From mcole@ucsd.edu Wed Feb 3 17:58:09 2016 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2016 17:58:09 -0800 Subject: [Xmca-l] Fwd: Poverty and Data In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Seems of interest ----- Forwarded message ---------- From: Frank Kessel Date: 2016-02-03 17:54 GMT-08:00 Subject: Poverty and Data To: Frank Kessel -- It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an object that creates history. Ernst Boesch -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Data Fight Poverty.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 223694 bytes Desc: not available Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20160203/1bb99933/attachment-0001.bin From carolmacdon@gmail.com Wed Feb 3 23:04:10 2016 From: carolmacdon@gmail.com (Carol Macdonald) Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2016 09:04:10 +0200 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: Poverty and Data In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Mike I think the jury is still out on the "go getters". They might perform well for a couple of years, but then want to move on. Is there data on how long they remain in their posts? And what is the relative virtues of staying versus moving on? But about microloans, I agree. There is local research in South Africa showing the same thing. Carol On 4 February 2016 at 03:58, mike cole wrote: > Seems of interest > > ----- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Frank Kessel > Date: 2016-02-03 17:54 GMT-08:00 > Subject: Poverty and Data > To: Frank Kessel > > > > > > -- > > It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an > object that creates history. Ernst Boesch > -- Carol A Macdonald PhD (Edin) Developmental psycholinguist Academic, Researcher, Writer and Editor Honorary Research Fellow: Department of Linguistics, Unisa alternative email address: tmacdoca@unisa.ac.za *Behind every gifted woman there is often a remarkable cat.* From glassman.13@osu.edu Thu Feb 4 04:53:35 2016 From: glassman.13@osu.edu (Glassman, Michael) Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2016 12:53:35 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: Poverty and Data In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C4C16F@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> The "go getter" doctors in the United States also see more patients. But mortality rates are much higher. Also very noticeable, there are no measurements of well-being. As for the saving, Bandura would have predicted this from a psychological perspective almost forty years ago, suggesting that those who save and think they are going to get the money back get more self-reinforcement for saving. The question is will they do it again once they find out it's a con (their parents make them spend it on school supplies, or is it actually detrimental to the behavior in savings. There are liars, there are damned liars, and there are economists. Michael -----Original Message----- From: xmca-l-bounces+mglassman=ehe.ohio-state.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+mglassman=ehe.ohio-state.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of mike cole Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2016 8:58 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Fwd: Poverty and Data Seems of interest ----- Forwarded message ---------- From: Frank Kessel Date: 2016-02-03 17:54 GMT-08:00 Subject: Poverty and Data To: Frank Kessel -- It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an object that creates history. Ernst Boesch From l.woods@iicedu.org Fri Feb 5 13:28:48 2016 From: l.woods@iicedu.org (L inda Woods) Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2016 21:28:48 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [Xmca-l] Ireland International Conference on Education (IICE-2016): Final Call for Submissions! Message-ID: <1933347689.143665.c392992d-ccee-418b-8eaa-0a86ebf7b357.open-xchange@email.1and1.co.uk> Apologies for cross-postings. Kindly email this call for papers to your colleagues, faculty members and postgraduate students. Final Call for Extended Abstracts, Papers, Posters, Tutorials and Workshops! ******************************************************************* Ireland International Conference on Education (IICE-2016) April 25-28, 2016 Clayton Hotel Ballsbridge Dublin, Ireland http://www.iicedu.org ******************************************************************* The IICE is an international refereed conference dedicated to the advancement of the theory and practices in education. The IICE promotes collaborative excellence between academicians and professionals from Education. The aim of IICE is to provide an opportunity for academicians and professionals from various educational fields with cross-disciplinary interests to bridge the knowledge gap, promote research esteem and the evolution of pedagogy. The IICE 2016 invites research papers that encompass conceptual analysis, design implementation and performance evaluation. All the accepted papers will appear in the proceedings and modified version of selected papers will be published in special issues peer reviewed journals. The topics in IICE-2016 include but are not confined to the following areas: *Academic Advising and Counselling *Art Education *Adult Education *APD/Listening and Acoustics in Education Environment *Business Education *Counsellor Education *Curriculum, Research and Development *Competitive Skills *Continuing Education *Distance Education *Early Childhood Education *Educational Administration *Educational Foundations *Educational Psychology *Educational Technology *Education Policy and Leadership *Elementary Education *E-Learning *E-Manufacturing *ESL/TESL *E-Society *Geographical Education *Geographic information systems *Health Education *Higher Education *History *Home Education *Human Computer Interaction *Human Resource Development *Indigenous Education *ICT Education *Internet technologies *Imaginative Education *Kinesiology & Leisure Science *K12 *Language Education *Mathematics Education *Mobile Applications *Multi-Virtual Environment *Music Education *Pedagogy *Physical Education (PE) *Reading Education *Writing Education *Religion and Education Studies *Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) *Rural Education *Science Education *Secondary Education *Second life Educators *Social Studies Education *Special Education *Student Affairs *Teacher Education *Cross-disciplinary areas of Education *Ubiquitous Computing *Virtual Reality *Wireless applications *Other Areas of Education - You can submit your research paper at http://www.iicedu.org/Paper%20Submission.html or email it to papers-2016april@iicedu.org Important Dates: * Extended Abstract, Paper, Student Paper, Case Study, Report Submission Date: February 10, 2016 * Notification of Extended Abstract, Research Paper, Student Paper, Case Study, Report Acceptance / Rejection: February 20, 2016 * Proposal for Workshops Submission Date: January 31, 2016 * Notification of Workshop Acceptance / Rejection: February 05, 2016 * Posters Proposal Submission Date: February 10, 2016 * Notification of Posters Acceptance / Rejection: February 20, 2016 * Camera Ready Paper Due: March 10, 2016 * Early Bird Registration (Authors and Participants): November 20, 2015 - March 15, 2016 * Late Bird Registration Deadline (Authors only): March 16, 2016 - March 30, 2016 * Late Bird Registration Deadline (Participants only): March 16, 2016 - April 14, 2016 * Conference Dates: April 25-28, 2016 For further information please visit http://www.iicedu.org From r.j.s.parsons@open.ac.uk Tue Feb 9 07:44:57 2016 From: r.j.s.parsons@open.ac.uk (R.J.S.Parsons) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2016 15:44:57 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] "Generic" Message-ID: <56BA0980.1000606@open.ac.uk> In another context, I'm working on a quote from Stravinsky: "Tradition is generic; it is not simply ?handed down?, fathers to sons, but undergoes a life process: it is born, grows, matures, declines, and is reborn, perhaps. These stages of growth and regrowth are always in contradiction to the stages of another concept or interpretation: true tradition lives in the contradiction." I thought "generic" might be a misused equivalent for a Russian word. I thought "organic" or "generative" might describe better what follows. Then I realised it was spoken in English. (It's from "Memories and Commentaries: New One-Volume Edition" Compiled and Edited by Robert Craft.) But the original question still stands in the sense that perhaps Stravinsky had a Russian concept in mind and found a not very good English equivalent. So can anyone shed any light on what the Russian concept behind "generic" might have been? Rob -- The Open University is incorporated by Royal Charter (RC 000391), an exempt charity in England & Wales and a charity registered in Scotland (SC 038302). The Open University is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. From mcole@ucsd.edu Tue Feb 9 09:05:19 2016 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2016 09:05:19 -0800 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: "Generic" In-Reply-To: <56BA0980.1000606@open.ac.uk> References: <56BA0980.1000606@open.ac.uk> Message-ID: Interesting ideas Rob. Hopefully, one of our Russian colleagues will have access to the original text. mike On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 7:44 AM, R.J.S.Parsons wrote: > In another context, I'm working on a quote from Stravinsky: "Tradition > is generic; it is not simply ?handed down?, fathers to sons, but > undergoes a life process: it is born, grows, matures, declines, and is > reborn, perhaps. These stages of growth and regrowth are always in > contradiction to the stages of another concept or interpretation: true > tradition lives in the contradiction." > > I thought "generic" might be a misused equivalent for a Russian word. I > thought "organic" or "generative" might describe better what follows. > Then I realised it was spoken in English. (It's from "Memories and > Commentaries: New One-Volume Edition" Compiled and Edited by Robert Craft.) > > But the original question still stands in the sense that perhaps > Stravinsky had a Russian concept in mind and found a not very good > English equivalent. So can anyone shed any light on what the Russian > concept behind "generic" might have been? > > Rob > -- The Open University is incorporated by Royal Charter (RC 000391), an > exempt charity in England & Wales and a charity registered in Scotland (SC > 038302). The Open University is authorised and regulated by the Financial > Conduct Authority. > > -- It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an object that creates history. Ernst Boesch From mcole@ucsd.edu Tue Feb 9 09:09:17 2016 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2016 09:09:17 -0800 Subject: [Xmca-l] =?utf-8?b?RndkOiBb0JrRg9C70YzRgtGD0YDQvdC+LdC40YHRgtC+0YDQuNGH?= =?utf-8?b?0LXRgdC60LDRjyDQv9GB0LjRhdC+0LvQvtCz0LjRjyAvIEN1bHR1cmFs?= =?utf-8?b?LWhpc3RvcmljYWwgcHN5Y2hvbG9neV0g0L/QvtC/0YvRgtC60LAg0YY=?= =?utf-8?b?0LXQu9C+0YHRgtC90L7Qs9C+INC/0YDQtdC00YHRgtCw0LLQu9C10L0=?= =?utf-8?b?0LguLi4=?= In-Reply-To: <953564014681123-564569043580624@groups.facebook.com> References: <953564014681123-564569043580624@groups.facebook.com> <953564014681123-564569043580624@groups.facebook.com> Message-ID: A map of theories of learning passed on from the cultural historical group on Facebook mike ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Mikhail Munipov Date: 2016-02-09 7:33 GMT-08:00 Subject: [?????????-???????????? ?????????? / Cultural-historical psychology] ??????? ?????????? ????????????... To: ?????????-???????????? ?????????? / Cultural-historical psychology < 564569043580624@groups.facebook.com> Mikhail Munipov and Boris Meshcheryakov posted in ?????????-???????????? ?????????? / Cultural-historical psychology . Mikhail Munipov February 9 at 7:33am ??????? ?????????? ????????????? ??????????? ??????????? ?????? ???????? 1) ? ????????? ???????, ??????? ???????? ???? ? ???????? ?????????? ??????, 2) ? ????????? ??????? ? ??????? ????????????? ?????? ??????, 3) ? ???????????? ?????? ?????-???? ?????? ??????? ???????????, ??????????? ?????????????? ? ??????????? ???? ??????, 4) ? ??????? ??????????????? ???????? ????? ? ?????????? ????????, ?????????? ???? ??????????? ??????? ???????????? ? ??????? ???????????. ??? ?????? "?????????????? ?????" ?????????? ???????????, ????? ???????, ????????? ?????? ? ?????? ????????????? ??????????????? ??????. Learning Theory - What are the established learning theories? cmapspublic3.ihmc.us This Concept Map, created with IHMC CmapTools, has information related to: Learning Theory, organisa... Like Comment Share Facebook Mikhail Munipov and Boris Meshcheryakov posted in ?????????-???????????? ?????????? / Cultural-historical psychology . Mikhail Munipov February 9 at 7:33am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earning Theory - What are the established learning theories? cmapspublic3.ihmc.us This Concept Map, created with IHMC CmapTools, has information related to: Learning Theory, organisa... Like Comment Share View on Facebook Edit Email Settings Reply to this email to comment on this post. This message was sent to lchcmike@gmail.com. If you don't want to receive these emails from Facebook in the future, please unsubscribe . Facebook, Inc., Attention: Community Support, Menlo Park, CA 94025 -- It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an object that creates history. Ernst Boesch From smago@uga.edu Tue Feb 9 09:33:24 2016 From: smago@uga.edu (Peter Smagorinsky) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2016 17:33:24 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: =?utf-8?b?RndkOiBb0JrRg9C70YzRgtGD0YDQvdC+LdC40YHRgtC+0YA=?= =?utf-8?b?0LjRh9C10YHQutCw0Y8g0L/RgdC40YXQvtC70L7Qs9C40Y8gLyBDdWx0dXJh?= =?utf-8?b?bC1oaXN0b3JpY2FsIHBzeWNob2xvZ3ldINC/0L7Qv9GL0YLQutCwINGG0LU=?= =?utf-8?b?0LvQvtGB0YLQvdC+0LPQviDQv9GA0LXQtNGB0YLQsNCy0LvQtdC90LguLi4=?= In-Reply-To: References: <953564014681123-564569043580624@groups.facebook.com> <953564014681123-564569043580624@groups.facebook.com> Message-ID: Translated by an online translator as: attempt to a holistic view of the historically prevailing theories of learning 1) with key words that express the essence and principles of a particular theory, 2) with the authors and the main developers of this theory, and 3) the localization within any theory of scientific fields generated by the emergence and development of this theory, 4) a brief description of main tasks and problem areas mentioned above directions of scientific activity in the field of education. For this "conceptual map" structural characteristic, it can be said, a systematic approach to the problem of classification of educational theories. -----Original Message----- From: xmca-l-bounces+smago=uga.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+smago=uga.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of mike cole Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2016 12:09 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Fwd: [?????????-???????????? ?????????? / Cultural-historical psychology] ??????? ?????????? ????????????... A map of theories of learning passed on from the cultural historical group on Facebook mike ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Mikhail Munipov Date: 2016-02-09 7:33 GMT-08:00 Subject: [?????????-???????????? ?????????? / Cultural-historical psychology] ??????? ?????????? ????????????... To: ?????????-???????????? ?????????? / Cultural-historical psychology < 564569043580624@groups.facebook.com> Mikhail Munipov and Boris Meshcheryakov posted in ?????????-???????????? ?????????? / Cultural-historical psychology . Mikhail Munipov February 9 at 7:33am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earning Theory - What are the established learning theories? cmapspublic3.ihmc.us This Concept Map, created with IHMC CmapTools, has information related to: Learning Theory, organisa... Like Comment Share Facebook Mikhail Munipov and Boris Meshcheryakov posted in ?????????-???????????? ?????????? / Cultural-historical psychology . Mikhail Munipov February 9 at 7:33am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earning Theory - What are the established learning theories? cmapspublic3.ihmc.us This Concept Map, created with IHMC CmapTools, has information related to: Learning Theory, organisa... Like Comment Share View on Facebook Edit Email Settings Reply to this email to comment on this post. This message was sent to lchcmike@gmail.com. If you don't want to receive these emails from Facebook in the future, please unsubscribe . Facebook, Inc., Attention: Community Support, Menlo Park, CA 94025 -- It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an object that creates history. Ernst Boesch From dkellogg60@gmail.com Wed Feb 10 13:38:12 2016 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2016 06:38:12 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] "Mediation" as Error Correction Message-ID: I am occasionally, out of deference to a few papers I once published in TESOL, sent articles to review on the use of Vygotskyan concepts in language learning. Time was that these articles were mostly about scaffolding and the ZPD; of late they have been mostly concerned with "internalization" and "mediation". The problem is that most of these articles have taken these concepts entirely out of child development and placed them in an alien context--classroom error correction, which is now referred to as "Dynamic Assessment". I am not sure what to do about this. It seems to me that one way to start to address the issue is to go back to the original Hegelian idea of "mediation" as using one force of nature against another: the force of air pressure against gravity in flying, or the friction of snow vs. the momentum of the fall line in skiing. When a teacher corrects an error in a classroom, e.g. when a teacher makes the student say "This is a book" instead of "This is book", what are the forces of nature that are being used against each other? Is this really an instance of mediation at all? David Kellogg Macquarie University From alex_rosborough@byu.edu Wed Feb 10 13:59:21 2016 From: alex_rosborough@byu.edu (Alex Rosborough) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2016 21:59:21 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: "Mediation" as Error Correction In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi David, I?m interested in hearing more about the [incongruent] relation between ?Dynamic Assessment? and classroom error correction. I suppose Jim Lantolf and Matt Poehner?s Dynamic Assessment (DA) work is not of this kind? I don?t think they speak to early childhood education. I?m throwing their names out because I?m more familiar with their DA work and wondering how others (what you?re seeing) are defining DA. I agree with your simple examples at the bottom - I don?t see how directly/unilaterally giving an answer is mediation. Alex Rosborough On 2/10/16, 2:38 PM, "xmca-l-bounces+alex_rosborough=byu.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of David Kellogg" wrote: >I am occasionally, out of deference to a few papers I once published in >TESOL, sent articles to review on the use of Vygotskyan concepts in >language learning. Time was that these articles were mostly about >scaffolding and the ZPD; of late they have been mostly concerned with >"internalization" and "mediation". > >The problem is that most of these articles have taken these concepts >entirely out of child development and placed them in an alien >context--classroom error correction, which is now referred to as "Dynamic >Assessment". > >I am not sure what to do about this. It seems to me that one way to start >to address the issue is to go back to the original Hegelian idea of >"mediation" as using one force of nature against another: the force of air >pressure against gravity in flying, or the friction of snow vs. the >momentum of the fall line in skiing. > >When a teacher corrects an error in a classroom, e.g. when a teacher makes >the student say "This is a book" instead of "This is book", what are the >forces of nature that are being used against each other? Is this really an >instance of mediation at all? > >David Kellogg >Macquarie University From mcole@ucsd.edu Wed Feb 10 14:32:38 2016 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2016 14:32:38 -0800 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: "Mediation" as Error Correction In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I have long associated the term, dynamic assessment, with the work of Reuven Feurstein and Alex Kozulin. Is it their work you are referring to, David? mike On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 1:59 PM, Alex Rosborough wrote: > Hi David, > > I?m interested in hearing more about the [incongruent] relation between > ?Dynamic Assessment? and classroom error correction. I suppose Jim Lantolf > and Matt Poehner?s Dynamic Assessment (DA) work is not of this kind? I > don?t think they speak to early childhood education. I?m throwing their > names out because I?m more familiar with their DA work and wondering how > others (what you?re seeing) are defining DA. I agree with your simple > examples at the bottom - I don?t see how directly/unilaterally giving an > answer is mediation. > > Alex Rosborough > > On 2/10/16, 2:38 PM, > "xmca-l-bounces+alex_rosborough=byu.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of > David Kellogg" behalf of dkellogg60@gmail.com> wrote: > > >I am occasionally, out of deference to a few papers I once published in > >TESOL, sent articles to review on the use of Vygotskyan concepts in > >language learning. Time was that these articles were mostly about > >scaffolding and the ZPD; of late they have been mostly concerned with > >"internalization" and "mediation". > > > >The problem is that most of these articles have taken these concepts > >entirely out of child development and placed them in an alien > >context--classroom error correction, which is now referred to as "Dynamic > >Assessment". > > > >I am not sure what to do about this. It seems to me that one way to start > >to address the issue is to go back to the original Hegelian idea of > >"mediation" as using one force of nature against another: the force of air > >pressure against gravity in flying, or the friction of snow vs. the > >momentum of the fall line in skiing. > > > >When a teacher corrects an error in a classroom, e.g. when a teacher makes > >the student say "This is a book" instead of "This is book", what are the > >forces of nature that are being used against each other? Is this really an > >instance of mediation at all? > > > >David Kellogg > >Macquarie University > > > -- It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an object that creates history. Ernst Boesch From a.j.gil@iped.uio.no Wed Feb 10 14:38:59 2016 From: a.j.gil@iped.uio.no (Alfredo Jornet Gil) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2016 22:38:59 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: "Mediation" as Error Correction In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1455143940308.13868@iped.uio.no> Hi David, this is a question that interests me a lot and which has been nagging me, specially when finding many instances in which researchers assert that a given action, a given tool, a given word has "mediated" whatever (teaching) situation. It seems to me that you point out the core of the problem: the notion is taken out from the context of development. If I read correctly your description of mediation as "using one force of nature against another", mediation is a category that applies to developmental phenomena, to movement and not static (unreal, out of history) things. The problem very often is that we do forget to bring in movement (life!) to the teaching/learning events that we examine and discuss using the term mediation. The question "is there really mediation here" would then have to be preceded by the more primary question: "am I capturing a developmental phenomenon here?". Mediation then, rather than something that either happens or not happens in the situation, could be a means to remind ourselves that, if there is development, there must be at least two forces moving. Our analyses then should focus on identifying how those forces are united and how they inter-dependently change. I have not studied dynamic assessment, but I thought this general remark, which points out the need of including change and development within our unit of analysis, might be relevant to the conversation. Alfredo ________________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces+a.g.jornet=iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of David Kellogg Sent: 10 February 2016 22:38 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] "Mediation" as Error Correction I am occasionally, out of deference to a few papers I once published in TESOL, sent articles to review on the use of Vygotskyan concepts in language learning. Time was that these articles were mostly about scaffolding and the ZPD; of late they have been mostly concerned with "internalization" and "mediation". The problem is that most of these articles have taken these concepts entirely out of child development and placed them in an alien context--classroom error correction, which is now referred to as "Dynamic Assessment". I am not sure what to do about this. It seems to me that one way to start to address the issue is to go back to the original Hegelian idea of "mediation" as using one force of nature against another: the force of air pressure against gravity in flying, or the friction of snow vs. the momentum of the fall line in skiing. When a teacher corrects an error in a classroom, e.g. when a teacher makes the student say "This is a book" instead of "This is book", what are the forces of nature that are being used against each other? Is this really an instance of mediation at all? David Kellogg Macquarie University From Phillip.White@ucdenver.edu Wed Feb 10 14:53:02 2016 From: Phillip.White@ucdenver.edu (White, Phillip) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2016 22:53:02 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: "Mediation" as Error Correction In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: perhaps looking at this from two frames - within one frame this response from the teacher is a form of discipline (in a foucauldian sense of docile bodies/language rules). within another frame this is an act of mediation, no doubt highly repetitive throughout the day, which affects the child's developmental concept of hierarchy and power relationships within institutions... ways of learning one's place in the world. phillip ________________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces+phillip.white=ucdenver.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of David Kellogg Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2016 2:38 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] "Mediation" as Error Correction I am occasionally, out of deference to a few papers I once published in TESOL, sent articles to review on the use of Vygotskyan concepts in language learning. Time was that these articles were mostly about scaffolding and the ZPD; of late they have been mostly concerned with "internalization" and "mediation". The problem is that most of these articles have taken these concepts entirely out of child development and placed them in an alien context--classroom error correction, which is now referred to as "Dynamic Assessment". I am not sure what to do about this. It seems to me that one way to start to address the issue is to go back to the original Hegelian idea of "mediation" as using one force of nature against another: the force of air pressure against gravity in flying, or the friction of snow vs. the momentum of the fall line in skiing. When a teacher corrects an error in a classroom, e.g. when a teacher makes the student say "This is a book" instead of "This is book", what are the forces of nature that are being used against each other? Is this really an instance of mediation at all? David Kellogg Macquarie University From huw.softdesigns@gmail.com Thu Feb 11 03:04:44 2016 From: huw.softdesigns@gmail.com (Huw Lloyd) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2016 11:04:44 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: "Mediation" as Error Correction In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Perhaps you should respond in kind, David: 1. A failure to understand that speech and systems of notation mediate, i.e. guide and structure, activity which is the phenomenon that benefits from contact with reality. 2. Failure to understand that direct correction of these systems can inculcate an erroneous sense that systems of notation and speech are the "objective material" to be worked upon, rather than the efficacy of their use in realising object systems from which natural feedback can be obtained. 3. Failure to grasp the opportunity to frame these minor situations in the context of encouraging the student's own self-regulation and confidence in thinking. Any good? Best, Huw On 10 February 2016 at 21:38, David Kellogg wrote: > I am occasionally, out of deference to a few papers I once published in > TESOL, sent articles to review on the use of Vygotskyan concepts in > language learning. Time was that these articles were mostly about > scaffolding and the ZPD; of late they have been mostly concerned with > "internalization" and "mediation". > > The problem is that most of these articles have taken these concepts > entirely out of child development and placed them in an alien > context--classroom error correction, which is now referred to as "Dynamic > Assessment". > > I am not sure what to do about this. It seems to me that one way to start > to address the issue is to go back to the original Hegelian idea of > "mediation" as using one force of nature against another: the force of air > pressure against gravity in flying, or the friction of snow vs. the > momentum of the fall line in skiing. > > When a teacher corrects an error in a classroom, e.g. when a teacher makes > the student say "This is a book" instead of "This is book", what are the > forces of nature that are being used against each other? Is this really an > instance of mediation at all? > > David Kellogg > Macquarie University > From dkellogg60@gmail.com Thu Feb 11 12:24:41 2016 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2016 05:24:41 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: "Mediation" as Error Correction In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I don't think error correction or even "making a student say 'This is a book' is always "direct" or "immediate", quite the contrary. Most of the DA sources I am referring to (yes, I am thinking of Lantolf and Poehner) distinguish between the highly indirect and the direct. We can lay out a kind of cline. HIGHLY INDIRECT a) What did you say? b) Did you say a book? c) A book? d) A book. e) You mean a book. f) No, you have to say "a book". HIGHLY DIRECT There are various ways of discussing this cline in the literature, e.g. "implicit" to "explicit" correction (Long and Doughty), or "interventionist" vs. "non-interventionist" (Lantolf and Poehner), or "recasts" vs. "prompts" (Ellis and others), "other repair" vs. "self repair" (the Conversation Analysts). I don't agree that direct intervention is bad, and indirect intervention good. Since the work of Lyster and Ranta, we have become acutely conscious that most teacher intervention is highly indirect and thus highly ineffective. The real thing that needs to be "mediated" is this: g) Every singular noun must have a determiner in English. Now, I think grasping this (is it implicit? Is it explicit?) is mediation only in the following sense: in order to be able to use it, you need to understand concepts like "noun", "singular", and "determiner". These are all academic concepts and not everyday concepts and they cannot be directly taught (c.f. Chapter Six of Thinking and Speech). I think that all error correction, direct and indirect, is a way of indirectly teaching it. Perhaps the two "forces of nature" that are being played against each other are the eidetic memory, which is concrete and based on everyday experience, and forgetting, which produces an involuntary form of abstraction. Neither force can overcome the other, but a learner can use a voluntary form of abstraction to overcome both. I think the problem with the way "mediation" is interpreted as the learner's "internalization" of the correction is simply this: it falls prey to what Chaiklin calls the "assistance" assumption: the idea that the site of development, and not simply the source, is the environment nad not the learner. The environment (the correct form) is indeed the source of development (and I do think grasping the English article system does represent a form of real development, and certainly academic concepts do). But the learner and only the learner is the site. David Kellogg Macquarie University On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 8:04 PM, Huw Lloyd wrote: > Perhaps you should respond in kind, David: > > 1. A failure to understand that speech and systems of notation mediate, > i.e. guide and structure, activity which is the phenomenon that benefits > from contact with reality. > 2. Failure to understand that direct correction of these systems can > inculcate an erroneous sense that systems of notation and speech are the > "objective material" to be worked upon, rather than the efficacy of their > use in realising object systems from which natural feedback can be > obtained. > 3. Failure to grasp the opportunity to frame these minor situations in the > context of encouraging the student's own self-regulation and confidence in > thinking. > > Any good? > > Best, > Huw > > > On 10 February 2016 at 21:38, David Kellogg wrote: > > > I am occasionally, out of deference to a few papers I once published in > > TESOL, sent articles to review on the use of Vygotskyan concepts in > > language learning. Time was that these articles were mostly about > > scaffolding and the ZPD; of late they have been mostly concerned with > > "internalization" and "mediation". > > > > The problem is that most of these articles have taken these concepts > > entirely out of child development and placed them in an alien > > context--classroom error correction, which is now referred to as "Dynamic > > Assessment". > > > > I am not sure what to do about this. It seems to me that one way to start > > to address the issue is to go back to the original Hegelian idea of > > "mediation" as using one force of nature against another: the force of > air > > pressure against gravity in flying, or the friction of snow vs. the > > momentum of the fall line in skiing. > > > > When a teacher corrects an error in a classroom, e.g. when a teacher > makes > > the student say "This is a book" instead of "This is book", what are the > > forces of nature that are being used against each other? Is this really > an > > instance of mediation at all? > > > > David Kellogg > > Macquarie University > > > From huw.softdesigns@gmail.com Thu Feb 11 12:41:26 2016 From: huw.softdesigns@gmail.com (Huw Lloyd) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2016 20:41:26 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: "Mediation" as Error Correction In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi David, Well, we can ask direct and indirect with respect to what? The sign systems, in this case, are what is being 'directly' corrected. The indirect, is that which the sign systems are about. So, a good situation in which to learn appropriate grammar for this phrase is one in which ambiguity and confusion is induced in the receiver of such a message, thereby allowing for a contextualised and situated understanding of the meaning. For students who are comfortable with talking about notation itself, however, perhaps you can do both, but I still think it merits pointing to the real meanings. >From the encyclopaedia of social behavioural sciences: Actiity Theory and Errors Activity theorists define errors as the non attainment of an activity goal. The comparison of the activity outcome with the goal determines whether the goal has been achieved or whether further actions have to be accomplished. If an unintended outcome occurs, an error will be given. Consequently, a definition of an error based on Activity Theories integrates three aspects: (a) errors will only appear in goal-directed actions; (b) an error implies the nonattainment of the goal; (c) an error should have been potentially avoidable (Frese and Zapf 1991). Frese and Zapf (1991) developed an error taxonomy based on a version of Action Theory. This taxonomy and other comparable ones are inevitable in the examination of causes of errors and faults as a prerequisite of error prevention. Error prevention became an inevitable concern in modern technologies, e.g., the control rooms of nuclear power plants. Best, Huw On 11 February 2016 at 20:24, David Kellogg wrote: > > I don't think error correction or even "making a student say 'This is a > book' is always "direct" or "immediate", quite the contrary. Most of the DA > sources I am referring to (yes, I am thinking of Lantolf and Poehner) > distinguish between the highly indirect and the direct. We can lay out a > kind of cline. > > HIGHLY INDIRECT > a) What did you say? > b) Did you say a book? > c) A book? > d) A book. > e) You mean a book. > f) No, you have to say "a book". > HIGHLY DIRECT > > There are various ways of discussing this cline in the literature, e.g. > "implicit" to "explicit" correction (Long and Doughty), or > "interventionist" vs. "non-interventionist" (Lantolf and Poehner), or > "recasts" vs. "prompts" (Ellis and others), "other repair" vs. "self > repair" (the Conversation Analysts). I don't agree that direct intervention > is bad, and indirect intervention good. Since the work of Lyster and Ranta, > we have become acutely conscious that most teacher intervention is highly > indirect and thus highly ineffective. > > The real thing that needs to be "mediated" is this: > > g) Every singular noun must have a determiner in English. > > Now, I think grasping this (is it implicit? Is it explicit?) is mediation > only in the following sense: in order to be able to use it, you need to > understand concepts like "noun", "singular", and "determiner". These are > all academic concepts and not everyday concepts and they cannot be directly > taught (c.f. Chapter Six of Thinking and Speech). I think that all error > correction, direct and indirect, is a way of indirectly teaching it. > > Perhaps the two "forces of nature" that are being played against each other > are the eidetic memory, which is concrete and based on everyday experience, > and forgetting, which produces an involuntary form of abstraction. Neither > force can overcome the other, but a learner can use a voluntary form of > abstraction to overcome both. > > I think the problem with the way "mediation" is interpreted as the > learner's "internalization" of the correction is simply this: it falls prey > to what Chaiklin calls the "assistance" assumption: the idea that the site > of development, and not simply the source, is the environment nad not the > learner. The environment (the correct form) is indeed the source of > development (and I do think grasping the English article system does > represent a form of real development, and certainly academic concepts do). > But the learner and only the learner is the site. > > David Kellogg > Macquarie University > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 8:04 PM, Huw Lloyd > wrote: > > > Perhaps you should respond in kind, David: > > > > 1. A failure to understand that speech and systems of notation mediate, > > i.e. guide and structure, activity which is the phenomenon that benefits > > from contact with reality. > > 2. Failure to understand that direct correction of these systems can > > inculcate an erroneous sense that systems of notation and speech are the > > "objective material" to be worked upon, rather than the efficacy of their > > use in realising object systems from which natural feedback can be > > obtained. > > 3. Failure to grasp the opportunity to frame these minor situations in the > > context of encouraging the student's own self-regulation and confidence in > > thinking. > > > > Any good? > > > > Best, > > Huw > > > > > > On 10 February 2016 at 21:38, David Kellogg wrote: > > > > > I am occasionally, out of deference to a few papers I once published in > > > TESOL, sent articles to review on the use of Vygotskyan concepts in > > > language learning. Time was that these articles were mostly about > > > scaffolding and the ZPD; of late they have been mostly concerned with > > > "internalization" and "mediation". > > > > > > The problem is that most of these articles have taken these concepts > > > entirely out of child development and placed them in an alien > > > context--classroom error correction, which is now referred to as "Dynamic > > > Assessment". > > > > > > I am not sure what to do about this. It seems to me that one way to start > > > to address the issue is to go back to the original Hegelian idea of > > > "mediation" as using one force of nature against another: the force of > > air > > > pressure against gravity in flying, or the friction of snow vs. the > > > momentum of the fall line in skiing. > > > > > > When a teacher corrects an error in a classroom, e.g. when a teacher > > makes > > > the student say "This is a book" instead of "This is book", what are the > > > forces of nature that are being used against each other? Is this really > > an > > > instance of mediation at all? > > > > > > David Kellogg > > > Macquarie University > > > > > From dkellogg60@gmail.com Fri Feb 12 12:46:08 2016 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2016 05:46:08 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: "Mediation" as Error Correction In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Huw, Alfredo, Alex, Mike: Language teaching is still in a stage I would call semi-behaviorist: we are interested in shaping behavior, and not in what Kozulin calls cognitive modifications. So the "dynamic assessment" work done by Feuerstein and Kozulin has been "shaped" by the studies of corrective feedback done in the late twentieth century by people like Mike Long, Cathy Doughty, Teresa Pica, and Susan Gass. At first these studies seemed to show that corrective feedback was more effective when it was implicit--when there was a focus on meaning rather than on form--because the result was that people were able to shape their behavior even when their cognitive focus was elsewhere. But in 1997 Lyster and Ranta demonstrated that most teachers already use the most implicit form of correction, namely the so-called "recast". S: And this is book. T: That's a book, yeah. S: Yeah, this is book, and is very expensive in you country. They also demonstrated that these implicit forms of correction were the most likely to be ignored by the student, often because (as in this example) the student is quite unaware that anything is wrong at all. So it has begun to appear that cognitive modifications are not irrelevant after all. As Andy points out, there is a strong tendency for we as academics to resist cognitive modifications too--that is why people prefer to mine Vygotsky's (Marx's, Hegel's) texts for jargon with which to rephrase what they already believe rather than to undertake the hard work of reconstructing the whole original system of concepts in their context. But academics are a powerful check on other academics. After years of equating "dynamic assessment" with corrective feedback, Matt Poehner has begun to argue that dynamic assessment is really about transferring the locus of assessment to the learner. I am not sure to what extent this argument is motivated by a desire to return to the Vygotskyan idea of internalization and to what extent it is simply another swing of the pendulum: it seems to me that Poehner's model of "self-assessment" pretty much ignores what Vygotsky really had to say about internalization, because (like the idea that DA is nothing more than corrective feedback) it assumes that the "mediator" is the site of development and not just the source (that is, the learner's job is not to reconstruct or to restructure the correct form but simply to "appropriate" it from the environment). So it seems to me that the place to start to try to untangle this web of misappropriations from Vygotsky is with "mediation". As Andy says, for Hegel everything in heaven and earth, man and nature, is mediated (but some things are more so than others). For Marx mediation arises because without it reason (man) is simply the slave of necessity (nature). For the old Vygotsky (the critical reactologist) mediation arises because one stimulus can have many responses and vice versa, and for the new Vygotsky (the semasiologist, the pedologist), it arises because one sign can have many interpreters and many interpretations and vice versa. This allows the emergence of self and free will (because after all I myself am a potential interpreter of my own signs). So it turns out that Poehner's emphasis on self-assessment is not completely irrelevant. A propos, a little problem in translation for the Russophones on the list. Vygotsky says (in his work on Early Childhood in Vol. 4 of the Russian Collected Works, p. 347). "???????? ????? ?????? ?????? ??? ?????????? ???????????. ?? ??? ??????, ????????????? ???????? ?? ???????? ???????? ?? ??????????? ? ????????? ?????? ??? ??????????? ???????? ??????? ?????????." Hall renders this as: "Gabriel described these misunderstandings (that is, the misunderstandings caused by the child's use of single word sentences to adults) very well. In his opinion, investigators did not turn their attention in vain to the adults' difficulties in understanding a child who is just beginning to speak." But it seems to me that the very opposite interpretation is also possible: "Gabriel described these misunderstandings very well. According to him, researchers wasted their time in not attending to the difficulty for adults in understanding a child who just starting to speak." What do you think? David Kellogg Macquarie University On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 5:41 AM, Huw Lloyd wrote: > Hi David, > > Well, we can ask direct and indirect with respect to what? The sign > systems, in this case, are what is being 'directly' corrected. The > indirect, is that which the sign systems are about. So, a good situation > in which to learn appropriate grammar for this phrase is one in which > ambiguity and confusion is induced in the receiver of such a message, > thereby allowing for a contextualised and situated understanding of the > meaning. For students who are comfortable with talking about notation > itself, however, perhaps you can do both, but I still think it merits > pointing to the real meanings. > > >From the encyclopaedia of social behavioural sciences: > > Actiity Theory and Errors > > Activity theorists define errors as the non attainment of an activity goal. > The comparison of the activity outcome with the goal determines whether the > goal has been achieved or whether further actions have to be accomplished. > If an unintended outcome occurs, an error will be given. Consequently, a > definition of an error based on Activity Theories integrates three aspects: > (a) errors will only appear in goal-directed actions; (b) an error implies > the nonattainment of the goal; (c) an error should have been potentially > avoidable (Frese and Zapf 1991). Frese and Zapf (1991) developed an error > taxonomy based on a version of Action Theory. This taxonomy and other > comparable ones are inevitable in the examination of causes of errors and > faults as a prerequisite of error prevention. Error prevention became an > inevitable concern in modern technologies, e.g., the control rooms of > nuclear power plants. > > Best, > Huw > > > > > > On 11 February 2016 at 20:24, David Kellogg wrote: > > > > I don't think error correction or even "making a student say 'This is a > > book' is always "direct" or "immediate", quite the contrary. Most of the > DA > > sources I am referring to (yes, I am thinking of Lantolf and Poehner) > > distinguish between the highly indirect and the direct. We can lay out a > > kind of cline. > > > > HIGHLY INDIRECT > > a) What did you say? > > b) Did you say a book? > > c) A book? > > d) A book. > > e) You mean a book. > > f) No, you have to say "a book". > > HIGHLY DIRECT > > > > There are various ways of discussing this cline in the literature, e.g. > > "implicit" to "explicit" correction (Long and Doughty), or > > "interventionist" vs. "non-interventionist" (Lantolf and Poehner), or > > "recasts" vs. "prompts" (Ellis and others), "other repair" vs. "self > > repair" (the Conversation Analysts). I don't agree that direct > intervention > > is bad, and indirect intervention good. Since the work of Lyster and > Ranta, > > we have become acutely conscious that most teacher intervention is highly > > indirect and thus highly ineffective. > > > > The real thing that needs to be "mediated" is this: > > > > g) Every singular noun must have a determiner in English. > > > > Now, I think grasping this (is it implicit? Is it explicit?) is mediation > > only in the following sense: in order to be able to use it, you need to > > understand concepts like "noun", "singular", and "determiner". These are > > all academic concepts and not everyday concepts and they cannot be > directly > > taught (c.f. Chapter Six of Thinking and Speech). I think that all error > > correction, direct and indirect, is a way of indirectly teaching it. > > > > Perhaps the two "forces of nature" that are being played against each > other > > are the eidetic memory, which is concrete and based on everyday > experience, > > and forgetting, which produces an involuntary form of abstraction. > Neither > > force can overcome the other, but a learner can use a voluntary form of > > abstraction to overcome both. > > > > I think the problem with the way "mediation" is interpreted as the > > learner's "internalization" of the correction is simply this: it falls > prey > > to what Chaiklin calls the "assistance" assumption: the idea that the > site > > of development, and not simply the source, is the environment nad not the > > learner. The environment (the correct form) is indeed the source of > > development (and I do think grasping the English article system does > > represent a form of real development, and certainly academic concepts > do). > > But the learner and only the learner is the site. > > > > David Kellogg > > Macquarie University > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 8:04 PM, Huw Lloyd > > wrote: > > > > > Perhaps you should respond in kind, David: > > > > > > 1. A failure to understand that speech and systems of notation > mediate, > > > i.e. guide and structure, activity which is the phenomenon that > benefits > > > from contact with reality. > > > 2. Failure to understand that direct correction of these systems can > > > inculcate an erroneous sense that systems of notation and speech are > the > > > "objective material" to be worked upon, rather than the efficacy of > their > > > use in realising object systems from which natural feedback can be > > > obtained. > > > 3. Failure to grasp the opportunity to frame these minor situations in > the > > > context of encouraging the student's own self-regulation and confidence > in > > > thinking. > > > > > > Any good? > > > > > > Best, > > > Huw > > > > > > > > > On 10 February 2016 at 21:38, David Kellogg > wrote: > > > > > > > I am occasionally, out of deference to a few papers I once published > in > > > > TESOL, sent articles to review on the use of Vygotskyan concepts in > > > > language learning. Time was that these articles were mostly about > > > > scaffolding and the ZPD; of late they have been mostly concerned with > > > > "internalization" and "mediation". > > > > > > > > The problem is that most of these articles have taken these concepts > > > > entirely out of child development and placed them in an alien > > > > context--classroom error correction, which is now referred to as > "Dynamic > > > > Assessment". > > > > > > > > I am not sure what to do about this. It seems to me that one way to > start > > > > to address the issue is to go back to the original Hegelian idea of > > > > "mediation" as using one force of nature against another: the force > of > > > air > > > > pressure against gravity in flying, or the friction of snow vs. the > > > > momentum of the fall line in skiing. > > > > > > > > When a teacher corrects an error in a classroom, e.g. when a teacher > > > makes > > > > the student say "This is a book" instead of "This is book", what are > the > > > > forces of nature that are being used against each other? Is this > really > > > an > > > > instance of mediation at all? > > > > > > > > David Kellogg > > > > Macquarie University > > > > > > > > From huw.softdesigns@gmail.com Fri Feb 12 14:04:55 2016 From: huw.softdesigns@gmail.com (Huw Lloyd) Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2016 22:04:55 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: "Mediation" as Error Correction In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi David, In response to: "They also demonstrated that these implicit forms of correction were the most likely to be ignored by the student, often because (as in this example) the student is quite unaware that anything is wrong at all." The point about designing for a situation of learning is that it can then become apparent to the student that there is something wrong (and why it is wrong). In other words, 'directly' correcting can be understood to be a lazy approach vs, for example, enumerating the possible meanings that the subject has said (performance before competence) and seeking further elaboration from the student. With respect to free will, designing scenarios in which the student is able to recognise and correct their own intentions is the logical way to go. It just so happens that a large section of the CHAT initiative has gone down the Lave/Rogoff/Matusov route of participatory "development" which does not equip the subject with the same authority over their activity that Vygotsky, Davydov & Leontiev were interested in. Best, Huw On 12 February 2016 at 20:46, David Kellogg wrote: > Huw, Alfredo, Alex, Mike: > > Language teaching is still in a stage I would call semi-behaviorist: we are > interested in shaping behavior, and not in what Kozulin calls cognitive > modifications. So the "dynamic assessment" work done by Feuerstein and > Kozulin has been "shaped" by the studies of corrective feedback done in the > late twentieth century by people like Mike Long, Cathy Doughty, Teresa > Pica, and Susan Gass. At first these studies seemed to show that corrective > feedback was more effective when it was implicit--when there was a focus on > meaning rather than on form--because the result was that people were able > to shape their behavior even when their cognitive focus was elsewhere. But > in 1997 Lyster and Ranta demonstrated that most teachers already use the > most implicit form of correction, namely the so-called "recast". > > S: And this is book. > T: That's a book, yeah. > S: Yeah, this is book, and is very expensive in you country. > > They also demonstrated that these implicit forms of correction were the > most likely to be ignored by the student, often because (as in this > example) the student is quite unaware that anything is wrong at all. So it > has begun to appear that cognitive modifications are not irrelevant after > all. > > As Andy points out, there is a strong tendency for we as academics to > resist cognitive modifications too--that is why people prefer to mine > Vygotsky's (Marx's, Hegel's) texts for jargon with which to rephrase what > they already believe rather than to undertake the hard work of > reconstructing the whole original system of concepts in their context. But > academics are a powerful check on other academics. > > After years of equating "dynamic assessment" with corrective feedback, Matt > Poehner has begun to argue that dynamic assessment is really about > transferring the locus of assessment to the learner. I am not sure to what > extent this argument is motivated by a desire to return to the Vygotskyan > idea of internalization and to what extent it is simply another swing of > the pendulum: it seems to me that Poehner's model of "self-assessment" > pretty much ignores what Vygotsky really had to say about internalization, > because (like the idea that DA is nothing more than corrective feedback) it > assumes that the "mediator" is the site of development and not just the > source (that is, the learner's job is not to reconstruct or to restructure > the correct form but simply to "appropriate" it from the environment). > > So it seems to me that the place to start to try to untangle this web of > misappropriations from Vygotsky is with "mediation". As Andy says, for > Hegel everything in heaven and earth, man and nature, is mediated (but some > things are more so than others). For Marx mediation arises because without > it reason (man) is simply the slave of necessity (nature). For the old > Vygotsky (the critical reactologist) mediation arises because one stimulus > can have many responses and vice versa, and for the new Vygotsky (the > semasiologist, the pedologist), it arises because one sign can have many > interpreters and many interpretations and vice versa. This allows the > emergence of self and free will (because after all I myself am a potential > interpreter of my own signs). So it turns out that Poehner's emphasis on > self-assessment is not completely irrelevant. > > A propos, a little problem in translation for the Russophones on the list. > Vygotsky says (in his work on Early Childhood in Vol. 4 of the Russian > Collected Works, p. 347). > > "???????? ????? ?????? ?????? ??? ?????????? ???????????. ?? ??? ??????, > ????????????? ???????? ?? ???????? ???????? ?? ??????????? ? ????????? > ?????? ??? ??????????? ???????? ??????? ?????????." > > Hall renders this as: > > "Gabriel described these misunderstandings (that is, the misunderstandings > caused by the child's use of single word sentences to adults) very well. In > his opinion, investigators did not turn their attention in vain to the > adults' difficulties in understanding a child who is just beginning to > speak." > > But it seems to me that the very opposite interpretation is also possible: > > "Gabriel described these misunderstandings very well. According to him, > researchers wasted their time in not attending to the difficulty for adults > in understanding a child who just starting to speak." > > What do you think? > > David Kellogg > Macquarie University > > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 5:41 AM, Huw Lloyd > wrote: > > > Hi David, > > > > Well, we can ask direct and indirect with respect to what? The sign > > systems, in this case, are what is being 'directly' corrected. The > > indirect, is that which the sign systems are about. So, a good situation > > in which to learn appropriate grammar for this phrase is one in which > > ambiguity and confusion is induced in the receiver of such a message, > > thereby allowing for a contextualised and situated understanding of the > > meaning. For students who are comfortable with talking about notation > > itself, however, perhaps you can do both, but I still think it merits > > pointing to the real meanings. > > > > >From the encyclopaedia of social behavioural sciences: > > > > Actiity Theory and Errors > > > > Activity theorists define errors as the non attainment of an activity > goal. > > The comparison of the activity outcome with the goal determines whether > the > > goal has been achieved or whether further actions have to be > accomplished. > > If an unintended outcome occurs, an error will be given. Consequently, a > > definition of an error based on Activity Theories integrates three > aspects: > > (a) errors will only appear in goal-directed actions; (b) an error > implies > > the nonattainment of the goal; (c) an error should have been potentially > > avoidable (Frese and Zapf 1991). Frese and Zapf (1991) developed an error > > taxonomy based on a version of Action Theory. This taxonomy and other > > comparable ones are inevitable in the examination of causes of errors and > > faults as a prerequisite of error prevention. Error prevention became an > > inevitable concern in modern technologies, e.g., the control rooms of > > nuclear power plants. > > > > Best, > > Huw > > > > > > > > > > > > On 11 February 2016 at 20:24, David Kellogg > wrote: > > > > > > I don't think error correction or even "making a student say 'This is a > > > book' is always "direct" or "immediate", quite the contrary. Most of > the > > DA > > > sources I am referring to (yes, I am thinking of Lantolf and Poehner) > > > distinguish between the highly indirect and the direct. We can lay out > a > > > kind of cline. > > > > > > HIGHLY INDIRECT > > > a) What did you say? > > > b) Did you say a book? > > > c) A book? > > > d) A book. > > > e) You mean a book. > > > f) No, you have to say "a book". > > > HIGHLY DIRECT > > > > > > There are various ways of discussing this cline in the literature, e.g. > > > "implicit" to "explicit" correction (Long and Doughty), or > > > "interventionist" vs. "non-interventionist" (Lantolf and Poehner), or > > > "recasts" vs. "prompts" (Ellis and others), "other repair" vs. "self > > > repair" (the Conversation Analysts). I don't agree that direct > > intervention > > > is bad, and indirect intervention good. Since the work of Lyster and > > Ranta, > > > we have become acutely conscious that most teacher intervention is > highly > > > indirect and thus highly ineffective. > > > > > > The real thing that needs to be "mediated" is this: > > > > > > g) Every singular noun must have a determiner in English. > > > > > > Now, I think grasping this (is it implicit? Is it explicit?) is > mediation > > > only in the following sense: in order to be able to use it, you need to > > > understand concepts like "noun", "singular", and "determiner". These > are > > > all academic concepts and not everyday concepts and they cannot be > > directly > > > taught (c.f. Chapter Six of Thinking and Speech). I think that all > error > > > correction, direct and indirect, is a way of indirectly teaching it. > > > > > > Perhaps the two "forces of nature" that are being played against each > > other > > > are the eidetic memory, which is concrete and based on everyday > > experience, > > > and forgetting, which produces an involuntary form of abstraction. > > Neither > > > force can overcome the other, but a learner can use a voluntary form of > > > abstraction to overcome both. > > > > > > I think the problem with the way "mediation" is interpreted as the > > > learner's "internalization" of the correction is simply this: it falls > > prey > > > to what Chaiklin calls the "assistance" assumption: the idea that the > > site > > > of development, and not simply the source, is the environment nad not > the > > > learner. The environment (the correct form) is indeed the source of > > > development (and I do think grasping the English article system does > > > represent a form of real development, and certainly academic concepts > > do). > > > But the learner and only the learner is the site. > > > > > > David Kellogg > > > Macquarie University > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 8:04 PM, Huw Lloyd > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Perhaps you should respond in kind, David: > > > > > > > > 1. A failure to understand that speech and systems of notation > > mediate, > > > > i.e. guide and structure, activity which is the phenomenon that > > benefits > > > > from contact with reality. > > > > 2. Failure to understand that direct correction of these systems can > > > > inculcate an erroneous sense that systems of notation and speech are > > the > > > > "objective material" to be worked upon, rather than the efficacy of > > their > > > > use in realising object systems from which natural feedback can be > > > > obtained. > > > > 3. Failure to grasp the opportunity to frame these minor situations > in > > the > > > > context of encouraging the student's own self-regulation and > confidence > > in > > > > thinking. > > > > > > > > Any good? > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > Huw > > > > > > > > > > > > On 10 February 2016 at 21:38, David Kellogg > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > I am occasionally, out of deference to a few papers I once > published > > in > > > > > TESOL, sent articles to review on the use of Vygotskyan concepts in > > > > > language learning. Time was that these articles were mostly about > > > > > scaffolding and the ZPD; of late they have been mostly concerned > with > > > > > "internalization" and "mediation". > > > > > > > > > > The problem is that most of these articles have taken these > concepts > > > > > entirely out of child development and placed them in an alien > > > > > context--classroom error correction, which is now referred to as > > "Dynamic > > > > > Assessment". > > > > > > > > > > I am not sure what to do about this. It seems to me that one way to > > start > > > > > to address the issue is to go back to the original Hegelian idea of > > > > > "mediation" as using one force of nature against another: the force > > of > > > > air > > > > > pressure against gravity in flying, or the friction of snow vs. the > > > > > momentum of the fall line in skiing. > > > > > > > > > > When a teacher corrects an error in a classroom, e.g. when a > teacher > > > > makes > > > > > the student say "This is a book" instead of "This is book", what > are > > the > > > > > forces of nature that are being used against each other? Is this > > really > > > > an > > > > > instance of mediation at all? > > > > > > > > > > David Kellogg > > > > > Macquarie University > > > > > > > > > > > > From ConneryMC@cwu.edu Fri Feb 12 14:06:48 2016 From: ConneryMC@cwu.edu (Mary Connery) Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2016 22:06:48 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: "Mediation" as Error Correction In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: <4203FE7A-B711-4A81-9CFD-33E22F64AD2A@cwu.edu> Dear colleagues: Just a quick hello to validate David's insights! In my view from Washington schools, I would also add there is a huge profit being made by companies that construct, dictate, create materials for, and assess curriculum from this neo-behaviorist stance. It has created an epic teacher shortage; is replacing fundamental, essential, and formative teacher-student relationships with machines and big media; and promoting the anti-thesis of content development and language acquisition in the name of educational reform. In the meantime, the CEOs in Palo Alto send their kids to Montessori and Waldorf schools to develop creativity. Have a good day! Dr. M. Cathrene Connery Senior Lecturer Central Washington University Language, Literacy, & Special Education Ellensburg, WA 98927 connerymc@cwu.edu "Be the change you wish to see in the world." ~Ghandi~ > On Feb 12, 2016, at 12:48 PM, David Kellogg wrote: > > Huw, Alfredo, Alex, Mike: > > Language teaching is still in a stage I would call semi-behaviorist: we are > interested in shaping behavior, and not in what Kozulin calls cognitive > modifications. So the "dynamic assessment" work done by Feuerstein and > Kozulin has been "shaped" by the studies of corrective feedback done in the > late twentieth century by people like Mike Long, Cathy Doughty, Teresa > Pica, and Susan Gass. At first these studies seemed to show that corrective > feedback was more effective when it was implicit--when there was a focus on > meaning rather than on form--because the result was that people were able > to shape their behavior even when their cognitive focus was elsewhere. But > in 1997 Lyster and Ranta demonstrated that most teachers already use the > most implicit form of correction, namely the so-called "recast". > > S: And this is book. > T: That's a book, yeah. > S: Yeah, this is book, and is very expensive in you country. > > They also demonstrated that these implicit forms of correction were the > most likely to be ignored by the student, often because (as in this > example) the student is quite unaware that anything is wrong at all. So it > has begun to appear that cognitive modifications are not irrelevant after > all. > > As Andy points out, there is a strong tendency for we as academics to > resist cognitive modifications too--that is why people prefer to mine > Vygotsky's (Marx's, Hegel's) texts for jargon with which to rephrase what > they already believe rather than to undertake the hard work of > reconstructing the whole original system of concepts in their context. But > academics are a powerful check on other academics. > > After years of equating "dynamic assessment" with corrective feedback, Matt > Poehner has begun to argue that dynamic assessment is really about > transferring the locus of assessment to the learner. I am not sure to what > extent this argument is motivated by a desire to return to the Vygotskyan > idea of internalization and to what extent it is simply another swing of > the pendulum: it seems to me that Poehner's model of "self-assessment" > pretty much ignores what Vygotsky really had to say about internalization, > because (like the idea that DA is nothing more than corrective feedback) it > assumes that the "mediator" is the site of development and not just the > source (that is, the learner's job is not to reconstruct or to restructure > the correct form but simply to "appropriate" it from the environment). > > So it seems to me that the place to start to try to untangle this web of > misappropriations from Vygotsky is with "mediation". As Andy says, for > Hegel everything in heaven and earth, man and nature, is mediated (but some > things are more so than others). For Marx mediation arises because without > it reason (man) is simply the slave of necessity (nature). For the old > Vygotsky (the critical reactologist) mediation arises because one stimulus > can have many responses and vice versa, and for the new Vygotsky (the > semasiologist, the pedologist), it arises because one sign can have many > interpreters and many interpretations and vice versa. This allows the > emergence of self and free will (because after all I myself am a potential > interpreter of my own signs). So it turns out that Poehner's emphasis on > self-assessment is not completely irrelevant. > > A propos, a little problem in translation for the Russophones on the list. > Vygotsky says (in his work on Early Childhood in Vol. 4 of the Russian > Collected Works, p. 347). > > "???????? ????? ?????? ?????? ??? ?????????? ???????????. ?? ??? ??????, > ????????????? ???????? ?? ???????? ???????? ?? ??????????? ? ????????? > ?????? ??? ??????????? ???????? ??????? ?????????." > > Hall renders this as: > > "Gabriel described these misunderstandings (that is, the misunderstandings > caused by the child's use of single word sentences to adults) very well. In > his opinion, investigators did not turn their attention in vain to the > adults' difficulties in understanding a child who is just beginning to > speak." > > But it seems to me that the very opposite interpretation is also possible: > > "Gabriel described these misunderstandings very well. According to him, > researchers wasted their time in not attending to the difficulty for adults > in understanding a child who just starting to speak." > > What do you think? > > David Kellogg > Macquarie University > > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 5:41 AM, Huw Lloyd > wrote: > >> Hi David, >> >> Well, we can ask direct and indirect with respect to what? The sign >> systems, in this case, are what is being 'directly' corrected. The >> indirect, is that which the sign systems are about. So, a good situation >> in which to learn appropriate grammar for this phrase is one in which >> ambiguity and confusion is induced in the receiver of such a message, >> thereby allowing for a contextualised and situated understanding of the >> meaning. For students who are comfortable with talking about notation >> itself, however, perhaps you can do both, but I still think it merits >> pointing to the real meanings. >> >>> From the encyclopaedia of social behavioural sciences: >> >> Actiity Theory and Errors >> >> Activity theorists define errors as the non attainment of an activity goal. >> The comparison of the activity outcome with the goal determines whether the >> goal has been achieved or whether further actions have to be accomplished. >> If an unintended outcome occurs, an error will be given. Consequently, a >> definition of an error based on Activity Theories integrates three aspects: >> (a) errors will only appear in goal-directed actions; (b) an error implies >> the nonattainment of the goal; (c) an error should have been potentially >> avoidable (Frese and Zapf 1991). Frese and Zapf (1991) developed an error >> taxonomy based on a version of Action Theory. This taxonomy and other >> comparable ones are inevitable in the examination of causes of errors and >> faults as a prerequisite of error prevention. Error prevention became an >> inevitable concern in modern technologies, e.g., the control rooms of >> nuclear power plants. >> >> Best, >> Huw >> >> >> >> >> >>> On 11 February 2016 at 20:24, David Kellogg wrote: >>> >>> I don't think error correction or even "making a student say 'This is a >>> book' is always "direct" or "immediate", quite the contrary. Most of the >> DA >>> sources I am referring to (yes, I am thinking of Lantolf and Poehner) >>> distinguish between the highly indirect and the direct. We can lay out a >>> kind of cline. >>> >>> HIGHLY INDIRECT >>> a) What did you say? >>> b) Did you say a book? >>> c) A book? >>> d) A book. >>> e) You mean a book. >>> f) No, you have to say "a book". >>> HIGHLY DIRECT >>> >>> There are various ways of discussing this cline in the literature, e.g. >>> "implicit" to "explicit" correction (Long and Doughty), or >>> "interventionist" vs. "non-interventionist" (Lantolf and Poehner), or >>> "recasts" vs. "prompts" (Ellis and others), "other repair" vs. "self >>> repair" (the Conversation Analysts). I don't agree that direct >> intervention >>> is bad, and indirect intervention good. Since the work of Lyster and >> Ranta, >>> we have become acutely conscious that most teacher intervention is highly >>> indirect and thus highly ineffective. >>> >>> The real thing that needs to be "mediated" is this: >>> >>> g) Every singular noun must have a determiner in English. >>> >>> Now, I think grasping this (is it implicit? Is it explicit?) is mediation >>> only in the following sense: in order to be able to use it, you need to >>> understand concepts like "noun", "singular", and "determiner". These are >>> all academic concepts and not everyday concepts and they cannot be >> directly >>> taught (c.f. Chapter Six of Thinking and Speech). I think that all error >>> correction, direct and indirect, is a way of indirectly teaching it. >>> >>> Perhaps the two "forces of nature" that are being played against each >> other >>> are the eidetic memory, which is concrete and based on everyday >> experience, >>> and forgetting, which produces an involuntary form of abstraction. >> Neither >>> force can overcome the other, but a learner can use a voluntary form of >>> abstraction to overcome both. >>> >>> I think the problem with the way "mediation" is interpreted as the >>> learner's "internalization" of the correction is simply this: it falls >> prey >>> to what Chaiklin calls the "assistance" assumption: the idea that the >> site >>> of development, and not simply the source, is the environment nad not the >>> learner. The environment (the correct form) is indeed the source of >>> development (and I do think grasping the English article system does >>> represent a form of real development, and certainly academic concepts >> do). >>> But the learner and only the learner is the site. >>> >>> David Kellogg >>> Macquarie University >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 8:04 PM, Huw Lloyd >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Perhaps you should respond in kind, David: >>>> >>>> 1. A failure to understand that speech and systems of notation >> mediate, >>>> i.e. guide and structure, activity which is the phenomenon that >> benefits >>>> from contact with reality. >>>> 2. Failure to understand that direct correction of these systems can >>>> inculcate an erroneous sense that systems of notation and speech are >> the >>>> "objective material" to be worked upon, rather than the efficacy of >> their >>>> use in realising object systems from which natural feedback can be >>>> obtained. >>>> 3. Failure to grasp the opportunity to frame these minor situations in >> the >>>> context of encouraging the student's own self-regulation and confidence >> in >>>> thinking. >>>> >>>> Any good? >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> Huw >>>> >>>> >>>> On 10 February 2016 at 21:38, David Kellogg >> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I am occasionally, out of deference to a few papers I once published >> in >>>>> TESOL, sent articles to review on the use of Vygotskyan concepts in >>>>> language learning. Time was that these articles were mostly about >>>>> scaffolding and the ZPD; of late they have been mostly concerned with >>>>> "internalization" and "mediation". >>>>> >>>>> The problem is that most of these articles have taken these concepts >>>>> entirely out of child development and placed them in an alien >>>>> context--classroom error correction, which is now referred to as >> "Dynamic >>>>> Assessment". >>>>> >>>>> I am not sure what to do about this. It seems to me that one way to >> start >>>>> to address the issue is to go back to the original Hegelian idea of >>>>> "mediation" as using one force of nature against another: the force >> of >>>> air >>>>> pressure against gravity in flying, or the friction of snow vs. the >>>>> momentum of the fall line in skiing. >>>>> >>>>> When a teacher corrects an error in a classroom, e.g. when a teacher >>>> makes >>>>> the student say "This is a book" instead of "This is book", what are >> the >>>>> forces of nature that are being used against each other? Is this >> really >>>> an >>>>> instance of mediation at all? >>>>> >>>>> David Kellogg >>>>> Macquarie University >> From dkellogg60@gmail.com Sat Feb 13 14:31:28 2016 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2016 07:31:28 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: "Mediation" as Error Correction In-Reply-To: <4203FE7A-B711-4A81-9CFD-33E22F64AD2A@cwu.edu> References: <4203FE7A-B711-4A81-9CFD-33E22F64AD2A@cwu.edu> Message-ID: Huw, Mary.... Well, in the Dynamic Assessment literature there's a split. Some argue for "interventionist" DA, which works on the following assumptions: a) The ideal form is present in the curriculum which is given beforehand. b) The path to the ideal form is one of carefully graded "prompts" (similar to the cline I gave earlier, that is, a focus on: 1. The EXISTENCE of an error ("'This is book'. Are you sure that's right?") 