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

[Xmca-l] Re: book of possible interest



Helen:

Good to hear from you at long last--I knew you were lurking out there
somewhere!

I didn't actually write the line about "establishing ties"--it's from "The
Little Prince". The prince asks what "tame" means, and the fox replies that
it means "to establish ties". But of course what I meant was that ties are
established first between people and then within them; the ties of
development are interfunctional ties that make up a new psychological
system. (Or, for Halliday, they are the inter-systemic ties that make up
new metafunctions.)

As you say, Yrjo Engestrom chooses to emphasize another aspect of
development with "breaking away"--he wants to stress its crisis-ridden
nature. I agree with this, actually, but mostly I agree with you, that we
are talking about two moments of the same process. To me, breaking away is
really a precondition of the real business of establishing ties.

Thomas Piketty makes a similar point in his book "Capital in the
Twenty-first Century". He admits that war and revolution is the only thing
that EVER counteracts the tendency of returns from capital to outstrip the
growth in income, and that the 20th Century was an outlier in this respect,
and the Russian revolution an extreme outlier within that outlier. But he
also says that in the long run the one thing that makes UPWARD mobility
possible is education. Despite everything, because of everything.

I finished the book a few days ago. I guess the thing I most want to ask
about is the assumption that professional development is necessary at all.
Doesn't it make more sense to say that before we change what we are doing,
we should understand it better?

David Kellogg
Hankuk University of Foreign Studies


On 12 July 2014 13:20, Helen Grimmett <helen.grimmett@monash.edu> wrote:

