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

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



I can understand giving it 1. We might want it ask if it is art. It is not a documentary.
yes, please take a look.


Helena Worthen
helenaworthen@gmail.com
Berkeley, CA 94707
Blog about US and Viet Nam: helenaworthen.wordpress.com



> On Dec 1, 2016, at 5:24 PM, mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu> wrote:
> 
> PS-- the film has a rating of 1, the lowest I have ever seen.
> 
> Hmmmmmmm, might it have to do with the pain of the message, or is it just
> bad
> acting? Gotta take a look.
> mike
> 
> On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 5:23 PM, mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu> wrote:
> 
>> "The measure of a man" is on Netflix, at least, Helena. I think its a
>> great way to generate more discussion of neoliberalism and education that
>> Margaret and Carrie's article has stirred up. I have been seeing it as the
>> intensification/codification/digitalized/nanoized/ of patterns evident in
>> the period dating from, say, the end of the Johnson administration. But
>> quantity can convert into quality (so they say), so identifying those
>> special qualities or configurations of them, would be very useful.
>> 
>> Carrie --- Thanks for sending the suggestions for successful
>> counter-examples in the form of locally implemented alternative models. It
>> seems important to collect such examples in order to understand both how to
>> put them together and how to sustain/diffuse them in the face of
>> overwhelming pressure toward commodification
>> of education.
>> 
>> And as Alfredo wrote (but in my dialect :-))  ) , "it ain't over 'til its
>> over."
>> 
>> Helena's idea of watching a film embodying her understanding of
>> neoliberalism
>> seems like a way to get greater understanding of each other when
>> discussing our polysemic interests.
>> 
>> The Zuckerman article seems to speak directly into these concerns.
>> 
>> So thanks for starting such an interesting discussion!!
>> 
>> mike
>> 
>> On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 2:44 PM, Helena Worthen <helenaworthen@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Carrie, and others on xmcc:
>>> 
>>> I’ve been watching the term “neoliberal” float past in recent weeks. An
>>> example of the ways that I’ve seen it being used is in Carrie’s most recent
>>> message:
>>> 
>>> “…. that disrupt the neoliberal model and normalized conceptions of math
>>> and science, and that engage young people in the practices of the
>>> disciplines in meaningful and authentic ways. Math and science in these
>>> models are frameworks for engaging in and making sense of the world, and
>>> students in these models are positioned as those who utilize the resources
>>> and tools within these frameworks to pursue problems, questions, interests.”
>>> 
>>> It sounds as if these frameworks - the math and science in these models -
>>> are what is disrupting the neoliberal model. They enable students to make
>>> sense of the world in a way that is an alternative to the neoliberal model.
>>> 
>>> Discourse like this makes me want to suggest a film for shared viewing:
>>> The Measure of a Man, directed by Stephane Brize, 2016. This film works
>>> carefully and thoroughly through the whole experience of a middle-aged
>>> white man who is trying to live in a country (France) that has given itself
>>> away pretty entirely to neoliberalism. Each slow turn of the plot opens up
>>> another dimension of how the neoliberal model is experienced by someone
>>> who, under a different model, would have lived quite differently.
>>> Amazingly, the film doesn’t leave out anything that I can think of. One of
>>> its messages is how totalized the neoliberal model can be made in its
>>> operation. There are of course sections that speak to education and
>>> training.
>>> 
>>> Has anyone else seen this film?
>>> 
>>> Helena
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Helena Worthen
>>> helenaworthen@gmail.com
>>> Berkeley, CA 94707
>>> Blog about US and Viet Nam: helenaworthen.wordpress.com
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On Dec 1, 2016, at 1:19 PM, carrie.allen@sri.com wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Hi all,
>>>> 
>>>> Sorry to be joining this strand late, but I wanted to jump in regarding
>>> other possibilities or models of learning in mathematics and science.
