[Xmca-l] Re: Response to Spoilsport: Beyond oppositional dualitiesindrama in education and dialogic pedagogy to promote learning possibilities

[Helen Grimmett]

Ooooh, guess what just arrived in my inbox! Sharing with those of you who have been following this thread:
Helen Grimmett (2016): The Problem of “Just Tell Us”: Insights from Playing with Poetic Inquiry and Dialogical Self Theory, Studying Teacher Education, DOI: 10.1080/17425964.2016.1143810 

http://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/3ZQfg4uJEFpc2BuVUqPD/full

Cheers,
Helen (wobbling a lot as I press send...)


> On 4 Mar 2016, at 1:26 pm, Susan Davis <s.davis@cqu.edu.au> wrote:
> 
> Thank you Helen,
> I appreciate your finding the time to post this as it is indeed that crazy
> time of year with term starting. I find this DP approach conceivable and
> doable in terms of teachers working within the constraints and
> professional responsibilities now required in most schools/education
> sites.  Teachers as well as students have to work on terms and within
> parameters that are not necessarily of their own making, but the point of
> what you are saying is that through a dialogic process they can make these
> situations more dialogic and perhaps more 'their own'. Finding the points
> of connection and suitable animating ideas/actions is then often the key
> for the teacher who wants to make this process meaningful for both
> themselves and their students.
> 
> I look forward to seeing your article once it’s published.
> 
> Kind regards
> Sue
> 
> 
>> On 4/03/2016 9:16 am, "Helen Grimmett" <helen.grimmett@monash.edu> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Ana, Sue and others
>> 
>> Apologies for the delay in responding to your question about definitions
>> of
>> dialogue and dialogic pedagogy. I have been teaching and in meetings flat
>> out for the past few days (hopefully dialogically!).
>> 
>> I have an article about to be published in "Studying Teacher Education" in
>> which I say:
>> 
>> "Theoretically influenced by the work of Bakhtin, Vygotsky, Dewey and
>> Friere, and variously referred to as Dialogic instruction (Nystrand,
>> 1997),
>> Dialogic inquiry (Wells, 1999), Dialogic teaching (Alexander, 2008; Lyle,
>> 2008), Dialogic pedagogies (Edwards-Groves, Anstey, & Bull, 2014) etc.,
>> these approaches all share an understanding of learning as the active
>> co-construction of meaning developed through joint activity and language
>> interactions between and amongst teachers and learners. Knowledge is
>> therefore not regarded as a fixed entity to be transmitted from teacher to
>> learner, but a fluid negotiation, re-creation and expansion of cultural,
>> collective and individual ideas, actions and meanings; and as such
>> requires
>> different pedagogic strategies to ‘traditional’ transmissive/monologic
>> teaching."
>> 
>> The article is a self-study of my own journey towards trying to teach in
>> a
>> more dialogical way. I have been strongly influenced by Bob Fecho's work
>> and his position that we can really only hope to be 'more dialogical' in
>> classrooms, as our professional responsibilities as teachers mean that we
>> must be held accountable for ensuring that curricula aims are also met.
>> This certainly doesn't mean that we can't encourage critique, debate and
>> expansion of those aims, but we do have to  remain cognisant of them and
>> constantly work within the tension of institutional requirements and
>> completely free-reign dialogue.
>> 
>> We also have professional and moral responsibilities to ensure that we are
>> creating an environment in which students feel 'safe to' be able to engage
>> in such critique, debate and expansion as this inevitably exposes them to
>> risks that they have not been expected to face in more traditional
>> transmissive/monologic classrooms. It takes time to build trust, change
>> expectations, engender confidence, develop skills etc so that our
>> classrooms can become more dialogical in ways that expand understanding
>> and
>> transform social practices rather than denigrate into hurtful arguments
>> and
>> personal attacks. It doesn't mean we all have to agree, but we all have a
>> right to contribute and to have our contribution heard and considered
>> respectfully.
>> 
>> In my view, there is nothing wrong with a teacher contributing their own
>> understanding (which may or may not come from a place of greater
>> experience
>> or knowledge) so long as the door (mind!) is always open to the
>> possibility
>> that their may be other ways to see, do or explain things. Not to do so
>> would be an abdication of our professional responsibility. It is only a
>> problem if the teacher's way is seen as the only way. However, helping
>> students (and especially student teachers) to see that is really
>> challenging...and continues to provide plenty of research interest for me.
