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

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

Margaret, Carry, Molli,  Phillip et al --

I forwarded part of our discussion to Noah Finkelstein, a former LCHC
member who ended up with a degree in laser physics and a predilection for
teaching physics, perhaps consistent with his career as a stand up comic at
Yale as an undergrad. His background is discernable here:

It his business to create alternative models and scale them in higher ed as
well as in the organization of classrooms at the precollege level.

Here is his quick reply. It speaks to the issues that have developed around
and following Margaret and Carrie's paper. I think.


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Noah Finkelstein <nfinkels@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Dec 3, 2016 at 11:45 AM
Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: MCA Issue 3 article for discussion Re-started
To: mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu>

Heya Mike,

Hmmm... Great discussion... Yes there are great exemplars of classrooms /
educational environments that empower students (develop not only content
mastery (in a substantive / authentic way), but also develop identity,
belief systems about the field and their roles in it, and how the
disciplines themselves might be broadened/ include issues of social
justice, civic engagement )

I do like the references to Benezet (early 1900's), Bang, and Barton.. I
use all of these...

As for case studies/ videos... Hmm... hmmm...
I might be able to find examples from our 5D version (PISEC
and there are some great examples of this work in more formal physics
environments (e.g. Modeling Instruction <http://modelinginstruction.org> in
high schools, and the adaptation / expansion to university environments
<http://perg.fiu.edu/resources/modeling-instruction/>.  I can likely track
down videos of this environment that captures examples of students
authoring their educational experiences/ environments)
There is a movement in physics and other STEM fields to build this in to
the physics spaces/ structures, e.g. the SCALE-UP efforts
<https://scaleup.ncsu.edu>(these of course don't ensure the more
progressive approaches but they sure help)

To me, while we find examples, the questions is really about institutional
structures around sustaining and scaling such approaches.  (You've taught
me well... though it leaves me with more than a lifetime of work, I fear).
Restricting myself (artificially) to higher education and largely to
research university environments, we are starting to make progress in a few

1) building networks and movements to support these ends. The APLU has
taken this on in mathematics (Advancing Mathematics Pathways for Student
Success, building on the Carnegie work here), and I'm very involved in AAU
<https://stemedhub.org/groups/aau> and APLU
<http://serc.carleton.edu/StemEdCenters/index.html> efforts in building
systemic infrastructure for transforming STEM education.
A, perhaps the, major challenge here is how well intentioned work to take
things to scale in sustainable manner might be co-opted as described by the
AP Calculus efforts described Nov 15 post (or any number of other
institutionalized movements)
In fact there are so many efforts in STEM education advancement (AAU, APLU,
NSEC, BVA, ASCN, AACU/ PKAL, OSTP, AAAS, and others) we're now considering
a meta-network structure.

2) developing models for institutional transformation.  A variety of
researchers (Kezar, Elrod, Beach, Henderson and I) have been starting to
examine how these cultural institutions (universities) shift to create
value and sustain these types of educational approaches.  I can point to a
few pieces as helpful (e.g. Kezar
<https://www.aacu.org/pkal/educationframework>  or Henderson
<http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/tea.20439/abstract> or Corbo
What is intriguing is that while these models go beyond what has been
historically been used from organizational change theorists, and business
models, they probably do not attend enough to how these movements get
co-opted by broader instiutional / society structures (e.g. moves towards
'efficiency' and 'return on investment' which are starting to drive
national dialogs)

My initial thoughts for a Saturday morning.


On Dec 2, 2016, at 5:44 PM, mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu> wrote:

This discussion is begging your intervention or that of some of your

What might you post for people to consider, preferably video?

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Edward Wall <ewall@umich.edu>
Date: Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 3:47 PM
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: MCA Issue 3 article for discussion Re-started
To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>


      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

     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.
> --
> 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
>    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
>> 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
>>> 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
>>> made me aware of the connection with double bind). The question is, will
>>> the system develop without some form of awareness *about* the double
>>> that overcomes it by generating a system that does not only include the
>>> double bind, but also its own description (thereby becoming a higher
>>> 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
>>> matter.
>>> I do not think this interpretation is quite a zero sum game, because
>>> 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
>>>> 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
>>>> 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
>>>> only a few privileged (or in the case of Margaret's paper none,
>>>> to the authors) succeed. And then what remains is not just a
>>>> science and math identity, but also a hollowed-out soul that had
>>>> 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
>>>> 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
>>>> 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
>>>> and how to participate, just as adults and infants and old people like
>>>> 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
>>> 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
>>>> 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
>>> 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
>>>> 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
>>>> 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
>>>> 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
>>>> bothered for Hillary (not the imaginary "white working class voters"
>>>> work in imaginary industries in Iowa, rural Pennsylvania, North
>>>> and Florida). They might well have behaved rather differently knowing
>>>> 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
>>> 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
>>>> 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
>>>>> 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
>>>>> 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
>>>>> 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