> Ah, I think you have hit the nail on the head David. It is indeed TIME that
> is so crucial - not only duration of time, but also location of time (which
> I suppose is really context).
>
> The problems I had with Mike and his colleagues about the terminology
> stemmed partly from the typical Aussie disdain for using words that might
> make your mates think you are trying to appear 'better' than them, so
> therefore you mock anything that sounds too serious or intellectual. But
> beyond this surface level of complaining the problems Huw and you have been
> discussing boil down to problems with time.
>
> Huw's complaint about my use of the heading "Features of
> Cultural-Historical Learning Activities" is well justified - but it was
> really just a shorthand written version of what I was verbally asking for
> as "What might be some particular features of learning activities that
> would align with principles of Cultural-Historical Theory?" That would have
> taken too long to write on the top of the piece of paper - and of course
> time is always too short in any after-school PD so shortcuts are inevitably
> taken. (Time problem #1)
>
> Time problem #2, which your discussion has highlighted for me, is that of
> course my question was really "What might be some particular features of
> learning activities that would align with THE LIMITED NUMBER OF (AND
> LIMITED UNDERSTANDING OF) principles of Cultural-Historical Theory THAT YOU
> HAVE BEEN INTRODUCED TO SO FAR?" so I really should have not been so
> surprised that they would find the brainstorming activity difficult and
> resort to diversionary tactics! (Mike's outburst posted here by David was
> not the only eventful moment I write about from this one activity. But
> these apparent failures actually provided much more interesting data for me
> and eventually lead me to several key findings in my thesis). I had spent
> several years by this stage reading and discussing Vygotsky and yet I had
> assumed/hoped the teachers would have enough understanding from my
> (probably not very good) explanations ABOUT theory over the previous 3
> short sessions I had had with them to be able to contribute answers to my
> brainstorm question. They had not had enough TIME to become familiar with
> enough of the theory to make much sense of it yet - but still, we have to
> start somewhere and this was still early days.
>
> Time problem #3 brings in what I called above the location of time. I had
> never intended for the sessions to be me giving after-school lectures about
> either theory or practice, yet this is what the teachers seemed to expect
> from me (and even demand from me) and were pretty disgruntled when I
> wouldn't/couldn't deliver. My intention was always to get them to engage
> with the relationship between THEORY and PRACTICE, just as David's comic
> book discusses the relationship between THINKING and SPEECH or EMOTION and
> COGNITION. My problem of course was that once we were in an after-school
> meeting we were removed in both time and space from where theory and
> practice of teaching/learning operate as a relation (i.e. the classroom
> activity). I was actually trying to create/use our own PLZ (Professional
> Learning ZPD) as the activity in which to develop and understand this
> relationship but it was initially very hard to get the teachers to
> understand this (at least until we had enough of David's Fox's socially
> shared experiences for the meanings to become communicable) and then even
> more difficult to get them to transfer this back to developing their own
> classroom teaching. Ironically, despite being the loudest complainers and
> disparagers, it was Mike and Kay (the protagonist of my other eventful
> moment in the brainstorming session) who actually ended up making the
> biggest changes in their classroom practice. Perhaps this is not really
> surprising at all - they were the ones who obviously engaged and argued
> with the ideas and activities rather than simply endured them!
>
> My eventual answer to the problems encountered in my work with the group of
> teachers was to work WITH a teacher IN her own classroom so that we had
> shared experiences of the relationship between theory and practice which
> could not only be discussed after the events, but also actually acted upon
> there and then IN the event - creating what I called "Situated Conscious
> Awareness" of both the theoretical and practical aspects of the concepts of
> teaching/learning and development we were developing understanding and
> practice of together. But perhaps I should wait until David gets up to this
> part of the book before I say more!
>
> Finally, one other point that really caught my attention in your comic book
> David is that your prince calls development "to establish ties" which is an
> interesting difference to Engestrom's definition as "breaking away". But
> perhaps, as always in CH theory, it is not a matter of either/or but in
> fact both/and ideas that are necessary. From what I learned in my study,
> teachers' development as professionals is definitely BOTH about breaking
> away from old, routinised understandings and practices AND establishing new
> connections between and amongst theoretical concepts and practices,
> enabling them to continually develop new competences and motives across all
> of their professional duties.
>
> Thanks for your interest in my book David. The discussion it has sparked
> has helped me revisit ideas from new perspectives.
>
> Cheers,
> Helen
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Dr Helen Grimmett
> Lecturer, Student Adviser,
> Faculty of Education,
> Room G64F, Building 902
> Monash University, Berwick campus
> Phone: 9904 7171
>
> *New Book: *
> The Practice of Teachers' Professional Development: A Cultural-Historical
> Approach
> <
> https://www.sensepublishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/professional-learning-1/the-practice-of-teachers-professional-development/
> >
> Helen Grimmett (2014) Sense Publishers
>
>
>
> <
> http://monash.edu.au/education/news/50-years/?utm_source=staff-email&utm_medium=email-signature&utm_campaign=50th
> >
>
>
> On 12 July 2014 07:29, David Kellogg <dkellogg60@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Plekhanov distinguishes between "agitators" and "propagandists".
> Agitators
> > are essentially popularizers; they have the job of ripping away a subset
> of
> > smaller and simpler ideas from a fabric of much larger and more complex
> > theory and then disseminating them amongst the largest possible number of
> > people. In other words, their focus is exoteric. Propagandists are
