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

[Xmca-l] Re: Heathcote and Immagination



Ed--

I received a copy of the book, Dramatic Interactions in Education.  I
wondered if you could review it for mca, given your involvement in the
Heathcoate discussion and your outsider status with respect to whatever was
causing a dust up around this topic on xmca?

mike

On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 10:05 AM, Ed Wall <ewall@umich.edu> wrote:

> Sue
>
>       Let me begin for thanking you for your recommendation of that
> collection of Heathcote’s writings on Education and Drama (O’Neill’s
> updated version). I am about 1/3 of the way through and at times am gripped
> by regret that I did not know of her take on teaching until after I left
> teacher education. There is much that she says that generalizes across
> teaching - and she seems very much aware of this - and much that she
> pragmatically undertakes which mirrors some thinking and actions of my own.
> I once suggested sans knowledge of Heathcote - I once taught was one of the
> few schools in the US with a Masters program in Educational Theatre - that
> we, the faculty, take advantage of possible expertise in ‘drama’ in our
> general teacher education program so as to craft some experiences for
> pre-service teachers. The Director of Educational Theatre was somewhat
> intrigued, the rest of my colleague were fairly dismissive (sort of like
> the experience Heathcote relates).
>
>       I think you continue to project your understandings of mathematics
> into our discussion. I don’t have a problem with this and I think, given
> the way mathematics is presented (including the way Lockart’s presents
> mathematics), this is quite reasonable. In a sense, I agree with Lockart
> about mathematics being about problems, but I would shift the emphasis to
> 'mathematics is the study of pattern’ and add that, in a sense, art is
> about problems and the study of patterns. You quote Vygotsky as saying, art
> is ‘social technique of emotion.’ I think if you watch young children in
> their play you will see them use mathematics in emotive socially sanctioned
> ways (your further quotes "just as people long ago learned to express their
> internal states through external expressions, so do the images of
> imagination serve as an internal expression of our feelings…  He goes on to
> say that emotion can influence imagination and imagination  influences
> emotion…” serves to further bolster my argument as mathematics, properly
> construed, is highly imaginative). Heathcote, herself, references drama
> that includes "A class of learning-impaired students, aged 12–14, focus on
> mathematics, weights, dimensions, critical timing using watches.” However,
> all this begins to get messy and I expect I need to address ‘social
> techniques of emotion’ within, at least, (1) the teaching of mathematics;
> (2) doing of mathematics; (3) using mathematics.
>       Teaching of mathematics. I would argue - and I am reasonably sure
> Heathcote would agree - that teaching (and it is important to note that she
> - although drawing on her experience in drama - often addresses teaching
> more broadly) can be quite artful in the sense that Vygotsky mentions. I
> have observed those she would probably term ‘excellent teachers’ and, one
> might say, they ‘dance' in the classroom. [This is a place Heathcote has
> been more than helpful for me, as I now grasp a bit better some of what she
> points at and that I had always ’seen’]
>        Doing of (and not doing of)  mathematics: I don’t like to think of
> some of what is going on as artful, but there is no denying what I often
> see might be categorized as a ‘social technique of emotion.’ There are, for
> example, socially accepted expressions of ‘inadequacy.' - "I was never any
> good at mathematics"; socially accepted expressions of ‘frustration’ -
> "this is stupid or “when are we ever going to use this?”’ On the other
> hand, mathematics doing can offer, among others, feelings of completeness,
> stability and tranquility (Edna St. Vincent MIlay has an interesting
> ‘argument' and there is the reflections of Dirac on the wave equation).
>        Lastly there is using: Here we have work of Heathcote herself.
> However, things are more complicated as, in a sense (and especially if you
> are somewhat Kantian - smile), something like art is built, in may ways on
> the mathematical. I wonder how Vygotsky would feel, if I were to say (with
> some justification), art is emotive social expression of the mathematical
> (smile)?
>
>        However, I agree (and I am fairly sure Heathcote would agree) every
> discipline has its strengths and the Arts certainly have "special qualities
> in terms of the social expression of
> emotion that is not the same as for mathematics.” This, I think, is a
> given. However, I also think the line is difficult to draw and sometimes
> has been drawn unthinkingly to the detriment of both Art and mathematics. I
> close with a quote from Heathcote’s writings, "The very word ‘creativity’
> frightens me; it is much overused like ‘expert’ and I suspect that it is
> biased towards the arts rather than the sciences. It seems that there is
> more evidence from the arts but I don’t think they own the field by any
> means.” [I apologize by the way about the absence of line numbers as I am
> reading on a Kindle - although, with some detective work, I may be able to
> figure it out). This together with your above quote from Vygotsky about
> imagination seems to imply that ‘social emotive techniques’ are not owned
> by the Arts by any means. However, more importantly what concerns me (and I
> think Heathcote would agree) is that when teachers do not capitalize on
> commonalities among disciplines (or ideas), children (or pre-service
> teachers) are invariably left confused, frustrated, and alienated.
