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

[Xmca-l] Re: Response to Spoilsport: Beyond oppositional dualitiesindrama in education and dialogic pedagogy to promote learning possibilities

Ooooh, guess what just arrived in my inbox! Sharing with those of you who have been following this thread:
Helen Grimmett (2016): The Problem of “Just Tell Us”: Insights from Playing with Poetic Inquiry and Dialogical Self Theory, Studying Teacher Education, DOI: 10.1080/17425964.2016.1143810 


Helen (wobbling a lot as I press send...)

> On 4 Mar 2016, at 1:26 pm, Susan Davis <s.davis@cqu.edu.au> wrote:
> Thank you Helen,
> I appreciate your finding the time to post this as it is indeed that crazy
> time of year with term starting. I find this DP approach conceivable and
> doable in terms of teachers working within the constraints and
> professional responsibilities now required in most schools/education
> sites.  Teachers as well as students have to work on terms and within
> parameters that are not necessarily of their own making, but the point of
> what you are saying is that through a dialogic process they can make these
> situations more dialogic and perhaps more 'their own'. Finding the points
> of connection and suitable animating ideas/actions is then often the key
> for the teacher who wants to make this process meaningful for both
> themselves and their students.
> I look forward to seeing your article once it’s published.
> Kind regards
> Sue
>> On 4/03/2016 9:16 am, "Helen Grimmett" <helen.grimmett@monash.edu> wrote:
>> Hi Ana, Sue and others
>> Apologies for the delay in responding to your question about definitions
>> of
>> dialogue and dialogic pedagogy. I have been teaching and in meetings flat
>> out for the past few days (hopefully dialogically!).
>> I have an article about to be published in "Studying Teacher Education" in
>> which I say:
>> "Theoretically influenced by the work of Bakhtin, Vygotsky, Dewey and
>> Friere, and variously referred to as Dialogic instruction (Nystrand,
>> 1997),
>> Dialogic inquiry (Wells, 1999), Dialogic teaching (Alexander, 2008; Lyle,
>> 2008), Dialogic pedagogies (Edwards-Groves, Anstey, & Bull, 2014) etc.,
>> these approaches all share an understanding of learning as the active
>> co-construction of meaning developed through joint activity and language
>> interactions between and amongst teachers and learners. Knowledge is
>> therefore not regarded as a fixed entity to be transmitted from teacher to
>> learner, but a fluid negotiation, re-creation and expansion of cultural,
>> collective and individual ideas, actions and meanings; and as such
>> requires
>> different pedagogic strategies to ‘traditional’ transmissive/monologic
>> teaching."
>> The article is a self-study of my own journey towards trying to teach in
>> a
>> more dialogical way. I have been strongly influenced by Bob Fecho's work
>> and his position that we can really only hope to be 'more dialogical' in
>> classrooms, as our professional responsibilities as teachers mean that we
>> must be held accountable for ensuring that curricula aims are also met.
>> This certainly doesn't mean that we can't encourage critique, debate and
>> expansion of those aims, but we do have to  remain cognisant of them and
>> constantly work within the tension of institutional requirements and
>> completely free-reign dialogue.
>> We also have professional and moral responsibilities to ensure that we are
>> creating an environment in which students feel 'safe to' be able to engage
>> in such critique, debate and expansion as this inevitably exposes them to
>> risks that they have not been expected to face in more traditional
>> transmissive/monologic classrooms. It takes time to build trust, change
>> expectations, engender confidence, develop skills etc so that our
>> classrooms can become more dialogical in ways that expand understanding
>> and
>> transform social practices rather than denigrate into hurtful arguments
>> and
>> personal attacks. It doesn't mean we all have to agree, but we all have a
>> right to contribute and to have our contribution heard and considered
>> respectfully.
>> In my view, there is nothing wrong with a teacher contributing their own
>> understanding (which may or may not come from a place of greater
>> experience
>> or knowledge) so long as the door (mind!) is always open to the
>> possibility
>> that their may be other ways to see, do or explain things. Not to do so
>> would be an abdication of our professional responsibility. It is only a
>> problem if the teacher's way is seen as the only way. However, helping
>> students (and especially student teachers) to see that is really
>> challenging...and continues to provide plenty of research interest for me.
