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

[Xmca-l] Re: MCA Issue 3 article for discussion



Thanks Mike and everyone! I am sure Margaret (and many of those still reading) will be happy to be able to catch up when she joins us next week! 
Alfredo 
________________________________________
From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> on behalf of mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu>
Sent: 02 November 2016 01:32
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: MCA Issue 3 article for discussion

Gentlemen -- I believe Fernando told us that Margaret would be
able to join this discussion next week. Just a quick glance at the
discussion so far indicates that there is a lot there to wade into
before she has had a word.

I am only part way through the article, expecting to have until next week
to think about it.

May I suggest your forbearance while this slow-poke tries to catch up!

mike

On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 3:38 PM, White, Phillip <Phillip.White@ucdenver.edu>
wrote:

> David & Larry, everyone else ...
>
> by way of introduction, Margaret and Carrie point out that the data in
> this paper emerged through a three year study - which was the processes of
> how students of color, interested in STEM, responded to the externally
> imposed neoliberal requirements. they framed their study using theories of
> social practices on how identity developed in context.
>
>
> David, you reject the theories.  or so i understand your position. as you
> write: It's that the theory
>
> contradicts my own personal theories.
>
> are you also rejecting the data as well?  it seems as if you are
> suggesting this when you write: The authors find this point (in the case of
> Lorena) somewhere between the
> beginning of the tenth and the end of the eleventh grade, but I think
> that's just because it's where they are looking.
>
> you reject the narrative of Lorena on the grounds that it could be traced
> back to infancy.
>
> do you also reject the identical narrative found in the adult
> practitioners within the context of the high schools?  that this narrative
> is not one of a contemporary neoliberal practice but rather could be traced
> back to, say, the mid 1600's new england colonies, in particular
> massachusettes, where the practices of public american education began?
>
> to explain the data that emerged from the Eisenhart/Allen study, what
> theories would you have used?
>
> phillip
>
> ________________________________
> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> on behalf of lpscholar2@gmail.com <lpscholar2@gmail.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 1, 2016 7:03 AM
> To: David Kellogg; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: MCA Issue 3 article for discussion
>
> Margaret and Carrie,
> Thank you for this wonderful paper that explains the shallow
> *hollowed-out* way of forming identity as a form of meaning and sense. I
> will add the French word *sens* which always includes *direction* within
> meaning and sense.
>
> David, your response that what our theory makes sens of depends on where
> we are looking makes sens to me.
> You put in question the moment when the interpersonal (you and me) way of
> authoring sens *shifts* or turns to cultural and historical ways of being
> immersed in sens. The article refers to the *historical-in-person*.
>
> My further comment, where I am looking) is in the description of the
> sociocultural as a response to *externally changing circumstances*  as the
> process of *learning as becoming* (see page 190).
>
> The article says:
>
> This process is what Lave and Wenger (1991) and other Sociocultural
> researchers have referred to as *learning as becoming,* that is, learning
> that occurs as one becomes a certain kind of person in a particular
> context.  Identities conceived in this way are not stable or fixed. As
> *external circumstances* affecting a person change, so too may the
> identities that are produced *in response*. (Holland & Skinner, 1997).
>
> In this version of *history-in-person* the identity processes that start
> the process moving in a neoliberal *direction* are *external*
> circumstances. I am not questioning this version of the importance of the
> external but do question if looking primarily or primordially to the
> external circumstances as central if we are not leaving a gap in our
> notions of *sens*.
>
> If by looking or highlighting or illuminating the *external* and highly
> visible acts of the actual we are leaving a gap in actual*ity.
> A gap in *sens*.
>
> To be continued by others...
>
> Sent from my Windows 10 phone
>
> From: David Kellogg
> Sent: October 31, 2016 2:15 PM
> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: MCA Issue 3 article for discussion
>
> I was turning Mike's request--for a short explanation of the
> Halliday/Vygotsky interface--over in my mind for a few days, unsure where
> to start. I usually decide these difficult "where to start" questions in
> the easiest possible way, with whatever I happen to be working on. In this
> case it's the origins of language in a one year old, a moment which is
> almost as mysterious to me as the origins of life or the Big Bang. But
> perhaps for that very reason it's not a good place to start (the Big Bang
> always seemed to me to jump the gun a bit, not to mention the origins of
> life).
>
> Let me start with the "Hollowed Out" paper Alfredo just thoughtfully sent
> around instead. My first impression is that this paper leaves a really big
> gap between the data and the conclusions, and that this gap is largely
> filled by theory. Here are some examples of what I mean:
>
> a)    "Whereas 'subject position' is given by society, 'identity' is
> self-authored, although it must be recognized by others to be sustained."
> (p. 189)
>
> b)  "It is notable that this construction of a good student, though
> familiar, does not make any reference to personal interest, excitement, or
> engagement in the topics or content-related activities." (193)
>
> c)  "When students' statements such as 'I get it', 'I'm confident', 'I'm
> good at this', and  'I can pull this off' are interpreted in the context of
> the figured world of math or science at the two schools, their statements
> index more than a grade. They reference a meaning system for being good in
> math or science that includes the actor identity characteristics of being
> able to grasp the subject matter easily, do the work quickly, do it without
> help from others, do it faster than others, and get an A." (193)
>
> In each case, we are told to believe in a theory: "given by society",
> "self-authored", "does not make any reference", "the context of the figured
> world". It's not just that in each case the theory seems to go against the
> data (although it certainly does in places, such as Lowena's views as a
> tenth grader). I can always live with a theory that contradicts my data:
> that's what being a rationalist is all about. It's that the theory
> contradicts my own personal theories.
>
> I don't believe that identity is self authored, and I also don't believe
> that subject position is given by society as a whole, I think the word
> "good" does include personal interest, excitement, and engagement as much
> as it includes being able to grasp the subject matter easily, do the work
> quickly, do it without help from others, do it faster than others and get
> an A. To me anyway, the key word in the data given in c) is actually "I"
> and not "it" or "this": the students think they are talking about, and
> therefore probably are actually talking about, a relation between their
> inner states and the activity at hand  or between the activity at hand and
> the result they get; they are not invoking the figured world of neoliberal
> results and prospects.
>
> But never mind my own theories. Any gap is, after all, a good opportunity
> for theory building. The authors are raising a key issue in both Vygotsky
> and Halliday: when does an interpersonal relation become a
> historico-cultural one? That is, when does that 'me" and "you" relationship
> in which I really do have the power to author my identity (I can make up
> any name I want and, within limits, invent my own history, particularly if
> I am a backpacker) give way to a job, an address, a number and a class over
> which I have very little power at all? When does the interpersonal somehow
> become an alien ideational "identity" that confronts me like a strange
> ghost when I look in the mirror?
>
> The authors find this point (in the case of Lorena) somewhere between the
> beginning of the tenth and the end of the eleventh grade, but I think
> that's just because it's where they are looking. We can probably find the
> roots of this distinction (between the interpersonal and the
> historico-cultural) as far back as we like, right back to (Vygotsky) the
> moment when the child gives up the "self-authored" language at one and
> takes on the language recognized by others and (Halliday) the moment when
> the child distinguishes between Attributive identifying clauses ("I'm
> confident", "I'm good at this"), material processes ("I can pull this off")
> and mental ones ("I get it").
>
> (To be continued...but not necessarily by me!)
>
> David Kellogg
> Macquarie University
>
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 4:50 PM, Alfredo Jornet Gil <a.j.gil@iped.uio.no>
> wrote:
>
> > Dear xmca'ers,
> >
> >
> > I am excited to announce the next article for discussion, which is now
> > available open access at the T&F MCA pages<http://www.tandfonline.
> > com/doi/full/10.1080/10749039.2016.1188962>.
> >
> >
> > After a really interesting discussion on Zaza's colourful paper (which
> > still goes on developed into a discussion on micro- and ontogenesis), we
> > will from next week be looking at an article by Margaret Eisenhart and
> > Carrie Allen from the special issue on "Reimagining Science Education in
> > the Neoliberal Global Context". I think the article, as the whole issue,
> > offers a very neat example of research trying to tie together
> > cultural/economical? and developmental aspects (of identity in this
> case).
> >
> >
> > Margaret has kindly accepted to join the discussion ?after US elections
> > (which will surely keep the attention of many of us busy). Meanwhile, I
> > share the link<http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10749039.
> > 2016.1188962>  to the article (see above), and also attach it as PDF.
> > ??Good read!
> >
> >
> > Alfredo
> >
> >
>
>
Status: O