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

[Xmca-l] Re: Article on Positioning Theory



Amen. Its been a great education!
Thanks a lot for taking the time, Donna
mike


On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 9:28 AM, Vadeboncoeur, Jennifer <
j.vadeboncoeur@ubc.ca> wrote:

> Dear Collaborators, Before this dialogue thread slows I'd like to send a
> warm "Thank You!" to Donna for spending her time with us. It is so precious
> to be able to talk with researchers/authors about their work, the thinking
> behind their work, what we as readers see and how that does or doesn't fit
> with the author's perspective. Thanks to all contributors for the time and
> ideas shared.!Best to all - jen
>
>
>
>
>
> On 2014-03-31, at 9:43 PM, mike cole wrote:
>
> > With respect to collusion. I was thinking of McDermott and Tylbor
> (below).
> > See reference to collusion in the attached paper.
> > mike
> > -----------------
> > Necessity of Collusion (McDermott and Tylbor, 1995) *Posted* on
> 2008.08.29
> > at 11:09
> > *Tags:* collusion <http://not-ant.livejournal.com/tag/collusion>,
> > discourse<http://not-ant.livejournal.com/tag/discourse>,
> > mcdermott <http://not-ant.livejournal.com/tag/mcdermott>,
> > tylbor<http://not-ant.livejournal.com/tag/tylbor> Collusion
> > is based on the premise of "indefiniteness and precision". Individuals
> have
> > a repertoire of unspecified knowledge in order to understand each other.
> > Additionally, individuals also utilise their knowledge of local context
> in
> > order to shape the previous unspecified knowledge into "mutually
> > perceptible and reflexively consequential chunks" (1995:200).
> >
> > Collusion is also influenced by the institutional constraints that affect
> > the ways in which we collude with each other. Take for instance, the
> > generalised gender configurations available in a culture or the "specific
> > institutions built around informational entanglements." (1995:221)
> >
> >
> > 3 ways of appreciating language
> >
> >   1.  Propositional vs. illocutionary analysis talk. Literal talk is
> >   important whereas the latter will attempt to extrapolate the "actual
> >   conditions of the social actors so that their intentions could protrude
> >   without anyone having very literally put them into words" (224)
> >   2. Collusional approach is interested in "ongoing social scenes into
> >   which people walk and talk their lives together" (224).
> >
> > Notes: Collusion and power would therefore be useful in an analysis of
> > power within a given context, specifically classroom setting. What is
> said
> > or what is not said in a given classroom can be useful in understanding
> how
> > activity structures are carried out. Role play for instance has the
> > potential of being 'silly' but it is unsaid, and participants take part
> in
> > it, with the agreement that it is indeed silly and a one-off thing.
> People
> > as a general rule of thumb, do not actively 'play' a role, it is not
> > overtly stated, in fact hidden or accepted as a norm.
> >
> > Students were well aware of the fact that this is an exception, not the
> > norm, a suspension of 'real' classroom activities or the Hawthorne effect
> > can possibly explain the situation. What does this mean for the
> educational
> > structure? Participants relish the ability to act out of the norm, does
> > this mean the effect is a one-off scenario? Or is agency discovered and
> > varied methods of learning emphasised? Is the subject still subjected to
> > assessment despite being able to learn effectively? Or the knowledge that
> > content is flexible and ever-changing? How have practices change beyond
> > that of this implementation? IRE - Initiation, Response,  Evaluation also
> > took place. Push backs - moving the mantle of responsibility to the
> > students.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 6:25 PM, valerie A. Wilkinson <
> > vwilk@inf.shizuoka.ac.jp> wrote:
> >
> >> This conversation is going too fast for me, and besides, I think it has
> >> shifted anyway, but...  I want to grab (position) a comment that
> connects
> >> to
> >> much we talk about here:  the roots of collusion and collaboration.
> >> However
> >> slimy and sneaky it has been passed down to us, the root of collusion is
> >> still from Cum (with) and ludus (play, fun) while collaboration is from
> cum
> >> (with) and labor (work).  We set up a polar dialectics to make us the
> >> "protagonists" while the others are "antagonists" (words from drama!).
> We
> >> have to make distinctions because that is what minds, brains in bodies
> do.
