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

[Xmca-l] Re: [Fwd: Re: Article for Discussion]



Thanks, Kim.

The discursive practices you cite--building on other's ideas, asking follow-up questions, providing reasons--seem like general norms of civil discourse, rather than philosophical practices, per se. Could your discursive goals have been met with discussion focused on literature or history or other content areas, or are the practices sought specifically philosophical, in some sense? 

My sense from reading your paper is that the philosophical heart of the discussions is by no means incidental. If that's the case, and if your answer, above, is that the discursive practices achieved are not specifically practices of philosophical discourse, then what is the basis for your focus on philosophical conversations?

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 Kim Skinner
Sent: Monday, November 09, 2015 1:44 PM
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: [Fwd: Re: Article for Discussion]

Hi David,
Children participating in philosophical discussion learn to continually question, challenge, and evaluate... 
So yes, it was the discursive interactions "over time" that was key.
While the ground rules may seem nebulous in list form, it was the interactions of participants over time that changed the children's discourse. For example, enactment of "Think before you speak" played out as a directive by the teacher, such as "Wait! Think about it," followed by almost  a minute of silence before any discussion began. 

You are correct in assuming that the teacher reinforced student responses that modeled "what counts as" developing philosophical practices, such as, building on other's ideas, asking follow-up questions, providing reasons, ... much like Yackel and Cobb's discussion of sociomathematical norms that the teacher influenced through encouragement and attention. 

Related to your own depiction of a genres approach to notions of learning, the teacher's practice could be characterized as enculturation, where the learning goal was the children's acquisition of the disposition of a philosopher, to learn to think for oneself and with others.  Though posted rules for discussion do reduce the degrees of freedom for participants, this acculturationist teacher used engagement with the rules as scaffolding until participating in a philosophical conversation became normative for the children. 
I appreciate your comments!
Kim


Kim Skinner, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor, Literacy Studies
Louisiana State University
School of Education
226 Peabody Hall
Baton Rouge, LA 70803
225.578.6709

________________________________________
From: xmca-l-bounces+kskinner=lsu.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l-bounces+kskinner=lsu.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu> on behalf of David H Kirshner <dkirsh@lsu.edu>
Sent: Sunday, November 8, 2015 10:53 PM
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: [Fwd:  Re: Article for Discussion]

Kim, thanks for sharing your article with the list.

Picking up on the passage Larry seized on:

"Ethnographic evidence showed the children's justifications for their claims fell into four categories: experience, text, authority and reasoning. .... over time, justification for claims based on reasoning increased. The nature and the content of the dialogue transformed through group members practising in dialogue with each other" (p. 358).

I'm wondering, what was the engine driving progress. The ground rules can't be it, for they're far too general (taking turns, listening to others, thinking before you speak, etc.). For instance, with respect to reasoning, all the ground rules state is "Give reasons for your beliefs" (p. 355). But, citing one's experience or else arguing on the basis of authority is still giving reasons. So there must have been something beyond the ground rules at play.

Are you regarding the evolution of processes of reasoning as a "natural" evolution (in some sense); if one persists in civil dialogue long enough, a certain kind of progress ensues, and that's what's been captured in your data?

Or is the teacher exerting some subtle influence (beyond providing the ground rules) that has guided the increasing sophistication of the students?

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 Kim Skinner
Sent: Sunday, November 08, 2015 9:05 PM
To: Goncu, Artin; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: [Fwd: Re: Article for Discussion]

Hi Larry,
I appreciate your comments and agree with your complication of "space" and "reasons."
The philosophy club was indeed much more than a dialogic space, though in this particular manuscript I did focus on the words of the teacher and children. The use and function of the physical space, for example, was transformed after school by the teacher and children when they moved furniture to sit in a circle on the floor and created anchor charts as artifacts and reminders of the differentiated utility of this space after the last bell.