>
>
>       Oh, I note from my reading that Heathcote discusses something she
> terms ‘tension.’ I was wondering if you have given any thought on how this
> might ‘feed’ imagination?
>
> Again thanks,
>
> Ed
>
> > On Mar 5, 2016, at  7:42 PM, Susan Davis <s.davis@cqu.edu.au> wrote:.
> >
> > Hi Ed,
> > I have read the Mathematician’s Lament - thank you for that (I trust this
> > is the right article
> > https://www.maa.org/external_archive/devlin/LockhartsLament.pdf).  I can
> > see how you can argue Mathematics might be an art form and how formal
> > educational has tended to kill off most people’s ability to see it as
> such
> > (and the music and painting analogies he draws are not so far fetched as
> > you might think in some cases).
> >
> > I do like his point about children not being exposed to the ideas and
> > history of mathematical thinking and why and how humans have grappled
> with
> > such…
> > "They were never told the history of mankind’s relationship with numbers—
> > no ancient
> > Babylonian problem tablets, no Rhind Papyrus, no Liber Abaci, no Ars
> > Magna. More importantly, no chance for them to even get curious
> > about a question; it was answered before they could ask it.”
> >
> > "Mathematics is about problems, and problems must be made the focus of a
> > students
> > mathematical life. Painful and creatively frustrating as it may be,
> > students and their teachers
> > should at all times be engaged in the process— having ideas, not having
> > ideas, discovering
> > patterns, making conjectures, constructing examples and counterexamples,
> > devising arguments,
> > and critiquing each other’s work. Specific techniques and methods will
> > arise naturally out of this
> > process, as they did historically: not isolated from, but organically
> > connected to, and as an
> > outgrowth of, their problem-background”
> >
> >
> >
> > I’m still not sure that Mathetmatics has the same qualities as an art
> form
> > in the way Vygotsky identified as a ‘social technique of emotion’.  For
> > example when someone (including children) spontaneously or intentionally
> > want to share and express certain emotions they may do so through certain
> > art forms … For example a child who is feeling joyful doing a ‘happy’
> > dance, or someone who is grieving or sad painting using black, browns and
> > greys. I’m not sure I can see the same occurring using Mathematics as the
> > expressive form… and others reading it as such?
> >
> > While people can read the art of others differently, in many cases
> similar
> > emotions may be identified and ideas arouses in others in response.  One
> > of the things Vygotsky talks of is a ‘dual expression of feeling’ whereby
> > “every feeling has not only an exxternal, physical expression, but an
> > internal expression associationed with the choice of thoughts, images,
> and
> > impressions…. Just as people long ago learned to express their internal
> > states through external expressions, so do the images of imagination
> serve
> > as an internal expression of our feelings… ” (Vygotsky 2004, p. 18).  He
> > goes on to say that emotion can influence imagination and imagination
> > influences emotion…
> >
> > So I I would return again to this notion of expressive form… and whether
> > some forms are more ready vehicles for the intentional expression of
> > emotion and feelings than others, and perhaps that is where the arts
> might
> > still have some special qualities in terms of the social expression of
> > emotion that is not the same as for mathematics? I daresay you may argue
> > otherwise!!
> >
> > I look forward to hearing your thoughts and of course those of others as
> > well!
> >
> > Kind regards
> >
> > Sue
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 4/03/2016 3:21 am, "Ed Wall" <ewall@umich.edu> wrote:
> >
> >> Susan
> >>
> >>    Yes, this is the sort of thing re Heathcote focus for which I was
> >> hoping. I look forward to some reading (smile).
> >>
> >>     Your characterization of mathematics is, unfortunately, one that
> >> continues to reinforced by many; I run into it all the time if the form
> >> of "I was never any good at mathematics." I really recommend you read a
> >> Mathematician’s Lament - if for no other reason to see how such
> >> characterizations perpetuate or for a laugh. A well known researcher at
> >> Columbia in Early Childhood once did an assessment of what young
> children
> >> did during free play and found that 30% (I think this is right) of the
> >> time they engaged in something mathematical and this 30% was, by far,
> the
> >> largest percentage spent in a single activity. So, I disagree, most
> young
> >> children do use mathematics for their creative vehicle sharing their
> >> ideas and emotions. On the other hand, I very much agree most older
> >> children and adults do not use mathematica as a creative vehicle, but I
> >> am far from convinced that the problem is mathematics itself.
> >>    So while I do sympathize with your views (and I recognize that
> >> mathematics teachers are largely to blame), I have plenty of evidence -
> >> and, of course, some personal - from observing that your
> characterization
> >> (while descriptive of much that is out there) is somewhat misleading
> and,
> >> in fact, covers up the issues. I note purely in a jocular way (I don’t
> >> mean to cast aspersions on either you or Ana as I respect you both),
> you,
> >> perhaps, are acting as a ‘Spoilsport.’ Unfortunately, Eisner (who I
> >> greatly respect) seems to know little about young children as, in fact,
> >> the colors and lines are quite important. He is right in thinking that
> >> parents and teachers (and perhaps, unfortunately, himself and others) do
> >> not think them of importance. However, that is a very, very different
> >> matter.