> >> If we want to develop a concept we can get our teeth into, we have to
> say
> >> what it is like and what it isn't like, to begin with.  Think of
> Dietrich
> >> Bonhoeffer as colluding while the Party was collaborating.
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
> >> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of mike cole
> >> Sent: Monday, March 31, 2014 2:22 PM
> >> To: Andy Blunden; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Article on Positioning Theory
> >>
> >> Could you consider substituting the word collusion for the word
> >> collaboration, Andy?
> >> mike
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sun, Mar 30, 2014 at 8:01 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Donna,
> >>> I don't think there is a particular need to go in search of theories
> >> here.
> >>> Positioning theory, which I gather (?) is the study of how people are
> >>> positioned by and for collaboration, taken together with Vygotsky's
> >>> cultural psychology and the tradition of acivity theory, seems quite
> >>> enough for me. :) Vygotsky gave us an approach to how concepts are
> >>> formed, through the collaborative use of tools and symbols, and it
> >>> seems to me, that self-concept is an important limiting case of
> >>> concept formation. I tend to see every collabortion as the active
> >>> instantiation of a concept of "what we are doing together," which
> >>> necessarily includes a diversity of actions by different individuals,
> and
> >> "different points of view."
> >>>
> >>> Andy
> >>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> --
> >>> *Andy Blunden*
> >>> http://home.mira.net/~andy/
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Donna Kotsopoulos wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> The idea of the positioning occurring before the collaboration has
> >>>> taken place is consistent with Gee's idea about one storyline
> >>>> infecting another - both at the group level and at the individual
> >>>> level. I believe that an individual can rewrite those storylines or
> >>>> make conscious choices to adopt a different version. I'm not fully
> >>>> familiar with this literature but I think the theory of mind research
> >>>> and "theory of self" here would be a useful.
> >>>>  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 <http://www.wlu.ca/education/
> >>>> dkotsopoulos>
> >>>> www.wlu.ca/mathbrains <http://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 3/29/2014 at 8:43 PM, in message <53376899.7060408@mira.net>,
> >>>> Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
> >>>> I'm learning a lot from all this! :)
> >>>> If (in my example of the artist hiring a technician) we were to ask
> >>>> "How is the technician positioned as a technician and how is the
> >>>> artist positioned as an artist?" I am assuming that my reader has
> >>>> acquired  the same concepts of "technician" and "artist", that is,
> >>>> that they are somewhat educated citizens of a society in which these
> >>>> "roles" (?) are meaningful.
> >>>> In other words, "positioning" is something which takes place to a
> >>>> great extent before the collaborators meet.
> >>>> Likewise, as Greg pointed out, the acceptable and expected modes of
> >>>> collaboration are also created before the kids walk into the
> classroom.
> >>>> So positioning and collaboration are cultural products which
> >>>> pre-exist their instantiation in any collaborative act.
> >>>> Andy
> >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>> ---
> >>>> *Andy Blunden*
> >>>> http://home.mira.net/~andy/ <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Greg Thompson wrote:
> >>>>> Lynda,
> >>>>> Your email points to an interesting tension that I think is at the
> >>>> center
> >>>>> of the discussion of Donna's paper. On the one hand you note that
> >>>>> collaboration is hard wired, biological, and (seemingly)
> >>>>> inevitable. On
> >>>> the
> >>>>> other hand you point out that we have to teach children to
> >>>>> collaborate,
> >>>> and
> >>>>> collaborative classrooms can be contrasted with traditional
> >>>>> education (which is, by implication, not collaborative).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I take Andy's point to be that even traditional education is
> >>>> collaborative
> >>>>> - just a different kind of collaboration from what you find in a
> >>>>> "collaborative classroom." But the kind of collaboration we find in
> >>>>> traditional classrooms might not be a good type of collaboration
> >>>>> for everyone just as the "collaborative classrooms that Donna
> >>>>> describes
> >>>> appear
> >>>>> not to be good for everyone.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thus, we see two notions of collaboration. One in which
> >> "collaboration"
> >>>> is
> >>>>> everywhere (even in traditional education!) and the other in which
> >>>>> it
> >>>> must
> >>>>> be "accomplished" or "made" by particular means - "collaborative
> >>>>> classrooms".
