I hope primarily to listen to discussion of this paper, rather than
contribute, given that I've already been given a too-long turn in this
conversation. Just to respond briefly to Nate's questions:
I'm comfortable with the word codification in the context of this
discussion. I think it fits with the language of genre studies that are
complementary to the lens I use to discuss the composition and reading of
texts. I'd be interested to see if others have the same response as Nate's.
As I was working on the paper I was editing a paper written by Mark Faust
which argues against strong-text versions of reading. I ended up
positioning myself between Faust and strong-text reading theorists. In my
paper I reference an article by Jim Wertsch (Written Communication, 1999)
in which Wertsch talks about the ways in which texts are produced in
dialogue with other texts. I borrow from Wertsch's article in my reference
to the ways in which reading, as well as writing, is emplotted, or situated
dialogically among other texts. This is a long-winded way of saying that
my use of the word codification came in dialogue with my reading of Faust,
for whom the textual inscription of codes and conventions is a lesser
concern than it is for me. (Faust's paper will appear in the August, 2000
Research in the Teaching of English).
On Nate's second question: The teacher, Cindy O'Donnell-Allen, often spoke
of the influence of her mother (a kindergarten teacher) on her high school
teaching. (This point comes out in greater detail in the original articles
that are referenced in the xmca paper.) In some of the earlier work of
mine that I reference in the xmca paper, I make the case that it is
conventional to assume that drawing is a developmental stage on the way to
writing, but that this only betrays a cultural bias; it's also possible, if
values on symbol systems are altered, to view writing as contributing
developmentally to one's drawing ability. The instructional purpose of
using art to interpretation (often in conjunction with writing) was to
allow for multiple, mutually-informing avenues for students to construct
meaning for texts. At any rate, the drawings produced by the high school
seniors reported in the xmca paper and other publications might indeed be
confused with the work of elementary school students, at least in terms of
artistic skill. The purpose of interpreting literature artistically,
however, was to use art expressively (as a tool for thinking about literary
characters) and designatively (to represent and then reflect on
relationships). The skill of the art was less important. Some students
did indeed express concern that this was kindergarten work and to them,
this was a cause to worry that they were not doing college-prep work. To
Cindy, this was a verification that her class incorporated the aspects of
creativity, play, collaboration, and discovery that make kindergartens such
dynamic learning environments, particularly in contrast to the typically
monologic processes of secondary school English classes. Cindy's view was
shared by some students in the class. We viewed the uneven endorsement as
evidence of the students' enculturation to conventional ways of doing
school rather than as evidence that her teaching was not accompanied by
high expectations. Again, these points are elaborated in the original
studies that this paper draws on.
My apologies for going on at length; I look forward to other responses to
the paper.
Peter
At 11:09 AM 4/1/00 -0600, you wrote:
>Peter,
>
>I read the paper a few times and found it interesting on several levels. It
>adressed many of the personal contradictions I usually feel about reading
>research.
>
>One thing that stood out was your use of "codification". Maybe it is my
>flag, but it seems that word has a long history, and a history that may not
>be compatible with the argument you were putting forward. I associate the
>word strongly with the "in the text" view of meaning I took you as argueing
>against. Also, it seems to have a strong information processing and
>innatist history as in "breaking the code".
>
>I guess for me the word felt out of place with other concepts like signs,
>tools, and culture. It felt alien or like the old Sesame Street lingo which
>one of these words don't belong. You mention in the beginning that you
>definately hope one does not leave with a sense that you are argueing
>meaning is inside the text. With that in mind, I am curious how the use of
>codification would play a role in that kind interpretation ocurring.
>
>This is not to say I disagree with how you conceptualized "codification" in
>the paper, I found it very helpful and it adressed aspects of reading that
>an Activity standpoint does not always address. I guess my concern lies in
>using terminology that seems to support a certain view of reading, learning,
>mind and the consequences that follow.
>
>Second, when I was putting up your figures, I asked my daughter how old she
>thought the students were who made the pictures. She answered, "no more
>than 5th grade". I recently was looking through the Japenese / American
>comparisons and what semed to come through very strongly (early Bruner)was
>that our education system has a very strong action-iconic-symbolic
>progression that is part of our cultural beliefs about development. So, I am
>curious about the story, if there is one, with the students reactions to
>"making pictures". Like with Vera's work on cognitive pluralism, I enjoyed
>the emphasis you put on signs that avoided a developmentalist framing.
>
>Thanks for the interesting read.
>
>Nate
>
>
>
>Nate Schmolze
>http://www.geocities.com/nate_schmolze/
>schmolze@students.wisc.edu
>
>
>****************************************************************************
>****************
>"Overcoming the naturalistic concept of mental development calls for a
>radically new approach
>to the interrelation between child and society. We have been led to this
>conclusion by a
>special investigation of the historical emergence of role-playing. In
>contrast to the view
>that role playing is an eternal extra-historical phenomenon, we hypothesized
>that role playing emerged at a specific stage of social development, as the
>child's position in society changed
>in the course of history. role-playing is an activity that is social in
>origin and,
>consequently, social in content."
>
> D. B. El'konin
>****************************************************************************
>****************
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 23 2000 - 09:21:09 PDT