[Xmca-l] Re: book of possible interest

[David Kellogg]

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 <fsulliva@temple.edu> 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 <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."
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>