Re: [xmca] Dewey's quote

[Robert Lake <boblake@georgiasouthern.edu>]

Michael,
I so appreciate your post because I never knew any of this background.
It is interesting to see how cultural historical forces shape the philosophy
of education
 as well as in the "harder sciences" .

Robert

On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 3:21 PM, Michael Glassman <MGlassman@ehe.osu.edu>wrote:

> Hi Robert,
>
> I don't know how interested people are but there is most probably a really
> interesting story behind that Dewey quote relating to his support of Wilson
> and entering WW I.  I've been thinking about this a lot because I just read
> a great novel on WWI by Ken Follet - "The Fall of Giants."  Anyway there was
> a tremendous split in the Pragmatic/Progrssive movement over the United
> States entry in to the world.  It had reached fever pitch by the time Dewey
> published Democracy and Education in 1916.  Jane Addams led movement among
> Progressives to avoid becoming involved at all costs.  Dewey, who was an
> incredibly powerful intellectual at the time, had been convinced by Wilson
> and his dream of a League of Nations that this could be a tremendous
> opportunity to changes Europe.  After the monarchies fell there would be a
> tremendous move towards understanding what happened (education) that would
> lead towards the establishing of democracies across Europe.  Dewey really
> believed that this would happen.
>
> The most poignant story to come out of this was Dewey's relationship to his
> favorite and most accomplished student Randolph Bourne.  Bourne sides with
> Jane Addams, and while he did not publicly criticize Dewey he did criticize
> many of those who supported Dewey.  His article "Twilight of the Gods" I
> think is still one of the most amazing documents to ever come out of
> Pragmatism.  Dewey broke completely with Bourne having him thrown off of
> editorial boards.
>
> Of coruse is never worked out.  Bourne died in the Spanish flu epidemic of
> 1919 and there was never a chance for re-engagment between the two men.
>  Perhaps worse, Wilson's plans came to nothing, I don't know if it was just
> a political sell out or because Wilson became sick.  Dewey I think was
> devastated.  It caused him to make the second great mistake of his life I
> think, which was to stand against the U.S. entry in to WWII.
>
> Sorry for the long, historical message.  I just think it is one of the more
> fascinating stories in American academia.
>
> Michael
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu on behalf of Robert Lake
> Sent: Mon 1/17/2011 12:44 PM
> To: lchcmike@gmail.com; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> Subject: Re: [xmca] Paradigms, Hyperdigms, Hypodigms
>
>
>
> >
> > Mike,
> >
>   To answer your question about the Dewey quote. It was written in
>   Dewey, J. (1916). *Democracy and education*. New York: Free Press.
>
>   Since then there have been many CHAT examples of how that has "worked"
> and how it has not .
>
>   Right?
>
>   Robert
>
>
>
> > Also, reading about Europe between 1918-1940 its hard to believe your
> Dewey
> > quote below. The first part seems true enough but the second?
> >
> > mike
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 6:21 AM, Robert Lake <
> boblake@georgiasouthern.edu
> > >wrote:
> >
> > > Happy MLK day to David K. and Everyone!
> > >
> > > Does pluralism equate with a reduction to the lowest common denominator
> > or
> > > does it mean  an interdependent yet distinct set of approaches that
> > > welcomes
> > > difference without expecting each practitioner to be a "jack of all
> > > trades"?
> > >
> > > RL
> > > On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 10:08 PM, David Kellogg <
> > vaughndogblack@yahoo.com
> > > >wrote:
> > >
> > > > I'm with him; with the other David K. The generic approach really
> > demands
> > > > too much Jack-of-all-tradesmanship of the teacher, and the Jack of
> all
> > > > trades, while very useful in pioneer times, is ultimately a master of
> > > none.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, in Chapter ONE of T&S Vygotsky is defining the problem and the
> > > > approach. But even there he doesn't exactly want to let a hundred
> > flowers
> > > > blossom and a hundred schools of thought content. The problem he
> > > addresses
> > > > is quite specific, and within this problem there is really only
> > > legitimate
> > > > method, and it's not the tried and true method of analysis into
> > elements
> > > > that forms the basis of the extant genre.
> > > >
> > > > In Chapter TWO Vygotsky is even less eclectic, if possible. He BEGINS
> > by
> > > > saying that Piaget (actually Claparede) associates himself with
> Freud,
> > > > Blondel, and Levy-Bruhl as a great pioneer of an entirely new field.
> > But
> > > > then he says that this is not at all an enviable position: Freud,
> > > Blondel,
> > > > and Levy-Bruhl created their psychologies from problem to paradigm,
> and
> > > this
> > > > is exactly what is wrong with them, and why their psychologies
> > inevitably
> > > > end up with that peculiarly metaphysical smell imparted by an
> > > overambitious
> > > > bottom-upmanship. (It's a familiar problem for painters: when you
> frame
> > > the
> > > > painting according to the subject you end up making your picture too
> > > small,
> > > > but when you want to include enough background to make sense of it,
> you
> > > > always end up making your picture too big.)
> > > >
> > > > When LSV talks about "general" psychology and the necessity to
> "unify"
> > > > psychology, he's not just making the point that individual psychology
> > has
> > > to
> > > > be seen, contra Wundt, as an instantiation of social psychology. He's
> > > also
> > > > calling for what in applied linguistics has come to be called "theory
> > > > culling", the falsification and the destruction of some entirely
> wrong
> > > > paradigms (e.g. Bergson, elan vital, Mach, Freud, Levy-Bruhl,
> Blondel,
> > > and
> > > > Piaget too.).
> > > >
> > > > I think he would say that "general psychology", in which he would
> > include
> > > > sociology (see Chapter Four) and semiology, must become the
> hyperdigm.
> > > What
> > > > we now call psychology is really what he calls "individual
> psychology",
> > > and
> > > > that is the paradigm. Education would be a hypodigm of psychology
> > dealing
> > > > with teaching/learning and microgenetic change.
> > > >
> > > > One way to look at this is to think of the subordination of paradigms
> > to
> > > > hyperdigms and their superordination to hypodigms in terms of the
> TIME
> > > > variable. Social psychology, the hyperdigm, is really the study of
> > > > sociogenesis, the functional differentiation of societies and their
> > > > resultant structure, just as biology is the study of biogenesis, the
> > > > evolutionary differentiation of species, and the resulting
> structures.
