[Xmca-l] Re: digital immersion mongrel Vygotsky

Tue Apr 10 17:55:16 PDT 2018

hi Mike Cole,

I've just read chs. 7 and 11 of LCHC. I agree that issues discussed there
are still relevant, initially
- fun / academic balance - the overwhelming impulse for kids to play games
(and how to evaluate those games) always raises that issue sharply
(other balances need to be addressed too - the issue of the dangers
associated with computer communications and what to do about that - porn,
cyberbullying etc.)

- the pen pal activity is one that I have done in the past but forgot about
- I think it has potential for remote Australians esp given that many urban
Private schools go out of their way to cultivate an indigenous connection
these days

I'll try to work on a more comprehensive draft over the next day or so.

Yes, I'm familiar with Seymour's work and Scratch. Also Brian Harvey wrote
an important critique of Mitch Resnick's logo decentralisation thesis
(Logo: Capitalist Tool?)
https://people.eecs.berkeley.edu/~bh/capitalist.html. I see all of Brian's
work as important
https://people.eecs.berkeley.edu/~bh/?_ga=2.114682821.374017054.1523407499-1495565323.1520672862
wrt socially relevant computing

thanks for the valuable link

On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 10:38 AM, mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu> wrote:

> Hi Bill -- I am mindful that i have some responses owed in the conversation
> about Vygotsky's chapter, and am struggling to find time there is so much
> to discuss).
>
> Michael Roth is a frequent contributor to xmca. And the Spinoza-Vygotsky
> relationship is hoth these days. Seems likely has has an article that would
> give people quick
> access.  And,  the literature on the implementations of the one-lap top
> experiment is easily accessible with a google search. The Appiah looks
> really interesting.... So there is plentyh of overlap of interest there.
>
> I come from an earlier generation where there was a different mashup of
> Vygotsky and cultural context. The big deal back then was "The New
> Mathematics." And later, the potential of using a successful
> non-school-based, indigenous literacy as a tool of self development (the
> potential was there in principle, but a total non-starter for many of the
> reasons that led to the Liberian civil war).
>
> After that, it was the potential of 64k memory pc's and store-and-forward
> email. A quicky background there can be found by skimming at
> lchcautobio.ucsd.edu  , the materials in what is called chapters 1, 7, and
> 10/11. We hit sweet spots, where really
> great intellectual activity was created ... on a small scale.
>
> Come to think of it, the publication of our ragamuffin volume of Vygotsky's
> writings
> hit another.
>
> If there is further discussion, we can assume knowledge of Seymor's work
> and a second hand knowledge of programs like Scratch. I have not followed
> the curricular programs that you mention, but can figure out what they are
> about from your interchange with Michael. Others on the list will know
> more.
>
> I am not a weathered skeptic about technological solutions to social
> problems. But the question of whether any proposed new form of activity can
> act as a catapult  that will
> render Australian ( of any other marginalized group) into a situation of
> full equality is always an interesting one.
>
> To be continued. Hopefully others can provide more up to date feedback that
> will be of use to you.
>
> mike
>
>
>
>
> > I'm interested in your evaluation of your experience of "having failed"
> in
> > this area if by that you mean introducing digital tech to the
> > disadvantaged. I was involved in the One Laptop per Child project (mainly
> > evaluating the software not intensive field tests) and have thought about
> > why it failed or appeared to fail. Superficially and briefly, the
> hardware
> > was wonderful, the software ok sort of. But there was little or no
> > contextual interaction with the intended recipients in the Third world
> > (cultural fail) and the educational philosophy was Seymour Papert's
> > constructionism (contextual epistemological fail even though I believe it
> > can work with highly skilled teachers).
> >
> > "Runaway object" is a nice phrase about the sweet spot. But I'm not sure
> > about how important it is conceptually, ie. the underlying reasons why it
> > runs away?
> >
> > The references I have provided include dense books by
> > Wolff Michael Roth (Mathematics of Mathematics): Still reading but very
> > impressed. Up until now I've had an eclectic / pragmatic approach to
> > learning theory - take a bit from Papert's constructionism, a bit from
> > Willingham's cognitivism, a bit from Dennett's behaviourism. Michael
> > attempts to put an end to all that and I'm partly persuaded but not yet
> > fully. Can't be summarised briefly so I think will require a separate
> > thread if and when I get my act together.
> >
> >  and Martin Nakata: first Torres Strait Islander to obtain a PhD (now at
> > James Cook Uni Townsville) through an incredible analysis developing a
> > profound theory of the Cultural Interface. Once again hard to summarise
> > briefly. But since the Cultural Interface becomes a tower of many Babels
> > then for me it highlights again the importance of paying a lot of
> attention
> > to  context.
> >
> > Kwame Appiah is an easier read and it was his quote from Salman Rushdie
> > that I extracted the concept of mongrel cultures
> >
> > I can provide an elaboration of my own fairly soon of the overall
> approach
> > (digital immersion mongrel Vygotsky) but not sure how to summarise the
> > above authors briefly.
> >
> > Reality check: Schools / education dominated by mechanical
> epistemologies,
> > bland cultures and technocentric thinking in the IT department creating
> > overall too many hurdles to jump. Nevertheless, I am aware of some
> > promising exemplars but most / all of them don't encompass the sweet spot
> > implied by my 3 teething rings. So does my analysis have the potential to