2. The LOCATION of the error. (*This is...?") 3. The NATURE of the error ("How many books?") 4. The WAY TO CORRECT the error ("This is a....?") 5. The active ACCEPTANCE of correction ("No, now listen. 'This is a book.'") 6. The passive RECOGNITION of correction ("No, now listen. 'This is a book.' Repeat that for me!") (Note in passing that this isn't that different from the idea of reducing frustration by reducing the consequences of error and then reducing the probability of error, c.f. Bruner, Wood and Ross 1975.) The idea behind interventionist DA is that the curriculum is always right and there exists (more or less) a single path to the curriculum, which can be marked out by the prompts 1-6. The RATE of progress to the curricular model will change, but the ROUTE is invariable. You can see that two corollaries follow from this idea of invariant route and variable rates. The first is that the interventionist DA model is assessment oriented, which appeals to principals as well as to independent minded learners. The second is that the interventionist DA model is particularly conducive to the mass production of teaching materials that sideline the teacher, the sort of thing that Mary is worried about in Washington. The second option is just the opposite: it's called "interactionist" DA, and it's highly favored by Jim Lantolf (and Steve Thorne, Mathew Poehner, Neguerlea-Azola, and other writers associated with Penn State University). The idea is just the opposite: there isn't a single path, and the route to "communicative competence" can be highly variable so the whole is subject to negotiation. You can see that this model is not so assessment oriented, and that it foregrounds the teacher and will tend to disempower publishers at the expense of teacher trainers (and, more worryingly, non-native speakers at the expense of native speakers). Maybe these two variants of DA correspond, more or less, to the kind of bifurcation that Huw is talking about? That is, the former is more conducive to the Leontiev/Davidov/Elkonin model of learner appropriation and self-regulation as development, while the latter tends to the Lave/Rogoff/Matusov model of participatory learning? And Vygotsky? I rather suspect he would have wished a hearty plague on both houses, although as Huw says, in Vygotsky the end result of development is not merely participation: it's individuation. A propos. I have been reading Eisenstein's essays "Film Form". There are long quotes in it that are STRAIGHT out of Thinking and Speech--I mean, word for word. Take, for example, p. 135: "The Indians of this tribe--the Bororo--maintain that, while human beings, they are none the less at the same time also a special kind of red parakeet common in Brazil. Note that by this they do not in any way mean that they will become these birds after death, or that their ancestors were such in the remote past. Not at all. They directly maintain that they are in reality these actual birds. It is not here a matter of identity of names or relationships; they mean a complete simultaneous identity of both." Eisenstein, S. (1949). Film Form. New York: Harcourt. Has anyone noticed this before? David Kellogg Macquarie University On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 7:06 AM, Mary Connery wrote: > Dear colleagues: > Just a quick hello to validate David's insights! In my view from > Washington schools, I would also add there is a huge profit being made by > companies that construct, dictate, create materials for, and assess > curriculum from this neo-behaviorist stance. It has created an epic teacher > shortage; is replacing fundamental, essential, and formative > teacher-student relationships with machines and big media; and promoting > the anti-thesis of content development and language acquisition in the name > of educational reform. In the meantime, the CEOs in Palo Alto send their > kids to Montessori and Waldorf schools to develop creativity. > > Have a good day! > > Dr. M. Cathrene Connery > Senior Lecturer > Central Washington University > Language, Literacy, & Special Education > Ellensburg, WA 98927 > connerymc@cwu.edu > > "Be the change you wish to see in the world." ~Ghandi~ > > > On Feb 12, 2016, at 12:48 PM, David Kellogg > wrote: > > > > Huw, Alfredo, Alex, Mike: > > > > Language teaching is still in a stage I would call semi-behaviorist: we > are > > interested in shaping behavior, and not in what Kozulin calls cognitive > > modifications. So the "dynamic assessment" work done by Feuerstein and > > Kozulin has been "shaped" by the studies of corrective feedback done in > the > > late twentieth century by people like Mike Long, Cathy Doughty, Teresa > > Pica, and Susan Gass. At first these studies seemed to show that > corrective > > feedback was more effective when it was implicit--when there was a focus > on > > meaning rather than on form--because the result was that people were able > > to shape their behavior even when their cognitive focus was elsewhere. > But > > in 1997 Lyster and Ranta demonstrated that most teachers already use the > > most implicit form of correction, namely the so-called "recast". > > > > S: And this is book. > > T: That's a book, yeah. > > S: Yeah, this is book, and is very expensive in you country. > > > > They also demonstrated that these implicit forms of correction were the > > most likely to be ignored by the student, often because (as in this > > example) the student is quite unaware that anything is wrong at all. So > it > > has begun to appear that cognitive modifications are not irrelevant after > > all. > > > > As Andy points out, there is a strong tendency for we as academics to > > resist cognitive modifications too--that is why people prefer to mine > > Vygotsky's (Marx's, Hegel's) texts for jargon with which to rephrase what > > they already believe rather than to undertake the hard work of > > reconstructing the whole original system of concepts in their context. > But > > academics are a powerful check on other academics. > > > > After years of equating "dynamic assessment" with corrective feedback, > Matt > > Poehner has begun to argue that dynamic assessment is really about > > transferring the locus of assessment to the learner. I am not sure to > what > > extent this argument is motivated by a desire to return to the Vygotskyan > > idea of internalization and to what extent it is simply another swing of > > the pendulum: it seems to me that Poehner's model of "self-assessment" > > pretty much ignores what Vygotsky really had to say about > internalization, > > because (like the idea that DA is nothing more than corrective feedback) > it > > assumes that the "mediator" is the site of development and not just the > > source (that is, the learner's job is not to reconstruct or to > restructure > > the correct form but simply to "appropriate" it from the environment). > > > > So it seems to me that the place to start to try to untangle this web of > > misappropriations from Vygotsky is with "mediation". As Andy says, for > > Hegel everything in heaven and earth, man and nature, is mediated (but > some > > things are more so than others). For Marx mediation arises because > without > > it reason (man) is simply the slave of necessity (nature). For the old > > Vygotsky (the critical reactologist) mediation arises because one > stimulus > > can have many responses and vice versa, and for the new Vygotsky (the > > semasiologist, the pedologist), it arises because one sign can have many > > interpreters and many interpretations and vice versa. This allows the > > emergence of self and free will (because after all I myself am a > potential > > interpreter of my own signs). So it turns out that Poehner's emphasis on > > self-assessment is not completely irrelevant. > > > > A propos, a little problem in translation for the Russophones on the > list. > > Vygotsky says (in his work on Early Childhood in Vol. 4 of the Russian > > Collected Works, p. 347). > > > > "???????? ????? ?????? ?????? ??? ?????????? ???????????. ?? ??? ??????, > > ????????????? ???????? ?? ???????? ???????? ?? ??????????? ? ????????? > > ?????? ??? ??????????? ???????? ??????? ?????????." > > > > Hall renders this as: > > > > "Gabriel described these misunderstandings (that is, the > misunderstandings > > caused by the child's use of single word sentences to adults) very well. > In > > his opinion, investigators did not turn their attention in vain to the > > adults' difficulties in understanding a child who is just beginning to > > speak." > > > > But it seems to me that the very opposite interpretation is also > possible: > > > > "Gabriel described these misunderstandings very well. According to him, > > researchers wasted their time in not attending to the difficulty for > adults > > in understanding a child who just starting to speak." > > > > What do you think? > > > > David Kellogg > > Macquarie University > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 5:41 AM, Huw Lloyd > > wrote: > > > >> Hi David, > >> > >> Well, we can ask direct and indirect with respect to what? The sign > >> systems, in this case, are what is being 'directly' corrected. The > >> indirect, is that which the sign systems are about. So, a good > situation > >> in which to learn appropriate grammar for this phrase is one in which > >> ambiguity and confusion is induced in the receiver of such a message, > >> thereby allowing for a contextualised and situated understanding of the > >> meaning. For students who are comfortable with talking about notation > >> itself, however, perhaps you can do both, but I still think it merits > >> pointing to the real meanings. > >> > >>> From the encyclopaedia of social behavioural sciences: > >> > >> Actiity Theory and Errors > >> > >> Activity theorists define errors as the non attainment of an activity > goal. > >> The comparison of the activity outcome with the goal determines whether > the > >> goal has been achieved or whether further actions have to be > accomplished. > >> If an unintended outcome occurs, an error will be given. Consequently, a > >> definition of an error based on Activity Theories integrates three > aspects: > >> (a) errors will only appear in goal-directed actions; (b) an error > implies > >> the nonattainment of the goal; (c) an error should have been potentially > >> avoidable (Frese and Zapf 1991). Frese and Zapf (1991) developed an > error > >> taxonomy based on a version of Action Theory. This taxonomy and other > >> comparable ones are inevitable in the examination of causes of errors > and > >> faults as a prerequisite of error prevention. Error prevention became an > >> inevitable concern in modern technologies, e.g., the control rooms of > >> nuclear power plants. > >> > >> Best, > >> Huw > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>> On 11 February 2016 at 20:24, David Kellogg > wrote: > >>> > >>> I don't think error correction or even "making a student say 'This is a > >>> book' is always "direct" or "immediate", quite the contrary. Most of > the > >> DA > >>> sources I am referring to (yes, I am thinking of Lantolf and Poehner) > >>> distinguish between the highly indirect and the direct. We can lay out > a > >>> kind of cline. > >>> > >>> HIGHLY INDIRECT > >>> a) What did you say? > >>> b) Did you say a book? > >>> c) A book? > >>> d) A book. > >>> e) You mean a book. > >>> f) No, you have to say "a book". > >>> HIGHLY DIRECT > >>> > >>> There are various ways of discussing this cline in the literature, e.g. > >>> "implicit" to "explicit" correction (Long and Doughty), or > >>> "interventionist" vs. "non-interventionist" (Lantolf and Poehner), or > >>> "recasts" vs. "prompts" (Ellis and others), "other repair" vs. "self > >>> repair" (the Conversation Analysts). I don't agree that direct > >> intervention > >>> is bad, and indirect intervention good. Since the work of Lyster and > >> Ranta, > >>> we have become acutely conscious that most teacher intervention is > highly > >>> indirect and thus highly ineffective. > >>> > >>> The real thing that needs to be "mediated" is this: > >>> > >>> g) Every singular noun must have a determiner in English. > >>> > >>> Now, I think grasping this (is it implicit? Is it explicit?) is > mediation > >>> only in the following sense: in order to be able to use it, you need to > >>> understand concepts like "noun", "singular", and "determiner". These > are > >>> all academic concepts and not everyday concepts and they cannot be > >> directly > >>> taught (c.f. Chapter Six of Thinking and Speech). I think that all > error > >>> correction, direct and indirect, is a way of indirectly teaching it. > >>> > >>> Perhaps the two "forces of nature" that are being played against each > >> other > >>> are the eidetic memory, which is concrete and based on everyday > >> experience, > >>> and forgetting, which produces an involuntary form of abstraction. > >> Neither > >>> force can overcome the other, but a learner can use a voluntary form of > >>> abstraction to overcome both. > >>> > >>> I think the problem with the way "mediation" is interpreted as the > >>> learner's "internalization" of the correction is simply this: it falls > >> prey > >>> to what Chaiklin calls the "assistance" assumption: the idea that the > >> site > >>> of development, and not simply the source, is the environment nad not > the > >>> learner. The environment (the correct form) is indeed the source of > >>> development (and I do think grasping the English article system does > >>> represent a form of real development, and certainly academic concepts > >> do). > >>> But the learner and only the learner is the site. > >>> > >>> David Kellogg > >>> Macquarie University > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 8:04 PM, Huw Lloyd > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Perhaps you should respond in kind, David: > >>>> > >>>> 1. A failure to understand that speech and systems of notation > >> mediate, > >>>> i.e. guide and structure, activity which is the phenomenon that > >> benefits > >>>> from contact with reality. > >>>> 2. Failure to understand that direct correction of these systems can > >>>> inculcate an erroneous sense that systems of notation and speech are > >> the > >>>> "objective material" to be worked upon, rather than the efficacy of > >> their > >>>> use in realising object systems from which natural feedback can be > >>>> obtained. > >>>> 3. Failure to grasp the opportunity to frame these minor situations in > >> the > >>>> context of encouraging the student's own self-regulation and > confidence > >> in > >>>> thinking. > >>>> > >>>> Any good? > >>>> > >>>> Best, > >>>> Huw > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On 10 February 2016 at 21:38, David Kellogg > >> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> I am occasionally, out of deference to a few papers I once published > >> in > >>>>> TESOL, sent articles to review on the use of Vygotskyan concepts in > >>>>> language learning. Time was that these articles were mostly about > >>>>> scaffolding and the ZPD; of late they have been mostly concerned with > >>>>> "internalization" and "mediation". > >>>>> > >>>>> The problem is that most of these articles have taken these concepts > >>>>> entirely out of child development and placed them in an alien > >>>>> context--classroom error correction, which is now referred to as > >> "Dynamic > >>>>> Assessment". > >>>>> > >>>>> I am not sure what to do about this. It seems to me that one way to > >> start > >>>>> to address the issue is to go back to the original Hegelian idea of > >>>>> "mediation" as using one force of nature against another: the force > >> of > >>>> air > >>>>> pressure against gravity in flying, or the friction of snow vs. the > >>>>> momentum of the fall line in skiing. > >>>>> > >>>>> When a teacher corrects an error in a classroom, e.g. when a teacher > >>>> makes > >>>>> the student say "This is a book" instead of "This is book", what are > >> the > >>>>> forces of nature that are being used against each other? Is this > >> really > >>>> an > >>>>> instance of mediation at all? > >>>>> > >>>>> David Kellogg > >>>>> Macquarie University > >> > > From ConneryMC@cwu.edu Sat Feb 13 22:51:53 2016 From: ConneryMC@cwu.edu (Mary Connery) Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2016 06:51:53 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: "Mediation" as Error Correction In-Reply-To: References: <4203FE7A-B711-4A81-9CFD-33E22F64AD2A@cwu.edu>, Message-ID: <2B73873C-B307-4358-854A-9626897144C1@cwu.edu> Hi David, Eli, & Colleagues: An elegant summary; thank you so much! John-Steiner's interactionist article could also be added inside David's synopsis of Lantolf's camp. Please, however, call me Cathrene. I don't mean to grumble. I'm still annoyed at CWU and the credit report agencies for insisting on using my first name in electronic correspondence. As a result, if people don't know that I abandoned Ithaca last August and returned to my former institution, they don't know it is ME who is writing. As the 3rd Mary Cathrene in 3 generations in my family of origin, I was never called Mary. Consequently, my credit report lists me purchasing a washing machine in the early 1960's when I wasn't even born until '64. My millenial students make me feel old enough. Happy Valentine's Day everyone. Cathrene Dr. M. Cathrene Connery Senior Lecturer Central Washington University Language, Literacy, & Special Education Ellensburg, WA 98927 connerymc@cwu.edu "Be the change you wish to see in the world." ~Ghandi~ > On Feb 13, 2016, at 2:33 PM, David Kellogg wrote: > > Huw, Mary.... > > Well, in the Dynamic Assessment literature there's a split. Some argue for > "interventionist" DA, which works on the following assumptions: > > a) The ideal form is present in the curriculum which is given beforehand. > b) The path to the ideal form is one of carefully graded "prompts" (similar > to the cline I gave earlier, that is, a focus on: > > 1. The EXISTENCE of an error ("'This is book'. Are you sure that's right?") > 2. The LOCATION of the error. (*This is...?") > 3. The NATURE of the error ("How many books?") > 4. The WAY TO CORRECT the error ("This is a....?") > 5. The active ACCEPTANCE of correction ("No, now listen. 'This is a book.'") > 6. The passive RECOGNITION of correction ("No, now listen. 'This is a > book.' Repeat that for me!") > > (Note in passing that this isn't that different from the idea of reducing > frustration by reducing the consequences of error and then reducing the > probability of error, c.f. Bruner, Wood and Ross 1975.) > > The idea behind interventionist DA is that the curriculum is always right > and there exists (more or less) a single path to the curriculum, which can > be marked out by the prompts 1-6. The RATE of progress to the curricular > model will change, but the ROUTE is invariable. > > You can see that two corollaries follow from this idea of invariant route > and variable rates. The first is that the interventionist DA model is > assessment oriented, which appeals to principals as well as to independent > minded learners. The second is that the interventionist DA model is > particularly conducive to the mass production of teaching materials that > sideline the teacher, the sort of thing that Mary is worried about in > Washington. > > The second option is just the opposite: it's called "interactionist" DA, > and it's highly favored by Jim Lantolf (and Steve Thorne, Mathew Poehner, > Neguerlea-Azola, and other writers associated with Penn State University). > The idea is just the opposite: there isn't a single path, and the route to > "communicative competence" can be highly variable so the whole is subject > to negotiation. > > You can see that this model is not so assessment oriented, and that it > foregrounds the teacher and will tend to disempower publishers at the > expense of teacher trainers (and, more worryingly, non-native speakers at > the expense of native speakers). > > Maybe these two variants of DA correspond, more or less, to the kind of > bifurcation that Huw is talking about? That is, the former is more > conducive to the Leontiev/Davidov/Elkonin model of learner appropriation > and self-regulation as development, while the latter tends to the > Lave/Rogoff/Matusov model of participatory learning? > > And Vygotsky? I rather suspect he would have wished a hearty plague on both > houses, although as Huw says, in Vygotsky the end result of development is > not merely participation: it's individuation. > > A propos. I have been reading Eisenstein's essays "Film Form". There are > long quotes in it that are STRAIGHT out of Thinking and Speech--I mean, > word for word. Take, for example, p. 135: > > "The Indians of this tribe--the Bororo--maintain that, while human beings, > they are none the less at the same time also a special kind of red parakeet > common in Brazil. Note that by this they do not in any way mean that they > will become these birds after death, or that their ancestors were such in > the remote past. Not at all. They directly maintain that they are in > reality these actual birds. It is not here a matter of identity of names or > relationships; they mean a complete simultaneous identity of both." > > Eisenstein, S. (1949). Film Form. New York: Harcourt. > > Has anyone noticed this before? > > David Kellogg > Macquarie University > > >> On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 7:06 AM, Mary Connery wrote: >> >> Dear colleagues: >> Just a quick hello to validate David's insights! In my view from >> Washington schools, I would also add there is a huge profit being made by >> companies that construct, dictate, create materials for, and assess >> curriculum from this neo-behaviorist stance. It has created an epic teacher >> shortage; is replacing fundamental, essential, and formative >> teacher-student relationships with machines and big media; and promoting >> the anti-thesis of content development and language acquisition in the name >> of educational reform. In the meantime, the CEOs in Palo Alto send their >> kids to Montessori and Waldorf schools to develop creativity. >> >> Have a good day! >> >> Dr. M. Cathrene Connery >> Senior Lecturer >> Central Washington University >> Language, Literacy, & Special Education >> Ellensburg, WA 98927 >> connerymc@cwu.edu >> >> "Be the change you wish to see in the world." ~Ghandi~ >> >>>> On Feb 12, 2016, at 12:48 PM, David Kellogg >>> wrote: >>> >>> Huw, Alfredo, Alex, Mike: >>> >>> Language teaching is still in a stage I would call semi-behaviorist: we >> are >>> interested in shaping behavior, and not in what Kozulin calls cognitive >>> modifications. So the "dynamic assessment" work done by Feuerstein and >>> Kozulin has been "shaped" by the studies of corrective feedback done in >> the >>> late twentieth century by people like Mike Long, Cathy Doughty, Teresa >>> Pica, and Susan Gass. At first these studies seemed to show that >> corrective >>> feedback was more effective when it was implicit--when there was a focus >> on >>> meaning rather than on form--because the result was that people were able >>> to shape their behavior even when their cognitive focus was elsewhere. >> But >>> in 1997 Lyster and Ranta demonstrated that most teachers already use the >>> most implicit form of correction, namely the so-called "recast". >>> >>> S: And this is book. >>> T: That's a book, yeah. >>> S: Yeah, this is book, and is very expensive in you country. >>> >>> They also demonstrated that these implicit forms of correction were the >>> most likely to be ignored by the student, often because (as in this >>> example) the student is quite unaware that anything is wrong at all. So >> it >>> has begun to appear that cognitive modifications are not irrelevant after >>> all. >>> >>> As Andy points out, there is a strong tendency for we as academics to >>> resist cognitive modifications too--that is why people prefer to mine >>> Vygotsky's (Marx's, Hegel's) texts for jargon with which to rephrase what >>> they already believe rather than to undertake the hard work of >>> reconstructing the whole original system of concepts in their context. >> But >>> academics are a powerful check on other academics. >>> >>> After years of equating "dynamic assessment" with corrective feedback, >> Matt >>> Poehner has begun to argue that dynamic assessment is really about >>> transferring the locus of assessment to the learner. I am not sure to >> what >>> extent this argument is motivated by a desire to return to the Vygotskyan >>> idea of internalization and to what extent it is simply another swing of >>> the pendulum: it seems to me that Poehner's model of "self-assessment" >>> pretty much ignores what Vygotsky really had to say about >> internalization, >>> because (like the idea that DA is nothing more than corrective feedback) >> it >>> assumes that the "mediator" is the site of development and not just the >>> source (that is, the learner's job is not to reconstruct or to >> restructure >>> the correct form but simply to "appropriate" it from the environment). >>> >>> So it seems to me that the place to start to try to untangle this web of >>> misappropriations from Vygotsky is with "mediation". As Andy says, for >>> Hegel everything in heaven and earth, man and nature, is mediated (but >> some >>> things are more so than others). For Marx mediation arises because >> without >>> it reason (man) is simply the slave of necessity (nature). For the old >>> Vygotsky (the critical reactologist) mediation arises because one >> stimulus >>> can have many responses and vice versa, and for the new Vygotsky (the >>> semasiologist, the pedologist), it arises because one sign can have many >>> interpreters and many interpretations and vice versa. This allows the >>> emergence of self and free will (because after all I myself am a >> potential >>> interpreter of my own signs). So it turns out that Poehner's emphasis on >>> self-assessment is not completely irrelevant. >>> >>> A propos, a little problem in translation for the Russophones on the >> list. >>> Vygotsky says (in his work on Early Childhood in Vol. 4 of the Russian >>> Collected Works, p. 347). >>> >>> "???????? ????? ?????? ?????? ??? ?????????? ???????????. ?? ??? ??????, >>> ????????????? ???????? ?? ???????? ???????? ?? ??????????? ? ????????? >>> ?????? ??? ??????????? ???????? ??????? ?????????." >>> >>> Hall renders this as: >>> >>> "Gabriel described these misunderstandings (that is, the >> misunderstandings >>> caused by the child's use of single word sentences to adults) very well. >> In >>> his opinion, investigators did not turn their attention in vain to the >>> adults' difficulties in understanding a child who is just beginning to >>> speak." >>> >>> But it seems to me that the very opposite interpretation is also >> possible: >>> >>> "Gabriel described these misunderstandings very well. According to him, >>> researchers wasted their time in not attending to the difficulty for >> adults >>> in understanding a child who just starting to speak." >>> >>> What do you think? >>> >>> David Kellogg >>> Macquarie University >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 5:41 AM, Huw Lloyd >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi David, >>>> >>>> Well, we can ask direct and indirect with respect to what? The sign >>>> systems, in this case, are what is being 'directly' corrected. The >>>> indirect, is that which the sign systems are about. So, a good >> situation >>>> in which to learn appropriate grammar for this phrase is one in which >>>> ambiguity and confusion is induced in the receiver of such a message, >>>> thereby allowing for a contextualised and situated understanding of the >>>> meaning. For students who are comfortable with talking about notation >>>> itself, however, perhaps you can do both, but I still think it merits >>>> pointing to the real meanings. >>>> >>>>> From the encyclopaedia of social behavioural sciences: >>>> >>>> Actiity Theory and Errors >>>> >>>> Activity theorists define errors as the non attainment of an activity >> goal. >>>> The comparison of the activity outcome with the goal determines whether >> the >>>> goal has been achieved or whether further actions have to be >> accomplished. >>>> If an unintended outcome occurs, an error will be given. Consequently, a >>>> definition of an error based on Activity Theories integrates three >> aspects: >>>> (a) errors will only appear in goal-directed actions; (b) an error >> implies >>>> the nonattainment of the goal; (c) an error should have been potentially >>>> avoidable (Frese and Zapf 1991). Frese and Zapf (1991) developed an >> error >>>> taxonomy based on a version of Action Theory. This taxonomy and other >>>> comparable ones are inevitable in the examination of causes of errors >> and >>>> faults as a prerequisite of error prevention. Error prevention became an >>>> inevitable concern in modern technologies, e.g., the control rooms of >>>> nuclear power plants. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> Huw >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> On 11 February 2016 at 20:24, David Kellogg >> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I don't think error correction or even "making a student say 'This is a >>>>> book' is always "direct" or "immediate", quite the contrary. Most of >> the >>>> DA >>>>> sources I am referring to (yes, I am thinking of Lantolf and Poehner) >>>>> distinguish between the highly indirect and the direct. We can lay out >> a >>>>> kind of cline. >>>>> >>>>> HIGHLY INDIRECT >>>>> a) What did you say? >>>>> b) Did you say a book? >>>>> c) A book? >>>>> d) A book. >>>>> e) You mean a book. >>>>> f) No, you have to say "a book". >>>>> HIGHLY DIRECT >>>>> >>>>> There are various ways of discussing this cline in the literature, e.g. >>>>> "implicit" to "explicit" correction (Long and Doughty), or >>>>> "interventionist" vs. "non-interventionist" (Lantolf and Poehner), or >>>>> "recasts" vs. "prompts" (Ellis and others), "other repair" vs. "self >>>>> repair" (the Conversation Analysts). I don't agree that direct >>>> intervention >>>>> is bad, and indirect intervention good. Since the work of Lyster and >>>> Ranta, >>>>> we have become acutely conscious that most teacher intervention is >> highly >>>>> indirect and thus highly ineffective. >>>>> >>>>> The real thing that needs to be "mediated" is this: >>>>> >>>>> g) Every singular noun must have a determiner in English. >>>>> >>>>> Now, I think grasping this (is it implicit? Is it explicit?) is >> mediation >>>>> only in the following sense: in order to be able to use it, you need to >>>>> understand concepts like "noun", "singular", and "determiner". These >> are >>>>> all academic concepts and not everyday concepts and they cannot be >>>> directly >>>>> taught (c.f. Chapter Six of Thinking and Speech). I think that all >> error >>>>> correction, direct and indirect, is a way of indirectly teaching it. >>>>> >>>>> Perhaps the two "forces of nature" that are being played against each >>>> other >>>>> are the eidetic memory, which is concrete and based on everyday >>>> experience, >>>>> and forgetting, which produces an involuntary form of abstraction. >>>> Neither >>>>> force can overcome the other, but a learner can use a voluntary form of >>>>> abstraction to overcome both. >>>>> >>>>> I think the problem with the way "mediation" is interpreted as the >>>>> learner's "internalization" of the correction is simply this: it falls >>>> prey >>>>> to what Chaiklin calls the "assistance" assumption: the idea that the >>>> site >>>>> of development, and not simply the source, is the environment nad not >> the >>>>> learner. The environment (the correct form) is indeed the source of >>>>> development (and I do think grasping the English article system does >>>>> represent a form of real development, and certainly academic concepts >>>> do). >>>>> But the learner and only the learner is the site. >>>>> >>>>> David Kellogg >>>>> Macquarie University >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 8:04 PM, Huw Lloyd >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Perhaps you should respond in kind, David: >>>>>> >>>>>> 1. A failure to understand that speech and systems of notation >>>> mediate, >>>>>> i.e. guide and structure, activity which is the phenomenon that >>>> benefits >>>>>> from contact with reality. >>>>>> 2. Failure to understand that direct correction of these systems can >>>>>> inculcate an erroneous sense that systems of notation and speech are >>>> the >>>>>> "objective material" to be worked upon, rather than the efficacy of >>>> their >>>>>> use in realising object systems from which natural feedback can be >>>>>> obtained. >>>>>> 3. Failure to grasp the opportunity to frame these minor situations in >>>> the >>>>>> context of encouraging the student's own self-regulation and >> confidence >>>> in >>>>>> thinking. >>>>>> >>>>>> Any good? >>>>>> >>>>>> Best, >>>>>> Huw >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 10 February 2016 at 21:38, David Kellogg >>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I am occasionally, out of deference to a few papers I once published >>>> in >>>>>>> TESOL, sent articles to review on the use of Vygotskyan concepts in >>>>>>> language learning. Time was that these articles were mostly about >>>>>>> scaffolding and the ZPD; of late they have been mostly concerned with >>>>>>> "internalization" and "mediation". >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The problem is that most of these articles have taken these concepts >>>>>>> entirely out of child development and placed them in an alien >>>>>>> context--classroom error correction, which is now referred to as >>>> "Dynamic >>>>>>> Assessment". >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I am not sure what to do about this. It seems to me that one way to >>>> start >>>>>>> to address the issue is to go back to the original Hegelian idea of >>>>>>> "mediation" as using one force of nature against another: the force >>>> of >>>>>> air >>>>>>> pressure against gravity in flying, or the friction of snow vs. the >>>>>>> momentum of the fall line in skiing. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> When a teacher corrects an error in a classroom, e.g. when a teacher >>>>>> makes >>>>>>> the student say "This is a book" instead of "This is book", what are >>>> the >>>>>>> forces of nature that are being used against each other? Is this >>>> really >>>>>> an >>>>>>> instance of mediation at all? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> David Kellogg >>>>>>> Macquarie University >> >> From l.woods@iicedu.org Sat Feb 13 17:50:50 2016 From: l.woods@iicedu.org (L inda Woods) Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2016 01:50:50 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [Xmca-l] Ireland International Conference on Education (IICE-2016): Final Call for Submissions! Message-ID: <749942745.370085.9593c691-107e-42e1-b9b2-9856b666eeee.open-xchange@email.1and1.co.uk> Apologies for cross-postings. Kindly email this call for papers to your colleagues, faculty members and postgraduate students. Final Call for Extended Abstracts, Papers, Posters, Tutorials and Workshops! ******************************************************************* Ireland International Conference on Education (IICE-2016) April 25-28, 2016 Clayton Hotel Ballsbridge Dublin, Ireland http://www.iicedu.org ******************************************************************* Important Dates: * Extended Abstract, Paper, Student Paper, Case Study, Report Submission Date: February 15, 2016 * Notification of Extended Abstract, Research Paper, Student Paper, Case Study, Report Acceptance / Rejection: February 25, 2016 The IICE is an international refereed conference dedicated to the advancement of the theory and practices in education. The IICE promotes collaborative excellence between academicians and professionals from Education. The aim of IICE is to provide an opportunity for academicians and professionals from various educational fields with cross-disciplinary interests to bridge the knowledge gap, promote research esteem and the evolution of pedagogy. The IICE 2016 invites research papers that encompass conceptual analysis, design implementation and performance evaluation. All the accepted papers will appear in the proceedings and modified version of selected papers will be published in special issues peer reviewed journals. The topics in IICE-2016 include but are not confined to the following areas: *Academic Advising and Counselling *Art Education *Adult Education *APD/Listening and Acoustics in Education Environment *Business Education *Counsellor Education *Curriculum, Research and Development *Competitive Skills *Continuing Education *Distance Education *Early Childhood Education *Educational Administration *Educational Foundations *Educational Psychology *Educational Technology *Education Policy and Leadership *Elementary Education *E-Learning *E-Manufacturing *ESL/TESL *E-Society *Geographical Education *Geographic information systems *Health Education *Higher Education *History *Home Education *Human Computer Interaction *Human Resource Development *Indigenous Education *ICT Education *Internet technologies *Imaginative Education *Kinesiology & Leisure Science *K12 *Language Education *Mathematics Education *Mobile Applications *Multi-Virtual Environment *Music Education *Pedagogy *Physical Education (PE) *Reading Education *Writing Education *Religion and Education Studies *Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) *Rural Education *Science Education *Secondary Education *Second life Educators *Social Studies Education *Special Education *Student Affairs *Teacher Education *Cross-disciplinary areas of Education *Ubiquitous Computing *Virtual Reality *Wireless applications *Other Areas of Education - You can submit your research paper at http://www.iicedu.org/Paper%20Submission.html or email it to papers-2016april@iicedu.org For further information please visit http://www.iicedu.org From greg.a.thompson@gmail.com Sun Feb 14 09:12:40 2016 From: greg.a.thompson@gmail.com (greg.a.thompson@gmail.com) Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2016 10:12:40 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: "Mediation" as Error Correction In-Reply-To: References: <4203FE7A-B711-4A81-9CFD-33E22F64AD2A@cwu.edu> Message-ID: <446DCDD2-E954-40C9-A703-1EF8436DF162@gmail.com> David, Pardon my ignorance but can you give the associated quote from vygotsky, and perhaps also include the conclusion he draws? This is of course of great interests to anthropologists at what has come to be called "the ontological turn." I could imagine them making the same statement as Eisenstein but drawing a nearly opposite conclusion. ("They really are red parakeets!"). Greg Sent from my iPhone > On Feb 13, 2016, at 3:31 PM, David Kellogg wrote: > > Huw, Mary.... > > Well, in the Dynamic Assessment literature there's a split. Some argue for > "interventionist" DA, which works on the following assumptions: > > a) The ideal form is present in the curriculum which is given beforehand. > b) The path to the ideal form is one of carefully graded "prompts" (similar > to the cline I gave earlier, that is, a focus on: > > 1. The EXISTENCE of an error ("'This is book'. Are you sure that's right?") > 2. The LOCATION of the error. (*This is...?") > 3. The NATURE of the error ("How many books?") > 4. The WAY TO CORRECT the error ("This is a....?") > 5. The active ACCEPTANCE of correction ("No, now listen. 'This is a book.'") > 6. The passive RECOGNITION of correction ("No, now listen. 'This is a > book.' Repeat that for me!") > > (Note in passing that this isn't that different from the idea of reducing > frustration by reducing the consequences of error and then reducing the > probability of error, c.f. Bruner, Wood and Ross 1975.) > > The idea behind interventionist DA is that the curriculum is always right > and there exists (more or less) a single path to the curriculum, which can > be marked out by the prompts 1-6. The RATE of progress to the curricular > model will change, but the ROUTE is invariable. > > You can see that two corollaries follow from this idea of invariant route > and variable rates. The first is that the interventionist DA model is > assessment oriented, which appeals to principals as well as to independent > minded learners. The second is that the interventionist DA model is > particularly conducive to the mass production of teaching materials that > sideline the teacher, the sort of thing that Mary is worried about in > Washington. > > The second option is just the opposite: it's called "interactionist" DA, > and it's highly favored by Jim Lantolf (and Steve Thorne, Mathew Poehner, > Neguerlea-Azola, and other writers associated with Penn State University). > The idea is just the opposite: there isn't a single path, and the route to > "communicative competence" can be highly variable so the whole is subject > to negotiation. > > You can see that this model is not so assessment oriented, and that it > foregrounds the teacher and will tend to disempower publishers at the > expense of teacher trainers (and, more worryingly, non-native speakers at > the expense of native speakers). > > Maybe these two variants of DA correspond, more or less, to the kind of > bifurcation that Huw is talking about? That is, the former is more > conducive to the Leontiev/Davidov/Elkonin model of learner appropriation > and self-regulation as development, while the latter tends to the > Lave/Rogoff/Matusov model of participatory learning? > > And Vygotsky? I rather suspect he would have wished a hearty plague on both > houses, although as Huw says, in Vygotsky the end result of development is > not merely participation: it's individuation. > > A propos. I have been reading Eisenstein's essays "Film Form". There are > long quotes in it that are STRAIGHT out of Thinking and Speech--I mean, > word for word. Take, for example, p. 135: > > "The Indians of this tribe--the Bororo--maintain that, while human beings, > they are none the less at the same time also a special kind of red parakeet > common in Brazil. Note that by this they do not in any way mean that they > will become these birds after death, or that their ancestors were such in > the remote past. Not at all. They directly maintain that they are in > reality these actual birds. It is not here a matter of identity of names or > relationships; they mean a complete simultaneous identity of both." > > Eisenstein, S. (1949). Film Form. New York: Harcourt. > > Has anyone noticed this before? > > David Kellogg > Macquarie University > > >> On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 7:06 AM, Mary Connery wrote: >> >> Dear colleagues: >> Just a quick hello to validate David's insights! In my view from >> Washington schools, I would also add there is a huge profit being made by >> companies that construct, dictate, create materials for, and assess >> curriculum from this neo-behaviorist stance. It has created an epic teacher >> shortage; is replacing fundamental, essential, and formative >> teacher-student relationships with machines and big media; and promoting >> the anti-thesis of content development and language acquisition in the name >> of educational reform. In the meantime, the CEOs in Palo Alto send their >> kids to Montessori and Waldorf schools to develop creativity. >> >> Have a good day! >> >> Dr. M. Cathrene Connery >> Senior Lecturer >> Central Washington University >> Language, Literacy, & Special Education >> Ellensburg, WA 98927 >> connerymc@cwu.edu >> >> "Be the change you wish to see in the world." ~Ghandi~ >> >>>> On Feb 12, 2016, at 12:48 PM, David Kellogg >>> wrote: >>> >>> Huw, Alfredo, Alex, Mike: >>> >>> Language teaching is still in a stage I would call semi-behaviorist: we >> are >>> interested in shaping behavior, and not in what Kozulin calls cognitive >>> modifications. So the "dynamic assessment" work done by Feuerstein and >>> Kozulin has been "shaped" by the studies of corrective feedback done in >> the >>> late twentieth century by people like Mike Long, Cathy Doughty, Teresa >>> Pica, and Susan Gass. At first these studies seemed to show that >> corrective >>> feedback was more effective when it was implicit--when there was a focus >> on >>> meaning rather than on form--because the result was that people were able >>> to shape their behavior even when their cognitive focus was elsewhere. >> But >>> in 1997 Lyster and Ranta demonstrated that most teachers already use the >>> most implicit form of correction, namely the so-called "recast". >>> >>> S: And this is book. >>> T: That's a book, yeah. >>> S: Yeah, this is book, and is very expensive in you country. >>> >>> They also demonstrated that these implicit forms of correction were the >>> most likely to be ignored by the student, often because (as in this >>> example) the student is quite unaware that anything is wrong at all. So >> it >>> has begun to appear that cognitive modifications are not irrelevant after >>> all. >>> >>> As Andy points out, there is a strong tendency for we as academics to >>> resist cognitive modifications too--that is why people prefer to mine >>> Vygotsky's (Marx's, Hegel's) texts for jargon with which to rephrase what >>> they already believe rather than to undertake the hard work of >>> reconstructing the whole original system of concepts in their context. >> But >>> academics are a powerful check on other academics. >>> >>> After years of equating "dynamic assessment" with corrective feedback, >> Matt >>> Poehner has begun to argue that dynamic assessment is really about >>> transferring the locus of assessment to the learner. I am not sure to >> what >>> extent this argument is motivated by a desire to return to the Vygotskyan >>> idea of internalization and to what extent it is simply another swing of >>> the pendulum: it seems to me that Poehner's model of "self-assessment" >>> pretty much ignores what Vygotsky really had to say about >> internalization, >>> because (like the idea that DA is nothing more than corrective feedback) >> it >>> assumes that the "mediator" is the site of development and not just the >>> source (that is, the learner's job is not to reconstruct or to >> restructure >>> the correct form but simply to "appropriate" it from the environment). >>> >>> So it seems to me that the place to start to try to untangle this web of >>> misappropriations from Vygotsky is with "mediation". As Andy says, for >>> Hegel everything in heaven and earth, man and nature, is mediated (but >> some >>> things are more so than others). For Marx mediation arises because >> without >>> it reason (man) is simply the slave of necessity (nature). For the old >>> Vygotsky (the critical reactologist) mediation arises because one >> stimulus >>> can have many responses and vice versa, and for the new Vygotsky (the >>> semasiologist, the pedologist), it arises because one sign can have many >>> interpreters and many interpretations and vice versa. This allows the >>> emergence of self and free will (because after all I myself am a >> potential >>> interpreter of my own signs). So it turns out that Poehner's emphasis on >>> self-assessment is not completely irrelevant. >>> >>> A propos, a little problem in translation for the Russophones on the >> list. >>> Vygotsky says (in his work on Early Childhood in Vol. 4 of the Russian >>> Collected Works, p. 347). >>> >>> "???????? ????? ?????? ?????? ??? ?????????? ???????????. ?? ??? ??????, >>> ????????????? ???????? ?? ???????? ???????? ?? ??????????? ? ????????? >>> ?????? ??? ??????????? ???????? ??????? ?????????." >>> >>> Hall renders this as: >>> >>> "Gabriel described these misunderstandings (that is, the >> misunderstandings >>> caused by the child's use of single word sentences to adults) very well. >> In >>> his opinion, investigators did not turn their attention in vain to the >>> adults' difficulties in understanding a child who is just beginning to >>> speak." >>> >>> But it seems to me that the very opposite interpretation is also >> possible: >>> >>> "Gabriel described these misunderstandings very well. According to him, >>> researchers wasted their time in not attending to the difficulty for >> adults >>> in understanding a child who just starting to speak." >>> >>> What do you think? >>> >>> David Kellogg >>> Macquarie University >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 5:41 AM, Huw Lloyd >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi David, >>>> >>>> Well, we can ask direct and indirect with respect to what? The sign >>>> systems, in this case, are what is being 'directly' corrected. The >>>> indirect, is that which the sign systems are about. So, a good >> situation >>>> in which to learn appropriate grammar for this phrase is one in which >>>> ambiguity and confusion is induced in the receiver of such a message, >>>> thereby allowing for a contextualised and situated understanding of the >>>> meaning. For students who are comfortable with talking about notation >>>> itself, however, perhaps you can do both, but I still think it merits >>>> pointing to the real meanings. >>>> >>>>> From the encyclopaedia of social behavioural sciences: >>>> >>>> Actiity Theory and Errors >>>> >>>> Activity theorists define errors as the non attainment of an activity >> goal. >>>> The comparison of the activity outcome with the goal determines whether >> the >>>> goal has been achieved or whether further actions have to be >> accomplished. >>>> If an unintended outcome occurs, an error will be given. Consequently, a >>>> definition of an error based on Activity Theories integrates three >> aspects: >>>> (a) errors will only appear in goal-directed actions; (b) an error >> implies >>>> the nonattainment of the goal; (c) an error should have been potentially >>>> avoidable (Frese and Zapf 1991). Frese and Zapf (1991) developed an >> error >>>> taxonomy based on a version of Action Theory. This taxonomy and other >>>> comparable ones are inevitable in the examination of causes of errors >> and >>>> faults as a prerequisite of error prevention. Error prevention became an >>>> inevitable concern in modern technologies, e.g., the control rooms of >>>> nuclear power plants. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> Huw >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> On 11 February 2016 at 20:24, David Kellogg >> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I don't think error correction or even "making a student say 'This is a >>>>> book' is always "direct" or "immediate", quite the contrary. Most of >> the >>>> DA >>>>> sources I am referring to (yes, I am thinking of Lantolf and Poehner) >>>>> distinguish between the highly indirect and the direct. We can lay out >> a >>>>> kind of cline. >>>>> >>>>> HIGHLY INDIRECT >>>>> a) What did you say? >>>>> b) Did you say a book? >>>>> c) A book? >>>>> d) A book. >>>>> e) You mean a book. >>>>> f) No, you have to say "a book". >>>>> HIGHLY DIRECT >>>>> >>>>> There are various ways of discussing this cline in the literature, e.g. >>>>> "implicit" to "explicit" correction (Long and Doughty), or >>>>> "interventionist" vs. "non-interventionist" (Lantolf and Poehner), or >>>>> "recasts" vs. "prompts" (Ellis and others), "other repair" vs. "self >>>>> repair" (the Conversation Analysts). I don't agree that direct >>>> intervention >>>>> is bad, and indirect intervention good. Since the work of Lyster and >>>> Ranta, >>>>> we have become acutely conscious that most teacher intervention is >> highly >>>>> indirect and thus highly ineffective. >>>>> >>>>> The real thing that needs to be "mediated" is this: >>>>> >>>>> g) Every singular noun must have a determiner in English. >>>>> >>>>> Now, I think grasping this (is it implicit? Is it explicit?) is >> mediation >>>>> only in the following sense: in order to be able to use it, you need to >>>>> understand concepts like "noun", "singular", and "determiner". These >> are >>>>> all academic concepts and not everyday concepts and they cannot be >>>> directly >>>>> taught (c.f. Chapter Six of Thinking and Speech). I think that all >> error >>>>> correction, direct and indirect, is a way of indirectly teaching it. >>>>> >>>>> Perhaps the two "forces of nature" that are being played against each >>>> other >>>>> are the eidetic memory, which is concrete and based on everyday >>>> experience, >>>>> and forgetting, which produces an involuntary form of abstraction. >>>> Neither >>>>> force can overcome the other, but a learner can use a voluntary form of >>>>> abstraction to overcome both. >>>>> >>>>> I think the problem with the way "mediation" is interpreted as the >>>>> learner's "internalization" of the correction is simply this: it falls >>>> prey >>>>> to what Chaiklin calls the "assistance" assumption: the idea that the >>>> site >>>>> of development, and not simply the source, is the environment nad not >> the >>>>> learner. The environment (the correct form) is indeed the source of >>>>> development (and I do think grasping the English article system does >>>>> represent a form of real development, and certainly academic concepts >>>> do). >>>>> But the learner and only the learner is the site. >>>>> >>>>> David Kellogg >>>>> Macquarie University >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 8:04 PM, Huw Lloyd >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Perhaps you should respond in kind, David: >>>>>> >>>>>> 1. A failure to understand that speech and systems of notation >>>> mediate, >>>>>> i.e. guide and structure, activity which is the phenomenon that >>>> benefits >>>>>> from contact with reality. >>>>>> 2. Failure to understand that direct correction of these systems can >>>>>> inculcate an erroneous sense that systems of notation and speech are >>>> the >>>>>> "objective material" to be worked upon, rather than the efficacy of >>>> their >>>>>> use in realising object systems from which natural feedback can be >>>>>> obtained. >>>>>> 3. Failure to grasp the opportunity to frame these minor situations in >>>> the >>>>>> context of encouraging the student's own self-regulation and >> confidence >>>> in >>>>>> thinking. >>>>>> >>>>>> Any good? >>>>>> >>>>>> Best, >>>>>> Huw >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 10 February 2016 at 21:38, David Kellogg >>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I am occasionally, out of deference to a few papers I once published >>>> in >>>>>>> TESOL, sent articles to review on the use of Vygotskyan concepts in >>>>>>> language learning. Time was that these articles were mostly about >>>>>>> scaffolding and the ZPD; of late they have been mostly concerned with >>>>>>> "internalization" and "mediation". >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The problem is that most of these articles have taken these concepts >>>>>>> entirely out of child development and placed them in an alien >>>>>>> context--classroom error correction, which is now referred to as >>>> "Dynamic >>>>>>> Assessment". >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I am not sure what to do about this. It seems to me that one way to >>>> start >>>>>>> to address the issue is to go back to the original Hegelian idea of >>>>>>> "mediation" as using one force of nature against another: the force >>>> of >>>>>> air >>>>>>> pressure against gravity in flying, or the friction of snow vs. the >>>>>>> momentum of the fall line in skiing. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> When a teacher corrects an error in a classroom, e.g. when a teacher >>>>>> makes >>>>>>> the student say "This is a book" instead of "This is book", what are >>>> the >>>>>>> forces of nature that are being used against each other? Is this >>>> really >>>>>> an >>>>>>> instance of mediation at all? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> David Kellogg >>>>>>> Macquarie University >> >> From dkellogg60@gmail.com Sun Feb 14 11:20:35 2016 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2016 04:20:35 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: "Mediation" as Error Correction In-Reply-To: <446DCDD2-E954-40C9-A703-1EF8436DF162@gmail.com> References: <4203FE7A-B711-4A81-9CFD-33E22F64AD2A@cwu.edu> <446DCDD2-E954-40C9-A703-1EF8436DF162@gmail.com> Message-ID: Greg: Here's one: https://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/works/1930/man/ch05.htm But the one I was referring to was Thinking and Speech Chapter Five, part 13. I'm afraid that in order to understand what Vygotsky is REALLY saying about this example (which is from an ethnographer called Von Steinen via Levy-Bruhl) you need to understand his whole argument about complexes vs. concepts. I don't think Vygotsky is really saying that "primitive man" does not believe in the law of the excluded middle. First of all, he knows (and Frits Stahl was later to prove) that one of the most basic functions in language, found in every language without exception, is negation, and negation operates on the basis of non-overlapping categories of being and non-being (but also on the basis of categories which are consciously and explicitly fictitious in the sense of being non-actual). Secondly, Vygotsky himself doesn't believe in the law of the excluded middle, because dialectics excludes it ("becoming" is neither being nor non-being). Vygotsky is saying that it is perfectly possible for a child, a primitive man, an ape...and even a college professor--to have categories that include both parrots and people (e.g. "totem", or "living creature"). It is these categories that Eisenstein is interested in, because they are the categories of which the "montage" is the "germ cell" (note that these terms are used by Eisenstein the same meaning that they have in Vygotsky and Davydov!) David Kellogg Macquarie University : On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 2:12 AM, wrote: > David, > Pardon my ignorance but can you give the associated quote from vygotsky, > and perhaps also include the conclusion he draws? > This is of course of great interests to anthropologists at what has come > to be called "the ontological turn." I could imagine them making the same > statement as Eisenstein but drawing a nearly opposite conclusion. ("They > really are red parakeets!"). > Greg > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On Feb 13, 2016, at 3:31 PM, David Kellogg wrote: > > > > Huw, Mary.... > > > > Well, in the Dynamic Assessment literature there's a split. Some argue > for > > "interventionist" DA, which works on the following assumptions: > > > > a) The ideal form is present in the curriculum which is given beforehand. > > b) The path to the ideal form is one of carefully graded "prompts" > (similar > > to the cline I gave earlier, that is, a focus on: > > > > 1. The EXISTENCE of an error ("'This is book'. Are you sure that's > right?") > > 2. The LOCATION of the error. (*This is...?") > > 3. The NATURE of the error ("How many books?") > > 4. The WAY TO CORRECT the error ("This is a....?") > > 5. The active ACCEPTANCE of correction ("No, now listen. 'This is a > book.'") > > 6. The passive RECOGNITION of correction ("No, now listen. 'This is a > > book.' Repeat that for me!") > > > > (Note in passing that this isn't that different from the idea of reducing > > frustration by reducing the consequences of error and then reducing the > > probability of error, c.f. Bruner, Wood and Ross 1975.) > > > > The idea behind interventionist DA is that the curriculum is always right > > and there exists (more or less) a single path to the curriculum, which > can > > be marked out by the prompts 1-6. The RATE of progress to the curricular > > model will change, but the ROUTE is invariable. > > > > You can see that two corollaries follow from this idea of invariant route > > and variable rates. The first is that the interventionist DA model is > > assessment oriented, which appeals to principals as well as to > independent > > minded learners. The second is that the interventionist DA model is > > particularly conducive to the mass production of teaching materials that > > sideline the teacher, the sort of thing that Mary is worried about in > > Washington. > > > > The second option is just the opposite: it's called "interactionist" DA, > > and it's highly favored by Jim Lantolf (and Steve Thorne, Mathew Poehner, > > Neguerlea-Azola, and other writers associated with Penn State > University). > > The idea is just the opposite: there isn't a single path, and the route > to > > "communicative competence" can be highly variable so the whole is subject > > to negotiation. > > > > You can see that this model is not so assessment oriented, and that it > > foregrounds the teacher and will tend to disempower publishers at the > > expense of teacher trainers (and, more worryingly, non-native speakers at > > the expense of native speakers). > > > > Maybe these two variants of DA correspond, more or less, to the kind of > > bifurcation that Huw is talking about? That is, the former is more > > conducive to the Leontiev/Davidov/Elkonin model of learner appropriation > > and self-regulation as development, while the latter tends to the > > Lave/Rogoff/Matusov model of participatory learning? > > > > And Vygotsky? I rather suspect he would have wished a hearty plague on > both > > houses, although as Huw says, in Vygotsky the end result of development > is > > not merely participation: it's individuation. > > > > A propos. I have been reading Eisenstein's essays "Film Form". There are > > long quotes in it that are STRAIGHT out of Thinking and Speech--I mean, > > word for word. Take, for example, p. 135: > > > > "The Indians of this tribe--the Bororo--maintain that, while human > beings, > > they are none the less at the same time also a special kind of red > parakeet > > common in Brazil. Note that by this they do not in any way mean that they > > will become these birds after death, or that their ancestors were such in > > the remote past. Not at all. They directly maintain that they are in > > reality these actual birds. It is not here a matter of identity of names > or > > relationships; they mean a complete simultaneous identity of both." > > > > Eisenstein, S. (1949). Film Form. New York: Harcourt. > > > > Has anyone noticed this before? > > > > David Kellogg > > Macquarie University > > > > > >> On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 7:06 AM, Mary Connery > wrote: > >> > >> Dear colleagues: > >> Just a quick hello to validate David's insights! In my view from > >> Washington schools, I would also add there is a huge profit being made > by > >> companies that construct, dictate, create materials for, and assess > >> curriculum from this neo-behaviorist stance. It has created an epic > teacher > >> shortage; is replacing fundamental, essential, and formative > >> teacher-student relationships with machines and big media; and promoting > >> the anti-thesis of content development and language acquisition in the > name > >> of educational reform. In the meantime, the CEOs in Palo Alto send their > >> kids to Montessori and Waldorf schools to develop creativity. > >> > >> Have a good day! > >> > >> Dr. M. Cathrene Connery > >> Senior Lecturer > >> Central Washington University > >> Language, Literacy, & Special Education > >> Ellensburg, WA 98927 > >> connerymc@cwu.edu > >> > >> "Be the change you wish to see in the world." ~Ghandi~ > >> > >>>> On Feb 12, 2016, at 12:48 PM, David Kellogg > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>> Huw, Alfredo, Alex, Mike: > >>> > >>> Language teaching is still in a stage I would call semi-behaviorist: we > >> are > >>> interested in shaping behavior, and not in what Kozulin calls cognitive > >>> modifications. So the "dynamic assessment" work done by Feuerstein and > >>> Kozulin has been "shaped" by the studies of corrective feedback done in > >> the > >>> late twentieth century by people like Mike Long, Cathy Doughty, Teresa > >>> Pica, and Susan Gass. At first these studies seemed to show that > >> corrective > >>> feedback was more effective when it was implicit--when there was a > focus > >> on > >>> meaning rather than on form--because the result was that people were > able > >>> to shape their behavior even when their cognitive focus was elsewhere. > >> But > >>> in 1997 Lyster and Ranta demonstrated that most teachers already use > the > >>> most implicit form of correction, namely the so-called "recast". > >>> > >>> S: And this is book. > >>> T: That's a book, yeah. > >>> S: Yeah, this is book, and is very expensive in you country. > >>> > >>> They also demonstrated that these implicit forms of correction were the > >>> most likely to be ignored by the student, often because (as in this > >>> example) the student is quite unaware that anything is wrong at all. So > >> it > >>> has begun to appear that cognitive modifications are not irrelevant > after > >>> all. > >>> > >>> As Andy points out, there is a strong tendency for we as academics to > >>> resist cognitive modifications too--that is why people prefer to mine > >>> Vygotsky's (Marx's, Hegel's) texts for jargon with which to rephrase > what > >>> they already believe rather than to undertake the hard work of > >>> reconstructing the whole original system of concepts in their context. > >> But > >>> academics are a powerful check on other academics. > >>> > >>> After years of equating "dynamic assessment" with corrective feedback, > >> Matt > >>> Poehner has begun to argue that dynamic assessment is really about > >>> transferring the locus of assessment to the learner. I am not sure to > >> what > >>> extent this argument is motivated by a desire to return to the > Vygotskyan > >>> idea of internalization and to what extent it is simply another swing > of > >>> the pendulum: it seems to me that Poehner's model of "self-assessment" > >>> pretty much ignores what Vygotsky really had to say about > >> internalization, > >>> because (like the idea that DA is nothing more than corrective > feedback) > >> it > >>> assumes that the "mediator" is the site of development and not just the > >>> source (that is, the learner's job is not to reconstruct or to > >> restructure > >>> the correct form but simply to "appropriate" it from the environment). > >>> > >>> So it seems to me that the place to start to try to untangle this web > of > >>> misappropriations from Vygotsky is with "mediation". As Andy says, for > >>> Hegel everything in heaven and earth, man and nature, is mediated (but > >> some > >>> things are more so than others). For Marx mediation arises because > >> without > >>> it reason (man) is simply the slave of necessity (nature). For the old > >>> Vygotsky (the critical reactologist) mediation arises because one > >> stimulus > >>> can have many responses and vice versa, and for the new Vygotsky (the > >>> semasiologist, the pedologist), it arises because one sign can have > many > >>> interpreters and many interpretations and vice versa. This allows the > >>> emergence of self and free will (because after all I myself am a > >> potential > >>> interpreter of my own signs). So it turns out that Poehner's emphasis > on > >>> self-assessment is not completely irrelevant. > >>> > >>> A propos, a little problem in translation for the Russophones on the > >> list. > >>> Vygotsky says (in his work on Early Childhood in Vol. 4 of the Russian > >>> Collected Works, p. 347). > >>> > >>> "???????? ????? ?????? ?????? ??? ?????????? ???????????. ?? ??? > ??????, > >>> ????????????? ???????? ?? ???????? ???????? ?? ??????????? ? ????????? > >>> ?????? ??? ??????????? ???????? ??????? ?????????." > >>> > >>> Hall renders this as: > >>> > >>> "Gabriel described these misunderstandings (that is, the > >> misunderstandings > >>> caused by the child's use of single word sentences to adults) very > well. > >> In > >>> his opinion, investigators did not turn their attention in vain to the > >>> adults' difficulties in understanding a child who is just beginning to > >>> speak." > >>> > >>> But it seems to me that the very opposite interpretation is also > >> possible: > >>> > >>> "Gabriel described these misunderstandings very well. According to him, > >>> researchers wasted their time in not attending to the difficulty for > >> adults > >>> in understanding a child who just starting to speak." > >>> > >>> What do you think? > >>> > >>> David Kellogg > >>> Macquarie University > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 5:41 AM, Huw Lloyd > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Hi David, > >>>> > >>>> Well, we can ask direct and indirect with respect to what? The sign > >>>> systems, in this case, are what is being 'directly' corrected. The > >>>> indirect, is that which the sign systems are about. So, a good > >> situation > >>>> in which to learn appropriate grammar for this phrase is one in which > >>>> ambiguity and confusion is induced in the receiver of such a message, > >>>> thereby allowing for a contextualised and situated understanding of > the > >>>> meaning. For students who are comfortable with talking about notation > >>>> itself, however, perhaps you can do both, but I still think it merits > >>>> pointing to the real meanings. > >>>> > >>>>> From the encyclopaedia of social behavioural sciences: > >>>> > >>>> Actiity Theory and Errors > >>>> > >>>> Activity theorists define errors as the non attainment of an activity > >> goal. > >>>> The comparison of the activity outcome with the goal determines > whether > >> the > >>>> goal has been achieved or whether further actions have to be > >> accomplished. > >>>> If an unintended outcome occurs, an error will be given. > Consequently, a > >>>> definition of an error based on Activity Theories integrates three > >> aspects: > >>>> (a) errors will only appear in goal-directed actions; (b) an error > >> implies > >>>> the nonattainment of the goal; (c) an error should have been > potentially > >>>> avoidable (Frese and Zapf 1991). Frese and Zapf (1991) developed an > >> error > >>>> taxonomy based on a version of Action Theory. This taxonomy and other > >>>> comparable ones are inevitable in the examination of causes of errors > >> and > >>>> faults as a prerequisite of error prevention. Error prevention became > an > >>>> inevitable concern in modern technologies, e.g., the control rooms of > >>>> nuclear power plants. > >>>> > >>>> Best, > >>>> Huw > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> On 11 February 2016 at 20:24, David Kellogg > >> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> I don't think error correction or even "making a student say 'This > is a > >>>>> book' is always "direct" or "immediate", quite the contrary. Most of > >> the > >>>> DA > >>>>> sources I am referring to (yes, I am thinking of Lantolf and Poehner) > >>>>> distinguish between the highly indirect and the direct. We can lay > out > >> a > >>>>> kind of cline. > >>>>> > >>>>> HIGHLY INDIRECT > >>>>> a) What did you say? > >>>>> b) Did you say a book? > >>>>> c) A book? > >>>>> d) A book. > >>>>> e) You mean a book. > >>>>> f) No, you have to say "a book". > >>>>> HIGHLY DIRECT > >>>>> > >>>>> There are various ways of discussing this cline in the literature, > e.g. > >>>>> "implicit" to "explicit" correction (Long and Doughty), or > >>>>> "interventionist" vs. "non-interventionist" (Lantolf and Poehner), or > >>>>> "recasts" vs. "prompts" (Ellis and others), "other repair" vs. "self > >>>>> repair" (the Conversation Analysts). I don't agree that direct > >>>> intervention > >>>>> is bad, and indirect intervention good. Since the work of Lyster and > >>>> Ranta, > >>>>> we have become acutely conscious that most teacher intervention is > >> highly > >>>>> indirect and thus highly ineffective. > >>>>> > >>>>> The real thing that needs to be "mediated" is this: > >>>>> > >>>>> g) Every singular noun must have a determiner in English. > >>>>> > >>>>> Now, I think grasping this (is it implicit? Is it explicit?) is > >> mediation > >>>>> only in the following sense: in order to be able to use it, you need > to > >>>>> understand concepts like "noun", "singular", and "determiner". These > >> are > >>>>> all academic concepts and not everyday concepts and they cannot be > >>>> directly > >>>>> taught (c.f. Chapter Six of Thinking and Speech). I think that all > >> error > >>>>> correction, direct and indirect, is a way of indirectly teaching it. > >>>>> > >>>>> Perhaps the two "forces of nature" that are being played against each > >>>> other > >>>>> are the eidetic memory, which is concrete and based on everyday > >>>> experience, > >>>>> and forgetting, which produces an involuntary form of abstraction. > >>>> Neither > >>>>> force can overcome the other, but a learner can use a voluntary form > of > >>>>> abstraction to overcome both. > >>>>> > >>>>> I think the problem with the way "mediation" is interpreted as the > >>>>> learner's "internalization" of the correction is simply this: it > falls > >>>> prey > >>>>> to what Chaiklin calls the "assistance" assumption: the idea that the > >>>> site > >>>>> of development, and not simply the source, is the environment nad not > >> the > >>>>> learner. The environment (the correct form) is indeed the source of > >>>>> development (and I do think grasping the English article system does > >>>>> represent a form of real development, and certainly academic concepts > >>>> do). > >>>>> But the learner and only the learner is the site. > >>>>> > >>>>> David Kellogg > >>>>> Macquarie University > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 8:04 PM, Huw Lloyd < > huw.softdesigns@gmail.com> > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Perhaps you should respond in kind, David: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 1. A failure to understand that speech and systems of notation > >>>> mediate, > >>>>>> i.e. guide and structure, activity which is the phenomenon that > >>>> benefits > >>>>>> from contact with reality. > >>>>>> 2. Failure to understand that direct correction of these systems > can > >>>>>> inculcate an erroneous sense that systems of notation and speech are > >>>> the > >>>>>> "objective material" to be worked upon, rather than the efficacy of > >>>> their > >>>>>> use in realising object systems from which natural feedback can be > >>>>>> obtained. > >>>>>> 3. Failure to grasp the opportunity to frame these minor situations > in > >>>> the > >>>>>> context of encouraging the student's own self-regulation and > >> confidence > >>>> in > >>>>>> thinking. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Any good? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Best, > >>>>>> Huw > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On 10 February 2016 at 21:38, David Kellogg > >>>> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> I am occasionally, out of deference to a few papers I once > published > >>>> in > >>>>>>> TESOL, sent articles to review on the use of Vygotskyan concepts in > >>>>>>> language learning. Time was that these articles were mostly about > >>>>>>> scaffolding and the ZPD; of late they have been mostly concerned > with > >>>>>>> "internalization" and "mediation". > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> The problem is that most of these articles have taken these > concepts > >>>>>>> entirely out of child development and placed them in an alien > >>>>>>> context--classroom error correction, which is now referred to as > >>>> "Dynamic > >>>>>>> Assessment". > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I am not sure what to do about this. It seems to me that one way to > >>>> start > >>>>>>> to address the issue is to go back to the original Hegelian idea of > >>>>>>> "mediation" as using one force of nature against another: the force > >>>> of > >>>>>> air > >>>>>>> pressure against gravity in flying, or the friction of snow vs. the > >>>>>>> momentum of the fall line in skiing. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> When a teacher corrects an error in a classroom, e.g. when a > teacher > >>>>>> makes > >>>>>>> the student say "This is a book" instead of "This is book", what > are > >>>> the > >>>>>>> forces of nature that are being used against each other? Is this > >>>> really > >>>>>> an > >>>>>>> instance of mediation at all? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> David Kellogg > >>>>>>> Macquarie University > >> > >> > > From greg.a.thompson@gmail.com Sun Feb 14 21:05:06 2016 From: greg.a.thompson@gmail.com (Greg Thompson) Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2016 22:05:06 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: "Mediation" as Error Correction In-Reply-To: References: <4203FE7A-B711-4A81-9CFD-33E22F64AD2A@cwu.edu> <446DCDD2-E954-40C9-A703-1EF8436DF162@gmail.com> Message-ID: Fascinating stuff David - I particularly wonder about montages as complexive chain? But I also have wondered about this whole business about Levy-Bruhl. I came across a very nice piece by Jonathan Z. Smith entitled "I am a parrot (red)" (Can be found in his book Map is not Territory or in the original article here: Smith, J. Z.. (1972). I Am a Parrot (Red). History of Religions, 11(4), 391?413. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1061849). J.Z. describes how the original ethnographic citation was to Karl von den Steinen who conducted ethnographic research among the Bororo. Yet, as he notes below, it was popularized (in a somewhat twisted form) by Levy-Bruhl. Here is J.Z.'s take on it: "The citation in Levy-Bruhl is quite close to von den Steinen's original. Levy-Bruhl has added the detail that von den Steinen "could not believe it" and has made one significant alteration in direct quotation. Von den Steinen had asserted that the Bororo understood themselves to be araras just as a caterpillar may speak of himself as a butterfly. Levy-Bruhl's version omits the ambiguity between present and future (or the Aristotelian actuality and potentiality) in order to emphasize the element of participation. In his translation, the Bororos insist that "they are araras at the present time." (Compounding the misrepresentation, Levy-Bruhl italicized his addition of actuellement.)41 The mischief done by this cannot be overemphasized. It is Levy-Bruhl and not von den Steinen's original report (no matter what the footnote may cite) which will be used by most subsequent writers as an illustration of primitive mentality." Seems like the Bororo are as interested in "becoming" as are the dialectical metaphysicians! J.Z. has lots more to say about the argument regarding "primitive thinking" as well. Cheers, Greg On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 12:20 PM, David Kellogg wrote: > Greg: > > Here's one: > > https://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/works/1930/man/ch05.htm > > But the one I was referring to was Thinking and Speech Chapter Five, part > 13. I'm afraid that in order to understand what Vygotsky is REALLY saying > about this example (which is from an ethnographer called Von Steinen via > Levy-Bruhl) you need to understand his whole argument about complexes vs. > concepts. > > I don't think Vygotsky is really saying that "primitive man" does not > believe in the law of the excluded middle. First of all, he knows (and > Frits Stahl was later to prove) that one of the most basic functions in > language, found in every language without exception, is negation, and > negation operates on the basis of non-overlapping categories of being and > non-being (but also on the basis of categories which are consciously and > explicitly fictitious in the sense of being non-actual). Secondly, Vygotsky > himself doesn't believe in the law of the excluded middle, because > dialectics excludes it ("becoming" is neither being nor non-being). > > Vygotsky is saying that it is perfectly possible for a child, a primitive > man, an ape...and even a college professor--to have categories that include > both parrots and people (e.g. "totem", or "living creature"). It is these > categories that Eisenstein is interested in, because they are the > categories of which the "montage" is the "germ cell" (note that these terms > are used by Eisenstein the same meaning that they have in Vygotsky and > Davydov!) > > David Kellogg > Macquarie University > > : > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 2:12 AM, wrote: > > > David, > > Pardon my ignorance but can you give the associated quote from vygotsky, > > and perhaps also include the conclusion he draws? > > This is of course of great interests to anthropologists at what has come > > to be called "the ontological turn." I could imagine them making the same > > statement as Eisenstein but drawing a nearly opposite conclusion. ("They > > really are red parakeets!"). > > Greg > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > > > On Feb 13, 2016, at 3:31 PM, David Kellogg > wrote: > > > > > > Huw, Mary.... > > > > > > Well, in the Dynamic Assessment literature there's a split. Some argue > > for > > > "interventionist" DA, which works on the following assumptions: > > > > > > a) The ideal form is present in the curriculum which is given > beforehand. > > > b) The path to the ideal form is one of carefully graded "prompts" > > (similar > > > to the cline I gave earlier, that is, a focus on: > > > > > > 1. The EXISTENCE of an error ("'This is book'. Are you sure that's > > right?") > > > 2. The LOCATION of the error. (*This is...?") > > > 3. The NATURE of the error ("How many books?") > > > 4. The WAY TO CORRECT the error ("This is a....?") > > > 5. The active ACCEPTANCE of correction ("No, now listen. 'This is a > > book.'") > > > 6. The passive RECOGNITION of correction ("No, now listen. 'This is a > > > book.' Repeat that for me!") > > > > > > (Note in passing that this isn't that different from the idea of > reducing > > > frustration by reducing the consequences of error and then reducing the > > > probability of error, c.f. Bruner, Wood and Ross 1975.) > > > > > > The idea behind interventionist DA is that the curriculum is always > right > > > and there exists (more or less) a single path to the curriculum, which > > can > > > be marked out by the prompts 1-6. The RATE of progress to the > curricular > > > model will change, but the ROUTE is invariable. > > > > > > You can see that two corollaries follow from this idea of invariant > route > > > and variable rates. The first is that the interventionist DA model is > > > assessment oriented, which appeals to principals as well as to > > independent > > > minded learners. The second is that the interventionist DA model is > > > particularly conducive to the mass production of teaching materials > that > > > sideline the teacher, the sort of thing that Mary is worried about in > > > Washington. > > > > > > The second option is just the opposite: it's called "interactionist" > DA, > > > and it's highly favored by Jim Lantolf (and Steve Thorne, Mathew > Poehner, > > > Neguerlea-Azola, and other writers associated with Penn State > > University). > > > The idea is just the opposite: there isn't a single path, and the route > > to > > > "communicative competence" can be highly variable so the whole is > subject > > > to negotiation. > > > > > > You can see that this model is not so assessment oriented, and that it > > > foregrounds the teacher and will tend to disempower publishers at the > > > expense of teacher trainers (and, more worryingly, non-native speakers > at > > > the expense of native speakers). > > > > > > Maybe these two variants of DA correspond, more or less, to the kind of > > > bifurcation that Huw is talking about? That is, the former is more > > > conducive to the Leontiev/Davidov/Elkonin model of learner > appropriation > > > and self-regulation as development, while the latter tends to the > > > Lave/Rogoff/Matusov model of participatory learning? > > > > > > And Vygotsky? I rather suspect he would have wished a hearty plague on > > both > > > houses, although as Huw says, in Vygotsky the end result of development > > is > > > not merely participation: it's individuation. > > > > > > A propos. I have been reading Eisenstein's essays "Film Form". There > are > > > long quotes in it that are STRAIGHT out of Thinking and Speech--I mean, > > > word for word. Take, for example, p. 135: > > > > > > "The Indians of this tribe--the Bororo--maintain that, while human > > beings, > > > they are none the less at the same time also a special kind of red > > parakeet > > > common in Brazil. Note that by this they do not in any way mean that > they > > > will become these birds after death, or that their ancestors were such > in > > > the remote past. Not at all. They directly maintain that they are in > > > reality these actual birds. It is not here a matter of identity of > names > > or > > > relationships; they mean a complete simultaneous identity of both." > > > > > > Eisenstein, S. (1949). Film Form. New York: Harcourt. > > > > > > Has anyone noticed this before? > > > > > > David Kellogg > > > Macquarie University > > > > > > > > >> On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 7:06 AM, Mary Connery > > wrote: > > >> > > >> Dear colleagues: > > >> Just a quick hello to validate David's insights! In my view from > > >> Washington schools, I would also add there is a huge profit being made > > by > > >> companies that construct, dictate, create materials for, and assess > > >> curriculum from this neo-behaviorist stance. It has created an epic > > teacher > > >> shortage; is replacing fundamental, essential, and formative > > >> teacher-student relationships with machines and big media; and > promoting > > >> the anti-thesis of content development and language acquisition in the > > name > > >> of educational reform. In the meantime, the CEOs in Palo Alto send > their > > >> kids to Montessori and Waldorf schools to develop creativity. > > >> > > >> Have a good day! > > >> > > >> Dr. M. Cathrene Connery > > >> Senior Lecturer > > >> Central Washington University > > >> Language, Literacy, & Special Education > > >> Ellensburg, WA 98927 > > >> connerymc@cwu.edu > > >> > > >> "Be the change you wish to see in the world." ~Ghandi~ > > >> > > >>>> On Feb 12, 2016, at 12:48 PM, David Kellogg > > >>> wrote: > > >>> > > >>> Huw, Alfredo, Alex, Mike: > > >>> > > >>> Language teaching is still in a stage I would call semi-behaviorist: > we > > >> are > > >>> interested in shaping behavior, and not in what Kozulin calls > cognitive > > >>> modifications. So the "dynamic assessment" work done by Feuerstein > and > > >>> Kozulin has been "shaped" by the studies of corrective feedback done > in > > >> the > > >>> late twentieth century by people like Mike Long, Cathy Doughty, > Teresa > > >>> Pica, and Susan Gass. At first these studies seemed to show that > > >> corrective > > >>> feedback was more effective when it was implicit--when there was a > > focus > > >> on > > >>> meaning rather than on form--because the result was that people were > > able > > >>> to shape their behavior even when their cognitive focus was > elsewhere. > > >> But > > >>> in 1997 Lyster and Ranta demonstrated that most teachers already use > > the > > >>> most implicit form of correction, namely the so-called "recast". > > >>> > > >>> S: And this is book. > > >>> T: That's a book, yeah. > > >>> S: Yeah, this is book, and is very expensive in you country. > > >>> > > >>> They also demonstrated that these implicit forms of correction were > the > > >>> most likely to be ignored by the student, often because (as in this > > >>> example) the student is quite unaware that anything is wrong at all. > So > > >> it > > >>> has begun to appear that cognitive modifications are not irrelevant > > after > > >>> all. > > >>> > > >>> As Andy points out, there is a strong tendency for we as academics to > > >>> resist cognitive modifications too--that is why people prefer to mine > > >>> Vygotsky's (Marx's, Hegel's) texts for jargon with which to rephrase > > what > > >>> they already believe rather than to undertake the hard work of > > >>> reconstructing the whole original system of concepts in their > context. > > >> But > > >>> academics are a powerful check on other academics. > > >>> > > >>> After years of equating "dynamic assessment" with corrective > feedback, > > >> Matt > > >>> Poehner has begun to argue that dynamic assessment is really about > > >>> transferring the locus of assessment to the learner. I am not sure to > > >> what > > >>> extent this argument is motivated by a desire to return to the > > Vygotskyan > > >>> idea of internalization and to what extent it is simply another swing > > of > > >>> the pendulum: it seems to me that Poehner's model of > "self-assessment" > > >>> pretty much ignores what Vygotsky really had to say about > > >> internalization, > > >>> because (like the idea that DA is nothing more than corrective > > feedback) > > >> it > > >>> assumes that the "mediator" is the site of development and not just > the > > >>> source (that is, the learner's job is not to reconstruct or to > > >> restructure > > >>> the correct form but simply to "appropriate" it from the > environment). > > >>> > > >>> So it seems to me that the place to start to try to untangle this web > > of > > >>> misappropriations from Vygotsky is with "mediation". As Andy says, > for > > >>> Hegel everything in heaven and earth, man and nature, is mediated > (but > > >> some > > >>> things are more so than others). For Marx mediation arises because > > >> without > > >>> it reason (man) is simply the slave of necessity (nature). For the > old > > >>> Vygotsky (the critical reactologist) mediation arises because one > > >> stimulus > > >>> can have many responses and vice versa, and for the new Vygotsky (the > > >>> semasiologist, the pedologist), it arises because one sign can have > > many > > >>> interpreters and many interpretations and vice versa. This allows the > > >>> emergence of self and free will (because after all I myself am a > > >> potential > > >>> interpreter of my own signs). So it turns out that Poehner's emphasis > > on > > >>> self-assessment is not completely irrelevant. > > >>> > > >>> A propos, a little problem in translation for the Russophones on the > > >> list. > > >>> Vygotsky says (in his work on Early Childhood in Vol. 4 of the > Russian > > >>> Collected Works, p. 347). > > >>> > > >>> "???????? ????? ?????? ?????? ??? ?????????? ???????????. ?? ??? > > ??????, > > >>> ????????????? ???????? ?? ???????? ???????? ?? ??????????? ? > ????????? > > >>> ?????? ??? ??????????? ???????? ??????? ?????????." > > >>> > > >>> Hall renders this as: > > >>> > > >>> "Gabriel described these misunderstandings (that is, the > > >> misunderstandings > > >>> caused by the child's use of single word sentences to adults) very > > well. > > >> In > > >>> his opinion, investigators did not turn their attention in vain to > the > > >>> adults' difficulties in understanding a child who is just beginning > to > > >>> speak." > > >>> > > >>> But it seems to me that the very opposite interpretation is also > > >> possible: > > >>> > > >>> "Gabriel described these misunderstandings very well. According to > him, > > >>> researchers wasted their time in not attending to the difficulty for > > >> adults > > >>> in understanding a child who just starting to speak." > > >>> > > >>> What do you think? > > >>> > > >>> David Kellogg > > >>> Macquarie University > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 5:41 AM, Huw Lloyd < > huw.softdesigns@gmail.com> > > >>> wrote: > > >>> > > >>>> Hi David, > > >>>> > > >>>> Well, we can ask direct and indirect with respect to what? The sign > > >>>> systems, in this case, are what is being 'directly' corrected. The > > >>>> indirect, is that which the sign systems are about. So, a good > > >> situation > > >>>> in which to learn appropriate grammar for this phrase is one in > which > > >>>> ambiguity and confusion is induced in the receiver of such a > message, > > >>>> thereby allowing for a contextualised and situated understanding of > > the > > >>>> meaning. For students who are comfortable with talking about > notation > > >>>> itself, however, perhaps you can do both, but I still think it > merits > > >>>> pointing to the real meanings. > > >>>> > > >>>>> From the encyclopaedia of social behavioural sciences: > > >>>> > > >>>> Actiity Theory and Errors > > >>>> > > >>>> Activity theorists define errors as the non attainment of an > activity > > >> goal. > > >>>> The comparison of the activity outcome with the goal determines > > whether > > >> the > > >>>> goal has been achieved or whether further actions have to be > > >> accomplished. > > >>>> If an unintended outcome occurs, an error will be given. > > Consequently, a > > >>>> definition of an error based on Activity Theories integrates three > > >> aspects: > > >>>> (a) errors will only appear in goal-directed actions; (b) an error > > >> implies > > >>>> the nonattainment of the goal; (c) an error should have been > > potentially > > >>>> avoidable (Frese and Zapf 1991). Frese and Zapf (1991) developed an > > >> error > > >>>> taxonomy based on a version of Action Theory. This taxonomy and > other > > >>>> comparable ones are inevitable in the examination of causes of > errors > > >> and > > >>>> faults as a prerequisite of error prevention. Error prevention > became > > an > > >>>> inevitable concern in modern technologies, e.g., the control rooms > of > > >>>> nuclear power plants. > > >>>> > > >>>> Best, > > >>>> Huw > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> On 11 February 2016 at 20:24, David Kellogg > > >> wrote: > > >>>>> > > >>>>> I don't think error correction or even "making a student say 'This > > is a > > >>>>> book' is always "direct" or "immediate", quite the contrary. Most > of > > >> the > > >>>> DA > > >>>>> sources I am referring to (yes, I am thinking of Lantolf and > Poehner) > > >>>>> distinguish between the highly indirect and the direct. We can lay > > out > > >> a > > >>>>> kind of cline. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> HIGHLY INDIRECT > > >>>>> a) What did you say? > > >>>>> b) Did you say a book? > > >>>>> c) A book? > > >>>>> d) A book. > > >>>>> e) You mean a book. > > >>>>> f) No, you have to say "a book". > > >>>>> HIGHLY DIRECT > > >>>>> > > >>>>> There are various ways of discussing this cline in the literature, > > e.g. > > >>>>> "implicit" to "explicit" correction (Long and Doughty), or > > >>>>> "interventionist" vs. "non-interventionist" (Lantolf and Poehner), > or > > >>>>> "recasts" vs. "prompts" (Ellis and others), "other repair" vs. > "self > > >>>>> repair" (the Conversation Analysts). I don't agree that direct > > >>>> intervention > > >>>>> is bad, and indirect intervention good. Since the work of Lyster > and > > >>>> Ranta, > > >>>>> we have become acutely conscious that most teacher intervention is > > >> highly > > >>>>> indirect and thus highly ineffective. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> The real thing that needs to be "mediated" is this: > > >>>>> > > >>>>> g) Every singular noun must have a determiner in English. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Now, I think grasping this (is it implicit? Is it explicit?) is > > >> mediation > > >>>>> only in the following sense: in order to be able to use it, you > need > > to > > >>>>> understand concepts like "noun", "singular", and "determiner". > These > > >> are > > >>>>> all academic concepts and not everyday concepts and they cannot be > > >>>> directly > > >>>>> taught (c.f. Chapter Six of Thinking and Speech). I think that all > > >> error > > >>>>> correction, direct and indirect, is a way of indirectly teaching > it. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Perhaps the two "forces of nature" that are being played against > each > > >>>> other > > >>>>> are the eidetic memory, which is concrete and based on everyday > > >>>> experience, > > >>>>> and forgetting, which produces an involuntary form of abstraction. > > >>>> Neither > > >>>>> force can overcome the other, but a learner can use a voluntary > form > > of > > >>>>> abstraction to overcome both. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> I think the problem with the way "mediation" is interpreted as the > > >>>>> learner's "internalization" of the correction is simply this: it > > falls > > >>>> prey > > >>>>> to what Chaiklin calls the "assistance" assumption: the idea that > the > > >>>> site > > >>>>> of development, and not simply the source, is the environment nad > not > > >> the > > >>>>> learner. The environment (the correct form) is indeed the source of > > >>>>> development (and I do think grasping the English article system > does > > >>>>> represent a form of real development, and certainly academic > concepts > > >>>> do). > > >>>>> But the learner and only the learner is the site. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> David Kellogg > > >>>>> Macquarie University > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 8:04 PM, Huw Lloyd < > > huw.softdesigns@gmail.com> > > >>>>> wrote: > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> Perhaps you should respond in kind, David: > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> 1. A failure to understand that speech and systems of notation > > >>>> mediate, > > >>>>>> i.e. guide and structure, activity which is the phenomenon that > > >>>> benefits > > >>>>>> from contact with reality. > > >>>>>> 2. Failure to understand that direct correction of these systems > > can > > >>>>>> inculcate an erroneous sense that systems of notation and speech > are > > >>>> the > > >>>>>> "objective material" to be worked upon, rather than the efficacy > of > > >>>> their > > >>>>>> use in realising object systems from which natural feedback can be > > >>>>>> obtained. > > >>>>>> 3. Failure to grasp the opportunity to frame these minor > situations > > in > > >>>> the > > >>>>>> context of encouraging the student's own self-regulation and > > >> confidence > > >>>> in > > >>>>>> thinking. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Any good? > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Best, > > >>>>>> Huw > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> On 10 February 2016 at 21:38, David Kellogg > > > >>>> wrote: > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> I am occasionally, out of deference to a few papers I once > > published > > >>>> in > > >>>>>>> TESOL, sent articles to review on the use of Vygotskyan concepts > in > > >>>>>>> language learning. Time was that these articles were mostly about > > >>>>>>> scaffolding and the ZPD; of late they have been mostly concerned > > with > > >>>>>>> "internalization" and "mediation". > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> The problem is that most of these articles have taken these > > concepts > > >>>>>>> entirely out of child development and placed them in an alien > > >>>>>>> context--classroom error correction, which is now referred to as > > >>>> "Dynamic > > >>>>>>> Assessment". > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> I am not sure what to do about this. It seems to me that one way > to > > >>>> start > > >>>>>>> to address the issue is to go back to the original Hegelian idea > of > > >>>>>>> "mediation" as using one force of nature against another: the > force > > >>>> of > > >>>>>> air > > >>>>>>> pressure against gravity in flying, or the friction of snow vs. > the > > >>>>>>> momentum of the fall line in skiing. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> When a teacher corrects an error in a classroom, e.g. when a > > teacher > > >>>>>> makes > > >>>>>>> the student say "This is a book" instead of "This is book", what > > are > > >>>> the > > >>>>>>> forces of nature that are being used against each other? Is this > > >>>> really > > >>>>>> an > > >>>>>>> instance of mediation at all? > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> David Kellogg > > >>>>>>> Macquarie University > > >> > > >> > > > > > -- Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Department of Anthropology 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602 http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson From lpscholar2@gmail.com Mon Feb 15 04:28:38 2016 From: lpscholar2@gmail.com (Lplarry) Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2016 04:28:38 -0800 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: "Mediation" as Error Correction In-Reply-To: References: <4203FE7A-B711-4A81-9CFD-33E22F64AD2A@cwu.edu> <446DCDD2-E954-40C9-A703-1EF8436DF162@gmail.com> Message-ID: <56c1c493.cf13620a.460fe.2798@mx.google.com> Vygotsky quotes Gatschet to make a contrast between modern and primitive use of language. "We tend to speak precisely, whereas an Indian draws as he speaks; we classify, he individualized. For these reasons, the speech of primitive man, in comparison with our language, truly resembles an endlessly complex, accurate, plastic, and photographic description of an event, with the finest details. Notice the focus on speech AS drawing images in contrast to classifying. THIS focus is endlessly plastic AND accurate. Now I want to introduce Bob Dylan and his song *Visions of Johanna* and ask us to place his language into Gatschets contrasting notions. Remember that the symbolism of dylans language transformed our relation to music and culture. -----Original Message----- From: "Greg Thompson" Sent: ?2016-?02-?14 9:08 PM To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: "Mediation" as Error Correction Fascinating stuff David - I particularly wonder about montages as complexive chain? But I also have wondered about this whole business about Levy-Bruhl. I came across a very nice piece by Jonathan Z. Smith entitled "I am a parrot (red)" (Can be found in his book Map is not Territory or in the original article here: Smith, J. Z.. (1972). I Am a Parrot (Red). History of Religions, 11(4), 391?413. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1061849). J.Z. describes how the original ethnographic citation was to Karl von den Steinen who conducted ethnographic research among the Bororo. Yet, as he notes below, it was popularized (in a somewhat twisted form) by Levy-Bruhl. Here is J.Z.'s take on it: "The citation in Levy-Bruhl is quite close to von den Steinen's original. Levy-Bruhl has added the detail that von den Steinen "could not believe it" and has made one significant alteration in direct quotation. Von den Steinen had asserted that the Bororo understood themselves to be araras just as a caterpillar may speak of himself as a butterfly. Levy-Bruhl's version omits the ambiguity between present and future (or the Aristotelian actuality and potentiality) in order to emphasize the element of participation. In his translation, the Bororos insist that "they are araras at the present time." (Compounding the misrepresentation, Levy-Bruhl italicized his addition of actuellement.)41 The mischief done by this cannot be overemphasized. It is Levy-Bruhl and not von den Steinen's original report (no matter what the footnote may cite) which will be used by most subsequent writers as an illustration of primitive mentality." Seems like the Bororo are as interested in "becoming" as are the dialectical metaphysicians! J.Z. has lots more to say about the argument regarding "primitive thinking" as well. Cheers, Greg On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 12:20 PM, David Kellogg wrote: > Greg: > > Here's one: > > https://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/works/1930/man/ch05.htm > > But the one I was referring to was Thinking and Speech Chapter Five, part > 13. I'm afraid that in order to understand what Vygotsky is REALLY saying > about this example (which is from an ethnographer called Von Steinen via > Levy-Bruhl) you need to understand his whole argument about complexes vs. > concepts. > > I don't think Vygotsky is really saying that "primitive man" does not > believe in the law of the excluded middle. First of all, he knows (and > Frits Stahl was later to prove) that one of the most basic functions in > language, found in every language without exception, is negation, and > negation operates on the basis of non-overlapping categories of being and > non-being (but also on the basis of categories which are consciously and > explicitly fictitious in the sense of being non-actual). Secondly, Vygotsky > himself doesn't believe in the law of the excluded middle, because > dialectics excludes it ("becoming" is neither being nor non-being). > > Vygotsky is saying that it is perfectly possible for a child, a primitive > man, an ape...and even a college professor--to have categories that include > both parrots and people (e.g. "totem", or "living creature"). It is these > categories that Eisenstein is interested in, because they are the > categories of which the "montage" is the "germ cell" (note that these terms > are used by Eisenstein the same meaning that they have in Vygotsky and > Davydov!) > > David Kellogg > Macquarie University > > : > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 2:12 AM, wrote: > > > David, > > Pardon my ignorance but can you give the associated quote from vygotsky, > > and perhaps also include the conclusion he draws? > > This is of course of great interests to anthropologists at what has come > > to be called "the ontological turn." I could imagine them making the same > > statement as Eisenstein but drawing a nearly opposite conclusion. ("They > > really are red parakeets!"). > > Greg > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > > > On Feb 13, 2016, at 3:31 PM, David Kellogg > wrote: > > > > > > Huw, Mary.... > > > > > > Well, in the Dynamic Assessment literature there's a split. Some argue > > for > > > "interventionist" DA, which works on the following assumptions: > > > > > > a) The ideal form is present in the curriculum which is given > beforehand. > > > b) The path to the ideal form is one of carefully graded "prompts" > > (similar > > > to the cline I gave earlier, that is, a focus on: > > > > > > 1. The EXISTENCE of an error ("'This is book'. Are you sure that's > > right?") > > > 2. The LOCATION of the error. (*This is...?") > > > 3. The NATURE of the error ("How many books?") > > > 4. The WAY TO CORRECT the error ("This is a....?") > > > 5. The active ACCEPTANCE of correction ("No, now listen. 'This is a > > book.'") > > > 6. The passive RECOGNITION of correction ("No, now listen. 'This is a > > > book.' Repeat that for me!") > > > > > > (Note in passing that this isn't that different from the idea of > reducing > > > frustration by reducing the consequences of error and then reducing the > > > probability of error, c.f. Bruner, Wood and Ross 1975.) > > > > > > The idea behind interventionist DA is that the curriculum is always > right > > > and there exists (more or less) a single path to the curriculum, which > > can > > > be marked out by the prompts 1-6. The RATE of progress to the > curricular > > > model will change, but the ROUTE is invariable. > > > > > > You can see that two corollaries follow from this idea of invariant > route > > > and variable rates. The first is that the interventionist DA model is > > > assessment oriented, which appeals to principals as well as to > > independent > > > minded learners. The second is that the interventionist DA model is > > > particularly conducive to the mass production of teaching materials > that > > > sideline the teacher, the sort of thing that Mary is worried about in > > > Washington. > > > > > > The second option is just the opposite: it's called "interactionist" > DA, > > > and it's highly favored by Jim Lantolf (and Steve Thorne, Mathew > Poehner, > > > Neguerlea-Azola, and other writers associated with Penn State > > University). > > > The idea is just the opposite: there isn't a single path, and the route > > to > > > "communicative competence" can be highly variable so the whole is > subject > > > to negotiation. > > > > > > You can see that this model is not so assessment oriented, and that it > > > foregrounds the teacher and will tend to disempower publishers at the > > > expense of teacher trainers (and, more worryingly, non-native speakers > at > > > the expense of native speakers). > > > > > > Maybe these two variants of DA correspond, more or less, to the kind of > > > bifurcation that Huw is talking about? That is, the former is more > > > conducive to the Leontiev/Davidov/Elkonin model of learner > appropriation > > > and self-regulation as development, while the latter tends to the > > > Lave/Rogoff/Matusov model of participatory learning? > > > > > > And Vygotsky? I rather suspect he would have wished a hearty plague on > > both > > > houses, although as Huw says, in Vygotsky the end result of development > > is > > > not merely participation: it's individuation. > > > > > > A propos. I have been reading Eisenstein's essays "Film Form". There > are > > > long quotes in it that are STRAIGHT out of Thinking and Speech--I mean, > > > word for word. Take, for example, p. 135: > > > > > > "The Indians of this tribe--the Bororo--maintain that, while human > > beings, > > > they are none the less at the same time also a special kind of red > > parakeet > > > common in Brazil. Note that by this they do not in any way mean that > they > > > will become these birds after death, or that their ancestors were such > in > > > the remote past. Not at all. They directly maintain that they are in > > > reality these actual birds. It is not here a matter of identity of > names > > or > > > relationships; they mean a complete simultaneous identity of both." > > > > > > Eisenstein, S. (1949). Film Form. New York: Harcourt. > > > > > > Has anyone noticed this before? > > > > > > David Kellogg > > > Macquarie University > > > > > > > > >> On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 7:06 AM, Mary Connery > > wrote: > > >> > > >> Dear colleagues: > > >> Just a quick hello to validate David's insights! In my view from > > >> Washington schools, I would also add there is a huge profit being made > > by > > >> companies that construct, dictate, create materials for, and assess > > >> curriculum from this neo-behaviorist stance. It has created an epic > > teacher > > >> shortage; is replacing fundamental, essential, and formative > > >> teacher-student relationships with machines and big media; and > promoting > > >> the anti-thesis of content development and language acquisition in the > > name > > >> of educational reform. In the meantime, the CEOs in Palo Alto send > their > > >> kids to Montessori and Waldorf schools to develop creativity. > > >> > > >> Have a good day! > > >> > > >> Dr. M. Cathrene Connery > > >> Senior Lecturer > > >> Central Washington University > > >> Language, Literacy, & Special Education > > >> Ellensburg, WA 98927 > > >> connerymc@cwu.edu > > >> > > >> "Be the change you wish to see in the world." ~Ghandi~ > > >> > > >>>> On Feb 12, 2016, at 12:48 PM, David Kellogg > > >>> wrote: > > >>> > > >>> Huw, Alfredo, Alex, Mike: > > >>> > > >>> Language teaching is still in a stage I would call semi-behaviorist: > we > > >> are > > >>> interested in shaping behavior, and not in what Kozulin calls > cognitive > > >>> modifications. So the "dynamic assessment" work done by Feuerstein > and > > >>> Kozulin has been "shaped" by the studies of corrective feedback done > in > > >> the > > >>> late twentieth century by people like Mike Long, Cathy Doughty, > Teresa > > >>> Pica, and Susan Gass. At first these studies seemed to show that > > >> corrective > > >>> feedback was more effective when it was implicit--when there was a > > focus > > >> on > > >>> meaning rather than on form--because the result was that people were > > able > > >>> to shape their behavior even when their cognitive focus was > elsewhere. > > >> But > > >>> in 1997 Lyster and Ranta demonstrated that most teachers already use > > the > > >>> most implicit form of correction, namely the so-called "recast". > > >>> > > >>> S: And this is book. > > >>> T: That's a book, yeah. > > >>> S: Yeah, this is book, and is very expensive in you country. > > >>> > > >>> They also demonstrated that these implicit forms of correction were > the > > >>> most likely to be ignored by the student, often because (as in this > > >>> example) the student is quite unaware that anything is wrong at all. > So > > >> it > > >>> has begun to appear that cognitive modifications are not irrelevant > > after > > >>> all. > > >>> > > >>> As Andy points out, there is a strong tendency for we as academics to > > >>> resist cognitive modifications too--that is why people prefer to mine > > >>> Vygotsky's (Marx's, Hegel's) texts for jargon with which to rephrase > > what > > >>> they already believe rather than to undertake the hard work of > > >>> reconstructing the whole original system of concepts in their > context. > > >> But > > >>> academics are a powerful check on other academics. > > >>> > > >>> After years of equating "dynamic assessment" with corrective > feedback, > > >> Matt > > >>> Poehner has begun to argue that dynamic assessment is really about > > >>> transferring the locus of assessment to the learner. I am not sure to > > >> what > > >>> extent this argument is motivated by a desire to return to the > > Vygotskyan > > >>> idea of internalization and to what extent it is simply another swing > > of > > >>> the pendulum: it seems to me that Poehner's model of > "self-assessment" > > >>> pretty much ignores what Vygotsky really had to say about > > >> internalization, > > >>> because (like the idea that DA is nothing more than corrective > > feedback) > > >> it > > >>> assumes that the "mediator" is the site of development and not just > the > > >>> source (that is, the learner's job is not to reconstruct or to > > >> restructure > > >>> the correct form but simply to "appropriate" it from the > environment). > > >>> > > >>> So it seems to me that the place to start to try to untangle this web > > of > > >>> misappropriations from Vygotsky is with "mediation". As Andy says, > for > > >>> Hegel everything in heaven and earth, man and nature, is mediated > (but > > >> some > > >>> things are more so than others). For Marx mediation arises because > > >> without > > >>> it reason (man) is simply the slave of necessity (nature). For the > old > > >>> Vygotsky (the critical reactologist) mediation arises because one > > >> stimulus > > >>> can have many responses and vice versa, and for the new Vygotsky (the > > >>> semasiologist, the pedologist), it arises because one sign can have > > many > > >>> interpreters and many interpretations and vice versa. This allows the > > >>> emergence of self and free will (because after all I myself am a > > >> potential > > >>> interpreter of my own signs). So it turns out that Poehner's emphasis > > on > > >>> self-assessment is not completely irrelevant. > > >>> > > >>> A propos, a little problem in translation for the Russophones on the > > >> list. > > >>> Vygotsky says (in his work on Early Childhood in Vol. 4 of the > Russian > > >>> Collected Works, p. 347). > > >>> > > >>> "???????? ????? ?????? ?????? ??? ?????????? ???????????. ?? ??? > > ??????, > > >>> ????????????? ???????? ?? ???????? ???????? ?? ??????????? ? > ????????? > > >>> ?????? ??? ??????????? ???????? ??????? ?????????." > > >>> > > >>> Hall renders this as: > > >>> > > >>> "Gabriel described these misunderstandings (that is, the > > >> misunderstandings > > >>> caused by the child's use of single word sentences to adults) very > > well. > > >> In > > >>> his opinion, investigators did not turn their attention in vain to > the > > >>> adults' difficulties in understanding a child who is just beginning > to > > >>> speak." > > >>> > > >>> But it seems to me that the very opposite interpretation is also > > >> possible: > > >>> > > >>> "Gabriel described these misunderstandings very well. According to > him, > > >>> researchers wasted their time in not attending to the difficulty for > > >> adults > > >>> in understanding a child who just starting to speak." > > >>> > > >>> What do you think? > > >>> > > >>> David Kellogg > > >>> Macquarie University > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 5:41 AM, Huw Lloyd < > huw.softdesigns@gmail.com> > > >>> wrote: > > >>> > > >>>> Hi David, > > >>>> > > >>>> Well, we can ask direct and indirect with respect to what? The sign > > >>>> systems, in this case, are what is being 'directly' corrected. The > > >>>> indirect, is that which the sign systems are about. So, a good > > >> situation > > >>>> in which to learn appropriate grammar for this phrase is one in > which > > >>>> ambiguity and confusion is induced in the receiver of such a > message, > > >>>> thereby allowing for a contextualised and situated understanding of > > the > > >>>> meaning. For students who are comfortable with talking about > notation > > >>>> itself, however, perhaps you can do both, but I still think it > merits > > >>>> pointing to the real meanings. > > >>>> > > >>>>> From the encyclopaedia of social behavioural sciences: > > >>>> > > >>>> Actiity Theory and Errors > > >>>> > > >>>> Activity theorists define errors as the non attainment of an > activity > > >> goal. > > >>>> The comparison of the activity outcome with the goal determines > > whether > > >> the > > >>>> goal has been achieved or whether further actions have to be > > >> accomplished. > > >>>> If an unintended outcome occurs, an error will be given. > > Consequently, a > > >>>> definition of an error based on Activity Theories integrates three > > >> aspects: > > >>>> (a) errors will only appear in goal-directed actions; (b) an error > > >> implies > > >>>> the nonattainment of the goal; (c) an error should have been > > potentially > > >>>> avoidable (Frese and Zapf 1991). Frese and Zapf (1991) developed an > > >> error > > >>>> taxonomy based on a version of Action Theory. This taxonomy and > other > > >>>> comparable ones are inevitable in the examination of causes of > errors > > >> and > > >>>> faults as a prerequisite of error prevention. Error prevention > became > > an > > >>>> inevitable concern in modern technologies, e.g., the control rooms > of > > >>>> nuclear power plants. > > >>>> > > >>>> Best, > > >>>> Huw > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> On 11 February 2016 at 20:24, David Kellogg > > >> wrote: > > >>>>> > > >>>>> I don't think error correction or even "making a student say 'This > > is a > > >>>>> book' is always "direct" or "immediate", quite the contrary. Most > of > > >> the > > >>>> DA > > >>>>> sources I am referring to (yes, I am thinking of Lantolf and > Poehner) > > >>>>> distinguish between the highly indirect and the direct. We can lay > > out > > >> a > > >>>>> kind of cline. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> HIGHLY INDIRECT > > >>>>> a) What did you say? > > >>>>> b) Did you say a book? > > >>>>> c) A book? > > >>>>> d) A book. > > >>>>> e) You mean a book. > > >>>>> f) No, you have to say "a book". > > >>>>> HIGHLY DIRECT > > >>>>> > > >>>>> There are various ways of discussing this cline in the literature, > > e.g. > > >>>>> "implicit" to "explicit" correction (Long and Doughty), or > > >>>>> "interventionist" vs. "non-interventionist" (Lantolf and Poehner), > or > > >>>>> "recasts" vs. "prompts" (Ellis and others), "other repair" vs. > "self > > >>>>> repair" (the Conversation Analysts). I don't agree that direct > > >>>> intervention > > >>>>> is bad, and indirect intervention good. Since the work of Lyster > and > > >>>> Ranta, > > >>>>> we have become acutely conscious that most teacher intervention is > > >> highly > > >>>>> indirect and thus highly ineffective. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> The real thing that needs to be "mediated" is this: > > >>>>> > > >>>>> g) Every singular noun must have a determiner in English. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Now, I think grasping this (is it implicit? Is it explicit?) is > > >> mediation > > >>>>> only in the following sense: in order to be able to use it, you > need > > to > > >>>>> understand concepts like "noun", "singular", and "determiner". > These > > >> are > > >>>>> all academic concepts and not everyday concepts and they cannot be > > >>>> directly > > >>>>> taught (c.f. Chapter Six of Thinking and Speech). I think that all > > >> error > > >>>>> correction, direct and indi [The entire original message is not included.] From lpscholar2@gmail.com Mon Feb 15 06:31:55 2016 From: lpscholar2@gmail.com (Lplarry) Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2016 06:31:55 -0800 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: "Mediation" as Error Correction In-Reply-To: <56c1c493.cf13620a.460fe.2798@mx.google.com> References: <4203FE7A-B711-4A81-9CFD-33E22F64AD2A@cwu.edu> <446DCDD2-E954-40C9-A703-1EF8436DF162@gmail.com> <56c1c493.cf13620a.460fe.2798@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <56c1e195.66a2420a.cf85.3dd4@mx.google.com> A further reflection on the notion of *structures* of primitive thinking. Vygotsky refers to the German term *sound pictures* expressing the original unity of gesture language and sound language. He references Junod who suggests that sound/picture language conveys shades of meaning that the higher abstracting and generalizing languages would be incapable of expressing. This structure of language leaves a deep imprint on the whole *structure* of primitive mans thinking. Thinking that uses this structure of language, just like the language itself, is thoroughly concrete, graphic, and pictorial in its detailed descriptions. Now Levy-Bruhl makes a value judgement saying this *structure* of language/thinking displays an inadequate power of abstraction which is expressed through a different *structure* of language. Levy-Bruhl refers to the peculiar internal pictures or IMAGE-concepts which are the *material* for the sound/picture concepts and thinking *structure of this TYPE OR KIND of thinking. IF we stay with this notion of various types or styles of thinking *structure* I believe we can explore if the sound/picture *structure* is not only *primitive* but can also be understood as expressing contrasting *structures* of consciousness . One version of this would be to suggest that thesound/picture structuring expresses Dionysus whereas the absract structuring personifies Apollo. This moves the exploration of various types of *structuring* phenomena to the arena of alternative themes as styles of *consciousness* and infers that the sound/picture structure of consciousness remains relevant for enlivening and animating and deepening conscious experience expressing various types or kinds of structuring, each with its own themes. This may be wild con-jecture but it is how I was reading the notion of the primitive as expressing a particular *structure* of consciousness. Larry -----Original Message----- From: "Lplarry" Sent: ?2016-?02-?15 4:29 AM To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" Subject: RE: [Xmca-l] Re: "Mediation" as Error Correction Vygotsky quotes Gatschet to make a contrast between modern and primitive use of language. "We tend to speak precisely, whereas an Indian draws as he speaks; we classify, he individualized. For these reasons, the speech of primitive man, in comparison with our language, truly resembles an endlessly complex, accurate, plastic, and photographic description of an event, with the finest details. Notice the focus on speech AS drawing images in contrast to classifying. THIS focus is endlessly plastic AND accurate. Now I want to introduce Bob Dylan and his song *Visions of Johanna* and ask us to place his language into Gatschets contrasting notions. Remember that the symbolism of dylans language transformed our relation to music and culture. From: Greg Thompson Sent: ?2016-?02-?14 9:08 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: "Mediation" as Error Correction Fascinating stuff David - I particularly wonder about montages as complexive chain? But I also have wondered about this whole business about Levy-Bruhl. I came across a very nice piece by Jonathan Z. Smith entitled "I am a parrot (red)" (Can be found in his book Map is not Territory or in the original article here: Smith, J. Z.. (1972). I Am a Parrot (Red). History of Religions, 11(4), 391?413. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1061849). J.Z. describes how the original ethnographic citation was to Karl von den Steinen who conducted ethnographic research among the Bororo. Yet, as he notes below, it was popularized (in a somewhat twisted form) by Levy-Bruhl. Here is J.Z.'s take on it: "The citation in Levy-Bruhl is quite close to von den Steinen's original. Levy-Bruhl has added the detail that von den Steinen "could not believe it" and has made one significant alteration in direct quotation. Von den Steinen had asserted that the Bororo understood themselves to be araras just as a caterpillar may speak of himself as a butterfly. Levy-Bruhl's version omits the ambiguity between present and future (or the Aristotelian actuality and potentiality) in order to emphasize the element of participation. In his translation, the Bororos insist that "they are araras at the present time." (Compounding the misrepresentation, Levy-Bruhl italicized his addition of actuellement.)41 The mischief done by this cannot be overemphasized. It is Levy-Bruhl and not von den Steinen's original report (no matter what the footnote may cite) which will be used by most subsequent writers as an illustration of primitive mentality." Seems like the Bororo are as interested in "becoming" as are the dialectical metaphysicians! J.Z. has lots more to say about the argument regarding "primitive thinking" as well. Cheers, Greg On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 12:20 PM, David Kellogg wrote: > Greg: > > Here's one: > > https://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/works/1930/man/ch05.htm > > But the one I was referring to was Thinking and Speech Chapter Five, part > 13. I'm afraid that in order to understand what Vygotsky is REALLY saying > about this example (which is from an ethnographer called Von Steinen via > Levy-Bruhl) you need to understand his whole argument about complexes vs. > concepts. > > I don't think Vygotsky is really saying that "primitive man" does not > believe in the law of the excluded middle. First of all, he knows (and > Frits Stahl was later to prove) that one of the most basic functions in > language, found in every language without exception, is negation, and > negation operates on the basis of non-overlapping categories of being and > non-being (but also on the basis of categories which are consciously and > explicitly fictitious in the sense of being non-actual). Secondly, Vygotsky > himself doesn't believe in the law of the excluded middle, because > dialectics excludes it ("becoming" is neither being nor non-being). > > Vygotsky is saying that it is perfectly possible for a child, a primitive > man, an ape...and even a college professor--to have categories that include > both parrots and people (e.g. "totem", or "living creature"). It is these > categories that Eisenstein is interested in, because they are the > categories of which the "montage" is the "germ cell" (note that these terms > are used by Eisenstein the same meaning that they have in Vygotsky and > Davydov!) > > David Kellogg > Macquarie University > > : > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 2:12 AM, wrote: > > > David, > > Pardon my ignorance but can you give the associated quote from vygotsky, > > and perhaps also include the conclusion he draws? > > This is of course of great interests to anthropologists at what has come > > to be called "the ontological turn." I could imagine them making the same > > statement as Eisenstein but drawing a nearly opposite conclusion. ("They > > really are red parakeets!"). > > Greg > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > > > On Feb 13, 2016, at 3:31 PM, David Kellogg > wrote: > > > > > > Huw, Mary.... > > > > > > Well, in the Dynamic Assessment literature there's a split. Some argue > > for > > > "interventionist" DA, which works on the following assumptions: > > > > > > a) The ideal form is present in the curriculum which is given > beforehand. > > > b) The path to the ideal form is one of carefully graded "prompts" > > (similar > > > to the cline I gave earlier, that is, a focus on: > > > > > > 1. The EXISTENCE of an error ("'This is book'. Are you sure that's > > right?") > > > 2. The LOCATION of the error. (*This is...?") > > > 3. The NATURE of the error ("How many books?") > > > 4. The WAY TO CORRECT the error ("This is a....?") > > > 5. The active ACCEPTANCE of correction ("No, now listen. 'This is a > > book.'") > > > 6. The passive RECOGNITION of correction ("No, now listen. 'This is a > > > book.' Repeat that for me!") > > > > > > (Note in passing that this isn't that different from the idea of > reducing > > > frustration by reducing the consequences of error and then reducing the > > > probability of error, c.f. Bruner, Wood and Ross 1975.) > > > > > > The idea behind interventionist DA is that the curriculum is always > right > > > and there exists (more or less) a single path to the curriculum, which > > can > > > be marked out by the prompts 1-6. The RATE of progress to the > curricular > > > model will change, but the ROUTE is invariable. > > > > > > You can see that two corollaries follow from this idea of invariant > route > > > and variable rates. The first is that the interventionist DA model is > > > assessment oriented, which appeals to principals as well as to > > independent > > > minded learners. The second is that the interventionist DA model is > > > particularly conducive to the mass production of teaching materials > that > > > sideline the teacher, the sort of thing that Mary is worried about in > > > Washington. > > > > > > The second option is just the opposite: it's called "interactionist" > DA, > > > and it's highly favored by Jim Lantolf (and Steve Thorne, Mathew > Poehner, > > > Neguerlea-Azola, and other writers associated with Penn State > > University). > > > The idea is just the opposite: there isn't a single path, and the route > > to > > > "communicative competence" can be highly variable so the whole is > subject > > > to negotiation. > > > > > > You can see that this model is not so assessment oriented, and that it > > > foregrounds the teacher and will tend to disempower publishers at the > > > expense of teacher trainers (and, more worryingly, non-native speakers > at > > > the expense of native speaker [The entire original message is not included.] From dkellogg60@gmail.com Tue Feb 16 11:53:27 2016 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2016 04:53:27 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] "Visions of Johanna" as Verbal Art Message-ID: Larry (sorry for the long post--but I know you are a dogged reader!): I think I mentioned, somewhere on this list, that amongst Ruqaiya Hasan?s many contributions to cultural historical thinking and theorizing was her work on verbal art. As it happens, there is a major event going on here in Sydney in memory of Ruqaiya, and today was the workshop on Ruqaiya?s model of verbal art as ?second order semiosis?, or ?patterns of patterns?. Let me give a vulgar interpretation of her model that would probably have made Ruqaiya scream, but which I think it consistent with using her model in a pedagogical (not a research) context. Then I?ll apply it to two works: Larry?s ?Visions of Johanna? and a poem by the late Mahmoud Darwish, ?Nothing Pleases Me? (exhaustive texts follow this exhaustingly long post below) You, Larry, must judge, although dare to hope my analysis will nudge. I want to nudge you away from a purely subjective interpretation one way or the other and in the direction of my preference. (Notice that I do not consider my own preference purely subjective?let?s see if that is a piece of arrogance I can justify!) The first layer of Ruqaiya?s model is verbalization. In Barthes, ?verbalization? is simply represented by ?signifier? and signified?, which then becomes a signifier for a higher signified. Ruqaiya does the same thing in a crucially more complex and more interesting way: she represents verbalization as three layers (sound/spelling, vocabulary/grammar, and semantics/pragmatics), and these three layers then become the verbalization for two more layers, ?symbolic articulation?, which are the patterns of wording patterns, and ?theme?, which are consistent patterns in the symbolic articulation (patterns of [patterns of patterns]). In the layer of verbalization, ?Visions of Johanna? repeats. In fact, many of the wordings are chosen for their soundings: the ?tail? of the line is repeated, and the head is varied, both at the level of the word (?deny it?/?defy it? ) and the clause (?doin? our best to deny it?, ?temptin? you to defy it? ). This, and the ending of each verse with ?Visions of Johanna?, produce a kind of insistence, which is reinforced at the level of vocabulary/grammar by a monotony of syntax (declarative after declarative, all by the same person) and at the level of meaning by a monotony of speaker (the same speaker says the same thing again and again, namely that his current girlfriend and the lively life around them pleases him but he misses Johanna, who had something more ethereal about her). In the layer of verbalization ?Nothing Pleases Me? varies. There is repetition but it is not at the level of sounding/spelling; instead it is at the level of meaning: all of the speakers are displeased with life. The reasons for their displeasure are different: the first man is dissatisfied with the radio and the papers and the citadels far away on the hills. The mother has recently buried her son; the archaeologist has chosen the wrong profession, and the soldier is afraid at the front but even more so in the barracks. Even the bus driver seems displeased?with the passengers. The next layer of Ruqaiya?s model is ?symbolic articulation?. Concretely, the imaginary situation, the imaginary speakers, and the imaginary problems of the work. It?s not just this?as Jonathan Webster (City Uni Hong Kong) pointed out today, it?s really almost any instance of ?foregrounding? in an artwork?the problem is that describing it this way doesn?t set verbal art apart from verbal non-art, whereas describing it as an imaginary setting of the scene, a creating of characters, and a posing of problems. The symbolic articulation of ?Visions of Johanna? is really the same as ?Gone With the Wind?. That is, the speaker is making love to one person and dreaming of another. But what was despicable and in the end unforgiveable in ?Gone With the Wind? is presented as somehow admirable and wonderful in ?Visions of Johanna?, because of course the speaker in this case is a man. The symbolic articulation of ?Nothing Pleases Me? is, among other things, death: death on the radio, death in the newspapers, the faraway citadels, a mother bereaved, a soldier besieged, an archaeologist excavating bones that are not her own or those of anyone she knows, and finally the speaker who is weary of life and just wants to get off at the station. The final layer of Ruqaiya?s model is ?Theme?. ?Theme? is title. It?s not just title, but the title is probably the part of the verbal artwork where you get closest to an explicit linguistic statement of the overall ?thesis?, the ?motif?, the ?Central Entity? and the ?Orienting Event? (Carmel Cloran) of the work as a ?Rhetorical Unit? (that is, as a unit somewhere between a clause and a whole text in size). ?Visions of Johanna? is a nominal group. The overall thesis appears to be memories of a beautiful woman (memories of my old girlfriend) or perhaps the ecstatic visions of a saint (visions of Teresa of Avila). The central entity is ?visions?, and ?Johanna? is a rankshfted (subordinated) verbal group, leaning us a little towards the former interpretation (because the latter interpretation would suggest ?Johanna?s Visions?). The orienting event is a mental process?seeing, or sensing. ?Nothing Pleases Me? is a clause. The overall thesis appears to be a negative: I love nothing, I like nothing, I am not getting what I want, and I am not wanting what I get. The central entity is the grammatical Subject of the clause, namely ?nothing?. The orienting event is also a mental process, namely ?pleasing?. Now, the thing that makes verbal ART into art and not just more verbalization is this. In normal verbalization, the selection of patterns is conventional, in the sense that there are canonical ways of realizing a given context as wordings and a given wording as a sounding or a spelling. With verbal art, the patterns at one level are actually able to free themselves from convention, and create their own ways of realizing context and their own imaginary contexts. As David Butt (one of Ruqaiya?s students) said yesterday, the patterns of patterns have the power to ?renegotiate our contract with culture?, because although you didn?t really agree to believe in God or ethereal love at first sight or the citadel on the hill when you were born, verbal art has the power to help you renegotiate each and every one of those beliefs). The condition for doing this, however, is that patterns at one level have to reinforce and not degrade or distract or disperse patterns at another. With ?Visions of Johanna? we have lots of patterns at the level of sounding that make little sense at the level of wording (Is ?it? the same in ?deny it? as in ?defy it??). We have patterns at the level of wording that rather contradict what the poet is trying to say at the level of meaning (for example, we do not get a single ?Vision of Johanna? although we are told that they have conquered the poet?s mind and blotted out everything else; instead, for us, Louise blots out Johanna). As with so much Bob Dylan, the theme is simply unspoken; the theme is the speaker himself, the seer of visions we do not see With ?Nothing Pleases Me?, the speaker is also in the theme (the ?me? of ?Nothing Pleases Me?) but the patterns of sounding/spelling emphasize that we are all differently displeased, including the reader, just as we all die alone. And yet there is something in the end that holds us together?the bus, the driver, and the trip to the station. Where once again we all part. David Kellogg Macquarie University Visions of Johanna (Bob Dylan) in't it just like the night to play tricks when you're tryin' to be so quiet? We sit here stranded, though we're all doin' our best to deny it And Louise holds a handful of rain, temptin' you to defy it Lights flicker from the opposite loft In this room the heat pipes just cough The country music station plays soft But there's nothing, really nothing to turn off Just Louise and her lover so entwined And these visions of Johanna that conquer my mind In the empty lot where the ladies play blindman's bluff with the key chain And the all-night girls they whisper of escapades out on the "D" train We can hear the night watchman click his flashlight Ask himself if it's him or them that's insane Louise, she's all right, she's just near She's delicate and seems like the mirror But she just makes it all too concise and too clear That Johanna's not here The ghost of 'lectricity howls in the bones of her face Where these visions of Johanna have now taken my place Now, little boy lost, he takes himself so seriously He brags of his misery, he likes to live dangerously And when bringing her name up He speaks of a farewell kiss to me He's sure got a lotta gall to be so useless and all Muttering small talk at the wall while I'm in the hall How can I explain? It's so hard to get on And these visions of Johanna, they kept me up past the dawn Inside the museums, infinity goes up on trial Voices echo this is what salvation must be like after a while But Mona Lisa musta had the highway blues You can tell by the way she smiles See the primitive wallflower freeze When the jelly-faced women all sneeze Hear the one with the mustache say, "Jeez, I can't find my knees" Oh, jewels and binoculars hang from the head of the mule But these visions of Johanna, they make it all seem so cruel Nothing Pleases Me (Mahmoud Darwish) - ????? ????? "????? ??????" ?? ???? ????????? ?? ???? ????????? ???? ?????? ?? ?????? ? ?? ??????? .??? ?????? ?????? , ??? ??????? ??? ?????? /????? ?? ???? ,???? ???????: ?????? ??????? ??? ????????? /?????? ???? ?? ??????? ???? ??????: ???? ??????. ??? ?? ????? ?????????. ???????? ????? ??? ???? /?????????? ?????? ??? ??????????? ???? ?????????: ??? ???? ? ?? ???? ??????. ???????? ???????????? ??? ??? ?????? ??????????? ?? ???????. ?? ??? /???? ????? ????? ??????: ???? ??????. ???? ?? ???? ????????? . ???????? ?????? ??????? /?????????? ????? ??????? ????????: ?? ??? ??????? ?? ?????? ???????? ???????? /...?????? ???????: ????? ?? ?????? ?????????? !?????? ????? ??? ??????: ????????? ??? . ??? ????? ?? ??? ?????? ? ????? ????? .?? ????????? Nothing Pleases Me Nothing pleases me the traveler on the bus says?Not the radio or the morning newspaper, nor the citadels on the hills. I want to cry / The driver says: Wait until you get to the station, then cry alone all you want / A woman says: Me too. Nothing pleases me. I guided my son to my grave, he liked it and slept there, without saying goodbye / A college student says: Nor does anything please me. I studied archaeology but didn?t find identity in stone. Am I really me? / And a soldier says: Me too. Nothing pleases me. I always besiege a ghost besieging me / The edgy driver says: Here we are almost near our last stop, get ready to get off . . . / Then they scream: We want what?s beyond the station, keep going! As for myself I say: Let me off here. I am like them, nothing pleases me, but I?m worn out from travel. -from "The Butterfly's Burden", translated by Fady Joudah (translation copyright ? 2007 Copper Canyon Press) From mcole@ucsd.edu Tue Feb 16 20:26:51 2016 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 20:26:51 -0800 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: "Visions of Johanna" as Verbal Art In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Super reading, David Your description of "theme" and knowledge you are reading FilmForm put me in a frame to see theme exemplified by the title of Eisenshtein films with single words that appear to be themes- Strike, Battleship Potemkin, the unity that emerges from. And is "more than" the sum of its parts. Or so I was thinking while reading. Mike On Tuesday, February 16, 2016, David Kellogg wrote: > Larry (sorry for the long post--but I know you are a dogged reader!): > > I think I mentioned, somewhere on this list, that amongst Ruqaiya Hasan?s > many contributions to cultural historical thinking and theorizing was her > work on verbal art. As it happens, there is a major event going on here in > Sydney in memory of Ruqaiya, and today was the workshop on Ruqaiya?s model > of verbal art as ?second order semiosis?, or ?patterns of patterns?. > > Let me give a vulgar interpretation of her model that would probably have > made Ruqaiya scream, but which I think it consistent with using her model > in a pedagogical (not a research) context. Then I?ll apply it to two works: > Larry?s ?Visions of Johanna? and a poem by the late Mahmoud Darwish, > ?Nothing Pleases Me? (exhaustive texts follow this exhaustingly long post > below) > > You, Larry, must judge, although dare to hope my analysis will nudge. I > want to nudge you away from a purely subjective interpretation one way or > the other and in the direction of my preference. (Notice that I do not > consider my own preference purely subjective?let?s see if that is a piece > of arrogance I can justify!) > > The first layer of Ruqaiya?s model is verbalization. In Barthes, > ?verbalization? is simply represented by ?signifier? and signified?, which > then becomes a signifier for a higher signified. Ruqaiya does the same > thing in a crucially more complex and more interesting way: she represents > verbalization as three layers (sound/spelling, vocabulary/grammar, and > semantics/pragmatics), and these three layers then become the verbalization > for two more layers, ?symbolic articulation?, which are the patterns of > wording patterns, and ?theme?, which are consistent patterns in the > symbolic articulation (patterns of [patterns of patterns]). > > In the layer of verbalization, ?Visions of Johanna? repeats. In fact, many > of the wordings are chosen for their soundings: the ?tail? of the line is > repeated, and the head is varied, both at the level of the word (?deny > it?/?defy it? ) and the clause (?doin? our best to deny it?, ?temptin? you > to defy it? ). This, and the ending of each verse with ?Visions of > Johanna?, produce a kind of insistence, which is reinforced at the level of > vocabulary/grammar by a monotony of syntax (declarative after declarative, > all by the same person) and at the level of meaning by a monotony of > speaker (the same speaker says the same thing again and again, namely that > his current girlfriend and the lively life around them pleases him but he > misses Johanna, who had something more ethereal about her). > > In the layer of verbalization ?Nothing Pleases Me? varies. There is > repetition but it is not at the level of sounding/spelling; instead it is > at the level of meaning: all of the speakers are displeased with life. The > reasons for their displeasure are different: the first man is dissatisfied > with the radio and the papers and the citadels far away on the hills. The > mother has recently buried her son; the archaeologist has chosen the wrong > profession, and the soldier is afraid at the front but even more so in the > barracks. Even the bus driver seems displeased?with the passengers. > > The next layer of Ruqaiya?s model is ?symbolic articulation?. Concretely, > the imaginary situation, the imaginary speakers, and the imaginary problems > of the work. It?s not just this?as Jonathan Webster (City Uni Hong Kong) > pointed out today, it?s really almost any instance of ?foregrounding? in an > artwork?the problem is that describing it this way doesn?t set verbal art > apart from verbal non-art, whereas describing it as an imaginary setting of > the scene, a creating of characters, and a posing of problems. > > The symbolic articulation of ?Visions of Johanna? is really the same as > ?Gone With the Wind?. That is, the speaker is making love to one person and > dreaming of another. But what was despicable and in the end unforgiveable > in ?Gone With the Wind? is presented as somehow admirable and wonderful in > ?Visions of Johanna?, because of course the speaker in this case is a man. > > The symbolic articulation of ?Nothing Pleases Me? is, among other things, > death: death on the radio, death in the newspapers, the faraway citadels, a > mother bereaved, a soldier besieged, an archaeologist excavating bones that > are not her own or those of anyone she knows, and finally the speaker who > is weary of life and just wants to get off at the station. > > The final layer of Ruqaiya?s model is ?Theme?. ?Theme? is title. It?s not > just title, but the title is probably the part of the verbal artwork where > you get closest to an explicit linguistic statement of the overall > ?thesis?, the ?motif?, the ?Central Entity? and the ?Orienting Event? > (Carmel Cloran) of the work as a ?Rhetorical Unit? (that is, as a unit > somewhere between a clause and a whole text in size). > > ?Visions of Johanna? is a nominal group. The overall thesis appears to be > memories of a beautiful woman (memories of my old girlfriend) or perhaps > the ecstatic visions of a saint (visions of Teresa of Avila). The central > entity is ?visions?, and ?Johanna? is a rankshfted (subordinated) verbal > group, leaning us a little towards the former interpretation (because the > latter interpretation would suggest ?Johanna?s Visions?). The orienting > event is a mental process?seeing, or sensing. > > ?Nothing Pleases Me? is a clause. The overall thesis appears to be a > negative: I love nothing, I like nothing, I am not getting what I want, and > I am not wanting what I get. The central entity is the grammatical Subject > of the clause, namely ?nothing?. The orienting event is also a mental > process, namely ?pleasing?. > > Now, the thing that makes verbal ART into art and not just more > verbalization is this. In normal verbalization, the selection of patterns > is conventional, in the sense that there are canonical ways of realizing a > given context as wordings and a given wording as a sounding or a spelling. > With verbal art, the patterns at one level are actually able to free > themselves from convention, and create their own ways of realizing context > and their own imaginary contexts. > > As David Butt (one of Ruqaiya?s students) said yesterday, the patterns of > patterns have the power to ?renegotiate our contract with culture?, because > although you didn?t really agree to believe in God or ethereal love at > first sight or the citadel on the hill when you were born, verbal art has > the power to help you renegotiate each and every one of those beliefs). The > condition for doing this, however, is that patterns at one level have to > reinforce and not degrade or distract or disperse patterns at another. > > With ?Visions of Johanna? we have lots of patterns at the level of sounding > that make little sense at the level of wording (Is ?it? the same in ?deny > it? as in ?defy it??). We have patterns at the level of wording that rather > contradict what the poet is trying to say at the level of meaning (for > example, we do not get a single ?Vision of Johanna? although we are told > that they have conquered the poet?s mind and blotted out everything else; > instead, for us, Louise blots out Johanna). As with so much Bob Dylan, the > theme is simply unspoken; the theme is the speaker himself, the seer of > visions we do not see > > With ?Nothing Pleases Me?, the speaker is also in the theme (the ?me? of > ?Nothing Pleases Me?) but the patterns of sounding/spelling emphasize that > we are all differently displeased, including the reader, just as we all die > alone. And yet there is something in the end that holds us together?the > bus, the driver, and the trip to the station. Where once again we all part. > > David Kellogg > Macquarie University > > > Visions of Johanna (Bob Dylan) > in't it just like the night to play tricks when you're tryin' to be so > quiet? > We sit here stranded, though we're all doin' our best to deny it > And Louise holds a handful of rain, temptin' you to defy it > Lights flicker from the opposite loft > In this room the heat pipes just cough > The country music station plays soft > But there's nothing, really nothing to turn off > Just Louise and her lover so entwined > And these visions of Johanna that conquer my mind > > In the empty lot where the ladies play blindman's bluff with the key chain > And the all-night girls they whisper of escapades out on the "D" train > We can hear the night watchman click his flashlight > Ask himself if it's him or them that's insane > Louise, she's all right, she's just near > She's delicate and seems like the mirror > But she just makes it all too concise and too clear > That Johanna's not here > The ghost of 'lectricity howls in the bones of her face > Where these visions of Johanna have now taken my place > > Now, little boy lost, he takes himself so seriously > He brags of his misery, he likes to live dangerously > And when bringing her name up > He speaks of a farewell kiss to me > He's sure got a lotta gall to be so useless and all > Muttering small talk at the wall while I'm in the hall > How can I explain? > It's so hard to get on > And these visions of Johanna, they kept me up past the dawn > > Inside the museums, infinity goes up on trial > Voices echo this is what salvation must be like after a while > But Mona Lisa musta had the highway blues > You can tell by the way she smiles > See the primitive wallflower freeze > When the jelly-faced women all sneeze > Hear the one with the mustache say, "Jeez, I can't find my knees" > Oh, jewels and binoculars hang from the head of the mule > But these visions of Johanna, they make it all seem so cruel > > Nothing Pleases Me (Mahmoud Darwish) > - ????? ????? "????? ??????" > ?? ???? ????????? > > ?? ???? ????????? > ???? ?????? ?? ?????? ? ?? ??????? > .??? ?????? ?????? , ??? ??????? ??? ?????? > /????? ?? ???? > ,???? ???????: ?????? ??????? ??? ????????? > /?????? ???? ?? ??????? > ???? ??????: ???? ??????. ??? ?? > ????? ?????????. ???????? ????? ??? ???? > /?????????? ?????? ??? ??????????? > ???? ?????????: ??? ???? ? ?? ???? > ??????. ???????? ???????????? ??? ??? > ?????? ??????????? ?? ???????. ?? ??? > /???? ????? > ????? ??????: ???? ??????. ???? ?? > ???? ????????? . ???????? ?????? ??????? > /?????????? > ????? ??????? ????????: ?? ??? > ??????? ?? ?????? ???????? ???????? > /...?????? > ???????: ????? ?? ?????? ?????????? > !?????? > ????? ??? ??????: ????????? ??? . ??? > ????? ?? ??? ?????? ? ????? ????? > .?? ????????? > > > Nothing Pleases Me > > Nothing pleases me > the traveler on the bus says?Not the radio > or the morning newspaper, nor the citadels on the hills. > I want to cry / > The driver says: Wait until you get to the station, > then cry alone all you want / > A woman says: Me too. Nothing > pleases me. I guided my son to my grave, > he liked it and slept there, without saying goodbye / > A college student says: Nor does anything > please me. I studied archaeology but didn?t > find identity in stone. Am I > really me? / > And a soldier says: Me too. Nothing > pleases me. I always besiege a ghost > besieging me / > The edgy driver says: Here we are > almost near our last stop, get ready > to get off . . . / > Then they scream: We want what?s beyond the station, > keep going! > As for myself I say: Let me off here. I am > like them, nothing pleases me, but I?m worn out > from travel. > > -from "The Butterfly's Burden", translated by Fady Joudah (translation > copyright ? 