> > > >
> > > > Individual psychology, for Vygotsky, is the study of ontogenesis,
> > > > functional differentiation between and within individuals, and the
> > > > psychological structures that come out of this, and of course the
> > > > hypodigm, education, is the study of microgenesis. That's OUR cue;
> > > > it's where we (teachers) come in!
> > > >
> > > > David Kellogg
> > > > Seoul National University of Education
> > > >
> > > > --- On Sun, 1/16/11, David H Kirshner <dkirsh@lsu.edu> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > From: David H Kirshner <dkirsh@lsu.edu>
> > > > Subject: RE: [xmca] Brains, Computer, and the Future of Education
> > > > To: ablunden@mira.net, "eXtended Mind, Culture,Activity" <
> > > > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> > > > Date: Sunday, January 16, 2011, 10:43 AM
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Andy,
> > > >
> > > > The question of whether you, Vygotsky, I, or anyone else thinks
> > multiple
> > > > paradigms are a good idea needs to be separated from the question of
> > > > whether psychology is preparadigmatic in the sense of questing toward
> > > > paradigmatic consensus. Kuhn's sociology of science analysis does not
> > > > imply that every, or indeed any, particular scientist interprets
> their
> > > > work in terms of this sociological imperative. But in the case of
> > > > psychology, we can see certain historical processes that are not easy
> > to
> > > > account for otherwise. I'm thinking, particularly, of the dynamic of
> > > > paradigmatic ambitions presented as solid (or immanent)
> > accomplishments,
> > > > only to be beaten back by proponents of other schools. Think for
> > > > Skinner's (1958) attempt to extend behavioral psychology from
> > unmediated
> > > > response conditioning to verbal behavior beaten back by Chomsky's
> > (1959)
> > > > famous book review, or the counterattack of Anderson, Reder, and
> Simon
> > > > (1996) in the face of defections by notable cognitivists like Brown,
> > > > Collins, and Duguid (1989), Greeno (1993), Hirst and Manier (1995)
> > > > dissatisfied with cognitivist attempts to account for the problem of
> > > > "context." I argue this kind of discourse is not characteristic of
> > > > paradigmatic science, but instead supports the thesis that psychology
> > is
> > > > preparadigmatic.
> > > >
> > > > If, as you suggest, multiple paradigms--not competing, but
> co-existing
> > > > peacefully--is a happy steady-state for psychology, then we'd expect
> a
> > > > genres approach for education to have arisen long ago as an
> alternative
> > > > to saddling educational practitioners with the need to grapple with
> > > > dialectical syntheses across paradigms. On the other hand, if
> > > > preparadigmatic psychology is ever questing toward paradigmatic
> > > > consensus, then expect psychologists to resist a genres approach
> > through
> > > > many different sorts of explanations, including, possibly, denying
> the
> > > > preparadigmatic status of their science.
> > > >
> > > > David
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:
> xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu]
> > > > On Behalf Of Andy Blunden
> > > > Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2011 7:12 AM
> > > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture,Activity
> > > > Subject: Re: [xmca] Brains, Computer, and the Future of Education
> > > >
> > > > I certainly don't see the problematic you pose, David, as indicating
> a
> > > > need for us to "grow up" and actually I find "genre" as you present
> it,
> > > > a very fruitful way of characterising the problem. Shortly before
> your
> > > > earlier message arrived I had been reading LSV's "Thinking and
> Speech,"
> > > > Chapter 1. I can't for the life of me find a suitable succinct quote,
> > > > but as I recall it, he was saying that Psychology was, as you say,
> not
> > > > yet able to form a unified theory, and that (something like) every
> new
> > > > observation or problem launched a new theory. Now, I don't read
> > Vygotsky
> > > >
> > > > as attempting to create a master theory. On the contrary he argues
> > > > against this, as I see it. His piece about the "unit" in that chapter
> > > > says that we have to form a concept of the class of phenomena or
> > > > *problem* that we want to solve and unfold a theory from there, as
> > > > opposed to subordinating that definite class of problem to a more
> > > > general one which lacks the special characteristics of the special
> > > > probem we want to solve.Confusion has arisen I think from trying to
> > read
> > > >
> > > > LSV's theory of the relation of thinking and speaking as a grand
> theory
> > > > of consciousness.
> > > >
> > > > So it seems to me that in any very general field of phenomena
> multiple
> > > > genre are quite OK, fruitful and just as useful as they are in
> everyday
> > > > life. (Imagine trying to get by in everyday life with one genre!)
> Only
> > > > each "genre" needs to have a clear concept of the class of problems
> > that
> > > >
> > > > it covers. That's why I raise the question of stepping back one step
> > > > from a genre and ask: how does this genre frame the phenomena, as a
> > > > problem, as a unit or concept of its subject matter.
> > > >
> > > > I think if we do that the messy competition between currents of
> > thinking
> > > >
> > > > could be presented in a way which was productive.
> > > >
> > > > What do you think?
> > > > Andy
> > > >
> > > > David H Kirshner wrote:
> > > > > Larry and Andy,
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks for kind words.
> > > > >
> > > > > Andy, I don't have the philosophical background to be able to
> address
> > > > > your question as formulated. But I read the intent of the question
> as
> > > > > probing the utility of the paradigm construct, and hence the genres
> > > > > solution: If all differences of opinion are ultimately paradigm
> > > > > differences, then shouldn't we just grow up, accept differences in
> > > > > framing as inevitable, and get on with debating issues and acting
> on
> > > > the
> > > > > basis of our best judgment following from the debate? Why should we
> > > > > regard differences of opinion that emerge in psychological framings
> > of
> > > > > learning as different from other disagreements, and requiring its
> own
> > > > > new kind of solution, namely a "genres" solution?
> > > > >
> > > > > Let me address that concern directly. Take as a major instance the
> > > > > difference between sociogenetic and ontogenetic (i.e.,
> individualist)
> > > > > approaches to learning. These approaches construe the world of
> > > > learning
> > > > > in very different terms, each highlighting certain questions as
> > > > crucial,
> > > > > while other questions are incidental. Not coincidently, each can
> > > > answer
> > > > > certain questions, to wit the ones it considers important, much
> more
> > > > > effectively than the other questions.
> > > > >
> > > > > We have the following usual choices: Adopt one perspective based on
> > > > the
> > > > > promise that it (eventually) will be able to answer the full set of
> > > > > questions adequately; or construct a new theory as a dialectical
> > > > > synthesis of the original two. (I think socioculturalists straddle
> > the
> > > > > two choices by sometimes claiming they are sociogenetic and other
> > > > times
> > > > > that they are inherently dialectic.)
> > > > >
> > > > > In the behaviorist era and subsequently the cognitive area, the
> first
> > > > > choice was more appealing. The desire to be "scientific" (i.e.,
> > > > > uni-paradigmatic), in conjunction with shameless hawking by
> > > > proponents,
> > > > > gave those approaches some time to adequately address the concerns
> of
> > > > > the other school. As neither succeeded in unifying the field, in
> this
> > > > > post-cognitive era, we opt more for dialectical approaches.
> > > > >
> > > > > The problem is that these dialectical alternatives, rather like the
> > > > > particle/wave dialectic of quantum physics, don't really help us
> make
> > > > > sense of the world in a way that is actionable. Our intuitions
> about
> > > > > learning are not able to encompass both sides of the dialectic in
> > such
> > > > a
> > > > > way as to constitute a synthesis. As a result, a dialectic approach
> > > > puts
> > > > > on the table the diverse and discordant pieces that somehow have to
> > be
> > > > > coordinated. Paul Cobb (1994) addressed this problem of
> > constructivist
> > > > > and sociocultural approaches in a widely read ER piece recommending
> > > > > precisely that: a coordination of perspectives.
> > > > >
> > > > > Well, obviously a coordination of perspectives is exactly what is
> > > > > needed. The issue at hand is who does the coordinating? In Cobb's
> > > > > approach--as in all other academic approaches that have been
> > > > offered--it
> > > > > is the researcher's challenge to figure out the coordination. In
> this
> > > > > way, the work of coordination can take place in the academy in
> > concert
> > > > > with efforts to forge a dialectical synthesis that eventually could
> > > > > serve to unify the science of learning under a single theorization.
> > > > This
> > > > > is why a genres approach is so disruptive. A genres approach says,
> > > > > instead, let's focus within each paradigm on figuring out what that
> > > > > framing has to offer teaching. Then leave it to teachers, to the
> > world
> > > > > of professional practice, to figure out how (or if) to coordinate.
> > > > >
> > > > > For the researcher, this genres approach is a disaster. It
> constructs
> > > > > what is most important for researchers--an eventual dialectical
> > > > > synthesis that unites the field--as irrelevant to the world of
> > > > practice.
> > > > > Our theoretical musing no longer are projected into the world of
> > > > > educational practice as relevant, they become just our private
> > > > concern,
> > > > > with possible long-term payoff for the world, but no immediate
> > > > > relevance. For teachers, the genres approach finally provides for
> > > > > emancipation from the intellectual tyranny of theory. Because the
> > > > > individual paradigms are grounded in accessible metaphors for
> > > > learning,
> > > > > it becomes possible to articulate pedagogical principles in ways
> that
> > > > > are coherently available to teachers. And then it becomes the
> purview
> > > > of
> > > > > professional practice to determine how best to coordinate the
> genres
> > > > of
> > > > > teaching.
> > > > >
> > > > > This is truly a moral dilemma for researchers.
> > > > >
> > > > > David
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:
> > xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu]
> > > > > On Behalf Of Andy Blunden
> > > > > Sent: Saturday, January 15, 2011 6:51 PM
> > > > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> > > > > Subject: Re: [xmca] Brains, Computer, and the Future of Education
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank you David for your truly enlightening post.
> > > > >
> > > > > Can I ask this question: when two subjects are engaged in a
> dialogue
> > > > > over some issue, and are positing the issue in two different
> genres,
> > > > is
> > > > > it true to say that they are explicitly or implicitly asserting
> > > > > different frames. For example, if two parties are arguing over
> > whether
> > > >
> > > > > to increase unemployment benefit, they may disagree over the frame
> > > > being
> > > > >
> > > > > lazy people ripping off the community or disadvantaged people who
> > > > > deserve the support of the community. So isn't there always a frame
> > > > > around a genre where rational contest is possible? Every specialism
> > > > > exists within a lingua franca of shared concepts, doesn't it?
> > > > >
> > > > > Andy
> > > > >
> > > > > David H Kirshner wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> Larry, Andy, Michael, and Monica.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Sorry for the delay in responding. Let me first address the
> > > > technology
> > > > >> tie-in, and then turn to the pedagogical question about how to
> deal
> > > > >>
> > > > > with
> > > > >
> > > > >> the multi-paradigmatic theorization of learning.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I'm sympathetic to the perspective that it is "the current
> > > > >>
> > > > > technologies
> > > > >
> > > > >> being used and developed which transforms our guiding metaphors
> [for
> > > > >> learning] and not the internal debates among scholars." If we look
> > at
> > > > >> the whole ball of wax, psychology certainly does seem a chaotic
> > > > tangle
> > > > >> that may well be led by technological happenstance rather than by
> > > > >> intellectual coherence. But the proliferation of new schools and
> new
> > > > >> approaches based on technological developments should not obscure
> > the
> > > > >> kinds of processes of development that go within each paradigmatic
> > > > >> school. Certainly, paradigmatic differences are not settled by
> > > > debate.
> > > > >> As Kuhn pointed out, the competitive process is inescapably
> > > > >>
> > > > > sociological
> > > > >
> > > > >> rather than purely intellectual. What about within a paradigm? As
> > > > >> sociohistorical institutions schools of research persist over time
> > > > >> because of mutually shared projects that often are experienced as
> > > > >> intellectually coherent. Certainly technological developments can
> > > > >> influence the basic understandings pursued within a school. For
> > > > >> instance, psychologists moved on from the telephone switchboard
> > > > >>
> > > > > metaphor
> > > > >
> > > > >> of cognitive processing to the serial digital computer metaphor
> > which
> > > > >> afforded much more dynamic possibilities for theorization, but
> with
> > > > >>
> > > > > much
> > > > >
> > > > >> basic conceptual continuity. I don't think it's "wrong" to regard
> > > > >>
> > > > > intra
> > > > >
> > > > >> paradigmatic development as led by technological developments.
> > > > >>
> > > > > However,
> > > > >
> > > > >> I imagine most of the time, for example in thinking about our own
> > > > >> progress as sociocultural or CHAT researchers, we find it useful
> to
> > > > >>
> > > > > view
> > > > >
> > > > >> progress in terms of intellectual coherence. In any case, in my
> work
> > > > >>
> > > > > in
> > > > >
> > > > >> harvesting insights from the diverse branches of psychology for
> the
> > > > >> purpose of framing a multi-paradigmatic pedagogy, I find it useful
> > to
> > > > >> regard the work within paradigms as progressing through rational
> > > > >>
> > > > > debate
> > > > >
> > > > >> (or at least attempting to).
> > > > >>
> > > > >> A Multi-paradigmatic Pedagogical Framework:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> How do we advance pedagogical theory taking seriously the
> > > > >> multi-paradigmatic status of learning theory?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Let me warn that this is a theme I've pursued before on xmca
> without
> > > > >> much uptake--I think for very good reasons. The path leads to
> > > > >> delegitimization of education as a co-participant with psychology
> in
> > > > >>
> > > > > the
> > > > >
> > > > >> scientific enterprise. Alternatively, it leads to the repudiation
> by
> > > > >> education of psychology's scientific pretensions. Given how deeply
> > > > >> enmeshed educational and psychological communities are with one
> > > > >>
> > > > > another
> > > > >
> > > > >> (e.g., xmca) this is not an easy or appealing path for either
> party.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> The first step on this path is the hardest to take, though it is
> > > > >>
> > > > > simple
> > > > >
> > > > >> to articulate. If we accept that learning is diversely conceived
> > > > >>
> > > > > across
> > > > >
> > > > >> varied paradigms, and we also regard the purpose of teaching as
> > > > >> promoting learning, then there is only one sensible path to take
> if
> > > > >>
> > > > > one
> > > > >
> > > > >> desires pedagogical theory to be grounded in learning theory: A
> > > > genres
> > > > >> approach to pedagogical theorizing, with each genre of teaching
> > > > >> addressing learning in a particular paradigmatic sense. To date, a
> > > > >> genres approach has not been advanced. However, there are two
> > > > >> alternative approaches that have been attempted, in each case with
> > > > >> disastrous consequences. One method is to focus on a single
> paradigm
> > > > >>
> > > > > and
> > > > >
> > > > >> deny the legitimacy of any others (e.g., the behaviorist era in
> > > > >> education). The other is to fashion a holistic vision of "good
> > > > >>
> > > > > teaching"
> > > > >
> > > > >> that somehow is to address learning in its various
> interpretations.
> > > > >>
> > > > > This
> > > > >
> > > > >> is the current Zeitgeist in educational theorizing, and I'll
> devote
> > a
> > > > >> couple of paragraphs, below, to explaining its multifaceted ill
> > > > >>
> > > > > effects
> > > > >
> > > > >> on education, the most immediate and debilitating of which is
> > > > systemic
> > > > >> de-intellectualization of pedagogy. For if teaching practice is to
> > be
> > > > >> understood in terms of learning theory, it can only be in terms of
> a
> > > > >> single theory at a time, given the multi-paradigmatic character of
> > > > >>
> > > > > this
> > > > >
> > > > >> branch of knowledge.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I have been teaching an Education doctoral course on the genres
> > > > >>
> > > > > approach
> > > > >
> > > > >> for about 15 years, and I've ALMOST NEVER succeeded in making this
> > > > >>
> > > > > first
> > > > >
> > > > >> step comprehensible. So entrenched in our discourse are the ideas
> of
> > > > >> holistic pedagogy--"good teaching" as a set of practices that
> > > > >>
> > > > > addresses
> > > > >
> > > > >> learning conceived as a complex and multifaceted whole--that the
> > > > >> language of genres just doesn't register for my students.
> Typically,
> > > > >> when I present a framework for teaching for Skills, Concepts, and
> > > > >> Dispositions as distinct genres of teaching, this gets assimilated
> > > > >>
> > > > > into
> > > > >
> > > > >> a "learning styles" frame in which the different pedagogical
> > > > >>
> > > > > approaches
> > > > >
> > > > >> provide different routes to learning conceived as a complex and
> > > > >> multi-faceted whole. Indeed, our discourse typically intermixes
> > these
> > > > >> learning goals as we talk of "understanding the skill,"
> "practicing
> > > > >>
> > > > > the
> > > > >
> > > > >> concept," or "inculcating thinking skills." Students almost never
> > > > come
> > > > >> to grasp the motive of differentiating, rather than integrating,
> > > > these
> > > > >> notions of learning as a comprehensible agenda.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> The cost we pay for maintaining an integrative or holistic
> discourse
> > > > >> about "good teaching" in education is staggeringly high. First, is
> > > > the
> > > > >> impossibility of articulating pedagogical principles, which, as
> > > > >> discussed above would require that learning be conceived locally,
> > > > >> relative to the independently conceived notions of learning.
> Because
> > > > >>
> > > > > in
> > > > >
> > > > >> the standard discourse "good teaching" is somehow simultaneously
> to
> > > > >> address learning in its many various senses, we end up instead
> with
> > > > >> generalities and platitudes, with intractably dense dialectical
> > > > >>
> > > > > analyses
> > > > >
> > > > >> attempting to span disparate local theories, and with vignettes
> that
> > > > >>
> > > > > are
> > > > >
> > > > >> meant to illustrate good teaching, but that don't articulate its
> > > > >> principles. In short, we provide almost no usable intellectual
> > > > >>
> > > > > resources
> > > > >
> > > > >> that can serve to guide development of teaching practice.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Second is the politicized character of our pedagogical discourse
> > > > >> stemming from the interpenetration of values issues with issues of
> > > > >> efficacy. Given the varied notions of learning that motivate
> > > > >>
> > > > > educators,
> > > > >
> > > > >> it is to be expected that values issues will arise as to which
> > > > sort(s)
> > > > >> of learning ought to be pursued with students. But since our
> > > > discourse
> > > > >> constructs good teaching as a holistic set of practices, there's
> no
> > > > >> discursive space for this variation. One's opponent's construction
> > of
> > > > >> good teaching is not just wrong on values, but also misguided
> about
> > > > >>
> > > > > what
> > > > >
> > > > >> is effective practice (e.g., the Reading Wars and the Math Wars).
> A
> > > > >> discourse framed in genres of teaching would enable values issues
> to
> > > > >>
> > > > > be
> > > > >
> > > > >> separated from issues of efficacy, thereby protecting the
> > > > professional
> > > > >> integrity of the field of teaching practice.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Finally, with so little to offer professional teaching practice,
> > > > >> learning theory is easily subject to being dismissed as
> irrelevant.
> > > > If
> > > > >> Teaching is defined in terms of promoting Learning, then learning
> > > > >>
> > > > > theory
> > > > >
> > > > >> ought to be THE theoretical discourse through which teaching
> > practice
> > > > >>
> > > > > is
> > > > >
> > > > >> articulated. We see our growing irrelevance in the current
> > prominence
> > > > >>
> > > > > of
> > > > >
> > > > >> "brain" perspectives on teaching--which is what started this
> > > > >>
> > > > > thread--but
> > > > >
> > > > >> also in other cognitive mechanisms approaches like "learning
> styles"
> > > > >> research, as well as in pedagogical framings based on critical
> > > > theory,
> > > > >> values theory, philosophical commitments, or metaphysical or
> > > > spiritual
> > > > >> bases. In the end what we have is an open-ended pedagogical
> > discourse
> > > > >>
> > > > > in
> > > > >
> > > > >> which each new proposal for "good teaching" can create its own
> > > > >>
> > > > > universe
> > > > >
> > > > >> of discourse within which it is to be analyzed and evaluated. The
> > > > >> marketplace of pedagogical ideas resembles much more a bazaar than
> a
> > > > >> professional knowledge base. A genres approach, while featuring a
> > > > >> theoretically heterogeneous set of framings for learning,
> > nonetheless
> > > > >> would enable us to capture the essential interests that motivate
> the
> > > > >> pedagogical enterprise within a finite and determinate set of
> > > > >> theoretical approaches.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Genres: Why Not?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> One excellent reason to dismiss the genres approach is because it
> is
> > > > >>
> > > > > so
> > > > >
> > > > >> obvious. After all, it is immediately apparent that learning is
> > > > >> diversely conceived in varied psychological paradigms. So
> > > > >>
> > > > > theorizations
> > > > >
> > > > >> of good teaching that really come to grips with learning theory
> > would
> > > > >> need to be constructed locally, relative to a specific notion of
> > > > >> learning. Surely, if a genres approach had any merit it would have
> > > > >>
> > > > > been
> > > > >
> > > > >> adopted, or at least explored, a long time ago.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> The alternative is that there are powerful interests arrayed
> against
> > > > >> recognizing and dealing with the preparadigmatic status of
> > > > psychology.
> > > > >>
> > > > > I
> > > > >
> > > > >> propose that the genres approach has not previously been advanced
> > > > >> because it is in psychologists' self interest that it not be.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> To understand these interests, we need to delve a bit into how
> > > > >> preparadigmatic science functions. Preparadigmatic science
> consists
> > > > of
> > > > >> multiple schools each in competition with the others to the unify
> > the
> > > > >> field under its own banner. However, paradigmatic differences are
> > > > >>
> > > > > never
> > > > >
> > > > >> settled by debate. As Kuhn pointed out, the competitive process is
> > > > >> inescapably sociological rather than purely intellectual. Viewed
> > > > >>
> > > > > through
> > > > >
> > > > >> divergent paradigmatic lenses, different aspects of observed
> > > > phenomena
> > > > >> become highlighted as problematic. So one paradigm cannot
> invalidate
> > > > >>
> > > > > the
> > > > >
> > > > >> perspectives of another. Instead, a paradigm succeeds against
> others
> > > > >>
> > > > > by
> > > > >
> > > > >> addressing the concerns of the other paradigms in ways that are
> > > > >> sufficiently appealing and powerful as to attract established
> > > > >> researchers from other schools, and especially new researchers
> just
> > > > >> entering the field. Like old soldiers, old paradigms never die,
> they
> > > > >> just fade away.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Viewed in this way, we see that psychologists must lead double
> > lives.
> > > > >> Within their paradigm, the psychologist's life is similar to that
> of
> > > > >> most other scientists. They are involved in deliberate and careful
> > > > >> elaboration and extension of the basic perspectives that initiated
> > > > the
> > > > >> school. However, externally, they are hucksters extraordinaire.
> > > > Claims
> > > > >> are exaggerated. Hoped for/planned developments are presented as
> > > > faits
> > > > >> accomplis. After all, one wins in the broader game by attracting
> > > > >> researchers, especially neophyte researchers, to your school.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> One could castigate psychologists for being duplicitous or
> > dishonest,
> > > > >> but I think this freights individual psychology too heavily. What
> we
> > > > >> have is best viewed not as individual misrepresentation, but a
> > > > >> discursive form reflecting the sociological imperative of
> > > > >> preparadigmatic science to achieve paradigmatic consensus. The
> > ironic
> > > > >> result is that across the broad diversity of psychology, there is
> > > > only
> > > > >> one tenet espoused by learning theorists of every persuasion: a
> > > > single
> > > > >> perspective (eventually) encompasses all of the relevant phenomena
> > of
> > > > >> learning. Thus a genres approach to pedagogy, building on discrete
> > > > >> accomplishments across paradigmatic divisions, would subvert
> > > > >> psychologists' active self-interest in promoting the problem of
> > > > >> paradigmatic division as (imminently) solved.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> But what about educators? If psychologists prefer to deny the
> > > > >> preparadigmatic status of their field, why is it that educators
> > > > >>
> > > > > haven't
> > > > >
> > > > >> pressed on with a genres approach on their own? Again, a
> > sociological
> > > > >> perspective can help, this time explaining the client status of
> > > > >> Education with respect to Psychology. One of the first
> > preoccupations
> > > > >>
> > > > > of
> > > > >
> > > > >> Psychology, dating back to its emergence as a scientific
> enterprise,
> > > > >>
> > > > > was
> > > > >
> > > > >> investigation of the transfer of training assumptions of faculty
> > > > >> psychology (e.g., Thorndike & Woodworth, 1901). These early
> studies
> > > > >> found the prevailing belief in broad transfer of learning to be
> > > > >> unwarranted. Through preceding centuries, the classical
> > > > (Aristotelian)
> > > > >> theory of faculty psychology, and its associated theory of
> > > > >> mental-disciplines, had served as the basis for pedagogical
> thought.
> > > > >>
> > > > > So,
> > > > >
> > > > >> psychology's attack upon transfer of training effectively
> dislodged
> > > > >>
> > > > > the
> > > > >
> > > > >> existing foundations for educational practice. As a result,
> > education
> > > > >> attached itself to the new science, not as a separate and
> > independent
> > > > >> field of inquiry, but as a client discipline, dependent upon
> > > > >>
> > > > > psychology
> > > > >
> > > > >> for our legitimacy and intellectual authority. In that role, we
> have
> > > > >> tended to see the world as the psychologists do. We have not
> > > > construed
> > > > >> psychology independently, as we would need to do to adopt a genres
> > > > >> approach.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Marshalling Preparadigmatic Psychology for Educational Purposes:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I'm going to conclude this post with a description of how
> > > > >>
> > > > > psychological
> > > > >
> > > > >> theory gets appropriated and reworked in genres scholarship. (This
> > > > >> really is where the psychologists get mad.) I mentioned, above,
> that
> > > > >> "Within their paradigm, the psychologist's life is similar to that
> > of
> > > > >> most other scientists." Similar, but not identical. I want to
> argue
> > > > >>
> > > > > that
> > > > >
> > > > >> paradigmatic science develops more organically based on insights
> > that
> > > > >> bubble up from within the paradigm, in comparison with
> > > > preparadigmatic
> > > > >> science that is more teleologically driven by a felt need to
> address
> > > > >> concerns that have emerged in other schools. For instance,
> > > > >>
> > > > > cognitivists
> > > > >
> > > > >> exploring the computational metaphor might eventually have
> decided,
> > > > on
> > > > >> their own, to extend from decontextualized problem solving to
> > > > >>
> > > > > encompass
> > > > >
> > > > >> social and cultural context. But the need to be positioned as
> > > > >> competitive with sociogenetic approaches like sociocultural
> > > > psychology
> > > > >> forced this development earlier. In this respect, we can see a
> > > > >> trajectory of preparadigmatic science that is not quite parallel
> > with
> > > > >> paradigmatic science. Preparadigmatic schools tends to evolve from
> > > > >> simple and powerful, but local, initial insights toward complex
> and
> > > > >> opaque interpretations intended to bridge disparate intuitions.
> And
> > > > >>
> > > > > then
> > > > >
> > > > >> again, some preparadigmatic schools--e.g., social constructivism
> and
> > > > >> perhaps situated cognition theory, in psychology--initially are
> > > > formed
> > > > >> as a synthesis of diverse perspectives precisely in order to be
> > > > >> competitive players in the preparadigmatic game, but without a
> clear
> > > > >>
> > > > > and
> > > > >
> > > > >> simple local insight. The result is that use of psychology to
> inform
> > > > a
> > > > >> genres approach must be highly selective, calling only on those
> > > > >>
> > > > > theories
> > > > >
> > > > >> that most effectively highlight a single metaphorical notion of
> > > > >> learning, often relying on earlier, more narrow, versions of the
> > > > >>
> > > > > theory
> > > > >
> > > > >> over contemporary forms.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> In my own "crossdisciplinary"* effort to found a genres approach
> for
> > > > >> education that builds on insights from diverse psychological
> > schools,
> > > > >> I've found it convenient to identify the metaphors for learning
> that
> > > > I
> > > > >> see as framing education's diverse interests, and then to hunt
> > around
> > > > >> for psychological approaches that help to fill out that
> metaphorical
> > > > >> interpretation. In this approach, I am guided by the perspective
> > that
> > > > >> psychology often draws from our culturally shared metaphors for
> its
> > > > >> basic images and intuitions (Fletcher, 1995; Leary, 1994; Olson &
> > > > >> Bruner, 1996; Sternberg, 1997). For instance, my "habituation"
> > > > >>
> > > > > metaphor
> > > > >
> > > > >> for learning-as-skill-attainment draws somewhat on behaviorist
> > > > >> psychology, but also on a branch of cognitive theory known as
> > > > >>
> > > > > "implicit
> > > > >
> > > > >> learning theory." My "construction" metaphor for
> > > > >> learning-as-concept-attainment draws somewhat on the Piagetian
> based
> > > > >> radical constructivist, but also on the conceptual change
> > literature.
> > > > >>
> > > > > My
> > > > >
> > > > >> "enculturation" metaphor for learning-as-disposition-attainment
> > draws
> > > > >> partly on sociocultural theory, but also on social psychology. For
> > > > >> although sociocultural theory is predominantly sociogenetic
> > Vygotsky,
> > > > >> along with those who have undertaken to extend his legacy,
> resisted
> > > > >>
> > > > > the
> > > > >
> > > > >> complete social determinism that I see as needed to articulate a
> > > > >> coherent "enculturation pedagogy." As Penuel and Wertsch (1995)
> put
> > > > >>
> > > > > it:
> > > > >
> > > > >> "Sociocultural processes on the one hand and individual
> functioning
> > > > on
> > > > >> the other [exist] in a dynamic, irreducible tension rather than a
> > > > >>
> > > > > static
> > > > >
> > > > >> notion of social determination. A sociocultural approach ...
> > > > considers
> > > > >> these poles of sociocultural processes and individual functioning
> as
> > > > >> interacting moments in human action, rather than as static
> processes
> > > > >> that exist in isolation from one another" (p. 84). (Emphasizing
> > > > social
> > > > >> determinism, my prototypical exemplar of enculturational learning
> is
> > > > >> "proxemics" drawn from social psychology, the study of how
> > individual
> > > > >> comes to embody the "personal body space" conventions of their
> > > > >>
> > > > > national
> > > > >
> > > > >> culture.)
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I think this serves to establish how psychological science is
> > > > >>
> > > > > marshaled
> > > > >
> > > > >> within a genres agenda. Resisting what is everywhere present in
> > > > >> psychology--the attempt to develop a comprehensive account of
> > > > learning
> > > > >> that suffices for all purposes--the genres approach seeks after
> > > > >>
> > > > > partial
> > > > >
> > > > >> accounts that correspond with what I see as coherently forming the
> > > > >> discrete interest of educators in teaching skills, concepts, and
> > > > >> dispositions. It's not "wrong" for socioculturalists to agree, as
> > did
> > > > >> Larry a couple of posts ago, "that we must account for processes
> at
> > > > >>
> > > > > the
> > > > >
> > > > >> neurological level from a CHAT perspective." Indeed, such
> > initiatives
> > > > >> are vital to enable CHAT/sociocultural psychology to remain
> viable,
> > > > >>
> > > > > and
> > > > >
> > > > >> perhaps eventually prevail, within the competitive game of
> > > > >> preparadigmatic psychology. But the broader designs of the various
> > > > >> schools will not help us, today, to support educational practice.
> > The
> > > > >> psychology of TODAY is a preparadigmatic psychology, and that
> > reality
> > > > >> must be embraced in order to discern and support the discrete
> > agendas
> > > > >> for learning that motivate education.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> *I use the term crossdisciplinary in contrast with
> interdisciplinary
> > > > >>
> > > > > to
> > > > >
> > > > >> signal the coordination, rather than integration, of existing
> > > > >> theoretical frameworks.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> David
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> -----Original Message-----
> > > > >> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
> > > > [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu]
> > > > >> On Behalf Of Larry Purss
> > > > >> Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 7:35 AM
> > > > >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> > > > >> Subject: Re: [xmca] Brains, Computer, and the Future of Education
> > > > >>
> > > > >> David
> > > > >> Another quick thought on the competing models of learning and how
> > > > >>
> > > > > these
> > > > >
> > > > >> models become common sense or taken for granted folk psychological
> > > > >>
> > > > > ways
> > > > >
> > > > >> of
> > > > >> orienting to the world. The  power of metaphors to conventionalize
> a
> > > > >> cultural imaginary seems to be  central to this transformative
> > > > process
> > > > >> that
> > > > >> develops various cognitive models at the implicit or tacit level.
> > > > >>
> > > > > Andy
> > > > >
> > > > >> points to the historical processes that lead to a particular
> > metaphor
> > > > >> structuring our cognition [the zeitgeist]. As I read his comments
> > > > >> he suggests it is the current technologies being used and
> developed
> > > > >> which
> > > > >> transforms our guiding metaphors and not the internal debates
> among
> > > > >> scholars.  If technological transformation  "constitutes"
> > > > >>
> > > > > metaphorical
> > > > >
> > > > >> transformation [stronger term than influences] then how do we
> > > > >> consciously
> > > > >> engage with these transformative technological processes to
> > influence
> > > > >> the
> > > > >> zeitgeist [as a dialogue among models] ? At the level of common
> > sense
> > > > >> folk
> > > > >> psychological metaphors of learning are university debates leading
> > > > the
> > > > >> way
> > > > >> or charting where the technology has taken us?
> > > > >> The underlying question is, How do we get teachers to incorporate
> > > > >> alternative models of learning and cognition which run counter to
> > > > >>
> > > > > common
> > > > >
> > > > >> sense
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Larry
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 4:37 AM, Michael Glassman
> > > > >> <MGlassman@ehe.osu.edu>wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> Hi David,
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> I sort of feel like the human relationship with information has
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >> changed in
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> very fundemental ways over the last ten years.  Phenomena like
> the
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >> Web,
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> Google, FaceBook, the Open Source movement have moved incredibly
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >> quickly.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>>  Some academic urban legends are rising up, such as the idea that
> > > > the
> > > > >>> computer in some way changes the structure of wiring of the brain
> > > > >>> (absolutely no evidence, or even proto-evidence for this I can.)
> > > > But
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >> I
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> think it is a combination of fear and confusion.  You have first
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >> amendment
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> lawyers like Floyd Abrams arguing against free speech on the
> > > > >>>
> > > > > Internet.
> > > > >
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >> You
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> have brutal authoritarians like Putin signing executive orders
> > > > making
> > > > >>> Russian government completely Open Source by 2015 (my guess is he
> > > > has
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >> no
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> idea what Open Source actually is).  The whole thing is mind
> > > > >>>
> > > > > boggling.
> > > > >
> > > > >>> I think of cognitivist, behaviorists socio cultural theorists,
> etc,
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >> etc.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> arguing over who bats next, not realizing that the rules of the
> > game
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >> are
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> completely changing.  Changing in ways we don't even have a
> > > > >>>
> > > > > vocabulary
> > > > >
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >> to
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> talk about yet.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Michael
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> ________________________________
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu on behalf of David H Kirshner
> > > > >>> Sent: Tue 1/11/2011 10:45 PM
> > > > >>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> > > > >>> Subject: RE: [xmca] Brains, Computer, and the Future of Education
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Larry,
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Here's my sociology of science account of the rise of brain
> studies
> > > > >>>
> > > > > as
> > > > >
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >> a
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> substitute for learning theory.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> 1. In Kuhnian terms, psychology is a preparadigmatic science. For
> > > > >>> instance, learning is variously studied in behavioral, cognitive,
> > > > >>> developmental, and sociocultural schools that conceive of
> learning
> > > > in
> > > > >>> fundamentally distinct ways.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> 2. The grand motive of preparadigmatic science is establishment
> of
> > > > >>> paradigmatic consensus. Each school is in competition with the
> > > > others
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >> to
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> unify the field under its umbrella by coming to accommodate the
> > > > >>> interests of the other schools while still preserving the essence
> > of
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >> its
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> own unique perspective. Most often this competition is implicit,
> > but
> > > > >>> periodically it leads to open conflict as in Chomsky's
> repudiation
> > > > of
> > > > >>> Skinner's effort to account for "Verbal Behavior," or in the
> flare
> > > > up
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >> in
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> the late '90s between James Greeno and John Anderson and company
> > > > over
> > > > >>> cognitivist efforts to account for the situated character of
> > > > >>>
> > > > > learning.
> > > > >
> > > > >>> 3. The dominant paradigm in any period always is the one to most
> > > > >>> strenuously pursue hegemonic designs on the field. The
> > cognitivists'
> > > > >>> embracing of the rhetoric of situativity has cost them dearly:
> they
> > > > >>>
> > > > > no
> > > > >
> > > > >>> longer can forefront the technical machinery of information
> > > > >>>
> > > > > processing
> > > > >
> > > > >>> theory and artificial intelligence computer simulation as their
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >> central
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> technical method and theoretical thrust. This is really a crisis
> > > > >>>
> > > > > point
> > > > >
> > > > >>> for cognitivists. They gained prominence through the Information
> > > > >>> Processing approach, and are coasting along on their reputation.
> > > > >>> Embracing brain science enables them to maintain the surface
> > > > features
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >> of
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> dynamic "science," while providing a convenient disguise for the
> > > > fact
> > > > >>> that there's no longer a central metaphor for learning that is
> > being
> > > > >>> elaborated and developed by that community.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> 4. Projecting this forward a decade or so, we have the likelihood
> > of
> > > > >>> diminishment of the importance of the cognitivist umbrella, and
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >> renewed
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> opportunity for the other schools to push toward the front of the
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >> pack.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> ...should be lots of fun.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> David
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> -----Original Message-----
> > > > >>> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
> > > > >>>
> > > > > [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu]
> > > > >
> > > > >>> On Behalf Of Larry Purss
> > > > >>> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2011 7:37 AM
> > > > >>> To: lchcmike@gmail.com; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> > > > >>> Subject: Re: [xmca] Brains, Computer, and the Future of Education
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Mike,
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> The band wagon may not be a strong enough metaphor.  The image of
> a
> > > > >>> steam
> > > > >>> roller seems more accurate.  I mentioned earlier that the term
> ZPD
> > > > is
> > > > >>> now a
> > > > >>> recognized term in many school settings [as scaffolding].
>  However
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >> this
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> alternative metaphor of mind as computer or mind  as brain is a
> far
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >> more
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> powerful metaphor in schools. Often school staffs are fascinated
> > > > with
> > > > >>> these
> > > > >>> explanations and believe that neuroscience is finally getting to
> > the
> > > > >>> "heart"
> > > > >>> of the matter [couldn't resist the contradictary metaphor]. Brain
> > > > >>> science as
> > > > >>> an explanation of learning is becoming   the dominant narrative
> in
> > > > >>> many school debates.  I was wondering if there are any
> "simplified'
> > > > >>> articles
> > > > >>> for a general audience that engage with these neuro/brain
> metaphors
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >> that
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> would lead to school staffs possibly having a dialogue [by
> > > > >>>
> > > > > introducing
> > > > >
> > > > >>> dought]  I have shared a few articles with interested staff who
> > love
> > > > >>> ideas
> > > > >>> but they were too "theoretical" for a staff discussion.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> With this steam roller comes the call for justifying your
> practice
> > > > in
> > > > >>> schools by using "best practices" which are "evidence based".
>  This
> > > > >>> evidence often is dominated by evidence from neuroscience
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>  I have attempted to introduce sociocultural perspectives into
> the
> > > > >>> debate in
> > > > >>>  response to the neuro/brain social representations of learning
> but
> > > > I
> > > > >>> would
> > > > >>> appreciate an  article for a general audience that I could hand
> out
> > > > >>>
> > > > > to
> > > > >
> > > > >>> start
> > > > >>> a dialogue among school staffs.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Mike, I believe this frame of reference is not a "fad" or a "band
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >> wagon"
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> but is developing into a "conventionalized" metaphor which most
> > > > >>> educators
> > > > >>> may use to explain "learning" in  schools.  Fad indicates a
> > > > >>>
> > > > > transitory
> > > > >
> > > > >>> phenomena and neuroscience seems a longer lasting  phenomena.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> I am looking for an article that does not refute or contradict
> the
> > > > >>> neuroscience explanations but rather LINKS the  ideas to
> > > > >>>
> > > > > sociocultural
> > > > >
> > > > >>> concepts.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> One of the principals in a school I work in is attending this
> > > > >>> conference,
> > > > >>> and principals do have influence in school cultures.  I hope to
> > > > >>> influence
> > > > >>> her.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Larry
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 8:07 PM, mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>
> > > > >>>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>> The bandwagon is visible coming over the horizon!
> > > > >>>> Check it out at http://www.learningandthebrain.com/brain28.html
> .
> > > > >>>> Join for just the price of a click and a clack.
> > > > >>>> mike
> > > > >>>> __________________________________________
> > > > >>>> _____
> > > > >>>> xmca mailing list
> > > > >>>> 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
> > > > >>> __________________________________________
> > > > >>> _____
> > > > >>> xmca mailing list
> > > > >>> 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
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >> __________________________________________
> > > > >> _____
> > > > >> xmca mailing list
> > > > >> 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
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > Hegel Summer School: The New Atheism: Just Another Dogma?
> > > > <http://ethicalpolitics.org/seminars/hss2011.htm>
> > > >
> > > > __________________________________________
> > > > _____
> > > > xmca mailing list
> > > > 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
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > __________________________________________
> > > > _____
> > > > xmca mailing list
> > > > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > > > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > *Robert Lake  Ed.D.
> > > *Assistant Professor
> > > Social Foundations of Education
> > > Dept. of Curriculum, Foundations, and Reading
> > > Georgia Southern University
> > > P. O. Box 8144
> > > Phone: (912) 478-5125
> > > Fax: (912) 478-5382
> > > Statesboro, GA  30460
> > >
> > >  *Democracy must be born anew in every generation, and education is its
> > > midwife.*
> > > *-*John Dewey.
> > > __________________________________________
> > > _____
> > > xmca mailing list
> > > 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
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> *Robert Lake  Ed.D.
> *Assistant Professor
> Social Foundations of Education
> Dept. of Curriculum, Foundations, and Reading
> Georgia Southern University
> P. O. Box 8144
> Phone: (912) 478-5125
> Fax: (912) 478-5382
> Statesboro, GA  30460
>
>  *Democracy must be born anew in every generation, and education is its
> midwife.*
> *-*John Dewey.
> __________________________________________
> _____
> xmca mailing list
> 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
>
>


-- 
*Robert Lake  Ed.D.
*Assistant Professor
Social Foundations of Education
Dept. of Curriculum, Foundations, and Reading
Georgia Southern University
P. O. Box 8144
Phone: (912) 478-5125
Fax: (912) 478-5382
Statesboro, GA  30460

 *Democracy must be born anew in every generation, and education is its
midwife.*
*-*John Dewey.
__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca