From: Mike Cole [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Sun 3/21/2004 9:22 PM
Subject: RE: Reflection and change in a CHAT/Cultural Psychology paradigm
thanks, Phillip. In this conversation, where initially I had no strong
reference for the term, reflexive practice, whereas others are DOING studies
of or simply DOING collective practice, the subtle slippages in meaning
of "common" vocabulary has been confusing my thinking. More fuel for the
"culture is not (entirely) shared view!
i worry here about futher muddying the perspective - to explain: in a classroom, and it doesn't matter if it's kindergarten to phd seminar, i can set up activities so that everyone in the classroom will focus on my pre-determined object for the class - i.e., recognizing language patterns, or applying CHAT to an understanding of a piece of research. (and both of these activities require degrees of reflexivity on the part of all of us in varying degrees). but these were my objects, pushed forward for my own motives - yet, within the classroom everyone else has their own motives and so their object is going to be different in degrees from my object. yet, we can all do pretty good working together and collaboratively constructing shared understandings - again in varying degrees of individual participation and capital - which again necessitates degrees of reflexivity - shared and not shared.
outside of the classroom, what was practiced within the classroom will be practiced in varying degrees of proficiency and interest - not unlike what's practiced at home is going to be practiced in varying degrees outside of the home - or work - or or or - all of these multiple contexts that support different/varying practices ....
which in part, i think, supports all of these subtle slippages that you notice.
hence the necessity for the need of constantly clarifying meaning within these narrows boundaries of xmca.
thanks for pushing me.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Nov 09 2004 - 11:42:23 PST