> >>>>>
> >>>>> That seems to me to be one of the central tensions between folks
> >>>> discussing
> >>>>> on the listserve.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> And it seems to me like there is some really important work still
> >>>>> to be done in laying bare this contradiction between notions of
> >>>> "collaboration"
> >>>>> and notions of "classroom collaboration".
> >>>>>
> >>>>> For example, how can we find "collaboration" in unexpected places
> >> (e.g.
> >>>>> "traditional education")? Similarly, how the different
> >>>>> configurations of "collaboration" can be differently productive for
> >> different children.
> >>>> And
> >>>>> also important, as Donna has pointed out, how might "classroom
> >>>>> collaboration" not be so "collaborative"?!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So then with this distinction, we might say that "collaborative
> >>>> classrooms"
> >>>>> might not be a panacea, but we could hardly solve any of the many
> >>>> problems
> >>>>> that confront us without some form of "collaboration."
> >>>>>
> >>>>> That's just my two nickels worth.
> >>>>> (same as yesterday's two cents but adjusted for inflation).
> >>>>> -greg
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "But also when I am active scientifically, etc. - an activity which
> >>>>> I
> >>>> can
> >>>>> seldom perform in direct community with others - then my activity
> >>>>> is social, because I perform it as a man. Not only is the material
> >>>>> of my activity given to me as a social product (as is even the
> >>>>> language in
> >>>> which
> >>>>> the thinker is active): my own existence is social activity, and
> >>>> therefore
> >>>>> that which I make of myself, I make of myself for society and with
> >>>>> the consciousness of myself as a social being."
> >>>>> Marx, 1844, p. 298
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Sat, Mar 29, 2014 at 12:01 PM, Stone, Lynda
> >>>>> <lstone@skymail.csus.edu
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Hi Greg!
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Well I generally try to maintain my role as a lurker---but I'm
> >>>> dropping in
> >>>>>> to make
> >>>>>> a  comment or two--hope they make sense and are of some help.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Andy's point may be what is needed to shape the trajectory of the
> >>>>>> conversation around collaboration.  Although his reason may be
> >>>>>> grounded in a Marxist angle, equally important is a biological
> >>>>>> one.  We are hard wired to collaborate---we
> >>>> come
> >>>>>> with the
> >>>>>> ability to engage in intersubjectivity, a fundamentally
> >>>>>> collaborative process.  So, each and every time peers, teachers
> >>>>>> and students, etc. come to some
> >>>> relatively
> >>>>>> shared
> >>>>>> understandings, feelings, or interactively enact an identity, and
> >>>>>> so forth, they are engaged in collaborative acts, i.e.,more than
> >>>>>> one person/child taking part in
> >>>> an
> >>>>>> event/activity.  And,
> >>>>>> because events/activities come into existence through discourse
> >>>> practices
> >>>>>> and are influenced
> >>>>>> by the local culture (its historical past & connection to the
> >>>>>> larger culture), to understand collaboration from participants'
> >>>>>> point of view requires an
> >>>> understanding
> >>>>>> of the situation
> >>>>>> they are in and how this  situation emerges over time---so,
> >>>> collaboration
> >>>>>> in educational settings
> >>>>>> is not only a way of "rethinking/restructuring" engagement in
> >>>>>> contrast
> >>>> to
> >>>>>> traditional educational
> >>>>>> practices--collaboration is   itself part of a developmental
> process,
> >>>> just
> >>>>>> as infants learn how over
> >>>>>> time  to collaborate with their parents in different cultures.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> So, Andy's questions:   "What kinds of collaborations are needed at
> >>>> this
> >>>>>> moment?  And, "how
> >>>>>> should they be configured?" can be combined with so many other
> >>>> contextual
> >>>>>> questions that can
> >>>>>> help unravel what collaboration means and how should collaboration
> >>>>>> be configured.  For example, how do children come to value (or see
> >>>>>> as morally right) helping/coordinating behaviors? Under what
> >>>>>> circumstances to children collaborate (help) each other and how is
> >>>>>> this related to the social norms and expectations?  I have found
> >>>>>> that the context shapes what collaboration means and as a
> >>>>>> consequence influences the social processes that enable children
> >>>>>> to cooperate (or not) with each other.
