Re: [xmca] Dialogue on Concepts Part 1 Released!

[mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>]

I am returning to a message that David Kel sent on July 29 that I believe
relates to later messages and which raises issues worth discussion. I have
interleaved my responses between segments of his text to provide context.



David Writes:



I have three pieces of very recent research in our department to add to the
Tolman article on this question. They are all about something we may call
"volition" but which I think is very hard to call "distance" or
"decentration" except in an unhelpfully metaphorical way.


*I am unclear how this related to Tolman, David. I can see how it relates to
the Gillespie article where distanciation is introduced. I agree that both
relate to the question of volition/will/ and levels thereof, and to LSV on
concept formation.*

* *

*Regarding distancing, distanciation. I spent a while looking up those
terms. Larry quoting Gillespie writes: “**Gillespie's distinction between
distanciation (actor to observer) and empathy (observer to actor). The
Encyclopedia of Sociology has a different way of describing distanciation: *

* *

*From Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology*

*Modern society is based on a functional differentiation of different social
systems. Therefore, face-to-face interactions lose their significance in
everyday life, as modern media such as money or more recently the Internet
step in between. The consequence for individuals is the process of
distanciation. It has both a spatial and an emotional side: people who feel
a sense of belonging can live far away from each other, and people sharing
the same neighborhood may not even talk to one another. Social
interdependence is ever more mediated and behavioral patterns often adapt
towards a mutual ignorance.*

* *

Here distanciation appears to be sort of equivalent to “layers of mediation”
between people.

* *

*Distance enters into the intra-psychological realm in a slightly different
way, or perhaps it is only time scale. “De-centering,” “distancing,” is used
by people at Educational Testing*

*Service who studied how to test for better self-controlled, more
“thoughtful” intellectual *

*“abilities” (proclivities). It sort of equates “stop and think” with
distance. *

* *

*Distance is an ineluctable part of the process of cultural mediation in so
far as mediators and the people engaging them are imperfectly aligned; just
this difference, this “degree of separation of the natural/phylogenetic and
the cultural/historical” is dependent upon the power of the mediator. *

* *

*In the case of conceptual mediators, the same should apply. This is what I
see significant about David’s example below.*



The first thesis, by Minkyeong Yi, concerns the distinction between the
following initiates [Initating turns at talk – MC], which may be graded
according to the degree of agency required in the response.



NONVERBAL RESPONSE REQUIRED



1. Don't listen T: (writing on the board, talking to a colleague, doing
something that does not require learner participation at all).

2. Look and listen T: Look! (points to her head) This is my head! (names her
head)

3. Listen and do T: Point to your head! (children point to their heads)



VERBAL RESPONSE REQUIRED



4. Listen and repeat T: Listen and say it. This is my head (children repeat)

5: Listen and answer yes or no T: Is this my head (or my foot)? (children
answer yes or no)

6. Listen and finish the sentence  T: This is...? (children complete the
sentence)



VERBAL THINKING REQUIRED



7. Listen and answer with a word T: What's this?

8. LIsten and answer with a sentence T: Tell me about this.

9. Listen  and answer with a superordinate concept T: What kind of thing is
a head?



You can see that the various question forms require quite different degrees
of agency on the part of the children. But you can ALSO see that precisely
BECAUSE they require different degrees of agency on the part of the children
that they are NOT going to always get what is required (so for example it's
possible to give a nonverbal response to a request for verbal thinking,
etc.).





*Here I would make another point. Each of the three “levels” of response are
characterized by conceptual mediation of more complex and more
self-thoughtful content. I take it that David’s evidence indicates that  this
complexity can be more or less scaled using Vygotskian categories of levels
of concept formation. But he wrties that the “idea of direct demand
correlates poortly with level of abstraction.”*



David Continues: As a result (I think) we found that this idea of direct
demand correlated poorly (though significantly) with the level of
abstraction in the response we were looking for, except for ONE lesson,
which was, I think noncoincidentally, about family members.The thing about
volition is that it is by definition not required, although in a
developmental sense it is, of course, necessary.



Am I correct here that we see sources of heterogeneity in the manifestation
of particular levels of conception which are conditioned by environmental
contingencies.



