idea that "felt experience" or > "thought-over experience" or "contemplated experience" (i.e. perezhivanie, > which develops in time) is always and everywhere a unit of doing and > undergoing, just as Alfredo says. In fact, it seems to me to be exactly > what Vygotsky says. Here is the nineteenth paragraph of Vygotsky's lecture > "The Problem of the Environment". > > ? ????? ??????? ?? ?????????? ??????? ?????? ? ????? ???????? ??? ????????? > ????? ??????, ???????? ????????? ??????????????? ????????????. ???????? > ????? ?????? ????? ??????? ???????????. ??????????? ???? ???????, ? ??????? > ? ???????????? ???? ???????????? ? ????? ??????? ?????, ??, ??? ????????????, > - ??????????? ?????? ????????? ? ????-??, ???????????? ??? ????????, - ? > ?????? ??????? ???????????? ??, ??? ? ????????? ???, ?.?. ??? ??????????? > ???????? ? ??? ??????????? ????? ???????????? ? ???????????, ??, ??? > ???????? ?? ?????, ??? ?? ???????, ??????? ????? ????????? ? ?????? > ???????? ? ???????? ?? ????????, ??? ?? ????? ?? ?????????, > ?????????????????? ?????, ??????? ????? ????????? ? ??????? ???????. ????? > ???????, ? ??????????? ?? ?????? ????? ???? ? ???????????? ????????? > ???????????? ???????? ? ???????????? ????????, ??????? ???????????? ? > ???????????. ??????? ???????? ??????????? ? ???????????? ????????? ????? > ??????, ????? ?? ??????? ???? ????? ? ???????? ???????, ????? ?????? ? > ????? ?????? ??????????? ???????, ?????? ??? ? ??????????? ???????, ??? ? > ??? ???????, ??????????? ??? ?????? ??????????? ???????, ??????? > ??????????? ? ??????????? ??? ????????? ? ?????? ????????. ????????, ??? ?? > ??? ?????? ?????????????????? ??????????? ??????? ???? ????????? ??????? ? > ?? ?????? ???????? ???????, ???. ? ????? ???????? ???? ??? > ?????????????????? ??????????? ?????? ?????? ????, ? ?????? ??????? ?????? > ?????? ????, ? ? ?????? ?????? ??? ????? ? ?? ??????????? ?????. ??? ????? > ????? ?? ?????? ???? ?? ???? ?????????????????? ??????????? ???????, ? ??? > ????? ?????, ????? ?? ???? ?????????????????? ???????????? ??????? ???????? > ???? ??? ??????????? ????????? ??????? ? ?????? ????????, ? ?????? ???????? > ??? ?????? ?????????????????? ??????????? ??????? ????. > > > What this says (I think) is this: > > > "I wish today as a concrete example of the teaching on the environment to > show you a few of these units (??????) with which psychological research > operates. An example of such a unit which might serve is lived experience ( > ??????????? ). Lived experience is a unit whose form presents in an > non-decomposable way, on the one side, the environment that is > live-experienced?lived experience always refers to something that is > external to the person?and on the other side represents the way that I > live-experience it, i.e. all the features of the personality and all the > features of the environment presented in the lived experience, what was > selected from the environment, all the moments which are related to a given > personality and selected in the personality, all of the features of its > (i.e. the personality?s?DK) character, all its constituent features related > to this event. Thus, in lived experience we are always dealing with the > irreducible unity of features of personality and features of the situation, > which is presented in lived experience. For this reason it is > methodologically advantageous to carry out our analysis, when we study the > role of the environment in the development of the child, from the point of > view of the lived experience of the child, because the lived experience of > the child, as I have already said, takes in all of the personality > characteristics of the child which participate in the definition of his > relationship to a given situation. Do, for example, all of the constituent > features of my personality of every type participate fully and on an equal > footing? Of course not. In one situation, one of my constituent features > plays the first role, and in another, another plays the first role where in > the first case it may not appear at all. To us it is not important to know > the constituent features of the child in themselves, but to us it is > important to know which of these constituent features plays the decisive > role in determining the child?s relationship to a given situation where in > other situations other constituent features have played a role." > > > Of course, it's very hard (and not always necessary) to summarize all that > in a single pithy expression. But it seems to me that when Andy uses the > expression "radius of subjectivity" and Alfredo uses the expression "a unit > of doing and undergoing" they are saying essentially the same thing. > > > David Kellogg > > Hankuk University of Foreign Studies > > > On 4 July 2014 11:22, mike cole wrote: > > >> That is how I interpreted Alfredo, Andy. >> (signed) >> >> an *in*-experienced oldtimer >> mike >> >> >> On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 6:45 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: >> >> >>> I am familiar with Dewey's work on this, Alfredo, and I too have found it >>> very useful. That was not my problem. But thinking about it, I suspect it >>> was just an English expression problem. >>> You said "experience is a unit of doing and undergoing". But I think you >>> meant to say "experience is a unity of doing and undergoing," which is >>> certainly true. Just as activity is a unity of consciousness and >>> behaviour, or identity is a unity of recognition and self-consciousness, >>> etc. >>> But a *unit* is something different from *unity*. "Experience" in this >>> sense is not a unit at all; "an experience" can be a unit, but not a unit >>> of doing and undergoing. >>> >>> Is that right, Alfredo? >>> Andy >>> >>> >>>> Dewey, most extensively in chapter 3 of "Art as experience", makes a >>>> distinction between the general stream of experience, and an >>>> >> experience, >> >>>> which, according to him, is the experience that "is a whole and carries >>>> with it its own individualizing quality and self-sufficiency". After >>>> >> the >> >>>> fact, an experience "has a unity that gives it its name, that meal, >>>> >> that >> >>>> storm, that rupture of friendship", Dewey writes. He further says that, >>>> within that unity, there is both an aspect of doing, of initiation, and >>>> another of undergoing, "of suffering in its large sense". He further >>>> articulates the relation between the doing and the undergoing in terms >>>> >> of >> >>>> "anticipation" and "consummation" "Anticipation" he writes "is the >>>> connecting link between the next doing and its outcome for sense. What >>>> >> is >> >>>> done and what is undergone are thus reciprocally, cumulatively, and >>>> continuously instrumental to each other" >>>> >>>> Although in most passages these notes have a rather individualistic >>>> >>> taste, >>> >>>> he goes on to clarify that there is a prominent public character in >>>> experience: "without external embodiment, an experience remains >>>> incomplete" he says. In the same chapter, he also argues that "it is >>>> >> not >> >>>> possible to divide in a vital experience the practical, emotional, and >>>> intellectual from one another." Both these conditions may make it >>>> >>> possible >>> >>>> to draw connections between Dewey's notion of experience and Vygotsky's >>>> perezivanie. >>>> >>>> In any case, I find interesting the dialectic Dewey proposes between >>>> >>> doing >>> >>>> and undergoing as aspects of a minimal unit of sense-full experience >>>> because it allows for thinking of being immersed in a developmental >>>> situation in which the final form already exists before the intellect >>>> grasps it, so that we do not need to put individual knowledge >>>> constructions as who puts the cart before the horse. >>>> >>>> But this is my reading, which may have obviated other aspects that >>>> >> would >> >>>> preclude this reading? >>>> Hope this was of help. >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Alfredo >>>> ________________________________________ >>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >>> >>> on >>> >>>> behalf of Andy Blunden >>>> Sent: 03 July 2014 17:17 >>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: LSV on language as a model of development >>>> >>>> Alfredo, what did you mean by: >>>> >>>>> ... as he argued, experience is a unit of doing and undergoing, >>>>> >>>> Andy >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> From ablunden@mira.net Sat Jul 5 06:00:40 2014 From: ablunden@mira.net (Andy Blunden) Date: Sat, 05 Jul 2014 23:00:40 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: LSV on language as a model of development In-Reply-To: References: <1404377223637.27381@canterbury.ac.uk> <036576d347c948c1a3a1a8f9979f3f0f@mail-ex02.exprod.uio.no> <55415.101.176.84.138.1404400649.squirrel@wm4.pacific.net.au> <4f4922e4b47f4edc8e4d8d25915a653b@mail-ex02.exprod.uio.no> <60103.101.176.84.138.1404438319.squirrel@wm4.pacific.net.au> <53B63AD9.9000202@mira.net> <53B69C9A.6030102@mira.net> <65445.101.176.84.138.1404549809.squirrel@wm4.pacific.net.au> Message-ID: <53B7F6F8.3010101@mira.net> I fully accept that there is as much confusion among Russians as there is amongst English-speakers and anyone else, Mike. The reason is that it is not just a matter of having the right word, but of having the concept indicated by the word! :) "Unit of analysis" - introduced for the first time in Chapter 1 of "Thinking and Speech" is both a longstanding concept of social science, understood by philosophers of science pretty well, and a new name for the Hegelian concept of "abstract concept," the first category of Volume Two of the Science of Logic. Goethe was the first to introduce the idea in the form of Urphanomen, Hegel then developed this to a high degree, and Marx took it up in writing Capital, and that's where Vygotsky got it from. But instead of using 'Urphanomen', or 'germ-cell' or 'abstract concept', he *brilliantly* merged the idea with the existing widely-understood concept of "unit of analysis"! So this is a concept with two roots. But one of these roots is Hegel's Logic. Nowadays almost no-one reads Hegel's Logic. Those who come to Hegel at all read his early book, The Phenomenology of Spirit, which sheds no light on this issue. And among those who read and study Hegel's Logic, how many understand it? and of those who understand it, how many of them are familiar with Vygotsky? Very few. Unfortunately, in the confusion, most people who are familiar with Vygotsky's writing seem to be forgotten the meaning of the word "unit" (or to be willing to think it has some special meaning for Vygotsky), and are unfamiliar with the discussions about units of analysis in the social sciences, so the challenge of understanding the Hegelian concept (never having read Hegel) is formidable. The tendency of people to cover up their confusion with neologs, utterly implausible claims and convoluted writing compounds the problem. I was lucky in having read Marx and Hegel (and Ilyenkov) before I ever read Vygotsky, and before I read any present-day interpretations or explanations of Vygotsky. I am sure if I had read that material in the reverse order I would be as confused as I believe almost everyone else is. with apologies, Andy ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Andy Blunden* http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ mike cole wrote: > The Russian language has more than a little ambiguity here as well, Andy. > Check out David's translation and how/when Vygotsky moves from using > edinitsa (translated as unit) to edinstvo (translated as unity). Then > look at how google translate indicates the overlap between these two > terms. > > Translations of ??????? (edinitsa) > > > > > > > > unit > > > > ????, ???????, ?????????????, ???????, ????, ????? > > > > > > > > unity > > > > ????????, ???????, ????????, ????????????, ????????, ????????? > > > > > > one > > > > ???????, ????????, ????? ???? > > > > > > Translations of ???????? (edinstvo) > > noun > > > > > > unity > > > > ????????, ???????, ????????, ????????????, ????????, ????????? > > > > > > oneness > > > > ????????, ????????????????, ?????????, ???????????, ????????, ??????????? > > > > > > > > solidarity > > > > ????????????, ????????????, ????????, ????????, ???????? > > > > > > > > accord > > > > > > ????????????, ????????, ??????????, ??????????????, ??????, ???????? > > > > > > > So far as I can tell, the Russians are no clearer on this matter than > those trying to sort through the matter in English. > > > mike > > > > > > > On Sat, Jul 5, 2014 at 1:43 AM, Andy Blunden > wrote: > > For sure Alfredo, Dewey seems to be suggesting that "an experience" is > what we would call a unit of artistic creation or appreciation, and if > this is the case, then certainly his concept of "an experience" > would have > a much wider application. But I am hesitant to go too far into > this just > now because (1) I don't think Dewey was himself entirely clear on this > concept of "unit", and (2) most of the CHAT people who are > participating > in this discussion around perezhivanie are certainly confused > about what > Vygotsky meant by "unit." Vygotsky was not confused, but Nikolai > Veresov > has drawn my attention to the fact that even the authoritative Minnick > translation of "Thinking and Speech" has, on occasion, mixed up > 'unit' and > 'unity' in the process of translating into English. > So before we get into Dewey on units and experiences, I am very > concerned > that we are all very clear on what Vygotsky said on the subject! > Andy > > > > Thank you Andy for furthering the discussion. I was trying to > quickly > > follow the scheme of thinking presented in your paper when I > typed that > > "doing and undergoing" was a microcosm, and I realize now (and > agree with > > you) that that was not correct. If a unit is relative to "some > complex > > process whose analysis is at issue," I find the unit that Dewey > proposes > > in defining "/an/ experience" as being relative not only to the > process of > > producing/interpreting a work of art, but to the more general human > > sense-full experience, as opposed to "incohate" experience. Is > not there > > something common to art-making in any making? I find > formulations very > > close to his notion of /an/ experience in "Experience and > Education" and > > in "Logic: theory of inquiry," where the complex process whose > analysis is > > at issue is not art. The most prevalent topic is that experience > extends > > both temporally and socially. In following up the discussion on > unity and > > unit, I suggest that what Dewey defines as /an/ experience can > be thought > > as a microcosm of human sense-full experience during joint > activity, and > > that is the problem that I attempt to address my self in the > episodes of > > interest in my own research, which all have in common people > together > > doing things and thereby changing both themselves and their > settings in > > the making. I guess that a larger question would be how well the > unit that > > we may call /an/ experience retains all the aspects of the complex > > phenomenon of sense-full experience in activity. I think we do > part of the > > work with regard to that discussion in the paper the link of > which I have > > given before by drawing possible connections between Dewey, > Vygotsky, and > > other phenomenological thinking. I think the issue of unit/unity is > > important, and will continue elaborating on it in my further > > thinking/writing/doing. > > > > Best, > > Alfredo > > > > > > ________________________________________ > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > on > > behalf of Andy Blunden > > > Sent: 04 July 2014 14:22 > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: LSV on language as a model of development > > > > Thank you, Alfredo, I think you have made a lot of progress in > > clarifying these problems and these formulations I do find much more > > satisfactory. Thank you, because in taking my apparently petty and > > nit-picking criticism seriously, some real steps towards clarity > have > > been made. But there is still some more to do. :) > > > > Here's Dewey's "Having An Experience" by the way: > > > http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/us/an-experience.htm > > > > A unit is always *also a unity*. "An experience" is a unity in > the sense > > which Dewey so graphically describes, in that it marks itself > off from > > the general background of experience and has an inherent > completeness > > about it: "complete in itself, standing out because marked out > from what > > went before and what came after." > > > > And it is invariably is also a unity of disparate elements, such as > > sound and meaning, recognition and self-consciousness, doing and > > suffering,defect andf compensation, use and exchange-value, etc.. > > Generally, I think people recognise this aspect of units. What is I > > think widely not understood is the relation of the unit to the whole > > process. > > > > Unit is always a relative term, i.e., it is a unit of some complex > > process whose analysis is at issue: the process at issue is seen > to be > > made up of a large number of said units. Your claim is that an > > experience is "a unit of analysis for the relation between doing and > > undergoing." But I find this "relation between doing and > undergoing" an > > entirely unclear concept. It sounds more like a readymade answer > than a > > question or problem to be solved. Usually, if there is a > concept, there > > is a word for it already at hand. Who asked for an analysis of the > > relation-between-doing-and-undergoing? When Vygotsky posed the > problem > > of the relation of thinking and speaking this question already had a > > long and well-known history in Western philosophy and > psychology, and I > > believe it was already understood to be related to the problem > of the > > intellect. I think Dewey was prompted to write this article by a > > consideration of *art*: "Every work of art follows the plan of, and > > pattern of, a complete experience, rendering it more intensely and > > concentratedly felt." > > > > But Dewey's article has lately been picked up out of interest in > > perezhivanie, hasn't it? For me, it was because Dewey reminded > us that > > "an experience" can have a meaning and power much like the Russian > > perezhivanie, and that it is very different from "experience." So I > > question this supposed definition of the problem - "the relation of > > doing and undergoing." The unit of analysis is a singular > concept of the > > process as a whole, and if we do not have a provisional concept > of the > > process as a whole, then I think we are on very uncertain ground. > > > > Also, in the article you cited, I was at pains to point out that a > > "unit" is *not* a "microcosm." Marx selected a commodity as the > unit of > > bourgeois society; if he had wanted a *microcosm* he would have > selected > > a capitalist firm (= a unit of capital), the *highest* product, > a whole > > "world" in which the entire process (bourgeois society = the world > > market) is contained complete in miniature form - the most developed > > relation of the whole process. The commodity only contains all the > > phenomena of bourgeois society *in embryo* (=cell form). But did you > > mean that "the relation of doing and undergoing" is the > microcosm? Not > > clear on that. > > > > You refer to "joint development". Is this the subject matter of > > interest? What *is* the problem in fact? Until we are clear on that > > units of analysis are not in the frame. > > > > Andy > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > *Andy Blunden* > > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > > > > > > Alfredo Gil Jornet wrote: > >> Initially, I meant unity of doing and undergoing in the sense > that, in > >> /an/ experience, the one aspect cannot be reduced to the > >> other. So, doing and undergoing, as I read them in Dewey, and > as you > >> agree, constitute a unity. It is precisely in the > difference/distance > >> between the doing and the undergoing that an experience extends in > >> time and action as a real, dynamic, but unitary phenomenon. I > guess we > >> all agree on this. > >> > >> I acknowledge my loose use of the term "unit" in the > >> previous description, and understand your concern about it. So > far, I > >> have been using the notion "unit" to mean "unit of analysis." > As unit, > >> /an/ experience may be thought as "a product of analysis which, > unlike > >> elements, retains all the basic properties of the whole and which > >> cannot be further divided without losing them." That is how we > attempt > >> to articulate it here in the context of science education: > >> http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/enhanced/doi/10.1002/sce.21085/ > I have > >> further expanded those ideas in other works under review. > >> > >> However, after Andy raised concern about the difference between > "unit" > >> and "unity," I realized that I had not a clear-enough answer as > to the > >> differences between the two. So I quickly went to the literature to > >> make my mind clearer before answering. Following an initial > reading, > >> here is my attempt to be more specific about it: One could > argue that > >> "an experience", rather than "experience" as general conception > (and > >> this difference may not be clear enough in any of my previous > >> writings), could be thought of as a unit of analysis for the > relation > >> between doing and undergoing, which is a "microcosm" of human > >> experience during episodes of joint development. Obviously, here I > >> am trying to roughly follow a scheme you provide in "Outlines" > (2009). > >> Does this line of thought make sense? > >> > >> Thanks to this discussion, I realize that I need to make clearer > >> statements about how the connections that I entertain between Dewey > >> and Vygotsky in my dissertation constitute a "unit", a > "substance", or > >> neither of them. Thank you very much for opening this dimension of > >> inquiry to me! > >> > >> Best, > >> Alfredo > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> ________________________________________ > >> From: Andy Blunden > > >> Sent: 04 July 2014 07:25:45 > >> To: lchcmike@gmail.com > >> Cc: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity; Alfredo Gil Jornet > >> Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: LSV on language as a model of development > >> > >> Maybe, but Alfredo has been working with W-M Roth, and in a > recent paper > >> Roth claims to quote Vygotsky saying that experience is "the > dynamic > >> unit of affective and intellectual processes" (Roth's > translation) and > >> goes on to make it clear that this was not a slip of the pen, > but he > >> means "unit". > >> Andy > >> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >> *Andy Blunden* > >> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > > >> > >> > >> mike cole wrote: > >> > That is how I interpreted Alfredo, Andy. > >> > (signed) > >> > > >> > an /in/-experienced oldtimer > >> > mike > >> > > >> > > >> > On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 6:45 PM, Andy Blunden > > >> > >> wrote: > >> > > >> > I am familiar with Dewey's work on this, Alfredo, and I > too have > >> > found it > >> > very useful. That was not my problem. But thinking about > it, I > >> > suspect it > >> > was just an English expression problem. > >> > You said "experience is a unit of doing and undergoing". > But I > >> > think you > >> > meant to say "experience is a unity of doing and undergoing," > >> which is > >> > certainly true. Just as activity is a unity of > consciousness and > >> > behaviour, or identity is a unity of recognition and > >> > self-consciousness, > >> > etc. > >> > But a *unit* is something different from *unity*. > "Experience" > >> in this > >> > sense is not a unit at all; "an experience" can be a > unit, but not > >> > a unit > >> > of doing and undergoing. > >> > > >> > Is that right, Alfredo? > >> > Andy > >> > > >> > > Dewey, most extensively in chapter 3 of "Art as > experience", > >> makes a > >> > > distinction between the general stream of experience, > and an > >> > experience, > >> > > which, according to him, is the experience that "is a > whole and > >> > carries > >> > > with it its own individualizing quality and > self-sufficiency". > >> > After the > >> > > fact, an experience "has a unity that gives it its > name, that > >> > meal, that > >> > > storm, that rupture of friendship", Dewey writes. He > further > >> > says that, > >> > > within that unity, there is both an aspect of doing, of > >> > initiation, and > >> > > another of undergoing, "of suffering in its large > sense". He > >> further > >> > > articulates the relation between the doing and the > undergoing in > >> > terms of > >> > > "anticipation" and "consummation" "Anticipation" he > writes "is > >> the > >> > > connecting link between the next doing and its outcome for > >> > sense. What is > >> > > done and what is undergone are thus reciprocally, > >> cumulatively, and > >> > > continuously instrumental to each other" > >> > > > >> > > Although in most passages these notes have a rather > >> > individualistic taste, > >> > > he goes on to clarify that there is a prominent public > >> character in > >> > > experience: "without external embodiment, an experience > remains > >> > > incomplete" he says. In the same chapter, he also > argues that > >> > "it is not > >> > > possible to divide in a vital experience the practical, > >> > emotional, and > >> > > intellectual from one another." Both these conditions > may make > >> > it possible > >> > > to draw connections between Dewey's notion of > experience and > >> > Vygotsky's > >> > > perezivanie. > >> > > > >> > > In any case, I find interesting the dialectic Dewey > proposes > >> > between doing > >> > > and undergoing as aspects of a minimal unit of sense-full > >> experience > >> > > because it allows for thinking of being immersed in a > >> developmental > >> > > situation in which the final form already exists before the > >> > intellect > >> > > grasps it, so that we do not need to put individual > knowledge > >> > > constructions as who puts the cart before the horse. > >> > > > >> > > But this is my reading, which may have obviated other > aspects > >> > that would > >> > > preclude this reading? > >> > > Hope this was of help. > >> > > Best, > >> > > > >> > > Alfredo > >> > > ________________________________________ > >> > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> on > >> > > behalf of Andy Blunden > >> > >> > >> > > Sent: 03 July 2014 17:17 > >> > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > >> > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: LSV on language as a model of > development > >> > > > >> > > Alfredo, what did you mean by: > >> > >> ... as he argued, experience is a unit of doing and > undergoing, > >> > > > >> > > Andy > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > From lchcmike@gmail.com Sat Jul 5 18:08:27 2014 From: lchcmike@gmail.com (mike cole) Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2014 18:08:27 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: LSV on language as a model of development In-Reply-To: <53B7F6F8.3010101@mira.net> References: <1404377223637.27381@canterbury.ac.uk> <036576d347c948c1a3a1a8f9979f3f0f@mail-ex02.exprod.uio.no> <55415.101.176.84.138.1404400649.squirrel@wm4.pacific.net.au> <4f4922e4b47f4edc8e4d8d25915a653b@mail-ex02.exprod.uio.no> <60103.101.176.84.138.1404438319.squirrel@wm4.pacific.net.au> <53B63AD9.9000202@mira.net> <53B69C9A.6030102@mira.net> <65445.101.176.84.138.1404549809.squirrel@wm4.pacific.net.au> <53B7F6F8.3010101@mira.net> Message-ID: Well, we can take heart from the fact that at least one of us humans knows the right concepts to go with the right words, Andy! On Sat, Jul 5, 2014 at 6:00 AM, Andy Blunden wrote: > I fully accept that there is as much confusion among Russians as there is > amongst English-speakers and anyone else, Mike. The reason is that it is > not just a matter of having the right word, but of having the concept > indicated by the word! :) > "Unit of analysis" - introduced for the first time in Chapter 1 of > "Thinking and Speech" is both a longstanding concept of social science, > understood by philosophers of science pretty well, and a new name for the > Hegelian concept of "abstract concept," the first category of Volume Two of > the Science of Logic. Goethe was the first to introduce the idea in the > form of Urphanomen, Hegel then developed this to a high degree, and Marx > took it up in writing Capital, and that's where Vygotsky got it from. But > instead of using 'Urphanomen', or 'germ-cell' or 'abstract concept', he > *brilliantly* merged the idea with the existing widely-understood concept > of "unit of analysis"! So this is a concept with two roots. But one of > these roots is Hegel's Logic. Nowadays almost no-one reads Hegel's Logic. > Those who come to Hegel at all read his early book, The Phenomenology of > Spirit, which sheds no light on this issue. And among those who read and > study Hegel's Logic, how many understand it? and of those who understand > it, how many of them are familiar with Vygotsky? Very few. Unfortunately, > in the confusion, most people who are familiar with Vygotsky's writing > seem to be forgotten the meaning of the word "unit" (or to be willing to > think it has some special meaning for Vygotsky), and are unfamiliar with > the discussions about units of analysis in the social sciences, so the > challenge of understanding the Hegelian concept (never having read Hegel) > is formidable. The tendency of people to cover up their confusion with > neologs, utterly implausible claims and convoluted writing compounds the > problem. I was lucky in having read Marx and Hegel (and Ilyenkov) before I > ever read Vygotsky, and before I read any present-day interpretations or > explanations of Vygotsky. I am sure if I had read that material in the > reverse order I would be as confused as I believe almost everyone else is. > > with apologies, > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *Andy Blunden* > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > > mike cole wrote: > >> The Russian language has more than a little ambiguity here as well, Andy. >> Check out David's translation and how/when Vygotsky moves from using >> edinitsa (translated as unit) to edinstvo (translated as unity). Then >> look at how google translate indicates the overlap between these two terms. >> >> Translations of ??????? (edinitsa) >> >> >> >> >> >> unit >> >> >> >> ????, ???????, ?????????????, ???????, ????, ????? >> >> >> >> >> >> unity >> >> >> >> ????????, ???????, ????????, ????????????, ????????, ????????? >> >> >> >> >> one >> >> >> >> ???????, ????????, ????? ???? >> >> >> >> Translations of ???????? (edinstvo) >> >> noun >> >> >> >> >> unity >> >> >> >> ????????, ???????, ????????, ????????????, ????????, ????????? >> >> >> >> >> oneness >> >> >> >> ????????, ????????????????, ?????????, ???????????, ????????, ??????????? >> >> >> >> >> >> solidarity >> >> >> >> ????????????, ????????????, ????????, ????????, ???????? >> >> >> >> >> >> accord >> >> >> >> >> >> ????????????, ????????, ??????????, ??????????????, ??????, ???????? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> So far as I can tell, the Russians are no clearer on this matter than >> those trying to sort through the matter in English. >> >> >> mike >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sat, Jul 5, 2014 at 1:43 AM, Andy Blunden > ablunden@mira.net>> wrote: >> >> For sure Alfredo, Dewey seems to be suggesting that "an experience" is >> what we would call a unit of artistic creation or appreciation, and if >> this is the case, then certainly his concept of "an experience" >> would have >> a much wider application. But I am hesitant to go too far into >> this just >> now because (1) I don't think Dewey was himself entirely clear on this >> concept of "unit", and (2) most of the CHAT people who are >> participating >> in this discussion around perezhivanie are certainly confused >> about what >> Vygotsky meant by "unit." Vygotsky was not confused, but Nikolai >> Veresov >> has drawn my attention to the fact that even the authoritative Minnick >> translation of "Thinking and Speech" has, on occasion, mixed up >> 'unit' and >> 'unity' in the process of translating into English. >> So before we get into Dewey on units and experiences, I am very >> concerned >> that we are all very clear on what Vygotsky said on the subject! >> Andy >> >> >> > Thank you Andy for furthering the discussion. I was trying to >> quickly >> > follow the scheme of thinking presented in your paper when I >> typed that >> > "doing and undergoing" was a microcosm, and I realize now (and >> agree with >> > you) that that was not correct. If a unit is relative to "some >> complex >> > process whose analysis is at issue," I find the unit that Dewey >> proposes >> > in defining "/an/ experience" as being relative not only to the >> process of >> > producing/interpreting a work of art, but to the more general human >> > sense-full experience, as opposed to "incohate" experience. Is >> not there >> > something common to art-making in any making? I find >> formulations very >> > close to his notion of /an/ experience in "Experience and >> Education" and >> > in "Logic: theory of inquiry," where the complex process whose >> analysis is >> > at issue is not art. The most prevalent topic is that experience >> extends >> > both temporally and socially. In following up the discussion on >> unity and >> > unit, I suggest that what Dewey defines as /an/ experience can >> be thought >> > as a microcosm of human sense-full experience during joint >> activity, and >> > that is the problem that I attempt to address my self in the >> episodes of >> > interest in my own research, which all have in common people >> together >> > doing things and thereby changing both themselves and their >> settings in >> > the making. I guess that a larger question would be how well the >> unit that >> > we may call /an/ experience retains all the aspects of the complex >> > phenomenon of sense-full experience in activity. I think we do >> part of the >> > work with regard to that discussion in the paper the link of >> which I have >> > given before by drawing possible connections between Dewey, >> Vygotsky, and >> > other phenomenological thinking. I think the issue of unit/unity is >> > important, and will continue elaborating on it in my further >> > thinking/writing/doing. >> > >> > Best, >> > Alfredo >> > >> > >> > ________________________________________ >> > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >> >> > > on >> > behalf of Andy Blunden > > >> > Sent: 04 July 2014 14:22 >> > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: LSV on language as a model of development >> > >> > Thank you, Alfredo, I think you have made a lot of progress in >> > clarifying these problems and these formulations I do find much more >> > satisfactory. Thank you, because in taking my apparently petty and >> > nit-picking criticism seriously, some real steps towards clarity >> have >> > been made. But there is still some more to do. :) >> > >> > Here's Dewey's "Having An Experience" by the way: >> > >> http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/ >> works/us/an-experience.htm >> > >> > A unit is always *also a unity*. "An experience" is a unity in >> the sense >> > which Dewey so graphically describes, in that it marks itself >> off from >> > the general background of experience and has an inherent >> completeness >> > about it: "complete in itself, standing out because marked out >> from what >> > went before and what came after." >> > >> > And it is invariably is also a unity of disparate elements, such as >> > sound and meaning, recognition and self-consciousness, doing and >> > suffering,defect andf compensation, use and exchange-value, etc.. >> > Generally, I think people recognise this aspect of units. What is I >> > think widely not understood is the relation of the unit to the whole >> > process. >> > >> > Unit is always a relative term, i.e., it is a unit of some complex >> > process whose analysis is at issue: the process at issue is seen >> to be >> > made up of a large number of said units. Your claim is that an >> > experience is "a unit of analysis for the relation between doing and >> > undergoing." But I find this "relation between doing and >> undergoing" an >> > entirely unclear concept. It sounds more like a readymade answer >> than a >> > question or problem to be solved. Usually, if there is a >> concept, there >> > is a word for it already at hand. Who asked for an analysis of the >> > relation-between-doing-and-undergoing? When Vygotsky posed the >> problem >> > of the relation of thinking and speaking this question already had a >> > long and well-known history in Western philosophy and >> psychology, and I >> > believe it was already understood to be related to the problem >> of the >> > intellect. I think Dewey was prompted to write this article by a >> > consideration of *art*: "Every work of art follows the plan of, and >> > pattern of, a complete experience, rendering it more intensely and >> > concentratedly felt." >> > >> > But Dewey's article has lately been picked up out of interest in >> > perezhivanie, hasn't it? For me, it was because Dewey reminded >> us that >> > "an experience" can have a meaning and power much like the Russian >> > perezhivanie, and that it is very different from "experience." So I >> > question this supposed definition of the problem - "the relation of >> > doing and undergoing." The unit of analysis is a singular >> concept of the >> > process as a whole, and if we do not have a provisional concept >> of the >> > process as a whole, then I think we are on very uncertain ground. >> > >> > Also, in the article you cited, I was at pains to point out that a >> > "unit" is *not* a "microcosm." Marx selected a commodity as the >> unit of >> > bourgeois society; if he had wanted a *microcosm* he would have >> selected >> > a capitalist firm (= a unit of capital), the *highest* product, >> a whole >> > "world" in which the entire process (bourgeois society = the world >> > market) is contained complete in miniature form - the most developed >> > relation of the whole process. The commodity only contains all the >> > phenomena of bourgeois society *in embryo* (=cell form). But did you >> > mean that "the relation of doing and undergoing" is the >> microcosm? Not >> > clear on that. >> > >> > You refer to "joint development". Is this the subject matter of >> > interest? What *is* the problem in fact? Until we are clear on that >> > units of analysis are not in the frame. >> > >> > Andy >> > >> > >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> ------------ >> > *Andy Blunden* >> > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ >> >> > >> > >> > Alfredo Gil Jornet wrote: >> >> Initially, I meant unity of doing and undergoing in the sense >> that, in >> >> /an/ experience, the one aspect cannot be reduced to the >> >> other. So, doing and undergoing, as I read them in Dewey, and >> as you >> >> agree, constitute a unity. It is precisely in the >> difference/distance >> >> between the doing and the undergoing that an experience extends in >> >> time and action as a real, dynamic, but unitary phenomenon. I >> guess we >> >> all agree on this. >> >> >> >> I acknowledge my loose use of the term "unit" in the >> >> previous description, and understand your concern about it. So >> far, I >> >> have been using the notion "unit" to mean "unit of analysis." >> As unit, >> >> /an/ experience may be thought as "a product of analysis which, >> unlike >> >> elements, retains all the basic properties of the whole and which >> >> cannot be further divided without losing them." That is how we >> attempt >> >> to articulate it here in the context of science education: >> >> http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/enhanced/doi/10.1002/sce.21085/ >> I have >> >> further expanded those ideas in other works under review. >> >> >> >> However, after Andy raised concern about the difference between >> "unit" >> >> and "unity," I realized that I had not a clear-enough answer as >> to the >> >> differences between the two. So I quickly went to the literature to >> >> make my mind clearer before answering. Following an initial >> reading, >> >> here is my attempt to be more specific about it: One could >> argue that >> >> "an experience", rather than "experience" as general conception >> (and >> >> this difference may not be clear enough in any of my previous >> >> writings), could be thought of as a unit of analysis for the >> relation >> >> between doing and undergoing, which is a "microcosm" of human >> >> experience during episodes of joint development. Obviously, here I >> >> am trying to roughly follow a scheme you provide in "Outlines" >> (2009). >> >> Does this line of thought make sense? >> >> >> >> Thanks to this discussion, I realize that I need to make clearer >> >> statements about how the connections that I entertain between Dewey >> >> and Vygotsky in my dissertation constitute a "unit", a >> "substance", or >> >> neither of them. Thank you very much for opening this dimension of >> >> inquiry to me! >> >> >> >> Best, >> >> Alfredo >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ________________________________________ >> >> From: Andy Blunden > >> >> Sent: 04 July 2014 07:25:45 >> >> To: lchcmike@gmail.com >> >> Cc: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity; Alfredo Gil Jornet >> >> Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: LSV on language as a model of development >> >> >> >> Maybe, but Alfredo has been working with W-M Roth, and in a >> recent paper >> >> Roth claims to quote Vygotsky saying that experience is "the >> dynamic >> >> unit of affective and intellectual processes" (Roth's >> translation) and >> >> goes on to make it clear that this was not a slip of the pen, >> but he >> >> means "unit". >> >> Andy >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> ------------ >> >> *Andy Blunden* >> >> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> mike cole wrote: >> >> > That is how I interpreted Alfredo, Andy. >> >> > (signed) >> >> > >> >> > an /in/-experienced oldtimer >> >> > mike >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 6:45 PM, Andy Blunden >> >> >> > >> wrote: >> >> > >> >> > I am familiar with Dewey's work on this, Alfredo, and I >> too have >> >> > found it >> >> > very useful. That was not my problem. But thinking about >> it, I >> >> > suspect it >> >> > was just an English expression problem. >> >> > You said "experience is a unit of doing and undergoing". >> But I >> >> > think you >> >> > meant to say "experience is a unity of doing and undergoing," >> >> which is >> >> > certainly true. Just as activity is a unity of >> consciousness and >> >> > behaviour, or identity is a unity of recognition and >> >> > self-consciousness, >> >> > etc. >> >> > But a *unit* is something different from *unity*. >> "Experience" >> >> in this >> >> > sense is not a unit at all; "an experience" can be a >> unit, but not >> >> > a unit >> >> > of doing and undergoing. >> >> > >> >> > Is that right, Alfredo? >> >> > Andy >> >> > >> >> > > Dewey, most extensively in chapter 3 of "Art as >> experience", >> >> makes a >> >> > > distinction between the general stream of experience, >> and an >> >> > experience, >> >> > > which, according to him, is the experience that "is a >> whole and >> >> > carries >> >> > > with it its own individualizing quality and >> self-sufficiency". >> >> > After the >> >> > > fact, an experience "has a unity that gives it its >> name, that >> >> > meal, that >> >> > > storm, that rupture of friendship", Dewey writes. He >> further >> >> > says that, >> >> > > within that unity, there is both an aspect of doing, of >> >> > initiation, and >> >> > > another of undergoing, "of suffering in its large >> sense". He >> >> further >> >> > > articulates the relation between the doing and the >> undergoing in >> >> > terms of >> >> > > "anticipation" and "consummation" "Anticipation" he >> writes "is >> >> the >> >> > > connecting link between the next doing and its outcome for >> >> > sense. What is >> >> > > done and what is undergone are thus reciprocally, >> >> cumulatively, and >> >> > > continuously instrumental to each other" >> >> > > >> >> > > Although in most passages these notes have a rather >> >> > individualistic taste, >> >> > > he goes on to clarify that there is a prominent public >> >> character in >> >> > > experience: "without external embodiment, an experience >> remains >> >> > > incomplete" he says. In the same chapter, he also >> argues that >> >> > "it is not >> >> > > possible to divide in a vital experience the practical, >> >> > emotional, and >> >> > > intellectual from one another." Both these conditions >> may make >> >> > it possible >> >> > > to draw connections between Dewey's notion of >> experience and >> >> > Vygotsky's >> >> > > perezivanie. >> >> > > >> >> > > In any case, I find interesting the dialectic Dewey >> proposes >> >> > between doing >> >> > > and undergoing as aspects of a minimal unit of sense-full >> >> experience >> >> > > because it allows for thinking of being immersed in a >> >> developmental >> >> > > situation in which the final form already exists before the >> >> > intellect >> >> > > grasps it, so that we do not need to put individual >> knowledge >> >> > > constructions as who puts the cart before the horse. >> >> > > >> >> > > But this is my reading, which may have obviated other >> aspects >> >> > that would >> >> > > preclude this reading? >> >> > > Hope this was of help. >> >> > > Best, >> >> > > >> >> > > Alfredo >> >> > > ________________________________________ >> >> > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >> >> >> > > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> on >> >> > > behalf of Andy Blunden > >> >> > >> >> >> > > Sent: 03 July 2014 17:17 >> >> > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> >> > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: LSV on language as a model of >> development >> >> > > >> >> > > Alfredo, what did you mean by: >> >> > >> ... as he argued, experience is a unit of doing and >> undergoing, >> >> > > >> >> > > Andy >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >> > >> > >> >> >> > From ablunden@mira.net Sat Jul 5 06:11:09 2014 From: ablunden@mira.net (Andy Blunden) Date: Sat, 05 Jul 2014 23:11:09 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: LSV on language as a model of development In-Reply-To: References: <1404377223637.27381@canterbury.ac.uk> <036576d347c948c1a3a1a8f9979f3f0f@mail-ex02.exprod.uio.no> <55415.101.176.84.138.1404400649.squirrel@wm4.pacific.net.au> <4f4922e4b47f4edc8e4d8d25915a653b@mail-ex02.exprod.uio.no> <60103.101.176.84.138.1404438319.squirrel@wm4.pacific.net.au> <53B63AD9.9000202@mira.net> <53B69C9A.6030102@mira.net> <65445.101.176.84.138.1404549809.squirrel@wm4.pacific.net.au> <53B7F6F8.3010101@mira.net> Message-ID: <53B7F96D.7000901@mira.net> Yes, that's why I am apologising. Let's just let the discussion unfold and see if a consensus can be reached. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Andy Blunden* http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ mike cole wrote: > Well, we can take heart from the fact that at least one of us humans > knows the right concepts to go with the right words, Andy! > > > > > On Sat, Jul 5, 2014 at 6:00 AM, Andy Blunden > wrote: > > I fully accept that there is as much confusion among Russians as > there is amongst English-speakers and anyone else, Mike. The > reason is that it is not just a matter of having the right word, > but of having the concept indicated by the word! :) > "Unit of analysis" - introduced for the first time in Chapter 1 of > "Thinking and Speech" is both a longstanding concept of social > science, understood by philosophers of science pretty well, and a > new name for the Hegelian concept of "abstract concept," the first > category of Volume Two of the Science of Logic. Goethe was the > first to introduce the idea in the form of Urphanomen, Hegel then > developed this to a high degree, and Marx took it up in writing > Capital, and that's where Vygotsky got it from. But instead of > using 'Urphanomen', or 'germ-cell' or 'abstract concept', he > *brilliantly* merged the idea with the existing widely-understood > concept of "unit of analysis"! So this is a concept with two > roots. But one of these roots is Hegel's Logic. Nowadays almost > no-one reads Hegel's Logic. Those who come to Hegel at all read > his early book, The Phenomenology of Spirit, which sheds no light > on this issue. And among those who read and study Hegel's Logic, > how many understand it? and of those who understand it, how many > of them are familiar with Vygotsky? Very few. Unfortunately, in > the confusion, most people who are familiar with Vygotsky's > writing seem to be forgotten the meaning of the word "unit" (or to > be willing to think it has some special meaning for Vygotsky), and > are unfamiliar with the discussions about units of analysis in the > social sciences, so the challenge of understanding the Hegelian > concept (never having read Hegel) is formidable. The tendency of > people to cover up their confusion with neologs, utterly > implausible claims and convoluted writing compounds the problem. I > was lucky in having read Marx and Hegel (and Ilyenkov) before I > ever read Vygotsky, and before I read any present-day > interpretations or explanations of Vygotsky. I am sure if I had > read that material in the reverse order I would be as confused as > I believe almost everyone else is. > > with apologies, > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *Andy Blunden* > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > > > mike cole wrote: > > The Russian language has more than a little ambiguity here as > well, Andy. > Check out David's translation and how/when Vygotsky moves from > using > edinitsa (translated as unit) to edinstvo (translated as > unity). Then look at how google translate indicates the > overlap between these two terms. > > Translations of ??????? (edinitsa) > > > > > > unit > > > > ????, ???????, ?????????????, ???????, ????, ????? > > > > > > unity > > > > ????????, ???????, ????????, ????????????, ????????, ????????? > > > > > one > > > > ???????, ????????, ????? ???? > > > > Translations of ???????? (edinstvo) > > noun > > > > > unity > > > > ????????, ???????, ????????, ????????????, ????????, ????????? > > > > > oneness > > > > ????????, ????????????????, ?????????, ???????????, ????????, > ??????????? > > > > > > solidarity > > > > ????????????, ????????????, ????????, ????????, ???????? > > > > > > accord > > > > > > ????????????, ????????, ??????????, ??????????????, ??????, > ???????? > > > > > > > So far as I can tell, the Russians are no clearer on this > matter than those trying to sort through the matter in English. > > > mike > > > > > > On Sat, Jul 5, 2014 at 1:43 AM, Andy Blunden > > >> wrote: > > For sure Alfredo, Dewey seems to be suggesting that "an > experience" is > what we would call a unit of artistic creation or > appreciation, and if > this is the case, then certainly his concept of "an > experience" > would have > a much wider application. But I am hesitant to go too far into > this just > now because (1) I don't think Dewey was himself entirely > clear on this > concept of "unit", and (2) most of the CHAT people who are > participating > in this discussion around perezhivanie are certainly confused > about what > Vygotsky meant by "unit." Vygotsky was not confused, but > Nikolai > Veresov > has drawn my attention to the fact that even the > authoritative Minnick > translation of "Thinking and Speech" has, on occasion, > mixed up > 'unit' and > 'unity' in the process of translating into English. > So before we get into Dewey on units and experiences, I am > very > concerned > that we are all very clear on what Vygotsky said on the > subject! > Andy > > > > Thank you Andy for furthering the discussion. I was > trying to > quickly > > follow the scheme of thinking presented in your paper when I > typed that > > "doing and undergoing" was a microcosm, and I realize > now (and > agree with > > you) that that was not correct. If a unit is relative to > "some > complex > > process whose analysis is at issue," I find the unit > that Dewey > proposes > > in defining "/an/ experience" as being relative not only > to the > process of > > producing/interpreting a work of art, but to the more > general human > > sense-full experience, as opposed to "incohate" > experience. Is > not there > > something common to art-making in any making? I find > formulations very > > close to his notion of /an/ experience in "Experience and > Education" and > > in "Logic: theory of inquiry," where the complex process > whose > analysis is > > at issue is not art. The most prevalent topic is that > experience > extends > > both temporally and socially. In following up the > discussion on > unity and > > unit, I suggest that what Dewey defines as /an/ > experience can > be thought > > as a microcosm of human sense-full experience during joint > activity, and > > that is the problem that I attempt to address my self in the > episodes of > > interest in my own research, which all have in common people > together > > doing things and thereby changing both themselves and their > settings in > > the making. I guess that a larger question would be how > well the > unit that > > we may call /an/ experience retains all the aspects of > the complex > > phenomenon of sense-full experience in activity. I think > we do > part of the > > work with regard to that discussion in the paper the link of > which I have > > given before by drawing possible connections between Dewey, > Vygotsky, and > > other phenomenological thinking. I think the issue of > unit/unity is > > important, and will continue elaborating on it in my further > > thinking/writing/doing. > > > > Best, > > Alfredo > > > > > > ________________________________________ > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > > > >> on > > behalf of Andy Blunden > >> > > Sent: 04 July 2014 14:22 > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: LSV on language as a model of > development > > > > Thank you, Alfredo, I think you have made a lot of > progress in > > clarifying these problems and these formulations I do > find much more > > satisfactory. Thank you, because in taking my apparently > petty and > > nit-picking criticism seriously, some real steps towards > clarity > have > > been made. But there is still some more to do. :) > > > > Here's Dewey's "Having An Experience" by the way: > > > > http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/us/an-experience.htm > > > > A unit is always *also a unity*. "An experience" is a > unity in > the sense > > which Dewey so graphically describes, in that it marks > itself > off from > > the general background of experience and has an inherent > completeness > > about it: "complete in itself, standing out because > marked out > from what > > went before and what came after." > > > > And it is invariably is also a unity of disparate > elements, such as > > sound and meaning, recognition and self-consciousness, > doing and > > suffering,defect andf compensation, use and > exchange-value, etc.. > > Generally, I think people recognise this aspect of > units. What is I > > think widely not understood is the relation of the unit > to the whole > > process. > > > > Unit is always a relative term, i.e., it is a unit of > some complex > > process whose analysis is at issue: the process at issue > is seen > to be > > made up of a large number of said units. Your claim is > that an > > experience is "a unit of analysis for the relation > between doing and > > undergoing." But I find this "relation between doing and > undergoing" an > > entirely unclear concept. It sounds more like a > readymade answer > than a > > question or problem to be solved. Usually, if there is a > concept, there > > is a word for it already at hand. Who asked for an > analysis of the > > relation-between-doing-and-undergoing? When Vygotsky > posed the > problem > > of the relation of thinking and speaking this question > already had a > > long and well-known history in Western philosophy and > psychology, and I > > believe it was already understood to be related to the > problem > of the > > intellect. I think Dewey was prompted to write this > article by a > > consideration of *art*: "Every work of art follows the > plan of, and > > pattern of, a complete experience, rendering it more > intensely and > > concentratedly felt." > > > > But Dewey's article has lately been picked up out of > interest in > > perezhivanie, hasn't it? For me, it was because Dewey > reminded > us that > > "an experience" can have a meaning and power much like > the Russian > > perezhivanie, and that it is very different from > "experience." So I > > question this supposed definition of the problem - "the > relation of > > doing and undergoing." The unit of analysis is a singular > concept of the > > process as a whole, and if we do not have a provisional > concept > of the > > process as a whole, then I think we are on very > uncertain ground. > > > > Also, in the article you cited, I was at pains to point > out that a > > "unit" is *not* a "microcosm." Marx selected a commodity > as the > unit of > > bourgeois society; if he had wanted a *microcosm* he > would have > selected > > a capitalist firm (= a unit of capital), the *highest* > product, > a whole > > "world" in which the entire process (bourgeois society = > the world > > market) is contained complete in miniature form - the > most developed > > relation of the whole process. The commodity only > contains all the > > phenomena of bourgeois society *in embryo* (=cell form). > But did you > > mean that "the relation of doing and undergoing" is the > microcosm? Not > > clear on that. > > > > You refer to "joint development". Is this the subject > matter of > > interest? What *is* the problem in fact? Until we are > clear on that > > units of analysis are not in the frame. > > > > Andy > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > *Andy Blunden* > > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > > > > > > > Alfredo Gil Jornet wrote: > >> Initially, I meant unity of doing and undergoing in the > sense > that, in > >> /an/ experience, the one aspect cannot be reduced to the > >> other. So, doing and undergoing, as I read them in > Dewey, and > as you > >> agree, constitute a unity. It is precisely in the > difference/distance > >> between the doing and the undergoing that an experience > extends in > >> time and action as a real, dynamic, but unitary > phenomenon. I > guess we > >> all agree on this. > >> > >> I acknowledge my loose use of the term "unit" in the > >> previous description, and understand your concern about > it. So > far, I > >> have been using the notion "unit" to mean "unit of > analysis." > As unit, > >> /an/ experience may be thought as "a product of > analysis which, > unlike > >> elements, retains all the basic properties of the whole > and which > >> cannot be further divided without losing them." That is > how we > attempt > >> to articulate it here in the context of science education: > >> > http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/enhanced/doi/10.1002/sce.21085/ > I have > >> further expanded those ideas in other works under review. > >> > >> However, after Andy raised concern about the difference > between > "unit" > >> and "unity," I realized that I had not a clear-enough > answer as > to the > >> differences between the two. So I quickly went to the > literature to > >> make my mind clearer before answering. Following an initial > reading, > >> here is my attempt to be more specific about it: One could > argue that > >> "an experience", rather than "experience" as general > conception > (and > >> this difference may not be clear enough in any of my > previous > >> writings), could be thought of as a unit of analysis > for the > relation > >> between doing and undergoing, which is a "microcosm" of > human > >> experience during episodes of joint development. > Obviously, here I > >> am trying to roughly follow a scheme you provide in > "Outlines" > (2009). > >> Does this line of thought make sense? > >> > >> Thanks to this discussion, I realize that I need to > make clearer > >> statements about how the connections that I entertain > between Dewey > >> and Vygotsky in my dissertation constitute a "unit", a > "substance", or > >> neither of them. Thank you very much for opening this > dimension of > >> inquiry to me! > >> > >> Best, > >> Alfredo > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> ________________________________________ > >> From: Andy Blunden >> > >> Sent: 04 July 2014 07:25:45 > >> To: lchcmike@gmail.com > > > >> Cc: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity; Alfredo Gil Jornet > >> Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: LSV on language as a model of > development > >> > >> Maybe, but Alfredo has been working with W-M Roth, and in a > recent paper > >> Roth claims to quote Vygotsky saying that experience is > "the > dynamic > >> unit of affective and intellectual processes" (Roth's > translation) and > >> goes on to make it clear that this was not a slip of > the pen, > but he > >> means "unit". > >> Andy > >> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >> *Andy Blunden* > >> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > > > >> > >> > >> mike cole wrote: > >> > That is how I interpreted Alfredo, Andy. > >> > (signed) > >> > > >> > an /in/-experienced oldtimer > >> > mike > >> > > >> > > >> > On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 6:45 PM, Andy Blunden > > > > >> > > >>> wrote: > >> > > >> > I am familiar with Dewey's work on this, Alfredo, > and I > too have > >> > found it > >> > very useful. That was not my problem. But > thinking about > it, I > >> > suspect it > >> > was just an English expression problem. > >> > You said "experience is a unit of doing and > undergoing". > But I > >> > think you > >> > meant to say "experience is a unity of doing and > undergoing," > >> which is > >> > certainly true. Just as activity is a unity of > consciousness and > >> > behaviour, or identity is a unity of recognition and > >> > self-consciousness, > >> > etc. > >> > But a *unit* is something different from *unity*. > "Experience" > >> in this > >> > sense is not a unit at all; "an experience" can be a > unit, but not > >> > a unit > >> > of doing and undergoing. > >> > > >> > Is that right, Alfredo? > >> > Andy > >> > > >> > > Dewey, most extensively in chapter 3 of "Art as > experience", > >> makes a > >> > > distinction between the general stream of > experience, > and an > >> > experience, > >> > > which, according to him, is the experience that > "is a > whole and > >> > carries > >> > > with it its own individualizing quality and > self-sufficiency". > >> > After the > >> > > fact, an experience "has a unity that gives it its > name, that > >> > meal, that > >> > > storm, that rupture of friendship", Dewey > writes. He > further > >> > says that, > >> > > within that unity, there is both an aspect of > doing, of > >> > initiation, and > >> > > another of undergoing, "of suffering in its large > sense". He > >> further > >> > > articulates the relation between the doing and the > undergoing in > >> > terms of > >> > > "anticipation" and "consummation" "Anticipation" he > writes "is > >> the > >> > > connecting link between the next doing and its > outcome for > >> > sense. What is > >> > > done and what is undergone are thus reciprocally, > >> cumulatively, and > >> > > continuously instrumental to each other" > >> > > > >> > > Although in most passages these notes have a rather > >> > individualistic taste, > >> > > he goes on to clarify that there is a prominent > public > >> character in > >> > > experience: "without external embodiment, an > experience > remains > >> > > incomplete" he says. In the same chapter, he also > argues that > >> > "it is not > >> > > possible to divide in a vital experience the > practical, > >> > emotional, and > >> > > intellectual from one another." Both these > conditions > may make > >> > it possible > >> > > to draw connections between Dewey's notion of > experience and > >> > Vygotsky's > >> > > perezivanie. > >> > > > >> > > In any case, I find interesting the dialectic Dewey > proposes > >> > between doing > >> > > and undergoing as aspects of a minimal unit of > sense-full > >> experience > >> > > because it allows for thinking of being > immersed in a > >> developmental > >> > > situation in which the final form already > exists before the > >> > intellect > >> > > grasps it, so that we do not need to put individual > knowledge > >> > > constructions as who puts the cart before the > horse. > >> > > > >> > > But this is my reading, which may have obviated > other > aspects > >> > that would > >> > > preclude this reading? > >> > > Hope this was of help. > >> > > Best, > >> > > > >> > > Alfredo > >> > > ________________________________________ > >> > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > > >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > >>> on > >> > > behalf of Andy Blunden > > > >> > >>> > >> > > Sent: 03 July 2014 17:17 > >> > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > >> > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: LSV on language as a model of > development > >> > > > >> > > Alfredo, what did you mean by: > >> > >> ... as he argued, experience is a unit of > doing and > undergoing, > >> > > > >> > > Andy > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > From greg.a.thompson@gmail.com Sat Jul 5 18:28:19 2014 From: greg.a.thompson@gmail.com (Greg Thompson) Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2014 20:28:19 -0500 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Unit of analysis RE: experience In-Reply-To: <71e046598be54134929fb9f6ea728b32@CO2PR0501MB855.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> References: <16f1eac230074659af10a179ca869b11@CO2PR0501MB855.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9016298@CIO-TNC-D2MBX01.osuad.osu.edu> <872AE5F5-0E3F-46EB-B655-A9E6781B0FC2@gmail.com> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F90162CD@CIO-TNC-D2MBX01.osuad.osu.edu> <71e046598be54134929fb9f6ea728b32@CO2PR0501MB855.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> Message-ID: Couldn't resist sharing an exchange (below) that F. W. Taylor supposedly had with one of his workers (as recounted by Taylor in an article titled "Scientific Management" - the worker suspected to be behind this story is actually named Henry Noll, but "Schmidt" is the pseudonym given to him by Taylor so that he can take some liberties with the character - adjusting "Schmidt's" accent down while adjusting his salary up for the purposes of the story - $1.60 is what Noll was the higher salary that Noll was given vs. $1.85 in the story). I've pasted it below. But more than that, I wonder if we could imagine a scientific management that wouldn't be the bain of workers' existence? This is what Taylor and many others thought that they were doing. Yes, we can argue about Taylor's intentions, but in the abstract (and notwithstanding the evidence to the contrary below), getting more labor out of the same amount of labor time SHOULD be of benefit to all. In an ideally communistic system, it would be. Perhaps "scientific management" then is an entirely different thing when considered within the context of capitalism as compared to what it is when considered within a (ideal?) communistic system. Is that fair? -greg What did Taylor say to Schmidt to get him to increase his output 400% with only a 60% pay increase [this is taken directly from F. W. Taylor?s article on ?The Principles of Scientific Management?. Note the ?accent? is Schmidt?s accent - according to Taylor. Also note that Taylor is the other speaker] ?Schmidt, are you a high-priced man?? ?Vell, I don?t know vat you mean.? ?Oh yes, you do. What I want to know is whether you are a high-priced man or not.? ?Vell, I don?t know vat you mean.? ?Oh, come now, you answer my questions. What I want to find out is whether you are a high-priced man or one of these cheap fellows here. What I want to find out is whether you want to earn $1.85 a day or whether you are satisfied with $1.15, just the same as all those cheap fellows are getting.? ?Did I vant $1.85 a day? Vas dot a high-priced man? Vell, yes, I vas a high-priced man.? ?Oh, you?re aggravating me. Of course you want $1.85 a day ? every one wants it! You know perfectly well that that has very little to do with your being a high-priced man. For goodness? sake answer my questions, and don?t waste any more of my time. Now come over here. You see that pile of pig iron?? ?Yes.? ?You see that car?? ?Yes.? ?Well, if you are a high-priced man, you will load that pig iron on that car tomorrow for $1.85. Now do wake up and answer my question. Tell me whether you are a high-priced man or not.? ?Vell ? did I got $1.85 for loading dot pig iron on dot car to-morrow?? ?Yes, of course you do, and you get $1.85 for loading a pile like that every day right through the year. That is what a high-priced man does, and you know it just as well as I do.? ?Vell, dot?s all right. I could load dot pig iron on the car to-morrow for $1.85, and I get it every day, don?t I?? ?Certainly you do ? certainly you do.? ?Vell, den, I vas a high-priced man.? ?Now, hold on, hold on. You know just as well as I do that a high-priced man has to do exactly as he?s told from morning till night. You have seen this man here before, haven?t you?? ?No, I never saw him.? ?Well, if you are a high-priced man, you will do exactly as this man tells you to-morrow, from morning till night. When he tells you to pick up a pig and walk, you pick it up and you walk, and when he tells you to sit down and rest, you sit down. You do that right straight through the day. And what?s more, no back talk. Now a high-priced man does just what he?s told to do, and no back talk. Do you understand that? When this man tells you to walk, you walk; when he tells you to sit down, you sit down, and you don?t talk back at him. Now you come on to work here to-morrow morning and I?ll know before night whether you are really a high-priced man or not.? and Taylor?s comments: "This seems to be rather rough talk. And indeed it would be if applied to an educated mechanic, or even an intelligent laborer. With a man of the mentally sluggish type of Schmidt it is appropriate and not unkind, since it is effective in fixing his attention on the high wages which he wants and away from what, if it were called to his attention, he probably would consider impossibly hard work? ." Here is a link to the full text: http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/pds/gilded/progress/text3/taylor.pdf On Fri, Jul 4, 2014 at 11:54 AM, Lubomir Savov Popov wrote: > Hello everyone, > > I proposed expert management, envisaging the alternative attempts by the > the Moscow Methodological Circle (MMC) and the movement for evidence-based > practice. Although these are very different approaches, they are based on > the belief that science (as a social institution, not just Positivism) can > contribute to more efficient and productive problem solving. > > What about activity theory as a new way to organize? A new way to manage? > > One of the big contributions of activity theory can happen in that field. > The Moscow Methodological Circle (MMC) developed a new type of activity > theorizing that can be used as a methodological tool for improving > activities and their organization. The work of MMC is very different from > the tradition of mainstream Soviet psychologists, including LSV, Luria, > Lentiev, Rubinshtein, although they have started with their ideas. In most > cases, MMC theorists come from different disciplines but share a > philosophical background and affiliations. This makes them very different > from psychologists and psychology trained scholars. The MMC were dissidents > in science and in politics. While they were revolutionary in science, they > were not vocal at all on the political arena. They proposed the idea of > expert government and management. Of course, this idea was threatening to > the political establishment in the Soviet Union because they were managing > by objectives, enslaving experts with the help of the commissar institution > in factories, universities, and all spheres of life. The MMC tried to live > by proposing new social technologies. They were among the first to propose > the idea of social design and the role of activity theory in that realm. > The paradox was that although they were strongly against the establishment, > they were developing tools for this establishment. This is the tragedy of > the experts who in order to work and grow professionally, have to serve > politicians whom they despise. > > Best wishes, > > Lubomir > > > -----Original Message----- > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Helena Worthen > Sent: Friday, July 04, 2014 12:19 PM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Unit of analysis RE: experience > > Hi - > > I think we're talking about the same thing. Only "scientific management" > is how " a knowledge pool separate from the actual activity of problem > solving...is then used to control those very problem solvers" in the > workplace. > > http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/economics/taylor > > It was the creation of Frederick Winslow Taylor (1856-1915) -- lots about > him on wikipedia. He was a mechanical engineer who worked in the steel > industry in Pennsylvania (steel = railroads at that time) and did > observations of workers, abstracted their motions, designed "perfect" > motions, then taught those "perfect" motions to other workers. This was the > basis for profound re-design of workplaces. He is famous for saying, "The > worker's brain in on the boss's shoulders." His technique made it possible > to chop craft work (which required many years of experience and practice) > into tiny patterned snips which would be then taught to a less experienced > -- and less expensive -- worker. > > We say that certain jobs have been "taylorized" -- meaning that what was > originally (or what could have been) a job that combined both finger or > muscle skills with complex judgment becomes cut up into tiny bits and the > judgment is left to the management. Organizational implications: the > assembly line becomes possible, middle management comes into existence to > manage the taylorized workers. > > You can see taylorization in education as teachers are required to "teach > to the test." And in many other workplaces, too. > > Helena > > > Helena Worthen > helenaworthen@gmail.com > > On Jul 4, 2014, at 11:27 AM, Glassman, Michael wrote: > > > Hi Helena, > > > > I'm not familiar with scientific management. If you mean Argyris' > action science than the answer would be yes. That is because Action > Science is based on Lewin's Action Research, which in turn was strongly > influenced by Dewey (not through Lewin but other members of the originating > team). > > > > Otherwise you'll have to explain to me what scientific management is. > > > > Michael > > ________________________________________ > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] > on behalf of Helena Worthen [helenaworthen@gmail.com] > > Sent: Friday, July 04, 2014 11:16 AM > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Unit of analysis RE: experience > > > > Michael -- > > > > Isn't this the basic idea behind Scientific Management? > > > > Helena > > > > > > Helena Worthen > > helenaworthen@gmail.com > > > > On Jul 4, 2014, at 11:10 AM, Glassman, Michael wrote: > > > >> Hi Lubomir, > >> > >> My feeling right now is that Dewey might disagree with your argument. > It's a pretty compelling argument and I probably cannot do it justice. > Dewey thinks that one of the mistakes we have made in the progress of > human society is in creating a knowledge base that is in some way separate > from what people are actually doing to solve problems. This create an > elite population of people who have knowledge, based on what other people > do, and then use that knowledge as a form of control. This is seems > happened first in religion and then in academics. The intellectual elites > (Dewey doesn't use that word and I wish I could come up with a better one > right now) develop a knowledge pool separate from the actual activity of > problem solving that is then used to control those very problem solvers. > >> > >> It's a pretty radical idea (I have been surprised how radical a book > Experience and Nature actually is, but also how prescient it is). > >> > >> Michael > >> ________________________________________ > >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] > on behalf of Lubomir Savov Popov [lspopov@bgsu.edu] > >> Sent: Friday, July 04, 2014 11:04 AM > >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity; ablunden@mira.net > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Unit of analysis RE: experience > >> > >> Hello every one, > >> > >> The unit of analysis is conceptualized in relation to the nature of > phenomenon, the paradigm selected, and the objectives of the project, to > name just a few. There is no problem in conceptualizing experience as an > unit of analysis. The questions are: in what projects, regarding which > situations, etc. We can conceptualize alternative units of analysis > regarding one project. The issue is which of them will be more heuristic or > more productive regarding our project. There are always competing > conceptualizations, coming from different paradigmatic traditions or ways > to look at the phenonon that is studied. We have to make a choice based on > our epistemological and methodological expertese. > >> > >> Just a few thoughts, > >> > >> Lubomir > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > -- Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Department of Anthropology 883 Spencer W. Kimball Tower Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602 http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson From lholzman@eastsideinstitute.org Sat Jul 5 20:41:47 2014 From: lholzman@eastsideinstitute.org (Lois Holzman) Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2014 23:41:47 -0400 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Playing with/at TED In-Reply-To: References: <2C6F613E-DEB0-448E-92DA-6EA0F444F039@eastsideinstitute.org> <090114A9-AC6E-4B26-8D44-DB63B275B3E8@eastsideinstitute.org> <8A4F9BDC-704C-4E9A-A773-56EFD19B9A04@eastsideinstitute.org> <83E9B13C-1108-4E6E-938A-2F75BBA6F4FA@eastsideinstitute.org> <0a7b1594f5d37f248a535fe8ed6cba3d.squirrel@webmail.uic.edu> <9E8200C6-075C-4803-800E-0B23BB4B1BD8@eastsideinstitute.org> Message-ID: Apologies, Greg, for the delay in responding to this very meaty message! I appreciate that it led you in many directions and you took the time to share them with me and xmca. I read it quickly and then overlooked it all this time. I think you've understood much of what I try to say about play but not all. I'm relieved you read me as unorthodox!! Let me try to "yes, and" you and myself. What's key to me is not restraint or not, but the reshaping ("playing with") the dialectic who we are/not who we are of, being/becoming. This is both a point of departure from Vygotsky and at the same time it comes from him. I do think that his description of early childhood learning-and-development, and of the importance of imitation, and doing what you don't know how to do ? these are instances of being/becoming and very much?in their social activity-ness?like the way he describes early childhood play as "a head taller." He, as we know, makes a distinction between play being the leading activity of young children and learning of school age children?I think he didn't see the similarity in both "Play and Non-play" for young children?at least not the similarity that I see. In both, the child is engaging in a kind of being/becoming play/performance. So for me it is the simultaneity of being who we are and who we are not (other) that is what's the exciting and life span activity of playing, performing. (You can download my chapter, without Creating ZPDs There is No Creativity, in Vygotsky and Creativity at http://loisholzman.org/media/chapters/). So games, winners, losers, etc. are features of some play but not of all play. And I like what Vygotsky has to say about this and rules and imagination. I also understand play (in my sense of it) as how we human beings create culture...we don't just appropriate it. Again, thank you, Lois Lois Holzman Director, East Side Institute for Group & Short Term Psychotherapy 104-106 South Oxford Street Brooklyn, New York 11217 Chair, Global Outreach, All Stars Project, UX Tel. +1.212.941.8906 x324 Fax +1.718.797.3966 lholzman@eastsideinstitute.org Social Media Facebook | LinkedIn | Twitter Blogs Psychology Today| Psychology of Becoming | ESI Community News Websites Lois Holzman | East Side Institute | Performing the World All Stars Project On Jun 25, 2014, at 2:09 PM, Greg Thompson wrote: > Lois, > I wonder if the following captures your meaning/sense of the word "play": > > Play is an engagement with "the otherwise". > In a sense, play involves bringing irrealis into reality. > > I really like this way of thinking about play (and I may be reading too > much into your understanding of play so please correct me if I've > misunderstood you). For me, this idea of play is much more applicable to > the lives of adults and it opens up lots of encounters to a play analysis. > I assume that this is what you mean when you say that the kids talking with > police are "playing"; they are engaged in a type of relationship and > interaction that is "otherwise" - it isn't part of the normal types of > conversation that one expects to happen. > > This points up the fact that there are structured, expected relations that > we engage in as we go about our everyday lives. Lois, what you seem to me > to be pointing to is that play involves the transformation of these > expected relations, i.e. when "the otherwise" is realized in a moment of > interaction. > > It seems that this is a rather unorthodox sense of play. I wonder if it > comes out of the fact that you work primarily with adolescents and adults, > "grown-ups" as we emically refer to them. It seems likely to me that play > is something very fundamentally different for grown-ups than it is for > children. Most Vygotsky inspired play researchers are looking at play in > toddlers and early childhood. So I am very excited by your work that brings > play into adulthood (and as Artin notes, there are others who do this but I > don't know how many theorize adult "play" as explicitly or as well as you > do). > > It seems to me that somewhere in here is where David's problem lies (and > yours, to the extent that you are willing to share this burden with him). > He is pointing to the fact that "play" may be conceived in China as "lack > of restraint", and that is why Chinese say that they haven't played since > they were 2 year olds - they have primarily experienced restraint ever > since then (regardles of how they might be engaging "the otherwise" in > their everyday lives - even "teasing" could be a kind of engagement with > "the otherwise"). And David interestingly points to the fact that play has > a class dimension - it is what the poor kids do in the streets. That seems > like a notion of play that needs to be played with. And it seems to me that > this is precisely what you are interested in doing even as you accept their > definition of play for the sake of making your argument in the first place. > > I think we could push even further still and point out that life is play in > a very real(!) sense. The taken for granted social worlds that we inhabit > and that we are trying to play with are, in the first place, play. And > yet, we often don't realize that they are play (recall Marx's "men" make > history but not of their own choosing). Additionally, once we call it > "play" we assume that it is "unreal" (cf. "social constructionism" lit of > the mid to late 20th century). Yet this play is a highly consequential form > of play because, well, there are "winners" and there are "losers", and the > consequence of "winning" or "losing" is dire (perhaps this is why the movie > Hunger Games strikes a chord with people today? b.c. they see the world > today, mid-recession, as akin to a fight to the death). > > Anyway, hopefully there is a grain of sense in all of this play with play > (in play). > > and please, let me know if I'm terribly off-base here... > > Playfully, > greg > > > > > On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 7:51 AM, Lois Holzman < > lholzman@eastsideinstitute.org> wrote: > >> Don't forget yourself, Artin! >> Lois >> >> Lois Holzman >> Director, East Side Institute for Group & Short Term Psychotherapy >> 104-106 South Oxford Street >> Brooklyn, New York 11217 >> Chair, Global Outreach, All Stars Project, UX >> Tel. +1.212.941.8906 x324 >> Fax +1.718.797.3966 >> lholzman@eastsideinstitute.org >> Social Media >> Facebook | LinkedIn | Twitter >> Blogs >> Psychology Today| Psychology of Becoming | ESI Community News >> Websites >> Lois Holzman | East Side Institute | Performing the World >> All Stars Project >> >> >> >> On Jun 23, 2014, at 7:09 PM, Goncu, Artin wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> First, this is a quick note to say that I enjoyed Lois' talk, and second, >>> I enjoyed reading the responses to Lois' talk very much. I also wanted >> to >>> add that there are others on this list who have been addressing some of >>> the important issues raised both in Lois' talk and in the responses to >> it. >>> For example, issues about play being a collective, dialectical, and >>> dialogic activity improvised in human interaction are examined by Tony >>> Perone, Carrie Lobman, Keith Sawyer, and others.. >>> >>> All the best, ag >>> >>> >>> On Mon, June 23, 2014 11:58 am, Lois Holzman wrote: >>>> Thanks, Tom. (I tried.) >>>> And I didn't realize I forgot the link. >>>> All best, >>>> Lois >>>> >>>> Lois Holzman >>>> Director, East Side Institute for Group & Short Term Psychotherapy >>>> 104-106 South Oxford Street >>>> Brooklyn, New York 11217 >>>> Chair, Global Outreach, All Stars Project, UX >>>> Tel. +1.212.941.8906 x324 >>>> Fax +1.718.797.3966 >>>> lholzman@eastsideinstitute.org >>>> Social Media >>>> Facebook | LinkedIn | Twitter >>>> Blogs >>>> Psychology Today| Psychology of Becoming | ESI Community News >>>> Websites >>>> Lois Holzman | East Side Institute | Performing the World >>>> All Stars Project >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Jun 23, 2014, at 11:19 AM, Tom Richardson >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Thank you, Lois, for finding time for this thoughtful reply to the >>>>> threads >>>>> around your TED piece -a link to your 'What's developing is below: >>>>> http://vimeo.com/98797556 >>>>> Tom >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 23 June 2014 16:01, Lois Holzman >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Thanks to all who've watched the video and commented. >>>>>> Over the weekend I completed two weeks of PLAYING WITH a "small group" >>>>>> of >>>>>> psychologists/youth workers/educators from 5 countries who were in NYC >>>>>> for >>>>>> their final residency period with me and the Institute. I kept up with >>>>>> your >>>>>> posts but wasn't able to respond until now. >>>>>> I find the discussion fascinating in a few ways, which I will try to >>>>>> describe through commenting on what's been said/written. >>>>>> >>>>>> I greatly appreciated Tom's concern ("We need Play to evolve the next >>>>>> tranche of revolutionary strategy and >>>>>>> tactics, but Play alone will never arrive at the necessity for >>>>>>> revolutionary overthrow of capitalism") and further comment and >>>>>> subsequent expansion on this ("While I did not wish to attack or >> offend >>>>>> deliberately, I feel that the >>>>>> limitations of work within individual/small group relationships, no >>>>>> matter >>>>>> how creative, redemptive and transformative, cannot have that same >>>>>> effect >>>>>> upon the 500year-developed /developing reality which is modern >>>>>> bourgeois >>>>>> society. It is that sense of limitation which I attempted, >>>>>>> straightforwardly to convey"). >>>>>> >>>>>>> Tom, I in no way felt attacked or offended. >>>>>> >>>>>>> I found Shirley and Helen's and Carol's versions of what I was doing >>>>>>> in >>>>>> the talk and what the activities I presented might be "about" very >>>>>> helpful >>>>>> and appreciated learning what they saw. I was indeed trying to >> present >>>>>> something new to the audience, something that gave them the feeling >>>>>> that >>>>>> there was more "behind it" and that something was pretty unorthodox. >>>>>> >>>>>>> I suppose the key thing I can say in response is that I was speaking >>>>>> about play in a very particular way, as revolutionary. I was really >>>>>> pleased >>>>>> that the audience for the live presentation picked up on that and was >>>>>> excited by this new way of seeing. What I think revolutionary play is >>>>>> (in >>>>>> my talk I repeated what I mean by that several times?taking what there >>>>>> is >>>>>> and making something new, doing what we do not know how to do, >> relating >>>>>> as >>>>>> who we are/other than who we are at the same time) is a >>>>>> cultural-historical >>>>>> activity that creates development, and that all of us human beings >> need >>>>>> to >>>>>> develop if we are to have a shot at overthrowing capitalism. (For >>>>>> "theory" >>>>>> the most concise expansion of this might be All Power to the >>>>>> Developing.The >>>>>> position put forth in that article has generated lively dialogue, as >> it >>>>>> is >>>>>> not the most popular among Marxists.) >>>>>> >>>>>>> As I read some of the comments on my talk, it seems to me that how I >>>>>> understand play as revolutionary was not taken into account fully. By >>>>>> that >>>>>> I mean it seems like one's own understanding of play was substituted >>>>>> unaware. Perhaps this has something to do with Hue seeing play as >>>>>> "overdone" as well as David's commenting: >>>>>>> "One of the problems of Lois's talk is that it doesn't give us a very >>>>>> clear >>>>>> view of what play is not. But I would say that street kids talking to >>>>>> policemen about their fear of being gunned down in the street is a >>>>>> pretty >>>>>> good place to start. Lois herself recognizes in her talk that the >>>>>> conversations are not part of >>>>>> the play. But then we need to look at when and where the activity >>>>>> stopped >>>>>> being play, and above all why. Otherwise we rob "play" of all of its >>>>>> content." >>>>>> >>>>>> Sorry, David, if I was less than clear here. For me, the conversation >>>>>> was >>>>>> part of the play. The activity never stopped being play, as I >>>>>> understand >>>>>> it. The cops and kids were playing, in my sense of revolutionary play, >>>>>> as >>>>>> they were creating a conversation they had never had and perhaps could >>>>>> not >>>>>> were they not playing/performing...they were doing what was beyond >> them >>>>>> and >>>>>> creating something new together. I imagine you and others may not see >>>>>> it >>>>>> that way, but that's what I see. >>>>>> >>>>>> David's comments also highlight for me an aspect of perhaps different >>>>>> ways >>>>>> of approaching what it means to engage in the activity of >>>>>> understanding. As >>>>>> I read you, you need me to say what play is not and you also need me >> to >>>>>> pinpoint the beginnings and endings of something identified as play. >>>>>> It's >>>>>> that "is" that for me is the problematic term?it reads to me as >>>>>> pictorial >>>>>> and essentializing in reference to meaning. Apologies if I have >>>>>> misunderstood you. And while I don't mind playing being simultaneously >>>>>> the >>>>>> "leading activity" and the constant activity, I'm inspired by >> Vygotsky, >>>>>> not >>>>>> overdetermined by him. >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm very sensitive to how we speak/write to each other, however, >>>>>> especially when difference of opinion gets in the way or replaces >>>>>> curiosity >>>>>> to learn more about how come someone thinks/believes what they >>>>>> apparently >>>>>> do. And so I wish that we would be asking more questions of each >>>>>> other... >>>>>> and perhaps saying things in less absolutist and knowing terms. >>>>>> >>>>>> David (again) wrote: >>>>>> PS: Obviously, the teacher who claimed that their generation in China >>>>>> (my >>>>>> wife's generation) did not play after the age of two was just playing >>>>>> around with poor Lois. But that's no reason to play along... >>>>>> >>>>>> I "obviously" (and here it makes sense to use that word) cannot know >>>>>> your >>>>>> intention in writing what and how you wrote the above, as we cannot >>>>>> know >>>>>> each other's intentions. So I'll jump off from what you say and maybe >>>>>> help >>>>>> you see what I was trying to convey?75 teachers (not 1) told us in >>>>>> different ways/phrases that they hadn't played since they were very >>>>>> little >>>>>> children. They weren't making any claims, neither for themselves as >>>>>> individuals and certainly not for their generation. They were talking >>>>>> with >>>>>> us and sharing their experiences. I assume your wife has done the same >>>>>> with >>>>>> you, and that would be interesting to learn about. >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm off tonight to work in Frankfurt for the week, but if there is >>>>>> further >>>>>> conversation I will respond quickly. >>>>>> >>>>>> If any of you are interested in pursuing the topic of play and >>>>>> performance >>>>>> in our current context of capitalism's crisis, from my community's >>>>>> perspective, you can view an event, What Developing in a World in >>>>>> Crisis >>>>>> which begins with 9 people from 8 countries speaking to how they see >>>>>> the >>>>>> development challenges in their countries, followed by a conversation >>>>>> between me and a colleague, and then the audience. >>>>>> >>>>>> Again, thanks for including me, TED, play in your discussions, >>>>>> Lois >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Lois Holzman >>>>>> Director, East Side Institute for Group & Short Term Psychotherapy >>>>>> 104-106 South Oxford Street >>>>>> Brooklyn, New York 11217 >>>>>> Chair, Global Outreach, All Stars Project, UX >>>>>> Tel. +1.212.941.8906 x324 >>>>>> Fax +1.718.797.3966 >>>>>> lholzman@eastsideinstitute.org >>>>>> Social Media >>>>>> Facebook | LinkedIn | Twitter >>>>>> Blogs >>>>>> Psychology Today| Psychology of Becoming | ESI Community News >>>>>> Websites >>>>>> Lois Holzman | East Side Institute | Performing the World >>>>>> All Stars Project >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Jun 22, 2014, at 1:31 AM, mike cole wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I wonder what Lois thinks about all of this discussion that Peter >>>>>> started? >>>>>>> Mike >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Friday, June 20, 2014, David Kellogg >> wrote: >>>>>>> I agree completely with Tom's remarks. I remember that almost every >>>>>> summer >>>>>>> in Chicago between five and ten black children in the city would be >>>>>>> murdered by police for playing with toy guns. Consider this: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >> http://www.mintpressnews.com/us-police-murdered-5000-innocent-civilians-since-911/172029/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> To link this to the previous thread--I don't think that the article >>>>>>> "What >>>>>>> Theory is Not" has a workable definition of theory, and for that >>>>>>> reason I >>>>>>> found it little more than a list of complaints. But part of the >>>>>> dialectical >>>>>>> method is defining what things are by looking at what things are >>>>>>> not: transgressing that boundary is precisely what we mean when we >> say >>>>>> that >>>>>>> something is in the process of becoming what it is not. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> One of the problems of Lois's talk is that it doesn't give us a very >>>>>> clear >>>>>>> view of what play is not. But I would say that street kids talking to >>>>>>> policemen about their fear of being gunned down in the street is a >>>>>>> pretty >>>>>>> good place to start. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Lois herself recognizes in her talk that the conversations are not >>>>>>> part >>>>>> of >>>>>>> the play. But then we need to look at when and where the activity >>>>>>> stopped >>>>>>> being play, and above all why. Otherwise we rob "play" of all of its >>>>>>> content. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think the same thing is true when we say that children play >>>>>>> constantly, >>>>>>> from the moment they wake up to the moment they go to bed (and >>>>>>> Vygotsky, >>>>>> of >>>>>>> course, says the opposite--play is a "leading" activity but for that >>>>>>> very >>>>>>> reason we cannot say it is the main activity). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> David Kellogg >>>>>>> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies >>>>>>> >>>>>>> PS: Obviously, the teacher who claimed that their generation in China >>>>>>> (my >>>>>>> wife's generation) did not play after the age of two was just playing >>>>>>> around with poor Lois. But that's no reason to play along... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> dk >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 20 June 2014 06:03, Tom Richardson < >> tom.richardson3@googlemail.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> A fascinating and moving 14+minutes of Lois ....only how I wish that >>>>>>>> I >>>>>> did >>>>>>>> not subscribe to a class analysis which means that the last example >>>>>>>> of >>>>>> the >>>>>>>> 'kids of colour' and the NYPD is called into deep question - will >> the >>>>>>>> lethal divides of capitalism's "special bodies of armed men" from >>>>>>>> working-class citizens, (and of course it extends to imperialism's >>>>>>>> destruction of whole countries), be 'overcome' by Play. Lois' >>>>>> commitment >>>>>>>> and passionate intelligence almost lets me believe it might, but I >>>>>>>> know >>>>>>>> that I'm fooling myself. >>>>>>>> We need Play to evolve the next tranche of revolutionary strategy >> and >>>>>>>> tactics, but Play alone will never arrive at the necessity for >>>>>>>> revolutionary overthrow of capitalism, only, from Lois' examples, >>>>>>>> ultimately futile attempts at transcending class conflict, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Tom Richardson >>>>>>>> Middlesbrough >>>>>>>> UK >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 19 June 2014 20:57, Carol Macdonald >> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Well Lois >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> That was splendid, awesome! All you serious XMCAers please watch. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Carol >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 19 June 2014 13:48, Lois Holzman < >> lholzman@eastsideinstitute.org> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Here's the link, Carol. >>>>>>>>>> http://tedxnavesink.com/project/lois-holzman/ >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Lois Holzman >>>>>>>>>> Director, East Side Institute for Group & Short Term Psychotherapy >>>>>>>>>> 104-106 South Oxford Street >>>>>>>>>> Brooklyn, New York 11217 >>>>>>>>>> Chair, Global Outreach, All Stars Project, UX >>>>>>>>>> Tel. +1.212.941.8906 x324 >>>>>>>>>> Fax +1.718.797.3966 >>>>>>>>>> lholzman@eastsideinstitute.org >>>>>>>>>> Social Media >>>>>>>>>> Facebook | LinkedIn | Twitter >>>>>>>>>> Blogs >>>>>>>>>> Psychology Today| Psychology of Becoming | ESI Community News >>>>>>>>>> Websites >>>>>>>>>> Lois Holzman | East Side Institute | Performing the World >>>>>>>>>> All Stars Project >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Jun 19, 2014, at 3:02 AM, Carol Macdonald < >>>>>> carolmacdon@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Louis >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Please could you send the link again? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks >>>>>>>>>>> Carol >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 19 June 2014 01:03, Lois Holzman < >>>>>> lholzman@eastsideinstitute.org> >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi All, >>>>>>>>>>>> Peter kindly posted a link to a talk I gave last month at a TEDx >>>>>>>>>>>> event--TEDxNavesink Play. >>>>>>>>>>>> Aside from the prep being among the hardest things I've ever >>>>>> done >>>>>>>>>> (staying >>>>>>>>>>>> within their rules and structure, not being academic but saying >>>>>>>>>> something >>>>>>>>>>>> new for people to think about, and more), it was a delight to be >>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>> folks >>>>>>>>>>>> who appreciate and value play--many of whom are affording >>>>>> people in >>>>>>>>>> their >>>>>>>>>>>> communities with the opportunity to play in all kinds of ways. >>>>>> It >>>>>>>> was >>>>>>>>>>>> really growthful for me and my team. I was really pleased to >>>>>>>> reconnect >>>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>>>> Peter Gray after many years and to meet other good people. The >>>>>>>> one-day >>>>>>>>>>>> event was organized are 4 P's--possibility, pleasure, progress >>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> paradox. >>>>>>>>>>>> I invite you all to include these talks within your conversation >>>>>>>>>> here--even >>>>>>>>>>>> though they're not theoretical. Maybe it's a new kind of play >>>>>> for >>>>>>>>> many. >>>>>>>>>>>> Lois >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Lois Holzman >>>>>>>>>>>> Director, East Side Institute for Group & Short Term >>>>>> Psychotherapy >>>>>>>>>>>> 104-106 South Oxford Street >>>>>>>>>>>> Brooklyn, New York 11217 >>>>>>>>>>>> Chair, Global Outreach, All Stars Project, UX >>>>>>>>>>>> Tel. +1.212.941.8906 x324 >>>>>>>>>>>> Fax +1.718.797.3966 >>>>>>>>>>>> lholzman@eastsideinstitute.org >>>>>>>>>>>> Social Media >>>>>>>>>>>> Facebook | LinkedIn | Twitter >>>>>>>>>>>> Blogs >>>>>>>>>>>> Psychology Today| Psychology of Becoming | ESI Community News >>>>>>>>>>>> Websites >>>>>>>>>>>> Lois Holzman | East Side Institute | Performing the World >>>>>>>>>>>> All Stars Project >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>> Carol A Macdonald Ph D (Edin) >>>>>>>>>>> Developmental psycholinguist >>>>>>>>>>> Academic, Researcher, and Editor >>>>>>>>>>> Honorary Research Fellow: Department of Linguistics, Unisa >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> Carol A Macdonald Ph D (Edin) >>>>>>>>> Developmental psycholinguist >>>>>>>>> Academic, Researcher, and Editor >>>>>>>>> Honorary Research Fellow: Department of Linguistics, Unisa >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> Artin Goncu, Ph.D >>> Co-editor, Mind, Culture, and Activity:An International Journal >>> Professor Emeritus, >>> University of Illinois at Chicago >>> College of Education M/C 147 >>> 1040 W. Harrison St. >>> Chicago, IL 60607 >>> >>> >> >> > > > -- > Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. > Assistant Professor > Department of Anthropology > 883 Spencer W. Kimball Tower > Brigham Young University > Provo, UT 84602 > http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson From dkellogg60@gmail.com Sun Jul 6 03:45:23 2014 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2014 19:45:23 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: LSV on language as a model of development In-Reply-To: <53B7F192.3080209@mira.net> References: <1404377223637.27381@canterbury.ac.uk> <036576d347c948c1a3a1a8f9979f3f0f@mail-ex02.exprod.uio.no> <55415.101.176.84.138.1404400649.squirrel@wm4.pacific.net.au> <4f4922e4b47f4edc8e4d8d25915a653b@mail-ex02.exprod.uio.no> <60103.101.176.84.138.1404438319.squirrel@wm4.pacific.net.au> <53B7F192.3080209@mira.net> Message-ID: Andy: Well, to understand Vygotsky's purpose here, we really need a bit of context. This is the fourth in a lecture series on pedology, delivered at Herzen Pedagogical University (a teacher training college in Leningrad) during the last few months of Vygotsky's life. So it was probably written about the same time as Chapter One of Thinking and Speech. The students are mostly in-service teachers from all over the USSR. (The manuscript comes from Galina Korotaeva, the daughter of one of the in-service teachers who ended up in a remote autonomous republic without a degree because the man who took over after Vygotsky died, Katzenbogen, was shot for Trotskyism. Fortunately, Korotaeva's father kept the lectures, which Vygotsky had mimeoed and handed out to the teachers). It's an introductory course in pedology, a doctrine that has already been pretty much banned in Leningrad and Moscow, but which is still taught to people from the provinces (because the all-Union decree banning pedology didn't come out until 1936). The first lecture is about the topic of pedology, and it's for dead beginners. Vygotsky establishes the the subject of pedology is child development--not child psychology per se, or development per se.The second lecture is about research methods, and it's here that Vygotsky talks alot about the "unit of analysis". It is, as you say, a popular idea among pedologists, because of its holism. Then Vygotsky promises two lectures which apply the method of pedology--one to "heredity" and one to the environment. So the lecture I quoted, which can also be found in the Vygotsky Reader, is one of a pendant, like the Chinese couplets that people hang up at New Year's. The other lecture is Lecture Three (attached) which is about heredity. The lecture on the environment is part of an argument that Vygotsky is building which denies that development can be reduced to either--the "unit of analysis" has to include both heredity and the environment. And so it does! Lived experience includes heredity because it is, at first, based on lower level psychological functions: the senses, "feelings" rather than emotions, natural attention and natural memory. That's what allows you to experience. But it includes the environment--because that's what you have to experience. Anyway--here's my translation of Lecture Three. Sorry about the rather literal, awkward translation--we are really aiming at a Korean translation, so the closer I stick to the Russian the better. If anybody can find errors, I'd be much obliged for their help. David Kellogg Hankuk University of Foreign Studies PS: Actually, I did read Capital, Hegel's Logic (The Shorter One) and Vygotsky in the order you said. I suspect a lot of leftists do. dk On 5 July 2014 21:37, Andy Blunden wrote: > Thank you for introducing this passage, David. What is Vygotsky's interest > here, do you think? If I were to say "Vygotsky is interested in > investigating the relation between doing and undergoing" I don't think we'd > be any the clearer, even though it it formally true and accords with the > title of the article. I suggest that Vygotsky's interest is continuing his > work on child development (where he used the concept of Social Situation of > Development) to find a foundation for a theory of *personal development* > which would be adequate beyond childhood. This would mean that if we ask > "What is an experience or a perezhivanie a unit of?" we would answer > "personality" or what is the same thing "personal development" - since to > understand the product of a process of development (a personality) is to > understand the process itself. > > Andy > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *Andy Blunden* > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > > David Kellogg wrote: > >> I don't see anything wrong with the idea that "felt experience" or >> "thought-over experience" or "contemplated experience" (i.e. perezhivanie, >> which develops in time) is always and everywhere a unit of doing and >> undergoing, just as Alfredo says. In fact, it seems to me to be exactly >> what Vygotsky says. Here is the nineteenth paragraph of Vygotsky's lecture >> "The Problem of the Environment". >> >> ? ????? ??????? ?? ?????????? ??????? ?????? ? ????? ???????? ??? >> ????????? >> ????? ??????, ???????? ????????? ??????????????? ????????????. ???????? >> ????? ?????? ????? ??????? ???????????. ??????????? ???? ???????, ? >> ??????? >> ? ???????????? ???? ???????????? ? ????? ??????? ?????, ??, ??? >> ????????????, >> - ??????????? ?????? ????????? ? ????-??, ???????????? ??? ????????, - ? >> ?????? ??????? ???????????? ??, ??? ? ????????? ???, ?.?. ??? ??????????? >> ???????? ? ??? ??????????? ????? ???????????? ? ???????????, ??, ??? >> ???????? ?? ?????, ??? ?? ???????, ??????? ????? ????????? ? ?????? >> ???????? ? ???????? ?? ????????, ??? ?? ????? ?? ?????????, >> ?????????????????? ?????, ??????? ????? ????????? ? ??????? ???????. ????? >> ???????, ? ??????????? ?? ?????? ????? ???? ? ???????????? ????????? >> ???????????? ???????? ? ???????????? ????????, ??????? ???????????? ? >> ???????????. ??????? ???????? ??????????? ? ???????????? ????????? ????? >> ??????, ????? ?? ??????? ???? ????? ? ???????? ???????, ????? ?????? ? >> ????? ?????? ??????????? ???????, ?????? ??? ? ??????????? ???????, ??? ? >> ??? ???????, ??????????? ??? ?????? ??????????? ???????, ??????? >> ??????????? ? ??????????? ??? ????????? ? ?????? ????????. ????????, ??? >> ?? >> ??? ?????? ?????????????????? ??????????? ??????? ???? ????????? ??????? ? >> ?? ?????? ???????? ???????, ???. ? ????? ???????? ???? ??? >> ?????????????????? ??????????? ?????? ?????? ????, ? ?????? ??????? ?????? >> ?????? ????, ? ? ?????? ?????? ??? ????? ? ?? ??????????? ?????. ??? ????? >> ????? ?? ?????? ???? ?? ???? ?????????????????? ??????????? ???????, ? ??? >> ????? ?????, ????? ?? ???? ?????????????????? ???????????? ??????? >> ???????? >> ???? ??? ??????????? ????????? ??????? ? ?????? ????????, ? ?????? >> ???????? >> ??? ?????? ?????????????????? ??????????? ??????? ????. >> >> >> What this says (I think) is this: >> >> >> "I wish today as a concrete example of the teaching on the environment to >> show you a few of these units (??????) with which psychological research >> operates. An example of such a unit which might serve is lived experience >> ( >> ??????????? ). Lived experience is a unit whose form presents in an >> non-decomposable way, on the one side, the environment that is >> live-experienced?lived experience always refers to something that is >> external to the person?and on the other side represents the way that I >> live-experience it, i.e. all the features of the personality and all the >> features of the environment presented in the lived experience, what was >> selected from the environment, all the moments which are related to a >> given >> personality and selected in the personality, all of the features of its >> (i.e. the personality?s?DK) character, all its constituent features >> related >> to this event. Thus, in lived experience we are always dealing with the >> irreducible unity of features of personality and features of the >> situation, >> which is presented in lived experience. For this reason it is >> methodologically advantageous to carry out our analysis, when we study the >> role of the environment in the development of the child, from the point of >> view of the lived experience of the child, because the lived experience of >> the child, as I have already said, takes in all of the personality >> characteristics of the child which participate in the definition of his >> relationship to a given situation. Do, for example, all of the constituent >> features of my personality of every type participate fully and on an equal >> footing? Of course not. In one situation, one of my constituent features >> plays the first role, and in another, another plays the first role where >> in >> the first case it may not appear at all. To us it is not important to know >> the constituent features of the child in themselves, but to us it is >> important to know which of these constituent features plays the decisive >> role in determining the child?s relationship to a given situation where in >> other situations other constituent features have played a role." >> >> >> Of course, it's very hard (and not always necessary) to summarize all that >> in a single pithy expression. But it seems to me that when Andy uses the >> expression "radius of subjectivity" and Alfredo uses the expression "a >> unit >> of doing and undergoing" they are saying essentially the same thing. >> >> >> David Kellogg >> >> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies >> >> >> On 4 July 2014 11:22, mike cole wrote: >> >> >> >>> That is how I interpreted Alfredo, Andy. >>> (signed) >>> >>> an *in*-experienced oldtimer >>> mike >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 6:45 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> I am familiar with Dewey's work on this, Alfredo, and I too have found >>>> it >>>> very useful. That was not my problem. But thinking about it, I suspect >>>> it >>>> was just an English expression problem. >>>> You said "experience is a unit of doing and undergoing". But I think you >>>> meant to say "experience is a unity of doing and undergoing," which is >>>> certainly true. Just as activity is a unity of consciousness and >>>> behaviour, or identity is a unity of recognition and self-consciousness, >>>> etc. >>>> But a *unit* is something different from *unity*. "Experience" in this >>>> sense is not a unit at all; "an experience" can be a unit, but not a >>>> unit >>>> of doing and undergoing. >>>> >>>> Is that right, Alfredo? >>>> Andy >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Dewey, most extensively in chapter 3 of "Art as experience", makes a >>>>> distinction between the general stream of experience, and an >>>>> >>>>> >>>> experience, >>> >>> >>>> which, according to him, is the experience that "is a whole and carries >>>>> with it its own individualizing quality and self-sufficiency". After >>>>> >>>>> >>>> the >>> >>> >>>> fact, an experience "has a unity that gives it its name, that meal, >>>>> >>>>> >>>> that >>> >>> >>>> storm, that rupture of friendship", Dewey writes. He further says that, >>>>> within that unity, there is both an aspect of doing, of initiation, and >>>>> another of undergoing, "of suffering in its large sense". He further >>>>> articulates the relation between the doing and the undergoing in terms >>>>> >>>>> >>>> of >>> >>> >>>> "anticipation" and "consummation" "Anticipation" he writes "is the >>>>> connecting link between the next doing and its outcome for sense. What >>>>> >>>>> >>>> is >>> >>> >>>> done and what is undergone are thus reciprocally, cumulatively, and >>>>> continuously instrumental to each other" >>>>> >>>>> Although in most passages these notes have a rather individualistic >>>>> >>>>> >>>> taste, >>>> >>>> >>>>> he goes on to clarify that there is a prominent public character in >>>>> experience: "without external embodiment, an experience remains >>>>> incomplete" he says. In the same chapter, he also argues that "it is >>>>> >>>>> >>>> not >>> >>> >>>> possible to divide in a vital experience the practical, emotional, and >>>>> intellectual from one another." Both these conditions may make it >>>>> >>>>> >>>> possible >>>> >>>> >>>>> to draw connections between Dewey's notion of experience and Vygotsky's >>>>> perezivanie. >>>>> >>>>> In any case, I find interesting the dialectic Dewey proposes between >>>>> >>>>> >>>> doing >>>> >>>> >>>>> and undergoing as aspects of a minimal unit of sense-full experience >>>>> because it allows for thinking of being immersed in a developmental >>>>> situation in which the final form already exists before the intellect >>>>> grasps it, so that we do not need to put individual knowledge >>>>> constructions as who puts the cart before the horse. >>>>> >>>>> But this is my reading, which may have obviated other aspects that >>>>> >>>>> >>>> would >>> >>> >>>> preclude this reading? >>>>> Hope this was of help. >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> Alfredo >>>>> ________________________________________ >>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >>>> >>>>> >>>> on >>>> >>>> >>>>> behalf of Andy Blunden >>>>> Sent: 03 July 2014 17:17 >>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: LSV on language as a model of development >>>>> >>>>> Alfredo, what did you mean by: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> ... as he argued, experience is a unit of doing and undergoing, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> Andy >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: The Problem of Heredity.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 388459 bytes Desc: not available Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20140706/aee2aa02/attachment.bin From lchcmike@gmail.com Sun Jul 6 09:31:58 2014 From: lchcmike@gmail.com (mike cole) Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2014 09:31:58 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: LSV on language as a model of development In-Reply-To: References: <1404377223637.27381@canterbury.ac.uk> <036576d347c948c1a3a1a8f9979f3f0f@mail-ex02.exprod.uio.no> <55415.101.176.84.138.1404400649.squirrel@wm4.pacific.net.au> <4f4922e4b47f4edc8e4d8d25915a653b@mail-ex02.exprod.uio.no> <60103.101.176.84.138.1404438319.squirrel@wm4.pacific.net.au> <53B7F192.3080209@mira.net> Message-ID: David and others who read Russian-- The attached article by Boris Meshcheryakov is a summary discussion of the *Fundamentals of Pedology* that you are translating. The focus is on Chapter 4 on the environment. I am seeking a way to get this paper translated, but not having a lot of luck. Still, it may be of use to some. I found it very interesting. Perhaps some will find it useful. mike On Sun, Jul 6, 2014 at 3:45 AM, David Kellogg wrote: > Andy: > > Well, to understand Vygotsky's purpose here, we really need a bit of > context. This is the fourth in a lecture series on pedology, delivered at > Herzen Pedagogical University (a teacher training college in Leningrad) > during the last few months of Vygotsky's life. So it was probably written > about the same time as Chapter One of Thinking and Speech. The students are > mostly in-service teachers from all over the USSR. (The manuscript comes > from Galina Korotaeva, the daughter of one of the in-service teachers who > ended up in a remote autonomous republic without a degree because the man > who took over after Vygotsky died, Katzenbogen, was shot for Trotskyism. > Fortunately, Korotaeva's father kept the lectures, which Vygotsky had > mimeoed and handed out to the teachers). It's an introductory course in > pedology, a doctrine that has already been pretty much banned in Leningrad > and Moscow, but which is still taught to people from the provinces (because > the all-Union decree banning pedology didn't come out until 1936). > > The first lecture is about the topic of pedology, and it's for dead > beginners. Vygotsky establishes the the subject of pedology is child > development--not child psychology per se, or development per se.The second > lecture is about research methods, and it's here that Vygotsky talks alot > about the "unit of analysis". It is, as you say, a popular idea among > pedologists, because of its holism. Then Vygotsky promises two lectures > which apply the method of pedology--one to "heredity" and one to the > environment. > > So the lecture I quoted, which can also be found in the Vygotsky Reader, is > one of a pendant, like the Chinese couplets that people hang up at New > Year's. The other lecture is Lecture Three (attached) which is about > heredity. The lecture on the environment is part of an argument that > Vygotsky is building which denies that development can be reduced to > either--the "unit of analysis" has to include both heredity and the > environment. > > And so it does! Lived experience includes heredity because it is, at first, > based on lower level psychological functions: the senses, "feelings" rather > than emotions, natural attention and natural memory. That's what allows you > to experience. But it includes the environment--because that's what you > have to experience. > > Anyway--here's my translation of Lecture Three. Sorry about the rather > literal, awkward translation--we are really aiming at a Korean translation, > so the closer I stick to the Russian the better. If anybody can find > errors, I'd be much obliged for their help. > > David Kellogg > Hankuk University of Foreign Studies > > PS: Actually, I did read Capital, Hegel's Logic (The Shorter One) and > Vygotsky in the order you said. I suspect a lot of leftists do. > > dk > > > On 5 July 2014 21:37, Andy Blunden wrote: > > > Thank you for introducing this passage, David. What is Vygotsky's > interest > > here, do you think? If I were to say "Vygotsky is interested in > > investigating the relation between doing and undergoing" I don't think > we'd > > be any the clearer, even though it it formally true and accords with the > > title of the article. I suggest that Vygotsky's interest is continuing > his > > work on child development (where he used the concept of Social Situation > of > > Development) to find a foundation for a theory of *personal development* > > which would be adequate beyond childhood. This would mean that if we ask > > "What is an experience or a perezhivanie a unit of?" we would answer > > "personality" or what is the same thing "personal development" - since to > > understand the product of a process of development (a personality) is to > > understand the process itself. > > > > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > *Andy Blunden* > > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > > > > > David Kellogg wrote: > > > >> I don't see anything wrong with the idea that "felt experience" or > >> "thought-over experience" or "contemplated experience" (i.e. > perezhivanie, > >> which develops in time) is always and everywhere a unit of doing and > >> undergoing, just as Alfredo says. In fact, it seems to me to be exactly > >> what Vygotsky says. Here is the nineteenth paragraph of Vygotsky's > lecture > >> "The Problem of the Environment". > >> > >> ? ????? ??????? ?? ?????????? ??????? ?????? ? ????? ???????? ??? > >> ????????? > >> ????? ??????, ???????? ????????? ??????????????? ????????????. ???????? > >> ????? ?????? ????? ??????? ???????????. ??????????? ???? ???????, ? > >> ??????? > >> ? ???????????? ???? ???????????? ? ????? ??????? ?????, ??, ??? > >> ????????????, > >> - ??????????? ?????? ????????? ? ????-??, ???????????? ??? ????????, - ? > >> ?????? ??????? ???????????? ??, ??? ? ????????? ???, ?.?. ??? > ??????????? > >> ???????? ? ??? ??????????? ????? ???????????? ? ???????????, ??, ??? > >> ???????? ?? ?????, ??? ?? ???????, ??????? ????? ????????? ? ?????? > >> ???????? ? ???????? ?? ????????, ??? ?? ????? ?? ?????????, > >> ?????????????????? ?????, ??????? ????? ????????? ? ??????? ???????. > ????? > >> ???????, ? ??????????? ?? ?????? ????? ???? ? ???????????? ????????? > >> ???????????? ???????? ? ???????????? ????????, ??????? ???????????? ? > >> ???????????. ??????? ???????? ??????????? ? ???????????? ????????? ????? > >> ??????, ????? ?? ??????? ???? ????? ? ???????? ???????, ????? ?????? ? > >> ????? ?????? ??????????? ???????, ?????? ??? ? ??????????? ???????, ??? > ? > >> ??? ???????, ??????????? ??? ?????? ??????????? ???????, ??????? > >> ??????????? ? ??????????? ??? ????????? ? ?????? ????????. ????????, ??? > >> ?? > >> ??? ?????? ?????????????????? ??????????? ??????? ???? ????????? > ??????? ? > >> ?? ?????? ???????? ???????, ???. ? ????? ???????? ???? ??? > >> ?????????????????? ??????????? ?????? ?????? ????, ? ?????? ??????? > ?????? > >> ?????? ????, ? ? ?????? ?????? ??? ????? ? ?? ??????????? ?????. ??? > ????? > >> ????? ?? ?????? ???? ?? ???? ?????????????????? ??????????? ???????, ? > ??? > >> ????? ?????, ????? ?? ???? ?????????????????? ???????????? ??????? > >> ???????? > >> ???? ??? ??????????? ????????? ??????? ? ?????? ????????, ? ?????? > >> ???????? > >> ??? ?????? ?????????????????? ??????????? ??????? ????. > >> > >> > >> What this says (I think) is this: > >> > >> > >> "I wish today as a concrete example of the teaching on the environment > to > >> show you a few of these units (??????) with which psychological research > >> operates. An example of such a unit which might serve is lived > experience > >> ( > >> ??????????? ). Lived experience is a unit whose form presents in an > >> non-decomposable way, on the one side, the environment that is > >> live-experienced?lived experience always refers to something that is > >> external to the person?and on the other side represents the way that I > >> live-experience it, i.e. all the features of the personality and all the > >> features of the environment presented in the lived experience, what was > >> selected from the environment, all the moments which are related to a > >> given > >> personality and selected in the personality, all of the features of its > >> (i.e. the personality?s?DK) character, all its constituent features > >> related > >> to this event. Thus, in lived experience we are always dealing with the > >> irreducible unity of features of personality and features of the > >> situation, > >> which is presented in lived experience. For this reason it is > >> methodologically advantageous to carry out our analysis, when we study > the > >> role of the environment in the development of the child, from the point > of > >> view of the lived experience of the child, because the lived experience > of > >> the child, as I have already said, takes in all of the personality > >> characteristics of the child which participate in the definition of his > >> relationship to a given situation. Do, for example, all of the > constituent > >> features of my personality of every type participate fully and on an > equal > >> footing? Of course not. In one situation, one of my constituent features > >> plays the first role, and in another, another plays the first role where > >> in > >> the first case it may not appear at all. To us it is not important to > know > >> the constituent features of the child in themselves, but to us it is > >> important to know which of these constituent features plays the decisive > >> role in determining the child?s relationship to a given situation where > in > >> other situations other constituent features have played a role." > >> > >> > >> Of course, it's very hard (and not always necessary) to summarize all > that > >> in a single pithy expression. But it seems to me that when Andy uses the > >> expression "radius of subjectivity" and Alfredo uses the expression "a > >> unit > >> of doing and undergoing" they are saying essentially the same thing. > >> > >> > >> David Kellogg > >> > >> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies > >> > >> > >> On 4 July 2014 11:22, mike cole wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >>> That is how I interpreted Alfredo, Andy. > >>> (signed) > >>> > >>> an *in*-experienced oldtimer > >>> mike > >>> > >>> > >>> On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 6:45 PM, Andy Blunden > wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>> I am familiar with Dewey's work on this, Alfredo, and I too have found > >>>> it > >>>> very useful. That was not my problem. But thinking about it, I suspect > >>>> it > >>>> was just an English expression problem. > >>>> You said "experience is a unit of doing and undergoing". But I think > you > >>>> meant to say "experience is a unity of doing and undergoing," which is > >>>> certainly true. Just as activity is a unity of consciousness and > >>>> behaviour, or identity is a unity of recognition and > self-consciousness, > >>>> etc. > >>>> But a *unit* is something different from *unity*. "Experience" in this > >>>> sense is not a unit at all; "an experience" can be a unit, but not a > >>>> unit > >>>> of doing and undergoing. > >>>> > >>>> Is that right, Alfredo? > >>>> Andy > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> Dewey, most extensively in chapter 3 of "Art as experience", makes a > >>>>> distinction between the general stream of experience, and an > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> experience, > >>> > >>> > >>>> which, according to him, is the experience that "is a whole and > carries > >>>>> with it its own individualizing quality and self-sufficiency". After > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> the > >>> > >>> > >>>> fact, an experience "has a unity that gives it its name, that meal, > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> that > >>> > >>> > >>>> storm, that rupture of friendship", Dewey writes. He further says > that, > >>>>> within that unity, there is both an aspect of doing, of initiation, > and > >>>>> another of undergoing, "of suffering in its large sense". He further > >>>>> articulates the relation between the doing and the undergoing in > terms > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> of > >>> > >>> > >>>> "anticipation" and "consummation" "Anticipation" he writes "is the > >>>>> connecting link between the next doing and its outcome for sense. > What > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> is > >>> > >>> > >>>> done and what is undergone are thus reciprocally, cumulatively, and > >>>>> continuously instrumental to each other" > >>>>> > >>>>> Although in most passages these notes have a rather individualistic > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> taste, > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> he goes on to clarify that there is a prominent public character in > >>>>> experience: "without external embodiment, an experience remains > >>>>> incomplete" he says. In the same chapter, he also argues that "it is > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> not > >>> > >>> > >>>> possible to divide in a vital experience the practical, emotional, and > >>>>> intellectual from one another." Both these conditions may make it > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> possible > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> to draw connections between Dewey's notion of experience and > Vygotsky's > >>>>> perezivanie. > >>>>> > >>>>> In any case, I find interesting the dialectic Dewey proposes between > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> doing > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> and undergoing as aspects of a minimal unit of sense-full experience > >>>>> because it allows for thinking of being immersed in a developmental > >>>>> situation in which the final form already exists before the intellect > >>>>> grasps it, so that we do not need to put individual knowledge > >>>>> constructions as who puts the cart before the horse. > >>>>> > >>>>> But this is my reading, which may have obviated other aspects that > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> would > >>> > >>> > >>>> preclude this reading? > >>>>> Hope this was of help. > >>>>> Best, > >>>>> > >>>>> Alfredo > >>>>> ________________________________________ > >>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu < > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> on > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> behalf of Andy Blunden > >>>>> Sent: 03 July 2014 17:17 > >>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > >>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: LSV on language as a model of development > >>>>> > >>>>> Alfredo, what did you mean by: > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> ... as he argued, experience is a unit of doing and undergoing, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> Andy > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > > > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: kip_2008_n3_Mescheryakov.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 121797 bytes Desc: not available Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20140706/dbdfa397/attachment-0001.pdf From lpscholar2@gmail.com Sun Jul 6 13:12:58 2014 From: lpscholar2@gmail.com (Larry Purss) Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2014 13:12:58 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Playing with/at TED In-Reply-To: References: <2C6F613E-DEB0-448E-92DA-6EA0F444F039@eastsideinstitute.org> <090114A9-AC6E-4B26-8D44-DB63B275B3E8@eastsideinstitute.org> <8A4F9BDC-704C-4E9A-A773-56EFD19B9A04@eastsideinstitute.org> <83E9B13C-1108-4E6E-938A-2F75BBA6F4FA@eastsideinstitute.org> <0a7b1594f5d37f248a535fe8ed6cba3d.squirrel@webmail.uic.edu> <9E8200C6-075C-4803-800E-0B23BB4B1BD8@eastsideinstitute.org> Message-ID: Lois, Greg This theme of *radical* play [going to the root of play] and Greg's playing with the term *otherwise* than the real/actual I hope can be played with a little further. I *read* this theme of emerging lived experience / live experiencing [from D Kellogg in the other post] as pointing to *human nature* as playing between the literal and metaphorical Merleau-Ponty suggests that subjects and objects SIMULTANEOUSLY emerge within / clearings / fields / dimensions / and the difficulty arises when we expand an *object* to become perceived AS THE /field/clearing/dimension. We loose sight of the *object* as an *aspect* of the clearing [where becoming/not becoming are being *played out* within the simultaneous emergence of subjectivity and objectivity] and we become lost in the object AS IF it was the dimension of experience. Mike, this playful theme I *read* also as an example of the metaphor of the *developmental spiral* moving between *individuation* [subjectivity] AND *integration* [self's return to original source at a *higher* level of *development* As I listened to Anna Stetsenko's contrasting Dewey's *transactional* model with her *transformational* model I also *read* another version of this *spiral* metaphor of subject and object playfully emerging within lived experience / live experienced backward and forward play This theme also ties in with the question of *humanism* within the notion of *human nature* Is the character [quality] of *play* a transhistorical phenomena?? Joel Kovel defines *transhistorical* as a phenomena that is a property of *human nature* that needs to be manifest in all historical situations, whwerever humans have made there world. Transhistorical phenomena cannot be confined to particular historical locations. On the other hand the transhistorical is not natural either [in the informal sense] since the transhistorical ONLY manifests historically and so is shaped decisively by particular historical conditions. Transhistorical phenomena do confer a degree of universality and *essentiality* to the notion of human nature. Is it possible that *radical* play [could be otherwise] is a transhistorical aspect mediating BETWEEN *human* AND *nature*?? Joel Kovel suggests there is an ensemble of five qualities/ideas of *nature* which are variations on the THEME of *otherness* A sense that our *human being* reflects a sense that our being is a part and yet distinct from nature. A sense of our human incompleteness and mortality. Therefore the metaphor of the *developmental spiral* playing out through the Christian fall of the soul away from God, through neo-platonists through Romantic return to nature and moving to current models of psychology and even *critical hermeneutics* [see Joel Kovel] AN ASIDE: Joel identifies nature's five qualities as *essence* *vital force* *real material world* *past* and *archetypal primal mother* He suggests all five qualities are variations on the theme of *otherness* [and I would add *desire for return to integration] I *read* radical play as possibly participating in this spiral metaphor AS a *root* metaphor [radical AS root] Larry On Sat, Jul 5, 2014 at 8:41 PM, Lois Holzman wrote: > Apologies, Greg, for the delay in responding to this very meaty message! I > appreciate that it led you in many directions and you took the time to > share them with me and xmca. I read it quickly and then overlooked it all > this time. > > I think you've understood much of what I try to say about play but not > all. I'm relieved you read me as unorthodox!! > Let me try to "yes, and" you and myself. > What's key to me is not restraint or not, but the reshaping ("playing > with") the dialectic who we are/not who we are of, being/becoming. This is > both a point of departure from Vygotsky and at the same time it comes from > him. I do think that his description of early childhood > learning-and-development, and of the importance of imitation, and doing > what you don't know how to do ? these are instances of being/becoming and > very much?in their social activity-ness?like the way he describes early > childhood play as "a head taller." He, as we know, makes a distinction > between play being the leading activity of young children and learning of > school age children?I think he didn't see the similarity in both "Play and > Non-play" for young children?at least not the similarity that I see. In > both, the child is engaging in a kind of being/becoming play/performance. > So for me it is the simultaneity of being who we are and who we are not > (other) that is what's the exciting and life span activity of playing, > performing. (You can download my chapter, without Creating ZPDs There is No > Creativity, in Vygotsky and Creativity at > http://loisholzman.org/media/chapters/). > So games, winners, losers, etc. are features of some play but not of all > play. And I like what Vygotsky has to say about this and rules and > imagination. > > I also understand play (in my sense of it) as how we human beings create > culture...we don't just appropriate it. > > Again, thank you, > Lois > > > > Lois Holzman > Director, East Side Institute for Group & Short Term Psychotherapy > 104-106 South Oxford Street > Brooklyn, New York 11217 > Chair, Global Outreach, All Stars Project, UX > Tel. +1.212.941.8906 x324 > Fax +1.718.797.3966 > lholzman@eastsideinstitute.org > Social Media > Facebook | LinkedIn | Twitter > Blogs > Psychology Today| Psychology of Becoming | ESI Community News > Websites > Lois Holzman | East Side Institute | Performing the World > All Stars Project > > > > On Jun 25, 2014, at 2:09 PM, Greg Thompson > wrote: > > > Lois, > > I wonder if the following captures your meaning/sense of the word "play": > > > > Play is an engagement with "the otherwise". > > In a sense, play involves bringing irrealis into reality. > > > > I really like this way of thinking about play (and I may be reading too > > much into your understanding of play so please correct me if I've > > misunderstood you). For me, this idea of play is much more applicable to > > the lives of adults and it opens up lots of encounters to a play > analysis. > > I assume that this is what you mean when you say that the kids talking > with > > police are "playing"; they are engaged in a type of relationship and > > interaction that is "otherwise" - it isn't part of the normal types of > > conversation that one expects to happen. > > > > This points up the fact that there are structured, expected relations > that > > we engage in as we go about our everyday lives. Lois, what you seem to me > > to be pointing to is that play involves the transformation of these > > expected relations, i.e. when "the otherwise" is realized in a moment of > > interaction. > > > > It seems that this is a rather unorthodox sense of play. I wonder if it > > comes out of the fact that you work primarily with adolescents and > adults, > > "grown-ups" as we emically refer to them. It seems likely to me that play > > is something very fundamentally different for grown-ups than it is for > > children. Most Vygotsky inspired play researchers are looking at play in > > toddlers and early childhood. So I am very excited by your work that > brings > > play into adulthood (and as Artin notes, there are others who do this > but I > > don't know how many theorize adult "play" as explicitly or as well as you > > do). > > > > It seems to me that somewhere in here is where David's problem lies (and > > yours, to the extent that you are willing to share this burden with him). > > He is pointing to the fact that "play" may be conceived in China as "lack > > of restraint", and that is why Chinese say that they haven't played since > > they were 2 year olds - they have primarily experienced restraint ever > > since then (regardles of how they might be engaging "the otherwise" in > > their everyday lives - even "teasing" could be a kind of engagement with > > "the otherwise"). And David interestingly points to the fact that play > has > > a class dimension - it is what the poor kids do in the streets. That > seems > > like a notion of play that needs to be played with. And it seems to me > that > > this is precisely what you are interested in doing even as you accept > their > > definition of play for the sake of making your argument in the first > place. > > > > I think we could push even further still and point out that life is play > in > > a very real(!) sense. The taken for granted social worlds that we inhabit > > and that we are trying to play with are, in the first place, play. And > > yet, we often don't realize that they are play (recall Marx's "men" make > > history but not of their own choosing). Additionally, once we call it > > "play" we assume that it is "unreal" (cf. "social constructionism" lit of > > the mid to late 20th century). Yet this play is a highly consequential > form > > of play because, well, there are "winners" and there are "losers", and > the > > consequence of "winning" or "losing" is dire (perhaps this is why the > movie > > Hunger Games strikes a chord with people today? b.c. they see the world > > today, mid-recession, as akin to a fight to the death). > > > > Anyway, hopefully there is a grain of sense in all of this play with play > > (in play). > > > > and please, let me know if I'm terribly off-base here... > > > > Playfully, > > greg > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 7:51 AM, Lois Holzman < > > lholzman@eastsideinstitute.org> wrote: > > > >> Don't forget yourself, Artin! > >> Lois > >> > >> Lois Holzman > >> Director, East Side Institute for Group & Short Term Psychotherapy > >> 104-106 South Oxford Street > >> Brooklyn, New York 11217 > >> Chair, Global Outreach, All Stars Project, UX > >> Tel. +1.212.941.8906 x324 > >> Fax +1.718.797.3966 > >> lholzman@eastsideinstitute.org > >> Social Media > >> Facebook | LinkedIn | Twitter > >> Blogs > >> Psychology Today| Psychology of Becoming | ESI Community News > >> Websites > >> Lois Holzman | East Side Institute | Performing the World > >> All Stars Project > >> > >> > >> > >> On Jun 23, 2014, at 7:09 PM, Goncu, Artin wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> > >>> First, this is a quick note to say that I enjoyed Lois' talk, and > second, > >>> I enjoyed reading the responses to Lois' talk very much. I also wanted > >> to > >>> add that there are others on this list who have been addressing some of > >>> the important issues raised both in Lois' talk and in the responses to > >> it. > >>> For example, issues about play being a collective, dialectical, and > >>> dialogic activity improvised in human interaction are examined by Tony > >>> Perone, Carrie Lobman, Keith Sawyer, and others.. > >>> > >>> All the best, ag > >>> > >>> > >>> On Mon, June 23, 2014 11:58 am, Lois Holzman wrote: > >>>> Thanks, Tom. (I tried.) > >>>> And I didn't realize I forgot the link. > >>>> All best, > >>>> Lois > >>>> > >>>> Lois Holzman > >>>> Director, East Side Institute for Group & Short Term Psychotherapy > >>>> 104-106 South Oxford Street > >>>> Brooklyn, New York 11217 > >>>> Chair, Global Outreach, All Stars Project, UX > >>>> Tel. +1.212.941.8906 x324 > >>>> Fax +1.718.797.3966 > >>>> lholzman@eastsideinstitute.org > >>>> Social Media > >>>> Facebook | LinkedIn | Twitter > >>>> Blogs > >>>> Psychology Today| Psychology of Becoming | ESI Community News > >>>> Websites > >>>> Lois Holzman | East Side Institute | Performing the World > >>>> All Stars Project > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Jun 23, 2014, at 11:19 AM, Tom Richardson > >>>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Thank you, Lois, for finding time for this thoughtful reply to the > >>>>> threads > >>>>> around your TED piece -a link to your 'What's developing is below: > >>>>> http://vimeo.com/98797556 > >>>>> Tom > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On 23 June 2014 16:01, Lois Holzman > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Thanks to all who've watched the video and commented. > >>>>>> Over the weekend I completed two weeks of PLAYING WITH a "small > group" > >>>>>> of > >>>>>> psychologists/youth workers/educators from 5 countries who were in > NYC > >>>>>> for > >>>>>> their final residency period with me and the Institute. I kept up > with > >>>>>> your > >>>>>> posts but wasn't able to respond until now. > >>>>>> I find the discussion fascinating in a few ways, which I will try to > >>>>>> describe through commenting on what's been said/written. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I greatly appreciated Tom's concern ("We need Play to evolve the > next > >>>>>> tranche of revolutionary strategy and > >>>>>>> tactics, but Play alone will never arrive at the necessity for > >>>>>>> revolutionary overthrow of capitalism") and further comment and > >>>>>> subsequent expansion on this ("While I did not wish to attack or > >> offend > >>>>>> deliberately, I feel that the > >>>>>> limitations of work within individual/small group relationships, no > >>>>>> matter > >>>>>> how creative, redemptive and transformative, cannot have that same > >>>>>> effect > >>>>>> upon the 500year-developed /developing reality which is modern > >>>>>> bourgeois > >>>>>> society. It is that sense of limitation which I attempted, > >>>>>>> straightforwardly to convey"). > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Tom, I in no way felt attacked or offended. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> I found Shirley and Helen's and Carol's versions of what I was > doing > >>>>>>> in > >>>>>> the talk and what the activities I presented might be "about" very > >>>>>> helpful > >>>>>> and appreciated learning what they saw. I was indeed trying to > >> present > >>>>>> something new to the audience, something that gave them the feeling > >>>>>> that > >>>>>> there was more "behind it" and that something was pretty unorthodox. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> I suppose the key thing I can say in response is that I was > speaking > >>>>>> about play in a very particular way, as revolutionary. I was really > >>>>>> pleased > >>>>>> that the audience for the live presentation picked up on that and > was > >>>>>> excited by this new way of seeing. What I think revolutionary play > is > >>>>>> (in > >>>>>> my talk I repeated what I mean by that several times?taking what > there > >>>>>> is > >>>>>> and making something new, doing what we do not know how to do, > >> relating > >>>>>> as > >>>>>> who we are/other than who we are at the same time) is a > >>>>>> cultural-historical > >>>>>> activity that creates development, and that all of us human beings > >> need > >>>>>> to > >>>>>> develop if we are to have a shot at overthrowing capitalism. (For > >>>>>> "theory" > >>>>>> the most concise expansion of this might be All Power to the > >>>>>> Developing.The > >>>>>> position put forth in that article has generated lively dialogue, as > >> it > >>>>>> is > >>>>>> not the most popular among Marxists.) > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> As I read some of the comments on my talk, it seems to me that how > I > >>>>>> understand play as revolutionary was not taken into account fully. > By > >>>>>> that > >>>>>> I mean it seems like one's own understanding of play was substituted > >>>>>> unaware. Perhaps this has something to do with Hue seeing play as > >>>>>> "overdone" as well as David's commenting: > >>>>>>> "One of the problems of Lois's talk is that it doesn't give us a > very > >>>>>> clear > >>>>>> view of what play is not. But I would say that street kids talking > to > >>>>>> policemen about their fear of being gunned down in the street is a > >>>>>> pretty > >>>>>> good place to start. Lois herself recognizes in her talk that the > >>>>>> conversations are not part of > >>>>>> the play. But then we need to look at when and where the activity > >>>>>> stopped > >>>>>> being play, and above all why. Otherwise we rob "play" of all of its > >>>>>> content." > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Sorry, David, if I was less than clear here. For me, the > conversation > >>>>>> was > >>>>>> part of the play. The activity never stopped being play, as I > >>>>>> understand > >>>>>> it. The cops and kids were playing, in my sense of revolutionary > play, > >>>>>> as > >>>>>> they were creating a conversation they had never had and perhaps > could > >>>>>> not > >>>>>> were they not playing/performing...they were doing what was beyond > >> them > >>>>>> and > >>>>>> creating something new together. I imagine you and others may not > see > >>>>>> it > >>>>>> that way, but that's what I see. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> David's comments also highlight for me an aspect of perhaps > different > >>>>>> ways > >>>>>> of approaching what it means to engage in the activity of > >>>>>> understanding. As > >>>>>> I read you, you need me to say what play is not and you also need me > >> to > >>>>>> pinpoint the beginnings and endings of something identified as play. > >>>>>> It's > >>>>>> that "is" that for me is the problematic term?it reads to me as > >>>>>> pictorial > >>>>>> and essentializing in reference to meaning. Apologies if I have > >>>>>> misunderstood you. And while I don't mind playing being > simultaneously > >>>>>> the > >>>>>> "leading activity" and the constant activity, I'm inspired by > >> Vygotsky, > >>>>>> not > >>>>>> overdetermined by him. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I'm very sensitive to how we speak/write to each other, however, > >>>>>> especially when difference of opinion gets in the way or replaces > >>>>>> curiosity > >>>>>> to learn more about how come someone thinks/believes what they > >>>>>> apparently > >>>>>> do. And so I wish that we would be asking more questions of each > >>>>>> other... > >>>>>> and perhaps saying things in less absolutist and knowing terms. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> David (again) wrote: > >>>>>> PS: Obviously, the teacher who claimed that their generation in > China > >>>>>> (my > >>>>>> wife's generation) did not play after the age of two was just > playing > >>>>>> around with poor Lois. But that's no reason to play along... > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I "obviously" (and here it makes sense to use that word) cannot know > >>>>>> your > >>>>>> intention in writing what and how you wrote the above, as we cannot > >>>>>> know > >>>>>> each other's intentions. So I'll jump off from what you say and > maybe > >>>>>> help > >>>>>> you see what I was trying to convey?75 teachers (not 1) told us in > >>>>>> different ways/phrases that they hadn't played since they were very > >>>>>> little > >>>>>> children. They weren't making any claims, neither for themselves as > >>>>>> individuals and certainly not for their generation. They were > talking > >>>>>> with > >>>>>> us and sharing their experiences. I assume your wife has done the > same > >>>>>> with > >>>>>> you, and that would be interesting to learn about. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I'm off tonight to work in Frankfurt for the week, but if there is > >>>>>> further > >>>>>> conversation I will respond quickly. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> If any of you are interested in pursuing the topic of play and > >>>>>> performance > >>>>>> in our current context of capitalism's crisis, from my community's > >>>>>> perspective, you can view an event, What Developing in a World in > >>>>>> Crisis > >>>>>> which begins with 9 people from 8 countries speaking to how they see > >>>>>> the > >>>>>> development challenges in their countries, followed by a > conversation > >>>>>> between me and a colleague, and then the audience. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Again, thanks for including me, TED, play in your discussions, > >>>>>> Lois > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Lois Holzman > >>>>>> Director, East Side Institute for Group & Short Term Psychotherapy > >>>>>> 104-106 South Oxford Street > >>>>>> Brooklyn, New York 11217 > >>>>>> Chair, Global Outreach, All Stars Project, UX > >>>>>> Tel. +1.212.941.8906 x324 > >>>>>> Fax +1.718.797.3966 > >>>>>> lholzman@eastsideinstitute.org > >>>>>> Social Media > >>>>>> Facebook | LinkedIn | Twitter > >>>>>> Blogs > >>>>>> Psychology Today| Psychology of Becoming | ESI Community News > >>>>>> Websites > >>>>>> Lois Holzman | East Side Institute | Performing the World > >>>>>> All Stars Project > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Jun 22, 2014, at 1:31 AM, mike cole wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> I wonder what Lois thinks about all of this discussion that Peter > >>>>>> started? > >>>>>>> Mike > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Friday, June 20, 2014, David Kellogg > >> wrote: > >>>>>>> I agree completely with Tom's remarks. I remember that almost every > >>>>>> summer > >>>>>>> in Chicago between five and ten black children in the city would be > >>>>>>> murdered by police for playing with toy guns. Consider this: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >> > http://www.mintpressnews.com/us-police-murdered-5000-innocent-civilians-since-911/172029/ > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> To link this to the previous thread--I don't think that the article > >>>>>>> "What > >>>>>>> Theory is Not" has a workable definition of theory, and for that > >>>>>>> reason I > >>>>>>> found it little more than a list of complaints. But part of the > >>>>>> dialectical > >>>>>>> method is defining what things are by looking at what things are > >>>>>>> not: transgressing that boundary is precisely what we mean when we > >> say > >>>>>> that > >>>>>>> something is in the process of becoming what it is not. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> One of the problems of Lois's talk is that it doesn't give us a > very > >>>>>> clear > >>>>>>> view of what play is not. But I would say that street kids talking > to > >>>>>>> policemen about their fear of being gunned down in the street is a > >>>>>>> pretty > >>>>>>> good place to start. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Lois herself recognizes in her talk that the conversations are not > >>>>>>> part > >>>>>> of > >>>>>>> the play. But then we need to look at when and where the activity > >>>>>>> stopped > >>>>>>> being play, and above all why. Otherwise we rob "play" of all of > its > >>>>>>> content. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I think the same thing is true when we say that children play > >>>>>>> constantly, > >>>>>>> from the moment they wake up to the moment they go to bed (and > >>>>>>> Vygotsky, > >>>>>> of > >>>>>>> course, says the opposite--play is a "leading" activity but for > that > >>>>>>> very > >>>>>>> reason we cannot say it is the main activity). > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> David Kellogg > >>>>>>> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> PS: Obviously, the teacher who claimed that their generation in > China > >>>>>>> (my > >>>>>>> wife's generation) did not play after the age of two was just > playing > >>>>>>> around with poor Lois. But that's no reason to play along... > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> dk > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On 20 June 2014 06:03, Tom Richardson < > >> tom.richardson3@googlemail.com> > >>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> A fascinating and moving 14+minutes of Lois ....only how I wish > that > >>>>>>>> I > >>>>>> did > >>>>>>>> not subscribe to a class analysis which means that the last > example > >>>>>>>> of > >>>>>> the > >>>>>>>> 'kids of colour' and the NYPD is called into deep question - will > >> the > >>>>>>>> lethal divides of capitalism's "special bodies of armed men" from > >>>>>>>> working-class citizens, (and of course it extends to imperialism's > >>>>>>>> destruction of whole countries), be 'overcome' by Play. Lois' > >>>>>> commitment > >>>>>>>> and passionate intelligence almost lets me believe it might, but I > >>>>>>>> know > >>>>>>>> that I'm fooling myself. > >>>>>>>> We need Play to evolve the next tranche of revolutionary strategy > >> and > >>>>>>>> tactics, but Play alone will never arrive at the necessity for > >>>>>>>> revolutionary overthrow of capitalism, only, from Lois' examples, > >>>>>>>> ultimately futile attempts at transcending class conflict, > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Tom Richardson > >>>>>>>> Middlesbrough > >>>>>>>> UK > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On 19 June 2014 20:57, Carol Macdonald > >> wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Well Lois > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> That was splendid, awesome! All you serious XMCAers please watch. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Carol > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On 19 June 2014 13:48, Lois Holzman < > >> lholzman@eastsideinstitute.org> > >>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Here's the link, Carol. > >>>>>>>>>> http://tedxnavesink.com/project/lois-holzman/ > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Lois Holzman > >>>>>>>>>> Director, East Side Institute for Group & Short Term > Psychotherapy > >>>>>>>>>> 104-106 South Oxford Street > >>>>>>>>>> Brooklyn, New York 11217 > >>>>>>>>>> Chair, Global Outreach, All Stars Project, UX > >>>>>>>>>> Tel. +1.212.941.8906 x324 > >>>>>>>>>> Fax +1.718.797.3966 > >>>>>>>>>> lholzman@eastsideinstitute.org > >>>>>>>>>> Social Media > >>>>>>>>>> Facebook | LinkedIn | Twitter > >>>>>>>>>> Blogs > >>>>>>>>>> Psychology Today| Psychology of Becoming | ESI Community News > >>>>>>>>>> Websites > >>>>>>>>>> Lois Holzman | East Side Institute | Performing the World > >>>>>>>>>> All Stars Project > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> On Jun 19, 2014, at 3:02 AM, Carol Macdonald < > >>>>>> carolmacdon@gmail.com> > >>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Louis > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Please could you send the link again? > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks > >>>>>>>>>>> Carol > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> On 19 June 2014 01:03, Lois Holzman < > >>>>>> lholzman@eastsideinstitute.org> > >>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi All, > >>>>>>>>>>>> Peter kindly posted a link to a talk I gave last month at a > TEDx > >>>>>>>>>>>> event--TEDxNavesink Play. > >>>>>>>>>>>> Aside from the prep being among the hardest things I've ever > >>>>>> done > >>>>>>>>>> (staying > >>>>>>>>>>>> within their rules and structure, not being academic but > saying > >>>>>>>>>> something > >>>>>>>>>>>> new for people to think about, and more), it was a delight to > be > >>>>>>>> with > >>>>>>>>>> folks > >>>>>>>>>>>> who appreciate and value play--many of whom are affording > >>>>>> people in > >>>>>>>>>> their > >>>>>>>>>>>> communities with the opportunity to play in all kinds of ways. > >>>>>> It > >>>>>>>> was > >>>>>>>>>>>> really growthful for me and my team. I was really pleased to > >>>>>>>> reconnect > >>>>>>>>>> with > >>>>>>>>>>>> Peter Gray after many years and to meet other good people. The > >>>>>>>> one-day > >>>>>>>>>>>> event was organized are 4 P's--possibility, pleasure, progress > >>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>>> paradox. > >>>>>>>>>>>> I invite you all to include these talks within your > conversation > >>>>>>>>>> here--even > >>>>>>>>>>>> though they're not theoretical. Maybe it's a new kind of play > >>>>>> for > >>>>>>>>> many. > >>>>>>>>>>>> Lois > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Lois Holzman > >>>>>>>>>>>> Director, East Side Institute for Group & Short Term > >>>>>> Psychotherapy > >>>>>>>>>>>> 104-106 South Oxford Street > >>>>>>>>>>>> Brooklyn, New York 11217 > >>>>>>>>>>>> Chair, Global Outreach, All Stars Project, UX > >>>>>>>>>>>> Tel. +1.212.941.8906 x324 > >>>>>>>>>>>> Fax +1.718.797.3966 > >>>>>>>>>>>> lholzman@eastsideinstitute.org > >>>>>>>>>>>> Social Media > >>>>>>>>>>>> Facebook | LinkedIn | Twitter > >>>>>>>>>>>> Blogs > >>>>>>>>>>>> Psychology Today| Psychology of Becoming | ESI Community News > >>>>>>>>>>>> Websites > >>>>>>>>>>>> Lois Holzman | East Side Institute | Performing the World > >>>>>>>>>>>> All Stars Project > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>>>> Carol A Macdonald Ph D (Edin) > >>>>>>>>>>> Developmental psycholinguist > >>>>>>>>>>> Academic, Researcher, and Editor > >>>>>>>>>>> Honorary Research Fellow: Department of Linguistics, Unisa > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>> Carol A Macdonald Ph D (Edin) > >>>>>>>>> Developmental psycholinguist > >>>>>>>>> Academic, Researcher, and Editor > >>>>>>>>> Honorary Research Fellow: Department of Linguistics, Unisa > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Artin Goncu, Ph.D > >>> Co-editor, Mind, Culture, and Activity:An International Journal > >>> Professor Emeritus, > >>> University of Illinois at Chicago > >>> College of Education M/C 147 > >>> 1040 W. Harrison St. > >>> Chicago, IL 60607 > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > > > > > > -- > > Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. > > Assistant Professor > > Department of Anthropology > > 883 Spencer W. Kimball Tower > > Brigham Young University > > Provo, UT 84602 > > http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson > > From dkellogg60@gmail.com Mon Jul 7 16:06:11 2014 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2014 08:06:11 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] In Defense of Fuzzy Things Message-ID: Andy has written a number of posts in which he has implied clarity is a paramount goal in philosophical discussions, or, conversely, people are "confused" by having read key texts in an order which obscures their genetic relationship to each other. What I want to suggest is that these two things are actually in contradiction: if we want to understand how texts are genetically related to each other, we have understand how the word meanings they contain can be "fuzzy" rather than clear. Fuzzy boundaries are, if you will pardon the expression, central to human languages, including philosophical language (which is, as Halliday points out, merely a tidied up version of naturally fuzzy language, an upstart which has come back to berate its slovenly parents). Let me take the very first sentence of "Thinking and Speech" as an example. "This work is a psychological study of one of the most difficult, complex, and intricately tangled questions of experimental psychology, the problem of thinking and speech." Vygotsky is very fond of triplets like these, and when we first read him, we often take it as redundancy, and we are comforted, because if we don't understand what he means by "complex" we can catch him on the rebound with "difficult" and if that doesn't work, we get a nice concrete image with "tangled". But as the text unfolds, it transpires that something can be difficult without being complex. For example, Vygotsky's interpretation of egocentric speech is actually less complex than Piaget's, because it has fewer parts, but it is quite a bit more difficult, precisely because it puts things that are apparently quite different together. Similarly, it transpires that something can be complex without being difficult, e.g. the different senses of "consciousness" used by Freud and Piaget, which Vygotsky sorts out with the simple example of tying his shoes. The question of learning and development is "tangled" and "difficult" but it has only two parts to it. So we have to say that there is a certain fuzziness here, not unrelated to the fuzziness of "unit" and "unity" that we've been discussing. Let me take one more example: the idea of a "???????????". Should it be "felt experience" or "thought over experience" or just "lived experience"? The difference seems extremely important; as Andy points out, the concept is undoubtedly related--genetically--to the emergence of "notion" or "concept" through contemplation. Andy is doubly right to relate it to the German Romantic idea of "Urphanomenon". We even find it in English in Wordsworth's famous preface to the Lyrical Ballads, where he defines poetry as "emotion recollected in tranquility": "(T)he emotion is contemplated till, by a species of reaction, the tranquillity gradually disappears, and an emotion, kindred to that which was before the subject of contemplation, is gradually produced, and does itself actually exist in the mind." But of course in order to see these quite distinct ideas as being linked, we can't just see them as clearly distinct--it's sometimes more useful to see them as being fuzzy. It seems to me that ontogenetically, a "???????????" must needs be at first mostly a "felt experience", because the child doesn't have much experience to recollect in tranquility. Only then can it become mostly a "thought over experience", and it is only in the minds of dinosaurs like me and Andy that we can say it is a thoroughly lived out experience. (I have sometimes felt a little like a placid, ruminant brontosaur set upon by a ferocious tyrannosaur, but I console myself with the thought that where Andy says I am confused, I am usually just plain wrong.) Still, I think this fuzziness of my language doesn't preclude setting up the kinds of distinctions that Andy finds so important in philosophical language; on the contrary, understanding how things move seems to necessitate a kind of "moving picture" approach where we can make many fine distinctions and then try to link them fluidly, simply because that is the way our language and our minds works. But there are two intellectual operations to this: the ability to separate things out into separate frames, and then the ability to join the frames in a single fluid motion. Once we clarify, we have to fuzz out. Take a look at this. It's actually a Flash Mob at Tesco's in Holland Park, London, carried out as a sort of publicity stunt by a local opera troop trying to publicize their rendition of Puccini's "La Rondine" (a kind of verismo version of "Traviata", except that nobody dies). Like any Flash Mob, the categories of experiencers are kind of fuzzy--at the beginning it's a little unclear whether the cashier's assistant is in on the joke or not: is she doing the Flash Mob or merely undergoing it? By the end it's a party to which everybody is invited, even the Chinese tourists with their cell phone cameras. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsLivg6byjM I think categories of experience are similarly porous, which is another way of saying that they are warm and fuzzy: we all begin as outsiders, but understanding is a process of becoming an insider. The question is: is becomign an insider a process of transforming undergoing into doing, or is it a process of transforming undergoing into doing? It's kind of fuzzy. David Kellogg Hankuk University of Foreign Studies From lchcmike@gmail.com Mon Jul 7 16:32:52 2014 From: lchcmike@gmail.com (mike cole) Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2014 16:32:52 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: In Defense of Fuzzy Things In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Very interesting, David. Thanks. Serendipitously, a coujple of hours ago I heard for the first time the Russian word, ????????? (contemplate) which came up in a discussion of, yes, perezhivanie. I did not know the word, but guessed it correctly from examples that were given. And then you come up with the same idea in Wordsworth. Like wow. 2.33 degrees of separation? In the discussion of the development of perezhivanie, I think this line of thinking is the way to go: "It seems to me that ontogenetically, a "???????????" must needs be at first mostly a "felt experience", because the child doesn't have much experience to recollect in tranquility [or even with lots of emotion!-mc]. It seems that a developmental account is important. Do you know of one we could draw upon? Do you think LSV provides one?\ mike On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 4:06 PM, David Kellogg wrote: > Andy has written a number of posts in which he has implied clarity is a > paramount goal in philosophical discussions, or, conversely, people are > "confused" by having read key texts in an order which obscures their > genetic relationship to each other. > > What I want to suggest is that these two things are actually in > contradiction: if we want to understand how texts are genetically related > to each other, we have understand how the word meanings they contain can be > "fuzzy" rather than clear. > > Fuzzy boundaries are, if you will pardon the expression, central to human > languages, including philosophical language (which is, as Halliday points > out, merely a tidied up version of naturally fuzzy language, an upstart > which has come back to berate its slovenly parents). Let me take the very > first sentence of "Thinking and Speech" as an example. > > "This work is a psychological study of one of the most difficult, complex, > and intricately tangled questions of experimental psychology, the problem > of thinking and speech." > > Vygotsky is very fond of triplets like these, and when we first read him, > we often take it as redundancy, and we are comforted, because if we don't > understand what he means by "complex" we can catch him on the rebound with > "difficult" and if that doesn't work, we get a nice concrete image with > "tangled". > > But as the text unfolds, it transpires that something can be difficult > without being complex. For example, Vygotsky's interpretation of egocentric > speech is actually less complex than Piaget's, because it has fewer parts, > but it is quite a bit more difficult, precisely because it puts things that > are apparently quite different together. > > Similarly, it transpires that something can be complex without being > difficult, e.g. the different senses of "consciousness" used by Freud and > Piaget, which Vygotsky sorts out with the simple example of tying his > shoes. The question of learning and development is "tangled" and > "difficult" but it has only two parts to it. So we have to say that there > is a certain fuzziness here, not unrelated to the fuzziness of "unit" and > "unity" that we've been discussing. > > Let me take one more example: the idea of a "???????????". Should it be > "felt experience" or "thought over experience" or just "lived experience"? > The difference seems extremely important; as Andy points out, the concept > is undoubtedly related--genetically--to the emergence of "notion" or > "concept" through contemplation. Andy is doubly right to relate it to the > German Romantic idea of "Urphanomenon". We even find it in English in > Wordsworth's famous preface to the Lyrical Ballads, where he defines poetry > as "emotion recollected in tranquility": > > "(T)he emotion is contemplated till, by a species of reaction, the > tranquillity gradually disappears, and an emotion, kindred to that which > was before the subject of contemplation, is gradually produced, and does > itself actually exist in the mind." > > But of course in order to see these quite distinct ideas as being linked, > we can't just see them as clearly distinct--it's sometimes more useful to > see them as being fuzzy. It seems to me that ontogenetically, a > "???????????" > must needs be at first mostly a "felt experience", because the child > doesn't have much experience to recollect in tranquility. Only then can it > become mostly a "thought over experience", and it is only in the minds of > dinosaurs like me and Andy that we can say it is a thoroughly lived out > experience. (I have sometimes felt a little like a > placid, ruminant brontosaur set upon by a ferocious tyrannosaur, but I > console myself with the thought that where Andy says I am confused, I am > usually just plain wrong.) > > Still, I think this fuzziness of my language doesn't preclude setting up > the kinds of distinctions that Andy finds so important in philosophical > language; on the contrary, understanding how things move seems to > necessitate a kind of "moving picture" approach where we can make many fine > distinctions and then try to link them fluidly, simply because that is the > way our language and our minds works. But there are two intellectual > operations to this: the ability to separate things out into separate > frames, and then the ability to join the frames in a single fluid motion. > Once we clarify, we have to fuzz out. > > Take a look at this. It's actually a Flash Mob at Tesco's in Holland Park, > London, carried out as a sort of publicity stunt by a local opera troop > trying to publicize their rendition of Puccini's "La Rondine" (a kind of > verismo version of "Traviata", except that nobody dies). Like any Flash > Mob, the categories of experiencers are kind of fuzzy--at the beginning > it's a little unclear whether the cashier's assistant is in on the joke or > not: is she doing the Flash Mob or merely undergoing it? By the end it's a > party to which everybody is invited, even the Chinese tourists with their > cell phone cameras. > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsLivg6byjM > > I think categories of experience are similarly porous, which is another way > of saying that they are warm and fuzzy: we all begin as outsiders, but > understanding is a process of becoming an insider. The question is: is > becomign an insider a process of transforming undergoing into doing, or is > it a process of transforming undergoing into doing? It's kind of fuzzy. > > David Kellogg > Hankuk University of Foreign Studies > From lspopov@bgsu.edu Mon Jul 7 17:28:01 2014 From: lspopov@bgsu.edu (Lubomir Savov Popov) Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2014 00:28:01 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: In Defense of Fuzzy Things In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi David, Thank you for sharing these ideas. On a similar note, I would like to add some additional considerations: The fuzziness of terms depends on the paradigmatic traditions and their criteria for definition. In some traditions, it is required that the terms are well defined. Actually, very "tightly," so tightly that there is no room for personal interpretations. In other traditions, they even don't want to use the term Term. They talk about concepts, and leave them fluid and moving. They don't want to constrain the thought by channeling it into tightly defined terms. However, in the culture where LSV works, they are meticulous about definitions. Perezhivanie might seem fuzzy for us, but in some East European scholarly circles it is defined very tightly. There are monographs and dissertations on its definition. There are many papers. By citing the papers and monographs, researchers indicate how they use the term and do not spend hundreds of words on it in their papers. When a concept is defined scholarly, it becomes a term. Terms are mutually agreed definitions of concepts. Terms work only in the terminological systems and societies in which they are created. Outside these systems they are just words. I have always consulted dictionaries in philosophy, psychology, sociology, and so form when I am interested in the meaning of a term. If I work on a paper for a philosophical journal, I will keep with the meaning of the term in philosophy, the philosophical term or its variation. I will also search in other disciplinary dictionaries, but with respect to the philosophy journal audience. Long ago, one professor was advising his students to search for the meaning of terms in the Oxford Dictionary in order to understand the term. The Oxford Dictionary is about the meaning of words, not terms. On the other hand, if I am writing a letter to a relative, I would not use the term. I will use the word as it is known in everyday life. Another problem is that concepts and terms are created and defined in a particular paradigmatic and cultural environment and work only there. Any attempt to translate them is futile. I am talking about complex abstractions in the social sciences. So, there is no way to translate Perezhivanie in English without redefining it in one of the scholarly and cultural traditions in the US or UK. In principle, this is like starting the job from the beginning. It might be an impossible job because terms do not exist separately -- they can exist only in terminological system. This presupposes that the redefinition of one term cannot be done without redefinition of many other terms in the system. This is like creating a new theoretical system. It is too much to do. One big problem in translation is that each culture has different conceptualizations and concepts. They might overlap, but not as much as we would like. And here comes the fuzziness. The core might be clear, but the large area of the periphery might be very different. The translation is almost impossible. Only a person who has translated knows these problems. If the languages come from the same cultural area, there is a good chance that the concepts are very similar. But if the languages come from completely different cultural areas, the translations become ridiculous. It is not possible to share the ideas because of many small deviations here and there, which in the long run change the initial idea to a large degree. It is conundrum, at least for me. One good exercise is to translate a joke. We have to select several jokes from another culture that are considered very funny there, people understand them with ease and actually, anticipate the joke with the first sentence or two. If this joke is translated in English, most of the listeners will "drop their jaws." First, what is this about; this doesn't make any sense; it is too rude; it is stupid, it is not politically correct; and so forth. Jokes are very context specific. If a person is not immersed in that context, he/she would not be able to make sense of it; or the translation will sound more like a novel then a short joke. There will be no fun in the long presentation. The joke needs to have punch. The translation will slow it down and ruin it. Best wishes, Lubomir -----Original Message----- From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of David Kellogg Sent: Monday, July 07, 2014 7:06 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] In Defense of Fuzzy Things Andy has written a number of posts in which he has implied clarity is a paramount goal in philosophical discussions, or, conversely, people are "confused" by having read key texts in an order which obscures their genetic relationship to each other. What I want to suggest is that these two things are actually in contradiction: if we want to understand how texts are genetically related to each other, we have understand how the word meanings they contain can be "fuzzy" rather than clear. Fuzzy boundaries are, if you will pardon the expression, central to human languages, including philosophical language (which is, as Halliday points out, merely a tidied up version of naturally fuzzy language, an upstart which has come back to berate its slovenly parents). Let me take the very first sentence of "Thinking and Speech" as an example. "This work is a psychological study of one of the most difficult, complex, and intricately tangled questions of experimental psychology, the problem of thinking and speech." Vygotsky is very fond of triplets like these, and when we first read him, we often take it as redundancy, and we are comforted, because if we don't understand what he means by "complex" we can catch him on the rebound with "difficult" and if that doesn't work, we get a nice concrete image with "tangled". But as the text unfolds, it transpires that something can be difficult without being complex. For example, Vygotsky's interpretation of egocentric speech is actually less complex than Piaget's, because it has fewer parts, but it is quite a bit more difficult, precisely because it puts things that are apparently quite different together. Similarly, it transpires that something can be complex without being difficult, e.g. the different senses of "consciousness" used by Freud and Piaget, which Vygotsky sorts out with the simple example of tying his shoes. The question of learning and development is "tangled" and "difficult" but it has only two parts to it. So we have to say that there is a certain fuzziness here, not unrelated to the fuzziness of "unit" and "unity" that we've been discussing. Let me take one more example: the idea of a "???????????". Should it be "felt experience" or "thought over experience" or just "lived experience"? The difference seems extremely important; as Andy points out, the concept is undoubtedly related--genetically--to the emergence of "notion" or "concept" through contemplation. Andy is doubly right to relate it to the German Romantic idea of "Urphanomenon". We even find it in English in Wordsworth's famous preface to the Lyrical Ballads, where he defines poetry as "emotion recollected in tranquility": "(T)he emotion is contemplated till, by a species of reaction, the tranquillity gradually disappears, and an emotion, kindred to that which was before the subject of contemplation, is gradually produced, and does itself actually exist in the mind." But of course in order to see these quite distinct ideas as being linked, we can't just see them as clearly distinct--it's sometimes more useful to see them as being fuzzy. It seems to me that ontogenetically, a "???????????" must needs be at first mostly a "felt experience", because the child doesn't have much experience to recollect in tranquility. Only then can it become mostly a "thought over experience", and it is only in the minds of dinosaurs like me and Andy that we can say it is a thoroughly lived out experience. (I have sometimes felt a little like a placid, ruminant brontosaur set upon by a ferocious tyrannosaur, but I console myself with the thought that where Andy says I am confused, I am usually just plain wrong.) Still, I think this fuzziness of my language doesn't preclude setting up the kinds of distinctions that Andy finds so important in philosophical language; on the contrary, understanding how things move seems to necessitate a kind of "moving picture" approach where we can make many fine distinctions and then try to link them fluidly, simply because that is the way our language and our minds works. But there are two intellectual operations to this: the ability to separate things out into separate frames, and then the ability to join the frames in a single fluid motion. Once we clarify, we have to fuzz out. Take a look at this. It's actually a Flash Mob at Tesco's in Holland Park, London, carried out as a sort of publicity stunt by a local opera troop trying to publicize their rendition of Puccini's "La Rondine" (a kind of verismo version of "Traviata", except that nobody dies). Like any Flash Mob, the categories of experiencers are kind of fuzzy--at the beginning it's a little unclear whether the cashier's assistant is in on the joke or not: is she doing the Flash Mob or merely undergoing it? By the end it's a party to which everybody is invited, even the Chinese tourists with their cell phone cameras. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsLivg6byjM I think categories of experience are similarly porous, which is another way of saying that they are warm and fuzzy: we all begin as outsiders, but understanding is a process of becoming an insider. The question is: is becomign an insider a process of transforming undergoing into doing, or is it a process of transforming undergoing into doing? It's kind of fuzzy. David Kellogg Hankuk University of Foreign Studies From mlevykh@shaw.ca Mon Jul 7 17:35:08 2014 From: mlevykh@shaw.ca (Michael) Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2014 17:35:08 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: In Defense of Fuzzy Things In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9B3434B98942414A9A57CF96C1C6ECF0@michaelPC> I don't know whether my comments would clarify this discussion or make it "fuzzier," but the Russian word, "?????????" has 2 meanings: (1) to contemplate; and (2) (philosophical) to perceive reality directly, as being an initial emotional (sensual) stage (level) of knowledge (epistemology). Sorry, I don't have the Russian keyboard to quote the Russian text in Ozhegov's Dictionary of Russian Language. Michael Levykh, PhD -----Original Message----- From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of mike cole Sent: July-07-14 4:33 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: In Defense of Fuzzy Things Very interesting, David. Thanks. Serendipitously, a coujple of hours ago I heard for the first time the Russian word, ????????? (contemplate) which came up in a discussion of, yes, perezhivanie. I did not know the word, but guessed it correctly from examples that were given. And then you come up with the same idea in Wordsworth. Like wow. 2.33 degrees of separation? In the discussion of the development of perezhivanie, I think this line of thinking is the way to go: "It seems to me that ontogenetically, a "???????????" must needs be at first mostly a "felt experience", because the child doesn't have much experience to recollect in tranquility [or even with lots of emotion!-mc]. It seems that a developmental account is important. Do you know of one we could draw upon? Do you think LSV provides one?\ mike On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 4:06 PM, David Kellogg wrote: > Andy has written a number of posts in which he has implied clarity is a > paramount goal in philosophical discussions, or, conversely, people are > "confused" by having read key texts in an order which obscures their > genetic relationship to each other. > > What I want to suggest is that these two things are actually in > contradiction: if we want to understand how texts are genetically related > to each other, we have understand how the word meanings they contain can be > "fuzzy" rather than clear. > > Fuzzy boundaries are, if you will pardon the expression, central to human > languages, including philosophical language (which is, as Halliday points > out, merely a tidied up version of naturally fuzzy language, an upstart > which has come back to berate its slovenly parents). Let me take the very > first sentence of "Thinking and Speech" as an example. > > "This work is a psychological study of one of the most difficult, complex, > and intricately tangled questions of experimental psychology, the problem > of thinking and speech." > > Vygotsky is very fond of triplets like these, and when we first read him, > we often take it as redundancy, and we are comforted, because if we don't > understand what he means by "complex" we can catch him on the rebound with > "difficult" and if that doesn't work, we get a nice concrete image with > "tangled". > > But as the text unfolds, it transpires that something can be difficult > without being complex. For example, Vygotsky's interpretation of egocentric > speech is actually less complex than Piaget's, because it has fewer parts, > but it is quite a bit more difficult, precisely because it puts things that > are apparently quite different together. > > Similarly, it transpires that something can be complex without being > difficult, e.g. the different senses of "consciousness" used by Freud and > Piaget, which Vygotsky sorts out with the simple example of tying his > shoes. The question of learning and development is "tangled" and > "difficult" but it has only two parts to it. So we have to say that there > is a certain fuzziness here, not unrelated to the fuzziness of "unit" and > "unity" that we've been discussing. > > Let me take one more example: the idea of a "???????????". Should it be > "felt experience" or "thought over experience" or just "lived experience"? > The difference seems extremely important; as Andy points out, the concept > is undoubtedly related--genetically--to the emergence of "notion" or > "concept" through contemplation. Andy is doubly right to relate it to the > German Romantic idea of "Urphanomenon". We even find it in English in > Wordsworth's famous preface to the Lyrical Ballads, where he defines poetry > as "emotion recollected in tranquility": > > "(T)he emotion is contemplated till, by a species of reaction, the > tranquillity gradually disappears, and an emotion, kindred to that which > was before the subject of contemplation, is gradually produced, and does > itself actually exist in the mind." > > But of course in order to see these quite distinct ideas as being linked, > we can't just see them as clearly distinct--it's sometimes more useful to > see them as being fuzzy. It seems to me that ontogenetically, a > "???????????" > must needs be at first mostly a "felt experience", because the child > doesn't have much experience to recollect in tranquility. Only then can it > become mostly a "thought over experience", and it is only in the minds of > dinosaurs like me and Andy that we can say it is a thoroughly lived out > experience. (I have sometimes felt a little like a > placid, ruminant brontosaur set upon by a ferocious tyrannosaur, but I > console myself with the thought that where Andy says I am confused, I am > usually just plain wrong.) > > Still, I think this fuzziness of my language doesn't preclude setting up > the kinds of distinctions that Andy finds so important in philosophical > language; on the contrary, understanding how things move seems to > necessitate a kind of "moving picture" approach where we can make many fine > distinctions and then try to link them fluidly, simply because that is the > way our language and our minds works. But there are two intellectual > operations to this: the ability to separate things out into separate > frames, and then the ability to join the frames in a single fluid motion. > Once we clarify, we have to fuzz out. > > Take a look at this. It's actually a Flash Mob at Tesco's in Holland Park, > London, carried out as a sort of publicity stunt by a local opera troop > trying to publicize their rendition of Puccini's "La Rondine" (a kind of > verismo version of "Traviata", except that nobody dies). Like any Flash > Mob, the categories of experiencers are kind of fuzzy--at the beginning > it's a little unclear whether the cashier's assistant is in on the joke or > not: is she doing the Flash Mob or merely undergoing it? By the end it's a > party to which everybody is invited, even the Chinese tourists with their > cell phone cameras. > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsLivg6byjM > > I think categories of experience are similarly porous, which is another way > of saying that they are warm and fuzzy: we all begin as outsiders, but > understanding is a process of becoming an insider. The question is: is > becomign an insider a process of transforming undergoing into doing, or is > it a process of transforming undergoing into doing? It's kind of fuzzy. > > David Kellogg > Hankuk University of Foreign Studies > From lholzman@eastsideinstitute.org Mon Jul 7 17:56:55 2014 From: lholzman@eastsideinstitute.org (Lois Holzman) Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2014 20:56:55 -0400 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Playing with/at TED In-Reply-To: References: <2C6F613E-DEB0-448E-92DA-6EA0F444F039@eastsideinstitute.org> <090114A9-AC6E-4B26-8D44-DB63B275B3E8@eastsideinstitute.org> <8A4F9BDC-704C-4E9A-A773-56EFD19B9A04@eastsideinstitute.org> <83E9B13C-1108-4E6E-938A-2F75BBA6F4FA@eastsideinstitute.org> <0a7b1594f5d37f248a535fe8ed6cba3d.squirrel@webmail.uic.edu> <9E8200C6-075C-4803-800E-0B23BB4B1BD8@eastsideinstitute.org> Message-ID: <8599FEDE-6DF6-4AEC-A0D7-6B9676829484@eastsideinstitute.org> Thanks, Larry...to be pondered!! Lois Lois Holzman Director, East Side Institute for Group & Short Term Psychotherapy 104-106 South Oxford Street Brooklyn, New York 11217 Chair, Global Outreach, All Stars Project, UX Tel. +1.212.941.8906 x324 Fax +1.718.797.3966 lholzman@eastsideinstitute.org Social Media Facebook | LinkedIn | Twitter Blogs Psychology Today| Psychology of Becoming | ESI Community News Websites Lois Holzman | East Side Institute | Performing the World All Stars Project On Jul 6, 2014, at 4:12 PM, Larry Purss wrote: > Lois, Greg > > This theme of *radical* play [going to the root of play] and Greg's playing > with the term *otherwise* than the real/actual I hope can be played with a > little further. > > I *read* this theme of emerging lived experience / live experiencing [from > D Kellogg in the other post] as pointing to *human nature* as playing > between the literal and metaphorical > > Merleau-Ponty suggests that subjects and objects SIMULTANEOUSLY emerge > within / clearings / fields / dimensions / > and the difficulty arises when we expand an *object* to become perceived AS > THE /field/clearing/dimension. > We loose sight of the *object* as an *aspect* of the clearing [where > becoming/not becoming are being *played out* within the simultaneous > emergence of subjectivity and objectivity] and we become lost in the object > AS IF it was the dimension of experience. > > Mike, this playful theme I *read* also as an example of the metaphor of the > *developmental spiral* moving between *individuation* [subjectivity] AND > *integration* [self's return to original source at a *higher* level of > *development* > As I listened to Anna Stetsenko's contrasting Dewey's *transactional* model > with her *transformational* model I also *read* another version of this > *spiral* metaphor of subject and object playfully emerging within lived > experience / live experienced backward and forward play > > This theme also ties in with the question of *humanism* within the notion > of *human nature* Is the character [quality] of *play* a transhistorical > phenomena?? Joel Kovel defines *transhistorical* as a phenomena that is a > property of *human nature* that needs to be manifest in all historical > situations, whwerever humans have made there world. Transhistorical > phenomena cannot be confined to particular historical locations. On the > other hand the transhistorical is not natural either [in the informal > sense] since the transhistorical ONLY manifests historically and so is > shaped decisively by particular historical conditions. > Transhistorical phenomena do confer a degree of universality and > *essentiality* to the notion of human nature. > Is it possible that *radical* play [could be otherwise] is a > transhistorical aspect mediating BETWEEN *human* AND *nature*?? > > Joel Kovel suggests there is an ensemble of five qualities/ideas of > *nature* which are variations on the THEME of *otherness* A sense that our > *human being* reflects a sense that our being is a part and yet distinct > from nature. A sense of our human incompleteness and mortality. Therefore > the metaphor of the *developmental spiral* playing out through the > Christian fall of the soul away from God, through neo-platonists through > Romantic return to nature and moving to current models of psychology and > even *critical hermeneutics* [see Joel Kovel] > > AN ASIDE: Joel identifies nature's five qualities as *essence* *vital > force* *real material world* *past* and *archetypal primal mother* He > suggests all five qualities are variations on the theme of *otherness* [and > I would add *desire for return to integration] > > I *read* radical play as possibly participating in this spiral metaphor AS > a *root* metaphor [radical AS root] > > Larry > > > > > > On Sat, Jul 5, 2014 at 8:41 PM, Lois Holzman > wrote: > >> Apologies, Greg, for the delay in responding to this very meaty message! I >> appreciate that it led you in many directions and you took the time to >> share them with me and xmca. I read it quickly and then overlooked it all >> this time. >> >> I think you've understood much of what I try to say about play but not >> all. I'm relieved you read me as unorthodox!! >> Let me try to "yes, and" you and myself. >> What's key to me is not restraint or not, but the reshaping ("playing >> with") the dialectic who we are/not who we are of, being/becoming. This is >> both a point of departure from Vygotsky and at the same time it comes from >> him. I do think that his description of early childhood >> learning-and-development, and of the importance of imitation, and doing >> what you don't know how to do ? these are instances of being/becoming and >> very much?in their social activity-ness?like the way he describes early >> childhood play as "a head taller." He, as we know, makes a distinction >> between play being the leading activity of young children and learning of >> school age children?I think he didn't see the similarity in both "Play and >> Non-play" for young children?at least not the similarity that I see. In >> both, the child is engaging in a kind of being/becoming play/performance. >> So for me it is the simultaneity of being who we are and who we are not >> (other) that is what's the exciting and life span activity of playing, >> performing. (You can download my chapter, without Creating ZPDs There is No >> Creativity, in Vygotsky and Creativity at >> http://loisholzman.org/media/chapters/). >> So games, winners, losers, etc. are features of some play but not of all >> play. And I like what Vygotsky has to say about this and rules and >> imagination. >> >> I also understand play (in my sense of it) as how we human beings create >> culture...we don't just appropriate it. >> >> Again, thank you, >> Lois >> >> >> >> Lois Holzman >> Director, East Side Institute for Group & Short Term Psychotherapy >> 104-106 South Oxford Street >> Brooklyn, New York 11217 >> Chair, Global Outreach, All Stars Project, UX >> Tel. +1.212.941.8906 x324 >> Fax +1.718.797.3966 >> lholzman@eastsideinstitute.org >> Social Media >> Facebook | LinkedIn | Twitter >> Blogs >> Psychology Today| Psychology of Becoming | ESI Community News >> Websites >> Lois Holzman | East Side Institute | Performing the World >> All Stars Project >> >> >> >> On Jun 25, 2014, at 2:09 PM, Greg Thompson >> wrote: >> >>> Lois, >>> I wonder if the following captures your meaning/sense of the word "play": >>> >>> Play is an engagement with "the otherwise". >>> In a sense, play involves bringing irrealis into reality. >>> >>> I really like this way of thinking about play (and I may be reading too >>> much into your understanding of play so please correct me if I've >>> misunderstood you). For me, this idea of play is much more applicable to >>> the lives of adults and it opens up lots of encounters to a play >> analysis. >>> I assume that this is what you mean when you say that the kids talking >> with >>> police are "playing"; they are engaged in a type of relationship and >>> interaction that is "otherwise" - it isn't part of the normal types of >>> conversation that one expects to happen. >>> >>> This points up the fact that there are structured, expected relations >> that >>> we engage in as we go about our everyday lives. Lois, what you seem to me >>> to be pointing to is that play involves the transformation of these >>> expected relations, i.e. when "the otherwise" is realized in a moment of >>> interaction. >>> >>> It seems that this is a rather unorthodox sense of play. I wonder if it >>> comes out of the fact that you work primarily with adolescents and >> adults, >>> "grown-ups" as we emically refer to them. It seems likely to me that play >>> is something very fundamentally different for grown-ups than it is for >>> children. Most Vygotsky inspired play researchers are looking at play in >>> toddlers and early childhood. So I am very excited by your work that >> brings >>> play into adulthood (and as Artin notes, there are others who do this >> but I >>> don't know how many theorize adult "play" as explicitly or as well as you >>> do). >>> >>> It seems to me that somewhere in here is where David's problem lies (and >>> yours, to the extent that you are willing to share this burden with him). >>> He is pointing to the fact that "play" may be conceived in China as "lack >>> of restraint", and that is why Chinese say that they haven't played since >>> they were 2 year olds - they have primarily experienced restraint ever >>> since then (regardles of how they might be engaging "the otherwise" in >>> their everyday lives - even "teasing" could be a kind of engagement with >>> "the otherwise"). And David interestingly points to the fact that play >> has >>> a class dimension - it is what the poor kids do in the streets. That >> seems >>> like a notion of play that needs to be played with. And it seems to me >> that >>> this is precisely what you are interested in doing even as you accept >> their >>> definition of play for the sake of making your argument in the first >> place. >>> >>> I think we could push even further still and point out that life is play >> in >>> a very real(!) sense. The taken for granted social worlds that we inhabit >>> and that we are trying to play with are, in the first place, play. And >>> yet, we often don't realize that they are play (recall Marx's "men" make >>> history but not of their own choosing). Additionally, once we call it >>> "play" we assume that it is "unreal" (cf. "social constructionism" lit of >>> the mid to late 20th century). Yet this play is a highly consequential >> form >>> of play because, well, there are "winners" and there are "losers", and >> the >>> consequence of "winning" or "losing" is dire (perhaps this is why the >> movie >>> Hunger Games strikes a chord with people today? b.c. they see the world >>> today, mid-recession, as akin to a fight to the death). >>> >>> Anyway, hopefully there is a grain of sense in all of this play with play >>> (in play). >>> >>> and please, let me know if I'm terribly off-base here... >>> >>> Playfully, >>> greg >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 7:51 AM, Lois Holzman < >>> lholzman@eastsideinstitute.org> wrote: >>> >>>> Don't forget yourself, Artin! >>>> Lois >>>> >>>> Lois Holzman >>>> Director, East Side Institute for Group & Short Term Psychotherapy >>>> 104-106 South Oxford Street >>>> Brooklyn, New York 11217 >>>> Chair, Global Outreach, All Stars Project, UX >>>> Tel. +1.212.941.8906 x324 >>>> Fax +1.718.797.3966 >>>> lholzman@eastsideinstitute.org >>>> Social Media >>>> Facebook | LinkedIn | Twitter >>>> Blogs >>>> Psychology Today| Psychology of Becoming | ESI Community News >>>> Websites >>>> Lois Holzman | East Side Institute | Performing the World >>>> All Stars Project >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Jun 23, 2014, at 7:09 PM, Goncu, Artin wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> First, this is a quick note to say that I enjoyed Lois' talk, and >> second, >>>>> I enjoyed reading the responses to Lois' talk very much. I also wanted >>>> to >>>>> add that there are others on this list who have been addressing some of >>>>> the important issues raised both in Lois' talk and in the responses to >>>> it. >>>>> For example, issues about play being a collective, dialectical, and >>>>> dialogic activity improvised in human interaction are examined by Tony >>>>> Perone, Carrie Lobman, Keith Sawyer, and others.. >>>>> >>>>> All the best, ag >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, June 23, 2014 11:58 am, Lois Holzman wrote: >>>>>> Thanks, Tom. (I tried.) >>>>>> And I didn't realize I forgot the link. >>>>>> All best, >>>>>> Lois >>>>>> >>>>>> Lois Holzman >>>>>> Director, East Side Institute for Group & Short Term Psychotherapy >>>>>> 104-106 South Oxford Street >>>>>> Brooklyn, New York 11217 >>>>>> Chair, Global Outreach, All Stars Project, UX >>>>>> Tel. +1.212.941.8906 x324 >>>>>> Fax +1.718.797.3966 >>>>>> lholzman@eastsideinstitute.org >>>>>> Social Media >>>>>> Facebook | LinkedIn | Twitter >>>>>> Blogs >>>>>> Psychology Today| Psychology of Becoming | ESI Community News >>>>>> Websites >>>>>> Lois Holzman | East Side Institute | Performing the World >>>>>> All Stars Project >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Jun 23, 2014, at 11:19 AM, Tom Richardson >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Thank you, Lois, for finding time for this thoughtful reply to the >>>>>>> threads >>>>>>> around your TED piece -a link to your 'What's developing is below: >>>>>>> http://vimeo.com/98797556 >>>>>>> Tom >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 23 June 2014 16:01, Lois Holzman >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks to all who've watched the video and commented. >>>>>>>> Over the weekend I completed two weeks of PLAYING WITH a "small >> group" >>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>> psychologists/youth workers/educators from 5 countries who were in >> NYC >>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>> their final residency period with me and the Institute. I kept up >> with >>>>>>>> your >>>>>>>> posts but wasn't able to respond until now. >>>>>>>> I find the discussion fascinating in a few ways, which I will try to >>>>>>>> describe through commenting on what's been said/written. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I greatly appreciated Tom's concern ("We need Play to evolve the >> next >>>>>>>> tranche of revolutionary strategy and >>>>>>>>> tactics, but Play alone will never arrive at the necessity for >>>>>>>>> revolutionary overthrow of capitalism") and further comment and >>>>>>>> subsequent expansion on this ("While I did not wish to attack or >>>> offend >>>>>>>> deliberately, I feel that the >>>>>>>> limitations of work within individual/small group relationships, no >>>>>>>> matter >>>>>>>> how creative, redemptive and transformative, cannot have that same >>>>>>>> effect >>>>>>>> upon the 500year-developed /developing reality which is modern >>>>>>>> bourgeois >>>>>>>> society. It is that sense of limitation which I attempted, >>>>>>>>> straightforwardly to convey"). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Tom, I in no way felt attacked or offended. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I found Shirley and Helen's and Carol's versions of what I was >> doing >>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>> the talk and what the activities I presented might be "about" very >>>>>>>> helpful >>>>>>>> and appreciated learning what they saw. I was indeed trying to >>>> present >>>>>>>> something new to the audience, something that gave them the feeling >>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>> there was more "behind it" and that something was pretty unorthodox. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I suppose the key thing I can say in response is that I was >> speaking >>>>>>>> about play in a very particular way, as revolutionary. I was really >>>>>>>> pleased >>>>>>>> that the audience for the live presentation picked up on that and >> was >>>>>>>> excited by this new way of seeing. What I think revolutionary play >> is >>>>>>>> (in >>>>>>>> my talk I repeated what I mean by that several times?taking what >> there >>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>> and making something new, doing what we do not know how to do, >>>> relating >>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>> who we are/other than who we are at the same time) is a >>>>>>>> cultural-historical >>>>>>>> activity that creates development, and that all of us human beings >>>> need >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>> develop if we are to have a shot at overthrowing capitalism. (For >>>>>>>> "theory" >>>>>>>> the most concise expansion of this might be All Power to the >>>>>>>> Developing.The >>>>>>>> position put forth in that article has generated lively dialogue, as >>>> it >>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>> not the most popular among Marxists.) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> As I read some of the comments on my talk, it seems to me that how >> I >>>>>>>> understand play as revolutionary was not taken into account fully. >> By >>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>> I mean it seems like one's own understanding of play was substituted >>>>>>>> unaware. Perhaps this has something to do with Hue seeing play as >>>>>>>> "overdone" as well as David's commenting: >>>>>>>>> "One of the problems of Lois's talk is that it doesn't give us a >> very >>>>>>>> clear >>>>>>>> view of what play is not. But I would say that street kids talking >> to >>>>>>>> policemen about their fear of being gunned down in the street is a >>>>>>>> pretty >>>>>>>> good place to start. Lois herself recognizes in her talk that the >>>>>>>> conversations are not part of >>>>>>>> the play. But then we need to look at when and where the activity >>>>>>>> stopped >>>>>>>> being play, and above all why. Otherwise we rob "play" of all of its >>>>>>>> content." >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Sorry, David, if I was less than clear here. For me, the >> conversation >>>>>>>> was >>>>>>>> part of the play. The activity never stopped being play, as I >>>>>>>> understand >>>>>>>> it. The cops and kids were playing, in my sense of revolutionary >> play, >>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>> they were creating a conversation they had never had and perhaps >> could >>>>>>>> not >>>>>>>> were they not playing/performing...they were doing what was beyond >>>> them >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> creating something new together. I imagine you and others may not >> see >>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>> that way, but that's what I see. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> David's comments also highlight for me an aspect of perhaps >> different >>>>>>>> ways >>>>>>>> of approaching what it means to engage in the activity of >>>>>>>> understanding. As >>>>>>>> I read you, you need me to say what play is not and you also need me >>>> to >>>>>>>> pinpoint the beginnings and endings of something identified as play. >>>>>>>> It's >>>>>>>> that "is" that for me is the problematic term?it reads to me as >>>>>>>> pictorial >>>>>>>> and essentializing in reference to meaning. Apologies if I have >>>>>>>> misunderstood you. And while I don't mind playing being >> simultaneously >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> "leading activity" and the constant activity, I'm inspired by >>>> Vygotsky, >>>>>>>> not >>>>>>>> overdetermined by him. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I'm very sensitive to how we speak/write to each other, however, >>>>>>>> especially when difference of opinion gets in the way or replaces >>>>>>>> curiosity >>>>>>>> to learn more about how come someone thinks/believes what they >>>>>>>> apparently >>>>>>>> do. And so I wish that we would be asking more questions of each >>>>>>>> other... >>>>>>>> and perhaps saying things in less absolutist and knowing terms. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> David (again) wrote: >>>>>>>> PS: Obviously, the teacher who claimed that their generation in >> China >>>>>>>> (my >>>>>>>> wife's generation) did not play after the age of two was just >> playing >>>>>>>> around with poor Lois. But that's no reason to play along... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I "obviously" (and here it makes sense to use that word) cannot know >>>>>>>> your >>>>>>>> intention in writing what and how you wrote the above, as we cannot >>>>>>>> know >>>>>>>> each other's intentions. So I'll jump off from what you say and >> maybe >>>>>>>> help >>>>>>>> you see what I was trying to convey?75 teachers (not 1) told us in >>>>>>>> different ways/phrases that they hadn't played since they were very >>>>>>>> little >>>>>>>> children. They weren't making any claims, neither for themselves as >>>>>>>> individuals and certainly not for their generation. They were >> talking >>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>> us and sharing their experiences. I assume your wife has done the >> same >>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>> you, and that would be interesting to learn about. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I'm off tonight to work in Frankfurt for the week, but if there is >>>>>>>> further >>>>>>>> conversation I will respond quickly. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If any of you are interested in pursuing the topic of play and >>>>>>>> performance >>>>>>>> in our current context of capitalism's crisis, from my community's >>>>>>>> perspective, you can view an event, What Developing in a World in >>>>>>>> Crisis >>>>>>>> which begins with 9 people from 8 countries speaking to how they see >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> development challenges in their countries, followed by a >> conversation >>>>>>>> between me and a colleague, and then the audience. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Again, thanks for including me, TED, play in your discussions, >>>>>>>> Lois >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Lois Holzman >>>>>>>> Director, East Side Institute for Group & Short Term Psychotherapy >>>>>>>> 104-106 South Oxford Street >>>>>>>> Brooklyn, New York 11217 >>>>>>>> Chair, Global Outreach, All Stars Project, UX >>>>>>>> Tel. +1.212.941.8906 x324 >>>>>>>> Fax +1.718.797.3966 >>>>>>>> lholzman@eastsideinstitute.org >>>>>>>> Social Media >>>>>>>> Facebook | LinkedIn | Twitter >>>>>>>> Blogs >>>>>>>> Psychology Today| Psychology of Becoming | ESI Community News >>>>>>>> Websites >>>>>>>> Lois Holzman | East Side Institute | Performing the World >>>>>>>> All Stars Project >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Jun 22, 2014, at 1:31 AM, mike cole wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I wonder what Lois thinks about all of this discussion that Peter >>>>>>>> started? >>>>>>>>> Mike >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Friday, June 20, 2014, David Kellogg >>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> I agree completely with Tom's remarks. I remember that almost every >>>>>>>> summer >>>>>>>>> in Chicago between five and ten black children in the city would be >>>>>>>>> murdered by police for playing with toy guns. Consider this: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >> http://www.mintpressnews.com/us-police-murdered-5000-innocent-civilians-since-911/172029/ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> To link this to the previous thread--I don't think that the article >>>>>>>>> "What >>>>>>>>> Theory is Not" has a workable definition of theory, and for that >>>>>>>>> reason I >>>>>>>>> found it little more than a list of complaints. But part of the >>>>>>>> dialectical >>>>>>>>> method is defining what things are by looking at what things are >>>>>>>>> not: transgressing that boundary is precisely what we mean when we >>>> say >>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>> something is in the process of becoming what it is not. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> One of the problems of Lois's talk is that it doesn't give us a >> very >>>>>>>> clear >>>>>>>>> view of what play is not. But I would say that street kids talking >> to >>>>>>>>> policemen about their fear of being gunned down in the street is a >>>>>>>>> pretty >>>>>>>>> good place to start. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Lois herself recognizes in her talk that the conversations are not >>>>>>>>> part >>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>> the play. But then we need to look at when and where the activity >>>>>>>>> stopped >>>>>>>>> being play, and above all why. Otherwise we rob "play" of all of >> its >>>>>>>>> content. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I think the same thing is true when we say that children play >>>>>>>>> constantly, >>>>>>>>> from the moment they wake up to the moment they go to bed (and >>>>>>>>> Vygotsky, >>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>> course, says the opposite--play is a "leading" activity but for >> that >>>>>>>>> very >>>>>>>>> reason we cannot say it is the main activity). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> David Kellogg >>>>>>>>> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> PS: Obviously, the teacher who claimed that their generation in >> China >>>>>>>>> (my >>>>>>>>> wife's generation) did not play after the age of two was just >> playing >>>>>>>>> around with poor Lois. But that's no reason to play along... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> dk >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 20 June 2014 06:03, Tom Richardson < >>>> tom.richardson3@googlemail.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> A fascinating and moving 14+minutes of Lois ....only how I wish >> that >>>>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>> did >>>>>>>>>> not subscribe to a class analysis which means that the last >> example >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> 'kids of colour' and the NYPD is called into deep question - will >>>> the >>>>>>>>>> lethal divides of capitalism's "special bodies of armed men" from >>>>>>>>>> working-class citizens, (and of course it extends to imperialism's >>>>>>>>>> destruction of whole countries), be 'overcome' by Play. Lois' >>>>>>>> commitment >>>>>>>>>> and passionate intelligence almost lets me believe it might, but I >>>>>>>>>> know >>>>>>>>>> that I'm fooling myself. >>>>>>>>>> We need Play to evolve the next tranche of revolutionary strategy >>>> and >>>>>>>>>> tactics, but Play alone will never arrive at the necessity for >>>>>>>>>> revolutionary overthrow of capitalism, only, from Lois' examples, >>>>>>>>>> ultimately futile attempts at transcending class conflict, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Tom Richardson >>>>>>>>>> Middlesbrough >>>>>>>>>> UK >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 19 June 2014 20:57, Carol Macdonald >>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Well Lois >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> That was splendid, awesome! All you serious XMCAers please watch. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Carol >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 19 June 2014 13:48, Lois Holzman < >>>> lholzman@eastsideinstitute.org> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Here's the link, Carol. >>>>>>>>>>>> http://tedxnavesink.com/project/lois-holzman/ >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Lois Holzman >>>>>>>>>>>> Director, East Side Institute for Group & Short Term >> Psychotherapy >>>>>>>>>>>> 104-106 South Oxford Street >>>>>>>>>>>> Brooklyn, New York 11217 >>>>>>>>>>>> Chair, Global Outreach, All Stars Project, UX >>>>>>>>>>>> Tel. +1.212.941.8906 x324 >>>>>>>>>>>> Fax +1.718.797.3966 >>>>>>>>>>>> lholzman@eastsideinstitute.org >>>>>>>>>>>> Social Media >>>>>>>>>>>> Facebook | LinkedIn | Twitter >>>>>>>>>>>> Blogs >>>>>>>>>>>> Psychology Today| Psychology of Becoming | ESI Community News >>>>>>>>>>>> Websites >>>>>>>>>>>> Lois Holzman | East Side Institute | Performing the World >>>>>>>>>>>> All Stars Project >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 19, 2014, at 3:02 AM, Carol Macdonald < >>>>>>>> carolmacdon@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Louis >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Please could you send the link again? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks >>>>>>>>>>>>> Carol >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 19 June 2014 01:03, Lois Holzman < >>>>>>>> lholzman@eastsideinstitute.org> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi All, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Peter kindly posted a link to a talk I gave last month at a >> TEDx >>>>>>>>>>>>>> event--TEDxNavesink Play. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Aside from the prep being among the hardest things I've ever >>>>>>>> done >>>>>>>>>>>> (staying >>>>>>>>>>>>>> within their rules and structure, not being academic but >> saying >>>>>>>>>>>> something >>>>>>>>>>>>>> new for people to think about, and more), it was a delight to >> be >>>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>>>> folks >>>>>>>>>>>>>> who appreciate and value play--many of whom are affording >>>>>>>> people in >>>>>>>>>>>> their >>>>>>>>>>>>>> communities with the opportunity to play in all kinds of ways. >>>>>>>> It >>>>>>>>>> was >>>>>>>>>>>>>> really growthful for me and my team. I was really pleased to >>>>>>>>>> reconnect >>>>>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Peter Gray after many years and to meet other good people. The >>>>>>>>>> one-day >>>>>>>>>>>>>> event was organized are 4 P's--possibility, pleasure, progress >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>> paradox. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I invite you all to include these talks within your >> conversation >>>>>>>>>>>> here--even >>>>>>>>>>>>>> though they're not theoretical. Maybe it's a new kind of play >>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>>>> many. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lois >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lois Holzman >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Director, East Side Institute for Group & Short Term >>>>>>>> Psychotherapy >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 104-106 South Oxford Street >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Brooklyn, New York 11217 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chair, Global Outreach, All Stars Project, UX >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tel. +1.212.941.8906 x324 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fax +1.718.797.3966 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> lholzman@eastsideinstitute.org >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Social Media >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Facebook | LinkedIn | Twitter >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Blogs >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Psychology Today| Psychology of Becoming | ESI Community News >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Websites >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lois Holzman | East Side Institute | Performing the World >>>>>>>>>>>>>> All Stars Project >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>> Carol A Macdonald Ph D (Edin) >>>>>>>>>>>>> Developmental psycholinguist >>>>>>>>>>>>> Academic, Researcher, and Editor >>>>>>>>>>>>> Honorary Research Fellow: Department of Linguistics, Unisa >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>> Carol A Macdonald Ph D (Edin) >>>>>>>>>>> Developmental psycholinguist >>>>>>>>>>> Academic, Researcher, and Editor >>>>>>>>>>> Honorary Research Fellow: Department of Linguistics, Unisa >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Artin Goncu, Ph.D >>>>> Co-editor, Mind, Culture, and Activity:An International Journal >>>>> Professor Emeritus, >>>>> University of Illinois at Chicago >>>>> College of Education M/C 147 >>>>> 1040 W. Harrison St. >>>>> Chicago, IL 60607 >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. >>> Assistant Professor >>> Department of Anthropology >>> 883 Spencer W. Kimball Tower >>> Brigham Young University >>> Provo, UT 84602 >>> http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson >> >> From ablunden@mira.net Mon Jul 7 18:11:53 2014 From: ablunden@mira.net (Andy Blunden) Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2014 11:11:53 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: In Defense of Fuzzy Things In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <53BB4559.40005@mira.net> "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master - that's all." /(Through the Looking Glass, Chapter 6 )/ // / Thank you David for your (as ever) deep and amusing post. Thank you in particular for Wordsworth! I think that our legislative and judicial systems prove something about the relation between abstract simplicity and arcane complexity. Everyone knows that X is a serious crime, but when our lawmakers set out to define it so our judges can make judgments on it, they are still dotting i's and crossing t's 500 years later. And along come our Tea Party types with their mandatory sentencing and their firm conviction that it all really is quite simple. Everything Lubomir said is true as well. We have a specific problem at hand: failure of mutual understanding and failure to understand key concepts at the root of the scientific current of which we are all a part. I particularly appreciate Lubomir's words about the need to reconstruct, from the beginning, terms and concepts which have been imported from one context to another, rather than attempt to simply life up a word and drop it into a different culture (though on occasion the use of a foreign word may be appropriate, n'est-ce pas?) For that we need a simple starting point upon which to build layers of complexity. If I love my meal at a French restaurant and ask the waiter for "un autre" and he is forcing me out the door amidst a torrent of abuse, until a kind fellow diner tells me that I should have asked for "un deuxieme" - the waiter thinks that I am pretending to complain that the quality was unsatisfactory and demanding a replacement after I have eaten the whole meal - then I have to face the difference between the ineffable differences between French and Anglo cultures and the question of simple misunderstanding. N'est-ce pas? The problems with perezhivanie and the problems with unit are essentially problems of a different kind. What predominates in the case of perezhivanie is the cultural context and linguistic history; what predominates in the case of unit is the analytical and dialectical logic. In both cases both factors are at play and mutually complicating each other. I think that the appearance of the general idea of perezhivanie in multiple cultural and disciplinary contexts is an *aid* to mutual understanding and clarity. But in the case of unit, I really think that an ability to recover the original Goethean/Hegelian idea is essential. Andy / ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Andy Blunden* http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ David Kellogg wrote: > Andy has written a number of posts in which he has implied clarity is a > paramount goal in philosophical discussions, or, conversely, people are > "confused" by having read key texts in an order which obscures their > genetic relationship to each other. > > What I want to suggest is that these two things are actually in > contradiction: if we want to understand how texts are genetically related > to each other, we have understand how the word meanings they contain can be > "fuzzy" rather than clear. > > Fuzzy boundaries are, if you will pardon the expression, central to human > languages, including philosophical language (which is, as Halliday points > out, merely a tidied up version of naturally fuzzy language, an upstart > which has come back to berate its slovenly parents). Let me take the very > first sentence of "Thinking and Speech" as an example. > > "This work is a psychological study of one of the most difficult, complex, > and intricately tangled questions of experimental psychology, the problem > of thinking and speech." > > Vygotsky is very fond of triplets like these, and when we first read him, > we often take it as redundancy, and we are comforted, because if we don't > understand what he means by "complex" we can catch him on the rebound with > "difficult" and if that doesn't work, we get a nice concrete image with > "tangled". > > But as the text unfolds, it transpires that something can be difficult > without being complex. For example, Vygotsky's interpretation of egocentric > speech is actually less complex than Piaget's, because it has fewer parts, > but it is quite a bit more difficult, precisely because it puts things that > are apparently quite different together. > > Similarly, it transpires that something can be complex without being > difficult, e.g. the different senses of "consciousness" used by Freud and > Piaget, which Vygotsky sorts out with the simple example of tying his > shoes. The question of learning and development is "tangled" and > "difficult" but it has only two parts to it. So we have to say that there > is a certain fuzziness here, not unrelated to the fuzziness of "unit" and > "unity" that we've been discussing. > > Let me take one more example: the idea of a "???????????". Should it be > "felt experience" or "thought over experience" or just "lived experience"? > The difference seems extremely important; as Andy points out, the concept > is undoubtedly related--genetically--to the emergence of "notion" or > "concept" through contemplation. Andy is doubly right to relate it to the > German Romantic idea of "Urphanomenon". We even find it in English in > Wordsworth's famous preface to the Lyrical Ballads, where he defines poetry > as "emotion recollected in tranquility": > > "(T)he emotion is contemplated till, by a species of reaction, the > tranquillity gradually disappears, and an emotion, kindred to that which > was before the subject of contemplation, is gradually produced, and does > itself actually exist in the mind." > > But of course in order to see these quite distinct ideas as being linked, > we can't just see them as clearly distinct--it's sometimes more useful to > see them as being fuzzy. It seems to me that ontogenetically, a "???????????" > must needs be at first mostly a "felt experience", because the child > doesn't have much experience to recollect in tranquility. Only then can it > become mostly a "thought over experience", and it is only in the minds of > dinosaurs like me and Andy that we can say it is a thoroughly lived out > experience. (I have sometimes felt a little like a > placid, ruminant brontosaur set upon by a ferocious tyrannosaur, but I > console myself with the thought that where Andy says I am confused, I am > usually just plain wrong.) > > Still, I think this fuzziness of my language doesn't preclude setting up > the kinds of distinctions that Andy finds so important in philosophical > language; on the contrary, understanding how things move seems to > necessitate a kind of "moving picture" approach where we can make many fine > distinctions and then try to link them fluidly, simply because that is the > way our language and our minds works. But there are two intellectual > operations to this: the ability to separate things out into separate > frames, and then the ability to join the frames in a single fluid motion. > Once we clarify, we have to fuzz out. > > Take a look at this. It's actually a Flash Mob at Tesco's in Holland Park, > London, carried out as a sort of publicity stunt by a local opera troop > trying to publicize their rendition of Puccini's "La Rondine" (a kind of > verismo version of "Traviata", except that nobody dies). Like any Flash > Mob, the categories of experiencers are kind of fuzzy--at the beginning > it's a little unclear whether the cashier's assistant is in on the joke or > not: is she doing the Flash Mob or merely undergoing it? By the end it's a > party to which everybody is invited, even the Chinese tourists with their > cell phone cameras. > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsLivg6byjM > > I think categories of experience are similarly porous, which is another way > of saying that they are warm and fuzzy: we all begin as outsiders, but > understanding is a process of becoming an insider. The question is: is > becomign an insider a process of transforming undergoing into doing, or is > it a process of transforming undergoing into doing? It's kind of fuzzy. > > David Kellogg > Hankuk University of Foreign Studies > > From greg.a.thompson@gmail.com Mon Jul 7 21:52:08 2014 From: greg.a.thompson@gmail.com (Greg Thompson) Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2014 23:52:08 -0500 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Playing with/at TED In-Reply-To: References: <2C6F613E-DEB0-448E-92DA-6EA0F444F039@eastsideinstitute.org> <090114A9-AC6E-4B26-8D44-DB63B275B3E8@eastsideinstitute.org> <8A4F9BDC-704C-4E9A-A773-56EFD19B9A04@eastsideinstitute.org> <83E9B13C-1108-4E6E-938A-2F75BBA6F4FA@eastsideinstitute.org> <0a7b1594f5d37f248a535fe8ed6cba3d.squirrel@webmail.uic.edu> <9E8200C6-075C-4803-800E-0B23BB4B1BD8@eastsideinstitute.org> Message-ID: I thought I might dial back the level of theorizing a bit (all apologies Larry!) and point to the movie A Thousand Clowns and raise a question. Here is the link to the opening 4 minutes of the movie: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KpgUMT6EGg My question is: who is "playing" in this movie? Jason Robards' character or everyone else? -greg p.s. You can never have too many eagles! On Sun, Jul 6, 2014 at 3:12 PM, Larry Purss wrote: > Lois, Greg > > This theme of *radical* play [going to the root of play] and Greg's playing > with the term *otherwise* than the real/actual I hope can be played with a > little further. > > I *read* this theme of emerging lived experience / live experiencing [from > D Kellogg in the other post] as pointing to *human nature* as playing > between the literal and metaphorical > > Merleau-Ponty suggests that subjects and objects SIMULTANEOUSLY emerge > within / clearings / fields / dimensions / > and the difficulty arises when we expand an *object* to become perceived AS > THE /field/clearing/dimension. > We loose sight of the *object* as an *aspect* of the clearing [where > becoming/not becoming are being *played out* within the simultaneous > emergence of subjectivity and objectivity] and we become lost in the object > AS IF it was the dimension of experience. > > Mike, this playful theme I *read* also as an example of the metaphor of the > *developmental spiral* moving between *individuation* [subjectivity] AND > *integration* [self's return to original source at a *higher* level of > *development* > As I listened to Anna Stetsenko's contrasting Dewey's *transactional* model > with her *transformational* model I also *read* another version of this > *spiral* metaphor of subject and object playfully emerging within lived > experience / live experienced backward and forward play > > This theme also ties in with the question of *humanism* within the notion > of *human nature* Is the character [quality] of *play* a transhistorical > phenomena?? Joel Kovel defines *transhistorical* as a phenomena that is a > property of *human nature* that needs to be manifest in all historical > situations, whwerever humans have made there world. Transhistorical > phenomena cannot be confined to particular historical locations. On the > other hand the transhistorical is not natural either [in the informal > sense] since the transhistorical ONLY manifests historically and so is > shaped decisively by particular historical conditions. > Transhistorical phenomena do confer a degree of universality and > *essentiality* to the notion of human nature. > Is it possible that *radical* play [could be otherwise] is a > transhistorical aspect mediating BETWEEN *human* AND *nature*?? > > Joel Kovel suggests there is an ensemble of five qualities/ideas of > *nature* which are variations on the THEME of *otherness* A sense that our > *human being* reflects a sense that our being is a part and yet distinct > from nature. A sense of our human incompleteness and mortality. Therefore > the metaphor of the *developmental spiral* playing out through the > Christian fall of the soul away from God, through neo-platonists through > Romantic return to nature and moving to current models of psychology and > even *critical hermeneutics* [see Joel Kovel] > > AN ASIDE: Joel identifies nature's five qualities as *essence* *vital > force* *real material world* *past* and *archetypal primal mother* He > suggests all five qualities are variations on the theme of *otherness* [and > I would add *desire for return to integration] > > I *read* radical play as possibly participating in this spiral metaphor AS > a *root* metaphor [radical AS root] > > Larry > > > > > > On Sat, Jul 5, 2014 at 8:41 PM, Lois Holzman < > lholzman@eastsideinstitute.org > > wrote: > > > Apologies, Greg, for the delay in responding to this very meaty message! > I > > appreciate that it led you in many directions and you took the time to > > share them with me and xmca. I read it quickly and then overlooked it all > > this time. > > > > I think you've understood much of what I try to say about play but not > > all. I'm relieved you read me as unorthodox!! > > Let me try to "yes, and" you and myself. > > What's key to me is not restraint or not, but the reshaping ("playing > > with") the dialectic who we are/not who we are of, being/becoming. This > is > > both a point of departure from Vygotsky and at the same time it comes > from > > him. I do think that his description of early childhood > > learning-and-development, and of the importance of imitation, and doing > > what you don't know how to do ? these are instances of being/becoming and > > very much?in their social activity-ness?like the way he describes early > > childhood play as "a head taller." He, as we know, makes a distinction > > between play being the leading activity of young children and learning of > > school age children?I think he didn't see the similarity in both "Play > and > > Non-play" for young children?at least not the similarity that I see. In > > both, the child is engaging in a kind of being/becoming play/performance. > > So for me it is the simultaneity of being who we are and who we are not > > (other) that is what's the exciting and life span activity of playing, > > performing. (You can download my chapter, without Creating ZPDs There is > No > > Creativity, in Vygotsky and Creativity at > > http://loisholzman.org/media/chapters/). > > So games, winners, losers, etc. are features of some play but not of all > > play. And I like what Vygotsky has to say about this and rules and > > imagination. > > > > I also understand play (in my sense of it) as how we human beings create > > culture...we don't just appropriate it. > > > > Again, thank you, > > Lois > > > > > > > > Lois Holzman > > Director, East Side Institute for Group & Short Term Psychotherapy > > 104-106 South Oxford Street > > Brooklyn, New York 11217 > > Chair, Global Outreach, All Stars Project, UX > > Tel. +1.212.941.8906 x324 > > Fax +1.718.797.3966 > > lholzman@eastsideinstitute.org > > Social Media > > Facebook | LinkedIn | Twitter > > Blogs > > Psychology Today| Psychology of Becoming | ESI Community News > > Websites > > Lois Holzman | East Side Institute | Performing the World > > All Stars Project > > > > > > > > On Jun 25, 2014, at 2:09 PM, Greg Thompson > > wrote: > > > > > Lois, > > > I wonder if the following captures your meaning/sense of the word > "play": > > > > > > Play is an engagement with "the otherwise". > > > In a sense, play involves bringing irrealis into reality. > > > > > > I really like this way of thinking about play (and I may be reading too > > > much into your understanding of play so please correct me if I've > > > misunderstood you). For me, this idea of play is much more applicable > to > > > the lives of adults and it opens up lots of encounters to a play > > analysis. > > > I assume that this is what you mean when you say that the kids talking > > with > > > police are "playing"; they are engaged in a type of relationship and > > > interaction that is "otherwise" - it isn't part of the normal types of > > > conversation that one expects to happen. > > > > > > This points up the fact that there are structured, expected relations > > that > > > we engage in as we go about our everyday lives. Lois, what you seem to > me > > > to be pointing to is that play involves the transformation of these > > > expected relations, i.e. when "the otherwise" is realized in a moment > of > > > interaction. > > > > > > It seems that this is a rather unorthodox sense of play. I wonder if it > > > comes out of the fact that you work primarily with adolescents and > > adults, > > > "grown-ups" as we emically refer to them. It seems likely to me that > play > > > is something very fundamentally different for grown-ups than it is for > > > children. Most Vygotsky inspired play researchers are looking at play > in > > > toddlers and early childhood. So I am very excited by your work that > > brings > > > play into adulthood (and as Artin notes, there are others who do this > > but I > > > don't know how many theorize adult "play" as explicitly or as well as > you > > > do). > > > > > > It seems to me that somewhere in here is where David's problem lies > (and > > > yours, to the extent that you are willing to share this burden with > him). > > > He is pointing to the fact that "play" may be conceived in China as > "lack > > > of restraint", and that is why Chinese say that they haven't played > since > > > they were 2 year olds - they have primarily experienced restraint ever > > > since then (regardles of how they might be engaging "the otherwise" in > > > their everyday lives - even "teasing" could be a kind of engagement > with > > > "the otherwise"). And David interestingly points to the fact that play > > has > > > a class dimension - it is what the poor kids do in the streets. That > > seems > > > like a notion of play that needs to be played with. And it seems to me > > that > > > this is precisely what you are interested in doing even as you accept > > their > > > definition of play for the sake of making your argument in the first > > place. > > > > > > I think we could push even further still and point out that life is > play > > in > > > a very real(!) sense. The taken for granted social worlds that we > inhabit > > > and that we are trying to play with are, in the first place, play. And > > > yet, we often don't realize that they are play (recall Marx's "men" > make > > > history but not of their own choosing). Additionally, once we call it > > > "play" we assume that it is "unreal" (cf. "social constructionism" lit > of > > > the mid to late 20th century). Yet this play is a highly consequential > > form > > > of play because, well, there are "winners" and there are "losers", and > > the > > > consequence of "winning" or "losing" is dire (perhaps this is why the > > movie > > > Hunger Games strikes a chord with people today? b.c. they see the world > > > today, mid-recession, as akin to a fight to the death). > > > > > > Anyway, hopefully there is a grain of sense in all of this play with > play > > > (in play). > > > > > > and please, let me know if I'm terribly off-base here... > > > > > > Playfully, > > > greg > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 7:51 AM, Lois Holzman < > > > lholzman@eastsideinstitute.org> wrote: > > > > > >> Don't forget yourself, Artin! > > >> Lois > > >> > > >> Lois Holzman > > >> Director, East Side Institute for Group & Short Term Psychotherapy > > >> 104-106 South Oxford Street > > >> Brooklyn, New York 11217 > > >> Chair, Global Outreach, All Stars Project, UX > > >> Tel. +1.212.941.8906 x324 > > >> Fax +1.718.797.3966 > > >> lholzman@eastsideinstitute.org > > >> Social Media > > >> Facebook | LinkedIn | Twitter > > >> Blogs > > >> Psychology Today| Psychology of Becoming | ESI Community News > > >> Websites > > >> Lois Holzman | East Side Institute | Performing the World > > >> All Stars Project > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> On Jun 23, 2014, at 7:09 PM, Goncu, Artin wrote: > > >> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> First, this is a quick note to say that I enjoyed Lois' talk, and > > second, > > >>> I enjoyed reading the responses to Lois' talk very much. I also > wanted > > >> to > > >>> add that there are others on this list who have been addressing some > of > > >>> the important issues raised both in Lois' talk and in the responses > to > > >> it. > > >>> For example, issues about play being a collective, dialectical, and > > >>> dialogic activity improvised in human interaction are examined by > Tony > > >>> Perone, Carrie Lobman, Keith Sawyer, and others.. > > >>> > > >>> All the best, ag > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> On Mon, June 23, 2014 11:58 am, Lois Holzman wrote: > > >>>> Thanks, Tom. (I tried.) > > >>>> And I didn't realize I forgot the link. > > >>>> All best, > > >>>> Lois > > >>>> > > >>>> Lois Holzman > > >>>> Director, East Side Institute for Group & Short Term Psychotherapy > > >>>> 104-106 South Oxford Street > > >>>> Brooklyn, New York 11217 > > >>>> Chair, Global Outreach, All Stars Project, UX > > >>>> Tel. +1.212.941.8906 x324 > > >>>> Fax +1.718.797.3966 > > >>>> lholzman@eastsideinstitute.org > > >>>> Social Media > > >>>> Facebook | LinkedIn | Twitter > > >>>> Blogs > > >>>> Psychology Today| Psychology of Becoming | ESI Community News > > >>>> Websites > > >>>> Lois Holzman | East Side Institute | Performing the World > > >>>> All Stars Project > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> On Jun 23, 2014, at 11:19 AM, Tom Richardson > > >>>> wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>>> Thank you, Lois, for finding time for this thoughtful reply to the > > >>>>> threads > > >>>>> around your TED piece -a link to your 'What's developing is below: > > >>>>> http://vimeo.com/98797556 > > >>>>> Tom > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> On 23 June 2014 16:01, Lois Holzman < > lholzman@eastsideinstitute.org> > > >>>>> wrote: > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> Thanks to all who've watched the video and commented. > > >>>>>> Over the weekend I completed two weeks of PLAYING WITH a "small > > group" > > >>>>>> of > > >>>>>> psychologists/youth workers/educators from 5 countries who were in > > NYC > > >>>>>> for > > >>>>>> their final residency period with me and the Institute. I kept up > > with > > >>>>>> your > > >>>>>> posts but wasn't able to respond until now. > > >>>>>> I find the discussion fascinating in a few ways, which I will try > to > > >>>>>> describe through commenting on what's been said/written. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> I greatly appreciated Tom's concern ("We need Play to evolve the > > next > > >>>>>> tranche of revolutionary strategy and > > >>>>>>> tactics, but Play alone will never arrive at the necessity for > > >>>>>>> revolutionary overthrow of capitalism") and further comment and > > >>>>>> subsequent expansion on this ("While I did not wish to attack or > > >> offend > > >>>>>> deliberately, I feel that the > > >>>>>> limitations of work within individual/small group relationships, > no > > >>>>>> matter > > >>>>>> how creative, redemptive and transformative, cannot have that same > > >>>>>> effect > > >>>>>> upon the 500year-developed /developing reality which is modern > > >>>>>> bourgeois > > >>>>>> society. It is that sense of limitation which I attempted, > > >>>>>>> straightforwardly to convey"). > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Tom, I in no way felt attacked or offended. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> I found Shirley and Helen's and Carol's versions of what I was > > doing > > >>>>>>> in > > >>>>>> the talk and what the activities I presented might be "about" very > > >>>>>> helpful > > >>>>>> and appreciated learning what they saw. I was indeed trying to > > >> present > > >>>>>> something new to the audience, something that gave them the > feeling > > >>>>>> that > > >>>>>> there was more "behind it" and that something was pretty > unorthodox. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> I suppose the key thing I can say in response is that I was > > speaking > > >>>>>> about play in a very particular way, as revolutionary. I was > really > > >>>>>> pleased > > >>>>>> that the audience for the live presentation picked up on that and > > was > > >>>>>> excited by this new way of seeing. What I think revolutionary play > > is > > >>>>>> (in > > >>>>>> my talk I repeated what I mean by that several times?taking what > > there > > >>>>>> is > > >>>>>> and making something new, doing what we do not know how to do, > > >> relating > > >>>>>> as > > >>>>>> who we are/other than who we are at the same time) is a > > >>>>>> cultural-historical > > >>>>>> activity that creates development, and that all of us human beings > > >> need > > >>>>>> to > > >>>>>> develop if we are to have a shot at overthrowing capitalism. (For > > >>>>>> "theory" > > >>>>>> the most concise expansion of this might be All Power to the > > >>>>>> Developing.The > > >>>>>> position put forth in that article has generated lively dialogue, > as > > >> it > > >>>>>> is > > >>>>>> not the most popular among Marxists.) > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> As I read some of the comments on my talk, it seems to me that > how > > I > > >>>>>> understand play as revolutionary was not taken into account fully. > > By > > >>>>>> that > > >>>>>> I mean it seems like one's own understanding of play was > substituted > > >>>>>> unaware. Perhaps this has something to do with Hue seeing play as > > >>>>>> "overdone" as well as David's commenting: > > >>>>>>> "One of the problems of Lois's talk is that it doesn't give us a > > very > > >>>>>> clear > > >>>>>> view of what play is not. But I would say that street kids talking > > to > > >>>>>> policemen about their fear of being gunned down in the street is a > > >>>>>> pretty > > >>>>>> good place to start. Lois herself recognizes in her talk that the > > >>>>>> conversations are not part of > > >>>>>> the play. But then we need to look at when and where the activity > > >>>>>> stopped > > >>>>>> being play, and above all why. Otherwise we rob "play" of all of > its > > >>>>>> content." > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Sorry, David, if I was less than clear here. For me, the > > conversation > > >>>>>> was > > >>>>>> part of the play. The activity never stopped being play, as I > > >>>>>> understand > > >>>>>> it. The cops and kids were playing, in my sense of revolutionary > > play, > > >>>>>> as > > >>>>>> they were creating a conversation they had never had and perhaps > > could > > >>>>>> not > > >>>>>> were they not playing/performing...they were doing what was beyond > > >> them > > >>>>>> and > > >>>>>> creating something new together. I imagine you and others may not > > see > > >>>>>> it > > >>>>>> that way, but that's what I see. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> David's comments also highlight for me an aspect of perhaps > > different > > >>>>>> ways > > >>>>>> of approaching what it means to engage in the activity of > > >>>>>> understanding. As > > >>>>>> I read you, you need me to say what play is not and you also need > me > > >> to > > >>>>>> pinpoint the beginnings and endings of something identified as > play. > > >>>>>> It's > > >>>>>> that "is" that for me is the problematic term?it reads to me as > > >>>>>> pictorial > > >>>>>> and essentializing in reference to meaning. Apologies if I have > > >>>>>> misunderstood you. And while I don't mind playing being > > simultaneously > > >>>>>> the > > >>>>>> "leading activity" and the constant activity, I'm inspired by > > >> Vygotsky, > > >>>>>> not > > >>>>>> overdetermined by him. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> I'm very sensitive to how we speak/write to each other, however, > > >>>>>> especially when difference of opinion gets in the way or replaces > > >>>>>> curiosity > > >>>>>> to learn more about how come someone thinks/believes what they > > >>>>>> apparently > > >>>>>> do. And so I wish that we would be asking more questions of each > > >>>>>> other... > > >>>>>> and perhaps saying things in less absolutist and knowing terms. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> David (again) wrote: > > >>>>>> PS: Obviously, the teacher who claimed that their generation in > > China > > >>>>>> (my > > >>>>>> wife's generation) did not play after the age of two was just > > playing > > >>>>>> around with poor Lois. But that's no reason to play along... > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> I "obviously" (and here it makes sense to use that word) cannot > know > > >>>>>> your > > >>>>>> intention in writing what and how you wrote the above, as we > cannot > > >>>>>> know > > >>>>>> each other's intentions. So I'll jump off from what you say and > > maybe > > >>>>>> help > > >>>>>> you see what I was trying to convey?75 teachers (not 1) told us in > > >>>>>> different ways/phrases that they hadn't played since they were > very > > >>>>>> little > > >>>>>> children. They weren't making any claims, neither for themselves > as > > >>>>>> individuals and certainly not for their generation. They were > > talking > > >>>>>> with > > >>>>>> us and sharing their experiences. I assume your wife has done the > > same > > >>>>>> with > > >>>>>> you, and that would be interesting to learn about. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> I'm off tonight to work in Frankfurt for the week, but if there is > > >>>>>> further > > >>>>>> conversation I will respond quickly. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> If any of you are interested in pursuing the topic of play and > > >>>>>> performance > > >>>>>> in our current context of capitalism's crisis, from my community's > > >>>>>> perspective, you can view an event, What Developing in a World in > > >>>>>> Crisis > > >>>>>> which begins with 9 people from 8 countries speaking to how they > see > > >>>>>> the > > >>>>>> development challenges in their countries, followed by a > > conversation > > >>>>>> between me and a colleague, and then the audience. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Again, thanks for including me, TED, play in your discussions, > > >>>>>> Lois > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Lois Holzman > > >>>>>> Director, East Side Institute for Group & Short Term Psychotherapy > > >>>>>> 104-106 South Oxford Street > > >>>>>> Brooklyn, New York 11217 > > >>>>>> Chair, Global Outreach, All Stars Project, UX > > >>>>>> Tel. +1.212.941.8906 x324 > > >>>>>> Fax +1.718.797.3966 > > >>>>>> lholzman@eastsideinstitute.org > > >>>>>> Social Media > > >>>>>> Facebook | LinkedIn | Twitter > > >>>>>> Blogs > > >>>>>> Psychology Today| Psychology of Becoming | ESI Community News > > >>>>>> Websites > > >>>>>> Lois Holzman | East Side Institute | Performing the World > > >>>>>> All Stars Project > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> On Jun 22, 2014, at 1:31 AM, mike cole > wrote: > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> I wonder what Lois thinks about all of this discussion that Peter > > >>>>>> started? > > >>>>>>> Mike > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> On Friday, June 20, 2014, David Kellogg > > >> wrote: > > >>>>>>> I agree completely with Tom's remarks. I remember that almost > every > > >>>>>> summer > > >>>>>>> in Chicago between five and ten black children in the city would > be > > >>>>>>> murdered by police for playing with toy guns. Consider this: > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >> > > > http://www.mintpressnews.com/us-police-murdered-5000-innocent-civilians-since-911/172029/ > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> To link this to the previous thread--I don't think that the > article > > >>>>>>> "What > > >>>>>>> Theory is Not" has a workable definition of theory, and for that > > >>>>>>> reason I > > >>>>>>> found it little more than a list of complaints. But part of the > > >>>>>> dialectical > > >>>>>>> method is defining what things are by looking at what things are > > >>>>>>> not: transgressing that boundary is precisely what we mean when > we > > >> say > > >>>>>> that > > >>>>>>> something is in the process of becoming what it is not. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> One of the problems of Lois's talk is that it doesn't give us a > > very > > >>>>>> clear > > >>>>>>> view of what play is not. But I would say that street kids > talking > > to > > >>>>>>> policemen about their fear of being gunned down in the street is > a > > >>>>>>> pretty > > >>>>>>> good place to start. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Lois herself recognizes in her talk that the conversations are > not > > >>>>>>> part > > >>>>>> of > > >>>>>>> the play. But then we need to look at when and where the activity > > >>>>>>> stopped > > >>>>>>> being play, and above all why. Otherwise we rob "play" of all of > > its > > >>>>>>> content. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> I think the same thing is true when we say that children play > > >>>>>>> constantly, > > >>>>>>> from the moment they wake up to the moment they go to bed (and > > >>>>>>> Vygotsky, > > >>>>>> of > > >>>>>>> course, says the opposite--play is a "leading" activity but for > > that > > >>>>>>> very > > >>>>>>> reason we cannot say it is the main activity). > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> David Kellogg > > >>>>>>> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> PS: Obviously, the teacher who claimed that their generation in > > China > > >>>>>>> (my > > >>>>>>> wife's generation) did not play after the age of two was just > > playing > > >>>>>>> around with poor Lois. But that's no reason to play along... > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> dk > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> On 20 June 2014 06:03, Tom Richardson < > > >> tom.richardson3@googlemail.com> > > >>>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> A fascinating and moving 14+minutes of Lois ....only how I wish > > that > > >>>>>>>> I > > >>>>>> did > > >>>>>>>> not subscribe to a class analysis which means that the last > > example > > >>>>>>>> of > > >>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>> 'kids of colour' and the NYPD is called into deep question - > will > > >> the > > >>>>>>>> lethal divides of capitalism's "special bodies of armed men" > from > > >>>>>>>> working-class citizens, (and of course it extends to > imperialism's > > >>>>>>>> destruction of whole countries), be 'overcome' by Play. Lois' > > >>>>>> commitment > > >>>>>>>> and passionate intelligence almost lets me believe it might, > but I > > >>>>>>>> know > > >>>>>>>> that I'm fooling myself. > > >>>>>>>> We need Play to evolve the next tranche of revolutionary > strategy > > >> and > > >>>>>>>> tactics, but Play alone will never arrive at the necessity for > > >>>>>>>> revolutionary overthrow of capitalism, only, from Lois' > examples, > > >>>>>>>> ultimately futile attempts at transcending class conflict, > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> Tom Richardson > > >>>>>>>> Middlesbrough > > >>>>>>>> UK > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> On 19 June 2014 20:57, Carol Macdonald > > >> wrote: > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> Well Lois > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> That was splendid, awesome! All you serious XMCAers please > watch. > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> Carol > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> On 19 June 2014 13:48, Lois Holzman < > > >> lholzman@eastsideinstitute.org> > > >>>>>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> Here's the link, Carol. > > >>>>>>>>>> http://tedxnavesink.com/project/lois-holzman/ > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> Lois Holzman > > >>>>>>>>>> Director, East Side Institute for Group & Short Term > > Psychotherapy > > >>>>>>>>>> 104-106 South Oxford Street > > >>>>>>>>>> Brooklyn, New York 11217 > > >>>>>>>>>> Chair, Global Outreach, All Stars Project, UX > > >>>>>>>>>> Tel. +1.212.941.8906 x324 > > >>>>>>>>>> Fax +1.718.797.3966 > > >>>>>>>>>> lholzman@eastsideinstitute.org > > >>>>>>>>>> Social Media > > >>>>>>>>>> Facebook | LinkedIn | Twitter > > >>>>>>>>>> Blogs > > >>>>>>>>>> Psychology Today| Psychology of Becoming | ESI Community News > > >>>>>>>>>> Websites > > >>>>>>>>>> Lois Holzman | East Side Institute | Performing the World > > >>>>>>>>>> All Stars Project > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> On Jun 19, 2014, at 3:02 AM, Carol Macdonald < > > >>>>>> carolmacdon@gmail.com> > > >>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Louis > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Please could you send the link again? > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks > > >>>>>>>>>>> Carol > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> On 19 June 2014 01:03, Lois Holzman < > > >>>>>> lholzman@eastsideinstitute.org> > > >>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi All, > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Peter kindly posted a link to a talk I gave last month at a > > TEDx > > >>>>>>>>>>>> event--TEDxNavesink Play. > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Aside from the prep being among the hardest things I've ever > > >>>>>> done > > >>>>>>>>>> (staying > > >>>>>>>>>>>> within their rules and structure, not being academic but > > saying > > >>>>>>>>>> something > > >>>>>>>>>>>> new for people to think about, and more), it was a delight > to > > be > > >>>>>>>> with > > >>>>>>>>>> folks > > >>>>>>>>>>>> who appreciate and value play--many of whom are affording > > >>>>>> people in > > >>>>>>>>>> their > > >>>>>>>>>>>> communities with the opportunity to play in all kinds of > ways. > > >>>>>> It > > >>>>>>>> was > > >>>>>>>>>>>> really growthful for me and my team. I was really pleased to > > >>>>>>>> reconnect > > >>>>>>>>>> with > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Peter Gray after many years and to meet other good people. > The > > >>>>>>>> one-day > > >>>>>>>>>>>> event was organized are 4 P's--possibility, pleasure, > progress > > >>>>>> and > > >>>>>>>>>> paradox. > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I invite you all to include these talks within your > > conversation > > >>>>>>>>>> here--even > > >>>>>>>>>>>> though they're not theoretical. Maybe it's a new kind of > play > > >>>>>> for > > >>>>>>>>> many. > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Lois > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Lois Holzman > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Director, East Side Institute for Group & Short Term > > >>>>>> Psychotherapy > > >>>>>>>>>>>> 104-106 South Oxford Street > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Brooklyn, New York 11217 > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Chair, Global Outreach, All Stars Project, UX > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Tel. +1.212.941.8906 x324 > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Fax +1.718.797.3966 > > >>>>>>>>>>>> lholzman@eastsideinstitute.org > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Social Media > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Facebook | LinkedIn | Twitter > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Blogs > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Psychology Today| Psychology of Becoming | ESI Community > News > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Websites > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Lois Holzman | East Side Institute | Performing the World > > >>>>>>>>>>>> All Stars Project > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> -- > > >>>>>>>>>>> Carol A Macdonald Ph D (Edin) > > >>>>>>>>>>> Developmental psycholinguist > > >>>>>>>>>>> Academic, Researcher, and Editor > > >>>>>>>>>>> Honorary Research Fellow: Department of Linguistics, Unisa > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> -- > > >>>>>>>>> Carol A Macdonald Ph D (Edin) > > >>>>>>>>> Developmental psycholinguist > > >>>>>>>>> Academic, Researcher, and Editor > > >>>>>>>>> Honorary Research Fellow: Department of Linguistics, Unisa > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Artin Goncu, Ph.D > > >>> Co-editor, Mind, Culture, and Activity:An International Journal > > >>> Professor Emeritus, > > >>> University of Illinois at Chicago > > >>> College of Education M/C 147 > > >>> 1040 W. Harrison St. > > >>> Chicago, IL 60607 > > >>> > > >>> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. > > > Assistant Professor > > > Department of Anthropology > > > 883 Spencer W. Kimball Tower > > > Brigham Young University > > > Provo, UT 84602 > > > http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson > > > > > -- Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Department of Anthropology 883 Spencer W. Kimball Tower Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602 http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson From bferholt@gmail.com Mon Jul 7 22:09:50 2014 From: bferholt@gmail.com (Beth Ferholt) Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2014 01:09:50 -0400 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: In Defense of Fuzzy Things In-Reply-To: <53BB4559.40005@mira.net> References: <53BB4559.40005@mira.net> Message-ID: I have two notes above my desk: "What does perezhivanie have to do with magic?" (serendipity) and "What does perezhivanie have to do with flashmobs?", so the above chain of emails is very exciting for me just because it contains all three. (Mike just wrote on facebook about 'almost whimsical Vygotskian chaining' -- this is not exactly what he meant but I am having a moment of snatching at another connection -- any help snatching is welcome, although I am here responding more to the facebook discussion than the above.) On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 9:11 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: > "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, > "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less." > "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so > many different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, > "which is to be master - > that's all." /(Through the Looking Glass, Chapter 6 > )/ > // > > / > Thank you David for your (as ever) deep and amusing post. Thank you in > particular for Wordsworth! > > I think that our legislative and judicial systems prove something about > the relation between abstract simplicity and arcane complexity. Everyone > knows that X is a serious crime, but when our lawmakers set out to define > it so our judges can make judgments on it, they are still dotting i's and > crossing t's 500 years later. And along come our Tea Party types with their > mandatory sentencing and their firm conviction that it all really is quite > simple. > > Everything Lubomir said is true as well. We have a specific problem at > hand: failure of mutual understanding and failure to understand key > concepts at the root of the scientific current of which we are all a part. > I particularly appreciate Lubomir's words about the need to reconstruct, > from the beginning, terms and concepts which have been imported from one > context to another, rather than attempt to simply life up a word and drop > it into a different culture (though on occasion the use of a foreign word > may be appropriate, n'est-ce pas?) For that we need a simple starting point > upon which to build layers of complexity. > > If I love my meal at a French restaurant and ask the waiter for "un autre" > and he is forcing me out the door amidst a torrent of abuse, until a kind > fellow diner tells me that I should have asked for "un deuxieme" - the > waiter thinks that I am pretending to complain that the quality was > unsatisfactory and demanding a replacement after I have eaten the whole > meal - then I have to face the difference between the ineffable differences > between French and Anglo cultures and the question of simple > misunderstanding. N'est-ce pas? > > The problems with perezhivanie and the problems with unit are essentially > problems of a different kind. What predominates in the case of perezhivanie > is the cultural context and linguistic history; what predominates in the > case of unit is the analytical and dialectical logic. In both cases both > factors are at play and mutually complicating each other. I think that the > appearance of the general idea of perezhivanie in multiple cultural and > disciplinary contexts is an *aid* to mutual understanding and clarity. But > in the case of unit, I really think that an ability to recover the original > Goethean/Hegelian idea is essential. > > Andy > > / > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *Andy Blunden* > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > > > David Kellogg wrote: > >> Andy has written a number of posts in which he has implied clarity is a >> paramount goal in philosophical discussions, or, conversely, people are >> "confused" by having read key texts in an order which obscures their >> genetic relationship to each other. >> >> What I want to suggest is that these two things are actually in >> contradiction: if we want to understand how texts are genetically related >> to each other, we have understand how the word meanings they contain can >> be >> "fuzzy" rather than clear. >> >> Fuzzy boundaries are, if you will pardon the expression, central to human >> languages, including philosophical language (which is, as Halliday points >> out, merely a tidied up version of naturally fuzzy language, an upstart >> which has come back to berate its slovenly parents). Let me take the very >> first sentence of "Thinking and Speech" as an example. >> >> "This work is a psychological study of one of the most difficult, complex, >> and intricately tangled questions of experimental psychology, the problem >> of thinking and speech." >> >> Vygotsky is very fond of triplets like these, and when we first read him, >> we often take it as redundancy, and we are comforted, because if we don't >> understand what he means by "complex" we can catch him on the rebound with >> "difficult" and if that doesn't work, we get a nice concrete image with >> "tangled". >> >> But as the text unfolds, it transpires that something can be difficult >> without being complex. For example, Vygotsky's interpretation of >> egocentric >> speech is actually less complex than Piaget's, because it has fewer parts, >> but it is quite a bit more difficult, precisely because it puts things >> that >> are apparently quite different together. >> >> Similarly, it transpires that something can be complex without being >> difficult, e.g. the different senses of "consciousness" used by Freud and >> Piaget, which Vygotsky sorts out with the simple example of tying his >> shoes. The question of learning and development is "tangled" and >> "difficult" but it has only two parts to it. So we have to say that there >> is a certain fuzziness here, not unrelated to the fuzziness of "unit" and >> "unity" that we've been discussing. >> >> Let me take one more example: the idea of a "???????????". Should it be >> "felt experience" or "thought over experience" or just "lived experience"? >> The difference seems extremely important; as Andy points out, the concept >> is undoubtedly related--genetically--to the emergence of "notion" or >> "concept" through contemplation. Andy is doubly right to relate it to the >> German Romantic idea of "Urphanomenon". We even find it in English in >> Wordsworth's famous preface to the Lyrical Ballads, where he defines >> poetry >> as "emotion recollected in tranquility": >> >> "(T)he emotion is contemplated till, by a species of reaction, the >> tranquillity gradually disappears, and an emotion, kindred to that which >> was before the subject of contemplation, is gradually produced, and does >> itself actually exist in the mind." >> >> But of course in order to see these quite distinct ideas as being linked, >> we can't just see them as clearly distinct--it's sometimes more useful to >> see them as being fuzzy. It seems to me that ontogenetically, a >> "???????????" >> must needs be at first mostly a "felt experience", because the child >> doesn't have much experience to recollect in tranquility. Only then can it >> become mostly a "thought over experience", and it is only in the minds of >> dinosaurs like me and Andy that we can say it is a thoroughly lived out >> experience. (I have sometimes felt a little like a >> placid, ruminant brontosaur set upon by a ferocious tyrannosaur, but I >> console myself with the thought that where Andy says I am confused, I am >> usually just plain wrong.) >> >> Still, I think this fuzziness of my language doesn't preclude setting up >> the kinds of distinctions that Andy finds so important in philosophical >> language; on the contrary, understanding how things move seems to >> necessitate a kind of "moving picture" approach where we can make many >> fine >> distinctions and then try to link them fluidly, simply because that is the >> way our language and our minds works. But there are two intellectual >> operations to this: the ability to separate things out into separate >> frames, and then the ability to join the frames in a single fluid motion. >> Once we clarify, we have to fuzz out. >> >> Take a look at this. It's actually a Flash Mob at Tesco's in Holland Park, >> London, carried out as a sort of publicity stunt by a local opera troop >> trying to publicize their rendition of Puccini's "La Rondine" (a kind of >> verismo version of "Traviata", except that nobody dies). Like any Flash >> Mob, the categories of experiencers are kind of fuzzy--at the beginning >> it's a little unclear whether the cashier's assistant is in on the joke or >> not: is she doing the Flash Mob or merely undergoing it? By the end it's a >> party to which everybody is invited, even the Chinese tourists with their >> cell phone cameras. >> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsLivg6byjM >> >> I think categories of experience are similarly porous, which is another >> way >> of saying that they are warm and fuzzy: we all begin as outsiders, but >> understanding is a process of becoming an insider. The question is: is >> becomign an insider a process of transforming undergoing into doing, or is >> it a process of transforming undergoing into doing? It's kind of fuzzy. >> >> David Kellogg >> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies >> >> >> > > -- Beth Ferholt Assistant Professor Department of Early Childhood and Art Education Brooklyn College, City University of New York 2900 Bedford Avenue Brooklyn, NY 11210-2889 Email: bferholt@brooklyn.cuny.edu Phone: (718) 951-5205 Fax: (718) 951-4816 From smago@uga.edu Tue Jul 8 05:40:52 2014 From: smago@uga.edu (Peter Smagorinsky) Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2014 12:40:52 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] book of possible interest Message-ID: The Practice of Teachers' Professional Development A Cultural-Historical Approach Helen Grimmett (Monash University, Australia) This book uses Vygotsky's cultural-historical theory to provide a unique theorisation of teachers' professional development as a practice. A practice can be described as the socially structured actions set up to produce a product or service aimed at meeting a collective human need. In this case, collaborative, interventionist work with teachers in ... Click here for a free preview and full description. From lchcmike@gmail.com Tue Jul 8 07:52:34 2014 From: lchcmike@gmail.com (mike cole) Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2014 07:52:34 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Fwd: [COGDEVSOC] Full-Time, Tenure Track, Assistant Professor Position in Developmental Psychology In-Reply-To: <253549344.143332.1404831055459.JavaMail.root@ganesh.brynmawr.edu> References: <1833540972.142698.1404830982617.JavaMail.root@ganesh.brynmawr.edu> <253549344.143332.1404831055459.JavaMail.root@ganesh.brynmawr.edu> Message-ID: ------- The Department of Psychology at Bryn Mawr College invites applications for a full-time, tenure track, beginning or advanced Assistant Professor position in Developmental Psychology to start August 1, 2015. Area of specialization in developmental psychology is open but candidates with interests in social/cultural or a biological/neuroscience focus are especially encouraged to apply. The teaching responsibilities include Developmental Psychology, a departmental service course (e.g., Introductory Psychology, Statistics, or Senior Seminar), a seminar and lab course in the candidate?s area of expertise, and supervision of senior research. An essential aspect of the position is an independent research program that can meaningfully incorporate undergraduates. We seek a broadly trained colleague who can contribute to the Department?s connections with other departments and interdisciplinary initiatives. Candidates must have the Ph.D. in hand by the start date. Applicants should submit as single pdf documents a cover letter, a curriculum vitae, and a statement of teaching and research interests (including how undergraduate students will be involved in research) by October 10, 2014 to the Psychology Department Search Committee via Interfolio at: http://apply.interfolio.com/25198. Applicants should arrange for three letters of recommendation to be submitted via Interfolio to the Psychology Department Search Committee. Applications received by October 10, 2014 will receive full consideration. Located in metropolitan Philadelphia, Bryn Mawr College is a distinguished liberal arts college for women and has strong consortial relationships with Haverford College, Swarthmore College, and the University of Pennsylvania. Bryn Mawr has a student body of 1,300 undergraduates, as well as 350 graduate students in coeducational graduate programs in social work, humanities and science. We are a diverse and international community of faculty, students and staff who share an intense commitment to intellectual inquiry and a desire to make meaningful contributions to the world. The College supports faculty excellence in both research and teaching and is committed to social justice and inclusion in the classroom and in the community at large. Bryn Mawr College is an equal-opportunity employer; candidates from underrepresented groups and women are especially encouraged to apply. _______________________________________________ To post to the CDS listserv, send your message to: cogdevsoc@lists.cogdevsoc.org (If you belong to the listserv and have not included any large attachments, your message will be posted without moderation--so be careful!) To subscribe or unsubscribe from the listserv, visit: http://lists.cogdevsoc.org/listinfo.cgi/cogdevsoc-cogdevsoc.org From bella.kotik@gmail.com Tue Jul 8 01:41:10 2014 From: bella.kotik@gmail.com (Bella Kotik-Friedgut) Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2014 11:41:10 +0300 Subject: [Xmca-l] Fwd: Theodore shared an album with you. In-Reply-To: <001a1132ecf4c573b404fd9ee356@google.com> References: <001a1132ecf4c573b404fd9ee356@google.com> Message-ID: Dear colleagues here are some pictures from the 3rd Estoril Vygotsky conference. (a bit too much of Bella because my husband took the pictures). These conferences (every 2 years) became traditional and the dates of the N4 in June 2016 are already fixed- 12-14/06. I would really like to see more of the members if this group interested in LSV legacy at the next conference. I wonder what could be a good reason (motivation, incentive) for xmca members to take part in 4th EVC of the next time? Discussions are very lively and interesting. Estoril is a beautiful resort on the Athlantic shore and Jouquim Quintino Aires, the organizer, is a very generous host. Your comments would help to make these meetings even better. Sincerely yours Bella Kotik-Friedgut You are invited to view Theodore's photo album: Estoril Vygotsky Conference 2014 Estoril Vygotsky Conference 2014 Jun 16, 2014 by *Theodore* View Album Play slideshow Contribute photos to this album If you are having problems viewing this email, copy and paste the following into your browser: https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/sredir?uname=theodoreherzl1&target=ALBUM&id=6033285488497023649&authkey=Gv1sRgCPKDjpzGpuvNyQE&feat=email To share your photos or receive notification when your friends share photos, get your own free Picasa Web Albums account . -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: email.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 9284 bytes Desc: not available Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20140708/170acc12/attachment.jpg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: picasaweblogo-en_US.gif Type: image/gif Size: 2868 bytes Desc: not available Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20140708/170acc12/attachment.gif From dkellogg60@gmail.com Tue Jul 8 13:40:02 2014 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2014 05:40:02 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: book of possible interest In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I'm actually in the middle of Chapter Three right now. What I can tell you is that Helen's first two chapters are a kind of "Who's Who" at xmca, with Helen reading the great classics (in the wrong order) and talking to Andy, Greg, and others on this list. But beyond the litte shout-outs to xmca, in Chapter Three, you find interesting problems like this. Helen is setting up a "Professional Learning ZPD". This an acronymy within an acronym (an "acro-acronym-nym", like the group I used to belong to in New York and Paris, called "ACT-UP"), and in general Helen seems to have some trouble with names. On pp. 58-59, she writes. "In PLZ 4 I wrote the title 'Features of cultural Historical Learning Activities' across a piece of butcher's paper and asked the grou to brainstorm features of activities that would be consistent with cultural historical theory. After a few suggestions, Mike suddenly interrupted with: MIKE: Can I ask, Helen, why such a wank of a name? HELEN: Cultural-historical? MIKE: Yeah, what a bullshit name. DEB: What should it be Mike? MIKE: What does it mean to anyone? Is that relevant to anyone that name? Cultural-historical learning. What does that mean? HELEN: Well.... MIKE: It's crap. HELEN: Well, I don't think that you, that's the name of teh theoyr, Cultural historical theory, but I think in terms of schools using teh theory they talk about Communities of Learners. MIKE: Yeah, but why don't they call it that? HELEN: OK, so (I start crossing out "cultural historical" and changing it to "Communities of Learners") MIKE: That name is like calliing the ultra net site for teachers 'design space'. It has no relevance to the name whatsoever, and to use it--features of cultural historical learning--sounds like a load of crap. It doesn't have any relevance ot what it means. If you said to me cultural historical learning, I go .... BETH: I actually thought it meant talking about he past (general agreement). MIKE: That's what it implies, the past and how you used to teach. HELEN: I suppose I'm just trying to familiarize you with the term (general agreement) MIKE: If you call it community of learners then it's something that's relevant." Helen then makes the (cultural-historical) point that words have a history, but they are not necessarily YOUR history--for Helen, "cultural historical" calls up a whole series of quite precise concepts, while "Community of Learners" is kind of vague and undefined. But for the teachers (who are, I must say, not exactly reticent about sharing, and do not limit themselves to sharing their expertise) what you get is old times. It's funny that they ignore the word culture. I always thought that "cultural historical" is a little bit of the cart before the horse.... David Kellogg Hankuk University of Foreign Studies On 8 July 2014 21:40, Peter Smagorinsky wrote: > The Practice of Teachers' Professional Development > > A Cultural-Historical Approach > > Helen Grimmett (Monash University, Australia) > > This book uses Vygotsky's cultural-historical theory to provide a unique > theorisation of teachers' professional development as a practice. A > practice can be described as the socially structured actions set up to > produce a product or service aimed at meeting a collective human need. In > this case, collaborative, interventionist work with teachers in ... Click > here for a free preview and full description< > http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001ZduyW2xyB1USw9R1YjQno7GI-mDLfJ6m-729UFbNgCKe6Z_p9GP7xjN9IHr0mfZ1yni-XmxHyPfAaNcVjlENvx4l8ySiyRYKHRvvg2E6WbMlf3hNShpk2qTuRRu0ZenYc1mrXxe68_BX4FXljTnHjOx91vJalGeivvaQfmQF57rpGgcDrJe9bprlVyXQwjSo0U6yk-QJ1S5miZfuS7ohswmNs3UZWGMucMgWJyU6E_J3d8QHyWjpGuBM8i2twLXGBPHkZb6hFN4pF6PT3r3M7HYvwFdzAzSfRvpCd90DvQMVDuqkf5VY3ccoD6FppEGF&c=0Y23gLfSZ1jN_yGPyItMZic7SWiIoOcRfcrQWB0JYs9lkVW149lxUQ==&ch=ioZBoxRIwDxdvg-uu6NEwI-E45lgW01U_INO86ZNyJpwbp9zcKnCIA== > >. > > From dkellogg60@gmail.com Tue Jul 8 14:36:15 2014 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2014 06:36:15 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: In Defense of Fuzzy Things In-Reply-To: References: <53BB4559.40005@mira.net> Message-ID: Many thanks to all of you who managed to make any sense at all of my last post. Of course, the penultimate line was not supposed to be that clever. What I meant to say was not, actually, "The question is: is becomign an insider a process of transforming undergoing into doing, or is it a process of transforming undergoing into doing?" I meant to say: "The question is, is becoming an insider a process of transforming undergoing into doing (e.g. passively taking part in a flash mob) or a process of tranforming doing into undergoing (e.g. reflecting upon it in tranquility)?" Let me try to twist some of the strands you all unravelled from the fuzz (I won't promise to twist them into a thread, though). Mike asks if LSV ever presents an ontogenetic account of how "felt experience" becomes "lived experience". One of the reasons we are busy translating this material into Korean a country where the regime has just expelled the working class opposition from parliament, sentenced its leaders to twelve years in prison and banned the main teachers' union, is that we need what Helen needs--some material that will appeal to militant teachers in a pretty direct, understandable, and above all concrete way. And the lectures on pedagogy are just that. So in addition to the extra-textual comparison (the comparison with the previous lecture on the environment) Vygotsky's presentation in "The Problem of the Environment" contains a very important cross-sectional comparison between three children who have an alcoholic, violence-prone, and mentally disturbed mother who end up in Vygotsky's clinic. The first has what I've called "felt experience": he responds to the drunken mother as a mother, and not as a drunk--the experiences are funny or terrifying, they are overwhelming and not operational, they are paralyzing and not processable (that is, they have sense, or sensibility, but they do not yet have significance). The second has what I've called "thought" experience: he responds to the drunken mother with what Vygotsky calls the Mutter-Hexkomplex, ('?.?. "???????? ??????-??????"'), or the "mother-demoness" syndrome. I haven't actually found ANY reference to this "syndrome" anywhere, but it's pretty clear what Vygotsky means: the child cannot decide if the person raging in the house is a mother or a drunk. At the moment, she is inclined to respond as to her as a drunk and only upon reflection as a mother.The third has what we can call "lived" experience. He has seen through the mother and is resigned to seeing the mother through. The acts are those of a drunk and not a mother, and so he must sacrifice his promising career as a school child and look after the family. It seems to me that it is pretty easy to see this cross-sectional comparison as an ontogenetic sequence. What is a little LESS clear to me is this. Vygotsky writes: "?????? ???? ??? ?????????? ??????? ????--??? ?? ?? ?????, ??? ?????????? ??????? ????, ?? ??, ??? ?????? ???? ??? ?????? ?????." Is he really saying that having an alcoholic, mentally disturbed mother is more like having a mentally disturbed nanny than like having an alcoholic father? Is that because the mother but not the father is a caretaker? (See 4-20 below, in case you are as confused as I am!) Lubomir argues that what is "fuzzy" to us was actually very clear to Vygotsky. But we know that Vygotsky, as far as nomenclature is concerned, is "la gazza ladra", a thieving magpie who will steal your silver spoon to build his nest. The terms he uses (egocentric speech, pseudoconcept, learning, development, and even the word "pedology") are all words used by someone else that he has co-opted and filled with his own, special content. My point was that his special content is necessarily not fixed--it must needs change with development. After all, the whole point of "Thinking and Speech" is that word meanings develop ontogenetically, and microgenetically the word "and" means one thing when I think and then speak, and it means something quite different when you speak and then I think. I agree, though, that translating jokes is a very good test case (for example, when Vygotsky leaves out English letters in the lecture on heredity, in paragraph 3-35 below, is it a joke? That is, is Vygotsky leaving out E, F, and G deliberately, to show us that there must be a gap?) Many thanks to Mike on clarifying that verb--we learned it in Russian class, but my Russian classes are conducted in Korean, and sometimes these exta meanings escape me. Andy--Halliday has a really good explanation of the rise of scientific language in the seventeenth century--how we began to take processes and nominalize them (e.g. "I grow fast" becomes "rapid growth"). He also points out how this new language of science was co-opted for non-scientific purposes--because of the need for a language of prestige that was not obviously connected to religious discourse. This allowed, for example, Newton to write sentences that looked something like mathematical equations ("Crack growth rate is proportional to pressure"), and it also allowed us to create the kinds of hierarchies of concepts which you are quoted as listing as a key property of academic concepts on p. 25 of Helen's new book. (Note that the Tea Partiers are also hostile to scientific discourse, and prefer good old religious discourse; they are essentially a neo-fascist party very similar to the National Front in France or the UK Independence Party or Pauline Whatzername in Queensland, and like many crypto-fascistic phenomena, they are ideologically and even linguistically atavistic). Fiinally, Beth. Did you notice that the video was made from clips shot from cell phones? I wonder if any of the Chinese tourists contributed.... David Kellogg Hankuk University of Foreign Studies Mike: 4-20] ??? ???, ???????? ?? ???????????, ??????? ??????? ???? ??? ??????????? ????????? ? ?????? ????????, ? ???????? ??? ???????????. ???????????, ??? ? ?? ??????????? ??????? ?????? ?????????????, ????, ??? ? ???? ?????????? ??? ?????. ? ??????? ??????? ????????????? ????, ??? ? ???? ?????????? ??? ?????. ??????? ??????? ? ?????????????????? ???????????? ?????, ???????? ??????????, ???????????, ?????, ????????? ? ????? ????? ???????????? ?????, ?????????????, ?????. ????, ??? ???? ?? ????? ????? ???? ????? ? ???????????????? ??????????????????? ??????????, ?? ???? ? ?? ?? ??????? ??????? ? ??????? ?? ???? ????? ?????? ???????????. ?????????????, ?????????????????? ??????????? ????????, ?????? ?????? ??????????? ???????, ??? ?? ???????????? ?????? ????????????, ?????????????, ??????????????? ? ?????? ???????????, ?? ???????????? ? ???? ??????????? ???????????? ????? ?? ?????? ???????????? ???? ?????????? ???????????? ???????, ??????? ??????????, ??? ??????? ??????? ??? ???????, ?? ? ?????? ??????? ??-??????? ???????????? ????????. ?????? ???? ??? ?????????? ??????? ????--??? ?? ?? ?????, ??? ?????????? ??????? ????, ?? ??, ??? ?????? ???? ??? ?????? ?????. ??????, ?????, ??????? ? ?????? ?????? ????????? ? ???? ?????-?? ?????????? ????????, ???? ?????? ???????? ?????????????? ? ?????? ???????????. ??????? ?? ?????? ????????????? ??????????? ??? ???????? ???????? ? ?????????? ????????. ? ?????? ??????? ??????????? ???????? ????????, ??????? ????????? ??? ? ??????? ??????? ???????? ????????? ??????? ???? ? ??????? ????? ?? ??????????????? ???????? ???????. Lubomir: 3-35] ????????, ??? ????? ???????? ? ????????????? ???????????. ???????????? ??????????? ??????????? ?????? 0,60. ???? ??????? ??? ???????, ??????? ?? ???????? ???????????? ??????? ????? ???????????: ??????? ?-0,60, ?-0,55, ?-0,50, D-0,45, ?-0,40, ?-0,35, L - 0,30 ? ?. ?. ?????? ????? ????????????? ?????? ????? ??????????????? ????????, ? ??????? ?? ?? ????? ????? ???? ??????????? ????????????? ????????????? ???????, ?? ????? ???? ?????????? ????????????? ?????????????, ? ????? ???? ????????? ????????????? ?? ??????? ? ????????? ??????? ?? ?????????????? ???????????????. ????????, ??? ??? ????? ?????. ?? ???????????, ??? ??????? ????? ??? ???????? ??????. ? ???? ??????? ??? ???????, ????? ??? ????? ????? ???????????? ???????????? ?????????? ? ???????? ???????, ?? ?????? ???????? ?????-?? ?????? ????????, ??????? ????????? ???? ?????? ??????? ?? ??????. ??? ??? ????? ????? ? ?????? ??????? ??????? ?????????? ??? ?? ????? ??????????? ???????, ??? ?????? ????? ?????? ???????, ? ?????????? ??? ??? ?? ??????. ???? ? ????? ?????? ??????????? ?????????? ?????????, ??? 60 ? 45, ?? ? ?????? ?????? ??? ??? ????? ?????????? ????????? ? ???????? ?????? ?? *\?>. *?? ??????????, ?????????????, ?????? ????????????, ??????????? ???????????? ???????? ?????????????? ??????????????? ?? ???? ???? ???????. ? ????? ?? ??????? ??? ??? ??????? ??????, ?? ??????? ???????, ??????? ????? ???? ??? ??????? ????? ?? ??? ?????. On 8 July 2014 14:09, Beth Ferholt wrote: > I have two notes above my desk: "What does perezhivanie have to do with > magic?" (serendipity) and "What does perezhivanie have to do with > flashmobs?", so the above chain of emails is very exciting for me just > because it contains all three. > > (Mike just wrote on facebook about 'almost whimsical Vygotskian chaining' > -- this is not exactly what he meant but I am having a moment of snatching > at another connection -- any help snatching is welcome, although I am here > responding more to the facebook discussion than the above.) > > > On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 9:11 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: > > > "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, > > "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less." > > "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so > > many different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, > > "which is to be master - > > that's all." /(Through the Looking Glass, Chapter 6 > > )/ > > // > > > > / > > Thank you David for your (as ever) deep and amusing post. Thank you in > > particular for Wordsworth! > > > > I think that our legislative and judicial systems prove something about > > the relation between abstract simplicity and arcane complexity. Everyone > > knows that X is a serious crime, but when our lawmakers set out to define > > it so our judges can make judgments on it, they are still dotting i's and > > crossing t's 500 years later. And along come our Tea Party types with > their > > mandatory sentencing and their firm conviction that it all really is > quite > > simple. > > > > Everything Lubomir said is true as well. We have a specific problem at > > hand: failure of mutual understanding and failure to understand key > > concepts at the root of the scientific current of which we are all a > part. > > I particularly appreciate Lubomir's words about the need to reconstruct, > > from the beginning, terms and concepts which have been imported from one > > context to another, rather than attempt to simply life up a word and drop > > it into a different culture (though on occasion the use of a foreign word > > may be appropriate, n'est-ce pas?) For that we need a simple starting > point > > upon which to build layers of complexity. > > > > If I love my meal at a French restaurant and ask the waiter for "un > autre" > > and he is forcing me out the door amidst a torrent of abuse, until a kind > > fellow diner tells me that I should have asked for "un deuxieme" - the > > waiter thinks that I am pretending to complain that the quality was > > unsatisfactory and demanding a replacement after I have eaten the whole > > meal - then I have to face the difference between the ineffable > differences > > between French and Anglo cultures and the question of simple > > misunderstanding. N'est-ce pas? > > > > The problems with perezhivanie and the problems with unit are essentially > > problems of a different kind. What predominates in the case of > perezhivanie > > is the cultural context and linguistic history; what predominates in the > > case of unit is the analytical and dialectical logic. In both cases both > > factors are at play and mutually complicating each other. I think that > the > > appearance of the general idea of perezhivanie in multiple cultural and > > disciplinary contexts is an *aid* to mutual understanding and clarity. > But > > in the case of unit, I really think that an ability to recover the > original > > Goethean/Hegelian idea is essential. > > > > Andy > > > > / > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > *Andy Blunden* > > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > > > > > > > David Kellogg wrote: > > > >> Andy has written a number of posts in which he has implied clarity is a > >> paramount goal in philosophical discussions, or, conversely, people are > >> "confused" by having read key texts in an order which obscures their > >> genetic relationship to each other. > >> > >> What I want to suggest is that these two things are actually in > >> contradiction: if we want to understand how texts are genetically > related > >> to each other, we have understand how the word meanings they contain can > >> be > >> "fuzzy" rather than clear. > >> > >> Fuzzy boundaries are, if you will pardon the expression, central to > human > >> languages, including philosophical language (which is, as Halliday > points > >> out, merely a tidied up version of naturally fuzzy language, an upstart > >> which has come back to berate its slovenly parents). Let me take the > very > >> first sentence of "Thinking and Speech" as an example. > >> > >> "This work is a psychological study of one of the most difficult, > complex, > >> and intricately tangled questions of experimental psychology, the > problem > >> of thinking and speech." > >> > >> Vygotsky is very fond of triplets like these, and when we first read > him, > >> we often take it as redundancy, and we are comforted, because if we > don't > >> understand what he means by "complex" we can catch him on the rebound > with > >> "difficult" and if that doesn't work, we get a nice concrete image with > >> "tangled". > >> > >> But as the text unfolds, it transpires that something can be difficult > >> without being complex. For example, Vygotsky's interpretation of > >> egocentric > >> speech is actually less complex than Piaget's, because it has fewer > parts, > >> but it is quite a bit more difficult, precisely because it puts things > >> that > >> are apparently quite different together. > >> > >> Similarly, it transpires that something can be complex without being > >> difficult, e.g. the different senses of "consciousness" used by Freud > and > >> Piaget, which Vygotsky sorts out with the simple example of tying his > >> shoes. The question of learning and development is "tangled" and > >> "difficult" but it has only two parts to it. So we have to say that > there > >> is a certain fuzziness here, not unrelated to the fuzziness of "unit" > and > >> "unity" that we've been discussing. > >> > >> Let me take one more example: the idea of a "???????????". Should it > be > >> "felt experience" or "thought over experience" or just "lived > experience"? > >> The difference seems extremely important; as Andy points out, the > concept > >> is undoubtedly related--genetically--to the emergence of "notion" or > >> "concept" through contemplation. Andy is doubly right to relate it to > the > >> German Romantic idea of "Urphanomenon". We even find it in English in > >> Wordsworth's famous preface to the Lyrical Ballads, where he defines > >> poetry > >> as "emotion recollected in tranquility": > >> > >> "(T)he emotion is contemplated till, by a species of reaction, the > >> tranquillity gradually disappears, and an emotion, kindred to that which > >> was before the subject of contemplation, is gradually produced, and does > >> itself actually exist in the mind." > >> > >> But of course in order to see these quite distinct ideas as being > linked, > >> we can't just see them as clearly distinct--it's sometimes more useful > to > >> see them as being fuzzy. It seems to me that ontogenetically, a > >> "???????????" > >> must needs be at first mostly a "felt experience", because the child > >> doesn't have much experience to recollect in tranquility. Only then can > it > >> become mostly a "thought over experience", and it is only in the minds > of > >> dinosaurs like me and Andy that we can say it is a thoroughly lived out > >> experience. (I have sometimes felt a little like a > >> placid, ruminant brontosaur set upon by a ferocious tyrannosaur, but I > >> console myself with the thought that where Andy says I am confused, I am > >> usually just plain wrong.) > >> > >> Still, I think this fuzziness of my language doesn't preclude setting up > >> the kinds of distinctions that Andy finds so important in philosophical > >> language; on the contrary, understanding how things move seems to > >> necessitate a kind of "moving picture" approach where we can make many > >> fine > >> distinctions and then try to link them fluidly, simply because that is > the > >> way our language and our minds works. But there are two intellectual > >> operations to this: the ability to separate things out into separate > >> frames, and then the ability to join the frames in a single fluid > motion. > >> Once we clarify, we have to fuzz out. > >> > >> Take a look at this. It's actually a Flash Mob at Tesco's in Holland > Park, > >> London, carried out as a sort of publicity stunt by a local opera troop > >> trying to publicize their rendition of Puccini's "La Rondine" (a kind of > >> verismo version of "Traviata", except that nobody dies). Like any Flash > >> Mob, the categories of experiencers are kind of fuzzy--at the beginning > >> it's a little unclear whether the cashier's assistant is in on the joke > or > >> not: is she doing the Flash Mob or merely undergoing it? By the end > it's a > >> party to which everybody is invited, even the Chinese tourists with > their > >> cell phone cameras. > >> > >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsLivg6byjM > >> > >> I think categories of experience are similarly porous, which is another > >> way > >> of saying that they are warm and fuzzy: we all begin as outsiders, but > >> understanding is a process of becoming an insider. The question is: is > >> becomign an insider a process of transforming undergoing into doing, or > is > >> it a process of transforming undergoing into doing? It's kind of fuzzy. > >> > >> David Kellogg > >> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > -- > Beth Ferholt > Assistant Professor > Department of Early Childhood and Art Education > Brooklyn College, City University of New York > 2900 Bedford Avenue > Brooklyn, NY 11210-2889 > > Email: bferholt@brooklyn.cuny.edu > Phone: (718) 951-5205 > Fax: (718) 951-4816 > From huw.softdesigns@gmail.com Tue Jul 8 15:33:04 2014 From: huw.softdesigns@gmail.com (Huw Lloyd) Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2014 23:33:04 +0100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: book of possible interest In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Colourful. The complaint seems perfectly valid though: a typological and epistemological error all in one conflated term. It suggests that on the odd hours of the day there are Piagetian activities taking place. Was this part of the point of the chapter? Best, Huw On 8 July 2014 21:40, David Kellogg wrote: > I'm actually in the middle of Chapter Three right now. What I can tell you > is that Helen's first two chapters are a kind of "Who's Who" at xmca, with > Helen reading the great classics (in the wrong order) and talking to Andy, > Greg, and others on this list. But beyond the litte shout-outs to xmca, in > Chapter Three, you find interesting problems like this. Helen is setting up > a "Professional Learning ZPD". This an acronymy within an acronym (an > "acro-acronym-nym", like the group I used to belong to in New York and > Paris, called "ACT-UP"), and in general Helen seems to have some trouble > with names. On pp. 58-59, she writes. > > "In PLZ 4 I wrote the title 'Features of cultural Historical Learning > Activities' across a piece of butcher's paper and asked the grou to > brainstorm features of activities that would be consistent with cultural > historical theory. After a few suggestions, Mike suddenly interrupted with: > MIKE: Can I ask, Helen, why such a wank of a name? > HELEN: Cultural-historical? > MIKE: Yeah, what a bullshit name. > DEB: What should it be Mike? > MIKE: What does it mean to anyone? Is that relevant to anyone that > name? Cultural-historical learning. What does that mean? > HELEN: Well.... > MIKE: It's crap. > HELEN: Well, I don't think that you, that's the name of teh theoyr, > Cultural historical theory, but I think in terms of schools using teh > theory they talk about Communities of Learners. > MIKE: Yeah, but why don't they call it that? > HELEN: OK, so (I start crossing out "cultural historical" and changing it > to "Communities of Learners") > MIKE: That name is like calliing the ultra net site for teachers 'design > space'. It has no relevance to the name whatsoever, and to use it--features > of cultural historical learning--sounds like a load of crap. It > doesn't have any relevance ot what it means. If you said to me cultural > historical learning, I go .... > BETH: I actually thought it meant talking about he past (general > agreement). > MIKE: That's what it implies, the past and how you used to teach. > HELEN: I suppose I'm just trying to familiarize you with the term (general > agreement) > MIKE: If you call it community of learners then it's something that's > relevant." > > Helen then makes the (cultural-historical) point that words have a history, > but they are not necessarily YOUR history--for Helen, "cultural historical" > calls up a whole series of quite precise concepts, while "Community of > Learners" is kind of vague and undefined. But for the teachers (who are, I > must say, not exactly reticent about sharing, and do not limit themselves > to sharing their expertise) what you get is old times. > > It's funny that they ignore the word culture. I always thought that > "cultural historical" is a little bit of the cart before the horse.... > > David Kellogg > Hankuk University of Foreign Studies > > > > On 8 July 2014 21:40, Peter Smagorinsky wrote: > > > The Practice of Teachers' Professional Development > > > > A Cultural-Historical Approach > > > > Helen Grimmett (Monash University, Australia) > > > > This book uses Vygotsky's cultural-historical theory to provide a unique > > theorisation of teachers' professional development as a practice. A > > practice can be described as the socially structured actions set up to > > produce a product or service aimed at meeting a collective human need. In > > this case, collaborative, interventionist work with teachers in ... Click > > here for a free preview and full description< > > > http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001ZduyW2xyB1USw9R1YjQno7GI-mDLfJ6m-729UFbNgCKe6Z_p9GP7xjN9IHr0mfZ1yni-XmxHyPfAaNcVjlENvx4l8ySiyRYKHRvvg2E6WbMlf3hNShpk2qTuRRu0ZenYc1mrXxe68_BX4FXljTnHjOx91vJalGeivvaQfmQF57rpGgcDrJe9bprlVyXQwjSo0U6yk-QJ1S5miZfuS7ohswmNs3UZWGMucMgWJyU6E_J3d8QHyWjpGuBM8i2twLXGBPHkZb6hFN4pF6PT3r3M7HYvwFdzAzSfRvpCd90DvQMVDuqkf5VY3ccoD6FppEGF&c=0Y23gLfSZ1jN_yGPyItMZic7SWiIoOcRfcrQWB0JYs9lkVW149lxUQ==&ch=ioZBoxRIwDxdvg-uu6NEwI-E45lgW01U_INO86ZNyJpwbp9zcKnCIA== > > >. > > > > > From wagner.schmit@gmail.com Tue Jul 8 23:33:53 2014 From: wagner.schmit@gmail.com (Wagner Luiz Schmit) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2014 15:33:53 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: bildung and obuchenie In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear colleagues, I am reading some material regarding "bildung" now and thinking in making some approach of Vygotsky "perezhivanie" as an "unit of analysis" of "bildung" (expanding this unit from the unit of analysis of personality - I think I read this in a text by Andy here http://goo.gl/u1hrCy). Anyway, doing some preliminary search on the net I found this quote ( http://goo.gl/4xgt09) pointing "Obuchenie" as different of "obrazovanie" and that this later one is closer to "bildung". Any help from our Russian speakers in detailing the meaning of these words? At least in my head when Vygotsky talks about a person development in a more broad way, I relate this to "bildung". Is this a viable approach? Sorry for bringing this old discussion back to life. Wagner On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 2:24 PM, Greg Thompson wrote: > In reading the article I just mentioned (in Anthropology and Education > Quarterly), I got to thinking that bildung seems very similar to obuchenie. > I asked a Russian professor who happened to be in a classroom before a > class I was teaching and she described a concept that seemed very similar > to bildung. From what I could gather, obuchenie has the same sense of > "cultivation" that seems to be at the heart of bildung. And of course I > don't mean "cultivation" in the high cultural sense of being a "cultivated" > person (although this might have been part of what the early authors > writing about "bildung" had in mind) rather I mean the idea of a full > development of the human, not merely the dumping of information into the > individual. > > Anyone have any sense about overlap between these concepts? > Are they as similar as they seem to me? > If different, then how so? > > And I wonder how people would feel about the term "character education" as > an English analogue to the German bildung and the Russian obuchenie? > > Yes, yes, yes, I know that this aligns with politics that make many people > sick to their stomach, but frankly, I'm interested in imagining a politics > that isn't so provincial as the American Left and Right so I'm always > looking for politically polyvalent concepts. What do you think? Could this > be a concept that can work in politically polar opposite communities? > > -greg > > > > -- > Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. > Assistant Professor > Department of Anthropology > 883 Spencer W. Kimball Tower > Brigham Young University > Provo, UT 84602 > http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson > From bella.kotik@gmail.com Wed Jul 9 00:05:06 2014 From: bella.kotik@gmail.com (Bella Kotik-Friedgut) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2014 10:05:06 +0300 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: bildung and obuchenie In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: obrazovanie usually is used in context similar to education and obuchenie in context of instruction Sincerely yours Bella Kotik-Friedgut On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 9:33 AM, Wagner Luiz Schmit wrote: > Dear colleagues, > > I am reading some material regarding "bildung" now and thinking in making > some approach of Vygotsky "perezhivanie" as an "unit of analysis" of > "bildung" (expanding this unit from the unit of analysis of personality - I > think I read this in a text by Andy here http://goo.gl/u1hrCy). > > Anyway, doing some preliminary search on the net I found this quote ( > http://goo.gl/4xgt09) pointing "Obuchenie" as different of "obrazovanie" > and that this later one is closer to "bildung". Any help from our Russian > speakers in detailing the meaning of these words? > > At least in my head when Vygotsky talks about a person development in a > more broad way, I relate this to "bildung". Is this a viable approach? > > Sorry for bringing this old discussion back to life. > > Wagner > > > > On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 2:24 PM, Greg Thompson > wrote: > > > In reading the article I just mentioned (in Anthropology and Education > > Quarterly), I got to thinking that bildung seems very similar to > obuchenie. > > I asked a Russian professor who happened to be in a classroom before a > > class I was teaching and she described a concept that seemed very similar > > to bildung. From what I could gather, obuchenie has the same sense of > > "cultivation" that seems to be at the heart of bildung. And of course I > > don't mean "cultivation" in the high cultural sense of being a > "cultivated" > > person (although this might have been part of what the early authors > > writing about "bildung" had in mind) rather I mean the idea of a full > > development of the human, not merely the dumping of information into the > > individual. > > > > Anyone have any sense about overlap between these concepts? > > Are they as similar as they seem to me? > > If different, then how so? > > > > And I wonder how people would feel about the term "character education" > as > > an English analogue to the German bildung and the Russian obuchenie? > > > > Yes, yes, yes, I know that this aligns with politics that make many > people > > sick to their stomach, but frankly, I'm interested in imagining a > politics > > that isn't so provincial as the American Left and Right so I'm always > > looking for politically polyvalent concepts. What do you think? Could > this > > be a concept that can work in politically polar opposite communities? > > > > -greg > > > > > > > > -- > > Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. > > Assistant Professor > > Department of Anthropology > > 883 Spencer W. Kimball Tower > > Brigham Young University > > Provo, UT 84602 > > http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson > > > From R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk Wed Jul 9 00:22:35 2014 From: R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk (Rod Parker-Rees) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2014 07:22:35 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: bildung and obuchenie In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8F385CC13313CC47B866739C3A4BC31101DB9C7F@TIS103.uopnet.plymouth.ac.uk> Can you say a bit more, Bella. I had understood obuchenie as including aspects of WHAT is taught in 'educational' exchanges (the explicit curriculum) and more subtle, personal features of what such exchanges reveal about the 'teacher' and the 'learner', so that more is learned than is taught and associations, values, priorities, social rules and customs etc. come to be wrapped around WHAT is taught. For me it is this 'aura' of what we know about what people we know think and feel about the things we know that converts 'knowing' into 'understanding' and I had suspected that this more general recognition of the learning associated with the person of the teacher might explain why some Russian academics tend to place themselves by listing a line of descent - I studies with X, who studied with Y, who studied with Vygotsky. The relationship between 'education' and 'instruction' is complicated, too. I think in England 'instruction' comes with a much stronger aura of 'chalk and talk' (and canes!) than it does in America and elsewhere but education is also increasingly used as a synonym for 'schooling'. So what sort of situations would obrazovanie be used in and when would obuchenie be more appropriate? All the best, Rod -----Original Message----- From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Bella Kotik-Friedgut Sent: 09 July 2014 08:05 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: bildung and obuchenie obrazovanie usually is used in context similar to education and obuchenie in context of instruction Sincerely yours Bella Kotik-Friedgut On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 9:33 AM, Wagner Luiz Schmit wrote: > Dear colleagues, > > I am reading some material regarding "bildung" now and thinking in > making some approach of Vygotsky "perezhivanie" as an "unit of > analysis" of "bildung" (expanding this unit from the unit of analysis > of personality - I think I read this in a text by Andy here http://goo.gl/u1hrCy). > > Anyway, doing some preliminary search on the net I found this quote ( > http://goo.gl/4xgt09) pointing "Obuchenie" as different of "obrazovanie" > and that this later one is closer to "bildung". Any help from our > Russian speakers in detailing the meaning of these words? > > At least in my head when Vygotsky talks about a person development in > a more broad way, I relate this to "bildung". Is this a viable approach? > > Sorry for bringing this old discussion back to life. > > Wagner > > > > On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 2:24 PM, Greg Thompson > > wrote: > > > In reading the article I just mentioned (in Anthropology and > > Education Quarterly), I got to thinking that bildung seems very > > similar to > obuchenie. > > I asked a Russian professor who happened to be in a classroom before > > a class I was teaching and she described a concept that seemed very > > similar to bildung. From what I could gather, obuchenie has the same > > sense of "cultivation" that seems to be at the heart of bildung. And > > of course I don't mean "cultivation" in the high cultural sense of > > being a > "cultivated" > > person (although this might have been part of what the early authors > > writing about "bildung" had in mind) rather I mean the idea of a > > full development of the human, not merely the dumping of information > > into the individual. > > > > Anyone have any sense about overlap between these concepts? > > Are they as similar as they seem to me? > > If different, then how so? > > > > And I wonder how people would feel about the term "character education" > as > > an English analogue to the German bildung and the Russian obuchenie? > > > > Yes, yes, yes, I know that this aligns with politics that make many > people > > sick to their stomach, but frankly, I'm interested in imagining a > politics > > that isn't so provincial as the American Left and Right so I'm > > always looking for politically polyvalent concepts. What do you > > think? Could > this > > be a concept that can work in politically polar opposite communities? > > > > -greg > > > > > > > > -- > > Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. > > Assistant Professor > > Department of Anthropology > > 883 Spencer W. Kimball Tower > > Brigham Young University > > Provo, UT 84602 > > http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson > > > ________________________________ [http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/images/email_footer.gif] This email and any files with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the recipient to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient then copying, distribution or other use of the information contained is strictly prohibited and you should not rely on it. If you have received this email in error please let the sender know immediately and delete it from your system(s). Internet emails are not necessarily secure. While we take every care, Plymouth University accepts no responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan emails and their attachments. Plymouth University does not accept responsibility for any changes made after it was sent. Nothing in this email or its attachments constitutes an order for goods or services unless accompanied by an official order form. From bella.kotik@gmail.com Wed Jul 9 03:40:41 2014 From: bella.kotik@gmail.com (Bella Kotik-Friedgut) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2014 13:40:41 +0300 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: bildung and obuchenie In-Reply-To: <8F385CC13313CC47B866739C3A4BC31101DB9C7F@TIS103.uopnet.plymouth.ac.uk> References: <8F385CC13313CC47B866739C3A4BC31101DB9C7F@TIS103.uopnet.plymouth.ac.uk> Message-ID: Dear Rod, your interpretation just shows that word meaning is developing with experience (You have appropriate and relevant obrazovanie to add many associations). The same way any term has a whole semantic field of associations and can be used in different contexts. Thus obuchenie more readily would be used in a context of professional instruction: "?? ?????? ????????" means that he learned something and we can expect that he knows something; but one *does not* say that "? ?????? ???????? ? ?????" ??????????? more official and general ???????????? ???????????, ???????? ???????????, ?????? ???????????; ?? ???????????? ???????, ??????? ??????? ???????????. every time the context is important for interpretation. Sincerely yours Bella Kotik-Friedgut On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 10:22 AM, Rod Parker-Rees < R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk> wrote: > Can you say a bit more, Bella. I had understood obuchenie as including > aspects of WHAT is taught in 'educational' exchanges (the explicit > curriculum) and more subtle, personal features of what such exchanges > reveal about the 'teacher' and the 'learner', so that more is learned than > is taught and associations, values, priorities, social rules and customs > etc. come to be wrapped around WHAT is taught. For me it is this 'aura' of > what we know about what people we know think and feel about the things we > know that converts 'knowing' into 'understanding' and I had suspected that > this more general recognition of the learning associated with the person of > the teacher might explain why some Russian academics tend to place > themselves by listing a line of descent - I studies with X, who studied > with Y, who studied with Vygotsky. > > The relationship between 'education' and 'instruction' is complicated, > too. I think in England 'instruction' comes with a much stronger aura of > 'chalk and talk' (and canes!) than it does in America and elsewhere but > education is also increasingly used as a synonym for 'schooling'. > > So what sort of situations would obrazovanie be used in and when would > obuchenie be more appropriate? > > All the best, > > Rod > > -----Original Message----- > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Bella Kotik-Friedgut > Sent: 09 July 2014 08:05 > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: bildung and obuchenie > > obrazovanie usually is used in context similar to education and obuchenie > in context of instruction > > > Sincerely yours Bella Kotik-Friedgut > > > On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 9:33 AM, Wagner Luiz Schmit < > wagner.schmit@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Dear colleagues, > > > > I am reading some material regarding "bildung" now and thinking in > > making some approach of Vygotsky "perezhivanie" as an "unit of > > analysis" of "bildung" (expanding this unit from the unit of analysis > > of personality - I think I read this in a text by Andy here > http://goo.gl/u1hrCy). > > > > Anyway, doing some preliminary search on the net I found this quote ( > > http://goo.gl/4xgt09) pointing "Obuchenie" as different of "obrazovanie" > > and that this later one is closer to "bildung". Any help from our > > Russian speakers in detailing the meaning of these words? > > > > At least in my head when Vygotsky talks about a person development in > > a more broad way, I relate this to "bildung". Is this a viable approach? > > > > Sorry for bringing this old discussion back to life. > > > > Wagner > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 2:24 PM, Greg Thompson > > > > wrote: > > > > > In reading the article I just mentioned (in Anthropology and > > > Education Quarterly), I got to thinking that bildung seems very > > > similar to > > obuchenie. > > > I asked a Russian professor who happened to be in a classroom before > > > a class I was teaching and she described a concept that seemed very > > > similar to bildung. From what I could gather, obuchenie has the same > > > sense of "cultivation" that seems to be at the heart of bildung. And > > > of course I don't mean "cultivation" in the high cultural sense of > > > being a > > "cultivated" > > > person (although this might have been part of what the early authors > > > writing about "bildung" had in mind) rather I mean the idea of a > > > full development of the human, not merely the dumping of information > > > into the individual. > > > > > > Anyone have any sense about overlap between these concepts? > > > Are they as similar as they seem to me? > > > If different, then how so? > > > > > > And I wonder how people would feel about the term "character education" > > as > > > an English analogue to the German bildung and the Russian obuchenie? > > > > > > Yes, yes, yes, I know that this aligns with politics that make many > > people > > > sick to their stomach, but frankly, I'm interested in imagining a > > politics > > > that isn't so provincial as the American Left and Right so I'm > > > always looking for politically polyvalent concepts. What do you > > > think? Could > > this > > > be a concept that can work in politically polar opposite communities? > > > > > > -greg > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. > > > Assistant Professor > > > Department of Anthropology > > > 883 Spencer W. Kimball Tower > > > Brigham Young University > > > Provo, UT 84602 > > > http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson > > > > > > ________________________________ > [http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/images/email_footer.gif]< > http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/worldclass> > > This email and any files with it are confidential and intended solely for > the use of the recipient to whom it is addressed. If you are not the > intended recipient then copying, distribution or other use of the > information contained is strictly prohibited and you should not rely on it. > If you have received this email in error please let the sender know > immediately and delete it from your system(s). Internet emails are not > necessarily secure. While we take every care, Plymouth University accepts > no responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan emails > and their attachments. Plymouth University does not accept responsibility > for any changes made after it was sent. Nothing in this email or its > attachments constitutes an order for goods or services unless accompanied > by an official order form. > > From dkellogg60@gmail.com Wed Jul 9 14:46:22 2014 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2014 06:46:22 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: book of possible interest In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Huw: Helen has written a remarkable, important book. I gather it's part of her Ph.D. thesis, but it doesn't really read like a Ph.D. thesis. It reads like a teacher-trainer (or "professional development consultant", or whatever we are supposed to call them) with a problem who eventually, with a little help from the classics of cultural historical psychology and a lot of help from a co-teacher (who has a somewhat bookish, inert but nevertheless respectful and open acquaintance with those classics) achieves a very open but nevertheless very workable solution. So the bit I quoted represents the problem, or rather, two problems. On the one hand, Helen is trying to do something new: she wants to bring new CHAT concepts to bear on extant classroom activities and modify them in ways that she is confident will work. On the other, Helen is working with some pretty experienced (and even somewhat brutalized) teachers: they have seen "Professional Development" fads come and go, collected their free lunches and go on doing things the old way. Helen achieves her solution from the bottom up. Eventually, she does find a teacher who can teacher her a lot and who, even though Helen herself is uniquely gifted, with not only the theoretical background we all share, but also considerable first hand experience as a teacher and a parent, can nevertheless be taught in turn. But as you can see from the extract, she's extremely open, even to savage, unfair, and somewhat obtuse criticisms. Mike's critique of "cultural historical" is not that it is an epistemological error or a typological one, or that it puts the product "culture" before the process "history". It's not even that it suggests that on the odd day Piagetian activities might be taking place, which, by the way, is probably true, since these teachers were mostly trained during the "reign" of Piaget in the sixties and seventies. No, Mike's complaint is really, if you will pardon the expression, a wank of a complaint. He is just complaining that the name is uncool; it doesn't sound like the popular teachers would like it; the name won't go with an embossed moose like "Abercrombie and Fitch" or "community of learners" does. I think we have to accept that responsive, sensitive teachers inevitably end up internalizing some of the worst aspects of adolescent thinking, and this is an example. I might even say it's a bullshit complaint. It's crap, etc. (But this is one of those language situations where redundancy does not suggest development.) I guess if I encountered a bullshit complaint like that I would complain a little about "community of learners". I think that "community of learners" is essentially a way of saying "socio-psychological": it's relevant to everyday teaching, but it doesn't tell us much about how the "socio" got there, whereas "cultural-historical" does. I might even ask if Mike is going to try to teach physics, chemistry, biology, or history to kids without some way of saying "physico-chemical" or "chemico-biological", or "biologico-social". If not, then I don't see anything wrong with teaching language, including the language of teaching, as something "socio-semiotic" or "historico-cultural". But then, I never was one of the cool kids. My problem is this. I too would like to write a book now. I have two in mind, and they are both practical books about teacher training, similar in their targets to Helen's book, which is why I am studying it carefully. But I find that the books that I have in mind are really "about something" in a way that Helen's book is not. I don't mean that Helen's book has no object of study: like the title says, the object of study is teacher development. What I mean is that the teaching has no clear object of teaching: it's not specifically about teaching math or literacy or anything else but about teaching in general. The books I have in mind are really about teaching literacy (I think I want to try to teach WRITING before READING) and teaching science (I think I want to try a "hands off" approach that emphasizes word meanings instead of laboratory experiments). And I am finding that I when I do this the result is not at all the kind of "bottom up" thing that Helen does; it's very top down. David Kellogg Hankuk University of Foreign Studies On 9 July 2014 07:33, Huw Lloyd wrote: > Colourful. The complaint seems perfectly valid though: a typological and > epistemological error all in one conflated term. It suggests that on the > odd hours of the day there are Piagetian activities taking place. Was this > part of the point of the chapter? > > Best, > Huw > > > > > On 8 July 2014 21:40, David Kellogg wrote: > > > I'm actually in the middle of Chapter Three right now. What I can tell > you > > is that Helen's first two chapters are a kind of "Who's Who" at xmca, > with > > Helen reading the great classics (in the wrong order) and talking to > Andy, > > Greg, and others on this list. But beyond the litte shout-outs to xmca, > in > > Chapter Three, you find interesting problems like this. Helen is setting > up > > a "Professional Learning ZPD". This an acronymy within an acronym (an > > "acro-acronym-nym", like the group I used to belong to in New York and > > Paris, called "ACT-UP"), and in general Helen seems to have some trouble > > with names. On pp. 58-59, she writes. > > > > "In PLZ 4 I wrote the title 'Features of cultural Historical Learning > > Activities' across a piece of butcher's paper and asked the grou to > > brainstorm features of activities that would be consistent with cultural > > historical theory. After a few suggestions, Mike suddenly interrupted > with: > > MIKE: Can I ask, Helen, why such a wank of a name? > > HELEN: Cultural-historical? > > MIKE: Yeah, what a bullshit name. > > DEB: What should it be Mike? > > MIKE: What does it mean to anyone? Is that relevant to anyone that > > name? Cultural-historical learning. What does that mean? > > HELEN: Well.... > > MIKE: It's crap. > > HELEN: Well, I don't think that you, that's the name of teh theoyr, > > Cultural historical theory, but I think in terms of schools using teh > > theory they talk about Communities of Learners. > > MIKE: Yeah, but why don't they call it that? > > HELEN: OK, so (I start crossing out "cultural historical" and changing it > > to "Communities of Learners") > > MIKE: That name is like calliing the ultra net site for teachers 'design > > space'. It has no relevance to the name whatsoever, and to use > it--features > > of cultural historical learning--sounds like a load of crap. It > > doesn't have any relevance ot what it means. If you said to me cultural > > historical learning, I go .... > > BETH: I actually thought it meant talking about he past (general > > agreement). > > MIKE: That's what it implies, the past and how you used to teach. > > HELEN: I suppose I'm just trying to familiarize you with the term > (general > > agreement) > > MIKE: If you call it community of learners then it's something that's > > relevant." > > > > Helen then makes the (cultural-historical) point that words have a > history, > > but they are not necessarily YOUR history--for Helen, "cultural > historical" > > calls up a whole series of quite precise concepts, while "Community of > > Learners" is kind of vague and undefined. But for the teachers (who are, > I > > must say, not exactly reticent about sharing, and do not limit themselves > > to sharing their expertise) what you get is old times. > > > > It's funny that they ignore the word culture. I always thought that > > "cultural historical" is a little bit of the cart before the horse.... > > > > David Kellogg > > Hankuk University of Foreign Studies > > > > > > > > On 8 July 2014 21:40, Peter Smagorinsky wrote: > > > > > The Practice of Teachers' Professional Development > > > > > > A Cultural-Historical Approach > > > > > > Helen Grimmett (Monash University, Australia) > > > > > > This book uses Vygotsky's cultural-historical theory to provide a > unique > > > theorisation of teachers' professional development as a practice. A > > > practice can be described as the socially structured actions set up to > > > produce a product or service aimed at meeting a collective human need. > In > > > this case, collaborative, interventionist work with teachers in ... > Click > > > here for a free preview and full description< > > > > > > http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001ZduyW2xyB1USw9R1YjQno7GI-mDLfJ6m-729UFbNgCKe6Z_p9GP7xjN9IHr0mfZ1yni-XmxHyPfAaNcVjlENvx4l8ySiyRYKHRvvg2E6WbMlf3hNShpk2qTuRRu0ZenYc1mrXxe68_BX4FXljTnHjOx91vJalGeivvaQfmQF57rpGgcDrJe9bprlVyXQwjSo0U6yk-QJ1S5miZfuS7ohswmNs3UZWGMucMgWJyU6E_J3d8QHyWjpGuBM8i2twLXGBPHkZb6hFN4pF6PT3r3M7HYvwFdzAzSfRvpCd90DvQMVDuqkf5VY3ccoD6FppEGF&c=0Y23gLfSZ1jN_yGPyItMZic7SWiIoOcRfcrQWB0JYs9lkVW149lxUQ==&ch=ioZBoxRIwDxdvg-uu6NEwI-E45lgW01U_INO86ZNyJpwbp9zcKnCIA== > > > >. > > > > > > > > > From huw.softdesigns@gmail.com Wed Jul 9 16:53:15 2014 From: huw.softdesigns@gmail.com (Huw Lloyd) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2014 00:53:15 +0100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: book of possible interest In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: David, Just to be clear, the error I was referring to was the attribution of a theory (as an adjective) to the material thing (learning). It would be like saying, I am going to make a Newtonian cup of coffee in the morning and a quantum mechanical cup of coffee in the afternoon. I suppose colourful language serves the purpose of deliberate vagueness. It's hard to be trendy and have a precise point. I fear we are soon approaching the "teach yourself activity theory for dummies" book someday soon. From my understanding, the theory itself repudiates such a thing -- one cannot spoon feed theory -- but I don't think that will stop folk trying. I see no problem (or contradiction) in top down approaches. Solving a problem in general is a powerful approach to many problems. For many problems the concrete details are amenable to design and configuration, one can often choose tools to suit the proposed solution rather than vice-versa. But from an educational perspective, I see no alternative than starting with the individual, ofcourse one can have general strategies in doing so -- waiting to be asked before giving an explanation etc. Nice chatting. Best, Huw On 9 July 2014 22:46, David Kellogg wrote: > Huw: > > Helen has written a remarkable, important book. I gather it's part of her > Ph.D. thesis, but it doesn't really read like a Ph.D. thesis. It reads like > a teacher-trainer (or "professional development consultant", or whatever we > are supposed to call them) with a problem who eventually, with a little > help from the classics of cultural historical psychology and a lot of help > from a co-teacher (who has a somewhat bookish, inert but nevertheless > respectful and open acquaintance with those classics) achieves a very open > but nevertheless very workable solution. > > So the bit I quoted represents the problem, or rather, two problems. On the > one hand, Helen is trying to do something new: she wants to bring new CHAT > concepts to bear on extant classroom activities and modify them in ways > that she is confident will work. On the other, Helen is working with some > pretty experienced (and even somewhat brutalized) teachers: they have seen > "Professional Development" fads come and go, collected their free lunches > and go on doing things the old way. > > Helen achieves her solution from the bottom up. Eventually, she does find a > teacher who can teacher her a lot and who, even though Helen herself > is uniquely gifted, with not only the theoretical background we all share, > but also considerable first hand experience as a teacher and a parent, can > nevertheless be taught in turn. But as you can see from the extract, she's > extremely open, even to savage, unfair, and somewhat obtuse criticisms. > Mike's critique of "cultural historical" is not that it is an > epistemological error or a typological one, or that it puts the product > "culture" before the process "history". It's not even that it suggests that > on the odd day Piagetian activities might be taking place, which, by the > way, is probably true, since these teachers were mostly trained during the > "reign" of Piaget in the sixties and seventies. > > No, Mike's complaint is really, if you will pardon the expression, a wank > of a complaint. He is just complaining that the name is uncool; it doesn't > sound like the popular teachers would like it; the name won't go with an > embossed moose like "Abercrombie and Fitch" or "community of > learners" does. I think we have to accept that responsive, sensitive > teachers inevitably end up internalizing some of the worst aspects of > adolescent thinking, and this is an example. I might even say it's a > bullshit complaint. It's crap, etc. (But this is one of those > language situations where redundancy does not suggest development.) > > I guess if I encountered a bullshit complaint like that I would complain a > little about "community of learners". I think that "community of > learners" is essentially a way of saying "socio-psychological": it's > relevant to everyday teaching, but it doesn't tell us much about how the > "socio" got there, whereas "cultural-historical" does. I might even ask if > Mike is going to try to teach physics, chemistry, biology, or history to > kids without some way of saying "physico-chemical" or "chemico-biological", > or "biologico-social". If not, then I don't see anything wrong with > teaching language, including the language of teaching, as something > "socio-semiotic" or "historico-cultural". But then, I never was one of the > cool kids. > > My problem is this. I too would like to write a book now. I have two in > mind, and they are both practical books about teacher training, > similar in their targets to Helen's book, which is why I am studying it > carefully. But I find that the books that I have in mind are really "about > something" in a way that Helen's book is not. I don't mean that Helen's > book has no object of study: like the title says, the object of study is > teacher development. What I mean is that the teaching has no clear object > of teaching: it's not specifically about teaching math or literacy or > anything else but about teaching in general. The books I have in mind are > really about teaching literacy (I think I want to try to teach WRITING > before READING) and teaching science (I think I want to try a "hands off" > approach that emphasizes word meanings instead of laboratory experiments). > And I am finding that I when I do this the result is not at all the kind of > "bottom up" thing that Helen does; it's very top down. > > David Kellogg > Hankuk University of Foreign Studies > > > On 9 July 2014 07:33, Huw Lloyd wrote: > > > Colourful. The complaint seems perfectly valid though: a typological > and > > epistemological error all in one conflated term. It suggests that on the > > odd hours of the day there are Piagetian activities taking place. Was > this > > part of the point of the chapter? > > > > Best, > > Huw > > > > > > > > > > On 8 July 2014 21:40, David Kellogg wrote: > > > > > I'm actually in the middle of Chapter Three right now. What I can tell > > you > > > is that Helen's first two chapters are a kind of "Who's Who" at xmca, > > with > > > Helen reading the great classics (in the wrong order) and talking to > > Andy, > > > Greg, and others on this list. But beyond the litte shout-outs to xmca, > > in > > > Chapter Three, you find interesting problems like this. Helen is > setting > > up > > > a "Professional Learning ZPD". This an acronymy within an acronym (an > > > "acro-acronym-nym", like the group I used to belong to in New York and > > > Paris, called "ACT-UP"), and in general Helen seems to have some > trouble > > > with names. On pp. 58-59, she writes. > > > > > > "In PLZ 4 I wrote the title 'Features of cultural Historical Learning > > > Activities' across a piece of butcher's paper and asked the grou to > > > brainstorm features of activities that would be consistent with > cultural > > > historical theory. After a few suggestions, Mike suddenly interrupted > > with: > > > MIKE: Can I ask, Helen, why such a wank of a name? > > > HELEN: Cultural-historical? > > > MIKE: Yeah, what a bullshit name. > > > DEB: What should it be Mike? > > > MIKE: What does it mean to anyone? Is that relevant to anyone that > > > name? Cultural-historical learning. What does that mean? > > > HELEN: Well.... > > > MIKE: It's crap. > > > HELEN: Well, I don't think that you, that's the name of teh theoyr, > > > Cultural historical theory, but I think in terms of schools using teh > > > theory they talk about Communities of Learners. > > > MIKE: Yeah, but why don't they call it that? > > > HELEN: OK, so (I start crossing out "cultural historical" and changing > it > > > to "Communities of Learners") > > > MIKE: That name is like calliing the ultra net site for teachers > 'design > > > space'. It has no relevance to the name whatsoever, and to use > > it--features > > > of cultural historical learning--sounds like a load of crap. It > > > doesn't have any relevance ot what it means. If you said to me cultural > > > historical learning, I go .... > > > BETH: I actually thought it meant talking about he past (general > > > agreement). > > > MIKE: That's what it implies, the past and how you used to teach. > > > HELEN: I suppose I'm just trying to familiarize you with the term > > (general > > > agreement) > > > MIKE: If you call it community of learners then it's something that's > > > relevant." > > > > > > Helen then makes the (cultural-historical) point that words have a > > history, > > > but they are not necessarily YOUR history--for Helen, "cultural > > historical" > > > calls up a whole series of quite precise concepts, while "Community of > > > Learners" is kind of vague and undefined. But for the teachers (who > are, > > I > > > must say, not exactly reticent about sharing, and do not limit > themselves > > > to sharing their expertise) what you get is old times. > > > > > > It's funny that they ignore the word culture. I always thought that > > > "cultural historical" is a little bit of the cart before the horse.... > > > > > > David Kellogg > > > Hankuk University of Foreign Studies > > > > > > > > > > > > On 8 July 2014 21:40, Peter Smagorinsky wrote: > > > > > > > The Practice of Teachers' Professional Development > > > > > > > > A Cultural-Historical Approach > > > > > > > > Helen Grimmett (Monash University, Australia) > > > > > > > > This book uses Vygotsky's cultural-historical theory to provide a > > unique > > > > theorisation of teachers' professional development as a practice. A > > > > practice can be described as the socially structured actions set up > to > > > > produce a product or service aimed at meeting a collective human > need. > > In > > > > this case, collaborative, interventionist work with teachers in ... > > Click > > > > here for a free preview and full description< > > > > > > > > > > http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001ZduyW2xyB1USw9R1YjQno7GI-mDLfJ6m-729UFbNgCKe6Z_p9GP7xjN9IHr0mfZ1yni-XmxHyPfAaNcVjlENvx4l8ySiyRYKHRvvg2E6WbMlf3hNShpk2qTuRRu0ZenYc1mrXxe68_BX4FXljTnHjOx91vJalGeivvaQfmQF57rpGgcDrJe9bprlVyXQwjSo0U6yk-QJ1S5miZfuS7ohswmNs3UZWGMucMgWJyU6E_J3d8QHyWjpGuBM8i2twLXGBPHkZb6hFN4pF6PT3r3M7HYvwFdzAzSfRvpCd90DvQMVDuqkf5VY3ccoD6FppEGF&c=0Y23gLfSZ1jN_yGPyItMZic7SWiIoOcRfcrQWB0JYs9lkVW149lxUQ==&ch=ioZBoxRIwDxdvg-uu6NEwI-E45lgW01U_INO86ZNyJpwbp9zcKnCIA== > > > > >. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From helenaworthen@gmail.com Thu Jul 10 14:19:42 2014 From: helenaworthen@gmail.com (Helena Worthen) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2014 17:19:42 -0400 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: book of possible interest In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: David, et al -- As someone who has written was I'm sure some people will call a "teach yourself activity theory for dummies" book, I guess I'd better read Helen Grimmet's book and see what all the fuss is about. I have my own response to people (like the student MIke in Huw's message) who complain about the names of theories. Lots of people do -- "activity theory" made the profs at U of Illinois snigger because they thought "activity" was like "recreation" as in "after-school activities." "Activity theory" makes more people snigger than any of the others. Cultural-historical Activity theory also is a problem, and so is "CHAT". What I tell people is that a) these terms are mostly translations or else cognates of words from other languages, and b) that's what they are actually called, whether you like it or not; if you are going to look it up on the internet you have to use the name that other people use for it, period. Helen Grimmet backs down when faced with the student's complaint. I would say, "Look, I didn't make it up -- deal with it." I actually think that if you can't explain something to a regular person using familiar, common-sense words, you don't understand it well enough. If that's "spoon-feeding," then so be it. I think that spoon-feeding really means a little bit at a time. What's the problem with that? A little bit, over a long time, and if you know what you're doing, you can explain anything. Helena Worthen helenaworthen@gmail.com On Jul 9, 2014, at 7:53 PM, Huw Lloyd wrote: > David, > > Just to be clear, the error I was referring to was the attribution of a > theory (as an adjective) to the material thing (learning). It would be > like saying, I am going to make a Newtonian cup of coffee in the morning > and a quantum mechanical cup of coffee in the afternoon. > > I suppose colourful language serves the purpose of deliberate vagueness. > It's hard to be trendy and have a precise point. > > I fear we are soon approaching the "teach yourself activity theory for > dummies" book someday soon. From my understanding, the theory itself > repudiates such a thing -- one cannot spoon feed theory -- but I don't > think that will stop folk trying. > > I see no problem (or contradiction) in top down approaches. Solving a > problem in general is a powerful approach to many problems. For many > problems the concrete details are amenable to design and configuration, one > can often choose tools to suit the proposed solution rather than > vice-versa. But from an educational perspective, I see no alternative > than starting with the individual, ofcourse one can have general strategies > in doing so -- waiting to be asked before giving an explanation etc. > > Nice chatting. > > Best, > Huw > > On 9 July 2014 22:46, David Kellogg wrote: > >> Huw: >> >> Helen has written a remarkable, important book. I gather it's part of her >> Ph.D. thesis, but it doesn't really read like a Ph.D. thesis. It reads like >> a teacher-trainer (or "professional development consultant", or whatever we >> are supposed to call them) with a problem who eventually, with a little >> help from the classics of cultural historical psychology and a lot of help >> from a co-teacher (who has a somewhat bookish, inert but nevertheless >> respectful and open acquaintance with those classics) achieves a very open >> but nevertheless very workable solution. >> >> So the bit I quoted represents the problem, or rather, two problems. On the >> one hand, Helen is trying to do something new: she wants to bring new CHAT >> concepts to bear on extant classroom activities and modify them in ways >> that she is confident will work. On the other, Helen is working with some >> pretty experienced (and even somewhat brutalized) teachers: they have seen >> "Professional Development" fads come and go, collected their free lunches >> and go on doing things the old way. >> >> Helen achieves her solution from the bottom up. Eventually, she does find a >> teacher who can teacher her a lot and who, even though Helen herself >> is uniquely gifted, with not only the theoretical background we all share, >> but also considerable first hand experience as a teacher and a parent, can >> nevertheless be taught in turn. But as you can see from the extract, she's >> extremely open, even to savage, unfair, and somewhat obtuse criticisms. >> Mike's critique of "cultural historical" is not that it is an >> epistemological error or a typological one, or that it puts the product >> "culture" before the process "history". It's not even that it suggests that >> on the odd day Piagetian activities might be taking place, which, by the >> way, is probably true, since these teachers were mostly trained during the >> "reign" of Piaget in the sixties and seventies. >> >> No, Mike's complaint is really, if you will pardon the expression, a wank >> of a complaint. He is just complaining that the name is uncool; it doesn't >> sound like the popular teachers would like it; the name won't go with an >> embossed moose like "Abercrombie and Fitch" or "community of >> learners" does. I think we have to accept that responsive, sensitive >> teachers inevitably end up internalizing some of the worst aspects of >> adolescent thinking, and this is an example. I might even say it's a >> bullshit complaint. It's crap, etc. (But this is one of those >> language situations where redundancy does not suggest development.) >> >> I guess if I encountered a bullshit complaint like that I would complain a >> little about "community of learners". I think that "community of >> learners" is essentially a way of saying "socio-psychological": it's >> relevant to everyday teaching, but it doesn't tell us much about how the >> "socio" got there, whereas "cultural-historical" does. I might even ask if >> Mike is going to try to teach physics, chemistry, biology, or history to >> kids without some way of saying "physico-chemical" or "chemico-biological", >> or "biologico-social". If not, then I don't see anything wrong with >> teaching language, including the language of teaching, as something >> "socio-semiotic" or "historico-cultural". But then, I never was one of the >> cool kids. >> >> My problem is this. I too would like to write a book now. I have two in >> mind, and they are both practical books about teacher training, >> similar in their targets to Helen's book, which is why I am studying it >> carefully. But I find that the books that I have in mind are really "about >> something" in a way that Helen's book is not. I don't mean that Helen's >> book has no object of study: like the title says, the object of study is >> teacher development. What I mean is that the teaching has no clear object >> of teaching: it's not specifically about teaching math or literacy or >> anything else but about teaching in general. The books I have in mind are >> really about teaching literacy (I think I want to try to teach WRITING >> before READING) and teaching science (I think I want to try a "hands off" >> approach that emphasizes word meanings instead of laboratory experiments). >> And I am finding that I when I do this the result is not at all the kind of >> "bottom up" thing that Helen does; it's very top down. >> >> David Kellogg >> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies >> >> >> On 9 July 2014 07:33, Huw Lloyd wrote: >> >>> Colourful. The complaint seems perfectly valid though: a typological >> and >>> epistemological error all in one conflated term. It suggests that on the >>> odd hours of the day there are Piagetian activities taking place. Was >> this >>> part of the point of the chapter? >>> >>> Best, >>> Huw >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 8 July 2014 21:40, David Kellogg wrote: >>> >>>> I'm actually in the middle of Chapter Three right now. What I can tell >>> you >>>> is that Helen's first two chapters are a kind of "Who's Who" at xmca, >>> with >>>> Helen reading the great classics (in the wrong order) and talking to >>> Andy, >>>> Greg, and others on this list. But beyond the litte shout-outs to xmca, >>> in >>>> Chapter Three, you find interesting problems like this. Helen is >> setting >>> up >>>> a "Professional Learning ZPD". This an acronymy within an acronym (an >>>> "acro-acronym-nym", like the group I used to belong to in New York and >>>> Paris, called "ACT-UP"), and in general Helen seems to have some >> trouble >>>> with names. On pp. 58-59, she writes. >>>> >>>> "In PLZ 4 I wrote the title 'Features of cultural Historical Learning >>>> Activities' across a piece of butcher's paper and asked the grou to >>>> brainstorm features of activities that would be consistent with >> cultural >>>> historical theory. After a few suggestions, Mike suddenly interrupted >>> with: >>>> MIKE: Can I ask, Helen, why such a wank of a name? >>>> HELEN: Cultural-historical? >>>> MIKE: Yeah, what a bullshit name. >>>> DEB: What should it be Mike? >>>> MIKE: What does it mean to anyone? Is that relevant to anyone that >>>> name? Cultural-historical learning. What does that mean? >>>> HELEN: Well.... >>>> MIKE: It's crap. >>>> HELEN: Well, I don't think that you, that's the name of teh theoyr, >>>> Cultural historical theory, but I think in terms of schools using teh >>>> theory they talk about Communities of Learners. >>>> MIKE: Yeah, but why don't they call it that? >>>> HELEN: OK, so (I start crossing out "cultural historical" and changing >> it >>>> to "Communities of Learners") >>>> MIKE: That name is like calliing the ultra net site for teachers >> 'design >>>> space'. It has no relevance to the name whatsoever, and to use >>> it--features >>>> of cultural historical learning--sounds like a load of crap. It >>>> doesn't have any relevance ot what it means. If you said to me cultural >>>> historical learning, I go .... >>>> BETH: I actually thought it meant talking about he past (general >>>> agreement). >>>> MIKE: That's what it implies, the past and how you used to teach. >>>> HELEN: I suppose I'm just trying to familiarize you with the term >>> (general >>>> agreement) >>>> MIKE: If you call it community of learners then it's something that's >>>> relevant." >>>> >>>> Helen then makes the (cultural-historical) point that words have a >>> history, >>>> but they are not necessarily YOUR history--for Helen, "cultural >>> historical" >>>> calls up a whole series of quite precise concepts, while "Community of >>>> Learners" is kind of vague and undefined. But for the teachers (who >> are, >>> I >>>> must say, not exactly reticent about sharing, and do not limit >> themselves >>>> to sharing their expertise) what you get is old times. >>>> >>>> It's funny that they ignore the word culture. I always thought that >>>> "cultural historical" is a little bit of the cart before the horse.... >>>> >>>> David Kellogg >>>> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 8 July 2014 21:40, Peter Smagorinsky wrote: >>>> >>>>> The Practice of Teachers' Professional Development >>>>> >>>>> A Cultural-Historical Approach >>>>> >>>>> Helen Grimmett (Monash University, Australia) >>>>> >>>>> This book uses Vygotsky's cultural-historical theory to provide a >>> unique >>>>> theorisation of teachers' professional development as a practice. A >>>>> practice can be described as the socially structured actions set up >> to >>>>> produce a product or service aimed at meeting a collective human >> need. >>> In >>>>> this case, collaborative, interventionist work with teachers in ... >>> Click >>>>> here for a free preview and full description< >>>>> >>>> >>> >> http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001ZduyW2xyB1USw9R1YjQno7GI-mDLfJ6m-729UFbNgCKe6Z_p9GP7xjN9IHr0mfZ1yni-XmxHyPfAaNcVjlENvx4l8ySiyRYKHRvvg2E6WbMlf3hNShpk2qTuRRu0ZenYc1mrXxe68_BX4FXljTnHjOx91vJalGeivvaQfmQF57rpGgcDrJe9bprlVyXQwjSo0U6yk-QJ1S5miZfuS7ohswmNs3UZWGMucMgWJyU6E_J3d8QHyWjpGuBM8i2twLXGBPHkZb6hFN4pF6PT3r3M7HYvwFdzAzSfRvpCd90DvQMVDuqkf5VY3ccoD6FppEGF&c=0Y23gLfSZ1jN_yGPyItMZic7SWiIoOcRfcrQWB0JYs9lkVW149lxUQ==&ch=ioZBoxRIwDxdvg-uu6NEwI-E45lgW01U_INO86ZNyJpwbp9zcKnCIA== >>>>>> . >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> From dkellogg60@gmail.com Thu Jul 10 14:33:15 2014 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 06:33:15 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: book of possible interest In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Huw: Is learning material? In what sense? At what point? I guess I think of it this way. All phenomena in the universe are physical, but only in the final analysis. When my father (who is a retired but unrepentant solar physicist) studies these phenomena he uses various units of analysis (my father likes to think big, so his usual unit of analysis is a solar emission many times larger than the earth, but sometimes, depending on the problem, he will condescend to think about smaller particles like atomic nuclei). Some of these physical phenomena, when they cool down a little, are chemical as well, and because these phenomena are chemical as well as physical, the unit of analysis that is proper to them is the molecule and its motions, and not simply the particle (Dad doesn't care about these phenomena; he likes his physics hot). Some of these chemical phenomena are biological as well, and here once again the unit of analysis has to change (e.g. to the cell) in order to take into account the new properties which come into being at this scale. Some biological phenomena are cultural-historical in turn, and here too we must change the unit of analysis in order not to lose essential information that is created with higher levels of organization and complexity.Of course, these cultural historical phenomena are all reducible to biological phenomena, and therefore reducible to chemical and physical phenomena, but only in the final analysis. Hey, in the final analysis, as Carolyn Porco says, we all get reduced to physical phenomena when the sun explodes and blows the particles that were once our bodies out into space, to enjoy eternal life...but only as physical phenomena. In the meantime, if we want to understand cultural-historical phenomena as such, we have to confront their higher levels of organization and complexity.The cultural historical phenomena that I am most interested in turn out to have another subset of phenomena which Halliday calls semiotic--that is, they are sociologically cultural-historical phenomena that stand, even if only for a fleeting instant, for psychologically cultural-historical phenomena. These phenomena are material too (that is, they are biological, chemical, and even physical), for the way things stand for other things is ultimately reducible to a thing: words are, in the final analysis, "made of living breath", as Shakespeare says, or "layers of moving air" if you prefer Engels. But only in the final analysis. In the interim, too much information is lost when we reduce these semiotic phenomena to physical, material, things (for example, when my students try to model learner comprehension problems as pure phonetic discrimination without taking into account the layer of wording or meaning). So it's almost always more useful for me to think of learning phenomena as NOT reducible to the physical, at least not in their unit of analysis. Actually, it seems to me that the general "cultural-historical" level of analysis is if anything a step closer to biology or chemistry or physics than the subset of cultural historical phenomena that I mean when I refer to learning, because to me learning is microgenetic, that is, POTENTIALLY ontogenetic, which is in turn POTENTIALLY sociogenetic, which (to me) is the general level of analysis we mean when we talk about cultural historical phenomena. So the real answer to Mike's colorful complaint about handles is not "Community of Learners" but actually "physico-chemico-bio-socio-semiotic learning activities". Time for that quantum physical cup of coffee you were talking about.... David Kellogg Hankuk University of Foreign Studies On 10 July 2014 08:53, Huw Lloyd wrote: > David, > > Just to be clear, the error I was referring to was the attribution of a > theory (as an adjective) to the material thing (learning). It would be > like saying, I am going to make a Newtonian cup of coffee in the morning > and a quantum mechanical cup of coffee in the afternoon. > > I suppose colourful language serves the purpose of deliberate vagueness. > It's hard to be trendy and have a precise point. > > I fear we are soon approaching the "teach yourself activity theory for > dummies" book someday soon. From my understanding, the theory itself > repudiates such a thing -- one cannot spoon feed theory -- but I don't > think that will stop folk trying. > > I see no problem (or contradiction) in top down approaches. Solving a > problem in general is a powerful approach to many problems. For many > problems the concrete details are amenable to design and configuration, one > can often choose tools to suit the proposed solution rather than > vice-versa. But from an educational perspective, I see no alternative > than starting with the individual, ofcourse one can have general strategies > in doing so -- waiting to be asked before giving an explanation etc. > > Nice chatting. > > Best, > Huw > > On 9 July 2014 22:46, David Kellogg wrote: > > > Huw: > > > > Helen has written a remarkable, important book. I gather it's part of her > > Ph.D. thesis, but it doesn't really read like a Ph.D. thesis. It reads > like > > a teacher-trainer (or "professional development consultant", or whatever > we > > are supposed to call them) with a problem who eventually, with a little > > help from the classics of cultural historical psychology and a lot of > help > > from a co-teacher (who has a somewhat bookish, inert but nevertheless > > respectful and open acquaintance with those classics) achieves a very > open > > but nevertheless very workable solution. > > > > So the bit I quoted represents the problem, or rather, two problems. On > the > > one hand, Helen is trying to do something new: she wants to bring new > CHAT > > concepts to bear on extant classroom activities and modify them in ways > > that she is confident will work. On the other, Helen is working with some > > pretty experienced (and even somewhat brutalized) teachers: they have > seen > > "Professional Development" fads come and go, collected their free lunches > > and go on doing things the old way. > > > > Helen achieves her solution from the bottom up. Eventually, she does > find a > > teacher who can teacher her a lot and who, even though Helen herself > > is uniquely gifted, with not only the theoretical background we all > share, > > but also considerable first hand experience as a teacher and a parent, > can > > nevertheless be taught in turn. But as you can see from the extract, > she's > > extremely open, even to savage, unfair, and somewhat obtuse criticisms. > > Mike's critique of "cultural historical" is not that it is an > > epistemological error or a typological one, or that it puts the product > > "culture" before the process "history". It's not even that it suggests > that > > on the odd day Piagetian activities might be taking place, which, by the > > way, is probably true, since these teachers were mostly trained during > the > > "reign" of Piaget in the sixties and seventies. > > > > No, Mike's complaint is really, if you will pardon the expression, a wank > > of a complaint. He is just complaining that the name is uncool; it > doesn't > > sound like the popular teachers would like it; the name won't go with an > > embossed moose like "Abercrombie and Fitch" or "community of > > learners" does. I think we have to accept that responsive, sensitive > > teachers inevitably end up internalizing some of the worst aspects of > > adolescent thinking, and this is an example. I might even say it's a > > bullshit complaint. It's crap, etc. (But this is one of those > > language situations where redundancy does not suggest development.) > > > > I guess if I encountered a bullshit complaint like that I would complain > a > > little about "community of learners". I think that "community of > > learners" is essentially a way of saying "socio-psychological": it's > > relevant to everyday teaching, but it doesn't tell us much about how the > > "socio" got there, whereas "cultural-historical" does. I might even ask > if > > Mike is going to try to teach physics, chemistry, biology, or history to > > kids without some way of saying "physico-chemical" or > "chemico-biological", > > or "biologico-social". If not, then I don't see anything wrong with > > teaching language, including the language of teaching, as something > > "socio-semiotic" or "historico-cultural". But then, I never was one of > the > > cool kids. > > > > My problem is this. I too would like to write a book now. I have two in > > mind, and they are both practical books about teacher training, > > similar in their targets to Helen's book, which is why I am studying it > > carefully. But I find that the books that I have in mind are really > "about > > something" in a way that Helen's book is not. I don't mean that Helen's > > book has no object of study: like the title says, the object of study is > > teacher development. What I mean is that the teaching has no clear object > > of teaching: it's not specifically about teaching math or literacy or > > anything else but about teaching in general. The books I have in mind are > > really about teaching literacy (I think I want to try to teach WRITING > > before READING) and teaching science (I think I want to try a "hands off" > > approach that emphasizes word meanings instead of laboratory > experiments). > > And I am finding that I when I do this the result is not at all the kind > of > > "bottom up" thing that Helen does; it's very top down. > > > > David Kellogg > > Hankuk University of Foreign Studies > > > > > > On 9 July 2014 07:33, Huw Lloyd wrote: > > > > > Colourful. The complaint seems perfectly valid though: a typological > > and > > > epistemological error all in one conflated term. It suggests that on > the > > > odd hours of the day there are Piagetian activities taking place. Was > > this > > > part of the point of the chapter? > > > > > > Best, > > > Huw > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 8 July 2014 21:40, David Kellogg wrote: > > > > > > > I'm actually in the middle of Chapter Three right now. What I can > tell > > > you > > > > is that Helen's first two chapters are a kind of "Who's Who" at xmca, > > > with > > > > Helen reading the great classics (in the wrong order) and talking to > > > Andy, > > > > Greg, and others on this list. But beyond the litte shout-outs to > xmca, > > > in > > > > Chapter Three, you find interesting problems like this. Helen is > > setting > > > up > > > > a "Professional Learning ZPD". This an acronymy within an acronym (an > > > > "acro-acronym-nym", like the group I used to belong to in New York > and > > > > Paris, called "ACT-UP"), and in general Helen seems to have some > > trouble > > > > with names. On pp. 58-59, she writes. > > > > > > > > "In PLZ 4 I wrote the title 'Features of cultural Historical Learning > > > > Activities' across a piece of butcher's paper and asked the grou to > > > > brainstorm features of activities that would be consistent with > > cultural > > > > historical theory. After a few suggestions, Mike suddenly interrupted > > > with: > > > > MIKE: Can I ask, Helen, why such a wank of a name? > > > > HELEN: Cultural-historical? > > > > MIKE: Yeah, what a bullshit name. > > > > DEB: What should it be Mike? > > > > MIKE: What does it mean to anyone? Is that relevant to anyone that > > > > name? Cultural-historical learning. What does that mean? > > > > HELEN: Well.... > > > > MIKE: It's crap. > > > > HELEN: Well, I don't think that you, that's the name of teh theoyr, > > > > Cultural historical theory, but I think in terms of schools using teh > > > > theory they talk about Communities of Learners. > > > > MIKE: Yeah, but why don't they call it that? > > > > HELEN: OK, so (I start crossing out "cultural historical" and > changing > > it > > > > to "Communities of Learners") > > > > MIKE: That name is like calliing the ultra net site for teachers > > 'design > > > > space'. It has no relevance to the name whatsoever, and to use > > > it--features > > > > of cultural historical learning--sounds like a load of crap. It > > > > doesn't have any relevance ot what it means. If you said to me > cultural > > > > historical learning, I go .... > > > > BETH: I actually thought it meant talking about he past (general > > > > agreement). > > > > MIKE: That's what it implies, the past and how you used to teach. > > > > HELEN: I suppose I'm just trying to familiarize you with the term > > > (general > > > > agreement) > > > > MIKE: If you call it community of learners then it's something that's > > > > relevant." > > > > > > > > Helen then makes the (cultural-historical) point that words have a > > > history, > > > > but they are not necessarily YOUR history--for Helen, "cultural > > > historical" > > > > calls up a whole series of quite precise concepts, while "Community > of > > > > Learners" is kind of vague and undefined. But for the teachers (who > > are, > > > I > > > > must say, not exactly reticent about sharing, and do not limit > > themselves > > > > to sharing their expertise) what you get is old times. > > > > > > > > It's funny that they ignore the word culture. I always thought that > > > > "cultural historical" is a little bit of the cart before the > horse.... > > > > > > > > David Kellogg > > > > Hankuk University of Foreign Studies > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 8 July 2014 21:40, Peter Smagorinsky wrote: > > > > > > > > > The Practice of Teachers' Professional Development > > > > > > > > > > A Cultural-Historical Approach > > > > > > > > > > Helen Grimmett (Monash University, Australia) > > > > > > > > > > This book uses Vygotsky's cultural-historical theory to provide a > > > unique > > > > > theorisation of teachers' professional development as a practice. A > > > > > practice can be described as the socially structured actions set up > > to > > > > > produce a product or service aimed at meeting a collective human > > need. > > > In > > > > > this case, collaborative, interventionist work with teachers in ... > > > Click > > > > > here for a free preview and full description< > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001ZduyW2xyB1USw9R1YjQno7GI-mDLfJ6m-729UFbNgCKe6Z_p9GP7xjN9IHr0mfZ1yni-XmxHyPfAaNcVjlENvx4l8ySiyRYKHRvvg2E6WbMlf3hNShpk2qTuRRu0ZenYc1mrXxe68_BX4FXljTnHjOx91vJalGeivvaQfmQF57rpGgcDrJe9bprlVyXQwjSo0U6yk-QJ1S5miZfuS7ohswmNs3UZWGMucMgWJyU6E_J3d8QHyWjpGuBM8i2twLXGBPHkZb6hFN4pF6PT3r3M7HYvwFdzAzSfRvpCd90DvQMVDuqkf5VY3ccoD6FppEGF&c=0Y23gLfSZ1jN_yGPyItMZic7SWiIoOcRfcrQWB0JYs9lkVW149lxUQ==&ch=ioZBoxRIwDxdvg-uu6NEwI-E45lgW01U_INO86ZNyJpwbp9zcKnCIA== > > > > > >. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From huw.softdesigns@gmail.com Thu Jul 10 15:41:08 2014 From: huw.softdesigns@gmail.com (Huw Lloyd) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2014 23:41:08 +0100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: book of possible interest In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Helena, What is wrong with it, I believe, is that you're describing or presenting an image of the theory, rather than engaging the subject in the theory. As long as its clear that that is what you're doing, then no problem. This is the same point I was making about TED. On naming, I recall discussing, in usual dry humour, my preference for naming CHAT something like Vygotskian-Sicilian Defence Dragon Variation (referring to a "knife edge" chess variation in which things can get rather interesting but also rather precarious and in which one's position may come tumbling down from the faintest of miss-moves.) CHAT is just too chatty. Maybe Deyatel'nost' Theory, or Leontyev Theory. :) Best, Huw On 10 July 2014 22:19, Helena Worthen wrote: > David, et al -- > > As someone who has written was I'm sure some people will call a "teach > yourself activity theory for dummies" book, I guess I'd better read Helen > Grimmet's book and see what all the fuss is about. > > I have my own response to people (like the student MIke in Huw's message) > who complain about the names of theories. Lots of people do -- "activity > theory" made the profs at U of Illinois snigger because they thought > "activity" was like "recreation" as in "after-school activities." > "Activity theory" makes more people snigger than any of the others. > Cultural-historical Activity theory also is a problem, and so is "CHAT". > > What I tell people is that a) these terms are mostly translations or else > cognates of words from other languages, and b) that's what they are > actually called, whether you like it or not; if you are going to look it up > on the internet you have to use the name that other people use for it, > period. Helen Grimmet backs down when faced with the student's complaint. I > would say, "Look, I didn't make it up -- deal with it." > > I actually think that if you can't explain something to a regular person > using familiar, common-sense words, you don't understand it well enough. If > that's "spoon-feeding," then so be it. I think that spoon-feeding really > means a little bit at a time. What's the problem with that? A little bit, > over a long time, and if you know what you're doing, you can explain > anything. > > Helena Worthen > helenaworthen@gmail.com > > > On Jul 9, 2014, at 7:53 PM, Huw Lloyd wrote: > > > David, > > > > Just to be clear, the error I was referring to was the attribution of a > > theory (as an adjective) to the material thing (learning). It would be > > like saying, I am going to make a Newtonian cup of coffee in the morning > > and a quantum mechanical cup of coffee in the afternoon. > > > > I suppose colourful language serves the purpose of deliberate vagueness. > > It's hard to be trendy and have a precise point. > > > > I fear we are soon approaching the "teach yourself activity theory for > > dummies" book someday soon. From my understanding, the theory itself > > repudiates such a thing -- one cannot spoon feed theory -- but I don't > > think that will stop folk trying. > > > > I see no problem (or contradiction) in top down approaches. Solving a > > problem in general is a powerful approach to many problems. For many > > problems the concrete details are amenable to design and configuration, > one > > can often choose tools to suit the proposed solution rather than > > vice-versa. But from an educational perspective, I see no alternative > > than starting with the individual, ofcourse one can have general > strategies > > in doing so -- waiting to be asked before giving an explanation etc. > > > > Nice chatting. > > > > Best, > > Huw > > > > On 9 July 2014 22:46, David Kellogg wrote: > > > >> Huw: > >> > >> Helen has written a remarkable, important book. I gather it's part of > her > >> Ph.D. thesis, but it doesn't really read like a Ph.D. thesis. It reads > like > >> a teacher-trainer (or "professional development consultant", or > whatever we > >> are supposed to call them) with a problem who eventually, with a little > >> help from the classics of cultural historical psychology and a lot of > help > >> from a co-teacher (who has a somewhat bookish, inert but nevertheless > >> respectful and open acquaintance with those classics) achieves a very > open > >> but nevertheless very workable solution. > >> > >> So the bit I quoted represents the problem, or rather, two problems. On > the > >> one hand, Helen is trying to do something new: she wants to bring new > CHAT > >> concepts to bear on extant classroom activities and modify them in ways > >> that she is confident will work. On the other, Helen is working with > some > >> pretty experienced (and even somewhat brutalized) teachers: they have > seen > >> "Professional Development" fads come and go, collected their free > lunches > >> and go on doing things the old way. > >> > >> Helen achieves her solution from the bottom up. Eventually, she does > find a > >> teacher who can teacher her a lot and who, even though Helen herself > >> is uniquely gifted, with not only the theoretical background we all > share, > >> but also considerable first hand experience as a teacher and a parent, > can > >> nevertheless be taught in turn. But as you can see from the extract, > she's > >> extremely open, even to savage, unfair, and somewhat obtuse criticisms. > >> Mike's critique of "cultural historical" is not that it is an > >> epistemological error or a typological one, or that it puts the product > >> "culture" before the process "history". It's not even that it suggests > that > >> on the odd day Piagetian activities might be taking place, which, by the > >> way, is probably true, since these teachers were mostly trained during > the > >> "reign" of Piaget in the sixties and seventies. > >> > >> No, Mike's complaint is really, if you will pardon the expression, a > wank > >> of a complaint. He is just complaining that the name is uncool; it > doesn't > >> sound like the popular teachers would like it; the name won't go with an > >> embossed moose like "Abercrombie and Fitch" or "community of > >> learners" does. I think we have to accept that responsive, sensitive > >> teachers inevitably end up internalizing some of the worst aspects of > >> adolescent thinking, and this is an example. I might even say it's a > >> bullshit complaint. It's crap, etc. (But this is one of those > >> language situations where redundancy does not suggest development.) > >> > >> I guess if I encountered a bullshit complaint like that I would > complain a > >> little about "community of learners". I think that "community of > >> learners" is essentially a way of saying "socio-psychological": it's > >> relevant to everyday teaching, but it doesn't tell us much about how the > >> "socio" got there, whereas "cultural-historical" does. I might even ask > if > >> Mike is going to try to teach physics, chemistry, biology, or history to > >> kids without some way of saying "physico-chemical" or > "chemico-biological", > >> or "biologico-social". If not, then I don't see anything wrong with > >> teaching language, including the language of teaching, as something > >> "socio-semiotic" or "historico-cultural". But then, I never was one of > the > >> cool kids. > >> > >> My problem is this. I too would like to write a book now. I have two in > >> mind, and they are both practical books about teacher training, > >> similar in their targets to Helen's book, which is why I am studying it > >> carefully. But I find that the books that I have in mind are really > "about > >> something" in a way that Helen's book is not. I don't mean that Helen's > >> book has no object of study: like the title says, the object of study is > >> teacher development. What I mean is that the teaching has no clear > object > >> of teaching: it's not specifically about teaching math or literacy or > >> anything else but about teaching in general. The books I have in mind > are > >> really about teaching literacy (I think I want to try to teach WRITING > >> before READING) and teaching science (I think I want to try a "hands > off" > >> approach that emphasizes word meanings instead of laboratory > experiments). > >> And I am finding that I when I do this the result is not at all the > kind of > >> "bottom up" thing that Helen does; it's very top down. > >> > >> David Kellogg > >> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies > >> > >> > >> On 9 July 2014 07:33, Huw Lloyd wrote: > >> > >>> Colourful. The complaint seems perfectly valid though: a typological > >> and > >>> epistemological error all in one conflated term. It suggests that on > the > >>> odd hours of the day there are Piagetian activities taking place. Was > >> this > >>> part of the point of the chapter? > >>> > >>> Best, > >>> Huw > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On 8 July 2014 21:40, David Kellogg wrote: > >>> > >>>> I'm actually in the middle of Chapter Three right now. What I can tell > >>> you > >>>> is that Helen's first two chapters are a kind of "Who's Who" at xmca, > >>> with > >>>> Helen reading the great classics (in the wrong order) and talking to > >>> Andy, > >>>> Greg, and others on this list. But beyond the litte shout-outs to > xmca, > >>> in > >>>> Chapter Three, you find interesting problems like this. Helen is > >> setting > >>> up > >>>> a "Professional Learning ZPD". This an acronymy within an acronym (an > >>>> "acro-acronym-nym", like the group I used to belong to in New York and > >>>> Paris, called "ACT-UP"), and in general Helen seems to have some > >> trouble > >>>> with names. On pp. 58-59, she writes. > >>>> > >>>> "In PLZ 4 I wrote the title 'Features of cultural Historical Learning > >>>> Activities' across a piece of butcher's paper and asked the grou to > >>>> brainstorm features of activities that would be consistent with > >> cultural > >>>> historical theory. After a few suggestions, Mike suddenly interrupted > >>> with: > >>>> MIKE: Can I ask, Helen, why such a wank of a name? > >>>> HELEN: Cultural-historical? > >>>> MIKE: Yeah, what a bullshit name. > >>>> DEB: What should it be Mike? > >>>> MIKE: What does it mean to anyone? Is that relevant to anyone that > >>>> name? Cultural-historical learning. What does that mean? > >>>> HELEN: Well.... > >>>> MIKE: It's crap. > >>>> HELEN: Well, I don't think that you, that's the name of teh theoyr, > >>>> Cultural historical theory, but I think in terms of schools using teh > >>>> theory they talk about Communities of Learners. > >>>> MIKE: Yeah, but why don't they call it that? > >>>> HELEN: OK, so (I start crossing out "cultural historical" and changing > >> it > >>>> to "Communities of Learners") > >>>> MIKE: That name is like calliing the ultra net site for teachers > >> 'design > >>>> space'. It has no relevance to the name whatsoever, and to use > >>> it--features > >>>> of cultural historical learning--sounds like a load of crap. It > >>>> doesn't have any relevance ot what it means. If you said to me > cultural > >>>> historical learning, I go .... > >>>> BETH: I actually thought it meant talking about he past (general > >>>> agreement). > >>>> MIKE: That's what it implies, the past and how you used to teach. > >>>> HELEN: I suppose I'm just trying to familiarize you with the term > >>> (general > >>>> agreement) > >>>> MIKE: If you call it community of learners then it's something that's > >>>> relevant." > >>>> > >>>> Helen then makes the (cultural-historical) point that words have a > >>> history, > >>>> but they are not necessarily YOUR history--for Helen, "cultural > >>> historical" > >>>> calls up a whole series of quite precise concepts, while "Community of > >>>> Learners" is kind of vague and undefined. But for the teachers (who > >> are, > >>> I > >>>> must say, not exactly reticent about sharing, and do not limit > >> themselves > >>>> to sharing their expertise) what you get is old times. > >>>> > >>>> It's funny that they ignore the word culture. I always thought that > >>>> "cultural historical" is a little bit of the cart before the horse.... > >>>> > >>>> David Kellogg > >>>> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On 8 July 2014 21:40, Peter Smagorinsky wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> The Practice of Teachers' Professional Development > >>>>> > >>>>> A Cultural-Historical Approach > >>>>> > >>>>> Helen Grimmett (Monash University, Australia) > >>>>> > >>>>> This book uses Vygotsky's cultural-historical theory to provide a > >>> unique > >>>>> theorisation of teachers' professional development as a practice. A > >>>>> practice can be described as the socially structured actions set up > >> to > >>>>> produce a product or service aimed at meeting a collective human > >> need. > >>> In > >>>>> this case, collaborative, interventionist work with teachers in ... > >>> Click > >>>>> here for a free preview and full description< > >>>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> > http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001ZduyW2xyB1USw9R1YjQno7GI-mDLfJ6m-729UFbNgCKe6Z_p9GP7xjN9IHr0mfZ1yni-XmxHyPfAaNcVjlENvx4l8ySiyRYKHRvvg2E6WbMlf3hNShpk2qTuRRu0ZenYc1mrXxe68_BX4FXljTnHjOx91vJalGeivvaQfmQF57rpGgcDrJe9bprlVyXQwjSo0U6yk-QJ1S5miZfuS7ohswmNs3UZWGMucMgWJyU6E_J3d8QHyWjpGuBM8i2twLXGBPHkZb6hFN4pF6PT3r3M7HYvwFdzAzSfRvpCd90DvQMVDuqkf5VY3ccoD6FppEGF&c=0Y23gLfSZ1jN_yGPyItMZic7SWiIoOcRfcrQWB0JYs9lkVW149lxUQ==&ch=ioZBoxRIwDxdvg-uu6NEwI-E45lgW01U_INO86ZNyJpwbp9zcKnCIA== > >>>>>> . > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> > > > From huw.softdesigns@gmail.com Thu Jul 10 15:54:12 2014 From: huw.softdesigns@gmail.com (Huw Lloyd) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2014 23:54:12 +0100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: book of possible interest In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 10 July 2014 22:33, David Kellogg wrote: > Huw: > > Is learning material? In what sense? At what point? > Historically, with Marx. :) The rest of your formations are subsumed by Baldwin's 1st and 2nd axioms of genetic logic. :) As someone experienced with computation and computational processes, I do find it quite straightfoward to think of memories as material impressions. Cached values or lazy evaluation -- it's quite straightforward... Not rubbish, not garbage, but Babbage! Best, Huw > > I guess I think of it this way. All phenomena in the universe are physical, > but only in the final analysis. When my father (who is a retired but > unrepentant solar physicist) studies these phenomena he uses various units > of analysis (my father likes to think big, so his usual unit of analysis is > a solar emission many times larger than the earth, but sometimes, depending > on the problem, he will condescend to think about smaller particles like > atomic nuclei). Some of these physical phenomena, when they cool down a > little, are chemical as well, and because these phenomena are chemical as > well as physical, the unit of analysis that is proper to them is the > molecule and its motions, and not simply the particle (Dad doesn't care > about these phenomena; he likes his physics hot). > > Some of these chemical phenomena are biological as well, and here once > again the unit of analysis has to change (e.g. to the cell) in order to > take into account the new properties which come into being at this scale. > Some biological phenomena are cultural-historical in turn, and here too we > must change the unit of analysis in order not to lose essential information > that is created with higher levels of organization and complexity.Of > course, these cultural historical phenomena are all reducible to biological > phenomena, and therefore reducible to chemical and physical phenomena, but > only in the final analysis. Hey, in the final analysis, as Carolyn Porco > says, we all get reduced to physical phenomena when the sun explodes and > blows the particles that were once our bodies out into space, to enjoy > eternal life...but only as physical phenomena. > > In the meantime, if we want to understand cultural-historical phenomena as > such, we have to confront their higher levels of organization and > complexity.The cultural historical phenomena that I am most interested in > turn out to have another subset of phenomena which Halliday calls > semiotic--that is, they are sociologically cultural-historical phenomena > that stand, even if only for a fleeting instant, > for psychologically cultural-historical phenomena. These phenomena are > material too (that is, they are biological, chemical, and even > physical), for the way things stand for other things is ultimately > reducible to a thing: words are, in the final analysis, "made of living > breath", as Shakespeare says, or "layers of moving air" if you prefer > Engels. > > But only in the final analysis. In the interim, too much information is > lost when we reduce these semiotic phenomena to physical, material, > things (for example, when my students try to model learner comprehension > problems as pure phonetic discrimination without taking into account the > layer of wording or meaning). So it's almost always more useful for me to > think of learning phenomena as NOT reducible to the physical, at least not > in their unit of analysis. Actually, it seems to me that the > general "cultural-historical" level of analysis is if anything a step > closer to biology or chemistry or physics than the subset of cultural > historical phenomena that I mean when I refer to learning, because to me > learning is microgenetic, that is, POTENTIALLY ontogenetic, which is in > turn POTENTIALLY sociogenetic, which (to me) is the general level of > analysis we mean when we talk about cultural historical phenomena. So the > real answer to Mike's colorful complaint about handles is not "Community of > Learners" but actually "physico-chemico-bio-socio-semiotic learning > activities". > > Time for that quantum physical cup of coffee you were talking about.... > > David Kellogg > Hankuk University of Foreign Studies > > > On 10 July 2014 08:53, Huw Lloyd wrote: > > > David, > > > > Just to be clear, the error I was referring to was the attribution of a > > theory (as an adjective) to the material thing (learning). It would be > > like saying, I am going to make a Newtonian cup of coffee in the morning > > and a quantum mechanical cup of coffee in the afternoon. > > > > I suppose colourful language serves the purpose of deliberate vagueness. > > It's hard to be trendy and have a precise point. > > > > I fear we are soon approaching the "teach yourself activity theory for > > dummies" book someday soon. From my understanding, the theory itself > > repudiates such a thing -- one cannot spoon feed theory -- but I don't > > think that will stop folk trying. > > > > I see no problem (or contradiction) in top down approaches. Solving a > > problem in general is a powerful approach to many problems. For many > > problems the concrete details are amenable to design and configuration, > one > > can often choose tools to suit the proposed solution rather than > > vice-versa. But from an educational perspective, I see no alternative > > than starting with the individual, ofcourse one can have general > strategies > > in doing so -- waiting to be asked before giving an explanation etc. > > > > Nice chatting. > > > > Best, > > Huw > > > > On 9 July 2014 22:46, David Kellogg wrote: > > > > > Huw: > > > > > > Helen has written a remarkable, important book. I gather it's part of > her > > > Ph.D. thesis, but it doesn't really read like a Ph.D. thesis. It reads > > like > > > a teacher-trainer (or "professional development consultant", or > whatever > > we > > > are supposed to call them) with a problem who eventually, with a little > > > help from the classics of cultural historical psychology and a lot of > > help > > > from a co-teacher (who has a somewhat bookish, inert but nevertheless > > > respectful and open acquaintance with those classics) achieves a very > > open > > > but nevertheless very workable solution. > > > > > > So the bit I quoted represents the problem, or rather, two problems. On > > the > > > one hand, Helen is trying to do something new: she wants to bring new > > CHAT > > > concepts to bear on extant classroom activities and modify them in ways > > > that she is confident will work. On the other, Helen is working with > some > > > pretty experienced (and even somewhat brutalized) teachers: they have > > seen > > > "Professional Development" fads come and go, collected their free > lunches > > > and go on doing things the old way. > > > > > > Helen achieves her solution from the bottom up. Eventually, she does > > find a > > > teacher who can teacher her a lot and who, even though Helen herself > > > is uniquely gifted, with not only the theoretical background we all > > share, > > > but also considerable first hand experience as a teacher and a parent, > > can > > > nevertheless be taught in turn. But as you can see from the extract, > > she's > > > extremely open, even to savage, unfair, and somewhat obtuse criticisms. > > > Mike's critique of "cultural historical" is not that it is an > > > epistemological error or a typological one, or that it puts the product > > > "culture" before the process "history". It's not even that it suggests > > that > > > on the odd day Piagetian activities might be taking place, which, by > the > > > way, is probably true, since these teachers were mostly trained during > > the > > > "reign" of Piaget in the sixties and seventies. > > > > > > No, Mike's complaint is really, if you will pardon the expression, a > wank > > > of a complaint. He is just complaining that the name is uncool; it > > doesn't > > > sound like the popular teachers would like it; the name won't go with > an > > > embossed moose like "Abercrombie and Fitch" or "community of > > > learners" does. I think we have to accept that responsive, sensitive > > > teachers inevitably end up internalizing some of the worst aspects of > > > adolescent thinking, and this is an example. I might even say it's a > > > bullshit complaint. It's crap, etc. (But this is one of those > > > language situations where redundancy does not suggest development.) > > > > > > I guess if I encountered a bullshit complaint like that I would > complain > > a > > > little about "community of learners". I think that "community of > > > learners" is essentially a way of saying "socio-psychological": it's > > > relevant to everyday teaching, but it doesn't tell us much about how > the > > > "socio" got there, whereas "cultural-historical" does. I might even ask > > if > > > Mike is going to try to teach physics, chemistry, biology, or history > to > > > kids without some way of saying "physico-chemical" or > > "chemico-biological", > > > or "biologico-social". If not, then I don't see anything wrong with > > > teaching language, including the language of teaching, as something > > > "socio-semiotic" or "historico-cultural". But then, I never was one of > > the > > > cool kids. > > > > > > My problem is this. I too would like to write a book now. I have two in > > > mind, and they are both practical books about teacher training, > > > similar in their targets to Helen's book, which is why I am studying it > > > carefully. But I find that the books that I have in mind are really > > "about > > > something" in a way that Helen's book is not. I don't mean that Helen's > > > book has no object of study: like the title says, the object of study > is > > > teacher development. What I mean is that the teaching has no clear > object > > > of teaching: it's not specifically about teaching math or literacy or > > > anything else but about teaching in general. The books I have in mind > are > > > really about teaching literacy (I think I want to try to teach WRITING > > > before READING) and teaching science (I think I want to try a "hands > off" > > > approach that emphasizes word meanings instead of laboratory > > experiments). > > > And I am finding that I when I do this the result is not at all the > kind > > of > > > "bottom up" thing that Helen does; it's very top down. > > > > > > David Kellogg > > > Hankuk University of Foreign Studies > > > > > > > > > On 9 July 2014 07:33, Huw Lloyd wrote: > > > > > > > Colourful. The complaint seems perfectly valid though: a > typological > > > and > > > > epistemological error all in one conflated term. It suggests that on > > the > > > > odd hours of the day there are Piagetian activities taking place. > Was > > > this > > > > part of the point of the chapter? > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > Huw > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 8 July 2014 21:40, David Kellogg wrote: > > > > > > > > > I'm actually in the middle of Chapter Three right now. What I can > > tell > > > > you > > > > > is that Helen's first two chapters are a kind of "Who's Who" at > xmca, > > > > with > > > > > Helen reading the great classics (in the wrong order) and talking > to > > > > Andy, > > > > > Greg, and others on this list. But beyond the litte shout-outs to > > xmca, > > > > in > > > > > Chapter Three, you find interesting problems like this. Helen is > > > setting > > > > up > > > > > a "Professional Learning ZPD". This an acronymy within an acronym > (an > > > > > "acro-acronym-nym", like the group I used to belong to in New York > > and > > > > > Paris, called "ACT-UP"), and in general Helen seems to have some > > > trouble > > > > > with names. On pp. 58-59, she writes. > > > > > > > > > > "In PLZ 4 I wrote the title 'Features of cultural Historical > Learning > > > > > Activities' across a piece of butcher's paper and asked the grou to > > > > > brainstorm features of activities that would be consistent with > > > cultural > > > > > historical theory. After a few suggestions, Mike suddenly > interrupted > > > > with: > > > > > MIKE: Can I ask, Helen, why such a wank of a name? > > > > > HELEN: Cultural-historical? > > > > > MIKE: Yeah, what a bullshit name. > > > > > DEB: What should it be Mike? > > > > > MIKE: What does it mean to anyone? Is that relevant to anyone that > > > > > name? Cultural-historical learning. What does that mean? > > > > > HELEN: Well.... > > > > > MIKE: It's crap. > > > > > HELEN: Well, I don't think that you, that's the name of teh theoyr, > > > > > Cultural historical theory, but I think in terms of schools using > teh > > > > > theory they talk about Communities of Learners. > > > > > MIKE: Yeah, but why don't they call it that? > > > > > HELEN: OK, so (I start crossing out "cultural historical" and > > changing > > > it > > > > > to "Communities of Learners") > > > > > MIKE: That name is like calliing the ultra net site for teachers > > > 'design > > > > > space'. It has no relevance to the name whatsoever, and to use > > > > it--features > > > > > of cultural historical learning--sounds like a load of crap. It > > > > > doesn't have any relevance ot what it means. If you said to me > > cultural > > > > > historical learning, I go .... > > > > > BETH: I actually thought it meant talking about he past (general > > > > > agreement). > > > > > MIKE: That's what it implies, the past and how you used to teach. > > > > > HELEN: I suppose I'm just trying to familiarize you with the term > > > > (general > > > > > agreement) > > > > > MIKE: If you call it community of learners then it's something > that's > > > > > relevant." > > > > > > > > > > Helen then makes the (cultural-historical) point that words have a > > > > history, > > > > > but they are not necessarily YOUR history--for Helen, "cultural > > > > historical" > > > > > calls up a whole series of quite precise concepts, while "Community > > of > > > > > Learners" is kind of vague and undefined. But for the teachers (who > > > are, > > > > I > > > > > must say, not exactly reticent about sharing, and do not limit > > > themselves > > > > > to sharing their expertise) what you get is old times. > > > > > > > > > > It's funny that they ignore the word culture. I always thought that > > > > > "cultural historical" is a little bit of the cart before the > > horse.... > > > > > > > > > > David Kellogg > > > > > Hankuk University of Foreign Studies > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 8 July 2014 21:40, Peter Smagorinsky wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > The Practice of Teachers' Professional Development > > > > > > > > > > > > A Cultural-Historical Approach > > > > > > > > > > > > Helen Grimmett (Monash University, Australia) > > > > > > > > > > > > This book uses Vygotsky's cultural-historical theory to provide a > > > > unique > > > > > > theorisation of teachers' professional development as a > practice. A > > > > > > practice can be described as the socially structured actions set > up > > > to > > > > > > produce a product or service aimed at meeting a collective human > > > need. > > > > In > > > > > > this case, collaborative, interventionist work with teachers in > ... > > > > Click > > > > > > here for a free preview and full description< > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001ZduyW2xyB1USw9R1YjQno7GI-mDLfJ6m-729UFbNgCKe6Z_p9GP7xjN9IHr0mfZ1yni-XmxHyPfAaNcVjlENvx4l8ySiyRYKHRvvg2E6WbMlf3hNShpk2qTuRRu0ZenYc1mrXxe68_BX4FXljTnHjOx91vJalGeivvaQfmQF57rpGgcDrJe9bprlVyXQwjSo0U6yk-QJ1S5miZfuS7ohswmNs3UZWGMucMgWJyU6E_J3d8QHyWjpGuBM8i2twLXGBPHkZb6hFN4pF6PT3r3M7HYvwFdzAzSfRvpCd90DvQMVDuqkf5VY3ccoD6FppEGF&c=0Y23gLfSZ1jN_yGPyItMZic7SWiIoOcRfcrQWB0JYs9lkVW149lxUQ==&ch=ioZBoxRIwDxdvg-uu6NEwI-E45lgW01U_INO86ZNyJpwbp9zcKnCIA== > > > > > > >. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From lpscholar2@gmail.com Thu Jul 10 21:41:38 2014 From: lpscholar2@gmail.com (Larry Purss) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2014 21:41:38 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: book of possible interest In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: David, I have been following your reflections through this thread. You commented: So it's almost always more useful for me to think of learning phenomena as NOT reducible to the physical, at least not in their unit of analysis I have been reflecting on the notion of *bildung* as learning. The notion of *cultivation* and *disposition* and *comportment* as the potential of learning. I came across this quote from Gramsci who was questioning the notion of *laws* as the basis for making social predictions. Such *laws* excluded the subjective factor from history. Gramsci wrote on social process: "Objective always means 'humanly objective' which can be held to correspond exactly to 'historically subjective' " Merleau-Ponty also explored what I refer to as *disposition* with this quote on the reality of history: History "awakens us to the importance of daily events and action. For it is a philosophy [of history -LP] which arouses in us a love for our times which are not the simple repetition of human eternity nor merely the conclusion of premises already postulated. It is a view that like the most fragile object of perception - a soap bubble, or a wave - or like the most simple dialogue, embraces indivisibly all the order and all the disorder of the world." I read these passages from Gramsci and M-P as a way of exploring *comportment* or *disposition* that is *learned*. [bildung??] There is no necessary or sufficient standpoint for interpreting this inherently heterogeneous process. However we may potentially learn various *approaches* or *ways* of being-in-the-world through learning processes. The notion of *bildung* is a way to reflect on this learning process Larry On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 3:54 PM, Huw Lloyd wrote: > On 10 July 2014 22:33, David Kellogg wrote: > > > Huw: > > > > Is learning material? In what sense? At what point? > > > > Historically, with Marx. :) > > The rest of your formations are subsumed by Baldwin's 1st and 2nd axioms of > genetic logic. :) > > As someone experienced with computation and computational processes, I do > find it quite straightfoward to think of memories as material impressions. > Cached values or lazy evaluation -- it's quite straightforward... Not > rubbish, not garbage, but Babbage! > > Best, > Huw > > > > > > > I guess I think of it this way. All phenomena in the universe are > physical, > > but only in the final analysis. When my father (who is a retired but > > unrepentant solar physicist) studies these phenomena he uses various > units > > of analysis (my father likes to think big, so his usual unit of analysis > is > > a solar emission many times larger than the earth, but sometimes, > depending > > on the problem, he will condescend to think about smaller particles like > > atomic nuclei). Some of these physical phenomena, when they cool down a > > little, are chemical as well, and because these phenomena are chemical as > > well as physical, the unit of analysis that is proper to them is the > > molecule and its motions, and not simply the particle (Dad doesn't care > > about these phenomena; he likes his physics hot). > > > > Some of these chemical phenomena are biological as well, and here once > > again the unit of analysis has to change (e.g. to the cell) in order to > > take into account the new properties which come into being at this scale. > > Some biological phenomena are cultural-historical in turn, and here too > we > > must change the unit of analysis in order not to lose essential > information > > that is created with higher levels of organization and complexity.Of > > course, these cultural historical phenomena are all reducible to > biological > > phenomena, and therefore reducible to chemical and physical phenomena, > but > > only in the final analysis. Hey, in the final analysis, as Carolyn Porco > > says, we all get reduced to physical phenomena when the sun explodes and > > blows the particles that were once our bodies out into space, to enjoy > > eternal life...but only as physical phenomena. > > > > In the meantime, if we want to understand cultural-historical phenomena > as > > such, we have to confront their higher levels of organization and > > complexity.The cultural historical phenomena that I am most interested in > > turn out to have another subset of phenomena which Halliday calls > > semiotic--that is, they are sociologically cultural-historical phenomena > > that stand, even if only for a fleeting instant, > > for psychologically cultural-historical phenomena. These phenomena are > > material too (that is, they are biological, chemical, and even > > physical), for the way things stand for other things is ultimately > > reducible to a thing: words are, in the final analysis, "made of living > > breath", as Shakespeare says, or "layers of moving air" if you prefer > > Engels. > > > > But only in the final analysis. In the interim, too much information is > > lost when we reduce these semiotic phenomena to physical, material, > > things (for example, when my students try to model learner comprehension > > problems as pure phonetic discrimination without taking into account the > > layer of wording or meaning). So it's almost always more useful for me to > > think of learning phenomena as NOT reducible to the physical, at least > not > > in their unit of analysis. Actually, it seems to me that the > > general "cultural-historical" level of analysis is if anything a step > > closer to biology or chemistry or physics than the subset of cultural > > historical phenomena that I mean when I refer to learning, because to me > > learning is microgenetic, that is, POTENTIALLY ontogenetic, which is in > > turn POTENTIALLY sociogenetic, which (to me) is the general level of > > analysis we mean when we talk about cultural historical phenomena. So the > > real answer to Mike's colorful complaint about handles is not "Community > of > > Learners" but actually "physico-chemico-bio-socio-semiotic learning > > activities". > > > > Time for that quantum physical cup of coffee you were talking about.... > > > > David Kellogg > > Hankuk University of Foreign Studies > > > > > > On 10 July 2014 08:53, Huw Lloyd wrote: > > > > > David, > > > > > > Just to be clear, the error I was referring to was the attribution of a > > > theory (as an adjective) to the material thing (learning). It would be > > > like saying, I am going to make a Newtonian cup of coffee in the > morning > > > and a quantum mechanical cup of coffee in the afternoon. > > > > > > I suppose colourful language serves the purpose of deliberate > vagueness. > > > It's hard to be trendy and have a precise point. > > > > > > I fear we are soon approaching the "teach yourself activity theory for > > > dummies" book someday soon. From my understanding, the theory itself > > > repudiates such a thing -- one cannot spoon feed theory -- but I don't > > > think that will stop folk trying. > > > > > > I see no problem (or contradiction) in top down approaches. Solving a > > > problem in general is a powerful approach to many problems. For many > > > problems the concrete details are amenable to design and configuration, > > one > > > can often choose tools to suit the proposed solution rather than > > > vice-versa. But from an educational perspective, I see no alternative > > > than starting with the individual, ofcourse one can have general > > strategies > > > in doing so -- waiting to be asked before giving an explanation etc. > > > > > > Nice chatting. > > > > > > Best, > > > Huw > > > > > > On 9 July 2014 22:46, David Kellogg wrote: > > > > > > > Huw: > > > > > > > > Helen has written a remarkable, important book. I gather it's part of > > her > > > > Ph.D. thesis, but it doesn't really read like a Ph.D. thesis. It > reads > > > like > > > > a teacher-trainer (or "professional development consultant", or > > whatever > > > we > > > > are supposed to call them) with a problem who eventually, with a > little > > > > help from the classics of cultural historical psychology and a lot of > > > help > > > > from a co-teacher (who has a somewhat bookish, inert but nevertheless > > > > respectful and open acquaintance with those classics) achieves a very > > > open > > > > but nevertheless very workable solution. > > > > > > > > So the bit I quoted represents the problem, or rather, two problems. > On > > > the > > > > one hand, Helen is trying to do something new: she wants to bring new > > > CHAT > > > > concepts to bear on extant classroom activities and modify them in > ways > > > > that she is confident will work. On the other, Helen is working with > > some > > > > pretty experienced (and even somewhat brutalized) teachers: they have > > > seen > > > > "Professional Development" fads come and go, collected their free > > lunches > > > > and go on doing things the old way. > > > > > > > > Helen achieves her solution from the bottom up. Eventually, she does > > > find a > > > > teacher who can teacher her a lot and who, even though Helen herself > > > > is uniquely gifted, with not only the theoretical background we all > > > share, > > > > but also considerable first hand experience as a teacher and a > parent, > > > can > > > > nevertheless be taught in turn. But as you can see from the extract, > > > she's > > > > extremely open, even to savage, unfair, and somewhat obtuse > criticisms. > > > > Mike's critique of "cultural historical" is not that it is an > > > > epistemological error or a typological one, or that it puts the > product > > > > "culture" before the process "history". It's not even that it > suggests > > > that > > > > on the odd day Piagetian activities might be taking place, which, by > > the > > > > way, is probably true, since these teachers were mostly trained > during > > > the > > > > "reign" of Piaget in the sixties and seventies. > > > > > > > > No, Mike's complaint is really, if you will pardon the expression, a > > wank > > > > of a complaint. He is just complaining that the name is uncool; it > > > doesn't > > > > sound like the popular teachers would like it; the name won't go with > > an > > > > embossed moose like "Abercrombie and Fitch" or "community of > > > > learners" does. I think we have to accept that responsive, sensitive > > > > teachers inevitably end up internalizing some of the worst aspects of > > > > adolescent thinking, and this is an example. I might even say it's a > > > > bullshit complaint. It's crap, etc. (But this is one of those > > > > language situations where redundancy does not suggest development.) > > > > > > > > I guess if I encountered a bullshit complaint like that I would > > complain > > > a > > > > little about "community of learners". I think that "community of > > > > learners" is essentially a way of saying "socio-psychological": it's > > > > relevant to everyday teaching, but it doesn't tell us much about how > > the > > > > "socio" got there, whereas "cultural-historical" does. I might even > ask > > > if > > > > Mike is going to try to teach physics, chemistry, biology, or history > > to > > > > kids without some way of saying "physico-chemical" or > > > "chemico-biological", > > > > or "biologico-social". If not, then I don't see anything wrong with > > > > teaching language, including the language of teaching, as something > > > > "socio-semiotic" or "historico-cultural". But then, I never was one > of > > > the > > > > cool kids. > > > > > > > > My problem is this. I too would like to write a book now. I have two > in > > > > mind, and they are both practical books about teacher training, > > > > similar in their targets to Helen's book, which is why I am studying > it > > > > carefully. But I find that the books that I have in mind are really > > > "about > > > > something" in a way that Helen's book is not. I don't mean that > Helen's > > > > book has no object of study: like the title says, the object of study > > is > > > > teacher development. What I mean is that the teaching has no clear > > object > > > > of teaching: it's not specifically about teaching math or literacy or > > > > anything else but about teaching in general. The books I have in mind > > are > > > > really about teaching literacy (I think I want to try to teach > WRITING > > > > before READING) and teaching science (I think I want to try a "hands > > off" > > > > approach that emphasizes word meanings instead of laboratory > > > experiments). > > > > And I am finding that I when I do this the result is not at all the > > kind > > > of > > > > "bottom up" thing that Helen does; it's very top down. > > > > > > > > David Kellogg > > > > Hankuk University of Foreign Studies > > > > > > > > > > > > On 9 July 2014 07:33, Huw Lloyd wrote: > > > > > > > > > Colourful. The complaint seems perfectly valid though: a > > typological > > > > and > > > > > epistemological error all in one conflated term. It suggests that > on > > > the > > > > > odd hours of the day there are Piagetian activities taking place. > > Was > > > > this > > > > > part of the point of the chapter? > > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > Huw > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 8 July 2014 21:40, David Kellogg wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I'm actually in the middle of Chapter Three right now. What I can > > > tell > > > > > you > > > > > > is that Helen's first two chapters are a kind of "Who's Who" at > > xmca, > > > > > with > > > > > > Helen reading the great classics (in the wrong order) and talking > > to > > > > > Andy, > > > > > > Greg, and others on this list. But beyond the litte shout-outs to > > > xmca, > > > > > in > > > > > > Chapter Three, you find interesting problems like this. Helen is > > > > setting > > > > > up > > > > > > a "Professional Learning ZPD". This an acronymy within an acronym > > (an > > > > > > "acro-acronym-nym", like the group I used to belong to in New > York > > > and > > > > > > Paris, called "ACT-UP"), and in general Helen seems to have some > > > > trouble > > > > > > with names. On pp. 58-59, she writes. > > > > > > > > > > > > "In PLZ 4 I wrote the title 'Features of cultural Historical > > Learning > > > > > > Activities' across a piece of butcher's paper and asked the grou > to > > > > > > brainstorm features of activities that would be consistent with > > > > cultural > > > > > > historical theory. After a few suggestions, Mike suddenly > > interrupted > > > > > with: > > > > > > MIKE: Can I ask, Helen, why such a wank of a name? > > > > > > HELEN: Cultural-historical? > > > > > > MIKE: Yeah, what a bullshit name. > > > > > > DEB: What should it be Mike? > > > > > > MIKE: What does it mean to anyone? Is that relevant to anyone > that > > > > > > name? Cultural-historical learning. What does that mean? > > > > > > HELEN: Well.... > > > > > > MIKE: It's crap. > > > > > > HELEN: Well, I don't think that you, that's the name of teh > theoyr, > > > > > > Cultural historical theory, but I think in terms of schools using > > teh > > > > > > theory they talk about Communities of Learners. > > > > > > MIKE: Yeah, but why don't they call it that? > > > > > > HELEN: OK, so (I start crossing out "cultural historical" and > > > changing > > > > it > > > > > > to "Communities of Learners") > > > > > > MIKE: That name is like calliing the ultra net site for teachers > > > > 'design > > > > > > space'. It has no relevance to the name whatsoever, and to use > > > > > it--features > > > > > > of cultural historical learning--sounds like a load of crap. It > > > > > > doesn't have any relevance ot what it means. If you said to me > > > cultural > > > > > > historical learning, I go .... > > > > > > BETH: I actually thought it meant talking about he past (general > > > > > > agreement). > > > > > > MIKE: That's what it implies, the past and how you used to teach. > > > > > > HELEN: I suppose I'm just trying to familiarize you with the term > > > > > (general > > > > > > agreement) > > > > > > MIKE: If you call it community of learners then it's something > > that's > > > > > > relevant." > > > > > > > > > > > > Helen then makes the (cultural-historical) point that words have > a > > > > > history, > > > > > > but they are not necessarily YOUR history--for Helen, "cultural > > > > > historical" > > > > > > calls up a whole series of quite precise concepts, while > "Community > > > of > > > > > > Learners" is kind of vague and undefined. But for the teachers > (who > > > > are, > > > > > I > > > > > > must say, not exactly reticent about sharing, and do not limit > > > > themselves > > > > > > to sharing their expertise) what you get is old times. > > > > > > > > > > > > It's funny that they ignore the word culture. I always thought > that > > > > > > "cultural historical" is a little bit of the cart before the > > > horse.... > > > > > > > > > > > > David Kellogg > > > > > > Hankuk University of Foreign Studies > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 8 July 2014 21:40, Peter Smagorinsky wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > The Practice of Teachers' Professional Development > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A Cultural-Historical Approach > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Helen Grimmett (Monash University, Australia) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This book uses Vygotsky's cultural-historical theory to > provide a > > > > > unique > > > > > > > theorisation of teachers' professional development as a > > practice. A > > > > > > > practice can be described as the socially structured actions > set > > up > > > > to > > > > > > > produce a product or service aimed at meeting a collective > human > > > > need. > > > > > In > > > > > > > this case, collaborative, interventionist work with teachers in > > ... > > > > > Click > > > > > > > here for a free preview and full description< > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001ZduyW2xyB1USw9R1YjQno7GI-mDLfJ6m-729UFbNgCKe6Z_p9GP7xjN9IHr0mfZ1yni-XmxHyPfAaNcVjlENvx4l8ySiyRYKHRvvg2E6WbMlf3hNShpk2qTuRRu0ZenYc1mrXxe68_BX4FXljTnHjOx91vJalGeivvaQfmQF57rpGgcDrJe9bprlVyXQwjSo0U6yk-QJ1S5miZfuS7ohswmNs3UZWGMucMgWJyU6E_J3d8QHyWjpGuBM8i2twLXGBPHkZb6hFN4pF6PT3r3M7HYvwFdzAzSfRvpCd90DvQMVDuqkf5VY3ccoD6FppEGF&c=0Y23gLfSZ1jN_yGPyItMZic7SWiIoOcRfcrQWB0JYs9lkVW149lxUQ==&ch=ioZBoxRIwDxdvg-uu6NEwI-E45lgW01U_INO86ZNyJpwbp9zcKnCIA== > > > > > > > >. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From leifstrandberg.ab@telia.com Fri Jul 11 01:09:30 2014 From: leifstrandberg.ab@telia.com (Leif Strandberg) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 10:09:30 +0200 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: book of possible interest In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0D461088-CBBB-4BD9-ADCB-3024C36CBE81@telia.com> A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 38617_Strandberg_slutgodk?nnande.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 160948 bytes Desc: not available Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20140711/65ca5f26/attachment.pdf -------------- next part -------------- 11 jul 2014 kl. 06:41 skrev Larry Purss : > David, > I have been following your reflections through this thread. > You commented: > > So it's almost always more useful for me to > think of learning phenomena as NOT reducible to the physical, at least not > in their unit of analysis > > I have been reflecting on the notion of *bildung* as learning. > The notion of *cultivation* and *disposition* and *comportment* as the > potential of learning. > I came across this quote from Gramsci who was questioning the notion of > *laws* as the basis for making social predictions. Such *laws* excluded the > subjective factor from history. > Gramsci wrote on social process: "Objective always means 'humanly > objective' which can be held to correspond exactly to 'historically > subjective' " > > Merleau-Ponty also explored what I refer to as *disposition* with this > quote on the reality of history: > History "awakens us to the importance of daily events and action. For it is > a philosophy [of history -LP] which arouses in us a love for our times > which are not the simple repetition of human eternity nor merely the > conclusion of premises already postulated. It is a view that like the most > fragile object of perception - a soap bubble, or a wave - or like the most > simple dialogue, embraces indivisibly all the order and all the disorder of > the world." > > I read these passages from Gramsci and M-P as a way of exploring > *comportment* or *disposition* that is *learned*. [bildung??] There is no > necessary or sufficient standpoint for interpreting this inherently > heterogeneous process. However we may potentially learn various > *approaches* or *ways* of being-in-the-world through learning processes. > The notion of *bildung* is a way to reflect on this learning process > Larry > > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 3:54 PM, Huw Lloyd > wrote: > >> On 10 July 2014 22:33, David Kellogg wrote: >> >>> Huw: >>> >>> Is learning material? In what sense? At what point? >>> >> >> Historically, with Marx. :) >> >> The rest of your formations are subsumed by Baldwin's 1st and 2nd axioms of >> genetic logic. :) >> >> As someone experienced with computation and computational processes, I do >> find it quite straightfoward to think of memories as material impressions. >> Cached values or lazy evaluation -- it's quite straightforward... Not >> rubbish, not garbage, but Babbage! >> >> Best, >> Huw >> >> >> >>> >>> I guess I think of it this way. All phenomena in the universe are >> physical, >>> but only in the final analysis. When my father (who is a retired but >>> unrepentant solar physicist) studies these phenomena he uses various >> units >>> of analysis (my father likes to think big, so his usual unit of analysis >> is >>> a solar emission many times larger than the earth, but sometimes, >> depending >>> on the problem, he will condescend to think about smaller particles like >>> atomic nuclei). Some of these physical phenomena, when they cool down a >>> little, are chemical as well, and because these phenomena are chemical as >>> well as physical, the unit of analysis that is proper to them is the >>> molecule and its motions, and not simply the particle (Dad doesn't care >>> about these phenomena; he likes his physics hot). >>> >>> Some of these chemical phenomena are biological as well, and here once >>> again the unit of analysis has to change (e.g. to the cell) in order to >>> take into account the new properties which come into being at this scale. >>> Some biological phenomena are cultural-historical in turn, and here too >> we >>> must change the unit of analysis in order not to lose essential >> information >>> that is created with higher levels of organization and complexity.Of >>> course, these cultural historical phenomena are all reducible to >> biological >>> phenomena, and therefore reducible to chemical and physical phenomena, >> but >>> only in the final analysis. Hey, in the final analysis, as Carolyn Porco >>> says, we all get reduced to physical phenomena when the sun explodes and >>> blows the particles that were once our bodies out into space, to enjoy >>> eternal life...but only as physical phenomena. >>> >>> In the meantime, if we want to understand cultural-historical phenomena >> as >>> such, we have to confront their higher levels of organization and >>> complexity.The cultural historical phenomena that I am most interested in >>> turn out to have another subset of phenomena which Halliday calls >>> semiotic--that is, they are sociologically cultural-historical phenomena >>> that stand, even if only for a fleeting instant, >>> for psychologically cultural-historical phenomena. These phenomena are >>> material too (that is, they are biological, chemical, and even >>> physical), for the way things stand for other things is ultimately >>> reducible to a thing: words are, in the final analysis, "made of living >>> breath", as Shakespeare says, or "layers of moving air" if you prefer >>> Engels. >>> >>> But only in the final analysis. In the interim, too much information is >>> lost when we reduce these semiotic phenomena to physical, material, >>> things (for example, when my students try to model learner comprehension >>> problems as pure phonetic discrimination without taking into account the >>> layer of wording or meaning). So it's almost always more useful for me to >>> think of learning phenomena as NOT reducible to the physical, at least >> not >>> in their unit of analysis. Actually, it seems to me that the >>> general "cultural-historical" level of analysis is if anything a step >>> closer to biology or chemistry or physics than the subset of cultural >>> historical phenomena that I mean when I refer to learning, because to me >>> learning is microgenetic, that is, POTENTIALLY ontogenetic, which is in >>> turn POTENTIALLY sociogenetic, which (to me) is the general level of >>> analysis we mean when we talk about cultural historical phenomena. So the >>> real answer to Mike's colorful complaint about handles is not "Community >> of >>> Learners" but actually "physico-chemico-bio-socio-semiotic learning >>> activities". >>> >>> Time for that quantum physical cup of coffee you were talking about.... >>> >>> David Kellogg >>> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies >>> >>> >>> On 10 July 2014 08:53, Huw Lloyd wrote: >>> >>>> David, >>>> >>>> Just to be clear, the error I was referring to was the attribution of a >>>> theory (as an adjective) to the material thing (learning). It would be >>>> like saying, I am going to make a Newtonian cup of coffee in the >> morning >>>> and a quantum mechanical cup of coffee in the afternoon. >>>> >>>> I suppose colourful language serves the purpose of deliberate >> vagueness. >>>> It's hard to be trendy and have a precise point. >>>> >>>> I fear we are soon approaching the "teach yourself activity theory for >>>> dummies" book someday soon. From my understanding, the theory itself >>>> repudiates such a thing -- one cannot spoon feed theory -- but I don't >>>> think that will stop folk trying. >>>> >>>> I see no problem (or contradiction) in top down approaches. Solving a >>>> problem in general is a powerful approach to many problems. For many >>>> problems the concrete details are amenable to design and configuration, >>> one >>>> can often choose tools to suit the proposed solution rather than >>>> vice-versa. But from an educational perspective, I see no alternative >>>> than starting with the individual, ofcourse one can have general >>> strategies >>>> in doing so -- waiting to be asked before giving an explanation etc. >>>> >>>> Nice chatting. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> Huw >>>> >>>> On 9 July 2014 22:46, David Kellogg wrote: >>>> >>>>> Huw: >>>>> >>>>> Helen has written a remarkable, important book. I gather it's part of >>> her >>>>> Ph.D. thesis, but it doesn't really read like a Ph.D. thesis. It >> reads >>>> like >>>>> a teacher-trainer (or "professional development consultant", or >>> whatever >>>> we >>>>> are supposed to call them) with a problem who eventually, with a >> little >>>>> help from the classics of cultural historical psychology and a lot of >>>> help >>>>> from a co-teacher (who has a somewhat bookish, inert but nevertheless >>>>> respectful and open acquaintance with those classics) achieves a very >>>> open >>>>> but nevertheless very workable solution. >>>>> >>>>> So the bit I quoted represents the problem, or rather, two problems. >> On >>>> the >>>>> one hand, Helen is trying to do something new: she wants to bring new >>>> CHAT >>>>> concepts to bear on extant classroom activities and modify them in >> ways >>>>> that she is confident will work. On the other, Helen is working with >>> some >>>>> pretty experienced (and even somewhat brutalized) teachers: they have >>>> seen >>>>> "Professional Development" fads come and go, collected their free >>> lunches >>>>> and go on doing things the old way. >>>>> >>>>> Helen achieves her solution from the bottom up. Eventually, she does >>>> find a >>>>> teacher who can teacher her a lot and who, even though Helen herself >>>>> is uniquely gifted, with not only the theoretical background we all >>>> share, >>>>> but also considerable first hand experience as a teacher and a >> parent, >>>> can >>>>> nevertheless be taught in turn. But as you can see from the extract, >>>> she's >>>>> extremely open, even to savage, unfair, and somewhat obtuse >> criticisms. >>>>> Mike's critique of "cultural historical" is not that it is an >>>>> epistemological error or a typological one, or that it puts the >> product >>>>> "culture" before the process "history". It's not even that it >> suggests >>>> that >>>>> on the odd day Piagetian activities might be taking place, which, by >>> the >>>>> way, is probably true, since these teachers were mostly trained >> during >>>> the >>>>> "reign" of Piaget in the sixties and seventies. >>>>> >>>>> No, Mike's complaint is really, if you will pardon the expression, a >>> wank >>>>> of a complaint. He is just complaining that the name is uncool; it >>>> doesn't >>>>> sound like the popular teachers would like it; the name won't go with >>> an >>>>> embossed moose like "Abercrombie and Fitch" or "community of >>>>> learners" does. I think we have to accept that responsive, sensitive >>>>> teachers inevitably end up internalizing some of the worst aspects of >>>>> adolescent thinking, and this is an example. I might even say it's a >>>>> bullshit complaint. It's crap, etc. (But this is one of those >>>>> language situations where redundancy does not suggest development.) >>>>> >>>>> I guess if I encountered a bullshit complaint like that I would >>> complain >>>> a >>>>> little about "community of learners". I think that "community of >>>>> learners" is essentially a way of saying "socio-psychological": it's >>>>> relevant to everyday teaching, but it doesn't tell us much about how >>> the >>>>> "socio" got there, whereas "cultural-historical" does. I might even >> ask >>>> if >>>>> Mike is going to try to teach physics, chemistry, biology, or history >>> to >>>>> kids without some way of saying "physico-chemical" or >>>> "chemico-biological", >>>>> or "biologico-social". If not, then I don't see anything wrong with >>>>> teaching language, including the language of teaching, as something >>>>> "socio-semiotic" or "historico-cultural". But then, I never was one >> of >>>> the >>>>> cool kids. >>>>> >>>>> My problem is this. I too would like to write a book now. I have two >> in >>>>> mind, and they are both practical books about teacher training, >>>>> similar in their targets to Helen's book, which is why I am studying >> it >>>>> carefully. But I find that the books that I have in mind are really >>>> "about >>>>> something" in a way that Helen's book is not. I don't mean that >> Helen's >>>>> book has no object of study: like the title says, the object of study >>> is >>>>> teacher development. What I mean is that the teaching has no clear >>> object >>>>> of teaching: it's not specifically about teaching math or literacy or >>>>> anything else but about teaching in general. The books I have in mind >>> are >>>>> really about teaching literacy (I think I want to try to teach >> WRITING >>>>> before READING) and teaching science (I think I want to try a "hands >>> off" >>>>> approach that emphasizes word meanings instead of laboratory >>>> experiments). >>>>> And I am finding that I when I do this the result is not at all the >>> kind >>>> of >>>>> "bottom up" thing that Helen does; it's very top down. >>>>> >>>>> David Kellogg >>>>> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 9 July 2014 07:33, Huw Lloyd wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Colourful. The complaint seems perfectly valid though: a >>> typological >>>>> and >>>>>> epistemological error all in one conflated term. It suggests that >> on >>>> the >>>>>> odd hours of the day there are Piagetian activities taking place. >>> Was >>>>> this >>>>>> part of the point of the chapter? >>>>>> >>>>>> Best, >>>>>> Huw >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 8 July 2014 21:40, David Kellogg wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I'm actually in the middle of Chapter Three right now. What I can >>>> tell >>>>>> you >>>>>>> is that Helen's first two chapters are a kind of "Who's Who" at >>> xmca, >>>>>> with >>>>>>> Helen reading the great classics (in the wrong order) and talking >>> to >>>>>> Andy, >>>>>>> Greg, and others on this list. But beyond the litte shout-outs to >>>> xmca, >>>>>> in >>>>>>> Chapter Three, you find interesting problems like this. Helen is >>>>> setting >>>>>> up >>>>>>> a "Professional Learning ZPD". This an acronymy within an acronym >>> (an >>>>>>> "acro-acronym-nym", like the group I used to belong to in New >> York >>>> and >>>>>>> Paris, called "ACT-UP"), and in general Helen seems to have some >>>>> trouble >>>>>>> with names. On pp. 58-59, she writes. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "In PLZ 4 I wrote the title 'Features of cultural Historical >>> Learning >>>>>>> Activities' across a piece of butcher's paper and asked the grou >> to >>>>>>> brainstorm features of activities that would be consistent with >>>>> cultural >>>>>>> historical theory. After a few suggestions, Mike suddenly >>> interrupted >>>>>> with: >>>>>>> MIKE: Can I ask, Helen, why such a wank of a name? >>>>>>> HELEN: Cultural-historical? >>>>>>> MIKE: Yeah, what a bullshit name. >>>>>>> DEB: What should it be Mike? >>>>>>> MIKE: What does it mean to anyone? Is that relevant to anyone >> that >>>>>>> name? Cultural-historical learning. What does that mean? >>>>>>> HELEN: Well.... >>>>>>> MIKE: It's crap. >>>>>>> HELEN: Well, I don't think that you, that's the name of teh >> theoyr, >>>>>>> Cultural historical theory, but I think in terms of schools using >>> teh >>>>>>> theory they talk about Communities of Learners. >>>>>>> MIKE: Yeah, but why don't they call it that? >>>>>>> HELEN: OK, so (I start crossing out "cultural historical" and >>>> changing >>>>> it >>>>>>> to "Communities of Learners") >>>>>>> MIKE: That name is like calliing the ultra net site for teachers >>>>> 'design >>>>>>> space'. It has no relevance to the name whatsoever, and to use >>>>>> it--features >>>>>>> of cultural historical learning--sounds like a load of crap. It >>>>>>> doesn't have any relevance ot what it means. If you said to me >>>> cultural >>>>>>> historical learning, I go .... >>>>>>> BETH: I actually thought it meant talking about he past (general >>>>>>> agreement). >>>>>>> MIKE: That's what it implies, the past and how you used to teach. >>>>>>> HELEN: I suppose I'm just trying to familiarize you with the term >>>>>> (general >>>>>>> agreement) >>>>>>> MIKE: If you call it community of learners then it's something >>> that's >>>>>>> relevant." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Helen then makes the (cultural-historical) point that words have >> a >>>>>> history, >>>>>>> but they are not necessarily YOUR history--for Helen, "cultural >>>>>> historical" >>>>>>> calls up a whole series of quite precise concepts, while >> "Community >>>> of >>>>>>> Learners" is kind of vague and undefined. But for the teachers >> (who >>>>> are, >>>>>> I >>>>>>> must say, not exactly reticent about sharing, and do not limit >>>>> themselves >>>>>>> to sharing their expertise) what you get is old times. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It's funny that they ignore the word culture. I always thought >> that >>>>>>> "cultural historical" is a little bit of the cart before the >>>> horse.... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> David Kellogg >>>>>>> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 8 July 2014 21:40, Peter Smagorinsky wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The Practice of Teachers' Professional Development >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> A Cultural-Historical Approach >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Helen Grimmett (Monash University, Australia) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This book uses Vygotsky's cultural-historical theory to >> provide a >>>>>> unique >>>>>>>> theorisation of teachers' professional development as a >>> practice. A >>>>>>>> practice can be described as the socially structured actions >> set >>> up >>>>> to >>>>>>>> produce a product or service aimed at meeting a collective >> human >>>>> need. >>>>>> In >>>>>>>> this case, collaborative, interventionist work with teachers in >>> ... >>>>>> Click >>>>>>>> here for a free preview and full description< >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001ZduyW2xyB1USw9R1YjQno7GI-mDLfJ6m-729UFbNgCKe6Z_p9GP7xjN9IHr0mfZ1yni-XmxHyPfAaNcVjlENvx4l8ySiyRYKHRvvg2E6WbMlf3hNShpk2qTuRRu0ZenYc1mrXxe68_BX4FXljTnHjOx91vJalGeivvaQfmQF57rpGgcDrJe9bprlVyXQwjSo0U6yk-QJ1S5miZfuS7ohswmNs3UZWGMucMgWJyU6E_J3d8QHyWjpGuBM8i2twLXGBPHkZb6hFN4pF6PT3r3M7HYvwFdzAzSfRvpCd90DvQMVDuqkf5VY3ccoD6FppEGF&c=0Y23gLfSZ1jN_yGPyItMZic7SWiIoOcRfcrQWB0JYs9lkVW149lxUQ==&ch=ioZBoxRIwDxdvg-uu6NEwI-E45lgW01U_INO86ZNyJpwbp9zcKnCIA== >>>>>>>>> . >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> From dkellogg60@gmail.com Fri Jul 11 14:29:25 2014 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2014 06:29:25 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: book of possible interest In-Reply-To: <0D461088-CBBB-4BD9-ADCB-3024C36CBE81@telia.com> References: <0D461088-CBBB-4BD9-ADCB-3024C36CBE81@telia.com> Message-ID: Plekhanov distinguishes between "agitators" and "propagandists". Agitators are essentially popularizers; they have the job of ripping away a subset of smaller and simpler ideas from a fabric of much larger and more complex theory and then disseminating them amongst the largest possible number of people. In other words, their focus is exoteric. Propagandists are essentially conspiratorial: they have the job of initiating a small number of the elect and educating them in the whole theoretical system--as Larry would say, the full Bildung. In other words, their focus is esoteric. As you can see, Plekhanov was good at making distinctions, and not so good at showing how things are linked. For Helena, who is a labor educator, you can't really be an effective agitator unless you are also a propagandist. You need to present your exoteric extracts in such a way that they are, to borrow Larry's phrase, both necessary and sufficient to lead people on to the esoterica. I'm with Helena--and with Bruner--with children it's always possible to tell the truth, part of the truth, but nothing but the truth, and if we can do it with kids, why not do it with adults? (I am less sure about what it means to say that the objectively human is the "subjectively historical"--it sounds like history is being reified as a subject, that is, as a living, breathing, acting "World Spirit" that can have a mind and reflect upon itself. My understanding of history is that just as we cannot have the advanced form of historical consciousness in dialogue with the more primitive forms, the opportunity to reflect upon the whole process when it is all over is simply never going to be available to anyone. The Merleau-Ponty quotation is beautiful and intensely poetic, Larry--but when I look at a bubble or a wave, I do not simply see chaos; I see past bubbles and past waves, and potential bubbles and potential waves. Isn't that a part of the experience of "loving history" as well?) My wife wrote a wonderful Ph.D. thesis about how any work of literature can be looked at on four time frames: phylogenetic (the history of a genre), ontogenetic (the biography of a career), logogenetic (the development of a plot or a character), and microgenetic (the unfolding of a dialogue, or a paragraph). Her supervisor complained about the terminology in somewhat more elegant terms than Mike does in Helen's data:and suggested that she should replace the terms with "history", "biography", "development" and "unfolding", to make it more exoteric. I think that if she had done that, it would have made the thesis into agitation rather than education. Yes, the terms would have been more familiar, and they might even, given other context, be taken to mean the same thing. But what we would have gotten is good, clear distinctions ("history" on the one hand and "biography" on the other) and what we would have lost is the linkedness of one time frame to another--the way in which the phylogenesis of genre produces the mature genre which is used in an author's ontegenesis, and the way in which the author's ontogenesis produces the starting point and the raw materials for the logogenetic development of a work, not to mention the way in which logogenesis is reflected in the microgenetic unfolding of dialogue. So I think that when Helena writes that anything can be explained to anyone in language that is everyday and simple and in a way that is understandable and at least part of the whole truth, I agree somewhat enviously (you see, Helena is a labor educator, but I teach TESOL, which is really the process of taking a few very simple and exoteric ideas that good teachers already have and disseminating the select to the elect for vast sums of money). But I have to add a rider--when we popularize richly woven fabrics of ideas like cultural historical theory we are not simply juggling vocabulary. I think that Helena recognizes this perfectly when she says that it takes TIME to be simple and clear. If it were simply a matter of replacing "cultural historical" with "community of learners" it would actually take less time, but it isn't and it doesn't. It is very hot in Seoul today, and somewhere out there a toddler is arguing with a parent because he wants watermelon with breakfast. The parent resists, because if you eat cold watermelon on an empty stomach you get a tummy-ache. The argument grows heated and long--and complex, but the complexity is of a particular kind, with very short, repeated, insistancies from the child and somewhat longer more complex remonstrations from the parent. We can call this complex discourse but simple grammar. A few years will go by and we will find that the school child has mastered the trick of long and complex remonstrations and can use them pre-emptively to win arguments. We can call this complex grammar, but simple vocabulary. Only when a decade or two has elapsed will we find that child, now adult, can use the language of science, which is for the most part grammatically simple (at least compared to the pre-emptive remonstrations of the school child), but full of very complex vocabulary (e.g. "phylogeny anticipates ontogeny", or "cultural-historical activity theory enables communities of learners"). It's Saturday today, and in a few minutes I have to leave for the weekly meeting of our translation group, which produces mighty tomes which we produce to popularize the works of Vygotsky amongst militant teachers here in Korea (our version of "Thinking and Speech" is seven hundred pages long because of all the explanatory notes and boxes with helpful pictures). On the other hand, there is the attached comic book version of the first chapter of "Thinking and Speech" which I wrote a couple of years ago for some graduate students who were having trouble talking about the real "Thinking and Speech" in class. I think you can see that Huw's complaint is justified--the comic book dialogue is "about" Thinking and Speech, but it is not "Thinking and Speech" at all, in the same way that "community of learners" or "biography" is ABOUT cultural historical theory or ontogenesis. And I think that part of the problem (but only part of it) is that the comic book is just too short. David Kellogg Hankuk University of Foreign Studies 2014-07-11 17:09 GMT+09:00 Leif Strandberg : > > 11 jul 2014 kl. 06:41 skrev Larry Purss : > > > David, > > I have been following your reflections through this thread. > > You commented: > > > > So it's almost always more useful for me to > > think of learning phenomena as NOT reducible to the physical, at least > not > > in their unit of analysis > > > > I have been reflecting on the notion of *bildung* as learning. > > The notion of *cultivation* and *disposition* and *comportment* as the > > potential of learning. > > I came across this quote from Gramsci who was questioning the notion of > > *laws* as the basis for making social predictions. Such *laws* excluded > the > > subjective factor from history. > > Gramsci wrote on social process: "Objective always means 'humanly > > objective' which can be held to correspond exactly to 'historically > > subjective' " > > > > Merleau-Ponty also explored what I refer to as *disposition* with this > > quote on the reality of history: > > History "awakens us to the importance of daily events and action. For it > is > > a philosophy [of history -LP] which arouses in us a love for our times > > which are not the simple repetition of human eternity nor merely the > > conclusion of premises already postulated. It is a view that like the > most > > fragile object of perception - a soap bubble, or a wave - or like the > most > > simple dialogue, embraces indivisibly all the order and all the disorder > of > > the world." > > > > I read these passages from Gramsci and M-P as a way of exploring > > *comportment* or *disposition* that is *learned*. [bildung??] There is > no > > necessary or sufficient standpoint for interpreting this inherently > > heterogeneous process. However we may potentially learn various > > *approaches* or *ways* of being-in-the-world through learning processes. > > The notion of *bildung* is a way to reflect on this learning process > > Larry > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 3:54 PM, Huw Lloyd > > wrote: > > > >> On 10 July 2014 22:33, David Kellogg wrote: > >> > >>> Huw: > >>> > >>> Is learning material? In what sense? At what point? > >>> > >> > >> Historically, with Marx. :) > >> > >> The rest of your formations are subsumed by Baldwin's 1st and 2nd > axioms of > >> genetic logic. :) > >> > >> As someone experienced with computation and computational processes, I > do > >> find it quite straightfoward to think of memories as material > impressions. > >> Cached values or lazy evaluation -- it's quite straightforward... Not > >> rubbish, not garbage, but Babbage! > >> > >> Best, > >> Huw > >> > >> > >> > >>> > >>> I guess I think of it this way. All phenomena in the universe are > >> physical, > >>> but only in the final analysis. When my father (who is a retired but > >>> unrepentant solar physicist) studies these phenomena he uses various > >> units > >>> of analysis (my father likes to think big, so his usual unit of > analysis > >> is > >>> a solar emission many times larger than the earth, but sometimes, > >> depending > >>> on the problem, he will condescend to think about smaller particles > like > >>> atomic nuclei). Some of these physical phenomena, when they cool down a > >>> little, are chemical as well, and because these phenomena are chemical > as > >>> well as physical, the unit of analysis that is proper to them is the > >>> molecule and its motions, and not simply the particle (Dad doesn't care > >>> about these phenomena; he likes his physics hot). > >>> > >>> Some of these chemical phenomena are biological as well, and here once > >>> again the unit of analysis has to change (e.g. to the cell) in order to > >>> take into account the new properties which come into being at this > scale. > >>> Some biological phenomena are cultural-historical in turn, and here too > >> we > >>> must change the unit of analysis in order not to lose essential > >> information > >>> that is created with higher levels of organization and complexity.Of > >>> course, these cultural historical phenomena are all reducible to > >> biological > >>> phenomena, and therefore reducible to chemical and physical phenomena, > >> but > >>> only in the final analysis. Hey, in the final analysis, as Carolyn > Porco > >>> says, we all get reduced to physical phenomena when the sun explodes > and > >>> blows the particles that were once our bodies out into space, to enjoy > >>> eternal life...but only as physical phenomena. > >>> > >>> In the meantime, if we want to understand cultural-historical phenomena > >> as > >>> such, we have to confront their higher levels of organization and > >>> complexity.The cultural historical phenomena that I am most interested > in > >>> turn out to have another subset of phenomena which Halliday calls > >>> semiotic--that is, they are sociologically cultural-historical > phenomena > >>> that stand, even if only for a fleeting instant, > >>> for psychologically cultural-historical phenomena. These phenomena are > >>> material too (that is, they are biological, chemical, and even > >>> physical), for the way things stand for other things is ultimately > >>> reducible to a thing: words are, in the final analysis, "made of living > >>> breath", as Shakespeare says, or "layers of moving air" if you prefer > >>> Engels. > >>> > >>> But only in the final analysis. In the interim, too much information is > >>> lost when we reduce these semiotic phenomena to physical, material, > >>> things (for example, when my students try to model learner > comprehension > >>> problems as pure phonetic discrimination without taking into account > the > >>> layer of wording or meaning). So it's almost always more useful for me > to > >>> think of learning phenomena as NOT reducible to the physical, at least > >> not > >>> in their unit of analysis. Actually, it seems to me that the > >>> general "cultural-historical" level of analysis is if anything a step > >>> closer to biology or chemistry or physics than the subset of cultural > >>> historical phenomena that I mean when I refer to learning, because to > me > >>> learning is microgenetic, that is, POTENTIALLY ontogenetic, which is in > >>> turn POTENTIALLY sociogenetic, which (to me) is the general level of > >>> analysis we mean when we talk about cultural historical phenomena. So > the > >>> real answer to Mike's colorful complaint about handles is not > "Community > >> of > >>> Learners" but actually "physico-chemico-bio-socio-semiotic learning > >>> activities". > >>> > >>> Time for that quantum physical cup of coffee you were talking about.... > >>> > >>> David Kellogg > >>> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies > >>> > >>> > >>> On 10 July 2014 08:53, Huw Lloyd wrote: > >>> > >>>> David, > >>>> > >>>> Just to be clear, the error I was referring to was the attribution of > a > >>>> theory (as an adjective) to the material thing (learning). It would > be > >>>> like saying, I am going to make a Newtonian cup of coffee in the > >> morning > >>>> and a quantum mechanical cup of coffee in the afternoon. > >>>> > >>>> I suppose colourful language serves the purpose of deliberate > >> vagueness. > >>>> It's hard to be trendy and have a precise point. > >>>> > >>>> I fear we are soon approaching the "teach yourself activity theory for > >>>> dummies" book someday soon. From my understanding, the theory itself > >>>> repudiates such a thing -- one cannot spoon feed theory -- but I don't > >>>> think that will stop folk trying. > >>>> > >>>> I see no problem (or contradiction) in top down approaches. Solving a > >>>> problem in general is a powerful approach to many problems. For many > >>>> problems the concrete details are amenable to design and > configuration, > >>> one > >>>> can often choose tools to suit the proposed solution rather than > >>>> vice-versa. But from an educational perspective, I see no > alternative > >>>> than starting with the individual, ofcourse one can have general > >>> strategies > >>>> in doing so -- waiting to be asked before giving an explanation etc. > >>>> > >>>> Nice chatting. > >>>> > >>>> Best, > >>>> Huw > >>>> > >>>> On 9 July 2014 22:46, David Kellogg wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Huw: > >>>>> > >>>>> Helen has written a remarkable, important book. I gather it's part of > >>> her > >>>>> Ph.D. thesis, but it doesn't really read like a Ph.D. thesis. It > >> reads > >>>> like > >>>>> a teacher-trainer (or "professional development consultant", or > >>> whatever > >>>> we > >>>>> are supposed to call them) with a problem who eventually, with a > >> little > >>>>> help from the classics of cultural historical psychology and a lot of > >>>> help > >>>>> from a co-teacher (who has a somewhat bookish, inert but nevertheless > >>>>> respectful and open acquaintance with those classics) achieves a very > >>>> open > >>>>> but nevertheless very workable solution. > >>>>> > >>>>> So the bit I quoted represents the problem, or rather, two problems. > >> On > >>>> the > >>>>> one hand, Helen is trying to do something new: she wants to bring new > >>>> CHAT > >>>>> concepts to bear on extant classroom activities and modify them in > >> ways > >>>>> that she is confident will work. On the other, Helen is working with > >>> some > >>>>> pretty experienced (and even somewhat brutalized) teachers: they have > >>>> seen > >>>>> "Professional Development" fads come and go, collected their free > >>> lunches > >>>>> and go on doing things the old way. > >>>>> > >>>>> Helen achieves her solution from the bottom up. Eventually, she does > >>>> find a > >>>>> teacher who can teacher her a lot and who, even though Helen herself > >>>>> is uniquely gifted, with not only the theoretical background we all > >>>> share, > >>>>> but also considerable first hand experience as a teacher and a > >> parent, > >>>> can > >>>>> nevertheless be taught in turn. But as you can see from the extract, > >>>> she's > >>>>> extremely open, even to savage, unfair, and somewhat obtuse > >> criticisms. > >>>>> Mike's critique of "cultural historical" is not that it is an > >>>>> epistemological error or a typological one, or that it puts the > >> product > >>>>> "culture" before the process "history". It's not even that it > >> suggests > >>>> that > >>>>> on the odd day Piagetian activities might be taking place, which, by > >>> the > >>>>> way, is probably true, since these teachers were mostly trained > >> during > >>>> the > >>>>> "reign" of Piaget in the sixties and seventies. > >>>>> > >>>>> No, Mike's complaint is really, if you will pardon the expression, a > >>> wank > >>>>> of a complaint. He is just complaining that the name is uncool; it > >>>> doesn't > >>>>> sound like the popular teachers would like it; the name won't go with > >>> an > >>>>> embossed moose like "Abercrombie and Fitch" or "community of > >>>>> learners" does. I think we have to accept that responsive, sensitive > >>>>> teachers inevitably end up internalizing some of the worst aspects of > >>>>> adolescent thinking, and this is an example. I might even say it's a > >>>>> bullshit complaint. It's crap, etc. (But this is one of those > >>>>> language situations where redundancy does not suggest development.) > >>>>> > >>>>> I guess if I encountered a bullshit complaint like that I would > >>> complain > >>>> a > >>>>> little about "community of learners". I think that "community of > >>>>> learners" is essentially a way of saying "socio-psychological": it's > >>>>> relevant to everyday teaching, but it doesn't tell us much about how > >>> the > >>>>> "socio" got there, whereas "cultural-historical" does. I might even > >> ask > >>>> if > >>>>> Mike is going to try to teach physics, chemistry, biology, or history > >>> to > >>>>> kids without some way of saying "physico-chemical" or > >>>> "chemico-biological", > >>>>> or "biologico-social". If not, then I don't see anything wrong with > >>>>> teaching language, including the language of teaching, as something > >>>>> "socio-semiotic" or "historico-cultural". But then, I never was one > >> of > >>>> the > >>>>> cool kids. > >>>>> > >>>>> My problem is this. I too would like to write a book now. I have two > >> in > >>>>> mind, and they are both practical books about teacher training, > >>>>> similar in their targets to Helen's book, which is why I am studying > >> it > >>>>> carefully. But I find that the books that I have in mind are really > >>>> "about > >>>>> something" in a way that Helen's book is not. I don't mean that > >> Helen's > >>>>> book has no object of study: like the title says, the object of study > >>> is > >>>>> teacher development. What I mean is that the teaching has no clear > >>> object > >>>>> of teaching: it's not specifically about teaching math or literacy or > >>>>> anything else but about teaching in general. The books I have in mind > >>> are > >>>>> really about teaching literacy (I think I want to try to teach > >> WRITING > >>>>> before READING) and teaching science (I think I want to try a "hands > >>> off" > >>>>> approach that emphasizes word meanings instead of laboratory > >>>> experiments). > >>>>> And I am finding that I when I do this the result is not at all the > >>> kind > >>>> of > >>>>> "bottom up" thing that Helen does; it's very top down. > >>>>> > >>>>> David Kellogg > >>>>> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On 9 July 2014 07:33, Huw Lloyd wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Colourful. The complaint seems perfectly valid though: a > >>> typological > >>>>> and > >>>>>> epistemological error all in one conflated term. It suggests that > >> on > >>>> the > >>>>>> odd hours of the day there are Piagetian activities taking place. > >>> Was > >>>>> this > >>>>>> part of the point of the chapter? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Best, > >>>>>> Huw > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On 8 July 2014 21:40, David Kellogg wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> I'm actually in the middle of Chapter Three right now. What I can > >>>> tell > >>>>>> you > >>>>>>> is that Helen's first two chapters are a kind of "Who's Who" at > >>> xmca, > >>>>>> with > >>>>>>> Helen reading the great classics (in the wrong order) and talking > >>> to > >>>>>> Andy, > >>>>>>> Greg, and others on this list. But beyond the litte shout-outs to > >>>> xmca, > >>>>>> in > >>>>>>> Chapter Three, you find interesting problems like this. Helen is > >>>>> setting > >>>>>> up > >>>>>>> a "Professional Learning ZPD". This an acronymy within an acronym > >>> (an > >>>>>>> "acro-acronym-nym", like the group I used to belong to in New > >> York > >>>> and > >>>>>>> Paris, called "ACT-UP"), and in general Helen seems to have some > >>>>> trouble > >>>>>>> with names. On pp. 58-59, she writes. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> "In PLZ 4 I wrote the title 'Features of cultural Historical > >>> Learning > >>>>>>> Activities' across a piece of butcher's paper and asked the grou > >> to > >>>>>>> brainstorm features of activities that would be consistent with > >>>>> cultural > >>>>>>> historical theory. After a few suggestions, Mike suddenly > >>> interrupted > >>>>>> with: > >>>>>>> MIKE: Can I ask, Helen, why such a wank of a name? > >>>>>>> HELEN: Cultural-historical? > >>>>>>> MIKE: Yeah, what a bullshit name. > >>>>>>> DEB: What should it be Mike? > >>>>>>> MIKE: What does it mean to anyone? Is that relevant to anyone > >> that > >>>>>>> name? Cultural-historical learning. What does that mean? > >>>>>>> HELEN: Well.... > >>>>>>> MIKE: It's crap. > >>>>>>> HELEN: Well, I don't think that you, that's the name of teh > >> theoyr, > >>>>>>> Cultural historical theory, but I think in terms of schools using > >>> teh > >>>>>>> theory they talk about Communities of Learners. > >>>>>>> MIKE: Yeah, but why don't they call it that? > >>>>>>> HELEN: OK, so (I start crossing out "cultural historical" and > >>>> changing > >>>>> it > >>>>>>> to "Communities of Learners") > >>>>>>> MIKE: That name is like calliing the ultra net site for teachers > >>>>> 'design > >>>>>>> space'. It has no relevance to the name whatsoever, and to use > >>>>>> it--features > >>>>>>> of cultural historical learning--sounds like a load of crap. It > >>>>>>> doesn't have any relevance ot what it means. If you said to me > >>>> cultural > >>>>>>> historical learning, I go .... > >>>>>>> BETH: I actually thought it meant talking about he past (general > >>>>>>> agreement). > >>>>>>> MIKE: That's what it implies, the past and how you used to teach. > >>>>>>> HELEN: I suppose I'm just trying to familiarize you with the term > >>>>>> (general > >>>>>>> agreement) > >>>>>>> MIKE: If you call it community of learners then it's something > >>> that's > >>>>>>> relevant." > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Helen then makes the (cultural-historical) point that words have > >> a > >>>>>> history, > >>>>>>> but they are not necessarily YOUR history--for Helen, "cultural > >>>>>> historical" > >>>>>>> calls up a whole series of quite precise concepts, while > >> "Community > >>>> of > >>>>>>> Learners" is kind of vague and undefined. But for the teachers > >> (who > >>>>> are, > >>>>>> I > >>>>>>> must say, not exactly reticent about sharing, and do not limit > >>>>> themselves > >>>>>>> to sharing their expertise) what you get is old times. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> It's funny that they ignore the word culture. I always thought > >> that > >>>>>>> "cultural historical" is a little bit of the cart before the > >>>> horse.... > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> David Kellogg > >>>>>>> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On 8 July 2014 21:40, Peter Smagorinsky wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> The Practice of Teachers' Professional Development > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> A Cultural-Historical Approach > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Helen Grimmett (Monash University, Australia) > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> This book uses Vygotsky's cultural-historical theory to > >> provide a > >>>>>> unique > >>>>>>>> theorisation of teachers' professional development as a > >>> practice. A > >>>>>>>> practice can be described as the socially structured actions > >> set > >>> up > >>>>> to > >>>>>>>> produce a product or service aimed at meeting a collective > >> human > >>>>> need. > >>>>>> In > >>>>>>>> this case, collaborative, interventionist work with teachers in > >>> ... > >>>>>> Click > >>>>>>>> here for a free preview and full description< > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> > http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001ZduyW2xyB1USw9R1YjQno7GI-mDLfJ6m-729UFbNgCKe6Z_p9GP7xjN9IHr0mfZ1yni-XmxHyPfAaNcVjlENvx4l8ySiyRYKHRvvg2E6WbMlf3hNShpk2qTuRRu0ZenYc1mrXxe68_BX4FXljTnHjOx91vJalGeivvaQfmQF57rpGgcDrJe9bprlVyXQwjSo0U6yk-QJ1S5miZfuS7ohswmNs3UZWGMucMgWJyU6E_J3d8QHyWjpGuBM8i2twLXGBPHkZb6hFN4pF6PT3r3M7HYvwFdzAzSfRvpCd90DvQMVDuqkf5VY3ccoD6FppEGF&c=0Y23gLfSZ1jN_yGPyItMZic7SWiIoOcRfcrQWB0JYs9lkVW149lxUQ==&ch=ioZBoxRIwDxdvg-uu6NEwI-E45lgW01U_INO86ZNyJpwbp9zcKnCIA== > >>>>>>>>> . > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> > > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Chapter One as Comic Book.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 1674725 bytes Desc: not available Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20140712/3e92aefd/attachment-0001.pdf From helen.grimmett@monash.edu Fri Jul 11 21:20:35 2014 From: helen.grimmett@monash.edu (Helen Grimmett) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2014 14:20:35 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: book of possible interest In-Reply-To: References: <0D461088-CBBB-4BD9-ADCB-3024C36CBE81@telia.com> Message-ID: Ah, I think you have hit the nail on the head David. It is indeed TIME that is so crucial - not only duration of time, but also location of time (which I suppose is really context). The problems I had with Mike and his colleagues about the terminology stemmed partly from the typical Aussie disdain for using words that might make your mates think you are trying to appear 'better' than them, so therefore you mock anything that sounds too serious or intellectual. But beyond this surface level of complaining the problems Huw and you have been discussing boil down to problems with time. Huw's complaint about my use of the heading "Features of Cultural-Historical Learning Activities" is well justified - but it was really just a shorthand written version of what I was verbally asking for as "What might be some particular features of learning activities that would align with principles of Cultural-Historical Theory?" That would have taken too long to write on the top of the piece of paper - and of course time is always too short in any after-school PD so shortcuts are inevitably taken. (Time problem #1) Time problem #2, which your discussion has highlighted for me, is that of course my question was really "What might be some particular features of learning activities that would align with THE LIMITED NUMBER OF (AND LIMITED UNDERSTANDING OF) principles of Cultural-Historical Theory THAT YOU HAVE BEEN INTRODUCED TO SO FAR?" so I really should have not been so surprised that they would find the brainstorming activity difficult and resort to diversionary tactics! (Mike's outburst posted here by David was not the only eventful moment I write about from this one activity. But these apparent failures actually provided much more interesting data for me and eventually lead me to several key findings in my thesis). I had spent several years by this stage reading and discussing Vygotsky and yet I had assumed/hoped the teachers would have enough understanding from my (probably not very good) explanations ABOUT theory over the previous 3 short sessions I had had with them to be able to contribute answers to my brainstorm question. They had not had enough TIME to become familiar with enough of the theory to make much sense of it yet - but still, we have to start somewhere and this was still early days. Time problem #3 brings in what I called above the location of time. I had never intended for the sessions to be me giving after-school lectures about either theory or practice, yet this is what the teachers seemed to expect from me (and even demand from me) and were pretty disgruntled when I wouldn't/couldn't deliver. My intention was always to get them to engage with the relationship between THEORY and PRACTICE, just as David's comic book discusses the relationship between THINKING and SPEECH or EMOTION and COGNITION. My problem of course was that once we were in an after-school meeting we were removed in both time and space from where theory and practice of teaching/learning operate as a relation (i.e. the classroom activity). I was actually trying to create/use our own PLZ (Professional Learning ZPD) as the activity in which to develop and understand this relationship but it was initially very hard to get the teachers to understand this (at least until we had enough of David's Fox's socially shared experiences for the meanings to become communicable) and then even more difficult to get them to transfer this back to developing their own classroom teaching. Ironically, despite being the loudest complainers and disparagers, it was Mike and Kay (the protagonist of my other eventful moment in the brainstorming session) who actually ended up making the biggest changes in their classroom practice. Perhaps this is not really surprising at all - they were the ones who obviously engaged and argued with the ideas and activities rather than simply endured them! My eventual answer to the problems encountered in my work with the group of teachers was to work WITH a teacher IN her own classroom so that we had shared experiences of the relationship between theory and practice which could not only be discussed after the events, but also actually acted upon there and then IN the event - creating what I called "Situated Conscious Awareness" of both the theoretical and practical aspects of the concepts of teaching/learning and development we were developing understanding and practice of together. But perhaps I should wait until David gets up to this part of the book before I say more! Finally, one other point that really caught my attention in your comic book David is that your prince calls development "to establish ties" which is an interesting difference to Engestrom's definition as "breaking away". But perhaps, as always in CH theory, it is not a matter of either/or but in fact both/and ideas that are necessary. From what I learned in my study, teachers' development as professionals is definitely BOTH about breaking away from old, routinised understandings and practices AND establishing new connections between and amongst theoretical concepts and practices, enabling them to continually develop new competences and motives across all of their professional duties. Thanks for your interest in my book David. The discussion it has sparked has helped me revisit ideas from new perspectives. Cheers, Helen Dr Helen Grimmett Lecturer, Student Adviser, Faculty of Education, Room G64F, Building 902 Monash University, Berwick campus Phone: 9904 7171 *New Book: * The Practice of Teachers' Professional Development: A Cultural-Historical Approach Helen Grimmett (2014) Sense Publishers On 12 July 2014 07:29, David Kellogg wrote: > Plekhanov distinguishes between "agitators" and "propagandists". Agitators > are essentially popularizers; they have the job of ripping away a subset of > smaller and simpler ideas from a fabric of much larger and more complex > theory and then disseminating them amongst the largest possible number of > people. In other words, their focus is exoteric. Propagandists are > essentially conspiratorial: they have the job of initiating a small number > of the elect and educating them in the whole theoretical system--as Larry > would say, the full Bildung. In other words, their focus is esoteric. As > you can see, Plekhanov was good at making distinctions, and not so good at > showing how things are linked. For Helena, who is a labor educator, you > can't really be an effective agitator unless you are also a propagandist. > You need to present your exoteric extracts in such a way that they are, to > borrow Larry's phrase, both necessary and sufficient to lead people on to > the esoterica. I'm with Helena--and with Bruner--with children it's always > possible to tell the truth, part of the truth, but nothing but the truth, > and if we can do it with kids, why not do it with adults? > > (I am less sure about what it means to say that the objectively human is > the "subjectively historical"--it sounds like history is being reified as a > subject, that is, as a living, breathing, acting "World Spirit" that can > have a mind and reflect upon itself. My understanding of history is > that just as we cannot have the advanced form of historical consciousness > in dialogue with the more primitive forms, the opportunity to reflect upon > the whole process when it is all over is simply never going to be available > to anyone. The Merleau-Ponty quotation is beautiful and intensely > poetic, Larry--but when I look at a bubble or a wave, I do not simply see > chaos; I see past bubbles and past waves, and potential bubbles and > potential waves. Isn't that a part of the experience of "loving history" as > well?) > > My wife wrote a wonderful Ph.D. thesis about how any work of literature can > be looked at on four time frames: phylogenetic (the history of a genre), > ontogenetic (the biography of a career), logogenetic (the development of a > plot or a character), and microgenetic (the unfolding of a dialogue, or a > paragraph). Her supervisor complained about the terminology in somewhat > more elegant terms than Mike does in Helen's data:and suggested that she > should replace the terms with "history", "biography", "development" and > "unfolding", to make it more exoteric. > > I think that if she had done that, it would have made the thesis into > agitation rather than education. Yes, the terms would have been more > familiar, and they might even, given other context, be taken to mean the > same thing. But what we would have gotten is good, clear distinctions > ("history" on the one hand and "biography" on the other) and what we would > have lost is the linkedness of one time frame to another--the way in which > the phylogenesis of genre produces the mature genre which is used in an > author's ontegenesis, and the way in which the author's ontogenesis > produces the starting point and the raw materials for the logogenetic > development of a work, not to mention the way in which logogenesis is > reflected in the microgenetic unfolding of dialogue. > > So I think that when Helena writes that anything can be explained to anyone > in language that is everyday and simple and in a way that is understandable > and at least part of the whole truth, I agree somewhat enviously (you see, > Helena is a labor educator, but I teach TESOL, which is really the process > of taking a few very simple and exoteric ideas that good teachers already > have and disseminating the select to the elect for vast sums of money). But > I have to add a rider--when we popularize richly woven fabrics of ideas > like cultural historical theory we are not simply juggling vocabulary. I > think that Helena recognizes this perfectly when she says that it takes > TIME to be simple and clear. If it were simply a matter of replacing > "cultural historical" with "community of learners" it would actually take > less time, but it isn't and it doesn't. > > It is very hot in Seoul today, and somewhere out there a toddler is arguing > with a parent because he wants watermelon with breakfast. The parent > resists, because if you eat cold watermelon on an empty stomach you get a > tummy-ache. The argument grows heated and long--and complex, but the > complexity is of a particular kind, with very short, repeated, insistancies > from the child and somewhat longer more complex remonstrations from the > parent. We can call this complex discourse but simple grammar. A few years > will go by and we will find that the school child has mastered the trick of > long and complex remonstrations and can use them pre-emptively to win > arguments. We can call this complex grammar, but simple vocabulary. Only > when a decade or two has elapsed will we find that child, now adult, can > use the language of science, which is for the most part grammatically > simple (at least compared to the pre-emptive remonstrations of the school > child), but full of very complex vocabulary (e.g. "phylogeny anticipates > ontogeny", or "cultural-historical activity theory enables communities of > learners"). > > It's Saturday today, and in a few minutes I have to leave for the weekly > meeting of our translation group, which produces mighty tomes which we > produce to popularize the works of Vygotsky amongst militant teachers here > in Korea (our version of "Thinking and Speech" is seven hundred pages long > because of all the explanatory notes and boxes with helpful pictures). On > the other hand, there is the attached comic book version of the first > chapter of "Thinking and Speech" which I wrote a couple of years ago for > some graduate students who were having trouble talking about the real > "Thinking and Speech" in class. > > I think you can see that Huw's complaint is justified--the comic > book dialogue is "about" Thinking and Speech, but it is not "Thinking and > Speech" at all, in the same way that "community of learners" or "biography" > is ABOUT cultural historical theory or ontogenesis. And I think that part > of the problem (but only part of it) is that the comic book is just too > short. > > David Kellogg > Hankuk University of Foreign Studies > > > > > > > 2014-07-11 17:09 GMT+09:00 Leif Strandberg : > > > > > 11 jul 2014 kl. 06:41 skrev Larry Purss : > > > > > David, > > > I have been following your reflections through this thread. > > > You commented: > > > > > > So it's almost always more useful for me to > > > think of learning phenomena as NOT reducible to the physical, at least > > not > > > in their unit of analysis > > > > > > I have been reflecting on the notion of *bildung* as learning. > > > The notion of *cultivation* and *disposition* and *comportment* as the > > > potential of learning. > > > I came across this quote from Gramsci who was questioning the notion of > > > *laws* as the basis for making social predictions. Such *laws* excluded > > the > > > subjective factor from history. > > > Gramsci wrote on social process: "Objective always means 'humanly > > > objective' which can be held to correspond exactly to 'historically > > > subjective' " > > > > > > Merleau-Ponty also explored what I refer to as *disposition* with this > > > quote on the reality of history: > > > History "awakens us to the importance of daily events and action. For > it > > is > > > a philosophy [of history -LP] which arouses in us a love for our times > > > which are not the simple repetition of human eternity nor merely the > > > conclusion of premises already postulated. It is a view that like the > > most > > > fragile object of perception - a soap bubble, or a wave - or like the > > most > > > simple dialogue, embraces indivisibly all the order and all the > disorder > > of > > > the world." > > > > > > I read these passages from Gramsci and M-P as a way of exploring > > > *comportment* or *disposition* that is *learned*. [bildung??] There is > > no > > > necessary or sufficient standpoint for interpreting this inherently > > > heterogeneous process. However we may potentially learn various > > > *approaches* or *ways* of being-in-the-world through learning > processes. > > > The notion of *bildung* is a way to reflect on this learning process > > > Larry > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 3:54 PM, Huw Lloyd > > > wrote: > > > > > >> On 10 July 2014 22:33, David Kellogg wrote: > > >> > > >>> Huw: > > >>> > > >>> Is learning material? In what sense? At what point? > > >>> > > >> > > >> Historically, with Marx. :) > > >> > > >> The rest of your formations are subsumed by Baldwin's 1st and 2nd > > axioms of > > >> genetic logic. :) > > >> > > >> As someone experienced with computation and computational processes, I > > do > > >> find it quite straightfoward to think of memories as material > > impressions. > > >> Cached values or lazy evaluation -- it's quite straightforward... Not > > >> rubbish, not garbage, but Babbage! > > >> > > >> Best, > > >> Huw > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >>> > > >>> I guess I think of it this way. All phenomena in the universe are > > >> physical, > > >>> but only in the final analysis. When my father (who is a retired but > > >>> unrepentant solar physicist) studies these phenomena he uses various > > >> units > > >>> of analysis (my father likes to think big, so his usual unit of > > analysis > > >> is > > >>> a solar emission many times larger than the earth, but sometimes, > > >> depending > > >>> on the problem, he will condescend to think about smaller particles > > like > > >>> atomic nuclei). Some of these physical phenomena, when they cool > down a > > >>> little, are chemical as well, and because these phenomena are > chemical > > as > > >>> well as physical, the unit of analysis that is proper to them is the > > >>> molecule and its motions, and not simply the particle (Dad doesn't > care > > >>> about these phenomena; he likes his physics hot). > > >>> > > >>> Some of these chemical phenomena are biological as well, and here > once > > >>> again the unit of analysis has to change (e.g. to the cell) in order > to > > >>> take into account the new properties which come into being at this > > scale. > > >>> Some biological phenomena are cultural-historical in turn, and here > too > > >> we > > >>> must change the unit of analysis in order not to lose essential > > >> information > > >>> that is created with higher levels of organization and complexity.Of > > >>> course, these cultural historical phenomena are all reducible to > > >> biological > > >>> phenomena, and therefore reducible to chemical and physical > phenomena, > > >> but > > >>> only in the final analysis. Hey, in the final analysis, as Carolyn > > Porco > > >>> says, we all get reduced to physical phenomena when the sun explodes > > and > > >>> blows the particles that were once our bodies out into space, to > enjoy > > >>> eternal life...but only as physical phenomena. > > >>> > > >>> In the meantime, if we want to understand cultural-historical > phenomena > > >> as > > >>> such, we have to confront their higher levels of organization and > > >>> complexity.The cultural historical phenomena that I am most > interested > > in > > >>> turn out to have another subset of phenomena which Halliday calls > > >>> semiotic--that is, they are sociologically cultural-historical > > phenomena > > >>> that stand, even if only for a fleeting instant, > > >>> for psychologically cultural-historical phenomena. These phenomena > are > > >>> material too (that is, they are biological, chemical, and even > > >>> physical), for the way things stand for other things is ultimately > > >>> reducible to a thing: words are, in the final analysis, "made of > living > > >>> breath", as Shakespeare says, or "layers of moving air" if you prefer > > >>> Engels. > > >>> > > >>> But only in the final analysis. In the interim, too much information > is > > >>> lost when we reduce these semiotic phenomena to physical, material, > > >>> things (for example, when my students try to model learner > > comprehension > > >>> problems as pure phonetic discrimination without taking into account > > the > > >>> layer of wording or meaning). So it's almost always more useful for > me > > to > > >>> think of learning phenomena as NOT reducible to the physical, at > least > > >> not > > >>> in their unit of analysis. Actually, it seems to me that the > > >>> general "cultural-historical" level of analysis is if anything a step > > >>> closer to biology or chemistry or physics than the subset of cultural > > >>> historical phenomena that I mean when I refer to learning, because to > > me > > >>> learning is microgenetic, that is, POTENTIALLY ontogenetic, which is > in > > >>> turn POTENTIALLY sociogenetic, which (to me) is the general level of > > >>> analysis we mean when we talk about cultural historical phenomena. So > > the > > >>> real answer to Mike's colorful complaint about handles is not > > "Community > > >> of > > >>> Learners" but actually "physico-chemico-bio-socio-semiotic learning > > >>> activities". > > >>> > > >>> Time for that quantum physical cup of coffee you were talking > about.... > > >>> > > >>> David Kellogg > > >>> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> On 10 July 2014 08:53, Huw Lloyd wrote: > > >>> > > >>>> David, > > >>>> > > >>>> Just to be clear, the error I was referring to was the attribution > of > > a > > >>>> theory (as an adjective) to the material thing (learning). It would > > be > > >>>> like saying, I am going to make a Newtonian cup of coffee in the > > >> morning > > >>>> and a quantum mechanical cup of coffee in the afternoon. > > >>>> > > >>>> I suppose colourful language serves the purpose of deliberate > > >> vagueness. > > >>>> It's hard to be trendy and have a precise point. > > >>>> > > >>>> I fear we are soon approaching the "teach yourself activity theory > for > > >>>> dummies" book someday soon. From my understanding, the theory > itself > > >>>> repudiates such a thing -- one cannot spoon feed theory -- but I > don't > > >>>> think that will stop folk trying. > > >>>> > > >>>> I see no problem (or contradiction) in top down approaches. > Solving a > > >>>> problem in general is a powerful approach to many problems. For > many > > >>>> problems the concrete details are amenable to design and > > configuration, > > >>> one > > >>>> can often choose tools to suit the proposed solution rather than > > >>>> vice-versa. But from an educational perspective, I see no > > alternative > > >>>> than starting with the individual, ofcourse one can have general > > >>> strategies > > >>>> in doing so -- waiting to be asked before giving an explanation etc. > > >>>> > > >>>> Nice chatting. > > >>>> > > >>>> Best, > > >>>> Huw > > >>>> > > >>>> On 9 July 2014 22:46, David Kellogg wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>>> Huw: > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Helen has written a remarkable, important book. I gather it's part > of > > >>> her > > >>>>> Ph.D. thesis, but it doesn't really read like a Ph.D. thesis. It > > >> reads > > >>>> like > > >>>>> a teacher-trainer (or "professional development consultant", or > > >>> whatever > > >>>> we > > >>>>> are supposed to call them) with a problem who eventually, with a > > >> little > > >>>>> help from the classics of cultural historical psychology and a lot > of > > >>>> help > > >>>>> from a co-teacher (who has a somewhat bookish, inert but > nevertheless > > >>>>> respectful and open acquaintance with those classics) achieves a > very > > >>>> open > > >>>>> but nevertheless very workable solution. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> So the bit I quoted represents the problem, or rather, two > problems. > > >> On > > >>>> the > > >>>>> one hand, Helen is trying to do something new: she wants to bring > new > > >>>> CHAT > > >>>>> concepts to bear on extant classroom activities and modify them in > > >> ways > > >>>>> that she is confident will work. On the other, Helen is working > with > > >>> some > > >>>>> pretty experienced (and even somewhat brutalized) teachers: they > have > > >>>> seen > > >>>>> "Professional Development" fads come and go, collected their free > > >>> lunches > > >>>>> and go on doing things the old way. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Helen achieves her solution from the bottom up. Eventually, she > does > > >>>> find a > > >>>>> teacher who can teacher her a lot and who, even though Helen > herself > > >>>>> is uniquely gifted, with not only the theoretical background we all > > >>>> share, > > >>>>> but also considerable first hand experience as a teacher and a > > >> parent, > > >>>> can > > >>>>> nevertheless be taught in turn. But as you can see from the > extract, > > >>>> she's > > >>>>> extremely open, even to savage, unfair, and somewhat obtuse > > >> criticisms. > > >>>>> Mike's critique of "cultural historical" is not that it is an > > >>>>> epistemological error or a typological one, or that it puts the > > >> product > > >>>>> "culture" before the process "history". It's not even that it > > >> suggests > > >>>> that > > >>>>> on the odd day Piagetian activities might be taking place, which, > by > > >>> the > > >>>>> way, is probably true, since these teachers were mostly trained > > >> during > > >>>> the > > >>>>> "reign" of Piaget in the sixties and seventies. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> No, Mike's complaint is really, if you will pardon the expression, > a > > >>> wank > > >>>>> of a complaint. He is just complaining that the name is uncool; it > > >>>> doesn't > > >>>>> sound like the popular teachers would like it; the name won't go > with > > >>> an > > >>>>> embossed moose like "Abercrombie and Fitch" or "community of > > >>>>> learners" does. I think we have to accept that responsive, > sensitive > > >>>>> teachers inevitably end up internalizing some of the worst aspects > of > > >>>>> adolescent thinking, and this is an example. I might even say it's > a > > >>>>> bullshit complaint. It's crap, etc. (But this is one of those > > >>>>> language situations where redundancy does not suggest development.) > > >>>>> > > >>>>> I guess if I encountered a bullshit complaint like that I would > > >>> complain > > >>>> a > > >>>>> little about "community of learners". I think that "community of > > >>>>> learners" is essentially a way of saying "socio-psychological": > it's > > >>>>> relevant to everyday teaching, but it doesn't tell us much about > how > > >>> the > > >>>>> "socio" got there, whereas "cultural-historical" does. I might even > > >> ask > > >>>> if > > >>>>> Mike is going to try to teach physics, chemistry, biology, or > history > > >>> to > > >>>>> kids without some way of saying "physico-chemical" or > > >>>> "chemico-biological", > > >>>>> or "biologico-social". If not, then I don't see anything wrong with > > >>>>> teaching language, including the language of teaching, as something > > >>>>> "socio-semiotic" or "historico-cultural". But then, I never was one > > >> of > > >>>> the > > >>>>> cool kids. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> My problem is this. I too would like to write a book now. I have > two > > >> in > > >>>>> mind, and they are both practical books about teacher training, > > >>>>> similar in their targets to Helen's book, which is why I am > studying > > >> it > > >>>>> carefully. But I find that the books that I have in mind are really > > >>>> "about > > >>>>> something" in a way that Helen's book is not. I don't mean that > > >> Helen's > > >>>>> book has no object of study: like the title says, the object of > study > > >>> is > > >>>>> teacher development. What I mean is that the teaching has no clear > > >>> object > > >>>>> of teaching: it's not specifically about teaching math or literacy > or > > >>>>> anything else but about teaching in general. The books I have in > mind > > >>> are > > >>>>> really about teaching literacy (I think I want to try to teach > > >> WRITING > > >>>>> before READING) and teaching science (I think I want to try a > "hands > > >>> off" > > >>>>> approach that emphasizes word meanings instead of laboratory > > >>>> experiments). > > >>>>> And I am finding that I when I do this the result is not at all the > > >>> kind > > >>>> of > > >>>>> "bottom up" thing that Helen does; it's very top down. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> David Kellogg > > >>>>> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> On 9 July 2014 07:33, Huw Lloyd wrote: > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> Colourful. The complaint seems perfectly valid though: a > > >>> typological > > >>>>> and > > >>>>>> epistemological error all in one conflated term. It suggests that > > >> on > > >>>> the > > >>>>>> odd hours of the day there are Piagetian activities taking place. > > >>> Was > > >>>>> this > > >>>>>> part of the point of the chapter? > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Best, > > >>>>>> Huw > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> On 8 July 2014 21:40, David Kellogg wrote: > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> I'm actually in the middle of Chapter Three right now. What I can > > >>>> tell > > >>>>>> you > > >>>>>>> is that Helen's first two chapters are a kind of "Who's Who" at > > >>> xmca, > > >>>>>> with > > >>>>>>> Helen reading the great classics (in the wrong order) and talking > > >>> to > > >>>>>> Andy, > > >>>>>>> Greg, and others on this list. But beyond the litte shout-outs to > > >>>> xmca, > > >>>>>> in > > >>>>>>> Chapter Three, you find interesting problems like this. Helen is > > >>>>> setting > > >>>>>> up > > >>>>>>> a "Professional Learning ZPD". This an acronymy within an acronym > > >>> (an > > >>>>>>> "acro-acronym-nym", like the group I used to belong to in New > > >> York > > >>>> and > > >>>>>>> Paris, called "ACT-UP"), and in general Helen seems to have some > > >>>>> trouble > > >>>>>>> with names. On pp. 58-59, she writes. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> "In PLZ 4 I wrote the title 'Features of cultural Historical > > >>> Learning > > >>>>>>> Activities' across a piece of butcher's paper and asked the grou > > >> to > > >>>>>>> brainstorm features of activities that would be consistent with > > >>>>> cultural > > >>>>>>> historical theory. After a few suggestions, Mike suddenly > > >>> interrupted > > >>>>>> with: > > >>>>>>> MIKE: Can I ask, Helen, why such a wank of a name? > > >>>>>>> HELEN: Cultural-historical? > > >>>>>>> MIKE: Yeah, what a bullshit name. > > >>>>>>> DEB: What should it be Mike? > > >>>>>>> MIKE: What does it mean to anyone? Is that relevant to anyone > > >> that > > >>>>>>> name? Cultural-historical learning. What does that mean? > > >>>>>>> HELEN: Well.... > > >>>>>>> MIKE: It's crap. > > >>>>>>> HELEN: Well, I don't think that you, that's the name of teh > > >> theoyr, > > >>>>>>> Cultural historical theory, but I think in terms of schools using > > >>> teh > > >>>>>>> theory they talk about Communities of Learners. > > >>>>>>> MIKE: Yeah, but why don't they call it that? > > >>>>>>> HELEN: OK, so (I start crossing out "cultural historical" and > > >>>> changing > > >>>>> it > > >>>>>>> to "Communities of Learners") > > >>>>>>> MIKE: That name is like calliing the ultra net site for teachers > > >>>>> 'design > > >>>>>>> space'. It has no relevance to the name whatsoever, and to use > > >>>>>> it--features > > >>>>>>> of cultural historical learning--sounds like a load of crap. It > > >>>>>>> doesn't have any relevance ot what it means. If you said to me > > >>>> cultural > > >>>>>>> historical learning, I go .... > > >>>>>>> BETH: I actually thought it meant talking about he past (general > > >>>>>>> agreement). > > >>>>>>> MIKE: That's what it implies, the past and how you used to teach. > > >>>>>>> HELEN: I suppose I'm just trying to familiarize you with the term > > >>>>>> (general > > >>>>>>> agreement) > > >>>>>>> MIKE: If you call it community of learners then it's something > > >>> that's > > >>>>>>> relevant." > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Helen then makes the (cultural-historical) point that words have > > >> a > > >>>>>> history, > > >>>>>>> but they are not necessarily YOUR history--for Helen, "cultural > > >>>>>> historical" > > >>>>>>> calls up a whole series of quite precise concepts, while > > >> "Community > > >>>> of > > >>>>>>> Learners" is kind of vague and undefined. But for the teachers > > >> (who > > >>>>> are, > > >>>>>> I > > >>>>>>> must say, not exactly reticent about sharing, and do not limit > > >>>>> themselves > > >>>>>>> to sharing their expertise) what you get is old times. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> It's funny that they ignore the word culture. I always thought > > >> that > > >>>>>>> "cultural historical" is a little bit of the cart before the > > >>>> horse.... > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> David Kellogg > > >>>>>>> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> On 8 July 2014 21:40, Peter Smagorinsky wrote: > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> The Practice of Teachers' Professional Development > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> A Cultural-Historical Approach > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> Helen Grimmett (Monash University, Australia) > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> This book uses Vygotsky's cultural-historical theory to > > >> provide a > > >>>>>> unique > > >>>>>>>> theorisation of teachers' professional development as a > > >>> practice. A > > >>>>>>>> practice can be described as the socially structured actions > > >> set > > >>> up > > >>>>> to > > >>>>>>>> produce a product or service aimed at meeting a collective > > >> human > > >>>>> need. > > >>>>>> In > > >>>>>>>> this case, collaborative, interventionist work with teachers in > > >>> ... > > >>>>>> Click > > >>>>>>>> here for a free preview and full description< > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>> > > >>> > > >> > > > http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001ZduyW2xyB1USw9R1YjQno7GI-mDLfJ6m-729UFbNgCKe6Z_p9GP7xjN9IHr0mfZ1yni-XmxHyPfAaNcVjlENvx4l8ySiyRYKHRvvg2E6WbMlf3hNShpk2qTuRRu0ZenYc1mrXxe68_BX4FXljTnHjOx91vJalGeivvaQfmQF57rpGgcDrJe9bprlVyXQwjSo0U6yk-QJ1S5miZfuS7ohswmNs3UZWGMucMgWJyU6E_J3d8QHyWjpGuBM8i2twLXGBPHkZb6hFN4pF6PT3r3M7HYvwFdzAzSfRvpCd90DvQMVDuqkf5VY3ccoD6FppEGF&c=0Y23gLfSZ1jN_yGPyItMZic7SWiIoOcRfcrQWB0JYs9lkVW149lxUQ==&ch=ioZBoxRIwDxdvg-uu6NEwI-E45lgW01U_INO86ZNyJpwbp9zcKnCIA== > > >>>>>>>>> . > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>> > > >>> > > >> > > > > > From dkellogg60@gmail.com Sat Jul 12 15:57:13 2014 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2014 07:57:13 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: book of possible interest In-Reply-To: References: <0D461088-CBBB-4BD9-ADCB-3024C36CBE81@telia.com> Message-ID: Helen: Good to hear from you at long last--I knew you were lurking out there somewhere! I didn't actually write the line about "establishing ties"--it's from "The Little Prince". The prince asks what "tame" means, and the fox replies that it means "to establish ties". But of course what I meant was that ties are established first between people and then within them; the ties of development are interfunctional ties that make up a new psychological system. (Or, for Halliday, they are the inter-systemic ties that make up new metafunctions.) As you say, Yrjo Engestrom chooses to emphasize another aspect of development with "breaking away"--he wants to stress its crisis-ridden nature. I agree with this, actually, but mostly I agree with you, that we are talking about two moments of the same process. To me, breaking away is really a precondition of the real business of establishing ties. Thomas Piketty makes a similar point in his book "Capital in the Twenty-first Century". He admits that war and revolution is the only thing that EVER counteracts the tendency of returns from capital to outstrip the growth in income, and that the 20th Century was an outlier in this respect, and the Russian revolution an extreme outlier within that outlier. But he also says that in the long run the one thing that makes UPWARD mobility possible is education. Despite everything, because of everything. I finished the book a few days ago. I guess the thing I most want to ask about is the assumption that professional development is necessary at all. Doesn't it make more sense to say that before we change what we are doing, we should understand it better? David Kellogg Hankuk University of Foreign Studies On 12 July 2014 13:20, Helen Grimmett wrote: > Ah, I think you have hit the nail on the head David. It is indeed TIME that > is so crucial - not only duration of time, but also location of time (which > I suppose is really context). > > The problems I had with Mike and his colleagues about the terminology > stemmed partly from the typical Aussie disdain for using words that might > make your mates think you are trying to appear 'better' than them, so > therefore you mock anything that sounds too serious or intellectual. But > beyond this surface level of complaining the problems Huw and you have been > discussing boil down to problems with time. > > Huw's complaint about my use of the heading "Features of > Cultural-Historical Learning Activities" is well justified - but it was > really just a shorthand written version of what I was verbally asking for > as "What might be some particular features of learning activities that > would align with principles of Cultural-Historical Theory?" That would have > taken too long to write on the top of the piece of paper - and of course > time is always too short in any after-school PD so shortcuts are inevitably > taken. (Time problem #1) > > Time problem #2, which your discussion has highlighted for me, is that of > course my question was really "What might be some particular features of > learning activities that would align with THE LIMITED NUMBER OF (AND > LIMITED UNDERSTANDING OF) principles of Cultural-Historical Theory THAT YOU > HAVE BEEN INTRODUCED TO SO FAR?" so I really should have not been so > surprised that they would find the brainstorming activity difficult and > resort to diversionary tactics! (Mike's outburst posted here by David was > not the only eventful moment I write about from this one activity. But > these apparent failures actually provided much more interesting data for me > and eventually lead me to several key findings in my thesis). I had spent > several years by this stage reading and discussing Vygotsky and yet I had > assumed/hoped the teachers would have enough understanding from my > (probably not very good) explanations ABOUT theory over the previous 3 > short sessions I had had with them to be able to contribute answers to my > brainstorm question. They had not had enough TIME to become familiar with > enough of the theory to make much sense of it yet - but still, we have to > start somewhere and this was still early days. > > Time problem #3 brings in what I called above the location of time. I had > never intended for the sessions to be me giving after-school lectures about > either theory or practice, yet this is what the teachers seemed to expect > from me (and even demand from me) and were pretty disgruntled when I > wouldn't/couldn't deliver. My intention was always to get them to engage > with the relationship between THEORY and PRACTICE, just as David's comic > book discusses the relationship between THINKING and SPEECH or EMOTION and > COGNITION. My problem of course was that once we were in an after-school > meeting we were removed in both time and space from where theory and > practice of teaching/learning operate as a relation (i.e. the classroom > activity). I was actually trying to create/use our own PLZ (Professional > Learning ZPD) as the activity in which to develop and understand this > relationship but it was initially very hard to get the teachers to > understand this (at least until we had enough of David's Fox's socially > shared experiences for the meanings to become communicable) and then even > more difficult to get them to transfer this back to developing their own > classroom teaching. Ironically, despite being the loudest complainers and > disparagers, it was Mike and Kay (the protagonist of my other eventful > moment in the brainstorming session) who actually ended up making the > biggest changes in their classroom practice. Perhaps this is not really > surprising at all - they were the ones who obviously engaged and argued > with the ideas and activities rather than simply endured them! > > My eventual answer to the problems encountered in my work with the group of > teachers was to work WITH a teacher IN her own classroom so that we had > shared experiences of the relationship between theory and practice which > could not only be discussed after the events, but also actually acted upon > there and then IN the event - creating what I called "Situated Conscious > Awareness" of both the theoretical and practical aspects of the concepts of > teaching/learning and development we were developing understanding and > practice of together. But perhaps I should wait until David gets up to this > part of the book before I say more! > > Finally, one other point that really caught my attention in your comic book > David is that your prince calls development "to establish ties" which is an > interesting difference to Engestrom's definition as "breaking away". But > perhaps, as always in CH theory, it is not a matter of either/or but in > fact both/and ideas that are necessary. From what I learned in my study, > teachers' development as professionals is definitely BOTH about breaking > away from old, routinised understandings and practices AND establishing new > connections between and amongst theoretical concepts and practices, > enabling them to continually develop new competences and motives across all > of their professional duties. > > Thanks for your interest in my book David. The discussion it has sparked > has helped me revisit ideas from new perspectives. > > Cheers, > Helen > > > > > > > > > > > Dr Helen Grimmett > Lecturer, Student Adviser, > Faculty of Education, > Room G64F, Building 902 > Monash University, Berwick campus > Phone: 9904 7171 > > *New Book: * > The Practice of Teachers' Professional Development: A Cultural-Historical > Approach > < > https://www.sensepublishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/professional-learning-1/the-practice-of-teachers-professional-development/ > > > Helen Grimmett (2014) Sense Publishers > > > > < > http://monash.edu.au/education/news/50-years/?utm_source=staff-email&utm_medium=email-signature&utm_campaign=50th > > > > > On 12 July 2014 07:29, David Kellogg wrote: > > > Plekhanov distinguishes between "agitators" and "propagandists". > Agitators > > are essentially popularizers; they have the job of ripping away a subset > of > > smaller and simpler ideas from a fabric of much larger and more complex > > theory and then disseminating them amongst the largest possible number of > > people. In other words, their focus is exoteric. Propagandists are > > essentially conspiratorial: they have the job of initiating a small > number > > of the elect and educating them in the whole theoretical system--as Larry > > would say, the full Bildung. In other words, their focus is esoteric. As > > you can see, Plekhanov was good at making distinctions, and not so good > at > > showing how things are linked. For Helena, who is a labor educator, you > > can't really be an effective agitator unless you are also a propagandist. > > You need to present your exoteric extracts in such a way that they are, > to > > borrow Larry's phrase, both necessary and sufficient to lead people on to > > the esoterica. I'm with Helena--and with Bruner--with children it's > always > > possible to tell the truth, part of the truth, but nothing but the truth, > > and if we can do it with kids, why not do it with adults? > > > > (I am less sure about what it means to say that the objectively human is > > the "subjectively historical"--it sounds like history is being reified > as a > > subject, that is, as a living, breathing, acting "World Spirit" that can > > have a mind and reflect upon itself. My understanding of history is > > that just as we cannot have the advanced form of historical consciousness > > in dialogue with the more primitive forms, the opportunity to reflect > upon > > the whole process when it is all over is simply never going to be > available > > to anyone. The Merleau-Ponty quotation is beautiful and intensely > > poetic, Larry--but when I look at a bubble or a wave, I do not simply see > > chaos; I see past bubbles and past waves, and potential bubbles and > > potential waves. Isn't that a part of the experience of "loving history" > as > > well?) > > > > My wife wrote a wonderful Ph.D. thesis about how any work of literature > can > > be looked at on four time frames: phylogenetic (the history of a genre), > > ontogenetic (the biography of a career), logogenetic (the development of > a > > plot or a character), and microgenetic (the unfolding of a dialogue, or a > > paragraph). Her supervisor complained about the terminology in somewhat > > more elegant terms than Mike does in Helen's data:and suggested that she > > should replace the terms with "history", "biography", "development" and > > "unfolding", to make it more exoteric. > > > > I think that if she had done that, it would have made the thesis into > > agitation rather than education. Yes, the terms would have been more > > familiar, and they might even, given other context, be taken to mean the > > same thing. But what we would have gotten is good, clear distinctions > > ("history" on the one hand and "biography" on the other) and what we > would > > have lost is the linkedness of one time frame to another--the way in > which > > the phylogenesis of genre produces the mature genre which is used in an > > author's ontegenesis, and the way in which the author's ontogenesis > > produces the starting point and the raw materials for the logogenetic > > development of a work, not to mention the way in which logogenesis is > > reflected in the microgenetic unfolding of dialogue. > > > > So I think that when Helena writes that anything can be explained to > anyone > > in language that is everyday and simple and in a way that is > understandable > > and at least part of the whole truth, I agree somewhat enviously (you > see, > > Helena is a labor educator, but I teach TESOL, which is really the > process > > of taking a few very simple and exoteric ideas that good teachers already > > have and disseminating the select to the elect for vast sums of money). > But > > I have to add a rider--when we popularize richly woven fabrics of ideas > > like cultural historical theory we are not simply juggling vocabulary. I > > think that Helena recognizes this perfectly when she says that it takes > > TIME to be simple and clear. If it were simply a matter of replacing > > "cultural historical" with "community of learners" it would actually take > > less time, but it isn't and it doesn't. > > > > It is very hot in Seoul today, and somewhere out there a toddler is > arguing > > with a parent because he wants watermelon with breakfast. The parent > > resists, because if you eat cold watermelon on an empty stomach you get a > > tummy-ache. The argument grows heated and long--and complex, but the > > complexity is of a particular kind, with very short, repeated, > insistancies > > from the child and somewhat longer more complex remonstrations from the > > parent. We can call this complex discourse but simple grammar. A few > years > > will go by and we will find that the school child has mastered the trick > of > > long and complex remonstrations and can use them pre-emptively to win > > arguments. We can call this complex grammar, but simple vocabulary. Only > > when a decade or two has elapsed will we find that child, now adult, can > > use the language of science, which is for the most part grammatically > > simple (at least compared to the pre-emptive remonstrations of the school > > child), but full of very complex vocabulary (e.g. "phylogeny anticipates > > ontogeny", or "cultural-historical activity theory enables communities of > > learners"). > > > > It's Saturday today, and in a few minutes I have to leave for the weekly > > meeting of our translation group, which produces mighty tomes which we > > produce to popularize the works of Vygotsky amongst militant teachers > here > > in Korea (our version of "Thinking and Speech" is seven hundred pages > long > > because of all the explanatory notes and boxes with helpful pictures). On > > the other hand, there is the attached comic book version of the first > > chapter of "Thinking and Speech" which I wrote a couple of years ago for > > some graduate students who were having trouble talking about the real > > "Thinking and Speech" in class. > > > > I think you can see that Huw's complaint is justified--the comic > > book dialogue is "about" Thinking and Speech, but it is not "Thinking and > > Speech" at all, in the same way that "community of learners" or > "biography" > > is ABOUT cultural historical theory or ontogenesis. And I think that part > > of the problem (but only part of it) is that the comic book is just too > > short. > > > > David Kellogg > > Hankuk University of Foreign Studies > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2014-07-11 17:09 GMT+09:00 Leif Strandberg >: > > > > > > > > 11 jul 2014 kl. 06:41 skrev Larry Purss : > > > > > > > David, > > > > I have been following your reflections through this thread. > > > > You commented: > > > > > > > > So it's almost always more useful for me to > > > > think of learning phenomena as NOT reducible to the physical, at > least > > > not > > > > in their unit of analysis > > > > > > > > I have been reflecting on the notion of *bildung* as learning. > > > > The notion of *cultivation* and *disposition* and *comportment* as > the > > > > potential of learning. > > > > I came across this quote from Gramsci who was questioning the notion > of > > > > *laws* as the basis for making social predictions. Such *laws* > excluded > > > the > > > > subjective factor from history. > > > > Gramsci wrote on social process: "Objective always means 'humanly > > > > objective' which can be held to correspond exactly to 'historically > > > > subjective' " > > > > > > > > Merleau-Ponty also explored what I refer to as *disposition* with > this > > > > quote on the reality of history: > > > > History "awakens us to the importance of daily events and action. For > > it > > > is > > > > a philosophy [of history -LP] which arouses in us a love for our > times > > > > which are not the simple repetition of human eternity nor merely the > > > > conclusion of premises already postulated. It is a view that like the > > > most > > > > fragile object of perception - a soap bubble, or a wave - or like the > > > most > > > > simple dialogue, embraces indivisibly all the order and all the > > disorder > > > of > > > > the world." > > > > > > > > I read these passages from Gramsci and M-P as a way of exploring > > > > *comportment* or *disposition* that is *learned*. [bildung??] There > is > > > no > > > > necessary or sufficient standpoint for interpreting this inherently > > > > heterogeneous process. However we may potentially learn various > > > > *approaches* or *ways* of being-in-the-world through learning > > processes. > > > > The notion of *bildung* is a way to reflect on this learning process > > > > Larry > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 3:54 PM, Huw Lloyd < > huw.softdesigns@gmail.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > >> On 10 July 2014 22:33, David Kellogg wrote: > > > >> > > > >>> Huw: > > > >>> > > > >>> Is learning material? In what sense? At what point? > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >> Historically, with Marx. :) > > > >> > > > >> The rest of your formations are subsumed by Baldwin's 1st and 2nd > > > axioms of > > > >> genetic logic. :) > > > >> > > > >> As someone experienced with computation and computational > processes, I > > > do > > > >> find it quite straightfoward to think of memories as material > > > impressions. > > > >> Cached values or lazy evaluation -- it's quite straightforward... > Not > > > >> rubbish, not garbage, but Babbage! > > > >> > > > >> Best, > > > >> Huw > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >>> > > > >>> I guess I think of it this way. All phenomena in the universe are > > > >> physical, > > > >>> but only in the final analysis. When my father (who is a retired > but > > > >>> unrepentant solar physicist) studies these phenomena he uses > various > > > >> units > > > >>> of analysis (my father likes to think big, so his usual unit of > > > analysis > > > >> is > > > >>> a solar emission many times larger than the earth, but sometimes, > > > >> depending > > > >>> on the problem, he will condescend to think about smaller particles > > > like > > > >>> atomic nuclei). Some of these physical phenomena, when they cool > > down a > > > >>> little, are chemical as well, and because these phenomena are > > chemical > > > as > > > >>> well as physical, the unit of analysis that is proper to them is > the > > > >>> molecule and its motions, and not simply the particle (Dad doesn't > > care > > > >>> about these phenomena; he likes his physics hot). > > > >>> > > > >>> Some of these chemical phenomena are biological as well, and here > > once > > > >>> again the unit of analysis has to change (e.g. to the cell) in > order > > to > > > >>> take into account the new properties which come into being at this > > > scale. > > > >>> Some biological phenomena are cultural-historical in turn, and here > > too > > > >> we > > > >>> must change the unit of analysis in order not to lose essential > > > >> information > > > >>> that is created with higher levels of organization and > complexity.Of > > > >>> course, these cultural historical phenomena are all reducible to > > > >> biological > > > >>> phenomena, and therefore reducible to chemical and physical > > phenomena, > > > >> but > > > >>> only in the final analysis. Hey, in the final analysis, as Carolyn > > > Porco > > > >>> says, we all get reduced to physical phenomena when the sun > explodes > > > and > > > >>> blows the particles that were once our bodies out into space, to > > enjoy > > > >>> eternal life...but only as physical phenomena. > > > >>> > > > >>> In the meantime, if we want to understand cultural-historical > > phenomena > > > >> as > > > >>> such, we have to confront their higher levels of organization and > > > >>> complexity.The cultural historical phenomena that I am most > > interested > > > in > > > >>> turn out to have another subset of phenomena which Halliday calls > > > >>> semiotic--that is, they are sociologically cultural-historical > > > phenomena > > > >>> that stand, even if only for a fleeting instant, > > > >>> for psychologically cultural-historical phenomena. These phenomena > > are > > > >>> material too (that is, they are biological, chemical, and even > > > >>> physical), for the way things stand for other things is ultimately > > > >>> reducible to a thing: words are, in the final analysis, "made of > > living > > > >>> breath", as Shakespeare says, or "layers of moving air" if you > prefer > > > >>> Engels. > > > >>> > > > >>> But only in the final analysis. In the interim, too much > information > > is > > > >>> lost when we reduce these semiotic phenomena to physical, material, > > > >>> things (for example, when my students try to model learner > > > comprehension > > > >>> problems as pure phonetic discrimination without taking into > account > > > the > > > >>> layer of wording or meaning). So it's almost always more useful for > > me > > > to > > > >>> think of learning phenomena as NOT reducible to the physical, at > > least > > > >> not > > > >>> in their unit of analysis. Actually, it seems to me that the > > > >>> general "cultural-historical" level of analysis is if anything a > step > > > >>> closer to biology or chemistry or physics than the subset of > cultural > > > >>> historical phenomena that I mean when I refer to learning, because > to > > > me > > > >>> learning is microgenetic, that is, POTENTIALLY ontogenetic, which > is > > in > > > >>> turn POTENTIALLY sociogenetic, which (to me) is the general level > of > > > >>> analysis we mean when we talk about cultural historical phenomena. > So > > > the > > > >>> real answer to Mike's colorful complaint about handles is not > > > "Community > > > >> of > > > >>> Learners" but actually "physico-chemico-bio-socio-semiotic learning > > > >>> activities". > > > >>> > > > >>> Time for that quantum physical cup of coffee you were talking > > about.... > > > >>> > > > >>> David Kellogg > > > >>> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> On 10 July 2014 08:53, Huw Lloyd > wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>>> David, > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Just to be clear, the error I was referring to was the attribution > > of > > > a > > > >>>> theory (as an adjective) to the material thing (learning). It > would > > > be > > > >>>> like saying, I am going to make a Newtonian cup of coffee in the > > > >> morning > > > >>>> and a quantum mechanical cup of coffee in the afternoon. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> I suppose colourful language serves the purpose of deliberate > > > >> vagueness. > > > >>>> It's hard to be trendy and have a precise point. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> I fear we are soon approaching the "teach yourself activity theory > > for > > > >>>> dummies" book someday soon. From my understanding, the theory > > itself > > > >>>> repudiates such a thing -- one cannot spoon feed theory -- but I > > don't > > > >>>> think that will stop folk trying. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> I see no problem (or contradiction) in top down approaches. > > Solving a > > > >>>> problem in general is a powerful approach to many problems. For > > many > > > >>>> problems the concrete details are amenable to design and > > > configuration, > > > >>> one > > > >>>> can often choose tools to suit the proposed solution rather than > > > >>>> vice-versa. But from an educational perspective, I see no > > > alternative > > > >>>> than starting with the individual, ofcourse one can have general > > > >>> strategies > > > >>>> in doing so -- waiting to be asked before giving an explanation > etc. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Nice chatting. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Best, > > > >>>> Huw > > > >>>> > > > >>>> On 9 July 2014 22:46, David Kellogg wrote: > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> Huw: > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Helen has written a remarkable, important book. I gather it's > part > > of > > > >>> her > > > >>>>> Ph.D. thesis, but it doesn't really read like a Ph.D. thesis. It > > > >> reads > > > >>>> like > > > >>>>> a teacher-trainer (or "professional development consultant", or > > > >>> whatever > > > >>>> we > > > >>>>> are supposed to call them) with a problem who eventually, with a > > > >> little > > > >>>>> help from the classics of cultural historical psychology and a > lot > > of > > > >>>> help > > > >>>>> from a co-teacher (who has a somewhat bookish, inert but > > nevertheless > > > >>>>> respectful and open acquaintance with those classics) achieves a > > very > > > >>>> open > > > >>>>> but nevertheless very workable solution. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> So the bit I quoted represents the problem, or rather, two > > problems. > > > >> On > > > >>>> the > > > >>>>> one hand, Helen is trying to do something new: she wants to bring > > new > > > >>>> CHAT > > > >>>>> concepts to bear on extant classroom activities and modify them > in > > > >> ways > > > >>>>> that she is confident will work. On the other, Helen is working > > with > > > >>> some > > > >>>>> pretty experienced (and even somewhat brutalized) teachers: they > > have > > > >>>> seen > > > >>>>> "Professional Development" fads come and go, collected their free > > > >>> lunches > > > >>>>> and go on doing things the old way. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Helen achieves her solution from the bottom up. Eventually, she > > does > > > >>>> find a > > > >>>>> teacher who can teacher her a lot and who, even though Helen > > herself > > > >>>>> is uniquely gifted, with not only the theoretical background we > all > > > >>>> share, > > > >>>>> but also considerable first hand experience as a teacher and a > > > >> parent, > > > >>>> can > > > >>>>> nevertheless be taught in turn. But as you can see from the > > extract, > > > >>>> she's > > > >>>>> extremely open, even to savage, unfair, and somewhat obtuse > > > >> criticisms. > > > >>>>> Mike's critique of "cultural historical" is not that it is an > > > >>>>> epistemological error or a typological one, or that it puts the > > > >> product > > > >>>>> "culture" before the process "history". It's not even that it > > > >> suggests > > > >>>> that > > > >>>>> on the odd day Piagetian activities might be taking place, which, > > by > > > >>> the > > > >>>>> way, is probably true, since these teachers were mostly trained > > > >> during > > > >>>> the > > > >>>>> "reign" of Piaget in the sixties and seventies. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> No, Mike's complaint is really, if you will pardon the > expression, > > a > > > >>> wank > > > >>>>> of a complaint. He is just complaining that the name is uncool; > it > > > >>>> doesn't > > > >>>>> sound like the popular teachers would like it; the name won't go > > with > > > >>> an > > > >>>>> embossed moose like "Abercrombie and Fitch" or "community of > > > >>>>> learners" does. I think we have to accept that responsive, > > sensitive > > > >>>>> teachers inevitably end up internalizing some of the worst > aspects > > of > > > >>>>> adolescent thinking, and this is an example. I might even say > it's > > a > > > >>>>> bullshit complaint. It's crap, etc. (But this is one of those > > > >>>>> language situations where redundancy does not suggest > development.) > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> I guess if I encountered a bullshit complaint like that I would > > > >>> complain > > > >>>> a > > > >>>>> little about "community of learners". I think that "community of > > > >>>>> learners" is essentially a way of saying "socio-psychological": > > it's > > > >>>>> relevant to everyday teaching, but it doesn't tell us much about > > how > > > >>> the > > > >>>>> "socio" got there, whereas "cultural-historical" does. I might > even > > > >> ask > > > >>>> if > > > >>>>> Mike is going to try to teach physics, chemistry, biology, or > > history > > > >>> to > > > >>>>> kids without some way of saying "physico-chemical" or > > > >>>> "chemico-biological", > > > >>>>> or "biologico-social". If not, then I don't see anything wrong > with > > > >>>>> teaching language, including the language of teaching, as > something > > > >>>>> "socio-semiotic" or "historico-cultural". But then, I never was > one > > > >> of > > > >>>> the > > > >>>>> cool kids. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> My problem is this. I too would like to write a book now. I have > > two > > > >> in > > > >>>>> mind, and they are both practical books about teacher training, > > > >>>>> similar in their targets to Helen's book, which is why I am > > studying > > > >> it > > > >>>>> carefully. But I find that the books that I have in mind are > really > > > >>>> "about > > > >>>>> something" in a way that Helen's book is not. I don't mean that > > > >> Helen's > > > >>>>> book has no object of study: like the title says, the object of > > study > > > >>> is > > > >>>>> teacher development. What I mean is that the teaching has no > clear > > > >>> object > > > >>>>> of teaching: it's not specifically about teaching math or > literacy > > or > > > >>>>> anything else but about teaching in general. The books I have in > > mind > > > >>> are > > > >>>>> really about teaching literacy (I think I want to try to teach > > > >> WRITING > > > >>>>> before READING) and teaching science (I think I want to try a > > "hands > > > >>> off" > > > >>>>> approach that emphasizes word meanings instead of laboratory > > > >>>> experiments). > > > >>>>> And I am finding that I when I do this the result is not at all > the > > > >>> kind > > > >>>> of > > > >>>>> "bottom up" thing that Helen does; it's very top down. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> David Kellogg > > > >>>>> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> On 9 July 2014 07:33, Huw Lloyd > wrote: > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> Colourful. The complaint seems perfectly valid though: a > > > >>> typological > > > >>>>> and > > > >>>>>> epistemological error all in one conflated term. It suggests > that > > > >> on > > > >>>> the > > > >>>>>> odd hours of the day there are Piagetian activities taking > place. > > > >>> Was > > > >>>>> this > > > >>>>>> part of the point of the chapter? > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> Best, > > > >>>>>> Huw > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> On 8 July 2014 21:40, David Kellogg > wrote: > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> I'm actually in the middle of Chapter Three right now. What I > can > > > >>>> tell > > > >>>>>> you > > > >>>>>>> is that Helen's first two chapters are a kind of "Who's Who" at > > > >>> xmca, > > > >>>>>> with > > > >>>>>>> Helen reading the great classics (in the wrong order) and > talking > > > >>> to > > > >>>>>> Andy, > > > >>>>>>> Greg, and others on this list. But beyond the litte shout-outs > to > > > >>>> xmca, > > > >>>>>> in > > > >>>>>>> Chapter Three, you find interesting problems like this. Helen > is > > > >>>>> setting > > > >>>>>> up > > > >>>>>>> a "Professional Learning ZPD". This an acronymy within an > acronym > > > >>> (an > > > >>>>>>> "acro-acronym-nym", like the group I used to belong to in New > > > >> York > > > >>>> and > > > >>>>>>> Paris, called "ACT-UP"), and in general Helen seems to have > some > > > >>>>> trouble > > > >>>>>>> with names. On pp. 58-59, she writes. > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> "In PLZ 4 I wrote the title 'Features of cultural Historical > > > >>> Learning > > > >>>>>>> Activities' across a piece of butcher's paper and asked the > grou > > > >> to > > > >>>>>>> brainstorm features of activities that would be consistent with > > > >>>>> cultural > > > >>>>>>> historical theory. After a few suggestions, Mike suddenly > > > >>> interrupted > > > >>>>>> with: > > > >>>>>>> MIKE: Can I ask, Helen, why such a wank of a name? > > > >>>>>>> HELEN: Cultural-historical? > > > >>>>>>> MIKE: Yeah, what a bullshit name. > > > >>>>>>> DEB: What should it be Mike? > > > >>>>>>> MIKE: What does it mean to anyone? Is that relevant to anyone > > > >> that > > > >>>>>>> name? Cultural-historical learning. What does that mean? > > > >>>>>>> HELEN: Well.... > > > >>>>>>> MIKE: It's crap. > > > >>>>>>> HELEN: Well, I don't think that you, that's the name of teh > > > >> theoyr, > > > >>>>>>> Cultural historical theory, but I think in terms of schools > using > > > >>> teh > > > >>>>>>> theory they talk about Communities of Learners. > > > >>>>>>> MIKE: Yeah, but why don't they call it that? > > > >>>>>>> HELEN: OK, so (I start crossing out "cultural historical" and > > > >>>> changing > > > >>>>> it > > > >>>>>>> to "Communities of Learners") > > > >>>>>>> MIKE: That name is like calliing the ultra net site for > teachers > > > >>>>> 'design > > > >>>>>>> space'. It has no relevance to the name whatsoever, and to use > > > >>>>>> it--features > > > >>>>>>> of cultural historical learning--sounds like a load of crap. It > > > >>>>>>> doesn't have any relevance ot what it means. If you said to me > > > >>>> cultural > > > >>>>>>> historical learning, I go .... > > > >>>>>>> BETH: I actually thought it meant talking about he past > (general > > > >>>>>>> agreement). > > > >>>>>>> MIKE: That's what it implies, the past and how you used to > teach. > > > >>>>>>> HELEN: I suppose I'm just trying to familiarize you with the > term > > > >>>>>> (general > > > >>>>>>> agreement) > > > >>>>>>> MIKE: If you call it community of learners then it's something > > > >>> that's > > > >>>>>>> relevant." > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> Helen then makes the (cultural-historical) point that words > have > > > >> a > > > >>>>>> history, > > > >>>>>>> but they are not necessarily YOUR history--for Helen, "cultural > > > >>>>>> historical" > > > >>>>>>> calls up a whole series of quite precise concepts, while > > > >> "Community > > > >>>> of > > > >>>>>>> Learners" is kind of vague and undefined. But for the teachers > > > >> (who > > > >>>>> are, > > > >>>>>> I > > > >>>>>>> must say, not exactly reticent about sharing, and do not limit > > > >>>>> themselves > > > >>>>>>> to sharing their expertise) what you get is old times. > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> It's funny that they ignore the word culture. I always thought > > > >> that > > > >>>>>>> "cultural historical" is a little bit of the cart before the > > > >>>> horse.... > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> David Kellogg > > > >>>>>>> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> On 8 July 2014 21:40, Peter Smagorinsky wrote: > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> The Practice of Teachers' Professional Development > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> A Cultural-Historical Approach > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> Helen Grimmett (Monash University, Australia) > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> This book uses Vygotsky's cultural-historical theory to > > > >> provide a > > > >>>>>> unique > > > >>>>>>>> theorisation of teachers' professional development as a > > > >>> practice. A > > > >>>>>>>> practice can be described as the socially structured actions > > > >> set > > > >>> up > > > >>>>> to > > > >>>>>>>> produce a product or service aimed at meeting a collective > > > >> human > > > >>>>> need. > > > >>>>>> In > > > >>>>>>>> this case, collaborative, interventionist work with teachers > in > > > >>> ... > > > >>>>>> Click > > > >>>>>>>> here for a free preview and full description< > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001ZduyW2xyB1USw9R1YjQno7GI-mDLfJ6m-729UFbNgCKe6Z_p9GP7xjN9IHr0mfZ1yni-XmxHyPfAaNcVjlENvx4l8ySiyRYKHRvvg2E6WbMlf3hNShpk2qTuRRu0ZenYc1mrXxe68_BX4FXljTnHjOx91vJalGeivvaQfmQF57rpGgcDrJe9bprlVyXQwjSo0U6yk-QJ1S5miZfuS7ohswmNs3UZWGMucMgWJyU6E_J3d8QHyWjpGuBM8i2twLXGBPHkZb6hFN4pF6PT3r3M7HYvwFdzAzSfRvpCd90DvQMVDuqkf5VY3ccoD6FppEGF&c=0Y23gLfSZ1jN_yGPyItMZic7SWiIoOcRfcrQWB0JYs9lkVW149lxUQ==&ch=ioZBoxRIwDxdvg-uu6NEwI-E45lgW01U_INO86ZNyJpwbp9zcKnCIA== > > > >>>>>>>>> . > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > From helen.grimmett@monash.edu Sat Jul 12 18:59:20 2014 From: helen.grimmett@monash.edu (Helen Grimmett) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2014 11:59:20 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: book of possible interest In-Reply-To: References: <0D461088-CBBB-4BD9-ADCB-3024C36CBE81@telia.com> Message-ID: Hi David, Interesting question. I absolutely think that development AS a professional is necessary, just as development as a human is necessary, so if professional development is seen as the practice in which this development is produced then absolutely I do think it is necessary. The form that this practice takes though, and indeed the form of the development that is produced within this practice, are the things open to question however. I definitely think that a teacher's development as a professional includes the need to understand their practice better rather than just change it, but I think that understanding often develops best in/alongside/with the process of changing (and vice versa) rather than separately from it, and, as you point out above, in establishing ties *between* people and then within them. So a practice of professional development that creates conditions which support this type of development will (I believe) be much more effective than traditional forms of PD that either attempt to lecture about theoretical principles but do not support teachers to transfer these into practical changes, OR provide teachers with practical programs and expect them to implement them without any understanding of what and why the changes matter. I think the term "Professional Development" is an absolute misnomer for either of those typical approaches. So again, I have a problem with names! I'm talking about Professional Development with a completely different meaning than what most of the education community believe it to mean when they talk about attending PD seminars or workshops. I toyed with trying to find a different name for the particular meaning I'm talking about, but when you are talking about development from a cultural-historical theoretical perspective then there really is no other word to use! That's why I stuck to using 'professional development' (in full) when I meant my meaning, and PD (which is what teachers in Australia commonly refer to seminars and workshops as) when I refer to the typical (and in my view, usually non-developmental) forms of activities that teachers are subjected to each year. So, I agree that the need for PD is questionable, but the need for practices of professional development that help teachers to develop as professionals (that is, to develop a unified understanding of both the theoretical and practical aspects of their work, which is itself continually developing in order to meet the changing needs of their students, schools and society) is essential. While I think co-teaching is one practical small-scale solution, working out viable, economical, and manageable ways to create these practices on a large-scale is a very large problem. Cheers, Helen Dr Helen Grimmett Lecturer, Student Adviser, Faculty of Education, Room G64F, Building 902 Monash University, Berwick campus Phone: 9904 7171 *New Book: * The Practice of Teachers' Professional Development: A Cultural-Historical Approach Helen Grimmett (2014) Sense Publishers On 13 July 2014 08:57, David Kellogg wrote: > Helen: > > Good to hear from you at long last--I knew you were lurking out there > somewhere! > > I didn't actually write the line about "establishing ties"--it's from "The > Little Prince". The prince asks what "tame" means, and the fox replies that > it means "to establish ties". But of course what I meant was that ties are > established first between people and then within them; the ties of > development are interfunctional ties that make up a new psychological > system. (Or, for Halliday, they are the inter-systemic ties that make up > new metafunctions.) > > As you say, Yrjo Engestrom chooses to emphasize another aspect of > development with "breaking away"--he wants to stress its crisis-ridden > nature. I agree with this, actually, but mostly I agree with you, that we > are talking about two moments of the same process. To me, breaking away is > really a precondition of the real business of establishing ties. > > Thomas Piketty makes a similar point in his book "Capital in the > Twenty-first Century". He admits that war and revolution is the only thing > that EVER counteracts the tendency of returns from capital to outstrip the > growth in income, and that the 20th Century was an outlier in this respect, > and the Russian revolution an extreme outlier within that outlier. But he > also says that in the long run the one thing that makes UPWARD mobility > possible is education. Despite everything, because of everything. > > I finished the book a few days ago. I guess the thing I most want to ask > about is the assumption that professional development is necessary at all. > Doesn't it make more sense to say that before we change what we are doing, > we should understand it better? > > David Kellogg > Hankuk University of Foreign Studies > > > On 12 July 2014 13:20, Helen Grimmett wrote: > > > Ah, I think you have hit the nail on the head David. It is indeed TIME > that > > is so crucial - not only duration of time, but also location of time > (which > > I suppose is really context). > > > > The problems I had with Mike and his colleagues about the terminology > > stemmed partly from the typical Aussie disdain for using words that might > > make your mates think you are trying to appear 'better' than them, so > > therefore you mock anything that sounds too serious or intellectual. But > > beyond this surface level of complaining the problems Huw and you have > been > > discussing boil down to problems with time. > > > > Huw's complaint about my use of the heading "Features of > > Cultural-Historical Learning Activities" is well justified - but it was > > really just a shorthand written version of what I was verbally asking for > > as "What might be some particular features of learning activities that > > would align with principles of Cultural-Historical Theory?" That would > have > > taken too long to write on the top of the piece of paper - and of course > > time is always too short in any after-school PD so shortcuts are > inevitably > > taken. (Time problem #1) > > > > Time problem #2, which your discussion has highlighted for me, is that of > > course my question was really "What might be some particular features of > > learning activities that would align with THE LIMITED NUMBER OF (AND > > LIMITED UNDERSTANDING OF) principles of Cultural-Historical Theory THAT > YOU > > HAVE BEEN INTRODUCED TO SO FAR?" so I really should have not been so > > surprised that they would find the brainstorming activity difficult and > > resort to diversionary tactics! (Mike's outburst posted here by David was > > not the only eventful moment I write about from this one activity. But > > these apparent failures actually provided much more interesting data for > me > > and eventually lead me to several key findings in my thesis). I had spent > > several years by this stage reading and discussing Vygotsky and yet I had > > assumed/hoped the teachers would have enough understanding from my > > (probably not very good) explanations ABOUT theory over the previous 3 > > short sessions I had had with them to be able to contribute answers to my > > brainstorm question. They had not had enough TIME to become familiar with > > enough of the theory to make much sense of it yet - but still, we have to > > start somewhere and this was still early days. > > > > Time problem #3 brings in what I called above the location of time. I had > > never intended for the sessions to be me giving after-school lectures > about > > either theory or practice, yet this is what the teachers seemed to expect > > from me (and even demand from me) and were pretty disgruntled when I > > wouldn't/couldn't deliver. My intention was always to get them to engage > > with the relationship between THEORY and PRACTICE, just as David's comic > > book discusses the relationship between THINKING and SPEECH or EMOTION > and > > COGNITION. My problem of course was that once we were in an after-school > > meeting we were removed in both time and space from where theory and > > practice of teaching/learning operate as a relation (i.e. the classroom > > activity). I was actually trying to create/use our own PLZ (Professional > > Learning ZPD) as the activity in which to develop and understand this > > relationship but it was initially very hard to get the teachers to > > understand this (at least until we had enough of David's Fox's socially > > shared experiences for the meanings to become communicable) and then even > > more difficult to get them to transfer this back to developing their own > > classroom teaching. Ironically, despite being the loudest complainers and > > disparagers, it was Mike and Kay (the protagonist of my other eventful > > moment in the brainstorming session) who actually ended up making the > > biggest changes in their classroom practice. Perhaps this is not really > > surprising at all - they were the ones who obviously engaged and argued > > with the ideas and activities rather than simply endured them! > > > > My eventual answer to the problems encountered in my work with the group > of > > teachers was to work WITH a teacher IN her own classroom so that we had > > shared experiences of the relationship between theory and practice which > > could not only be discussed after the events, but also actually acted > upon > > there and then IN the event - creating what I called "Situated Conscious > > Awareness" of both the theoretical and practical aspects of the concepts > of > > teaching/learning and development we were developing understanding and > > practice of together. But perhaps I should wait until David gets up to > this > > part of the book before I say more! > > > > Finally, one other point that really caught my attention in your comic > book > > David is that your prince calls development "to establish ties" which is > an > > interesting difference to Engestrom's definition as "breaking away". But > > perhaps, as always in CH theory, it is not a matter of either/or but in > > fact both/and ideas that are necessary. From what I learned in my study, > > teachers' development as professionals is definitely BOTH about breaking > > away from old, routinised understandings and practices AND establishing > new > > connections between and amongst theoretical concepts and practices, > > enabling them to continually develop new competences and motives across > all > > of their professional duties. > > > > Thanks for your interest in my book David. The discussion it has sparked > > has helped me revisit ideas from new perspectives. > > > > Cheers, > > Helen > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dr Helen Grimmett > > Lecturer, Student Adviser, > > Faculty of Education, > > Room G64F, Building 902 > > Monash University, Berwick campus > > Phone: 9904 7171 > > > > *New Book: * > > The Practice of Teachers' Professional Development: A Cultural-Historical > > Approach > > < > > > https://www.sensepublishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/professional-learning-1/the-practice-of-teachers-professional-development/ > > > > > Helen Grimmett (2014) Sense Publishers > > > > > > > > < > > > http://monash.edu.au/education/news/50-years/?utm_source=staff-email&utm_medium=email-signature&utm_campaign=50th > > > > > > > > > On 12 July 2014 07:29, David Kellogg wrote: > > > > > Plekhanov distinguishes between "agitators" and "propagandists". > > Agitators > > > are essentially popularizers; they have the job of ripping away a > subset > > of > > > smaller and simpler ideas from a fabric of much larger and more complex > > > theory and then disseminating them amongst the largest possible number > of > > > people. In other words, their focus is exoteric. Propagandists are > > > essentially conspiratorial: they have the job of initiating a small > > number > > > of the elect and educating them in the whole theoretical system--as > Larry > > > would say, the full Bildung. In other words, their focus is esoteric. > As > > > you can see, Plekhanov was good at making distinctions, and not so good > > at > > > showing how things are linked. For Helena, who is a labor educator, > you > > > can't really be an effective agitator unless you are also a > propagandist. > > > You need to present your exoteric extracts in such a way that they are, > > to > > > borrow Larry's phrase, both necessary and sufficient to lead people on > to > > > the esoterica. I'm with Helena--and with Bruner--with children it's > > always > > > possible to tell the truth, part of the truth, but nothing but the > truth, > > > and if we can do it with kids, why not do it with adults? > > > > > > (I am less sure about what it means to say that the objectively human > is > > > the "subjectively historical"--it sounds like history is being reified > > as a > > > subject, that is, as a living, breathing, acting "World Spirit" that > can > > > have a mind and reflect upon itself. My understanding of history is > > > that just as we cannot have the advanced form of historical > consciousness > > > in dialogue with the more primitive forms, the opportunity to reflect > > upon > > > the whole process when it is all over is simply never going to be > > available > > > to anyone. The Merleau-Ponty quotation is beautiful and intensely > > > poetic, Larry--but when I look at a bubble or a wave, I do not simply > see > > > chaos; I see past bubbles and past waves, and potential bubbles and > > > potential waves. Isn't that a part of the experience of "loving > history" > > as > > > well?) > > > > > > My wife wrote a wonderful Ph.D. thesis about how any work of literature > > can > > > be looked at on four time frames: phylogenetic (the history of a > genre), > > > ontogenetic (the biography of a career), logogenetic (the development > of > > a > > > plot or a character), and microgenetic (the unfolding of a dialogue, > or a > > > paragraph). Her supervisor complained about the terminology in somewhat > > > more elegant terms than Mike does in Helen's data:and suggested that > she > > > should replace the terms with "history", "biography", "development" and > > > "unfolding", to make it more exoteric. > > > > > > I think that if she had done that, it would have made the thesis into > > > agitation rather than education. Yes, the terms would have been more > > > familiar, and they might even, given other context, be taken to mean > the > > > same thing. But what we would have gotten is good, clear distinctions > > > ("history" on the one hand and "biography" on the other) and what we > > would > > > have lost is the linkedness of one time frame to another--the way in > > which > > > the phylogenesis of genre produces the mature genre which is used in an > > > author's ontegenesis, and the way in which the author's ontogenesis > > > produces the starting point and the raw materials for the logogenetic > > > development of a work, not to mention the way in which logogenesis is > > > reflected in the microgenetic unfolding of dialogue. > > > > > > So I think that when Helena writes that anything can be explained to > > anyone > > > in language that is everyday and simple and in a way that is > > understandable > > > and at least part of the whole truth, I agree somewhat enviously (you > > see, > > > Helena is a labor educator, but I teach TESOL, which is really the > > process > > > of taking a few very simple and exoteric ideas that good teachers > already > > > have and disseminating the select to the elect for vast sums of money). > > But > > > I have to add a rider--when we popularize richly woven fabrics of ideas > > > like cultural historical theory we are not simply juggling vocabulary. > I > > > think that Helena recognizes this perfectly when she says that it takes > > > TIME to be simple and clear. If it were simply a matter of replacing > > > "cultural historical" with "community of learners" it would actually > take > > > less time, but it isn't and it doesn't. > > > > > > It is very hot in Seoul today, and somewhere out there a toddler is > > arguing > > > with a parent because he wants watermelon with breakfast. The parent > > > resists, because if you eat cold watermelon on an empty stomach you > get a > > > tummy-ache. The argument grows heated and long--and complex, but the > > > complexity is of a particular kind, with very short, repeated, > > insistancies > > > from the child and somewhat longer more complex remonstrations from the > > > parent. We can call this complex discourse but simple grammar. A few > > years > > > will go by and we will find that the school child has mastered the > trick > > of > > > long and complex remonstrations and can use them pre-emptively to win > > > arguments. We can call this complex grammar, but simple vocabulary. > Only > > > when a decade or two has elapsed will we find that child, now adult, > can > > > use the language of science, which is for the most part grammatically > > > simple (at least compared to the pre-emptive remonstrations of the > school > > > child), but full of very complex vocabulary (e.g. "phylogeny > anticipates > > > ontogeny", or "cultural-historical activity theory enables communities > of > > > learners"). > > > > > > It's Saturday today, and in a few minutes I have to leave for the > weekly > > > meeting of our translation group, which produces mighty tomes which we > > > produce to popularize the works of Vygotsky amongst militant teachers > > here > > > in Korea (our version of "Thinking and Speech" is seven hundred pages > > long > > > because of all the explanatory notes and boxes with helpful pictures). > On > > > the other hand, there is the attached comic book version of the first > > > chapter of "Thinking and Speech" which I wrote a couple of years ago > for > > > some graduate students who were having trouble talking about the real > > > "Thinking and Speech" in class. > > > > > > I think you can see that Huw's complaint is justified--the comic > > > book dialogue is "about" Thinking and Speech, but it is not "Thinking > and > > > Speech" at all, in the same way that "community of learners" or > > "biography" > > > is ABOUT cultural historical theory or ontogenesis. And I think that > part > > > of the problem (but only part of it) is that the comic book is just too > > > short. > > > > > > David Kellogg > > > Hankuk University of Foreign Studies > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2014-07-11 17:09 GMT+09:00 Leif Strandberg < > leifstrandberg.ab@telia.com > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > 11 jul 2014 kl. 06:41 skrev Larry Purss : > > > > > > > > > David, > > > > > I have been following your reflections through this thread. > > > > > You commented: > > > > > > > > > > So it's almost always more useful for me to > > > > > think of learning phenomena as NOT reducible to the physical, at > > least > > > > not > > > > > in their unit of analysis > > > > > > > > > > I have been reflecting on the notion of *bildung* as learning. > > > > > The notion of *cultivation* and *disposition* and *comportment* as > > the > > > > > potential of learning. > > > > > I came across this quote from Gramsci who was questioning the > notion > > of > > > > > *laws* as the basis for making social predictions. Such *laws* > > excluded > > > > the > > > > > subjective factor from history. > > > > > Gramsci wrote on social process: "Objective always means 'humanly > > > > > objective' which can be held to correspond exactly to 'historically > > > > > subjective' " > > > > > > > > > > Merleau-Ponty also explored what I refer to as *disposition* with > > this > > > > > quote on the reality of history: > > > > > History "awakens us to the importance of daily events and action. > For > > > it > > > > is > > > > > a philosophy [of history -LP] which arouses in us a love for our > > times > > > > > which are not the simple repetition of human eternity nor merely > the > > > > > conclusion of premises already postulated. It is a view that like > the > > > > most > > > > > fragile object of perception - a soap bubble, or a wave - or like > the > > > > most > > > > > simple dialogue, embraces indivisibly all the order and all the > > > disorder > > > > of > > > > > the world." > > > > > > > > > > I read these passages from Gramsci and M-P as a way of exploring > > > > > *comportment* or *disposition* that is *learned*. [bildung??] > There > > is > > > > no > > > > > necessary or sufficient standpoint for interpreting this inherently > > > > > heterogeneous process. However we may potentially learn various > > > > > *approaches* or *ways* of being-in-the-world through learning > > > processes. > > > > > The notion of *bildung* is a way to reflect on this learning > process > > > > > Larry > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 3:54 PM, Huw Lloyd < > > huw.softdesigns@gmail.com> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> On 10 July 2014 22:33, David Kellogg > wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >>> Huw: > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Is learning material? In what sense? At what point? > > > > >>> > > > > >> > > > > >> Historically, with Marx. :) > > > > >> > > > > >> The rest of your formations are subsumed by Baldwin's 1st and 2nd > > > > axioms of > > > > >> genetic logic. :) > > > > >> > > > > >> As someone experienced with computation and computational > > processes, I > > > > do > > > > >> find it quite straightfoward to think of memories as material > > > > impressions. > > > > >> Cached values or lazy evaluation -- it's quite straightforward... > > Not > > > > >> rubbish, not garbage, but Babbage! > > > > >> > > > > >> Best, > > > > >> Huw > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> I guess I think of it this way. All phenomena in the universe are > > > > >> physical, > > > > >>> but only in the final analysis. When my father (who is a retired > > but > > > > >>> unrepentant solar physicist) studies these phenomena he uses > > various > > > > >> units > > > > >>> of analysis (my father likes to think big, so his usual unit of > > > > analysis > > > > >> is > > > > >>> a solar emission many times larger than the earth, but sometimes, > > > > >> depending > > > > >>> on the problem, he will condescend to think about smaller > particles > > > > like > > > > >>> atomic nuclei). Some of these physical phenomena, when they cool > > > down a > > > > >>> little, are chemical as well, and because these phenomena are > > > chemical > > > > as > > > > >>> well as physical, the unit of analysis that is proper to them is > > the > > > > >>> molecule and its motions, and not simply the particle (Dad > doesn't > > > care > > > > >>> about these phenomena; he likes his physics hot). > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Some of these chemical phenomena are biological as well, and here > > > once > > > > >>> again the unit of analysis has to change (e.g. to the cell) in > > order > > > to > > > > >>> take into account the new properties which come into being at > this > > > > scale. > > > > >>> Some biological phenomena are cultural-historical in turn, and > here > > > too > > > > >> we > > > > >>> must change the unit of analysis in order not to lose essential > > > > >> information > > > > >>> that is created with higher levels of organization and > > complexity.Of > > > > >>> course, these cultural historical phenomena are all reducible to > > > > >> biological > > > > >>> phenomena, and therefore reducible to chemical and physical > > > phenomena, > > > > >> but > > > > >>> only in the final analysis. Hey, in the final analysis, as > Carolyn > > > > Porco > > > > >>> says, we all get reduced to physical phenomena when the sun > > explodes > > > > and > > > > >>> blows the particles that were once our bodies out into space, to > > > enjoy > > > > >>> eternal life...but only as physical phenomena. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> In the meantime, if we want to understand cultural-historical > > > phenomena > > > > >> as > > > > >>> such, we have to confront their higher levels of organization and > > > > >>> complexity.The cultural historical phenomena that I am most > > > interested > > > > in > > > > >>> turn out to have another subset of phenomena which Halliday calls > > > > >>> semiotic--that is, they are sociologically cultural-historical > > > > phenomena > > > > >>> that stand, even if only for a fleeting instant, > > > > >>> for psychologically cultural-historical phenomena. These > phenomena > > > are > > > > >>> material too (that is, they are biological, chemical, and even > > > > >>> physical), for the way things stand for other things is > ultimately > > > > >>> reducible to a thing: words are, in the final analysis, "made of > > > living > > > > >>> breath", as Shakespeare says, or "layers of moving air" if you > > prefer > > > > >>> Engels. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> But only in the final analysis. In the interim, too much > > information > > > is > > > > >>> lost when we reduce these semiotic phenomena to physical, > material, > > > > >>> things (for example, when my students try to model learner > > > > comprehension > > > > >>> problems as pure phonetic discrimination without taking into > > account > > > > the > > > > >>> layer of wording or meaning). So it's almost always more useful > for > > > me > > > > to > > > > >>> think of learning phenomena as NOT reducible to the physical, at > > > least > > > > >> not > > > > >>> in their unit of analysis. Actually, it seems to me that the > > > > >>> general "cultural-historical" level of analysis is if anything a > > step > > > > >>> closer to biology or chemistry or physics than the subset of > > cultural > > > > >>> historical phenomena that I mean when I refer to learning, > because > > to > > > > me > > > > >>> learning is microgenetic, that is, POTENTIALLY ontogenetic, which > > is > > > in > > > > >>> turn POTENTIALLY sociogenetic, which (to me) is the general level > > of > > > > >>> analysis we mean when we talk about cultural historical > phenomena. > > So > > > > the > > > > >>> real answer to Mike's colorful complaint about handles is not > > > > "Community > > > > >> of > > > > >>> Learners" but actually "physico-chemico-bio-socio-semiotic > learning > > > > >>> activities". > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Time for that quantum physical cup of coffee you were talking > > > about.... > > > > >>> > > > > >>> David Kellogg > > > > >>> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> On 10 July 2014 08:53, Huw Lloyd > > wrote: > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> David, > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> Just to be clear, the error I was referring to was the > attribution > > > of > > > > a > > > > >>>> theory (as an adjective) to the material thing (learning). It > > would > > > > be > > > > >>>> like saying, I am going to make a Newtonian cup of coffee in the > > > > >> morning > > > > >>>> and a quantum mechanical cup of coffee in the afternoon. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> I suppose colourful language serves the purpose of deliberate > > > > >> vagueness. > > > > >>>> It's hard to be trendy and have a precise point. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> I fear we are soon approaching the "teach yourself activity > theory > > > for > > > > >>>> dummies" book someday soon. From my understanding, the theory > > > itself > > > > >>>> repudiates such a thing -- one cannot spoon feed theory -- but I > > > don't > > > > >>>> think that will stop folk trying. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> I see no problem (or contradiction) in top down approaches. > > > Solving a > > > > >>>> problem in general is a powerful approach to many problems. For > > > many > > > > >>>> problems the concrete details are amenable to design and > > > > configuration, > > > > >>> one > > > > >>>> can often choose tools to suit the proposed solution rather than > > > > >>>> vice-versa. But from an educational perspective, I see no > > > > alternative > > > > >>>> than starting with the individual, ofcourse one can have general > > > > >>> strategies > > > > >>>> in doing so -- waiting to be asked before giving an explanation > > etc. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> Nice chatting. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> Best, > > > > >>>> Huw > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> On 9 July 2014 22:46, David Kellogg > wrote: > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> Huw: > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> Helen has written a remarkable, important book. I gather it's > > part > > > of > > > > >>> her > > > > >>>>> Ph.D. thesis, but it doesn't really read like a Ph.D. thesis. > It > > > > >> reads > > > > >>>> like > > > > >>>>> a teacher-trainer (or "professional development consultant", or > > > > >>> whatever > > > > >>>> we > > > > >>>>> are supposed to call them) with a problem who eventually, with > a > > > > >> little > > > > >>>>> help from the classics of cultural historical psychology and a > > lot > > > of > > > > >>>> help > > > > >>>>> from a co-teacher (who has a somewhat bookish, inert but > > > nevertheless > > > > >>>>> respectful and open acquaintance with those classics) achieves > a > > > very > > > > >>>> open > > > > >>>>> but nevertheless very workable solution. > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> So the bit I quoted represents the problem, or rather, two > > > problems. > > > > >> On > > > > >>>> the > > > > >>>>> one hand, Helen is trying to do something new: she wants to > bring > > > new > > > > >>>> CHAT > > > > >>>>> concepts to bear on extant classroom activities and modify them > > in > > > > >> ways > > > > >>>>> that she is confident will work. On the other, Helen is working > > > with > > > > >>> some > > > > >>>>> pretty experienced (and even somewhat brutalized) teachers: > they > > > have > > > > >>>> seen > > > > >>>>> "Professional Development" fads come and go, collected their > free > > > > >>> lunches > > > > >>>>> and go on doing things the old way. > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> Helen achieves her solution from the bottom up. Eventually, she > > > does > > > > >>>> find a > > > > >>>>> teacher who can teacher her a lot and who, even though Helen > > > herself > > > > >>>>> is uniquely gifted, with not only the theoretical background we > > all > > > > >>>> share, > > > > >>>>> but also considerable first hand experience as a teacher and a > > > > >> parent, > > > > >>>> can > > > > >>>>> nevertheless be taught in turn. But as you can see from the > > > extract, > > > > >>>> she's > > > > >>>>> extremely open, even to savage, unfair, and somewhat obtuse > > > > >> criticisms. > > > > >>>>> Mike's critique of "cultural historical" is not that it is an > > > > >>>>> epistemological error or a typological one, or that it puts the > > > > >> product > > > > >>>>> "culture" before the process "history". It's not even that it > > > > >> suggests > > > > >>>> that > > > > >>>>> on the odd day Piagetian activities might be taking place, > which, > > > by > > > > >>> the > > > > >>>>> way, is probably true, since these teachers were mostly trained > > > > >> during > > > > >>>> the > > > > >>>>> "reign" of Piaget in the sixties and seventies. > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> No, Mike's complaint is really, if you will pardon the > > expression, > > > a > > > > >>> wank > > > > >>>>> of a complaint. He is just complaining that the name is uncool; > > it > > > > >>>> doesn't > > > > >>>>> sound like the popular teachers would like it; the name won't > go > > > with > > > > >>> an > > > > >>>>> embossed moose like "Abercrombie and Fitch" or "community of > > > > >>>>> learners" does. I think we have to accept that responsive, > > > sensitive > > > > >>>>> teachers inevitably end up internalizing some of the worst > > aspects > > > of > > > > >>>>> adolescent thinking, and this is an example. I might even say > > it's > > > a > > > > >>>>> bullshit complaint. It's crap, etc. (But this is one of those > > > > >>>>> language situations where redundancy does not suggest > > development.) > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> I guess if I encountered a bullshit complaint like that I would > > > > >>> complain > > > > >>>> a > > > > >>>>> little about "community of learners". I think that "community > of > > > > >>>>> learners" is essentially a way of saying "socio-psychological": > > > it's > > > > >>>>> relevant to everyday teaching, but it doesn't tell us much > about > > > how > > > > >>> the > > > > >>>>> "socio" got there, whereas "cultural-historical" does. I might > > even > > > > >> ask > > > > >>>> if > > > > >>>>> Mike is going to try to teach physics, chemistry, biology, or > > > history > > > > >>> to > > > > >>>>> kids without some way of saying "physico-chemical" or > > > > >>>> "chemico-biological", > > > > >>>>> or "biologico-social". If not, then I don't see anything wrong > > with > > > > >>>>> teaching language, including the language of teaching, as > > something > > > > >>>>> "socio-semiotic" or "historico-cultural". But then, I never was > > one > > > > >> of > > > > >>>> the > > > > >>>>> cool kids. > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> My problem is this. I too would like to write a book now. I > have > > > two > > > > >> in > > > > >>>>> mind, and they are both practical books about teacher training, > > > > >>>>> similar in their targets to Helen's book, which is why I am > > > studying > > > > >> it > > > > >>>>> carefully. But I find that the books that I have in mind are > > really > > > > >>>> "about > > > > >>>>> something" in a way that Helen's book is not. I don't mean that > > > > >> Helen's > > > > >>>>> book has no object of study: like the title says, the object of > > > study > > > > >>> is > > > > >>>>> teacher development. What I mean is that the teaching has no > > clear > > > > >>> object > > > > >>>>> of teaching: it's not specifically about teaching math or > > literacy > > > or > > > > >>>>> anything else but about teaching in general. The books I have > in > > > mind > > > > >>> are > > > > >>>>> really about teaching literacy (I think I want to try to teach > > > > >> WRITING > > > > >>>>> before READING) and teaching science (I think I want to try a > > > "hands > > > > >>> off" > > > > >>>>> approach that emphasizes word meanings instead of laboratory > > > > >>>> experiments). > > > > >>>>> And I am finding that I when I do this the result is not at all > > the > > > > >>> kind > > > > >>>> of > > > > >>>>> "bottom up" thing that Helen does; it's very top down. > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> David Kellogg > > > > >>>>> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> On 9 July 2014 07:33, Huw Lloyd > > wrote: > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>>> Colourful. The complaint seems perfectly valid though: a > > > > >>> typological > > > > >>>>> and > > > > >>>>>> epistemological error all in one conflated term. It suggests > > that > > > > >> on > > > > >>>> the > > > > >>>>>> odd hours of the day there are Piagetian activities taking > > place. > > > > >>> Was > > > > >>>>> this > > > > >>>>>> part of the point of the chapter? > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> Best, > > > > >>>>>> Huw > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> On 8 July 2014 21:40, David Kellogg > > wrote: > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> I'm actually in the middle of Chapter Three right now. What I > > can > > > > >>>> tell > > > > >>>>>> you > > > > >>>>>>> is that Helen's first two chapters are a kind of "Who's Who" > at > > > > >>> xmca, > > > > >>>>>> with > > > > >>>>>>> Helen reading the great classics (in the wrong order) and > > talking > > > > >>> to > > > > >>>>>> Andy, > > > > >>>>>>> Greg, and others on this list. But beyond the litte > shout-outs > > to > > > > >>>> xmca, > > > > >>>>>> in > > > > >>>>>>> Chapter Three, you find interesting problems like this. Helen > > is > > > > >>>>> setting > > > > >>>>>> up > > > > >>>>>>> a "Professional Learning ZPD". This an acronymy within an > > acronym > > > > >>> (an > > > > >>>>>>> "acro-acronym-nym", like the group I used to belong to in New > > > > >> York > > > > >>>> and > > > > >>>>>>> Paris, called "ACT-UP"), and in general Helen seems to have > > some > > > > >>>>> trouble > > > > >>>>>>> with names. On pp. 58-59, she writes. > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> "In PLZ 4 I wrote the title 'Features of cultural Historical > > > > >>> Learning > > > > >>>>>>> Activities' across a piece of butcher's paper and asked the > > grou > > > > >> to > > > > >>>>>>> brainstorm features of activities that would be consistent > with > > > > >>>>> cultural > > > > >>>>>>> historical theory. After a few suggestions, Mike suddenly > > > > >>> interrupted > > > > >>>>>> with: > > > > >>>>>>> MIKE: Can I ask, Helen, why such a wank of a name? > > > > >>>>>>> HELEN: Cultural-historical? > > > > >>>>>>> MIKE: Yeah, what a bullshit name. > > > > >>>>>>> DEB: What should it be Mike? > > > > >>>>>>> MIKE: What does it mean to anyone? Is that relevant to anyone > > > > >> that > > > > >>>>>>> name? Cultural-historical learning. What does that mean? > > > > >>>>>>> HELEN: Well.... > > > > >>>>>>> MIKE: It's crap. > > > > >>>>>>> HELEN: Well, I don't think that you, that's the name of teh > > > > >> theoyr, > > > > >>>>>>> Cultural historical theory, but I think in terms of schools > > using > > > > >>> teh > > > > >>>>>>> theory they talk about Communities of Learners. > > > > >>>>>>> MIKE: Yeah, but why don't they call it that? > > > > >>>>>>> HELEN: OK, so (I start crossing out "cultural historical" and > > > > >>>> changing > > > > >>>>> it > > > > >>>>>>> to "Communities of Learners") > > > > >>>>>>> MIKE: That name is like calliing the ultra net site for > > teachers > > > > >>>>> 'design > > > > >>>>>>> space'. It has no relevance to the name whatsoever, and to > use > > > > >>>>>> it--features > > > > >>>>>>> of cultural historical learning--sounds like a load of crap. > It > > > > >>>>>>> doesn't have any relevance ot what it means. If you said to > me > > > > >>>> cultural > > > > >>>>>>> historical learning, I go .... > > > > >>>>>>> BETH: I actually thought it meant talking about he past > > (general > > > > >>>>>>> agreement). > > > > >>>>>>> MIKE: That's what it implies, the past and how you used to > > teach. > > > > >>>>>>> HELEN: I suppose I'm just trying to familiarize you with the > > term > > > > >>>>>> (general > > > > >>>>>>> agreement) > > > > >>>>>>> MIKE: If you call it community of learners then it's > something > > > > >>> that's > > > > >>>>>>> relevant." > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> Helen then makes the (cultural-historical) point that words > > have > > > > >> a > > > > >>>>>> history, > > > > >>>>>>> but they are not necessarily YOUR history--for Helen, > "cultural > > > > >>>>>> historical" > > > > >>>>>>> calls up a whole series of quite precise concepts, while > > > > >> "Community > > > > >>>> of > > > > >>>>>>> Learners" is kind of vague and undefined. But for the > teachers > > > > >> (who > > > > >>>>> are, > > > > >>>>>> I > > > > >>>>>>> must say, not exactly reticent about sharing, and do not > limit > > > > >>>>> themselves > > > > >>>>>>> to sharing their expertise) what you get is old times. > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> It's funny that they ignore the word culture. I always > thought > > > > >> that > > > > >>>>>>> "cultural historical" is a little bit of the cart before the > > > > >>>> horse.... > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> David Kellogg > > > > >>>>>>> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> On 8 July 2014 21:40, Peter Smagorinsky > wrote: > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> The Practice of Teachers' Professional Development > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> A Cultural-Historical Approach > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> Helen Grimmett (Monash University, Australia) > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> This book uses Vygotsky's cultural-historical theory to > > > > >> provide a > > > > >>>>>> unique > > > > >>>>>>>> theorisation of teachers' professional development as a > > > > >>> practice. A > > > > >>>>>>>> practice can be described as the socially structured actions > > > > >> set > > > > >>> up > > > > >>>>> to > > > > >>>>>>>> produce a product or service aimed at meeting a collective > > > > >> human > > > > >>>>> need. > > > > >>>>>> In > > > > >>>>>>>> this case, collaborative, interventionist work with teachers > > in > > > > >>> ... > > > > >>>>>> Click > > > > >>>>>>>> here for a free preview and full description< > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001ZduyW2xyB1USw9R1YjQno7GI-mDLfJ6m-729UFbNgCKe6Z_p9GP7xjN9IHr0mfZ1yni-XmxHyPfAaNcVjlENvx4l8ySiyRYKHRvvg2E6WbMlf3hNShpk2qTuRRu0ZenYc1mrXxe68_BX4FXljTnHjOx91vJalGeivvaQfmQF57rpGgcDrJe9bprlVyXQwjSo0U6yk-QJ1S5miZfuS7ohswmNs3UZWGMucMgWJyU6E_J3d8QHyWjpGuBM8i2twLXGBPHkZb6hFN4pF6PT3r3M7HYvwFdzAzSfRvpCd90DvQMVDuqkf5VY3ccoD6FppEGF&c=0Y23gLfSZ1jN_yGPyItMZic7SWiIoOcRfcrQWB0JYs9lkVW149lxUQ==&ch=ioZBoxRIwDxdvg-uu6NEwI-E45lgW01U_INO86ZNyJpwbp9zcKnCIA== > > > > >>>>>>>>> . > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From dkellogg60@gmail.com Sun Jul 13 21:43:42 2014 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 13:43:42 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: book of possible interest In-Reply-To: References: <0D461088-CBBB-4BD9-ADCB-3024C36CBE81@telia.com> Message-ID: Near the end of Chapter Three (p. 81), Helen is summing up her experience with the Banksia Bay PLZ and she notes with some dismay that her PDers have "a deficit view" of their children and tend towards "container models" of the mind ("empty vessel, sponge, blank canvas"). Only one teacher, Ann sees anything wrong with this, and Helen says "they don't necessarily value her opinion". Helen finds herself rather conflicted: One the one hand, she says "If their representations of children really do represent their beliefs, then they are probably right to insist there is no need to change." And on the other, she says "My intention was never to say that their present practice was wrong, but to help them see alternative ways of thinking about children, learning, and teaching." Of course, if there is no need to change, then it follows that there is no reason to look for alternative ways of thinking about children, learning and teaching. The only reason for spending scarce cognitive resources on seeing different ways of looking at children is if you do, in fact, take a deficit view of the teachers. Ann, and the Regional Consultants, apparently do, but Helen realizes that there isn't much basis for this: not only do we have no actual data of lessons to look at, we know that one of the teachers, Kay, has been in the classroom for three decades (during which time Helen has spent at least one decade OUT of the classroom). While we were translating Vygotsky's "History of the Development of the Higher Psychological Functions" last year, some of my colleagues were taken aback by Vygotsky's use of terms like "moron", "imbecile", "idiot", and "cretin". Of course, Vygotsky is writing long before the "euphemisim treadmill" turned these into playground insults; for Vygotsky they are quite precise descriptors--not of cognitive ability but actually of LANGUAGE ability. But because our readership are progressive Korean teachers with strong views about these questions, we found that we couldn't even use the term "mentally retarded" without a strongly worded footnote disavowing the "deficit" thinking behind the term. I think that Vygotsky would have been surprised by this. I think he took it for granted that a defect was a deficit: being blind means a deficit in vision, and being deaf means a deficit in hearing. In the same way, a brain defect is not an asset. On the other hand, I think Vygotsky would find our own term "disabled" quite inaccurate: since all forms of development are compensatory and involve "circuitous routes" of one kind or another, and all developed children, even, and even especially, gifted children, contain islands of underdevelopment, the correct term for deficits of all kinds is not "disabled" but "pre-abled". Personally, I see nothing wrong with a deficit view of children that sees them as pre-abled (or, as Vygotsky liked to say, 'primitivist"; that is, they are waiting for the mediational means that we have foolishly developed only for the psychophysiologically most common types to catch up with the actual variation in real children. I suspect this view is actually quite a bit closer to what Kay thinks than to what Helen thinks. David Kellogg Hankuk University of Foreign Studies On 13 July 2014 10:59, Helen Grimmett wrote: > Hi David, > > Interesting question. I absolutely think that development AS a professional > is necessary, just as development as a human is necessary, so if > professional development is seen as the practice in which this development > is produced then absolutely I do think it is necessary. The form that this > practice takes though, and indeed the form of the development that is > produced within this practice, are the things open to question however. > > I definitely think that a teacher's development as a professional includes > the need to understand their practice better rather than just change it, > but I think that understanding often develops best in/alongside/with the > process of changing (and vice versa) rather than separately from it, and, > as you point out above, in establishing ties *between* people and then > within them. So a practice of professional development that creates > conditions which support this type of development will (I believe) be much > more effective than traditional forms of PD that either attempt to lecture > about theoretical principles but do not support teachers to transfer these > into practical changes, OR provide teachers with practical programs and > expect them to implement them without any understanding of what and why the > changes matter. I think the term "Professional Development" is an absolute > misnomer for either of those typical approaches. > > So again, I have a problem with names! I'm talking about Professional > Development with a completely different meaning than what most of the > education community believe it to mean when they talk about attending PD > seminars or workshops. I toyed with trying to find a different name for the > particular meaning I'm talking about, but when you are talking about > development from a cultural-historical theoretical perspective then there > really is no other word to use! That's why I stuck to using 'professional > development' (in full) when I meant my meaning, and PD (which is what > teachers in Australia commonly refer to seminars and workshops as) when I > refer to the typical (and in my view, usually non-developmental) forms of > activities that teachers are subjected to each year. > > So, I agree that the need for PD is questionable, but the need for > practices of professional development that help teachers to develop as > professionals (that is, to develop a unified understanding of both the > theoretical and practical aspects of their work, which is itself > continually developing in order to meet the changing needs of their > students, schools and society) is essential. While I think co-teaching is > one practical small-scale solution, working out viable, economical, and > manageable ways to create these practices on a large-scale is a very large > problem. > > Cheers, > Helen > > > Dr Helen Grimmett > Lecturer, Student Adviser, > Faculty of Education, > Room G64F, Building 902 > Monash University, Berwick campus > Phone: 9904 7171 > > *New Book: * > The Practice of Teachers' Professional Development: A Cultural-Historical > Approach > < > https://www.sensepublishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/professional-learning-1/the-practice-of-teachers-professional-development/ > > > Helen Grimmett (2014) Sense Publishers > > > > < > http://monash.edu.au/education/news/50-years/?utm_source=staff-email&utm_medium=email-signature&utm_campaign=50th > > > > > On 13 July 2014 08:57, David Kellogg wrote: > > > Helen: > > > > Good to hear from you at long last--I knew you were lurking out there > > somewhere! > > > > I didn't actually write the line about "establishing ties"--it's from > "The > > Little Prince". The prince asks what "tame" means, and the fox replies > that > > it means "to establish ties". But of course what I meant was that ties > are > > established first between people and then within them; the ties of > > development are interfunctional ties that make up a new psychological > > system. (Or, for Halliday, they are the inter-systemic ties that make up > > new metafunctions.) > > > > As you say, Yrjo Engestrom chooses to emphasize another aspect of > > development with "breaking away"--he wants to stress its crisis-ridden > > nature. I agree with this, actually, but mostly I agree with you, that we > > are talking about two moments of the same process. To me, breaking away > is > > really a precondition of the real business of establishing ties. > > > > Thomas Piketty makes a similar point in his book "Capital in the > > Twenty-first Century". He admits that war and revolution is the only > thing > > that EVER counteracts the tendency of returns from capital to outstrip > the > > growth in income, and that the 20th Century was an outlier in this > respect, > > and the Russian revolution an extreme outlier within that outlier. But he > > also says that in the long run the one thing that makes UPWARD mobility > > possible is education. Despite everything, because of everything. > > > > I finished the book a few days ago. I guess the thing I most want to ask > > about is the assumption that professional development is necessary at > all. > > Doesn't it make more sense to say that before we change what we are > doing, > > we should understand it better? > > > > David Kellogg > > Hankuk University of Foreign Studies > > > > > > On 12 July 2014 13:20, Helen Grimmett wrote: > > > > > Ah, I think you have hit the nail on the head David. It is indeed TIME > > that > > > is so crucial - not only duration of time, but also location of time > > (which > > > I suppose is really context). > > > > > > The problems I had with Mike and his colleagues about the terminology > > > stemmed partly from the typical Aussie disdain for using words that > might > > > make your mates think you are trying to appear 'better' than them, so > > > therefore you mock anything that sounds too serious or intellectual. > But > > > beyond this surface level of complaining the problems Huw and you have > > been > > > discussing boil down to problems with time. > > > > > > Huw's complaint about my use of the heading "Features of > > > Cultural-Historical Learning Activities" is well justified - but it was > > > really just a shorthand written version of what I was verbally asking > for > > > as "What might be some particular features of learning activities that > > > would align with principles of Cultural-Historical Theory?" That would > > have > > > taken too long to write on the top of the piece of paper - and of > course > > > time is always too short in any after-school PD so shortcuts are > > inevitably > > > taken. (Time problem #1) > > > > > > Time problem #2, which your discussion has highlighted for me, is that > of > > > course my question was really "What might be some particular features > of > > > learning activities that would align with THE LIMITED NUMBER OF (AND > > > LIMITED UNDERSTANDING OF) principles of Cultural-Historical Theory THAT > > YOU > > > HAVE BEEN INTRODUCED TO SO FAR?" so I really should have not been so > > > surprised that they would find the brainstorming activity difficult and > > > resort to diversionary tactics! (Mike's outburst posted here by David > was > > > not the only eventful moment I write about from this one activity. But > > > these apparent failures actually provided much more interesting data > for > > me > > > and eventually lead me to several key findings in my thesis). I had > spent > > > several years by this stage reading and discussing Vygotsky and yet I > had > > > assumed/hoped the teachers would have enough understanding from my > > > (probably not very good) explanations ABOUT theory over the previous 3 > > > short sessions I had had with them to be able to contribute answers to > my > > > brainstorm question. They had not had enough TIME to become familiar > with > > > enough of the theory to make much sense of it yet - but still, we have > to > > > start somewhere and this was still early days. > > > > > > Time problem #3 brings in what I called above the location of time. I > had > > > never intended for the sessions to be me giving after-school lectures > > about > > > either theory or practice, yet this is what the teachers seemed to > expect > > > from me (and even demand from me) and were pretty disgruntled when I > > > wouldn't/couldn't deliver. My intention was always to get them to > engage > > > with the relationship between THEORY and PRACTICE, just as David's > comic > > > book discusses the relationship between THINKING and SPEECH or EMOTION > > and > > > COGNITION. My problem of course was that once we were in an > after-school > > > meeting we were removed in both time and space from where theory and > > > practice of teaching/learning operate as a relation (i.e. the classroom > > > activity). I was actually trying to create/use our own PLZ > (Professional > > > Learning ZPD) as the activity in which to develop and understand this > > > relationship but it was initially very hard to get the teachers to > > > understand this (at least until we had enough of David's Fox's socially > > > shared experiences for the meanings to become communicable) and then > even > > > more difficult to get them to transfer this back to developing their > own > > > classroom teaching. Ironically, despite being the loudest complainers > and > > > disparagers, it was Mike and Kay (the protagonist of my other eventful > > > moment in the brainstorming session) who actually ended up making the > > > biggest changes in their classroom practice. Perhaps this is not really > > > surprising at all - they were the ones who obviously engaged and argued > > > with the ideas and activities rather than simply endured them! > > > > > > My eventual answer to the problems encountered in my work with the > group > > of > > > teachers was to work WITH a teacher IN her own classroom so that we had > > > shared experiences of the relationship between theory and practice > which > > > could not only be discussed after the events, but also actually acted > > upon > > > there and then IN the event - creating what I called "Situated > Conscious > > > Awareness" of both the theoretical and practical aspects of the > concepts > > of > > > teaching/learning and development we were developing understanding and > > > practice of together. But perhaps I should wait until David gets up to > > this > > > part of the book before I say more! > > > > > > Finally, one other point that really caught my attention in your comic > > book > > > David is that your prince calls development "to establish ties" which > is > > an > > > interesting difference to Engestrom's definition as "breaking away". > But > > > perhaps, as always in CH theory, it is not a matter of either/or but in > > > fact both/and ideas that are necessary. From what I learned in my > study, > > > teachers' development as professionals is definitely BOTH about > breaking > > > away from old, routinised understandings and practices AND establishing > > new > > > connections between and amongst theoretical concepts and practices, > > > enabling them to continually develop new competences and motives across > > all > > > of their professional duties. > > > > > > Thanks for your interest in my book David. The discussion it has > sparked > > > has helped me revisit ideas from new perspectives. > > > > > > Cheers, > > > Helen > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dr Helen Grimmett > > > Lecturer, Student Adviser, > > > Faculty of Education, > > > Room G64F, Building 902 > > > Monash University, Berwick campus > > > Phone: 9904 7171 > > > > > > *New Book: * > > > The Practice of Teachers' Professional Development: A > Cultural-Historical > > > Approach > > > < > > > > > > https://www.sensepublishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/professional-learning-1/the-practice-of-teachers-professional-development/ > > > > > > > Helen Grimmett (2014) Sense Publishers > > > > > > > > > > > > < > > > > > > http://monash.edu.au/education/news/50-years/?utm_source=staff-email&utm_medium=email-signature&utm_campaign=50th > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 12 July 2014 07:29, David Kellogg wrote: > > > > > > > Plekhanov distinguishes between "agitators" and "propagandists". > > > Agitators > > > > are essentially popularizers; they have the job of ripping away a > > subset > > > of > > > > smaller and simpler ideas from a fabric of much larger and more > complex > > > > theory and then disseminating them amongst the largest possible > number > > of > > > > people. In other words, their focus is exoteric. Propagandists are > > > > essentially conspiratorial: they have the job of initiating a small > > > number > > > > of the elect and educating them in the whole theoretical system--as > > Larry > > > > would say, the full Bildung. In other words, their focus is esoteric. > > As > > > > you can see, Plekhanov was good at making distinctions, and not so > good > > > at > > > > showing how things are linked. For Helena, who is a labor educator, > > you > > > > can't really be an effective agitator unless you are also a > > propagandist. > > > > You need to present your exoteric extracts in such a way that they > are, > > > to > > > > borrow Larry's phrase, both necessary and sufficient to lead people > on > > to > > > > the esoterica. I'm with Helena--and with Bruner--with children it's > > > always > > > > possible to tell the truth, part of the truth, but nothing but the > > truth, > > > > and if we can do it with kids, why not do it with adults? > > > > > > > > (I am less sure about what it means to say that the objectively human > > is > > > > the "subjectively historical"--it sounds like history is being > reified > > > as a > > > > subject, that is, as a living, breathing, acting "World Spirit" that > > can > > > > have a mind and reflect upon itself. My understanding of history is > > > > that just as we cannot have the advanced form of historical > > consciousness > > > > in dialogue with the more primitive forms, the opportunity to reflect > > > upon > > > > the whole process when it is all over is simply never going to be > > > available > > > > to anyone. The Merleau-Ponty quotation is beautiful and intensely > > > > poetic, Larry--but when I look at a bubble or a wave, I do not simply > > see > > > > chaos; I see past bubbles and past waves, and potential bubbles and > > > > potential waves. Isn't that a part of the experience of "loving > > history" > > > as > > > > well?) > > > > > > > > My wife wrote a wonderful Ph.D. thesis about how any work of > literature > > > can > > > > be looked at on four time frames: phylogenetic (the history of a > > genre), > > > > ontogenetic (the biography of a career), logogenetic (the development > > of > > > a > > > > plot or a character), and microgenetic (the unfolding of a dialogue, > > or a > > > > paragraph). Her supervisor complained about the terminology in > somewhat > > > > more elegant terms than Mike does in Helen's data:and suggested that > > she > > > > should replace the terms with "history", "biography", "development" > and > > > > "unfolding", to make it more exoteric. > > > > > > > > I think that if she had done that, it would have made the thesis into > > > > agitation rather than education. Yes, the terms would have been more > > > > familiar, and they might even, given other context, be taken to mean > > the > > > > same thing. But what we would have gotten is good, clear distinctions > > > > ("history" on the one hand and "biography" on the other) and what we > > > would > > > > have lost is the linkedness of one time frame to another--the way in > > > which > > > > the phylogenesis of genre produces the mature genre which is used in > an > > > > author's ontegenesis, and the way in which the author's ontogenesis > > > > produces the starting point and the raw materials for the logogenetic > > > > development of a work, not to mention the way in which logogenesis is > > > > reflected in the microgenetic unfolding of dialogue. > > > > > > > > So I think that when Helena writes that anything can be explained to > > > anyone > > > > in language that is everyday and simple and in a way that is > > > understandable > > > > and at least part of the whole truth, I agree somewhat enviously (you > > > see, > > > > Helena is a labor educator, but I teach TESOL, which is really the > > > process > > > > of taking a few very simple and exoteric ideas that good teachers > > already > > > > have and disseminating the select to the elect for vast sums of > money). > > > But > > > > I have to add a rider--when we popularize richly woven fabrics of > ideas > > > > like cultural historical theory we are not simply juggling > vocabulary. > > I > > > > think that Helena recognizes this perfectly when she says that it > takes > > > > TIME to be simple and clear. If it were simply a matter of replacing > > > > "cultural historical" with "community of learners" it would actually > > take > > > > less time, but it isn't and it doesn't. > > > > > > > > It is very hot in Seoul today, and somewhere out there a toddler is > > > arguing > > > > with a parent because he wants watermelon with breakfast. The parent > > > > resists, because if you eat cold watermelon on an empty stomach you > > get a > > > > tummy-ache. The argument grows heated and long--and complex, but the > > > > complexity is of a particular kind, with very short, repeated, > > > insistancies > > > > from the child and somewhat longer more complex remonstrations from > the > > > > parent. We can call this complex discourse but simple grammar. A few > > > years > > > > will go by and we will find that the school child has mastered the > > trick > > > of > > > > long and complex remonstrations and can use them pre-emptively to win > > > > arguments. We can call this complex grammar, but simple vocabulary. > > Only > > > > when a decade or two has elapsed will we find that child, now adult, > > can > > > > use the language of science, which is for the most part grammatically > > > > simple (at least compared to the pre-emptive remonstrations of the > > school > > > > child), but full of very complex vocabulary (e.g. "phylogeny > > anticipates > > > > ontogeny", or "cultural-historical activity theory enables > communities > > of > > > > learners"). > > > > > > > > It's Saturday today, and in a few minutes I have to leave for the > > weekly > > > > meeting of our translation group, which produces mighty tomes which > we > > > > produce to popularize the works of Vygotsky amongst militant teachers > > > here > > > > in Korea (our version of "Thinking and Speech" is seven hundred pages > > > long > > > > because of all the explanatory notes and boxes with helpful > pictures). > > On > > > > the other hand, there is the attached comic book version of the first > > > > chapter of "Thinking and Speech" which I wrote a couple of years ago > > for > > > > some graduate students who were having trouble talking about the real > > > > "Thinking and Speech" in class. > > > > > > > > I think you can see that Huw's complaint is justified--the comic > > > > book dialogue is "about" Thinking and Speech, but it is not "Thinking > > and > > > > Speech" at all, in the same way that "community of learners" or > > > "biography" > > > > is ABOUT cultural historical theory or ontogenesis. And I think that > > part > > > > of the problem (but only part of it) is that the comic book is just > too > > > > short. > > > > > > > > David Kellogg > > > > Hankuk University of Foreign Studies > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2014-07-11 17:09 GMT+09:00 Leif Strandberg < > > leifstrandberg.ab@telia.com > > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 11 jul 2014 kl. 06:41 skrev Larry Purss : > > > > > > > > > > > David, > > > > > > I have been following your reflections through this thread. > > > > > > You commented: > > > > > > > > > > > > So it's almost always more useful for me to > > > > > > think of learning phenomena as NOT reducible to the physical, at > > > least > > > > > not > > > > > > in their unit of analysis > > > > > > > > > > > > I have been reflecting on the notion of *bildung* as learning. > > > > > > The notion of *cultivation* and *disposition* and *comportment* > as > > > the > > > > > > potential of learning. > > > > > > I came across this quote from Gramsci who was questioning the > > notion > > > of > > > > > > *laws* as the basis for making social predictions. Such *laws* > > > excluded > > > > > the > > > > > > subjective factor from history. > > > > > > Gramsci wrote on social process: "Objective always means 'humanly > > > > > > objective' which can be held to correspond exactly to > 'historically > > > > > > subjective' " > > > > > > > > > > > > Merleau-Ponty also explored what I refer to as *disposition* with > > > this > > > > > > quote on the reality of history: > > > > > > History "awakens us to the importance of daily events and action. > > For > > > > it > > > > > is > > > > > > a philosophy [of history -LP] which arouses in us a love for our > > > times > > > > > > which are not the simple repetition of human eternity nor merely > > the > > > > > > conclusion of premises already postulated. It is a view that like > > the > > > > > most > > > > > > fragile object of perception - a soap bubble, or a wave - or like > > the > > > > > most > > > > > > simple dialogue, embraces indivisibly all the order and all the > > > > disorder > > > > > of > > > > > > the world." > > > > > > > > > > > > I read these passages from Gramsci and M-P as a way of exploring > > > > > > *comportment* or *disposition* that is *learned*. [bildung??] > > There > > > is > > > > > no > > > > > > necessary or sufficient standpoint for interpreting this > inherently > > > > > > heterogeneous process. However we may potentially learn various > > > > > > *approaches* or *ways* of being-in-the-world through learning > > > > processes. > > > > > > The notion of *bildung* is a way to reflect on this learning > > process > > > > > > Larry > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 3:54 PM, Huw Lloyd < > > > huw.softdesigns@gmail.com> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >> On 10 July 2014 22:33, David Kellogg > > wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > > >>> Huw: > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> Is learning material? In what sense? At what point? > > > > > >>> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Historically, with Marx. :) > > > > > >> > > > > > >> The rest of your formations are subsumed by Baldwin's 1st and > 2nd > > > > > axioms of > > > > > >> genetic logic. :) > > > > > >> > > > > > >> As someone experienced with computation and computational > > > processes, I > > > > > do > > > > > >> find it quite straightfoward to think of memories as material > > > > > impressions. > > > > > >> Cached values or lazy evaluation -- it's quite > straightforward... > > > Not > > > > > >> rubbish, not garbage, but Babbage! > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Best, > > > > > >> Huw > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> I guess I think of it this way. All phenomena in the universe > are > > > > > >> physical, > > > > > >>> but only in the final analysis. When my father (who is a > retired > > > but > > > > > >>> unrepentant solar physicist) studies these phenomena he uses > > > various > > > > > >> units > > > > > >>> of analysis (my father likes to think big, so his usual unit of > > > > > analysis > > > > > >> is > > > > > >>> a solar emission many times larger than the earth, but > sometimes, > > > > > >> depending > > > > > >>> on the problem, he will condescend to think about smaller > > particles > > > > > like > > > > > >>> atomic nuclei). Some of these physical phenomena, when they > cool > > > > down a > > > > > >>> little, are chemical as well, and because these phenomena are > > > > chemical > > > > > as > > > > > >>> well as physical, the unit of analysis that is proper to them > is > > > the > > > > > >>> molecule and its motions, and not simply the particle (Dad > > doesn't > > > > care > > > > > >>> about these phenomena; he likes his physics hot). > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> Some of these chemical phenomena are biological as well, and > here > > > > once > > > > > >>> again the unit of analysis has to change (e.g. to the cell) in > > > order > > > > to > > > > > >>> take into account the new properties which come into being at > > this > > > > > scale. > > > > > >>> Some biological phenomena are cultural-historical in turn, and > > here > > > > too > > > > > >> we > > > > > >>> must change the unit of analysis in order not to lose essential > > > > > >> information > > > > > >>> that is created with higher levels of organization and > > > complexity.Of > > > > > >>> course, these cultural historical phenomena are all reducible > to > > > > > >> biological > > > > > >>> phenomena, and therefore reducible to chemical and physical > > > > phenomena, > > > > > >> but > > > > > >>> only in the final analysis. Hey, in the final analysis, as > > Carolyn > > > > > Porco > > > > > >>> says, we all get reduced to physical phenomena when the sun > > > explodes > > > > > and > > > > > >>> blows the particles that were once our bodies out into space, > to > > > > enjoy > > > > > >>> eternal life...but only as physical phenomena. > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> In the meantime, if we want to understand cultural-historical > > > > phenomena > > > > > >> as > > > > > >>> such, we have to confront their higher levels of organization > and > > > > > >>> complexity.The cultural historical phenomena that I am most > > > > interested > > > > > in > > > > > >>> turn out to have another subset of phenomena which Halliday > calls > > > > > >>> semiotic--that is, they are sociologically cultural-historical > > > > > phenomena > > > > > >>> that stand, even if only for a fleeting instant, > > > > > >>> for psychologically cultural-historical phenomena. These > > phenomena > > > > are > > > > > >>> material too (that is, they are biological, chemical, and even > > > > > >>> physical), for the way things stand for other things is > > ultimately > > > > > >>> reducible to a thing: words are, in the final analysis, "made > of > > > > living > > > > > >>> breath", as Shakespeare says, or "layers of moving air" if you > > > prefer > > > > > >>> Engels. > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> But only in the final analysis. In the interim, too much > > > information > > > > is > > > > > >>> lost when we reduce these semiotic phenomena to physical, > > material, > > > > > >>> things (for example, when my students try to model learner > > > > > comprehension > > > > > >>> problems as pure phonetic discrimination without taking into > > > account > > > > > the > > > > > >>> layer of wording or meaning). So it's almost always more useful > > for > > > > me > > > > > to > > > > > >>> think of learning phenomena as NOT reducible to the physical, > at > > > > least > > > > > >> not > > > > > >>> in their unit of analysis. Actually, it seems to me that the > > > > > >>> general "cultural-historical" level of analysis is if anything > a > > > step > > > > > >>> closer to biology or chemistry or physics than the subset of > > > cultural > > > > > >>> historical phenomena that I mean when I refer to learning, > > because > > > to > > > > > me > > > > > >>> learning is microgenetic, that is, POTENTIALLY ontogenetic, > which > > > is > > > > in > > > > > >>> turn POTENTIALLY sociogenetic, which (to me) is the general > level > > > of > > > > > >>> analysis we mean when we talk about cultural historical > > phenomena. > > > So > > > > > the > > > > > >>> real answer to Mike's colorful complaint about handles is not > > > > > "Community > > > > > >> of > > > > > >>> Learners" but actually "physico-chemico-bio-socio-semiotic > > learning > > > > > >>> activities". > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> Time for that quantum physical cup of coffee you were talking > > > > about.... > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> David Kellogg > > > > > >>> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> On 10 July 2014 08:53, Huw Lloyd > > > wrote: > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> David, > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> Just to be clear, the error I was referring to was the > > attribution > > > > of > > > > > a > > > > > >>>> theory (as an adjective) to the material thing (learning). It > > > would > > > > > be > > > > > >>>> like saying, I am going to make a Newtonian cup of coffee in > the > > > > > >> morning > > > > > >>>> and a quantum mechanical cup of coffee in the afternoon. > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> I suppose colourful language serves the purpose of deliberate > > > > > >> vagueness. > > > > > >>>> It's hard to be trendy and have a precise point. > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> I fear we are soon approaching the "teach yourself activity > > theory > > > > for > > > > > >>>> dummies" book someday soon. From my understanding, the theory > > > > itself > > > > > >>>> repudiates such a thing -- one cannot spoon feed theory -- > but I > > > > don't > > > > > >>>> think that will stop folk trying. > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> I see no problem (or contradiction) in top down approaches. > > > > Solving a > > > > > >>>> problem in general is a powerful approach to many problems. > For > > > > many > > > > > >>>> problems the concrete details are amenable to design and > > > > > configuration, > > > > > >>> one > > > > > >>>> can often choose tools to suit the proposed solution rather > than > > > > > >>>> vice-versa. But from an educational perspective, I see no > > > > > alternative > > > > > >>>> than starting with the individual, ofcourse one can have > general > > > > > >>> strategies > > > > > >>>> in doing so -- waiting to be asked before giving an > explanation > > > etc. > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> Nice chatting. > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> Best, > > > > > >>>> Huw > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> On 9 July 2014 22:46, David Kellogg > > wrote: > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>> Huw: > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> Helen has written a remarkable, important book. I gather it's > > > part > > > > of > > > > > >>> her > > > > > >>>>> Ph.D. thesis, but it doesn't really read like a Ph.D. thesis. > > It > > > > > >> reads > > > > > >>>> like > > > > > >>>>> a teacher-trainer (or "professional development consultant", > or > > > > > >>> whatever > > > > > >>>> we > > > > > >>>>> are supposed to call them) with a problem who eventually, > with > > a > > > > > >> little > > > > > >>>>> help from the classics of cultural historical psychology and > a > > > lot > > > > of > > > > > >>>> help > > > > > >>>>> from a co-teacher (who has a somewhat bookish, inert but > > > > nevertheless > > > > > >>>>> respectful and open acquaintance with those classics) > achieves > > a > > > > very > > > > > >>>> open > > > > > >>>>> but nevertheless very workable solution. > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> So the bit I quoted represents the problem, or rather, two > > > > problems. > > > > > >> On > > > > > >>>> the > > > > > >>>>> one hand, Helen is trying to do something new: she wants to > > bring > > > > new > > > > > >>>> CHAT > > > > > >>>>> concepts to bear on extant classroom activities and modify > them > > > in > > > > > >> ways > > > > > >>>>> that she is confident will work. On the other, Helen is > working > > > > with > > > > > >>> some > > > > > >>>>> pretty experienced (and even somewhat brutalized) teachers: > > they > > > > have > > > > > >>>> seen > > > > > >>>>> "Professional Development" fads come and go, collected their > > free > > > > > >>> lunches > > > > > >>>>> and go on doing things the old way. > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> Helen achieves her solution from the bottom up. Eventually, > she > > > > does > > > > > >>>> find a > > > > > >>>>> teacher who can teacher her a lot and who, even though Helen > > > > herself > > > > > >>>>> is uniquely gifted, with not only the theoretical background > we > > > all > > > > > >>>> share, > > > > > >>>>> but also considerable first hand experience as a teacher and > a > > > > > >> parent, > > > > > >>>> can > > > > > >>>>> nevertheless be taught in turn. But as you can see from the > > > > extract, > > > > > >>>> she's > > > > > >>>>> extremely open, even to savage, unfair, and somewhat obtuse > > > > > >> criticisms. > > > > > >>>>> Mike's critique of "cultural historical" is not that it is an > > > > > >>>>> epistemological error or a typological one, or that it puts > the > > > > > >> product > > > > > >>>>> "culture" before the process "history". It's not even that it > > > > > >> suggests > > > > > >>>> that > > > > > >>>>> on the odd day Piagetian activities might be taking place, > > which, > > > > by > > > > > >>> the > > > > > >>>>> way, is probably true, since these teachers were mostly > trained > > > > > >> during > > > > > >>>> the > > > > > >>>>> "reign" of Piaget in the sixties and seventies. > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> No, Mike's complaint is really, if you will pardon the > > > expression, > > > > a > > > > > >>> wank > > > > > >>>>> of a complaint. He is just complaining that the name is > uncool; > > > it > > > > > >>>> doesn't > > > > > >>>>> sound like the popular teachers would like it; the name won't > > go > > > > with > > > > > >>> an > > > > > >>>>> embossed moose like "Abercrombie and Fitch" or "community of > > > > > >>>>> learners" does. I think we have to accept that responsive, > > > > sensitive > > > > > >>>>> teachers inevitably end up internalizing some of the worst > > > aspects > > > > of > > > > > >>>>> adolescent thinking, and this is an example. I might even say > > > it's > > > > a > > > > > >>>>> bullshit complaint. It's crap, etc. (But this is one of those > > > > > >>>>> language situations where redundancy does not suggest > > > development.) > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> I guess if I encountered a bullshit complaint like that I > would > > > > > >>> complain > > > > > >>>> a > > > > > >>>>> little about "community of learners". I think that "community > > of > > > > > >>>>> learners" is essentially a way of saying > "socio-psychological": > > > > it's > > > > > >>>>> relevant to everyday teaching, but it doesn't tell us much > > about > > > > how > > > > > >>> the > > > > > >>>>> "socio" got there, whereas "cultural-historical" does. I > might > > > even > > > > > >> ask > > > > > >>>> if > > > > > >>>>> Mike is going to try to teach physics, chemistry, biology, or > > > > history > > > > > >>> to > > > > > >>>>> kids without some way of saying "physico-chemical" or > > > > > >>>> "chemico-biological", > > > > > >>>>> or "biologico-social". If not, then I don't see anything > wrong > > > with > > > > > >>>>> teaching language, including the language of teaching, as > > > something > > > > > >>>>> "socio-semiotic" or "historico-cultural". But then, I never > was > > > one > > > > > >> of > > > > > >>>> the > > > > > >>>>> cool kids. > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> My problem is this. I too would like to write a book now. I > > have > > > > two > > > > > >> in > > > > > >>>>> mind, and they are both practical books about teacher > training, > > > > > >>>>> similar in their targets to Helen's book, which is why I am > > > > studying > > > > > >> it > > > > > >>>>> carefully. But I find that the books that I have in mind are > > > really > > > > > >>>> "about > > > > > >>>>> something" in a way that Helen's book is not. I don't mean > that > > > > > >> Helen's > > > > > >>>>> book has no object of study: like the title says, the object > of > > > > study > > > > > >>> is > > > > > >>>>> teacher development. What I mean is that the teaching has no > > > clear > > > > > >>> object > > > > > >>>>> of teaching: it's not specifically about teaching math or > > > literacy > > > > or > > > > > >>>>> anything else but about teaching in general. The books I have > > in > > > > mind > > > > > >>> are > > > > > >>>>> really about teaching literacy (I think I want to try to > teach > > > > > >> WRITING > > > > > >>>>> before READING) and teaching science (I think I want to try a > > > > "hands > > > > > >>> off" > > > > > >>>>> approach that emphasizes word meanings instead of laboratory > > > > > >>>> experiments). > > > > > >>>>> And I am finding that I when I do this the result is not at > all > > > the > > > > > >>> kind > > > > > >>>> of > > > > > >>>>> "bottom up" thing that Helen does; it's very top down. > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> David Kellogg > > > > > >>>>> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> On 9 July 2014 07:33, Huw Lloyd > > > wrote: > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> Colourful. The complaint seems perfectly valid though: a > > > > > >>> typological > > > > > >>>>> and > > > > > >>>>>> epistemological error all in one conflated term. It > suggests > > > that > > > > > >> on > > > > > >>>> the > > > > > >>>>>> odd hours of the day there are Piagetian activities taking > > > place. > > > > > >>> Was > > > > > >>>>> this > > > > > >>>>>> part of the point of the chapter? > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> Best, > > > > > >>>>>> Huw > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> On 8 July 2014 21:40, David Kellogg > > > wrote: > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> I'm actually in the middle of Chapter Three right now. > What I > > > can > > > > > >>>> tell > > > > > >>>>>> you > > > > > >>>>>>> is that Helen's first two chapters are a kind of "Who's > Who" > > at > > > > > >>> xmca, > > > > > >>>>>> with > > > > > >>>>>>> Helen reading the great classics (in the wrong order) and > > > talking > > > > > >>> to > > > > > >>>>>> Andy, > > > > > >>>>>>> Greg, and others on this list. But beyond the litte > > shout-outs > > > to > > > > > >>>> xmca, > > > > > >>>>>> in > > > > > >>>>>>> Chapter Three, you find interesting problems like this. > Helen > > > is > > > > > >>>>> setting > > > > > >>>>>> up > > > > > >>>>>>> a "Professional Learning ZPD". This an acronymy within an > > > acronym > > > > > >>> (an > > > > > >>>>>>> "acro-acronym-nym", like the group I used to belong to in > New > > > > > >> York > > > > > >>>> and > > > > > >>>>>>> Paris, called "ACT-UP"), and in general Helen seems to have > > > some > > > > > >>>>> trouble > > > > > >>>>>>> with names. On pp. 58-59, she writes. > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> "In PLZ 4 I wrote the title 'Features of cultural > Historical > > > > > >>> Learning > > > > > >>>>>>> Activities' across a piece of butcher's paper and asked the > > > grou > > > > > >> to > > > > > >>>>>>> brainstorm features of activities that would be consistent > > with > > > > > >>>>> cultural > > > > > >>>>>>> historical theory. After a few suggestions, Mike suddenly > > > > > >>> interrupted > > > > > >>>>>> with: > > > > > >>>>>>> MIKE: Can I ask, Helen, why such a wank of a name? > > > > > >>>>>>> HELEN: Cultural-historical? > > > > > >>>>>>> MIKE: Yeah, what a bullshit name. > > > > > >>>>>>> DEB: What should it be Mike? > > > > > >>>>>>> MIKE: What does it mean to anyone? Is that relevant to > anyone > > > > > >> that > > > > > >>>>>>> name? Cultural-historical learning. What does that mean? > > > > > >>>>>>> HELEN: Well.... > > > > > >>>>>>> MIKE: It's crap. > > > > > >>>>>>> HELEN: Well, I don't think that you, that's the name of teh > > > > > >> theoyr, > > > > > >>>>>>> Cultural historical theory, but I think in terms of schools > > > using > > > > > >>> teh > > > > > >>>>>>> theory they talk about Communities of Learners. > > > > > >>>>>>> MIKE: Yeah, but why don't they call it that? > > > > > >>>>>>> HELEN: OK, so (I start crossing out "cultural historical" > and > > > > > >>>> changing > > > > > >>>>> it > > > > > >>>>>>> to "Communities of Learners") > > > > > >>>>>>> MIKE: That name is like calliing the ultra net site for > > > teachers > > > > > >>>>> 'design > > > > > >>>>>>> space'. It has no relevance to the name whatsoever, and to > > use > > > > > >>>>>> it--features > > > > > >>>>>>> of cultural historical learning--sounds like a load of > crap. > > It > > > > > >>>>>>> doesn't have any relevance ot what it means. If you said to > > me > > > > > >>>> cultural > > > > > >>>>>>> historical learning, I go .... > > > > > >>>>>>> BETH: I actually thought it meant talking about he past > > > (general > > > > > >>>>>>> agreement). > > > > > >>>>>>> MIKE: That's what it implies, the past and how you used to > > > teach. > > > > > >>>>>>> HELEN: I suppose I'm just trying to familiarize you with > the > > > term > > > > > >>>>>> (general > > > > > >>>>>>> agreement) > > > > > >>>>>>> MIKE: If you call it community of learners then it's > > something > > > > > >>> that's > > > > > >>>>>>> relevant." > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> Helen then makes the (cultural-historical) point that words > > > have > > > > > >> a > > > > > >>>>>> history, > > > > > >>>>>>> but they are not necessarily YOUR history--for Helen, > > "cultural > > > > > >>>>>> historical" > > > > > >>>>>>> calls up a whole series of quite precise concepts, while > > > > > >> "Community > > > > > >>>> of > > > > > >>>>>>> Learners" is kind of vague and undefined. But for the > > teachers > > > > > >> (who > > > > > >>>>> are, > > > > > >>>>>> I > > > > > >>>>>>> must say, not exactly reticent about sharing, and do not > > limit > > > > > >>>>> themselves > > > > > >>>>>>> to sharing their expertise) what you get is old times. > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> It's funny that they ignore the word culture. I always > > thought > > > > > >> that > > > > > >>>>>>> "cultural historical" is a little bit of the cart before > the > > > > > >>>> horse.... > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> David Kellogg > > > > > >>>>>>> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> On 8 July 2014 21:40, Peter Smagorinsky > > wrote: > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> The Practice of Teachers' Professional Development > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> A Cultural-Historical Approach > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> Helen Grimmett (Monash University, Australia) > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> This book uses Vygotsky's cultural-historical theory to > > > > > >> provide a > > > > > >>>>>> unique > > > > > >>>>>>>> theorisation of teachers' professional development as a > > > > > >>> practice. A > > > > > >>>>>>>> practice can be described as the socially structured > actions > > > > > >> set > > > > > >>> up > > > > > >>>>> to > > > > > >>>>>>>> produce a product or service aimed at meeting a collective > > > > > >> human > > > > > >>>>> need. > > > > > >>>>>> In > > > > > >>>>>>>> this case, collaborative, interventionist work with > teachers > > > in > > > > > >>> ... > > > > > >>>>>> Click > > > > > >>>>>>>> here for a free preview and full description< > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001ZduyW2xyB1USw9R1YjQno7GI-mDLfJ6m-729UFbNgCKe6Z_p9GP7xjN9IHr0mfZ1yni-XmxHyPfAaNcVjlENvx4l8ySiyRYKHRvvg2E6WbMlf3hNShpk2qTuRRu0ZenYc1mrXxe68_BX4FXljTnHjOx91vJalGeivvaQfmQF57rpGgcDrJe9bprlVyXQwjSo0U6yk-QJ1S5miZfuS7ohswmNs3UZWGMucMgWJyU6E_J3d8QHyWjpGuBM8i2twLXGBPHkZb6hFN4pF6PT3r3M7HYvwFdzAzSfRvpCd90DvQMVDuqkf5VY3ccoD6FppEGF&c=0Y23gLfSZ1jN_yGPyItMZic7SWiIoOcRfcrQWB0JYs9lkVW149lxUQ==&ch=ioZBoxRIwDxdvg-uu6NEwI-E45lgW01U_INO86ZNyJpwbp9zcKnCIA== > > > > > >>>>>>>>> . > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From helen.grimmett@monash.edu Mon Jul 14 18:51:45 2014 From: helen.grimmett@monash.edu (Helen Grimmett) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 11:51:45 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: book of possible interest In-Reply-To: References: <0D461088-CBBB-4BD9-ADCB-3024C36CBE81@telia.com> Message-ID: I think what is unique about Vygotsky's work in defectology is that, despite the name, it is not a deficit view (in the way that I understand the term) at all. I understand the commonly used term 'deficit view' as a focus on what children are 'missing' that needs to be provided to them by teachers to bring them up to a pre-conceived idea of 'normal' for their age/grade level etc. Whereas, a 'credit view' focuses on what children are able to do and bring to a learning situation, in which, in the interaction with others, they will be able to become more able to do and 'be' more than they were before (i.e. to develop), whether this be in the 'expected' ways to the 'expected' level or in completely different ways to a variety of different levels beyond or outside 'standard' expectations. From the little I have read on defectology I think this is what Vygotsky was advocating - that despite a child's blindness or deafness etc, development was still possible if mediational means were found that made use of the child's credits (i.e. using sign language or braille so that children still had access to the developmental opportunities provided by language). So I think your term pre-abled is in fact a credit view rather than a deficit view. I was attempting to also use a credit view in my work with the teachers. I saw them as being experienced practitioners who had lots to bring to our discussions of teaching and learning, in which together we could see what could be developed (new practices, new understandings). Once Kay and Mike realised this they got on board and engaged in the process and (possibly for the first time in a long while as they both saw themselves [and in fact are officially designated as] 'expert teachers') really reawakened the process of developing as professionals. They blew off most of the content I was contributing, but they realised the process was actually about 'unsticking' their own development and working out new and personally interesting and meaningful ways of 'becoming' more as teachers, instead of being stuck 'being' the teacher they had turned into over the years. Not all of the teachers made this leap in the time I worked with them though. Others were either quite disgruntled that I wouldn't provide them with answers to 'fix' their own perceived deficits or patiently waited for me to go away and stop rocking the boat. From what I can gather though, Ann (the principal) kept the boat rocking and managed over time to get more teachers to buy into the process of learning from each other and collaboratively creating new practices. As we said earlier, development takes time as well as effort. All I've got time for at the moment! Helen Dr Helen Grimmett Lecturer, Student Adviser, Faculty of Education, Room G64F, Building 902 Monash University, Berwick campus Phone: 9904 7171 *New Book: * The Practice of Teachers' Professional Development: A Cultural-Historical Approach Helen Grimmett (2014) Sense Publishers On 14 July 2014 14:43, David Kellogg wrote: > Near the end of Chapter Three (p. 81), Helen is summing up her experience > with the Banksia Bay PLZ and she notes with some dismay that her PDers have > "a deficit view" of their children and tend towards "container models" of > the mind ("empty vessel, sponge, blank canvas"). Only one teacher, Ann sees > anything wrong with this, and Helen says "they don't necessarily value her > opinion". > > Helen finds herself rather conflicted: One the one hand, she says "If > their representations of children really do represent their beliefs, then > they are probably right to insist there is no need to change." And on the > other, she says "My intention was never to say that their present practice > was wrong, but to help them see alternative ways of thinking about > children, learning, and teaching." > > Of course, if there is no need to change, then it follows that there is no > reason to look for alternative ways of thinking about children, learning > and teaching. The only reason for spending scarce cognitive resources on > seeing different ways of looking at children is if you do, in fact, take a > deficit view of the teachers. Ann, and the Regional Consultants, apparently > do, but Helen realizes that there isn't much basis for this: not only do we > have no actual data of lessons to look at, we know that one of the > teachers, Kay, has been in the classroom for three decades (during which > time Helen has spent at least one decade OUT of the classroom). > > While we were translating Vygotsky's "History of the Development of the > Higher Psychological Functions" last year, some of my colleagues were taken > aback by Vygotsky's use of terms like "moron", "imbecile", "idiot", and > "cretin". Of course, Vygotsky is writing long before the "euphemisim > treadmill" turned these into playground insults; for Vygotsky they are > quite precise descriptors--not of cognitive ability but actually of > LANGUAGE ability. But because our readership are progressive Korean > teachers with strong views about these questions, we found that we couldn't > even use the term "mentally retarded" without a strongly worded footnote > disavowing the "deficit" thinking behind the term. > > I think that Vygotsky would have been surprised by this. I think he took it > for granted that a defect was a deficit: being blind means a deficit in > vision, and being deaf means a deficit in hearing. In the same way, a brain > defect is not an asset. On the other hand, I think Vygotsky would find our > own term "disabled" quite inaccurate: since all forms of development are > compensatory and involve "circuitous routes" of one kind or another, and > all developed children, even, and even especially, gifted children, contain > islands of underdevelopment, the correct term for deficits of all kinds is > not "disabled" but "pre-abled". > > Personally, I see nothing wrong with a deficit view of children that sees > them as pre-abled (or, as Vygotsky liked to say, 'primitivist"; that is, > they are waiting for the mediational means that we have foolishly developed > only for the psychophysiologically most common types to catch up with the > actual variation in real children. I suspect this view is actually quite a > bit closer to what Kay thinks than to what Helen thinks. > > David Kellogg > Hankuk University of Foreign Studies > > > > > > > On 13 July 2014 10:59, Helen Grimmett wrote: > > > Hi David, > > > > Interesting question. I absolutely think that development AS a > professional > > is necessary, just as development as a human is necessary, so if > > professional development is seen as the practice in which this > development > > is produced then absolutely I do think it is necessary. The form that > this > > practice takes though, and indeed the form of the development that is > > produced within this practice, are the things open to question however. > > > > I definitely think that a teacher's development as a professional > includes > > the need to understand their practice better rather than just change it, > > but I think that understanding often develops best in/alongside/with the > > process of changing (and vice versa) rather than separately from it, and, > > as you point out above, in establishing ties *between* people and then > > within them. So a practice of professional development that creates > > conditions which support this type of development will (I believe) be > much > > more effective than traditional forms of PD that either attempt to > lecture > > about theoretical principles but do not support teachers to transfer > these > > into practical changes, OR provide teachers with practical programs and > > expect them to implement them without any understanding of what and why > the > > changes matter. I think the term "Professional Development" is an > absolute > > misnomer for either of those typical approaches. > > > > So again, I have a problem with names! I'm talking about Professional > > Development with a completely different meaning than what most of the > > education community believe it to mean when they talk about attending PD > > seminars or workshops. I toyed with trying to find a different name for > the > > particular meaning I'm talking about, but when you are talking about > > development from a cultural-historical theoretical perspective then there > > really is no other word to use! That's why I stuck to using 'professional > > development' (in full) when I meant my meaning, and PD (which is what > > teachers in Australia commonly refer to seminars and workshops as) when I > > refer to the typical (and in my view, usually non-developmental) forms of > > activities that teachers are subjected to each year. > > > > So, I agree that the need for PD is questionable, but the need for > > practices of professional development that help teachers to develop as > > professionals (that is, to develop a unified understanding of both the > > theoretical and practical aspects of their work, which is itself > > continually developing in order to meet the changing needs of their > > students, schools and society) is essential. While I think co-teaching is > > one practical small-scale solution, working out viable, economical, and > > manageable ways to create these practices on a large-scale is a very > large > > problem. > > > > Cheers, > > Helen > > > > > > Dr Helen Grimmett > > Lecturer, Student Adviser, > > Faculty of Education, > > Room G64F, Building 902 > > Monash University, Berwick campus > > Phone: 9904 7171 > > > > *New Book: * > > The Practice of Teachers' Professional Development: A Cultural-Historical > > Approach > > < > > > https://www.sensepublishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/professional-learning-1/the-practice-of-teachers-professional-development/ > > > > > Helen Grimmett (2014) Sense Publishers > > > > > > > > < > > > http://monash.edu.au/education/news/50-years/?utm_source=staff-email&utm_medium=email-signature&utm_campaign=50th > > > > > > > > > On 13 July 2014 08:57, David Kellogg wrote: > > > > > Helen: > > > > > > Good to hear from you at long last--I knew you were lurking out there > > > somewhere! > > > > > > I didn't actually write the line about "establishing ties"--it's from > > "The > > > Little Prince". The prince asks what "tame" means, and the fox replies > > that > > > it means "to establish ties". But of course what I meant was that ties > > are > > > established first between people and then within them; the ties of > > > development are interfunctional ties that make up a new psychological > > > system. (Or, for Halliday, they are the inter-systemic ties that make > up > > > new metafunctions.) > > > > > > As you say, Yrjo Engestrom chooses to emphasize another aspect of > > > development with "breaking away"--he wants to stress its crisis-ridden > > > nature. I agree with this, actually, but mostly I agree with you, that > we > > > are talking about two moments of the same process. To me, breaking away > > is > > > really a precondition of the real business of establishing ties. > > > > > > Thomas Piketty makes a similar point in his book "Capital in the > > > Twenty-first Century". He admits that war and revolution is the only > > thing > > > that EVER counteracts the tendency of returns from capital to outstrip > > the > > > growth in income, and that the 20th Century was an outlier in this > > respect, > > > and the Russian revolution an extreme outlier within that outlier. But > he > > > also says that in the long run the one thing that makes UPWARD mobility > > > possible is education. Despite everything, because of everything. > > > > > > I finished the book a few days ago. I guess the thing I most want to > ask > > > about is the assumption that professional development is necessary at > > all. > > > Doesn't it make more sense to say that before we change what we are > > doing, > > > we should understand it better? > > > > > > David Kellogg > > > Hankuk University of Foreign Studies > > > > > > > > > On 12 July 2014 13:20, Helen Grimmett > wrote: > > > > > > > Ah, I think you have hit the nail on the head David. It is indeed > TIME > > > that > > > > is so crucial - not only duration of time, but also location of time > > > (which > > > > I suppose is really context). > > > > > > > > The problems I had with Mike and his colleagues about the terminology > > > > stemmed partly from the typical Aussie disdain for using words that > > might > > > > make your mates think you are trying to appear 'better' than them, so > > > > therefore you mock anything that sounds too serious or intellectual. > > But > > > > beyond this surface level of complaining the problems Huw and you > have > > > been > > > > discussing boil down to problems with time. > > > > > > > > Huw's complaint about my use of the heading "Features of > > > > Cultural-Historical Learning Activities" is well justified - but it > was > > > > really just a shorthand written version of what I was verbally asking > > for > > > > as "What might be some particular features of learning activities > that > > > > would align with principles of Cultural-Historical Theory?" That > would > > > have > > > > taken too long to write on the top of the piece of paper - and of > > course > > > > time is always too short in any after-school PD so shortcuts are > > > inevitably > > > > taken. (Time problem #1) > > > > > > > > Time problem #2, which your discussion has highlighted for me, is > that > > of > > > > course my question was really "What might be some particular features > > of > > > > learning activities that would align with THE LIMITED NUMBER OF (AND > > > > LIMITED UNDERSTANDING OF) principles of Cultural-Historical Theory > THAT > > > YOU > > > > HAVE BEEN INTRODUCED TO SO FAR?" so I really should have not been so > > > > surprised that they would find the brainstorming activity difficult > and > > > > resort to diversionary tactics! (Mike's outburst posted here by David > > was > > > > not the only eventful moment I write about from this one activity. > But > > > > these apparent failures actually provided much more interesting data > > for > > > me > > > > and eventually lead me to several key findings in my thesis). I had > > spent > > > > several years by this stage reading and discussing Vygotsky and yet I > > had > > > > assumed/hoped the teachers would have enough understanding from my > > > > (probably not very good) explanations ABOUT theory over the previous > 3 > > > > short sessions I had had with them to be able to contribute answers > to > > my > > > > brainstorm question. They had not had enough TIME to become familiar > > with > > > > enough of the theory to make much sense of it yet - but still, we > have > > to > > > > start somewhere and this was still early days. > > > > > > > > Time problem #3 brings in what I called above the location of time. I > > had > > > > never intended for the sessions to be me giving after-school lectures > > > about > > > > either theory or practice, yet this is what the teachers seemed to > > expect > > > > from me (and even demand from me) and were pretty disgruntled when I > > > > wouldn't/couldn't deliver. My intention was always to get them to > > engage > > > > with the relationship between THEORY and PRACTICE, just as David's > > comic > > > > book discusses the relationship between THINKING and SPEECH or > EMOTION > > > and > > > > COGNITION. My problem of course was that once we were in an > > after-school > > > > meeting we were removed in both time and space from where theory and > > > > practice of teaching/learning operate as a relation (i.e. the > classroom > > > > activity). I was actually trying to create/use our own PLZ > > (Professional > > > > Learning ZPD) as the activity in which to develop and understand this > > > > relationship but it was initially very hard to get the teachers to > > > > understand this (at least until we had enough of David's Fox's > socially > > > > shared experiences for the meanings to become communicable) and then > > even > > > > more difficult to get them to transfer this back to developing their > > own > > > > classroom teaching. Ironically, despite being the loudest complainers > > and > > > > disparagers, it was Mike and Kay (the protagonist of my other > eventful > > > > moment in the brainstorming session) who actually ended up making the > > > > biggest changes in their classroom practice. Perhaps this is not > really > > > > surprising at all - they were the ones who obviously engaged and > argued > > > > with the ideas and activities rather than simply endured them! > > > > > > > > My eventual answer to the problems encountered in my work with the > > group > > > of > > > > teachers was to work WITH a teacher IN her own classroom so that we > had > > > > shared experiences of the relationship between theory and practice > > which > > > > could not only be discussed after the events, but also actually acted > > > upon > > > > there and then IN the event - creating what I called "Situated > > Conscious > > > > Awareness" of both the theoretical and practical aspects of the > > concepts > > > of > > > > teaching/learning and development we were developing understanding > and > > > > practice of together. But perhaps I should wait until David gets up > to > > > this > > > > part of the book before I say more! > > > > > > > > Finally, one other point that really caught my attention in your > comic > > > book > > > > David is that your prince calls development "to establish ties" which > > is > > > an > > > > interesting difference to Engestrom's definition as "breaking away". > > But > > > > perhaps, as always in CH theory, it is not a matter of either/or but > in > > > > fact both/and ideas that are necessary. From what I learned in my > > study, > > > > teachers' development as professionals is definitely BOTH about > > breaking > > > > away from old, routinised understandings and practices AND > establishing > > > new > > > > connections between and amongst theoretical concepts and practices, > > > > enabling them to continually develop new competences and motives > across > > > all > > > > of their professional duties. > > > > > > > > Thanks for your interest in my book David. The discussion it has > > sparked > > > > has helped me revisit ideas from new perspectives. > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > Helen > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dr Helen Grimmett > > > > Lecturer, Student Adviser, > > > > Faculty of Education, > > > > Room G64F, Building 902 > > > > Monash University, Berwick campus > > > > Phone: 9904 7171 > > > > > > > > *New Book: * > > > > The Practice of Teachers' Professional Development: A > > Cultural-Historical > > > > Approach > > > > < > > > > > > > > > > https://www.sensepublishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/professional-learning-1/the-practice-of-teachers-professional-development/ > > > > > > > > > Helen Grimmett (2014) Sense Publishers > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > < > > > > > > > > > > http://monash.edu.au/education/news/50-years/?utm_source=staff-email&utm_medium=email-signature&utm_campaign=50th > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 12 July 2014 07:29, David Kellogg wrote: > > > > > > > > > Plekhanov distinguishes between "agitators" and "propagandists". > > > > Agitators > > > > > are essentially popularizers; they have the job of ripping away a > > > subset > > > > of > > > > > smaller and simpler ideas from a fabric of much larger and more > > complex > > > > > theory and then disseminating them amongst the largest possible > > number > > > of > > > > > people. In other words, their focus is exoteric. Propagandists are > > > > > essentially conspiratorial: they have the job of initiating a small > > > > number > > > > > of the elect and educating them in the whole theoretical system--as > > > Larry > > > > > would say, the full Bildung. In other words, their focus is > esoteric. > > > As > > > > > you can see, Plekhanov was good at making distinctions, and not so > > good > > > > at > > > > > showing how things are linked. For Helena, who is a labor > educator, > > > you > > > > > can't really be an effective agitator unless you are also a > > > propagandist. > > > > > You need to present your exoteric extracts in such a way that they > > are, > > > > to > > > > > borrow Larry's phrase, both necessary and sufficient to lead people > > on > > > to > > > > > the esoterica. I'm with Helena--and with Bruner--with children it's > > > > always > > > > > possible to tell the truth, part of the truth, but nothing but the > > > truth, > > > > > and if we can do it with kids, why not do it with adults? > > > > > > > > > > (I am less sure about what it means to say that the objectively > human > > > is > > > > > the "subjectively historical"--it sounds like history is being > > reified > > > > as a > > > > > subject, that is, as a living, breathing, acting "World Spirit" > that > > > can > > > > > have a mind and reflect upon itself. My understanding of history is > > > > > that just as we cannot have the advanced form of historical > > > consciousness > > > > > in dialogue with the more primitive forms, the opportunity to > reflect > > > > upon > > > > > the whole process when it is all over is simply never going to be > > > > available > > > > > to anyone. The Merleau-Ponty quotation is beautiful and intensely > > > > > poetic, Larry--but when I look at a bubble or a wave, I do not > simply > > > see > > > > > chaos; I see past bubbles and past waves, and potential bubbles and > > > > > potential waves. Isn't that a part of the experience of "loving > > > history" > > > > as > > > > > well?) > > > > > > > > > > My wife wrote a wonderful Ph.D. thesis about how any work of > > literature > > > > can > > > > > be looked at on four time frames: phylogenetic (the history of a > > > genre), > > > > > ontogenetic (the biography of a career), logogenetic (the > development > > > of > > > > a > > > > > plot or a character), and microgenetic (the unfolding of a > dialogue, > > > or a > > > > > paragraph). Her supervisor complained about the terminology in > > somewhat > > > > > more elegant terms than Mike does in Helen's data:and suggested > that > > > she > > > > > should replace the terms with "history", "biography", "development" > > and > > > > > "unfolding", to make it more exoteric. > > > > > > > > > > I think that if she had done that, it would have made the thesis > into > > > > > agitation rather than education. Yes, the terms would have been > more > > > > > familiar, and they might even, given other context, be taken to > mean > > > the > > > > > same thing. But what we would have gotten is good, clear > distinctions > > > > > ("history" on the one hand and "biography" on the other) and what > we > > > > would > > > > > have lost is the linkedness of one time frame to another--the way > in > > > > which > > > > > the phylogenesis of genre produces the mature genre which is used > in > > an > > > > > author's ontegenesis, and the way in which the author's ontogenesis > > > > > produces the starting point and the raw materials for the > logogenetic > > > > > development of a work, not to mention the way in which logogenesis > is > > > > > reflected in the microgenetic unfolding of dialogue. > > > > > > > > > > So I think that when Helena writes that anything can be explained > to > > > > anyone > > > > > in language that is everyday and simple and in a way that is > > > > understandable > > > > > and at least part of the whole truth, I agree somewhat enviously > (you > > > > see, > > > > > Helena is a labor educator, but I teach TESOL, which is really the > > > > process > > > > > of taking a few very simple and exoteric ideas that good teachers > > > already > > > > > have and disseminating the select to the elect for vast sums of > > money). > > > > But > > > > > I have to add a rider--when we popularize richly woven fabrics of > > ideas > > > > > like cultural historical theory we are not simply juggling > > vocabulary. > > > I > > > > > think that Helena recognizes this perfectly when she says that it > > takes > > > > > TIME to be simple and clear. If it were simply a matter of > replacing > > > > > "cultural historical" with "community of learners" it would > actually > > > take > > > > > less time, but it isn't and it doesn't. > > > > > > > > > > It is very hot in Seoul today, and somewhere out there a toddler is > > > > arguing > > > > > with a parent because he wants watermelon with breakfast. The > parent > > > > > resists, because if you eat cold watermelon on an empty stomach you > > > get a > > > > > tummy-ache. The argument grows heated and long--and complex, but > the > > > > > complexity is of a particular kind, with very short, repeated, > > > > insistancies > > > > > from the child and somewhat longer more complex remonstrations from > > the > > > > > parent. We can call this complex discourse but simple grammar. A > few > > > > years > > > > > will go by and we will find that the school child has mastered the > > > trick > > > > of > > > > > long and complex remonstrations and can use them pre-emptively to > win > > > > > arguments. We can call this complex grammar, but simple vocabulary. > > > Only > > > > > when a decade or two has elapsed will we find that child, now > adult, > > > can > > > > > use the language of science, which is for the most part > grammatically > > > > > simple (at least compared to the pre-emptive remonstrations of the > > > school > > > > > child), but full of very complex vocabulary (e.g. "phylogeny > > > anticipates > > > > > ontogeny", or "cultural-historical activity theory enables > > communities > > > of > > > > > learners"). > > > > > > > > > > It's Saturday today, and in a few minutes I have to leave for the > > > weekly > > > > > meeting of our translation group, which produces mighty tomes which > > we > > > > > produce to popularize the works of Vygotsky amongst militant > teachers > > > > here > > > > > in Korea (our version of "Thinking and Speech" is seven hundred > pages > > > > long > > > > > because of all the explanatory notes and boxes with helpful > > pictures). > > > On > > > > > the other hand, there is the attached comic book version of the > first > > > > > chapter of "Thinking and Speech" which I wrote a couple of years > ago > > > for > > > > > some graduate students who were having trouble talking about the > real > > > > > "Thinking and Speech" in class. > > > > > > > > > > I think you can see that Huw's complaint is justified--the comic > > > > > book dialogue is "about" Thinking and Speech, but it is not > "Thinking > > > and > > > > > Speech" at all, in the same way that "community of learners" or > > > > "biography" > > > > > is ABOUT cultural historical theory or ontogenesis. And I think > that > > > part > > > > > of the problem (but only part of it) is that the comic book is just > > too > > > > > short. > > > > > > > > > > David Kellogg > > > > > Hankuk University of Foreign Studies > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2014-07-11 17:09 GMT+09:00 Leif Strandberg < > > > leifstrandberg.ab@telia.com > > > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 11 jul 2014 kl. 06:41 skrev Larry Purss : > > > > > > > > > > > > > David, > > > > > > > I have been following your reflections through this thread. > > > > > > > You commented: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So it's almost always more useful for me to > > > > > > > think of learning phenomena as NOT reducible to the physical, > at > > > > least > > > > > > not > > > > > > > in their unit of analysis > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have been reflecting on the notion of *bildung* as learning. > > > > > > > The notion of *cultivation* and *disposition* and *comportment* > > as > > > > the > > > > > > > potential of learning. > > > > > > > I came across this quote from Gramsci who was questioning the > > > notion > > > > of > > > > > > > *laws* as the basis for making social predictions. Such *laws* > > > > excluded > > > > > > the > > > > > > > subjective factor from history. > > > > > > > Gramsci wrote on social process: "Objective always means > 'humanly > > > > > > > objective' which can be held to correspond exactly to > > 'historically > > > > > > > subjective' " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Merleau-Ponty also explored what I refer to as *disposition* > with > > > > this > > > > > > > quote on the reality of history: > > > > > > > History "awakens us to the importance of daily events and > action. > > > For > > > > > it > > > > > > is > > > > > > > a philosophy [of history -LP] which arouses in us a love for > our > > > > times > > > > > > > which are not the simple repetition of human eternity nor > merely > > > the > > > > > > > conclusion of premises already postulated. It is a view that > like > > > the > > > > > > most > > > > > > > fragile object of perception - a soap bubble, or a wave - or > like > > > the > > > > > > most > > > > > > > simple dialogue, embraces indivisibly all the order and all the > > > > > disorder > > > > > > of > > > > > > > the world." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I read these passages from Gramsci and M-P as a way of > exploring > > > > > > > *comportment* or *disposition* that is *learned*. [bildung??] > > > There > > > > is > > > > > > no > > > > > > > necessary or sufficient standpoint for interpreting this > > inherently > > > > > > > heterogeneous process. However we may potentially learn various > > > > > > > *approaches* or *ways* of being-in-the-world through learning > > > > > processes. > > > > > > > The notion of *bildung* is a way to reflect on this learning > > > process > > > > > > > Larry > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 3:54 PM, Huw Lloyd < > > > > huw.softdesigns@gmail.com> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On 10 July 2014 22:33, David Kellogg > > > wrote: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >>> Huw: > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> Is learning material? In what sense? At what point? > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Historically, with Marx. :) > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> The rest of your formations are subsumed by Baldwin's 1st and > > 2nd > > > > > > axioms of > > > > > > >> genetic logic. :) > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> As someone experienced with computation and computational > > > > processes, I > > > > > > do > > > > > > >> find it quite straightfoward to think of memories as material > > > > > > impressions. > > > > > > >> Cached values or lazy evaluation -- it's quite > > straightforward... > > > > Not > > > > > > >> rubbish, not garbage, but Babbage! > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Best, > > > > > > >> Huw > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> I guess I think of it this way. All phenomena in the universe > > are > > > > > > >> physical, > > > > > > >>> but only in the final analysis. When my father (who is a > > retired > > > > but > > > > > > >>> unrepentant solar physicist) studies these phenomena he uses > > > > various > > > > > > >> units > > > > > > >>> of analysis (my father likes to think big, so his usual unit > of > > > > > > analysis > > > > > > >> is > > > > > > >>> a solar emission many times larger than the earth, but > > sometimes, > > > > > > >> depending > > > > > > >>> on the problem, he will condescend to think about smaller > > > particles > > > > > > like > > > > > > >>> atomic nuclei). Some of these physical phenomena, when they > > cool > > > > > down a > > > > > > >>> little, are chemical as well, and because these phenomena are > > > > > chemical > > > > > > as > > > > > > >>> well as physical, the unit of analysis that is proper to them > > is > > > > the > > > > > > >>> molecule and its motions, and not simply the particle (Dad > > > doesn't > > > > > care > > > > > > >>> about these phenomena; he likes his physics hot). > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> Some of these chemical phenomena are biological as well, and > > here > > > > > once > > > > > > >>> again the unit of analysis has to change (e.g. to the cell) > in > > > > order > > > > > to > > > > > > >>> take into account the new properties which come into being at > > > this > > > > > > scale. > > > > > > >>> Some biological phenomena are cultural-historical in turn, > and > > > here > > > > > too > > > > > > >> we > > > > > > >>> must change the unit of analysis in order not to lose > essential > > > > > > >> information > > > > > > >>> that is created with higher levels of organization and > > > > complexity.Of > > > > > > >>> course, these cultural historical phenomena are all reducible > > to > > > > > > >> biological > > > > > > >>> phenomena, and therefore reducible to chemical and physical > > > > > phenomena, > > > > > > >> but > > > > > > >>> only in the final analysis. Hey, in the final analysis, as > > > Carolyn > > > > > > Porco > > > > > > >>> says, we all get reduced to physical phenomena when the sun > > > > explodes > > > > > > and > > > > > > >>> blows the particles that were once our bodies out into space, > > to > > > > > enjoy > > > > > > >>> eternal life...but only as physical phenomena. > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> In the meantime, if we want to understand cultural-historical > > > > > phenomena > > > > > > >> as > > > > > > >>> such, we have to confront their higher levels of organization > > and > > > > > > >>> complexity.The cultural historical phenomena that I am most > > > > > interested > > > > > > in > > > > > > >>> turn out to have another subset of phenomena which Halliday > > calls > > > > > > >>> semiotic--that is, they are sociologically > cultural-historical > > > > > > phenomena > > > > > > >>> that stand, even if only for a fleeting instant, > > > > > > >>> for psychologically cultural-historical phenomena. These > > > phenomena > > > > > are > > > > > > >>> material too (that is, they are biological, chemical, and > even > > > > > > >>> physical), for the way things stand for other things is > > > ultimately > > > > > > >>> reducible to a thing: words are, in the final analysis, "made > > of > > > > > living > > > > > > >>> breath", as Shakespeare says, or "layers of moving air" if > you > > > > prefer > > > > > > >>> Engels. > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> But only in the final analysis. In the interim, too much > > > > information > > > > > is > > > > > > >>> lost when we reduce these semiotic phenomena to physical, > > > material, > > > > > > >>> things (for example, when my students try to model learner > > > > > > comprehension > > > > > > >>> problems as pure phonetic discrimination without taking into > > > > account > > > > > > the > > > > > > >>> layer of wording or meaning). So it's almost always more > useful > > > for > > > > > me > > > > > > to > > > > > > >>> think of learning phenomena as NOT reducible to the physical, > > at > > > > > least > > > > > > >> not > > > > > > >>> in their unit of analysis. Actually, it seems to me that the > > > > > > >>> general "cultural-historical" level of analysis is if > anything > > a > > > > step > > > > > > >>> closer to biology or chemistry or physics than the subset of > > > > cultural > > > > > > >>> historical phenomena that I mean when I refer to learning, > > > because > > > > to > > > > > > me > > > > > > >>> learning is microgenetic, that is, POTENTIALLY ontogenetic, > > which > > > > is > > > > > in > > > > > > >>> turn POTENTIALLY sociogenetic, which (to me) is the general > > level > > > > of > > > > > > >>> analysis we mean when we talk about cultural historical > > > phenomena. > > > > So > > > > > > the > > > > > > >>> real answer to Mike's colorful complaint about handles is not > > > > > > "Community > > > > > > >> of > > > > > > >>> Learners" but actually "physico-chemico-bio-socio-semiotic > > > learning > > > > > > >>> activities". > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> Time for that quantum physical cup of coffee you were talking > > > > > about.... > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> David Kellogg > > > > > > >>> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> On 10 July 2014 08:53, Huw Lloyd > > > > wrote: > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>>> David, > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> Just to be clear, the error I was referring to was the > > > attribution > > > > > of > > > > > > a > > > > > > >>>> theory (as an adjective) to the material thing (learning). > It > > > > would > > > > > > be > > > > > > >>>> like saying, I am going to make a Newtonian cup of coffee in > > the > > > > > > >> morning > > > > > > >>>> and a quantum mechanical cup of coffee in the afternoon. > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> I suppose colourful language serves the purpose of > deliberate > > > > > > >> vagueness. > > > > > > >>>> It's hard to be trendy and have a precise point. > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> I fear we are soon approaching the "teach yourself activity > > > theory > > > > > for > > > > > > >>>> dummies" book someday soon. From my understanding, the > theory > > > > > itself > > > > > > >>>> repudiates such a thing -- one cannot spoon feed theory -- > > but I > > > > > don't > > > > > > >>>> think that will stop folk trying. > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> I see no problem (or contradiction) in top down approaches. > > > > > Solving a > > > > > > >>>> problem in general is a powerful approach to many problems. > > For > > > > > many > > > > > > >>>> problems the concrete details are amenable to design and > > > > > > configuration, > > > > > > >>> one > > > > > > >>>> can often choose tools to suit the proposed solution rather > > than > > > > > > >>>> vice-versa. But from an educational perspective, I see no > > > > > > alternative > > > > > > >>>> than starting with the individual, ofcourse one can have > > general > > > > > > >>> strategies > > > > > > >>>> in doing so -- waiting to be asked before giving an > > explanation > > > > etc. > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> Nice chatting. > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> Best, > > > > > > >>>> Huw > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> On 9 July 2014 22:46, David Kellogg > > > wrote: > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>>> Huw: > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> Helen has written a remarkable, important book. I gather > it's > > > > part > > > > > of > > > > > > >>> her > > > > > > >>>>> Ph.D. thesis, but it doesn't really read like a Ph.D. > thesis. > > > It > > > > > > >> reads > > > > > > >>>> like > > > > > > >>>>> a teacher-trainer (or "professional development > consultant", > > or > > > > > > >>> whatever > > > > > > >>>> we > > > > > > >>>>> are supposed to call them) with a problem who eventually, > > with > > > a > > > > > > >> little > > > > > > >>>>> help from the classics of cultural historical psychology > and > > a > > > > lot > > > > > of > > > > > > >>>> help > > > > > > >>>>> from a co-teacher (who has a somewhat bookish, inert but > > > > > nevertheless > > > > > > >>>>> respectful and open acquaintance with those classics) > > achieves > > > a > > > > > very > > > > > > >>>> open > > > > > > >>>>> but nevertheless very workable solution. > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> So the bit I quoted represents the problem, or rather, two > > > > > problems. > > > > > > >> On > > > > > > >>>> the > > > > > > >>>>> one hand, Helen is trying to do something new: she wants to > > > bring > > > > > new > > > > > > >>>> CHAT > > > > > > >>>>> concepts to bear on extant classroom activities and modify > > them > > > > in > > > > > > >> ways > > > > > > >>>>> that she is confident will work. On the other, Helen is > > working > > > > > with > > > > > > >>> some > > > > > > >>>>> pretty experienced (and even somewhat brutalized) teachers: > > > they > > > > > have > > > > > > >>>> seen > > > > > > >>>>> "Professional Development" fads come and go, collected > their > > > free > > > > > > >>> lunches > > > > > > >>>>> and go on doing things the old way. > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> Helen achieves her solution from the bottom up. Eventually, > > she > > > > > does > > > > > > >>>> find a > > > > > > >>>>> teacher who can teacher her a lot and who, even though > Helen > > > > > herself > > > > > > >>>>> is uniquely gifted, with not only the theoretical > background > > we > > > > all > > > > > > >>>> share, > > > > > > >>>>> but also considerable first hand experience as a teacher > and > > a > > > > > > >> parent, > > > > > > >>>> can > > > > > > >>>>> nevertheless be taught in turn. But as you can see from the > > > > > extract, > > > > > > >>>> she's > > > > > > >>>>> extremely open, even to savage, unfair, and somewhat obtuse > > > > > > >> criticisms. > > > > > > >>>>> Mike's critique of "cultural historical" is not that it is > an > > > > > > >>>>> epistemological error or a typological one, or that it puts > > the > > > > > > >> product > > > > > > >>>>> "culture" before the process "history". It's not even that > it > > > > > > >> suggests > > > > > > >>>> that > > > > > > >>>>> on the odd day Piagetian activities might be taking place, > > > which, > > > > > by > > > > > > >>> the > > > > > > >>>>> way, is probably true, since these teachers were mostly > > trained > > > > > > >> during > > > > > > >>>> the > > > > > > >>>>> "reign" of Piaget in the sixties and seventies. > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> No, Mike's complaint is really, if you will pardon the > > > > expression, > > > > > a > > > > > > >>> wank > > > > > > >>>>> of a complaint. He is just complaining that the name is > > uncool; > > > > it > > > > > > >>>> doesn't > > > > > > >>>>> sound like the popular teachers would like it; the name > won't > > > go > > > > > with > > > > > > >>> an > > > > > > >>>>> embossed moose like "Abercrombie and Fitch" or "community > of > > > > > > >>>>> learners" does. I think we have to accept that responsive, > > > > > sensitive > > > > > > >>>>> teachers inevitably end up internalizing some of the worst > > > > aspects > > > > > of > > > > > > >>>>> adolescent thinking, and this is an example. I might even > say > > > > it's > > > > > a > > > > > > >>>>> bullshit complaint. It's crap, etc. (But this is one of > those > > > > > > >>>>> language situations where redundancy does not suggest > > > > development.) > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> I guess if I encountered a bullshit complaint like that I > > would > > > > > > >>> complain > > > > > > >>>> a > > > > > > >>>>> little about "community of learners". I think that > "community > > > of > > > > > > >>>>> learners" is essentially a way of saying > > "socio-psychological": > > > > > it's > > > > > > >>>>> relevant to everyday teaching, but it doesn't tell us much > > > about > > > > > how > > > > > > >>> the > > > > > > >>>>> "socio" got there, whereas "cultural-historical" does. I > > might > > > > even > > > > > > >> ask > > > > > > >>>> if > > > > > > >>>>> Mike is going to try to teach physics, chemistry, biology, > or > > > > > history > > > > > > >>> to > > > > > > >>>>> kids without some way of saying "physico-chemical" or > > > > > > >>>> "chemico-biological", > > > > > > >>>>> or "biologico-social". If not, then I don't see anything > > wrong > > > > with > > > > > > >>>>> teaching language, including the language of teaching, as > > > > something > > > > > > >>>>> "socio-semiotic" or "historico-cultural". But then, I never > > was > > > > one > > > > > > >> of > > > > > > >>>> the > > > > > > >>>>> cool kids. > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> My problem is this. I too would like to write a book now. I > > > have > > > > > two > > > > > > >> in > > > > > > >>>>> mind, and they are both practical books about teacher > > training, > > > > > > >>>>> similar in their targets to Helen's book, which is why I am > > > > > studying > > > > > > >> it > > > > > > >>>>> carefully. But I find that the books that I have in mind > are > > > > really > > > > > > >>>> "about > > > > > > >>>>> something" in a way that Helen's book is not. I don't mean > > that > > > > > > >> Helen's > > > > > > >>>>> book has no object of study: like the title says, the > object > > of > > > > > study > > > > > > >>> is > > > > > > >>>>> teacher development. What I mean is that the teaching has > no > > > > clear > > > > > > >>> object > > > > > > >>>>> of teaching: it's not specifically about teaching math or > > > > literacy > > > > > or > > > > > > >>>>> anything else but about teaching in general. The books I > have > > > in > > > > > mind > > > > > > >>> are > > > > > > >>>>> really about teaching literacy (I think I want to try to > > teach > > > > > > >> WRITING > > > > > > >>>>> before READING) and teaching science (I think I want to > try a > > > > > "hands > > > > > > >>> off" > > > > > > >>>>> approach that emphasizes word meanings instead of > laboratory > > > > > > >>>> experiments). > > > > > > >>>>> And I am finding that I when I do this the result is not at > > all > > > > the > > > > > > >>> kind > > > > > > >>>> of > > > > > > >>>>> "bottom up" thing that Helen does; it's very top down. > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> David Kellogg > > > > > > >>>>> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> On 9 July 2014 07:33, Huw Lloyd > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> Colourful. The complaint seems perfectly valid though: a > > > > > > >>> typological > > > > > > >>>>> and > > > > > > >>>>>> epistemological error all in one conflated term. It > > suggests > > > > that > > > > > > >> on > > > > > > >>>> the > > > > > > >>>>>> odd hours of the day there are Piagetian activities taking > > > > place. > > > > > > >>> Was > > > > > > >>>>> this > > > > > > >>>>>> part of the point of the chapter? > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> Best, > > > > > > >>>>>> Huw > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> On 8 July 2014 21:40, David Kellogg > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> I'm actually in the middle of Chapter Three right now. > > What I > > > > can > > > > > > >>>> tell > > > > > > >>>>>> you > > > > > > >>>>>>> is that Helen's first two chapters are a kind of "Who's > > Who" > > > at > > > > > > >>> xmca, > > > > > > >>>>>> with > > > > > > >>>>>>> Helen reading the great classics (in the wrong order) and > > > > talking > > > > > > >>> to > > > > > > >>>>>> Andy, > > > > > > >>>>>>> Greg, and others on this list. But beyond the litte > > > shout-outs > > > > to > > > > > > >>>> xmca, > > > > > > >>>>>> in > > > > > > >>>>>>> Chapter Three, you find interesting problems like this. > > Helen > > > > is > > > > > > >>>>> setting > > > > > > >>>>>> up > > > > > > >>>>>>> a "Professional Learning ZPD". This an acronymy within an > > > > acronym > > > > > > >>> (an > > > > > > >>>>>>> "acro-acronym-nym", like the group I used to belong to in > > New > > > > > > >> York > > > > > > >>>> and > > > > > > >>>>>>> Paris, called "ACT-UP"), and in general Helen seems to > have > > > > some > > > > > > >>>>> trouble > > > > > > >>>>>>> with names. On pp. 58-59, she writes. > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> "In PLZ 4 I wrote the title 'Features of cultural > > Historical > > > > > > >>> Learning > > > > > > >>>>>>> Activities' across a piece of butcher's paper and asked > the > > > > grou > > > > > > >> to > > > > > > >>>>>>> brainstorm features of activities that would be > consistent > > > with > > > > > > >>>>> cultural > > > > > > >>>>>>> historical theory. After a few suggestions, Mike suddenly > > > > > > >>> interrupted > > > > > > >>>>>> with: > > > > > > >>>>>>> MIKE: Can I ask, Helen, why such a wank of a name? > > > > > > >>>>>>> HELEN: Cultural-historical? > > > > > > >>>>>>> MIKE: Yeah, what a bullshit name. > > > > > > >>>>>>> DEB: What should it be Mike? > > > > > > >>>>>>> MIKE: What does it mean to anyone? Is that relevant to > > anyone > > > > > > >> that > > > > > > >>>>>>> name? Cultural-historical learning. What does that mean? > > > > > > >>>>>>> HELEN: Well.... > > > > > > >>>>>>> MIKE: It's crap. > > > > > > >>>>>>> HELEN: Well, I don't think that you, that's the name of > teh > > > > > > >> theoyr, > > > > > > >>>>>>> Cultural historical theory, but I think in terms of > schools > > > > using > > > > > > >>> teh > > > > > > >>>>>>> theory they talk about Communities of Learners. > > > > > > >>>>>>> MIKE: Yeah, but why don't they call it that? > > > > > > >>>>>>> HELEN: OK, so (I start crossing out "cultural historical" > > and > > > > > > >>>> changing > > > > > > >>>>> it > > > > > > >>>>>>> to "Communities of Learners") > > > > > > >>>>>>> MIKE: That name is like calliing the ultra net site for > > > > teachers > > > > > > >>>>> 'design > > > > > > >>>>>>> space'. It has no relevance to the name whatsoever, and > to > > > use > > > > > > >>>>>> it--features > > > > > > >>>>>>> of cultural historical learning--sounds like a load of > > crap. > > > It > > > > > > >>>>>>> doesn't have any relevance ot what it means. If you said > to > > > me > > > > > > >>>> cultural > > > > > > >>>>>>> historical learning, I go .... > > > > > > >>>>>>> BETH: I actually thought it meant talking about he past > > > > (general > > > > > > >>>>>>> agreement). > > > > > > >>>>>>> MIKE: That's what it implies, the past and how you used > to > > > > teach. > > > > > > >>>>>>> HELEN: I suppose I'm just trying to familiarize you with > > the > > > > term > > > > > > >>>>>> (general > > > > > > >>>>>>> agreement) > > > > > > >>>>>>> MIKE: If you call it community of learners then it's > > > something > > > > > > >>> that's > > > > > > >>>>>>> relevant." > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> Helen then makes the (cultural-historical) point that > words > > > > have > > > > > > >> a > > > > > > >>>>>> history, > > > > > > >>>>>>> but they are not necessarily YOUR history--for Helen, > > > "cultural > > > > > > >>>>>> historical" > > > > > > >>>>>>> calls up a whole series of quite precise concepts, while > > > > > > >> "Community > > > > > > >>>> of > > > > > > >>>>>>> Learners" is kind of vague and undefined. But for the > > > teachers > > > > > > >> (who > > > > > > >>>>> are, > > > > > > >>>>>> I > > > > > > >>>>>>> must say, not exactly reticent about sharing, and do not > > > limit > > > > > > >>>>> themselves > > > > > > >>>>>>> to sharing their expertise) what you get is old times. > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> It's funny that they ignore the word culture. I always > > > thought > > > > > > >> that > > > > > > >>>>>>> "cultural historical" is a little bit of the cart before > > the > > > > > > >>>> horse.... > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> David Kellogg > > > > > > >>>>>>> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> On 8 July 2014 21:40, Peter Smagorinsky > > > wrote: > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> The Practice of Teachers' Professional Development > > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> A Cultural-Historical Approach > > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Helen Grimmett (Monash University, Australia) > > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> This book uses Vygotsky's cultural-historical theory to > > > > > > >> provide a > > > > > > >>>>>> unique > > > > > > >>>>>>>> theorisation of teachers' professional development as a > > > > > > >>> practice. A > > > > > > >>>>>>>> practice can be described as the socially structured > > actions > > > > > > >> set > > > > > > >>> up > > > > > > >>>>> to > > > > > > >>>>>>>> produce a product or service aimed at meeting a > collective > > > > > > >> human > > > > > > >>>>> need. > > > > > > >>>>>> In > > > > > > >>>>>>>> this case, collaborative, interventionist work with > > teachers > > > > in > > > > > > >>> ... > > > > > > >>>>>> Click > > > > > > >>>>>>>> here for a free preview and full description< > > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001ZduyW2xyB1USw9R1YjQno7GI-mDLfJ6m-729UFbNgCKe6Z_p9GP7xjN9IHr0mfZ1yni-XmxHyPfAaNcVjlENvx4l8ySiyRYKHRvvg2E6WbMlf3hNShpk2qTuRRu0ZenYc1mrXxe68_BX4FXljTnHjOx91vJalGeivvaQfmQF57rpGgcDrJe9bprlVyXQwjSo0U6yk-QJ1S5miZfuS7ohswmNs3UZWGMucMgWJyU6E_J3d8QHyWjpGuBM8i2twLXGBPHkZb6hFN4pF6PT3r3M7HYvwFdzAzSfRvpCd90DvQMVDuqkf5VY3ccoD6FppEGF&c=0Y23gLfSZ1jN_yGPyItMZic7SWiIoOcRfcrQWB0JYs9lkVW149lxUQ==&ch=ioZBoxRIwDxdvg-uu6NEwI-E45lgW01U_INO86ZNyJpwbp9zcKnCIA== > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> . > > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From ablunden@mira.net Mon Jul 14 19:12:01 2014 From: ablunden@mira.net (Andy Blunden) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 12:12:01 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: book of possible interest In-Reply-To: References: <0D461088-CBBB-4BD9-ADCB-3024C36CBE81@telia.com> Message-ID: <53C48DF1.5000703@mira.net> My reading of Vygotsky on 'defectology' was that the 'defect' was the problem in social relations, that is, the person who is different in some way suffers because of the way that difference is treated or not treated by others, not for anything in itself. One and the same feature could be a great benefit or a fatal flaw, depending on how others react to it. Except insofar as introducing the idea of a "credit view" is a move aimed at changing the perceptions and behaviours of others in relation to the subject, I don't think Vygotsky is an advocate of the mirror image of a deficit view. As I see it, he analyses the problem of the person being treated as deficient by means of the unit of *defect-compensation*. The defect (a problem arising in social interaction, with others) generates certain challenges which are overcome, generally also in interaction with others. This "compensation" leads to what Helen could call a "credit" and it is the dynamic set up between the social defect and social compensation which shapes the subject's psychology and their relation to others. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Andy Blunden* http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ Helen Grimmett wrote: > I think what is unique about Vygotsky's work in defectology is that, > despite the name, it is not a deficit view (in the way that I understand > the term) at all. > > I understand the commonly used term 'deficit view' as a focus on what > children are 'missing' that needs to be provided to them by teachers to > bring them up to a pre-conceived idea of 'normal' for their age/grade level > etc. Whereas, a 'credit view' focuses on what children are able to do and > bring to a learning situation, in which, in the interaction with others, > they will be able to become more able to do and 'be' more than they were > before (i.e. to develop), whether this be in the 'expected' ways to the > 'expected' level or in completely different ways to a variety of different > levels beyond or outside 'standard' expectations. From the little I have > read on defectology I think this is what Vygotsky was advocating - that > despite a child's blindness or deafness etc, development was still possible > if mediational means were found that made use of the child's credits (i.e. > using sign language or braille so that children still had access to the > developmental opportunities provided by language). So I think your term > pre-abled is in fact a credit view rather than a deficit view. > > I was attempting to also use a credit view in my work with the teachers. I > saw them as being experienced practitioners who had lots to bring to our > discussions of teaching and learning, in which together we could see what > could be developed (new practices, new understandings). Once Kay and Mike > realised this they got on board and engaged in the process and (possibly > for the first time in a long while as they both saw themselves [and in fact > are officially designated as] 'expert teachers') really reawakened the > process of developing as professionals. They blew off most of the content I > was contributing, but they realised the process was actually about > 'unsticking' their own development and working out new and personally > interesting and meaningful ways of 'becoming' more as teachers, instead of > being stuck 'being' the teacher they had turned into over the years. Not > all of the teachers made this leap in the time I worked with them though. > Others were either quite disgruntled that I wouldn't provide them with > answers to 'fix' their own perceived deficits or patiently waited for me to > go away and stop rocking the boat. From what I can gather though, Ann (the > principal) kept the boat rocking and managed over time to get more teachers > to buy into the process of learning from each other and collaboratively > creating new practices. As we said earlier, development takes time as well > as effort. > > All I've got time for at the moment! > > Helen > > > > > > > Dr Helen Grimmett > Lecturer, Student Adviser, > Faculty of Education, > Room G64F, Building 902 > Monash University, Berwick campus > Phone: 9904 7171 > > *New Book: * > The Practice of Teachers' Professional Development: A Cultural-Historical > Approach > > Helen Grimmett (2014) Sense Publishers > > > > > > > On 14 July 2014 14:43, David Kellogg wrote: > > >> Near the end of Chapter Three (p. 81), Helen is summing up her experience >> with the Banksia Bay PLZ and she notes with some dismay that her PDers have >> "a deficit view" of their children and tend towards "container models" of >> the mind ("empty vessel, sponge, blank canvas"). Only one teacher, Ann sees >> anything wrong with this, and Helen says "they don't necessarily value her >> opinion". >> >> Helen finds herself rather conflicted: One the one hand, she says "If >> their representations of children really do represent their beliefs, then >> they are probably right to insist there is no need to change." And on the >> other, she says "My intention was never to say that their present practice >> was wrong, but to help them see alternative ways of thinking about >> children, learning, and teaching." >> >> Of course, if there is no need to change, then it follows that there is no >> reason to look for alternative ways of thinking about children, learning >> and teaching. The only reason for spending scarce cognitive resources on >> seeing different ways of looking at children is if you do, in fact, take a >> deficit view of the teachers. Ann, and the Regional Consultants, apparently >> do, but Helen realizes that there isn't much basis for this: not only do we >> have no actual data of lessons to look at, we know that one of the >> teachers, Kay, has been in the classroom for three decades (during which >> time Helen has spent at least one decade OUT of the classroom). >> >> While we were translating Vygotsky's "History of the Development of the >> Higher Psychological Functions" last year, some of my colleagues were taken >> aback by Vygotsky's use of terms like "moron", "imbecile", "idiot", and >> "cretin". Of course, Vygotsky is writing long before the "euphemisim >> treadmill" turned these into playground insults; for Vygotsky they are >> quite precise descriptors--not of cognitive ability but actually of >> LANGUAGE ability. But because our readership are progressive Korean >> teachers with strong views about these questions, we found that we couldn't >> even use the term "mentally retarded" without a strongly worded footnote >> disavowing the "deficit" thinking behind the term. >> >> I think that Vygotsky would have been surprised by this. I think he took it >> for granted that a defect was a deficit: being blind means a deficit in >> vision, and being deaf means a deficit in hearing. In the same way, a brain >> defect is not an asset. On the other hand, I think Vygotsky would find our >> own term "disabled" quite inaccurate: since all forms of development are >> compensatory and involve "circuitous routes" of one kind or another, and >> all developed children, even, and even especially, gifted children, contain >> islands of underdevelopment, the correct term for deficits of all kinds is >> not "disabled" but "pre-abled". >> >> Personally, I see nothing wrong with a deficit view of children that sees >> them as pre-abled (or, as Vygotsky liked to say, 'primitivist"; that is, >> they are waiting for the mediational means that we have foolishly developed >> only for the psychophysiologically most common types to catch up with the >> actual variation in real children. I suspect this view is actually quite a >> bit closer to what Kay thinks than to what Helen thinks. >> >> David Kellogg >> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 13 July 2014 10:59, Helen Grimmett wrote: >> >> >>> Hi David, >>> >>> Interesting question. I absolutely think that development AS a >>> >> professional >> >>> is necessary, just as development as a human is necessary, so if >>> professional development is seen as the practice in which this >>> >> development >> >>> is produced then absolutely I do think it is necessary. The form that >>> >> this >> >>> practice takes though, and indeed the form of the development that is >>> produced within this practice, are the things open to question however. >>> >>> I definitely think that a teacher's development as a professional >>> >> includes >> >>> the need to understand their practice better rather than just change it, >>> but I think that understanding often develops best in/alongside/with the >>> process of changing (and vice versa) rather than separately from it, and, >>> as you point out above, in establishing ties *between* people and then >>> within them. So a practice of professional development that creates >>> conditions which support this type of development will (I believe) be >>> >> much >> >>> more effective than traditional forms of PD that either attempt to >>> >> lecture >> >>> about theoretical principles but do not support teachers to transfer >>> >> these >> >>> into practical changes, OR provide teachers with practical programs and >>> expect them to implement them without any understanding of what and why >>> >> the >> >>> changes matter. I think the term "Professional Development" is an >>> >> absolute >> >>> misnomer for either of those typical approaches. >>> >>> So again, I have a problem with names! I'm talking about Professional >>> Development with a completely different meaning than what most of the >>> education community believe it to mean when they talk about attending PD >>> seminars or workshops. I toyed with trying to find a different name for >>> >> the >> >>> particular meaning I'm talking about, but when you are talking about >>> development from a cultural-historical theoretical perspective then there >>> really is no other word to use! That's why I stuck to using 'professional >>> development' (in full) when I meant my meaning, and PD (which is what >>> teachers in Australia commonly refer to seminars and workshops as) when I >>> refer to the typical (and in my view, usually non-developmental) forms of >>> activities that teachers are subjected to each year. >>> >>> So, I agree that the need for PD is questionable, but the need for >>> practices of professional development that help teachers to develop as >>> professionals (that is, to develop a unified understanding of both the >>> theoretical and practical aspects of their work, which is itself >>> continually developing in order to meet the changing needs of their >>> students, schools and society) is essential. While I think co-teaching is >>> one practical small-scale solution, working out viable, economical, and >>> manageable ways to create these practices on a large-scale is a very >>> >> large >> >>> problem. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Helen >>> >>> >>> Dr Helen Grimmett >>> Lecturer, Student Adviser, >>> Faculty of Education, >>> Room G64F, Building 902 >>> Monash University, Berwick campus >>> Phone: 9904 7171 >>> >>> *New Book: * >>> The Practice of Teachers' Professional Development: A Cultural-Historical >>> Approach >>> < >>> >>> >> https://www.sensepublishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/professional-learning-1/the-practice-of-teachers-professional-development/ >> >>> Helen Grimmett (2014) Sense Publishers >>> >>> >>> >>> < >>> >>> >> http://monash.edu.au/education/news/50-years/?utm_source=staff-email&utm_medium=email-signature&utm_campaign=50th >> >>> On 13 July 2014 08:57, David Kellogg wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Helen: >>>> >>>> Good to hear from you at long last--I knew you were lurking out there >>>> somewhere! >>>> >>>> I didn't actually write the line about "establishing ties"--it's from >>>> >>> "The >>> >>>> Little Prince". The prince asks what "tame" means, and the fox replies >>>> >>> that >>> >>>> it means "to establish ties". But of course what I meant was that ties >>>> >>> are >>> >>>> established first between people and then within them; the ties of >>>> development are interfunctional ties that make up a new psychological >>>> system. (Or, for Halliday, they are the inter-systemic ties that make >>>> >> up >> >>>> new metafunctions.) >>>> >>>> As you say, Yrjo Engestrom chooses to emphasize another aspect of >>>> development with "breaking away"--he wants to stress its crisis-ridden >>>> nature. I agree with this, actually, but mostly I agree with you, that >>>> >> we >> >>>> are talking about two moments of the same process. To me, breaking away >>>> >>> is >>> >>>> really a precondition of the real business of establishing ties. >>>> >>>> Thomas Piketty makes a similar point in his book "Capital in the >>>> Twenty-first Century". He admits that war and revolution is the only >>>> >>> thing >>> >>>> that EVER counteracts the tendency of returns from capital to outstrip >>>> >>> the >>> >>>> growth in income, and that the 20th Century was an outlier in this >>>> >>> respect, >>> >>>> and the Russian revolution an extreme outlier within that outlier. But >>>> >> he >> >>>> also says that in the long run the one thing that makes UPWARD mobility >>>> possible is education. Despite everything, because of everything. >>>> >>>> I finished the book a few days ago. I guess the thing I most want to >>>> >> ask >> >>>> about is the assumption that professional development is necessary at >>>> >>> all. >>> >>>> Doesn't it make more sense to say that before we change what we are >>>> >>> doing, >>> >>>> we should understand it better? >>>> >>>> David Kellogg >>>> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies >>>> >>>> >>>> On 12 July 2014 13:20, Helen Grimmett >>>> >> wrote: >> >>>>> Ah, I think you have hit the nail on the head David. It is indeed >>>>> >> TIME >> >>>> that >>>> >>>>> is so crucial - not only duration of time, but also location of time >>>>> >>>> (which >>>> >>>>> I suppose is really context). >>>>> >>>>> The problems I had with Mike and his colleagues about the terminology >>>>> stemmed partly from the typical Aussie disdain for using words that >>>>> >>> might >>> >>>>> make your mates think you are trying to appear 'better' than them, so >>>>> therefore you mock anything that sounds too serious or intellectual. >>>>> >>> But >>> >>>>> beyond this surface level of complaining the problems Huw and you >>>>> >> have >> >>>> been >>>> >>>>> discussing boil down to problems with time. >>>>> >>>>> Huw's complaint about my use of the heading "Features of >>>>> Cultural-Historical Learning Activities" is well justified - but it >>>>> >> was >> >>>>> really just a shorthand written version of what I was verbally asking >>>>> >>> for >>> >>>>> as "What might be some particular features of learning activities >>>>> >> that >> >>>>> would align with principles of Cultural-Historical Theory?" That >>>>> >> would >> >>>> have >>>> >>>>> taken too long to write on the top of the piece of paper - and of >>>>> >>> course >>> >>>>> time is always too short in any after-school PD so shortcuts are >>>>> >>>> inevitably >>>> >>>>> taken. (Time problem #1) >>>>> >>>>> Time problem #2, which your discussion has highlighted for me, is >>>>> >> that >> >>> of >>> >>>>> course my question was really "What might be some particular features >>>>> >>> of >>> >>>>> learning activities that would align with THE LIMITED NUMBER OF (AND >>>>> LIMITED UNDERSTANDING OF) principles of Cultural-Historical Theory >>>>> >> THAT >> >>>> YOU >>>> >>>>> HAVE BEEN INTRODUCED TO SO FAR?" so I really should have not been so >>>>> surprised that they would find the brainstorming activity difficult >>>>> >> and >> >>>>> resort to diversionary tactics! (Mike's outburst posted here by David >>>>> >>> was >>> >>>>> not the only eventful moment I write about from this one activity. >>>>> >> But >> >>>>> these apparent failures actually provided much more interesting data >>>>> >>> for >>> >>>> me >>>> >>>>> and eventually lead me to several key findings in my thesis). I had >>>>> >>> spent >>> >>>>> several years by this stage reading and discussing Vygotsky and yet I >>>>> >>> had >>> >>>>> assumed/hoped the teachers would have enough understanding from my >>>>> (probably not very good) explanations ABOUT theory over the previous >>>>> >> 3 >> >>>>> short sessions I had had with them to be able to contribute answers >>>>> >> to >> >>> my >>> >>>>> brainstorm question. They had not had enough TIME to become familiar >>>>> >>> with >>> >>>>> enough of the theory to make much sense of it yet - but still, we >>>>> >> have >> >>> to >>> >>>>> start somewhere and this was still early days. >>>>> >>>>> Time problem #3 brings in what I called above the location of time. I >>>>> >>> had >>> >>>>> never intended for the sessions to be me giving after-school lectures >>>>> >>>> about >>>> >>>>> either theory or practice, yet this is what the teachers seemed to >>>>> >>> expect >>> >>>>> from me (and even demand from me) and were pretty disgruntled when I >>>>> wouldn't/couldn't deliver. My intention was always to get them to >>>>> >>> engage >>> >>>>> with the relationship between THEORY and PRACTICE, just as David's >>>>> >>> comic >>> >>>>> book discusses the relationship between THINKING and SPEECH or >>>>> >> EMOTION >> >>>> and >>>> >>>>> COGNITION. My problem of course was that once we were in an >>>>> >>> after-school >>> >>>>> meeting we were removed in both time and space from where theory and >>>>> practice of teaching/learning operate as a relation (i.e. the >>>>> >> classroom >> >>>>> activity). I was actually trying to create/use our own PLZ >>>>> >>> (Professional >>> >>>>> Learning ZPD) as the activity in which to develop and understand this >>>>> relationship but it was initially very hard to get the teachers to >>>>> understand this (at least until we had enough of David's Fox's >>>>> >> socially >> >>>>> shared experiences for the meanings to become communicable) and then >>>>> >>> even >>> >>>>> more difficult to get them to transfer this back to developing their >>>>> >>> own >>> >>>>> classroom teaching. Ironically, despite being the loudest complainers >>>>> >>> and >>> >>>>> disparagers, it was Mike and Kay (the protagonist of my other >>>>> >> eventful >> >>>>> moment in the brainstorming session) who actually ended up making the >>>>> biggest changes in their classroom practice. Perhaps this is not >>>>> >> really >> >>>>> surprising at all - they were the ones who obviously engaged and >>>>> >> argued >> >>>>> with the ideas and activities rather than simply endured them! >>>>> >>>>> My eventual answer to the problems encountered in my work with the >>>>> >>> group >>> >>>> of >>>> >>>>> teachers was to work WITH a teacher IN her own classroom so that we >>>>> >> had >> >>>>> shared experiences of the relationship between theory and practice >>>>> >>> which >>> >>>>> could not only be discussed after the events, but also actually acted >>>>> >>>> upon >>>> >>>>> there and then IN the event - creating what I called "Situated >>>>> >>> Conscious >>> >>>>> Awareness" of both the theoretical and practical aspects of the >>>>> >>> concepts >>> >>>> of >>>> >>>>> teaching/learning and development we were developing understanding >>>>> >> and >> >>>>> practice of together. But perhaps I should wait until David gets up >>>>> >> to >> >>>> this >>>> >>>>> part of the book before I say more! >>>>> >>>>> Finally, one other point that really caught my attention in your >>>>> >> comic >> >>>> book >>>> >>>>> David is that your prince calls development "to establish ties" which >>>>> >>> is >>> >>>> an >>>> >>>>> interesting difference to Engestrom's definition as "breaking away". >>>>> >>> But >>> >>>>> perhaps, as always in CH theory, it is not a matter of either/or but >>>>> >> in >> >>>>> fact both/and ideas that are necessary. From what I learned in my >>>>> >>> study, >>> >>>>> teachers' development as professionals is definitely BOTH about >>>>> >>> breaking >>> >>>>> away from old, routinised understandings and practices AND >>>>> >> establishing >> >>>> new >>>> >>>>> connections between and amongst theoretical concepts and practices, >>>>> enabling them to continually develop new competences and motives >>>>> >> across >> >>>> all >>>> >>>>> of their professional duties. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for your interest in my book David. The discussion it has >>>>> >>> sparked >>> >>>>> has helped me revisit ideas from new perspectives. >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> Helen >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Dr Helen Grimmett >>>>> Lecturer, Student Adviser, >>>>> Faculty of Education, >>>>> Room G64F, Building 902 >>>>> Monash University, Berwick campus >>>>> Phone: 9904 7171 >>>>> >>>>> *New Book: * >>>>> The Practice of Teachers' Professional Development: A >>>>> >>> Cultural-Historical >>> >>>>> Approach >>>>> < >>>>> >>>>> >> https://www.sensepublishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/professional-learning-1/the-practice-of-teachers-professional-development/ >> >>>>> Helen Grimmett (2014) Sense Publishers >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> < >>>>> >>>>> >> http://monash.edu.au/education/news/50-years/?utm_source=staff-email&utm_medium=email-signature&utm_campaign=50th >> >>>>> On 12 July 2014 07:29, David Kellogg wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Plekhanov distinguishes between "agitators" and "propagandists". >>>>>> >>>>> Agitators >>>>> >>>>>> are essentially popularizers; they have the job of ripping away a >>>>>> >>>> subset >>>> >>>>> of >>>>> >>>>>> smaller and simpler ideas from a fabric of much larger and more >>>>>> >>> complex >>> >>>>>> theory and then disseminating them amongst the largest possible >>>>>> >>> number >>> >>>> of >>>> >>>>>> people. In other words, their focus is exoteric. Propagandists are >>>>>> essentially conspiratorial: they have the job of initiating a small >>>>>> >>>>> number >>>>> >>>>>> of the elect and educating them in the whole theoretical system--as >>>>>> >>>> Larry >>>> >>>>>> would say, the full Bildung. In other words, their focus is >>>>>> >> esoteric. >> >>>> As >>>> >>>>>> you can see, Plekhanov was good at making distinctions, and not so >>>>>> >>> good >>> >>>>> at >>>>> >>>>>> showing how things are linked. For Helena, who is a labor >>>>>> >> educator, >> >>>> you >>>> >>>>>> can't really be an effective agitator unless you are also a >>>>>> >>>> propagandist. >>>> >>>>>> You need to present your exoteric extracts in such a way that they >>>>>> >>> are, >>> >>>>> to >>>>> >>>>>> borrow Larry's phrase, both necessary and sufficient to lead people >>>>>> >>> on >>> >>>> to >>>> >>>>>> the esoterica. I'm with Helena--and with Bruner--with children it's >>>>>> >>>>> always >>>>> >>>>>> possible to tell the truth, part of the truth, but nothing but the >>>>>> >>>> truth, >>>> >>>>>> and if we can do it with kids, why not do it with adults? >>>>>> >>>>>> (I am less sure about what it means to say that the objectively >>>>>> >> human >> >>>> is >>>> >>>>>> the "subjectively historical"--it sounds like history is being >>>>>> >>> reified >>> >>>>> as a >>>>> >>>>>> subject, that is, as a living, breathing, acting "World Spirit" >>>>>> >> that >> >>>> can >>>> >>>>>> have a mind and reflect upon itself. My understanding of history is >>>>>> that just as we cannot have the advanced form of historical >>>>>> >>>> consciousness >>>> >>>>>> in dialogue with the more primitive forms, the opportunity to >>>>>> >> reflect >> >>>>> upon >>>>> >>>>>> the whole process when it is all over is simply never going to be >>>>>> >>>>> available >>>>> >>>>>> to anyone. The Merleau-Ponty quotation is beautiful and intensely >>>>>> poetic, Larry--but when I look at a bubble or a wave, I do not >>>>>> >> simply >> >>>> see >>>> >>>>>> chaos; I see past bubbles and past waves, and potential bubbles and >>>>>> potential waves. Isn't that a part of the experience of "loving >>>>>> >>>> history" >>>> >>>>> as >>>>> >>>>>> well?) >>>>>> >>>>>> My wife wrote a wonderful Ph.D. thesis about how any work of >>>>>> >>> literature >>> >>>>> can >>>>> >>>>>> be looked at on four time frames: phylogenetic (the history of a >>>>>> >>>> genre), >>>> >>>>>> ontogenetic (the biography of a career), logogenetic (the >>>>>> >> development >> >>>> of >>>> >>>>> a >>>>> >>>>>> plot or a character), and microgenetic (the unfolding of a >>>>>> >> dialogue, >> >>>> or a >>>> >>>>>> paragraph). Her supervisor complained about the terminology in >>>>>> >>> somewhat >>> >>>>>> more elegant terms than Mike does in Helen's data:and suggested >>>>>> >> that >> >>>> she >>>> >>>>>> should replace the terms with "history", "biography", "development" >>>>>> >>> and >>> >>>>>> "unfolding", to make it more exoteric. >>>>>> >>>>>> I think that if she had done that, it would have made the thesis >>>>>> >> into >> >>>>>> agitation rather than education. Yes, the terms would have been >>>>>> >> more >> >>>>>> familiar, and they might even, given other context, be taken to >>>>>> >> mean >> >>>> the >>>> >>>>>> same thing. But what we would have gotten is good, clear >>>>>> >> distinctions >> >>>>>> ("history" on the one hand and "biography" on the other) and what >>>>>> >> we >> >>>>> would >>>>> >>>>>> have lost is the linkedness of one time frame to another--the way >>>>>> >> in >> >>>>> which >>>>> >>>>>> the phylogenesis of genre produces the mature genre which is used >>>>>> >> in >> >>> an >>> >>>>>> author's ontegenesis, and the way in which the author's ontogenesis >>>>>> produces the starting point and the raw materials for the >>>>>> >> logogenetic >> >>>>>> development of a work, not to mention the way in which logogenesis >>>>>> >> is >> >>>>>> reflected in the microgenetic unfolding of dialogue. >>>>>> >>>>>> So I think that when Helena writes that anything can be explained >>>>>> >> to >> >>>>> anyone >>>>> >>>>>> in language that is everyday and simple and in a way that is >>>>>> >>>>> understandable >>>>> >>>>>> and at least part of the whole truth, I agree somewhat enviously >>>>>> >> (you >> >>>>> see, >>>>> >>>>>> Helena is a labor educator, but I teach TESOL, which is really the >>>>>> >>>>> process >>>>> >>>>>> of taking a few very simple and exoteric ideas that good teachers >>>>>> >>>> already >>>> >>>>>> have and disseminating the select to the elect for vast sums of >>>>>> >>> money). >>> >>>>> But >>>>> >>>>>> I have to add a rider--when we popularize richly woven fabrics of >>>>>> >>> ideas >>> >>>>>> like cultural historical theory we are not simply juggling >>>>>> >>> vocabulary. >>> >>>> I >>>> >>>>>> think that Helena recognizes this perfectly when she says that it >>>>>> >>> takes >>> >>>>>> TIME to be simple and clear. If it were simply a matter of >>>>>> >> replacing >> >>>>>> "cultural historical" with "community of learners" it would >>>>>> >> actually >> >>>> take >>>> >>>>>> less time, but it isn't and it doesn't. >>>>>> >>>>>> It is very hot in Seoul today, and somewhere out there a toddler is >>>>>> >>>>> arguing >>>>> >>>>>> with a parent because he wants watermelon with breakfast. The >>>>>> >> parent >> >>>>>> resists, because if you eat cold watermelon on an empty stomach you >>>>>> >>>> get a >>>> >>>>>> tummy-ache. The argument grows heated and long--and complex, but >>>>>> >> the >> >>>>>> complexity is of a particular kind, with very short, repeated, >>>>>> >>>>> insistancies >>>>> >>>>>> from the child and somewhat longer more complex remonstrations from >>>>>> >>> the >>> >>>>>> parent. We can call this complex discourse but simple grammar. A >>>>>> >> few >> >>>>> years >>>>> >>>>>> will go by and we will find that the school child has mastered the >>>>>> >>>> trick >>>> >>>>> of >>>>> >>>>>> long and complex remonstrations and can use them pre-emptively to >>>>>> >> win >> >>>>>> arguments. We can call this complex grammar, but simple vocabulary. >>>>>> >>>> Only >>>> >>>>>> when a decade or two has elapsed will we find that child, now >>>>>> >> adult, >> >>>> can >>>> >>>>>> use the language of science, which is for the most part >>>>>> >> grammatically >> >>>>>> simple (at least compared to the pre-emptive remonstrations of the >>>>>> >>>> school >>>> >>>>>> child), but full of very complex vocabulary (e.g. "phylogeny >>>>>> >>>> anticipates >>>> >>>>>> ontogeny", or "cultural-historical activity theory enables >>>>>> >>> communities >>> >>>> of >>>> >>>>>> learners"). >>>>>> >>>>>> It's Saturday today, and in a few minutes I have to leave for the >>>>>> >>>> weekly >>>> >>>>>> meeting of our translation group, which produces mighty tomes which >>>>>> >>> we >>> >>>>>> produce to popularize the works of Vygotsky amongst militant >>>>>> >> teachers >> >>>>> here >>>>> >>>>>> in Korea (our version of "Thinking and Speech" is seven hundred >>>>>> >> pages >> >>>>> long >>>>> >>>>>> because of all the explanatory notes and boxes with helpful >>>>>> >>> pictures). >>> >>>> On >>>> >>>>>> the other hand, there is the attached comic book version of the >>>>>> >> first >> >>>>>> chapter of "Thinking and Speech" which I wrote a couple of years >>>>>> >> ago >> >>>> for >>>> >>>>>> some graduate students who were having trouble talking about the >>>>>> >> real >> >>>>>> "Thinking and Speech" in class. >>>>>> >>>>>> I think you can see that Huw's complaint is justified--the comic >>>>>> book dialogue is "about" Thinking and Speech, but it is not >>>>>> >> "Thinking >> >>>> and >>>> >>>>>> Speech" at all, in the same way that "community of learners" or >>>>>> >>>>> "biography" >>>>> >>>>>> is ABOUT cultural historical theory or ontogenesis. And I think >>>>>> >> that >> >>>> part >>>> >>>>>> of the problem (but only part of it) is that the comic book is just >>>>>> >>> too >>> >>>>>> short. >>>>>> >>>>>> David Kellogg >>>>>> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 2014-07-11 17:09 GMT+09:00 Leif Strandberg < >>>>>> >>>> leifstrandberg.ab@telia.com >>>> >>>>>> : >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> 11 jul 2014 kl. 06:41 skrev Larry Purss : >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> David, >>>>>>>> I have been following your reflections through this thread. >>>>>>>> You commented: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So it's almost always more useful for me to >>>>>>>> think of learning phenomena as NOT reducible to the physical, >>>>>>>> >> at >> >>>>> least >>>>> >>>>>>> not >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> in their unit of analysis >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I have been reflecting on the notion of *bildung* as learning. >>>>>>>> The notion of *cultivation* and *disposition* and *comportment* >>>>>>>> >>> as >>> >>>>> the >>>>> >>>>>>>> potential of learning. >>>>>>>> I came across this quote from Gramsci who was questioning the >>>>>>>> >>>> notion >>>> >>>>> of >>>>> >>>>>>>> *laws* as the basis for making social predictions. Such *laws* >>>>>>>> >>>>> excluded >>>>> >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> subjective factor from history. >>>>>>>> Gramsci wrote on social process: "Objective always means >>>>>>>> >> 'humanly >> >>>>>>>> objective' which can be held to correspond exactly to >>>>>>>> >>> 'historically >>> >>>>>>>> subjective' " >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Merleau-Ponty also explored what I refer to as *disposition* >>>>>>>> >> with >> >>>>> this >>>>> >>>>>>>> quote on the reality of history: >>>>>>>> History "awakens us to the importance of daily events and >>>>>>>> >> action. >> >>>> For >>>> >>>>>> it >>>>>> >>>>>>> is >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> a philosophy [of history -LP] which arouses in us a love for >>>>>>>> >> our >> >>>>> times >>>>> >>>>>>>> which are not the simple repetition of human eternity nor >>>>>>>> >> merely >> >>>> the >>>> >>>>>>>> conclusion of premises already postulated. It is a view that >>>>>>>> >> like >> >>>> the >>>> >>>>>>> most >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> fragile object of perception - a soap bubble, or a wave - or >>>>>>>> >> like >> >>>> the >>>> >>>>>>> most >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> simple dialogue, embraces indivisibly all the order and all the >>>>>>>> >>>>>> disorder >>>>>> >>>>>>> of >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> the world." >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I read these passages from Gramsci and M-P as a way of >>>>>>>> >> exploring >> >>>>>>>> *comportment* or *disposition* that is *learned*. [bildung??] >>>>>>>> >>>> There >>>> >>>>> is >>>>> >>>>>>> no >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> necessary or sufficient standpoint for interpreting this >>>>>>>> >>> inherently >>> >>>>>>>> heterogeneous process. However we may potentially learn various >>>>>>>> *approaches* or *ways* of being-in-the-world through learning >>>>>>>> >>>>>> processes. >>>>>> >>>>>>>> The notion of *bildung* is a way to reflect on this learning >>>>>>>> >>>> process >>>> >>>>>>>> Larry >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 3:54 PM, Huw Lloyd < >>>>>>>> >>>>> huw.softdesigns@gmail.com> >>>>> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 10 July 2014 22:33, David Kellogg >>>>>>>>> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>>>>>>> Huw: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Is learning material? In what sense? At what point? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Historically, with Marx. :) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The rest of your formations are subsumed by Baldwin's 1st and >>>>>>>>> >>> 2nd >>> >>>>>>> axioms of >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> genetic logic. :) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> As someone experienced with computation and computational >>>>>>>>> >>>>> processes, I >>>>> >>>>>>> do >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> find it quite straightfoward to think of memories as material >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> impressions. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Cached values or lazy evaluation -- it's quite >>>>>>>>> >>> straightforward... >>> >>>>> Not >>>>> >>>>>>>>> rubbish, not garbage, but Babbage! >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>> Huw >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I guess I think of it this way. All phenomena in the universe >>>>>>>>>> >>> are >>> >>>>>>>>> physical, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> but only in the final analysis. When my father (who is a >>>>>>>>>> >>> retired >>> >>>>> but >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> unrepentant solar physicist) studies these phenomena he uses >>>>>>>>>> >>>>> various >>>>> >>>>>>>>> units >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> of analysis (my father likes to think big, so his usual unit >>>>>>>>>> >> of >> >>>>>>> analysis >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> a solar emission many times larger than the earth, but >>>>>>>>>> >>> sometimes, >>> >>>>>>>>> depending >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> on the problem, he will condescend to think about smaller >>>>>>>>>> >>>> particles >>>> >>>>>>> like >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> atomic nuclei). Some of these physical phenomena, when they >>>>>>>>>> >>> cool >>> >>>>>> down a >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> little, are chemical as well, and because these phenomena are >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> chemical >>>>>> >>>>>>> as >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> well as physical, the unit of analysis that is proper to them >>>>>>>>>> >>> is >>> >>>>> the >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> molecule and its motions, and not simply the particle (Dad >>>>>>>>>> >>>> doesn't >>>> >>>>>> care >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> about these phenomena; he likes his physics hot). >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Some of these chemical phenomena are biological as well, and >>>>>>>>>> >>> here >>> >>>>>> once >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> again the unit of analysis has to change (e.g. to the cell) >>>>>>>>>> >> in >> >>>>> order >>>>> >>>>>> to >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> take into account the new properties which come into being at >>>>>>>>>> >>>> this >>>> >>>>>>> scale. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Some biological phenomena are cultural-historical in turn, >>>>>>>>>> >> and >> >>>> here >>>> >>>>>> too >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> we >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> must change the unit of analysis in order not to lose >>>>>>>>>> >> essential >> >>>>>>>>> information >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> that is created with higher levels of organization and >>>>>>>>>> >>>>> complexity.Of >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> course, these cultural historical phenomena are all reducible >>>>>>>>>> >>> to >>> >>>>>>>>> biological >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> phenomena, and therefore reducible to chemical and physical >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> phenomena, >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> but >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> only in the final analysis. Hey, in the final analysis, as >>>>>>>>>> >>>> Carolyn >>>> >>>>>>> Porco >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> says, we all get reduced to physical phenomena when the sun >>>>>>>>>> >>>>> explodes >>>>> >>>>>>> and >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> blows the particles that were once our bodies out into space, >>>>>>>>>> >>> to >>> >>>>>> enjoy >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> eternal life...but only as physical phenomena. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> In the meantime, if we want to understand cultural-historical >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> phenomena >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> such, we have to confront their higher levels of organization >>>>>>>>>> >>> and >>> >>>>>>>>>> complexity.The cultural historical phenomena that I am most >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> interested >>>>>> >>>>>>> in >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> turn out to have another subset of phenomena which Halliday >>>>>>>>>> >>> calls >>> >>>>>>>>>> semiotic--that is, they are sociologically >>>>>>>>>> >> cultural-historical >> >>>>>>> phenomena >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> that stand, even if only for a fleeting instant, >>>>>>>>>> for psychologically cultural-historical phenomena. These >>>>>>>>>> >>>> phenomena >>>> >>>>>> are >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> material too (that is, they are biological, chemical, and >>>>>>>>>> >> even >> >>>>>>>>>> physical), for the way things stand for other things is >>>>>>>>>> >>>> ultimately >>>> >>>>>>>>>> reducible to a thing: words are, in the final analysis, "made >>>>>>>>>> >>> of >>> >>>>>> living >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> breath", as Shakespeare says, or "layers of moving air" if >>>>>>>>>> >> you >> >>>>> prefer >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Engels. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> But only in the final analysis. In the interim, too much >>>>>>>>>> >>>>> information >>>>> >>>>>> is >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> lost when we reduce these semiotic phenomena to physical, >>>>>>>>>> >>>> material, >>>> >>>>>>>>>> things (for example, when my students try to model learner >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> comprehension >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> problems as pure phonetic discrimination without taking into >>>>>>>>>> >>>>> account >>>>> >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> layer of wording or meaning). So it's almost always more >>>>>>>>>> >> useful >> >>>> for >>>> >>>>>> me >>>>>> >>>>>>> to >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> think of learning phenomena as NOT reducible to the physical, >>>>>>>>>> >>> at >>> >>>>>> least >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> not >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> in their unit of analysis. Actually, it seems to me that the >>>>>>>>>> general "cultural-historical" level of analysis is if >>>>>>>>>> >> anything >> >>> a >>> >>>>> step >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> closer to biology or chemistry or physics than the subset of >>>>>>>>>> >>>>> cultural >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> historical phenomena that I mean when I refer to learning, >>>>>>>>>> >>>> because >>>> >>>>> to >>>>> >>>>>>> me >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> learning is microgenetic, that is, POTENTIALLY ontogenetic, >>>>>>>>>> >>> which >>> >>>>> is >>>>> >>>>>> in >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> turn POTENTIALLY sociogenetic, which (to me) is the general >>>>>>>>>> >>> level >>> >>>>> of >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> analysis we mean when we talk about cultural historical >>>>>>>>>> >>>> phenomena. >>>> >>>>> So >>>>> >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> real answer to Mike's colorful complaint about handles is not >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> "Community >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Learners" but actually "physico-chemico-bio-socio-semiotic >>>>>>>>>> >>>> learning >>>> >>>>>>>>>> activities". >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Time for that quantum physical cup of coffee you were talking >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> about.... >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> David Kellogg >>>>>>>>>> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 10 July 2014 08:53, Huw Lloyd >>>>>>>>>> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> David, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Just to be clear, the error I was referring to was the >>>>>>>>>>> >>>> attribution >>>> >>>>>> of >>>>>> >>>>>>> a >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> theory (as an adjective) to the material thing (learning). >>>>>>>>>>> >> It >> >>>>> would >>>>> >>>>>>> be >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> like saying, I am going to make a Newtonian cup of coffee in >>>>>>>>>>> >>> the >>> >>>>>>>>> morning >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> and a quantum mechanical cup of coffee in the afternoon. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I suppose colourful language serves the purpose of >>>>>>>>>>> >> deliberate >> >>>>>>>>> vagueness. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> It's hard to be trendy and have a precise point. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I fear we are soon approaching the "teach yourself activity >>>>>>>>>>> >>>> theory >>>> >>>>>> for >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> dummies" book someday soon. From my understanding, the >>>>>>>>>>> >> theory >> >>>>>> itself >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> repudiates such a thing -- one cannot spoon feed theory -- >>>>>>>>>>> >>> but I >>> >>>>>> don't >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> think that will stop folk trying. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I see no problem (or contradiction) in top down approaches. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> Solving a >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> problem in general is a powerful approach to many problems. >>>>>>>>>>> >>> For >>> >>>>>> many >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> problems the concrete details are amenable to design and >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> configuration, >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> one >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> can often choose tools to suit the proposed solution rather >>>>>>>>>>> >>> than >>> >>>>>>>>>>> vice-versa. But from an educational perspective, I see no >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> alternative >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> than starting with the individual, ofcourse one can have >>>>>>>>>>> >>> general >>> >>>>>>>>>> strategies >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> in doing so -- waiting to be asked before giving an >>>>>>>>>>> >>> explanation >>> >>>>> etc. >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Nice chatting. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>>>> Huw >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 9 July 2014 22:46, David Kellogg >>>>>>>>>>> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Huw: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Helen has written a remarkable, important book. I gather >>>>>>>>>>>> >> it's >> >>>>> part >>>>> >>>>>> of >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> her >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Ph.D. thesis, but it doesn't really read like a Ph.D. >>>>>>>>>>>> >> thesis. >> >>>> It >>>> >>>>>>>>> reads >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> like >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> a teacher-trainer (or "professional development >>>>>>>>>>>> >> consultant", >> >>> or >>> >>>>>>>>>> whatever >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> we >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> are supposed to call them) with a problem who eventually, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>> with >>> >>>> a >>>> >>>>>>>>> little >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> help from the classics of cultural historical psychology >>>>>>>>>>>> >> and >> >>> a >>> >>>>> lot >>>>> >>>>>> of >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> help >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> from a co-teacher (who has a somewhat bookish, inert but >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> nevertheless >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> respectful and open acquaintance with those classics) >>>>>>>>>>>> >>> achieves >>> >>>> a >>>> >>>>>> very >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> open >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> but nevertheless very workable solution. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> So the bit I quoted represents the problem, or rather, two >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> problems. >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> one hand, Helen is trying to do something new: she wants to >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> bring >>>> >>>>>> new >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> CHAT >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> concepts to bear on extant classroom activities and modify >>>>>>>>>>>> >>> them >>> >>>>> in >>>>> >>>>>>>>> ways >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> that she is confident will work. On the other, Helen is >>>>>>>>>>>> >>> working >>> >>>>>> with >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> some >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> pretty experienced (and even somewhat brutalized) teachers: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> they >>>> >>>>>> have >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> seen >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> "Professional Development" fads come and go, collected >>>>>>>>>>>> >> their >> >>>> free >>>> >>>>>>>>>> lunches >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> and go on doing things the old way. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Helen achieves her solution from the bottom up. Eventually, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>> she >>> >>>>>> does >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> find a >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> teacher who can teacher her a lot and who, even though >>>>>>>>>>>> >> Helen >> >>>>>> herself >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> is uniquely gifted, with not only the theoretical >>>>>>>>>>>> >> background >> >>> we >>> >>>>> all >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> share, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> but also considerable first hand experience as a teacher >>>>>>>>>>>> >> and >> >>> a >>> >>>>>>>>> parent, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> can >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> nevertheless be taught in turn. But as you can see from the >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> extract, >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> she's >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> extremely open, even to savage, unfair, and somewhat obtuse >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> criticisms. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Mike's critique of "cultural historical" is not that it is >>>>>>>>>>>> >> an >> >>>>>>>>>>>> epistemological error or a typological one, or that it puts >>>>>>>>>>>> >>> the >>> >>>>>>>>> product >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> "culture" before the process "history". It's not even that >>>>>>>>>>>> >> it >> >>>>>>>>> suggests >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> on the odd day Piagetian activities might be taking place, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> which, >>>> >>>>>> by >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> way, is probably true, since these teachers were mostly >>>>>>>>>>>> >>> trained >>> >>>>>>>>> during >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> "reign" of Piaget in the sixties and seventies. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> No, Mike's complaint is really, if you will pardon the >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> expression, >>>>> >>>>>> a >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> wank >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> of a complaint. He is just complaining that the name is >>>>>>>>>>>> >>> uncool; >>> >>>>> it >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> doesn't >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> sound like the popular teachers would like it; the name >>>>>>>>>>>> >> won't >> >>>> go >>>> >>>>>> with >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> an >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> embossed moose like "Abercrombie and Fitch" or "community >>>>>>>>>>>> >> of >> >>>>>>>>>>>> learners" does. I think we have to accept that responsive, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> sensitive >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> teachers inevitably end up internalizing some of the worst >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> aspects >>>>> >>>>>> of >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> adolescent thinking, and this is an example. I might even >>>>>>>>>>>> >> say >> >>>>> it's >>>>> >>>>>> a >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> bullshit complaint. It's crap, etc. (But this is one of >>>>>>>>>>>> >> those >> >>>>>>>>>>>> language situations where redundancy does not suggest >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> development.) >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I guess if I encountered a bullshit complaint like that I >>>>>>>>>>>> >>> would >>> >>>>>>>>>> complain >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> little about "community of learners". I think that >>>>>>>>>>>> >> "community >> >>>> of >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> learners" is essentially a way of saying >>>>>>>>>>>> >>> "socio-psychological": >>> >>>>>> it's >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> relevant to everyday teaching, but it doesn't tell us much >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> about >>>> >>>>>> how >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> "socio" got there, whereas "cultural-historical" does. I >>>>>>>>>>>> >>> might >>> >>>>> even >>>>> >>>>>>>>> ask >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> if >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Mike is going to try to teach physics, chemistry, biology, >>>>>>>>>>>> >> or >> >>>>>> history >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> kids without some way of saying "physico-chemical" or >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> "chemico-biological", >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> or "biologico-social". If not, then I don't see anything >>>>>>>>>>>> >>> wrong >>> >>>>> with >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> teaching language, including the language of teaching, as >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> something >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> "socio-semiotic" or "historico-cultural". But then, I never >>>>>>>>>>>> >>> was >>> >>>>> one >>>>> >>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> cool kids. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> My problem is this. I too would like to write a book now. I >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> have >>>> >>>>>> two >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> mind, and they are both practical books about teacher >>>>>>>>>>>> >>> training, >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> similar in their targets to Helen's book, which is why I am >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> studying >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> carefully. But I find that the books that I have in mind >>>>>>>>>>>> >> are >> >>>>> really >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> "about >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> something" in a way that Helen's book is not. I don't mean >>>>>>>>>>>> >>> that >>> >>>>>>>>> Helen's >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> book has no object of study: like the title says, the >>>>>>>>>>>> >> object >> >>> of >>> >>>>>> study >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> teacher development. What I mean is that the teaching has >>>>>>>>>>>> >> no >> >>>>> clear >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> object >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> of teaching: it's not specifically about teaching math or >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> literacy >>>>> >>>>>> or >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> anything else but about teaching in general. The books I >>>>>>>>>>>> >> have >> >>>> in >>>> >>>>>> mind >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> really about teaching literacy (I think I want to try to >>>>>>>>>>>> >>> teach >>> >>>>>>>>> WRITING >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> before READING) and teaching science (I think I want to >>>>>>>>>>>> >> try a >> >>>>>> "hands >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> off" >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> approach that emphasizes word meanings instead of >>>>>>>>>>>> >> laboratory >> >>>>>>>>>>> experiments). >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> And I am finding that I when I do this the result is not at >>>>>>>>>>>> >>> all >>> >>>>> the >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> kind >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> "bottom up" thing that Helen does; it's very top down. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> David Kellogg >>>>>>>>>>>> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 9 July 2014 07:33, Huw Lloyd >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Colourful. The complaint seems perfectly valid though: a >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> typological >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> epistemological error all in one conflated term. It >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> suggests >>> >>>>> that >>>>> >>>>>>>>> on >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> odd hours of the day there are Piagetian activities taking >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> place. >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Was >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> part of the point of the chapter? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>>>>>> Huw >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8 July 2014 21:40, David Kellogg >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm actually in the middle of Chapter Three right now. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> What I >>> >>>>> can >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> tell >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> you >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is that Helen's first two chapters are a kind of "Who's >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> Who" >>> >>>> at >>>> >>>>>>>>>> xmca, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Helen reading the great classics (in the wrong order) and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> talking >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Andy, >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Greg, and others on this list. But beyond the litte >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> shout-outs >>>> >>>>> to >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> xmca, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chapter Three, you find interesting problems like this. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> Helen >>> >>>>> is >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> setting >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> up >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a "Professional Learning ZPD". This an acronymy within an >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> acronym >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> (an >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "acro-acronym-nym", like the group I used to belong to in >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> New >>> >>>>>>>>> York >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Paris, called "ACT-UP"), and in general Helen seems to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> have >> >>>>> some >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> trouble >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> with names. On pp. 58-59, she writes. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "In PLZ 4 I wrote the title 'Features of cultural >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> Historical >>> >>>>>>>>>> Learning >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Activities' across a piece of butcher's paper and asked >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> the >> >>>>> grou >>>>> >>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> brainstorm features of activities that would be >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> consistent >> >>>> with >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> cultural >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> historical theory. After a few suggestions, Mike suddenly >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> interrupted >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> with: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> MIKE: Can I ask, Helen, why such a wank of a name? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> HELEN: Cultural-historical? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> MIKE: Yeah, what a bullshit name. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> DEB: What should it be Mike? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> MIKE: What does it mean to anyone? Is that relevant to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> anyone >>> >>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> name? Cultural-historical learning. What does that mean? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> HELEN: Well.... >>>>>>>>>>>>>> MIKE: It's crap. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> HELEN: Well, I don't think that you, that's the name of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> teh >> >>>>>>>>> theoyr, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cultural historical theory, but I think in terms of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> schools >> >>>>> using >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> teh >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> theory they talk about Communities of Learners. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> MIKE: Yeah, but why don't they call it that? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> HELEN: OK, so (I start crossing out "cultural historical" >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> and >>> >>>>>>>>>>> changing >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to "Communities of Learners") >>>>>>>>>>>>>> MIKE: That name is like calliing the ultra net site for >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> teachers >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 'design >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> space'. It has no relevance to the name whatsoever, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> to >> >>>> use >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> it--features >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of cultural historical learning--sounds like a load of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> crap. >>> >>>> It >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't have any relevance ot what it means. If you said >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> to >> >>>> me >>>> >>>>>>>>>>> cultural >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> historical learning, I go .... >>>>>>>>>>>>>> BETH: I actually thought it meant talking about he past >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> (general >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> agreement). >>>>>>>>>>>>>> MIKE: That's what it implies, the past and how you used >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> to >> >>>>> teach. >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> HELEN: I suppose I'm just trying to familiarize you with >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> the >>> >>>>> term >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> (general >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> agreement) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> MIKE: If you call it community of learners then it's >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> something >>>> >>>>>>>>>> that's >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> relevant." >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Helen then makes the (cultural-historical) point that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> words >> >>>>> have >>>>> >>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> history, >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> but they are not necessarily YOUR history--for Helen, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> "cultural >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> historical" >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> calls up a whole series of quite precise concepts, while >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "Community >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Learners" is kind of vague and undefined. But for the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> teachers >>>> >>>>>>>>> (who >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> are, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> must say, not exactly reticent about sharing, and do not >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> limit >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> themselves >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to sharing their expertise) what you get is old times. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's funny that they ignore the word culture. I always >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> thought >>>> >>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "cultural historical" is a little bit of the cart before >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> the >>> >>>>>>>>>>> horse.... >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> David Kellogg >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8 July 2014 21:40, Peter Smagorinsky >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Practice of Teachers' Professional Development >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A Cultural-Historical Approach >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Helen Grimmett (Monash University, Australia) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This book uses Vygotsky's cultural-historical theory to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> provide a >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> unique >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> theorisation of teachers' professional development as a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> practice. A >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> practice can be described as the socially structured >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> actions >>> >>>>>>>>> set >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> up >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> produce a product or service aimed at meeting a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> collective >> >>>>>>>>> human >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> need. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> In >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this case, collaborative, interventionist work with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> teachers >>> >>>>> in >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Click >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> here for a free preview and full description< >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001ZduyW2xyB1USw9R1YjQno7GI-mDLfJ6m-729UFbNgCKe6Z_p9GP7xjN9IHr0mfZ1yni-XmxHyPfAaNcVjlENvx4l8ySiyRYKHRvvg2E6WbMlf3hNShpk2qTuRRu0ZenYc1mrXxe68_BX4FXljTnHjOx91vJalGeivvaQfmQF57rpGgcDrJe9bprlVyXQwjSo0U6yk-QJ1S5miZfuS7ohswmNs3UZWGMucMgWJyU6E_J3d8QHyWjpGuBM8i2twLXGBPHkZb6hFN4pF6PT3r3M7HYvwFdzAzSfRvpCd90DvQMVDuqkf5VY3ccoD6FppEGF&c=0Y23gLfSZ1jN_yGPyItMZic7SWiIoOcRfcrQWB0JYs9lkVW149lxUQ==&ch=ioZBoxRIwDxdvg-uu6NEwI-E45lgW01U_INO86ZNyJpwbp9zcKnCIA== >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> . >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> > > > From dkellogg60@gmail.com Mon Jul 14 23:10:51 2014 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 15:10:51 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: book of possible interest In-Reply-To: <53C48DF1.5000703@mira.net> References: <0D461088-CBBB-4BD9-ADCB-3024C36CBE81@telia.com> <53C48DF1.5000703@mira.net> Message-ID: Well, I do hope that Helen means that "for the moment", as I have learned an awful lot from this book and even more from this discussion. You see, I am trying to tease apart two very different processes that appear, on the face of it, to be almost identical, but which also appear to have diametrically opposite developmental effects. One process is the process of getting people to feel at ease, confident, and happy that they understand what you are saying because it is actually something that is identical or at least very similar to what they already think. Another, almost identical, process is the process of "establishing ties" between a new form of knowledge and an earlier one. BOTH of these processes, it seems to me, occur throughout Helen's book, and it is easy to mistake the one for the other. BOTH of these processes, to use our earlier terminology, involve "establishing ties", but only one of them also involves breaking away. For example, at one point in the book Helen, looking back over the Banksia Bay PLZ data, rounds on herself for using a transparent piece of scaffolding to elicit the word "communicate" from a group of teachers. What bothers her is not that the answer itself is far too general to be of any practical value to the teachers, but only that she had it very firmly in mind, and kept badgering the teachers (as we all do, when we have a precise answer in mind) until she got it. The alternative, she points out, would be to take what she got and work with that. Yes indeed. But I think the main reason that would have been more interesting is not that it would have resulted in fewer rejections of teacher answers and made people more at ease, confdent, and happy that they understood, but rather than it would have yielded something more like a concrete but unconscious and not yet volitionally controlled example of excellence from the teacher's own practice. I almost always find that the actual answers I want--the "methods" I end up imparting to my own teachers, are already present in the data they bring me (because we almost always begin with actual transcripts of their lessons) but they are generally not methods but only moments, and moments that go unnoticed and therefore ungeneralized in the hurly burly of actual teaching. Last winter, Helen and I were at a conference in New Zealand where, among other eventful episodes, Craig Brandist got up and gave a very precise list of half a dozen different and utterly contradictory ways in which Bakhtin uses the term "dialogue". Because the senses of "dialogue" are so many and varied, people simply pick and choose, and they tend invariably to choose the ones that are closest to the way they already think. It is as moments like this that we need to remind ourselves that Bakhtin's "dialogue" does not, for the most part, ever include children, or women; that he did not "dialogue" with Volosinov or Medvedev when he allowed his acolytes to plunder their corpses, and that his love of carnival and the public marketplace does not extend to a belief in any form of political democracy. So I think we should start off with an understanding that what Vygotsky says about defect is not the same was what we now believe. Vygotsky, for example, believed that sign language was not true language, and that even the congenitally deaf should be taught to lip read; this is simply wrong. (On the other hand, what he says about spontaneously created sign languages--that they are essentially elaborated systems of gesture and they lack the signifying functions--fits exactly with Susan Goldin-Meadow's observations in Chicago.) And one reason I think it is important to begin with this understanding is this: sometimes--usually--LSV is right and we are wrong. In particular, I think the "credit" view of defect, or, for that matter, ignorance of any kind and not fully conscious teacher expertise risks becoming a liberal platitude--the cup is always half full, so why not look on the bright side of dearth? I certainly do not feel empowered by the fact that I know English but I do not know ASL, and I rather doubt that deaf people feel empowered by the opposite state of affairs. When I don't know something, I do not see any bright side of not knowing it, for the very simple reason that I can't see at all. Vygotsky was probably very influenced by "Iolanta", an opera that Tchaikovsky wrote--he certainly seems to quote it extensively in the last chapter of "Thinking and Speech". In "Iolanta", King Renee copes with the blindness of his daughter by having her shut up in a garden and forbidding all his subjects from discussing light, sight, color or anything visible in any way. Vaudemont, a knight of Burgundy, blunders into the garden, discovers Iolanta's secret. Iolanta convinces him that sight is unnecessary, but in the course of doing so, she develops the desire to see and choose for herself. David Kelogg Hankuk University of Foreign Studies On 15 July 2014 11:12, Andy Blunden wrote: > My reading of Vygotsky on 'defectology' was that the 'defect' was the > problem in social relations, that is, the person who is different in some > way suffers because of the way that difference is treated or not treated by > others, not for anything in itself. One and the same feature could be a > great benefit or a fatal flaw, depending on how others react to it. > Except insofar as introducing the idea of a "credit view" is a move aimed > at changing the perceptions and behaviours of others in relation to the > subject, I don't think Vygotsky is an advocate of the mirror image of a > deficit view. As I see it, he analyses the problem of the person being > treated as deficient by means of the unit of *defect-compensation*. The > defect (a problem arising in social interaction, with others) generates > certain challenges which are overcome, generally also in interaction with > others. This "compensation" leads to what Helen could call a "credit" and > it is the dynamic set up between the social defect and social compensation > which shapes the subject's psychology and their relation to others. > Andy > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *Andy Blunden* > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > > Helen Grimmett wrote: > >> I think what is unique about Vygotsky's work in defectology is that, >> despite the name, it is not a deficit view (in the way that I understand >> the term) at all. >> >> I understand the commonly used term 'deficit view' as a focus on what >> children are 'missing' that needs to be provided to them by teachers to >> bring them up to a pre-conceived idea of 'normal' for their age/grade >> level >> etc. Whereas, a 'credit view' focuses on what children are able to do and >> bring to a learning situation, in which, in the interaction with others, >> they will be able to become more able to do and 'be' more than they were >> before (i.e. to develop), whether this be in the 'expected' ways to the >> 'expected' level or in completely different ways to a variety of different >> levels beyond or outside 'standard' expectations. From the little I have >> read on defectology I think this is what Vygotsky was advocating - that >> despite a child's blindness or deafness etc, development was still >> possible >> if mediational means were found that made use of the child's credits (i.e. >> using sign language or braille so that children still had access to the >> developmental opportunities provided by language). So I think your term >> pre-abled is in fact a credit view rather than a deficit view. >> >> I was attempting to also use a credit view in my work with the teachers. I >> saw them as being experienced practitioners who had lots to bring to our >> discussions of teaching and learning, in which together we could see what >> could be developed (new practices, new understandings). Once Kay and Mike >> realised this they got on board and engaged in the process and (possibly >> for the first time in a long while as they both saw themselves [and in >> fact >> are officially designated as] 'expert teachers') really reawakened the >> process of developing as professionals. They blew off most of the content >> I >> was contributing, but they realised the process was actually about >> 'unsticking' their own development and working out new and personally >> interesting and meaningful ways of 'becoming' more as teachers, instead of >> being stuck 'being' the teacher they had turned into over the years. Not >> all of the teachers made this leap in the time I worked with them though. >> Others were either quite disgruntled that I wouldn't provide them with >> answers to 'fix' their own perceived deficits or patiently waited for me >> to >> go away and stop rocking the boat. From what I can gather though, Ann (the >> principal) kept the boat rocking and managed over time to get more >> teachers >> to buy into the process of learning from each other and collaboratively >> creating new practices. As we said earlier, development takes time as well >> as effort. >> >> All I've got time for at the moment! >> >> Helen >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Dr Helen Grimmett >> Lecturer, Student Adviser, >> Faculty of Education, >> Room G64F, Building 902 >> Monash University, Berwick campus >> Phone: 9904 7171 >> >> *New Book: * >> The Practice of Teachers' Professional Development: A Cultural-Historical >> Approach >> > professional-learning-1/the-practice-of-teachers- >> professional-development/> >> Helen Grimmett (2014) Sense Publishers >> >> >> >> > source=staff-email&utm_medium=email-signature&utm_campaign=50th> >> >> >> On 14 July 2014 14:43, David Kellogg wrote: >> >> >> >>> Near the end of Chapter Three (p. 81), Helen is summing up her experience >>> with the Banksia Bay PLZ and she notes with some dismay that her PDers >>> have >>> "a deficit view" of their children and tend towards "container models" of >>> the mind ("empty vessel, sponge, blank canvas"). Only one teacher, Ann >>> sees >>> anything wrong with this, and Helen says "they don't necessarily value >>> her >>> opinion". >>> >>> Helen finds herself rather conflicted: One the one hand, she says "If >>> their representations of children really do represent their beliefs, then >>> they are probably right to insist there is no need to change." And on the >>> other, she says "My intention was never to say that their present >>> practice >>> was wrong, but to help them see alternative ways of thinking about >>> children, learning, and teaching." >>> >>> Of course, if there is no need to change, then it follows that there is >>> no >>> reason to look for alternative ways of thinking about children, learning >>> and teaching. The only reason for spending scarce cognitive resources on >>> seeing different ways of looking at children is if you do, in fact, take >>> a >>> deficit view of the teachers. Ann, and the Regional Consultants, >>> apparently >>> do, but Helen realizes that there isn't much basis for this: not only do >>> we >>> have no actual data of lessons to look at, we know that one of the >>> teachers, Kay, has been in the classroom for three decades (during which >>> time Helen has spent at least one decade OUT of the classroom). >>> >>> While we were translating Vygotsky's "History of the Development of the >>> Higher Psychological Functions" last year, some of my colleagues were >>> taken >>> aback by Vygotsky's use of terms like "moron", "imbecile", "idiot", and >>> "cretin". Of course, Vygotsky is writing long before the "euphemisim >>> treadmill" turned these into playground insults; for Vygotsky they are >>> quite precise descriptors--not of cognitive ability but actually of >>> LANGUAGE ability. But because our readership are progressive Korean >>> teachers with strong views about these questions, we found that we >>> couldn't >>> even use the term "mentally retarded" without a strongly worded footnote >>> disavowing the "deficit" thinking behind the term. >>> >>> I think that Vygotsky would have been surprised by this. I think he took >>> it >>> for granted that a defect was a deficit: being blind means a deficit in >>> vision, and being deaf means a deficit in hearing. In the same way, a >>> brain >>> defect is not an asset. On the other hand, I think Vygotsky would find >>> our >>> own term "disabled" quite inaccurate: since all forms of development are >>> compensatory and involve "circuitous routes" of one kind or another, and >>> all developed children, even, and even especially, gifted children, >>> contain >>> islands of underdevelopment, the correct term for deficits of all kinds >>> is >>> not "disabled" but "pre-abled". >>> >>> Personally, I see nothing wrong with a deficit view of children that sees >>> them as pre-abled (or, as Vygotsky liked to say, 'primitivist"; that is, >>> they are waiting for the mediational means that we have foolishly >>> developed >>> only for the psychophysiologically most common types to catch up with the >>> actual variation in real children. I suspect this view is actually quite >>> a >>> bit closer to what Kay thinks than to what Helen thinks. >>> >>> David Kellogg >>> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 13 July 2014 10:59, Helen Grimmett wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> Hi David, >>>> >>>> Interesting question. I absolutely think that development AS a >>>> >>>> >>> professional >>> >>> >>>> is necessary, just as development as a human is necessary, so if >>>> professional development is seen as the practice in which this >>>> >>>> >>> development >>> >>> >>>> is produced then absolutely I do think it is necessary. The form that >>>> >>>> >>> this >>> >>> >>>> practice takes though, and indeed the form of the development that is >>>> produced within this practice, are the things open to question however. >>>> >>>> I definitely think that a teacher's development as a professional >>>> >>>> >>> includes >>> >>> >>>> the need to understand their practice better rather than just change it, >>>> but I think that understanding often develops best in/alongside/with the >>>> process of changing (and vice versa) rather than separately from it, >>>> and, >>>> as you point out above, in establishing ties *between* people and then >>>> within them. So a practice of professional development that creates >>>> conditions which support this type of development will (I believe) be >>>> >>>> >>> much >>> >>> >>>> more effective than traditional forms of PD that either attempt to >>>> >>>> >>> lecture >>> >>> >>>> about theoretical principles but do not support teachers to transfer >>>> >>>> >>> these >>> >>> >>>> into practical changes, OR provide teachers with practical programs and >>>> expect them to implement them without any understanding of what and why >>>> >>>> >>> the >>> >>> >>>> changes matter. I think the term "Professional Development" is an >>>> >>>> >>> absolute >>> >>> >>>> misnomer for either of those typical approaches. >>>> >>>> So again, I have a problem with names! I'm talking about Professional >>>> Development with a completely different meaning than what most of the >>>> education community believe it to mean when they talk about attending PD >>>> seminars or workshops. I toyed with trying to find a different name for >>>> >>>> >>> the >>> >>> >>>> particular meaning I'm talking about, but when you are talking about >>>> development from a cultural-historical theoretical perspective then >>>> there >>>> really is no other word to use! That's why I stuck to using >>>> 'professional >>>> development' (in full) when I meant my meaning, and PD (which is what >>>> teachers in Australia commonly refer to seminars and workshops as) when >>>> I >>>> refer to the typical (and in my view, usually non-developmental) forms >>>> of >>>> activities that teachers are subjected to each year. >>>> >>>> So, I agree that the need for PD is questionable, but the need for >>>> practices of professional development that help teachers to develop as >>>> professionals (that is, to develop a unified understanding of both the >>>> theoretical and practical aspects of their work, which is itself >>>> continually developing in order to meet the changing needs of their >>>> students, schools and society) is essential. While I think co-teaching >>>> is >>>> one practical small-scale solution, working out viable, economical, and >>>> manageable ways to create these practices on a large-scale is a very >>>> >>>> >>> large >>> >>> >>>> problem. >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> Helen >>>> >>>> >>>> Dr Helen Grimmett >>>> Lecturer, Student Adviser, >>>> Faculty of Education, >>>> Room G64F, Building 902 >>>> Monash University, Berwick campus >>>> Phone: 9904 7171 >>>> >>>> *New Book: * >>>> The Practice of Teachers' Professional Development: A >>>> Cultural-Historical >>>> Approach >>>> < >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> https://www.sensepublishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/ >>> professional-learning-1/the-practice-of-teachers- >>> professional-development/ >>> >>> >>>> Helen Grimmett (2014) Sense Publishers >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> < >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> http://monash.edu.au/education/news/50-years/?utm_ >>> source=staff-email&utm_medium=email-signature&utm_campaign=50th >>> >>> >>>> On 13 July 2014 08:57, David Kellogg wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Helen: >>>>> >>>>> Good to hear from you at long last--I knew you were lurking out there >>>>> somewhere! >>>>> >>>>> I didn't actually write the line about "establishing ties"--it's from >>>>> >>>>> >>>> "The >>>> >>>> >>>>> Little Prince". The prince asks what "tame" means, and the fox replies >>>>> >>>>> >>>> that >>>> >>>> >>>>> it means "to establish ties". But of course what I meant was that ties >>>>> >>>>> >>>> are >>>> >>>> >>>>> established first between people and then within them; the ties of >>>>> development are interfunctional ties that make up a new psychological >>>>> system. (Or, for Halliday, they are the inter-systemic ties that make >>>>> >>>>> >>>> up >>> >>> >>>> new metafunctions.) >>>>> >>>>> As you say, Yrjo Engestrom chooses to emphasize another aspect of >>>>> development with "breaking away"--he wants to stress its crisis-ridden >>>>> nature. I agree with this, actually, but mostly I agree with you, that >>>>> >>>>> >>>> we >>> >>> >>>> are talking about two moments of the same process. To me, breaking away >>>>> >>>>> >>>> is >>>> >>>> >>>>> really a precondition of the real business of establishing ties. >>>>> >>>>> Thomas Piketty makes a similar point in his book "Capital in the >>>>> Twenty-first Century". He admits that war and revolution is the only >>>>> >>>>> >>>> thing >>>> >>>> >>>>> that EVER counteracts the tendency of returns from capital to outstrip >>>>> >>>>> >>>> the >>>> >>>> >>>>> growth in income, and that the 20th Century was an outlier in this >>>>> >>>>> >>>> respect, >>>> >>>> >>>>> and the Russian revolution an extreme outlier within that outlier. But >>>>> >>>>> >>>> he >>> >>> >>>> also says that in the long run the one thing that makes UPWARD mobility >>>>> possible is education. Despite everything, because of everything. >>>>> >>>>> I finished the book a few days ago. I guess the thing I most want to >>>>> >>>>> >>>> ask >>> >>> >>>> about is the assumption that professional development is necessary at >>>>> >>>>> >>>> all. >>>> >>>> >>>>> Doesn't it make more sense to say that before we change what we are >>>>> >>>>> >>>> doing, >>>> >>>> >>>>> we should understand it better? >>>>> >>>>> David Kellogg >>>>> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 12 July 2014 13:20, Helen Grimmett >>>>> >>>>> >>>> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Ah, I think you have hit the nail on the head David. It is indeed >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> TIME >>> >>> >>>> that >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> is so crucial - not only duration of time, but also location of time >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> (which >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> I suppose is really context). >>>>>> >>>>>> The problems I had with Mike and his colleagues about the terminology >>>>>> stemmed partly from the typical Aussie disdain for using words that >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> might >>>> >>>> >>>>> make your mates think you are trying to appear 'better' than them, so >>>>>> therefore you mock anything that sounds too serious or intellectual. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> But >>>> >>>> >>>>> beyond this surface level of complaining the problems Huw and you >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> have >>> >>> >>>> been >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> discussing boil down to problems with time. >>>>>> >>>>>> Huw's complaint about my use of the heading "Features of >>>>>> Cultural-Historical Learning Activities" is well justified - but it >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> was >>> >>> >>>> really just a shorthand written version of what I was verbally asking >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> for >>>> >>>> >>>>> as "What might be some particular features of learning activities >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> that >>> >>> >>>> would align with principles of Cultural-Historical Theory?" That >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> would >>> >>> >>>> have >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> taken too long to write on the top of the piece of paper - and of >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> course >>>> >>>> >>>>> time is always too short in any after-school PD so shortcuts are >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> inevitably >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> taken. (Time problem #1) >>>>>> >>>>>> Time problem #2, which your discussion has highlighted for me, is >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> that >>> >>> >>>> of >>>> >>>> >>>>> course my question was really "What might be some particular features >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> of >>>> >>>> >>>>> learning activities that would align with THE LIMITED NUMBER OF (AND >>>>>> LIMITED UNDERSTANDING OF) principles of Cultural-Historical Theory >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> THAT >>> >>> >>>> YOU >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> HAVE BEEN INTRODUCED TO SO FAR?" so I really should have not been so >>>>>> surprised that they would find the brainstorming activity difficult >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> and >>> >>> >>>> resort to diversionary tactics! (Mike's outburst posted here by David >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> was >>>> >>>> >>>>> not the only eventful moment I write about from this one activity. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> But >>> >>> >>>> these apparent failures actually provided much more interesting data >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> for >>>> >>>> >>>>> me >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> and eventually lead me to several key findings in my thesis). I had >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> spent >>>> >>>> >>>>> several years by this stage reading and discussing Vygotsky and yet I >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> had >>>> >>>> >>>>> assumed/hoped the teachers would have enough understanding from my >>>>>> (probably not very good) explanations ABOUT theory over the previous >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> 3 >>> >>> >>>> short sessions I had had with them to be able to contribute answers >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> to >>> >>> >>>> my >>>> >>>> >>>>> brainstorm question. They had not had enough TIME to become familiar >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> with >>>> >>>> >>>>> enough of the theory to make much sense of it yet - but still, we >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> have >>> >>> >>>> to >>>> >>>> >>>>> start somewhere and this was still early days. >>>>>> >>>>>> Time problem #3 brings in what I called above the location of time. I >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> had >>>> >>>> >>>>> never intended for the sessions to be me giving after-school lectures >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> about >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> either theory or practice, yet this is what the teachers seemed to >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> expect >>>> >>>> >>>>> from me (and even demand from me) and were pretty disgruntled when I >>>>>> wouldn't/couldn't deliver. My intention was always to get them to >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> engage >>>> >>>> >>>>> with the relationship between THEORY and PRACTICE, just as David's >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> comic >>>> >>>> >>>>> book discusses the relationship between THINKING and SPEECH or >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> EMOTION >>> >>> >>>> and >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> COGNITION. My problem of course was that once we were in an >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> after-school >>>> >>>> >>>>> meeting we were removed in both time and space from where theory and >>>>>> practice of teaching/learning operate as a relation (i.e. the >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> classroom >>> >>> >>>> activity). I was actually trying to create/use our own PLZ >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> (Professional >>>> >>>> >>>>> Learning ZPD) as the activity in which to develop and understand this >>>>>> relationship but it was initially very hard to get the teachers to >>>>>> understand this (at least until we had enough of David's Fox's >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> socially >>> >>> >>>> shared experiences for the meanings to become communicable) and then >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> even >>>> >>>> >>>>> more difficult to get them to transfer this back to developing their >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> own >>>> >>>> >>>>> classroom teaching. Ironically, despite being the loudest complainers >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> and >>>> >>>> >>>>> disparagers, it was Mike and Kay (the protagonist of my other >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> eventful >>> >>> >>>> moment in the brainstorming session) who actually ended up making the >>>>>> biggest changes in their classroom practice. Perhaps this is not >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> really >>> >>> >>>> surprising at all - they were the ones who obviously engaged and >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> argued >>> >>> >>>> with the ideas and activities rather than simply endured them! >>>>>> >>>>>> My eventual answer to the problems encountered in my work with the >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> group >>>> >>>> >>>>> of >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> teachers was to work WITH a teacher IN her own classroom so that we >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> had >>> >>> >>>> shared experiences of the relationship between theory and practice >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> which >>>> >>>> >>>>> could not only be discussed after the events, but also actually acted >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> upon >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> there and then IN the event - creating what I called "Situated >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> Conscious >>>> >>>> >>>>> Awareness" of both the theoretical and practical aspects of the >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> concepts >>>> >>>> >>>>> of >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> teaching/learning and development we were developing understanding >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> and >>> >>> >>>> practice of together. But perhaps I should wait until David gets up >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> to >>> >>> >>>> this >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> part of the book before I say more! >>>>>> >>>>>> Finally, one other point that really caught my attention in your >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> comic >>> >>> >>>> book >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> David is that your prince calls development "to establish ties" which >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> is >>>> >>>> >>>>> an >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> interesting difference to Engestrom's definition as "breaking away". >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> But >>>> >>>> >>>>> perhaps, as always in CH theory, it is not a matter of either/or but >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> in >>> >>> >>>> fact both/and ideas that are necessary. From what I learned in my >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> study, >>>> >>>> >>>>> teachers' development as professionals is definitely BOTH about >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> breaking >>>> >>>> >>>>> away from old, routinised understandings and practices AND >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> establishing >>> >>> >>>> new >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> connections between and amongst theoretical concepts and practices, >>>>>> enabling them to continually develop new competences and motives >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> across >>> >>> >>>> all >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> of their professional duties. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks for your interest in my book David. The discussion it has >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> sparked >>>> >>>> >>>>> has helped me revisit ideas from new perspectives. >>>>>> >>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>> Helen >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Dr Helen Grimmett >>>>>> Lecturer, Student Adviser, >>>>>> Faculty of Education, >>>>>> Room G64F, Building 902 >>>>>> Monash University, Berwick campus >>>>>> Phone: 9904 7171 >>>>>> >>>>>> *New Book: * >>>>>> The Practice of Teachers' Professional Development: A >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> Cultural-Historical >>>> >>>> >>>>> Approach >>>>>> < >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> https://www.sensepublishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/ >>> professional-learning-1/the-practice-of-teachers- >>> professional-development/ >>> >>> >>>> Helen Grimmett (2014) Sense Publishers >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> < >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> http://monash.edu.au/education/news/50-years/?utm_ >>> source=staff-email&utm_medium=email-signature&utm_campaign=50th >>> >>> >>>> On 12 July 2014 07:29, David Kellogg wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Plekhanov distinguishes between "agitators" and "propagandists". >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> Agitators >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> are essentially popularizers; they have the job of ripping away a >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> subset >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> of >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> smaller and simpler ideas from a fabric of much larger and more >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> complex >>>> >>>> >>>>> theory and then disseminating them amongst the largest possible >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> number >>>> >>>> >>>>> of >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> people. In other words, their focus is exoteric. Propagandists are >>>>>>> essentially conspiratorial: they have the job of initiating a small >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> number >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> of the elect and educating them in the whole theoretical system--as >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> Larry >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> would say, the full Bildung. In other words, their focus is >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> esoteric. >>> >>> >>>> As >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> you can see, Plekhanov was good at making distinctions, and not so >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> good >>>> >>>> >>>>> at >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> showing how things are linked. For Helena, who is a labor >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> educator, >>> >>> >>>> you >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> can't really be an effective agitator unless you are also a >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> propagandist. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> You need to present your exoteric extracts in such a way that they >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> are, >>>> >>>> >>>>> to >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> borrow Larry's phrase, both necessary and sufficient to lead people >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> on >>>> >>>> >>>>> to >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> the esoterica. I'm with Helena--and with Bruner--with children it's >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> always >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> possible to tell the truth, part of the truth, but nothing but the >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> truth, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> and if we can do it with kids, why not do it with adults? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> (I am less sure about what it means to say that the objectively >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> human >>> >>> >>>> is >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> the "subjectively historical"--it sounds like history is being >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> reified >>>> >>>> >>>>> as a >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> subject, that is, as a living, breathing, acting "World Spirit" >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> that >>> >>> >>>> can >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> have a mind and reflect upon itself. My understanding of history is >>>>>>> that just as we cannot have the advanced form of historical >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> consciousness >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> in dialogue with the more primitive forms, the opportunity to >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> reflect >>> >>> >>>> upon >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> the whole process when it is all over is simply never going to be >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> available >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> to anyone. The Merleau-Ponty quotation is beautiful and intensely >>>>>>> poetic, Larry--but when I look at a bubble or a wave, I do not >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> simply >>> >>> >>>> see >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> chaos; I see past bubbles and past waves, and potential bubbles and >>>>>>> potential waves. Isn't that a part of the experience of "loving >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> history" >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> as >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> well?) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> My wife wrote a wonderful Ph.D. thesis about how any work of >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> literature >>>> >>>> >>>>> can >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> be looked at on four time frames: phylogenetic (the history of a >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> genre), >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> ontogenetic (the biography of a career), logogenetic (the >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> development >>> >>> >>>> of >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> a >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> plot or a character), and microgenetic (the unfolding of a >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> dialogue, >>> >>> >>>> or a >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> paragraph). Her supervisor complained about the terminology in >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> somewhat >>>> >>>> >>>>> more elegant terms than Mike does in Helen's data:and suggested >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> that >>> >>> >>>> she >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> should replace the terms with "history", "biography", "development" >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> and >>>> >>>> >>>>> "unfolding", to make it more exoteric. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think that if she had done that, it would have made the thesis >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> into >>> >>> >>>> agitation rather than education. Yes, the terms would have been >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> more >>> >>> >>>> familiar, and they might even, given other context, be taken to >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> mean >>> >>> >>>> the >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> same thing. But what we would have gotten is good, clear >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> distinctions >>> >>> >>>> ("history" on the one hand and "biography" on the other) and what >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> we >>> >>> >>>> would >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> have lost is the linkedness of one time frame to another--the way >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> in >>> >>> >>>> which >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> the phylogenesis of genre produces the mature genre which is used >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> in >>> >>> >>>> an >>>> >>>> >>>>> author's ontegenesis, and the way in which the author's ontogenesis >>>>>>> produces the starting point and the raw materials for the >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> logogenetic >>> >>> >>>> development of a work, not to mention the way in which logogenesis >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> is >>> >>> >>>> reflected in the microgenetic unfolding of dialogue. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So I think that when Helena writes that anything can be explained >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> to >>> >>> >>>> anyone >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> in language that is everyday and simple and in a way that is >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> understandable >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> and at least part of the whole truth, I agree somewhat enviously >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> (you >>> >>> >>>> see, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Helena is a labor educator, but I teach TESOL, which is really the >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> process >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> of taking a few very simple and exoteric ideas that good teachers >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> already >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> have and disseminating the select to the elect for vast sums of >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> money). >>>> >>>> >>>>> But >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> I have to add a rider--when we popularize richly woven fabrics of >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> ideas >>>> >>>> >>>>> like cultural historical theory we are not simply juggling >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> vocabulary. >>>> >>>> >>>>> I >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> think that Helena recognizes this perfectly when she says that it >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> takes >>>> >>>> >>>>> TIME to be simple and clear. If it were simply a matter of >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> replacing >>> >>> >>>> "cultural historical" with "community of learners" it would >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> actually >>> >>> >>>> take >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> less time, but it isn't and it doesn't. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It is very hot in Seoul today, and somewhere out there a toddler is >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> arguing >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> with a parent because he wants watermelon with breakfast. The >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> parent >>> >>> >>>> resists, because if you eat cold watermelon on an empty stomach you >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> get a >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> tummy-ache. The argument grows heated and long--and complex, but >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> the >>> >>> >>>> complexity is of a particular kind, with very short, repeated, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> insistancies >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> from the child and somewhat longer more complex remonstrations from >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> the >>>> >>>> >>>>> parent. We can call this complex discourse but simple grammar. A >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> few >>> >>> >>>> years >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> will go by and we will find that the school child has mastered the >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> trick >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> of >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> long and complex remonstrations and can use them pre-emptively to >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> win >>> >>> >>>> arguments. We can call this complex grammar, but simple vocabulary. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> Only >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> when a decade or two has elapsed will we find that child, now >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> adult, >>> >>> >>>> can >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> use the language of science, which is for the most part >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> grammatically >>> >>> >>>> simple (at least compared to the pre-emptive remonstrations of the >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> school >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> child), but full of very complex vocabulary (e.g. "phylogeny >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> anticipates >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> ontogeny", or "cultural-historical activity theory enables >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> communities >>>> >>>> >>>>> of >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> learners"). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It's Saturday today, and in a few minutes I have to leave for the >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> weekly >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> meeting of our translation group, which produces mighty tomes which >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> we >>>> >>>> >>>>> produce to popularize the works of Vygotsky amongst militant >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> teachers >>> >>> >>>> here >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> in Korea (our version of "Thinking and Speech" is seven hundred >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> pages >>> >>> >>>> long >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> because of all the explanatory notes and boxes with helpful >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> pictures). >>>> >>>> >>>>> On >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> the other hand, there is the attached comic book version of the >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> first >>> >>> >>>> chapter of "Thinking and Speech" which I wrote a couple of years >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> ago >>> >>> >>>> for >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> some graduate students who were having trouble talking about the >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> real >>> >>> >>>> "Thinking and Speech" in class. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think you can see that Huw's complaint is justified--the comic >>>>>>> book dialogue is "about" Thinking and Speech, but it is not >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> "Thinking >>> >>> >>>> and >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Speech" at all, in the same way that "community of learners" or >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> "biography" >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> is ABOUT cultural historical theory or ontogenesis. And I think >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> that >>> >>> >>>> part >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> of the problem (but only part of it) is that the comic book is just >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> too >>>> >>>> >>>>> short. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> David Kellogg >>>>>>> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2014-07-11 17:09 GMT+09:00 Leif Strandberg < >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> leifstrandberg.ab@telia.com >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> : >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 11 jul 2014 kl. 06:41 skrev Larry Purss : >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> David, >>>>>>>>> I have been following your reflections through this thread. >>>>>>>>> You commented: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So it's almost always more useful for me to >>>>>>>>> think of learning phenomena as NOT reducible to the physical, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> at >>> >>> >>>> least >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> not >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> in their unit of analysis >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I have been reflecting on the notion of *bildung* as learning. >>>>>>>>> The notion of *cultivation* and *disposition* and *comportment* >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> as >>>> >>>> >>>>> the >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> potential of learning. >>>>>>>>> I came across this quote from Gramsci who was questioning the >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> notion >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> of >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> *laws* as the basis for making social predictions. Such *laws* >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> excluded >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> subjective factor from history. >>>>>>>>> Gramsci wrote on social process: "Objective always means >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 'humanly >>> >>> >>>> objective' which can be held to correspond exactly to >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 'historically >>>> >>>> >>>>> subjective' " >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Merleau-Ponty also explored what I refer to as *disposition* >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> with >>> >>> >>>> this >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> quote on the reality of history: >>>>>>>>> History "awakens us to the importance of daily events and >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> action. >>> >>> >>>> For >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> it >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> a philosophy [of history -LP] which arouses in us a love for >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> our >>> >>> >>>> times >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> which are not the simple repetition of human eternity nor >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> merely >>> >>> >>>> the >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> conclusion of premises already postulated. It is a view that >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> like >>> >>> >>>> the >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> most >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> fragile object of perception - a soap bubble, or a wave - or >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> like >>> >>> >>>> the >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> most >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> simple dialogue, embraces indivisibly all the order and all the >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> disorder >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> the world." >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> From ablunden@mira.net Mon Jul 14 23:26:19 2014 From: ablunden@mira.net (Andy Blunden) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 16:26:19 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: book of possible interest In-Reply-To: References: <0D461088-CBBB-4BD9-ADCB-3024C36CBE81@telia.com> <53C48DF1.5000703@mira.net> Message-ID: <53C4C98B.4040004@mira.net> Always a pleasure to read your posts, David (provided I don't get shafted in them). Andy ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Andy Blunden* http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ David Kellogg wrote: > Well, I do hope that Helen means that "for the moment", as I have > learned an awful lot from this book and even more from this > discussion. You see, I am trying to tease apart two very different > processes that appear, on the face of it, to be almost identical, but > which also appear to have diametrically opposite developmental effects. > > One process is the process of getting people to feel at ease, > confident, and happy that they understand what you are saying because > it is actually something that is identical or at least very similar to > what they already think. Another, almost identical, process is the > process of "establishing ties" between a new form of knowledge and an > earlier one. BOTH of these processes, it seems to me, occur throughout > Helen's book, and it is easy to mistake the one for the other. BOTH of > these processes, to use our earlier terminology, involve "establishing > ties", but only one of them also involves breaking away. > > For example, at one point in the book Helen, looking back over > the Banksia Bay PLZ data, rounds on herself for using a transparent > piece of scaffolding to elicit the word "communicate" from a group of > teachers. What bothers her is not that the answer itself is far too > general to be of any practical value to the teachers, but only > that she had it very firmly in mind, and kept badgering the teachers > (as we all do, when we have a precise answer in mind) until she got > it. The alternative, she points out, would be to take what she got and > work with that. > > Yes indeed. But I think the main reason that would have been more > interesting is not that it would have resulted in fewer rejections of > teacher answers and made people more at ease, confdent, and happy that > they understood, but rather than it would have yielded something more > like a concrete but unconscious and not yet volitionally controlled > example of excellence from the teacher's own practice. I almost always > find that the actual answers I want--the "methods" I end up imparting > to my own teachers, are already present in the data they bring me > (because we almost always begin with actual transcripts of their > lessons) but they are generally not methods but only moments, and > moments that go unnoticed and therefore ungeneralized in the hurly > burly of actual teaching. > > Last winter, Helen and I were at a conference in New Zealand where, > among other eventful episodes, Craig Brandist got up and gave a very > precise list of half a dozen different and utterly contradictory ways > in which Bakhtin uses the term "dialogue". Because the senses of > "dialogue" are so many and varied, people simply pick and choose, and > they tend invariably to choose the ones that are closest to the way > they already think. It is as moments like this that we need to remind > ourselves that Bakhtin's "dialogue" does not, for the most part, ever > include children, or women; that he did not "dialogue" with Volosinov > or Medvedev when he allowed his acolytes to plunder their corpses, and > that his love of carnival and the public marketplace does not extend > to a belief in any form of political democracy. > > So I think we should start off with an understanding that what > Vygotsky says about defect is not the same was what we now > believe. Vygotsky, for example, believed that sign language was not > true language, and that even the congenitally deaf should be taught to > lip read; this is simply wrong. (On the other hand, what he says > about spontaneously created sign languages--that they are essentially > elaborated systems of gesture and they lack the signifying > functions--fits exactly with Susan Goldin-Meadow's observations in > Chicago.) > > And one reason I think it is important to begin with this > understanding is this: sometimes--usually--LSV is right and we are > wrong. In particular, I think the "credit" view of defect, or, for > that matter, ignorance of any kind and not fully conscious teacher > expertise risks becoming a liberal platitude--the cup is always half > full, so why not look on the bright side of dearth? I certainly do not > feel empowered by the fact that I know English but I do not know ASL, > and I rather doubt that deaf people feel empowered by the opposite > state of affairs. When I don't know something, I do not see any bright > side of not knowing it, for the very simple reason that I can't see at > all. > > Vygotsky was probably very influenced by "Iolanta", an opera that > Tchaikovsky wrote--he certainly seems to quote it extensively in the > last chapter of "Thinking and Speech". In "Iolanta", King Renee copes > with the blindness of his daughter by having her shut up in a garden > and forbidding all his subjects from discussing light, sight, color or > anything visible in any way. Vaudemont, a knight of Burgundy, blunders > into the garden, discovers Iolanta's secret. Iolanta convinces him > that sight is unnecessary, but in the course of doing so, she develops > the desire to see and choose for herself. > > David Kelogg > Hankuk University of Foreign Studies > > > > On 15 July 2014 11:12, Andy Blunden > wrote: > > My reading of Vygotsky on 'defectology' was that the 'defect' was > the problem in social relations, that is, the person who is > different in some way suffers because of the way that difference > is treated or not treated by others, not for anything in itself. > One and the same feature could be a great benefit or a fatal flaw, > depending on how others react to it. > Except insofar as introducing the idea of a "credit view" is a > move aimed at changing the perceptions and behaviours of others in > relation to the subject, I don't think Vygotsky is an advocate of > the mirror image of a deficit view. As I see it, he analyses the > problem of the person being treated as deficient by means of the > unit of *defect-compensation*. The defect (a problem arising in > social interaction, with others) generates certain challenges > which are overcome, generally also in interaction with others. > This "compensation" leads to what Helen could call a "credit" and > it is the dynamic set up between the social defect and social > compensation which shapes the subject's psychology and their > relation to others. > Andy > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *Andy Blunden* > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > > > Helen Grimmett wrote: > > I think what is unique about Vygotsky's work in defectology is > that, > despite the name, it is not a deficit view (in the way that I > understand > the term) at all. > > I understand the commonly used term 'deficit view' as a focus > on what > children are 'missing' that needs to be provided to them by > teachers to > bring them up to a pre-conceived idea of 'normal' for their > age/grade level > etc. Whereas, a 'credit view' focuses on what children are > able to do and > bring to a learning situation, in which, in the interaction > with others, > they will be able to become more able to do and 'be' more than > they were > before (i.e. to develop), whether this be in the 'expected' > ways to the > 'expected' level or in completely different ways to a variety > of different > levels beyond or outside 'standard' expectations. From the > little I have > read on defectology I think this is what Vygotsky was > advocating - that > despite a child's blindness or deafness etc, development was > still possible > if mediational means were found that made use of the child's > credits (i.e. > using sign language or braille so that children still had > access to the > developmental opportunities provided by language). So I think > your term > pre-abled is in fact a credit view rather than a deficit view. > > I was attempting to also use a credit view in my work with the > teachers. I > saw them as being experienced practitioners who had lots to > bring to our > discussions of teaching and learning, in which together we > could see what > could be developed (new practices, new understandings). Once > Kay and Mike > realised this they got on board and engaged in the process and > (possibly > for the first time in a long while as they both saw themselves > [and in fact > are officially designated as] 'expert teachers') really > reawakened the > process of developing as professionals. They blew off most of > the content I > was contributing, but they realised the process was actually about > 'unsticking' their own development and working out new and > personally > interesting and meaningful ways of 'becoming' more as > teachers, instead of > being stuck 'being' the teacher they had turned into over the > years. Not > all of the teachers made this leap in the time I worked with > them though. > Others were either quite disgruntled that I wouldn't provide > them with > answers to 'fix' their own perceived deficits or patiently > waited for me to > go away and stop rocking the boat. From what I can gather > though, Ann (the > principal) kept the boat rocking and managed over time to get > more teachers > to buy into the process of learning from each other and > collaboratively > creating new practices. As we said earlier, development takes > time as well > as effort. > > All I've got time for at the moment! > > Helen > > > > > > > Dr Helen Grimmett > Lecturer, Student Adviser, > Faculty of Education, > Room G64F, Building 902 > Monash University, Berwick campus > Phone: 9904 7171 > > *New Book: * > The Practice of Teachers' Professional Development: A > Cultural-Historical > Approach > > Helen Grimmett (2014) Sense Publishers > > > > > > > > On 14 July 2014 14:43, David Kellogg > wrote: > > > > Near the end of Chapter Three (p. 81), Helen is summing up > her experience > with the Banksia Bay PLZ and she notes with some dismay > that her PDers have > "a deficit view" of their children and tend towards > "container models" of > the mind ("empty vessel, sponge, blank canvas"). Only one > teacher, Ann sees > anything wrong with this, and Helen says "they don't > necessarily value her > opinion". > > Helen finds herself rather conflicted: One the one hand, > she says "If > their representations of children really do represent > their beliefs, then > they are probably right to insist there is no need to > change." And on the > other, she says "My intention was never to say that their > present practice > was wrong, but to help them see alternative ways of > thinking about > children, learning, and teaching." > > Of course, if there is no need to change, then it follows > that there is no > reason to look for alternative ways of thinking about > children, learning > and teaching. The only reason for spending scarce > cognitive resources on > seeing different ways of looking at children is if you do, > in fact, take a > deficit view of the teachers. Ann, and the Regional > Consultants, apparently > do, but Helen realizes that there isn't much basis for > this: not only do we > have no actual data of lessons to look at, we know that > one of the > teachers, Kay, has been in the classroom for three decades > (during which > time Helen has spent at least one decade OUT of the > classroom). > > While we were translating Vygotsky's "History of the > Development of the > Higher Psychological Functions" last year, some of my > colleagues were taken > aback by Vygotsky's use of terms like "moron", "imbecile", > "idiot", and > "cretin". Of course, Vygotsky is writing long before the > "euphemisim > treadmill" turned these into playground insults; for > Vygotsky they are > quite precise descriptors--not of cognitive ability but > actually of > LANGUAGE ability. But because our readership are > progressive Korean > teachers with strong views about these questions, we found > that we couldn't > even use the term "mentally retarded" without a strongly > worded footnote > disavowing the "deficit" thinking behind the term. > > I think that Vygotsky would have been surprised by this. I > think he took it > for granted that a defect was a deficit: being blind means > a deficit in > vision, and being deaf means a deficit in hearing. In the > same way, a brain > defect is not an asset. On the other hand, I think > Vygotsky would find our > own term "disabled" quite inaccurate: since all forms of > development are > compensatory and involve "circuitous routes" of one kind > or another, and > all developed children, even, and even especially, gifted > children, contain > islands of underdevelopment, the correct term for deficits > of all kinds is > not "disabled" but "pre-abled". > > Personally, I see nothing wrong with a deficit view of > children that sees > them as pre-abled (or, as Vygotsky liked to say, > 'primitivist"; that is, > they are waiting for the mediational means that we have > foolishly developed > only for the psychophysiologically most common types to > catch up with the > actual variation in real children. I suspect this view is > actually quite a > bit closer to what Kay thinks than to what Helen thinks. > > David Kellogg > Hankuk University of Foreign Studies > > > > > > > On 13 July 2014 10:59, Helen Grimmett > > wrote: > > > > Hi David, > > Interesting question. I absolutely think that > development AS a > > > professional > > > is necessary, just as development as a human is > necessary, so if > professional development is seen as the practice in > which this > > > development > > > is produced then absolutely I do think it is > necessary. The form that > > > this > > > practice takes though, and indeed the form of the > development that is > produced within this practice, are the things open to > question however. > > I definitely think that a teacher's development as a > professional > > > includes > > > the need to understand their practice better rather > than just change it, > but I think that understanding often develops best > in/alongside/with the > process of changing (and vice versa) rather than > separately from it, and, > as you point out above, in establishing ties *between* > people and then > within them. So a practice of professional development > that creates > conditions which support this type of development will > (I believe) be > > > much > > > more effective than traditional forms of PD that > either attempt to > > > lecture > > > about theoretical principles but do not support > teachers to transfer > > > these > > > into practical changes, OR provide teachers with > practical programs and > expect them to implement them without any > understanding of what and why > > > the > > > changes matter. I think the term "Professional > Development" is an > > > absolute > > > misnomer for either of those typical approaches. > > So again, I have a problem with names! I'm talking > about Professional > Development with a completely different meaning than > what most of the > education community believe it to mean when they talk > about attending PD > seminars or workshops. I toyed with trying to find a > different name for > > > the > > > particular meaning I'm talking about, but when you are > talking about > development from a cultural-historical theoretical > perspective then there > really is no other word to use! That's why I stuck to > using 'professional > development' (in full) when I meant my meaning, and PD > (which is what > teachers in Australia commonly refer to seminars and > workshops as) when I > refer to the typical (and in my view, usually > non-developmental) forms of > activities that teachers are subjected to each year. > > So, I agree that the need for PD is questionable, but > the need for > practices of professional development that help > teachers to develop as > professionals (that is, to develop a unified > understanding of both the > theoretical and practical aspects of their work, which > is itself > continually developing in order to meet the changing > needs of their > students, schools and society) is essential. While I > think co-teaching is > one practical small-scale solution, working out > viable, economical, and > manageable ways to create these practices on a > large-scale is a very > > > large > > > problem. > > Cheers, > Helen > > > Dr Helen Grimmett > Lecturer, Student Adviser, > Faculty of Education, > Room G64F, Building 902 > Monash University, Berwick campus > Phone: 9904 7171 > > *New Book: * > The Practice of Teachers' Professional Development: A > Cultural-Historical > Approach > < > > > > https://www.sensepublishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/professional-learning-1/the-practice-of-teachers-professional-development/ > > > Helen Grimmett (2014) Sense Publishers > > > > < > > > > http://monash.edu.au/education/news/50-years/?utm_source=staff-email&utm_medium=email-signature&utm_campaign=50th > > > > On 13 July 2014 08:57, David Kellogg > > > wrote: > > > > Helen: > > Good to hear from you at long last--I knew you > were lurking out there > somewhere! > > I didn't actually write the line about > "establishing ties"--it's from > > > "The > > > Little Prince". The prince asks what "tame" means, > and the fox replies > > > that > > > it means "to establish ties". But of course what I > meant was that ties > > > are > > > established first between people and then within > them; the ties of > development are interfunctional ties that make up > a new psychological > system. (Or, for Halliday, they are the > inter-systemic ties that make > > > up > > > new metafunctions.) > > As you say, Yrjo Engestrom chooses to emphasize > another aspect of > development with "breaking away"--he wants to > stress its crisis-ridden > nature. I agree with this, actually, but mostly I > agree with you, that > > > we > > > are talking about two moments of the same process. > To me, breaking away > > > is > > > really a precondition of the real business of > establishing ties. > > Thomas Piketty makes a similar point in his book > "Capital in the > Twenty-first Century". He admits that war and > revolution is the only > > > thing > > > that EVER counteracts the tendency of returns from > capital to outstrip > > > the > > > growth in income, and that the 20th Century was an > outlier in this > > > respect, > > > and the Russian revolution an extreme outlier > within that outlier. But > > > he > > > also says that in the long run the one thing that > makes UPWARD mobility > possible is education. Despite everything, because > of everything. > > I finished the book a few days ago. I guess the > thing I most want to > > > ask > > > about is the assumption that professional > development is necessary at > > > all. > > > Doesn't it make more sense to say that before we > change what we are > > > doing, > > > we should understand it better? > > David Kellogg > Hankuk University of Foreign Studies > > > On 12 July 2014 13:20, Helen Grimmett > > > > > wrote: > > > Ah, I think you have hit the nail on the head > David. It is indeed > > > TIME > > > that > > > is so crucial - not only duration of time, but > also location of time > > > (which > > > I suppose is really context). > > The problems I had with Mike and his > colleagues about the terminology > stemmed partly from the typical Aussie disdain > for using words that > > > might > > > make your mates think you are trying to appear > 'better' than them, so > therefore you mock anything that sounds too > serious or intellectual. > > > But > > > beyond this surface level of complaining the > problems Huw and you > > > have > > > been > > > discussing boil down to problems with time. > > Huw's complaint about my use of the heading > "Features of > Cultural-Historical Learning Activities" is > well justified - but it > > > was > > > really just a shorthand written version of > what I was verbally asking > > > for > > > as "What might be some particular features of > learning activities > > > that > > > would align with principles of > Cultural-Historical Theory?" That > > > would > > > have > > > taken too long to write on the top of the > piece of paper - and of > > > course > > > time is always too short in any after-school > PD so shortcuts are > > > inevitably > > > taken. (Time problem #1) > > Time problem #2, which your discussion has > highlighted for me, is > > > that > > > of > > > course my question was really "What might be > some particular features > > > of > > > learning activities that would align with THE > LIMITED NUMBER OF (AND > LIMITED UNDERSTANDING OF) principles of > Cultural-Historical Theory > > > THAT > > > YOU > > > HAVE BEEN INTRODUCED TO SO FAR?" so I really > should have not been so > surprised that they would find the > brainstorming activity difficult > > > and > > > resort to diversionary tactics! (Mike's > outburst posted here by David > > > was > > > not the only eventful moment I write about > from this one activity. > > > But > > > these apparent failures actually provided much > more interesting data > > > for > > > me > > > and eventually lead me to several key findings > in my thesis). I had > > > spent > > > several years by this stage reading and > discussing Vygotsky and yet I > > > had > > > assumed/hoped the teachers would have enough > understanding from my > (probably not very good) explanations ABOUT > theory over the previous > > > 3 > > > short sessions I had had with them to be able > to contribute answers > > > to > > > my > > > brainstorm question. They had not had enough > TIME to become familiar > > > with > > > enough of the theory to make much sense of it > yet - but still, we > > > have > > > to > > > start somewhere and this was still early days. > > Time problem #3 brings in what I called above > the location of time. I > > > had > > > never intended for the sessions to be me > giving after-school lectures > > > about > > > either theory or practice, yet this is what > the teachers seemed to > > > expect > > > from me (and even demand from me) and were > pretty disgruntled when I > wouldn't/couldn't deliver. My intention was > always to get them to > > > engage > > > with the relationship between THEORY and > PRACTICE, just as David's > > > comic > > > book discusses the relationship between > THINKING and SPEECH or > > > EMOTION > > > and > > > COGNITION. My problem of course was that once > we were in an > > > after-school > > > meeting we were removed in both time and space > from where theory and > practice of teaching/learning operate as a > relation (i.e. the > > > classroom > > > activity). I was actually trying to create/use > our own PLZ > > > (Professional > > > Learning ZPD) as the activity in which to > develop and understand this > relationship but it was initially very hard to > get the teachers to > understand this (at least until we had enough > of David's Fox's > > > socially > > > shared experiences for the meanings to become > communicable) and then > > > even > > > more difficult to get them to transfer this > back to developing their > > > own > > > classroom teaching. Ironically, despite being > the loudest complainers > > > and > > > disparagers, it was Mike and Kay (the > protagonist of my other > > > eventful > > > moment in the brainstorming session) who > actually ended up making the > biggest changes in their classroom practice. > Perhaps this is not > > > really > > > surprising at all - they were the ones who > obviously engaged and > > > argued > > > with the ideas and activities rather than > simply endured them! > > My eventual answer to the problems encountered > in my work with the > > > group > > > of > > > teachers was to work WITH a teacher IN her own > classroom so that we > > > had > > > shared experiences of the relationship between > theory and practice > > > which > > > could not only be discussed after the events, > but also actually acted > > > upon > > > there and then IN the event - creating what I > called "Situated > > > Conscious > > > Awareness" of both the theoretical and > practical aspects of the > > > concepts > > > of > > > teaching/learning and development we were > developing understanding > > > and > > > practice of together. But perhaps I should > wait until David gets up > > > to > > > this > > > part of the book before I say more! > > Finally, one other point that really caught my > attention in your > > > comic > > > book > > > David is that your prince calls development > "to establish ties" which > > > is > > > an > > > interesting difference to Engestrom's > definition as "breaking away". > > > But > > > perhaps, as always in CH theory, it is not a > matter of either/or but > > > in > > > fact both/and ideas that are necessary. From > what I learned in my > > > study, > > > teachers' development as professionals is > definitely BOTH about > > > breaking > > > away from old, routinised understandings and > practices AND > > > establishing > > > new > > > connections between and amongst theoretical > concepts and practices, > enabling them to continually develop new > competences and motives > > > across > > > all > > > of their professional duties. > > Thanks for your interest in my book David. The > discussion it has > > > sparked > > > has helped me revisit ideas from new perspectives. > > Cheers, > Helen > > > > > > > > > > > Dr Helen Grimmett > Lecturer, Student Adviser, > Faculty of Education, > Room G64F, Building 902 > Monash University, Berwick campus > Phone: 9904 7171 > > *New Book: * > The Practice of Teachers' Professional > Development: A > > > Cultural-Historical > > > Approach > < > > > > https://www.sensepublishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/professional-learning-1/the-practice-of-teachers-professional-development/ > > > Helen Grimmett (2014) Sense Publishers > > > > < > > > > http://monash.edu.au/education/news/50-years/?utm_source=staff-email&utm_medium=email-signature&utm_campaign=50th > > > > On 12 July 2014 07:29, David Kellogg > > wrote: > > > > Plekhanov distinguishes between > "agitators" and "propagandists". > > > Agitators > > > are essentially popularizers; they have > the job of ripping away a > > > subset > > > of > > > smaller and simpler ideas from a fabric of > much larger and more > > > complex > > > theory and then disseminating them amongst > the largest possible > > > number > > > of > > > people. In other words, their focus is > exoteric. Propagandists are > essentially conspiratorial: they have the > job of initiating a small > > > number > > > of the elect and educating them in the > whole theoretical system--as > > > Larry > > > would say, the full Bildung. In other > words, their focus is > > > esoteric. > > > As > > > you can see, Plekhanov was good at making > distinctions, and not so > > > good > > > at > > > showing how things are linked. For Helena, > who is a labor > > > educator, > > > you > > > can't really be an effective agitator > unless you are also a > > > propagandist. > > > You need to present your exoteric extracts > in such a way that they > > > are, > > > to > > > borrow Larry's phrase, both necessary and > sufficient to lead people > > > on > > > to > > > the esoterica. I'm with Helena--and with > Bruner--with children it's > > > always > > > possible to tell the truth, part of the > truth, but nothing but the > > > truth, > > > and if we can do it with kids, why not do > it with adults? > > (I am less sure about what it means to say > that the objectively > > > human > > > is > > > the "subjectively historical"--it sounds > like history is being > > > reified > > > as a > > > subject, that is, as a living, breathing, > acting "World Spirit" > > > that > > > can > > > have a mind and reflect upon itself. My > understanding of history is > that just as we cannot have the advanced > form of historical > > > consciousness > > > in dialogue with the more primitive forms, > the opportunity to > > > reflect > > > upon > > > the whole process when it is all over is > simply never going to be > > > available > > > to anyone. The Merleau-Ponty quotation is > beautiful and intensely > poetic, Larry--but when I look at a bubble > or a wave, I do not > > > simply > > > see > > > chaos; I see past bubbles and past waves, > and potential bubbles and > potential waves. Isn't that a part of the > experience of "loving > > > history" > > > as > > > well?) > > My wife wrote a wonderful Ph.D. thesis > about how any work of > > > literature > > > can > > > be looked at on four time frames: > phylogenetic (the history of a > > > genre), > > > ontogenetic (the biography of a career), > logogenetic (the > > > development > > > of > > > a > > > plot or a character), and microgenetic > (the unfolding of a > > > dialogue, > > > or a > > > paragraph). Her supervisor complained > about the terminology in > > > somewhat > > > more elegant terms than Mike does in > Helen's data:and suggested > > > that > > > she > > > should replace the terms with "history", > "biography", "development" > > > and > > > "unfolding", to make it more exoteric. > > I think that if she had done that, it > would have made the thesis > > > into > > > agitation rather than education. Yes, the > terms would have been > > > more > > > familiar, and they might even, given other > context, be taken to > > > mean > > > the > > > same thing. But what we would have gotten > is good, clear > > > distinctions > > > ("history" on the one hand and "biography" > on the other) and what > > > we > > > would > > > have lost is the linkedness of one time > frame to another--the way > > > in > > > which > > > the phylogenesis of genre produces the > mature genre which is used > > > in > > > an > > > author's ontegenesis, and the way in which > the author's ontogenesis > produces the starting point and the raw > materials for the > > > logogenetic > > > development of a work, not to mention the > way in which logogenesis > > > is > > > reflected in the microgenetic unfolding of > dialogue. > > So I think that when Helena writes that > anything can be explained > > > to > > > anyone > > > in language that is everyday and simple > and in a way that is > > > understandable > > > and at least part of the whole truth, I > agree somewhat enviously > > > (you > > > see, > > > Helena is a labor educator, but I teach > TESOL, which is really the > > > process > > > of taking a few very simple and exoteric > ideas that good teachers > > > already > > > have and disseminating the select to the > elect for vast sums of > > > money). > > > But > > > I have to add a rider--when we popularize > richly woven fabrics of > > > ideas > > > like cultural historical theory we are not > simply juggling > > > vocabulary. > > > I > > > think that Helena recognizes this > perfectly when she says that it > > > takes > > > TIME to be simple and clear. If it were > simply a matter of > > > replacing > > > "cultural historical" with "community of > learners" it would > > > actually > > > take > > > less time, but it isn't and it doesn't. > > It is very hot in Seoul today, and > somewhere out there a toddler is > > > arguing > > > with a parent because he wants watermelon > with breakfast. The > > > parent > > > resists, because if you eat cold > watermelon on an empty stomach you > > > get a > > > tummy-ache. The argument grows heated and > long--and complex, but > > > the > > > complexity is of a particular kind, with > very short, repeated, > > > insistancies > > > from the child and somewhat longer more > complex remonstrations from > > > the > > > parent. We can call this complex discourse > but simple grammar. A > > > few > > > years > > > will go by and we will find that the > school child has mastered the > > > trick > > > of > > > long and complex remonstrations and can > use them pre-emptively to > > > win > > > arguments. We can call this complex > grammar, but simple vocabulary. > > > Only > > > when a decade or two has elapsed will we > find that child, now > > > adult, > > > can > > > use the language of science, which is for > the most part > > > grammatically > > > simple (at least compared to the > pre-emptive remonstrations of the > > > school > > > child), but full of very complex > vocabulary (e.g. "phylogeny > > > anticipates > > > ontogeny", or "cultural-historical > activity theory enables > > > communities > > > of > > > learners"). > > It's Saturday today, and in a few minutes > I have to leave for the > > > weekly > > > meeting of our translation group, which > produces mighty tomes which > > > we > > > produce to popularize the works of > Vygotsky amongst militant > > > teachers > > > here > > > in Korea (our version of "Thinking and > Speech" is seven hundred > > > pages > > > long > > > because of all the explanatory notes and > boxes with helpful > > > pictures). > > > On > > > the other hand, there is the attached > comic book version of the > > > first > > > chapter of "Thinking and Speech" which I > wrote a couple of years > > > ago > > > for > > > some graduate students who were having > trouble talking about the > > > real > > > "Thinking and Speech" in class. > > I think you can see that Huw's complaint > is justified--the comic > book dialogue is "about" Thinking and > Speech, but it is not > > > "Thinking > > > and > > > Speech" at all, in the same way that > "community of learners" or > > > "biography" > > > is ABOUT cultural historical theory or > ontogenesis. And I think > > > that > > > part > > > of the problem (but only part of it) is > that the comic book is just > > > too > > > short. > > David Kellogg > Hankuk University of Foreign Studies > > > > > > > 2014-07-11 17:09 GMT+09:00 Leif Strandberg < > > > leifstrandberg.ab@telia.com > > > > : > > > > 11 jul 2014 kl. 06:41 skrev Larry > Purss >: > > > > David, > I have been following your > reflections through this thread. > You commented: > > So it's almost always more useful > for me to > think of learning phenomena as NOT > reducible to the physical, > > > at > > > least > > > not > > > in their unit of analysis > > I have been reflecting on the > notion of *bildung* as learning. > The notion of *cultivation* and > *disposition* and *comportment* > > > as > > > the > > > potential of learning. > I came across this quote from > Gramsci who was questioning the > > > notion > > > of > > > *laws* as the basis for making > social predictions. Such *laws* > > > excluded > > > the > > > subjective factor from history. > Gramsci wrote on social process: > "Objective always means > > > 'humanly > > > objective' which can be held to > correspond exactly to > > > 'historically > > > subjective' " > > Merleau-Ponty also explored what I > refer to as *disposition* > > > with > > > this > > > quote on the reality of history: > History "awakens us to the > importance of daily events and > > > action. > > > For > > > it > > > is > > > a philosophy [of history -LP] > which arouses in us a love for > > > our > > > times > > > which are not the simple > repetition of human eternity nor > > > merely > > > the > > > conclusion of premises already > postulated. It is a view that > > > like > > > the > > > most > > > fragile object of perception - a > soap bubble, or a wave - or > > > like > > > the > > > most > > > simple dialogue, embraces > indivisibly all the order and all the > > > disorder > > > of > > > the world." > > From smago@uga.edu Tue Jul 15 02:56:58 2014 From: smago@uga.edu (Peter Smagorinsky) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 09:56:58 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: book of possible interest In-Reply-To: <53C48DF1.5000703@mira.net> References: <0D461088-CBBB-4BD9-ADCB-3024C36CBE81@telia.com> <53C48DF1.5000703@mira.net> Message-ID: In case anyone's interested in one person's interpretation of LSV's defectological writing, I've written the following papers, each with a link to the pdf. P Cook, L. S., & Smagorinsky, P. (2014). Constructing positive social updrafts for extranormative personalities. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction. Available at http://www.petersmagorinsky.net/About/PDF/LCSI_2014.pdf Smagorinsky, P. (2014). Who's normal here? An atypical's perspective on mental health and educational inclusion. English Journal, 103(5), 15?23. Available at http://www.petersmagorinsky.net/About/PDF/EJ/EJ2014.pdf Smagorinsky, P. (2012). Vygotsky, "defectology," and the inclusion of people of difference in the broader cultural stream. Journal of Language and Literacy Education [Online], 8(1), 1-25. Available at http://jolle.coe.uga.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Vygotsky-and-Defectology.pdf Smagorinsky, P. (2012). "Every individual has his own insanity": Applying Vygotsky's work on defectology to the question of mental health as an issue of inclusion. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 1(1), 67-77. Available at http://www.petersmagorinsky.net/About/PDF/LCSI/LCSI_2012.pdf -----Original Message----- From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Andy Blunden Sent: Monday, July 14, 2014 10:12 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: book of possible interest My reading of Vygotsky on 'defectology' was that the 'defect' was the problem in social relations, that is, the person who is different in some way suffers because of the way that difference is treated or not treated by others, not for anything in itself. One and the same feature could be a great benefit or a fatal flaw, depending on how others react to it. Except insofar as introducing the idea of a "credit view" is a move aimed at changing the perceptions and behaviours of others in relation to the subject, I don't think Vygotsky is an advocate of the mirror image of a deficit view. As I see it, he analyses the problem of the person being treated as deficient by means of the unit of *defect-compensation*. The defect (a problem arising in social interaction, with others) generates certain challenges which are overcome, generally also in interaction with others. This "compensation" leads to what Helen could call a "credit" and it is the dynamic set up between the social defect and social compensation which shapes the subject's psychology and their relation to others. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Andy Blunden* http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ Helen Grimmett wrote: > I think what is unique about Vygotsky's work in defectology is that, > despite the name, it is not a deficit view (in the way that I understand > the term) at all. > > I understand the commonly used term 'deficit view' as a focus on what > children are 'missing' that needs to be provided to them by teachers to > bring them up to a pre-conceived idea of 'normal' for their age/grade level > etc. Whereas, a 'credit view' focuses on what children are able to do and > bring to a learning situation, in which, in the interaction with others, > they will be able to become more able to do and 'be' more than they were > before (i.e. to develop), whether this be in the 'expected' ways to the > 'expected' level or in completely different ways to a variety of different > levels beyond or outside 'standard' expectations. From the little I have > read on defectology I think this is what Vygotsky was advocating - that > despite a child's blindness or deafness etc, development was still possible > if mediational means were found that made use of the child's credits (i.e. > using sign language or braille so that children still had access to the > developmental opportunities provided by language). So I think your term > pre-abled is in fact a credit view rather than a deficit view. > > I was attempting to also use a credit view in my work with the teachers. I > saw them as being experienced practitioners who had lots to bring to our > discussions of teaching and learning, in which together we could see what > could be developed (new practices, new understandings). Once Kay and Mike > realised this they got on board and engaged in the process and (possibly > for the first time in a long while as they both saw themselves [and in fact > are officially designated as] 'expert teachers') really reawakened the > process of developing as professionals. They blew off most of the content I > was contributing, but they realised the process was actually about > 'unsticking' their own development and working out new and personally > interesting and meaningful ways of 'becoming' more as teachers, instead of > being stuck 'being' the teacher they had turned into over the years. Not > all of the teachers made this leap in the time I worked with them though. > Others were either quite disgruntled that I wouldn't provide them with > answers to 'fix' their own perceived deficits or patiently waited for me to > go away and stop rocking the boat. From what I can gather though, Ann (the > principal) kept the boat rocking and managed over time to get more teachers > to buy into the process of learning from each other and collaboratively > creating new practices. As we said earlier, development takes time as well > as effort. > > All I've got time for at the moment! > > Helen > > > > > > > Dr Helen Grimmett > Lecturer, Student Adviser, > Faculty of Education, > Room G64F, Building 902 > Monash University, Berwick campus > Phone: 9904 7171 > > *New Book: * > The Practice of Teachers' Professional Development: A Cultural-Historical > Approach > > Helen Grimmett (2014) Sense Publishers > > > > > > > On 14 July 2014 14:43, David Kellogg wrote: > > >> Near the end of Chapter Three (p. 81), Helen is summing up her experience >> with the Banksia Bay PLZ and she notes with some dismay that her PDers have >> "a deficit view" of their children and tend towards "container models" of >> the mind ("empty vessel, sponge, blank canvas"). Only one teacher, Ann sees >> anything wrong with this, and Helen says "they don't necessarily value her >> opinion". >> >> Helen finds herself rather conflicted: One the one hand, she says "If >> their representations of children really do represent their beliefs, then >> they are probably right to insist there is no need to change." And on the >> other, she says "My intention was never to say that their present practice >> was wrong, but to help them see alternative ways of thinking about >> children, learning, and teaching." >> >> Of course, if there is no need to change, then it follows that there is no >> reason to look for alternative ways of thinking about children, learning >> and teaching. The only reason for spending scarce cognitive resources on >> seeing different ways of looking at children is if you do, in fact, take a >> deficit view of the teachers. Ann, and the Regional Consultants, apparently >> do, but Helen realizes that there isn't much basis for this: not only do we >> have no actual data of lessons to look at, we know that one of the >> teachers, Kay, has been in the classroom for three decades (during which >> time Helen has spent at least one decade OUT of the classroom). >> >> While we were translating Vygotsky's "History of the Development of the >> Higher Psychological Functions" last year, some of my colleagues were taken >> aback by Vygotsky's use of terms like "moron", "imbecile", "idiot", and >> "cretin". Of course, Vygotsky is writing long before the "euphemisim >> treadmill" turned these into playground insults; for Vygotsky they are >> quite precise descriptors--not of cognitive ability but actually of >> LANGUAGE ability. But because our readership are progressive Korean >> teachers with strong views about these questions, we found that we couldn't >> even use the term "mentally retarded" without a strongly worded footnote >> disavowing the "deficit" thinking behind the term. >> >> I think that Vygotsky would have been surprised by this. I think he took it >> for granted that a defect was a deficit: being blind means a deficit in >> vision, and being deaf means a deficit in hearing. In the same way, a brain >> defect is not an asset. On the other hand, I think Vygotsky would find our >> own term "disabled" quite inaccurate: since all forms of development are >> compensatory and involve "circuitous routes" of one kind or another, and >> all developed children, even, and even especially, gifted children, contain >> islands of underdevelopment, the correct term for deficits of all kinds is >> not "disabled" but "pre-abled". >> >> Personally, I see nothing wrong with a deficit view of children that sees >> them as pre-abled (or, as Vygotsky liked to say, 'primitivist"; that is, >> they are waiting for the mediational means that we have foolishly developed >> only for the psychophysiologically most common types to catch up with the >> actual variation in real children. I suspect this view is actually quite a >> bit closer to what Kay thinks than to what Helen thinks. >> >> David Kellogg >> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 13 July 2014 10:59, Helen Grimmett wrote: >> >> >>> Hi David, >>> >>> Interesting question. I absolutely think that development AS a >>> >> professional >> >>> is necessary, just as development as a human is necessary, so if >>> professional development is seen as the practice in which this >>> >> development >> >>> is produced then absolutely I do think it is necessary. The form that >>> >> this >> >>> practice takes though, and indeed the form of the development that is >>> produced within this practice, are the things open to question however. >>> >>> I definitely think that a teacher's development as a professional >>> >> includes >> >>> the need to understand their practice better rather than just change it, >>> but I think that understanding often develops best in/alongside/with the >>> process of changing (and vice versa) rather than separately from it, and, >>> as you point out above, in establishing ties *between* people and then >>> within them. So a practice of professional development that creates >>> conditions which support this type of development will (I believe) be >>> >> much >> >>> more effective than traditional forms of PD that either attempt to >>> >> lecture >> >>> about theoretical principles but do not support teachers to transfer >>> >> these >> >>> into practical changes, OR provide teachers with practical programs and >>> expect them to implement them without any understanding of what and why >>> >> the >> >>> changes matter. I think the term "Professional Development" is an >>> >> absolute >> >>> misnomer for either of those typical approaches. >>> >>> So again, I have a problem with names! I'm talking about Professional >>> Development with a completely different meaning than what most of the >>> education community believe it to mean when they talk about attending PD >>> seminars or workshops. I toyed with trying to find a different name for >>> >> the >> >>> particular meaning I'm talking about, but when you are talking about >>> development from a cultural-historical theoretical perspective then there >>> really is no other word to use! That's why I stuck to using 'professional >>> development' (in full) when I meant my meaning, and PD (which is what >>> teachers in Australia commonly refer to seminars and workshops as) when I >>> refer to the typical (and in my view, usually non-developmental) forms of >>> activities that teachers are subjected to each year. >>> >>> So, I agree that the need for PD is questionable, but the need for >>> practices of professional development that help teachers to develop as >>> professionals (that is, to develop a unified understanding of both the >>> theoretical and practical aspects of their work, which is itself >>> continually developing in order to meet the changing needs of their >>> students, schools and society) is essential. While I think co-teaching is >>> one practical small-scale solution, working out viable, economical, and >>> manageable ways to create these practices on a large-scale is a very >>> >> large >> >>> problem. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Helen >>> >>> >>> Dr Helen Grimmett >>> Lecturer, Student Adviser, >>> Faculty of Education, >>> Room G64F, Building 902 >>> Monash University, Berwick campus >>> Phone: 9904 7171 >>> >>> *New Book: * >>> The Practice of Teachers' Professional Development: A Cultural-Historical >>> Approach >>> < >>> >>> >> https://www.sensepublishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/professional-learning-1/the-practice-of-teachers-professional-development/ >> >>> Helen Grimmett (2014) Sense Publishers >>> >>> >>> >>> < >>> >>> >> http://monash.edu.au/education/news/50-years/?utm_source=staff-email&utm_medium=email-signature&utm_campaign=50th >> >>> On 13 July 2014 08:57, David Kellogg wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Helen: >>>> >>>> Good to hear from you at long last--I knew you were lurking out there >>>> somewhere! >>>> >>>> I didn't actually write the line about "establishing ties"--it's from >>>> >>> "The >>> >>>> Little Prince". The prince asks what "tame" means, and the fox replies >>>> >>> that >>> >>>> it means "to establish ties". But of course what I meant was that ties >>>> >>> are >>> >>>> established first between people and then within them; the ties of >>>> development are interfunctional ties that make up a new psychological >>>> system. (Or, for Halliday, they are the inter-systemic ties that make >>>> >> up >> >>>> new metafunctions.) >>>> >>>> As you say, Yrjo Engestrom chooses to emphasize another aspect of >>>> development with "breaking away"--he wants to stress its crisis-ridden >>>> nature. I agree with this, actually, but mostly I agree with you, that >>>> >> we >> >>>> are talking about two moments of the same process. To me, breaking away >>>> >>> is >>> >>>> really a precondition of the real business of establishing ties. >>>> >>>> Thomas Piketty makes a similar point in his book "Capital in the >>>> Twenty-first Century". He admits that war and revolution is the only >>>> >>> thing >>> >>>> that EVER counteracts the tendency of returns from capital to outstrip >>>> >>> the >>> >>>> growth in income, and that the 20th Century was an outlier in this >>>> >>> respect, >>> >>>> and the Russian revolution an extreme outlier within that outlier. But >>>> >> he >> >>>> also says that in the long run the one thing that makes UPWARD mobility >>>> possible is education. Despite everything, because of everything. >>>> >>>> I finished the book a few days ago. I guess the thing I most want to >>>> >> ask >> >>>> about is the assumption that professional development is necessary at >>>> >>> all. >>> >>>> Doesn't it make more sense to say that before we change what we are >>>> >>> doing, >>> >>>> we should understand it better? >>>> >>>> David Kellogg >>>> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies >>>> >>>> >>>> On 12 July 2014 13:20, Helen Grimmett >>>> >> wrote: >> >>>>> Ah, I think you have hit the nail on the head David. It is indeed >>>>> >> TIME >> >>>> that >>>> >>>>> is so crucial - not only duration of time, but also location of time >>>>> >>>> (which >>>> >>>>> I suppose is really context). >>>>> >>>>> The problems I had with Mike and his colleagues about the terminology >>>>> stemmed partly from the typical Aussie disdain for using words that >>>>> >>> might >>> >>>>> make your mates think you are trying to appear 'better' than them, so >>>>> therefore you mock anything that sounds too serious or intellectual. >>>>> >>> But >>> >>>>> beyond this surface level of complaining the problems Huw and you >>>>> >> have >> >>>> been >>>> >>>>> discussing boil down to problems with time. >>>>> >>>>> Huw's complaint about my use of the heading "Features of >>>>> Cultural-Historical Learning Activities" is well justified - but it >>>>> >> was >> >>>>> really just a shorthand written version of what I was verbally asking >>>>> >>> for >>> >>>>> as "What might be some particular features of learning activities >>>>> >> that >> >>>>> would align with principles of Cultural-Historical Theory?" That >>>>> >> would >> >>>> have >>>> >>>>> taken too long to write on the top of the piece of paper - and of >>>>> >>> course >>> >>>>> time is always too short in any after-school PD so shortcuts are >>>>> >>>> inevitably >>>> >>>>> taken. (Time problem #1) >>>>> >>>>> Time problem #2, which your discussion has highlighted for me, is >>>>> >> that >> >>> of >>> >>>>> course my question was really "What might be some particular features >>>>> >>> of >>> >>>>> learning activities that would align with THE LIMITED NUMBER OF (AND >>>>> LIMITED UNDERSTANDING OF) principles of Cultural-Historical Theory >>>>> >> THAT >> >>>> YOU >>>> >>>>> HAVE BEEN INTRODUCED TO SO FAR?" so I really should have not been so >>>>> surprised that they would find the brainstorming activity difficult >>>>> >> and >> >>>>> resort to diversionary tactics! (Mike's outburst posted here by David >>>>> >>> was >>> >>>>> not the only eventful moment I write about from this one activity. >>>>> >> But >> >>>>> these apparent failures actually provided much more interesting data >>>>> >>> for >>> >>>> me >>>> >>>>> and eventually lead me to several key findings in my thesis). I had >>>>> >>> spent >>> >>>>> several years by this stage reading and discussing Vygotsky and yet I >>>>> >>> had >>> >>>>> assumed/hoped the teachers would have enough understanding from my >>>>> (probably not very good) explanations ABOUT theory over the previous >>>>> >> 3 >> >>>>> short sessions I had had with them to be able to contribute answers >>>>> >> to >> >>> my >>> >>>>> brainstorm question. They had not had enough TIME to become familiar >>>>> >>> with >>> >>>>> enough of the theory to make much sense of it yet - but still, we >>>>> >> have >> >>> to >>> >>>>> start somewhere and this was still early days. >>>>> >>>>> Time problem #3 brings in what I called above the location of time. I >>>>> >>> had >>> >>>>> never intended for the sessions to be me giving after-school lectures >>>>> >>>> about >>>> >>>>> either theory or practice, yet this is what the teachers seemed to >>>>> >>> expect >>> >>>>> from me (and even demand from me) and were pretty disgruntled when I >>>>> wouldn't/couldn't deliver. My intention was always to get them to >>>>> >>> engage >>> >>>>> with the relationship between THEORY and PRACTICE, just as David's >>>>> >>> comic >>> >>>>> book discusses the relationship between THINKING and SPEECH or >>>>> >> EMOTION >> >>>> and >>>> >>>>> COGNITION. My problem of course was that once we were in an >>>>> >>> after-school >>> >>>>> meeting we were removed in both time and space from where theory and >>>>> practice of teaching/learning operate as a relation (i.e. the >>>>> >> classroom >> >>>>> activity). I was actually trying to create/use our own PLZ >>>>> >>> (Professional >>> >>>>> Learning ZPD) as the activity in which to develop and understand this >>>>> relationship but it was initially very hard to get the teachers to >>>>> understand this (at least until we had enough of David's Fox's >>>>> >> socially >> >>>>> shared experiences for the meanings to become communicable) and then >>>>> >>> even >>> >>>>> more difficult to get them to transfer this back to developing their >>>>> >>> own >>> >>>>> classroom teaching. Ironically, despite being the loudest complainers >>>>> >>> and >>> >>>>> disparagers, it was Mike and Kay (the protagonist of my other >>>>> >> eventful >> >>>>> moment in the brainstorming session) who actually ended up making the >>>>> biggest changes in their classroom practice. Perhaps this is not >>>>> >> really >> >>>>> surprising at all - they were the ones who obviously engaged and >>>>> >> argued >> >>>>> with the ideas and activities rather than simply endured them! >>>>> >>>>> My eventual answer to the problems encountered in my work with the >>>>> >>> group >>> >>>> of >>>> >>>>> teachers was to work WITH a teacher IN her own classroom so that we >>>>> >> had >> >>>>> shared experiences of the relationship between theory and practice >>>>> >>> which >>> >>>>> could not only be discussed after the events, but also actually acted >>>>> >>>> upon >>>> >>>>> there and then IN the event - creating what I called "Situated >>>>> >>> Conscious >>> >>>>> Awareness" of both the theoretical and practical aspects of the >>>>> >>> concepts >>> >>>> of >>>> >>>>> teaching/learning and development we were developing understanding >>>>> >> and >> >>>>> practice of together. But perhaps I should wait until David gets up >>>>> >> to >> >>>> this >>>> >>>>> part of the book before I say more! >>>>> >>>>> Finally, one other point that really caught my attention in your >>>>> >> comic >> >>>> book >>>> >>>>> David is that your prince calls development "to establish ties" which >>>>> >>> is >>> >>>> an >>>> >>>>> interesting difference to Engestrom's definition as "breaking away". >>>>> >>> But >>> >>>>> perhaps, as always in CH theory, it is not a matter of either/or but >>>>> >> in >> >>>>> fact both/and ideas that are necessary. From what I learned in my >>>>> >>> study, >>> >>>>> teachers' development as professionals is definitely BOTH about >>>>> >>> breaking >>> >>>>> away from old, routinised understandings and practices AND >>>>> >> establishing >> >>>> new >>>> >>>>> connections between and amongst theoretical concepts and practices, >>>>> enabling them to continually develop new competences and motives >>>>> >> across >> >>>> all >>>> >>>>> of their professional duties. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for your interest in my book David. The discussion it has >>>>> >>> sparked >>> >>>>> has helped me revisit ideas from new perspectives. >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> Helen >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Dr Helen Grimmett >>>>> Lecturer, Student Adviser, >>>>> Faculty of Education, >>>>> Room G64F, Building 902 >>>>> Monash University, Berwick campus >>>>> Phone: 9904 7171 >>>>> >>>>> *New Book: * >>>>> The Practice of Teachers' Professional Development: A >>>>> >>> Cultural-Historical >>> >>>>> Approach >>>>> < >>>>> >>>>> >> https://www.sensepublishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/professional-learning-1/the-practice-of-teachers-professional-development/ >> >>>>> Helen Grimmett (2014) Sense Publishers >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> < >>>>> >>>>> >> http://monash.edu.au/education/news/50-years/?utm_source=staff-email&utm_medium=email-signature&utm_campaign=50th >> >>>>> On 12 July 2014 07:29, David Kellogg wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Plekhanov distinguishes between "agitators" and "propagandists". >>>>>> >>>>> Agitators >>>>> >>>>>> are essentially popularizers; they have the job of ripping away a >>>>>> >>>> subset >>>> >>>>> of >>>>> >>>>>> smaller and simpler ideas from a fabric of much larger and more >>>>>> >>> complex >>> >>>>>> theory and then disseminating them amongst the largest possible >>>>>> >>> number >>> >>>> of >>>> >>>>>> people. In other words, their focus is exoteric. Propagandists are >>>>>> essentially conspiratorial: they have the job of initiating a small >>>>>> >>>>> number >>>>> >>>>>> of the elect and educating them in the whole theoretical system--as >>>>>> >>>> Larry >>>> >>>>>> would say, the full Bildung. In other words, their focus is >>>>>> >> esoteric. >> >>>> As >>>> >>>>>> you can see, Plekhanov was good at making distinctions, and not so >>>>>> >>> good >>> >>>>> at >>>>> >>>>>> showing how things are linked. For Helena, who is a labor >>>>>> >> educator, >> >>>> you >>>> >>>>>> can't really be an effective agitator unless you are also a >>>>>> >>>> propagandist. >>>> >>>>>> You need to present your exoteric extracts in such a way that they >>>>>> >>> are, >>> >>>>> to >>>>> >>>>>> borrow Larry's phrase, both necessary and sufficient to lead people >>>>>> >>> on >>> >>>> to >>>> >>>>>> the esoterica. I'm with Helena--and with Bruner--with children it's >>>>>> >>>>> always >>>>> >>>>>> possible to tell the truth, part of the truth, but nothing but the >>>>>> >>>> truth, >>>> >>>>>> and if we can do it with kids, why not do it with adults? >>>>>> >>>>>> (I am less sure about what it means to say that the objectively >>>>>> >> human >> >>>> is >>>> >>>>>> the "subjectively historical"--it sounds like history is being >>>>>> >>> reified >>> >>>>> as a >>>>> >>>>>> subject, that is, as a living, breathing, acting "World Spirit" >>>>>> >> that >> >>>> can >>>> >>>>>> have a mind and reflect upon itself. My understanding of history is >>>>>> that just as we cannot have the advanced form of historical >>>>>> >>>> consciousness >>>> >>>>>> in dialogue with the more primitive forms, the opportunity to >>>>>> >> reflect >> >>>>> upon >>>>> >>>>>> the whole process when it is all over is simply never going to be >>>>>> >>>>> available >>>>> >>>>>> to anyone. The Merleau-Ponty quotation is beautiful and intensely >>>>>> poetic, Larry--but when I look at a bubble or a wave, I do not >>>>>> >> simply >> >>>> see >>>> >>>>>> chaos; I see past bubbles and past waves, and potential bubbles and >>>>>> potential waves. Isn't that a part of the experience of "loving >>>>>> >>>> history" >>>> >>>>> as >>>>> >>>>>> well?) >>>>>> >>>>>> My wife wrote a wonderful Ph.D. thesis about how any work of >>>>>> >>> literature >>> >>>>> can >>>>> >>>>>> be looked at on four time frames: phylogenetic (the history of a >>>>>> >>>> genre), >>>> >>>>>> ontogenetic (the biography of a career), logogenetic (the >>>>>> >> development >> >>>> of >>>> >>>>> a >>>>> >>>>>> plot or a character), and microgenetic (the unfolding of a >>>>>> >> dialogue, >> >>>> or a >>>> >>>>>> paragraph). Her supervisor complained about the terminology in >>>>>> >>> somewhat >>> >>>>>> more elegant terms than Mike does in Helen's data:and suggested >>>>>> >> that >> >>>> she >>>> >>>>>> should replace the terms with "history", "biography", "development" >>>>>> >>> and >>> >>>>>> "unfolding", to make it more exoteric. >>>>>> >>>>>> I think that if she had done that, it would have made the thesis >>>>>> >> into >> >>>>>> agitation rather than education. Yes, the terms would have been >>>>>> >> more >> >>>>>> familiar, and they might even, given other context, be taken to >>>>>> >> mean >> >>>> the >>>> >>>>>> same thing. But what we would have gotten is good, clear >>>>>> >> distinctions >> >>>>>> ("history" on the one hand and "biography" on the other) and what >>>>>> >> we >> >>>>> would >>>>> >>>>>> have lost is the linkedness of one time frame to another--the way >>>>>> >> in >> >>>>> which >>>>> >>>>>> the phylogenesis of genre produces the mature genre which is used >>>>>> >> in >> >>> an >>> >>>>>> author's ontegenesis, and the way in which the author's ontogenesis >>>>>> produces the starting point and the raw materials for the >>>>>> >> logogenetic >> >>>>>> development of a work, not to mention the way in which logogenesis >>>>>> >> is >> >>>>>> reflected in the microgenetic unfolding of dialogue. >>>>>> >>>>>> So I think that when Helena writes that anything can be explained >>>>>> >> to >> >>>>> anyone >>>>> >>>>>> in language that is everyday and simple and in a way that is >>>>>> >>>>> understandable >>>>> >>>>>> and at least part of the whole truth, I agree somewhat enviously >>>>>> >> (you >> >>>>> see, >>>>> >>>>>> Helena is a labor educator, but I teach TESOL, which is really the >>>>>> >>>>> process >>>>> >>>>>> of taking a few very simple and exoteric ideas that good teachers >>>>>> >>>> already >>>> >>>>>> have and disseminating the select to the elect for vast sums of >>>>>> >>> money). >>> >>>>> But >>>>> >>>>>> I have to add a rider--when we popularize richly woven fabrics of >>>>>> >>> ideas >>> >>>>>> like cultural historical theory we are not simply juggling >>>>>> >>> vocabulary. >>> >>>> I >>>> >>>>>> think that Helena recognizes this perfectly when she says that it >>>>>> >>> takes >>> >>>>>> TIME to be simple and clear. If it were simply a matter of >>>>>> >> replacing >> >>>>>> "cultural historical" with "community of learners" it would >>>>>> >> actually >> >>>> take >>>> >>>>>> less time, but it isn't and it doesn't. >>>>>> >>>>>> It is very hot in Seoul today, and somewhere out there a toddler is >>>>>> >>>>> arguing >>>>> >>>>>> with a parent because he wants watermelon with breakfast. The >>>>>> >> parent >> >>>>>> resists, because if you eat cold watermelon on an empty stomach you >>>>>> >>>> get a >>>> >>>>>> tummy-ache. The argument grows heated and long--and complex, but >>>>>> >> the >> >>>>>> complexity is of a particular kind, with very short, repeated, >>>>>> >>>>> insistancies >>>>> >>>>>> from the child and somewhat longer more complex remonstrations from >>>>>> >>> the >>> >>>>>> parent. We can call this complex discourse but simple grammar. A >>>>>> >> few >> >>>>> years >>>>> >>>>>> will go by and we will find that the school child has mastered the >>>>>> >>>> trick >>>> >>>>> of >>>>> >>>>>> long and complex remonstrations and can use them pre-emptively to >>>>>> >> win >> >>>>>> arguments. We can call this complex grammar, but simple vocabulary. >>>>>> >>>> Only >>>> >>>>>> when a decade or two has elapsed will we find that child, now >>>>>> >> adult, >> >>>> can >>>> >>>>>> use the language of science, which is for the most part >>>>>> >> grammatically >> >>>>>> simple (at least compared to the pre-emptive remonstrations of the >>>>>> >>>> school >>>> >>>>>> child), but full of very complex vocabulary (e.g. "phylogeny >>>>>> >>>> anticipates >>>> >>>>>> ontogeny", or "cultural-historical activity theory enables >>>>>> >>> communities >>> >>>> of >>>> >>>>>> learners"). >>>>>> >>>>>> It's Saturday today, and in a few minutes I have to leave for the >>>>>> >>>> weekly >>>> >>>>>> meeting of our translation group, which produces mighty tomes which >>>>>> >>> we >>> >>>>>> produce to popularize the works of Vygotsky amongst militant >>>>>> >> teachers >> >>>>> here >>>>> >>>>>> in Korea (our version of "Thinking and Speech" is seven hundred >>>>>> >> pages >> >>>>> long >>>>> >>>>>> because of all the explanatory notes and boxes with helpful >>>>>> >>> pictures). >>> >>>> On >>>> >>>>>> the other hand, there is the attached comic book version of the >>>>>> >> first >> >>>>>> chapter of "Thinking and Speech" which I wrote a couple of years >>>>>> >> ago >> >>>> for >>>> >>>>>> some graduate students who were having trouble talking about the >>>>>> >> real >> >>>>>> "Thinking and Speech" in class. >>>>>> >>>>>> I think you can see that Huw's complaint is justified--the comic >>>>>> book dialogue is "about" Thinking and Speech, but it is not >>>>>> >> "Thinking >> >>>> and >>>> >>>>>> Speech" at all, in the same way that "community of learners" or >>>>>> >>>>> "biography" >>>>> >>>>>> is ABOUT cultural historical theory or ontogenesis. And I think >>>>>> >> that >> >>>> part >>>> >>>>>> of the problem (but only part of it) is that the comic book is just >>>>>> >>> too >>> >>>>>> short. >>>>>> >>>>>> David Kellogg >>>>>> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 2014-07-11 17:09 GMT+09:00 Leif Strandberg < >>>>>> >>>> leifstrandberg.ab@telia.com >>>> >>>>>> : >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> 11 jul 2014 kl. 06:41 skrev Larry Purss : >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> David, >>>>>>>> I have been following your reflections through this thread. >>>>>>>> You commented: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So it's almost always more useful for me to >>>>>>>> think of learning phenomena as NOT reducible to the physical, >>>>>>>> >> at >> >>>>> least >>>>> >>>>>>> not >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> in their unit of analysis >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I have been reflecting on the notion of *bildung* as learning. >>>>>>>> The notion of *cultivation* and *disposition* and *comportment* >>>>>>>> >>> as >>> >>>>> the >>>>> >>>>>>>> potential of learning. >>>>>>>> I came across this quote from Gramsci who was questioning the >>>>>>>> >>>> notion >>>> >>>>> of >>>>> >>>>>>>> *laws* as the basis for making social predictions. Such *laws* >>>>>>>> >>>>> excluded >>>>> >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> subjective factor from history. >>>>>>>> Gramsci wrote on social process: "Objective always means >>>>>>>> >> 'humanly >> >>>>>>>> objective' which can be held to correspond exactly to >>>>>>>> >>> 'historically >>> >>>>>>>> subjective' " >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Merleau-Ponty also explored what I refer to as *disposition* >>>>>>>> >> with >> >>>>> this >>>>> >>>>>>>> quote on the reality of history: >>>>>>>> History "awakens us to the importance of daily events and >>>>>>>> >> action. >> >>>> For >>>> >>>>>> it >>>>>> >>>>>>> is >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> a philosophy [of history -LP] which arouses in us a love for >>>>>>>> >> our >> >>>>> times >>>>> >>>>>>>> which are not the simple repetition of human eternity nor >>>>>>>> >> merely >> >>>> the >>>> >>>>>>>> conclusion of premises already postulated. It is a view that >>>>>>>> >> like >> >>>> the >>>> >>>>>>> most >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> fragile object of perception - a soap bubble, or a wave - or >>>>>>>> >> like >> >>>> the >>>> >>>>>>> most >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> simple dialogue, embraces indivisibly all the order and all the >>>>>>>> >>>>>> disorder >>>>>> >>>>>>> of >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> the world." >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I read these passages from Gramsci and M-P as a way of >>>>>>>> >> exploring >> >>>>>>>> *comportment* or *disposition* that is *learned*. [bildung??] >>>>>>>> >>>> There >>>> >>>>> is >>>>> >>>>>>> no >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> necessary or sufficient standpoint for interpreting this >>>>>>>> >>> inherently >>> >>>>>>>> heterogeneous process. However we may potentially learn various >>>>>>>> *approaches* or *ways* of being-in-the-world through learning >>>>>>>> >>>>>> processes. >>>>>> >>>>>>>> The notion of *bildung* is a way to reflect on this learning >>>>>>>> >>>> process >>>> >>>>>>>> Larry >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 3:54 PM, Huw Lloyd < >>>>>>>> >>>>> huw.softdesigns@gmail.com> >>>>> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 10 July 2014 22:33, David Kellogg >>>>>>>>> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>>>>>>> Huw: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Is learning material? In what sense? At what point? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Historically, with Marx. :) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The rest of your formations are subsumed by Baldwin's 1st and >>>>>>>>> >>> 2nd >>> >>>>>>> axioms of >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> genetic logic. :) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> As someone experienced with computation and computational >>>>>>>>> >>>>> processes, I >>>>> >>>>>>> do >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> find it quite straightfoward to think of memories as material >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> impressions. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Cached values or lazy evaluation -- it's quite >>>>>>>>> >>> straightforward... >>> >>>>> Not >>>>> >>>>>>>>> rubbish, not garbage, but Babbage! >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>> Huw >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I guess I think of it this way. All phenomena in the universe >>>>>>>>>> >>> are >>> >>>>>>>>> physical, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> but only in the final analysis. When my father (who is a >>>>>>>>>> >>> retired >>> >>>>> but >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> unrepentant solar physicist) studies these phenomena he uses >>>>>>>>>> >>>>> various >>>>> >>>>>>>>> units >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> of analysis (my father likes to think big, so his usual unit >>>>>>>>>> >> of >> >>>>>>> analysis >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> a solar emission many times larger than the earth, but >>>>>>>>>> >>> sometimes, >>> >>>>>>>>> depending >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> on the problem, he will condescend to think about smaller >>>>>>>>>> >>>> particles >>>> >>>>>>> like >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> atomic nuclei). Some of these physical phenomena, when they >>>>>>>>>> >>> cool >>> >>>>>> down a >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> little, are chemical as well, and because these phenomena are >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> chemical >>>>>> >>>>>>> as >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> well as physical, the unit of analysis that is proper to them >>>>>>>>>> >>> is >>> >>>>> the >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> molecule and its motions, and not simply the particle (Dad >>>>>>>>>> >>>> doesn't >>>> >>>>>> care >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> about these phenomena; he likes his physics hot). >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Some of these chemical phenomena are biological as well, and >>>>>>>>>> >>> here >>> >>>>>> once >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> again the unit of analysis has to change (e.g. to the cell) >>>>>>>>>> >> in >> >>>>> order >>>>> >>>>>> to >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> take into account the new properties which come into being at >>>>>>>>>> >>>> this >>>> >>>>>>> scale. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Some biological phenomena are cultural-historical in turn, >>>>>>>>>> >> and >> >>>> here >>>> >>>>>> too >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> we >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> must change the unit of analysis in order not to lose >>>>>>>>>> >> essential >> >>>>>>>>> information >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> that is created with higher levels of organization and >>>>>>>>>> >>>>> complexity.Of >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> course, these cultural historical phenomena are all reducible >>>>>>>>>> >>> to >>> >>>>>>>>> biological >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> phenomena, and therefore reducible to chemical and physical >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> phenomena, >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> but >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> only in the final analysis. Hey, in the final analysis, as >>>>>>>>>> >>>> Carolyn >>>> >>>>>>> Porco >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> says, we all get reduced to physical phenomena when the sun >>>>>>>>>> >>>>> explodes >>>>> >>>>>>> and >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> blows the particles that were once our bodies out into space, >>>>>>>>>> >>> to >>> >>>>>> enjoy >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> eternal life...but only as physical phenomena. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> In the meantime, if we want to understand cultural-historical >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> phenomena >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> such, we have to confront their higher levels of organization >>>>>>>>>> >>> and >>> >>>>>>>>>> complexity.The cultural historical phenomena that I am most >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> interested >>>>>> >>>>>>> in >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> turn out to have another subset of phenomena which Halliday >>>>>>>>>> >>> calls >>> >>>>>>>>>> semiotic--that is, they are sociologically >>>>>>>>>> >> cultural-historical >> >>>>>>> phenomena >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> that stand, even if only for a fleeting instant, >>>>>>>>>> for psychologically cultural-historical phenomena. These >>>>>>>>>> >>>> phenomena >>>> >>>>>> are >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> material too (that is, they are biological, chemical, and >>>>>>>>>> >> even >> >>>>>>>>>> physical), for the way things stand for other things is >>>>>>>>>> >>>> ultimately >>>> >>>>>>>>>> reducible to a thing: words are, in the final analysis, "made >>>>>>>>>> >>> of >>> >>>>>> living >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> breath", as Shakespeare says, or "layers of moving air" if >>>>>>>>>> >> you >> >>>>> prefer >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Engels. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> But only in the final analysis. In the interim, too much >>>>>>>>>> >>>>> information >>>>> >>>>>> is >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> lost when we reduce these semiotic phenomena to physical, >>>>>>>>>> >>>> material, >>>> >>>>>>>>>> things (for example, when my students try to model learner >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> comprehension >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> problems as pure phonetic discrimination without taking into >>>>>>>>>> >>>>> account >>>>> >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> layer of wording or meaning). So it's almost always more >>>>>>>>>> >> useful >> >>>> for >>>> >>>>>> me >>>>>> >>>>>>> to >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> think of learning phenomena as NOT reducible to the physical, >>>>>>>>>> >>> at >>> >>>>>> least >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> not >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> in their unit of analysis. Actually, it seems to me that the >>>>>>>>>> general "cultural-historical" level of analysis is if >>>>>>>>>> >> anything >> >>> a >>> >>>>> step >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> closer to biology or chemistry or physics than the subset of >>>>>>>>>> >>>>> cultural >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> historical phenomena that I mean when I refer to learning, >>>>>>>>>> >>>> because >>>> >>>>> to >>>>> >>>>>>> me >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> learning is microgenetic, that is, POTENTIALLY ontogenetic, >>>>>>>>>> >>> which >>> >>>>> is >>>>> >>>>>> in >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> turn POTENTIALLY sociogenetic, which (to me) is the general >>>>>>>>>> >>> level >>> >>>>> of >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> analysis we mean when we talk about cultural historical >>>>>>>>>> >>>> phenomena. >>>> >>>>> So >>>>> >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> real answer to Mike's colorful complaint about handles is not >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> "Community >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Learners" but actually "physico-chemico-bio-socio-semiotic >>>>>>>>>> >>>> learning >>>> >>>>>>>>>> activities". >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Time for that quantum physical cup of coffee you were talking >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> about.... >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> David Kellogg >>>>>>>>>> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 10 July 2014 08:53, Huw Lloyd >>>>>>>>>> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> David, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Just to be clear, the error I was referring to was the >>>>>>>>>>> >>>> attribution >>>> >>>>>> of >>>>>> >>>>>>> a >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> theory (as an adjective) to the material thing (learning). >>>>>>>>>>> >> It >> >>>>> would >>>>> >>>>>>> be >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> like saying, I am going to make a Newtonian cup of coffee in >>>>>>>>>>> >>> the >>> >>>>>>>>> morning >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> and a quantum mechanical cup of coffee in the afternoon. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I suppose colourful language serves the purpose of >>>>>>>>>>> >> deliberate >> >>>>>>>>> vagueness. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> It's hard to be trendy and have a precise point. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I fear we are soon approaching the "teach yourself activity >>>>>>>>>>> >>>> theory >>>> >>>>>> for >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> dummies" book someday soon. From my understanding, the >>>>>>>>>>> >> theory >> >>>>>> itself >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> repudiates such a thing -- one cannot spoon feed theory -- >>>>>>>>>>> >>> but I >>> >>>>>> don't >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> think that will stop folk trying. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I see no problem (or contradiction) in top down approaches. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> Solving a >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> problem in general is a powerful approach to many problems. >>>>>>>>>>> >>> For >>> >>>>>> many >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> problems the concrete details are amenable to design and >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> configuration, >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> one >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> can often choose tools to suit the proposed solution rather >>>>>>>>>>> >>> than >>> >>>>>>>>>>> vice-versa. But from an educational perspective, I see no >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> alternative >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> than starting with the individual, ofcourse one can have >>>>>>>>>>> >>> general >>> >>>>>>>>>> strategies >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> in doing so -- waiting to be asked before giving an >>>>>>>>>>> >>> explanation >>> >>>>> etc. >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Nice chatting. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>>>> Huw >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 9 July 2014 22:46, David Kellogg >>>>>>>>>>> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Huw: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Helen has written a remarkable, important book. I gather >>>>>>>>>>>> >> it's >> >>>>> part >>>>> >>>>>> of >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> her >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Ph.D. thesis, but it doesn't really read like a Ph.D. >>>>>>>>>>>> >> thesis. >> >>>> It >>>> >>>>>>>>> reads >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> like >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> a teacher-trainer (or "professional development >>>>>>>>>>>> >> consultant", >> >>> or >>> >>>>>>>>>> whatever >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> we >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> are supposed to call them) with a problem who eventually, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>> with >>> >>>> a >>>> >>>>>>>>> little >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> help from the classics of cultural historical psychology >>>>>>>>>>>> >> and >> >>> a >>> >>>>> lot >>>>> >>>>>> of >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> help >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> from a co-teacher (who has a somewhat bookish, inert but >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> nevertheless >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> respectful and open acquaintance with those classics) >>>>>>>>>>>> >>> achieves >>> >>>> a >>>> >>>>>> very >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> open >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> but nevertheless very workable solution. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> So the bit I quoted represents the problem, or rather, two >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> problems. >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> one hand, Helen is trying to do something new: she wants to >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> bring >>>> >>>>>> new >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> CHAT >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> concepts to bear on extant classroom activities and modify >>>>>>>>>>>> >>> them >>> >>>>> in >>>>> >>>>>>>>> ways >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> that she is confident will work. On the other, Helen is >>>>>>>>>>>> >>> working >>> >>>>>> with >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> some >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> pretty experienced (and even somewhat brutalized) teachers: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> they >>>> >>>>>> have >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> seen >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> "Professional Development" fads come and go, collected >>>>>>>>>>>> >> their >> >>>> free >>>> >>>>>>>>>> lunches >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> and go on doing things the old way. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Helen achieves her solution from the bottom up. Eventually, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>> she >>> >>>>>> does >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> find a >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> teacher who can teacher her a lot and who, even though >>>>>>>>>>>> >> Helen >> >>>>>> herself >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> is uniquely gifted, with not only the theoretical >>>>>>>>>>>> >> background >> >>> we >>> >>>>> all >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> share, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> but also considerable first hand experience as a teacher >>>>>>>>>>>> >> and >> >>> a >>> >>>>>>>>> parent, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> can >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> nevertheless be taught in turn. But as you can see from the >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> extract, >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> she's >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> extremely open, even to savage, unfair, and somewhat obtuse >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> criticisms. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Mike's critique of "cultural historical" is not that it is >>>>>>>>>>>> >> an >> >>>>>>>>>>>> epistemological error or a typological one, or that it puts >>>>>>>>>>>> >>> the >>> >>>>>>>>> product >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> "culture" before the process "history". It's not even that >>>>>>>>>>>> >> it >> >>>>>>>>> suggests >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> on the odd day Piagetian activities might be taking place, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> which, >>>> >>>>>> by >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> way, is probably true, since these teachers were mostly >>>>>>>>>>>> >>> trained >>> >>>>>>>>> during >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> "reign" of Piaget in the sixties and seventies. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> No, Mike's complaint is really, if you will pardon the >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> expression, >>>>> >>>>>> a >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> wank >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> of a complaint. He is just complaining that the name is >>>>>>>>>>>> >>> uncool; >>> >>>>> it >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> doesn't >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> sound like the popular teachers would like it; the name >>>>>>>>>>>> >> won't >> >>>> go >>>> >>>>>> with >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> an >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> embossed moose like "Abercrombie and Fitch" or "community >>>>>>>>>>>> >> of >> >>>>>>>>>>>> learners" does. I think we have to accept that responsive, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> sensitive >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> teachers inevitably end up internalizing some of the worst >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> aspects >>>>> >>>>>> of >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> adolescent thinking, and this is an example. I might even >>>>>>>>>>>> >> say >> >>>>> it's >>>>> >>>>>> a >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> bullshit complaint. It's crap, etc. (But this is one of >>>>>>>>>>>> >> those >> >>>>>>>>>>>> language situations where redundancy does not suggest >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> development.) >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I guess if I encountered a bullshit complaint like that I >>>>>>>>>>>> >>> would >>> >>>>>>>>>> complain >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> little about "community of learners". I think that >>>>>>>>>>>> >> "community >> >>>> of >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> learners" is essentially a way of saying >>>>>>>>>>>> >>> "socio-psychological": >>> >>>>>> it's >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> relevant to everyday teaching, but it doesn't tell us much >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> about >>>> >>>>>> how >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> "socio" got there, whereas "cultural-historical" does. I >>>>>>>>>>>> >>> might >>> >>>>> even >>>>> >>>>>>>>> ask >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> if >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Mike is going to try to teach physics, chemistry, biology, >>>>>>>>>>>> >> or >> >>>>>> history >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> kids without some way of saying "physico-chemical" or >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> "chemico-biological", >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> or "biologico-social". If not, then I don't see anything >>>>>>>>>>>> >>> wrong >>> >>>>> with >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> teaching language, including the language of teaching, as >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> something >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> "socio-semiotic" or "historico-cultural". But then, I never >>>>>>>>>>>> >>> was >>> >>>>> one >>>>> >>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> cool kids. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> My problem is this. I too would like to write a book now. I >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> have >>>> >>>>>> two >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> mind, and they are both practical books about teacher >>>>>>>>>>>> >>> training, >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> similar in their targets to Helen's book, which is why I am >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> studying >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> carefully. But I find that the books that I have in mind >>>>>>>>>>>> >> are >> >>>>> really >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> "about >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> something" in a way that Helen's book is not. I don't mean >>>>>>>>>>>> >>> that >>> >>>>>>>>> Helen's >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> book has no object of study: like the title says, the >>>>>>>>>>>> >> object >> >>> of >>> >>>>>> study >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> teacher development. What I mean is that the teaching has >>>>>>>>>>>> >> no >> >>>>> clear >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> object >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> of teaching: it's not specifically about teaching math or >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> literacy >>>>> >>>>>> or >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> anything else but about teaching in general. The books I >>>>>>>>>>>> >> have >> >>>> in >>>> >>>>>> mind >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> really about teaching literacy (I think I want to try to >>>>>>>>>>>> >>> teach >>> >>>>>>>>> WRITING >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> before READING) and teaching science (I think I want to >>>>>>>>>>>> >> try a >> >>>>>> "hands >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> off" >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> approach that emphasizes word meanings instead of >>>>>>>>>>>> >> laboratory >> >>>>>>>>>>> experiments). >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> And I am finding that I when I do this the result is not at >>>>>>>>>>>> >>> all >>> >>>>> the >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> kind >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> "bottom up" thing that Helen does; it's very top down. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> David Kellogg >>>>>>>>>>>> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 9 July 2014 07:33, Huw Lloyd >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Colourful. The complaint seems perfectly valid though: a >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> typological >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> epistemological error all in one conflated term. It >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> suggests >>> >>>>> that >>>>> >>>>>>>>> on >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> odd hours of the day there are Piagetian activities taking >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> place. >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Was >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> part of the point of the chapter? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>>>>>> Huw >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8 July 2014 21:40, David Kellogg >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm actually in the middle of Chapter Three right now. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> What I >>> >>>>> can >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> tell >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> you >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is that Helen's first two chapters are a kind of "Who's >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> Who" >>> >>>> at >>>> >>>>>>>>>> xmca, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Helen reading the great classics (in the wrong order) and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> talking >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Andy, >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Greg, and others on this list. But beyond the litte >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> shout-outs >>>> >>>>> to >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> xmca, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chapter Three, you find interesting problems like this. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> Helen >>> >>>>> is >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> setting >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> up >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a "Professional Learning ZPD". This an acronymy within an >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> acronym >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> (an >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "acro-acronym-nym", like the group I used to belong to in >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> New >>> >>>>>>>>> York >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Paris, called "ACT-UP"), and in general Helen seems to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> have >> >>>>> some >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> trouble >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> with names. On pp. 58-59, she writes. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "In PLZ 4 I wrote the title 'Features of cultural >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> Historical >>> >>>>>>>>>> Learning >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Activities' across a piece of butcher's paper and asked >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> the >> >>>>> grou >>>>> >>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> brainstorm features of activities that would be >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> consistent >> >>>> with >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> cultural >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> historical theory. After a few suggestions, Mike suddenly >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> interrupted >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> with: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> MIKE: Can I ask, Helen, why such a wank of a name? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> HELEN: Cultural-historical? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> MIKE: Yeah, what a bullshit name. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> DEB: What should it be Mike? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> MIKE: What does it mean to anyone? Is that relevant to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> anyone >>> >>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> name? Cultural-historical learning. What does that mean? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> HELEN: Well.... >>>>>>>>>>>>>> MIKE: It's crap. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> HELEN: Well, I don't think that you, that's the name of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> teh >> >>>>>>>>> theoyr, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cultural historical theory, but I think in terms of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> schools >> >>>>> using >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> teh >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> theory they talk about Communities of Learners. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> MIKE: Yeah, but why don't they call it that? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> HELEN: OK, so (I start crossing out "cultural historical" >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> and >>> >>>>>>>>>>> changing >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to "Communities of Learners") >>>>>>>>>>>>>> MIKE: That name is like calliing the ultra net site for >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> teachers >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 'design >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> space'. It has no relevance to the name whatsoever, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> to >> >>>> use >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> it--features >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of cultural historical learning--sounds like a load of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> crap. >>> >>>> It >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't have any relevance ot what it means. If you said >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> to >> >>>> me >>>> >>>>>>>>>>> cultural >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> historical learning, I go .... >>>>>>>>>>>>>> BETH: I actually thought it meant talking about he past >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> (general >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> agreement). >>>>>>>>>>>>>> MIKE: That's what it implies, the past and how you used >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> to >> >>>>> teach. >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> HELEN: I suppose I'm just trying to familiarize you with >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> the >>> >>>>> term >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> (general >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> agreement) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> MIKE: If you call it community of learners then it's >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> something >>>> >>>>>>>>>> that's >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> relevant." >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Helen then makes the (cultural-historical) point that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> words >> >>>>> have >>>>> >>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> history, >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> but they are not necessarily YOUR history--for Helen, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> "cultural >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> historical" >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> calls up a whole series of quite precise concepts, while >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "Community >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Learners" is kind of vague and undefined. But for the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> teachers >>>> >>>>>>>>> (who >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> are, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> must say, not exactly reticent about sharing, and do not >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> limit >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> themselves >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to sharing their expertise) what you get is old times. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's funny that they ignore the word culture. I always >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> thought >>>> >>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "cultural historical" is a little bit of the cart before >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> the >>> >>>>>>>>>>> horse.... >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> David Kellogg >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8 July 2014 21:40, Peter Smagorinsky >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Practice of Teachers' Professional Development >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A Cultural-Historical Approach >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Helen Grimmett (Monash University, Australia) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This book uses Vygotsky's cultural-historical theory to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> provide a >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> unique >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> theorisation of teachers' professional development as a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> practice. A >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> practice can be described as the socially structured >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> actions >>> >>>>>>>>> set >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> up >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> produce a product or service aimed at meeting a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> collective >> >>>>>>>>> human >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> need. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> In >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this case, collaborative, interventionist work with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> teachers >>> >>>>> in >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Click >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> here for a free preview and full description< >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001ZduyW2xyB1USw9R1YjQno7GI-mDLfJ6m-729UFbNgCKe6Z_p9GP7xjN9IHr0mfZ1yni-XmxHyPfAaNcVjlENvx4l8ySiyRYKHRvvg2E6WbMlf3hNShpk2qTuRRu0ZenYc1mrXxe68_BX4FXljTnHjOx91vJalGeivvaQfmQF57rpGgcDrJe9bprlVyXQwjSo0U6yk-QJ1S5miZfuS7ohswmNs3UZWGMucMgWJyU6E_J3d8QHyWjpGuBM8i2twLXGBPHkZb6hFN4pF6PT3r3M7HYvwFdzAzSfRvpCd90DvQMVDuqkf5VY3ccoD6FppEGF&c=0Y23gLfSZ1jN_yGPyItMZic7SWiIoOcRfcrQWB0JYs9lkVW149lxUQ==&ch=ioZBoxRIwDxdvg-uu6NEwI-E45lgW01U_INO86ZNyJpwbp9zcKnCIA== >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> . >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> > > > From fsulliva@temple.edu Tue Jul 15 12:39:52 2014 From: fsulliva@temple.edu (FRANCIS J. SULLIVAN) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 15:39:52 -0400 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: book of possible interest In-Reply-To: References: <0D461088-CBBB-4BD9-ADCB-3024C36CBE81@telia.com> <53C48DF1.5000703@mira.net> Message-ID: With great trepidation, I want to enter this conversation with my first post to the list (I have followed it for about a year now) because as both a researcher and teacher educator the issues raised are major concerns of mine too. I find, I think it was David's point, the idea that we can think of the "connections" problem in two ways to be at the heart of the issue, at least for me. It is one thing to construct a connection that "adds to" the existing knowledge framework of others. But, it is a very different thing to sea5rch for a "connection" that requires others to qualitatively change, or even abandon, their existing framework. Helen seems to achieve such a connection with at least some of her teachers by helping them to re-cognize their own social identities so that the new knowledge and framework became less threatening and more inviting. She reconnected them with who they used to be and what they valued. So they did not see themselves as merely "ignorant" but more like retracing their steps. For me, at least, that's why the "deficit" models of teaching (or research) practices do not work. We--teachers and students--need to find a place from which we can begin this journey together, common ground so to speak. While a deaf person may not "know" English, I don't think that's the salient point. All of us don't know things. What seems to me salient in Helen's attempt to find connections, is that the very attempt challenged their current ways of framing their professional lives. What we might think of as "ignorance," those teachers thought of as "knowledge." And that "knowledge" was part and parcel of the ways they positioned themselves as teachers in relation to students. I am tempted to put this into discourse analysis terms--I'm a semi-Hallidayan with a critical theory twist. But, I've said enough for a first post, I think. I hope it is useful. Francis J. Sullivan, Ph.D. Associate Professor Department of Teaching and Learning College of Education Temple University Philadelphia, PA 19122 Find out what any people will quietly submit to and you have the exact measure of the injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them. Frederick Douglass On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 2:10 AM, David Kellogg wrote: > Well, I do hope that Helen means that "for the moment", as I have learned > an awful lot from this book and even more from this discussion. You see, I > am trying to tease apart two very different processes that appear, on the > face of it, to be almost identical, but which also appear to have > diametrically opposite developmental effects. > > One process is the process of getting people to feel at ease, > confident, and happy that they understand what you are saying because it is > actually something that is identical or at least very similar to what they > already think. Another, almost identical, process is the process of > "establishing ties" between a new form of knowledge and an earlier one. > BOTH of these processes, it seems to me, occur throughout Helen's book, and > it is easy to mistake the one for the other. BOTH of these processes, to > use our earlier terminology, involve "establishing ties", but only one of > them also involves breaking away. > > For example, at one point in the book Helen, looking back over the Banksia > Bay PLZ data, rounds on herself for using a transparent piece of > scaffolding to elicit the word "communicate" from a group of teachers. What > bothers her is not that the answer itself is far too general to be of any > practical value to the teachers, but only that she had it very firmly in > mind, and kept badgering the teachers (as we all do, when we have a precise > answer in mind) until she got it. The alternative, she points out, would be > to take what she got and work with that. > > Yes indeed. But I think the main reason that would have been more > interesting is not that it would have resulted in fewer rejections of > teacher answers and made people more at ease, confdent, and happy that they > understood, but rather than it would have yielded something more like a > concrete but unconscious and not yet volitionally controlled example of > excellence from the teacher's own practice. I almost always find that the > actual answers I want--the "methods" I end up imparting to my own teachers, > are already present in the data they bring me (because we almost always > begin with actual transcripts of their lessons) but they are generally not > methods but only moments, and moments that go unnoticed and therefore > ungeneralized in the hurly burly of actual teaching. > > Last winter, Helen and I were at a conference in New Zealand where, among > other eventful episodes, Craig Brandist got up and gave a very precise list > of half a dozen different and utterly contradictory ways in which Bakhtin > uses the term "dialogue". Because the senses of "dialogue" are so many and > varied, people simply pick and choose, and they tend invariably to choose > the ones that are closest to the way they already think. It is as moments > like this that we need to remind ourselves that Bakhtin's "dialogue" does > not, for the most part, ever include children, or women; that he did not > "dialogue" with Volosinov or Medvedev when he allowed his acolytes > to plunder their corpses, and that his love of carnival and the public > marketplace does not extend to a belief in any form of political democracy. > > So I think we should start off with an understanding that what Vygotsky > says about defect is not the same was what we now believe. Vygotsky, for > example, believed that sign language was not true language, and that even > the congenitally deaf should be taught to lip read; this is simply > wrong. (On the other hand, what he says about spontaneously created sign > languages--that they are essentially elaborated systems of gesture and they > lack the signifying functions--fits exactly with Susan Goldin-Meadow's > observations in Chicago.) > > And one reason I think it is important to begin with this understanding is > this: sometimes--usually--LSV is right and we are wrong. In particular, I > think the "credit" view of defect, or, for that matter, ignorance of any > kind and not fully conscious teacher expertise risks becoming a liberal > platitude--the cup is always half full, so why not look on the bright side > of dearth? I certainly do not feel empowered by the fact that I know > English but I do not know ASL, and I rather doubt that deaf people feel > empowered by the opposite state of affairs. When I don't know something, I > do not see any bright side of not knowing it, for the very simple > reason that I can't see at all. > > Vygotsky was probably very influenced by "Iolanta", an opera that > Tchaikovsky wrote--he certainly seems to quote it extensively in the last > chapter of "Thinking and Speech". In "Iolanta", King Renee copes with the > blindness of his daughter by having her shut up in a garden and forbidding > all his subjects from discussing light, sight, color or anything visible in > any way. Vaudemont, a knight of Burgundy, blunders into the garden, > discovers Iolanta's secret. Iolanta convinces him that sight is > unnecessary, but in the course of doing so, she develops the desire to see > and choose for herself. > > David Kelogg > Hankuk University of Foreign Studies > > > > On 15 July 2014 11:12, Andy Blunden wrote: > > > My reading of Vygotsky on 'defectology' was that the 'defect' was the > > problem in social relations, that is, the person who is different in some > > way suffers because of the way that difference is treated or not treated > by > > others, not for anything in itself. One and the same feature could be a > > great benefit or a fatal flaw, depending on how others react to it. > > Except insofar as introducing the idea of a "credit view" is a move aimed > > at changing the perceptions and behaviours of others in relation to the > > subject, I don't think Vygotsky is an advocate of the mirror image of a > > deficit view. As I see it, he analyses the problem of the person being > > treated as deficient by means of the unit of *defect-compensation*. The > > defect (a problem arising in social interaction, with others) generates > > certain challenges which are overcome, generally also in interaction with > > others. This "compensation" leads to what Helen could call a "credit" and > > it is the dynamic set up between the social defect and social > compensation > > which shapes the subject's psychology and their relation to others. > > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > *Andy Blunden* > > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > > > > > Helen Grimmett wrote: > > > >> I think what is unique about Vygotsky's work in defectology is that, > >> despite the name, it is not a deficit view (in the way that I understand > >> the term) at all. > >> > >> I understand the commonly used term 'deficit view' as a focus on what > >> children are 'missing' that needs to be provided to them by teachers to > >> bring them up to a pre-conceived idea of 'normal' for their age/grade > >> level > >> etc. Whereas, a 'credit view' focuses on what children are able to do > and > >> bring to a learning situation, in which, in the interaction with others, > >> they will be able to become more able to do and 'be' more than they were > >> before (i.e. to develop), whether this be in the 'expected' ways to the > >> 'expected' level or in completely different ways to a variety of > different > >> levels beyond or outside 'standard' expectations. From the little I have > >> read on defectology I think this is what Vygotsky was advocating - that > >> despite a child's blindness or deafness etc, development was still > >> possible > >> if mediational means were found that made use of the child's credits > (i.e. > >> using sign language or braille so that children still had access to the > >> developmental opportunities provided by language). So I think your term > >> pre-abled is in fact a credit view rather than a deficit view. > >> > >> I was attempting to also use a credit view in my work with the > teachers. I > >> saw them as being experienced practitioners who had lots to bring to our > >> discussions of teaching and learning, in which together we could see > what > >> could be developed (new practices, new understandings). Once Kay and > Mike > >> realised this they got on board and engaged in the process and (possibly > >> for the first time in a long while as they both saw themselves [and in > >> fact > >> are officially designated as] 'expert teachers') really reawakened the > >> process of developing as professionals. They blew off most of the > content > >> I > >> was contributing, but they realised the process was actually about > >> 'unsticking' their own development and working out new and personally > >> interesting and meaningful ways of 'becoming' more as teachers, instead > of > >> being stuck 'being' the teacher they had turned into over the years. Not > >> all of the teachers made this leap in the time I worked with them > though. > >> Others were either quite disgruntled that I wouldn't provide them with > >> answers to 'fix' their own perceived deficits or patiently waited for me > >> to > >> go away and stop rocking the boat. From what I can gather though, Ann > (the > >> principal) kept the boat rocking and managed over time to get more > >> teachers > >> to buy into the process of learning from each other and collaboratively > >> creating new practices. As we said earlier, development takes time as > well > >> as effort. > >> > >> All I've got time for at the moment! > >> > >> Helen > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Dr Helen Grimmett > >> Lecturer, Student Adviser, > >> Faculty of Education, > >> Room G64F, Building 902 > >> Monash University, Berwick campus > >> Phone: 9904 7171 > >> > >> *New Book: * > >> The Practice of Teachers' Professional Development: A > Cultural-Historical > >> Approach > >> >> professional-learning-1/the-practice-of-teachers- > >> professional-development/> > >> Helen Grimmett (2014) Sense Publishers > >> > >> > >> > >> >> source=staff-email&utm_medium=email-signature&utm_campaign=50th> > >> > >> > >> On 14 July 2014 14:43, David Kellogg wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >>> Near the end of Chapter Three (p. 81), Helen is summing up her > experience > >>> with the Banksia Bay PLZ and she notes with some dismay that her PDers > >>> have > >>> "a deficit view" of their children and tend towards "container models" > of > >>> the mind ("empty vessel, sponge, blank canvas"). Only one teacher, Ann > >>> sees > >>> anything wrong with this, and Helen says "they don't necessarily value > >>> her > >>> opinion". > >>> > >>> Helen finds herself rather conflicted: One the one hand, she says "If > >>> their representations of children really do represent their beliefs, > then > >>> they are probably right to insist there is no need to change." And on > the > >>> other, she says "My intention was never to say that their present > >>> practice > >>> was wrong, but to help them see alternative ways of thinking about > >>> children, learning, and teaching." > >>> > >>> Of course, if there is no need to change, then it follows that there is > >>> no > >>> reason to look for alternative ways of thinking about children, > learning > >>> and teaching. The only reason for spending scarce cognitive resources > on > >>> seeing different ways of looking at children is if you do, in fact, > take > >>> a > >>> deficit view of the teachers. Ann, and the Regional Consultants, > >>> apparently > >>> do, but Helen realizes that there isn't much basis for this: not only > do > >>> we > >>> have no actual data of lessons to look at, we know that one of the > >>> teachers, Kay, has been in the classroom for three decades (during > which > >>> time Helen has spent at least one decade OUT of the classroom). > >>> > >>> While we were translating Vygotsky's "History of the Development of the > >>> Higher Psychological Functions" last year, some of my colleagues were > >>> taken > >>> aback by Vygotsky's use of terms like "moron", "imbecile", "idiot", and > >>> "cretin". Of course, Vygotsky is writing long before the "euphemisim > >>> treadmill" turned these into playground insults; for Vygotsky they are > >>> quite precise descriptors--not of cognitive ability but actually of > >>> LANGUAGE ability. But because our readership are progressive Korean > >>> teachers with strong views about these questions, we found that we > >>> couldn't > >>> even use the term "mentally retarded" without a strongly worded > footnote > >>> disavowing the "deficit" thinking behind the term. > >>> > >>> I think that Vygotsky would have been surprised by this. I think he > took > >>> it > >>> for granted that a defect was a deficit: being blind means a deficit in > >>> vision, and being deaf means a deficit in hearing. In the same way, a > >>> brain > >>> defect is not an asset. On the other hand, I think Vygotsky would find > >>> our > >>> own term "disabled" quite inaccurate: since all forms of development > are > >>> compensatory and involve "circuitous routes" of one kind or another, > and > >>> all developed children, even, and even especially, gifted children, > >>> contain > >>> islands of underdevelopment, the correct term for deficits of all kinds > >>> is > >>> not "disabled" but "pre-abled". > >>> > >>> Personally, I see nothing wrong with a deficit view of children that > sees > >>> them as pre-abled (or, as Vygotsky liked to say, 'primitivist"; that > is, > >>> they are waiting for the mediational means that we have foolishly > >>> developed > >>> only for the psychophysiologically most common types to catch up with > the > >>> actual variation in real children. I suspect this view is actually > quite > >>> a > >>> bit closer to what Kay thinks than to what Helen thinks. > >>> > >>> David Kellogg > >>> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On 13 July 2014 10:59, Helen Grimmett > wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>> Hi David, > >>>> > >>>> Interesting question. I absolutely think that development AS a > >>>> > >>>> > >>> professional > >>> > >>> > >>>> is necessary, just as development as a human is necessary, so if > >>>> professional development is seen as the practice in which this > >>>> > >>>> > >>> development > >>> > >>> > >>>> is produced then absolutely I do think it is necessary. The form that > >>>> > >>>> > >>> this > >>> > >>> > >>>> practice takes though, and indeed the form of the development that is > >>>> produced within this practice, are the things open to question > however. > >>>> > >>>> I definitely think that a teacher's development as a professional > >>>> > >>>> > >>> includes > >>> > >>> > >>>> the need to understand their practice better rather than just change > it, > >>>> but I think that understanding often develops best in/alongside/with > the > >>>> process of changing (and vice versa) rather than separately from it, > >>>> and, > >>>> as you point out above, in establishing ties *between* people and then > >>>> within them. So a practice of professional development that creates > >>>> conditions which support this type of development will (I believe) be > >>>> > >>>> > >>> much > >>> > >>> > >>>> more effective than traditional forms of PD that either attempt to > >>>> > >>>> > >>> lecture > >>> > >>> > >>>> about theoretical principles but do not support teachers to transfer > >>>> > >>>> > >>> these > >>> > >>> > >>>> into practical changes, OR provide teachers with practical programs > and > >>>> expect them to implement them without any understanding of what and > why > >>>> > >>>> > >>> the > >>> > >>> > >>>> changes matter. I think the term "Professional Development" is an > >>>> > >>>> > >>> absolute > >>> > >>> > >>>> misnomer for either of those typical approaches. > >>>> > >>>> So again, I have a problem with names! I'm talking about Professional > >>>> Development with a completely different meaning than what most of the > >>>> education community believe it to mean when they talk about attending > PD > >>>> seminars or workshops. I toyed with trying to find a different name > for > >>>> > >>>> > >>> the > >>> > >>> > >>>> particular meaning I'm talking about, but when you are talking about > >>>> development from a cultural-historical theoretical perspective then > >>>> there > >>>> really is no other word to use! That's why I stuck to using > >>>> 'professional > >>>> development' (in full) when I meant my meaning, and PD (which is what > >>>> teachers in Australia commonly refer to seminars and workshops as) > when > >>>> I > >>>> refer to the typical (and in my view, usually non-developmental) forms > >>>> of > >>>> activities that teachers are subjected to each year. > >>>> > >>>> So, I agree that the need for PD is questionable, but the need for > >>>> practices of professional development that help teachers to develop as > >>>> professionals (that is, to develop a unified understanding of both the > >>>> theoretical and practical aspects of their work, which is itself > >>>> continually developing in order to meet the changing needs of their > >>>> students, schools and society) is essential. While I think co-teaching > >>>> is > >>>> one practical small-scale solution, working out viable, economical, > and > >>>> manageable ways to create these practices on a large-scale is a very > >>>> > >>>> > >>> large > >>> > >>> > >>>> problem. > >>>> > >>>> Cheers, > >>>> Helen > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Dr Helen Grimmett > >>>> Lecturer, Student Adviser, > >>>> Faculty of Education, > >>>> Room G64F, Building 902 > >>>> Monash University, Berwick campus > >>>> Phone: 9904 7171 > >>>> > >>>> *New Book: * > >>>> The Practice of Teachers' Professional Development: A > >>>> Cultural-Historical > >>>> Approach > >>>> < > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> https://www.sensepublishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/ > >>> professional-learning-1/the-practice-of-teachers- > >>> professional-development/ > >>> > >>> > >>>> Helen Grimmett (2014) Sense Publishers > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> < > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> http://monash.edu.au/education/news/50-years/?utm_ > >>> source=staff-email&utm_medium=email-signature&utm_campaign=50th > >>> > >>> > >>>> On 13 July 2014 08:57, David Kellogg wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> Helen: > >>>>> > >>>>> Good to hear from you at long last--I knew you were lurking out there > >>>>> somewhere! > >>>>> > >>>>> I didn't actually write the line about "establishing ties"--it's from > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> "The > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> Little Prince". The prince asks what "tame" means, and the fox > replies > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> that > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> it means "to establish ties". But of course what I meant was that > ties > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> are > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> established first between people and then within them; the ties of > >>>>> development are interfunctional ties that make up a new psychological > >>>>> system. (Or, for Halliday, they are the inter-systemic ties that make > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> up > >>> > >>> > >>>> new metafunctions.) > >>>>> > >>>>> As you say, Yrjo Engestrom chooses to emphasize another aspect of > >>>>> development with "breaking away"--he wants to stress its > crisis-ridden > >>>>> nature. I agree with this, actually, but mostly I agree with you, > that > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> we > >>> > >>> > >>>> are talking about two moments of the same process. To me, breaking > away > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> is > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> really a precondition of the real business of establishing ties. > >>>>> > >>>>> Thomas Piketty makes a similar point in his book "Capital in the > >>>>> Twenty-first Century". He admits that war and revolution is the only > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> thing > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> that EVER counteracts the tendency of returns from capital to > outstrip > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> the > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> growth in income, and that the 20th Century was an outlier in this > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> respect, > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> and the Russian revolution an extreme outlier within that outlier. > But > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> he > >>> > >>> > >>>> also says that in the long run the one thing that makes UPWARD > mobility > >>>>> possible is education. Despite everything, because of everything. > >>>>> > >>>>> I finished the book a few days ago. I guess the thing I most want to > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> ask > >>> > >>> > >>>> about is the assumption that professional development is necessary at > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> all. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> Doesn't it make more sense to say that before we change what we are > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> doing, > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> we should understand it better? > >>>>> > >>>>> David Kellogg > >>>>> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On 12 July 2014 13:20, Helen Grimmett > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>> Ah, I think you have hit the nail on the head David. It is indeed > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> TIME > >>> > >>> > >>>> that > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> is so crucial - not only duration of time, but also location of time > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> (which > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> I suppose is really context). > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The problems I had with Mike and his colleagues about the > terminology > >>>>>> stemmed partly from the typical Aussie disdain for using words that > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> might > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> make your mates think you are trying to appear 'better' than them, so > >>>>>> therefore you mock anything that sounds too serious or intellectual. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> But > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> beyond this surface level of complaining the problems Huw and you > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> have > >>> > >>> > >>>> been > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> discussing boil down to problems with time. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Huw's complaint about my use of the heading "Features of > >>>>>> Cultural-Historical Learning Activities" is well justified - but it > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> was > >>> > >>> > >>>> really just a shorthand written version of what I was verbally asking > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> for > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> as "What might be some particular features of learning activities > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> that > >>> > >>> > >>>> would align with principles of Cultural-Historical Theory?" That > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> would > >>> > >>> > >>>> have > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> taken too long to write on the top of the piece of paper - and of > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> course > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> time is always too short in any after-school PD so shortcuts are > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> inevitably > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> taken. (Time problem #1) > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Time problem #2, which your discussion has highlighted for me, is > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> that > >>> > >>> > >>>> of > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> course my question was really "What might be some particular features > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> of > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> learning activities that would align with THE LIMITED NUMBER OF (AND > >>>>>> LIMITED UNDERSTANDING OF) principles of Cultural-Historical Theory > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> THAT > >>> > >>> > >>>> YOU > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> HAVE BEEN INTRODUCED TO SO FAR?" so I really should have not been so > >>>>>> surprised that they would find the brainstorming activity difficult > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> and > >>> > >>> > >>>> resort to diversionary tactics! (Mike's outburst posted here by David > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> was > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> not the only eventful moment I write about from this one activity. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> But > >>> > >>> > >>>> these apparent failures actually provided much more interesting data > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> for > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> me > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> and eventually lead me to several key findings in my thesis). I had > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> spent > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> several years by this stage reading and discussing Vygotsky and yet I > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> had > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> assumed/hoped the teachers would have enough understanding from my > >>>>>> (probably not very good) explanations ABOUT theory over the previous > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> 3 > >>> > >>> > >>>> short sessions I had had with them to be able to contribute answers > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> to > >>> > >>> > >>>> my > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> brainstorm question. They had not had enough TIME to become familiar > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> with > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> enough of the theory to make much sense of it yet - but still, we > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> have > >>> > >>> > >>>> to > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> start somewhere and this was still early days. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Time problem #3 brings in what I called above the location of time. > I > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> had > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> never intended for the sessions to be me giving after-school lectures > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> about > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> either theory or practice, yet this is what the teachers seemed to > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> expect > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> from me (and even demand from me) and were pretty disgruntled when I > >>>>>> wouldn't/couldn't deliver. My intention was always to get them to > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> engage > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> with the relationship between THEORY and PRACTICE, just as David's > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> comic > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> book discusses the relationship between THINKING and SPEECH or > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> EMOTION > >>> > >>> > >>>> and > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> COGNITION. My problem of course was that once we were in an > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> after-school > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> meeting we were removed in both time and space from where theory and > >>>>>> practice of teaching/learning operate as a relation (i.e. the > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> classroom > >>> > >>> > >>>> activity). I was actually trying to create/use our own PLZ > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> (Professional > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> Learning ZPD) as the activity in which to develop and understand this > >>>>>> relationship but it was initially very hard to get the teachers to > >>>>>> understand this (at least until we had enough of David's Fox's > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> socially > >>> > >>> > >>>> shared experiences for the meanings to become communicable) and then > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> even > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> more difficult to get them to transfer this back to developing their > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> own > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> classroom teaching. Ironically, despite being the loudest complainers > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> and > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> disparagers, it was Mike and Kay (the protagonist of my other > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> eventful > >>> > >>> > >>>> moment in the brainstorming session) who actually ended up making the > >>>>>> biggest changes in their classroom practice. Perhaps this is not > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> really > >>> > >>> > >>>> surprising at all - they were the ones who obviously engaged and > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> argued > >>> > >>> > >>>> with the ideas and activities rather than simply endured them! > >>>>>> > >>>>>> My eventual answer to the problems encountered in my work with the > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> group > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> of > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> teachers was to work WITH a teacher IN her own classroom so that we > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> had > >>> > >>> > >>>> shared experiences of the relationship between theory and practice > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> which > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> could not only be discussed after the events, but also actually acted > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> upon > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> there and then IN the event - creating what I called "Situated > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> Conscious > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> Awareness" of both the theoretical and practical aspects of the > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> concepts > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> of > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> teaching/learning and development we were developing understanding > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> and > >>> > >>> > >>>> practice of together. But perhaps I should wait until David gets up > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> to > >>> > >>> > >>>> this > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> part of the book before I say more! > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Finally, one other point that really caught my attention in your > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> comic > >>> > >>> > >>>> book > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> David is that your prince calls development "to establish ties" > which > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> is > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> an > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> interesting difference to Engestrom's definition as "breaking away". > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> But > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> perhaps, as always in CH theory, it is not a matter of either/or but > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> in > >>> > >>> > >>>> fact both/and ideas that are necessary. From what I learned in my > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> study, > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> teachers' development as professionals is definitely BOTH about > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> breaking > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> away from old, routinised understandings and practices AND > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> establishing > >>> > >>> > >>>> new > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> connections between and amongst theoretical concepts and practices, > >>>>>> enabling them to continually develop new competences and motives > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> across > >>> > >>> > >>>> all > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> of their professional duties. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Thanks for your interest in my book David. The discussion it has > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> sparked > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> has helped me revisit ideas from new perspectives. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Cheers, > >>>>>> Helen > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Dr Helen Grimmett > >>>>>> Lecturer, Student Adviser, > >>>>>> Faculty of Education, > >>>>>> Room G64F, Building 902 > >>>>>> Monash University, Berwick campus > >>>>>> Phone: 9904 7171 > >>>>>> > >>>>>> *New Book: * > >>>>>> The Practice of Teachers' Professional Development: A > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> Cultural-Historical > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> Approach > >>>>>> < > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> https://www.sensepublishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/ > >>> professional-learning-1/the-practice-of-teachers- > >>> professional-development/ > >>> > >>> > >>>> Helen Grimmett (2014) Sense Publishers > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> < > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> http://monash.edu.au/education/news/50-years/?utm_ > >>> source=staff-email&utm_medium=email-signature&utm_campaign=50th > >>> > >>> > >>>> On 12 July 2014 07:29, David Kellogg wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Plekhanov distinguishes between "agitators" and "propagandists". > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> Agitators > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> are essentially popularizers; they have the job of ripping away a > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> subset > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> of > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> smaller and simpler ideas from a fabric of much larger and more > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> complex > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> theory and then disseminating them amongst the largest possible > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> number > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> of > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> people. In other words, their focus is exoteric. Propagandists are > >>>>>>> essentially conspiratorial: they have the job of initiating a small > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> number > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> of the elect and educating them in the whole theoretical system--as > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> Larry > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> would say, the full Bildung. In other words, their focus is > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> esoteric. > >>> > >>> > >>>> As > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> you can see, Plekhanov was good at making distinctions, and not so > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> good > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> at > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> showing how things are linked. For Helena, who is a labor > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> educator, > >>> > >>> > >>>> you > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> can't really be an effective agitator unless you are also a > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> propagandist. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> You need to present your exoteric extracts in such a way that they > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> are, > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> to > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> borrow Larry's phrase, both necessary and sufficient to lead people > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> on > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> to > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> the esoterica. I'm with Helena--and with Bruner--with children it's > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> always > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> possible to tell the truth, part of the truth, but nothing but the > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> truth, > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> and if we can do it with kids, why not do it with adults? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> (I am less sure about what it means to say that the objectively > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> human > >>> > >>> > >>>> is > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> the "subjectively historical"--it sounds like history is being > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> reified > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> as a > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> subject, that is, as a living, breathing, acting "World Spirit" > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> that > >>> > >>> > >>>> can > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> have a mind and reflect upon itself. My understanding of history is > >>>>>>> that just as we cannot have the advanced form of historical > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> consciousness > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> in dialogue with the more primitive forms, the opportunity to > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> reflect > >>> > >>> > >>>> upon > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> the whole process when it is all over is simply never going to be > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> available > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> to anyone. The Merleau-Ponty quotation is beautiful and intensely > >>>>>>> poetic, Larry--but when I look at a bubble or a wave, I do not > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> simply > >>> > >>> > >>>> see > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> chaos; I see past bubbles and past waves, and potential bubbles and > >>>>>>> potential waves. Isn't that a part of the experience of "loving > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> history" > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> as > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> well?) > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> My wife wrote a wonderful Ph.D. thesis about how any work of > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> literature > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> can > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> be looked at on four time frames: phylogenetic (the history of a > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> genre), > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> ontogenetic (the biography of a career), logogenetic (the > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> development > >>> > >>> > >>>> of > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> a > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> plot or a character), and microgenetic (the unfolding of a > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> dialogue, > >>> > >>> > >>>> or a > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> paragraph). Her supervisor complained about the terminology in > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> somewhat > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> more elegant terms than Mike does in Helen's data:and suggested > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> that > >>> > >>> > >>>> she > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> should replace the terms with "history", "biography", "development" > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> and > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> "unfolding", to make it more exoteric. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I think that if she had done that, it would have made the thesis > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> into > >>> > >>> > >>>> agitation rather than education. Yes, the terms would have been > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> more > >>> > >>> > >>>> familiar, and they might even, given other context, be taken to > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> mean > >>> > >>> > >>>> the > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> same thing. But what we would have gotten is good, clear > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> distinctions > >>> > >>> > >>>> ("history" on the one hand and "biography" on the other) and what > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> we > >>> > >>> > >>>> would > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> have lost is the linkedness of one time frame to another--the way > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> in > >>> > >>> > >>>> which > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> the phylogenesis of genre produces the mature genre which is used > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> in > >>> > >>> > >>>> an > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> author's ontegenesis, and the way in which the author's ontogenesis > >>>>>>> produces the starting point and the raw materials for the > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> logogenetic > >>> > >>> > >>>> development of a work, not to mention the way in which logogenesis > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> is > >>> > >>> > >>>> reflected in the microgenetic unfolding of dialogue. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> So I think that when Helena writes that anything can be explained > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> to > >>> > >>> > >>>> anyone > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> in language that is everyday and simple and in a way that is > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> understandable > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> and at least part of the whole truth, I agree somewhat enviously > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> (you > >>> > >>> > >>>> see, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Helena is a labor educator, but I teach TESOL, which is really the > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> process > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> of taking a few very simple and exoteric ideas that good teachers > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> already > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> have and disseminating the select to the elect for vast sums of > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> money). > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> But > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> I have to add a rider--when we popularize richly woven fabrics of > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> ideas > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> like cultural historical theory we are not simply juggling > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> vocabulary. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> I > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> think that Helena recognizes this perfectly when she says that it > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> takes > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> TIME to be simple and clear. If it were simply a matter of > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> replacing > >>> > >>> > >>>> "cultural historical" with "community of learners" it would > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> actually > >>> > >>> > >>>> take > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> less time, but it isn't and it doesn't. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> It is very hot in Seoul today, and somewhere out there a toddler is > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> arguing > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> with a parent because he wants watermelon with breakfast. The > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> parent > >>> > >>> > >>>> resists, because if you eat cold watermelon on an empty stomach you > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> get a > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> tummy-ache. The argument grows heated and long--and complex, but > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> the > >>> > >>> > >>>> complexity is of a particular kind, with very short, repeated, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> insistancies > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> from the child and somewhat longer more complex remonstrations from > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> the > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> parent. We can call this complex discourse but simple grammar. A > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> few > >>> > >>> > >>>> years > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> will go by and we will find that the school child has mastered the > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> trick > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> of > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> long and complex remonstrations and can use them pre-emptively to > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> win > >>> > >>> > >>>> arguments. We can call this complex grammar, but simple vocabulary. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> Only > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> when a decade or two has elapsed will we find that child, now > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> adult, > >>> > >>> > >>>> can > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> use the language of science, which is for the most part > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> grammatically > >>> > >>> > >>>> simple (at least compared to the pre-emptive remonstrations of the > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> school > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> child), but full of very complex vocabulary (e.g. "phylogeny > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> anticipates > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> ontogeny", or "cultural-historical activity theory enables > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> communities > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> of > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> learners"). > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> It's Saturday today, and in a few minutes I have to leave for the > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> weekly > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> meeting of our translation group, which produces mighty tomes which > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> we > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> produce to popularize the works of Vygotsky amongst militant > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> teachers > >>> > >>> > >>>> here > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> in Korea (our version of "Thinking and Speech" is seven hundred > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> pages > >>> > >>> > >>>> long > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> because of all the explanatory notes and boxes with helpful > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> pictures). > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> On > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> the other hand, there is the attached comic book version of the > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> first > >>> > >>> > >>>> chapter of "Thinking and Speech" which I wrote a couple of years > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> ago > >>> > >>> > >>>> for > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> some graduate students who were having trouble talking about the > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> real > >>> > >>> > >>>> "Thinking and Speech" in class. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I think you can see that Huw's complaint is justified--the comic > >>>>>>> book dialogue is "about" Thinking and Speech, but it is not > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> "Thinking > >>> > >>> > >>>> and > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> Speech" at all, in the same way that "community of learners" or > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> "biography" > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> is ABOUT cultural historical theory or ontogenesis. And I think > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> that > >>> > >>> > >>>> part > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> of the problem (but only part of it) is that the comic book is just > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> too > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> short. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> David Kellogg > >>>>>>> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> 2014-07-11 17:09 GMT+09:00 Leif Strandberg < > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> leifstrandberg.ab@telia.com > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> : > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> 11 jul 2014 kl. 06:41 skrev Larry Purss : > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> David, > >>>>>>>>> I have been following your reflections through this thread. > >>>>>>>>> You commented: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> So it's almost always more useful for me to > >>>>>>>>> think of learning phenomena as NOT reducible to the physical, > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> at > >>> > >>> > >>>> least > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> not > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> in their unit of analysis > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> I have been reflecting on the notion of *bildung* as learning. > >>>>>>>>> The notion of *cultivation* and *disposition* and *comportment* > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> as > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> the > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> potential of learning. > >>>>>>>>> I came across this quote from Gramsci who was questioning the > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> notion > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> of > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> *laws* as the basis for making social predictions. Such *laws* > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> excluded > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> subjective factor from history. > >>>>>>>>> Gramsci wrote on social process: "Objective always means > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> 'humanly > >>> > >>> > >>>> objective' which can be held to correspond exactly to > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> 'historically > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> subjective' " > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Merleau-Ponty also explored what I refer to as *disposition* > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> with > >>> > >>> > >>>> this > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> quote on the reality of history: > >>>>>>>>> History "awakens us to the importance of daily events and > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> action. > >>> > >>> > >>>> For > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> it > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> is > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> a philosophy [of history -LP] which arouses in us a love for > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> our > >>> > >>> > >>>> times > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> which are not the simple repetition of human eternity nor > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> merely > >>> > >>> > >>>> the > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> conclusion of premises already postulated. It is a view that > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> like > >>> > >>> > >>>> the > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> most > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> fragile object of perception - a soap bubble, or a wave - or > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> like > >>> > >>> > >>>> the > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> most > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> simple dialogue, embraces indivisibly all the order and all the > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> disorder > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> of > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> the world." > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > From lchcmike@gmail.com Tue Jul 15 16:04:08 2014 From: lchcmike@gmail.com (mike cole) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 16:04:08 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: In Defense of Fuzzy Things In-Reply-To: References: <53BB4559.40005@mira.net> Message-ID: David, Beth, and others interested in the question of the concept of perezhivanie/emotional experience/reflected upon emotional experience, etc (hereafter perezhivanie). The following message was written sometime around July 8 but I was interrupted and am just getting back to my computer. Apologies for my delay/mismanagement. I hope its still relevant. (I may even have sent it in another version but i do not see it in the threaded discussion log on xmca). I, too, have been thinking about yesterday's messages, Beth. Why were you thinking about flash mobs in relation to perezhivanie? I re-appreciated David bringing Wordsworth into the discussion along with "contemplate" (the association of which, with perezhivanie, i had found out about hours before from a Russian acquaintance on Skype. The sheer coincidence knocked me over. And then I began to think about what it means when a 19th century English poet provides insight into issues that 21st century psychologists are aspiring to "research" and that insight is shared, somehow, by Russians living in far to the east of Moscow. The Russian presumably did not get it from Wordsworth. Common intuitions across a vast distance in culture, time, and space? Then i wondered what it means when a poet provides insight we can all appreciate but psychologists aspiring to do research provide, so far as I can tell, no special insight at all. At least, I know of no empirical research linking perezhivanie and contemplation (??????????- sozertsanie). With perezhivanie in the "lived through, reflected upon, emotion-laden, experience" sort, the major (only?) published research I know of is Vasiliuk, and that is in the domain of psychotherapy, where, as Andy has pointed out, perezhivanie appears to be the living through again interpersonally, in discussion with the psychotherapist. I think the example David points to (included below), is interesting. But I am not sure what the ontogenetic sequence is. LSV's thought experiment/example at first seems plausible, but as David points out, the followup about drunk nannies and neighbors is odd. In any event, I would really appreciate references to empirical studies of the development of perezhivanie. I myself lived through, peripherally, the research that Beth, Sonja Baumer, Robert Lecusay, and others did here in San Diego, and I am pretty convinced that both the children AND the researchers displayed perezhivanie. My sense of the events as they unfolded is that there was an "in the moment" form of perezhivanie for children and adults, and there were reflected upon perezhivanias (oops) among the adults. mike Here is the passage that David sent in Russian: Imagine I possess certain constitutional characteristics ? clearly, I will experience this situation in one way, and if I possess different characteristics, it is equally clear that I will experience it in quite a different way. This is why people?s constitutional characteristics are taken into account when differentiating between those who are excitable, sociable, lively and active and others who are more emotionally slack, inhibited and dull. It is therefore obvious, that if we have two people with two opposite types of constitutional characteristics, then one and the same event is likely to elicit a different emotional experience [/perezhivanie/] in each of them. Consequently, the constitutional characteristics of the person and generally the personal characteristics of children are, as it were, mobilized by a given emotional experience [/perezhivanie/], are laid down, become crystallized within a given emotional experience [/perezhivanie/] but, at the same time, this experience does not just represent the aggregate of the child?s personal characteristics which determine how the child experienced this particular event emotionally, but different events also elicit different emotional experiences [/perezhivanija/] in the child. A drunken or mentally ill mother amounts to the same thing as a mentally ill nanny, but it does not mean the same as a drunken father or a drunken neighbour. Which means that the environment, which in this case was represented by a specific concrete situation, is also always represented in a given emotional experience [/perezhivanie/]. This is why we are justified in considering the emotional experience [/perezhivanie/]//to be a unity of environmental and personal features. And it is precisely for this reason that the emotional experience [/perezhivanie/]//is a concept which allows us to study the role and influence of environment on the psychological development of children in the analysis of the laws of development. From helen.grimmett@monash.edu Tue Jul 15 16:44:09 2014 From: helen.grimmett@monash.edu (Helen Grimmett) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 09:44:09 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: book of possible interest In-Reply-To: References: <0D461088-CBBB-4BD9-ADCB-3024C36CBE81@telia.com> <53C48DF1.5000703@mira.net> Message-ID: Hi Francis, Thanks for joining the conversation - I know how daunting it can be! I think you are exactly right about the necessity of common ground, and that is why I found working with the group of teachers after school so hard. I initially did not know them or their practices so it was very difficult to make connections, but after several sessions we at least had our own shared experience within the group that we could draw upon. It was the analysis of this problem that led to my use of Wolf-Michael Roth's approach to co-teaching and co-generative dialogue in the second phase of my research. The difference it made to be able to discuss the events my co-teacher and I had shared in the classroom was HUGE. I also agree that professional framing and identity are important aspects which I don't think I fully explored in my PhD but am now starting to explore further. I talked a lot about motives but I think it is also a lot about helping teachers (re)build identities as agentic learners' and professionals, rather than merely implementers of governmental directives. Cheers, Helen Dr Helen Grimmett Lecturer, Student Adviser, Faculty of Education, Room G64F, Building 902 Monash University, Berwick campus Phone: 9904 7171 *New Book: * The Practice of Teachers' Professional Development: A Cultural-Historical Approach Helen Grimmett (2014) Sense Publishers On 16 July 2014 05:39, FRANCIS J. SULLIVAN wrote: > With great trepidation, I want to enter this conversation with my first > post to the list (I have followed it for about a year now) because as both > a researcher and teacher educator the issues raised are major concerns of > mine too. I find, I think it was David's point, the idea that we can think > of the "connections" problem in two ways to be at the heart of the issue, > at least for me. It is one thing to construct a connection that "adds to" > the existing knowledge framework of others. But, it is a very different > thing to sea5rch for a "connection" that requires others to qualitatively > change, or even abandon, their existing framework. Helen seems to achieve > such a connection with at least some of her teachers by helping them to > re-cognize their own social identities so that the new knowledge and > framework became less threatening and more inviting. She reconnected them > with who they used to be and what they valued. So they did not see > themselves as merely "ignorant" but more like retracing their steps. > For me, at least, that's why the "deficit" models of teaching (or research) > practices do not work. We--teachers and students--need to find a place from > which we can begin this journey together, common ground so to speak. While > a deaf person may not "know" English, I don't think that's the salient > point. All of us don't know things. What seems to me salient in Helen's > attempt to find connections, is that the very attempt challenged their > current ways of framing their professional lives. What we might think of as > "ignorance," those teachers thought of as "knowledge." And that "knowledge" > was part and parcel of the ways they positioned themselves as teachers in > relation to students. > I am tempted to put this into discourse analysis terms--I'm a > semi-Hallidayan with a critical theory twist. But, I've said enough for a > first post, I think. I hope it is useful. > > Francis J. Sullivan, Ph.D. > Associate Professor > Department of Teaching and Learning > College of Education > Temple University > Philadelphia, PA 19122 > > > Find out what any people will quietly submit to and you have the exact > measure of the injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them. > > Frederick Douglass > > > On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 2:10 AM, David Kellogg > wrote: > > > Well, I do hope that Helen means that "for the moment", as I have learned > > an awful lot from this book and even more from this discussion. You see, > I > > am trying to tease apart two very different processes that appear, on the > > face of it, to be almost identical, but which also appear to have > > diametrically opposite developmental effects. > > > > One process is the process of getting people to feel at ease, > > confident, and happy that they understand what you are saying because it > is > > actually something that is identical or at least very similar to what > they > > already think. Another, almost identical, process is the process of > > "establishing ties" between a new form of knowledge and an earlier one. > > BOTH of these processes, it seems to me, occur throughout Helen's book, > and > > it is easy to mistake the one for the other. BOTH of these processes, to > > use our earlier terminology, involve "establishing ties", but only one of > > them also involves breaking away. > > > > For example, at one point in the book Helen, looking back over the > Banksia > > Bay PLZ data, rounds on herself for using a transparent piece of > > scaffolding to elicit the word "communicate" from a group of teachers. > What > > bothers her is not that the answer itself is far too general to be of any > > practical value to the teachers, but only that she had it very firmly in > > mind, and kept badgering the teachers (as we all do, when we have a > precise > > answer in mind) until she got it. The alternative, she points out, would > be > > to take what she got and work with that. > > > > Yes indeed. But I think the main reason that would have been more > > interesting is not that it would have resulted in fewer rejections of > > teacher answers and made people more at ease, confdent, and happy that > they > > understood, but rather than it would have yielded something more like a > > concrete but unconscious and not yet volitionally controlled example of > > excellence from the teacher's own practice. I almost always find that the > > actual answers I want--the "methods" I end up imparting to my own > teachers, > > are already present in the data they bring me (because we almost always > > begin with actual transcripts of their lessons) but they are generally > not > > methods but only moments, and moments that go unnoticed and therefore > > ungeneralized in the hurly burly of actual teaching. > > > > Last winter, Helen and I were at a conference in New Zealand where, among > > other eventful episodes, Craig Brandist got up and gave a very precise > list > > of half a dozen different and utterly contradictory ways in which Bakhtin > > uses the term "dialogue". Because the senses of "dialogue" are so many > and > > varied, people simply pick and choose, and they tend invariably to choose > > the ones that are closest to the way they already think. It is as moments > > like this that we need to remind ourselves that Bakhtin's "dialogue" does > > not, for the most part, ever include children, or women; that he did not > > "dialogue" with Volosinov or Medvedev when he allowed his acolytes > > to plunder their corpses, and that his love of carnival and the public > > marketplace does not extend to a belief in any form of political > democracy. > > > > So I think we should start off with an understanding that what Vygotsky > > says about defect is not the same was what we now believe. Vygotsky, for > > example, believed that sign language was not true language, and that even > > the congenitally deaf should be taught to lip read; this is simply > > wrong. (On the other hand, what he says about spontaneously created sign > > languages--that they are essentially elaborated systems of gesture and > they > > lack the signifying functions--fits exactly with Susan Goldin-Meadow's > > observations in Chicago.) > > > > And one reason I think it is important to begin with this understanding > is > > this: sometimes--usually--LSV is right and we are wrong. In particular, I > > think the "credit" view of defect, or, for that matter, ignorance of any > > kind and not fully conscious teacher expertise risks becoming a liberal > > platitude--the cup is always half full, so why not look on the bright > side > > of dearth? I certainly do not feel empowered by the fact that I know > > English but I do not know ASL, and I rather doubt that deaf people feel > > empowered by the opposite state of affairs. When I don't know something, > I > > do not see any bright side of not knowing it, for the very simple > > reason that I can't see at all. > > > > Vygotsky was probably very influenced by "Iolanta", an opera that > > Tchaikovsky wrote--he certainly seems to quote it extensively in the last > > chapter of "Thinking and Speech". In "Iolanta", King Renee copes with the > > blindness of his daughter by having her shut up in a garden and > forbidding > > all his subjects from discussing light, sight, color or anything visible > in > > any way. Vaudemont, a knight of Burgundy, blunders into the garden, > > discovers Iolanta's secret. Iolanta convinces him that sight is > > unnecessary, but in the course of doing so, she develops the desire to > see > > and choose for herself. > > > > David Kelogg > > Hankuk University of Foreign Studies > > > > > > > > On 15 July 2014 11:12, Andy Blunden wrote: > > > > > My reading of Vygotsky on 'defectology' was that the 'defect' was the > > > problem in social relations, that is, the person who is different in > some > > > way suffers because of the way that difference is treated or not > treated > > by > > > others, not for anything in itself. One and the same feature could be a > > > great benefit or a fatal flaw, depending on how others react to it. > > > Except insofar as introducing the idea of a "credit view" is a move > aimed > > > at changing the perceptions and behaviours of others in relation to the > > > subject, I don't think Vygotsky is an advocate of the mirror image of a > > > deficit view. As I see it, he analyses the problem of the person being > > > treated as deficient by means of the unit of *defect-compensation*. The > > > defect (a problem arising in social interaction, with others) generates > > > certain challenges which are overcome, generally also in interaction > with > > > others. This "compensation" leads to what Helen could call a "credit" > and > > > it is the dynamic set up between the social defect and social > > compensation > > > which shapes the subject's psychology and their relation to others. > > > Andy > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > *Andy Blunden* > > > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > > > > > > > > Helen Grimmett wrote: > > > > > >> I think what is unique about Vygotsky's work in defectology is that, > > >> despite the name, it is not a deficit view (in the way that I > understand > > >> the term) at all. > > >> > > >> I understand the commonly used term 'deficit view' as a focus on what > > >> children are 'missing' that needs to be provided to them by teachers > to > > >> bring them up to a pre-conceived idea of 'normal' for their age/grade > > >> level > > >> etc. Whereas, a 'credit view' focuses on what children are able to do > > and > > >> bring to a learning situation, in which, in the interaction with > others, > > >> they will be able to become more able to do and 'be' more than they > were > > >> before (i.e. to develop), whether this be in the 'expected' ways to > the > > >> 'expected' level or in completely different ways to a variety of > > different > > >> levels beyond or outside 'standard' expectations. From the little I > have > > >> read on defectology I think this is what Vygotsky was advocating - > that > > >> despite a child's blindness or deafness etc, development was still > > >> possible > > >> if mediational means were found that made use of the child's credits > > (i.e. > > >> using sign language or braille so that children still had access to > the > > >> developmental opportunities provided by language). So I think your > term > > >> pre-abled is in fact a credit view rather than a deficit view. > > >> > > >> I was attempting to also use a credit view in my work with the > > teachers. I > > >> saw them as being experienced practitioners who had lots to bring to > our > > >> discussions of teaching and learning, in which together we could see > > what > > >> could be developed (new practices, new understandings). Once Kay and > > Mike > > >> realised this they got on board and engaged in the process and > (possibly > > >> for the first time in a long while as they both saw themselves [and in > > >> fact > > >> are officially designated as] 'expert teachers') really reawakened the > > >> process of developing as professionals. They blew off most of the > > content > > >> I > > >> was contributing, but they realised the process was actually about > > >> 'unsticking' their own development and working out new and personally > > >> interesting and meaningful ways of 'becoming' more as teachers, > instead > > of > > >> being stuck 'being' the teacher they had turned into over the years. > Not > > >> all of the teachers made this leap in the time I worked with them > > though. > > >> Others were either quite disgruntled that I wouldn't provide them with > > >> answers to 'fix' their own perceived deficits or patiently waited for > me > > >> to > > >> go away and stop rocking the boat. From what I can gather though, Ann > > (the > > >> principal) kept the boat rocking and managed over time to get more > > >> teachers > > >> to buy into the process of learning from each other and > collaboratively > > >> creating new practices. As we said earlier, development takes time as > > well > > >> as effort. > > >> > > >> All I've got time for at the moment! > > >> > > >> Helen > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Dr Helen Grimmett > > >> Lecturer, Student Adviser, > > >> Faculty of Education, > > >> Room G64F, Building 902 > > >> Monash University, Berwick campus > > >> Phone: 9904 7171 > > >> > > >> *New Book: * > > >> The Practice of Teachers' Professional Development: A > > Cultural-Historical > > >> Approach > > >> > >> professional-learning-1/the-practice-of-teachers- > > >> professional-development/> > > >> Helen Grimmett (2014) Sense Publishers > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> source=staff-email&utm_medium=email-signature&utm_campaign=50th> > > >> > > >> > > >> On 14 July 2014 14:43, David Kellogg wrote: > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >>> Near the end of Chapter Three (p. 81), Helen is summing up her > > experience > > >>> with the Banksia Bay PLZ and she notes with some dismay that her > PDers > > >>> have > > >>> "a deficit view" of their children and tend towards "container > models" > > of > > >>> the mind ("empty vessel, sponge, blank canvas"). Only one teacher, > Ann > > >>> sees > > >>> anything wrong with this, and Helen says "they don't necessarily > value > > >>> her > > >>> opinion". > > >>> > > >>> Helen finds herself rather conflicted: One the one hand, she says > "If > > >>> their representations of children really do represent their beliefs, > > then > > >>> they are probably right to insist there is no need to change." And on > > the > > >>> other, she says "My intention was never to say that their present > > >>> practice > > >>> was wrong, but to help them see alternative ways of thinking about > > >>> children, learning, and teaching." > > >>> > > >>> Of course, if there is no need to change, then it follows that there > is > > >>> no > > >>> reason to look for alternative ways of thinking about children, > > learning > > >>> and teaching. The only reason for spending scarce cognitive resources > > on > > >>> seeing different ways of looking at children is if you do, in fact, > > take > > >>> a > > >>> deficit view of the teachers. Ann, and the Regional Consultants, > > >>> apparently > > >>> do, but Helen realizes that there isn't much basis for this: not only > > do > > >>> we > > >>> have no actual data of lessons to look at, we know that one of the > > >>> teachers, Kay, has been in the classroom for three decades (during > > which > > >>> time Helen has spent at least one decade OUT of the classroom). > > >>> > > >>> While we were translating Vygotsky's "History of the Development of > the > > >>> Higher Psychological Functions" last year, some of my colleagues were > > >>> taken > > >>> aback by Vygotsky's use of terms like "moron", "imbecile", "idiot", > and > > >>> "cretin". Of course, Vygotsky is writing long before the "euphemisim > > >>> treadmill" turned these into playground insults; for Vygotsky they > are > > >>> quite precise descriptors--not of cognitive ability but actually of > > >>> LANGUAGE ability. But because our readership are progressive Korean > > >>> teachers with strong views about these questions, we found that we > > >>> couldn't > > >>> even use the term "mentally retarded" without a strongly worded > > footnote > > >>> disavowing the "deficit" thinking behind the term. > > >>> > > >>> I think that Vygotsky would have been surprised by this. I think he > > took > > >>> it > > >>> for granted that a defect was a deficit: being blind means a deficit > in > > >>> vision, and being deaf means a deficit in hearing. In the same way, a > > >>> brain > > >>> defect is not an asset. On the other hand, I think Vygotsky would > find > > >>> our > > >>> own term "disabled" quite inaccurate: since all forms of development > > are > > >>> compensatory and involve "circuitous routes" of one kind or another, > > and > > >>> all developed children, even, and even especially, gifted children, > > >>> contain > > >>> islands of underdevelopment, the correct term for deficits of all > kinds > > >>> is > > >>> not "disabled" but "pre-abled". > > >>> > > >>> Personally, I see nothing wrong with a deficit view of children that > > sees > > >>> them as pre-abled (or, as Vygotsky liked to say, 'primitivist"; that > > is, > > >>> they are waiting for the mediational means that we have foolishly > > >>> developed > > >>> only for the psychophysiologically most common types to catch up with > > the > > >>> actual variation in real children. I suspect this view is actually > > quite > > >>> a > > >>> bit closer to what Kay thinks than to what Helen thinks. > > >>> > > >>> David Kellogg > > >>> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> On 13 July 2014 10:59, Helen Grimmett > > wrote: > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> Hi David, > > >>>> > > >>>> Interesting question. I absolutely think that development AS a > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>> professional > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> is necessary, just as development as a human is necessary, so if > > >>>> professional development is seen as the practice in which this > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>> development > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> is produced then absolutely I do think it is necessary. The form > that > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>> this > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> practice takes though, and indeed the form of the development that > is > > >>>> produced within this practice, are the things open to question > > however. > > >>>> > > >>>> I definitely think that a teacher's development as a professional > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>> includes > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> the need to understand their practice better rather than just change > > it, > > >>>> but I think that understanding often develops best in/alongside/with > > the > > >>>> process of changing (and vice versa) rather than separately from it, > > >>>> and, > > >>>> as you point out above, in establishing ties *between* people and > then > > >>>> within them. So a practice of professional development that creates > > >>>> conditions which support this type of development will (I believe) > be > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>> much > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> more effective than traditional forms of PD that either attempt to > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>> lecture > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> about theoretical principles but do not support teachers to transfer > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>> these > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> into practical changes, OR provide teachers with practical programs > > and > > >>>> expect them to implement them without any understanding of what and > > why > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>> the > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> changes matter. I think the term "Professional Development" is an > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>> absolute > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> misnomer for either of those typical approaches. > > >>>> > > >>>> So again, I have a problem with names! I'm talking about > Professional > > >>>> Development with a completely different meaning than what most of > the > > >>>> education community believe it to mean when they talk about > attending > > PD > > >>>> seminars or workshops. I toyed with trying to find a different name > > for > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>> the > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> particular meaning I'm talking about, but when you are talking about > > >>>> development from a cultural-historical theoretical perspective then > > >>>> there > > >>>> really is no other word to use! That's why I stuck to using > > >>>> 'professional > > >>>> development' (in full) when I meant my meaning, and PD (which is > what > > >>>> teachers in Australia commonly refer to seminars and workshops as) > > when > > >>>> I > > >>>> refer to the typical (and in my view, usually non-developmental) > forms > > >>>> of > > >>>> activities that teachers are subjected to each year. > > >>>> > > >>>> So, I agree that the need for PD is questionable, but the need for > > >>>> practices of professional development that help teachers to develop > as > > >>>> professionals (that is, to develop a unified understanding of both > the > > >>>> theoretical and practical aspects of their work, which is itself > > >>>> continually developing in order to meet the changing needs of their > > >>>> students, schools and society) is essential. While I think > co-teaching > > >>>> is > > >>>> one practical small-scale solution, working out viable, economical, > > and > > >>>> manageable ways to create these practices on a large-scale is a very > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>> large > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> problem. > > >>>> > > >>>> Cheers, > > >>>> Helen > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> Dr Helen Grimmett > > >>>> Lecturer, Student Adviser, > > >>>> Faculty of Education, > > >>>> Room G64F, Building 902 > > >>>> Monash University, Berwick campus > > >>>> Phone: 9904 7171 > > >>>> > > >>>> *New Book: * > > >>>> The Practice of Teachers' Professional Development: A > > >>>> Cultural-Historical > > >>>> Approach > > >>>> < > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>> https://www.sensepublishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/ > > >>> professional-learning-1/the-practice-of-teachers- > > >>> professional-development/ > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> Helen Grimmett (2014) Sense Publishers > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> < > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>> http://monash.edu.au/education/news/50-years/?utm_ > > >>> source=staff-email&utm_medium=email-signature&utm_campaign=50th > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> On 13 July 2014 08:57, David Kellogg wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> Helen: > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Good to hear from you at long last--I knew you were lurking out > there > > >>>>> somewhere! > > >>>>> > > >>>>> I didn't actually write the line about "establishing ties"--it's > from > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>> "The > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> Little Prince". The prince asks what "tame" means, and the fox > > replies > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>> that > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> it means "to establish ties". But of course what I meant was that > > ties > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>> are > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> established first between people and then within them; the ties of > > >>>>> development are interfunctional ties that make up a new > psychological > > >>>>> system. (Or, for Halliday, they are the inter-systemic ties that > make > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>> up > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> new metafunctions.) > > >>>>> > > >>>>> As you say, Yrjo Engestrom chooses to emphasize another aspect of > > >>>>> development with "breaking away"--he wants to stress its > > crisis-ridden > > >>>>> nature. I agree with this, actually, but mostly I agree with you, > > that > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>> we > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> are talking about two moments of the same process. To me, breaking > > away > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>> is > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> really a precondition of the real business of establishing ties. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Thomas Piketty makes a similar point in his book "Capital in the > > >>>>> Twenty-first Century". He admits that war and revolution is the > only > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>> thing > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> that EVER counteracts the tendency of returns from capital to > > outstrip > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>> the > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> growth in income, and that the 20th Century was an outlier in this > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>> respect, > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> and the Russian revolution an extreme outlier within that outlier. > > But > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>> he > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> also says that in the long run the one thing that makes UPWARD > > mobility > > >>>>> possible is education. Despite everything, because of everything. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> I finished the book a few days ago. I guess the thing I most want > to > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>> ask > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> about is the assumption that professional development is necessary > at > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>> all. > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> Doesn't it make more sense to say that before we change what we are > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>> doing, > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> we should understand it better? > > >>>>> > > >>>>> David Kellogg > > >>>>> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> On 12 July 2014 13:20, Helen Grimmett > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>> wrote: > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> Ah, I think you have hit the nail on the head David. It is indeed > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> TIME > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> that > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> is so crucial - not only duration of time, but also location of > time > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> (which > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> I suppose is really context). > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> The problems I had with Mike and his colleagues about the > > terminology > > >>>>>> stemmed partly from the typical Aussie disdain for using words > that > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> might > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> make your mates think you are trying to appear 'better' than them, > so > > >>>>>> therefore you mock anything that sounds too serious or > intellectual. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> But > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> beyond this surface level of complaining the problems Huw and you > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> have > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> been > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> discussing boil down to problems with time. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Huw's complaint about my use of the heading "Features of > > >>>>>> Cultural-Historical Learning Activities" is well justified - but > it > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> was > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> really just a shorthand written version of what I was verbally > asking > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> for > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> as "What might be some particular features of learning activities > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> that > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> would align with principles of Cultural-Historical Theory?" That > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> would > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> have > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> taken too long to write on the top of the piece of paper - and of > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> course > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> time is always too short in any after-school PD so shortcuts are > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> inevitably > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> taken. (Time problem #1) > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Time problem #2, which your discussion has highlighted for me, is > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> that > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> of > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> course my question was really "What might be some particular > features > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> of > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> learning activities that would align with THE LIMITED NUMBER OF > (AND > > >>>>>> LIMITED UNDERSTANDING OF) principles of Cultural-Historical Theory > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> THAT > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> YOU > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> HAVE BEEN INTRODUCED TO SO FAR?" so I really should have not been > so > > >>>>>> surprised that they would find the brainstorming activity > difficult > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> and > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> resort to diversionary tactics! (Mike's outburst posted here by > David > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> was > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> not the only eventful moment I write about from this one activity. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> But > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> these apparent failures actually provided much more interesting data > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> for > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> me > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> and eventually lead me to several key findings in my thesis). I > had > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> spent > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> several years by this stage reading and discussing Vygotsky and > yet I > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> had > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> assumed/hoped the teachers would have enough understanding from my > > >>>>>> (probably not very good) explanations ABOUT theory over the > previous > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> 3 > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> short sessions I had had with them to be able to contribute answers > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> to > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> my > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> brainstorm question. They had not had enough TIME to become > familiar > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> with > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> enough of the theory to make much sense of it yet - but still, we > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> have > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> to > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> start somewhere and this was still early days. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Time problem #3 brings in what I called above the location of > time. > > I > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> had > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> never intended for the sessions to be me giving after-school > lectures > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> about > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> either theory or practice, yet this is what the teachers seemed to > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> expect > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> from me (and even demand from me) and were pretty disgruntled when > I > > >>>>>> wouldn't/couldn't deliver. My intention was always to get them to > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> engage > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> with the relationship between THEORY and PRACTICE, just as David's > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> comic > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> book discusses the relationship between THINKING and SPEECH or > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> EMOTION > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> and > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> COGNITION. My problem of course was that once we were in an > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> after-school > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> meeting we were removed in both time and space from where theory > and > > >>>>>> practice of teaching/learning operate as a relation (i.e. the > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> classroom > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> activity). I was actually trying to create/use our own PLZ > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> (Professional > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> Learning ZPD) as the activity in which to develop and understand > this > > >>>>>> relationship but it was initially very hard to get the teachers to > > >>>>>> understand this (at least until we had enough of David's Fox's > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> socially > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> shared experiences for the meanings to become communicable) and then > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> even > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> more difficult to get them to transfer this back to developing > their > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> own > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> classroom teaching. Ironically, despite being the loudest > complainers > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> and > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> disparagers, it was Mike and Kay (the protagonist of my other > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> eventful > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> moment in the brainstorming session) who actually ended up making > the > > >>>>>> biggest changes in their classroom practice. Perhaps this is not > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> really > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> surprising at all - they were the ones who obviously engaged and > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> argued > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> with the ideas and activities rather than simply endured them! > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> My eventual answer to the problems encountered in my work with the > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> group > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> of > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> teachers was to work WITH a teacher IN her own classroom so that > we > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> had > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> shared experiences of the relationship between theory and practice > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> which > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> could not only be discussed after the events, but also actually > acted > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> upon > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> there and then IN the event - creating what I called "Situated > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> Conscious > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> Awareness" of both the theoretical and practical aspects of the > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> concepts > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> of > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> teaching/learning and development we were developing understanding > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> and > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> practice of together. But perhaps I should wait until David gets up > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> to > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> this > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> part of the book before I say more! > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Finally, one other point that really caught my attention in your > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> comic > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> book > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> David is that your prince calls development "to establish ties" > > which > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> is > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> an > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> interesting difference to Engestrom's definition as "breaking > away". > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> But > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> perhaps, as always in CH theory, it is not a matter of either/or > but > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> in > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> fact both/and ideas that are necessary. From what I learned in my > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> study, > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> teachers' development as professionals is definitely BOTH about > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> breaking > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> away from old, routinised understandings and practices AND > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> establishing > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> new > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> connections between and amongst theoretical concepts and > practices, > > >>>>>> enabling them to continually develop new competences and motives > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> across > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> all > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> of their professional duties. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Thanks for your interest in my book David. The discussion it has > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> sparked > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> has helped me revisit ideas from new perspectives. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Cheers, > > >>>>>> Helen > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Dr Helen Grimmett > > >>>>>> Lecturer, Student Adviser, > > >>>>>> Faculty of Education, > > >>>>>> Room G64F, Building 902 > > >>>>>> Monash University, Berwick campus > > >>>>>> Phone: 9904 7171 > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> *New Book: * > > >>>>>> The Practice of Teachers' Professional Development: A > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> Cultural-Historical > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> Approach > > >>>>>> < > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> https://www.sensepublishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/ > > >>> professional-learning-1/the-practice-of-teachers- > > >>> professional-development/ > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> Helen Grimmett (2014) Sense Publishers > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> < > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> http://monash.edu.au/education/news/50-years/?utm_ > > >>> source=staff-email&utm_medium=email-signature&utm_campaign=50th > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> On 12 July 2014 07:29, David Kellogg wrote: > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Plekhanov distinguishes between "agitators" and "propagandists". > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> Agitators > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> are essentially popularizers; they have the job of ripping away a > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> subset > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> of > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> smaller and simpler ideas from a fabric of much larger and more > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> complex > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> theory and then disseminating them amongst the largest possible > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> number > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> of > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> people. In other words, their focus is exoteric. Propagandists are > > >>>>>>> essentially conspiratorial: they have the job of initiating a > small > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> number > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> of the elect and educating them in the whole theoretical > system--as > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> Larry > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> would say, the full Bildung. In other words, their focus is > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> esoteric. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> As > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> you can see, Plekhanov was good at making distinctions, and not so > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> good > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> at > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> showing how things are linked. For Helena, who is a labor > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> educator, > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> you > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> can't really be an effective agitator unless you are also a > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> propagandist. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> You need to present your exoteric extracts in such a way that they > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> are, > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> to > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> borrow Larry's phrase, both necessary and sufficient to lead > people > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> on > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> to > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> the esoterica. I'm with Helena--and with Bruner--with children > it's > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> always > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> possible to tell the truth, part of the truth, but nothing but > the > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> truth, > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> and if we can do it with kids, why not do it with adults? > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> (I am less sure about what it means to say that the objectively > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> human > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> is > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> the "subjectively historical"--it sounds like history is being > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> reified > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> as a > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> subject, that is, as a living, breathing, acting "World Spirit" > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> that > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> can > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> have a mind and reflect upon itself. My understanding of history > is > > >>>>>>> that just as we cannot have the advanced form of historical > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> consciousness > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> in dialogue with the more primitive forms, the opportunity to > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> reflect > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> upon > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> the whole process when it is all over is simply never going to be > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> available > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> to anyone. The Merleau-Ponty quotation is beautiful and intensely > > >>>>>>> poetic, Larry--but when I look at a bubble or a wave, I do not > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> simply > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> see > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> chaos; I see past bubbles and past waves, and potential bubbles > and > > >>>>>>> potential waves. Isn't that a part of the experience of "loving > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> history" > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> as > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> well?) > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> My wife wrote a wonderful Ph.D. thesis about how any work of > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> literature > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> can > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> be looked at on four time frames: phylogenetic (the history of a > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> genre), > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> ontogenetic (the biography of a career), logogenetic (the > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> development > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> of > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> a > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> plot or a character), and microgenetic (the unfolding of a > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> dialogue, > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> or a > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> paragraph). Her supervisor complained about the terminology in > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> somewhat > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> more elegant terms than Mike does in Helen's data:and suggested > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> that > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> she > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> should replace the terms with "history", "biography", > "development" > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> and > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> "unfolding", to make it more exoteric. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> I think that if she had done that, it would have made the thesis > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> into > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> agitation rather than education. Yes, the terms would have been > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> more > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> familiar, and they might even, given other context, be taken to > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> mean > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> the > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> same thing. But what we would have gotten is good, clear > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> distinctions > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> ("history" on the one hand and "biography" on the other) and what > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> we > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> would > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> have lost is the linkedness of one time frame to another--the way > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> in > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> which > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> the phylogenesis of genre produces the mature genre which is used > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> in > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> an > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> author's ontegenesis, and the way in which the author's ontogenesis > > >>>>>>> produces the starting point and the raw materials for the > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> logogenetic > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> development of a work, not to mention the way in which logogenesis > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> is > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> reflected in the microgenetic unfolding of dialogue. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> So I think that when Helena writes that anything can be explained > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> to > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> anyone > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> in language that is everyday and simple and in a way that is > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> understandable > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> and at least part of the whole truth, I agree somewhat enviously > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> (you > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> see, > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Helena is a labor educator, but I teach TESOL, which is really > the > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> process > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> of taking a few very simple and exoteric ideas that good teachers > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> already > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> have and disseminating the select to the elect for vast sums of > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> money). > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> But > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> I have to add a rider--when we popularize richly woven fabrics of > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> ideas > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> like cultural historical theory we are not simply juggling > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> vocabulary. > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> I > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> think that Helena recognizes this perfectly when she says that it > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> takes > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> TIME to be simple and clear. If it were simply a matter of > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> replacing > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> "cultural historical" with "community of learners" it would > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> actually > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> take > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> less time, but it isn't and it doesn't. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> It is very hot in Seoul today, and somewhere out there a toddler > is > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> arguing > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> with a parent because he wants watermelon with breakfast. The > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> parent > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> resists, because if you eat cold watermelon on an empty stomach you > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> get a > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> tummy-ache. The argument grows heated and long--and complex, but > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> the > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> complexity is of a particular kind, with very short, repeated, > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> insistancies > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> from the child and somewhat longer more complex remonstrations > from > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> the > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> parent. We can call this complex discourse but simple grammar. A > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> few > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> years > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> will go by and we will find that the school child has mastered > the > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> trick > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> of > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> long and complex remonstrations and can use them pre-emptively to > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> win > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> arguments. We can call this complex grammar, but simple vocabulary. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> Only > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> when a decade or two has elapsed will we find that child, now > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> adult, > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> can > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> use the language of science, which is for the most part > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> grammatically > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> simple (at least compared to the pre-emptive remonstrations of the > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> school > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> child), but full of very complex vocabulary (e.g. "phylogeny > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> anticipates > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> ontogeny", or "cultural-historical activity theory enables > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> communities > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> of > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> learners"). > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> It's Saturday today, and in a few minutes I have to leave for the > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> weekly > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> meeting of our translation group, which produces mighty tomes > which > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> we > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> produce to popularize the works of Vygotsky amongst militant > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> teachers > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> here > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> in Korea (our version of "Thinking and Speech" is seven hundred > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> pages > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> long > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> because of all the explanatory notes and boxes with helpful > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> pictures). > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> On > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> the other hand, there is the attached comic book version of the > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> first > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> chapter of "Thinking and Speech" which I wrote a couple of years > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> ago > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> for > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> some graduate students who were having trouble talking about the > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> real > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> "Thinking and Speech" in class. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> I think you can see that Huw's complaint is justified--the comic > > >>>>>>> book dialogue is "about" Thinking and Speech, but it is not > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> "Thinking > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> and > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> Speech" at all, in the same way that "community of learners" or > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> "biography" > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> is ABOUT cultural historical theory or ontogenesis. And I think > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> that > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> part > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> of the problem (but only part of it) is that the comic book is > just > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> too > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> short. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> David Kellogg > > >>>>>>> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> 2014-07-11 17:09 GMT+09:00 Leif Strandberg < > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> leifstrandberg.ab@telia.com > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> : > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> 11 jul 2014 kl. 06:41 skrev Larry Purss : > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> David, > > >>>>>>>>> I have been following your reflections through this thread. > > >>>>>>>>> You commented: > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> So it's almost always more useful for me to > > >>>>>>>>> think of learning phenomena as NOT reducible to the physical, > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> at > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> least > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> not > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> in their unit of analysis > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> I have been reflecting on the notion of *bildung* as learning. > > >>>>>>>>> The notion of *cultivation* and *disposition* and *comportment* > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> as > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> the > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> potential of learning. > > >>>>>>>>> I came across this quote from Gramsci who was questioning the > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> notion > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> of > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> *laws* as the basis for making social predictions. Such *laws* > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> excluded > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> subjective factor from history. > > >>>>>>>>> Gramsci wrote on social process: "Objective always means > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> 'humanly > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> objective' which can be held to correspond exactly to > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> 'historically > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> subjective' " > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> Merleau-Ponty also explored what I refer to as *disposition* > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> with > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> this > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> quote on the reality of history: > > >>>>>>>>> History "awakens us to the importance of daily events and > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> action. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> For > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> it > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> is > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> a philosophy [of history -LP] which arouses in us a love for > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> our > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> times > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> which are not the simple repetition of human eternity nor > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> merely > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> the > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> conclusion of premises already postulated. It is a view that > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> like > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> the > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> most > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> fragile object of perception - a soap bubble, or a wave - or > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> like > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> the > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> most > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> simple dialogue, embraces indivisibly all the order and all the > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> disorder > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> of > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> the world." > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > > From lchcmike@gmail.com Tue Jul 15 16:48:21 2014 From: lchcmike@gmail.com (mike cole) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 16:48:21 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Fwd: NOW VIEWABLE ON CARTA WEBSITE: May 16 talks on "Male Aggression and Violence in Human Evolution" In-Reply-To: <048c01cfa04d$fa286130$ee792390$@ucsd.edu> References: <048c01cfa04d$fa286130$ee792390$@ucsd.edu> Message-ID: Colleagues -- there appear to be a number of really interesting talks at this site. Note that culture is part of the story that several of the speakers tell. Now all one needs is the time to watch and listen, instead of typing and talking! mike ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Ingrid Benirschke Date: Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 9:58 AM Subject: NOW VIEWABLE ON CARTA WEBSITE: May 16 talks on "Male Aggression and Violence in Human Evolution" To: ibenirschkeperkins@ucsd.edu Dear CARTA Friends, We are pleased to report that the talks delivered at the *CARTA Public Symposium ?Male Aggression and Violence in Human Evolution,? *which took place on May 16, 2014, can now be viewed on the CARTA website. To view the individual presentations, go to the event page at this address and click on the video recording of interest: http://carta.anthropogeny.org/events/male-aggression-and-violence-human-evolution Please note that these same presentations are also archived online at these websites: UCSD-TV iTunes YouTube We invite you to view these talks at any of these locations at your convenience. Please let us know if you encounter any difficulties in either locating or viewing the presentations. Thank you. Ingrid Ingrid Benirschke-Perkins CARTA, Community Relations Director Email: ibenirschkeperkins@ucsd.edu [image: cid:image008.png@01CF9C3B.A60A7360] [image: cid:image001.jpg@01CF9ACD.96F27900] [image: cid:image006.jpg@01CF9ACE.A4CAAC40] [image: cid:image007.jpg@01CF9ACE.A4CAAC40] [image: cid:image008.jpg@01CF9ACE.A4CAAC40] *CARTA?s quest* to explore and explain the human phenomenon is shared by many across the globe, and CARTA connects us all ? scientists and philosophers, students and teachers, people with questions and others with answers. Through access to free UCSD-TV broadcasts and archived videos on multiple websites, the global CARTA community grows with each lecture that is experienced and passed forward. Help us preserve this free flow of information about what it means to be human. Consider a donation of $5, $20, $50 or more to keep CARTA?s symposia free to attend and view online. ----------------------------- EMAIL OPT-OUT You are receiving this email because you have expressed interest in learning about CARTA events. If you no longer wish to receive information about CARTA events, please reply to this email with UNSUBSCRIBE in the subject line. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 436 bytes Desc: not available Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20140715/e017817b/attachment.jpg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 2565 bytes Desc: not available Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20140715/e017817b/attachment.png -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 450 bytes Desc: not available Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20140715/e017817b/attachment-0001.jpg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image004.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 770 bytes Desc: not available Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20140715/e017817b/attachment-0002.jpg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image008.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 5913 bytes Desc: not available Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20140715/e017817b/attachment-0003.jpg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image005.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 656 bytes Desc: not available Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20140715/e017817b/attachment-0004.jpg From lchcmike@gmail.com Tue Jul 15 16:50:03 2014 From: lchcmike@gmail.com (mike cole) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 16:50:03 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Excellent Job: U of Chicago Message-ID: See attached. The weather may be lousy, but ....... global warming may change that. :-) mike -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: CHD job ad July 2014 .pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 32133 bytes Desc: not available Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20140715/094b8983/attachment.pdf From dkellogg60@gmail.com Tue Jul 15 20:29:29 2014 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 12:29:29 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: book of possible interest In-Reply-To: References: <0D461088-CBBB-4BD9-ADCB-3024C36CBE81@telia.com> <53C48DF1.5000703@mira.net> Message-ID: Our Vygotsky translation group here in Seoul has a new member. But Korea is rather hierarchical, and when you join a group you are expected to endure a certain amount of apprenticeship. Above all it means that you are suppose to exhibit an appropriate degree of terror; too much confidence is dimly viewed, and although we don't actually haze anybody, there is a fair amount of fetching coffee and carrying kimbap (sushi rolls--you see, our meetings are typically eight hours long with no breaks). Minsook, who is also one of my very first graduate students and a much cherished co-author, is perfectly willing to fetch and carry, but she really doesn't do terror. I have seen her face down a whole panel of rabid examining professors, and she has been known to hold us up for an hour over a single sentence. I am sometimes a little frustrated, when we get to the end of the day and we have only done ten paragraphs, but I have to admit that Minsook is an absolutely irreplaceable asset, as she stands a lot closer than any of the old-timers to the only point of view that really counts, which is that of our readers. Actually, THAT was the distinction I was trying to introduce. Not the distinction between establishing ties with new points of view and having to give up old ones (Francis), and not the distinction between having common ground and introducing theory "top down" (Helen). I was interested in the EMOTIONAL sense of smug confidence that you get from the sense that you have actually heard all this crap before and the EMOTIONAL sense of satisfied confidence that you get from a sense that there is some connection between what is being said and something that you have always believed. The interesting thing is that sometimes the latter is preceded by a definite sense of being, as Helen says, "over your head" and having been about to say or having just said something stupid. But at other times (and most commonly with Minsook), the very same experience is preceded by pure, unadulterated curiosity and damn the consequences. It seems to me that replacing instances of terror with instances of unadulterated curiosity is partly culture. Our Vygotsky group has a very dfferent culture from the panels of rabid professors that I periodically participate in, and--for example--the culture of Dick Allwright's "Exploratory Practice" is very different from the culture of PD that Helen describes in her book (Dick doesn't allow any form of intervention until we have seen the data, and he doesn't allow any data that is not gathered as part of ordinary teaching; the idea is that in order to be successful, all professional development has to be sustainable, and in order to be sustainable it has to be minimalistic about interventions). But replacing terror with curiosity is partly a matter of language as well. But I don't think it's a matter of vocabulary. One of the confusing things about Helen's book is that terms like "co-gen" seem to appear out of nowhere. I still don't quite know what the Honey Joys lesson was all about. And to me, because I am a different and dorkier sort of outsider than Mike, this kind of language is really much more intimidating than words like "cultural historical". The problem is that basing a theory of difficulty or a theory of development on simple familiarity or unfamiliarity with terms means that the real conceptual difficulty is largely untouched. Worse, it means that nobody can ever really crash the party. And it's people like Minsook (and Francis) who are the life of the party. David Kellogg Hankuk University of Foreign Studies On 16 July 2014 08:44, Helen Grimmett wrote: > Hi Francis, > > Thanks for joining the conversation - I know how daunting it can be! I > think you are exactly right about the necessity of common ground, and that > is why I found working with the group of teachers after school so hard. I > initially did not know them or their practices so it was very difficult to > make connections, but after several sessions we at least had our own shared > experience within the group that we could draw upon. It was the analysis of > this problem that led to my use of Wolf-Michael Roth's approach to > co-teaching and co-generative dialogue in the second phase of my research. > The difference it made to be able to discuss the events my co-teacher and I > had shared in the classroom was HUGE. > > I also agree that professional framing and identity are important aspects > which I don't think I fully explored in my PhD but am now starting to > explore further. I talked a lot about motives but I think it is also a lot > about helping teachers (re)build identities as agentic learners' and > professionals, rather than merely implementers of governmental directives. > > Cheers, > Helen > > > Dr Helen Grimmett > Lecturer, Student Adviser, > Faculty of Education, > Room G64F, Building 902 > Monash University, Berwick campus > Phone: 9904 7171 > > *New Book: * > The Practice of Teachers' Professional Development: A Cultural-Historical > Approach > < > https://www.sensepublishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/professional-learning-1/the-practice-of-teachers-professional-development/ > > > Helen Grimmett (2014) Sense Publishers > > > > < > http://monash.edu.au/education/news/50-years/?utm_source=staff-email&utm_medium=email-signature&utm_campaign=50th > > > > > On 16 July 2014 05:39, FRANCIS J. SULLIVAN wrote: > > > With great trepidation, I want to enter this conversation with my first > > post to the list (I have followed it for about a year now) because as > both > > a researcher and teacher educator the issues raised are major concerns > of > > mine too. I find, I think it was David's point, the idea that we can > think > > of the "connections" problem in two ways to be at the heart of the issue, > > at least for me. It is one thing to construct a connection that "adds to" > > the existing knowledge framework of others. But, it is a very different > > thing to sea5rch for a "connection" that requires others to qualitatively > > change, or even abandon, their existing framework. Helen seems to achieve > > such a connection with at least some of her teachers by helping them to > > re-cognize their own social identities so that the new knowledge and > > framework became less threatening and more inviting. She reconnected them > > with who they used to be and what they valued. So they did not see > > themselves as merely "ignorant" but more like retracing their steps. > > For me, at least, that's why the "deficit" models of teaching (or > research) > > practices do not work. We--teachers and students--need to find a place > from > > which we can begin this journey together, common ground so to speak. > While > > a deaf person may not "know" English, I don't think that's the salient > > point. All of us don't know things. What seems to me salient in Helen's > > attempt to find connections, is that the very attempt challenged their > > current ways of framing their professional lives. What we might think of > as > > "ignorance," those teachers thought of as "knowledge." And that > "knowledge" > > was part and parcel of the ways they positioned themselves as teachers in > > relation to students. > > I am tempted to put this into discourse analysis terms--I'm a > > semi-Hallidayan with a critical theory twist. But, I've said enough for a > > first post, I think. I hope it is useful. > > > > Francis J. Sullivan, Ph.D. > > Associate Professor > > Department of Teaching and Learning > > College of Education > > Temple University > > Philadelphia, PA 19122 > > > > > > Find out what any people will quietly submit to and you have the exact > > measure of the injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them. > > > > Frederick Douglass > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 2:10 AM, David Kellogg > > wrote: > > > > > Well, I do hope that Helen means that "for the moment", as I have > learned > > > an awful lot from this book and even more from this discussion. You > see, > > I > > > am trying to tease apart two very different processes that appear, on > the > > > face of it, to be almost identical, but which also appear to have > > > diametrically opposite developmental effects. > > > > > > One process is the process of getting people to feel at ease, > > > confident, and happy that they understand what you are saying because > it > > is > > > actually something that is identical or at least very similar to what > > they > > > already think. Another, almost identical, process is the process of > > > "establishing ties" between a new form of knowledge and an earlier one. > > > BOTH of these processes, it seems to me, occur throughout Helen's book, > > and > > > it is easy to mistake the one for the other. BOTH of these processes, > to > > > use our earlier terminology, involve "establishing ties", but only one > of > > > them also involves breaking away. > > > > > > For example, at one point in the book Helen, looking back over the > > Banksia > > > Bay PLZ data, rounds on herself for using a transparent piece of > > > scaffolding to elicit the word "communicate" from a group of teachers. > > What > > > bothers her is not that the answer itself is far too general to be of > any > > > practical value to the teachers, but only that she had it very firmly > in > > > mind, and kept badgering the teachers (as we all do, when we have a > > precise > > > answer in mind) until she got it. The alternative, she points out, > would > > be > > > to take what she got and work with that. > > > > > > Yes indeed. But I think the main reason that would have been more > > > interesting is not that it would have resulted in fewer rejections of > > > teacher answers and made people more at ease, confdent, and happy that > > they > > > understood, but rather than it would have yielded something more like a > > > concrete but unconscious and not yet volitionally controlled example of > > > excellence from the teacher's own practice. I almost always find that > the > > > actual answers I want--the "methods" I end up imparting to my own > > teachers, > > > are already present in the data they bring me (because we almost always > > > begin with actual transcripts of their lessons) but they are generally > > not > > > methods but only moments, and moments that go unnoticed and therefore > > > ungeneralized in the hurly burly of actual teaching. > > > > > > Last winter, Helen and I were at a conference in New Zealand where, > among > > > other eventful episodes, Craig Brandist got up and gave a very precise > > list > > > of half a dozen different and utterly contradictory ways in which > Bakhtin > > > uses the term "dialogue". Because the senses of "dialogue" are so many > > and > > > varied, people simply pick and choose, and they tend invariably to > choose > > > the ones that are closest to the way they already think. It is as > moments > > > like this that we need to remind ourselves that Bakhtin's "dialogue" > does > > > not, for the most part, ever include children, or women; that he did > not > > > "dialogue" with Volosinov or Medvedev when he allowed his acolytes > > > to plunder their corpses, and that his love of carnival and the public > > > marketplace does not extend to a belief in any form of political > > democracy. > > > > > > So I think we should start off with an understanding that what Vygotsky > > > says about defect is not the same was what we now believe. Vygotsky, > for > > > example, believed that sign language was not true language, and that > even > > > the congenitally deaf should be taught to lip read; this is simply > > > wrong. (On the other hand, what he says about spontaneously created > sign > > > languages--that they are essentially elaborated systems of gesture and > > they > > > lack the signifying functions--fits exactly with Susan Goldin-Meadow's > > > observations in Chicago.) > > > > > > And one reason I think it is important to begin with this understanding > > is > > > this: sometimes--usually--LSV is right and we are wrong. In > particular, I > > > think the "credit" view of defect, or, for that matter, ignorance of > any > > > kind and not fully conscious teacher expertise risks becoming a liberal > > > platitude--the cup is always half full, so why not look on the bright > > side > > > of dearth? I certainly do not feel empowered by the fact that I know > > > English but I do not know ASL, and I rather doubt that deaf people feel > > > empowered by the opposite state of affairs. When I don't know > something, > > I > > > do not see any bright side of not knowing it, for the very simple > > > reason that I can't see at all. > > > > > > Vygotsky was probably very influenced by "Iolanta", an opera that > > > Tchaikovsky wrote--he certainly seems to quote it extensively in the > last > > > chapter of "Thinking and Speech". In "Iolanta", King Renee copes with > the > > > blindness of his daughter by having her shut up in a garden and > > forbidding > > > all his subjects from discussing light, sight, color or anything > visible > > in > > > any way. Vaudemont, a knight of Burgundy, blunders into the garden, > > > discovers Iolanta's secret. Iolanta convinces him that sight is > > > unnecessary, but in the course of doing so, she develops the desire to > > see > > > and choose for herself. > > > > > > David Kelogg > > > Hankuk University of Foreign Studies > > > > > > > > > > > > On 15 July 2014 11:12, Andy Blunden wrote: > > > > > > > My reading of Vygotsky on 'defectology' was that the 'defect' was the > > > > problem in social relations, that is, the person who is different in > > some > > > > way suffers because of the way that difference is treated or not > > treated > > > by > > > > others, not for anything in itself. One and the same feature could > be a > > > > great benefit or a fatal flaw, depending on how others react to it. > > > > Except insofar as introducing the idea of a "credit view" is a move > > aimed > > > > at changing the perceptions and behaviours of others in relation to > the > > > > subject, I don't think Vygotsky is an advocate of the mirror image > of a > > > > deficit view. As I see it, he analyses the problem of the person > being > > > > treated as deficient by means of the unit of *defect-compensation*. > The > > > > defect (a problem arising in social interaction, with others) > generates > > > > certain challenges which are overcome, generally also in interaction > > with > > > > others. This "compensation" leads to what Helen could call a "credit" > > and > > > > it is the dynamic set up between the social defect and social > > > compensation > > > > which shapes the subject's psychology and their relation to others. > > > > Andy > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > *Andy Blunden* > > > > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > > > > > > > > > > > Helen Grimmett wrote: > > > > > > > >> I think what is unique about Vygotsky's work in defectology is that, > > > >> despite the name, it is not a deficit view (in the way that I > > understand > > > >> the term) at all. > > > >> > > > >> I understand the commonly used term 'deficit view' as a focus on > what > > > >> children are 'missing' that needs to be provided to them by teachers > > to > > > >> bring them up to a pre-conceived idea of 'normal' for their > age/grade > > > >> level > > > >> etc. Whereas, a 'credit view' focuses on what children are able to > do > > > and > > > >> bring to a learning situation, in which, in the interaction with > > others, > > > >> they will be able to become more able to do and 'be' more than they > > were > > > >> before (i.e. to develop), whether this be in the 'expected' ways to > > the > > > >> 'expected' level or in completely different ways to a variety of > > > different > > > >> levels beyond or outside 'standard' expectations. From the little I > > have > > > >> read on defectology I think this is what Vygotsky was advocating - > > that > > > >> despite a child's blindness or deafness etc, development was still > > > >> possible > > > >> if mediational means were found that made use of the child's credits > > > (i.e. > > > >> using sign language or braille so that children still had access to > > the > > > >> developmental opportunities provided by language). So I think your > > term > > > >> pre-abled is in fact a credit view rather than a deficit view. > > > >> > > > >> I was attempting to also use a credit view in my work with the > > > teachers. I > > > >> saw them as being experienced practitioners who had lots to bring to > > our > > > >> discussions of teaching and learning, in which together we could see > > > what > > > >> could be developed (new practices, new understandings). Once Kay and > > > Mike > > > >> realised this they got on board and engaged in the process and > > (possibly > > > >> for the first time in a long while as they both saw themselves [and > in > > > >> fact > > > >> are officially designated as] 'expert teachers') really reawakened > the > > > >> process of developing as professionals. They blew off most of the > > > content > > > >> I > > > >> was contributing, but they realised the process was actually about > > > >> 'unsticking' their own development and working out new and > personally > > > >> interesting and meaningful ways of 'becoming' more as teachers, > > instead > > > of > > > >> being stuck 'being' the teacher they had turned into over the years. > > Not > > > >> all of the teachers made this leap in the time I worked with them > > > though. > > > >> Others were either quite disgruntled that I wouldn't provide them > with > > > >> answers to 'fix' their own perceived deficits or patiently waited > for > > me > > > >> to > > > >> go away and stop rocking the boat. From what I can gather though, > Ann > > > (the > > > >> principal) kept the boat rocking and managed over time to get more > > > >> teachers > > > >> to buy into the process of learning from each other and > > collaboratively > > > >> creating new practices. As we said earlier, development takes time > as > > > well > > > >> as effort. > > > >> > > > >> All I've got time for at the moment! > > > >> > > > >> Helen > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Dr Helen Grimmett > > > >> Lecturer, Student Adviser, > > > >> Faculty of Education, > > > >> Room G64F, Building 902 > > > >> Monash University, Berwick campus > > > >> Phone: 9904 7171 > > > >> > > > >> *New Book: * > > > >> The Practice of Teachers' Professional Development: A > > > Cultural-Historical > > > >> Approach > > > >> > > >> professional-learning-1/the-practice-of-teachers- > > > >> professional-development/> > > > >> Helen Grimmett (2014) Sense Publishers > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> source=staff-email&utm_medium=email-signature&utm_campaign=50th> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> On 14 July 2014 14:43, David Kellogg wrote: > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >>> Near the end of Chapter Three (p. 81), Helen is summing up her > > > experience > > > >>> with the Banksia Bay PLZ and she notes with some dismay that her > > PDers > > > >>> have > > > >>> "a deficit view" of their children and tend towards "container > > models" > > > of > > > >>> the mind ("empty vessel, sponge, blank canvas"). Only one teacher, > > Ann > > > >>> sees > > > >>> anything wrong with this, and Helen says "they don't necessarily > > value > > > >>> her > > > >>> opinion". > > > >>> > > > >>> Helen finds herself rather conflicted: One the one hand, she says > > "If > > > >>> their representations of children really do represent their > beliefs, > > > then > > > >>> they are probably right to insist there is no need to change." And > on > > > the > > > >>> other, she says "My intention was never to say that their present > > > >>> practice > > > >>> was wrong, but to help them see alternative ways of thinking about > > > >>> children, learning, and teaching." > > > >>> > > > >>> Of course, if there is no need to change, then it follows that > there > > is > > > >>> no > > > >>> reason to look for alternative ways of thinking about children, > > > learning > > > >>> and teaching. The only reason for spending scarce cognitive > resources > > > on > > > >>> seeing different ways of looking at children is if you do, in fact, > > > take > > > >>> a > > > >>> deficit view of the teachers. Ann, and the Regional Consultants, > > > >>> apparently > > > >>> do, but Helen realizes that there isn't much basis for this: not > only > > > do > > > >>> we > > > >>> have no actual data of lessons to look at, we know that one of the > > > >>> teachers, Kay, has been in the classroom for three decades (during > > > which > > > >>> time Helen has spent at least one decade OUT of the classroom). > > > >>> > > > >>> While we were translating Vygotsky's "History of the Development of > > the > > > >>> Higher Psychological Functions" last year, some of my colleagues > were > > > >>> taken > > > >>> aback by Vygotsky's use of terms like "moron", "imbecile", "idiot", > > and > > > >>> "cretin". Of course, Vygotsky is writing long before the > "euphemisim > > > >>> treadmill" turned these into playground insults; for Vygotsky they > > are > > > >>> quite precise descriptors--not of cognitive ability but actually of > > > >>> LANGUAGE ability. But because our readership are progressive Korean > > > >>> teachers with strong views about these questions, we found that we > > > >>> couldn't > > > >>> even use the term "mentally retarded" without a strongly worded > > > footnote > > > >>> disavowing the "deficit" thinking behind the term. > > > >>> > > > >>> I think that Vygotsky would have been surprised by this. I think he > > > took > > > >>> it > > > >>> for granted that a defect was a deficit: being blind means a > deficit > > in > > > >>> vision, and being deaf means a deficit in hearing. In the same > way, a > > > >>> brain > > > >>> defect is not an asset. On the other hand, I think Vygotsky would > > find > > > >>> our > > > >>> own term "disabled" quite inaccurate: since all forms of > development > > > are > > > >>> compensatory and involve "circuitous routes" of one kind or > another, > > > and > > > >>> all developed children, even, and even especially, gifted children, > > > >>> contain > > > >>> islands of underdevelopment, the correct term for deficits of all > > kinds > > > >>> is > > > >>> not "disabled" but "pre-abled". > > > >>> > > > >>> Personally, I see nothing wrong with a deficit view of children > that > > > sees > > > >>> them as pre-abled (or, as Vygotsky liked to say, 'primitivist"; > that > > > is, > > > >>> they are waiting for the mediational means that we have foolishly > > > >>> developed > > > >>> only for the psychophysiologically most common types to catch up > with > > > the > > > >>> actual variation in real children. I suspect this view is actually > > > quite > > > >>> a > > > >>> bit closer to what Kay thinks than to what Helen thinks. > > > >>> > > > >>> David Kellogg > > > >>> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> On 13 July 2014 10:59, Helen Grimmett > > > wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> Hi David, > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Interesting question. I absolutely think that development AS a > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>> professional > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> is necessary, just as development as a human is necessary, so if > > > >>>> professional development is seen as the practice in which this > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>> development > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> is produced then absolutely I do think it is necessary. The form > > that > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>> this > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> practice takes though, and indeed the form of the development that > > is > > > >>>> produced within this practice, are the things open to question > > > however. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> I definitely think that a teacher's development as a professional > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>> includes > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> the need to understand their practice better rather than just > change > > > it, > > > >>>> but I think that understanding often develops best > in/alongside/with > > > the > > > >>>> process of changing (and vice versa) rather than separately from > it, > > > >>>> and, > > > >>>> as you point out above, in establishing ties *between* people and > > then > > > >>>> within them. So a practice of professional development that > creates > > > >>>> conditions which support this type of development will (I believe) > > be > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>> much > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> more effective than traditional forms of PD that either attempt to > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>> lecture > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> about theoretical principles but do not support teachers to > transfer > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>> these > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> into practical changes, OR provide teachers with practical > programs > > > and > > > >>>> expect them to implement them without any understanding of what > and > > > why > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>> the > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> changes matter. I think the term "Professional Development" is an > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>> absolute > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> misnomer for either of those typical approaches. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> So again, I have a problem with names! I'm talking about > > Professional > > > >>>> Development with a completely different meaning than what most of > > the > > > >>>> education community believe it to mean when they talk about > > attending > > > PD > > > >>>> seminars or workshops. I toyed with trying to find a different > name > > > for > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>> the > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> particular meaning I'm talking about, but when you are talking > about > > > >>>> development from a cultural-historical theoretical perspective > then > > > >>>> there > > > >>>> really is no other word to use! That's why I stuck to using > > > >>>> 'professional > > > >>>> development' (in full) when I meant my meaning, and PD (which is > > what > > > >>>> teachers in Australia commonly refer to seminars and workshops as) > > > when > > > >>>> I > > > >>>> refer to the typical (and in my view, usually non-developmental) > > forms > > > >>>> of > > > >>>> activities that teachers are subjected to each year. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> So, I agree that the need for PD is questionable, but the need for > > > >>>> practices of professional development that help teachers to > develop > > as > > > >>>> professionals (that is, to develop a unified understanding of both > > the > > > >>>> theoretical and practical aspects of their work, which is itself > > > >>>> continually developing in order to meet the changing needs of > their > > > >>>> students, schools and society) is essential. While I think > > co-teaching > > > >>>> is > > > >>>> one practical small-scale solution, working out viable, > economical, > > > and > > > >>>> manageable ways to create these practices on a large-scale is a > very > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>> large > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> problem. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Cheers, > > > >>>> Helen > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Dr Helen Grimmett > > > >>>> Lecturer, Student Adviser, > > > >>>> Faculty of Education, > > > >>>> Room G64F, Building 902 > > > >>>> Monash University, Berwick campus > > > >>>> Phone: 9904 7171 > > > >>>> > > > >>>> *New Book: * > > > >>>> The Practice of Teachers' Professional Development: A > > > >>>> Cultural-Historical > > > >>>> Approach > > > >>>> < > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>> https://www.sensepublishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/ > > > >>> professional-learning-1/the-practice-of-teachers- > > > >>> professional-development/ > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> Helen Grimmett (2014) Sense Publishers > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> < > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>> http://monash.edu.au/education/news/50-years/?utm_ > > > >>> source=staff-email&utm_medium=email-signature&utm_campaign=50th > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> On 13 July 2014 08:57, David Kellogg > wrote: > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> Helen: > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Good to hear from you at long last--I knew you were lurking out > > there > > > >>>>> somewhere! > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> I didn't actually write the line about "establishing ties"--it's > > from > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>> "The > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> Little Prince". The prince asks what "tame" means, and the fox > > > replies > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>> that > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> it means "to establish ties". But of course what I meant was that > > > ties > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>> are > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> established first between people and then within them; the ties > of > > > >>>>> development are interfunctional ties that make up a new > > psychological > > > >>>>> system. (Or, for Halliday, they are the inter-systemic ties that > > make > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>> up > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> new metafunctions.) > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> As you say, Yrjo Engestrom chooses to emphasize another aspect of > > > >>>>> development with "breaking away"--he wants to stress its > > > crisis-ridden > > > >>>>> nature. I agree with this, actually, but mostly I agree with you, > > > that > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>> we > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> are talking about two moments of the same process. To me, breaking > > > away > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>> is > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> really a precondition of the real business of establishing ties. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Thomas Piketty makes a similar point in his book "Capital in the > > > >>>>> Twenty-first Century". He admits that war and revolution is the > > only > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>> thing > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> that EVER counteracts the tendency of returns from capital to > > > outstrip > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>> the > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> growth in income, and that the 20th Century was an outlier in > this > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>> respect, > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> and the Russian revolution an extreme outlier within that > outlier. > > > But > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>> he > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> also says that in the long run the one thing that makes UPWARD > > > mobility > > > >>>>> possible is education. Despite everything, because of everything. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> I finished the book a few days ago. I guess the thing I most want > > to > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>> ask > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> about is the assumption that professional development is necessary > > at > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>> all. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> Doesn't it make more sense to say that before we change what we > are > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>> doing, > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> we should understand it better? > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> David Kellogg > > > >>>>> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> On 12 July 2014 13:20, Helen Grimmett > > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>> wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> Ah, I think you have hit the nail on the head David. It is indeed > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> TIME > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> that > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> is so crucial - not only duration of time, but also location of > > time > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> (which > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> I suppose is really context). > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> The problems I had with Mike and his colleagues about the > > > terminology > > > >>>>>> stemmed partly from the typical Aussie disdain for using words > > that > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> might > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> make your mates think you are trying to appear 'better' than > them, > > so > > > >>>>>> therefore you mock anything that sounds too serious or > > intellectual. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> But > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> beyond this surface level of complaining the problems Huw and you > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> have > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> been > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> discussing boil down to problems with time. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> Huw's complaint about my use of the heading "Features of > > > >>>>>> Cultural-Historical Learning Activities" is well justified - but > > it > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> was > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> really just a shorthand written version of what I was verbally > > asking > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> for > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> as "What might be some particular features of learning activities > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> that > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> would align with principles of Cultural-Historical Theory?" That > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> would > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> have > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> taken too long to write on the top of the piece of paper - and > of > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> course > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> time is always too short in any after-school PD so shortcuts are > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> inevitably > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> taken. (Time problem #1) > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> Time problem #2, which your discussion has highlighted for me, > is > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> that > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> of > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> course my question was really "What might be some particular > > features > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> of > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> learning activities that would align with THE LIMITED NUMBER OF > > (AND > > > >>>>>> LIMITED UNDERSTANDING OF) principles of Cultural-Historical > Theory > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> THAT > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> YOU > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> HAVE BEEN INTRODUCED TO SO FAR?" so I really should have not > been > > so > > > >>>>>> surprised that they would find the brainstorming activity > > difficult > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> and > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> resort to diversionary tactics! (Mike's outburst posted here by > > David > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> was > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> not the only eventful moment I write about from this one > activity. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> But > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> these apparent failures actually provided much more interesting > data > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> for > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> me > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> and eventually lead me to several key findings in my thesis). I > > had > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> spent > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> several years by this stage reading and discussing Vygotsky and > > yet I > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> had > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> assumed/hoped the teachers would have enough understanding from > my > > > >>>>>> (probably not very good) explanations ABOUT theory over the > > previous > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> 3 > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> short sessions I had had with them to be able to contribute > answers > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> to > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> my > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> brainstorm question. They had not had enough TIME to become > > familiar > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> with > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> enough of the theory to make much sense of it yet - but still, we > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> have > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> to > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> start somewhere and this was still early days. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> Time problem #3 brings in what I called above the location of > > time. > > > I > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> had > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> never intended for the sessions to be me giving after-school > > lectures > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> about > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> either theory or practice, yet this is what the teachers seemed > to > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> expect > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> from me (and even demand from me) and were pretty disgruntled > when > > I > > > >>>>>> wouldn't/couldn't deliver. My intention was always to get them > to > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> engage > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> with the relationship between THEORY and PRACTICE, just as > David's > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> comic > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> book discusses the relationship between THINKING and SPEECH or > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> EMOTION > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> and > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> COGNITION. My problem of course was that once we were in an > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> after-school > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> meeting we were removed in both time and space from where theory > > and > > > >>>>>> practice of teaching/learning operate as a relation (i.e. the > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> classroom > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> activity). I was actually trying to create/use our own PLZ > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> (Professional > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> Learning ZPD) as the activity in which to develop and understand > > this > > > >>>>>> relationship but it was initially very hard to get the teachers > to > > > >>>>>> understand this (at least until we had enough of David's Fox's > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> socially > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> shared experiences for the meanings to become communicable) and > then > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> even > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> more difficult to get them to transfer this back to developing > > their > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> own > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> classroom teaching. Ironically, despite being the loudest > > complainers > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> and > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> disparagers, it was Mike and Kay (the protagonist of my other > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> eventful > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> moment in the brainstorming session) who actually ended up making > > the > > > >>>>>> biggest changes in their classroom practice. Perhaps this is not > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> really > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> surprising at all - they were the ones who obviously engaged and > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> argued > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> with the ideas and activities rather than simply endured them! > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> My eventual answer to the problems encountered in my work with > the > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> group > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> of > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> teachers was to work WITH a teacher IN her own classroom so that > > we > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> had > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> shared experiences of the relationship between theory and practice > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> which > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> could not only be discussed after the events, but also actually > > acted > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> upon > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> there and then IN the event - creating what I called "Situated > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> Conscious > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> Awareness" of both the theoretical and practical aspects of the > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> concepts > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> of > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> teaching/learning and development we were developing > understanding > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> and > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> practice of together. But perhaps I should wait until David gets > up > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> to > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> this > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> part of the book before I say more! > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> Finally, one other point that really caught my attention in your > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> comic > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> book > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> David is that your prince calls development "to establish ties" > > > which > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> is > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> an > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> interesting difference to Engestrom's definition as "breaking > > away". > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> But > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> perhaps, as always in CH theory, it is not a matter of either/or > > but > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> in > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> fact both/and ideas that are necessary. From what I learned in my > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> study, > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> teachers' development as professionals is definitely BOTH about > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> breaking > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> away from old, routinised understandings and practices AND > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> establishing > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> new > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> connections between and amongst theoretical concepts and > > practices, > > > >>>>>> enabling them to continually develop new competences and motives > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> across > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> all > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> of their professional duties. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> Thanks for your interest in my book David. The discussion it has > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> sparked > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> has helped me revisit ideas from new perspectives. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> Cheers, > > > >>>>>> Helen > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> Dr Helen Grimmett > > > >>>>>> Lecturer, Student Adviser, > > > >>>>>> Faculty of Education, > > > >>>>>> Room G64F, Building 902 > > > >>>>>> Monash University, Berwick campus > > > >>>>>> Phone: 9904 7171 > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> *New Book: * > > > >>>>>> The Practice of Teachers' Professional Development: A > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> Cultural-Historical > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> Approach > > > >>>>>> < > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> https://www.sensepublishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/ > > > >>> professional-learning-1/the-practice-of-teachers- > > > >>> professional-development/ > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> Helen Grimmett (2014) Sense Publishers > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> < > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> http://monash.edu.au/education/news/50-years/?utm_ > > > >>> source=staff-email&utm_medium=email-signature&utm_campaign=50th > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> On 12 July 2014 07:29, David Kellogg > wrote: > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> Plekhanov distinguishes between "agitators" and > "propagandists". > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> Agitators > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> are essentially popularizers; they have the job of ripping > away a > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> subset > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> of > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> smaller and simpler ideas from a fabric of much larger and more > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> complex > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> theory and then disseminating them amongst the largest possible > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> number > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> of > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> people. In other words, their focus is exoteric. Propagandists > are > > > >>>>>>> essentially conspiratorial: they have the job of initiating a > > small > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> number > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> of the elect and educating them in the whole theoretical > > system--as > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> Larry > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> would say, the full Bildung. In other words, their focus is > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> esoteric. > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> As > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> you can see, Plekhanov was good at making distinctions, and not > so > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> good > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> at > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> showing how things are linked. For Helena, who is a labor > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> educator, > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> you > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> can't really be an effective agitator unless you are also a > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> propagandist. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> You need to present your exoteric extracts in such a way that > they > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> are, > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> to > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> borrow Larry's phrase, both necessary and sufficient to lead > > people > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> on > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> to > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> the esoterica. I'm with Helena--and with Bruner--with children > > it's > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> always > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> possible to tell the truth, part of the truth, but nothing but > > the > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> truth, > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> and if we can do it with kids, why not do it with adults? > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> (I am less sure about what it means to say that the objectively > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> human > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> is > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> the "subjectively historical"--it sounds like history is being > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> reified > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> as a > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> subject, that is, as a living, breathing, acting "World Spirit" > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> that > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> can > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> have a mind and reflect upon itself. My understanding of history > > is > > > >>>>>>> that just as we cannot have the advanced form of historical > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> consciousness > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> in dialogue with the more primitive forms, the opportunity to > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> reflect > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> upon > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> the whole process when it is all over is simply never going to > be > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> available > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> to anyone. The Merleau-Ponty quotation is beautiful and > intensely > > > >>>>>>> poetic, Larry--but when I look at a bubble or a wave, I do not > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> simply > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> see > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> chaos; I see past bubbles and past waves, and potential bubbles > > and > > > >>>>>>> potential waves. Isn't that a part of the experience of "loving > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> history" > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> as > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> well?) > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> My wife wrote a wonderful Ph.D. thesis about how any work of > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> literature > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> can > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> be looked at on four time frames: phylogenetic (the history of > a > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> genre), > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> ontogenetic (the biography of a career), logogenetic (the > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> development > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> of > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> a > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> plot or a character), and microgenetic (the unfolding of a > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> dialogue, > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> or a > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> paragraph). Her supervisor complained about the terminology in > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> somewhat > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> more elegant terms than Mike does in Helen's data:and suggested > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> that > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> she > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> should replace the terms with "history", "biography", > > "development" > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> and > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> "unfolding", to make it more exoteric. > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> I think that if she had done that, it would have made the > thesis > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> into > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> agitation rather than education. Yes, the terms would have been > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> more > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> familiar, and they might even, given other context, be taken to > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> mean > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> the > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> same thing. But what we would have gotten is good, clear > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> distinctions > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> ("history" on the one hand and "biography" on the other) and what > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> we > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> would > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> have lost is the linkedness of one time frame to another--the > way > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> in > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> which > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> the phylogenesis of genre produces the mature genre which is > used > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> in > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> an > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> author's ontegenesis, and the way in which the author's > ontogenesis > > > >>>>>>> produces the starting point and the raw materials for the > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> logogenetic > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> development of a work, not to mention the way in which logogenesis > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> is > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> reflected in the microgenetic unfolding of dialogue. > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> So I think that when Helena writes that anything can be > explained > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> to > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> anyone > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> in language that is everyday and simple and in a way that is > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> understandable > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> and at least part of the whole truth, I agree somewhat > enviously > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> (you > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> see, > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> Helena is a labor educator, but I teach TESOL, which is really > > the > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> process > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> of taking a few very simple and exoteric ideas that good > teachers > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> already > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> have and disseminating the select to the elect for vast sums of > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> money). > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> But > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> I have to add a rider--when we popularize richly woven fabrics > of > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> ideas > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> like cultural historical theory we are not simply juggling > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> vocabulary. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> I > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> think that Helena recognizes this perfectly when she says that > it > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> takes > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> TIME to be simple and clear. If it were simply a matter of > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> replacing > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> "cultural historical" with "community of learners" it would > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> actually > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> take > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> less time, but it isn't and it doesn't. > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> It is very hot in Seoul today, and somewhere out there a > toddler > > is > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> arguing > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> with a parent because he wants watermelon with breakfast. The > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> parent > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> resists, because if you eat cold watermelon on an empty stomach > you > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> get a > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> tummy-ache. The argument grows heated and long--and complex, but > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> the > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> complexity is of a particular kind, with very short, repeated, > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> insistancies > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> from the child and somewhat longer more complex remonstrations > > from > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> the > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> parent. We can call this complex discourse but simple grammar. A > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> few > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> years > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> will go by and we will find that the school child has mastered > > the > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> trick > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> of > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> long and complex remonstrations and can use them pre-emptively > to > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> win > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> arguments. We can call this complex grammar, but simple > vocabulary. > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> Only > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> when a decade or two has elapsed will we find that child, now > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> adult, > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> can > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> use the language of science, which is for the most part > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> grammatically > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> simple (at least compared to the pre-emptive remonstrations of the > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> school > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> child), but full of very complex vocabulary (e.g. "phylogeny > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> anticipates > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> ontogeny", or "cultural-historical activity theory enables > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> communities > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> of > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> learners"). > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> It's Saturday today, and in a few minutes I have to leave for > the > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> weekly > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> meeting of our translation group, which produces mighty tomes > > which > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> we > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> produce to popularize the works of Vygotsky amongst militant > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> teachers > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> here > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> in Korea (our version of "Thinking and Speech" is seven hundred > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> pages > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> long > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> because of all the explanatory notes and boxes with helpful > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> pictures). > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> On > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> the other hand, there is the attached comic book version of the > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> first > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> chapter of "Thinking and Speech" which I wrote a couple of years > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> ago > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> for > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> some graduate students who were having trouble talking about the > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> real > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> "Thinking and Speech" in class. > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> I think you can see that Huw's complaint is justified--the > comic > > > >>>>>>> book dialogue is "about" Thinking and Speech, but it is not > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> "Thinking > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> and > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> Speech" at all, in the same way that "community of learners" or > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> "biography" > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> is ABOUT cultural historical theory or ontogenesis. And I think > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> that > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> part > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> of the problem (but only part of it) is that the comic book is > > just > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> too > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> short. > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> David Kellogg > > > >>>>>>> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> 2014-07-11 17:09 GMT+09:00 Leif Strandberg < > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> leifstrandberg.ab@telia.com > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> : > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> 11 jul 2014 kl. 06:41 skrev Larry Purss >: > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> David, > > > >>>>>>>>> I have been following your reflections through this thread. > > > >>>>>>>>> You commented: > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> So it's almost always more useful for me to > > > >>>>>>>>> think of learning phenomena as NOT reducible to the physical, > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> at > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> least > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> not > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> in their unit of analysis > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> I have been reflecting on the notion of *bildung* as > learning. > > > >>>>>>>>> The notion of *cultivation* and *disposition* and > *comportment* > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> as > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> the > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> potential of learning. > > > >>>>>>>>> I came across this quote from Gramsci who was questioning the > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> notion > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> of > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> *laws* as the basis for making social predictions. Such *laws* > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> excluded > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> the > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> subjective factor from history. > > > >>>>>>>>> Gramsci wrote on social process: "Objective always means > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> 'humanly > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> objective' which can be held to correspond exactly to > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> 'historically > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> subjective' " > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> Merleau-Ponty also explored what I refer to as *disposition* > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> with > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> this > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> quote on the reality of history: > > > >>>>>>>>> History "awakens us to the importance of daily events and > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> action. > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> For > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> it > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> is > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> a philosophy [of history -LP] which arouses in us a love for > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> our > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> times > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> which are not the simple repetition of human eternity nor > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> merely > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> the > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> conclusion of premises already postulated. It is a view that > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> like > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> the > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> most > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> fragile object of perception - a soap bubble, or a wave - or > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> like > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> the > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> most > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> simple dialogue, embraces indivisibly all the order and all > the > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> disorder > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> of > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> the world." > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > > From lchcmike@gmail.com Tue Jul 15 21:05:35 2014 From: lchcmike@gmail.com (mike cole) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 21:05:35 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Fwd: NYTimes.com: The Push to Understand the Placenta In-Reply-To: <53c5f880.057fe00a.06f4.403aSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> References: <53c5f880.057fe00a.06f4.403aSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> Message-ID: Dear Colleagues-- This is a really fascinating article about the earliest stages of human development. There are many developmentalists who believe that embryology is a model of all human development. If that is so, consider the implications of the following from this article: [The uteris is invaded by] weirdly powerful cells, which storm the uterus like an invading army and commandeer a woman?s body for nine months to keep her fetus alive. The placenta is the life support system for the fetus. A disk of tissue attached to the uterine lining on one side and to the umbilical cord on the other, *it grows from the embryo?s cells, not the mother?s*. (my bolding). So we build our own niches out of the material of the environment within which we were conceived. Conceive of that! mike lchcmike@gmail.com Agency of the embryo Sent by sashacole510@gmail.com: The Push to Understand the Placenta By DENISE GRADY Given the placenta?s vital role, and all that can go wrong in pregnancy, relatively little is known about the organ, but that makes it fertile territory for potential medical breakthroughs. Or, copy and paste this URL into your browser: http://nyti.ms/1rc77Vr To get unlimited access to all New York Times articles, subscribe today. See Subscription Options. To ensure delivery to your inbox, please add nytdirect@nytimes.com to your address book. Advertisement Copyright 2014 | The New York Times Company | NYTimes.com 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018 From dkellogg60@gmail.com Tue Jul 15 22:08:10 2014 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 14:08:10 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: In Defense of Fuzzy Things In-Reply-To: References: <53BB4559.40005@mira.net> Message-ID: Mike: Thanks for the translation--it's pretty much what we came up with, except that we translated "constitutional" as something more like "constituent". I think that the puzzling part simply means that a mother is an actual caretaker as opposed to a breadwinner, and so an alcoholic mother means having someone who is alcoholic looking after you all the time, while a father or a neighbour are more like neighborhood drunks. To tell you the truth, it was me who introduced the flash mob. It was a performance of Puccini's La Rondine, in particular the aria which goes: Bevo al tuo fresco sorriso Bevo al tuo sguardo profondo All tua bocca che diese il mio nome... (I drink to your fresh smile, I drink to your deep gaze, and to your mouth, for having said my name!) To which the reply is: E il mio sogno ch s'averra Se potessi sperare che questo instante non muore... (Here is my thought made truth, if I could only hope, that this moment would not die...) Yes, it's a typical romantic sentiment, combining the idea of the moment that does not die with the feeling that thinking makes it so. But Wordsworth, you know, was expressing a Romantic idea as well, the idea that Vygotsky would later use in Psychology of Art. As I understand it, it goes something like this. The machinery of art is artifice, but the emotions they evoke are the real thing--tears are real tears, even when they are shed at an unreal deathbed. And contrariwise. Vygotsky tells he story of a horribly deformed child who is ridiculed and humliated by his playmates, but cannot actually generalize the experience--so he does not ever experience it as inferiority or even humiliation; it is simply one bad experience amongst many. So the events of real life are not so meaningful; they are, as Vygotsky says, "water on a goose", simply pearls of dew on the back of an ugly duckling destined to become a swan. It's not that nothing is real until thinking makes it so; it is only that meaning is made by thinking and not simply by experiencing. You can actually see this in the Flash Mob--it is true that the people actually singing are plants, and for them the reflective transformation of experience into meaning has already happened when they planned it. But you can also see that there is a gradual transformation amongst the onlookers from shoppers to audience members. Besides, the video as a whole appears to have been shot at least in part with cell phones, and some of those, I like to think, were contributed by the Chinese tourists. You suggest that there cannot be a direct connection between Wordsworth and the Russians. But I think Andy would say--and I would agree--that there was, and his name was J.W. von Goethe. I would only add the names of Carlyle and Hazlitt, both well known to Wordsworth, both of whom were thoroughly steeped in the most up-to-date developments of German philosophy. But I certainly share your astonishment that these developments in German philosophy are still so very up-to-date. Perhaps some moments do last forever. David Kellogg Hankuk University of Foreign Studies On 16 July 2014 08:04, mike cole wrote: > David, Beth, and others interested in the question of the concept of > perezhivanie/emotional experience/reflected upon emotional experience, etc > (hereafter perezhivanie). The following message was written sometime around > July 8 but I was interrupted and am just getting back to my computer. > Apologies for my delay/mismanagement. I hope its still relevant. (I may > even have sent it in another version but i do not see it in the threaded > discussion log on xmca). > > I, too, have been thinking about yesterday's messages, Beth. Why were you > thinking about flash mobs in relation to perezhivanie? > > I re-appreciated David bringing Wordsworth into the discussion along with > "contemplate" (the association of which, with perezhivanie, i had found out > about hours before from a Russian acquaintance on Skype. The sheer > coincidence knocked me over. And then I began to think about what it means > when a 19th century English poet provides insight into issues that 21st > century psychologists are aspiring to "research" and that insight is > shared, somehow, by Russians living in far to the east of Moscow. The > Russian presumably did not get it from Wordsworth. Common intuitions across > a vast distance in culture, time, and space? > > Then i wondered what it means when a poet provides insight we can all > appreciate but psychologists aspiring to do research provide, so far as I > can tell, no special insight at all. At least, I know of no empirical > research linking perezhivanie and contemplation (??????????- sozertsanie). > With perezhivanie in the "lived through, reflected upon, emotion-laden, > experience" sort, the major (only?) published research I know of is > Vasiliuk, and that is in the domain of psychotherapy, where, as Andy has > pointed out, perezhivanie appears to be the living through again > interpersonally, in discussion with the psychotherapist. > > I think the example David points to (included below), is interesting. But I > am not sure what the ontogenetic sequence is. LSV's thought > experiment/example at first seems plausible, but as David points out, the > followup about drunk nannies and neighbors is odd. > > In any event, I would really appreciate references to empirical studies of > the development of perezhivanie. I myself lived through, peripherally, the > research that Beth, Sonja Baumer, Robert Lecusay, and others did here in > San Diego, and I am pretty convinced that both the children AND the > researchers displayed perezhivanie. My sense of the events as they unfolded > is that there was an "in the moment" form of perezhivanie for children and > adults, and there were reflected upon perezhivanias (oops) among the > adults. > > mike > > > Here is the passage that David sent in Russian: > Imagine I possess certain constitutional characteristics ? clearly, I > will experience this situation in one way, and if I possess different > characteristics, it is equally clear that I will experience it in quite > a different way. This is why people?s constitutional characteristics are > taken into account when differentiating between those who are excitable, > sociable, lively and active and others who are more emotionally slack, > inhibited and dull. It is therefore obvious, that if we have two people > with two opposite types of constitutional characteristics, then one and > the same event is likely to elicit a different emotional experience > [/perezhivanie/] in each of them. Consequently, the constitutional > characteristics of the person and generally the personal characteristics > of children are, as it were, mobilized by a given emotional experience > [/perezhivanie/], are laid down, become crystallized within a given > emotional experience [/perezhivanie/] but, at the same time, this > experience does not just represent the aggregate of the child?s personal > characteristics which determine how the child experienced this > particular event emotionally, but different events also elicit different > emotional experiences [/perezhivanija/] in the child. A drunken or > mentally ill mother amounts to the same thing as a mentally ill nanny, > but it does not mean the same as a drunken father or a drunken > neighbour. Which means that the environment, which in this case was > represented by a specific concrete situation, is also always represented > in a given emotional experience [/perezhivanie/]. This is why we are > justified in considering the emotional experience [/perezhivanie/]//to > be a unity of environmental and personal features. And it is precisely > for this reason that the emotional experience [/perezhivanie/]//is a > concept which allows us to study the role and influence of environment > on the psychological development of children in the analysis of the laws > of development. > From ablunden@mira.net Tue Jul 15 22:34:16 2014 From: ablunden@mira.net (Andy Blunden) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 15:34:16 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: In Defense of Fuzzy Things In-Reply-To: References: <53BB4559.40005@mira.net> Message-ID: <53C60ED8.40208@mira.net> David, it may seem picky, but I can't agree with this formulation below, in particular the use of "thinking". To interpret Vyotsky's observation in terms of "thinking" is to *intellectualise* Vygotsky, or to put it another way, to impute to Vygotsky an intellectualisation of human life. This move was a principal line of attack of Vygotsky during the Stalinist years after his death, so it is important not to repeat it now. You correctly analysed the difference for a child of having a drunk for a mother, rather than for a father or a neighbour. But this was not a question of what the child *thought* about these relations, but the real significance of each relation for the child having its vital needs met, within the horizon of consciousness of the child. And I use "consciousness" here as a Marxist, to indicate the entirety of subjective processes of the child which mediate between their physiology and their behaviour, not as a synonym for the intellect. The child will perceive their situation (and threats to it) in the only way they can, that is, in an age-appropriate way. And they will change their own activity in response to the perceived threat also in an age- and circumstances-appropriate way too. All of this - significance, perception, needs - are not to be interpreted as categories of thinking, but categories of the life-activity of living beings, that's all, not necessarily thinking. But of course, the capacity for thinking - the use of symbolic actions - and the capacity for extended reflection on an experience, are additional resources and points of vulnerability, over and above vital relations which do not imply intellectual relations. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Andy Blunden* http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ David Kellogg wrote: ... > It's not that nothing is real until thinking makes it so; it is only that > meaning is made by thinking and not simply by experiencing. ... > > > From dkellogg60@gmail.com Wed Jul 16 13:59:20 2014 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 05:59:20 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: In Defense of Fuzzy Things In-Reply-To: <53C60ED8.40208@mira.net> References: <53BB4559.40005@mira.net> <53C60ED8.40208@mira.net> Message-ID: Andy: Here's what Vygotsky says in Chapter One of "Thinking and Speech". ???????, ?????????? ?? ???????? ????????? ? ?? ?????????? ???????? ????? ? ???????????, ?????????? ??????? ????????? ??????? ???????, ?????????? ??????? ????, ???? ? ?????? ????????? ???????????? ????, ????????? ?? ??????????? ? ??????? ? ???????? ?????. ?? ?? ?????? ?????????? ??????? ???? ???????????? ????????? ? ???????????????? ? ?????????? ???????? ? ??????????? ?????????? ????. ????????, ??? ????????? ??????? ???????? ????, ?????, ????. ????? ??? ??? ??????????? ??????????? ?????? ?? ??????????? ???????????? ? ??????? ???? ???????? ???? ???????, ???????????? ?? ????????. That is: "Society, based on rational understanding and intentional transfer of thinking and perizhivanie, requires without fail some system of means, the prototype of which is, was, and will always remain that of human speech, which arose of necessity through social conotact in the process of labor. But until now the matter has been presented in conformity with the dominating view in psychology, in an extremely simplified way. It has been assumed that the means of contact is the sign, the word, the sound. This error stems solely from the incorrect use in the solution of the problem of speech an analysis which decomposes speech into elements." Vygotsky then points out that this analysis is incorrect because it does not take into account that each word is a generalization--an act of thinking. He quotes a passage of Edward Sapir which has been cut from the Soviet version int the Collected Works (but which Kozulin has included in his update of the Hanfmann-Vakar translation). ? ????? ?????????????? ????????, ? ??????? ???????????? ?????????? ? ??????, ???????? ?????? ?????????, ?? ?? ????????? ? ?? ??????? ? ??????????? ?????? ????? ?????. ?????? ????? ????????? ??????? ??? ? ????? ??????? ?? ?????????? ????. ????????????? ????, . ??????? ??, . ?????? ???? ?????? ? ????? ???????, ? ???????????? ??????? ?????? ?????. ??? ????? ?????? ???? ??????????? ??????? ? ???????, ????? ???????? ???? ??????????????? ???. ?????? ??? ?????????? ????????? ????????????, ??? ????????? ???? ????? ? ????????? ???????? ?, ?????? ??????, ?? ????????. ??? ???? ????? ????? ??????????, ?? ?????? ???? ??????? ? ?????????? ??????, ???????, ?? ??????????? ??????????, ??????????????? ????????? ??? ?????????. "In the sphere of instinctive consciousness, in which rules perception and passion, only infection and contagion is possible, not understanding and social contact in the true sense of the word. Edward Sapir has wonderfully explained this in his work on the psychology of speech. Elements of language,? he says must be connected to an entire group, to a defined class of our experience. ?The world of our experiences must be enormously simplified and generalized before it is possible to make a symbolic inventory of all our experiences of things and relations; and this inventory is imperative before we can convey ideas. The elements of language, the symbols that ticket off experience, must therefore be associated with whole groups, delimited classes, of experience rather than with the single experiences themselves. Only so is communication possible, for the single experience lodges in an individual consciousness and is, strictly speaking, incommunicable. To be communicated it needs to be referred to a class which is tacitly accepted by the community as an identity.? Vygotsky concludes that a word meaning is a generalization, and that a generalization is an act of thinking. Ergo, the rational and intentional transfer of thinking and of perizhivanie requires an act of thinking. The fact that the child has not yet fully internalized that act of thinking does not make it any less an act of thinking. Nor does the fact that this view was criticized by Stalinists make it any less true for me. Stalinists criticized Darwinism, you know! David Kellogg Hankuk University of Foreign Studies On 16 July 2014 14:34, Andy Blunden wrote: > David, it may seem picky, but I can't agree with this formulation below, > in particular the use of "thinking". To interpret Vyotsky's observation in > terms of "thinking" is to *intellectualise* Vygotsky, or to put it another > way, to impute to Vygotsky an intellectualisation of human life. This move > was a principal line of attack of Vygotsky during the Stalinist years after > his death, so it is important not to repeat it now. You correctly analysed > the difference for a child of having a drunk for a mother, rather than for > a father or a neighbour. But this was not a question of what the child > *thought* about these relations, but the real significance of each relation > for the child having its vital needs met, within the horizon of > consciousness of the child. And I use "consciousness" here as a Marxist, to > indicate the entirety of subjective processes of the child which mediate > between their physiology and their behaviour, not as a synonym for the > intellect. The child will perceive their situation (and threats to it) in > the only way they can, that is, in an age-appropriate way. And they will > change their own activity in response to the perceived threat also in an > age- and circumstances-appropriate way too. All of this - significance, > perception, needs - are not to be interpreted as categories of thinking, > but categories of the life-activity of living beings, that's all, not > necessarily thinking. But of course, the capacity for thinking - the use of > symbolic actions - and the capacity for extended reflection on an > experience, are additional resources and points of vulnerability, over and > above vital relations which do not imply intellectual relations. > Andy > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *Andy Blunden* > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > > David Kellogg wrote: ... > >> It's not that nothing is real until thinking makes it so; it is only that >> meaning is made by thinking and not simply by experiencing. ... >> >> >> > > From ablunden@mira.net Wed Jul 16 17:14:14 2014 From: ablunden@mira.net (Andy Blunden) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 10:14:14 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: In Defense of Fuzzy Things In-Reply-To: References: <53BB4559.40005@mira.net> <53C60ED8.40208@mira.net> Message-ID: <53C71556.8080503@mira.net> Thanks for all that David. I take it that you are sticking to what I take to be a gross misunderstanding. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Andy Blunden* http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ David Kellogg wrote: > Andy: > > Here's what Vygotsky says in Chapter One of "Thinking and Speech". > > ???????, ?????????? ?? ???????? ????????? ? ?? ?????????? ???????? > ????? ? ???????????, ?????????? ??????? ????????? ??????? ???????, > ?????????? ??????? ????, ???? ? ?????? ????????? ???????????? ????, > ????????? ?? ??????????? ? ??????? ? ???????? ?????. ?? ?? ?????? > ?????????? ??????? ???? ???????????? ????????? ? ???????????????? ? > ?????????? ???????? ? ??????????? ?????????? ????. ????????, ??? > ????????? ??????? ???????? ????, ?????, ????. ????? ??? ??? > ??????????? ??????????? ?????? ?? ??????????? ???????????? ? ??????? > ???? ???????? ???? ???????, ???????????? ?? ????????. > > That is: > > "Society, based on rational understanding and intentional transfer of > thinking and perizhivanie, requires without fail some system of means, > the prototype of which is, was, and will always remain that of human > speech, which arose of necessity through social conotact in the > process of labor. But until now the matter has been presented in > conformity with the dominating view in psychology, in an extremely > simplified way. It has been assumed that the means of contact is the > sign, the word, the sound. This error stems solely from the incorrect > use in the solution of the problem of speech an analysis which > decomposes speech into elements." > > Vygotsky then points out that this analysis is incorrect because it > does not take into account that each word is a generalization--an act > of thinking. He quotes a passage of Edward Sapir which has been cut > from the Soviet version int the Collected Works (but which Kozulin has > included in his update of the Hanfmann-Vakar translation). > > ? ????? ?????????????? ????????, ? ??????? ???????????? ?????????? ? > ??????, ???????? ?????? ?????????, ?? ?? ????????? ? ?? ??????? ? > ??????????? ?????? ????? ?????. ?????? ????? ????????? ??????? ??? ? > ????? ??????? ?? ?????????? ????. ????????????? ????, . ??????? ??, . > ?????? ???? ?????? ? ????? ???????, ? ???????????? ??????? ?????? > ?????. ??? ????? ?????? ???? ??????????? ??????? ? ???????, ????? > ???????? ???? ??????????????? ???. ?????? ??? ?????????? ????????? > ????????????, ??? ????????? ???? ????? ? ????????? ???????? ?, ?????? > ??????, ?? ????????. ??? ???? ????? ????? ??????????, ?? ?????? ???? > ??????? ? ?????????? ??????, ???????, ?? ??????????? ??????????, > ??????????????? ????????? ??? ?????????. > > "In the sphere of instinctive consciousness, in which rules perception > and passion, only infection and contagion is possible, not > understanding and social contact in the true sense of the word. Edward > Sapir has wonderfully explained this in his work on the psychology of > speech. Elements of language,? he says must be connected to an entire > group, to a defined class of our experience. ?The world of our > experiences must be enormously simplified and generalized before it is > possible to make a symbolic inventory of all our experiences of things > and relations; and this inventory is imperative before we can convey > ideas. The elements of language, the symbols that ticket off > experience, must therefore be associated with whole groups, delimited > classes, of experience rather than with the single experiences > themselves. Only so is communication possible, for the single > experience lodges in an individual consciousness and is, strictly > speaking, incommunicable. To be communicated it needs to be referred > to a class which is tacitly accepted by the community as an identity.? > > Vygotsky concludes that a word meaning is a generalization, and that a > generalization is an act of thinking. Ergo, the rational and > intentional transfer of thinking and of perizhivanie requires an act > of thinking. The fact that the child has not yet fully internalized > that act of thinking does not make it any less an act of thinking. > > > Nor does the fact that this view was criticized by Stalinists make it > any less true for me. Stalinists criticized Darwinism, you know! > > > David Kellogg > > Hankuk University of Foreign Studies > > > > > > > On 16 July 2014 14:34, Andy Blunden > wrote: > > David, it may seem picky, but I can't agree with this formulation > below, in particular the use of "thinking". To interpret Vyotsky's > observation in terms of "thinking" is to *intellectualise* > Vygotsky, or to put it another way, to impute to Vygotsky an > intellectualisation of human life. This move was a principal line > of attack of Vygotsky during the Stalinist years after his death, > so it is important not to repeat it now. You correctly analysed > the difference for a child of having a drunk for a mother, rather > than for a father or a neighbour. But this was not a question of > what the child *thought* about these relations, but the real > significance of each relation for the child having its vital needs > met, within the horizon of consciousness of the child. And I use > "consciousness" here as a Marxist, to indicate the entirety of > subjective processes of the child which mediate between their > physiology and their behaviour, not as a synonym for the > intellect. The child will perceive their situation (and threats to > it) in the only way they can, that is, in an age-appropriate way. > And they will change their own activity in response to the > perceived threat also in an age- and circumstances-appropriate way > too. All of this - significance, perception, needs - are not to be > interpreted as categories of thinking, but categories of the > life-activity of living beings, that's all, not necessarily > thinking. But of course, the capacity for thinking - the use of > symbolic actions - and the capacity for extended reflection on an > experience, are additional resources and points of vulnerability, > over and above vital relations which do not imply intellectual > relations. > Andy > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *Andy Blunden* > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > > > David Kellogg wrote: ... > > It's not that nothing is real until thinking makes it so; it > is only that > meaning is made by thinking and not simply by experiencing. ... > > > > > From lchcmike@gmail.com Wed Jul 16 18:46:19 2014 From: lchcmike@gmail.com (mike cole) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 18:46:19 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: In Defense of Fuzzy Things In-Reply-To: <53C71556.8080503@mira.net> References: <53BB4559.40005@mira.net> <53C60ED8.40208@mira.net> <53C71556.8080503@mira.net> Message-ID: I found the passages really interesting, David. Am I correct that the first time around Sapir is wrong (does not say words are generalizations) and the second time he says Sapir is right? Very odd that the word obshenie, which in my micro-psychological world is associated in english with Communication, not Society. Maybe Michael L can help us again with some Russian expertise. Still, the slippage is interesting. mike On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 5:14 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: > Thanks for all that David. I take it that you are sticking to what I take > to be a gross misunderstanding. > > Andy > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *Andy Blunden* > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > > David Kellogg wrote: > >> Andy: >> >> Here's what Vygotsky says in Chapter One of "Thinking and Speech". >> >> ???????, ?????????? ?? ???????? ????????? ? ?? ?????????? ???????? ????? >> ? ???????????, ?????????? ??????? ????????? ??????? ???????, ?????????? >> ??????? ????, ???? ? ?????? ????????? ???????????? ????, ????????? ?? >> ??????????? ? ??????? ? ???????? ?????. ?? ?? ?????? ?????????? ??????? >> ???? ???????????? ????????? ? ???????????????? ? ?????????? ???????? ? >> ??????????? ?????????? ????. ????????, ??? ????????? ??????? ???????? ????, >> ?????, ????. ????? ??? ??? ??????????? ??????????? ?????? ?? ??????????? >> ???????????? ? ??????? ???? ???????? ???? ???????, ???????????? ?? ????????. >> >> That is: >> >> "Society, based on rational understanding and intentional transfer of >> thinking and perizhivanie, requires without fail some system of means, the >> prototype of which is, was, and will always remain that of human speech, >> which arose of necessity through social conotact in the process of labor. >> But until now the matter has been presented in conformity with the >> dominating view in psychology, in an extremely simplified way. It has been >> assumed that the means of contact is the sign, the word, the sound. This >> error stems solely from the incorrect use in the solution of the problem of >> speech an analysis which decomposes speech into elements." >> >> Vygotsky then points out that this analysis is incorrect because it does >> not take into account that each word is a generalization--an act of >> thinking. He quotes a passage of Edward Sapir which has been cut from the >> Soviet version int the Collected Works (but which Kozulin has included in >> his update of the Hanfmann-Vakar translation). >> >> ? ????? ?????????????? ????????, ? ??????? ???????????? ?????????? ? >> ??????, ???????? ?????? ?????????, ?? ?? ????????? ? ?? ??????? ? >> ??????????? ?????? ????? ?????. ?????? ????? ????????? ??????? ??? ? ????? >> ??????? ?? ?????????? ????. ????????????? ????, . ??????? ??, . ?????? ???? >> ?????? ? ????? ???????, ? ???????????? ??????? ?????? ?????. ??? ????? >> ?????? ???? ??????????? ??????? ? ???????, ????? ???????? ???? >> ??????????????? ???. ?????? ??? ?????????? ????????? ????????????, ??? >> ????????? ???? ????? ? ????????? ???????? ?, ?????? ??????, ?? ????????. >> ??? ???? ????? ????? ??????????, ?? ?????? ???? ??????? ? ?????????? >> ??????, ???????, ?? ??????????? ??????????, ??????????????? ????????? ??? >> ?????????. >> >> "In the sphere of instinctive consciousness, in which rules perception >> and passion, only infection and contagion is possible, not understanding >> and social contact in the true sense of the word. Edward Sapir has >> wonderfully explained this in his work on the psychology of speech. >> Elements of language,? he says must be connected to an entire group, to a >> defined class of our experience. ?The world of our experiences must be >> enormously simplified and generalized before it is possible to make a >> symbolic inventory of all our experiences of things and relations; and this >> inventory is imperative before we can convey ideas. The elements of >> language, the symbols that ticket off experience, must therefore be >> associated with whole groups, delimited classes, of experience rather than >> with the single experiences themselves. Only so is communication possible, >> for the single experience lodges in an individual consciousness and is, >> strictly speaking, incommunicable. To be communicated it needs to be >> referred to a class which is tacitly accepted by the community as an >> identity.? >> >> Vygotsky concludes that a word meaning is a generalization, and that a >> generalization is an act of thinking. Ergo, the rational and intentional >> transfer of thinking and of perizhivanie requires an act of thinking. The >> fact that the child has not yet fully internalized that act of thinking >> does not make it any less an act of thinking. >> >> >> Nor does the fact that this view was criticized by Stalinists make it any >> less true for me. Stalinists criticized Darwinism, you know! >> >> >> David Kellogg >> >> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 16 July 2014 14:34, Andy Blunden > ablunden@mira.net>> wrote: >> >> David, it may seem picky, but I can't agree with this formulation >> below, in particular the use of "thinking". To interpret Vyotsky's >> observation in terms of "thinking" is to *intellectualise* >> Vygotsky, or to put it another way, to impute to Vygotsky an >> intellectualisation of human life. This move was a principal line >> of attack of Vygotsky during the Stalinist years after his death, >> so it is important not to repeat it now. You correctly analysed >> the difference for a child of having a drunk for a mother, rather >> than for a father or a neighbour. But this was not a question of >> what the child *thought* about these relations, but the real >> significance of each relation for the child having its vital needs >> met, within the horizon of consciousness of the child. And I use >> "consciousness" here as a Marxist, to indicate the entirety of >> subjective processes of the child which mediate between their >> physiology and their behaviour, not as a synonym for the >> intellect. The child will perceive their situation (and threats to >> it) in the only way they can, that is, in an age-appropriate way. >> And they will change their own activity in response to the >> perceived threat also in an age- and circumstances-appropriate way >> too. All of this - significance, perception, needs - are not to be >> interpreted as categories of thinking, but categories of the >> life-activity of living beings, that's all, not necessarily >> thinking. But of course, the capacity for thinking - the use of >> symbolic actions - and the capacity for extended reflection on an >> experience, are additional resources and points of vulnerability, >> over and above vital relations which do not imply intellectual >> relations. >> Andy >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> ------------ >> *Andy Blunden* >> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ >> >> >> >> >> David Kellogg wrote: ... >> >> It's not that nothing is real until thinking makes it so; it >> is only that >> meaning is made by thinking and not simply by experiencing. ... >> >> >> >> >> > From ablunden@mira.net Wed Jul 16 19:24:32 2014 From: ablunden@mira.net (Andy Blunden) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 12:24:32 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: In Defense of Fuzzy Things In-Reply-To: References: <53BB4559.40005@mira.net> <53C60ED8.40208@mira.net> Message-ID: <53C733E0.6010400@mira.net> Could you elaborate on this one, David: "The fact that the child has not yet fully internalized that act of thinking does not make it any less an act of thinking" and how it relates to generalization? Andy ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Andy Blunden* http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ David Kellogg wrote: > Andy: > > Here's what Vygotsky says in Chapter One of "Thinking and Speech". > > ???????, ?????????? ?? ???????? ????????? ? ?? ?????????? ???????? > ????? ? ???????????, ?????????? ??????? ????????? ??????? ???????, > ?????????? ??????? ????, ???? ? ?????? ????????? ???????????? ????, > ????????? ?? ??????????? ? ??????? ? ???????? ?????. ?? ?? ?????? > ?????????? ??????? ???? ???????????? ????????? ? ???????????????? ? > ?????????? ???????? ? ??????????? ?????????? ????. ????????, ??? > ????????? ??????? ???????? ????, ?????, ????. ????? ??? ??? > ??????????? ??????????? ?????? ?? ??????????? ???????????? ? ??????? > ???? ???????? ???? ???????, ???????????? ?? ????????. > > That is: > > "Society, based on rational understanding and intentional transfer of > thinking and perizhivanie, requires without fail some system of means, > the prototype of which is, was, and will always remain that of human > speech, which arose of necessity through social conotact in the > process of labor. But until now the matter has been presented in > conformity with the dominating view in psychology, in an extremely > simplified way. It has been assumed that the means of contact is the > sign, the word, the sound. This error stems solely from the incorrect > use in the solution of the problem of speech an analysis which > decomposes speech into elements." > > Vygotsky then points out that this analysis is incorrect because it > does not take into account that each word is a generalization--an act > of thinking. He quotes a passage of Edward Sapir which has been cut > from the Soviet version int the Collected Works (but which Kozulin has > included in his update of the Hanfmann-Vakar translation). > > ? ????? ?????????????? ????????, ? ??????? ???????????? ?????????? ? > ??????, ???????? ?????? ?????????, ?? ?? ????????? ? ?? ??????? ? > ??????????? ?????? ????? ?????. ?????? ????? ????????? ??????? ??? ? > ????? ??????? ?? ?????????? ????. ????????????? ????, . ??????? ??, . > ?????? ???? ?????? ? ????? ???????, ? ???????????? ??????? ?????? > ?????. ??? ????? ?????? ???? ??????????? ??????? ? ???????, ????? > ???????? ???? ??????????????? ???. ?????? ??? ?????????? ????????? > ????????????, ??? ????????? ???? ????? ? ????????? ???????? ?, ?????? > ??????, ?? ????????. ??? ???? ????? ????? ??????????, ?? ?????? ???? > ??????? ? ?????????? ??????, ???????, ?? ??????????? ??????????, > ??????????????? ????????? ??? ?????????. > > "In the sphere of instinctive consciousness, in which rules perception > and passion, only infection and contagion is possible, not > understanding and social contact in the true sense of the word. Edward > Sapir has wonderfully explained this in his work on the psychology of > speech. Elements of language,? he says must be connected to an entire > group, to a defined class of our experience. ?The world of our > experiences must be enormously simplified and generalized before it is > possible to make a symbolic inventory of all our experiences of things > and relations; and this inventory is imperative before we can convey > ideas. The elements of language, the symbols that ticket off > experience, must therefore be associated with whole groups, delimited > classes, of experience rather than with the single experiences > themselves. Only so is communication possible, for the single > experience lodges in an individual consciousness and is, strictly > speaking, incommunicable. To be communicated it needs to be referred > to a class which is tacitly accepted by the community as an identity.? > > Vygotsky concludes that a word meaning is a generalization, and that a > generalization is an act of thinking. Ergo, the rational and > intentional transfer of thinking and of perizhivanie requires an act > of thinking. The fact that the child has not yet fully internalized > that act of thinking does not make it any less an act of thinking. > > > Nor does the fact that this view was criticized by Stalinists make it > any less true for me. Stalinists criticized Darwinism, you know! > > > David Kellogg > > Hankuk University of Foreign Studies > > > > > > > On 16 July 2014 14:34, Andy Blunden > wrote: > > David, it may seem picky, but I can't agree with this formulation > below, in particular the use of "thinking". To interpret Vyotsky's > observation in terms of "thinking" is to *intellectualise* > Vygotsky, or to put it another way, to impute to Vygotsky an > intellectualisation of human life. This move was a principal line > of attack of Vygotsky during the Stalinist years after his death, > so it is important not to repeat it now. You correctly analysed > the difference for a child of having a drunk for a mother, rather > than for a father or a neighbour. But this was not a question of > what the child *thought* about these relations, but the real > significance of each relation for the child having its vital needs > met, within the horizon of consciousness of the child. And I use > "consciousness" here as a Marxist, to indicate the entirety of > subjective processes of the child which mediate between their > physiology and their behaviour, not as a synonym for the > intellect. The child will perceive their situation (and threats to > it) in the only way they can, that is, in an age-appropriate way. > And they will change their own activity in response to the > perceived threat also in an age- and circumstances-appropriate way > too. All of this - significance, perception, needs - are not to be > interpreted as categories of thinking, but categories of the > life-activity of living beings, that's all, not necessarily > thinking. But of course, the capacity for thinking - the use of > symbolic actions - and the capacity for extended reflection on an > experience, are additional resources and points of vulnerability, > over and above vital relations which do not imply intellectual > relations. > Andy > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *Andy Blunden* > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > > > David Kellogg wrote: ... > > It's not that nothing is real until thinking makes it so; it > is only that > meaning is made by thinking and not simply by experiencing. ... > > > > > From huw.softdesigns@gmail.com Thu Jul 17 01:53:13 2014 From: huw.softdesigns@gmail.com (Huw Lloyd) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 09:53:13 +0100 Subject: [Xmca-l] critiquing activity theoretic approaches Message-ID: Is anyone aware of alternative genetic approaches to the study of psychological development? I suppose Piagetian approaches may figure. Is there some variant of a Klienian-dialogic theory? Any others? The approach I have in mind to the critique is to establish the necessary qualities of "galilean" approaches to psychological development entailing genetic logic. Best, Huw From lchcmike@gmail.com Thu Jul 17 08:39:18 2014 From: lchcmike@gmail.com (mike cole) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 08:39:18 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Fwd: John Oliver on the reality, ideology, and illusions of income inequality in America In-Reply-To: <53C7E9D7.3080804@gmail.com> References: <53C7E9D7.3080804@gmail.com> Message-ID: This man is always worth listening to, both because he is funny and because he is a fine journalist. Forwarded from my colleague, Jeff Weinberg mike *John Oliver on the reality, ideology, and illusions of income inequality in America* Ever since John Oliver left The Daily Show to start his own satirical TV show, Last Week Tonight, the new show has been quite good, often terrific. Oliver can be wickedly funny (though sometimes just cheerfully silly), but along with the laughs he also delivers a good deal of serious, substantial, and illuminating education on important public issues. One example was his segment last Sunday about the dramatic increase in income inequality over the past several decades ... and *some* of the cultural and ideological reasons why Americans seem to be unable to confront this subject seriously and intelligently. (A lot of the basic ideas Oliver is drawing on have been discussed for more than a century?at least since Werner Sombart's *Why Is There No Socialism In America?* in 1906, though in key respects one really has to go back, as usual, to Tocqueville's *Democracy in America*?but unfortunately they remain timely and on-target.) You can watch it *here *. * => [If the video clip doesn't come through via e-mail, click HERE .] <=* ?Jeff Weintraub -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: johnOliverWealthInequality.JPG Type: image/jpeg Size: 40884 bytes Desc: not available Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20140717/a29ea589/attachment.jpe From lchcmike@gmail.com Thu Jul 17 08:44:46 2014 From: lchcmike@gmail.com (mike cole) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 08:44:46 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: critiquing activity theoretic approaches In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Lewin? German genetic field theorists in general? (Werner, for example)? Klauss Riegel? mike On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 1:53 AM, Huw Lloyd wrote: > Is anyone aware of alternative genetic approaches to the study of > psychological development? > > I suppose Piagetian approaches may figure. > > Is there some variant of a Klienian-dialogic theory? Any others? > > The approach I have in mind to the critique is to establish the necessary > qualities of "galilean" approaches to psychological development entailing > genetic logic. > > Best, > Huw > From dkellogg60@gmail.com Thu Jul 17 14:56:30 2014 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 06:56:30 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: In Defense of Fuzzy Things In-Reply-To: <53C733E0.6010400@mira.net> References: <53BB4559.40005@mira.net> <53C60ED8.40208@mira.net> <53C733E0.6010400@mira.net> Message-ID: First of all, in defence of Andy, I should point out that he is not really as pompous as he sounds when he is solemnly informing me of my gross misunderstanding and my utter confusion, or when he is stating that only certain works read in a particular order (which miraculously coincides with the selection of works he has effected and the precise order which he himself has read them in) can produce genuine clear thinking. Andy and I are old friends, and in addition we both come from societies where a certain amount of raillery is a mark of affection and an antidote to affectation (something that Andy and I are both prone to, alas). Secondly, in deference to Beth, and Francis and all lurkers who would join in the discussion if they could only make head or tail of it, let me defend some of this esoterica and try to link it to the parallel, more exoteric thread. What appears to be under discussion, for example, is whether a Russian word which means something like "social contact" should be translated as "society" or as "contact" (as Mike very perceptively points out, I do BOTH, translating the same word in two different ways). Or perhaps what is under discussion is whether "meaning" refers to consciousness quite generally and therefore includes the way a child who knows nothing about alcoholism might perceive a drunken mother or only consciousness as it has been transformed by verbal thinking. In other words, what appears to be under discussion is precisely what was under discussion in the other thread: other words, and the extent to which they really do represent other thoughts. A lot of the misunderstandings (to use Andy's term) between Helen and the other Mike (the Mike in Helen's data, not the Grand Old Man of xmca) are of precisely this nature. But not all of them. Sometimes we use the same word, e.g. "community of learners" or "meaning" and we actually mean totally different things, just as the child who hears "Some dinosaurs learned to swim and other dinosaurs learned to fly" may understand that dinosaurs are purely imaginary creatures that went to school in order to do these things. And THAT is what I meant when I said that the mere fact that a child has not fully internalized a socially, culturally worked out act of thinking does not make it any the less an act of thinking. Now, let me make the context of my two quotations a little clearer. They are both from Chapter One of Thinking and Speech, but the first quotation has nothing whatsoever to do with Sapir, and in fact my translation is rather inept. It should really be this: " It has been assumed that the means of contact is the sign:--that is, the word, the sound." Vygotsky's attacking Saussure, who holds that the "signifier" and the "signified" inhabit two different realms, like soul and body: one is made of meaning and the other is made of meat. Vygotsky's point is that "wording" actually includes both, but in an idealized form. Wording (speech) does not directly interface with the environment: the semantics interfaces with the environment because it is a representation of human experience and the phonology interfaces with the environment because it is phonetically realized by going through physical human organs like the lungs, larynx, and the lips, but lexicogrammar--words and wordings--must interface with the environment through the semantics and the phonology. True, later on in the Chapter he refers to phonemes, which to us, today, just means sounds. But I have since established that the word meant "morpheme" to Vygotsky, not phoneme. (His example, in the "Lectures on Pedology" is actually Russian CASE grammar, which has nothing to do with pronunciation. So Vygotsky is saying exactly what the good Moorish doctor Ibn Hakim says in the opera Iolanta (right before the line Vygotsky quotes about consciousness reflected like sunlight in the drop of water): "??? ???? ? ???????? ? ???????? ? ?? ???? ???????? ?????. ???? ????????? ???????, ??? ?????, ???? ?." (Two worlds, thinking and extension Found in all things that can be In ourselves, in intension Their one-ness is known to me.) Here's a Soviet version from 1963--Ibn Hakim's lesson in monism begins at 2:34. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SXF6610O0I Experience (perezhivanie) and sounding are thus united in wording. BUT...first of all, we have to recognize that they are united in an idealized form: an abstraction. Secondly, we have to recognize that they are united in a generalized form--a historico-culturally evolved meaning. And finally, I think we have to accept that this act of abstraction and generalization is, ontogenetically, initially social and only in the long run individual and personal: word meanings develop as children grow up. So this bit of esoterica turns out to be pretty exoteric after all. I was actually, going to mention this earlier, when Huw said that his translation interests pointed more in the direction of Leontiev than in trying to recover Vygotsky's original ideas. Leontiev is, as Andy points out, a recovering Vygotskyan--he is working in a climate where Vygotskyan ideas must be carefully disguised as vulgar, behaviorist ones. Meaning making, therefore, has to be disguised as "activity", of which the paradigmatic form is not speech at all, but rather labor. It is actually much easier to live lies like this twenty-four seven if you actually try to believe them, and I think that by the end of his career Leontiev actually believed that his formulation was more Marxist than the "idealist", "intellectualist" alternative--the idea that says that the mind is actually semantic in structure rather than structured by physical or even social activities. Nevertheless, when we read Chapter One of Thinking and Speech, we see that semantic structure, not activity structure, is precisely what Vygotsky has in mind: there is indeed a clear link between feeling and thinking (else children would never learn to think verbally), but there is also a dialectical leap (else children would already know how). Children accomplish this dialectical leap through dialogue. That is, they are confronted with the finished form of word meaning, and they find there way to it through all kinds of misunderstandings (just as we do on this list). This word "day" that they thought they knew so well actually doesn't just mean the stretch of time between waking and sleeping, and that when you call your grandmother in Los Angeles on Tuesday, its still Monday over there, but that doesn't somehow make your grandmother one day younger than you are. That's what I meant when I said that the mere fact that the child is not thinking verbally does not make the generalization that we find in the word any less an act of thinking. It's just an act of cultural, social, inter-mental thinking, and not yet a act of individual, personal, intra-mental thought. Grandma and grandchild are not quite on the same page, but they are getting there. It's interesting that the precise example that Vygotsky uses in Chapter One is...the FEELING being cold, which must be generalized into the THOUGHT of coldness. He points out that you can communicate this feeling perfectly well by shivering and letting your teeth chatter, and even by simulating shivering and making your teeth chatter, but what you are communicating is a feeling...and not the idea of being cold. The idea of being cold is a generalization, and an act of thinking. David Kellogg Hankuk University of Foreign Studies PS: Huw--the whole of Ganzheitpsychologie--from Wurzburg to Leipzig--was a "genetic" psychology, and in fact they are the ones who founded the concept of "microgenesis". The problem was that half of them became Nazis and the other half became their victims. The victims, like Otto Selz, never had a chance to complete their work--and their classmates and killer (Narziss Ach, Felix Krueger, Eduard Spranger) we only read about today because Vygotsky cites them. dk On 17 July 2014 11:24, Andy Blunden wrote: > Could you elaborate on this one, David: > "The fact that the child has not yet fully internalized that act of > thinking does not make it any less an act of thinking" and how it relates > to generalization? > > Andy > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *Andy Blunden* > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > > David Kellogg wrote: > >> Andy: >> >> Here's what Vygotsky says in Chapter One of "Thinking and Speech". >> >> ???????, ?????????? ?? ???????? ????????? ? ?? ?????????? ???????? ????? >> ? ???????????, ?????????? ??????? ????????? ??????? ???????, ?????????? >> ??????? ????, ???? ? ?????? ????????? ???????????? ????, ????????? ?? >> ??????????? ? ??????? ? ???????? ?????. ?? ?? ?????? ?????????? ??????? >> ???? ???????????? ????????? ? ???????????????? ? ?????????? ???????? ? >> ??????????? ?????????? ????. ????????, ??? ????????? ??????? ???????? ????, >> ?????, ????. ????? ??? ??? ??????????? ??????????? ?????? ?? ??????????? >> ???????????? ? ??????? ???? ???????? ???? ???????, ???????????? ?? ????????. >> >> That is: >> >> "Society, based on rational understanding and intentional transfer of >> thinking and perizhivanie, requires without fail some system of means, the >> prototype of which is, was, and will always remain that of human speech, >> which arose of necessity through social conotact in the process of labor. >> But until now the matter has been presented in conformity with the >> dominating view in psychology, in an extremely simplified way. It has been >> assumed that the means of contact is the sign, the word, the sound. This >> error stems solely from the incorrect use in the solution of the problem of >> speech an analysis which decomposes speech into elements." >> >> Vygotsky then points out that this analysis is incorrect because it does >> not take into account that each word is a generalization--an act of >> thinking. He quotes a passage of Edward Sapir which has been cut from the >> Soviet version int the Collected Works (but which Kozulin has included in >> his update of the Hanfmann-Vakar translation). >> >> ? ????? ?????????????? ????????, ? ??????? ???????????? ?????????? ? >> ??????, ???????? ?????? ?????????, ?? ?? ????????? ? ?? ??????? ? >> ??????????? ?????? ????? ?????. ?????? ????? ????????? ??????? ??? ? ????? >> ??????? ?? ?????????? ????. ????????????? ????, . ??????? ??, . ?????? ???? >> ?????? ? ????? ???????, ? ???????????? ??????? ?????? ?????. ??? ????? >> ?????? ???? ??????????? ??????? ? ???????, ????? ???????? ???? >> ??????????????? ???. ?????? ??? ?????????? ????????? ????????????, ??? >> ????????? ???? ????? ? ????????? ???????? ?, ?????? ??????, ?? ????????. >> ??? ???? ????? ????? ??????????, ?? ?????? ???? ??????? ? ?????????? >> ??????, ???????, ?? ??????????? ??????????, ??????????????? ????????? ??? >> ?????????. >> >> "In the sphere of instinctive consciousness, in which rules perception >> and passion, only infection and contagion is possible, not understanding >> and social contact in the true sense of the word. Edward Sapir has >> wonderfully explained this in his work on the psychology of speech. >> Elements of language,? he says must be connected to an entire group, to a >> defined class of our experience. ?The world of our experiences must be >> enormously simplified and generalized before it is possible to make a >> symbolic inventory of all our experiences of things and relations; and this >> inventory is imperative before we can convey ideas. The elements of >> language, the symbols that ticket off experience, must therefore be >> associated with whole groups, delimited classes, of experience rather than >> with the single experiences themselves. Only so is communication possible, >> for the single experience lodges in an individual consciousness and is, >> strictly speaking, incommunicable. To be communicated it needs to be >> referred to a class which is tacitly accepted by the community as an >> identity.? >> >> Vygotsky concludes that a word meaning is a generalization, and that a >> generalization is an act of thinking. Ergo, the rational and intentional >> transfer of thinking and of perizhivanie requires an act of thinking. The >> fact that the child has not yet fully internalized that act of thinking >> does not make it any less an act of thinking. >> >> >> Nor does the fact that this view was criticized by Stalinists make it any >> less true for me. Stalinists criticized Darwinism, you know! >> >> >> David Kellogg >> >> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 16 July 2014 14:34, Andy Blunden > ablunden@mira.net>> wrote: >> >> David, it may seem picky, but I can't agree with this formulation >> below, in particular the use of "thinking". To interpret Vyotsky's >> observation in terms of "thinking" is to *intellectualise* >> Vygotsky, or to put it another way, to impute to Vygotsky an >> intellectualisation of human life. This move was a principal line >> of attack of Vygotsky during the Stalinist years after his death, >> so it is important not to repeat it now. You correctly analysed >> the difference for a child of having a drunk for a mother, rather >> than for a father or a neighbour. But this was not a question of >> what the child *thought* about these relations, but the real >> significance of each relation for the child having its vital needs >> met, within the horizon of consciousness of the child. And I use >> "consciousness" here as a Marxist, to indicate the entirety of >> subjective processes of the child which mediate between their >> physiology and their behaviour, not as a synonym for the >> intellect. The child will perceive their situation (and threats to >> it) in the only way they can, that is, in an age-appropriate way. >> And they will change their own activity in response to the >> perceived threat also in an age- and circumstances-appropriate way >> too. All of this - significance, perception, needs - are not to be >> interpreted as categories of thinking, but categories of the >> life-activity of living beings, that's all, not necessarily >> thinking. But of course, the capacity for thinking - the use of >> symbolic actions - and the capacity for extended reflection on an >> experience, are additional resources and points of vulnerability, >> over and above vital relations which do not imply intellectual >> relations. >> Andy >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> ------------ >> *Andy Blunden* >> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ >> >> >> >> David Kellogg wrote: ... >> >> It's not that nothing is real until thinking makes it so; it >> is only that >> meaning is made by thinking and not simply by experiencing. ... >> >> >> >> >> > From ablunden@mira.net Thu Jul 17 17:59:24 2014 From: ablunden@mira.net (Andy Blunden) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 10:59:24 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: In Defense of Fuzzy Things In-Reply-To: References: <53BB4559.40005@mira.net> <53C60ED8.40208@mira.net> <53C733E0.6010400@mira.net> Message-ID: <53C8716C.1090803@mira.net> OK David, I *think* I get your line of argument here. Can I try to pick out what are for me the key elements? (1) When you referred to the child internalising thinking you were referring to the actions (i.e., unity of behaviour and consciousness) in which others are involving them - the "law" about categories appearing first on the social plane and later on the psychical plane. "Later" of course. That is, if "thinking" is a meaningful word, they are not yet thinking. They are engaged in a process which all going well will become thinking. (2) You quite correctly note that one of the lines by which Vygotsky was labelled idealist is on the basis of the orthodox Marxist idea of labour as the paradigmatic form of activity, rather than speech. That is true, and you and I and many here would agree that Vygotsky had a point. Labour is the paradigmatic form of activity for a certain kind of historical analysis, but I think that while there is some truth in that approach to history, there are also severe problems. But labour is certainly inadequate as a foundation for psychology. (3) Semantic actions create "intellectual" structures in the mind. I.e., the interest in semantics and speech activity is the basis for the charge of intellectualism. On all these points I think we are close to agreement. The disagreement is this: I see "Thinking and Speech" as a specialised investigation which was to be an exemplar for how to conduct *any* psychological investigation, but *not* to create a model for all psychological processes. By studying thinking and speech, the target is what we like to reify as the intellect. The intellect is not the whole of consciousness - it is one aspect abstracted from the whole of consciousness. Vygotsky showed us how to study the semantic structure of consciousness - awful phrase - the intellectual aspect of mental activity. So for example, I think your use of perezhivanie below is open to criticism. I accept that there is no English word for perezhivanie other than perezhivanie, and mostly the way Vygotsky uses it in "Problem of the Environment" is open to an interpretation as "experiencing" - i.e., the fundamental concept of empiricism. But when people are studying perezhivanie they are not talking about the intellect, though undoubtedly the intellect is involved, if we are to accept the word of those Russians who exclude the possibility of perezhivanija for children. Perezhivanie is a unit for the development of the personality, admittedly not a well-defined term, but in my mind quite distinct from the intellect. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Andy Blunden* http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ David Kellogg wrote: > > > First of all, in defence of Andy, I should point out that he is not > really as pompous as he sounds when he is solemnly informing me of my > gross misunderstanding and my utter confusion, or when he is stating > that only certain works read in a particular order (which miraculously > coincides with the selection of works he has effected and the precise > order which he himself has read them in) can produce genuine clear > thinking. Andy and I are old friends, and in addition we both come > from societies where a certain amount of raillery is a mark of > affection and an antidote to affectation (something that Andy and I > are both prone to, alas). > > Secondly, in deference to Beth, and Francis and all lurkers who would > join in the discussion if they could only make head or tail of it, let > me defend some of this esoterica and try to link it to the parallel, > more exoteric thread. What appears to be under discussion, for > example, is whether a Russian word which means something like "social > contact" should be translated as "society" or as "contact" (as Mike > very perceptively points out, I do BOTH, translating the same word in > two different ways). Or perhaps what is under discussion is whether > "meaning" refers to consciousness quite generally and therefore > includes the way a child who knows nothing about alcoholism might > perceive a drunken mother or only consciousness as it has been > transformed by verbal thinking. In other words, what appears to be > under discussion is precisely what was under discussion in the other > thread: other words, and the extent to which they really do represent > other thoughts. > > A lot of the misunderstandings (to use Andy's term) between Helen and > the other Mike (the Mike in Helen's data, not the Grand Old Man of > xmca) are of precisely this nature. But not all of them. Sometimes we > use the same word, e.g. "community of learners" or "meaning" and we > actually mean totally different things, just as the child who hears > "Some dinosaurs learned to swim and other dinosaurs learned to fly" > may understand that dinosaurs are purely imaginary creatures that went > to school in order to do these things. And THAT is what I meant when I > said that the mere fact that a child has not fully internalized a > socially, culturally worked out act of thinking does not make it any > the less an act of thinking. > > Now, let me make the context of my two quotations a little clearer. > They are both from Chapter One of Thinking and Speech, but the first > quotation has nothing whatsoever to do with Sapir, and in fact my > translation is rather inept. It should really be this: > " > It has been assumed that the means of contact is the sign:--that is, > the word, the sound." > > Vygotsky's attacking Saussure, who holds that the "signifier" and the > "signified" inhabit two different realms, like soul and body: one is > made of meaning and the other is made of meat. > > Vygotsky's point is that "wording" actually includes both, but in an > idealized form. Wording (speech) does not directly interface with the > environment: the semantics interfaces with the environment because it > is a representation of human experience and the phonology interfaces > with the environment because it is phonetically realized by going > through physical human organs like the lungs, larynx, and the lips, > but lexicogrammar--words and wordings--must interface with the > environment through the semantics and the phonology. > > True, later on in the Chapter he refers to phonemes, which to us, > today, just means sounds. But I have since established that the word > meant "morpheme" to Vygotsky, not phoneme. (His example, in the > "Lectures on Pedology" is actually Russian CASE grammar, which has > nothing to do with pronunciation. So Vygotsky is saying exactly what > the good Moorish doctor Ibn Hakim says in the opera Iolanta (right > before the line Vygotsky quotes about consciousness reflected like > sunlight in the drop of water): > > "??? ???? ? ???????? ? ???????? > ? ?? ???? ???????? ?????. > ???? ????????? ???????, > ??? ?????, ???? ?." > > (Two worlds, thinking and extension > Found in all things that can be > In ourselves, in intension > Their one-ness is known to me.) > > Here's a Soviet version from 1963--Ibn Hakim's lesson in monism begins > at 2:34. > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SXF6610O0I > > Experience (perezhivanie) and sounding are thus united in wording. > BUT...first of all, we have to recognize that they are united in an > idealized form: an abstraction. Secondly, we have to recognize that > they are united in a generalized form--a historico-culturally evolved > meaning. And finally, I think we have to accept that this act of > abstraction and generalization is, ontogenetically, initially social > and only in the long run individual and personal: word meanings > develop as children grow up. > > So this bit of esoterica turns out to be pretty exoteric after all. I > was actually, going to mention this earlier, when Huw said that his > translation interests pointed more in the direction of Leontiev than > in trying to recover Vygotsky's original ideas. Leontiev is, as Andy > points out, a recovering Vygotskyan--he is working in a climate where > Vygotskyan ideas must be carefully disguised as vulgar, behaviorist > ones. Meaning making, therefore, has to be disguised as "activity", of > which the paradigmatic form is not speech at all, but rather labor. It > is actually much easier to live lies like this twenty-four seven if > you actually try to believe them, and I think that by the end of his > career Leontiev actually believed that his formulation was more > Marxist than the "idealist", "intellectualist" alternative--the idea > that says that the mind is actually semantic in structure rather than > structured by physical or even social activities. > > Nevertheless, when we read Chapter One of Thinking and Speech, we see > that semantic structure, not activity structure, is precisely > what Vygotsky has in mind: there is indeed a clear link between > feeling and thinking (else children would never learn to think > verbally), but there is also a dialectical leap (else children would > already know how). Children accomplish this dialectical leap through > dialogue. That is, they are confronted with the finished form of word > meaning, and they find there way to it through all kinds of > misunderstandings (just as we do on this list). > > This word "day" that they thought they knew so well actually doesn't > just mean the stretch of time between waking and sleeping, and that > when you call your grandmother in Los Angeles on Tuesday, its still > Monday over there, but that doesn't somehow make your grandmother one > day younger than you are. That's what I meant when I said that the > mere fact that the child is not thinking verbally does not make the > generalization that we find in the word any less an act of thinking. > It's just an act of cultural, social, inter-mental thinking, and not > yet a act of individual, personal, intra-mental thought. Grandma and > grandchild are not quite on the same page, but they are getting there. > > It's interesting that the precise example that Vygotsky uses in > Chapter One is...the FEELING being cold, which must be generalized > into the THOUGHT of coldness. He points out that you can communicate > this feeling perfectly well by shivering and letting your teeth > chatter, and even by simulating shivering and making your teeth > chatter, but what you are communicating is a feeling...and not the > idea of being cold. The idea of being cold is a generalization, and an > act of thinking. > > David Kellogg > Hankuk University of Foreign Studies > > PS: Huw--the whole of Ganzheitpsychologie--from Wurzburg to > Leipzig--was a "genetic" psychology, and in fact they are the ones who > founded the concept of "microgenesis". The problem was that half of > them became Nazis and the other half became their victims. The > victims, like Otto Selz, never had a chance to complete their > work--and their classmates and killer (Narziss Ach, Felix Krueger, > Eduard Spranger) we only read about today because Vygotsky cites them. > > dk > > > > On 17 July 2014 11:24, Andy Blunden > wrote: > > Could you elaborate on this one, David: > "The fact that the child has not yet fully internalized that act > of thinking does not make it any less an act of thinking" and how > it relates to generalization? > > Andy > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *Andy Blunden* > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > > > David Kellogg wrote: > > Andy: > > Here's what Vygotsky says in Chapter One of "Thinking and Speech". > > ???????, ?????????? ?? ???????? ????????? ? ?? ?????????? > ???????? ????? ? ???????????, ?????????? ??????? ????????? > ??????? ???????, ?????????? ??????? ????, ???? ? ?????? > ????????? ???????????? ????, ????????? ?? ??????????? ? > ??????? ? ???????? ?????. ?? ?? ?????? ?????????? ??????? ???? > ???????????? ????????? ? ???????????????? ? ?????????? > ???????? ? ??????????? ?????????? ????. ????????, ??? > ????????? ??????? ???????? ????, ?????, ????. ????? ??? ??? > ??????????? ??????????? ?????? ?? ??????????? ???????????? ? > ??????? ???? ???????? ???? ???????, ???????????? ?? ????????. > > That is: > > "Society, based on rational understanding and intentional > transfer of thinking and perizhivanie, requires without fail > some system of means, the prototype of which is, was, and will > always remain that of human speech, which arose of necessity > through social conotact in the process of labor. But until now > the matter has been presented in conformity with the > dominating view in psychology, in an extremely simplified way. > It has been assumed that the means of contact is the sign, the > word, the sound. This error stems solely from the incorrect > use in the solution of the problem of speech an analysis which > decomposes speech into elements." > > Vygotsky then points out that this analysis is incorrect > because it does not take into account that each word is a > generalization--an act of thinking. He quotes a passage of > Edward Sapir which has been cut from the Soviet version int > the Collected Works (but which Kozulin has included in his > update of the Hanfmann-Vakar translation). > > ? ????? ?????????????? ????????, ? ??????? ???????????? > ?????????? ? ??????, ???????? ?????? ?????????, ?? ?? > ????????? ? ?? ??????? ? ??????????? ?????? ????? ?????. > ?????? ????? ????????? ??????? ??? ? ????? ??????? ?? > ?????????? ????. ????????????? ????, . ??????? ??, . ?????? > ???? ?????? ? ????? ???????, ? ???????????? ??????? ?????? > ?????. ??? ????? ?????? ???? ??????????? ??????? ? ???????, > ????? ???????? ???? ??????????????? ???. ?????? ??? ?????????? > ????????? ????????????, ??? ????????? ???? ????? ? ????????? > ???????? ?, ?????? ??????, ?? ????????. ??? ???? ????? ????? > ??????????, ?? ?????? ???? ??????? ? ?????????? ??????, > ???????, ?? ??????????? ??????????, ??????????????? ????????? > ??? ?????????. > > "In the sphere of instinctive consciousness, in which rules > perception and passion, only infection and contagion is > possible, not understanding and social contact in the true > sense of the word. Edward Sapir has wonderfully explained this > in his work on the psychology of speech. Elements of > language,? he says must be connected to an entire group, to a > defined class of our experience. ?The world of our experiences > must be enormously simplified and generalized before it is > possible to make a symbolic inventory of all our experiences > of things and relations; and this inventory is imperative > before we can convey ideas. The elements of language, the > symbols that ticket off experience, must therefore be > associated with whole groups, delimited classes, of experience > rather than with the single experiences themselves. Only so is > communication possible, for the single experience lodges in an > individual consciousness and is, strictly speaking, > incommunicable. To be communicated it needs to be referred to > a class which is tacitly accepted by the community as an > identity.? > > Vygotsky concludes that a word meaning is a generalization, > and that a generalization is an act of thinking. Ergo, the > rational and intentional transfer of thinking and of > perizhivanie requires an act of thinking. The fact that the > child has not yet fully internalized that act of thinking does > not make it any less an act of thinking. > > > Nor does the fact that this view was criticized by Stalinists > make it any less true for me. Stalinists criticized Darwinism, > you know! > > > David Kellogg > > Hankuk University of Foreign Studies > > > > > > > On 16 July 2014 14:34, Andy Blunden >> wrote: > > David, it may seem picky, but I can't agree with this > formulation > below, in particular the use of "thinking". To interpret > Vyotsky's > observation in terms of "thinking" is to *intellectualise* > Vygotsky, or to put it another way, to impute to Vygotsky an > intellectualisation of human life. This move was a > principal line > of attack of Vygotsky during the Stalinist years after his > death, > so it is important not to repeat it now. You correctly > analysed > the difference for a child of having a drunk for a mother, > rather > than for a father or a neighbour. But this was not a > question of > what the child *thought* about these relations, but the real > significance of each relation for the child having its > vital needs > met, within the horizon of consciousness of the child. And > I use > "consciousness" here as a Marxist, to indicate the entirety of > subjective processes of the child which mediate between their > physiology and their behaviour, not as a synonym for the > intellect. The child will perceive their situation (and > threats to > it) in the only way they can, that is, in an > age-appropriate way. > And they will change their own activity in response to the > perceived threat also in an age- and > circumstances-appropriate way > too. All of this - significance, perception, needs - are > not to be > interpreted as categories of thinking, but categories of the > life-activity of living beings, that's all, not necessarily > thinking. But of course, the capacity for thinking - the > use of > symbolic actions - and the capacity for extended > reflection on an > experience, are additional resources and points of > vulnerability, > over and above vital relations which do not imply intellectual > relations. > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *Andy Blunden* > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > > > > David Kellogg wrote: ... > > It's not that nothing is real until thinking makes it > so; it > is only that > meaning is made by thinking and not simply by > experiencing. ... > > > > > > From huw.softdesigns@gmail.com Fri Jul 18 05:30:24 2014 From: huw.softdesigns@gmail.com (Huw Lloyd) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 13:30:24 +0100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: In Defense of Fuzzy Things In-Reply-To: <53C8716C.1090803@mira.net> References: <53BB4559.40005@mira.net> <53C60ED8.40208@mira.net> <53C733E0.6010400@mira.net> <53C8716C.1090803@mira.net> Message-ID: Andy: " The intellect is not the whole of consciousness - it is one aspect abstracted from the whole of consciousness. Vygotsky showed us how to study the semantic structure of consciousness - awful phrase - the intellectual aspect of mental activity." I think this abstract contingency is often insufficiently stressed in commentary regarding the unit of analysis. If one fails to recognise the abstraction as a contingency (a pragmatic pretension, if you like) then one falls back on Aristotelian practices, albeit of a more sophisticated nature (but perhaps harder to see due to their sophistication). Conversely, it is logically reasonable to assert that "everything is play" or "everything is communication" or "everything is cognition" etc, provided one realises that this is amorphous. David: "Meaning making, therefore, has to be disguised as "activity", of which the paradigmatic form is not speech at all, but rather labor. " "Nevertheless, when we read Chapter One of Thinking and Speech, we see that semantic structure, not activity structure, is precisely what Vygotsky has in mind: there is indeed a clear link between feeling and thinking (else children would never learn to think verbally), but there is also a dialectical leap (else children would already know how)" I fear your dialectical leap here is a metaphysical leap, David. I see no contradiction between activity (motive) and meaning. Are you considering meaning to the exclusion of its (ontogenetic) formation? The translations were concerning Zinchenko (and others) rather than Leontyev. As it happens, P. I. Zinchenko, Zaraprozhets and Sereda (and presumably many others) had some interesting things to say in relation to holes in the theoretical and experimental work, which (for me) seem to point to blind-spots stemming from the dialectical thinking of the practitioners. Best, Huw On 18 July 2014 01:59, Andy Blunden wrote: > OK David, I *think* I get your line of argument here. Can I try to pick > out what are for me the key elements? > > (1) When you referred to the child internalising thinking you were > referring to the actions (i.e., unity of behaviour and consciousness) in > which others are involving them - the "law" about categories appearing > first on the social plane and later on the psychical plane. "Later" of > course. That is, if "thinking" is a meaningful word, they are not yet > thinking. They are engaged in a process which all going well will become > thinking. > > (2) You quite correctly note that one of the lines by which Vygotsky was > labelled idealist is on the basis of the orthodox Marxist idea of labour as > the paradigmatic form of activity, rather than speech. That is true, and > you and I and many here would agree that Vygotsky had a point. Labour is > the paradigmatic form of activity for a certain kind of historical > analysis, but I think that while there is some truth in that approach to > history, there are also severe problems. But labour is certainly inadequate > as a foundation for psychology. > > (3) Semantic actions create "intellectual" structures in the mind. I.e., > the interest in semantics and speech activity is the basis for the charge > of intellectualism. > > On all these points I think we are close to agreement. The disagreement is > this: I see "Thinking and Speech" as a specialised investigation which was > to be an exemplar for how to conduct *any* psychological investigation, but > *not* to create a model for all psychological processes. By studying > thinking and speech, the target is what we like to reify as the intellect. > The intellect is not the whole of consciousness - it is one aspect > abstracted from the whole of consciousness. Vygotsky showed us how to study > the semantic structure of consciousness - awful phrase - the intellectual > aspect of mental activity. > > So for example, I think your use of perezhivanie below is open to > criticism. I accept that there is no English word for perezhivanie other > than perezhivanie, and mostly the way Vygotsky uses it in "Problem of the > Environment" is open to an interpretation as "experiencing" - i.e., the > fundamental concept of empiricism. But when people are studying > perezhivanie they are not talking about the intellect, though undoubtedly > the intellect is involved, if we are to accept the word of those Russians > who exclude the possibility of perezhivanija for children. Perezhivanie is > a unit for the development of the personality, admittedly not a > well-defined term, but in my mind quite distinct from the intellect. > > > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *Andy Blunden* > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > > David Kellogg wrote: > >> >> >> First of all, in defence of Andy, I should point out that he is not >> really as pompous as he sounds when he is solemnly informing me of my gross >> misunderstanding and my utter confusion, or when he is stating that only >> certain works read in a particular order (which miraculously coincides with >> the selection of works he has effected and the precise order which he >> himself has read them in) can produce genuine clear thinking. Andy and I >> are old friends, and in addition we both come from societies where a >> certain amount of raillery is a mark of affection and an antidote to >> affectation (something that Andy and I are both prone to, alas). >> >> Secondly, in deference to Beth, and Francis and all lurkers who would >> join in the discussion if they could only make head or tail of it, let me >> defend some of this esoterica and try to link it to the parallel, more >> exoteric thread. What appears to be under discussion, for example, is >> whether a Russian word which means something like "social contact" should >> be translated as "society" or as "contact" (as Mike very perceptively >> points out, I do BOTH, translating the same word in two different ways). Or >> perhaps what is under discussion is whether "meaning" refers to >> consciousness quite generally and therefore includes the way a child who >> knows nothing about alcoholism might perceive a drunken mother or only >> consciousness as it has been transformed by verbal thinking. In other >> words, what appears to be under discussion is precisely what was under >> discussion in the other thread: other words, and the extent to which they >> really do represent other thoughts. >> >> A lot of the misunderstandings (to use Andy's term) between Helen and the >> other Mike (the Mike in Helen's data, not the Grand Old Man of xmca) are of >> precisely this nature. But not all of them. Sometimes we use the same word, >> e.g. "community of learners" or "meaning" and we actually mean totally >> different things, just as the child who hears "Some dinosaurs learned to >> swim and other dinosaurs learned to fly" may understand that dinosaurs are >> purely imaginary creatures that went to school in order to do these things. >> And THAT is what I meant when I said that the mere fact that a child has >> not fully internalized a socially, culturally worked out act of thinking >> does not make it any the less an act of thinking. >> >> Now, let me make the context of my two quotations a little clearer. They >> are both from Chapter One of Thinking and Speech, but the first quotation >> has nothing whatsoever to do with Sapir, and in fact my translation is >> rather inept. It should really be this: >> " >> It has been assumed that the means of contact is the sign:--that is, the >> word, the sound." >> >> Vygotsky's attacking Saussure, who holds that the "signifier" and the >> "signified" inhabit two different realms, like soul and body: one is made >> of meaning and the other is made of meat. >> >> Vygotsky's point is that "wording" actually includes both, but in an >> idealized form. Wording (speech) does not directly interface with the >> environment: the semantics interfaces with the environment because it is a >> representation of human experience and the phonology interfaces with the >> environment because it is phonetically realized by going through physical >> human organs like the lungs, larynx, and the lips, but lexicogrammar--words >> and wordings--must interface with the environment through the semantics and >> the phonology. >> >> True, later on in the Chapter he refers to phonemes, which to us, today, >> just means sounds. But I have since established that the word meant >> "morpheme" to Vygotsky, not phoneme. (His example, in the "Lectures on >> Pedology" is actually Russian CASE grammar, which has nothing to do with >> pronunciation. So Vygotsky is saying exactly what the good Moorish doctor >> Ibn Hakim says in the opera Iolanta (right before the line Vygotsky quotes >> about consciousness reflected like sunlight in the drop of water): >> >> "??? ???? ? ???????? ? ???????? >> ? ?? ???? ???????? ?????. >> ???? ????????? ???????, >> ??? ?????, ???? ?." >> >> (Two worlds, thinking and extension >> Found in all things that can be >> In ourselves, in intension >> Their one-ness is known to me.) >> Here's a Soviet version from 1963--Ibn Hakim's lesson in monism begins at >> 2:34. >> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SXF6610O0I >> >> Experience (perezhivanie) and sounding are thus united in wording. >> BUT...first of all, we have to recognize that they are united in an >> idealized form: an abstraction. Secondly, we have to recognize that they >> are united in a generalized form--a historico-culturally evolved meaning. >> And finally, I think we have to accept that this act of abstraction and >> generalization is, ontogenetically, initially social and only in the long >> run individual and personal: word meanings develop as children grow up. >> So this bit of esoterica turns out to be pretty exoteric after all. I was >> actually, going to mention this earlier, when Huw said that his translation >> interests pointed more in the direction of Leontiev than in trying to >> recover Vygotsky's original ideas. Leontiev is, as Andy points out, a >> recovering Vygotskyan--he is working in a climate where Vygotskyan ideas >> must be carefully disguised as vulgar, behaviorist ones. Meaning making, >> therefore, has to be disguised as "activity", of which the paradigmatic >> form is not speech at all, but rather labor. It is actually much easier to >> live lies like this twenty-four seven if you actually try to believe them, >> and I think that by the end of his career Leontiev actually believed that >> his formulation was more Marxist than the "idealist", "intellectualist" >> alternative--the idea that says that the mind is actually semantic in >> structure rather than structured by physical or even social activities. >> >> Nevertheless, when we read Chapter One of Thinking and Speech, we see >> that semantic structure, not activity structure, is precisely what Vygotsky >> has in mind: there is indeed a clear link between feeling and thinking >> (else children would never learn to think verbally), but there is also a >> dialectical leap (else children would already know how). Children >> accomplish this dialectical leap through dialogue. That is, they are >> confronted with the finished form of word meaning, and they find there way >> to it through all kinds of misunderstandings (just as we do on this list). >> >> This word "day" that they thought they knew so well actually doesn't just >> mean the stretch of time between waking and sleeping, and that when you >> call your grandmother in Los Angeles on Tuesday, its still Monday over >> there, but that doesn't somehow make your grandmother one day younger than >> you are. That's what I meant when I said that the mere fact that the child >> is not thinking verbally does not make the generalization that we find in >> the word any less an act of thinking. It's just an act of cultural, social, >> inter-mental thinking, and not yet a act of individual, personal, >> intra-mental thought. Grandma and grandchild are not quite on the same >> page, but they are getting there. >> >> It's interesting that the precise example that Vygotsky uses in Chapter >> One is...the FEELING being cold, which must be generalized into the THOUGHT >> of coldness. He points out that you can communicate this feeling perfectly >> well by shivering and letting your teeth chatter, and even by simulating >> shivering and making your teeth chatter, but what you are communicating is >> a feeling...and not the idea of being cold. The idea of being cold is a >> generalization, and an act of thinking. >> >> David Kellogg >> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies >> >> PS: Huw--the whole of Ganzheitpsychologie--from Wurzburg to Leipzig--was >> a "genetic" psychology, and in fact they are the ones who founded the >> concept of "microgenesis". The problem was that half of them became Nazis >> and the other half became their victims. The victims, like Otto Selz, never >> had a chance to complete their work--and their classmates and killer >> (Narziss Ach, Felix Krueger, Eduard Spranger) we only read about today >> because Vygotsky cites them. >> >> dk >> >> >> >> On 17 July 2014 11:24, Andy Blunden > ablunden@mira.net>> wrote: >> >> Could you elaborate on this one, David: >> "The fact that the child has not yet fully internalized that act >> of thinking does not make it any less an act of thinking" and how >> it relates to generalization? >> >> Andy >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> ------------ >> *Andy Blunden* >> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ >> >> >> >> David Kellogg wrote: >> >> Andy: >> >> Here's what Vygotsky says in Chapter One of "Thinking and Speech". >> >> ???????, ?????????? ?? ???????? ????????? ? ?? ?????????? >> ???????? ????? ? ???????????, ?????????? ??????? ????????? >> ??????? ???????, ?????????? ??????? ????, ???? ? ?????? >> ????????? ???????????? ????, ????????? ?? ??????????? ? >> ??????? ? ???????? ?????. ?? ?? ?????? ?????????? ??????? ???? >> ???????????? ????????? ? ???????????????? ? ?????????? >> ???????? ? ??????????? ?????????? ????. ????????, ??? >> ????????? ??????? ???????? ????, ?????, ????. ????? ??? ??? >> ??????????? ??????????? ?????? ?? ??????????? ???????????? ? >> ??????? ???? ???????? ???? ???????, ???????????? ?? ????????. >> >> That is: >> >> "Society, based on rational understanding and intentional >> transfer of thinking and perizhivanie, requires without fail >> some system of means, the prototype of which is, was, and will >> always remain that of human speech, which arose of necessity >> through social conotact in the process of labor. But until now >> the matter has been presented in conformity with the >> dominating view in psychology, in an extremely simplified way. >> It has been assumed that the means of contact is the sign, the >> word, the sound. This error stems solely from the incorrect >> use in the solution of the problem of speech an analysis which >> decomposes speech into elements." >> >> Vygotsky then points out that this analysis is incorrect >> because it does not take into account that each word is a >> generalization--an act of thinking. He quotes a passage of >> Edward Sapir which has been cut from the Soviet version int >> the Collected Works (but which Kozulin has included in his >> update of the Hanfmann-Vakar translation). >> >> ? ????? ?????????????? ????????, ? ??????? ???????????? >> ?????????? ? ??????, ???????? ?????? ?????????, ?? ?? >> ????????? ? ?? ??????? ? ??????????? ?????? ????? ?????. >> ?????? ????? ????????? ??????? ??? ? ????? ??????? ?? >> ?????????? ????. ????????????? ????, . ??????? ??, . ?????? >> ???? ?????? ? ????? ???????, ? ???????????? ??????? ?????? >> ?????. ??? ????? ?????? ???? ??????????? ??????? ? ???????, >> ????? ???????? ???? ??????????????? ???. ?????? ??? ?????????? >> ????????? ????????????, ??? ????????? ???? ????? ? ????????? >> ???????? ?, ?????? ??????, ?? ????????. ??? ???? ????? ????? >> ??????????, ?? ?????? ???? ??????? ? ?????????? ??????, >> ???????, ?? ??????????? ??????????, ??????????????? ????????? >> ??? ?????????. >> >> "In the sphere of instinctive consciousness, in which rules >> perception and passion, only infection and contagion is >> possible, not understanding and social contact in the true >> sense of the word. Edward Sapir has wonderfully explained this >> in his work on the psychology of speech. Elements of >> language,? he says must be connected to an entire group, to a >> defined class of our experience. ?The world of our experiences >> must be enormously simplified and generalized before it is >> possible to make a symbolic inventory of all our experiences >> of things and relations; and this inventory is imperative >> before we can convey ideas. The elements of language, the >> symbols that ticket off experience, must therefore be >> associated with whole groups, delimited classes, of experience >> rather than with the single experiences themselves. Only so is >> communication possible, for the single experience lodges in an >> individual consciousness and is, strictly speaking, >> incommunicable. To be communicated it needs to be referred to >> a class which is tacitly accepted by the community as an >> identity.? >> >> Vygotsky concludes that a word meaning is a generalization, >> and that a generalization is an act of thinking. Ergo, the >> rational and intentional transfer of thinking and of >> perizhivanie requires an act of thinking. The fact that the >> child has not yet fully internalized that act of thinking does >> not make it any less an act of thinking. >> >> >> Nor does the fact that this view was criticized by Stalinists >> make it any less true for me. Stalinists criticized Darwinism, >> you know! >> >> >> David Kellogg >> >> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 16 July 2014 14:34, Andy Blunden > > >> >> wrote: >> >> David, it may seem picky, but I can't agree with this >> formulation >> below, in particular the use of "thinking". To interpret >> Vyotsky's >> observation in terms of "thinking" is to *intellectualise* >> Vygotsky, or to put it another way, to impute to Vygotsky an >> intellectualisation of human life. This move was a >> principal line >> of attack of Vygotsky during the Stalinist years after his >> death, >> so it is important not to repeat it now. You correctly >> analysed >> the difference for a child of having a drunk for a mother, >> rather >> than for a father or a neighbour. But this was not a >> question of >> what the child *thought* about these relations, but the real >> significance of each relation for the child having its >> vital needs >> met, within the horizon of consciousness of the child. And >> I use >> "consciousness" here as a Marxist, to indicate the entirety of >> subjective processes of the child which mediate between their >> physiology and their behaviour, not as a synonym for the >> intellect. The child will perceive their situation (and >> threats to >> it) in the only way they can, that is, in an >> age-appropriate way. >> And they will change their own activity in response to the >> perceived threat also in an age- and >> circumstances-appropriate way >> too. All of this - significance, perception, needs - are >> not to be >> interpreted as categories of thinking, but categories of the >> life-activity of living beings, that's all, not necessarily >> thinking. But of course, the capacity for thinking - the >> use of >> symbolic actions - and the capacity for extended >> reflection on an >> experience, are additional resources and points of >> vulnerability, >> over and above vital relations which do not imply intellectual >> relations. >> Andy >> ------------------------------ >> ------------------------------------------ >> *Andy Blunden* >> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ >> >> >> >> >> >> David Kellogg wrote: ... >> >> It's not that nothing is real until thinking makes it >> so; it >> is only that >> meaning is made by thinking and not simply by >> experiencing. ... >> >> >> >> >> >> > From huw.softdesigns@gmail.com Fri Jul 18 08:00:16 2014 From: huw.softdesigns@gmail.com (Huw Lloyd) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 16:00:16 +0100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: In Defense of Fuzzy Things In-Reply-To: References: <53BB4559.40005@mira.net> <53C60ED8.40208@mira.net> <53C733E0.6010400@mira.net> <53C8716C.1090803@mira.net> Message-ID: On 18 July 2014 13:30, Huw Lloyd wrote: > Andy: " The intellect is not the whole of consciousness - it is one > aspect abstracted from the whole of consciousness. Vygotsky showed us how > to study the semantic structure of consciousness - awful phrase - the > intellectual aspect of mental activity." > > I think this abstract contingency is often insufficiently stressed in > commentary regarding the unit of analysis. If one fails to recognise the > abstraction as a contingency (a pragmatic pretension, if you like) then one > falls back on Aristotelian practices, albeit of a more sophisticated nature > (but perhaps harder to see due to their sophistication). Conversely, it is > logically reasonable to assert that "everything is play" or "everything is > communication" or "everything is cognition" etc, provided one realises that > this is amorphous. > > David: "Meaning making, therefore, has to be disguised as "activity", of > which the > paradigmatic form is not speech at all, but rather labor. " > > "Nevertheless, when we read Chapter One of Thinking and Speech, we see > that > semantic structure, not activity structure, is precisely what Vygotsky has > in mind: there is indeed a clear link between feeling and thinking (else > children would never learn to think verbally), but there is also a > dialectical leap (else children would already know how)" > > I fear your dialectical leap here is a metaphysical leap, David. I see no > contradiction between activity (motive) and meaning. Are you considering > meaning to the exclusion of its (ontogenetic) formation? > > The translations were concerning Zinchenko (and others) rather than > Leontyev. As it happens, P. I. Zinchenko, Zaraprozhets and Sereda (and > presumably many others) had some interesting things to say in relation to > holes in the theoretical and experimental work, which (for me) seem to > point to blind-spots stemming from the dialectical thinking of the > practitioners. > > Zaporozhets, rather. E.g.: Zaporozhets, A. V. (1995) Problems in the Psychology of Activity. Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, 33(4). > Best, > Huw > > > > > On 18 July 2014 01:59, Andy Blunden wrote: > >> OK David, I *think* I get your line of argument here. Can I try to pick >> out what are for me the key elements? >> >> (1) When you referred to the child internalising thinking you were >> referring to the actions (i.e., unity of behaviour and consciousness) in >> which others are involving them - the "law" about categories appearing >> first on the social plane and later on the psychical plane. "Later" of >> course. That is, if "thinking" is a meaningful word, they are not yet >> thinking. They are engaged in a process which all going well will become >> thinking. >> >> (2) You quite correctly note that one of the lines by which Vygotsky was >> labelled idealist is on the basis of the orthodox Marxist idea of labour as >> the paradigmatic form of activity, rather than speech. That is true, and >> you and I and many here would agree that Vygotsky had a point. Labour is >> the paradigmatic form of activity for a certain kind of historical >> analysis, but I think that while there is some truth in that approach to >> history, there are also severe problems. But labour is certainly inadequate >> as a foundation for psychology. >> >> (3) Semantic actions create "intellectual" structures in the mind. I.e., >> the interest in semantics and speech activity is the basis for the charge >> of intellectualism. >> >> On all these points I think we are close to agreement. The disagreement >> is this: I see "Thinking and Speech" as a specialised investigation which >> was to be an exemplar for how to conduct *any* psychological investigation, >> but *not* to create a model for all psychological processes. By studying >> thinking and speech, the target is what we like to reify as the intellect. >> The intellect is not the whole of consciousness - it is one aspect >> abstracted from the whole of consciousness. Vygotsky showed us how to study >> the semantic structure of consciousness - awful phrase - the intellectual >> aspect of mental activity. >> >> So for example, I think your use of perezhivanie below is open to >> criticism. I accept that there is no English word for perezhivanie other >> than perezhivanie, and mostly the way Vygotsky uses it in "Problem of the >> Environment" is open to an interpretation as "experiencing" - i.e., the >> fundamental concept of empiricism. But when people are studying >> perezhivanie they are not talking about the intellect, though undoubtedly >> the intellect is involved, if we are to accept the word of those Russians >> who exclude the possibility of perezhivanija for children. Perezhivanie is >> a unit for the development of the personality, admittedly not a >> well-defined term, but in my mind quite distinct from the intellect. >> >> >> Andy >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> *Andy Blunden* >> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ >> >> >> David Kellogg wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> First of all, in defence of Andy, I should point out that he is not >>> really as pompous as he sounds when he is solemnly informing me of my gross >>> misunderstanding and my utter confusion, or when he is stating that only >>> certain works read in a particular order (which miraculously coincides with >>> the selection of works he has effected and the precise order which he >>> himself has read them in) can produce genuine clear thinking. Andy and I >>> are old friends, and in addition we both come from societies where a >>> certain amount of raillery is a mark of affection and an antidote to >>> affectation (something that Andy and I are both prone to, alas). >>> >>> Secondly, in deference to Beth, and Francis and all lurkers who would >>> join in the discussion if they could only make head or tail of it, let me >>> defend some of this esoterica and try to link it to the parallel, more >>> exoteric thread. What appears to be under discussion, for example, is >>> whether a Russian word which means something like "social contact" should >>> be translated as "society" or as "contact" (as Mike very perceptively >>> points out, I do BOTH, translating the same word in two different ways). Or >>> perhaps what is under discussion is whether "meaning" refers to >>> consciousness quite generally and therefore includes the way a child who >>> knows nothing about alcoholism might perceive a drunken mother or only >>> consciousness as it has been transformed by verbal thinking. In other >>> words, what appears to be under discussion is precisely what was under >>> discussion in the other thread: other words, and the extent to which they >>> really do represent other thoughts. >>> >>> A lot of the misunderstandings (to use Andy's term) between Helen and >>> the other Mike (the Mike in Helen's data, not the Grand Old Man of xmca) >>> are of precisely this nature. But not all of them. Sometimes we use the >>> same word, e.g. "community of learners" or "meaning" and we actually mean >>> totally different things, just as the child who hears "Some dinosaurs >>> learned to swim and other dinosaurs learned to fly" may understand that >>> dinosaurs are purely imaginary creatures that went to school in order to do >>> these things. And THAT is what I meant when I said that the mere fact that >>> a child has not fully internalized a socially, culturally worked out act of >>> thinking does not make it any the less an act of thinking. >>> >>> Now, let me make the context of my two quotations a little clearer. They >>> are both from Chapter One of Thinking and Speech, but the first quotation >>> has nothing whatsoever to do with Sapir, and in fact my translation is >>> rather inept. It should really be this: >>> " >>> It has been assumed that the means of contact is the sign:--that is, the >>> word, the sound." >>> >>> Vygotsky's attacking Saussure, who holds that the "signifier" and the >>> "signified" inhabit two different realms, like soul and body: one is made >>> of meaning and the other is made of meat. >>> >>> Vygotsky's point is that "wording" actually includes both, but in an >>> idealized form. Wording (speech) does not directly interface with the >>> environment: the semantics interfaces with the environment because it is a >>> representation of human experience and the phonology interfaces with the >>> environment because it is phonetically realized by going through physical >>> human organs like the lungs, larynx, and the lips, but lexicogrammar--words >>> and wordings--must interface with the environment through the semantics and >>> the phonology. >>> >>> True, later on in the Chapter he refers to phonemes, which to us, today, >>> just means sounds. But I have since established that the word meant >>> "morpheme" to Vygotsky, not phoneme. (His example, in the "Lectures on >>> Pedology" is actually Russian CASE grammar, which has nothing to do with >>> pronunciation. So Vygotsky is saying exactly what the good Moorish doctor >>> Ibn Hakim says in the opera Iolanta (right before the line Vygotsky quotes >>> about consciousness reflected like sunlight in the drop of water): >>> >>> "??? ???? ? ???????? ? ???????? >>> ? ?? ???? ???????? ?????. >>> ???? ????????? ???????, >>> ??? ?????, ???? ?." >>> >>> (Two worlds, thinking and extension >>> Found in all things that can be >>> In ourselves, in intension >>> Their one-ness is known to me.) >>> Here's a Soviet version from 1963--Ibn Hakim's lesson in monism begins >>> at 2:34. >>> >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SXF6610O0I >>> >>> Experience (perezhivanie) and sounding are thus united in wording. >>> BUT...first of all, we have to recognize that they are united in an >>> idealized form: an abstraction. Secondly, we have to recognize that they >>> are united in a generalized form--a historico-culturally evolved meaning. >>> And finally, I think we have to accept that this act of abstraction and >>> generalization is, ontogenetically, initially social and only in the long >>> run individual and personal: word meanings develop as children grow up. >>> So this bit of esoterica turns out to be pretty exoteric after all. I >>> was actually, going to mention this earlier, when Huw said that his >>> translation interests pointed more in the direction of Leontiev than in >>> trying to recover Vygotsky's original ideas. Leontiev is, as Andy points >>> out, a recovering Vygotskyan--he is working in a climate where Vygotskyan >>> ideas must be carefully disguised as vulgar, behaviorist ones. Meaning >>> making, therefore, has to be disguised as "activity", of which the >>> paradigmatic form is not speech at all, but rather labor. It is actually >>> much easier to live lies like this twenty-four seven if you actually try to >>> believe them, and I think that by the end of his career Leontiev actually >>> believed that his formulation was more Marxist than the "idealist", >>> "intellectualist" alternative--the idea that says that the mind is actually >>> semantic in structure rather than structured by physical or even social >>> activities. >>> >>> Nevertheless, when we read Chapter One of Thinking and Speech, we see >>> that semantic structure, not activity structure, is precisely what Vygotsky >>> has in mind: there is indeed a clear link between feeling and thinking >>> (else children would never learn to think verbally), but there is also a >>> dialectical leap (else children would already know how). Children >>> accomplish this dialectical leap through dialogue. That is, they are >>> confronted with the finished form of word meaning, and they find there way >>> to it through all kinds of misunderstandings (just as we do on this list). >>> >>> This word "day" that they thought they knew so well actually doesn't >>> just mean the stretch of time between waking and sleeping, and that when >>> you call your grandmother in Los Angeles on Tuesday, its still Monday over >>> there, but that doesn't somehow make your grandmother one day younger than >>> you are. That's what I meant when I said that the mere fact that the child >>> is not thinking verbally does not make the generalization that we find in >>> the word any less an act of thinking. It's just an act of cultural, social, >>> inter-mental thinking, and not yet a act of individual, personal, >>> intra-mental thought. Grandma and grandchild are not quite on the same >>> page, but they are getting there. >>> >>> It's interesting that the precise example that Vygotsky uses in Chapter >>> One is...the FEELING being cold, which must be generalized into the THOUGHT >>> of coldness. He points out that you can communicate this feeling perfectly >>> well by shivering and letting your teeth chatter, and even by simulating >>> shivering and making your teeth chatter, but what you are communicating is >>> a feeling...and not the idea of being cold. The idea of being cold is a >>> generalization, and an act of thinking. >>> >>> David Kellogg >>> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies >>> >>> PS: Huw--the whole of Ganzheitpsychologie--from Wurzburg to Leipzig--was >>> a "genetic" psychology, and in fact they are the ones who founded the >>> concept of "microgenesis". The problem was that half of them became Nazis >>> and the other half became their victims. The victims, like Otto Selz, never >>> had a chance to complete their work--and their classmates and killer >>> (Narziss Ach, Felix Krueger, Eduard Spranger) we only read about today >>> because Vygotsky cites them. >>> >>> dk >>> >>> >>> >>> On 17 July 2014 11:24, Andy Blunden >> ablunden@mira.net>> wrote: >>> >>> Could you elaborate on this one, David: >>> "The fact that the child has not yet fully internalized that act >>> of thinking does not make it any less an act of thinking" and how >>> it relates to generalization? >>> >>> Andy >>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>> ------------ >>> *Andy Blunden* >>> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ >>> >>> >>> >>> David Kellogg wrote: >>> >>> Andy: >>> >>> Here's what Vygotsky says in Chapter One of "Thinking and >>> Speech". >>> >>> ???????, ?????????? ?? ???????? ????????? ? ?? ?????????? >>> ???????? ????? ? ???????????, ?????????? ??????? ????????? >>> ??????? ???????, ?????????? ??????? ????, ???? ? ?????? >>> ????????? ???????????? ????, ????????? ?? ??????????? ? >>> ??????? ? ???????? ?????. ?? ?? ?????? ?????????? ??????? ???? >>> ???????????? ????????? ? ???????????????? ? ?????????? >>> ???????? ? ??????????? ?????????? ????. ????????, ??? >>> ????????? ??????? ???????? ????, ?????, ????. ????? ??? ??? >>> ??????????? ??????????? ?????? ?? ??????????? ???????????? ? >>> ??????? ???? ???????? ???? ???????, ???????????? ?? ????????. >>> >>> That is: >>> >>> "Society, based on rational understanding and intentional >>> transfer of thinking and perizhivanie, requires without fail >>> some system of means, the prototype of which is, was, and will >>> always remain that of human speech, which arose of necessity >>> through social conotact in the process of labor. But until now >>> the matter has been presented in conformity with the >>> dominating view in psychology, in an extremely simplified way. >>> It has been assumed that the means of contact is the sign, the >>> word, the sound. This error stems solely from the incorrect >>> use in the solution of the problem of speech an analysis which >>> decomposes speech into elements." >>> >>> Vygotsky then points out that this analysis is incorrect >>> because it does not take into account that each word is a >>> generalization--an act of thinking. He quotes a passage of >>> Edward Sapir which has been cut from the Soviet version int >>> the Collected Works (but which Kozulin has included in his >>> update of the Hanfmann-Vakar translation). >>> >>> ? ????? ?????????????? ????????, ? ??????? ???????????? >>> ?????????? ? ??????, ???????? ?????? ?????????, ?? ?? >>> ????????? ? ?? ??????? ? ??????????? ?????? ????? ?????. >>> ?????? ????? ????????? ??????? ??? ? ????? ??????? ?? >>> ?????????? ????. ????????????? ????, . ??????? ??, . ?????? >>> ???? ?????? ? ????? ???????, ? ???????????? ??????? ?????? >>> ?????. ??? ????? ?????? ???? ??????????? ??????? ? ???????, >>> ????? ???????? ???? ??????????????? ???. ?????? ??? ?????????? >>> ????????? ????????????, ??? ????????? ???? ????? ? ????????? >>> ???????? ?, ?????? ??????, ?? ????????. ??? ???? ????? ????? >>> ??????????, ?? ?????? ???? ??????? ? ?????????? ??????, >>> ???????, ?? ??????????? ??????????, ??????????????? ????????? >>> ??? ?????????. >>> >>> "In the sphere of instinctive consciousness, in which rules >>> perception and passion, only infection and contagion is >>> possible, not understanding and social contact in the true >>> sense of the word. Edward Sapir has wonderfully explained this >>> in his work on the psychology of speech. Elements of >>> language,? he says must be connected to an entire group, to a >>> defined class of our experience. ?The world of our experiences >>> must be enormously simplified and generalized before it is >>> possible to make a symbolic inventory of all our experiences >>> of things and relations; and this inventory is imperative >>> before we can convey ideas. The elements of language, the >>> symbols that ticket off experience, must therefore be >>> associated with whole groups, delimited classes, of experience >>> rather than with the single experiences themselves. Only so is >>> communication possible, for the single experience lodges in an >>> individual consciousness and is, strictly speaking, >>> incommunicable. To be communicated it needs to be referred to >>> a class which is tacitly accepted by the community as an >>> identity.? >>> >>> Vygotsky concludes that a word meaning is a generalization, >>> and that a generalization is an act of thinking. Ergo, the >>> rational and intentional transfer of thinking and of >>> perizhivanie requires an act of thinking. The fact that the >>> child has not yet fully internalized that act of thinking does >>> not make it any less an act of thinking. >>> >>> >>> Nor does the fact that this view was criticized by Stalinists >>> make it any less true for me. Stalinists criticized Darwinism, >>> you know! >>> >>> >>> David Kellogg >>> >>> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 16 July 2014 14:34, Andy Blunden >> >> >>> >> wrote: >>> >>> David, it may seem picky, but I can't agree with this >>> formulation >>> below, in particular the use of "thinking". To interpret >>> Vyotsky's >>> observation in terms of "thinking" is to *intellectualise* >>> Vygotsky, or to put it another way, to impute to Vygotsky an >>> intellectualisation of human life. This move was a >>> principal line >>> of attack of Vygotsky during the Stalinist years after his >>> death, >>> so it is important not to repeat it now. You correctly >>> analysed >>> the difference for a child of having a drunk for a mother, >>> rather >>> than for a father or a neighbour. But this was not a >>> question of >>> what the child *thought* about these relations, but the real >>> significance of each relation for the child having its >>> vital needs >>> met, within the horizon of consciousness of the child. And >>> I use >>> "consciousness" here as a Marxist, to indicate the entirety >>> of >>> subjective processes of the child which mediate between their >>> physiology and their behaviour, not as a synonym for the >>> intellect. The child will perceive their situation (and >>> threats to >>> it) in the only way they can, that is, in an >>> age-appropriate way. >>> And they will change their own activity in response to the >>> perceived threat also in an age- and >>> circumstances-appropriate way >>> too. All of this - significance, perception, needs - are >>> not to be >>> interpreted as categories of thinking, but categories of the >>> life-activity of living beings, that's all, not necessarily >>> thinking. But of course, the capacity for thinking - the >>> use of >>> symbolic actions - and the capacity for extended >>> reflection on an >>> experience, are additional resources and points of >>> vulnerability, >>> over and above vital relations which do not imply >>> intellectual >>> relations. >>> Andy >>> ------------------------------ >>> ------------------------------------------ >>> *Andy Blunden* >>> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> David Kellogg wrote: ... >>> >>> It's not that nothing is real until thinking makes it >>> so; it >>> is only that >>> meaning is made by thinking and not simply by >>> experiencing. ... >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> > From ablunden@mira.net Fri Jul 18 08:21:40 2014 From: ablunden@mira.net (Andy Blunden) Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2014 01:21:40 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: In Defense of Fuzzy Things In-Reply-To: References: <53BB4559.40005@mira.net> <53C60ED8.40208@mira.net> <53C733E0.6010400@mira.net> <53C8716C.1090803@mira.net> Message-ID: <53C93B84.5050906@mira.net> Thanks for those comments, Huw. Much appreciated. In connection with one remark you made below, can I draw attention to one thing though, something that I think is often overlooked? When you read through chapter 5 of T&S, the one on formation of concepts in childhood, i.e., "spontaneous concepts," what he describes is only a series of about 10 different forms of activity, not different mental formations or capacity. I have observed that it is possible to make sense of this strange series of forms of activity by means of hypethisising (or reifying) various "mental capacities" - the ability to isolate objects from a background, the ability to abstract one feature from a concrete object, the ability to synthesise objects into groups in some way and add new members, the ability to represent functional sets of objects, the ability to use adult words as a guide to isolating objects and situations, the ability to forms habits on situations, and the ability to act according to a finite set of rules. But Vygotsky *does not do that*! He just identifies the various forms of activity which we can see are made possible if we reify these capacities as mental formations of some kind and their various combinations. I find it easier to remember and understand it that way. That's how our minds work. We are born realists and when we reify something we feel we understand our actions around it. But Vygotsky holds back from that, and actually *restricts himself to the description of forms of activity*, and then calls this "concept formation". Generally, I think people read this chapter as describing a series of about 10 distinct mental capacities or formations, which it certainly isn't. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Andy Blunden* http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ Huw Lloyd wrote: > ... > "Nevertheless, when we read Chapter One of Thinking and Speech, we see > that > semantic structure, not activity structure, is precisely what Vygotsky has > in mind: there is indeed a clear link between feeling and thinking (else > children would never learn to think verbally), but there is also a > dialectical leap (else children would already know how)" > From huw.softdesigns@gmail.com Fri Jul 18 10:17:04 2014 From: huw.softdesigns@gmail.com (Huw Lloyd) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 18:17:04 +0100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: In Defense of Fuzzy Things In-Reply-To: <53C93B84.5050906@mira.net> References: <53BB4559.40005@mira.net> <53C60ED8.40208@mira.net> <53C733E0.6010400@mira.net> <53C8716C.1090803@mira.net> <53C93B84.5050906@mira.net> Message-ID: Thanks Andy. That's an interesting observation which I'll attend to next time I read T&S. My main response to this, however, is simply the appreciation that an author has for his audience. If Vygotsky (and Bateson and I would expect Dewey too) know (or hold as a firm belief) that the only way a reader will properly understand them is by working upon their own conceptions (i.e. engaging in the theory, not simply spouting it), then it follows that they cannot simply deliver the material on a plate. However, the business of referring to clear observables as epistemologically preferable (or stronger) when such observables are highly suggestive (and effectively carry the underlying meaning for the reader without the supporting theory) seems like a useful heuristic. I had another thought but my eldest says its tea time! Best, Huw On 18 July 2014 16:21, Andy Blunden wrote: > Thanks for those comments, Huw. Much appreciated. In connection with one > remark you made below, can I draw attention to one thing though, something > that I think is often overlooked? > > When you read through chapter 5 of T&S, the one on formation of concepts > in childhood, i.e., "spontaneous concepts," what he describes is only a > series of about 10 different forms of activity, not different mental > formations or capacity. I have observed that it is possible to make sense > of this strange series of forms of activity by means of hypethisising (or > reifying) various "mental capacities" - the ability to isolate objects from > a background, the ability to abstract one feature from a concrete object, > the ability to synthesise objects into groups in some way and add new > members, the ability to represent functional sets of objects, the ability > to use adult words as a guide to isolating objects and situations, the > ability to forms habits on situations, and the ability to act according to > a finite set of rules. But Vygotsky *does not do that*! He just identifies > the various forms of activity which we can see are made possible if we > reify these capacities as mental formations of some kind and their various > combinations. > > I find it easier to remember and understand it that way. That's how our > minds work. We are born realists and when we reify something we feel we > understand our actions around it. But Vygotsky holds back from that, and > actually *restricts himself to the description of forms of activity*, and > then calls this "concept formation". Generally, I think people read this > chapter as describing a series of about 10 distinct mental capacities or > formations, which it certainly isn't. > > > Andy > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *Andy Blunden* > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > > Huw Lloyd wrote: > >> ... >> >> "Nevertheless, when we read Chapter One of Thinking and Speech, we see >> that >> semantic structure, not activity structure, is precisely what Vygotsky has >> in mind: there is indeed a clear link between feeling and thinking (else >> children would never learn to think verbally), but there is also a >> dialectical leap (else children would already know how)" >> >> > From huw.softdesigns@gmail.com Fri Jul 18 14:04:31 2014 From: huw.softdesigns@gmail.com (Huw Lloyd) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 22:04:31 +0100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Vivian Maier's street life photography Message-ID: I thought some of you might like these photographs and the backstory. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-28123706 http://www.vivianmaier.com/ Best, Huw From dkellogg60@gmail.com Fri Jul 18 14:51:55 2014 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2014 06:51:55 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: book of possible interest In-Reply-To: References: <0D461088-CBBB-4BD9-ADCB-3024C36CBE81@telia.com> <53C48DF1.5000703@mira.net> Message-ID: Francis: We just had about two weeks of "teaching practica". The terrified trainees have to stand up and teach a fifteen minute lesson in front of peers masequerading as children and three rabid professors making negative comments. Not only is this not a very propitious environment in which to try out new things (or even demonstrate basic teaching skills), it's a really an opportunity made in hell for saying anything intelligent about teaching, which is, alas, my job. Here's what I wanted to ask you, since you have a background in systemic-functional grammar and CDA and above all because you seemed to imply in your last that you thought the very attempt to engage can be transformative (as opposed to demoralizing). I sometimes notice that the best teachers have a regular rhythm--getting attention, giving information, and checking understanding. This rhythm is faster when the "kids" are learning something familiar and slower when the "kids" are on new territory, but it's always there. I would like to say that these three functions are related in some systematic way to imperatives, declaratives, and interrogatives. But they are not, even when I take interpersonal metaphors (e.g. "May I have your attention please?") into account. What do you think I am looking at here? Now, let me use this example to address some of what Huw and Andy have been saying. I hope you'll see that the two threads are not quite as unrelated as the two different titles suggest. Suppose I walk into a classroom, pick out some friendly eye contact, and I say "Hi! I'm Mr. K. And you?" As you can see, the first "Hi!" is an instance of getting attention. But it isn't a figure of experience: it's a minor clause. "I'm Mr. K" is a major clause, and "And you?" is an elliptical clause, parasitic on "I'm Mr. K" for most of its wording. So it seems to me that SOME functions (e.g. getting attention) are rather closer to figures of experience, while others are more concerned with social contact. All functions have to be both, but they don't have to be the same proportions of both, and so development is, contrary to what Huw suggests, perfectly possible. Children do not leap metaphysically, but dialectically--by going from using language mostly to get attention (and largely without clause grammar) to using language to give information and eventually using it to check understanding. You can see that "Hi!" is a good example of the unity of behavior and consciousness that Andy is talking about. But by the time we get to checking understanding, the "behavior" element becomes pretty irrelevant: I just don't see any way in which understanding can be described as "behavior" and we can still retain the key distinction between pseudoconceptual understanding and conceptual understanding. In Andy's first point, he argues that when children are not using word meanings to think (i.e. visiographical thinking, which plays a very important role in getting children's attention) they are not thinking. I prefer to think that they are thinking, but they are thinking using what Vygotsky (and Buhler and especially Kohler, who were certainly genetic psychologists) liked to call "practical intellect". It's intellect. But it's not verbal thinking. I'm not sure that I agree when Andy says, in his second point, that labour is ALWAYS inadequate as a foundation for psychological inquiry--I imagine Helena Worthen finds it very useful. But I certainly agree with Andy that the revisionists (Leontiev, Zinchenko, Wertsch) took "labour" as paradigmatic, and as a result they had to deep-six Vygotsky's late ideas about the semantic structure of consciousness (that is, Vygotsky's idea that minds are made of word meanings, not action plans). Some of the revisionists did this reluctantly (Leontiev, at his best) but some of them were quite strident (Zinchenko in particular). All of them considered Vygotsky an idealist. As I understand it, Huw DISAGREES with Andy and actually agrees with the revisionist critique of Vygotsky on the grounds that children are mostly preoccupied with action and not word meaning. That's all very true of course: but they are NOT really preoccupied with labour activity. Their preoccupations are with PLAY activity (Kim Yongho and I did a good study of so-called "Task based teaching" that shows how children redefine tasks as role plays and games). Play activity is, as Vygotsky has shown us, genetically related to speech and not to labour. Andy's third point is that semantic actions (???) create intellectual structures in the mind. I don't know what a semantic action is; semantics for me is the process of making something stand for something else, but I don't see in what sense it helps to model this process as an "action". In many ways, it is precisely a non-action, because it includes conditionality and interpretability, neither of which is usefully modeled as action. In any case, you and I, Francis, are Hallidayans. We know that ideation is only a part of semantics (there is also the interpersonal and the textual metafunction), and that intellect is only a part of ideation (there is the experiential as well as the logical metafunction). So there is no basis whatsoever for the charge of intellectualism (I think what Andy is really getting at is not intellectualism but objectivism). I agree with the Russians who say that "perezhivanie" is a well defined concept. But to me "well defined" means developmentally so: it means that the specific weight of the various components of "perezhivanie" have to be allowed to change as we develop: so for young children "perezhivanie" is largely "felt experience", and for older children it is mostly "thought over--contemplated--experience". I don't see that thinking over is mostly an intellectual exercise though--I always feel, even in these exchanges on xmca, that there is a certain emotional component which makes us respond, sometimes before we really even think things out. David Kellogg Hankuk University of Foreign Studies On 16 July 2014 04:39, FRANCIS J. SULLIVAN wrote: > With great trepidation, I want to enter this conversation with my first > post to the list (I have followed it for about a year now) because as both > a researcher and teacher educator the issues raised are major concerns of > mine too. I find, I think it was David's point, the idea that we can think > of the "connections" problem in two ways to be at the heart of the issue, > at least for me. It is one thing to construct a connection that "adds to" > the existing knowledge framework of others. But, it is a very different > thing to sea5rch for a "connection" that requires others to qualitatively > change, or even abandon, their existing framework. Helen seems to achieve > such a connection with at least some of her teachers by helping them to > re-cognize their own social identities so that the new knowledge and > framework became less threatening and more inviting. She reconnected them > with who they used to be and what they valued. So they did not see > themselves as merely "ignorant" but more like retracing their steps. > For me, at least, that's why the "deficit" models of teaching (or research) > practices do not work. We--teachers and students--need to find a place from > which we can begin this journey together, common ground so to speak. While > a deaf person may not "know" English, I don't think that's the salient > point. All of us don't know things. What seems to me salient in Helen's > attempt to find connections, is that the very attempt challenged their > current ways of framing their professional lives. What we might think of as > "ignorance," those teachers thought of as "knowledge." And that "knowledge" > was part and parcel of the ways they positioned themselves as teachers in > relation to students. > I am tempted to put this into discourse analysis terms--I'm a > semi-Hallidayan with a critical theory twist. But, I've said enough for a > first post, I think. I hope it is useful. > > Francis J. Sullivan, Ph.D. > Associate Professor > Department of Teaching and Learning > College of Education > Temple University > Philadelphia, PA 19122 > > > Find out what any people will quietly submit to and you have the exact > measure of the injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them. > > Frederick Douglass > > > On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 2:10 AM, David Kellogg > wrote: > > > Well, I do hope that Helen means that "for the moment", as I have learned > > an awful lot from this book and even more from this discussion. You see, > I > > am trying to tease apart two very different processes that appear, on the > > face of it, to be almost identical, but which also appear to have > > diametrically opposite developmental effects. > > > > One process is the process of getting people to feel at ease, > > confident, and happy that they understand what you are saying because it > is > > actually something that is identical or at least very similar to what > they > > already think. Another, almost identical, process is the process of > > "establishing ties" between a new form of knowledge and an earlier one. > > BOTH of these processes, it seems to me, occur throughout Helen's book, > and > > it is easy to mistake the one for the other. BOTH of these processes, to > > use our earlier terminology, involve "establishing ties", but only one of > > them also involves breaking away. > > > > For example, at one point in the book Helen, looking back over the > Banksia > > Bay PLZ data, rounds on herself for using a transparent piece of > > scaffolding to elicit the word "communicate" from a group of teachers. > What > > bothers her is not that the answer itself is far too general to be of any > > practical value to the teachers, but only that she had it very firmly in > > mind, and kept badgering the teachers (as we all do, when we have a > precise > > answer in mind) until she got it. The alternative, she points out, would > be > > to take what she got and work with that. > > > > Yes indeed. But I think the main reason that would have been more > > interesting is not that it would have resulted in fewer rejections of > > teacher answers and made people more at ease, confdent, and happy that > they > > understood, but rather than it would have yielded something more like a > > concrete but unconscious and not yet volitionally controlled example of > > excellence from the teacher's own practice. I almost always find that the > > actual answers I want--the "methods" I end up imparting to my own > teachers, > > are already present in the data they bring me (because we almost always > > begin with actual transcripts of their lessons) but they are generally > not > > methods but only moments, and moments that go unnoticed and therefore > > ungeneralized in the hurly burly of actual teaching. > > > > Last winter, Helen and I were at a conference in New Zealand where, among > > other eventful episodes, Craig Brandist got up and gave a very precise > list > > of half a dozen different and utterly contradictory ways in which Bakhtin > > uses the term "dialogue". Because the senses of "dialogue" are so many > and > > varied, people simply pick and choose, and they tend invariably to choose > > the ones that are closest to the way they already think. It is as moments > > like this that we need to remind ourselves that Bakhtin's "dialogue" does > > not, for the most part, ever include children, or women; that he did not > > "dialogue" with Volosinov or Medvedev when he allowed his acolytes > > to plunder their corpses, and that his love of carnival and the public > > marketplace does not extend to a belief in any form of political > democracy. > > > > So I think we should start off with an understanding that what Vygotsky > > says about defect is not the same was what we now believe. Vygotsky, for > > example, believed that sign language was not true language, and that even > > the congenitally deaf should be taught to lip read; this is simply > > wrong. (On the other hand, what he says about spontaneously created sign > > languages--that they are essentially elaborated systems of gesture and > they > > lack the signifying functions--fits exactly with Susan Goldin-Meadow's > > observations in Chicago.) > > > > And one reason I think it is important to begin with this understanding > is > > this: sometimes--usually--LSV is right and we are wrong. In particular, I > > think the "credit" view of defect, or, for that matter, ignorance of any > > kind and not fully conscious teacher expertise risks becoming a liberal > > platitude--the cup is always half full, so why not look on the bright > side > > of dearth? I certainly do not feel empowered by the fact that I know > > English but I do not know ASL, and I rather doubt that deaf people feel > > empowered by the opposite state of affairs. When I don't know something, > I > > do not see any bright side of not knowing it, for the very simple > > reason that I can't see at all. > > > > Vygotsky was probably very influenced by "Iolanta", an opera that > > Tchaikovsky wrote--he certainly seems to quote it extensively in the last > > chapter of "Thinking and Speech". In "Iolanta", King Renee copes with the > > blindness of his daughter by having her shut up in a garden and > forbidding > > all his subjects from discussing light, sight, color or anything visible > in > > any way. Vaudemont, a knight of Burgundy, blunders into the garden, > > discovers Iolanta's secret. Iolanta convinces him that sight is > > unnecessary, but in the course of doing so, she develops the desire to > see > > and choose for herself. > > > > David Kelogg > > Hankuk University of Foreign Studies > > > > > > > > On 15 July 2014 11:12, Andy Blunden wrote: > > > > > My reading of Vygotsky on 'defectology' was that the 'defect' was the > > > problem in social relations, that is, the person who is different in > some > > > way suffers because of the way that difference is treated or not > treated > > by > > > others, not for anything in itself. One and the same feature could be a > > > great benefit or a fatal flaw, depending on how others react to it. > > > Except insofar as introducing the idea of a "credit view" is a move > aimed > > > at changing the perceptions and behaviours of others in relation to the > > > subject, I don't think Vygotsky is an advocate of the mirror image of a > > > deficit view. As I see it, he analyses the problem of the person being > > > treated as deficient by means of the unit of *defect-compensation*. The > > > defect (a problem arising in social interaction, with others) generates > > > certain challenges which are overcome, generally also in interaction > with > > > others. This "compensation" leads to what Helen could call a "credit" > and > > > it is the dynamic set up between the social defect and social > > compensation > > > which shapes the subject's psychology and their relation to others. > > > Andy > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > *Andy Blunden* > > > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > > > > > > > > Helen Grimmett wrote: > > > > > >> I think what is unique about Vygotsky's work in defectology is that, > > >> despite the name, it is not a deficit view (in the way that I > understand > > >> the term) at all. > > >> > > >> I understand the commonly used term 'deficit view' as a focus on what > > >> children are 'missing' that needs to be provided to them by teachers > to > > >> bring them up to a pre-conceived idea of 'normal' for their age/grade > > >> level > > >> etc. Whereas, a 'credit view' focuses on what children are able to do > > and > > >> bring to a learning situation, in which, in the interaction with > others, > > >> they will be able to become more able to do and 'be' more than they > were > > >> before (i.e. to develop), whether this be in the 'expected' ways to > the > > >> 'expected' level or in completely different ways to a variety of > > different > > >> levels beyond or outside 'standard' expectations. From the little I > have > > >> read on defectology I think this is what Vygotsky was advocating - > that > > >> despite a child's blindness or deafness etc, development was still > > >> possible > > >> if mediational means were found that made use of the child's credits > > (i.e. > > >> using sign language or braille so that children still had access to > the > > >> developmental opportunities provided by language). So I think your > term > > >> pre-abled is in fact a credit view rather than a deficit view. > > >> > > >> I was attempting to also use a credit view in my work with the > > teachers. I > > >> saw them as being experienced practitioners who had lots to bring to > our > > >> discussions of teaching and learning, in which together we could see > > what > > >> could be developed (new practices, new understandings). Once Kay and > > Mike > > >> realised this they got on board and engaged in the process and > (possibly > > >> for the first time in a long while as they both saw themselves [and in > > >> fact > > >> are officially designated as] 'expert teachers') really reawakened the > > >> process of developing as professionals. They blew off most of the > > content > > >> I > > >> was contributing, but they realised the process was actually about > > >> 'unsticking' their own development and working out new and personally > > >> interesting and meaningful ways of 'becoming' more as teachers, > instead > > of > > >> being stuck 'being' the teacher they had turned into over the years. > Not > > >> all of the teachers made this leap in the time I worked with them > > though. > > >> Others were either quite disgruntled that I wouldn't provide them with > > >> answers to 'fix' their own perceived deficits or patiently waited for > me > > >> to > > >> go away and stop rocking the boat. From what I can gather though, Ann > > (the > > >> principal) kept the boat rocking and managed over time to get more > > >> teachers > > >> to buy into the process of learning from each other and > collaboratively > > >> creating new practices. As we said earlier, development takes time as > > well > > >> as effort. > > >> > > >> All I've got time for at the moment! > > >> > > >> Helen > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Dr Helen Grimmett > > >> Lecturer, Student Adviser, > > >> Faculty of Education, > > >> Room G64F, Building 902 > > >> Monash University, Berwick campus > > >> Phone: 9904 7171 > > >> > > >> *New Book: * > > >> The Practice of Teachers' Professional Development: A > > Cultural-Historical > > >> Approach > > >> > >> professional-learning-1/the-practice-of-teachers- > > >> professional-development/> > > >> Helen Grimmett (2014) Sense Publishers > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> source=staff-email&utm_medium=email-signature&utm_campaign=50th> > > >> > > >> > > >> On 14 July 2014 14:43, David Kellogg wrote: > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >>> Near the end of Chapter Three (p. 81), Helen is summing up her > > experience > > >>> with the Banksia Bay PLZ and she notes with some dismay that her > PDers > > >>> have > > >>> "a deficit view" of their children and tend towards "container > models" > > of > > >>> the mind ("empty vessel, sponge, blank canvas"). Only one teacher, > Ann > > >>> sees > > >>> anything wrong with this, and Helen says "they don't necessarily > value > > >>> her > > >>> opinion". > > >>> > > >>> Helen finds herself rather conflicted: One the one hand, she says > "If > > >>> their representations of children really do represent their beliefs, > > then > > >>> they are probably right to insist there is no need to change." And on > > the > > >>> other, she says "My intention was never to say that their present > > >>> practice > > >>> was wrong, but to help them see alternative ways of thinking about > > >>> children, learning, and teaching." > > >>> > > >>> Of course, if there is no need to change, then it follows that there > is > > >>> no > > >>> reason to look for alternative ways of thinking about children, > > learning > > >>> and teaching. The only reason for spending scarce cognitive resources > > on > > >>> seeing different ways of looking at children is if you do, in fact, > > take > > >>> a > > >>> deficit view of the teachers. Ann, and the Regional Consultants, > > >>> apparently > > >>> do, but Helen realizes that there isn't much basis for this: not only > > do > > >>> we > > >>> have no actual data of lessons to look at, we know that one of the > > >>> teachers, Kay, has been in the classroom for three decades (during > > which > > >>> time Helen has spent at least one decade OUT of the classroom). > > >>> > > >>> While we were translating Vygotsky's "History of the Development of > the > > >>> Higher Psychological Functions" last year, some of my colleagues were > > >>> taken > > >>> aback by Vygotsky's use of terms like "moron", "imbecile", "idiot", > and > > >>> "cretin". Of course, Vygotsky is writing long before the "euphemisim > > >>> treadmill" turned these into playground insults; for Vygotsky they > are > > >>> quite precise descriptors--not of cognitive ability but actually of > > >>> LANGUAGE ability. But because our readership are progressive Korean > > >>> teachers with strong views about these questions, we found that we > > >>> couldn't > > >>> even use the term "mentally retarded" without a strongly worded > > footnote > > >>> disavowing the "deficit" thinking behind the term. > > >>> > > >>> I think that Vygotsky would have been surprised by this. I think he > > took > > >>> it > > >>> for granted that a defect was a deficit: being blind means a deficit > in > > >>> vision, and being deaf means a deficit in hearing. In the same way, a > > >>> brain > > >>> defect is not an asset. On the other hand, I think Vygotsky would > find > > >>> our > > >>> own term "disabled" quite inaccurate: since all forms of development > > are > > >>> compensatory and involve "circuitous routes" of one kind or another, > > and > > >>> all developed children, even, and even especially, gifted children, > > >>> contain > > >>> islands of underdevelopment, the correct term for deficits of all > kinds > > >>> is > > >>> not "disabled" but "pre-abled". > > >>> > > >>> Personally, I see nothing wrong with a deficit view of children that > > sees > > >>> them as pre-abled (or, as Vygotsky liked to say, 'primitivist"; that > > is, > > >>> they are waiting for the mediational means that we have foolishly > > >>> developed > > >>> only for the psychophysiologically most common types to catch up with > > the > > >>> actual variation in real children. I suspect this view is actually > > quite > > >>> a > > >>> bit closer to what Kay thinks than to what Helen thinks. > > >>> > > >>> David Kellogg > > >>> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> On 13 July 2014 10:59, Helen Grimmett > > wrote: > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> Hi David, > > >>>> > > >>>> Interesting question. I absolutely think that development AS a > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>> professional > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> is necessary, just as development as a human is necessary, so if > > >>>> professional development is seen as the practice in which this > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>> development > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> is produced then absolutely I do think it is necessary. The form > that > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>> this > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> practice takes though, and indeed the form of the development that > is > > >>>> produced within this practice, are the things open to question > > however. > > >>>> > > >>>> I definitely think that a teacher's development as a professional > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>> includes > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> the need to understand their practice better rather than just change > > it, > > >>>> but I think that understanding often develops best in/alongside/with > > the > > >>>> process of changing (and vice versa) rather than separately from it, > > >>>> and, > > >>>> as you point out above, in establishing ties *between* people and > then > > >>>> within them. So a practice of professional development that creates > > >>>> conditions which support this type of development will (I believe) > be > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>> much > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> more effective than traditional forms of PD that either attempt to > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>> lecture > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> about theoretical principles but do not support teachers to transfer > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>> these > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> into practical changes, OR provide teachers with practical programs > > and > > >>>> expect them to implement them without any understanding of what and > > why > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>> the > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> changes matter. I think the term "Professional Development" is an > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>> absolute > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> misnomer for either of those typical approaches. > > >>>> > > >>>> So again, I have a problem with names! I'm talking about > Professional > > >>>> Development with a completely different meaning than what most of > the > > >>>> education community believe it to mean when they talk about > attending > > PD > > >>>> seminars or workshops. I toyed with trying to find a different name > > for > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>> the > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> particular meaning I'm talking about, but when you are talking about > > >>>> development from a cultural-historical theoretical perspective then > > >>>> there > > >>>> really is no other word to use! That's why I stuck to using > > >>>> 'professional > > >>>> development' (in full) when I meant my meaning, and PD (which is > what > > >>>> teachers in Australia commonly refer to seminars and workshops as) > > when > > >>>> I > > >>>> refer to the typical (and in my view, usually non-developmental) > forms > > >>>> of > > >>>> activities that teachers are subjected to each year. > > >>>> > > >>>> So, I agree that the need for PD is questionable, but the need for > > >>>> practices of professional development that help teachers to develop > as > > >>>> professionals (that is, to develop a unified understanding of both > the > > >>>> theoretical and practical aspects of their work, which is itself > > >>>> continually developing in order to meet the changing needs of their > > >>>> students, schools and society) is essential. While I think > co-teaching > > >>>> is > > >>>> one practical small-scale solution, working out viable, economical, > > and > > >>>> manageable ways to create these practices on a large-scale is a very > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>> large > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> problem. > > >>>> > > >>>> Cheers, > > >>>> Helen > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> Dr Helen Grimmett > > >>>> Lecturer, Student Adviser, > > >>>> Faculty of Education, > > >>>> Room G64F, Building 902 > > >>>> Monash University, Berwick campus > > >>>> Phone: 9904 7171 > > >>>> > > >>>> *New Book: * > > >>>> The Practice of Teachers' Professional Development: A > > >>>> Cultural-Historical > > >>>> Approach > > >>>> < > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>> https://www.sensepublishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/ > > >>> professional-learning-1/the-practice-of-teachers- > > >>> professional-development/ > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> Helen Grimmett (2014) Sense Publishers > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> < > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>> http://monash.edu.au/education/news/50-years/?utm_ > > >>> source=staff-email&utm_medium=email-signature&utm_campaign=50th > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> On 13 July 2014 08:57, David Kellogg wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> Helen: > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Good to hear from you at long last--I knew you were lurking out > there > > >>>>> somewhere! > > >>>>> > > >>>>> I didn't actually write the line about "establishing ties"--it's > from > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>> "The > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> Little Prince". The prince asks what "tame" means, and the fox > > replies > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>> that > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> it means "to establish ties". But of course what I meant was that > > ties > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>> are > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> established first between people and then within them; the ties of > > >>>>> development are interfunctional ties that make up a new > psychological > > >>>>> system. (Or, for Halliday, they are the inter-systemic ties that > make > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>> up > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> new metafunctions.) > > >>>>> > > >>>>> As you say, Yrjo Engestrom chooses to emphasize another aspect of > > >>>>> development with "breaking away"--he wants to stress its > > crisis-ridden > > >>>>> nature. I agree with this, actually, but mostly I agree with you, > > that > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>> we > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> are talking about two moments of the same process. To me, breaking > > away > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>> is > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> really a precondition of the real business of establishing ties. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Thomas Piketty makes a similar point in his book "Capital in the > > >>>>> Twenty-first Century". He admits that war and revolution is the > only > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>> thing > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> that EVER counteracts the tendency of returns from capital to > > outstrip > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>> the > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> growth in income, and that the 20th Century was an outlier in this > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>> respect, > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> and the Russian revolution an extreme outlier within that outlier. > > But > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>> he > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> also says that in the long run the one thing that makes UPWARD > > mobility > > >>>>> possible is education. Despite everything, because of everything. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> I finished the book a few days ago. I guess the thing I most want > to > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>> ask > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> about is the assumption that professional development is necessary > at > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>> all. > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> Doesn't it make more sense to say that before we change what we are > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>> doing, > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> we should understand it better? > > >>>>> > > >>>>> David Kellogg > > >>>>> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> On 12 July 2014 13:20, Helen Grimmett > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>> wrote: > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> Ah, I think you have hit the nail on the head David. It is indeed > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> TIME > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> that > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> is so crucial - not only duration of time, but also location of > time > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> (which > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> I suppose is really context). > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> The problems I had with Mike and his colleagues about the > > terminology > > >>>>>> stemmed partly from the typical Aussie disdain for using words > that > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> might > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> make your mates think you are trying to appear 'better' than them, > so > > >>>>>> therefore you mock anything that sounds too serious or > intellectual. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> But > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> beyond this surface level of complaining the problems Huw and you > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> have > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> been > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> discussing boil down to problems with time. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Huw's complaint about my use of the heading "Features of > > >>>>>> Cultural-Historical Learning Activities" is well justified - but > it > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> was > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> really just a shorthand written version of what I was verbally > asking > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> for > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> as "What might be some particular features of learning activities > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> that > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> would align with principles of Cultural-Historical Theory?" That > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> would > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> have > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> taken too long to write on the top of the piece of paper - and of > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> course > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> time is always too short in any after-school PD so shortcuts are > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> inevitably > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> taken. (Time problem #1) > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Time problem #2, which your discussion has highlighted for me, is > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> that > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> of > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> course my question was really "What might be some particular > features > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> of > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> learning activities that would align with THE LIMITED NUMBER OF > (AND > > >>>>>> LIMITED UNDERSTANDING OF) principles of Cultural-Historical Theory > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> THAT > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> YOU > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> HAVE BEEN INTRODUCED TO SO FAR?" so I really should have not been > so > > >>>>>> surprised that they would find the brainstorming activity > difficult > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> and > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> resort to diversionary tactics! (Mike's outburst posted here by > David > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> was > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> not the only eventful moment I write about from this one activity. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> But > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> these apparent failures actually provided much more interesting data > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> for > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> me > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> and eventually lead me to several key findings in my thesis). I > had > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> spent > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> several years by this stage reading and discussing Vygotsky and > yet I > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> had > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> assumed/hoped the teachers would have enough understanding from my > > >>>>>> (probably not very good) explanations ABOUT theory over the > previous > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> 3 > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> short sessions I had had with them to be able to contribute answers > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> to > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> my > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> brainstorm question. They had not had enough TIME to become > familiar > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> with > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> enough of the theory to make much sense of it yet - but still, we > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> have > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> to > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> start somewhere and this was still early days. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Time problem #3 brings in what I called above the location of > time. > > I > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> had > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> never intended for the sessions to be me giving after-school > lectures > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> about > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> either theory or practice, yet this is what the teachers seemed to > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> expect > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> from me (and even demand from me) and were pretty disgruntled when > I > > >>>>>> wouldn't/couldn't deliver. My intention was always to get them to > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> engage > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> with the relationship between THEORY and PRACTICE, just as David's > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> comic > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> book discusses the relationship between THINKING and SPEECH or > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> EMOTION > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> and > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> COGNITION. My problem of course was that once we were in an > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> after-school > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> meeting we were removed in both time and space from where theory > and > > >>>>>> practice of teaching/learning operate as a relation (i.e. the > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> classroom > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> activity). I was actually trying to create/use our own PLZ > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> (Professional > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> Learning ZPD) as the activity in which to develop and understand > this > > >>>>>> relationship but it was initially very hard to get the teachers to > > >>>>>> understand this (at least until we had enough of David's Fox's > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> socially > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> shared experiences for the meanings to become communicable) and then > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> even > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> more difficult to get them to transfer this back to developing > their > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> own > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> classroom teaching. Ironically, despite being the loudest > complainers > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> and > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> disparagers, it was Mike and Kay (the protagonist of my other > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> eventful > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> moment in the brainstorming session) who actually ended up making > the > > >>>>>> biggest changes in their classroom practice. Perhaps this is not > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> really > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> surprising at all - they were the ones who obviously engaged and > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> argued > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> with the ideas and activities rather than simply endured them! > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> My eventual answer to the problems encountered in my work with the > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> group > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> of > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> teachers was to work WITH a teacher IN her own classroom so that > we > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> had > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> shared experiences of the relationship between theory and practice > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> which > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> could not only be discussed after the events, but also actually > acted > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> upon > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> there and then IN the event - creating what I called "Situated > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> Conscious > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> Awareness" of both the theoretical and practical aspects of the > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> concepts > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> of > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> teaching/learning and development we were developing understanding > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> and > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> practice of together. But perhaps I should wait until David gets up > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> to > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> this > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> part of the book before I say more! > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Finally, one other point that really caught my attention in your > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> comic > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> book > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> David is that your prince calls development "to establish ties" > > which > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> is > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> an > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> interesting difference to Engestrom's definition as "breaking > away". > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> But > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> perhaps, as always in CH theory, it is not a matter of either/or > but > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> in > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> fact both/and ideas that are necessary. From what I learned in my > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> study, > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> teachers' development as professionals is definitely BOTH about > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> breaking > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> away from old, routinised understandings and practices AND > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> establishing > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> new > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> connections between and amongst theoretical concepts and > practices, > > >>>>>> enabling them to continually develop new competences and motives > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> across > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> all > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> of their professional duties. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Thanks for your interest in my book David. The discussion it has > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> sparked > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> has helped me revisit ideas from new perspectives. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Cheers, > > >>>>>> Helen > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Dr Helen Grimmett > > >>>>>> Lecturer, Student Adviser, > > >>>>>> Faculty of Education, > > >>>>>> Room G64F, Building 902 > > >>>>>> Monash University, Berwick campus > > >>>>>> Phone: 9904 7171 > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> *New Book: * > > >>>>>> The Practice of Teachers' Professional Development: A > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> Cultural-Historical > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> Approach > > >>>>>> < > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> https://www.sensepublishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/ > > >>> professional-learning-1/the-practice-of-teachers- > > >>> professional-development/ > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> Helen Grimmett (2014) Sense Publishers > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> < > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> http://monash.edu.au/education/news/50-years/?utm_ > > >>> source=staff-email&utm_medium=email-signature&utm_campaign=50th > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> On 12 July 2014 07:29, David Kellogg wrote: > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Plekhanov distinguishes between "agitators" and "propagandists". > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> Agitators > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> are essentially popularizers; they have the job of ripping away a > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> subset > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> of > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> smaller and simpler ideas from a fabric of much larger and more > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> complex > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> theory and then disseminating them amongst the largest possible > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> number > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> of > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> people. In other words, their focus is exoteric. Propagandists are > > >>>>>>> essentially conspiratorial: they have the job of initiating a > small > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> number > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> of the elect and educating them in the whole theoretical > system--as > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> Larry > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> would say, the full Bildung. In other words, their focus is > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> esoteric. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> As > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> you can see, Plekhanov was good at making distinctions, and not so > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> good > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> at > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> showing how things are linked. For Helena, who is a labor > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> educator, > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> you > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> can't really be an effective agitator unless you are also a > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> propagandist. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> You need to present your exoteric extracts in such a way that they > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> are, > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> to > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> borrow Larry's phrase, both necessary and sufficient to lead > people > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> on > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> to > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> the esoterica. I'm with Helena--and with Bruner--with children > it's > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> always > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> possible to tell the truth, part of the truth, but nothing but > the > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> truth, > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> and if we can do it with kids, why not do it with adults? > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> (I am less sure about what it means to say that the objectively > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> human > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> is > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> the "subjectively historical"--it sounds like history is being > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> reified > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> as a > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> subject, that is, as a living, breathing, acting "World Spirit" > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> that > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> can > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> have a mind and reflect upon itself. My understanding of history > is > > >>>>>>> that just as we cannot have the advanced form of historical > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> consciousness > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> in dialogue with the more primitive forms, the opportunity to > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> reflect > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> upon > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> the whole process when it is all over is simply never going to be > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> available > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> to anyone. The Merleau-Ponty quotation is beautiful and intensely > > >>>>>>> poetic, Larry--but when I look at a bubble or a wave, I do not > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> simply > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> see > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> chaos; I see past bubbles and past waves, and potential bubbles > and > > >>>>>>> potential waves. Isn't that a part of the experience of "loving > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> history" > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> as > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> well?) > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> My wife wrote a wonderful Ph.D. thesis about how any work of > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> literature > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> can > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> be looked at on four time frames: phylogenetic (the history of a > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> genre), > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> ontogenetic (the biography of a career), logogenetic (the > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> development > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> of > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> a > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> plot or a character), and microgenetic (the unfolding of a > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> dialogue, > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> or a > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> paragraph). Her supervisor complained about the terminology in > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> somewhat > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> more elegant terms than Mike does in Helen's data:and suggested > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> that > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> she > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> should replace the terms with "history", "biography", > "development" > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> and > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> "unfolding", to make it more exoteric. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> I think that if she had done that, it would have made the thesis > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> into > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> agitation rather than education. Yes, the terms would have been > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> more > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> familiar, and they might even, given other context, be taken to > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> mean > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> the > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> same thing. But what we would have gotten is good, clear > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> distinctions > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> ("history" on the one hand and "biography" on the other) and what > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> we > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> would > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> have lost is the linkedness of one time frame to another--the way > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> in > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> which > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> the phylogenesis of genre produces the mature genre which is used > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> in > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> an > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> author's ontegenesis, and the way in which the author's ontogenesis > > >>>>>>> produces the starting point and the raw materials for the > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> logogenetic > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> development of a work, not to mention the way in which logogenesis > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> is > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> reflected in the microgenetic unfolding of dialogue. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> So I think that when Helena writes that anything can be explained > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> to > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> anyone > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> in language that is everyday and simple and in a way that is > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> understandable > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> and at least part of the whole truth, I agree somewhat enviously > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> (you > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> see, > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Helena is a labor educator, but I teach TESOL, which is really > the > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> process > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> of taking a few very simple and exoteric ideas that good teachers > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> already > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> have and disseminating the select to the elect for vast sums of > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> money). > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> But > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> I have to add a rider--when we popularize richly woven fabrics of > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> ideas > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> like cultural historical theory we are not simply juggling > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> vocabulary. > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> I > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> think that Helena recognizes this perfectly when she says that it > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> takes > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> TIME to be simple and clear. If it were simply a matter of > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> replacing > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> "cultural historical" with "community of learners" it would > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> actually > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> take > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> less time, but it isn't and it doesn't. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> It is very hot in Seoul today, and somewhere out there a toddler > is > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> arguing > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> with a parent because he wants watermelon with breakfast. The > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> parent > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> resists, because if you eat cold watermelon on an empty stomach you > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> get a > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> tummy-ache. The argument grows heated and long--and complex, but > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> the > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> complexity is of a particular kind, with very short, repeated, > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> insistancies > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> from the child and somewhat longer more complex remonstrations > from > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> the > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> parent. We can call this complex discourse but simple grammar. A > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> few > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> years > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> will go by and we will find that the school child has mastered > the > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> trick > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> of > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> long and complex remonstrations and can use them pre-emptively to > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> win > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> arguments. We can call this complex grammar, but simple vocabulary. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> Only > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> when a decade or two has elapsed will we find that child, now > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> adult, > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> can > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> use the language of science, which is for the most part > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> grammatically > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> simple (at least compared to the pre-emptive remonstrations of the > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> school > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> child), but full of very complex vocabulary (e.g. "phylogeny > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> anticipates > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> ontogeny", or "cultural-historical activity theory enables > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> communities > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> of > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> learners"). > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> It's Saturday today, and in a few minutes I have to leave for the > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> weekly > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> meeting of our translation group, which produces mighty tomes > which > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> we > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> produce to popularize the works of Vygotsky amongst militant > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> teachers > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> here > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> in Korea (our version of "Thinking and Speech" is seven hundred > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> pages > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> long > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> because of all the explanatory notes and boxes with helpful > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> pictures). > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> On > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> the other hand, there is the attached comic book version of the > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> first > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> chapter of "Thinking and Speech" which I wrote a couple of years > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> ago > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> for > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> some graduate students who were having trouble talking about the > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> real > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> "Thinking and Speech" in class. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> I think you can see that Huw's complaint is justified--the comic > > >>>>>>> book dialogue is "about" Thinking and Speech, but it is not > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> "Thinking > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> and > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> Speech" at all, in the same way that "community of learners" or > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> "biography" > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> is ABOUT cultural historical theory or ontogenesis. And I think > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> that > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> part > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> of the problem (but only part of it) is that the comic book is > just > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> too > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> short. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> David Kellogg > > >>>>>>> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> 2014-07-11 17:09 GMT+09:00 Leif Strandberg < > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> leifstrandberg.ab@telia.com > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> : > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> 11 jul 2014 kl. 06:41 skrev Larry Purss : > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> David, > > >>>>>>>>> I have been following your reflections through this thread. > > >>>>>>>>> You commented: > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> So it's almost always more useful for me to > > >>>>>>>>> think of learning phenomena as NOT reducible to the physical, > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> at > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> least > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> not > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> in their unit of analysis > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> I have been reflecting on the notion of *bildung* as learning. > > >>>>>>>>> The notion of *cultivation* and *disposition* and *comportment* > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> as > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> the > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> potential of learning. > > >>>>>>>>> I came across this quote from Gramsci who was questioning the > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> notion > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> of > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> *laws* as the basis for making social predictions. Such *laws* > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> excluded > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> subjective factor from history. > > >>>>>>>>> Gramsci wrote on social process: "Objective always means > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> 'humanly > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> objective' which can be held to correspond exactly to > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> 'historically > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> subjective' " > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> Merleau-Ponty also explored what I refer to as *disposition* > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> with > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> this > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> quote on the reality of history: > > >>>>>>>>> History "awakens us to the importance of daily events and > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> action. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> For > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> it > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> is > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> a philosophy [of history -LP] which arouses in us a love for > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> our > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> times > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> which are not the simple repetition of human eternity nor > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> merely > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> the > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> conclusion of premises already postulated. It is a view that > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> like > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> the > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> most > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> fragile object of perception - a soap bubble, or a wave - or > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> like > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> the > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> most > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> simple dialogue, embraces indivisibly all the order and all the > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> disorder > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> of > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> the world." > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > > From lchcmike@gmail.com Fri Jul 18 15:33:12 2014 From: lchcmike@gmail.com (mike cole) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 15:33:12 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vivian Maier's street life photography In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Those are amazing photographs, Huw. Thanks a lot. On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 2:04 PM, Huw Lloyd wrote: > I thought some of you might like these photographs and the backstory. > > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-28123706 > http://www.vivianmaier.com/ > > Best, > Huw > From bferholt@gmail.com Fri Jul 18 15:55:41 2014 From: bferholt@gmail.com (Beth Ferholt) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 18:55:41 -0400 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: In Defense of Fuzzy Things In-Reply-To: References: <53BB4559.40005@mira.net> Message-ID: Davis -- Right! And it is unclear who contributed, this is key. We who are watching are part of the formation of the intersubjectivity? THanks, Beth On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 5:36 PM, David Kellogg wrote: > Many thanks to all of you who managed to make any sense at all of my last > post. Of course, the penultimate line was not supposed to be that clever. > What I meant to say was not, actually, "The question is: is becomign an > insider a process of transforming undergoing into doing, or is it a process > of transforming undergoing into doing?" I meant to say: > > "The question is, is becoming an insider a process of transforming > undergoing into doing (e.g. passively taking part in a flash mob) or a > process of tranforming doing into undergoing (e.g. reflecting upon it in > tranquility)?" > > Let me try to twist some of the strands you all unravelled from the fuzz (I > won't promise to twist them into a thread, though). > > Mike asks if LSV ever presents an ontogenetic account of how "felt > experience" becomes "lived experience". One of the reasons we are > busy translating this material into Korean a country where the regime has > just expelled the working class opposition from parliament, sentenced its > leaders to twelve years in prison and banned the main teachers' union, is > that we need what Helen needs--some material that will appeal to militant > teachers in a pretty direct, understandable, and above all concrete way. > And the lectures on pedagogy are just that. > > So in addition to the extra-textual comparison (the comparison with the > previous lecture on the environment) Vygotsky's presentation in "The > Problem of the Environment" contains a very important cross-sectional > comparison between three children who have an alcoholic, violence-prone, > and mentally disturbed mother who end up in Vygotsky's clinic. The > first has what I've called "felt experience": he responds to the drunken > mother as a mother, and not as a drunk--the experiences are funny or > terrifying, they are overwhelming and not operational, they are paralyzing > and not processable (that is, they have sense, or sensibility, but they do > not yet have significance). The second has what I've called "thought" > experience: he responds to the drunken mother with what Vygotsky calls > the Mutter-Hexkomplex, > ('?.?. "???????? ??????-??????"'), or the "mother-demoness" syndrome. I > haven't actually found ANY reference to this "syndrome" anywhere, but it's > pretty clear what Vygotsky means: the child cannot decide if the person > raging in the house is a mother or a drunk. At the moment, she is inclined > to respond as to her as a drunk and only upon reflection as a mother.The > third has what we can call "lived" experience. He has seen through the > mother and is resigned to seeing the mother through. The acts are those of > a drunk and not a mother, and so he must sacrifice his promising career as > a school child and look after the family. > > It seems to me that it is pretty easy to see this cross-sectional > comparison as an ontogenetic sequence. What is a little LESS clear to me is > this. Vygotsky writes: "?????? ???? ??? ?????????? ??????? ????--??? ?? ?? > ?????, ??? ?????????? ??????? ????, ?? ??, ??? ?????? ???? ??? ?????? > ?????." Is he really saying that having an alcoholic, mentally disturbed > mother is more like having a mentally disturbed nanny than like having an > alcoholic father? Is that because the mother but not the father is a > caretaker? (See 4-20 below, in case you are as confused as I am!) > > Lubomir argues that what is "fuzzy" to us was actually very clear to > Vygotsky. But we know that Vygotsky, as far as nomenclature is concerned, > is "la gazza ladra", a thieving magpie who will steal your silver spoon to > build his nest. The terms he uses (egocentric speech, pseudoconcept, > learning, development, and even the word "pedology") are all words used by > someone else that he has co-opted and filled with his own, special content. > My point was that his special content is necessarily not fixed--it must > needs change with development. After all, the whole point of "Thinking and > Speech" is that word meanings develop ontogenetically, and microgenetically > the word "and" means one thing when I think and then speak, and it means > something quite different when you speak and then I think. I agree, > though, that translating jokes is a very good test case (for example, when > Vygotsky leaves out English letters in the lecture on heredity, > in paragraph 3-35 below, is it a joke? That is, is Vygotsky leaving out E, > F, and G deliberately, to show us that there must be a gap?) > > Many thanks to Mike on clarifying that verb--we learned it in Russian > class, but my Russian classes are conducted in Korean, and sometimes these > exta meanings escape me. > > Andy--Halliday has a really good explanation of the rise of scientific > language in the seventeenth century--how we began to take processes > and nominalize them (e.g. "I grow fast" becomes "rapid growth"). He also > points out how this new language of science was co-opted for non-scientific > purposes--because of the need for a language of prestige that was not > obviously connected to religious discourse. This allowed, for example, > Newton to write sentences that looked something like mathematical equations > ("Crack growth rate is proportional to pressure"), and it also allowed us > to create the kinds of hierarchies of concepts which you are quoted as > listing as a key property of academic concepts on p. 25 of Helen's new > book. (Note that the Tea Partiers are also hostile to scientific discourse, > and prefer good old religious discourse; they are essentially a neo-fascist > party very similar to the National Front in France or the UK Independence > Party or Pauline Whatzername in Queensland, and like many crypto-fascistic > phenomena, they are ideologically and even linguistically atavistic). > > Fiinally, Beth. Did you notice that the video was made from clips shot from > cell phones? I wonder if any of the Chinese tourists contributed.... > > David Kellogg > Hankuk University of Foreign Studies > > > Mike: > > 4-20] ??? ???, ???????? ?? ???????????, ??????? ??????? ???? ??? > ??????????? ????????? ? ?????? ????????, ? ???????? ??? ???????????. > ???????????, ??? ? ?? ??????????? ??????? ?????? ?????????????, ????, ??? ? > ???? ?????????? ??? ?????. ? ??????? ??????? ????????????? ????, ??? ? ???? > ?????????? ??? ?????. ??????? ??????? ? ?????????????????? ???????????? > ?????, ???????? ??????????, ???????????, ?????, ????????? ? ????? ????? > ???????????? ?????, ?????????????, ?????. ????, ??? ???? ?? ????? ????? > ???? ????? ? ???????????????? ??????????????????? ??????????, ?? ???? ? ?? > ?? ??????? ??????? ? ??????? ?? ???? ????? ?????? ???????????. > ?????????????, ?????????????????? ??????????? ????????, ?????? ?????? > ??????????? ???????, ??? ?? ???????????? ?????? ????????????, > ?????????????, ??????????????? ? ?????? ???????????, ?? ???????????? ? ???? > ??????????? ???????????? ????? ?? ?????? ???????????? ???? ?????????? > ???????????? ???????, ??????? ??????????, ??? ??????? ??????? ??? ???????, > ?? ? ?????? ??????? ??-??????? ???????????? ????????. ?????? ???? ??? > ?????????? ??????? ????--??? ?? ?? ?????, ??? ?????????? ??????? ????, ?? > ??, ??? ?????? ???? ??? ?????? ?????. ??????, ?????, ??????? ? ?????? > ?????? ????????? ? ???? ?????-?? ?????????? ????????, ???? ?????? ???????? > ?????????????? ? ?????? ???????????. ??????? ?? ?????? ????????????? > ??????????? ??? ???????? ???????? ? ?????????? ????????. ? ?????? ??????? > ??????????? ???????? ????????, ??????? ????????? ??? ? ??????? ??????? > ???????? ????????? ??????? ???? ? ??????? ????? ?? ??????????????? ???????? > ???????. > > Lubomir: > > 3-35] ????????, ??? ????? ???????? ? ????????????? ???????????. > ???????????? ??????????? ??????????? ?????? 0,60. ???? ??????? ??? ???????, > ??????? ?? ???????? ???????????? ??????? ????? ???????????: ??????? ?-0,60, > ?-0,55, ?-0,50, D-0,45, ?-0,40, ?-0,35, L - 0,30 ? ?. ?. ?????? ????? > ????????????? ?????? ????? ??????????????? ????????, ? ??????? ?? ?? ????? > ????? ???? ??????????? ????????????? ????????????? ???????, ?? ????? ???? > ?????????? ????????????? ?????????????, ? ????? ???? ????????? > ????????????? ?? ??????? ? ????????? ??????? ?? ?????????????? > ???????????????. ????????, ??? ??? ????? ?????. ?? ???????????, ??? ??????? > ????? ??? ???????? ??????. ? ???? ??????? ??? ???????, ????? ??? ????? > ????? ???????????? ???????????? ?????????? ? ???????? ???????, ?? ?????? > ???????? ?????-?? ?????? ????????, ??????? ????????? ???? ?????? ??????? ?? > ??????. ??? ??? ????? ????? ? ?????? ??????? ??????? ?????????? ??? ?? > ????? ??????????? ???????, ??? ?????? ????? ?????? ???????, ? ?????????? > ??? ??? ?? ??????. ???? ? ????? ?????? ??????????? ?????????? ?????????, > ??? 60 ? 45, ?? ? ?????? ?????? ??? ??? ????? ?????????? ????????? ? > ???????? ?????? ?? *\?>. *?? ??????????, ?????????????, ?????? > ????????????, ??????????? ???????????? ???????? ?????????????? > ??????????????? ?? ???? ???? ???????. ? ????? ?? ??????? ??? ??? ??????? > ??????, ?? ??????? ???????, ??????? ????? ???? ??? ??????? ????? ?? ??? > ?????. > > > > > > > > > On 8 July 2014 14:09, Beth Ferholt wrote: > > > I have two notes above my desk: "What does perezhivanie have to do with > > magic?" (serendipity) and "What does perezhivanie have to do with > > flashmobs?", so the above chain of emails is very exciting for me just > > because it contains all three. > > > > (Mike just wrote on facebook about 'almost whimsical Vygotskian chaining' > > -- this is not exactly what he meant but I am having a moment of > snatching > > at another connection -- any help snatching is welcome, although I am > here > > responding more to the facebook discussion than the above.) > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 9:11 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: > > > > > "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, > > > "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less." > > > "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so > > > many different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, > > > "which is to be master - > > > that's all." /(Through the Looking Glass, Chapter 6 > > > )/ > > > // > > > > > > / > > > Thank you David for your (as ever) deep and amusing post. Thank you in > > > particular for Wordsworth! > > > > > > I think that our legislative and judicial systems prove something about > > > the relation between abstract simplicity and arcane complexity. > Everyone > > > knows that X is a serious crime, but when our lawmakers set out to > define > > > it so our judges can make judgments on it, they are still dotting i's > and > > > crossing t's 500 years later. And along come our Tea Party types with > > their > > > mandatory sentencing and their firm conviction that it all really is > > quite > > > simple. > > > > > > Everything Lubomir said is true as well. We have a specific problem at > > > hand: failure of mutual understanding and failure to understand key > > > concepts at the root of the scientific current of which we are all a > > part. > > > I particularly appreciate Lubomir's words about the need to > reconstruct, > > > from the beginning, terms and concepts which have been imported from > one > > > context to another, rather than attempt to simply life up a word and > drop > > > it into a different culture (though on occasion the use of a foreign > word > > > may be appropriate, n'est-ce pas?) For that we need a simple starting > > point > > > upon which to build layers of complexity. > > > > > > If I love my meal at a French restaurant and ask the waiter for "un > > autre" > > > and he is forcing me out the door amidst a torrent of abuse, until a > kind > > > fellow diner tells me that I should have asked for "un deuxieme" - the > > > waiter thinks that I am pretending to complain that the quality was > > > unsatisfactory and demanding a replacement after I have eaten the whole > > > meal - then I have to face the difference between the ineffable > > differences > > > between French and Anglo cultures and the question of simple > > > misunderstanding. N'est-ce pas? > > > > > > The problems with perezhivanie and the problems with unit are > essentially > > > problems of a different kind. What predominates in the case of > > perezhivanie > > > is the cultural context and linguistic history; what predominates in > the > > > case of unit is the analytical and dialectical logic. In both cases > both > > > factors are at play and mutually complicating each other. I think that > > the > > > appearance of the general idea of perezhivanie in multiple cultural and > > > disciplinary contexts is an *aid* to mutual understanding and clarity. > > But > > > in the case of unit, I really think that an ability to recover the > > original > > > Goethean/Hegelian idea is essential. > > > > > > Andy > > > > > > / > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > *Andy Blunden* > > > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > > > > > > > > > > > David Kellogg wrote: > > > > > >> Andy has written a number of posts in which he has implied clarity is > a > > >> paramount goal in philosophical discussions, or, conversely, people > are > > >> "confused" by having read key texts in an order which obscures their > > >> genetic relationship to each other. > > >> > > >> What I want to suggest is that these two things are actually in > > >> contradiction: if we want to understand how texts are genetically > > related > > >> to each other, we have understand how the word meanings they contain > can > > >> be > > >> "fuzzy" rather than clear. > > >> > > >> Fuzzy boundaries are, if you will pardon the expression, central to > > human > > >> languages, including philosophical language (which is, as Halliday > > points > > >> out, merely a tidied up version of naturally fuzzy language, an > upstart > > >> which has come back to berate its slovenly parents). Let me take the > > very > > >> first sentence of "Thinking and Speech" as an example. > > >> > > >> "This work is a psychological study of one of the most difficult, > > complex, > > >> and intricately tangled questions of experimental psychology, the > > problem > > >> of thinking and speech." > > >> > > >> Vygotsky is very fond of triplets like these, and when we first read > > him, > > >> we often take it as redundancy, and we are comforted, because if we > > don't > > >> understand what he means by "complex" we can catch him on the rebound > > with > > >> "difficult" and if that doesn't work, we get a nice concrete image > with > > >> "tangled". > > >> > > >> But as the text unfolds, it transpires that something can be difficult > > >> without being complex. For example, Vygotsky's interpretation of > > >> egocentric > > >> speech is actually less complex than Piaget's, because it has fewer > > parts, > > >> but it is quite a bit more difficult, precisely because it puts things > > >> that > > >> are apparently quite different together. > > >> > > >> Similarly, it transpires that something can be complex without being > > >> difficult, e.g. the different senses of "consciousness" used by Freud > > and > > >> Piaget, which Vygotsky sorts out with the simple example of tying his > > >> shoes. The question of learning and development is "tangled" and > > >> "difficult" but it has only two parts to it. So we have to say that > > there > > >> is a certain fuzziness here, not unrelated to the fuzziness of "unit" > > and > > >> "unity" that we've been discussing. > > >> > > >> Let me take one more example: the idea of a "???????????". Should it > > be > > >> "felt experience" or "thought over experience" or just "lived > > experience"? > > >> The difference seems extremely important; as Andy points out, the > > concept > > >> is undoubtedly related--genetically--to the emergence of "notion" or > > >> "concept" through contemplation. Andy is doubly right to relate it to > > the > > >> German Romantic idea of "Urphanomenon". We even find it in English in > > >> Wordsworth's famous preface to the Lyrical Ballads, where he defines > > >> poetry > > >> as "emotion recollected in tranquility": > > >> > > >> "(T)he emotion is contemplated till, by a species of reaction, the > > >> tranquillity gradually disappears, and an emotion, kindred to that > which > > >> was before the subject of contemplation, is gradually produced, and > does > > >> itself actually exist in the mind." > > >> > > >> But of course in order to see these quite distinct ideas as being > > linked, > > >> we can't just see them as clearly distinct--it's sometimes more useful > > to > > >> see them as being fuzzy. It seems to me that ontogenetically, a > > >> "???????????" > > >> must needs be at first mostly a "felt experience", because the child > > >> doesn't have much experience to recollect in tranquility. Only then > can > > it > > >> become mostly a "thought over experience", and it is only in the minds > > of > > >> dinosaurs like me and Andy that we can say it is a thoroughly lived > out > > >> experience. (I have sometimes felt a little like a > > >> placid, ruminant brontosaur set upon by a ferocious tyrannosaur, but I > > >> console myself with the thought that where Andy says I am confused, I > am > > >> usually just plain wrong.) > > >> > > >> Still, I think this fuzziness of my language doesn't preclude setting > up > > >> the kinds of distinctions that Andy finds so important in > philosophical > > >> language; on the contrary, understanding how things move seems to > > >> necessitate a kind of "moving picture" approach where we can make many > > >> fine > > >> distinctions and then try to link them fluidly, simply because that is > > the > > >> way our language and our minds works. But there are two intellectual > > >> operations to this: the ability to separate things out into separate > > >> frames, and then the ability to join the frames in a single fluid > > motion. > > >> Once we clarify, we have to fuzz out. > > >> > > >> Take a look at this. It's actually a Flash Mob at Tesco's in Holland > > Park, > > >> London, carried out as a sort of publicity stunt by a local opera > troop > > >> trying to publicize their rendition of Puccini's "La Rondine" (a kind > of > > >> verismo version of "Traviata", except that nobody dies). Like any > Flash > > >> Mob, the categories of experiencers are kind of fuzzy--at the > beginning > > >> it's a little unclear whether the cashier's assistant is in on the > joke > > or > > >> not: is she doing the Flash Mob or merely undergoing it? By the end > > it's a > > >> party to which everybody is invited, even the Chinese tourists with > > their > > >> cell phone cameras. > > >> > > >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsLivg6byjM > > >> > > >> I think categories of experience are similarly porous, which is > another > > >> way > > >> of saying that they are warm and fuzzy: we all begin as outsiders, but > > >> understanding is a process of becoming an insider. The question is: is > > >> becomign an insider a process of transforming undergoing into doing, > or > > is > > >> it a process of transforming undergoing into doing? It's kind of > fuzzy. > > >> > > >> David Kellogg > > >> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Beth Ferholt > > Assistant Professor > > Department of Early Childhood and Art Education > > Brooklyn College, City University of New York > > 2900 Bedford Avenue > > Brooklyn, NY 11210-2889 > > > > Email: bferholt@brooklyn.cuny.edu > > Phone: (718) 951-5205 > > Fax: (718) 951-4816 > > > -- Beth Ferholt Assistant Professor Department of Early Childhood and Art Education Brooklyn College, City University of New York 2900 Bedford Avenue Brooklyn, NY 11210-2889 Email: bferholt@brooklyn.cuny.edu Phone: (718) 951-5205 Fax: (718) 951-4816 From bferholt@gmail.com Fri Jul 18 16:05:00 2014 From: bferholt@gmail.com (Beth Ferholt) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 19:05:00 -0400 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: In Defense of Fuzzy Things In-Reply-To: References: <53BB4559.40005@mira.net> Message-ID: SOrry to respond out of order in the chain -- that was to David making a comment about the flash mod video, Beth On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 6:55 PM, Beth Ferholt wrote: > Davis -- Right! And it is unclear who contributed, this is key. We who > are watching are part of the formation of the intersubjectivity? THanks, > Beth > > > On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 5:36 PM, David Kellogg > wrote: > >> Many thanks to all of you who managed to make any sense at all of my last >> post. Of course, the penultimate line was not supposed to be that clever. >> What I meant to say was not, actually, "The question is: is becomign an >> insider a process of transforming undergoing into doing, or is it a >> process >> of transforming undergoing into doing?" I meant to say: >> >> "The question is, is becoming an insider a process of transforming >> undergoing into doing (e.g. passively taking part in a flash mob) or a >> process of tranforming doing into undergoing (e.g. reflecting upon it in >> tranquility)?" >> >> Let me try to twist some of the strands you all unravelled from the fuzz >> (I >> won't promise to twist them into a thread, though). >> >> Mike asks if LSV ever presents an ontogenetic account of how "felt >> experience" becomes "lived experience". One of the reasons we are >> busy translating this material into Korean a country where the regime has >> just expelled the working class opposition from parliament, sentenced its >> leaders to twelve years in prison and banned the main teachers' union, is >> that we need what Helen needs--some material that will appeal to militant >> teachers in a pretty direct, understandable, and above all concrete way. >> And the lectures on pedagogy are just that. >> >> So in addition to the extra-textual comparison (the comparison with the >> previous lecture on the environment) Vygotsky's presentation in "The >> Problem of the Environment" contains a very important cross-sectional >> comparison between three children who have an alcoholic, violence-prone, >> and mentally disturbed mother who end up in Vygotsky's clinic. The >> first has what I've called "felt experience": he responds to the drunken >> mother as a mother, and not as a drunk--the experiences are funny or >> terrifying, they are overwhelming and not operational, they are paralyzing >> and not processable (that is, they have sense, or sensibility, but they do >> not yet have significance). The second has what I've called "thought" >> experience: he responds to the drunken mother with what Vygotsky calls >> the Mutter-Hexkomplex, >> ('?.?. "???????? ??????-??????"'), or the "mother-demoness" syndrome. I >> haven't actually found ANY reference to this "syndrome" anywhere, but it's >> pretty clear what Vygotsky means: the child cannot decide if the person >> raging in the house is a mother or a drunk. At the moment, she is inclined >> to respond as to her as a drunk and only upon reflection as a mother.The >> third has what we can call "lived" experience. He has seen through the >> mother and is resigned to seeing the mother through. The acts are those of >> a drunk and not a mother, and so he must sacrifice his promising career as >> a school child and look after the family. >> >> It seems to me that it is pretty easy to see this cross-sectional >> comparison as an ontogenetic sequence. What is a little LESS clear to me >> is >> this. Vygotsky writes: "?????? ???? ??? ?????????? ??????? ????--??? ?? ?? >> ?????, ??? ?????????? ??????? ????, ?? ??, ??? ?????? ???? ??? ?????? >> ?????." Is he really saying that having an alcoholic, mentally disturbed >> mother is more like having a mentally disturbed nanny than like having an >> alcoholic father? Is that because the mother but not the father is a >> caretaker? (See 4-20 below, in case you are as confused as I am!) >> >> Lubomir argues that what is "fuzzy" to us was actually very clear to >> Vygotsky. But we know that Vygotsky, as far as nomenclature is concerned, >> is "la gazza ladra", a thieving magpie who will steal your silver spoon to >> build his nest. The terms he uses (egocentric speech, pseudoconcept, >> learning, development, and even the word "pedology") are all words used by >> someone else that he has co-opted and filled with his own, special >> content. >> My point was that his special content is necessarily not fixed--it must >> needs change with development. After all, the whole point of "Thinking and >> Speech" is that word meanings develop ontogenetically, and >> microgenetically >> the word "and" means one thing when I think and then speak, and it means >> something quite different when you speak and then I think. I agree, >> though, that translating jokes is a very good test case (for example, when >> Vygotsky leaves out English letters in the lecture on heredity, >> in paragraph 3-35 below, is it a joke? That is, is Vygotsky leaving out E, >> F, and G deliberately, to show us that there must be a gap?) >> >> Many thanks to Mike on clarifying that verb--we learned it in Russian >> class, but my Russian classes are conducted in Korean, and sometimes these >> exta meanings escape me. >> >> Andy--Halliday has a really good explanation of the rise of scientific >> language in the seventeenth century--how we began to take processes >> and nominalize them (e.g. "I grow fast" becomes "rapid growth"). He also >> points out how this new language of science was co-opted for >> non-scientific >> purposes--because of the need for a language of prestige that was not >> obviously connected to religious discourse. This allowed, for example, >> Newton to write sentences that looked something like mathematical >> equations >> ("Crack growth rate is proportional to pressure"), and it also allowed us >> to create the kinds of hierarchies of concepts which you are quoted as >> listing as a key property of academic concepts on p. 25 of Helen's new >> book. (Note that the Tea Partiers are also hostile to scientific >> discourse, >> and prefer good old religious discourse; they are essentially a >> neo-fascist >> party very similar to the National Front in France or the UK Independence >> Party or Pauline Whatzername in Queensland, and like many crypto-fascistic >> phenomena, they are ideologically and even linguistically atavistic). >> >> Fiinally, Beth. Did you notice that the video was made from clips shot >> from >> cell phones? I wonder if any of the Chinese tourists contributed.... >> >> David Kellogg >> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies >> >> >> Mike: >> >> 4-20] ??? ???, ???????? ?? ???????????, ??????? ??????? ???? ??? >> ??????????? ????????? ? ?????? ????????, ? ???????? ??? ???????????. >> ???????????, ??? ? ?? ??????????? ??????? ?????? ?????????????, ????, ??? >> ? >> ???? ?????????? ??? ?????. ? ??????? ??????? ????????????? ????, ??? ? >> ???? >> ?????????? ??? ?????. ??????? ??????? ? ?????????????????? ???????????? >> ?????, ???????? ??????????, ???????????, ?????, ????????? ? ????? ????? >> ???????????? ?????, ?????????????, ?????. ????, ??? ???? ?? ????? ????? >> ???? ????? ? ???????????????? ??????????????????? ??????????, ?? ???? ? ?? >> ?? ??????? ??????? ? ??????? ?? ???? ????? ?????? ???????????. >> ?????????????, ?????????????????? ??????????? ????????, ?????? ?????? >> ??????????? ???????, ??? ?? ???????????? ?????? ????????????, >> ?????????????, ??????????????? ? ?????? ???????????, ?? ???????????? ? >> ???? >> ??????????? ???????????? ????? ?? ?????? ???????????? ???? ?????????? >> ???????????? ???????, ??????? ??????????, ??? ??????? ??????? ??? ???????, >> ?? ? ?????? ??????? ??-??????? ???????????? ????????. ?????? ???? ??? >> ?????????? ??????? ????--??? ?? ?? ?????, ??? ?????????? ??????? ????, ?? >> ??, ??? ?????? ???? ??? ?????? ?????. ??????, ?????, ??????? ? ?????? >> ?????? ????????? ? ???? ?????-?? ?????????? ????????, ???? ?????? ???????? >> ?????????????? ? ?????? ???????????. ??????? ?? ?????? ????????????? >> ??????????? ??? ???????? ???????? ? ?????????? ????????. ? ?????? ??????? >> ??????????? ???????? ????????, ??????? ????????? ??? ? ??????? ??????? >> ???????? ????????? ??????? ???? ? ??????? ????? ?? ??????????????? >> ???????? >> ???????. >> >> Lubomir: >> >> 3-35] ????????, ??? ????? ???????? ? ????????????? ???????????. >> ???????????? ??????????? ??????????? ?????? 0,60. ???? ??????? ??? >> ???????, >> ??????? ?? ???????? ???????????? ??????? ????? ???????????: ??????? >> ?-0,60, >> ?-0,55, ?-0,50, D-0,45, ?-0,40, ?-0,35, L - 0,30 ? ?. ?. ?????? ????? >> ????????????? ?????? ????? ??????????????? ????????, ? ??????? ?? ?? ????? >> ????? ???? ??????????? ????????????? ????????????? ???????, ?? ????? ???? >> ?????????? ????????????? ?????????????, ? ????? ???? ????????? >> ????????????? ?? ??????? ? ????????? ??????? ?? ?????????????? >> ???????????????. ????????, ??? ??? ????? ?????. ?? ???????????, ??? >> ??????? >> ????? ??? ???????? ??????. ? ???? ??????? ??? ???????, ????? ??? ????? >> ????? ???????????? ???????????? ?????????? ? ???????? ???????, ?? ?????? >> ???????? ?????-?? ?????? ????????, ??????? ????????? ???? ?????? ??????? >> ?? >> ??????. ??? ??? ????? ????? ? ?????? ??????? ??????? ?????????? ??? ?? >> ????? ??????????? ???????, ??? ?????? ????? ?????? ???????, ? ?????????? >> ??? ??? ?? ??????. ???? ? ????? ?????? ??????????? ?????????? ?????????, >> ??? 60 ? 45, ?? ? ?????? ?????? ??? ??? ????? ?????????? ????????? ? >> ???????? ?????? ?? *\?>. *?? ??????????, ?????????????, ?????? >> ????????????, ??????????? ???????????? ???????? ?????????????? >> ??????????????? ?? ???? ???? ???????. ? ????? ?? ??????? ??? ??? ??????? >> ??????, ?? ??????? ???????, ??????? ????? ???? ??? ??????? ????? ?? ??? >> ?????. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 8 July 2014 14:09, Beth Ferholt wrote: >> >> > I have two notes above my desk: "What does perezhivanie have to do with >> > magic?" (serendipity) and "What does perezhivanie have to do with >> > flashmobs?", so the above chain of emails is very exciting for me just >> > because it contains all three. >> > >> > (Mike just wrote on facebook about 'almost whimsical Vygotskian >> chaining' >> > -- this is not exactly what he meant but I am having a moment of >> snatching >> > at another connection -- any help snatching is welcome, although I am >> here >> > responding more to the facebook discussion than the above.) >> > >> > >> > On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 9:11 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: >> > >> > > "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, >> > > "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less." >> > > "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so >> > > many different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, >> > > "which is to be master - >> > > that's all." /(Through the Looking Glass, Chapter 6 >> > > )/ >> > > // >> > > >> > > / >> > > Thank you David for your (as ever) deep and amusing post. Thank you in >> > > particular for Wordsworth! >> > > >> > > I think that our legislative and judicial systems prove something >> about >> > > the relation between abstract simplicity and arcane complexity. >> Everyone >> > > knows that X is a serious crime, but when our lawmakers set out to >> define >> > > it so our judges can make judgments on it, they are still dotting i's >> and >> > > crossing t's 500 years later. And along come our Tea Party types with >> > their >> > > mandatory sentencing and their firm conviction that it all really is >> > quite >> > > simple. >> > > >> > > Everything Lubomir said is true as well. We have a specific problem at >> > > hand: failure of mutual understanding and failure to understand key >> > > concepts at the root of the scientific current of which we are all a >> > part. >> > > I particularly appreciate Lubomir's words about the need to >> reconstruct, >> > > from the beginning, terms and concepts which have been imported from >> one >> > > context to another, rather than attempt to simply life up a word and >> drop >> > > it into a different culture (though on occasion the use of a foreign >> word >> > > may be appropriate, n'est-ce pas?) For that we need a simple starting >> > point >> > > upon which to build layers of complexity. >> > > >> > > If I love my meal at a French restaurant and ask the waiter for "un >> > autre" >> > > and he is forcing me out the door amidst a torrent of abuse, until a >> kind >> > > fellow diner tells me that I should have asked for "un deuxieme" - the >> > > waiter thinks that I am pretending to complain that the quality was >> > > unsatisfactory and demanding a replacement after I have eaten the >> whole >> > > meal - then I have to face the difference between the ineffable >> > differences >> > > between French and Anglo cultures and the question of simple >> > > misunderstanding. N'est-ce pas? >> > > >> > > The problems with perezhivanie and the problems with unit are >> essentially >> > > problems of a different kind. What predominates in the case of >> > perezhivanie >> > > is the cultural context and linguistic history; what predominates in >> the >> > > case of unit is the analytical and dialectical logic. In both cases >> both >> > > factors are at play and mutually complicating each other. I think that >> > the >> > > appearance of the general idea of perezhivanie in multiple cultural >> and >> > > disciplinary contexts is an *aid* to mutual understanding and clarity. >> > But >> > > in the case of unit, I really think that an ability to recover the >> > original >> > > Goethean/Hegelian idea is essential. >> > > >> > > Andy >> > > >> > > / >> > > >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> > > *Andy Blunden* >> > > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > David Kellogg wrote: >> > > >> > >> Andy has written a number of posts in which he has implied clarity >> is a >> > >> paramount goal in philosophical discussions, or, conversely, people >> are >> > >> "confused" by having read key texts in an order which obscures their >> > >> genetic relationship to each other. >> > >> >> > >> What I want to suggest is that these two things are actually in >> > >> contradiction: if we want to understand how texts are genetically >> > related >> > >> to each other, we have understand how the word meanings they contain >> can >> > >> be >> > >> "fuzzy" rather than clear. >> > >> >> > >> Fuzzy boundaries are, if you will pardon the expression, central to >> > human >> > >> languages, including philosophical language (which is, as Halliday >> > points >> > >> out, merely a tidied up version of naturally fuzzy language, an >> upstart >> > >> which has come back to berate its slovenly parents). Let me take the >> > very >> > >> first sentence of "Thinking and Speech" as an example. >> > >> >> > >> "This work is a psychological study of one of the most difficult, >> > complex, >> > >> and intricately tangled questions of experimental psychology, the >> > problem >> > >> of thinking and speech." >> > >> >> > >> Vygotsky is very fond of triplets like these, and when we first read >> > him, >> > >> we often take it as redundancy, and we are comforted, because if we >> > don't >> > >> understand what he means by "complex" we can catch him on the rebound >> > with >> > >> "difficult" and if that doesn't work, we get a nice concrete image >> with >> > >> "tangled". >> > >> >> > >> But as the text unfolds, it transpires that something can be >> difficult >> > >> without being complex. For example, Vygotsky's interpretation of >> > >> egocentric >> > >> speech is actually less complex than Piaget's, because it has fewer >> > parts, >> > >> but it is quite a bit more difficult, precisely because it puts >> things >> > >> that >> > >> are apparently quite different together. >> > >> >> > >> Similarly, it transpires that something can be complex without being >> > >> difficult, e.g. the different senses of "consciousness" used by Freud >> > and >> > >> Piaget, which Vygotsky sorts out with the simple example of tying his >> > >> shoes. The question of learning and development is "tangled" and >> > >> "difficult" but it has only two parts to it. So we have to say that >> > there >> > >> is a certain fuzziness here, not unrelated to the fuzziness of "unit" >> > and >> > >> "unity" that we've been discussing. >> > >> >> > >> Let me take one more example: the idea of a "???????????". Should >> it >> > be >> > >> "felt experience" or "thought over experience" or just "lived >> > experience"? >> > >> The difference seems extremely important; as Andy points out, the >> > concept >> > >> is undoubtedly related--genetically--to the emergence of "notion" or >> > >> "concept" through contemplation. Andy is doubly right to relate it to >> > the >> > >> German Romantic idea of "Urphanomenon". We even find it in English in >> > >> Wordsworth's famous preface to the Lyrical Ballads, where he defines >> > >> poetry >> > >> as "emotion recollected in tranquility": >> > >> >> > >> "(T)he emotion is contemplated till, by a species of reaction, the >> > >> tranquillity gradually disappears, and an emotion, kindred to that >> which >> > >> was before the subject of contemplation, is gradually produced, and >> does >> > >> itself actually exist in the mind." >> > >> >> > >> But of course in order to see these quite distinct ideas as being >> > linked, >> > >> we can't just see them as clearly distinct--it's sometimes more >> useful >> > to >> > >> see them as being fuzzy. It seems to me that ontogenetically, a >> > >> "???????????" >> > >> must needs be at first mostly a "felt experience", because the child >> > >> doesn't have much experience to recollect in tranquility. Only then >> can >> > it >> > >> become mostly a "thought over experience", and it is only in the >> minds >> > of >> > >> dinosaurs like me and Andy that we can say it is a thoroughly lived >> out >> > >> experience. (I have sometimes felt a little like a >> > >> placid, ruminant brontosaur set upon by a ferocious tyrannosaur, but >> I >> > >> console myself with the thought that where Andy says I am confused, >> I am >> > >> usually just plain wrong.) >> > >> >> > >> Still, I think this fuzziness of my language doesn't preclude >> setting up >> > >> the kinds of distinctions that Andy finds so important in >> philosophical >> > >> language; on the contrary, understanding how things move seems to >> > >> necessitate a kind of "moving picture" approach where we can make >> many >> > >> fine >> > >> distinctions and then try to link them fluidly, simply because that >> is >> > the >> > >> way our language and our minds works. But there are two intellectual >> > >> operations to this: the ability to separate things out into separate >> > >> frames, and then the ability to join the frames in a single fluid >> > motion. >> > >> Once we clarify, we have to fuzz out. >> > >> >> > >> Take a look at this. It's actually a Flash Mob at Tesco's in Holland >> > Park, >> > >> London, carried out as a sort of publicity stunt by a local opera >> troop >> > >> trying to publicize their rendition of Puccini's "La Rondine" (a >> kind of >> > >> verismo version of "Traviata", except that nobody dies). Like any >> Flash >> > >> Mob, the categories of experiencers are kind of fuzzy--at the >> beginning >> > >> it's a little unclear whether the cashier's assistant is in on the >> joke >> > or >> > >> not: is she doing the Flash Mob or merely undergoing it? By the end >> > it's a >> > >> party to which everybody is invited, even the Chinese tourists with >> > their >> > >> cell phone cameras. >> > >> >> > >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsLivg6byjM >> > >> >> > >> I think categories of experience are similarly porous, which is >> another >> > >> way >> > >> of saying that they are warm and fuzzy: we all begin as outsiders, >> but >> > >> understanding is a process of becoming an insider. The question is: >> is >> > >> becomign an insider a process of transforming undergoing into doing, >> or >> > is >> > >> it a process of transforming undergoing into doing? It's kind of >> fuzzy. >> > >> >> > >> David Kellogg >> > >> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > > >> > > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Beth Ferholt >> > Assistant Professor >> > Department of Early Childhood and Art Education >> > Brooklyn College, City University of New York >> > 2900 Bedford Avenue >> > Brooklyn, NY 11210-2889 >> > >> > Email: bferholt@brooklyn.cuny.edu >> > Phone: (718) 951-5205 >> > Fax: (718) 951-4816 >> > >> > > > > -- > Beth Ferholt > Assistant Professor > Department of Early Childhood and Art Education > Brooklyn College, City University of New York > 2900 Bedford Avenue > Brooklyn, NY 11210-2889 > > Email: bferholt@brooklyn.cuny.edu > Phone: (718) 951-5205 > Fax: (718) 951-4816 > -- Beth Ferholt Assistant Professor Department of Early Childhood and Art Education Brooklyn College, City University of New York 2900 Bedford Avenue Brooklyn, NY 11210-2889 Email: bferholt@brooklyn.cuny.edu Phone: (718) 951-5205 Fax: (718) 951-4816 From Phillip.White@ucdenver.edu Fri Jul 18 16:19:03 2014 From: Phillip.White@ucdenver.edu (White, Phillip) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 17:19:03 -0600 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vivian Maier's street life photography In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: yes, the work of Vivian Maier is remarkable - and if you've got the chance to see the documentary ( I saw it a little over a month ago ) it's well worth seeing. it raises fascinating questions, i thought, regarding labor, identity, surveillance, perception, and community ... to list but a few of the concerns of this list serve. phillip Phillip White, PhD Urban Community Teacher Education Program Site Coordinator Montview Elementary, Aurora, CO phillip.white@ucdenver.edu or pawhite@aps.k12.co.us ________________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Huw Lloyd [huw.softdesigns@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, July 18, 2014 3:04 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Vivian Maier's street life photography I thought some of you might like these photographs and the backstory. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-28123706 http://www.vivianmaier.com/ Best, Huw From lchcmike@gmail.com Fri Jul 18 21:02:15 2014 From: lchcmike@gmail.com (mike cole) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 21:02:15 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Vivian Maier's street life photography In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks for the tip, I was locked into the stills. Mike On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 4:19 PM, White, Phillip > wrote: > yes, the work of Vivian Maier is remarkable - and if you've got the chance > to see the documentary ( I saw it a little over a month ago ) it's well > worth seeing. it raises fascinating questions, i thought, regarding labor, > identity, surveillance, perception, and community ... to list but a few of > the concerns of this list serve. > > phillip > > > Phillip White, PhD > Urban Community Teacher Education Program > Site Coordinator > Montview Elementary, Aurora, CO > phillip.white@ucdenver.edu > > or > pawhite@aps.k12.co.us > > ________________________________________ > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > [ > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > ] On > Behalf Of Huw Lloyd [huw.softdesigns@gmail.com > ] > Sent: Friday, July 18, 2014 3:04 PM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Vivian Maier's street life photography > > I thought some of you might like these photographs and the backstory. > > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-28123706 > http://www.vivianmaier.com/ > > Best, > Huw > From lchcmike@gmail.com Sat Jul 19 11:02:48 2014 From: lchcmike@gmail.com (mike cole) Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2014 11:02:48 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Acquisition of word meaning Message-ID: While puzzling over all the interesting notes on language/thought/emotion/development in recent days I happend upon the following. It seems a potential object of interpretation that would help to hightlight for us (for me at least) the stakes in the pattern of agreements and disageements and silences in the conversation. Does Halliday inform our understanding differently from Vygotsky might be a helpful question. Is convergence of meaning and generalization manifest? Anyway, perhaps it will be of interest: (From an essay on culture's involvement in moral development by Shweder and colleagues. Data from Orrisa). *"Mara heici. Chhu na! Chhu na!*" is what a menstruating Oriya mother explains when her young child approaches her lap. It means, "I am polluted. Don't touch me! Don't touch me!" If the child continues to approach, the woman will stand up and walk away from her child. Of course, young Oriya children have no concept of menstruation or menstrual blood; the first menstruation arrives as a total surprise to adolescent girls. Mother's typically "explain" their own monthly "pollution" to their children by telling then that they stepped in dog excrement or touched garbage, or they evade the issue. Nevertheless, Oriya children quickly learn that there is something called "*Mara"* (the term *cchuan* (check spelling) may also be used) and when "*Mara*" is there, as it regularly is, their mother avoids them, sleeps alone on a mat on the floor, is prohibited from entering the kitchen... eats alone, does not groom herself and is, for several days, kept at a distance from anything of value. Children notice that everything their mother touches is washed. (Shweder, Mahapatra, & Miller, 1987, p. 74) From smago@uga.edu Sat Jul 19 12:03:57 2014 From: smago@uga.edu (Peter Smagorinsky) Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2014 19:03:57 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] The ideal head Message-ID: http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/07/the-ideal-head-bizarre-racial-teachings-from-a-100-year-old-textbook/374693/#comments I wrote this very short essay that some might find interesting, and have linked to the page that includes reader comments, which are prolific and edifying for those who believe in the progress of human thinking. p From dkellogg60@gmail.com Sat Jul 19 15:12:39 2014 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2014 07:12:39 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Acquisition of word meaning In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Halliday is Vygotskyan. Explicitly so in places: he says that his concept of consciousness as a social being derives from Vygotsky. Ruqaiya Hasan, who sometimes lurks on this list, has written extensively on the "exotropic" links between Halliday and Vygotsky. At first I didn't quite believe this, because for Vygotsky what develops is a meta-system made up of functions (psychological abilities), while for Halliday what develops is a metafunction made up of systems (linguistic choices). But Gordon Wells persuaded me: he points out that Halliday's "ideational metafunction" (this is the function that allows us to represent the world as figures of experience linked by logic, and is realized in nouns, verbs, and other open-class words) is essentially equivalent to "thinking" and the "interpersonal metafunction (this is the function that allows us to exchange commodities such as goods and services or information and is realized in commands, statements and questions) is essentially equivalent to "speech". I think the reason that I didn't get the profound and very thorough connection between Halliday and Vygotsky (which seems more endotropic than exotropic to me now) was that I kept assuming that when Vygotsky says "word" he means something like a noun, as in the block experiments of Chapter Five Thinking and Speech. But of course even in the block experiments, what is meant is not a noun but something much more like an attribute, which would be expressed as a nominal group in English but a verbal group in Korean. And elsewhere it's clear that the word 'word' actually means "wording"--what is a single word in the mouth of a very young child is going to be a whole clause in an older child and eventually an entire text. So Mike's example is quite a propos. When I first read this example from Shweder back in 2007, it seemed to me that Vygotsky would say that this particular "wording" has nothing to do with morality, and of course it's not really a concept. Now I am not so sure: I'm convinced that a lot of ethical concepts develop out of almost purely esthetic ones, which is actually a good example of how "perizhivanie" starts by meaning feeling and only in the course of development comes to mean thinking. In China, what girls tell their classmates in high school is that their "Grandma is visiting" or else that they are "dao mei le" ("doomed"). This was a highly prized condition when my wife was in high school, because it meant that you didn't have to go out for physical education and you could stay in and do math homework instead. So one day the boys told the physical education teacher that they were all "doomed" and could not go either, David Kellogg Hankuk University of Foreign Studies On 20 July 2014 03:02, mike cole wrote: > While puzzling over all the interesting notes on > language/thought/emotion/development in recent days I happend upon the > following. It seems a potential object of interpretation that would help to > hightlight for us (for me at least) the stakes in the pattern of agreements > and disageements and silences in the conversation. Does Halliday inform our > understanding differently from Vygotsky might be a helpful question. Is > convergence of meaning and generalization manifest? Anyway, perhaps it > will be of interest: > (From an essay on culture's involvement in moral development by Shweder > and colleagues. Data from Orrisa). > > > > *"Mara heici. Chhu na! Chhu na!*" is what a menstruating Oriya mother > explains when her young child approaches her lap. It means, "I am polluted. > Don't touch me! Don't touch me!" If the child continues to approach, the > woman will stand up and walk away from her child. Of course, young Oriya > children have no concept of menstruation or menstrual blood; the first > menstruation arrives as a total surprise to adolescent girls. Mother's > typically "explain" their own monthly "pollution" to their children by > telling then that they stepped in dog excrement or touched garbage, or they > evade the issue. Nevertheless, Oriya children quickly learn that there is > something called "*Mara"* (the term *cchuan* (check spelling) may also be > used) and when "*Mara*" is there, as it regularly is, their mother avoids > them, sleeps alone on a mat on the floor, is prohibited from entering the > kitchen... eats alone, does not groom herself and is, for several days, > kept at a distance from anything of value. Children notice that everything > their mother touches is washed. (Shweder, Mahapatra, & Miller, 1987, p. 74) > From daviddpreiss@gmail.com Sat Jul 19 15:24:34 2014 From: daviddpreiss@gmail.com (David Preiss) Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2014 18:24:34 -0400 Subject: [Xmca-l] =?utf-8?q?Prehistoric_=E2=80=98book_keeping=E2=80=99_continued_l?= =?utf-8?q?ong_after_invention_of_writing_=7C_University_of_Cambridge?= Message-ID: <24B0045E-5F3F-433A-9477-413A2BF39EF6@gmail.com> http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/prehistoric-book-keeping-continued-long-after-invention-of-writing Enviado desde mi iPhone From lchcmike@gmail.com Sat Jul 19 15:25:05 2014 From: lchcmike@gmail.com (mike cole) Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2014 15:25:05 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Fwd: [COGDEVSOC] Developmental Psychology Faculty Opening Boston College Applications Due Oct 1 2014 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Ellen Winner Date: Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 12:07 PM Subject: [COGDEVSOC] Developmental Psychology Faculty Opening Boston College Applications Due Oct 1 2014 To: cogdevsoc@lists.cogdevsoc.org The Department of Psychology of *Boston College* invites applications for a tenure-track position as Assistant Professor in *Developmental Psychology* to begin July 1, 2015. For an outstanding candidate, appointment at the Associate or Full Professor level is possible. We are particularly interested in candidates whose research is in the area of cognitive or social-cognitive development or developmental neuroscience. Applicants will be evaluated on their potential to establish a prominent, externally funded research program and to excel in teaching at both the graduate and undergraduate levels. Applicants should apply at http://apply.interfolio.com/25022 and provide PDFs of a cover letter, CV, research statement, and teaching statement outlining teaching experience and philosophy. Applicants should also arrange to have three letters of reference submitted directly by their letter writers, using the ?request recommendations? link on Interfolio. These references should be named in the cover letter. *All materials must be submitted on or before October 1, 2014 for full consideration. *Review of applications will continue until the position is filled. Boston College is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer and does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, nation origin, disability, protected veteran status, or other legally protected status. To learn more about how BC supports diversity and inclusion throughout the university please visit the Office for Institutional Diversity at http://www.bc.edu/offices/diversity. ********************************** Professor and Chair Department of Psychology Boston College Chestnut Hill, MA 02467 Tel: 617-552-4118 Fax: 815-346-5395 www.ellenwinner.com _______________________________________________ To post to the CDS listserv, send your message to: cogdevsoc@lists.cogdevsoc.org (If you belong to the listserv and have not included any large attachments, your message will be posted without moderation--so be careful!) To subscribe or unsubscribe from the listserv, visit: http://lists.cogdevsoc.org/listinfo.cgi/cogdevsoc-cogdevsoc.org From lchcmike@gmail.com Sat Jul 19 15:38:33 2014 From: lchcmike@gmail.com (mike cole) Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2014 15:38:33 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The ideal head In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Peter. I had a similar experience regarding the accidental discovery of literature containing those colonialist-era books. My example was written for high level scholars over a century ago, but it, like this piece, expresses views that have not by any means disappeared in the intervening century. Nor has the resulting violence seemed to have eased. Attached. mike On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 12:03 PM, Peter Smagorinsky wrote: > > http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/07/the-ideal-head-bizarre-racial-teachings-from-a-100-year-old-textbook/374693/#comments > > I wrote this very short essay that some might find interesting, and have > linked to the page that includes reader comments, which are prolific and > edifying for those who believe in the progress of human thinking. p > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Drummond- Ascent O fMan.doc Type: application/msword Size: 14075 bytes Desc: not available Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20140719/c826ab89/attachment.doc From smago@uga.edu Sun Jul 20 03:33:30 2014 From: smago@uga.edu (Peter Smagorinsky) Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2014 10:33:30 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The ideal head In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks Mike. I'm presently working my way through Darwin's On the Origin of Species as part of my effort to understand the notion of adaptation. Although he is a naturalist, he does talk about people, and I was a bit surprised to see how he characterizes non-Europeans as savages and barbarians--at least part of him was a social Darwinist, something that was actually advanced by Spencer to justify the sorts of cruel individualism practiced in competitive industrialized societies. I'll paste in something representative, which may appear as an attachment. P [cid:image001.png@01CFA3E4.83C1A250] -----Original Message----- From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of mike cole Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2014 6:39 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The ideal head Hi Peter. I had a similar experience regarding the accidental discovery of literature containing those colonialist-era books. My example was written for high level scholars over a century ago, but it, like this piece, expresses views that have not by any means disappeared in the intervening century. Nor has the resulting violence seemed to have eased. Attached. mike On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 12:03 PM, Peter Smagorinsky > wrote: > > http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/07/the-ideal-head-bi > zarre-racial-teachings-from-a-100-year-old-textbook/374693/#comments > > I wrote this very short essay that some might find interesting, and > have linked to the page that includes reader comments, which are > prolific and edifying for those who believe in the progress of human > thinking. p > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 84578 bytes Desc: image001.png Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20140720/ab9bb7f7/attachment.png From ablunden@mira.net Sun Jul 20 04:34:43 2014 From: ablunden@mira.net (Andy Blunden) Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2014 21:34:43 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The ideal head In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <53CBA953.4020603@mira.net> "The whole Darwinian theory of the struggle for existence is simply the transference from society to animate nature of Hobbes? theory of the war of every man against every man and the bourgeois economic theory of competition, along with the Malthusian theory of population." Engels 1875 https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/letters/75_11_12.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Andy Blunden* http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ Peter Smagorinsky wrote: > Thanks Mike. I'm presently working my way through Darwin's On the Origin of Species as part of my effort to understand the notion of adaptation. Although he is a naturalist, he does talk about people, and I was a bit surprised to see how he characterizes non-Europeans as savages and barbarians--at least part of him was a social Darwinist, something that was actually advanced by Spencer to justify the sorts of cruel individualism practiced in competitive industrialized societies. I'll paste in something representative, which may appear as an attachment. P > > > > [cid:image001.png@01CFA3E4.83C1A250] > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of mike cole > Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2014 6:39 PM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The ideal head > > > > Hi Peter. I had a similar experience regarding the accidental discovery of literature containing those colonialist-era books. My example was written for high level scholars over a century ago, but it, like this piece, expresses views that have not by any means disappeared in the intervening century. > > > > Nor has the resulting violence seemed to have eased. > > > > Attached. > > mike > > > > > > On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 12:03 PM, Peter Smagorinsky > wrote: > > > > > > >> http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/07/the-ideal-head-bi >> > > >> zarre-racial-teachings-from-a-100-year-old-textbook/374693/#comments >> > > > > >> I wrote this very short essay that some might find interesting, and >> > > >> have linked to the page that includes reader comments, which are >> > > >> prolific and edifying for those who believe in the progress of human >> > > >> thinking. p >> > > From kplakits@gmail.com Mon Jul 21 00:20:09 2014 From: kplakits@gmail.com (Katerina Plakitsi) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 07:20:09 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Xmca-l] I'd like to add you to my professional network on LinkedIn Message-ID: <630411378.4152793.1405927209800.JavaMail.app@ela4-app2322.prod> Hi , I'd like to add you to my professional network on LinkedIn. - Katerina Accept: https://www.linkedin.com/e/v2?e=wu0zxx-hxvgr6yf-11&a=preRegInvite&tracking=eml-guest-invite-cta&ek=invite_guest&invitationID=5896886061639942144&sharedKey=9k3KRooO You are receiving Invitation emails. Unsubscribe here: https://www.linkedin.com/e/v2?e=wu0zxx-hxvgr6yf-11&t=uns&midToken=AQFmrFVhGEd36Q&tracking=eml-guest-invite-unsubscribe&ek=invite_guest&id=20061&mid=-1&aid=6g2d2dnhhojuhjo&eid=wu0zxx-hxvgr6yf-11&email=xmca-l%40ucsd%2Eedu Learn why we included this at the following link: http://www.linkedin.com/e/v2?e=wu0zxx-hxvgr6yf-11&a=customerServiceUrl&ek=invite_guest&articleId=4788 © 2014, LinkedIn Corporation. 2029 Stierlin Ct. Mountain View, CA 94043, USA From james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk Mon Jul 21 00:52:47 2014 From: james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk (Ma, James (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk)) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 07:52:47 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Acquisition of word meaning In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: <1405929168143.12608@canterbury.ac.uk> Hi David, for your info, the below article contains an overview of perspectives on semiotic mediation within sociolinguistics and sociocultural theory: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10749039.2014.913294 Best wishes James ________________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of David Kellogg Sent: 19 July 2014 23:12 To: Mike Cole; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Acquisition of word meaning Halliday is Vygotskyan. Explicitly so in places: he says that his concept of consciousness as a social being derives from Vygotsky. Ruqaiya Hasan, who sometimes lurks on this list, has written extensively on the "exotropic" links between Halliday and Vygotsky. At first I didn't quite believe this, because for Vygotsky what develops is a meta-system made up of functions (psychological abilities), while for Halliday what develops is a metafunction made up of systems (linguistic choices). But Gordon Wells persuaded me: he points out that Halliday's "ideational metafunction" (this is the function that allows us to represent the world as figures of experience linked by logic, and is realized in nouns, verbs, and other open-class words) is essentially equivalent to "thinking" and the "interpersonal metafunction (this is the function that allows us to exchange commodities such as goods and services or information and is realized in commands, statements and questions) is essentially equivalent to "speech". I think the reason that I didn't get the profound and very thorough connection between Halliday and Vygotsky (which seems more endotropic than exotropic to me now) was that I kept assuming that when Vygotsky says "word" he means something like a noun, as in the block experiments of Chapter Five Thinking and Speech. But of course even in the block experiments, what is meant is not a noun but something much more like an attribute, which would be expressed as a nominal group in English but a verbal group in Korean. And elsewhere it's clear that the word 'word' actually means "wording"--what is a single word in the mouth of a very young child is going to be a whole clause in an older child and eventually an entire text. So Mike's example is quite a propos. When I first read this example from Shweder back in 2007, it seemed to me that Vygotsky would say that this particular "wording" has nothing to do with morality, and of course it's not really a concept. Now I am not so sure: I'm convinced that a lot of ethical concepts develop out of almost purely esthetic ones, which is actually a good example of how "perizhivanie" starts by meaning feeling and only in the course of development comes to mean thinking. In China, what girls tell their classmates in high school is that their "Grandma is visiting" or else that they are "dao mei le" ("doomed"). This was a highly prized condition when my wife was in high school, because it meant that you didn't have to go out for physical education and you could stay in and do math homework instead. So one day the boys told the physical education teacher that they were all "doomed" and could not go either, David Kellogg Hankuk University of Foreign Studies On 20 July 2014 03:02, mike cole wrote: > While puzzling over all the interesting notes on > language/thought/emotion/development in recent days I happend upon the > following. It seems a potential object of interpretation that would help to > hightlight for us (for me at least) the stakes in the pattern of agreements > and disageements and silences in the conversation. Does Halliday inform our > understanding differently from Vygotsky might be a helpful question. Is > convergence of meaning and generalization manifest? Anyway, perhaps it > will be of interest: > (From an essay on culture's involvement in moral development by Shweder > and colleagues. Data from Orrisa). > > > > *"Mara heici. Chhu na! Chhu na!*" is what a menstruating Oriya mother > explains when her young child approaches her lap. It means, "I am polluted. > Don't touch me! Don't touch me!" If the child continues to approach, the > woman will stand up and walk away from her child. Of course, young Oriya > children have no concept of menstruation or menstrual blood; the first > menstruation arrives as a total surprise to adolescent girls. Mother's > typically "explain" their own monthly "pollution" to their children by > telling then that they stepped in dog excrement or touched garbage, or they > evade the issue. Nevertheless, Oriya children quickly learn that there is > something called "*Mara"* (the term *cchuan* (check spelling) may also be > used) and when "*Mara*" is there, as it regularly is, their mother avoids > them, sleeps alone on a mat on the floor, is prohibited from entering the > kitchen... eats alone, does not groom herself and is, for several days, > kept at a distance from anything of value. Children notice that everything > their mother touches is washed. (Shweder, Mahapatra, & Miller, 1987, p. 74) > From bella.kotik@gmail.com Mon Jul 21 01:16:43 2014 From: bella.kotik@gmail.com (Bella Kotik-Friedgut) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 11:16:43 +0300 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Acquisition of word meaning In-Reply-To: <1405929168143.12608@canterbury.ac.uk> References: <1405929168143.12608@canterbury.ac.uk> Message-ID: Without theorizing I want to share my recent observation of development of word meaning in my grandson 3.10. Everyday there is something reminding me of LSV. Here are examples of words that still are not full concepts. Driving home at narrow crowded street he proclaims "The street is sad" (atsuv in Hebrew) We ask him what exactly is sad, may be people, but he insists that "The street is sad"; Other day I use word single (boded in Hebrew) and he asks what does it mean and with a lot of questions try to develop a concept: A child can be single? An adult? When I will be adult? and so on. Sometimes he hears an expression and try to use it in order to test appropriateness: "You cause me a bunch of problems!" (Zarot zrurot) and after our reaction and questions about specific problems he escapes and seemingly gets the idea. So the vocabulary expands very intensively, but the meaning of each word is still to be mastered. Sincerely yours Bella Kotik-Friedgut On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 10:52 AM, Ma, James (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk) < james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk> wrote: > > Hi David, for your info, the below article contains an overview of > perspectives on semiotic mediation within sociolinguistics and > sociocultural theory: > http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10749039.2014.913294 > Best wishes > James > ________________________________________ > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of David Kellogg > Sent: 19 July 2014 23:12 > To: Mike Cole; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Acquisition of word meaning > > Halliday is Vygotskyan. Explicitly so in places: he says that his concept > of consciousness as a social being derives from Vygotsky. Ruqaiya Hasan, > who sometimes lurks on this list, has written extensively on the > "exotropic" links between Halliday and Vygotsky. At first I didn't quite > believe this, because for Vygotsky what develops is a meta-system made up > of functions (psychological abilities), while for Halliday what develops is > a metafunction made up of systems (linguistic choices). But Gordon Wells > persuaded me: he points out that Halliday's "ideational metafunction" (this > is the function that allows us to represent the world as figures of > experience linked by logic, and is realized in nouns, verbs, and other > open-class words) is essentially equivalent to "thinking" and the > "interpersonal metafunction (this is the function that allows us to > exchange commodities such as goods and services or information and is > realized in commands, statements and questions) is essentially equivalent > to "speech". > > I think the reason that I didn't get the profound and very > thorough connection between Halliday and Vygotsky (which seems more > endotropic than exotropic to me now) was that I kept assuming that when > Vygotsky says "word" he means something like a noun, as in the block > experiments of Chapter Five Thinking and Speech. But of course even in the > block experiments, what is meant is not a noun but something much more like > an attribute, which would be expressed as a nominal group in English but a > verbal group in Korean. And elsewhere it's clear that the word 'word' > actually means "wording"--what is a single word in the mouth of a very > young child is going to be a whole clause in an older child and eventually > an entire text. > > So Mike's example is quite a propos. When I first read this example from > Shweder back in 2007, it seemed to me that Vygotsky would say that this > particular "wording" has nothing to do with morality, and of course it's > not really a concept. Now I am not so sure: I'm convinced that a lot of > ethical concepts develop out of almost purely esthetic ones, which is > actually a good example of how "perizhivanie" starts by meaning feeling and > only in the course of development comes to mean thinking. > > In China, what girls tell their classmates in high school is that their > "Grandma is visiting" or else that they are "dao mei le" ("doomed"). This > was a highly prized condition when my wife was in high school, because it > meant that you didn't have to go out for physical education and you could > stay in and do math homework instead. So one day the boys told the physical > education teacher that they were all "doomed" and could not go either, > > David Kellogg > Hankuk University of Foreign Studies > > > On 20 July 2014 03:02, mike cole wrote: > > > While puzzling over all the interesting notes on > > language/thought/emotion/development in recent days I happend upon the > > following. It seems a potential object of interpretation that would help > to > > hightlight for us (for me at least) the stakes in the pattern of > agreements > > and disageements and silences in the conversation. Does Halliday inform > our > > understanding differently from Vygotsky might be a helpful question. Is > > convergence of meaning and generalization manifest? Anyway, perhaps it > > will be of interest: > > (From an essay on culture's involvement in moral development by Shweder > > and colleagues. Data from Orrisa). > > > > > > > > *"Mara heici. Chhu na! Chhu na!*" is what a menstruating Oriya mother > > explains when her young child approaches her lap. It means, "I am > polluted. > > Don't touch me! Don't touch me!" If the child continues to approach, the > > woman will stand up and walk away from her child. Of course, young Oriya > > children have no concept of menstruation or menstrual blood; the first > > menstruation arrives as a total surprise to adolescent girls. Mother's > > typically "explain" their own monthly "pollution" to their children by > > telling then that they stepped in dog excrement or touched garbage, or > they > > evade the issue. Nevertheless, Oriya children quickly learn that there is > > something called "*Mara"* (the term *cchuan* (check spelling) may also be > > used) and when "*Mara*" is there, as it regularly is, their mother avoids > > them, sleeps alone on a mat on the floor, is prohibited from entering the > > kitchen... eats alone, does not groom herself and is, for several days, > > kept at a distance from anything of value. Children notice that > everything > > their mother touches is washed. (Shweder, Mahapatra, & Miller, 1987, p. > 74) > > > > From lpscholar2@gmail.com Mon Jul 21 18:17:35 2014 From: lpscholar2@gmail.com (Larry Purss) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 18:17:35 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Acquisition of word meaning In-Reply-To: References: <1405929168143.12608@canterbury.ac.uk> Message-ID: David, I read your comment: discussing the concept *word* what is meant is not a noun but something much more like an attribute, which would be expressed as a nominal group in English but a verbal group in Korean. And elsewhere it's clear that the word 'word' actually means "wording"--. I went away and that night heard myself asking if the distinctions between *word* and *wording* and the way they are different can also be explored as how *word* and *wording* are*related* [form conjunctions]. Then the question becomes what is *mediating* this conjunction? If I use the term *between* to refer to the relation as *word* AND *wording* it seems to imply a certain type of conjunction. However, if the relation is considered as a *trans* relation [transformation, translation] it seems to indicate a more fluid flowing or being *carried* from one *aspect* of the relation towards the *other* aspect and also in the reciprocal direction without clear distinct boundaries of *word* and *wording* This also could apply to *event* and *eventing* OR could apply to *worded* and *wording* In 1977 Raymond Williams wrote the book *Marxism and Literature* and in Chapter two Raymond explores what he refers to as a wrong turn in our understanding when studying the concept *language* and the notion of *sign*. Raymond's perspective is the notion of *sign* is a medieval concept which has been readopted in modern linguistic thought. *Sign*, from Latin, *signum* meant a mark or token which is intrinsically a concept based on a distinction between *language* and *reality*. Raymond states: sign "is an INTERPOSITION between *word* and *thing* which repeats the Platonic interposition of *form*, *essence*, or *idea* but now in inaccessible linguistic terms." (page 25) In contrast to this notion of *sign* Raymond articulates a notion of *sign*as a PRODUCT [but not merely a past reified product of an *always-given* language SYSTEM.] Real communicative *products* [which are usable signs] are living evidence of a continuing social process within which individuals are carried but within which they also actively contribute. This understanding of *sign* is AT ONCE BOTH socialization and individuation [connected aspects of a single process] which the alternative notions of *sign* as *system* or *expression* dissociate as reified *language* and reified *society*. Raymond also emphasizes his notion of language rejects the metaphor of language as *reflection* of *material reality* We grasp THIS reality THROUGH language, which as practical social consciousness is saturated by and saturates all social activity [including productive activity] Raymond says this grasping is continuous languaging [wording] which is THIS LOST MIDDLE term between the abstract entities *subject* and *object* on which BOTH idealism AND orthodox materialism flounder. Language IS this articulated social PRESENCE in the world. Raymond is playing with *word* and *wording* [*event* and *eventing*] and it is the conjunction OF *word* and *wording* which he is articulating On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 1:16 AM, Bella Kotik-Friedgut wrote: > Without theorizing I want to share my recent observation of development of > word meaning in my grandson 3.10. Everyday there is something reminding me > of LSV. Here are examples of words that still are not full concepts. > Driving home at narrow crowded street he proclaims "The street is sad" > (atsuv in Hebrew) > We ask him what exactly is sad, may be people, but he insists that "The > street is sad"; > Other day I use word single (boded in Hebrew) and he asks what does it mean > and with a lot of questions try to develop a concept: A child can be > single? An adult? When I will be adult? and so on. Sometimes he hears an > expression and try to use it in order to test appropriateness: "You cause > me a bunch of problems!" (Zarot zrurot) and after our reaction and > questions about specific problems he escapes and seemingly gets the idea. > So the vocabulary expands very intensively, but the meaning of each word is > still to be mastered. > > Sincerely yours Bella Kotik-Friedgut > > > On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 10:52 AM, Ma, James (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk) < > james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk> wrote: > > > > > Hi David, for your info, the below article contains an overview of > > perspectives on semiotic mediation within sociolinguistics and > > sociocultural theory: > > http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10749039.2014.913294 > > Best wishes > > James > > ________________________________________ > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > on behalf of David Kellogg > > Sent: 19 July 2014 23:12 > > To: Mike Cole; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Acquisition of word meaning > > > > Halliday is Vygotskyan. Explicitly so in places: he says that his concept > > of consciousness as a social being derives from Vygotsky. Ruqaiya Hasan, > > who sometimes lurks on this list, has written extensively on the > > "exotropic" links between Halliday and Vygotsky. At first I didn't quite > > believe this, because for Vygotsky what develops is a meta-system made up > > of functions (psychological abilities), while for Halliday what develops > is > > a metafunction made up of systems (linguistic choices). But Gordon Wells > > persuaded me: he points out that Halliday's "ideational metafunction" > (this > > is the function that allows us to represent the world as figures of > > experience linked by logic, and is realized in nouns, verbs, and other > > open-class words) is essentially equivalent to "thinking" and the > > "interpersonal metafunction (this is the function that allows us to > > exchange commodities such as goods and services or information and is > > realized in commands, statements and questions) is essentially equivalent > > to "speech". > > > > I think the reason that I didn't get the profound and very > > thorough connection between Halliday and Vygotsky (which seems more > > endotropic than exotropic to me now) was that I kept assuming that when > > Vygotsky says "word" he means something like a noun, as in the block > > experiments of Chapter Five Thinking and Speech. But of course even in > the > > block experiments, what is meant is not a noun but something much more > like > > an attribute, which would be expressed as a nominal group in English but > a > > verbal group in Korean. And elsewhere it's clear that the word 'word' > > actually means "wording"--what is a single word in the mouth of a very > > young child is going to be a whole clause in an older child and > eventually > > an entire text. > > > > So Mike's example is quite a propos. When I first read this example from > > Shweder back in 2007, it seemed to me that Vygotsky would say that this > > particular "wording" has nothing to do with morality, and of course it's > > not really a concept. Now I am not so sure: I'm convinced that a lot of > > ethical concepts develop out of almost purely esthetic ones, which is > > actually a good example of how "perizhivanie" starts by meaning feeling > and > > only in the course of development comes to mean thinking. > > > > In China, what girls tell their classmates in high school is that their > > "Grandma is visiting" or else that they are "dao mei le" ("doomed"). This > > was a highly prized condition when my wife was in high school, because it > > meant that you didn't have to go out for physical education and you could > > stay in and do math homework instead. So one day the boys told the > physical > > education teacher that they were all "doomed" and could not go either, > > > > David Kellogg > > Hankuk University of Foreign Studies > > > > > > On 20 July 2014 03:02, mike cole wrote: > > > > > While puzzling over all the interesting notes on > > > language/thought/emotion/development in recent days I happend upon the > > > following. It seems a potential object of interpretation that would > help > > to > > > hightlight for us (for me at least) the stakes in the pattern of > > agreements > > > and disageements and silences in the conversation. Does Halliday inform > > our > > > understanding differently from Vygotsky might be a helpful question. Is > > > convergence of meaning and generalization manifest? Anyway, perhaps it > > > will be of interest: > > > (From an essay on culture's involvement in moral development by > Shweder > > > and colleagues. Data from Orrisa). > > > > > > > > > > > > *"Mara heici. Chhu na! Chhu na!*" is what a menstruating Oriya mother > > > explains when her young child approaches her lap. It means, "I am > > polluted. > > > Don't touch me! Don't touch me!" If the child continues to approach, > the > > > woman will stand up and walk away from her child. Of course, young > Oriya > > > children have no concept of menstruation or menstrual blood; the first > > > menstruation arrives as a total surprise to adolescent girls. Mother's > > > typically "explain" their own monthly "pollution" to their children by > > > telling then that they stepped in dog excrement or touched garbage, or > > they > > > evade the issue. Nevertheless, Oriya children quickly learn that there > is > > > something called "*Mara"* (the term *cchuan* (check spelling) may also > be > > > used) and when "*Mara*" is there, as it regularly is, their mother > avoids > > > them, sleeps alone on a mat on the floor, is prohibited from entering > the > > > kitchen... eats alone, does not groom herself and is, for several days, > > > kept at a distance from anything of value. Children notice that > > everything > > > their mother touches is washed. (Shweder, Mahapatra, & Miller, 1987, p. > > 74) > > > > > > > > From dkellogg60@gmail.com Tue Jul 22 04:22:24 2014 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 20:22:24 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Acquisition of word meaning In-Reply-To: References: <1405929168143.12608@canterbury.ac.uk> Message-ID: Larry-- Actually, I was thinking of Chapter Nine, "Structures of Feeling". For Williams, a "Structure of Feeling" is very close to the unit of word meaning, but of course it has the word "feeling" instead of "thinking", so it is not at all susceptible to Andy's accusation of over-intellectualization. Just as Vygotsky sees sense and signification as making up two elements in tension within each word meaning, Williams finds that every epoch has a "structure of feeling" peculiar to it. For the ancient Greeks, it was the structure of feeling caused by inexorable fate and by the tragic flaw, and for the industrial novels that my wife works on it is the sympathy of the (middle class) author for the lower depths counterbalanced by the terror and fear of their rage. Williams then talks about the quite specific WORDINGS that authors found, or rather, exapted--pillaging words, sentences, and even whole genres that had belonged to other functions and using them for new functions. The example my wife works on is the way that Elizabeth Gaskell exapted the words, sentences, and plots of domestic romances which had been developed as ways of teaching young women to choose the right man for her books "Mary Barton" and "North and South"--these are books that defend and don't defend working class terrorism and revolutonary unionism; the defense is in the reported speech of the working class characters and in their reported thought processes, while the failure to defend is in their conflict with other characters (but not always with the narrator). There was a pop song in China a few years ago with a refrain that went "Wo hen chou lou, dan wo hen wen rou", which means something like "I am very ugly, but I'm very gentle". You can see that this is a good example of a "Structure of Feeling", but you can also see that there are many many ways to word it. Halliday would say: RELATOR: I am ugly. But...I'm gentle. CIRCUMSTANCE: Being ugly, I am gentle as well. PROCESS: My gentility gainsays my ugliness. QUALITY: I am gently ugly. ENTITY: My ugly gentility You can see that using a relationship emphasizes the distinctness of the ideas. It is also the most "canonical" way, and probably primoridal in ontogenetic terms. But as children get older, they learn to express the same ideas in non-canonical, metaphorical ways and as they do this the elements of the structure of feeling are linked as well as distinct (and also, Andy would protest, less clear and more fuzzy). But that's the process we call educatiion. It is getting to be summer in Korea now and the Gingko trees are bearing nuts. Some time in 1815, Goethe took two gingko leaves pasted them on a parchment, sending them rather flirtatiously to a damsel he had met: Gingo Biloba Dieses Baums Blatt, der von Osten Meinem Garten anvertraut, Gibt geheimen Sinn zu kosten, Wie's den Wissenden erbaut. Ist es Ein lebendig Wesen, Das sich in sich selbst getrennt? Sind es zwei, die sich erlesen, Dass man sie als eines kennt. Solche Frage zu erwidern, Fand ich wohl den rechten Sinn. F?hlst du nicht in meinen Liedern, Dass ich Eins und doppelt bin. My wretched translation: These tree leaves which from the East come Now within my garden grow There they share a secret teasing Pleasing only those who know Is one leaf a living being Which decided to divide? Is it double, now agreeing As a single to abide? To these questions anwers bringing A third question ringing true Can?t you hear that in my singing I am one but also two? David Kellogg Hankuk University of Foreign Studies On 22 July 2014 10:17, Larry Purss wrote: > David, > I read your comment: > > discussing the concept *word* what is meant is not a noun but something > much more like an attribute, which would be expressed as a nominal group in > English but a > verbal group in Korean. And elsewhere it's clear that the word 'word' > actually means "wording"--. > > I went away and that night heard myself asking if the distinctions between > *word* and *wording* and the way they are different can also be explored as > how *word* and *wording* are*related* [form conjunctions]. > Then the question becomes what is *mediating* this conjunction? If I use > the term *between* to refer to the relation as *word* AND *wording* it > seems to imply a certain type of conjunction. However, if the relation is > considered as a *trans* relation [transformation, translation] it seems to > indicate a more fluid flowing or being *carried* from one *aspect* of the > relation towards the *other* aspect and also in the reciprocal direction > without clear distinct boundaries of *word* and *wording* > > This also could apply to *event* and *eventing* OR > could apply to *worded* and *wording* > > In 1977 Raymond Williams wrote the book *Marxism and Literature* and in > Chapter two Raymond explores what he refers to as a wrong turn in our > understanding when studying the concept *language* and the notion of > *sign*. > Raymond's perspective is the notion of *sign* is a medieval concept which > has been readopted in modern linguistic thought. > *Sign*, from Latin, *signum* meant a mark or token which is intrinsically a > concept based on a distinction between *language* and *reality*. > Raymond states: sign "is an INTERPOSITION between *word* and *thing* which > repeats the Platonic interposition of *form*, *essence*, or *idea* but now > in inaccessible linguistic terms." (page 25) > > In contrast to this notion of *sign* Raymond articulates a notion of > *sign*as a PRODUCT [but not merely a past reified product of an > *always-given* language SYSTEM.] Real communicative *products* [which are > usable signs] are living evidence of a continuing social process within > which individuals are carried but within which they also actively > contribute. This understanding of *sign* is AT ONCE BOTH socialization and > individuation [connected aspects of a single process] which the alternative > notions of *sign* as *system* or *expression* dissociate as reified > *language* and reified *society*. > Raymond also emphasizes his notion of language rejects the metaphor of > language as *reflection* of *material reality* We grasp THIS reality > THROUGH language, which as practical social consciousness is saturated by > and saturates all social activity [including productive activity] > Raymond says this grasping is continuous languaging [wording] which is THIS > LOST MIDDLE term between the abstract entities *subject* and *object* on > which BOTH idealism AND orthodox materialism flounder. Language IS this > articulated social PRESENCE in the world. > > Raymond is playing with *word* and *wording* [*event* and *eventing*] and > it is the conjunction OF *word* and *wording* which he is articulating > > > > On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 1:16 AM, Bella Kotik-Friedgut < > bella.kotik@gmail.com > > wrote: > > > Without theorizing I want to share my recent observation of development > of > > word meaning in my grandson 3.10. Everyday there is something reminding > me > > of LSV. Here are examples of words that still are not full concepts. > > Driving home at narrow crowded street he proclaims "The street is sad" > > (atsuv in Hebrew) > > We ask him what exactly is sad, may be people, but he insists that "The > > street is sad"; > > Other day I use word single (boded in Hebrew) and he asks what does it > mean > > and with a lot of questions try to develop a concept: A child can be > > single? An adult? When I will be adult? and so on. Sometimes he hears an > > expression and try to use it in order to test appropriateness: "You cause > > me a bunch of problems!" (Zarot zrurot) and after our reaction and > > questions about specific problems he escapes and seemingly gets the idea. > > So the vocabulary expands very intensively, but the meaning of each word > is > > still to be mastered. > > > > Sincerely yours Bella Kotik-Friedgut > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 10:52 AM, Ma, James (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk) > < > > james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi David, for your info, the below article contains an overview of > > > perspectives on semiotic mediation within sociolinguistics and > > > sociocultural theory: > > > http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10749039.2014.913294 > > > Best wishes > > > James > > > ________________________________________ > > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > > on behalf of David Kellogg > > > Sent: 19 July 2014 23:12 > > > To: Mike Cole; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Acquisition of word meaning > > > > > > Halliday is Vygotskyan. Explicitly so in places: he says that his > concept > > > of consciousness as a social being derives from Vygotsky. Ruqaiya > Hasan, > > > who sometimes lurks on this list, has written extensively on the > > > "exotropic" links between Halliday and Vygotsky. At first I didn't > quite > > > believe this, because for Vygotsky what develops is a meta-system made > up > > > of functions (psychological abilities), while for Halliday what > develops > > is > > > a metafunction made up of systems (linguistic choices). But Gordon > Wells > > > persuaded me: he points out that Halliday's "ideational metafunction" > > (this > > > is the function that allows us to represent the world as figures of > > > experience linked by logic, and is realized in nouns, verbs, and other > > > open-class words) is essentially equivalent to "thinking" and the > > > "interpersonal metafunction (this is the function that allows us to > > > exchange commodities such as goods and services or information and is > > > realized in commands, statements and questions) is essentially > equivalent > > > to "speech". > > > > > > I think the reason that I didn't get the profound and very > > > thorough connection between Halliday and Vygotsky (which seems more > > > endotropic than exotropic to me now) was that I kept assuming that when > > > Vygotsky says "word" he means something like a noun, as in the block > > > experiments of Chapter Five Thinking and Speech. But of course even in > > the > > > block experiments, what is meant is not a noun but something much more > > like > > > an attribute, which would be expressed as a nominal group in English > but > > a > > > verbal group in Korean. And elsewhere it's clear that the word 'word' > > > actually means "wording"--what is a single word in the mouth of a very > > > young child is going to be a whole clause in an older child and > > eventually > > > an entire text. > > > > > > So Mike's example is quite a propos. When I first read this example > from > > > Shweder back in 2007, it seemed to me that Vygotsky would say that this > > > particular "wording" has nothing to do with morality, and of course > it's > > > not really a concept. Now I am not so sure: I'm convinced that a lot of > > > ethical concepts develop out of almost purely esthetic ones, which is > > > actually a good example of how "perizhivanie" starts by meaning feeling > > and > > > only in the course of development comes to mean thinking. > > > > > > In China, what girls tell their classmates in high school is that their > > > "Grandma is visiting" or else that they are "dao mei le" ("doomed"). > This > > > was a highly prized condition when my wife was in high school, because > it > > > meant that you didn't have to go out for physical education and you > could > > > stay in and do math homework instead. So one day the boys told the > > physical > > > education teacher that they were all "doomed" and could not go either, > > > > > > David Kellogg > > > Hankuk University of Foreign Studies > > > > > > > > > On 20 July 2014 03:02, mike cole wrote: > > > > > > > While puzzling over all the interesting notes on > > > > language/thought/emotion/development in recent days I happend upon > the > > > > following. It seems a potential object of interpretation that would > > help > > > to > > > > hightlight for us (for me at least) the stakes in the pattern of > > > agreements > > > > and disageements and silences in the conversation. Does Halliday > inform > > > our > > > > understanding differently from Vygotsky might be a helpful question. > Is > > > > convergence of meaning and generalization manifest? Anyway, perhaps > it > > > > will be of interest: > > > > (From an essay on culture's involvement in moral development by > > Shweder > > > > and colleagues. Data from Orrisa). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *"Mara heici. Chhu na! Chhu na!*" is what a menstruating Oriya mother > > > > explains when her young child approaches her lap. It means, "I am > > > polluted. > > > > Don't touch me! Don't touch me!" If the child continues to approach, > > the > > > > woman will stand up and walk away from her child. Of course, young > > Oriya > > > > children have no concept of menstruation or menstrual blood; the > first > > > > menstruation arrives as a total surprise to adolescent girls. > Mother's > > > > typically "explain" their own monthly "pollution" to their children > by > > > > telling then that they stepped in dog excrement or touched garbage, > or > > > they > > > > evade the issue. Nevertheless, Oriya children quickly learn that > there > > is > > > > something called "*Mara"* (the term *cchuan* (check spelling) may > also > > be > > > > used) and when "*Mara*" is there, as it regularly is, their mother > > avoids > > > > them, sleeps alone on a mat on the floor, is prohibited from entering > > the > > > > kitchen... eats alone, does not groom herself and is, for several > days, > > > > kept at a distance from anything of value. Children notice that > > > everything > > > > their mother touches is washed. (Shweder, Mahapatra, & Miller, 1987, > p. > > > 74) > > > > > > > > > > > > > From fsulliva@temple.edu Tue Jul 22 12:13:08 2014 From: fsulliva@temple.edu (FRANCIS J. SULLIVAN) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 15:13:08 -0400 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: book of possible interest In-Reply-To: References: <0D461088-CBBB-4BD9-ADCB-3024C36CBE81@telia.com> <53C48DF1.5000703@mira.net> Message-ID: David, I have been, and still am, in the midst of teaching myself--now looking at the first assignment completed. So, I have been away from the list. Wow! I've just read through the other strand, realizing just how different this way of thinking is from just about everything I do. I find it hard to envision thought processes in language as "internal." To me they are always part of a social exchange, conducted in a context that is constrained by culture. So, I'm not sure I can answer your question, but I will try. First. if you want to contrast the functions of the three "moves" in your example, I would not begin with their grammatical form. It might make sense to segment them into "information units" (Halliday's term); but, what seems to me most important--and something whose absence in the thread on "fuzzy things" just boggles my mind--is to construe the social context in which the utterance takes place. As you know, each of the three meta-functions--ideational, interpersonal, and textual--has its corresponding element in the social context, namely, Field, Tenor, and Mode. The first element seems especially relevant here. Halliday discusses it in terms of the purpose, or cognitive activity, in which the text is uttered. So, you walk into a classroom--for the first time??, midway into the semester?