>>> First, I want to say that our comments in this paper were not trying to
>>> suggest that students in US schools are all doomed to have hollow ideas
>>> about math and science and fragile identities because of it. There are
>>> certainly many current models - such as in Angie Calabrese Barton’s work at
>>> Michigan State University and Jessica Thompson’s and Megan Bang’s work at
>>> the University of Washington that disrupt the neoliberal model and
>>> normalized conceptions of math and science, and that engage young people in
>>> the practices of the disciplines in meaningful and authentic ways. Math and
>>> science in these models are frameworks for engaging in and making sense of
>>> the world, and students in these models are positioned as those who utilize
>>> the resources and tools within these frameworks to pursue problems,
>>> questions, interests. Youth in these models live into more nuanced ways of
>>> being mathematical or scientific, and have more sophisticated means by
>>> which to imagine possible selves (and pathways). And, I’m not entirely sure
>>> how to articulate it, but, in these models math and science too are
>>> “living” – being shaped in use and expanded in its possibilities.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> --
>>>> 
>>>> CARRIE D. ALLEN, Ph.D.
>>>> STEM Researcher
>>>> SRI International
>>>> Center for Technology in Learning
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> (650) 859-5262
>>>> Twitter: @CarrieDAllen2
>>>> Skype: carrie.allen_9
>>>> 
>>>> On 11/17/16, 7:16 PM, "xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of
>>> lpscholar2@gmail.com" <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of
>>> lpscholar2@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>   So basically engaging in play may be foundational to learning a
>>> particular disciplinary subject matter including mathematical play.
>>>>   This playful approach as counterpoint to formal high stakes
>>> approaches.  This places the scope of play (itself) at the center of our
>>> inquiry.
>>>>   This feels intuitively to be relevant to exemplary ways of learning.
>>>> 
>>>>   Like imagination, play is not taken seriously , but may be
>>> foundational or necessary for learning that is exemplary.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>   Sent from my Windows 10 phone
>>>> 
>>>>   From: Edward Wall
>>>>   Sent: November 17, 2016 4:45 PM
>>>>   To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>>>>   Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: MCA Issue 3 article for discussion Re-started
>>>> 
>>>>   Larry
>>>> 
>>>>        There are, at least, four somewhat current possibilities (I’m
>>> not sure if they should be called exemplars) as regards mathematics
>>>> 
>>>>   1. Summerhill (and, perhaps, some other English private schools)
>>>>   2. Some private schools in the US (a book was written by a teacher
>>> at one. If there is any interest I’ll see if I can dig up the title).
>>>>   3. The case of Louis P. Benezet in a US public school in1929
>>>>   4. There is some indication that schools in Finland and the
>>> Netherlands are, perhaps, a little less ‘neoliberal' (however, the evidence
>>> isn’t clear)
>>>> 
>>>>   Basically in some of the above formal mathematics instruction is put
>>> off until either children ask or until until fourth or fifth grade;
>>> however, children engage in, you might say, mathematical play (Dewey
>>> recommended something like this). This is, by the way and according to
>>> some, also what a good mathematics preK program looks like. Also, this is a
>>> bit as regards mathematics what the ancient Greek version of schooling for
>>> the elite looked like (i.e. mathematics was put off).
>>>> 
>>>>   Ed
>>>> 
>>>>> On Nov 17, 2016, at  3:05 PM, lpscholar2@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> The question remains, if this neoliberal context generates
>>> (hollowed-out) educational *spaces* or institutions then is it possible we
>>> are able to offer exemplars of other educational places (current or
>>> historical) that manifested different kinds of identity formation that were
>>> not hollowed out. I speculate these exemplars would embody or incarnate
>>> deeply historical and  ethical orientations and practices.
>>>>> If we have lost our way, are there other models (cultural imaginaries)
>>> that co-generate developmental narratives that will nurture well-being?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Exemplary models that point in a certain direction
>>>>> 
>>>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone
>>>>> 
>>>>> From: Huw Lloyd
>>>>> Sent: November 17, 2016 11:32 AM
>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: MCA Issue 3 article for discussion Re-started
>>>>> 
>>>>> Alfredo,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Yes, they're pathological.  I am merely saying that the problems
>>> inherent
>>>>> in the pathology can be edifying.  No, I don't think the issues can be
>>>>> transcended within conventional practices. Perhaps the best that can be
>>>>> achieved is that the students recognise an institutional need for "good
>>>>> behaviour" and the teacher recognises an educational need for real
>>> problem
>>>>> solving. For "real" education, we would need something like Davydov's
>>>>> system. But this is merely one view of the purpose of "education".
>>> There
>>>>> are many who don't seem to recognise these (and other) important
>>>>> implications.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Best,
>>>>> Huw
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 17 November 2016 at 18:11, Alfredo Jornet Gil <a.j.gil@iped.uio.no>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Huw,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> great comments. I like what you say, that the (institutional, social)
>>>>>> process always is educational, and I agree: it develops into the
>>> formation
>>>>>> of habit and character. But I still wonder whether all educational
>>>>>> processes lead to growth or development, or whether we rather should
>>> be
>>>>>> able to identify some processes as, we may call them, *pathological*
>>> (or
>>>>>> perhaps involutive?). There you have Bateson on double bind and
>>>>>> schizophrenia, for example. Here, in the article, we have some young
>>>>>> students that enter a system that generates a double bind (it was
>>> Mike who
>>>>>> made me aware of the connection with double bind). The question is,
>>> will
>>>>>> the system develop without some form of awareness *about* the double
>>> bind
>>>>>> that overcomes it by generating a system that does not only include
>>> the
>>>>>> double bind, but also its own description (thereby becoming a higher
>>> order
>>>>>> system, one in which participants, students and teachers, come to grow
>>>>>> rather than come to stall).
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Alfredo
>>>>>> ________________________________________
>>>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.e
>>> du>
>>>>>> on behalf of Huw Lloyd <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com>
>>>>>> Sent: 17 November 2016 10:54
>>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: MCA Issue 3 article for discussion Re-started
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Alfredo,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The 'zone' is always present.  Whether it is recognised or not is
>>> another
>>>>>> matter.
>>>>>> I do not think this interpretation is quite a zero sum game, because
>>> there
>>>>>> is always the aspect that the institutionalised process is
>>> educational --
>>>>>> the laws reveal themselves one way or another.  So (from an Illich
>>>>>> perspective) the opportunity to discover what is real remains, it just
>>>>>> takes a different course.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>> Huw
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 17 November 2016 at 07:37, Alfredo Jornet Gil <a.j.gil@iped.uio.no
>>>> 
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> What touches me of the article is something that perhaps relates to
>>> this
>>>>>>> tension that I find between David's (individualistic?) approach to
>>>>>>> prolepsis in his post (David, I thought, and continue thinking, that
>>>>>>> prolepsis refers to something that emerges in the relation between
>>> two,
>>>>>> not
>>>>>>> something that either is present or absent within a person), and
>>>>>> Phillip's
>>>>>>> view of young people figuring out what life is all about just as all
>>> we
>>>>>> do.
>>>>>>> And so here (and in any neoliberal school context) we have
>>> wonderfully
>>>>>>> beautiful young people more or less interested in science or in
>>> maths,
>>>>>> but
>>>>>>> all eager to live a life and evolve as best as they can (whatever
>>> that
>>>>>> best
>>>>>>> may mean for each one). And then you see how the history and context
>>> that
>>>>>>> they come into gives them everything they need to develop motives and
>>>>>>> goals; to then make sure that the majority of them won't make it so
>>> that
>>>>>>> only a few privileged (or in the case of Margaret's paper none,
>>> according
>>>>>>> to the authors) succeed. And then what remains is not just a
>>> hollowed-out
>>>>>>> science and math identity, but also a hollowed-out soul that had
>>> illusion
>>>>>>> and now just doesn't. Not only a failure to provide opportunities to
>>>>>>> learners to become anything(one) good about science and math, but
>>> also a
>>>>>>> robbing of other possible paths of development that may had grown in
>>>>>> people
>>>>>>> if they had been hanging out with some other better company. Do we
>>> have a
>>>>>>> term to refer to the opposite of a zone of proximal development? Not
>>> just
>>>>>>> the absence of it, but the strangling of it.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Alfredo
>>>>>>> ________________________________________
>>>>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.e
>>> du>
>>>>>>> on behalf of White, Phillip <Phillip.White@ucdenver.edu>
>>>>>>> Sent: 17 November 2016 06:29
>>>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>>>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: MCA Issue 3 article for discussion Re-started
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> David, the examples on page 193, students 1, 2 & 3 - aren't these
>>>>>> examples
>>>>>>> of proleptic thought - especially for student 2, who looks at where
>>> she
>>>>>> is
>>>>>>> "I have my own standards", a statement of the present, then a looking
>>>>>> back
>>>>>>> at  what has happened, "I like to get straight A's". and then
>>> setting a
>>>>>>> target for the future, "help for like to get in college and stuff, so
>>>>>> yeah,
>>>>>>> I participate in a lot of stuff." ending with a reassertion of
>>> present
>>>>>>> activities to attain future goals.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> and there is a preponderance of the use of "I", rather than "you".