I don't think this is "distance" in any real sense. In at least one
important sense, it's the opposite: the child is getting closer to the
essence of the concept and further away from the merely seen and heard. I
also don't think it's "decentration" in any useful way; in some ways it's
the opposite, because the child is learning his/her place in the system.



But it “is” distance in so far as it mediates one’s own behavior
differentially (abstractà concrete distance) so that one can “control
oneself from the outside.”





Stopping here. Many more worwhile issues to be discussed, right up the the
gates of Alexandria.


mike

On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 4:37 PM, David Kellogg <vaughndogblack@yahoo.com>wrote:

> I have three pieces of very recent research in our department to add to the
> Tolman article on this question. They are all about something we may call
> "volition" but which I think is very hard to call "distance" or
> "decentration" except in an unhelpfully metaphorical way.
>
> It's all thesis work that was just finished up last month. I would like to
> share it with you here because I'm pretty sure it's unpublishable (we had a
> pretty tough time just getting the nod from my normally very amiable
> colleagues, and I'm not really sure why).
>
> The first thesis, by Minkyeong Yi, concerns the distinction between the
> following initiates, which may be graded according to the degree of agency
> required in the response.
>
> NONVERBAL RESPONSE REQUIRED
>
> 1. Don't listen T: (writing on the board, talking to a colleague, doing
> something that does not require learner participation at all).
> 2. Look and listen T: Look! (points to her head) This is my head! (names
> her head)
> 3. Listen and do T: Point to your head! (children point to their heads)
>
> VERBAL RESPONSE REQUIRED
>
> 4. Listen and repeat T: Listen and say it. This is my head (children
> repeat)
> 5: Listen and answer yes or no T: Is this my head (or my foot)? (children
> answer yes or no)
> 6. Listen and finish the sentence  T: This is...? (children complete the
> sentence)
>
> VERBAL THINKING REQUIRED
>
> 7. Listen and answer with a word T: What's this?
> 8. LIsten and answer with a sentence T: Tell me about this.
> 9. Listen  and answer with a superordinate concept T: What kind of thing is
> a head?
>
> You can see that the various question forms require quite different degrees
> of agency on the part of the children. But you can ALSO see that precisely
> BECAUSE they require different degrees of agency on the part of the children
> that they are NOT going to always get what is required (so for example it's
> possible to give a nonverbal response to a request for verbal thinking,
> etc.).
>
> As a result (I think) we found that this idea of direct demand correlated
> poorly (though significantly) with the level of abstraction in the response
> we were looking for, except for ONE lesson, which was, I think
> noncoincidentally, about family members.The thing about volition is that it
> is by definition not required, although in a developmental sense it is, of
> course, necessary.
>
> I don't think this is "distance" in any real sense. In at least one
> important sense, it's the opposite: the child is getting closer to the
> essence of the concept and further away from the merely seen and heard. I
> also don't think it's "decentration" in any useful way; in some ways it's
> the opposite, because the child is learning his/her place in the system.
>
> The second piece of work, by Eunshil Kim, is more directly about
> motivation. We were looking at how the kids' preferences, stated on a
> questionnaire, really corresponded to the choices they made in conversation.
> For example, if they said that their favorite character was Jinho and their
> least favorite character was Peter, did that mean that they spent a lot of
> time talking about Jinho and ignored Peter? (Jinho is a Korean and Peter is
> black.)
>
> It often meant, in practice, that they spent a lot of time talking about
> Peter and ignored Jinho. But we also found out that the students did not
> really differentiate much between major and minor characters, but within
> characters they are more interested in mental processes (feeling verbs) than
> material (action verbs), at least in the sense that the former produce much
> longer sentences and much longer exchanges.
>
> Once again, it doesn't seem to me that the concept of "distantiation"
> really explains much. Of course we might explain the difference between
> "favorite character" and "favorite topic of conversation" as the difference
> between wanting to BE Jinho and wanting to TALK ABOUT Jinho. But that
> doesn't explain our other results at all. Much the same can be said of
> "decentration".
>
> The third bit of thesis work is by Seongeun Hong. We divided the output of
> the kids into three rough groups based on Tomasello:
>
