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

[Xmca-l] Re: book of possible interest



> As I understand it, Huw DISAGREES with Andy and actually agrees with the
> revisionist critique of Vygotsky on the grounds that children are mostly
> preoccupied with action and not word meaning. That's all very true of
> course: but they are NOT really preoccupied with labour activity. Their
> preoccupations are with PLAY activity (Kim Yongho and I did a good study of
> so-called "Task based teaching" that shows how children redefine tasks as
> role plays and games). Play activity is, as Vygotsky has shown us,
> genetically related to speech and not to labour.
>

DOESN'T IMAGINATIVE PLAY COUNT AS THINKING?

>
> Andy's third point is that semantic actions (???) create intellectual
> structures in the mind. I don't know what a semantic action is; semantics
> for me is the process of making something stand for something else, but I
> don't see in what sense it helps to model this process as an "action". In
> many ways, it is precisely a non-action, because it includes conditionality
> and interpretability, neither of which is usefully modeled as action.
>
> THE ABOVE IS WHAT SEEMS TO ME TO BE ABOUT "ACADEMIC DISCOURSE,"
> UNNECESSARILY NARROWING "THINKING." I TAKE HIS TERM SEMANTIC ACTION TO
> REFER TO THE ILLOCUTIONARY FORCE OF THE DISCOURSE
>
> I agree with the Russians who say that "perezhivanie" is a well defined
> concept. But to me "well defined" means developmentally so: it means that
> the specific weight of the various components of "perezhivanie" have to be
> allowed to change as we develop: so for young children "perezhivanie" is
> largely "felt experience", and for older children it is mostly "thought
> over--contemplated--experience". I don't see that thinking over is mostly
> an intellectual exercise though--I always feel, even in these exchanges on
> xmca, that there is a certain emotional component which makes us respond,
> sometimes before we really even think things out.
>
> HERE I AGREE COMPLETELY WITH YOU, BUT ALSO TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE
SOCIALIZATION OF SCHOOLING AS A CRUCIAL FACTOR.

>  David Kellogg
> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies
>
>
>
>
> On 16 July 2014 04:39, FRANCIS J. SULLIVAN <fsulliva@temple.edu> wrote:
>
> > With great trepidation, I want to enter this conversation with my first
> > post to the list (I have followed it for about a year now) because as
> both
> > a researcher and teacher educator the issues raised are  major concerns
> of
> > mine too. I find, I think it was David's point, the idea that we can
> think
> > of the "connections" problem in two ways to be at the heart of the issue,
> > at least for me. It is one thing to construct a connection that "adds to"
> > the existing knowledge framework of others. But, it is a very different
> > thing to sea5rch for a "connection" that requires others to qualitatively
> > change, or even abandon, their existing framework. Helen seems to achieve
> > such a connection with at least some of her teachers by helping them to
> > re-cognize their own social identities so that the new knowledge and
> > framework became less threatening and more inviting. She reconnected them
> > with who they used to be and what they valued. So they did not see
> > themselves as merely "ignorant" but more like retracing their steps.
> > For me, at least, that's why the "deficit" models of teaching (or
> research)
> > practices do not work. We--teachers and students--need to find a place
> from
> > which we can begin this journey together, common ground so to speak.
> While
> > a deaf person may not "know" English, I don't think that's the salient
> > point. All of us don't know things. What seems to me salient in Helen's
> > attempt to find connections, is that the very attempt challenged their
> > current ways of framing their professional lives. What we might think of
> as
> > "ignorance," those teachers thought of as "knowledge." And that
> "knowledge"
> > was part and parcel of the ways they positioned themselves as teachers in
> > relation to students.
> >  I am tempted to put this into discourse analysis terms--I'm a
> > semi-Hallidayan with a critical theory twist. But, I've said enough for a
> > first post, I think. I hope it is useful.
> >
> > Francis J. Sullivan, Ph.D.
> > Associate Professor
> > Department of Teaching and Learning
> > College of Education
> > Temple University
> > Philadelphia, PA 19122
> >
> >
> > Find out what any people will quietly submit to and you have the exact
> > measure of the injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them.