2007 Copper Canyon Press) > -- It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an object that creates history. Ernst Boesch From dkellogg60@gmail.com Wed Feb 17 14:32:38 2016 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2016 07:32:38 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] "Montage" as Unit of Analysis Message-ID: Yes, that's all quite explicit in Eisenstein. He is in conflict with Vertov over the "Unit of Analysis" in film. Vertov has written that it must not be considered the frame, but rather the whole shot. Of course, if you are analyzing film only in terms of motion, Vertov's right: the frame as a unit of analysis doesn't contain the essential property of movement which the analysis must explain, while the "shot" does, or at least apears to. But Eisenstein is very unhappy with this analysis because for Eisenstein film is only epiphenomenally about motion. For Eisenstein, it would be truer to say that the film is about emotion--the logic of a film, according to him, is the logic of feeling that we see in small children, where topics are linked by subjectivity or by a very simple, prelinguistic objectivity. So you can see why Eisenstein insists on the montage. You put together two images, but you don't read them as temporally or sequentially related: instead you see one as a projection of the other onto the plane of feeling. So for example in October, you have the Mensheviks addressing the Duma, and then an image of balaika playing; the idea is that the Mensheviks are simply humming and strumming and not saying anything. Eisenstein says that one of the sources for this idea of montage is the Chinese character, where he correctly says that one component is usually semantic and the other more phonetic in value. But he also says that silent films, where you have a speaker AND THEN projection of the speakers deeds, feelings, thoughts or words onto another shot, is another example of montage. Interestingly, Eisenstein initially opposes "lip synching"--that is, having the sound track match the images (though he later changes his mind). He wants to use the sound track as an additional channel of images instead (e.g. a shot of Mensheviks addressing the Duma and the sounds of donkeys braying in the background). The argument was that with simultaneous sound tracking you get an experience that is not cinematic but theatrical. (On the other side of the street, in the theatre, Brecht was introducing Eisenstein one-word subtitles into theatre!) David Kellogg Macquarie University . In the early thirties, the USSR sent him abroad to learn about making sound films. From smago@uga.edu Wed Feb 17 14:42:39 2016 From: smago@uga.edu (Peter Smagorinsky) Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2016 22:42:39 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] FW: Share the JoLLE newsletter! Message-ID: Hello, all--I hope that you're well. Below is the link for the newsletter. Please feel free to share it on any/all social media that you use! Stephanie https://www.smore.com/e0zwt [https://d1zqayhc1yz6oo.cloudfront.net/56bd40253b6c740bd0ef0d41-screenshot-fb_wide.jpg?_v=1455748325] JoLLE@UGA Newsletter www.smore.com Scholars Speak Out: Gabriel Reich In his essay A Trope in Time: Putting English on Historical Literacy, Gabriel Reich discusses the goals... From pmocombe@mocombeian.com Thu Feb 18 03:13:00 2016 From: pmocombe@mocombeian.com (Dr. Paul C. Mocombe) Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2016 06:13:00 -0500 Subject: [Xmca-l] 2047173416630315v1.pdf Message-ID: Sent via the Samsung Galaxy Note? 4, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 2047173416630315v1.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 807704 bytes Desc: not available Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20160218/e74c6856/attachment-0001.pdf From annalisa@unm.edu Sat Feb 20 00:15:54 2016 From: annalisa@unm.edu (Annalisa Aguilar) Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:15:54 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] When psychologists trump philosophers Message-ID: Greetings xmcars! This seemed a good article in recent discussions about "is"'s & "ought"'s: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/21/opinion/sunday/the-data-against-kant.html And here's the referenced article: Blame, not ability, impacts moral "ought" judgments for impossible actions: Toward an empirical refutation of "ought" implies "can" (in Cognition): http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010027716300130?np=y#appd002 and... its abstract here: Abstract Recently, psychologists have explored moral concepts including obligation, blame, and ability. While little empirical work has studied the relationships among these concepts, philosophers have widely assumed such a relationship in the principle that "ought" implies "can," which states that if someone ought to do something, then they must be able to do it. The cognitive underpinnings of these concepts are tested in the three experiments reported here. In Experiment 1, most participants judge that an agent ought to keep a promise that he is unable to keep, but only when he is to blame for the inability. Experiment 2 shows that such "ought" judgments correlate with judgments of blame, rather than with judgments of the agent's ability. Experiment 3 replicates these findings for moral "ought" judgments and finds that they do not hold for nonmoral "ought" judgments, such as what someone ought to do to fulfill their desires. These results together show that folk moral judgments do not conform to a widely assumed philosophical principle that "ought" implies "can." Instead, judgments of blame play a modulatory role in some judgments of obligation. From mcole@ucsd.edu Sat Feb 20 12:38:28 2016 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2016 12:38:28 -0800 Subject: [Xmca-l] Fwd: [COGDEVSOC] 'Recommended Practices' for Museum-Based Child Development Researcher In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The following message was sent to a cognitive developmental list that I read. I thought that the topics raised would be relevant to anyone who sought to study development outside of laboratories and classrooms, but is specially relevant to those working in museums. Craig Smith, the author, ok'ed passing along to you-all and looking in to see if anyone has something to contribute. By non-coincidence, our next paper for discussion will be by Roland Tharp and Cliff O'Donnell. Roland passed away recently, but Cliff has said he would be glad to discuss. I think the relation of the Craig's message to the cognitive developmental list and the issues surrounding research in the wild will become evident. Roland and Cliff's paper is attached. It will be liberated by T&F as soon as we can get that task done, but meantime, a freebie. Enjoy chatting. mike ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Craig Smith Date: Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 4:32 PM Subject: [COGDEVSOC] 'Recommended Practices' for Museum-Based Child Development Researcher To: cogdevsoc@lists.cogdevsoc.org Hi all, The recent email thread focused on compiling 'best practices' in infant cognition research has me thinking about an issue that I've wanted to tackle for some time. More and more of us are collecting our developmental data in public spaces, with museums being the most common type of data collection site. This avenue for making contact with families and for collecting data from both children and parents has been incredibly fruitful, and has been spearheaded in the US by the NSF-funded National Living Lab Initiative. In our Living Lab Program at the University of Michigan (UM) we have collected data from over 6000 children and parents since 2012, and there are many other Living Lab-type sites around the US and beyond. Thus, many of the studies we see published in both developmental and more general journals report on data collected from museum-based lab sites. Collecting data at museums (and similar public spaces) is often easy and fun, but it also comes with unique questions, challenges, and dilemmas. Some examples are listed below, with the types of issues faced by researchers included: - A child takes part in a study and then her sibling participates in the same study. What do the researchers do to prevent the second child's responses from being influenced by the responses of the first child? (Parents often keep siblings together unless given direction by the researcher.) And how is this reported in the write-up of the study? - A noisy school or camp group (or birthday party!) walks past the lab area as a child is participating in a study. Does the researcher have a systematic way of handling the momentary noise or dealing with the potentially-problematic data? - Parents and children get antsy in museums if they are kept at any exhibit for too long, including exhibits that involve participating in psychology studies. The PI wants to ensure that the consent process moves quickly so that the study procedure can get underway without too much delay. How is the consent process designed to be both thorough and quick? - As part of the partnership with a museum, all children are invited to participate in a study. This includes children who are outside the age range of interest for the researcher. Are these 'other' children run only with parental consent, or are they run without any data being collected as part of a 'demo' of the study? If they are 'demo' subjects, how are the adults and child notified of this? If data are collected, what should happen with those data? - A researcher would like to make a video of a child participating in a procedure, and has IRB approval to do so. However, there are other museum visitors walking by who may be captured on the video. What steps does the researcher take to prevent this? These are common issues faced by many researchers whose research takes place right on a main floor of a museum. There are many other issues that crop up as well, and we try to deal with many of them in our Living Lab orientations at UM. However, I'm quite sure we haven't thought of everything, and I'm also sure that other researchers have come up with creative solutions that could add in valuable ways to the trainings we provide to our researchers. (And for some issues that arise there is not one correct solution, but instead a range of helpful suggestions.) Thus, I am hoping that we can build a repository of *recommended research practices for museum-based investigators*. If you are interested in contributing to this effort, please feel free to email me directly ( craigsm@umich.edu) with your ideas, suggestions, researcher training materials, museum lab manuals, etc. I will do my best, in collaboration with some of the wonderful folks from the National Living Lab Initiative, to make the information we gather available to all. Thanks in advance to anyone who wants to help! Best, Craig Smith _______________________________________________ To post to the CDS listserv, send your message to: cogdevsoc@lists.cogdevsoc.org (If you belong to the listserv and have not included any large attachments, your message will be posted without moderation--so be careful!) To subscribe or unsubscribe from the listserv, visit: http://lists.cogdevsoc.org/listinfo.cgi/cogdevsoc-cogdevsoc.org -- It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an object that creates history. Ernst Boesch -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Tharp.odonnell.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 1047291 bytes Desc: not available Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20160220/6340a713/attachment-0001.pdf From smago@uga.edu Mon Feb 22 06:35:40 2016 From: smago@uga.edu (Peter Smagorinsky) Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2016 14:35:40 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] FW: Fw: Call For Papers, Emory University In-Reply-To: References: <7cdc2afcb81b42b4bda5753ed8204692@BLUPR02MB164.namprd02.prod.outlook.com> Message-ID: From: Comparative Literature Conference Committee > Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2016 5:05 PM To: Thomas Cerbu; Lioba Moshi; Juanita Johnson-Bailey; Patricia Richards; TERRI L HATFIELD; Cecilia M Herles; Stacey DOLGIN Casado; Rachel Gabara; Margaret L QUESADA Subject: Call For Papers, Emory University To whom it may concern, The Department of Comparative Literature at Emory University is hosting an international and interdisciplinary conference in the fall of 2016, on the theme of New Materialisms and Economies of Excess. The Keynotes for the conference are Rebecca Comay, Eric L. Santner, and Jacques Lezra. Could you please circulate the attached call for papers to your department? The deadline for submissions is March 8, 2016. Our best wishes, Mat?as Bascu??n Ryan Fics Rachel Gardner Stephanie Johnson ________________________________ This e-mail message (including any attachments) is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message (including any attachments) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender by reply e-mail message and destroy all copies of the original message (including attachments). ******************************************************************************* To remove yourself from the UGAIWS-L listserv, please send an email to listserv@listserv.uga.edu and write SIGNOFF UGAIWS-L in the text of your message (not the subject line). If you have any trouble, contact UGAIWS-L-request@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU -- Sent from Gmail Mobile -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: CFP - New Materialisms and Economies of Excess, Emory University.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 89222 bytes Desc: CFP - New Materialisms and Economies of Excess, Emory University.pdf Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20160222/e9af0780/attachment.pdf From dkellogg60@gmail.com Mon Feb 22 22:15:50 2016 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2016 15:15:50 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: "Visions of Johanna" as Verbal Art In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Since I posted on the Festschrift for Ruqaiya and Mike replied there has been no discussion on verbal art or "Visions of Johanna" on the list. True, I have received several posts off list to the effect that my critique of the Dylan song was philistine and motivated by Marxism. So...well, dear reader, to make a short story long...I went and listened to the song for the first time (yes, Henry, red-faced, I do confess it; I wrote without ever having heard the tune, having simply read the lyrics as verbal art). Now that I HAVE heard the song, I find that the music strongly confirms my reading of the lyrics. The original "Blonde on Blonde" version, with Dylan's characteristic auctioneer howl in lieu of tonic stresses, defiantly draws attention to the inability of the singer to carry a tune. This does, in fact, resonate with the symbolic articulation, the self-disgust, the coyness of referring to the singer in the second person ("When you are trying to be quiet") in the third person ("the boy in the hall") and even in the first person (in the lines about Johanna), and the meanness of the demeaning language about poor Louise. The 1990s version, if anything, is even more self-loathing and misogynistic in its alternatingly grouchy and smirky delivery. So far we have verbalization, and even symbolic articulation, but no clear theme, and the drug-inspired imagery of the last stanza, which one of the posts I received points out that I omitted, certainly does not help any clear theme emerge. Ruqaiya Hasan points out that this existence of a verbalization and a symbolic articulation is a characteristic of "literary text" as opposed to "literature text": for example, the speeches of Burke, the letters of (Samuel) Johnson, and the pamphlets of Defoe, as opposed to the plays of Shakespeare, the novels of Richardson, or "Robinson Crusoe". It's not just a matter of fiction vs. non-fiction, since Shakespeare's histories are not strictly fiction (nor are the speeches of Burke strictly non-fiction). It's that with literature text, but not with literary texts, you "free up" the wording, and hence the symbolic articulation, which makes it possible to renegotiate Saussure's "unwritten contract" to realize meaning X by wording Y. Hence you can create entirely imaginary meanings, and renegotiate Rousseau's unwritten contract, by creating imaginary contexts instead of canonically realizing extant ones. That's why I think that a biographical reading is not much good in the case of true literary texts. True literature texts contain imaginary characters, and the themes of the literary text emerge despite the speakers' best intentions and against their stated wills.If this happens with Burke's speeches, or Johnson's letters, or Defoe's pamphlets we attribute it to their ineptness and not to their genius (or, charitably, to divine inspiration, demonic possession, or mind-altering substances). But "Visions of Johanna" is probably not a literature text at all but rather what Ruqaiya would have called "literary text", so perhaps some biographical reading is relevant after all. Joan Baez believes that Dylan is contrasting the seedy self-indulgence of his honeymoon with his first wife in the Chelsea Hotel with the life of political commitment that Joan/Johanna had shared with him. Hence her reply to him: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6NqoaW2fzY And in this we see what Ruqaiya Hasan defiantly called "the social-therapeutic function of verbal art". David Kellogg Macquarie University On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 1:26 PM, mike cole wrote: > Super reading, David > > Your description of "theme" and knowledge you are reading FilmForm put me > in a frame to see theme exemplified by the title of Eisenshtein films with > single words that appear to be themes- Strike, Battleship Potemkin, the > unity that emerges from. And is "more than" the sum of its parts. > > Or so I was thinking while reading. > Mike > > On Tuesday, February 16, 2016, David Kellogg wrote: > > > Larry (sorry for the long post--but I know you are a dogged reader!): > > > > I think I mentioned, somewhere on this list, that amongst Ruqaiya Hasan?s > > many contributions to cultural historical thinking and theorizing was her > > work on verbal art. As it happens, there is a major event going on here > in > > Sydney in memory of Ruqaiya, and today was the workshop on Ruqaiya?s > model > > of verbal art as ?second order semiosis?, or ?patterns of patterns?. > > > > Let me give a vulgar interpretation of her model that would probably have > > made Ruqaiya scream, but which I think it consistent with using her model > > in a pedagogical (not a research) context. Then I?ll apply it to two > works: > > Larry?s ?Visions of Johanna? and a poem by the late Mahmoud Darwish, > > ?Nothing Pleases Me? (exhaustive texts follow this exhaustingly long post > > below) > > > > You, Larry, must judge, although dare to hope my analysis will nudge. I > > want to nudge you away from a purely subjective interpretation one way or > > the other and in the direction of my preference. (Notice that I do not > > consider my own preference purely subjective?let?s see if that is a piece > > of arrogance I can justify!) > > > > The first layer of Ruqaiya?s model is verbalization. In Barthes, > > ?verbalization? is simply represented by ?signifier? and signified?, > which > > then becomes a signifier for a higher signified. Ruqaiya does the same > > thing in a crucially more complex and more interesting way: she > represents > > verbalization as three layers (sound/spelling, vocabulary/grammar, and > > semantics/pragmatics), and these three layers then become the > verbalization > > for two more layers, ?symbolic articulation?, which are the patterns of > > wording patterns, and ?theme?, which are consistent patterns in the > > symbolic articulation (patterns of [patterns of patterns]). > > > > In the layer of verbalization, ?Visions of Johanna? repeats. In fact, > many > > of the wordings are chosen for their soundings: the ?tail? of the line is > > repeated, and the head is varied, both at the level of the word (?deny > > it?/?defy it? ) and the clause (?doin? our best to deny it?, ?temptin? > you > > to defy it? ). This, and the ending of each verse with ?Visions of > > Johanna?, produce a kind of insistence, which is reinforced at the level > of > > vocabulary/grammar by a monotony of syntax (declarative after > declarative, > > all by the same person) and at the level of meaning by a monotony of > > speaker (the same speaker says the same thing again and again, namely > that > > his current girlfriend and the lively life around them pleases him but he > > misses Johanna, who had something more ethereal about her). > > > > In the layer of verbalization ?Nothing Pleases Me? varies. There is > > repetition but it is not at the level of sounding/spelling; instead it is > > at the level of meaning: all of the speakers are displeased with life. > The > > reasons for their displeasure are different: the first man is > dissatisfied > > with the radio and the papers and the citadels far away on the hills. The > > mother has recently buried her son; the archaeologist has chosen the > wrong > > profession, and the soldier is afraid at the front but even more so in > the > > barracks. Even the bus driver seems displeased?with the passengers. > > > > The next layer of Ruqaiya?s model is ?symbolic articulation?. Concretely, > > the imaginary situation, the imaginary speakers, and the imaginary > problems > > of the work. It?s not just this?as Jonathan Webster (City Uni Hong Kong) > > pointed out today, it?s really almost any instance of ?foregrounding? in > an > > artwork?the problem is that describing it this way doesn?t set verbal art > > apart from verbal non-art, whereas describing it as an imaginary setting > of > > the scene, a creating of characters, and a posing of problems. > > > > The symbolic articulation of ?Visions of Johanna? is really the same as > > ?Gone With the Wind?. That is, the speaker is making love to one person > and > > dreaming of another. But what was despicable and in the end unforgiveable > > in ?Gone With the Wind? is presented as somehow admirable and wonderful > in > > ?Visions of Johanna?, because of course the speaker in this case is a > man. > > > > The symbolic articulation of ?Nothing Pleases Me? is, among other things, > > death: death on the radio, death in the newspapers, the faraway > citadels, a > > mother bereaved, a soldier besieged, an archaeologist excavating bones > that > > are not her own or those of anyone she knows, and finally the speaker who > > is weary of life and just wants to get off at the station. > > > > The final layer of Ruqaiya?s model is ?Theme?. ?Theme? is title. It?s not > > just title, but the title is probably the part of the verbal artwork > where > > you get closest to an explicit linguistic statement of the overall > > ?thesis?, the ?motif?, the ?Central Entity? and the ?Orienting Event? > > (Carmel Cloran) of the work as a ?Rhetorical Unit? (that is, as a unit > > somewhere between a clause and a whole text in size). > > > > ?Visions of Johanna? is a nominal group. The overall thesis appears to be > > memories of a beautiful woman (memories of my old girlfriend) or perhaps > > the ecstatic visions of a saint (visions of Teresa of Avila). The central > > entity is ?visions?, and ?Johanna? is a rankshfted (subordinated) verbal > > group, leaning us a little towards the former interpretation (because the > > latter interpretation would suggest ?Johanna?s Visions?). The orienting > > event is a mental process?seeing, or sensing. > > > > ?Nothing Pleases Me? is a clause. The overall thesis appears to be a > > negative: I love nothing, I like nothing, I am not getting what I want, > and > > I am not wanting what I get. The central entity is the grammatical > Subject > > of the clause, namely ?nothing?. The orienting event is also a mental > > process, namely ?pleasing?. > > > > Now, the thing that makes verbal ART into art and not just more > > verbalization is this. In normal verbalization, the selection of patterns > > is conventional, in the sense that there are canonical ways of realizing > a > > given context as wordings and a given wording as a sounding or a > spelling. > > With verbal art, the patterns at one level are actually able to free > > themselves from convention, and create their own ways of realizing > context > > and their own imaginary contexts. > > > > As David Butt (one of Ruqaiya?s students) said yesterday, the patterns of > > patterns have the power to ?renegotiate our contract with culture?, > because > > although you didn?t really agree to believe in God or ethereal love at > > first sight or the citadel on the hill when you were born, verbal art has > > the power to help you renegotiate each and every one of those beliefs). > The > > condition for doing this, however, is that patterns at one level have to > > reinforce and not degrade or distract or disperse patterns at another. > > > > With ?Visions of Johanna? we have lots of patterns at the level of > sounding > > that make little sense at the level of wording (Is ?it? the same in ?deny > > it? as in ?defy it??). We have patterns at the level of wording that > rather > > contradict what the poet is trying to say at the level of meaning (for > > example, we do not get a single ?Vision of Johanna? although we are told > > that they have conquered the poet?s mind and blotted out everything else; > > instead, for us, Louise blots out Johanna). As with so much Bob Dylan, > the > > theme is simply unspoken; the theme is the speaker himself, the seer of > > visions we do not see > > > > With ?Nothing Pleases Me?, the speaker is also in the theme (the ?me? of > > ?Nothing Pleases Me?) but the patterns of sounding/spelling emphasize > that > > we are all differently displeased, including the reader, just as we all > die > > alone. And yet there is something in the end that holds us together?the > > bus, the driver, and the trip to the station. Where once again we all > part. > > > > David Kellogg > > Macquarie University > > > > > > Visions of Johanna (Bob Dylan) > > in't it just like the night to play tricks when you're tryin' to be so > > quiet? > > We sit here stranded, though we're all doin' our best to deny it > > And Louise holds a handful of rain, temptin' you to defy it > > Lights flicker from the opposite loft > > In this room the heat pipes just cough > > The country music station plays soft > > But there's nothing, really nothing to turn off > > Just Louise and her lover so entwined > > And these visions of Johanna that conquer my mind > > > > In the empty lot where the ladies play blindman's bluff with the key > chain > > And the all-night girls they whisper of escapades out on the "D" train > > We can hear the night watchman click his flashlight > > Ask himself if it's him or them that's insane > > Louise, she's all right, she's just near > > She's delicate and seems like the mirror > > But she just makes it all too concise and too clear > > That Johanna's not here > > The ghost of 'lectricity howls in the bones of her face > > Where these visions of Johanna have now taken my place > > > > Now, little boy lost, he takes himself so seriously > > He brags of his misery, he likes to live dangerously > > And when bringing her name up > > He speaks of a farewell kiss to me > > He's sure got a lotta gall to be so useless and all > > Muttering small talk at the wall while I'm in the hall > > How can I explain? > > It's so hard to get on > > And these visions of Johanna, they kept me up past the dawn > > > > Inside the museums, infinity goes up on trial > > Voices echo this is what salvation must be like after a while > > But Mona Lisa musta had the highway blues > > You can tell by the way she smiles > > See the primitive wallflower freeze > > When the jelly-faced women all sneeze > > Hear the one with the mustache say, "Jeez, I can't find my knees" > > Oh, jewels and binoculars hang from the head of the mule > > But these visions of Johanna, they make it all seem so cruel > > > > Nothing Pleases Me (Mahmoud Darwish) > > - ????? ????? "????? ??????" > > ?? ???? ????????? > > > > ?? ???? ????????? > > ???? ?????? ?? ?????? ? ?? ??????? > > .??? ?????? ?????? , ??? ??????? ??? ?????? > > /????? ?? ???? > > ,???? ???????: ?????? ??????? ??? ????????? > > /?????? ???? ?? ??????? > > ???? ??????: ???? ??????. ??? ?? > > ????? ?????????. ???????? ????? ??? ???? > > /?????????? ?????? ??? ??????????? > > ???? ?????????: ??? ???? ? ?? ???? > > ??????. ???????? ???????????? ??? ??? > > ?????? ??????????? ?? ???????. ?? ??? > > /???? ????? > > ????? ??????: ???? ??????. ???? ?? > > ???? ????????? . ???????? ?????? ??????? > > /?????????? > > ????? ??????? ????????: ?? ??? > > ??????? ?? ?????? ???????? ???????? > > /...?????? > > ???????: ????? ?? ?????? ?????????? > > !?????? > > ????? ??? ??????: ????????? ??? . ??? > > ????? ?? ??? ?????? ? ????? ????? > > .?? ????????? > > > > > > Nothing Pleases Me > > > > Nothing pleases me > > the traveler on the bus says?Not the radio > > or the morning newspaper, nor the citadels on the hills. > > I want to cry / > > The driver says: Wait until you get to the station, > > then cry alone all you want / > > A woman says: Me too. Nothing > > pleases me. I guided my son to my grave, > > he liked it and slept there, without saying goodbye / > > A college student says: Nor does anything > > please me. I studied archaeology but didn?t > > find identity in stone. Am I > > really me? / > > And a soldier says: Me too. Nothing > > pleases me. I always besiege a ghost > > besieging me / > > The edgy driver says: Here we are > > almost near our last stop, get ready > > to get off . . . / > > Then they scream: We want what?s beyond the station, > > keep going! > > As for myself I say: Let me off here. I am > > like them, nothing pleases me, but I?m worn out > > from travel. > > > > -from "The Butterfly's Burden", translated by Fady Joudah (translation > > copyright ? 2007 Copper Canyon Press) > > > > > -- > > It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an object > that creates history. Ernst Boesch > From boblake@georgiasouthern.edu Tue Feb 23 06:14:22 2016 From: boblake@georgiasouthern.edu (Robert Lake) Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2016 09:14:22 -0500 Subject: [Xmca-l] Of Possible Interest to the XCMA/CHAT Family Message-ID: ?Susan Davis has published a book that weaves LSV, Dorothy Heathcote and CHAT into one seamless, present tense unfolding of "rolling role". If anyone would like to write a review of it I can get you a copy. It has been five years since Heathcote's passing and I suspect her work will become more and more important in this era of standardized everything. *Robert Lake* https://www.sensepublishers.com/media/2709-learning-that-matters.pdf For a sense of the dynamic of Dorothy's pedagogy, scroll to about 5 minutes into this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owKiUO99qrw From greg.a.thompson@gmail.com Tue Feb 23 09:00:40 2016 From: greg.a.thompson@gmail.com (Greg Thompson) Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2016 10:00:40 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Of Possible Interest to the XCMA/CHAT Family In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Loved this quote from D. Heathcote: "knowing what is irrelevant is the most important thing in teaching" (around 10 minutes in). Words to teach (live?) by! -greg On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 7:14 AM, Robert Lake wrote: > ?Susan Davis has published a book that weaves LSV, Dorothy Heathcote and > CHAT > into one seamless, present tense unfolding of "rolling role". If anyone > would like to write a review of it I can get you a copy. It has been five > years since Heathcote's passing and I suspect her work will become more and > more important in this era of standardized everything. > > *Robert Lake* > > https://www.sensepublishers.com/media/2709-learning-that-matters.pdf > > > For a sense of the dynamic of Dorothy's pedagogy, scroll to about 5 > minutes into this. > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owKiUO99qrw > -- Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Department of Anthropology 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602 http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson From carolmacdon@gmail.com Wed Feb 24 02:17:00 2016 From: carolmacdon@gmail.com (Carol Macdonald) Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2016 12:17:00 +0200 Subject: [Xmca-l] Chomsky posted this on Facebook Message-ID: *http://mondoweiss.net/2016/02/chomsky-and-his-critics/ * ?It's too long for me to cut and paste but it's worth having a look at. There's a good bit where Chomsky demolished Kamm. Carol? -- Carol A Macdonald Ph.D (Edin) Developmental psycholinguist Honorary Research Fellow: Department of Linguistics, Unisa alternative email address: tmacdoca@unisa.ac.za From carolmacdon@gmail.com Wed Feb 24 02:17:00 2016 From: carolmacdon@gmail.com (Carol Macdonald) Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2016 12:17:00 +0200 Subject: [Xmca-l] Chomsky posted this on Facebook Message-ID: *http://mondoweiss.net/2016/02/chomsky-and-his-critics/ * ?It's too long for me to cut and paste but it's worth having a look at. There's a good bit where Chomsky demolished Kamm. Carol? -- Carol A Macdonald Ph.D (Edin) Developmental psycholinguist Honorary Research Fellow: Department of Linguistics, Unisa alternative email address: tmacdoca@unisa.ac.za From s.davis@cqu.edu.au Wed Feb 24 03:32:28 2016 From: s.davis@cqu.edu.au (Susan Davis) Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2016 11:32:28 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Of Possible Interest to the XCMA/CHAT Family In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks Robert, It?s great to have the book published as part of your series. The book is called ?Learning that matters: Revitalising Heathcote?s Rolling Role for the digital age?. https://www.sensepublishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/imagination-and-praxis/ learning-that-matters/ For those who haven?t heard of Heathcote before, she was a ?master? teacher who achieved international recognition for her teaching practice in the 70s and 80s - in particular for pioneering processes such as Mantle of the Expert - which use role and fictional contexts to position children as ?experts? and active agents in investigative processes. She also invented this system called ?Rolling Role? which is a form of trans-disciplinary learning - where multiple classes work with the same common context, but from their particular frame or subject perspective. The beauty of it is that no one group ?owns? the outcome, but groups regularly ?publish? and share artefacts and outcomes throughout the process, with each group having to use and ?roll? the work of what has gone before. It was a system she believed was perfectly suited for revisiting in the digital age? so that is what the book hopes to assist with? the Vygotskian and CHAT work was very helpful in conceptualising and understanding this work. At times reading the work of Vygotsky and Heathcote it felt like they could have been writing about education today! Educational experience, no less than theoretical research, teaches us that, in practice, a straightforward learning of concepts always proves impossible and educationally fruitless. Usually, any teacher setting out on this road achieves nothing except a meaningless acquisition of words, mere verbalization in children, which is nothing more than simulation and imitation of corresponding concepts which, in reality, are concealing a vacuum. In such cases, the child assimilates not concepts but words, and he fills his memory more than his thinking. As a result, he ends up helpless in the face of any sensible attempt to apply any of this acquired knowledge. Essentially, this method of teaching/learning concepts, a purely scholastic and verbal method of teaching, which is condemned by everybody and which advocates the replacement of acquisition of living knowledge by the assimilation of dead and empty verbal schemes, represents the most basic failing in the field of education. (Vygotsky 1934/1994a, pp. 356-7) So ? getting rid of the dummy run. On the face of it you have a rather interesting paradox in drama, because it looks like drama is entirely artificial and that the whole thing would be a dummy run ? we are only pretending actually. And we use words like pretend and play and in our culture it does suggest that it?s ephemeral and there?s no real work/life purpose for it?. So it seems to me we need to look and see what it is that makes something NOT feel like a dummy run? It seemed to me that one of the important aspects of not being a dummy run is that it matters now, we feel like its urgent now. (Heathcote 1993, Tape 9) Cheers Sue Dr Susan Davis Senior Lecturer | School of Education & the Arts | Higher Education Division CQUniversity Australia, Noosa Campus | PO Box 1128, Qld 4566 P +61 (0)7 5440 7007 | X 547007 | M +61 400 000 000| E s.davis@cqu.edu.au On 24/02/2016 12:14 am, "Robert Lake" wrote: >?Susan Davis has published a book that weaves LSV, Dorothy Heathcote and >CHAT >into one seamless, present tense unfolding of "rolling role". If anyone >would like to write a review of it I can get you a copy. It has been five >years since Heathcote's passing and I suspect her work will become more >and >more important in this era of standardized everything. > >*Robert Lake* > >https://www.sensepublishers.com/media/2709-learning-that-matters.pdf > > >For a sense of the dynamic of Dorothy's pedagogy, scroll to about 5 >minutes into this. > >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owKiUO99qrw -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: default.xml Type: application/xml Size: 3222 bytes Desc: default.xml Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20160224/c8eae0f2/attachment.rdf From mcole@ucsd.edu Wed Feb 24 12:12:00 2016 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2016 12:12:00 -0800 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Of Possible Interest to the XCMA/CHAT Family In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks for the extra info, Susan. I did not know of Heathcote before. The quotation from Vygotsky caught my eye. Especially: Essentially, this method of teaching/learning concepts, *a purely scholastic and verbal method of teaching, which is* *condemned by everybody and which advocates the replacement of acquisition of livingknowledge by the assimilation of dead and empty verbal schemes, representsthe **most basic failing in the field of education*. (Vygotsky 1934/1994a, pp. 356-7) Since, by 1934, this issue was recognized by everyone, how come it has not been replaced? The resilience of drill-and-kill is impressive, as are the successful attempts, in some social ecologies, to overcome it. mike On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 3:32 AM, Susan Davis wrote: > Thanks Robert, > It?s great to have the book published as part of your series. The book is > called ?Learning that matters: Revitalising Heathcote?s Rolling Role for > the digital age?. > https://www.sensepublishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/imagination-and-praxis/ > learning-that-matters/ > > For those who haven?t heard of Heathcote before, she was a ?master? > teacher who achieved international recognition for her teaching practice > in the 70s and 80s - in particular for pioneering processes such as Mantle > of the Expert - which use role and fictional contexts to position children > as ?experts? and active agents in investigative processes. She also > invented this system called ?Rolling Role? which is a form of > trans-disciplinary learning - where multiple classes work with the same > common context, but from their particular frame or subject perspective. > The beauty of it is that no one group ?owns? the outcome, but groups > regularly ?publish? and share artefacts and outcomes throughout the > process, with each group having to use and ?roll? the work of what has > gone before. It was a system she believed was perfectly suited for > revisiting in the digital age? so that is what the book hopes to assist > with? the Vygotskian and CHAT work was very helpful in conceptualising and > understanding this work. > > At times reading the work of Vygotsky and Heathcote it felt like they > could have been writing about education today! > > Educational experience, no less than theoretical research, > teaches us that, in practice, a straightforward learning of concepts always > proves impossible and educationally fruitless. Usually, any teacher > setting out > on this road achieves nothing except a meaningless acquisition of words, > mere > verbalization in children, which is nothing more than simulation and > imitation > of corresponding concepts which, in reality, are concealing a vacuum. In > such cases, the child assimilates not > concepts but words, and he fills his memory more than his thinking. As a > result, he ends up helpless in the face of any sensible attempt to apply > any of > this acquired knowledge. Essentially, this method of teaching/learning > concepts, a purely scholastic and verbal method of teaching, which is > condemned > by everybody and which advocates the replacement of acquisition of living > knowledge by the assimilation of dead and empty verbal schemes, represents > the > most basic failing in the field of education. (Vygotsky 1934/1994a, pp. > 356-7) > > > So ? getting rid of the dummy run. On the face of it you > have a rather interesting paradox in drama, because it looks like drama is > entirely artificial and that the whole thing would be a dummy run ? we are > only > pretending actually. And we use words > like pretend and play and in our culture it does suggest that it?s > ephemeral > and there?s no real work/life purpose for it?. So it seems to me we need to > look and see what it is that makes something NOT feel like a dummy run? > It seemed to me that one of the important aspects of not > being a dummy run is that it matters now, we feel like its urgent now. > (Heathcote 1993, Tape 9) > > > > Cheers > Sue > > > Dr Susan Davis > Senior Lecturer | School of Education & the Arts | Higher Education > Division > CQUniversity Australia, Noosa Campus | > PO Box 1128, Qld 4566 > P +61 (0)7 5440 7007 | X 547007 | M +61 400 000 000| E s.davis@cqu.edu.au > > > > > On 24/02/2016 12:14 am, "Robert Lake" wrote: > > >?Susan Davis has published a book that weaves LSV, Dorothy Heathcote and > >CHAT > >into one seamless, present tense unfolding of "rolling role". If anyone > >would like to write a review of it I can get you a copy. It has been five > >years since Heathcote's passing and I suspect her work will become more > >and > >more important in this era of standardized everything. > > > >*Robert Lake* > > > >https://www.sensepublishers.com/media/2709-learning-that-matters.pdf > > > > > >For a sense of the dynamic of Dorothy's pedagogy, scroll to about 5 > >minutes into this. > > > >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owKiUO99qrw > > -- It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an object that creates history. Ernst Boesch From dkellogg60@gmail.com Thu Feb 25 01:52:53 2016 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2016 18:52:53 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Of Possible Interest to the XCMA/CHAT Family In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Sure, Greg. But you have to move the emphasis. Not "knowing what's irrelevant is the most important thing there IS in teaching!" but "KNOWING what's irrelevant is the most important thing there is in teaching." As Heathcote says, if the other boys had jeered that Coventry wasn't in London, she would have had to defend him, knowing both that Coventry is not in London AND knowing that it wasn't relevant for that particular child. But if she didn't KNOW what was irrelevant, as well as the fact that it was irrelevant, she couldn't do this at all. I think that if we assume that knowing what's irrelevant is the most important thing that there IS in teaching, we are left with what Bernstein would call a strongly framed and strongly classified mode of teaching: "things must be kept apart", instead of "things must be brought together". Only if we KNOW all the knowledge to come, the knowledge which in the present context seems irrelevant, do we have the possibility of teaching with the next zone of development in mind. That's all the difference between the zone of proximal development as a DIAGNOSTIC of development (which is what Vygotsky actually said about it in Problem of Age Section Three) and the zone of proximal development as a DYNAMIC of development (which is how the editors of the Collected Works rendered it). In one case, the teacher really has to know something that is to the child entirely irrelevant to the present activity, namely the next zone of development. In the other, the teacher just has to know what is here and now and what operation of the action or action of the activity has to come next. David Kellogg Macquarie University On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 2:00 AM, Greg Thompson wrote: > Loved this quote from D. Heathcote: > > "knowing what is irrelevant is the most important thing in teaching" > (around 10 minutes in). > > Words to teach (live?) by! > > -greg > > On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 7:14 AM, Robert Lake > wrote: > > > ?Susan Davis has published a book that weaves LSV, Dorothy Heathcote and > > CHAT > > into one seamless, present tense unfolding of "rolling role". If anyone > > would like to write a review of it I can get you a copy. It has been five > > years since Heathcote's passing and I suspect her work will become more > and > > more important in this era of standardized everything. > > > > *Robert Lake* > > > > https://www.sensepublishers.com/media/2709-learning-that-matters.pdf > > > > > > For a sense of the dynamic of Dorothy's pedagogy, scroll to about 5 > > minutes into this. > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owKiUO99qrw > > > > > > -- > Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. > Assistant Professor > Department of Anthropology > 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower > Brigham Young University > Provo, UT 84602 > http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson > From lpscholar2@gmail.com Thu Feb 25 06:46:05 2016 From: lpscholar2@gmail.com (Lplarry) Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2016 06:46:05 -0800 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Of Possible Interest to the XCMA/CHAT Family In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56cf13e8.c75d620a.566aa.ffffd010@mx.google.com> David, Susan, To ask "How do we get rid of the feeling that what we are doing is a *dummy run?* Answer: To realize what really *matters* that is experienced as a living matter. David suggesting this is not a question of *being* - focus on the word *is* but rather to focus on the word *knowing*. So how does the instructor come to *know* what actually is a subject matter that *really matters* in contrast to *dummy matters* that are actually *dead matters*. Questions: Is this meaning of *knowing* focusing on epistemology and the notion of *genetic epistemology?* Is knowing related to *signifying* and contrasted with what known as *signified* Susan contrasts acquiring *living* knowledge in contrast to *dead* formalized knowledge. David suggests instructors must *know* the difference. I am now wanting to hear more on how to move beyond developing "dummy knowledge and to create "places" -zones - in which life is lived within spaces of subject matters that really matter and make a real "difference". Larry -----Original Message----- From: "Susan Davis" Sent: ?2016-?02-?24 3:34 AM To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Of Possible Interest to the XCMA/CHAT Family Thanks Robert, It?s great to have the book published as part of your series. The book is called ?Learning that matters: Revitalising Heathcote?s Rolling Role for the digital age?. https://www.sensepublishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/imagination-and-praxis/ learning-that-matters/ For those who haven?t heard of Heathcote before, she was a ?master? teacher who achieved international recognition for her teaching practice in the 70s and 80s - in particular for pioneering processes such as Mantle of the Expert - which use role and fictional contexts to position children as ?experts? and active agents in investigative processes. She also invented this system called ?Rolling Role? which is a form of trans-disciplinary learning - where multiple classes work with the same common context, but from their particular frame or subject perspective. The beauty of it is that no one group ?owns? the outcome, but groups regularly ?publish? and share artefacts and outcomes throughout the process, with each group having to use and ?roll? the work of what has gone before. It was a system she believed was perfectly suited for revisiting in the digital age? so that is what the book hopes to assist with? the Vygotskian and CHAT work was very helpful in conceptualising and understanding this work. At times reading the work of Vygotsky and Heathcote it felt like they could have been writing about education today! Educational experience, no less than theoretical research, teaches us that, in practice, a straightforward learning of concepts always proves impossible and educationally fruitless. Usually, any teacher setting out on this road achieves nothing except a meaningless acquisition of words, mere verbalization in children, which is nothing more than simulation and imitation of corresponding concepts which, in reality, are concealing a vacuum. In such cases, the child assimilates not concepts but words, and he fills his memory more than his thinking. As a result, he ends up helpless in the face of any sensible attempt to apply any of this acquired knowledge. Essentially, this method of teaching/learning concepts, a purely scholastic and verbal method of teaching, which is condemned by everybody and which advocates the replacement of acquisition of living knowledge by the assimilation of dead and empty verbal schemes, represents the most basic failing in the field of education. (Vygotsky 1934/1994a, pp. 356-7) So ? getting rid of the dummy run. On the face of it you have a rather interesting paradox in drama, because it looks like drama is entirely artificial and that the whole thing would be a dummy run ? we are only pretending actually. And we use words like pretend and play and in our culture it does suggest that it?s ephemeral and there?s no real work/life purpose for it?. So it seems to me we need to look and see what it is that makes something NOT feel like a dummy run? It seemed to me that one of the important aspects of not being a dummy run is that it matters now, we feel like its urgent now. (Heathcote 1993, Tape 9) Cheers Sue Dr Susan Davis Senior Lecturer | School of Education & the Arts | Higher Education Division CQUniversity Australia, Noosa Campus | PO Box 1128, Qld 4566 P +61 (0)7 5440 7007 | X 547007 | M +61 400 000 000| E s.davis@cqu.edu.au On 24/02/2016 12:14 am, "Robert Lake" wrote: >?Susan Davis has published a book that weaves LSV, Dorothy Heathcote and >CHAT >into one seamless, present tense unfolding of "rolling role". If anyone >would like to write a review of it I can get you a copy. It has been five >years since Heathcote's passing and I suspect her work will become more >and >more important in this era of standardized everything. > >*Robert Lake* > >https://www.sensepublishers.com/media/2709-learning-that-matters.pdf > > >For a sense of the dynamic of Dorothy's pedagogy, scroll to about 5 >minutes into this. > >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owKiUO99qrw From s.davis@cqu.edu.au Thu Feb 25 11:51:21 2016 From: s.davis@cqu.edu.au (Susan Davis) Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2016 19:51:21 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Of Possible Interest to the XCMA/CHAT Family In-Reply-To: <56cf13e8.c75d620a.566aa.ffffd010@mx.google.com> References: <56cf13e8.c75d620a.566aa.ffffd010@mx.google.com> Message-ID: Good questions and reflections Larry and David, Heathcote believed that through drama you could situate students differently in relation to knowledge through them having an actual ?experience? of it, in what she called ?now? time. So rather than being told about ?knowledge', or reading about it as something that happened ?over there? to other people, it is about bringing the students into a more immediate experience as they have to consider ?what would I do in this situation' . One way she suggests you can do that is by just moving situations and events into the present tense? so if you are doing history and examining a particular event you can set up a context and instead of saying ?they were? you say ?we are?, ?I am?. It is in a way an ontological and epistemological shift that is realised through practical action and tasks, so children ?experience? knowledge through tasks and action. She says of ?now? time: . Things have to be made to matter; . The task must feel important and worthwhile; . There needs to be a valuable and perceivable outcome; . People must enjoy power to influence and operate in the circumstances; . Tasks must create feedback possibilities; . Situation must feel reasonable and genuinely truthful; . People must feel protected from feeling stared at; and . The self-spectator must become alert and be registered. (Tape 9) The skill of the teacher is in then exercising high selectivity in arranging a multiplicity of signs and tools to establish the context and curate the experience so that it activates interest and engagement. She talks of finding the ?thread? that they can take from their lives into the dramatic (or historical) context? and that might be something very simple - taking on role within a family group, putting on a name tag for a role, putting a pencil behind your ear so later in the 'Victorian workroom' you will be able to quickly retrieve it. In terms of learning that matters she really is concerned with having children come to appreciate that learning matters, being deeply concerned with things matters and that if you attend to things and can have an ?experience? of knowledge, you will care about it and that learning will stay with you. She was quite fond of a quote by Blake ?he who would do good to another must do so in minute particulars?. As I conclude in the book ? Heathcote argued, school is an artificial construct, with mandated curriculum requirements and expectations being imposed from on high, so the engagement process is about making the curriculum accessible and attractive for students so they can become committed and involved enough to learn things that will ?stick? and make a difference. This is ultimately about enabling students to have experiences of coming to care about things, and care about things that matter. Through this engagement and commitment process Heathcote hoped that students would understand that to achieve anything worthwhile you have to invest energy and pay attention to details, that details matter. This type of commitment is at the core of meaningful learning: "Making people care about things is the process of learning". (Tape 9) I hope that helps! Cheers Sue On 26/02/2016 12:46 am, "Lplarry" wrote: >David, Susan, >To ask "How do we get rid of the feeling that what we are doing is a >*dummy run?* >Answer: To realize what really *matters* that is experienced as a >living matter. >David suggesting this is not a question of *being* - focus on the word >*is* but rather to focus on the word *knowing*. >So how does the instructor come to *know* what actually is a subject >matter that *really matters* in contrast to *dummy matters* that are >actually *dead matters*. >Questions: Is this meaning of *knowing* focusing on epistemology and the >notion of *genetic epistemology?* >Is knowing related to *signifying* and contrasted with what known as >*signified* >Susan contrasts acquiring *living* knowledge in contrast to *dead* >formalized knowledge. >David suggests instructors must *know* the difference. >I am now wanting to hear more on how to move beyond developing "dummy >knowledge and to create "places" -zones - in which life is lived within >spaces of subject matters that really matter and make a real "difference". >Larry > >-----Original Message----- >From: "Susan Davis" >Sent: ?2016-?02-?24 3:34 AM >To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" >Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Of Possible Interest to the XCMA/CHAT Family > >Thanks Robert, >It?s great to have the book published as part of your series. The book is >called ?Learning that matters: Revitalising Heathcote?s Rolling Role for >the digital age?. >https://www.sensepublishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/imagination-and-praxis >/ >learning-that-matters/ > >For those who haven?t heard of Heathcote before, she was a ?master? >teacher who achieved international recognition for her teaching practice >in the 70s and 80s - in particular for pioneering processes such as Mantle >of the Expert - which use role and fictional contexts to position children >as ?experts? and active agents in investigative processes. She also >invented this system called ?Rolling Role? which is a form of >trans-disciplinary learning - where multiple classes work with the same >common context, but from their particular frame or subject perspective. >The beauty of it is that no one group ?owns? the outcome, but groups >regularly ?publish? and share artefacts and outcomes throughout the >process, with each group having to use and ?roll? the work of what has >gone before. It was a system she believed was perfectly suited for >revisiting in the digital age? so that is what the book hopes to assist >with? the Vygotskian and CHAT work was very helpful in conceptualising and >understanding this work. > >At times reading the work of Vygotsky and Heathcote it felt like they >could have been writing about education today! > >Educational experience, no less than theoretical research, >teaches us that, in practice, a straightforward learning of concepts >always >proves impossible and educationally fruitless. Usually, any teacher >setting out >on this road achieves nothing except a meaningless acquisition of words, >mere >verbalization in children, which is nothing more than simulation and >imitation >of corresponding concepts which, in reality, are concealing a vacuum. In >such cases, the child assimilates not >concepts but words, and he fills his memory more than his thinking. As a >result, he ends up helpless in the face of any sensible attempt to apply >any of >this acquired knowledge. Essentially, this method of teaching/learning >concepts, a purely scholastic and verbal method of teaching, which is >condemned >by everybody and which advocates the replacement of acquisition of living >knowledge by the assimilation of dead and empty verbal schemes, represents >the >most basic failing in the field of education. (Vygotsky 1934/1994a, pp. >356-7) > > >So ? getting rid of the dummy run. On the face of it you >have a rather interesting paradox in drama, because it looks like drama is >entirely artificial and that the whole thing would be a dummy run ? we are >only >pretending actually. And we use words >like pretend and play and in our culture it does suggest that it?s >ephemeral >and there?s no real work/life purpose for it?. So it seems to me we need >to >look and see what it is that makes something NOT feel like a dummy run? >It seemed to me that one of the important aspects of not >being a dummy run is that it matters now, we feel like its urgent now. >(Heathcote 1993, Tape 9) > > > >Cheers >Sue > > >Dr Susan Davis >Senior Lecturer | School of Education & the Arts | Higher Education >Division >CQUniversity Australia, Noosa Campus | >PO Box 1128, Qld 4566 >P +61 (0)7 5440 7007 | X 547007 | M +61 400 000 000| E s.davis@cqu.edu.au > > > > >On 24/02/2016 12:14 am, "Robert Lake" wrote: > >>?Susan Davis has published a book that weaves LSV, Dorothy Heathcote and >>CHAT >>into one seamless, present tense unfolding of "rolling role". If anyone >>would like to write a review of it I can get you a copy. It has been five >>years since Heathcote's passing and I suspect her work will become more >>and >>more important in this era of standardized everything. >> >>*Robert Lake* >> >>https://www.sensepublishers.com/media/2709-learning-that-matters.pdf >> >> >>For a sense of the dynamic of Dorothy's pedagogy, scroll to about 5 >>minutes into this. >> >>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owKiUO99qrw > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: default[3].xml Type: application/xml Size: 3222 bytes Desc: default[3].xml Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20160225/4c37565a/attachment.rdf -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: default[4].xml Type: application/xml Size: 3222 bytes Desc: default[4].xml Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20160225/4c37565a/attachment-0001.rdf From helen.grimmett@monash.edu Thu Feb 25 14:06:33 2016 From: helen.grimmett@monash.edu (Helen Grimmett) Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2016 09:06:33 +1100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Of Possible Interest to the XCMA/CHAT Family In-Reply-To: References: <56cf13e8.c75d620a.566aa.ffffd010@mx.google.com> Message-ID: Beautifully put Sue, and exactly why I believe infusion of the arts into the curriculum is so important. There is nothing quite like 'living' a concept for understanding it and feeling why it matters. This sometimes gets me into trouble with other arts educators who are adamant that each of the arts needs to be taught for its own sake and inherent value rather than 'reduced' to its utilitarian value of enhancing learning in other subjects. But I don't see why these are two mutually opposing positions. All children deserve access to quality arts education that teaches arts skills and processes, but surely the point of learning these skills is to put them to use in making life more meaningful. If the arts help make learning in other subject areas more meaningful then surely that helps strengthen the case for quality arts education rather than diminish it. Thanks for introducing me to another aspect of Heathcote's work too. I'm very familiar with Teacher-in-role and the Mantle of the Expert, but had never heard of 'Rolling Role'. I'm looking forward to reading the book! Cheers, Helen -- *Dr HELEN GRIMMETT * Lecturer in Primary and Early Years Education Professional Experience Liaison - Primary *Education* Monash University Room 159, Building 902, Berwick Campus 100 Clyde Road Berwick VIC 3806 Australia T: +61 3 9904 7171 E: helen.grimmett@monash.edu monash.edu The Practice of Teachers' Professional Development: A Cultural-Historical Approach Helen Grimmett (2014) Sense Publishers On 26 February 2016 at 06:51, Susan Davis wrote: > Good questions and reflections Larry and David, > > Heathcote believed that through drama you could situate students > differently in relation to knowledge through them having an actual > ?experience? of it, in what she called ?now? time. So rather than being > told about ?knowledge', or reading about it as something that happened > ?over there? to other people, it is about bringing the students into a > more immediate experience as they have to consider ?what would I do in > this situation' . One way she suggests you can do that is by just moving > situations and events into the present tense? so if you are doing history > and examining a particular event you can set up a context and instead of > saying ?they were? you say ?we are?, ?I am?. It is in a way an > ontological and epistemological shift that is realised through practical > action and tasks, so children ?experience? knowledge through tasks and > action. > > She says of ?now? time: > . Things have to be made to matter; > . The task must feel important and worthwhile; > . There needs to be a valuable and perceivable outcome; > . People must enjoy power to influence and operate in the circumstances; > . Tasks must create feedback possibilities; > . Situation must feel reasonable and genuinely truthful; > . People must feel protected from feeling stared at; and > . The self-spectator must become alert and be registered. (Tape 9) > > > The skill of the teacher is in then exercising high selectivity in > arranging a multiplicity of signs and tools to establish the context and > curate the experience so that it activates interest and engagement. She > talks of finding the ?thread? that they can take from their lives into the > dramatic (or historical) context? and that might be something very simple > - taking on role within a family group, putting on a name tag for a role, > putting a pencil behind your ear so later in the 'Victorian workroom' you > will be able to quickly retrieve it. > > In terms of learning that matters she really is concerned with having > children come to appreciate that learning matters, being deeply concerned > with things matters and that if you attend to things and can have an > ?experience? of knowledge, you will care about it and that learning will > stay with you. She was quite fond of a quote by Blake ?he who would do > good to another must do so in minute particulars?. > > As I conclude in the book ? Heathcote argued, school is an artificial > construct, with mandated curriculum requirements and expectations being > imposed from on high, so the engagement process is about making the > curriculum accessible and attractive for students so they can become > committed and involved enough to learn things that will ?stick? and make a > difference. > This is ultimately about enabling students to have experiences of > coming to care about things, and care about things that matter. Through > this engagement and commitment process Heathcote hoped that students would > understand that to achieve anything worthwhile you have to invest energy > and pay attention to details, that details matter. This type of > commitment is at > the core of meaningful learning: "Making people care about things is the > process of learning". (Tape 9) > > > I hope that helps! > > Cheers > Sue > > > > On 26/02/2016 12:46 am, "Lplarry" wrote: > > >David, Susan, > >To ask "How do we get rid of the feeling that what we are doing is a > >*dummy run?* > >Answer: To realize what really *matters* that is experienced as a > >living matter. > >David suggesting this is not a question of *being* - focus on the word > >*is* but rather to focus on the word *knowing*. > >So how does the instructor come to *know* what actually is a subject > >matter that *really matters* in contrast to *dummy matters* that are > >actually *dead matters*. > >Questions: Is this meaning of *knowing* focusing on epistemology and the > >notion of *genetic epistemology?* > >Is knowing related to *signifying* and contrasted with what known as > >*signified* > >Susan contrasts acquiring *living* knowledge in contrast to *dead* > >formalized knowledge. > >David suggests instructors must *know* the difference. > >I am now wanting to hear more on how to move beyond developing "dummy > >knowledge and to create "places" -zones - in which life is lived within > >spaces of subject matters that really matter and make a real "difference". > >Larry > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: "Susan Davis" > >Sent: ?2016-?02-?24 3:34 AM > >To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > >Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Of Possible Interest to the XCMA/CHAT Family > > > >Thanks Robert, > >It?s great to have the book published as part of your series. The book is > >called ?Learning that matters: Revitalising Heathcote?s Rolling Role for > >the digital age?. > > > https://www.sensepublishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/imagination-and-praxis > >/ > >learning-that-matters/ > > > >For those who haven?t heard of Heathcote before, she was a ?master? > >teacher who achieved international recognition for her teaching practice > >in the 70s and 80s - in particular for pioneering processes such as Mantle > >of the Expert - which use role and fictional contexts to position children > >as ?experts? and active agents in investigative processes. She also > >invented this system called ?Rolling Role? which is a form of > >trans-disciplinary learning - where multiple classes work with the same > >common context, but from their particular frame or subject perspective. > >The beauty of it is that no one group ?owns? the outcome, but groups > >regularly ?publish? and share artefacts and outcomes throughout the > >process, with each group having to use and ?roll? the work of what has > >gone before. It was a system she believed was perfectly suited for > >revisiting in the digital age? so that is what the book hopes to assist > >with? the Vygotskian and CHAT work was very helpful in conceptualising and > >understanding this work. > > > >At times reading the work of Vygotsky and Heathcote it felt like they > >could have been writing about education today! > > > >Educational experience, no less than theoretical research, > >teaches us that, in practice, a straightforward learning of concepts > >always > >proves impossible and educationally fruitless. Usually, any teacher > >setting out > >on this road achieves nothing except a meaningless acquisition of words, > >mere > >verbalization in children, which is nothing more than simulation and > >imitation > >of corresponding concepts which, in reality, are concealing a vacuum. In > >such cases, the child assimilates not > >concepts but words, and he fills his memory more than his thinking. As a > >result, he ends up helpless in the face of any sensible attempt to apply > >any of > >this acquired knowledge. Essentially, this method of teaching/learning > >concepts, a purely scholastic and verbal method of teaching, which is > >condemned > >by everybody and which advocates the replacement of acquisition of living > >knowledge by the assimilation of dead and empty verbal schemes, represents > >the > >most basic failing in the field of education. (Vygotsky 1934/1994a, pp. > >356-7) > > > > > >So ? getting rid of the dummy run. On the face of it you > >have a rather interesting paradox in drama, because it looks like drama is > >entirely artificial and that the whole thing would be a dummy run ? we are > >only > >pretending actually. And we use words > >like pretend and play and in our culture it does suggest that it?s > >ephemeral > >and there?s no real work/life purpose for it?. So it seems to me we need > >to > >look and see what it is that makes something NOT feel like a dummy run? > >It seemed to me that one of the important aspects of not > >being a dummy run is that it matters now, we feel like its urgent now. > >(Heathcote 1993, Tape 9) > > > > > > > >Cheers > >Sue > > > > > >Dr Susan Davis > >Senior Lecturer | School of Education & the Arts | Higher Education > >Division > >CQUniversity Australia, Noosa Campus | > >PO Box 1128, Qld 4566 > >P +61 (0)7 5440 7007 | X 547007 | M +61 400 000 000| E s.davis@cqu.edu.au > > > > > > > > > >On 24/02/2016 12:14 am, "Robert Lake" > wrote: > > > >>?Susan Davis has published a book that weaves LSV, Dorothy Heathcote and > >>CHAT > >>into one seamless, present tense unfolding of "rolling role". If anyone > >>would like to write a review of it I can get you a copy. It has been five > >>years since Heathcote's passing and I suspect her work will become more > >>and > >>more important in this era of standardized everything. > >> > >>*Robert Lake* > >> > >>https://www.sensepublishers.com/media/2709-learning-that-matters.pdf > >> > >> > >>For a sense of the dynamic of Dorothy's pedagogy, scroll to about 5 > >>minutes into this. > >> > >>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owKiUO99qrw > > > > From annalisa@unm.edu Thu Feb 25 14:45:11 2016 From: annalisa@unm.edu (Annalisa Aguilar) Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2016 22:45:11 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] The imploding university Message-ID: Hi XMCArs! Saw this at Project Syndicate: https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/academic-freedom-under-threat-by-chris-patten-2016-02# Thought it might be of interest! Kind regards, Annalisa From wendy.maples@outlook.com Fri Feb 26 04:42:24 2016 From: wendy.maples@outlook.com (Wendy Maples) Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2016 12:42:24 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The imploding university In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Interesting that Chris Patten is on board with proactive intolerance of intolerance. And I am saddened to find myself wholeheartedly agreeing that some of the more pernicious intolerances are emerging from within Universities themselves. Not only of Student Union addresses, but also of research styles (the prioritisation of qualitative, measurable, observable, over anything that smacks of interpretation in the UK REF) and, I fear, of a particular form of 'outcome-focussed' evaluation in the new Teaching Excellence Framework, where outcomes are strictly limited to a thin set of 'measurable' data. Don't get me wrong, I actually LIKED some of what I saw in the early TEF proposals (how nice to prioritise excellence in teaching!), and I think there are still potentially positive outcomes, but I also fear we are going to have to revise quite substantially what we understand what we mean by 'being an academic', as Patten points out.Thanks for sharing, AnnalisaWendy > From: annalisa@unm.edu > To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2016 22:45:11 +0000 > Subject: [Xmca-l] The imploding university > > Hi XMCArs! > > > Saw this at Project Syndicate: > > https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/academic-freedom-under-threat-by-chris-patten-2016-02# > > > Thought it might be of interest! > > > Kind regards, > > > Annalisa From jgregmcverry@gmail.com Fri Feb 26 05:08:14 2016 From: jgregmcverry@gmail.com (Greg Mcverry) Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2016 13:08:14 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The imploding university In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The discussion of safe spaces, trigger warnings, mansplaining, checking white privilege and other positions by feminist scholars and critical race theorists have been hot topics among scholar activist writing circles. Search through Medium for any of the above terms. In terms of renaming buildings or removing Confederate Flags on campus I can see how that can make campuses more inclusive. Yet I also worry if we are training activist to only going after low hanging fruit. At Yale for example the fight was on renaming faculty advisors to dorm rooms who are currently called, "headmasters" yet the city of New Haven is full of poverty. So I am not sure how I feel. The pushback from folks similar to the author is quite strong in conservative and neoliberal circles. I do not want these voices silenced but we need to learn to listen to underrepresented voices. On Fri, Feb 26, 2016, 7:44 AM Wendy Maples wrote: > Interesting that Chris Patten is on board with proactive intolerance of > intolerance. And I am saddened to find myself wholeheartedly agreeing that > some of the more pernicious intolerances are emerging from within > Universities themselves. Not only of Student Union addresses, but also of > research styles (the prioritisation of qualitative, measurable, observable, > over anything that smacks of interpretation in the UK REF) and, I fear, of > a particular form of 'outcome-focussed' evaluation in the new Teaching > Excellence Framework, where outcomes are strictly limited to a thin set of > 'measurable' data. Don't get me wrong, I actually LIKED some of what I saw > in the early TEF proposals (how nice to prioritise excellence in > teaching!), and I think there are still potentially positive outcomes, but > I also fear we are going to have to revise quite substantially what we > understand what we mean by 'being an academic', as Patten points out.Thanks > for sharing, AnnalisaWendy > > > From: annalisa@unm.edu > > To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > > Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2016 22:45:11 +0000 > > Subject: [Xmca-l] The imploding university > > > > Hi XMCArs! > > > > > > Saw this at Project Syndicate: > > > > > https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/academic-freedom-under-threat-by-chris-patten-2016-02# > > > > > > Thought it might be of interest! > > > > > > Kind regards, > > > > > > Annalisa > From bella.kotik@gmail.com Fri Feb 26 08:34:03 2016 From: bella.kotik@gmail.com (Bella Kotik-Friedgut) Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2016 18:34:03 +0200 Subject: [Xmca-l] =?utf-8?q?Fwd=3A_EVC16_=E2=80=93_IV_ESTORIL_VIGOTSKY_CONFERENCE_?