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

[Xmca-l] Re: In defense of Vygotsky [[The fallacy of word-meaning]



David

      Those are not shadows at which you are boxing and things I daily wrestled with as a methods teacher. 

Ed

On Oct 27, 2014, at  10:26 AM, David H Kirshner wrote:

> Apologies, Ed.
> I'm boxing at shadows.
> David
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Ed Wall
> Sent: Monday, October 27, 2014 12:37 AM
> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: In defense of Vygotsky [[The fallacy of word-meaning]
> 
> David
> 
>      Quite frankly I am unsure what to write. 
> 
>      So let me say I more or less agree with all the general points you seem to want to make and am unsure why you think I would do otherwise.
> 
>      I actually don't have a vision of reform-oriented teaching, but currently what I observe is such follow-through is productive and I seldom observe that step untaken. Since I don't consider that observation a basic premise (and we may have greatly differing ideas as to what a basic premise is), I have little qualms "undoing" it.
> 
>      I assume the last paragraph is somewhat addressed to me.  I am unsure why you are maintaining "stretching a unit of analysis across incommensurable perspectives and theorizations never answers these questions."  What unit of analysis, what stretching?  However, I would greatly appreciate it if you could name a little more precisely the structures you think I think are immanent, the incommensurables of which I am blissfully unaware, the desires I have for solidity, and the theoretical tools I think should be marshaled anew for each classroom situation. 
> 
>      On the other hand if the last paragraph is a general comment, I have no qualms 'undoing' this assumption and the request for clarification as well. 
> 
>      David, I recently taught teachers in NYC and I resisted involving them in 'experimental' curriculums. The bulk of my 'methods'  instruction pragmatically focused on what you term the challenge (although I think you have oversimplified) . Thus you are, regardless of what you label premise' or 'vision', singing to the choir. That is not to say, by the way, we agree on the interrelationship of theory and practice. 
> 
> Ed
> 
> On Oct 26, 2014, at  11:23 PM, David H Kirshner wrote:
> 
>> Ed, 
>> 
>> You talk about this teacher as failing, in some respects, in not reconvening the groups as a whole class: "if you are developing a classroom community (some reform-oriented jargon here), some follow-through seems needed."
>> 
>> On the other hand, your vision of reform-oriented teaching seems to recognize sufficient latitude so that even this basic premise is undone: "I don't present all this as something one needs to do all the time (or, for that matter, ever do)."
>> 
>> You conclude with: "There is a time for talking within whole class and a time for talking with a group (and I would say a time for talking one-on-one)."
>> 
>> Yes, Ed, maybe there is, but then again, maybe there isn't. 
>> 
>> The challenge is to be able to articulate exactly what that time is, and what you, the teacher, want/hope will be happening during those interactions, what you will do if they don't happen, and what goals are subserved. 
>> 
>> I maintain that simply stretching a unit of analysis across incommensurable perspectives and theorizations never answers these questions. It leaves us with an impression that we have structure--that structure is immanent--but the incommensurables glide past each other with nary a bump or jolt. Eventually the desire for solidity leads to classroom research as "design science" (Cobb, 2007) in which theoretical tools are marshaled anew for each classroom situation. It's a wonderland for theorists, but a desert for teachers, excepting those lucky few who have a team of researchers analyzing each classroom move, and collaboratively co-producing the next lesson plan with them. 
>> 
>> David
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Ed Wall
>> Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2014 10:02 PM
>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: In defense of Vygotsky [[The fallacy of word-meaning]
>> 
>> David
>> 
>>   This teacher was trying to engage in some aspects of 'reform-oriented'  instruction. He seems to have interpreted this, in part, as ' put the students in groups and let them do some relevant problem solving.' This is fine, but in reform-oriented instruction students report out to the whole class or  you do some sort of summary with input from the groups. The idea being, in part, to use the insights of peers to leverage the learning of all. So, basically this teacher was inconsistent in the way you mentioned.
>> 
>>    Our final conversation went roughly like this:
>> 
>>      Me: Why did you put people in groups?
>>      He: Because they talk more if they do it with peers.
>>      Me: I heard some really thoughtful insights from that table.
>>      He: Yes!
>>      Me: Don't you think the people at the other tables could have benefited from that discussion?
>>      He: Oh.
>>      Me: Don't  you think it would have been a much, much more productive lesson if people could have shared across tables?