>> 
>> 
>> All I've got time for at the minute...
>> 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 <name.surname@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 2 March 2016 at 18:08, Ana Marjanovic-Shane <anamshane@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Dear all,
>>> 
>>> Sue poited out a veru important issue for U.S, in my view: "I would also
>>> love to hear a little more about your conceptof dialogic pedagogy as it
>>> is
>>> clear there are some very different interpretations and versions of DP
>>> being used."
>>> 
>>> Yes, it seems that there are several interpretations and concepts of
>>> dialogue and thus Dialogic pedagogy. It would be important, I think
>>> that we
>>> find out what are these different conceptualizations of what is dialogue
>>> and then based on that what are our different views of dialogic
>>> pedagogy?
>>> 
>>> So what is your definition of dialogue and how do you describe Dialogic
>>> pedagogy?
>>> 
>>> Ana
>>> 
>>>> On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 12:48 AM Susan Davis <s.davis@cqu.edu.au> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Brian, Helen, Larry,
>>>> 
>>>> Brian - I loved your example and insight into practice.  I can imagine
>>> how
>>>> excited the kids would be coming along each week and thinking 'what
>>>> adventures they might go on today¹, the apparently dialogic processes
>>> and
>>>> the multi-levelled learning that is emerging from these sessions.
>>>> 
>>>> Brian and Helen I would also love to hear a little more about your
>>> concept
>>>> of dialogic pedagogy as it is clear there are some very different
>>>> interpretations and versions of DP being used.
>>>> 
>>>> Larry I don¹t know if there is always a conscious shift that occurs in
>>> the
>>>> playful moments, but what is important is that children (and teachers)
>>> are
>>>> being given permission and the space to behave in different ways than
>>> they
>>>> might in Œreal life¹.  As to being Œcaptured¹ in a positive way, at
>>> times
>>>> in these encounters you experience 'moments' when the group is
>>> committed
>>>> and engaged at the same time, a sense of group Œflow¹ emerges I guess
>>> you
>>>> could say, and you know the group has been Œcaptured¹ in an engaged
>>> and
>>>> committed way.
>>>> 
>>>> Like Brian mentioned I think the concepts Vygotsky talked of in "Play
>>> and
>>>> its role in the mental development of the child" (1933/1966) where he
>>>> discussed the idea of a Œdual affective plan¹ is of relevance.  In the
>>>> text it famously says ³Thus, in play a situation is created in which,
>>> as
>>>> Nohl puts it, a dual affective plan occurs. For example, the child
>>> weeps
>>>> in play as a patient, but revels as a player² (Vygotsky 1933/1966, p.
>>> 11).
>>>> This quote has also often been used in drama circles to discuss the
>>>> concept of Œmetaxis¹ which is where a dual state is entered and where
>>>> learnings from one realm can impact upon the other (e.g. Understanding
>>>> something about how what it feels to be the subject of racism
>>> emerging in
>>>> a drama and some of those understandings impacting on a person¹s
>>>> real-world attitudes and beliefs).
>>>> 
>>>> Kind regards
>>>> Sue
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> On 2/03/2016 1:45 pm, "Edmiston, Brian W." <edmiston.1@osu.edu> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hi Larry
>>>>> 
>>>>> I¹m using Vygotsky¹s idea that when we play we foreground what we
>>> imagine
>>>>> over material reality so that the meaning of what we do
>>> predominates. We
>>>>> we play we are intending to pretend - you can¹t be made to play -
>>> that¹s
>>>>> what I mean by Œat will'. I¹m not sure which metaphor captures that
>>>>> experience best: fore- and back- or maybe over- and under- or
>>> stepping
>>>>> Œin' and Œout' of imagined spaces, events, and worlds.
>>>>> 
>>>>> On the other hand I can see that there can be a sense of Œbeing
>>> captured
>>>>> by¹ - e.g. when the adults in the class I¹m teaching initially
>>> pretended
>>>>> to row the boat and wave a sheet as a sail children wanted to join
>>> in -
>>>>> they asked and/or literally ran to join in - and probably with little
>>>>> intention. Though I think they must they were still exercising some
>>>>> Œwill' - the pretending could not simply be maintained by others. In
>>> a
>>>>> similar way, when you sit down with a child and are really
>>> interested in
>>>>> a book they are likely to Œlean in¹ physically and be Œdrawn in¹ to
>>> the
>>>>> world via the illustrations and your talk especially if you pretend
>>> to
>>>>> talk like a character which Œcaptures¹ their interest and brings
>>> meaning
>>>>> to the dialogue Š
>>>>> 
>>>>> Is that what you mean by a structure of shared perception/action?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Brian
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Mar 1, 2016, at 10:27 PM, Lplarry <lpscholar2@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Brian,
>>>>>> Just to  echo your understanding,*We are always in two time-spaces
>>> AT
>>>>>> ONCE. This means simultaneously.