>> All I've got time for at the minute...
>> Cheers,
>> Helen
>> -- 
>> Lecturer in Primary and Early Years Education
>> Professional Experience Liaison - Primary
>> *Education*
>> Monash University
>> Room 159, Building 902, Berwick Campus
>> 100 Clyde Road
>> Berwick VIC 3806
>> Australia
>> T: +61 3 9904 7171
>> E: helen.grimmett@monash.edu <name.surname@monash.edu>
>> monash.edu
>> 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
>> On 2 March 2016 at 18:08, Ana Marjanovic-Shane <anamshane@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> Dear all,
>>> Sue poited out a veru important issue for U.S, in my view: "I would also
>>> love to hear a little more about your conceptof dialogic pedagogy as it
>>> is
>>> clear there are some very different interpretations and versions of DP
>>> being used."
>>> Yes, it seems that there are several interpretations and concepts of
>>> dialogue and thus Dialogic pedagogy. It would be important, I think
>>> that we
>>> find out what are these different conceptualizations of what is dialogue
>>> and then based on that what are our different views of dialogic
>>> pedagogy?
>>> So what is your definition of dialogue and how do you describe Dialogic
>>> pedagogy?
>>> Ana
>>>> On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 12:48 AM Susan Davis <s.davis@cqu.edu.au> wrote:
>>>> Brian, Helen, Larry,
>>>> Brian - I loved your example and insight into practice.  I can imagine
>>> how
>>>> excited the kids would be coming along each week and thinking 'what
>>>> adventures they might go on today¹, the apparently dialogic processes
>>> and
>>>> the multi-levelled learning that is emerging from these sessions.
>>>> Brian and Helen I would also love to hear a little more about your
>>> concept
>>>> of dialogic pedagogy as it is clear there are some very different
>>>> interpretations and versions of DP being used.
>>>> Larry I don¹t know if there is always a conscious shift that occurs in
>>> the
>>>> playful moments, but what is important is that children (and teachers)
>>> are
>>>> being given permission and the space to behave in different ways than
>>> they
>>>> might in Œreal life¹.  As to being Œcaptured¹ in a positive way, at
>>> times
>>>> in these encounters you experience 'moments' when the group is
>>> committed
>>>> and engaged at the same time, a sense of group Œflow¹ emerges I guess
>>> you
>>>> could say, and you know the group has been Œcaptured¹ in an engaged
>>> and
>>>> committed way.
>>>> Like Brian mentioned I think the concepts Vygotsky talked of in "Play
>>> and
>>>> its role in the mental development of the child" (1933/1966) where he
>>>> discussed the idea of a Œdual affective plan¹ is of relevance.  In the
>>>> text it famously says ³Thus, in play a situation is created in which,
>>> as
>>>> Nohl puts it, a dual affective plan occurs. For example, the child
>>> weeps
>>>> in play as a patient, but revels as a player² (Vygotsky 1933/1966, p.
>>> 11).
>>>> This quote has also often been used in drama circles to discuss the
>>>> concept of Œmetaxis¹ which is where a dual state is entered and where
>>>> learnings from one realm can impact upon the other (e.g. Understanding
>>>> something about how what it feels to be the subject of racism
>>> emerging in
>>>> a drama and some of those understandings impacting on a person¹s
>>>> real-world attitudes and beliefs).
>>>> Kind regards
>>>> Sue
>>>>> On 2/03/2016 1:45 pm, "Edmiston, Brian W." <edmiston.1@osu.edu> wrote:
>>>>> Hi Larry
>>>>> I¹m using Vygotsky¹s idea that when we play we foreground what we
>>> imagine
>>>>> over material reality so that the meaning of what we do
>>> predominates. We
>>>>> we play we are intending to pretend - you can¹t be made to play -
>>> that¹s
>>>>> what I mean by Œat will'. I¹m not sure which metaphor captures that
>>>>> experience best: fore- and back- or maybe over- and under- or
>>> stepping
>>>>> Œin' and Œout' of imagined spaces, events, and worlds.