>>      He: Yeah, but how would you do that?
>> 
>> We talked a little more about the complexities of reporting out (and this can be done 'inconsistently' also). 
>> 
>>    I don't present all this as something one needs to do all the time (or, for that matter, ever do), but, if you are developing a classroom community (some reform-oriented jargon here), some follow-through seems needed. 
>> 
>>    My point in all this seems to be  essentially your point. That is, a lot of group talking isn't necessarily a productive use of class time; the 'kinds' of teacher allocated turns are critical (reform or traditional). There is a time for talking within whole class and a time for talking with a group (and I would say a time for talking one-on-one).
>> 
>> Ed
>> 
>> On Oct 26, 2014, at  8:59 PM, David H Kirshner wrote:
>> 
>>> Ed, 
>>> Your hint seems to be: "my objection was, in a sense, that it wasn't consistent (although perhaps not in the way you mean)."
>>> 
>>> Okay, I'm officially stumped.
>>> 
>>> David
>>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: xmca-l-bounces+dkirsh=lsu.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+dkirsh=lsu.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Ed Wall
>>> Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2014 6:42 PM
>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: In defense of Vygotsky [[The fallacy of word-meaning]
>>> 
>>> David
>>> 
>>>    I have never really figured out what reform-oriented oriented or, I guess the other, traditional, meant. If I ask many who name themselves as traditionalists to describe a reform-oriented classroom, they paint an inaccurate picture and, if I ask many who name themselves reform-oriented to describe a traditionalist classroom, they paint a picture just as inaccurate. Even worse if I go back and look at comments from the past, I find that the golden years of traditionalism were as contested (i.e. if transported back today's traditionalists would find themselves labeled reform-oriented). So I guess I more or less agree with Lave as regards consistency. Insofar as Piaget and Vygotsky are concerned, they both add things I think are useful to the mix and I discuss them both with my students (unfortunately my colleagues know little about Vygotsky so my students come a little less knowledgeable than I might wish).
>>>    I really wouldn't know what it means for teaching to be consistent. I do have commitments as a mathematics teacher which I try to honor (I think you were part of the discussion when I laid these out on the list), but teaching is isn't a static profession (which I really like!) and I am always learning from my students and my colleagues. I agree with what you say about individuals and groups and grumble at my colleagues and my students (teachers-to-be) about "simply engaging students in group discussion with no real sense of how that activity is supposed to lead to learning or development in any sense." Even worse is the way quiet students are viewed and mentored.
>>>    Insofar as my original story was concerned, I can easily imagine some reform-oriented people thinking she was an excellent teacher and I can easily imagine some traditionalist teachers thinking the same (and vice-versa). As far as the story I asked Phillip about (and I was assuming others might answer), I know some mathematicians would see this class as a good idea and others would not. However, my objection was, in a sense, that it wasn't consistent (although perhaps not in the way you mean). 
>>> 
>>>  So, directing the question at you (and others if they wish), why did I tell him nicely it was among one of the worst taught classes I had ever seen? I have given you a hint (smile) and I didn't have, I think, a theoretical reason (smile).
>>> 
>>> Ed
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Oct 26, 2014, at  4:06 PM, David H Kirshner wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Ed, 
>>>> 
>>>> The question wasn't directed at me, but I'd like to share some perspectives on the problems of this kind of reform-oriented instruction, and the broader question of appropriate units of analysis for classroom teaching--perhaps they bear on your particular response/interpretation of this class.
>>>> 
>>>> Reform-oriented instruction generally is informed by two theoretical trajectories, of independent origin: the Piagetian theorization of conceptual development based on schemas that derive from the individual's reflective abstraction of their own actions; and the Vygotskyan theorization of development through interiorization of cultural practices. Each of these is relevant to student development in the context of reform-oriented instruction such as the group work you described, below. In particular, a teacher can attend to the particular conceptual constructions that students are wrestling with as their current conceptual structures are challenged and reorganized--a focus that requires engagement with individual students; or the teacher can attend to the corporate engagement of the classroom in increasingly sophisticated practices of thinking, reasoning, and communicating.
>>>> 