>>>>>> You added that we move *to build this shared awareness with one
>>>>>> time-space being over the other which also indicates the other
>>>>>> time-space becomes under.
>>>>>> A third aspect you suggest is to be able to foreground one
>>> time-space
>>>>>> or the other *at will*.
>>>>>> I have a question if this foregrounding (and backgrounding)
>>> movement
>>>>>> which is meaning making is always *at will*.
>>>>>> This is why I introduced the notion of being *captured by* which
>>>>>> contrasts with willfully capturing or grasping meaning.
>>>>>> This is the question if shared awareness that captures us may occur
>>>>>> prior to developing shared awareness OF awareness.
>>>>>> In other words is there a structure of shared perception/action
>>> that
>>>>>> occurs prior to dialogical foregrounding and backgrounding
>>> discourse?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: "Edmiston, Brian W." <edmiston.1@osu.edu>
>>>>>> Sent: 2016-03-01 6:09 PM
>>>>>> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Response to Spoilsport: Beyond oppositional
>>>>>> dualitiesindrama in education and dialogic pedagogy to promote
>>> learning
>>>>>> possibilities
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thanks, Helen
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Yes! - central to any drama is that we can imagine "What if Š?² and
>>>>>> then using social imagination (and dialogic imagination!)
>>>>>> collaboratively embody and dialogue as if we were elsewhere, as if
>>> we
>>>>>> were other people, as if we had more (or less) power - that¹s
>>>>>> empowering! But never losing the knowledge and experience of
>>>>>> us-as-people asking those questions, reflecting on what we¹re
>>>>>> experiencing, and wondering what these imagined experiences might
>>> mean
>>>>>> for me (me too!), for us, for others, for the world ...
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I¹ve recently been working with an after-school group of 6 and 7
>>> year
>>>>>> olds as if we¹ve been with Odysseus - using multimodal tools:
>>> fabric,
>>>>>> pictures, some key artifacts, as well as our bodies and
>>> relationships
>>>>>> we¹ve been imagining sailing and rowing and singing, we¹ve been in a
>>>>>> shipwreck saving one another, dreaming of home, being turned to
>>> pigs by
>>>>>> Circe, having the power to turn others into something, trying to
>>>>>> convince Circe to turn people back, wondering whether to risk being
>>>>>> killed by the monsters we¹d just embodied or stay and party with
>>> Circe
>>> Š
>>>>>> and all the while engaged in inquiry about topics of interest to the
>>>>>> children (and taken into angles that come from them): what do
>>> friends
>>> do
>>>>>> - and not do? what dangers might we risk (or not) to go home? (oh,
>>> and
>>>>>> we¹re often reading bits of text in context as the children have all
>>>>>> been labelled as Œstruggling readers¹ and aren¹t doing so well on
>>> those
>>>>>> tests ...)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> In my practice I tend to move in and out of any imagined world a
>>> lot,
>>>>>> especially early on. To build that shared awareness of "we are
>>> always
>>> in
>>>>>> two time-spaces at once" with one being foregrounded over the other
>>> at
>>>>>> will - like what children do when they play without adults.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> That's what Vygotsky stressed - that in playing it¹s the meaning of
>>> our
>>>>>> actions and the objects we use that we pay attention to - not the
>>> acts
>>>>>> and things in themselves. And when we¹re in dialogue with others (or
>>>>>> often on the way to dialogue with these young children) then the
>>>>>> potential for meaning-making about action in imagined events in the
>>>>>> imagined-and-real world expands exponentially, especially since we
>>> can
>>>>>> move in time and space - we¹re not stuck with one or two chronotopes
>>> but
>>>>>> can explore and move among multiple possible perspectives on events.
>>>>>> While at the same time each person is always able to see through the
>>>>>> perspectives of their life experiences - about what ³home² is like
>>> for
>>>>>> me, what my ³friends" do with me, what ³dangers² I¹ve faced etc. to
>>> make
>>>>>> new meaning that goes beyond the limits of the everyday world ...