>>>>> On the other hand I can see that there can be a sense of Œbeing
>>> captured
>>>>> by¹ - e.g. when the adults in the class I¹m teaching initially
>>> pretended
>>>>> to row the boat and wave a sheet as a sail children wanted to join
>>> in -
>>>>> they asked and/or literally ran to join in - and probably with little
>>>>> intention. Though I think they must they were still exercising some
>>>>> Œwill' - the pretending could not simply be maintained by others. In
>>> a
>>>>> similar way, when you sit down with a child and are really
>>> interested in
>>>>> a book they are likely to Œlean in¹ physically and be Œdrawn in¹ to
>>> the
>>>>> world via the illustrations and your talk especially if you pretend
>>> to
>>>>> talk like a character which Œcaptures¹ their interest and brings
>>> meaning
>>>>> to the dialogue Š
>>>>> Is that what you mean by a structure of shared perception/action?
>>>>> Brian
>>>>>> On Mar 1, 2016, at 10:27 PM, Lplarry <lpscholar2@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Brian,
>>>>>> Just to  echo your understanding,*We are always in two time-spaces
>>> AT
>>>>>> ONCE. This means simultaneously.
>>>>>> You added that we move *to build this shared awareness with one
>>>>>> time-space being over the other which also indicates the other
>>>>>> time-space becomes under.
>>>>>> A third aspect you suggest is to be able to foreground one
>>> time-space
>>>>>> or the other *at will*.
>>>>>> I have a question if this foregrounding (and backgrounding)
>>> movement
>>>>>> which is meaning making is always *at will*.
>>>>>> This is why I introduced the notion of being *captured by* which
>>>>>> contrasts with willfully capturing or grasping meaning.
>>>>>> This is the question if shared awareness that captures us may occur
>>>>>> prior to developing shared awareness OF awareness.
>>>>>> In other words is there a structure of shared perception/action
>>> that
>>>>>> occurs prior to dialogical foregrounding and backgrounding
>>> discourse?
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: "Edmiston, Brian W." <edmiston.1@osu.edu>
>>>>>> Sent: 2016-03-01 6:09 PM
>>>>>> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Response to Spoilsport: Beyond oppositional
>>>>>> dualitiesindrama in education and dialogic pedagogy to promote
>>> learning
>>>>>> possibilities
>>>>>> Thanks, Helen
>>>>>> Yes! - central to any drama is that we can imagine "What if Š?² and
>>>>>> then using social imagination (and dialogic imagination!)
>>>>>> collaboratively embody and dialogue as if we were elsewhere, as if
>>> we
>>>>>> were other people, as if we had more (or less) power - that¹s
>>>>>> empowering! But never losing the knowledge and experience of
>>>>>> us-as-people asking those questions, reflecting on what we¹re
>>>>>> experiencing, and wondering what these imagined experiences might
>>> mean
>>>>>> for me (me too!), for us, for others, for the world ...
>>>>>> I¹ve recently been working with an after-school group of 6 and 7
>>> year
>>>>>> olds as if we¹ve been with Odysseus - using multimodal tools:
>>> fabric,
>>>>>> pictures, some key artifacts, as well as our bodies and
>>> relationships
>>>>>> we¹ve been imagining sailing and rowing and singing, we¹ve been in a
>>>>>> shipwreck saving one another, dreaming of home, being turned to
>>> pigs by
>>>>>> Circe, having the power to turn others into something, trying to
>>>>>> convince Circe to turn people back, wondering whether to risk being
>>>>>> killed by the monsters we¹d just embodied or stay and party with
>>> Circe
>>> Š
>>>>>> and all the while engaged in inquiry about topics of interest to the
>>>>>> children (and taken into angles that come from them): what do
>>> friends
>>> do
>>>>>> - and not do? what dangers might we risk (or not) to go home? (oh,
>>> and
>>>>>> we¹re often reading bits of text in context as the children have all
>>>>>> been labelled as Œstruggling readers¹ and aren¹t doing so well on
>>> those
>>>>>> tests ...)