> >>>>>> An essential part of any collaboration, as Donna points out, is a
> >>>>>> positioning process---one that is also influenced by the
> >>>>>> meaning/definition/value/moral aspects of engaging in learning
> >>>>>> activity with others.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> There are so many other questions to be asked to figure out
> >>>>>> "collaboration"---I hope my musings on the topic contributes a
> >>>>>> bit.  In any case, Donna's paper has
> >>>> certainly
> >>>>>> pushed my thinking--
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> An appreciative lurker!
> >>>>>> -lynda
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> What KINDS of
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> collaborations are needed at this moment? How should they be
> >>>> configured.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Mar 29, 2014, at 7:50 AM, Greg Thompson wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Folks, if I may jump in here, I think that there is a
> >>>>>>> definitional
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> problem
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> here: What is collaboration?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Andy seems to be coming at this from the Marx's angle that to be
> >>>> human is
> >>>>>>> to collaborate (man is a zoopoliticon - humans are collaborative
> >>>>>>> all
> >>>> the
> >>>>>>> way down...). I think from Andy's point would be that all
> >>>>>>> classrooms
> >>>> are
> >>>>>>> collaborative. But this isn't the way that most ed researchers
> >> think.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The ideology of individualism runs rampant in much theorizing
> >>>>>>> about education. Ed researchers start at square one that says
> >>>>>>> that students
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> begin
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> as individuals. In this case "collaboration" is an activity that
> >>>>>>> one
> >>>> must
> >>>>>>> ACTIVELY make happen in the classroom (or anywhere else for that
> >>>> matter).
> >>>>>>> "Group projects" and "collaborative classrooms" are seen as
> >>>> exceptions to
> >>>>>>> the rule of "individualized learning" that is taken as the norm.
> >>>>>>> And
> >>>> in
> >>>>>>> theorizing about education, "collaborative classroom" has a very
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> particular
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> meaning (I'm not very familiar with this lit, but I gather this
> >>>>>>> is
> >>>> true
> >>>>>>> from what Donna has told us - here and in her paper).
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I'd add that there is a counterpart in the business world that
> >>>>>>> follows
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> this
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> same kind of thinking - it's called "working in teams." Again,
> >>>>>>> this involves an active and conscious decision to do something
> >>>>>>> different
> >>>> from
> >>>>>>> what people normally do (i.e. "individual work") and have them
> >>>>>>> work together. Most folks in business know this genre/frame of
> >> interaction.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> Some
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> are head over heels for it and some loathe it (one of Donna's
> >> points).
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> But
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> it seems to generally be accepted that "collaboration" is
> >>>>>>> something unnatural that one must "make" happen.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> It is this notion of "collaboration" that Donna is going after.
> >>>>>>> And in
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> the
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> literature I'm willing to bet that people talk of "collaborative
> >>>>>>> classrooms" as a panacea (this is how every "new" idea in
> >>>>>>> education is
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> sold
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> to people). Frankly, I think this makes for a very weak view of
> >>>>>>> collaboration - and one in need of criticism (as Donna has done).
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> So I think that this would be a very interesting direction to
> >>>>>>> pursue
> >>>> the
> >>>>>>> questions that Donna has raised in more depth: what is this
> >>>>>>> discourse
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> about
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> "collaborative classrooms" all about? What are the fundamental
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> assumptions
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> that serve as the starting point against which "collaborative
> >>>> classrooms"
> >>>>>>> are seen as having to be "made"? And, to follow Andy's thinking,
> >>>>>>> isn't collaboration always already there in the classroom - in
> >>>>>>> the class
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> clown's
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> jokes, in the passing of notes during class, the conspiring
> >>>>>>> against
> >>>> the
> >>>>>>> teacher or conspiring with the teacher against another class or
> >>>>>>> the principal, etc. (and I bet if you looked closer, you'd find
> >>>>>>> that even Mitchell is involved in some pretty impressive
> >>>>>>> collaborations in this classroom! It's just that they won't be
> >>>>>>> happening during those times
> >>>> that
> >>>>>>> are EXPLICITLY marked as "collaborative work").
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> And I think this will naturally lead not to the question of "to
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> collaborate
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> or not to collaborate" but rather to Andy's question: What KINDS
> >>>>>>> of collaborations are needed at this moment? How should they be
> >>>> configured.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Collaboration anyone?