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> However, with me present and both playing along with the children
>>> and
>>>>>> stepping out of the imagined world, I can mediate agreement about
>>>>>> cultural norms (e.g. we listen when anyone is speaking to the group)
>>> and
>>>>>> what¹s happening socially so that no one is being left out and no
>>> one
>>> is
>>>>>> dominating with ideas about what might happen (e.g.we can choose
>>> whether
>>>>>> or not to go searching for food) or what something might mean
>>> (e.g.Circe
>>>>>> might be an evil witch - how might we find out?).
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I also want to build the knowledge from the beginning that each
>>> person
>>>>>> chooses to step into (and out of) imagined worlds and that anyone
>>> can
>>>>>> step out (or sit out!) at any time. That no one is being coerced and
>>>>>> those participating are agreeing to make this imagined reality
>>> happen
>>>>>> together - something that Gavin Bolton stressed years ago - the
>>> sense
>>>>>> that we are making this happen to ourselves. One older boy who had
>>> been
>>>>>> brought into the room sat at a table - and chose to look at
>>> pictures in
>>>>>> the books - I¹d just bought a model of a Greek ship for him to make
>>> to
>>>>>> find he had been suspended Š maybe he¹ll be back next week. Another
>>>>>> older boy knew about Poseidon when I was sharing illustrations from
>>>>>> versions of Homer¹s story - he wanted to show the younger children
>>> how
>>>>>> he-as-Poseidon could use a trident to bring about a storm - that we
>>> then
>>>>>> embodied as part of another shipwreck! Oh, and one week a younger
>>> boy
>>>>>> snuck in to join his friends!
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> This week we¹ll be meeting the Cyclops (those who choose to join in
>>> Š!)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Brian
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> BTW if you want my take on how drama (and specifically what I call
>>>>>> dramatic inquiry) can be dialogic - see my 2014 book published by
>>>>>> Routledge: Transforming Teaching and Learning with Active and
>>> Dramatic
>>>>>> Approaches.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> [cid:image001.png@01CE44CA.B3EB06D0]
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Brian Edmiston, PhD
>>>>>> Professor of Drama in Education
>>>>>> Department of Teaching and Learning
>>>>>> Columbus, OH 43210
>>>>>> edmiston.1@osu.edu<mailto:edmiston.1@osu.edu>
>>>>>> go.osu.edu/edmiston<http://go.osu.edu/edmiston>
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 'To live means to participate in dialogue: to ask questions, to
>>> heed,
>>>>>> to respond, to agree, and so forth. In this dialogue a person
>>>>>> participates wholly and throughout his whole life: with his eyes,
>>> lips,
>>>>>> hands, soul, spirit, with his whole body and deeds. He invests his
>>>>>> entire self in discourse'
>>>>>> Bakhtin, 1984, p. 293
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Mar 1, 2016, at 6:38 PM, Helen Grimmett
>>>>>> <helen.grimmett@monash.edu<mailto:helen.grimmett@monash.edu>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I think what is being missed, is that the playing out of the
>>> 'imagined
>>>>>> situation' is not the whole extent of a 'drama in education'
>>> lesson or
>>>>>> unit
>>>>>> of work. The imagined situation provides an opportunity for
>>> children
>>> to
>>>>>> 'try out' and experience different roles, perspectives, opinions,
>>>>>> emotions
>>>>>> and actions, with the safety net of knowing that everyone has
>>> agreed
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> this is 'pretend' and that they are able to 'step out' again and
>>> back
>>> to
>>>>>> their real lives. However, the equally important element of the DiE
>>>>>> lesson/unit is the dialogue that can take place after everyone
>>> steps
>>>>>> out of
>>>>>> the imagined situation - where all of the feelings, thoughts and
>>> actions
>>>>>> that were expressed or experienced during the 'play' can be
>>> revisited,
>>>>>> discussed and debated from a more detached position and where
>>>>>> understandings of others' perceptions can be further explored, and
>>>>>> alternative responses and meanings can be constructed.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> So, yes, it is necessary for the players to buy in to the imagined
>>>>>> situation and agree to play along within the 'rules' of the roles
>>> they
>>>>>> are
>>>>>> playing in order to keep the drama functioning, but the whole
>>> point is
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> everyone knows that there will soon be a time where they will step
>>> out
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> the role again and be able to say "When your character did X, it
>>> made
>>> me
>>>>>> feel Y" or "I never realised how difficult it would be to ..." or