>>>>>> In my practice I tend to move in and out of any imagined world a
>>> lot,
>>>>>> especially early on. To build that shared awareness of "we are
>>> always
>>> in
>>>>>> two time-spaces at once" with one being foregrounded over the other
>>> at
>>>>>> will - like what children do when they play without adults.
>>>>>> That's what Vygotsky stressed - that in playing it¹s the meaning of
>>> our
>>>>>> actions and the objects we use that we pay attention to - not the
>>> acts
>>>>>> and things in themselves. And when we¹re in dialogue with others (or
>>>>>> often on the way to dialogue with these young children) then the
>>>>>> potential for meaning-making about action in imagined events in the
>>>>>> imagined-and-real world expands exponentially, especially since we
>>> can
>>>>>> move in time and space - we¹re not stuck with one or two chronotopes
>>> but
>>>>>> can explore and move among multiple possible perspectives on events.
>>>>>> While at the same time each person is always able to see through the
>>>>>> perspectives of their life experiences - about what ³home² is like
>>> for
>>>>>> me, what my ³friends" do with me, what ³dangers² I¹ve faced etc. to
>>> make
>>>>>> new meaning that goes beyond the limits of the everyday world ...
>>>>>> However, with me present and both playing along with the children
>>> and
>>>>>> stepping out of the imagined world, I can mediate agreement about
>>>>>> cultural norms (e.g. we listen when anyone is speaking to the group)
>>> and
>>>>>> what¹s happening socially so that no one is being left out and no
>>> one
>>> is
>>>>>> dominating with ideas about what might happen (e.g.we can choose
>>> whether
>>>>>> or not to go searching for food) or what something might mean
>>> (e.g.Circe
>>>>>> might be an evil witch - how might we find out?).
>>>>>> I also want to build the knowledge from the beginning that each
>>> person
>>>>>> chooses to step into (and out of) imagined worlds and that anyone
>>> can
>>>>>> step out (or sit out!) at any time. That no one is being coerced and
>>>>>> those participating are agreeing to make this imagined reality
>>> happen
>>>>>> together - something that Gavin Bolton stressed years ago - the
>>> sense
>>>>>> that we are making this happen to ourselves. One older boy who had
>>> been
>>>>>> brought into the room sat at a table - and chose to look at
>>> pictures in
>>>>>> the books - I¹d just bought a model of a Greek ship for him to make
>>> to
>>>>>> find he had been suspended Š maybe he¹ll be back next week. Another
>>>>>> older boy knew about Poseidon when I was sharing illustrations from
>>>>>> versions of Homer¹s story - he wanted to show the younger children
>>> how
>>>>>> he-as-Poseidon could use a trident to bring about a storm - that we
>>> then
>>>>>> embodied as part of another shipwreck! Oh, and one week a younger
>>> boy
>>>>>> snuck in to join his friends!
>>>>>> This week we¹ll be meeting the Cyclops (those who choose to join in
>>> Š!)
>>>>>> Brian
>>>>>> BTW if you want my take on how drama (and specifically what I call
>>>>>> dramatic inquiry) can be dialogic - see my 2014 book published by
>>>>>> Routledge: Transforming Teaching and Learning with Active and
>>> Dramatic
>>>>>> Approaches.