> >>>>>>> -greg
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Sat, Mar 29, 2014 at 5:58 AM, Donna Kotsopoulos
> >>>>>>> <dkotsopo@wlu.ca>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> It's been a pleasure joining the group so thank you for this
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>> invitation. I
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> admire the scholarly exchange and it has really stretched my
> >>>>>>>> thinking
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>> in a
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> number of ways.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Yes, for some students collaboration may not be in their best
> >>>> interest
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>> to
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> collaborate. Our objectives as teachers to have them
> >>>>>>>> collaborate, may
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>> not
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> be very relevant to the student or may be even harmful. That
> >>>>>>>> student
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>> that
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> really ought to have an option has to compromise something in
> >>>>>>>> such instances - their emotional, social, and or intellectual
> >>>>>>>> well being/advancement, for example. That being said, any
> >>>>>>>> collaborative
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>> effort
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> is a compromise of sort for each person. This is the very
> >>>>>>>> essence of
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>> human
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> interaction. It's the degree and the damage from the compromise
> >>>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>> must
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> be weighted.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Mitchell likely would have picked another person to work with if
> >>>> given
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>> the
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> option to work alone or work with a partner or small group. I
> >>>>>>>> would
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>> surmise
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> that the students he would have picked out would have been "nice"
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>> students,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> for lack of better words, than stars mathematically.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Alice would have picked the cool kids to work with. She would
> >>>>>>>> have compromised her intellectual outcomes.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Ella would have picked the smartest in the class by her
> >>>>>>>> standards,
> >>>> and
> >>>>>>>> then should have tried to outsmart them. Ella is another
> >>>>>>>> interesting
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>> case.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Always the perpetrator in every group she was in regardless of
> >>>>>>>> the
> >>>> group
> >>>>>>>> membership. Ella was also the class Victorian that year. She
> >>>>>>>> would compromise social relationships to achieve her means to her
> >> end.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Will would have picked those students that would have done the
> >>>>>>>> work
> >>>> for
> >>>>>>>> him. Learning was an easy compromise for him.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Collaboration means compromise in my mind. Regardless of the
> >> context.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> d.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> 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 3/28/2014 at 9:54 AM, in message
> >>>>>>>>>>> <53357F22.1070109@mira.net>,
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>> Andy
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Thank you, Donna, BTW, for your generous use of your time and
> >>>>>>>> energy
> >>>> to
> >>>>>>>> discuss these issues with XMCA-ers.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I think this means then, Donna, that it cannot quite make sense
> >>>>>>>> to
> >>>> say
> >>>>>>>> that "for some students... collaboration may not be in their
> >>>>>>>> best interests", for the more appropriate posing of this
> >>>>>>>> question must be *what type of collaboration* is or is not in
> >>>>>>>> the best interest of
> >>>> this
> >>>>>>>> or that student. Which then poses the question of "What types of
> >>>>>>>> collaboration are there?" rather than turning to the detailed
> >>>> mechanisms
> >>>>>>>> by which a given individual is positioned in a way which may be
> >>>> damaging
> >>>>>>>> to them.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> What do you mean by "compromise" in this context, Donna?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Andy
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>> ------------
> >>>>>>>> *Andy Blunden*
> >>>>>>>> http://home.mira.net/~andy/ <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Donna Kotsopoulos wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I'll try to address the recent comments in one email.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Yes, I fully agree with Andy that every human relationship is
> >>>>>>>>> an instance of collaboration. This should suggest that more
> >>>>>>>>> realistic expectations of school based collaborations are in
> >>>>>>>>> order. There is compromise with every human relationship and
> >>>>>>>>> the same is true in collaborative activities with children and
> >> schools.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Andy's point about the need for a conceptual framework for
> >>>>>>>>> these
> >>>> types
> >>>>>>>>> of understanding such human relations and interactions in a
> >>>>>>>>> school setting is interesting. Such a framework would have to
> >>>>>>>>> include the possibility of compromise, an open lens attending
> >>>>>>>>> to productive silencing and what I had referred to in earlier
> >>>>>>>>> drafts as productive privileging (Will's case in the article),
> >>>>>>>>> a critical evaluation of learning and the kinds of learning that
> >> has taken place.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
> >>>>>>> Assistant Professor
> >>>>>>> Department of Anthropology
> >>>>>>> 883 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
> >>>>>>> Brigham Young University
> >>>>>>> Provo, UT 84602
> >>>>>>> http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> > <mcderm.dor.pdf>
>
>