= =?utf-8?q?June=2C_9-11=2C_2016=2C_Estoril=2C_Portugal?= In-Reply-To: <20160225231212.Horde.lOK3g71r3ntEKz7hbTiyc6d@estorilvigotskyconference.com> References: <20160225231212.Horde.lOK3g71r3ntEKz7hbTiyc6d@estorilvigotskyconference.com> Message-ID: Sincerely yours Bella Kotik-Friedgut ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Date: Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 1:12 AM Subject: EVC16 ? IV ESTORIL VIGOTSKY CONFERENCE June, 9-11, 2016, Estoril, Portugal To: EVC16 ? IV ESTORIL VIGOTSKY CONFERENCE June 9-11, 2016 Estoril, Portugal JOIN US in sunny beautiful Portugal from June 9-11, 2016 for the IV ESTORIL VIGOTSKY CONFERENCE ? International Congress of Psychology. Call for papers! Abstracts to be submitted until March 1st Three days of keynote and state of the art lectures, oral presentations and round tables with the focus on Vigotsky, Luria and Leont?ev theoretical framework are the hallmark of this singular and interactive conference. It is a unique opportunity to interface with colleagues from different disciplines all over the world. Registration includes access to all congress sessions, Keynote presentations and ISCAR Meeting (International Society for Cultural-historical Activity Research). EVC16 has the following Keynote and invited speakers: Antonio E. Puente (USA), Janna Glozman (Russia), Alfredo Ardila (USA), Eugene Subbotsky (UK), Dorothy Robbins (USA), Aleksander N. Veraksa (Russia), Nicolay Veresov (Australia), Bella Kotik-Friedgut (Israel), Igor M. Arievitch (USA), Anton Yasnitsky (Canada), Konstantin V. Anokhin (Russia), and Joaquim Quintino Aires (Portugal). With the theme "Continuing the dialogue with Vigotsky", the EVC16 congress is a wonderful opportunity to share research, insights and techniques and form professional networks in the fields of Psychology and Education. Abstracts must be submitted by March 1st, 2016. For information on submission guidelines, registration and the schedule, please visit our homepage: www.estorilvigotskyconference.com We welcome abstracts from the following areas: History and Philosophy of Psychology Clinical Psychology Social Psychology Educational Psychology Psychology of Work and Organizations. Enquiries: info@estorilvigotskyconference.com Sponsored by: The Vegotskyan League of Portuguese Language & Quintino Aires Institute In collaboration with the Russian State University for the Humanities, the Lomonosov Moscow State University, IPAF - Vigotsky Institute (S?o Paulo, Brazil), along with Andricard (Luanda, Angola), and the Journal ?Psychology in Russia: State of the Art?. A special issue of ?Psychology in Russia: State of the Art?, devoted to the EVC16 will be out of print in 2017. Ana Beatriz Saraiva EVC16 Organization -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Poster EVC16.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 262973 bytes Desc: not available Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20160226/cc896461/attachment.pdf From annalisa@unm.edu Fri Feb 26 09:42:43 2016 From: annalisa@unm.edu (Annalisa Aguilar) Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2016 17:42:43 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The imploding university In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: Hi Wendy and Greg (and others), Thanks for sharing your comments. The pivotal sentence for me in the article was: "In fact, he [Chris Patten's Marxist teacher] made me a great deal better informed, more open to discussion of ideas that challenged my own, more capable of distinguishing between an argument and a quarrel, and more prepared to think for myself." Please highlight in yellow: "capable of distinguishing between an argument and a quarrel." So in light of your replies, I think that content should not be what is at issue, but the method by which such content is handled in discourse in a free and democratic society. Theoretically, one should be free and able to be a complete bigot or say bigoted things, but at the same time be rigorously challenged for being one or saying such things. The worst meets the best. Don't get me wrong: In the process of examination, bigoted positions are inevitably seen as untenable and unsustainable, but the part where we (all) learn is how we (all) are able to see that process of examination in action, and in particular scenarios where the content is always changing. So... why is it not a good idea to be a bigot in society? We learn to answer that question best in the university. Every academic and every graduating student should be able to answer such a question. I myself do not have the confidence in myself to articulate in a public sphere (of heated debate) why it is not a good idea, but just that I know and feel that it's wrong. But thinking, feeling, or saying "it is wrong!" is not good enough (to me anyway). I should be able to fully explain my argument in a given scenario and do it with a cool head. (Can you?) I should be able to confront sexist or racist or elitist behavior with equanimity, because doing so is my small contribution (and perhaps one might say duty) to maintaining a democratic society (or planet?), as a(n earth) citizen. To be that kind of citizen, there requires scaffolding between feeling/knowing it is wrong (and even not feeling/ not knowing it is wrong) and explaining (why it is wrong). To do this, I require the space to play on that scaffolding, with lots of padding so that if I fall, I can get back up and climb that scaffold until it becomes facile for me. I become an acrobat of debate. Imagine a society full of such acrobats, but where no one gets hurt, and everyone is in appreciation of acrobatic endeavors, spotting others and challenging ourselves to do new moves. This is where the university is failing us because we have fewer safe arena to debate the merits (and not just for the students), yet there is plenty of quarreling and pettiness over turf, which in my view has (at its root) more to do with insecurities and discomforts with acts of debating, and thus any discussion can easily turn into a fit of intolerance and attempt to muffle others, or should I say Others? (White privilege can be an Other, too, because the definition of an Other is: "Anyone not like me is an Other", right?) To be fair, if no academic feels safe to "say it like it is" and debate the merits, then how can students see that in action? It means that insecurities to debate come not from being intolerant oneself, but knowing/feeling one is economically dependent upon an intolerant environment, and that just feeds on itself into a circle of vice. It becomes a Game of Gotcha or of Musical Chairs. What happens when there is only one breed of an academic who says only what is safe to say? What happens to the gene pool? Just my 2? of duty, for what it's worth! Kind regards, Annalisa From lpscholar2@gmail.com Fri Feb 26 11:00:42 2016 From: lpscholar2@gmail.com (Larry Purss) Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2016 11:00:42 -0800 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Of Possible Interest to the XCMA/CHAT Family In-Reply-To: References: <56cf13e8.c75d620a.566aa.ffffd010@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <56d09fb3.4444620a.22c06.fffff809@mx.google.com> The central thematic therefore ; *making people care about things is the core of learning. This process of coming to care may be that consciousness is in the 1st place not a matter of *I think* but of *I can* I want to explore the phenomena of the *phantom limb* that occurs when a person who has lost an arm in actuality continues to feel pain in what is now a virtual limb which continues to be sensed [felt] as painful. Merleau-Ponty took this phenomena as a clear example of how phenomena becomes embodied or *endowed* in the experience of the person. The invention of a device called a *virtual reality box* was created by Ramachandran. The way *virtual* and *reality* are put in conjunction is significant. The 1st term occurs in the realm of the non-existent [virtual] the 2nd term in the realm of the actual [reality]. In the virtual reality box a mirror is placed and the one actual arm is in the box. When the person looks into the box he *sees both arms* because the box creates a reverse symmetrical image. The person visually is presented with an embodied or endowed right and left arm. The person is then instructed to move the phantom left arm into the left side of the box and move the real right arm into the right side of the box. The patient looked down, saw two arms, and was able to move *both* arms at the same time. When this was done the person's *synesthetic* response embodied two normal arms. The absent arm became present virtually. The phantom limbs arm then is extinguished in that virtual arm, hence the phantom limb and its sensations were *extinguished*. This virtual reality box shows how consciousness is in the first place not a matter of *I think* but in the 1st place is a matter of *I can*. Shifting back to the virtual reality *stage* where drama is a process of *I can* I sense a similar process of the play of conjunction between the virtual PLACE/zone and the actual PLACE/zone. If learning is in the 1st place learning to care then this caring is in the 1st place endowing experience with *I can* prior to the experience of cognizing as *I think*. The place of the *speaking voice* as the *I can* process when in the presence of an audience is also meaningFULL [subject matter that matters] becoming endowed through learning [as coming to care for things as the subject matter that matters]. I hope this reflection has some resonance with understanding knowing as occurring in the 1st place as an undergoing of an experience as a process occurring within virtual actual places. Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: Helen Grimmett Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2016 2:09 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Of Possible Interest to the XCMA/CHAT Family Beautifully put Sue, and exactly why I believe infusion of the arts into the curriculum is so important. There is nothing quite like 'living' a concept for understanding it and feeling why it matters. This sometimes gets me into trouble with other arts educators who are adamant that each of the arts needs to be taught for its own sake and inherent value rather than 'reduced' to its utilitarian value of enhancing learning in other subjects. But I don't see why these are two mutually opposing positions. All children deserve access to quality arts education that teaches arts skills and processes, but surely the point of learning these skills is to put them to use in making life more meaningful. If the arts help make learning in other subject areas more meaningful then surely that helps strengthen the case for quality arts education rather than diminish it. Thanks for introducing me to another aspect of Heathcote's work too. I'm very familiar with Teacher-in-role and the Mantle of the Expert, but had never heard of 'Rolling Role'. I'm looking forward to reading the book! Cheers, Helen -- *Dr HELEN GRIMMETT * Lecturer in Primary and Early Years Education Professional Experience Liaison - Primary *Education* Monash University Room 159, Building 902, Berwick Campus 100 Clyde Road Berwick VIC 3806 Australia T: +61 3 9904 7171 E: helen.grimmett@monash.edu monash.edu The Practice of Teachers' Professional Development: A Cultural-Historical Approach Helen Grimmett (2014) Sense Publishers On 26 February 2016 at 06:51, Susan Davis wrote: > Good questions and reflections Larry and David, > > Heathcote believed that through drama you could situate students > differently in relation to knowledge through them having an actual > ?experience? of it, in what she called ?now? time. So rather than being > told about ?knowledge', or reading about it as something that happened > ?over there? to other people, it is about bringing the students into a > more immediate experience as they have to consider ?what would I do in > this situation' . One way she suggests you can do that is by just moving > situations and events into the present tense? so if you are doing history > and examining a particular event you can set up a context and instead of > saying ?they were? you say ?we are?, ?I am?. It is in a way an > ontological and epistemological shift that is realised through practical > action and tasks, so children ?experience? knowledge through tasks and > action. > > She says of ?now? time: > . Things have to be made to matter; > . The task must feel important and worthwhile; > . There needs to be a valuable and perceivable outcome; > . People must enjoy power to influence and operate in the circumstances; > . Tasks must create feedback possibilities; > . Situation must feel reasonable and genuinely truthful; > . People must feel protected from feeling stared at; and > . The self-spectator must become alert and be registered. (Tape 9) > > > The skill of the teacher is in then exercising high selectivity in > arranging a multiplicity of signs and tools to establish the context and > curate the experience so that it activates interest and engagement. She > talks of finding the ?thread? that they can take from their lives into the > dramatic (or historical) context? and that might be something very simple > - taking on role within a family group, putting on a name tag for a role, > putting a pencil behind your ear so later in the 'Victorian workroom' you > will be able to quickly retrieve it. > > In terms of learning that matters she really is concerned with having > children come to appreciate that learning matters, being deeply concerned > with things matters and that if you attend to things and can have an > ?experience? of knowledge, you will care about it and that learning will > stay with you. She was quite fond of a quote by Blake ?he who would do > good to another must do so in minute particulars?. > > As I conclude in the book ? Heathcote argued, school is an artificial > construct, with mandated curriculum requirements and expectations being > imposed from on high, so the engagement process is about making the > curriculum accessible and attractive for students so they can become > committed and involved enough to learn things that will ?stick? and make a > difference. > This is ultimately about enabling students to have experiences of > coming to care about things, and care about things that matter. Through > this engagement and commitment process Heathcote hoped that students would > understand that to achieve anything worthwhile you have to invest energy > and pay attention to details, that details matter. This type of > commitment is at > the core of meaningful learning: "Making people care about things is the > process of learning". (Tape 9) > > > I hope that helps! > > Cheers > Sue > > > > On 26/02/2016 12:46 am, "Lplarry" wrote: > > >David, Susan, > >To ask "How do we get rid of the feeling that what we are doing is a > >*dummy run?* > >Answer: To realize what really *matters* that is experienced as a > >living matter. > >David suggesting this is not a question of *being* - focus on the word > >*is* but rather to focus on the word *knowing*. > >So how does the instructor come to *know* what actually is a subject > >matter that *really matters* in contrast to *dummy matters* that are > >actually *dead matters*. > >Questions: Is this meaning of *knowing* focusing on epistemology and the > >notion of *genetic epistemology?* > >Is knowing related to *signifying* and contrasted with what known as > >*signified* > >Susan contrasts acquiring *living* knowledge in contrast to *dead* > >formalized knowledge. > >David suggests instructors must *know* the difference. > >I am now wanting to hear more on how to move beyond developing "dummy > >knowledge and to create "places" -zones - in which life is lived within > >spaces of subject matters that really matter and make a real "difference". > >Larry > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: "Susan Davis" > >Sent: ?2016-?02-?24 3:34 AM > >To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > >Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Of Possible Interest to the XCMA/CHAT Family > > > >Thanks Robert, > >It?s great to have the book published as part of your series. The book is > >called ?Learning that matters: Revitalising Heathcote?s Rolling Role for > >the digital age?. > > > https://www.sensepublishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/imagination-and-praxis > >/ > >learning-that-matters/ > > > >For those who haven?t heard of Heathcote before, she was a ?master? > >teacher who achieved international recognition for her teaching practice > >in the 70s and 80s - in particular for pioneering processes such as Mantle > >of the Expert - which use role and fictional contexts to position children > >as ?experts? and active agents in investigative processes. She also > >invented this system called ?Rolling Role? which is a form of > >trans-disciplinary learning - where multiple classes work with the same > >common context, but from their particular frame or subject perspective. > >The beauty of it is that no one group ?owns? the outcome, but groups > >regularly ?publish? and share artefacts and outcomes throughout the > >process, with each group having to use and ?roll? the work of what has > >gone before. It was a system she believed was perfectly suited for > >revisiting in the digital age? so that is what the book hopes to assist > >with? the Vygotskian and CHAT work was very helpful in conceptualising and > >understanding this work. > > > >At times reading the work of Vygotsky and Heathcote it felt like they > >could have been writing about education today! > > > >Educational experience, no less than theoretical research, > >teaches us that, in practice, a straightforward learning of concepts > >always > >proves impossible and educationally fruitless. Usually, any teacher > >setting out > >on this road achieves nothing except a meaningless acquisition of words, > >mere > >verbalization in children, which is nothing more than simulation and > >imitation > >of corresponding concepts which, in reality, are concealing a vacuum. In > >such cases, the child assimilates not > >concepts but words, and he fills his memory more than his thinking. As a > >result, he ends up helpless in the face of any sensible attempt to apply > >any of > >this acquired knowledge. Essentially, this method of teaching/learning > >concepts, a purely scholastic and verbal method of teaching, which is > >condemned > >by everybody and which advocates the replacement of acquisition of living > >knowledge by the assimilation of dead and empty verbal schemes, represents > >the > >most basic failing in the field of education. (Vygotsky 1934/1994a, pp. > >356-7) > > > > > >So ? getting rid of the dummy run. On the face of it you > >have a rather interesting paradox in drama, because it looks like drama is > >entirely artificial and that the whole thing would be a dummy run ? we are > >only > >pretending actually. And we use words > >like pretend and play and in our culture it does suggest that it?s > >ephemeral > >and there?s no real work/life purpose for it?. So it seems to me we need > >to > >look and see what it is that makes something NOT feel like a dummy run? > >It seemed to me that one of the important aspects of not > >being a dummy run is that it matters now, we feel like its urgent now. > >(Heathcote 1993, Tape 9) > > > > > > > >Cheers > >Sue > > > > > >Dr Susan Davis > >Senior Lecturer | School of Education & the Arts | Higher Education > >Division > >CQUniversity Australia, Noosa Campus | > >PO Box 1128, Qld 4566 > >P +61 (0)7 5440 7007 | X 547007 | M +61 400 000 000| E s.davis@cqu.edu.au > > > > > > > > > >On 24/02/2016 12:14 am, "Robert Lake" > wrote: > > > >>?Susan Davis has published a book that weaves LSV, Dorothy Heathcote and > >>CHAT > >>into one seamless, present tense unfolding of "rolling role". If anyone > >>would like to write a review of it I can get you a copy. It has been five > >>years since Heathcote's passing and I suspect her work will become more > >>and > >>more important in this era of standardized everything. > >> > >>*Robert Lake* > >> > >>https://www.sensepublishers.com/media/2709-learning-that-matters.pdf > >> > >> > >>For a sense of the dynamic of Dorothy's pedagogy, scroll to about 5 > >>minutes into this. > >> > >>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owKiUO99qrw > > > > From jennamcjenna@gmail.com Fri Feb 26 11:07:53 2016 From: jennamcjenna@gmail.com (Jacob McWilliams) Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2016 12:07:53 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The imploding university In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I think someone should probably point out that the author of this piece, Chris Patten, was the last British governor of Hong Kong before it was ?returned? to China. An appointed governor of an occupied territory, obtained through conquest, may not be in the best position to stand up against threats to intellectual freedom. Importantly, too, and as Greg points out, arguments in favor of shifting intellectual spaces to make room for alternative (i.e., non-male, non-white, non-cisgender, non-able bodied, etc.) people and experiences are coming largely from feminist, queer, disability, and critical race scholars. There are plenty of scholars from those traditions who are also addressing questions of academic freedom, although they don?t commonly get wide circulation?at least not as wide as someone who looks and speaks and writes like Chris Patten does. -- Jacob McWilliams Learning Sciences and Human Development Program University of Colorado Boulder j.mcwilliams@colorado.edu On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 10:42 AM, Annalisa Aguilar wrote: > > Hi Wendy and Greg (and others), > > Thanks for sharing your comments. The pivotal sentence for me in the > article was: > > "In fact, he [Chris Patten's Marxist teacher] made me a great deal better > informed, more open to discussion of ideas that challenged my own, more > capable of distinguishing between an argument and a quarrel, and more > prepared to think for myself." > > Please highlight in yellow: "capable of distinguishing between an argument > and a quarrel." > > So in light of your replies, I think that content should not be what is at > issue, but the method by which such content is handled in discourse in a > free and democratic society. Theoretically, one should be free and able to > be a complete bigot or say bigoted things, but at the same time be > rigorously challenged for being one or saying such things. The worst meets > the best. > > Don't get me wrong: In the process of examination, bigoted positions are > inevitably seen as untenable and unsustainable, but the part where we (all) > learn is how we (all) are able to see that process of examination in > action, and in particular scenarios where the content is always changing. > > So... why is it not a good idea to be a bigot in society? > > We learn to answer that question best in the university. Every academic > and every graduating student should be able to answer such a question. > > I myself do not have the confidence in myself to articulate in a public > sphere (of heated debate) why it is not a good idea, but just that I know > and feel that it's wrong. But thinking, feeling, or saying "it is wrong!" > is not good enough (to me anyway). I should be able to fully explain my > argument in a given scenario and do it with a cool head. (Can you?) I > should be able to confront sexist or racist or elitist behavior with > equanimity, because doing so is my small contribution (and perhaps one > might say duty) to maintaining a democratic society (or planet?), as a(n > earth) citizen. > > To be that kind of citizen, there requires scaffolding between > feeling/knowing it is wrong (and even not feeling/ not knowing it is wrong) > and explaining (why it is wrong). To do this, I require the space to play > on that scaffolding, with lots of padding so that if I fall, I can get back > up and climb that scaffold until it becomes facile for me. I become an > acrobat of debate. > > Imagine a society full of such acrobats, but where no one gets hurt, and > everyone is in appreciation of acrobatic endeavors, spotting others and > challenging ourselves to do new moves. > > This is where the university is failing us because we have fewer safe > arena to debate the merits (and not just for the students), yet there is > plenty of quarreling and pettiness over turf, which in my view has (at its > root) more to do with insecurities and discomforts with acts of debating, > and thus any discussion can easily turn into a fit of intolerance and > attempt to muffle others, or should I say Others? > > (White privilege can be an Other, too, because the definition of an Other > is: "Anyone not like me is an Other", right?) > > To be fair, if no academic feels safe to "say it like it is" and debate > the merits, then how can students see that in action? It means that > insecurities to debate come not from being intolerant oneself, but > knowing/feeling one is economically dependent upon an intolerant > environment, and that just feeds on itself into a circle of vice. > > It becomes a Game of Gotcha or of Musical Chairs. > > What happens when there is only one breed of an academic who says only > what is safe to say? What happens to the gene pool? > > Just my 2? of duty, for what it's worth! > > Kind regards, > > Annalisa > From glassman.13@osu.edu Sat Feb 27 05:51:04 2016 From: glassman.13@osu.edu (Glassman, Michael) Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2016 13:51:04 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Google discovers John Dewey Message-ID: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C59E28@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> I started reading this New York Times article because I thought it might be interesting. I ended up thinking it was hilarious, http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/magazine/what-google-learned-from-its-quest-to-build-the-perfect-team.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=photo-spot-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0 Exploring how groups work best together they spent years and millions and millions of dollars on research and of course BIG DATA to discover exactly what John Dewey said about how groups work (and don't work) together in Democracy and Education. The great geniuses discovered John Dewey. Of course it might have been cheaper to simply go to a used book store and put down five dollars for a worn copy of the book. You just have to shake your head. Michael From smago@uga.edu Sat Feb 27 14:08:36 2016 From: smago@uga.edu (Peter Smagorinsky) Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2016 22:08:36 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] FW: Open call for special issue of _European Education_ on the EU/refugee crisis In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Please share widely this open call for European Education. Neslihan Dedeoglu and I will be the guest editors for a special issue focused on the EU/refugee crisis. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact us! See more information here: http://www.european-education.org/2016/02/open-call-for-special-issue-schools.html?spref=fb Dr. Jamie A. Kowalczyk Concordia University Chicago Jamie.kowalczyk@cuchicago.edu From wendy.maples@outlook.com Sat Feb 27 14:13:48 2016 From: wendy.maples@outlook.com (Wendy Maples) Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2016 22:13:48 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The imploding university In-Reply-To: References: , , , , Message-ID: Yes, good point. I smiled at that sentence, not least because of how the 'Marxist' teacher's political view was framed as evident 'issue'. Anyway, yes, not so much about content (though caveats re incitement, etc), but about context and in a learning context, one would hope that supporting critical thinking, logic, expression as well as challenging ideas (including, perhaps especially received wisdoms) would be priorities. > From: annalisa@unm.edu > To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2016 17:42:43 +0000 > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The imploding university > > > Hi Wendy and Greg (and others), > > Thanks for sharing your comments. The pivotal sentence for me in the article was: > > "In fact, he [Chris Patten's Marxist teacher] made me a great deal better informed, more open to discussion of ideas that challenged my own, more capable of distinguishing between an argument and a quarrel, and more prepared to think for myself." > > Please highlight in yellow: "capable of distinguishing between an argument and a quarrel." > > So in light of your replies, I think that content should not be what is at issue, but the method by which such content is handled in discourse in a free and democratic society. Theoretically, one should be free and able to be a complete bigot or say bigoted things, but at the same time be rigorously challenged for being one or saying such things. The worst meets the best. > > Don't get me wrong: In the process of examination, bigoted positions are inevitably seen as untenable and unsustainable, but the part where we (all) learn is how we (all) are able to see that process of examination in action, and in particular scenarios where the content is always changing. > > So... why is it not a good idea to be a bigot in society? > > We learn to answer that question best in the university. Every academic and every graduating student should be able to answer such a question. > > I myself do not have the confidence in myself to articulate in a public sphere (of heated debate) why it is not a good idea, but just that I know and feel that it's wrong. But thinking, feeling, or saying "it is wrong!" is not good enough (to me anyway). I should be able to fully explain my argument in a given scenario and do it with a cool head. (Can you?) I should be able to confront sexist or racist or elitist behavior with equanimity, because doing so is my small contribution (and perhaps one might say duty) to maintaining a democratic society (or planet?), as a(n earth) citizen. > > To be that kind of citizen, there requires scaffolding between feeling/knowing it is wrong (and even not feeling/ not knowing it is wrong) and explaining (why it is wrong). To do this, I require the space to play on that scaffolding, with lots of padding so that if I fall, I can get back up and climb that scaffold until it becomes facile for me. I become an acrobat of debate. > > Imagine a society full of such acrobats, but where no one gets hurt, and everyone is in appreciation of acrobatic endeavors, spotting others and challenging ourselves to do new moves. > > This is where the university is failing us because we have fewer safe arena to debate the merits (and not just for the students), yet there is plenty of quarreling and pettiness over turf, which in my view has (at its root) more to do with insecurities and discomforts with acts of debating, and thus any discussion can easily turn into a fit of intolerance and attempt to muffle others, or should I say Others? > > (White privilege can be an Other, too, because the definition of an Other is: "Anyone not like me is an Other", right?) > > To be fair, if no academic feels safe to "say it like it is" and debate the merits, then how can students see that in action? It means that insecurities to debate come not from being intolerant oneself, but knowing/feeling one is economically dependent upon an intolerant environment, and that just feeds on itself into a circle of vice. > > It becomes a Game of Gotcha or of Musical Chairs. > > What happens when there is only one breed of an academic who says only what is safe to say? What happens to the gene pool? > > Just my 2? of duty, for what it's worth! > > Kind regards, > > Annalisa From anamshane@gmail.com Sun Feb 28 08:35:54 2016 From: anamshane@gmail.com (Ana Marjanovic-Shane) Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2016 16:35:54 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Of Possible Interest to the XCMA/CHAT Family In-Reply-To: <56d09fb3.4444620a.22c06.fffff809@mx.google.com> References: <56cf13e8.c75d620a.566aa.ffffd010@mx.google.com> <56d09fb3.4444620a.22c06.fffff809@mx.google.com> Message-ID: Dear all, Thanks for starting this thread about drama in education. I recently published a paper that takes a critical stance toward Heathcote's drama in education approach and other approaches to education that are based on some form of drama, play and/or improv - *"Spoilsport" in Drama in education vs dialogic pedagogy*. To play a "spoilsport" myself, in this paper, I claim that Drama in Education belongs to an educational paradigm that is mainly based on socialization of students into the socially recognized valuable practices, values and understanding of the world, which are heavily based on agreement, collaboration and following of the authority, without students having legitimate rights and a possibilities to critically disagree, provide different points of view and question the existing social practices, values and ways of understanding the world. In other words, in this educational paradigm - students' disenssus, critical approach to testing different ideas, views, desires, values, etc. is actively suppressed, or at best limited, curbed and restricted. In the paper I provide a detailed analysis of (a part of) the same video posted here earlier - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owKiUO99qrw. Below is the abstract of my paper. If interested - you can get it at Dialogic Pedagogy Journal website - http://dpj.pitt.edu/ojs/index.php/dpj1/article/view/151 So, what do you think? Ana ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ "Spoilsport" in Drama in education vs dialogic pedagogy Abstract In this paper two educational paradigms that both attempt to overcome alienation often experienced by students in the conventional education. These two educational paradigms are embodied in different educational practices: First, Drama in Education in its widest definition, is based on the Vygotskian views that human cognitive, semantic (meaning-making), and social-emotional development happens in or through play and/or imagination, thus within the imagined worlds. Second, Critical Ontological Dialogic Pedagogy, is based in the Bakhtin inspired approach to critical dialogue among the ?consciousnesses of equal rights? (Bakhtin, 1999), where education is assumed to be a practice of examination of the world, the others and the self. I reveal implicit and explicit conceptual similarities and differences between these two educational paradigms regarding their understanding the nature of learning; social values that they promote; the group dynamics, social relationships and the position of learners? subjectivity. I aim to uncover the role and legitimacy of the learners? disagreement with the positions of others, their dissensus with the educational events and settings, and the relationships of power within the social organization of educational communities in these two diverse educational approaches. I explore the legitimacy of dissensus in these two educational approaches regarding both the participants? critical examination of the curriculum, and in regard to promoting the participants? agency and its transformations. In spite of important similarities between the educational practices arranged by these two paradigms, the analysis of their differences points to the paradigmatically opposing views on human development, learning and education. Although both Drama in Education and Dialogic Pedagogy claim to deeply, fully and ontologically engage the learners in the process of education, they do it for different purposes and with diametrically opposite ways of treating the students and their relationship to the world, each other and their own developing selves. On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 1:58 PM Larry Purss wrote: > The central thematic therefore ; > *making people care about things is the core of learning. > > This process of coming to care may be that consciousness is in the 1st > place not a matter of *I think* but of *I can* > I want to explore the phenomena of the *phantom limb* that occurs when a > person who has lost an arm in actuality continues to feel pain in what is > now a virtual limb which continues to be sensed [felt] as painful. > Merleau-Ponty took this phenomena as a clear example of how phenomena > becomes embodied or *endowed* in the experience of the person. > The invention of a device called a *virtual reality box* was created by > Ramachandran. The way *virtual* and *reality* are put in conjunction is > significant. The 1st term occurs in the realm of the non-existent [virtual] > the 2nd term in the realm of the actual [reality]. > > In the virtual reality box a mirror is placed and the one actual arm is in > the box. When the person looks into the box he *sees both arms* because the > box creates a reverse symmetrical image. The person visually is presented > with an embodied or endowed right and left arm. > The person is then instructed to move the phantom left arm into the left > side of the box and move the real right arm into the right side of the box. > The patient looked down, saw two arms, and was able to move *both* arms at > the same time. > When this was done the person's *synesthetic* response embodied two normal > arms. The absent arm became present virtually. The phantom limbs arm then > is extinguished in that virtual arm, hence the phantom limb and its > sensations were *extinguished*. This virtual reality box shows how > consciousness is in the first place not a matter of *I think* but in the > 1st place is a matter of *I can*. > > Shifting back to the virtual reality *stage* where drama is a process of > *I can* I sense a similar process of the play of conjunction between the > virtual PLACE/zone and the actual PLACE/zone. > If learning is in the 1st place learning to care then this caring is in > the 1st place endowing experience with *I can* prior to the experience of > cognizing as *I think*. > The place of the *speaking voice* as the *I can* process when in the > presence of an audience is also meaningFULL [subject matter that matters] > becoming endowed through learning [as coming to care for things as the > subject matter that matters]. > I hope this reflection has some resonance with understanding knowing as > occurring in the 1st place as an undergoing of an experience as a process > occurring within virtual actual places. > > > Sent from Mail for Windows 10 > > From: Helen Grimmett > Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2016 2:09 PM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Of Possible Interest to the XCMA/CHAT Family > > Beautifully put Sue, and exactly why I believe infusion of the arts into > the curriculum is so important. There is nothing quite like 'living' a > concept for understanding it and feeling why it matters. > > This sometimes gets me into trouble with other arts educators who are > adamant that each of the arts needs to be taught for its own sake and > inherent value rather than 'reduced' to its utilitarian value of enhancing > learning in other subjects. But I don't see why these are two mutually > opposing positions. All children deserve access to quality arts education > that teaches arts skills and processes, but surely the point of learning > these skills is to put them to use in making life more meaningful. If the > arts help make learning in other subject areas more meaningful then surely > that helps strengthen the case for quality arts education rather than > diminish it. > > Thanks for introducing me to another aspect of Heathcote's work too. I'm > very familiar with Teacher-in-role and the Mantle of the Expert, but had > never heard of 'Rolling Role'. I'm looking forward to reading the book! > > Cheers, > Helen > > -- > *Dr HELEN GRIMMETT * > Lecturer in Primary and Early Years Education > Professional Experience Liaison - Primary > > *Education* > Monash University > Room 159, Building 902, Berwick Campus > 100 Clyde Road > Berwick VIC 3806 > Australia > > T: +61 3 9904 7171 > E: helen.grimmett@monash.edu > monash.edu > > > 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 > > > > > On 26 February 2016 at 06:51, Susan Davis wrote: > > > Good questions and reflections Larry and David, > > > > Heathcote believed that through drama you could situate students > > differently in relation to knowledge through them having an actual > > ?experience? of it, in what she called ?now? time. So rather than being > > told about ?knowledge', or reading about it as something that happened > > ?over there? to other people, it is about bringing the students into a > > more immediate experience as they have to consider ?what would I do in > > this situation' . One way she suggests you can do that is by just moving > > situations and events into the present tense? so if you are doing history > > and examining a particular event you can set up a context and instead of > > saying ?they were? you say ?we are?, ?I am?. It is in a way an > > ontological and epistemological shift that is realised through practical > > action and tasks, so children ?experience? knowledge through tasks and > > action. > > > > She says of ?now? time: > > . Things have to be made to matter; > > . The task must feel important and worthwhile; > > . There needs to be a valuable and perceivable outcome; > > . People must enjoy power to influence and operate in the circumstances; > > . Tasks must create feedback possibilities; > > . Situation must feel reasonable and genuinely truthful; > > . People must feel protected from feeling stared at; and > > . The self-spectator must become alert and be registered. (Tape 9) > > > > > > The skill of the teacher is in then exercising high selectivity in > > arranging a multiplicity of signs and tools to establish the context and > > curate the experience so that it activates interest and engagement. She > > talks of finding the ?thread? that they can take from their lives into > the > > dramatic (or historical) context? and that might be something very simple > > - taking on role within a family group, putting on a name tag for a role, > > putting a pencil behind your ear so later in the 'Victorian workroom' you > > will be able to quickly retrieve it. > > > > In terms of learning that matters she really is concerned with having > > children come to appreciate that learning matters, being deeply concerned > > with things matters and that if you attend to things and can have an > > ?experience? of knowledge, you will care about it and that learning will > > stay with you. She was quite fond of a quote by Blake ?he who would do > > good to another must do so in minute particulars?. > > > > As I conclude in the book ? Heathcote argued, school is an artificial > > construct, with mandated curriculum requirements and expectations being > > imposed from on high, so the engagement process is about making the > > curriculum accessible and attractive for students so they can become > > committed and involved enough to learn things that will ?stick? and make > a > > difference. > > This is ultimately about enabling students to have experiences of > > coming to care about things, and care about things that matter. Through > > this engagement and commitment process Heathcote hoped that students > would > > understand that to achieve anything worthwhile you have to invest energy > > and pay attention to details, that details matter. This type of > > commitment is at > > the core of meaningful learning: "Making people care about things is the > > process of learning". (Tape 9) > > > > > > I hope that helps! > > > > Cheers > > Sue > > > > > > > > On 26/02/2016 12:46 am, "Lplarry" wrote: > > > > >David, Susan, > > >To ask "How do we get rid of the feeling that what we are doing is a > > >*dummy run?* > > >Answer: To realize what really *matters* that is experienced as a > > >living matter. > > >David suggesting this is not a question of *being* - focus on the word > > >*is* but rather to focus on the word *knowing*. > > >So how does the instructor come to *know* what actually is a subject > > >matter that *really matters* in contrast to *dummy matters* that are > > >actually *dead matters*. > > >Questions: Is this meaning of *knowing* focusing on epistemology and the > > >notion of *genetic epistemology?* > > >Is knowing related to *signifying* and contrasted with what known as > > >*signified* > > >Susan contrasts acquiring *living* knowledge in contrast to *dead* > > >formalized knowledge. > > >David suggests instructors must *know* the difference. > > >I am now wanting to hear more on how to move beyond developing "dummy > > >knowledge and to create "places" -zones - in which life is lived within > > >spaces of subject matters that really matter and make a real > "difference". > > >Larry > > > > > >-----Original Message----- > > >From: "Susan Davis" > > >Sent: ?2016-?02-?24 3:34 AM > > >To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > > >Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Of Possible Interest to the XCMA/CHAT Family > > > > > >Thanks Robert, > > >It?s great to have the book published as part of your series. The book > is > > >called ?Learning that matters: Revitalising Heathcote?s Rolling Role for > > >the digital age?. > > > > > > https://www.sensepublishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/imagination-and-praxis > > >/ > > >learning-that-matters/ > > > > > >For those who haven?t heard of Heathcote before, she was a ?master? > > >teacher who achieved international recognition for her teaching practice > > >in the 70s and 80s - in particular for pioneering processes such as > Mantle > > >of the Expert - which use role and fictional contexts to position > children > > >as ?experts? and active agents in investigative processes. She also > > >invented this system called ?Rolling Role? which is a form of > > >trans-disciplinary learning - where multiple classes work with the same > > >common context, but from their particular frame or subject perspective. > > >The beauty of it is that no one group ?owns? the outcome, but groups > > >regularly ?publish? and share artefacts and outcomes throughout the > > >process, with each group having to use and ?roll? the work of what has > > >gone before. It was a system she believed was perfectly suited for > > >revisiting in the digital age? so that is what the book hopes to assist > > >with? the Vygotskian and CHAT work was very helpful in conceptualising > and > > >understanding this work. > > > > > >At times reading the work of Vygotsky and Heathcote it felt like they > > >could have been writing about education today! > > > > > >Educational experience, no less than theoretical research, > > >teaches us that, in practice, a straightforward learning of concepts > > >always > > >proves impossible and educationally fruitless. Usually, any teacher > > >setting out > > >on this road achieves nothing except a meaningless acquisition of words, > > >mere > > >verbalization in children, which is nothing more than simulation and > > >imitation > > >of corresponding concepts which, in reality, are concealing a vacuum. > In > > >such cases, the child assimilates not > > >concepts but words, and he fills his memory more than his thinking. As a > > >result, he ends up helpless in the face of any sensible attempt to apply > > >any of > > >this acquired knowledge. Essentially, this method of teaching/learning > > >concepts, a purely scholastic and verbal method of teaching, which is > > >condemned > > >by everybody and which advocates the replacement of acquisition of > living > > >knowledge by the assimilation of dead and empty verbal schemes, > represents > > >the > > >most basic failing in the field of education. (Vygotsky 1934/1994a, pp. > > >356-7) > > > > > > > > >So ? getting rid of the dummy run. On the face of it you > > >have a rather interesting paradox in drama, because it looks like drama > is > > >entirely artificial and that the whole thing would be a dummy run ? we > are > > >only > > >pretending actually. And we use words > > >like pretend and play and in our culture it does suggest that it?s > > >ephemeral > > >and there?s no real work/life purpose for it?. So it seems to me we need > > >to > > >look and see what it is that makes something NOT feel like a dummy run? > > >It seemed to me that one of the important aspects of not > > >being a dummy run is that it matters now, we feel like its urgent now. > > >(Heathcote 1993, Tape 9) > > > > > > > > > > > >Cheers > > >Sue > > > > > > > > >Dr Susan Davis > > >Senior Lecturer | School of Education & the Arts | Higher Education > > >Division > > >CQUniversity Australia, Noosa Campus | > > >PO Box 1128, Qld 4566 > > >P +61 (0)7 5440 7007 | X 547007 | M +61 400 000 000| E > s.davis@cqu.edu.au > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >On 24/02/2016 12:14 am, "Robert Lake" > > wrote: > > > > > >>?Susan Davis has published a book that weaves LSV, Dorothy Heathcote > and > > >>CHAT > > >>into one seamless, present tense unfolding of "rolling role". If anyone > > >>would like to write a review of it I can get you a copy. It has been > five > > >>years since Heathcote's passing and I suspect her work will become more > > >>and > > >>more important in this era of standardized everything. > > >> > > >>*Robert Lake* > > >> > > >>https://www.sensepublishers.com/media/2709-learning-that-matters.pdf > > >> > > >> > > >>For a sense of the dynamic of Dorothy's pedagogy, scroll to about 5 > > >>minutes into this. > > >> > > >>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owKiUO99qrw > > > > > > > > > -- *Ana Marjanovic-Shane* Dialogic Pedagogy Journal editor (dpj.pitt.edu) Associate Professor of Education Chestnut Hill College phone: 267-334-2905 From s.davis@cqu.edu.au Sun Feb 28 13:00:35 2016 From: s.davis@cqu.edu.au (Susan Davis) Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2016 21:00:35 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Of Possible Interest to the XCMA/CHAT Family In-Reply-To: References: <56cf13e8.c75d620a.566aa.ffffd010@mx.google.com> <56d09fb3.4444620a.22c06.fffff809@mx.google.com> Message-ID: Hi all, Thank you Larry, Helen and Ana for your comments. Helen - always lovely to find out who else is out there exploring the possibilities of working with the arts to bring about transformative learning and Larry I really like that proposition that in drama the premise begins with ?I can? and then moves to ?I think?. That is very much the case with drama, and sometimes children/participants are very nervous or uncertain when they begin a drama process, often because they begin from a position of ?I can?t? but through the acts of doing they begin to see that they in fact can do and become. Ana I would agree with the first part of your statement about drama in education being used to help socialise students into socially recognised valuable practices and would think that was a good thing given research that shows reductions in empathy in young people in recent times. I have concerns with the rest of your proposition and the sweeping nature of the critique. A colleague and I have been preparing a short response to your article and I will check with him to see if he is happy for me to post it here. I would of course be happy to hear other ?dialogue? as well. Kind regards Sue On 29/02/2016 2:35 am, "Ana Marjanovic-Shane" wrote: >Dear all, > >Thanks for starting this thread about drama in education. I recently >published a paper that takes a critical stance toward Heathcote's drama in >education approach and other approaches to education that are based on >some form of drama, play and/or improv - *"Spoilsport" in Drama in >education vs dialogic pedagogy*. >To play a "spoilsport" myself, in this paper, I claim that Drama in >Education belongs to an educational paradigm that is mainly based on >socialization of students into the socially recognized valuable practices, >values and understanding of the world, which are heavily based on >agreement, collaboration and following of the authority, without students >having legitimate rights and a possibilities to critically disagree, >provide different points of view and question the existing social >practices, values and ways of understanding the world. In other words, in >this educational paradigm - students' disenssus, critical approach to >testing different ideas, views, desires, values, etc. is actively >suppressed, or at best limited, curbed and restricted. > >In the paper I provide a detailed analysis of (a part of) the same video >posted here earlier - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owKiUO99qrw. Below >is the abstract of my paper. If interested - you can get it at Dialogic >Pedagogy Journal website - >http://dpj.pitt.edu/ojs/index.php/dpj1/article/view/151 > >So, what do you think? > >Ana > >____ ____ ____ ____ ____ >"Spoilsport" in Drama in education vs dialogic pedagogy >Abstract > > In this paper two educational paradigms that both attempt to overcome >alienation often experienced by students in the conventional education. >These two educational paradigms are embodied in different educational >practices: First, Drama in Education in its widest definition, is based on >the Vygotskian views that human cognitive, semantic (meaning-making), and >social-emotional development happens in or through play and/or >imagination, >thus within the imagined worlds. Second, Critical Ontological Dialogic >Pedagogy, is based in the Bakhtin inspired approach to critical dialogue >among the ?consciousnesses of equal rights? (Bakhtin, 1999), where >education is assumed to be a practice of examination of the world, the >others and the self. I reveal implicit and explicit conceptual >similarities >and differences between these two educational paradigms regarding their >understanding the nature of learning; social values that they promote; the >group dynamics, social relationships and the position of learners? >subjectivity. I aim to uncover the role and legitimacy of the learners? >disagreement with the positions of others, their dissensus with the >educational events and settings, and the relationships of power within the >social organization of educational communities in these two diverse >educational approaches. I explore the legitimacy of dissensus in these two >educational approaches regarding both the participants? critical >examination of the curriculum, and in regard to promoting the >participants? >agency and its transformations. In spite of important similarities between >the educational practices arranged by these two paradigms, the analysis of >their differences points to the paradigmatically opposing views on human >development, learning and education. Although both Drama in Education and >Dialogic Pedagogy claim to deeply, fully and ontologically engage the >learners in the process of education, they do it for different purposes >and >with diametrically opposite ways of treating the students and their >relationship to the world, each other and their own developing selves. > > > > > > > >On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 1:58 PM Larry Purss wrote: > >> The central thematic therefore ; >> *making people care about things is the core of learning. >> >> This process of coming to care may be that consciousness is in the 1st >> place not a matter of *I think* but of *I can* >> I want to explore the phenomena of the *phantom limb* that occurs when a >> person who has lost an arm in actuality continues to feel pain in what >>is >> now a virtual limb which continues to be sensed [felt] as painful. >> Merleau-Ponty took this phenomena as a clear example of how phenomena >> becomes embodied or *endowed* in the experience of the person. >> The invention of a device called a *virtual reality box* was created by >> Ramachandran. The way *virtual* and *reality* are put in conjunction is >> significant. The 1st term occurs in the realm of the non-existent >>[virtual] >> the 2nd term in the realm of the actual [reality]. >> >> In the virtual reality box a mirror is placed and the one actual arm is >>in >> the box. When the person looks into the box he *sees both arms* because >>the >> box creates a reverse symmetrical image. The person visually is >>presented >> with an embodied or endowed right and left arm. >> The person is then instructed to move the phantom left arm into the left >> side of the box and move the real right arm into the right side of the >>box. >> The patient looked down, saw two arms, and was able to move *both* arms >>at >> the same time. >> When this was done the person's *synesthetic* response embodied two >>normal >> arms. The absent arm became present virtually. The phantom limbs arm >>then >> is extinguished in that virtual arm, hence the phantom limb and its >> sensations were *extinguished*. This virtual reality box shows how >> consciousness is in the first place not a matter of *I think* but in the >> 1st place is a matter of *I can*. >> >> Shifting back to the virtual reality *stage* where drama is a process of >> *I can* I sense a similar process of the play of conjunction between the >> virtual PLACE/zone and the actual PLACE/zone. >> If learning is in the 1st place learning to care then this caring is in >> the 1st place endowing experience with *I can* prior to the experience >>of >> cognizing as *I think*. >> The place of the *speaking voice* as the *I can* process when in the >> presence of an audience is also meaningFULL [subject matter that >>matters] >> becoming endowed through learning [as coming to care for things as the >> subject matter that matters]. >> I hope this reflection has some resonance with understanding knowing as >> occurring in the 1st place as an undergoing of an experience as a >>process >> occurring within virtual actual places. >> >> >> Sent from Mail for Windows 10 >> >> From: Helen Grimmett >> Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2016 2:09 PM >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Of Possible Interest to the XCMA/CHAT Family >> >> Beautifully put Sue, and exactly why I believe infusion of the arts into >> the curriculum is so important. There is nothing quite like 'living' a >> concept for understanding it and feeling why it matters. >> >> This sometimes gets me into trouble with other arts educators who are >> adamant that each of the arts needs to be taught for its own sake and >> inherent value rather than 'reduced' to its utilitarian value of >>enhancing >> learning in other subjects. But I don't see why these are two mutually >> opposing positions. All children deserve access to quality arts >>education >> that teaches arts skills and processes, but surely the point of learning >> these skills is to put them to use in making life more meaningful. If >>the >> arts help make learning in other subject areas more meaningful then >>surely >> that helps strengthen the case for quality arts education rather than >> diminish it. >> >> Thanks for introducing me to another aspect of Heathcote's work too. I'm >> very familiar with Teacher-in-role and the Mantle of the Expert, but had >> never heard of 'Rolling Role'. I'm looking forward to reading the book! >> >> Cheers, >> Helen >> >> -- >> *Dr HELEN GRIMMETT * >> Lecturer in Primary and Early Years Education >> Professional Experience Liaison - Primary >> >> *Education* >> Monash University >> Room 159, Building 902, Berwick Campus >> 100 Clyde Road >> Berwick VIC 3806 >> Australia >> >> T: +61 3 9904 7171 >> E: helen.grimmett@monash.edu >> monash.edu >> >> >> 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 >> >> >> >> >> On 26 February 2016 at 06:51, Susan Davis wrote: >> >> > Good questions and reflections Larry and David, >> > >> > Heathcote believed that through drama you could situate students >> > differently in relation to knowledge through them having an actual >> > ?experience? of it, in what she called ?now? time. So rather than >>being >> > told about ?knowledge', or reading about it as something that happened >> > ?over there? to other people, it is about bringing the students into a >> > more immediate experience as they have to consider ?what would I do in >> > this situation' . One way she suggests you can do that is by just >>moving >> > situations and events into the present tense? so if you are doing >>history >> > and examining a particular event you can set up a context and instead >>of >> > saying ?they were? you say ?we are?, ?I am?. It is in a way an >> > ontological and epistemological shift that is realised through >>practical >> > action and tasks, so children ?experience? knowledge through tasks and >> > action. >> > >> > She says of ?now? time: >> > . Things have to be made to matter; >> > . The task must feel important and worthwhile; >> > . There needs to be a valuable and perceivable outcome; >> > . People must enjoy power to influence and operate in the >>circumstances; >> > . Tasks must create feedback possibilities; >> > . Situation must feel reasonable and genuinely truthful; >> > . People must feel protected from feeling stared at; and >> > . The self-spectator must become alert and be registered. (Tape 9) >> > >> > >> > The skill of the teacher is in then exercising high selectivity in >> > arranging a multiplicity of signs and tools to establish the context >>and >> > curate the experience so that it activates interest and engagement. >>She >> > talks of finding the ?thread? that they can take from their lives into >> the >> > dramatic (or historical) context? and that might be something very >>simple >> > - taking on role within a family group, putting on a name tag for a >>role, >> > putting a pencil behind your ear so later in the 'Victorian workroom' >>you >> > will be able to quickly retrieve it. >> > >> > In terms of learning that matters she really is concerned with having >> > children come to appreciate that learning matters, being deeply >>concerned >> > with things matters and that if you attend to things and can have an >> > ?experience? of knowledge, you will care about it and that learning >>will >> > stay with you. She was quite fond of a quote by Blake ?he who would do >> > good to another must do so in minute particulars?. >> > >> > As I conclude in the book ? Heathcote argued, school is an >>artificial >> > construct, with mandated curriculum requirements and expectations >>being >> > imposed from on high, so the engagement process is about making the >> > curriculum accessible and attractive for students so they can become >> > committed and involved enough to learn things that will ?stick? and >>make >> a >> > difference. >> > This is ultimately about enabling students to have experiences of >> > coming to care about things, and care about things that matter. >>Through >> > this engagement and commitment process Heathcote hoped that students >> would >> > understand that to achieve anything worthwhile you have to invest >>energy >> > and pay attention to details, that details matter. This type of >> > commitment is at >> > the core of meaningful learning: "Making people care about things is >>the >> > process of learning". (Tape 9) >> > >> > >> > I hope that helps! >> > >> > Cheers >> > Sue >> > >> > >> > >> > On 26/02/2016 12:46 am, "Lplarry" wrote: >> > >> > >David, Susan, >> > >To ask "How do we get rid of the feeling that what we are doing is a >> > >*dummy run?* >> > >Answer: To realize what really *matters* that is experienced as a >> > >living matter. >> > >David suggesting this is not a question of *being* - focus on the >>word >> > >*is* but rather to focus on the word *knowing*. >> > >So how does the instructor come to *know* what actually is a subject >> > >matter that *really matters* in contrast to *dummy matters* that are >> > >actually *dead matters*. >> > >Questions: Is this meaning of *knowing* focusing on epistemology and >>the >> > >notion of *genetic epistemology?* >> > >Is knowing related to *signifying* and contrasted with what known as >> > >*signified* >> > >Susan contrasts acquiring *living* knowledge in contrast to *dead* >> > >formalized knowledge. >> > >David suggests instructors must *know* the difference. >> > >I am now wanting to hear more on how to move beyond developing "dummy >> > >knowledge and to create "places" -zones - in which life is lived >>within >> > >spaces of subject matters that really matter and make a real >> "difference". >> > >Larry >> > > >> > >-----Original Message----- >> > >From: "Susan Davis" >> > >Sent: ?2016-?02-?24 3:34 AM >> > >To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" >> > >Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Of Possible Interest to the XCMA/CHAT Family >> > > >> > >Thanks Robert, >> > >It?s great to have the book published as part of your series. The >>book >> is >> > >called ?Learning that matters: Revitalising Heathcote?s Rolling Role >>for >> > >the digital age?. >> > > >> > >> >>https://www.sensepublishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/imagination-and-praxi >>s >> > >/ >> > >learning-that-matters/ >> > > >> > >For those who haven?t heard of Heathcote before, she was a ?master? >> > >teacher who achieved international recognition for her teaching >>practice >> > >in the 70s and 80s - in particular for pioneering processes such as >> Mantle >> > >of the Expert - which use role and fictional contexts to position >> children >> > >as ?experts? and active agents in investigative processes. She also >> > >invented this system called ?Rolling Role? which is a form of >> > >trans-disciplinary learning - where multiple classes work with the >>same >> > >common context, but from their particular frame or subject >>perspective. >> > >The beauty of it is that no one group ?owns? the outcome, but groups >> > >regularly ?publish? and share artefacts and outcomes throughout the >> > >process, with each group having to use and ?roll? the work of what >>has >> > >gone before. It was a system she believed was perfectly suited for >> > >revisiting in the digital age? so that is what the book hopes to >>assist >> > >with? the Vygotskian and CHAT work was very helpful in >>conceptualising >> and >> > >understanding this work. >> > > >> > >At times reading the work of Vygotsky and Heathcote it felt like they >> > >could have been writing about education today! >> > > >> > >Educational experience, no less than theoretical research, >> > >teaches us that, in practice, a straightforward learning of concepts >> > >always >> > >proves impossible and educationally fruitless. Usually, any teacher >> > >setting out >> > >on this road achieves nothing except a meaningless acquisition of >>words, >> > >mere >> > >verbalization in children, which is nothing more than simulation and >> > >imitation >> > >of corresponding concepts which, in reality, are concealing a vacuum. >> In >> > >such cases, the child assimilates not >> > >concepts but words, and he fills his memory more than his thinking. >>As a >> > >result, he ends up helpless in the face of any sensible attempt to >>apply >> > >any of >> > >this acquired knowledge. Essentially, this method of >>teaching/learning >> > >concepts, a purely scholastic and verbal method of teaching, which is >> > >condemned >> > >by everybody and which advocates the replacement of acquisition of >> living >> > >knowledge by the assimilation of dead and empty verbal schemes, >> represents >> > >the >> > >most basic failing in the field of education. (Vygotsky 1934/1994a, >>pp. >> > >356-7) >> > > >> > > >> > >So ? getting rid of the dummy run. On the face of it you >> > >have a rather interesting paradox in drama, because it looks like >>drama >> is >> > >entirely artificial and that the whole thing would be a dummy run ? >>we >> are >> > >only >> > >pretending actually. And we use words >> > >like pretend and play and in our culture it does suggest that it?s >> > >ephemeral >> > >and there?s no real work/life purpose for it?. So it seems to me we >>need >> > >to >> > >look and see what it is that makes something NOT feel like a dummy >>run? >> > >It seemed to me that one of the important aspects of not >> > >being a dummy run is that it matters now, we feel like its urgent >>now. >> > >(Heathcote 1993, Tape 9) >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >Cheers >> > >Sue >> > > >> > > >> > >Dr Susan Davis >> > >Senior Lecturer | School of Education & the Arts | Higher Education >> > >Division >> > >CQUniversity Australia, Noosa Campus | >> > >PO Box 1128, Qld 4566 >> > >P +61 (0)7 5440 7007 | X 547007 | M +61 400 000 000| E >> s.davis@cqu.edu.au >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >On 24/02/2016 12:14 am, "Robert Lake" >> > wrote: >> > > >> > >>?Susan Davis has published a book that weaves LSV, Dorothy Heathcote >> and >> > >>CHAT >> > >>into one seamless, present tense unfolding of "rolling role". If >>anyone >> > >>would like to write a review of it I can get you a copy. It has been >> five >> > >>years since Heathcote's passing and I suspect her work will become >>more >> > >>and >> > >>more important in this era of standardized everything. >> > >> >> > >>*Robert Lake* >> > >> >> > >>https://www.sensepublishers.com/media/2709-learning-that-matters.pdf >> > >> >> > >> >> > >>For a sense of the dynamic of Dorothy's pedagogy, scroll to about 5 >> > >>minutes into this. >> > >> >> > >>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owKiUO99qrw >> > > >> > >> > >> >> -- >*Ana Marjanovic-Shane* >Dialogic Pedagogy Journal editor (dpj.pitt.edu) >Associate Professor of Education >Chestnut Hill College >phone: 267-334-2905 From anamshane@gmail.com Sun Feb 28 13:49:07 2016 From: anamshane@gmail.com (Dr. Ana Marjanovic-Shane) Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2016 16:49:07 -0500 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Of Possible Interest to the XCMA/CHAT Family In-Reply-To: References: <56cf13e8.c75d620a.566aa.ffffd010@mx.google.com> <56d09fb3.4444620a.22c06.fffff809@mx.google.com> Message-ID: Dear Sue, I am looking forward to your feedback and critique. Ana > On Feb 28, 2016, at 4:00 PM, Susan Davis wrote: > > Hi all, > > Thank you Larry, Helen and Ana for your comments. > > Helen - always lovely to find out who else is out there exploring the > possibilities of working with the arts to bring about transformative > learning and Larry I really like that proposition that in drama the > premise begins with ?I can? and then moves to ?I think?. That is very > much the case with drama, and sometimes children/participants are very > nervous or uncertain when they begin a drama process, often because they > begin from a position of ?I can?t? but through the acts of doing they > begin to see that they in fact can do and become. > > Ana I would agree with the first part of your statement about drama in > education being used to help socialise students into socially recognised > valuable practices and would think that was a good thing given research > that shows reductions in empathy in young people in recent times. I have > concerns with the rest of your proposition and the sweeping nature of the > critique. > > A colleague and I have been preparing a short response to your article and > I will check with him to see if he is happy for me to post it here. > > I would of course be happy to hear other ?dialogue? as well. > > Kind regards > > Sue > > > On 29/02/2016 2:35 am, "Ana Marjanovic-Shane" > wrote: > >> Dear all, >> >> Thanks for starting this thread about drama in education. I recently >> published a paper that takes a critical stance toward Heathcote's drama in >> education approach and other approaches to education that are based on >> some form of drama, play and/or improv - *"Spoilsport" in Drama in >> education vs dialogic pedagogy*. >> To play a "spoilsport" myself, in this paper, I claim that Drama in >> Education belongs to an educational paradigm that is mainly based on >> socialization of students into the socially recognized valuable practices, >> values and understanding of the world, which are heavily based on >> agreement, collaboration and following of the authority, without students >> having legitimate rights and a possibilities to critically disagree, >> provide different points of view and question the existing social >> practices, values and ways of understanding the world. In other words, in >> this educational paradigm - students' disenssus, critical approach to >> testing different ideas, views, desires, values, etc. is actively >> suppressed, or at best limited, curbed and restricted. >> >> In the paper I provide a detailed analysis of (a part of) the same video >> posted here earlier - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owKiUO99qrw. Below >> is the abstract of my paper. If interested - you can get it at Dialogic >> Pedagogy Journal website - >> http://dpj.pitt.edu/ojs/index.php/dpj1/article/view/151 >> >> So, what do you think? >> >> Ana >> >> ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ >> "Spoilsport" in Drama in education vs dialogic pedagogy >> Abstract >> >> In this paper two educational paradigms that both attempt to overcome >> alienation often experienced by students in the conventional education. >> These two educational paradigms are embodied in different educational >> practices: First, Drama in Education in its widest definition, is based on >> the Vygotskian views that human cognitive, semantic (meaning-making), and >> social-emotional development happens in or through play and/or >> imagination, >> thus within the imagined worlds. Second, Critical Ontological Dialogic >> Pedagogy, is based in the Bakhtin inspired approach to critical dialogue >> among the ?consciousnesses of equal rights? (Bakhtin, 1999), where >> education is assumed to be a practice of examination of the world, the >> others and the self. I reveal implicit and explicit conceptual >> similarities >> and differences between these two educational paradigms regarding their >> understanding the nature of learning; social values that they promote; the >> group dynamics, social relationships and the position of learners? >> subjectivity. I aim to uncover the role and legitimacy of the learners? >> disagreement with the positions of others, their dissensus with the >> educational events and settings, and the relationships of power within the >> social organization of educational communities in these two diverse >> educational approaches. I explore the legitimacy of dissensus in these two >> educational approaches regarding both the participants? critical >> examination of the curriculum, and in regard to promoting the >> participants? >> agency and its transformations. In spite of important similarities between >> the educational practices arranged by these two paradigms, the analysis of >> their differences points to the paradigmatically opposing views on human >> development, learning and education. Although both Drama in Education and >> Dialogic Pedagogy claim to deeply, fully and ontologically engage the >> learners in the process of education, they do it for different purposes >> and >> with diametrically opposite ways of treating the students and their >> relationship to the world, each other and their own developing selves. >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 1:58 PM Larry Purss wrote: >> >>> The central thematic therefore ; >>> *making people care about things is the core of learning. >>> >>> This process of coming to care may be that consciousness is in the 1st >>> place not a matter of *I think* but of *I can* >>> I want to explore the phenomena of the *phantom limb* that occurs when a >>> person who has lost an arm in actuality continues to feel pain in what >>> is >>> now a virtual limb which continues to be sensed [felt] as painful. >>> Merleau-Ponty took this phenomena as a clear example of how phenomena >>> becomes embodied or *endowed* in the experience of the person. >>> The invention of a device called a *virtual reality box* was created by >>> Ramachandran. The way *virtual* and *reality* are put in conjunction is >>> significant. The 1st term occurs in the realm of the non-existent >>> [virtual] >>> the 2nd term in the realm of the actual [reality]. >>> >>> In the virtual reality box a mirror is placed and the one actual arm is >>> in >>> the box. When the person looks into the box he *sees both arms* because >>> the >>> box creates a reverse symmetrical image. The person visually is >>> presented >>> with an embodied or endowed right and left arm. >>> The person is then instructed to move the phantom left arm into the left >>> side of the box and move the real right arm into the right side of the >>> box. >>> The patient looked down, saw two arms, and was able to move *both* arms >>> at >>> the same time. >>> When this was done the person's *synesthetic* response embodied two >>> normal >>> arms. The absent arm became present virtually. The phantom limbs arm >>> then >>> is extinguished in that virtual arm, hence the phantom limb and its >>> sensations were *extinguished*. This virtual reality box shows how >>> consciousness is in the first place not a matter of *I think* but in the >>> 1st place is a matter of *I can*. >>> >>> Shifting back to the virtual reality *stage* where drama is a process of >>> *I can* I sense a similar process of the play of conjunction between the >>> virtual PLACE/zone and the actual PLACE/zone. >>> If learning is in the 1st place learning to care then this caring is in >>> the 1st place endowing experience with *I can* prior to the experience >>> of >>> cognizing as *I think*. >>> The place of the *speaking voice* as the *I can* process when in the >>> presence of an audience is also meaningFULL [subject matter that >>> matters] >>> becoming endowed through learning [as coming to care for things as the >>> subject matter that matters]. >>> I hope this reflection has some resonance with understanding knowing as >>> occurring in the 1st place as an undergoing of an experience as a >>> process >>> occurring within virtual actual places. >>> >>> >>> Sent from Mail for Windows 10 >>> >>> From: Helen Grimmett >>> Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2016 2:09 PM >>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Of Possible Interest to the XCMA/CHAT Family >>> >>> Beautifully put Sue, and exactly why I believe infusion of the arts into >>> the curriculum is so important. There is nothing quite like 'living' a >>> concept for understanding it and feeling why it matters. >>> >>> This sometimes gets me into trouble with other arts educators who are >>> adamant that each of the arts needs to be taught for its own sake and >>> inherent value rather than 'reduced' to its utilitarian value of >>> enhancing >>> learning in other subjects. But I don't see why these are two mutually >>> opposing positions. All children deserve access to quality arts >>> education >>> that teaches arts skills and processes, but surely the point of learning >>> these skills is to put them to use in making life more meaningful. If >>> the >>> arts help make learning in other subject areas more meaningful then >>> surely >>> that helps strengthen the case for quality arts education rather than >>> diminish it. >>> >>> Thanks for introducing me to another aspect of Heathcote's work too. I'm >>> very familiar with Teacher-in-role and the Mantle of the Expert, but had >>> never heard of 'Rolling Role'. I'm looking forward to reading the book! >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Helen >>> >>> -- >>> *Dr HELEN GRIMMETT * >>> Lecturer in Primary and Early Years Education >>> Professional Experience Liaison - Primary >>> >>> *Education* >>> Monash University >>> Room 159, Building 902, Berwick Campus >>> 100 Clyde Road >>> Berwick VIC 3806 >>> Australia >>> >>> T: +61 3 9904 7171 >>> E: helen.grimmett@monash.edu >>> monash.edu >>> >>> >>> 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 26 February 2016 at 06:51, Susan Davis wrote: >>> >>>> Good questions and reflections Larry and David, >>>> >>>> Heathcote believed that through drama you could situate students >>>> differently in relation to knowledge through them having an actual >>>> ?experience? of it, in what she called ?now? time. So rather than >>> being >>>> told about ?knowledge', or reading about it as something that happened >>>> ?over there? to other people, it is about bringing the students into a >>>> more immediate experience as they have to consider ?what would I do in >>>> this situation' . One way she suggests you can do that is by just >>> moving >>>> situations and events into the present tense? so if you are doing >>> history >>>> and examining a particular event you can set up a context and instead >>> of >>>> saying ?they were? you say ?we are?, ?I am?. It is in a way an >>>> ontological and epistemological shift that is realised through >>> practical >>>> action and tasks, so children ?experience? knowledge through tasks and >>>> action. >>>> >>>> She says of ?now? time: >>>> . Things have to be made to matter; >>>> . The task must feel important and worthwhile; >>>> . There needs to be a valuable and perceivable outcome; >>>> . People must enjoy power to influence and operate in the >>> circumstances; >>>> . Tasks must create feedback possibilities; >>>> . Situation must feel reasonable and genuinely truthful; >>>> . People must feel protected from feeling stared at; and >>>> . The self-spectator must become alert and be registered. (Tape 9) >>>> >>>> >>>> The skill of the teacher is in then exercising high selectivity in >>>> arranging a multiplicity of signs and tools to establish the context >>> and >>>> curate the experience so that it activates interest and engagement. >>> She >>>> talks of finding the ?thread? that they can take from their lives into >>> the >>>> dramatic (or historical) context? and that might be something very >>> simple >>>> - taking on role within a family group, putting on a name tag for a >>> role, >>>> putting a pencil behind your ear so later in the 'Victorian workroom' >>> you >>>> will be able to quickly retrieve it. >>>> >>>> In terms of learning that matters she really is concerned with having >>>> children come to appreciate that learning matters, being deeply >>> concerned >>>> with things matters and that if you attend to things and can have an >>>> ?experience? of knowledge, you will care about it and that learning >>> will >>>> stay with you. She was quite fond of a quote by Blake ?he who would do >>>> good to another must do so in minute particulars?. >>>> >>>> As I conclude in the book ? Heathcote argued, school is an >>> artificial >>>> construct, with mandated curriculum requirements and expectations >>> being >>>> imposed from on high, so the engagement process is about making the >>>> curriculum accessible and attractive for students so they can become >>>> committed and involved enough to learn things that will ?stick? and >>> make >>> a >>>> difference. >>>> This is ultimately about enabling students to have experiences of >>>> coming to care about things, and care about things that matter. >>> Through >>>> this engagement and commitment process Heathcote hoped that students >>> would >>>> understand that to achieve anything worthwhile you have to invest >>> energy >>>> and pay attention to details, that details matter. This type of >>>> commitment is at >>>> the core of meaningful learning: "Making people care about things is >>> the >>>> process of learning". (Tape 9) >>>> >>>> >>>> I hope that helps! >>>> >>>> Cheers >>>> Sue >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 26/02/2016 12:46 am, "Lplarry" wrote: >>>> >>>>> David, Susan, >>>>> To ask "How do we get rid of the feeling that what we are doing is a >>>>> *dummy run?* >>>>> Answer: To realize what really *matters* that is experienced as a >>>>> living matter. >>>>> David suggesting this is not a question of *being* - focus on the >>> word >>>>> *is* but rather to focus on the word *knowing*. >>>>> So how does the instructor come to *know* what actually is a subject >>>>> matter that *really matters* in contrast to *dummy matters* that are >>>>> actually *dead matters*. >>>>> Questions: Is this meaning of *knowing* focusing on epistemology and >>> the >>>>> notion of *genetic epistemology?* >>>>> Is knowing related to *signifying* and contrasted with what known as >>>>> *signified* >>>>> Susan contrasts acquiring *living* knowledge in contrast to *dead* >>>>> formalized knowledge. >>>>> David suggests instructors must *know* the difference. >>>>> I am now wanting to hear more on how to move beyond developing "dummy >>>>> knowledge and to create "places" -zones - in which life is lived >>> within >>>>> spaces of subject matters that really matter and make a real >>> "difference". >>>>> Larry >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: "Susan Davis" >>>>> Sent: ?2016-?02-?24 3:34 AM >>>>> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" >>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Of Possible Interest to the XCMA/CHAT Family >>>>> >>>>> Thanks Robert, >>>>> It?s great to have the book published as part of your series. The >>> book >>> is >>>>> called ?Learning that matters: Revitalising Heathcote?s Rolling Role >>> for >>>>> the digital age?. >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> https://www.sensepublishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/imagination-and-praxi >>> s >>>>> / >>>>> learning-that-matters/ >>>>> >>>>> For those who haven?t heard of Heathcote before, she was a ?master? >>>>> teacher who achieved international recognition for her teaching >>> practice >>>>> in the 70s and 80s - in particular for pioneering processes such as >>> Mantle >>>>> of the Expert - which use role and fictional contexts to position >>> children >>>>> as ?experts? and active agents in investigative processes. She also >>>>> invented this system called ?Rolling Role? which is a form of >>>>> trans-disciplinary learning - where multiple classes work with the >>> same >>>>> common context, but from their particular frame or subject >>> perspective. >>>>> The beauty of it is that no one group ?owns? the outcome, but groups >>>>> regularly ?publish? and share artefacts and outcomes throughout the >>>>> process, with each group having to use and ?roll? the work of what >>> has >>>>> gone before. It was a system she believed was perfectly suited for >>>>> revisiting in the digital age? so that is what the book hopes to >>> assist >>>>> with? the Vygotskian and CHAT work was very helpful in >>> conceptualising >>> and >>>>> understanding this work. >>>>> >>>>> At times reading the work of Vygotsky and Heathcote it felt like they >>>>> could have been writing about education today! >>>>> >>>>> Educational experience, no less than theoretical research, >>>>> teaches us that, in practice, a straightforward learning of concepts >>>>> always >>>>> proves impossible and educationally fruitless. Usually, any teacher >>>>> setting out >>>>> on this road achieves nothing except a meaningless acquisition of >>> words, >>>>> mere >>>>> verbalization in children, which is nothing more than simulation and >>>>> imitation >>>>> of corresponding concepts which, in reality, are concealing a vacuum. >>> In >>>>> such cases, the child assimilates not >>>>> concepts but words, and he fills his memory more than his thinking. >>> As a >>>>> result, he ends up helpless in the face of any sensible attempt to >>> apply >>>>> any of >>>>> this acquired knowledge. Essentially, this method of >>> teaching/learning >>>>> concepts, a purely scholastic and verbal method of teaching, which is >>>>> condemned >>>>> by everybody and which advocates the replacement of acquisition of >>> living >>>>> knowledge by the assimilation of dead and empty verbal schemes, >>> represents >>>>> the >>>>> most basic failing in the field of education. (Vygotsky 1934/1994a, >>> pp. >>>>> 356-7) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> So ? getting rid of the dummy run. On the face of it you >>>>> have a rather interesting paradox in drama, because it looks like >>> drama >>> is >>>>> entirely artificial and that the whole thing would be a dummy run ? >>> we >>> are >>>>> only >>>>> pretending actually. And we use words >>>>> like pretend and play and in our culture it does suggest that it?s >>>>> ephemeral >>>>> and there?s no real work/life purpose for it?. So it seems to me we >>> need >>>>> to >>>>> look and see what it is that makes something NOT feel like a dummy >>> run? >>>>> It seemed to me that one of the important aspects of not >>>>> being a dummy run is that it matters now, we feel like its urgent >>> now. >>>>> (Heathcote 1993, Tape 9) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Cheers >>>>> Sue >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Dr Susan Davis >>>>> Senior Lecturer | School of Education & the Arts | Higher Education >>>>> Division >>>>> CQUniversity Australia, Noosa Campus | >>>>> PO Box 1128, Qld 4566 >>>>> P +61 (0)7 5440 7007 | X 547007 | M +61 400 000 000| E >>> s.davis@cqu.edu.au >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 24/02/2016 12:14 am, "Robert Lake" >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> ?Susan Davis has published a book that weaves LSV, Dorothy Heathcote >>> and >>>>>> CHAT >>>>>> into one seamless, present tense unfolding of "rolling role". If >>> anyone >>>>>> would like to write a review of it I can get you a copy. It has been >>> five >>>>>> years since Heathcote's passing and I suspect her work will become >>> more >>>>>> and >>>>>> more important in this era of standardized everything. >>>>>> >>>>>> *Robert Lake* >>>>>> >>>>>> https://www.sensepublishers.com/media/2709-learning-that-matters.pdf >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> For a sense of the dynamic of Dorothy's pedagogy, scroll to about 5 >>>>>> minutes into this. >>>>>> >>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owKiUO99qrw >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >> *Ana Marjanovic-Shane* >> Dialogic Pedagogy Journal editor (dpj.pitt.edu) >> Associate Professor of Education >> Chestnut Hill College >> phone: 267-334-2905 From greg.a.thompson@gmail.com Sun Feb 28 20:04:57 2016 From: greg.a.thompson@gmail.com (Greg Thompson) Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2016 21:04:57 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The imploding university In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I found it fascinating reading to read the article that Annalisa posted: https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/academic-freedom-under-threat-by-chris-patten-2016-02# alongside the piece that Michael Glassman posted: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/magazine/what-google-learned-from-its-quest-to-build-the-perfect-team.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=photo-spot-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0 After reading these two side by side, here is what I see: - (from annalisa's linked article) when minority students argue that they need psychologically safe spaces in which to engage in challenging and creative work, they are considered whiners (and, if I may whine a bit, I'm getting sick of hearing college professors whine about their students). - (from Michael's article) when highly paid Google employees argue that they need psychologically safe spaces in which to engage in challenging and creative work, they are right. Interesting no? -greg p.s., I was also struck by Patten's pointing to "government" as the killer of free speech - I couldn't help but wonder what about private industry and the slow privatization (in the U.S.) of that once public good called "education" and the way that universities and professors are increasingly held in the thrall of capital. But now I'm whining. On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 3:13 PM, Wendy Maples wrote: > Yes, good point. I smiled at that sentence, not least because of how the > 'Marxist' teacher's political view was framed as evident 'issue'. Anyway, > yes, not so much about content (though caveats re incitement, etc), but > about context and in a learning context, one would hope that supporting > critical thinking, logic, expression as well as challenging ideas > (including, perhaps especially received wisdoms) would be priorities. > > > From: annalisa@unm.edu > > To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > > Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2016 17:42:43 +0000 > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The imploding university > > > > > > Hi Wendy and Greg (and others), > > > > Thanks for sharing your comments. The pivotal sentence for me in the > article was: > > > > "In fact, he [Chris Patten's Marxist teacher] made me a great deal > better informed, more open to discussion of ideas that challenged my own, > more capable of distinguishing between an argument and a quarrel, and more > prepared to think for myself." > > > > Please highlight in yellow: "capable of distinguishing between an > argument and a quarrel." > > > > So in light of your replies, I think that content should not be what is > at issue, but the method by which such content is handled in discourse in a > free and democratic society. Theoretically, one should be free and able to > be a complete bigot or say bigoted things, but at the same time be > rigorously challenged for being one or saying such things. The worst meets > the best. > > > > Don't get me wrong: In the process of examination, bigoted positions are > inevitably seen as untenable and unsustainable, but the part where we (all) > learn is how we (all) are able to see that process of examination in > action, and in particular scenarios where the content is always changing. > > > > So... why is it not a good idea to be a bigot in society? > > > > We learn to answer that question best in the university. Every academic > and every graduating student should be able to answer such a question. > > > > I myself do not have the confidence in myself to articulate in a public > sphere (of heated debate) why it is not a good idea, but just that I know > and feel that it's wrong. But thinking, feeling, or saying "it is wrong!" > is not good enough (to me anyway). I should be able to fully explain my > argument in a given scenario and do it with a cool head. (Can you?) I > should be able to confront sexist or racist or elitist behavior with > equanimity, because doing so is my small contribution (and perhaps one > might say duty) to maintaining a democratic society (or planet?), as a(n > earth) citizen. > > > > To be that kind of citizen, there requires scaffolding between > feeling/knowing it is wrong (and even not feeling/ not knowing it is wrong) > and explaining (why it is wrong). To do this, I require the space to play > on that scaffolding, with lots of padding so that if I fall, I can get back > up and climb that scaffold until it becomes facile for me. I become an > acrobat of debate. > > > > Imagine a society full of such acrobats, but where no one gets hurt, and > everyone is in appreciation of acrobatic endeavors, spotting others and > challenging ourselves to do new moves. > > > > This is where the university is failing us because we have fewer safe > arena to debate the merits (and not just for the students), yet there is > plenty of quarreling and pettiness over turf, which in my view has (at its > root) more to do with insecurities and discomforts with acts of debating, > and thus any discussion can easily turn into a fit of intolerance and > attempt to muffle others, or should I say Others? > > > > (White privilege can be an Other, too, because the definition of an > Other is: "Anyone not like me is an Other", right?) > > > > To be fair, if no academic feels safe to "say it like it is" and debate > the merits, then how can students see that in action? It means that > insecurities to debate come not from being intolerant oneself, but > knowing/feeling one is economically dependent upon an intolerant > environment, and that just feeds on itself into a circle of vice. > > > > It becomes a Game of Gotcha or of Musical Chairs. > > > > What happens when there is only one breed of an academic who says only > what is safe to say? What happens to the gene pool? > > > > Just my 2? of duty, for what it's worth! > > > > Kind regards, > > > > Annalisa > > -- Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Department of Anthropology 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602 http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson From lpscholar2@gmail.com Sun Feb 28 22:00:10 2016 From: lpscholar2@gmail.com (lpscholar2@gmail.com) Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2016 22:00:10 -0800 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The imploding university In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56d3de69.4456620a.ec198.1ef7@mx.google.com> Greg, this reflection on the value [or not] of psychologically safe places [places of refuge] is a fascinating topic to explore from many angles. I believe this topic of the relevance [and value] of refuge can be explored through reflecting on the background of where both the whiners and privileged participants are located in relation to the homeless. The discourse rhetoric of homelessness occurs in the con/text of the notion of *surplus* humanity or *redundant* humanity. To not become homeless is to struggle not become surplused or become redundant. Now the evaluation of creating psychologically safe places takes on a deeper relevance in relation to the pervasive anxiety of becoming surplus and therefore redundant. Is it up to each of us individually to struggle to not become surplus or is it possible to imagine extending legitimate rights to not only be embodied in individualized *rights* but to imagine the notion of legitimate rights extending to other embodied spaces [of refuge.] If it is a right to imagine individual rights as expressing notions of liberty and property could we not imagine our psychological safe places as if *embodied* and *endowed* with legitimate rights to liberty and property? Is this an expression of the oikos realm? Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: Greg Thompson Sent: Sunday, February 28, 2016 8:05 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The imploding university I found it fascinating reading to read the article that Annalisa posted: https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/academic-freedom-under-threat-by-chris-patten-2016-02# alongside the piece that Michael Glassman posted: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/magazine/what-google-learned-from-its-quest-to-build-the-perfect-team.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=photo-spot-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0 After reading these two side by side, here is what I see: - (from annalisa's linked article) when minority students argue that they need psychologically safe spaces in which to engage in challenging and creative work, they are considered whiners (and, if I may whine a bit, I'm getting sick of hearing college professors whine about their students). - (from Michael's article) when highly paid Google employees argue that they need psychologically safe spaces in which to engage in challenging and creative work, they are right. Interesting no? -greg p.s., I was also struck by Patten's pointing to "government" as the killer of free speech - I couldn't help but wonder what about private industry and the slow privatization (in the U.S.) of that once public good called "education" and the way that universities and professors are increasingly held in the thrall of capital. But now I'm whining. On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 3:13 PM, Wendy Maples wrote: > Yes, good point. I smiled at that sentence, not least because of how the > 'Marxist' teacher's political view was framed as evident 'issue'. Anyway, > yes, not so much about content (though caveats re incitement, etc), but > about context and in a learning context, one would hope that supporting > critical thinking, logic, expression as well as challenging ideas > (including, perhaps especially received wisdoms) would be priorities. > > > From: annalisa@unm.edu > > To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > > Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2016 17:42:43 +0000 > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The imploding university > > > > > > Hi Wendy and Greg (and others), > > > > Thanks for sharing your comments. The pivotal sentence for me in the > article was: > > > > "In fact, he [Chris Patten's Marxist teacher] made me a great deal > better informed, more open to discussion of ideas that challenged my own, > more capable of distinguishing between an argument and a quarrel, and more > prepared to think for myself." > > > > Please highlight in yellow: "capable of distinguishing between an > argument and a quarrel." > > > > So in light of your replies, I think that content should not be what is > at issue, but the method by which such content is handled in discourse in a > free and democratic society. Theoretically, one should be free and able to > be a complete bigot or say bigoted things, but at the same time be > rigorously challenged for being one or saying such things. The worst meets > the best. > > > > Don't get me wrong: In the process of examination, bigoted positions are > inevitably seen as untenable and unsustainable, but the part where we (all) > learn is how we (all) are able to see that process of examination in > action, and in particular scenarios where the content is always changing. > > > > So... why is it not a good idea to be a bigot in society? > > > > We learn to answer that question best in the university. Every academic > and every graduating student should be able to answer such a question. > > > > I myself do not have the confidence in myself to articulate in a public > sphere (of heated debate) why it is not a good idea, but just that I know > and feel that it's wrong. But thinking, feeling, or saying "it is wrong!" > is not good enough (to me anyway). I should be able to fully explain my > argument in a given scenario and do it with a cool head. (Can you?) I > should be able to confront sexist or racist or elitist behavior with > equanimity, because doing so is my small contribution (and perhaps one > might say duty) to maintaining a democratic society (or planet?), as a(n > earth) citizen. > > > > To be that kind of citizen, there requires scaffolding between > feeling/knowing it is wrong (and even not feeling/ not knowing it is wrong) > and explaining (why it is wrong). To do this, I require the space to play > on that scaffolding, with lots of padding so that if I fall, I can get back > up and climb that scaffold until it becomes facile for me. I become an > acrobat of debate. > > > > Imagine a society full of such acrobats, but where no one gets hurt, and > everyone is in appreciation of acrobatic endeavors, spotting others and > challenging ourselves to do new moves. > > > > This is where the university is failing us because we have fewer safe > arena to debate the merits (and not just for the students), yet there is > plenty of quarreling and pettiness over turf, which in my view has (at its > root) more to do with insecurities and discomforts with acts of debating, > and thus any discussion can easily turn into a fit of intolerance and > attempt to muffle others, or should I say Others? > > > > (White privilege can be an Other, too, because the definition of an > Other is: "Anyone not like me is an Other", right?) > > > > To be fair, if no academic feels safe to "say it like it is" and debate > the merits, then how can students see that in action? It means that > insecurities to debate come not from being intolerant oneself, but > knowing/feeling one is economically dependent upon an intolerant > environment, and that just feeds on itself into a circle of vice. > > > > It becomes a Game of Gotcha or of Musical Chairs. > > > > What happens when there is only one breed of an academic who says only > what is safe to say? What happens to the gene pool? > > > > Just my 2? of duty, for what it's worth! > > > > Kind regards, > > > > Annalisa > > -- Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Department of Anthropology 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602 http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson From s.davis@cqu.edu.au Sun Feb 28 22:09:12 2016 From: s.davis@cqu.edu.au (Susan Davis) Date: Mon, 29 Feb 2016 06:09:12 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Response to Spoilsport: Beyond oppositional dualities in drama in education and dialogic pedagogy to promote learning possibilities Message-ID: As scholars and practitioners committed to the use of drama for educational purposes we wish to respond briefly to Ana Marjanovic-Shane?s article: ?Spoilsport? in drama in education vs. dialogic pedagogy. Our intention is to provide some of our shared professional understanding of drama?s use in educational contexts that we hope will illuminate some of the misunderstandings we find in this article. At the same time, we look forward to future productive dialogue about what we regard as potential overlaps between these pedagogical approaches. We need to stress from the start that there is no unified field named ?drama in education? that would extend to those who work within playworlds, or practice psychodrama and so forth as claimed by Marjanovic-Shane. We confine our remarks to the field that we are knowledgeable about and from which Marjanovic-Shane draws her example: a classroom use of drama described by Heathcote as ?drama in education? or ?educational drama? and more recently as process drama, applied theatre, and dramatic inquiry, among other terms. In fact these fields of practice have arisen from very different communities in progressive school education, educational psychology, early childhood, and play all of whom independently discovered the power of using drama in their practice. There have only recently been some nascent interactions between these groups (see for example the book ?Dramatic Interactions in Education? which we published last year) to find areas of common interest and concern. As with those who identify with the field of ?dialogic pedagogy? we look forward to more fruitful discussions and debates about research, practice and approaches which work for the benefit of students and participants in learning processes. There is no space in this response to show in detail why we resist the dichotomy established in this article, believing such are rarely helpful. However, we do can not agree with Marjanovic-Shane?s conclusion that any dramatic pedagogy cannot be dialogic or that there are irreconcilable paradigmatic differences between these pedagogical approaches. In our view, she is correct in identifying that a pre-requisite for using drama in classrooms is an implicit, if not explicit, agreement to play the ?game of drama? and in effect to begin to create an ensemble and enter into social worlds. However, rather than characterizing such social agreement as somehow different from real life, we argue that there is little difference from the tacit agreement to join in the ?social drama? of everyday life (Turner, 1974), as for example university students do by agreeing to participate in a discussion. However drama has the additional sphere of possibility that can be physically and conceptually explored through the activation of ?what if? in action. Unlike discussion, drama is a social art that can only be created when a group comes together willingly to collaborate in dramatizing life events. There is indeed a consensus but only about agreeing to work together or to focus dramatizing on a particular storyline, topic, or concern; there is no consensus assumed about the meaning of the work. Using drama in a classroom does not assume that a student cannot choose not to join in or cannot opt out at any point. Participants may present or raise different views that may be addressed dialogically. Agreeing to join in is not an experience of being ?trapped? by a teacher with no exit in sight. Nor does it mean that a teacher would label someone a ?spoilsport? to be ?cast out.? We have conducted many practical sessions when not only have people chosen to sit out, some of whom have later chosen to join in, but we have protected young people from others in a group ready to ?discipline? them. Just as a person who does not join a theatre group cannot create a performance, or a preschool child choosing not to play with others may engage in other activities, not participating in drama just means that a person cannot contribute at that time to the collaborative creation of events in an imagined world. Marjanovic-Shane uses a highly selective video extract from a 1971 drama session featuring the master teacher Dorothy Heathcote to infer that Heathcote dragoons students into a drama within which their choices and alternative views are closed down. However, as O?Neill shared in the keynote address Power-sharing: Teacher power and student choices, where she describes another more recent 2007 drama conducted in the U.S., Heathcote worked with all major offers children made, never adopting an authoritarian position but asking participants to consider the consequences of their actions. When a group of boys invented a bomb which ?blew? up a celebratory event in a drama, Heathcote said: ?There is nothing we do in this room that isn?t happening somewhere in the world? (Heathcote in O?Neill 2014, p 26). Even though others in the room were horrified and expected her to castigate the boys involved, Heathcote respected and worked with the material they offered, drawing out significance, considering the implications and working dialogically with very alternative views from her own. Marjanovic-Shane assumes that a teacher?s authority in drama is authoritarian and that a leader of drama is in danger of becoming a fascist dictator. Whilst it is certainly possible for a teacher to misuse her authority oppressively or with very limited choice for how people might participate (as in the Ron Jones simulation example she uses which has never been seen as a lighthouse model of drama in education) that is never our intention nor would it be endorsed in the literature. It is true that at times Heathcote can quite rightly be described as acting in ?authoritative? roles within dramatic contexts, but she fiercely resisted pressures to take on authoritarian teacher positions. Indeed, Heathcote (1984) herself is quite clear that as a teacher she intends to ?bring power to my students and to draw on their power? (p.21). Heathcote saw the teacher?s role as one that should not bully or take away power from others, but rather that should enable them to develop their agency. Her commitment to endowing power and agency to others is shared through an interesting insight in her paper Contexts for Active Learning. Here Heathcote revealed that her drama and teaching strategies were all developed so she would never have to be in a position to ?tell people off? (Heathcote, 2002, p.1). However, counter to many romanticised notions of an open, free for all classroom, this version of the democratized classroom was not a hands-off model with students making all the decisions. Rather, she envisions a classroom with episodes that were highly interventionist and carefully structured. These often involved provocations and active negotiations, with Heathcote playing multi-functional roles, constantly selecting and making decisions, but always working to ensure that the students were invested, contributing, and collaboratively developing work that would be meaningful in multiple ways for all participants. H eathcote intended not just to create dramatic experiences but also to create spaces in which all might dialogue and reflect to explore for multiple possible meanings in the work: ?If you cannot increase the reflective power in people you might as well not teach, because reflection is the only thing that in the long run changes anybody? (Ibid, p. 104). Finally, Heathcote was emphatic that all participants in drama, ?be recognized fully as individuals with rights [including] the power to affect a situation, and to respond in a growing complexity of ways to that situation? (Ibid, p. 153). It is unfortunate that the Spoilsport article seeks to compare examples of praxis in an apples and oranges way to draw out unwarranted generalizations about all drama in education. She compares examples of teaching on different topics, for different purposes, and with access to very different data: a short segment of a 45 year old videoed drama with children is compared to an extended sequence of exchanges and events in a higher education institution taught recently by the author. The drama example analyzed is a brief extract from the first few minutes of a BBC film about Dorothy Heathcote made for commercial not educational purposes. Missing from the film is all of Heathcote?s out-of-role negotiations and reflections with these children all of whom had been labeled as ?delinquent? and had in effect been ?cast out? into this special school for youth. Marjanovic-Shane misses the point that Heathcote was playing with the children, including through her early use of power in role, not to force them to do what they did not want to do but rather the reverse. Marjanovic-Shane further assumes that in drama, participants do not ?test their own ideas ? their truths? and that teachers do not seek out or value ?dissensus.? Yet that was Heathcote?s aim as it is ours. Heathcote?s intention in this session was to work with the children to create fictional experiences in which by working together the boys were not only able to work out ways in which they might outwit an authoritarian regime represented by her in role as a Nazi officer but further to reflect on an issue of importance to them: why might someone choose to dissent by becoming an informant and a collaborator? Marjanovic-Shane assumes that the purpose of drama in education is to ?socialize? participants whereas dialogic pedagogy seeks to ?deepen critical examinations of any aspect of life.? Whilst socialization may be a declared or implicit purpose there are drama practitioners across decades of work who would also share Marjanovic-Shane?s aim and who have extensively documented how participants working with a teacher may engage in extensive critical cultural analysis of how power operates in society (e.g. Medina & Campano, 2006; Enciso, 2011; O?Connor & Anderson, 2015). In summary, the explicit premise of Marjanovic-Shane?s argument is that drama work is non-dialogic because participants must participate in making a fictional world, which appears to be on the teachers? terms. This is an ill-informed representation of drama?s potential in the classroom. Decades of documentation and analysis would show otherwise . Marjanovic Shane seems to dismiss the imagined possibilities that can be explored through drama and unwilling to engage in dialogue about the different ways that drama could in fact be dialogic. Rather than being restricted to dialogue in the ?real? world with people sharing critical views, participants in drama can collaboratively test out multiple alternatives to what seems ?real? and fixed. In drama everyone can contribute dialogically to create different possible versions of reality, multiple possible outcomes, alternative viewpoints, and new understandings. The social and cultural power of drama is that people may change their views, understand more about themselves, others, and the world we live in. Surely that is what all good pedagogues would hope and desire. Susan Davis and Brian Edmiston Central Queensland University & The Ohio State University s.davis@cqu.edu.au, edmiston.1@osu.edu References Enciso, P. (2011). Storytelling in critical literacy pedagogy: Removing the walls between immigrant and non-immigrant youth. In H. Janks & V. Vasquez (Eds.) Special Issue: Critical Literacy Revisited: Writing as Critique for English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 10, 1, 21-40. Heathcote, D. (1984). Collected writings on education and drama. L. Johnson & C. O?Neill (Eds.). Melbourne: Hutchinson. Heathcote, D. (2002). Contexts for active learning - Four models to forge links between schooling and society. Paper presented at the NATD Annual Conference, Birmingham. http://www.moeplanning.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/dh-contexts-for-act ive-learning.pdf Medina, C. & Campano, G. (2006). Performing Identities through Drama and Teatro Practices in Multilingual Classrooms. Language Arts, 83 (4), 332-341. Turner, Victor (1974). Dramas, Fields, and Metaphors: Symbolic Action in Human Society. Ithaca/London: Cornell University Press. O?Connor, P. & Anderson, M. (2015). Applied Theatre Research: Radical Departures. London: Bloomsbury Methuen Drama. O?Neill, C. (2014) Power-sharing: Teacher power and student choices. in P. Bowell, P & C. Lawrence (Eds), Heathcote Reconsidered - Conference Echoes (ebook), London: National Drama, 13-31 On 29/02/2016 7:49 am, "Dr. Ana Marjanovic-Shane" wrote: >Dear Sue, > >I am looking forward to your feedback and critique. > >Ana > > >> On Feb 28, 2016, at 4:00 PM, Susan Davis wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> Thank you Larry, Helen and Ana for your comments. >> >> Helen - always lovely to find out who else is out there exploring the >> possibilities of working with the arts to bring about transformative >> learning and Larry I really like that proposition that in drama the >> premise begins with ?I can? and then moves to ?I think?. That is very >> much the case with drama, and sometimes children/participants are very >> nervous or uncertain when they begin a drama process, often because they >> begin from a position of ?I can?t? but through the acts of doing they >> begin to see that they in fact can do and become. >> >> Ana I would agree with the first part of your statement about drama in >> education being used to help socialise students into socially recognised >> valuable practices and would think that was a good thing given research >> that shows reductions in empathy in young people in recent times. I >>have >> concerns with the rest of your proposition and the sweeping nature of >>the >> critique. >> >> A colleague and I have been preparing a short response to your article >>and >> I will check with him to see if he is happy for me to post it here. >> >> I would of course be happy to hear other ?dialogue? as well. >> >> Kind regards >> >> Sue >> >> >> On 29/02/2016 2:35 am, "Ana Marjanovic-Shane" >> wrote: >> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> Thanks for starting this thread about drama in education. I recently >>> published a paper that takes a critical stance toward Heathcote's >>>drama in >>> education approach and other approaches to education that are based on >>> some form of drama, play and/or improv - *"Spoilsport" in Drama in >>> education vs dialogic pedagogy*. >>> To play a "spoilsport" myself, in this paper, I claim that Drama in >>> Education belongs to an educational paradigm that is mainly based on >>> socialization of students into the socially recognized valuable >>>practices, >>> values and understanding of the world, which are heavily based on >>> agreement, collaboration and following of the authority, without >>>students >>> having legitimate rights and a possibilities to critically disagree, >>> provide different points of view and question the existing social >>> practices, values and ways of understanding the world. In other words, >>>in >>> this educational paradigm - students' disenssus, critical approach to >>> testing different ideas, views, desires, values, etc. is actively >>> suppressed, or at best limited, curbed and restricted. >>> >>> In the paper I provide a detailed analysis of (a part of) the same >>>video >>> posted here earlier - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owKiUO99qrw. >>>Below >>> is the abstract of my paper. If interested - you can get it at Dialogic >>> Pedagogy Journal website - >>> http://dpj.pitt.edu/ojs/index.php/dpj1/article/view/151 >>> >>> So, what do you think? >>> >>> Ana >>> >>> ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ >>> "Spoilsport" in Drama in education vs dialogic pedagogy >>> Abstract >>> >>> In this paper two educational paradigms that both attempt to overcome >>> alienation often experienced by students in the conventional education. >>> These two educational paradigms are embodied in different educational >>> practices: First, Drama in Education in its widest definition, is >>>based on >>> the Vygotskian views that human cognitive, semantic (meaning-making), >>>and >>> social-emotional development happens in or through play and/or >>> imagination, >>> thus within the imagined worlds. Second, Critical Ontological Dialogic >>> Pedagogy, is based in the Bakhtin inspired approach to critical >>>dialogue >>> among the ?consciousnesses of equal rights? (Bakhtin, 1999), where >>> education is assumed to be a practice of examination of the world, the >>> others and the self. I reveal implicit and explicit conceptual >>> similarities >>> and differences between these two educational paradigms regarding their >>> understanding the nature of learning; social values that they promote; >>>the >>> group dynamics, social relationships and the position of learners? >>> subjectivity. I aim to uncover the role and legitimacy of the learners? >>> disagreement with the positions of others, their dissensus with the >>> educational events and settings, and the relationships of power within >>>the >>> social organization of educational communities in these two diverse >>> educational approaches. I explore the legitimacy of dissensus in these >>>two >>> educational approaches regarding both the participants? critical >>> examination of the curriculum, and in regard to promoting the >>> participants? >>> agency and its transformations. In spite of important similarities >>>between >>> the educational practices arranged by these two paradigms, the >>>analysis of >>> their differences points to the paradigmatically opposing views on >>>human >>> development, learning and education. Although both Drama in Education >>>and >>> Dialogic Pedagogy claim to deeply, fully and ontologically engage the >>> learners in the process of education, they do it for different purposes >>> and >>> with diametrically opposite ways of treating the students and their >>> relationship to the world, each other and their own developing selves. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Dr Susan Davis Senior Lecturer | School of Education & the Arts | Higher Education Division CQUniversity Australia, Noosa Campus | PO Box 1128, Qld 4566 P +61 (0)7 5440 7007 | X 547007 | M +61 418 763 428 L https://www.linkedin.com/in/suedavisnoosa RG | https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Susan_Davis7 Profile | http://profiles.cqu.edu.au/profiles/view/272 Latest publication: https://www.sensepublishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/imagination-and-praxis/ learning-that-matters/ This communication may contain privileged or confidential information. If you have received this in error, please return to sender and delete. CRICOS: 00219C | RTO Code 40939 >>> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: default[5].xml Type: application/xml Size: 3222 bytes Desc: default[5].xml Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20160229/1a9df7d9/attachment.rdf From lpscholar2@gmail.com Sun Feb 28 22:47:50 2016 From: lpscholar2@gmail.com (lpscholar2@gmail.com) Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2016 22:47:50 -0800 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: [Xmca-Re: Of Possible Interest to the XCMA/CHAT Family In-Reply-To: References: <56cf13e8.c75d620a.566aa.ffffd010@mx.google.com> <56d09fb3.4444620a.22c06.fffff809@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <56d3e995.4a48620a.d67c9.ffffc48c@mx.google.com> Ana, I am reading how you have embodied the*spoilsport* as the heretic and have risked the consequences of engaging critically with drama in education and play in education. I find the juxta/position ito be thought provoking. In your words, ?the divergent relationship between the reality and imagination. You use the term paradigms but I also sense the play of *horizons* and in Charles Taylor?s words, the being placed in inescapable *frameworks*. I want to move to a concrete phenomena which Merleau-Ponty explores ? the phantom limb. The pain from the phantom limb continues to be symptomatic. A cure was found in the invention of what has been called *the virtual reality box*. Notice how virtual and reality are BOTH necessary for the cure. A reversible mirror is placed in the box and the actual left limb is inserted in the box. The person visually looking into the box *sees* two limbs [one virtual the other real]. The person is instructed to move *both* arms [the left arm to the left side and the right arm to the right side. The person PERCEIVES both arms moving and this experience releases the person from experiencing pain. M-P surmises this is because of synesthesia where the mind IS the body and perceiving *endows* an experience of the body as embodied. Now M-P suggests this notion of being *embodied* or *incarnated* CAN EXTEND TO psychological *places* [which are also real places. In other words they are virtual/reality *frameworks* that are perceptually experienced as *I can* before being experience as *I think* or before being experienced as discourserhetoric. In other words there is a con/vergence experienced within endowed perception/action as *I can* prior to *di/vergence* within discourse/rhetoric paradigms or frameworks. Ana, I will read further but this thematic of the relation of the virtual AND reality [the imaginal AND reality] is refracted in the multiple notions of this relation Sent from Mail for Windows 10 e From: Dr. Ana Marjanovic-Shane Sent: Sunday, February 28, 2016 1:51 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Cc: UD-PIG Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Of Possible Interest to the XCMA/CHAT Family Dear Sue, I am looking forward to your feedback and critique. Ana > On Feb 28, 2016, at 4:00 PM, Susan Davis wrote: > > Hi all, > > Thank you Larry, Helen and Ana for your comments. > > Helen - always lovely to find out who else is out there exploring the > possibilities of working with the arts to bring about transformative > learning and Larry I really like that proposition that in drama the > premise begins with ?I can? and then moves to ?I think?. That is very > much the case with drama, and sometimes children/participants are very > nervous or uncertain when they begin a drama process, often because they > begin from a position of ?I can?t? but through the acts of doing they > begin to see that they in fact can do and become. > > Ana I would agree with the first part of your statement about drama in > education being used to help socialise students into socially recognised > valuable practices and would think that was a good thing given research > that shows reductions in empathy in young people in recent times. I have > concerns with the rest of your proposition and the sweeping nature of the > critique. > > A colleague and I have been preparing a short response to your article and > I will check with him to see if he is happy for me to post it here. > > I would of course be happy to hear other ?dialogue? as well. > > Kind regards > > Sue > > > On 29/02/2016 2:35 am, "Ana Marjanovic-Shane" > wrote: > >> Dear all, >> >> Thanks for starting this thread about drama in education. I recently >> published a paper that takes a critical stance toward Heathcote's drama in >> education approach and other approaches to education that are based on >> some form of drama, play and/or improv - *"Spoilsport" in Drama in >> education vs dialogic pedagogy*. >> To play a "spoilsport" myself, in this paper, I claim that Drama in >> Education belongs to an educational paradigm that is mainly based on >> socialization of students into the socially recognized valuable practices, >> values and understanding of the world, which are heavily based on >> agreement, collaboration and following of the authority, without students >> having legitimate rights and a possibilities to critically disagree, >> provide different points of view and question the existing social >> practices, values and ways of understanding the world. In other words, in >> this educational paradigm - students' disenssus, critical approach to >> testing different ideas, views, desires, values, etc. is actively >> suppressed, or at best limited, curbed and restricted. >> >> In the paper I provide a detailed analysis of (a part of) the same video >> posted here earlier - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owKiUO99qrw. Below >> is the abstract of my paper. If interested - you can get it at Dialogic >> Pedagogy Journal website - >> http://dpj.pitt.edu/ojs/index.php/dpj1/article/view/151 >> >> So, what do you think? >> >> Ana >> >> ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ >> "Spoilsport" in Drama in education vs dialogic pedagogy >> Abstract >> >> In this paper two educational paradigms that both attempt to overcome >> alienation often experienced by students in the conventional education. >> These two educational paradigms are embodied in different educational >> practices: First, Drama in Education in its widest definition, is based on >> the Vygotskian views that human cognitive, semantic (meaning-making), and >> social-emotional development happens in or through play and/or >> imagination, >> thus within the imagined worlds. Second, Critical Ontological Dialogic >> Pedagogy, is based in the Bakhtin inspired approach to critical dialogue >> among the ?consciousnesses of equal rights? (Bakhtin, 1999), where >> education is assumed to be a practice of examination of the world, the >> others and the self. I reveal implicit and explicit conceptual >> similarities >> and differences between these two educational paradigms regarding their >> understanding the nature of learning; social values that they promote; the >> group dynamics, social relationships and the position of learners? >> subjectivity. I aim to uncover the role and legitimacy of the learners? >> disagreement with the positions of others, their dissensus with the >> educational events and settings, and the relationships of power within the >> social organization of educational communities in these two diverse >> educational approaches. I explore the legitimacy of dissensus in these two >> educational approaches regarding both the participants? critical >> examination of the curriculum, and in regard to promoting the >> participants? >> agency and its transformations. In spite of important similarities between >> the educational practices arranged by these two paradigms, the analysis of >> their differences points to the paradigmatically opposing views on human >> development, learning and education. Although both Drama in Education and >> Dialogic Pedagogy claim to deeply, fully and ontologically engage the >> learners in the process of education, they do it for different purposes >> and >> with diametrically opposite ways of treating the students and their >> relationship to the world, each other and their own developing selves. >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 1:58 PM Larry Purss wrote: >> >>> The central thematic therefore ; >>> *making people care about things is the core of learning. >>> >>> This process of coming to care may be that consciousness is in the 1st >>> place not a matter of *I think* but of *I can* >>> I want to explore the phenomena of the *phantom limb* that occurs when a >>> person who has lost an arm in actuality continues to feel pain in what >>> is >>> now a virtual limb which continues to be sensed [felt] as painful. >>> Merleau-Ponty took this phenomena as a clear example of how phenomena >>> becomes embodied or *endowed* in the experience of the person. >>> The invention of a device called a *virtual reality box* was created by >>> Ramachandran. The way *virtual* and *reality* are put in conjunction is >>> significant. The 1st term occurs in the realm of the non-existent >>> [virtual] >>> the 2nd term in the realm of the actual [reality]. >>> >>> In the virtual reality box a mirror is placed and the one actual arm is >>> in >>> the box. When the person looks into the box he *sees both arms* because >>> the >>> box creates a reverse symmetrical image. The person visually is >>> presented >>> with an embodied or endowed right and left arm. >>> The person is then instructed to move the phantom left arm into the left >>> side of the box and move the real right arm into the right side of the >>> box. >>> The patient looked down, saw two arms, and was able to move *both* arms >>> at >>> the same time. >>> When this was done the person's *synesthetic* response embodied two >>> normal >>> arms. The absent arm became present virtually. The phantom limbs arm >>> then >>> is extinguished in that virtual arm, hence the phantom limb and its >>> sensations were *extinguished*. This virtual reality box shows how >>> consciousness is in the first place not a matter of *I think* but in the >>> 1st place is a matter of *I can*. >>> >>> Shifting back to the virtual reality *stage* where drama is a process of >>> *I can* I sense a similar process of the play of conjunction between the >>> virtual PLACE/zone and the actual PLACE/zone. >>> If learning is in the 1st place learning to care then this caring is in >>> the 1st place endowing experience with *I can* prior to the experience >>> of >>> cognizing as *I think*. >>> The place of the *speaking voice* as the *I can* process when in the >>> presence of an audience is also meaningFULL [subject matter that >>> matters] >>> becoming endowed through learning [as coming to care for things as the >>> subject matter that matters]. >>> I hope this reflection has some resonance with understanding knowing as >>> occurring in the 1st place as an undergoing of an experience as a >>> process >>> occurring within virtual actual places. >>> >>> >>> Sent from Mail for Windows 10 >>> >>> From: Helen Grimmett >>> Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2016 2:09 PM >>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Of Possible Interest to the XCMA/CHAT Family >>> >>> Beautifully put Sue, and exactly why I believe infusion of the arts into >>> the curriculum is so important. There is nothing quite like 'living' a >>> concept for understanding it and feeling why it matters. >>> >>> This sometimes gets me into trouble with other arts educators who are >>> adamant that each of the arts needs to be taught for its own sake and >>> inherent value rather than 'reduced' to its utilitarian value of >>> enhancing >>> learning in other subjects. But I don't see why these are two mutually >>> opposing positions. All children deserve access to quality arts >>> education >>> that teaches arts skills and processes, but surely the point of learning >>> these skills is to put them to use in making life more meaningful. If >>> the >>> arts help make learning in other subject areas more meaningful then >>> surely >>> that helps strengthen the case for quality arts education rather than >>> diminish it. >>> >>> Thanks for introducing me to another aspect of Heathcote's work too. I'm >>> very familiar with Teacher-in-role and the Mantle of the Expert, but had >>> never heard of 'Rolling Role'. I'm looking forward to reading the book! >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Helen >>> >>> -- >>> *Dr HELEN GRIMMETT * >>> Lecturer in Primary and Early Years Education >>> Professional Experience Liaison - Primary >>> >>> *Education* >>> Monash University >>> Room 159, Building 902, Berwick Campus >>> 100 Clyde Road >>> Berwick VIC 3806 >>> Australia >>> >>> T: +61 3 9904 7171 >>> E: helen.grimmett@monash.edu >>> monash.edu >>> >>> >>> 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 26 February 2016 at 06:51, Susan Davis wrote: >>> >>>> Good questions and reflections Larry and David, >>>> >>>> Heathcote believed that through drama you could situate students >>>> differently in relation to knowledge through them having an actual >>>> ?experience? of it, in what she called ?now? time. So rather than >>> being >>>> told about ?knowledge', or reading about it as something that happened >>>> ?over there? to other people, it is about bringing the students into a >>>> more immediate experience as they have to consider ?what would I do in >>>> this situation' . One way she suggests you can do that is by just >>> moving >>>> situations and events into the present tense? so if you are doing >>> history >>>> and examining a particular event you can set up a context and instead >>> of >>>> saying ?they were? you say ?we are?, ?I am?. It is in a way an >>>> ontological and epistemological shift that is realised through >>> practical >>>> action and tasks, so children ?experience? knowledge through tasks and >>>> action. >>>> >>>> She says of ?now? time: >>>> . Things have to be made to matter; >>>> . The task must feel important and worthwhile; >>>> . There needs to be a valuable and perceivable outcome; >>>> . People must enjoy power to influence and operate in the >>> circumstances; >>>> . Tasks must create feedback possibilities; >>>> . Situation must feel reasonable and genuinely truthful; >>>> . People must feel protected from feeling stared at; and >>>> . The self-spectator must become alert and be registered. (Tape 9) >>>> >>>> >>>> The skill of the teacher is in then exercising high selectivity in >>>> arranging a multiplicity of signs and tools to establish the context >>> and >>>> curate the experience so that it activates interest and engagement. >>> She >>>> talks of finding the ?thread? that they can take from their lives into >>> the >>>> dramatic (or historical) context? and that might be something very >>> simple >>>> - taking on role within a family group, putting on a name tag for a >>> role, >>>> putting a pencil behind your ear so later in the 'Victorian workroom' >>> you >>>> will be able to quickly retrieve it. >>>> >>>> In terms of learning that matters she really is concerned with having >>>> children come to appreciate that learning matters, being deeply >>> concerned >>>> with things matters and that if you attend to things and can have an >>>> ?experience? of knowledge, you will care about it and that learning >>> will >>>> stay with you. She was quite fond of a quote by Blake ?he who would do >>>> good to another must do so in minute particulars?. >>>> >>>> As I conclude in the book ? Heathcote argued, school is an >>> artificial >>>> construct, with mandated curriculum requirements and expectations >>> being >>>> imposed from on high, so the engagement process is about making the >>>> curriculum accessible and attractive for students so they can become >>>> committed and involved enough to learn things that will ?stick? and >>> make >>> a >>>> difference. >>>> This is ultimately about enabling students to have experiences of >>>> coming to care about things, and care about things that matter. >>> Through >>>> this engagement and commitment process Heathcote hoped that students >>> would >>>> understand that to achieve anything worthwhile you have to invest >>> energy >>>> and pay attention to details, that details matter. This type of >>>> commitment is at >>>> the core of meaningful learning: "Making people care about things is >>> the >>>> process of learning". (Tape 9) >>>> >>>> >>>> I hope that helps! >>>> >>>> Cheers >>>> Sue >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 26/02/2016 12:46 am, "Lplarry" wrote: >>>> >>>>> David, Susan, >>>>> To ask "How do we get rid of the feeling that what we are doing is a >>>>> *dummy run?* >>>>> Answer: To realize what really *matters* that is experienced as a >>>>> living matter. >>>>> David suggesting this is not a question of *being* - focus on the >>> word >>>>> *is* but rather to focus on the word *knowing*. >>>>> So how does the instructor come to *know* what actually is a subject >>>>> matter that *really matters* in contrast to *dummy matters* that are >>>>> actually *dead matters*. >>>>> Questions: Is this meaning of *knowing* focusing on epistemology and >>> the >>>>> notion of *genetic epistemology?* >>>>> Is knowing related to *signifying* and contrasted with what known as >>>>> *signified* >>>>> Susan contrasts acquiring *living* knowledge in contrast to *dead* >>>>> formalized knowledge. >>>>> David suggests instructors must *know* the difference. >>>>> I am now wanting to hear more on how to move beyond developing "dummy >>>>> knowledge and to create "places" -zones - in which life is lived >>> within >>>>> spaces of subject matters that really matter and make a real >>> "difference". >>>>> Larry >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: "Susan Davis" >>>>> Sent: ?2016-?02-?24 3:34 AM >>>>> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" >>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Of Possible Interest to the XCMA/CHAT Family >>>>> >>>>> Thanks Robert, >>>>> It?s great to have the book published as part of your series. The >>> book >>> is >>>>> called ?Learning that matters: Revitalising Heathcote?s Rolling Role >>> for >>>>> the digital age?. >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> https://www.sensepublishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/imagination-and-praxi >>> s >>>>> / >>>>> learning-that-matters/ >>>>> >>>>> For those who haven?t heard of Heathcote before, she was a ?master? >>>>> teacher who achieved international recognition for her teaching >>> practice >>>>> in the 70s and 80s - in particular for pioneering processes such as >>> Mantle >>>>> of the Expert - which use role and fictional contexts to position >>> children >>>>> as ?experts? and active agents in investigative processes. She also >>>>> invented this system called ?Rolling Role? which is a form of >>>>> trans-disciplinary learning - where multiple classes work with the >>> same >>>>> common context, but from their particular frame or subject >>> perspective. >>>>> The beauty of it is that no one group ?owns? the outcome, but groups >>>>> regularly ?publish? and share artefacts and outcomes throughout the >>>>> process, with each group having to use and ?roll? the work of what >>> has >>>>> gone before. It was a system she believed was perfectly suited for >>>>> revisiting in the digital age? so that is what the book hopes to >>> assist >>>>> with? the Vygotskian and CHAT work was very helpful in >>> conceptualising >>> and >>>>> understanding this work. >>>>> >>>>> At times reading the work of Vygotsky and Heathcote it felt like they >>>>> could have been writing about education today! >>>>> >>>>> Educational experience, no less than theoretical research, >>>>> teaches us that, in practice, a straightforward learning of concepts >>>>> always >>>>> proves impossible and educationally fruitless. Usually, any teacher >>>>> setting out >>>>> on this road achieves nothing except a meaningless acquisition of >>> words, >>>>> mere >>>>> verbalization in children, which is nothing more than simulation and >>>>> imitation >>>>> of corresponding concepts which, in reality, are concealing a vacuum. >>> In >>>>> such cases, the child assimilates not >>>>> concepts but words, and he fills his memory more than his thinking. >>> As a >>>>> result, he ends up helpless in the face of any sensible attempt to >>> apply >>>>> any of >>>>> this acquired knowledge. Essentially, this method of >>> teaching/learning >>>>> concepts, a purely scholastic and verbal method of teaching, which is >>>>> condemned >>>>> by everybody and which advocates the replacement of acquisition of >>> living >>>>> knowledge by the assimilation of dead and empty verbal schemes, >>> represents >>>>> the >>>>> most basic failing in the field of education. (Vygotsky 1934/1994a, >>> pp. >>>>> 356-7) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> So ? getting rid of the dummy run. On the face of it you >>>>> have a rather interesting paradox in drama, because it looks like >>> drama >>> is >>>>> entirely artificial and that the whole thing would be a dummy run ? >>> we >>> are >>>>> only >>>>> pretending actually. And we use words >>>>> like pretend and play and in our culture it does suggest that it?s >>>>> ephemeral >>>>> and there?s no real work/life purpose for it?. So it seems to me we >>> need >>>>> to >>>>> look and see what it is that makes something NOT feel like a dummy >>> run? >>>>> It seemed to me that one of the important aspects of not >>>>> being a dummy run is that it matters now, we feel like its urgent >>> now. >>>>> (Heathcote 1993, Tape 9) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Cheers >>>>> Sue >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Dr Susan Davis >>>>> Senior Lecturer | School of Education & the Arts | Higher Education >>>>> Division >>>>> CQUniversity Australia, Noosa Campus | >>>>> PO Box 1128, Qld 4566 >>>>> P +61 (0)7 5440 7007 | X 547007 | M +61 400 000 000| E >>> s.davis@cqu.edu.au >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 24/02/2016 12:14 am, "Robert Lake" >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> ?Susan Davis has published a book that weaves LSV, Dorothy Heathcote >>> and >>>>>> CHAT >>>>>> into one seamless, present tense unfolding of "rolling role". If >>> anyone >>>>>> would like to write a review of it I can get you a copy. It has been >>> five >>>>>> years since Heathcote's passing and I suspect her work will become >>> more >>>>>> and >>>>>> more important in this era of standardized everything. >>>>>> >>>>>> *Robert Lake* >>>>>> >>>>>> https://www.sensepublishers.com/media/2709-learning-that-matters.pdf >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> For a sense of the dynamic of Dorothy's pedagogy, scroll to about 5 >>>>>> minutes into this. >>>>>> >>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owKiUO99qrw >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >> *Ana Marjanovic-Shane* >> Dialogic Pedagogy Journal editor (dpj.pitt.edu) >> Associate Professor of Education >> Chestnut Hill College >> phone: 267-334-2905 From pmocombe@mocombeian.com Mon Feb 29 03:54:10 2016 From: pmocombe@mocombeian.com (Dr. Paul C. Mocombe) Date: Mon, 29 Feb 2016 06:54:10 -0500 Subject: [Xmca-l] Fwd: The anti dialectical signification of Erzulie Danthor and Bois Caiman of the Haitian Revolution.pdf Message-ID: Sent via the Samsung Galaxy Note? 4, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone -------- Original message -------- From: "Dr. Paul C. Mocombe" Date: 2/29/2016 6:43 AM (GMT-05:00) To: pmocombe@mocombeian.com Subject: The anti dialectical signification of Erzulie Danthor and Bois Caiman of the Haitian Revolution.pdf Sent via the Samsung Galaxy Note? 4, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: The anti dialectical signification of Erzulie Danthor and Bois Caiman of the Haitian Revolution.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 1075442 bytes Desc: not available Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20160229/b0a28f22/attachment-0001.pdf From glassman.13@osu.edu Mon Feb 29 04:39:47 2016 From: glassman.13@osu.edu (Glassman, Michael) Date: Mon, 29 Feb 2016 12:39:47 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The imploding university In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C5A0EB@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> Wow, that is an amazing insight Greg! -----Original Message----- From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Greg Thompson Sent: Sunday, February 28, 2016 11:05 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The imploding university I found it fascinating reading to read the article that Annalisa posted: https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/academic-freedom-under-threat-by-chris-patten-2016-02# alongside the piece that Michael Glassman posted: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/magazine/what-google-learned-from-its-quest-to-build-the-perfect-team.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=photo-spot-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0 After reading these two side by side, here is what I see: - (from annalisa's linked article) when minority students argue that they need psychologically safe spaces in which to engage in challenging and creative work, they are considered whiners (and, if I may whine a bit, I'm getting sick of hearing college professors whine about their students). - (from Michael's article) when highly paid Google employees argue that they need psychologically safe spaces in which to engage in challenging and creative work, they are right. Interesting no? -greg p.s., I was also struck by Patten's pointing to "government" as the killer of free speech - I couldn't help but wonder what about private industry and the slow privatization (in the U.S.) of that once public good called "education" and the way that universities and professors are increasingly held in the thrall of capital. But now I'm whining. On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 3:13 PM, Wendy Maples wrote: > Yes, good point. I smiled at that sentence, not least because of how > the 'Marxist' teacher's political view was framed as evident 'issue'. > Anyway, yes, not so much about content (though caveats re incitement, > etc), but about context and in a learning context, one would hope that > supporting critical thinking, logic, expression as well as challenging > ideas (including, perhaps especially received wisdoms) would be priorities. > > > From: annalisa@unm.edu > > To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > > Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2016 17:42:43 +0000 > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The imploding university > > > > > > Hi Wendy and Greg (and others), > > > > Thanks for sharing your comments. The pivotal sentence for me in the > article was: > > > > "In fact, he [Chris Patten's Marxist teacher] made me a great deal > better informed, more open to discussion of ideas that challenged my > own, more capable of distinguishing between an argument and a quarrel, > and more prepared to think for myself." > > > > Please highlight in yellow: "capable of distinguishing between an > argument and a quarrel." > > > > So in light of your replies, I think that content should not be what > > is > at issue, but the method by which such content is handled in discourse > in a free and democratic society. Theoretically, one should be free > and able to be a complete bigot or say bigoted things, but at the same > time be rigorously challenged for being one or saying such things. The > worst meets the best. > > > > Don't get me wrong: In the process of examination, bigoted positions > > are > inevitably seen as untenable and unsustainable, but the part where we > (all) learn is how we (all) are able to see that process of > examination in action, and in particular scenarios where the content is always changing. > > > > So... why is it not a good idea to be a bigot in society? > > > > We learn to answer that question best in the university. Every > > academic > and every graduating student should be able to answer such a question. > > > > I myself do not have the confidence in myself to articulate in a > > public > sphere (of heated debate) why it is not a good idea, but just that I > know and feel that it's wrong. But thinking, feeling, or saying "it is wrong!" > is not good enough (to me anyway). I should be able to fully explain > my argument in a given scenario and do it with a cool head. (Can you?) > I should be able to confront sexist or racist or elitist behavior with > equanimity, because doing so is my small contribution (and perhaps one > might say duty) to maintaining a democratic society (or planet?), as > a(n > earth) citizen. > > > > To be that kind of citizen, there requires scaffolding between > feeling/knowing it is wrong (and even not feeling/ not knowing it is > wrong) and explaining (why it is wrong). To do this, I require the > space to play on that scaffolding, with lots of padding so that if I > fall, I can get back up and climb that scaffold until it becomes > facile for me. I become an acrobat of debate. > > > > Imagine a society full of such acrobats, but where no one gets hurt, > > and > everyone is in appreciation of acrobatic endeavors, spotting others > and challenging ourselves to do new moves. > > > > This is where the university is failing us because we have fewer > > safe > arena to debate the merits (and not just for the students), yet there > is plenty of quarreling and pettiness over turf, which in my view has > (at its > root) more to do with insecurities and discomforts with acts of > debating, and thus any discussion can easily turn into a fit of > intolerance and attempt to muffle others, or should I say Others? > > > > (White privilege can be an Other, too, because the definition of an > Other is: "Anyone not like me is an Other", right?) > > > > To be fair, if no academic feels safe to "say it like it is" and > > debate > the merits, then how can students see that in action? It means that > insecurities to debate come not from being intolerant oneself, but > knowing/feeling one is economically dependent upon an intolerant > environment, and that just feeds on itself into a circle of vice. > > > > It becomes a Game of Gotcha or of Musical Chairs. > > > > What happens when there is only one breed of an academic who says > > only > what is safe to say? What happens to the gene pool? > > > > Just my 2? of duty, for what it's worth! > > > > Kind regards, > > > > Annalisa > > -- Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Department of Anthropology 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602 http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson From huw.softdesigns@gmail.com Mon Feb 29 05:48:39 2016 From: huw.softdesigns@gmail.com (Huw Lloyd) Date: Mon, 29 Feb 2016 13:48:39 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The imploding university In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I think the aspects of interest both pertain to personality oriented communication, although the "safe places" that Patten rebukes does not appear to be the same thing as what is identified in the other waffly article. One needs a 'safe place' to voice and develop an organ of critique, yet this organ also needs exposure to critical insights and confrontation with differences. I agree that Patten completely ignores the money side of things, which is probably the largest contributor to the problems. But what would you expect from an appointed chancellor? Its the kind of conduct that turns a lion into a pip-squeak. Nothing much escapes the moneyed interest. Best, Huw On 29 February 2016 at 04:04, Greg Thompson wrote: > I found it fascinating reading to read the article that Annalisa posted: > > https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/academic-freedom-under-threat-by-chris-patten-2016-02# > alongside the piece that Michael Glassman posted: > > http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/magazine/what-google-learned-from-its-quest-to-build-the-perfect-team.