Attachment:
38617_Strandberg_slutgodkännande.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document
11 jul 2014 kl. 06:41 skrev Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com>: > David, > I have been following your reflections through this thread. > You commented: > > So it's almost always more useful for me to > think of learning phenomena as NOT reducible to the physical, at least not > in their unit of analysis > > I have been reflecting on the notion of *bildung* as learning. > The notion of *cultivation* and *disposition* and *comportment* as the > potential of learning. > I came across this quote from Gramsci who was questioning the notion of > *laws* as the basis for making social predictions. Such *laws* excluded the > subjective factor from history. > Gramsci wrote on social process: "Objective always means 'humanly > objective' which can be held to correspond exactly to 'historically > subjective' " > > Merleau-Ponty also explored what I refer to as *disposition* with this > quote on the reality of history: > History "awakens us to the importance of daily events and action. For it is > a philosophy [of history -LP] which arouses in us a love for our times > which are not the simple repetition of human eternity nor merely the > conclusion of premises already postulated. It is a view that like the most > fragile object of perception - a soap bubble, or a wave - or like the most > simple dialogue, embraces indivisibly all the order and all the disorder of > the world." > > I read these passages from Gramsci and M-P as a way of exploring > *comportment* or *disposition* that is *learned*. [bildung??] There is no > necessary or sufficient standpoint for interpreting this inherently > heterogeneous process. However we may potentially learn various > *approaches* or *ways* of being-in-the-world through learning processes. > The notion of *bildung* is a way to reflect on this learning process > Larry > > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 3:54 PM, Huw Lloyd <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> On 10 July 2014 22:33, David Kellogg <dkellogg60@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Huw: >>> >>> Is learning material? In what sense? At what point? >>> >> >> Historically, with Marx. :) >> >> The rest of your formations are subsumed by Baldwin's 1st and 2nd axioms of >> genetic logic. :) >> >> As someone experienced with computation and computational processes, I do >> find it quite straightfoward to think of memories as material impressions. >> Cached values or lazy evaluation -- it's quite straightforward... Not >> rubbish, not garbage, but Babbage! >> >> Best, >> Huw >> >> >> >>> >>> I guess I think of it this way. All phenomena in the universe are >> physical, >>> but only in the final analysis. When my father (who is a retired but >>> unrepentant solar physicist) studies these phenomena he uses various >> units >>> of analysis (my father likes to think big, so his usual unit of analysis >> is >>> a solar emission many times larger than the earth, but sometimes, >> depending >>> on the problem, he will condescend to think about smaller particles like >>> atomic nuclei). Some of these physical phenomena, when they cool down a >>> little, are chemical as well, and because these phenomena are chemical as >>> well as physical, the unit of analysis that is proper to them is the >>> molecule and its motions, and not simply the particle (Dad doesn't care >>> about these phenomena; he likes his physics hot). >>> >>> Some of these chemical phenomena are biological as well, and here once >>> again the unit of analysis has to change (e.g. to the cell) in order to >>> take into account the new properties which come into being at this scale. >>> Some biological phenomena are cultural-historical in turn, and here too >> we >>> must change the unit of analysis in order not to lose essential >> information >>> that is created with higher levels of organization and complexity.Of >>> course, these cultural historical phenomena are all reducible to >> biological >>> phenomena, and therefore reducible to chemical and physical phenomena, >> but >>> only in the final analysis. Hey, in the final analysis, as Carolyn Porco >>> says, we all get reduced to physical phenomena when the sun explodes and >>> blows the particles that were once our bodies out into space, to enjoy >>> eternal life...but only as physical phenomena. >>> >>> In the meantime, if we want to understand cultural-historical phenomena >> as >>> such, we have to confront their higher levels of organization and >>> complexity.The cultural historical phenomena that I am most