>>>>>> [cid:image001.png@01CE44CA.B3EB06D0]
>>>>>> Brian Edmiston, PhD
>>>>>> Professor of Drama in Education
>>>>>> Department of Teaching and Learning
>>>>>> Columbus, OH 43210
>>>>>> edmiston.1@osu.edu<mailto:edmiston.1@osu.edu>
>>>>>> go.osu.edu/edmiston<http://go.osu.edu/edmiston>
>>>>>> 'To live means to participate in dialogue: to ask questions, to
>>> heed,
>>>>>> to respond, to agree, and so forth. In this dialogue a person
>>>>>> participates wholly and throughout his whole life: with his eyes,
>>> lips,
>>>>>> hands, soul, spirit, with his whole body and deeds. He invests his
>>>>>> entire self in discourse'
>>>>>> Bakhtin, 1984, p. 293
>>>>>> On Mar 1, 2016, at 6:38 PM, Helen Grimmett
>>>>>> <helen.grimmett@monash.edu<mailto:helen.grimmett@monash.edu>> wrote:
>>>>>> I think what is being missed, is that the playing out of the
>>> 'imagined
>>>>>> situation' is not the whole extent of a 'drama in education'
>>> lesson or
>>>>>> unit
>>>>>> of work. The imagined situation provides an opportunity for
>>> children
>>> to
>>>>>> 'try out' and experience different roles, perspectives, opinions,
>>>>>> emotions
>>>>>> and actions, with the safety net of knowing that everyone has
>>> agreed
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> this is 'pretend' and that they are able to 'step out' again and
>>> back
>>> to
>>>>>> their real lives. However, the equally important element of the DiE
>>>>>> lesson/unit is the dialogue that can take place after everyone
>>> steps
>>>>>> out of
>>>>>> the imagined situation - where all of the feelings, thoughts and
>>> actions
>>>>>> that were expressed or experienced during the 'play' can be
>>> revisited,
>>>>>> discussed and debated from a more detached position and where
>>>>>> understandings of others' perceptions can be further explored, and
>>>>>> alternative responses and meanings can be constructed.
>>>>>> So, yes, it is necessary for the players to buy in to the imagined
>>>>>> situation and agree to play along within the 'rules' of the roles
>>> they
>>>>>> are
>>>>>> playing in order to keep the drama functioning, but the whole
>>> point is
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> everyone knows that there will soon be a time where they will step
>>> out
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> the role again and be able to say "When your character did X, it
>>> made
>>> me
>>>>>> feel Y" or "I never realised how difficult it would be to ..." or
>>> "I
>>>>>> wonder
>>>>>> what would have happened if ..." etc. In my mind this part of the
>>>>>> session
>>>>>> is an equally crucial part of the learning and is why I believe DiE
>>>>>> (done
>>>>>> well) is a dialogical pedagogy. It is the very awareness of the
>>>>>> different
>>>>>> chronotopes (that we have all agreed we are pretending) that makes
>>> this
>>>>>> possible. It is a different kettle of fish altogether when people
>>> are
>>>>>> thrust into a 'simulation exercise' and are never quite sure if
>>> what
>>>>>> they
>>>>>> are experiencing is real or not (especially in light of current
>>> events
>>>>>> which mean many children have had to experience confusing school
>>>>>> lockdown
>>>>>> and evacuation events), which is why Heathcote put so much
>>> emphasis on
>>>>>> establishing 'agreement' about the situation that was being
>>> mutually
>>>>>> created and the roles that were being adopted. I do not find this
>>>>>> oppressing, but rather empowering, that the teacher is endowing
>>> students
>>>>>> with the power to 'pretend', to 'try out different ways of being',
>>> and
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> contribute to both the imaginary situation and the reality of the
>>>>>> lesson as
>>>>>> it unfolds in a very dialogical way, that may in fact allow them to
>>>>>> develop
>>>>>> a new understanding of who they currently are and who they might
>>>>>> potentially be.
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> Helen
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Lecturer in Primary and Early Years Education
>>>>>> Professional Experience Liaison - Primary
>>>>>> *Education*
>>>>>> Monash University
>>>>>> Room 159, Building 902, Berwick Campus
>>>>>> 100 Clyde Road
>>>>>> Berwick VIC 3806
>>>>>> Australia
>>>>>> T: +61 3 9904 7171
>>>>>> E: helen.grimmett@monash.edu<mailto:helen.grimmett@monash.edu>
>>>>>> <name.surname@monash.edu<mailto:name.surname@monash.edu>>
>>>>>> monash.edu<http://monash.edu>
>>>>>> The Practice of Teachers' Professional Development: A
>>>>>> Cultural-Historical
>>>>>> Approach
>>>>>> <
>>> https://www.sensepublishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/professional-learnin
>>>>>> g-1/the-practice-of-teachers-professional-development/>
>>>>>> Helen Grimmett (2014) Sense Publishers
>>>>>> On 2 March 2016 at 03:42, Dr. Ana Marjanovic-Shane <
>>> anamshane@gmail.com
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Dear Larry,
>>>>>> I am reading your highly interesting comments and feedback on the
>>> ideas
>>>>>> I
>>>>>> started to develop in the ³Spoilsport² article.  Yes, you are right
>>>>>> that I
>>>>>> use the concept of a chronotope - as one of the central concepts
>>> in my
>>>>>> study. I understood this concept from MM Bakhtin as a unity of
>>> time,
>>>>>> space
>>>>>> and axiology, i.e., set of values, relationships, rules and
>>> expectations
>>>>>> that exist for the participants in a time-space. Bakhtin described
>>>>>> chronotope in literature as ³the intrinsic connectedness of
>>> temporal
>>> and
>>>>>> spatial relationships that are artistically expressed . . .