> >
> >  Frederick Douglass
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 2:10 AM, David Kellogg <dkellogg60@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Well, I do hope that Helen means that "for the moment", as I have
> learned
> > > an awful lot from this book and even more from this discussion. You
> see,
> > I
> > > am trying to tease apart two very different processes that appear, on
> the
> > > face of it, to be almost identical, but which also appear to have
> > > diametrically opposite developmental effects.
> > >
> > > One process is the process of getting people to feel at ease,
> > > confident, and happy that they understand what you are saying because
> it
> > is
> > > actually something that is identical or at least very similar to what
> > they
> > > already think. Another, almost identical, process is the process of
> > > "establishing ties" between a new form of knowledge and an earlier one.
> > > BOTH of these processes, it seems to me, occur throughout Helen's book,
> > and
> > > it is easy to mistake the one for the other. BOTH of these processes,
> to
> > > use our earlier terminology, involve "establishing ties", but only one
> of
> > > them also involves breaking away.
> > >
> > > For example, at one point in the book Helen, looking back over the
> > Banksia
> > > Bay PLZ data, rounds on herself for using a transparent piece of
> > > scaffolding to elicit the word "communicate" from a group of teachers.
> > What
> > > bothers her is not that the answer itself is far too general to be of
> any
> > > practical value to the teachers, but only that she had it very firmly
> in
> > > mind, and kept badgering the teachers (as we all do, when we have a
> > precise
> > > answer in mind) until she got it. The alternative, she points out,
> would
> > be
> > > to take what she got and work with that.
> > >
> > > Yes indeed. But I think the main reason that would have been more
> > > interesting is not that it would have resulted in fewer rejections of
> > > teacher answers and made people more at ease, confdent, and happy that
> > they
> > > understood, but rather than it would have yielded something more like a
> > > concrete but unconscious and not yet volitionally controlled example of
> > > excellence from the teacher's own practice. I almost always find that
> the
> > > actual answers I want--the "methods" I end up imparting to my own
> > teachers,
> > > are already present in the data they bring me (because we almost always
> > > begin with actual transcripts of their lessons) but they are generally
> > not
> > > methods but only moments, and moments that go unnoticed and therefore
> > > ungeneralized in the hurly burly of actual teaching.
> > >
> > > Last winter, Helen and I were at a conference in New Zealand where,
> among
> > > other eventful episodes, Craig Brandist got up and gave a very precise
> > list
> > > of half a dozen different and utterly contradictory ways in which
> Bakhtin
> > > uses the term "dialogue". Because the senses of "dialogue" are so many
> > and
> > > varied, people simply pick and choose, and they tend invariably to
> choose
> > > the ones that are closest to the way they already think. It is as
> moments
> > > like this that we need to remind ourselves that Bakhtin's "dialogue"
> does
> > > not, for the most part, ever include children, or women; that he did
> not
> > > "dialogue" with Volosinov or Medvedev when he allowed his acolytes
> > > to plunder their corpses, and that his love of carnival and the public
> > > marketplace does not extend to a belief in any form of political
> > democracy.
> > >
> > > So I think we should start off with an understanding that what Vygotsky
> > > says about defect is not the same was what we now believe. Vygotsky,
> for
> > > example, believed that sign language was not true language, and that
> even
> > > the congenitally deaf should be taught to lip read; this is simply
> > > wrong. (On the other hand, what he says about spontaneously created
> sign
> > > languages--that they are essentially elaborated systems of gesture and
> > they
> > > lack the signifying functions--fits exactly with Susan Goldin-Meadow's
> > > observations in Chicago.)
> > >
> > > And one reason I think it is important to begin with this understanding
> > is
> > > this: sometimes--usually--LSV is right and we are wrong. In
> particular, I
> > > think the "credit" view of defect, or, for that matter, ignorance of
> any
> > > kind and not fully conscious teacher expertise risks becoming a liberal
> > > platitude--the cup is always half full, so why not look on the bright
> > side
> > > of dearth? I certainly do not feel empowered by the fact that I know
> > > English but I do not know ASL, and I rather doubt that deaf people feel
> > > empowered by the opposite state of affairs. When I don't know
> something,
> > I
> > > do not see any bright side of not knowing it, for the very simple
> > > reason that I can't see at all.