>>>> Unfortunately, our efforts as theorists to understand and support effective teaching in this kind of landscape all too often consist in recognizing the dialectical opposition of the alternative perspectives, and therefore to claim we are on the track of identifying a satisfactory unit of analysis to ground a science of education. However, I think Jean Lave (1988) got it right as she laid out the challenge as establishing coherence across "units of analysis [that], though traditionally elaborated separately, must be defined together and consistently" (p. 146). 
>>>> 
>>>> What ensues from claims of victory, when all we've done is identify the problem, is a false sense that the priorities a teacher might attend to in engaging students in reform-oriented group work are mutually consistent. In my experience, it is this false sense of good teaching as a mutually coherent set of practices that obscures from teachers the real challenges of reform-oriented instruction, which only can be properly engaged with recognition that the agendas one pursues with individuals and groups  are not reconciled with one another, and often work at cross purposes to one another. Absent this perspective, the teacher really has no way to make sense of either branch of the reform agenda or the teaching practices that support it. As a result, all too often, the reform-oriented teacher is simply engaging students in group discussion with no real sense of how that activity is supposed to lead to learning or development in any sense--an enjoyable, but banal pedagogical exercise.
>>>> 
>>>> Of course, finding ways to theorize social and individual perspectives as mutually consistent remains a viable theoretical project. But let's not mistake naming the problem for offering a solution. And in the meantime, perhaps our best service to teachers lies in sharing the richness of the Piagetian and Vygotskyan traditions independently of one another. Because absent epistemic resolution, teachers need to be prepared to engage in the delicate art of balancing and managing inconsistent priorities and methods.
>>>> 
>>>> David
>>>> 
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Ed Wall
>>>> Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2014 2:52 PM
>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: In defense of Vygotsky [[The fallacy of word-meaning]
>>>> 
>>>> Philip
>>>> 
>>>>   To first comment on your note to Andy. The teacher was not necessarily interested in students' fluency with the operations (in fact she may have thought there were more than fluent). The first sentence of my story reads:
>>>> 
>>>>> Ms. Peña has, in previous years, noticed that her fourth graders, at times, struggle to make sense of multi-step word problems. Many seem confused about both the nature of the required operations-most usually, addition, subtraction, multiplication, or division-or the order in which these operations are to be applied.
>>>> 
>>>> Second, we may see teaching mathematics (and see teaching teachers) differently (which is fine as I certainly do have all or even significant number of the answers - I am right now working on the questions). A story might be helpful:
>>>> 
>>>> A number of years ago I was asked to view an 'exemplarily' mathematics class for pre-service teachers taught by a mathematician (he had received a grant to design this special class). He began the class by clearly and succinctly introducing the mathematics  problem(s) to be considered and when all seemed to have a good idea what was to be done, the pre-service teachers - about five or six to a table - began talking and working. Students definitely seemed engaged, there was a lot of good discussion, and I think the teacher walked around a bit making comments and asking questions. The class ended and he asked me what I thought. I told him nicely it was among one of the worst taught classes I had ever seen (I did tell him why). Why do you think I said that? Student turns were certainly in the 90s.
>>>> 
>>>> Ed
>>>> 
>>>> On Oct 26, 2014, at  10:31 AM, White, Phillip wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> as you wrote, Ed:
>>>>> 
>>>>> " In the next section of the paper I take up a different math lesson with ostensibly the same purpose (i.e. making sense of 'word' problems). Some different things will show up which perhaps get me a little closer to a 'smallest' unit of analysis. It will, in a sense, be the 'kinds' of turns not the number of turns (although chidden will have more turns) that are interesting (or so I think - smile)."
>>>>> 
>>>>> clearly i did not express myself coherently, this this is exactly the point i was attempting to make - that it was the 'kinds' of turns, the action within the turn, that was of paramount importance.  i interpreted the teacher's turns as actions that the students could have been doing. which is why i noted that the teacher produced the greatest number of turns.  as a teacher of teachers i would have preferred to see the great majority of turns having been done by the students - preferably student to student responses.
>>>>> 
>>>>> and thanks for the smiles!  
>>>>> 
>>>>> phillip
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
>