Re: Mike's chapter/Metacognition

dkirsh who-is-at lsu.edu
Wed, 7 Jul 1999 08:59:14 -0500

Hi Eva.
Talking about what is in one's mind IS a cultural practice to be valued
as reflection. But being "right" (i.e., being in a position to report the
"truth" about what or how one thinks), that's another matter entirely
that comes out of a particular epistemological stance that I think is
questionable. Jim Gee's (1992) book makes this argument most
cogently.

Gee, J. P. (1992). The social mind: Language, ideology, and social practice.
New York: Bergin & Garvey.

David

PS. Please allow me to recommend your lovely paper on Skinner's
struggles to maintain a personal lexicon free from mentalist imagery
or assumption.

Eva Ekeblad <eva.ekeblad who-is-at ped.gu.se> on 07/07/99 02:44:47 AM

Please respond to xmca who-is-at weber.ucsd.edu



To: xmca who-is-at weber.ucsd.edu

cc: (bcc: David H Kirshner/dkirsh/LSU)



Subject: Re: Mike's chapter/Metacognition

Hi David

Funny to get into this topic over the list after our sideline exchange
concerning my old paper on Skinner's verbal self-discipline! I'd say even
behaviorists cherish the behavior of talking about paths of reasoning
within curricular subjects... isn't it just the terminology of "reflection"
they'd prohibit?

There aren't so many -ists in Mikes chapter text -- only innatists,
environmentalists and nationalists (which agrees well with the main purpose
of steering away from religious beliefs in ubiquitous testing, which I see
as the main goal of the chapter. I got the feeling the Coles wouldn't
burden their student readers with too many contending schools, which was
why I formulated myself a bit vaguely. Wondering if the audience would not
be ready for a somewhat less cognitivist discourse.

But... why should cognitive processes be what is accessible (or not) to
introspection? Can't they be what IS accessible in the interpersonal
exchanges of talk about all kinds of topics, including meta talk about
cognition. I mean, except for the still-dominance of cognitivism in public
consciousness :-)

Eva

At 12.55 -0500 99-07-06, dkirsh who-is-at lsu.edu wrote:
>Connectionist theorists, on the other hand, reject the idea that
>cognitive processes are accessible to introspection at all, so
>the reflection they espouse is a reflective practice (i.e., a cultural
>practice of reflection) valued for other than the introspective access
>implied by metacognition. I think this is what Eva is hoping Mike is
>valuing through his references to metacognition.