> a) Fixed expressions (e.g. "hello", "goodbye" and fixed textbook phrases)
> b) Item-based combinations (e.g. "Let's + verb", "I'm a + noun" and
> combinations of grammatical patterns in the textbook with "free" vocabulary)
> c) Creative abstract constructions (e.g. SVO).
>
> Now what we discovered is that you are MUCH more likely to get c) if you
> are talking about "him" or "her" than if you are talking about "I" and
> "you". I don't think this is exactly distantiation, because in a very
> important sense it's the very opposite: the kids are mostly talking about
> PICTURES when they say "he" and "she" (What is Jinho doing?) and they are
> mostly talking about IMAGINARY SITUATIONS when they say "I" and "you" (T:
> Sanghun, let's go swimming after class!). But it certainly is what
> Trevarthenan is on about when he talks about secondary intersubjectivity.
>
> Put together I think I can offer the following "definition" of volition, at
> least in so far as child foreign language learning is concerned (Chapter Six
> of Thinking and Speech). Volition is the ability to discriminate between,
> isolate, and control the elements in a discourse, a text, an utterance, a
> word, a syllable, and not simply take the unit as given. This ability to
> discriminate, isolate, and control allows the child free will in the
> following very important sense: it allows the child to say things that the
> child has never heard.
>
> David Kellogg
> Seoul National University of Education
>
>
>
> --- On *Wed, 7/28/10, mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>* wrote:
>
>
> From: mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>
>
> Subject: Re: [xmca] Dialogue on Concepts Part 1 Released!
> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> Date: Wednesday, July 28, 2010, 8:29 PM
>
>
> I think the Tolman article speaks to your query about volition and
> motivation, Monica.
>
> I am having trouble distinguishing distanciation, de-centering, distancing.
> All are used in various developmental traditions.
>
> mike
>
> On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 3:49 PM, Monica Hansen <
> monica.hansen@vandals.uidaho.edu<http://us.mc1103.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=monica.hansen@vandals.uidaho.edu>>
> wrote:
>
> > All,
> > Point of information:
> > Can someone elucidate the terms "motivation" and "volition" in the
> context
> > of our discussion. What is the distinction?
> >
> > For example, Larry uses "volitional" in his response below,
> >
> > the volitional capacity to engage various "perspectives of
> > distanciation" from the immediate concrete moment to the most "abstract"
> -
> > distanciated from the concrete - systematic concepts.
> >
> > What type of impetus is required for something to be classified as
> > "motivation" as opposed to "volition"? It seems as though the simple
> > definitions in a common dictionary would suggest the distinction between
> > them as a varying degree of conscious agency? Is this consistent with
> your
> > point here, Larry?
> >
> > Monica
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu<http://us.mc1103.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu>[mailto:
> xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu<http://us.mc1103.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu>]
> On
> > Behalf Of Larry Purss
> > Sent: Monday, July 26, 2010 9:48 AM
> > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> > Subject: Re: [xmca] Dialogue on Concepts Part 1 Released!
> >
> > Paula, David, Mike [and Andy & others developing the Vimeo site]
> >
> > What a powerful medium for clarifying and extending the CHAT dialogues.
> > A few quick comments that are more impressionistic on this very
> educational
> > video presentation and elaboration of concept formation.
> >
> > David, your historically situating the shift from chapter 5's account to
> > the
> > chapter 6 account as embedded in Stalin's draconian approach to education
> > and the radical shift in the way  pedagogy was required to be presented
> > gives a deeper context to the evolving theory.  The metaphor of the globe
> > -moving from concrete to abstract- as a process of increasing
> > "distanciation" as a more "general" way of discussing heaps, complexes,
> > psuedoconcepts, true concepts, and scientific concepts is very helpful to
> > orient my understanding of these ideas.
> >
> > Mike, your elaborating the notion of "scientific systems of concept
> > formation" as not universal but evloving from INSTRUCTION within SCHOOL
> > settings and questioning if there are other ways of formulating
> systematic
> > theories that are cultural but not situated within schooling links up
> with
> > hermeneutical conceptions of "traditions" as formations of systematic
> > concept development [and also social representations from Moscovici].
> > Schooling develops traditions of increasing "distanciation" but still