> >>
> >>     Thanks for your definition of ‘feeding.’ This is quite helpful. I
> >> note that I also used to teach pre-service education students; who
> >> invariably said, one way or the other, "I don’t really like
> mathematics”;
> >> which, by the way, I think can be translated as “I’m not creative, qua
> >> mathematics.” I remember one young woman - in an early Childhood masters
> >> cohort  - who had her BS from a place which emphasized the performing
> >> arts. The first day of class she came up in tears saying she had been
> >> told (by some of my quite un-thoughtful colleagues!) she would not need
> >> to know or teach any mathematics (I was teaching a mathematics methods
> >> course for Early Childhood pre-service masters students). I told her
> >> otherwise, but said she and I would work on the difficulties (which
> >> turned out to be large since from her early elementary days, her mother
> >> screamed at her when she could not do her mathematics homework). I
> >> usually gave ‘creative’ mathematics homework as a weekly
> >> assignment (and I would characterize it now as ‘feeding’ the
> >> imagination sufficiently)  and she, to her astonishment I suspect, both
> >> liked it and did quite well (I hasten to add that she would, most
> likely,
> >> never be comfortable with teaching mathematics beyond second grade
> >> because of those elementary school experiences). I also told her to
> >> listen to her students (those in the Early Childhood cohort most usually
> >> were teaching in some capacity in pre-Kindergarten). Her children - I
> >> would say of course (smile) - loved anything that was ‘creatively’
> >> mathematical and she began to love creating mathematics with them. She
> >> has been quite successful in her teaching career.
> >>
> >>     My point in this overly long story is to parallel you in that I am
> >> saying that we all actually are creatively mathematically and we can be
> >> more - in our own way - if we wish, but you (and, at times, we together)
> >> have to ‘feed’ your imagination. I respect the fact that people don’t
> >> want to do so. However, as you say there are the others; the
> ‘beyonders'.
> >> Magdalene Lampert once gave them a name “Students of Teaching.”
> >>
> >> Ed
> >>
> >>> On Mar 2, 2016, at  2:26 PM, Susan Davis <s.davis@cqu.edu.au> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi Ed,
> >>> I thought you were after the more traditional theoretical writings from
> >>> Heathcote.  She used many many theoretical concepts in her work and she
> >>> did actually talk about imagination quite specfically in some of
> >>> the tapes I analysed, mainly when talking about the preparation she did
> >>> before teaching and the use of a projective imagination.  This was
> about
> >>> envisaging the different ways things might play out and considering
> >>> alternatives. She also talked about how she was a highly visual thinker
> >>> and that options played out in her mind as if it were a movie.  At
> other
> >>> times she talks about the creative
> >>> process and she also talks about imagination even if not explicitly.
> I’d
> >>> have to go back to my transcripts for some examples.
> >>>
> >>> I am well aware of arguments that other areas beyond the arts are
> >>> concerned with imagination and feelings/emotions etc (and yes my
> >>> defining
> >>> of the arts extends well beyond Art to the many different ways people
> >>> use
> >>> materials, movement, sound, action and even their own lives
> >>> expressively).
> >>> However I’d still come back to intention,
> >>> primary purpose and form, the primary purpose of Maths is not to
> express
> >>> feelings and emotions, however in much arts practice it is. I’d also
> >>> consider the accessibility of an area like Math
> >>> for expressive potential for school aged children.  There are not many
> >>> children who could/would be able to use math forms as their creative
> >>> vehicle for sharing their ideas and emotions socially.  It is also
> about
> >>> the qualities of such that are available for them to be able to
> >>> manipulate
> >>> in combination. Elliot Eisner talked in a keynote address in 2011 about
> >>> how when a child writes a Math formula the content of such is important
> >>> but the qualities and how they are used (e.g. Red pen or blue pen,
> lined
> >>> paper or plain) are less so, however in the arts the quality of
> >>> qualities
> >>> remains very important. They encourage the cultivation of judgment,
> >>> thinking and feeling.