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=photo-spot-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0 > > After reading these two side by side, here is what I see: > > - (from annalisa's linked article) when minority students argue that they > need psychologically safe spaces in which to engage in challenging and > creative work, they are considered whiners (and, if I may whine a bit, I'm > getting sick of hearing college professors whine about their students). > > - (from Michael's article) when highly paid Google employees argue that > they need psychologically safe spaces in which to engage in challenging and > creative work, they are right. > > Interesting no? > > -greg > > p.s., I was also struck by Patten's pointing to "government" as the killer > of free speech - I couldn't help but wonder what about private industry and > the slow privatization (in the U.S.) of that once public good called > "education" and the way that universities and professors are increasingly > held in the thrall of capital. But now I'm whining. > > > > > On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 3:13 PM, Wendy Maples > wrote: > > > Yes, good point. I smiled at that sentence, not least because of how the > > 'Marxist' teacher's political view was framed as evident 'issue'. Anyway, > > yes, not so much about content (though caveats re incitement, etc), but > > about context and in a learning context, one would hope that supporting > > critical thinking, logic, expression as well as challenging ideas > > (including, perhaps especially received wisdoms) would be priorities. > > > > > From: annalisa@unm.edu > > > To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2016 17:42:43 +0000 > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The imploding university > > > > > > > > > Hi Wendy and Greg (and others), > > > > > > Thanks for sharing your comments. The pivotal sentence for me in the > > article was: > > > > > > "In fact, he [Chris Patten's Marxist teacher] made me a great deal > > better informed, more open to discussion of ideas that challenged my own, > > more capable of distinguishing between an argument and a quarrel, and > more > > prepared to think for myself." > > > > > > Please highlight in yellow: "capable of distinguishing between an > > argument and a quarrel." > > > > > > So in light of your replies, I think that content should not be what is > > at issue, but the method by which such content is handled in discourse > in a > > free and democratic society. Theoretically, one should be free and able > to > > be a complete bigot or say bigoted things, but at the same time be > > rigorously challenged for being one or saying such things. The worst > meets > > the best. > > > > > > Don't get me wrong: In the process of examination, bigoted positions > are > > inevitably seen as untenable and unsustainable, but the part where we > (all) > > learn is how we (all) are able to see that process of examination in > > action, and in particular scenarios where the content is always changing. > > > > > > So... why is it not a good idea to be a bigot in society? > > > > > > We learn to answer that question best in the university. Every academic > > and every graduating student should be able to answer such a question. > > > > > > I myself do not have the confidence in myself to articulate in a public > > sphere (of heated debate) why it is not a good idea, but just that I know > > and feel that it's wrong. But thinking, feeling, or saying "it is wrong!" > > is not good enough (to me anyway). I should be able to fully explain my > > argument in a given scenario and do it with a cool head. (Can you?) I > > should be able to confront sexist or racist or elitist behavior with > > equanimity, because doing so is my small contribution (and perhaps one > > might say duty) to maintaining a democratic society (or planet?), as a(n > > earth) citizen. > > > > > > To be that kind of citizen, there requires scaffolding between > > feeling/knowing it is wrong (and even not feeling/ not knowing it is > wrong) > > and explaining (why it is wrong). To do this, I require the space to play > > on that scaffolding, with lots of padding so that if I fall, I can get > back > > up and climb that scaffold until it becomes facile for me. I become an > > acrobat of debate. > > > > > > Imagine a society full of such acrobats, but where no one gets hurt, > and > > everyone is in appreciation of acrobatic endeavors, spotting others and > > challenging ourselves to do new moves. > > > > > > This is where the university is failing us because we have fewer safe > > arena to debate the merits (and not just for the students), yet there is > > plenty of quarreling and pettiness over turf, which in my view has (at > its > > root) more to do with insecurities and discomforts with acts of debating, > > and thus any discussion can easily turn into a fit of intolerance and > > attempt to muffle others, or should I say Others? > > > > > > (White privilege can be an Other, too, because the definition of an > > Other is: "Anyone not like me is an Other", right?) > > > > > > To be fair, if no academic feels safe to "say it like it is" and debate > > the merits, then how can students see that in action? It means that > > insecurities to debate come not from being intolerant oneself, but > > knowing/feeling one is economically dependent upon an intolerant > > environment, and that just feeds on itself into a circle of vice. > > > > > > It becomes a Game of Gotcha or of Musical Chairs. > > > > > > What happens when there is only one breed of an academic who says only > > what is safe to say? What happens to the gene pool? > > > > > > Just my 2? of duty, for what it's worth! > > > > > > Kind regards, > > > > > > Annalisa > > > > > > > > -- > Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. > Assistant Professor > Department of Anthropology > 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower > Brigham Young University > Provo, UT 84602 > http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson > From lpscholar2@gmail.com Mon Feb 29 07:55:58 2016 From: lpscholar2@gmail.com (Lplarry) Date: Mon, 29 Feb 2016 07:55:58 -0800 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Response to Spoilsport: Beyond oppositional dualities indrama in education and dialogic pedagogy to promote learning possibilities In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56d46a39.ea95420a.74bf4.ffff924a@mx.google.com> Susan, Ana, Thank you for this dialogical drama OR should i say dramatic dialogue? This question of our relation to places (and within places) of BOTH drama AND dialogue. To place critical ontological dialogical practices on one side of a horizontal zone focusing on reflection and differences to critically create agency through resisting socialized constraints (through di/vergence) On the other hand (not opposites but a matter of degree) dialogical drama focuses on creating *places* of con/vergence as an experience of becoming embodied in virtual/real spaces of psychic belonging. These are two aspects of horizontal understandings of *verging* phenomena. What Merleau-Ponty adds is the experience of psychic *place* as mutually embodied through our personal body as placed within perceptual/acting experiences of the speaking subject AND in con/junction with personal embodiment there is another aspect of becoming embodied *within* our mutually shared endowed spaces of drama AND dialogue. I submit that divergences and reflective agency occur as critical dialogues from within previously shared perceptual horizons as endowed virtual/real frameworks or paradigms. The evaluative component is to ask if we *should* focus developing agency through divergences as primary and convergences as derived or to focus our conscious intent on convergences as primary and divergences as derived. The evaluative choice of what side of *vergence*to emphasize has an aspect of faith and presupposition that either perceiving/acting is primary and critical reflective dialogue explores this primary realm OR perceiving/acting is secondary and critical reflective ontology of being/becoming is primary and generates the *I can* A fascinating con/verse/ation on how we evaluate verging phenomena. Larry -----Original Message----- From: "Susan Davis" Sent: ?2016-?02-?28 10:10 PM To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" Subject: [Xmca-l] Response to Spoilsport: Beyond oppositional dualities indrama in education and dialogic pedagogy to promote learning possibilities As scholars and practitioners committed to the use of drama for educational purposes we wish to respond briefly to Ana Marjanovic-Shane?s article: ?Spoilsport? in drama in education vs. dialogic pedagogy. Our intention is to provide some of our shared professional understanding of drama?s use in educational contexts that we hope will illuminate some of the misunderstandings we find in this article. At the same time, we look forward to future productive dialogue about what we regard as potential overlaps between these pedagogical approaches. We need to stress from the start that there is no unified field named ?drama in education? that would extend to those who work within playworlds, or practice psychodrama and so forth as claimed by Marjanovic-Shane. We confine our remarks to the field that we are knowledgeable about and from which Marjanovic-Shane draws her example: a classroom use of drama described by Heathcote as ?drama in education? or ?educational drama? and more recently as process drama, applied theatre, and dramatic inquiry, among other terms. In fact these fields of practice have arisen from very different communities in progressive school education, educational psychology, early childhood, and play all of whom independently discovered the power of using drama in their practice. There have only recently been some nascent interactions between these groups (see for example the book ?Dramatic Interactions in Education? which we published last year) to find areas of common interest and concern. As with those who identify with the field of ?dialogic pedagogy? we look forward to more fruitful discussions and debates about research, practice and approaches which work for the benefit of students and participants in learning processes. There is no space in this response to show in detail why we resist the dichotomy established in this article, believing such are rarely helpful. However, we do can not agree with Marjanovic-Shane?s conclusion that any dramatic pedagogy cannot be dialogic or that there are irreconcilable paradigmatic differences between these pedagogical approaches. In our view, she is correct in identifying that a pre-requisite for using drama in classrooms is an implicit, if not explicit, agreement to play the ?game of drama? and in effect to begin to create an ensemble and enter into social worlds. However, rather than characterizing such social agreement as somehow different from real life, we argue that there is little difference from the tacit agreement to join in the ?social drama? of everyday life (Turner, 1974), as for example university students do by agreeing to participate in a discussion. However drama has the additional sphere of possibility that can be physically and conceptually explored through the activation of ?what if? in action. Unlike discussion, drama is a social art that can only be created when a group comes together willingly to collaborate in dramatizing life events. There is indeed a consensus but only about agreeing to work together or to focus dramatizing on a particular storyline, topic, or concern; there is no consensus assumed about the meaning of the work. Using drama in a classroom does not assume that a student cannot choose not to join in or cannot opt out at any point. Participants may present or raise different views that may be addressed dialogically. Agreeing to join in is not an experience of being ?trapped? by a teacher with no exit in sight. Nor does it mean that a teacher would label someone a ?spoilsport? to be ?cast out.? We have conducted many practical sessions when not only have people chosen to sit out, some of whom have later chosen to join in, but we have protected young people from others in a group ready to ?discipline? them. Just as a person who does not join a theatre group cannot create a performance, or a preschool child choosing not to play with others may engage in other activities, not participating in drama just means that a person cannot contribute at that time to the collaborative creation of events in an imagined world. Marjanovic-Shane uses a highly selective video extract from a 1971 drama session featuring the master teacher Dorothy Heathcote to infer that Heathcote dragoons students into a drama within which their choices and alternative views are closed down. However, as O?Neill shared in the keynote address Power-sharing: Teacher power and student choices, where she describes another more recent 2007 drama conducted in the U.S., Heathcote worked with all major offers children made, never adopting an authoritarian position but asking participants to consider the consequences of their actions. When a group of boys invented a bomb which ?blew? up a celebratory event in a drama, Heathcote said: ?There is nothing we do in this room that isn?t happening somewhere in the world? (Heathcote in O?Neill 2014, p 26). Even though others in the room were horrified and expected her to castigate the boys involved, Heathcote respected and worked with the material they offered, drawing out significance, considering the implications and working dialogically with very alternative views from her own. Marjanovic-Shane assumes that a teacher?s authority in drama is authoritarian and that a leader of drama is in danger of becoming a fascist dictator. Whilst it is certainly possible for a teacher to misuse her authority oppressively or with very limited choice for how people might participate (as in the Ron Jones simulation example she uses which has never been seen as a lighthouse model of drama in education) that is never our intention nor would it be endorsed in the literature. It is true that at times Heathcote can quite rightly be described as acting in ?authoritative? roles within dramatic contexts, but she fiercely resisted pressures to take on authoritarian teacher positions. Indeed, Heathcote (1984) herself is quite clear that as a teacher she intends to ?bring power to my students and to draw on their power? (p.21). Heathcote saw the teacher?s role as one that should not bully or take away power from others, but rather that should enable them to develop their agency. Her commitment to endowing power and agency to others is shared through an interesting insight in her paper Contexts for Active Learning. Here Heathcote revealed that her drama and teaching strategies were all developed so she would never have to be in a position to ?tell people off? (Heathcote, 2002, p.1). However, counter to many romanticised notions of an open, free for all classroom, this version of the democratized classroom was not a hands-off model with students making all the decisions. Rather, she envisions a classroom with episodes that were highly interventionist and carefully structured. These often involved provocations and active negotiations, with Heathcote playing multi-functional roles, constantly selecting and making decisions, but always working to ensure that the students were invested, contributing, and collaboratively developing work that would be meaningful in multiple ways for all participants. H eathcote intended not just to create dramatic experiences but also to create spaces in which all might dialogue and reflect to explore for multiple possible meanings in the work: ?If you cannot increase the reflective power in people you might as well not teach, because reflection is the only thing that in the long run changes anybody? (Ibid, p. 104). Finally, Heathcote was emphatic that all participants in drama, ?be recognized fully as individuals with rights [including] the power to affect a situation, and to respond in a growing complexity of ways to that situation? (Ibid, p. 153). It is unfortunate that the Spoilsport article seeks to compare examples of praxis in an apples and oranges way to draw out unwarranted generalizations about all drama in education. She compares examples of teaching on different topics, for different purposes, and with access to very different data: a short segment of a 45 year old videoed drama with children is compared to an extended sequence of exchanges and events in a higher education institution taught recently by the author. The drama example analyzed is a brief extract from the first few minutes of a BBC film about Dorothy Heathcote made for commercial not educational purposes. Missing from the film is all of Heathcote?s out-of-role negotiations and reflections with these children all of whom had been labeled as ?delinquent? and had in effect been ?cast out? into this special school for youth. Marjanovic-Shane misses the point that Heathcote was playing with the children, including through her early use of power in role, not to force them to do what they did not want to do but rather the reverse. Marjanovic-Shane further assumes that in drama, participants do not ?test their own ideas ? their truths? and that teachers do not seek out or value ?dissensus.? Yet that was Heathcote?s aim as it is ours. Heathcote?s intention in this session was to work with the children to create fictional experiences in which by working together the boys were not only able to work out ways in which they might outwit an authoritarian regime represented by her in role as a Nazi officer but further to reflect on an issue of importance to them: why might someone choose to dissent by becoming an informant and a collaborator? Marjanovic-Shane assumes that the purpose of drama in education is to ?socialize? participants whereas dialogic pedagogy seeks to ?deepen critical examinations of any aspect of life.? Whilst socialization may be a declared or implicit purpose there are drama practitioners across decades of work who would also share Marjanovic-Shane?s aim and who have extensively documented how participants working with a teacher may engage in extensive critical cultural analysis of how power operates in society (e.g. Medina & Campano, 2006; Enciso, 2011; O?Connor & Anderson, 2015). In summary, the explicit premise of Marjanovic-Shane?s argument is that drama work is non-dialogic because participants must participate in making a fictional world, which appears to be on the teachers? terms. This is an ill-informed representation of drama?s potential in the classroom. Decades of documentation and analysis would show otherwise . Marjanovic Shane seems to dismiss the imagined possibilities that can be explored through drama and unwilling to engage in dialogue about the different ways that drama could in fact be dialogic. Rather than being restricted to dialogue in the ?real? world with people sharing critical views, participants in drama can collaboratively test out multiple alternatives to what seems ?real? and fixed. In drama everyone can contribute dialogically to create different possible versions of reality, multiple possible outcomes, alternative viewpoints, and new understandings. The social and cultural power of drama is that people may change their views, understand more about themselves, others, and the world we live in. Surely that is what all good pedagogues would hope and desire. Susan Davis and Brian Edmiston Central Queensland University & The Ohio State University s.davis@cqu.edu.au, edmiston.1@osu.edu References Enciso, P. (2011). Storytelling in critical literacy pedagogy: Removing the walls between immigrant and non-immigrant youth. In H. Janks & V. Vasquez (Eds.) Special Issue: Critical Literacy Revisited: Writing as Critique for English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 10, 1, 21-40. Heathcote, D. (1984). Collected writings on education and drama. L. Johnson & C. O?Neill (Eds.). Melbourne: Hutchinson. Heathcote, D. (2002). Contexts for active learning - Four models to forge links between schooling and society. Paper presented at the NATD Annual Conference, Birmingham. http://www.moeplanning.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/dh-contexts-for-act ive-learning.pdf Medina, C. & Campano, G. (2006). Performing Identities through Drama and Teatro Practices in Multilingual Classrooms. Language Arts, 83 (4), 332-341. Turner, Victor (1974). Dramas, Fields, and Metaphors: Symbolic Action in Human Society. Ithaca/London: Cornell University Press. O?Connor, P. & Anderson, M. (2015). Applied Theatre Research: Radical Departures. London: Bloomsbury Methuen Drama. O?Neill, C. (2014) Power-sharing: Teacher power and student choices. in P. Bowell, P & C. Lawrence (Eds), Heathcote Reconsidered - Conference Echoes (ebook), London: National Drama, 13-31 On 29/02/2016 7:49 am, "Dr. Ana Marjanovic-Shane" wrote: >Dear Sue, > >I am looking forward to your feedback and critique. > >Ana > > >> On Feb 28, 2016, at 4:00 PM, Susan Davis wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> Thank you Larry, Helen and Ana for your comments. >> >> Helen - always lovely to find out who else is out there exploring the >> possibilities of working with the arts to bring about transformative >> learning and Larry I really like that proposition that in drama the >> premise begins with ?I can? and then moves to ?I think?. That is very >> much the case with drama, and sometimes children/participants are very >> nervous or uncertain when they begin a drama process, often because they >> begin from a position of ?I can?t? but through the acts of doing they >> begin to see that they in fact can do and become. >> >> Ana I would agree with the first part of your statement about drama in >> education being used to help socialise students into socially recognised >> valuable practices and would think that was a good thing given research >> that shows reductions in empathy in young people in recent times. I >>have >> concerns with the rest of your proposition and the sweeping nature of >>the >> critique. >> >> A colleague and I have been preparing a short response to your article >>and >> I will check with him to see if he is happy for me to post it here. >> >> I would of course be happy to hear other ?dialogue? as well. >> >> Kind regards >> >> Sue >> >> >> On 29/02/2016 2:35 am, "Ana Marjanovic-Shane" >> wrote: >> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> Thanks for starting this thread about drama in education. I recently >>> published a paper that takes a critical stance toward Heathcote's >>>drama in >>> education approach and other approaches to education that are based on >>> some form of drama, play and/or improv - *"Spoilsport" in Drama in >>> education vs dialogic pedagogy*. >>> To play a "spoilsport" myself, in this paper, I claim that Drama in >>> Education belongs to an educational paradigm that is mainly based on >>> socialization of students into the socially recognized valuable >>>practices, >>> values and understanding of the world, which are heavily based on >>> agreement, collaboration and following of the authority, without >>>students >>> having legitimate rights and a possibilities to critically disagree, >>> provide different points of view and question the existing social >>> practices, values and ways of understanding the world. In other words, >>>in >>> this educational paradigm - students' disenssus, critical approach to >>> testing different ideas, views, desires, values, etc. is actively >>> suppressed, or at best limited, curbed and restricted. >>> >>> In the paper I provide a detailed analysis of (a part of) the same >>>video >>> posted here earlier - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owKiUO99qrw. >>>Below >>> is the abstract of my paper. If interested - you can get it at Dialogic >>> Pedagogy Journal website - >>> http://dpj.pitt.edu/ojs/index.php/dpj1/article/view/151 >>> >>> So, what do you think? >>> >>> Ana >>> >>> ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ >>> "Spoilsport" in Drama in education vs dialogic pedagogy >>> Abstract >>> >>> In this paper two educational paradigms that both attempt to overcome >>> alienation often experienced by students in the conventional education. >>> These two educational paradigms are embodied in different educational >>> practices: First, Drama in Education in its widest definition, is >>>based on >>> the Vygotskian views that human cognitive, semantic (meaning-making), >>>and >>> social-emotional development happens in or through play and/or >>> imagination, >>> thus within the imagined worlds. Second, Critical Ontological Dialogic >>> Pedagogy, is based in the Bakhtin inspired approach to critical >>>dialogue >>> among the ?consciousnesses of equal rights? (Bakhtin, 1999), where >>> education is assumed to be a practice of examination of the world, the >>> others and the self. I reveal implicit and explicit conceptual >>> similarities >>> and differences between these two educational paradigms regarding their >>> understanding the nature of learning; social values that they promote; >>>the >>> group dynamics, social relationships and the position of learners? >>> subjectivity. I aim to uncover the role and legitimacy of the learners? >>> disagreement with the positions of others, their dissensus with the >>> educational events and settings, and the relationships of power within >>>the >>> social organization of educational communities in these two diverse >>> educational approaches. I explore the legitimacy of dissensus in these >>>two >>> educational approaches regarding both the participants? critical >>> examination of the curriculum, and in regard to promoting the >>> participants? >>> agency and its transformations. In spite of important similarities >>>between >>> the educational practices arranged by these two paradigms, the >>>analysis of >>> their differences points to the paradigmatically opposing views on >>>human >>> development, learning and education. Although both Drama in Education >>>and >>> Dialogic Pedagogy claim to deeply, fully and ontologically engage the >>> learners in the process of education, they do it for different purposes >>> and >>> with diametrically opposite ways of treating the students and their >>> relationship to the world, each other and their own developing selves. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Dr Susan Davis Senior Lecturer | School of Education & the Arts | Higher Education Division CQUniversity Australia, Noosa Campus | PO Box 1128, Qld 4566 P +61 (0)7 5440 7007 | X 547007 | M +61 418 763 428 L https://www.linkedin.com/in/suedavisnoosa RG | https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Susan_Davis7 Profile | http://profiles.cqu.edu.au/profiles/view/272 Latest publication: https://www.sensepublishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/imagination-and-praxis/ learning-that-matters/ This communication may contain privileged or confidential information. If you have received this in error, please return to sender and delete. CRICOS: 00219C | RTO Code 40939 >>> From ewall@umich.edu Mon Feb 29 10:58:37 2016 From: ewall@umich.edu (Ed Wall) Date: Mon, 29 Feb 2016 12:58:37 -0600 Subject: [Xmca-l] Heathcote and Immagination In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1D219F01-CF79-47CF-9A0E-86E720B47526@umich.edu> Susan Coming a little late to this conversation and thinking about your comments last July on Vygotsky and imagination, I was wondering if any of that played a large role in your book. In particular and if so, how did Heathcote, one might say, pragmatically theorize imagination? It seems, given, what you have written in the present thread that she seems to have created moments through a stance that "respected and worked with the material they offered, drawing out significance, considering the implications and working dialogically with very alternative views from her own.? This, in some of the literature, is indicative of an imaginative ?leap? that is stabilized in the ?waking state.? In a sense, the moment becomes, in somewhat the sense of Barthes, ?writeable.' Ed Wall > On Feb 24, 2016, at 5:32 AM, Susan Davis wrote: > > Thanks Robert, > It?s great to have the book published as part of your series. The book is > called ?Learning that matters: Revitalising Heathcote?s Rolling Role for > the digital age?. > https://www.sensepublishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/imagination-and-praxis/ > learning-that-matters/ > > For those who haven?t heard of Heathcote before, she was a ?master? > teacher who achieved international recognition for her teaching practice > in the 70s and 80s - in particular for pioneering processes such as Mantle > of the Expert - which use role and fictional contexts to position children > as ?experts? and active agents in investigative processes. She also > invented this system called ?Rolling Role? which is a form of > trans-disciplinary learning - where multiple classes work with the same > common context, but from their particular frame or subject perspective. > The beauty of it is that no one group ?owns? the outcome, but groups > regularly ?publish? and share artefacts and outcomes throughout the > process, with each group having to use and ?roll? the work of what has > gone before. It was a system she believed was perfectly suited for > revisiting in the digital age? so that is what the book hopes to assist > with? the Vygotskian and CHAT work was very helpful in conceptualising and > understanding this work. > > At times reading the work of Vygotsky and Heathcote it felt like they > could have been writing about education today! > > Educational experience, no less than theoretical research, > teaches us that, in practice, a straightforward learning of concepts always > proves impossible and educationally fruitless. Usually, any teacher > setting out > on this road achieves nothing except a meaningless acquisition of words, > mere > verbalization in children, which is nothing more than simulation and > imitation > of corresponding concepts which, in reality, are concealing a vacuum. In > such cases, the child assimilates not > concepts but words, and he fills his memory more than his thinking. As a > result, he ends up helpless in the face of any sensible attempt to apply > any of > this acquired knowledge. Essentially, this method of teaching/learning > concepts, a purely scholastic and verbal method of teaching, which is > condemned > by everybody and which advocates the replacement of acquisition of living > knowledge by the assimilation of dead and empty verbal schemes, represents > the > most basic failing in the field of education. (Vygotsky 1934/1994a, pp. > 356-7) > > > So ? getting rid of the dummy run. On the face of it you > have a rather interesting paradox in drama, because it looks like drama is > entirely artificial and that the whole thing would be a dummy run ? we are > only > pretending actually. And we use words > like pretend and play and in our culture it does suggest that it?s > ephemeral > and there?s no real work/life purpose for it?. So it seems to me we need to > look and see what it is that makes something NOT feel like a dummy run? > It seemed to me that one of the important aspects of not > being a dummy run is that it matters now, we feel like its urgent now. > (Heathcote 1993, Tape 9) > > > > Cheers > Sue > > > Dr Susan Davis > Senior Lecturer | School of Education & the Arts | Higher Education > Division > CQUniversity Australia, Noosa Campus | > PO Box 1128, Qld 4566 > P +61 (0)7 5440 7007 | X 547007 | M +61 400 000 000| E s.davis@cqu.edu.au > > > > > On 24/02/2016 12:14 am, "Robert Lake" wrote: > >> ?Susan Davis has published a book that weaves LSV, Dorothy Heathcote and >> CHAT >> into one seamless, present tense unfolding of "rolling role". If anyone >> would like to write a review of it I can get you a copy. It has been five >> years since Heathcote's passing and I suspect her work will become more >> and >> more important in this era of standardized everything. >> >> *Robert Lake* >> >> https://www.sensepublishers.com/media/2709-learning-that-matters.pdf >> >> >> For a sense of the dynamic of Dorothy's pedagogy, scroll to about 5 >> minutes into this. >> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owKiUO99qrw > > From s.davis@cqu.edu.au Mon Feb 29 12:39:52 2016 From: s.davis@cqu.edu.au (Susan Davis) Date: Mon, 29 Feb 2016 20:39:52 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Heathcote and Immagination In-Reply-To: <1D219F01-CF79-47CF-9A0E-86E720B47526@umich.edu> References: <1D219F01-CF79-47CF-9A0E-86E720B47526@umich.edu> Message-ID: Hi Ed Both Vygotsky and Heathcote both understood that the work of the imagination is not only an individual mental exercise but in inspired by and is expressed through interactions with others, conceptual tools and ultimately material means and artefacts. I think Vygotksy described the different ways imagination worked very well indeed and I have summarised that in the book. Some key quotes from him include: Everything the imagination creates is always based on elements taken from reality, from a person?s previous experience. The most fantastic creations are nothing other than a new combination of elements that have ultimately been extracted from reality. (p. 13) The first law of creativity: The act of imagination depends directly on the richness and variety of a person?s previous experience because this experience provides the material from which the products of creativity are constructed. The richer a person?s experience, the richer is the material his imagination has access to. Great works and discoveries are always the result of an enormous amount of previously accumulated experience. The implication of this for education is that, if we want to build a relatively strong foundation for a child?s creativity, what we must do is broaden the experiences we provide him with.(pp. 14-15) The right kind of education involves awakening in the child what already exists within him, helping him to develop it and directing this development in a particular direction. (p. 51) ?Vygotsky, L. (2004) ?Imagination and creativity in childhood.? Journal of Russian and Was tEuropean PsychologyVol. 42 No. 1. This work recognises therefore that to inspire imagination means ?feeding? the imagination and it is therefore the teacher?s responsibility to work with children and bring in various tools, processes and provocations that will draw them into creative processes. In terms of working in drama I think the notion of the social imagination comes into play (though that is a term more closely associated with Maxine Green) and collectively a group creates something together - something that did not exist previously and which would not exist in the same form if created individually. In that sense it is helpful to draw on the language of improvised drama to understand the process - someone generally makes an ?offer? to begin the imaginative exploration, practically speaking in embodied action it can be a physical or verbal offer. Multiple offers can at times be made but one has to be accepted, and then extended upon. This process keeps going and as those who have studied improvised drama knows, the key is then to draw the threads together and find an appropriate conclusion. Now what this means in practice is a fluid interplay of power shifts as people forfeit their right to have their every idea accepted (which is unworkable), trusting that if they go with the one that is on the table or seems to ?grab? people, they will be able to contribute and that the outcome will be something that they are a part of and will be worthwhile. That is social imagination in action. Decisions are often made in the moment - not after exhaustive dialogue - although reflection on what has gone on and been created often occurs afterwards. This is especially the case if you were to be devising a new work. The whole process has to be underpinned by a sense of trust and a belief that as a group the give and take of the process will generate something that has been worth the effort. It doesn?t always, but that is often part of the educational process with children and participants - 'what do you feel worked, what didn?t, what offers ended up proving fruitful, were there ?blocks? that we couldn?t work around? If we did it again what would you change?? and so on. (see some of Keith Sawyer?s work on improvisation for more insights on how these processes work and why he believes improvised theatre is perhaps the highest form of creativity) It is writerly in Barthes sense in that while a ?text' has often been initiated, it is deliberately left unfinished and the participants must make imaginative leaps, connections and new solutions to be able to complete the text or dramatic encounter. What is also interesting in a drama process is that you can play it multiple times, from different perspectives and something different can be revealed each time. In Boal?s work with forum theatre people from an audience and the disenfranchised are also invited to step up and take on a role within a version (as spectactors), therefore finding ways to shift power dynamics and to explore alternative solutions. I hope this is of interest. Cheers Sue On 1/03/2016 4:58 am, "Ed Wall" wrote: >Susan > > Coming a little late to this conversation and thinking about your >comments last July on Vygotsky and imagination, I was wondering if any of >that played a large role in your book. In particular and if so, how did >Heathcote, one might say, pragmatically theorize imagination? It seems, >given, what you have written in the present thread that she seems to have >created moments through a stance that "respected and worked with the >material they offered, drawing out significance, considering the >implications and working dialogically with very alternative views from >her own.? This, in some of the literature, is indicative of an >imaginative ?leap? that is stabilized in the ?waking state.? In a sense, >the moment becomes, in somewhat the sense of Barthes, ?writeable.' > >Ed Wall > >> On Feb 24, 2016, at 5:32 AM, Susan Davis wrote: >> >> Thanks Robert, >> It?s great to have the book published as part of your series. The book >>is >> called ?Learning that matters: Revitalising Heathcote?s Rolling Role for >> the digital age?. >> >>https://www.sensepublishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/imagination-and-praxi >>s/ >> learning-that-matters/ >> >> For those who haven?t heard of Heathcote before, she was a ?master? >> teacher who achieved international recognition for her teaching practice >> in the 70s and 80s - in particular for pioneering processes such as >>Mantle >> of the Expert - which use role and fictional contexts to position >>children >> as ?experts? and active agents in investigative processes. She also >> invented this system called ?Rolling Role? which is a form of >> trans-disciplinary learning - where multiple classes work with the same >> common context, but from their particular frame or subject perspective. >> The beauty of it is that no one group ?owns? the outcome, but groups >> regularly ?publish? and share artefacts and outcomes throughout the >> process, with each group having to use and ?roll? the work of what has >> gone before. It was a system she believed was perfectly suited for >> revisiting in the digital age? so that is what the book hopes to assist >> with? the Vygotskian and CHAT work was very helpful in conceptualising >>and >> understanding this work. >> >> At times reading the work of Vygotsky and Heathcote it felt like they >> could have been writing about education today! >> >> Educational experience, no less than theoretical research, >> teaches us that, in practice, a straightforward learning of concepts >>always >> proves impossible and educationally fruitless. Usually, any teacher >> setting out >> on this road achieves nothing except a meaningless acquisition of words, >> mere >> verbalization in children, which is nothing more than simulation and >> imitation >> of corresponding concepts which, in reality, are concealing a vacuum. >>In >> such cases, the child assimilates not >> concepts but words, and he fills his memory more than his thinking. As a >> result, he ends up helpless in the face of any sensible attempt to apply >> any of >> this acquired knowledge. Essentially, this method of teaching/learning >> concepts, a purely scholastic and verbal method of teaching, which is >> condemned >> by everybody and which advocates the replacement of acquisition of >>living >> knowledge by the assimilation of dead and empty verbal schemes, >>represents >> the >> most basic failing in the field of education. (Vygotsky 1934/1994a, pp. >> 356-7) >> >> >> So ? getting rid of the dummy run. On the face of it you >> have a rather interesting paradox in drama, because it looks like drama >>is >> entirely artificial and that the whole thing would be a dummy run ? we >>are >> only >> pretending actually. And we use words >> like pretend and play and in our culture it does suggest that it?s >> ephemeral >> and there?s no real work/life purpose for it?. So it seems to me we >>need to >> look and see what it is that makes something NOT feel like a dummy run? >> It seemed to me that one of the important aspects of not >> being a dummy run is that it matters now, we feel like its urgent now. >> (Heathcote 1993, Tape 9) >> >> >> >> Cheers >> Sue >> >> >> Dr Susan Davis >> Senior Lecturer | School of Education & the Arts | Higher Education >> Division >> CQUniversity Australia, Noosa Campus | >> PO Box 1128, Qld 4566 >> P +61 (0)7 5440 7007 | X 547007 | M +61 400 000 000| E >>s.davis@cqu.edu.au >> >> >> >> >> On 24/02/2016 12:14 am, "Robert Lake" >>wrote: >> >>> ?Susan Davis has published a book that weaves LSV, Dorothy Heathcote >>>and >>> CHAT >>> into one seamless, present tense unfolding of "rolling role". If anyone >>> would like to write a review of it I can get you a copy. It has been >>>five >>> years since Heathcote's passing and I suspect her work will become more >>> and >>> more important in this era of standardized everything. >>> >>> *Robert Lake* >>> >>> https://www.sensepublishers.com/media/2709-learning-that-matters.pdf >>> >>> >>> For a sense of the dynamic of Dorothy's pedagogy, scroll to about 5 >>> minutes into this. >>> >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owKiUO99qrw >> >> > > From s.davis@cqu.edu.au Mon Feb 29 12:43:55 2016 From: s.davis@cqu.edu.au (Susan Davis) Date: Mon, 29 Feb 2016 20:43:55 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Response to Spoilsport: Beyond oppositional dualities indrama in education and dialogic pedagogy to promote learning possibilities In-Reply-To: <56d46a39.ea95420a.74bf4.ffff924a@mx.google.com> References: <56d46a39.ea95420a.74bf4.ffff924a@mx.google.com> Message-ID: So I take it Larry that you are also resisting dualities and dichotomies and can see the spectrum of possibilities for pedagogical practice? By the way I also want to point out that the response I posted was co-authored by Brian Edmiston from Ohio State University. He is a highly esteemed drama scholar (who also happened to train with Heathcote many years ago), he is also well known within the dialogic pedagogy world. Cheers Sue On 1/03/2016 1:55 am, "Lplarry" wrote: >Susan, Ana, >Thank you for this dialogical drama OR should i say dramatic dialogue? >This question of our relation to places (and within places) of BOTH drama >AND dialogue. >To place critical ontological dialogical practices on one side of a >horizontal zone focusing on reflection and differences to critically >create agency through resisting socialized constraints (through >di/vergence) >On the other hand (not opposites but a matter of degree) dialogical drama >focuses on creating *places* of con/vergence as an experience of becoming >embodied in virtual/real spaces of psychic belonging. >These are two aspects of horizontal understandings of *verging* >phenomena. >What Merleau-Ponty adds is the experience of psychic *place* as mutually >embodied through our personal body as placed within perceptual/acting >experiences of the speaking subject AND in con/junction with personal >embodiment there is another aspect of becoming embodied *within* our >mutually shared endowed spaces of drama AND dialogue. >I submit that divergences and reflective agency occur as critical >dialogues from within previously shared perceptual horizons as endowed >virtual/real frameworks or paradigms. >The evaluative component is to ask if we *should* focus developing agency >through divergences as primary and convergences as derived or to focus >our conscious intent on convergences as primary and divergences as >derived. >The evaluative choice of what side of *vergence*to emphasize has an >aspect of faith and presupposition that either perceiving/acting is >primary and critical reflective dialogue explores this primary realm OR >perceiving/acting is secondary and critical reflective ontology of >being/becoming is primary and generates the *I can* >A fascinating con/verse/ation on how we evaluate verging phenomena. >Larry > >-----Original Message----- >From: "Susan Davis" >Sent: ?2016-?02-?28 10:10 PM >To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" >Subject: [Xmca-l] Response to Spoilsport: Beyond oppositional dualities >indrama in education and dialogic pedagogy to promote learning >possibilities > >As scholars and practitioners committed to the use of drama for >educational purposes we wish to >respond briefly to Ana Marjanovic-Shane?s article: ?Spoilsport? in drama >in >education vs. dialogic pedagogy. Our intention is to provide some of our >shared >professional understanding of drama?s use in educational contexts that we >hope >will illuminate some of the misunderstandings we find in this article. At >the >same time, we look forward to future productive dialogue about what we >regard >as potential overlaps between these pedagogical approaches. > > We need to stress from the start that there is no unified >field named ?drama in education? that would extend to >those who work within playworlds, or practice psychodrama and so forth as >claimed by Marjanovic-Shane. We confine our remarks to the field that we >are >knowledgeable about and from which Marjanovic-Shane draws her example: a >classroom use of drama described by Heathcote as ?drama in education? or >?educational drama? and more recently as process drama, applied theatre, >and >dramatic inquiry, among other terms. In fact these fields of practice >have arisen from very different communities in progressive >school education, educational psychology, early childhood, and play all of >whom >independently discovered the power of using drama in their practice. There >have >only recently been some nascent interactions between these groups (see for >example the book ?Dramatic Interactions in Education? >6 >910/> which we published last year) to find areas of common interest and >concern. As with >those who identify with the field of ?dialogic pedagogy? we look forward >to >more fruitful discussions and debates about research, practice and >approaches >which work for the benefit of students and participants in learning >processes. > >There is no space in this response to show in detail why we resist the >dichotomy established in this article, believing such are rarely helpful. >However, we do can not agree with Marjanovic-Shane?s conclusion that >any dramatic pedagogy cannot be dialogic or that there are irreconcilable >paradigmatic >differences between these pedagogical approaches. > >In our view, she is correct in identifying that a pre-requisite for using >drama in classrooms is an implicit, if not explicit, agreement to play the >?game of drama? and in effect to begin to create an ensemble and >enter into social worlds. However, rather than characterizing such social >agreement as somehow different from real life, we argue that there is >little >difference from the tacit agreement to join in the ?social drama? of >everyday >life (Turner, 1974), as for example university students do by agreeing to >participate in a discussion. However drama has the additional sphere of >possibility that can be physically and conceptually explored through the >activation of ?what if? in action. > >Unlike discussion, drama is a social art that can only be created when a >group comes together willingly to collaborate in dramatizing >life events. There is indeed a consensus but only about agreeing to work >together or to focus dramatizing on a particular storyline, topic, or >concern; >there is no consensus assumed about the meaning of the work. > >Using drama in a classroom does not assume that a student cannot choose >not to join in or cannot opt out at any point. >Participants may present or raise different views that may be addressed >dialogically. Agreeing to join in is not an experience of being ?trapped? >by a >teacher with no exit in sight. Nor does it mean that a teacher would label >someone a ?spoilsport? to be ?cast out.? We have conducted many practical >sessions when not only have people chosen to sit out, some of whom have >later >chosen to join in, but we have protected young people from others in a >group >ready to ?discipline? them. Just as a person who does not join a theatre >group >cannot create a performance, or a preschool child choosing not to play >with others >may engage in other activities, not participating in drama just means that >a >person cannot contribute at that time to the collaborative creation of >events >in an imagined world. > >Marjanovic-Shane uses a highly selective video extract from a 1971 drama >session featuring the master teacher Dorothy Heathcote to >infer that Heathcote dragoons students into a drama within which their >choices >and alternative views are closed down. However, as O?Neill shared in the >keynote address Power-sharing: Teacher power >and student choices, where she describes another more recent 2007 drama >conducted in the U.S., Heathcote >worked with all major offers children made, never adopting an >authoritarian >position but asking participants to consider the consequences of their >actions. >When a group of boys invented a bomb which ?blew? up a celebratory event >in a >drama, Heathcote said: ?There is nothing we do in this room that isn?t >happening somewhere in the world? (Heathcote in O?Neill 2014, p 26). Even >though others in the room were horrified and expected her to castigate the >boys >involved, Heathcote respected and worked with the material they offered, >drawing out >significance, considering the implications and working dialogically with >very >alternative views from her own. > >Marjanovic-Shane assumes that a teacher?s authority in drama is >authoritarian and that a leader of drama is in danger of becoming a >fascist dictator. Whilst it is certainly possible for a teacher to misuse >her >authority oppressively or with very limited choice for how people might >participate (as in the Ron Jones simulation example she uses which has >never >been seen as a lighthouse model of drama in education) that is never our >intention nor would it be endorsed in the literature. It is true that at >times Heathcote >can quite rightly be described as acting in ?authoritative? roles within >dramatic contexts, but she fiercely resisted pressures to take on >authoritarian >teacher positions. > >Indeed, Heathcote (1984) herself is quite clear that as a teacher she >intends to ?bring power to my students and to draw on their >power? (p.21). Heathcote saw the teacher?s role as one that should not >bully or take away power from >others, but rather that should enable them to develop their agency. Her >commitment to endowing power and agency to others is shared through an >interesting insight in her paper Contexts for Active Learning. Here >Heathcote revealed that her drama and teaching >strategies were all developed so she would never have to be in a position >to >?tell people off? (Heathcote, 2002, p.1). However, counter to many >romanticised notions of an open, free for all classroom, this version of >the >democratized classroom was not a hands-off model with students making all >the >decisions. Rather, she envisions a classroom with episodes that were >highly >interventionist and carefully structured. These often involved >provocations and >active negotiations, with Heathcote playing multi-functional roles, >constantly >selecting and making decisions, but always working to ensure that the >students >were invested, contributing, and collaboratively developing work that >would be meaningful >in multiple ways for all participants. >H >eathcote intended not just to create dramatic experiences but also to >create spaces in which all might dialogue and reflect >to explore for multiple possible meanings in the work: ?If you cannot >increase >the reflective power in people you might as well not teach, because >reflection >is the only thing that in the long run changes anybody? (Ibid, p. 104). >Finally, Heathcote was emphatic that all participants in drama, ?be >recognized >fully as individuals with rights [including] the power to affect a >situation, >and to respond in a growing complexity of ways to that situation? (Ibid, >p. 153). > >It is unfortunate that the Spoilsport article seeks to compare examples of >praxis in an apples >and oranges way to draw out unwarranted generalizations about all drama in >education. She compares examples of teaching on different topics, for >different >purposes, and with access to very different data: a short segment of a 45 >year >old videoed drama with children is compared to an extended sequence of >exchanges and events in a higher education institution taught recently by >the >author. The drama example analyzed is a brief extract from the first few >minutes of a BBC film about Dorothy Heathcote made for commercial not >educational purposes. Missing from the film is all of Heathcote?s >out-of-role >negotiations and reflections with these children all of whom had been >labeled >as ?delinquent? and had in effect been ?cast out? into this special school >for >youth. > >Marjanovic-Shane misses the point that Heathcote was playing with the >children, including through her >early use of power in role, not to force them to do what they did not want >to >do but rather the reverse. Marjanovic-Shane further assumes that in drama, >participants do not ?test their own ideas ? their truths? and that >teachers do >not seek out or value ?dissensus.? Yet that was Heathcote?s aim as it is >ours. Heathcote?s >intention in this session was to work with the children to create >fictional experiences >in which by working together the boys were not only able to work out ways >in >which they might outwit an authoritarian regime represented by her in role >as a >Nazi officer but further to reflect on an issue of importance to them: why >might >someone choose to dissent by becoming an informant and a collaborator? > >Marjanovic-Shane assumes that the purpose of drama in education is to >?socialize? participants whereas dialogic pedagogy seeks to >?deepen critical examinations of any aspect of life.? Whilst socialization >may >be a declared or implicit purpose there are drama practitioners across >decades >of work who would also share Marjanovic-Shane?s aim and who have >extensively >documented how participants working with a teacher may engage in extensive >critical >cultural analysis of how power operates in society (e.g. Medina & Campano, >2006; Enciso, 2011; O?Connor & Anderson, 2015). > >In summary, the explicit premise of Marjanovic-Shane?s >argument is that drama work is non-dialogic because participants must >participate in making a fictional world, which appears to be on the >teachers? >terms. This is an ill-informed representation of drama?s potential in the >classroom. Decades of documentation and analysis would show otherwise . >Marjanovic Shane seems to dismiss the imagined possibilities that can be >explored through drama and unwilling to engage in dialogue about the >different >ways that drama could in fact be dialogic. Rather than being restricted to >dialogue in the ?real? world with people sharing critical views, >participants in >drama can collaboratively test out multiple alternatives to what seems >?real? and >fixed. In drama everyone can contribute dialogically to create different >possible >versions of reality, multiple possible outcomes, alternative viewpoints, >and >new understandings. The social and cultural power of drama is that people >may >change their views, understand more about themselves, others, and the >world we >live in. Surely that is what all good pedagogues would hope and desire. > > >Susan Davis and Brian Edmiston >Central Queensland University & The Ohio State University >s.davis@cqu.edu.au, edmiston.1@osu.edu > > > > > >References >Enciso, P. (2011). Storytelling in critical >literacy pedagogy: Removing the walls between immigrant and non-immigrant >youth. In H. Janks & V. Vasquez (Eds.) Special Issue: Critical Literacy >Revisited: Writing as Critique for English Teaching: Practice and >Critique, 10, 1, 21-40. >Heathcote, D. (1984). Collected writings >on education and drama. L. Johnson & C. O?Neill (Eds.). Melbourne: >Hutchinson. >Heathcote, >D. (2002). Contexts for active learning - >Four models to forge links between schooling and society. Paper presented >at the NATD Annual Conference, Birmingham. >http://www.moeplanning.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/dh-contexts-for-ac >t >ive-learning.pdf >Medina, C. & Campano, G. (2006). Performing >Identities through Drama and Teatro Practices in Multilingual Classrooms. >Language Arts, 83 (4), 332-341. >Turner, Victor (1974). Dramas, Fields, and >Metaphors: Symbolic Action in Human Society. Ithaca/London: Cornell >University >Press. >O?Connor, P. & Anderson, M. (2015). Applied Theatre Research: Radical >Departures. >London: Bloomsbury Methuen Drama. >O?Neill, C. >(2014) Power-sharing: Teacher power and student choices. in P. Bowell, P & >C. >Lawrence (Eds), Heathcote Reconsidered - >Conference Echoes (ebook), London: National Drama, 13-31 > > > > > > > >On 29/02/2016 7:49 am, "Dr. Ana Marjanovic-Shane" >wrote: > >>Dear Sue, >> >>I am looking forward to your feedback and critique. >> >>Ana >> >> >>> On Feb 28, 2016, at 4:00 PM, Susan Davis wrote: >>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> Thank you Larry, Helen and Ana for your comments. >>> >>> Helen - always lovely to find out who else is out there exploring the >>> possibilities of working with the arts to bring about transformative >>> learning and Larry I really like that proposition that in drama the >>> premise begins with ?I can? and then moves to ?I think?. That is very >>> much the case with drama, and sometimes children/participants are very >>> nervous or uncertain when they begin a drama process, often because >>>they >>> begin from a position of ?I can?t? but through the acts of doing they >>> begin to see that they in fact can do and become. >>> >>> Ana I would agree with the first part of your statement about drama in >>> education being used to help socialise students into socially >>>recognised >>> valuable practices and would think that was a good thing given research >>> that shows reductions in empathy in young people in recent times. I >>>have >>> concerns with the rest of your proposition and the sweeping nature of >>>the >>> critique. >>> >>> A colleague and I have been preparing a short response to your article >>>and >>> I will check with him to see if he is happy for me to post it here. >>> >>> I would of course be happy to hear other ?dialogue? as well. >>> >>> Kind regards >>> >>> Sue >>> >>> >>> On 29/02/2016 2:35 am, "Ana Marjanovic-Shane" >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Dear all, >>>> >>>> Thanks for starting this thread about drama in education. I recently >>>> published a paper that takes a critical stance toward Heathcote's >>>>drama in >>>> education approach and other approaches to education that are based on >>>> some form of drama, play and/or improv - *"Spoilsport" in Drama in >>>> education vs dialogic pedagogy*. >>>> To play a "spoilsport" myself, in this paper, I claim that Drama in >>>> Education belongs to an educational paradigm that is mainly based on >>>> socialization of students into the socially recognized valuable >>>>practices, >>>> values and understanding of the world, which are heavily based on >>>> agreement, collaboration and following of the authority, without >>>>students >>>> having legitimate rights and a possibilities to critically disagree, >>>> provide different points of view and question the existing social >>>> practices, values and ways of understanding the world. In other words, >>>>in >>>> this educational paradigm - students' disenssus, critical approach to >>>> testing different ideas, views, desires, values, etc. is actively >>>> suppressed, or at best limited, curbed and restricted. >>>> >>>> In the paper I provide a detailed analysis of (a part of) the same >>>>video >>>> posted here earlier - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owKiUO99qrw. >>>>Below >>>> is the abstract of my paper. If interested - you can get it at >>>>Dialogic >>>> Pedagogy Journal website - >>>> http://dpj.pitt.edu/ojs/index.php/dpj1/article/view/151 >>>> >>>> So, what do you think? >>>> >>>> Ana >>>> >>>> ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ >>>> "Spoilsport" in Drama in education vs dialogic pedagogy >>>> Abstract >>>> >>>> In this paper two educational paradigms that both attempt to overcome >>>> alienation often experienced by students in the conventional >>>>education. >>>> These two educational paradigms are embodied in different educational >>>> practices: First, Drama in Education in its widest definition, is >>>>based on >>>> the Vygotskian views that human cognitive, semantic (meaning-making), >>>>and >>>> social-emotional development happens in or through play and/or >>>> imagination, >>>> thus within the imagined worlds. Second, Critical Ontological Dialogic >>>> Pedagogy, is based in the Bakhtin inspired approach to critical >>>>dialogue >>>> among the ?consciousnesses of equal rights? (Bakhtin, 1999), where >>>> education is assumed to be a practice of examination of the world, the >>>> others and the self. I reveal implicit and explicit conceptual >>>> similarities >>>> and differences between these two educational paradigms regarding >>>>their >>>> understanding the nature of learning; social values that they promote; >>>>the >>>> group dynamics, social relationships and the position of learners? >>>> subjectivity. I aim to uncover the role and legitimacy of the >>>>learners? >>>> disagreement with the positions of others, their dissensus with the >>>> educational events and settings, and the relationships of power within >>>>the >>>> social organization of educational communities in these two diverse >>>> educational approaches. I explore the legitimacy of dissensus in these >>>>two >>>> educational approaches regarding both the participants? critical >>>> examination of the curriculum, and in regard to promoting the >>>> participants? >>>> agency and its transformations. In spite of important similarities >>>>between >>>> the educational practices arranged by these two paradigms, the >>>>analysis of >>>> their differences points to the paradigmatically opposing views on >>>>human >>>> development, learning and education. Although both Drama in Education >>>>and >>>> Dialogic Pedagogy claim to deeply, fully and ontologically engage the >>>> learners in the process of education, they do it for different >>>>purposes >>>> and >>>> with diametrically opposite ways of treating the students and their >>>> relationship to the world, each other and their own developing selves. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> > > >Dr Susan Davis >Senior Lecturer | School of Education & the Arts | Higher Education >Division >CQUniversity Australia, Noosa Campus | >PO Box 1128, Qld 4566 >P +61 (0)7 5440 7007 | X 547007 | M +61 418 763 428 >L https://www.linkedin.com/in/suedavisnoosa >RG | https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Susan_Davis7 >Profile | http://profiles.cqu.edu.au/profiles/view/272 >Latest >publication: >https://www.sensepublishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/imagination-and-praxis >/ >learning-that-matters/ > > >This communication may contain privileged or confidential information. If >you have received this in error, >please return to sender and delete. CRICOS: 00219C | RTO Code 40939 > > > > > > > >>>> > From anamshane@gmail.com Mon Feb 29 13:51:51 2016 From: anamshane@gmail.com (Dr. Ana Marjanovic-Shane) Date: Mon, 29 Feb 2016 16:51:51 -0500 Subject: [Xmca-l] Dialogic Pedagogy Journal: Call for papers References: Message-ID: <68DCF541-7103-4F98-95A7-B67BFD146048@gmail.com> Dialogic Pedagogy: An International Online Journal vol.4 2016 http://dpj.pitt.edu ISSN 2325-3290 (online) ???????????????????????????-????????????????????????? Dear colleagues? Dialogic Pedagogy Journal (DPJ) is happy to announce a call for 2016 submission of manuscripts. DPJ is an international, online, Open Access, free publication, peer-reviewed, academic journal. The targeted audience of the DPJ is educational researchers and innovative educators interested in broadly defined field and practice of Dialogic Pedagogy. I. Deciding if your work should be published by the Dialogic Pedagogy International Online Journal The purpose of DPJ is to advance international scholarship and pedagogical practice in the area of dialogic pedagogy and education. The journal is multidisciplinary, international, multi-paradigmatic, and multicultural in scope, accepting manuscripts from any scholars and practitioners interested in the dialogic nature of teaching and learning in formal institutional and informal settings. We encourage any research scholars and practitioners with an interest in dialogue and pedagogy to submit articles for editorial consideration. We loosely define 'dialogic pedagogy' as any scholarship and pedagogical practice, from educational researchers and practitioners, which values and gives priority to 'dialogue' in learning/teaching across a wide range of institutional and non-institutional learning settings". To make a decision about publishing with DPJ, please take your time to evaluate whether or not your manuscript is suitable for the DPJ and the community behind the journal based on the description of the journal?s Focus and Scope (http://dpj.pitt.edu/ojs/index.php/dpj1/about/editorialPolicies#focusAndScope ). If you are not sure and have questions regarding the journal's aims and scope, we urge you to write to the journal editor with your questions. II. Genres of publications DPJ welcomes submissions of manuscripts and multimedia of different genres, formats, lengths, and styles. The main peer-reviewed genres of publications are the following: The main peer-reviewed genres involve purely or mixed conceptual, empirical, and/or methodological papers a) Ethnographic and empirical research with conceptual analysis and "thick descriptions"; b) Description of and reflection on innovative dialogic educational practices; c) ?Special issue? ? collection of thematically related papers; d) Theoretical papers. The main non-peer reviewed genres of publication are the following: e) Video/audio recorded or transcripts of innovative dialogic educational practices with possibility of fragment-by-fragment analysis of records and their discussions; f) Invited commentaries on published articles (both impressionistic and focused); g) Critical book reviews (invited or volunteered); h) Manuscript work in progress for critical, supportive, non-judgmental peer feedback; i) Reports about relevant projects and conferences; j) Announcements relevant to the field of Dialogic Pedagogy or DPJ; k) Interviews. For more info about submission, please, see Author Guidelines (http://dpj.pitt.edu/ojs/index.php/dpj1/about/submissions#authorGuidelines ). If you want to submit your manuscript(s) immediately, please go to http://dpj.pitt.edu/ojs/index.php/dpj1/information/authors (it requires registration); If you plan to submit your manuscript(s) in 2016, please reply to this email and provide to us with the following information: 1) Tentative title of your paper; 2) Genre (as listed above or proposed new one); 3) Tentative list of the authors; 4) Tentative date of submission. Let us know if you have questions, concerns, suggestions, and/or proposals. Please pass this email to your colleagues who may be interested. Sincerely, Eugene Matusov, Editor-in-Chief, USA Ana Marjanovic-Shane, Deputy Editor-in-Chief, USA Jim Cresswell, Deputy Editor-in-Chief, Canada ---------------------------- Eugene Matusov, PhD Editor-in-Chief, Dialogic Pedagogy Journal Professor of Education School of Education 16 W Main st University of Delaware Newark, DE 19716, USA Publications: http://ematusov.soe.udel.edu/vita/publications.htm DiaPed: http://diaped.soe.udel.edu ---------------------------- From mcole@ucsd.edu Mon Feb 29 17:28:07 2016 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Mon, 29 Feb 2016 17:28:07 -0800 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Response to Spoilsport: Beyond oppositional dualities in drama in education and dialogic pedagogy to promote learning possibilities In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Susan et al. I have not commented on this discussion because events have prevented me from watching the film and reading the relevant papers. I am very interested in drama so I hope I can catch up at some point. I comment now only on the genre of the discussion. Susan and Brian have posted a next turn in the conversation that began after Ana posted her paper and posed what appears to be two different ideas about the role of drama in education. But it is a special kind of next turn because it is responding on xmca where Ana is Ana and not Marjanovic-Shane. I would not want the formal tone of Marjanovic-Shane and footnotes to allow us to think we have slipped from the realm of collegial chatting into the realm of refereed journal articles! I really appreciate all the work that went into the formal reply, and it made me wonder just what it is that Susan, Brian, and Ana appear to be disagreeing over. Without looking, I expected the big issue to be whether or not kids entering into dramatic activity at school, whatever its venue, have the power to change the plot. But it seems much more is involved. If I could only get myself disentangled in this darn 5th Dimension I live in, I would have a chance to catch up, but one thing keeps leading to another....... Dialogically and Dramatically Speaking mike On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 10:09 PM, Susan Davis wrote: > As scholars and practitioners committed to the use of drama for > educational purposes we wish to > respond briefly to Ana Marjanovic-Shane?s article: ?Spoilsport? in drama in > education vs. dialogic pedagogy. Our intention is to provide some of our > shared > professional understanding of drama?s use in educational contexts that we > hope > will illuminate some of the misunderstandings we find in this article. At > the > same time, we look forward to future productive dialogue about what we > regard > as potential overlaps between these pedagogical approaches. > > We need to stress from the start that there is no unified > field named ?drama in education? that would extend to > those who work within playworlds, or practice psychodrama and so forth as > claimed by Marjanovic-Shane. We confine our remarks to the field that we > are > knowledgeable about and from which Marjanovic-Shane draws her example: a > classroom use of drama described by Heathcote as ?drama in education? or > ?educational drama? and more recently as process drama, applied theatre, > and > dramatic inquiry, among other terms. In fact these fields of practice > have arisen from very different communities in progressive > school education, educational psychology, early childhood, and play all of > whom > independently discovered the power of using drama in their practice. There > have > only recently been some nascent interactions between these groups (see for > example the book ?Dramatic Interactions in Education? > < > http://www.bloomsbury.com/au/dramatic-interactions-in-education-9781472576 > 910/> which we published last year) to find areas of common interest and > concern. As with > those who identify with the field of ?dialogic pedagogy? we look forward to > more fruitful discussions and debates about research, practice and > approaches > which work for the benefit of students and participants in learning > processes. > > There is no space in this response to show in detail why we resist the > dichotomy established in this article, believing such are rarely helpful. > However, we do can not agree with Marjanovic-Shane?s conclusion that > any dramatic pedagogy cannot be dialogic or that there are irreconcilable > paradigmatic > differences between these pedagogical approaches. > > In our view, she is correct in identifying that a pre-requisite for using > drama in classrooms is an implicit, if not explicit, agreement to play the > ?game of drama? and in effect to begin to create an ensemble and > enter into social worlds. However, rather than characterizing such social > agreement as somehow different from real life, we argue that there is > little > difference from the tacit agreement to join in the ?social drama? of > everyday > life (Turner, 1974), as for example university students do by agreeing to > participate in a discussion. However drama has the additional sphere of > possibility that can be physically and conceptually explored through the > activation of ?what if? in action. > > Unlike discussion, drama is a social art that can only be created when a > group comes together willingly to collaborate in dramatizing > life events. There is indeed a consensus but only about agreeing to work > together or to focus dramatizing on a particular storyline, topic, or > concern; > there is no consensus assumed about the meaning of the work. > > Using drama in a classroom does not assume that a student cannot choose > not to join in or cannot opt out at any point. > Participants may present or raise different views that may be addressed > dialogically. Agreeing to join in is not an experience of being ?trapped? > by a > teacher with no exit in sight. Nor does it mean that a teacher would label > someone a ?spoilsport? to be ?cast out.? We have conducted many practical > sessions when not only have people chosen to sit out, some of whom have > later > chosen to join in, but we have protected young people from others in a > group > ready to ?discipline? them. Just as a person who does not join a theatre > group > cannot create a performance, or a preschool child choosing not to play > with others > may engage in other activities, not participating in drama just means that > a > person cannot contribute at that time to the collaborative creation of > events > in an imagined world. > > Marjanovic-Shane uses a highly selective video extract from a 1971 drama > session featuring the master teacher Dorothy Heathcote to > infer that Heathcote dragoons students into a drama within which their > choices > and alternative views are closed down. However, as O?Neill shared in the > keynote address Power-sharing: Teacher power > and student choices, where she describes another more recent 2007 drama > conducted in the U.S., Heathcote > worked with all major offers children made, never adopting an authoritarian > position but asking participants to consider the consequences of their > actions. > When a group of boys invented a bomb which ?blew? up a celebratory event > in a > drama, Heathcote said: ?There is nothing we do in this room that isn?t > happening somewhere in the world? (Heathcote in O?Neill 2014, p 26). Even > though others in the room were horrified and expected her to castigate the > boys > involved, Heathcote respected and worked with the material they offered, > drawing out > significance, considering the implications and working dialogically with > very > alternative views from her own. > > Marjanovic-Shane assumes that a teacher?s authority in drama is > authoritarian and that a leader of drama is in danger of becoming a > fascist dictator. Whilst it is certainly possible for a teacher to misuse > her > authority oppressively or with very limited choice for how people might > participate (as in the Ron Jones simulation example she uses which has > never > been seen as a lighthouse model of drama in education) that is never our > intention nor would it be endorsed in the literature. It is true that at > times Heathcote > can quite rightly be described as acting in ?authoritative? roles within > dramatic contexts, but she fiercely resisted pressures to take on > authoritarian > teacher positions. > > Indeed, Heathcote (1984) herself is quite clear that as a teacher she > intends to ?bring power to my students and to draw on their > power? (p.21). Heathcote saw the teacher?s role as one that should not > bully or take away power from > others, but rather that should enable them to develop their agency. Her > commitment to endowing power and agency to others is shared through an > interesting insight in her paper Contexts for Active Learning. Here > Heathcote revealed that her drama and teaching > strategies were all developed so she would never have to be in a position > to > ?tell people off? (Heathcote, 2002, p.1). However, counter to many > romanticised notions of an open, free for all classroom, this version of > the > democratized classroom was not a hands-off model with students making all > the > decisions. Rather, she envisions a classroom with episodes that were highly > interventionist and carefully structured. These often involved > provocations and > active negotiations, with Heathcote playing multi-functional roles, > constantly > selecting and making decisions, but always working to ensure that the > students > were invested, contributing, and collaboratively developing work that > would be meaningful > in multiple ways for all participants. > H > eathcote intended not just to create dramatic experiences but also to > create spaces in which all might dialogue and reflect > to explore for multiple possible meanings in the work: ?If you cannot > increase > the reflective power in people you might as well not teach, because > reflection > is the only thing that in the long run changes anybody? (Ibid, p. 104). > Finally, Heathcote was emphatic that all participants in drama, ?be > recognized > fully as individuals with rights [including] the power to affect a > situation, > and to respond in a growing complexity of ways to that situation? (Ibid, > p. 153). > > It is unfortunate that the Spoilsport article seeks to compare examples of > praxis in an apples > and oranges way to draw out unwarranted generalizations about all drama in > education. She compares examples of teaching on different topics, for > different > purposes, and with access to very different data: a short segment of a 45 > year > old videoed drama with children is compared to an extended sequence of > exchanges and events in a higher education institution taught recently by > the > author. The drama example analyzed is a brief extract from the first few > minutes of a BBC film about Dorothy Heathcote made for commercial not > educational purposes. Missing from the film is all of Heathcote?s > out-of-role > negotiations and reflections with these children all of whom had been > labeled > as ?delinquent? and had in effect been ?cast out? into this special school > for > youth. > > Marjanovic-Shane misses the point that Heathcote was playing with the > children, including through her > early use of power in role, not to force them to do what they did not want > to > do but rather the reverse. Marjanovic-Shane further assumes that in drama, > participants do not ?test their own ideas ? their truths? and that > teachers do > not seek out or value ?dissensus.? Yet that was Heathcote?s aim as it is > ours. Heathcote?s > intention in this session was to work with the children to create > fictional experiences > in which by working together the boys were not only able to work out ways > in > which they might outwit an authoritarian regime represented by her in role > as a > Nazi officer but further to reflect on an issue of importance to them: why > might > someone choose to dissent by becoming an informant and a collaborator? > > Marjanovic-Shane assumes that the purpose of drama in education is to > ?socialize? participants whereas dialogic pedagogy seeks to > ?deepen critical examinations of any aspect of life.? Whilst socialization > may > be a declared or implicit purpose there are drama practitioners across > decades > of work who would also share Marjanovic-Shane?s aim and who have > extensively > documented how participants working with a teacher may engage in extensive > critical > cultural analysis of how power operates in society (e.g. Medina & Campano, > 2006; Enciso, 2011; O?Connor & Anderson, 2015). > > In summary, the explicit premise of Marjanovic-Shane?s > argument is that drama work is non-dialogic because participants must > participate in making a fictional world, which appears to be on the > teachers? > terms. This is an ill-informed representation of drama?s potential in the > classroom. Decades of documentation and analysis would show otherwise . > Marjanovic Shane seems to dismiss the imagined possibilities that can be > explored through drama and unwilling to engage in dialogue about the > different > ways that drama could in fact be dialogic. Rather than being restricted to > dialogue in the ?real? world with people sharing critical views, > participants in > drama can collaboratively test out multiple alternatives to what seems > ?real? and > fixed. In drama everyone can contribute dialogically to create different > possible > versions of reality, multiple possible outcomes, alternative viewpoints, > and > new understandings. The social and cultural power of drama is that people > may > change their views, understand more about themselves, others, and the > world we > live in. Surely that is what all good pedagogues would hope and desire. > > > Susan Davis and Brian Edmiston > Central Queensland University & The Ohio State University > s.davis@cqu.edu.au, edmiston.1@osu.edu > > > > > > References > Enciso, P. (2011). Storytelling in critical > literacy pedagogy: Removing the walls between immigrant and non-immigrant > youth. In H. Janks & V. Vasquez (Eds.) Special Issue: Critical Literacy > Revisited: Writing as Critique for English Teaching: Practice and > Critique, 10, 1, 21-40. > Heathcote, D. (1984). Collected writings > on education and drama. L. Johnson & C. O?Neill (Eds.). Melbourne: > Hutchinson. > Heathcote, > D. (2002). Contexts for active learning - > Four models to forge links between schooling and society. Paper presented > at the NATD Annual Conference, Birmingham. > http://www.moeplanning.