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

[Avis Ridgway]

Congrats Helen, We'll be able to quote you!!

Cheers
Avis


On 05/03/2016, at 8:24 AM, Helen Grimmett wrote:

> 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
>> 
>>