[Xmca-l] Re: book of possible interest

[Huw Lloyd]

Nevermind.  Please refrain from all the misquotes and misrepresentations,
David.

Best,
Huw

On 23 July 2014 23:52, David Kellogg <dkellogg60@gmail.com> 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:
>







>
> Когда говорят, что диалектический скачок является не только переходом от
> немыслящей материи к ощущению, но и переходом от ощущения к мысли, то этим
> хотят сказать, что мышление отражает действительность в сознании
> качественно иначе, чем непосредственное ощущение. По-видимому, есть все
> основания допустить, что это качественное отличие единицы в основном и
> главном есть обобщенное отражение действительности. (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 <fsulliva@temple.edu> 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 <dkellogg60@gmail.com>
> > 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 <fsulliva@temple.edu>
> 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 <ablunden@mira.net> 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
> > > > > >> <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 14 July 2014 14:43, David Kellogg <dkellogg60@gmail.com>
> > 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 <dkellogg60@gmail.com>
> > > 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 <dkellogg60@gmail.com>
> > > 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."
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>