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

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



I just looked at Netflix. I read 3.5 stars out of five. I wonder if the stars are “personalized”, based on one’s viewing history?
Henry

> On Dec 1, 2016, at 10:50 PM, Alfredo Jornet Gil <a.j.gil@iped.uio.no> wrote:
> 
> 1 star in netflix makes it even more attractive to me. Will try to watch it!
> Alfredo
> ________________________________________
> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> on behalf of Helena Worthen <helenaworthen@gmail.com>
> Sent: 02 December 2016 03:39
> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> Subject: [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