> > essentially conspiratorial: they have the job of initiating a small
> number
> > of the elect and educating them in the whole theoretical system--as Larry
> > would say, the full Bildung. In other words, their focus is esoteric. As
> > you can see, Plekhanov was good at making distinctions, and not so good
> at
> > showing how things are linked. For Helena, who is a  labor educator, you
> > can't really be an effective agitator unless you are also a propagandist.
> > You need to present your exoteric extracts in such a way that they are,
> to
> > borrow Larry's phrase, both necessary and sufficient to lead people on to
> > the esoterica. I'm with Helena--and with Bruner--with children it's
> always
> > possible to tell the truth, part of the truth, but nothing but the truth,
> > and if we can do it with kids, why not do it with adults?
> >
> > (I am less sure about what it means to say that the objectively human is
> > the "subjectively historical"--it sounds like history is being reified
> as a
> > subject, that is, as a living, breathing, acting "World Spirit" that can
> > have a mind and reflect upon itself. My understanding of history is
> > that just as we cannot have the advanced form of historical consciousness
> > in dialogue with the more primitive forms, the opportunity to reflect
> upon
> > the whole process when it is all over is simply never going to be
> available
> > to anyone. The Merleau-Ponty quotation is beautiful and intensely
> > poetic, Larry--but when I look at a bubble or a wave, I do not simply see
> > chaos; I see past bubbles and past waves, and potential bubbles and
> > potential waves. Isn't that a part of the experience of "loving history"
> as
> > well?)
> >
> > My wife wrote a wonderful Ph.D. thesis about how any work of literature
> can
> > be looked at on four time frames: phylogenetic (the history of a genre),
> > ontogenetic (the biography of a career), logogenetic (the development of
> a
> > plot or a character), and microgenetic (the unfolding of a dialogue, or a
> > paragraph). Her supervisor complained about the terminology in somewhat
> > more elegant terms than Mike does in Helen's data:and suggested that she
> > should replace the terms with "history", "biography", "development" and
> > "unfolding", to make it more exoteric.
> >
> > I think that if she had done that, it would have made the thesis into
> > agitation rather than education. Yes, the terms would have been more
> > familiar, and they might even, given other context, be taken to mean the
> > same thing. But what we would have gotten is good, clear distinctions
> > ("history" on the one hand and "biography" on the other) and what we
> would
> > have lost is the linkedness of one time frame to another--the way in
> which
> > the phylogenesis of genre produces the mature genre which is used in an
> > author's ontegenesis, and the way in which the author's ontogenesis
> > produces the starting point and the raw materials for the logogenetic
> > development of a work, not to mention the way in which logogenesis is
> > reflected in the microgenetic unfolding of dialogue.
> >
> > So I think that when Helena writes that anything can be explained to
> anyone
> > in language that is everyday and simple and in a way that is
> understandable
> > and at least part of the whole truth, I agree somewhat enviously (you
> see,
> > Helena is a labor educator, but I teach TESOL, which is really the
> process
> > of taking a few very simple and exoteric ideas that good teachers already
> > have and disseminating the select to the elect for vast sums of money).
> But
> > I have to add a rider--when we popularize richly woven fabrics of ideas
> > like cultural historical theory we are not simply juggling vocabulary. I
> > think that Helena recognizes this perfectly when she says that it takes
> > TIME to be simple and clear. If it were simply a matter of replacing
> > "cultural historical" with "community of learners" it would actually take
> > less time, but it isn't and it doesn't.
> >
> > It is very hot in Seoul today, and somewhere out there a toddler is
> arguing
> > with a parent because he wants watermelon with breakfast. The parent
> > resists, because if you eat cold watermelon on an empty stomach you get a
> > tummy-ache. The argument grows heated and long--and complex, but the
> > complexity is of a particular kind, with very short, repeated,
> insistancies
> > from the child and somewhat longer more complex remonstrations from the
> > parent. We can call this complex discourse but simple grammar. A few
> years
> > will go by and we will find that the school child has mastered the trick
> of
> > long and complex remonstrations and can use them pre-emptively to win
> > arguments. We can call this complex grammar, but simple vocabulary. Only
> > when a decade or two has elapsed will we find that child, now adult, can
> > use the language of science, which is for the most part grammatically
> > simple (at least compared to the pre-emptive remonstrations of the school
> > child), but full of very complex vocabulary (e.g. "phylogeny anticipates
> > ontogeny", or "cultural-historical activity theory enables communities of
> > learners").
> >
> > It's Saturday today, and in a few minutes I have to leave for the weekly
> > meeting of our translation group, which produces mighty tomes which we
> > produce to popularize the works of Vygotsky amongst militant teachers
> here
> > in Korea (our version of "Thinking and Speech" is seven hundred pages
> long
> > because of all the explanatory notes and boxes with helpful pictures). On
> > the other hand, there is the attached comic book version of the first
> > chapter of "Thinking and Speech" which I wrote a couple of years ago for
> > some graduate students who were having trouble talking about the real
> > "Thinking and Speech" in class.
> >
> > I think you can see that Huw's complaint is justified--the comic
> > book dialogue is "about" Thinking and Speech, but it is not "Thinking and
> > Speech" at all, in the same way that "community of learners" or
> "biography"
> > is ABOUT cultural historical theory or ontogenesis. And I think that part
> > of the problem (but only part of it) is that the comic book is just too
> > short.
> >
> > David Kellogg
> > Hankuk University of Foreign Studies
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 2014-07-11 17:09 GMT+09:00 Leif Strandberg <leifstrandberg.ab@telia.com
> >:
> >
> > >
> > > 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==
> > > >>>>>>>>> .
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
>