>>> "I
>>>>>> wonder
>>>>>> what would have happened if ..." etc. In my mind this part of the
>>>>>> session
>>>>>> is an equally crucial part of the learning and is why I believe DiE
>>>>>> (done
>>>>>> well) is a dialogical pedagogy. It is the very awareness of the
>>>>>> different
>>>>>> chronotopes (that we have all agreed we are pretending) that makes
>>> this
>>>>>> possible. It is a different kettle of fish altogether when people
>>> are
>>>>>> thrust into a 'simulation exercise' and are never quite sure if
>>> what
>>>>>> they
>>>>>> are experiencing is real or not (especially in light of current
>>> events
>>>>>> which mean many children have had to experience confusing school
>>>>>> lockdown
>>>>>> and evacuation events), which is why Heathcote put so much
>>> emphasis on
>>>>>> establishing 'agreement' about the situation that was being
>>> mutually
>>>>>> created and the roles that were being adopted. I do not find this
>>>>>> oppressing, but rather empowering, that the teacher is endowing
>>> students
>>>>>> with the power to 'pretend', to 'try out different ways of being',
>>> and
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> contribute to both the imaginary situation and the reality of the
>>>>>> lesson as
>>>>>> it unfolds in a very dialogical way, that may in fact allow them to
>>>>>> develop
>>>>>> a new understanding of who they currently are and who they might
>>>>>> potentially be.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 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<mailto:helen.grimmett@monash.edu>
>>>>>> <name.surname@monash.edu<mailto:name.surname@monash.edu>>
>>>>>> monash.edu<http://monash.edu>
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The Practice of Teachers' Professional Development: A
>>>>>> Cultural-Historical
>>>>>> Approach
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> <
>>> https://www.sensepublishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/professional-learnin
>>>>>> g-1/the-practice-of-teachers-professional-development/>
>>>>>> Helen Grimmett (2014) Sense Publishers
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 2 March 2016 at 03:42, Dr. Ana Marjanovic-Shane <
>>> anamshane@gmail.com
>>>>> 
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Dear Larry,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I am reading your highly interesting comments and feedback on the
>>> ideas
>>>>>> I
>>>>>> started to develop in the ³Spoilsport² article.  Yes, you are right
>>>>>> that I
>>>>>> use the concept of a chronotope - as one of the central concepts
>>> in my
>>>>>> study. I understood this concept from MM Bakhtin as a unity of
>>> time,
>>>>>> space
>>>>>> and axiology, i.e., set of values, relationships, rules and
>>> expectations
>>>>>> that exist for the participants in a time-space. Bakhtin described
>>>>>> chronotope in literature as ³the intrinsic connectedness of
>>> temporal
>>> and
>>>>>> spatial relationships that are artistically expressed . . .
>>> [S]patial
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> temporal indicators are fused into one carefully thought out,
>>> concrete
>>>>>> whole.Time, as it were, thickens, takes on flesh, becomes
>>> artistically
>>>>>> visible; likewise, space becomes charged and responsive to the
>>>>>> movements of
>>>>>> time, plot and history² (Bakhtin, 1994, p. 184).
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> And while, in literature there may be ONE chronotope within the
>>> literary
>>>>>> work, in our lives, and especially in play, education, art, etc -
>>> we
>>>>>> always
>>>>>> ³operate² on more than one chronotope simultaneously - as if they
>>> are
>>>>>> laminated layers of the same event. However, these chronotopes
>>> relate
>>> to
>>>>>> each other in a different way - depending on a situation.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> You invoke the concept of being ³captured² by the imagined worlds
>>>>>> (chronotopes). I think that it may be true - but we are captured in
>>>>>> different ways and have different means of freeing ourselves up -
>>> in
>>>>>> different situations - depending on the relationship in which these
>>>>>> chronotopes are set. My whole argument in the Spoilsport paper is
>>> that
>>>>>> when
>>>>>> the imagined chronotope becomes a place of ³dwelling² it is as
>>>>>> ³captivating² as the our chronotope of the real - and that it is
>>> hard,
>>>>>> potentially impossible and often seen as illegitimate
>>> (non-normative)
>>> to
>>>>>> ³spoil² this chronotope - to try to break its mangels. Both the
>>> imagined
>>>>>> and the ontological chronotope can become oppressive. I think that
>>> the
>>>>>> dialogic freedom may come from the possibility to create such a
>>>>>> relationship between the chronotopes that allows their
>>> participants to
>>>>>> examine the boundaries and see them in each-others¹ perspectives.