> >>>
> >>> In terms of my use of the term ‘feeding’ the imagination and creativity
> >>> perhaps if I explain how I first came to use that term. When I work
> with
> >>> pre-service education students in the arts, many of them begin the
> >>> course
> >>> by saying ‘I’m not creative’.  What I say to them is that we are all
> >>> creative, and you make creative decisions in your life every day,
> >>> however
> >>> you can be more creative (in the arts) if you want to be but you have
> to
> >>> ‘feed’ your creativity. i.e. In their case choose an arts area you want
> >>> to
> >>> explore and be more creative in, practice it, look at lots of examples
> >>> of
> >>> other art work, identify what you like, would like to have a go at.  We
> >>> also provide them with different materials they can use, different
> >>> examples and techniques they can try out... So as Vygotsky put it
> adding
> >>> to the richness and variety of their experience.  If people don’t want
> >>> to
> >>> engage in that (and some do nothing beyond what we do in class) so be
> >>> it,
> >>> but the ones who do go beyond that, and start observing, practising and
> >>> deliberately ‘feeding’ their own creativity and imagination inevitably
> >>> create more interesting and imaginative work in the long run and also
> >>> feel
> >>> a great sense of satisfaction and pride.
> >>>
> >>> So I know this is not totally focussed on imagination… but more like
> >>> imagination, art, creativity and the possibilities of working with
> >>> expressive forms.
> >>>
> >>> Cheers
> >>> Sue
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 3/03/2016 2:45 am, "Ed Wall" <ewall@umich.edu> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Hi Susan
> >>>>
> >>>>   I assume you noticed how I tried to be slightly ambiguous in my use
> >>>> of the word ‘theoretical’ so what you say is disappointing as I know
> >>>> many
> >>>> ‘good’ teachers who use imagination without really focusing on
> >>>> imagination as something in itself (it is something that is, for
> >>>> example,
> >>>> one ‘feeds,' but qua ‘feed’ what does that entail). That doesn’t
> >>>> detract
> >>>> from what they do, but makes it difficult to ‘talk’ (in the present
> and
> >>>> in the past) with them about their teaching. However, that doesn’t
> >>>> mean I
> >>>> cannot learn much from Heatcote (and you) and I thank you for making
> >>>> the
> >>>> book available.
> >>>>
> >>>>  I cannot resist noting that the term ‘art’ is used in wider contexts
> >>>> than the usual although those that use art with a capital A usually
> >>>> resist (I remember a conversation where Maxine Greene basically said
> >>>> she
> >>>> wasn’t going to consider mathematics - smile). There is a interesting
> >>>> book by Corrandi Fiumara that argues, in a sense, that all disciplines
> >>>> are concerned with "emotions, ideas, and qualities of such" and I have
> >>>> always taken Alastair MacIntyre as making similar arguments in his
> >>>> discussion of practice. That is not to say that Art doesn’t have a
> >>>> particular role, but its ‘social’ characterization may be a little
> more
> >>>> complicated than it seems (there is an amusing - sort of - commentary
> >>>> on
> >>>> this on the web titled the Mathematician’s Lament). Thus I would hope
> >>>> that all, including Artists, would engage in the less socially
> standard
> >>>> arts. I always found it interesting that my colleagues who worked in
> >>>> the
> >>>> Arts were always intrigued by my interest in how they co
> >>>> -created instances that enabled "people to explore, externalise and
> >>>> share such through various crystallised means", but - except in one
> >>>> remembered instance - were a bit put-off at the idea I was engaged in
> >>>> similar work and it might usefully behove them to take an interest
> >>>> (smile).
> >>>>
> >>>> Again, thank you for the conversation and thank you for the book.
> >>>>
> >>>> Ed
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Mar 1, 2016, at  4:54 PM, Susan Davis <s.davis@cqu.edu.au> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Hi Ed
> >>>>>
> >>>>> In response to some of your questions and reflections.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> As far as I know Heathcote did not theorise imagination extensively
> >>>>> and
> >>>>> certainly not in any published form.  She tended to write
> extensively,
> >>>>> but
> >>>>> not necessarily theoretically and often it has been colleagues and
> >>>>> students of hers who have interpreted her work in various ways
> against
> >>>>> theory.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> In terms of the role of art and imagination. Like Vygotsky I believe
> >>>>> the
> >>>>> arts do play a particular role, largely because the arts are
> primarily
> >>>>> concerned with the emotions, ideas and qualities of such. Through
> >>>>> various
> >>>>> artistic forms, they also enable people to explore, externalise and
> >>>>> share
> >>>>> such through various crystallised means crystallise. And this is not
> >>>>> confined to ‘artists’ everyone can engage in such activities and
> >>>>> perhaps
> >>>>> should do!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Vygotsky said:
> >>>>> Art is the social technique of emotion, a tool of society which
> brings
> >>>>> the most intimate and personal aspects of our being into the circle
> of
> >>>>> social
> >>>>> life. (Vygotsky, 1971, p. 249)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I would agree that in many collective drama processes the exercising
> >>>>> of
> >>>>> imagination is both conceptual and sensory and embodied and social …
> >>>>> and
> >>>>> that it is a constantly recurring imaginative/embodied experience.