I agree that by focusing on the rules seems counterintuitive as it was, after all, the "rules" of school discourse the teacher was trying to escape. However, as the philosophy club only met once a week, the "new rules" were important reminders for both the children and the teacher who transitioned from the school day IRE discourse to a peer led whole group conversation with the ringing of a bell. While the ground rules appear to delimit practices, in actuality their explicitness opened up this creative, situational, and dialogic space.
Kim

Kim Skinner, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor, Literacy Studies
Louisiana State University
School of Education
226 Peabody Hall
Baton Rouge, LA 70803
225.578.6709

________________________________________
From: xmca-l-bounces+kskinner=lsu.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l-bounces+kskinner=lsu.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu> on behalf of Vadeboncoeur, Jennifer <j.vadeboncoeur@ubc.ca>
Sent: Sunday, November 1, 2015 10:31 AM
To: Goncu, Artin
Cc: Activity eXtended Mind Culture
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: [Fwd:  Re: Article for Discussion]

Thanks Artin!! :)



> On 2015-10-31, at 10:32 AM, Goncu, Artin wrote:
> 
> 
> I join Ana and Andy, in thanking you, Jen and all, for your contributions.
> The titles look great and I am looking forward to the discussions.
> All the best, ag
> 
> ---------------------------- Original Message
> ----------------------------
> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Article for Discussion
> From:    "Vadeboncoeur, Jennifer" <j.vadeboncoeur@ubc.ca>
> Date:    Sat, October 31, 2015 11:36 am
> To:      ablunden@mira.net
>        "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> Cc:      "W. Douglas Baker" <douglas.baker@EMICH.EDU>
>        "Negar Amini" <amini63.n@gmail.com>
>        "Wendy Turgeon" <wturgeon@sjcny.edu>
>        "Hendricks, Christina" <c.hendricks@ubc.ca>
>        "Weber, Barbara" <barweber@mail.ubc.ca>
>        "Judith Green" <green@education.ucsb.edu>
>        "M. Dobber" <m.dobber@vu.nl>
>        "M. van der Veen" <chiel.vander.veen@vu.nl>
>        "Daniel Anderson" <danieljohnanderson@hotmail.com>
>        "H.J.M. van Oers" <bert.van.oers@vu.nl>
>        "Susan Gardner" <sgardner@capilanou.ca>
>        "Peter Costello" <dr.petercostello@gmail.com>
>        "Natalie Fletcher" <nataliefletcher@gmail.com>
>        "Claire Alkouatli" <claire.alkouatli@gmail.com>
>        "Kym Maclaren" <kym.maclaren@ryerson.ca>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
> 
> Thanks for this, Andy, and thanks go to the lead editor Barbara Weber 
> on this issue as well!
> 
> For folks who would like to know more about it, the editorial is also 
> available for free. There are 6 articles and 6 commentaries-we were 
> working toward a more dialogic feel-that move across and between 
> philosophy, psychology, and education. In addition, we were able to 
> include a book review on Jan Derry's fascinating book, Vygotsky, 
> philosophy and education.
> 
> Our intention was to look at intersections of philosophy, psychology, 
> and education and we were very fortunate to locate authors with both 
> similar intentions and outstanding research to contribute. The 
> congratulations go to them:
> 
> Wendy Turgeon
> Christina Hendricks
> Eva Marsal
> Chiel van der Veen, Claudia van Kruistum, & Sarah Michaels Marjolein 
> Dobber & Bert van Oers Claire Alkouatli, Negar Amini, and Jen Kim 
> Skinner Doug Baker & Judith Green Kym Maclaren Peter Costello Susan 
> Gardner & Daniel Anderson Natalie Fletcher Arthur Wolf
> 
> Thanks to everyone!
> 
> Now, on to discussions of Kim Skinner's article!!
> 
> Best - jen
> 
> 
> 
>> On 2015-10-30, at 10:17 PM, Andy Blunden wrote:
>> 
>> Looks like a stunning issue, Jen!
>> Andy
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>> *Andy Blunden*
>> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
>>> On 31/10/2015 2:56 PM, Larry Purss wrote:
>>> Jennifer and Kim,
>>> This months article is sure to generate conversation.
>>> The 2nd paragraph on page 358 caught my attention.
>>> "Ethnographic evidence showed the children's justifications for 
>>> their claims fell into four categories: experience, text, authority 
>>> and reasoning. .... over time, justification for claims based on 
>>> reasoning increased. The nature and the content of the dialogue 
>>> transformed through group members practising in dialogue with each other."
>>> 
>>> The question this generates concerns the notion of *space* of 