> > do it better or does on the ground partly inspired pragmatism prevail?
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Apr 8, 2018 at 11:05 AM, mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu> wrote:
> >
> > > Cool note, Bill.
> > > Having failed several times in this general arena, I am always
> interested
> > > in finding the sweet spot. In my experience, the process of change
> means
> > > that "the spot" itself is, to borrow Yrjo's phrase, a "runaway object."
> > >
> > > Further engagement now entails that people do some common reading
> > > and that can be a perilous undertaking on xmca! Often the distribution
> > > of the key texts help a lot, or links.
> > >
> > > Saturday evening over here. Headed out for the evening, but look
> forward
> > > to the followups.
> > >
> > > Good Sunday morning to you.
> > >
> > > mike
> > >
> > > On Sat, Apr 7, 2018 at 5:47 PM, Bill Kerr <billkerr@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > off topic Andy - but what I said was Noel's DI approach in the
> > Djarragun
> > > > school context not necessarily DI as such. My 4000 word essay on that
> > is
> > > > Life After Noel here
> > > > https://sites.google.com/site/livingcontradictions/life-after-noel
> As
> > an
> > > > evidence based approach and plenty of anecdotes I have heard  in
> > > > Australia's deep north it can still be argued that "DI works" not as
> a
> > > life
> > > > long approach but in the context of a catch up approach for those who
> > > have
> > > > missed out on early years basic literacy and numeracy. If you want to
> > > > discuss my "Life after Noel' essay or DI in general then please start
> > > > another thread.
> > > >
> > > > This thread is about "digital immersion mongrel Vygotsky" not DI or
> > Noel.
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, Apr 8, 2018 at 10:32 AM, Andy Blunden <andyb@marxists.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > So you have given Direct Instruction a fail, Bill. For
> > > > > people in the field that is probably not a surprise, but it
> > > > > is very significant for the general public here in Oz. Could
> > > > > you summarise what brought you to the conclusion?
> > > > >
> > > > > Andy
> > > > >
> > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > Andy Blunden
> > > > > ttp://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm
> > > > > On 8/04/2018 10:02 AM, Bill Kerr wrote:
> > > > > > I'll put this up for discussion. It has been a twisted road for
> me
> > to
> > > > get
> > > > > > to this point. I had a fail with the Noel Pearson's Direct
> > > Instruction
> > > > > > approach near Cairns and have now moved to Alice Springs as a
> good
> > > > > location
> > > > > > for further action research into Australian indigenous issues.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > DIGITAL IMMERSION MONGREL VYGOTSKY
> > > > > > - a contextual pathway to enable modern indigenous technology
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The origin of this was an exploration of an effective way
> > > > (pragmatically)
> > > > > > to bring digital technology to indigenous people. This turned
> into
> > a
> > > > > hands
> > > > > > on exploration of disparate fields which for convenience can be
> > > > organised
> > > > > > under three sub-headings which can in turn be melded together:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > *Epistemology*: One interpretation of Vygotsky argues that all
> > > > knowledge
> > > > > is
> > > > > > socially constructed and that ethnomethodology, paying detailed
> > > > attention
> > > > > > in the now, is the best or only way of detecting and evaluating
> > what
> > > is
> > > > > > going on (Wolff-Michael Roth). This world view is critical of
> other
> > > > > > learning theories be they behaviourist, cognitivist or
> > > constructivist.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > *Culture*: Martin Nakata’s (cultural interface) and Kwame
> Appiah’s
> > > > > > (cosmopolitan) approach is that indigenous (and other) culture is
> > > > mongrel
> > > > > > (no longer traditional), consisting of disparate, complex threads
> > > > created
> > > > > > by the intermingling of the traditional with the colonial. It
> > follows
> > > > > from
> > > > > > this that effective communication between different cultures must
> > be
> > > > > > contextual based on paying detailed attention to the now.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > *Technology*: Taking a broad view there are many human
> technologies
> > > > > > originating from the hand and the word. Digital technology
> (moving
> > > > bits)
> > > > > is
> > > > > > now replacing print as the dominant social medium. The only
> > effective
> > > > way
> > > > > > to master digital technology is through full immersion in the
> > medium.
> > > > > Some
> > > > > > groups working with the Disadvantaged in the Third World have
> > > > understood
> > > > > > this, eg. Learning Equality, and use affordable hardware
> (Raspberry
> > > Pi
> > > > > and
> > > > > > low-cost Android tablets), software (FOSS) and infrastructure
> > > > (sneakernet
> > > > > > where internet connectivity is limited).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Combining these approached leads to “Digital Immersion Mongrel
> > > > Vygotsky”.
> > > > > > The goal is to combine these three approaches to find the
> > contextual
> > > > > sweet
> > > > > > spot in the middle of the teething rings.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > *Reference*:
> > > > > > Appiah, Kwame Anthony. Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of
> > > Strangers
> > > > > > (2007)
> > > > > > Learning Equality https://learningequality.org/
> > > > > > Nakata, Martin. Disciplining the Savages, Savaging the
> Disciplines
> > > > (2007)
> > > > > > Roth, Wolff-Michael. The Mathematics of Mathematics: Thinking
> with
> > > the
> > > > > > Late, Spinozist Vygotsky (2017)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>