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

[Xmca-l] Re: book of possible interest



Thank you Andy. I appreciate the clarification.

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 22, 2014 at 10:44 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:

> Francis, I dipped out of the conversation about fuzzy things because it
> was just getting silly, but please allow me to nip a couple of rumours in
> the bud before they become reveived wisdom. I have never used the term
> "semantic action". The term appeared in my message in my attempt to sum up
> what *David* was saying. Since he disowns the term I guess I was mistaken.
> Secondly, I certainly do not conflate the sign and the concept. I deal with
> the relation at some length in my book on Concepts.
> Andy
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *Andy Blunden*
> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
>
>
> FRANCIS J. SULLIVAN wrote:
>
>> 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
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>