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/dh-contexts-for-act > ive-learning.pdf > Medina, C. & Campano, G. (2006). Performing > Identities through Drama and Teatro Practices in Multilingual Classrooms. > Language Arts, 83 (4), 332-341. > Turner, Victor (1974). Dramas, Fields, and > Metaphors: Symbolic Action in Human Society. Ithaca/London: Cornell > University > Press. > O?Connor, P. & Anderson, M. (2015). Applied Theatre Research: Radical > Departures. > London: Bloomsbury Methuen Drama. > O?Neill, C. > (2014) Power-sharing: Teacher power and student choices. in P. Bowell, P & > C. > Lawrence (Eds), Heathcote Reconsidered - > Conference Echoes (ebook), London: National Drama, 13-31 > > > > > > > > On 29/02/2016 7:49 am, "Dr. Ana Marjanovic-Shane" > wrote: > > >Dear Sue, > > > >I am looking forward to your feedback and critique. > > > >Ana > > > > > >> On Feb 28, 2016, at 4:00 PM, Susan Davis wrote: > >> > >> Hi all, > >> > >> Thank you Larry, Helen and Ana for your comments. > >> > >> Helen - always lovely to find out who else is out there exploring the > >> possibilities of working with the arts to bring about transformative > >> learning and Larry I really like that proposition that in drama the > >> premise begins with ?I can? and then moves to ?I think?. That is very > >> much the case with drama, and sometimes children/participants are very > >> nervous or uncertain when they begin a drama process, often because they > >> begin from a position of ?I can?t? but through the acts of doing they > >> begin to see that they in fact can do and become. > >> > >> Ana I would agree with the first part of your statement about drama in > >> education being used to help socialise students into socially recognised > >> valuable practices and would think that was a good thing given research > >> that shows reductions in empathy in young people in recent times. I > >>have > >> concerns with the rest of your proposition and the sweeping nature of > >>the > >> critique. > >> > >> A colleague and I have been preparing a short response to your article > >>and > >> I will check with him to see if he is happy for me to post it here. > >> > >> I would of course be happy to hear other ?dialogue? as well. > >> > >> Kind regards > >> > >> Sue > >> > >> > >> On 29/02/2016 2:35 am, "Ana Marjanovic-Shane" >>> wrote: > >> > >>> Dear all, > >>> > >>> Thanks for starting this thread about drama in education. I recently > >>> published a paper that takes a critical stance toward Heathcote's > >>>drama in > >>> education approach and other approaches to education that are based on > >>> some form of drama, play and/or improv - *"Spoilsport" in Drama in > >>> education vs dialogic pedagogy*. > >>> To play a "spoilsport" myself, in this paper, I claim that Drama in > >>> Education belongs to an educational paradigm that is mainly based on > >>> socialization of students into the socially recognized valuable > >>>practices, > >>> values and understanding of the world, which are heavily based on > >>> agreement, collaboration and following of the authority, without > >>>students > >>> having legitimate rights and a possibilities to critically disagree, > >>> provide different points of view and question the existing social > >>> practices, values and ways of understanding the world. In other words, > >>>in > >>> this educational paradigm - students' disenssus, critical approach to > >>> testing different ideas, views, desires, values, etc. is actively > >>> suppressed, or at best limited, curbed and restricted. > >>> > >>> In the paper I provide a detailed analysis of (a part of) the same > >>>video > >>> posted here earlier - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owKiUO99qrw. > >>>Below > >>> is the abstract of my paper. If interested - you can get it at Dialogic > >>> Pedagogy Journal website - > >>> http://dpj.pitt.edu/ojs/index.php/dpj1/article/view/151 > >>> > >>> So, what do you think? > >>> > >>> Ana > >>> > >>> ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ > >>> "Spoilsport" in Drama in education vs dialogic pedagogy > >>> Abstract > >>> > >>> In this paper two educational paradigms that both attempt to overcome > >>> alienation often experienced by students in the conventional education. > >>> These two educational paradigms are embodied in different educational > >>> practices: First, Drama in Education in its widest definition, is > >>>based on > >>> the Vygotskian views that human cognitive, semantic (meaning-making), > >>>and > >>> social-emotional development happens in or through play and/or > >>> imagination, > >>> thus within the imagined worlds. Second, Critical Ontological Dialogic > >>> Pedagogy, is based in the Bakhtin inspired approach to critical > >>>dialogue > >>> among the ?consciousnesses of equal rights? (Bakhtin, 1999), where > >>> education is assumed to be a practice of examination of the world, the > >>> others and the self. I reveal implicit and explicit conceptual > >>> similarities > >>> and differences between these two educational paradigms regarding their > >>> understanding the nature of learning; social values that they promote; > >>>the > >>> group dynamics, social relationships and the position of learners? > >>> subjectivity. I aim to uncover the role and legitimacy of the learners? > >>> disagreement with the positions of others, their dissensus with the > >>> educational events and settings, and the relationships of power within > >>>the > >>> social organization of educational communities in these two diverse > >>> educational approaches. I explore the legitimacy of dissensus in these > >>>two > >>> educational approaches regarding both the participants? critical > >>> examination of the curriculum, and in regard to promoting the > >>> participants? > >>> agency and its transformations. In spite of important similarities > >>>between > >>> the educational practices arranged by these two paradigms, the > >>>analysis of > >>> their differences points to the paradigmatically opposing views on > >>>human > >>> development, learning and education. Although both Drama in Education > >>>and > >>> Dialogic Pedagogy claim to deeply, fully and ontologically engage the > >>> learners in the process of education, they do it for different purposes > >>> and > >>> with diametrically opposite ways of treating the students and their > >>> relationship to the world, each other and their own developing selves. > >>> > >>> >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > > > Dr Susan Davis > Senior Lecturer | School of Education & the Arts | Higher Education > Division > CQUniversity Australia, Noosa Campus | > PO Box 1128, Qld 4566 > P +61 (0)7 5440 7007 | X 547007 | M +61 418 763 428 > L https://www.linkedin.com/in/suedavisnoosa > RG | https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Susan_Davis7 > Profile | http://profiles.cqu.edu.au/profiles/view/272 > Latest > publication: > https://www.sensepublishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/imagination-and-praxis/ > learning-that-matters/ > > > This communication may contain privileged or confidential information. If > you have received this in error, > please return to sender and delete. CRICOS: 00219C | RTO Code 40939 > > > > > > > > >>> > > -- It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an object that creates history. Ernst Boesch From mcole@ucsd.edu Mon Feb 29 17:53:38 2016 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Mon, 29 Feb 2016 17:53:38 -0800 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Heathcote and Immagination In-Reply-To: References: <1D219F01-CF79-47CF-9A0E-86E720B47526@umich.edu> Message-ID: Seems like the section on imagination you mention, Susan, fits right in with that thread of xmca discussion. Linking drama and imagination seems essential to me and you mention several who have done so effectively. You also remind me to go back and re-read Maxine Greene! Now I am further behind than ever. Better stop reading. :-) Ed, do you have that discussion pulled out and re-examined. It left a LOT of questions unanswered. Maybe we need a header called drama and imagination? If so, I vote we add Raymond Williams to the discussion. mike On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 12:39 PM, Susan Davis wrote: > Hi Ed > > Both Vygotsky and Heathcote both understood that the work of the > imagination is not only an individual mental exercise but in inspired by > and is expressed through interactions with others, conceptual tools and > ultimately material means and artefacts. > > I think Vygotksy described the different ways imagination worked very well > indeed and I have summarised that in the book. Some key quotes from him > include: > Everything the imagination creates is always based on elements taken from > reality, from a person?s previous > experience. The most fantastic creations are nothing other than a new > combination of elements that have ultimately been extracted from reality. > (p. 13) > > The first law of creativity: The > act of imagination depends directly on the richness and variety of a > person?s > previous experience because this experience provides the material from > which > the products of creativity are constructed. The richer a person?s > experience, > the richer is the material his imagination has access to. Great works and > discoveries are always the result of an enormous amount of previously > accumulated experience. The implication of this for education is that, if > we > want to build a relatively strong foundation for a child?s creativity, > what we > must do is broaden the experiences we provide him with.(pp. 14-15) > > > The right kind of education > involves awakening in the child what already exists within him, helping > him to > develop it and directing this development in a particular direction. (p. > 51) > ?Vygotsky, > L. (2004) ?Imagination and creativity in childhood.? Journal of Russian > and Was tEuropean PsychologyVol. 42 No. 1. > > > > This work recognises therefore that to inspire imagination means ?feeding? > the imagination and it is therefore the teacher?s responsibility to work > with children and bring in various tools, processes and provocations that > will draw them into creative processes. > > In terms of working in drama I think the notion of the social imagination > comes into play (though that is a term more closely associated with Maxine > Green) and collectively a group creates something together - something > that did not exist previously and which would not exist in the same form > if created individually. In that sense it is helpful to draw on the > language of improvised drama to understand the process - someone > generally makes an ?offer? to begin the imaginative exploration, > practically speaking in embodied action it can be a physical or verbal > offer. Multiple offers can at times be made but one has to be accepted, > and then extended upon. This process keeps going and as those who have > studied improvised drama knows, the key is then to draw the threads > together and find an appropriate conclusion. Now what this means in > practice is a fluid interplay of power shifts as people forfeit their > right to have their every idea accepted (which is unworkable), trusting > that if they go with the one that is on the table or seems to ?grab? > people, they will be able to contribute and that the outcome will be > something that they are a part of and will be worthwhile. That is social > imagination in action. Decisions are often made in the moment - not after > exhaustive dialogue - although reflection on what has gone on and been > created often occurs afterwards. This is especially the case if you were > to be devising a new work. The whole process has to be underpinned by a > sense of trust and a belief that as a group the give and take of the > process will generate something that has been worth the effort. It doesn?t > always, but that is often part of the educational process with children > and participants - 'what do you feel worked, what didn?t, what offers > ended up proving fruitful, were there ?blocks? that we couldn?t work > around? If we did it again what would you change?? and so on. (see some > of Keith Sawyer?s work on improvisation for more insights on how these > processes work and why he believes improvised theatre is perhaps the > highest form of creativity) > > It is writerly in Barthes sense in that while a ?text' has often been > initiated, it is deliberately left unfinished and the participants must > make imaginative leaps, connections and new solutions to be able to > complete the text or dramatic encounter. What is also interesting in a > drama process is that you can play it multiple times, from different > perspectives and something different can be revealed each time. In Boal?s > work with forum theatre people from an audience and the disenfranchised > are also invited to step up and take on a role within a version (as > spectactors), therefore finding ways to shift power dynamics and to > explore alternative solutions. > > > I hope this is of interest. > Cheers > Sue > > > > > > On 1/03/2016 4:58 am, "Ed Wall" wrote: > > >Susan > > > > Coming a little late to this conversation and thinking about your > >comments last July on Vygotsky and imagination, I was wondering if any of > >that played a large role in your book. In particular and if so, how did > >Heathcote, one might say, pragmatically theorize imagination? It seems, > >given, what you have written in the present thread that she seems to have > >created moments through a stance that "respected and worked with the > >material they offered, drawing out significance, considering the > >implications and working dialogically with very alternative views from > >her own.? This, in some of the literature, is indicative of an > >imaginative ?leap? that is stabilized in the ?waking state.? In a sense, > >the moment becomes, in somewhat the sense of Barthes, ?writeable.' > > > >Ed Wall > > > >> On Feb 24, 2016, at 5:32 AM, Susan Davis wrote: > >> > >> Thanks Robert, > >> It?s great to have the book published as part of your series. The book > >>is > >> called ?Learning that matters: Revitalising Heathcote?s Rolling Role for > >> the digital age?. > >> > >> > https://www.sensepublishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/imagination-and-praxi > >>s/ > >> learning-that-matters/ > >> > >> For those who haven?t heard of Heathcote before, she was a ?master? > >> teacher who achieved international recognition for her teaching practice > >> in the 70s and 80s - in particular for pioneering processes such as > >>Mantle > >> of the Expert - which use role and fictional contexts to position > >>children > >> as ?experts? and active agents in investigative processes. She also > >> invented this system called ?Rolling Role? which is a form of > >> trans-disciplinary learning - where multiple classes work with the same > >> common context, but from their particular frame or subject perspective. > >> The beauty of it is that no one group ?owns? the outcome, but groups > >> regularly ?publish? and share artefacts and outcomes throughout the > >> process, with each group having to use and ?roll? the work of what has > >> gone before. It was a system she believed was perfectly suited for > >> revisiting in the digital age? so that is what the book hopes to assist > >> with? the Vygotskian and CHAT work was very helpful in conceptualising > >>and > >> understanding this work. > >> > >> At times reading the work of Vygotsky and Heathcote it felt like they > >> could have been writing about education today! > >> > >> Educational experience, no less than theoretical research, > >> teaches us that, in practice, a straightforward learning of concepts > >>always > >> proves impossible and educationally fruitless. Usually, any teacher > >> setting out > >> on this road achieves nothing except a meaningless acquisition of words, > >> mere > >> verbalization in children, which is nothing more than simulation and > >> imitation > >> of corresponding concepts which, in reality, are concealing a vacuum. > >>In > >> such cases, the child assimilates not > >> concepts but words, and he fills his memory more than his thinking. As a > >> result, he ends up helpless in the face of any sensible attempt to apply > >> any of > >> this acquired knowledge. Essentially, this method of teaching/learning > >> concepts, a purely scholastic and verbal method of teaching, which is > >> condemned > >> by everybody and which advocates the replacement of acquisition of > >>living > >> knowledge by the assimilation of dead and empty verbal schemes, > >>represents > >> the > >> most basic failing in the field of education. (Vygotsky 1934/1994a, pp. > >> 356-7) > >> > >> > >> So ? getting rid of the dummy run. On the face of it you > >> have a rather interesting paradox in drama, because it looks like drama > >>is > >> entirely artificial and that the whole thing would be a dummy run ? we > >>are > >> only > >> pretending actually. And we use words > >> like pretend and play and in our culture it does suggest that it?s > >> ephemeral > >> and there?s no real work/life purpose for it?. So it seems to me we > >>need to > >> look and see what it is that makes something NOT feel like a dummy run? > >> It seemed to me that one of the important aspects of not > >> being a dummy run is that it matters now, we feel like its urgent now. > >> (Heathcote 1993, Tape 9) > >> > >> > >> > >> Cheers > >> Sue > >> > >> > >> Dr Susan Davis > >> Senior Lecturer | School of Education & the Arts | Higher Education > >> Division > >> CQUniversity Australia, Noosa Campus | > >> PO Box 1128, Qld 4566 > >> P +61 (0)7 5440 7007 | X 547007 | M +61 400 000 000| E > >>s.davis@cqu.edu.au > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On 24/02/2016 12:14 am, "Robert Lake" > >>wrote: > >> > >>> ?Susan Davis has published a book that weaves LSV, Dorothy Heathcote > >>>and > >>> CHAT > >>> into one seamless, present tense unfolding of "rolling role". If anyone > >>> would like to write a review of it I can get you a copy. It has been > >>>five > >>> years since Heathcote's passing and I suspect her work will become more > >>> and > >>> more important in this era of standardized everything. > >>> > >>> *Robert Lake* > >>> > >>> https://www.sensepublishers.com/media/2709-learning-that-matters.pdf > >>> > >>> > >>> For a sense of the dynamic of Dorothy's pedagogy, scroll to about 5 > >>> minutes into this. > >>> > >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owKiUO99qrw > >> > >> > > > > > > > -- It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an object that creates history. Ernst Boesch From s.davis@cqu.edu.au Mon Feb 29 18:28:21 2016 From: s.davis@cqu.edu.au (Susan Davis) Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2016 02:28:21 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Response to Spoilsport: Beyond oppositional dualities in drama in education and dialogic pedagogy to promote learning possibilities In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Mike, Our apologies for posting what appears as a formal response to Ana?s article. I guess our main concerns relate to her setting up multiples fields of scholarship and practice as ?drama in education? which are then critiqued in a negative and oppositional to dialogic pedagogy using terms such as ?irreconcilable?. In terms of the ?spoilsport' article itself we have real concerns about certain features of the scholarship of it. Firstly we are concerned with the use of a 1955 quote with no credence in our field being used to underpin the premise and inference that in drama education those who don?t with to participate or hold different views are labeled spoilsports and cast out. Secondly we are concerned about the evidence being used to support such claims being the comparison of two examples which have no common basis for comparison (a short extract from a highly edited commercial film of a drama with children, compared to an account of various events related to discussions in a teacher education course) Thirdly we feel that opinion has been used to make assertions about a lack of critical student voice and power in drama, when decades of research have now demonstrated otherwise. Ironically with Ana?s positioning there appears to be no room for dialogue about what might be possible in conceiving of a pedagogy that may be described as being both dramatic and dialogic. In the dialogic pedagogy paradigm Ana seems to subscribe to, it also appears there is no room for any positive dialogue, any shifts or resolutions, but almost that dialogue must begin with and maintain resistant and oppositional positions. She also seems to see no possibility for dialogic pedagogy through working within dramatic ?imaginary? frames if the teacher or facilitator has had anything to do with determining the starting point or framing. I guess our response then to the article is that it just makes us feel really quite sad, as we have seen the benefits of such a pedagogy and embrace opportunities for its continual re-examination and renewal. However, as far as we are concerned? the door is still open... Kind regards Sue & Brian. On 1/03/2016 11:28 am, "mike cole" wrote: >Susan et al. > >I have not commented on this discussion because events have prevented me >from watching the film and reading the relevant papers. I am very >interested in drama so I hope I can catch up at some point. > >I comment now only on the genre of the discussion. Susan and Brian have >posted a next turn in the conversation that began after Ana posted her >paper and posed what appears to be two different ideas about the role of >drama in education. But it is a special kind of next turn because it is >responding on xmca where Ana is Ana and not Marjanovic-Shane. > >I would not want the formal tone of Marjanovic-Shane and footnotes to >allow >us to think we have slipped from the realm of collegial chatting into the >realm of refereed journal articles! > >I really appreciate all the work that went into the formal reply, and it >made me wonder just what it is that Susan, Brian, and Ana appear to be >disagreeing over. > >Without looking, I expected the big issue to be whether or not kids >entering into dramatic activity at school, whatever its venue, have the >power to change the plot. But it seems much more is involved. > >If I could only get myself disentangled in this darn 5th Dimension I live >in, I would have a chance to catch up, but one thing keeps leading to >another....... > >Dialogically and Dramatically Speaking >mike > > > >On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 10:09 PM, Susan Davis wrote: > >> As scholars and practitioners committed to the use of drama for >> educational purposes we wish to >> respond briefly to Ana Marjanovic-Shane?s article: ?Spoilsport? in >>drama in >> education vs. dialogic pedagogy. Our intention is to provide some of our >> shared >> professional understanding of drama?s use in educational contexts that >>we >> hope >> will illuminate some of the misunderstandings we find in this article. >>At >> the >> same time, we look forward to future productive dialogue about what we >> regard >> as potential overlaps between these pedagogical approaches. >> >> We need to stress from the start that there is no unified >> field named ?drama in education? that would extend to >> those who work within playworlds, or practice psychodrama and so forth >>as >> claimed by Marjanovic-Shane. We confine our remarks to the field that we >> are >> knowledgeable about and from which Marjanovic-Shane draws her example: a >> classroom use of drama described by Heathcote as ?drama in education? or >> ?educational drama? and more recently as process drama, applied theatre, >> and >> dramatic inquiry, among other terms. In fact these fields of practice >> have arisen from very different communities in progressive >> school education, educational psychology, early childhood, and play all >>of >> whom >> independently discovered the power of using drama in their practice. >>There >> have >> only recently been some nascent interactions between these groups (see >>for >> example the book ?Dramatic Interactions in Education? >> < >> >>http://www.bloomsbury.com/au/dramatic-interactions-in-education-978147257 >>6 >> 910/> which we published last year) to find areas of common interest and >> concern. As with >> those who identify with the field of ?dialogic pedagogy? we look >>forward to >> more fruitful discussions and debates about research, practice and >> approaches >> which work for the benefit of students and participants in learning >> processes. >> >> There is no space in this response to show in detail why we resist the >> dichotomy established in this article, believing such are rarely >>helpful. >> However, we do can not agree with Marjanovic-Shane?s conclusion that >> any dramatic pedagogy cannot be dialogic or that there are >>irreconcilable >> paradigmatic >> differences between these pedagogical approaches. >> >> In our view, she is correct in identifying that a pre-requisite for >>using >> drama in classrooms is an implicit, if not explicit, agreement to play >>the >> ?game of drama? and in effect to begin to create an ensemble and >> enter into social worlds. However, rather than characterizing such >>social >> agreement as somehow different from real life, we argue that there is >> little >> difference from the tacit agreement to join in the ?social drama? of >> everyday >> life (Turner, 1974), as for example university students do by agreeing >>to >> participate in a discussion. However drama has the additional sphere of >> possibility that can be physically and conceptually explored through the >> activation of ?what if? in action. >> >> Unlike discussion, drama is a social art that can only be created when a >> group comes together willingly to collaborate in dramatizing >> life events. There is indeed a consensus but only about agreeing to work >> together or to focus dramatizing on a particular storyline, topic, or >> concern; >> there is no consensus assumed about the meaning of the work. >> >> Using drama in a classroom does not assume that a student cannot choose >> not to join in or cannot opt out at any point. >> Participants may present or raise different views that may be addressed >> dialogically. Agreeing to join in is not an experience of being >>?trapped? >> by a >> teacher with no exit in sight. Nor does it mean that a teacher would >>label >> someone a ?spoilsport? to be ?cast out.? We have conducted many >>practical >> sessions when not only have people chosen to sit out, some of whom have >> later >> chosen to join in, but we have protected young people from others in a >> group >> ready to ?discipline? them. Just as a person who does not join a theatre >> group >> cannot create a performance, or a preschool child choosing not to play >> with others >> may engage in other activities, not participating in drama just means >>that >> a >> person cannot contribute at that time to the collaborative creation of >> events >> in an imagined world. >> >> Marjanovic-Shane uses a highly selective video extract from a 1971 drama >> session featuring the master teacher Dorothy Heathcote to >> infer that Heathcote dragoons students into a drama within which their >> choices >> and alternative views are closed down. However, as O?Neill shared in the >> keynote address Power-sharing: Teacher power >> and student choices, where she describes another more recent 2007 drama >> conducted in the U.S., Heathcote >> worked with all major offers children made, never adopting an >>authoritarian >> position but asking participants to consider the consequences of their >> actions. >> When a group of boys invented a bomb which ?blew? up a celebratory event >> in a >> drama, Heathcote said: ?There is nothing we do in this room that isn?t >> happening somewhere in the world? (Heathcote in O?Neill 2014, p 26). >>Even >> though others in the room were horrified and expected her to castigate >>the >> boys >> involved, Heathcote respected and worked with the material they offered, >> drawing out >> significance, considering the implications and working dialogically with >> very >> alternative views from her own. >> >> Marjanovic-Shane assumes that a teacher?s authority in drama is >> authoritarian and that a leader of drama is in danger of becoming a >> fascist dictator. Whilst it is certainly possible for a teacher to >>misuse >> her >> authority oppressively or with very limited choice for how people might >> participate (as in the Ron Jones simulation example she uses which has >> never >> been seen as a lighthouse model of drama in education) that is never our >> intention nor would it be endorsed in the literature. It is true that at >> times Heathcote >> can quite rightly be described as acting in ?authoritative? roles within >> dramatic contexts, but she fiercely resisted pressures to take on >> authoritarian >> teacher positions. >> >> Indeed, Heathcote (1984) herself is quite clear that as a teacher she >> intends to ?bring power to my students and to draw on their >> power? (p.21). Heathcote saw the teacher?s role as one that should not >> bully or take away power from >> others, but rather that should enable them to develop their agency. Her >> commitment to endowing power and agency to others is shared through an >> interesting insight in her paper Contexts for Active Learning. Here >> Heathcote revealed that her drama and teaching >> strategies were all developed so she would never have to be in a >>position >> to >> ?tell people off? (Heathcote, 2002, p.1). However, counter to many >> romanticised notions of an open, free for all classroom, this version of >> the >> democratized classroom was not a hands-off model with students making >>all >> the >> decisions. Rather, she envisions a classroom with episodes that were >>highly >> interventionist and carefully structured. These often involved >> provocations and >> active negotiations, with Heathcote playing multi-functional roles, >> constantly >> selecting and making decisions, but always working to ensure that the >> students >> were invested, contributing, and collaboratively developing work that >> would be meaningful >> in multiple ways for all participants. >> H >> eathcote intended not just to create dramatic experiences but also to >> create spaces in which all might dialogue and reflect >> to explore for multiple possible meanings in the work: ?If you cannot >> increase >> the reflective power in people you might as well not teach, because >> reflection >> is the only thing that in the long run changes anybody? (Ibid, p. 104). >> Finally, Heathcote was emphatic that all participants in drama, ?be >> recognized >> fully as individuals with rights [including] the power to affect a >> situation, >> and to respond in a growing complexity of ways to that situation? (Ibid, >> p. 153). >> >> It is unfortunate that the Spoilsport article seeks to compare examples >>of >> praxis in an apples >> and oranges way to draw out unwarranted generalizations about all drama >>in >> education. She compares examples of teaching on different topics, for >> different >> purposes, and with access to very different data: a short segment of a >>45 >> year >> old videoed drama with children is compared to an extended sequence of >> exchanges and events in a higher education institution taught recently >>by >> the >> author. The drama example analyzed is a brief extract from the first few >> minutes of a BBC film about Dorothy Heathcote made for commercial not >> educational purposes. Missing from the film is all of Heathcote?s >> out-of-role >> negotiations and reflections with these children all of whom had been >> labeled >> as ?delinquent? and had in effect been ?cast out? into this special >>school >> for >> youth. >> >> Marjanovic-Shane misses the point that Heathcote was playing with the >> children, including through her >> early use of power in role, not to force them to do what they did not >>want >> to >> do but rather the reverse. Marjanovic-Shane further assumes that in >>drama, >> participants do not ?test their own ideas ? their truths? and that >> teachers do >> not seek out or value ?dissensus.? Yet that was Heathcote?s aim as it is >> ours. Heathcote?s >> intention in this session was to work with the children to create >> fictional experiences >> in which by working together the boys were not only able to work out >>ways >> in >> which they might outwit an authoritarian regime represented by her in >>role >> as a >> Nazi officer but further to reflect on an issue of importance to them: >>why >> might >> someone choose to dissent by becoming an informant and a collaborator? >> >> Marjanovic-Shane assumes that the purpose of drama in education is to >> ?socialize? participants whereas dialogic pedagogy seeks to >> ?deepen critical examinations of any aspect of life.? Whilst >>socialization >> may >> be a declared or implicit purpose there are drama practitioners across >> decades >> of work who would also share Marjanovic-Shane?s aim and who have >> extensively >> documented how participants working with a teacher may engage in >>extensive >> critical >> cultural analysis of how power operates in society (e.g. Medina & >>Campano, >> 2006; Enciso, 2011; O?Connor & Anderson, 2015). >> >> In summary, the explicit premise of Marjanovic-Shane?s >> argument is that drama work is non-dialogic because participants must >> participate in making a fictional world, which appears to be on the >> teachers? >> terms. This is an ill-informed representation of drama?s potential in >>the >> classroom. Decades of documentation and analysis would show otherwise . >> Marjanovic Shane seems to dismiss the imagined possibilities that can be >> explored through drama and unwilling to engage in dialogue about the >> different >> ways that drama could in fact be dialogic. Rather than being restricted >>to >> dialogue in the ?real? world with people sharing critical views, >> participants in >> drama can collaboratively test out multiple alternatives to what seems >> ?real? and >> fixed. In drama everyone can contribute dialogically to create different >> possible >> versions of reality, multiple possible outcomes, alternative viewpoints, >> and >> new understandings. The social and cultural power of drama is that >>people >> may >> change their views, understand more about themselves, others, and the >> world we >> live in. Surely that is what all good pedagogues would hope and desire. >> >> >> Susan Davis and Brian Edmiston >> Central Queensland University & The Ohio State University >> s.davis@cqu.edu.au, edmiston.1@osu.edu >> >> >> >> >> >> References >> Enciso, P. (2011). Storytelling in critical >> literacy pedagogy: Removing the walls between immigrant and >>non-immigrant >> youth. In H. Janks & V. Vasquez (Eds.) Special Issue: Critical Literacy >> Revisited: Writing as Critique for English Teaching: Practice and >> Critique, 10, 1, 21-40. >> Heathcote, D. (1984). Collected writings >> on education and drama. L. Johnson & C. O?Neill (Eds.). Melbourne: >> Hutchinson. >> Heathcote, >> D. (2002). Contexts for active learning - >> Four models to forge links between schooling and society. Paper >>presented >> at the NATD Annual Conference, Birmingham. >> >>http://www.moeplanning.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/dh-contexts-for-a >>ct >> ive-learning.pdf >> Medina, C. & Campano, G. (2006). Performing >> Identities through Drama and Teatro Practices in Multilingual >>Classrooms. >> Language Arts, 83 (4), 332-341. >> Turner, Victor (1974). Dramas, Fields, and >> Metaphors: Symbolic Action in Human Society. Ithaca/London: Cornell >> University >> Press. >> O?Connor, P. & Anderson, M. (2015). Applied Theatre Research: Radical >> Departures. >> London: Bloomsbury Methuen Drama. >> O?Neill, C. >> (2014) Power-sharing: Teacher power and student choices. in P. Bowell, >>P & >> C. >> Lawrence (Eds), Heathcote Reconsidered - >> Conference Echoes (ebook), London: National Drama, 13-31 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 29/02/2016 7:49 am, "Dr. Ana Marjanovic-Shane" >> wrote: >> >> >Dear Sue, >> > >> >I am looking forward to your feedback and critique. >> > >> >Ana >> > >> > >> >> On Feb 28, 2016, at 4:00 PM, Susan Davis wrote: >> >> >> >> Hi all, >> >> >> >> Thank you Larry, Helen and Ana for your comments. >> >> >> >> Helen - always lovely to find out who else is out there exploring the >> >> possibilities of working with the arts to bring about transformative >> >> learning and Larry I really like that proposition that in drama the >> >> premise begins with ?I can? and then moves to ?I think?. That is >>very >> >> much the case with drama, and sometimes children/participants are >>very >> >> nervous or uncertain when they begin a drama process, often because >>they >> >> begin from a position of ?I can?t? but through the acts of doing they >> >> begin to see that they in fact can do and become. >> >> >> >> Ana I would agree with the first part of your statement about drama >>in >> >> education being used to help socialise students into socially >>recognised >> >> valuable practices and would think that was a good thing given >>research >> >> that shows reductions in empathy in young people in recent times. I >> >>have >> >> concerns with the rest of your proposition and the sweeping nature of >> >>the >> >> critique. >> >> >> >> A colleague and I have been preparing a short response to your >>article >> >>and >> >> I will check with him to see if he is happy for me to post it here. >> >> >> >> I would of course be happy to hear other ?dialogue? as well. >> >> >> >> Kind regards >> >> >> >> Sue >> >> >> >> >> >> On 29/02/2016 2:35 am, "Ana Marjanovic-Shane" > >>> wrote: >> >> >> >>> Dear all, >> >>> >> >>> Thanks for starting this thread about drama in education. I recently >> >>> published a paper that takes a critical stance toward Heathcote's >> >>>drama in >> >>> education approach and other approaches to education that are based >>on >> >>> some form of drama, play and/or improv - *"Spoilsport" in Drama in >> >>> education vs dialogic pedagogy*. >> >>> To play a "spoilsport" myself, in this paper, I claim that Drama in >> >>> Education belongs to an educational paradigm that is mainly based on >> >>> socialization of students into the socially recognized valuable >> >>>practices, >> >>> values and understanding of the world, which are heavily based on >> >>> agreement, collaboration and following of the authority, without >> >>>students >> >>> having legitimate rights and a possibilities to critically disagree, >> >>> provide different points of view and question the existing social >> >>> practices, values and ways of understanding the world. In other >>words, >> >>>in >> >>> this educational paradigm - students' disenssus, critical approach >>to >> >>> testing different ideas, views, desires, values, etc. is actively >> >>> suppressed, or at best limited, curbed and restricted. >> >>> >> >>> In the paper I provide a detailed analysis of (a part of) the same >> >>>video >> >>> posted here earlier - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owKiUO99qrw. >> >>>Below >> >>> is the abstract of my paper. If interested - you can get it at >>Dialogic >> >>> Pedagogy Journal website - >> >>> http://dpj.pitt.edu/ojs/index.php/dpj1/article/view/151 >> >>> >> >>> So, what do you think? >> >>> >> >>> Ana >> >>> >> >>> ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ >> >>> "Spoilsport" in Drama in education vs dialogic pedagogy >> >>> Abstract >> >>> >> >>> In this paper two educational paradigms that both attempt to >>overcome >> >>> alienation often experienced by students in the conventional >>education. >> >>> These two educational paradigms are embodied in different >>educational >> >>> practices: First, Drama in Education in its widest definition, is >> >>>based on >> >>> the Vygotskian views that human cognitive, semantic >>(meaning-making), >> >>>and >> >>> social-emotional development happens in or through play and/or >> >>> imagination, >> >>> thus within the imagined worlds. Second, Critical Ontological >>Dialogic >> >>> Pedagogy, is based in the Bakhtin inspired approach to critical >> >>>dialogue >> >>> among the ?consciousnesses of equal rights? (Bakhtin, 1999), where >> >>> education is assumed to be a practice of examination of the world, >>the >> >>> others and the self. I reveal implicit and explicit conceptual >> >>> similarities >> >>> and differences between these two educational paradigms regarding >>their >> >>> understanding the nature of learning; social values that they >>promote; >> >>>the >> >>> group dynamics, social relationships and the position of learners? >> >>> subjectivity. I aim to uncover the role and legitimacy of the >>learners? >> >>> disagreement with the positions of others, their dissensus with the >> >>> educational events and settings, and the relationships of power >>within >> >>>the >> >>> social organization of educational communities in these two diverse >> >>> educational approaches. I explore the legitimacy of dissensus in >>these >> >>>two >> >>> educational approaches regarding both the participants? critical >> >>> examination of the curriculum, and in regard to promoting the >> >>> participants? >> >>> agency and its transformations. In spite of important similarities >> >>>between >> >>> the educational practices arranged by these two paradigms, the >> >>>analysis of >> >>> their differences points to the paradigmatically opposing views on >> >>>human >> >>> development, learning and education. Although both Drama in >>Education >> >>>and >> >>> Dialogic Pedagogy claim to deeply, fully and ontologically engage >>the >> >>> learners in the process of education, they do it for different >>purposes >> >>> and >> >>> with diametrically opposite ways of treating the students and their >> >>> relationship to the world, each other and their own developing >>selves. >> >>> >> >>> > >>>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> Dr Susan Davis >> Senior Lecturer | School of Education & the Arts | Higher Education >> Division >> CQUniversity Australia, Noosa Campus | >> PO Box 1128, Qld 4566 >> P +61 (0)7 5440 7007 | X 547007 | M +61 418 763 428 >> L https://www.linkedin.com/in/suedavisnoosa >> RG | https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Susan_Davis7 >> Profile | http://profiles.cqu.edu.au/profiles/view/272 >> Latest >> publication: >> >>https://www.sensepublishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/imagination-and-praxi >>s/ >> learning-that-matters/ >> >> >> This communication may contain privileged or confidential information. >>If >> you have received this in error, >> please return to sender and delete. CRICOS: 00219C | RTO Code 40939 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> > > >-- > >It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an >object >that creates history. Ernst Boesch -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: default[6].xml Type: application/xml Size: 3222 bytes Desc: default[6].xml Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20160301/3575efd0/attachment.rdf From lpscholar2@gmail.com Mon Feb 29 20:40:41 2016 From: lpscholar2@gmail.com (lpscholar2@gmail.com) Date: Mon, 29 Feb 2016 20:40:41 -0800 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Response to Spoilsport: Beyond oppositional dualities indrama in education and dialogic pedagogy to promote learning possibilities In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56d51d47.0a66420a.34ecf.1e9c@mx.google.com> As I read Ana?s entry into this genre exploring drama and dialogue through the leverage gained through the symbolic personification of the *spoilsport* I sensed her opening a conversation on various *structures of consciousness*. On page 51 Ana explores the question of what becomes *suspended* [belief or disbelief]. In other words the thematic of the relation of reality to the imaginal, the fictional, and the illusional and our ways of evaluating what we take on faith to be believed. If the *spoilsport* is imagined as a *structure of consciousness* in the form of a symbolic personification describing the *character* of this person/icon then we can ask why Ana is captured by this persona? Ana values this person because s/he shatters the play-world *itself* by withdrawing from this game. In the act of *withdrawing* this person REVEALS the relativity and fragility of these play-worlds.The spoilsport robs play of its *illusion*. Ana then focuses on the this word *illusion* calling it a pregnant word. Illusion means *literally* [in-play from illusio, illudere, inludere]. This structure of consciousness trespasses against the rules, and threatens the existence of the play community. This *figure* shatters and transfigures [even annihilates] what is assumed to be true [and natural]. This figure REVEALS different points of view through withdrawing and in the process of withdrawing opens a space/zone of new boundaries on the other side of the horizon of the taken for granted limits of shared reality. Now how does Ana identify the figure/person of the spoilsport? She identifies this *structure of consciousness* with what are called apostates, heretics, innovators, prophets, conscientious objectors, etc. Then Ana makes the case that this structure of consciousness is de/valued in both the world of high seriousness and the world of play. However, this same structure of consciousness is highly valued in critical dialogue as the *spark* that ignites or generates the dialogue which puts BOTH the illusion and the real to the test. Now Susan in taking her turn says that in process drama the spoilsport is not devalued but is INCLUDED in the play-world and is welcomed when wanting to **withdraw* from the play-world. This structure of consciousness can be *incorporated* within the place/zone or horizon of the dramatic. This genre exploring faith, belief, meaning, illusion, fiction, literal, metaphorical and their relations to what is considered real and *authentic* traverses multiple structures of consciousness and how we include or exclude the spoilsport remains an open question. There are other *figures* or *characters* personifying other structures of consciousness. This will take us far afield from the exploration of this particular personification but I will just mention in passing the figure of Hermes, who is the trickster. He may be as significant a person in play-worlds as the spoilsport. Sent from Mail for Windows From: Susan Davis Sent: Monday, February 29, 2016 6:30 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Response to Spoilsport: Beyond oppositional dualities indrama in education and dialogic pedagogy to promote learning possibilities Hi Mike, Our apologies for posting what appears as a formal response to Ana?s article. I guess our main concerns relate to her setting up multiples fields of scholarship and practice as ?drama in education? which are then critiqued in a negative and oppositional to dialogic pedagogy using terms such as ?irreconcilable?. In terms of the ?spoilsport' article itself we have real concerns about certain features of the scholarship of it. Firstly we are concerned with the use of a 1955 quote with no credence in our field being used to underpin the premise and inference that in drama education those who don?t with to participate or hold different views are labeled spoilsports and cast out. Secondly we are concerned about the evidence being used to support such claims being the comparison of two examples which have no common basis for comparison (a short extract from a highly edited commercial film of a drama with children, compared to an account of various events related to discussions in a teacher education course) Thirdly we feel that opinion has been used to make assertions about a lack of critical student voice and power in drama, when decades of research have now demonstrated otherwise. Ironically with Ana?s positioning there appears to be no room for dialogue about what might be possible in conceiving of a pedagogy that may be described as being both dramatic and dialogic. In the dialogic pedagogy paradigm Ana seems to subscribe to, it also appears there is no room for any positive dialogue, any shifts or resolutions, but almost that dialogue must begin with and maintain resistant and oppositional positions. She also seems to see no possibility for dialogic pedagogy through working within dramatic ?imaginary? frames if the teacher or facilitator has had anything to do with determining the starting point or framing. I guess our response then to the article is that it just makes us feel really quite sad, as we have seen the benefits of such a pedagogy and embrace opportunities for its continual re-examination and renewal. However, as far as we are concerned? the door is still open... Kind regards Sue & Brian. On 1/03/2016 11:28 am, "mike cole" wrote: >Susan et al. > >I have not commented on this discussion because events have prevented me >from watching the film and reading the relevant papers. I am very >interested in drama so I hope I can catch up at some point. > >I comment now only on the genre of the discussion. Susan and Brian have >posted a next turn in the conversation that began after Ana posted her >paper and posed what appears to be two different ideas about the role of >drama in education. But it is a special kind of next turn because it is >responding on xmca where Ana is Ana and not Marjanovic-Shane. > >I would not want the formal tone of Marjanovic-Shane and footnotes to >allow >us to think we have slipped from the realm of collegial chatting into the >realm of refereed journal articles! > >I really appreciate all the work that went into the formal reply, and it >made me wonder just what it is that Susan, Brian, and Ana appear to be >disagreeing over. > >Without looking, I expected the big issue to be whether or not kids >entering into dramatic activity at school, whatever its venue, have the >power to change the plot. But it seems much more is involved. > >If I could only get myself disentangled in this darn 5th Dimension I live >in, I would have a chance to catch up, but one thing keeps leading to >another....... > >Dialogically and Dramatically Speaking >mike > > > >On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 10:09 PM, Susan Davis wrote: > >> As scholars and practitioners committed to the use of drama for >> educational purposes we wish to >> respond briefly to Ana Marjanovic-Shane?s article: ?Spoilsport? in >>drama in >> education vs. dialogic pedagogy. Our intention is to provide some of our >> shared >> professional understanding of drama?s use in educational contexts that >>we >> hope >> will illuminate some of the misunderstandings we find in this article. >>At >> the >> same time, we look forward to future productive dialogue about what we >> regard >> as potential overlaps between these pedagogical approaches. >> >> We need to stress from the start that there is no unified >> field named ?drama in education? that would extend to >> those who work within playworlds, or practice psychodrama and so forth >>as >> claimed by Marjanovic-Shane. We confine our remarks to the field that we >> are >> knowledgeable about and from which Marjanovic-Shane draws her example: a >> classroom use of drama described by Heathcote as ?drama in education? or >> ?educational drama? and more recently as process drama, applied theatre, >> and >> dramatic inquiry, among other terms. In fact these fields of practice >> have arisen from very different communities in progressive >> school education, educational psychology, early childhood, and play all >>of >> whom >> independently discovered the power of using drama in their practice. >>There >> have >> only recently been some nascent interactions between these groups (see >>for >> example the book ?Dramatic Interactions in Education? >> < >> >>http://www.bloomsbury.com/au/dramatic-interactions-in-education-978147257 >>6 >> 910/> which we published last year) to find areas of common interest and >> concern. As with >> those who identify with the field of ?dialogic pedagogy? we look >>forward to >> more fruitful discussions and debates about research, practice and >> approaches >> which work for the benefit of students and participants in learning >> processes. >> >> There is no space in this response to show in detail why we resist the >> dichotomy established in this article, believing such are rarely >>helpful. >> However, we do can not agree with Marjanovic-Shane?s conclusion that >> any dramatic pedagogy cannot be dialogic or that there are >>irreconcilable >> paradigmatic >> differences between these pedagogical approaches. >> >> In our view, she is correct in identifying that a pre-requisite for >>using >> drama in classrooms is an implicit, if not explicit, agreement to play >>the >> ?game of drama? and in effect to begin to create an ensemble and >> enter into social worlds. However, rather than characterizing such >>social >> agreement as somehow different from real life, we argue that there is >> little >> difference from the tacit agreement to join in the ?social drama? of >> everyday >> life (Turner, 1974), as for example university students do by agreeing >>to >> participate in a discussion. However drama has the additional sphere of >> possibility that can be physically and conceptually explored through the >> activation of ?what if? in action. >> >> Unlike discussion, drama is a social art that can only be created when a >> group comes together willingly to collaborate in dramatizing >> life events. There is indeed a consensus but only about agreeing to work >> together or to focus dramatizing on a particular storyline, topic, or >> concern; >> there is no consensus assumed about the meaning of the work. >> >> Using drama in a classroom does not assume that a student cannot choose >> not to join in or cannot opt out at any point. >> Participants may present or raise different views that may be addressed >> dialogically. Agreeing to join in is not an experience of being >>?trapped? >> by a >> teacher with no exit in sight. Nor does it mean that a teacher would >>label >> someone a ?spoilsport? to be ?cast out.? We have conducted many >>practical >> sessions when not only have people chosen to sit out, some of whom have >> later >> chosen to join in, but we have protected young people from others in a >> group >> ready to ?discipline? them. Just as a person who does not join a theatre >> group >> cannot create a performance, or a preschool child choosing not to play >> with others >> may engage in other activities, not participating in drama just means >>that >> a >> person cannot contribute at that time to the collaborative creation of >> events >> in an imagined world. >> >> Marjanovic-Shane uses a highly selective video extract from a 1971 drama >> session featuring the master teacher Dorothy Heathcote to >> infer that Heathcote dragoons students into a drama within which their >> choices >> and alternative views are closed down. However, as O?Neill shared in the >> keynote address Power-sharing: Teacher power >> and student choices, where she describes another more recent 2007 drama >> conducted in the U.S., Heathcote >> worked with all major offers children made, never adopting an >>authoritarian >> position but asking participants to consider the consequences of their >> actions. >> When a group of boys invented a bomb which ?blew? up a celebratory event >> in a >> drama, Heathcote said: ?There is nothing we do in this room that isn?t >> happening somewhere in the world? (Heathcote in O?Neill 2014, p 26). >>Even >> though others in the room were horrified and expected her to castigate >>the >> boys >> involved, Heathcote respected and worked with the material they offered, >> drawing out >> significance, considering the implications and working dialogically with >> very >> alternative views from her own. >> >> Marjanovic-Shane assumes that a teacher?s authority in drama is >> authoritarian and that a leader of drama is in danger of becoming a >> fascist dictator. Whilst it is certainly possible for a teacher to >>misuse >> her >> authority oppressively or with very limited choice for how people might >> participate (as in the Ron Jones simulation example she uses which has >> never >> been seen as a lighthouse model of drama in education) that is never our >> intention nor would it be endorsed in the literature. It is true that at >> times Heathcote >> can quite rightly be described as acting in ?authoritative? roles within >> dramatic contexts, but she fiercely resisted pressures to take on >> authoritarian >> teacher positions. >> >> Indeed, Heathcote (1984) herself is quite clear that as a teacher she >> intends to ?bring power to my students and to draw on their >> power? (p.21). Heathcote saw the teacher?s role as one that should not >> bully or take away power from >> others, but rather that should enable them to develop their agency. Her >> commitment to endowing power and agency to others is shared through an >> interesting insight in her paper Contexts for Active Learning. Here >> Heathcote revealed that her drama and teaching >> strategies were all developed so she would never have to be in a >>position >> to >> ?tell people off? (Heathcote, 2002, p.1). However, counter to many >> romanticised notions of an open, free for all classroom, this version of >> the >> democratized classroom was not a hands-off model with students making >>all >> the >> decisions. Rather, she envisions a classroom with episodes that were >>highly >> interventionist and carefully structured. These often involved >> provocations and >> active negotiations, with Heathcote playing multi-functional roles, >> constantly >> selecting and making decisions, but always working to ensure that the >> students >> were invested, contributing, and collaboratively developing work that >> would be meaningful >> in multiple ways for all participants. >> H >> eathcote intended not just to create dramatic experiences but also to >> create spaces in which all might dialogue and reflect >> to explore for multiple possible meanings in the work: ?If you cannot >> increase >> the reflective power in people you might as well not teach, because >> reflection >> is the only thing that in the long run changes anybody? (Ibid, p. 104). >> Finally, Heathcote was emphatic that all participants in drama, ?be >> recognized >> fully as individuals with rights [including] the power to affect a >> situation, >> and to respond in a growing complexity of ways to that situation? (Ibid, >> p. 153). >> >> It is unfortunate that the Spoilsport article seeks to compare examples >>of >> praxis in an apples >> and oranges way to draw out unwarranted generalizations about all drama >>in >> education. She compares examples of teaching on different topics, for >> different >> purposes, and with access to very different data: a short segment of a >>45 >> year >> old videoed drama with children is compared to an extended sequence of >> exchanges and events in a higher education institution taught recently >>by >> the >> author. The drama example analyzed is a brief extract from the first few >> minutes of a BBC film about Dorothy Heathcote made for commercial not >> educational purposes. Missing from the film is all of Heathcote?s >> out-of-role >> negotiations and reflections with these children all of whom had been >> labeled >> as ?delinquent? and had in effect been ?cast out? into this special >>school >> for >> youth. >> >> Marjanovic-Shane misses the point that Heathcote was playing with the >> children, including through her >> early use of power in role, not to force them to do what they did not >>want >> to >> do but rather the reverse. Marjanovic-Shane further assumes that in >>drama, >> participants do not ?test their own ideas ? their truths? and that >> teachers do >> not seek out or value ?dissensus.? Yet that was Heathcote?s aim as it is >> ours. Heathcote?s >> intention in this session was to work with the children to create >> fictional experiences >> in which by working together the boys were not only able to work out >>ways >> in >> which they might outwit an authoritarian regime represented by her in >>role >> as a >> Nazi officer but further to reflect on an issue of importance to them: >>why >> might >> someone choose to dissent by becoming an informant and a collaborator? >> >> Marjanovic-Shane assumes that the purpose of drama in education is to >> ?socialize? participants whereas dialogic pedagogy seeks to >> ?deepen critical examinations of any aspect of life.? Whilst >>socialization >> may >> be a declared or implicit purpose there are drama practitioners across >> decades >> of work who would also share Marjanovic-Shane?s aim and who have >> extensively >> documented how participants working with a teacher may engage in >>extensive >> critical >> cultural analysis of how power operates in society (e.g. Medina & >>Campano, >> 2006; Enciso, 2011; O?Connor & Anderson, 2015). >> >> In summary, the explicit premise of Marjanovic-Shane?s >> argument is that drama work is non-dialogic because participants must >> participate in making a fictional world, which appears to be on the >> teachers? >> terms. This is an ill-informed representation of drama?s potential in >>the >> classroom. Decades of documentation and analysis would show otherwise . >> Marjanovic Shane seems to dismiss the imagined possibilities that can be >> explored through drama and unwilling to engage in dialogue about the >> different >> ways that drama could in fact be dialogic. Rather than being restricted >>to >> dialogue in the ?real? world with people sharing critical views, >> participants in >> drama can collaboratively test out multiple alternatives to what seems >> ?real? and >> fixed. In drama everyone can contribute dialogically to create different >> possible >> versions of reality, multiple possible outcomes, alternative viewpoints, >> and >> new understandings. The social and cultural power of drama is that >>people >> may >> change their views, understand more about themselves, others, and the >> world we >> live in. Surely that is what all good pedagogues would hope and desire. >> >> >> Susan Davis and Brian Edmiston >> Central Queensland University & The Ohio State University >> s.davis@cqu.edu.au, edmiston.1@osu.edu >> >> >> >> >> >> References >> Enciso, P. (2011). Storytelling in critical >> literacy pedagogy: Removing the walls between immigrant and >>non-immigrant >> youth. In H. Janks & V. Vasquez (Eds.) Special Issue: Critical Literacy >> Revisited: Writing as Critique for English Teaching: Practice and >> Critique, 10, 1, 21-40. >> Heathcote, D. (1984). Collected writings >> on education and drama. L. Johnson & C. O?Neill (Eds.). Melbourne: >> Hutchinson. >> Heathcote, >> D. (2002). Contexts for active learning - >> Four models to forge links between schooling and society. Paper >>presented >> at the NATD Annual Conference, Birmingham. >> >>http://www.moeplanning.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/dh-contexts-for-a >>ct >> ive-learning.pdf >> Medina, C. & Campano, G. (2006). Performing >> Identities through Drama and Teatro Practices in Multilingual >>Classrooms. >> Language Arts, 83 (4), 332-341. >> Turner, Victor (1974). Dramas, Fields, and >> Metaphors: Symbolic Action in Human Society. Ithaca/London: Cornell >> University >> Press. >> O?Connor, P. & Anderson, M. (2015). Applied Theatre Research: Radical >> Departures. >> London: Bloomsbury Methuen Drama. >> O?Neill, C. >> (2014) Power-sharing: Teacher power and student choices. in P. Bowell, >>P & >> C. >> Lawrence (Eds), Heathcote Reconsidered - >> Conference Echoes (ebook), London: National Drama, 13-31 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 29/02/2016 7:49 am, "Dr. Ana Marjanovic-Shane" >> wrote: >> >> >Dear Sue, >> > >> >I am looking forward to your feedback and critique. >> > >> >Ana >> > >> > >> >> On Feb 28, 2016, at 4:00 PM, Susan Davis wrote: >> >> >> >> Hi all, >> >> >> >> Thank you Larry, Helen and Ana for your comments. >> >> >> >> Helen - always lovely to find out who else is out there exploring the >> >> possibilities of working with the arts to bring about transformative >> >> learning and Larry I really like that proposition that in drama the >> >> premise begins with ?I can? and then moves to ?I think?. That is >>very >> >> much the case with drama, and sometimes children/participants are >>very >> >> nervous or uncertain when they begin a drama process, often because >>they >> >> begin from a position of ?I can?t? but through the acts of doing they >> >> begin to see that they in fact can do and become. >> >> >> >> Ana I would agree with the first part of your statement about drama >>in >> >> education being used to help socialise students into socially >>recognised >> >> valuable practices and would think that was a good thing given >>research >> >> that shows reductions in empathy in young people in recent times. I >> >>have >> >> concerns with the rest of your proposition and the sweeping nature of >> >>the >> >> critique. >> >> >> >> A colleague and I have been preparing a short response to your >>article >> >>and >> >> I will check with him to see if he is happy for me to post it here. >> >> >> >> I would of course be happy to hear other ?dialogue? as well. >> >> >> >> Kind regards >> >> >> >> Sue >> >> >> >> >> >> On 29/02/2016 2:35 am, "Ana Marjanovic-Shane" > >>> wrote: >> >> >> >>> Dear all, >> >>> >> >>> Thanks for starting this thread about drama in education. I recently >> >>> published a paper that takes a critical stance toward Heathcote's >> >>>drama in >> >>> education approach and other approaches to education that are based >>on >> >>> some form of drama, play and/or improv - *"Spoilsport" in Drama in >> >>> education vs dialogic pedagogy*. >> >>> To play a "spoilsport" myself, in this paper, I claim that Drama in >> >>> Education belongs to an educational paradigm that is mainly based on >> >>> socialization of students into the socially recognized valuable >> >>>practices, >> >>> values and understanding of the world, which are heavily based on >> >>> agreement, collaboration and following of the authority, without >> >>>students >> >>> having legitimate rights and a possibilities to critically disagree, >> >>> provide different points of view and question the existing social >> >>> practices, values and ways of understanding the world. In other >>words, >> >>>in >> >>> this educational paradigm - students' disenssus, critical approach >>to >> >>> testing different ideas, views, desires, values, etc. is actively >> >>> suppressed, or at best limited, curbed and restricted. >> >>> >> >>> In the paper I provide a detailed analysis of (a part of) the same >> >>>video >> >>> posted here earlier - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owKiUO99qrw. >> >>>Below >> >>> is the abstract of my paper. If interested - you can get it at >>Dialogic >> >>> Pedagogy Journal website - >> >>> http://dpj.pitt.edu/ojs/index.php/dpj1/article/view/151 >> >>> >> >>> So, what do you think? >> >>> >> >>> Ana >> >>> >> >>> ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ >> >>> "Spoilsport" in Drama in education vs dialogic pedagogy >> >>> Abstract >> >>> >> >>> In this paper two educational paradigms that both attempt to >>overcome >> >>> alienation often experienced by students in the conventional >>education. >> >>> These two educational paradigms are embodied in different >>educational >> >>> practices: First, Drama in Education in its widest definition, is >> >>>based on >> >>> the Vygotskian views that human cognitive, semantic >>(meaning-making), >> >>>and >> >>> social-emotional development happens in or through play and/or >> >>> imagination, >> >>> thus within the imagined worlds. Second, Critical Ontological >>Dialogic >> >>> Pedagogy, is based in the Bakhtin inspired approach to critical >> >>>dialogue >> >>> among the ?consciousnesses of equal rights? (Bakhtin, 1999), where >> >>> education is assumed to be a practice of examination of the world, >>the >> >>> others and the self. I reveal implicit and explicit conceptual >> >>> similarities >> >>> and differences between these two educational paradigms regarding >>their >> >>> understanding the nature of learning; social values that they >>promote; >> >>>the >> >>> group dynamics, social relationships and the position of learners? >> >>> subjectivity. I aim to uncover the role and legitimacy of the >>learners? >> >>> disagreement with the positions of others, their dissensus with the >> >>> educational events and settings, and the relationships of power >>within >> >>>the >> >>> social organization of educational communities in these two diverse >> >>> educational approaches. I explore the legitimacy of dissensus in >>these >> >>>two >> >>> educational approaches regarding both the participants? critical >> >>> examination of the curriculum, and in regard to promoting the >> >>> participants? >> >>> agency and its transformations. In spite of important similarities >> >>>between >> >>> the educational practices arranged by these two paradigms, the >> >>>analysis of >> >>> their differences points to the paradigmatically opposing views on >> >>>human >> >>> development, learning and education. Although both Drama in >>Education >> >>>and >> >>> Dialogic Pedagogy claim to deeply, fully and ontologically engage >>the >> >>> learners in the process of education, they do it for different >>purposes >> >>> and >> >>> with diametrically opposite ways of treating the students and their >> >>> relationship to the world, each other and their own developing >>selves. >> >>> >> >>> > >>>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> Dr Susan Davis >> Senior Lecturer | School of Education & the Arts | Higher Education >> Division >> CQUniversity Australia, Noosa Campus | >> PO Box 1128, Qld 4566 >> P +61 (0)7 5440 7007 | X 547007 | M +61 418 763 428 >> L https://www.linkedin.com/in/suedavisnoosa >> RG | https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Susan_Davis7 >> Profile | http://profiles.cqu.edu.au/profiles/view/272 >> Latest >> publication: >> >>https://www.sensepublishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/imagination-and-praxi >>s/ >> learning-that-matters/ >> >> >> This communication may contain privileged or confidential information. >>If >> you have received this in error, >> please return to sender and delete. CRICOS: 00219C | RTO Code 40939 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> > > >-- > >It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an >object >that creates history. Ernst Boesch