> > >
> > > Vygotsky was probably very influenced by "Iolanta", an opera that
> > > Tchaikovsky wrote--he certainly seems to quote it extensively in the
> last
> > > chapter of "Thinking and Speech". In "Iolanta", King Renee copes with
> the
> > > blindness of his daughter by having her shut up in a garden and
> > forbidding
> > > all his subjects from discussing light, sight, color or anything
> visible
> > in
> > > any way. Vaudemont, a knight of Burgundy, blunders into the garden,
> > > discovers Iolanta's secret. Iolanta convinces him that sight is
> > > unnecessary, but in the course of doing so, she develops the desire to
> > see
> > > and choose for herself.
> > >
> > > David Kelogg
> > > Hankuk University of Foreign Studies
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 15 July 2014 11:12, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > My reading of Vygotsky on 'defectology' was that the 'defect' was the
> > > > problem in social relations, that is, the person who is different in
> > some
> > > > way suffers because of the way that difference is treated or not
> > treated
> > > by
> > > > others, not for anything in itself. One and the same feature could
> be a
> > > > great benefit or a fatal flaw, depending on how others react to it.
> > > > Except insofar as introducing the idea of a "credit view" is a move
> > aimed
> > > > at changing the perceptions and behaviours of others in relation to
> the
> > > > subject, I don't think Vygotsky is an advocate of the mirror image
> of a
> > > > deficit view. As I see it, he analyses the problem of the person
> being
> > > > treated as deficient by means of the unit of *defect-compensation*.
> The
> > > > defect (a problem arising in social interaction, with others)
> generates
> > > > certain challenges which are overcome, generally also in interaction
> > with
> > > > others. This "compensation" leads to what Helen could call a "credit"
> > and
> > > > it is the dynamic set up between the social defect and social
> > > compensation
> > > > which shapes the subject's psychology and their relation to others.
> > > > Andy
> > > >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > *Andy Blunden*
> > > > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Helen Grimmett wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> I think what is unique about Vygotsky's work in defectology is that,
> > > >> despite the name, it is not a deficit view (in the way that I
> > understand
> > > >> the term) at all.
> > > >>
> > > >> I understand the commonly used term 'deficit view' as a focus on
> what
> > > >> children are 'missing' that needs to be provided to them by teachers
> > to
> > > >> bring them up to a pre-conceived idea of 'normal' for their
> age/grade
> > > >> level
> > > >> etc. Whereas, a 'credit view' focuses on what children are able to
> do
> > > and
> > > >> bring to a learning situation, in which, in the interaction with
> > others,
> > > >> they will be able to become more able to do and 'be' more than they
> > were
> > > >> before (i.e. to develop), whether this be in the 'expected' ways to
> > the
> > > >> 'expected' level or in completely different ways to a variety of
> > > different
> > > >> levels beyond or outside 'standard' expectations. From the little I
> > have
> > > >> read on defectology I think this is what Vygotsky was advocating -
> > that
> > > >> despite a child's blindness or deafness etc, development was still
> > > >> possible
> > > >> if mediational means were found that made use of the child's credits
> > > (i.e.
> > > >> using sign language or braille so that children still had access to
> > the
> > > >> developmental opportunities provided by language). So I think your
> > term
> > > >> pre-abled is in fact a credit view rather than a deficit view.
> > > >>
> > > >> I was attempting to also use a credit view in my work with the
> > > teachers. I
> > > >> saw them as being experienced practitioners who had lots to bring to
> > our
> > > >> discussions of teaching and learning, in which together we could see
> > > what
> > > >> could be developed (new practices, new understandings). Once Kay and
> > > Mike
> > > >> realised this they got on board and engaged in the process and
> > (possibly
> > > >> for the first time in a long while as they both saw themselves [and
> in
> > > >> fact
> > > >> are officially designated as] 'expert teachers') really reawakened
> the
> > > >> process of developing as professionals. They blew off most of the
> > > content
> > > >> I
> > > >> was contributing, but they realised the process was actually about
> > > >> 'unsticking' their own development and working out new and
> personally
> > > >> interesting and meaningful ways of 'becoming' more as teachers,
> > instead
> > > of
> > > >> being stuck 'being' the teacher they had turned into over the years.