>>> [S]patial
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> temporal indicators are fused into one carefully thought out,
>>> concrete
>>>>>> whole.Time, as it were, thickens, takes on flesh, becomes
>>> artistically
>>>>>> visible; likewise, space becomes charged and responsive to the
>>>>>> movements of
>>>>>> time, plot and history² (Bakhtin, 1994, p. 184).
>>>>>> And while, in literature there may be ONE chronotope within the
>>> literary
>>>>>> work, in our lives, and especially in play, education, art, etc -
>>> we
>>>>>> always
>>>>>> ³operate² on more than one chronotope simultaneously - as if they
>>> are
>>>>>> laminated layers of the same event. However, these chronotopes
>>> relate
>>> to
>>>>>> each other in a different way - depending on a situation.
>>>>>> You invoke the concept of being ³captured² by the imagined worlds
>>>>>> (chronotopes). I think that it may be true - but we are captured in
>>>>>> different ways and have different means of freeing ourselves up -
>>> in
>>>>>> different situations - depending on the relationship in which these
>>>>>> chronotopes are set. My whole argument in the Spoilsport paper is
>>> that
>>>>>> when
>>>>>> the imagined chronotope becomes a place of ³dwelling² it is as
>>>>>> ³captivating² as the our chronotope of the real - and that it is
>>> hard,
>>>>>> potentially impossible and often seen as illegitimate
>>> (non-normative)
>>> to
>>>>>> ³spoil² this chronotope - to try to break its mangels. Both the
>>> imagined
>>>>>> and the ontological chronotope can become oppressive. I think that
>>> the
>>>>>> dialogic freedom may come from the possibility to create such a
>>>>>> relationship between the chronotopes that allows their
>>> participants to
>>>>>> examine the boundaries and see them in each-others¹ perspectives.
>>> In
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> sense I don¹t see the relationship between the imagined and the
>>> reality
>>>>>> as
>>>>>> a *divide* as you put it, but as a fruitful boundary and dialogic
>>>>>> contact-zone, where a new meaning stems exactly from being able to
>>> draw
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> boundary between them.
>>>>>> I am intrigued with your last comment about Jewish ³Adamic² world
>>>>>> contrasting with the Greek classical world. What did you mean?
>>>>>> What do you think?
>>>>>> Ana
>>>>>> On Mar 1, 2016, at 10:59 AM, Lplarry <lpscholar2@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Ana,
>>>>>> In this response the paradigms hinge on the notion of differing
>>>>>> chrono/topes.
>>>>>> * community of players (CoPl)
>>>>>> * reality (RC) or ontological
>>>>>> * imagined (IC)
>>>>>> Therefore, the theme of being *cast out* may be playing with a
>>> theme
>>> of
>>>>>> *falling away* or being *cast out* from the garden of Eden as a
>>>>>> chronotopic
>>>>>> theme.
>>>>>> There seems to be a theme of what dominates *over* what becomes its
>>>>>> opposite.
>>>>>> Ana, you suggest both drama and dialogical chronotopes INVOKE OR
>>>>>> UP imagined worlds. I will add the metaphor that both *capture* or
>>> are
>>>>>> *captured by* imaginal worlds. This is the *capta* aspect of.
>>>>>> Chronotopes.