>>> reasons. I hear a transfiguration from *foundational rule based* 
>>> space TO *dialogical
>>> space* OF reasons.
>>> 
>>> However are there other possible *spaces* of reason beyond either 
>>> foundational or dialogical *spaces* of reason. For example 
>>> *situational
>>> spaces* or *creative spaces* OF reason.
>>> Using a dramatical metaphor or table metaphor could the dialogical 
>>> *space of reasons* be a particular type of situation  as answer to 
>>> foundational rule based reason, but the deeper truth is that we are 
>>> setting the table for multiple fluid "spaces* of reasoning. To 
>>> justify claims may be deeply implicated WITHIN plural notions of *spaces*.
>>> Not either foundational or dialogical *spaces* but expanding to 
>>> multiple mixtures of various notions of reasons.
>>> This in no way questions dialogical spaces of reason [as thinking] 
>>> but invites deeper exploration to how we orient to these multiple
>>> *spaces* [each of which offers justifications.]
>>> 
>>> To describe justification as re- semblance to a board game focuses 
>>> attention on the RULES of the game. THIS is a norm based image of 
>>> reasoning justifying moving *points* on the board as preconceived 
>>> grid. Situational *spaces* of reason are more creative *spaces* of 
>>> justification that are also historically implicated but more open to 
>>> novelty.
>>> The question of justification is complicated and the relation of the
>>> 4 types of justification far more entangled than reason 
>>> [foundational or dialogical] overcoming the other 3 types assumes.
>>> 
>>> The orientation moving away from foundational spaces of reason to 
>>> dialogical spaces of reason is a profound transfiguration. It opens 
>>> the space of reason to creative novelty. It is possible to continue 
>>> going deeper to explore the profound depth of situations as *spaces* of reason.
>>> 
>>> This months journal is moving across traditions and authorities and 
>>> experiences. The concept of *situational* spaces is the Pragmatic 
>>> tradition. Philosophical hermeneutics uses the concept *spaces of play*.
>>> Are concepts merely *resources* or do they exhibit other characteristics?.
>>> Dewey explored two notions of "have"
>>> A possessive "have" and a relational "have" [We have a friend]. We 
>>> cannot possess *spaces* These *third* spaces have us and we
>>> *undergo* experiences WITHIN these spaces.
>>> 
>>> The *space* of reasons also has this quality of being more than
> "resources"
>>> to use in our practices of justification. Reasons are more than 
>>> tools of self management and self discipline. They are also *spaces* which have us.
>>> 
>>> Reason is being re-thought and re-worked and will need multiple
>>> *settings* to stage this activity. The space of reasons as 
>>> dialogical is one particular and valid and true space of 
>>> justification. It is not the only space.
>>> Generating notions of *situations* and *spaces of play* and *zones* 
>>> are speaking this multi-verse being acted out as dramas.
>>> 
>>> The after school setting created a particular situation opening up a 
>>> particular stage like *space* for generating particular types of 
>>> justification. It was a *third* space in which the dialogical comes 
>>> to the foreground. Ground is a fluid concept as is the concept of
>>> *concrete* experience. Creative worlds emerge or unfold within these
>>> *spaces* but
> they
>>> are not fundamentally grounded or permanently rule based. These 
>>> worlds are foregrounded and backgrounded within particular 
>>> situations [spaces of
> play]
>>> but they are primarily unknown on their way to be/coming known 
>>> without
> end.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 9:44 AM, Vadeboncoeur, Jennifer < 
>>> j.vadeboncoeur@ubc.ca> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Dear XMCAers,
>>>> 
>>>> The special issue of Mind, Culture, and Activity on Engaged 
>>>> Philosophical Inquiry is up and running.
>>>> 
>>>> http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/hmca20/current
>>>> 
>>>> Kim Skinner, author of Acts of thinking: At school but not during 
>>>> school, has graciously agreed to make herself available for 
>>>> dialogue about her article on XMCA.
>>>> 
>>>> If you have a moment to access and review the article, perhaps we 
>>>> can begin discussion early or mid next week?
>>>> 
>>>> Best to all, jen
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Artin Goncu, Ph.D
> http://www.artingoncu.com/
> Professor Emeritus,
> University of Illinois at Chicago
> College of Education M/C 147
> 1040 W. Harrison St.
> Chicago, IL 60607