--there would be differences in terms of analyzing the "meaning" of the text. Still, I would say that in this context the utterance "Hi, I'm Mr. K. And you?" addresses the "Interpersonal" element primarily and secondarily the Mode. The Mode, or "genre," (there's a lot of contention about where genre fits into SFL right now) is that of the "Introduction," the interpersonal is informal and friendly, as suggested by the use of contractions and periphrasis "And you." Very little of the utterance would address Field, just "I'm Mr. K." So, it may sound as if I would agree with Andy. But, I don't. You and I do agree that "thinking" is a more capacious term than what Andy allows. Whether he is correct about Vygotsky's position, of course, I don't know. It strikes me, however, that what Andy calls "thinking" is that kind of discourse typically referred to as "academic." In fact, he sounds almost like Levi-Strauss at times, distinguishing the "Savage" from the "Civilized." I don't think he means to, but it is almost impossible to escape it within the framework of a strictly developmental model that has a clear final stage--and so little attention to context. Specifically, we need to understand this development of "scientific conceptualizing" socially *first*, before we begin to concern ourselves with what may, or may not, be happening in somebody's neural net. In this, I follow Hymes and Gumperz, who developed the term "ways of speaking." Academic discourse is just that--a way of speaking--and one that is learned, as Vygotsky makes clear, only in the context of certain kinds and levels of schooling. But we cannot infer from that developmental process, I think, that such learning transforms the learner in a strictly cognitive manner. For me, at least, what development means here is a kind of socialization, the result of which is that s/he internalizes those ways of speaking deemed appropriate by the particular community to which s/he belongs. And, of course, one can belong to multiple communities with different, and even conflicting ways of speaking. I don't know if that helps you at all. It seems to me that, as distinct from your point about Vygotsky's dialectical take on the relationship sign and concept, Andy tends to conflate the two--erasing the hyphen instead of working it. Francis J. Sullivan, Ph.D. Associate Professor Department of Teaching and Learning College of Education Temple University Philadelphia, PA 19122 Find out what any people will quietly submit to and you have the exact measure of the injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them. Frederick Douglass On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 5:51 PM, David Kellogg wrote: > Francis: > > We just had about two weeks of "teaching practica". The terrified trainees > have to stand up and teach a fifteen minute lesson in front of peers > masequerading as children and three rabid professors making negative > comments. Not only is this not a very propitious environment in which to > try out new things (or even demonstrate basic teaching skills), it's a > really an opportunity made in hell for saying anything intelligent about > teaching, which is, alas, my job. > > Here's what I wanted to ask you, since you have a background in > systemic-functional grammar and CDA and above all because you seemed to > imply in your last that you thought the very attempt to engage can be > transformative (as opposed to demoralizing). I sometimes notice that the > best teachers have a regular rhythm--getting attention, giving information, > and checking understanding. This rhythm is faster when the "kids" are > learning something familiar and slower when the "kids" are on new > territory, but it's always there. I would like to say that these three > functions are related in some systematic way to imperatives, declaratives, > and interrogatives. But they are not, even when I take interpersonal > metaphors (e.g. "May I have your attention please?") into account. What do > you think I am looking at here? > > Now, let me use this example to address some of what Huw and Andy have been > saying. I hope you'll see that the two threads are not quite as unrelated > as the two different titles suggest. Suppose I walk into a classroom, pick > out some friendly eye contact, and I say "Hi! I'm Mr. K. And you?" As you > can see, the first "Hi!" is an instance of getting attention. But it isn't > a figure of experience: it's a minor clause. "I'm Mr. K" is a major clause, > and "And you?" is an elliptical clause, parasitic on "I'm Mr. K" for most > of its wording. So it seems to me that SOME functions (e.g. getting > attention) are rather closer to figures of experience, while others are > more concerned with social contact. All functions have to be both, but they > don't have to be the same proportions of both, and so development is, > contrary to what Huw suggests, perfectly possible. Children do not leap > metaphysically, but dialectically--by going from using language mostly to > get attention (and largely without clause grammar) to using language to > give information and eventually using it to check understanding. > > You can see that "Hi!" is a good example of the unity of behavior and > consciousness that Andy is talking about. But by the time we get to > checking understanding, the "behavior" element becomes pretty irrelevant: I > just don't see any way in which understanding can be described as > "behavior" and we can still retain the key distinction between > pseudoconceptual understanding and conceptual understanding. > > In Andy's first point, he argues that when children are not using word > meanings to think (i.e. visiographical thinking, which plays a very > important role in getting children's attention) they are not thinking. I > prefer to think that they are thinking, but they are thinking using what > Vygotsky (and Buhler and especially Kohler, who were certainly genetic > psychologists) liked to call "practical intellect". It's intellect. But > it's not verbal thinking. > > I'm not sure that I agree when Andy says, in his second point, that labour > is ALWAYS inadequate as a foundation for psychological inquiry--I imagine > Helena Worthen finds it very useful. But I certainly agree with Andy that > the revisionists (Leontiev, Zinchenko, Wertsch) took "labour" as > paradigmatic, and as a result they had to deep-six Vygotsky's late ideas > about the semantic structure of consciousness (that is, Vygotsky's idea > that minds are made of word meanings, not action plans). Some of the > revisionists did this reluctantly (Leontiev, at his best) but some of them > were quite strident (Zinchenko in particular). All of them considered > Vygotsky an idealist. > > As I understand it, Huw DISAGREES with Andy and actually agrees with the > revisionist critique of Vygotsky on the grounds that children are mostly > preoccupied with action and not word meaning. That's all very true of > course: but they are NOT really preoccupied with labour activity. Their > preoccupations are with PLAY activity (Kim Yongho and I did a good study of > so-called "Task based teaching" that shows how children redefine tasks as > role plays and games). Play activity is, as Vygotsky has shown us, > genetically related to speech and not to labour. > > Andy's third point is that semantic actions (???) create intellectual > structures in the mind. I don't know what a semantic action is; semantics > for me is the process of making something stand for something else, but I > don't see in what sense it helps to model this process as an "action". In > many ways, it is precisely a non-action, because it includes conditionality > and interpretability, neither of which is usefully modeled as action. > > In any case, you and I, Francis, are Hallidayans. We know that ideation is > only a part of semantics (there is also the interpersonal and the textual > metafunction), and that intellect is only a part of ideation (there is the > experiential as well as the logical metafunction). So there is no basis > whatsoever for the charge of intellectualism (I think what Andy is really > getting at is not intellectualism but objectivism). > > I agree with the Russians who say that "perezhivanie" is a well defined > concept. But to me "well defined" means developmentally so: it means that > the specific weight of the various components of "perezhivanie" have to be > allowed to change as we develop: so for young children "perezhivanie" is > largely "felt experience", and for older children it is mostly "thought > over--contemplated--experience". I don't see that thinking over is mostly > an intellectual exercise though--I always feel, even in these exchanges on > xmca, that there is a certain emotional component which makes us respond, > sometimes before we really even think things out. > > David Kellogg > Hankuk University of Foreign Studies > > > > > On 16 July 2014 04:39, FRANCIS J. SULLIVAN wrote: > > > With great trepidation, I want to enter this conversation with my first > > post to the list (I have followed it for about a year now) because as > both > > a researcher and teacher educator the issues raised are major concerns > of > > mine too. I find, I think it was David's point, the idea that we can > think > > of the "connections" problem in two ways to be at the heart of the issue, > > at least for me. It is one thing to construct a connection that "adds to" > > the existing knowledge framework of others. But, it is a very different > > thing to sea5rch for a "connection" that requires others to qualitatively > > change, or even abandon, their existing framework. Helen seems to achieve > > such a connection with at least some of her teachers by helping them to > > re-cognize their own social identities so that the new knowledge and > > framework became less threatening and more inviting. She reconnected them > > with who they used to be and what they valued. So they did not see > > themselves as merely "ignorant" but more like retracing their steps. > > For me, at least, that's why the "deficit" models of teaching (or > research) > > practices do not work. We--teachers and students--need to find a place > from > > which we can begin this journey together, common ground so to speak. > While > > a deaf person may not "know" English, I don't think that's the salient > > point. All of us don't know things. What seems to me salient in Helen's > > attempt to find connections, is that the very attempt challenged their > > current ways of framing their professional lives. What we might think of > as > > "ignorance," those teachers thought of as "knowledge." And that > "knowledge" > > was part and parcel of the ways they positioned themselves as teachers in > > relation to students. > > I am tempted to put this into discourse analysis terms--I'm a > > semi-Hallidayan with a critical theory twist. But, I've said enough for a > > first post, I think. I hope it is useful. > > > > Francis J. Sullivan, Ph.D. > > Associate Professor > > Department of Teaching and Learning > > College of Education > > Temple University > > Philadelphia, PA 19122 > > > > > > Find out what any people will quietly submit to and you have the exact > > measure of the injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them. > > > > Frederick Douglass > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 2:10 AM, David Kellogg > > wrote: > > > > > Well, I do hope that Helen means that "for the moment", as I have > learned > > > an awful lot from this book and even more from this discussion. You > see, > > I > > > am trying to tease apart two very different processes that appear, on > the > > > face of it, to be almost identical, but which also appear to have > > > diametrically opposite developmental effects. > > > > > > One process is the process of getting people to feel at ease, > > > confident, and happy that they understand what you are saying because > it > > is > > > actually something that is identical or at least very similar to what > > they > > > already think. Another, almost identical, process is the process of > > > "establishing ties" between a new form of knowledge and an earlier one. > > > BOTH of these processes, it seems to me, occur throughout Helen's book, > > and > > > it is easy to mistake the one for the other. BOTH of these processes, > to > > > use our earlier terminology, involve "establishing ties", but only one > of > > > them also involves breaking away. > > > > > > For example, at one point in the book Helen, looking back over the > > Banksia > > > Bay PLZ data, rounds on herself for using a transparent piece of > > > scaffolding to elicit the word "communicate" from a group of teachers. > > What > > > bothers her is not that the answer itself is far too general to be of > any > > > practical value to the teachers, but only that she had it very firmly > in > > > mind, and kept badgering the teachers (as we all do, when we have a > > precise > > > answer in mind) until she got it. The alternative, she points out, > would > > be > > > to take what she got and work with that. > > > > > > Yes indeed. But I think the main reason that would have been more > > > interesting is not that it would have resulted in fewer rejections of > > > teacher answers and made people more at ease, confdent, and happy that > > they > > > understood, but rather than it would have yielded something more like a > > > concrete but unconscious and not yet volitionally controlled example of > > > excellence from the teacher's own practice. I almost always find that > the > > > actual answers I want--the "methods" I end up imparting to my own > > teachers, > > > are already present in the data they bring me (because we almost always > > > begin with actual transcripts of their lessons) but they are generally > > not > > > methods but only moments, and moments that go unnoticed and therefore > > > ungeneralized in the hurly burly of actual teaching. > > > > > > Last winter, Helen and I were at a conference in New Zealand where, > among > > > other eventful episodes, Craig Brandist got up and gave a very precise > > list > > > of half a dozen different and utterly contradictory ways in which > Bakhtin > > > uses the term "dialogue". Because the senses of "dialogue" are so many > > and > > > varied, people simply pick and choose, and they tend invariably to > choose > > > the ones that are closest to the way they already think. It is as > moments > > > like this that we need to remind ourselves that Bakhtin's "dialogue" > does > > > not, for the most part, ever include children, or women; that he did > not > > > "dialogue" with Volosinov or Medvedev when he allowed his acolytes > > > to plunder their corpses, and that his love of carnival and the public > > > marketplace does not extend to a belief in any form of political > > democracy. > > > > > > So I think we should start off with an understanding that what Vygotsky > > > says about defect is not the same was what we now believe. Vygotsky, > for > > > example, believed that sign language was not true language, and that > even > > > the congenitally deaf should be taught to lip read; this is simply > > > wrong. (On the other hand, what he says about spontaneously created > sign > > > languages--that they are essentially elaborated systems of gesture and > > they > > > lack the signifying functions--fits exactly with Susan Goldin-Meadow's > > > observations in Chicago.) > > > > > > And one reason I think it is important to begin with this understanding > > is > > > this: sometimes--usually--LSV is right and we are wrong. In > particular, I > > > think the "credit" view of defect, or, for that matter, ignorance of > any > > > kind and not fully conscious teacher expertise risks becoming a liberal > > > platitude--the cup is always half full, so why not look on the bright > > side > > > of dearth? I certainly do not feel empowered by the fact that I know > > > English but I do not know ASL, and I rather doubt that deaf people feel > > > empowered by the opposite state of affairs. When I don't know > something, > > I > > > do not see any bright side of not knowing it, for the very simple > > > reason that I can't see at all. > > > > > > Vygotsky was probably very influenced by "Iolanta", an opera that > > > Tchaikovsky wrote--he certainly seems to quote it extensively in the > last > > > chapter of "Thinking and Speech". In "Iolanta", King Renee copes with > the > > > blindness of his daughter by having her shut up in a garden and > > forbidding > > > all his subjects from discussing light, sight, color or anything > visible > > in > > > any way. Vaudemont, a knight of Burgundy, blunders into the garden, > > > discovers Iolanta's secret. Iolanta convinces him that sight is > > > unnecessary, but in the course of doing so, she develops the desire to > > see > > > and choose for herself. > > > > > > David Kelogg > > > Hankuk University of Foreign Studies > > > > > > > > > > > > On 15 July 2014 11:12, Andy Blunden wrote: > > > > > > > My reading of Vygotsky on 'defectology' was that the 'defect' was the > > > > problem in social relations, that is, the person who is different in > > some > > > > way suffers because of the way that difference is treated or not > > treated > > > by > > > > others, not for anything in itself. One and the same feature could > be a > > > > great benefit or a fatal flaw, depending on how others react to it. > > > > Except insofar as introducing the idea of a "credit view" is a move > > aimed > > > > at changing the perceptions and behaviours of others in relation to > the > > > > subject, I don't think Vygotsky is an advocate of the mirror image > of a > > > > deficit view. As I see it, he analyses the problem of the person > being > > > > treated as deficient by means of the unit of *defect-compensation*. > The > > > > defect (a problem arising in social interaction, with others) > generates > > > > certain challenges which are overcome, generally also in interaction > > with > > > > others. This "compensation" leads to what Helen could call a "credit" > > and > > > > it is the dynamic set up between the social defect and social > > > compensation > > > > which shapes the subject's psychology and their relation to others. > > > > Andy > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > *Andy Blunden* > > > > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > > > > > > > > > > > Helen Grimmett wrote: > > > > > > > >> I think what is unique about Vygotsky's work in defectology is that, > > > >> despite the name, it is not a deficit view (in the way that I > > understand > > > >> the term) at all. > > > >> > > > >> I understand the commonly used term 'deficit view' as a focus on > what > > > >> children are 'missing' that needs to be provided to them by teachers > > to > > > >> bring them up to a pre-conceived idea of 'normal' for their > age/grade > > > >> level > > > >> etc. Whereas, a 'credit view' focuses on what children are able to > do > > > and > > > >> bring to a learning situation, in which, in the interaction with > > others, > > > >> they will be able to become more able to do and 'be' more than they > > were > > > >> before (i.e. to develop), whether this be in the 'expected' ways to > > the > > > >> 'expected' level or in completely different ways to a variety of > > > different > > > >> levels beyond or outside 'standard' expectations. From the little I > > have > > > >> read on defectology I think this is what Vygotsky was advocating - > > that > > > >> despite a child's blindness or deafness etc, development was still > > > >> possible > > > >> if mediational means were found that made use of the child's credits > > > (i.e. > > > >> using sign language or braille so that children still had access to > > the > > > >> developmental opportunities provided by language). So I think your > > term > > > >> pre-abled is in fact a credit view rather than a deficit view. > > > >> > > > >> I was attempting to also use a credit view in my work with the > > > teachers. I > > > >> saw them as being experienced practitioners who had lots to bring to > > our > > > >> discussions of teaching and learning, in which together we could see > > > what > > > >> could be developed (new practices, new understandings). Once Kay and > > > Mike > > > >> realised this they got on board and engaged in the process and > > (possibly > > > >> for the first time in a long while as they both saw themselves [and > in > > > >> fact > > > >> are officially designated as] 'expert teachers') really reawakened > the > > > >> process of developing as professionals. They blew off most of the > > > content > > > >> I > > > >> was contributing, but they realised the process was actually about > > > >> 'unsticking' their own development and working out new and > personally > > > >> interesting and meaningful ways of 'becoming' more as teachers, > > instead > > > of > > > >> being stuck 'being' the teacher they had turned into over the years. > > Not > > > >> all of the teachers made this leap in the time I worked with them > > > though. > > > >> Others were either quite disgruntled that I wouldn't provide them > with > > > >> answers to 'fix' their own perceived deficits or patiently waited > for > > me > > > >> to > > > >> go away and stop rocking the boat. From what I can gather though, > Ann > > > (the > > > >> principal) kept the boat rocking and managed over time to get more > > > >> teachers > > > >> to buy into the process of learning from each other and > > collaboratively > > > >> creating new practices. As we said earlier, development takes time > as > > > well > > > >> as effort. > > > >> > > > >> All I've got time for at the moment! > > > >> > > > >> Helen > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Dr Helen Grimmett > > > >> Lecturer, Student Adviser, > > > >> Faculty of Education, > > > >> Room G64F, Building 902 > > > >> Monash University, Berwick campus > > > >> Phone: 9904 7171 > > > >> > > > >> *New Book: * > > > >> The Practice of Teachers' Professional Development: A > > > Cultural-Historical > > > >> Approach > > > >> > > >> professional-learning-1/the-practice-of-teachers- > > > >> professional-development/> > > > >> Helen Grimmett (2014) Sense Publishers > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> source=staff-email&utm_medium=email-signature&utm_campaign=50th> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> On 14 July 2014 14:43, David Kellogg wrote: > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >>> Near the end of Chapter Three (p. 81), Helen is summing up her > > > experience > > > >>> with the Banksia Bay PLZ and she notes with some dismay that her > > PDers > > > >>> have > > > >>> "a deficit view" of their children and tend towards "container > > models" > > > of > > > >>> the mind ("empty vessel, sponge, blank canvas"). Only one teacher, > > Ann > > > >>> sees > > > >>> anything wrong with this, and Helen says "they don't necessarily > > value > > > >>> her > > > >>> opinion". > > > >>> > > > >>> Helen finds herself rather conflicted: One the one hand, she says > > "If > > > >>> their representations of children really do represent their > beliefs, > > > then > > > >>> they are probably right to insist there is no need to change." And > on > > > the > > > >>> other, she says "My intention was never to say that their present > > > >>> practice > > > >>> was wrong, but to help them see alternative ways of thinking about > > > >>> children, learning, and teaching." > > > >>> > > > >>> Of course, if there is no need to change, then it follows that > there > > is > > > >>> no > > > >>> reason to look for alternative ways of thinking about children, > > > learning > > > >>> and teaching. The only reason for spending scarce cognitive > resources > > > on > > > >>> seeing different ways of looking at children is if you do, in fact, > > > take > > > >>> a > > > >>> deficit view of the teachers. Ann, and the Regional Consultants, > > > >>> apparently > > > >>> do, but Helen realizes that there isn't much basis for this: not > only > > > do > > > >>> we > > > >>> have no actual data of lessons to look at, we know that one of the > > > >>> teachers, Kay, has been in the classroom for three decades (during > > > which > > > >>> time Helen has spent at least one decade OUT of the classroom). > > > >>> > > > >>> While we were translating Vygotsky's "History of the Development of > > the > > > >>> Higher Psychological Functions" last year, some of my colleagues > were > > > >>> taken > > > >>> aback by Vygotsky's use of terms like "moron", "imbecile", "idiot", > > and > > > >>> "cretin". Of course, Vygotsky is writing long before the > "euphemisim > > > >>> treadmill" turned these into playground insults; for Vygotsky they > > are > > > >>> quite precise descriptors--not of cognitive ability but actually of > > > >>> LANGUAGE ability. But because our readership are progressive Korean > > > >>> teachers with strong views about these questions, we found that we > > > >>> couldn't > > > >>> even use the term "mentally retarded" without a strongly worded > > > footnote > > > >>> disavowing the "deficit" thinking behind the term. > > > >>> > > > >>> I think that Vygotsky would have been surprised by this. I think he > > > took > > > >>> it > > > >>> for granted that a defect was a deficit: being blind means a > deficit > > in > > > >>> vision, and being deaf means a deficit in hearing. In the same > way, a > > > >>> brain > > > >>> defect is not an asset. On the other hand, I think Vygotsky would > > find > > > >>> our > > > >>> own term "disabled" quite inaccurate: since all forms of > development > > > are > > > >>> compensatory and involve "circuitous routes" of one kind or > another, > > > and > > > >>> all developed children, even, and even especially, gifted children, > > > >>> contain > > > >>> islands of underdevelopment, the correct term for deficits of all > > kinds > > > >>> is > > > >>> not "disabled" but "pre-abled". > > > >>> > > > >>> Personally, I see nothing wrong with a deficit view of children > that > > > sees > > > >>> them as pre-abled (or, as Vygotsky liked to say, 'primitivist"; > that > > > is, > > > >>> they are waiting for the mediational means that we have foolishly > > > >>> developed > > > >>> only for the psychophysiologically most common types to catch up > with > > > the > > > >>> actual variation in real children. I suspect this view is actually > > > quite > > > >>> a > > > >>> bit closer to what Kay thinks than to what Helen thinks. > > > >>> > > > >>> David Kellogg > > > >>> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> On 13 July 2014 10:59, Helen Grimmett > > > wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> Hi David, > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Interesting question. I absolutely think that development AS a > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>> professional > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> is necessary, just as development as a human is necessary, so if > > > >>>> professional development is seen as the practice in which this > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>> development > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> is produced then absolutely I do think it is necessary. The form > > that > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>> this > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> practice takes though, and indeed the form of the development that > > is > > > >>>> produced within this practice, are the things open to question > > > however. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> I definitely think that a teacher's development as a professional > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>> includes > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> the need to understand their practice better rather than just > change > > > it, > > > >>>> but I think that understanding often develops best > in/alongside/with > > > the > > > >>>> process of changing (and vice versa) rather than separately from > it, > > > >>>> and, > > > >>>> as you point out above, in establishing ties *between* people and > > then > > > >>>> within them. So a practice of professional development that > creates > > > >>>> conditions which support this type of development will (I believe) > > be > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>> much > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> more effective than traditional forms of PD that either attempt to > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>> lecture > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> about theoretical principles but do not support teachers to > transfer > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>> these > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> into practical changes, OR provide teachers with practical > programs > > > and > > > >>>> expect them to implement them without any understanding of what > and > > > why > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>> the > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> changes matter. I think the term "Professional Development" is an > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>> absolute > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> misnomer for either of those typical approaches. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> So again, I have a problem with names! I'm talking about > > Professional > > > >>>> Development with a completely different meaning than what most of > > the > > > >>>> education community believe it to mean when they talk about > > attending > > > PD > > > >>>> seminars or workshops. I toyed with trying to find a different > name > > > for > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>> the > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> particular meaning I'm talking about, but when you are talking > about > > > >>>> development from a cultural-historical theoretical perspective > then > > > >>>> there > > > >>>> really is no other word to use! That's why I stuck to using > > > >>>> 'professional > > > >>>> development' (in full) when I meant my meaning, and PD (which is > > what > > > >>>> teachers in Australia commonly refer to seminars and workshops as) > > > when > > > >>>> I > > > >>>> refer to the typical (and in my view, usually non-developmental) > > forms > > > >>>> of > > > >>>> activities that teachers are subjected to each year. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> So, I agree that the need for PD is questionable, but the need for > > > >>>> practices of professional development that help teachers to > develop > > as > > > >>>> professionals (that is, to develop a unified understanding of both > > the > > > >>>> theoretical and practical aspects of their work, which is itself > > > >>>> continually developing in order to meet the changing needs of > their > > > >>>> students, schools and society) is essential. While I think > > co-teaching > > > >>>> is > > > >>>> one practical small-scale solution, working out viable, > economical, > > > and > > > >>>> manageable ways to create these practices on a large-scale is a > very > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>> large > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> problem. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Cheers, > > > >>>> Helen > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Dr Helen Grimmett > > > >>>> Lecturer, Student Adviser, > > > >>>> Faculty of Education, > > > >>>> Room G64F, Building 902 > > > >>>> Monash University, Berwick campus > > > >>>> Phone: 9904 7171 > > > >>>> > > > >>>> *New Book: * > > > >>>> The Practice of Teachers' Professional Development: A > > > >>>> Cultural-Historical > > > >>>> Approach > > > >>>> < > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>> https://www.sensepublishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/ > > > >>> professional-learning-1/the-practice-of-teachers- > > > >>> professional-development/ > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> Helen Grimmett (2014) Sense Publishers > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> < > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>> http://monash.edu.au/education/news/50-years/?utm_ > > > >>> source=staff-email&utm_medium=email-signature&utm_campaign=50th > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> On 13 July 2014 08:57, David Kellogg > wrote: > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> Helen: > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Good to hear from you at long last--I knew you were lurking out > > there > > > >>>>> somewhere! > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> I didn't actually write the line about "establishing ties"--it's > > from > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>> "The > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> Little Prince". The prince asks what "tame" means, and the fox > > > replies > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>> that > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> it means "to establish ties". But of course what I meant was that > > > ties > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>> are > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> established first between people and then within them; the ties > of > > > >>>>> development are interfunctional ties that make up a new > > psychological > > > >>>>> system. (Or, for Halliday, they are the inter-systemic ties that > > make > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>> up > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> new metafunctions.) > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> As you say, Yrjo Engestrom chooses to emphasize another aspect of > > > >>>>> development with "breaking away"--he wants to stress its > > > crisis-ridden > > > >>>>> nature. I agree with this, actually, but mostly I agree with you, > > > that > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>> we > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> are talking about two moments of the same process. To me, breaking > > > away > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>> is > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> really a precondition of the real business of establishing ties. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Thomas Piketty makes a similar point in his book "Capital in the > > > >>>>> Twenty-first Century". He admits that war and revolution is the > > only > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>> thing > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> that EVER counteracts the tendency of returns from capital to > > > outstrip > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>> the > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> growth in income, and that the 20th Century was an outlier in > this > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>> respect, > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> and the Russian revolution an extreme outlier within that > outlier. > > > But > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>> he > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> also says that in the long run the one thing that makes UPWARD > > > mobility > > > >>>>> possible is education. Despite everything, because of everything. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> I finished the book a few days ago. I guess the thing I most want > > to > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>> ask > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> about is the assumption that professional development is necessary > > at > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>> all. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> Doesn't it make more sense to say that before we change what we > are > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>> doing, > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> we should understand it better? > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> David Kellogg > > > >>>>> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> On 12 July 2014 13:20, Helen Grimmett > > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>> wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> Ah, I think you have hit the nail on the head David. It is indeed > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> TIME > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> that > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> is so crucial - not only duration of time, but also location of > > time > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> (which > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> I suppose is really context). > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> The problems I had with Mike and his colleagues about the > > > terminology > > > >>>>>> stemmed partly from the typical Aussie disdain for using words > > that > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> might > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> make your mates think you are trying to appear 'better' than > them, > > so > > > >>>>>> therefore you mock anything that sounds too serious or > > intellectual. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> But > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> beyond this surface level of complaining the problems Huw and you > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> have > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> been > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> discussing boil down to problems with time. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> Huw's complaint about my use of the heading "Features of > > > >>>>>> Cultural-Historical Learning Activities" is well justified - but > > it > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> was > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> really just a shorthand written version of what I was verbally > > asking > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> for > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> as "What might be some particular features of learning activities > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> that > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> would align with principles of Cultural-Historical Theory?" That > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> would > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> have > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> taken too long to write on the top of the piece of paper - and > of > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> course > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> time is always too short in any after-school PD so shortcuts are > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> inevitably > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> taken. (Time problem #1) > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> Time problem #2, which your discussion has highlighted for me, > is > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> that > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> of > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> course my question was really "What might be some particular > > features > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> of > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> learning activities that would align with THE LIMITED NUMBER OF > > (AND > > > >>>>>> LIMITED UNDERSTANDING OF) principles of Cultural-Historical > Theory > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> THAT > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> YOU > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> HAVE BEEN INTRODUCED TO SO FAR?" so I really should have not > been > > so > > > >>>>>> surprised that they would find the brainstorming activity > > difficult > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> and > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> resort to diversionary tactics! (Mike's outburst posted here by > > David > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> was > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> not the only eventful moment I write about from this one > activity. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> But > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> these apparent failures actually provided much more interesting > data > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> for > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> me > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> and eventually lead me to several key findings in my thesis). I > > had > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> spent > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> several years by this stage reading and discussing Vygotsky and > > yet I > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> had > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> assumed/hoped the teachers would have enough understanding from > my > > > >>>>>> (probably not very good) explanations ABOUT theory over the > > previous > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> 3 > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> short sessions I had had with them to be able to contribute > answers > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> to > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> my > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> brainstorm question. They had not had enough TIME to become > > familiar > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> with > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> enough of the theory to make much sense of it yet - but still, we > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> have > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> to > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> start somewhere and this was still early days. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> Time problem #3 brings in what I called above the location of > > time. > > > I > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> had > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> never intended for the sessions to be me giving after-school > > lectures > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> about > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> either theory or practice, yet this is what the teachers seemed > to > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> expect > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> from me (and even demand from me) and were pretty disgruntled > when > > I > > > >>>>>> wouldn't/couldn't deliver. My intention was always to get them > to > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> engage > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> with the relationship between THEORY and PRACTICE, just as > David's > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> comic > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> book discusses the relationship between THINKING and SPEECH or > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> EMOTION > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> and > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> COGNITION. My problem of course was that once we were in an > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> after-school > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> meeting we were removed in both time and space from where theory > > and > > > >>>>>> practice of teaching/learning operate as a relation (i.e. the > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> classroom > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> activity). I was actually trying to create/use our own PLZ > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> (Professional > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> Learning ZPD) as the activity in which to develop and understand > > this > > > >>>>>> relationship but it was initially very hard to get the teachers > to > > > >>>>>> understand this (at least until we had enough of David's Fox's > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> socially > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> shared experiences for the meanings to become communicable) and > then > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> even > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> more difficult to get them to transfer this back to developing > > their > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> own > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> classroom teaching. Ironically, despite being the loudest > > complainers > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> and > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> disparagers, it was Mike and Kay (the protagonist of my other > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> eventful > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> moment in the brainstorming session) who actually ended up making > > the > > > >>>>>> biggest changes in their classroom practice. Perhaps this is not > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> really > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> surprising at all - they were the ones who obviously engaged and > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> argued > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> with the ideas and activities rather than simply endured them! > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> My eventual answer to the problems encountered in my work with > the > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> group > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> of > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> teachers was to work WITH a teacher IN her own classroom so that > > we > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> had > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> shared experiences of the relationship between theory and practice > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> which > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> could not only be discussed after the events, but also actually > > acted > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> upon > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> there and then IN the event - creating what I called "Situated > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> Conscious > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> Awareness" of both the theoretical and practical aspects of the > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> concepts > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> of > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> teaching/learning and development we were developing > understanding > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> and > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> practice of together. But perhaps I should wait until David gets > up > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> to > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> this > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> part of the book before I say more! > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> Finally, one other point that really caught my attention in your > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> comic > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> book > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> David is that your prince calls development "to establish ties" > > > which > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> is > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> an > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> interesting difference to Engestrom's definition as "breaking > > away". > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> But > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> perhaps, as always in CH theory, it is not a matter of either/or > > but > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> in > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> fact both/and ideas that are necessary. From what I learned in my > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> study, > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> teachers' development as professionals is definitely BOTH about > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> breaking > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> away from old, routinised understandings and practices AND > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> establishing > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> new > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> connections between and amongst theoretical concepts and > > practices, > > > >>>>>> enabling them to continually develop new competences and motives > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> across > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> all > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> of their professional duties. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> Thanks for your interest in my book David. The discussion it has > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> sparked > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> has helped me revisit ideas from new perspectives. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> Cheers, > > > >>>>>> Helen > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> Dr Helen Grimmett > > > >>>>>> Lecturer, Student Adviser, > > > >>>>>> Faculty of Education, > > > >>>>>> Room G64F, Building 902 > > > >>>>>> Monash University, Berwick campus > > > >>>>>> Phone: 9904 7171 > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> *New Book: * > > > >>>>>> The Practice of Teachers' Professional Development: A > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> Cultural-Historical > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> Approach > > > >>>>>> < > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> https://www.sensepublishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/ > > > >>> professional-learning-1/the-practice-of-teachers- > > > >>> professional-development/ > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> Helen Grimmett (2014) Sense Publishers > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> < > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> http://monash.edu.au/education/news/50-years/?utm_ > > > >>> source=staff-email&utm_medium=email-signature&utm_campaign=50th > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> On 12 July 2014 07:29, David Kellogg > wrote: > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> Plekhanov distinguishes between "agitators" and > "propagandists". > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> Agitators > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> are essentially popularizers; they have the job of ripping > away a > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> subset > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> of > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> smaller and simpler ideas from a fabric of much larger and more > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> complex > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> theory and then disseminating them amongst the largest possible > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> number > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> of > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> people. In other words, their focus is exoteric. Propagandists > are > > > >>>>>>> essentially conspiratorial: they have the job of initiating a > > small > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> number > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> of the elect and educating them in the whole theoretical > > system--as > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> Larry > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> would say, the full Bildung. In other words, their focus is > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> esoteric. > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> As > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> you can see, Plekhanov was good at making distinctions, and not > so > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> good > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> at > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> showing how things are linked. For Helena, who is a labor > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> educator, > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> you > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> can't really be an effective agitator unless you are also a > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> propagandist. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> You need to present your exoteric extracts in such a way that > they > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> are, > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> to > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> borrow Larry's phrase, both necessary and sufficient to lead > > people > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> on > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> to > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> the esoterica. I'm with Helena--and with Bruner--with children > > it's > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> always > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> possible to tell the truth, part of the truth, but nothing but > > the > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> truth, > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> and if we can do it with kids, why not do it with adults? > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> (I am less sure about what it means to say that the objectively > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> human > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> is > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> the "subjectively historical"--it sounds like history is being > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> reified > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> as a > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> subject, that is, as a living, breathing, acting "World Spirit" > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> that > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> can > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> have a mind and reflect upon itself. My understanding of history > > is > > > >>>>>>> that just as we cannot have the advanced form of historical > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> consciousness > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> in dialogue with the more primitive forms, the opportunity to > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> reflect > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> upon > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> the whole process when it is all over is simply never going to > be > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> available > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> to anyone. The Merleau-Ponty quotation is beautiful and > intensely > > > >>>>>>> poetic, Larry--but when I look at a bubble or a wave, I do not > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> simply > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> see > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> chaos; I see past bubbles and past waves, and potential bubbles > > and > > > >>>>>>> potential waves. Isn't that a part of the experience of "loving > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> history" > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> as > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> well?) > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> My wife wrote a wonderful Ph.D. thesis about how any work of > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> literature > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> can > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> be looked at on four time frames: phylogenetic (the history of > a > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> genre), > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> ontogenetic (the biography of a career), logogenetic (the > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> development > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> of > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> a > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> plot or a character), and microgenetic (the unfolding of a > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> dialogue, > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> or a > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> paragraph). Her supervisor complained about the terminology in > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> somewhat > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> more elegant terms than Mike does in Helen's data:and suggested > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> that > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> she > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> should replace the terms with "history", "biography", > > "development" > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> and > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> "unfolding", to make it more exoteric. > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> I think that if she had done that, it would have made the > thesis > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> into > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> agitation rather than education. Yes, the terms would have been > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> more > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> familiar, and they might even, given other context, be taken to > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> mean > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> the > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> same thing. But what we would have gotten is good, clear > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> distinctions > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> ("history" on the one hand and "biography" on the other) and what > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> we > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> would > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> have lost is the linkedness of one time frame to another--the > way > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> in > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> which > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> the phylogenesis of genre produces the mature genre which is > used > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> in > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> an > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> author's ontegenesis, and the way in which the author's > ontogenesis > > > >>>>>>> produces the starting point and the raw materials for the > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> logogenetic > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> development of a work, not to mention the way in which logogenesis > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> is > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> reflected in the microgenetic unfolding of dialogue. > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> So I think that when Helena writes that anything can be > explained > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> to > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> anyone > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> in language that is everyday and simple and in a way that is > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> understandable > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> and at least part of the whole truth, I agree somewhat > enviously > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> (you > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> see, > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> Helena is a labor educator, but I teach TESOL, which is really > > the > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> process > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> of taking a few very simple and exoteric ideas that good > teachers > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> already > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> have and disseminating the select to the elect for vast sums of > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> money). > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> But > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> I have to add a rider--when we popularize richly woven fabrics > of > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> ideas > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> like cultural historical theory we are not simply juggling > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> vocabulary. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> I > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> think that Helena recognizes this perfectly when she says that > it > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> takes > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> TIME to be simple and clear. If it were simply a matter of > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> replacing > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> "cultural historical" with "community of learners" it would > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> actually > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> take > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> less time, but it isn't and it doesn't. > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> It is very hot in Seoul today, and somewhere out there a > toddler > > is > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> arguing > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> with a parent because he wants watermelon with breakfast. The > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> parent > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> resists, because if you eat cold watermelon on an empty stomach > you > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> get a > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> tummy-ache. The argument grows heated and long--and complex, but > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> the > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> complexity is of a particular kind, with very short, repeated, > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> insistancies > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> from the child and somewhat longer more complex remonstrations > > from > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> the > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> parent. We can call this complex discourse but simple grammar. A > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> few > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> years > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> will go by and we will find that the school child has mastered > > the > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> trick > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> of > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> long and complex remonstrations and can use them pre-emptively > to > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> win > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> arguments. We can call this complex grammar, but simple > vocabulary. > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> Only > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> when a decade or two has elapsed will we find that child, now > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> adult, > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> can > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> use the language of science, which is for the most part > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> grammatically > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> simple (at least compared to the pre-emptive remonstrations of the > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> school > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> child), but full of very complex vocabulary (e.g. "phylogeny > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> anticipates > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> ontogeny", or "cultural-historical activity theory enables > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> communities > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> of > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> learners"). > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> It's Saturday today, and in a few minutes I have to leave for > the > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> weekly > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> meeting of our translation group, which produces mighty tomes > > which > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> we > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> produce to popularize the works of Vygotsky amongst militant > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> teachers > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> here > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> in Korea (our version of "Thinking and Speech" is seven hundred > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> pages > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> long > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> because of all the explanatory notes and boxes with helpful > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> pictures). > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> On > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> the other hand, there is the attached comic book version of the > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> first > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> chapter of "Thinking and Speech" which I wrote a couple of years > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> ago > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> for > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> some graduate students who were having trouble talking about the > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> real > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> "Thinking and Speech" in class. > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> I think you can see that Huw's complaint is justified--the > comic > > > >>>>>>> book dialogue is "about" Thinking and Speech, but it is not > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> "Thinking > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> and > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> Speech" at all, in the same way that "community of learners" or > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> "biography" > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> is ABOUT cultural historical theory or ontogenesis. And I think > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> that > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> part > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> of the problem (but only part of it) is that the comic book is > > just > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> too > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> short. > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> David Kellogg > > > >>>>>>> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> 2014-07-11 17:09 GMT+09:00 Leif Strandberg < > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> leifstrandberg.ab@telia.com > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> : > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> 11 jul 2014 kl. 06:41 skrev Larry Purss >: > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> David, > > > >>>>>>>>> I have been following your reflections through this thread. > > > >>>>>>>>> You commented: > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> So it's almost always more useful for me to > > > >>>>>>>>> think of learning phenomena as NOT reducible to the physical, > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> at > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> least > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> not > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> in their unit of analysis > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> I have been reflecting on the notion of *bildung* as > learning. > > > >>>>>>>>> The notion of *cultivation* and *disposition* and > *comportment* > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> as > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> the > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> potential of learning. > > > >>>>>>>>> I came across this quote from Gramsci who was questioning the > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> notion > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> of > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> *laws* as the basis for making social predictions. Such *laws* > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> excluded > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> the > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> subjective factor from history. > > > >>>>>>>>> Gramsci wrote on social process: "Objective always means > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> 'humanly > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> objective' which can be held to correspond exactly to > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> 'historically > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> subjective' " > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> Merleau-Ponty also explored what I refer to as *disposition* > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> with > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> this > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> quote on the reality of history: > > > >>>>>>>>> History "awakens us to the importance of daily events and > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> action. > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> For > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> it > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> is > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> a philosophy [of history -LP] which arouses in us a love for > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> our > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> times > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> which are not the simple repetition of human eternity nor > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> merely > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> the > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> conclusion of premises already postulated. It is a view that > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> like > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> the > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> most > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> fragile object of perception - a soap bubble, or a wave - or > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> like > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> the > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> most > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> simple dialogue, embraces indivisibly all the order and all > the > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> disorder > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> of > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> the world." > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > > From fsulliva@temple.edu Tue Jul 22 12:20:33 2014 From: fsulliva@temple.edu (FRANCIS J. SULLIVAN) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 15:20:33 -0400 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: book of possible interest In-Reply-To: References: <0D461088-CBBB-4BD9-ADCB-3024C36CBE81@telia.com> <53C48DF1.5000703@mira.net> Message-ID: > As I understand it, Huw DISAGREES with Andy and actually agrees with the > revisionist critique of Vygotsky on the grounds that children are mostly > preoccupied with action and not word meaning. That's all very true of > course: but they are NOT really preoccupied with labour activity. Their > preoccupations are with PLAY activity (Kim Yongho and I did a good study of > so-called "Task based teaching" that shows how children redefine tasks as > role plays and games). Play activity is, as Vygotsky has shown us, > genetically related to speech and not to labour. > DOESN'T IMAGINATIVE PLAY COUNT AS THINKING? > > Andy's third point is that semantic actions (???) create intellectual > structures in the mind. I don't know what a semantic action is; semantics > for me is the process of making something stand for something else, but I > don't see in what sense it helps to model this process as an "action". In > many ways, it is precisely a non-action, because it includes conditionality > and interpretability, neither of which is usefully modeled as action. > > THE ABOVE IS WHAT SEEMS TO ME TO BE ABOUT "ACADEMIC DISCOURSE," > UNNECESSARILY NARROWING "THINKING." I TAKE HIS TERM SEMANTIC ACTION TO > REFER TO THE ILLOCUTIONARY FORCE OF THE DISCOURSE > > I agree with the Russians who say that "perezhivanie" is a well defined > concept. But to me "well defined" means developmentally so: it means that > the specific weight of the various components of "perezhivanie" have to be > allowed to change as we develop: so for young children "perezhivanie" is > largely "felt experience", and for older children it is mostly "thought > over--contemplated--experience". I don't see that thinking over is mostly > an intellectual exercise though--I always feel, even in these exchanges on > xmca, that there is a certain emotional component which makes us respond, > sometimes before we really even think things out. > > HERE I AGREE COMPLETELY WITH YOU, BUT ALSO TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE SOCIALIZATION OF SCHOOLING AS A CRUCIAL FACTOR. > David Kellogg > Hankuk University of Foreign Studies > > > > > On 16 July 2014 04:39, FRANCIS J. SULLIVAN wrote: > > > With great trepidation, I want to enter this conversation with my first > > post to the list (I have followed it for about a year now) because as > both > > a researcher and teacher educator the issues raised are major concerns > of > > mine too. I find, I think it was David's point, the idea that we can > think > > of the "connections" problem in two ways to be at the heart of the issue, > > at least for me. It is one thing to construct a connection that "adds to" > > the existing knowledge framework of others. But, it is a very different > > thing to sea5rch for a "connection" that requires others to qualitatively > > change, or even abandon, their existing framework. Helen seems to achieve > > such a connection with at least some of her teachers by helping them to > > re-cognize their own social identities so that the new knowledge and > > framework became less threatening and more inviting. She reconnected them > > with who they used to be and what they valued. So they did not see > > themselves as merely "ignorant" but more like retracing their steps. > > For me, at least, that's why the "deficit" models of teaching (or > research) > > practices do not work. We--teachers and students--need to find a place > from > > which we can begin this journey together, common ground so to speak. > While > > a deaf person may not "know" English, I don't think that's the salient > > point. All of us don't know things. What seems to me salient in Helen's > > attempt to find connections, is that the very attempt challenged their > > current ways of framing their professional lives. What we might think of > as > > "ignorance," those teachers thought of as "knowledge." And that > "knowledge" > > was part and parcel of the ways they positioned themselves as teachers in > > relation to students. > > I am tempted to put this into discourse analysis terms--I'm a > > semi-Hallidayan with a critical theory twist. But, I've said enough for a > > first post, I think. I hope it is useful. > > > > Francis J. Sullivan, Ph.D. > > Associate Professor > > Department of Teaching and Learning > > College of Education > > Temple University > > Philadelphia, PA 19122 > > > > > > Find out what any people will quietly submit to and you have the exact > > measure of the injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them. > > > > Frederick Douglass > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 2:10 AM, David Kellogg > > wrote: > > > > > Well, I do hope that Helen means that "for the moment", as I have > learned > > > an awful lot from this book and even more from this discussion. You > see, > > I > > > am trying to tease apart two very different processes that appear, on > the > > > face of it, to be almost identical, but which also appear to have > > > diametrically opposite developmental effects. > > > > > > One process is the process of getting people to feel at ease, > > > confident, and happy that they understand what you are saying because > it > > is > > > actually something that is identical or at least very similar to what > > they > > > already think. Another, almost identical, process is the process of > > > "establishing ties" between a new form of knowledge and an earlier one. > > > BOTH of these processes, it seems to me, occur throughout Helen's book, > > and > > > it is easy to mistake the one for the other. BOTH of these processes, > to > > > use our earlier terminology, involve "establishing ties", but only one > of > > > them also involves breaking away. > > > > > > For example, at one point in the book Helen, looking back over the > > Banksia > > > Bay PLZ data, rounds on herself for using a transparent piece of > > > scaffolding to elicit the word "communicate" from a group of teachers. > > What > > > bothers her is not that the answer itself is far too general to be of > any > > > practical value to the teachers, but only that she had it very firmly > in > > > mind, and kept badgering the teachers (as we all do, when we have a > > precise > > > answer in mind) until she got it. The alternative, she points out, > would > > be > > > to take what she got and work with that. > > > > > > Yes indeed. But I think the main reason that would have been more > > > interesting is not that it would have resulted in fewer rejections of > > > teacher answers and made people more at ease, confdent, and happy that > > they > > > understood, but rather than it would have yielded something more like a > > > concrete but unconscious and not yet volitionally controlled example of > > > excellence from the teacher's own practice. I almost always find that > the > > > actual answers I want--the "methods" I end up imparting to my own > > teachers, > > > are already present in the data they bring me (because we almost always > > > begin with actual transcripts of their lessons) but they are generally > > not > > > methods but only moments, and moments that go unnoticed and therefore > > > ungeneralized in the hurly burly of actual teaching. > > > > > > Last winter, Helen and I were at a conference in New Zealand where, > among > > > other eventful episodes, Craig Brandist got up and gave a very precise > > list > > > of half a dozen different and utterly contradictory ways in which > Bakhtin > > > uses the term "dialogue". Because the senses of "dialogue" are so many > > and > > > varied, people simply pick and choose, and they tend invariably to > choose > > > the ones that are closest to the way they already think. It is as > moments > > > like this that we need to remind ourselves that Bakhtin's "dialogue" > does > > > not, for the most part, ever include children, or women; that he did > not > > > "dialogue" with Volosinov or Medvedev when he allowed his acolytes > > > to plunder their corpses, and that his love of carnival and the public > > > marketplace does not extend to a belief in any form of political > > democracy. > > > > > > So I think we should start off with an understanding that what Vygotsky > > > says about defect is not the same was what we now believe. Vygotsky, > for > > > example, believed that sign language was not true language, and that > even > > > the congenitally deaf should be taught to lip read; this is simply > > > wrong. (On the other hand, what he says about spontaneously created > sign > > > languages--that they are essentially elaborated systems of gesture and > > they > > > lack the signifying functions--fits exactly with Susan Goldin-Meadow's > > > observations in Chicago.) > > > > > > And one reason I think it is important to begin with this understanding > > is > > > this: sometimes--usually--LSV is right and we are wrong. In > particular, I > > > think the "credit" view of defect, or, for that matter, ignorance of > any > > > kind and not fully conscious teacher expertise risks becoming a liberal > > > platitude--the cup is always half full, so why not look on the bright > > side > > > of dearth? I certainly do not feel empowered by the fact that I know > > > English but I do not know ASL, and I rather doubt that deaf people feel > > > empowered by the opposite state of affairs. When I don't know > something, > > I > > > do not see any bright side of not knowing it, for the very simple > > > reason that I can't see at all. > > > > > > Vygotsky was probably very influenced by "Iolanta", an opera that > > > Tchaikovsky wrote--he certainly seems to quote it extensively in the > last > > > chapter of "Thinking and Speech". In "Iolanta", King Renee copes with > the > > > blindness of his daughter by having her shut up in a garden and > > forbidding > > > all his subjects from discussing light, sight, color or anything > visible > > in > > > any way. Vaudemont, a knight of Burgundy, blunders into the garden, > > > discovers Iolanta's secret. Iolanta convinces him that sight is > > > unnecessary, but in the course of doing so, she develops the desire to > > see > > > and choose for herself. > > > > > > David Kelogg > > > Hankuk University of Foreign Studies > > > > > > > > > > > > On 15 July 2014 11:12, Andy Blunden wrote: > > > > > > > My reading of Vygotsky on 'defectology' was that the 'defect' was the > > > > problem in social relations, that is, the person who is different in > > some > > > > way suffers because of the way that difference is treated or not > > treated > > > by > > > > others, not for anything in itself. One and the same feature could > be a > > > > great benefit or a fatal flaw, depending on how others react to it. > > > > Except insofar as introducing the idea of a "credit view" is a move > > aimed > > > > at changing the perceptions and behaviours of others in relation to > the > > > > subject, I don't think Vygotsky is an advocate of the mirror image > of a > > > > deficit view. As I see it, he analyses the problem of the person > being > > > > treated as deficient by means of the unit of *defect-compensation*. > The > > > > defect (a problem arising in social interaction, with others) > generates > > > > certain challenges which are overcome, generally also in interaction > > with > > > > others. This "compensation" leads to what Helen could call a "credit" > > and > > > > it is the dynamic set up between the social defect and social > > > compensation > > > > which shapes the subject's psychology and their relation to others. > > > > Andy > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > *Andy Blunden* > > > > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > > > > > > > > > > > Helen Grimmett wrote: > > > > > > > >> I think what is unique about Vygotsky's work in defectology is that, > > > >> despite the name, it is not a deficit view (in the way that I > > understand > > > >> the term) at all. > > > >> > > > >> I understand the commonly used term 'deficit view' as a focus on > what > > > >> children are 'missing' that needs to be provided to them by teachers > > to > > > >> bring them up to a pre-conceived idea of 'normal' for their > age/grade > > > >> level > > > >> etc. Whereas, a 'credit view' focuses on what children are able to > do > > > and > > > >> bring to a learning situation, in which, in the interaction with > > others, > > > >> they will be able to become more able to do and 'be' more than they > > were > > > >> before (i.e. to develop), whether this be in the 'expected' ways to > > the > > > >> 'expected' level or in completely different ways to a variety of > > > different > > > >> levels beyond or outside 'standard' expectations. From the little I > > have > > > >> read on defectology I think this is what Vygotsky was advocating - > > that > > > >> despite a child's blindness or deafness etc, development was still > > > >> possible > > > >> if mediational means were found that made use of the child's credits > > > (i.e. > > > >> using sign language or braille so that children still had access to > > the > > > >> developmental opportunities provided by language). So I think your > > term > > > >> pre-abled is in fact a credit view rather than a deficit view. > > > >> > > > >> I was attempting to also use a credit view in my work with the > > > teachers. I > > > >> saw them as being experienced practitioners who had lots to bring to > > our > > > >> discussions of teaching and learning, in which together we could see > > > what > > > >> could be developed (new practices, new understandings). Once Kay and > > > Mike > > > >> realised this they got on board and engaged in the process and > > (possibly > > > >> for the first time in a long while as they both saw themselves [and > in > > > >> fact > > > >> are officially designated as] 'expert teachers') really reawakened > the > > > >> process of developing as professionals. They blew off most of the > > > content > > > >> I > > > >> was contributing, but they realised the process was actually about > > > >> 'unsticking' their own development and working out new and > personally > > > >> interesting and meaningful ways of 'becoming' more as teachers, > > instead > > > of > > > >> being stuck 'being' the teacher they had turned into over the years. > > Not > > > >> all of the teachers made this leap in the time I worked with them > > > though. > > > >> Others were either quite disgruntled that I wouldn't provide them > with > > > >> answers to 'fix' their own perceived deficits or patiently waited > for > > me > > > >> to > > > >> go away and stop rocking the boat. From what I can gather though, > Ann > > > (the > > > >> principal) kept the boat rocking and managed over time to get more > > > >> teachers > > > >> to buy into the process of learning from each other and > > collaboratively > > > >> creating new practices. As we said earlier, development takes time > as > > > well > > > >> as effort. > > > >> > > > >> All I've got time for at the moment! > > > >> > > > >> Helen > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Dr Helen Grimmett > > > >> Lecturer, Student Adviser, > > > >> Faculty of Education, > > > >> Room G64F, Building 902 > > > >> Monash University, Berwick campus > > > >> Phone: 9904 7171 > > > >> > > > >> *New Book: * > > > >> The Practice of Teachers' Professional Development: A > > > Cultural-Historical > > > >> Approach > > > >> > > >> professional-learning-1/the-practice-of-teachers- > > > >> professional-development/> > > > >> Helen Grimmett (2014) Sense Publishers > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> source=staff-email&utm_medium=email-signature&utm_campaign=50th> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> On 14 July 2014 14:43, David Kellogg wrote: > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >>> Near the end of Chapter Three (p. 81), Helen is summing up her > > > experience > > > >>> with the Banksia Bay PLZ and she notes with some dismay that her > > PDers > > > >>> have > > > >>> "a deficit view" of their children and tend towards "container > > models" > > > of > > > >>> the mind ("empty vessel, sponge, blank canvas"). Only one teacher, > > Ann > > > >>> sees > > > >>> anything wrong with this, and Helen says "they don't necessarily > > value > > > >>> her > > > >>> opinion". > > > >>> > > > >>> Helen finds herself rather conflicted: One the one hand, she says > > "If > > > >>> their representations of children really do represent their > beliefs, > > > then > > > >>> they are probably right to insist there is no need to change." And > on > > > the > > > >>> other, she says "My intention was never to say that their present > > > >>> practice > > > >>> was wrong, but to help them see alternative ways of thinking about > > > >>> children, learning, and teaching." > > > >>> > > > >>> Of course, if there is no need to change, then it follows that > there > > is > > > >>> no > > > >>> reason to look for alternative ways of thinking about children, > > > learning > > > >>> and teaching. The only reason for spending scarce cognitive > resources > > > on > > > >>> seeing different ways of looking at children is if you do, in fact, > > > take > > > >>> a > > > >>> deficit view of the teachers. Ann, and the Regional Consultants, > > > >>> apparently > > > >>> do, but Helen realizes that there isn't much basis for this: not > only > > > do > > > >>> we > > > >>> have no actual data of lessons to look at, we know that one of the > > > >>> teachers, Kay, has been in the classroom for three decades (during > > > which > > > >>> time Helen has spent at least one decade OUT of the classroom). > > > >>> > > > >>> While we were translating Vygotsky's "History of the Development of > > the > > > >>> Higher Psychological Functions" last year, some of my colleagues > were > > > >>> taken > > > >>> aback by Vygotsky's use of terms like "moron", "imbecile", "idiot", > > and > > > >>> "cretin". Of course, Vygotsky is writing long before the > "euphemisim > > > >>> treadmill" turned these into playground insults; for Vygotsky they > > are > > > >>> quite precise descriptors--not of cognitive ability but actually of > > > >>> LANGUAGE ability. But because our readership are progressive Korean > > > >>> teachers with strong views about these questions, we found that we > > > >>> couldn't > > > >>> even use the term "mentally retarded" without a strongly worded > > > footnote > > > >>> disavowing the "deficit" thinking behind the term. > > > >>> > > > >>> I think that Vygotsky would have been surprised by this. I think he > > > took > > > >>> it > > > >>> for granted that a defect was a deficit: being blind means a > deficit > > in > > > >>> vision, and being deaf means a deficit in hearing. In the same > way, a > > > >>> brain > > > >>> defect is not an asset. On the other hand, I think Vygotsky would > > find > > > >>> our > > > >>> own term "disabled" quite inaccurate: since all forms of > development > > > are > > > >>> compensatory and involve "circuitous routes" of one kind or > another, > > > and > > > >>> all developed children, even, and even especially, gifted children, > > > >>> contain > > > >>> islands of underdevelopment, the correct term for deficits of all > > kinds > > > >>> is > > > >>> not "disabled" but "pre-abled". > > > >>> > > > >>> Personally, I see nothing wrong with a deficit view of children > that > > > sees > > > >>> them as pre-abled (or, as Vygotsky liked to say, 'primitivist"; > that > > > is, > > > >>> they are waiting for the mediational means that we have foolishly > > > >>> developed > > > >>> only for the psychophysiologically most common types to catch up > with > > > the > > > >>> actual variation in real children. I suspect this view is actually > > > quite > > > >>> a > > > >>> bit closer to what Kay thinks than to what Helen thinks. > > > >>> > > > >>> David Kellogg > > > >>> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> On 13 July 2014 10:59, Helen Grimmett > > > wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> Hi David, > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Interesting question. I absolutely think that development AS a > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>> professional > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> is necessary, just as development as a human is necessary, so if > > > >>>> professional development is seen as the practice in which this > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>> development > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> is produced then absolutely I do think it is necessary. The form > > that > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>> this > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> practice takes though, and indeed the form of the development that > > is > > > >>>> produced within this practice, are the things open to question > > > however. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> I definitely think that a teacher's development as a professional > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>> includes > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> the need to understand their practice better rather than just > change > > > it, > > > >>>> but I think that understanding often develops best > in/alongside/with > > > the > > > >>>> process of changing (and vice versa) rather than separately from > it, > > > >>>> and, > > > >>>> as you point out above, in establishing ties *between* people and > > then > > > >>>> within them. So a practice of professional development that > creates > > > >>>> conditions which support this type of development will (I believe) > > be > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>> much > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> more effective than traditional forms of PD that either attempt to > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>> lecture > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> about theoretical principles but do not support teachers to > transfer > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>> these > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> into practical changes, OR provide teachers with practical > programs > > > and > > > >>>> expect them to implement them without any understanding of what > and > > > why > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>> the > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> changes matter. I think the term "Professional Development" is an > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>> absolute > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> misnomer for either of those typical approaches. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> So again, I have a problem with names! I'm talking about > > Professional > > > >>>> Development with a completely different meaning than what most of > > the > > > >>>> education community believe it to mean when they talk about > > attending > > > PD > > > >>>> seminars or workshops. I toyed with trying to find a different > name > > > for > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>> the > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> particular meaning I'm talking about, but when you are talking > about > > > >>>> development from a cultural-historical theoretical perspective > then > > > >>>> there > > > >>>> really is no other word to use! That's why I stuck to using > > > >>>> 'professional > > > >>>> development' (in full) when I meant my meaning, and PD (which is > > what > > > >>>> teachers in Australia commonly refer to seminars and workshops as) > > > when > > > >>>> I > > > >>>> refer to the typical (and in my view, usually non-developmental) > > forms > > > >>>> of > > > >>>> activities that teachers are subjected to each year. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> So, I agree that the need for PD is questionable, but the need for > > > >>>> practices of professional development that help teachers to > develop > > as > > > >>>> professionals (that is, to develop a unified understanding of both > > the > > > >>>> theoretical and practical aspects of their work, which is itself > > > >>>> continually developing in order to meet the changing needs of > their > > > >>>> students, schools and society) is essential. While I think > > co-teaching > > > >>>> is > > > >>>> one practical small-scale solution, working out viable, > economical, > > > and > > > >>>> manageable ways to create these practices on a large-scale is a > very > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>> large > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> problem. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Cheers, > > > >>>> Helen > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Dr Helen Grimmett > > > >>>> Lecturer, Student Adviser, > > > >>>> Faculty of Education, > > > >>>> Room G64F, Building 902 > > > >>>> Monash University, Berwick campus > > > >>>> Phone: 9904 7171 > > > >>>> > > > >>>> *New Book: * > > > >>>> The Practice of Teachers' Professional Development: A > > > >>>> Cultural-Historical > > > >>>> Approach > > > >>>> < > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>> https://www.sensepublishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/ > > > >>> professional-learning-1/the-practice-of-teachers- > > > >>> professional-development/ > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> Helen Grimmett (2014) Sense Publishers > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> < > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>> http://monash.edu.au/education/news/50-years/?utm_ > > > >>> source=staff-email&utm_medium=email-signature&utm_campaign=50th > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> On 13 July 2014 08:57, David Kellogg > wrote: > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> Helen: > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Good to hear from you at long last--I knew you were lurking out > > there > > > >>>>> somewhere! > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> I didn't actually write the line about "establishing ties"--it's > > from > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>> "The > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> Little Prince". The prince asks what "tame" means, and the fox > > > replies > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>> that > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> it means "to establish ties". But of course what I meant was that > > > ties > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>> are > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> established first between people and then within them; the ties > of > > > >>>>> development are interfunctional ties that make up a new > > psychological > > > >>>>> system. (Or, for Halliday, they are the inter-systemic ties that > > make > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>> up > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> new metafunctions.) > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> As you say, Yrjo Engestrom chooses to emphasize another aspect of > > > >>>>> development with "breaking away"--he wants to stress its > > > crisis-ridden > > > >>>>> nature. I agree with this, actually, but mostly I agree with you, > > > that > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>> we > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> are talking about two moments of the same process. To me, breaking > > > away > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>> is > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> really a precondition of the real business of establishing ties. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Thomas Piketty makes a similar point in his book "Capital in the > > > >>>>> Twenty-first Century". He admits that war and revolution is the > > only > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>> thing > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> that EVER counteracts the tendency of returns from capital to > > > outstrip > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>> the > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> growth in income, and that the 20th Century was an outlier in > this > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>> respect, > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> and the Russian revolution an extreme outlier within that > outlier. > > > But > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>> he > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> also says that in the long run the one thing that makes UPWARD > > > mobility > > > >>>>> possible is education. Despite everything, because of everything. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> I finished the book a few days ago. I guess the thing I most want > > to > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>> ask > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> about is the assumption that professional development is necessary > > at > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>> all. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> Doesn't it make more sense to say that before we change what we > are > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>> doing, > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> we should understand it better? > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> David Kellogg > > > >>>>> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> On 12 July 2014 13:20, Helen Grimmett > > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>> wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> Ah, I think you have hit the nail on the head David. It is indeed > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> TIME > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> that > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> is so crucial - not only duration of time, but also location of > > time > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> (which > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> I suppose is really context). > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> The problems I had with Mike and his colleagues about the > > > terminology > > > >>>>>> stemmed partly from the typical Aussie disdain for using words > > that > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> might > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> make your mates think you are trying to appear 'better' than > them, > > so > > > >>>>>> therefore you mock anything that sounds too serious or > > intellectual. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> But > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> beyond this surface level of complaining the problems Huw and you > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> have > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> been > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> discussing boil down to problems with time. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> Huw's complaint about my use of the heading "Features of > > > >>>>>> Cultural-Historical Learning Activities" is well justified - but > > it > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> was > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> really just a shorthand written version of what I was verbally > > asking > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> for > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> as "What might be some particular features of learning activities > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> that > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> would align with principles of Cultural-Historical Theory?" That > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> would > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> have > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> taken too long to write on the top of the piece of paper - and > of > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> course > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> time is always too short in any after-school PD so shortcuts are > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> inevitably > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> taken. (Time problem #1) > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> Time problem #2, which your discussion has highlighted for me, > is > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> that > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> of > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> course my question was really "What might be some particular > > features > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> of > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> learning activities that would align with THE LIMITED NUMBER OF > > (AND > > > >>>>>> LIMITED UNDERSTANDING OF) principles of Cultural-Historical > Theory > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> THAT > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> YOU > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> HAVE BEEN INTRODUCED TO SO FAR?" so I really should have not > been > > so > > > >>>>>> surprised that they would find the brainstorming activity > > difficult > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> and > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> resort to diversionary tactics! (Mike's outburst posted here by > > David > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> was > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> not the only eventful moment I write about from this one > activity. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> But > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> these apparent failures actually provided much more interesting > data > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> for > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> me > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> and eventually lead me to several key findings in my thesis). I > > had > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> spent > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> several years by this stage reading and discussing Vygotsky and > > yet I > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> had > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> assumed/hoped the teachers would have enough understanding from > my > > > >>>>>> (probably not very good) explanations ABOUT theory over the > > previous > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> 3 > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> short sessions I had had with them to be able to contribute > answers > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> to > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> my > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> brainstorm question. They had not had enough TIME to become > > familiar > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> with > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> enough of the theory to make much sense of it yet - but still, we > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> have > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> to > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> start somewhere and this was still early days. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> Time problem #3 brings in what I called above the location of > > time. > > > I > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> had > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> never intended for the sessions to be me giving after-school > > lectures > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> about > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> either theory or practice, yet this is what the teachers seemed > to > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> expect > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> from me (and even demand from me) and were pretty disgruntled > when > > I > > > >>>>>> wouldn't/couldn't deliver. My intention was always to get them > to > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> engage > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> with the relationship between THEORY and PRACTICE, just as > David's > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> comic > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> book discusses the relationship between THINKING and SPEECH or > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> EMOTION > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> and > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> COGNITION. My problem of course was that once we were in an > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> after-school > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> meeting we were removed in both time and space from where theory > > and > > > >>>>>> practice of teaching/learning operate as a relation (i.e. the > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> classroom > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> activity). I was actually trying to create/use our own PLZ > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> (Professional > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> Learning ZPD) as the activity in which to develop and understand > > this > > > >>>>>> relationship but it was initially very hard to get the teachers > to > > > >>>>>> understand this (at least until we had enough of David's Fox's > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> socially > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> shared experiences for the meanings to become communicable) and > then > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> even > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> more difficult to get them to transfer this back to developing > > their > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> own > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> classroom teaching. Ironically, despite being the loudest > > complainers > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> and > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> disparagers, it was Mike and Kay (the protagonist of my other > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> eventful > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> moment in the brainstorming session) who actually ended up making > > the > > > >>>>>> biggest changes in their classroom practice. Perhaps this is not > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> really > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> surprising at all - they were the ones who obviously engaged and > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> argued > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> with the ideas and activities rather than simply endured them! > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> My eventual answer to the problems encountered in my work with > the > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> group > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> of > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> teachers was to work WITH a teacher IN her own classroom so that > > we > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> had > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> shared experiences of the relationship between theory and practice > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> which > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> could not only be discussed after the events, but also actually > > acted > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> upon > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> there and then IN the event - creating what I called "Situated > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> Conscious > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> Awareness" of both the theoretical and practical aspects of the > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> concepts > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> of > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> teaching/learning and development we were developing > understanding > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> and > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> practice of together. But perhaps I should wait until David gets > up > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> to > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> this > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> part of the book before I say more! > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> Finally, one other point that really caught my attention in your > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> comic > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> book > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> David is that your prince calls development "to establish ties" > > > which > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> is > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> an > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> interesting difference to Engestrom's definition as "breaking > > away". > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> But > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> perhaps, as always in CH theory, it is not a matter of either/or > > but > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> in > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> fact both/and ideas that are necessary. From what I learned in my > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> study, > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> teachers' development as professionals is definitely BOTH about > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> breaking > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> away from old, routinised understandings and practices AND > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> establishing > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> new > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> connections between and amongst theoretical concepts and > > practices, > > > >>>>>> enabling them to continually develop new competences and motives > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> across > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> all > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> of their professional duties. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> Thanks for your interest in my book David. The discussion it has > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> sparked > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> has helped me revisit ideas from new perspectives. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> Cheers, > > > >>>>>> Helen > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> Dr Helen Grimmett > > > >>>>>> Lecturer, Student Adviser, > > > >>>>>> Faculty of Education, > > > >>>>>> Room G64F, Building 902 > > > >>>>>> Monash University, Berwick campus > > > >>>>>> Phone: 9904 7171 > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> *New Book: * > > > >>>>>> The Practice of Teachers' Professional Development: A > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> Cultural-Historical > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> Approach > > > >>>>>> < > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> https://www.sensepublishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/ > > > >>> professional-learning-1/the-practice-of-teachers- > > > >>> professional-development/ > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> Helen Grimmett (2014) Sense Publishers > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> < > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> http://monash.edu.au/education/news/50-years/?utm_ > > > >>> source=staff-email&utm_medium=email-signature&utm_campaign=50th > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> On 12 July 2014 07:29, David Kellogg > wrote: > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> Plekhanov distinguishes between "agitators" and > "propagandists". > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> Agitators > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> are essentially popularizers; they have the job of ripping > away a > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> subset > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> of > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> smaller and simpler ideas from a fabric of much larger and more > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> complex > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> theory and then disseminating them amongst the largest possible > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> number > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> of > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> people. In other words, their focus is exoteric. Propagandists > are > > > >>>>>>> essentially conspiratorial: they have the job of initiating a > > small > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> number > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> of the elect and educating them in the whole theoretical > > system--as > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> Larry > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> would say, the full Bildung. In other words, their focus is > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> esoteric. > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> As > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> you can see, Plekhanov was good at making distinctions, and not > so > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> good > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> at > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> showing how things are linked. For Helena, who is a labor > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> educator, > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> you > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> can't really be an effective agitator unless you are also a > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> propagandist. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> You need to present your exoteric extracts in such a way that > they > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> are, > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> to > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> borrow Larry's phrase, both necessary and sufficient to lead > > people > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> on > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> to > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> the esoterica. I'm with Helena--and with Bruner--with children > > it's > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> always > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> possible to tell the truth, part of the truth, but nothing but > > the > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> truth, > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> and if we can do it with kids, why not do it with adults? > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> (I am less sure about what it means to say that the objectively > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> human > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> is > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> the "subjectively historical"--it sounds like history is being > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> reified > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> as a > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> subject, that is, as a living, breathing, acting "World Spirit" > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> that > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> can > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> have a mind and reflect upon itself. My understanding of history > > is > > > >>>>>>> that just as we cannot have the advanced form of historical > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> consciousness > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> in dialogue with the more primitive forms, the opportunity to > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> reflect > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> upon > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> the whole process when it is all over is simply never going to > be > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> available > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> to anyone. The Merleau-Ponty quotation is beautiful and > intensely > > > >>>>>>> poetic, Larry--but when I look at a bubble or a wave, I do not > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> simply > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> see > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> chaos; I see past bubbles and past waves, and potential bubbles > > and > > > >>>>>>> potential waves. Isn't that a part of the experience of "loving > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> history" > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> as > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> well?) > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> My wife wrote a wonderful Ph.D. thesis about how any work of > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> literature > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> can > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> be looked at on four time frames: phylogenetic (the history of > a > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> genre), > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> ontogenetic (the biography of a career), logogenetic (the > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> development > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> of > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> a > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> plot or a character), and microgenetic (the unfolding of a > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> dialogue, > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> or a > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> paragraph). Her supervisor complained about the terminology in > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> somewhat > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> more elegant terms than Mike does in Helen's data:and suggested > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> that > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> she > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> should replace the terms with "history", "biography", > > "development" > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> and > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> "unfolding", to make it more exoteric. > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> I think that if she had done that, it would have made the > thesis > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> into > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> agitation rather than education. Yes, the terms would have been > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> more > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> familiar, and they might even, given other context, be taken to > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> mean > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> the > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> same thing. But what we would have gotten is good, clear > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> distinctions > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> ("history" on the one hand and "biography" on the other) and what > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> we > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> would > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> have lost is the linkedness of one time frame to another--the > way > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> in > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> which > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> the phylogenesis of genre produces the mature genre which is > used > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> in > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> an > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> author's ontegenesis, and the way in which the author's > ontogenesis > > > >>>>>>> produces the starting point and the raw materials for the > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> logogenetic > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> development of a work, not to mention the way in which logogenesis > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> is > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> reflected in the microgenetic unfolding of dialogue. > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> So I think that when Helena writes that anything can be > explained > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> to > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> anyone > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> in language that is everyday and simple and in a way that is > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> understandable > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> and at least part of the whole truth, I agree somewhat > enviously > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> (you > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> see, > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> Helena is a labor educator, but I teach TESOL, which is really > > the > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> process > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> of taking a few very simple and exoteric ideas that good > teachers > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> already > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> have and disseminating the select to the elect for vast sums of > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> money). > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> But > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> I have to add a rider--when we popularize richly woven fabrics > of > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> ideas > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> like cultural historical theory we are not simply juggling > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> vocabulary. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> I > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> think that Helena recognizes this perfectly when she says that > it > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> takes > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> TIME to be simple and clear. If it were simply a matter of > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> replacing > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> "cultural historical" with "community of learners" it would > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> actually > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> take > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> less time, but it isn't and it doesn't. > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> It is very hot in Seoul today, and somewhere out there a > toddler > > is > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> arguing > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> with a parent because he wants watermelon with breakfast. The > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> parent > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> resists, because if you eat cold watermelon on an empty stomach > you > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> get a > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> tummy-ache. The argument grows heated and long--and complex, but > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> the > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> complexity is of a particular kind, with very short, repeated, > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> insistancies > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> from the child and somewhat longer more complex remonstrations > > from > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> the > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> parent. We can call this complex discourse but simple grammar. A > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> few > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> years > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> will go by and we will find that the school child has mastered > > the > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> trick > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> of > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> long and complex remonstrations and can use them pre-emptively > to > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> win > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> arguments. We can call this complex grammar, but simple > vocabulary. > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> Only > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> when a decade or two has elapsed will we find that child, now > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> adult, > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> can > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> use the language of science, which is for the most part > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> grammatically > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> simple (at least compared to the pre-emptive remonstrations of the > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> school > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> child), but full of very complex vocabulary (e.g. "phylogeny > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> anticipates > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> ontogeny", or "cultural-historical activity theory enables > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> communities > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> of > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> learners"). > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> It's Saturday today, and in a few minutes I have to leave for > the > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> weekly > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> meeting of our translation group, which produces mighty tomes > > which > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> we > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> produce to popularize the works of Vygotsky amongst militant > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> teachers > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> here > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> in Korea (our version of "Thinking and Speech" is seven hundred > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> pages > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> long > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> because of all the explanatory notes and boxes with helpful > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> pictures). > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> On > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> the other hand, there is the attached comic book version of the > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> first > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> chapter of "Thinking and Speech" which I wrote a couple of years > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> ago > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> for > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> some graduate students who were having trouble talking about the > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> real > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> "Thinking and Speech" in class. > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> I think you can see that Huw's complaint is justified--the > comic > > > >>>>>>> book dialogue is "about" Thinking and Speech, but it is not > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> "Thinking > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> and > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> Speech" at all, in the same way that "community of learners" or > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> "biography" > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> is ABOUT cultural historical theory or ontogenesis. And I think > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> that > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> part > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> of the problem (but only part of it) is that the comic book is > > just > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> too > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> short. > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> David Kellogg > > > >>>>>>> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> 2014-07-11 17:09 GMT+09:00 Leif Strandberg < > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> leifstrandberg.ab@telia.com > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> : > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> 11 jul 2014 kl. 06:41 skrev Larry Purss >: > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> David, > > > >>>>>>>>> I have been following your reflections through this thread. > > > >>>>>>>>> You commented: > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> So it's almost always more useful for me to > > > >>>>>>>>> think of learning phenomena as NOT reducible to the physical, > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> at > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> least > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> not > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> in their unit of analysis > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> I have been reflecting on the notion of *bildung* as > learning. > > > >>>>>>>>> The notion of *cultivation* and *disposition* and > *comportment* > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> as > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> the > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> potential of learning. > > > >>>>>>>>> I came across this quote from Gramsci who was questioning the > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> notion > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> of > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> *laws* as the basis for making social predictions. Such *laws* > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> excluded > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> the > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> subjective factor from history. > > > >>>>>>>>> Gramsci wrote on social process: "Objective always means > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> 'humanly > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> objective' which can be held to correspond exactly to > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> 'historically > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> subjective' " > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> Merleau-Ponty also explored what I refer to as *disposition* > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> with > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> this > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> quote on the reality of history: > > > >>>>>>>>> History "awakens us to the importance of daily events and > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> action. > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> For > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> it > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> is > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> a philosophy [of history -LP] which arouses in us a love for > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> our > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> times > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> which are not the simple repetition of human eternity nor > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> merely > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> the > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> conclusion of premises already postulated. It is a view that > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> like > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> the > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> most > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> fragile object of perception - a soap bubble, or a wave - or > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> like > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> the > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> most > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> simple dialogue, embraces indivisibly all the order and all > the > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> disorder > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> of > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> the world." > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > > From lchcmike@gmail.com Tue Jul 22 15:41:16 2014 From: lchcmike@gmail.com (mike cole) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 15:41:16 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: =?utf-8?q?Prehistoric_=E2=80=98book_keeping=E2=80=99_continue?= =?utf-8?q?d_long_after_invention_of_writing_=7C_University_of_Camb?= =?utf-8?q?ridge?= In-Reply-To: <24B0045E-5F3F-433A-9477-413A2BF39EF6@gmail.com> References: <24B0045E-5F3F-433A-9477-413A2BF39EF6@gmail.com> Message-ID: This is a very interesting example of the way in which the constituents of practices that have been replaced remain as part of the expanded cultural toolkit. Should make good reading in any course that takes up the history of literacy. Thanks David. mike On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 3:24 PM, David Preiss wrote: > > > http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/prehistoric-book-keeping-continued-long-after-invention-of-writing > > > Enviado desde mi iPhone > From lchcmike@gmail.com Tue Jul 22 16:17:14 2014 From: lchcmike@gmail.com (mike cole) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 16:17:14 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] =?utf-8?b?RndkOiBb0JzQtdGC0L7QtNC+0LvQvtCz0LjRjyDQuCDQuNGB0YI=?= =?utf-8?b?0L7RgNC40Y8g0L/RgdC40YXQvtC70L7Qs9C40LhdINCk0LjQu9GM0Lws?= =?utf-8?b?INC/0L7RgdCy0Y/RidC10L3QvdGL0Lkg0JAu0JIuINCh0YPQstC+0YA=?= =?utf-8?b?0L7QstGDIC0g0L/RgdC40YXQvtC70L7Qs9GD?= In-Reply-To: References: <791051000947158-505367082848886@groups.facebook.com> Message-ID: Film about Alexander Suvorov, the blind-deaf Russian psychologist. mike ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Ilya Garber Date: Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 5:28 AM Subject: [??????????? ? ??????? ??????????] ?????, ??????????? ?.?. ???????? - ????????? To: ??????????? ? ??????? ?????????? <505367082848886@groups.facebook.com> Ilya Garber posted in ??????????? ? ??????? ?????????? [image: Ilya Garber] Ilya Garber 5:28am Jul 11 ?????, ??????????? ?.?. ???????? - ????????? A brilliant life in darkness (RT Documentary) He was born normal but at the age of 3 suddenly became blind and at 9 he lost his hearing. When he w... View Post on Facebook ? Edit Email Settings ? Reply to this email to add a comment. From dkellogg60@gmail.com Tue Jul 22 17:20:14 2014 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 09:20:14 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: =?utf-8?q?Prehistoric_=E2=80=98book_keeping=E2=80=99_continue?= =?utf-8?q?d_long_after_invention_of_writing_=7C_University_of_Camb?= =?utf-8?q?ridge?= In-Reply-To: References: <24B0045E-5F3F-433A-9477-413A2BF39EF6@gmail.com> Message-ID: Mike--I interpreted this rather differently. In ancient Egypt and in ancient Mesopotamia, literacy was highly restricted, so most people would have needed less esoteric technologies for daily life. Even people who are fully literate or numerate today don't use writing or counting for everything. When my mother in law visited us from China, she was fully literate and numerate, but also rather overweight (too much eating and television in her retirement). We tried taking her to the gym, but it made her dizzy, so I would go to my lectures and leave her walking around the university physical education track while I taught. She would use pebbles as counters to make sure that she could tell me how many laps she'd walked by the time I got out of class. I still remember watching her stoop to pick up pebbles from my classroom window while I was fumbling with my class notes--the activities are not that different, when you think about it. David Kellogg Hankuk University of Foreign Studies On 23 July 2014 07:41, mike cole wrote: > This is a very interesting example of the way in which the constituents of > practices that have been replaced remain as part of the expanded cultural > toolkit. Should make good reading in any course that takes up the history > of literacy. Thanks David. > mike > > > On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 3:24 PM, David Preiss > wrote: > > > > > > > > http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/prehistoric-book-keeping-continued-long-after-invention-of-writing > > > > > > Enviado desde mi iPhone > > > From huw.softdesigns@gmail.com Tue Jul 22 17:30:40 2014 From: huw.softdesigns@gmail.com (Huw Lloyd) Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 01:30:40 +0100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: book of possible interest In-Reply-To: References: <0D461088-CBBB-4BD9-ADCB-3024C36CBE81@telia.com> <53C48DF1.5000703@mira.net> Message-ID: On 18 July 2014 22:51, David Kellogg wrote: > All functions have to be both, but they > don't have to be the same proportions of both, and so development is, > contrary to what Huw suggests, perfectly possible. Children do not leap > metaphysically, but dialectically--by going from using language mostly to > get attention (and largely without clause grammar) to using language to > give information and eventually using it to check understanding. > What makes this a leap, David? It seems to be a leap from the point of view of the observer, not a leap in capability. A leap (i.e. a break in the process of transformation) in capability would be anathema to genetic principles. > Play activity is, as Vygotsky has shown us, > genetically related to speech and not to labour. > These might be helpful in genetically relating play activity to labour (in a similar vein to relating complexes to concepts): http://marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/works/1933/play.htm https://www.marxists.org/archive/elkonin/works/1971/stages.htm Best, Huw From lchcmike@gmail.com Tue Jul 22 17:29:42 2014 From: lchcmike@gmail.com (mike cole) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 17:29:42 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: =?utf-8?q?Prehistoric_=E2=80=98book_keeping=E2=80=99_continue?= =?utf-8?q?d_long_after_invention_of_writing_=7C_University_of_Camb?= =?utf-8?q?ridge?= In-Reply-To: References: <24B0045E-5F3F-433A-9477-413A2BF39EF6@gmail.com> Message-ID: That seems a plausible alternative, David. Thanks. I wrote a longish note re your informative message on LSV and Halliday but it got trashed by accident. I will try to recoup it when life allows. mike On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 5:20 PM, David Kellogg wrote: > Mike--I interpreted this rather differently. In ancient Egypt and in > ancient Mesopotamia, literacy was highly restricted, so most people would > have needed less esoteric technologies for daily life. Even people who are > fully literate or numerate today don't use writing or counting for > everything. > > When my mother in law visited us from China, she was fully literate and > numerate, but also rather overweight (too much eating and television in her > retirement). We tried taking her to the gym, but it made her dizzy, so I > would go to my lectures and leave her walking around the university > physical education track while I taught. She would use pebbles as counters > to make sure that she could tell me how many laps she'd walked by the time > I got out of class. I still remember watching her stoop to pick up pebbles > from my classroom window while I was fumbling with my class notes--the > activities are not that different, when you think about it. > > David Kellogg > Hankuk University of Foreign Studies > > > On 23 July 2014 07:41, mike cole wrote: > >> This is a very interesting example of the way in which the constituents of >> practices that have been replaced remain as part of the expanded cultural >> toolkit. Should make good reading in any course that takes up the history >> of literacy. Thanks David. >> mike >> >> >> On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 3:24 PM, David Preiss >> wrote: >> >> > >> > >> > >> http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/prehistoric-book-keeping-continued-long-after-invention-of-writing >> > >> > >> > Enviado desde mi iPhone >> > >> > > From ablunden@mira.net Tue Jul 22 19:44:00 2014 From: ablunden@mira.net (Andy Blunden) Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 12:44:00 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: book of possible interest In-Reply-To: References: <0D461088-CBBB-4BD9-ADCB-3024C36CBE81@telia.com> <53C48DF1.5000703@mira.net> Message-ID: <53CF2170.6050104@mira.net> Francis, I dipped out of the conversation about fuzzy things because it was just getting silly, but please allow me to nip a couple of rumours in the bud before they become reveived wisdom. I have never used the term "semantic action". The term appeared in my message in my attempt to sum up what *David* was saying. Since he disowns the term I guess I was mistaken. Secondly, I certainly do not conflate the sign and the concept. I deal with the relation at some length in my book on Concepts. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Andy Blunden* http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ FRANCIS J. SULLIVAN wrote: >> As I understand it, Huw DISAGREES with Andy and actually agrees with the >> revisionist critique of Vygotsky on the grounds that children are mostly >> preoccupied with action and not word meaning. That's all very true of >> course: but they are NOT really preoccupied with labour activity. Their >> preoccupations are with PLAY activity (Kim Yongho and I did a good study of >> so-called "Task based teaching" that shows how children redefine tasks as >> role plays and games). Play activity is, as Vygotsky has shown us, >> genetically related to speech and not to labour. >> >> > > DOESN'T IMAGINATIVE PLAY COUNT AS THINKING? > > >> Andy's third point is that semantic actions (???) create intellectual >> structures in the mind. I don't know what a semantic action is; semantics >> for me is the process of making something stand for something else, but I >> don't see in what sense it helps to model this process as an "action". In >> many ways, it is precisely a non-action, because it includes conditionality >> and interpretability, neither of which is usefully modeled as action. >> >> THE ABOVE IS WHAT SEEMS TO ME TO BE ABOUT "ACADEMIC DISCOURSE," >> UNNECESSARILY NARROWING "THINKING." I TAKE HIS TERM SEMANTIC ACTION TO >> REFER TO THE ILLOCUTIONARY FORCE OF THE DISCOURSE >> >> I agree with the Russians who say that "perezhivanie" is a well defined >> concept. But to me "well defined" means developmentally so: it means that >> the specific weight of the various components of "perezhivanie" have to be >> allowed to change as we develop: so for young children "perezhivanie" is >> largely "felt experience", and for older children it is mostly "thought >> over--contemplated--experience". I don't see that thinking over is mostly >> an intellectual exercise though--I always feel, even in these exchanges on >> xmca, that there is a certain emotional component which makes us respond, >> sometimes before we really even think things out. >> >> HERE I AGREE COMPLETELY WITH YOU, BUT ALSO TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE >> > SOCIALIZATION OF SCHOOLING AS A CRUCIAL FACTOR. > > >> David Kellogg >> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies >> >> >> >> >> On 16 July 2014 04:39, FRANCIS J. SULLIVAN wrote: >> >> >>> With great trepidation, I want to enter this conversation with my first >>> post to the list (I have followed it for about a year now) because as >>> >> both >> >>> a researcher and teacher educator the issues raised are major concerns >>> >> of >> >>> mine too. I find, I think it was David's point, the idea that we can >>> >> think >> >>> of the "connections" problem in two ways to be at the heart of the issue, >>> at least for me. It is one thing to construct a connection that "adds to" >>> the existing knowledge framework of others. But, it is a very different >>> thing to sea5rch for a "connection" that requires others to qualitatively >>> change, or even abandon, their existing framework. Helen seems to achieve >>> such a connection with at least some of her teachers by helping them to >>> re-cognize their own social identities so that the new knowledge and >>> framework became less threatening and more inviting. She reconnected them >>> with who they used to be and what they valued. So they did not see >>> themselves as merely "ignorant" but more like retracing their steps. >>> For me, at least, that's why the "deficit" models of teaching (or >>> >> research) >> >>> practices do not work. We--teachers and students--need to find a place >>> >> from >> >>> which we can begin this journey together, common ground so to speak. >>> >> While >> >>> a deaf person may not "know" English, I don't think that's the salient >>> point. All of us don't know things. What seems to me salient in Helen's >>> attempt to find connections, is that the very attempt challenged their >>> current ways of framing their professional lives. What we might think of >>> >> as >> >>> "ignorance," those teachers thought of as "knowledge." And that >>> >> "knowledge" >> >>> was part and parcel of the ways they positioned themselves as teachers in >>> relation to students. >>> I am tempted to put this into discourse analysis terms--I'm a >>> semi-Hallidayan with a critical theory twist. But, I've said enough for a >>> first post, I think. I hope it is useful. >>> >>> Francis J. Sullivan, Ph.D. >>> Associate Professor >>> Department of Teaching and Learning >>> College of Education >>> Temple University >>> Philadelphia, PA 19122 >>> >>> >>> Find out what any people will quietly submit to and you have the exact >>> measure of the injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them. >>> >>> Frederick Douglass >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 2:10 AM, David Kellogg >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Well, I do hope that Helen means that "for the moment", as I have >>>> >> learned >> >>>> an awful lot from this book and even more from this discussion. You >>>> >> see, >> >>> I >>> >>>> am trying to tease apart two very different processes that appear, on >>>> >> the >> >>>> face of it, to be almost identical, but which also appear to have >>>> diametrically opposite developmental effects. >>>> >>>> One process is the process of getting people to feel at ease, >>>> confident, and happy that they understand what you are saying because >>>> >> it >> >>> is >>> >>>> actually something that is identical or at least very similar to what >>>> >>> they >>> >>>> already think. Another, almost identical, process is the process of >>>> "establishing ties" between a new form of knowledge and an earlier one. >>>> BOTH of these processes, it seems to me, occur throughout Helen's book, >>>> >>> and >>> >>>> it is easy to mistake the one for the other. BOTH of these processes, >>>> >> to >> >>>> use our earlier terminology, involve "establishing ties", but only one >>>> >> of >> >>>> them also involves breaking away. >>>> >>>> For example, at one point in the book Helen, looking back over the >>>> >>> Banksia >>> >>>> Bay PLZ data, rounds on herself for using a transparent piece of >>>> scaffolding to elicit the word "communicate" from a group of teachers. >>>> >>> What >>> >>>> bothers her is not that the answer itself is far too general to be of >>>> >> any >> >>>> practical value to the teachers, but only that she had it very firmly >>>> >> in >> >>>> mind, and kept badgering the teachers (as we all do, when we have a >>>> >>> precise >>> >>>> answer in mind) until she got it. The alternative, she points out, >>>> >> would >> >>> be >>> >>>> to take what she got and work with that. >>>> >>>> Yes indeed. But I think the main reason that would have been more >>>> interesting is not that it would have resulted in fewer rejections of >>>> teacher answers and made people more at ease, confdent, and happy that >>>> >>> they >>> >>>> understood, but rather than it would have yielded something more like a >>>> concrete but unconscious and not yet volitionally controlled example of >>>> excellence from the teacher's own practice. I almost always find that >>>> >> the >> >>>> actual answers I want--the "methods" I end up imparting to my own >>>> >>> teachers, >>> >>>> are already present in the data they bring me (because we almost always >>>> begin with actual transcripts of their lessons) but they are generally >>>> >>> not >>> >>>> methods but only moments, and moments that go unnoticed and therefore >>>> ungeneralized in the hurly burly of actual teaching. >>>> >>>> Last winter, Helen and I were at a conference in New Zealand where, >>>> >> among >> >>>> other eventful episodes, Craig Brandist got up and gave a very precise >>>> >>> list >>> >>>> of half a dozen different and utterly contradictory ways in which >>>> >> Bakhtin >> >>>> uses the term "dialogue". Because the senses of "dialogue" are so many >>>> >>> and >>> >>>> varied, people simply pick and choose, and they tend invariably to >>>> >> choose >> >>>> the ones that are closest to the way they already think. It is as >>>> >> moments >> >>>> like this that we need to remind ourselves that Bakhtin's "dialogue" >>>> >> does >> >>>> not, for the most part, ever include children, or women; that he did >>>> >> not >> >>>> "dialogue" with Volosinov or Medvedev when he allowed his acolytes >>>> to plunder their corpses, and that his love of carnival and the public >>>> marketplace does not extend to a belief in any form of political >>>> >>> democracy. >>> >>>> So I think we should start off with an understanding that what Vygotsky >>>> says about defect is not the same was what we now believe. Vygotsky, >>>> >> for >> >>>> example, believed that sign language was not true language, and that >>>> >> even >> >>>> the congenitally deaf should be taught to lip read; this is simply >>>> wrong. (On the other hand, what he says about spontaneously created >>>> >> sign >> >>>> languages--that they are essentially elaborated systems of gesture and >>>> >>> they >>> >>>> lack the signifying functions--fits exactly with Susan Goldin-Meadow's >>>> observations in Chicago.) >>>> >>>> And one reason I think it is important to begin with this understanding >>>> >>> is >>> >>>> this: sometimes--usually--LSV is right and we are wrong. In >>>> >> particular, I >> >>>> think the "credit" view of defect, or, for that matter, ignorance of >>>> >> any >> >>>> kind and not fully conscious teacher expertise risks becoming a liberal >>>> platitude--the cup is always half full, so why not look on the bright >>>> >>> side >>> >>>> of dearth? I certainly do not feel empowered by the fact that I know >>>> English but I do not know ASL, and I rather doubt that deaf people feel >>>> empowered by the opposite state of affairs. When I don't know >>>> >> something, >> >>> I >>> >>>> do not see any bright side of not knowing it, for the very simple >>>> reason that I can't see at all. >>>> >>>> Vygotsky was probably very influenced by "Iolanta", an opera that >>>> Tchaikovsky wrote--he certainly seems to quote it extensively in the >>>> >> last >> >>>> chapter of "Thinking and Speech". In "Iolanta", King Renee copes with >>>> >> the >> >>>> blindness of his daughter by having her shut up in a garden and >>>> >>> forbidding >>> >>>> all his subjects from discussing light, sight, color or anything >>>> >> visible >> >>> in >>> >>>> any way. Vaudemont, a knight of Burgundy, blunders into the garden, >>>> discovers Iolanta's secret. Iolanta convinces him that sight is >>>> unnecessary, but in the course of doing so, she develops the desire to >>>> >>> see >>> >>>> and choose for herself. >>>> >>>> David Kelogg >>>> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 15 July 2014 11:12, Andy Blunden wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> My reading of Vygotsky on 'defectology' was that the 'defect' was the >>>>> problem in social relations, that is, the person who is different in >>>>> >>> some >>> >>>>> way suffers because of the way that difference is treated or not >>>>> >>> treated >>> >>>> by >>>> >>>>> others, not for anything in itself. One and the same feature could >>>>> >> be a >> >>>>> great benefit or a fatal flaw, depending on how others react to it. >>>>> Except insofar as introducing the idea of a "credit view" is a move >>>>> >>> aimed >>> >>>>> at changing the perceptions and behaviours of others in relation to >>>>> >> the >> >>>>> subject, I don't think Vygotsky is an advocate of the mirror image >>>>> >> of a >> >>>>> deficit view. As I see it, he analyses the problem of the person >>>>> >> being >> >>>>> treated as deficient by means of the unit of *defect-compensation*. >>>>> >> The >> >>>>> defect (a problem arising in social interaction, with others) >>>>> >> generates >> >>>>> certain challenges which are overcome, generally also in interaction >>>>> >>> with >>> >>>>> others. This "compensation" leads to what Helen could call a "credit" >>>>> >>> and >>> >>>>> it is the dynamic set up between the social defect and social >>>>> >>>> compensation >>>> >>>>> which shapes the subject's psychology and their relation to others. >>>>> Andy >>>>> >>>>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> >>>>> *Andy Blunden* >>>>> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Helen Grimmett wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> I think what is unique about Vygotsky's work in defectology is that, >>>>>> despite the name, it is not a deficit view (in the way that I >>>>>> >>> understand >>> >>>>>> the term) at all. >>>>>> >>>>>> I understand the commonly used term 'deficit view' as a focus on >>>>>> >> what >> >>>>>> children are 'missing' that needs to be provided to them by teachers >>>>>> >>> to >>> >>>>>> bring them up to a pre-conceived idea of 'normal' for their >>>>>> >> age/grade >> >>>>>> level >>>>>> etc. Whereas, a 'credit view' focuses on what children are able to >>>>>> >> do >> >>>> and >>>> >>>>>> bring to a learning situation, in which, in the interaction with >>>>>> >>> others, >>> >>>>>> they will be able to become more able to do and 'be' more than they >>>>>> >>> were >>> >>>>>> before (i.e. to develop), whether this be in the 'expected' ways to >>>>>> >>> the >>> >>>>>> 'expected' level or in completely different ways to a variety of >>>>>> >>>> different >>>> >>>>>> levels beyond or outside 'standard' expectations. From the little I >>>>>> >>> have >>> >>>>>> read on defectology I think this is what Vygotsky was advocating - >>>>>> >>> that >>> >>>>>> despite a child's blindness or deafness etc, development was still >>>>>> possible >>>>>> if mediational means were found that made use of the child's credits >>>>>> >>>> (i.e. >>>> >>>>>> using sign language or braille so that children still had access to >>>>>> >>> the >>> >>>>>> developmental opportunities provided by language). So I think your >>>>>> >>> term >>> >>>>>> pre-abled is in fact a credit view rather than a deficit view. >>>>>> >>>>>> I was attempting to also use a credit view in my work with the >>>>>> >>>> teachers. I >>>> >>>>>> saw them as being experienced practitioners who had lots to bring to >>>>>> >>> our >>> >>>>>> discussions of teaching and learning, in which together we could see >>>>>> >>>> what >>>> >>>>>> could be developed (new practices, new understandings). Once Kay and >>>>>> >>>> Mike >>>> >>>>>> realised this they got on board and engaged in the process and >>>>>> >>> (possibly >>> >>>>>> for the first time in a long while as they both saw themselves [and >>>>>> >> in >> >>>>>> fact >>>>>> are officially designated as] 'expert teachers') really reawakened >>>>>> >> the >> >>>>>> process of developing as professionals. They blew off most of the >>>>>> >>>> content >>>> >>>>>> I >>>>>> was contributing, but they realised the process was actually about >>>>>> 'unsticking' their own development and working out new and >>>>>> >> personally >> >>>>>> interesting and meaningful ways of 'becoming' more as teachers, >>>>>> >>> instead >>> >>>> of >>>> >>>>>> being stuck 'being' the teacher they had turned into over the years. >>>>>> >>> Not >>> >>>>>> all of the teachers made this leap in the time I worked with them >>>>>> >>>> though. >>>> >>>>>> Others were either quite disgruntled that I wouldn't provide them >>>>>> >> with >> >>>>>> answers to 'fix' their own perceived deficits or patiently waited >>>>>> >> for >> >>> me >>> >>>>>> to >>>>>> go away and stop rocking the boat. From what I can gather though, >>>>>> >> Ann >> >>>> (the >>>> >>>>>> principal) kept the boat rocking and managed over time to get more >>>>>> teachers >>>>>> to buy into the process of learning from each other and >>>>>> >>> collaboratively >>> >>>>>> creating new practices. As we said earlier, development takes time >>>>>> >> as >> >>>> well >>>> >>>>>> as effort. >>>>>> >>>>>> All I've got time for at the moment! >>>>>> >>>>>> Helen >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Dr Helen Grimmett >>>>>> Lecturer, Student Adviser, >>>>>> Faculty of Education, >>>>>> Room G64F, Building 902 >>>>>> Monash University, Berwick campus >>>>>> Phone: 9904 7171 >>>>>> >>>>>> *New Book: * >>>>>> The Practice of Teachers' Professional Development: A >>>>>> >>>> Cultural-Historical >>>> >>>>>> Approach >>>>>> >>>>> professional-learning-1/the-practice-of-teachers- >>>>>> professional-development/> >>>>>> Helen Grimmett (2014) Sense Publishers >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> source=staff-email&utm_medium=email-signature&utm_campaign=50th> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 14 July 2014 14:43, David Kellogg wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Near the end of Chapter Three (p. 81), Helen is summing up her >>>>>>> >>>> experience >>>> >>>>>>> with the Banksia Bay PLZ and she notes with some dismay that her >>>>>>> >>> PDers >>> >>>>>>> have >>>>>>> "a deficit view" of their children and tend towards "container >>>>>>> >>> models" >>> >>>> of >>>> >>>>>>> the mind ("empty vessel, sponge, blank canvas"). Only one teacher, >>>>>>> >>> Ann >>> >>>>>>> sees >>>>>>> anything wrong with this, and Helen says "they don't necessarily >>>>>>> >>> value >>> >>>>>>> her >>>>>>> opinion". >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Helen finds herself rather conflicted: One the one hand, she says >>>>>>> >>> "If >>> >>>>>>> their representations of children really do represent their >>>>>>> >> beliefs, >> >>>> then >>>> >>>>>>> they are probably right to insist there is no need to change." And >>>>>>> >> on >> >>>> the >>>> >>>>>>> other, she says "My intention was never to say that their present >>>>>>> practice >>>>>>> was wrong, but to help them see alternative ways of thinking about >>>>>>> children, learning, and teaching." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Of course, if there is no need to change, then it follows that >>>>>>> >> there >> >>> is >>> >>>>>>> no >>>>>>> reason to look for alternative ways of thinking about children, >>>>>>> >>>> learning >>>> >>>>>>> and teaching. The only reason for spending scarce cognitive >>>>>>> >> resources >> >>>> on >>>> >>>>>>> seeing different ways of looking at children is if you do, in fact, >>>>>>> >>>> take >>>> >>>>>>> a >>>>>>> deficit view of the teachers. Ann, and the Regional Consultants, >>>>>>> apparently >>>>>>> do, but Helen realizes that there isn't much basis for this: not >>>>>>> >> only >> >>>> do >>>> >>>>>>> we >>>>>>> have no actual data of lessons to look at, we know that one of the >>>>>>> teachers, Kay, has been in the classroom for three decades (during >>>>>>> >>>> which >>>> >>>>>>> time Helen has spent at least one decade OUT of the classroom). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> While we were translating Vygotsky's "History of the Development of >>>>>>> >>> the >>> >>>>>>> Higher Psychological Functions" last year, some of my colleagues >>>>>>> >> were >> >>>>>>> taken >>>>>>> aback by Vygotsky's use of terms like "moron", "imbecile", "idiot", >>>>>>> >>> and >>> >>>>>>> "cretin". Of course, Vygotsky is writing long before the >>>>>>> >> "euphemisim >> >>>>>>> treadmill" turned these into playground insults; for Vygotsky they >>>>>>> >>> are >>> >>>>>>> quite precise descriptors--not of cognitive ability but actually of >>>>>>> LANGUAGE ability. But because our readership are progressive Korean >>>>>>> teachers with strong views about these questions, we found that we >>>>>>> couldn't >>>>>>> even use the term "mentally retarded" without a strongly worded >>>>>>> >>>> footnote >>>> >>>>>>> disavowing the "deficit" thinking behind the term. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think that Vygotsky would have been surprised by this. I think he >>>>>>> >>>> took >>>> >>>>>>> it >>>>>>> for granted that a defect was a deficit: being blind means a >>>>>>> >> deficit >> >>> in >>> >>>>>>> vision, and being deaf means a deficit in hearing. In the same >>>>>>> >> way, a >> >>>>>>> brain >>>>>>> defect is not an asset. On the other hand, I think Vygotsky would >>>>>>> >>> find >>> >>>>>>> our >>>>>>> own term "disabled" quite inaccurate: since all forms of >>>>>>> >> development >> >>>> are >>>> >>>>>>> compensatory and involve "circuitous routes" of one kind or >>>>>>> >> another, >> >>>> and >>>> >>>>>>> all developed children, even, and even especially, gifted children, >>>>>>> contain >>>>>>> islands of underdevelopment, the correct term for deficits of all >>>>>>> >>> kinds >>> >>>>>>> is >>>>>>> not "disabled" but "pre-abled". >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Personally, I see nothing wrong with a deficit view of children >>>>>>> >> that >> >>>> sees >>>> >>>>>>> them as pre-abled (or, as Vygotsky liked to say, 'primitivist"; >>>>>>> >> that >> >>>> is, >>>> >>>>>>> they are waiting for the mediational means that we have foolishly >>>>>>> developed >>>>>>> only for the psychophysiologically most common types to catch up >>>>>>> >> with >> >>>> the >>>> >>>>>>> actual variation in real children. I suspect this view is actually >>>>>>> >>>> quite >>>> >>>>>>> a >>>>>>> bit closer to what Kay thinks than to what Helen thinks. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> David Kellogg >>>>>>> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 13 July 2014 10:59, Helen Grimmett >>>>>>> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi David, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Interesting question. I absolutely think that development AS a >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> professional >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> is necessary, just as development as a human is necessary, so if >>>>>>>> professional development is seen as the practice in which this >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> development >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> is produced then absolutely I do think it is necessary. The form >>>>>>>> >>> that >>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> this >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> practice takes though, and indeed the form of the development that >>>>>>>> >>> is >>> >>>>>>>> produced within this practice, are the things open to question >>>>>>>> >>>> however. >>>> >>>>>>>> I definitely think that a teacher's development as a professional >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> includes >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> the need to understand their practice better rather than just >>>>>>>> >> change >> >>>> it, >>>> >>>>>>>> but I think that understanding often develops best >>>>>>>> >> in/alongside/with >> >>>> the >>>> >>>>>>>> process of changing (and vice versa) rather than separately from >>>>>>>> >> it, >> >>>>>>>> and, >>>>>>>> as you point out above, in establishing ties *between* people and >>>>>>>> >>> then >>> >>>>>>>> within them. So a practice of professional development that >>>>>>>> >> creates >> >>>>>>>> conditions which support this type of development will (I believe) >>>>>>>> >>> be >>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> much >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> more effective than traditional forms of PD that either attempt to >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> lecture >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> about theoretical principles but do not support teachers to >>>>>>>> >> transfer >> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> these >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> into practical changes, OR provide teachers with practical >>>>>>>> >> programs >> >>>> and >>>> >>>>>>>> expect them to implement them without any understanding of what >>>>>>>> >> and >> >>>> why >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> changes matter. I think the term "Professional Development" is an >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> absolute >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> misnomer for either of those typical approaches. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So again, I have a problem with names! I'm talking about >>>>>>>> >>> Professional >>> >>>>>>>> Development with a completely different meaning than what most of >>>>>>>> >>> the >>> >>>>>>>> education community believe it to mean when they talk about >>>>>>>> >>> attending >>> >>>> PD >>>> >>>>>>>> seminars or workshops. I toyed with trying to find a different >>>>>>>> >> name >> >>>> for >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> particular meaning I'm talking about, but when you are talking >>>>>>>> >> about >> >>>>>>>> development from a cultural-historical theoretical perspective >>>>>>>> >> then >> >>>>>>>> there >>>>>>>> really is no other word to use! That's why I stuck to using >>>>>>>> 'professional >>>>>>>> development' (in full) when I meant my meaning, and PD (which is >>>>>>>> >>> what >>> >>>>>>>> teachers in Australia commonly refer to seminars and workshops as) >>>>>>>> >>>> when >>>> >>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>> refer to the typical (and in my view, usually non-developmental) >>>>>>>> >>> forms >>> >>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>> activities that teachers are subjected to each year. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So, I agree that the need for PD is questionable, but the need for >>>>>>>> practices of professional development that help teachers to >>>>>>>> >> develop >> >>> as >>> >>>>>>>> professionals (that is, to develop a unified understanding of both >>>>>>>> >>> the >>> >>>>>>>> theoretical and practical aspects of their work, which is itself >>>>>>>> continually developing in order to meet the changing needs of >>>>>>>> >> their >> >>>>>>>> students, schools and society) is essential. While I think >>>>>>>> >>> co-teaching >>> >>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>> one practical small-scale solution, working out viable, >>>>>>>> >> economical, >> >>>> and >>>> >>>>>>>> manageable ways to create these practices on a large-scale is a >>>>>>>> >> very >> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> large >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> problem. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>> Helen >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Dr Helen Grimmett >>>>>>>> Lecturer, Student Adviser, >>>>>>>> Faculty of Education, >>>>>>>> Room G64F, Building 902 >>>>>>>> Monash University, Berwick campus >>>>>>>> Phone: 9904 7171 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *New Book: * >>>>>>>> The Practice of Teachers' Professional Development: A >>>>>>>> Cultural-Historical >>>>>>>> Approach >>>>>>>> < >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://www.sensepublishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/ >>>>>>> professional-learning-1/the-practice-of-teachers- >>>>>>> professional-development/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Helen Grimmett (2014) Sense Publishers >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> < >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://monash.edu.au/education/news/50-years/?utm_ >>>>>>> source=staff-email&utm_medium=email-signature&utm_campaign=50th >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 13 July 2014 08:57, David Kellogg >>>>>>>> >> wrote: >> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Helen: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Good to hear from you at long last--I knew you were lurking out >>>>>>>>> >>> there >>> >>>>>>>>> somewhere! >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I didn't actually write the line about "establishing ties"--it's >>>>>>>>> >>> from >>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "The >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Little Prince". The prince asks what "tame" means, and the fox >>>>>>>>> >>>> replies >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> it means "to establish ties". But of course what I meant was that >>>>>>>>> >>>> ties >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> established first between people and then within them; the ties >>>>>>>>> >> of >> >>>>>>>>> development are interfunctional ties that make up a new >>>>>>>>> >>> psychological >>> >>>>>>>>> system. (Or, for Halliday, they are the inter-systemic ties that >>>>>>>>> >>> make >>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> up >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> new metafunctions.) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> As you say, Yrjo Engestrom chooses to emphasize another aspect of >>>>>>>>> development with "breaking away"--he wants to stress its >>>>>>>>> >>>> crisis-ridden >>>> >>>>>>>>> nature. I agree with this, actually, but mostly I agree with you, >>>>>>>>> >>>> that >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> we >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> are talking about two moments of the same process. To me, breaking >>>>>>>> >>>> away >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> really a precondition of the real business of establishing ties. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thomas Piketty makes a similar point in his book "Capital in the >>>>>>>>> Twenty-first Century". He admits that war and revolution is the >>>>>>>>> >>> only >>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> thing >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> that EVER counteracts the tendency of returns from capital to >>>>>>>>> >>>> outstrip >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> growth in income, and that the 20th Century was an outlier in >>>>>>>>> >> this >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> respect, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> and the Russian revolution an extreme outlier within that >>>>>>>>> >> outlier. >> >>>> But >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> he >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> also says that in the long run the one thing that makes UPWARD >>>>>>>> >>>> mobility >>>> >>>>>>>>> possible is education. Despite everything, because of everything. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I finished the book a few days ago. I guess the thing I most want >>>>>>>>> >>> to >>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ask >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> about is the assumption that professional development is necessary >>>>>>>> >>> at >>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> all. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Doesn't it make more sense to say that before we change what we >>>>>>>>> >> are >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> doing, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> we should understand it better? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> David Kellogg >>>>>>>>> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 12 July 2014 13:20, Helen Grimmett >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ah, I think you have hit the nail on the head David. It is indeed >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> TIME >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> is so crucial - not only duration of time, but also location of >>>>>>>>>> >>> time >>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> (which >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I suppose is really context). >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The problems I had with Mike and his colleagues about the >>>>>>>>>> >>>> terminology >>>> >>>>>>>>>> stemmed partly from the typical Aussie disdain for using words >>>>>>>>>> >>> that >>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> might >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> make your mates think you are trying to appear 'better' than >>>>>>>>> >> them, >> >>> so >>> >>>>>>>>>> therefore you mock anything that sounds too serious or >>>>>>>>>> >>> intellectual. >>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> But >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> beyond this surface level of complaining the problems Huw and you >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> been >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> discussing boil down to problems with time. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Huw's complaint about my use of the heading "Features of >>>>>>>>>> Cultural-Historical Learning Activities" is well justified - but >>>>>>>>>> >>> it >>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> was >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> really just a shorthand written version of what I was verbally >>>>>>>> >>> asking >>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> as "What might be some particular features of learning activities >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> would align with principles of Cultural-Historical Theory?" That >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> would >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> taken too long to write on the top of the piece of paper - and >>>>>>>>>> >> of >> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> course >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> time is always too short in any after-school PD so shortcuts are >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> inevitably >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> taken. (Time problem #1) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Time problem #2, which your discussion has highlighted for me, >>>>>>>>>> >> is >> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> course my question was really "What might be some particular >>>>>>>>> >>> features >>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> learning activities that would align with THE LIMITED NUMBER OF >>>>>>>>> >>> (AND >>> >>>>>>>>>> LIMITED UNDERSTANDING OF) principles of Cultural-Historical >>>>>>>>>> >> Theory >> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> THAT >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> YOU >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> HAVE BEEN INTRODUCED TO SO FAR?" so I really should have not >>>>>>>>>> >> been >> >>> so >>> >>>>>>>>>> surprised that they would find the brainstorming activity >>>>>>>>>> >>> difficult >>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> resort to diversionary tactics! (Mike's outburst posted here by >>>>>>>> >>> David >>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> was >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> not the only eventful moment I write about from this one >>>>>>>>> >> activity. >> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> But >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> these apparent failures actually provided much more interesting >>>>>>>> >> data >> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> me >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> and eventually lead me to several key findings in my thesis). I >>>>>>>>>> >>> had >>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> spent >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> several years by this stage reading and discussing Vygotsky and >>>>>>>>> >>> yet I >>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> had >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> assumed/hoped the teachers would have enough understanding from >>>>>>>>> >> my >> >>>>>>>>>> (probably not very good) explanations ABOUT theory over the >>>>>>>>>> >>> previous >>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 3 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> short sessions I had had with them to be able to contribute >>>>>>>> >> answers >> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> my >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> brainstorm question. They had not had enough TIME to become >>>>>>>>> >>> familiar >>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> enough of the theory to make much sense of it yet - but still, we >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> start somewhere and this was still early days. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Time problem #3 brings in what I called above the location of >>>>>>>>>> >>> time. >>> >>>> I >>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> had >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> never intended for the sessions to be me giving after-school >>>>>>>>> >>> lectures >>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> about >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> either theory or practice, yet this is what the teachers seemed >>>>>>>>>> >> to >> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> expect >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> from me (and even demand from me) and were pretty disgruntled >>>>>>>>> >> when >> >>> I >>> >>>>>>>>>> wouldn't/couldn't deliver. My intention was always to get them >>>>>>>>>> >> to >> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> engage >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> with the relationship between THEORY and PRACTICE, just as >>>>>>>>> >> David's >> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> comic >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> book discusses the relationship between THINKING and SPEECH or >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> EMOTION >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> COGNITION. My problem of course was that once we were in an >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> after-school >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> meeting we were removed in both time and space from where theory >>>>>>>>> >>> and >>> >>>>>>>>>> practice of teaching/learning operate as a relation (i.e. the >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> classroom >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> activity). I was actually trying to create/use our own PLZ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> (Professional >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Learning ZPD) as the activity in which to develop and understand >>>>>>>>> >>> this >>> >>>>>>>>>> relationship but it was initially very hard to get the teachers >>>>>>>>>> >> to >> >>>>>>>>>> understand this (at least until we had enough of David's Fox's >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> socially >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> shared experiences for the meanings to become communicable) and >>>>>>>> >> then >> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> even >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> more difficult to get them to transfer this back to developing >>>>>>>>> >>> their >>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> own >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> classroom teaching. Ironically, despite being the loudest >>>>>>>>> >>> complainers >>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> disparagers, it was Mike and Kay (the protagonist of my other >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> eventful >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> moment in the brainstorming session) who actually ended up making >>>>>>>> >>> the >>> >>>>>>>>>> biggest changes in their classroom practice. Perhaps this is not >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> really >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> surprising at all - they were the ones who obviously engaged and >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> argued >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> with the ideas and activities rather than simply endured them! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> My eventual answer to the problems encountered in my work with >>>>>>>>>> >> the >> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> group >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> teachers was to work WITH a teacher IN her own classroom so that >>>>>>>>>> >>> we >>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> had >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> shared experiences of the relationship between theory and practice >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> could not only be discussed after the events, but also actually >>>>>>>>> >>> acted >>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> upon >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> there and then IN the event - creating what I called "Situated >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Conscious >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Awareness" of both the theoretical and practical aspects of the >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> concepts >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> teaching/learning and development we were developing >>>>>>>>>> >> understanding >> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> practice of together. But perhaps I should wait until David gets >>>>>>>> >> up >> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> part of the book before I say more! >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Finally, one other point that really caught my attention in your >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> comic >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> book >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> David is that your prince calls development "to establish ties" >>>>>>>>>> >>>> which >>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> an >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> interesting difference to Engestrom's definition as "breaking >>>>>>>>>> >>> away". >>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> But >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> perhaps, as always in CH theory, it is not a matter of either/or >>>>>>>>> >>> but >>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> fact both/and ideas that are necessary. From what I learned in my >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> study, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> teachers' development as professionals is definitely BOTH about >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> breaking >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> away from old, routinised understandings and practices AND >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> establishing >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> new >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> connections between and amongst theoretical concepts and >>>>>>>>>> >>> practices, >>> >>>>>>>>>> enabling them to continually develop new competences and motives >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> across >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> all >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> of their professional duties. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Thanks for your interest in my book David. The discussion it has >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> sparked >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> has helped me revisit ideas from new perspectives. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>>>> Helen >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Dr Helen Grimmett >>>>>>>>>> Lecturer, Student Adviser, >>>>>>>>>> Faculty of Education, >>>>>>>>>> Room G64F, Building 902 >>>>>>>>>> Monash University, Berwick campus >>>>>>>>>> Phone: 9904 7171 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> *New Book: * >>>>>>>>>> The Practice of Teachers' Professional Development: A >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Cultural-Historical >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Approach >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> < >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> https://www.sensepublishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> professional-learning-1/the-practice-of-teachers- >>>>>>> professional-development/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Helen Grimmett (2014) Sense Publishers >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> < >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> http://monash.edu.au/education/news/50-years/?utm_ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> source=staff-email&utm_medium=email-signature&utm_campaign=50th >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 12 July 2014 07:29, David Kellogg >>>>>>>> >> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Plekhanov distinguishes between "agitators" and >>>>>>>>>>> >> "propagandists". >> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Agitators >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> are essentially popularizers; they have the job of ripping >>>>>>>>>>> >> away a >> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> subset >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> smaller and simpler ideas from a fabric of much larger and more >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> complex >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> theory and then disseminating them amongst the largest possible >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> number >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> people. In other words, their focus is exoteric. Propagandists >>>>>>>>>> >> are >> >>>>>>>>>>> essentially conspiratorial: they have the job of initiating a >>>>>>>>>>> >>> small >>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> number >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> of the elect and educating them in the whole theoretical >>>>>>>>>>> >>> system--as >>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Larry >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> would say, the full Bildung. In other words, their focus is >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> esoteric. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> As >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> you can see, Plekhanov was good at making distinctions, and not >>>>>>>>>> >> so >> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> good >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> showing how things are linked. For Helena, who is a labor >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> educator, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> you >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> can't really be an effective agitator unless you are also a >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> propagandist. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> You need to present your exoteric extracts in such a way that >>>>>>>>>> >> they >> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> are, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> borrow Larry's phrase, both necessary and sufficient to lead >>>>>>>>>>> >>> people >>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> on >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> the esoterica. I'm with Helena--and with Bruner--with children >>>>>>>>>> >>> it's >>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> always >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> possible to tell the truth, part of the truth, but nothing but >>>>>>>>>>> >>> the >>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> truth, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> and if we can do it with kids, why not do it with adults? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> (I am less sure about what it means to say that the objectively >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> human >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> the "subjectively historical"--it sounds like history is being >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> reified >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> as a >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> subject, that is, as a living, breathing, acting "World Spirit" >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> can >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> have a mind and reflect upon itself. My understanding of history >>>>>>>>>> >>> is >>> >>>>>>>>>>> that just as we cannot have the advanced form of historical >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> consciousness >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> in dialogue with the more primitive forms, the opportunity to >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> reflect >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> upon >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> the whole process when it is all over is simply never going to >>>>>>>>>>> >> be >> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> available >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> to anyone. The Merleau-Ponty quotation is beautiful and >>>>>>>>>>> >> intensely >> >>>>>>>>>>> poetic, Larry--but when I look at a bubble or a wave, I do not >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> simply >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> see >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> chaos; I see past bubbles and past waves, and potential bubbles >>>>>>>>>> >>> and >>> >>>>>>>>>>> potential waves. Isn't that a part of the experience of "loving >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> history" >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> well?) >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> My wife wrote a wonderful Ph.D. thesis about how any work of >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> literature >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> can >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> be looked at on four time frames: phylogenetic (the history of >>>>>>>>>>> >> a >> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> genre), >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ontogenetic (the biography of a career), logogenetic (the >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> development >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> plot or a character), and microgenetic (the unfolding of a >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> dialogue, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> or a >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> paragraph). Her supervisor complained about the terminology in >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> somewhat >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> more elegant terms than Mike does in Helen's data:and suggested >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> she >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> should replace the terms with "history", "biography", >>>>>>>>>> >>> "development" >>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "unfolding", to make it more exoteric. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I think that if she had done that, it would have made the >>>>>>>>>>> >> thesis >> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> into >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> agitation rather than education. Yes, the terms would have been >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> more >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> familiar, and they might even, given other context, be taken to >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> mean >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> same thing. But what we would have gotten is good, clear >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> distinctions >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ("history" on the one hand and "biography" on the other) and what >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> we >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> would >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> have lost is the linkedness of one time frame to another--the >>>>>>>>>>> >> way >> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> the phylogenesis of genre produces the mature genre which is >>>>>>>>>>> >> used >> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> an >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> author's ontegenesis, and the way in which the author's >>>>>>>>> >> ontogenesis >> >>>>>>>>>>> produces the starting point and the raw materials for the >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> logogenetic >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> development of a work, not to mention the way in which logogenesis >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> reflected in the microgenetic unfolding of dialogue. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> So I think that when Helena writes that anything can be >>>>>>>>>>> >> explained >> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> anyone >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> in language that is everyday and simple and in a way that is >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> understandable >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> and at least part of the whole truth, I agree somewhat >>>>>>>>>>> >> enviously >> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> (you >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> see, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Helena is a labor educator, but I teach TESOL, which is really >>>>>>>>>>> >>> the >>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> process >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> of taking a few very simple and exoteric ideas that good >>>>>>>>>>> >> teachers >> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> already >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> have and disseminating the select to the elect for vast sums of >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> money). >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> But >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I have to add a rider--when we popularize richly woven fabrics >>>>>>>>>>> >> of >> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ideas >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> like cultural historical theory we are not simply juggling >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> vocabulary. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> think that Helena recognizes this perfectly when she says that >>>>>>>>>> >> it >> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> takes >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> TIME to be simple and clear. If it were simply a matter of >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> replacing >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "cultural historical" with "community of learners" it would >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> actually >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> take >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> less time, but it isn't and it doesn't. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> It is very hot in Seoul today, and somewhere out there a >>>>>>>>>>> >> toddler >> >>> is >>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> arguing >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> with a parent because he wants watermelon with breakfast. The >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> parent >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> resists, because if you eat cold watermelon on an empty stomach >>>>>>>> >> you >> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> get a >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> tummy-ache. The argument grows heated and long--and complex, but >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> complexity is of a particular kind, with very short, repeated, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> insistancies >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> from the child and somewhat longer more complex remonstrations >>>>>>>>>>> >>> from >>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> parent. We can call this complex discourse but simple grammar. A >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> few >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> years >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> will go by and we will find that the school child has mastered >>>>>>>>>>> >>> the >>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> trick >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> long and complex remonstrations and can use them pre-emptively >>>>>>>>>>> >> to >> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> win >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> arguments. We can call this complex grammar, but simple >>>>>>>> >> vocabulary. >> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Only >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> when a decade or two has elapsed will we find that child, now >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> adult, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> can >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> use the language of science, which is for the most part >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> grammatically >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> simple (at least compared to the pre-emptive remonstrations of the >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> school >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> child), but full of very complex vocabulary (e.g. "phylogeny >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> anticipates >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ontogeny", or "cultural-historical activity theory enables >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> communities >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> learners"). >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> It's Saturday today, and in a few minutes I have to leave for >>>>>>>>>>> >> the >> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> weekly >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> meeting of our translation group, which produces mighty tomes >>>>>>>>>> >>> which >>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> we >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> produce to popularize the works of Vygotsky amongst militant >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> teachers >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> here >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> in Korea (our version of "Thinking and Speech" is seven hundred >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> pages >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> long >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> because of all the explanatory notes and boxes with helpful >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> pictures). >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> the other hand, there is the attached comic book version of the >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> first >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> chapter of "Thinking and Speech" which I wrote a couple of years >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ago >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> some graduate students who were having trouble talking about the >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> real >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "Thinking and Speech" in class. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I think you can see that Huw's complaint is justified--the >>>>>>>>>>> >> comic >> >>>>>>>>>>> book dialogue is "about" Thinking and Speech, but it is not >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> "Thinking >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Speech" at all, in the same way that "community of learners" or >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> "biography" >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> is ABOUT cultural historical theory or ontogenesis. And I think >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> part >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> of the problem (but only part of it) is that the comic book is >>>>>>>>>> >>> just >>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> too >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> short. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> David Kellogg >>>>>>>>>>> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 2014-07-11 17:09 GMT+09:00 Leif Strandberg < >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> leifstrandberg.ab@telia.com >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> : >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 11 jul 2014 kl. 06:41 skrev Larry Purss >>>>>>>>>>> >>> : >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> David, >>>>>>>>>>>>> I have been following your reflections through this thread. >>>>>>>>>>>>> You commented: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> So it's almost always more useful for me to >>>>>>>>>>>>> think of learning phenomena as NOT reducible to the physical, >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> least >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> not >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> in their unit of analysis >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I have been reflecting on the notion of *bildung* as >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> learning. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The notion of *cultivation* and *disposition* and >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> *comportment* >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> potential of learning. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I came across this quote from Gramsci who was questioning the >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> notion >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> *laws* as the basis for making social predictions. Such *laws* >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> excluded >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> subjective factor from history. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Gramsci wrote on social process: "Objective always means >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 'humanly >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> objective' which can be held to correspond exactly to >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 'historically >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> subjective' " >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Merleau-Ponty also explored what I refer to as *disposition* >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> quote on the reality of history: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> History "awakens us to the importance of daily events and >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> action. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> For >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> a philosophy [of history -LP] which arouses in us a love for >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> our >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> times >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> which are not the simple repetition of human eternity nor >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> merely >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> conclusion of premises already postulated. It is a view that >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> like >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> most >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> fragile object of perception - a soap bubble, or a wave - or >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> like >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> most >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> simple dialogue, embraces indivisibly all the order and all >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> the >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> disorder >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> the world." >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> > > From j.vadeboncoeur@ubc.ca Tue Jul 22 20:47:07 2014 From: j.vadeboncoeur@ubc.ca (Vadeboncoeur, Jennifer) Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 03:47:07 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Department Head Posting, ECPS, UBC Message-ID: <0A92A729-68AD-42C2-99B3-28BA2620F254@mail.ubc.ca> Dear XMCA Community, Please circulate this job advert for a Department Head for Educational and Counselling Psychology and Special Education at UBC widely. With thanks - jen -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ECPS Headship Job Ad.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 38435 bytes Desc: ECPS Headship Job Ad.pdf Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20140723/310ae343/attachment.pdf From eg100@hermes.cam.ac.uk Wed Jul 23 02:21:47 2014 From: eg100@hermes.cam.ac.uk (Esther Goody) Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 10:21:47 +0100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Acquisition of word meaning In-Reply-To: References: <1405929168143.12608@canterbury.ac.uk> Message-ID: Xmca folk, ..........."word actually means 'wording'." This fits with Herb Clark's insight that to really understand Language, you need to see it as 'languaging'. This is about getting away from grammar and syntax, to seeing speaking as process - [surely fits with activity theory]. This has completely altered my understanding of language. Here dialogue is central. ie two people are involved, each anticipating and responding to the other. I think this => looking for the 'social' aspect of 'culture'. .....Work in process, Esther Goody I read your comment: discussing the concept *word* what is meant is not a noun but something much more like an attribute, which would be expressed as a nominal group in English but a verbal group in Korean. And elsewhere it's clear that the word 'word' actually means "wording"--. I went away and that night heard myself asking if the distinctions between *word* and *wording* and the way they are different can also be explored as how *word* and *wording* are*related* [form conjunctions]. Then the question becomes what is *mediating* this conjunction? If I use the term *between* to refer to the relation as *word* AND *wording* it seems to imply a certain type of conjunction. However, if the relation is considered as a *trans* relation [transformation, translation] it seems to indicate a more fluid flowing or being *carried* from one *aspect* of the relation towards the *other* aspect and also in the reciprocal direction without clear distinct boundaries of *word* and *wording* This also could apply to *event* and *eventing* OR could apply to *worded* and *wording* In 1977 Raymond Williams wrote the book *Marxism and Literature* and in Chapter two Raymond explores what he refers to as a wrong turn in our understanding when studying the concept *language* and the notion of *sign*. Raymond's perspective is the notion of *sign* is a medieval concept which has been readopted in modern linguistic thought. *Sign*, from Latin, *signum* meant a mark or token which is intrinsically a concept based on a distinction between *language* and *reality*. Raymond states: sign "is an INTERPOSITION between *word* and *thing* which repeats the Platonic interposition of *form*, *essence*, or *idea* but now in inaccessible linguistic terms." (page 25) In contrast to this notion of *sign* Raymond articulates a notion of *sign*as a PRODUCT [but not merely a past reified product of an *always-given* language SYSTEM.] Real communicative *products* [which are usable signs] are living evidence of a continuing social process within which individuals are carried but within which they also actively contribute. This understanding of *sign* is AT ONCE BOTH socialization and individuation [connected aspects of a single process] which the alternative notions of *sign* as *system* or *expression* dissociate as reified *language* and reified *society*. Raymond also emphasizes his notion of language rejects the metaphor of language as *reflection* of *material reality* We grasp THIS reality THROUGH language, which as practical social consciousness is saturated by and saturates all social activity [including productive activity] Raymond says this grasping is continuous languaging [wording] which is THIS LOST MIDDLE term between the abstract entities *subject* and *object* on which BOTH idealism AND orthodox materialism flounder. Language IS this articulated social PRESENCE in the world. Raymond is playing with *word* and *wording* [*event* and *eventing*] and it is the conjunction OF *word* and *wording* which he is articulating On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 1:16 AM, Bella Kotik-Friedgut wrote: > Without theorizing I want to share my recent observation of development of > word meaning in my grandson 3.10. Everyday there is something reminding me > of LSV. Here are examples of words that still are not full concepts. > Driving home at narrow crowded street he proclaims "The street is sad" > (atsuv in Hebrew) > We ask him what exactly is sad, may be people, but he insists that "The > street is sad"; > Other day I use word single (boded in Hebrew) and he asks what does it mean > and with a lot of questions try to develop a concept: A child can be > single? An adult? When I will be adult? and so on. Sometimes he hears an > expression and try to use it in order to test appropriateness: "You cause > me a bunch of problems!" (Zarot zrurot) and after our reaction and > questions about specific problems he escapes and seemingly gets the idea. > So the vocabulary expands very intensively, but the meaning of each word is > still to be mastered. > > Sincerely yours Bella Kotik-Friedgut > > > On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 10:52 AM, Ma, James (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk) < > james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk> wrote: > > > > > Hi David, for your info, the below article contains an overview of > > perspectives on semiotic mediation within sociolinguistics and > > sociocultural theory: > > http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10749039.2014.913294 > > Best wishes > > James > > ________________________________________ > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > on behalf of David Kellogg > > Sent: 19 July 2014 23:12 > > To: Mike Cole; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Acquisition of word meaning > > > > Halliday is Vygotskyan. Explicitly so in places: he says that his concept > > of consciousness as a social being derives from Vygotsky. Ruqaiya Hasan, > > who sometimes lurks on this list, has written extensively on the > > "exotropic" links between Halliday and Vygotsky. At first I didn't quite > > believe this, because for Vygotsky what develops is a meta-system made up > > of functions (psychological abilities), while for Halliday what develops > is > > a metafunction made up of systems (linguistic choices). But Gordon Wells > > persuaded me: he points out that Halliday's "ideational metafunction" > (this > > is the function that allows us to represent the world as figures of > > experience linked by logic, and is realized in nouns, verbs, and other > > open-class words) is essentially equivalent to "thinking" and the > > "interpersonal metafunction (this is the function that allows us to > > exchange commodities such as goods and services or information and is > > realized in commands, statements and questions) is essentially equivalent > > to "speech". > > > > I think the reason that I didn't get the profound and very > > thorough connection between Halliday and Vygotsky (which seems more > > endotropic than exotropic to me now) was that I kept assuming that when > > Vygotsky says "word" he means something like a noun, as in the block > > experiments of Chapter Five Thinking and Speech. But of course even in > the > > block experiments, what is meant is not a noun but something much more > like > > an attribute, which would be expressed as a nominal group in English but > a > > verbal group in Korean. And elsewhere it's clear that the word 'word' > > actually means "wording"--what is a single word in the mouth of a very > > young child is going to be a whole clause in an older child and > eventually > > an entire text. > > > > So Mike's example is quite a propos. When I first read this example from > > Shweder back in 2007, it seemed to me that Vygotsky would say that this > > particular "wording" has nothing to do with morality, and of course it's > > not really a concept. Now I am not so sure: I'm convinced that a lot of > > ethical concepts develop out of almost purely esthetic ones, which is > > actually a good example of how "perizhivanie" starts by meaning feeling > and > > only in the course of development comes to mean thinking. > > > > In China, what girls tell their classmates in high school is that their > > "Grandma is visiting" or else that they are "dao mei le" ("doomed"). This > > was a highly prized condition when my wife was in high school, because it > > meant that you didn't have to go out for physical education and you could > > stay in and do math homework instead. So one day the boys told the > physical > > education teacher that they were all "doomed" and could not go either, > > > > David Kellogg > > Hankuk University of Foreign Studies > > > > > > On 20 July 2014 03:02, mike cole wrote: > > > > > While puzzling over all the interesting notes on > > > language/thought/emotion/development in recent days I happend upon the > > > following. It seems a potential object of interpretation that would > help > > to > > > hightlight for us (for me at least) the stakes in the pattern of > > agreements > > > and disageements and silences in the conversation. Does Halliday inform > > our > > > understanding differently from Vygotsky might be a helpful question. Is > > > convergence of meaning and generalization manifest? Anyway, perhaps it > > > will be of interest: > > > (From an essay on culture's involvement in moral development by > Shweder > > > and colleagues. Data from Orrisa). > > > > > > > > > > > > *"Mara heici. Chhu na! Chhu na!*" is what a menstruating Oriya mother > > > explains when her young child approaches her lap. It means, "I am > > polluted. > > > Don't touch me! Don't touch me!" If the child continues to approach, > the > > > woman will stand up and walk away from her child. Of course, young > Oriya > > > children have no concept of menstruation or menstrual blood; the first > > > menstruation arrives as a total surprise to adolescent girls. Mother's > > > typically "explain" their own monthly "pollution" to their children by > > > telling then that they stepped in dog excrement or touched garbage, or > > they > > > evade the issue. Nevertheless, Oriya children quickly learn that there > is > > > something called "*Mara"* (the term *cchuan* (check spelling) may also > be > > > used) and when "*Mara*" is there, as it regularly is, their mother > avoids > > > them, sleeps alone on a mat on the floor, is prohibited from entering > the > > > kitchen... eats alone, does not groom herself and is, for several days, > > > kept at a distance from anything of value. Children notice that > > everything > > > their mother touches is washed. (Shweder, Mahapatra, & Miller, 1987, p. > > 74) > > > > > > > > ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2014.0.4716 / Virus Database: 3986/7891 - Release Date: 07/21/14 From fsulliva@temple.edu Wed Jul 23 10:58:14 2014 From: fsulliva@temple.edu (FRANCIS J. SULLIVAN) Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 13:58:14 -0400 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: book of possible interest In-Reply-To: <53CF2170.6050104@mira.net> References: <0D461088-CBBB-4BD9-ADCB-3024C36CBE81@telia.com> <53C48DF1.5000703@mira.net> <53CF2170.6050104@mira.net> Message-ID: Thank you Andy. I appreciate the clarification. Francis J. Sullivan, Ph.D. Associate Professor Department of Teaching and Learning College of Education Temple University Philadelphia, PA 19122 Find out what any people will quietly submit to and you have the exact measure of the injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them. Frederick Douglass On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 10:44 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: > Francis, I dipped out of the conversation about fuzzy things because it > was just getting silly, but please allow me to nip a couple of rumours in > the bud before they become reveived wisdom. I have never used the term > "semantic action". The term appeared in my message in my attempt to sum up > what *David* was saying. Since he disowns the term I guess I was mistaken. > Secondly, I certainly do not conflate the sign and the concept. I deal with > the relation at some length in my book on Concepts. > Andy > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *Andy Blunden* > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > > FRANCIS J. SULLIVAN wrote: > >> As I understand it, Huw DISAGREES with Andy and actually agrees with the >>> revisionist critique of Vygotsky on the grounds that children are mostly >>> preoccupied with action and not word meaning. That's all very true of >>> course: but they are NOT really preoccupied with labour activity. Their >>> preoccupations are with PLAY activity (Kim Yongho and I did a good study >>> of >>> so-called "Task based teaching" that shows how children redefine tasks as >>> role plays and games). Play activity is, as Vygotsky has shown us, >>> genetically related to speech and not to labour. >>> >>> >>> >> >> DOESN'T IMAGINATIVE PLAY COUNT AS THINKING? >> >> >> >>> Andy's third point is that semantic actions (???) create intellectual >>> structures in the mind. I don't know what a semantic action is; semantics >>> for me is the process of making something stand for something else, but I >>> don't see in what sense it helps to model this process as an "action". In >>> many ways, it is precisely a non-action, because it includes >>> conditionality >>> and interpretability, neither of which is usefully modeled as action. >>> >>> THE ABOVE IS WHAT SEEMS TO ME TO BE ABOUT "ACADEMIC DISCOURSE," >>> UNNECESSARILY NARROWING "THINKING." I TAKE HIS TERM SEMANTIC ACTION TO >>> REFER TO THE ILLOCUTIONARY FORCE OF THE DISCOURSE >>> >>> I agree with the Russians who say that "perezhivanie" is a well defined >>> concept. But to me "well defined" means developmentally so: it means that >>> the specific weight of the various components of "perezhivanie" have to >>> be >>> allowed to change as we develop: so for young children "perezhivanie" is >>> largely "felt experience", and for older children it is mostly "thought >>> over--contemplated--experience". I don't see that thinking over is >>> mostly >>> an intellectual exercise though--I always feel, even in these exchanges >>> on >>> xmca, that there is a certain emotional component which makes us respond, >>> sometimes before we really even think things out. >>> >>> HERE I AGREE COMPLETELY WITH YOU, BUT ALSO TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE >>> >>> >> SOCIALIZATION OF SCHOOLING AS A CRUCIAL FACTOR. >> >> >> >>> David Kellogg >>> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 16 July 2014 04:39, FRANCIS J. SULLIVAN wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> With great trepidation, I want to enter this conversation with my first >>>> post to the list (I have followed it for about a year now) because as >>>> >>>> >>> both >>> >>> >>>> a researcher and teacher educator the issues raised are major concerns >>>> >>>> >>> of >>> >>> >>>> mine too. I find, I think it was David's point, the idea that we can >>>> >>>> >>> think >>> >>> >>>> of the "connections" problem in two ways to be at the heart of the >>>> issue, >>>> at least for me. It is one thing to construct a connection that "adds >>>> to" >>>> the existing knowledge framework of others. But, it is a very different >>>> thing to sea5rch for a "connection" that requires others to >>>> qualitatively >>>> change, or even abandon, their existing framework. Helen seems to >>>> achieve >>>> such a connection with at least some of her teachers by helping them to >>>> re-cognize their own social identities so that the new knowledge and >>>> framework became less threatening and more inviting. She reconnected >>>> them >>>> with who they used to be and what they valued. So they did not see >>>> themselves as merely "ignorant" but more like retracing their steps. >>>> For me, at least, that's why the "deficit" models of teaching (or >>>> >>>> >>> research) >>> >>> >>>> practices do not work. We--teachers and students--need to find a place >>>> >>>> >>> from >>> >>> >>>> which we can begin this journey together, common ground so to speak. >>>> >>>> >>> While >>> >>> >>>> a deaf person may not "know" English, I don't think that's the salient >>>> point. All of us don't know things. What seems to me salient in Helen's >>>> attempt to find connections, is that the very attempt challenged their >>>> current ways of framing their professional lives. What we might think of >>>> >>>> >>> as >>> >>> >>>> "ignorance," those teachers thought of as "knowledge." And that >>>> >>>> >>> "knowledge" >>> >>> >>>> was part and parcel of the ways they positioned themselves as teachers >>>> in >>>> relation to students. >>>> I am tempted to put this into discourse analysis terms--I'm a >>>> semi-Hallidayan with a critical theory twist. But, I've said enough for >>>> a >>>> first post, I think. I hope it is useful. >>>> >>>> Francis J. Sullivan, Ph.D. >>>> Associate Professor >>>> Department of Teaching and Learning >>>> College of Education >>>> Temple University >>>> Philadelphia, PA 19122 >>>> >>>> >>>> Find out what any people will quietly submit to and you have the exact >>>> measure of the injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them. >>>> >>>> Frederick Douglass >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 2:10 AM, David Kellogg >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Well, I do hope that Helen means that "for the moment", as I have >>>>> >>>>> >>>> learned >>> >>> >>>> an awful lot from this book and even more from this discussion. You >>>>> >>>>> >>>> see, >>> >>> >>>> I >>>> >>>> >>>>> am trying to tease apart two very different processes that appear, on >>>>> >>>>> >>>> the >>> >>> >>>> face of it, to be almost identical, but which also appear to have >>>>> diametrically opposite developmental effects. >>>>> >>>>> One process is the process of getting people to feel at ease, >>>>> confident, and happy that they understand what you are saying because >>>>> >>>>> >>>> it >>> >>> >>>> is >>>> >>>> >>>>> actually something that is identical or at least very similar to what >>>>> >>>>> >>>> they >>>> >>>> >>>>> already think. Another, almost identical, process is the process of >>>>> "establishing ties" between a new form of knowledge and an earlier one. >>>>> BOTH of these processes, it seems to me, occur throughout Helen's book, >>>>> >>>>> >>>> and >>>> >>>> >>>>> it is easy to mistake the one for the other. BOTH of these processes, >>>>> >>>>> >>>> to >>> >>> >>>> use our earlier terminology, involve "establishing ties", but only one >>>>> >>>>> >>>> of >>> >>> >>>> them also involves breaking away. >>>>> >>>>> For example, at one point in the book Helen, looking back over the >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Banksia >>>> >>>> >>>>> Bay PLZ data, rounds on herself for using a transparent piece of >>>>> scaffolding to elicit the word "communicate" from a group of teachers. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> What >>>> >>>> >>>>> bothers her is not that the answer itself is far too general to be of >>>>> >>>>> >>>> any >>> >>> >>>> practical value to the teachers, but only that she had it very firmly >>>>> >>>>> >>>> in >>> >>> >>>> mind, and kept badgering the teachers (as we all do, when we have a >>>>> >>>>> >>>> precise >>>> >>>> >>>>> answer in mind) until she got it. The alternative, she points out, >>>>> >>>>> >>>> would >>> >>> >>>> be >>>> >>>> >>>>> to take what she got and work with that. >>>>> >>>>> Yes indeed. But I think the main reason that would have been more >>>>> interesting is not that it would have resulted in fewer rejections of >>>>> teacher answers and made people more at ease, confdent, and happy that >>>>> >>>>> >>>> they >>>> >>>> >>>>> understood, but rather than it would have yielded something more like a >>>>> concrete but unconscious and not yet volitionally controlled example of >>>>> excellence from the teacher's own practice. I almost always find that >>>>> >>>>> >>>> the >>> >>> >>>> actual answers I want--the "methods" I end up imparting to my own >>>>> >>>>> >>>> teachers, >>>> >>>> >>>>> are already present in the data they bring me (because we almost always >>>>> begin with actual transcripts of their lessons) but they are generally >>>>> >>>>> >>>> not >>>> >>>> >>>>> methods but only moments, and moments that go unnoticed and therefore >>>>> ungeneralized in the hurly burly of actual teaching. >>>>> >>>>> Last winter, Helen and I were at a conference in New Zealand where, >>>>> >>>>> >>>> among >>> >>> >>>> other eventful episodes, Craig Brandist got up and gave a very precise >>>>> >>>>> >>>> list >>>> >>>> >>>>> of half a dozen different and utterly contradictory ways in which >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Bakhtin >>> >>> >>>> uses the term "dialogue". Because the senses of "dialogue" are so many >>>>> >>>>> >>>> and >>>> >>>> >>>>> varied, people simply pick and choose, and they tend invariably to >>>>> >>>>> >>>> choose >>> >>> >>>> the ones that are closest to the way they already think. It is as >>>>> >>>>> >>>> moments >>> >>> >>>> like this that we need to remind ourselves that Bakhtin's "dialogue" >>>>> >>>>> >>>> does >>> >>> >>>> not, for the most part, ever include children, or women; that he did >>>>> >>>>> >>>> not >>> >>> >>>> "dialogue" with Volosinov or Medvedev when he allowed his acolytes >>>>> to plunder their corpses, and that his love of carnival and the public >>>>> marketplace does not extend to a belief in any form of political >>>>> >>>>> >>>> democracy. >>>> >>>> >>>>> So I think we should start off with an understanding that what Vygotsky >>>>> says about defect is not the same was what we now believe. Vygotsky, >>>>> >>>>> >>>> for >>> >>> >>>> example, believed that sign language was not true language, and that >>>>> >>>>> >>>> even >>> >>> >>>> the congenitally deaf should be taught to lip read; this is simply >>>>> wrong. (On the other hand, what he says about spontaneously created >>>>> >>>>> >>>> sign >>> >>> >>>> languages--that they are essentially elaborated systems of gesture and >>>>> >>>>> >>>> they >>>> >>>> >>>>> lack the signifying functions--fits exactly with Susan Goldin-Meadow's >>>>> observations in Chicago.) >>>>> >>>>> And one reason I think it is important to begin with this understanding >>>>> >>>>> >>>> is >>>> >>>> >>>>> this: sometimes--usually--LSV is right and we are wrong. In >>>>> >>>>> >>>> particular, I >>> >>> >>>> think the "credit" view of defect, or, for that matter, ignorance of >>>>> >>>>> >>>> any >>> >>> >>>> kind and not fully conscious teacher expertise risks becoming a liberal >>>>> platitude--the cup is always half full, so why not look on the bright >>>>> >>>>> >>>> side >>>> >>>> >>>>> of dearth? I certainly do not feel empowered by the fact that I know >>>>> English but I do not know ASL, and I rather doubt that deaf people feel >>>>> empowered by the opposite state of affairs. When I don't know >>>>> >>>>> >>>> something, >>> >>> >>>> I >>>> >>>> >>>>> do not see any bright side of not knowing it, for the very simple >>>>> reason that I can't see at all. >>>>> >>>>> Vygotsky was probably very influenced by "Iolanta", an opera that >>>>> Tchaikovsky wrote--he certainly seems to quote it extensively in the >>>>> >>>>> >>>> last >>> >>> >>>> chapter of "Thinking and Speech". In "Iolanta", King Renee copes with >>>>> >>>>> >>>> the >>> >>> >>>> blindness of his daughter by having her shut up in a garden and >>>>> >>>>> >>>> forbidding >>>> >>>> >>>>> all his subjects from discussing light, sight, color or anything >>>>> >>>>> >>>> visible >>> >>> >>>> in >>>> >>>> >>>>> any way. Vaudemont, a knight of Burgundy, blunders into the garden, >>>>> discovers Iolanta's secret. Iolanta convinces him that sight is >>>>> unnecessary, but in the course of doing so, she develops the desire to >>>>> >>>>> >>>> see >>>> >>>> >>>>> and choose for herself. >>>>> >>>>> David Kelogg >>>>> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 15 July 2014 11:12, Andy Blunden wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> My reading of Vygotsky on 'defectology' was that the 'defect' was the >>>>>> problem in social relations, that is, the person who is different in >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> some >>>> >>>> >>>>> way suffers because of the way that difference is treated or not >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> treated >>>> >>>> >>>>> by >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> others, not for anything in itself. One and the same feature could >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> be a >>> >>> >>>> great benefit or a fatal flaw, depending on how others react to it. >>>>>> Except insofar as introducing the idea of a "credit view" is a move >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> aimed >>>> >>>> >>>>> at changing the perceptions and behaviours of others in relation to >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> the >>> >>> >>>> subject, I don't think Vygotsky is an advocate of the mirror image >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> of a >>> >>> >>>> deficit view. As I see it, he analyses the problem of the person >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> being >>> >>> >>>> treated as deficient by means of the unit of *defect-compensation*. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> The >>> >>> >>>> defect (a problem arising in social interaction, with others) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> generates >>> >>> >>>> certain challenges which are overcome, generally also in interaction >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> with >>>> >>>> >>>>> others. This "compensation" leads to what Helen could call a "credit" >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> and >>>> >>>> >>>>> it is the dynamic set up between the social defect and social >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> compensation >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> which shapes the subject's psychology and their relation to others. >>>>>> Andy >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> ------------ >>>> >>>> >>>>> *Andy Blunden* >>>>>> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Helen Grimmett wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> I think what is unique about Vygotsky's work in defectology is that, >>>>>>> despite the name, it is not a deficit view (in the way that I >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> understand >>>> >>>> >>>>> the term) at all. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I understand the commonly used term 'deficit view' as a focus on >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> what >>> >>> >>>> children are 'missing' that needs to be provided to them by teachers >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> to >>>> >>>> >>>>> bring them up to a pre-conceived idea of 'normal' for their >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> age/grade >>> >>> >>>> level >>>>>>> etc. Whereas, a 'credit view' focuses on what children are able to >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> do >>> >>> >>>> and >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> bring to a learning situation, in which, in the interaction with >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> others, >>>> >>>> >>>>> they will be able to become more able to do and 'be' more than they >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> were >>>> >>>> >>>>> before (i.e. to develop), whether this be in the 'expected' ways to >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> the >>>> >>>> >>>>> 'expected' level or in completely different ways to a variety of >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> different >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> levels beyond or outside 'standard' expectations. From the little I >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> have >>>> >>>> >>>>> read on defectology I think this is what Vygotsky was advocating - >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> that >>>> >>>> >>>>> despite a child's blindness or deafness etc, development was still >>>>>>> possible >>>>>>> if mediational means were found that made use of the child's credits >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> (i.e. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> using sign language or braille so that children still had access to >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> the >>>> >>>> >>>>> developmental opportunities provided by language). So I think your >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> term >>>> >>>> >>>>> pre-abled is in fact a credit view rather than a deficit view. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I was attempting to also use a credit view in my work with the >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> teachers. I >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> saw them as being experienced practitioners who had lots to bring to >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> our >>>> >>>> >>>>> discussions of teaching and learning, in which together we could see >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> what >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> could be developed (new practices, new understandings). Once Kay and >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> Mike >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> realised this they got on board and engaged in the process and >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> (possibly >>>> >>>> >>>>> for the first time in a long while as they both saw themselves [and >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> in >>> >>> >>>> fact >>>>>>> are officially designated as] 'expert teachers') really reawakened >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> the >>> >>> >>>> process of developing as professionals. They blew off most of the >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> content >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> I >>>>>>> was contributing, but they realised the process was actually about >>>>>>> 'unsticking' their own development and working out new and >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> personally >>> >>> >>>> interesting and meaningful ways of 'becoming' more as teachers, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> instead >>>> >>>> >>>>> of >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> being stuck 'being' the teacher they had turned into over the years. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> Not >>>> >>>> >>>>> all of the teachers made this leap in the time I worked with them >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> though. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Others were either quite disgruntled that I wouldn't provide them >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> with >>> >>> >>>> answers to 'fix' their own perceived deficits or patiently waited >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> for >>> >>> >>>> me >>>> >>>> >>>>> to >>>>>>> go away and stop rocking the boat. From what I can gather though, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> Ann >>> >>> >>>> (the >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> principal) kept the boat rocking and managed over time to get more >>>>>>> teachers >>>>>>> to buy into the process of learning from each other and >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> collaboratively >>>> >>>> >>>>> creating new practices. As we said earlier, development takes time >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> as >>> >>> >>>> well >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> as effort. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> All I've got time for at the moment! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Helen >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dr Helen Grimmett >>>>>>> Lecturer, Student Adviser, >>>>>>> Faculty of Education, >>>>>>> Room G64F, Building 902 >>>>>>> Monash University, Berwick campus >>>>>>> Phone: 9904 7171 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *New Book: * >>>>>>> The Practice of Teachers' Professional Development: A >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> Cultural-Historical >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Approach >>>>>>> >>>>>> professional-learning-1/the-practice-of-teachers- >>>>>>> professional-development/> >>>>>>> Helen Grimmett (2014) Sense Publishers >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> source=staff-email&utm_medium=email-signature&utm_campaign=50th> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 14 July 2014 14:43, David Kellogg wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Near the end of Chapter Three (p. 81), Helen is summing up her >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> experience >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> with the Banksia Bay PLZ and she notes with some dismay that her >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> PDers >>>> >>>> >>>>> have >>>>>>>> "a deficit view" of their children and tend towards "container >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> models" >>>> >>>> >>>>> of >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> the mind ("empty vessel, sponge, blank canvas"). Only one teacher, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ann >>>> >>>> >>>>> sees >>>>>>>> anything wrong with this, and Helen says "they don't necessarily >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> value >>>> >>>> >>>>> her >>>>>>>> opinion". >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Helen finds herself rather conflicted: One the one hand, she says >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> "If >>>> >>>> >>>>> their representations of children really do represent their >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> beliefs, >>> >>> >>>> then >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> they are probably right to insist there is no need to change." And >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> on >>> >>> >>>> the >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> other, she says "My intention was never to say that their present >>>>>>>> practice >>>>>>>> was wrong, but to help them see alternative ways of thinking about >>>>>>>> children, learning, and teaching." >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Of course, if there is no need to change, then it follows that >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> there >>> >>> >>>> is >>>> >>>> >>>>> no >>>>>>>> reason to look for alternative ways of thinking about children, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> learning >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> and teaching. The only reason for spending scarce cognitive >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> resources >>> >>> >>>> on >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> seeing different ways of looking at children is if you do, in fact, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> take >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> a >>>>>>>> deficit view of the teachers. Ann, and the Regional Consultants, >>>>>>>> apparently >>>>>>>> do, but Helen realizes that there isn't much basis for this: not >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> only >>> >>> >>>> do >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> we >>>>>>>> have no actual data of lessons to look at, we know that one of the >>>>>>>> teachers, Kay, has been in the classroom for three decades (during >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> which >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> time Helen has spent at least one decade OUT of the classroom). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> While we were translating Vygotsky's "History of the Development of >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> the >>>> >>>> >>>>> Higher Psychological Functions" last year, some of my colleagues >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> were >>> >>> >>>> taken >>>>>>>> aback by Vygotsky's use of terms like "moron", "imbecile", "idiot", >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> and >>>> >>>> >>>>> "cretin". Of course, Vygotsky is writing long before the >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> "euphemisim >>> >>> >>>> treadmill" turned these into playground insults; for Vygotsky they >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> are >>>> >>>> >>>>> quite precise descriptors--not of cognitive ability but actually of >>>>>>>> LANGUAGE ability. But because our readership are progressive Korean >>>>>>>> teachers with strong views about these questions, we found that we >>>>>>>> couldn't >>>>>>>> even use the term "mentally retarded" without a strongly worded >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> footnote >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> disavowing the "deficit" thinking behind the term. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I think that Vygotsky would have been surprised by this. I think he >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> took >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> it >>>>>>>> for granted that a defect was a deficit: being blind means a >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> deficit >>> >>> >>>> in >>>> >>>> >>>>> vision, and being deaf means a deficit in hearing. In the same >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> way, a >>> >>> >>>> brain >>>>>>>> defect is not an asset. On the other hand, I think Vygotsky would >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> find >>>> >>>> >>>>> our >>>>>>>> own term "disabled" quite inaccurate: since all forms of >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> development >>> >>> >>>> are >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> compensatory and involve "circuitous routes" of one kind or >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> another, >>> >>> >>>> and >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> all developed children, even, and even especially, gifted children, >>>>>>>> contain >>>>>>>> islands of underdevelopment, the correct term for deficits of all >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> kinds >>>> >>>> >>>>> is >>>>>>>> not "disabled" but "pre-abled". >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Personally, I see nothing wrong with a deficit view of children >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> that >>> >>> >>>> sees >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> them as pre-abled (or, as Vygotsky liked to say, 'primitivist"; >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> that >>> >>> >>>> is, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> they are waiting for the mediational means that we have foolishly >>>>>>>> developed >>>>>>>> only for the psychophysiologically most common types to catch up >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> with >>> >>> >>>> the >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> actual variation in real children. I suspect this view is actually >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> quite >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> a >>>>>>>> bit closer to what Kay thinks than to what Helen thinks. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> David Kellogg >>>>>>>> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 13 July 2014 10:59, Helen Grimmett >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi David, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Interesting question. I absolutely think that development AS a >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> professional >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> is necessary, just as development as a human is necessary, so if >>>>>>>>> professional development is seen as the practice in which this >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> development >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> is produced then absolutely I do think it is necessary. The form >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> that >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> practice takes though, and indeed the form of the development that >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> is >>>> >>>> >>>>> produced within this practice, are the things open to question >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> however. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> I definitely think that a teacher's development as a professional >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> includes >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> the need to understand their practice better rather than just >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> change >>> >>> >>>> it, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> but I think that understanding often develops best >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> in/alongside/with >>> >>> >>>> the >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> process of changing (and vice versa) rather than separately from >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> it, >>> >>> >>>> and, >>>>>>>>> as you point out above, in establishing ties *between* people and >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> then >>>> >>>> >>>>> within them. So a practice of professional development that >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> creates >>> >>> >>>> conditions which support this type of development will (I believe) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> be >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> much >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> more effective than traditional forms of PD that either attempt to >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> lecture >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> about theoretical principles but do not support teachers to >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> transfer >>> >>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> these >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> into practical changes, OR provide teachers with practical >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> programs >>> >>> >>>> and >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> expect them to implement them without any understanding of what >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> and >>> >>> >>>> why >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> changes matter. I think the term "Professional Development" is an >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> absolute >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> misnomer for either of those typical approaches. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So again, I have a problem with names! I'm talking about >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Professional >>>> >>>> >>>>> Development with a completely different meaning than what most of >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> the >>>> >>>> >>>>> education community believe it to mean when they talk about >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> attending >>>> >>>> >>>>> PD >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> seminars or workshops. I toyed with trying to find a different >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> name >>> >>> >>>> for >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> particular meaning I'm talking about, but when you are talking >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> about >>> >>> >>>> development from a cultural-historical theoretical perspective >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> then >>> >>> >>>> there >>>>>>>>> really is no other word to use! That's why I stuck to using >>>>>>>>> 'professional >>>>>>>>> development' (in full) when I meant my meaning, and PD (which is >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> what >>>> >>>> >>>>> teachers in Australia commonly refer to seminars and workshops as) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> when >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> I >>>>>>>>> refer to the typical (and in my view, usually non-developmental) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> forms >>>> >>>> >>>>> of >>>>>>>>> activities that teachers are subjected to each year. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So, I agree that the need for PD is questionable, but the need for >>>>>>>>> practices of professional development that help teachers to >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> develop >>> >>> >>>> as >>>> >>>> >>>>> professionals (that is, to develop a unified understanding of both >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> the >>>> >>>> >>>>> theoretical and practical aspects of their work, which is itself >>>>>>>>> continually developing in order to meet the changing needs of >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> their >>> >>> >>>> students, schools and society) is essential. While I think >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> co-teaching >>>> >>>> >>>>> is >>>>>>>>> one practical small-scale solution, working out viable, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> economical, >>> >>> >>>> and >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> manageable ways to create these practices on a large-scale is a >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> very >>> >>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> large >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> problem. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>>> Helen >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Dr Helen Grimmett >>>>>>>>> Lecturer, Student Adviser, >>>>>>>>> Faculty of Education, >>>>>>>>> Room G64F, Building 902 >>>>>>>>> Monash University, Berwick campus >>>>>>>>> Phone: 9904 7171 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> *New Book: * >>>>>>>>> The Practice of Teachers' Professional Development: A >>>>>>>>> Cultural-Historical >>>>>>>>> Approach >>>>>>>>> < >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://www.sensepublishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/ >>>>>>>> professional-learning-1/the-practice-of-teachers- >>>>>>>> professional-development/ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Helen Grimmett (2014) Sense Publishers >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> < >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> http://monash.edu.au/education/news/50-years/?utm_ >>>>>>>> source=staff-email&utm_medium=email-signature&utm_campaign=50th >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 13 July 2014 08:57, David Kellogg >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Helen: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Good to hear from you at long last--I knew you were lurking out >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> there >>>> >>>> >>>>> somewhere! >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I didn't actually write the line about "establishing ties"--it's >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> from >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "The >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Little Prince". The prince asks what "tame" means, and the fox >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> replies >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> it means "to establish ties". But of course what I meant was that >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ties >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> established first between people and then within them; the ties >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> From jgregmcverry@gmail.com Wed Jul 23 11:52:28 2014 From: jgregmcverry@gmail.com (Greg Mcverry) Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 14:52:28 -0400 Subject: [Xmca-l] Gee, Knowledge, Intelligence and Affinity Spaces Message-ID: I just had a great conversation on Google+ I thought that many of you could help expand our thinking. We were discussing Gee's defining characteristics of Afffinity Spaces. In his first description (2004) Gee defined many types of knowledge: individual, dispersed, tacit, intensive and extensive. Yet in his recent book, Miseducation Era affinity spaces are only defined in terms of intelligences and there are not as many types. We settled on the idea that perhaps JOPG was shooting for intelligence to be knowledge and doing to distinguish you cannot really know without action. Anyone else have an opinion on the linguistic shift? -- J. Gregory McVerry, PhD Assistant Professor Southern Connecticut State University twitter: jgmac1106 From lchcmike@gmail.com Wed Jul 23 12:08:20 2014 From: lchcmike@gmail.com (mike cole) Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 12:08:20 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Gee, Knowledge, Intelligence and Affinity Spaces In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: A few juicy quotations might help those who do not know or have access to the originals, Greg. And make it easier for others to follow the conversation if there is one. mike On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 11:52 AM, Greg Mcverry wrote: > I just had a great conversation on Google+ I thought that many of you could > help expand our thinking. > > We were discussing Gee's defining characteristics of Afffinity Spaces. In > his first description (2004) Gee defined many types of knowledge: > individual, dispersed, tacit, intensive and extensive. > > Yet in his recent book, Miseducation Era affinity spaces are only defined > in terms of intelligences and there are not as many types. > > We settled on the idea that perhaps JOPG was shooting for intelligence to > be knowledge and doing to distinguish you cannot really know without > action. > > Anyone else have an opinion on the linguistic shift? > -- > J. Gregory McVerry, PhD > Assistant Professor > Southern Connecticut State University > twitter: jgmac1106 > From rcody@ucsd.edu Wed Jul 23 12:43:32 2014 From: rcody@ucsd.edu (Rachel Pfister) Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 12:43:32 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Gee, Knowledge, Intelligence and Affinity Spaces In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0D729B87-9CF2-436C-8987-FFFA956647CD@ucsd.edu> For those who want to look into it more - The 2004 paper on affinity spaces can be found at JPG's website: http://www.jamespaulgee.com/publications There is a chapter in the 2010 book Women and Gaming in which Gee and Hayes discuss affinity spaces and their characteristics, including types of knowledge, roles, and social dynamics. Gee also has a discussion of affinity spaces in an interview with Henry Jenkins: http://henryjenkins.org/2011/03/how_learners_can_be_on_top_of_1.html http://henryjenkins.org/2011/03/how_learners_can_be_on_top_of_2.html http://henryjenkins.org/2011/03/how_learners_can_be_on_top_of_3.html I haven't read the Miseducation Era book to know how he handles the idea of affinity spaces in that work but am curious to hear others thoughts On Jul 23, 2014, at 12:08 PM, mike cole wrote: > A few juicy quotations might help those who do not know or have access to > the originals, Greg. And make it easier for others to follow the > conversation if there is one. > mike > > > On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 11:52 AM, Greg Mcverry > wrote: > >> I just had a great conversation on Google+ I thought that many of you could >> help expand our thinking. >> >> We were discussing Gee's defining characteristics of Afffinity Spaces. In >> his first description (2004) Gee defined many types of knowledge: >> individual, dispersed, tacit, intensive and extensive. >> >> Yet in his recent book, Miseducation Era affinity spaces are only defined >> in terms of intelligences and there are not as many types. >> >> We settled on the idea that perhaps JOPG was shooting for intelligence to >> be knowledge and doing to distinguish you cannot really know without >> action. >> >> Anyone else have an opinion on the linguistic shift? >> -- >> J. Gregory McVerry, PhD >> Assistant Professor >> Southern Connecticut State University >> twitter: jgmac1106 >> From tom.richardson3@googlemail.com Wed Jul 23 13:23:04 2014 From: tom.richardson3@googlemail.com (Tom Richardson) Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 21:23:04 +0100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Acquisition of word meaning In-Reply-To: References: <1405929168143.12608@canterbury.ac.uk> Message-ID: Hi Esther A post I can (almost) grasp the meaning and significance of - exciting! Thanks - Raymond W.'s theorisation brings the 'conversation' about language/wording, into the world of active humans making their world; seems as good thing that, and takes theory into 'sensuous human activity' - I'll try to keep up here[?] Tom On 23 July 2014 10:21, Esther Goody wrote: > > Xmca folk, > > ..........."word actually means 'wording'." > > This fits with Herb Clark's insight that to really understand Language, you > need to see it as 'languaging'. This is about getting away from grammar and > syntax, to seeing speaking as process - [surely fits with activity theory]. > This has completely altered my understanding of language. Here dialogue is > central. ie two people are involved, each anticipating and responding to > the > other. I think this => looking for the 'social' aspect of 'culture'. > .....Work in process, > Esther Goody > > I read your comment: > > discussing the concept *word* what is meant is not a noun but something > much more like an attribute, which would be expressed as a nominal group in > English but a > verbal group in Korean. And elsewhere it's clear that the word 'word' > actually means "wording"--. > > I went away and that night heard myself asking if the distinctions between > *word* and *wording* and the way they are different can also be explored as > how *word* and *wording* are*related* [form conjunctions]. > Then the question becomes what is *mediating* this conjunction? If I use > the term *between* to refer to the relation as *word* AND *wording* it > seems to imply a certain type of conjunction. However, if the relation is > considered as a *trans* relation [transformation, translation] it seems to > indicate a more fluid flowing or being *carried* from one *aspect* of the > relation towards the *other* aspect and also in the reciprocal direction > without clear distinct boundaries of *word* and *wording* > > This also could apply to *event* and *eventing* OR > could apply to *worded* and *wording* > > In 1977 Raymond Williams wrote the book *Marxism and Literature* and in > Chapter two Raymond explores what he refers to as a wrong turn in our > understanding when studying the concept *language* and the notion of > *sign*. > Raymond's perspective is the notion of *sign* is a medieval concept which > has been readopted in modern linguistic thought. > *Sign*, from Latin, *signum* meant a mark or token which is intrinsically a > concept based on a distinction between *language* and *reality*. > Raymond states: sign "is an INTERPOSITION between *word* and *thing* which > repeats the Platonic interposition of *form*, *essence*, or *idea* but now > in inaccessible linguistic terms." (page 25) > > In contrast to this notion of *sign* Raymond articulates a notion of > *sign*as a PRODUCT [but not merely a past reified product of an > *always-given* language SYSTEM.] Real communicative *products* [which are > usable signs] are living evidence of a continuing social process within > which individuals are carried but within which they also actively > contribute. This understanding of *sign* is AT ONCE BOTH socialization and > individuation [connected aspects of a single process] which the alternative > notions of *sign* as *system* or *expression* dissociate as reified > *language* and reified *society*. > Raymond also emphasizes his notion of language rejects the metaphor of > language as *reflection* of *material reality* We grasp THIS reality > THROUGH language, which as practical social consciousness is saturated by > and saturates all social activity [including productive activity] > Raymond says this grasping is continuous languaging [wording] which is THIS > LOST MIDDLE term between the abstract entities *subject* and *object* on > which BOTH idealism AND orthodox materialism flounder. Language IS this > articulated social PRESENCE in the world. > > Raymond is playing with *word* and *wording* [*event* and *eventing*] and > it is the conjunction OF *word* and *wording* which he is articulating > > > > On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 1:16 AM, Bella Kotik-Friedgut < > bella.kotik@gmail.com > > wrote: > > > Without theorizing I want to share my recent observation of development > of > > word meaning in my grandson 3.10. Everyday there is something reminding > me > > of LSV. Here are examples of words that still are not full concepts. > > Driving home at narrow crowded street he proclaims "The street is sad" > > (atsuv in Hebrew) > > We ask him what exactly is sad, may be people, but he insists that "The > > street is sad"; > > Other day I use word single (boded in Hebrew) and he asks what does it > mean > > and with a lot of questions try to develop a concept: A child can be > > single? An adult? When I will be adult? and so on. Sometimes he hears an > > expression and try to use it in order to test appropriateness: "You cause > > me a bunch of problems!" (Zarot zrurot) and after our reaction and > > questions about specific problems he escapes and seemingly gets the idea. > > So the vocabulary expands very intensively, but the meaning of each word > is > > still to be mastered. > > > > Sincerely yours Bella Kotik-Friedgut > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 10:52 AM, Ma, James (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk) > < > > james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi David, for your info, the below article contains an overview of > > > perspectives on semiotic mediation within sociolinguistics and > > > sociocultural theory: > > > http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10749039.2014.913294 > > > Best wishes > > > James > > > ________________________________________ > > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > > on behalf of David Kellogg > > > Sent: 19 July 2014 23:12 > > > To: Mike Cole; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Acquisition of word meaning > > > > > > Halliday is Vygotskyan. Explicitly so in places: he says that his > concept > > > of consciousness as a social being derives from Vygotsky. Ruqaiya > Hasan, > > > who sometimes lurks on this list, has written extensively on the > > > "exotropic" links between Halliday and Vygotsky. At first I didn't > quite > > > believe this, because for Vygotsky what develops is a meta-system made > up > > > of functions (psychological abilities), while for Halliday what > develops > > is > > > a metafunction made up of systems (linguistic choices). But Gordon > Wells > > > persuaded me: he points out that Halliday's "ideational metafunction" > > (this > > > is the function that allows us to represent the world as figures of > > > experience linked by logic, and is realized in nouns, verbs, and other > > > open-class words) is essentially equivalent to "thinking" and the > > > "interpersonal metafunction (this is the function that allows us to > > > exchange commodities such as goods and services or information and is > > > realized in commands, statements and questions) is essentially > equivalent > > > to "speech". > > > > > > I think the reason that I didn't get the profound and very > > > thorough connection between Halliday and Vygotsky (which seems more > > > endotropic than exotropic to me now) was that I kept assuming that when > > > Vygotsky says "word" he means something like a noun, as in the block > > > experiments of Chapter Five Thinking and Speech. But of course even in > > the > > > block experiments, what is meant is not a noun but something much more > > like > > > an attribute, which would be expressed as a nominal group in English > but > > a > > > verbal group in Korean. And elsewhere it's clear that the word 'word' > > > actually means "wording"--what is a single word in the mouth of a very > > > young child is going to be a whole clause in an older child and > > eventually > > > an entire text. > > > > > > So Mike's example is quite a propos. When I first read this example > from > > > Shweder back in 2007, it seemed to me that Vygotsky would say that this > > > particular "wording" has nothing to do with morality, and of course > it's > > > not really a concept. Now I am not so sure: I'm convinced that a lot of > > > ethical concepts develop out of almost purely esthetic ones, which is > > > actually a good example of how "perizhivanie" starts by meaning feeling > > and > > > only in the course of development comes to mean thinking. > > > > > > In China, what girls tell their classmates in high school is that their > > > "Grandma is visiting" or else that they are "dao mei le" ("doomed"). > This > > > was a highly prized condition when my wife was in high school, because > it > > > meant that you didn't have to go out for physical education and you > could > > > stay in and do math homework instead. So one day the boys told the > > physical > > > education teacher that they were all "doomed" and could not go either, > > > > > > David Kellogg > > > Hankuk University of Foreign Studies > > > > > > > > > On 20 July 2014 03:02, mike cole wrote: > > > > > > > While puzzling over all the interesting notes on > > > > language/thought/emotion/development in recent days I happend upon > the > > > > following. It seems a potential object of interpretation that would > > help > > > to > > > > hightlight for us (for me at least) the stakes in the pattern of > > > agreements > > > > and disageements and silences in the conversation. Does Halliday > inform > > > our > > > > understanding differently from Vygotsky might be a helpful question. > Is > > > > convergence of meaning and generalization manifest? Anyway, perhaps > it > > > > will be of interest: > > > > (From an essay on culture's involvement in moral development by > > Shweder > > > > and colleagues. Data from Orrisa). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *"Mara heici. Chhu na! Chhu na!*" is what a menstruating Oriya mother > > > > explains when her young child approaches her lap. It means, "I am > > > polluted. > > > > Don't touch me! Don't touch me!" If the child continues to approach, > > the > > > > woman will stand up and walk away from her child. Of course, young > > Oriya > > > > children have no concept of menstruation or menstrual blood; the > first > > > > menstruation arrives as a total surprise to adolescent girls. > Mother's > > > > typically "explain" their own monthly "pollution" to their children > by > > > > telling then that they stepped in dog excrement or touched garbage, > or > > > they > > > > evade the issue. Nevertheless, Oriya children quickly learn that > there > > is > > > > something called "*Mara"* (the term *cchuan* (check spelling) may > also > > be > > > > used) and when "*Mara*" is there, as it regularly is, their mother > > avoids > > > > them, sleeps alone on a mat on the floor, is prohibited from entering > > the > > > > kitchen... eats alone, does not groom herself and is, for several > days, > > > > kept at a distance from anything of value. Children notice that > > > everything > > > > their mother touches is washed. (Shweder, Mahapatra, & Miller, 1987, > p. > > > 74) > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 2014.0.4716 / Virus Database: 3986/7891 - Release Date: 07/21/14 > > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 2785 bytes Desc: not available Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20140723/4f4d9ddc/attachment.gif From dkellogg60@gmail.com Wed Jul 23 15:52:18 2014 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 07:52:18 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: book of possible interest In-Reply-To: References: <0D461088-CBBB-4BD9-ADCB-3024C36CBE81@telia.com> <53C48DF1.5000703@mira.net> Message-ID: Francis: Well, first of all, the word "internal" here is the word Vygotsky uses. In History of the Development of the Higher Mental Functions, he explains that it simply means the psychological as opposed to the social. Perhaps "inward" would be a better translation: culture in "inward" with respect to nature, psychology is "inward" with respect to sociology, signs are "inward" with respect to tools, and within signs, inner speech is "inward" with respect to social contact. To put this in Hallidayan terms, I think we have to say that the ideational metafunction is "inward" with respect to the interpersonal one. We can easily construe representations and figures without interpersonal contact, but we can't exchange speaking roles. Similarly we can exchange commodities, goods and services, without construing inner representations of reality. That explains why the metafunctions are independent, also why they require a third to join them. "Thinking" is Halliday's ideational metafunction; "Speech" is his interpersonal metafunction. And of course the textual metafunction is represented in "Thinking and Speech" by the word "and". My wife is currently working on an article that tries to argue for a diachronic rather than a synchronic teaching of world literature. The idea is to show the diversity in unity of world literature in time rather than just in space. But the further back she goes towards the very origins of writing that Mike is talking about (cuneiform, counters) the more writing is concerned with exchanging goods and services and the less it is interested in what we would call ideation. Conversely, by the middle ages, everybody is interested in representing figures, and by our own time it is all about creating texts, whether they represent figures or not. So I guess that unlike you I would recognize not just diversity but development: development towards greater complexity, development towards greater diversity, development towards greater inclusiveness (we have fables AND stream of consciousness literature, but the Ancient Egyptians only had the former), development in generality (translatability) and development in abstraction. In one of his lectures, Vygotsky talks about the uniqueness of ontogenesis insofar as it involves confronting the END of development with the BEGINNING. That is also, of course, what the study of the history of literature must do. In my data, the development is microgenetic (I guess Halliday would call it logogenetic). "Hi" is essentially a matter of interpersonal contact, whle "I'm Mr. K" is, as you point out, ideation. Since this is dialogue, I guess "And you?" is about looking back to the information just given and forward to the next turn, and therefore has a textualizing function. It is the "and" in thinking and the "and" in speech. I thought I was pretty explicit about the context. I am talking about the practica that we do at the end of the term--I have to watch trainees teach and then offer comments. My own entry into the classroom is, or should be, a kind of model them (because I am a native speaker, but above all because I am the examiner, and a wise examinee will examine the examiner and try to do likewise). So I try to introduce myself in a way that I think will present a range of functions, and suggest a fairly small minimal unit for using them. But only some of the teachers manage to develop a rhythm: get attention, give information, check understanding, and I suspect that they have already developed this rhythm before they arrive in class. When Andy says that our whole discussion is just silly, all he really means is that his specific formulations of ideas are not the centre of it. But in defense of our grumpy philosopher, I should say that Andy is DOES recognize practical intelligence, but he recognizes it as something qualitative different from higher intellect (that is, thinking in concepts). So do I. And so, actually, does Vygotsky (Chapter TWO of Thinking and Speech, where Vygotsky describes childhood as a zigzagging from practical realism, to imaginative irrealism, to verbal realism). So yes--physical play, what Vygotsky calls "quasi-play", roughousing--all of these are good examples of "practical intelligence", but not necessarily verbalized intellect. The move into verbalized intellect is not a smooth one: we can see qualitative transformations in play, first from rote play (which nevertheless requires a kind of mental representation of the act in order to repeat it) to role play (which repeats the actor but not the act) to rule play (which varies actors according to fixed rules). Huw's objection, that the move from the one into the other requires no dialectical leap, is in direct contradiction to Vygotsky, and in fact directly contradicts the very Vygotsky text that he directs me too which insists on the distinctness as well as the linkedness of role play and rule play. (Elkonin is another matter; I think his idea of "leading activity" (as opposed to psychological function) is a neo-behavioristic retreat from Vygotsky.) But it also contradicts this, which is from the crucial paragraph break that divides the two sections of Thinking and Speech, Chapter One, in its original 1934 edition: ????? ???????, ??? ?????????????? ?????? ???????? ?? ?????? ????????? ?? ?????????? ??????? ? ????????, ?? ? ????????? ?? ???????? ? ?????, ?? ???? ????? ???????, ??? ???????? ???????? ???????????????? ? ???????? ??????????? ?????, ??? ???????????????? ????????. ??-????????, ???? ??? ????????? ?????????, ??? ??? ???????????? ??????? ??????? ? ???????? ? ??????? ???? ?????????? ????????? ????????????????. (When we say that the dialectical leap is not only the transition from nonthinking matter to sentient, but also the transition from sentience to thought, what we wish to say is that thinking reflects reality in consciousness in a qualitatively different way than unmediated sentience. Evidently, there is every foundation for assuming that this qualitative difference in units lies in the generalized reflection of reality.) David Kellogg Hankuk University of Foreign Studies On 23 July 2014 04:13, FRANCIS J. SULLIVAN wrote: > David, > > I have been, and still am, in the midst of teaching myself--now looking at > the first assignment completed. So, I have been away from the list. Wow! > I've just read through the other strand, realizing just how different this > way of thinking is from just about everything I do. I find it hard to > envision thought processes in language as "internal." To me they are always > part of a social exchange, conducted in a context that is constrained by > culture. So, I'm not sure I can answer your question, but I will try. > First. if you want to contrast the functions of the three "moves" in your > example, I would not begin with their grammatical form. It might make sense > to segment them into "information units" (Halliday's term); but, what seems > to me most important--and something whose absence in the thread on "fuzzy > things" just boggles my mind--is to construe the social context in which > the utterance takes place. As you know, each of the three > meta-functions--ideational, interpersonal, and textual--has its > corresponding element in the social context, namely, Field, Tenor, and > Mode. The first element seems especially relevant here. Halliday discusses > it in terms of the purpose, or cognitive activity, in which the text is > uttered. So, you walk into a classroom--for the first time??, midway into > the semester?--there would be differences in terms of analyzing the > "meaning" of the text. Still, I would say that in this context the > utterance "Hi, I'm Mr. K. And you?" addresses the "Interpersonal" element > primarily and secondarily the Mode. The Mode, or "genre," (there's a lot > of contention about where genre fits into SFL right now) is that of the > "Introduction," the interpersonal is informal and friendly, as suggested by > the use of contractions and periphrasis "And you." Very little of the > utterance would address Field, just "I'm Mr. K." > > So, it may sound as if I would agree with Andy. But, I don't. You and I do > agree that "thinking" is a more capacious term than what Andy allows. > Whether he is correct about Vygotsky's position, of course, I don't know. > It strikes me, however, that what Andy calls "thinking" is that kind of > discourse typically referred to as "academic." In fact, he sounds almost > like Levi-Strauss at times, distinguishing the "Savage" from the > "Civilized." I don't think he means to, but it is almost impossible to > escape it within the framework of a strictly developmental model that has a > clear final stage--and so little attention to context. Specifically, we > need to understand this development of "scientific conceptualizing" > socially *first*, before we begin to concern ourselves with what may, or > may not, be happening in somebody's neural net. In this, I follow Hymes and > Gumperz, who developed the term "ways of speaking." Academic discourse is > just that--a way of speaking--and one that is learned, as Vygotsky makes > clear, only in the context of certain kinds and levels of schooling. But we > cannot infer from that developmental process, I think, that such learning > transforms the learner in a strictly cognitive manner. For me, at least, > what development means here is a kind of socialization, the result of which > is that s/he internalizes those ways of speaking deemed appropriate by the > particular community to which s/he belongs. And, of course, one can belong > to multiple communities with different, and even conflicting ways of > speaking. > > I don't know if that helps you at all. It seems to me that, as distinct > from your point about Vygotsky's dialectical take on the relationship sign > and concept, Andy tends to conflate the two--erasing the hyphen instead of > working it. > > Francis J. Sullivan, Ph.D. > Associate Professor > Department of Teaching and Learning > College of Education > Temple University > Philadelphia, PA 19122 > > > Find out what any people will quietly submit to and you have the exact > measure of the injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them. > > Frederick Douglass > > > On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 5:51 PM, David Kellogg > wrote: > > > Francis: > > > > We just had about two weeks of "teaching practica". The terrified > trainees > > have to stand up and teach a fifteen minute lesson in front of peers > > masequerading as children and three rabid professors making negative > > comments. Not only is this not a very propitious environment in which to > > try out new things (or even demonstrate basic teaching skills), it's a > > really an opportunity made in hell for saying anything intelligent about > > teaching, which is, alas, my job. > > > > Here's what I wanted to ask you, since you have a background in > > systemic-functional grammar and CDA and above all because you seemed to > > imply in your last that you thought the very attempt to engage can be > > transformative (as opposed to demoralizing). I sometimes notice that the > > best teachers have a regular rhythm--getting attention, giving > information, > > and checking understanding. This rhythm is faster when the "kids" are > > learning something familiar and slower when the "kids" are on new > > territory, but it's always there. I would like to say that these three > > functions are related in some systematic way to imperatives, > declaratives, > > and interrogatives. But they are not, even when I take interpersonal > > metaphors (e.g. "May I have your attention please?") into account. What > do > > you think I am looking at here? > > > > Now, let me use this example to address some of what Huw and Andy have > been > > saying. I hope you'll see that the two threads are not quite as unrelated > > as the two different titles suggest. Suppose I walk into a classroom, > pick > > out some friendly eye contact, and I say "Hi! I'm Mr. K. And you?" As you > > can see, the first "Hi!" is an instance of getting attention. But it > isn't > > a figure of experience: it's a minor clause. "I'm Mr. K" is a major > clause, > > and "And you?" is an elliptical clause, parasitic on "I'm Mr. K" for most > > of its wording. So it seems to me that SOME functions (e.g. getting > > attention) are rather closer to figures of experience, while others are > > more concerned with social contact. All functions have to be both, but > they > > don't have to be the same proportions of both, and so development is, > > contrary to what Huw suggests, perfectly possible. Children do not leap > > metaphysically, but dialectically--by going from using language mostly to > > get attention (and largely without clause grammar) to using language to > > give information and eventually using it to check understanding. > > > > You can see that "Hi!" is a good example of the unity of behavior and > > consciousness that Andy is talking about. But by the time we get to > > checking understanding, the "behavior" element becomes pretty > irrelevant: I > > just don't see any way in which understanding can be described as > > "behavior" and we can still retain the key distinction between > > pseudoconceptual understanding and conceptual understanding. > > > > In Andy's first point, he argues that when children are not using word > > meanings to think (i.e. visiographical thinking, which plays a very > > important role in getting children's attention) they are not thinking. I > > prefer to think that they are thinking, but they are thinking using what > > Vygotsky (and Buhler and especially Kohler, who were certainly genetic > > psychologists) liked to call "practical intellect". It's intellect. But > > it's not verbal thinking. > > > > I'm not sure that I agree when Andy says, in his second point, that > labour > > is ALWAYS inadequate as a foundation for psychological inquiry--I imagine > > Helena Worthen finds it very useful. But I certainly agree with Andy that > > the revisionists (Leontiev, Zinchenko, Wertsch) took "labour" as > > paradigmatic, and as a result they had to deep-six Vygotsky's late ideas > > about the semantic structure of consciousness (that is, Vygotsky's idea > > that minds are made of word meanings, not action plans). Some of the > > revisionists did this reluctantly (Leontiev, at his best) but some of > them > > were quite strident (Zinchenko in particular). All of them considered > > Vygotsky an idealist. > > > > As I understand it, Huw DISAGREES with Andy and actually agrees with the > > revisionist critique of Vygotsky on the grounds that children are mostly > > preoccupied with action and not word meaning. That's all very true of > > course: but they are NOT really preoccupied with labour activity. Their > > preoccupations are with PLAY activity (Kim Yongho and I did a good study > of > > so-called "Task based teaching" that shows how children redefine tasks as > > role plays and games). Play activity is, as Vygotsky has shown us, > > genetically related to speech and not to labour. > > > > Andy's third point is that semantic actions (???) create intellectual > > structures in the mind. I don't know what a semantic action is; semantics > > for me is the process of making something stand for something else, but I > > don't see in what sense it helps to model this process as an "action". In > > many ways, it is precisely a non-action, because it includes > conditionality > > and interpretability, neither of which is usefully modeled as action. > > > > In any case, you and I, Francis, are Hallidayans. We know that ideation > is > > only a part of semantics (there is also the interpersonal and the textual > > metafunction), and that intellect is only a part of ideation (there is > the > > experiential as well as the logical metafunction). So there is no basis > > whatsoever for the charge of intellectualism (I think what Andy is really > > getting at is not intellectualism but objectivism). > > > > I agree with the Russians who say that "perezhivanie" is a well defined > > concept. But to me "well defined" means developmentally so: it means that > > the specific weight of the various components of "perezhivanie" have to > be > > allowed to change as we develop: so for young children "perezhivanie" is > > largely "felt experience", and for older children it is mostly "thought > > over--contemplated--experience". I don't see that thinking over is mostly > > an intellectual exercise though--I always feel, even in these exchanges > on > > xmca, that there is a certain emotional component which makes us respond, > > sometimes before we really even think things out. > > > > David Kellogg > > Hankuk University of Foreign Studies > > > > > > > > > > On 16 July 2014 04:39, FRANCIS J. SULLIVAN wrote: > > > > > With great trepidation, I want to enter this conversation with my first > > > post to the list (I have followed it for about a year now) because as > > both > > > a researcher and teacher educator the issues raised are major concerns > > of > > > mine too. I find, I think it was David's point, the idea that we can > > think > > > of the "connections" problem in two ways to be at the heart of the > issue, > > > at least for me. It is one thing to construct a connection that "adds > to" > > > the existing knowledge framework of others. But, it is a very different > > > thing to sea5rch for a "connection" that requires others to > qualitatively > > > change, or even abandon, their existing framework. Helen seems to > achieve > > > such a connection with at least some of her teachers by helping them to > > > re-cognize their own social identities so that the new knowledge and > > > framework became less threatening and more inviting. She reconnected > them > > > with who they used to be and what they valued. So they did not see > > > themselves as merely "ignorant" but more like retracing their steps. > > > For me, at least, that's why the "deficit" models of teaching (or > > research) > > > practices do not work. We--teachers and students--need to find a place > > from > > > which we can begin this journey together, common ground so to speak. > > While > > > a deaf person may not "know" English, I don't think that's the salient > > > point. All of us don't know things. What seems to me salient in Helen's > > > attempt to find connections, is that the very attempt challenged their > > > current ways of framing their professional lives. What we might think > of > > as > > > "ignorance," those teachers thought of as "knowledge." And that > > "knowledge" > > > was part and parcel of the ways they positioned themselves as teachers > in > > > relation to students. > > > I am tempted to put this into discourse analysis terms--I'm a > > > semi-Hallidayan with a critical theory twist. But, I've said enough > for a > > > first post, I think. I hope it is useful. > > > > > > Francis J. Sullivan, Ph.D. > > > Associate Professor > > > Department of Teaching and Learning > > > College of Education > > > Temple University > > > Philadelphia, PA 19122 > > > > > > > > > Find out what any people will quietly submit to and you have the exact > > > measure of the injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them. > > > > > > Frederick Douglass > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 2:10 AM, David Kellogg > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Well, I do hope that Helen means that "for the moment", as I have > > learned > > > > an awful lot from this book and even more from this discussion. You > > see, > > > I > > > > am trying to tease apart two very different processes that appear, on > > the > > > > face of it, to be almost identical, but which also appear to have > > > > diametrically opposite developmental effects. > > > > > > > > One process is the process of getting people to feel at ease, > > > > confident, and happy that they understand what you are saying because > > it > > > is > > > > actually something that is identical or at least very similar to what > > > they > > > > already think. Another, almost identical, process is the process of > > > > "establishing ties" between a new form of knowledge and an earlier > one. > > > > BOTH of these processes, it seems to me, occur throughout Helen's > book, > > > and > > > > it is easy to mistake the one for the other. BOTH of these processes, > > to > > > > use our earlier terminology, involve "establishing ties", but only > one > > of > > > > them also involves breaking away. > > > > > > > > For example, at one point in the book Helen, looking back over the > > > Banksia > > > > Bay PLZ data, rounds on herself for using a transparent piece of > > > > scaffolding to elicit the word "communicate" from a group of > teachers. > > > What > > > > bothers her is not that the answer itself is far too general to be of > > any > > > > practical value to the teachers, but only that she had it very firmly > > in > > > > mind, and kept badgering the teachers (as we all do, when we have a > > > precise > > > > answer in mind) until she got it. The alternative, she points out, > > would > > > be > > > > to take what she got and work with that. > > > > > > > > Yes indeed. But I think the main reason that would have been more > > > > interesting is not that it would have resulted in fewer rejections of > > > > teacher answers and made people more at ease, confdent, and happy > that > > > they > > > > understood, but rather than it would have yielded something more > like a > > > > concrete but unconscious and not yet volitionally controlled example > of > > > > excellence from the teacher's own practice. I almost always find that > > the > > > > actual answers I want--the "methods" I end up imparting to my own > > > teachers, > > > > are already present in the data they bring me (because we almost > always > > > > begin with actual transcripts of their lessons) but they are > generally > > > not > > > > methods but only moments, and moments that go unnoticed and therefore > > > > ungeneralized in the hurly burly of actual teaching. > > > > > > > > Last winter, Helen and I were at a conference in New Zealand where, > > among > > > > other eventful episodes, Craig Brandist got up and gave a very > precise > > > list > > > > of half a dozen different and utterly contradictory ways in which > > Bakhtin > > > > uses the term "dialogue". Because the senses of "dialogue" are so > many > > > and > > > > varied, people simply pick and choose, and they tend invariably to > > choose > > > > the ones that are closest to the way they already think. It is as > > moments > > > > like this that we need to remind ourselves that Bakhtin's "dialogue" > > does > > > > not, for the most part, ever include children, or women; that he did > > not > > > > "dialogue" with Volosinov or Medvedev when he allowed his acolytes > > > > to plunder their corpses, and that his love of carnival and the > public > > > > marketplace does not extend to a belief in any form of political > > > democracy. > > > > > > > > So I think we should start off with an understanding that what > Vygotsky > > > > says about defect is not the same was what we now believe. Vygotsky, > > for > > > > example, believed that sign language was not true language, and that > > even > > > > the congenitally deaf should be taught to lip read; this is simply > > > > wrong. (On the other hand, what he says about spontaneously created > > sign > > > > languages--that they are essentially elaborated systems of gesture > and > > > they > > > > lack the signifying functions--fits exactly with Susan > Goldin-Meadow's > > > > observations in Chicago.) > > > > > > > > And one reason I think it is important to begin with this > understanding > > > is > > > > this: sometimes--usually--LSV is right and we are wrong. In > > particular, I > > > > think the "credit" view of defect, or, for that matter, ignorance of > > any > > > > kind and not fully conscious teacher expertise risks becoming a > liberal > > > > platitude--the cup is always half full, so why not look on the bright > > > side > > > > of dearth? I certainly do not feel empowered by the fact that I know > > > > English but I do not know ASL, and I rather doubt that deaf people > feel > > > > empowered by the opposite state of affairs. When I don't know > > something, > > > I > > > > do not see any bright side of not knowing it, for the very simple > > > > reason that I can't see at all. > > > > > > > > Vygotsky was probably very influenced by "Iolanta", an opera that > > > > Tchaikovsky wrote--he certainly seems to quote it extensively in the > > last > > > > chapter of "Thinking and Speech". In "Iolanta", King Renee copes with > > the > > > > blindness of his daughter by having her shut up in a garden and > > > forbidding > > > > all his subjects from discussing light, sight, color or anything > > visible > > > in > > > > any way. Vaudemont, a knight of Burgundy, blunders into the garden, > > > > discovers Iolanta's secret. Iolanta convinces him that sight is > > > > unnecessary, but in the course of doing so, she develops the desire > to > > > see > > > > and choose for herself. > > > > > > > > David Kelogg > > > > Hankuk University of Foreign Studies > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 15 July 2014 11:12, Andy Blunden wrote: > > > > > > > > > My reading of Vygotsky on 'defectology' was that the 'defect' was > the > > > > > problem in social relations, that is, the person who is different > in > > > some > > > > > way suffers because of the way that difference is treated or not > > > treated > > > > by > > > > > others, not for anything in itself. One and the same feature could > > be a > > > > > great benefit or a fatal flaw, depending on how others react to it. > > > > > Except insofar as introducing the idea of a "credit view" is a move > > > aimed > > > > > at changing the perceptions and behaviours of others in relation to > > the > > > > > subject, I don't think Vygotsky is an advocate of the mirror image > > of a > > > > > deficit view. As I see it, he analyses the problem of the person > > being > > > > > treated as deficient by means of the unit of *defect-compensation*. > > The > > > > > defect (a problem arising in social interaction, with others) > > generates > > > > > certain challenges which are overcome, generally also in > interaction > > > with > > > > > others. This "compensation" leads to what Helen could call a > "credit" > > > and > > > > > it is the dynamic set up between the social defect and social > > > > compensation > > > > > which shapes the subject's psychology and their relation to others. > > > > > Andy > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > *Andy Blunden* > > > > > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Helen Grimmett wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> I think what is unique about Vygotsky's work in defectology is > that, > > > > >> despite the name, it is not a deficit view (in the way that I > > > understand > > > > >> the term) at all. > > > > >> > > > > >> I understand the commonly used term 'deficit view' as a focus on > > what > > > > >> children are 'missing' that needs to be provided to them by > teachers > > > to > > > > >> bring them up to a pre-conceived idea of 'normal' for their > > age/grade > > > > >> level > > > > >> etc. Whereas, a 'credit view' focuses on what children are able to > > do > > > > and > > > > >> bring to a learning situation, in which, in the interaction with > > > others, > > > > >> they will be able to become more able to do and 'be' more than > they > > > were > > > > >> before (i.e. to develop), whether this be in the 'expected' ways > to > > > the > > > > >> 'expected' level or in completely different ways to a variety of > > > > different > > > > >> levels beyond or outside 'standard' expectations. From the little > I > > > have > > > > >> read on defectology I think this is what Vygotsky was advocating - > > > that > > > > >> despite a child's blindness or deafness etc, development was still > > > > >> possible > > > > >> if mediational means were found that made use of the child's > credits > > > > (i.e. > > > > >> using sign language or braille so that children still had access > to > > > the > > > > >> developmental opportunities provided by language). So I think your > > > term > > > > >> pre-abled is in fact a credit view rather than a deficit view. > > > > >> > > > > >> I was attempting to also use a credit view in my work with the > > > > teachers. I > > > > >> saw them as being experienced practitioners who had lots to bring > to > > > our > > > > >> discussions of teaching and learning, in which together we could > see > > > > what > > > > >> could be developed (new practices, new understandings). Once Kay > and > > > > Mike > > > > >> realised this they got on board and engaged in the process and > > > (possibly > > > > >> for the first time in a long while as they both saw themselves > [and > > in > > > > >> fact > > > > >> are officially designated as] 'expert teachers') really reawakened > > the > > > > >> process of developing as professionals. They blew off most of the > > > > content > > > > >> I > > > > >> was contributing, but they realised the process was actually about > > > > >> 'unsticking' their own development and working out new and > > personally > > > > >> interesting and meaningful ways of 'becoming' more as teachers, > > > instead > > > > of > > > > >> being stuck 'being' the teacher they had turned into over the > years. > > > Not > > > > >> all of the teachers made this leap in the time I worked with them > > > > though. > > > > >> Others were either quite disgruntled that I wouldn't provide them > > with > > > > >> answers to 'fix' their own perceived deficits or patiently waited > > for > > > me > > > > >> to > > > > >> go away and stop rocking the boat. From what I can gather though, > > Ann > > > > (the > > > > >> principal) kept the boat rocking and managed over time to get more > > > > >> teachers > > > > >> to buy into the process of learning from each other and > > > collaboratively > > > > >> creating new practices. As we said earlier, development takes time > > as > > > > well > > > > >> as effort. > > > > >> > > > > >> All I've got time for at the moment! > > > > >> > > > > >> Helen > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> Dr Helen Grimmett > > > > >> Lecturer, Student Adviser, > > > > >> Faculty of Education, > > > > >> Room G64F, Building 902 > > > > >> Monash University, Berwick campus > > > > >> Phone: 9904 7171 > > > > >> > > > > >> *New Book: * > > > > >> The Practice of Teachers' Professional Development: A > > > > Cultural-Historical > > > > >> Approach > > > > >> > > > >> professional-learning-1/the-practice-of-teachers- > > > > >> professional-development/> > > > > >> Helen Grimmett (2014) Sense Publishers > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> source=staff-email&utm_medium=email-signature&utm_campaign=50th> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> On 14 July 2014 14:43, David Kellogg > wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >>> Near the end of Chapter Three (p. 81), Helen is summing up her > > > > experience > > > > >>> with the Banksia Bay PLZ and she notes with some dismay that her > > > PDers > > > > >>> have > > > > >>> "a deficit view" of their children and tend towards "container > > > models" > > > > of > > > > >>> the mind ("empty vessel, sponge, blank canvas"). Only one > teacher, > > > Ann > > > > >>> sees > > > > >>> anything wrong with this, and Helen says "they don't necessarily > > > value > > > > >>> her > > > > >>> opinion". > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Helen finds herself rather conflicted: One the one hand, she > says > > > "If > > > > >>> their representations of children really do represent their > > beliefs, > > > > then > > > > >>> they are probably right to insist there is no need to change." > And > > on > > > > the > > > > >>> other, she says "My intention was never to say that their present > > > > >>> practice > > > > >>> was wrong, but to help them see alternative ways of thinking > about > > > > >>> children, learning, and teaching." > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Of course, if there is no need to change, then it follows that > > there > > > is > > > > >>> no > > > > >>> reason to look for alternative ways of thinking about children, > > > > learning > > > > >>> and teaching. The only reason for spending scarce cognitive > > resources > > > > on > > > > >>> seeing different ways of looking at children is if you do, in > fact, > > > > take > > > > >>> a > > > > >>> deficit view of the teachers. Ann, and the Regional Consultants, > > > > >>> apparently > > > > >>> do, but Helen realizes that there isn't much basis for this: not > > only > > > > do > > > > >>> we > > > > >>> have no actual data of lessons to look at, we know that one of > the > > > > >>> teachers, Kay, has been in the classroom for three decades > (during > > > > which > > > > >>> time Helen has spent at least one decade OUT of the classroom). > > > > >>> > > > > >>> While we were translating Vygotsky's "History of the Development > of > > > the > > > > >>> Higher Psychological Functions" last year, some of my colleagues > > were > > > > >>> taken > > > > >>> aback by Vygotsky's use of terms like "moron", "imbecile", > "idiot", > > > and > > > > >>> "cretin". Of course, Vygotsky is writing long before the > > "euphemisim > > > > >>> treadmill" turned these into playground insults; for Vygotsky > they > > > are > > > > >>> quite precise descriptors--not of cognitive ability but actually > of > > > > >>> LANGUAGE ability. But because our readership are progressive > Korean > > > > >>> teachers with strong views about these questions, we found that > we > > > > >>> couldn't > > > > >>> even use the term "mentally retarded" without a strongly worded > > > > footnote > > > > >>> disavowing the "deficit" thinking behind the term. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> I think that Vygotsky would have been surprised by this. I think > he > > > > took > > > > >>> it > > > > >>> for granted that a defect was a deficit: being blind means a > > deficit > > > in > > > > >>> vision, and being deaf means a deficit in hearing. In the same > > way, a > > > > >>> brain > > > > >>> defect is not an asset. On the other hand, I think Vygotsky would > > > find > > > > >>> our > > > > >>> own term "disabled" quite inaccurate: since all forms of > > development > > > > are > > > > >>> compensatory and involve "circuitous routes" of one kind or > > another, > > > > and > > > > >>> all developed children, even, and even especially, gifted > children, > > > > >>> contain > > > > >>> islands of underdevelopment, the correct term for deficits of all > > > kinds > > > > >>> is > > > > >>> not "disabled" but "pre-abled". > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Personally, I see nothing wrong with a deficit view of children > > that > > > > sees > > > > >>> them as pre-abled (or, as Vygotsky liked to say, 'primitivist"; > > that > > > > is, > > > > >>> they are waiting for the mediational means that we have foolishly > > > > >>> developed > > > > >>> only for the psychophysiologically most common types to catch up > > with > > > > the > > > > >>> actual variation in real children. I suspect this view is > actually > > > > quite > > > > >>> a > > > > >>> bit closer to what Kay thinks than to what Helen thinks. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> David Kellogg > > > > >>> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> On 13 July 2014 10:59, Helen Grimmett > > > > > wrote: > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> Hi David, > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> Interesting question. I absolutely think that development AS a > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>> professional > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> is necessary, just as development as a human is necessary, so if > > > > >>>> professional development is seen as the practice in which this > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>> development > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> is produced then absolutely I do think it is necessary. The form > > > that > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>> this > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> practice takes though, and indeed the form of the development > that > > > is > > > > >>>> produced within this practice, are the things open to question > > > > however. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> I definitely think that a teacher's development as a > professional > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>> includes > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> the need to understand their practice better rather than just > > change > > > > it, > > > > >>>> but I think that understanding often develops best > > in/alongside/with > > > > the > > > > >>>> process of changing (and vice versa) rather than separately from > > it, > > > > >>>> and, > > > > >>>> as you point out above, in establishing ties *between* people > and > > > then > > > > >>>> within them. So a practice of professional development that > > creates > > > > >>>> conditions which support this type of development will (I > believe) > > > be > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>> much > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> more effective than traditional forms of PD that either attempt > to > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>> lecture > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> about theoretical principles but do not support teachers to > > transfer > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>> these > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> into practical changes, OR provide teachers with practical > > programs > > > > and > > > > >>>> expect them to implement them without any understanding of what > > and > > > > why > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>> the > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> changes matter. I think the term "Professional Development" is > an > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>> absolute > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> misnomer for either of those typical approaches. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> So again, I have a problem with names! I'm talking about > > > Professional > > > > >>>> Development with a completely different meaning than what most > of > > > the > > > > >>>> education community believe it to mean when they talk about > > > attending > > > > PD > > > > >>>> seminars or workshops. I toyed with trying to find a different > > name > > > > for > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>> the > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> particular meaning I'm talking about, but when you are talking > > about > > > > >>>> development from a cultural-historical theoretical perspective > > then > > > > >>>> there > > > > >>>> really is no other word to use! That's why I stuck to using > > > > >>>> 'professional > > > > >>>> development' (in full) when I meant my meaning, and PD (which is > > > what > > > > >>>> teachers in Australia commonly refer to seminars and workshops > as) > > > > when > > > > >>>> I > > > > >>>> refer to the typical (and in my view, usually non-developmental) > > > forms > > > > >>>> of > > > > >>>> activities that teachers are subjected to each year. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> So, I agree that the need for PD is questionable, but the need > for > > > > >>>> practices of professional development that help teachers to > > develop > > > as > > > > >>>> professionals (that is, to develop a unified understanding of > both > > > the > > > > >>>> theoretical and practical aspects of their work, which is itself > > > > >>>> continually developing in order to meet the changing needs of > > their > > > > >>>> students, schools and society) is essential. While I think > > > co-teaching > > > > >>>> is > > > > >>>> one practical small-scale solution, working out viable, > > economical, > > > > and > > > > >>>> manageable ways to create these practices on a large-scale is a > > very > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>> large > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> problem. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> Cheers, > > > > >>>> Helen > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> Dr Helen Grimmett > > > > >>>> Lecturer, Student Adviser, > > > > >>>> Faculty of Education, > > > > >>>> Room G64F, Building 902 > > > > >>>> Monash University, Berwick campus > > > > >>>> Phone: 9904 7171 > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> *New Book: * > > > > >>>> The Practice of Teachers' Professional Development: A > > > > >>>> Cultural-Historical > > > > >>>> Approach > > > > >>>> < > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>> https://www.sensepublishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/ > > > > >>> professional-learning-1/the-practice-of-teachers- > > > > >>> professional-development/ > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> Helen Grimmett (2014) Sense Publishers > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> < > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>> http://monash.edu.au/education/news/50-years/?utm_ > > > > >>> source=staff-email&utm_medium=email-signature&utm_campaign=50th > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> On 13 July 2014 08:57, David Kellogg > > wrote: > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> Helen: > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> Good to hear from you at long last--I knew you were lurking out > > > there > > > > >>>>> somewhere! > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> I didn't actually write the line about "establishing > ties"--it's > > > from > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>> "The > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> Little Prince". The prince asks what "tame" means, and the fox > > > > replies > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>> that > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> it means "to establish ties". But of course what I meant was > that > > > > ties > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>> are > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> established first between people and then within them; the ties > > of > > > > >>>>> development are interfunctional ties that make up a new > > > psychological > > > > >>>>> system. (Or, for Halliday, they are the inter-systemic ties > that > > > make > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>> up > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> new metafunctions.) > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> As you say, Yrjo Engestrom chooses to emphasize another aspect > of > > > > >>>>> development with "breaking away"--he wants to stress its > > > > crisis-ridden > > > > >>>>> nature. I agree with this, actually, but mostly I agree with > you, > > > > that > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>> we > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> are talking about two moments of the same process. To me, > breaking > > > > away > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>> is > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> really a precondition of the real business of establishing > ties. > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> Thomas Piketty makes a similar point in his book "Capital in > the > > > > >>>>> Twenty-first Century". He admits that war and revolution is the > > > only > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>> thing > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> that EVER counteracts the tendency of returns from capital to > > > > outstrip > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>> the > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> growth in income, and that the 20th Century was an outlier in > > this > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>> respect, > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> and the Russian revolution an extreme outlier within that > > outlier. > > > > But > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>> he > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> also says that in the long run the one thing that makes UPWARD > > > > mobility > > > > >>>>> possible is education. Despite everything, because of > everything. > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> I finished the book a few days ago. I guess the thing I most > want > > > to > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>> ask > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> about is the assumption that professional development is > necessary > > > at > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>> all. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> Doesn't it make more sense to say that before we change what we > > are > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>> doing, > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> we should understand it better? > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> David Kellogg > > > > >>>>> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> On 12 July 2014 13:20, Helen Grimmett < > helen.grimmett@monash.edu > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>> wrote: > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> Ah, I think you have hit the nail on the head David. It is > indeed > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>> TIME > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> that > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>>> is so crucial - not only duration of time, but also location > of > > > time > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>> (which > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>>> I suppose is really context). > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> The problems I had with Mike and his colleagues about the > > > > terminology > > > > >>>>>> stemmed partly from the typical Aussie disdain for using words > > > that > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>> might > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> make your mates think you are trying to appear 'better' than > > them, > > > so > > > > >>>>>> therefore you mock anything that sounds too serious or > > > intellectual. > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>> But > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> beyond this surface level of complaining the problems Huw and > you > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>> have > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> been > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>>> discussing boil down to problems with time. > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> Huw's complaint about my use of the heading "Features of > > > > >>>>>> Cultural-Historical Learning Activities" is well justified - > but > > > it > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>> was > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> really just a shorthand written version of what I was verbally > > > asking > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>> for > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> as "What might be some particular features of learning > activities > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>> that > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> would align with principles of Cultural-Historical Theory?" That > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>> would > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> have > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>>> taken too long to write on the top of the piece of paper - and > > of > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>> course > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> time is always too short in any after-school PD so shortcuts > are > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>> inevitably > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>>> taken. (Time problem #1) > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> Time problem #2, which your discussion has highlighted for me, > > is > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>> that > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> of > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> course my question was really "What might be some particular > > > features > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>> of > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> learning activities that would align with THE LIMITED NUMBER OF > > > (AND > > > > >>>>>> LIMITED UNDERSTANDING OF) principles of Cultural-Historical > > Theory > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>> THAT > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> YOU > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>>> HAVE BEEN INTRODUCED TO SO FAR?" so I really should have not > > been > > > so > > > > >>>>>> surprised that they would find the brainstorming activity > > > difficult > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>> and > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> resort to diversionary tactics! (Mike's outburst posted here by > > > David > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>> was > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> not the only eventful moment I write about from this one > > activity. > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>> But > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> these apparent failures actually provided much more interesting > > data > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>> for > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> me > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>>> and eventually lead me to several key findings in my thesis). > I > > > had > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>> spent > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> several years by this stage reading and discussing Vygotsky and > > > yet I > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>> had > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> assumed/hoped the teachers would have enough understanding from > > my > > > > >>>>>> (probably not very good) explanations ABOUT theory over the > > > previous > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>> 3 > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> short sessions I had had with them to be able to contribute > > answers > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>> to > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> my > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> brainstorm question. They had not had enough TIME to become > > > familiar > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>> with > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> enough of the theory to make much sense of it yet - but still, > we > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>> have > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> to > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> start somewhere and this was still early days. > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> Time problem #3 brings in what I called above the location of > > > time. > > > > I > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>> had > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> never intended for the sessions to be me giving after-school > > > lectures > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>> about > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>>> either theory or practice, yet this is what the teachers > seemed > > to > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>> expect > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> from me (and even demand from me) and were pretty disgruntled > > when > > > I > > > > >>>>>> wouldn't/couldn't deliver. My intention was always to get them > > to > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>> engage > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> with the relationship between THEORY and PRACTICE, just as > > David's > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>> comic > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> book discusses the relationship between THINKING and SPEECH or > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>> EMOTION > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> and > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>>> COGNITION. My problem of course was that once we were in an > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>> after-school > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> meeting we were removed in both time and space from where > theory > > > and > > > > >>>>>> practice of teaching/learning operate as a relation (i.e. the > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>> classroom > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> activity). I was actually trying to create/use our own PLZ > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>> (Professional > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> Learning ZPD) as the activity in which to develop and > understand > > > this > > > > >>>>>> relationship but it was initially very hard to get the > teachers > > to > > > > >>>>>> understand this (at least until we had enough of David's Fox's > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>> socially > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> shared experiences for the meanings to become communicable) and > > then > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>> even > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> more difficult to get them to transfer this back to developing > > > their > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>> own > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> classroom teaching. Ironically, despite being the loudest > > > complainers > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>> and > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> disparagers, it was Mike and Kay (the protagonist of my other > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>> eventful > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> moment in the brainstorming session) who actually ended up > making > > > the > > > > >>>>>> biggest changes in their classroom practice. Perhaps this is > not > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>> really > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> surprising at all - they were the ones who obviously engaged and > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>> argued > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> with the ideas and activities rather than simply endured them! > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> My eventual answer to the problems encountered in my work with > > the > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>> group > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> of > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>>> teachers was to work WITH a teacher IN her own classroom so > that > > > we > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>> had > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> shared experiences of the relationship between theory and > practice > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>> which > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> could not only be discussed after the events, but also actually > > > acted > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>> upon > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>>> there and then IN the event - creating what I called "Situated > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>> Conscious > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> Awareness" of both the theoretical and practical aspects of the > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>> concepts > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> of > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>>> teaching/learning and development we were developing > > understanding > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>> and > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> practice of together. But perhaps I should wait until David gets > > up > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>> to > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> this > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>>> part of the book before I say more! > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> Finally, one other point that really caught my attention in > your > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>> comic > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> book > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>>> David is that your prince calls development "to establish > ties" > > > > which > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>> is > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> an > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>>> interesting difference to Engestrom's definition as "breaking > > > away". > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>> But > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> perhaps, as always in CH theory, it is not a matter of > either/or > > > but > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>> in > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> fact both/and ideas that are necessary. From what I learned in > my > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>> study, > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> teachers' development as professionals is definitely BOTH about > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>> breaking > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> away from old, routinised understandings and practices AND > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>> establishing > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> new > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>>> connections between and amongst theoretical concepts and > > > practices, > > > > >>>>>> enabling them to continually develop new competences and > motives > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>> across > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> all > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>>> of their professional duties. > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> Thanks for your interest in my book David. The discussion it > has > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>> sparked > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> has helped me revisit ideas from new perspectives. > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> Cheers, > > > > >>>>>> Helen > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> Dr Helen Grimmett > > > > >>>>>> Lecturer, Student Adviser, > > > > >>>>>> Faculty of Education, > > > > >>>>>> Room G64F, Building 902 > > > > >>>>>> Monash University, Berwick campus > > > > >>>>>> Phone: 9904 7171 > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> *New Book: * > > > > >>>>>> The Practice of Teachers' Professional Development: A > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>> Cultural-Historical > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> Approach > > > > >>>>>> < > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>> https://www.sensepublishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/ > > > > >>> professional-learning-1/the-practice-of-teachers- > > > > >>> professional-development/ > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> Helen Grimmett (2014) Sense Publishers > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> < > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>> http://monash.edu.au/education/news/50-years/?utm_ > > > > >>> source=staff-email&utm_medium=email-signature&utm_campaign=50th > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> On 12 July 2014 07:29, David Kellogg > > wrote: > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> Plekhanov distinguishes between "agitators" and > > "propagandists". > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> Agitators > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> are essentially popularizers; they have the job of ripping > > away a > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> subset > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>>> of > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> smaller and simpler ideas from a fabric of much larger and > more > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> complex > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> theory and then disseminating them amongst the largest possible > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> number > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> of > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>>> people. In other words, their focus is exoteric. Propagandists > > are > > > > >>>>>>> essentially conspiratorial: they have the job of initiating a > > > small > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> number > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> of the elect and educating them in the whole theoretical > > > system--as > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> Larry > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>>> would say, the full Bildung. In other words, their focus is > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> esoteric. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> As > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>>> you can see, Plekhanov was good at making distinctions, and > not > > so > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> good > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> at > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> showing how things are linked. For Helena, who is a labor > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> educator, > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> you > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>>> can't really be an effective agitator unless you are also a > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> propagandist. > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>>> You need to present your exoteric extracts in such a way that > > they > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> are, > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> to > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> borrow Larry's phrase, both necessary and sufficient to lead > > > people > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> on > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> to > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>>> the esoterica. I'm with Helena--and with Bruner--with children > > > it's > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> always > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> possible to tell the truth, part of the truth, but nothing > but > > > the > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> truth, > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>>> and if we can do it with kids, why not do it with adults? > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> (I am less sure about what it means to say that the > objectively > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> human > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> is > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>>> the "subjectively historical"--it sounds like history is being > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> reified > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> as a > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> subject, that is, as a living, breathing, acting "World > Spirit" > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> that > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> can > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>>> have a mind and reflect upon itself. My understanding of > history > > > is > > > > >>>>>>> that just as we cannot have the advanced form of historical > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> consciousness > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>>> in dialogue with the more primitive forms, the opportunity to > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> reflect > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> upon > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> the whole process when it is all over is simply never going > to > > be > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> available > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> to anyone. The Merleau-Ponty quotation is beautiful and > > intensely > > > > >>>>>>> poetic, Larry--but when I look at a bubble or a wave, I do > not > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> simply > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> see > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>>> chaos; I see past bubbles and past waves, and potential > bubbles > > > and > > > > >>>>>>> potential waves. Isn't that a part of the experience of > "loving > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> history" > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>>> as > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> well?) > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> My wife wrote a wonderful Ph.D. thesis about how any work of > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> literature > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> can > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> be looked at on four time frames: phylogenetic (the history > of > > a > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> genre), > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>>> ontogenetic (the biography of a career), logogenetic (the > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> development > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> of > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>>> a > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> plot or a character), and microgenetic (the unfolding of a > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> dialogue, > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> or a > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>>> paragraph). Her supervisor complained about the terminology in > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> somewhat > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> more elegant terms than Mike does in Helen's data:and suggested > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> that > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> she > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>>> should replace the terms with "history", "biography", > > > "development" > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> and > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> "unfolding", to make it more exoteric. > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> I think that if she had done that, it would have made the > > thesis > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> into > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> agitation rather than education. Yes, the terms would have been > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> more > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> familiar, and they might even, given other context, be taken to > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> mean > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> the > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>>> same thing. But what we would have gotten is good, clear > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> distinctions > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> ("history" on the one hand and "biography" on the other) and > what > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> we > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> would > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> have lost is the linkedness of one time frame to another--the > > way > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> in > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> which > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> the phylogenesis of genre produces the mature genre which is > > used > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> in > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> an > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> author's ontegenesis, and the way in which the author's > > ontogenesis > > > > >>>>>>> produces the starting point and the raw materials for the > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> logogenetic > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> development of a work, not to mention the way in which > logogenesis > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> is > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> reflected in the microgenetic unfolding of dialogue. > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> So I think that when Helena writes that anything can be > > explained > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> to > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> anyone > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> in language that is everyday and simple and in a way that is > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> understandable > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> and at least part of the whole truth, I agree somewhat > > enviously > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> (you > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> see, > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> Helena is a labor educator, but I teach TESOL, which is > really > > > the > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> process > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> of taking a few very simple and exoteric ideas that good > > teachers > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> already > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>>> have and disseminating the select to the elect for vast sums > of > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> money). > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> But > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> I have to add a rider--when we popularize richly woven > fabrics > > of > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> ideas > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> like cultural historical theory we are not simply juggling > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> vocabulary. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> I > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>>> think that Helena recognizes this perfectly when she says that > > it > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> takes > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> TIME to be simple and clear. If it were simply a matter of > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> replacing > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> "cultural historical" with "community of learners" it would > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> actually > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> take > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>>> less time, but it isn't and it doesn't. > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> It is very hot in Seoul today, and somewhere out there a > > toddler > > > is > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> arguing > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> with a parent because he wants watermelon with breakfast. The > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> parent > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> resists, because if you eat cold watermelon on an empty stomach > > you > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> get a > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>>> tummy-ache. The argument grows heated and long--and complex, > but > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> the > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> complexity is of a particular kind, with very short, repeated, > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> insistancies > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> from the child and somewhat longer more complex > remonstrations > > > from > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> the > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> parent. We can call this complex discourse but simple grammar. > A > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> few > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> years > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> will go by and we will find that the school child has > mastered > > > the > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> trick > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>>> of > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> long and complex remonstrations and can use them > pre-emptively > > to > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> win > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> arguments. We can call this complex grammar, but simple > > vocabulary. > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> Only > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>>> when a decade or two has elapsed will we find that child, now > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> adult, > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> can > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>>> use the language of science, which is for the most part > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> grammatically > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> simple (at least compared to the pre-emptive remonstrations of > the > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> school > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>>> child), but full of very complex vocabulary (e.g. "phylogeny > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> anticipates > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>>> ontogeny", or "cultural-historical activity theory enables > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> communities > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> of > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>>> learners"). > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> It's Saturday today, and in a few minutes I have to leave for > > the > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> weekly > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>>> meeting of our translation group, which produces mighty tomes > > > which > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> we > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> produce to popularize the works of Vygotsky amongst militant > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> teachers > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> here > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> in Korea (our version of "Thinking and Speech" is seven > hundred > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> pages > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> long > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> because of all the explanatory notes and boxes with helpful > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> pictures). > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> On > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>>> the other hand, there is the attached comic book version of > the > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> first > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> chapter of "Thinking and Speech" which I wrote a couple of years > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> ago > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> for > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>>> some graduate students who were having trouble talking about > the > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> real > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> "Thinking and Speech" in class. > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> I think you can see that Huw's complaint is justified--the > > comic > > > > >>>>>>> book dialogue is "about" Thinking and Speech, but it is not > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> "Thinking > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> and > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>>> Speech" at all, in the same way that "community of learners" > or > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> "biography" > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> is ABOUT cultural historical theory or ontogenesis. And I > think > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> that > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> part > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>>> of the problem (but only part of it) is that the comic book is > > > just > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> too > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> short. > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> David Kellogg > > > > >>>>>>> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> 2014-07-11 17:09 GMT+09:00 Leif Strandberg < > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> leifstrandberg.ab@telia.com > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>>> : > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> 11 jul 2014 kl. 06:41 skrev Larry Purss < > lpscholar2@gmail.com > > >: > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> David, > > > > >>>>>>>>> I have been following your reflections through this thread. > > > > >>>>>>>>> You commented: > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> So it's almost always more useful for me to > > > > >>>>>>>>> think of learning phenomena as NOT reducible to the > physical, > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> at > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> least > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> not > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> in their unit of analysis > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> I have been reflecting on the notion of *bildung* as > > learning. > > > > >>>>>>>>> The notion of *cultivation* and *disposition* and > > *comportment* > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> as > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> the > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> potential of learning. > > > > >>>>>>>>> I came across this quote from Gramsci who was questioning > the > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> notion > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>>> of > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> *laws* as the basis for making social predictions. Such > *laws* > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> excluded > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> the > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> subjective factor from history. > > > > >>>>>>>>> Gramsci wrote on social process: "Objective always means > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> 'humanly > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> objective' which can be held to correspond exactly to > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> 'historically > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> subjective' " > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> Merleau-Ponty also explored what I refer to as > *disposition* > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> with > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> this > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> quote on the reality of history: > > > > >>>>>>>>> History "awakens us to the importance of daily events and > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> action. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> For > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>>> it > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> is > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> a philosophy [of history -LP] which arouses in us a love > for > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> our > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> times > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> which are not the simple repetition of human eternity nor > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> merely > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> the > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>>> conclusion of premises already postulated. It is a view that > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> like > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> the > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>>> most > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> fragile object of perception - a soap bubble, or a wave - > or > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> like > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> the > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>>> most > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> simple dialogue, embraces indivisibly all the order and all > > the > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> disorder > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> of > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> the world." > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > From huw.softdesigns@gmail.com Wed Jul 23 18:38:37 2014 From: huw.softdesigns@gmail.com (Huw Lloyd) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 02:38:37 +0100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: book of possible interest In-Reply-To: References: <0D461088-CBBB-4BD9-ADCB-3024C36CBE81@telia.com> <53C48DF1.5000703@mira.net> Message-ID: Nevermind. Please refrain from all the misquotes and misrepresentations, David. Best, Huw On 23 July 2014 23:52, David Kellogg wrote: > Francis: > > Well, first of all, the word "internal" here is the word Vygotsky uses. In > History of the Development of the Higher Mental Functions, he explains that > it simply means the psychological as opposed to the social. Perhaps > "inward" would be a better translation: culture in "inward" with respect to > nature, psychology is "inward" with respect to sociology, signs are > "inward" with respect to tools, and within signs, inner speech is "inward" > with respect to social contact. > > To put this in Hallidayan terms, I think we have to say that the ideational > metafunction is "inward" with respect to the interpersonal one. We can > easily construe representations and figures without interpersonal contact, > but we can't exchange speaking roles. Similarly we can exchange > commodities, goods and services, without construing inner representations > of reality. That explains why the metafunctions are independent, also > why they require a third to join them. "Thinking" is Halliday's ideational > metafunction; "Speech" is his interpersonal metafunction. And of course the > textual metafunction is represented in "Thinking and Speech" by the word > "and". > > My wife is currently working on an article that tries to argue for a > diachronic rather than a synchronic teaching of world literature. The idea > is to show the diversity in unity of world literature in time rather than > just in space. But the further back she goes towards the very origins of > writing that Mike is talking about (cuneiform, counters) the more writing > is concerned with exchanging goods and services and the less it is > interested in what we would call ideation. Conversely, by the middle ages, > everybody is interested in representing figures, and by our own time it is > all about creating texts, whether they represent figures or not. > > So I guess that unlike you I would recognize not just diversity but > development: development towards greater complexity, development towards > greater diversity, development towards greater inclusiveness (we have > fables AND stream of consciousness literature, but the Ancient Egyptians > only had the former), development in generality (translatability) and > development in abstraction. In one of his lectures, Vygotsky talks about > the uniqueness of ontogenesis insofar as it involves confronting the END of > development with the BEGINNING. That is also, of course, what the study of > the history of literature must do. > > In my data, the development is microgenetic (I guess Halliday would call it > logogenetic). "Hi" is essentially a matter of interpersonal contact, whle > "I'm Mr. K" is, as you point out, ideation. Since this is dialogue, I > guess "And you?" is about looking back to the information just given and > forward to the next turn, and therefore has a textualizing function. It is > the "and" in thinking and the "and" in speech. > > I thought I was pretty explicit about the context. I am talking about the > practica that we do at the end of the term--I have to watch trainees teach > and then offer comments. My own entry into the classroom is, or should be, > a kind of model them (because I am a native speaker, but above all because > I am the examiner, and a wise examinee will examine the examiner and try to > do likewise). So I try to introduce myself in a way that I think will > present a range of functions, and suggest a fairly small minimal unit for > using them. But only some of the teachers manage to develop a rhythm: get > attention, give information, check understanding, and I suspect that they > have already developed this rhythm before they arrive in class. > > When Andy says that our whole discussion is just silly, all he really means > is that his specific formulations of ideas are not the centre of it. But in > defense of our grumpy philosopher, I should say that Andy is DOES recognize > practical intelligence, but he recognizes it as something qualitative > different from higher intellect (that is, thinking in concepts). So do I. > And so, actually, does Vygotsky (Chapter TWO of Thinking and Speech, where > Vygotsky describes childhood as a zigzagging from practical realism, to > imaginative irrealism, to verbal realism). > > So yes--physical play, what Vygotsky calls "quasi-play", roughousing--all > of these are good examples of "practical intelligence", but not necessarily > verbalized intellect. The move into verbalized intellect is not a smooth > one: we can see qualitative transformations in play, first from rote play > (which nevertheless requires a kind of mental representation of the act in > order to repeat it) to role play (which repeats the actor but not the act) > to rule play (which varies actors according to fixed rules). > > Huw's objection, that the move from the one into the other requires no > dialectical leap, is in direct contradiction to Vygotsky, and in fact > directly contradicts the very Vygotsky text that he directs me too which > insists on the distinctness as well as the linkedness of role play and rule > play. (Elkonin is another matter; I think his idea of "leading activity" > (as opposed to psychological function) is a neo-behavioristic retreat from > Vygotsky.) But it also contradicts this, which is from the crucial > paragraph break that divides the two sections of Thinking and Speech, > Chapter One, in its original 1934 edition: > > > ????? ???????, ??? ?????????????? ?????? ???????? ?? ?????? ????????? ?? > ?????????? ??????? ? ????????, ?? ? ????????? ?? ???????? ? ?????, ?? ???? > ????? ???????, ??? ???????? ???????? ???????????????? ? ???????? > ??????????? ?????, ??? ???????????????? ????????. ??-????????, ???? ??? > ????????? ?????????, ??? ??? ???????????? ??????? ??????? ? ???????? ? > ??????? ???? ?????????? ????????? ????????????????. (When we say that the > dialectical leap is not only the transition from nonthinking matter to > sentient, but also the transition from sentience to thought, what we wish > to say is that thinking reflects reality in consciousness in a > qualitatively different way than unmediated sentience. Evidently, there is > every foundation for assuming that this qualitative difference in units > lies in the generalized reflection of reality.) > > David Kellogg > Hankuk University of Foreign Studies > > > On 23 July 2014 04:13, FRANCIS J. SULLIVAN wrote: > > > David, > > > > I have been, and still am, in the midst of teaching myself--now looking > at > > the first assignment completed. So, I have been away from the list. Wow! > > I've just read through the other strand, realizing just how different > this > > way of thinking is from just about everything I do. I find it hard to > > envision thought processes in language as "internal." To me they are > always > > part of a social exchange, conducted in a context that is constrained by > > culture. So, I'm not sure I can answer your question, but I will try. > > First. if you want to contrast the functions of the three "moves" in > your > > example, I would not begin with their grammatical form. It might make > sense > > to segment them into "information units" (Halliday's term); but, what > seems > > to me most important--and something whose absence in the thread on "fuzzy > > things" just boggles my mind--is to construe the social context in which > > the utterance takes place. As you know, each of the three > > meta-functions--ideational, interpersonal, and textual--has its > > corresponding element in the social context, namely, Field, Tenor, and > > Mode. The first element seems especially relevant here. Halliday > discusses > > it in terms of the purpose, or cognitive activity, in which the text is > > uttered. So, you walk into a classroom--for the first time??, midway into > > the semester?--there would be differences in terms of analyzing the > > "meaning" of the text. Still, I would say that in this context the > > utterance "Hi, I'm Mr. K. And you?" addresses the "Interpersonal" element > > primarily and secondarily the Mode. The Mode, or "genre," (there's a lot > > of contention about where genre fits into SFL right now) is that of the > > "Introduction," the interpersonal is informal and friendly, as suggested > by > > the use of contractions and periphrasis "And you." Very little of the > > utterance would address Field, just "I'm Mr. K." > > > > So, it may sound as if I would agree with Andy. But, I don't. You and I > do > > agree that "thinking" is a more capacious term than what Andy allows. > > Whether he is correct about Vygotsky's position, of course, I don't know. > > It strikes me, however, that what Andy calls "thinking" is that kind of > > discourse typically referred to as "academic." In fact, he sounds almost > > like Levi-Strauss at times, distinguishing the "Savage" from the > > "Civilized." I don't think he means to, but it is almost impossible to > > escape it within the framework of a strictly developmental model that > has a > > clear final stage--and so little attention to context. Specifically, we > > need to understand this development of "scientific conceptualizing" > > socially *first*, before we begin to concern ourselves with what may, or > > may not, be happening in somebody's neural net. In this, I follow Hymes > and > > Gumperz, who developed the term "ways of speaking." Academic discourse is > > just that--a way of speaking--and one that is learned, as Vygotsky makes > > clear, only in the context of certain kinds and levels of schooling. But > we > > cannot infer from that developmental process, I think, that such learning > > transforms the learner in a strictly cognitive manner. For me, at least, > > what development means here is a kind of socialization, the result of > which > > is that s/he internalizes those ways of speaking deemed appropriate by > the > > particular community to which s/he belongs. And, of course, one can > belong > > to multiple communities with different, and even conflicting ways of > > speaking. > > > > I don't know if that helps you at all. It seems to me that, as distinct > > from your point about Vygotsky's dialectical take on the relationship > sign > > and concept, Andy tends to conflate the two--erasing the hyphen instead > of > > working it. > > > > Francis J. Sullivan, Ph.D. > > Associate Professor > > Department of Teaching and Learning > > College of Education > > Temple University > > Philadelphia, PA 19122 > > > > > > Find out what any people will quietly submit to and you have the exact > > measure of the injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them. > > > > Frederick Douglass > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 5:51 PM, David Kellogg > > wrote: > > > > > Francis: > > > > > > We just had about two weeks of "teaching practica". The terrified > > trainees > > > have to stand up and teach a fifteen minute lesson in front of peers > > > masequerading as children and three rabid professors making negative > > > comments. Not only is this not a very propitious environment in which > to > > > try out new things (or even demonstrate basic teaching skills), it's a > > > really an opportunity made in hell for saying anything intelligent > about > > > teaching, which is, alas, my job. > > > > > > Here's what I wanted to ask you, since you have a background in > > > systemic-functional grammar and CDA and above all because you seemed to > > > imply in your last that you thought the very attempt to engage can be > > > transformative (as opposed to demoralizing). I sometimes notice that > the > > > best teachers have a regular rhythm--getting attention, giving > > information, > > > and checking understanding. This rhythm is faster when the "kids" are > > > learning something familiar and slower when the "kids" are on new > > > territory, but it's always there. I would like to say that these three > > > functions are related in some systematic way to imperatives, > > declaratives, > > > and interrogatives. But they are not, even when I take interpersonal > > > metaphors (e.g. "May I have your attention please?") into account. What > > do > > > you think I am looking at here? > > > > > > Now, let me use this example to address some of what Huw and Andy have > > been > > > saying. I hope you'll see that the two threads are not quite as > unrelated > > > as the two different titles suggest. Suppose I walk into a classroom, > > pick > > > out some friendly eye contact, and I say "Hi! I'm Mr. K. And you?" As > you > > > can see, the first "Hi!" is an instance of getting attention. But it > > isn't > > > a figure of experience: it's a minor clause. "I'm Mr. K" is a major > > clause, > > > and "And you?" is an elliptical clause, parasitic on "I'm Mr. K" for > most > > > of its wording. So it seems to me that SOME functions (e.g. getting > > > attention) are rather closer to figures of experience, while others are > > > more concerned with social contact. All functions have to be both, but > > they > > > don't have to be the same proportions of both, and so development is, > > > contrary to what Huw suggests, perfectly possible. Children do not leap > > > metaphysically, but dialectically--by going from using language mostly > to > > > get attention (and largely without clause grammar) to using language to > > > give information and eventually using it to check understanding. > > > > > > You can see that "Hi!" is a good example of the unity of behavior and > > > consciousness that Andy is talking about. But by the time we get to > > > checking understanding, the "behavior" element becomes pretty > > irrelevant: I > > > just don't see any way in which understanding can be described as > > > "behavior" and we can still retain the key distinction between > > > pseudoconceptual understanding and conceptual understanding. > > > > > > In Andy's first point, he argues that when children are not using word > > > meanings to think (i.e. visiographical thinking, which plays a very > > > important role in getting children's attention) they are not thinking. > I > > > prefer to think that they are thinking, but they are thinking using > what > > > Vygotsky (and Buhler and especially Kohler, who were certainly genetic > > > psychologists) liked to call "practical intellect". It's intellect. But > > > it's not verbal thinking. > > > > > > I'm not sure that I agree when Andy says, in his second point, that > > labour > > > is ALWAYS inadequate as a foundation for psychological inquiry--I > imagine > > > Helena Worthen finds it very useful. But I certainly agree with Andy > that > > > the revisionists (Leontiev, Zinchenko, Wertsch) took "labour" as > > > paradigmatic, and as a result they had to deep-six Vygotsky's late > ideas > > > about the semantic structure of consciousness (that is, Vygotsky's idea > > > that minds are made of word meanings, not action plans). Some of the > > > revisionists did this reluctantly (Leontiev, at his best) but some of > > them > > > were quite strident (Zinchenko in particular). All of them considered > > > Vygotsky an idealist. > > > > > > As I understand it, Huw DISAGREES with Andy and actually agrees with > the > > > revisionist critique of Vygotsky on the grounds that children are > mostly > > > preoccupied with action and not word meaning. That's all very true of > > > course: but they are NOT really preoccupied with labour activity. Their > > > preoccupations are with PLAY activity (Kim Yongho and I did a good > study > > of > > > so-called "Task based teaching" that shows how children redefine tasks > as > > > role plays and games). Play activity is, as Vygotsky has shown us, > > > genetically related to speech and not to labour. > > > > > > Andy's third point is that semantic actions (???) create intellectual > > > structures in the mind. I don't know what a semantic action is; > semantics > > > for me is the process of making something stand for something else, > but I > > > don't see in what sense it helps to model this process as an "action". > In > > > many ways, it is precisely a non-action, because it includes > > conditionality > > > and interpretability, neither of which is usefully modeled as action. > > > > > > In any case, you and I, Francis, are Hallidayans. We know that ideation > > is > > > only a part of semantics (there is also the interpersonal and the > textual > > > metafunction), and that intellect is only a part of ideation (there is > > the > > > experiential as well as the logical metafunction). So there is no basis > > > whatsoever for the charge of intellectualism (I think what Andy is > really > > > getting at is not intellectualism but objectivism). > > > > > > I agree with the Russians who say that "perezhivanie" is a well defined > > > concept. But to me "well defined" means developmentally so: it means > that > > > the specific weight of the various components of "perezhivanie" have to > > be > > > allowed to change as we develop: so for young children "perezhivanie" > is > > > largely "felt experience", and for older children it is mostly "thought > > > over--contemplated--experience". I don't see that thinking over is > mostly > > > an intellectual exercise though--I always feel, even in these exchanges > > on > > > xmca, that there is a certain emotional component which makes us > respond, > > > sometimes before we really even think things out. > > > > > > David Kellogg > > > Hankuk University of Foreign Studies > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 16 July 2014 04:39, FRANCIS J. SULLIVAN > wrote: > > > > > > > With great trepidation, I want to enter this conversation with my > first > > > > post to the list (I have followed it for about a year now) because as > > > both > > > > a researcher and teacher educator the issues raised are major > concerns > > > of > > > > mine too. I find, I think it was David's point, the idea that we can > > > think > > > > of the "connections" problem in two ways to be at the heart of the > > issue, > > > > at least for me. It is one thing to construct a connection that "adds > > to" > > > > the existing knowledge framework of others. But, it is a very > different > > > > thing to sea5rch for a "connection" that requires others to > > qualitatively > > > > change, or even abandon, their existing framework. Helen seems to > > achieve > > > > such a connection with at least some of her teachers by helping them > to > > > > re-cognize their own social identities so that the new knowledge and > > > > framework became less threatening and more inviting. She reconnected > > them > > > > with who they used to be and what they valued. So they did not see > > > > themselves as merely "ignorant" but more like retracing their steps. > > > > For me, at least, that's why the "deficit" models of teaching (or > > > research) > > > > practices do not work. We--teachers and students--need to find a > place > > > from > > > > which we can begin this journey together, common ground so to speak. > > > While > > > > a deaf person may not "know" English, I don't think that's the > salient > > > > point. All of us don't know things. What seems to me salient in > Helen's > > > > attempt to find connections, is that the very attempt challenged > their > > > > current ways of framing their professional lives. What we might think > > of > > > as > > > > "ignorance," those teachers thought of as "knowledge." And that > > > "knowledge" > > > > was part and parcel of the ways they positioned themselves as > teachers > > in > > > > relation to students. > > > > I am tempted to put this into discourse analysis terms--I'm a > > > > semi-Hallidayan with a critical theory twist. But, I've said enough > > for a > > > > first post, I think. I hope it is useful. > > > > > > > > Francis J. Sullivan, Ph.D. > > > > Associate Professor > > > > Department of Teaching and Learning > > > > College of Education > > > > Temple University > > > > Philadelphia, PA 19122 > > > > > > > > > > > > Find out what any people will quietly submit to and you have the > exact > > > > measure of the injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them. > > > > > > > > Frederick Douglass > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 2:10 AM, David Kellogg > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Well, I do hope that Helen means that "for the moment", as I have > > > learned > > > > > an awful lot from this book and even more from this discussion. You > > > see, > > > > I > > > > > am trying to tease apart two very different processes that appear, > on > > > the > > > > > face of it, to be almost identical, but which also appear to have > > > > > diametrically opposite developmental effects. > > > > > > > > > > One process is the process of getting people to feel at ease, > > > > > confident, and happy that they understand what you are saying > because > > > it > > > > is > > > > > actually something that is identical or at least very similar to > what > > > > they > > > > > already think. Another, almost identical, process is the process of > > > > > "establishing ties" between a new form of knowledge and an earlier > > one. > > > > > BOTH of these processes, it seems to me, occur throughout Helen's > > book, > > > > and > > > > > it is easy to mistake the one for the other. BOTH of these > processes, > > > to > > > > > use our earlier terminology, involve "establishing ties", but only > > one > > > of > > > > > them also involves breaking away. > > > > > > > > > > For example, at one point in the book Helen, looking back over the > > > > Banksia > > > > > Bay PLZ data, rounds on herself for using a transparent piece of > > > > > scaffolding to elicit the word "communicate" from a group of > > teachers. > > > > What > > > > > bothers her is not that the answer itself is far too general to be > of > > > any > > > > > practical value to the teachers, but only that she had it very > firmly > > > in > > > > > mind, and kept badgering the teachers (as we all do, when we have a > > > > precise > > > > > answer in mind) until she got it. The alternative, she points out, > > > would > > > > be > > > > > to take what she got and work with that. > > > > > > > > > > Yes indeed. But I think the main reason that would have been more > > > > > interesting is not that it would have resulted in fewer rejections > of > > > > > teacher answers and made people more at ease, confdent, and happy > > that > > > > they > > > > > understood, but rather than it would have yielded something more > > like a > > > > > concrete but unconscious and not yet volitionally controlled > example > > of > > > > > excellence from the teacher's own practice. I almost always find > that > > > the > > > > > actual answers I want--the "methods" I end up imparting to my own > > > > teachers, > > > > > are already present in the data they bring me (because we almost > > always > > > > > begin with actual transcripts of their lessons) but they are > > generally > > > > not > > > > > methods but only moments, and moments that go unnoticed and > therefore > > > > > ungeneralized in the hurly burly of actual teaching. > > > > > > > > > > Last winter, Helen and I were at a conference in New Zealand where, > > > among > > > > > other eventful episodes, Craig Brandist got up and gave a very > > precise > > > > list > > > > > of half a dozen different and utterly contradictory ways in which > > > Bakhtin > > > > > uses the term "dialogue". Because the senses of "dialogue" are so > > many > > > > and > > > > > varied, people simply pick and choose, and they tend invariably to > > > choose > > > > > the ones that are closest to the way they already think. It is as > > > moments > > > > > like this that we need to remind ourselves that Bakhtin's > "dialogue" > > > does > > > > > not, for the most part, ever include children, or women; that he > did > > > not > > > > > "dialogue" with Volosinov or Medvedev when he allowed his acolytes > > > > > to plunder their corpses, and that his love of carnival and the > > public > > > > > marketplace does not extend to a belief in any form of political > > > > democracy. > > > > > > > > > > So I think we should start off with an understanding that what > > Vygotsky > > > > > says about defect is not the same was what we now believe. > Vygotsky, > > > for > > > > > example, believed that sign language was not true language, and > that > > > even > > > > > the congenitally deaf should be taught to lip read; this is simply > > > > > wrong. (On the other hand, what he says about spontaneously created > > > sign > > > > > languages--that they are essentially elaborated systems of gesture > > and > > > > they > > > > > lack the signifying functions--fits exactly with Susan > > Goldin-Meadow's > > > > > observations in Chicago.) > > > > > > > > > > And one reason I think it is important to begin with this > > understanding > > > > is > > > > > this: sometimes--usually--LSV is right and we are wrong. In > > > particular, I > > > > > think the "credit" view of defect, or, for that matter, ignorance > of > > > any > > > > > kind and not fully conscious teacher expertise risks becoming a > > liberal > > > > > platitude--the cup is always half full, so why not look on the > bright > > > > side > > > > > of dearth? I certainly do not feel empowered by the fact that I > know > > > > > English but I do not know ASL, and I rather doubt that deaf people > > feel > > > > > empowered by the opposite state of affairs. When I don't know > > > something, > > > > I > > > > > do not see any bright side of not knowing it, for the very simple > > > > > reason that I can't see at all. > > > > > > > > > > Vygotsky was probably very influenced by "Iolanta", an opera that > > > > > Tchaikovsky wrote--he certainly seems to quote it extensively in > the > > > last > > > > > chapter of "Thinking and Speech". In "Iolanta", King Renee copes > with > > > the > > > > > blindness of his daughter by having her shut up in a garden and > > > > forbidding > > > > > all his subjects from discussing light, sight, color or anything > > > visible > > > > in > > > > > any way. Vaudemont, a knight of Burgundy, blunders into the garden, > > > > > discovers Iolanta's secret. Iolanta convinces him that sight is > > > > > unnecessary, but in the course of doing so, she develops the desire > > to > > > > see > > > > > and choose for herself. > > > > > > > > > > David Kelogg > > > > > Hankuk University of Foreign Studies > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 15 July 2014 11:12, Andy Blunden wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > My reading of Vygotsky on 'defectology' was that the 'defect' was > > the > > > > > > problem in social relations, that is, the person who is different > > in > > > > some > > > > > > way suffers because of the way that difference is treated or not > > > > treated > > > > > by > > > > > > others, not for anything in itself. One and the same feature > could > > > be a > > > > > > great benefit or a fatal flaw, depending on how others react to > it. > > > > > > Except insofar as introducing the idea of a "credit view" is a > move > > > > aimed > > > > > > at changing the perceptions and behaviours of others in relation > to > > > the > > > > > > subject, I don't think Vygotsky is an advocate of the mirror > image > > > of a > > > > > > deficit view. As I see it, he analyses the problem of the person > > > being > > > > > > treated as deficient by means of the unit of > *defect-compensation*. > > > The > > > > > > defect (a problem arising in social interaction, with others) > > > generates > > > > > > certain challenges which are overcome, generally also in > > interaction > > > > with > > > > > > others. This "compensation" leads to what Helen could call a > > "credit" > > > > and > > > > > > it is the dynamic set up between the social defect and social > > > > > compensation > > > > > > which shapes the subject's psychology and their relation to > others. > > > > > > Andy > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > > *Andy Blunden* > > > > > > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Helen Grimmett wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >> I think what is unique about Vygotsky's work in defectology is > > that, > > > > > >> despite the name, it is not a deficit view (in the way that I > > > > understand > > > > > >> the term) at all. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> I understand the commonly used term 'deficit view' as a focus on > > > what > > > > > >> children are 'missing' that needs to be provided to them by > > teachers > > > > to > > > > > >> bring them up to a pre-conceived idea of 'normal' for their > > > age/grade > > > > > >> level > > > > > >> etc. Whereas, a 'credit view' focuses on what children are able > to > > > do > > > > > and > > > > > >> bring to a learning situation, in which, in the interaction with > > > > others, > > > > > >> they will be able to become more able to do and 'be' more than > > they > > > > were > > > > > >> before (i.e. to develop), whether this be in the 'expected' ways > > to > > > > the > > > > > >> 'expected' level or in completely different ways to a variety of > > > > > different > > > > > >> levels beyond or outside 'standard' expectations. From the > little > > I > > > > have > > > > > >> read on defectology I think this is what Vygotsky was > advocating - > > > > that > > > > > >> despite a child's blindness or deafness etc, development was > still > > > > > >> possible > > > > > >> if mediational means were found that made use of the child's > > credits > > > > > (i.e. > > > > > >> using sign language or braille so that children still had access > > to > > > > the > > > > > >> developmental opportunities provided by language). So I think > your > > > > term > > > > > >> pre-abled is in fact a credit view rather than a deficit view. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> I was attempting to also use a credit view in my work with the > > > > > teachers. I > > > > > >> saw them as being experienced practitioners who had lots to > bring > > to > > > > our > > > > > >> discussions of teaching and learning, in which together we could > > see > > > > > what > > > > > >> could be developed (new practices, new understandings). Once Kay > > and > > > > > Mike > > > > > >> realised this they got on board and engaged in the process and > > > > (possibly > > > > > >> for the first time in a long while as they both saw themselves > > [and > > > in > > > > > >> fact > > > > > >> are officially designated as] 'expert teachers') really > reawakened > > > the > > > > > >> process of developing as professionals. They blew off most of > the > > > > > content > > > > > >> I > > > > > >> was contributing, but they realised the process was actually > about > > > > > >> 'unsticking' their own development and working out new and > > > personally > > > > > >> interesting and meaningful ways of 'becoming' more as teachers, > > > > instead > > > > > of > > > > > >> being stuck 'being' the teacher they had turned into over the > > years. > > > > Not > > > > > >> all of the teachers made this leap in the time I worked with > them > > > > > though. > > > > > >> Others were either quite disgruntled that I wouldn't provide > them > > > with > > > > > >> answers to 'fix' their own perceived deficits or patiently > waited > > > for > > > > me > > > > > >> to > > > > > >> go away and stop rocking the boat. From what I can gather > though, > > > Ann > > > > > (the > > > > > >> principal) kept the boat rocking and managed over time to get > more > > > > > >> teachers > > > > > >> to buy into the process of learning from each other and > > > > collaboratively > > > > > >> creating new practices. As we said earlier, development takes > time > > > as > > > > > well > > > > > >> as effort. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> All I've got time for at the moment! > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Helen > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Dr Helen Grimmett > > > > > >> Lecturer, Student Adviser, > > > > > >> Faculty of Education, > > > > > >> Room G64F, Building 902 > > > > > >> Monash University, Berwick campus > > > > > >> Phone: 9904 7171 > > > > > >> > > > > > >> *New Book: * > > > > > >> The Practice of Teachers' Professional Development: A > > > > > Cultural-Historical > > > > > >> Approach > > > > > >> > > > > >> professional-learning-1/the-practice-of-teachers- > > > > > >> professional-development/> > > > > > >> Helen Grimmett (2014) Sense Publishers > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> source=staff-email&utm_medium=email-signature&utm_campaign=50th> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> On 14 July 2014 14:43, David Kellogg > > wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>> Near the end of Chapter Three (p. 81), Helen is summing up her > > > > > experience > > > > > >>> with the Banksia Bay PLZ and she notes with some dismay that > her > > > > PDers > > > > > >>> have > > > > > >>> "a deficit view" of their children and tend towards "container > > > > models" > > > > > of > > > > > >>> the mind ("empty vessel, sponge, blank canvas"). Only one > > teacher, > > > > Ann > > > > > >>> sees > > > > > >>> anything wrong with this, and Helen says "they don't > necessarily > > > > value > > > > > >>> her > > > > > >>> opinion". > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> Helen finds herself rather conflicted: One the one hand, she > > says > > > > "If > > > > > >>> their representations of children really do represent their > > > beliefs, > > > > > then > > > > > >>> they are probably right to insist there is no need to change." > > And > > > on > > > > > the > > > > > >>> other, she says "My intention was never to say that their > present > > > > > >>> practice > > > > > >>> was wrong, but to help them see alternative ways of thinking > > about > > > > > >>> children, learning, and teaching." > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> Of course, if there is no need to change, then it follows that > > > there > > > > is > > > > > >>> no > > > > > >>> reason to look for alternative ways of thinking about children, > > > > > learning > > > > > >>> and teaching. The only reason for spending scarce cognitive > > > resources > > > > > on > > > > > >>> seeing different ways of looking at children is if you do, in > > fact, > > > > > take > > > > > >>> a > > > > > >>> deficit view of the teachers. Ann, and the Regional > Consultants, > > > > > >>> apparently > > > > > >>> do, but Helen realizes that there isn't much basis for this: > not > > > only > > > > > do > > > > > >>> we > > > > > >>> have no actual data of lessons to look at, we know that one of > > the > > > > > >>> teachers, Kay, has been in the classroom for three decades > > (during > > > > > which > > > > > >>> time Helen has spent at least one decade OUT of the classroom). > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> While we were translating Vygotsky's "History of the > Development > > of > > > > the > > > > > >>> Higher Psychological Functions" last year, some of my > colleagues > > > were > > > > > >>> taken > > > > > >>> aback by Vygotsky's use of terms like "moron", "imbecile", > > "idiot", > > > > and > > > > > >>> "cretin". Of course, Vygotsky is writing long before the > > > "euphemisim > > > > > >>> treadmill" turned these into playground insults; for Vygotsky > > they > > > > are > > > > > >>> quite precise descriptors--not of cognitive ability but > actually > > of > > > > > >>> LANGUAGE ability. But because our readership are progressive > > Korean > > > > > >>> teachers with strong views about these questions, we found that > > we > > > > > >>> couldn't > > > > > >>> even use the term "mentally retarded" without a strongly worded > > > > > footnote > > > > > >>> disavowing the "deficit" thinking behind the term. > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> I think that Vygotsky would have been surprised by this. I > think > > he > > > > > took > > > > > >>> it > > > > > >>> for granted that a defect was a deficit: being blind means a > > > deficit > > > > in > > > > > >>> vision, and being deaf means a deficit in hearing. In the same > > > way, a > > > > > >>> brain > > > > > >>> defect is not an asset. On the other hand, I think Vygotsky > would > > > > find > > > > > >>> our > > > > > >>> own term "disabled" quite inaccurate: since all forms of > > > development > > > > > are > > > > > >>> compensatory and involve "circuitous routes" of one kind or > > > another, > > > > > and > > > > > >>> all developed children, even, and even especially, gifted > > children, > > > > > >>> contain > > > > > >>> islands of underdevelopment, the correct term for deficits of > all > > > > kinds > > > > > >>> is > > > > > >>> not "disabled" but "pre-abled". > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> Personally, I see nothing wrong with a deficit view of children > > > that > > > > > sees > > > > > >>> them as pre-abled (or, as Vygotsky liked to say, 'primitivist"; > > > that > > > > > is, > > > > > >>> they are waiting for the mediational means that we have > foolishly > > > > > >>> developed > > > > > >>> only for the psychophysiologically most common types to catch > up > > > with > > > > > the > > > > > >>> actual variation in real children. I suspect this view is > > actually > > > > > quite > > > > > >>> a > > > > > >>> bit closer to what Kay thinks than to what Helen thinks. > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> David Kellogg > > > > > >>> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> On 13 July 2014 10:59, Helen Grimmett < > helen.grimmett@monash.edu > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> Hi David, > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> Interesting question. I absolutely think that development AS a > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>> professional > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> is necessary, just as development as a human is necessary, so > if > > > > > >>>> professional development is seen as the practice in which this > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>> development > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> is produced then absolutely I do think it is necessary. The > form > > > > that > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>> this > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> practice takes though, and indeed the form of the development > > that > > > > is > > > > > >>>> produced within this practice, are the things open to question > > > > > however. > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> I definitely think that a teacher's development as a > > professional > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>> includes > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> the need to understand their practice better rather than just > > > change > > > > > it, > > > > > >>>> but I think that understanding often develops best > > > in/alongside/with > > > > > the > > > > > >>>> process of changing (and vice versa) rather than separately > from > > > it, > > > > > >>>> and, > > > > > >>>> as you point out above, in establishing ties *between* people > > and > > > > then > > > > > >>>> within them. So a practice of professional development that > > > creates > > > > > >>>> conditions which support this type of development will (I > > believe) > > > > be > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>> much > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> more effective than traditional forms of PD that either > attempt > > to > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>> lecture > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> about theoretical principles but do not support teachers to > > > transfer > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>> these > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> into practical changes, OR provide teachers with practical > > > programs > > > > > and > > > > > >>>> expect them to implement them without any understanding of > what > > > and > > > > > why > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>> the > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> changes matter. I think the term "Professional Development" is > > an > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>> absolute > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> misnomer for either of those typical approaches. > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> So again, I have a problem with names! I'm talking about > > > > Professional > > > > > >>>> Development with a completely different meaning than what most > > of > > > > the > > > > > >>>> education community believe it to mean when they talk about > > > > attending > > > > > PD > > > > > >>>> seminars or workshops. I toyed with trying to find a different > > > name > > > > > for > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>> the > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> particular meaning I'm talking about, but when you are talking > > > about > > > > > >>>> development from a cultural-historical theoretical perspective > > > then > > > > > >>>> there > > > > > >>>> really is no other word to use! That's why I stuck to using > > > > > >>>> 'professional > > > > > >>>> development' (in full) when I meant my meaning, and PD (which > is > > > > what > > > > > >>>> teachers in Australia commonly refer to seminars and workshops > > as) > > > > > when > > > > > >>>> I > > > > > >>>> refer to the typical (and in my view, usually > non-developmental) > > > > forms > > > > > >>>> of > > > > > >>>> activities that teachers are subjected to each year. > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> So, I agree that the need for PD is questionable, but the need > > for > > > > > >>>> practices of professional development that help teachers to > > > develop > > > > as > > > > > >>>> professionals (that is, to develop a unified understanding of > > both > > > > the > > > > > >>>> theoretical and practical aspects of their work, which is > itself > > > > > >>>> continually developing in order to meet the changing needs of > > > their > > > > > >>>> students, schools and society) is essential. While I think > > > > co-teaching > > > > > >>>> is > > > > > >>>> one practical small-scale solution, working out viable, > > > economical, > > > > > and > > > > > >>>> manageable ways to create these practices on a large-scale is > a > > > very > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>> large > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> problem. > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> Cheers, > > > > > >>>> Helen > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> Dr Helen Grimmett > > > > > >>>> Lecturer, Student Adviser, > > > > > >>>> Faculty of Education, > > > > > >>>> Room G64F, Building 902 > > > > > >>>> Monash University, Berwick campus > > > > > >>>> Phone: 9904 7171 > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> *New Book: * > > > > > >>>> The Practice of Teachers' Professional Development: A > > > > > >>>> Cultural-Historical > > > > > >>>> Approach > > > > > >>>> < > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>> https://www.sensepublishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/ > > > > > >>> professional-learning-1/the-practice-of-teachers- > > > > > >>> professional-development/ > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> Helen Grimmett (2014) Sense Publishers > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> < > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>> http://monash.edu.au/education/news/50-years/?utm_ > > > > > >>> source=staff-email&utm_medium=email-signature&utm_campaign=50th > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> On 13 July 2014 08:57, David Kellogg > > > wrote: > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>> Helen: > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> Good to hear from you at long last--I knew you were lurking > out > > > > there > > > > > >>>>> somewhere! > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> I didn't actually write the line about "establishing > > ties"--it's > > > > from > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>> "The > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>> Little Prince". The prince asks what "tame" means, and the > fox > > > > > replies > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>> that > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>> it means "to establish ties". But of course what I meant was > > that > > > > > ties > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>> are > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>> established first between people and then within them; the > ties > > > of > > > > > >>>>> development are interfunctional ties that make up a new > > > > psychological > > > > > >>>>> system. (Or, for Halliday, they are the inter-systemic ties > > that > > > > make > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>> up > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> new metafunctions.) > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> As you say, Yrjo Engestrom chooses to emphasize another > aspect > > of > > > > > >>>>> development with "breaking away"--he wants to stress its > > > > > crisis-ridden > > > > > >>>>> nature. I agree with this, actually, but mostly I agree with > > you, > > > > > that > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>> we > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> are talking about two moments of the same process. To me, > > breaking > > > > > away > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>> is > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>> really a precondition of the real business of establishing > > ties. > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> Thomas Piketty makes a similar point in his book "Capital in > > the > > > > > >>>>> Twenty-first Century". He admits that war and revolution is > the > > > > only > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>> thing > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>> that EVER counteracts the tendency of returns from capital to > > > > > outstrip > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>> the > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>> growth in income, and that the 20th Century was an outlier in > > > this > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>> respect, > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>> and the Russian revolution an extreme outlier within that > > > outlier. > > > > > But > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>> he > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> also says that in the long run the one thing that makes UPWARD > > > > > mobility > > > > > >>>>> possible is education. Despite everything, because of > > everything. > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> I finished the book a few days ago. I guess the thing I most > > want > > > > to > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>> ask > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> about is the assumption that professional development is > > necessary > > > > at > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>> all. > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>> Doesn't it make more sense to say that before we change what > we > > > are > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>> doing, > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>> we should understand it better? > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> David Kellogg > > > > > >>>>> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> On 12 July 2014 13:20, Helen Grimmett < > > helen.grimmett@monash.edu > > > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>> wrote: > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> Ah, I think you have hit the nail on the head David. It is > > indeed > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>> TIME > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> that > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> is so crucial - not only duration of time, but also location > > of > > > > time > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>> (which > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> I suppose is really context). > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> The problems I had with Mike and his colleagues about the > > > > > terminology > > > > > >>>>>> stemmed partly from the typical Aussie disdain for using > words > > > > that > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>> might > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>> make your mates think you are trying to appear 'better' than > > > them, > > > > so > > > > > >>>>>> therefore you mock anything that sounds too serious or > > > > intellectual. > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>> But > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>> beyond this surface level of complaining the problems Huw and > > you > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>> have > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> been > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> discussing boil down to problems with time. > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> Huw's complaint about my use of the heading "Features of > > > > > >>>>>> Cultural-Historical Learning Activities" is well justified - > > but > > > > it > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>> was > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> really just a shorthand written version of what I was verbally > > > > asking > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>> for > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>> as "What might be some particular features of learning > > activities > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>> that > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> would align with principles of Cultural-Historical Theory?" > That > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>> would > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> have > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> taken too long to write on the top of the piece of paper - > and > > > of > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>> course > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>> time is always too short in any after-school PD so shortcuts > > are > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>> inevitably > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> taken. (Time problem #1) > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> Time problem #2, which your discussion has highlighted for > me, > > > is > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>> that > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> of > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>> course my question was really "What might be some particular > > > > features > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>> of > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>> learning activities that would align with THE LIMITED NUMBER > OF > > > > (AND > > > > > >>>>>> LIMITED UNDERSTANDING OF) principles of Cultural-Historical > > > Theory > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>> THAT > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> YOU > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> HAVE BEEN INTRODUCED TO SO FAR?" so I really should have not > > > been > > > > so > > > > > >>>>>> surprised that they would find the brainstorming activity > > > > difficult > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>> and > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> resort to diversionary tactics! (Mike's outburst posted here > by > > > > David > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>> was > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>> not the only eventful moment I write about from this one > > > activity. > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>> But > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> these apparent failures actually provided much more > interesting > > > data > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>> for > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>> me > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> and eventually lead me to several key findings in my > thesis). > > I > > > > had > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>> spent > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>> several years by this stage reading and discussing Vygotsky > and > > > > yet I > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>> had > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>> assumed/hoped the teachers would have enough understanding > from > > > my > > > > > >>>>>> (probably not very good) explanations ABOUT theory over the > > > > previous > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>> 3 > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> short sessions I had had with them to be able to contribute > > > answers > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>> to > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> my > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>> brainstorm question. They had not had enough TIME to become > > > > familiar > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>> with > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>> enough of the theory to make much sense of it yet - but > still, > > we > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>> have > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> to > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>> start somewhere and this was still early days. > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> Time problem #3 brings in what I called above the location > of > > > > time. > > > > > I > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>> had > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>> never intended for the sessions to be me giving after-school > > > > lectures > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>> about > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> either theory or practice, yet this is what the teachers > > seemed > > > to > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>> expect > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>> from me (and even demand from me) and were pretty disgruntled > > > when > > > > I > > > > > >>>>>> wouldn't/couldn't deliver. My intention was always to get > them > > > to > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>> engage > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>> with the relationship between THEORY and PRACTICE, just as > > > David's > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>> comic > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>> book discusses the relationship between THINKING and SPEECH > or > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>> EMOTION > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> and > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> COGNITION. My problem of course was that once we were in an > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>> after-school > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>> meeting we were removed in both time and space from where > > theory > > > > and > > > > > >>>>>> practice of teaching/learning operate as a relation (i.e. > the > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>> classroom > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> activity). I was actually trying to create/use our own PLZ > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>> (Professional > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>> Learning ZPD) as the activity in which to develop and > > understand > > > > this > > > > > >>>>>> relationship but it was initially very hard to get the > > teachers > > > to > > > > > >>>>>> understand this (at least until we had enough of David's > Fox's > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>> socially > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> shared experiences for the meanings to become communicable) > and > > > then > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>> even > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>> more difficult to get them to transfer this back to > developing > > > > their > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>> own > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>> classroom teaching. Ironically, despite being the loudest > > > > complainers > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>> and > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>> disparagers, it was Mike and Kay (the protagonist of my other > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>> eventful > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> moment in the brainstorming session) who actually ended up > > making > > > > the > > > > > >>>>>> biggest changes in their classroom practice. Perhaps this is > > not > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>> really > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> surprising at all - they were the ones who obviously engaged > and > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>> argued > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> with the ideas and activities rather than simply endured them! > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> My eventual answer to the problems encountered in my work > with > > > the > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>> group > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>> of > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> teachers was to work WITH a teacher IN her own classroom so > > that > > > > we > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>> had > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> shared experiences of the relationship between theory and > > practice > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>> which > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>> could not only be discussed after the events, but also > actually > > > > acted > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>> upon > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> there and then IN the event - creating what I called > "Situated > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>> Conscious > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>> Awareness" of both the theoretical and practical aspects of > the > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>> concepts > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>> of > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> teaching/learning and development we were developing > > > understanding > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>> and > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> practice of together. But perhaps I should wait until David > gets > > > up > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>> to > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> this > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> part of the book before I say more! > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> Finally, one other point that really caught my attention in > > your > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>> comic > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> book > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> David is that your prince calls development "to establish > > ties" > > > > > which > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>> is > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>> an > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> interesting difference to Engestrom's definition as > "breaking > > > > away". > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>> But > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>> perhaps, as always in CH theory, it is not a matter of > > either/or > > > > but > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>> in > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> fact both/and ideas that are necessary. From what I learned in > > my > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>> study, > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>> teachers' development as professionals is definitely BOTH > about > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>> breaking > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>> away from old, routinised understandings and practices AND > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>> establishing > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> new > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> connections between and amongst theoretical concepts and > > > > practices, > > > > > >>>>>> enabling them to continually develop new competences and > > motives > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>> across > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> all > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> of their professional duties. > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> Thanks for your interest in my book David. The discussion it > > has > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>> sparked > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>> has helped me revisit ideas from new perspectives. > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> Cheers, > > > > > >>>>>> Helen > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> Dr Helen Grimmett > > > > > >>>>>> Lecturer, Student Adviser, > > > > > >>>>>> Faculty of Education, > > > > > >>>>>> Room G64F, Building 902 > > > > > >>>>>> Monash University, Berwick campus > > > > > >>>>>> Phone: 9904 7171 > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> *New Book: * > > > > > >>>>>> The Practice of Teachers' Professional Development: A > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>> Cultural-Historical > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>> Approach > > > > > >>>>>> < > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>> https://www.sensepublishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/ > > > > > >>> professional-learning-1/the-practice-of-teachers- > > > > > >>> professional-development/ > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> Helen Grimmett (2014) Sense Publishers > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> < > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>> http://monash.edu.au/education/news/50-years/?utm_ > > > > > >>> source=staff-email&utm_medium=email-signature&utm_campaign=50th > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> On 12 July 2014 07:29, David Kellogg > > > wrote: > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> Plekhanov distinguishes between "agitators" and > > > "propagandists". > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> Agitators > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> are essentially popularizers; they have the job of ripping > > > away a > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> subset > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> of > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> smaller and simpler ideas from a fabric of much larger and > > more > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> complex > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>> theory and then disseminating them amongst the largest > possible > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> number > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>> of > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> people. In other words, their focus is exoteric. > Propagandists > > > are > > > > > >>>>>>> essentially conspiratorial: they have the job of > initiating a > > > > small > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> number > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> of the elect and educating them in the whole theoretical > > > > system--as > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> Larry > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> would say, the full Bildung. In other words, their focus is > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> esoteric. > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> As > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> you can see, Plekhanov was good at making distinctions, and > > not > > > so > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> good > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>> at > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> showing how things are linked. For Helena, who is a labor > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> educator, > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> you > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> can't really be an effective agitator unless you are also a > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> propagandist. > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> You need to present your exoteric extracts in such a way > that > > > they > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> are, > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>> to > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> borrow Larry's phrase, both necessary and sufficient to > lead > > > > people > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> on > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>> to > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> the esoterica. I'm with Helena--and with Bruner--with > children > > > > it's > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> always > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> possible to tell the truth, part of the truth, but nothing > > but > > > > the > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> truth, > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> and if we can do it with kids, why not do it with adults? > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> (I am less sure about what it means to say that the > > objectively > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> human > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> is > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> the "subjectively historical"--it sounds like history is > being > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> reified > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>> as a > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> subject, that is, as a living, breathing, acting "World > > Spirit" > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> that > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> can > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> have a mind and reflect upon itself. My understanding of > > history > > > > is > > > > > >>>>>>> that just as we cannot have the advanced form of historical > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> consciousness > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> in dialogue with the more primitive forms, the opportunity > to > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> reflect > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> upon > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> the whole process when it is all over is simply never going > > to > > > be > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> available > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> to anyone. The Merleau-Ponty quotation is beautiful and > > > intensely > > > > > >>>>>>> poetic, Larry--but when I look at a bubble or a wave, I do > > not > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> simply > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> see > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> chaos; I see past bubbles and past waves, and potential > > bubbles > > > > and > > > > > >>>>>>> potential waves. Isn't that a part of the experience of > > "loving > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> history" > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> as > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> well?) > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> My wife wrote a wonderful Ph.D. thesis about how any work > of > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> literature > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>> can > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> be looked at on four time frames: phylogenetic (the history > > of > > > a > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> genre), > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> ontogenetic (the biography of a career), logogenetic (the > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> development > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> of > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> a > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> plot or a character), and microgenetic (the unfolding of a > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> dialogue, > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> or a > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> paragraph). Her supervisor complained about the terminology > in > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> somewhat > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>> more elegant terms than Mike does in Helen's data:and > suggested > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> that > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> she > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> should replace the terms with "history", "biography", > > > > "development" > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> and > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>> "unfolding", to make it more exoteric. > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> I think that if she had done that, it would have made the > > > thesis > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> into > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> agitation rather than education. Yes, the terms would have > been > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> more > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> familiar, and they might even, given other context, be taken > to > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> mean > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> the > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> same thing. But what we would have gotten is good, clear > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> distinctions > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> ("history" on the one hand and "biography" on the other) and > > what > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> we > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> would > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> have lost is the linkedness of one time frame to > another--the > > > way > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> in > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> which > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> the phylogenesis of genre produces the mature genre which > is > > > used > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> in > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> an > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>> author's ontegenesis, and the way in which the author's > > > ontogenesis > > > > > >>>>>>> produces the starting point and the raw materials for the > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> logogenetic > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> development of a work, not to mention the way in which > > logogenesis > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> is > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> reflected in the microgenetic unfolding of dialogue. > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> So I think that when Helena writes that anything can be > > > explained > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> to > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> anyone > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> in language that is everyday and simple and in a way that > is > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> understandable > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> and at least part of the whole truth, I agree somewhat > > > enviously > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> (you > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> see, > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> Helena is a labor educator, but I teach TESOL, which is > > really > > > > the > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> process > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> of taking a few very simple and exoteric ideas that good > > > teachers > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> already > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> have and disseminating the select to the elect for vast sums > > of > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> money). > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>> But > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> I have to add a rider--when we popularize richly woven > > fabrics > > > of > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> ideas > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>> like cultural historical theory we are not simply juggling > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> vocabulary. > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>> I > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> think that Helena recognizes this perfectly when she says > that > > > it > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> takes > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>> TIME to be simple and clear. If it were simply a matter of > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> replacing > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> "cultural historical" with "community of learners" it would > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> actually > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> take > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> less time, but it isn't and it doesn't. > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> It is very hot in Seoul today, and somewhere out there a > > > toddler > > > > is > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> arguing > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> with a parent because he wants watermelon with breakfast. > The > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> parent > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> resists, because if you eat cold watermelon on an empty > stomach > > > you > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> get a > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> tummy-ache. The argument grows heated and long--and complex, > > but > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> the > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> complexity is of a particular kind, with very short, repeated, > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> insistancies > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> from the child and somewhat longer more complex > > remonstrations > > > > from > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> the > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>> parent. We can call this complex discourse but simple > grammar. > > A > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> few > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> years > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> will go by and we will find that the school child has > > mastered > > > > the > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> trick > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> of > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> long and complex remonstrations and can use them > > pre-emptively > > > to > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> win > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> arguments. We can call this complex grammar, but simple > > > vocabulary. > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> Only > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> when a decade or two has elapsed will we find that child, > now > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> adult, > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> can > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> use the language of science, which is for the most part > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> grammatically > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> simple (at least compared to the pre-emptive remonstrations of > > the > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> school > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> child), but full of very complex vocabulary (e.g. "phylogeny > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> anticipates > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> ontogeny", or "cultural-historical activity theory enables > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> communities > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>> of > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> learners"). > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> It's Saturday today, and in a few minutes I have to leave > for > > > the > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> weekly > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> meeting of our translation group, which produces mighty > tomes > > > > which > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> we > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>> produce to popularize the works of Vygotsky amongst militant > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> teachers > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> here > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> in Korea (our version of "Thinking and Speech" is seven > > hundred > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> pages > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> long > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> because of all the explanatory notes and boxes with helpful > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> pictures). > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>> On > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> the other hand, there is the attached comic book version of > > the > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> first > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> chapter of "Thinking and Speech" which I wrote a couple of > years > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> ago > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> for > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> some graduate students who were having trouble talking about > > the > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> real > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> "Thinking and Speech" in class. > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> I think you can see that Huw's complaint is justified--the > > > comic > > > > > >>>>>>> book dialogue is "about" Thinking and Speech, but it is not > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> "Thinking > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> and > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> Speech" at all, in the same way that "community of learners" > > or > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> "biography" > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> is ABOUT cultural historical theory or ontogenesis. And I > > think > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> that > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> part > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> of the problem (but only part of it) is that the comic book > is > > > > just > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> too > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>> short. > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> David Kellogg > > > > > >>>>>>> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> 2014-07-11 17:09 GMT+09:00 Leif Strandberg < > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> leifstrandberg.ab@telia.com > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> : > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> 11 jul 2014 kl. 06:41 skrev Larry Purss < > > lpscholar2@gmail.com > > > >: > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> David, > > > > > >>>>>>>>> I have been following your reflections through this > thread. > > > > > >>>>>>>>> You commented: > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> So it's almost always more useful for me to > > > > > >>>>>>>>> think of learning phenomena as NOT reducible to the > > physical, > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> at > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> least > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> not > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> in their unit of analysis > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> I have been reflecting on the notion of *bildung* as > > > learning. > > > > > >>>>>>>>> The notion of *cultivation* and *disposition* and > > > *comportment* > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> as > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>> the > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> potential of learning. > > > > > >>>>>>>>> I came across this quote from Gramsci who was questioning > > the > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> notion > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> of > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> *laws* as the basis for making social predictions. Such > > *laws* > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> excluded > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> the > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> subjective factor from history. > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Gramsci wrote on social process: "Objective always means > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> 'humanly > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> objective' which can be held to correspond exactly to > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> 'historically > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>> subjective' " > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Merleau-Ponty also explored what I refer to as > > *disposition* > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> with > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> this > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> quote on the reality of history: > > > > > >>>>>>>>> History "awakens us to the importance of daily events and > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> action. > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> For > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> it > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> is > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> a philosophy [of history -LP] which arouses in us a love > > for > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> our > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> times > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> which are not the simple repetition of human eternity nor > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> merely > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> the > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> conclusion of premises already postulated. It is a view that > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> like > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> the > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> most > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> fragile object of perception - a soap bubble, or a wave - > > or > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> like > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> the > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> most > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> simple dialogue, embraces indivisibly all the order and > all > > > the > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> disorder > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> of > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> the world." > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From djwdoc@yahoo.com Wed Jul 23 23:34:42 2014 From: djwdoc@yahoo.com (Douglas Williams) Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 23:34:42 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Acquisition of word meaning In-Reply-To: References: <1405929168143.12608@canterbury.ac.uk> Message-ID: <1406183682.2680.YahooMailNeo@web164705.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Hi-- This is something I've often thought would be nice to see explored more.? Cognitive metaphor theory shows us that the underlying intent of most language is actually metaphor, emerging from a common embodied perspective that enables us to interact--which I think is one of Leontev's arguments too. Temple Grandin, dreams, and the emerging understanding of the physiology of the hippocampus, suggest that imagistic memory predates language, and that words are a secondary mechanism of the brain that serves first as a shorthand for the imagistic, associative form of thought that we share in common with all mammals, and then secondly as a creative medium of imaginary worlds. So is it perhaps more correct to think that the sign--the characteristics of traits that enable the brain to produce (in terms of statistics) a similarity matrix to identify objects in the real world--is the real foundation of thought? Words, then, become the tertiary thing that allows us to escape the tyranny of the similarity matrix in the brain, and treat the world algebraically, making it subject to our will. A relevant experiment along those lines: http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=buy.optionToBuy&id=1995-16251-001 When we say "the street is sad," we take control of the street, and make it reflect us--and others can share our minds, and see the world, not as it is, but through the lens of the metaphors and associations we concatinate in the medium of words.? Cheers Doug ________________________________ From: Tom Richardson To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 1:23 PM Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Acquisition of word meaning Hi Esther A post I can (almost) grasp the meaning and significance of - exciting! Thanks - Raymond W.'s theorisation brings the 'conversation' about language/wording,? into the world of active humans making their world; seems as good thing that, and takes theory into 'sensuous human activity' - I'll try to keep up here[?] Tom On 23 July 2014 10:21, Esther Goody wrote: > > Xmca folk, > > ..........."word actually means 'wording'." > > This fits with Herb Clark's insight that to really understand Language, you > need to see it as 'languaging'. This is about getting away from grammar and > syntax, to seeing speaking as process - [surely fits with activity theory]. > This has completely altered my understanding of language. Here dialogue is > central. ie two people are involved, each anticipating and responding to > the > other. I think this => looking for the 'social' aspect of 'culture'. > .....Work in process, >? ? ? ? Esther Goody > > I read your comment: > > discussing the concept *word* what is meant is not a noun but something > much more like an attribute, which would be expressed as a nominal group in > English but a > verbal group in Korean. And elsewhere it's clear that the word 'word' > actually means "wording"--. > > I went away and that night heard myself asking if the distinctions between > *word* and *wording* and the way they are different can also be explored as > how *word* and *wording* are*related* [form conjunctions]. > Then the question becomes what is *mediating* this conjunction? If I use > the term *between* to refer to the relation as *word* AND *wording* it > seems to imply a certain type of conjunction. However, if the relation is > considered as a *trans* relation [transformation, translation] it seems to > indicate a more fluid flowing or being *carried* from one *aspect* of the > relation towards the *other* aspect and also in the reciprocal direction > without clear distinct boundaries of *word* and *wording* > > This also could apply to *event* and *eventing* OR > could apply to *worded* and *wording* > > In 1977 Raymond Williams wrote the book *Marxism and Literature* and in > Chapter two Raymond explores what he refers to as a wrong turn in our > understanding when studying the concept *language* and the notion of > *sign*. >? Raymond's perspective is the notion of *sign* is a medieval concept which > has been readopted in modern linguistic thought. > *Sign*, from Latin, *signum* meant a mark or token which is intrinsically a > concept based on a distinction between *language* and *reality*. > Raymond states: sign "is an INTERPOSITION between *word* and *thing* which > repeats the Platonic interposition of *form*, *essence*, or *idea* but now > in inaccessible linguistic terms." (page 25) > > In contrast to this notion of *sign* Raymond articulates a notion of > *sign*as a PRODUCT [but not merely a past reified product of an > *always-given* language SYSTEM.]? Real communicative *products* [which are > usable signs] are living evidence of a continuing social process within > which individuals are carried but within which they also actively > contribute. This understanding of *sign* is AT ONCE BOTH socialization and > individuation [connected aspects of a single process] which the alternative > notions of *sign* as *system* or *expression* dissociate as reified > *language* and reified *society*. > Raymond also emphasizes his notion of language? rejects the metaphor of > language as *reflection* of *material reality*? We grasp THIS reality > THROUGH language, which as practical social consciousness is saturated by > and saturates all social activity [including productive activity] > Raymond says this grasping is continuous languaging [wording] which is THIS > LOST MIDDLE term between the abstract entities *subject* and *object* on > which BOTH idealism AND orthodox materialism flounder. Language IS this > articulated social PRESENCE in the world. > > Raymond is playing with *word* and *wording* [*event* and *eventing*] and > it is the conjunction OF *word* and *wording* which he is articulating > > > > On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 1:16 AM, Bella Kotik-Friedgut < > bella.kotik@gmail.com > > wrote: > > > Without theorizing I want to share my recent observation of development > of > > word meaning in my grandson 3.10. Everyday there is something reminding > me > > of LSV. Here are examples of words that still are not full concepts. > > Driving home at narrow crowded street he proclaims "The street is sad" > > (atsuv in Hebrew) > > We ask him what exactly is sad, may be people, but he insists that "The > > street is sad"; > > Other day I use word single (boded in Hebrew) and he asks what does it > mean > > and with a lot of questions try to develop a concept: A child can be > > single? An adult? When I will be adult? and so on. Sometimes he hears an > > expression and try to use it in order to test appropriateness: "You cause > > me a bunch of problems!" (Zarot zrurot) and after our reaction and > > questions about specific problems he escapes and seemingly gets the idea. > > So the vocabulary expands very intensively, but the meaning of each word > is > > still to be mastered. > > > > Sincerely yours Bella Kotik-Friedgut > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 10:52 AM, Ma, James (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk) > < > > james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi David, for your info, the below article contains an overview of > > > perspectives on semiotic mediation within sociolinguistics and > > > sociocultural theory: > > > http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10749039.2014.913294 > > > Best wishes > > > James > > > ________________________________________ > > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > > on behalf of David Kellogg > > > Sent: 19 July 2014 23:12 > > > To: Mike Cole; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Acquisition of word meaning > > > > > > Halliday is Vygotskyan. Explicitly so in places: he says that his > concept > > > of consciousness as a social being derives from Vygotsky. Ruqaiya > Hasan, > > > who sometimes lurks on this list, has written extensively on the > > > "exotropic" links between Halliday and Vygotsky. At first I didn't > quite > > > believe this, because for Vygotsky what develops is a meta-system made > up > > > of functions (psychological abilities), while for Halliday what > develops > > is > > > a metafunction made up of systems (linguistic choices). But Gordon > Wells > > > persuaded me: he points out that Halliday's "ideational metafunction" > > (this > > > is the function that allows us to represent the world as figures of > > > experience linked by logic, and is realized in nouns, verbs, and other > > > open-class words) is essentially equivalent to "thinking" and the > > > "interpersonal metafunction (this is the function that allows us to > > > exchange commodities such as goods and services or information and is > > > realized in commands, statements and questions) is essentially > equivalent > > > to "speech". > > > > > > I think the reason that I didn't get the profound and very > > > thorough connection between Halliday and Vygotsky (which seems more > > > endotropic than exotropic to me now) was that I kept assuming that when > > > Vygotsky says "word" he means something like a noun, as in the block > > > experiments of Chapter Five Thinking and Speech. But of course even in > > the > > > block experiments, what is meant is not a noun but something much more > > like > > > an attribute, which would be expressed as a nominal group in English > but > > a > > > verbal group in Korean. And elsewhere it's clear that the word 'word' > > > actually means "wording"--what is a single word in the mouth of a very > > > young child is going to be a whole clause in an older child and > > eventually > > > an entire text. > > > > > > So Mike's example is quite a propos. When I first read this example > from > > > Shweder back in 2007, it seemed to me that Vygotsky would say that this > > > particular "wording" has nothing to do with morality, and of course > it's > > > not really a concept. Now I am not so sure: I'm convinced that a lot of > > > ethical concepts develop out of almost purely esthetic ones, which is > > > actually a good example of how "perizhivanie" starts by meaning feeling > > and > > > only in the course of development comes to mean thinking. > > > > > > In China, what girls tell their classmates in high school is that their > > > "Grandma is visiting" or else that they are "dao mei le" ("doomed"). > This > > > was a highly prized condition when my wife was in high school, because > it > > > meant that you didn't have to go out for physical education and you > could > > > stay in and do math homework instead. So one day the boys told the > > physical > > > education teacher that they were all "doomed" and could not go either, > > > > > > David Kellogg > > > Hankuk University of Foreign Studies > > > > > > > > > On 20 July 2014 03:02, mike cole wrote: > > > > > > > While puzzling over all the interesting notes on > > > > language/thought/emotion/development in recent days I happend upon > the > > > > following. It seems a potential object of interpretation that would > > help > > > to > > > > hightlight for us (for me at least) the stakes in the pattern of > > > agreements > > > > and disageements and silences in the conversation. Does Halliday > inform > > > our > > > > understanding differently from Vygotsky might be a helpful question. > Is > > > > convergence of meaning and generalization manifest?? Anyway, perhaps > it > > > > will be of interest: > > > >? (From an essay on culture's involvement in moral development by > > Shweder > > > > and colleagues. Data from Orrisa). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *"Mara heici. Chhu na! Chhu na!*" is what a menstruating Oriya mother > > > > explains when her young child approaches her lap. It means, "I am > > > polluted. > > > > Don't touch me! Don't touch me!" If the child continues to approach, > > the > > > > woman will stand up and walk away from her child. Of course, young > > Oriya > > > > children have no concept of menstruation or menstrual blood; the > first > > > > menstruation arrives as a total surprise to adolescent girls. > Mother's > > > > typically "explain" their own monthly "pollution" to their children > by > > > > telling then that they stepped in dog excrement or touched garbage, > or > > > they > > > > evade the issue. Nevertheless, Oriya children quickly learn that > there > > is > > > > something called "*Mara"* (the term *cchuan* (check spelling) may > also > > be > > > > used) and when "*Mara*" is there, as it regularly is, their mother > > avoids > > > > them, sleeps alone on a mat on the floor, is prohibited from entering > > the > > > > kitchen... eats alone, does not groom herself and is, for several > days, > > > > kept at a distance from anything of value. Children notice that > > > everything > > > > their mother touches is washed. (Shweder, Mahapatra, & Miller, 1987, > p. > > > 74) > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 2014.0.4716 / Virus Database: 3986/7891 - Release Date: 07/21/14 > > From boblake@georgiasouthern.edu Thu Jul 24 06:12:59 2014 From: boblake@georgiasouthern.edu (Robert Lake) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 09:12:59 -0400 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Acquisition of word meaning In-Reply-To: <1406183682.2680.YahooMailNeo@web164705.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <1405929168143.12608@canterbury.ac.uk> <1406183682.2680.YahooMailNeo@web164705.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Hi Doug, I appreciate what you wrote about cognitive metaphor although I would like to extend the term to Vico's notion of metaphor that holistically unites mind, emotions and body. What you wrote also am reminded of Cynthia Ozick's work. In her collection of essays called *Metaphor and* *Memory*, Ozick (1991) shares about her experience of being invited to speak to a group of physicians, ?not because I knew anything about disease, but because I knew nothing at all? (p. 264). She had been invited because she was an ?imaginer by trade? (p. 266) who might be able to offer suggestions to help the medical profession express more empathy for their patients. At the time she presented her reading, she was not well received. However, a search of journal articles from the field of medicine reveals that, either directly or indirectly, a favorable influence was made upon the healing community by her presentation. Her central thesis is that ?metaphor is one of the chief agents of our moral nature? (p. 270) because without it, ?we cannot imagine the life of the Other. We cannot imagine what it is like to be someone else. Metaphor is the reciprocal agent, the universalizing force: it makes possible the power to envision the stranger?s heart? (p. 279). Metaphor has the power to bring together both the speaker and the interlocutor in personal history. This can be in real conversation, or in the pages of a novel, or a song, or a metaphoric expression of any kind, including the nonverbal variety, such as dance or gesture. This conjoining of histories can occur at both the conscious and subconscious levels by metaphoric connection. Certainly both metaphoric thoughts and emotions play a major role in this experience, but as we have stated throughout this inquiry, there is a dynamic wholeness to body and mind that should always be considered as one. Ozick goes onto say this about metaphor and memory: ?Metaphor relies on what has been experienced before; it transforms the strange into the familiar? (p. 282). Metaphor provides the ability to resonate with another?s history because somehow we recognize our own experience in the experience of the other. Ozick, C. (1989). *Metaphor & memory: Essays*. New York: Knopf. On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 2:34 AM, Douglas Williams wrote: > Hi-- > > This is something I've often thought would be nice to see explored more. > > Cognitive metaphor theory shows us that the underlying intent of most > language is actually metaphor, emerging from a common embodied perspective > that enables us to interact--which I think is one of Leontev's arguments > too. Temple Grandin, dreams, and the emerging understanding of the > physiology of the hippocampus, suggest that imagistic memory predates > language, and that words are a secondary mechanism of the brain that serves > first as a shorthand for the imagistic, associative form of thought that we > share in common with all mammals, and then secondly as a creative medium of > imaginary worlds. > > > So is it perhaps more correct to think that the sign--the characteristics > of traits that enable the brain to produce (in terms of statistics) a > similarity matrix to identify objects in the real world--is the real > foundation of thought? Words, then, become the tertiary thing that allows > us to escape the tyranny of the similarity matrix in the brain, and treat > the world algebraically, making it subject to our will. > > > A relevant experiment along those lines: > > http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=buy.optionToBuy&id=1995-16251-001 > > > When we say "the street is sad," we take control of the street, and make > it reflect us--and others can share our minds, and see the world, not as it > is, but through the lens of the metaphors and associations we concatinate > in the medium of words. > > > Cheers > Doug > > > > > ________________________________ > From: Tom Richardson > To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 1:23 PM > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Acquisition of word meaning > > > Hi Esther > A post I can (almost) grasp the meaning and significance of - exciting! > Thanks - Raymond W.'s theorisation brings the 'conversation' about > language/wording, into the world of active humans making their world; > seems as good thing that, and takes theory into 'sensuous human activity' - > I'll try to keep up here[?] > Tom > > > > > On 23 July 2014 10:21, Esther Goody wrote: > > > > > Xmca folk, > > > > ..........."word actually means 'wording'." > > > > This fits with Herb Clark's insight that to really understand Language, > you > > need to see it as 'languaging'. This is about getting away from grammar > and > > syntax, to seeing speaking as process - [surely fits with activity > theory]. > > This has completely altered my understanding of language. Here dialogue > is > > central. ie two people are involved, each anticipating and responding to > > the > > other. I think this => looking for the 'social' aspect of 'culture'. > > .....Work in process, > > Esther Goody > > > > I read your comment: > > > > discussing the concept *word* what is meant is not a noun but something > > much more like an attribute, which would be expressed as a nominal group > in > > English but a > > verbal group in Korean. And elsewhere it's clear that the word 'word' > > actually means "wording"--. > > > > I went away and that night heard myself asking if the distinctions > between > > *word* and *wording* and the way they are different can also be explored > as > > how *word* and *wording* are*related* [form conjunctions]. > > Then the question becomes what is *mediating* this conjunction? If I use > > the term *between* to refer to the relation as *word* AND *wording* it > > seems to imply a certain type of conjunction. However, if the relation is > > considered as a *trans* relation [transformation, translation] it seems > to > > indicate a more fluid flowing or being *carried* from one *aspect* of the > > relation towards the *other* aspect and also in the reciprocal direction > > without clear distinct boundaries of *word* and *wording* > > > > This also could apply to *event* and *eventing* OR > > could apply to *worded* and *wording* > > > > In 1977 Raymond Williams wrote the book *Marxism and Literature* and in > > Chapter two Raymond explores what he refers to as a wrong turn in our > > understanding when studying the concept *language* and the notion of > > *sign*. > > Raymond's perspective is the notion of *sign* is a medieval concept > which > > has been readopted in modern linguistic thought. > > *Sign*, from Latin, *signum* meant a mark or token which is > intrinsically a > > concept based on a distinction between *language* and *reality*. > > Raymond states: sign "is an INTERPOSITION between *word* and *thing* > which > > repeats the Platonic interposition of *form*, *essence*, or *idea* but > now > > in inaccessible linguistic terms." (page 25) > > > > In contrast to this notion of *sign* Raymond articulates a notion of > > *sign*as a PRODUCT [but not merely a past reified product of an > > *always-given* language SYSTEM.] Real communicative *products* [which > are > > usable signs] are living evidence of a continuing social process within > > which individuals are carried but within which they also actively > > contribute. This understanding of *sign* is AT ONCE BOTH socialization > and > > individuation [connected aspects of a single process] which the > alternative > > notions of *sign* as *system* or *expression* dissociate as reified > > *language* and reified *society*. > > Raymond also emphasizes his notion of language rejects the metaphor of > > language as *reflection* of *material reality* We grasp THIS reality > > THROUGH language, which as practical social consciousness is saturated by > > and saturates all social activity [including productive activity] > > Raymond says this grasping is continuous languaging [wording] which is > THIS > > LOST MIDDLE term between the abstract entities *subject* and *object* on > > which BOTH idealism AND orthodox materialism flounder. Language IS this > > articulated social PRESENCE in the world. > > > > Raymond is playing with *word* and *wording* [*event* and *eventing*] and > > it is the conjunction OF *word* and *wording* which he is articulating > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 1:16 AM, Bella Kotik-Friedgut < > > bella.kotik@gmail.com > > > wrote: > > > > > Without theorizing I want to share my recent observation of development > > of > > > word meaning in my grandson 3.10. Everyday there is something reminding > > me > > > of LSV. Here are examples of words that still are not full concepts. > > > Driving home at narrow crowded street he proclaims "The street is sad" > > > (atsuv in Hebrew) > > > We ask him what exactly is sad, may be people, but he insists that "The > > > street is sad"; > > > Other day I use word single (boded in Hebrew) and he asks what does it > > mean > > > and with a lot of questions try to develop a concept: A child can be > > > single? An adult? When I will be adult? and so on. Sometimes he hears > an > > > expression and try to use it in order to test appropriateness: "You > cause > > > me a bunch of problems!" (Zarot zrurot) and after our reaction and > > > questions about specific problems he escapes and seemingly gets the > idea. > > > So the vocabulary expands very intensively, but the meaning of each > word > > is > > > still to be mastered. > > > > > > Sincerely yours Bella Kotik-Friedgut > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 10:52 AM, Ma, James (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk > ) > > < > > > james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi David, for your info, the below article contains an overview of > > > > perspectives on semiotic mediation within sociolinguistics and > > > > sociocultural theory: > > > > http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10749039.2014.913294 > > > > Best wishes > > > > James > > > > ________________________________________ > > > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu < > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > > > > > on behalf of David Kellogg > > > > Sent: 19 July 2014 23:12 > > > > To: Mike Cole; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Acquisition of word meaning > > > > > > > > Halliday is Vygotskyan. Explicitly so in places: he says that his > > concept > > > > of consciousness as a social being derives from Vygotsky. Ruqaiya > > Hasan, > > > > who sometimes lurks on this list, has written extensively on the > > > > "exotropic" links between Halliday and Vygotsky. At first I didn't > > quite > > > > believe this, because for Vygotsky what develops is a meta-system > made > > up > > > > of functions (psychological abilities), while for Halliday what > > develops > > > is > > > > a metafunction made up of systems (linguistic choices). But Gordon > > Wells > > > > persuaded me: he points out that Halliday's "ideational metafunction" > > > (this > > > > is the function that allows us to represent the world as figures of > > > > experience linked by logic, and is realized in nouns, verbs, and > other > > > > open-class words) is essentially equivalent to "thinking" and the > > > > "interpersonal metafunction (this is the function that allows us to > > > > exchange commodities such as goods and services or information and is > > > > realized in commands, statements and questions) is essentially > > equivalent > > > > to "speech". > > > > > > > > I think the reason that I didn't get the profound and very > > > > thorough connection between Halliday and Vygotsky (which seems more > > > > endotropic than exotropic to me now) was that I kept assuming that > when > > > > Vygotsky says "word" he means something like a noun, as in the block > > > > experiments of Chapter Five Thinking and Speech. But of course even > in > > > the > > > > block experiments, what is meant is not a noun but something much > more > > > like > > > > an attribute, which would be expressed as a nominal group in English > > but > > > a > > > > verbal group in Korean. And elsewhere it's clear that the word 'word' > > > > actually means "wording"--what is a single word in the mouth of a > very > > > > young child is going to be a whole clause in an older child and > > > eventually > > > > an entire text. > > > > > > > > So Mike's example is quite a propos. When I first read this example > > from > > > > Shweder back in 2007, it seemed to me that Vygotsky would say that > this > > > > particular "wording" has nothing to do with morality, and of course > > it's > > > > not really a concept. Now I am not so sure: I'm convinced that a lot > of > > > > ethical concepts develop out of almost purely esthetic ones, which is > > > > actually a good example of how "perizhivanie" starts by meaning > feeling > > > and > > > > only in the course of development comes to mean thinking. > > > > > > > > In China, what girls tell their classmates in high school is that > their > > > > "Grandma is visiting" or else that they are "dao mei le" ("doomed"). > > This > > > > was a highly prized condition when my wife was in high school, > because > > it > > > > meant that you didn't have to go out for physical education and you > > could > > > > stay in and do math homework instead. So one day the boys told the > > > physical > > > > education teacher that they were all "doomed" and could not go > either, > > > > > > > > David Kellogg > > > > Hankuk University of Foreign Studies > > > > > > > > > > > > On 20 July 2014 03:02, mike cole wrote: > > > > > > > > > While puzzling over all the interesting notes on > > > > > language/thought/emotion/development in recent days I happend upon > > the > > > > > following. It seems a potential object of interpretation that would > > > help > > > > to > > > > > hightlight for us (for me at least) the stakes in the pattern of > > > > agreements > > > > > and disageements and silences in the conversation. Does Halliday > > inform > > > > our > > > > > understanding differently from Vygotsky might be a helpful > question. > > Is > > > > > convergence of meaning and generalization manifest? Anyway, > perhaps > > it > > > > > will be of interest: > > > > > (From an essay on culture's involvement in moral development by > > > Shweder > > > > > and colleagues. Data from Orrisa). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *"Mara heici. Chhu na! Chhu na!*" is what a menstruating Oriya > mother > > > > > explains when her young child approaches her lap. It means, "I am > > > > polluted. > > > > > Don't touch me! Don't touch me!" If the child continues to > approach, > > > the > > > > > woman will stand up and walk away from her child. Of course, young > > > Oriya > > > > > children have no concept of menstruation or menstrual blood; the > > first > > > > > menstruation arrives as a total surprise to adolescent girls. > > Mother's > > > > > typically "explain" their own monthly "pollution" to their children > > by > > > > > telling then that they stepped in dog excrement or touched garbage, > > or > > > > they > > > > > evade the issue. Nevertheless, Oriya children quickly learn that > > there > > > is > > > > > something called "*Mara"* (the term *cchuan* (check spelling) may > > also > > > be > > > > > used) and when "*Mara*" is there, as it regularly is, their mother > > > avoids > > > > > them, sleeps alone on a mat on the floor, is prohibited from > entering > > > the > > > > > kitchen... eats alone, does not groom herself and is, for several > > days, > > > > > kept at a distance from anything of value. Children notice that > > > > everything > > > > > their mother touches is washed. (Shweder, Mahapatra, & Miller, > 1987, > > p. > > > > 74) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- > > No virus found in this message. > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > > Version: 2014.0.4716 / Virus Database: 3986/7891 - Release Date: 07/21/14 > > > > > From helenaworthen@gmail.com Thu Jul 24 09:39:41 2014 From: helenaworthen@gmail.com (Helena Worthen) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 12:39:41 -0400 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The ideal head In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0ABD8052-EF53-493B-8A8C-E6EC00F0C5FB@gmail.com> These views are persuasively bound up in the story of Tarzan, an incredibly popular book published in 1913 and still being sold. Tarzan, abandoned in infancy in the African jungle, comes upon his dead parents' cabin and their library and, without ever hearing human speech much less English spoken, manages to teach himself to read. Why? Well, 1) he tries hard and 2) he's English nobility. The generations of kids and their parents who read the Tarzan story (or see the movies) never question this train wreck of ideas -- on the contrary, it provides support for the idea that learning is the result of trying hard and being born smart (except that that's a code word for upper class). I had a heart-wrenching experience the other day that illustrates how this works in real life. We're spending the summer in a small town in Vermont -- working class, very dependent on big ski area tourism. A friend of mine, a working class woman, is paying big bucks to send her 12 year old daughter to an academic summer camp at a very high-level hotshot prep school nearby. The hope is that, with this extra boost, the girl will be able to speed past the pitfalls of the local high school (which has a 30% dropout rate, drug problems, etc.). The other students at the summer camp are prep school kids repeating classes they didnt' ace plus rich kids from all over the world, especially Asia. My friend's daughter did fine the first week, then seemed to just freeze. Now daughter wants to quit and is refusing to eat, etc. Her mom's idea is that the girl just needs to try harder, try harder, try harder.Mother has moved down there and is starting to attend classes with her. Mother and daughter are about ready to hit each other. My opinion: trying harder worked for Tarzan because he was English nobility, and someone forgot to make sure my friend and her daughter were English nobility (meaning, someone forgot to prepare her daughter with all the class advantages, including self confidence, that the other kids brought with them, along with their iPhones and designer swimsuits). Where do you start, in a situation like this? Helena Worthen helenaworthen@gmail.com On Jul 19, 2014, at 6:38 PM, mike cole wrote: > Hi Peter. I had a similar experience regarding the accidental discovery of > literature containing those colonialist-era books. My example was written > for high level scholars over a century ago, but it, like this piece, > expresses views that have not by any means disappeared in the intervening > century. > > Nor has the resulting violence seemed to have eased. > > Attached. > mike > > > On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 12:03 PM, Peter Smagorinsky wrote: > >> >> http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/07/the-ideal-head-bizarre-racial-teachings-from-a-100-year-old-textbook/374693/#comments >> >> I wrote this very short essay that some might find interesting, and have >> linked to the page that includes reader comments, which are prolific and >> edifying for those who believe in the progress of human thinking. p >> > From smago@uga.edu Thu Jul 24 09:53:54 2014 From: smago@uga.edu (Peter Smagorinsky) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 16:53:54 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The ideal head In-Reply-To: <0ABD8052-EF53-493B-8A8C-E6EC00F0C5FB@gmail.com> References: <0ABD8052-EF53-493B-8A8C-E6EC00F0C5FB@gmail.com> Message-ID: I'd say that working harder worked for Tarzan because he was fictional. -----Original Message----- From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Helena Worthen Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2014 12:40 PM To: lchcmike@gmail.com; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The ideal head These views are persuasively bound up in the story of Tarzan, an incredibly popular book published in 1913 and still being sold. Tarzan, abandoned in infancy in the African jungle, comes upon his dead parents' cabin and their library and, without ever hearing human speech much less English spoken, manages to teach himself to read. Why? Well, 1) he tries hard and 2) he's English nobility. The generations of kids and their parents who read the Tarzan story (or see the movies) never question this train wreck of ideas -- on the contrary, it provides support for the idea that learning is the result of trying hard and being born smart (except that that's a code word for upper class). I had a heart-wrenching experience the other day that illustrates how this works in real life. We're spending the summer in a small town in Vermont -- working class, very dependent on big ski area tourism. A friend of mine, a working class woman, is paying big bucks to send her 12 year old daughter to an academic summer camp at a very high-level hotshot prep school nearby. The hope is that, with this extra boost, the girl will be able to speed past the pitfalls of the local high school (which has a 30% dropout rate, drug problems, etc.). The other students at the summer camp are prep school kids repeating classes they didnt' ace plus rich kids from all over the world, especially Asia. My friend's daughter did fine the first week, then seemed to just freeze. Now daughter wants to quit and is refusing to eat, etc. Her mom's idea is that the girl just needs to try harder, try harder, try harder.Mother has moved down there and is starting to attend classes with her. Mother and daughter are about ready to hit each other. My opinion: trying harder worked for Tarzan because he was English nobility, and someone forgot to make sure my friend and her daughter were English nobility (meaning, someone forgot to prepare her daughter with all the class advantages, including self confidence, that the other kids brought with them, along with their iPhones and designer swimsuits). Where do you start, in a situation like this? Helena Worthen helenaworthen@gmail.com On Jul 19, 2014, at 6:38 PM, mike cole wrote: > Hi Peter. I had a similar experience regarding the accidental > discovery of literature containing those colonialist-era books. My > example was written for high level scholars over a century ago, but > it, like this piece, expresses views that have not by any means > disappeared in the intervening century. > > Nor has the resulting violence seemed to have eased. > > Attached. > mike > > > On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 12:03 PM, Peter Smagorinsky wrote: > >> >> http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/07/the-ideal-head-b >> izarre-racial-teachings-from-a-100-year-old-textbook/374693/#comments >> >> I wrote this very short essay that some might find interesting, and >> have linked to the page that includes reader comments, which are >> prolific and edifying for those who believe in the progress of human >> thinking. p >> > From greg.a.thompson@gmail.com Thu Jul 24 10:32:49 2014 From: greg.a.thompson@gmail.com (greg.a.thompson@gmail.com) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 11:32:49 -0600 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The ideal head In-Reply-To: References: <0ABD8052-EF53-493B-8A8C-E6EC00F0C5FB@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5CBA9E5C-BD7D-4E7D-82CD-2F53DC18B509@gmail.com> I think Peter has stumbled upon the solution to the problem of poverty around the globe, just make everyone fictional! Wait a second, that's already been done, I think we call it Hollywood! Greg Sent from my iPhone > On Jul 24, 2014, at 10:53 AM, Peter Smagorinsky wrote: > > I'd say that working harder worked for Tarzan because he was fictional. > > -----Original Message----- > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Helena Worthen > Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2014 12:40 PM > To: lchcmike@gmail.com; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The ideal head > > These views are persuasively bound up in the story of Tarzan, an incredibly popular book published in 1913 and still being sold. Tarzan, abandoned in infancy in the African jungle, comes upon his dead parents' cabin and their library and, without ever hearing human speech much less English spoken, manages to teach himself to read. Why? Well, 1) he tries hard and 2) he's English nobility. The generations of kids and their parents who read the Tarzan story (or see the movies) never question this train wreck of ideas -- on the contrary, it provides support for the idea that learning is the result of trying hard and being born smart (except that that's a code word for upper class). > > I had a heart-wrenching experience the other day that illustrates how this works in real life. We're spending the summer in a small town in Vermont -- working class, very dependent on big ski area tourism. A friend of mine, a working class woman, is paying big bucks to send her 12 year old daughter to an academic summer camp at a very high-level hotshot prep school nearby. The hope is that, with this extra boost, the girl will be able to speed past the pitfalls of the local high school (which has a 30% dropout rate, drug problems, etc.). The other students at the summer camp are prep school kids repeating classes they didnt' ace plus rich kids from all over the world, especially Asia. My friend's daughter did fine the first week, then seemed to just freeze. Now daughter wants to quit and is refusing to eat, etc. Her mom's idea is that the girl just needs to try harder, try harder, try harder.Mother has moved down there and is starting to attend classes with her. Mother and daughter are about ready to hit each other. > > My opinion: trying harder worked for Tarzan because he was English nobility, and someone forgot to make sure my friend and her daughter were English nobility (meaning, someone forgot to prepare her daughter with all the class advantages, including self confidence, that the other kids brought with them, along with their iPhones and designer swimsuits). > > Where do you start, in a situation like this? > > > Helena Worthen > helenaworthen@gmail.com > >> On Jul 19, 2014, at 6:38 PM, mike cole wrote: >> >> Hi Peter. I had a similar experience regarding the accidental >> discovery of literature containing those colonialist-era books. My >> example was written for high level scholars over a century ago, but >> it, like this piece, expresses views that have not by any means >> disappeared in the intervening century. >> >> Nor has the resulting violence seemed to have eased. >> >> Attached. >> mike >> >> >>> On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 12:03 PM, Peter Smagorinsky wrote: >>> >>> >>> http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/07/the-ideal-head-b >>> izarre-racial-teachings-from-a-100-year-old-textbook/374693/#comments >>> >>> I wrote this very short essay that some might find interesting, and >>> have linked to the page that includes reader comments, which are >>> prolific and edifying for those who believe in the progress of human >>> thinking. p >> > > > From carolmacdon@gmail.com Thu Jul 24 10:34:46 2014 From: carolmacdon@gmail.com (Carol Macdonald) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 18:34:46 +0100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The ideal head In-Reply-To: References: <0ABD8052-EF53-493B-8A8C-E6EC00F0C5FB@gmail.com> Message-ID: Peter Or perhaps that the writer of The Tarzan stories had no idea about what it takes to become literate. He had no-one to show him the arbitrariness of language and reading. If you remember, the primers for reading had multisyllable words in them. Peter is right - only in fiction is this possible. And trying harder isn't necessarily the way to move forward. Trying something *else *might do it. Tell that mum. Carol On 24 July 2014 17:53, Peter Smagorinsky wrote: > I'd say that working harder worked for Tarzan because he was fictional. > > -----Original Message----- > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Helena Worthen > Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2014 12:40 PM > To: lchcmike@gmail.com; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The ideal head > > These views are persuasively bound up in the story of Tarzan, an > incredibly popular book published in 1913 and still being sold. Tarzan, > abandoned in infancy in the African jungle, comes upon his dead parents' > cabin and their library and, without ever hearing human speech much less > English spoken, manages to teach himself to read. Why? Well, 1) he tries > hard and 2) he's English nobility. The generations of kids and their > parents who read the Tarzan story (or see the movies) never question this > train wreck of ideas -- on the contrary, it provides support for the idea > that learning is the result of trying hard and being born smart (except > that that's a code word for upper class). > > I had a heart-wrenching experience the other day that illustrates how this > works in real life. We're spending the summer in a small town in Vermont -- > working class, very dependent on big ski area tourism. A friend of mine, a > working class woman, is paying big bucks to send her 12 year old daughter > to an academic summer camp at a very high-level hotshot prep school nearby. > The hope is that, with this extra boost, the girl will be able to speed > past the pitfalls of the local high school (which has a 30% dropout rate, > drug problems, etc.). The other students at the summer camp are prep school > kids repeating classes they didnt' ace plus rich kids from all over the > world, especially Asia. My friend's daughter did fine the first week, then > seemed to just freeze. Now daughter wants to quit and is refusing to eat, > etc. Her mom's idea is that the girl just needs to try harder, try harder, > try harder.Mother has moved down there and is starting to attend classes > with her. Mother and daughter are about ready to hit each other. > > My opinion: trying harder worked for Tarzan because he was English > nobility, and someone forgot to make sure my friend and her daughter were > English nobility (meaning, someone forgot to prepare her daughter with all > the class advantages, including self confidence, that the other kids > brought with them, along with their iPhones and designer swimsuits). > > Where do you start, in a situation like this? > > > Helena Worthen > helenaworthen@gmail.com > > On Jul 19, 2014, at 6:38 PM, mike cole wrote: > > > Hi Peter. I had a similar experience regarding the accidental > > discovery of literature containing those colonialist-era books. My > > example was written for high level scholars over a century ago, but > > it, like this piece, expresses views that have not by any means > > disappeared in the intervening century. > > > > Nor has the resulting violence seemed to have eased. > > > > Attached. > > mike > > > > > > On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 12:03 PM, Peter Smagorinsky > wrote: > > > >> > >> http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/07/the-ideal-head-b > >> izarre-racial-teachings-from-a-100-year-old-textbook/374693/#comments > >> > >> I wrote this very short essay that some might find interesting, and > >> have linked to the page that includes reader comments, which are > >> prolific and edifying for those who believe in the progress of human > >> thinking. p > >> > > > > > > -- Carol A Macdonald Ph D (Edin) Developmental psycholinguist Academic, Researcher, and Editor Honorary Research Fellow: Department of Linguistics, Unisa From helenaworthen@gmail.com Thu Jul 24 10:46:24 2014 From: helenaworthen@gmail.com (Helena Worthen) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 13:46:24 -0400 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The ideal head In-Reply-To: References: <0ABD8052-EF53-493B-8A8C-E6EC00F0C5FB@gmail.com> Message-ID: <2E240906-B450-4804-93CC-484C6E8F98CA@gmail.com> But my point is that the "fictional" idea has power -- enough power to make people think that if a kid tries, and tries, and tries, they can overcome the lack of special resources that are symbolized by "English nobility," or, in the real world, a rich cultural environment in childhood, good food, safe place to sleep, attentive educated parents, nice schools, etc etc... Sometimes the "people" who believe that trying hard is enough are the parents. Sometimes they are the overseers of the school systems, who ought to know better. Helena Worthen helenaworthen@gmail.com On Jul 24, 2014, at 1:34 PM, Carol Macdonald wrote: > Peter > > Or perhaps that the writer of The Tarzan stories had no idea about what it > takes to become literate. He had no-one to show him the arbitrariness of > language and reading. > > If you remember, the primers for reading had multisyllable words in them. > > Peter is right - only in fiction is this possible. > > And trying harder isn't necessarily the way to move forward. Trying > something *else *might do it. Tell that mum. > > Carol > > > On 24 July 2014 17:53, Peter Smagorinsky wrote: > >> I'd say that working harder worked for Tarzan because he was fictional. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: >> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Helena Worthen >> Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2014 12:40 PM >> To: lchcmike@gmail.com; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The ideal head >> >> These views are persuasively bound up in the story of Tarzan, an >> incredibly popular book published in 1913 and still being sold. Tarzan, >> abandoned in infancy in the African jungle, comes upon his dead parents' >> cabin and their library and, without ever hearing human speech much less >> English spoken, manages to teach himself to read. Why? Well, 1) he tries >> hard and 2) he's English nobility. The generations of kids and their >> parents who read the Tarzan story (or see the movies) never question this >> train wreck of ideas -- on the contrary, it provides support for the idea >> that learning is the result of trying hard and being born smart (except >> that that's a code word for upper class). >> >> I had a heart-wrenching experience the other day that illustrates how this >> works in real life. We're spending the summer in a small town in Vermont -- >> working class, very dependent on big ski area tourism. A friend of mine, a >> working class woman, is paying big bucks to send her 12 year old daughter >> to an academic summer camp at a very high-level hotshot prep school nearby. >> The hope is that, with this extra boost, the girl will be able to speed >> past the pitfalls of the local high school (which has a 30% dropout rate, >> drug problems, etc.). The other students at the summer camp are prep school >> kids repeating classes they didnt' ace plus rich kids from all over the >> world, especially Asia. My friend's daughter did fine the first week, then >> seemed to just freeze. Now daughter wants to quit and is refusing to eat, >> etc. Her mom's idea is that the girl just needs to try harder, try harder, >> try harder.Mother has moved down there and is starting to attend classes >> with her. Mother and daughter are about ready to hit each other. >> >> My opinion: trying harder worked for Tarzan because he was English >> nobility, and someone forgot to make sure my friend and her daughter were >> English nobility (meaning, someone forgot to prepare her daughter with all >> the class advantages, including self confidence, that the other kids >> brought with them, along with their iPhones and designer swimsuits). >> >> Where do you start, in a situation like this? >> >> >> Helena Worthen >> helenaworthen@gmail.com >> >> On Jul 19, 2014, at 6:38 PM, mike cole wrote: >> >>> Hi Peter. I had a similar experience regarding the accidental >>> discovery of literature containing those colonialist-era books. My >>> example was written for high level scholars over a century ago, but >>> it, like this piece, expresses views that have not by any means >>> disappeared in the intervening century. >>> >>> Nor has the resulting violence seemed to have eased. >>> >>> Attached. >>> mike >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 12:03 PM, Peter Smagorinsky >> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/07/the-ideal-head-b >>>> izarre-racial-teachings-from-a-100-year-old-textbook/374693/#comments >>>> >>>> I wrote this very short essay that some might find interesting, and >>>> have linked to the page that includes reader comments, which are >>>> prolific and edifying for those who believe in the progress of human >>>> thinking. p >>>> >>> >> >> >> >> > > > -- > Carol A Macdonald Ph D (Edin) > Developmental psycholinguist > Academic, Researcher, and Editor > Honorary Research Fellow: Department of Linguistics, Unisa From glassman.13@osu.edu Thu Jul 24 11:07:05 2014 From: glassman.13@osu.edu (Glassman, Michael) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 18:07:05 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The ideal head In-Reply-To: <2E240906-B450-4804-93CC-484C6E8F98CA@gmail.com> References: <0ABD8052-EF53-493B-8A8C-E6EC00F0C5FB@gmail.com> , <2E240906-B450-4804-93CC-484C6E8F98CA@gmail.com> Message-ID: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9023B18@CIO-TNC-D2MBX01.osuad.osu.edu> Or is it the other way around. What we truly believe is that if somebody has not achieved something it is because they have not tried hard enough - it is their fault. This attitude that I have what I have so I must have earned it is very prevalent in the United States and has led to a loss of compassion for those who struggle. They have created their own circumstances, it must be their fault. It they really wanted to achieve they could. So many people buy into this myth even when they don't mean to, even if you asked them intellectually they would say that they would never do that. Yet it is so deeply woven into our ethic it is almost impossible to escape. ________________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] on behalf of Helena Worthen [helenaworthen@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2014 1:46 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The ideal head But my point is that the "fictional" idea has power -- enough power to make people think that if a kid tries, and tries, and tries, they can overcome the lack of special resources that are symbolized by "English nobility," or, in the real world, a rich cultural environment in childhood, good food, safe place to sleep, attentive educated parents, nice schools, etc etc... Sometimes the "people" who believe that trying hard is enough are the parents. Sometimes they are the overseers of the school systems, who ought to know better. Helena Worthen helenaworthen@gmail.com On Jul 24, 2014, at 1:34 PM, Carol Macdonald wrote: > Peter > > Or perhaps that the writer of The Tarzan stories had no idea about what it > takes to become literate. He had no-one to show him the arbitrariness of > language and reading. > > If you remember, the primers for reading had multisyllable words in them. > > Peter is right - only in fiction is this possible. > > And trying harder isn't necessarily the way to move forward. Trying > something *else *might do it. Tell that mum. > > Carol > > > On 24 July 2014 17:53, Peter Smagorinsky wrote: > >> I'd say that working harder worked for Tarzan because he was fictional. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: >> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Helena Worthen >> Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2014 12:40 PM >> To: lchcmike@gmail.com; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The ideal head >> >> These views are persuasively bound up in the story of Tarzan, an >> incredibly popular book published in 1913 and still being sold. Tarzan, >> abandoned in infancy in the African jungle, comes upon his dead parents' >> cabin and their library and, without ever hearing human speech much less >> English spoken, manages to teach himself to read. Why? Well, 1) he tries >> hard and 2) he's English nobility. The generations of kids and their >> parents who read the Tarzan story (or see the movies) never question this >> train wreck of ideas -- on the contrary, it provides support for the idea >> that learning is the result of trying hard and being born smart (except >> that that's a code word for upper class). >> >> I had a heart-wrenching experience the other day that illustrates how this >> works in real life. We're spending the summer in a small town in Vermont -- >> working class, very dependent on big ski area tourism. A friend of mine, a >> working class woman, is paying big bucks to send her 12 year old daughter >> to an academic summer camp at a very high-level hotshot prep school nearby. >> The hope is that, with this extra boost, the girl will be able to speed >> past the pitfalls of the local high school (which has a 30% dropout rate, >> drug problems, etc.). The other students at the summer camp are prep school >> kids repeating classes they didnt' ace plus rich kids from all over the >> world, especially Asia. My friend's daughter did fine the first week, then >> seemed to just freeze. Now daughter wants to quit and is refusing to eat, >> etc. Her mom's idea is that the girl just needs to try harder, try harder, >> try harder.Mother has moved down there and is starting to attend classes >> with her. Mother and daughter are about ready to hit each other. >> >> My opinion: trying harder worked for Tarzan because he was English >> nobility, and someone forgot to make sure my friend and her daughter were >> English nobility (meaning, someone forgot to prepare her daughter with all >> the class advantages, including self confidence, that the other kids >> brought with them, along with their iPhones and designer swimsuits). >> >> Where do you start, in a situation like this? >> >> >> Helena Worthen >> helenaworthen@gmail.com >> >> On Jul 19, 2014, at 6:38 PM, mike cole wrote: >> >>> Hi Peter. I had a similar experience regarding the accidental >>> discovery of literature containing those colonialist-era books. My >>> example was written for high level scholars over a century ago, but >>> it, like this piece, expresses views that have not by any means >>> disappeared in the intervening century. >>> >>> Nor has the resulting violence seemed to have eased. >>> >>> Attached. >>> mike >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 12:03 PM, Peter Smagorinsky >> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/07/the-ideal-head-b >>>> izarre-racial-teachings-from-a-100-year-old-textbook/374693/#comments >>>> >>>> I wrote this very short essay that some might find interesting, and >>>> have linked to the page that includes reader comments, which are >>>> prolific and edifying for those who believe in the progress of human >>>> thinking. p >>>> >>> >> >> >> >> > > > -- > Carol A Macdonald Ph D (Edin) > Developmental psycholinguist > Academic, Researcher, and Editor > Honorary Research Fellow: Department of Linguistics, Unisa From helenaworthen@gmail.com Thu Jul 24 11:17:06 2014 From: helenaworthen@gmail.com (Helena Worthen) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 14:17:06 -0400 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The ideal head In-Reply-To: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9023B18@CIO-TNC-D2MBX01.osuad.osu.edu> References: <0ABD8052-EF53-493B-8A8C-E6EC00F0C5FB@gmail.com> , <2E240906-B450-4804-93CC-484C6E8F98CA@gmail.com> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9023B18@CIO-TNC-D2MBX01.osuad.osu.edu> Message-ID: <93CA1230-9EC5-4C22-B5EE-15561C17810D@gmail.com> Michael, yes -- the "advantages" which in Tarzan are represented by his genetic inheritance (but which in our daily lives are that advantages of social class) are invisible to those who have benefited from them. Helena Worthen helenaworthen@gmail.com On Jul 24, 2014, at 2:07 PM, Glassman, Michael wrote: > Or is it the other way around. What we truly believe is that if somebody has not achieved something it is because they have not tried hard enough - it is their fault. This attitude that I have what I have so I must have earned it is very prevalent in the United States and has led to a loss of compassion for those who struggle. They have created their own circumstances, it must be their fault. It they really wanted to achieve they could. So many people buy into this myth even when they don't mean to, even if you asked them intellectually they would say that they would never do that. Yet it is so deeply woven into our ethic it is almost impossible to escape. > ________________________________________ > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] on behalf of Helena Worthen [helenaworthen@gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2014 1:46 PM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The ideal head > > But my point is that the "fictional" idea has power -- enough power to make people think that if a kid tries, and tries, and tries, they can overcome the lack of special resources that are symbolized by "English nobility," or, in the real world, a rich cultural environment in childhood, good food, safe place to sleep, attentive educated parents, nice schools, etc etc... > > Sometimes the "people" who believe that trying hard is enough are the parents. Sometimes they are the overseers of the school systems, who ought to know better. > > Helena Worthen > helenaworthen@gmail.com > > On Jul 24, 2014, at 1:34 PM, Carol Macdonald wrote: > >> Peter >> >> Or perhaps that the writer of The Tarzan stories had no idea about what it >> takes to become literate. He had no-one to show him the arbitrariness of >> language and reading. >> >> If you remember, the primers for reading had multisyllable words in them. >> >> Peter is right - only in fiction is this possible. >> >> And trying harder isn't necessarily the way to move forward. Trying >> something *else *might do it. Tell that mum. >> >> Carol >> >> >> On 24 July 2014 17:53, Peter Smagorinsky wrote: >> >>> I'd say that working harder worked for Tarzan because he was fictional. >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: >>> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Helena Worthen >>> Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2014 12:40 PM >>> To: lchcmike@gmail.com; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The ideal head >>> >>> These views are persuasively bound up in the story of Tarzan, an >>> incredibly popular book published in 1913 and still being sold. Tarzan, >>> abandoned in infancy in the African jungle, comes upon his dead parents' >>> cabin and their library and, without ever hearing human speech much less >>> English spoken, manages to teach himself to read. Why? Well, 1) he tries >>> hard and 2) he's English nobility. The generations of kids and their >>> parents who read the Tarzan story (or see the movies) never question this >>> train wreck of ideas -- on the contrary, it provides support for the idea >>> that learning is the result of trying hard and being born smart (except >>> that that's a code word for upper class). >>> >>> I had a heart-wrenching experience the other day that illustrates how this >>> works in real life. We're spending the summer in a small town in Vermont -- >>> working class, very dependent on big ski area tourism. A friend of mine, a >>> working class woman, is paying big bucks to send her 12 year old daughter >>> to an academic summer camp at a very high-level hotshot prep school nearby. >>> The hope is that, with this extra boost, the girl will be able to speed >>> past the pitfalls of the local high school (which has a 30% dropout rate, >>> drug problems, etc.). The other students at the summer camp are prep school >>> kids repeating classes they didnt' ace plus rich kids from all over the >>> world, especially Asia. My friend's daughter did fine the first week, then >>> seemed to just freeze. Now daughter wants to quit and is refusing to eat, >>> etc. Her mom's idea is that the girl just needs to try harder, try harder, >>> try harder.Mother has moved down there and is starting to attend classes >>> with her. Mother and daughter are about ready to hit each other. >>> >>> My opinion: trying harder worked for Tarzan because he was English >>> nobility, and someone forgot to make sure my friend and her daughter were >>> English nobility (meaning, someone forgot to prepare her daughter with all >>> the class advantages, including self confidence, that the other kids >>> brought with them, along with their iPhones and designer swimsuits). >>> >>> Where do you start, in a situation like this? >>> >>> >>> Helena Worthen >>> helenaworthen@gmail.com >>> >>> On Jul 19, 2014, at 6:38 PM, mike cole wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Peter. I had a similar experience regarding the accidental >>>> discovery of literature containing those colonialist-era books. My >>>> example was written for high level scholars over a century ago, but >>>> it, like this piece, expresses views that have not by any means >>>> disappeared in the intervening century. >>>> >>>> Nor has the resulting violence seemed to have eased. >>>> >>>> Attached. >>>> mike >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 12:03 PM, Peter Smagorinsky >>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/07/the-ideal-head-b >>>>> izarre-racial-teachings-from-a-100-year-old-textbook/374693/#comments >>>>> >>>>> I wrote this very short essay that some might find interesting, and >>>>> have linked to the page that includes reader comments, which are >>>>> prolific and edifying for those who believe in the progress of human >>>>> thinking. p >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Carol A Macdonald Ph D (Edin) >> Developmental psycholinguist >> Academic, Researcher, and Editor >> Honorary Research Fellow: Department of Linguistics, Unisa > > > From greg.a.thompson@gmail.com Thu Jul 24 11:27:34 2014 From: greg.a.thompson@gmail.com (Greg Thompson) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 13:27:34 -0500 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The ideal head In-Reply-To: <2E240906-B450-4804-93CC-484C6E8F98CA@gmail.com> References: <0ABD8052-EF53-493B-8A8C-E6EC00F0C5FB@gmail.com> <2E240906-B450-4804-93CC-484C6E8F98CA@gmail.com> Message-ID: Helena, Absolutely agreed. I see that as another way of saying that "culture" matters (history too!). I think this is where Lois Holzman's work is really interesting and exciting. She is dealing with the problem of becoming - and the particular problem of becoming that upper-class persons are not faced with. You can hear it in the way that upper-class kids talk - they already ARE upper-class. For the lower-class kid there is an added burden of becoming that involves becoming someone who BELONGS in those places (whether schools or board rooms or political governing bodies or whatever). I take it that this is the problem that this girl is faced with she feels like she is someone who does not belong there. Lois' work suggests that the metaphor (and practice) of play can be particularly powerful here. By playing out roles - even if the tired and overdetermined roles of lower class, Black, inner-city adolescent - children cultivate an awareness of the play-fulness of everyday life, the fact that "being someone who belongs" is a performed role. And one that, with a little practice, they too can perform. That's just my take on what Lois is up to. I'm sure there is more to it than what I have described. And it does seem like there is another narrative running alongside the "nobility can do it with hard word" that says that "anybody can do it with hard work". The former seems a more traditionally British mythos (nobility are fundamentally hard working people) while the latter is peculiarly American (whomever is hard working will become American nobility - i.e. upper class). But having said that, it is hard not to feel that the logic of the former is not still operating in the U.S. (as I suggested above). Interesting mess. Lois' seems a good approach. Are there others? (and I might also ask, moving from the individual to a more systemic question: what is the larger problem that we are trying to solve). -greg On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 12:46 PM, Helena Worthen wrote: > But my point is that the "fictional" idea has power -- enough power to > make people think that if a kid tries, and tries, and tries, they can > overcome the lack of special resources that are symbolized by "English > nobility," or, in the real world, a rich cultural environment in childhood, > good food, safe place to sleep, attentive educated parents, nice schools, > etc etc... > > Sometimes the "people" who believe that trying hard is enough are the > parents. Sometimes they are the overseers of the school systems, who ought > to know better. > > Helena Worthen > helenaworthen@gmail.com > > On Jul 24, 2014, at 1:34 PM, Carol Macdonald wrote: > > > Peter > > > > Or perhaps that the writer of The Tarzan stories had no idea about what > it > > takes to become literate. He had no-one to show him the arbitrariness of > > language and reading. > > > > If you remember, the primers for reading had multisyllable words in them. > > > > Peter is right - only in fiction is this possible. > > > > And trying harder isn't necessarily the way to move forward. Trying > > something *else *might do it. Tell that mum. > > > > Carol > > > > > > On 24 July 2014 17:53, Peter Smagorinsky wrote: > > > >> I'd say that working harder worked for Tarzan because he was fictional. > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > >> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Helena Worthen > >> Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2014 12:40 PM > >> To: lchcmike@gmail.com; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The ideal head > >> > >> These views are persuasively bound up in the story of Tarzan, an > >> incredibly popular book published in 1913 and still being sold. Tarzan, > >> abandoned in infancy in the African jungle, comes upon his dead parents' > >> cabin and their library and, without ever hearing human speech much less > >> English spoken, manages to teach himself to read. Why? Well, 1) he tries > >> hard and 2) he's English nobility. The generations of kids and their > >> parents who read the Tarzan story (or see the movies) never question > this > >> train wreck of ideas -- on the contrary, it provides support for the > idea > >> that learning is the result of trying hard and being born smart (except > >> that that's a code word for upper class). > >> > >> I had a heart-wrenching experience the other day that illustrates how > this > >> works in real life. We're spending the summer in a small town in > Vermont -- > >> working class, very dependent on big ski area tourism. A friend of > mine, a > >> working class woman, is paying big bucks to send her 12 year old > daughter > >> to an academic summer camp at a very high-level hotshot prep school > nearby. > >> The hope is that, with this extra boost, the girl will be able to speed > >> past the pitfalls of the local high school (which has a 30% dropout > rate, > >> drug problems, etc.). The other students at the summer camp are prep > school > >> kids repeating classes they didnt' ace plus rich kids from all over the > >> world, especially Asia. My friend's daughter did fine the first week, > then > >> seemed to just freeze. Now daughter wants to quit and is refusing to > eat, > >> etc. Her mom's idea is that the girl just needs to try harder, try > harder, > >> try harder.Mother has moved down there and is starting to attend classes > >> with her. Mother and daughter are about ready to hit each other. > >> > >> My opinion: trying harder worked for Tarzan because he was English > >> nobility, and someone forgot to make sure my friend and her daughter > were > >> English nobility (meaning, someone forgot to prepare her daughter with > all > >> the class advantages, including self confidence, that the other kids > >> brought with them, along with their iPhones and designer swimsuits). > >> > >> Where do you start, in a situation like this? > >> > >> > >> Helena Worthen > >> helenaworthen@gmail.com > >> > >> On Jul 19, 2014, at 6:38 PM, mike cole wrote: > >> > >>> Hi Peter. I had a similar experience regarding the accidental > >>> discovery of literature containing those colonialist-era books. My > >>> example was written for high level scholars over a century ago, but > >>> it, like this piece, expresses views that have not by any means > >>> disappeared in the intervening century. > >>> > >>> Nor has the resulting violence seemed to have eased. > >>> > >>> Attached. > >>> mike > >>> > >>> > >>> On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 12:03 PM, Peter Smagorinsky > >> wrote: > >>> > >>>> > >>>> http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/07/the-ideal-head-b > >>>> izarre-racial-teachings-from-a-100-year-old-textbook/374693/#comments > >>>> > >>>> I wrote this very short essay that some might find interesting, and > >>>> have linked to the page that includes reader comments, which are > >>>> prolific and edifying for those who believe in the progress of human > >>>> thinking. p > >>>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > -- > > Carol A Macdonald Ph D (Edin) > > Developmental psycholinguist > > Academic, Researcher, and Editor > > Honorary Research Fellow: Department of Linguistics, Unisa > > > -- Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Department of Anthropology 883 Spencer W. Kimball Tower Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602 http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson From smago@uga.edu Thu Jul 24 11:28:28 2014 From: smago@uga.edu (Peter Smagorinsky) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 18:28:28 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The ideal head In-Reply-To: <2E240906-B450-4804-93CC-484C6E8F98CA@gmail.com> References: <0ABD8052-EF53-493B-8A8C-E6EC00F0C5FB@gmail.com> <2E240906-B450-4804-93CC-484C6E8F98CA@gmail.com> Message-ID: <2f5893996d844649b529f184da975881@CO1PR02MB175.namprd02.prod.outlook.com> And yet "grit" is now the vogue term used by US policymakers to indicate that kids in poverty's main problem is not trying hard enough. http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/mar12/vol69/num06/Got-Grit%C2%A2.aspx -----Original Message----- From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Helena Worthen Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2014 1:46 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The ideal head But my point is that the "fictional" idea has power -- enough power to make people think that if a kid tries, and tries, and tries, they can overcome the lack of special resources that are symbolized by "English nobility," or, in the real world, a rich cultural environment in childhood, good food, safe place to sleep, attentive educated parents, nice schools, etc etc... Sometimes the "people" who believe that trying hard is enough are the parents. Sometimes they are the overseers of the school systems, who ought to know better. Helena Worthen helenaworthen@gmail.com On Jul 24, 2014, at 1:34 PM, Carol Macdonald wrote: > Peter > > Or perhaps that the writer of The Tarzan stories had no idea about > what it takes to become literate. He had no-one to show him the > arbitrariness of language and reading. > > If you remember, the primers for reading had multisyllable words in them. > > Peter is right - only in fiction is this possible. > > And trying harder isn't necessarily the way to move forward. Trying > something *else *might do it. Tell that mum. > > Carol > > > On 24 July 2014 17:53, Peter Smagorinsky wrote: > >> I'd say that working harder worked for Tarzan because he was fictional. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: >> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Helena Worthen >> Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2014 12:40 PM >> To: lchcmike@gmail.com; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The ideal head >> >> These views are persuasively bound up in the story of Tarzan, an >> incredibly popular book published in 1913 and still being sold. >> Tarzan, abandoned in infancy in the African jungle, comes upon his dead parents' >> cabin and their library and, without ever hearing human speech much >> less English spoken, manages to teach himself to read. Why? Well, 1) >> he tries hard and 2) he's English nobility. The generations of kids >> and their parents who read the Tarzan story (or see the movies) never >> question this train wreck of ideas -- on the contrary, it provides >> support for the idea that learning is the result of trying hard and >> being born smart (except that that's a code word for upper class). >> >> I had a heart-wrenching experience the other day that illustrates how >> this works in real life. We're spending the summer in a small town in >> Vermont -- working class, very dependent on big ski area tourism. A >> friend of mine, a working class woman, is paying big bucks to send >> her 12 year old daughter to an academic summer camp at a very high-level hotshot prep school nearby. >> The hope is that, with this extra boost, the girl will be able to >> speed past the pitfalls of the local high school (which has a 30% >> dropout rate, drug problems, etc.). The other students at the summer >> camp are prep school kids repeating classes they didnt' ace plus rich >> kids from all over the world, especially Asia. My friend's daughter >> did fine the first week, then seemed to just freeze. Now daughter >> wants to quit and is refusing to eat, etc. Her mom's idea is that the >> girl just needs to try harder, try harder, try harder.Mother has >> moved down there and is starting to attend classes with her. Mother and daughter are about ready to hit each other. >> >> My opinion: trying harder worked for Tarzan because he was English >> nobility, and someone forgot to make sure my friend and her daughter >> were English nobility (meaning, someone forgot to prepare her >> daughter with all the class advantages, including self confidence, >> that the other kids brought with them, along with their iPhones and designer swimsuits). >> >> Where do you start, in a situation like this? >> >> >> Helena Worthen >> helenaworthen@gmail.com >> >> On Jul 19, 2014, at 6:38 PM, mike cole wrote: >> >>> Hi Peter. I had a similar experience regarding the accidental >>> discovery of literature containing those colonialist-era books. My >>> example was written for high level scholars over a century ago, but >>> it, like this piece, expresses views that have not by any means >>> disappeared in the intervening century. >>> >>> Nor has the resulting violence seemed to have eased. >>> >>> Attached. >>> mike >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 12:03 PM, Peter Smagorinsky >> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/07/the-ideal-head >>>> -b >>>> izarre-racial-teachings-from-a-100-year-old-textbook/374693/#commen >>>> ts >>>> >>>> I wrote this very short essay that some might find interesting, and >>>> have linked to the page that includes reader comments, which are >>>> prolific and edifying for those who believe in the progress of >>>> human thinking. p >>>> >>> >> >> >> >> > > > -- > Carol A Macdonald Ph D (Edin) > Developmental psycholinguist > Academic, Researcher, and Editor > Honorary Research Fellow: Department of Linguistics, Unisa From djwdoc@yahoo.com Thu Jul 24 11:29:39 2014 From: djwdoc@yahoo.com (Douglas Williams) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 11:29:39 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The ideal head In-Reply-To: <2E240906-B450-4804-93CC-484C6E8F98CA@gmail.com> References: <0ABD8052-EF53-493B-8A8C-E6EC00F0C5FB@gmail.com> <2E240906-B450-4804-93CC-484C6E8F98CA@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1406226579.29135.YahooMailNeo@web164701.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Hi-- Edgar Rice Burroughs, along with Jack London (See Martin Eden, for example), Teddy Roosevelt, Brooks Adams, and many other intellectuals of the time, had a Social Darwinist subtext to their perceptions of the issue. Naturally the intellectually and physically fittest would conquer their conditions, all things being equal, and to attempt to eliminate the struggle, or to raise up those who needed more assistance to succeed, was to act against the natural order. There were nuances to this--in Brooks Adams' case, for example--regarding what characteristics truly fitted the times, so that the class of people exhibiting natural economic traits might trade leadership from time to time with people exhibiting natural spiritual warrior traits--such as Tarzan, let's say--so that as a society moved from balance to an excessively economic order, the spiritual trait re-emerges out of chaos, re-establishing civilization. And then there's Nietzsche, whose take on things was that civilization was inherently decadent, and that the modern Blond Beast should, as a matter of mental hygiene, abandon the shepherds of the unfit, and flee to the hills--or perhaps equatorial forests, though he didn't have a chance to express an opinion on the idea. We continue to have a form of Social Darwinism being practiced today, though it is more under the aegis of Friedrich Hayak and Ayn Rand, each of whom suggest that any group organization is inevitably led by Nietzschean shepherds, and thus inherently decadent, tyrannical, and inefficient. Governments, as the largest kind of group, are inherently the most oppressive and wasteful, so their social interactions in education and economic regulation are the most tyrannical and inefficient. From a more sensible economic standpoint, the waste of human potential produced by this theory of the survival of the fittest is irrational; what factory manager or farmer would say, as I heard a Phoenix University spokesperson say recently, that a 35% successful output rate (graduation within 6 years, at 10 times the cost of a California community college) was a little lower than ideal, but nonetheless a high-quality, competitively efficient outcome? His argument was that there was an inherent deficiency in some of the raw materials that they received, and so they could hardly be blamed if the materials failed them. Just so a farmer might say, well, the corn that required more water than the ground on which it was sown provided, and the sky provided, was not fit to grow, and deservedly lies wilted and dead. A farmer can't change the ground or the sky--it would be in violation of the laws of nature. I would hope someday that an ideology catches on of a more rational economics of education. We need an ideology that depends less on Social Darwinism, and more on the idea of maximizing the development of human potential, and producing a more productive, economically powerful society. The managers should be held accountable for not wasting the resources given them. Even for those who are disinterested in reason or rational production might be won over with references to such things as Matthew 25:14-30, and of the necessity not to waste the youth of each generation needlessly by selecting only that portion for education whose parents support it. All of us suffer from the loss, not just those individuals whose potential is left wasted. There is a marketing job to be done to sell the idea of rational education productivity. But this kind of complaint is like carrying coals to Newcastle, or (to modernize things a bit) chardonnay to Napa, so I've already said too much. But it is frustrating. I wish the society at large would ask themselves more about the fictional premises that guide so many wrongheaded policies that blight the world today. Regards, Doug ________________________________ From: Helena Worthen To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2014 10:46 AM Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The ideal head But my point is that the "fictional" idea has power -- enough power to make people think that if a kid tries, and tries, and tries, they can overcome the lack of special resources that are symbolized by "English nobility," or, in the real world, a rich cultural environment in childhood, good food, safe place to sleep, attentive educated parents, nice schools, etc etc... Sometimes the "people" who believe that trying hard is enough are the parents. Sometimes they are the overseers of the school systems, who ought to know better. Helena Worthen helenaworthen@gmail.com On Jul 24, 2014, at 1:34 PM, Carol Macdonald wrote: > Peter > > Or perhaps that the writer of The Tarzan stories had no idea about what it > takes to become literate.? He had no-one to show him the arbitrariness of > language and reading. > > If you remember, the primers for reading had multisyllable words in them. > > Peter is right - only in fiction is this possible. > > And trying harder isn't necessarily the way to move forward. Trying > something *else *might do it.? Tell that mum. > > Carol > > > On 24 July 2014 17:53, Peter Smagorinsky wrote: > >> I'd say that working harder worked for Tarzan because he was fictional. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: >> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Helena Worthen >> Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2014 12:40 PM >> To: lchcmike@gmail.com; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The ideal head >> >> These views are persuasively bound up in the story of Tarzan, an >> incredibly popular book published in 1913 and still being sold. Tarzan, >> abandoned in infancy in the African jungle, comes upon his dead parents' >> cabin and their library and, without ever hearing human speech much less >> English spoken, manages to teach himself to read. Why? Well, 1) he tries >> hard and 2) he's English nobility. The generations of kids and their >> parents who read the Tarzan story (or see the movies) never question this >> train wreck of ideas -- on the contrary, it provides support for the idea >> that learning is the result of trying hard and being born smart (except >> that that's a code word for upper class). >> >> I had a heart-wrenching experience the other day that illustrates how this >> works in real life. We're spending the summer in a small town in Vermont -- >> working class, very dependent on big ski area tourism. A friend of mine, a >> working class woman, is paying big bucks to send her 12 year old daughter >> to an academic summer camp at a very high-level hotshot prep school nearby. >> The hope is that, with this extra boost, the girl will be able to speed >> past the pitfalls of the local high school (which has a 30% dropout rate, >> drug problems, etc.). The other students at the summer camp are prep school >> kids repeating classes they didnt' ace plus rich kids from all over the >> world, especially Asia. My friend's daughter did fine the first week, then >> seemed to just freeze. Now daughter wants to quit and is refusing to eat, >> etc. Her mom's idea is that the girl just needs to try harder, try harder, >> try harder.Mother has moved down there and is starting to attend classes >> with her.? Mother and daughter are about ready to hit each other. >> >> My opinion: trying harder worked for Tarzan because he was English >> nobility, and someone forgot to make sure my friend and her daughter were >> English nobility (meaning, someone forgot to prepare her daughter with all >> the class advantages, including self confidence, that the other kids >> brought with them, along with their iPhones and designer swimsuits). >> >> Where do you start, in a situation like this? >> >> >> Helena Worthen >> helenaworthen@gmail.com >> >> On Jul 19, 2014, at 6:38 PM, mike cole wrote: >> >>> Hi Peter. I had a similar experience regarding the accidental >>> discovery of literature containing those colonialist-era books. My >>> example was written for high level scholars over a century ago, but >>> it, like this piece, expresses views that have not by any means >>> disappeared in the intervening century. >>> >>> Nor has the resulting violence seemed to have eased. >>> >>> Attached. >>> mike >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 12:03 PM, Peter Smagorinsky >> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/07/the-ideal-head-b >>>> izarre-racial-teachings-from-a-100-year-old-textbook/374693/#comments >>>> >>>> I wrote this very short essay that some might find interesting, and >>>> have linked to the page that includes reader comments, which are >>>> prolific and edifying for those who believe in the progress of human >>>> thinking. p >>>> >>> >> >> >> >> > > > -- > Carol A? Macdonald Ph D (Edin) > Developmental psycholinguist > Academic, Researcher,? and Editor > Honorary Research Fellow: Department of Linguistics, Unisa From mwsmith@temple.edu Thu Jul 24 11:38:33 2014 From: mwsmith@temple.edu (MICHAEL W SMITH) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 14:38:33 -0400 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The ideal head In-Reply-To: <2f5893996d844649b529f184da975881@CO1PR02MB175.namprd02.prod.outlook.com> References: <0ABD8052-EF53-493B-8A8C-E6EC00F0C5FB@gmail.com> <2E240906-B450-4804-93CC-484C6E8F98CA@gmail.com> <2f5893996d844649b529f184da975881@CO1PR02MB175.namprd02.prod.outlook.com> Message-ID: The progressive flip-side of that argument is to recognize that kids in poverty have manifested the grit they need to succeed in other contexts. At Temple we're moving to a no-test admissions option to acknowledge that kids from the comprehensive high schools in Philadelphia have personal resources that SATs can't measure. On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 2:28 PM, Peter Smagorinsky wrote: > And yet "grit" is now the vogue term used by US policymakers to indicate > that kids in poverty's main problem is not trying hard enough. > > http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/mar12/vol69/num06/Got-Grit%C2%A2.aspx > > -----Original Message----- > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Helena Worthen > Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2014 1:46 PM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The ideal head > > But my point is that the "fictional" idea has power -- enough power to > make people think that if a kid tries, and tries, and tries, they can > overcome the lack of special resources that are symbolized by "English > nobility," or, in the real world, a rich cultural environment in childhood, > good food, safe place to sleep, attentive educated parents, nice schools, > etc etc... > > Sometimes the "people" who believe that trying hard is enough are the > parents. Sometimes they are the overseers of the school systems, who ought > to know better. > > Helena Worthen > helenaworthen@gmail.com > > On Jul 24, 2014, at 1:34 PM, Carol Macdonald wrote: > > > Peter > > > > Or perhaps that the writer of The Tarzan stories had no idea about > > what it takes to become literate. He had no-one to show him the > > arbitrariness of language and reading. > > > > If you remember, the primers for reading had multisyllable words in them. > > > > Peter is right - only in fiction is this possible. > > > > And trying harder isn't necessarily the way to move forward. Trying > > something *else *might do it. Tell that mum. > > > > Carol > > > > > > On 24 July 2014 17:53, Peter Smagorinsky wrote: > > > >> I'd say that working harder worked for Tarzan because he was fictional. > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > >> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Helena Worthen > >> Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2014 12:40 PM > >> To: lchcmike@gmail.com; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The ideal head > >> > >> These views are persuasively bound up in the story of Tarzan, an > >> incredibly popular book published in 1913 and still being sold. > >> Tarzan, abandoned in infancy in the African jungle, comes upon his dead > parents' > >> cabin and their library and, without ever hearing human speech much > >> less English spoken, manages to teach himself to read. Why? Well, 1) > >> he tries hard and 2) he's English nobility. The generations of kids > >> and their parents who read the Tarzan story (or see the movies) never > >> question this train wreck of ideas -- on the contrary, it provides > >> support for the idea that learning is the result of trying hard and > >> being born smart (except that that's a code word for upper class). > >> > >> I had a heart-wrenching experience the other day that illustrates how > >> this works in real life. We're spending the summer in a small town in > >> Vermont -- working class, very dependent on big ski area tourism. A > >> friend of mine, a working class woman, is paying big bucks to send > >> her 12 year old daughter to an academic summer camp at a very > high-level hotshot prep school nearby. > >> The hope is that, with this extra boost, the girl will be able to > >> speed past the pitfalls of the local high school (which has a 30% > >> dropout rate, drug problems, etc.). The other students at the summer > >> camp are prep school kids repeating classes they didnt' ace plus rich > >> kids from all over the world, especially Asia. My friend's daughter > >> did fine the first week, then seemed to just freeze. Now daughter > >> wants to quit and is refusing to eat, etc. Her mom's idea is that the > >> girl just needs to try harder, try harder, try harder.Mother has > >> moved down there and is starting to attend classes with her. Mother > and daughter are about ready to hit each other. > >> > >> My opinion: trying harder worked for Tarzan because he was English > >> nobility, and someone forgot to make sure my friend and her daughter > >> were English nobility (meaning, someone forgot to prepare her > >> daughter with all the class advantages, including self confidence, > >> that the other kids brought with them, along with their iPhones and > designer swimsuits). > >> > >> Where do you start, in a situation like this? > >> > >> > >> Helena Worthen > >> helenaworthen@gmail.com > >> > >> On Jul 19, 2014, at 6:38 PM, mike cole wrote: > >> > >>> Hi Peter. I had a similar experience regarding the accidental > >>> discovery of literature containing those colonialist-era books. My > >>> example was written for high level scholars over a century ago, but > >>> it, like this piece, expresses views that have not by any means > >>> disappeared in the intervening century. > >>> > >>> Nor has the resulting violence seemed to have eased. > >>> > >>> Attached. > >>> mike > >>> > >>> > >>> On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 12:03 PM, Peter Smagorinsky > >> wrote: > >>> > >>>> > >>>> http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/07/the-ideal-head > >>>> -b > >>>> izarre-racial-teachings-from-a-100-year-old-textbook/374693/#commen > >>>> ts > >>>> > >>>> I wrote this very short essay that some might find interesting, and > >>>> have linked to the page that includes reader comments, which are > >>>> prolific and edifying for those who believe in the progress of > >>>> human thinking. p > >>>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > -- > > Carol A Macdonald Ph D (Edin) > > Developmental psycholinguist > > Academic, Researcher, and Editor > > Honorary Research Fellow: Department of Linguistics, Unisa > > > > -- Michael W. Smith Associate Dean for Faculty Development and Academic Affairs Temple University College of Education 237 Ritter Hall 1301 Cecil B. Moore Avenue Philadelphia, PA 19122 215.204.2296 From jgregmcverry@gmail.com Thu Jul 24 12:48:47 2014 From: jgregmcverry@gmail.com (Greg Mcverry) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 15:48:47 -0400 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Gee, Knowledge, Intelligence and Affinity Spaces In-Reply-To: <0D729B87-9CF2-436C-8987-FFFA956647CD@ucsd.edu> References: <0D729B87-9CF2-436C-8987-FFFA956647CD@ucsd.edu> Message-ID: It would have helped as well if I had included the correct book title. It is the Anti-Education Era: Creating Smarter Students Through Digital Learning I also attach (if it worked) a screenshot of new description of affinity spaces. Sorry the highlights look like a first year textbook. I read books with my students on Twitter and the annotation and sharing options on the Kindle Reader are limited. On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 3:43 PM, Rachel Pfister wrote: > For those who want to look into it more - > The 2004 paper on affinity spaces can be found at JPG's website: > http://www.jamespaulgee.com/publications > > > There is a chapter in the 2010 book Women and Gaming in which Gee and > Hayes discuss affinity spaces and their characteristics, including types of > knowledge, roles, and social dynamics. Gee also has a discussion of > affinity spaces in an interview with Henry Jenkins: > http://henryjenkins.org/2011/03/how_learners_can_be_on_top_of_1.html > > http://henryjenkins.org/2011/03/how_learners_can_be_on_top_of_2.html > > http://henryjenkins.org/2011/03/how_learners_can_be_on_top_of_3.html > > I haven't read the Miseducation Era book to know how he handles the idea > of affinity spaces in that work but am curious to hear others thoughts > > On Jul 23, 2014, at 12:08 PM, mike cole wrote: > > > A few juicy quotations might help those who do not know or have access to > > the originals, Greg. And make it easier for others to follow the > > conversation if there is one. > > mike > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 11:52 AM, Greg Mcverry > > wrote: > > > >> I just had a great conversation on Google+ I thought that many of you > could > >> help expand our thinking. > >> > >> We were discussing Gee's defining characteristics of Afffinity Spaces. > In > >> his first description (2004) Gee defined many types of knowledge: > >> individual, dispersed, tacit, intensive and extensive. > >> > >> Yet in his recent book, Miseducation Era affinity spaces are only > defined > >> in terms of intelligences and there are not as many types. > >> > >> We settled on the idea that perhaps JOPG was shooting for intelligence > to > >> be knowledge and doing to distinguish you cannot really know without > >> action. > >> > >> Anyone else have an opinion on the linguistic shift? > >> -- > >> J. Gregory McVerry, PhD > >> Assistant Professor > >> Southern Connecticut State University > >> twitter: jgmac1106 > >> > > -- J. Gregory McVerry, PhD Assistant Professor Southern Connecticut State University twitter: jgmac1106 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: AffinitySpacesAntiEducation Era.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 964401 bytes Desc: not available Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20140724/0e9b4ec0/attachment-0001.jpg From lchcmike@gmail.com Thu Jul 24 12:58:31 2014 From: lchcmike@gmail.com (mike cole) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 12:58:31 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Fwd: Fellowship Announcement - NAEd/Spencer Dissertation & Postdoc Fellowships In-Reply-To: <4330677cca2ba362b611d7468d01da26a1c.20140724191828@mail168.atl61.mcsv.net> References: <4330677cca2ba362b611d7468d01da26a1c.20140724191828@mail168.atl61.mcsv.net> Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: National Academy of Education Date: Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 12:18 PM Subject: Fellowship Announcement - NAEd/Spencer Dissertation & Postdoc Fellowships To: Michael Is this email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser . We are pleased to share information on the National Academy of Education/Spencer Foundation Dissertation and Postdoctoral Fellowship Programs in education research. Please help us widely distribute this information to qualified candidates, listservs, and other electronic sources by using the paragraphs below. Thank you for your assistance. *National Academy of Education/Spencer Dissertation Fellowship Program in Education Research* The NAEd/Spencer Dissertation Fellowship Program seeks to encourage a new generation of scholars from a wide range of disciplines and professional fields to undertake research relevant to the improvement of education. These $25,000 fellowships support individuals whose dissertations show potential for bringing fresh and constructive perspectives to the history, theory, or practice of formal or informal education anywhere in the world. Fellows will also attend professional development retreats and receive mentorship from NAEd members and other senior scholars in their field. This highly competitive program aims to identify the most talented emerging researchers conducting dissertation research related to education. The Dissertation Fellowship program receives many more applications than it can fund. This year, up to 600 applications are anticipated and about 30 fellowships will be awarded. Additional guidelines and the fellowship application form are available on our website. Website: http://www.naeducation.org/NAED_080200.html *Deadline to apply: October 3, 2014* *National Academy of Education/Spencer Postdoctoral Fellowship Program in Education Research* *** The Postdoctoral Fellowship underwent an applicant qualification change last year. Please note the new eligibility requirements pertaining to the date in which the doctoral degree was earned. *** The NAEd/Spencer Postdoctoral Fellowship Program supports early-career scholars working in critical areas of educational scholarship. Fellows will receive $55,000 for one academic year of research, or $27,500 for each of two contiguous years, working half time. Fellows will also attend professional development retreats and receive mentorship from NAEd members and other senior scholars in their field. Applicants must have had their PhD, EdD, or equivalent research degree conferred between January 1, 2009, and December 31, 2013. This fellowship is non-residential, and applications from all disciplines are encouraged. Up to twenty-five NAEd/Spencer Fellowships will be awarded. Additional guidelines and the fellowship application form are available on our website. Website: http://www.naeducation.org/NAED_080201.html *Deadline to apply: November 7, 2014* *Contact Information:* E-mail: info@naeducation.org Website: www.naeducation.org The National Academy of Education greatly appreciates support and funding from the Spencer Foundation to provide and administer these fellowship programs. For more information on the Spencer Foundation, please visit http://www.spencer.org forward to a friend *Copyright ? 2014 National Academy of Education, All rights reserved.* You are receiving this e-mail because you are a member of the National Academy of Education. *Our mailing address is:* National Academy of Education 500 5th St, NW Washington, DC 20001 Add us to your address book unsubscribe from this list | update subscription preferences From wester@uga.edu Thu Jul 24 13:07:04 2014 From: wester@uga.edu (Katherine Wester Neal) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 20:07:04 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The ideal head In-Reply-To: References: <0ABD8052-EF53-493B-8A8C-E6EC00F0C5FB@gmail.com> <2E240906-B450-4804-93CC-484C6E8F98CA@gmail.com> <2f5893996d844649b529f184da975881@CO1PR02MB175.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>, Message-ID: <1406232426890.57482@uga.edu> As someone who spent years teaching middle grades literacy, these sorts of issues led me to pursue a doctorate. My middle schoolers weren't only trying to overcome challenges with literacy; in many cases, they were also trying to overcome vast differences of culture and history in what they were reading and how they were expected to perform literacies in schools. It sounds like that's happening in Carol's example. (First time posting, a couple years as an XMCA reader, so hello everyone!) As Carol said earlier, maybe Tarzan's authors had no idea about what it takes to be literate. I think we still don't know what it takes to be literate across different cultures and times: http://time.com/3015497/learn-to-read-past-fourth-grade/ Grit seems to have been taken up lately as a solution, perhaps because it's research-based and made for a popular TED talk: http://www.ted.com/talks/angela_lee_duckworth_the_key_to_success_grit I think it's much easier to tout grit as a solution because, as Peter said, it doesn't require the untangling of the myriad issues often faced by people in poverty. Okay, I think that's enough for an initial post... Katie Wester-Neal Doctoral Candidate Department of Educational Theory and Practice University of Georgia ________________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of MICHAEL W SMITH Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2014 2:38 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The ideal head The progressive flip-side of that argument is to recognize that kids in poverty have manifested the grit they need to succeed in other contexts. At Temple we're moving to a no-test admissions option to acknowledge that kids from the comprehensive high schools in Philadelphia have personal resources that SATs can't measure. On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 2:28 PM, Peter Smagorinsky wrote: > And yet "grit" is now the vogue term used by US policymakers to indicate > that kids in poverty's main problem is not trying hard enough. > > http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/mar12/vol69/num06/Got-Grit%C2%A2.aspx > > -----Original Message----- > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Helena Worthen > Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2014 1:46 PM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The ideal head > > But my point is that the "fictional" idea has power -- enough power to > make people think that if a kid tries, and tries, and tries, they can > overcome the lack of special resources that are symbolized by "English > nobility," or, in the real world, a rich cultural environment in childhood, > good food, safe place to sleep, attentive educated parents, nice schools, > etc etc... > > Sometimes the "people" who believe that trying hard is enough are the > parents. Sometimes they are the overseers of the school systems, who ought > to know better. > > Helena Worthen > helenaworthen@gmail.com > > On Jul 24, 2014, at 1:34 PM, Carol Macdonald wrote: > > > Peter > > > > Or perhaps that the writer of The Tarzan stories had no idea about > > what it takes to become literate. He had no-one to show him the > > arbitrariness of language and reading. > > > > If you remember, the primers for reading had multisyllable words in them. > > > > Peter is right - only in fiction is this possible. > > > > And trying harder isn't necessarily the way to move forward. Trying > > something *else *might do it. Tell that mum. > > > > Carol > > > > > > On 24 July 2014 17:53, Peter Smagorinsky wrote: > > > >> I'd say that working harder worked for Tarzan because he was fictional. > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > >> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Helena Worthen > >> Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2014 12:40 PM > >> To: lchcmike@gmail.com; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The ideal head > >> > >> These views are persuasively bound up in the story of Tarzan, an > >> incredibly popular book published in 1913 and still being sold. > >> Tarzan, abandoned in infancy in the African jungle, comes upon his dead > parents' > >> cabin and their library and, without ever hearing human speech much > >> less English spoken, manages to teach himself to read. Why? Well, 1) > >> he tries hard and 2) he's English nobility. The generations of kids > >> and their parents who read the Tarzan story (or see the movies) never > >> question this train wreck of ideas -- on the contrary, it provides > >> support for the idea that learning is the result of trying hard and > >> being born smart (except that that's a code word for upper class). > >> > >> I had a heart-wrenching experience the other day that illustrates how > >> this works in real life. We're spending the summer in a small town in > >> Vermont -- working class, very dependent on big ski area tourism. A > >> friend of mine, a working class woman, is paying big bucks to send > >> her 12 year old daughter to an academic summer camp at a very > high-level hotshot prep school nearby. > >> The hope is that, with this extra boost, the girl will be able to > >> speed past the pitfalls of the local high school (which has a 30% > >> dropout rate, drug problems, etc.). The other students at the summer > >> camp are prep school kids repeating classes they didnt' ace plus rich > >> kids from all over the world, especially Asia. My friend's daughter > >> did fine the first week, then seemed to just freeze. Now daughter > >> wants to quit and is refusing to eat, etc. Her mom's idea is that the > >> girl just needs to try harder, try harder, try harder.Mother has > >> moved down there and is starting to attend classes with her. Mother > and daughter are about ready to hit each other. > >> > >> My opinion: trying harder worked for Tarzan because he was English > >> nobility, and someone forgot to make sure my friend and her daughter > >> were English nobility (meaning, someone forgot to prepare her > >> daughter with all the class advantages, including self confidence, > >> that the other kids brought with them, along with their iPhones and > designer swimsuits). > >> > >> Where do you start, in a situation like this? > >> > >> > >> Helena Worthen > >> helenaworthen@gmail.com > >> > >> On Jul 19, 2014, at 6:38 PM, mike cole wrote: > >> > >>> Hi Peter. I had a similar experience regarding the accidental > >>> discovery of literature containing those colonialist-era books. My > >>> example was written for high level scholars over a century ago, but > >>> it, like this piece, expresses views that have not by any means > >>> disappeared in the intervening century. > >>> > >>> Nor has the resulting violence seemed to have eased. > >>> > >>> Attached. > >>> mike > >>> > >>> > >>> On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 12:03 PM, Peter Smagorinsky > >> wrote: > >>> > >>>> > >>>> http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/07/the-ideal-head > >>>> -b > >>>> izarre-racial-teachings-from-a-100-year-old-textbook/374693/#commen > >>>> ts > >>>> > >>>> I wrote this very short essay that some might find interesting, and > >>>> have linked to the page that includes reader comments, which are > >>>> prolific and edifying for those who believe in the progress of > >>>> human thinking. p > >>>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > -- > > Carol A Macdonald Ph D (Edin) > > Developmental psycholinguist > > Academic, Researcher, and Editor > > Honorary Research Fellow: Department of Linguistics, Unisa > > > > -- Michael W. Smith Associate Dean for Faculty Development and Academic Affairs Temple University College of Education 237 Ritter Hall 1301 Cecil B. Moore Avenue Philadelphia, PA 19122 215.204.2296 From lchcmike@gmail.com Thu Jul 24 13:17:35 2014 From: lchcmike@gmail.com (mike cole) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 13:17:35 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The ideal head In-Reply-To: <1406232426890.57482@uga.edu> References: <0ABD8052-EF53-493B-8A8C-E6EC00F0C5FB@gmail.com> <2E240906-B450-4804-93CC-484C6E8F98CA@gmail.com> <2f5893996d844649b529f184da975881@CO1PR02MB175.namprd02.prod.outlook.com> <1406232426890.57482@uga.edu> Message-ID: Helen--- I cannot get a copy of the whole text here, but the last chapter of Luria's *The nature of human conflicts: researches in disorganization of human behavior *has a discussion of cases very like the one you describe. Although he is not dealing with the sort of class/power issue central to your case, the power part is there. The section titled "Experiments with direct control: Problems of Stimulus and Means. *>"Many observations support our view that the consideration of the voluntary * *>act as accomplished by "will-power" is a myth and that the human cannot by * *>direct force control his behavior any more than "a shadow can carry stones".* If someone has a pdf of the chapter it would be helpful, I believe. mike On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 1:07 PM, Katherine Wester Neal wrote: > As someone who spent years teaching middle grades literacy, these sorts of > issues led me to pursue a doctorate. My middle schoolers weren't only > trying to overcome challenges with literacy; in many cases, they were also > trying to overcome vast differences of culture and history in what they > were reading and how they were expected to perform literacies in schools. > It sounds like that's happening in Carol's example. (First time posting, a > couple years as an XMCA reader, so hello everyone!) > > As Carol said earlier, maybe Tarzan's authors had no idea about what it > takes to be literate. I think we still don't know what it takes to be > literate across different cultures and times: > > http://time.com/3015497/learn-to-read-past-fourth-grade/ > > Grit seems to have been taken up lately as a solution, perhaps because > it's research-based and made for a popular TED talk: > > http://www.ted.com/talks/angela_lee_duckworth_the_key_to_success_grit > > I think it's much easier to tout grit as a solution because, as Peter > said, it doesn't require the untangling of the myriad issues often faced by > people in poverty. > > Okay, I think that's enough for an initial post... > > Katie Wester-Neal > > Doctoral Candidate > Department of Educational Theory and Practice > University of Georgia > > ________________________________________ > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of MICHAEL W SMITH > Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2014 2:38 PM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The ideal head > > The progressive flip-side of that argument is to recognize that kids in > poverty have manifested the grit they need to succeed in other contexts. > At Temple we're moving to a no-test admissions option to acknowledge that > kids from the comprehensive high schools in Philadelphia have personal > resources that SATs can't measure. > > > On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 2:28 PM, Peter Smagorinsky wrote: > > > And yet "grit" is now the vogue term used by US policymakers to indicate > > that kids in poverty's main problem is not trying hard enough. > > > > > http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/mar12/vol69/num06/Got-Grit%C2%A2.aspx > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Helena Worthen > > Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2014 1:46 PM > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The ideal head > > > > But my point is that the "fictional" idea has power -- enough power to > > make people think that if a kid tries, and tries, and tries, they can > > overcome the lack of special resources that are symbolized by "English > > nobility," or, in the real world, a rich cultural environment in > childhood, > > good food, safe place to sleep, attentive educated parents, nice schools, > > etc etc... > > > > Sometimes the "people" who believe that trying hard is enough are the > > parents. Sometimes they are the overseers of the school systems, who > ought > > to know better. > > > > Helena Worthen > > helenaworthen@gmail.com > > > > On Jul 24, 2014, at 1:34 PM, Carol Macdonald wrote: > > > > > Peter > > > > > > Or perhaps that the writer of The Tarzan stories had no idea about > > > what it takes to become literate. He had no-one to show him the > > > arbitrariness of language and reading. > > > > > > If you remember, the primers for reading had multisyllable words in > them. > > > > > > Peter is right - only in fiction is this possible. > > > > > > And trying harder isn't necessarily the way to move forward. Trying > > > something *else *might do it. Tell that mum. > > > > > > Carol > > > > > > > > > On 24 July 2014 17:53, Peter Smagorinsky wrote: > > > > > >> I'd say that working harder worked for Tarzan because he was > fictional. > > >> > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > > >> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Helena Worthen > > >> Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2014 12:40 PM > > >> To: lchcmike@gmail.com; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The ideal head > > >> > > >> These views are persuasively bound up in the story of Tarzan, an > > >> incredibly popular book published in 1913 and still being sold. > > >> Tarzan, abandoned in infancy in the African jungle, comes upon his > dead > > parents' > > >> cabin and their library and, without ever hearing human speech much > > >> less English spoken, manages to teach himself to read. Why? Well, 1) > > >> he tries hard and 2) he's English nobility. The generations of kids > > >> and their parents who read the Tarzan story (or see the movies) never > > >> question this train wreck of ideas -- on the contrary, it provides > > >> support for the idea that learning is the result of trying hard and > > >> being born smart (except that that's a code word for upper class). > > >> > > >> I had a heart-wrenching experience the other day that illustrates how > > >> this works in real life. We're spending the summer in a small town in > > >> Vermont -- working class, very dependent on big ski area tourism. A > > >> friend of mine, a working class woman, is paying big bucks to send > > >> her 12 year old daughter to an academic summer camp at a very > > high-level hotshot prep school nearby. > > >> The hope is that, with this extra boost, the girl will be able to > > >> speed past the pitfalls of the local high school (which has a 30% > > >> dropout rate, drug problems, etc.). The other students at the summer > > >> camp are prep school kids repeating classes they didnt' ace plus rich > > >> kids from all over the world, especially Asia. My friend's daughter > > >> did fine the first week, then seemed to just freeze. Now daughter > > >> wants to quit and is refusing to eat, etc. Her mom's idea is that the > > >> girl just needs to try harder, try harder, try harder.Mother has > > >> moved down there and is starting to attend classes with her. Mother > > and daughter are about ready to hit each other. > > >> > > >> My opinion: trying harder worked for Tarzan because he was English > > >> nobility, and someone forgot to make sure my friend and her daughter > > >> were English nobility (meaning, someone forgot to prepare her > > >> daughter with all the class advantages, including self confidence, > > >> that the other kids brought with them, along with their iPhones and > > designer swimsuits). > > >> > > >> Where do you start, in a situation like this? > > >> > > >> > > >> Helena Worthen > > >> helenaworthen@gmail.com > > >> > > >> On Jul 19, 2014, at 6:38 PM, mike cole wrote: > > >> > > >>> Hi Peter. I had a similar experience regarding the accidental > > >>> discovery of literature containing those colonialist-era books. My > > >>> example was written for high level scholars over a century ago, but > > >>> it, like this piece, expresses views that have not by any means > > >>> disappeared in the intervening century. > > >>> > > >>> Nor has the resulting violence seemed to have eased. > > >>> > > >>> Attached. > > >>> mike > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 12:03 PM, Peter Smagorinsky > > >> wrote: > > >>> > > >>>> > > >>>> http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/07/the-ideal-head > > >>>> -b > > >>>> izarre-racial-teachings-from-a-100-year-old-textbook/374693/#commen > > >>>> ts > > >>>> > > >>>> I wrote this very short essay that some might find interesting, and > > >>>> have linked to the page that includes reader comments, which are > > >>>> prolific and edifying for those who believe in the progress of > > >>>> human thinking. p > > >>>> > > >>> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Carol A Macdonald Ph D (Edin) > > > Developmental psycholinguist > > > Academic, Researcher, and Editor > > > Honorary Research Fellow: Department of Linguistics, Unisa > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Michael W. Smith > Associate Dean for Faculty Development > and Academic Affairs > Temple University > College of Education > 237 Ritter Hall > 1301 Cecil B. Moore Avenue > Philadelphia, PA 19122 > 215.204.2296 > From lchcmike@gmail.com Thu Jul 24 15:30:46 2014 From: lchcmike@gmail.com (mike cole) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 15:30:46 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Electronic version of Luria book Message-ID: Helena-- I poked around after making the suggestion concerning Luria's discussion of "will power" and found a free electronic version here: https://archive.org/details/natureofhumancon032984mbp There is an even cleaner copy at marxists dot org but could not download it. Maybe you will have better luck. The book is, I believe, of interest in its entirety, but the last few chapters begin to show the increasing influence of LSV on Luria and the last chapter in particular displays that influence, along with the influence of Lewin. Anyway, you can check out for yourself if the examples he gives on the fruitlessness of "just trying harder" are useful or not. mike From helenaworthen@gmail.com Thu Jul 24 16:48:09 2014 From: helenaworthen@gmail.com (Helena Worthen) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 19:48:09 -0400 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The ideal head In-Reply-To: <1406226579.29135.YahooMailNeo@web164701.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <0ABD8052-EF53-493B-8A8C-E6EC00F0C5FB@gmail.com> <2E240906-B450-4804-93CC-484C6E8F98CA@gmail.com> <1406226579.29135.YahooMailNeo@web164701.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: That quote from the Phoenix University spokesperson was appallingly credible. Helena Helena Worthen helenaworthen@gmail.com On Jul 24, 2014, at 2:29 PM, Douglas Williams wrote: > Hi-- > > Edgar Rice Burroughs, along with Jack London (See Martin Eden, for example), Teddy Roosevelt, Brooks Adams, and many other intellectuals of the time, had a Social Darwinist subtext to their perceptions of the issue. Naturally the intellectually and physically fittest would conquer their conditions, all things being equal, and to attempt to eliminate the struggle, or to raise up those who needed more assistance to succeed, was to act against the natural order. There were nuances to this--in Brooks Adams' case, for example--regarding what characteristics truly fitted the times, so that the class of people exhibiting natural economic traits might trade leadership from time to time with people exhibiting natural spiritual warrior traits--such as Tarzan, let's say--so that as a society moved from balance to an excessively economic order, the spiritual trait re-emerges out of chaos, re-establishing civilization. And then there's Nietzsche, whose take on things > was that civilization was inherently decadent, and that the modern Blond Beast should, as a matter of mental hygiene, abandon the shepherds of the unfit, and flee to the hills--or perhaps equatorial forests, though he didn't have a chance to express an opinion on the idea. > > > We continue to have a form of Social Darwinism being practiced today, though it is more under the aegis of Friedrich Hayak and Ayn Rand, each of whom suggest that any group organization is inevitably led by Nietzschean shepherds, and thus inherently decadent, tyrannical, and inefficient. Governments, as the largest kind of group, are inherently the most oppressive and wasteful, so their social interactions in education and economic regulation are the most tyrannical and inefficient. From a more sensible economic standpoint, the waste of human potential produced by this theory of the survival of the fittest is irrational; what factory manager or farmer would say, as I heard a Phoenix University spokesperson say recently, that a 35% successful output rate (graduation within 6 years, at 10 times the cost of a California community college) was a little lower than ideal, but nonetheless a high-quality, competitively efficient outcome? His argument was that > there was an inherent deficiency in some of the raw materials that they received, and so they could hardly be blamed if the materials failed them. Just so a farmer might say, well, the corn that required more water than the ground on which it was sown provided, and the sky provided, was not fit to grow, and deservedly lies wilted and dead. A farmer can't change the ground or the sky--it would be in violation of the laws of nature. > > > I would hope someday that an ideology catches on of a more rational economics of education. We need an ideology that depends less on Social Darwinism, and more on the idea of maximizing the development of human potential, and producing a more productive, economically powerful society. The managers should be held accountable for not wasting the resources given them. Even for those who are disinterested in reason or rational production might be won over with references to such things as Matthew 25:14-30, and of the necessity not to waste the youth of each generation needlessly by selecting only that portion for education whose parents support it. All of us suffer from the loss, not just those individuals whose potential is left wasted. There is a marketing job to be done to sell the idea of rational education productivity. > > > But this kind of complaint is like carrying coals to Newcastle, or (to modernize things a bit) chardonnay to Napa, so I've already said too much. But it is frustrating. I wish the society at large would ask themselves more about the fictional premises that guide so many wrongheaded policies that blight the world today. > > > Regards, > Doug > > > > > ________________________________ > From: Helena Worthen > To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2014 10:46 AM > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The ideal head > > > But my point is that the "fictional" idea has power -- enough power to make people think that if a kid tries, and tries, and tries, they can overcome the lack of special resources that are symbolized by "English nobility," or, in the real world, a rich cultural environment in childhood, good food, safe place to sleep, attentive educated parents, nice schools, etc etc... > > Sometimes the "people" who believe that trying hard is enough are the parents. Sometimes they are the overseers of the school systems, who ought to know better. > > Helena Worthen > helenaworthen@gmail.com > > > On Jul 24, 2014, at 1:34 PM, Carol Macdonald wrote: > >> Peter >> >> Or perhaps that the writer of The Tarzan stories had no idea about what it >> takes to become literate. He had no-one to show him the arbitrariness of >> language and reading. >> >> If you remember, the primers for reading had multisyllable words in them. >> >> Peter is right - only in fiction is this possible. >> >> And trying harder isn't necessarily the way to move forward. Trying >> something *else *might do it. Tell that mum. >> >> Carol >> >> >> On 24 July 2014 17:53, Peter Smagorinsky wrote: >> >>> I'd say that working harder worked for Tarzan because he was fictional. >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: >>> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Helena Worthen >>> Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2014 12:40 PM >>> To: lchcmike@gmail.com; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The ideal head >>> >>> These views are persuasively bound up in the story of Tarzan, an >>> incredibly popular book published in 1913 and still being sold. Tarzan, >>> abandoned in infancy in the African jungle, comes upon his dead parents' >>> cabin and their library and, without ever hearing human speech much less >>> English spoken, manages to teach himself to read. Why? Well, 1) he tries >>> hard and 2) he's English nobility. The generations of kids and their >>> parents who read the Tarzan story (or see the movies) never question this >>> train wreck of ideas -- on the contrary, it provides support for the idea >>> that learning is the result of trying hard and being born smart (except >>> that that's a code word for upper class). >>> >>> I had a heart-wrenching experience the other day that illustrates how this >>> works in real life. We're spending the summer in a small town in Vermont -- >>> working class, very dependent on big ski area tourism. A friend of mine, a >>> working class woman, is paying big bucks to send her 12 year old daughter >>> to an academic summer camp at a very high-level hotshot prep school nearby. >>> The hope is that, with this extra boost, the girl will be able to speed >>> past the pitfalls of the local high school (which has a 30% dropout rate, >>> drug problems, etc.). The other students at the summer camp are prep school >>> kids repeating classes they didnt' ace plus rich kids from all over the >>> world, especially Asia. My friend's daughter did fine the first week, then >>> seemed to just freeze. Now daughter wants to quit and is refusing to eat, >>> etc. Her mom's idea is that the girl just needs to try harder, try harder, >>> try harder.Mother has moved down there and is starting to attend classes >>> with her. Mother and daughter are about ready to hit each other. >>> >>> My opinion: trying harder worked for Tarzan because he was English >>> nobility, and someone forgot to make sure my friend and her daughter were >>> English nobility (meaning, someone forgot to prepare her daughter with all >>> the class advantages, including self confidence, that the other kids >>> brought with them, along with their iPhones and designer swimsuits). >>> >>> Where do you start, in a situation like this? >>> >>> >>> Helena Worthen >>> helenaworthen@gmail.com >>> >>> On Jul 19, 2014, at 6:38 PM, mike cole wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Peter. I had a similar experience regarding the accidental >>>> discovery of literature containing those colonialist-era books. My >>>> example was written for high level scholars over a century ago, but >>>> it, like this piece, expresses views that have not by any means >>>> disappeared in the intervening century. >>>> >>>> Nor has the resulting violence seemed to have eased. >>>> >>>> Attached. >>>> mike >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 12:03 PM, Peter Smagorinsky >>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/07/the-ideal-head-b >>>>> izarre-racial-teachings-from-a-100-year-old-textbook/374693/#comments >>>>> >>>>> I wrote this very short essay that some might find interesting, and >>>>> have linked to the page that includes reader comments, which are >>>>> prolific and edifying for those who believe in the progress of human >>>>> thinking. p >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Carol A Macdonald Ph D (Edin) >> Developmental psycholinguist >> Academic, Researcher, and Editor >> Honorary Research Fellow: Department of Linguistics, Unisa From helenaworthen@gmail.com Thu Jul 24 16:49:02 2014 From: helenaworthen@gmail.com (Helena Worthen) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 19:49:02 -0400 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The ideal head In-Reply-To: References: <0ABD8052-EF53-493B-8A8C-E6EC00F0C5FB@gmail.com> <2E240906-B450-4804-93CC-484C6E8F98CA@gmail.com> <2f5893996d844649b529f184da975881@CO1PR02MB175.namprd02.prod.outlook.com> Message-ID: <9910C22A-B9A0-49D9-B3EC-9E51D96CA372@gmail.com> Michael - How will Temple decide whom to admit? First come, first served? Anyone who graduates from a Philly high school? Helena Helena Worthen helenaworthen@gmail.com On Jul 24, 2014, at 2:38 PM, MICHAEL W SMITH wrote: > The progressive flip-side of that argument is to recognize that kids in > poverty have manifested the grit they need to succeed in other contexts. > At Temple we're moving to a no-test admissions option to acknowledge that > kids from the comprehensive high schools in Philadelphia have personal > resources that SATs can't measure. > > > On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 2:28 PM, Peter Smagorinsky wrote: > >> And yet "grit" is now the vogue term used by US policymakers to indicate >> that kids in poverty's main problem is not trying hard enough. >> >> http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/mar12/vol69/num06/Got-Grit%C2%A2.aspx >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: >> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Helena Worthen >> Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2014 1:46 PM >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The ideal head >> >> But my point is that the "fictional" idea has power -- enough power to >> make people think that if a kid tries, and tries, and tries, they can >> overcome the lack of special resources that are symbolized by "English >> nobility," or, in the real world, a rich cultural environment in childhood, >> good food, safe place to sleep, attentive educated parents, nice schools, >> etc etc... >> >> Sometimes the "people" who believe that trying hard is enough are the >> parents. Sometimes they are the overseers of the school systems, who ought >> to know better. >> >> Helena Worthen >> helenaworthen@gmail.com >> >> On Jul 24, 2014, at 1:34 PM, Carol Macdonald wrote: >> >>> Peter >>> >>> Or perhaps that the writer of The Tarzan stories had no idea about >>> what it takes to become literate. He had no-one to show him the >>> arbitrariness of language and reading. >>> >>> If you remember, the primers for reading had multisyllable words in them. >>> >>> Peter is right - only in fiction is this possible. >>> >>> And trying harder isn't necessarily the way to move forward. Trying >>> something *else *might do it. Tell that mum. >>> >>> Carol >>> >>> >>> On 24 July 2014 17:53, Peter Smagorinsky wrote: >>> >>>> I'd say that working harder worked for Tarzan because he was fictional. >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: >>>> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Helena Worthen >>>> Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2014 12:40 PM >>>> To: lchcmike@gmail.com; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The ideal head >>>> >>>> These views are persuasively bound up in the story of Tarzan, an >>>> incredibly popular book published in 1913 and still being sold. >>>> Tarzan, abandoned in infancy in the African jungle, comes upon his dead >> parents' >>>> cabin and their library and, without ever hearing human speech much >>>> less English spoken, manages to teach himself to read. Why? Well, 1) >>>> he tries hard and 2) he's English nobility. The generations of kids >>>> and their parents who read the Tarzan story (or see the movies) never >>>> question this train wreck of ideas -- on the contrary, it provides >>>> support for the idea that learning is the result of trying hard and >>>> being born smart (except that that's a code word for upper class). >>>> >>>> I had a heart-wrenching experience the other day that illustrates how >>>> this works in real life. We're spending the summer in a small town in >>>> Vermont -- working class, very dependent on big ski area tourism. A >>>> friend of mine, a working class woman, is paying big bucks to send >>>> her 12 year old daughter to an academic summer camp at a very >> high-level hotshot prep school nearby. >>>> The hope is that, with this extra boost, the girl will be able to >>>> speed past the pitfalls of the local high school (which has a 30% >>>> dropout rate, drug problems, etc.). The other students at the summer >>>> camp are prep school kids repeating classes they didnt' ace plus rich >>>> kids from all over the world, especially Asia. My friend's daughter >>>> did fine the first week, then seemed to just freeze. Now daughter >>>> wants to quit and is refusing to eat, etc. Her mom's idea is that the >>>> girl just needs to try harder, try harder, try harder.Mother has >>>> moved down there and is starting to attend classes with her. Mother >> and daughter are about ready to hit each other. >>>> >>>> My opinion: trying harder worked for Tarzan because he was English >>>> nobility, and someone forgot to make sure my friend and her daughter >>>> were English nobility (meaning, someone forgot to prepare her >>>> daughter with all the class advantages, including self confidence, >>>> that the other kids brought with them, along with their iPhones and >> designer swimsuits). >>>> >>>> Where do you start, in a situation like this? >>>> >>>> >>>> Helena Worthen >>>> helenaworthen@gmail.com >>>> >>>> On Jul 19, 2014, at 6:38 PM, mike cole wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Peter. I had a similar experience regarding the accidental >>>>> discovery of literature containing those colonialist-era books. My >>>>> example was written for high level scholars over a century ago, but >>>>> it, like this piece, expresses views that have not by any means >>>>> disappeared in the intervening century. >>>>> >>>>> Nor has the resulting violence seemed to have eased. >>>>> >>>>> Attached. >>>>> mike >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 12:03 PM, Peter Smagorinsky >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/07/the-ideal-head >>>>>> -b >>>>>> izarre-racial-teachings-from-a-100-year-old-textbook/374693/#commen >>>>>> ts >>>>>> >>>>>> I wrote this very short essay that some might find interesting, and >>>>>> have linked to the page that includes reader comments, which are >>>>>> prolific and edifying for those who believe in the progress of >>>>>> human thinking. p >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Carol A Macdonald Ph D (Edin) >>> Developmental psycholinguist >>> Academic, Researcher, and Editor >>> Honorary Research Fellow: Department of Linguistics, Unisa >> >> >> >> > > > -- > Michael W. Smith > Associate Dean for Faculty Development > and Academic Affairs > Temple University > College of Education > 237 Ritter Hall > 1301 Cecil B. Moore Avenue > Philadelphia, PA 19122 > 215.204.2296 From lchcmike@gmail.com Thu Jul 24 17:26:39 2014 From: lchcmike@gmail.com (mike cole) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 17:26:39 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The ideal head In-Reply-To: <9910C22A-B9A0-49D9-B3EC-9E51D96CA372@gmail.com> References: <0ABD8052-EF53-493B-8A8C-E6EC00F0C5FB@gmail.com> <2E240906-B450-4804-93CC-484C6E8F98CA@gmail.com> <2f5893996d844649b529f184da975881@CO1PR02MB175.namprd02.prod.outlook.com> <9910C22A-B9A0-49D9-B3EC-9E51D96CA372@gmail.com> Message-ID: Helena-- This way of putting things helps to illustrate the double sided nature of linguisitic/cultural mediation. You write a "fictional" idea has power Yes, it is a sign embodied in language that acts upon the external world at the same time that must be "suited" for the circumstances. Enabling and constraining. Ideas persist in their existence only to the extent that they are materialized and "taken up" by society. The class based and all other "dimensions of power" play a huge role in the odds we would put on the weaker interlocuter exterting sufficent power by words alone. mike On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 4:49 PM, Helena Worthen wrote: > Michael - > > How will Temple decide whom to admit? First come, first served? Anyone who > graduates from a Philly high school? > > Helena > > > Helena Worthen > helenaworthen@gmail.com > > On Jul 24, 2014, at 2:38 PM, MICHAEL W SMITH wrote: > > > The progressive flip-side of that argument is to recognize that kids in > > poverty have manifested the grit they need to succeed in other contexts. > > At Temple we're moving to a no-test admissions option to acknowledge that > > kids from the comprehensive high schools in Philadelphia have personal > > resources that SATs can't measure. > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 2:28 PM, Peter Smagorinsky > wrote: > > > >> And yet "grit" is now the vogue term used by US policymakers to indicate > >> that kids in poverty's main problem is not trying hard enough. > >> > >> > http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/mar12/vol69/num06/Got-Grit%C2%A2.aspx > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > >> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Helena Worthen > >> Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2014 1:46 PM > >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The ideal head > >> > >> But my point is that the "fictional" idea has power -- enough power to > >> make people think that if a kid tries, and tries, and tries, they can > >> overcome the lack of special resources that are symbolized by "English > >> nobility," or, in the real world, a rich cultural environment in > childhood, > >> good food, safe place to sleep, attentive educated parents, nice > schools, > >> etc etc... > >> > >> Sometimes the "people" who believe that trying hard is enough are the > >> parents. Sometimes they are the overseers of the school systems, who > ought > >> to know better. > >> > >> Helena Worthen > >> helenaworthen@gmail.com > >> > >> On Jul 24, 2014, at 1:34 PM, Carol Macdonald wrote: > >> > >>> Peter > >>> > >>> Or perhaps that the writer of The Tarzan stories had no idea about > >>> what it takes to become literate. He had no-one to show him the > >>> arbitrariness of language and reading. > >>> > >>> If you remember, the primers for reading had multisyllable words in > them. > >>> > >>> Peter is right - only in fiction is this possible. > >>> > >>> And trying harder isn't necessarily the way to move forward. Trying > >>> something *else *might do it. Tell that mum. > >>> > >>> Carol > >>> > >>> > >>> On 24 July 2014 17:53, Peter Smagorinsky wrote: > >>> > >>>> I'd say that working harder worked for Tarzan because he was > fictional. > >>>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > >>>> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Helena Worthen > >>>> Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2014 12:40 PM > >>>> To: lchcmike@gmail.com; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > >>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The ideal head > >>>> > >>>> These views are persuasively bound up in the story of Tarzan, an > >>>> incredibly popular book published in 1913 and still being sold. > >>>> Tarzan, abandoned in infancy in the African jungle, comes upon his > dead > >> parents' > >>>> cabin and their library and, without ever hearing human speech much > >>>> less English spoken, manages to teach himself to read. Why? Well, 1) > >>>> he tries hard and 2) he's English nobility. The generations of kids > >>>> and their parents who read the Tarzan story (or see the movies) never > >>>> question this train wreck of ideas -- on the contrary, it provides > >>>> support for the idea that learning is the result of trying hard and > >>>> being born smart (except that that's a code word for upper class). > >>>> > >>>> I had a heart-wrenching experience the other day that illustrates how > >>>> this works in real life. We're spending the summer in a small town in > >>>> Vermont -- working class, very dependent on big ski area tourism. A > >>>> friend of mine, a working class woman, is paying big bucks to send > >>>> her 12 year old daughter to an academic summer camp at a very > >> high-level hotshot prep school nearby. > >>>> The hope is that, with this extra boost, the girl will be able to > >>>> speed past the pitfalls of the local high school (which has a 30% > >>>> dropout rate, drug problems, etc.). The other students at the summer > >>>> camp are prep school kids repeating classes they didnt' ace plus rich > >>>> kids from all over the world, especially Asia. My friend's daughter > >>>> did fine the first week, then seemed to just freeze. Now daughter > >>>> wants to quit and is refusing to eat, etc. Her mom's idea is that the > >>>> girl just needs to try harder, try harder, try harder.Mother has > >>>> moved down there and is starting to attend classes with her. Mother > >> and daughter are about ready to hit each other. > >>>> > >>>> My opinion: trying harder worked for Tarzan because he was English > >>>> nobility, and someone forgot to make sure my friend and her daughter > >>>> were English nobility (meaning, someone forgot to prepare her > >>>> daughter with all the class advantages, including self confidence, > >>>> that the other kids brought with them, along with their iPhones and > >> designer swimsuits). > >>>> > >>>> Where do you start, in a situation like this? > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Helena Worthen > >>>> helenaworthen@gmail.com > >>>> > >>>> On Jul 19, 2014, at 6:38 PM, mike cole wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Hi Peter. I had a similar experience regarding the accidental > >>>>> discovery of literature containing those colonialist-era books. My > >>>>> example was written for high level scholars over a century ago, but > >>>>> it, like this piece, expresses views that have not by any means > >>>>> disappeared in the intervening century. > >>>>> > >>>>> Nor has the resulting violence seemed to have eased. > >>>>> > >>>>> Attached. > >>>>> mike > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 12:03 PM, Peter Smagorinsky > >>>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/07/the-ideal-head > >>>>>> -b > >>>>>> izarre-racial-teachings-from-a-100-year-old-textbook/374693/#commen > >>>>>> ts > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I wrote this very short essay that some might find interesting, and > >>>>>> have linked to the page that includes reader comments, which are > >>>>>> prolific and edifying for those who believe in the progress of > >>>>>> human thinking. p > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Carol A Macdonald Ph D (Edin) > >>> Developmental psycholinguist > >>> Academic, Researcher, and Editor > >>> Honorary Research Fellow: Department of Linguistics, Unisa > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > -- > > Michael W. Smith > > Associate Dean for Faculty Development > > and Academic Affairs > > Temple University > > College of Education > > 237 Ritter Hall > > 1301 Cecil B. Moore Avenue > > Philadelphia, PA 19122 > > 215.204.2296 > > > From greg.a.thompson@gmail.com Thu Jul 24 21:06:42 2014 From: greg.a.thompson@gmail.com (Greg Thompson) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 23:06:42 -0500 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The ideal head In-Reply-To: References: <0ABD8052-EF53-493B-8A8C-E6EC00F0C5FB@gmail.com> <2E240906-B450-4804-93CC-484C6E8F98CA@gmail.com> <2f5893996d844649b529f184da975881@CO1PR02MB175.namprd02.prod.outlook.com> <9910C22A-B9A0-49D9-B3EC-9E51D96CA372@gmail.com> Message-ID: Mike, Helena, Andy and others, I wonder if this passage from Vygotsky's the problem of Age can help in thinking about the problem: "The second feature of critical age levels served as a departure point for empirical study. The fact is that a significant proportion of children who experience critical periods of development are difficult children. These children seem to drop out of the system of pedagogical influence that until very recently provided a normal course for their training. and education. In children of school age during critical periods, there is a drop in rate of success, a slacking of interest in school work, and a general decline in capacity for work. At critical age levels, the child?s development frequently is accompanied by more or less sharp conflicts with those around him. The child?s internal life is sometimes connected with painful and excruciating experiences and with internal conflicts." Although frankly, I'm not sure what is meant by "critical periods of development" and/or by "difficult children" (that second sentence baffles me). Help would be welcome here! Andy, maybe you can help? (Andy has been helping me understand this essay offline). -greg On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 7:26 PM, mike cole wrote: > Helena-- This way of putting things helps to illustrate the double sided > nature of linguisitic/cultural mediation. You write > > a "fictional" idea has power > > Yes, it is a sign embodied in language that acts upon the external world at > the same time that must be "suited" for the circumstances. Enabling and > constraining. Ideas persist in their existence only to the extent that they > are materialized and "taken up" by society. The class based and all other > "dimensions of power" play a huge role in the odds we would put on the > weaker interlocuter exterting sufficent power by words alone. > mike > > > On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 4:49 PM, Helena Worthen > wrote: > > > Michael - > > > > How will Temple decide whom to admit? First come, first served? Anyone > who > > graduates from a Philly high school? > > > > Helena > > > > > > Helena Worthen > > helenaworthen@gmail.com > > > > On Jul 24, 2014, at 2:38 PM, MICHAEL W SMITH wrote: > > > > > The progressive flip-side of that argument is to recognize that kids in > > > poverty have manifested the grit they need to succeed in other > contexts. > > > At Temple we're moving to a no-test admissions option to acknowledge > that > > > kids from the comprehensive high schools in Philadelphia have personal > > > resources that SATs can't measure. > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 2:28 PM, Peter Smagorinsky > > wrote: > > > > > >> And yet "grit" is now the vogue term used by US policymakers to > indicate > > >> that kids in poverty's main problem is not trying hard enough. > > >> > > >> > > > http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/mar12/vol69/num06/Got-Grit%C2%A2.aspx > > >> > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > > >> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Helena Worthen > > >> Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2014 1:46 PM > > >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The ideal head > > >> > > >> But my point is that the "fictional" idea has power -- enough power to > > >> make people think that if a kid tries, and tries, and tries, they can > > >> overcome the lack of special resources that are symbolized by "English > > >> nobility," or, in the real world, a rich cultural environment in > > childhood, > > >> good food, safe place to sleep, attentive educated parents, nice > > schools, > > >> etc etc... > > >> > > >> Sometimes the "people" who believe that trying hard is enough are the > > >> parents. Sometimes they are the overseers of the school systems, who > > ought > > >> to know better. > > >> > > >> Helena Worthen > > >> helenaworthen@gmail.com > > >> > > >> On Jul 24, 2014, at 1:34 PM, Carol Macdonald wrote: > > >> > > >>> Peter > > >>> > > >>> Or perhaps that the writer of The Tarzan stories had no idea about > > >>> what it takes to become literate. He had no-one to show him the > > >>> arbitrariness of language and reading. > > >>> > > >>> If you remember, the primers for reading had multisyllable words in > > them. > > >>> > > >>> Peter is right - only in fiction is this possible. > > >>> > > >>> And trying harder isn't necessarily the way to move forward. Trying > > >>> something *else *might do it. Tell that mum. > > >>> > > >>> Carol > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> On 24 July 2014 17:53, Peter Smagorinsky wrote: > > >>> > > >>>> I'd say that working harder worked for Tarzan because he was > > fictional. > > >>>> > > >>>> -----Original Message----- > > >>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > > >>>> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Helena Worthen > > >>>> Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2014 12:40 PM > > >>>> To: lchcmike@gmail.com; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > >>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The ideal head > > >>>> > > >>>> These views are persuasively bound up in the story of Tarzan, an > > >>>> incredibly popular book published in 1913 and still being sold. > > >>>> Tarzan, abandoned in infancy in the African jungle, comes upon his > > dead > > >> parents' > > >>>> cabin and their library and, without ever hearing human speech much > > >>>> less English spoken, manages to teach himself to read. Why? Well, 1) > > >>>> he tries hard and 2) he's English nobility. The generations of kids > > >>>> and their parents who read the Tarzan story (or see the movies) > never > > >>>> question this train wreck of ideas -- on the contrary, it provides > > >>>> support for the idea that learning is the result of trying hard and > > >>>> being born smart (except that that's a code word for upper class). > > >>>> > > >>>> I had a heart-wrenching experience the other day that illustrates > how > > >>>> this works in real life. We're spending the summer in a small town > in > > >>>> Vermont -- working class, very dependent on big ski area tourism. A > > >>>> friend of mine, a working class woman, is paying big bucks to send > > >>>> her 12 year old daughter to an academic summer camp at a very > > >> high-level hotshot prep school nearby. > > >>>> The hope is that, with this extra boost, the girl will be able to > > >>>> speed past the pitfalls of the local high school (which has a 30% > > >>>> dropout rate, drug problems, etc.). The other students at the summer > > >>>> camp are prep school kids repeating classes they didnt' ace plus > rich > > >>>> kids from all over the world, especially Asia. My friend's daughter > > >>>> did fine the first week, then seemed to just freeze. Now daughter > > >>>> wants to quit and is refusing to eat, etc. Her mom's idea is that > the > > >>>> girl just needs to try harder, try harder, try harder.Mother has > > >>>> moved down there and is starting to attend classes with her. Mother > > >> and daughter are about ready to hit each other. > > >>>> > > >>>> My opinion: trying harder worked for Tarzan because he was English > > >>>> nobility, and someone forgot to make sure my friend and her daughter > > >>>> were English nobility (meaning, someone forgot to prepare her > > >>>> daughter with all the class advantages, including self confidence, > > >>>> that the other kids brought with them, along with their iPhones and > > >> designer swimsuits). > > >>>> > > >>>> Where do you start, in a situation like this? > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> Helena Worthen > > >>>> helenaworthen@gmail.com > > >>>> > > >>>> On Jul 19, 2014, at 6:38 PM, mike cole wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>>> Hi Peter. I had a similar experience regarding the accidental > > >>>>> discovery of literature containing those colonialist-era books. My > > >>>>> example was written for high level scholars over a century ago, but > > >>>>> it, like this piece, expresses views that have not by any means > > >>>>> disappeared in the intervening century. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Nor has the resulting violence seemed to have eased. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Attached. > > >>>>> mike > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 12:03 PM, Peter Smagorinsky > > > >>>> wrote: > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/07/the-ideal-head > > >>>>>> -b > > >>>>>> > izarre-racial-teachings-from-a-100-year-old-textbook/374693/#commen > > >>>>>> ts > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> I wrote this very short essay that some might find interesting, > and > > >>>>>> have linked to the page that includes reader comments, which are > > >>>>>> prolific and edifying for those who believe in the progress of > > >>>>>> human thinking. p > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> -- > > >>> Carol A Macdonald Ph D (Edin) > > >>> Developmental psycholinguist > > >>> Academic, Researcher, and Editor > > >>> Honorary Research Fellow: Department of Linguistics, Unisa > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Michael W. Smith > > > Associate Dean for Faculty Development > > > and Academic Affairs > > > Temple University > > > College of Education > > > 237 Ritter Hall > > > 1301 Cecil B. Moore Avenue > > > Philadelphia, PA 19122 > > > 215.204.2296 > > > > > > > -- Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Department of Anthropology 883 Spencer W. Kimball Tower Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602 http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson From ablunden@mira.net Thu Jul 24 21:29:51 2014 From: ablunden@mira.net (Andy Blunden) Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 14:29:51 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Critical Periods of Development In-Reply-To: References: <0ABD8052-EF53-493B-8A8C-E6EC00F0C5FB@gmail.com> <2E240906-B450-4804-93CC-484C6E8F98CA@gmail.com> <2f5893996d844649b529f184da975881@CO1PR02MB175.namprd02.prod.outlook.com> <9910C22A-B9A0-49D9-B3EC-9E51D96CA372@gmail.com> Message-ID: <53D1DD3F.5070706@mira.net> I have changed the subject line, Greg, because I think the issues you raise are relatively remote from the issues raised in the "ideal head" thread. The question of "critical periods of development" came to the fore again for me in relation to recent discussions about the concept of perezhivanie, a discussion which included Russians, who see perezhivanija as relevant only to development during adulthood. English-speakers have never taken perezhivanie in that way, taking it to cover the active relation of any subject to their environment and the emotion-laden experiences that are associated with critical periods of development in childhood, and only secondarily in adulthood. In my view, the place of those experiences which adults have when finding themselves in impossible positions and which stimulate them to make a personal development, are symmetrical in many ways with the experiences of children when they experience a "rite of passage", taking up a different role in the family, with new needs met in new ways and subject to new expectations. Vygotsksy theorizes these crises in terms of "social situation of development" - a form of words which could equally apply to adults - such periods being terminated by periods of critical development, i.e., leaps. There is a difference though. (1) For a child the key problem is becoming an adult and gaining the kind of mediated independence associated with being a 'sovereign', adult citizen of a community, whereas for the adult, who has already achieved that, the problem is indeterminate and diverse, arising usually when their life as it has hitherto gone along meets up with some barrier or conflict. (2) A child is not capable, it is said, of the kind of protracted working over of experiences and conscious restructure of their relationship to the world, alone; in general that role is fulfilled by adult carers who, once the child has thrown off their former role, constitute a new social position for the child by means of new expectations placed upon the child, a social position into which the child must grow. Now I am not a psychologist and all I can do is interpret what I read from others, but that's how I see the situation. But these propositions are falsifiable and I expect child psychologists would want to test them. For my part, on the basis of my own experience as an adult who has been involved in organisations which demanded personal development from their members, I am comfortable that the concept of perezhivanie matches my experiences. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Andy Blunden* http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ Greg Thompson wrote: > Mike, Helena, Andy and others, > I wonder if this passage from Vygotsky's the problem of Age can help in > thinking about the problem: > "The second feature of critical age levels served as a departure point for > empirical study. The fact is that a significant proportion of children who > experience critical periods of development are difficult children. These > children seem to drop out of the system of pedagogical influence that until > very recently provided a normal course for their training. and education. > In children of school age during critical periods, there is a drop in rate > of success, a slacking of interest in school work, and a general decline in > capacity for work. At critical age levels, the child?s development > frequently is accompanied by more or less sharp conflicts with those around > him. The child?s internal life is sometimes connected with painful and > excruciating experiences and with internal conflicts." > > Although frankly, I'm not sure what is meant by "critical periods of > development" and/or by "difficult children" (that second sentence baffles > me). Help would be welcome here! > > Andy, maybe you can help? (Andy has been helping me understand this essay > offline). > > -greg > > > From carmet@adinet.com.uy Thu Jul 24 23:16:53 2014 From: carmet@adinet.com.uy (Carmen Torres) Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 03:16:53 -0300 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Critical Periods of Development In-Reply-To: <53D1DD3F.5070706@mira.net> References: <0ABD8052-EF53-493B-8A8C-E6EC00F0C5FB@gmail.com> <2E240906-B450-4804-93CC-484C6E8F98CA@gmail.com> <2f5893996d844649b529f184da975881@CO1PR02MB175.namprd02.prod.outlook.com> <9910C22A-B9A0-49D9-B3EC-9E51D96CA372@gmail.com> <53D1DD3F.5070706@mira.net> Message-ID: <020f01cfa7d0$07c45fe0$174d1fa0$@adinet.com.uy> I would like to connect the discussion with the way of conceptualizing development stages and crisis by Elkonin. In "Toward The Problem of Stages in the Mental Development of Children", written around 1970, Elkonin gives us a model of development in which he intends to depart from vygotsky's article "The problem of age" but turning off or, more exactly, developing further his initial goal. Elkonin propose stages connected to dominant activities. He insisted upon critical transitions in childdren's mental devlopment, which divides up into the transition from early childhood to preschool age and the transition from early school age to adolescence. Both transitions are refered as crisis. This two periods caracterize themselves by what he describes as "a tendency toward independence as well as a series of negative phenomena connected with his relations with adults". This results in a scheme general pattern of periods, stages and phases. Larger or smaller crises "periods" and "stages," are the ways in which development is conceived. I was trying to think about the implications of such categories. The meaning of "crisis" here is one point of discussion, but also all the model intrigues me when we try to relate the stages defined with dominant activities, which I consider one very productive concepts for further debate. Carmen Torres Universidad de la Rep?blica Montevideo-Uruguay -----Mensaje original----- De: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] En nombre de Andy Blunden Enviado el: viernes, 25 de julio de 2014 1:30 Para: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Asunto: [Xmca-l] Critical Periods of Development I have changed the subject line, Greg, because I think the issues you raise are relatively remote from the issues raised in the "ideal head" thread. The question of "critical periods of development" came to the fore again for me in relation to recent discussions about the concept of perezhivanie, a discussion which included Russians, who see perezhivanija as relevant only to development during adulthood. English-speakers have never taken perezhivanie in that way, taking it to cover the active relation of any subject to their environment and the emotion-laden experiences that are associated with critical periods of development in childhood, and only secondarily in adulthood. In my view, the place of those experiences which adults have when finding themselves in impossible positions and which stimulate them to make a personal development, are symmetrical in many ways with the experiences of children when they experience a "rite of passage", taking up a different role in the family, with new needs met in new ways and subject to new expectations. Vygotsksy theorizes these crises in terms of "social situation of development" - a form of words which could equally apply to adults - such periods being terminated by periods of critical development, i.e., leaps. There is a difference though. (1) For a child the key problem is becoming an adult and gaining the kind of mediated independence associated with being a 'sovereign', adult citizen of a community, whereas for the adult, who has already achieved that, the problem is indeterminate and diverse, arising usually when their life as it has hitherto gone along meets up with some barrier or conflict. (2) A child is not capable, it is said, of the kind of protracted working over of experiences and conscious restructure of their relationship to the world, alone; in general that role is fulfilled by adult carers who, once the child has thrown off their former role, constitute a new social position for the child by means of new expectations placed upon the child, a social position into which the child must grow. Now I am not a psychologist and all I can do is interpret what I read from others, but that's how I see the situation. But these propositions are falsifiable and I expect child psychologists would want to test them. For my part, on the basis of my own experience as an adult who has been involved in organisations which demanded personal development from their members, I am comfortable that the concept of perezhivanie matches my experiences. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Andy Blunden* http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ Greg Thompson wrote: > Mike, Helena, Andy and others, > I wonder if this passage from Vygotsky's the problem of Age can help > in thinking about the problem: > "The second feature of critical age levels served as a departure point > for empirical study. The fact is that a significant proportion of > children who experience critical periods of development are difficult > children. These children seem to drop out of the system of pedagogical > influence that until very recently provided a normal course for their training. and education. > In children of school age during critical periods, there is a drop in > rate of success, a slacking of interest in school work, and a general > decline in capacity for work. At critical age levels, the child?s > development frequently is accompanied by more or less sharp conflicts > with those around him. The child?s internal life is sometimes > connected with painful and excruciating experiences and with internal conflicts." > > Although frankly, I'm not sure what is meant by "critical periods of > development" and/or by "difficult children" (that second sentence > baffles me). Help would be welcome here! > > Andy, maybe you can help? (Andy has been helping me understand this > essay offline). > > -greg > > > From helenaworthen@gmail.com Fri Jul 25 20:19:21 2014 From: helenaworthen@gmail.com (Helena Worthen) Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 23:19:21 -0400 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Electronic version of Luria book In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5E094514-0192-4302-82EE-088F92D91753@gmail.com> Thank you, MIke. I read some of this book back in about 1994 and was amazed by some of the experiments they undertook. I will get back into it. Helena Helena Worthen helenaworthen@gmail.com On Jul 24, 2014, at 6:30 PM, mike cole wrote: > Helena-- I poked around after making the suggestion concerning Luria's > discussion of "will power" and found a free electronic version here: > https://archive.org/details/natureofhumancon032984mbp > > There is an even cleaner copy at marxists dot org but could not download > it. Maybe you will have better luck. > > The book is, I believe, of interest in its entirety, but the last few > chapters begin to show the increasing influence of LSV on Luria and the > last chapter in particular displays that influence, along with the > influence of Lewin. Anyway, you can check out for yourself if the examples > he gives on the fruitlessness of "just trying harder" are useful or not. > > mike From lchcmike@gmail.com Fri Jul 25 20:25:23 2014 From: lchcmike@gmail.com (mike cole) Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 20:25:23 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Electronic version of Luria book In-Reply-To: <5E094514-0192-4302-82EE-088F92D91753@gmail.com> References: <5E094514-0192-4302-82EE-088F92D91753@gmail.com> Message-ID: I believe the section I indicated has an example that is close enough to the one you provided to be able to think with it. Maybe not, but hope its useful. mike On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 8:19 PM, Helena Worthen wrote: > Thank you, MIke. I read some of this book back in about 1994 and was > amazed by some of the experiments they undertook. I will get back into it. > > Helena > > > Helena Worthen > helenaworthen@gmail.com > > On Jul 24, 2014, at 6:30 PM, mike cole wrote: > > > Helena-- I poked around after making the suggestion concerning Luria's > > discussion of "will power" and found a free electronic version here: > > https://archive.org/details/natureofhumancon032984mbp > > > > There is an even cleaner copy at marxists dot org but could not download > > it. Maybe you will have better luck. > > > > The book is, I believe, of interest in its entirety, but the last few > > chapters begin to show the increasing influence of LSV on Luria and the > > last chapter in particular displays that influence, along with the > > influence of Lewin. Anyway, you can check out for yourself if the > examples > > he gives on the fruitlessness of "just trying harder" are useful or not. > > > > mike > > From ablunden@mira.net Fri Jul 25 20:32:48 2014 From: ablunden@mira.net (Andy Blunden) Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2014 13:32:48 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Critical Periods of Development In-Reply-To: <020f01cfa7d0$07c45fe0$174d1fa0$@adinet.com.uy> References: <0ABD8052-EF53-493B-8A8C-E6EC00F0C5FB@gmail.com> <2E240906-B450-4804-93CC-484C6E8F98CA@gmail.com> <2f5893996d844649b529f184da975881@CO1PR02MB175.namprd02.prod.outlook.com> <9910C22A-B9A0-49D9-B3EC-9E51D96CA372@gmail.com> <53D1DD3F.5070706@mira.net> <020f01cfa7d0$07c45fe0$174d1fa0$@adinet.com.uy> Message-ID: <53D32160.5040504@mira.net> Thanks, Carmen. I have always interpreted "crisis" as meaning an "impossible" situation. I.e., either the social environment has to be changed or the subject must change, because to continue in the current situation is "impossible". In general, it is interesting, isn't it, that to conceive of the process of development of the person, which at first sight seems to be inherently a continuous process, we have to break it up into discrete phases and periods, transforming development into a discrete process. I think this is necessary so that each situation can be grasped uniquely, as a 'concept'. As markers, these "crises" are therefore the key concepts. The various periods then become just what lies between this crisis and that crisis. I have a personal, unscientific view that the personality is formed in how a person resolves each of these crises. Because the crisis is an "impossible" situation, there is never just one way to resolve it, there are options, and it is through these processes that our preferences for dealing with the world are formed. But that is a very fallible guess. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Andy Blunden* http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ Carmen Torres wrote: > I would like to connect the discussion with the way of conceptualizing development stages and crisis by Elkonin. In "Toward The Problem of Stages in the Mental Development of Children", written around 1970, Elkonin gives us a model of development in which he intends to depart from vygotsky's article "The problem of age" but turning off or, more exactly, developing further his initial goal. Elkonin propose stages connected to dominant activities. He insisted upon critical transitions in childdren's mental devlopment, which divides up into the transition from early childhood to preschool age and the transition from early school age to adolescence. Both transitions are refered as crisis. This two periods caracterize themselves by what he describes as "a tendency toward independence as well as a series of negative phenomena connected with his relations with adults". This results in a scheme general pattern of periods, stages and phases. Larger or smaller crises "periods" and "stages," are the ways in which development is conceived. > I was trying to think about the implications of such categories. The meaning of "crisis" here is one point of discussion, but also all the model intrigues me when we try to relate the stages defined with dominant activities, which I consider one very productive concepts for further debate. > > Carmen Torres > > > Universidad de la Rep?blica > Montevideo-Uruguay > > -----Mensaje original----- > De: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] En nombre de Andy Blunden > Enviado el: viernes, 25 de julio de 2014 1:30 > Para: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Asunto: [Xmca-l] Critical Periods of Development > > I have changed the subject line, Greg, because I think the issues you raise are relatively remote from the issues raised in the "ideal head" > thread. > The question of "critical periods of development" came to the fore again for me in relation to recent discussions about the concept of perezhivanie, a discussion which included Russians, who see perezhivanija as relevant only to development during adulthood. > English-speakers have never taken perezhivanie in that way, taking it to cover the active relation of any subject to their environment and the emotion-laden experiences that are associated with critical periods of development in childhood, and only secondarily in adulthood. > > In my view, the place of those experiences which adults have when finding themselves in impossible positions and which stimulate them to make a personal development, are symmetrical in many ways with the experiences of children when they experience a "rite of passage", taking up a different role in the family, with new needs met in new ways and subject to new expectations. Vygotsksy theorizes these crises in terms of "social situation of development" - a form of words which could equally apply to adults - such periods being terminated by periods of critical development, i.e., leaps. > > There is a difference though. (1) For a child the key problem is becoming an adult and gaining the kind of mediated independence associated with being a 'sovereign', adult citizen of a community, whereas for the adult, who has already achieved that, the problem is indeterminate and diverse, arising usually when their life as it has hitherto gone along meets up with some barrier or conflict. (2) A child is not capable, it is said, of the kind of protracted working over of experiences and conscious restructure of their relationship to the world, alone; in general that role is fulfilled by adult carers who, once the child has thrown off their former role, constitute a new social position for the child by means of new expectations placed upon the child, a social position into which the child must grow. > > Now I am not a psychologist and all I can do is interpret what I read from others, but that's how I see the situation. But these propositions are falsifiable and I expect child psychologists would want to test them. For my part, on the basis of my own experience as an adult who has been involved in organisations which demanded personal development from their members, I am comfortable that the concept of perezhivanie matches my experiences. > > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *Andy Blunden* > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > > Greg Thompson wrote: > >> Mike, Helena, Andy and others, >> I wonder if this passage from Vygotsky's the problem of Age can help >> in thinking about the problem: >> "The second feature of critical age levels served as a departure point >> for empirical study. The fact is that a significant proportion of >> children who experience critical periods of development are difficult >> children. These children seem to drop out of the system of pedagogical >> influence that until very recently provided a normal course for their training. and education. >> In children of school age during critical periods, there is a drop in >> rate of success, a slacking of interest in school work, and a general >> decline in capacity for work. At critical age levels, the child?s >> development frequently is accompanied by more or less sharp conflicts >> with those around him. The child?s internal life is sometimes >> connected with painful and excruciating experiences and with internal conflicts." >> >> Although frankly, I'm not sure what is meant by "critical periods of >> development" and/or by "difficult children" (that second sentence >> baffles me). Help would be welcome here! >> >> Andy, maybe you can help? (Andy has been helping me understand this >> essay offline). >> >> -greg >> >> >> >> > > > > From lpscholar2@gmail.com Sat Jul 26 22:56:22 2014 From: lpscholar2@gmail.com (Larry Purss) Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2014 22:56:22 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Electronic version of Luria book In-Reply-To: References: <5E094514-0192-4302-82EE-088F92D91753@gmail.com> Message-ID: Mike, I downloaded Luria's book and have finished the introductory first chapter. It is very clearly outlining the assumption that BOTH *organization* and *disorganization* can be re-searched through the same methods. This is in contrast to difficulties in viewing difficulties in living as the result of *symptoms* [a form of nominalism as merely *describing* the qualities of the named symptoms]. as a method of understanding I would recommend others read Luria's first chapter and his understanding of *affective* struggles as framed within a notion of *disorganization* of functional dynamic systems. This orientation as contrasted to an approach of merely describing *symptoms* to try to understand affective conflicts Larry On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 8:25 PM, mike cole wrote: > I believe the section I indicated has an example that is close enough to > the one you provided to be able to think with it. > > Maybe not, but hope its useful. > mike > > > On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 8:19 PM, Helena Worthen > wrote: > > > Thank you, MIke. I read some of this book back in about 1994 and was > > amazed by some of the experiments they undertook. I will get back into > it. > > > > Helena > > > > > > Helena Worthen > > helenaworthen@gmail.com > > > > On Jul 24, 2014, at 6:30 PM, mike cole wrote: > > > > > Helena-- I poked around after making the suggestion concerning Luria's > > > discussion of "will power" and found a free electronic version here: > > > https://archive.org/details/natureofhumancon032984mbp > > > > > > There is an even cleaner copy at marxists dot org but could not > download > > > it. Maybe you will have better luck. > > > > > > The book is, I believe, of interest in its entirety, but the last few > > > chapters begin to show the increasing influence of LSV on Luria and the > > > last chapter in particular displays that influence, along with the > > > influence of Lewin. Anyway, you can check out for yourself if the > > examples > > > he gives on the fruitlessness of "just trying harder" are useful or > not. > > > > > > mike > > > > > From wagner.schmit@gmail.com Sun Jul 27 19:38:14 2014 From: wagner.schmit@gmail.com (Wagner Luiz Schmit) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 11:38:14 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: =?utf-8?b?RndkOiBb0JzQtdGC0L7QtNC+0LvQvtCz0LjRjyDQuCDQuNGB?= =?utf-8?b?0YLQvtGA0LjRjyDQv9GB0LjRhdC+0LvQvtCz0LjQuF0g0KTQuNC70Yw=?= =?utf-8?b?0LwsINC/0L7RgdCy0Y/RidC10L3QvdGL0Lkg0JAu0JIuINCh0YPQstC+?= =?utf-8?b?0YDQvtCy0YMgLSDQv9GB0LjRhdC+0LvQvtCz0YM=?= Message-ID: Thank you very much! I really appreciate the sharing of this Professor Cole, so please take the bellow criticism as to the documentary and not for your sharing. And a bit of salt for my emotional response when I see the remains of Zagorsk played with by religion, common sense psychology and sensationalist mass media. No wonder Ilyenkov killed himself. We live in a sick society, but all fingers are pointed to the individual when it comes to what to blame... It is a shame they don't say the name of the school, the name of the researchers who where behind it, the theory that inspired it... But we know...Also bad that they say Vygotsky dreams of the potential of development with sarcasm and even as a dangerous thing (the suicide part), and they say it straight that the experiment was "cruel" by an "specialist", so all must accept our faith (it even begin in a church) and destiny (biology determined his life from the beginning, trying to fight it was foolish), not surprisingly the only "famous psychologist" to appear is Freud in the background... And ending trying to convince him that he can only be happy accepting what he is and "God".... But what a inspiring figure Alexander Suvorov is, no wonder he is immediately surrounded by children in the Zagorsk documentary. And through all the documentary they appear to try to negate him, to deny him, to make his achievements an exception or even an error. But his comments and his life still give hope! And still looking for a good English version of the "Butterflies of Zagorsk"... Wagner On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 8:17 AM, mike cole wrote: > Film about Alexander Suvorov, the blind-deaf Russian psychologist. > mike > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Ilya Garber > Date: Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 5:28 AM > Subject: [??????????? ? ??????? ??????????] ?????, ??????????? ?.?. > ???????? - ????????? > To: ??????????? ? ??????? ?????????? <505367082848886@groups.facebook.com> > > > Ilya Garber posted in ??????????? ? ??????? ?????????? > < > https://www.facebook.com/n/?groups%2F505367082848886%2Fpermalink%2F791051000947158%2F&aref=358364507&medium=email&mid=a29d5aeG3212ac93G155c355bG96Ge3c1&bcode=1.1405081728.Abm6G2t0uPHLPp-F&n_m=lchcmike%40gmail.com > > > [image: Ilya Garber] > < > https://www.facebook.com/n/?profile.php&id=1202221848&aref=358364507&medium=email&mid=a29d5aeG3212ac93G155c355bG96Ge3c1&bcode=1.1405081728.Abm6G2t0uPHLPp-F&n_m=lchcmike%40gmail.com > > > Ilya > Garber > < > https://www.facebook.com/n/?profile.php&id=1202221848&aref=358364507&medium=email&mid=a29d5aeG3212ac93G155c355bG96Ge3c1&bcode=1.1405081728.Abm6G2t0uPHLPp-F&n_m=lchcmike%40gmail.com > > > 5:28am > Jul 11 > ?????, ??????????? ?.?. ???????? - ????????? > > < > http://www.facebook.com/l/9AQE9vB0kAQE3J7p4FuuMI_DG2OWX7BlP88NSqP1EDeIDwg/www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1shdhF8EGA > > > A > brilliant life in darkness (RT Documentary) > < > http://www.facebook.com/l/yAQGFwNUeAQGws7dzIoM8eUHttjga5hviUB5ISYurOClhAg/www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1shdhF8EGA > > > He was born normal but at the age of 3 suddenly became blind and at 9 he > lost his hearing. When he w... > > View Post on Facebook > < > https://www.facebook.com/n/?groups%2F505367082848886%2Fpermalink%2F791051000947158%2F&aref=358364507&medium=email&mid=a29d5aeG3212ac93G155c355bG96Ge3c1&bcode=1.1405081728.Abm6G2t0uPHLPp-F&n_m=lchcmike%40gmail.com > > > ? Edit Email Settings > < > https://www.facebook.com/n/?settings&tab=notifications§ion=group_notification&aref=358364507&medium=email&mid=a29d5aeG3212ac93G155c355bG96Ge3c1&bcode=1.1405081728.Abm6G2t0uPHLPp-F&n_m=lchcmike%40gmail.com > > > ? Reply to this email to add a comment. > From lchcmike@gmail.com Sun Jul 27 21:34:38 2014 From: lchcmike@gmail.com (mike cole) Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2014 21:34:38 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: =?utf-8?b?RndkOiBb0JzQtdGC0L7QtNC+0LvQvtCz0LjRjyDQuCDQuNGB?= =?utf-8?b?0YLQvtGA0LjRjyDQv9GB0LjRhdC+0LvQvtCz0LjQuF0g0KTQuNC70Yw=?= =?utf-8?b?0LwsINC/0L7RgdCy0Y/RidC10L3QvdGL0Lkg0JAu0JIuINCh0YPQstC+?= =?utf-8?b?0YDQvtCy0YMgLSDQv9GB0LjRhdC+0LvQvtCz0YM=?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I am glad you took the time to watch the film, Wagner. Apparently it did not catch the attention of other xmca members. It arrived when I was on my way to the mountains so I sent it without watching because i knew of the great interest in this work. Then I watched and waited for someone to notice. The film is upsetting in many respects. It does more than obliterate history, it perverts it. Note the fare offered by RT, apparently an English language government sponsored program that is arrayed in ads along the side of the video. I have looked everywhere for a copy of Butterflies of Zagorsk, but have not found it. It, too, had its shortcomings, but at least it did not treat Meshcheryakov and Mikhailov and others who championed these people in another dark time like invisible criminals. Very sad indeed. I prefer Mescheryakov's book, Karl Levitin's little monography, *One is not born a personality*, and my own personal experience to undrstand Sasha Suvorov's fate. mike On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 7:38 PM, Wagner Luiz Schmit wrote: > Thank you very much! I really appreciate the sharing of this Professor > Cole, so please take the bellow criticism as to the documentary and not for > your sharing. And a bit of salt for my emotional response when I see the > remains of Zagorsk played with by religion, common sense psychology and > sensationalist mass media. No wonder Ilyenkov killed himself. We live in a > sick society, but all fingers are pointed to the individual when it comes > to what to blame... > > It is a shame they don't say the name of the school, the name of the > researchers who where behind it, the theory that inspired it... But we > know...Also bad that they say Vygotsky dreams of the potential of > development with sarcasm and even as a dangerous thing (the suicide part), > and they say it straight that the experiment was "cruel" by an > "specialist", so all must accept our faith (it even begin in a church) and > destiny (biology determined his life from the beginning, trying to fight it > was foolish), not surprisingly the only "famous psychologist" to appear is > Freud in the background... And ending trying to convince him that he can > only be happy accepting what he is and "God".... > > But what a inspiring figure Alexander Suvorov is, no wonder he is > immediately surrounded by children in the Zagorsk documentary. And through > all the documentary they appear to try to negate him, to deny him, to make > his achievements an exception or even an error. But his comments and his > life still give hope! > > And still looking for a good English version of the "Butterflies of > Zagorsk"... > > Wagner > > > On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 8:17 AM, mike cole wrote: > >> Film about Alexander Suvorov, the blind-deaf Russian psychologist. >> mike >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: Ilya Garber >> Date: Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 5:28 AM >> Subject: [??????????? ? ??????? ??????????] ?????, ??????????? ?.?. >> ???????? - ????????? >> To: ??????????? ? ??????? ?????????? <505367082848886@groups.facebook.com >> > >> >> >> Ilya Garber posted in ??????????? ? ??????? ?????????? >> < >> https://www.facebook.com/n/?groups%2F505367082848886%2Fpermalink%2F791051000947158%2F&aref=358364507&medium=email&mid=a29d5aeG3212ac93G155c355bG96Ge3c1&bcode=1.1405081728.Abm6G2t0uPHLPp-F&n_m=lchcmike%40gmail.com >> > >> [image: Ilya Garber] >> < >> https://www.facebook.com/n/?profile.php&id=1202221848&aref=358364507&medium=email&mid=a29d5aeG3212ac93G155c355bG96Ge3c1&bcode=1.1405081728.Abm6G2t0uPHLPp-F&n_m=lchcmike%40gmail.com >> > >> Ilya >> Garber >> < >> https://www.facebook.com/n/?profile.php&id=1202221848&aref=358364507&medium=email&mid=a29d5aeG3212ac93G155c355bG96Ge3c1&bcode=1.1405081728.Abm6G2t0uPHLPp-F&n_m=lchcmike%40gmail.com >> > >> 5:28am >> Jul 11 >> ?????, ??????????? ?.?. ???????? - ????????? >> >> < >> http://www.facebook.com/l/9AQE9vB0kAQE3J7p4FuuMI_DG2OWX7BlP88NSqP1EDeIDwg/www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1shdhF8EGA >> > >> A >> brilliant life in darkness (RT Documentary) >> < >> http://www.facebook.com/l/yAQGFwNUeAQGws7dzIoM8eUHttjga5hviUB5ISYurOClhAg/www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1shdhF8EGA >> > >> He was born normal but at the age of 3 suddenly became blind and at 9 he >> lost his hearing. When he w... >> >> View Post on Facebook >> < >> https://www.facebook.com/n/?groups%2F505367082848886%2Fpermalink%2F791051000947158%2F&aref=358364507&medium=email&mid=a29d5aeG3212ac93G155c355bG96Ge3c1&bcode=1.1405081728.Abm6G2t0uPHLPp-F&n_m=lchcmike%40gmail.com >> > >> ? Edit Email Settings >> < >> https://www.facebook.com/n/?settings&tab=notifications§ion=group_notification&aref=358364507&medium=email&mid=a29d5aeG3212ac93G155c355bG96Ge3c1&bcode=1.1405081728.Abm6G2t0uPHLPp-F&n_m=lchcmike%40gmail.com >> > >> ? Reply to this email to add a comment. >> > > From lchcmike@gmail.com Sun Jul 27 21:44:21 2014 From: lchcmike@gmail.com (mike cole) Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2014 21:44:21 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Fwd: NYTimes.com: Why Do Americans Stink at Math? In-Reply-To: <53d5718e.c814e00a.3778.3ba3SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> References: <53d5718e.c814e00a.3778.3ba3SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> Message-ID: This story about the resistance to common core standards may be of interest to several members of xmca. Note that Sylvia Scribner appears in the story (!). mike Why Do Americans Stink at Math? By ELIZABETH GREEN The Common Core should finally improve math education. The problem is that no one has taught the teachers how to teach it. Or, copy and paste this URL into your browser: http://nyti.ms/1lu6ijA To get unlimited access to all New York Times articles, subscribe today. See Subscription Options. To ensure delivery to your inbox, please add nytdirect@nytimes.com to your address book. Advertisement Copyright 2014 | The New York Times Company | NYTimes.com 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018 From wagner.schmit@gmail.com Sun Jul 27 21:46:49 2014 From: wagner.schmit@gmail.com (Wagner Luiz Schmit) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 13:46:49 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: =?utf-8?b?RndkOiBb0JzQtdGC0L7QtNC+0LvQvtCz0LjRjyDQuCDQuNGB?= =?utf-8?b?0YLQvtGA0LjRjyDQv9GB0LjRhdC+0LvQvtCz0LjQuF0g0KTQuNC70Yw=?= =?utf-8?b?0LwsINC/0L7RgdCy0Y/RidC10L3QvdGL0Lkg0JAu0JIuINCh0YPQstC+?= =?utf-8?b?0YDQvtCy0YMgLSDQv9GB0LjRhdC+0LvQvtCz0YM=?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thank you for your reply Professor Cole, I will take a look on this book! Thanks for the indications! And as a curiosity, It has been a long time since I last saw "Butterflies of Zagorsk", so what are you critics towards it? Wagner On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 1:34 PM, mike cole wrote: > I am glad you took the time to watch the film, Wagner. Apparently it did > not catch the attention of other xmca members. It arrived when I was on my > way to the mountains so I sent it without watching because i knew of the > great interest in this work. Then I watched and waited for someone to > notice. > > The film is upsetting in many respects. It does more than obliterate > history, > it perverts it. > > Note the fare offered by RT, apparently an English language government > sponsored program that is arrayed in ads along the side of the video. > > I have looked everywhere for a copy of Butterflies of Zagorsk, but have > not found it. It, too, had its shortcomings, but at least it did not treat > Meshcheryakov and Mikhailov and others who championed these people in > another dark time like invisible criminals. > > Very sad indeed. I prefer Mescheryakov's book, Karl Levitin's little > monography, *One is not born a personality*, and my own personal > experience to undrstand Sasha Suvorov's fate. > > > mike > > > On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 7:38 PM, Wagner Luiz Schmit < > wagner.schmit@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Thank you very much! I really appreciate the sharing of this Professor >> Cole, so please take the bellow criticism as to the documentary and not for >> your sharing. And a bit of salt for my emotional response when I see the >> remains of Zagorsk played with by religion, common sense psychology and >> sensationalist mass media. No wonder Ilyenkov killed himself. We live in a >> sick society, but all fingers are pointed to the individual when it comes >> to what to blame... >> >> It is a shame they don't say the name of the school, the name of the >> researchers who where behind it, the theory that inspired it... But we >> know...Also bad that they say Vygotsky dreams of the potential of >> development with sarcasm and even as a dangerous thing (the suicide part), >> and they say it straight that the experiment was "cruel" by an >> "specialist", so all must accept our faith (it even begin in a church) and >> destiny (biology determined his life from the beginning, trying to fight it >> was foolish), not surprisingly the only "famous psychologist" to appear is >> Freud in the background... And ending trying to convince him that he can >> only be happy accepting what he is and "God".... >> >> But what a inspiring figure Alexander Suvorov is, no wonder he is >> immediately surrounded by children in the Zagorsk documentary. And through >> all the documentary they appear to try to negate him, to deny him, to make >> his achievements an exception or even an error. But his comments and his >> life still give hope! >> >> And still looking for a good English version of the "Butterflies of >> Zagorsk"... >> >> Wagner >> >> >> On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 8:17 AM, mike cole wrote: >> >>> Film about Alexander Suvorov, the blind-deaf Russian psychologist. >>> mike >>> >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>> From: Ilya Garber >>> Date: Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 5:28 AM >>> Subject: [??????????? ? ??????? ??????????] ?????, ??????????? ?.?. >>> ???????? - ????????? >>> To: ??????????? ? ??????? ?????????? < >>> 505367082848886@groups.facebook.com> >>> >>> >>> Ilya Garber posted in ??????????? ? ??????? ?????????? >>> < >>> https://www.facebook.com/n/?groups%2F505367082848886%2Fpermalink%2F791051000947158%2F&aref=358364507&medium=email&mid=a29d5aeG3212ac93G155c355bG96Ge3c1&bcode=1.1405081728.Abm6G2t0uPHLPp-F&n_m=lchcmike%40gmail.com >>> > >>> [image: Ilya Garber] >>> < >>> https://www.facebook.com/n/?profile.php&id=1202221848&aref=358364507&medium=email&mid=a29d5aeG3212ac93G155c355bG96Ge3c1&bcode=1.1405081728.Abm6G2t0uPHLPp-F&n_m=lchcmike%40gmail.com >>> > >>> Ilya >>> Garber >>> < >>> https://www.facebook.com/n/?profile.php&id=1202221848&aref=358364507&medium=email&mid=a29d5aeG3212ac93G155c355bG96Ge3c1&bcode=1.1405081728.Abm6G2t0uPHLPp-F&n_m=lchcmike%40gmail.com >>> > >>> 5:28am >>> Jul 11 >>> ?????, ??????????? ?.?. ???????? - ????????? >>> >>> < >>> http://www.facebook.com/l/9AQE9vB0kAQE3J7p4FuuMI_DG2OWX7BlP88NSqP1EDeIDwg/www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1shdhF8EGA >>> > >>> A >>> brilliant life in darkness (RT Documentary) >>> < >>> http://www.facebook.com/l/yAQGFwNUeAQGws7dzIoM8eUHttjga5hviUB5ISYurOClhAg/www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1shdhF8EGA >>> > >>> He was born normal but at the age of 3 suddenly became blind and at 9 he >>> lost his hearing. When he w... >>> >>> View Post on Facebook >>> < >>> https://www.facebook.com/n/?groups%2F505367082848886%2Fpermalink%2F791051000947158%2F&aref=358364507&medium=email&mid=a29d5aeG3212ac93G155c355bG96Ge3c1&bcode=1.1405081728.Abm6G2t0uPHLPp-F&n_m=lchcmike%40gmail.com >>> > >>> ? Edit Email Settings >>> < >>> https://www.facebook.com/n/?settings&tab=notifications§ion=group_notification&aref=358364507&medium=email&mid=a29d5aeG3212ac93G155c355bG96Ge3c1&bcode=1.1405081728.Abm6G2t0uPHLPp-F&n_m=lchcmike%40gmail.com >>> > >>> ? Reply to this email to add a comment. >>> >> >> > From ablunden@mira.net Sun Jul 27 22:21:51 2014 From: ablunden@mira.net (Andy Blunden) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 15:21:51 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: NYTimes.com: Why Do Americans Stink at Math? In-Reply-To: References: <53d5718e.c814e00a.3778.3ba3SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <53D5DDEF.70006@mira.net> Great article. It's all about double stimulation. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Andy Blunden* http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ mike cole wrote: > This story about the resistance to common core standards may be of interest > to several members of xmca. > Note that Sylvia Scribner appears in the story (!). > mike > > > > Why Do Americans Stink at Math? > > By > ELIZABETH GREEN > > The Common Core should finally improve math education. The problem is that > no one has taught the teachers how to teach it. > Or, copy and paste this URL into your browser: http://nyti.ms/1lu6ijA > > To > get unlimited access to all New York Times articles, subscribe today. See > Subscription Options. > > To > ensure delivery to your inbox, please add nytdirect@nytimes.com to your > address book. Advertisement > > > Copyright 2014 > > | The New York Times Company > > | NYTimes.com 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018 > > > From lpscholar2@gmail.com Mon Jul 28 00:55:41 2014 From: lpscholar2@gmail.com (Larry Purss) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 00:55:41 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: NYTimes.com: Why Do Americans Stink at Math? In-Reply-To: References: <53d5718e.c814e00a.3778.3ba3SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> Message-ID: Mike, Andy, Yes, a great article. The insights that were generated by a person from Japan observing the degree of *private* individual classroom teaching [with the resulting isolation of teachers in America] in contrast to Japanese teachers engaging in ongoing *lesson* dialogues. The centrality of ongoing *lesson talk* as what is needed to sustain change contrasts with the common practices of teachers in American schools left to figure out best practice alone. How do we shift our practices in schools to encourage ongoing dialogical *lesson talk* among teachers? Larry On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 9:44 PM, mike cole wrote: > This story about the resistance to common core standards may be of interest > to several members of xmca. > Note that Sylvia Scribner appears in the story (!). > mike > > > > Why Do Americans Stink at Math? > < > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=InCMR7g4BCKC2wiZPkcVUiNNeXtotqX2&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1406497165885382®i_id=0 > > > By > ELIZABETH GREEN > > The Common Core should finally improve math education. The problem is that > no one has taught the teachers how to teach it. > Or, copy and paste this URL into your browser: http://nyti.ms/1lu6ijA > < > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=InCMR7g4BCKC2wiZPkcVUiNNeXtotqX2&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1406497165885382®i_id=0 > > > To > get unlimited access to all New York Times articles, subscribe today. See > Subscription Options. > < > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACDuqzkg7rwCIjbQiYyNWYJIW5drsCg04xD2q1X6bqVB/vYPHy+JP5GfoOOml3K0i6GaUY7fZ7jcK869mPAvEGfk=&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1406497165885382®i_id=0 > > > To > ensure delivery to your inbox, please add nytdirect@nytimes.com to your > address book. Advertisement > > < > http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adx_click.html?type=goto&opzn&page=secure.nytimes.com/mem/emailthis.html&pos=Frame6A&sn2=6da5bd5a/78e3a264&sn1=f8f80b3f/1095806&camp=FoxSearchlight_AT2014-1911126C&ad=0601.Calvary_NYT336x90.jpg&goto=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Efoxsearchlight%2Ecom%2Fcalvary%2F > > > Copyright 2014 > < > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACMlEhIhWVuPIxganfKahJGpDcKtdpfztygRnz23j1z6nDpx4eAAqQbYRMMl5L56EeQ==&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1406497165885382®i_id=0 > > > | The New York Times Company > < > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KUv6vqdu/zT/DtUzLlQEcSh&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1406497165885382®i_id=0 > > > | NYTimes.com 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018 > From glassman.13@osu.edu Mon Jul 28 05:27:54 2014 From: glassman.13@osu.edu (Glassman, Michael) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 12:27:54 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: NYTimes.com: Why Do Americans Stink at Math? In-Reply-To: References: <53d5718e.c814e00a.3778.3ba3SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> , Message-ID: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F90240BC@CIO-TNC-D2MBX01.osuad.osu.edu> A couple of things about this article, "The same pattern played out in the 1960s, when schools gripped by a post-Sputnik inferiority complex unveiled an ambitious ?new math,? only to find, a few years later, that nothing actually changed." Uhmmm... object oriented programming, the development of the personal computer, hypertext protocol transfer protocol, hypertext mark up language, the Palo Alto Research Center. We had an entire information revolution that is in many ways driven by individuals who learned math under this system. Is that the reason? Who knows, but probably a better choice than most. New Math and other revolutions in teaching math and other things don't work for a number of reasons. One is that learning math is linked to a number of other issues including your chaotic home life and (lack of nutrition). One of the reasons these new approaches to Mathematics don't work is because we immediately want to test whether it works. But if you are teaching so students do better on tests you are doing stuff that is antithetical to the types of approaches to teaching what are being discussed (at least I would argue). We should not forget that Common Core is directly tied to testing, again and again. They are implementing testing before even developing curriculum for Godsakes!!! So basically you are sowing the failure to Common Core right into its beginnings. The danger with the Common Core, which I see in this article, is that it treats education, including mathematics education, as a machine rather than a transactional field. In spit of what people say about getting students to really understand math the goal is to get students to do better on the Standards test. It is narrow and mechanistic. Michael ________________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] on behalf of Larry Purss [lpscholar2@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 3:55 AM To: Mike Cole; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: NYTimes.com: Why Do Americans Stink at Math? Mike, Andy, Yes, a great article. The insights that were generated by a person from Japan observing the degree of *private* individual classroom teaching [with the resulting isolation of teachers in America] in contrast to Japanese teachers engaging in ongoing *lesson* dialogues. The centrality of ongoing *lesson talk* as what is needed to sustain change contrasts with the common practices of teachers in American schools left to figure out best practice alone. How do we shift our practices in schools to encourage ongoing dialogical *lesson talk* among teachers? Larry On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 9:44 PM, mike cole wrote: > This story about the resistance to common core standards may be of interest > to several members of xmca. > Note that Sylvia Scribner appears in the story (!). > mike > > > > Why Do Americans Stink at Math? > < > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=InCMR7g4BCKC2wiZPkcVUiNNeXtotqX2&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1406497165885382®i_id=0 > > > By > ELIZABETH GREEN > > The Common Core should finally improve math education. The problem is that > no one has taught the teachers how to teach it. > Or, copy and paste this URL into your browser: http://nyti.ms/1lu6ijA > < > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=InCMR7g4BCKC2wiZPkcVUiNNeXtotqX2&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1406497165885382®i_id=0 > > > To > get unlimited access to all New York Times articles, subscribe today. See > Subscription Options. > < > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACDuqzkg7rwCIjbQiYyNWYJIW5drsCg04xD2q1X6bqVB/vYPHy+JP5GfoOOml3K0i6GaUY7fZ7jcK869mPAvEGfk=&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1406497165885382®i_id=0 > > > To > ensure delivery to your inbox, please add nytdirect@nytimes.com to your > address book. Advertisement > > < > http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adx_click.html?type=goto&opzn&page=secure.nytimes.com/mem/emailthis.html&pos=Frame6A&sn2=6da5bd5a/78e3a264&sn1=f8f80b3f/1095806&camp=FoxSearchlight_AT2014-1911126C&ad=0601.Calvary_NYT336x90.jpg&goto=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Efoxsearchlight%2Ecom%2Fcalvary%2F > > > Copyright 2014 > < > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACMlEhIhWVuPIxganfKahJGpDcKtdpfztygRnz23j1z6nDpx4eAAqQbYRMMl5L56EeQ==&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1406497165885382®i_id=0 > > > | The New York Times Company > < > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KUv6vqdu/zT/DtUzLlQEcSh&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1406497165885382®i_id=0 > > > | NYTimes.com 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018 > From lpscholar2@gmail.com Mon Jul 28 08:22:10 2014 From: lpscholar2@gmail.com (Larry Purss) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 08:22:10 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: NYTimes.com: Why Do Americans Stink at Math? In-Reply-To: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F90240BC@CIO-TNC-D2MBX01.osuad.osu.edu> References: <53d5718e.c814e00a.3778.3ba3SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F90240BC@CIO-TNC-D2MBX01.osuad.osu.edu> Message-ID: Michael, The article explored multiple themes. The common core math curriculum was one theme. However, the article was also exploring developing the *craft* of teaching through *shared practices* where teachers are secure enough to engage in dialogue concerning the way they approach teaching. The focus on *showing to say* actually demonstrating their *craft* and others engaging in the micro observations which could assist in the person developing their *craft*. It was the theme of creating institutional structures and the type of social material practices where teachers invite other teachers to observe their *lessons*. A central point was that in North America the teachers spend 1000 to 1100 hours a year giving *lessons* while in many other countries it is 700 hours. I'm wondering how teaching would develop if those other 300 hours were used in *developing the craft* in institutions where this shared practice was vital and honoured. The common core as pre-scribed targets is another theme which I agree works against schools as places instituting situations which cultivate [old fashioned term for culture] the teaching craft through the method of *showing to say* Yow do we disentangle these two opposing themes expressed in this article? As I read the article I was struck by how different the day to day practices of schooling are *cultivated* [bildung] within different cultural con-texts. Larry On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 5:27 AM, Glassman, Michael wrote: > A couple of things about this article, > > "The same pattern played out in the 1960s, when schools gripped by a > post-Sputnik inferiority complex unveiled an ambitious ?new math,? only to > find, a few years later, that nothing actually changed." > > Uhmmm... object oriented programming, the development of the personal > computer, hypertext protocol transfer protocol, hypertext mark up language, > the Palo Alto Research Center. We had an entire information revolution > that is in many ways driven by individuals who learned math under this > system. Is that the reason? Who knows, but probably a better choice than > most. New Math and other revolutions in teaching math and other things > don't work for a number of reasons. One is that learning math is linked > to a number of other issues including your chaotic home life and (lack of > nutrition). One of the reasons these new approaches to Mathematics don't > work is because we immediately want to test whether it works. But if you > are teaching so students do better on tests you are doing stuff that is > antithetical to the types of approaches to teaching what are being > discussed (at least I would argue). We should not forget that Common Core > is directly tied to testing, again and again. They are implementing > testing before even developing curriculum for Godsakes!!! So basically you > are sowing the failure to Common Core right into its beginnings. > > The danger with the Common Core, which I see in this article, is that it > treats education, including mathematics education, as a machine rather than > a transactional field. In spit of what people say about getting students > to really understand math the goal is to get students to do better on the > Standards test. It is narrow and mechanistic. > > Michael > ________________________________________ > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] > on behalf of Larry Purss [lpscholar2@gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 3:55 AM > To: Mike Cole; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: NYTimes.com: Why Do Americans Stink at Math? > > Mike, Andy, > > Yes, a great article. > The insights that were generated by a person from Japan observing the > degree of *private* individual classroom teaching [with the > resulting isolation of teachers in America] in contrast to Japanese > teachers engaging in ongoing *lesson* dialogues. > The centrality of ongoing *lesson talk* as what is needed to sustain change > contrasts with the common practices of teachers in American schools left to > figure out best practice alone. > > How do we shift our practices in schools to encourage ongoing dialogical > *lesson talk* among teachers? > Larry > > > On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 9:44 PM, mike cole wrote: > > > This story about the resistance to common core standards may be of > interest > > to several members of xmca. > > Note that Sylvia Scribner appears in the story (!). > > mike > > > > > > > > Why Do Americans Stink at Math? > > < > > > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=InCMR7g4BCKC2wiZPkcVUiNNeXtotqX2&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1406497165885382®i_id=0 > > > > > By > > ELIZABETH GREEN > > > > The Common Core should finally improve math education. The problem is > that > > no one has taught the teachers how to teach it. > > Or, copy and paste this URL into your browser: > http://nyti.ms/1lu6ijA > > < > > > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=InCMR7g4BCKC2wiZPkcVUiNNeXtotqX2&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1406497165885382®i_id=0 > > > > > To > > get unlimited access to all New York Times articles, subscribe today. See > > Subscription Options. > > < > > > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACDuqzkg7rwCIjbQiYyNWYJIW5drsCg04xD2q1X6bqVB/vYPHy+JP5GfoOOml3K0i6GaUY7fZ7jcK869mPAvEGfk=&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1406497165885382®i_id=0 > > > > > To > > ensure delivery to your inbox, please add nytdirect@nytimes.com to your > > address book. Advertisement > > > > < > > > http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adx_click.html?type=goto&opzn&page=secure.nytimes.com/mem/emailthis.html&pos=Frame6A&sn2=6da5bd5a/78e3a264&sn1=f8f80b3f/1095806&camp=FoxSearchlight_AT2014-1911126C&ad=0601.Calvary_NYT336x90.jpg&goto=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Efoxsearchlight%2Ecom%2Fcalvary%2F > > > > > Copyright 2014 > > < > > > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACMlEhIhWVuPIxganfKahJGpDcKtdpfztygRnz23j1z6nDpx4eAAqQbYRMMl5L56EeQ==&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1406497165885382®i_id=0 > > > > > | The New York Times Company > > < > > > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KUv6vqdu/zT/DtUzLlQEcSh&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1406497165885382®i_id=0 > > > > > | NYTimes.com 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018 > > > > From greg.a.thompson@gmail.com Mon Jul 28 08:46:29 2014 From: greg.a.thompson@gmail.com (Greg Thompson) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 09:46:29 -0600 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: NYTimes.com: Why Do Americans Stink at Math? In-Reply-To: References: <53d5718e.c814e00a.3778.3ba3SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> Message-ID: Seems that there might be a deeper problem here: the need for schools to sort kids by testing them. If we see that as the primary function of schooling (which it arguably is in the U.S.), then the old way of teaching math works great. Only those most dedicated students who don't have to work jobs during high school (i.e. upper-class students) are going to have the time to spend doing this frighteningly rote work (and parents' pushing is important here too). And the old method of teaching also happens to be well suited to the most essential functionary of any sorting system: THE TEST. Those kids who willing to regularly flog themselves with insanely rote math and science problems will come out on top on these tests. I think Eric Mazur's experience demonstrates this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwslBPj8GgI). Mazur is a Physics teacher at Harvard who changed up his tests to evaluate students on elementary concepts like the force exerted on a car and a truck when they have a collision. He was shocked by what he found. His Harvard students who could solve incredibly complex physics problems (many of whom had aced their AP Physics exams in high school) were consistently getting these elementary physics problems wrong! These students had learned incredibly well how to solve recipe Physics but they had no idea about how the basic principles of Physics worked. One question I have is whether tests on a large scale will ever be able to capture the kinds of embodied knowledge that Scribner's dairy workers and the Brazilian peanut-selling youth have. It seems like this kind of embodied knowledge is what Green is suggesting is included in the Common Core. But I fail to see how this could ever be accomplished in a traditional classroom. And I don't think that this is just a problem of doing a better job of teaching teachers how to teach the "new" way. Dewey pointed us to this "new" way of doing math almost 100 years ago and yet, as Green notes, we keep coming back to the other way of doing things. The problem here seems to be with the broader context of American education - something that Green seems to miss entirely. What is needed is a deep consideration of what it is that American schools are doing; why they exist; whose interests they serve (and consequently who has the greatest impact on shaping policy and such). Seymour Sarason seems to me to be one of the best in this regard (Consider his book, The Predictable Failure of School Reform: Can We Change Course Before it is too Late? http://www.amazon.com/Predictable-Failure-Educational-Reform-Change/dp/1555426239/ref=la_B001H6P704_1_8?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1406560135&sr=1-8 - and note in searching for this URL, I tried the URL "seymoursarason.com" - suggested on the wikipedia page - and got an advertisement, entirely in Japanese, for how Japanese housewives can make money in the cell phone industry!). With these questions of the importance of cultural context in mind, I wonder: how does this real-world math work in Japan where, according to my stereotypes of Japan's educational system, sorting by testing is an essential feature of Japan's schooling system? Is this method of teaching perhaps not as common in Japan as Green suggests? Or, is the impulse for sorting by testing less pronounced in Japan than I assume? Or is it something different altogether? -greg On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 1:55 AM, Larry Purss wrote: > Mike, Andy, > > Yes, a great article. > The insights that were generated by a person from Japan observing the > degree of *private* individual classroom teaching [with the > resulting isolation of teachers in America] in contrast to Japanese > teachers engaging in ongoing *lesson* dialogues. > The centrality of ongoing *lesson talk* as what is needed to sustain change > contrasts with the common practices of teachers in American schools left to > figure out best practice alone. > > How do we shift our practices in schools to encourage ongoing dialogical > *lesson talk* among teachers? > Larry > > > On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 9:44 PM, mike cole wrote: > > > This story about the resistance to common core standards may be of > interest > > to several members of xmca. > > Note that Sylvia Scribner appears in the story (!). > > mike > > > > > > > > Why Do Americans Stink at Math? > > < > > > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=InCMR7g4BCKC2wiZPkcVUiNNeXtotqX2&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1406497165885382®i_id=0 > > > > > By > > ELIZABETH GREEN > > > > The Common Core should finally improve math education. The problem is > that > > no one has taught the teachers how to teach it. > > Or, copy and paste this URL into your browser: > http://nyti.ms/1lu6ijA > > < > > > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=InCMR7g4BCKC2wiZPkcVUiNNeXtotqX2&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1406497165885382®i_id=0 > > > > > To > > get unlimited access to all New York Times articles, subscribe today. See > > Subscription Options. > > < > > > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACDuqzkg7rwCIjbQiYyNWYJIW5drsCg04xD2q1X6bqVB/vYPHy+JP5GfoOOml3K0i6GaUY7fZ7jcK869mPAvEGfk=&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1406497165885382®i_id=0 > > > > > To > > ensure delivery to your inbox, please add nytdirect@nytimes.com to your > > address book. Advertisement > > > > < > > > http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adx_click.html?type=goto&opzn&page=secure.nytimes.com/mem/emailthis.html&pos=Frame6A&sn2=6da5bd5a/78e3a264&sn1=f8f80b3f/1095806&camp=FoxSearchlight_AT2014-1911126C&ad=0601.Calvary_NYT336x90.jpg&goto=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Efoxsearchlight%2Ecom%2Fcalvary%2F > > > > > Copyright 2014 > > < > > > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACMlEhIhWVuPIxganfKahJGpDcKtdpfztygRnz23j1z6nDpx4eAAqQbYRMMl5L56EeQ==&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1406497165885382®i_id=0 > > > > > | The New York Times Company > > < > > > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KUv6vqdu/zT/DtUzLlQEcSh&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1406497165885382®i_id=0 > > > > > | NYTimes.com 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018 > > > -- Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Department of Anthropology 883 Spencer W. Kimball Tower Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602 http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson From glassman.13@osu.edu Mon Jul 28 09:04:09 2014 From: glassman.13@osu.edu (Glassman, Michael) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 16:04:09 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: NYTimes.com: Why Do Americans Stink at Math? In-Reply-To: References: <53d5718e.c814e00a.3778.3ba3SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> , Message-ID: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F902414D@CIO-TNC-D2MBX01.osuad.osu.edu> Hi Greg and Larry, Funny about Japan. Somebody I know (who is in the arts and not the social sciences) recently returned from studying in Japan. When I asked him about the education system there and the way they learned (and granted he is not a math teacher) he was confused. His views were not that different from the findings you mention of Mazur. They do a lot of testing, and they pass the test, and then they don't care at all about the underlying ideas, don't carry any of it with them. Their task was to pass the test to get into the right university, to get the right job, to get the right social position. Can we say the same thing about the Harvard physics students - they aren't really learning physics, it is just part of their everyday tasks they do in order to get into Harvard, to get the right job, to get the right social position. Once the take has ended there is no reason to carry it with them. Then Larry what is the "teaching craft," is it teaching students how to get into Harvard, or how to get into the State school, or how to get out of high school, or how to get a higher test score so we can get a raise? It's interesting reading about Sylvia's work again after all these years I think that this isn't mathematics to the diary workers, it is just what they do, part of their relevant everyday activities (same thing for the Brazilian street children I guess and the waitresses that King Beach studies). We are the ones to abstract these activities out and say they are mathematics and relate them to these completely artificial subject boundaries we create to organize traditional classrooms. When you think about it in human history this is a relatively new thing. Michael ________________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] on behalf of Greg Thompson [greg.a.thompson@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 11:46 AM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: NYTimes.com: Why Do Americans Stink at Math? Seems that there might be a deeper problem here: the need for schools to sort kids by testing them. If we see that as the primary function of schooling (which it arguably is in the U.S.), then the old way of teaching math works great. Only those most dedicated students who don't have to work jobs during high school (i.e. upper-class students) are going to have the time to spend doing this frighteningly rote work (and parents' pushing is important here too). And the old method of teaching also happens to be well suited to the most essential functionary of any sorting system: THE TEST. Those kids who willing to regularly flog themselves with insanely rote math and science problems will come out on top on these tests. I think Eric Mazur's experience demonstrates this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwslBPj8GgI). Mazur is a Physics teacher at Harvard who changed up his tests to evaluate students on elementary concepts like the force exerted on a car and a truck when they have a collision. He was shocked by what he found. His Harvard students who could solve incredibly complex physics problems (many of whom had aced their AP Physics exams in high school) were consistently getting these elementary physics problems wrong! These students had learned incredibly well how to solve recipe Physics but they had no idea about how the basic principles of Physics worked. One question I have is whether tests on a large scale will ever be able to capture the kinds of embodied knowledge that Scribner's dairy workers and the Brazilian peanut-selling youth have. It seems like this kind of embodied knowledge is what Green is suggesting is included in the Common Core. But I fail to see how this could ever be accomplished in a traditional classroom. And I don't think that this is just a problem of doing a better job of teaching teachers how to teach the "new" way. Dewey pointed us to this "new" way of doing math almost 100 years ago and yet, as Green notes, we keep coming back to the other way of doing things. The problem here seems to be with the broader context of American education - something that Green seems to miss entirely. What is needed is a deep consideration of what it is that American schools are doing; why they exist; whose interests they serve (and consequently who has the greatest impact on shaping policy and such). Seymour Sarason seems to me to be one of the best in this regard (Consider his book, The Predictable Failure of School Reform: Can We Change Course Before it is too Late? http://www.amazon.com/Predictable-Failure-Educational-Reform-Change/dp/1555426239/ref=la_B001H6P704_1_8?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1406560135&sr=1-8 - and note in searching for this URL, I tried the URL "seymoursarason.com" - suggested on the wikipedia page - and got an advertisement, entirely in Japanese, for how Japanese housewives can make money in the cell phone industry!). With these questions of the importance of cultural context in mind, I wonder: how does this real-world math work in Japan where, according to my stereotypes of Japan's educational system, sorting by testing is an essential feature of Japan's schooling system? Is this method of teaching perhaps not as common in Japan as Green suggests? Or, is the impulse for sorting by testing less pronounced in Japan than I assume? Or is it something different altogether? -greg On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 1:55 AM, Larry Purss wrote: > Mike, Andy, > > Yes, a great article. > The insights that were generated by a person from Japan observing the > degree of *private* individual classroom teaching [with the > resulting isolation of teachers in America] in contrast to Japanese > teachers engaging in ongoing *lesson* dialogues. > The centrality of ongoing *lesson talk* as what is needed to sustain change > contrasts with the common practices of teachers in American schools left to > figure out best practice alone. > > How do we shift our practices in schools to encourage ongoing dialogical > *lesson talk* among teachers? > Larry > > > On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 9:44 PM, mike cole wrote: > > > This story about the resistance to common core standards may be of > interest > > to several members of xmca. > > Note that Sylvia Scribner appears in the story (!). > > mike > > > > > > > > Why Do Americans Stink at Math? > > < > > > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=InCMR7g4BCKC2wiZPkcVUiNNeXtotqX2&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1406497165885382®i_id=0 > > > > > By > > ELIZABETH GREEN > > > > The Common Core should finally improve math education. The problem is > that > > no one has taught the teachers how to teach it. > > Or, copy and paste this URL into your browser: > http://nyti.ms/1lu6ijA > > < > > > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=InCMR7g4BCKC2wiZPkcVUiNNeXtotqX2&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1406497165885382®i_id=0 > > > > > To > > get unlimited access to all New York Times articles, subscribe today. See > > Subscription Options. > > < > > > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACDuqzkg7rwCIjbQiYyNWYJIW5drsCg04xD2q1X6bqVB/vYPHy+JP5GfoOOml3K0i6GaUY7fZ7jcK869mPAvEGfk=&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1406497165885382®i_id=0 > > > > > To > > ensure delivery to your inbox, please add nytdirect@nytimes.com to your > > address book. Advertisement > > > > < > > > http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adx_click.html?type=goto&opzn&page=secure.nytimes.com/mem/emailthis.html&pos=Frame6A&sn2=6da5bd5a/78e3a264&sn1=f8f80b3f/1095806&camp=FoxSearchlight_AT2014-1911126C&ad=0601.Calvary_NYT336x90.jpg&goto=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Efoxsearchlight%2Ecom%2Fcalvary%2F > > > > > Copyright 2014 > > < > > > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACMlEhIhWVuPIxganfKahJGpDcKtdpfztygRnz23j1z6nDpx4eAAqQbYRMMl5L56EeQ==&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1406497165885382®i_id=0 > > > > > | The New York Times Company > > < > > > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KUv6vqdu/zT/DtUzLlQEcSh&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1406497165885382®i_id=0 > > > > > | NYTimes.com 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018 > > > -- Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Department of Anthropology 883 Spencer W. Kimball Tower Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602 http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson From greg.a.thompson@gmail.com Mon Jul 28 09:24:37 2014 From: greg.a.thompson@gmail.com (Greg Thompson) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 10:24:37 -0600 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: NYTimes.com: Why Do Americans Stink at Math? In-Reply-To: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F902414D@CIO-TNC-D2MBX01.osuad.osu.edu> References: <53d5718e.c814e00a.3778.3ba3SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F902414D@CIO-TNC-D2MBX01.osuad.osu.edu> Message-ID: One more thing of interest here is the respect given to teachers. In the U.S. the approach that our culture seems to take toward teaching seems something like "Shut up and teach!" In Japan, it seems a bit more respectful. Here is one very telling sentence from Green's fact-finding: "There, as in Japan, teachers teach for 600 or fewer hours each school year, leaving them ample time to prepare, revise and learn. By contrast, American teachers spend nearly 1,100 hours with little feedback." That's just stunning - almost twice as many hours of contact time. Is it even possible to have a "reflective" teaching practice when keeping those kinds of hours? (not to mention the grading, oh the grading!). I can imagine it to be quite difficult to hone one's craft when one is as overwhelmed as the average American teacher is. Michael, speaking to your friend's experience, Green suggests that there is a dramatic difference between elementary schooling which is more geared towards meaning-full math and high school which is geared towards cramming for the tests. That might address the issue I raised about how it works in Japan. And this seems to link to ideologies of childhood in interesting ways - I've noticed that it seems that childhood is accorded a certain respect in Japan that it isn't in the U.S. But by the time they get to high school, they are seen by dominant culture as ready to be treated like adults. Anyone out there have insight into Japanese culture? -greg On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 10:04 AM, Glassman, Michael wrote: > Hi Greg and Larry, > > Funny about Japan. Somebody I know (who is in the arts and not the social > sciences) recently returned from studying in Japan. When I asked him about > the education system there and the way they learned (and granted he is not > a math teacher) he was confused. His views were not that different from > the findings you mention of Mazur. They do a lot of testing, and they pass > the test, and then they don't care at all about the underlying ideas, don't > carry any of it with them. Their task was to pass the test to get into the > right university, to get the right job, to get the right social position. > Can we say the same thing about the Harvard physics students - they aren't > really learning physics, it is just part of their everyday tasks they do in > order to get into Harvard, to get the right job, to get the right social > position. Once the take has ended there is no reason to carry it with > them. Then Larry what is the "teaching craft," is it teaching students how > to get into Harvard, or how to get into the State school, or how to get out > of high school, or how to get a higher test score so we can get a raise? > > It's interesting reading about Sylvia's work again after all these years I > think that this isn't mathematics to the diary workers, it is just what > they do, part of their relevant everyday activities (same thing for the > Brazilian street children I guess and the waitresses that King Beach > studies). We are the ones to abstract these activities out and say they > are mathematics and relate them to these completely artificial subject > boundaries we create to organize traditional classrooms. When you think > about it in human history this is a relatively new thing. > > Michael > ________________________________________ > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] > on behalf of Greg Thompson [greg.a.thompson@gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 11:46 AM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: NYTimes.com: Why Do Americans Stink at Math? > > Seems that there might be a deeper problem here: the need for schools to > sort kids by testing them. If we see that as the primary function of > schooling (which it arguably is in the U.S.), then the old way of teaching > math works great. Only those most dedicated students who don't have to work > jobs during high school (i.e. upper-class students) are going to have the > time to spend doing this frighteningly rote work (and parents' pushing is > important here too). > > And the old method of teaching also happens to be well suited to the most > essential functionary of any sorting system: THE TEST. Those kids who > willing to regularly flog themselves with insanely rote math and science > problems will come out on top on these tests. I think Eric Mazur's > experience demonstrates this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwslBPj8GgI). > Mazur is a Physics teacher at Harvard who changed up his tests to evaluate > students on elementary concepts like the force exerted on a car and a truck > when they have a collision. He was shocked by what he found. His Harvard > students who could solve incredibly complex physics problems (many of whom > had aced their AP Physics exams in high school) were consistently getting > these elementary physics problems wrong! These students had learned > incredibly well how to solve recipe Physics but they had no idea about how > the basic principles of Physics worked. > > One question I have is whether tests on a large scale will ever be able to > capture the kinds of embodied knowledge that Scribner's dairy workers and > the Brazilian peanut-selling youth have. It seems like this kind of > embodied knowledge is what Green is suggesting is included in the Common > Core. But I fail to see how this could ever be accomplished in a > traditional classroom. > > And I don't think that this is just a problem of doing a better job of > teaching teachers how to teach the "new" way. Dewey pointed us to this > "new" way of doing math almost 100 years ago and yet, as Green notes, we > keep coming back to the other way of doing things. The problem here seems > to be with the broader context of American education - something that Green > seems to miss entirely. > > What is needed is a deep consideration of what it is that American schools > are doing; why they exist; whose interests they serve (and consequently who > has the greatest impact on shaping policy and such). Seymour Sarason seems > to me to be one of the best in this regard (Consider his book, The > Predictable Failure of School Reform: Can We Change Course Before it is too > Late? > > http://www.amazon.com/Predictable-Failure-Educational-Reform-Change/dp/1555426239/ref=la_B001H6P704_1_8?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1406560135&sr=1-8 > - and note in searching for this URL, I tried the URL "seymoursarason.com" > - suggested on the wikipedia page - and got an advertisement, entirely in > Japanese, for how Japanese housewives can make money in the cell phone > industry!). > > With these questions of the importance of cultural context in mind, I > wonder: how does this real-world math work in Japan where, according to my > stereotypes of Japan's educational system, sorting by testing is an > essential feature of Japan's schooling system? > Is this method of teaching perhaps not as common in Japan as Green > suggests? > Or, is the impulse for sorting by testing less pronounced in Japan than I > assume? > Or is it something different altogether? > -greg > > > > On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 1:55 AM, Larry Purss wrote: > > > Mike, Andy, > > > > Yes, a great article. > > The insights that were generated by a person from Japan observing the > > degree of *private* individual classroom teaching [with the > > resulting isolation of teachers in America] in contrast to Japanese > > teachers engaging in ongoing *lesson* dialogues. > > The centrality of ongoing *lesson talk* as what is needed to sustain > change > > contrasts with the common practices of teachers in American schools left > to > > figure out best practice alone. > > > > How do we shift our practices in schools to encourage ongoing dialogical > > *lesson talk* among teachers? > > Larry > > > > > > On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 9:44 PM, mike cole wrote: > > > > > This story about the resistance to common core standards may be of > > interest > > > to several members of xmca. > > > Note that Sylvia Scribner appears in the story (!). > > > mike > > > > > > > > > > > > Why Do Americans Stink at Math? > > > < > > > > > > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=InCMR7g4BCKC2wiZPkcVUiNNeXtotqX2&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1406497165885382®i_id=0 > > > > > > > By > > > ELIZABETH GREEN > > > > > > The Common Core should finally improve math education. The problem is > > that > > > no one has taught the teachers how to teach it. > > > Or, copy and paste this URL into your browser: > > http://nyti.ms/1lu6ijA > > > < > > > > > > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=InCMR7g4BCKC2wiZPkcVUiNNeXtotqX2&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1406497165885382®i_id=0 > > > > > > > To > > > get unlimited access to all New York Times articles, subscribe today. > See > > > Subscription Options. > > > < > > > > > > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACDuqzkg7rwCIjbQiYyNWYJIW5drsCg04xD2q1X6bqVB/vYPHy+JP5GfoOOml3K0i6GaUY7fZ7jcK869mPAvEGfk=&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1406497165885382®i_id=0 > > > > > > > To > > > ensure delivery to your inbox, please add nytdirect@nytimes.com to > your > > > address book. Advertisement > > > > > > < > > > > > > http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adx_click.html?type=goto&opzn&page=secure.nytimes.com/mem/emailthis.html&pos=Frame6A&sn2=6da5bd5a/78e3a264&sn1=f8f80b3f/1095806&camp=FoxSearchlight_AT2014-1911126C&ad=0601.Calvary_NYT336x90.jpg&goto=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Efoxsearchlight%2Ecom%2Fcalvary%2F > > > > > > > Copyright 2014 > > > < > > > > > > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACMlEhIhWVuPIxganfKahJGpDcKtdpfztygRnz23j1z6nDpx4eAAqQbYRMMl5L56EeQ==&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1406497165885382®i_id=0 > > > > > > > | The New York Times Company > > > < > > > > > > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KUv6vqdu/zT/DtUzLlQEcSh&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1406497165885382®i_id=0 > > > > > > > | NYTimes.com 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018 > > > > > > > > > -- > Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. > Assistant Professor > Department of Anthropology > 883 Spencer W. Kimball Tower > Brigham Young University > Provo, UT 84602 > http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson > > -- Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Department of Anthropology 883 Spencer W. Kimball Tower Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602 http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson From huw.softdesigns@gmail.com Mon Jul 28 09:58:10 2014 From: huw.softdesigns@gmail.com (Huw Lloyd) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 17:58:10 +0100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: NYTimes.com: Why Do Americans Stink at Math? In-Reply-To: References: <53d5718e.c814e00a.3778.3ba3SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> Message-ID: On 28 July 2014 16:46, Greg Thompson wrote: [...] These students had learned > > incredibly well how to solve recipe Physics but they had no idea about how > the basic principles of Physics worked. > Greg, I would say the ethics of the situation go deeper than simply (un)learnt capabilities, but rather to the development of the student's creative capabilities (or, rather, the stunting of them). Best, Huw From lchcmike@gmail.com Mon Jul 28 10:24:21 2014 From: lchcmike@gmail.com (mike cole) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 10:24:21 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Fwd: [commfac] Fwd: [MCC Talk] Fwd: jointly-appointed tenure-track assistant professor in the area of Digital Studies and Social Justice In-Reply-To: References: <1A57AF89-738D-4735-A980-070AF3D39CA6@umd.edu> <550057C3-EA30-4A57-9DC3-F590EAD67375@nyu.edu> Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Christo Sims To: CommGrad , commFac FYI JOB NOTICE DIGITAL STUDIES. The University of Michigan?s Department of American Culture and the Residential College seek qualified applicants for a jointly-appointed tenure-track assistant professor in the area of Digital Studies and Social Justice. This is a university-year appointment with an expected start date of September 1, 2015. We seek candidates whose work explores how the everyday practices of digital cultures reflect, reproduce, or create inequalities, whether of class, race, gender, sexuality, ethnic identity, or ability. Applicants? research and teaching interests should center on digital technologies ? i.e., social media, virtual worlds, gaming and/or mobile media ? and the critical analysis of inequality in relation to these technologies. Teaching and research will encompass the social impact of new technologies as well as representations of marginalized populations on digital platforms. Candidates may also take up the challenges and opportunities for social activism offered by digital environments. Scholars who bring a background in race, ethnic, gender, disability, and/or LGBTQ studies are encouraged to apply, as are those engaged in visual culture studies, digital storytelling, or digital production. Michigan?s Department of American Culture has launched a major initiative to develop pioneering digital studies curricula at the undergraduate and graduate levels. Michigan?s Residential College is a four year undergraduate living-learning community with on-site theater facilities, photo labs, music performance spaces, and art studios, and a pedagogical philosophy that emphasizes participatory education and community engagement. The successful candidate will enhance the Department of American Culture and the Residential College?s joint effort to develop new approaches to digital studies research and innovative teaching. Evidence of excellence and inventiveness in both teaching and research is therefore crucial. Ph.D. required prior to appointment. Candidates should submit application dossier via email attachment (in Microsoft Word or PDF format) to rcpositions@umich.edu. Include: Cover letter addressed to: Chair, Digital Studies and Social Justice Search Committee Vitae Writing sample (no more than 25 pages) Statement of teaching philosophy and experience Evidence of teaching excellence (i.e., student evaluations of teaching, course syllabi, teaching awards) Statement of current and future research plans Three letters of recommendation, which should be sent to rcpositions@umich.edu directly from the signer?s (or credentialing service?s) institutional email address. Questions regarding the position can be sent to rcpositions@umich.edu as well. Deadline for submission of applications is October 1, 2014. Women and minorities are encouraged to apply. The University of Michigan is supportive of the needs of dual career couples and is an Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer. -- From wester@uga.edu Mon Jul 28 11:25:02 2014 From: wester@uga.edu (Katherine Wester Neal) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 18:25:02 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: NYTimes.com: Why Do Americans Stink at Math? In-Reply-To: References: <53d5718e.c814e00a.3778.3ba3SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> , Message-ID: <1406571909843.30805@uga.edu> What an interesting article! I am thinking about the lack of focus on specific contexts in the article's discussion of teaching and learning to teach as a practicing teacher. Is it possible to go about such change (from "old" math to new math or Common Core math) with little/no consideration for what kinds of teaching might work in a particular school culture or the social context of a given classroom? I think less of a standardized approach (here, everyone do this) and more focus on what works locally (here are some ideas; now decide what might work for you) might help teachers learn to teach Common Core math in a way that actually works in their particular context. To adapt phrase from Magdalene Lampert, it might bring about more sustainable change as they are "re-learning teaching" in their schools. Because Common Core math is so different, perhaps this re-learning teaching requires a radical new approach instead of the same old professional development. Learning through the Japanese jugyokenkyu method sounds like it might be very useful, but there doesn't seem to be a push for reforming how teachers learn once they are in the field. (Except that if enough of their students fail the Common Core-aligned tests, they will eventually be out of a job.) It seems nonsensical to implement incredibly high-stakes tests without significant investment in re-learning teaching and with, as far as I know, no research on how to learn to teach Common Core as a practicing teacher. I, too, wonder about how these issues are handled in Japan? Katie Katie Wester-Neal University of Georgia ________________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Huw Lloyd Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 12:58 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: NYTimes.com: Why Do Americans Stink at Math? On 28 July 2014 16:46, Greg Thompson wrote: [...] These students had learned > > incredibly well how to solve recipe Physics but they had no idea about how > the basic principles of Physics worked. > Greg, I would say the ethics of the situation go deeper than simply (un)learnt capabilities, but rather to the development of the student's creative capabilities (or, rather, the stunting of them). Best, Huw From arips@optonline.net Mon Jul 28 12:00:24 2014 From: arips@optonline.net (Avram Rips) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 15:00:24 -0400 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: NYTimes.com: Why Do Americans Stink at Math? In-Reply-To: <1406571909843.30805@uga.edu> References: <53d5718e.c814e00a.3778.3ba3SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> <1406571909843.30805@uga.edu> Message-ID: <83C30A28DFA94BA3A7D9F9AEA7860B94@avramlindaPC> Common Core is not a way of teaching it is standards. This is what they tell us, and later tell us they are standards. There is no research that more standards results in better learning or teaching. The politicians that brought us the common core have children going to schools with no common core, such as President Obama- friends school in Washington DC and the Lab school founded by John Dewey. Take care! Avram The funding from common core came from Bill Gates. He wants compliant workers and little thinking involved. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Katherine Wester Neal" To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 2:25 PM Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: NYTimes.com: Why Do Americans Stink at Math? > What an interesting article! I am thinking about the lack of focus on > specific contexts in the article's discussion of teaching and learning to > teach as a practicing teacher. Is it possible to go about such change > (from "old" math to new math or Common Core math) with little/no > consideration for what kinds of teaching might work in a particular school > culture or the social context of a given classroom? I think less of a > standardized approach (here, everyone do this) and more focus on what > works locally (here are some ideas; now decide what might work for you) > might help teachers learn to teach Common Core math in a way that actually > works in their particular context. To adapt phrase from Magdalene Lampert, > it might bring about more sustainable change as they are "re-learning > teaching" in their schools. > > Because Common Core math is so different, perhaps this re-learning > teaching requires a radical new approach instead of the same old > professional development. Learning through the Japanese jugyokenkyu method > sounds like it might be very useful, but there doesn't seem to be a push > for reforming how teachers learn once they are in the field. (Except that > if enough of their students fail the Common Core-aligned tests, they will > eventually be out of a job.) > > It seems nonsensical to implement incredibly high-stakes tests without > significant investment in re-learning teaching and with, as far as I know, > no research on how to learn to teach Common Core as a practicing teacher. > I, too, wonder about how these issues are handled in Japan? > > Katie > > Katie Wester-Neal > University of Georgia > ________________________________________ > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on > behalf of Huw Lloyd > Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 12:58 PM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: NYTimes.com: Why Do Americans Stink at Math? > > On 28 July 2014 16:46, Greg Thompson wrote: > [...] > These students had learned >> >> incredibly well how to solve recipe Physics but they had no idea about >> how >> the basic principles of Physics worked. >> > > Greg, > > I would say the ethics of the situation go deeper than simply (un)learnt > capabilities, but rather to the development of the student's creative > capabilities (or, rather, the stunting of them). > > Best, > Huw > From arips@optonline.net Mon Jul 28 12:06:40 2014 From: arips@optonline.net (Avram Rips) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 15:06:40 -0400 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: NYTimes.com: Why Do Americans Stink at Math? In-Reply-To: <1406571909843.30805@uga.edu> References: <53d5718e.c814e00a.3778.3ba3SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> <1406571909843.30805@uga.edu> Message-ID: <1EF6C5AC2F8B47E58B52A4C3C9573105@avramlindaPC> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/eight-problems-with-common-core-standards/2012/08/21/821b300a-e4e7-11e1-8f62-58260e3940a0_blog.html ----- Original Message ----- From: "Katherine Wester Neal" To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 2:25 PM Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: NYTimes.com: Why Do Americans Stink at Math? > What an interesting article! I am thinking about the lack of focus on > specific contexts in the article's discussion of teaching and learning to > teach as a practicing teacher. Is it possible to go about such change > (from "old" math to new math or Common Core math) with little/no > consideration for what kinds of teaching might work in a particular school > culture or the social context of a given classroom? I think less of a > standardized approach (here, everyone do this) and more focus on what > works locally (here are some ideas; now decide what might work for you) > might help teachers learn to teach Common Core math in a way that actually > works in their particular context. To adapt phrase from Magdalene Lampert, > it might bring about more sustainable change as they are "re-learning > teaching" in their schools. > > Because Common Core math is so different, perhaps this re-learning > teaching requires a radical new approach instead of the same old > professional development. Learning through the Japanese jugyokenkyu method > sounds like it might be very useful, but there doesn't seem to be a push > for reforming how teachers learn once they are in the field. (Except that > if enough of their students fail the Common Core-aligned tests, they will > eventually be out of a job.) > > It seems nonsensical to implement incredibly high-stakes tests without > significant investment in re-learning teaching and with, as far as I know, > no research on how to learn to teach Common Core as a practicing teacher. > I, too, wonder about how these issues are handled in Japan? > > Katie > > Katie Wester-Neal > University of Georgia > ________________________________________ > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on > behalf of Huw Lloyd > Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 12:58 PM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: NYTimes.com: Why Do Americans Stink at Math? > > On 28 July 2014 16:46, Greg Thompson wrote: > [...] > These students had learned >> >> incredibly well how to solve recipe Physics but they had no idea about >> how >> the basic principles of Physics worked. >> > > Greg, > > I would say the ethics of the situation go deeper than simply (un)learnt > capabilities, but rather to the development of the student's creative > capabilities (or, rather, the stunting of them). > > Best, > Huw > From jennamcjenna@gmail.com Mon Jul 28 12:51:07 2014 From: jennamcjenna@gmail.com (Jenna McWilliams) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 15:51:07 -0400 Subject: [Xmca-l] Fwd: Re: Gee, Knowledge, Intelligence and Affinity Spaces In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: <53D6A9AB.4090101@gmail.com> Greg and all, I went ahead and emailed the man himself, Jim Gee, to see if he could help clarify. He wrote the following and gave me permission to share it on the listserv. -- Jenna McWilliams Learning Sciences Program, Indiana University jenmcwil@indiana.edu > *From:* James Gee > *Date:* Monday, July 28, 2014 11:42 AM > *To:* Jenna McWilliams > *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Gee, Knowledge, Intelligence and Affinity Spaces > Affinity spaces can be seen as about knowledge in that they create it, > store it, teach it, disseminate it, distribute it, and link to it and > network with it across other spaces. This is a sort of collective > intelligence that transcends any one person or group in the Affinity > Space. The Anti-Education book argues that humans as individuals are > stupid and ever more dangerous to themselves and others as the world > gets ever more complex--thus, the need for ethically-driven collective > intelligence. Earlier work was more focused on Affinity spaces as > sites for teaching and learning in competition with schools and > institutions. > > Sent from Windows Mail > > From fsulliva@temple.edu Mon Jul 28 15:19:45 2014 From: fsulliva@temple.edu (FRANCIS J. SULLIVAN) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 18:19:45 -0400 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: book of possible interest In-Reply-To: References: <0D461088-CBBB-4BD9-ADCB-3024C36CBE81@telia.com> <53C48DF1.5000703@mira.net> Message-ID: David, Thank you for your detailed clarification and elaboration. I am learning a great deal about Vygotsky--and how my own thinking and methods differ from his. Also, while I make use of SFL and its terminology (some might say "co-opt"), my own work turns several of its basic assumptions on its head. So, let me try to clarify a bit. 1. "Hierarchy of Functions." In Halliday's framework 9and that of every other functional framework of which I am aware) acknowledges that the elements of the "lexico-grammatical system" do incorporate all the "meta-functions" simultaneously. So, the shift from "I prefer living in the city" to "My preference is for life in the city," which uses nominalization as the device to effect that shift, can be viewed from the perspective of each meta-function. How, then, do we decide which meta-function is dominant? Following Jacobson, functionalists invoke the principle of "Hierarchy of Functions." That contextual element that dominates the situation--Field, Tenor, or Mode--determines which of the Meta-functions should dominate in the analysis. I pretty much followed that principle in my brief response to your example. However, in my own work, I argue that the Hierarchy principle is unmotivated, in that it allows the viewpoint of dominant social groups to become the baseline for analysis of spoken or written texts, in turn suppressing the influences of those meta-functions deemed "subordinate." The result, which I find all too prevalent in forms of school and workplace discourse, spoken or written, is that the meaning of a text becomes aligned with the interests of that group which can exert its power to define its context--management vs workers; teachers vs students, etc. 2. Co-operation vs Conflict. From the time of Kant, it has generally been assumed in linguistics and discourse analysis that participants co-operate in the "free exchange of information." Halliday's framework incorporates it as well. Yet, that premise flies in the face of everything I understand about Marx' notions of development in social relations between Capital and Labor, groups whose interests are conceived as in conflict with each other. Indeed, one of my studies examines just this "division of labor in the division of discourse" as that division is represented in the contradictory versions of workplace texts with which tax examiner in the Internal Revenue service are confronted in the course of their work. While one version of their manual represents their work as highly conceptual, requiring sophisticated judgment, the second version represents the same work as requiring only rote responses, devoid of judgment. It should come as no surprise that the workers--who at best have high school degrees, are told to rely on the latter version yet are evaluated on the former. 3. Cognitive Psychology vs Sociology (or at least Social Psychology). It is here that my work departs most from Halliday's, especially as it has developed since the mid 1980's. My work begins from the premise that Discourse is wholly a socio-cultural phenomenon. In that, I take a good bit from Jim Gee's work and even more from Dell Hymes' work in anthropology and linguistics. I don't deny that meta-functions exist in the mind, but the evidence, I believe, is that the development of those metafunctions is wholly a result of the kinds of social interactions that lead to those valued "ways of speaking" and that valued social identity that Gee calls one's "Primary Discourse." In work that I have been doing on "codes," for instance, it has become quite clear to me that differences in the ways that working-class and middle or upper middle class youth talk about--conceptualize--the "same" topic result not from different levels of psychological development but from different values that are attached to that way of speaking. I believe, though I cannot yet document it, that these different values themselves emerge from the discursive implications of their very different positions in social formations. If this is the case, then viewing discourse development needs at least to include an understanding of one's place in the division of labor. I appreciate this opportunity to share some of the foundations of my own work here. What has intrigues me about Vygotsky's work, especially in the ways that CHAT has taken it up, is its dialectical and systemic conception of learning. I am hoping that, over time, I can connect those ideas to my own work. These conversations are thus very helpful to me. Francis J. Sullivan, Ph.D. Associate Professor Department of Teaching and Learning College of Education Temple University Philadelphia, PA 19122 Find out what any people will quietly submit to and you have the exact measure of the injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them. Frederick Douglass On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 6:52 PM, David Kellogg wrote: > Francis: > > Well, first of all, the word "internal" here is the word Vygotsky uses. In > History of the Development of the Higher Mental Functions, he explains that > it simply means the psychological as opposed to the social. Perhaps > "inward" would be a better translation: culture in "inward" with respect to > nature, psychology is "inward" with respect to sociology, signs are > "inward" with respect to tools, and within signs, inner speech is "inward" > with respect to social contact. > > To put this in Hallidayan terms, I think we have to say that the ideational > metafunction is "inward" with respect to the interpersonal one. We can > easily construe representations and figures without interpersonal contact, > but we can't exchange speaking roles. Similarly we can exchange > commodities, goods and services, without construing inner representations > of reality. That explains why the metafunctions are independent, also > why they require a third to join them. "Thinking" is Halliday's ideational > metafunction; "Speech" is his interpersonal metafunction. And of course the > textual metafunction is represented in "Thinking and Speech" by the word > "and". > > My wife is currently working on an article that tries to argue for a > diachronic rather than a synchronic teaching of world literature. The idea > is to show the diversity in unity of world literature in time rather than > just in space. But the further back she goes towards the very origins of > writing that Mike is talking about (cuneiform, counters) the more writing > is concerned with exchanging goods and services and the less it is > interested in what we would call ideation. Conversely, by the middle ages, > everybody is interested in representing figures, and by our own time it is > all about creating texts, whether they represent figures or not. > > So I guess that unlike you I would recognize not just diversity but > development: development towards greater complexity, development towards > greater diversity, development towards greater inclusiveness (we have > fables AND stream of consciousness literature, but the Ancient Egyptians > only had the former), development in generality (translatability) and > development in abstraction. In one of his lectures, Vygotsky talks about > the uniqueness of ontogenesis insofar as it involves confronting the END of > development with the BEGINNING. That is also, of course, what the study of > the history of literature must do. > > In my data, the development is microgenetic (I guess Halliday would call it > logogenetic). "Hi" is essentially a matter of interpersonal contact, whle > "I'm Mr. K" is, as you point out, ideation. Since this is dialogue, I > guess "And you?" is about looking back to the information just given and > forward to the next turn, and therefore has a textualizing function. It is > the "and" in thinking and the "and" in speech. > > I thought I was pretty explicit about the context. I am talking about the > practica that we do at the end of the term--I have to watch trainees teach > and then offer comments. My own entry into the classroom is, or should be, > a kind of model them (because I am a native speaker, but above all because > I am the examiner, and a wise examinee will examine the examiner and try to > do likewise). So I try to introduce myself in a way that I think will > present a range of functions, and suggest a fairly small minimal unit for > using them. But only some of the teachers manage to develop a rhythm: get > attention, give information, check understanding, and I suspect that they > have already developed this rhythm before they arrive in class. > > When Andy says that our whole discussion is just silly, all he really means > is that his specific formulations of ideas are not the centre of it. But in > defense of our grumpy philosopher, I should say that Andy is DOES recognize > practical intelligence, but he recognizes it as something qualitative > different from higher intellect (that is, thinking in concepts). So do I. > And so, actually, does Vygotsky (Chapter TWO of Thinking and Speech, where > Vygotsky describes childhood as a zigzagging from practical realism, to > imaginative irrealism, to verbal realism). > > So yes--physical play, what Vygotsky calls "quasi-play", roughousing--all > of these are good examples of "practical intelligence", but not necessarily > verbalized intellect. The move into verbalized intellect is not a smooth > one: we can see qualitative transformations in play, first from rote play > (which nevertheless requires a kind of mental representation of the act in > order to repeat it) to role play (which repeats the actor but not the act) > to rule play (which varies actors according to fixed rules). > > Huw's objection, that the move from the one into the other requires no > dialectical leap, is in direct contradiction to Vygotsky, and in fact > directly contradicts the very Vygotsky text that he directs me too which > insists on the distinctness as well as the linkedness of role play and rule > play. (Elkonin is another matter; I think his idea of "leading activity" > (as opposed to psychological function) is a neo-behavioristic retreat from > Vygotsky.) But it also contradicts this, which is from the crucial > paragraph break that divides the two sections of Thinking and Speech, > Chapter One, in its original 1934 edition: > > ????? ???????, ??? ?????????????? ?????? ???????? ?? ?????? ????????? ?? > ?????????? ??????? ? ????????, ?? ? ????????? ?? ???????? ? ?????, ?? ???? > ????? ???????, ??? ???????? ???????? ???????????????? ? ???????? > ??????????? ?????, ??? ???????????????? ????????. ??-????????, ???? ??? > ????????? ?????????, ??? ??? ???????????? ??????? ??????? ? ???????? ? > ??????? ???? ?????????? ????????? ????????????????. (When we say that the > dialectical leap is not only the transition from nonthinking matter to > sentient, but also the transition from sentience to thought, what we wish > to say is that thinking reflects reality in consciousness in a > qualitatively different way than unmediated sentience. Evidently, there is > every foundation for assuming that this qualitative difference in units > lies in the generalized reflection of reality.) > > David Kellogg > Hankuk University of Foreign Studies > > > On 23 July 2014 04:13, FRANCIS J. SULLIVAN wrote: > > > David, > > > > I have been, and still am, in the midst of teaching myself--now looking > at > > the first assignment completed. So, I have been away from the list. Wow! > > I've just read through the other strand, realizing just how different > this > > way of thinking is from just about everything I do. I find it hard to > > envision thought processes in language as "internal." To me they are > always > > part of a social exchange, conducted in a context that is constrained by > > culture. So, I'm not sure I can answer your question, but I will try. > > First. if you want to contrast the functions of the three "moves" in > your > > example, I would not begin with their grammatical form. It might make > sense > > to segment them into "information units" (Halliday's term); but, what > seems > > to me most important--and something whose absence in the thread on "fuzzy > > things" just boggles my mind--is to construe the social context in which > > the utterance takes place. As you know, each of the three > > meta-functions--ideational, interpersonal, and textual--has its > > corresponding element in the social context, namely, Field, Tenor, and > > Mode. The first element seems especially relevant here. Halliday > discusses > > it in terms of the purpose, or cognitive activity, in which the text is > > uttered. So, you walk into a classroom--for the first time??, midway into > > the semester?--there would be differences in terms of analyzing the > > "meaning" of the text. Still, I would say that in this context the > > utterance "Hi, I'm Mr. K. And you?" addresses the "Interpersonal" element > > primarily and secondarily the Mode. The Mode, or "genre," (there's a lot > > of contention about where genre fits into SFL right now) is that of the > > "Introduction," the interpersonal is informal and friendly, as suggested > by > > the use of contractions and periphrasis "And you." Very little of the > > utterance would address Field, just "I'm Mr. K." > > > > So, it may sound as if I would agree with Andy. But, I don't. You and I > do > > agree that "thinking" is a more capacious term than what Andy allows. > > Whether he is correct about Vygotsky's position, of course, I don't know. > > It strikes me, however, that what Andy calls "thinking" is that kind of > > discourse typically referred to as "academic." In fact, he sounds almost > > like Levi-Strauss at times, distinguishing the "Savage" from the > > "Civilized." I don't think he means to, but it is almost impossible to > > escape it within the framework of a strictly developmental model that > has a > > clear final stage--and so little attention to context. Specifically, we > > need to understand this development of "scientific conceptualizing" > > socially *first*, before we begin to concern ourselves with what may, or > > may not, be happening in somebody's neural net. In this, I follow Hymes > and > > Gumperz, who developed the term "ways of speaking." Academic discourse is > > just that--a way of speaking--and one that is learned, as Vygotsky makes > > clear, only in the context of certain kinds and levels of schooling. But > we > > cannot infer from that developmental process, I think, that such learning > > transforms the learner in a strictly cognitive manner. For me, at least, > > what development means here is a kind of socialization, the result of > which > > is that s/he internalizes those ways of speaking deemed appropriate by > the > > particular community to which s/he belongs. And, of course, one can > belong > > to multiple communities with different, and even conflicting ways of > > speaking. > > > > I don't know if that helps you at all. It seems to me that, as distinct > > from your point about Vygotsky's dialectical take on the relationship > sign > > and concept, Andy tends to conflate the two--erasing the hyphen instead > of > > working it. > > > > Francis J. Sullivan, Ph.D. > > Associate Professor > > Department of Teaching and Learning > > College of Education > > Temple University > > Philadelphia, PA 19122 > > > > > > Find out what any people will quietly submit to and you have the exact > > measure of the injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them. > > > > Frederick Douglass > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 5:51 PM, David Kellogg > > wrote: > > > > > Francis: > > > > > > We just had about two weeks of "teaching practica". The terrified > > trainees > > > have to stand up and teach a fifteen minute lesson in front of peers > > > masequerading as children and three rabid professors making negative > > > comments. Not only is this not a very propitious environment in which > to > > > try out new things (or even demonstrate basic teaching skills), it's a > > > really an opportunity made in hell for saying anything intelligent > about > > > teaching, which is, alas, my job. > > > > > > Here's what I wanted to ask you, since you have a background in > > > systemic-functional grammar and CDA and above all because you seemed to > > > imply in your last that you thought the very attempt to engage can be > > > transformative (as opposed to demoralizing). I sometimes notice that > the > > > best teachers have a regular rhythm--getting attention, giving > > information, > > > and checking understanding. This rhythm is faster when the "kids" are > > > learning something familiar and slower when the "kids" are on new > > > territory, but it's always there. I would like to say that these three > > > functions are related in some systematic way to imperatives, > > declaratives, > > > and interrogatives. But they are not, even when I take interpersonal > > > metaphors (e.g. "May I have your attention please?") into account. What > > do > > > you think I am looking at here? > > > > > > Now, let me use this example to address some of what Huw and Andy have > > been > > > saying. I hope you'll see that the two threads are not quite as > unrelated > > > as the two different titles suggest. Suppose I walk into a classroom, > > pick > > > out some friendly eye contact, and I say "Hi! I'm Mr. K. And you?" As > you > > > can see, the first "Hi!" is an instance of getting attention. But it > > isn't > > > a figure of experience: it's a minor clause. "I'm Mr. K" is a major > > clause, > > > and "And you?" is an elliptical clause, parasitic on "I'm Mr. K" for > most > > > of its wording. So it seems to me that SOME functions (e.g. getting > > > attention) are rather closer to figures of experience, while others are > > > more concerned with social contact. All functions have to be both, but > > they > > > don't have to be the same proportions of both, and so development is, > > > contrary to what Huw suggests, perfectly possible. Children do not leap > > > metaphysically, but dialectically--by going from using language mostly > to > > > get attention (and largely without clause grammar) to using language to > > > give information and eventually using it to check understanding. > > > > > > You can see that "Hi!" is a good example of the unity of behavior and > > > consciousness that Andy is talking about. But by the time we get to > > > checking understanding, the "behavior" element becomes pretty > > irrelevant: I > > > just don't see any way in which understanding can be described as > > > "behavior" and we can still retain the key distinction between > > > pseudoconceptual understanding and conceptual understanding. > > > > > > In Andy's first point, he argues that when children are not using word > > > meanings to think (i.e. visiographical thinking, which plays a very > > > important role in getting children's attention) they are not thinking. > I > > > prefer to think that they are thinking, but they are thinking using > what > > > Vygotsky (and Buhler and especially Kohler, who were certainly genetic > > > psychologists) liked to call "practical intellect". It's intellect. But > > > it's not verbal thinking. > > > > > > I'm not sure that I agree when Andy says, in his second point, that > > labour > > > is ALWAYS inadequate as a foundation for psychological inquiry--I > imagine > > > Helena Worthen finds it very useful. But I certainly agree with Andy > that > > > the revisionists (Leontiev, Zinchenko, Wertsch) took "labour" as > > > paradigmatic, and as a result they had to deep-six Vygotsky's late > ideas > > > about the semantic structure of consciousness (that is, Vygotsky's idea > > > that minds are made of word meanings, not action plans). Some of the > > > revisionists did this reluctantly (Leontiev, at his best) but some of > > them > > > were quite strident (Zinchenko in particular). All of them considered > > > Vygotsky an idealist. > > > > > > As I understand it, Huw DISAGREES with Andy and actually agrees with > the > > > revisionist critique of Vygotsky on the grounds that children are > mostly > > > preoccupied with action and not word meaning. That's all very true of > > > course: but they are NOT really preoccupied with labour activity. Their > > > preoccupations are with PLAY activity (Kim Yongho and I did a good > study > > of > > > so-called "Task based teaching" that shows how children redefine tasks > as > > > role plays and games). Play activity is, as Vygotsky has shown us, > > > genetically related to speech and not to labour. > > > > > > Andy's third point is that semantic actions (???) create intellectual > > > structures in the mind. I don't know what a semantic action is; > semantics > > > for me is the process of making something stand for something else, > but I > > > don't see in what sense it helps to model this process as an "action". > In > > > many ways, it is precisely a non-action, because it includes > > conditionality > > > and interpretability, neither of which is usefully modeled as action. > > > > > > In any case, you and I, Francis, are Hallidayans. We know that ideation > > is > > > only a part of semantics (there is also the interpersonal and the > textual > > > metafunction), and that intellect is only a part of ideation (there is > > the > > > experiential as well as the logical metafunction). So there is no basis > > > whatsoever for the charge of intellectualism (I think what Andy is > really > > > getting at is not intellectualism but objectivism). > > > > > > I agree with the Russians who say that "perezhivanie" is a well defined > > > concept. But to me "well defined" means developmentally so: it means > that > > > the specific weight of the various components of "perezhivanie" have to > > be > > > allowed to change as we develop: so for young children "perezhivanie" > is > > > largely "felt experience", and for older children it is mostly "thought > > > over--contemplated--experience". I don't see that thinking over is > mostly > > > an intellectual exercise though--I always feel, even in these exchanges > > on > > > xmca, that there is a certain emotional component which makes us > respond, > > > sometimes before we really even think things out. > > > > > > David Kellogg > > > Hankuk University of Foreign Studies > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 16 July 2014 04:39, FRANCIS J. SULLIVAN > wrote: > > > > > > > With great trepidation, I want to enter this conversation with my > first > > > > post to the list (I have followed it for about a year now) because as > > > both > > > > a researcher and teacher educator the issues raised are major > concerns > > > of > > > > mine too. I find, I think it was David's point, the idea that we can > > > think > > > > of the "connections" problem in two ways to be at the heart of the > > issue, > > > > at least for me. It is one thing to construct a connection that "adds > > to" > > > > the existing knowledge framework of others. But, it is a very > different > > > > thing to sea5rch for a "connection" that requires others to > > qualitatively > > > > change, or even abandon, their existing framework. Helen seems to > > achieve > > > > such a connection with at least some of her teachers by helping them > to > > > > re-cognize their own social identities so that the new knowledge and > > > > framework became less threatening and more inviting. She reconnected > > them > > > > with who they used to be and what they valued. So they did not see > > > > themselves as merely "ignorant" but more like retracing their steps. > > > > For me, at least, that's why the "deficit" models of teaching (or > > > research) > > > > practices do not work. We--teachers and students--need to find a > place > > > from > > > > which we can begin this journey together, common ground so to speak. > > > While > > > > a deaf person may not "know" English, I don't think that's the > salient > > > > point. All of us don't know things. What seems to me salient in > Helen's > > > > attempt to find connections, is that the very attempt challenged > their > > > > current ways of framing their professional lives. What we might think > > of > > > as > > > > "ignorance," those teachers thought of as "knowledge." And that > > > "knowledge" > > > > was part and parcel of the ways they positioned themselves as > teachers > > in > > > > relation to students. > > > > I am tempted to put this into discourse analysis terms--I'm a > > > > semi-Hallidayan with a critical theory twist. But, I've said enough > > for a > > > > first post, I think. I hope it is useful. > > > > > > > > Francis J. Sullivan, Ph.D. > > > > Associate Professor > > > > Department of Teaching and Learning > > > > College of Education > > > > Temple University > > > > Philadelphia, PA 19122 > > > > > > > > > > > > Find out what any people will quietly submit to and you have the > exact > > > > measure of the injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them. > > > > > > > > Frederick Douglass > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 2:10 AM, David Kellogg > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Well, I do hope that Helen means that "for the moment", as I have > > > learned > > > > > an awful lot from this book and even more from this discussion. You > > > see, > > > > I > > > > > am trying to tease apart two very different processes that appear, > on > > > the > > > > > face of it, to be almost identical, but which also appear to have > > > > > diametrically opposite developmental effects. > > > > > > > > > > One process is the process of getting people to feel at ease, > > > > > confident, and happy that they understand what you are saying > because > > > it > > > > is > > > > > actually something that is identical or at least very similar to > what > > > > they > > > > > already think. Another, almost identical, process is the process of > > > > > "establishing ties" between a new form of knowledge and an earlier > > one. > > > > > BOTH of these processes, it seems to me, occur throughout Helen's > > book, > > > > and > > > > > it is easy to mistake the one for the other. BOTH of these > processes, > > > to > > > > > use our earlier terminology, involve "establishing ties", but only > > one > > > of > > > > > them also involves breaking away. > > > > > > > > > > For example, at one point in the book Helen, looking back over the > > > > Banksia > > > > > Bay PLZ data, rounds on herself for using a transparent piece of > > > > > scaffolding to elicit the word "communicate" from a group of > > teachers. > > > > What > > > > > bothers her is not that the answer itself is far too general to be > of > > > any > > > > > practical value to the teachers, but only that she had it very > firmly > > > in > > > > > mind, and kept badgering the teachers (as we all do, when we have a > > > > precise > > > > > answer in mind) until she got it. The alternative, she points out, > > > would > > > > be > > > > > to take what she got and work with that. > > > > > > > > > > Yes indeed. But I think the main reason that would have been more > > > > > interesting is not that it would have resulted in fewer rejections > of > > > > > teacher answers and made people more at ease, confdent, and happy > > that > > > > they > > > > > understood, but rather than it would have yielded something more > > like a > > > > > concrete but unconscious and not yet volitionally controlled > example > > of > > > > > excellence from the teacher's own practice. I almost always find > that > > > the > > > > > actual answers I want--the "methods" I end up imparting to my own > > > > teachers, > > > > > are already present in the data they bring me (because we almost > > always > > > > > begin with actual transcripts of their lessons) but they are > > generally > > > > not > > > > > methods but only moments, and moments that go unnoticed and > therefore > > > > > ungeneralized in the hurly burly of actual teaching. > > > > > > > > > > Last winter, Helen and I were at a conference in New Zealand where, > > > among > > > > > other eventful episodes, Craig Brandist got up and gave a very > > precise > > > > list > > > > > of half a dozen different and utterly contradictory ways in which > > > Bakhtin > > > > > uses the term "dialogue". Because the senses of "dialogue" are so > > many > > > > and > > > > > varied, people simply pick and choose, and they tend invariably to > > > choose > > > > > the ones that are closest to the way they already think. It is as > > > moments > > > > > like this that we need to remind ourselves that Bakhtin's > "dialogue" > > > does > > > > > not, for the most part, ever include children, or women; that he > did > > > not > > > > > "dialogue" with Volosinov or Medvedev when he allowed his acolytes > > > > > to plunder their corpses, and that his love of carnival and the > > public > > > > > marketplace does not extend to a belief in any form of political > > > > democracy. > > > > > > > > > > So I think we should start off with an understanding that what > > Vygotsky > > > > > says about defect is not the same was what we now believe. > Vygotsky, > > > for > > > > > example, believed that sign language was not true language, and > that > > > even > > > > > the congenitally deaf should be taught to lip read; this is simply > > > > > wrong. (On the other hand, what he says about spontaneously created > > > sign > > > > > languages--that they are essentially elaborated systems of gesture > > and > > > > they > > > > > lack the signifying functions--fits exactly with Susan > > Goldin-Meadow's > > > > > observations in Chicago.) > > > > > > > > > > And one reason I think it is important to begin with this > > understanding > > > > is > > > > > this: sometimes--usually--LSV is right and we are wrong. In > > > particular, I > > > > > think the "credit" view of defect, or, for that matter, ignorance > of > > > any > > > > > kind and not fully conscious teacher expertise risks becoming a > > liberal > > > > > platitude--the cup is always half full, so why not look on the > bright > > > > side > > > > > of dearth? I certainly do not feel empowered by the fact that I > know > > > > > English but I do not know ASL, and I rather doubt that deaf people > > feel > > > > > empowered by the opposite state of affairs. When I don't know > > > something, > > > > I > > > > > do not see any bright side of not knowing it, for the very simple > > > > > reason that I can't see at all. > > > > > > > > > > Vygotsky was probably very influenced by "Iolanta", an opera that > > > > > Tchaikovsky wrote--he certainly seems to quote it extensively in > the > > > last > > > > > chapter of "Thinking and Speech". In "Iolanta", King Renee copes > with > > > the > > > > > blindness of his daughter by having her shut up in a garden and > > > > forbidding > > > > > all his subjects from discussing light, sight, color or anything > > > visible > > > > in > > > > > any way. Vaudemont, a knight of Burgundy, blunders into the garden, > > > > > discovers Iolanta's secret. Iolanta convinces him that sight is > > > > > unnecessary, but in the course of doing so, she develops the desire > > to > > > > see > > > > > and choose for herself. > > > > > > > > > > David Kelogg > > > > > Hankuk University of Foreign Studies > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 15 July 2014 11:12, Andy Blunden wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > My reading of Vygotsky on 'defectology' was that the 'defect' was > > the > > > > > > problem in social relations, that is, the person who is different > > in > > > > some > > > > > > way suffers because of the way that difference is treated or not > > > > treated > > > > > by > > > > > > others, not for anything in itself. One and the same feature > could > > > be a > > > > > > great benefit or a fatal flaw, depending on how others react to > it. > > > > > > Except insofar as introducing the idea of a "credit view" is a > move > > > > aimed > > > > > > at changing the perceptions and behaviours of others in relation > to > > > the > > > > > > subject, I don't think Vygotsky is an advocate of the mirror > image > > > of a > > > > > > deficit view. As I see it, he analyses the problem of the person > > > being > > > > > > treated as deficient by means of the unit of > *defect-compensation*. > > > The > > > > > > defect (a problem arising in social interaction, with others) > > > generates > > > > > > certain challenges which are overcome, generally also in > > interaction > > > > with > > > > > > others. This "compensation" leads to what Helen could call a > > "credit" > > > > and > > > > > > it is the dynamic set up between the social defect and social > > > > > compensation > > > > > > which shapes the subject's psychology and their relation to > others. > > > > > > Andy > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > > *Andy Blunden* > > > > > > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Helen Grimmett wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >> I think what is unique about Vygotsky's work in defectology is > > that, > > > > > >> despite the name, it is not a deficit view (in the way that I > > > > understand > > > > > >> the term) at all. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> I understand the commonly used term 'deficit view' as a focus on > > > what > > > > > >> children are 'missing' that needs to be provided to them by > > teachers > > > > to > > > > > >> bring them up to a pre-conceived idea of 'normal' for their > > > age/grade > > > > > >> level > > > > > >> etc. Whereas, a 'credit view' focuses on what children are able > to > > > do > > > > > and > > > > > >> bring to a learning situation, in which, in the interaction with > > > > others, > > > > > >> they will be able to become more able to do and 'be' more than > > they > > > > were > > > > > >> before (i.e. to develop), whether this be in the 'expected' ways > > to > > > > the > > > > > >> 'expected' level or in completely different ways to a variety of > > > > > different > > > > > >> levels beyond or outside 'standard' expectations. From the > little > > I > > > > have > > > > > >> read on defectology I think this is what Vygotsky was > advocating - > > > > that > > > > > >> despite a child's blindness or deafness etc, development was > still > > > > > >> possible > > > > > >> if mediational means were found that made use of the child's > > credits > > > > > (i.e. > > > > > >> using sign language or braille so that children still had access > > to > > > > the > > > > > >> developmental opportunities provided by language). So I think > your > > > > term > > > > > >> pre-abled is in fact a credit view rather than a deficit view. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> I was attempting to also use a credit view in my work with the > > > > > teachers. I > > > > > >> saw them as being experienced practitioners who had lots to > bring > > to > > > > our > > > > > >> discussions of teaching and learning, in which together we could > > see > > > > > what > > > > > >> could be developed (new practices, new understandings). Once Kay > > and > > > > > Mike > > > > > >> realised this they got on board and engaged in the process and > > > > (possibly > > > > > >> for the first time in a long while as they both saw themselves > > [and > > > in > > > > > >> fact > > > > > >> are officially designated as] 'expert teachers') really > reawakened > > > the > > > > > >> process of developing as professionals. They blew off most of > the > > > > > content > > > > > >> I > > > > > >> was contributing, but they realised the process was actually > about > > > > > >> 'unsticking' their own development and working out new and > > > personally > > > > > >> interesting and meaningful ways of 'becoming' more as teachers, > > > > instead > > > > > of > > > > > >> being stuck 'being' the teacher they had turned into over the > > years. > > > > Not > > > > > >> all of the teachers made this leap in the time I worked with > them > > > > > though. > > > > > >> Others were either quite disgruntled that I wouldn't provide > them > > > with > > > > > >> answers to 'fix' their own perceived deficits or patiently > waited > > > for > > > > me > > > > > >> to > > > > > >> go away and stop rocking the boat. From what I can gather > though, > > > Ann > > > > > (the > > > > > >> principal) kept the boat rocking and managed over time to get > more > > > > > >> teachers > > > > > >> to buy into the process of learning from each other and > > > > collaboratively > > > > > >> creating new practices. As we said earlier, development takes > time > > > as > > > > > well > > > > > >> as effort. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> All I've got time for at the moment! > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Helen > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Dr Helen Grimmett > > > > > >> Lecturer, Student Adviser, > > > > > >> Faculty of Education, > > > > > >> Room G64F, Building 902 > > > > > >> Monash University, Berwick campus > > > > > >> Phone: 9904 7171 > > > > > >> > > > > > >> *New Book: * > > > > > >> The Practice of Teachers' Professional Development: A > > > > > Cultural-Historical > > > > > >> Approach > > > > > >> > > > > >> professional-learning-1/the-practice-of-teachers- > > > > > >> professional-development/> > > > > > >> Helen Grimmett (2014) Sense Publishers > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> source=staff-email&utm_medium=email-signature&utm_campaign=50th> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> On 14 July 2014 14:43, David Kellogg > > wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>> Near the end of Chapter Three (p. 81), Helen is summing up her > > > > > experience > > > > > >>> with the Banksia Bay PLZ and she notes with some dismay that > her > > > > PDers > > > > > >>> have > > > > > >>> "a deficit view" of their children and tend towards "container > > > > models" > > > > > of > > > > > >>> the mind ("empty vessel, sponge, blank canvas"). Only one > > teacher, > > > > Ann > > > > > >>> sees > > > > > >>> anything wrong with this, and Helen says "they don't > necessarily > > > > value > > > > > >>> her > > > > > >>> opinion". > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> Helen finds herself rather conflicted: One the one hand, she > > says > > > > "If > > > > > >>> their representations of children really do represent their > > > beliefs, > > > > > then > > > > > >>> they are probably right to insist there is no need to change." > > And > > > on > > > > > the > > > > > >>> other, she says "My intention was never to say that their > present > > > > > >>> practice > > > > > >>> was wrong, but to help them see alternative ways of thinking > > about > > > > > >>> children, learning, and teaching." > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> Of course, if there is no need to change, then it follows that > > > there > > > > is > > > > > >>> no > > > > > >>> reason to look for alternative ways of thinking about children, > > > > > learning > > > > > >>> and teaching. The only reason for spending scarce cognitive > > > resources > > > > > on > > > > > >>> seeing different ways of looking at children is if you do, in > > fact, > > > > > take > > > > > >>> a > > > > > >>> deficit view of the teachers. Ann, and the Regional > Consultants, > > > > > >>> apparently > > > > > >>> do, but Helen realizes that there isn't much basis for this: > not > > > only > > > > > do > > > > > >>> we > > > > > >>> have no actual data of lessons to look at, we know that one of > > the > > > > > >>> teachers, Kay, has been in the classroom for three decades > > (during > > > > > which > > > > > >>> time Helen has spent at least one decade OUT of the classroom). > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> While we were translating Vygotsky's "History of the > Development > > of > > > > the > > > > > >>> Higher Psychological Functions" last year, some of my > colleagues > > > were > > > > > >>> taken > > > > > >>> aback by Vygotsky's use of terms like "moron", "imbecile", > > "idiot", > > > > and > > > > > >>> "cretin". Of course, Vygotsky is writing long before the > > > "euphemisim > > > > > >>> treadmill" turned these into playground insults; for Vygotsky > > they > > > > are > > > > > >>> quite precise descriptors--not of cognitive ability but > actually > > of > > > > > >>> LANGUAGE ability. But because our readership are progressive > > Korean > > > > > >>> teachers with strong views about these questions, we found that > > we > > > > > >>> couldn't > > > > > >>> even use the term "mentally retarded" without a strongly worded > > > > > footnote > > > > > >>> disavowing the "deficit" thinking behind the term. > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> I think that Vygotsky would have been surprised by this. I > think > > he > > > > > took > > > > > >>> it > > > > > >>> for granted that a defect was a deficit: being blind means a > > > deficit > > > > in > > > > > >>> vision, and being deaf means a deficit in hearing. In the same > > > way, a > > > > > >>> brain > > > > > >>> defect is not an asset. On the other hand, I think Vygotsky > would > > > > find > > > > > >>> our > > > > > >>> own term "disabled" quite inaccurate: since all forms of > > > development > > > > > are > > > > > >>> compensatory and involve "circuitous routes" of one kind or > > > another, > > > > > and > > > > > >>> all developed children, even, and even especially, gifted > > children, > > > > > >>> contain > > > > > >>> islands of underdevelopment, the correct term for deficits of > all > > > > kinds > > > > > >>> is > > > > > >>> not "disabled" but "pre-abled". > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> Personally, I see nothing wrong with a deficit view of children > > > that > > > > > sees > > > > > >>> them as pre-abled (or, as Vygotsky liked to say, 'primitivist"; > > > that > > > > > is, > > > > > >>> they are waiting for the mediational means that we have > foolishly > > > > > >>> developed > > > > > >>> only for the psychophysiologically most common types to catch > up > > > with > > > > > the > > > > > >>> actual variation in real children. I suspect this view is > > actually > > > > > quite > > > > > >>> a > > > > > >>> bit closer to what Kay thinks than to what Helen thinks. > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> David Kellogg > > > > > >>> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> On 13 July 2014 10:59, Helen Grimmett < > helen.grimmett@monash.edu > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> Hi David, > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> Interesting question. I absolutely think that development AS a > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>> professional > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> is necessary, just as development as a human is necessary, so > if > > > > > >>>> professional development is seen as the practice in which this > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>> development > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> is produced then absolutely I do think it is necessary. The > form > > > > that > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>> this > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> practice takes though, and indeed the form of the development > > that > > > > is > > > > > >>>> produced within this practice, are the things open to question > > > > > however. > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> I definitely think that a teacher's development as a > > professional > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>> includes > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> the need to understand their practice better rather than just > > > change > > > > > it, > > > > > >>>> but I think that understanding often develops best > > > in/alongside/with > > > > > the > > > > > >>>> process of changing (and vice versa) rather than separately > from > > > it, > > > > > >>>> and, > > > > > >>>> as you point out above, in establishing ties *between* people > > and > > > > then > > > > > >>>> within them. So a practice of professional development that > > > creates > > > > > >>>> conditions which support this type of development will (I > > believe) > > > > be > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>> much > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> more effective than traditional forms of PD that either > attempt > > to > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>> lecture > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> about theoretical principles but do not support teachers to > > > transfer > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>> these > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> into practical changes, OR provide teachers with practical > > > programs > > > > > and > > > > > >>>> expect them to implement them without any understanding of > what > > > and > > > > > why > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>> the > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> changes matter. I think the term "Professional Development" is > > an > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>> absolute > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> misnomer for either of those typical approaches. > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> So again, I have a problem with names! I'm talking about > > > > Professional > > > > > >>>> Development with a completely different meaning than what most > > of > > > > the > > > > > >>>> education community believe it to mean when they talk about > > > > attending > > > > > PD > > > > > >>>> seminars or workshops. I toyed with trying to find a different > > > name > > > > > for > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>> the > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> particular meaning I'm talking about, but when you are talking > > > about > > > > > >>>> development from a cultural-historical theoretical perspective > > > then > > > > > >>>> there > > > > > >>>> really is no other word to use! That's why I stuck to using > > > > > >>>> 'professional > > > > > >>>> development' (in full) when I meant my meaning, and PD (which > is > > > > what > > > > > >>>> teachers in Australia commonly refer to seminars and workshops > > as) > > > > > when > > > > > >>>> I > > > > > >>>> refer to the typical (and in my view, usually > non-developmental) > > > > forms > > > > > >>>> of > > > > > >>>> activities that teachers are subjected to each year. > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> So, I agree that the need for PD is questionable, but the need > > for > > > > > >>>> practices of professional development that help teachers to > > > develop > > > > as > > > > > >>>> professionals (that is, to develop a unified understanding of > > both > > > > the > > > > > >>>> theoretical and practical aspects of their work, which is > itself > > > > > >>>> continually developing in order to meet the changing needs of > > > their > > > > > >>>> students, schools and society) is essential. While I think > > > > co-teaching > > > > > >>>> is > > > > > >>>> one practical small-scale solution, working out viable, > > > economical, > > > > > and > > > > > >>>> manageable ways to create these practices on a large-scale is > a > > > very > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>> large > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> problem. > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> Cheers, > > > > > >>>> Helen > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> Dr Helen Grimmett > > > > > >>>> Lecturer, Student Adviser, > > > > > >>>> Faculty of Education, > > > > > >>>> Room G64F, Building 902 > > > > > >>>> Monash University, Berwick campus > > > > > >>>> Phone: 9904 7171 > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> *New Book: * > > > > > >>>> The Practice of Teachers' Professional Development: A > > > > > >>>> Cultural-Historical > > > > > >>>> Approach > > > > > >>>> < > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>> https://www.sensepublishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/ > > > > > >>> professional-learning-1/the-practice-of-teachers- > > > > > >>> professional-development/ > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> Helen Grimmett (2014) Sense Publishers > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> < > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>> http://monash.edu.au/education/news/50-years/?utm_ > > > > > >>> source=staff-email&utm_medium=email-signature&utm_campaign=50th > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> On 13 July 2014 08:57, David Kellogg > > > wrote: > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>> Helen: > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> Good to hear from you at long last--I knew you were lurking > out > > > > there > > > > > >>>>> somewhere! > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> I didn't actually write the line about "establishing > > ties"--it's > > > > from > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>> "The > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>> Little Prince". The prince asks what "tame" means, and the > fox > > > > > replies > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>> that > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>> it means "to establish ties". But of course what I meant was > > that > > > > > ties > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>> are > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>> established first between people and then within them; the > ties > > > of > > > > > >>>>> development are interfunctional ties that make up a new > > > > psychological > > > > > >>>>> system. (Or, for Halliday, they are the inter-systemic ties > > that > > > > make > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>> up > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> new metafunctions.) > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> As you say, Yrjo Engestrom chooses to emphasize another > aspect > > of > > > > > >>>>> development with "breaking away"--he wants to stress its > > > > > crisis-ridden > > > > > >>>>> nature. I agree with this, actually, but mostly I agree with > > you, > > > > > that > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>> we > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> are talking about two moments of the same process. To me, > > breaking > > > > > away > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>> is > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>> really a precondition of the real business of establishing > > ties. > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> Thomas Piketty makes a similar point in his book "Capital in > > the > > > > > >>>>> Twenty-first Century". He admits that war and revolution is > the > > > > only > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>> thing > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>> that EVER counteracts the tendency of returns from capital to > > > > > outstrip > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>> the > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>> growth in income, and that the 20th Century was an outlier in > > > this > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>> respect, > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>> and the Russian revolution an extreme outlier within that > > > outlier. > > > > > But > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>> he > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> also says that in the long run the one thing that makes UPWARD > > > > > mobility > > > > > >>>>> possible is education. Despite everything, because of > > everything. > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> I finished the book a few days ago. I guess the thing I most > > want > > > > to > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>> ask > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> about is the assumption that professional development is > > necessary > > > > at > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>> all. > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>> Doesn't it make more sense to say that before we change what > we > > > are > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>> doing, > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>> we should understand it better? > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> David Kellogg > > > > > >>>>> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> On 12 July 2014 13:20, Helen Grimmett < > > helen.grimmett@monash.edu > > > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>> wrote: > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> Ah, I think you have hit the nail on the head David. It is > > indeed > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>> TIME > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> that > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> is so crucial - not only duration of time, but also location > > of > > > > time > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>> (which > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> I suppose is really context). > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> The problems I had with Mike and his colleagues about the > > > > > terminology > > > > > >>>>>> stemmed partly from the typical Aussie disdain for using > words > > > > that > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>> might > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>> make your mates think you are trying to appear 'better' than > > > them, > > > > so > > > > > >>>>>> therefore you mock anything that sounds too serious or > > > > intellectual. > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>> But > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>> beyond this surface level of complaining the problems Huw and > > you > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>> have > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> been > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> discussing boil down to problems with time. > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> Huw's complaint about my use of the heading "Features of > > > > > >>>>>> Cultural-Historical Learning Activities" is well justified - > > but > > > > it > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>> was > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> really just a shorthand written version of what I was verbally > > > > asking > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>> for > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>> as "What might be some particular features of learning > > activities > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>> that > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> would align with principles of Cultural-Historical Theory?" > That > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>> would > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> have > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> taken too long to write on the top of the piece of paper - > and > > > of > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>> course > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>> time is always too short in any after-school PD so shortcuts > > are > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>> inevitably > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> taken. (Time problem #1) > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> Time problem #2, which your discussion has highlighted for > me, > > > is > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>> that > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> of > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>> course my question was really "What might be some particular > > > > features > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>> of > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>> learning activities that would align with THE LIMITED NUMBER > OF > > > > (AND > > > > > >>>>>> LIMITED UNDERSTANDING OF) principles of Cultural-Historical > > > Theory > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>> THAT > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> YOU > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> HAVE BEEN INTRODUCED TO SO FAR?" so I really should have not > > > been > > > > so > > > > > >>>>>> surprised that they would find the brainstorming activity > > > > difficult > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>> and > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> resort to diversionary tactics! (Mike's outburst posted here > by > > > > David > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>> was > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>> not the only eventful moment I write about from this one > > > activity. > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>> But > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> these apparent failures actually provided much more > interesting > > > data > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>> for > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>> me > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> and eventually lead me to several key findings in my > thesis). > > I > > > > had > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>> spent > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>> several years by this stage reading and discussing Vygotsky > and > > > > yet I > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>> had > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>> assumed/hoped the teachers would have enough understanding > from > > > my > > > > > >>>>>> (probably not very good) explanations ABOUT theory over the > > > > previous > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>> 3 > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> short sessions I had had with them to be able to contribute > > > answers > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>> to > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> my > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>> brainstorm question. They had not had enough TIME to become > > > > familiar > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>> with > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>> enough of the theory to make much sense of it yet - but > still, > > we > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>> have > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> to > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>> start somewhere and this was still early days. > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> Time problem #3 brings in what I called above the location > of > > > > time. > > > > > I > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>> had > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>> never intended for the sessions to be me giving after-school > > > > lectures > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>> about > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> either theory or practice, yet this is what the teachers > > seemed > > > to > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>> expect > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>> from me (and even demand from me) and were pretty disgruntled > > > when > > > > I > > > > > >>>>>> wouldn't/couldn't deliver. My intention was always to get > them > > > to > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>> engage > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>> with the relationship between THEORY and PRACTICE, just as > > > David's > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>> comic > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>> book discusses the relationship between THINKING and SPEECH > or > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>> EMOTION > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> and > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> COGNITION. My problem of course was that once we were in an > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>> after-school > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>> meeting we were removed in both time and space from where > > theory > > > > and > > > > > >>>>>> practice of teaching/learning operate as a relation (i.e. > the > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>> classroom > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> activity). I was actually trying to create/use our own PLZ > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>> (Professional > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>> Learning ZPD) as the activity in which to develop and > > understand > > > > this > > > > > >>>>>> relationship but it was initially very hard to get the > > teachers > > > to > > > > > >>>>>> understand this (at least until we had enough of David's > Fox's > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>> socially > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> shared experiences for the meanings to become communicable) > and > > > then > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>> even > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>> more difficult to get them to transfer this back to > developing > > > > their > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>> own > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>> classroom teaching. Ironically, despite being the loudest > > > > complainers > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>> and > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>> disparagers, it was Mike and Kay (the protagonist of my other > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>> eventful > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> moment in the brainstorming session) who actually ended up > > making > > > > the > > > > > >>>>>> biggest changes in their classroom practice. Perhaps this is > > not > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>> really > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> surprising at all - they were the ones who obviously engaged > and > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>> argued > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> with the ideas and activities rather than simply endured them! > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> My eventual answer to the problems encountered in my work > with > > > the > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>> group > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>> of > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> teachers was to work WITH a teacher IN her own classroom so > > that > > > > we > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>> had > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> shared experiences of the relationship between theory and > > practice > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>> which > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>> could not only be discussed after the events, but also > actually > > > > acted > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>> upon > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> there and then IN the event - creating what I called > "Situated > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>> Conscious > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>> Awareness" of both the theoretical and practical aspects of > the > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>> concepts > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>> of > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> teaching/learning and development we were developing > > > understanding > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>> and > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> practice of together. But perhaps I should wait until David > gets > > > up > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>> to > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> this > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> part of the book before I say more! > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> Finally, one other point that really caught my attention in > > your > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>> comic > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> book > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> David is that your prince calls development "to establish > > ties" > > > > > which > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>> is > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>> an > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> interesting difference to Engestrom's definition as > "breaking > > > > away". > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>> But > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>> perhaps, as always in CH theory, it is not a matter of > > either/or > > > > but > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>> in > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> fact both/and ideas that are necessary. From what I learned in > > my > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>> study, > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>> teachers' development as professionals is definitely BOTH > about > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>> breaking > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>> away from old, routinised understandings and practices AND > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>> establishing > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> new > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> connections between and amongst theoretical concepts and > > > > practices, > > > > > >>>>>> enabling them to continually develop new competences and > > motives > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>> across > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> all > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> of their professional duties. > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> Thanks for your interest in my book David. The discussion it > > has > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>> sparked > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>> has helped me revisit ideas from new perspectives. > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> Cheers, > > > > > >>>>>> Helen > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> Dr Helen Grimmett > > > > > >>>>>> Lecturer, Student Adviser, > > > > > >>>>>> Faculty of Education, > > > > > >>>>>> Room G64F, Building 902 > > > > > >>>>>> Monash University, Berwick campus > > > > > >>>>>> Phone: 9904 7171 > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> *New Book: * > > > > > >>>>>> The Practice of Teachers' Professional Development: A > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>> Cultural-Historical > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>> Approach > > > > > >>>>>> < > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>> https://www.sensepublishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/ > > > > > >>> professional-learning-1/the-practice-of-teachers- > > > > > >>> professional-development/ > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> Helen Grimmett (2014) Sense Publishers > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> < > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>> http://monash.edu.au/education/news/50-years/?utm_ > > > > > >>> source=staff-email&utm_medium=email-signature&utm_campaign=50th > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> On 12 July 2014 07:29, David Kellogg > > > wrote: > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> Plekhanov distinguishes between "agitators" and > > > "propagandists". > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> Agitators > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> are essentially popularizers; they have the job of ripping > > > away a > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> subset > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> of > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> smaller and simpler ideas from a fabric of much larger and > > more > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> complex > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>> theory and then disseminating them amongst the largest > possible > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> number > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>> of > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> people. In other words, their focus is exoteric. > Propagandists > > > are > > > > > >>>>>>> essentially conspiratorial: they have the job of > initiating a > > > > small > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> number > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> of the elect and educating them in the whole theoretical > > > > system--as > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> Larry > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> would say, the full Bildung. In other words, their focus is > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> esoteric. > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> As > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> you can see, Plekhanov was good at making distinctions, and > > not > > > so > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> good > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>> at > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> showing how things are linked. For Helena, who is a labor > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> educator, > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> you > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> can't really be an effective agitator unless you are also a > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> propagandist. > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> You need to present your exoteric extracts in such a way > that > > > they > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> are, > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>> to > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> borrow Larry's phrase, both necessary and sufficient to > lead > > > > people > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> on > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>> to > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> the esoterica. I'm with Helena--and with Bruner--with > children > > > > it's > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> always > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> possible to tell the truth, part of the truth, but nothing > > but > > > > the > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> truth, > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> and if we can do it with kids, why not do it with adults? > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> (I am less sure about what it means to say that the > > objectively > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> human > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> is > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> the "subjectively historical"--it sounds like history is > being > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> reified > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>> as a > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> subject, that is, as a living, breathing, acting "World > > Spirit" > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> that > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> can > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> have a mind and reflect upon itself. My understanding of > > history > > > > is > > > > > >>>>>>> that just as we cannot have the advanced form of historical > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> consciousness > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> in dialogue with the more primitive forms, the opportunity > to > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> reflect > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> upon > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> the whole process when it is all over is simply never going > > to > > > be > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> available > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> to anyone. The Merleau-Ponty quotation is beautiful and > > > intensely > > > > > >>>>>>> poetic, Larry--but when I look at a bubble or a wave, I do > > not > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> simply > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> see > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> chaos; I see past bubbles and past waves, and potential > > bubbles > > > > and > > > > > >>>>>>> potential waves. Isn't that a part of the experience of > > "loving > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> history" > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> as > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> well?) > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> My wife wrote a wonderful Ph.D. thesis about how any work > of > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> literature > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>> can > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> be looked at on four time frames: phylogenetic (the history > > of > > > a > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> genre), > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> ontogenetic (the biography of a career), logogenetic (the > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> development > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> of > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> a > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> plot or a character), and microgenetic (the unfolding of a > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> dialogue, > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> or a > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> paragraph). Her supervisor complained about the terminology > in > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> somewhat > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>> more elegant terms than Mike does in Helen's data:and > suggested > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> that > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> she > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> should replace the terms with "history", "biography", > > > > "development" > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> and > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>> "unfolding", to make it more exoteric. > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> I think that if she had done that, it would have made the > > > thesis > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> into > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> agitation rather than education. Yes, the terms would have > been > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> more > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> familiar, and they might even, given other context, be taken > to > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> mean > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> the > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> same thing. But what we would have gotten is good, clear > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> distinctions > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> ("history" on the one hand and "biography" on the other) and > > what > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> we > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> would > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> have lost is the linkedness of one time frame to > another--the > > > way > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> in > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> which > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> the phylogenesis of genre produces the mature genre which > is > > > used > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> in > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> an > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>> author's ontegenesis, and the way in which the author's > > > ontogenesis > > > > > >>>>>>> produces the starting point and the raw materials for the > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> logogenetic > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> development of a work, not to mention the way in which > > logogenesis > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> is > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> reflected in the microgenetic unfolding of dialogue. > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> So I think that when Helena writes that anything can be > > > explained > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> to > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> anyone > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> in language that is everyday and simple and in a way that > is > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> understandable > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> and at least part of the whole truth, I agree somewhat > > > enviously > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> (you > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> see, > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> Helena is a labor educator, but I teach TESOL, which is > > really > > > > the > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> process > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> of taking a few very simple and exoteric ideas that good > > > teachers > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> already > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> have and disseminating the select to the elect for vast sums > > of > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> money). > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>> But > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> I have to add a rider--when we popularize richly woven > > fabrics > > > of > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> ideas > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>> like cultural historical theory we are not simply juggling > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> vocabulary. > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>> I > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> think that Helena recognizes this perfectly when she says > that > > > it > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> takes > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>> TIME to be simple and clear. If it were simply a matter of > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> replacing > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> "cultural historical" with "community of learners" it would > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> actually > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> take > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> less time, but it isn't and it doesn't. > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> It is very hot in Seoul today, and somewhere out there a > > > toddler > > > > is > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> arguing > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> with a parent because he wants watermelon with breakfast. > The > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> parent > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> resists, because if you eat cold watermelon on an empty > stomach > > > you > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> get a > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> tummy-ache. The argument grows heated and long--and complex, > > but > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> the > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> complexity is of a particular kind, with very short, repeated, > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> insistancies > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> from the child and somewhat longer more complex > > remonstrations > > > > from > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> the > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>> parent. We can call this complex discourse but simple > grammar. > > A > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> few > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> years > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> will go by and we will find that the school child has > > mastered > > > > the > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> trick > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> of > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> long and complex remonstrations and can use them > > pre-emptively > > > to > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> win > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> arguments. We can call this complex grammar, but simple > > > vocabulary. > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> Only > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> when a decade or two has elapsed will we find that child, > now > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> adult, > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> can > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> use the language of science, which is for the most part > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> grammatically > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> simple (at least compared to the pre-emptive remonstrations of > > the > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> school > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> child), but full of very complex vocabulary (e.g. "phylogeny > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> anticipates > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> ontogeny", or "cultural-historical activity theory enables > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> communities > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>> of > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> learners"). > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> It's Saturday today, and in a few minutes I have to leave > for > > > the > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> weekly > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> meeting of our translation group, which produces mighty > tomes > > > > which > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> we > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>> produce to popularize the works of Vygotsky amongst militant > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> teachers > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> here > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> in Korea (our version of "Thinking and Speech" is seven > > hundred > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> pages > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> long > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> because of all the explanatory notes and boxes with helpful > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> pictures). > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>> On > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> the other hand, there is the attached comic book version of > > the > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> first > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> chapter of "Thinking and Speech" which I wrote a couple of > years > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> ago > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> for > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> some graduate students who were having trouble talking about > > the > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> real > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> "Thinking and Speech" in class. > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> I think you can see that Huw's complaint is justified--the > > > comic > > > > > >>>>>>> book dialogue is "about" Thinking and Speech, but it is not > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> "Thinking > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> and > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> Speech" at all, in the same way that "community of learners" > > or > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> "biography" > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> is ABOUT cultural historical theory or ontogenesis. And I > > think > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> that > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> part > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> of the problem (but only part of it) is that the comic book > is > > > > just > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> too > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>> short. > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> David Kellogg > > > > > >>>>>>> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> 2014-07-11 17:09 GMT+09:00 Leif Strandberg < > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> leifstrandberg.ab@telia.com > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> : > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> 11 jul 2014 kl. 06:41 skrev Larry Purss < > > lpscholar2@gmail.com > > > >: > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> David, > > > > > >>>>>>>>> I have been following your reflections through this > thread. > > > > > >>>>>>>>> You commented: > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> So it's almost always more useful for me to > > > > > >>>>>>>>> think of learning phenomena as NOT reducible to the > > physical, > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> at > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> least > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> not > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> in their unit of analysis > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> I have been reflecting on the notion of *bildung* as > > > learning. > > > > > >>>>>>>>> The notion of *cultivation* and *disposition* and > > > *comportment* > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> as > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>> the > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> potential of learning. > > > > > >>>>>>>>> I came across this quote from Gramsci who was questioning > > the > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> notion > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> of > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> *laws* as the basis for making social predictions. Such > > *laws* > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> excluded > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> the > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> subjective factor from history. > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Gramsci wrote on social process: "Objective always means > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> 'humanly > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> objective' which can be held to correspond exactly to > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> 'historically > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>> subjective' " > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Merleau-Ponty also explored what I refer to as > > *disposition* > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> with > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> this > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> quote on the reality of history: > > > > > >>>>>>>>> History "awakens us to the importance of daily events and > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> action. > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> For > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> it > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> is > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> a philosophy [of history -LP] which arouses in us a love > > for > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> our > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> times > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> which are not the simple repetition of human eternity nor > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> merely > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> the > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> conclusion of premises already postulated. It is a view that > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> like > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> the > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> most > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> fragile object of perception - a soap bubble, or a wave - > > or > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> like > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> the > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> most > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> simple dialogue, embraces indivisibly all the order and > all > > > the > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> disorder > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> of > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> the world." > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From fsulliva@temple.edu Mon Jul 28 15:40:41 2014 From: fsulliva@temple.edu (FRANCIS J. SULLIVAN) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 18:40:41 -0400 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The ideal head In-Reply-To: References: <0ABD8052-EF53-493B-8A8C-E6EC00F0C5FB@gmail.com> <2E240906-B450-4804-93CC-484C6E8F98CA@gmail.com> <2f5893996d844649b529f184da975881@CO1PR02MB175.namprd02.prod.outlook.com> <9910C22A-B9A0-49D9-B3EC-9E51D96CA372@gmail.com> Message-ID: I, too, would like to understand better what this text might mean. I took "critical periods of development" to be those periods in which a child was in a dialectical crisis that is necessary for her to develop to the next stage. If I understand this correctly, it is at these points where "learning precedes development." So maybe, "difficult child" means simply that child who is in a "critical period," not that the child himself is what we would think of as "difficult." In any case, I wonder if Vygotsky considered whether schooling itself might be responsible, at least partly, for the child's apparent alienation from schooling at these moments. Francis J. Sullivan, Ph.D. Associate Professor Department of Teaching and Learning College of Education Temple University Philadelphia, PA 19122 Find out what any people will quietly submit to and you have the exact measure of the injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them. Frederick Douglass On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 12:06 AM, Greg Thompson wrote: > Mike, Helena, Andy and others, > I wonder if this passage from Vygotsky's the problem of Age can help in > thinking about the problem: > "The second feature of critical age levels served as a departure point for > empirical study. The fact is that a significant proportion of children who > experience critical periods of development are difficult children. These > children seem to drop out of the system of pedagogical influence that until > very recently provided a normal course for their training. and education. > In children of school age during critical periods, there is a drop in rate > of success, a slacking of interest in school work, and a general decline in > capacity for work. At critical age levels, the child?s development > frequently is accompanied by more or less sharp conflicts with those around > him. The child?s internal life is sometimes connected with painful and > excruciating experiences and with internal conflicts." > > Although frankly, I'm not sure what is meant by "critical periods of > development" and/or by "difficult children" (that second sentence baffles > me). Help would be welcome here! > > Andy, maybe you can help? (Andy has been helping me understand this essay > offline). > > -greg > > > On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 7:26 PM, mike cole wrote: > > > Helena-- This way of putting things helps to illustrate the double sided > > nature of linguisitic/cultural mediation. You write > > > > a "fictional" idea has power > > > > Yes, it is a sign embodied in language that acts upon the external world > at > > the same time that must be "suited" for the circumstances. Enabling and > > constraining. Ideas persist in their existence only to the extent that > they > > are materialized and "taken up" by society. The class based and all other > > "dimensions of power" play a huge role in the odds we would put on the > > weaker interlocuter exterting sufficent power by words alone. > > mike > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 4:49 PM, Helena Worthen > > > wrote: > > > > > Michael - > > > > > > How will Temple decide whom to admit? First come, first served? Anyone > > who > > > graduates from a Philly high school? > > > > > > Helena > > > > > > > > > Helena Worthen > > > helenaworthen@gmail.com > > > > > > On Jul 24, 2014, at 2:38 PM, MICHAEL W SMITH wrote: > > > > > > > The progressive flip-side of that argument is to recognize that kids > in > > > > poverty have manifested the grit they need to succeed in other > > contexts. > > > > At Temple we're moving to a no-test admissions option to acknowledge > > that > > > > kids from the comprehensive high schools in Philadelphia have > personal > > > > resources that SATs can't measure. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 2:28 PM, Peter Smagorinsky > > > wrote: > > > > > > > >> And yet "grit" is now the vogue term used by US policymakers to > > indicate > > > >> that kids in poverty's main problem is not trying hard enough. > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/mar12/vol69/num06/Got-Grit%C2%A2.aspx > > > >> > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > > >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > > > >> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Helena Worthen > > > >> Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2014 1:46 PM > > > >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The ideal head > > > >> > > > >> But my point is that the "fictional" idea has power -- enough power > to > > > >> make people think that if a kid tries, and tries, and tries, they > can > > > >> overcome the lack of special resources that are symbolized by > "English > > > >> nobility," or, in the real world, a rich cultural environment in > > > childhood, > > > >> good food, safe place to sleep, attentive educated parents, nice > > > schools, > > > >> etc etc... > > > >> > > > >> Sometimes the "people" who believe that trying hard is enough are > the > > > >> parents. Sometimes they are the overseers of the school systems, who > > > ought > > > >> to know better. > > > >> > > > >> Helena Worthen > > > >> helenaworthen@gmail.com > > > >> > > > >> On Jul 24, 2014, at 1:34 PM, Carol Macdonald wrote: > > > >> > > > >>> Peter > > > >>> > > > >>> Or perhaps that the writer of The Tarzan stories had no idea about > > > >>> what it takes to become literate. He had no-one to show him the > > > >>> arbitrariness of language and reading. > > > >>> > > > >>> If you remember, the primers for reading had multisyllable words in > > > them. > > > >>> > > > >>> Peter is right - only in fiction is this possible. > > > >>> > > > >>> And trying harder isn't necessarily the way to move forward. Trying > > > >>> something *else *might do it. Tell that mum. > > > >>> > > > >>> Carol > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> On 24 July 2014 17:53, Peter Smagorinsky wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>>> I'd say that working harder worked for Tarzan because he was > > > fictional. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> -----Original Message----- > > > >>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > > > >>>> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Helena Worthen > > > >>>> Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2014 12:40 PM > > > >>>> To: lchcmike@gmail.com; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > > >>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The ideal head > > > >>>> > > > >>>> These views are persuasively bound up in the story of Tarzan, an > > > >>>> incredibly popular book published in 1913 and still being sold. > > > >>>> Tarzan, abandoned in infancy in the African jungle, comes upon his > > > dead > > > >> parents' > > > >>>> cabin and their library and, without ever hearing human speech > much > > > >>>> less English spoken, manages to teach himself to read. Why? Well, > 1) > > > >>>> he tries hard and 2) he's English nobility. The generations of > kids > > > >>>> and their parents who read the Tarzan story (or see the movies) > > never > > > >>>> question this train wreck of ideas -- on the contrary, it provides > > > >>>> support for the idea that learning is the result of trying hard > and > > > >>>> being born smart (except that that's a code word for upper class). > > > >>>> > > > >>>> I had a heart-wrenching experience the other day that illustrates > > how > > > >>>> this works in real life. We're spending the summer in a small town > > in > > > >>>> Vermont -- working class, very dependent on big ski area tourism. > A > > > >>>> friend of mine, a working class woman, is paying big bucks to send > > > >>>> her 12 year old daughter to an academic summer camp at a very > > > >> high-level hotshot prep school nearby. > > > >>>> The hope is that, with this extra boost, the girl will be able to > > > >>>> speed past the pitfalls of the local high school (which has a 30% > > > >>>> dropout rate, drug problems, etc.). The other students at the > summer > > > >>>> camp are prep school kids repeating classes they didnt' ace plus > > rich > > > >>>> kids from all over the world, especially Asia. My friend's > daughter > > > >>>> did fine the first week, then seemed to just freeze. Now daughter > > > >>>> wants to quit and is refusing to eat, etc. Her mom's idea is that > > the > > > >>>> girl just needs to try harder, try harder, try harder.Mother has > > > >>>> moved down there and is starting to attend classes with her. > Mother > > > >> and daughter are about ready to hit each other. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> My opinion: trying harder worked for Tarzan because he was English > > > >>>> nobility, and someone forgot to make sure my friend and her > daughter > > > >>>> were English nobility (meaning, someone forgot to prepare her > > > >>>> daughter with all the class advantages, including self confidence, > > > >>>> that the other kids brought with them, along with their iPhones > and > > > >> designer swimsuits). > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Where do you start, in a situation like this? > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Helena Worthen > > > >>>> helenaworthen@gmail.com > > > >>>> > > > >>>> On Jul 19, 2014, at 6:38 PM, mike cole wrote: > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> Hi Peter. I had a similar experience regarding the accidental > > > >>>>> discovery of literature containing those colonialist-era books. > My > > > >>>>> example was written for high level scholars over a century ago, > but > > > >>>>> it, like this piece, expresses views that have not by any means > > > >>>>> disappeared in the intervening century. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Nor has the resulting violence seemed to have eased. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Attached. > > > >>>>> mike > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 12:03 PM, Peter Smagorinsky < > smago@uga.edu > > > > > > >>>> wrote: > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/07/the-ideal-head > > > >>>>>> -b > > > >>>>>> > > izarre-racial-teachings-from-a-100-year-old-textbook/374693/#commen > > > >>>>>> ts > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> I wrote this very short essay that some might find interesting, > > and > > > >>>>>> have linked to the page that includes reader comments, which are > > > >>>>>> prolific and edifying for those who believe in the progress of > > > >>>>>> human thinking. p > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> -- > > > >>> Carol A Macdonald Ph D (Edin) > > > >>> Developmental psycholinguist > > > >>> Academic, Researcher, and Editor > > > >>> Honorary Research Fellow: Department of Linguistics, Unisa > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Michael W. Smith > > > > Associate Dean for Faculty Development > > > > and Academic Affairs > > > > Temple University > > > > College of Education > > > > 237 Ritter Hall > > > > 1301 Cecil B. Moore Avenue > > > > Philadelphia, PA 19122 > > > > 215.204.2296 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. > Assistant Professor > Department of Anthropology > 883 Spencer W. Kimball Tower > Brigham Young University > Provo, UT 84602 > http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson > From ablunden@mira.net Mon Jul 28 16:36:44 2014 From: ablunden@mira.net (Andy Blunden) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 09:36:44 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The ideal head In-Reply-To: References: <0ABD8052-EF53-493B-8A8C-E6EC00F0C5FB@gmail.com> <2E240906-B450-4804-93CC-484C6E8F98CA@gmail.com> <2f5893996d844649b529f184da975881@CO1PR02MB175.namprd02.prod.outlook.com> <9910C22A-B9A0-49D9-B3EC-9E51D96CA372@gmail.com> Message-ID: <53D6DE8C.9040300@mira.net> Francis, most of the crises which Vygotsky mentions in http://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/works/1934/problem-age.htm are associated with childhood before school. (It is an unfinished work). Andy ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Andy Blunden* http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ FRANCIS J. SULLIVAN wrote: > ... > > In any case, I wonder if Vygotsky considered whether schooling itself might > be responsible, at least partly, for the child's apparent alienation from > schooling at these moments. > > Francis J. Sullivan, Ph.D. > > From dkellogg60@gmail.com Mon Jul 28 21:13:13 2014 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 13:13:13 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: book of possible interest In-Reply-To: References: <0D461088-CBBB-4BD9-ADCB-3024C36CBE81@telia.com> <53C48DF1.5000703@mira.net> Message-ID: Francis: Well, what I appreciate about your posts is not the detail--that must depend upon the granularity of the writing--but rather the generous, fluent length of it. I confess I am sometimes perplexed the gnomic nature of some of the comments on the list. (For example, WHICH of my quotations is a misquotation? Does Huw mean that it is not right to take Vygotsky from the 1934 edition? Or, as seems more likely, is he referring to the way that I characterized his own position and that of Andy? Although the word "quotation" is not really apposite in the latter case, his irritation is quite understandable; I certainly could not even begin to recognize my position in the terms that Andy used to restate it--e.g. "semantic action". Still, the phrase "nevermind" doesn't exactly serve to disambiguate, does it?). Never mind. I take your point about the metafunction to be foregrounded in an analysis depending very much on the context; that is certainly true. Of course, when we use the term context, we are not referring to something that is entirely non-textual; on the contrary, we are referring to things which are selected, intentionally, for textualization, either potentially or actually. So a context isn't just "out there"; it's something that has already been semantically processed in some way. ("A thing for others" rather than simply "a thing in itself"). 1. I guess don't really understand is what the "dominant" function is. First of all, it seems to me that functions are selected by feeling, thinking, speaking subjects: I choose to get attention with "Hi!", to give information with "I'm Mr. K" and to check understanding with "And you?" although I certainly could have chosen to realize these functions in many other ways or not at all. When I do an analysis, it is me, as researcher, who chooses the function to analyze on the basis of the goals of my work (just as I must choose a minimally meaningful unit of analysis. Secondly, it seems to me that although we do choose functions, both when we research and when we speak, we don't choose them any way we like: it is always more difficult to use a function that has evolved for one thing to do something completely different (and for that very reason, "My preference is for living in the country" is more prestigious than "I prefer to live in the country", simply because it is less canonical to realize a process with a noun than with a verb). So when you say the "dominant" function, do you mean the "predominant" (i.e. the evolved, typical, canonical way of realizing the function) or do you mean the opposite: the invented, contra-typical, and anti-canonical way? 2. I guess I don't really see how Halliday assumes free and fair exchange of language. Halliday considers the interpersonal metafunction concerned with the exchange of two kinds of commodities: material goods/service, and information. But the way it is concerned with them is by enabling particular roles: if I ask a question, I cast you as an answerer, and if I make a statement, I cast you as an acknowledger. Some of these roles are very obviously more powerful than others: giving commands is a case in point. But of course roles can be refused: questions go unanswered, statements unacknowledged, and, god forbid, commands disobeyed. This possibility is certainly acknowledged, but it doesn't necessarily confer free and fair exchange of language. 3. I am always worried about definitions of discourse as a purely socio-cultural phenomenon. First of all, every sociocultural phenomenon has a biomechanical base to it, and of course discourse is no exception. But more generally it seems to me that if we say, in a moment of unguarded exuberance, that discourse is a socio-cultural phenomenon only, we then have to add some kind of defining relative clause which excludes phenomena that are socio-cultural but which are not discourse. Otherwise, we're not really defining; we're just being redundant. And even if we do add such a defining relative clause (e.g. discourse consists of all those socioculturla phenomena that have been verbalized in some way) we will have to differentiate between verbalizing things for "social contact" and verbalizing things for "intra-mental" contact between psychological functions. That is, after all, the basis of the distinction between the interpersonal and the ideational metafunctions, no? Your work on IRS workers sounds fascinating. Is it published? Can I wheedle my uni into buying it? (We bought two copies of Helen's book, and I'm reading one.) David Kellogg Hankuk University of Foreign Studies On 29 July 2014 07:19, FRANCIS J. SULLIVAN wrote: > David, > > Thank you for your detailed clarification and elaboration. I am learning a > great deal about Vygotsky--and how my own thinking and methods differ from > his. Also, while I make use of SFL and its terminology (some might say > "co-opt"), my own work turns several of its basic assumptions on its head. > So, let me try to clarify a bit. > > 1. "Hierarchy of Functions." In Halliday's framework 9and that of every > other functional framework of which I am aware) acknowledges that the > elements of the "lexico-grammatical system" do incorporate all the > "meta-functions" simultaneously. So, the shift from "I prefer living in > the > city" to "My preference is for life in the city," which uses > nominalization > as the device to effect that shift, can be viewed from the perspective > of > each meta-function. How, then, do we decide which meta-function is > dominant? Following Jacobson, functionalists invoke the principle of > "Hierarchy of Functions." That contextual element that dominates the > situation--Field, Tenor, or Mode--determines which of the Meta-functions > should dominate in the analysis. I pretty much followed that principle > in > my brief response to your example. However, in my own work, I argue that > the Hierarchy principle is unmotivated, in that it allows the viewpoint > of > dominant social groups to become the baseline for analysis of spoken or > written texts, in turn suppressing the influences of those > meta-functions > deemed "subordinate." The result, which I find all too prevalent in > forms > of school and workplace discourse, spoken or written, is that the > meaning > of a text becomes aligned with the interests of that group which can > exert > its power to define its context--management vs workers; teachers vs > students, etc. > 2. Co-operation vs Conflict. From the time of Kant, it has generally > been assumed in linguistics and discourse analysis that participants > co-operate in the "free exchange of information." Halliday's framework > incorporates it as well. Yet, that premise flies in the face of > everything > I understand about Marx' notions of development in social relations > between > Capital and Labor, groups whose interests are conceived as in conflict > with > each other. Indeed, one of my studies examines just this "division of > labor > in the division of discourse" as that division is represented in the > contradictory versions of workplace texts with which tax examiner in the > Internal Revenue service are confronted in the course of their work. > While > one version of their manual represents their work as highly conceptual, > requiring sophisticated judgment, the second version represents the same > work as requiring only rote responses, devoid of judgment. It should > come > as no surprise that the workers--who at best have high school degrees, > are > told to rely on the latter version yet are evaluated on the former. > 3. Cognitive Psychology vs Sociology (or at least Social Psychology). It > is here that my work departs most from Halliday's, especially as it has > developed since the mid 1980's. My work begins from the premise that > Discourse is wholly a socio-cultural phenomenon. In that, I take a good > bit > from Jim Gee's work and even more from Dell Hymes' work in anthropology > and > linguistics. I don't deny that meta-functions exist in the mind, but the > evidence, I believe, is that the development of those metafunctions is > wholly a result of the kinds of social interactions that lead to those > valued "ways of speaking" and that valued social identity that Gee calls > one's "Primary Discourse." In work that I have been doing on "codes," > for > instance, it has become quite clear to me that differences in the ways > that > working-class and middle or upper middle class youth talk > about--conceptualize--the "same" topic result not from different levels > of > psychological development but from different values that are attached to > that way of speaking. I believe, though I cannot yet document it, that > these different values themselves emerge from the discursive > implications > of their very different positions in social formations. If this is the > case, then viewing discourse development needs at least to include an > understanding of one's place in the division of labor. > > I appreciate this opportunity to share some of the foundations of my own > work here. What has intrigues me about Vygotsky's work, especially in the > ways that CHAT has taken it up, is its dialectical and systemic conception > of learning. I am hoping that, over time, I can connect those ideas to my > own work. These conversations are thus very helpful to me. > > Francis J. Sullivan, Ph.D. > Associate Professor > Department of Teaching and Learning > College of Education > Temple University > Philadelphia, PA 19122 > > > Find out what any people will quietly submit to and you have the exact > measure of the injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them. > > Frederick Douglass > > > On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 6:52 PM, David Kellogg > wrote: > > > Francis: > > > > Well, first of all, the word "internal" here is the word Vygotsky uses. > In > > History of the Development of the Higher Mental Functions, he explains > that > > it simply means the psychological as opposed to the social. Perhaps > > "inward" would be a better translation: culture in "inward" with respect > to > > nature, psychology is "inward" with respect to sociology, signs are > > "inward" with respect to tools, and within signs, inner speech is > "inward" > > with respect to social contact. > > > > To put this in Hallidayan terms, I think we have to say that the > ideational > > metafunction is "inward" with respect to the interpersonal one. We can > > easily construe representations and figures without interpersonal > contact, > > but we can't exchange speaking roles. Similarly we can exchange > > commodities, goods and services, without construing inner representations > > of reality. That explains why the metafunctions are independent, also > > why they require a third to join them. "Thinking" is Halliday's > ideational > > metafunction; "Speech" is his interpersonal metafunction. And of course > the > > textual metafunction is represented in "Thinking and Speech" by the word > > "and". > > > > My wife is currently working on an article that tries to argue for a > > diachronic rather than a synchronic teaching of world literature. The > idea > > is to show the diversity in unity of world literature in time rather than > > just in space. But the further back she goes towards the very origins of > > writing that Mike is talking about (cuneiform, counters) the more writing > > is concerned with exchanging goods and services and the less it is > > interested in what we would call ideation. Conversely, by the middle > ages, > > everybody is interested in representing figures, and by our own time it > is > > all about creating texts, whether they represent figures or not. > > > > So I guess that unlike you I would recognize not just diversity but > > development: development towards greater complexity, development towards > > greater diversity, development towards greater inclusiveness (we have > > fables AND stream of consciousness literature, but the Ancient Egyptians > > only had the former), development in generality (translatability) and > > development in abstraction. In one of his lectures, Vygotsky talks about > > the uniqueness of ontogenesis insofar as it involves confronting the END > of > > development with the BEGINNING. That is also, of course, what the study > of > > the history of literature must do. > > > > In my data, the development is microgenetic (I guess Halliday would call > it > > logogenetic). "Hi" is essentially a matter of interpersonal contact, whle > > "I'm Mr. K" is, as you point out, ideation. Since this is dialogue, I > > guess "And you?" is about looking back to the information just given and > > forward to the next turn, and therefore has a textualizing function. It > is > > the "and" in thinking and the "and" in speech. > > > > I thought I was pretty explicit about the context. I am talking about the > > practica that we do at the end of the term--I have to watch trainees > teach > > and then offer comments. My own entry into the classroom is, or should > be, > > a kind of model them (because I am a native speaker, but above all > because > > I am the examiner, and a wise examinee will examine the examiner and try > to > > do likewise). So I try to introduce myself in a way that I think will > > present a range of functions, and suggest a fairly small minimal unit for > > using them. But only some of the teachers manage to develop a rhythm: get > > attention, give information, check understanding, and I suspect that they > > have already developed this rhythm before they arrive in class. > > > > When Andy says that our whole discussion is just silly, all he really > means > > is that his specific formulations of ideas are not the centre of it. But > in > > defense of our grumpy philosopher, I should say that Andy is DOES > recognize > > practical intelligence, but he recognizes it as something qualitative > > different from higher intellect (that is, thinking in concepts). So do I. > > And so, actually, does Vygotsky (Chapter TWO of Thinking and Speech, > where > > Vygotsky describes childhood as a zigzagging from practical realism, to > > imaginative irrealism, to verbal realism). > > > > So yes--physical play, what Vygotsky calls "quasi-play", roughousing--all > > of these are good examples of "practical intelligence", but not > necessarily > > verbalized intellect. The move into verbalized intellect is not a smooth > > one: we can see qualitative transformations in play, first from rote play > > (which nevertheless requires a kind of mental representation of the act > in > > order to repeat it) to role play (which repeats the actor but not the > act) > > to rule play (which varies actors according to fixed rules). > > > > Huw's objection, that the move from the one into the other requires no > > dialectical leap, is in direct contradiction to Vygotsky, and in fact > > directly contradicts the very Vygotsky text that he directs me too which > > insists on the distinctness as well as the linkedness of role play and > rule > > play. (Elkonin is another matter; I think his idea of "leading activity" > > (as opposed to psychological function) is a neo-behavioristic retreat > from > > Vygotsky.) But it also contradicts this, which is from the crucial > > paragraph break that divides the two sections of Thinking and Speech, > > Chapter One, in its original 1934 edition: > > > > ????? ???????, ??? ?????????????? ?????? ???????? ?? ?????? ????????? ?? > > ?????????? ??????? ? ????????, ?? ? ????????? ?? ???????? ? ?????, ?? > ???? > > ????? ???????, ??? ???????? ???????? ???????????????? ? ???????? > > ??????????? ?????, ??? ???????????????? ????????. ??-????????, ???? ??? > > ????????? ?????????, ??? ??? ???????????? ??????? ??????? ? ???????? ? > > ??????? ???? ?????????? ????????? ????????????????. (When we say that the > > dialectical leap is not only the transition from nonthinking matter to > > sentient, but also the transition from sentience to thought, what we wish > > to say is that thinking reflects reality in consciousness in a > > qualitatively different way than unmediated sentience. Evidently, there > is > > every foundation for assuming that this qualitative difference in units > > lies in the generalized reflection of reality.) > > > > David Kellogg > > Hankuk University of Foreign Studies > > > > > > On 23 July 2014 04:13, FRANCIS J. SULLIVAN wrote: > > > > > David, > > > > > > I have been, and still am, in the midst of teaching myself--now looking > > at > > > the first assignment completed. So, I have been away from the list. > Wow! > > > I've just read through the other strand, realizing just how different > > this > > > way of thinking is from just about everything I do. I find it hard to > > > envision thought processes in language as "internal." To me they are > > always > > > part of a social exchange, conducted in a context that is constrained > by > > > culture. So, I'm not sure I can answer your question, but I will try. > > > First. if you want to contrast the functions of the three "moves" in > > your > > > example, I would not begin with their grammatical form. It might make > > sense > > > to segment them into "information units" (Halliday's term); but, what > > seems > > > to me most important--and something whose absence in the thread on > "fuzzy > > > things" just boggles my mind--is to construe the social context in > which > > > the utterance takes place. As you know, each of the three > > > meta-functions--ideational, interpersonal, and textual--has its > > > corresponding element in the social context, namely, Field, Tenor, and > > > Mode. The first element seems especially relevant here. Halliday > > discusses > > > it in terms of the purpose, or cognitive activity, in which the text is > > > uttered. So, you walk into a classroom--for the first time??, midway > into > > > the semester?--there would be differences in terms of analyzing the > > > "meaning" of the text. Still, I would say that in this context the > > > utterance "Hi, I'm Mr. K. And you?" addresses the "Interpersonal" > element > > > primarily and secondarily the Mode. The Mode, or "genre," (there's a > lot > > > of contention about where genre fits into SFL right now) is that of the > > > "Introduction," the interpersonal is informal and friendly, as > suggested > > by > > > the use of contractions and periphrasis "And you." Very little of the > > > utterance would address Field, just "I'm Mr. K." > > > > > > So, it may sound as if I would agree with Andy. But, I don't. You and I > > do > > > agree that "thinking" is a more capacious term than what Andy allows. > > > Whether he is correct about Vygotsky's position, of course, I don't > know. > > > It strikes me, however, that what Andy calls "thinking" is that kind of > > > discourse typically referred to as "academic." In fact, he sounds > almost > > > like Levi-Strauss at times, distinguishing the "Savage" from the > > > "Civilized." I don't think he means to, but it is almost impossible to > > > escape it within the framework of a strictly developmental model that > > has a > > > clear final stage--and so little attention to context. Specifically, we > > > need to understand this development of "scientific conceptualizing" > > > socially *first*, before we begin to concern ourselves with what may, > or > > > may not, be happening in somebody's neural net. In this, I follow Hymes > > and > > > Gumperz, who developed the term "ways of speaking." Academic discourse > is > > > just that--a way of speaking--and one that is learned, as Vygotsky > makes > > > clear, only in the context of certain kinds and levels of schooling. > But > > we > > > cannot infer from that developmental process, I think, that such > learning > > > transforms the learner in a strictly cognitive manner. For me, at > least, > > > what development means here is a kind of socialization, the result of > > which > > > is that s/he internalizes those ways of speaking deemed appropriate by > > the > > > particular community to which s/he belongs. And, of course, one can > > belong > > > to multiple communities with different, and even conflicting ways of > > > speaking. > > > > > > I don't know if that helps you at all. It seems to me that, as distinct > > > from your point about Vygotsky's dialectical take on the relationship > > sign > > > and concept, Andy tends to conflate the two--erasing the hyphen instead > > of > > > working it. > > > > > > Francis J. Sullivan, Ph.D. > > > Associate Professor > > > Department of Teaching and Learning > > > College of Education > > > Temple University > > > Philadelphia, PA 19122 > > > > > > > > > Find out what any people will quietly submit to and you have the exact > > > measure of the injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them. > > > > > > Frederick Douglass > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 5:51 PM, David Kellogg > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Francis: > > > > > > > > We just had about two weeks of "teaching practica". The terrified > > > trainees > > > > have to stand up and teach a fifteen minute lesson in front of peers > > > > masequerading as children and three rabid professors making negative > > > > comments. Not only is this not a very propitious environment in which > > to > > > > try out new things (or even demonstrate basic teaching skills), it's > a > > > > really an opportunity made in hell for saying anything intelligent > > about > > > > teaching, which is, alas, my job. > > > > > > > > Here's what I wanted to ask you, since you have a background in > > > > systemic-functional grammar and CDA and above all because you seemed > to > > > > imply in your last that you thought the very attempt to engage can be > > > > transformative (as opposed to demoralizing). I sometimes notice that > > the > > > > best teachers have a regular rhythm--getting attention, giving > > > information, > > > > and checking understanding. This rhythm is faster when the "kids" are > > > > learning something familiar and slower when the "kids" are on new > > > > territory, but it's always there. I would like to say that these > three > > > > functions are related in some systematic way to imperatives, > > > declaratives, > > > > and interrogatives. But they are not, even when I take interpersonal > > > > metaphors (e.g. "May I have your attention please?") into account. > What > > > do > > > > you think I am looking at here? > > > > > > > > Now, let me use this example to address some of what Huw and Andy > have > > > been > > > > saying. I hope you'll see that the two threads are not quite as > > unrelated > > > > as the two different titles suggest. Suppose I walk into a classroom, > > > pick > > > > out some friendly eye contact, and I say "Hi! I'm Mr. K. And you?" As > > you > > > > can see, the first "Hi!" is an instance of getting attention. But it > > > isn't > > > > a figure of experience: it's a minor clause. "I'm Mr. K" is a major > > > clause, > > > > and "And you?" is an elliptical clause, parasitic on "I'm Mr. K" for > > most > > > > of its wording. So it seems to me that SOME functions (e.g. getting > > > > attention) are rather closer to figures of experience, while others > are > > > > more concerned with social contact. All functions have to be both, > but > > > they > > > > don't have to be the same proportions of both, and so development is, > > > > contrary to what Huw suggests, perfectly possible. Children do not > leap > > > > metaphysically, but dialectically--by going from using language > mostly > > to > > > > get attention (and largely without clause grammar) to using language > to > > > > give information and eventually using it to check understanding. > > > > > > > > You can see that "Hi!" is a good example of the unity of behavior and > > > > consciousness that Andy is talking about. But by the time we get to > > > > checking understanding, the "behavior" element becomes pretty > > > irrelevant: I > > > > just don't see any way in which understanding can be described as > > > > "behavior" and we can still retain the key distinction between > > > > pseudoconceptual understanding and conceptual understanding. > > > > > > > > In Andy's first point, he argues that when children are not using > word > > > > meanings to think (i.e. visiographical thinking, which plays a very > > > > important role in getting children's attention) they are not > thinking. > > I > > > > prefer to think that they are thinking, but they are thinking using > > what > > > > Vygotsky (and Buhler and especially Kohler, who were certainly > genetic > > > > psychologists) liked to call "practical intellect". It's intellect. > But > > > > it's not verbal thinking. > > > > > > > > I'm not sure that I agree when Andy says, in his second point, that > > > labour > > > > is ALWAYS inadequate as a foundation for psychological inquiry--I > > imagine > > > > Helena Worthen finds it very useful. But I certainly agree with Andy > > that > > > > the revisionists (Leontiev, Zinchenko, Wertsch) took "labour" as > > > > paradigmatic, and as a result they had to deep-six Vygotsky's late > > ideas > > > > about the semantic structure of consciousness (that is, Vygotsky's > idea > > > > that minds are made of word meanings, not action plans). Some of the > > > > revisionists did this reluctantly (Leontiev, at his best) but some of > > > them > > > > were quite strident (Zinchenko in particular). All of them considered > > > > Vygotsky an idealist. > > > > > > > > As I understand it, Huw DISAGREES with Andy and actually agrees with > > the > > > > revisionist critique of Vygotsky on the grounds that children are > > mostly > > > > preoccupied with action and not word meaning. That's all very true of > > > > course: but they are NOT really preoccupied with labour activity. > Their > > > > preoccupations are with PLAY activity (Kim Yongho and I did a good > > study > > > of > > > > so-called "Task based teaching" that shows how children redefine > tasks > > as > > > > role plays and games). Play activity is, as Vygotsky has shown us, > > > > genetically related to speech and not to labour. > > > > > > > > Andy's third point is that semantic actions (???) create intellectual > > > > structures in the mind. I don't know what a semantic action is; > > semantics > > > > for me is the process of making something stand for something else, > > but I > > > > don't see in what sense it helps to model this process as an > "action". > > In > > > > many ways, it is precisely a non-action, because it includes > > > conditionality > > > > and interpretability, neither of which is usefully modeled as action. > > > > > > > > In any case, you and I, Francis, are Hallidayans. We know that > ideation > > > is > > > > only a part of semantics (there is also the interpersonal and the > > textual > > > > metafunction), and that intellect is only a part of ideation (there > is > > > the > > > > experiential as well as the logical metafunction). So there is no > basis > > > > whatsoever for the charge of intellectualism (I think what Andy is > > really > > > > getting at is not intellectualism but objectivism). > > > > > > > > I agree with the Russians who say that "perezhivanie" is a well > defined > > > > concept. But to me "well defined" means developmentally so: it means > > that > > > > the specific weight of the various components of "perezhivanie" have > to > > > be > > > > allowed to change as we develop: so for young children "perezhivanie" > > is > > > > largely "felt experience", and for older children it is mostly > "thought > > > > over--contemplated--experience". I don't see that thinking over is > > mostly > > > > an intellectual exercise though--I always feel, even in these > exchanges > > > on > > > > xmca, that there is a certain emotional component which makes us > > respond, > > > > sometimes before we really even think things out. > > > > > > > > David Kellogg > > > > Hankuk University of Foreign Studies > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 16 July 2014 04:39, FRANCIS J. SULLIVAN > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > With great trepidation, I want to enter this conversation with my > > first > > > > > post to the list (I have followed it for about a year now) because > as > > > > both > > > > > a researcher and teacher educator the issues raised are major > > concerns > > > > of > > > > > mine too. I find, I think it was David's point, the idea that we > can > > > > think > > > > > of the "connections" problem in two ways to be at the heart of the > > > issue, > > > > > at least for me. It is one thing to construct a connection that > "adds > > > to" > > > > > the existing knowledge framework of others. But, it is a very > > different > > > > > thing to sea5rch for a "connection" that requires others to > > > qualitatively > > > > > change, or even abandon, their existing framework. Helen seems to > > > achieve > > > > > such a connection with at least some of her teachers by helping > them > > to > > > > > re-cognize their own social identities so that the new knowledge > and > > > > > framework became less threatening and more inviting. She > reconnected > > > them > > > > > with who they used to be and what they valued. So they did not see > > > > > themselves as merely "ignorant" but more like retracing their > steps. > > > > > For me, at least, that's why the "deficit" models of teaching (or > > > > research) > > > > > practices do not work. We--teachers and students--need to find a > > place > > > > from > > > > > which we can begin this journey together, common ground so to > speak. > > > > While > > > > > a deaf person may not "know" English, I don't think that's the > > salient > > > > > point. All of us don't know things. What seems to me salient in > > Helen's > > > > > attempt to find connections, is that the very attempt challenged > > their > > > > > current ways of framing their professional lives. What we might > think > > > of > > > > as > > > > > "ignorance," those teachers thought of as "knowledge." And that > > > > "knowledge" > > > > > was part and parcel of the ways they positioned themselves as > > teachers > > > in > > > > > relation to students. > > > > > I am tempted to put this into discourse analysis terms--I'm a > > > > > semi-Hallidayan with a critical theory twist. But, I've said enough > > > for a > > > > > first post, I think. I hope it is useful. > > > > > > > > > > Francis J. Sullivan, Ph.D. > > > > > Associate Professor > > > > > Department of Teaching and Learning > > > > > College of Education > > > > > Temple University > > > > > Philadelphia, PA 19122 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Find out what any people will quietly submit to and you have the > > exact > > > > > measure of the injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them. > > > > > > > > > > Frederick Douglass > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 2:10 AM, David Kellogg < > dkellogg60@gmail.com > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Well, I do hope that Helen means that "for the moment", as I have > > > > learned > > > > > > an awful lot from this book and even more from this discussion. > You > > > > see, > > > > > I > > > > > > am trying to tease apart two very different processes that > appear, > > on > > > > the > > > > > > face of it, to be almost identical, but which also appear to have > > > > > > diametrically opposite developmental effects. > > > > > > > > > > > > One process is the process of getting people to feel at ease, > > > > > > confident, and happy that they understand what you are saying > > because > > > > it > > > > > is > > > > > > actually something that is identical or at least very similar to > > what > > > > > they > > > > > > already think. Another, almost identical, process is the process > of > > > > > > "establishing ties" between a new form of knowledge and an > earlier > > > one. > > > > > > BOTH of these processes, it seems to me, occur throughout Helen's > > > book, > > > > > and > > > > > > it is easy to mistake the one for the other. BOTH of these > > processes, > > > > to > > > > > > use our earlier terminology, involve "establishing ties", but > only > > > one > > > > of > > > > > > them also involves breaking away. > > > > > > > > > > > > For example, at one point in the book Helen, looking back over > the > > > > > Banksia > > > > > > Bay PLZ data, rounds on herself for using a transparent piece of > > > > > > scaffolding to elicit the word "communicate" from a group of > > > teachers. > > > > > What > > > > > > bothers her is not that the answer itself is far too general to > be > > of > > > > any > > > > > > practical value to the teachers, but only that she had it very > > firmly > > > > in > > > > > > mind, and kept badgering the teachers (as we all do, when we > have a > > > > > precise > > > > > > answer in mind) until she got it. The alternative, she points > out, > > > > would > > > > > be > > > > > > to take what she got and work with that. > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes indeed. But I think the main reason that would have been more > > > > > > interesting is not that it would have resulted in fewer > rejections > > of > > > > > > teacher answers and made people more at ease, confdent, and happy > > > that > > > > > they > > > > > > understood, but rather than it would have yielded something more > > > like a > > > > > > concrete but unconscious and not yet volitionally controlled > > example > > > of > > > > > > excellence from the teacher's own practice. I almost always find > > that > > > > the > > > > > > actual answers I want--the "methods" I end up imparting to my own > > > > > teachers, > > > > > > are already present in the data they bring me (because we almost > > > always > > > > > > begin with actual transcripts of their lessons) but they are > > > generally > > > > > not > > > > > > methods but only moments, and moments that go unnoticed and > > therefore > > > > > > ungeneralized in the hurly burly of actual teaching. > > > > > > > > > > > > Last winter, Helen and I were at a conference in New Zealand > where, > > > > among > > > > > > other eventful episodes, Craig Brandist got up and gave a very > > > precise > > > > > list > > > > > > of half a dozen different and utterly contradictory ways in which > > > > Bakhtin > > > > > > uses the term "dialogue". Because the senses of "dialogue" are so > > > many > > > > > and > > > > > > varied, people simply pick and choose, and they tend invariably > to > > > > choose > > > > > > the ones that are closest to the way they already think. It is as > > > > moments > > > > > > like this that we need to remind ourselves that Bakhtin's > > "dialogue" > > > > does > > > > > > not, for the most part, ever include children, or women; that he > > did > > > > not > > > > > > "dialogue" with Volosinov or Medvedev when he allowed his > acolytes > > > > > > to plunder their corpses, and that his love of carnival and the > > > public > > > > > > marketplace does not extend to a belief in any form of political > > > > > democracy. > > > > > > > > > > > > So I think we should start off with an understanding that what > > > Vygotsky > > > > > > says about defect is not the same was what we now believe. > > Vygotsky, > > > > for > > > > > > example, believed that sign language was not true language, and > > that > > > > even > > > > > > the congenitally deaf should be taught to lip read; this is > simply > > > > > > wrong. (On the other hand, what he says about spontaneously > created > > > > sign > > > > > > languages--that they are essentially elaborated systems of > gesture > > > and > > > > > they > > > > > > lack the signifying functions--fits exactly with Susan > > > Goldin-Meadow's > > > > > > observations in Chicago.) > > > > > > > > > > > > And one reason I think it is important to begin with this > > > understanding > > > > > is > > > > > > this: sometimes--usually--LSV is right and we are wrong. In > > > > particular, I > > > > > > think the "credit" view of defect, or, for that matter, ignorance > > of > > > > any > > > > > > kind and not fully conscious teacher expertise risks becoming a > > > liberal > > > > > > platitude--the cup is always half full, so why not look on the > > bright > > > > > side > > > > > > of dearth? I certainly do not feel empowered by the fact that I > > know > > > > > > English but I do not know ASL, and I rather doubt that deaf > people > > > feel > > > > > > empowered by the opposite state of affairs. When I don't know > > > > something, > > > > > I > > > > > > do not see any bright side of not knowing it, for the very simple > > > > > > reason that I can't see at all. > > > > > > > > > > > > Vygotsky was probably very influenced by "Iolanta", an opera that > > > > > > Tchaikovsky wrote--he certainly seems to quote it extensively in > > the > > > > last > > > > > > chapter of "Thinking and Speech". In "Iolanta", King Renee copes > > with > > > > the > > > > > > blindness of his daughter by having her shut up in a garden and > > > > > forbidding > > > > > > all his subjects from discussing light, sight, color or anything > > > > visible > > > > > in > > > > > > any way. Vaudemont, a knight of Burgundy, blunders into the > garden, > > > > > > discovers Iolanta's secret. Iolanta convinces him that sight is > > > > > > unnecessary, but in the course of doing so, she develops the > desire > > > to > > > > > see > > > > > > and choose for herself. > > > > > > > > > > > > David Kelogg > > > > > > Hankuk University of Foreign Studies > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 15 July 2014 11:12, Andy Blunden wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > My reading of Vygotsky on 'defectology' was that the 'defect' > was > > > the > > > > > > > problem in social relations, that is, the person who is > different > > > in > > > > > some > > > > > > > way suffers because of the way that difference is treated or > not > > > > > treated > > > > > > by > > > > > > > others, not for anything in itself. One and the same feature > > could > > > > be a > > > > > > > great benefit or a fatal flaw, depending on how others react to > > it. > > > > > > > Except insofar as introducing the idea of a "credit view" is a > > move > > > > > aimed > > > > > > > at changing the perceptions and behaviours of others in > relation > > to > > > > the > > > > > > > subject, I don't think Vygotsky is an advocate of the mirror > > image > > > > of a > > > > > > > deficit view. As I see it, he analyses the problem of the > person > > > > being > > > > > > > treated as deficient by means of the unit of > > *defect-compensation*. > > > > The > > > > > > > defect (a problem arising in social interaction, with others) > > > > generates > > > > > > > certain challenges which are overcome, generally also in > > > interaction > > > > > with > > > > > > > others. This "compensation" leads to what Helen could call a > > > "credit" > > > > > and > > > > > > > it is the dynamic set up between the social defect and social > > > > > > compensation > > > > > > > which shapes the subject's psychology and their relation to > > others. > > > > > > > Andy > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > > > *Andy Blunden* > > > > > > > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Helen Grimmett wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> I think what is unique about Vygotsky's work in defectology is > > > that, > > > > > > >> despite the name, it is not a deficit view (in the way that I > > > > > understand > > > > > > >> the term) at all. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> I understand the commonly used term 'deficit view' as a focus > on > > > > what > > > > > > >> children are 'missing' that needs to be provided to them by > > > teachers > > > > > to > > > > > > >> bring them up to a pre-conceived idea of 'normal' for their > > > > age/grade > > > > > > >> level > > > > > > >> etc. Whereas, a 'credit view' focuses on what children are > able > > to > > > > do > > > > > > and > > > > > > >> bring to a learning situation, in which, in the interaction > with > > > > > others, > > > > > > >> they will be able to become more able to do and 'be' more than > > > they > > > > > were > > > > > > >> before (i.e. to develop), whether this be in the 'expected' > ways > > > to > > > > > the > > > > > > >> 'expected' level or in completely different ways to a variety > of > > > > > > different > > > > > > >> levels beyond or outside 'standard' expectations. From the > > little > > > I > > > > > have > > > > > > >> read on defectology I think this is what Vygotsky was > > advocating - > > > > > that > > > > > > >> despite a child's blindness or deafness etc, development was > > still > > > > > > >> possible > > > > > > >> if mediational means were found that made use of the child's > > > credits > > > > > > (i.e. > > > > > > >> using sign language or braille so that children still had > access > > > to > > > > > the > > > > > > >> developmental opportunities provided by language). So I think > > your > > > > > term > > > > > > >> pre-abled is in fact a credit view rather than a deficit view. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> I was attempting to also use a credit view in my work with the > > > > > > teachers. I > > > > > > >> saw them as being experienced practitioners who had lots to > > bring > > > to > > > > > our > > > > > > >> discussions of teaching and learning, in which together we > could > > > see > > > > > > what > > > > > > >> could be developed (new practices, new understandings). Once > Kay > > > and > > > > > > Mike > > > > > > >> realised this they got on board and engaged in the process and > > > > > (possibly > > > > > > >> for the first time in a long while as they both saw themselves > > > [and > > > > in > > > > > > >> fact > > > > > > >> are officially designated as] 'expert teachers') really > > reawakened > > > > the > > > > > > >> process of developing as professionals. They blew off most of > > the > > > > > > content > > > > > > >> I > > > > > > >> was contributing, but they realised the process was actually > > about > > > > > > >> 'unsticking' their own development and working out new and > > > > personally > > > > > > >> interesting and meaningful ways of 'becoming' more as > teachers, > > > > > instead > > > > > > of > > > > > > >> being stuck 'being' the teacher they had turned into over the > > > years. > > > > > Not > > > > > > >> all of the teachers made this leap in the time I worked with > > them > > > > > > though. > > > > > > >> Others were either quite disgruntled that I wouldn't provide > > them > > > > with > > > > > > >> answers to 'fix' their own perceived deficits or patiently > > waited > > > > for > > > > > me > > > > > > >> to > > > > > > >> go away and stop rocking the boat. From what I can gather > > though, > > > > Ann > > > > > > (the > > > > > > >> principal) kept the boat rocking and managed over time to get > > more > > > > > > >> teachers > > > > > > >> to buy into the process of learning from each other and > > > > > collaboratively > > > > > > >> creating new practices. As we said earlier, development takes > > time > > > > as > > > > > > well > > > > > > >> as effort. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> All I've got time for at the moment! > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Helen > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Dr Helen Grimmett > > > > > > >> Lecturer, Student Adviser, > > > > > > >> Faculty of Education, > > > > > > >> Room G64F, Building 902 > > > > > > >> Monash University, Berwick campus > > > > > > >> Phone: 9904 7171 > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> *New Book: * > > > > > > >> The Practice of Teachers' Professional Development: A > > > > > > Cultural-Historical > > > > > > >> Approach > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> professional-learning-1/the-practice-of-teachers- > > > > > > >> professional-development/> > > > > > > >> Helen Grimmett (2014) Sense Publishers > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > source=staff-email&utm_medium=email-signature&utm_campaign=50th> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> On 14 July 2014 14:43, David Kellogg > > > wrote: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >>> Near the end of Chapter Three (p. 81), Helen is summing up > her > > > > > > experience > > > > > > >>> with the Banksia Bay PLZ and she notes with some dismay that > > her > > > > > PDers > > > > > > >>> have > > > > > > >>> "a deficit view" of their children and tend towards > "container > > > > > models" > > > > > > of > > > > > > >>> the mind ("empty vessel, sponge, blank canvas"). Only one > > > teacher, > > > > > Ann > > > > > > >>> sees > > > > > > >>> anything wrong with this, and Helen says "they don't > > necessarily > > > > > value > > > > > > >>> her > > > > > > >>> opinion". > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> Helen finds herself rather conflicted: One the one hand, she > > > says > > > > > "If > > > > > > >>> their representations of children really do represent their > > > > beliefs, > > > > > > then > > > > > > >>> they are probably right to insist there is no need to > change." > > > And > > > > on > > > > > > the > > > > > > >>> other, she says "My intention was never to say that their > > present > > > > > > >>> practice > > > > > > >>> was wrong, but to help them see alternative ways of thinking > > > about > > > > > > >>> children, learning, and teaching." > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> Of course, if there is no need to change, then it follows > that > > > > there > > > > > is > > > > > > >>> no > > > > > > >>> reason to look for alternative ways of thinking about > children, > > > > > > learning > > > > > > >>> and teaching. The only reason for spending scarce cognitive > > > > resources > > > > > > on > > > > > > >>> seeing different ways of looking at children is if you do, in > > > fact, > > > > > > take > > > > > > >>> a > > > > > > >>> deficit view of the teachers. Ann, and the Regional > > Consultants, > > > > > > >>> apparently > > > > > > >>> do, but Helen realizes that there isn't much basis for this: > > not > > > > only > > > > > > do > > > > > > >>> we > > > > > > >>> have no actual data of lessons to look at, we know that one > of > > > the > > > > > > >>> teachers, Kay, has been in the classroom for three decades > > > (during > > > > > > which > > > > > > >>> time Helen has spent at least one decade OUT of the > classroom). > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> While we were translating Vygotsky's "History of the > > Development > > > of > > > > > the > > > > > > >>> Higher Psychological Functions" last year, some of my > > colleagues > > > > were > > > > > > >>> taken > > > > > > >>> aback by Vygotsky's use of terms like "moron", "imbecile", > > > "idiot", > > > > > and > > > > > > >>> "cretin". Of course, Vygotsky is writing long before the > > > > "euphemisim > > > > > > >>> treadmill" turned these into playground insults; for Vygotsky > > > they > > > > > are > > > > > > >>> quite precise descriptors--not of cognitive ability but > > actually > > > of > > > > > > >>> LANGUAGE ability. But because our readership are progressive > > > Korean > > > > > > >>> teachers with strong views about these questions, we found > that > > > we > > > > > > >>> couldn't > > > > > > >>> even use the term "mentally retarded" without a strongly > worded > > > > > > footnote > > > > > > >>> disavowing the "deficit" thinking behind the term. > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> I think that Vygotsky would have been surprised by this. I > > think > > > he > > > > > > took > > > > > > >>> it > > > > > > >>> for granted that a defect was a deficit: being blind means a > > > > deficit > > > > > in > > > > > > >>> vision, and being deaf means a deficit in hearing. In the > same > > > > way, a > > > > > > >>> brain > > > > > > >>> defect is not an asset. On the other hand, I think Vygotsky > > would > > > > > find > > > > > > >>> our > > > > > > >>> own term "disabled" quite inaccurate: since all forms of > > > > development > > > > > > are > > > > > > >>> compensatory and involve "circuitous routes" of one kind or > > > > another, > > > > > > and > > > > > > >>> all developed children, even, and even especially, gifted > > > children, > > > > > > >>> contain > > > > > > >>> islands of underdevelopment, the correct term for deficits of > > all > > > > > kinds > > > > > > >>> is > > > > > > >>> not "disabled" but "pre-abled". > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> Personally, I see nothing wrong with a deficit view of > children > > > > that > > > > > > sees > > > > > > >>> them as pre-abled (or, as Vygotsky liked to say, > 'primitivist"; > > > > that > > > > > > is, > > > > > > >>> they are waiting for the mediational means that we have > > foolishly > > > > > > >>> developed > > > > > > >>> only for the psychophysiologically most common types to catch > > up > > > > with > > > > > > the > > > > > > >>> actual variation in real children. I suspect this view is > > > actually > > > > > > quite > > > > > > >>> a > > > > > > >>> bit closer to what Kay thinks than to what Helen thinks. > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> David Kellogg > > > > > > >>> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> On 13 July 2014 10:59, Helen Grimmett < > > helen.grimmett@monash.edu > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>>> Hi David, > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> Interesting question. I absolutely think that development > AS a > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>> professional > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>>> is necessary, just as development as a human is necessary, > so > > if > > > > > > >>>> professional development is seen as the practice in which > this > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>> development > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>>> is produced then absolutely I do think it is necessary. The > > form > > > > > that > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>> this > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>>> practice takes though, and indeed the form of the > development > > > that > > > > > is > > > > > > >>>> produced within this practice, are the things open to > question > > > > > > however. > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> I definitely think that a teacher's development as a > > > professional > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>> includes > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>>> the need to understand their practice better rather than > just > > > > change > > > > > > it, > > > > > > >>>> but I think that understanding often develops best > > > > in/alongside/with > > > > > > the > > > > > > >>>> process of changing (and vice versa) rather than separately > > from > > > > it, > > > > > > >>>> and, > > > > > > >>>> as you point out above, in establishing ties *between* > people > > > and > > > > > then > > > > > > >>>> within them. So a practice of professional development that > > > > creates > > > > > > >>>> conditions which support this type of development will (I > > > believe) > > > > > be > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>> much > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>>> more effective than traditional forms of PD that either > > attempt > > > to > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>> lecture > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>>> about theoretical principles but do not support teachers to > > > > transfer > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>> these > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>>> into practical changes, OR provide teachers with practical > > > > programs > > > > > > and > > > > > > >>>> expect them to implement them without any understanding of > > what > > > > and > > > > > > why > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>> the > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>>> changes matter. I think the term "Professional Development" > is > > > an > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>> absolute > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>>> misnomer for either of those typical approaches. > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> So again, I have a problem with names! I'm talking about > > > > > Professional > > > > > > >>>> Development with a completely different meaning than what > most > > > of > > > > > the > > > > > > >>>> education community believe it to mean when they talk about > > > > > attending > > > > > > PD > > > > > > >>>> seminars or workshops. I toyed with trying to find a > different > > > > name > > > > > > for > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>> the > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>>> particular meaning I'm talking about, but when you are > talking > > > > about > > > > > > >>>> development from a cultural-historical theoretical > perspective > > > > then > > > > > > >>>> there > > > > > > >>>> really is no other word to use! That's why I stuck to using > > > > > > >>>> 'professional > > > > > > >>>> development' (in full) when I meant my meaning, and PD > (which > > is > > > > > what > > > > > > >>>> teachers in Australia commonly refer to seminars and > workshops > > > as) > > > > > > when > > > > > > >>>> I > > > > > > >>>> refer to the typical (and in my view, usually > > non-developmental) > > > > > forms > > > > > > >>>> of > > > > > > >>>> activities that teachers are subjected to each year. > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> So, I agree that the need for PD is questionable, but the > need > > > for > > > > > > >>>> practices of professional development that help teachers to > > > > develop > > > > > as > > > > > > >>>> professionals (that is, to develop a unified understanding > of > > > both > > > > > the > > > > > > >>>> theoretical and practical aspects of their work, which is > > itself > > > > > > >>>> continually developing in order to meet the changing needs > of > > > > their > > > > > > >>>> students, schools and society) is essential. While I think > > > > > co-teaching > > > > > > >>>> is > > > > > > >>>> one practical small-scale solution, working out viable, > > > > economical, > > > > > > and > > > > > > >>>> manageable ways to create these practices on a large-scale > is > > a > > > > very > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>> large > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>>> problem. > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> Cheers, > > > > > > >>>> Helen > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> Dr Helen Grimmett > > > > > > >>>> Lecturer, Student Adviser, > > > > > > >>>> Faculty of Education, > > > > > > >>>> Room G64F, Building 902 > > > > > > >>>> Monash University, Berwick campus > > > > > > >>>> Phone: 9904 7171 > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> *New Book: * > > > > > > >>>> The Practice of Teachers' Professional Development: A > > > > > > >>>> Cultural-Historical > > > > > > >>>> Approach > > > > > > >>>> < > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>> https://www.sensepublishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/ > > > > > > >>> professional-learning-1/the-practice-of-teachers- > > > > > > >>> professional-development/ > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>>> Helen Grimmett (2014) Sense Publishers > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> < > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>> http://monash.edu.au/education/news/50-years/?utm_ > > > > > > >>> > source=staff-email&utm_medium=email-signature&utm_campaign=50th > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>>> On 13 July 2014 08:57, David Kellogg > > > > wrote: > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>>> Helen: > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> Good to hear from you at long last--I knew you were lurking > > out > > > > > there > > > > > > >>>>> somewhere! > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> I didn't actually write the line about "establishing > > > ties"--it's > > > > > from > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>> "The > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>>> Little Prince". The prince asks what "tame" means, and the > > fox > > > > > > replies > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>> that > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>>> it means "to establish ties". But of course what I meant > was > > > that > > > > > > ties > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>> are > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>>> established first between people and then within them; the > > ties > > > > of > > > > > > >>>>> development are interfunctional ties that make up a new > > > > > psychological > > > > > > >>>>> system. (Or, for Halliday, they are the inter-systemic ties > > > that > > > > > make > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>> up > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>>> new metafunctions.) > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> As you say, Yrjo Engestrom chooses to emphasize another > > aspect > > > of > > > > > > >>>>> development with "breaking away"--he wants to stress its > > > > > > crisis-ridden > > > > > > >>>>> nature. I agree with this, actually, but mostly I agree > with > > > you, > > > > > > that > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>> we > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>>> are talking about two moments of the same process. To me, > > > breaking > > > > > > away > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>> is > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>>> really a precondition of the real business of establishing > > > ties. > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> Thomas Piketty makes a similar point in his book "Capital > in > > > the > > > > > > >>>>> Twenty-first Century". He admits that war and revolution is > > the > > > > > only > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>> thing > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>>> that EVER counteracts the tendency of returns from capital > to > > > > > > outstrip > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>> the > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>>> growth in income, and that the 20th Century was an outlier > in > > > > this > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>> respect, > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>>> and the Russian revolution an extreme outlier within that > > > > outlier. > > > > > > But > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>> he > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>>> also says that in the long run the one thing that makes > UPWARD > > > > > > mobility > > > > > > >>>>> possible is education. Despite everything, because of > > > everything. > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> I finished the book a few days ago. I guess the thing I > most > > > want > > > > > to > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>> ask > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>>> about is the assumption that professional development is > > > necessary > > > > > at > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>> all. > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>>> Doesn't it make more sense to say that before we change > what > > we > > > > are > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>> doing, > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>>> we should understand it better? > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> David Kellogg > > > > > > >>>>> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> On 12 July 2014 13:20, Helen Grimmett < > > > helen.grimmett@monash.edu > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>> wrote: > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>>> Ah, I think you have hit the nail on the head David. It is > > > indeed > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> TIME > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>>> that > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> is so crucial - not only duration of time, but also > location > > > of > > > > > time > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> (which > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> I suppose is really context). > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> The problems I had with Mike and his colleagues about the > > > > > > terminology > > > > > > >>>>>> stemmed partly from the typical Aussie disdain for using > > words > > > > > that > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> might > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>>> make your mates think you are trying to appear 'better' > than > > > > them, > > > > > so > > > > > > >>>>>> therefore you mock anything that sounds too serious or > > > > > intellectual. > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> But > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>>> beyond this surface level of complaining the problems Huw > and > > > you > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> have > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>>> been > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> discussing boil down to problems with time. > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> Huw's complaint about my use of the heading "Features of > > > > > > >>>>>> Cultural-Historical Learning Activities" is well > justified - > > > but > > > > > it > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> was > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>>> really just a shorthand written version of what I was > verbally > > > > > asking > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> for > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>>> as "What might be some particular features of learning > > > activities > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> that > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>>> would align with principles of Cultural-Historical Theory?" > > That > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> would > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>>> have > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> taken too long to write on the top of the piece of paper - > > and > > > > of > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> course > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>>> time is always too short in any after-school PD so > shortcuts > > > are > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> inevitably > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> taken. (Time problem #1) > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> Time problem #2, which your discussion has highlighted for > > me, > > > > is > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> that > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>>> of > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>>> course my question was really "What might be some > particular > > > > > features > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> of > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>>> learning activities that would align with THE LIMITED > NUMBER > > OF > > > > > (AND > > > > > > >>>>>> LIMITED UNDERSTANDING OF) principles of > Cultural-Historical > > > > Theory > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> THAT > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>>> YOU > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> HAVE BEEN INTRODUCED TO SO FAR?" so I really should have > not > > > > been > > > > > so > > > > > > >>>>>> surprised that they would find the brainstorming activity > > > > > difficult > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> and > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>>> resort to diversionary tactics! (Mike's outburst posted here > > by > > > > > David > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> was > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>>> not the only eventful moment I write about from this one > > > > activity. > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> But > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>>> these apparent failures actually provided much more > > interesting > > > > data > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> for > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>>> me > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> and eventually lead me to several key findings in my > > thesis). > > > I > > > > > had > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> spent > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>>> several years by this stage reading and discussing Vygotsky > > and > > > > > yet I > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> had > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>>> assumed/hoped the teachers would have enough understanding > > from > > > > my > > > > > > >>>>>> (probably not very good) explanations ABOUT theory over > the > > > > > previous > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> 3 > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>>> short sessions I had had with them to be able to contribute > > > > answers > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> to > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>>> my > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>>> brainstorm question. They had not had enough TIME to become > > > > > familiar > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> with > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>>> enough of the theory to make much sense of it yet - but > > still, > > > we > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> have > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>>> to > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>>> start somewhere and this was still early days. > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> Time problem #3 brings in what I called above the location > > of > > > > > time. > > > > > > I > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> had > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>>> never intended for the sessions to be me giving > after-school > > > > > lectures > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> about > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> either theory or practice, yet this is what the teachers > > > seemed > > > > to > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> expect > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>>> from me (and even demand from me) and were pretty > disgruntled > > > > when > > > > > I > > > > > > >>>>>> wouldn't/couldn't deliver. My intention was always to get > > them > > > > to > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> engage > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>>> with the relationship between THEORY and PRACTICE, just as > > > > David's > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> comic > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>>> book discusses the relationship between THINKING and SPEECH > > or > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> EMOTION > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>>> and > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> COGNITION. My problem of course was that once we were in > an > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> after-school > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>>> meeting we were removed in both time and space from where > > > theory > > > > > and > > > > > > >>>>>> practice of teaching/learning operate as a relation (i.e. > > the > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> classroom > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>>> activity). I was actually trying to create/use our own PLZ > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> (Professional > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>>> Learning ZPD) as the activity in which to develop and > > > understand > > > > > this > > > > > > >>>>>> relationship but it was initially very hard to get the > > > teachers > > > > to > > > > > > >>>>>> understand this (at least until we had enough of David's > > Fox's > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> socially > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>>> shared experiences for the meanings to become communicable) > > and > > > > then > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> even > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>>> more difficult to get them to transfer this back to > > developing > > > > > their > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> own > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>>> classroom teaching. Ironically, despite being the loudest > > > > > complainers > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> and > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>>> disparagers, it was Mike and Kay (the protagonist of my > other > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> eventful > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>>> moment in the brainstorming session) who actually ended up > > > making > > > > > the > > > > > > >>>>>> biggest changes in their classroom practice. Perhaps this > is > > > not > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> really > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>>> surprising at all - they were the ones who obviously engaged > > and > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> argued > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>>> with the ideas and activities rather than simply endured > them! > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> My eventual answer to the problems encountered in my work > > with > > > > the > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> group > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>>> of > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> teachers was to work WITH a teacher IN her own classroom > so > > > that > > > > > we > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> had > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>>> shared experiences of the relationship between theory and > > > practice > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> which > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>>> could not only be discussed after the events, but also > > actually > > > > > acted > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> upon > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> there and then IN the event - creating what I called > > "Situated > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> Conscious > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>>> Awareness" of both the theoretical and practical aspects of > > the > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> concepts > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>>> of > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> teaching/learning and development we were developing > > > > understanding > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> and > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>>> practice of together. But perhaps I should wait until David > > gets > > > > up > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> to > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>>> this > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> part of the book before I say more! > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> Finally, one other point that really caught my attention > in > > > your > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> comic > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>>> book > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> David is that your prince calls development "to establish > > > ties" > > > > > > which > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> is > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>>> an > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> interesting difference to Engestrom's definition as > > "breaking > > > > > away". > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> But > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>>> perhaps, as always in CH theory, it is not a matter of > > > either/or > > > > > but > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> in > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>>> fact both/and ideas that are necessary. From what I learned > in > > > my > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> study, > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>>> teachers' development as professionals is definitely BOTH > > about > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> breaking > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>>> away from old, routinised understandings and practices AND > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> establishing > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>>> new > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> connections between and amongst theoretical concepts and > > > > > practices, > > > > > > >>>>>> enabling them to continually develop new competences and > > > motives > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> across > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>>> all > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> of their professional duties. > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> Thanks for your interest in my book David. The discussion > it > > > has > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> sparked > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>>> has helped me revisit ideas from new perspectives. > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> Cheers, > > > > > > >>>>>> Helen > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> Dr Helen Grimmett > > > > > > >>>>>> Lecturer, Student Adviser, > > > > > > >>>>>> Faculty of Education, > > > > > > >>>>>> Room G64F, Building 902 > > > > > > >>>>>> Monash University, Berwick campus > > > > > > >>>>>> Phone: 9904 7171 > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> *New Book: * > > > > > > >>>>>> The Practice of Teachers' Professional Development: A > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> Cultural-Historical > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>>> Approach > > > > > > >>>>>> < > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> https://www.sensepublishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/ > > > > > > >>> professional-learning-1/the-practice-of-teachers- > > > > > > >>> professional-development/ > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>>> Helen Grimmett (2014) Sense Publishers > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> < > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> http://monash.edu.au/education/news/50-years/?utm_ > > > > > > >>> > source=staff-email&utm_medium=email-signature&utm_campaign=50th > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>>> On 12 July 2014 07:29, David Kellogg > > > > wrote: > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> Plekhanov distinguishes between "agitators" and > > > > "propagandists". > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> Agitators > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> are essentially popularizers; they have the job of > ripping > > > > away a > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> subset > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> of > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> smaller and simpler ideas from a fabric of much larger > and > > > more > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> complex > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>>> theory and then disseminating them amongst the largest > > possible > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> number > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>>> of > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> people. In other words, their focus is exoteric. > > Propagandists > > > > are > > > > > > >>>>>>> essentially conspiratorial: they have the job of > > initiating a > > > > > small > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> number > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> of the elect and educating them in the whole theoretical > > > > > system--as > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> Larry > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> would say, the full Bildung. In other words, their focus > is > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> esoteric. > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>>> As > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> you can see, Plekhanov was good at making distinctions, > and > > > not > > > > so > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> good > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>>> at > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> showing how things are linked. For Helena, who is a > labor > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> educator, > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>>> you > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> can't really be an effective agitator unless you are also > a > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> propagandist. > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> You need to present your exoteric extracts in such a way > > that > > > > they > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> are, > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>>> to > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> borrow Larry's phrase, both necessary and sufficient to > > lead > > > > > people > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> on > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>>> to > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> the esoterica. I'm with Helena--and with Bruner--with > > children > > > > > it's > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> always > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> possible to tell the truth, part of the truth, but > nothing > > > but > > > > > the > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> truth, > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> and if we can do it with kids, why not do it with adults? > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> (I am less sure about what it means to say that the > > > objectively > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> human > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>>> is > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> the "subjectively historical"--it sounds like history is > > being > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> reified > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>>> as a > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> subject, that is, as a living, breathing, acting "World > > > Spirit" > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> that > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>>> can > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> have a mind and reflect upon itself. My understanding of > > > history > > > > > is > > > > > > >>>>>>> that just as we cannot have the advanced form of > historical > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> consciousness > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> in dialogue with the more primitive forms, the opportunity > > to > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> reflect > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>>> upon > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> the whole process when it is all over is simply never > going > > > to > > > > be > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> available > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> to anyone. The Merleau-Ponty quotation is beautiful and > > > > intensely > > > > > > >>>>>>> poetic, Larry--but when I look at a bubble or a wave, I > do > > > not > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> simply > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>>> see > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> chaos; I see past bubbles and past waves, and potential > > > bubbles > > > > > and > > > > > > >>>>>>> potential waves. Isn't that a part of the experience of > > > "loving > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> history" > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> as > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> well?) > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> My wife wrote a wonderful Ph.D. thesis about how any work > > of > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> literature > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>>> can > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> be looked at on four time frames: phylogenetic (the > history > > > of > > > > a > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> genre), > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> ontogenetic (the biography of a career), logogenetic (the > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> development > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>>> of > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> a > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> plot or a character), and microgenetic (the unfolding of > a > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> dialogue, > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>>> or a > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> paragraph). Her supervisor complained about the > terminology > > in > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> somewhat > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>>> more elegant terms than Mike does in Helen's data:and > > suggested > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> that > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>>> she > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> should replace the terms with "history", "biography", > > > > > "development" > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> and > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>>> "unfolding", to make it more exoteric. > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> I think that if she had done that, it would have made the > > > > thesis > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> into > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>>> agitation rather than education. Yes, the terms would have > > been > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> more > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>>> familiar, and they might even, given other context, be taken > > to > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> mean > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>>> the > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> same thing. But what we would have gotten is good, clear > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> distinctions > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>>> ("history" on the one hand and "biography" on the other) and > > > what > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> we > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>>> would > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> have lost is the linkedness of one time frame to > > another--the > > > > way > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> in > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>>> which > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> the phylogenesis of genre produces the mature genre which > > is > > > > used > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> in > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>>> an > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>>> author's ontegenesis, and the way in which the author's > > > > ontogenesis > > > > > > >>>>>>> produces the starting point and the raw materials for the > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> logogenetic > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>>> development of a work, not to mention the way in which > > > logogenesis > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> is > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>>> reflected in the microgenetic unfolding of dialogue. > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> So I think that when Helena writes that anything can be > > > > explained > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> to > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>>> anyone > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> in language that is everyday and simple and in a way that > > is > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> understandable > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> and at least part of the whole truth, I agree somewhat > > > > enviously > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> (you > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>>> see, > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> Helena is a labor educator, but I teach TESOL, which is > > > really > > > > > the > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> process > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> of taking a few very simple and exoteric ideas that good > > > > teachers > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> already > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> have and disseminating the select to the elect for vast > sums > > > of > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> money). > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>>> But > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> I have to add a rider--when we popularize richly woven > > > fabrics > > > > of > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> ideas > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>>> like cultural historical theory we are not simply juggling > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> vocabulary. > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>>> I > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> think that Helena recognizes this perfectly when she says > > that > > > > it > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> takes > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>>> TIME to be simple and clear. If it were simply a matter of > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> replacing > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>>> "cultural historical" with "community of learners" it would > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> actually > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>>> take > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> less time, but it isn't and it doesn't. > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> It is very hot in Seoul today, and somewhere out there a > > > > toddler > > > > > is > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> arguing > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> with a parent because he wants watermelon with breakfast. > > The > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> parent > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>>> resists, because if you eat cold watermelon on an empty > > stomach > > > > you > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> get a > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> tummy-ache. The argument grows heated and long--and > complex, > > > but > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> the > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>>> complexity is of a particular kind, with very short, > repeated, > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> insistancies > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> from the child and somewhat longer more complex > > > remonstrations > > > > > from > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> the > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>>> parent. We can call this complex discourse but simple > > grammar. > > > A > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> few > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>>> years > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> will go by and we will find that the school child has > > > mastered > > > > > the > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> trick > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> of > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> long and complex remonstrations and can use them > > > pre-emptively > > > > to > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> win > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>>> arguments. We can call this complex grammar, but simple > > > > vocabulary. > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> Only > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> when a decade or two has elapsed will we find that child, > > now > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> adult, > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>>> can > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> use the language of science, which is for the most part > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> grammatically > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>>> simple (at least compared to the pre-emptive remonstrations > of > > > the > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> school > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> child), but full of very complex vocabulary (e.g. > "phylogeny > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> anticipates > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> ontogeny", or "cultural-historical activity theory enables > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> communities > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>>> of > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> learners"). > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> It's Saturday today, and in a few minutes I have to leave > > for > > > > the > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> weekly > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> meeting of our translation group, which produces mighty > > tomes > > > > > which > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> we > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>>> produce to popularize the works of Vygotsky amongst > militant > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> teachers > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>>> here > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> in Korea (our version of "Thinking and Speech" is seven > > > hundred > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> pages > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>>> long > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> because of all the explanatory notes and boxes with > helpful > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> pictures). > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>>> On > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> the other hand, there is the attached comic book version > of > > > the > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> first > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>>> chapter of "Thinking and Speech" which I wrote a couple of > > years > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> ago > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>>> for > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> some graduate students who were having trouble talking > about > > > the > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> real > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>>> "Thinking and Speech" in class. > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> I think you can see that Huw's complaint is > justified--the > > > > comic > > > > > > >>>>>>> book dialogue is "about" Thinking and Speech, but it is > not > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> "Thinking > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>>> and > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> Speech" at all, in the same way that "community of > learners" > > > or > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> "biography" > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> is ABOUT cultural historical theory or ontogenesis. And I > > > think > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> that > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>>> part > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> of the problem (but only part of it) is that the comic > book > > is > > > > > just > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> too > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>>> short. > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> David Kellogg > > > > > > >>>>>>> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> 2014-07-11 17:09 GMT+09:00 Leif Strandberg < > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> leifstrandberg.ab@telia.com > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> : > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> 11 jul 2014 kl. 06:41 skrev Larry Purss < > > > lpscholar2@gmail.com > > > > >: > > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> David, > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> I have been following your reflections through this > > thread. > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> You commented: > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> So it's almost always more useful for me to > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> think of learning phenomena as NOT reducible to the > > > physical, > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> at > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>>> least > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> not > > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> in their unit of analysis > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> I have been reflecting on the notion of *bildung* as > > > > learning. > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> The notion of *cultivation* and *disposition* and > > > > *comportment* > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> as > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>>> the > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> potential of learning. > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> I came across this quote from Gramsci who was > questioning > > > the > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> notion > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> of > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> *laws* as the basis for making social predictions. Such > > > *laws* > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> excluded > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> the > > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> subjective factor from history. > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Gramsci wrote on social process: "Objective always > means > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> 'humanly > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>>> objective' which can be held to correspond exactly to > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> 'historically > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>>> subjective' " > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Merleau-Ponty also explored what I refer to as > > > *disposition* > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> with > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>>> this > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> quote on the reality of history: > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> History "awakens us to the importance of daily events > and > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> action. > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>>> For > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> it > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> is > > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> a philosophy [of history -LP] which arouses in us a > love > > > for > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> our > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>>> times > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> which are not the simple repetition of human eternity nor > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> merely > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>>> the > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> conclusion of premises already postulated. It is a view > that > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> like > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>>> the > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> most > > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> fragile object of perception - a soap bubble, or a > wave - > > > or > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> like > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>>> the > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> most > > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> simple dialogue, embraces indivisibly all the order and > > all > > > > the > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> disorder > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> of > > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> the world." > > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From ewall@umich.edu Tue Jul 29 07:14:07 2014 From: ewall@umich.edu (Ed Wall) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 10:14:07 -0400 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: NYTimes.com: Why Do Americans Stink at Math? In-Reply-To: <1406571909843.30805@uga.edu> References: <53d5718e.c814e00a.3778.3ba3SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> , <1406571909843.30805@uga.edu> Message-ID: <14580D5B-EB6C-4136-9E5F-F763B29D494A@umich.edu> Some general comments (and I apologize for being so late to the conversation as I have been out of email contact) Magdalen Lampert and Deborah Ball were both at Michigan State in the late 80s. They both taught what might, in part, be an early version of the Common Core to their students. I also taught math methods beginning in the late 90s and also emphasized such an approach (I also did similar as a K-12 math teacher before moving onto college teaching). There is little 'new' math in the Common Core - perhaps a bit of 'old' math. However, there is a very strong emphasis on kids making sense out of what they are doing (I apologize for being brief, but this is a moment between meetings at a conference devoted to such 'strange' notions as helping kids making sense). There are problems with the Common Core as written down: it is being forced down teachers' throats; it has been tied into high stakes testing (which, by the way, occurs at places in a student's life in Japan); there are some debatable differences in the age sequencing of topics; teachers to be have often not been prepared for such teaching in their college courses; and more. Some of these problems may be ironed out with time; however, the training and culture of teaching (see Jackson and Lortie, even if somewhat dated) in the US is still a bit grim. So a few summary points: Teaching that is, more or less, in sync with the Common Core has been practiced for years in the US. Teacher training that is in sync with the Common Core has been available for years in the US. Lesson study Japanese style may be more possible with an agreed upon core (although one might look to the Netherlands to see what works well for them rather than Japan). An interesting question for those of us who are involved in teacher training might be "Why do so many teachers find the Common Core Standards so threatening - factoring out the forcing and testing)?" What (from the 4th grade standards, for example): ? Use place value understanding and properties of operations to perform multi-digit arithmetic. ? Make sense of problems and persevere in solving them do some elementary teachers find difficult and threatening? Again apologies for being very, very short about a very large and very complex problem. Ed On Jul 28, 2014, at 2:25 PM, Katherine Wester Neal wrote: > What an interesting article! I am thinking about the lack of focus on specific contexts in the article's discussion of teaching and learning to teach as a practicing teacher. Is it possible to go about such change (from "old" math to new math or Common Core math) with little/no consideration for what kinds of teaching might work in a particular school culture or the social context of a given classroom? I think less of a standardized approach (here, everyone do this) and more focus on what works locally (here are some ideas; now decide what might work for you) might help teachers learn to teach Common Core math in a way that actually works in their particular context. To adapt phrase from Magdalene Lampert, it might bring about more sustainable change as they are "re-learning teaching" in their schools. > > Because Common Core math is so different, perhaps this re-learning teaching requires a radical new approach instead of the same old professional development. Learning through the Japanese jugyokenkyu method sounds like it might be very useful, but there doesn't seem to be a push for reforming how teachers learn once they are in the field. (Except that if enough of their students fail the Common Core-aligned tests, they will eventually be out of a job.) > > It seems nonsensical to implement incredibly high-stakes tests without significant investment in re-learning teaching and with, as far as I know, no research on how to learn to teach Common Core as a practicing teacher. I, too, wonder about how these issues are handled in Japan? > > Katie > > Katie Wester-Neal > University of Georgia > ________________________________________ > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Huw Lloyd > Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 12:58 PM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: NYTimes.com: Why Do Americans Stink at Math? > > On 28 July 2014 16:46, Greg Thompson wrote: > [...] > These students had learned >> >> incredibly well how to solve recipe Physics but they had no idea about how >> the basic principles of Physics worked. >> > > Greg, > > I would say the ethics of the situation go deeper than simply (un)learnt > capabilities, but rather to the development of the student's creative > capabilities (or, rather, the stunting of them). > > Best, > Huw From fsulliva@temple.edu Tue Jul 29 09:50:48 2014 From: fsulliva@temple.edu (FRANCIS J. SULLIVAN) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 12:50:48 -0400 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The ideal head In-Reply-To: <53D6DE8C.9040300@mira.net> References: <0ABD8052-EF53-493B-8A8C-E6EC00F0C5FB@gmail.com> <2E240906-B450-4804-93CC-484C6E8F98CA@gmail.com> <2f5893996d844649b529f184da975881@CO1PR02MB175.namprd02.prod.outlook.com> <9910C22A-B9A0-49D9-B3EC-9E51D96CA372@gmail.com> <53D6DE8C.9040300@mira.net> Message-ID: Again, thank you. I am on this list primarily to be educated, and I very much appreciate your help. Francis J. Sullivan, Ph.D. Associate Professor Department of Teaching and Learning College of Education Temple University Philadelphia, PA 19122 Find out what any people will quietly submit to and you have the exact measure of the injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them. Frederick Douglass On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 7:36 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: > Francis, most of the crises which Vygotsky mentions in > http://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/works/1934/problem-age.htm > are associated with childhood before school. (It is an unfinished work). > Andy > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *Andy Blunden* > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > > FRANCIS J. SULLIVAN wrote: > >> ... >> >> >> In any case, I wonder if Vygotsky considered whether schooling itself >> might >> be responsible, at least partly, for the child's apparent alienation from >> schooling at these moments. >> >> Francis J. Sullivan, Ph.D. >> >> > > From ewall@umich.edu Wed Jul 30 05:02:57 2014 From: ewall@umich.edu (Ed Wall) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 08:02:57 -0400 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: NYTimes.com: Why Do Americans Stink at Math? In-Reply-To: <1406571909843.30805@uga.edu> References: <53d5718e.c814e00a.3778.3ba3SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> , <1406571909843.30805@uga.edu> Message-ID: <75FA794D-2E1B-47A5-941F-7EFA1C605559@umich.edu> Perhaps something of interest re this thread. Ed Wall http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/29/opinion/joe-nocera-teaching-teaching.html?_r=0 > Some general comments (and I apologize for being so late to the conversation as I have been out of email contact) > > Magdalen Lampert and Deborah Ball were both at Michigan State in the late 80s. They both taught what might, in part, be an early version of the Common Core to their students. I also taught math methods beginning in the late 90s and also emphasized such an approach (I also did similar as a K-12 math teacher before moving onto college teaching). There is little 'new' math in the Common Core - perhaps a bit of 'old' math. However, there is a very strong emphasis on kids making sense out of what they are doing (I apologize for being brief, but this is a moment between meetings at a conference devoted to such 'strange' notions as helping kids making sense). > > There are problems with the Common Core as written down: it is being forced down teachers' throats; it has been tied into high stakes testing (which, by the way, occurs at places in a student's life in Japan); there are some debatable differences in the age sequencing of topics; teachers to be have often not been prepared for such teaching in their college courses; and more. > > Some of these problems may be ironed out with time; however, the training and culture of teaching (see Jackson and Lortie, even if somewhat dated) in the US is still a bit grim. > > So a few summary points: > > Teaching that is, more or less, in sync with the Common Core has been practiced for years in the US. Teacher training that is in sync with the Common Core has been available for years in the US. Lesson study Japanese style may be more possible with an agreed upon core (although one might look to the Netherlands to see what works well for them rather than Japan). > > An interesting question for those of us who are involved in teacher training might be "Why do so many teachers find the Common Core Standards so threatening - factoring out the forcing and testing)?" What (from the 4th grade standards, for example): > > ? Use place value understanding and properties of operations to perform multi-digit arithmetic. > > ? Make sense of problems and persevere in solving them > > do some elementary teachers find difficult and threatening? > > Again apologies for being very, very short about a very large and very complex problem. > > > Ed > > On Jul 28, 2014, at 2:25 PM, Katherine Wester Neal wrote: > >> What an interesting article! I am thinking about the lack of focus on specific contexts in the article's discussion of teaching and learning to teach as a practicing teacher. Is it possible to go about such change (from "old" math to new math or Common Core math) with little/no consideration for what kinds of teaching might work in a particular school culture or the social context of a given classroom? I think less of a standardized approach (here, everyone do this) and more focus on what works locally (here are some ideas; now decide what might work for you) might help teachers learn to teach Common Core math in a way that actually works in their particular context. To adapt phrase from Magdalene Lampert, it might bring about more sustainable change as they are "re-learning teaching" in their schools. >> >> Because Common Core math is so different, perhaps this re-learning teaching requires a radical new approach instead of the same old professional development. Learning through the Japanese jugyokenkyu method sounds like it might be very useful, but there doesn't seem to be a push for reforming how teachers learn once they are in the field. (Except that if enough of their students fail the Common Core-aligned tests, they will eventually be out of a job.) >> >> It seems nonsensical to implement incredibly high-stakes tests without significant investment in re-learning teaching and with, as far as I know, no research on how to learn to teach Common Core as a practicing teacher. I, too, wonder about how these issues are handled in Japan? >> >> Katie >> >> Katie Wester-Neal >> University of Georgia >> ________________________________________ >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Huw Lloyd >> Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 12:58 PM >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: NYTimes.com: Why Do Americans Stink at Math? >> >> On 28 July 2014 16:46, Greg Thompson wrote: >> [...] >> These students had learned >>> >>> incredibly well how to solve recipe Physics but they had no idea about how >>> the basic principles of Physics worked. >>> >> >> Greg, >> >> I would say the ethics of the situation go deeper than simply (un)learnt >> capabilities, but rather to the development of the student's creative >> capabilities (or, rather, the stunting of them). >> >> Best, >> Huw > From mpacker@uniandes.edu.co Wed Jul 30 05:44:02 2014 From: mpacker@uniandes.edu.co (Martin John Packer) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 12:44:02 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The ideal head In-Reply-To: <53D6DE8C.9040300@mira.net> References: <0ABD8052-EF53-493B-8A8C-E6EC00F0C5FB@gmail.com> <2E240906-B450-4804-93CC-484C6E8F98CA@gmail.com> <2f5893996d844649b529f184da975881@CO1PR02MB175.namprd02.prod.outlook.com> <9910C22A-B9A0-49D9-B3EC-9E51D96CA372@gmail.com> <53D6DE8C.9040300@mira.net> Message-ID: <6709CE6B-1C7F-454C-B320-422335C4D40A@uniandes.edu.co> Though in other texts he wrote of adolescence as such a time of crisis that the whole stage should be considered a transition. In the lectures on child development Vygotsky describes the following crises: Birth: the child is differentiated physically 1 year: the child is differentiated biologically 2.5 years: the child is differentiated psychologically 6 years: inside & outside of self are differentiated 12 years: actual & possible selves are differentiated Martin On Jul 28, 2014, at 6:36 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: > Francis, most of the crises which Vygotsky mentions in > http://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/works/1934/problem-age.htm > are associated with childhood before school. (It is an unfinished work). > Andy > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *Andy Blunden* > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > > FRANCIS J. SULLIVAN wrote: >> ... >> >> In any case, I wonder if Vygotsky considered whether schooling itself might >> be responsible, at least partly, for the child's apparent alienation from >> schooling at these moments. >> >> Francis J. Sullivan, Ph.D. >> > From jgregmcverry@gmail.com Wed Jul 30 06:11:39 2014 From: jgregmcverry@gmail.com (Greg Mcverry) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 09:11:39 -0400 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: Re: Gee, Knowledge, Intelligence and Affinity Spaces In-Reply-To: <53D6A9AB.4090101@gmail.com> References: <53D6A9AB.4090101@gmail.com> Message-ID: Jenna, Thank you. It has been a fun experience in discussing the shift in language. We cut across Twitter, Google plus (the #clmooc), and XMCA. I am stupider without the collective. On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 3:51 PM, Jenna McWilliams wrote: > Greg and all, > I went ahead and emailed the man himself, Jim Gee, to see if he could help > clarify. He wrote the following and gave me permission to share it on the > listserv. > > -- > Jenna McWilliams > Learning Sciences Program, Indiana University > jenmcwil@indiana.edu > > *From:* James Gee >> *Date:* Monday, July 28, 2014 11:42 AM >> *To:* Jenna McWilliams >> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Gee, Knowledge, Intelligence and Affinity Spaces >> Affinity spaces can be seen as about knowledge in that they create it, >> store it, teach it, disseminate it, distribute it, and link to it and >> network with it across other spaces. This is a sort of collective >> intelligence that transcends any one person or group in the Affinity Space. >> The Anti-Education book argues that humans as individuals are stupid and >> ever more dangerous to themselves and others as the world gets ever more >> complex--thus, the need for ethically-driven collective intelligence. >> Earlier work was more focused on Affinity spaces as sites for teaching and >> learning in competition with schools and institutions. >> >> Sent from Windows Mail >> >> >> -- J. Gregory McVerry, PhD Assistant Professor Southern Connecticut State University twitter: jgmac1106 From greg.a.thompson@gmail.com Wed Jul 30 08:33:48 2014 From: greg.a.thompson@gmail.com (Greg Thompson) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 09:33:48 -0600 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: NYTimes.com: Why Do Americans Stink at Math? In-Reply-To: <75FA794D-2E1B-47A5-941F-7EFA1C605559@umich.edu> References: <53d5718e.c814e00a.3778.3ba3SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> <1406571909843.30805@uga.edu> <75FA794D-2E1B-47A5-941F-7EFA1C605559@umich.edu> Message-ID: I was hoping that somebody might be able to comment on the situation of schooling in Japan and whether or not these hypotheses about the Japanese situation of schooling might bear out: 1. Teachers in Japan have time to develop their craft. 600 annual hours of contact time for teachers in Japan vs. 1100 hours of contact time in the U.S. 2. There is an ideology of childhood in Japan that values childhood greatly and treats them as qualitatively distinct beings from adolescents and adults, and thus suggests that they should be protected from the cruel and harsh practice of "testing". But this also means that elementary school teachers are held in high regard. I guess the first seems a bit more factual but the second is more of an hypothesis, but if they bear out as important factors for enabling the kind of learning that Green describes, then it seems to me that even if there were to be a huge push for training teachers in the U.S., teachers would quickly revert to what we currently lament about teaching in the U.S. not because they are bad teachers or don't know how to teach in the more complex manner but rather simply because, with some rare exceptions, it is IMPOSSIBLE to teach in the more desirable manner given the ridiculous amount of contact time and the fact that in the American ideology of childhood, the teaching of children is not valued particularly highly. In light of this, it seems a Sisyphean feat to try to change teachers' teaching practices without changing the cultural context in which those teachers work. And changing cultural contexts is perhaps even more difficult still. Maybe we should stop looking to teaching practices in formal schooling in the U.S. as a site of change? Maybe better to look outside and beyond schools altogether? Too pessimistic? -greg On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 6:02 AM, Ed Wall wrote: > Perhaps something of interest re this thread. > > Ed Wall > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/29/opinion/joe-nocera-teaching-teaching.html?_r=0 > > Some general comments (and I apologize for being so late to the > conversation as I have been out of email contact) > > > > Magdalen Lampert and Deborah Ball were both at Michigan State in the > late 80s. They both taught what might, in part, be an early version of the > Common Core to their students. I also taught math methods beginning in the > late 90s and also emphasized such an approach (I also did similar as a K-12 > math teacher before moving onto college teaching). There is little 'new' > math in the Common Core - perhaps a bit of 'old' math. However, there is a > very strong emphasis on kids making sense out of what they are doing (I > apologize for being brief, but this is a moment between meetings at a > conference devoted to such 'strange' notions as helping kids making sense). > > > > There are problems with the Common Core as written down: it is being > forced down teachers' throats; it has been tied into high stakes testing > (which, by the way, occurs at places in a student's life in Japan); there > are some debatable differences in the age sequencing of topics; teachers to > be have often not been prepared for such teaching in their college courses; > and more. > > > > Some of these problems may be ironed out with time; however, the > training and culture of teaching (see Jackson and Lortie, even if somewhat > dated) in the US is still a bit grim. > > > > So a few summary points: > > > > Teaching that is, more or less, in sync with the Common Core has > been practiced for years in the US. Teacher training that is in sync with > the Common Core has been available for years in the US. Lesson study > Japanese style may be more possible with an agreed upon core (although one > might look to the Netherlands to see what works well for them rather than > Japan). > > > > An interesting question for those of us who are involved in teacher > training might be "Why do so many teachers find the Common Core Standards > so threatening - factoring out the forcing and testing)?" What (from the > 4th grade standards, for example): > > > > ? Use place value understanding and properties of operations to > perform multi-digit arithmetic. > > > > ? Make sense of problems and persevere in solving them > > > > do some elementary teachers find difficult and threatening? > > > > Again apologies for being very, very short about a very large and very > complex problem. > > > > > > Ed > > > > On Jul 28, 2014, at 2:25 PM, Katherine Wester Neal > wrote: > > > >> What an interesting article! I am thinking about the lack of focus on > specific contexts in the article's discussion of teaching and learning to > teach as a practicing teacher. Is it possible to go about such change (from > "old" math to new math or Common Core math) with little/no consideration > for what kinds of teaching might work in a particular school culture or the > social context of a given classroom? I think less of a standardized > approach (here, everyone do this) and more focus on what works locally > (here are some ideas; now decide what might work for you) might help > teachers learn to teach Common Core math in a way that actually works in > their particular context. To adapt phrase from Magdalene Lampert, it might > bring about more sustainable change as they are "re-learning teaching" in > their schools. > >> > >> Because Common Core math is so different, perhaps this re-learning > teaching requires a radical new approach instead of the same old > professional development. Learning through the Japanese jugyokenkyu method > sounds like it might be very useful, but there doesn't seem to be a push > for reforming how teachers learn once they are in the field. (Except that > if enough of their students fail the Common Core-aligned tests, they will > eventually be out of a job.) > >> > >> It seems nonsensical to implement incredibly high-stakes tests without > significant investment in re-learning teaching and with, as far as I know, > no research on how to learn to teach Common Core as a practicing teacher. > I, too, wonder about how these issues are handled in Japan? > >> > >> Katie > >> > >> Katie Wester-Neal > >> University of Georgia > >> ________________________________________ > >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of Huw Lloyd > >> Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 12:58 PM > >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: NYTimes.com: Why Do Americans Stink at Math? > >> > >> On 28 July 2014 16:46, Greg Thompson wrote: > >> [...] > >> These students had learned > >>> > >>> incredibly well how to solve recipe Physics but they had no idea about > how > >>> the basic principles of Physics worked. > >>> > >> > >> Greg, > >> > >> I would say the ethics of the situation go deeper than simply (un)learnt > >> capabilities, but rather to the development of the student's creative > >> capabilities (or, rather, the stunting of them). > >> > >> Best, > >> Huw > > > > -- Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Department of Anthropology 883 Spencer W. Kimball Tower Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602 http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson From smago@uga.edu Wed Jul 30 08:45:30 2014 From: smago@uga.edu (Peter Smagorinsky) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 15:45:30 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: NYTimes.com: Why Do Americans Stink at Math? In-Reply-To: References: <53d5718e.c814e00a.3778.3ba3SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> <1406571909843.30805@uga.edu> <75FA794D-2E1B-47A5-941F-7EFA1C605559@umich.edu> Message-ID: <7d115e892e2b4a399c81dc03cca03c21@CO1PR02MB175.namprd02.prod.outlook.com> Greg, by coincidence, I wrote about this topic in yesterday's Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Bad student writers: You get what you pay for. http://www.ajc.com/weblogs/get-schooled/2014/jul/28/bad-student-writers-you-get-what-you-pay/ -----Original Message----- From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Greg Thompson Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2014 11:34 AM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: NYTimes.com: Why Do Americans Stink at Math? I was hoping that somebody might be able to comment on the situation of schooling in Japan and whether or not these hypotheses about the Japanese situation of schooling might bear out: 1. Teachers in Japan have time to develop their craft. 600 annual hours of contact time for teachers in Japan vs. 1100 hours of contact time in the U.S. 2. There is an ideology of childhood in Japan that values childhood greatly and treats them as qualitatively distinct beings from adolescents and adults, and thus suggests that they should be protected from the cruel and harsh practice of "testing". But this also means that elementary school teachers are held in high regard. I guess the first seems a bit more factual but the second is more of an hypothesis, but if they bear out as important factors for enabling the kind of learning that Green describes, then it seems to me that even if there were to be a huge push for training teachers in the U.S., teachers would quickly revert to what we currently lament about teaching in the U.S. not because they are bad teachers or don't know how to teach in the more complex manner but rather simply because, with some rare exceptions, it is IMPOSSIBLE to teach in the more desirable manner given the ridiculous amount of contact time and the fact that in the American ideology of childhood, the teaching of children is not valued particularly highly. In light of this, it seems a Sisyphean feat to try to change teachers' teaching practices without changing the cultural context in which those teachers work. And changing cultural contexts is perhaps even more difficult still. Maybe we should stop looking to teaching practices in formal schooling in the U.S. as a site of change? Maybe better to look outside and beyond schools altogether? Too pessimistic? -greg On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 6:02 AM, Ed Wall wrote: > Perhaps something of interest re this thread. > > Ed Wall > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/29/opinion/joe-nocera-teaching-teaching > .html?_r=0 > > Some general comments (and I apologize for being so late to the > conversation as I have been out of email contact) > > > > Magdalen Lampert and Deborah Ball were both at Michigan State in the > late 80s. They both taught what might, in part, be an early version of > the Common Core to their students. I also taught math methods > beginning in the late 90s and also emphasized such an approach (I also > did similar as a K-12 math teacher before moving onto college teaching). There is little 'new' > math in the Common Core - perhaps a bit of 'old' math. However, there > is a very strong emphasis on kids making sense out of what they are > doing (I apologize for being brief, but this is a moment between > meetings at a conference devoted to such 'strange' notions as helping kids making sense). > > > > There are problems with the Common Core as written down: it is being > forced down teachers' throats; it has been tied into high stakes > testing (which, by the way, occurs at places in a student's life in > Japan); there are some debatable differences in the age sequencing of > topics; teachers to be have often not been prepared for such teaching > in their college courses; and more. > > > > Some of these problems may be ironed out with time; however, the > training and culture of teaching (see Jackson and Lortie, even if > somewhat > dated) in the US is still a bit grim. > > > > So a few summary points: > > > > Teaching that is, more or less, in sync with the Common Core has > been practiced for years in the US. Teacher training that is in sync > with the Common Core has been available for years in the US. Lesson > study Japanese style may be more possible with an agreed upon core > (although one might look to the Netherlands to see what works well for > them rather than Japan). > > > > An interesting question for those of us who are involved in > > teacher > training might be "Why do so many teachers find the Common Core > Standards so threatening - factoring out the forcing and testing)?" > What (from the 4th grade standards, for example): > > > > ? Use place value understanding and properties of operations > > to > perform multi-digit arithmetic. > > > > ? Make sense of problems and persevere in solving them > > > > do some elementary teachers find difficult and threatening? > > > > Again apologies for being very, very short about a very large and > > very > complex problem. > > > > > > Ed > > > > On Jul 28, 2014, at 2:25 PM, Katherine Wester Neal > wrote: > > > >> What an interesting article! I am thinking about the lack of focus > >> on > specific contexts in the article's discussion of teaching and learning > to teach as a practicing teacher. Is it possible to go about such > change (from "old" math to new math or Common Core math) with > little/no consideration for what kinds of teaching might work in a > particular school culture or the social context of a given classroom? > I think less of a standardized approach (here, everyone do this) and > more focus on what works locally (here are some ideas; now decide what > might work for you) might help teachers learn to teach Common Core > math in a way that actually works in their particular context. To > adapt phrase from Magdalene Lampert, it might bring about more > sustainable change as they are "re-learning teaching" in their schools. > >> > >> Because Common Core math is so different, perhaps this re-learning > teaching requires a radical new approach instead of the same old > professional development. Learning through the Japanese jugyokenkyu > method sounds like it might be very useful, but there doesn't seem to > be a push for reforming how teachers learn once they are in the field. > (Except that if enough of their students fail the Common Core-aligned > tests, they will eventually be out of a job.) > >> > >> It seems nonsensical to implement incredibly high-stakes tests > >> without > significant investment in re-learning teaching and with, as far as I > know, no research on how to learn to teach Common Core as a practicing teacher. > I, too, wonder about how these issues are handled in Japan? > >> > >> Katie > >> > >> Katie Wester-Neal > >> University of Georgia > >> ________________________________________ > >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > >> > on behalf of Huw Lloyd > >> Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 12:58 PM > >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: NYTimes.com: Why Do Americans Stink at Math? > >> > >> On 28 July 2014 16:46, Greg Thompson wrote: > >> [...] > >> These students had learned > >>> > >>> incredibly well how to solve recipe Physics but they had no idea > >>> about > how > >>> the basic principles of Physics worked. > >>> > >> > >> Greg, > >> > >> I would say the ethics of the situation go deeper than simply > >> (un)learnt capabilities, but rather to the development of the > >> student's creative capabilities (or, rather, the stunting of them). > >> > >> Best, > >> Huw > > > > -- Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Department of Anthropology 883 Spencer W. Kimball Tower Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602 http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson From ewall@umich.edu Wed Jul 30 09:11:43 2014 From: ewall@umich.edu (Ed Wall) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 12:11:43 -0400 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: NYTimes.com: Why Do Americans Stink at Math? In-Reply-To: References: <53d5718e.c814e00a.3778.3ba3SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> <1406571909843.30805@uga.edu> <75FA794D-2E1B-47A5-941F-7EFA1C605559@umich.edu> Message-ID: Comments below On Jul 30, 2014, at 11:33 AM, Greg Thompson wrote: > I was hoping that somebody might be able to comment on the situation of > schooling in Japan and whether or not these hypotheses about the Japanese > situation of schooling might bear out: > > 1. Teachers in Japan have time to develop their craft. 600 annual hours of > contact time for teachers in Japan vs. 1100 hours of contact time in the > U.S. Yes > 2. There is an ideology of childhood in Japan that values childhood greatly > and treats them as qualitatively distinct beings from adolescents and > adults, and thus suggests that they should be protected from the cruel and > harsh practice of "testing". But this also means that elementary school > teachers are held in high regard. > Yes. However, it doesn't necessarily follow that this is why elementary school teachers are held in high regard > I guess the first seems a bit more factual but the second is more of an > hypothesis, but if they bear out as important factors for enabling the kind > of learning that Green describes, then it seems to me that even if there > were to be a huge push for training teachers in the U.S., teachers would > quickly revert to what we currently lament about teaching in the U.S. not > because they are bad teachers or don't know how to teach in the more > complex manner but rather simply because, with some rare exceptions, it is > IMPOSSIBLE to teach in the more desirable manner given the ridiculous > amount of contact time and the fact that in the American ideology of > childhood, the teaching of children is not valued particularly highly. > This doesn't follow. It is possible and it is possible in highly urban areas (and I amy misunderstand you use of the word 'rare'). That doesn't mean that it is necessarily valued or supported by the powers-that-be. There are a few more things to add to your facts: There is a national curriculum in Japan and there is a reasonably effective mentoring system (largely teacher instigated). A 'fact' (and perhaps this is anecdotal) is that when it was first realized that some interesting things were happening in Japanese schools (e.g. lesson study), the collegiate Japanese community was caught, to a large degree, unaware. 'Master' lesson are published by teachers. > In light of this, it seems a Sisyphean feat to try to change teachers' > teaching practices without changing the cultural context in which those > teachers work. And changing cultural contexts is perhaps even more > difficult still. > That was why I suggested a look at the Netherlands (which seem to do as well or better than the Japanese). Of course, some of this can still be explained because of cultural differences and how teachers are viewed. > Maybe we should stop looking to teaching practices in formal schooling in > the U.S. as a site of change? > Maybe better to look outside and beyond schools altogether? > Perhaps we should do as you suggest (and, to a limited extent and in a sense, something like this has been done). However, it might also be a good idea to look at teaching practices in a thoughtful way. I have seen very little of this happening over the years. I was just talking to a colleague today and, although we love our work in urban areas, we admit to making only a small dent. We also admit to being underwhelmed by views of education prevalent in many schools of education. It is getting steadily worse. > Too pessimistic? > -greg > > Pessimism is fine, but simply pessimism can be self limiting; however, that is an opinion and not a fact. Ed > > > > > On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 6:02 AM, Ed Wall wrote: > >> Perhaps something of interest re this thread. >> >> Ed Wall >> >> >> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/29/opinion/joe-nocera-teaching-teaching.html?_r=0 >>> Some general comments (and I apologize for being so late to the >> conversation as I have been out of email contact) >>> >>> Magdalen Lampert and Deborah Ball were both at Michigan State in the >> late 80s. They both taught what might, in part, be an early version of the >> Common Core to their students. I also taught math methods beginning in the >> late 90s and also emphasized such an approach (I also did similar as a K-12 >> math teacher before moving onto college teaching). There is little 'new' >> math in the Common Core - perhaps a bit of 'old' math. However, there is a >> very strong emphasis on kids making sense out of what they are doing (I >> apologize for being brief, but this is a moment between meetings at a >> conference devoted to such 'strange' notions as helping kids making sense). >>> >>> There are problems with the Common Core as written down: it is being >> forced down teachers' throats; it has been tied into high stakes testing >> (which, by the way, occurs at places in a student's life in Japan); there >> are some debatable differences in the age sequencing of topics; teachers to >> be have often not been prepared for such teaching in their college courses; >> and more. >>> >>> Some of these problems may be ironed out with time; however, the >> training and culture of teaching (see Jackson and Lortie, even if somewhat >> dated) in the US is still a bit grim. >>> >>> So a few summary points: >>> >>> Teaching that is, more or less, in sync with the Common Core has >> been practiced for years in the US. Teacher training that is in sync with >> the Common Core has been available for years in the US. Lesson study >> Japanese style may be more possible with an agreed upon core (although one >> might look to the Netherlands to see what works well for them rather than >> Japan). >>> >>> An interesting question for those of us who are involved in teacher >> training might be "Why do so many teachers find the Common Core Standards >> so threatening - factoring out the forcing and testing)?" What (from the >> 4th grade standards, for example): >>> >>> ? Use place value understanding and properties of operations to >> perform multi-digit arithmetic. >>> >>> ? Make sense of problems and persevere in solving them >>> >>> do some elementary teachers find difficult and threatening? >>> >>> Again apologies for being very, very short about a very large and very >> complex problem. >>> >>> >>> Ed >>> >>> On Jul 28, 2014, at 2:25 PM, Katherine Wester Neal >> wrote: >>> >>>> What an interesting article! I am thinking about the lack of focus on >> specific contexts in the article's discussion of teaching and learning to >> teach as a practicing teacher. Is it possible to go about such change (from >> "old" math to new math or Common Core math) with little/no consideration >> for what kinds of teaching might work in a particular school culture or the >> social context of a given classroom? I think less of a standardized >> approach (here, everyone do this) and more focus on what works locally >> (here are some ideas; now decide what might work for you) might help >> teachers learn to teach Common Core math in a way that actually works in >> their particular context. To adapt phrase from Magdalene Lampert, it might >> bring about more sustainable change as they are "re-learning teaching" in >> their schools. >>>> >>>> Because Common Core math is so different, perhaps this re-learning >> teaching requires a radical new approach instead of the same old >> professional development. Learning through the Japanese jugyokenkyu method >> sounds like it might be very useful, but there doesn't seem to be a push >> for reforming how teachers learn once they are in the field. (Except that >> if enough of their students fail the Common Core-aligned tests, they will >> eventually be out of a job.) >>>> >>>> It seems nonsensical to implement incredibly high-stakes tests without >> significant investment in re-learning teaching and with, as far as I know, >> no research on how to learn to teach Common Core as a practicing teacher. >> I, too, wonder about how these issues are handled in Japan? >>>> >>>> Katie >>>> >>>> Katie Wester-Neal >>>> University of Georgia >>>> ________________________________________ >>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >> on behalf of Huw Lloyd >>>> Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 12:58 PM >>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: NYTimes.com: Why Do Americans Stink at Math? >>>> >>>> On 28 July 2014 16:46, Greg Thompson wrote: >>>> [...] >>>> These students had learned >>>>> >>>>> incredibly well how to solve recipe Physics but they had no idea about >> how >>>>> the basic principles of Physics worked. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Greg, >>>> >>>> I would say the ethics of the situation go deeper than simply (un)learnt >>>> capabilities, but rather to the development of the student's creative >>>> capabilities (or, rather, the stunting of them). >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> Huw >>> >> >> > > > -- > Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. > Assistant Professor > Department of Anthropology > 883 Spencer W. Kimball Tower > Brigham Young University > Provo, UT 84602 > http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson From greg.a.thompson@gmail.com Wed Jul 30 10:30:03 2014 From: greg.a.thompson@gmail.com (Greg Thompson) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 11:30:03 -0600 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The ideal head In-Reply-To: <6709CE6B-1C7F-454C-B320-422335C4D40A@uniandes.edu.co> References: <0ABD8052-EF53-493B-8A8C-E6EC00F0C5FB@gmail.com> <2E240906-B450-4804-93CC-484C6E8F98CA@gmail.com> <2f5893996d844649b529f184da975881@CO1PR02MB175.namprd02.prod.outlook.com> <9910C22A-B9A0-49D9-B3EC-9E51D96CA372@gmail.com> <53D6DE8C.9040300@mira.net> <6709CE6B-1C7F-454C-B320-422335C4D40A@uniandes.edu.co> Message-ID: Martin, Vygotsky's Problem of Age is a difficult essay. I wonder if you could say a bit more about the crisis at 6 (7,8?) years and the one at 12 years? The others are fairly self explanatory but those two are a bit more complicated. Among other things, it isn't clear what is different about the crisis at 2.5 and the crisis at 6. -greg On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 6:44 AM, Martin John Packer wrote: > Though in other texts he wrote of adolescence as such a time of crisis > that the whole stage should be considered a transition. In the lectures on > child development Vygotsky describes the following crises: > > Birth: the child is differentiated physically > 1 year: the child is differentiated biologically > 2.5 years: the child is differentiated psychologically > 6 years: inside & outside of self are differentiated > 12 years: actual & possible selves are differentiated > > Martin > > On Jul 28, 2014, at 6:36 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: > > > Francis, most of the crises which Vygotsky mentions in > > http://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/works/1934/problem-age.htm > > are associated with childhood before school. (It is an unfinished work). > > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > *Andy Blunden* > > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > > > > > FRANCIS J. SULLIVAN wrote: > >> ... > >> > >> In any case, I wonder if Vygotsky considered whether schooling itself > might > >> be responsible, at least partly, for the child's apparent alienation > from > >> schooling at these moments. > >> > >> Francis J. Sullivan, Ph.D. > >> > > > > > -- Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Department of Anthropology 883 Spencer W. Kimball Tower Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602 http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson From greg.a.thompson@gmail.com Wed Jul 30 10:42:08 2014 From: greg.a.thompson@gmail.com (Greg Thompson) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 11:42:08 -0600 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: NYTimes.com: Why Do Americans Stink at Math? In-Reply-To: References: <53d5718e.c814e00a.3778.3ba3SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> <1406571909843.30805@uga.edu> <75FA794D-2E1B-47A5-941F-7EFA1C605559@umich.edu> Message-ID: Ed, Thanks for this wonderfully thoughtful reply. Very helpful. As for the teaching practices part, I entirely agree about the need for thoughtful attention to teaching practices and agree that great things can be accomplished locally. My sense, though, is that it takes great effort to sustain such smaller scale interventions (i.e. to make more than a dent). With regard to teaching practices, I would think that the way to approach a thoughtful teaching practice would be to start with the real constraints of context that teachers will regularly face and then try and figure out what kinds of teaching can be sustained given those constraints. That's where I'm most pessimistic. It is difficult for me to imagine developing responsible teaching practices that could be sustained on a larger scale given the cultural, institutional, and ideological context of schooling in the U.S. [and I might add that it seems like the history of teaching practice in the U.S. is a history where the same good ideas keep popping up and then fading from sight almost as quickly as they appeared]. But I'm certainly open to ideas/suggestions for thoughtful pedagogical practices that are sustainable in the U.S. formal schooling context. -greg On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 10:11 AM, Ed Wall wrote: > Comments below > > On Jul 30, 2014, at 11:33 AM, Greg Thompson > wrote: > > > I was hoping that somebody might be able to comment on the situation of > > schooling in Japan and whether or not these hypotheses about the Japanese > > situation of schooling might bear out: > > > > 1. Teachers in Japan have time to develop their craft. 600 annual hours > of > > contact time for teachers in Japan vs. 1100 hours of contact time in the > > U.S. > > Yes > > > 2. There is an ideology of childhood in Japan that values childhood > greatly > > and treats them as qualitatively distinct beings from adolescents and > > adults, and thus suggests that they should be protected from the cruel > and > > harsh practice of "testing". But this also means that elementary school > > teachers are held in high regard. > > > > Yes. However, it doesn't necessarily follow that this is why elementary > school teachers are held in high regard > > > I guess the first seems a bit more factual but the second is more of an > > hypothesis, but if they bear out as important factors for enabling the > kind > > of learning that Green describes, then it seems to me that even if there > > were to be a huge push for training teachers in the U.S., teachers would > > quickly revert to what we currently lament about teaching in the U.S. not > > because they are bad teachers or don't know how to teach in the more > > complex manner but rather simply because, with some rare exceptions, it > is > > IMPOSSIBLE to teach in the more desirable manner given the ridiculous > > amount of contact time and the fact that in the American ideology of > > childhood, the teaching of children is not valued particularly highly. > > > > This doesn't follow. It is possible and it is possible in highly urban > areas (and I amy misunderstand you use of the word 'rare'). That doesn't > mean that it is necessarily valued or supported by the powers-that-be. > There are a few more things to add to your facts: There is a national > curriculum in Japan and there is a reasonably effective mentoring system > (largely teacher instigated). A 'fact' (and perhaps this is anecdotal) is > that when it was first realized that some interesting things were happening > in Japanese schools (e.g. lesson study), the collegiate Japanese community > was caught, to a large degree, unaware. 'Master' lesson are published by > teachers. > > > In light of this, it seems a Sisyphean feat to try to change teachers' > > teaching practices without changing the cultural context in which those > > teachers work. And changing cultural contexts is perhaps even more > > difficult still. > > > > That was why I suggested a look at the Netherlands (which seem to do as > well or better than the Japanese). Of course, some of this can still be > explained because of cultural differences and how teachers are viewed. > > > Maybe we should stop looking to teaching practices in formal schooling in > > the U.S. as a site of change? > > Maybe better to look outside and beyond schools altogether? > > > > Perhaps we should do as you suggest (and, to a limited extent and in a > sense, something like this has been done). However, it might also be a good > idea to look at teaching practices in a thoughtful way. I have seen very > little of this happening over the years. I was just talking to a colleague > today and, although we love our work in urban areas, we admit to making > only a small dent. We also admit to being underwhelmed by views of > education prevalent in many schools of education. It is getting steadily > worse. > > > > Too pessimistic? > > -greg > > > > > > Pessimism is fine, but simply pessimism can be self limiting; however, > that is an opinion and not a fact. > > Ed > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 6:02 AM, Ed Wall wrote: > > > >> Perhaps something of interest re this thread. > >> > >> Ed Wall > >> > >> > >> > http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/29/opinion/joe-nocera-teaching-teaching.html?_r=0 > >>> Some general comments (and I apologize for being so late to the > >> conversation as I have been out of email contact) > >>> > >>> Magdalen Lampert and Deborah Ball were both at Michigan State in the > >> late 80s. They both taught what might, in part, be an early version of > the > >> Common Core to their students. I also taught math methods beginning in > the > >> late 90s and also emphasized such an approach (I also did similar as a > K-12 > >> math teacher before moving onto college teaching). There is little 'new' > >> math in the Common Core - perhaps a bit of 'old' math. However, there > is a > >> very strong emphasis on kids making sense out of what they are doing (I > >> apologize for being brief, but this is a moment between meetings at a > >> conference devoted to such 'strange' notions as helping kids making > sense). > >>> > >>> There are problems with the Common Core as written down: it is being > >> forced down teachers' throats; it has been tied into high stakes testing > >> (which, by the way, occurs at places in a student's life in Japan); > there > >> are some debatable differences in the age sequencing of topics; > teachers to > >> be have often not been prepared for such teaching in their college > courses; > >> and more. > >>> > >>> Some of these problems may be ironed out with time; however, the > >> training and culture of teaching (see Jackson and Lortie, even if > somewhat > >> dated) in the US is still a bit grim. > >>> > >>> So a few summary points: > >>> > >>> Teaching that is, more or less, in sync with the Common Core has > >> been practiced for years in the US. Teacher training that is in sync > with > >> the Common Core has been available for years in the US. Lesson study > >> Japanese style may be more possible with an agreed upon core (although > one > >> might look to the Netherlands to see what works well for them rather > than > >> Japan). > >>> > >>> An interesting question for those of us who are involved in teacher > >> training might be "Why do so many teachers find the Common Core > Standards > >> so threatening - factoring out the forcing and testing)?" What (from the > >> 4th grade standards, for example): > >>> > >>> ? Use place value understanding and properties of operations to > >> perform multi-digit arithmetic. > >>> > >>> ? Make sense of problems and persevere in solving them > >>> > >>> do some elementary teachers find difficult and threatening? > >>> > >>> Again apologies for being very, very short about a very large and very > >> complex problem. > >>> > >>> > >>> Ed > >>> > >>> On Jul 28, 2014, at 2:25 PM, Katherine Wester Neal > >> wrote: > >>> > >>>> What an interesting article! I am thinking about the lack of focus on > >> specific contexts in the article's discussion of teaching and learning > to > >> teach as a practicing teacher. Is it possible to go about such change > (from > >> "old" math to new math or Common Core math) with little/no consideration > >> for what kinds of teaching might work in a particular school culture or > the > >> social context of a given classroom? I think less of a standardized > >> approach (here, everyone do this) and more focus on what works locally > >> (here are some ideas; now decide what might work for you) might help > >> teachers learn to teach Common Core math in a way that actually works in > >> their particular context. To adapt phrase from Magdalene Lampert, it > might > >> bring about more sustainable change as they are "re-learning teaching" > in > >> their schools. > >>>> > >>>> Because Common Core math is so different, perhaps this re-learning > >> teaching requires a radical new approach instead of the same old > >> professional development. Learning through the Japanese jugyokenkyu > method > >> sounds like it might be very useful, but there doesn't seem to be a push > >> for reforming how teachers learn once they are in the field. (Except > that > >> if enough of their students fail the Common Core-aligned tests, they > will > >> eventually be out of a job.) > >>>> > >>>> It seems nonsensical to implement incredibly high-stakes tests without > >> significant investment in re-learning teaching and with, as far as I > know, > >> no research on how to learn to teach Common Core as a practicing > teacher. > >> I, too, wonder about how these issues are handled in Japan? > >>>> > >>>> Katie > >>>> > >>>> Katie Wester-Neal > >>>> University of Georgia > >>>> ________________________________________ > >>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu < > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> > >> on behalf of Huw Lloyd > >>>> Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 12:58 PM > >>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > >>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: NYTimes.com: Why Do Americans Stink at > Math? > >>>> > >>>> On 28 July 2014 16:46, Greg Thompson > wrote: > >>>> [...] > >>>> These students had learned > >>>>> > >>>>> incredibly well how to solve recipe Physics but they had no idea > about > >> how > >>>>> the basic principles of Physics worked. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> Greg, > >>>> > >>>> I would say the ethics of the situation go deeper than simply > (un)learnt > >>>> capabilities, but rather to the development of the student's creative > >>>> capabilities (or, rather, the stunting of them). > >>>> > >>>> Best, > >>>> Huw > >>> > >> > >> > > > > > > -- > > Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. > > Assistant Professor > > Department of Anthropology > > 883 Spencer W. Kimball Tower > > Brigham Young University > > Provo, UT 84602 > > http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson > > > -- Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Department of Anthropology 883 Spencer W. Kimball Tower Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602 http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson From lchcmike@gmail.com Wed Jul 30 11:05:02 2014 From: lchcmike@gmail.com (mike cole) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 11:05:02 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: NYTimes.com: Why Do Americans Stink at Math? In-Reply-To: References: <53d5718e.c814e00a.3778.3ba3SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> <1406571909843.30805@uga.edu> <75FA794D-2E1B-47A5-941F-7EFA1C605559@umich.edu> Message-ID: I second Greg's appreciation of your comments, Ed. Briefly I want to introduce a slightly different aspect of the problem that I do not recall see being discussed -- PARENTAL objections to core standards. My take here is that the parents of the kids are themselves so heavily socialized to non-mindful teaching/learning of math that they not only cannot fully interpret the problems the kids are asked to solve, but they cannot even begin to formulate new ways of thinking about ingrained, taken-for-granted procedures they have learned. So their kids get bad grades and complain and they themselves complain because it seems like the teachers are doing a bad job (for reasons that have been discussed here). I see this problem a lot when my undergrads are helping 4-6th graders with their homework (never mind middle school or high schoolers). The undergrads have learned an amazing array of shortcuts for figuring out answers to already-quantified questions, but they get blown away if you ask, for example "Why do you invert and multiply when dividing a fraction by another fraction." And lets not exempt participants in XMCA. Check out the lengthy discussion in 2006 (June I believe, you can find it by googling the lchc site) of "why is a minus times a minus a plus and a minus times a plus a minus." Someone could get a neat publication (MCA would be glad to consider such a paper!) simply by analysing the fumbling discussion. There is a very long history of recognition of this general problem as has been pointed out. It is very difficult, and requires a well trained teacher, to engage in non-rote, non low level comprehension teaching practices given the impeding factors discussed here. Those who manage to do it deserve our deepest respect. mike On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 10:42 AM, Greg Thompson wrote: > Ed, > Thanks for this wonderfully thoughtful reply. Very helpful. > > As for the teaching practices part, I entirely agree about the need for > thoughtful attention to teaching practices and agree that great things can > be accomplished locally. My sense, though, is that it takes great effort to > sustain such smaller scale interventions (i.e. to make more than a dent). > With regard to teaching practices, I would think that the way to approach a > thoughtful teaching practice would be to start with the real constraints of > context that teachers will regularly face and then try and figure out what > kinds of teaching can be sustained given those constraints. > > That's where I'm most pessimistic. It is difficult for me to imagine > developing responsible teaching practices that could be sustained on a > larger scale given the cultural, institutional, and ideological context of > schooling in the U.S. [and I might add that it seems like the history of > teaching practice in the U.S. is a history where the same good ideas keep > popping up and then fading from sight almost as quickly as they appeared]. > > But I'm certainly open to ideas/suggestions for thoughtful pedagogical > practices that are sustainable in the U.S. formal schooling context. > > -greg > > > On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 10:11 AM, Ed Wall wrote: > > > Comments below > > > > On Jul 30, 2014, at 11:33 AM, Greg Thompson > > wrote: > > > > > I was hoping that somebody might be able to comment on the situation of > > > schooling in Japan and whether or not these hypotheses about the > Japanese > > > situation of schooling might bear out: > > > > > > 1. Teachers in Japan have time to develop their craft. 600 annual hours > > of > > > contact time for teachers in Japan vs. 1100 hours of contact time in > the > > > U.S. > > > > Yes > > > > > 2. There is an ideology of childhood in Japan that values childhood > > greatly > > > and treats them as qualitatively distinct beings from adolescents and > > > adults, and thus suggests that they should be protected from the cruel > > and > > > harsh practice of "testing". But this also means that elementary school > > > teachers are held in high regard. > > > > > > > Yes. However, it doesn't necessarily follow that this is why elementary > > school teachers are held in high regard > > > > > I guess the first seems a bit more factual but the second is more of an > > > hypothesis, but if they bear out as important factors for enabling the > > kind > > > of learning that Green describes, then it seems to me that even if > there > > > were to be a huge push for training teachers in the U.S., teachers > would > > > quickly revert to what we currently lament about teaching in the U.S. > not > > > because they are bad teachers or don't know how to teach in the more > > > complex manner but rather simply because, with some rare exceptions, it > > is > > > IMPOSSIBLE to teach in the more desirable manner given the ridiculous > > > amount of contact time and the fact that in the American ideology of > > > childhood, the teaching of children is not valued particularly highly. > > > > > > > This doesn't follow. It is possible and it is possible in highly urban > > areas (and I amy misunderstand you use of the word 'rare'). That doesn't > > mean that it is necessarily valued or supported by the powers-that-be. > > There are a few more things to add to your facts: There is a national > > curriculum in Japan and there is a reasonably effective mentoring system > > (largely teacher instigated). A 'fact' (and perhaps this is anecdotal) is > > that when it was first realized that some interesting things were > happening > > in Japanese schools (e.g. lesson study), the collegiate Japanese > community > > was caught, to a large degree, unaware. 'Master' lesson are published by > > teachers. > > > > > In light of this, it seems a Sisyphean feat to try to change teachers' > > > teaching practices without changing the cultural context in which those > > > teachers work. And changing cultural contexts is perhaps even more > > > difficult still. > > > > > > > That was why I suggested a look at the Netherlands (which seem to do as > > well or better than the Japanese). Of course, some of this can still be > > explained because of cultural differences and how teachers are viewed. > > > > > Maybe we should stop looking to teaching practices in formal schooling > in > > > the U.S. as a site of change? > > > Maybe better to look outside and beyond schools altogether? > > > > > > > Perhaps we should do as you suggest (and, to a limited extent and in a > > sense, something like this has been done). However, it might also be a > good > > idea to look at teaching practices in a thoughtful way. I have seen very > > little of this happening over the years. I was just talking to a > colleague > > today and, although we love our work in urban areas, we admit to making > > only a small dent. We also admit to being underwhelmed by views of > > education prevalent in many schools of education. It is getting steadily > > worse. > > > > > > > Too pessimistic? > > > -greg > > > > > > > > > > Pessimism is fine, but simply pessimism can be self limiting; however, > > that is an opinion and not a fact. > > > > Ed > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 6:02 AM, Ed Wall wrote: > > > > > >> Perhaps something of interest re this thread. > > >> > > >> Ed Wall > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/29/opinion/joe-nocera-teaching-teaching.html?_r=0 > > >>> Some general comments (and I apologize for being so late to the > > >> conversation as I have been out of email contact) > > >>> > > >>> Magdalen Lampert and Deborah Ball were both at Michigan State in the > > >> late 80s. They both taught what might, in part, be an early version of > > the > > >> Common Core to their students. I also taught math methods beginning in > > the > > >> late 90s and also emphasized such an approach (I also did similar as a > > K-12 > > >> math teacher before moving onto college teaching). There is little > 'new' > > >> math in the Common Core - perhaps a bit of 'old' math. However, there > > is a > > >> very strong emphasis on kids making sense out of what they are doing > (I > > >> apologize for being brief, but this is a moment between meetings at a > > >> conference devoted to such 'strange' notions as helping kids making > > sense). > > >>> > > >>> There are problems with the Common Core as written down: it is being > > >> forced down teachers' throats; it has been tied into high stakes > testing > > >> (which, by the way, occurs at places in a student's life in Japan); > > there > > >> are some debatable differences in the age sequencing of topics; > > teachers to > > >> be have often not been prepared for such teaching in their college > > courses; > > >> and more. > > >>> > > >>> Some of these problems may be ironed out with time; however, the > > >> training and culture of teaching (see Jackson and Lortie, even if > > somewhat > > >> dated) in the US is still a bit grim. > > >>> > > >>> So a few summary points: > > >>> > > >>> Teaching that is, more or less, in sync with the Common Core has > > >> been practiced for years in the US. Teacher training that is in sync > > with > > >> the Common Core has been available for years in the US. Lesson study > > >> Japanese style may be more possible with an agreed upon core (although > > one > > >> might look to the Netherlands to see what works well for them rather > > than > > >> Japan). > > >>> > > >>> An interesting question for those of us who are involved in > teacher > > >> training might be "Why do so many teachers find the Common Core > > Standards > > >> so threatening - factoring out the forcing and testing)?" What (from > the > > >> 4th grade standards, for example): > > >>> > > >>> ? Use place value understanding and properties of operations to > > >> perform multi-digit arithmetic. > > >>> > > >>> ? Make sense of problems and persevere in solving them > > >>> > > >>> do some elementary teachers find difficult and threatening? > > >>> > > >>> Again apologies for being very, very short about a very large and > very > > >> complex problem. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Ed > > >>> > > >>> On Jul 28, 2014, at 2:25 PM, Katherine Wester Neal > > >> wrote: > > >>> > > >>>> What an interesting article! I am thinking about the lack of focus > on > > >> specific contexts in the article's discussion of teaching and learning > > to > > >> teach as a practicing teacher. Is it possible to go about such change > > (from > > >> "old" math to new math or Common Core math) with little/no > consideration > > >> for what kinds of teaching might work in a particular school culture > or > > the > > >> social context of a given classroom? I think less of a standardized > > >> approach (here, everyone do this) and more focus on what works locally > > >> (here are some ideas; now decide what might work for you) might help > > >> teachers learn to teach Common Core math in a way that actually works > in > > >> their particular context. To adapt phrase from Magdalene Lampert, it > > might > > >> bring about more sustainable change as they are "re-learning teaching" > > in > > >> their schools. > > >>>> > > >>>> Because Common Core math is so different, perhaps this re-learning > > >> teaching requires a radical new approach instead of the same old > > >> professional development. Learning through the Japanese jugyokenkyu > > method > > >> sounds like it might be very useful, but there doesn't seem to be a > push > > >> for reforming how teachers learn once they are in the field. (Except > > that > > >> if enough of their students fail the Common Core-aligned tests, they > > will > > >> eventually be out of a job.) > > >>>> > > >>>> It seems nonsensical to implement incredibly high-stakes tests > without > > >> significant investment in re-learning teaching and with, as far as I > > know, > > >> no research on how to learn to teach Common Core as a practicing > > teacher. > > >> I, too, wonder about how these issues are handled in Japan? > > >>>> > > >>>> Katie > > >>>> > > >>>> Katie Wester-Neal > > >>>> University of Georgia > > >>>> ________________________________________ > > >>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu < > > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> > > >> on behalf of Huw Lloyd > > >>>> Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 12:58 PM > > >>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > >>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: NYTimes.com: Why Do Americans Stink at > > Math? > > >>>> > > >>>> On 28 July 2014 16:46, Greg Thompson > > wrote: > > >>>> [...] > > >>>> These students had learned > > >>>>> > > >>>>> incredibly well how to solve recipe Physics but they had no idea > > about > > >> how > > >>>>> the basic principles of Physics worked. > > >>>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> Greg, > > >>>> > > >>>> I would say the ethics of the situation go deeper than simply > > (un)learnt > > >>>> capabilities, but rather to the development of the student's > creative > > >>>> capabilities (or, rather, the stunting of them). > > >>>> > > >>>> Best, > > >>>> Huw > > >>> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. > > > Assistant Professor > > > Department of Anthropology > > > 883 Spencer W. Kimball Tower > > > Brigham Young University > > > Provo, UT 84602 > > > http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson > > > > > > > > > -- > Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. > Assistant Professor > Department of Anthropology > 883 Spencer W. Kimball Tower > Brigham Young University > Provo, UT 84602 > http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson > From h2cmng@yahoo.co.uk Wed Jul 30 11:20:30 2014 From: h2cmng@yahoo.co.uk (peter jones) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 19:20:30 +0100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The ideal head In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <1406744430.27578.YahooMailBasic@web171505.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> The one at 2-2.5 is easy - "terrible twos"? :-) Is this just a myth though? More seriously, there do appear to developmental milestones however: Use of and ambivalence in Yes / No? Regards, Peter (father of three) ------------------------------- Peter Jones Lancashire, UK Blogging at "Welcome to the QUAD" http://hodges-model.blogspot.com/ h2cm: help 2C more - help 2 listen - help 2 care http://twitter.com/h2cm -------------------------------------------- On Wed, 30/7/14, Greg Thompson wrote: Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The ideal head To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" Date: Wednesday, 30 July, 2014, 18:30 Martin, Vygotsky's Problem of Age is a difficult essay. I wonder if you could say a bit more about the crisis at 6 (7,8?) years and the one at 12 years? The others are fairly self explanatory but those two are a bit more complicated. Among other things, it isn't clear what is different about the crisis at 2.5 and the crisis at 6. -greg On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 6:44 AM, Martin John Packer wrote: > Though in other texts he wrote of adolescence as such a time of crisis > that the whole stage should be considered a transition. In the lectures on > child development Vygotsky describes the following crises: > > Birth: the child is differentiated physically > 1 year: the child is differentiated biologically > 2.5 years: the child is differentiated psychologically > 6 years: inside & outside of self are differentiated > 12 years: actual & possible selves are differentiated > > Martin > > On Jul 28, 2014, at 6:36 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: > > > Francis, most of the crises which Vygotsky mentions in > > http://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/works/1934/problem-age.htm > > are associated with childhood before school. (It is an unfinished work). > > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > *Andy Blunden* > > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > > > > > FRANCIS J. SULLIVAN wrote: > >> ... > >> > >> In any case, I wonder if Vygotsky considered whether schooling itself > might > >> be responsible, at least partly, for the child's apparent alienation > from > >> schooling at these moments. > >> > >> Francis J. Sullivan, Ph.D. > >> > > > > > -- Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Department of Anthropology 883 Spencer W. Kimball Tower Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602 http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson From carolmacdon@gmail.com Wed Jul 30 11:54:36 2014 From: carolmacdon@gmail.com (Carol Macdonald) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 20:54:36 +0200 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: NYTimes.com: Why Do Americans Stink at Math? In-Reply-To: References: <53d5718e.c814e00a.3778.3ba3SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> <1406571909843.30805@uga.edu> <75FA794D-2E1B-47A5-941F-7EFA1C605559@umich.edu> Message-ID: Hi Mike et al I know the answers to those maths conundra - we had a math teacher in high school who showed us, and would love to write that paper, thanks, but that's not the point. The point us cultural - imagine the loss of face on the 5th D. Older, smarter university students lose face (and so do XMCA'ers). Quickness is highly valued, and correct answers. What about wait time? If you value right answers and quick answers you don't develop a problem-solving orientation. Other cultures favour thoughtfulness and wisdom. I know African cultures favour this but then they don't get high scores on international tests either, so we need another culture to speak to us here. And then in Finnish primary school classrooms, children have 15 minutes to go out and play every 45 minutes. Just do the math on that for less class time. Japanese teacher teach their students to do *all *the regular stuff, and then they stand alongside them while they try to do harder stuff. Everybody gets smarter and the students more confident and still respectful. In a classroom where the teacher has to be quick and correct sets the teacher up in an adversarial relationship with their students. They have to perform. Kids are rude to them, and parents are too. An attitude to knowledge and knowledge formation and display must go a long way to explaining differences. And all those bracing runs in the snow :)) Now its nearly 9 pm here and the folk in Oz fast asleep so we will leave the discussion to those on the West Coast. (I claim forbearance for thinking in the evening.) Carol On 30 July 2014 20:05, mike cole wrote: > I second Greg's appreciation of your comments, Ed. > > Briefly I want to introduce a slightly different aspect of the problem that > I do not recall see being discussed -- PARENTAL objections to core > standards. > > My take here is that the parents of the kids are themselves so heavily > socialized to non-mindful teaching/learning of math that they not only > cannot fully interpret the problems the kids are asked to solve, but they > cannot even begin to formulate new ways of thinking about ingrained, > taken-for-granted procedures they have learned. So their kids get bad > grades and complain and they themselves complain because it seems like the > teachers are doing a bad job (for reasons that have been discussed here). > > I see this problem a lot when my undergrads are helping 4-6th graders with > their homework (never mind middle school or high schoolers). The undergrads > have learned an amazing array of shortcuts for figuring out answers to > already-quantified questions, but they get blown away if you ask, for > example > "Why do you invert and multiply when dividing a fraction by another > fraction." > > And lets not exempt participants in XMCA. Check out the lengthy discussion > in 2006 (June I believe, you can find it by googling the lchc site) of "why > is a minus times a minus a plus and a minus times a plus a minus." Someone > could get a neat publication (MCA would be glad to consider such a paper!) > simply by analysing the fumbling discussion. > > There is a very long history of recognition of this general problem as has > been pointed out. It is very difficult, and requires a well trained > teacher, to engage in non-rote, non low level comprehension teaching > practices given the impeding factors discussed here. Those who manage to do > it deserve our deepest respect. > > mike > > > > On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 10:42 AM, Greg Thompson > > wrote: > > > Ed, > > Thanks for this wonderfully thoughtful reply. Very helpful. > > > > As for the teaching practices part, I entirely agree about the need for > > thoughtful attention to teaching practices and agree that great things > can > > be accomplished locally. My sense, though, is that it takes great effort > to > > sustain such smaller scale interventions (i.e. to make more than a dent). > > With regard to teaching practices, I would think that the way to > approach a > > thoughtful teaching practice would be to start with the real constraints > of > > context that teachers will regularly face and then try and figure out > what > > kinds of teaching can be sustained given those constraints. > > > > That's where I'm most pessimistic. It is difficult for me to imagine > > developing responsible teaching practices that could be sustained on a > > larger scale given the cultural, institutional, and ideological context > of > > schooling in the U.S. [and I might add that it seems like the history of > > teaching practice in the U.S. is a history where the same good ideas keep > > popping up and then fading from sight almost as quickly as they > appeared]. > > > > But I'm certainly open to ideas/suggestions for thoughtful pedagogical > > practices that are sustainable in the U.S. formal schooling context. > > > > -greg > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 10:11 AM, Ed Wall wrote: > > > > > Comments below > > > > > > On Jul 30, 2014, at 11:33 AM, Greg Thompson > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > I was hoping that somebody might be able to comment on the situation > of > > > > schooling in Japan and whether or not these hypotheses about the > > Japanese > > > > situation of schooling might bear out: > > > > > > > > 1. Teachers in Japan have time to develop their craft. 600 annual > hours > > > of > > > > contact time for teachers in Japan vs. 1100 hours of contact time in > > the > > > > U.S. > > > > > > Yes > > > > > > > 2. There is an ideology of childhood in Japan that values childhood > > > greatly > > > > and treats them as qualitatively distinct beings from adolescents and > > > > adults, and thus suggests that they should be protected from the > cruel > > > and > > > > harsh practice of "testing". But this also means that elementary > school > > > > teachers are held in high regard. > > > > > > > > > > Yes. However, it doesn't necessarily follow that this is why elementary > > > school teachers are held in high regard > > > > > > > I guess the first seems a bit more factual but the second is more of > an > > > > hypothesis, but if they bear out as important factors for enabling > the > > > kind > > > > of learning that Green describes, then it seems to me that even if > > there > > > > were to be a huge push for training teachers in the U.S., teachers > > would > > > > quickly revert to what we currently lament about teaching in the U.S. > > not > > > > because they are bad teachers or don't know how to teach in the more > > > > complex manner but rather simply because, with some rare exceptions, > it > > > is > > > > IMPOSSIBLE to teach in the more desirable manner given the ridiculous > > > > amount of contact time and the fact that in the American ideology of > > > > childhood, the teaching of children is not valued particularly > highly. > > > > > > > > > > This doesn't follow. It is possible and it is possible in highly urban > > > areas (and I amy misunderstand you use of the word 'rare'). That > doesn't > > > mean that it is necessarily valued or supported by the powers-that-be. > > > There are a few more things to add to your facts: There is a national > > > curriculum in Japan and there is a reasonably effective mentoring > system > > > (largely teacher instigated). A 'fact' (and perhaps this is anecdotal) > is > > > that when it was first realized that some interesting things were > > happening > > > in Japanese schools (e.g. lesson study), the collegiate Japanese > > community > > > was caught, to a large degree, unaware. 'Master' lesson are published > by > > > teachers. > > > > > > > In light of this, it seems a Sisyphean feat to try to change > teachers' > > > > teaching practices without changing the cultural context in which > those > > > > teachers work. And changing cultural contexts is perhaps even more > > > > difficult still. > > > > > > > > > > That was why I suggested a look at the Netherlands (which seem to do as > > > well or better than the Japanese). Of course, some of this can still be > > > explained because of cultural differences and how teachers are viewed. > > > > > > > Maybe we should stop looking to teaching practices in formal > schooling > > in > > > > the U.S. as a site of change? > > > > Maybe better to look outside and beyond schools altogether? > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps we should do as you suggest (and, to a limited extent and in a > > > sense, something like this has been done). However, it might also be a > > good > > > idea to look at teaching practices in a thoughtful way. I have seen > very > > > little of this happening over the years. I was just talking to a > > colleague > > > today and, although we love our work in urban areas, we admit to making > > > only a small dent. We also admit to being underwhelmed by views of > > > education prevalent in many schools of education. It is getting > steadily > > > worse. > > > > > > > > > > Too pessimistic? > > > > -greg > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pessimism is fine, but simply pessimism can be self limiting; however, > > > that is an opinion and not a fact. > > > > > > Ed > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 6:02 AM, Ed Wall wrote: > > > > > > > >> Perhaps something of interest re this thread. > > > >> > > > >> Ed Wall > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/29/opinion/joe-nocera-teaching-teaching.html?_r=0 > > > >>> Some general comments (and I apologize for being so late to the > > > >> conversation as I have been out of email contact) > > > >>> > > > >>> Magdalen Lampert and Deborah Ball were both at Michigan State in > the > > > >> late 80s. They both taught what might, in part, be an early version > of > > > the > > > >> Common Core to their students. I also taught math methods beginning > in > > > the > > > >> late 90s and also emphasized such an approach (I also did similar > as a > > > K-12 > > > >> math teacher before moving onto college teaching). There is little > > 'new' > > > >> math in the Common Core - perhaps a bit of 'old' math. However, > there > > > is a > > > >> very strong emphasis on kids making sense out of what they are doing > > (I > > > >> apologize for being brief, but this is a moment between meetings at > a > > > >> conference devoted to such 'strange' notions as helping kids making > > > sense). > > > >>> > > > >>> There are problems with the Common Core as written down: it is > being > > > >> forced down teachers' throats; it has been tied into high stakes > > testing > > > >> (which, by the way, occurs at places in a student's life in Japan); > > > there > > > >> are some debatable differences in the age sequencing of topics; > > > teachers to > > > >> be have often not been prepared for such teaching in their college > > > courses; > > > >> and more. > > > >>> > > > >>> Some of these problems may be ironed out with time; however, the > > > >> training and culture of teaching (see Jackson and Lortie, even if > > > somewhat > > > >> dated) in the US is still a bit grim. > > > >>> > > > >>> So a few summary points: > > > >>> > > > >>> Teaching that is, more or less, in sync with the Common Core has > > > >> been practiced for years in the US. Teacher training that is in sync > > > with > > > >> the Common Core has been available for years in the US. Lesson study > > > >> Japanese style may be more possible with an agreed upon core > (although > > > one > > > >> might look to the Netherlands to see what works well for them rather > > > than > > > >> Japan). > > > >>> > > > >>> An interesting question for those of us who are involved in > > teacher > > > >> training might be "Why do so many teachers find the Common Core > > > Standards > > > >> so threatening - factoring out the forcing and testing)?" What (from > > the > > > >> 4th grade standards, for example): > > > >>> > > > >>> * Use place value understanding and properties of operations > to > > > >> perform multi-digit arithmetic. > > > >>> > > > >>> * Make sense of problems and persevere in solving them > > > >>> > > > >>> do some elementary teachers find difficult and threatening? > > > >>> > > > >>> Again apologies for being very, very short about a very large and > > very > > > >> complex problem. > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> Ed > > > >>> > > > >>> On Jul 28, 2014, at 2:25 PM, Katherine Wester Neal > > > > >> wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>>> What an interesting article! I am thinking about the lack of focus > > on > > > >> specific contexts in the article's discussion of teaching and > learning > > > to > > > >> teach as a practicing teacher. Is it possible to go about such > change > > > (from > > > >> "old" math to new math or Common Core math) with little/no > > consideration > > > >> for what kinds of teaching might work in a particular school culture > > or > > > the > > > >> social context of a given classroom? I think less of a standardized > > > >> approach (here, everyone do this) and more focus on what works > locally > > > >> (here are some ideas; now decide what might work for you) might help > > > >> teachers learn to teach Common Core math in a way that actually > works > > in > > > >> their particular context. To adapt phrase from Magdalene Lampert, it > > > might > > > >> bring about more sustainable change as they are "re-learning > teaching" > > > in > > > >> their schools. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Because Common Core math is so different, perhaps this re-learning > > > >> teaching requires a radical new approach instead of the same old > > > >> professional development. Learning through the Japanese jugyokenkyu > > > method > > > >> sounds like it might be very useful, but there doesn't seem to be a > > push > > > >> for reforming how teachers learn once they are in the field. (Except > > > that > > > >> if enough of their students fail the Common Core-aligned tests, they > > > will > > > >> eventually be out of a job.) > > > >>>> > > > >>>> It seems nonsensical to implement incredibly high-stakes tests > > without > > > >> significant investment in re-learning teaching and with, as far as I > > > know, > > > >> no research on how to learn to teach Common Core as a practicing > > > teacher. > > > >> I, too, wonder about how these issues are handled in Japan? > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Katie > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Katie Wester-Neal > > > >>>> University of Georgia > > > >>>> ________________________________________ > > > >>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu < > > > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> > > > >> on behalf of Huw Lloyd > > > >>>> Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 12:58 PM > > > >>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > > >>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: NYTimes.com: Why Do Americans Stink at > > > Math? > > > >>>> > > > >>>> On 28 July 2014 16:46, Greg Thompson > > > wrote: > > > >>>> [...] > > > >>>> These students had learned > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> incredibly well how to solve recipe Physics but they had no idea > > > about > > > >> how > > > >>>>> the basic principles of Physics worked. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Greg, > > > >>>> > > > >>>> I would say the ethics of the situation go deeper than simply > > > (un)learnt > > > >>>> capabilities, but rather to the development of the student's > > creative > > > >>>> capabilities (or, rather, the stunting of them). > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Best, > > > >>>> Huw > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. > > > > Assistant Professor > > > > Department of Anthropology > > > > 883 Spencer W. Kimball Tower > > > > Brigham Young University > > > > Provo, UT 84602 > > > > http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. > > Assistant Professor > > Department of Anthropology > > 883 Spencer W. Kimball Tower > > Brigham Young University > > Provo, UT 84602 > > http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson > > > -- Carol A Macdonald Ph D (Edin) Developmental psycholinguist Academic, Researcher, and Editor Honorary Research Fellow: Department of Linguistics, Unisa From ewall@umich.edu Wed Jul 30 12:00:01 2014 From: ewall@umich.edu (Ed Wall) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 15:00:01 -0400 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: NYTimes.com: Why Do Americans Stink at Math? In-Reply-To: References: <53d5718e.c814e00a.3778.3ba3SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> <1406571909843.30805@uga.edu> <75FA794D-2E1B-47A5-941F-7EFA1C605559@umich.edu> Message-ID: <022EE4B2-8F70-4DA7-9D00-63CBD7B67D80@umich.edu> Greg I agree with much of what you write below. However, there may be a disjunct between what you think is happening (and in many instances I agree with you) and the shape of the denting I am speaking about. I begin my methods courses talking about the commitments I bring to teaching (stressing they are mine and that teachers and pre-service teachers are welcome to push back) 1. I believe in promoting collective student and teacher engagement i(and I meant both!) 2. I believe in having students do substantial mathematical work (and that is where the constraints of the context can come into play - don't necessarily read into this 'new math' or tedious computations) 3. I believe in taking my students? thinking seriously (this includes (mis)understandings!!) I have yet, by the way, to find an instance (and that includes school location and students, testing, whatever) where such commitments are impossible or, in a pragmatic sense, even moderately difficult (most often the difficulty is learning to value one's students which is more of a choice although one needs to be aware of the possibility). I would very much appreciate your suggesting some instances where such commitments were situationally impossible. My students and I (teachers and pre-service teachers) then spend a semester (and perhaps more) together - with feedback from classroom and field experiences - figuring out what kind of teaching (keeping in mind my commitments) can be sustained (and it will differ and they need to know this and accommodate to this). I am not unusual (perhaps read 'rare' - smile). In fact I have a number of colleagues who are considerably more capable. Philip Jackson (or was it Dan Lortie) used to talk about the apprenticeship of observation. People, he argued, learn to teach - for the most part - by observing as students in regular classroom. That should give one pause for a variety of reasons. I have sat through numerous faculty meetings where students are mentioned in less than a respectful fashion (and have heard anecdotes where that carried into the college classroom). I have heard elementary teachers spoken of quite disparagingly by faculty in Arts & Sciences and, while I agree their expertise is not always of the highest 'academic' quality, it is not clear to me that, in their own field of study, they are not more capable than their detractors. I have also seen an instructor continually stress 'nice' or 'comfortable' rather than 'challenging' or 'uncomfortable.' I admit my commitments have hooks in them; for instance, what is substantial mathematics (you need to know some mathematics to figure this out); what is collective teacher and student engagement (you need to know some pedagogy to figure this out) and what does it mean to respect student thinking in view of the previous (you need to know some mathematics and some pedagogy to figure this out). However, they are a beginning and some of my students seem, in time, to grow into them no matter the situation. Anyway, I can't say I'm blissfully optimistic, but I'm not pessimistic either. I do know that culturally we often don't work together; that we tend to get mired in the trivial; and we often 'demonize' the stranger. I hate to think that we will never choose otherwise. However, to choose otherwise seems very far from impossible in the formal schooling context. Ed On Jul 30, 2014, at 1:42 PM, Greg Thompson wrote: > Ed, > Thanks for this wonderfully thoughtful reply. Very helpful. > > As for the teaching practices part, I entirely agree about the need for > thoughtful attention to teaching practices and agree that great things can > be accomplished locally. My sense, though, is that it takes great effort to > sustain such smaller scale interventions (i.e. to make more than a dent). > With regard to teaching practices, I would think that the way to approach a > thoughtful teaching practice would be to start with the real constraints of > context that teachers will regularly face and then try and figure out what > kinds of teaching can be sustained given those constraints. > > That's where I'm most pessimistic. It is difficult for me to imagine > developing responsible teaching practices that could be sustained on a > larger scale given the cultural, institutional, and ideological context of > schooling in the U.S. [and I might add that it seems like the history of > teaching practice in the U.S. is a history where the same good ideas keep > popping up and then fading from sight almost as quickly as they appeared]. > > But I'm certainly open to ideas/suggestions for thoughtful pedagogical > practices that are sustainable in the U.S. formal schooling context. > > -greg > > > On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 10:11 AM, Ed Wall wrote: > >> Comments below >> >> On Jul 30, 2014, at 11:33 AM, Greg Thompson >> wrote: >> >>> I was hoping that somebody might be able to comment on the situation of >>> schooling in Japan and whether or not these hypotheses about the Japanese >>> situation of schooling might bear out: >>> >>> 1. Teachers in Japan have time to develop their craft. 600 annual hours >> of >>> contact time for teachers in Japan vs. 1100 hours of contact time in the >>> U.S. >> >> Yes >> >>> 2. There is an ideology of childhood in Japan that values childhood >> greatly >>> and treats them as qualitatively distinct beings from adolescents and >>> adults, and thus suggests that they should be protected from the cruel >> and >>> harsh practice of "testing". But this also means that elementary school >>> teachers are held in high regard. >>> >> >> Yes. However, it doesn't necessarily follow that this is why elementary >> school teachers are held in high regard >> >>> I guess the first seems a bit more factual but the second is more of an >>> hypothesis, but if they bear out as important factors for enabling the >> kind >>> of learning that Green describes, then it seems to me that even if there >>> were to be a huge push for training teachers in the U.S., teachers would >>> quickly revert to what we currently lament about teaching in the U.S. not >>> because they are bad teachers or don't know how to teach in the more >>> complex manner but rather simply because, with some rare exceptions, it >> is >>> IMPOSSIBLE to teach in the more desirable manner given the ridiculous >>> amount of contact time and the fact that in the American ideology of >>> childhood, the teaching of children is not valued particularly highly. >>> >> >> This doesn't follow. It is possible and it is possible in highly urban >> areas (and I amy misunderstand you use of the word 'rare'). That doesn't >> mean that it is necessarily valued or supported by the powers-that-be. >> There are a few more things to add to your facts: There is a national >> curriculum in Japan and there is a reasonably effective mentoring system >> (largely teacher instigated). A 'fact' (and perhaps this is anecdotal) is >> that when it was first realized that some interesting things were happening >> in Japanese schools (e.g. lesson study), the collegiate Japanese community >> was caught, to a large degree, unaware. 'Master' lesson are published by >> teachers. >> >>> In light of this, it seems a Sisyphean feat to try to change teachers' >>> teaching practices without changing the cultural context in which those >>> teachers work. And changing cultural contexts is perhaps even more >>> difficult still. >>> >> >> That was why I suggested a look at the Netherlands (which seem to do as >> well or better than the Japanese). Of course, some of this can still be >> explained because of cultural differences and how teachers are viewed. >> >>> Maybe we should stop looking to teaching practices in formal schooling in >>> the U.S. as a site of change? >>> Maybe better to look outside and beyond schools altogether? >>> >> >> Perhaps we should do as you suggest (and, to a limited extent and in a >> sense, something like this has been done). However, it might also be a good >> idea to look at teaching practices in a thoughtful way. I have seen very >> little of this happening over the years. I was just talking to a colleague >> today and, although we love our work in urban areas, we admit to making >> only a small dent. We also admit to being underwhelmed by views of >> education prevalent in many schools of education. It is getting steadily >> worse. >> >> >>> Too pessimistic? >>> -greg >>> >>> >> >> Pessimism is fine, but simply pessimism can be self limiting; however, >> that is an opinion and not a fact. >> >> Ed >> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 6:02 AM, Ed Wall wrote: >>> >>>> Perhaps something of interest re this thread. >>>> >>>> Ed Wall >>>> >>>> >>>> >> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/29/opinion/joe-nocera-teaching-teaching.html?_r=0 >>>>> Some general comments (and I apologize for being so late to the >>>> conversation as I have been out of email contact) >>>>> >>>>> Magdalen Lampert and Deborah Ball were both at Michigan State in the >>>> late 80s. They both taught what might, in part, be an early version of >> the >>>> Common Core to their students. I also taught math methods beginning in >> the >>>> late 90s and also emphasized such an approach (I also did similar as a >> K-12 >>>> math teacher before moving onto college teaching). There is little 'new' >>>> math in the Common Core - perhaps a bit of 'old' math. However, there >> is a >>>> very strong emphasis on kids making sense out of what they are doing (I >>>> apologize for being brief, but this is a moment between meetings at a >>>> conference devoted to such 'strange' notions as helping kids making >> sense). >>>>> >>>>> There are problems with the Common Core as written down: it is being >>>> forced down teachers' throats; it has been tied into high stakes testing >>>> (which, by the way, occurs at places in a student's life in Japan); >> there >>>> are some debatable differences in the age sequencing of topics; >> teachers to >>>> be have often not been prepared for such teaching in their college >> courses; >>>> and more. >>>>> >>>>> Some of these problems may be ironed out with time; however, the >>>> training and culture of teaching (see Jackson and Lortie, even if >> somewhat >>>> dated) in the US is still a bit grim. >>>>> >>>>> So a few summary points: >>>>> >>>>> Teaching that is, more or less, in sync with the Common Core has >>>> been practiced for years in the US. Teacher training that is in sync >> with >>>> the Common Core has been available for years in the US. Lesson study >>>> Japanese style may be more possible with an agreed upon core (although >> one >>>> might look to the Netherlands to see what works well for them rather >> than >>>> Japan). >>>>> >>>>> An interesting question for those of us who are involved in teacher >>>> training might be "Why do so many teachers find the Common Core >> Standards >>>> so threatening - factoring out the forcing and testing)?" What (from the >>>> 4th grade standards, for example): >>>>> >>>>> ? Use place value understanding and properties of operations to >>>> perform multi-digit arithmetic. >>>>> >>>>> ? Make sense of problems and persevere in solving them >>>>> >>>>> do some elementary teachers find difficult and threatening? >>>>> >>>>> Again apologies for being very, very short about a very large and very >>>> complex problem. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Ed >>>>> >>>>> On Jul 28, 2014, at 2:25 PM, Katherine Wester Neal >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> What an interesting article! I am thinking about the lack of focus on >>>> specific contexts in the article's discussion of teaching and learning >> to >>>> teach as a practicing teacher. Is it possible to go about such change >> (from >>>> "old" math to new math or Common Core math) with little/no consideration >>>> for what kinds of teaching might work in a particular school culture or >> the >>>> social context of a given classroom? I think less of a standardized >>>> approach (here, everyone do this) and more focus on what works locally >>>> (here are some ideas; now decide what might work for you) might help >>>> teachers learn to teach Common Core math in a way that actually works in >>>> their particular context. To adapt phrase from Magdalene Lampert, it >> might >>>> bring about more sustainable change as they are "re-learning teaching" >> in >>>> their schools. >>>>>> >>>>>> Because Common Core math is so different, perhaps this re-learning >>>> teaching requires a radical new approach instead of the same old >>>> professional development. Learning through the Japanese jugyokenkyu >> method >>>> sounds like it might be very useful, but there doesn't seem to be a push >>>> for reforming how teachers learn once they are in the field. (Except >> that >>>> if enough of their students fail the Common Core-aligned tests, they >> will >>>> eventually be out of a job.) >>>>>> >>>>>> It seems nonsensical to implement incredibly high-stakes tests without >>>> significant investment in re-learning teaching and with, as far as I >> know, >>>> no research on how to learn to teach Common Core as a practicing >> teacher. >>>> I, too, wonder about how these issues are handled in Japan? >>>>>> >>>>>> Katie >>>>>> >>>>>> Katie Wester-Neal >>>>>> University of Georgia >>>>>> ________________________________________ >>>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu < >> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> >>>> on behalf of Huw Lloyd >>>>>> Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 12:58 PM >>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: NYTimes.com: Why Do Americans Stink at >> Math? >>>>>> >>>>>> On 28 July 2014 16:46, Greg Thompson >> wrote: >>>>>> [...] >>>>>> These students had learned >>>>>>> >>>>>>> incredibly well how to solve recipe Physics but they had no idea >> about >>>> how >>>>>>> the basic principles of Physics worked. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Greg, >>>>>> >>>>>> I would say the ethics of the situation go deeper than simply >> (un)learnt >>>>>> capabilities, but rather to the development of the student's creative >>>>>> capabilities (or, rather, the stunting of them). >>>>>> >>>>>> Best, >>>>>> Huw >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. >>> Assistant Professor >>> Department of Anthropology >>> 883 Spencer W. Kimball Tower >>> Brigham Young University >>> Provo, UT 84602 >>> http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson >> >> >> > > > -- > Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. > Assistant Professor > Department of Anthropology > 883 Spencer W. Kimball Tower > Brigham Young University > Provo, UT 84602 > http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson From wester@uga.edu Wed Jul 30 12:13:39 2014 From: wester@uga.edu (Katherine Wester Neal) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 19:13:39 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The ideal head In-Reply-To: <1406744430.27578.YahooMailBasic@web171505.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> References: , <1406744430.27578.YahooMailBasic@web171505.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1406747630904.48823@uga.edu> I agree that a monumental crisis takes place between the age of 2 and 3. I wouldn't call it the "terrible twos," but I think it results from the "language explosion" that often occurs at that age. A child learns that all these sounds s/he has been hearing can be used meaningfully as a tool for exerting control on the world around him/her and faces a crisis in how to use them. I think the crisis around 6 years old comes from the understanding that what one does in the world has consequences. That change, as I understand it, is the basis for laws that place the age of culpability around 5-6 in the U.S. (In many U.S. states, children under this age can't be charged with a crime because they don't have the capability to understand that they've done something wrong.) Perhaps there are other suggestions? And what typifies the crisis at 1? How is it biological? Katie Katie Wester-Neal University of Georgia ________________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of peter jones Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2014 2:20 PM To: Culture ActivityeXtended Mind Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The ideal head The one at 2-2.5 is easy - "terrible twos"? :-) Is this just a myth though? More seriously, there do appear to developmental milestones however: Use of and ambivalence in Yes / No? Regards, Peter (father of three) ------------------------------- Peter Jones Lancashire, UK Blogging at "Welcome to the QUAD" http://hodges-model.blogspot.com/ h2cm: help 2C more - help 2 listen - help 2 care http://twitter.com/h2cm -------------------------------------------- On Wed, 30/7/14, Greg Thompson wrote: Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The ideal head To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" Date: Wednesday, 30 July, 2014, 18:30 Martin, Vygotsky's Problem of Age is a difficult essay. I wonder if you could say a bit more about the crisis at 6 (7,8?) years and the one at 12 years? The others are fairly self explanatory but those two are a bit more complicated. Among other things, it isn't clear what is different about the crisis at 2.5 and the crisis at 6. -greg On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 6:44 AM, Martin John Packer wrote: > Though in other texts he wrote of adolescence as such a time of crisis > that the whole stage should be considered a transition. In the lectures on > child development Vygotsky describes the following crises: > > Birth: the child is differentiated physically > 1 year: the child is differentiated biologically > 2.5 years: the child is differentiated psychologically > 6 years: inside & outside of self are differentiated > 12 years: actual & possible selves are differentiated > > Martin > > On Jul 28, 2014, at 6:36 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: > > > Francis, most of the crises which Vygotsky mentions in > > http://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/works/1934/problem-age.htm > > are associated with childhood before school. (It is an unfinished work). > > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > *Andy Blunden* > > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > > > > > FRANCIS J. SULLIVAN wrote: > >> ... > >> > >> In any case, I wonder if Vygotsky considered whether schooling itself > might > >> be responsible, at least partly, for the child's apparent alienation > from > >> schooling at these moments. > >> > >> Francis J. Sullivan, Ph.D. > >> > > > > > -- Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Department of Anthropology 883 Spencer W. Kimball Tower Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602 http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson From wester@uga.edu Wed Jul 30 12:32:12 2014 From: wester@uga.edu (Katherine Wester Neal) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 19:32:12 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: NYTimes.com: Why Do Americans Stink at Math? In-Reply-To: <022EE4B2-8F70-4DA7-9D00-63CBD7B67D80@umich.edu> References: <53d5718e.c814e00a.3778.3ba3SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> <1406571909843.30805@uga.edu> <75FA794D-2E1B-47A5-941F-7EFA1C605559@umich.edu> , <022EE4B2-8F70-4DA7-9D00-63CBD7B67D80@umich.edu> Message-ID: <1406748733952.48320@uga.edu> I think we're all on to something here--just different parts of the same thing. To put it all together, I'm thinking of a spiderweb. On individual strands, our spiderweb includes: 1. The differences in contact time and the difficulty of sustaining meaningful (or really any kind of) change when one is teaching 1,100 hours. 2. The pressures of testing. 3. The cultural value of childhood, teaching in general, elementary teachers, and testing as an educational goal in the U.S. 4. Making changes in teachers' practices, the way schools work, the culture of testing, and how students' creative capacities are developed. 5. Resistance from parents, teachers, and teacher educators to new ways of learning/new ideas, which is often a result of deeply ingrained prior experiences. I probably didn't get everything that's been discussed, but these are all issues that should be examined in concert because they are all connected as part of the same larger system. Although "system" isn't probably the word I should use with a Vygotskian framework (I'm still learning), I use to say that I'm not sure how an individual could deal with one of these strands without affecting or needing to work with the others. Does it take the effort of a collective, working on multiple strands simultaneously, to make more than a dent? Or to borrow Ed's words, how do we reshape the dent or make it bigger? Katie Katie Wester-Neal University of Georgia ________________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Ed Wall Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2014 3:00 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: NYTimes.com: Why Do Americans Stink at Math? Greg I agree with much of what you write below. However, there may be a disjunct between what you think is happening (and in many instances I agree with you) and the shape of the denting I am speaking about. I begin my methods courses talking about the commitments I bring to teaching (stressing they are mine and that teachers and pre-service teachers are welcome to push back) 1. I believe in promoting collective student and teacher engagement i(and I meant both!) 2. I believe in having students do substantial mathematical work (and that is where the constraints of the context can come into play - don't necessarily read into this 'new math' or tedious computations) 3. I believe in taking my students? thinking seriously (this includes (mis)understandings!!) I have yet, by the way, to find an instance (and that includes school location and students, testing, whatever) where such commitments are impossible or, in a pragmatic sense, even moderately difficult (most often the difficulty is learning to value one's students which is more of a choice although one needs to be aware of the possibility). I would very much appreciate your suggesting some instances where such commitments were situationally impossible. My students and I (teachers and pre-service teachers) then spend a semester (and perhaps more) together - with feedback from classroom and field experiences - figuring out what kind of teaching (keeping in mind my commitments) can be sustained (and it will differ and they need to know this and accommodate to this). I am not unusual (perhaps read 'rare' - smile). In fact I have a number of colleagues who are considerably more capable. Philip Jackson (or was it Dan Lortie) used to talk about the apprenticeship of observation. People, he argued, learn to teach - for the most part - by observing as students in regular classroom. That should give one pause for a variety of reasons. I have sat through numerous faculty meetings where students are mentioned in less than a respectful fashion (and have heard anecdotes where that carried into the college classroom). I have heard elementary teachers spoken of quite disparagingly by faculty in Arts & Sciences and, while I agree their expertise is not always of the highest 'academic' quality, it is not clear to me that, in their own field of study, they are not more capable than their detractors. I have also seen an instructor continually stress 'nice' or 'comfortable' rather than 'challenging' or 'uncomfortable.' I admit my commitments have hooks in them; for instance, what is substantial mathematics (you need to know some mathematics to figure this out); what is collective teacher and student engagement (you need to know some pedagogy to figure this out) and what does it mean to respect student thinking in view of the previous (you need to know some mathematics and some pedagogy to figure this out). However, they are a beginning and some of my students seem, in time, to grow into them no matter the situation. Anyway, I can't say I'm blissfully optimistic, but I'm not pessimistic either. I do know that culturally we often don't work together; that we tend to get mired in the trivial; and we often 'demonize' the stranger. I hate to think that we will never choose otherwise. However, to choose otherwise seems very far from impossible in the formal schooling context. Ed On Jul 30, 2014, at 1:42 PM, Greg Thompson wrote: > Ed, > Thanks for this wonderfully thoughtful reply. Very helpful. > > As for the teaching practices part, I entirely agree about the need for > thoughtful attention to teaching practices and agree that great things can > be accomplished locally. My sense, though, is that it takes great effort to > sustain such smaller scale interventions (i.e. to make more than a dent). > With regard to teaching practices, I would think that the way to approach a > thoughtful teaching practice would be to start with the real constraints of > context that teachers will regularly face and then try and figure out what > kinds of teaching can be sustained given those constraints. > > That's where I'm most pessimistic. It is difficult for me to imagine > developing responsible teaching practices that could be sustained on a > larger scale given the cultural, institutional, and ideological context of > schooling in the U.S. [and I might add that it seems like the history of > teaching practice in the U.S. is a history where the same good ideas keep > popping up and then fading from sight almost as quickly as they appeared]. > > But I'm certainly open to ideas/suggestions for thoughtful pedagogical > practices that are sustainable in the U.S. formal schooling context. > > -greg > > > On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 10:11 AM, Ed Wall wrote: > >> Comments below >> >> On Jul 30, 2014, at 11:33 AM, Greg Thompson >> wrote: >> >>> I was hoping that somebody might be able to comment on the situation of >>> schooling in Japan and whether or not these hypotheses about the Japanese >>> situation of schooling might bear out: >>> >>> 1. Teachers in Japan have time to develop their craft. 600 annual hours >> of >>> contact time for teachers in Japan vs. 1100 hours of contact time in the >>> U.S. >> >> Yes >> >>> 2. There is an ideology of childhood in Japan that values childhood >> greatly >>> and treats them as qualitatively distinct beings from adolescents and >>> adults, and thus suggests that they should be protected from the cruel >> and >>> harsh practice of "testing". But this also means that elementary school >>> teachers are held in high regard. >>> >> >> Yes. However, it doesn't necessarily follow that this is why elementary >> school teachers are held in high regard >> >>> I guess the first seems a bit more factual but the second is more of an >>> hypothesis, but if they bear out as important factors for enabling the >> kind >>> of learning that Green describes, then it seems to me that even if there >>> were to be a huge push for training teachers in the U.S., teachers would >>> quickly revert to what we currently lament about teaching in the U.S. not >>> because they are bad teachers or don't know how to teach in the more >>> complex manner but rather simply because, with some rare exceptions, it >> is >>> IMPOSSIBLE to teach in the more desirable manner given the ridiculous >>> amount of contact time and the fact that in the American ideology of >>> childhood, the teaching of children is not valued particularly highly. >>> >> >> This doesn't follow. It is possible and it is possible in highly urban >> areas (and I amy misunderstand you use of the word 'rare'). That doesn't >> mean that it is necessarily valued or supported by the powers-that-be. >> There are a few more things to add to your facts: There is a national >> curriculum in Japan and there is a reasonably effective mentoring system >> (largely teacher instigated). A 'fact' (and perhaps this is anecdotal) is >> that when it was first realized that some interesting things were happening >> in Japanese schools (e.g. lesson study), the collegiate Japanese community >> was caught, to a large degree, unaware. 'Master' lesson are published by >> teachers. >> >>> In light of this, it seems a Sisyphean feat to try to change teachers' >>> teaching practices without changing the cultural context in which those >>> teachers work. And changing cultural contexts is perhaps even more >>> difficult still. >>> >> >> That was why I suggested a look at the Netherlands (which seem to do as >> well or better than the Japanese). Of course, some of this can still be >> explained because of cultural differences and how teachers are viewed. >> >>> Maybe we should stop looking to teaching practices in formal schooling in >>> the U.S. as a site of change? >>> Maybe better to look outside and beyond schools altogether? >>> >> >> Perhaps we should do as you suggest (and, to a limited extent and in a >> sense, something like this has been done). However, it might also be a good >> idea to look at teaching practices in a thoughtful way. I have seen very >> little of this happening over the years. I was just talking to a colleague >> today and, although we love our work in urban areas, we admit to making >> only a small dent. We also admit to being underwhelmed by views of >> education prevalent in many schools of education. It is getting steadily >> worse. >> >> >>> Too pessimistic? >>> -greg >>> >>> >> >> Pessimism is fine, but simply pessimism can be self limiting; however, >> that is an opinion and not a fact. >> >> Ed >> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 6:02 AM, Ed Wall wrote: >>> >>>> Perhaps something of interest re this thread. >>>> >>>> Ed Wall >>>> >>>> >>>> >> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/29/opinion/joe-nocera-teaching-teaching.html?_r=0 >>>>> Some general comments (and I apologize for being so late to the >>>> conversation as I have been out of email contact) >>>>> >>>>> Magdalen Lampert and Deborah Ball were both at Michigan State in the >>>> late 80s. They both taught what might, in part, be an early version of >> the >>>> Common Core to their students. I also taught math methods beginning in >> the >>>> late 90s and also emphasized such an approach (I also did similar as a >> K-12 >>>> math teacher before moving onto college teaching). There is little 'new' >>>> math in the Common Core - perhaps a bit of 'old' math. However, there >> is a >>>> very strong emphasis on kids making sense out of what they are doing (I >>>> apologize for being brief, but this is a moment between meetings at a >>>> conference devoted to such 'strange' notions as helping kids making >> sense). >>>>> >>>>> There are problems with the Common Core as written down: it is being >>>> forced down teachers' throats; it has been tied into high stakes testing >>>> (which, by the way, occurs at places in a student's life in Japan); >> there >>>> are some debatable differences in the age sequencing of topics; >> teachers to >>>> be have often not been prepared for such teaching in their college >> courses; >>>> and more. >>>>> >>>>> Some of these problems may be ironed out with time; however, the >>>> training and culture of teaching (see Jackson and Lortie, even if >> somewhat >>>> dated) in the US is still a bit grim. >>>>> >>>>> So a few summary points: >>>>> >>>>> Teaching that is, more or less, in sync with the Common Core has >>>> been practiced for years in the US. Teacher training that is in sync >> with >>>> the Common Core has been available for years in the US. Lesson study >>>> Japanese style may be more possible with an agreed upon core (although >> one >>>> might look to the Netherlands to see what works well for them rather >> than >>>> Japan). >>>>> >>>>> An interesting question for those of us who are involved in teacher >>>> training might be "Why do so many teachers find the Common Core >> Standards >>>> so threatening - factoring out the forcing and testing)?" What (from the >>>> 4th grade standards, for example): >>>>> >>>>> ? Use place value understanding and properties of operations to >>>> perform multi-digit arithmetic. >>>>> >>>>> ? Make sense of problems and persevere in solving them >>>>> >>>>> do some elementary teachers find difficult and threatening? >>>>> >>>>> Again apologies for being very, very short about a very large and very >>>> complex problem. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Ed >>>>> >>>>> On Jul 28, 2014, at 2:25 PM, Katherine Wester Neal >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> What an interesting article! I am thinking about the lack of focus on >>>> specific contexts in the article's discussion of teaching and learning >> to >>>> teach as a practicing teacher. Is it possible to go about such change >> (from >>>> "old" math to new math or Common Core math) with little/no consideration >>>> for what kinds of teaching might work in a particular school culture or >> the >>>> social context of a given classroom? I think less of a standardized >>>> approach (here, everyone do this) and more focus on what works locally >>>> (here are some ideas; now decide what might work for you) might help >>>> teachers learn to teach Common Core math in a way that actually works in >>>> their particular context. To adapt phrase from Magdalene Lampert, it >> might >>>> bring about more sustainable change as they are "re-learning teaching" >> in >>>> their schools. >>>>>> >>>>>> Because Common Core math is so different, perhaps this re-learning >>>> teaching requires a radical new approach instead of the same old >>>> professional development. Learning through the Japanese jugyokenkyu >> method >>>> sounds like it might be very useful, but there doesn't seem to be a push >>>> for reforming how teachers learn once they are in the field. (Except >> that >>>> if enough of their students fail the Common Core-aligned tests, they >> will >>>> eventually be out of a job.) >>>>>> >>>>>> It seems nonsensical to implement incredibly high-stakes tests without >>>> significant investment in re-learning teaching and with, as far as I >> know, >>>> no research on how to learn to teach Common Core as a practicing >> teacher. >>>> I, too, wonder about how these issues are handled in Japan? >>>>>> >>>>>> Katie >>>>>> >>>>>> Katie Wester-Neal >>>>>> University of Georgia >>>>>> ________________________________________ >>>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu < >> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> >>>> on behalf of Huw Lloyd >>>>>> Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 12:58 PM >>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: NYTimes.com: Why Do Americans Stink at >> Math? >>>>>> >>>>>> On 28 July 2014 16:46, Greg Thompson >> wrote: >>>>>> [...] >>>>>> These students had learned >>>>>>> >>>>>>> incredibly well how to solve recipe Physics but they had no idea >> about >>>> how >>>>>>> the basic principles of Physics worked. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Greg, >>>>>> >>>>>> I would say the ethics of the situation go deeper than simply >> (un)learnt >>>>>> capabilities, but rather to the development of the student's creative >>>>>> capabilities (or, rather, the stunting of them). >>>>>> >>>>>> Best, >>>>>> Huw >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. >>> Assistant Professor >>> Department of Anthropology >>> 883 Spencer W. Kimball Tower >>> Brigham Young University >>> Provo, UT 84602 >>> http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson >> >> >> > > > -- > Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. > Assistant Professor > Department of Anthropology > 883 Spencer W. Kimball Tower > Brigham Young University > Provo, UT 84602 > http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson From ewall@umich.edu Wed Jul 30 12:34:36 2014 From: ewall@umich.edu (Ed Wall) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 15:34:36 -0400 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: NYTimes.com: Why Do Americans Stink at Math? In-Reply-To: References: <53d5718e.c814e00a.3778.3ba3SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> <1406571909843.30805@uga.edu> <75FA794D-2E1B-47A5-941F-7EFA1C605559@umich.edu> Message-ID: <9F511E07-E100-46E2-97CB-3AF0D22C624F@umich.edu> Mike I avoided this aspect as it is, I suspect, quite cultural. However, it is complicated. Perhaps a story (and it is true) will illustrate such complications. At some point in time calculus began to be taught to a select few students (who were accelerated) in their senior high year. Folks in admissions at very colleges saw a chance to structure admissions and began giving special preference to those students. This was in spite of math faculty indicating that high school calculus class was not always particular helpful. Parents, of course, became aware of all this and there became a mad push to have their child take calculus in high school to as to get along with a career in engineering or the sciences. An amusing (sort of) complication was that a number of students who really didn't like mathematics found out that they could actually skip college level math courses by doing calculus in high school. Again parents were interested. Thee is some interesting finger pointing (smile) going on in mathematics education. Math departments often point at math teachers as they seem to be ineffective. Math teachers point at parents because they seem to not be involved. Parents (and the public) point at schools of education because they invent things like the Common Core (smile). Schools of Education point at math departments as they are, sometimes, a bit problematic in their teaching styles. Anyway, the grade issue is important and I, personally, can understand the concern. I as a K-12 teacher had to face this and had to convince parents (and they can be difficult at times) that what I did was actually thought through. I had one parent (he happen to be a mathematician - smile) who after talking to me about what I was doing indicated his main concern was that I didn't know what I was doing. I, hence, tell my math education students that they better have good reasons for their decisions (and that keeping records is part of teaching - some of Greg's situations could interfere here). I tell my students that parents deserve their respect and can be a powerful force in 'together' educating their child. I also tell them that many parents want to interact with their children and want to help them. Thus to send home work that children cannot do by themselves (i.e. there may not be a adult at home) or work the parent cannot understand is somewhat non-productive. Homework should, most usually, be practice (there are exceptions) and, I think, homework is a good idea for certain grades. Insofar as parental objections to the core standards go, some of this seems to be due to agitators (I have grumbled at some who have done this and should have know better - smile); some of this seems to have been stoked by concerned teachers, and some of this seems to be due to a lack of transparency by school administrators. I use to take my brighter students to 'tutor' in another class. Then I would chew them out when they did the things your undergraduate did. It was, for them, a good learning experience (smile). I did something similar with my college students also. ED On Jul 30, 2014, at 2:05 PM, mike cole wrote: > I second Greg's appreciation of your comments, Ed. > > Briefly I want to introduce a slightly different aspect of the problem that > I do not recall see being discussed -- PARENTAL objections to core > standards. > > My take here is that the parents of the kids are themselves so heavily > socialized to non-mindful teaching/learning of math that they not only > cannot fully interpret the problems the kids are asked to solve, but they > cannot even begin to formulate new ways of thinking about ingrained, > taken-for-granted procedures they have learned. So their kids get bad > grades and complain and they themselves complain because it seems like the > teachers are doing a bad job (for reasons that have been discussed here). > > I see this problem a lot when my undergrads are helping 4-6th graders with > their homework (never mind middle school or high schoolers). The undergrads > have learned an amazing array of shortcuts for figuring out answers to > already-quantified questions, but they get blown away if you ask, for > example > "Why do you invert and multiply when dividing a fraction by another > fraction." > > And lets not exempt participants in XMCA. Check out the lengthy discussion > in 2006 (June I believe, you can find it by googling the lchc site) of "why > is a minus times a minus a plus and a minus times a plus a minus." Someone > could get a neat publication (MCA would be glad to consider such a paper!) > simply by analysing the fumbling discussion. > > There is a very long history of recognition of this general problem as has > been pointed out. It is very difficult, and requires a well trained > teacher, to engage in non-rote, non low level comprehension teaching > practices given the impeding factors discussed here. Those who manage to do > it deserve our deepest respect. > > mike > > > > On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 10:42 AM, Greg Thompson > wrote: > >> Ed, >> Thanks for this wonderfully thoughtful reply. Very helpful. >> >> As for the teaching practices part, I entirely agree about the need for >> thoughtful attention to teaching practices and agree that great things can >> be accomplished locally. My sense, though, is that it takes great effort to >> sustain such smaller scale interventions (i.e. to make more than a dent). >> With regard to teaching practices, I would think that the way to approach a >> thoughtful teaching practice would be to start with the real constraints of >> context that teachers will regularly face and then try and figure out what >> kinds of teaching can be sustained given those constraints. >> >> That's where I'm most pessimistic. It is difficult for me to imagine >> developing responsible teaching practices that could be sustained on a >> larger scale given the cultural, institutional, and ideological context of >> schooling in the U.S. [and I might add that it seems like the history of >> teaching practice in the U.S. is a history where the same good ideas keep >> popping up and then fading from sight almost as quickly as they appeared]. >> >> But I'm certainly open to ideas/suggestions for thoughtful pedagogical >> practices that are sustainable in the U.S. formal schooling context. >> >> -greg >> >> >> On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 10:11 AM, Ed Wall wrote: >> >>> Comments below >>> >>> On Jul 30, 2014, at 11:33 AM, Greg Thompson >>> wrote: >>> >>>> I was hoping that somebody might be able to comment on the situation of >>>> schooling in Japan and whether or not these hypotheses about the >> Japanese >>>> situation of schooling might bear out: >>>> >>>> 1. Teachers in Japan have time to develop their craft. 600 annual hours >>> of >>>> contact time for teachers in Japan vs. 1100 hours of contact time in >> the >>>> U.S. >>> >>> Yes >>> >>>> 2. There is an ideology of childhood in Japan that values childhood >>> greatly >>>> and treats them as qualitatively distinct beings from adolescents and >>>> adults, and thus suggests that they should be protected from the cruel >>> and >>>> harsh practice of "testing". But this also means that elementary school >>>> teachers are held in high regard. >>>> >>> >>> Yes. However, it doesn't necessarily follow that this is why elementary >>> school teachers are held in high regard >>> >>>> I guess the first seems a bit more factual but the second is more of an >>>> hypothesis, but if they bear out as important factors for enabling the >>> kind >>>> of learning that Green describes, then it seems to me that even if >> there >>>> were to be a huge push for training teachers in the U.S., teachers >> would >>>> quickly revert to what we currently lament about teaching in the U.S. >> not >>>> because they are bad teachers or don't know how to teach in the more >>>> complex manner but rather simply because, with some rare exceptions, it >>> is >>>> IMPOSSIBLE to teach in the more desirable manner given the ridiculous >>>> amount of contact time and the fact that in the American ideology of >>>> childhood, the teaching of children is not valued particularly highly. >>>> >>> >>> This doesn't follow. It is possible and it is possible in highly urban >>> areas (and I amy misunderstand you use of the word 'rare'). That doesn't >>> mean that it is necessarily valued or supported by the powers-that-be. >>> There are a few more things to add to your facts: There is a national >>> curriculum in Japan and there is a reasonably effective mentoring system >>> (largely teacher instigated). A 'fact' (and perhaps this is anecdotal) is >>> that when it was first realized that some interesting things were >> happening >>> in Japanese schools (e.g. lesson study), the collegiate Japanese >> community >>> was caught, to a large degree, unaware. 'Master' lesson are published by >>> teachers. >>> >>>> In light of this, it seems a Sisyphean feat to try to change teachers' >>>> teaching practices without changing the cultural context in which those >>>> teachers work. And changing cultural contexts is perhaps even more >>>> difficult still. >>>> >>> >>> That was why I suggested a look at the Netherlands (which seem to do as >>> well or better than the Japanese). Of course, some of this can still be >>> explained because of cultural differences and how teachers are viewed. >>> >>>> Maybe we should stop looking to teaching practices in formal schooling >> in >>>> the U.S. as a site of change? >>>> Maybe better to look outside and beyond schools altogether? >>>> >>> >>> Perhaps we should do as you suggest (and, to a limited extent and in a >>> sense, something like this has been done). However, it might also be a >> good >>> idea to look at teaching practices in a thoughtful way. I have seen very >>> little of this happening over the years. I was just talking to a >> colleague >>> today and, although we love our work in urban areas, we admit to making >>> only a small dent. We also admit to being underwhelmed by views of >>> education prevalent in many schools of education. It is getting steadily >>> worse. >>> >>> >>>> Too pessimistic? >>>> -greg >>>> >>>> >>> >>> Pessimism is fine, but simply pessimism can be self limiting; however, >>> that is an opinion and not a fact. >>> >>> Ed >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 6:02 AM, Ed Wall wrote: >>>> >>>>> Perhaps something of interest re this thread. >>>>> >>>>> Ed Wall >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> >> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/29/opinion/joe-nocera-teaching-teaching.html?_r=0 >>>>>> Some general comments (and I apologize for being so late to the >>>>> conversation as I have been out of email contact) >>>>>> >>>>>> Magdalen Lampert and Deborah Ball were both at Michigan State in the >>>>> late 80s. They both taught what might, in part, be an early version of >>> the >>>>> Common Core to their students. I also taught math methods beginning in >>> the >>>>> late 90s and also emphasized such an approach (I also did similar as a >>> K-12 >>>>> math teacher before moving onto college teaching). There is little >> 'new' >>>>> math in the Common Core - perhaps a bit of 'old' math. However, there >>> is a >>>>> very strong emphasis on kids making sense out of what they are doing >> (I >>>>> apologize for being brief, but this is a moment between meetings at a >>>>> conference devoted to such 'strange' notions as helping kids making >>> sense). >>>>>> >>>>>> There are problems with the Common Core as written down: it is being >>>>> forced down teachers' throats; it has been tied into high stakes >> testing >>>>> (which, by the way, occurs at places in a student's life in Japan); >>> there >>>>> are some debatable differences in the age sequencing of topics; >>> teachers to >>>>> be have often not been prepared for such teaching in their college >>> courses; >>>>> and more. >>>>>> >>>>>> Some of these problems may be ironed out with time; however, the >>>>> training and culture of teaching (see Jackson and Lortie, even if >>> somewhat >>>>> dated) in the US is still a bit grim. >>>>>> >>>>>> So a few summary points: >>>>>> >>>>>> Teaching that is, more or less, in sync with the Common Core has >>>>> been practiced for years in the US. Teacher training that is in sync >>> with >>>>> the Common Core has been available for years in the US. Lesson study >>>>> Japanese style may be more possible with an agreed upon core (although >>> one >>>>> might look to the Netherlands to see what works well for them rather >>> than >>>>> Japan). >>>>>> >>>>>> An interesting question for those of us who are involved in >> teacher >>>>> training might be "Why do so many teachers find the Common Core >>> Standards >>>>> so threatening - factoring out the forcing and testing)?" What (from >> the >>>>> 4th grade standards, for example): >>>>>> >>>>>> ? Use place value understanding and properties of operations to >>>>> perform multi-digit arithmetic. >>>>>> >>>>>> ? Make sense of problems and persevere in solving them >>>>>> >>>>>> do some elementary teachers find difficult and threatening? >>>>>> >>>>>> Again apologies for being very, very short about a very large and >> very >>>>> complex problem. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Ed >>>>>> >>>>>> On Jul 28, 2014, at 2:25 PM, Katherine Wester Neal >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> What an interesting article! I am thinking about the lack of focus >> on >>>>> specific contexts in the article's discussion of teaching and learning >>> to >>>>> teach as a practicing teacher. Is it possible to go about such change >>> (from >>>>> "old" math to new math or Common Core math) with little/no >> consideration >>>>> for what kinds of teaching might work in a particular school culture >> or >>> the >>>>> social context of a given classroom? I think less of a standardized >>>>> approach (here, everyone do this) and more focus on what works locally >>>>> (here are some ideas; now decide what might work for you) might help >>>>> teachers learn to teach Common Core math in a way that actually works >> in >>>>> their particular context. To adapt phrase from Magdalene Lampert, it >>> might >>>>> bring about more sustainable change as they are "re-learning teaching" >>> in >>>>> their schools. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Because Common Core math is so different, perhaps this re-learning >>>>> teaching requires a radical new approach instead of the same old >>>>> professional development. Learning through the Japanese jugyokenkyu >>> method >>>>> sounds like it might be very useful, but there doesn't seem to be a >> push >>>>> for reforming how teachers learn once they are in the field. (Except >>> that >>>>> if enough of their students fail the Common Core-aligned tests, they >>> will >>>>> eventually be out of a job.) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It seems nonsensical to implement incredibly high-stakes tests >> without >>>>> significant investment in re-learning teaching and with, as far as I >>> know, >>>>> no research on how to learn to teach Common Core as a practicing >>> teacher. >>>>> I, too, wonder about how these issues are handled in Japan? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Katie >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Katie Wester-Neal >>>>>>> University of Georgia >>>>>>> ________________________________________ >>>>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu < >>> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> >>>>> on behalf of Huw Lloyd >>>>>>> Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 12:58 PM >>>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: NYTimes.com: Why Do Americans Stink at >>> Math? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 28 July 2014 16:46, Greg Thompson >>> wrote: >>>>>>> [...] >>>>>>> These students had learned >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> incredibly well how to solve recipe Physics but they had no idea >>> about >>>>> how >>>>>>>> the basic principles of Physics worked. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Greg, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I would say the ethics of the situation go deeper than simply >>> (un)learnt >>>>>>> capabilities, but rather to the development of the student's >> creative >>>>>>> capabilities (or, rather, the stunting of them). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>> Huw >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. >>>> Assistant Professor >>>> Department of Anthropology >>>> 883 Spencer W. Kimball Tower >>>> Brigham Young University >>>> Provo, UT 84602 >>>> http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. >> Assistant Professor >> Department of Anthropology >> 883 Spencer W. Kimball Tower >> Brigham Young University >> Provo, UT 84602 >> http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson >> From Holli.Tonyan@csun.edu Wed Jul 30 12:44:20 2014 From: Holli.Tonyan@csun.edu (Tonyan, Holli A) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 19:44:20 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] bio-social-behavioral shift and Problem of Age In-Reply-To: <1406747630904.48823@uga.edu> References: , <1406744430.27578.YahooMailBasic@web171505.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> <1406747630904.48823@uga.edu> Message-ID: Hi, I've been reading posts for a while and have not posted before. This line of discussion prompts me to write a question that I've had in mind for a while. Before Mike's textbook "The Development of Children" was reorganized for the 6th Edition when Cynthia Lightfoot became the first author, the concept of a bio-social-behavioral shift was used to organize the text. The new edition has dropped that. For those of you not familiar, this was a concept that served at least in my mind to make a more culturally-historically based notion of stages instead of "stages" that are all too often presented in textbooks as fact rather than a cultural construction. The textbook referenced Emde and talked about times when changes occurred across biological, social, and cultural areas of children's lives. Development was presented with shift points around: - birth - 2.5 to 3 months with the emergence of the truly social smile (reciprocal, endogenous) - the end of the first year with self-locomotion - 2-3 years with the emergence of a system of language - 5 to 7 years with the "age of reason" and the emergence of more systematic, logical thought and the loss of baby teeth - and puberty I really liked this feature of the textbook and was sorry to see it go. Although I've just summarized it here, each shift has changes across domains associated with it and new capacities for the child that change the child's social relations with others around him/her as well as possibilities for thinking. It seemed a nice way to get away from "stages" as defined by a theory, just biology, or a particular cultural-historical context by basing the shifts on points in development where biological changes tend to be marked across a range of local settings with changes in social expectations and cultural institutions. Mike and others... - For scholarship, is this a line of work that others are taking up? Who are scholars that are writing about shifts and turning points drawing from biological, social and cultural changes? - For teaching, what do you think is lost by taking out the explicit mention and discussion of these shift points and instead presenting the material organized around those shift points without explicitly addressing the concept and what it means? I look forward to reading more on the Problem of Age and a bio-social-behavioral shift. Holli A. Tonyan, Ph.D. ------------ Associate Professor | Department of Psychology | California State University, Northridge Postal Address: 18111 Nordhoff Street | Northridge, CA 91330-8255 Tel: (818) 677-4970 | Fax: (818) 677-2829 Office: ST322 http://www.csun.edu/~htonyan http://csun.academia.edu/HolliTonyan http://www.csun.edu/~ata20315/GE/general_experimental_psychology2.html **check out** Tonyan, H. A. (in press). Everyday routines: A window into the cultural organization of family child care. Journal of Early Childhood Research. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1476718X14523748 Tonyan, H. A., Nuttall, J. (2014). Connecting cultural models of home-based care and childminders? career paths: An Eco-cultural analysis. International Journal of Early Years Education, 22, 117-138, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09669760.2013.809654 Tonyan, H. A., Mamikonian, A., & Chien, D. (2013). Do they practice what they preach? An Ecocultural, multidimensional, group-based examination of the relationship between beliefs and behaviours among child care providers. Early Child Development and Care, 183:12, 1853-1877. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03004430.2012.759949 This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or exempt from disclosure under applicable federal or state law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, please immediately notify the sender by telephone at (818)677-4970, and destroy all copies of this e-mail and all attachments. Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has. - Margaret Mead US anthropologist & popularizer of anthropology (1901 - 1978) On Jul 30, 2014, at 12:13 PM, Katherine Wester Neal > wrote: I agree that a monumental crisis takes place between the age of 2 and 3. I wouldn't call it the "terrible twos," but I think it results from the "language explosion" that often occurs at that age. A child learns that all these sounds s/he has been hearing can be used meaningfully as a tool for exerting control on the world around him/her and faces a crisis in how to use them. I think the crisis around 6 years old comes from the understanding that what one does in the world has consequences. That change, as I understand it, is the basis for laws that place the age of culpability around 5-6 in the U.S. (In many U.S. states, children under this age can't be charged with a crime because they don't have the capability to understand that they've done something wrong.) Perhaps there are other suggestions? And what typifies the crisis at 1? How is it biological? Katie Katie Wester-Neal University of Georgia ________________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of peter jones > Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2014 2:20 PM To: Culture ActivityeXtended Mind Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The ideal head The one at 2-2.5 is easy - "terrible twos"? :-) Is this just a myth though? More seriously, there do appear to developmental milestones however: Use of and ambivalence in Yes / No? Regards, Peter (father of three) ------------------------------- Peter Jones Lancashire, UK Blogging at "Welcome to the QUAD" http://hodges-model.blogspot.com/ h2cm: help 2C more - help 2 listen - help 2 care http://twitter.com/h2cm -------------------------------------------- On Wed, 30/7/14, Greg Thompson wrote: Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The ideal head To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" Date: Wednesday, 30 July, 2014, 18:30 Martin, Vygotsky's Problem of Age is a difficult essay. I wonder if you could say a bit more about the crisis at 6 (7,8?) years and the one at 12 years? The others are fairly self explanatory but those two are a bit more complicated. Among other things, it isn't clear what is different about the crisis at 2.5 and the crisis at 6. -greg On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 6:44 AM, Martin John Packer wrote: Francis, most of the crises which Vygotsky mentions in http://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/works/1934/problem-age.htm are associated with childhood before school. (It is an unfinished work). Andy ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Andy Blunden* http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ FRANCIS J. SULLIVAN wrote: ... In any case, I wonder if Vygotsky considered whether schooling itself might be responsible, at least partly, for the child's apparent alienation from schooling at these moments. Francis J. Sullivan, Ph.D. -- Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Department of Anthropology 883 Spencer W. Kimball Tower Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602 http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson From ewall@umich.edu Wed Jul 30 12:46:20 2014 From: ewall@umich.edu (Ed Wall) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 15:46:20 -0400 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: NYTimes.com: Why Do Americans Stink at Math? In-Reply-To: <1406748733952.48320@uga.edu> References: <53d5718e.c814e00a.3778.3ba3SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> <1406571909843.30805@uga.edu> <75FA794D-2E1B-47A5-941F-7EFA1C605559@umich.edu> , <022EE4B2-8F70-4DA7-9D00-63CBD7B67D80@umich.edu> <1406748733952.48320@uga.edu> Message-ID: <245EB719-8A88-4496-B64E-D083CD5223F0@umich.edu> Katherine I think yes to your next to last question. However, what sometimes concerns me (and we are perhaps back to optimism and pessimism) is that looking for a future which may or may not occur seems 'unfair' to the students of today. I'm for thoughtful baby steps (and babies do stumble) now on all fronts and, unlike Carol, I don't yet know the 'right' answer. However, I would like to know (smile). Ed On Jul 30, 2014, at 3:32 PM, Katherine Wester Neal wrote: > I think we're all on to something here--just different parts of the same thing. To put it all together, I'm thinking of a spiderweb. On individual strands, our spiderweb includes: > > 1. The differences in contact time and the difficulty of sustaining meaningful (or really any kind of) change when one is teaching 1,100 hours. > 2. The pressures of testing. > 3. The cultural value of childhood, teaching in general, elementary teachers, and testing as an educational goal in the U.S. > 4. Making changes in teachers' practices, the way schools work, the culture of testing, and how students' creative capacities are developed. > 5. Resistance from parents, teachers, and teacher educators to new ways of learning/new ideas, which is often a result of deeply ingrained prior experiences. > > I probably didn't get everything that's been discussed, but these are all issues that should be examined in concert because they are all connected as part of the same larger system. Although "system" isn't probably the word I should use with a Vygotskian framework (I'm still learning), I use to say that I'm not sure how an individual could deal with one of these strands without affecting or needing to work with the others. Does it take the effort of a collective, working on multiple strands simultaneously, to make more than a dent? Or to borrow Ed's words, how do we reshape the dent or make it bigger? > > Katie > > Katie Wester-Neal > University of Georgia > > ________________________________________ > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Ed Wall > Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2014 3:00 PM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: NYTimes.com: Why Do Americans Stink at Math? > > Greg > > I agree with much of what you write below. However, there may be a disjunct between what you think is happening (and in many instances I agree with you) and the shape of the denting I am speaking about. I begin my methods courses talking about the commitments I bring to teaching (stressing they are mine and that teachers and pre-service teachers are welcome to push back) > > 1. I believe in promoting collective student and teacher engagement i(and I meant both!) > 2. I believe in having students do substantial mathematical work (and that is where the constraints of the context can come into play - don't necessarily read into this 'new math' or tedious computations) > 3. I believe in taking my students? thinking seriously (this includes (mis)understandings!!) > > I have yet, by the way, to find an instance (and that includes school location and students, testing, whatever) where such commitments are impossible or, in a pragmatic sense, even moderately difficult (most often the difficulty is learning to value one's students which is more of a choice although one needs to be aware of the possibility). I would very much appreciate your suggesting some instances where such commitments were situationally impossible. My students and I (teachers and pre-service teachers) then spend a semester (and perhaps more) together - with feedback from classroom and field experiences - figuring out what kind of teaching (keeping in mind my commitments) can be sustained (and it will differ and they need to know this and accommodate to this). I am not unusual (perhaps read 'rare' - smile). In fact I have a number of colleagues who are considerably more capable. > > Philip Jackson (or was it Dan Lortie) used to talk about the apprenticeship of observation. People, he argued, learn to teach - for the most part - by observing as students in regular classroom. That should give one pause for a variety of reasons. I have sat through numerous faculty meetings where students are mentioned in less than a respectful fashion (and have heard anecdotes where that carried into the college classroom). I have heard elementary teachers spoken of quite disparagingly by faculty in Arts & Sciences and, while I agree their expertise is not always of the highest 'academic' quality, it is not clear to me that, in their own field of study, they are not more capable than their detractors. I have also seen an instructor continually stress 'nice' or 'comfortable' rather than 'challenging' or 'uncomfortable.' > > I admit my commitments have hooks in them; for instance, what is substantial mathematics (you need to know some mathematics to figure this out); what is collective teacher and student engagement (you need to know some pedagogy to figure this out) and what does it mean to respect student thinking in view of the previous (you need to know some mathematics and some pedagogy to figure this out). However, they are a beginning and some of my students seem, in time, to grow into them no matter the situation. > > Anyway, I can't say I'm blissfully optimistic, but I'm not pessimistic either. I do know that culturally we often don't work together; that we tend to get mired in the trivial; and we often 'demonize' the stranger. I hate to think that we will never choose otherwise. However, to choose otherwise seems very far from impossible in the formal schooling context. > > Ed > > On Jul 30, 2014, at 1:42 PM, Greg Thompson wrote: > >> Ed, >> Thanks for this wonderfully thoughtful reply. Very helpful. >> >> As for the teaching practices part, I entirely agree about the need for >> thoughtful attention to teaching practices and agree that great things can >> be accomplished locally. My sense, though, is that it takes great effort to >> sustain such smaller scale interventions (i.e. to make more than a dent). >> With regard to teaching practices, I would think that the way to approach a >> thoughtful teaching practice would be to start with the real constraints of >> context that teachers will regularly face and then try and figure out what >> kinds of teaching can be sustained given those constraints. >> >> That's where I'm most pessimistic. It is difficult for me to imagine >> developing responsible teaching practices that could be sustained on a >> larger scale given the cultural, institutional, and ideological context of >> schooling in the U.S. [and I might add that it seems like the history of >> teaching practice in the U.S. is a history where the same good ideas keep >> popping up and then fading from sight almost as quickly as they appeared]. >> >> But I'm certainly open to ideas/suggestions for thoughtful pedagogical >> practices that are sustainable in the U.S. formal schooling context. >> >> -greg >> >> >> On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 10:11 AM, Ed Wall wrote: >> >>> Comments below >>> >>> On Jul 30, 2014, at 11:33 AM, Greg Thompson >>> wrote: >>> >>>> I was hoping that somebody might be able to comment on the situation of >>>> schooling in Japan and whether or not these hypotheses about the Japanese >>>> situation of schooling might bear out: >>>> >>>> 1. Teachers in Japan have time to develop their craft. 600 annual hours >>> of >>>> contact time for teachers in Japan vs. 1100 hours of contact time in the >>>> U.S. >>> >>> Yes >>> >>>> 2. There is an ideology of childhood in Japan that values childhood >>> greatly >>>> and treats them as qualitatively distinct beings from adolescents and >>>> adults, and thus suggests that they should be protected from the cruel >>> and >>>> harsh practice of "testing". But this also means that elementary school >>>> teachers are held in high regard. >>>> >>> >>> Yes. However, it doesn't necessarily follow that this is why elementary >>> school teachers are held in high regard >>> >>>> I guess the first seems a bit more factual but the second is more of an >>>> hypothesis, but if they bear out as important factors for enabling the >>> kind >>>> of learning that Green describes, then it seems to me that even if there >>>> were to be a huge push for training teachers in the U.S., teachers would >>>> quickly revert to what we currently lament about teaching in the U.S. not >>>> because they are bad teachers or don't know how to teach in the more >>>> complex manner but rather simply because, with some rare exceptions, it >>> is >>>> IMPOSSIBLE to teach in the more desirable manner given the ridiculous >>>> amount of contact time and the fact that in the American ideology of >>>> childhood, the teaching of children is not valued particularly highly. >>>> >>> >>> This doesn't follow. It is possible and it is possible in highly urban >>> areas (and I amy misunderstand you use of the word 'rare'). That doesn't >>> mean that it is necessarily valued or supported by the powers-that-be. >>> There are a few more things to add to your facts: There is a national >>> curriculum in Japan and there is a reasonably effective mentoring system >>> (largely teacher instigated). A 'fact' (and perhaps this is anecdotal) is >>> that when it was first realized that some interesting things were happening >>> in Japanese schools (e.g. lesson study), the collegiate Japanese community >>> was caught, to a large degree, unaware. 'Master' lesson are published by >>> teachers. >>> >>>> In light of this, it seems a Sisyphean feat to try to change teachers' >>>> teaching practices without changing the cultural context in which those >>>> teachers work. And changing cultural contexts is perhaps even more >>>> difficult still. >>>> >>> >>> That was why I suggested a look at the Netherlands (which seem to do as >>> well or better than the Japanese). Of course, some of this can still be >>> explained because of cultural differences and how teachers are viewed. >>> >>>> Maybe we should stop looking to teaching practices in formal schooling in >>>> the U.S. as a site of change? >>>> Maybe better to look outside and beyond schools altogether? >>>> >>> >>> Perhaps we should do as you suggest (and, to a limited extent and in a >>> sense, something like this has been done). However, it might also be a good >>> idea to look at teaching practices in a thoughtful way. I have seen very >>> little of this happening over the years. I was just talking to a colleague >>> today and, although we love our work in urban areas, we admit to making >>> only a small dent. We also admit to being underwhelmed by views of >>> education prevalent in many schools of education. It is getting steadily >>> worse. >>> >>> >>>> Too pessimistic? >>>> -greg >>>> >>>> >>> >>> Pessimism is fine, but simply pessimism can be self limiting; however, >>> that is an opinion and not a fact. >>> >>> Ed >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 6:02 AM, Ed Wall wrote: >>>> >>>>> Perhaps something of interest re this thread. >>>>> >>>>> Ed Wall >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/29/opinion/joe-nocera-teaching-teaching.html?_r=0 >>>>>> Some general comments (and I apologize for being so late to the >>>>> conversation as I have been out of email contact) >>>>>> >>>>>> Magdalen Lampert and Deborah Ball were both at Michigan State in the >>>>> late 80s. They both taught what might, in part, be an early version of >>> the >>>>> Common Core to their students. I also taught math methods beginning in >>> the >>>>> late 90s and also emphasized such an approach (I also did similar as a >>> K-12 >>>>> math teacher before moving onto college teaching). There is little 'new' >>>>> math in the Common Core - perhaps a bit of 'old' math. However, there >>> is a >>>>> very strong emphasis on kids making sense out of what they are doing (I >>>>> apologize for being brief, but this is a moment between meetings at a >>>>> conference devoted to such 'strange' notions as helping kids making >>> sense). >>>>>> >>>>>> There are problems with the Common Core as written down: it is being >>>>> forced down teachers' throats; it has been tied into high stakes testing >>>>> (which, by the way, occurs at places in a student's life in Japan); >>> there >>>>> are some debatable differences in the age sequencing of topics; >>> teachers to >>>>> be have often not been prepared for such teaching in their college >>> courses; >>>>> and more. >>>>>> >>>>>> Some of these problems may be ironed out with time; however, the >>>>> training and culture of teaching (see Jackson and Lortie, even if >>> somewhat >>>>> dated) in the US is still a bit grim. >>>>>> >>>>>> So a few summary points: >>>>>> >>>>>> Teaching that is, more or less, in sync with the Common Core has >>>>> been practiced for years in the US. Teacher training that is in sync >>> with >>>>> the Common Core has been available for years in the US. Lesson study >>>>> Japanese style may be more possible with an agreed upon core (although >>> one >>>>> might look to the Netherlands to see what works well for them rather >>> than >>>>> Japan). >>>>>> >>>>>> An interesting question for those of us who are involved in teacher >>>>> training might be "Why do so many teachers find the Common Core >>> Standards >>>>> so threatening - factoring out the forcing and testing)?" What (from the >>>>> 4th grade standards, for example): >>>>>> >>>>>> ? Use place value understanding and properties of operations to >>>>> perform multi-digit arithmetic. >>>>>> >>>>>> ? Make sense of problems and persevere in solving them >>>>>> >>>>>> do some elementary teachers find difficult and threatening? >>>>>> >>>>>> Again apologies for being very, very short about a very large and very >>>>> complex problem. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Ed >>>>>> >>>>>> On Jul 28, 2014, at 2:25 PM, Katherine Wester Neal >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> What an interesting article! I am thinking about the lack of focus on >>>>> specific contexts in the article's discussion of teaching and learning >>> to >>>>> teach as a practicing teacher. Is it possible to go about such change >>> (from >>>>> "old" math to new math or Common Core math) with little/no consideration >>>>> for what kinds of teaching might work in a particular school culture or >>> the >>>>> social context of a given classroom? I think less of a standardized >>>>> approach (here, everyone do this) and more focus on what works locally >>>>> (here are some ideas; now decide what might work for you) might help >>>>> teachers learn to teach Common Core math in a way that actually works in >>>>> their particular context. To adapt phrase from Magdalene Lampert, it >>> might >>>>> bring about more sustainable change as they are "re-learning teaching" >>> in >>>>> their schools. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Because Common Core math is so different, perhaps this re-learning >>>>> teaching requires a radical new approach instead of the same old >>>>> professional development. Learning through the Japanese jugyokenkyu >>> method >>>>> sounds like it might be very useful, but there doesn't seem to be a push >>>>> for reforming how teachers learn once they are in the field. (Except >>> that >>>>> if enough of their students fail the Common Core-aligned tests, they >>> will >>>>> eventually be out of a job.) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It seems nonsensical to implement incredibly high-stakes tests without >>>>> significant investment in re-learning teaching and with, as far as I >>> know, >>>>> no research on how to learn to teach Common Core as a practicing >>> teacher. >>>>> I, too, wonder about how these issues are handled in Japan? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Katie >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Katie Wester-Neal >>>>>>> University of Georgia >>>>>>> ________________________________________ >>>>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu < >>> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> >>>>> on behalf of Huw Lloyd >>>>>>> Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 12:58 PM >>>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: NYTimes.com: Why Do Americans Stink at >>> Math? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 28 July 2014 16:46, Greg Thompson >>> wrote: >>>>>>> [...] >>>>>>> These students had learned >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> incredibly well how to solve recipe Physics but they had no idea >>> about >>>>> how >>>>>>>> the basic principles of Physics worked. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Greg, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I would say the ethics of the situation go deeper than simply >>> (un)learnt >>>>>>> capabilities, but rather to the development of the student's creative >>>>>>> capabilities (or, rather, the stunting of them). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>> Huw >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. >>>> Assistant Professor >>>> Department of Anthropology >>>> 883 Spencer W. Kimball Tower >>>> Brigham Young University >>>> Provo, UT 84602 >>>> http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. >> Assistant Professor >> Department of Anthropology >> 883 Spencer W. Kimball Tower >> Brigham Young University >> Provo, UT 84602 >> http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson > > From lchcmike@gmail.com Wed Jul 30 18:22:20 2014 From: lchcmike@gmail.com (mike cole) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 18:22:20 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: bio-social-behavioral shift and Problem of Age In-Reply-To: References: <1406744430.27578.YahooMailBasic@web171505.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> <1406747630904.48823@uga.edu> Message-ID: This note is a sort of an answer to the questions raised by Holly that have relevance to the observations of Katie and others. Regarding the textbook: Neither my wife nor i have had any input to the process of the revision of our book in its current instantiation. Cynthia Lightfoot took over the heavy work of revision two editions ago, adding some marvelous material on evolution and phylogeny and made other modifications as well. The disappearance of the notion of bio-social-behavioral shift could have come about for any number of reasons, but I do not know what they are. The relentless need to simplify might be involved. My own work has been enormously influenced by writing that text with Sheila who has been my con-spiritor since early adolescence. We wrote the book as our own children were going through that storied time of life. I still believe that the idea of bio-social-behavioral shifts occurring in specific cultural-historical, ontogenetic circumstances is a useful way to conceive of the constituents of development. While it may have disappeared from textbooks it lives both in articles about culture and development and as a guide to my long standing project on the development and sustainability of tertiary artifacts/activity systems. The ideas in the Cole and Cole textbook and how they appear in the context of international discourse about culture and development is pretty well represented in the following article -- for those who wonder what the hell we are talking about and would like to find out. http://lchc.ucsd.edu/People/MCole/InteractiveMinds0001.pdf mike On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 12:44 PM, Tonyan, Holli A wrote: > Hi, > > I've been reading posts for a while and have not posted before. > > This line of discussion prompts me to write a question that I've had in > mind for a while. Before Mike's textbook "The Development of Children" was > reorganized for the 6th Edition when Cynthia Lightfoot became the first > author, the concept of a bio-social-behavioral shift was used to organize > the text. The new edition has dropped that. > > For those of you not familiar, this was a concept that served at least in > my mind to make a more culturally-historically based notion of stages > instead of "stages" that are all too often presented in textbooks as fact > rather than a cultural construction. The textbook referenced Emde and > talked about times when changes occurred across biological, social, and > cultural areas of children's lives. Development was presented with shift > points around: > - birth > - 2.5 to 3 months with the emergence of the truly social smile > (reciprocal, endogenous) > - the end of the first year with self-locomotion > - 2-3 years with the emergence of a system of language > - 5 to 7 years with the "age of reason" and the emergence of more > systematic, logical thought and the loss of baby teeth > - and puberty > > I really liked this feature of the textbook and was sorry to see it go. > Although I've just summarized it here, each shift has changes across > domains associated with it and new capacities for the child that change the > child's social relations with others around him/her as well as > possibilities for thinking. It seemed a nice way to get away from "stages" > as defined by a theory, just biology, or a particular cultural-historical > context by basing the shifts on points in development where biological > changes tend to be marked across a range of local settings with changes in > social expectations and cultural institutions. > > Mike and others... > - For scholarship, is this a line of work that others are taking up? Who > are scholars that are writing about shifts and turning points drawing from > biological, social and cultural changes? > - For teaching, what do you think is lost by taking out the explicit > mention and discussion of these shift points and instead presenting the > material organized around those shift points without explicitly addressing > the concept and what it means? > > I look forward to reading more on the Problem of Age and a > bio-social-behavioral shift. > > Holli A. Tonyan, Ph.D. > ------------ > Associate Professor | Department of Psychology | California State > University, Northridge > Postal Address: 18111 Nordhoff Street | Northridge, CA 91330-8255 > > Tel: (818) 677-4970 | Fax: (818) 677-2829 > Office: ST322 > > http://www.csun.edu/~htonyan > http://csun.academia.edu/HolliTonyan > http://www.csun.edu/~ata20315/GE/general_experimental_psychology2.html > > **check out** > > Tonyan, H. A. (in press). Everyday routines: A window into the cultural > organization of family child care. Journal of Early Childhood Research. > http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1476718X14523748 > > Tonyan, H. A., Nuttall, J. (2014). Connecting cultural models of > home-based care and childminders? career paths: An Eco-cultural analysis. > International Journal of Early Years Education, 22, 117-138, > http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09669760.2013.809654 > > Tonyan, H. A., Mamikonian, A., & Chien, D. (2013). Do they practice what > they preach? An Ecocultural, multidimensional, group-based examination of > the relationship between beliefs and behaviours among child care providers. > Early Child Development and Care, 183:12, 1853-1877. > http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03004430.2012.759949 > > This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to > which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, > confidential or exempt from disclosure under applicable federal or state > law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or the > employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended > recipient, please immediately notify the sender by telephone at > (818)677-4970, and destroy all copies of this e-mail and all attachments. > > Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can > change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has. - Margaret > Mead US > anthropologist & popularizer of anthropology (1901 - 1978) > On Jul 30, 2014, at 12:13 PM, Katherine Wester Neal > wrote: > > I agree that a monumental crisis takes place between the age of 2 and 3. I > wouldn't call it the "terrible twos," but I think it results from the > "language explosion" that often occurs at that age. A child learns that all > these sounds s/he has been hearing can be used meaningfully as a tool for > exerting control on the world around him/her and faces a crisis in how to > use them. > > I think the crisis around 6 years old comes from the understanding that > what one does in the world has consequences. That change, as I understand > it, is the basis for laws that place the age of culpability around 5-6 in > the U.S. (In many U.S. states, children under this age can't be charged > with a crime because they don't have the capability to understand that > they've done something wrong.) Perhaps there are other suggestions? And > what typifies the crisis at 1? How is it biological? > > Katie > > Katie Wester-Neal > University of Georgia > > ________________________________________ > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>> on behalf of peter jones < > h2cmng@yahoo.co.uk> > Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2014 2:20 PM > To: Culture ActivityeXtended Mind > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The ideal head > > The one at 2-2.5 is easy - "terrible twos"? :-) > Is this just a myth though? > > More seriously, there do appear to developmental milestones however: > Use of and ambivalence in Yes / No? > Regards, > Peter (father of three) > ------------------------------- > Peter Jones > Lancashire, UK > Blogging at "Welcome to the QUAD" > http://hodges-model.blogspot.com/ > h2cm: help 2C more - help 2 listen - help 2 care > http://twitter.com/h2cm > > -------------------------------------------- > On Wed, 30/7/14, Greg Thompson wrote: > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The ideal head > To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Date: Wednesday, 30 July, 2014, 18:30 > > Martin, > Vygotsky's Problem of Age is a difficult > essay. I wonder if you could say a > bit more > about the crisis at 6 (7,8?) years and the one at 12 years? > The > others are fairly self explanatory but > those two are a bit more > complicated. Among > other things, it isn't clear what is different about > the > crisis at 2.5 and the crisis at 6. > -greg > > > On > Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 6:44 AM, Martin John Packer wrote: > > Though in other texts he wrote of > adolescence as such a time of crisis > > that the whole stage should be considered a transition. In > the lectures on > child development > Vygotsky describes the following crises: > > Birth: the child is > differentiated physically > 1 year: the > child is differentiated biologically > > 2.5 years: the child is differentiated psychologically > 6 years: inside & outside of self are > differentiated > 12 years: actual & > possible selves are differentiated > > Martin > > On Jul 28, 2014, at 6:36 PM, Andy Blunden > > wrote: > > > Francis, most of the crises which Vygotsky mentions in > http://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/works/1934/problem-age.htm > are associated with childhood before > school. (It is an unfinished work). > > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *Andy Blunden* > > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > > FRANCIS J. SULLIVAN wrote: > ... > > > In any case, I wonder > if Vygotsky considered whether schooling itself > might > be > responsible, at least partly, for the child's apparent > alienation > from > > schooling at these moments. > > > Francis J. Sullivan, > Ph.D. > > > > > > > > -- > Gregory A. > Thompson, Ph.D. > Assistant Professor > Department of Anthropology > 883 > Spencer W. Kimball Tower > Brigham Young > University > Provo, UT 84602 > http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson > > > > > > From lchcmike@gmail.com Wed Jul 30 19:01:43 2014 From: lchcmike@gmail.com (mike cole) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 19:01:43 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: NYTimes.com: Why Do Americans Stink at Math? In-Reply-To: <245EB719-8A88-4496-B64E-D083CD5223F0@umich.edu> References: <53d5718e.c814e00a.3778.3ba3SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> <1406571909843.30805@uga.edu> <75FA794D-2E1B-47A5-941F-7EFA1C605559@umich.edu> <022EE4B2-8F70-4DA7-9D00-63CBD7B67D80@umich.edu> <1406748733952.48320@uga.edu> <245EB719-8A88-4496-B64E-D083CD5223F0@umich.edu> Message-ID: That all seems reasonable to me, Ed. But it strikes me as a real problem when the average "top 12% of California high school graduates" cannot help a kid who has to figure out how to divide one fraction into another. Or if they help its because they "teach the rule" (as in, invert and multiply) but cannot explain why they do this. I think its a challenge to teachers and god bless those who can emulate your approach. But its a challenge to parents, even UCSD graduates aplenty, who cannot explain what they are doing in understandable terms. That good teachers can teach it, give the opportunity I believe. That this is, or is likely to become, the universally accepted norm for everyone, I fear I doubt. But oh my goodness, how happy I would be to be wrong! mike On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 12:46 PM, Ed Wall wrote: > Katherine > > I think yes to your next to last question. However, what sometimes > concerns me (and we are perhaps back to optimism and pessimism) is that > looking for a future which may or may not occur seems 'unfair' to the > students of today. I'm for thoughtful baby steps (and babies do stumble) > now on all fronts and, unlike Carol, I don't yet know the 'right' answer. > However, I would like to know (smile). > > Ed > > On Jul 30, 2014, at 3:32 PM, Katherine Wester Neal wrote: > > > I think we're all on to something here--just different parts of the same > thing. To put it all together, I'm thinking of a spiderweb. On individual > strands, our spiderweb includes: > > > > 1. The differences in contact time and the difficulty of sustaining > meaningful (or really any kind of) change when one is teaching 1,100 hours. > > 2. The pressures of testing. > > 3. The cultural value of childhood, teaching in general, elementary > teachers, and testing as an educational goal in the U.S. > > 4. Making changes in teachers' practices, the way schools work, the > culture of testing, and how students' creative capacities are developed. > > 5. Resistance from parents, teachers, and teacher educators to new ways > of learning/new ideas, which is often a result of deeply ingrained prior > experiences. > > > > I probably didn't get everything that's been discussed, but these are > all issues that should be examined in concert because they are all > connected as part of the same larger system. Although "system" isn't > probably the word I should use with a Vygotskian framework (I'm still > learning), I use to say that I'm not sure how an individual could deal with > one of these strands without affecting or needing to work with the others. > Does it take the effort of a collective, working on multiple strands > simultaneously, to make more than a dent? Or to borrow Ed's words, how do > we reshape the dent or make it bigger? > > > > Katie > > > > Katie Wester-Neal > > University of Georgia > > > > ________________________________________ > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of Ed Wall > > Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2014 3:00 PM > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: NYTimes.com: Why Do Americans Stink at Math? > > > > Greg > > > > I agree with much of what you write below. However, there may be a > disjunct between what you think is happening (and in many instances I agree > with you) and the shape of the denting I am speaking about. I begin my > methods courses talking about the commitments I bring to teaching > (stressing they are mine and that teachers and pre-service teachers are > welcome to push back) > > > > 1. I believe in promoting collective student and teacher engagement > i(and I meant both!) > > 2. I believe in having students do substantial mathematical work (and > that is where the constraints of the context can come into play - don't > necessarily read into this 'new math' or tedious computations) > > 3. I believe in taking my students? thinking seriously (this includes > (mis)understandings!!) > > > > I have yet, by the way, to find an instance (and that includes school > location and students, testing, whatever) where such commitments are > impossible or, in a pragmatic sense, even moderately difficult (most often > the difficulty is learning to value one's students which is more of a > choice although one needs to be aware of the possibility). I would very > much appreciate your suggesting some instances where such commitments were > situationally impossible. My students and I (teachers and pre-service > teachers) then spend a semester (and perhaps more) together - with feedback > from classroom and field experiences - figuring out what kind of teaching > (keeping in mind my commitments) can be sustained (and it will differ and > they need to know this and accommodate to this). I am not unusual (perhaps > read 'rare' - smile). In fact I have a number of colleagues who are > considerably more capable. > > > > Philip Jackson (or was it Dan Lortie) used to talk about the > apprenticeship of observation. People, he argued, learn to teach - for the > most part - by observing as students in regular classroom. That should give > one pause for a variety of reasons. I have sat through numerous faculty > meetings where students are mentioned in less than a respectful fashion > (and have heard anecdotes where that carried into the college classroom). I > have heard elementary teachers spoken of quite disparagingly by faculty in > Arts & Sciences and, while I agree their expertise is not always of the > highest 'academic' quality, it is not clear to me that, in their own field > of study, they are not more capable than their detractors. I have also seen > an instructor continually stress 'nice' or 'comfortable' rather than > 'challenging' or 'uncomfortable.' > > > > I admit my commitments have hooks in them; for instance, what is > substantial mathematics (you need to know some mathematics to figure this > out); what is collective teacher and student engagement (you need to know > some pedagogy to figure this out) and what does it mean to respect student > thinking in view of the previous (you need to know some mathematics and > some pedagogy to figure this out). However, they are a beginning and some > of my students seem, in time, to grow into them no matter the situation. > > > > Anyway, I can't say I'm blissfully optimistic, but I'm not > pessimistic either. I do know that culturally we often don't work together; > that we tend to get mired in the trivial; and we often 'demonize' the > stranger. I hate to think that we will never choose otherwise. However, to > choose otherwise seems very far from impossible in the formal schooling > context. > > > > Ed > > > > On Jul 30, 2014, at 1:42 PM, Greg Thompson > wrote: > > > >> Ed, > >> Thanks for this wonderfully thoughtful reply. Very helpful. > >> > >> As for the teaching practices part, I entirely agree about the need for > >> thoughtful attention to teaching practices and agree that great things > can > >> be accomplished locally. My sense, though, is that it takes great > effort to > >> sustain such smaller scale interventions (i.e. to make more than a > dent). > >> With regard to teaching practices, I would think that the way to > approach a > >> thoughtful teaching practice would be to start with the real > constraints of > >> context that teachers will regularly face and then try and figure out > what > >> kinds of teaching can be sustained given those constraints. > >> > >> That's where I'm most pessimistic. It is difficult for me to imagine > >> developing responsible teaching practices that could be sustained on a > >> larger scale given the cultural, institutional, and ideological context > of > >> schooling in the U.S. [and I might add that it seems like the history of > >> teaching practice in the U.S. is a history where the same good ideas > keep > >> popping up and then fading from sight almost as quickly as they > appeared]. > >> > >> But I'm certainly open to ideas/suggestions for thoughtful pedagogical > >> practices that are sustainable in the U.S. formal schooling context. > >> > >> -greg > >> > >> > >> On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 10:11 AM, Ed Wall wrote: > >> > >>> Comments below > >>> > >>> On Jul 30, 2014, at 11:33 AM, Greg Thompson > > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> I was hoping that somebody might be able to comment on the situation > of > >>>> schooling in Japan and whether or not these hypotheses about the > Japanese > >>>> situation of schooling might bear out: > >>>> > >>>> 1. Teachers in Japan have time to develop their craft. 600 annual > hours > >>> of > >>>> contact time for teachers in Japan vs. 1100 hours of contact time in > the > >>>> U.S. > >>> > >>> Yes > >>> > >>>> 2. There is an ideology of childhood in Japan that values childhood > >>> greatly > >>>> and treats them as qualitatively distinct beings from adolescents and > >>>> adults, and thus suggests that they should be protected from the cruel > >>> and > >>>> harsh practice of "testing". But this also means that elementary > school > >>>> teachers are held in high regard. > >>>> > >>> > >>> Yes. However, it doesn't necessarily follow that this is why elementary > >>> school teachers are held in high regard > >>> > >>>> I guess the first seems a bit more factual but the second is more of > an > >>>> hypothesis, but if they bear out as important factors for enabling the > >>> kind > >>>> of learning that Green describes, then it seems to me that even if > there > >>>> were to be a huge push for training teachers in the U.S., teachers > would > >>>> quickly revert to what we currently lament about teaching in the U.S. > not > >>>> because they are bad teachers or don't know how to teach in the more > >>>> complex manner but rather simply because, with some rare exceptions, > it > >>> is > >>>> IMPOSSIBLE to teach in the more desirable manner given the ridiculous > >>>> amount of contact time and the fact that in the American ideology of > >>>> childhood, the teaching of children is not valued particularly highly. > >>>> > >>> > >>> This doesn't follow. It is possible and it is possible in highly urban > >>> areas (and I amy misunderstand you use of the word 'rare'). That > doesn't > >>> mean that it is necessarily valued or supported by the powers-that-be. > >>> There are a few more things to add to your facts: There is a national > >>> curriculum in Japan and there is a reasonably effective mentoring > system > >>> (largely teacher instigated). A 'fact' (and perhaps this is anecdotal) > is > >>> that when it was first realized that some interesting things were > happening > >>> in Japanese schools (e.g. lesson study), the collegiate Japanese > community > >>> was caught, to a large degree, unaware. 'Master' lesson are published > by > >>> teachers. > >>> > >>>> In light of this, it seems a Sisyphean feat to try to change teachers' > >>>> teaching practices without changing the cultural context in which > those > >>>> teachers work. And changing cultural contexts is perhaps even more > >>>> difficult still. > >>>> > >>> > >>> That was why I suggested a look at the Netherlands (which seem to do as > >>> well or better than the Japanese). Of course, some of this can still be > >>> explained because of cultural differences and how teachers are viewed. > >>> > >>>> Maybe we should stop looking to teaching practices in formal > schooling in > >>>> the U.S. as a site of change? > >>>> Maybe better to look outside and beyond schools altogether? > >>>> > >>> > >>> Perhaps we should do as you suggest (and, to a limited extent and in a > >>> sense, something like this has been done). However, it might also be a > good > >>> idea to look at teaching practices in a thoughtful way. I have seen > very > >>> little of this happening over the years. I was just talking to a > colleague > >>> today and, although we love our work in urban areas, we admit to making > >>> only a small dent. We also admit to being underwhelmed by views of > >>> education prevalent in many schools of education. It is getting > steadily > >>> worse. > >>> > >>> > >>>> Too pessimistic? > >>>> -greg > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> Pessimism is fine, but simply pessimism can be self limiting; however, > >>> that is an opinion and not a fact. > >>> > >>> Ed > >>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 6:02 AM, Ed Wall wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Perhaps something of interest re this thread. > >>>>> > >>>>> Ed Wall > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>> > http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/29/opinion/joe-nocera-teaching-teaching.html?_r=0 > >>>>>> Some general comments (and I apologize for being so late to the > >>>>> conversation as I have been out of email contact) > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Magdalen Lampert and Deborah Ball were both at Michigan State in the > >>>>> late 80s. They both taught what might, in part, be an early version > of > >>> the > >>>>> Common Core to their students. I also taught math methods beginning > in > >>> the > >>>>> late 90s and also emphasized such an approach (I also did similar as > a > >>> K-12 > >>>>> math teacher before moving onto college teaching). There is little > 'new' > >>>>> math in the Common Core - perhaps a bit of 'old' math. However, there > >>> is a > >>>>> very strong emphasis on kids making sense out of what they are doing > (I > >>>>> apologize for being brief, but this is a moment between meetings at a > >>>>> conference devoted to such 'strange' notions as helping kids making > >>> sense). > >>>>>> > >>>>>> There are problems with the Common Core as written down: it is being > >>>>> forced down teachers' throats; it has been tied into high stakes > testing > >>>>> (which, by the way, occurs at places in a student's life in Japan); > >>> there > >>>>> are some debatable differences in the age sequencing of topics; > >>> teachers to > >>>>> be have often not been prepared for such teaching in their college > >>> courses; > >>>>> and more. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Some of these problems may be ironed out with time; however, the > >>>>> training and culture of teaching (see Jackson and Lortie, even if > >>> somewhat > >>>>> dated) in the US is still a bit grim. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> So a few summary points: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Teaching that is, more or less, in sync with the Common Core has > >>>>> been practiced for years in the US. Teacher training that is in sync > >>> with > >>>>> the Common Core has been available for years in the US. Lesson study > >>>>> Japanese style may be more possible with an agreed upon core > (although > >>> one > >>>>> might look to the Netherlands to see what works well for them rather > >>> than > >>>>> Japan). > >>>>>> > >>>>>> An interesting question for those of us who are involved in teacher > >>>>> training might be "Why do so many teachers find the Common Core > >>> Standards > >>>>> so threatening - factoring out the forcing and testing)?" What (from > the > >>>>> 4th grade standards, for example): > >>>>>> > >>>>>> ? Use place value understanding and properties of operations to > >>>>> perform multi-digit arithmetic. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> ? Make sense of problems and persevere in solving them > >>>>>> > >>>>>> do some elementary teachers find difficult and threatening? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Again apologies for being very, very short about a very large and > very > >>>>> complex problem. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Ed > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Jul 28, 2014, at 2:25 PM, Katherine Wester Neal > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> What an interesting article! I am thinking about the lack of focus > on > >>>>> specific contexts in the article's discussion of teaching and > learning > >>> to > >>>>> teach as a practicing teacher. Is it possible to go about such change > >>> (from > >>>>> "old" math to new math or Common Core math) with little/no > consideration > >>>>> for what kinds of teaching might work in a particular school culture > or > >>> the > >>>>> social context of a given classroom? I think less of a standardized > >>>>> approach (here, everyone do this) and more focus on what works > locally > >>>>> (here are some ideas; now decide what might work for you) might help > >>>>> teachers learn to teach Common Core math in a way that actually > works in > >>>>> their particular context. To adapt phrase from Magdalene Lampert, it > >>> might > >>>>> bring about more sustainable change as they are "re-learning > teaching" > >>> in > >>>>> their schools. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Because Common Core math is so different, perhaps this re-learning > >>>>> teaching requires a radical new approach instead of the same old > >>>>> professional development. Learning through the Japanese jugyokenkyu > >>> method > >>>>> sounds like it might be very useful, but there doesn't seem to be a > push > >>>>> for reforming how teachers learn once they are in the field. (Except > >>> that > >>>>> if enough of their students fail the Common Core-aligned tests, they > >>> will > >>>>> eventually be out of a job.) > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> It seems nonsensical to implement incredibly high-stakes tests > without > >>>>> significant investment in re-learning teaching and with, as far as I > >>> know, > >>>>> no research on how to learn to teach Common Core as a practicing > >>> teacher. > >>>>> I, too, wonder about how these issues are handled in Japan? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Katie > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Katie Wester-Neal > >>>>>>> University of Georgia > >>>>>>> ________________________________________ > >>>>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu < > >>> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> > >>>>> on behalf of Huw Lloyd > >>>>>>> Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 12:58 PM > >>>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > >>>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: NYTimes.com: Why Do Americans Stink at > >>> Math? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On 28 July 2014 16:46, Greg Thompson > >>> wrote: > >>>>>>> [...] > >>>>>>> These students had learned > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> incredibly well how to solve recipe Physics but they had no idea > >>> about > >>>>> how > >>>>>>>> the basic principles of Physics worked. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Greg, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I would say the ethics of the situation go deeper than simply > >>> (un)learnt > >>>>>>> capabilities, but rather to the development of the student's > creative > >>>>>>> capabilities (or, rather, the stunting of them). > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Best, > >>>>>>> Huw > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. > >>>> Assistant Professor > >>>> Department of Anthropology > >>>> 883 Spencer W. Kimball Tower > >>>> Brigham Young University > >>>> Provo, UT 84602 > >>>> http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. > >> Assistant Professor > >> Department of Anthropology > >> 883 Spencer W. Kimball Tower > >> Brigham Young University > >> Provo, UT 84602 > >> http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson > > > > > > > From ewall@umich.edu Thu Jul 31 05:10:35 2014 From: ewall@umich.edu (Ed Wall) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 08:10:35 -0400 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: NYTimes.com: Why Do Americans Stink at Math? In-Reply-To: References: <53d5718e.c814e00a.3778.3ba3SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> <1406571909843.30805@uga.edu> <75FA794D-2E1B-47A5-941F-7EFA1C605559@umich.edu> <022EE4B2-8F70-4DA7-9D00-63CBD7B67D80@umich.edu> <1406748733952.48320@uga.edu> <245EB719-8A88-4496-B64E-D083CD5223F0@umich.edu> Message-ID: <48C0B057-4918-4642-A947-44C19F8D090E@umich.edu> Mike As I said I am not a blissful optimist. Liping Ma made the point some time ago that, in fact, something like this would not be possible until a generation of students (perhaps two) had been taught to reasonably (and what this means can be usefully debated) understand what was going on (by the way, being able to do it in a rote fashion indicates, at least, that one understands the procedure). Parents can help and hinder (most, if treated respectfully, want to help). Perhaps a story will indicate where I'm at. A number of years ago, I was at a conference sitting next to a young graduate student with a policy background who was sort of interested in the mathematics mess. Finally, she could stand no more and blurted out something like , "I can't understand why you people are fussing about all this math teaching business, the kids in the inner city schools will never appreciate it." I turned to her and said sadly something like, "You are possibly right, but I can't act as if I believe so. Does that make sense?" She nodded yes. It is not just UCSD students who have problems with this. One of my friends did something with fractions in his calculus class at UM (smile). Part of the problem, I think, is that fractions in general have little practical meaning for many people (unlike the natural numbers); they are, in a sense, somewhat of a historical artifact. It is moderately easy to intervene on this at certain points in the school curriculum although asking why is useful. Ed On Jul 30, 2014, at 10:01 PM, mike cole wrote: > That all seems reasonable to me, Ed. But it strikes me as a real problem > when the average "top 12% of California high school graduates" cannot help > a kid who has to figure out how to divide one fraction into another. Or if > they help its because they "teach the rule" (as in, invert and multiply) > but cannot explain why they do this. > > I think its a challenge to teachers and god bless those who can emulate > your approach. But its a challenge to parents, even UCSD graduates aplenty, > who cannot explain what they are doing in understandable terms. > > That good teachers can teach it, give the opportunity I believe. That this > is, or is likely to become, the universally accepted norm for everyone, I > fear I doubt. But oh my goodness, how happy I would be to be wrong! > mike > > > On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 12:46 PM, Ed Wall wrote: > >> Katherine >> >> I think yes to your next to last question. However, what sometimes >> concerns me (and we are perhaps back to optimism and pessimism) is that >> looking for a future which may or may not occur seems 'unfair' to the >> students of today. I'm for thoughtful baby steps (and babies do stumble) >> now on all fronts and, unlike Carol, I don't yet know the 'right' answer. >> However, I would like to know (smile). >> >> Ed >> >> On Jul 30, 2014, at 3:32 PM, Katherine Wester Neal wrote: >> >>> I think we're all on to something here--just different parts of the same >> thing. To put it all together, I'm thinking of a spiderweb. On individual >> strands, our spiderweb includes: >>> >>> 1. The differences in contact time and the difficulty of sustaining >> meaningful (or really any kind of) change when one is teaching 1,100 hours. >>> 2. The pressures of testing. >>> 3. The cultural value of childhood, teaching in general, elementary >> teachers, and testing as an educational goal in the U.S. >>> 4. Making changes in teachers' practices, the way schools work, the >> culture of testing, and how students' creative capacities are developed. >>> 5. Resistance from parents, teachers, and teacher educators to new ways >> of learning/new ideas, which is often a result of deeply ingrained prior >> experiences. >>> >>> I probably didn't get everything that's been discussed, but these are >> all issues that should be examined in concert because they are all >> connected as part of the same larger system. Although "system" isn't >> probably the word I should use with a Vygotskian framework (I'm still >> learning), I use to say that I'm not sure how an individual could deal with >> one of these strands without affecting or needing to work with the others. >> Does it take the effort of a collective, working on multiple strands >> simultaneously, to make more than a dent? Or to borrow Ed's words, how do >> we reshape the dent or make it bigger? >>> >>> Katie >>> >>> Katie Wester-Neal >>> University of Georgia >>> >>> ________________________________________ >>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >> on behalf of Ed Wall >>> Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2014 3:00 PM >>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: NYTimes.com: Why Do Americans Stink at Math? >>> >>> Greg >>> >>> I agree with much of what you write below. However, there may be a >> disjunct between what you think is happening (and in many instances I agree >> with you) and the shape of the denting I am speaking about. I begin my >> methods courses talking about the commitments I bring to teaching >> (stressing they are mine and that teachers and pre-service teachers are >> welcome to push back) >>> >>> 1. I believe in promoting collective student and teacher engagement >> i(and I meant both!) >>> 2. I believe in having students do substantial mathematical work (and >> that is where the constraints of the context can come into play - don't >> necessarily read into this 'new math' or tedious computations) >>> 3. I believe in taking my students? thinking seriously (this includes >> (mis)understandings!!) >>> >>> I have yet, by the way, to find an instance (and that includes school >> location and students, testing, whatever) where such commitments are >> impossible or, in a pragmatic sense, even moderately difficult (most often >> the difficulty is learning to value one's students which is more of a >> choice although one needs to be aware of the possibility). I would very >> much appreciate your suggesting some instances where such commitments were >> situationally impossible. My students and I (teachers and pre-service >> teachers) then spend a semester (and perhaps more) together - with feedback >> from classroom and field experiences - figuring out what kind of teaching >> (keeping in mind my commitments) can be sustained (and it will differ and >> they need to know this and accommodate to this). I am not unusual (perhaps >> read 'rare' - smile). In fact I have a number of colleagues who are >> considerably more capable. >>> >>> Philip Jackson (or was it Dan Lortie) used to talk about the >> apprenticeship of observation. People, he argued, learn to teach - for the >> most part - by observing as students in regular classroom. That should give >> one pause for a variety of reasons. I have sat through numerous faculty >> meetings where students are mentioned in less than a respectful fashion >> (and have heard anecdotes where that carried into the college classroom). I >> have heard elementary teachers spoken of quite disparagingly by faculty in >> Arts & Sciences and, while I agree their expertise is not always of the >> highest 'academic' quality, it is not clear to me that, in their own field >> of study, they are not more capable than their detractors. I have also seen >> an instructor continually stress 'nice' or 'comfortable' rather than >> 'challenging' or 'uncomfortable.' >>> >>> I admit my commitments have hooks in them; for instance, what is >> substantial mathematics (you need to know some mathematics to figure this >> out); what is collective teacher and student engagement (you need to know >> some pedagogy to figure this out) and what does it mean to respect student >> thinking in view of the previous (you need to know some mathematics and >> some pedagogy to figure this out). However, they are a beginning and some >> of my students seem, in time, to grow into them no matter the situation. >>> >>> Anyway, I can't say I'm blissfully optimistic, but I'm not >> pessimistic either. I do know that culturally we often don't work together; >> that we tend to get mired in the trivial; and we often 'demonize' the >> stranger. I hate to think that we will never choose otherwise. However, to >> choose otherwise seems very far from impossible in the formal schooling >> context. >>> >>> Ed >>> >>> On Jul 30, 2014, at 1:42 PM, Greg Thompson >> wrote: >>> >>>> Ed, >>>> Thanks for this wonderfully thoughtful reply. Very helpful. >>>> >>>> As for the teaching practices part, I entirely agree about the need for >>>> thoughtful attention to teaching practices and agree that great things >> can >>>> be accomplished locally. My sense, though, is that it takes great >> effort to >>>> sustain such smaller scale interventions (i.e. to make more than a >> dent). >>>> With regard to teaching practices, I would think that the way to >> approach a >>>> thoughtful teaching practice would be to start with the real >> constraints of >>>> context that teachers will regularly face and then try and figure out >> what >>>> kinds of teaching can be sustained given those constraints. >>>> >>>> That's where I'm most pessimistic. It is difficult for me to imagine >>>> developing responsible teaching practices that could be sustained on a >>>> larger scale given the cultural, institutional, and ideological context >> of >>>> schooling in the U.S. [and I might add that it seems like the history of >>>> teaching practice in the U.S. is a history where the same good ideas >> keep >>>> popping up and then fading from sight almost as quickly as they >> appeared]. >>>> >>>> But I'm certainly open to ideas/suggestions for thoughtful pedagogical >>>> practices that are sustainable in the U.S. formal schooling context. >>>> >>>> -greg >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 10:11 AM, Ed Wall wrote: >>>> >>>>> Comments below >>>>> >>>>> On Jul 30, 2014, at 11:33 AM, Greg Thompson >> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I was hoping that somebody might be able to comment on the situation >> of >>>>>> schooling in Japan and whether or not these hypotheses about the >> Japanese >>>>>> situation of schooling might bear out: >>>>>> >>>>>> 1. Teachers in Japan have time to develop their craft. 600 annual >> hours >>>>> of >>>>>> contact time for teachers in Japan vs. 1100 hours of contact time in >> the >>>>>> U.S. >>>>> >>>>> Yes >>>>> >>>>>> 2. There is an ideology of childhood in Japan that values childhood >>>>> greatly >>>>>> and treats them as qualitatively distinct beings from adolescents and >>>>>> adults, and thus suggests that they should be protected from the cruel >>>>> and >>>>>> harsh practice of "testing". But this also means that elementary >> school >>>>>> teachers are held in high regard. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Yes. However, it doesn't necessarily follow that this is why elementary >>>>> school teachers are held in high regard >>>>> >>>>>> I guess the first seems a bit more factual but the second is more of >> an >>>>>> hypothesis, but if they bear out as important factors for enabling the >>>>> kind >>>>>> of learning that Green describes, then it seems to me that even if >> there >>>>>> were to be a huge push for training teachers in the U.S., teachers >> would >>>>>> quickly revert to what we currently lament about teaching in the U.S. >> not >>>>>> because they are bad teachers or don't know how to teach in the more >>>>>> complex manner but rather simply because, with some rare exceptions, >> it >>>>> is >>>>>> IMPOSSIBLE to teach in the more desirable manner given the ridiculous >>>>>> amount of contact time and the fact that in the American ideology of >>>>>> childhood, the teaching of children is not valued particularly highly. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> This doesn't follow. It is possible and it is possible in highly urban >>>>> areas (and I amy misunderstand you use of the word 'rare'). That >> doesn't >>>>> mean that it is necessarily valued or supported by the powers-that-be. >>>>> There are a few more things to add to your facts: There is a national >>>>> curriculum in Japan and there is a reasonably effective mentoring >> system >>>>> (largely teacher instigated). A 'fact' (and perhaps this is anecdotal) >> is >>>>> that when it was first realized that some interesting things were >> happening >>>>> in Japanese schools (e.g. lesson study), the collegiate Japanese >> community >>>>> was caught, to a large degree, unaware. 'Master' lesson are published >> by >>>>> teachers. >>>>> >>>>>> In light of this, it seems a Sisyphean feat to try to change teachers' >>>>>> teaching practices without changing the cultural context in which >> those >>>>>> teachers work. And changing cultural contexts is perhaps even more >>>>>> difficult still. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> That was why I suggested a look at the Netherlands (which seem to do as >>>>> well or better than the Japanese). Of course, some of this can still be >>>>> explained because of cultural differences and how teachers are viewed. >>>>> >>>>>> Maybe we should stop looking to teaching practices in formal >> schooling in >>>>>> the U.S. as a site of change? >>>>>> Maybe better to look outside and beyond schools altogether? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Perhaps we should do as you suggest (and, to a limited extent and in a >>>>> sense, something like this has been done). However, it might also be a >> good >>>>> idea to look at teaching practices in a thoughtful way. I have seen >> very >>>>> little of this happening over the years. I was just talking to a >> colleague >>>>> today and, although we love our work in urban areas, we admit to making >>>>> only a small dent. We also admit to being underwhelmed by views of >>>>> education prevalent in many schools of education. It is getting >> steadily >>>>> worse. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Too pessimistic? >>>>>> -greg >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Pessimism is fine, but simply pessimism can be self limiting; however, >>>>> that is an opinion and not a fact. >>>>> >>>>> Ed >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 6:02 AM, Ed Wall wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Perhaps something of interest re this thread. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ed Wall >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/29/opinion/joe-nocera-teaching-teaching.html?_r=0 >>>>>>>> Some general comments (and I apologize for being so late to the >>>>>>> conversation as I have been out of email contact) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Magdalen Lampert and Deborah Ball were both at Michigan State in the >>>>>>> late 80s. They both taught what might, in part, be an early version >> of >>>>> the >>>>>>> Common Core to their students. I also taught math methods beginning >> in >>>>> the >>>>>>> late 90s and also emphasized such an approach (I also did similar as >> a >>>>> K-12 >>>>>>> math teacher before moving onto college teaching). There is little >> 'new' >>>>>>> math in the Common Core - perhaps a bit of 'old' math. However, there >>>>> is a >>>>>>> very strong emphasis on kids making sense out of what they are doing >> (I >>>>>>> apologize for being brief, but this is a moment between meetings at a >>>>>>> conference devoted to such 'strange' notions as helping kids making >>>>> sense). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> There are problems with the Common Core as written down: it is being >>>>>>> forced down teachers' throats; it has been tied into high stakes >> testing >>>>>>> (which, by the way, occurs at places in a student's life in Japan); >>>>> there >>>>>>> are some debatable differences in the age sequencing of topics; >>>>> teachers to >>>>>>> be have often not been prepared for such teaching in their college >>>>> courses; >>>>>>> and more. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Some of these problems may be ironed out with time; however, the >>>>>>> training and culture of teaching (see Jackson and Lortie, even if >>>>> somewhat >>>>>>> dated) in the US is still a bit grim. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So a few summary points: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Teaching that is, more or less, in sync with the Common Core has >>>>>>> been practiced for years in the US. Teacher training that is in sync >>>>> with >>>>>>> the Common Core has been available for years in the US. Lesson study >>>>>>> Japanese style may be more possible with an agreed upon core >> (although >>>>> one >>>>>>> might look to the Netherlands to see what works well for them rather >>>>> than >>>>>>> Japan). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> An interesting question for those of us who are involved in teacher >>>>>>> training might be "Why do so many teachers find the Common Core >>>>> Standards >>>>>>> so threatening - factoring out the forcing and testing)?" What (from >> the >>>>>>> 4th grade standards, for example): >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ? Use place value understanding and properties of operations to >>>>>>> perform multi-digit arithmetic. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ? Make sense of problems and persevere in solving them >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> do some elementary teachers find difficult and threatening? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Again apologies for being very, very short about a very large and >> very >>>>>>> complex problem. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ed >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Jul 28, 2014, at 2:25 PM, Katherine Wester Neal >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> What an interesting article! I am thinking about the lack of focus >> on >>>>>>> specific contexts in the article's discussion of teaching and >> learning >>>>> to >>>>>>> teach as a practicing teacher. Is it possible to go about such change >>>>> (from >>>>>>> "old" math to new math or Common Core math) with little/no >> consideration >>>>>>> for what kinds of teaching might work in a particular school culture >> or >>>>> the >>>>>>> social context of a given classroom? I think less of a standardized >>>>>>> approach (here, everyone do this) and more focus on what works >> locally >>>>>>> (here are some ideas; now decide what might work for you) might help >>>>>>> teachers learn to teach Common Core math in a way that actually >> works in >>>>>>> their particular context. To adapt phrase from Magdalene Lampert, it >>>>> might >>>>>>> bring about more sustainable change as they are "re-learning >> teaching" >>>>> in >>>>>>> their schools. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Because Common Core math is so different, perhaps this re-learning >>>>>>> teaching requires a radical new approach instead of the same old >>>>>>> professional development. Learning through the Japanese jugyokenkyu >>>>> method >>>>>>> sounds like it might be very useful, but there doesn't seem to be a >> push >>>>>>> for reforming how teachers learn once they are in the field. (Except >>>>> that >>>>>>> if enough of their students fail the Common Core-aligned tests, they >>>>> will >>>>>>> eventually be out of a job.) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It seems nonsensical to implement incredibly high-stakes tests >> without >>>>>>> significant investment in re-learning teaching and with, as far as I >>>>> know, >>>>>>> no research on how to learn to teach Common Core as a practicing >>>>> teacher. >>>>>>> I, too, wonder about how these issues are handled in Japan? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Katie >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Katie Wester-Neal >>>>>>>>> University of Georgia >>>>>>>>> ________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu < >>>>> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> >>>>>>> on behalf of Huw Lloyd >>>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 12:58 PM >>>>>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>>>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: NYTimes.com: Why Do Americans Stink at >>>>> Math? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 28 July 2014 16:46, Greg Thompson >>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> [...] >>>>>>>>> These students had learned >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> incredibly well how to solve recipe Physics but they had no idea >>>>> about >>>>>>> how >>>>>>>>>> the basic principles of Physics worked. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Greg, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I would say the ethics of the situation go deeper than simply >>>>> (un)learnt >>>>>>>>> capabilities, but rather to the development of the student's >> creative >>>>>>>>> capabilities (or, rather, the stunting of them). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>> Huw >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. >>>>>> Assistant Professor >>>>>> Department of Anthropology >>>>>> 883 Spencer W. Kimball Tower >>>>>> Brigham Young University >>>>>> Provo, UT 84602 >>>>>> http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. >>>> Assistant Professor >>>> Department of Anthropology >>>> 883 Spencer W. Kimball Tower >>>> Brigham Young University >>>> Provo, UT 84602 >>>> http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson >>> >>> >> >> >> From glassman.13@osu.edu Thu Jul 31 06:25:22 2014 From: glassman.13@osu.edu (Glassman, Michael) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 13:25:22 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: NYTimes.com: Why Do Americans Stink at Math? In-Reply-To: <48C0B057-4918-4642-A947-44C19F8D090E@umich.edu> References: <53d5718e.c814e00a.3778.3ba3SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> <1406571909843.30805@uga.edu> <75FA794D-2E1B-47A5-941F-7EFA1C605559@umich.edu> <022EE4B2-8F70-4DA7-9D00-63CBD7B67D80@umich.edu> <1406748733952.48320@uga.edu> <245EB719-8A88-4496-B64E-D083CD5223F0@umich.edu> , <48C0B057-4918-4642-A947-44C19F8D090E@umich.edu> Message-ID: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9024BA2@CIO-TNC-D2MBX01.osuad.osu.edu> So here is my question. We have gone through basically a century of this. We teach mathematics and some people get it - the people in my experience really love mathematics - but most people don't. It's just something you do to get some place else (I am reminded of my attitude towards statistics courses in graduate school). So we keep banging our head against the wall again and again. Doesn't it make sense that somebody should stand up and ask "why are we teaching mathematics?" - as a subject I mean, it is still an important field of study. This is something we just made up mostly for the sake of "efficiency" - although it is not very efficient. But there is nothing to suggest that this is a good idea, and there are a lot of things to suggest that maybe we're on the wrong track here as far as education in concerned. This was actually an argument about specific subjects in the 20s and 30s, but we have been so unsuccessful and been so frustrated its pretty amazing that it hasn't come up again. Why not let mathematics emerge in the course of what we do? Is the type of mathematics we learn in the classroom transferable anyway? Maybe a bit heretical, but perhaps the idea should be raised every once in a while. Michael ________________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] on behalf of Ed Wall [ewall@umich.edu] Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 8:10 AM To: lchcmike@gmail.com; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: NYTimes.com: Why Do Americans Stink at Math? Mike As I said I am not a blissful optimist. Liping Ma made the point some time ago that, in fact, something like this would not be possible until a generation of students (perhaps two) had been taught to reasonably (and what this means can be usefully debated) understand what was going on (by the way, being able to do it in a rote fashion indicates, at least, that one understands the procedure). Parents can help and hinder (most, if treated respectfully, want to help). Perhaps a story will indicate where I'm at. A number of years ago, I was at a conference sitting next to a young graduate student with a policy background who was sort of interested in the mathematics mess. Finally, she could stand no more and blurted out something like , "I can't understand why you people are fussing about all this math teaching business, the kids in the inner city schools will never appreciate it." I turned to her and said sadly something like, "You are possibly right, but I can't act as if I believe so. Does that make sense?" She nodded yes. It is not just UCSD students who have problems with this. One of my friends did something with fractions in his calculus class at UM (smile). Part of the problem, I think, is that fractions in general have little practical meaning for many people (unlike the natural numbers); they are, in a sense, somewhat of a historical artifact. It is moderately easy to intervene on this at certain points in the school curriculum although asking why is useful. Ed On Jul 30, 2014, at 10:01 PM, mike cole wrote: > That all seems reasonable to me, Ed. But it strikes me as a real problem > when the average "top 12% of California high school graduates" cannot help > a kid who has to figure out how to divide one fraction into another. Or if > they help its because they "teach the rule" (as in, invert and multiply) > but cannot explain why they do this. > > I think its a challenge to teachers and god bless those who can emulate > your approach. But its a challenge to parents, even UCSD graduates aplenty, > who cannot explain what they are doing in understandable terms. > > That good teachers can teach it, give the opportunity I believe. That this > is, or is likely to become, the universally accepted norm for everyone, I > fear I doubt. But oh my goodness, how happy I would be to be wrong! > mike > > > On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 12:46 PM, Ed Wall wrote: > >> Katherine >> >> I think yes to your next to last question. However, what sometimes >> concerns me (and we are perhaps back to optimism and pessimism) is that >> looking for a future which may or may not occur seems 'unfair' to the >> students of today. I'm for thoughtful baby steps (and babies do stumble) >> now on all fronts and, unlike Carol, I don't yet know the 'right' answer. >> However, I would like to know (smile). >> >> Ed >> >> On Jul 30, 2014, at 3:32 PM, Katherine Wester Neal wrote: >> >>> I think we're all on to something here--just different parts of the same >> thing. To put it all together, I'm thinking of a spiderweb. On individual >> strands, our spiderweb includes: >>> >>> 1. The differences in contact time and the difficulty of sustaining >> meaningful (or really any kind of) change when one is teaching 1,100 hours. >>> 2. The pressures of testing. >>> 3. The cultural value of childhood, teaching in general, elementary >> teachers, and testing as an educational goal in the U.S. >>> 4. Making changes in teachers' practices, the way schools work, the >> culture of testing, and how students' creative capacities are developed. >>> 5. Resistance from parents, teachers, and teacher educators to new ways >> of learning/new ideas, which is often a result of deeply ingrained prior >> experiences. >>> >>> I probably didn't get everything that's been discussed, but these are >> all issues that should be examined in concert because they are all >> connected as part of the same larger system. Although "system" isn't >> probably the word I should use with a Vygotskian framework (I'm still >> learning), I use to say that I'm not sure how an individual could deal with >> one of these strands without affecting or needing to work with the others. >> Does it take the effort of a collective, working on multiple strands >> simultaneously, to make more than a dent? Or to borrow Ed's words, how do >> we reshape the dent or make it bigger? >>> >>> Katie >>> >>> Katie Wester-Neal >>> University of Georgia >>> >>> ________________________________________ >>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >> on behalf of Ed Wall >>> Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2014 3:00 PM >>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: NYTimes.com: Why Do Americans Stink at Math? >>> >>> Greg >>> >>> I agree with much of what you write below. However, there may be a >> disjunct between what you think is happening (and in many instances I agree >> with you) and the shape of the denting I am speaking about. I begin my >> methods courses talking about the commitments I bring to teaching >> (stressing they are mine and that teachers and pre-service teachers are >> welcome to push back) >>> >>> 1. I believe in promoting collective student and teacher engagement >> i(and I meant both!) >>> 2. I believe in having students do substantial mathematical work (and >> that is where the constraints of the context can come into play - don't >> necessarily read into this 'new math' or tedious computations) >>> 3. I believe in taking my students? thinking seriously (this includes >> (mis)understandings!!) >>> >>> I have yet, by the way, to find an instance (and that includes school >> location and students, testing, whatever) where such commitments are >> impossible or, in a pragmatic sense, even moderately difficult (most often >> the difficulty is learning to value one's students which is more of a >> choice although one needs to be aware of the possibility). I would very >> much appreciate your suggesting some instances where such commitments were >> situationally impossible. My students and I (teachers and pre-service >> teachers) then spend a semester (and perhaps more) together - with feedback >> from classroom and field experiences - figuring out what kind of teaching >> (keeping in mind my commitments) can be sustained (and it will differ and >> they need to know this and accommodate to this). I am not unusual (perhaps >> read 'rare' - smile). In fact I have a number of colleagues who are >> considerably more capable. >>> >>> Philip Jackson (or was it Dan Lortie) used to talk about the >> apprenticeship of observation. People, he argued, learn to teach - for the >> most part - by observing as students in regular classroom. That should give >> one pause for a variety of reasons. I have sat through numerous faculty >> meetings where students are mentioned in less than a respectful fashion >> (and have heard anecdotes where that carried into the college classroom). I >> have heard elementary teachers spoken of quite disparagingly by faculty in >> Arts & Sciences and, while I agree their expertise is not always of the >> highest 'academic' quality, it is not clear to me that, in their own field >> of study, they are not more capable than their detractors. I have also seen >> an instructor continually stress 'nice' or 'comfortable' rather than >> 'challenging' or 'uncomfortable.' >>> >>> I admit my commitments have hooks in them; for instance, what is >> substantial mathematics (you need to know some mathematics to figure this >> out); what is collective teacher and student engagement (you need to know >> some pedagogy to figure this out) and what does it mean to respect student >> thinking in view of the previous (you need to know some mathematics and >> some pedagogy to figure this out). However, they are a beginning and some >> of my students seem, in time, to grow into them no matter the situation. >>> >>> Anyway, I can't say I'm blissfully optimistic, but I'm not >> pessimistic either. I do know that culturally we often don't work together; >> that we tend to get mired in the trivial; and we often 'demonize' the >> stranger. I hate to think that we will never choose otherwise. However, to >> choose otherwise seems very far from impossible in the formal schooling >> context. >>> >>> Ed >>> >>> On Jul 30, 2014, at 1:42 PM, Greg Thompson >> wrote: >>> >>>> Ed, >>>> Thanks for this wonderfully thoughtful reply. Very helpful. >>>> >>>> As for the teaching practices part, I entirely agree about the need for >>>> thoughtful attention to teaching practices and agree that great things >> can >>>> be accomplished locally. My sense, though, is that it takes great >> effort to >>>> sustain such smaller scale interventions (i.e. to make more than a >> dent). >>>> With regard to teaching practices, I would think that the way to >> approach a >>>> thoughtful teaching practice would be to start with the real >> constraints of >>>> context that teachers will regularly face and then try and figure out >> what >>>> kinds of teaching can be sustained given those constraints. >>>> >>>> That's where I'm most pessimistic. It is difficult for me to imagine >>>> developing responsible teaching practices that could be sustained on a >>>> larger scale given the cultural, institutional, and ideological context >> of >>>> schooling in the U.S. [and I might add that it seems like the history of >>>> teaching practice in the U.S. is a history where the same good ideas >> keep >>>> popping up and then fading from sight almost as quickly as they >> appeared]. >>>> >>>> But I'm certainly open to ideas/suggestions for thoughtful pedagogical >>>> practices that are sustainable in the U.S. formal schooling context. >>>> >>>> -greg >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 10:11 AM, Ed Wall wrote: >>>> >>>>> Comments below >>>>> >>>>> On Jul 30, 2014, at 11:33 AM, Greg Thompson >> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I was hoping that somebody might be able to comment on the situation >> of >>>>>> schooling in Japan and whether or not these hypotheses about the >> Japanese >>>>>> situation of schooling might bear out: >>>>>> >>>>>> 1. Teachers in Japan have time to develop their craft. 600 annual >> hours >>>>> of >>>>>> contact time for teachers in Japan vs. 1100 hours of contact time in >> the >>>>>> U.S. >>>>> >>>>> Yes >>>>> >>>>>> 2. There is an ideology of childhood in Japan that values childhood >>>>> greatly >>>>>> and treats them as qualitatively distinct beings from adolescents and >>>>>> adults, and thus suggests that they should be protected from the cruel >>>>> and >>>>>> harsh practice of "testing". But this also means that elementary >> school >>>>>> teachers are held in high regard. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Yes. However, it doesn't necessarily follow that this is why elementary >>>>> school teachers are held in high regard >>>>> >>>>>> I guess the first seems a bit more factual but the second is more of >> an >>>>>> hypothesis, but if they bear out as important factors for enabling the >>>>> kind >>>>>> of learning that Green describes, then it seems to me that even if >> there >>>>>> were to be a huge push for training teachers in the U.S., teachers >> would >>>>>> quickly revert to what we currently lament about teaching in the U.S. >> not >>>>>> because they are bad teachers or don't know how to teach in the more >>>>>> complex manner but rather simply because, with some rare exceptions, >> it >>>>> is >>>>>> IMPOSSIBLE to teach in the more desirable manner given the ridiculous >>>>>> amount of contact time and the fact that in the American ideology of >>>>>> childhood, the teaching of children is not valued particularly highly. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> This doesn't follow. It is possible and it is possible in highly urban >>>>> areas (and I amy misunderstand you use of the word 'rare'). That >> doesn't >>>>> mean that it is necessarily valued or supported by the powers-that-be. >>>>> There are a few more things to add to your facts: There is a national >>>>> curriculum in Japan and there is a reasonably effective mentoring >> system >>>>> (largely teacher instigated). A 'fact' (and perhaps this is anecdotal) >> is >>>>> that when it was first realized that some interesting things were >> happening >>>>> in Japanese schools (e.g. lesson study), the collegiate Japanese >> community >>>>> was caught, to a large degree, unaware. 'Master' lesson are published >> by >>>>> teachers. >>>>> >>>>>> In light of this, it seems a Sisyphean feat to try to change teachers' >>>>>> teaching practices without changing the cultural context in which >> those >>>>>> teachers work. And changing cultural contexts is perhaps even more >>>>>> difficult still. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> That was why I suggested a look at the Netherlands (which seem to do as >>>>> well or better than the Japanese). Of course, some of this can still be >>>>> explained because of cultural differences and how teachers are viewed. >>>>> >>>>>> Maybe we should stop looking to teaching practices in formal >> schooling in >>>>>> the U.S. as a site of change? >>>>>> Maybe better to look outside and beyond schools altogether? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Perhaps we should do as you suggest (and, to a limited extent and in a >>>>> sense, something like this has been done). However, it might also be a >> good >>>>> idea to look at teaching practices in a thoughtful way. I have seen >> very >>>>> little of this happening over the years. I was just talking to a >> colleague >>>>> today and, although we love our work in urban areas, we admit to making >>>>> only a small dent. We also admit to being underwhelmed by views of >>>>> education prevalent in many schools of education. It is getting >> steadily >>>>> worse. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Too pessimistic? >>>>>> -greg >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Pessimism is fine, but simply pessimism can be self limiting; however, >>>>> that is an opinion and not a fact. >>>>> >>>>> Ed >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 6:02 AM, Ed Wall wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Perhaps something of interest re this thread. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ed Wall >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/29/opinion/joe-nocera-teaching-teaching.html?_r=0 >>>>>>>> Some general comments (and I apologize for being so late to the >>>>>>> conversation as I have been out of email contact) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Magdalen Lampert and Deborah Ball were both at Michigan State in the >>>>>>> late 80s. They both taught what might, in part, be an early version >> of >>>>> the >>>>>>> Common Core to their students. I also taught math methods beginning >> in >>>>> the >>>>>>> late 90s and also emphasized such an approach (I also did similar as >> a >>>>> K-12 >>>>>>> math teacher before moving onto college teaching). There is little >> 'new' >>>>>>> math in the Common Core - perhaps a bit of 'old' math. However, there >>>>> is a >>>>>>> very strong emphasis on kids making sense out of what they are doing >> (I >>>>>>> apologize for being brief, but this is a moment between meetings at a >>>>>>> conference devoted to such 'strange' notions as helping kids making >>>>> sense). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> There are problems with the Common Core as written down: it is being >>>>>>> forced down teachers' throats; it has been tied into high stakes >> testing >>>>>>> (which, by the way, occurs at places in a student's life in Japan); >>>>> there >>>>>>> are some debatable differences in the age sequencing of topics; >>>>> teachers to >>>>>>> be have often not been prepared for such teaching in their college >>>>> courses; >>>>>>> and more. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Some of these problems may be ironed out with time; however, the >>>>>>> training and culture of teaching (see Jackson and Lortie, even if >>>>> somewhat >>>>>>> dated) in the US is still a bit grim. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So a few summary points: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Teaching that is, more or less, in sync with the Common Core has >>>>>>> been practiced for years in the US. Teacher training that is in sync >>>>> with >>>>>>> the Common Core has been available for years in the US. Lesson study >>>>>>> Japanese style may be more possible with an agreed upon core >> (although >>>>> one >>>>>>> might look to the Netherlands to see what works well for them rather >>>>> than >>>>>>> Japan). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> An interesting question for those of us who are involved in teacher >>>>>>> training might be "Why do so many teachers find the Common Core >>>>> Standards >>>>>>> so threatening - factoring out the forcing and testing)?" What (from >> the >>>>>>> 4th grade standards, for example): >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ? Use place value understanding and properties of operations to >>>>>>> perform multi-digit arithmetic. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ? Make sense of problems and persevere in solving them >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> do some elementary teachers find difficult and threatening? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Again apologies for being very, very short about a very large and >> very >>>>>>> complex problem. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ed >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Jul 28, 2014, at 2:25 PM, Katherine Wester Neal >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> What an interesting article! I am thinking about the lack of focus >> on >>>>>>> specific contexts in the article's discussion of teaching and >> learning >>>>> to >>>>>>> teach as a practicing teacher. Is it possible to go about such change >>>>> (from >>>>>>> "old" math to new math or Common Core math) with little/no >> consideration >>>>>>> for what kinds of teaching might work in a particular school culture >> or >>>>> the >>>>>>> social context of a given classroom? I think less of a standardized >>>>>>> approach (here, everyone do this) and more focus on what works >> locally >>>>>>> (here are some ideas; now decide what might work for you) might help >>>>>>> teachers learn to teach Common Core math in a way that actually >> works in >>>>>>> their particular context. To adapt phrase from Magdalene Lampert, it >>>>> might >>>>>>> bring about more sustainable change as they are "re-learning >> teaching" >>>>> in >>>>>>> their schools. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Because Common Core math is so different, perhaps this re-learning >>>>>>> teaching requires a radical new approach instead of the same old >>>>>>> professional development. Learning through the Japanese jugyokenkyu >>>>> method >>>>>>> sounds like it might be very useful, but there doesn't seem to be a >> push >>>>>>> for reforming how teachers learn once they are in the field. (Except >>>>> that >>>>>>> if enough of their students fail the Common Core-aligned tests, they >>>>> will >>>>>>> eventually be out of a job.) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It seems nonsensical to implement incredibly high-stakes tests >> without >>>>>>> significant investment in re-learning teaching and with, as far as I >>>>> know, >>>>>>> no research on how to learn to teach Common Core as a practicing >>>>> teacher. >>>>>>> I, too, wonder about how these issues are handled in Japan? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Katie >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Katie Wester-Neal >>>>>>>>> University of Georgia >>>>>>>>> ________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu < >>>>> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> >>>>>>> on behalf of Huw Lloyd >>>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 12:58 PM >>>>>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>>>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: NYTimes.com: Why Do Americans Stink at >>>>> Math? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 28 July 2014 16:46, Greg Thompson >>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> [...] >>>>>>>>> These students had learned >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> incredibly well how to solve recipe Physics but they had no idea >>>>> about >>>>>>> how >>>>>>>>>> the basic principles of Physics worked. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Greg, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I would say the ethics of the situation go deeper than simply >>>>> (un)learnt >>>>>>>>> capabilities, but rather to the development of the student's >> creative >>>>>>>>> capabilities (or, rather, the stunting of them). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>> Huw >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. >>>>>> Assistant Professor >>>>>> Department of Anthropology >>>>>> 883 Spencer W. Kimball Tower >>>>>> Brigham Young University >>>>>> Provo, UT 84602 >>>>>> http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. >>>> Assistant Professor >>>> Department of Anthropology >>>> 883 Spencer W. Kimball Tower >>>> Brigham Young University >>>> Provo, UT 84602 >>>> http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson >>> >>> >> >> >> From dkotsopo@wlu.ca Thu Jul 31 06:36:01 2014 From: dkotsopo@wlu.ca (Donna Kotsopoulos) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 13:36:01 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: NYTimes.com: Why Do Americans Stink at Math? In-Reply-To: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9024BA2@CIO-TNC-D2MBX01.osuad.osu.edu> References: <53d5718e.c814e00a.3778.3ba3SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> <1406571909843.30805@uga.edu> <75FA794D-2E1B-47A5-941F-7EFA1C605559@umich.edu> <022EE4B2-8F70-4DA7-9D00-63CBD7B67D80@umich.edu> <1406748733952.48320@uga.edu> <245EB719-8A88-4496-B64E-D083CD5223F0@umich.edu> , <48C0B057-4918-4642-A947-44C19F8D090E@umich.edu> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9024BA2@CIO-TNC-D2MBX01.osuad.osu.edu> Message-ID: <6958237f1a354ee2be758fdb0f1eb7e9@ITSMBX02.ad.wlu.ca> I wonder if we should be asking whether we should be teaching people to read. The evidence is clear. The quality of the teaching and the quality of the early childhood experiences matter tremendously. Until we make it a point that our children have exceptionally trained mathematics teachers, the cycle continues. Why we are asking why is bewildering to me. I'm a clear example. I am a high school dropout - but I do have a PHD. I struggled with mathematics my whole life. I dropped the subject in grade 10. Amidst my elation at ditching the subject, I was convinced I would never look back. I came back to the subject as an adult. With the support of some amazing educators, my degrees are all situated in mathematics (or closely related) and the fact that I had little high school mathematics was irrelevant. Truthfully, I'd prefer my numbers to most humans. d. Donna Kotsopoulos, PhD Associate Professor & Associate Dean Faculty of Education & Faculty of Science (Department of Mathematics) www.wlu.ca/education/dkotsopoulos www.wlu.ca/mathbrains (519) 884-0710 x 3953 dkotsopo@wlu.ca DISCLAIMER: This email may be privileged and/or confidential, and the sender does not waive any related rights and obligations. Any distribution, use or copying of this email or the information it contains by other than an intended recipient is unauthorized. If you received this email in error, please advise the sender (by return email or otherwise) immediately. -----Original Message----- From: xmca-l-bounces+dkotsopo=wlu.ca@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+dkotsopo=wlu.ca@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Glassman, Michael Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 9:25 AM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: NYTimes.com: Why Do Americans Stink at Math? So here is my question. We have gone through basically a century of this. We teach mathematics and some people get it - the people in my experience really love mathematics - but most people don't. It's just something you do to get some place else (I am reminded of my attitude towards statistics courses in graduate school). So we keep banging our head against the wall again and again. Doesn't it make sense that somebody should stand up and ask "why are we teaching mathematics?" - as a subject I mean, it is still an important field of study. This is something we just made up mostly for the sake of "efficiency" - although it is not very efficient. But there is nothing to suggest that this is a good idea, and there are a lot of things to suggest that maybe we're on the wrong track here as far as education in concerned. This was actually an argument about specific subjects in the 20s and 30s, but we have been so unsuccessful and been so frustrated its pretty amazing that it hasn't come up again. Why not let mathematics emerge in the course of what we do? Is the type of mathematics we learn in the classroom transferable anyway? Maybe a bit heretical, but perhaps the idea should be raised every once in a while. Michael ________________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] on behalf of Ed Wall [ewall@umich.edu] Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 8:10 AM To: lchcmike@gmail.com; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: NYTimes.com: Why Do Americans Stink at Math? Mike As I said I am not a blissful optimist. Liping Ma made the point some time ago that, in fact, something like this would not be possible until a generation of students (perhaps two) had been taught to reasonably (and what this means can be usefully debated) understand what was going on (by the way, being able to do it in a rote fashion indicates, at least, that one understands the procedure). Parents can help and hinder (most, if treated respectfully, want to help). Perhaps a story will indicate where I'm at. A number of years ago, I was at a conference sitting next to a young graduate student with a policy background who was sort of interested in the mathematics mess. Finally, she could stand no more and blurted out something like , "I can't understand why you people are fussing about all this math teaching business, the kids in the inner city schools will never appreciate it." I turned to her and said sadly something like, "You are possibly right, but I can't act as if I believe so. Does that make sense?" She nodded yes. It is not just UCSD students who have problems with this. One of my friends did something with fractions in his calculus class at UM (smile). Part of the problem, I think, is that fractions in general have little practical meaning for many people (unlike the natural numbers); they are, in a sense, somewhat of a historical artifact. It is moderately easy to intervene on this at certain points in the school curriculum although asking why is useful. Ed On Jul 30, 2014, at 10:01 PM, mike cole wrote: > That all seems reasonable to me, Ed. But it strikes me as a real > problem when the average "top 12% of California high school graduates" > cannot help a kid who has to figure out how to divide one fraction > into another. Or if they help its because they "teach the rule" (as > in, invert and multiply) but cannot explain why they do this. > > I think its a challenge to teachers and god bless those who can > emulate your approach. But its a challenge to parents, even UCSD > graduates aplenty, who cannot explain what they are doing in understandable terms. > > That good teachers can teach it, give the opportunity I believe. That > this is, or is likely to become, the universally accepted norm for > everyone, I fear I doubt. But oh my goodness, how happy I would be to be wrong! > mike > > > On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 12:46 PM, Ed Wall wrote: > >> Katherine >> >> I think yes to your next to last question. However, what >> sometimes concerns me (and we are perhaps back to optimism and >> pessimism) is that looking for a future which may or may not occur >> seems 'unfair' to the students of today. I'm for thoughtful baby >> steps (and babies do stumble) now on all fronts and, unlike Carol, I don't yet know the 'right' answer. >> However, I would like to know (smile). >> >> Ed >> >> On Jul 30, 2014, at 3:32 PM, Katherine Wester Neal wrote: >> >>> I think we're all on to something here--just different parts of the >>> same >> thing. To put it all together, I'm thinking of a spiderweb. On >> individual strands, our spiderweb includes: >>> >>> 1. The differences in contact time and the difficulty of sustaining >> meaningful (or really any kind of) change when one is teaching 1,100 hours. >>> 2. The pressures of testing. >>> 3. The cultural value of childhood, teaching in general, elementary >> teachers, and testing as an educational goal in the U.S. >>> 4. Making changes in teachers' practices, the way schools work, the >> culture of testing, and how students' creative capacities are developed. >>> 5. Resistance from parents, teachers, and teacher educators to new >>> ways >> of learning/new ideas, which is often a result of deeply ingrained >> prior experiences. >>> >>> I probably didn't get everything that's been discussed, but these >>> are >> all issues that should be examined in concert because they are all >> connected as part of the same larger system. Although "system" isn't >> probably the word I should use with a Vygotskian framework (I'm still >> learning), I use to say that I'm not sure how an individual could >> deal with one of these strands without affecting or needing to work with the others. >> Does it take the effort of a collective, working on multiple strands >> simultaneously, to make more than a dent? Or to borrow Ed's words, >> how do we reshape the dent or make it bigger? >>> >>> Katie >>> >>> Katie Wester-Neal >>> University of Georgia >>> >>> ________________________________________ >>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >>> >> on behalf of Ed Wall >>> Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2014 3:00 PM >>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: NYTimes.com: Why Do Americans Stink at Math? >>> >>> Greg >>> >>> I agree with much of what you write below. However, there may be >>> a >> disjunct between what you think is happening (and in many instances I >> agree with you) and the shape of the denting I am speaking about. I >> begin my methods courses talking about the commitments I bring to >> teaching (stressing they are mine and that teachers and pre-service >> teachers are welcome to push back) >>> >>> 1. I believe in promoting collective student and teacher engagement >> i(and I meant both!) >>> 2. I believe in having students do substantial mathematical work >>> (and >> that is where the constraints of the context can come into play - >> don't necessarily read into this 'new math' or tedious computations) >>> 3. I believe in taking my students' thinking seriously (this >>> includes >> (mis)understandings!!) >>> >>> I have yet, by the way, to find an instance (and that includes >>> school >> location and students, testing, whatever) where such commitments are >> impossible or, in a pragmatic sense, even moderately difficult (most >> often the difficulty is learning to value one's students which is >> more of a choice although one needs to be aware of the possibility). >> I would very much appreciate your suggesting some instances where >> such commitments were situationally impossible. My students and I >> (teachers and pre-service >> teachers) then spend a semester (and perhaps more) together - with >> feedback from classroom and field experiences - figuring out what >> kind of teaching (keeping in mind my commitments) can be sustained >> (and it will differ and they need to know this and accommodate to >> this). I am not unusual (perhaps read 'rare' - smile). In fact I have >> a number of colleagues who are considerably more capable. >>> >>> Philip Jackson (or was it Dan Lortie) used to talk about the >> apprenticeship of observation. People, he argued, learn to teach - >> for the most part - by observing as students in regular classroom. >> That should give one pause for a variety of reasons. I have sat >> through numerous faculty meetings where students are mentioned in >> less than a respectful fashion (and have heard anecdotes where that >> carried into the college classroom). I have heard elementary teachers >> spoken of quite disparagingly by faculty in Arts & Sciences and, >> while I agree their expertise is not always of the highest 'academic' >> quality, it is not clear to me that, in their own field of study, >> they are not more capable than their detractors. I have also seen an >> instructor continually stress 'nice' or 'comfortable' rather than 'challenging' or 'uncomfortable.' >>> >>> I admit my commitments have hooks in them; for instance, what is >> substantial mathematics (you need to know some mathematics to figure >> this out); what is collective teacher and student engagement (you >> need to know some pedagogy to figure this out) and what does it mean >> to respect student thinking in view of the previous (you need to know >> some mathematics and some pedagogy to figure this out). However, they >> are a beginning and some of my students seem, in time, to grow into them no matter the situation. >>> >>> Anyway, I can't say I'm blissfully optimistic, but I'm not >> pessimistic either. I do know that culturally we often don't work >> together; that we tend to get mired in the trivial; and we often >> 'demonize' the stranger. I hate to think that we will never choose >> otherwise. However, to choose otherwise seems very far from >> impossible in the formal schooling context. >>> >>> Ed >>> >>> On Jul 30, 2014, at 1:42 PM, Greg Thompson >>> >> wrote: >>> >>>> Ed, >>>> Thanks for this wonderfully thoughtful reply. Very helpful. >>>> >>>> As for the teaching practices part, I entirely agree about the need >>>> for thoughtful attention to teaching practices and agree that great >>>> things >> can >>>> be accomplished locally. My sense, though, is that it takes great >> effort to >>>> sustain such smaller scale interventions (i.e. to make more than a >> dent). >>>> With regard to teaching practices, I would think that the way to >> approach a >>>> thoughtful teaching practice would be to start with the real >> constraints of >>>> context that teachers will regularly face and then try and figure >>>> out >> what >>>> kinds of teaching can be sustained given those constraints. >>>> >>>> That's where I'm most pessimistic. It is difficult for me to >>>> imagine developing responsible teaching practices that could be >>>> sustained on a larger scale given the cultural, institutional, and >>>> ideological context >> of >>>> schooling in the U.S. [and I might add that it seems like the >>>> history of teaching practice in the U.S. is a history where the >>>> same good ideas >> keep >>>> popping up and then fading from sight almost as quickly as they >> appeared]. >>>> >>>> But I'm certainly open to ideas/suggestions for thoughtful >>>> pedagogical practices that are sustainable in the U.S. formal schooling context. >>>> >>>> -greg >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 10:11 AM, Ed Wall wrote: >>>> >>>>> Comments below >>>>> >>>>> On Jul 30, 2014, at 11:33 AM, Greg Thompson >>>>> >> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I was hoping that somebody might be able to comment on the >>>>>> situation >> of >>>>>> schooling in Japan and whether or not these hypotheses about the >> Japanese >>>>>> situation of schooling might bear out: >>>>>> >>>>>> 1. Teachers in Japan have time to develop their craft. 600 annual >> hours >>>>> of >>>>>> contact time for teachers in Japan vs. 1100 hours of contact time >>>>>> in >> the >>>>>> U.S. >>>>> >>>>> Yes >>>>> >>>>>> 2. There is an ideology of childhood in Japan that values >>>>>> childhood >>>>> greatly >>>>>> and treats them as qualitatively distinct beings from adolescents >>>>>> and adults, and thus suggests that they should be protected from >>>>>> the cruel >>>>> and >>>>>> harsh practice of "testing". But this also means that elementary >> school >>>>>> teachers are held in high regard. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Yes. However, it doesn't necessarily follow that this is why >>>>> elementary school teachers are held in high regard >>>>> >>>>>> I guess the first seems a bit more factual but the second is more >>>>>> of >> an >>>>>> hypothesis, but if they bear out as important factors for >>>>>> enabling the >>>>> kind >>>>>> of learning that Green describes, then it seems to me that even >>>>>> if >> there >>>>>> were to be a huge push for training teachers in the U.S., >>>>>> teachers >> would >>>>>> quickly revert to what we currently lament about teaching in the U.S. >> not >>>>>> because they are bad teachers or don't know how to teach in the >>>>>> more complex manner but rather simply because, with some rare >>>>>> exceptions, >> it >>>>> is >>>>>> IMPOSSIBLE to teach in the more desirable manner given the >>>>>> ridiculous amount of contact time and the fact that in the >>>>>> American ideology of childhood, the teaching of children is not valued particularly highly. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> This doesn't follow. It is possible and it is possible in highly >>>>> urban areas (and I amy misunderstand you use of the word 'rare'). >>>>> That >> doesn't >>>>> mean that it is necessarily valued or supported by the powers-that-be. >>>>> There are a few more things to add to your facts: There is a >>>>> national curriculum in Japan and there is a reasonably effective >>>>> mentoring >> system >>>>> (largely teacher instigated). A 'fact' (and perhaps this is >>>>> anecdotal) >> is >>>>> that when it was first realized that some interesting things were >> happening >>>>> in Japanese schools (e.g. lesson study), the collegiate Japanese >> community >>>>> was caught, to a large degree, unaware. 'Master' lesson are >>>>> published >> by >>>>> teachers. >>>>> >>>>>> In light of this, it seems a Sisyphean feat to try to change teachers' >>>>>> teaching practices without changing the cultural context in which >> those >>>>>> teachers work. And changing cultural contexts is perhaps even >>>>>> more difficult still. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> That was why I suggested a look at the Netherlands (which seem to >>>>> do as well or better than the Japanese). Of course, some of this >>>>> can still be explained because of cultural differences and how teachers are viewed. >>>>> >>>>>> Maybe we should stop looking to teaching practices in formal >> schooling in >>>>>> the U.S. as a site of change? >>>>>> Maybe better to look outside and beyond schools altogether? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Perhaps we should do as you suggest (and, to a limited extent and >>>>> in a sense, something like this has been done). However, it might >>>>> also be a >> good >>>>> idea to look at teaching practices in a thoughtful way. I have >>>>> seen >> very >>>>> little of this happening over the years. I was just talking to a >> colleague >>>>> today and, although we love our work in urban areas, we admit to >>>>> making only a small dent. We also admit to being underwhelmed by >>>>> views of education prevalent in many schools of education. It is >>>>> getting >> steadily >>>>> worse. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Too pessimistic? >>>>>> -greg >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Pessimism is fine, but simply pessimism can be self limiting; >>>>> however, that is an opinion and not a fact. >>>>> >>>>> Ed >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 6:02 AM, Ed Wall wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Perhaps something of interest re this thread. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ed Wall >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/29/opinion/joe-nocera-teaching-teachin >> g.html?_r=0 >>>>>>>> Some general comments (and I apologize for being so late to the >>>>>>> conversation as I have been out of email contact) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Magdalen Lampert and Deborah Ball were both at Michigan State >>>>>>>> in the >>>>>>> late 80s. They both taught what might, in part, be an early >>>>>>> version >> of >>>>> the >>>>>>> Common Core to their students. I also taught math methods >>>>>>> beginning >> in >>>>> the >>>>>>> late 90s and also emphasized such an approach (I also did >>>>>>> similar as >> a >>>>> K-12 >>>>>>> math teacher before moving onto college teaching). There is >>>>>>> little >> 'new' >>>>>>> math in the Common Core - perhaps a bit of 'old' math. However, >>>>>>> there >>>>> is a >>>>>>> very strong emphasis on kids making sense out of what they are >>>>>>> doing >> (I >>>>>>> apologize for being brief, but this is a moment between meetings >>>>>>> at a conference devoted to such 'strange' notions as helping >>>>>>> kids making >>>>> sense). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> There are problems with the Common Core as written down: it is >>>>>>>> being >>>>>>> forced down teachers' throats; it has been tied into high stakes >> testing >>>>>>> (which, by the way, occurs at places in a student's life in >>>>>>> Japan); >>>>> there >>>>>>> are some debatable differences in the age sequencing of topics; >>>>> teachers to >>>>>>> be have often not been prepared for such teaching in their >>>>>>> college >>>>> courses; >>>>>>> and more. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Some of these problems may be ironed out with time; however, >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>> training and culture of teaching (see Jackson and Lortie, even >>>>>>> if >>>>> somewhat >>>>>>> dated) in the US is still a bit grim. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So a few summary points: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Teaching that is, more or less, in sync with the Common Core >>>>>>>> has >>>>>>> been practiced for years in the US. Teacher training that is in >>>>>>> sync >>>>> with >>>>>>> the Common Core has been available for years in the US. Lesson >>>>>>> study Japanese style may be more possible with an agreed upon >>>>>>> core >> (although >>>>> one >>>>>>> might look to the Netherlands to see what works well for them >>>>>>> rather >>>>> than >>>>>>> Japan). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> An interesting question for those of us who are involved in >>>>>>>> teacher >>>>>>> training might be "Why do so many teachers find the Common Core >>>>> Standards >>>>>>> so threatening - factoring out the forcing and testing)?" What >>>>>>> (from >> the >>>>>>> 4th grade standards, for example): >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> * Use place value understanding and properties of operations >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>> perform multi-digit arithmetic. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> * Make sense of problems and persevere in solving them >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> do some elementary teachers find difficult and threatening? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Again apologies for being very, very short about a very large >>>>>>>> and >> very >>>>>>> complex problem. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ed >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Jul 28, 2014, at 2:25 PM, Katherine Wester Neal >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> What an interesting article! I am thinking about the lack of >>>>>>>>> focus >> on >>>>>>> specific contexts in the article's discussion of teaching and >> learning >>>>> to >>>>>>> teach as a practicing teacher. Is it possible to go about such >>>>>>> change >>>>> (from >>>>>>> "old" math to new math or Common Core math) with little/no >> consideration >>>>>>> for what kinds of teaching might work in a particular school >>>>>>> culture >> or >>>>> the >>>>>>> social context of a given classroom? I think less of a >>>>>>> standardized approach (here, everyone do this) and more focus on >>>>>>> what works >> locally >>>>>>> (here are some ideas; now decide what might work for you) might >>>>>>> help teachers learn to teach Common Core math in a way that >>>>>>> actually >> works in >>>>>>> their particular context. To adapt phrase from Magdalene >>>>>>> Lampert, it >>>>> might >>>>>>> bring about more sustainable change as they are "re-learning >> teaching" >>>>> in >>>>>>> their schools. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Because Common Core math is so different, perhaps this >>>>>>>>> re-learning >>>>>>> teaching requires a radical new approach instead of the same old >>>>>>> professional development. Learning through the Japanese >>>>>>> jugyokenkyu >>>>> method >>>>>>> sounds like it might be very useful, but there doesn't seem to >>>>>>> be a >> push >>>>>>> for reforming how teachers learn once they are in the field. >>>>>>> (Except >>>>> that >>>>>>> if enough of their students fail the Common Core-aligned tests, >>>>>>> they >>>>> will >>>>>>> eventually be out of a job.) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It seems nonsensical to implement incredibly high-stakes tests >> without >>>>>>> significant investment in re-learning teaching and with, as far >>>>>>> as I >>>>> know, >>>>>>> no research on how to learn to teach Common Core as a practicing >>>>> teacher. >>>>>>> I, too, wonder about how these issues are handled in Japan? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Katie >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Katie Wester-Neal >>>>>>>>> University of Georgia >>>>>>>>> ________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu < >>>>> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> >>>>>>> on behalf of Huw Lloyd >>>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 12:58 PM >>>>>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>>>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: NYTimes.com: Why Do Americans Stink >>>>>>>>> at >>>>> Math? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 28 July 2014 16:46, Greg Thompson >>>>>>>>> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> [...] >>>>>>>>> These students had learned >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> incredibly well how to solve recipe Physics but they had no >>>>>>>>>> idea >>>>> about >>>>>>> how >>>>>>>>>> the basic principles of Physics worked. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Greg, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I would say the ethics of the situation go deeper than simply >>>>> (un)learnt >>>>>>>>> capabilities, but rather to the development of the student's >> creative >>>>>>>>> capabilities (or, rather, the stunting of them). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>> Huw >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. >>>>>> Assistant Professor >>>>>> Department of Anthropology >>>>>> 883 Spencer W. Kimball Tower >>>>>> Brigham Young University >>>>>> Provo, UT 84602 >>>>>> http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. >>>> Assistant Professor >>>> Department of Anthropology >>>> 883 Spencer W. Kimball Tower >>>> Brigham Young University >>>> Provo, UT 84602 >>>> http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson >>> >>> >> >> >> From sfard@netvision.net.il Thu Jul 31 06:47:31 2014 From: sfard@netvision.net.il (anna sfard) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 16:47:31 +0300 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: NYTimes.com: Why Do Americans Stink at Math? In-Reply-To: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9024BA2@CIO-TNC-D2MBX01.osuad.osu.edu> References: <53d5718e.c814e00a.3778.3ba3SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> <1406571909843.30805@uga.edu> <75FA794D-2E1B-47A5-941F-7EFA1C605559@umich.edu> <022EE4B2-8F70-4DA7-9D00-63CBD7B67D80@umich.edu> <1406748733952.48320@uga.edu> <245EB719-8A88-4496-B64E-D083CD5223F0@umich.edu> <48C0B057-4918-4642-A947-44C19F8D090E@umich.edu> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9024BA2@CIO-TNC-D2MBX01.osuad.osu.edu> Message-ID: <001201cfacc5$f9f8ca40$edea5ec0$@net.il> " Doesn't it make sense that somebody should stand up and ask "why are we teaching mathematics?" Already done, Michael - see the attached. anna PS. This is a fascinating conversation. I wish I could allow myself to participate properly. -----Original Message----- From: xmca-l-bounces+sfard=netvision.net.il@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+sfard=netvision.net.il@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Glassman, Michael Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 4:25 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: NYTimes.com: Why Do Americans Stink at Math? So here is my question. We have gone through basically a century of this. We teach mathematics and some people get it - the people in my experience really love mathematics - but most people don't. It's just something you do to get some place else (I am reminded of my attitude towards statistics courses in graduate school). So we keep banging our head against the wall again and again. Doesn't it make sense that somebody should stand up and ask "why are we teaching mathematics?" - as a subject I mean, it is still an important field of study. This is something we just made up mostly for the sake of "efficiency" - although it is not very efficient. But there is nothing to suggest that this is a good idea, and there are a lot of things to suggest that maybe we're on the wrong track here as far as education in concerned. This was actually an argument about specific subjects in the 20s and 30s, but we have been so unsuccessful and been so frustrated its pretty amazing that it hasn't come up again. Why not let mathematics emerge in the course of what we do? Is the type of mathematics we learn in the classroom transferable anyway? Maybe a bit heretical, but perhaps the idea should be raised every once in a while. Michael ________________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] on behalf of Ed Wall [ewall@umich.edu] Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 8:10 AM To: lchcmike@gmail.com; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: NYTimes.com: Why Do Americans Stink at Math? Mike As I said I am not a blissful optimist. Liping Ma made the point some time ago that, in fact, something like this would not be possible until a generation of students (perhaps two) had been taught to reasonably (and what this means can be usefully debated) understand what was going on (by the way, being able to do it in a rote fashion indicates, at least, that one understands the procedure). Parents can help and hinder (most, if treated respectfully, want to help). Perhaps a story will indicate where I'm at. A number of years ago, I was at a conference sitting next to a young graduate student with a policy background who was sort of interested in the mathematics mess. Finally, she could stand no more and blurted out something like , "I can't understand why you people are fussing about all this math teaching business, the kids in the inner city schools will never appreciate it." I turned to her and said sadly something like, "You are possibly right, but I can't act as if I believe so. Does that make sense?" She nodded yes. It is not just UCSD students who have problems with this. One of my friends did something with fractions in his calculus class at UM (smile). Part of the problem, I think, is that fractions in general have little practical meaning for many people (unlike the natural numbers); they are, in a sense, somewhat of a historical artifact. It is moderately easy to intervene on this at certain points in the school curriculum although asking why is useful. Ed On Jul 30, 2014, at 10:01 PM, mike cole < lchcmike@gmail.com> wrote: > That all seems reasonable to me, Ed. But it strikes me as a real > problem when the average "top 12% of California high school graduates" > cannot help a kid who has to figure out how to divide one fraction > into another. Or if they help its because they "teach the rule" (as > in, invert and multiply) but cannot explain why they do this. > > I think its a challenge to teachers and god bless those who can > emulate your approach. But its a challenge to parents, even UCSD > graduates aplenty, who cannot explain what they are doing in understandable terms. > > That good teachers can teach it, give the opportunity I believe. That > this is, or is likely to become, the universally accepted norm for > everyone, I fear I doubt. But oh my goodness, how happy I would be to be wrong! > mike > > > On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 12:46 PM, Ed Wall < ewall@umich.edu> wrote: > >> Katherine >> >> I think yes to your next to last question. However, what >> sometimes concerns me (and we are perhaps back to optimism and >> pessimism) is that looking for a future which may or may not occur >> seems 'unfair' to the students of today. I'm for thoughtful baby >> steps (and babies do stumble) now on all fronts and, unlike Carol, I don't yet know the 'right' answer. >> However, I would like to know (smile). >> >> Ed >> >> On Jul 30, 2014, at 3:32 PM, Katherine Wester Neal < wester@uga.edu> wrote: >> >>> I think we're all on to something here--just different parts of the >>> same >> thing. To put it all together, I'm thinking of a spiderweb. On >> individual strands, our spiderweb includes: >>> >>> 1. The differences in contact time and the difficulty of sustaining >> meaningful (or really any kind of) change when one is teaching 1,100 hours. >>> 2. The pressures of testing. >>> 3. The cultural value of childhood, teaching in general, elementary >> teachers, and testing as an educational goal in the U.S. >>> 4. Making changes in teachers' practices, the way schools work, the >> culture of testing, and how students' creative capacities are developed. >>> 5. Resistance from parents, teachers, and teacher educators to new >>> ways >> of learning/new ideas, which is often a result of deeply ingrained >> prior experiences. >>> >>> I probably didn't get everything that's been discussed, but these >>> are >> all issues that should be examined in concert because they are all >> connected as part of the same larger system. Although "system" isn't >> probably the word I should use with a Vygotskian framework (I'm still >> learning), I use to say that I'm not sure how an individual could >> deal with one of these strands without affecting or needing to work with the others. >> Does it take the effort of a collective, working on multiple strands >> simultaneously, to make more than a dent? Or to borrow Ed's words, >> how do we reshape the dent or make it bigger? >>> >>> Katie >>> >>> Katie Wester-Neal >>> University of Georgia >>> >>> ________________________________________ >>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >>> < xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> >> on behalf of Ed Wall < ewall@umich.edu> >>> Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2014 3:00 PM >>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: NYTimes.com: Why Do Americans Stink at Math? >>> >>> Greg >>> >>> I agree with much of what you write below. However, there may be >>> a >> disjunct between what you think is happening (and in many instances I >> agree with you) and the shape of the denting I am speaking about. I >> begin my methods courses talking about the commitments I bring to >> teaching (stressing they are mine and that teachers and pre-service >> teachers are welcome to push back) >>> >>> 1. I believe in promoting collective student and teacher engagement >> i(and I meant both!) >>> 2. I believe in having students do substantial mathematical work >>> (and >> that is where the constraints of the context can come into play - >> don't necessarily read into this 'new math' or tedious computations) >>> 3. I believe in taking my students' thinking seriously (this >>> includes >> (mis)understandings!!) >>> >>> I have yet, by the way, to find an instance (and that includes >>> school >> location and students, testing, whatever) where such commitments are >> impossible or, in a pragmatic sense, even moderately difficult (most >> often the difficulty is learning to value one's students which is >> more of a choice although one needs to be aware of the possibility). >> I would very much appreciate your suggesting some instances where >> such commitments were situationally impossible. My students and I >> (teachers and pre-service >> teachers) then spend a semester (and perhaps more) together - with >> feedback from classroom and field experiences - figuring out what >> kind of teaching (keeping in mind my commitments) can be sustained >> (and it will differ and they need to know this and accommodate to >> this). I am not unusual (perhaps read 'rare' - smile). In fact I have >> a number of colleagues who are considerably more capable. >>> >>> Philip Jackson (or was it Dan Lortie) used to talk about the >> apprenticeship of observation. People, he argued, learn to teach - >> for the most part - by observing as students in regular classroom. >> That should give one pause for a variety of reasons. I have sat >> through numerous faculty meetings where students are mentioned in >> less than a respectful fashion (and have heard anecdotes where that >> carried into the college classroom). I have heard elementary teachers >> spoken of quite disparagingly by faculty in Arts & Sciences and, >> while I agree their expertise is not always of the highest 'academic' >> quality, it is not clear to me that, in their own field of study, >> they are not more capable than their detractors. I have also seen an >> instructor continually stress 'nice' or 'comfortable' rather than 'challenging' or 'uncomfortable.' >>> >>> I admit my commitments have hooks in them; for instance, what is >> substantial mathematics (you need to know some mathematics to figure >> this out); what is collective teacher and student engagement (you >> need to know some pedagogy to figure this out) and what does it mean >> to respect student thinking in view of the previous (you need to know >> some mathematics and some pedagogy to figure this out). However, they >> are a beginning and some of my students seem, in time, to grow into them no matter the situation. >>> >>> Anyway, I can't say I'm blissfully optimistic, but I'm not >> pessimistic either. I do know that culturally we often don't work >> together; that we tend to get mired in the trivial; and we often >> 'demonize' the stranger. I hate to think that we will never choose >> otherwise. However, to choose otherwise seems very far from >> impossible in the formal schooling context. >>> >>> Ed >>> >>> On Jul 30, 2014, at 1:42 PM, Greg Thompson >>> < greg.a.thompson@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> >>>> Ed, >>>> Thanks for this wonderfully thoughtful reply. Very helpful. >>>> >>>> As for the teaching practices part, I entirely agree about the need >>>> for thoughtful attention to teaching practices and agree that great >>>> things >> can >>>> be accomplished locally. My sense, though, is that it takes great >> effort to >>>> sustain such smaller scale interventions (i.e. to make more than a >> dent). >>>> With regard to teaching practices, I would think that the way to >> approach a >>>> thoughtful teaching practice would be to start with the real >> constraints of >>>> context that teachers will regularly face and then try and figure >>>> out >> what >>>> kinds of teaching can be sustained given those constraints. >>>> >>>> That's where I'm most pessimistic. It is difficult for me to >>>> imagine developing responsible teaching practices that could be >>>> sustained on a larger scale given the cultural, institutional, and >>>> ideological context >> of >>>> schooling in the U.S. [and I might add that it seems like the >>>> history of teaching practice in the U.S. is a history where the >>>> same good ideas >> keep >>>> popping up and then fading from sight almost as quickly as they >> appeared]. >>>> >>>> But I'm certainly open to ideas/suggestions for thoughtful >>>> pedagogical practices that are sustainable in the U.S. formal schooling context. >>>> >>>> -greg >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 10:11 AM, Ed Wall < ewall@umich.edu> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Comments below >>>>> >>>>> On Jul 30, 2014, at 11:33 AM, Greg Thompson >>>>> >> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I was hoping that somebody might be able to comment on the >>>>>> situation >> of >>>>>> schooling in Japan and whether or not these hypotheses about the >> Japanese >>>>>> situation of schooling might bear out: >>>>>> >>>>>> 1. Teachers in Japan have time to develop their craft. 600 annual >> hours >>>>> of >>>>>> contact time for teachers in Japan vs. 1100 hours of contact time >>>>>> in >> the >>>>>> U.S. >>>>> >>>>> Yes >>>>> >>>>>> 2. There is an ideology of childhood in Japan that values >>>>>> childhood >>>>> greatly >>>>>> and treats them as qualitatively distinct beings from adolescents >>>>>> and adults, and thus suggests that they should be protected from >>>>>> the cruel >>>>> and >>>>>> harsh practice of "testing". But this also means that elementary >> school >>>>>> teachers are held in high regard. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Yes. However, it doesn't necessarily follow that this is why >>>>> elementary school teachers are held in high regard >>>>> >>>>>> I guess the first seems a bit more factual but the second is more >>>>>> of >> an >>>>>> hypothesis, but if they bear out as important factors for >>>>>> enabling the >>>>> kind >>>>>> of learning that Green describes, then it seems to me that even >>>>>> if >> there >>>>>> were to be a huge push for training teachers in the U.S., >>>>>> teachers >> would >>>>>> quickly revert to what we currently lament about teaching in the U.S. >> not >>>>>> because they are bad teachers or don't know how to teach in the >>>>>> more complex manner but rather simply because, with some rare >>>>>> exceptions, >> it >>>>> is >>>>>> IMPOSSIBLE to teach in the more desirable manner given the >>>>>> ridiculous amount of contact time and the fact that in the >>>>>> American ideology of childhood, the teaching of children is not valued particularly highly. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> This doesn't follow. It is possible and it is possible in highly >>>>> urban areas (and I amy misunderstand you use of the word 'rare'). >>>>> That >> doesn't >>>>> mean that it is necessarily valued or supported by the powers-that-be. >>>>> There are a few more things to add to your facts: There is a >>>>> national curriculum in Japan and there is a reasonably effective >>>>> mentoring >> system >>>>> (largely teacher instigated). A 'fact' (and perhaps this is >>>>> anecdotal) >> is >>>>> that when it was first realized that some interesting things were >> happening >>>>> in Japanese schools (e.g. lesson study), the collegiate Japanese >> community >>>>> was caught, to a large degree, unaware. 'Master' lesson are >>>>> published >> by >>>>> teachers. >>>>> >>>>>> In light of this, it seems a Sisyphean feat to try to change teachers' >>>>>> teaching practices without changing the cultural context in which >> those >>>>>> teachers work. And changing cultural contexts is perhaps even >>>>>> more difficult still. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> That was why I suggested a look at the Netherlands (which seem to >>>>> do as well or better than the Japanese). Of course, some of this >>>>> can still be explained because of cultural differences and how teachers are viewed. >>>>> >>>>>> Maybe we should stop looking to teaching practices in formal >> schooling in >>>>>> the U.S. as a site of change? >>>>>> Maybe better to look outside and beyond schools altogether? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Perhaps we should do as you suggest (and, to a limited extent and >>>>> in a sense, something like this has been done). However, it might >>>>> also be a >> good >>>>> idea to look at teaching practices in a thoughtful way. I have >>>>> seen >> very >>>>> little of this happening over the years. I was just talking to a >> colleague >>>>> today and, although we love our work in urban areas, we admit to >>>>> making only a small dent. We also admit to being underwhelmed by >>>>> views of education prevalent in many schools of education. It is >>>>> getting >> steadily >>>>> worse. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Too pessimistic? >>>>>> -greg >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Pessimism is fine, but simply pessimism can be self limiting; >>>>> however, that is an opinion and not a fact. >>>>> >>>>> Ed >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 6:02 AM, Ed Wall < ewall@umich.edu> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Perhaps something of interest re this thread. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ed Wall >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/29/opinion/joe-nocera-teaching-teachin >> g.html?_r=0 >>>>>>>> Some general comments (and I apologize for being so late to the >>>>>>> conversation as I have been out of email contact) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Magdalen Lampert and Deborah Ball were both at Michigan State >>>>>>>> in the >>>>>>> late 80s. They both taught what might, in part, be an early >>>>>>> version >> of >>>>> the >>>>>>> Common Core to their students. I also taught math methods >>>>>>> beginning >> in >>>>> the >>>>>>> late 90s and also emphasized such an approach (I also did >>>>>>> similar as >> a >>>>> K-12 >>>>>>> math teacher before moving onto college teaching). There is >>>>>>> little >> 'new' >>>>>>> math in the Common Core - perhaps a bit of 'old' math. However, >>>>>>> there >>>>> is a >>>>>>> very strong emphasis on kids making sense out of what they are >>>>>>> doing >> (I >>>>>>> apologize for being brief, but this is a moment between meetings >>>>>>> at a conference devoted to such 'strange' notions as helping >>>>>>> kids making >>>>> sense). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> There are problems with the Common Core as written down: it is >>>>>>>> being >>>>>>> forced down teachers' throats; it has been tied into high stakes >> testing >>>>>>> (which, by the way, occurs at places in a student's life in >>>>>>> Japan); >>>>> there >>>>>>> are some debatable differences in the age sequencing of topics; >>>>> teachers to >>>>>>> be have often not been prepared for such teaching in their >>>>>>> college >>>>> courses; >>>>>>> and more. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Some of these problems may be ironed out with time; however, >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>> training and culture of teaching (see Jackson and Lortie, even >>>>>>> if >>>>> somewhat >>>>>>> dated) in the US is still a bit grim. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So a few summary points: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Teaching that is, more or less, in sync with the Common Core >>>>>>>> has >>>>>>> been practiced for years in the US. Teacher training that is in >>>>>>> sync >>>>> with >>>>>>> the Common Core has been available for years in the US. Lesson >>>>>>> study Japanese style may be more possible with an agreed upon >>>>>>> core >> (although >>>>> one >>>>>>> might look to the Netherlands to see what works well for them >>>>>>> rather >>>>> than >>>>>>> Japan). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> An interesting question for those of us who are involved in >>>>>>>> teacher >>>>>>> training might be "Why do so many teachers find the Common Core >>>>> Standards >>>>>>> so threatening - factoring out the forcing and testing)?" What >>>>>>> (from >> the >>>>>>> 4th grade standards, for example): >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> . Use place value understanding and properties of operations >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>> perform multi-digit arithmetic. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> . Make sense of problems and persevere in solving them >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> do some elementary teachers find difficult and threatening? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Again apologies for being very, very short about a very large >>>>>>>> and >> very >>>>>>> complex problem. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ed >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Jul 28, 2014, at 2:25 PM, Katherine Wester Neal >>>>>>>> < wester@uga.edu> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> What an interesting article! I am thinking about the lack of >>>>>>>>> focus >> on >>>>>>> specific contexts in the article's discussion of teaching and >> learning >>>>> to >>>>>>> teach as a practicing teacher. Is it possible to go about such >>>>>>> change >>>>> (from >>>>>>> "old" math to new math or Common Core math) with little/no >> consideration >>>>>>> for what kinds of teaching might work in a particular school >>>>>>> culture >> or >>>>> the >>>>>>> social context of a given classroom? I think less of a >>>>>>> standardized approach (here, everyone do this) and more focus on >>>>>>> what works >> locally >>>>>>> (here are some ideas; now decide what might work for you) might >>>>>>> help teachers learn to teach Common Core math in a way that >>>>>>> actually >> works in >>>>>>> their particular context. To adapt phrase from Magdalene >>>>>>> Lampert, it >>>>> might >>>>>>> bring about more sustainable change as they are "re-learning >> teaching" >>>>> in >>>>>>> their schools. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Because Common Core math is so different, perhaps this >>>>>>>>> re-learning >>>>>>> teaching requires a radical new approach instead of the same old >>>>>>> professional development. Learning through the Japanese >>>>>>> jugyokenkyu >>>>> method >>>>>>> sounds like it might be very useful, but there doesn't seem to >>>>>>> be a >> push >>>>>>> for reforming how teachers learn once they are in the field. >>>>>>> (Except >>>>> that >>>>>>> if enough of their students fail the Common Core-aligned tests, >>>>>>> they >>>>> will >>>>>>> eventually be out of a job.) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It seems nonsensical to implement incredibly high-stakes tests >> without >>>>>>> significant investment in re-learning teaching and with, as far >>>>>>> as I >>>>> know, >>>>>>> no research on how to learn to teach Common Core as a practicing >>>>> teacher. >>>>>>> I, too, wonder about how these issues are handled in Japan? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Katie >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Katie Wester-Neal >>>>>>>>> University of Georgia >>>>>>>>> ________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu < >>>>> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> >>>>>>> on behalf of Huw Lloyd < huw.softdesigns@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 12:58 PM >>>>>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>>>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: NYTimes.com: Why Do Americans Stink >>>>>>>>> at >>>>> Math? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 28 July 2014 16:46, Greg Thompson >>>>>>>>> < greg.a.thompson@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> [...] >>>>>>>>> These students had learned >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> incredibly well how to solve recipe Physics but they had no >>>>>>>>>> idea >>>>> about >>>>>>> how >>>>>>>>>> the basic principles of Physics worked. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Greg, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I would say the ethics of the situation go deeper than simply >>>>> (un)learnt >>>>>>>>> capabilities, but rather to the development of the student's >> creative >>>>>>>>> capabilities (or, rather, the stunting of them). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>> Huw >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. >>>>>> Assistant Professor >>>>>> Department of Anthropology >>>>>> 883 Spencer W. Kimball Tower >>>>>> Brigham Young University >>>>>> Provo, UT 84602 >>>>>> http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. >>>> Assistant Professor >>>> Department of Anthropology >>>> 883 Spencer W. Kimball Tower >>>> Brigham Young University >>>> Provo, UT 84602 >>>> http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson >>> >>> >> >> >> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Pitici_2013_1st-proof_13-sfard_4 Sep 13.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 202932 bytes Desc: not available Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20140731/8a33c696/attachment-0001.pdf From glassman.13@osu.edu Thu Jul 31 07:13:47 2014 From: glassman.13@osu.edu (Glassman, Michael) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 14:13:47 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: NYTimes.com: Why Do Americans Stink at Math? In-Reply-To: <001201cfacc5$f9f8ca40$edea5ec0$@net.il> References: <53d5718e.c814e00a.3778.3ba3SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> <1406571909843.30805@uga.edu> <75FA794D-2E1B-47A5-941F-7EFA1C605559@umich.edu> <022EE4B2-8F70-4DA7-9D00-63CBD7B67D80@umich.edu> <1406748733952.48320@uga.edu> <245EB719-8A88-4496-B64E-D083CD5223F0@umich.edu> <48C0B057-4918-4642-A947-44C19F8D090E@umich.edu> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9024BA2@CIO-TNC-D2MBX01.osuad.osu.edu>, <001201cfacc5$f9f8ca40$edea5ec0$@net.il> Message-ID: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9024BCB@CIO-TNC-D2MBX01.osuad.osu.edu> I really like this article/chapter Anna (after having gone through it quickly). Thanks for offering it. I especially like the idea of mathematics as a type of discourse, a way of telling a story. It seems intuitively really central to me (although sometimes my intuitions are more than a little bit off). But does this mean we looks for situations in classrooms where students need and want mathematics to tell a story? And is it better if this is woven into a larger narrative that is relevant to their everyday lives? It makes me think, when we teach math are we teaching our story, or are we teaching the story our social institutions want us to teach, or are we letting students tell their own story? It reminds me of how students, or pretty much everybody, do not write nearly as well to somebody else's prompt as compared to when they are telling their own story. Michael ________________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] on behalf of anna sfard [sfard@netvision.net.il] Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 9:47 AM To: 'eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity' Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: NYTimes.com: Why Do Americans Stink at Math? " Doesn't it make sense that somebody should stand up and ask "why are we teaching mathematics?" Already done, Michael - see the attached. anna PS. This is a fascinating conversation. I wish I could allow myself to participate properly. -----Original Message----- From: xmca-l-bounces+sfard=netvision.net.il@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+sfard=netvision.net.il@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Glassman, Michael Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 4:25 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: NYTimes.com: Why Do Americans Stink at Math? So here is my question. We have gone through basically a century of this. We teach mathematics and some people get it - the people in my experience really love mathematics - but most people don't. It's just something you do to get some place else (I am reminded of my attitude towards statistics courses in graduate school). So we keep banging our head against the wall again and again. Doesn't it make sense that somebody should stand up and ask "why are we teaching mathematics?" - as a subject I mean, it is still an important field of study. This is something we just made up mostly for the sake of "efficiency" - although it is not very efficient. But there is nothing to suggest that this is a good idea, and there are a lot of things to suggest that maybe we're on the wrong track here as far as education in concerned. This was actually an argument about specific subjects in the 20s and 30s, but we have been so unsuccessful and been so frustrated its pretty amazing that it hasn't come up again. Why not let mathematics emerge in the course of what we do? Is the type of mathematics we learn in the classroom transferable anyway? Maybe a bit heretical, but perhaps the idea should be raised every once in a while. Michael ________________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] on behalf of Ed Wall [ewall@umich.edu] Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 8:10 AM To: lchcmike@gmail.com; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: NYTimes.com: Why Do Americans Stink at Math? Mike As I said I am not a blissful optimist. Liping Ma made the point some time ago that, in fact, something like this would not be possible until a generation of students (perhaps two) had been taught to reasonably (and what this means can be usefully debated) understand what was going on (by the way, being able to do it in a rote fashion indicates, at least, that one understands the procedure). Parents can help and hinder (most, if treated respectfully, want to help). Perhaps a story will indicate where I'm at. A number of years ago, I was at a conference sitting next to a young graduate student with a policy background who was sort of interested in the mathematics mess. Finally, she could stand no more and blurted out something like , "I can't understand why you people are fussing about all this math teaching business, the kids in the inner city schools will never appreciate it." I turned to her and said sadly something like, "You are possibly right, but I can't act as if I believe so. Does that make sense?" She nodded yes. It is not just UCSD students who have problems with this. One of my friends did something with fractions in his calculus class at UM (smile). Part of the problem, I think, is that fractions in general have little practical meaning for many people (unlike the natural numbers); they are, in a sense, somewhat of a historical artifact. It is moderately easy to intervene on this at certain points in the school curriculum although asking why is useful. Ed On Jul 30, 2014, at 10:01 PM, mike cole < lchcmike@gmail.com> wrote: > That all seems reasonable to me, Ed. But it strikes me as a real > problem when the average "top 12% of California high school graduates" > cannot help a kid who has to figure out how to divide one fraction > into another. Or if they help its because they "teach the rule" (as > in, invert and multiply) but cannot explain why they do this. > > I think its a challenge to teachers and god bless those who can > emulate your approach. But its a challenge to parents, even UCSD > graduates aplenty, who cannot explain what they are doing in understandable terms. > > That good teachers can teach it, give the opportunity I believe. That > this is, or is likely to become, the universally accepted norm for > everyone, I fear I doubt. But oh my goodness, how happy I would be to be wrong! > mike > > > On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 12:46 PM, Ed Wall < ewall@umich.edu> wrote: > >> Katherine >> >> I think yes to your next to last question. However, what >> sometimes concerns me (and we are perhaps back to optimism and >> pessimism) is that looking for a future which may or may not occur >> seems 'unfair' to the students of today. I'm for thoughtful baby >> steps (and babies do stumble) now on all fronts and, unlike Carol, I don't yet know the 'right' answer. >> However, I would like to know (smile). >> >> Ed >> >> On Jul 30, 2014, at 3:32 PM, Katherine Wester Neal < wester@uga.edu> wrote: >> >>> I think we're all on to something here--just different parts of the >>> same >> thing. To put it all together, I'm thinking of a spiderweb. On >> individual strands, our spiderweb includes: >>> >>> 1. The differences in contact time and the difficulty of sustaining >> meaningful (or really any kind of) change when one is teaching 1,100 hours. >>> 2. The pressures of testing. >>> 3. The cultural value of childhood, teaching in general, elementary >> teachers, and testing as an educational goal in the U.S. >>> 4. Making changes in teachers' practices, the way schools work, the >> culture of testing, and how students' creative capacities are developed. >>> 5. Resistance from parents, teachers, and teacher educators to new >>> ways >> of learning/new ideas, which is often a result of deeply ingrained >> prior experiences. >>> >>> I probably didn't get everything that's been discussed, but these >>> are >> all issues that should be examined in concert because they are all >> connected as part of the same larger system. Although "system" isn't >> probably the word I should use with a Vygotskian framework (I'm still >> learning), I use to say that I'm not sure how an individual could >> deal with one of these strands without affecting or needing to work with the others. >> Does it take the effort of a collective, working on multiple strands >> simultaneously, to make more than a dent? Or to borrow Ed's words, >> how do we reshape the dent or make it bigger? >>> >>> Katie >>> >>> Katie Wester-Neal >>> University of Georgia >>> >>> ________________________________________ >>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >>> < xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> >> on behalf of Ed Wall < ewall@umich.edu> >>> Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2014 3:00 PM >>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: NYTimes.com: Why Do Americans Stink at Math? >>> >>> Greg >>> >>> I agree with much of what you write below. However, there may be >>> a >> disjunct between what you think is happening (and in many instances I >> agree with you) and the shape of the denting I am speaking about. I >> begin my methods courses talking about the commitments I bring to >> teaching (stressing they are mine and that teachers and pre-service >> teachers are welcome to push back) >>> >>> 1. I believe in promoting collective student and teacher engagement >> i(and I meant both!) >>> 2. I believe in having students do substantial mathematical work >>> (and >> that is where the constraints of the context can come into play - >> don't necessarily read into this 'new math' or tedious computations) >>> 3. I believe in taking my students' thinking seriously (this >>> includes >> (mis)understandings!!) >>> >>> I have yet, by the way, to find an instance (and that includes >>> school >> location and students, testing, whatever) where such commitments are >> impossible or, in a pragmatic sense, even moderately difficult (most >> often the difficulty is learning to value one's students which is >> more of a choice although one needs to be aware of the possibility). >> I would very much appreciate your suggesting some instances where >> such commitments were situationally impossible. My students and I >> (teachers and pre-service >> teachers) then spend a semester (and perhaps more) together - with >> feedback from classroom and field experiences - figuring out what >> kind of teaching (keeping in mind my commitments) can be sustained >> (and it will differ and they need to know this and accommodate to >> this). I am not unusual (perhaps read 'rare' - smile). In fact I have >> a number of colleagues who are considerably more capable. >>> >>> Philip Jackson (or was it Dan Lortie) used to talk about the >> apprenticeship of observation. People, he argued, learn to teach - >> for the most part - by observing as students in regular classroom. >> That should give one pause for a variety of reasons. I have sat >> through numerous faculty meetings where students are mentioned in >> less than a respectful fashion (and have heard anecdotes where that >> carried into the college classroom). I have heard elementary teachers >> spoken of quite disparagingly by faculty in Arts & Sciences and, >> while I agree their expertise is not always of the highest 'academic' >> quality, it is not clear to me that, in their own field of study, >> they are not more capable than their detractors. I have also seen an >> instructor continually stress 'nice' or 'comfortable' rather than 'challenging' or 'uncomfortable.' >>> >>> I admit my commitments have hooks in them; for instance, what is >> substantial mathematics (you need to know some mathematics to figure >> this out); what is collective teacher and student engagement (you >> need to know some pedagogy to figure this out) and what does it mean >> to respect student thinking in view of the previous (you need to know >> some mathematics and some pedagogy to figure this out). However, they >> are a beginning and some of my students seem, in time, to grow into them no matter the situation. >>> >>> Anyway, I can't say I'm blissfully optimistic, but I'm not >> pessimistic either. I do know that culturally we often don't work >> together; that we tend to get mired in the trivial; and we often >> 'demonize' the stranger. I hate to think that we will never choose >> otherwise. However, to choose otherwise seems very far from >> impossible in the formal schooling context. >>> >>> Ed >>> >>> On Jul 30, 2014, at 1:42 PM, Greg Thompson >>> < greg.a.thompson@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> >>>> Ed, >>>> Thanks for this wonderfully thoughtful reply. Very helpful. >>>> >>>> As for the teaching practices part, I entirely agree about the need >>>> for thoughtful attention to teaching practices and agree that great >>>> things >> can >>>> be accomplished locally. My sense, though, is that it takes great >> effort to >>>> sustain such smaller scale interventions (i.e. to make more than a >> dent). >>>> With regard to teaching practices, I would think that the way to >> approach a >>>> thoughtful teaching practice would be to start with the real >> constraints of >>>> context that teachers will regularly face and then try and figure >>>> out >> what >>>> kinds of teaching can be sustained given those constraints. >>>> >>>> That's where I'm most pessimistic. It is difficult for me to >>>> imagine developing responsible teaching practices that could be >>>> sustained on a larger scale given the cultural, institutional, and >>>> ideological context >> of >>>> schooling in the U.S. [and I might add that it seems like the >>>> history of teaching practice in the U.S. is a history where the >>>> same good ideas >> keep >>>> popping up and then fading from sight almost as quickly as they >> appeared]. >>>> >>>> But I'm certainly open to ideas/suggestions for thoughtful >>>> pedagogical practices that are sustainable in the U.S. formal schooling context. >>>> >>>> -greg >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 10:11 AM, Ed Wall < ewall@umich.edu> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Comments below >>>>> >>>>> On Jul 30, 2014, at 11:33 AM, Greg Thompson >>>>> >> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I was hoping that somebody might be able to comment on the >>>>>> situation >> of >>>>>> schooling in Japan and whether or not these hypotheses about the >> Japanese >>>>>> situation of schooling might bear out: >>>>>> >>>>>> 1. Teachers in Japan have time to develop their craft. 600 annual >> hours >>>>> of >>>>>> contact time for teachers in Japan vs. 1100 hours of contact time >>>>>> in >> the >>>>>> U.S. >>>>> >>>>> Yes >>>>> >>>>>> 2. There is an ideology of childhood in Japan that values >>>>>> childhood >>>>> greatly >>>>>> and treats them as qualitatively distinct beings from adolescents >>>>>> and adults, and thus suggests that they should be protected from >>>>>> the cruel >>>>> and >>>>>> harsh practice of "testing". But this also means that elementary >> school >>>>>> teachers are held in high regard. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Yes. However, it doesn't necessarily follow that this is why >>>>> elementary school teachers are held in high regard >>>>> >>>>>> I guess the first seems a bit more factual but the second is more >>>>>> of >> an >>>>>> hypothesis, but if they bear out as important factors for >>>>>> enabling the >>>>> kind >>>>>> of learning that Green describes, then it seems to me that even >>>>>> if >> there >>>>>> were to be a huge push for training teachers in the U.S., >>>>>> teachers >> would >>>>>> quickly revert to what we currently lament about teaching in the U.S. >> not >>>>>> because they are bad teachers or don't know how to teach in the >>>>>> more complex manner but rather simply because, with some rare >>>>>> exceptions, >> it >>>>> is >>>>>> IMPOSSIBLE to teach in the more desirable manner given the >>>>>> ridiculous amount of contact time and the fact that in the >>>>>> American ideology of childhood, the teaching of children is not valued particularly highly. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> This doesn't follow. It is possible and it is possible in highly >>>>> urban areas (and I amy misunderstand you use of the word 'rare'). >>>>> That >> doesn't >>>>> mean that it is necessarily valued or supported by the powers-that-be. >>>>> There are a few more things to add to your facts: There is a >>>>> national curriculum in Japan and there is a reasonably effective >>>>> mentoring >> system >>>>> (largely teacher instigated). A 'fact' (and perhaps this is >>>>> anecdotal) >> is >>>>> that when it was first realized that some interesting things were >> happening >>>>> in Japanese schools (e.g. lesson study), the collegiate Japanese >> community >>>>> was caught, to a large degree, unaware. 'Master' lesson are >>>>> published >> by >>>>> teachers. >>>>> >>>>>> In light of this, it seems a Sisyphean feat to try to change teachers' >>>>>> teaching practices without changing the cultural context in which >> those >>>>>> teachers work. And changing cultural contexts is perhaps even >>>>>> more difficult still. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> That was why I suggested a look at the Netherlands (which seem to >>>>> do as well or better than the Japanese). Of course, some of this >>>>> can still be explained because of cultural differences and how teachers are viewed. >>>>> >>>>>> Maybe we should stop looking to teaching practices in formal >> schooling in >>>>>> the U.S. as a site of change? >>>>>> Maybe better to look outside and beyond schools altogether? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Perhaps we should do as you suggest (and, to a limited extent and >>>>> in a sense, something like this has been done). However, it might >>>>> also be a >> good >>>>> idea to look at teaching practices in a thoughtful way. I have >>>>> seen >> very >>>>> little of this happening over the years. I was just talking to a >> colleague >>>>> today and, although we love our work in urban areas, we admit to >>>>> making only a small dent. We also admit to being underwhelmed by >>>>> views of education prevalent in many schools of education. It is >>>>> getting >> steadily >>>>> worse. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Too pessimistic? >>>>>> -greg >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Pessimism is fine, but simply pessimism can be self limiting; >>>>> however, that is an opinion and not a fact. >>>>> >>>>> Ed >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 6:02 AM, Ed Wall < ewall@umich.edu> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Perhaps something of interest re this thread. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ed Wall >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/29/opinion/joe-nocera-teaching-teachin >> g.html?_r=0 >>>>>>>> Some general comments (and I apologize for being so late to the >>>>>>> conversation as I have been out of email contact) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Magdalen Lampert and Deborah Ball were both at Michigan State >>>>>>>> in the >>>>>>> late 80s. They both taught what might, in part, be an early >>>>>>> version >> of >>>>> the >>>>>>> Common Core to their students. I also taught math methods >>>>>>> beginning >> in >>>>> the >>>>>>> late 90s and also emphasized such an approach (I also did >>>>>>> similar as >> a >>>>> K-12 >>>>>>> math teacher before moving onto college teaching). There is >>>>>>> little >> 'new' >>>>>>> math in the Common Core - perhaps a bit of 'old' math. However, >>>>>>> there >>>>> is a >>>>>>> very strong emphasis on kids making sense out of what they are >>>>>>> doing >> (I >>>>>>> apologize for being brief, but this is a moment between meetings >>>>>>> at a conference devoted to such 'strange' notions as helping >>>>>>> kids making >>>>> sense). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> There are problems with the Common Core as written down: it is >>>>>>>> being >>>>>>> forced down teachers' throats; it has been tied into high stakes >> testing >>>>>>> (which, by the way, occurs at places in a student's life in >>>>>>> Japan); >>>>> there >>>>>>> are some debatable differences in the age sequencing of topics; >>>>> teachers to >>>>>>> be have often not been prepared for such teaching in their >>>>>>> college >>>>> courses; >>>>>>> and more. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Some of these problems may be ironed out with time; however, >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>> training and culture of teaching (see Jackson and Lortie, even >>>>>>> if >>>>> somewhat >>>>>>> dated) in the US is still a bit grim. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So a few summary points: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Teaching that is, more or less, in sync with the Common Core >>>>>>>> has >>>>>>> been practiced for years in the US. Teacher training that is in >>>>>>> sync >>>>> with >>>>>>> the Common Core has been available for years in the US. Lesson >>>>>>> study Japanese style may be more possible with an agreed upon >>>>>>> core >> (although >>>>> one >>>>>>> might look to the Netherlands to see what works well for them >>>>>>> rather >>>>> than >>>>>>> Japan). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> An interesting question for those of us who are involved in >>>>>>>> teacher >>>>>>> training might be "Why do so many teachers find the Common Core >>>>> Standards >>>>>>> so threatening - factoring out the forcing and testing)?" What >>>>>>> (from >> the >>>>>>> 4th grade standards, for example): >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> . Use place value understanding and properties of operations >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>> perform multi-digit arithmetic. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> . Make sense of problems and persevere in solving them >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> do some elementary teachers find difficult and threatening? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Again apologies for being very, very short about a very large >>>>>>>> and >> very >>>>>>> complex problem. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ed >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Jul 28, 2014, at 2:25 PM, Katherine Wester Neal >>>>>>>> < wester@uga.edu> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> What an interesting article! I am thinking about the lack of >>>>>>>>> focus >> on >>>>>>> specific contexts in the article's discussion of teaching and >> learning >>>>> to >>>>>>> teach as a practicing teacher. Is it possible to go about such >>>>>>> change >>>>> (from >>>>>>> "old" math to new math or Common Core math) with little/no >> consideration >>>>>>> for what kinds of teaching might work in a particular school >>>>>>> culture >> or >>>>> the >>>>>>> social context of a given classroom? I think less of a >>>>>>> standardized approach (here, everyone do this) and more focus on >>>>>>> what works >> locally >>>>>>> (here are some ideas; now decide what might work for you) might >>>>>>> help teachers learn to teach Common Core math in a way that >>>>>>> actually >> works in >>>>>>> their particular context. To adapt phrase from Magdalene >>>>>>> Lampert, it >>>>> might >>>>>>> bring about more sustainable change as they are "re-learning >> teaching" >>>>> in >>>>>>> their schools. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Because Common Core math is so different, perhaps this >>>>>>>>> re-learning >>>>>>> teaching requires a radical new approach instead of the same old >>>>>>> professional development. Learning through the Japanese >>>>>>> jugyokenkyu >>>>> method >>>>>>> sounds like it might be very useful, but there doesn't seem to >>>>>>> be a >> push >>>>>>> for reforming how teachers learn once they are in the field. >>>>>>> (Except >>>>> that >>>>>>> if enough of their students fail the Common Core-aligned tests, >>>>>>> they >>>>> will >>>>>>> eventually be out of a job.) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It seems nonsensical to implement incredibly high-stakes tests >> without >>>>>>> significant investment in re-learning teaching and with, as far >>>>>>> as I >>>>> know, >>>>>>> no research on how to learn to teach Common Core as a practicing >>>>> teacher. >>>>>>> I, too, wonder about how these issues are handled in Japan? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Katie >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Katie Wester-Neal >>>>>>>>> University of Georgia >>>>>>>>> ________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu < >>>>> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> >>>>>>> on behalf of Huw Lloyd < huw.softdesigns@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 12:58 PM >>>>>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>>>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: NYTimes.com: Why Do Americans Stink >>>>>>>>> at >>>>> Math? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 28 July 2014 16:46, Greg Thompson >>>>>>>>> < greg.a.thompson@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> [...] >>>>>>>>> These students had learned >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> incredibly well how to solve recipe Physics but they had no >>>>>>>>>> idea >>>>> about >>>>>>> how >>>>>>>>>> the basic principles of Physics worked. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Greg, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I would say the ethics of the situation go deeper than simply >>>>> (un)learnt >>>>>>>>> capabilities, but rather to the development of the student's >> creative >>>>>>>>> capabilities (or, rather, the stunting of them). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>> Huw >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. >>>>>> Assistant Professor >>>>>> Department of Anthropology >>>>>> 883 Spencer W. Kimball Tower >>>>>> Brigham Young University >>>>>> Provo, UT 84602 >>>>>> http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. >>>> Assistant Professor >>>> Department of Anthropology >>>> 883 Spencer W. Kimball Tower >>>> Brigham Young University >>>> Provo, UT 84602 >>>> http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson >>> >>> >> >> >> From ewall@umich.edu Thu Jul 31 07:15:31 2014 From: ewall@umich.edu (Ed Wall) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 10:15:31 -0400 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: NYTimes.com: Why Do Americans Stink at Math? In-Reply-To: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9024BA2@CIO-TNC-D2MBX01.osuad.osu.edu> References: <53d5718e.c814e00a.3778.3ba3SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> <1406571909843.30805@uga.edu> <75FA794D-2E1B-47A5-941F-7EFA1C605559@umich.edu> <022EE4B2-8F70-4DA7-9D00-63CBD7B67D80@umich.edu> <1406748733952.48320@uga.edu> <245EB719-8A88-4496-B64E-D083CD5223F0@umich.edu> , <48C0B057-4918-4642-A947-44C19F8D090E@umich.edu> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9024BA2@CIO-TNC-D2MBX01.osuad.osu.edu> Message-ID: Michael We have gone thru far, far more than a century of this and I think the question you pose is worth asking and answering. However, when I interact with many children on the pre-Kindergarten level I hear and see a great deal of interest in mathematics. We know that such children spend about 30% of their free play doing something mathematical (given that they are allowed to play with a variety of materials); much more than any other area of 'study.' We also know that about 50% of US children up to 4th or 5th grade say they like mathematics and we know that by 8th that is about 5%. So when you say most people don't get it (and, of course, there is a question about it - e.g. statistics), I wonder what is underneath those words. I know when I hear mathematicians say them, it is often an indication that they see such people as somewhat intellectually inferior. I know when such people describe their classroom experience, it has often been quite problematic (and this is my opinion). So I have always been unsure just what wasn't got; especially when many of such people handle mathematics in their lives quite capably. Anyway, whatever we are doing as educators doesn't seem to done sufficiently well and, hence, I think, Michael's questions are critical and need to be continually raised and answered. I think Donna and Anna have given good answers. However, I don't think they have been answered once and for all (smile). Ed On Jul 31, 2014, at 9:25 AM, "Glassman, Michael" wrote: > So here is my question. We have gone through basically a century of this. We teach mathematics and some people get it - the people in my experience really love mathematics - but most people don't. It's just something you do to get some place else (I am reminded of my attitude towards statistics courses in graduate school). So we keep banging our head against the wall again and again. Doesn't it make sense that somebody should stand up and ask "why are we teaching mathematics?" - as a subject I mean, it is still an important field of study. This is something we just made up mostly for the sake of "efficiency" - although it is not very efficient. But there is nothing to suggest that this is a good idea, and there are a lot of things to suggest that maybe we're on the wrong track here as far as education in concerned. This was actually an argument about specific subjects in the 20s and 30s, but we have been so unsuccessful and been so frustrated its pretty amazing that it hasn't come up again. Why not let mathematics emerge in the course of what we do? Is the type of mathematics we learn in the classroom transferable anyway? > > Maybe a bit heretical, but perhaps the idea should be raised every once in a while. > > Michael > ________________________________________ > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] on behalf of Ed Wall [ewall@umich.edu] > Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 8:10 AM > To: lchcmike@gmail.com; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: NYTimes.com: Why Do Americans Stink at Math? > > Mike > > As I said I am not a blissful optimist. > > Liping Ma made the point some time ago that, in fact, something like this would not be possible until a generation of students (perhaps two) had been taught to reasonably (and what this means can be usefully debated) understand what was going on (by the way, being able to do it in a rote fashion indicates, at least, that one understands the procedure). Parents can help and hinder (most, if treated respectfully, want to help). > Perhaps a story will indicate where I'm at. A number of years ago, I was at a conference sitting next to a young graduate student with a policy background who was sort of interested in the mathematics mess. Finally, she could stand no more and blurted out something like , "I can't understand why you people are fussing about all this math teaching business, the kids in the inner city schools will never appreciate it." I turned to her and said sadly something like, "You are possibly right, but I can't act as if I believe so. Does that make sense?" She nodded yes. > > It is not just UCSD students who have problems with this. One of my friends did something with fractions in his calculus class at UM (smile). Part of the problem, I think, is that fractions in general have little practical meaning for many people (unlike the natural numbers); they are, in a sense, somewhat of a historical artifact. It is moderately easy to intervene on this at certain points in the school curriculum although asking why is useful. > > Ed > > On Jul 30, 2014, at 10:01 PM, mike cole wrote: > >> That all seems reasonable to me, Ed. But it strikes me as a real problem >> when the average "top 12% of California high school graduates" cannot help >> a kid who has to figure out how to divide one fraction into another. Or if >> they help its because they "teach the rule" (as in, invert and multiply) >> but cannot explain why they do this. >> >> I think its a challenge to teachers and god bless those who can emulate >> your approach. But its a challenge to parents, even UCSD graduates aplenty, >> who cannot explain what they are doing in understandable terms. >> >> That good teachers can teach it, give the opportunity I believe. That this >> is, or is likely to become, the universally accepted norm for everyone, I >> fear I doubt. But oh my goodness, how happy I would be to be wrong! >> mike >> >> >> On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 12:46 PM, Ed Wall wrote: >> >>> Katherine >>> >>> I think yes to your next to last question. However, what sometimes >>> concerns me (and we are perhaps back to optimism and pessimism) is that >>> looking for a future which may or may not occur seems 'unfair' to the >>> students of today. I'm for thoughtful baby steps (and babies do stumble) >>> now on all fronts and, unlike Carol, I don't yet know the 'right' answer. >>> However, I would like to know (smile). >>> >>> Ed >>> >>> On Jul 30, 2014, at 3:32 PM, Katherine Wester Neal wrote: >>> >>>> I think we're all on to something here--just different parts of the same >>> thing. To put it all together, I'm thinking of a spiderweb. On individual >>> strands, our spiderweb includes: >>>> >>>> 1. The differences in contact time and the difficulty of sustaining >>> meaningful (or really any kind of) change when one is teaching 1,100 hours. >>>> 2. The pressures of testing. >>>> 3. The cultural value of childhood, teaching in general, elementary >>> teachers, and testing as an educational goal in the U.S. >>>> 4. Making changes in teachers' practices, the way schools work, the >>> culture of testing, and how students' creative capacities are developed. >>>> 5. Resistance from parents, teachers, and teacher educators to new ways >>> of learning/new ideas, which is often a result of deeply ingrained prior >>> experiences. >>>> >>>> I probably didn't get everything that's been discussed, but these are >>> all issues that should be examined in concert because they are all >>> connected as part of the same larger system. Although "system" isn't >>> probably the word I should use with a Vygotskian framework (I'm still >>> learning), I use to say that I'm not sure how an individual could deal with >>> one of these strands without affecting or needing to work with the others. >>> Does it take the effort of a collective, working on multiple strands >>> simultaneously, to make more than a dent? Or to borrow Ed's words, how do >>> we reshape the dent or make it bigger? >>>> >>>> Katie >>>> >>>> Katie Wester-Neal >>>> University of Georgia >>>> >>>> ________________________________________ >>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >>> on behalf of Ed Wall >>>> Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2014 3:00 PM >>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: NYTimes.com: Why Do Americans Stink at Math? >>>> >>>> Greg >>>> >>>> I agree with much of what you write below. However, there may be a >>> disjunct between what you think is happening (and in many instances I agree >>> with you) and the shape of the denting I am speaking about. I begin my >>> methods courses talking about the commitments I bring to teaching >>> (stressing they are mine and that teachers and pre-service teachers are >>> welcome to push back) >>>> >>>> 1. I believe in promoting collective student and teacher engagement >>> i(and I meant both!) >>>> 2. I believe in having students do substantial mathematical work (and >>> that is where the constraints of the context can come into play - don't >>> necessarily read into this 'new math' or tedious computations) >>>> 3. I believe in taking my students? thinking seriously (this includes >>> (mis)understandings!!) >>>> >>>> I have yet, by the way, to find an instance (and that includes school >>> location and students, testing, whatever) where such commitments are >>> impossible or, in a pragmatic sense, even moderately difficult (most often >>> the difficulty is learning to value one's students which is more of a >>> choice although one needs to be aware of the possibility). I would very >>> much appreciate your suggesting some instances where such commitments were >>> situationally impossible. My students and I (teachers and pre-service >>> teachers) then spend a semester (and perhaps more) together - with feedback >>> from classroom and field experiences - figuring out what kind of teaching >>> (keeping in mind my commitments) can be sustained (and it will differ and >>> they need to know this and accommodate to this). I am not unusual (perhaps >>> read 'rare' - smile). In fact I have a number of colleagues who are >>> considerably more capable. >>>> >>>> Philip Jackson (or was it Dan Lortie) used to talk about the >>> apprenticeship of observation. People, he argued, learn to teach - for the >>> most part - by observing as students in regular classroom. That should give >>> one pause for a variety of reasons. I have sat through numerous faculty >>> meetings where students are mentioned in less than a respectful fashion >>> (and have heard anecdotes where that carried into the college classroom). I >>> have heard elementary teachers spoken of quite disparagingly by faculty in >>> Arts & Sciences and, while I agree their expertise is not always of the >>> highest 'academic' quality, it is not clear to me that, in their own field >>> of study, they are not more capable than their detractors. I have also seen >>> an instructor continually stress 'nice' or 'comfortable' rather than >>> 'challenging' or 'uncomfortable.' >>>> >>>> I admit my commitments have hooks in them; for instance, what is >>> substantial mathematics (you need to know some mathematics to figure this >>> out); what is collective teacher and student engagement (you need to know >>> some pedagogy to figure this out) and what does it mean to respect student >>> thinking in view of the previous (you need to know some mathematics and >>> some pedagogy to figure this out). However, they are a beginning and some >>> of my students seem, in time, to grow into them no matter the situation. >>>> >>>> Anyway, I can't say I'm blissfully optimistic, but I'm not >>> pessimistic either. I do know that culturally we often don't work together; >>> that we tend to get mired in the trivial; and we often 'demonize' the >>> stranger. I hate to think that we will never choose otherwise. However, to >>> choose otherwise seems very far from impossible in the formal schooling >>> context. >>>> >>>> Ed >>>> >>>> On Jul 30, 2014, at 1:42 PM, Greg Thompson >>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Ed, >>>>> Thanks for this wonderfully thoughtful reply. Very helpful. >>>>> >>>>> As for the teaching practices part, I entirely agree about the need for >>>>> thoughtful attention to teaching practices and agree that great things >>> can >>>>> be accomplished locally. My sense, though, is that it takes great >>> effort to >>>>> sustain such smaller scale interventions (i.e. to make more than a >>> dent). >>>>> With regard to teaching practices, I would think that the way to >>> approach a >>>>> thoughtful teaching practice would be to start with the real >>> constraints of >>>>> context that teachers will regularly face and then try and figure out >>> what >>>>> kinds of teaching can be sustained given those constraints. >>>>> >>>>> That's where I'm most pessimistic. It is difficult for me to imagine >>>>> developing responsible teaching practices that could be sustained on a >>>>> larger scale given the cultural, institutional, and ideological context >>> of >>>>> schooling in the U.S. [and I might add that it seems like the history of >>>>> teaching practice in the U.S. is a history where the same good ideas >>> keep >>>>> popping up and then fading from sight almost as quickly as they >>> appeared]. >>>>> >>>>> But I'm certainly open to ideas/suggestions for thoughtful pedagogical >>>>> practices that are sustainable in the U.S. formal schooling context. >>>>> >>>>> -greg >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 10:11 AM, Ed Wall wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Comments below >>>>>> >>>>>> On Jul 30, 2014, at 11:33 AM, Greg Thompson >>> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I was hoping that somebody might be able to comment on the situation >>> of >>>>>>> schooling in Japan and whether or not these hypotheses about the >>> Japanese >>>>>>> situation of schooling might bear out: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1. Teachers in Japan have time to develop their craft. 600 annual >>> hours >>>>>> of >>>>>>> contact time for teachers in Japan vs. 1100 hours of contact time in >>> the >>>>>>> U.S. >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes >>>>>> >>>>>>> 2. There is an ideology of childhood in Japan that values childhood >>>>>> greatly >>>>>>> and treats them as qualitatively distinct beings from adolescents and >>>>>>> adults, and thus suggests that they should be protected from the cruel >>>>>> and >>>>>>> harsh practice of "testing". But this also means that elementary >>> school >>>>>>> teachers are held in high regard. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes. However, it doesn't necessarily follow that this is why elementary >>>>>> school teachers are held in high regard >>>>>> >>>>>>> I guess the first seems a bit more factual but the second is more of >>> an >>>>>>> hypothesis, but if they bear out as important factors for enabling the >>>>>> kind >>>>>>> of learning that Green describes, then it seems to me that even if >>> there >>>>>>> were to be a huge push for training teachers in the U.S., teachers >>> would >>>>>>> quickly revert to what we currently lament about teaching in the U.S. >>> not >>>>>>> because they are bad teachers or don't know how to teach in the more >>>>>>> complex manner but rather simply because, with some rare exceptions, >>> it >>>>>> is >>>>>>> IMPOSSIBLE to teach in the more desirable manner given the ridiculous >>>>>>> amount of contact time and the fact that in the American ideology of >>>>>>> childhood, the teaching of children is not valued particularly highly. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> This doesn't follow. It is possible and it is possible in highly urban >>>>>> areas (and I amy misunderstand you use of the word 'rare'). That >>> doesn't >>>>>> mean that it is necessarily valued or supported by the powers-that-be. >>>>>> There are a few more things to add to your facts: There is a national >>>>>> curriculum in Japan and there is a reasonably effective mentoring >>> system >>>>>> (largely teacher instigated). A 'fact' (and perhaps this is anecdotal) >>> is >>>>>> that when it was first realized that some interesting things were >>> happening >>>>>> in Japanese schools (e.g. lesson study), the collegiate Japanese >>> community >>>>>> was caught, to a large degree, unaware. 'Master' lesson are published >>> by >>>>>> teachers. >>>>>> >>>>>>> In light of this, it seems a Sisyphean feat to try to change teachers' >>>>>>> teaching practices without changing the cultural context in which >>> those >>>>>>> teachers work. And changing cultural contexts is perhaps even more >>>>>>> difficult still. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> That was why I suggested a look at the Netherlands (which seem to do as >>>>>> well or better than the Japanese). Of course, some of this can still be >>>>>> explained because of cultural differences and how teachers are viewed. >>>>>> >>>>>>> Maybe we should stop looking to teaching practices in formal >>> schooling in >>>>>>> the U.S. as a site of change? >>>>>>> Maybe better to look outside and beyond schools altogether? >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Perhaps we should do as you suggest (and, to a limited extent and in a >>>>>> sense, something like this has been done). However, it might also be a >>> good >>>>>> idea to look at teaching practices in a thoughtful way. I have seen >>> very >>>>>> little of this happening over the years. I was just talking to a >>> colleague >>>>>> today and, although we love our work in urban areas, we admit to making >>>>>> only a small dent. We also admit to being underwhelmed by views of >>>>>> education prevalent in many schools of education. It is getting >>> steadily >>>>>> worse. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Too pessimistic? >>>>>>> -greg >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Pessimism is fine, but simply pessimism can be self limiting; however, >>>>>> that is an opinion and not a fact. >>>>>> >>>>>> Ed >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 6:02 AM, Ed Wall wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Perhaps something of interest re this thread. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ed Wall >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/29/opinion/joe-nocera-teaching-teaching.html?_r=0 >>>>>>>>> Some general comments (and I apologize for being so late to the >>>>>>>> conversation as I have been out of email contact) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Magdalen Lampert and Deborah Ball were both at Michigan State in the >>>>>>>> late 80s. They both taught what might, in part, be an early version >>> of >>>>>> the >>>>>>>> Common Core to their students. I also taught math methods beginning >>> in >>>>>> the >>>>>>>> late 90s and also emphasized such an approach (I also did similar as >>> a >>>>>> K-12 >>>>>>>> math teacher before moving onto college teaching). There is little >>> 'new' >>>>>>>> math in the Common Core - perhaps a bit of 'old' math. However, there >>>>>> is a >>>>>>>> very strong emphasis on kids making sense out of what they are doing >>> (I >>>>>>>> apologize for being brief, but this is a moment between meetings at a >>>>>>>> conference devoted to such 'strange' notions as helping kids making >>>>>> sense). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> There are problems with the Common Core as written down: it is being >>>>>>>> forced down teachers' throats; it has been tied into high stakes >>> testing >>>>>>>> (which, by the way, occurs at places in a student's life in Japan); >>>>>> there >>>>>>>> are some debatable differences in the age sequencing of topics; >>>>>> teachers to >>>>>>>> be have often not been prepared for such teaching in their college >>>>>> courses; >>>>>>>> and more. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Some of these problems may be ironed out with time; however, the >>>>>>>> training and culture of teaching (see Jackson and Lortie, even if >>>>>> somewhat >>>>>>>> dated) in the US is still a bit grim. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So a few summary points: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Teaching that is, more or less, in sync with the Common Core has >>>>>>>> been practiced for years in the US. Teacher training that is in sync >>>>>> with >>>>>>>> the Common Core has been available for years in the US. Lesson study >>>>>>>> Japanese style may be more possible with an agreed upon core >>> (although >>>>>> one >>>>>>>> might look to the Netherlands to see what works well for them rather >>>>>> than >>>>>>>> Japan). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> An interesting question for those of us who are involved in teacher >>>>>>>> training might be "Why do so many teachers find the Common Core >>>>>> Standards >>>>>>>> so threatening - factoring out the forcing and testing)?" What (from >>> the >>>>>>>> 4th grade standards, for example): >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ? Use place value understanding and properties of operations to >>>>>>>> perform multi-digit arithmetic. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ? Make sense of problems and persevere in solving them >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> do some elementary teachers find difficult and threatening? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Again apologies for being very, very short about a very large and >>> very >>>>>>>> complex problem. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Ed >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Jul 28, 2014, at 2:25 PM, Katherine Wester Neal >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> What an interesting article! I am thinking about the lack of focus >>> on >>>>>>>> specific contexts in the article's discussion of teaching and >>> learning >>>>>> to >>>>>>>> teach as a practicing teacher. Is it possible to go about such change >>>>>> (from >>>>>>>> "old" math to new math or Common Core math) with little/no >>> consideration >>>>>>>> for what kinds of teaching might work in a particular school culture >>> or >>>>>> the >>>>>>>> social context of a given classroom? I think less of a standardized >>>>>>>> approach (here, everyone do this) and more focus on what works >>> locally >>>>>>>> (here are some ideas; now decide what might work for you) might help >>>>>>>> teachers learn to teach Common Core math in a way that actually >>> works in >>>>>>>> their particular context. To adapt phrase from Magdalene Lampert, it >>>>>> might >>>>>>>> bring about more sustainable change as they are "re-learning >>> teaching" >>>>>> in >>>>>>>> their schools. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Because Common Core math is so different, perhaps this re-learning >>>>>>>> teaching requires a radical new approach instead of the same old >>>>>>>> professional development. Learning through the Japanese jugyokenkyu >>>>>> method >>>>>>>> sounds like it might be very useful, but there doesn't seem to be a >>> push >>>>>>>> for reforming how teachers learn once they are in the field. (Except >>>>>> that >>>>>>>> if enough of their students fail the Common Core-aligned tests, they >>>>>> will >>>>>>>> eventually be out of a job.) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It seems nonsensical to implement incredibly high-stakes tests >>> without >>>>>>>> significant investment in re-learning teaching and with, as far as I >>>>>> know, >>>>>>>> no research on how to learn to teach Common Core as a practicing >>>>>> teacher. >>>>>>>> I, too, wonder about how these issues are handled in Japan? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Katie >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Katie Wester-Neal >>>>>>>>>> University of Georgia >>>>>>>>>> ________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu < >>>>>> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> >>>>>>>> on behalf of Huw Lloyd >>>>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 12:58 PM >>>>>>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>>>>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: NYTimes.com: Why Do Americans Stink at >>>>>> Math? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 28 July 2014 16:46, Greg Thompson >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> [...] >>>>>>>>>> These students had learned >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> incredibly well how to solve recipe Physics but they had no idea >>>>>> about >>>>>>>> how >>>>>>>>>>> the basic principles of Physics worked. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Greg, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I would say the ethics of the situation go deeper than simply >>>>>> (un)learnt >>>>>>>>>> capabilities, but rather to the development of the student's >>> creative >>>>>>>>>> capabilities (or, rather, the stunting of them). >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>>> Huw >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. >>>>>>> Assistant Professor >>>>>>> Department of Anthropology >>>>>>> 883 Spencer W. Kimball Tower >>>>>>> Brigham Young University >>>>>>> Provo, UT 84602 >>>>>>> http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. >>>>> Assistant Professor >>>>> Department of Anthropology >>>>> 883 Spencer W. Kimball Tower >>>>> Brigham Young University >>>>> Provo, UT 84602 >>>>> http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> > > > From glassman.13@osu.edu Thu Jul 31 07:28:07 2014 From: glassman.13@osu.edu (Glassman, Michael) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 14:28:07 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: NYTimes.com: Why Do Americans Stink at Math? In-Reply-To: References: <53d5718e.c814e00a.3778.3ba3SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> <1406571909843.30805@uga.edu> <75FA794D-2E1B-47A5-941F-7EFA1C605559@umich.edu> <022EE4B2-8F70-4DA7-9D00-63CBD7B67D80@umich.edu> <1406748733952.48320@uga.edu> <245EB719-8A88-4496-B64E-D083CD5223F0@umich.edu> , <48C0B057-4918-4642-A947-44C19F8D090E@umich.edu> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9024BA2@CIO-TNC-D2MBX01.osuad.osu.edu>, Message-ID: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9024BED@CIO-TNC-D2MBX01.osuad.osu.edu> Hi Ed, Here's a question, why do some people think not getting something is a sign of inferiority - it is much more likely that is simply not where their interests are taking them at the moment. Do we consider somebody who doesn't get Hegel's master-slave dialectic is somehow inferior (does that make Andy superior to all of us - don't say anything Andy). Do we say somebody who doesn't get James Joyce's Ulysses is inferior? Is this part of the ideology we have about mathematics somewhat representing some type of innate intelligence (which is a relatively new ideology). What I remember about working with young children is that they were interested in almost everything, what we call mathematics included, because I think it is part of their everyday discovery of the world. Everything, following Anna's ideas, is story to tell about the world - many of them going nowhere which is fine. It is when we restrict this and say when you think about this it is mathematics, when you think about that it is biology, when you think about this it is social studies - when we move them from the joy of fluid intelligence to the restrictions of crystallized intelligence that we lose them. Anna's chapter notwithstanding, why aren't we asking ourselves more, why do we do this if it doesn't seem to work. Michael ________________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] on behalf of Ed Wall [ewall@umich.edu] Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 10:15 AM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: NYTimes.com: Why Do Americans Stink at Math? Michael We have gone thru far, far more than a century of this and I think the question you pose is worth asking and answering. However, when I interact with many children on the pre-Kindergarten level I hear and see a great deal of interest in mathematics. We know that such children spend about 30% of their free play doing something mathematical (given that they are allowed to play with a variety of materials); much more than any other area of 'study.' We also know that about 50% of US children up to 4th or 5th grade say they like mathematics and we know that by 8th that is about 5%. So when you say most people don't get it (and, of course, there is a question about it - e.g. statistics), I wonder what is underneath those words. I know when I hear mathematicians say them, it is often an indication that they see such people as somewhat intellectually inferior. I know when such people describe their classroom experience, it has often been quite problematic (and this is my opinion). So I have always been unsure just what wasn't got; especially when many of such people handle mathematics in their lives quite capably. Anyway, whatever we are doing as educators doesn't seem to done sufficiently well and, hence, I think, Michael's questions are critical and need to be continually raised and answered. I think Donna and Anna have given good answers. However, I don't think they have been answered once and for all (smile). Ed On Jul 31, 2014, at 9:25 AM, "Glassman, Michael" wrote: > So here is my question. We have gone through basically a century of this. We teach mathematics and some people get it - the people in my experience really love mathematics - but most people don't. It's just something you do to get some place else (I am reminded of my attitude towards statistics courses in graduate school). So we keep banging our head against the wall again and again. Doesn't it make sense that somebody should stand up and ask "why are we teaching mathematics?" - as a subject I mean, it is still an important field of study. This is something we just made up mostly for the sake of "efficiency" - although it is not very efficient. But there is nothing to suggest that this is a good idea, and there are a lot of things to suggest that maybe we're on the wrong track here as far as education in concerned. This was actually an argument about specific subjects in the 20s and 30s, but we have been so unsuccessful and been so frustrated its pretty amazing that it hasn't come up again. Why not let mathematics emerge in the course of what we do? Is the type of mathematics we learn in the classroom transferable anyway? > > Maybe a bit heretical, but perhaps the idea should be raised every once in a while. > > Michael > ________________________________________ > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] on behalf of Ed Wall [ewall@umich.edu] > Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 8:10 AM > To: lchcmike@gmail.com; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: NYTimes.com: Why Do Americans Stink at Math? > > Mike > > As I said I am not a blissful optimist. > > Liping Ma made the point some time ago that, in fact, something like this would not be possible until a generation of students (perhaps two) had been taught to reasonably (and what this means can be usefully debated) understand what was going on (by the way, being able to do it in a rote fashion indicates, at least, that one understands the procedure). Parents can help and hinder (most, if treated respectfully, want to help). > Perhaps a story will indicate where I'm at. A number of years ago, I was at a conference sitting next to a young graduate student with a policy background who was sort of interested in the mathematics mess. Finally, she could stand no more and blurted out something like , "I can't understand why you people are fussing about all this math teaching business, the kids in the inner city schools will never appreciate it." I turned to her and said sadly something like, "You are possibly right, but I can't act as if I believe so. Does that make sense?" She nodded yes. > > It is not just UCSD students who have problems with this. One of my friends did something with fractions in his calculus class at UM (smile). Part of the problem, I think, is that fractions in general have little practical meaning for many people (unlike the natural numbers); they are, in a sense, somewhat of a historical artifact. It is moderately easy to intervene on this at certain points in the school curriculum although asking why is useful. > > Ed > > On Jul 30, 2014, at 10:01 PM, mike cole wrote: > >> That all seems reasonable to me, Ed. But it strikes me as a real problem >> when the average "top 12% of California high school graduates" cannot help >> a kid who has to figure out how to divide one fraction into another. Or if >> they help its because they "teach the rule" (as in, invert and multiply) >> but cannot explain why they do this. >> >> I think its a challenge to teachers and god bless those who can emulate >> your approach. But its a challenge to parents, even UCSD graduates aplenty, >> who cannot explain what they are doing in understandable terms. >> >> That good teachers can teach it, give the opportunity I believe. That this >> is, or is likely to become, the universally accepted norm for everyone, I >> fear I doubt. But oh my goodness, how happy I would be to be wrong! >> mike >> >> >> On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 12:46 PM, Ed Wall wrote: >> >>> Katherine >>> >>> I think yes to your next to last question. However, what sometimes >>> concerns me (and we are perhaps back to optimism and pessimism) is that >>> looking for a future which may or may not occur seems 'unfair' to the >>> students of today. I'm for thoughtful baby steps (and babies do stumble) >>> now on all fronts and, unlike Carol, I don't yet know the 'right' answer. >>> However, I would like to know (smile). >>> >>> Ed >>> >>> On Jul 30, 2014, at 3:32 PM, Katherine Wester Neal wrote: >>> >>>> I think we're all on to something here--just different parts of the same >>> thing. To put it all together, I'm thinking of a spiderweb. On individual >>> strands, our spiderweb includes: >>>> >>>> 1. The differences in contact time and the difficulty of sustaining >>> meaningful (or really any kind of) change when one is teaching 1,100 hours. >>>> 2. The pressures of testing. >>>> 3. The cultural value of childhood, teaching in general, elementary >>> teachers, and testing as an educational goal in the U.S. >>>> 4. Making changes in teachers' practices, the way schools work, the >>> culture of testing, and how students' creative capacities are developed. >>>> 5. Resistance from parents, teachers, and teacher educators to new ways >>> of learning/new ideas, which is often a result of deeply ingrained prior >>> experiences. >>>> >>>> I probably didn't get everything that's been discussed, but these are >>> all issues that should be examined in concert because they are all >>> connected as part of the same larger system. Although "system" isn't >>> probably the word I should use with a Vygotskian framework (I'm still >>> learning), I use to say that I'm not sure how an individual could deal with >>> one of these strands without affecting or needing to work with the others. >>> Does it take the effort of a collective, working on multiple strands >>> simultaneously, to make more than a dent? Or to borrow Ed's words, how do >>> we reshape the dent or make it bigger? >>>> >>>> Katie >>>> >>>> Katie Wester-Neal >>>> University of Georgia >>>> >>>> ________________________________________ >>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >>> on behalf of Ed Wall >>>> Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2014 3:00 PM >>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: NYTimes.com: Why Do Americans Stink at Math? >>>> >>>> Greg >>>> >>>> I agree with much of what you write below. However, there may be a >>> disjunct between what you think is happening (and in many instances I agree >>> with you) and the shape of the denting I am speaking about. I begin my >>> methods courses talking about the commitments I bring to teaching >>> (stressing they are mine and that teachers and pre-service teachers are >>> welcome to push back) >>>> >>>> 1. I believe in promoting collective student and teacher engagement >>> i(and I meant both!) >>>> 2. I believe in having students do substantial mathematical work (and >>> that is where the constraints of the context can come into play - don't >>> necessarily read into this 'new math' or tedious computations) >>>> 3. I believe in taking my students? thinking seriously (this includes >>> (mis)understandings!!) >>>> >>>> I have yet, by the way, to find an instance (and that includes school >>> location and students, testing, whatever) where such commitments are >>> impossible or, in a pragmatic sense, even moderately difficult (most often >>> the difficulty is learning to value one's students which is more of a >>> choice although one needs to be aware of the possibility). I would very >>> much appreciate your suggesting some instances where such commitments were >>> situationally impossible. My students and I (teachers and pre-service >>> teachers) then spend a semester (and perhaps more) together - with feedback >>> from classroom and field experiences - figuring out what kind of teaching >>> (keeping in mind my commitments) can be sustained (and it will differ and >>> they need to know this and accommodate to this). I am not unusual (perhaps >>> read 'rare' - smile). In fact I have a number of colleagues who are >>> considerably more capable. >>>> >>>> Philip Jackson (or was it Dan Lortie) used to talk about the >>> apprenticeship of observation. People, he argued, learn to teach - for the >>> most part - by observing as students in regular classroom. That should give >>> one pause for a variety of reasons. I have sat through numerous faculty >>> meetings where students are mentioned in less than a respectful fashion >>> (and have heard anecdotes where that carried into the college classroom). I >>> have heard elementary teachers spoken of quite disparagingly by faculty in >>> Arts & Sciences and, while I agree their expertise is not always of the >>> highest 'academic' quality, it is not clear to me that, in their own field >>> of study, they are not more capable than their detractors. I have also seen >>> an instructor continually stress 'nice' or 'comfortable' rather than >>> 'challenging' or 'uncomfortable.' >>>> >>>> I admit my commitments have hooks in them; for instance, what is >>> substantial mathematics (you need to know some mathematics to figure this >>> out); what is collective teacher and student engagement (you need to know >>> some pedagogy to figure this out) and what does it mean to respect student >>> thinking in view of the previous (you need to know some mathematics and >>> some pedagogy to figure this out). However, they are a beginning and some >>> of my students seem, in time, to grow into them no matter the situation. >>>> >>>> Anyway, I can't say I'm blissfully optimistic, but I'm not >>> pessimistic either. I do know that culturally we often don't work together; >>> that we tend to get mired in the trivial; and we often 'demonize' the >>> stranger. I hate to think that we will never choose otherwise. However, to >>> choose otherwise seems very far from impossible in the formal schooling >>> context. >>>> >>>> Ed >>>> >>>> On Jul 30, 2014, at 1:42 PM, Greg Thompson >>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Ed, >>>>> Thanks for this wonderfully thoughtful reply. Very helpful. >>>>> >>>>> As for the teaching practices part, I entirely agree about the need for >>>>> thoughtful attention to teaching practices and agree that great things >>> can >>>>> be accomplished locally. My sense, though, is that it takes great >>> effort to >>>>> sustain such smaller scale interventions (i.e. to make more than a >>> dent). >>>>> With regard to teaching practices, I would think that the way to >>> approach a >>>>> thoughtful teaching practice would be to start with the real >>> constraints of >>>>> context that teachers will regularly face and then try and figure out >>> what >>>>> kinds of teaching can be sustained given those constraints. >>>>> >>>>> That's where I'm most pessimistic. It is difficult for me to imagine >>>>> developing responsible teaching practices that could be sustained on a >>>>> larger scale given the cultural, institutional, and ideological context >>> of >>>>> schooling in the U.S. [and I might add that it seems like the history of >>>>> teaching practice in the U.S. is a history where the same good ideas >>> keep >>>>> popping up and then fading from sight almost as quickly as they >>> appeared]. >>>>> >>>>> But I'm certainly open to ideas/suggestions for thoughtful pedagogical >>>>> practices that are sustainable in the U.S. formal schooling context. >>>>> >>>>> -greg >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 10:11 AM, Ed Wall wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Comments below >>>>>> >>>>>> On Jul 30, 2014, at 11:33 AM, Greg Thompson >>> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I was hoping that somebody might be able to comment on the situation >>> of >>>>>>> schooling in Japan and whether or not these hypotheses about the >>> Japanese >>>>>>> situation of schooling might bear out: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1. Teachers in Japan have time to develop their craft. 600 annual >>> hours >>>>>> of >>>>>>> contact time for teachers in Japan vs. 1100 hours of contact time in >>> the >>>>>>> U.S. >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes >>>>>> >>>>>>> 2. There is an ideology of childhood in Japan that values childhood >>>>>> greatly >>>>>>> and treats them as qualitatively distinct beings from adolescents and >>>>>>> adults, and thus suggests that they should be protected from the cruel >>>>>> and >>>>>>> harsh practice of "testing". But this also means that elementary >>> school >>>>>>> teachers are held in high regard. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes. However, it doesn't necessarily follow that this is why elementary >>>>>> school teachers are held in high regard >>>>>> >>>>>>> I guess the first seems a bit more factual but the second is more of >>> an >>>>>>> hypothesis, but if they bear out as important factors for enabling the >>>>>> kind >>>>>>> of learning that Green describes, then it seems to me that even if >>> there >>>>>>> were to be a huge push for training teachers in the U.S., teachers >>> would >>>>>>> quickly revert to what we currently lament about teaching in the U.S. >>> not >>>>>>> because they are bad teachers or don't know how to teach in the more >>>>>>> complex manner but rather simply because, with some rare exceptions, >>> it >>>>>> is >>>>>>> IMPOSSIBLE to teach in the more desirable manner given the ridiculous >>>>>>> amount of contact time and the fact that in the American ideology of >>>>>>> childhood, the teaching of children is not valued particularly highly. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> This doesn't follow. It is possible and it is possible in highly urban >>>>>> areas (and I amy misunderstand you use of the word 'rare'). That >>> doesn't >>>>>> mean that it is necessarily valued or supported by the powers-that-be. >>>>>> There are a few more things to add to your facts: There is a national >>>>>> curriculum in Japan and there is a reasonably effective mentoring >>> system >>>>>> (largely teacher instigated). A 'fact' (and perhaps this is anecdotal) >>> is >>>>>> that when it was first realized that some interesting things were >>> happening >>>>>> in Japanese schools (e.g. lesson study), the collegiate Japanese >>> community >>>>>> was caught, to a large degree, unaware. 'Master' lesson are published >>> by >>>>>> teachers. >>>>>> >>>>>>> In light of this, it seems a Sisyphean feat to try to change teachers' >>>>>>> teaching practices without changing the cultural context in which >>> those >>>>>>> teachers work. And changing cultural contexts is perhaps even more >>>>>>> difficult still. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> That was why I suggested a look at the Netherlands (which seem to do as >>>>>> well or better than the Japanese). Of course, some of this can still be >>>>>> explained because of cultural differences and how teachers are viewed. >>>>>> >>>>>>> Maybe we should stop looking to teaching practices in formal >>> schooling in >>>>>>> the U.S. as a site of change? >>>>>>> Maybe better to look outside and beyond schools altogether? >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Perhaps we should do as you suggest (and, to a limited extent and in a >>>>>> sense, something like this has been done). However, it might also be a >>> good >>>>>> idea to look at teaching practices in a thoughtful way. I have seen >>> very >>>>>> little of this happening over the years. I was just talking to a >>> colleague >>>>>> today and, although we love our work in urban areas, we admit to making >>>>>> only a small dent. We also admit to being underwhelmed by views of >>>>>> education prevalent in many schools of education. It is getting >>> steadily >>>>>> worse. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Too pessimistic? >>>>>>> -greg >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Pessimism is fine, but simply pessimism can be self limiting; however, >>>>>> that is an opinion and not a fact. >>>>>> >>>>>> Ed >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 6:02 AM, Ed Wall wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Perhaps something of interest re this thread. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ed Wall >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/29/opinion/joe-nocera-teaching-teaching.html?_r=0 >>>>>>>>> Some general comments (and I apologize for being so late to the >>>>>>>> conversation as I have been out of email contact) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Magdalen Lampert and Deborah Ball were both at Michigan State in the >>>>>>>> late 80s. They both taught what might, in part, be an early version >>> of >>>>>> the >>>>>>>> Common Core to their students. I also taught math methods beginning >>> in >>>>>> the >>>>>>>> late 90s and also emphasized such an approach (I also did similar as >>> a >>>>>> K-12 >>>>>>>> math teacher before moving onto college teaching). There is little >>> 'new' >>>>>>>> math in the Common Core - perhaps a bit of 'old' math. However, there >>>>>> is a >>>>>>>> very strong emphasis on kids making sense out of what they are doing >>> (I >>>>>>>> apologize for being brief, but this is a moment between meetings at a >>>>>>>> conference devoted to such 'strange' notions as helping kids making >>>>>> sense). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> There are problems with the Common Core as written down: it is being >>>>>>>> forced down teachers' throats; it has been tied into high stakes >>> testing >>>>>>>> (which, by the way, occurs at places in a student's life in Japan); >>>>>> there >>>>>>>> are some debatable differences in the age sequencing of topics; >>>>>> teachers to >>>>>>>> be have often not been prepared for such teaching in their college >>>>>> courses; >>>>>>>> and more. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Some of these problems may be ironed out with time; however, the >>>>>>>> training and culture of teaching (see Jackson and Lortie, even if >>>>>> somewhat >>>>>>>> dated) in the US is still a bit grim. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So a few summary points: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Teaching that is, more or less, in sync with the Common Core has >>>>>>>> been practiced for years in the US. Teacher training that is in sync >>>>>> with >>>>>>>> the Common Core has been available for years in the US. Lesson study >>>>>>>> Japanese style may be more possible with an agreed upon core >>> (although >>>>>> one >>>>>>>> might look to the Netherlands to see what works well for them rather >>>>>> than >>>>>>>> Japan). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> An interesting question for those of us who are involved in teacher >>>>>>>> training might be "Why do so many teachers find the Common Core >>>>>> Standards >>>>>>>> so threatening - factoring out the forcing and testing)?" What (from >>> the >>>>>>>> 4th grade standards, for example): >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ? Use place value understanding and properties of operations to >>>>>>>> perform multi-digit arithmetic. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ? Make sense of problems and persevere in solving them >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> do some elementary teachers find difficult and threatening? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Again apologies for being very, very short about a very large and >>> very >>>>>>>> complex problem. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Ed >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Jul 28, 2014, at 2:25 PM, Katherine Wester Neal >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> What an interesting article! I am thinking about the lack of focus >>> on >>>>>>>> specific contexts in the article's discussion of teaching and >>> learning >>>>>> to >>>>>>>> teach as a practicing teacher. Is it possible to go about such change >>>>>> (from >>>>>>>> "old" math to new math or Common Core math) with little/no >>> consideration >>>>>>>> for what kinds of teaching might work in a particular school culture >>> or >>>>>> the >>>>>>>> social context of a given classroom? I think less of a standardized >>>>>>>> approach (here, everyone do this) and more focus on what works >>> locally >>>>>>>> (here are some ideas; now decide what might work for you) might help >>>>>>>> teachers learn to teach Common Core math in a way that actually >>> works in >>>>>>>> their particular context. To adapt phrase from Magdalene Lampert, it >>>>>> might >>>>>>>> bring about more sustainable change as they are "re-learning >>> teaching" >>>>>> in >>>>>>>> their schools. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Because Common Core math is so different, perhaps this re-learning >>>>>>>> teaching requires a radical new approach instead of the same old >>>>>>>> professional development. Learning through the Japanese jugyokenkyu >>>>>> method >>>>>>>> sounds like it might be very useful, but there doesn't seem to be a >>> push >>>>>>>> for reforming how teachers learn once they are in the field. (Except >>>>>> that >>>>>>>> if enough of their students fail the Common Core-aligned tests, they >>>>>> will >>>>>>>> eventually be out of a job.) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It seems nonsensical to implement incredibly high-stakes tests >>> without >>>>>>>> significant investment in re-learning teaching and with, as far as I >>>>>> know, >>>>>>>> no research on how to learn to teach Common Core as a practicing >>>>>> teacher. >>>>>>>> I, too, wonder about how these issues are handled in Japan? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Katie >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Katie Wester-Neal >>>>>>>>>> University of Georgia >>>>>>>>>> ________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu < >>>>>> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> >>>>>>>> on behalf of Huw Lloyd >>>>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 12:58 PM >>>>>>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>>>>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: NYTimes.com: Why Do Americans Stink at >>>>>> Math? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 28 July 2014 16:46, Greg Thompson >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> [...] >>>>>>>>>> These students had learned >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> incredibly well how to solve recipe Physics but they had no idea >>>>>> about >>>>>>>> how >>>>>>>>>>> the basic principles of Physics worked. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Greg, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I would say the ethics of the situation go deeper than simply >>>>>> (un)learnt >>>>>>>>>> capabilities, but rather to the development of the student's >>> creative >>>>>>>>>> capabilities (or, rather, the stunting of them). >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>>> Huw >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. >>>>>>> Assistant Professor >>>>>>> Department of Anthropology >>>>>>> 883 Spencer W. Kimball Tower >>>>>>> Brigham Young University >>>>>>> Provo, UT 84602 >>>>>>> http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. >>>>> Assistant Professor >>>>> Department of Anthropology >>>>> 883 Spencer W. Kimball Tower >>>>> Brigham Young University >>>>> Provo, UT 84602 >>>>> http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> > > > From ewall@umich.edu Thu Jul 31 07:59:13 2014 From: ewall@umich.edu (Ed Wall) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 10:59:13 -0400 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: NYTimes.com: Why Do Americans Stink at Math? In-Reply-To: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9024BED@CIO-TNC-D2MBX01.osuad.osu.edu> References: <53d5718e.c814e00a.3778.3ba3SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> <1406571909843.30805@uga.edu> <75FA794D-2E1B-47A5-941F-7EFA1C605559@umich.edu> <022EE4B2-8F70-4DA7-9D00-63CBD7B67D80@umich.edu> <1406748733952.48320@uga.edu> <245EB719-8A88-4496-B64E-D083CD5223F0@umich.edu> , <48C0B057-4918-4642-A947-44C19F8D090E@umich.edu> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9024BA2@CIO-TNC-D2MBX01.osuad.osu.edu>, <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9024BED@CIO-TNC-D2MBX01.osuad.osu.edu> Message-ID: Michael Comments below On Jul 31, 2014, at 10:28 AM, "Glassman, Michael" wrote: > Hi Ed, > > Here's a question, why do some people think not getting something is a sign of inferiority - it is much more likely that is simply not where their interests are taking them at the moment. Do we consider somebody who doesn't get Hegel's master-slave dialectic is somehow inferior (does that make Andy superior to all of us - don't say anything Andy). Do we say somebody who doesn't get James Joyce's Ulysses is inferior? Is this part of the ideology we have about mathematics somewhat representing some type of innate intelligence (which is a relatively new ideology). > I remember a young boy of long ago at an obnoxious age (smile) who needed to exercise his ego in thinking such thoughts. Yes, it was part of the school culture and, yes, it allowed him to challenge his peers and teachers. However, happily there was an accounting (smile). Perhaps, some people sadly don't have the same experiences. I admit to trying at times to engineer such (smile). > What I remember about working with young children is that they were interested in almost everything, what we call mathematics included, because I think it is part of their everyday discovery of the world. Everything, following Anna's ideas, is story to tell about the world - many of them going nowhere which is fine. It is when we restrict this and say when you think about this it is mathematics, when you think about that it is biology, when you think about this it is social studies - when we move them from the joy of fluid intelligence to the restrictions of crystallized intelligence that we lose them. Anna's chapter notwithstanding, why aren't we asking ourselves more, why do we do this if it doesn't seem to work. > My opinion: Primarily, we don't really respect the thinking of children; however, there is a sense in that to move fluidly among disciplines (and I'm talking about the teacher) requires abilities and attitudes that school of education don't really help develop (Oh, there is talk about this, but little that is substantial - interestingly 'story' has been suggested by a few [other than Anna] even within graduate mathematics). I once put something into print about my own agonizing with this (smile). > Michael Ed > ________________________________________ > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] on behalf of Ed Wall [ewall@umich.edu] > Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 10:15 AM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: NYTimes.com: Why Do Americans Stink at Math? > > Michael > > We have gone thru far, far more than a century of this and I think the question you pose is worth asking and answering. > > However, when I interact with many children on the pre-Kindergarten level I hear and see a great deal of interest in mathematics. We know that such children spend about 30% of their free play doing something mathematical (given that they are allowed to play with a variety of materials); much more than any other area of 'study.' We also know that about 50% of US children up to 4th or 5th grade say they like mathematics and we know that by 8th that is about 5%. So when you say most people don't get it (and, of course, there is a question about it - e.g. statistics), I wonder what is underneath those words. I know when I hear mathematicians say them, it is often an indication that they see such people as somewhat intellectually inferior. I know when such people describe their classroom experience, it has often been quite problematic (and this is my opinion). So I have always been unsure just what wasn't got; especially when many of such people handle mathematics in their lives quite capably. > > Anyway, whatever we are doing as educators doesn't seem to done sufficiently well and, hence, I think, Michael's questions are critical and need to be continually raised and answered. I think Donna and Anna have given good answers. However, I don't think they have been answered once and for all (smile). > > Ed > > On Jul 31, 2014, at 9:25 AM, "Glassman, Michael" wrote: > >> So here is my question. We have gone through basically a century of this. We teach mathematics and some people get it - the people in my experience really love mathematics - but most people don't. It's just something you do to get some place else (I am reminded of my attitude towards statistics courses in graduate school). So we keep banging our head against the wall again and again. Doesn't it make sense that somebody should stand up and ask "why are we teaching mathematics?" - as a subject I mean, it is still an important field of study. This is something we just made up mostly for the sake of "efficiency" - although it is not very efficient. But there is nothing to suggest that this is a good idea, and there are a lot of things to suggest that maybe we're on the wrong track here as far as education in concerned. This was actually an argument about specific subjects in the 20s and 30s, but we have been so unsuccessful and been so frustrated its pretty amazing that it hasn't come up again. Why not let mathematics emerge in the course of what we do? Is the type of mathematics we learn in the classroom transferable anyway? >> >> Maybe a bit heretical, but perhaps the idea should be raised every once in a while. >> >> Michael >> ________________________________________ >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] on behalf of Ed Wall [ewall@umich.edu] >> Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 8:10 AM >> To: lchcmike@gmail.com; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: NYTimes.com: Why Do Americans Stink at Math? >> >> Mike >> >> As I said I am not a blissful optimist. >> >> Liping Ma made the point some time ago that, in fact, something like this would not be possible until a generation of students (perhaps two) had been taught to reasonably (and what this means can be usefully debated) understand what was going on (by the way, being able to do it in a rote fashion indicates, at least, that one understands the procedure). Parents can help and hinder (most, if treated respectfully, want to help). >> Perhaps a story will indicate where I'm at. A number of years ago, I was at a conference sitting next to a young graduate student with a policy background who was sort of interested in the mathematics mess. Finally, she could stand no more and blurted out something like , "I can't understand why you people are fussing about all this math teaching business, the kids in the inner city schools will never appreciate it." I turned to her and said sadly something like, "You are possibly right, but I can't act as if I believe so. Does that make sense?" She nodded yes. >> >> It is not just UCSD students who have problems with this. One of my friends did something with fractions in his calculus class at UM (smile). Part of the problem, I think, is that fractions in general have little practical meaning for many people (unlike the natural numbers); they are, in a sense, somewhat of a historical artifact. It is moderately easy to intervene on this at certain points in the school curriculum although asking why is useful. >> >> Ed >> >> On Jul 30, 2014, at 10:01 PM, mike cole wrote: >> >>> That all seems reasonable to me, Ed. But it strikes me as a real problem >>> when the average "top 12% of California high school graduates" cannot help >>> a kid who has to figure out how to divide one fraction into another. Or if >>> they help its because they "teach the rule" (as in, invert and multiply) >>> but cannot explain why they do this. >>> >>> I think its a challenge to teachers and god bless those who can emulate >>> your approach. But its a challenge to parents, even UCSD graduates aplenty, >>> who cannot explain what they are doing in understandable terms. >>> >>> That good teachers can teach it, give the opportunity I believe. That this >>> is, or is likely to become, the universally accepted norm for everyone, I >>> fear I doubt. But oh my goodness, how happy I would be to be wrong! >>> mike >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 12:46 PM, Ed Wall wrote: >>> >>>> Katherine >>>> >>>> I think yes to your next to last question. However, what sometimes >>>> concerns me (and we are perhaps back to optimism and pessimism) is that >>>> looking for a future which may or may not occur seems 'unfair' to the >>>> students of today. I'm for thoughtful baby steps (and babies do stumble) >>>> now on all fronts and, unlike Carol, I don't yet know the 'right' answer. >>>> However, I would like to know (smile). >>>> >>>> Ed >>>> >>>> On Jul 30, 2014, at 3:32 PM, Katherine Wester Neal wrote: >>>> >>>>> I think we're all on to something here--just different parts of the same >>>> thing. To put it all together, I'm thinking of a spiderweb. On individual >>>> strands, our spiderweb includes: >>>>> >>>>> 1. The differences in contact time and the difficulty of sustaining >>>> meaningful (or really any kind of) change when one is teaching 1,100 hours. >>>>> 2. The pressures of testing. >>>>> 3. The cultural value of childhood, teaching in general, elementary >>>> teachers, and testing as an educational goal in the U.S. >>>>> 4. Making changes in teachers' practices, the way schools work, the >>>> culture of testing, and how students' creative capacities are developed. >>>>> 5. Resistance from parents, teachers, and teacher educators to new ways >>>> of learning/new ideas, which is often a result of deeply ingrained prior >>>> experiences. >>>>> >>>>> I probably didn't get everything that's been discussed, but these are >>>> all issues that should be examined in concert because they are all >>>> connected as part of the same larger system. Although "system" isn't >>>> probably the word I should use with a Vygotskian framework (I'm still >>>> learning), I use to say that I'm not sure how an individual could deal with >>>> one of these strands without affecting or needing to work with the others. >>>> Does it take the effort of a collective, working on multiple strands >>>> simultaneously, to make more than a dent? Or to borrow Ed's words, how do >>>> we reshape the dent or make it bigger? >>>>> >>>>> Katie >>>>> >>>>> Katie Wester-Neal >>>>> University of Georgia >>>>> >>>>> ________________________________________ >>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >>>> on behalf of Ed Wall >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2014 3:00 PM >>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: NYTimes.com: Why Do Americans Stink at Math? >>>>> >>>>> Greg >>>>> >>>>> I agree with much of what you write below. However, there may be a >>>> disjunct between what you think is happening (and in many instances I agree >>>> with you) and the shape of the denting I am speaking about. I begin my >>>> methods courses talking about the commitments I bring to teaching >>>> (stressing they are mine and that teachers and pre-service teachers are >>>> welcome to push back) >>>>> >>>>> 1. I believe in promoting collective student and teacher engagement >>>> i(and I meant both!) >>>>> 2. I believe in having students do substantial mathematical work (and >>>> that is where the constraints of the context can come into play - don't >>>> necessarily read into this 'new math' or tedious computations) >>>>> 3. I believe in taking my students? thinking seriously (this includes >>>> (mis)understandings!!) >>>>> >>>>> I have yet, by the way, to find an instance (and that includes school >>>> location and students, testing, whatever) where such commitments are >>>> impossible or, in a pragmatic sense, even moderately difficult (most often >>>> the difficulty is learning to value one's students which is more of a >>>> choice although one needs to be aware of the possibility). I would very >>>> much appreciate your suggesting some instances where such commitments were >>>> situationally impossible. My students and I (teachers and pre-service >>>> teachers) then spend a semester (and perhaps more) together - with feedback >>>> from classroom and field experiences - figuring out what kind of teaching >>>> (keeping in mind my commitments) can be sustained (and it will differ and >>>> they need to know this and accommodate to this). I am not unusual (perhaps >>>> read 'rare' - smile). In fact I have a number of colleagues who are >>>> considerably more capable. >>>>> >>>>> Philip Jackson (or was it Dan Lortie) used to talk about the >>>> apprenticeship of observation. People, he argued, learn to teach - for the >>>> most part - by observing as students in regular classroom. That should give >>>> one pause for a variety of reasons. I have sat through numerous faculty >>>> meetings where students are mentioned in less than a respectful fashion >>>> (and have heard anecdotes where that carried into the college classroom). I >>>> have heard elementary teachers spoken of quite disparagingly by faculty in >>>> Arts & Sciences and, while I agree their expertise is not always of the >>>> highest 'academic' quality, it is not clear to me that, in their own field >>>> of study, they are not more capable than their detractors. I have also seen >>>> an instructor continually stress 'nice' or 'comfortable' rather than >>>> 'challenging' or 'uncomfortable.' >>>>> >>>>> I admit my commitments have hooks in them; for instance, what is >>>> substantial mathematics (you need to know some mathematics to figure this >>>> out); what is collective teacher and student engagement (you need to know >>>> some pedagogy to figure this out) and what does it mean to respect student >>>> thinking in view of the previous (you need to know some mathematics and >>>> some pedagogy to figure this out). However, they are a beginning and some >>>> of my students seem, in time, to grow into them no matter the situation. >>>>> >>>>> Anyway, I can't say I'm blissfully optimistic, but I'm not >>>> pessimistic either. I do know that culturally we often don't work together; >>>> that we tend to get mired in the trivial; and we often 'demonize' the >>>> stranger. I hate to think that we will never choose otherwise. However, to >>>> choose otherwise seems very far from impossible in the formal schooling >>>> context. >>>>> >>>>> Ed >>>>> >>>>> On Jul 30, 2014, at 1:42 PM, Greg Thompson >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Ed, >>>>>> Thanks for this wonderfully thoughtful reply. Very helpful. >>>>>> >>>>>> As for the teaching practices part, I entirely agree about the need for >>>>>> thoughtful attention to teaching practices and agree that great things >>>> can >>>>>> be accomplished locally. My sense, though, is that it takes great >>>> effort to >>>>>> sustain such smaller scale interventions (i.e. to make more than a >>>> dent). >>>>>> With regard to teaching practices, I would think that the way to >>>> approach a >>>>>> thoughtful teaching practice would be to start with the real >>>> constraints of >>>>>> context that teachers will regularly face and then try and figure out >>>> what >>>>>> kinds of teaching can be sustained given those constraints. >>>>>> >>>>>> That's where I'm most pessimistic. It is difficult for me to imagine >>>>>> developing responsible teaching practices that could be sustained on a >>>>>> larger scale given the cultural, institutional, and ideological context >>>> of >>>>>> schooling in the U.S. [and I might add that it seems like the history of >>>>>> teaching practice in the U.S. is a history where the same good ideas >>>> keep >>>>>> popping up and then fading from sight almost as quickly as they >>>> appeared]. >>>>>> >>>>>> But I'm certainly open to ideas/suggestions for thoughtful pedagogical >>>>>> practices that are sustainable in the U.S. formal schooling context. >>>>>> >>>>>> -greg >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 10:11 AM, Ed Wall wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Comments below >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Jul 30, 2014, at 11:33 AM, Greg Thompson >>>> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I was hoping that somebody might be able to comment on the situation >>>> of >>>>>>>> schooling in Japan and whether or not these hypotheses about the >>>> Japanese >>>>>>>> situation of schooling might bear out: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 1. Teachers in Japan have time to develop their craft. 600 annual >>>> hours >>>>>>> of >>>>>>>> contact time for teachers in Japan vs. 1100 hours of contact time in >>>> the >>>>>>>> U.S. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 2. There is an ideology of childhood in Japan that values childhood >>>>>>> greatly >>>>>>>> and treats them as qualitatively distinct beings from adolescents and >>>>>>>> adults, and thus suggests that they should be protected from the cruel >>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> harsh practice of "testing". But this also means that elementary >>>> school >>>>>>>> teachers are held in high regard. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes. However, it doesn't necessarily follow that this is why elementary >>>>>>> school teachers are held in high regard >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I guess the first seems a bit more factual but the second is more of >>>> an >>>>>>>> hypothesis, but if they bear out as important factors for enabling the >>>>>>> kind >>>>>>>> of learning that Green describes, then it seems to me that even if >>>> there >>>>>>>> were to be a huge push for training teachers in the U.S., teachers >>>> would >>>>>>>> quickly revert to what we currently lament about teaching in the U.S. >>>> not >>>>>>>> because they are bad teachers or don't know how to teach in the more >>>>>>>> complex manner but rather simply because, with some rare exceptions, >>>> it >>>>>>> is >>>>>>>> IMPOSSIBLE to teach in the more desirable manner given the ridiculous >>>>>>>> amount of contact time and the fact that in the American ideology of >>>>>>>> childhood, the teaching of children is not valued particularly highly. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This doesn't follow. It is possible and it is possible in highly urban >>>>>>> areas (and I amy misunderstand you use of the word 'rare'). That >>>> doesn't >>>>>>> mean that it is necessarily valued or supported by the powers-that-be. >>>>>>> There are a few more things to add to your facts: There is a national >>>>>>> curriculum in Japan and there is a reasonably effective mentoring >>>> system >>>>>>> (largely teacher instigated). A 'fact' (and perhaps this is anecdotal) >>>> is >>>>>>> that when it was first realized that some interesting things were >>>> happening >>>>>>> in Japanese schools (e.g. lesson study), the collegiate Japanese >>>> community >>>>>>> was caught, to a large degree, unaware. 'Master' lesson are published >>>> by >>>>>>> teachers. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In light of this, it seems a Sisyphean feat to try to change teachers' >>>>>>>> teaching practices without changing the cultural context in which >>>> those >>>>>>>> teachers work. And changing cultural contexts is perhaps even more >>>>>>>> difficult still. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That was why I suggested a look at the Netherlands (which seem to do as >>>>>>> well or better than the Japanese). Of course, some of this can still be >>>>>>> explained because of cultural differences and how teachers are viewed. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Maybe we should stop looking to teaching practices in formal >>>> schooling in >>>>>>>> the U.S. as a site of change? >>>>>>>> Maybe better to look outside and beyond schools altogether? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Perhaps we should do as you suggest (and, to a limited extent and in a >>>>>>> sense, something like this has been done). However, it might also be a >>>> good >>>>>>> idea to look at teaching practices in a thoughtful way. I have seen >>>> very >>>>>>> little of this happening over the years. I was just talking to a >>>> colleague >>>>>>> today and, although we love our work in urban areas, we admit to making >>>>>>> only a small dent. We also admit to being underwhelmed by views of >>>>>>> education prevalent in many schools of education. It is getting >>>> steadily >>>>>>> worse. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Too pessimistic? >>>>>>>> -greg >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Pessimism is fine, but simply pessimism can be self limiting; however, >>>>>>> that is an opinion and not a fact. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ed >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 6:02 AM, Ed Wall wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Perhaps something of interest re this thread. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Ed Wall >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/29/opinion/joe-nocera-teaching-teaching.html?_r=0 >>>>>>>>>> Some general comments (and I apologize for being so late to the >>>>>>>>> conversation as I have been out of email contact) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Magdalen Lampert and Deborah Ball were both at Michigan State in the >>>>>>>>> late 80s. They both taught what might, in part, be an early version >>>> of >>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> Common Core to their students. I also taught math methods beginning >>>> in >>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> late 90s and also emphasized such an approach (I also did similar as >>>> a >>>>>>> K-12 >>>>>>>>> math teacher before moving onto college teaching). There is little >>>> 'new' >>>>>>>>> math in the Common Core - perhaps a bit of 'old' math. However, there >>>>>>> is a >>>>>>>>> very strong emphasis on kids making sense out of what they are doing >>>> (I >>>>>>>>> apologize for being brief, but this is a moment between meetings at a >>>>>>>>> conference devoted to such 'strange' notions as helping kids making >>>>>>> sense). >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> There are problems with the Common Core as written down: it is being >>>>>>>>> forced down teachers' throats; it has been tied into high stakes >>>> testing >>>>>>>>> (which, by the way, occurs at places in a student's life in Japan); >>>>>>> there >>>>>>>>> are some debatable differences in the age sequencing of topics; >>>>>>> teachers to >>>>>>>>> be have often not been prepared for such teaching in their college >>>>>>> courses; >>>>>>>>> and more. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Some of these problems may be ironed out with time; however, the >>>>>>>>> training and culture of teaching (see Jackson and Lortie, even if >>>>>>> somewhat >>>>>>>>> dated) in the US is still a bit grim. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> So a few summary points: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Teaching that is, more or less, in sync with the Common Core has >>>>>>>>> been practiced for years in the US. Teacher training that is in sync >>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>> the Common Core has been available for years in the US. Lesson study >>>>>>>>> Japanese style may be more possible with an agreed upon core >>>> (although >>>>>>> one >>>>>>>>> might look to the Netherlands to see what works well for them rather >>>>>>> than >>>>>>>>> Japan). >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> An interesting question for those of us who are involved in teacher >>>>>>>>> training might be "Why do so many teachers find the Common Core >>>>>>> Standards >>>>>>>>> so threatening - factoring out the forcing and testing)?" What (from >>>> the >>>>>>>>> 4th grade standards, for example): >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ? Use place value understanding and properties of operations to >>>>>>>>> perform multi-digit arithmetic. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ? Make sense of problems and persevere in solving them >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> do some elementary teachers find difficult and threatening? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Again apologies for being very, very short about a very large and >>>> very >>>>>>>>> complex problem. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Ed >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Jul 28, 2014, at 2:25 PM, Katherine Wester Neal >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> What an interesting article! I am thinking about the lack of focus >>>> on >>>>>>>>> specific contexts in the article's discussion of teaching and >>>> learning >>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>> teach as a practicing teacher. Is it possible to go about such change >>>>>>> (from >>>>>>>>> "old" math to new math or Common Core math) with little/no >>>> consideration >>>>>>>>> for what kinds of teaching might work in a particular school culture >>>> or >>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> social context of a given classroom? I think less of a standardized >>>>>>>>> approach (here, everyone do this) and more focus on what works >>>> locally >>>>>>>>> (here are some ideas; now decide what might work for you) might help >>>>>>>>> teachers learn to teach Common Core math in a way that actually >>>> works in >>>>>>>>> their particular context. To adapt phrase from Magdalene Lampert, it >>>>>>> might >>>>>>>>> bring about more sustainable change as they are "re-learning >>>> teaching" >>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>> their schools. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Because Common Core math is so different, perhaps this re-learning >>>>>>>>> teaching requires a radical new approach instead of the same old >>>>>>>>> professional development. Learning through the Japanese jugyokenkyu >>>>>>> method >>>>>>>>> sounds like it might be very useful, but there doesn't seem to be a >>>> push >>>>>>>>> for reforming how teachers learn once they are in the field. (Except >>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>> if enough of their students fail the Common Core-aligned tests, they >>>>>>> will >>>>>>>>> eventually be out of a job.) >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> It seems nonsensical to implement incredibly high-stakes tests >>>> without >>>>>>>>> significant investment in re-learning teaching and with, as far as I >>>>>>> know, >>>>>>>>> no research on how to learn to teach Common Core as a practicing >>>>>>> teacher. >>>>>>>>> I, too, wonder about how these issues are handled in Japan? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Katie >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Katie Wester-Neal >>>>>>>>>>> University of Georgia >>>>>>>>>>> ________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu < >>>>>>> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> >>>>>>>>> on behalf of Huw Lloyd >>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 12:58 PM >>>>>>>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>>>>>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: NYTimes.com: Why Do Americans Stink at >>>>>>> Math? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 28 July 2014 16:46, Greg Thompson >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> [...] >>>>>>>>>>> These students had learned >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> incredibly well how to solve recipe Physics but they had no idea >>>>>>> about >>>>>>>>> how >>>>>>>>>>>> the basic principles of Physics worked. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Greg, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I would say the ethics of the situation go deeper than simply >>>>>>> (un)learnt >>>>>>>>>>> capabilities, but rather to the development of the student's >>>> creative >>>>>>>>>>> capabilities (or, rather, the stunting of them). >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>>>> Huw >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. >>>>>>>> Assistant Professor >>>>>>>> Department of Anthropology >>>>>>>> 883 Spencer W. Kimball Tower >>>>>>>> Brigham Young University >>>>>>>> Provo, UT 84602 >>>>>>>> http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. >>>>>> Assistant Professor >>>>>> Department of Anthropology >>>>>> 883 Spencer W. Kimball Tower >>>>>> Brigham Young University >>>>>> Provo, UT 84602 >>>>>> http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >> >> >> > > > From smago@uga.edu Thu Jul 31 08:45:12 2014 From: smago@uga.edu (Peter Smagorinsky) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 15:45:12 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Faculty Member in English Education Message-ID: https://apps.itos.uga.edu/ach/position/25610 Dear colleagues, this link will take you to the announcement for an open-rank position in English Education at UGA. (to clarify: this position is NOT in ESL/EFL/TESOL/bilingual ed, but rather the US school discipline of English, i.e., the teaching of composition, literature and textuality, and English language as L1). Please contact me as search committee chair for information about the position at smago@uga.edu. Thx,Peter Peter Smagorinsky Distinguished Research Professor of English Education Department of Language and Literacy Education The University of Georgia 315 Aderhold Hall Athens, GA 30602 Advisor, Journal of Language and Literacy Education Follow JoLLE on twitter @Jolle_uga [cid:image001.jpg@01CEA4AC.71367E90] -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 2929 bytes Desc: image001.jpg Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20140731/a1b16bae/attachment.jpg From lchcmike@gmail.com Thu Jul 31 08:45:50 2014 From: lchcmike@gmail.com (mike cole) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 08:45:50 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: NYTimes.com: Why Do Americans Stink at Math? In-Reply-To: <6958237f1a354ee2be758fdb0f1eb7e9@ITSMBX02.ad.wlu.ca> References: <53d5718e.c814e00a.3778.3ba3SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> <1406571909843.30805@uga.edu> <75FA794D-2E1B-47A5-941F-7EFA1C605559@umich.edu> <022EE4B2-8F70-4DA7-9D00-63CBD7B67D80@umich.edu> <1406748733952.48320@uga.edu> <245EB719-8A88-4496-B64E-D083CD5223F0@umich.edu> <48C0B057-4918-4642-A947-44C19F8D090E@umich.edu> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9024BA2@CIO-TNC-D2MBX01.osuad.osu.edu> <6958237f1a354ee2be758fdb0f1eb7e9@ITSMBX02.ad.wlu.ca> Message-ID: Reading instruction has similar problems, Donna. Getting excellent teachers who understand math well enough to teach it with understanding is, of course, a huge part of the problem. And behind that is the infinite (seemingly) regress of problems that prevent that from happening. Its great to learn of and learn from those who can crack the constraints. mike On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 6:36 AM, Donna Kotsopoulos wrote: > I wonder if we should be asking whether we should be teaching people to > read. > > The evidence is clear. The quality of the teaching and the quality of the > early childhood experiences matter tremendously. Until we make it a point > that our children have exceptionally trained mathematics teachers, the > cycle continues. Why we are asking why is bewildering to me. > > I'm a clear example. I am a high school dropout - but I do have a PHD. I > struggled with mathematics my whole life. I dropped the subject in grade > 10. Amidst my elation at ditching the subject, I was convinced I would > never look back. I came back to the subject as an adult. With the support > of some amazing educators, my degrees are all situated in mathematics (or > closely related) and the fact that I had little high school mathematics was > irrelevant. > > Truthfully, I'd prefer my numbers to most humans. > > d. > > Donna Kotsopoulos, PhD > Associate Professor & Associate Dean > Faculty of Education & Faculty of Science (Department of Mathematics) > www.wlu.ca/education/dkotsopoulos > www.wlu.ca/mathbrains > (519) 884-0710 x 3953 > dkotsopo@wlu.ca > > DISCLAIMER: This email may be privileged and/or confidential, and the > sender does not waive any related rights and obligations. Any distribution, > use or copying of this email or the information it contains by other than > an intended recipient is unauthorized. If you received this email in error, > please advise the sender (by return email or otherwise) immediately. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: xmca-l-bounces+dkotsopo=wlu.ca@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > xmca-l-bounces+dkotsopo=wlu.ca@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Glassman, > Michael > Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 9:25 AM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: NYTimes.com: Why Do Americans Stink at Math? > > So here is my question. We have gone through basically a century of this. > We teach mathematics and some people get it - the people in my experience > really love mathematics - but most people don't. It's just something you > do to get some place else (I am reminded of my attitude towards statistics > courses in graduate school). So we keep banging our head against the wall > again and again. Doesn't it make sense that somebody should stand up and > ask "why are we teaching mathematics?" - as a subject I mean, it is still > an important field of study. This is something we just made up mostly for > the sake of "efficiency" - although it is not very efficient. But there is > nothing to suggest that this is a good idea, and there are a lot of things > to suggest that maybe we're on the wrong track here as far as education in > concerned. This was actually an argument about specific subjects in the > 20s and 30s, but we have been so unsuccessful and been so frustrated its > pretty amazing that it hasn't come up again. Why not let mathematics > emerge in the course of what we do? Is the type of mathematics we learn in > the classroom transferable anyway? > > Maybe a bit heretical, but perhaps the idea should be raised every once in > a while. > > Michael > ________________________________________ > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] > on behalf of Ed Wall [ewall@umich.edu] > Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 8:10 AM > To: lchcmike@gmail.com; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: NYTimes.com: Why Do Americans Stink at Math? > > Mike > > As I said I am not a blissful optimist. > > Liping Ma made the point some time ago that, in fact, something > like this would not be possible until a generation of students (perhaps > two) had been taught to reasonably (and what this means can be usefully > debated) understand what was going on (by the way, being able to do it in a > rote fashion indicates, at least, that one understands the procedure). > Parents can help and hinder (most, if treated respectfully, want to help). > Perhaps a story will indicate where I'm at. A number of years ago, > I was at a conference sitting next to a young graduate student with a > policy background who was sort of interested in the mathematics mess. > Finally, she could stand no more and blurted out something like , "I can't > understand why you people are fussing about all this math teaching > business, the kids in the inner city schools will never appreciate it." I > turned to her and said sadly something like, "You are possibly right, but I > can't act as if I believe so. Does that make sense?" She nodded yes. > > It is not just UCSD students who have problems with this. One of my > friends did something with fractions in his calculus class at UM (smile). > Part of the problem, I think, is that fractions in general have little > practical meaning for many people (unlike the natural numbers); they are, > in a sense, somewhat of a historical artifact. It is moderately easy to > intervene on this at certain points in the school curriculum although > asking why is useful. > > Ed > > On Jul 30, 2014, at 10:01 PM, mike cole wrote: > > > That all seems reasonable to me, Ed. But it strikes me as a real > > problem when the average "top 12% of California high school graduates" > > cannot help a kid who has to figure out how to divide one fraction > > into another. Or if they help its because they "teach the rule" (as > > in, invert and multiply) but cannot explain why they do this. > > > > I think its a challenge to teachers and god bless those who can > > emulate your approach. But its a challenge to parents, even UCSD > > graduates aplenty, who cannot explain what they are doing in > understandable terms. > > > > That good teachers can teach it, give the opportunity I believe. That > > this is, or is likely to become, the universally accepted norm for > > everyone, I fear I doubt. But oh my goodness, how happy I would be to be > wrong! > > mike > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 12:46 PM, Ed Wall wrote: > > > >> Katherine > >> > >> I think yes to your next to last question. However, what > >> sometimes concerns me (and we are perhaps back to optimism and > >> pessimism) is that looking for a future which may or may not occur > >> seems 'unfair' to the students of today. I'm for thoughtful baby > >> steps (and babies do stumble) now on all fronts and, unlike Carol, I > don't yet know the 'right' answer. > >> However, I would like to know (smile). > >> > >> Ed > >> > >> On Jul 30, 2014, at 3:32 PM, Katherine Wester Neal > wrote: > >> > >>> I think we're all on to something here--just different parts of the > >>> same > >> thing. To put it all together, I'm thinking of a spiderweb. On > >> individual strands, our spiderweb includes: > >>> > >>> 1. The differences in contact time and the difficulty of sustaining > >> meaningful (or really any kind of) change when one is teaching 1,100 > hours. > >>> 2. The pressures of testing. > >>> 3. The cultural value of childhood, teaching in general, elementary > >> teachers, and testing as an educational goal in the U.S. > >>> 4. Making changes in teachers' practices, the way schools work, the > >> culture of testing, and how students' creative capacities are developed. > >>> 5. Resistance from parents, teachers, and teacher educators to new > >>> ways > >> of learning/new ideas, which is often a result of deeply ingrained > >> prior experiences. > >>> > >>> I probably didn't get everything that's been discussed, but these > >>> are > >> all issues that should be examined in concert because they are all > >> connected as part of the same larger system. Although "system" isn't > >> probably the word I should use with a Vygotskian framework (I'm still > >> learning), I use to say that I'm not sure how an individual could > >> deal with one of these strands without affecting or needing to work > with the others. > >> Does it take the effort of a collective, working on multiple strands > >> simultaneously, to make more than a dent? Or to borrow Ed's words, > >> how do we reshape the dent or make it bigger? > >>> > >>> Katie > >>> > >>> Katie Wester-Neal > >>> University of Georgia > >>> > >>> ________________________________________ > >>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > >>> > >> on behalf of Ed Wall > >>> Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2014 3:00 PM > >>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > >>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: NYTimes.com: Why Do Americans Stink at Math? > >>> > >>> Greg > >>> > >>> I agree with much of what you write below. However, there may be > >>> a > >> disjunct between what you think is happening (and in many instances I > >> agree with you) and the shape of the denting I am speaking about. I > >> begin my methods courses talking about the commitments I bring to > >> teaching (stressing they are mine and that teachers and pre-service > >> teachers are welcome to push back) > >>> > >>> 1. I believe in promoting collective student and teacher engagement > >> i(and I meant both!) > >>> 2. I believe in having students do substantial mathematical work > >>> (and > >> that is where the constraints of the context can come into play - > >> don't necessarily read into this 'new math' or tedious computations) > >>> 3. I believe in taking my students' thinking seriously (this > >>> includes > >> (mis)understandings!!) > >>> > >>> I have yet, by the way, to find an instance (and that includes > >>> school > >> location and students, testing, whatever) where such commitments are > >> impossible or, in a pragmatic sense, even moderately difficult (most > >> often the difficulty is learning to value one's students which is > >> more of a choice although one needs to be aware of the possibility). > >> I would very much appreciate your suggesting some instances where > >> such commitments were situationally impossible. My students and I > >> (teachers and pre-service > >> teachers) then spend a semester (and perhaps more) together - with > >> feedback from classroom and field experiences - figuring out what > >> kind of teaching (keeping in mind my commitments) can be sustained > >> (and it will differ and they need to know this and accommodate to > >> this). I am not unusual (perhaps read 'rare' - smile). In fact I have > >> a number of colleagues who are considerably more capable. > >>> > >>> Philip Jackson (or was it Dan Lortie) used to talk about the > >> apprenticeship of observation. People, he argued, learn to teach - > >> for the most part - by observing as students in regular classroom. > >> That should give one pause for a variety of reasons. I have sat > >> through numerous faculty meetings where students are mentioned in > >> less than a respectful fashion (and have heard anecdotes where that > >> carried into the college classroom). I have heard elementary teachers > >> spoken of quite disparagingly by faculty in Arts & Sciences and, > >> while I agree their expertise is not always of the highest 'academic' > >> quality, it is not clear to me that, in their own field of study, > >> they are not more capable than their detractors. I have also seen an > >> instructor continually stress 'nice' or 'comfortable' rather than > 'challenging' or 'uncomfortable.' > >>> > >>> I admit my commitments have hooks in them; for instance, what is > >> substantial mathematics (you need to know some mathematics to figure > >> this out); what is collective teacher and student engagement (you > >> need to know some pedagogy to figure this out) and what does it mean > >> to respect student thinking in view of the previous (you need to know > >> some mathematics and some pedagogy to figure this out). However, they > >> are a beginning and some of my students seem, in time, to grow into > them no matter the situation. > >>> > >>> Anyway, I can't say I'm blissfully optimistic, but I'm not > >> pessimistic either. I do know that culturally we often don't work > >> together; that we tend to get mired in the trivial; and we often > >> 'demonize' the stranger. I hate to think that we will never choose > >> otherwise. However, to choose otherwise seems very far from > >> impossible in the formal schooling context. > >>> > >>> Ed > >>> > >>> On Jul 30, 2014, at 1:42 PM, Greg Thompson > >>> > >> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Ed, > >>>> Thanks for this wonderfully thoughtful reply. Very helpful. > >>>> > >>>> As for the teaching practices part, I entirely agree about the need > >>>> for thoughtful attention to teaching practices and agree that great > >>>> things > >> can > >>>> be accomplished locally. My sense, though, is that it takes great > >> effort to > >>>> sustain such smaller scale interventions (i.e. to make more than a > >> dent). > >>>> With regard to teaching practices, I would think that the way to > >> approach a > >>>> thoughtful teaching practice would be to start with the real > >> constraints of > >>>> context that teachers will regularly face and then try and figure > >>>> out > >> what > >>>> kinds of teaching can be sustained given those constraints. > >>>> > >>>> That's where I'm most pessimistic. It is difficult for me to > >>>> imagine developing responsible teaching practices that could be > >>>> sustained on a larger scale given the cultural, institutional, and > >>>> ideological context > >> of > >>>> schooling in the U.S. [and I might add that it seems like the > >>>> history of teaching practice in the U.S. is a history where the > >>>> same good ideas > >> keep > >>>> popping up and then fading from sight almost as quickly as they > >> appeared]. > >>>> > >>>> But I'm certainly open to ideas/suggestions for thoughtful > >>>> pedagogical practices that are sustainable in the U.S. formal > schooling context. > >>>> > >>>> -greg > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 10:11 AM, Ed Wall wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Comments below > >>>>> > >>>>> On Jul 30, 2014, at 11:33 AM, Greg Thompson > >>>>> >>> > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> I was hoping that somebody might be able to comment on the > >>>>>> situation > >> of > >>>>>> schooling in Japan and whether or not these hypotheses about the > >> Japanese > >>>>>> situation of schooling might bear out: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 1. Teachers in Japan have time to develop their craft. 600 annual > >> hours > >>>>> of > >>>>>> contact time for teachers in Japan vs. 1100 hours of contact time > >>>>>> in > >> the > >>>>>> U.S. > >>>>> > >>>>> Yes > >>>>> > >>>>>> 2. There is an ideology of childhood in Japan that values > >>>>>> childhood > >>>>> greatly > >>>>>> and treats them as qualitatively distinct beings from adolescents > >>>>>> and adults, and thus suggests that they should be protected from > >>>>>> the cruel > >>>>> and > >>>>>> harsh practice of "testing". But this also means that elementary > >> school > >>>>>> teachers are held in high regard. > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Yes. However, it doesn't necessarily follow that this is why > >>>>> elementary school teachers are held in high regard > >>>>> > >>>>>> I guess the first seems a bit more factual but the second is more > >>>>>> of > >> an > >>>>>> hypothesis, but if they bear out as important factors for > >>>>>> enabling the > >>>>> kind > >>>>>> of learning that Green describes, then it seems to me that even > >>>>>> if > >> there > >>>>>> were to be a huge push for training teachers in the U.S., > >>>>>> teachers > >> would > >>>>>> quickly revert to what we currently lament about teaching in the > U.S. > >> not > >>>>>> because they are bad teachers or don't know how to teach in the > >>>>>> more complex manner but rather simply because, with some rare > >>>>>> exceptions, > >> it > >>>>> is > >>>>>> IMPOSSIBLE to teach in the more desirable manner given the > >>>>>> ridiculous amount of contact time and the fact that in the > >>>>>> American ideology of childhood, the teaching of children is not > valued particularly highly. > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> This doesn't follow. It is possible and it is possible in highly > >>>>> urban areas (and I amy misunderstand you use of the word 'rare'). > >>>>> That > >> doesn't > >>>>> mean that it is necessarily valued or supported by the > powers-that-be. > >>>>> There are a few more things to add to your facts: There is a > >>>>> national curriculum in Japan and there is a reasonably effective > >>>>> mentoring > >> system > >>>>> (largely teacher instigated). A 'fact' (and perhaps this is > >>>>> anecdotal) > >> is > >>>>> that when it was first realized that some interesting things were > >> happening > >>>>> in Japanese schools (e.g. lesson study), the collegiate Japanese > >> community > >>>>> was caught, to a large degree, unaware. 'Master' lesson are > >>>>> published > >> by > >>>>> teachers. > >>>>> > >>>>>> In light of this, it seems a Sisyphean feat to try to change > teachers' > >>>>>> teaching practices without changing the cultural context in which > >> those > >>>>>> teachers work. And changing cultural contexts is perhaps even > >>>>>> more difficult still. > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> That was why I suggested a look at the Netherlands (which seem to > >>>>> do as well or better than the Japanese). Of course, some of this > >>>>> can still be explained because of cultural differences and how > teachers are viewed. > >>>>> > >>>>>> Maybe we should stop looking to teaching practices in formal > >> schooling in > >>>>>> the U.S. as a site of change? > >>>>>> Maybe better to look outside and beyond schools altogether? > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Perhaps we should do as you suggest (and, to a limited extent and > >>>>> in a sense, something like this has been done). However, it might > >>>>> also be a > >> good > >>>>> idea to look at teaching practices in a thoughtful way. I have > >>>>> seen > >> very > >>>>> little of this happening over the years. I was just talking to a > >> colleague > >>>>> today and, although we love our work in urban areas, we admit to > >>>>> making only a small dent. We also admit to being underwhelmed by > >>>>> views of education prevalent in many schools of education. It is > >>>>> getting > >> steadily > >>>>> worse. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> Too pessimistic? > >>>>>> -greg > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Pessimism is fine, but simply pessimism can be self limiting; > >>>>> however, that is an opinion and not a fact. > >>>>> > >>>>> Ed > >>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 6:02 AM, Ed Wall wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Perhaps something of interest re this thread. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Ed Wall > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>> > >> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/29/opinion/joe-nocera-teaching-teachin > >> g.html?_r=0 > >>>>>>>> Some general comments (and I apologize for being so late to the > >>>>>>> conversation as I have been out of email contact) > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Magdalen Lampert and Deborah Ball were both at Michigan State > >>>>>>>> in the > >>>>>>> late 80s. They both taught what might, in part, be an early > >>>>>>> version > >> of > >>>>> the > >>>>>>> Common Core to their students. I also taught math methods > >>>>>>> beginning > >> in > >>>>> the > >>>>>>> late 90s and also emphasized such an approach (I also did > >>>>>>> similar as > >> a > >>>>> K-12 > >>>>>>> math teacher before moving onto college teaching). There is > >>>>>>> little > >> 'new' > >>>>>>> math in the Common Core - perhaps a bit of 'old' math. However, > >>>>>>> there > >>>>> is a > >>>>>>> very strong emphasis on kids making sense out of what they are > >>>>>>> doing > >> (I > >>>>>>> apologize for being brief, but this is a moment between meetings > >>>>>>> at a conference devoted to such 'strange' notions as helping > >>>>>>> kids making > >>>>> sense). > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> There are problems with the Common Core as written down: it is > >>>>>>>> being > >>>>>>> forced down teachers' throats; it has been tied into high stakes > >> testing > >>>>>>> (which, by the way, occurs at places in a student's life in > >>>>>>> Japan); > >>>>> there > >>>>>>> are some debatable differences in the age sequencing of topics; > >>>>> teachers to > >>>>>>> be have often not been prepared for such teaching in their > >>>>>>> college > >>>>> courses; > >>>>>>> and more. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Some of these problems may be ironed out with time; however, > >>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>> training and culture of teaching (see Jackson and Lortie, even > >>>>>>> if > >>>>> somewhat > >>>>>>> dated) in the US is still a bit grim. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> So a few summary points: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Teaching that is, more or less, in sync with the Common Core > >>>>>>>> has > >>>>>>> been practiced for years in the US. Teacher training that is in > >>>>>>> sync > >>>>> with > >>>>>>> the Common Core has been available for years in the US. Lesson > >>>>>>> study Japanese style may be more possible with an agreed upon > >>>>>>> core > >> (although > >>>>> one > >>>>>>> might look to the Netherlands to see what works well for them > >>>>>>> rather > >>>>> than > >>>>>>> Japan). > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> An interesting question for those of us who are involved in > >>>>>>>> teacher > >>>>>>> training might be "Why do so many teachers find the Common Core > >>>>> Standards > >>>>>>> so threatening - factoring out the forcing and testing)?" What > >>>>>>> (from > >> the > >>>>>>> 4th grade standards, for example): > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> * Use place value understanding and properties of operations > >>>>>>>> to > >>>>>>> perform multi-digit arithmetic. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> * Make sense of problems and persevere in solving them > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> do some elementary teachers find difficult and threatening? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Again apologies for being very, very short about a very large > >>>>>>>> and > >> very > >>>>>>> complex problem. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Ed > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On Jul 28, 2014, at 2:25 PM, Katherine Wester Neal > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> What an interesting article! I am thinking about the lack of > >>>>>>>>> focus > >> on > >>>>>>> specific contexts in the article's discussion of teaching and > >> learning > >>>>> to > >>>>>>> teach as a practicing teacher. Is it possible to go about such > >>>>>>> change > >>>>> (from > >>>>>>> "old" math to new math or Common Core math) with little/no > >> consideration > >>>>>>> for what kinds of teaching might work in a particular school > >>>>>>> culture > >> or > >>>>> the > >>>>>>> social context of a given classroom? I think less of a > >>>>>>> standardized approach (here, everyone do this) and more focus on > >>>>>>> what works > >> locally > >>>>>>> (here are some ideas; now decide what might work for you) might > >>>>>>> help teachers learn to teach Common Core math in a way that > >>>>>>> actually > >> works in > >>>>>>> their particular context. To adapt phrase from Magdalene > >>>>>>> Lampert, it > >>>>> might > >>>>>>> bring about more sustainable change as they are "re-learning > >> teaching" > >>>>> in > >>>>>>> their schools. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Because Common Core math is so different, perhaps this > >>>>>>>>> re-learning > >>>>>>> teaching requires a radical new approach instead of the same old > >>>>>>> professional development. Learning through the Japanese > >>>>>>> jugyokenkyu > >>>>> method > >>>>>>> sounds like it might be very useful, but there doesn't seem to > >>>>>>> be a > >> push > >>>>>>> for reforming how teachers learn once they are in the field. > >>>>>>> (Except > >>>>> that > >>>>>>> if enough of their students fail the Common Core-aligned tests, > >>>>>>> they > >>>>> will > >>>>>>> eventually be out of a job.) > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> It seems nonsensical to implement incredibly high-stakes tests > >> without > >>>>>>> significant investment in re-learning teaching and with, as far > >>>>>>> as I > >>>>> know, > >>>>>>> no research on how to learn to teach Common Core as a practicing > >>>>> teacher. > >>>>>>> I, too, wonder about how these issues are handled in Japan? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Katie > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Katie Wester-Neal > >>>>>>>>> University of Georgia > >>>>>>>>> ________________________________________ > >>>>>>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu < > >>>>> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> > >>>>>>> on behalf of Huw Lloyd > >>>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 12:58 PM > >>>>>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > >>>>>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: NYTimes.com: Why Do Americans Stink > >>>>>>>>> at > >>>>> Math? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On 28 July 2014 16:46, Greg Thompson > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> [...] > >>>>>>>>> These students had learned > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> incredibly well how to solve recipe Physics but they had no > >>>>>>>>>> idea > >>>>> about > >>>>>>> how > >>>>>>>>>> the basic principles of Physics worked. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Greg, > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> I would say the ethics of the situation go deeper than simply > >>>>> (un)learnt > >>>>>>>>> capabilities, but rather to the development of the student's > >> creative > >>>>>>>>> capabilities (or, rather, the stunting of them). > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Best, > >>>>>>>>> Huw > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -- > >>>>>> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. > >>>>>> Assistant Professor > >>>>>> Department of Anthropology > >>>>>> 883 Spencer W. Kimball Tower > >>>>>> Brigham Young University > >>>>>> Provo, UT 84602 > >>>>>> http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. > >>>> Assistant Professor > >>>> Department of Anthropology > >>>> 883 Spencer W. Kimball Tower > >>>> Brigham Young University > >>>> Provo, UT 84602 > >>>> http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > From greg.a.thompson@gmail.com Thu Jul 31 10:17:15 2014 From: greg.a.thompson@gmail.com (Greg Thompson) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 11:17:15 -0600 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: NYTimes.com: Why Do Americans Stink at Math? In-Reply-To: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9024BCB@CIO-TNC-D2MBX01.osuad.osu.edu> References: <53d5718e.c814e00a.3778.3ba3SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> <1406571909843.30805@uga.edu> <75FA794D-2E1B-47A5-941F-7EFA1C605559@umich.edu> <022EE4B2-8F70-4DA7-9D00-63CBD7B67D80@umich.edu> <1406748733952.48320@uga.edu> <245EB719-8A88-4496-B64E-D083CD5223F0@umich.edu> <48C0B057-4918-4642-A947-44C19F8D090E@umich.edu> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9024BA2@CIO-TNC-D2MBX01.osuad.osu.edu> <001201cfacc5$f9f8ca40$edea5ec0$@net.il> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9024BCB@CIO-TNC-D2MBX01.osuad.osu.edu> Message-ID: Michael, I like your comment that students do not write nearly as well to somebody else's prompt compared to when they are telling their own story. And I believe it is true when students are telling their own story in everyday life. But when asked to tell their own story in an academic setting, I find that my students (at 3 different universities) struggle mightily. I think that this is very telling about the kind of schooling that they have received. It seems that these high achieving students can't imagine that education can or should be relevant in any way to their lives. Many of them yearn for rubrics that will tell them what exactly they need to say and do in order to get a grade. I'd like to think that my classes give them a glimpse of what education COULD be, but I'm not very convinced that it amounts to much - particularly for my Gen Ed students who I will never see again. -greg On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 8:13 AM, Glassman, Michael wrote: > I really like this article/chapter Anna (after having gone through it > quickly). Thanks for offering it. I especially like the idea of > mathematics as a type of discourse, a way of telling a story. It seems > intuitively really central to me (although sometimes my intuitions are more > than a little bit off). But does this mean we looks for situations in > classrooms where students need and want mathematics to tell a story? And > is it better if this is woven into a larger narrative that is relevant to > their everyday lives? > > It makes me think, when we teach math are we teaching our story, or are we > teaching the story our social institutions want us to teach, or are we > letting students tell their own story? It reminds me of how students, or > pretty much everybody, do not write nearly as well to somebody else's > prompt as compared to when they are telling their own story. > > Michael > ________________________________________ > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] > on behalf of anna sfard [sfard@netvision.net.il] > Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 9:47 AM > To: 'eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity' > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: NYTimes.com: Why Do Americans Stink at Math? > > " Doesn't it make sense that somebody should stand up and ask "why are we > teaching mathematics?" > > > > Already done, Michael - see the attached. > > anna > > PS. This is a fascinating conversation. I wish I could allow myself to > participate properly. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: xmca-l-bounces+sfard=netvision.net.il@mailman.ucsd.edu > [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+sfard=netvision.net.il@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf > Of > Glassman, Michael > Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 4:25 PM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: NYTimes.com: Why Do Americans Stink at Math? > > > > So here is my question. We have gone through basically a century of this. > We teach mathematics and some people get it - the people in my experience > really love mathematics - but most people don't. It's just something you > do > to get some place else (I am reminded of my attitude towards statistics > courses in graduate school). So we keep banging our head against the wall > again and again. Doesn't it make sense that somebody should stand up and > ask "why are we teaching mathematics?" - as a subject I mean, it is still > an important field of study. This is something we just made up mostly for > the sake of "efficiency" - although it is not very efficient. But there is > nothing to suggest that this is a good idea, and there are a lot of things > to suggest that maybe we're on the wrong track here as far as education in > concerned. This was actually an argument about specific subjects in the > 20s > and 30s, but we have been so unsuccessful and been so frustrated its pretty > amazing that it hasn't come up again. Why not let mathematics emerge in > the course of what we do? Is the type of mathematics we learn in the > classroom transferable anyway? > > > > Maybe a bit heretical, but perhaps the idea should be raised every once in > a > while. > > > > Michael > > ________________________________________ > > From: > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] on > behalf > of Ed Wall [ewall@umich.edu] > > Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 8:10 AM > > To: lchcmike@gmail.com; eXtended Mind, > Culture, > Activity > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: NYTimes.com: Why Do Americans Stink at Math? > > > > Mike > > > > As I said I am not a blissful optimist. > > > > Liping Ma made the point some time ago that, in fact, something > like > this would not be possible until a generation of students (perhaps two) had > been taught to reasonably (and what this means can be usefully debated) > understand what was going on (by the way, being able to do it in a rote > fashion indicates, at least, that one understands the procedure). Parents > can help and hinder (most, if treated respectfully, want to help). > > Perhaps a story will indicate where I'm at. A number of years ago, > I > was at a conference sitting next to a young graduate student with a policy > background who was sort of interested in the mathematics mess. Finally, she > could stand no more and blurted out something like , "I can't understand > why > you people are fussing about all this math teaching business, the kids in > the inner city schools will never appreciate it." I turned to her and said > sadly something like, "You are possibly right, but I can't act as if I > believe so. Does that make sense?" She nodded yes. > > > > It is not just UCSD students who have problems with this. One of my > friends did something with fractions in his calculus class at UM (smile). > Part of the problem, I think, is that fractions in general have little > practical meaning for many people (unlike the natural numbers); they are, > in > a sense, somewhat of a historical artifact. It is moderately easy to > intervene on this at certain points in the school curriculum although > asking > why is useful. > > > > Ed > > > > On Jul 30, 2014, at 10:01 PM, mike cole < > lchcmike@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > That all seems reasonable to me, Ed. But it strikes me as a real > > > problem when the average "top 12% of California high school graduates" > > > cannot help a kid who has to figure out how to divide one fraction > > > into another. Or if they help its because they "teach the rule" (as > > > in, invert and multiply) but cannot explain why they do this. > > > > > > I think its a challenge to teachers and god bless those who can > > > emulate your approach. But its a challenge to parents, even UCSD > > > graduates aplenty, who cannot explain what they are doing in > understandable terms. > > > > > > That good teachers can teach it, give the opportunity I believe. That > > > this is, or is likely to become, the universally accepted norm for > > > everyone, I fear I doubt. But oh my goodness, how happy I would be to be > wrong! > > > mike > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 12:46 PM, Ed Wall < > ewall@umich.edu> wrote: > > > > > >> Katherine > > >> > > >> I think yes to your next to last question. However, what > > >> sometimes concerns me (and we are perhaps back to optimism and > > >> pessimism) is that looking for a future which may or may not occur > > >> seems 'unfair' to the students of today. I'm for thoughtful baby > > >> steps (and babies do stumble) now on all fronts and, unlike Carol, I > don't yet know the 'right' answer. > > >> However, I would like to know (smile). > > >> > > >> Ed > > >> > > >> On Jul 30, 2014, at 3:32 PM, Katherine Wester Neal < > wester@uga.edu> wrote: > > >> > > >>> I think we're all on to something here--just different parts of the > > >>> same > > >> thing. To put it all together, I'm thinking of a spiderweb. On > > >> individual strands, our spiderweb includes: > > >>> > > >>> 1. The differences in contact time and the difficulty of sustaining > > >> meaningful (or really any kind of) change when one is teaching 1,100 > hours. > > >>> 2. The pressures of testing. > > >>> 3. The cultural value of childhood, teaching in general, elementary > > >> teachers, and testing as an educational goal in the U.S. > > >>> 4. Making changes in teachers' practices, the way schools work, the > > >> culture of testing, and how students' creative capacities are developed. > > >>> 5. Resistance from parents, teachers, and teacher educators to new > > >>> ways > > >> of learning/new ideas, which is often a result of deeply ingrained > > >> prior experiences. > > >>> > > >>> I probably didn't get everything that's been discussed, but these > > >>> are > > >> all issues that should be examined in concert because they are all > > >> connected as part of the same larger system. Although "system" isn't > > >> probably the word I should use with a Vygotskian framework (I'm still > > >> learning), I use to say that I'm not sure how an individual could > > >> deal with one of these strands without affecting or needing to work with > the others. > > >> Does it take the effort of a collective, working on multiple strands > > >> simultaneously, to make more than a dent? Or to borrow Ed's words, > > >> how do we reshape the dent or make it bigger? > > >>> > > >>> Katie > > >>> > > >>> Katie Wester-Neal > > >>> University of Georgia > > >>> > > >>> ________________________________________ > > >>> From: > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > >>> < > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> > > >> on behalf of Ed Wall < ewall@umich.edu> > > >>> Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2014 3:00 PM > > >>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > >>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: NYTimes.com: Why Do Americans Stink at Math? > > >>> > > >>> Greg > > >>> > > >>> I agree with much of what you write below. However, there may be > > >>> a > > >> disjunct between what you think is happening (and in many instances I > > >> agree with you) and the shape of the denting I am speaking about. I > > >> begin my methods courses talking about the commitments I bring to > > >> teaching (stressing they are mine and that teachers and pre-service > > >> teachers are welcome to push back) > > >>> > > >>> 1. I believe in promoting collective student and teacher engagement > > >> i(and I meant both!) > > >>> 2. I believe in having students do substantial mathematical work > > >>> (and > > >> that is where the constraints of the context can come into play - > > >> don't necessarily read into this 'new math' or tedious computations) > > >>> 3. I believe in taking my students' thinking seriously (this > > >>> includes > > >> (mis)understandings!!) > > >>> > > >>> I have yet, by the way, to find an instance (and that includes > > >>> school > > >> location and students, testing, whatever) where such commitments are > > >> impossible or, in a pragmatic sense, even moderately difficult (most > > >> often the difficulty is learning to value one's students which is > > >> more of a choice although one needs to be aware of the possibility). > > >> I would very much appreciate your suggesting some instances where > > >> such commitments were situationally impossible. My students and I > > >> (teachers and pre-service > > >> teachers) then spend a semester (and perhaps more) together - with > > >> feedback from classroom and field experiences - figuring out what > > >> kind of teaching (keeping in mind my commitments) can be sustained > > >> (and it will differ and they need to know this and accommodate to > > >> this). I am not unusual (perhaps read 'rare' - smile). In fact I have > > >> a number of colleagues who are considerably more capable. > > >>> > > >>> Philip Jackson (or was it Dan Lortie) used to talk about the > > >> apprenticeship of observation. People, he argued, learn to teach - > > >> for the most part - by observing as students in regular classroom. > > >> That should give one pause for a variety of reasons. I have sat > > >> through numerous faculty meetings where students are mentioned in > > >> less than a respectful fashion (and have heard anecdotes where that > > >> carried into the college classroom). I have heard elementary teachers > > >> spoken of quite disparagingly by faculty in Arts & Sciences and, > > >> while I agree their expertise is not always of the highest 'academic' > > >> quality, it is not clear to me that, in their own field of study, > > >> they are not more capable than their detractors. I have also seen an > > >> instructor continually stress 'nice' or 'comfortable' rather than > 'challenging' or 'uncomfortable.' > > >>> > > >>> I admit my commitments have hooks in them; for instance, what is > > >> substantial mathematics (you need to know some mathematics to figure > > >> this out); what is collective teacher and student engagement (you > > >> need to know some pedagogy to figure this out) and what does it mean > > >> to respect student thinking in view of the previous (you need to know > > >> some mathematics and some pedagogy to figure this out). However, they > > >> are a beginning and some of my students seem, in time, to grow into them > no matter the situation. > > >>> > > >>> Anyway, I can't say I'm blissfully optimistic, but I'm not > > >> pessimistic either. I do know that culturally we often don't work > > >> together; that we tend to get mired in the trivial; and we often > > >> 'demonize' the stranger. I hate to think that we will never choose > > >> otherwise. However, to choose otherwise seems very far from > > >> impossible in the formal schooling context. > > >>> > > >>> Ed > > >>> > > >>> On Jul 30, 2014, at 1:42 PM, Greg Thompson > > >>> < greg.a.thompson@gmail.com> > > >> wrote: > > >>> > > >>>> Ed, > > >>>> Thanks for this wonderfully thoughtful reply. Very helpful. > > >>>> > > >>>> As for the teaching practices part, I entirely agree about the need > > >>>> for thoughtful attention to teaching practices and agree that great > > >>>> things > > >> can > > >>>> be accomplished locally. My sense, though, is that it takes great > > >> effort to > > >>>> sustain such smaller scale interventions (i.e. to make more than a > > >> dent). > > >>>> With regard to teaching practices, I would think that the way to > > >> approach a > > >>>> thoughtful teaching practice would be to start with the real > > >> constraints of > > >>>> context that teachers will regularly face and then try and figure > > >>>> out > > >> what > > >>>> kinds of teaching can be sustained given those constraints. > > >>>> > > >>>> That's where I'm most pessimistic. It is difficult for me to > > >>>> imagine developing responsible teaching practices that could be > > >>>> sustained on a larger scale given the cultural, institutional, and > > >>>> ideological context > > >> of > > >>>> schooling in the U.S. [and I might add that it seems like the > > >>>> history of teaching practice in the U.S. is a history where the > > >>>> same good ideas > > >> keep > > >>>> popping up and then fading from sight almost as quickly as they > > >> appeared]. > > >>>> > > >>>> But I'm certainly open to ideas/suggestions for thoughtful > > >>>> pedagogical practices that are sustainable in the U.S. formal > schooling > context. > > >>>> > > >>>> -greg > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 10:11 AM, Ed Wall < > ewall@umich.edu> wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>>> Comments below > > >>>>> > > >>>>> On Jul 30, 2014, at 11:33 AM, Greg Thompson > > >>>>> > >>> > > >>>>> wrote: > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> I was hoping that somebody might be able to comment on the > > >>>>>> situation > > >> of > > >>>>>> schooling in Japan and whether or not these hypotheses about the > > >> Japanese > > >>>>>> situation of schooling might bear out: > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> 1. Teachers in Japan have time to develop their craft. 600 annual > > >> hours > > >>>>> of > > >>>>>> contact time for teachers in Japan vs. 1100 hours of contact time > > >>>>>> in > > >> the > > >>>>>> U.S. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Yes > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> 2. There is an ideology of childhood in Japan that values > > >>>>>> childhood > > >>>>> greatly > > >>>>>> and treats them as qualitatively distinct beings from adolescents > > >>>>>> and adults, and thus suggests that they should be protected from > > >>>>>> the cruel > > >>>>> and > > >>>>>> harsh practice of "testing". But this also means that elementary > > >> school > > >>>>>> teachers are held in high regard. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Yes. However, it doesn't necessarily follow that this is why > > >>>>> elementary school teachers are held in high regard > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> I guess the first seems a bit more factual but the second is more > > >>>>>> of > > >> an > > >>>>>> hypothesis, but if they bear out as important factors for > > >>>>>> enabling the > > >>>>> kind > > >>>>>> of learning that Green describes, then it seems to me that even > > >>>>>> if > > >> there > > >>>>>> were to be a huge push for training teachers in the U.S., > > >>>>>> teachers > > >> would > > >>>>>> quickly revert to what we currently lament about teaching in the > U.S. > > >> not > > >>>>>> because they are bad teachers or don't know how to teach in the > > >>>>>> more complex manner but rather simply because, with some rare > > >>>>>> exceptions, > > >> it > > >>>>> is > > >>>>>> IMPOSSIBLE to teach in the more desirable manner given the > > >>>>>> ridiculous amount of contact time and the fact that in the > > >>>>>> American ideology of childhood, the teaching of children is not > valued particularly highly. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> This doesn't follow. It is possible and it is possible in highly > > >>>>> urban areas (and I amy misunderstand you use of the word 'rare'). > > >>>>> That > > >> doesn't > > >>>>> mean that it is necessarily valued or supported by the > powers-that-be. > > >>>>> There are a few more things to add to your facts: There is a > > >>>>> national curriculum in Japan and there is a reasonably effective > > >>>>> mentoring > > >> system > > >>>>> (largely teacher instigated). A 'fact' (and perhaps this is > > >>>>> anecdotal) > > >> is > > >>>>> that when it was first realized that some interesting things were > > >> happening > > >>>>> in Japanese schools (e.g. lesson study), the collegiate Japanese > > >> community > > >>>>> was caught, to a large degree, unaware. 'Master' lesson are > > >>>>> published > > >> by > > >>>>> teachers. > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> In light of this, it seems a Sisyphean feat to try to change > teachers' > > >>>>>> teaching practices without changing the cultural context in which > > >> those > > >>>>>> teachers work. And changing cultural contexts is perhaps even > > >>>>>> more difficult still. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> That was why I suggested a look at the Netherlands (which seem to > > >>>>> do as well or better than the Japanese). Of course, some of this > > >>>>> can still be explained because of cultural differences and how > teachers are viewed. > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> Maybe we should stop looking to teaching practices in formal > > >> schooling in > > >>>>>> the U.S. as a site of change? > > >>>>>> Maybe better to look outside and beyond schools altogether? > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Perhaps we should do as you suggest (and, to a limited extent and > > >>>>> in a sense, something like this has been done). However, it might > > >>>>> also be a > > >> good > > >>>>> idea to look at teaching practices in a thoughtful way. I have > > >>>>> seen > > >> very > > >>>>> little of this happening over the years. I was just talking to a > > >> colleague > > >>>>> today and, although we love our work in urban areas, we admit to > > >>>>> making only a small dent. We also admit to being underwhelmed by > > >>>>> views of education prevalent in many schools of education. It is > > >>>>> getting > > >> steadily > > >>>>> worse. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> Too pessimistic? > > >>>>>> -greg > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Pessimism is fine, but simply pessimism can be self limiting; > > >>>>> however, that is an opinion and not a fact. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Ed > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 6:02 AM, Ed Wall < > ewall@umich.edu> wrote: > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Perhaps something of interest re this thread. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Ed Wall > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>> > > >> > > http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/29/opinion/joe-nocera-teaching-teachin > > >> g.html?_r=0 > > >>>>>>>> Some general comments (and I apologize for being so late to the > > >>>>>>> conversation as I have been out of email contact) > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> Magdalen Lampert and Deborah Ball were both at Michigan State > > >>>>>>>> in the > > >>>>>>> late 80s. They both taught what might, in part, be an early > > >>>>>>> version > > >> of > > >>>>> the > > >>>>>>> Common Core to their students. I also taught math methods > > >>>>>>> beginning > > >> in > > >>>>> the > > >>>>>>> late 90s and also emphasized such an approach (I also did > > >>>>>>> similar as > > >> a > > >>>>> K-12 > > >>>>>>> math teacher before moving onto college teaching). There is > > >>>>>>> little > > >> 'new' > > >>>>>>> math in the Common Core - perhaps a bit of 'old' math. However, > > >>>>>>> there > > >>>>> is a > > >>>>>>> very strong emphasis on kids making sense out of what they are > > >>>>>>> doing > > >> (I > > >>>>>>> apologize for being brief, but this is a moment between meetings > > >>>>>>> at a conference devoted to such 'strange' notions as helping > > >>>>>>> kids making > > >>>>> sense). > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> There are problems with the Common Core as written down: it is > > >>>>>>>> being > > >>>>>>> forced down teachers' throats; it has been tied into high stakes > > >> testing > > >>>>>>> (which, by the way, occurs at places in a student's life in > > >>>>>>> Japan); > > >>>>> there > > >>>>>>> are some debatable differences in the age sequencing of topics; > > >>>>> teachers to > > >>>>>>> be have often not been prepared for such teaching in their > > >>>>>>> college > > >>>>> courses; > > >>>>>>> and more. > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> Some of these problems may be ironed out with time; however, > > >>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>> training and culture of teaching (see Jackson and Lortie, even > > >>>>>>> if > > >>>>> somewhat > > >>>>>>> dated) in the US is still a bit grim. > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> So a few summary points: > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> Teaching that is, more or less, in sync with the Common Core > > >>>>>>>> has > > >>>>>>> been practiced for years in the US. Teacher training that is in > > >>>>>>> sync > > >>>>> with > > >>>>>>> the Common Core has been available for years in the US. Lesson > > >>>>>>> study Japanese style may be more possible with an agreed upon > > >>>>>>> core > > >> (although > > >>>>> one > > >>>>>>> might look to the Netherlands to see what works well for them > > >>>>>>> rather > > >>>>> than > > >>>>>>> Japan). > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> An interesting question for those of us who are involved in > > >>>>>>>> teacher > > >>>>>>> training might be "Why do so many teachers find the Common Core > > >>>>> Standards > > >>>>>>> so threatening - factoring out the forcing and testing)?" What > > >>>>>>> (from > > >> the > > >>>>>>> 4th grade standards, for example): > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> . Use place value understanding and properties of operations > > >>>>>>>> to > > >>>>>>> perform multi-digit arithmetic. > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> . Make sense of problems and persevere in solving them > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> do some elementary teachers find difficult and threatening? > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> Again apologies for being very, very short about a very large > > >>>>>>>> and > > >> very > > >>>>>>> complex problem. > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> Ed > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> On Jul 28, 2014, at 2:25 PM, Katherine Wester Neal > > >>>>>>>> < wester@uga.edu> > > >>>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> What an interesting article! I am thinking about the lack of > > >>>>>>>>> focus > > >> on > > >>>>>>> specific contexts in the article's discussion of teaching and > > >> learning > > >>>>> to > > >>>>>>> teach as a practicing teacher. Is it possible to go about such > > >>>>>>> change > > >>>>> (from > > >>>>>>> "old" math to new math or Common Core math) with little/no > > >> consideration > > >>>>>>> for what kinds of teaching might work in a particular school > > >>>>>>> culture > > >> or > > >>>>> the > > >>>>>>> social context of a given classroom? I think less of a > > >>>>>>> standardized approach (here, everyone do this) and more focus on > > >>>>>>> what works > > >> locally > > >>>>>>> (here are some ideas; now decide what might work for you) might > > >>>>>>> help teachers learn to teach Common Core math in a way that > > >>>>>>> actually > > >> works in > > >>>>>>> their particular context. To adapt phrase from Magdalene > > >>>>>>> Lampert, it > > >>>>> might > > >>>>>>> bring about more sustainable change as they are "re-learning > > >> teaching" > > >>>>> in > > >>>>>>> their schools. > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> Because Common Core math is so different, perhaps this > > >>>>>>>>> re-learning > > >>>>>>> teaching requires a radical new approach instead of the same old > > >>>>>>> professional development. Learning through the Japanese > > >>>>>>> jugyokenkyu > > >>>>> method > > >>>>>>> sounds like it might be very useful, but there doesn't seem to > > >>>>>>> be a > > >> push > > >>>>>>> for reforming how teachers learn once they are in the field. > > >>>>>>> (Except > > >>>>> that > > >>>>>>> if enough of their students fail the Common Core-aligned tests, > > >>>>>>> they > > >>>>> will > > >>>>>>> eventually be out of a job.) > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> It seems nonsensical to implement incredibly high-stakes tests > > >> without > > >>>>>>> significant investment in re-learning teaching and with, as far > > >>>>>>> as I > > >>>>> know, > > >>>>>>> no research on how to learn to teach Common Core as a practicing > > >>>>> teacher. > > >>>>>>> I, too, wonder about how these issues are handled in Japan? > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> Katie > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> Katie Wester-Neal > > >>>>>>>>> University of Georgia > > >>>>>>>>> ________________________________________ > > >>>>>>>>> From: > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu < > > >>>>> > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> > > >>>>>>> on behalf of Huw Lloyd < > huw.softdesigns@gmail.com> > > >>>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 12:58 PM > > >>>>>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > >>>>>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: NYTimes.com: Why Do Americans Stink > > >>>>>>>>> at > > >>>>> Math? > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> On 28 July 2014 16:46, Greg Thompson > > >>>>>>>>> < greg.a.thompson@gmail.com> > > >>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>> [...] > > >>>>>>>>> These students had learned > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> incredibly well how to solve recipe Physics but they had no > > >>>>>>>>>> idea > > >>>>> about > > >>>>>>> how > > >>>>>>>>>> the basic principles of Physics worked. > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> Greg, > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> I would say the ethics of the situation go deeper than simply > > >>>>> (un)learnt > > >>>>>>>>> capabilities, but rather to the development of the student's > > >> creative > > >>>>>>>>> capabilities (or, rather, the stunting of them). > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> Best, > > >>>>>>>>> Huw > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> -- > > >>>>>> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. > > >>>>>> Assistant Professor > > >>>>>> Department of Anthropology > > >>>>>> 883 Spencer W. Kimball Tower > > >>>>>> Brigham Young University > > >>>>>> Provo, UT 84602 > > >>>>>> > http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> -- > > >>>> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. > > >>>> Assistant Professor > > >>>> Department of Anthropology > > >>>> 883 Spencer W. Kimball Tower > > >>>> Brigham Young University > > >>>> Provo, UT 84602 > > >>>> > http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson > > >>> > > >>> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > -- Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Department of Anthropology 883 Spencer W. Kimball Tower Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602 http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson From helen.grimmett@monash.edu Thu Jul 31 19:56:15 2014 From: helen.grimmett@monash.edu (Helen Grimmett) Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2014 12:56:15 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: NYTimes.com: Why Do Americans Stink at Math? In-Reply-To: <001201cfacc5$f9f8ca40$edea5ec0$@net.il> References: <53d5718e.c814e00a.3778.3ba3SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> <1406571909843.30805@uga.edu> <75FA794D-2E1B-47A5-941F-7EFA1C605559@umich.edu> <022EE4B2-8F70-4DA7-9D00-63CBD7B67D80@umich.edu> <1406748733952.48320@uga.edu> <245EB719-8A88-4496-B64E-D083CD5223F0@umich.edu> <48C0B057-4918-4642-A947-44C19F8D090E@umich.edu> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9024BA2@CIO-TNC-D2MBX01.osuad.osu.edu> <001201cfacc5$f9f8ca40$edea5ec0$@net.il> Message-ID: Thanks for sharing this editorial Anna. Can you please post the citation for it? I would like to share it with my maths colleagues, but it also provides interesting reassurance for me about letting my daughter discontinue maths at the end of this year (Year 10). She is a very high achieving student but detests maths and science (she already dropped science at the end of year 9 despite winning the Yr 9 Science prize in her selective entry school) and has often said that she is only interested in subjects that let her tell stories (she includes music as one of these). I must admit I've never thought of maths as a form of story telling before and I wonder if her schooling had taken this approach to maths whether it would have managed to spark her interest and keep her engaged in the subject. In her early secondary school years when science was compulsory she often mentioned that she thought it was possible that 'real' science would be quite interesting, but that 'school' science was intolerable. Her stress levels about school have dropped considerably this year now that she doesn't have to suffer through endless (and in her eyes pointless) science homework and assignments. I appreciate that dropping maths will lead to another huge reduction in any remaining school dissatisfaction and give her more space to pursue the wide range of subjects that do fascinate her, yet I still keep telling her I worry about her closing possible doors for avenues of study in the future. Reading your editorial makes me realise that perhaps what I'm more worried about is that "unofficial argument" that maths is a selection tool. In all honesty my concern is perhaps more with what it says to others when she says she dropped maths at Year 10, than with the doors it might close or with what she will miss out on knowing by not continuing maths into Year 11 and 12. Naming this unofficial argument makes the hollowness of it very transparent. I believe she is smart enough to have seen through this argument (not just too naive to see it) and brave enough and gifted enough to challenge it. I owe it to her to be brave too. It will indeed be a great day when school maths and science is reimagined in ways that do not do more harm than good for a huge number of students. My thanks again, Helen Dr Helen Grimmett Lecturer, Student Adviser, Faculty of Education, Room G64F, Building 902 Monash University, Berwick campus Phone: 9904 7171 *New Book: * The Practice of Teachers' Professional Development: A Cultural-Historical Approach Helen Grimmett (2014) Sense Publishers On 31 July 2014 23:47, anna sfard wrote: > " Doesn't it make sense that somebody should stand up and ask "why are we > teaching mathematics?" > > > > Already done, Michael - see the attached. > > anna > > PS. This is a fascinating conversation. I wish I could allow myself to > participate properly. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: xmca-l-bounces+sfard=netvision.net.il@mailman.ucsd.edu > [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+sfard=netvision.net.il@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf > Of > Glassman, Michael > Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 4:25 PM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: NYTimes.com: Why Do Americans Stink at Math? > > > > So here is my question. We have gone through basically a century of this. > We teach mathematics and some people get it - the people in my experience > really love mathematics - but most people don't. It's just something you > do > to get some place else (I am reminded of my attitude towards statistics > courses in graduate school). So we keep banging our head against the wall > again and again. Doesn't it make sense that somebody should stand up and > ask "why are we teaching mathematics?" - as a subject I mean, it is still > an important field of study. This is something we just made up mostly for > the sake of "efficiency" - although it is not very efficient. But there is > nothing to suggest that this is a good idea, and there are a lot of things > to suggest that maybe we're on the wrong track here as far as education in > concerned. This was actually an argument about specific subjects in the > 20s > and 30s, but we have been so unsuccessful and been so frustrated its pretty > amazing that it hasn't come up again. Why not let mathematics emerge in > the course of what we do? Is the type of mathematics we learn in the > classroom transferable anyway? > > > > Maybe a bit heretical, but perhaps the idea should be raised every once in > a > while. > > > > Michael > > ________________________________________ > > From: > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] on > behalf > of Ed Wall [ewall@umich.edu] > > Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 8:10 AM > > To: lchcmike@gmail.com; eXtended Mind, > Culture, > Activity > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: NYTimes.com: Why Do Americans Stink at Math? > > > > Mike > > > > As I said I am not a blissful optimist. > > > > Liping Ma made the point some time ago that, in fact, something > like > this would not be possible until a generation of students (perhaps two) had > been taught to reasonably (and what this means can be usefully debated) > understand what was going on (by the way, being able to do it in a rote > fashion indicates, at least, that one understands the procedure). Parents > can help and hinder (most, if treated respectfully, want to help). > > Perhaps a story will indicate where I'm at. A number of years ago, > I > was at a conference sitting next to a young graduate student with a policy > background who was sort of interested in the mathematics mess. Finally, she > could stand no more and blurted out something like , "I can't understand > why > you people are fussing about all this math teaching business, the kids in > the inner city schools will never appreciate it." I turned to her and said > sadly something like, "You are possibly right, but I can't act as if I > believe so. Does that make sense?" She nodded yes. > > > > It is not just UCSD students who have problems with this. One of my > friends did something with fractions in his calculus class at UM (smile). > Part of the problem, I think, is that fractions in general have little > practical meaning for many people (unlike the natural numbers); they are, > in > a sense, somewhat of a historical artifact. It is moderately easy to > intervene on this at certain points in the school curriculum although > asking > why is useful. > > > > Ed > > > > On Jul 30, 2014, at 10:01 PM, mike cole < > lchcmike@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > That all seems reasonable to me, Ed. But it strikes me as a real > > > problem when the average "top 12% of California high school graduates" > > > cannot help a kid who has to figure out how to divide one fraction > > > into another. Or if they help its because they "teach the rule" (as > > > in, invert and multiply) but cannot explain why they do this. > > > > > > I think its a challenge to teachers and god bless those who can > > > emulate your approach. But its a challenge to parents, even UCSD > > > graduates aplenty, who cannot explain what they are doing in > understandable terms. > > > > > > That good teachers can teach it, give the opportunity I believe. That > > > this is, or is likely to become, the universally accepted norm for > > > everyone, I fear I doubt. But oh my goodness, how happy I would be to be > wrong! > > > mike > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 12:46 PM, Ed Wall < > ewall@umich.edu> wrote: > > > > > >> Katherine > > >> > > >> I think yes to your next to last question. However, what > > >> sometimes concerns me (and we are perhaps back to optimism and > > >> pessimism) is that looking for a future which may or may not occur > > >> seems 'unfair' to the students of today. I'm for thoughtful baby > > >> steps (and babies do stumble) now on all fronts and, unlike Carol, I > don't yet know the 'right' answer. > > >> However, I would like to know (smile). > > >> > > >> Ed > > >> > > >> On Jul 30, 2014, at 3:32 PM, Katherine Wester Neal < > wester@uga.edu> wrote: > > >> > > >>> I think we're all on to something here--just different parts of the > > >>> same > > >> thing. To put it all together, I'm thinking of a spiderweb. On > > >> individual strands, our spiderweb includes: > > >>> > > >>> 1. The differences in contact time and the difficulty of sustaining > > >> meaningful (or really any kind of) change when one is teaching 1,100 > hours. > > >>> 2. The pressures of testing. > > >>> 3. The cultural value of childhood, teaching in general, elementary > > >> teachers, and testing as an educational goal in the U.S. > > >>> 4. Making changes in teachers' practices, the way schools work, the > > >> culture of testing, and how students' creative capacities are developed. > > >>> 5. Resistance from parents, teachers, and teacher educators to new > > >>> ways > > >> of learning/new ideas, which is often a result of deeply ingrained > > >> prior experiences. > > >>> > > >>> I probably didn't get everything that's been discussed, but these > > >>> are > > >> all issues that should be examined in concert because they are all > > >> connected as part of the same larger system. Although "system" isn't > > >> probably the word I should use with a Vygotskian framework (I'm still > > >> learning), I use to say that I'm not sure how an individual could > > >> deal with one of these strands without affecting or needing to work with > the others. > > >> Does it take the effort of a collective, working on multiple strands > > >> simultaneously, to make more than a dent? Or to borrow Ed's words, > > >> how do we reshape the dent or make it bigger? > > >>> > > >>> Katie > > >>> > > >>> Katie Wester-Neal > > >>> University of Georgia > > >>> > > >>> ________________________________________ > > >>> From: > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > >>> < > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> > > >> on behalf of Ed Wall < ewall@umich.edu> > > >>> Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2014 3:00 PM > > >>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > >>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: NYTimes.com: Why Do Americans Stink at Math? > > >>> > > >>> Greg > > >>> > > >>> I agree with much of what you write below. However, there may be > > >>> a > > >> disjunct between what you think is happening (and in many instances I > > >> agree with you) and the shape of the denting I am speaking about. I > > >> begin my methods courses talking about the commitments I bring to > > >> teaching (stressing they are mine and that teachers and pre-service > > >> teachers are welcome to push back) > > >>> > > >>> 1. I believe in promoting collective student and teacher engagement > > >> i(and I meant both!) > > >>> 2. I believe in having students do substantial mathematical work > > >>> (and > > >> that is where the constraints of the context can come into play - > > >> don't necessarily read into this 'new math' or tedious computations) > > >>> 3. I believe in taking my students' thinking seriously (this > > >>> includes > > >> (mis)understandings!!) > > >>> > > >>> I have yet, by the way, to find an instance (and that includes > > >>> school > > >> location and students, testing, whatever) where such commitments are > > >> impossible or, in a pragmatic sense, even moderately difficult (most > > >> often the difficulty is learning to value one's students which is > > >> more of a choice although one needs to be aware of the possibility). > > >> I would very much appreciate your suggesting some instances where > > >> such commitments were situationally impossible. My students and I > > >> (teachers and pre-service > > >> teachers) then spend a semester (and perhaps more) together - with > > >> feedback from classroom and field experiences - figuring out what > > >> kind of teaching (keeping in mind my commitments) can be sustained > > >> (and it will differ and they need to know this and accommodate to > > >> this). I am not unusual (perhaps read 'rare' - smile). In fact I have > > >> a number of colleagues who are considerably more capable. > > >>> > > >>> Philip Jackson (or was it Dan Lortie) used to talk about the > > >> apprenticeship of observation. People, he argued, learn to teach - > > >> for the most part - by observing as students in regular classroom. > > >> That should give one pause for a variety of reasons. I have sat > > >> through numerous faculty meetings where students are mentioned in > > >> less than a respectful fashion (and have heard anecdotes where that > > >> carried into the college classroom). I have heard elementary teachers > > >> spoken of quite disparagingly by faculty in Arts & Sciences and, > > >> while I agree their expertise is not always of the highest 'academic' > > >> quality, it is not clear to me that, in their own field of study, > > >> they are not more capable than their detractors. I have also seen an > > >> instructor continually stress 'nice' or 'comfortable' rather than > 'challenging' or 'uncomfortable.' > > >>> > > >>> I admit my commitments have hooks in them; for instance, what is > > >> substantial mathematics (you need to know some mathematics to figure > > >> this out); what is collective teacher and student engagement (you > > >> need to know some pedagogy to figure this out) and what does it mean > > >> to respect student thinking in view of the previous (you need to know > > >> some mathematics and some pedagogy to figure this out). However, they > > >> are a beginning and some of my students seem, in time, to grow into them > no matter the situation. > > >>> > > >>> Anyway, I can't say I'm blissfully optimistic, but I'm not > > >> pessimistic either. I do know that culturally we often don't work > > >> together; that we tend to get mired in the trivial; and we often > > >> 'demonize' the stranger. I hate to think that we will never choose > > >> otherwise. However, to choose otherwise seems very far from > > >> impossible in the formal schooling context. > > >>> > > >>> Ed > > >>> > > >>> On Jul 30, 2014, at 1:42 PM, Greg Thompson > > >>> < greg.a.thompson@gmail.com> > > >> wrote: > > >>> > > >>>> Ed, > > >>>> Thanks for this wonderfully thoughtful reply. Very helpful. > > >>>> > > >>>> As for the teaching practices part, I entirely agree about the need > > >>>> for thoughtful attention to teaching practices and agree that great > > >>>> things > > >> can > > >>>> be accomplished locally. My sense, though, is that it takes great > > >> effort to > > >>>> sustain such smaller scale interventions (i.e. to make more than a > > >> dent). > > >>>> With regard to teaching practices, I would think that the way to > > >> approach a > > >>>> thoughtful teaching practice would be to start with the real > > >> constraints of > > >>>> context that teachers will regularly face and then try and figure > > >>>> out > > >> what > > >>>> kinds of teaching can be sustained given those constraints. > > >>>> > > >>>> That's where I'm most pessimistic. It is difficult for me to > > >>>> imagine developing responsible teaching practices that could be > > >>>> sustained on a larger scale given the cultural, institutional, and > > >>>> ideological context > > >> of > > >>>> schooling in the U.S. [and I might add that it seems like the > > >>>> history of teaching practice in the U.S. is a history where the > > >>>> same good ideas > > >> keep > > >>>> popping up and then fading from sight almost as quickly as they > > >> appeared]. > > >>>> > > >>>> But I'm certainly open to ideas/suggestions for thoughtful > > >>>> pedagogical practices that are sustainable in the U.S. formal > schooling > context. > > >>>> > > >>>> -greg > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 10:11 AM, Ed Wall < > ewall@umich.edu> wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>>> Comments below > > >>>>> > > >>>>> On Jul 30, 2014, at 11:33 AM, Greg Thompson > > >>>>> > >>> > > >>>>> wrote: > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> I was hoping that somebody might be able to comment on the > > >>>>>> situation > > >> of > > >>>>>> schooling in Japan and whether or not these hypotheses about the > > >> Japanese > > >>>>>> situation of schooling might bear out: > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> 1. Teachers in Japan have time to develop their craft. 600 annual > > >> hours > > >>>>> of > > >>>>>> contact time for teachers in Japan vs. 1100 hours of contact time > > >>>>>> in > > >> the > > >>>>>> U.S. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Yes > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> 2. There is an ideology of childhood in Japan that values > > >>>>>> childhood > > >>>>> greatly > > >>>>>> and treats them as qualitatively distinct beings from adolescents > > >>>>>> and adults, and thus suggests that they should be protected from > > >>>>>> the cruel > > >>>>> and > > >>>>>> harsh practice of "testing". But this also means that elementary > > >> school > > >>>>>> teachers are held in high regard. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Yes. However, it doesn't necessarily follow that this is why > > >>>>> elementary school teachers are held in high regard > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> I guess the first seems a bit more factual but the second is more > > >>>>>> of > > >> an > > >>>>>> hypothesis, but if they bear out as important factors for > > >>>>>> enabling the > > >>>>> kind > > >>>>>> of learning that Green describes, then it seems to me that even > > >>>>>> if > > >> there > > >>>>>> were to be a huge push for training teachers in the U.S., > > >>>>>> teachers > > >> would > > >>>>>> quickly revert to what we currently lament about teaching in the > U.S. > > >> not > > >>>>>> because they are bad teachers or don't know how to teach in the > > >>>>>> more complex manner but rather simply because, with some rare > > >>>>>> exceptions, > > >> it > > >>>>> is > > >>>>>> IMPOSSIBLE to teach in the more desirable manner given the > > >>>>>> ridiculous amount of contact time and the fact that in the > > >>>>>> American ideology of childhood, the teaching of children is not > valued particularly highly. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> This doesn't follow. It is possible and it is possible in highly > > >>>>> urban areas (and I amy misunderstand you use of the word 'rare'). > > >>>>> That > > >> doesn't > > >>>>> mean that it is necessarily valued or supported by the > powers-that-be. > > >>>>> There are a few more things to add to your facts: There is a > > >>>>> national curriculum in Japan and there is a reasonably effective > > >>>>> mentoring > > >> system > > >>>>> (largely teacher instigated). A 'fact' (and perhaps this is > > >>>>> anecdotal) > > >> is > > >>>>> that when it was first realized that some interesting things were > > >> happening > > >>>>> in Japanese schools (e.g. lesson study), the collegiate Japanese > > >> community > > >>>>> was caught, to a large degree, unaware. 'Master' lesson are > > >>>>> published > > >> by > > >>>>> teachers. > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> In light of this, it seems a Sisyphean feat to try to change > teachers' > > >>>>>> teaching practices without changing the cultural context in which > > >> those > > >>>>>> teachers work. And changing cultural contexts is perhaps even > > >>>>>> more difficult still. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> That was why I suggested a look at the Netherlands (which seem to > > >>>>> do as well or better than the Japanese). Of course, some of this > > >>>>> can still be explained because of cultural differences and how > teachers are viewed. > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> Maybe we should stop looking to teaching practices in formal > > >> schooling in > > >>>>>> the U.S. as a site of change? > > >>>>>> Maybe better to look outside and beyond schools altogether? > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Perhaps we should do as you suggest (and, to a limited extent and > > >>>>> in a sense, something like this has been done). However, it might > > >>>>> also be a > > >> good > > >>>>> idea to look at teaching practices in a thoughtful way. I have > > >>>>> seen > > >> very > > >>>>> little of this happening over the years. I was just talking to a > > >> colleague > > >>>>> today and, although we love our work in urban areas, we admit to > > >>>>> making only a small dent. We also admit to being underwhelmed by > > >>>>> views of education prevalent in many schools of education. It is > > >>>>> getting > > >> steadily > > >>>>> worse. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> Too pessimistic? > > >>>>>> -greg > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Pessimism is fine, but simply pessimism can be self limiting; > > >>>>> however, that is an opinion and not a fact. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Ed > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 6:02 AM, Ed Wall < > ewall@umich.edu> wrote: > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Perhaps something of interest re this thread. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Ed Wall > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>> > > >> > > http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/29/opinion/joe-nocera-teaching-teachin > > >> g.html?_r=0 > > >>>>>>>> Some general comments (and I apologize for being so late to the > > >>>>>>> conversation as I have been out of email contact) > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> Magdalen Lampert and Deborah Ball were both at Michigan State > > >>>>>>>> in the > > >>>>>>> late 80s. They both taught what might, in part, be an early > > >>>>>>> version > > >> of > > >>>>> the > > >>>>>>> Common Core to their students. I also taught math methods > > >>>>>>> beginning > > >> in > > >>>>> the > > >>>>>>> late 90s and also emphasized such an approach (I also did > > >>>>>>> similar as > > >> a > > >>>>> K-12 > > >>>>>>> math teacher before moving onto college teaching). There is > > >>>>>>> little > > >> 'new' > > >>>>>>> math in the Common Core - perhaps a bit of 'old' math. However, > > >>>>>>> there > > >>>>> is a > > >>>>>>> very strong emphasis on kids making sense out of what they are > > >>>>>>> doing > > >> (I > > >>>>>>> apologize for being brief, but this is a moment between meetings > > >>>>>>> at a conference devoted to such 'strange' notions as helping > > >>>>>>> kids making > > >>>>> sense). > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> There are problems with the Common Core as written down: it is > > >>>>>>>> being > > >>>>>>> forced down teachers' throats; it has been tied into high stakes > > >> testing > > >>>>>>> (which, by the way, occurs at places in a student's life in > > >>>>>>> Japan); > > >>>>> there > > >>>>>>> are some debatable differences in the age sequencing of topics; > > >>>>> teachers to > > >>>>>>> be have often not been prepared for such teaching in their > > >>>>>>> college > > >>>>> courses; > > >>>>>>> and more. > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> Some of these problems may be ironed out with time; however, > > >>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>> training and culture of teaching (see Jackson and Lortie, even > > >>>>>>> if > > >>>>> somewhat > > >>>>>>> dated) in the US is still a bit grim. > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> So a few summary points: > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> Teaching that is, more or less, in sync with the Common Core > > >>>>>>>> has > > >>>>>>> been practiced for years in the US. Teacher training that is in > > >>>>>>> sync > > >>>>> with > > >>>>>>> the Common Core has been available for years in the US. Lesson > > >>>>>>> study Japanese style may be more possible with an agreed upon > > >>>>>>> core > > >> (although > > >>>>> one > > >>>>>>> might look to the Netherlands to see what works well for them > > >>>>>>> rather > > >>>>> than > > >>>>>>> Japan). > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> An interesting question for those of us who are involved in > > >>>>>>>> teacher > > >>>>>>> training might be "Why do so many teachers find the Common Core > > >>>>> Standards > > >>>>>>> so threatening - factoring out the forcing and testing)?" What > > >>>>>>> (from > > >> the > > >>>>>>> 4th grade standards, for example): > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> . Use place value understanding and properties of operations > > >>>>>>>> to > > >>>>>>> perform multi-digit arithmetic. > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> . Make sense of problems and persevere in solving them > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> do some elementary teachers find difficult and threatening? > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> Again apologies for being very, very short about a very large > > >>>>>>>> and > > >> very > > >>>>>>> complex problem. > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> Ed > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> On Jul 28, 2014, at 2:25 PM, Katherine Wester Neal > > >>>>>>>> < wester@uga.edu> > > >>>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> What an interesting article! I am thinking about the lack of > > >>>>>>>>> focus > > >> on > > >>>>>>> specific contexts in the article's discussion of teaching and > > >> learning > > >>>>> to > > >>>>>>> teach as a practicing teacher. Is it possible to go about such > > >>>>>>> change > > >>>>> (from > > >>>>>>> "old" math to new math or Common Core math) with little/no > > >> consideration > > >>>>>>> for what kinds of teaching might work in a particular school > > >>>>>>> culture > > >> or > > >>>>> the > > >>>>>>> social context of a given classroom? I think less of a > > >>>>>>> standardized approach (here, everyone do this) and more focus on > > >>>>>>> what works > > >> locally > > >>>>>>> (here are some ideas; now decide what might work for you) might > > >>>>>>> help teachers learn to teach Common Core math in a way that > > >>>>>>> actually > > >> works in > > >>>>>>> their particular context. To adapt phrase from Magdalene > > >>>>>>> Lampert, it > > >>>>> might > > >>>>>>> bring about more sustainable change as they are "re-learning > > >> teaching" > > >>>>> in > > >>>>>>> their schools. > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> Because Common Core math is so different, perhaps this > > >>>>>>>>> re-learning > > >>>>>>> teaching requires a radical new approach instead of the same old > > >>>>>>> professional development. Learning through the Japanese > > >>>>>>> jugyokenkyu > > >>>>> method > > >>>>>>> sounds like it might be very useful, but there doesn't seem to > > >>>>>>> be a > > >> push > > >>>>>>> for reforming how teachers learn once they are in the field. > > >>>>>>> (Except > > >>>>> that > > >>>>>>> if enough of their students fail the Common Core-aligned tests, > > >>>>>>> they > > >>>>> will > > >>>>>>> eventually be out of a job.) > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> It seems nonsensical to implement incredibly high-stakes tests > > >> without > > >>>>>>> significant investment in re-learning teaching and with, as far > > >>>>>>> as I > > >>>>> know, > > >>>>>>> no research on how to learn to teach Common Core as a practicing > > >>>>> teacher. > > >>>>>>> I, too, wonder about how these issues are handled in Japan? > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> Katie > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> Katie Wester-Neal > > >>>>>>>>> University of Georgia > > >>>>>>>>> ________________________________________ > > >>>>>>>>> From: > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu < > > >>>>> > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> > > >>>>>>> on behalf of Huw Lloyd < > huw.softdesigns@gmail.com> > > >>>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 12:58 PM > > >>>>>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > >>>>>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: NYTimes.com: Why Do Americans Stink > > >>>>>>>>> at > > >>>>> Math? > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> On 28 July 2014 16:46, Greg Thompson > > >>>>>>>>> < greg.a.thompson@gmail.com> > > >>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>> [...] > > >>>>>>>>> These students had learned > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> incredibly well how to solve recipe Physics but they had no > > >>>>>>>>>> idea > > >>>>> about > > >>>>>>> how > > >>>>>>>>>> the basic principles of Physics worked. > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> Greg, > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> I would say the ethics of the situation go deeper than simply > > >>>>> (un)learnt > > >>>>>>>>> capabilities, but rather to the development of the student's > > >> creative > > >>>>>>>>> capabilities (or, rather, the stunting of them). > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> Best, > > >>>>>>>>> Huw > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> -- > > >>>>>> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. > > >>>>>> Assistant Professor > > >>>>>> Department of Anthropology > > >>>>>> 883 Spencer W. Kimball Tower > > >>>>>> Brigham Young University > > >>>>>> Provo, UT 84602 > > >>>>>> > http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> -- > > >>>> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. > > >>>> Assistant Professor > > >>>> Department of Anthropology > > >>>> 883 Spencer W. Kimball Tower > > >>>> Brigham Young University > > >>>> Provo, UT 84602 > > >>>> > http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson > > >>> > > >>> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > From Holli.Tonyan@csun.edu Thu Jul 31 23:19:47 2014 From: Holli.Tonyan@csun.edu (Tonyan, Holli A) Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2014 06:19:47 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Two positions: Psychology at California State University, Northridge References: <1406829469448.91895@csun.edu> Message-ID: <6E7A1668-0F39-4E89-AB16-866997332158@csun.edu> The Psychology Department at California State University, Northridge seeks qualified candidates for two tenure-track positions. Please help us spread the word throughout your networks. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Psychology Cognitive 2015 AA-1.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 55034 bytes Desc: Psychology Cognitive 2015 AA-1.pdf Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20140801/a2550a42/attachment.pdf -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: ATT00001.htm Url: https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20140801/a2550a42/attachment.pl -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Psychology Cultural AA-1 2015.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 54677 bytes Desc: Psychology Cultural AA-1 2015.pdf Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20140801/a2550a42/attachment-0001.pdf -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: ATT00002.htm Url: https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20140801/a2550a42/attachment-0001.pl