>>> In
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> sense I don¹t see the relationship between the imagined and the
>>> reality
>>>>>> as
>>>>>> a *divide* as you put it, but as a fruitful boundary and dialogic
>>>>>> contact-zone, where a new meaning stems exactly from being able to
>>> draw
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> boundary between them.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I am intrigued with your last comment about Jewish ³Adamic² world
>>>>>> contrasting with the Greek classical world. What did you mean?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> What do you think?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Ana
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Mar 1, 2016, at 10:59 AM, Lplarry <lpscholar2@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Ana,
>>>>>> In this response the paradigms hinge on the notion of differing
>>>>>> chrono/topes.
>>>>>> * community of players (CoPl)
>>>>>> * reality (RC) or ontological
>>>>>> * imagined (IC)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Therefore, the theme of being *cast out* may be playing with a
>>> theme
>>> of
>>>>>> *falling away* or being *cast out* from the garden of Eden as a
>>>>>> chronotopic
>>>>>> theme.
>>>>>> There seems to be a theme of what dominates *over* what becomes its
>>>>>> opposite.
>>>>>> Ana, you suggest both drama and dialogical chronotopes INVOKE OR
>>> SUMMON
>>>>>> UP imagined worlds. I will add the metaphor that both *capture* or
>>> are
>>>>>> *captured by* imaginal worlds. This is the *capta* aspect of.
>>>>>> Chronotopes.
>>>>>> Now to *be* summoned or invoked or embodied or endowed are polar
>>>>>> opposites in your horizon of understanding.
>>>>>> A clear di/vergence of the imaginal and ontological and community
>>> of
>>>>>> players chronotopes.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I question if BOTH the imaginal AND ontological exist within a
>>> relation
>>>>>> of con/vergence as primary prior to becoming differentiated into
>>> polar
>>>>>> opposites.
>>>>>> This version of the imaginal/reality *divide* plays with the
>>> notion of
>>>>>> *apposition* prior to the forming of polar opposites with one side
>>>>>> *capturing* the other side by dominating over the other, placing
>>> the
>>>>>> other
>>>>>> side *under* or relagated to the *shadows*.
>>>>>> The play of the Jewiish *Adamic* world contrasting with the Greek
>>>>>> classical world seems to have a place in this turn taking
>>>>>> Larry
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: "Dr. Ana Marjanovic-Shane" <anamshane@gmail.com>
>>>>>> Sent: 2016-03-01 12:41 AM
>>>>>> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Response to Spoilsport: Beyond oppositional
>>>>>> dualities indrama in education and dialogic pedagogy to promote
>>> learning
>>>>>> possibilities
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Dear Sue and Brian and all,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> First ­ thanks for taking the time and effort to respond to my
>>> paper.
>>> I
>>>>>> take your response very seriously. I have some questions for
>>>>>> clarification
>>>>>> and also some more comments regarding what I think is a
>>> ³paradigmatic
>>>>>> difference² ­ rather than an arbitrary dichotomy between the two
>>>>>> approaches
>>>>>> to education that I outlined in my paper.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Please see my responses below, between your words - in blue!
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Ana
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> __________
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Feb 29, 2016, at 1:09 AM, Susan Davis <s.davis@cqu.edu.au>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> As scholars and practitioners committed to the use of drama for
>>>>>> educational purposes we wish to respond briefly to Ana
>>>>>> Marjanovic-Shane¹s
>>>>>> article: ³Spoilsport² in drama in education vs. dialogic pedagogy.
>>> Our
>>>>>> intention is to provide some of our shared professional
>>> understanding
>>> of
>>>>>> drama¹s 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
>>>>>> Œdrama in education¹ 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 Œdrama in education¹ or Œeducational
>>> drama¹
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>> ŒDramatic Interactions in Education¹ <
>>> 
>>> http://www.bloomsbury.com/au/dramatic-interactions-in-education-978147257
>>>>>> 6
>>>>>> 910/> which we published last year
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> [The entire original message is not included.]
>>>> 
>>>> --
>>> *Ana Marjanovic-Shane*
>>> Dialogic Pedagogy Journal editor (dpj.pitt.edu)
>>> Associate Professor of Education
>>> Chestnut Hill College
>>> phone: 267-334-2905
> 
>