interested in >>> turn out to have another subset of phenomena which Halliday calls >>> semiotic--that is, they are sociologically cultural-historical phenomena >>> that stand, even if only for a fleeting instant, >>> for psychologically cultural-historical phenomena. These phenomena are >>> material too (that is, they are biological, chemical, and even >>> physical), for the way things stand for other things is ultimately >>> reducible to a thing: words are, in the final analysis, "made of living >>> breath", as Shakespeare says, or "layers of moving air" if you prefer >>> Engels. >>> >>> But only in the final analysis. In the interim, too much information is >>> lost when we reduce these semiotic phenomena to physical, material, >>> things (for example, when my students try to model learner comprehension >>> problems as pure phonetic discrimination without taking into account the >>> layer of wording or meaning). So it's almost always more useful for me to >>> think of learning phenomena as NOT reducible to the physical, at least >> not >>> in their unit of analysis. Actually, it seems to me that the >>> general "cultural-historical" level of analysis is if anything a step >>> closer to biology or chemistry or physics than the subset of cultural >>> historical phenomena that I mean when I refer to learning, because to me >>> learning is microgenetic, that is, POTENTIALLY ontogenetic, which is in >>> turn POTENTIALLY sociogenetic, which (to me) is the general level of >>> analysis we mean when we talk about cultural historical phenomena. So the >>> real answer to Mike's colorful complaint about handles is not "Community >> of >>> Learners" but actually "physico-chemico-bio-socio-semiotic learning >>> activities". >>> >>> Time for that quantum physical cup of coffee you were talking about.... >>> >>> David Kellogg >>> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies >>> >>> >>> On 10 July 2014 08:53, Huw Lloyd <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> David, >>>> >>>> Just to be clear, the error I was referring to was the attribution of a >>>> theory (as an adjective) to the material thing (learning). It would be >>>> like saying, I am going to make a Newtonian cup of coffee in the >> morning >>>> and a quantum mechanical cup of coffee in the afternoon. >>>> >>>> I suppose colourful language serves the purpose of deliberate >> vagueness. >>>> It's hard to be trendy and have a precise point. >>>> >>>> I fear we are soon approaching the "teach yourself activity theory for >>>> dummies" book someday soon. From my understanding, the theory itself >>>> repudiates such a thing -- one cannot spoon feed theory -- but I don't >>>> think that will stop folk trying. >>>> >>>> I see no problem (or contradiction) in top down approaches. Solving a >>>> problem in general is a powerful approach to many problems. For many >>>> problems the concrete details are amenable to design and configuration, >>> one >>>> can often choose tools to suit the proposed solution rather than >>>> vice-versa. But from an educational perspective, I see no alternative >>>> than starting with the individual, ofcourse one can have general >>> strategies >>>> in doing so -- waiting to be asked before giving an explanation etc. >>>> >>>> Nice chatting. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> Huw >>>> >>>> On 9 July 2014 22:46, David Kellogg <dkellogg60@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Huw: >>>>> >>>>> Helen has written a remarkable, important book. I gather it's part of >>> her >>>>> Ph.D. thesis, but it doesn't really read like a Ph.D. thesis. It >> reads >>>> like >>>>> a teacher-trainer (or "professional development consultant", or >>> whatever >>>> we >>>>> are supposed to call them) with a problem who eventually, with a >> little >>>>> help from the classics of cultural historical psychology and a lot of >>>> help >>>>> from a co-teacher (who has a somewhat bookish, inert but nevertheless >>>>> respectful and open acquaintance with those classics) achieves a very >>>> open >>>>> but nevertheless very workable solution. >>>>> >>>>> So the bit I quoted represents the problem, or rather, two problems. >> On >>>> the >>>>> one hand, Helen is trying to do something new: she wants to bring new >>>> CHAT >>>>> concepts to bear on extant classroom activities and modify them in >> ways >>>>> that she is confident will work. On the other, Helen is working with >>> some >>>>> pretty experienced (and even somewhat brutalized) teachers: they have >>>> seen >>>>> "Professional Development" fads come and go, collected their free >>> lunches >>>>> and go on doing things the old