> >>>>> Imaginative ideas feed into the doing and the doing informs the
> >>>>> developing
> >>>>> imaginative ideas. I’m sure there’s probably theoretical work out
> >>>>> there
> >>>>> about that, as there is a lot of interest in ‘embodied’ learning
> >>>>> emerging
> >>>>> from dance and drama circles in recent times, though I can’t provide
> >>>>> references off the top of my head.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> And in terms of Goffman, actually Heathcote drew upon Goffman’s work
> >>>>> on
> >>>>> framing to inform the different ways you might structure a dramatic
> >>>>> encounter and as her colleague (and scholar) Gavin Bolton says what
> >>>>> different framing can provide is the means to both protect ‘from’ but
> >>>>> also
> >>>>> ‘into’ emotional experiences (Bolton 1986). The framing would also
> >>>>> enable
> >>>>> certain imaginative possibilities and these would shift depending on
> >>>>> the
> >>>>> framing. The framing therefore provides some parameters and ‘tools’
> as
> >>>>> it
> >>>>> were for the imaginative activity.  So for example if someone was
> >>>>> framed
> >>>>> in role as a reporter in a dramatic event, how they respond to the
> >>>>> situation and what they create will be different to if they are
> framed
> >>>>> as
> >>>>> the protagonist of the event, or a casual observer.  So I guess this
> >>>>> is
> >>>>> an
> >>>>> example also of what I was saying about ‘feeding’ the imagination.
> >>>>> That
> >>>>> might also be done through bringing in different texts or objects
> that
> >>>>> can
> >>>>> act as what Cecily O’Neill called ‘pre-texts’ as the launching off
> >>>>> materials for a drama.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Cheers
> >>>>> Sue
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 2/03/2016 3:16 am, "Ed Wall" <ewall@umich.edu> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Hi Susan
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>  Thank you for the reply.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>   Since I know little about Heathcote (although a fair amount about
> >>>>>> ‘good’ teachers) I can only say that I agree with many of your
> quotes
> >>>>>> and
> >>>>>> I find Vygotsky as one in a long line of thinkers who sees
> >>>>>> imagination
> >>>>>> as
> >>>>>> integral making meaning (I have hedged here a bit as I want to
> >>>>>> include
> >>>>>> other thinkers in conversations about imagination). I note, by the
> >>>>>> way,
> >>>>>> you did not include my favorite quote (Imagination and Creativity in
> >>>>>> the
> >>>>>> Adolescent, p163) on this matter from Vygotsky as it, for me,
> >>>>>> embodies
> >>>>>> a
> >>>>>> lot about how I have been thinking about imagination: “From our
> point
> >>>>>> of
> >>>>>> view the imagination is a transforming, creative activity directed
> >>>>>> from
> >>>>>> the concrete towards a new concrete” - although this is certainly
> >>>>>> captured in the quotes you give.
> >>>>>>    In any case, what I found of most interest is what follows those
> >>>>>> quotes of Vygotsky and what I assume is, in part, an
> >>>>>> assessment/description of Heathcote’s stance. However, Heathcote
> >>>>>> viewed
> >>>>>> Vygotsky (or whoever else she drew from) she seems to have been a
> >>>>>> ‘good’
> >>>>>> teacher (I am talking about a comparative quality, but that would
> >>>>>> take
> >>>>>> me
> >>>>>> to far afield here) and ‘good’ teachers translate what might be
> >>>>>> called
> >>>>>> pristine theory into what might be called messy practice. In some
> >>>>>> writing
> >>>>>> I’m doing I been looking for some careful description of a teacher’s
> >>>>>> doings who, perhaps, one might say has spent some time attempting to
> >>>>>> “feed” imagination (this is your word so I’m not entirely sure what
> >>>>>> is
> >>>>>> meant) and seems to recognize that certain imaginations can and
> >>>>>> should
> >>>>>> be
> >>>>>> ‘stabilized’ or one might say ‘verified.’ There seems, in
> interesting
> >>>>>> cases that I am thinking about, to be sort of a hybrid
> >>>>>> sensory-imagination (teacher, peers, materials, etc) transforming
> >>>>>> though imagination (perhaps individual) to sort of a hybrid
> >>>>>> reasoning-imagination (teacher, peers, materials, etc). From my
> >>>>>> perspective I see, in your description of Heathcote, her doing
> >>>>>> something
> >>>>>> like this and your indication that students are allowed to sit out
> >>>>>> is,
> >>>>>> it
> >>>>>> seems, a sort of confirmation. It is not that I don’t know other
> >>>>>> teachers
> >>>>>> who act like Heathcote (every discipline contains such and there is
> >>>>>> nothing unique about ‘art' per se from a certain perspective on
> >>>>>> teaching
> >>>>>> - I am fine with loud disagreements here :)) - I have been very
> lucky
> >>>>>> in
> >>>>>> that regard (and Maxine Greene was one) - but most don’t ‘theorize’
> >>>>>> imagination in some fashion (I mean make it a !particular! teaching
> >>>>>> focus) and I am hoping your writings in Heathcote's regard might
> give
> >>>>>> me
> >>>>>> a better perspective on what is possible more generally.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>     Oh, being writeable seems, to me, to be an integral part of the
> >>>>>> verification process. Also I note that in all disciplines I know
> >>>>>> about
> >>>>>> you can play it multiple times and in different ways. However, I
> >>>>>> admit
> >>>>>> to
> >>>>>> being influenced by Goffman in this regard.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Thanks
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Ed
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Feb 29, 2016, at  2:39 PM, Susan Davis <s.davis@cqu.edu.au>
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Hi Ed
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Both Vygotsky and Heathcote both understood that the work of the
> >>>>>>> imagination is not only an individual mental exercise but in
> >>>>>>> inspired
> >>>>>>> by
> >>>>>>> and is expressed through interactions with others, conceptual tools
> >>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>> ultimately material means and artefacts.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I think Vygotksy described the different ways imagination worked
> >>>>>>> very
> >>>>>>> well
> >>>>>>> indeed and I have summarised that in the book. Some key quotes from
> >>>>>>> him
> >>>>>>> include:
> >>>>>>> Everything the imagination creates is always based on elements
> taken
> >>>>>>> from
> >>>>>>> reality, from a person’s previous
> >>>>>>> experience. The most fantastic creations are nothing other than a
> >>>>>>> new
> >>>>>>> combination of elements that have ultimately been extracted from
> >>>>>>> reality.
> >>>>>>> (p. 13)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The first law of creativity: The
> >>>>>>> act of imagination depends directly on the richness and variety of
> a
> >>>>>>> person’s
> >>>>>>> previous experience because this experience provides the material
> >>>>>>> from
> >>>>>>> which
> >>>>>>> the products of creativity are constructed. The richer a person’s
> >>>>>>> experience,
> >>>>>>> the richer is the material his imagination has access to. Great
> >>>>>>> works
> >>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>> discoveries are always the result of an enormous amount of
> >>>>>>> previously
> >>>>>>> accumulated experience. The implication of this for education is
> >>>>>>> that,
> >>>>>>> if
> >>>>>>> we
> >>>>>>> want to build a relatively strong foundation for a child’s
> >>>>>>> creativity,
> >>>>>>> what we
> >>>>>>> must do is broaden the experiences we provide him with.(pp. 14-15)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The right kind of education
> >>>>>>> involves awakening in the child what already exists within him,
> >>>>>>> helping
> >>>>>>> him to
> >>>>>>> develop it and directing this development in a particular
> direction.
> >>>>>>> (p.
> >>>>>>> 51)
> >>>>>>> –Vygotsky,
> >>>>>>> L. (2004) “Imagination and creativity in childhood.” Journal of
> >>>>>>> Russian
> >>>>>>> and Was tEuropean PsychologyVol. 42 No. 1.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> This work recognises therefore that to inspire imagination means
> >>>>>>> ‘feeding’
> >>>>>>> the imagination and it is therefore the teacher’s responsibility to
> >>>>>>> work
> >>>>>>> with children and bring in various tools, processes and
> provocations
> >>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>> will draw them into creative processes.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> In terms of working in drama I think the notion of the social
> >>>>>>> imagination
> >>>>>>> comes into play (though that is a term more closely associated with
> >>>>>>> Maxine
> >>>>>>> Green) and collectively a group creates something together -
> >>>>>>> something
> >>>>>>> that did not exist previously and which would not exist in the same
> >>>>>>> form
> >>>>>>> if created individually.  In that sense it is helpful to draw on
> the
> >>>>>>> language of improvised drama to understand the process -  someone
> >>>>>>> generally makes an ‘offer’ to begin the imaginative exploration,
> >>>>>>> practically speaking in embodied action it can be a physical or
> >>>>>>> verbal
> >>>>>>> offer.  Multiple offers can at times be made but one has to be
> >>>>>>> accepted,
> >>>>>>> and then extended upon. This process keeps going and as those who
> >>>>>>> have
> >>>>>>> studied improvised drama knows, the key is then to draw the threads
> >>>>>>> together and find an appropriate conclusion.  Now what this means
> in
> >>>>>>> practice is a fluid interplay of power shifts as people forfeit
> >>>>>>> their
> >>>>>>> right to have their every idea accepted (which is unworkable),
> >>>>>>> trusting
> >>>>>>> that if they go with the one that is on the table or seems to
> ‘grab’
> >>>>>>> people,  they will be able to contribute and that the outcome will
> >>>>>>> be
> >>>>>>> something that they are a part of and will be worthwhile. That is
> >>>>>>> social
> >>>>>>> imagination in action. Decisions are often made in the moment - not
> >>>>>>> after
> >>>>>>> exhaustive dialogue - although reflection on what has gone on and
> >>>>>>> been
> >>>>>>> created often occurs afterwards. This is especially the case if you
> >>>>>>> were
> >>>>>>> to be devising a new work. The whole process has to be underpinned
> >>>>>>> by
> >>>>>>> a
> >>>>>>> sense of trust and a belief that as a group the give and take of
> the
> >>>>>>> process will generate something that has been worth the effort. It
> >>>>>>> doesn’t
> >>>>>>> always, but that is often part of the educational process with
> >>>>>>> children
> >>>>>>> and participants - 'what do you feel worked, what didn’t, what
> >>>>>>> offers
> >>>>>>> ended up proving fruitful, were there ‘blocks’ that we couldn’t
> work
> >>>>>>> around?  If we did it again what would you change?’ and so on. (see
> >>>>>>> some
> >>>>>>> of Keith Sawyer’s work on improvisation for more insights on how
> >>>>>>> these
> >>>>>>> processes work and why he believes improvised theatre is perhaps
> the
> >>>>>>> highest form of creativity)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> It is writerly in Barthes sense in that while a ‘text' has often
