[Xmca-l] Re: Reflective Discourse on XMCA
Peg Griffin
Peg.Griffin@att.net
Wed Oct 14 18:00:48 PDT 2015
Wasn't it published in Russian, Mike?
-----Original Message-----
From: xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of mike cole
Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2015 8:08 PM
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: [Xmca-l] Reflective Discourse on XMCA
Peg et al -- Here is a set of representations using mediational triangles that underpin the method we called "question asking reading." The full, initial, (never published) text on which this is based can be found at
http://lchc.ucsd.edu/People/NEWTECHN.pdf
The first triangle represents the desired endpoint of the reading pedagogy The second two triangles show how the child's entering, fragmentary, understanding is juxtaposed with the adults mature understanding-- the first as simple juxtaposition,the second with overlap arising from instructional dialogue which reduces the gap between existing and desired end points. The third puts time/dynamics into this representation and indicates how all reading comprehension involves the bridging of the gap between the "mediated" and "direct" routes.
Directly relevant to questions of displacement, gap filling, and imagination, although we used none of those terms at the time.
Perhaps you can fill in, Peg, if
mike
On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 8:49 AM, mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','mcole@ucsd.edu');>> wrote:
> That is a very useful reminder/suggestion, peg. I will look for the
> figure and post it, perhaps with a little text for con-text.
>
> thanks!
> mike
>
> On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 8:24 AM, Peg Griffin <Peg.Griffin@att.net
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Peg.Griffin@att.net');>> wrote:
>
>> Mike, do you recall the juxtaposed triangles we used when we were
>> analyzing Alejandro and Benny's reading with an adult?
>> Here's how I recall it:
>> Each figure had two incomplete equilateral triangles sharing a
>> baseline, one with the apex up and the other with the apex down. The
>> whole came out kind of like a diamond shape but, on the right side of
>> the page, it was the sides didn't meet -- leaving the future open.
>> The author, the teacher and the child put in what they could but
>> where it went no-one could know...
>>
>> Another tidbit for the stone soup of ideas: you wrote "a difference
>> that does not make a difference" -- briding form linguistics
>> terminology we might call it "allo-meanings" (see allophones as the model).
>> Peg
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu');> [mailto:
>> xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','xmca-l-bounces%2Bpeg.griffin');>=
>> att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu');>] On Behalf
>> Of mike cole
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2015 10:51 AM
>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Reflective Discourse on XMCA
>>
>> Alfredo
>>
>> Might it be that words are NEVER enough? That all comprehension of
>> another's words require imagination? Its just that sometimes the gap
>> to be filled falls within a kind of normative range that is a
>> difference that does NOT make a difference, while others require
>> sufficient discontinuity to require intentional/conscious effort to bridge in a *satisficing* way.
>>
>> mike
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 7:44 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil
>> <a.j.gil@iped.uio.no
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','a.j.gil@iped.uio.no');>>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Huw,
>> > thanks for the reflection, it brings a very interesting distinction.
>> > The software developers case that I mentioned is more on the
>> > contained sense of "unknown", as you mentioned, not involving a
>> > shift of
>> computing paradigm.
>> > Yet I could observe lots of work performed by the developers for
>> > them to be able to do intelligible enough reference to the feature
>> > thereby being designed. This work, which I glossed as "naming",
>> > included not just (technical, specialized) names already familiar
>> > to them, but also drawings, gesturing, and performance. So, the
>> > words were not enough, and there was some form of imagination going
>> > on. So the distinction you introduced makes me wonder how the
>> > situated work taking place during a shift of
>> > (computational) paradigm would differ with respect to the one that
>> > I am observing, that is, involving only a "minor" innovation.
>> >
>> > Henry's connection with the moving from verb to noun that we
>> > reported with respect to boundary objects is interesting here
>> > because it brings attention to objects (materials) and their
>> > relation to our sensitivities (bodies). I am thinking if this
>> > connection might be of help to understand the differences between
>> > the work that minor innovations involve and the work of producing major paradigm shifts.
>> > Perhaps, more than a shift in the kind of situated social
>> > interactions that we observe, we should (again) attend to Latour's
>> > discussion on inter-objectivity, and see how the
>> > material-historical arrangements in the setting set the conditions
>> > for those shifts to occur. At the level of interaction, I can
>> > imagine (!) that both going through a minor innovation and going
>> > through a major shift involve some movement from not being aware of
>> > a possibility to orienting towards that very possibility. Studying
>> > differences there would be interesting. But I guess that the key
>> > lies in the prior historical conditions for the innovation/shift to
>> > emerge. Imagination may, in this account, be a form of perceiving
>> > things that, to be so perceived, need to lend themselves to those
>> > perceptions and apprehensions. If imagination takes place first as
>> > performative work, and not as mental operation alone, it needs to
>> > rely upon the possibilities of manipulation that the materials
>> > offer. And those possibilities, of course, include
>> possibilities of naming, of using words.
>> >
>> > Alfredo
>> > ________________________________________
>> > From: xmca-l-bounces+a.g.jornet=iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu');>
>> > <xmca-l-bounces+a.g.jornet=iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu');>> on
>> behalf of
>> > HENRY SHONERD <hshonerd@gmail.com
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','hshonerd@gmail.com');>>
>> > Sent: 14 October 2015 01:38
>> > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>> > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Reflective Discourse on XMCA
>> >
>> > Do I recall (and understand) correctly Alfredo’s and Rod’s article
>> > (on boundary objects and building museum spaces) that gesture
>> > preceded
>> naming?