way. >>>>> >>>>> Helen achieves her solution from the bottom up. Eventually, she does >>>> find a >>>>> teacher who can teacher her a lot and who, even though Helen herself >>>>> is uniquely gifted, with not only the theoretical background we all >>>> share, >>>>> but also considerable first hand experience as a teacher and a >> parent, >>>> can >>>>> nevertheless be taught in turn. But as you can see from the extract, >>>> she's >>>>> extremely open, even to savage, unfair, and somewhat obtuse >> criticisms. >>>>> Mike's critique of "cultural historical" is not that it is an >>>>> epistemological error or a typological one, or that it puts the >> product >>>>> "culture" before the process "history". It's not even that it >> suggests >>>> that >>>>> on the odd day Piagetian activities might be taking place, which, by >>> the >>>>> way, is probably true, since these teachers were mostly trained >> during >>>> the >>>>> "reign" of Piaget in the sixties and seventies. >>>>> >>>>> No, Mike's complaint is really, if you will pardon the expression, a >>> wank >>>>> of a complaint. He is just complaining that the name is uncool; it >>>> doesn't >>>>> sound like the popular teachers would like it; the name won't go with >>> an >>>>> embossed moose like "Abercrombie and Fitch" or "community of >>>>> learners" does. I think we have to accept that responsive, sensitive >>>>> teachers inevitably end up internalizing some of the worst aspects of >>>>> adolescent thinking, and this is an example. I might even say it's a >>>>> bullshit complaint. It's crap, etc. (But this is one of those >>>>> language situations where redundancy does not suggest development.) >>>>> >>>>> I guess if I encountered a bullshit complaint like that I would >>> complain >>>> a >>>>> little about "community of learners". I think that "community of >>>>> learners" is essentially a way of saying "socio-psychological": it's >>>>> relevant to everyday teaching, but it doesn't tell us much about how >>> the >>>>> "socio" got there, whereas "cultural-historical" does. I might even >> ask >>>> if >>>>> Mike is going to try to teach physics, chemistry, biology, or history >>> to >>>>> kids without some way of saying "physico-chemical" or >>>> "chemico-biological", >>>>> or "biologico-social". If not, then I don't see anything wrong with >>>>> teaching language, including the language of teaching, as something >>>>> "socio-semiotic" or "historico-cultural". But then, I never was one >> of >>>> the >>>>> cool kids. >>>>> >>>>> My problem is this. I too would like to write a book now. I have two >> in >>>>> mind, and they are both practical books about teacher training, >>>>> similar in their targets to Helen's book, which is why I am studying >> it >>>>> carefully. But I find that the books that I have in mind are really >>>> "about >>>>> something" in a way that Helen's book is not. I don't mean that >> Helen's >>>>> book has no object of study: like the title says, the object of study >>> is >>>>> teacher development. What I mean is that the teaching has no clear >>> object >>>>> of teaching: it's not specifically about teaching math or literacy or >>>>> anything else but about teaching in general. The books I have in mind >>> are >>>>> really about teaching literacy (I think I want to try to teach >> WRITING >>>>> before READING) and teaching science (I think I want to try a "hands >>> off" >>>>> approach that emphasizes word meanings instead of laboratory >>>> experiments). >>>>> And I am finding that I when I do this the result is not at all the >>> kind >>>> of >>>>> "bottom up" thing that Helen does; it's very top down. >>>>> >>>>> David Kellogg >>>>> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 9 July 2014 07:33, Huw Lloyd <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Colourful. The complaint seems perfectly valid though: a >>> typological >>>>> and >>>>>> epistemological error all in one conflated term. It suggests that >> on >>>> the >>>>>> odd hours of the day there are Piagetian activities taking place. >>> Was >>>>> this >>>>>> part of the point of the chapter? >>>>>> >>>>>> Best, >>>>>> Huw >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 8 July 2014 21:40, David Kellogg <dkellogg60@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I'm actually in the middle of Chapter Three right now. What I can >>>> tell >>>>>> you >>>>>>> is that Helen's first two chapters are a kind of "Who's Who" at >>> xmca, >>>>>> with >>>>>>> Helen reading the great classics (in the wrong order) and talking >>> to >>>>>> Andy, >>>>>>> Greg, and others on this list. But beyond the litte shout-outs to >>>> xmca, >>>>>> in >>>>>>> Chapter Three, you find interesting problems like this. Helen is >>>>> setting >>>>>> up >>>>>>> a "Professional Learning ZPD". This an acronymy within an acronym >>> (an >>>>>>> "acro-acronym-nym", like the group I used to belong to in New >> York >>>> and >>>>>>> Paris, called "ACT-UP"), and in general Helen seems to have some >>>>> trouble >>>>>>> with names. On pp. 58-59, she writes. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "In PLZ 4 I wrote the title 'Features of cultural Historical >>> Learning >>>>>>> Activities' across a piece of butcher's paper and asked the grou >> to >>>>>>> brainstorm features of activities that would be consistent with >>>>> cultural >>>>>>> historical theory. After a few suggestions, Mike suddenly >>> interrupted >>>>>> with: >>>>>>> MIKE: Can I ask, Helen, why such a wank of a name? >>>>>>> HELEN: Cultural-historical? >>>>>>> MIKE: Yeah, what a bullshit name. >>>>>>> DEB: What should it be Mike? >>>>>>> MIKE: What does it mean to anyone? Is that relevant to anyone >> that >>>>>>> name? Cultural-historical learning. What does that mean? >>>>>>> HELEN: Well.... >>>>>>> MIKE: It's crap. >>>>>>> HELEN: Well, I don't think that you, that's the name of teh >> theoyr, >>>>>>> Cultural historical theory, but I think in terms of schools using >>> teh >>>>>>> theory they talk about Communities of Learners. >>>>>>> MIKE: Yeah, but why don't they call it that? >>>>>>> HELEN: OK, so (I start crossing out "cultural historical" and >>>> changing >>>>> it >>>>>>> to "Communities of Learners") >>>>>>> MIKE: That name is like calliing the ultra net site for teachers >>>>> 'design >>>>>>> space'. It has no relevance to the name whatsoever, and to use >>>>>> it--features >>>>>>> of cultural historical learning--sounds like a load of crap. It >>>>>>> doesn't have any relevance ot what it means. If you said to me >>>> cultural >>>>>>> historical learning, I go .... >>>>>>> BETH: I actually thought it meant talking about he past (general >>>>>>> agreement). >>>>>>> MIKE: That's what it implies, the past and how you used to teach. >>>>>>> HELEN: I suppose I'm just trying to familiarize you with the term >>>>>> (general >>>>>>> agreement) >>>>>>> MIKE: If you call it community of learners then it's something >>> that's >>>>>>> relevant." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Helen then makes the (cultural-historical) point that words have >> a >>>>>> history, >>>>>>> but they are not necessarily YOUR history--for Helen, "cultural >>>>>> historical" >>>>>>> calls up a whole series of quite precise concepts, while >> "Community >>>> of >>>>>>> Learners" is kind of vague and undefined. But for the teachers >> (who >>>>> are, >>>>>> I >>>>>>> must say, not exactly reticent about sharing, and do not limit >>>>> themselves >>>>>>> to sharing their expertise) what you get is old times. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It's funny that they ignore the word culture. I always thought >> that >>>>>>> "cultural historical" is a little bit of the cart before the >>>> horse.... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> David Kellogg >>>>>>> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 8 July 2014 21:40, Peter Smagorinsky <smago@uga.edu> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The Practice of Teachers' Professional Development >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> A Cultural-Historical Approach >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Helen Grimmett (Monash University, Australia) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This book uses Vygotsky's cultural-historical theory to >> provide a >>>>>> unique >>>>>>>> theorisation of teachers' professional development as a >>> practice. A >>>>>>>> practice can be described as the socially structured actions >> set >>> up >>>>> to >>>>>>>> produce a product or service aimed at meeting a collective >> human >>>>> need. >>>>>> In >>>>>>>> this case, collaborative, interventionist work with teachers in >>> ... >>>>>> Click >>>>>>>> here for a free preview and full description< >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001ZduyW2xyB1USw9R1YjQno7GI-mDLfJ6m-729UFbNgCKe6Z_p9GP7xjN9IHr0mfZ1yni-XmxHyPfAaNcVjlENvx4l8ySiyRYKHRvvg2E6WbMlf3hNShpk2qTuRRu0ZenYc1mrXxe68_BX4FXljTnHjOx91vJalGeivvaQfmQF57rpGgcDrJe9bprlVyXQwjSo0U6yk-QJ1S5miZfuS7ohswmNs3UZWGMucMgWJyU6E_J3d8QHyWjpGuBM8i2twLXGBPHkZb6hFN4pF6PT3r3M7HYvwFdzAzSfRvpCd90DvQMVDuqkf5VY3ccoD6FppEGF&c=0Y23gLfSZ1jN_yGPyItMZic7SWiIoOcRfcrQWB0JYs9lkVW149lxUQ==&ch=ioZBoxRIwDxdvg-uu6NEwI-E45lgW01U_INO86ZNyJpwbp9zcKnCIA== >>>>>>>>> . >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>