> > Not
> > > >> all of the teachers made this leap in the time I worked with them
> > > though.
> > > >> Others were either quite disgruntled that I wouldn't provide them
> with
> > > >> answers to 'fix' their own perceived deficits or patiently waited
> for
> > me
> > > >> to
> > > >> go away and stop rocking the boat. From what I can gather though,
> Ann
> > > (the
> > > >> principal) kept the boat rocking and managed over time to get more
> > > >> teachers
> > > >> to buy into the process of learning from each other and
> > collaboratively
> > > >> creating new practices. As we said earlier, development takes time
> as
> > > well
> > > >> as effort.
> > > >>
> > > >> All I've got time for at the moment!
> > > >>
> > > >> 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 14 July 2014 14:43, David Kellogg <dkellogg60@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>> Near the end of Chapter Three (p. 81), Helen is summing up her
> > > experience
> > > >>> with the Banksia Bay PLZ and she notes with some dismay that her
> > PDers
> > > >>> have
> > > >>> "a deficit view" of their children and tend towards "container
> > models"
> > > of
> > > >>> the mind ("empty vessel, sponge, blank canvas"). Only one teacher,
> > Ann
> > > >>> sees
> > > >>> anything wrong with this, and Helen says "they don't necessarily
> > value
> > > >>> her
> > > >>> opinion".
> > > >>>
> > > >>>  Helen finds herself rather conflicted: One the one hand, she says
> > "If
> > > >>> their representations of children really do represent their
> beliefs,
> > > then
> > > >>> they are probably right to insist there is no need to change." And
> on
> > > the
> > > >>> other, she says "My intention was never to say that their present
> > > >>> practice
> > > >>> was wrong, but to help them see alternative ways of thinking about
> > > >>> children, learning, and teaching."
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Of course, if there is no need to change, then it follows that
> there
> > is
> > > >>> no
> > > >>> reason to look for alternative ways of thinking about children,
> > > learning
> > > >>> and teaching. The only reason for spending scarce cognitive
> resources
> > > on
> > > >>> seeing different ways of looking at children is if you do, in fact,
> > > take
> > > >>> a
> > > >>> deficit view of the teachers. Ann, and the Regional Consultants,
> > > >>> apparently
> > > >>> do, but Helen realizes that there isn't much basis for this: not
> only
> > > do
> > > >>> we
> > > >>> have no actual data of lessons to look at, we know that one of the
> > > >>> teachers, Kay, has been in the classroom for three decades (during
> > > which
> > > >>> time Helen has spent at least one decade OUT of the classroom).
> > > >>>
> > > >>> While we were translating Vygotsky's "History of the Development of
> > the
> > > >>> Higher Psychological Functions" last year, some of my colleagues
> were
> > > >>> taken
> > > >>> aback by Vygotsky's use of terms like "moron", "imbecile", "idiot",
> > and
> > > >>> "cretin". Of course, Vygotsky is writing long before the
> "euphemisim
> > > >>> treadmill" turned these into playground insults; for Vygotsky they
> > are
> > > >>> quite precise descriptors--not of cognitive ability but actually of
> > > >>> LANGUAGE ability. But because our readership are progressive Korean
> > > >>> teachers with strong views about these questions, we found that we
> > > >>> couldn't
> > > >>> even use the term "mentally retarded" without a strongly worded
> > > footnote
> > > >>> disavowing the "deficit" thinking behind the term.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I think that Vygotsky would have been surprised by this. I think he
> > > took
> > > >>> it
> > > >>> for granted that a defect was a deficit: being blind means a
> deficit
> > in
> > > >>> vision, and being deaf means a deficit in hearing. In the same
> way, a
> > > >>> brain
> > > >>> defect is not an asset. On the other hand, I think Vygotsky would
> > find
> > > >>> our
> > > >>> own term "disabled" quite inaccurate: since all forms of
> development
> > > are
> > > >>> compensatory and involve "circuitous routes" of one kind or
> another,
> > > and
> > > >>> all developed children, even, and even especially, gifted children,
> > > >>> contain
> > > >>> islands of underdevelopment, the correct term for deficits of all
> > kinds
> > > >>> is
> > > >>> not "disabled" but "pre-abled".