> > leaves
> > open the central question of "layering" As we coordinate and move within
> > the
> > latitude and longitude of the concrete-abstract configuration is it a
> > linear
> > progression of transcendence "over" the concrete [mastery & control] or
> is
> > it more a formation of increasing coordination of complexity on "the
> globe"
> > and the volitional capacity to engage various "perspectives of
> > distanciation" from the immediate concrete moment to the most "abstract"
> -
> > distanciated from the concrete - systematic concepts.
> >
> > Chapter 5 p.133 "transition from UNMEDIATED intellectual processes to
> > operations mediated by signs" [Mead's significant SHARED symbols]  I
> think
> > this concept is a central notion to be elaborated and critiqued. My
> > understanding of "mediation" would include David Kellogg's "2nd  moment"
> of
> > development of the concept.  The nonvolitional affective "movement
> between
> > actual persons" IS "mediational"  [mediated by OTHERS] and seems to be
> > foundational for developing concepts. This affective realm, which in some
> > accounts would be theorized as "unmediated by signs", seems to be a
> > critical
> > MOMENT in development. The reason I like the term "distanciated" as a way
> > of
> > understanding the coordination of concrete-abstract perspectives is it
> does
> > not bias the "scientific concepts" over everyday concepts or cognition as
> > separation of affect from thought.  Distanciation "as a tool" which comes
> > increasingly under volitional control as perspectives are developing
> > increasing complexity recognizes the centrality of mediating the
> > development
> > of a "communal self" that can NEGOTIATE and COORDINATE subjective and
> > INTERSUBJECTIVE perspectives which are experienced as more or less
> concrete
> > or abstract but does not privilege one perspective as more "true".
> >
> > Last point.  "scientific concepts" as a particular "system of
> > distanciation"
> > which exists within a particular hermeneutical "tradition" and expands
> our
> > "horizon of understanding" is maybe the most powerful tool we have yet
> > developed for coordinating and systematizing our concepts but it is still
> a
> > particular historically developed tradition [which develops particular
> > kinds
> > of persons] Schools, as institutions, structure and systematize the
> > development of this tool for distanciating from the immediate visual
> field
> > BUT it is within historical  circumstances that  "hermeneutical
> > traditions" as  systems of social relations and systematized scientific
> > concepts evolve. Ontological development "and systematic conceptions of
> > "self" and "subjectivity" emerge within these horizons of understanding
> > [which must be systematic and regulated in order to exist as particular
> > perspectives on "reality" [perspectival realism].  These "tradititions"
> are
> > mediated by significant symbols [concepts] which are systems of concepts.
> > These systems may be more or less "distanciated" from the concrete
> > immediate
> > moment BUT even in the most "advanced" scientifically informed
> > societies experience is a dynamic process of movement between the
> > "coordinates on the globe"
> >
> > Once again, thank you for producing this very informative video [which in
> > combination with the conversation on CHAT has been successful in helping
> me
> > coordinate multiple perspectives to deepen my understanding of
> > "developmental psychology" as a "system  of thinking and concept
> > formation".
> >
> >
> > Larry
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 2:26 AM, Paula M Towsey
> > <paulat@johnwtowsey.co.za<http://us.mc1103.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=paulat@johnwtowsey.co.za>
> >wrote:
> >
> > > Part One of the *Dialogue on Concepts*, a collaborative presentation
> > > initiated by Andy Blunden, has now been released and is open for
> > > discussion.
> > > XMCAers are invited to view it at:
> > >
> > > http://vimeo.com/groups/39473/videos/13550409
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _________________________________
> > > Paula M Towsey
> > > PhD Candidate: Universiteit Leiden
> > > Faculty of Social Sciences
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > xmca mailing list
> > > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu<http://us.mc1103.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> > > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > xmca mailing list
> > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu<http://us.mc1103.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > xmca mailing list
> > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu<http://us.mc1103.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >
> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu<http://us.mc1103.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca