[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Xmca-l] Re: Article on Positioning Theory



I'm not sure if you are referring to Paley's, "You can't say you can't play," but I appreciate that perspective, Larry. You've offered several important points to the dialogue, from the idea that this happens more often than not, to the idea that we really need to practice collaborative group work, to the option of opting out as having unintended consequences ... 

Donna highlighted for us below that there are outcomes that can be quite serious from this positioning ...

>From my experience, it was only when I asked students explicitly to take responsibility for the voices of their peers that I made any headway with balancing positioning in groups ... and this was with uni students ... can we ask the same of younger children? ... both that some be more responsible to share their ideas and other be more responsible to listen and discuss?

Best to all - jen




On 2014-03-26, at 8:17 AM, Donna Kotsopoulos wrote:

> Thanks, Larry for starting the discussion.
> 
> It's useful to think about our own experiences in group work. My research results surprised me. However, I shouldn't have been surprised. My own personal experiences working in groups are similar to those that I observed with the students. Some people do very little and are permitted to very little. Others do very little and are taken to task for doing very little. The main question this paper raises is why it okay for some to do very little and not for others? What are the outcomes of persistent positioning? There is a productive component that should be of concern to educators. 
> 
> 
> 
> Donna Kotsopoulos, Ph.D.
> Associate Professor
> Faculty of Education & Faculty of Science, Department of Mathematics
> Wilfrid Laurier University
> 75 University Avenue West, BA313K
> Waterloo, Ontario, N2L 3C5
> (519) 884-0710 x 3953
> www.wlu.ca/education/dkotsopoulos
> www.wlu.ca/mathbrains
> 
> 
> DISCLAIMER: This e-mail and any file(s) transmitted with it, is intended for the exclusive use by the person(s) mentioned above as recipient(s). Any unauthorized distribution, copying or other use is strictly prohibited.
>>>> On 3/26/2014 at 10:34 AM, in message <CAGaCnpzXMnauz79g2UvazmCudyU7y56cLUguC9wrpQXnYBTwig@mail.gmail.com>, Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Donna's article is asking us to examine the possible unintended
> consequences of promoting a "collaborative" model of classroom engagement
> as possibly promoting a [mis]alignment of interactive AND reflexive
> positioning in group process.
> 
> One comment that jumped out was the observation that in EVERY collaborative
> group observed ONE participant was [mis]aligned in the group process. My
> question is if each [mis]aligned participant was asked to re-form within a
> new collaborative grouping would the same dynamic occur? Would Mitchell
> possibly [re]align and become a *productive* participant who aligns with
> the *task* while one of the participants would continue to be [mis]aligned??
> This phenomena that in EVERY collaborative grouping there was a
> [mis]alignment leads to a question if this would same dynamic is playing
> out in other classroom settings?
> 
> At the end of the article the conclusion offered that persons should have a
> *choice* to participate or withdraw from engaging in the collaborative
> process and either work alone or with others also expresses a particular
> *value* position.  When [mis]aligned with the other participants through
> engaging in  a process of  *individual* reflection one *ought* to have the
> *choice* to withdraw.
> Could this *answer* also possibly lead to unintended consequences?
> 
> A few months ago there was an article on positioning within a kindergarten
> classroom. The question asked was if there should be a *rule* or
> *principle* that one cannot say "You cannot play with us?"
> This rule promotes an alternative *value* position. The article described
> how the central discursive dynamic was exploring if there were any
> *exceptions* to this rule?  The question whether this rule should *stand*
> and become a standpoint for how we position each other was left as an *open
> question* which could never have a final answer. However the *interactive*
> AND *reflexive* alignment and [mis]alighnent was very fluid and more like a
> *stream* of positioning to be negotiated.


Status: O