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

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



Molly

     This does look like an excellent book. I was just looking at her article and missed this.

Many thanks!!

Ed

> On Dec 2, 2016, at  6:11 PM, molly shea <mvshea@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Ed,
> 
> Megan Bang and Doug Medin wrote an excellent book on Science Education:
> https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/whos-asking
> 
> *Overview*
> The answers to scientific questions depend on who’s asking, because the
> questions asked and the answers sought reflect the cultural values and
> orientations of the questioner. These values and orientations are most
> often those of Western science. In Who’s Asking?, Douglas Medin and Megan
> Bang argue that despite the widely held view that science is objective,
> value-neutral, and acultural, scientists do not shed their cultures at the
> laboratory or classroom door; their practices reflect their values, belief
> systems, and worldviews. Medin and Bang argue further that scientist
> diversity—the participation of researchers and educators with different
> cultural orientations—provides new perspectives and leads to more effective
> science and better science education.
> 
> Medin and Bang compare Native American and European American orientations
> toward the natural world and apply these findings to science education. The
> European American model, they find, sees humans as separated from nature;
> the Native American model sees humans as part of a natural ecosystem. Medin
> and Bang then report on the development of ecologically oriented and
> community-based science education programs on the Menominee reservation in
> Wisconsin and at the American Indian Center of Chicago. Medin and Bang’s
> novel argument for scientist diversity also has important implications for
> questions of minority underrepresentation in science.
> 
> Thanks,
> Molly Shea
> 
> On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 3:47 PM, Edward Wall <ewall@umich.edu> wrote:
> 
>> Carrie
>> 
>>      My read of Barton’s publications is that she is using the Maker
>> movement as a platform as regards issues of equity and science taken
>> broadly. Is this a fair read or are there other important factors I am
>> missing??
>> 
>>     My read of a nice paper published by Jessica Thompson and others in
>> TCR is that she sees what she terms as 'rigor and responsiveness’ as the
>> key element. In my words - not hers - key is respect for the discipline
>> (rigor) and key is respect for each other (responsiveness). Is this a fair
>> read or are there other important factors I am missing?
>> 
>>     Megan Bang seems less in the the science/math loop although she just
>> may not have published much in this area. I did see one paper that, one
>> might say, addressed what some would term ethnomathematics.
>> 
>> However, I see nothing in the work of these researchers in the discipline
>> of mathematics per se. Perhaps you could point me in the right direction?
>> 
>> Here is why I’m asking. Just assume that I am a dumb mathematics educator
>> (which I am - smile) and I wish to help those I teach (which I do) - i.e.
>> those who will be elementary and secondary mathematics teachers - in
>> somehow implementing something like rigor and responsiveness.’ I do
>> understand that curriculum and teaching are intertwined, but I also know
>> that teachers enact curriculum and may or may not choose make room for
>> responsiveness (that was also a point in the Thompson article). Now it is
>> possible that all my students will, on their own and in their own
>> classrooms, develop substantial notions of rigor and responsiveness, but it
>> is possible that some might struggle. What experiences might I and others
>> design to help those that struggle; for instance, what constitutes rigor
>> (one can certainly be under or over rigorous). Likewise, what constitutes
>> responsiveness (one certainly doesn’t need to talk to be responsive). Often
>> people such as I do have relations with those, say, in mathematics, child
>> development, and educational philosophy (among others). But, perhaps you
>> don’t see this as happening in the college classroom, but during teaching
>> itself. This still raises the interesting question as to what should occur
>> in the college classroom (although some would just abolish such classrooms,
>> perhaps understandably). Maybe it is too soon to ask such a question, but
>> until it is answered in some pragmatic fashion, dumb mathematics educators
>> such as myself will continue muddle to the benefit of none and, perhaps,
>> detriment of all.
>> 
>> Ed Wall
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Dec 1, 2016, at  3:19 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.edu
>>> 
>>>>> 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.
>> edu>
>>>>>> 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.
>> edu>
>>>>>> 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