> >>>>>>> been
> >>>>>>> initiated, it is deliberately left unfinished and the participants
> >>>>>>> must
> >>>>>>> make imaginative leaps, connections and new solutions to be able to
> >>>>>>> complete the text or dramatic encounter. What is also interesting
> >>>>>>> in a
> >>>>>>> drama process is that you can play it multiple times, from
> different
> >>>>>>> perspectives and something different can be revealed each time.  In
> >>>>>>> Boal’s
> >>>>>>> work with forum theatre people from an audience and the
> >>>>>>> disenfranchised
> >>>>>>> are also invited to step up and take on a role within a version (as
> >>>>>>> spectactors), therefore finding ways to shift power dynamics and to
> >>>>>>> explore alternative solutions.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I hope this is of interest.
> >>>>>>> Cheers
> >>>>>>> Sue
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On 1/03/2016 4:58 am, "Ed Wall" <ewall@umich.edu> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Susan
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Coming a little late to this conversation and thinking about your
> >>>>>>>> comments last July on Vygotsky and imagination, I was wondering if
> >>>>>>>> any
> >>>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>> that played a large role in your book. In particular and if so,
> how
> >>>>>>>> did
> >>>>>>>> Heathcote, one might say, pragmatically theorize imagination? It
> >>>>>>>> seems,
> >>>>>>>> given, what you have written in the present thread that she seems
> >>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>> have
> >>>>>>>> created moments through a stance that "respected and worked with
> >>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>> material they offered, drawing out significance, considering the
> >>>>>>>> implications and working dialogically with very alternative views
> >>>>>>>> from
> >>>>>>>> her own.” This, in some of the literature, is indicative of an
> >>>>>>>> imaginative ‘leap’ that is stabilized in the ‘waking state.’ In a
> >>>>>>>> sense,
> >>>>>>>> the moment becomes, in somewhat the sense of Barthes, ‘writeable.'
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Ed Wall
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On Feb 24, 2016, at  5:32 AM, Susan Davis <s.davis@cqu.edu.au>
> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Thanks Robert,
> >>>>>>>>> It’s great to have the book published as part of your series.
> The
> >>>>>>>>> book
> >>>>>>>>> is
> >>>>>>>>> called “Learning that matters: Revitalising Heathcote’s Rolling
> >>>>>>>>> Role
> >>>>>>>>> for
> >>>>>>>>> the digital age”.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> https://www.sensepublishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/imagination-and
> >>>>>>>>> -p
> >>>>>>>>> ra
> >>>>>>>>> xi
> >>>>>>>>> s/
> >>>>>>>>> learning-that-matters/
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> For those who haven’t heard of Heathcote before, she was a
> >>>>>>>>> ‘master’
> >>>>>>>>> teacher who achieved international recognition for her teaching
> >>>>>>>>> practice
> >>>>>>>>> in the 70s and 80s - in particular for pioneering processes such
> >>>>>>>>> as
> >>>>>>>>> Mantle
> >>>>>>>>> of the Expert - which use role and fictional contexts to position
> >>>>>>>>> children
> >>>>>>>>> as ‘experts’ and active agents in investigative processes. She
> >>>>>>>>> also
> >>>>>>>>> invented this system called ‘Rolling Role’ which is a form of
> >>>>>>>>> trans-disciplinary learning - where multiple classes work with
> the
> >>>>>>>>> same
> >>>>>>>>> common context, but from their particular frame or subject
> >>>>>>>>> perspective.
> >>>>>>>>> The beauty of it is that no one group ‘owns’ the outcome, but
> >>>>>>>>> groups
> >>>>>>>>> regularly ‘publish’ and share artefacts and outcomes throughout
> >>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>> process, with each group having to use and ‘roll’ the work of
> what
> >>>>>>>>> has
> >>>>>>>>> gone before.  It was a system she believed was perfectly suited
> >>>>>>>>> for
> >>>>>>>>> revisiting in the digital age… so that is what the book hopes to
> >>>>>>>>> assist
> >>>>>>>>> with… the Vygotskian and CHAT work was very helpful in
> >>>>>>>>> conceptualising
> >>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>> understanding this work.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> At times reading the work of Vygotsky and Heathcote it felt like
> >>>>>>>>> they
> >>>>>>>>> could have been writing about education today!
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Educational experience, no less than theoretical research,
> >>>>>>>>> teaches us that, in practice, a straightforward learning of
> >>>>>>>>> concepts
> >>>>>>>>> always
> >>>>>>>>> proves impossible and educationally fruitless. Usually, any
> >>>>>>>>> teacher
> >>>>>>>>> setting out
> >>>>>>>>> on this road achieves nothing except a meaningless acquisition of
> >>>>>>>>> words,
> >>>>>>>>> mere
> >>>>>>>>> verbalization in children, which is nothing more than simulation
> >>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>> imitation
> >>>>>>>>> of corresponding concepts which, in reality, are concealing a
> >>>>>>>>> vacuum.
> >>>>>>>>> In
> >>>>>>>>> such cases, the child assimilates not
> >>>>>>>>> concepts but words, and he fills his memory more than his
> >>>>>>>>> thinking.
> >>>>>>>>> As a
> >>>>>>>>> result, he ends up helpless in the face of any sensible attempt
> to
> >>>>>>>>> apply
> >>>>>>>>> any of
> >>>>>>>>> this acquired knowledge. Essentially, this method of
> >>>>>>>>> teaching/learning
> >>>>>>>>> concepts, a purely scholastic and verbal method of teaching,
> which
> >>>>>>>>> is
> >>>>>>>>> condemned
> >>>>>>>>> by everybody and which advocates the replacement of acquisition
> of
> >>>>>>>>> living
> >>>>>>>>> knowledge by the assimilation of dead and empty verbal schemes,
> >>>>>>>>> represents
> >>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>> most basic failing in the field of education. (Vygotsky
> >>>>>>>>> 1934/1994a,
> >>>>>>>>> pp.
> >>>>>>>>> 356-7)
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> So – getting rid of the dummy run. On the face of it you
> >>>>>>>>> have a rather interesting paradox in drama, because it looks like
> >>>>>>>>> drama
> >>>>>>>>> is
> >>>>>>>>> entirely artificial and that the whole thing would be a dummy run
> >>>>>>>>> –
> >>>>>>>>> we
> >>>>>>>>> are
> >>>>>>>>> only
> >>>>>>>>> pretending actually.  And we use words
> >>>>>>>>> like pretend and play and in our culture it does suggest that
> it’s
> >>>>>>>>> ephemeral
> >>>>>>>>> and there’s no real work/life purpose for it…. So it seems to me
> >>>>>>>>> we
> >>>>>>>>> need to
> >>>>>>>>> look and see what it is that makes something NOT feel like a
> dummy
> >>>>>>>>> run…
> >>>>>>>>> It seemed to me that one of the important aspects of not
> >>>>>>>>> being a dummy run is that it matters now, we feel like its urgent
> >>>>>>>>> now.
> >>>>>>>>> (Heathcote 1993, Tape 9)
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Cheers
> >>>>>>>>> Sue
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Dr Susan Davis
> >>>>>>>>> Senior Lecturer | School of Education & the Arts | Higher
> >>>>>>>>> Education
> >>>>>>>>> Division
> >>>>>>>>> CQUniversity Australia, Noosa Campus |
> >>>>>>>>> PO Box 1128, Qld 4566
> >>>>>>>>> P +61 (0)7 5440 7007 | X 547007 | M +61 400 000 000| E
> >>>>>>>>> s.davis@cqu.edu.au
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On 24/02/2016 12:14 am, "Robert Lake"
> >>>>>>>>> <boblake@georgiasouthern.edu>
> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> ​Susan Davis has published a book that weaves LSV, Dorothy
> >>>>>>>>>> Heathcote
> >>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>> CHAT
> >>>>>>>>>> into one seamless, present tense unfolding of "rolling role". If
> >>>>>>>>>> anyone
> >>>>>>>>>> would like to write a review of it I can get you a copy. It has
> >>>>>>>>>> been
> >>>>>>>>>> five
> >>>>>>>>>> years since Heathcote's passing and I suspect her work will
> >>>>>>>>>> become
> >>>>>>>>>> more
> >>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>> more  important in this era of standardized everything.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> *Robert Lake*
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> https://www.sensepublishers.com/media/2709-learning-that-matters.p
> >>>>>>>>>> df
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> For a sense of the dynamic of  Dorothy's pedagogy, scroll to
> >>>>>>>>>> about
> >>>>>>>>>> 5
> >>>>>>>>>> minutes into this.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owKiUO99qrw
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> <default.xml>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
>


-- 

It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an object
that creates history. Ernst Boesch