>>>>>> Now to *be* summoned or invoked or embodied or endowed are polar
>>>>>> opposites in your horizon of understanding.
>>>>>> A clear di/vergence of the imaginal and ontological and community
>>> of
>>>>>> players chronotopes.
>>>>>> I question if BOTH the imaginal AND ontological exist within a
>>> relation
>>>>>> of con/vergence as primary prior to becoming differentiated into
>>> polar
>>>>>> opposites.
>>>>>> This version of the imaginal/reality *divide* plays with the
>>> notion of
>>>>>> *apposition* prior to the forming of polar opposites with one side
>>>>>> *capturing* the other side by dominating over the other, placing
>>> the
>>>>>> other
>>>>>> side *under* or relagated to the *shadows*.
>>>>>> The play of the Jewiish *Adamic* world contrasting with the Greek
>>>>>> classical world seems to have a place in this turn taking
>>>>>> Larry
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: "Dr. Ana Marjanovic-Shane" <anamshane@gmail.com>
>>>>>> Sent: 2016-03-01 12:41 AM
>>>>>> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Response to Spoilsport: Beyond oppositional
>>>>>> dualities indrama in education and dialogic pedagogy to promote
>>> learning
>>>>>> possibilities
>>>>>> Dear Sue and Brian and all,
>>>>>> First ­ thanks for taking the time and effort to respond to my
>>> paper.
>>> I
>>>>>> take your response very seriously. I have some questions for
>>>>>> clarification
>>>>>> and also some more comments regarding what I think is a
>>> ³paradigmatic
>>>>>> difference² ­ rather than an arbitrary dichotomy between the two
>>>>>> approaches
>>>>>> to education that I outlined in my paper.
>>>>>> Please see my responses below, between your words - in blue!
>>>>>> Ana
>>>>>> __________
>>>>>> On Feb 29, 2016, at 1:09 AM, Susan Davis <s.davis@cqu.edu.au>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>> As scholars and practitioners committed to the use of drama for
>>>>>> educational purposes we wish to respond briefly to Ana
>>>>>> Marjanovic-Shane¹s
>>>>>> article: ³Spoilsport² in drama in education vs. dialogic pedagogy.
>>> Our
>>>>>> intention is to provide some of our shared professional
>>> understanding
>>> of
>>>>>> drama¹s use in educational contexts that we hope will illuminate
>>> some
>>> of
>>>>>> the misunderstandings we find in this article. At the same time, we
>>> look
>>>>>> forward to future productive dialogue about what we regard as
>>> potential
>>>>>> overlaps between these pedagogical approaches.
>>>>>> We need to stress from the start that there is no unified field
>>> named
>>>>>> Œdrama in education¹ that would extend to those who work within
>>>>>> playworlds,
>>>>>> or practice psychodrama and so forth as claimed by
>>> Marjanovic-Shane.
>>> We
>>>>>> confine our remarks to the field that we are knowledgeable about
>>> and
>>>>>> from
>>>>>> which Marjanovic-Shane draws her example: a classroom use of drama
>>>>>> described by Heathcote as Œdrama in education¹ or Œeducational
>>> drama¹
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> more recently as process drama, applied theatre, and dramatic
>>> inquiry,
>>>>>> among other terms.  In fact these fields of practice have arisen
>>> from
>>>>>> very
>>>>>> different communities in progressive school education, educational
>>>>>> psychology, early childhood, and play all of whom independently
>>>>>> discovered
>>>>>> the power of using drama in their practice. There have only
>>> recently
>>>>>> been
>>>>>> some nascent interactions between these groups (see for example the
>>> book
>>>>>> ŒDramatic Interactions in Education¹ <
>>> http://www.bloomsbury.com/au/dramatic-interactions-in-education-978147257
>>>>>> 6
>>>>>> 910/> which we published last year
>>>>>> [The entire original message is not included.]
>>>> --
>>> *Ana Marjanovic-Shane*
>>> Dialogic Pedagogy Journal editor (dpj.pitt.edu)
>>> Associate Professor of Education
>>> Chestnut Hill College
>>> phone: 267-334-2905