>> > I mean that the boundary object started as
>> > collaborative/coordinated movement. It was a perfomance before it
>> > was a thing that could be named. A verb before it was a noun. And
>> > does this have anything to do with Huw’s conjecture about a
>> > continuum of kinds of projects, at one end those that replicate
>> > (with minimal creativity) and, at the other, those that “get
>> > outside the box”? Academic discourse tends to be very nouny,
>> > Latinate, loaded with bound morphemes. Such discourse serves
>> > important purposes when operating on the generalization and
>> > abstraction side of things, amongst the experts. But boundary
>> > objects (as observed by Alfredo and Rod) assume the project members
>> > are strangers to one another’s way of generalizing and abstracting.
>> > Could gesture then be “rising to the concrete” in discourse
>> > generally? That
>> would provide nice praxis.
>> >
>> > Respectfully,
>> > Henry
>> >
>> > > On Oct 13, 2015, at 4:45 PM, Huw Lloyd <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','huw.softdesigns@gmail.com');>>
>> > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Alfredo,
>> > >
>> > > I suspect the quality of the unknown thing here would need
>> qualification.
>> > > Experienced practitioners in software are often dealing with
>> > to-be-designed
>> > > artefacts, although these mostly fall into a more minor category
>> > > of
>> > things
>> > > conforming to well-known conceptions or abstractions, hence they
>> > > are usually only unknown in a rather contained sense (a bit like
>> > > roughly knowing what kind of model you need to build out of lego).
>> > >
>> > > Contrary to this, computing problems entailing a new
>> > > computational
>> > paradigm
>> > > would certainly throw such programmers into a genuine unknown
>> > > (the
>> > dawning
>> > > realisation that one is working with a different kind of kit).
>> > > Also,
>> > with
>> > > respect to requirements, the real unknowns are usually the soft
>> > > requirements on agreeing what the problem is in the first place,
>> > > which
>> > will
>> > > be largely governed by the social situation of said programmers, i.e.
>> > being
>> > > paid to get something built.
>> > >
>> > > Naming is very important in software in order to try to
>> > > communicate functional intent, hence practitioners would no doubt
>> > > be comfortable establishing agreement about naming before moving
>> > > on. Nonetheless you
>> > may
>> > > well be identifying some form of design mediation at play too.
>> > >
>> > > Best,
>> > > Huw
>> > >
>> > > On 13 October 2015 at 23:08, Alfredo Jornet Gil
>> > > <a.j.gil@iped.uio.no
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','a.j.gil@iped.uio.no');>>
>> > wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> Henry, all,
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> I am at this moment going through a video database on design
>> > >> work in a software development company, and, observing a
>> > >> discussion between two developers who talk about features of the
>> > >> software that are not yet developed, but which could be, ??the
>> > >> insight came upon me that, to
>> > possibly
>> > >> create anything together (and there is no other way to do it
>> > >> since one alone has not the tools/competence to do it), they had
>> > >> to name it. So,
>> > the
>> > >> developers were talking about something that does not yet exist
>> > >> but
>> > which
>> > >> nonetheless needs to be referred to in order for them to even
>> > >> begin
>> > working
>> > >> on it. And naming something that does not yet exits does not
>> > >> happen immediately, because they do not have a name for it.
>> > >> Naming it takes
>> > time
>> > >> and space, that is, work. So, I think the notion of "displacement"
>> > >> that
>> > you
>> > >> mention, if it captures this work that talking does to the
>> > >> imagining,
>> > very
>> > >> relevant to what I am witnessing in my data. And, given the
>> > >> salience of "place making" in the thread, the term "disPLACEment"
>> > >> may be timely
>> > here.
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> Alfredo
>> > >>
>> > >> ________________________________
>> > >> From: HENRY SHONERD <hshonerd@gmail.com
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','hshonerd@gmail.com');>>
>> > >> Sent: 13 October 2015 23:34
>> > >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>> > >> Cc: Alfredo Jornet Gil; Rolf Steier; Geoffrey C. Bowker
>> > >> Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: Reflective Discourse on XMCA
>> > >>
>> > >> Mike,
>> > >> In your original post on Oct 10, you suggested that we might
>> > >> "...come
>> > up
>> > >> with a deeper understanding of the interlocking issues involved".
>> > >> As you say, each chatter will have their own response to that.
>> > >> Mine is that I
>> > can
>> > >> relate the three issues to displacement, which is arguably the
>> > >> most important property of language as a semiotic system. It is
>> > >> the ability
>> > of
>> > >> with language to refer to and construe aspects of the world
>> > >> removed in
>> > time
>> > >> and place (from the here and now) and to the "make believe"
>> > ("irrealis").
>> > >> I was reminded of this on re-reading an article by Bruno Latour
>> > >> on Interobjectivity that Greg Thompson posted back on Aug 18.
>> > >> Most people,
>> > if
>> > >> asked, think of language primarily as something for communication.
>> > Animals
>> > >> communicate, but, as far as we know, do not displace. (Though It
>> > >> might
>> > be
>> > >> argued that animals do a better job of communicating than
>> > >> people.!) I
>> > would
>> > >> like to emphasize the importance of the temporal domain, as well
>> > >> as the spatial, with displacement.
>> > >>
>> > >> Henry
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an
>> object that creates history. Ernst Boesch
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
>
> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an
> object that creates history. Ernst Boesch
>
>
>
--
It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an object that creates history. Ernst Boesch
--
It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an object that creates history. Ernst Boesch
More information about the xmca-l
mailing list