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Personally, I see nothing wrong with a deficit view of children
> that
> > > sees
> > > >>> them as pre-abled (or, as Vygotsky liked to say, 'primitivist";
> that
> > > is,
> > > >>> they are waiting for the mediational means that we have foolishly
> > > >>> developed
> > > >>> only for the psychophysiologically most common types to catch up
> with
> > > the
> > > >>> actual variation in real children. I suspect this view is actually
> > > quite
> > > >>> a
> > > >>> bit closer to what Kay thinks than to what Helen thinks.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> David Kellogg
> > > >>> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On 13 July 2014 10:59, Helen Grimmett <helen.grimmett@monash.edu>
> > > wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> Hi David,
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Interesting question. I absolutely think that development AS a
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> professional
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> is necessary, just as development as a human is necessary, so if
> > > >>>> professional development is seen as the practice in which this
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> development
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> is produced then absolutely I do think it is necessary. The form
> > that
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> this
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> practice takes though, and indeed the form of the development that
> > is
> > > >>>> produced within this practice, are the things open to question
> > > however.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> I definitely think that a teacher's development as a professional
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> includes
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> the need to understand their practice better rather than just
> change
> > > it,
> > > >>>> but I think that understanding often develops best
> in/alongside/with
> > > the
> > > >>>> process of changing (and vice versa) rather than separately from
> it,
> > > >>>> and,
> > > >>>> as you point out above, in establishing ties *between* people and
> > then
> > > >>>> within them. So a practice of professional development that
> creates
> > > >>>> conditions which support this type of development will (I believe)
> > be
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> much
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> more effective than traditional forms of PD that either attempt to
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> lecture
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> about theoretical principles but do not support teachers to
> transfer
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> these
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> into practical changes, OR provide teachers with practical
> programs
> > > and
> > > >>>> expect them to implement them without any understanding of what
> and
> > > why
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> the
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> changes matter. I think the term "Professional Development" is an
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> absolute
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> misnomer for either of those typical approaches.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> So again, I have a problem with names! I'm talking about
> > Professional
> > > >>>> Development with a completely different meaning than what most of
> > the
> > > >>>> education community believe it to mean when they talk about
> > attending
> > > PD
> > > >>>> seminars or workshops. I toyed with trying to find a different
> name
> > > for
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> the
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> particular meaning I'm talking about, but when you are talking
> about
> > > >>>> development from a cultural-historical theoretical perspective
> then
> > > >>>> there
> > > >>>> really is no other word to use! That's why I stuck to using
> > > >>>> 'professional
> > > >>>> development' (in full) when I meant my meaning, and PD (which is
> > what
> > > >>>> teachers in Australia commonly refer to seminars and workshops as)
> > > when
> > > >>>> I
> > > >>>> refer to the typical (and in my view, usually non-developmental)
> > forms
> > > >>>> of
> > > >>>> activities that teachers are subjected to each year.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> So, I agree that the need for PD is questionable, but the need for
> > > >>>> practices of professional development that help teachers to
> develop
> > as
> > > >>>> professionals (that is, to develop a unified understanding of both
> > the
> > > >>>> theoretical and practical aspects of their work, which is itself
> > > >>>> continually developing in order to meet the changing needs of
> their
> > > >>>> students, schools and society) is essential. While I think
> > co-teaching
> > > >>>> is
> > > >>>> one practical small-scale solution, working out viable,
> economical,
> > > and
> > > >>>> manageable ways to create these practices on a large-scale is a
> very
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> large
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> problem.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> 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 13 July 2014 08:57, David Kellogg <dkellogg60@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>> 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."
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > >
> >
>