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> i'd give the young people for credit than a myopia focused merely on
>>>>>> their
>>>>>>> age: the business of young people is figuring out what life is all
>>> about
>>>>>>> and how to participate, just as adults and infants and old people
>>> like me
>>>>>>> do.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> i'm not convinced that your arguments are supported by the data in
>>> this
>>>>>>> Eisenhard / Allen paper.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> phillip
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.e
>>> du>
>>>>>>> on behalf of David Kellogg <dkellogg60@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2016 1:24:35 PM
>>>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>>>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: MCA Issue 3 article for discussion Re-started
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Actually, Henry, I was attacking the idea that tense is an empty
>>> mental
>>>>>>> space. I guess I am a little like Larry: when we discuss articles I
>>> have
>>>>>> a
>>>>>>> strong tendency to try to make them relevant to what I am doing
>>> rather
>>>>>> than
>>>>>>> to drop what I am doing and go and discuss what everybody else is
>>>>>>> discussing. So what I am doing right now is trying to make sense of
>>> some
>>>>>>> story-telling data where the adults are all over the map on tenses,
>>> and
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> kids seem to stick to one tense only. The adults are slipping in and
>>> out
>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> mental spaces. The kids are telling stories.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I think the relevance to the article is this: When you look at the
>>> way
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> article frames institutional practices and figured worlds, we see
>>>>>>> prolepsis--a preoccupation with the future. But when we look at what
>>> the
>>>>>>> kids are doing and saying it is very much in the moment. Is this
>>> simply
>>>>>>> because mental processes like "like" and "want" tend to take simple
>>>>>> present
>>>>>>> (because they are less defined than material processes)? Or is it
>>> because
>>>>>>> while the institutions have the near future firmly in view and the
>>>>>> figured
>>>>>>> worlds have irrealis in view, the business of young people is youth?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Vygotsky points out that the question the interviewer asks is very
>>> much a
>>>>>>> part of the data. For example, if you ask a question using "you" you
>>>>>> often
>>>>>>> get "you" in reply, even if you design your question to get "I".
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Q: Why do you want to kill yourself?
>>>>>>> A: The same reason everybody wants to kill themselves. You want to
>>> find
>>>>>> out
>>>>>>> if anybody really cares.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> To take another example that is probably more relevant to readers:
>>> both
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> Brexit vote and the American elections are clear examples of
>>> statistical
>>>>>>> unreliability in that if you tried to repeat the election the morning
>>>>>> after
>>>>>>> you would probably get an utterly different result. Take all of those
>>>>>> black
>>>>>>> voters and the real working class voters who voted Obama but
>>> couldn't be
>>>>>>> bothered for Hillary (not the imaginary "white working class voters"
>>> who
>>>>>>> work in imaginary industries in Iowa, rural Pennsylvania, North
>>> Carolina
>>>>>>> and Florida). They might well have behaved rather differently
>>> knowing how
>>>>>>> imminent the neo-Confederacy really was. This is usually presented as
>>>>>>> "buyer's remorse," but it's more than that; the event itself would be
>>>>>> part
>>>>>>> of its replication. This is something that statistical models that
>>> use
>>>>>>> standard error of the mean cannot build in (they work on the
>>> impossible
>>>>>>> idea that you can repeat an event ten or twenty thousand times
>>> without
>>>>>> any
>>>>>>> memory at all).
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> In the same way, when you interview a group of students together you
>>>>>> notice
>>>>>>> that they tend to model answers on each other rather than on your
>>>>>> question,
>>>>>>> and when you interview them separately, you notice that YOU tend to
>>>>>> change
>>>>>>> your question according to the previous answer you received. On the
>>> one
>>>>>>> hand, life is not easily distracted by its own future: it is too
>>> wholly
>>>>>>> there in each moment of existence. On the other hand, each of these
>>>>>> moments
>>>>>>> includes the previous one, and therefore all the previous ones, in
>>>>>> itself.
>>>>>>> The past weighs like a nightmare on the brain of the living, and
>>> objects
>>>>>> in
>>>>>>> the rear view mirror are always closer than they appear.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> David Kellogg
>>>>>>> Macquarie University
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 10:23 AM, HENRY SHONERD <hshonerd@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> David,
>>>>>>>> I was puzzled that you found Langacker to be relevant to this topic,
>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>> the last paragraph of your post makes an important connection
>>> between
>>>>>>>> Langacker and Vygotsky: Both see speech acts as staged…interactants
>>>>>> view
>>>>>>>> themselves as “on stage”. I think the book by Vera and Reuben is
>>>>>> largely
>>>>>>>> about how differently math is “staged” by working mathematicians as
>>>>>>>> contrasted with doing math in school. I think it would be
>>> interesting
>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> analyze how natural language and the language of math scaffold each
>>>>>> other
>>>>>>>> in both contexts. Word problems have been a well-used way of
>>> connecting
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> two languages; stats and graphs are commonly used in the media to
>>>>>> clarify
>>>>>>>> and elaborate text in articles on economics, presidential elections,
>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> what not.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I would love to read your “unpublishable” on Langacker and Halliday
>>> on
>>>>>>>> tense. What I recall from reading Langacker is his interest in
>>> “basic
>>>>>>>> domains”, starting with the temporal and spatial. Somewhere he has
>>> said
>>>>>>>> that he believes that the temporal domain is the more basic. As
>>> you’d
>>>>>>>> guess, the spatial domain is especially useful in elucidating what
>>> he
>>>>>>> calls
>>>>>>>> “things” (nouns are conceptually about things); the temporal domain
>>> is
>>>>>>> more
>>>>>>>> closely connected to what he calls “processes” wherein he analyzes
>>>>>> tense
>>>>>>>> and aspect.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I think Langacker would agree that his work in cognitive grammar
>>> has a
>>>>>>>> long way to go in contributing to the idea that grammar is usage
>>> based,
>>>>>>>> rather than some autonomous module, but he is working on it. I think
>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>> is a potential for connecting Halliday and Langacker, though I’m not
>>>>>>> smart
>>>>>>>> enough to convince you of that evidently. Somehow the connection
>>> must
>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>> made by staying close to the data, “thick description” ethnographers
>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>> fond of saying. I think the article by Carrie and Margaret is
>>> raising
>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>> issue.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> The “hollowed out” math curriculum in the article resonates with the
>>>>>>>> “potholes” you say teachers must watch out for. Some may say that
>>> the
>>>>>>>> hollowing out is typical even of “elite” K-12 schools. Some may say
>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> this is deliberate. I would say my own experience of math in school
>>> was
>>>>>>>> often hollowed out, which I sensed, but didn’t discover until I got
>>> to
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> “pure math” department in the mid 60s at Univ of Texas at Austin
>>> under
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> leadership of Robert Lee Moore. He is a main protagonist in Chapter
>>> 8
>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> Vera’s and Reuben’s book.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I’ll end it there.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Henry
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On Nov 15, 2016, at 1:38 PM, David Kellogg <dkellogg60@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Henry:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> I just wrote another unpublishable comparing how Langacker and
>>>>>>>>> Halliday treat tense, and I'm starting to come to grips with the
>>>>>>>> different
>>>>>>>>> theory of experience underlying the two grammars. Langacker somehow
>>>>>>> sees
>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>> as creating empty mental space (and aspect as creating space within
>>>>>>>> space).
>>>>>>>>> Halliday sees tense as a way of abstracting concrete doings and
>>>>>>>> happenings.
>>>>>>>>> Halliday's tense system is not spatial at all but temporal: it's
>>>>>>>> temporally
>>>>>>>>> deictic and then temporally recursive: a kind of time machine that
>>>>>>>>> simultaneously transports and orients the speaker either
>>>>>> proleptically
>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>> retroleptically. So for example if I say to you that this article
>>> we
>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>> discussing is going to have been being discussed for two or three
>>>>>> weeks
>>>>>>>>> now, then "is going" is a kind of time machine that takes you into
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> future, from which "You are Here" vantage point the article has
>>> been
>>>>>>>> (past)
>>>>>>>>> being discussed (present). Present in the past in the future.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> And that got me thinking about theory and practice. It seems to me
>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> they are related, but simultaneously and not sequentially. That is,
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> output of one is not the input of the other: they are simply more
>>> and
>>>>>>>> less
>>>>>>>>> abstract ways of looking at one and the same thing. So for example
>>> in
>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>> article the tasks of theory and practice are one and the same: the
>>>>>> task
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>> theory is really to define as precisely as possible the domain, the
>>>>>>>> scope,
>>>>>>>>> the range of the inquiry into authoring math and science identities
>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> task of practice is to ask what exactly you want to do in this
>>>>>>>>> domain/scope/range--to try to understand how they are hollowed out
>>> a
>>>>>>>> little
>>>>>>>>> better so that maybe teachers like you and me can help fill the
>>> damn
>>>>>>>>> potholes in a little. You can't really do the one without doing the
>>>>>>>> other:
>>>>>>>>> trying to decide the terrain under study without deciding some task
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> you want to do there is like imagining tense as empty mental space
>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>> as some actual, concrete doing or happening. Conversely, the way
>>> you
>>>>>>> dig
>>>>>>>>> the hole depends very much on how big and where you want it.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> So there are three kinds of mental spaces in the first part of the
>>>>>>>> article:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> a) institutional arrangements (e.g. "priority improvement plans",
>>>>>>>>> career-academy/comprehensive school status STEM tracks, AP classes)
>>>>>>>>> b) figured worlds (e.g. 'good students', and 'don't cares', or what
>>>>>>>> Eckhart
>>>>>>>>> and McConnell-Ginet called 'jocks', 'nerds',  'burnouts',
>>>>>>> 'gangbangers')
>>>>>>>>> c) authored identities (i.e. what kids say about themselves and
>>> what
>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>> think about themselves)
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Now, I think it's possible to make this distinction--but they are
>>>>>>>> probably
>>>>>>>>> better understood not as mental spaces (in which case they really
>>> do
>>>>>>>>> overlap) but rather as doings (or, as is my wont, sayings).
>>> Different
>>>>>>>>> people are saying different things: a) is mostly the sayings of the
>>>>>>>> school
>>>>>>>>> boards and administrators, b) is mostly the sayings of teachers and
>>>>>>>> groups
>>>>>>>>> of kids, and c) is mostly the sayings of individual students. It's
>>>>>>> always
>>>>>>>>> tempting for a theory to focus on c), because that's where all the
>>>>>> data
>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>> and it's tempting for practice too, because if you are against what
>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>> happening in a) and in b), that's where the most likely point of
>>>>>>>>> intervention is.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> "But the data does suggest that the "figured worlds" are figured by
>>>>>>>>> authored identities--not by institutional arrangements. Is that
>>> just
>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>> artefact of the warm empathy of the authors for the words (although
>>>>>>> maybe
>>>>>>>>> not the exact wordings) of their subjects, or is it real grounds
>>> for
>>>>>>>> hope?
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Marx says (beginning of the 18th Brumaire): "*Men make* their own
>>>>>>>> *history*,
>>>>>>>>> *but they* do *not make* it as *they* please; *they* do *not make*
>>> it
>>>>>>>>> under self-selected circumstances, *but* under circumstances
>>> existing
>>>>>>>>> already, given and transmitted from the *past*. The tradition of
>>> all
>>>>>>> dead
>>>>>>>>> generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living."
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> It's a good theory, i.e. at once a truth and a tragedy. And it's a
>>>>>>>>> theory treats time as time and not as an empty stage.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> David Kellogg
>>>>>>>>> Macquarie University
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 9:39 AM, HENRY SHONERD <hshonerd@gmail.com
>>>> 
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> All,
>>>>>>>>>> I have read only part of Margaret’s and Carrie’s article, but I
>>>>>> wanted
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>> jump in with a reference to a book by Vygotskian Vera John-Steiner
>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> her
>>>>>>>>>> mathematician husband Reuben Hersh: Loving and Hating Mathematics:
>>>>>>>>>> Challenging the Mathematical Life. Huw’s point (v) which refers to
>>>>>>>>>> “identities of independence and finding out sustainable within
>>> these
>>>>>>>>>> settings (school math classes) spent high school. Vera’s and
>>>>>> Reuben’s
>>>>>>>> book
>>>>>>>>>> contrasts what it’s like to work and think like a real (working)
>>>>>>>>>> mathematician (what I think Huw is talking about) and what we call
>>>>>>>>>> mathematics in the classroom. Chapter 8 of the book "The Teaching
>>> of
>>>>>>>>>> Mathematics: Fierce or Friendly?” is interesting reading and could
>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>> relevant to this discussion.
>>>>>>>>>> Henry
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 13, 2016, at 2:47 PM, Huw Lloyd <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com
>>>> 
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Dear Margaret
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> My reading has not been a particularly careful one, so I leave it
>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> yourselves to judge the usefulness of these points.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> i) Whether arguments can be made (for or against) a nebulous term
>>>>>>>>>>> (neoliberalism) with its political associations, by arguments
>>> about
>>>>>>>>>>> identity that are themselves not deliberately political.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> ii) Whether it is better not to focus essentially on the place of
>>>>>>>>>> identity.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> iii) Whether it is worthwhile contrasting the role/identity of
>>>>>> "model
>>>>>>>>>>> student" with "identities" that anyone excelling at STEM subjects
>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>>> relate to.  On this, I would point to the importance with
>>>>>> identifying
>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>> appreciations for "awareness of not knowing" and "eagerness to
>>> find
>>>>>>>> out"
>>>>>>>>>>> (which also entails learning about what it means to know).
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> iv) Whether you detect that to the degree that an identity is
>>>>>>>>>> foregrounded
>>>>>>>>>>> in the actual practice of STEM work (rather than as background
>>>>>> social
>>>>>>>>>>> appeasement), it is being faked? That is, someone is playing at
>>> the
>>>>>>>> role
>>>>>>>>>>> rather than actually committing themselves to finding out about
>>>>>>>> unknowns.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> v) Whether, in fact, there is actually a "tiered" or varied set
>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>> acceptable "identities" within the settings you explored, such
>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>> identities of independence and finding out are sustainable within
>>>>>>> these
>>>>>>>>>>> settings, possibly representing a necessary fudge to deal with
>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> requirements placed upon the institutions.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>> Huw
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> On 12 November 2016 at 20:30, Margaret A Eisenhart <
>>>>>>>>>>> margaret.eisenhart@colorado.edu> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello Everyone,
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Carrie and I are newcomers to this list, and we thank you for
>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> opportunity to engage with you about our article, “Hollowed
>>> Out.”
>>>>>>> We
>>>>>>>>>> also
>>>>>>>>>>>> hope for your patience as we learn to participate in the stream
>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>> thinking here!
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Given the comments so far, we are intrigued by others’ ideas
>>> about
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> link between our theory and our data.  On this topic, we would
>>>>>> like
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>> make clear that we did not intend to suggest that the students
>>>>>> were
>>>>>>>>>> making
>>>>>>>>>>>> sense of their lives in the same way that we interpreted them
>>>>>>> through
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> lens of our theory. Our claim is that opportunities and figured
>>>>>>> worlds
>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>> resources for identity and that the students' words to us
>>>>>> reflected
>>>>>>>>>>>> perspectives consistent with neoliberalism, with some pretty
>>>>>> serious
>>>>>>>>>>>> implications. Like Phillip White, we are interested in what
>>>>>> theories
>>>>>>>>>>>> others would use to explain the data we presented.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Like Mike Cole, we are also intrigued by the prospect of
>>>>>> “exemplars”
>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>> might turn to.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> We look forward to hearing your thoughts.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Margaret Eisenhart
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/11/16, 11:35 AM, "lpscholar2@gmail.com" <
>>>>>> lpscholar2@gmail.com
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> A resumption in exploring the meaning and sense (preferably
>>> sens
>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>> term draws attention to movement and direction within meaning
>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> sense)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of this month’s article.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The paper begins with the title and the image of (hollowed-out)
>>>>>>>> meaning
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and sense that is impoverished and holds few resources for
>>>>>>>> developing a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> deeper sens of identity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The article concludes with the implication that the work of
>>>>>> social
>>>>>>>>>>>>> justice within educational institutions is not about improving
>>>>>>>>>>>>> educational outcome in neoliberal terms; the implications of
>>> the
>>>>>>>> study
>>>>>>>>>>>>> are about *reorganizing* the identities – particulary
>>>>>>>>>>>>> identities-with-standind that young people are *exposed* to,
>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>>>> articulate, and can act on (in school and beyond).
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would say this is taking an ethical stand?.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will now turn to page 189 and the section
>>> (identity-in-context)
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> amplify the notion of (cultural imaginary) and (figured
>>> worlds).
>>>>>>>>>>>>> This imaginary being the site or location of history-in-person.
>>>>>>> That
>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> identity is a form of legacy (or *text*) ABOUT the kind of
>>> person
>>>>>>> one
>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> or has become in responding to (external) circumstances.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> These external circumstances are EXPERIENCED primarily in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> organization of local practices and cultural imaginaries
>>> (figured
>>>>>>>>>> worlds)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that circulate and *give meaning* (and sens) to local practices
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Figured worlds are interpreted following Holland as socially
>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> culturally *realms of interpretation* and certain players are
>>>>>>>>>> recognized
>>>>>>>>>>>>> as (exemplars).
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> As such cultural, social, historical, dialogical psychological
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (imaginaries) are handmaidens of the imaginal *giving meaning*
>>> to
>>>>>>>>>> *what*
>>>>>>>>>>>>> goes on in the directions we take together.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Two key terms i highlight are (exemplars) and (direction) we
>>>>>> take.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The realm of the ethical turn
>>>>>>>>>>>>> What are the markers and signposts emerging in the deeper
>>> ethical
>>>>>>>> turn
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that offers more than a hollowed-out answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are there any *ghost* stories of exemplars we can turn to as
>>> well
>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>>> living exemplars? By ghosts i mean ancestors who continue as
>>>>>>> beacons
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> hope exemplifying *who* we are.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> My way into exploring the impoverished narratives of the
>>>>>> neoliberal
>>>>>>>>>>>>> imaginary and reawakening exemplary ancestors or ghosts from
>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>>>>>>> slumber to help guide us through these multiple imaginaries
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: mike cole
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: November 9, 2016 3:04 PM
>>>>>>>>>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: MCA Issue 3 article for discussion
>>>>>> Re-started
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alfredo--
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> for any who missed the initial article sent out, you might send
>>>>>>> them
>>>>>>>>>>>>> here:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://lchc.ucsd.edu/mca/
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am meeting shortly with Bruce. A list of improvements to web
>>>>>> site
>>>>>>>>>>>>> welcome, although not clear how long they will take to
>>> implement.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> mike
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 2:38 PM, Alfredo Jornet Gil <
>>>>>>>>>> a.j.gil@iped.uio.no>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> last week I announced MCA's 3rd Issue article for discussion:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Hollowed Out: Meaning and Authoring of High School Math and
>>>>>>> Science
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Identities in the Context of Neoliberal Reform," by Margaret
>>>>>>>> Eisenhart
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Carrie Allen.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The article is open access and will continue to be so during
>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion time at this link.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks to everyone who begun the discussion early after I
>>> shared
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> link
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> last week, and sorry that we sort of brought the discussion
>>> to a
>>>>>>>> halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> until
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the authors were ready to discuss. I have now sent Margaret
>>> and
>>>>>>>> Carrie
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> posts that were produced then so that they could catch up,
>>> but I
>>>>>>>> also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> invited them to feel free to move on an introduce themselves
>>> as
>>>>>>> soon
>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they ??wanted.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is not without some doubts that one introduces a discussion
>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> article in a moment that some US media have called as "An
>>>>>> American
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tragedy"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and other international editorials are describing as "a dark
>>> day
>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> world." But I believe that the paper may indeed offer some
>>>>>> grounds
>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discuss important issues that are at stake in everyone's home
>>>>>> now,
>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mike
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recently describes in a touching post on the "local state of
>>>>>> mind"
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have to do with identity and its connection to a neoliberal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> organisation of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the economy. It is not difficult to link neoliberalism to
>>>>>> Trump's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> phenomenon and how it pervades very intimate aspects of
>>> everyday
>>>>>>>> life.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If this was not enough, I think the authors' background on
>>>>>> women's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scholar
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and professional careers in science is totally relevant to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on gendered discourse we've been having. Now without halts, I
>>>>>> hope
>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thread gives joys and wisdom to all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alfredo
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>>>>>> <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.
>>>>>>>>>> edu>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on behalf of Alfredo Jornet Gil <a.j.gil@iped.uio.no>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: 02 November 2016 01:48
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: [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