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

Re: [xmca] Internalization of performance standards


The empirical is, I think, the most interesting and what you point at seems somehow right although what is happening - i.e. what/ how is being internalized - is what I'm wondering about. If I do some metaphorical matching with other internalizations, then things become complicated.


On Mar 25, 2009, at 2:55 AM, Carol Macdonald wrote:

A humble empirical observation from Carol:

In recent work with a student on promoting the zpd in the English classroom, in an ideal situation (only 20 girls in the class) and explicitly using the
concept of the double move (Hedegaard), and the group zpd (H and also
Wells). Granted this research was only 6 months in length,  the girls'
performance was radically affected for the better, including their
motivation and pride. *However the ranking of *t*heir **competence (sorry that's my term) in the class stayed exactly the same as had surfaced with regular pedagogy. *I like (to help students) to work with broad and narrow zpd's (and teach usinga crocodile jaws picture), and must surely say that in
this research context, that the relative width of the learners' zpd is
preserved in the analysis of the classes' peformance. What does this mean for a single student...does it mean that she is *only* able to *conceptualise the task to a previously established limit? *Sure, the groups did better than any individual (Gordon's notion), but laying underneath there seems to be a limiting condition. I think this speaks to internalization, but with "terms and conditions" attached. I do hope I have made myself clear. I certainly get slightly anxious about the situation, or more aptly my lack of
ability to explain this in another way.


PS. NCLB is in our SA curriculum, and it's so naive about learning that it's
not worth discussing.

2009/3/25 Mike Cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>

We are discussing the homology (?) (maybe wrong word) between changes at
individual and activity/organizational level.

This might go macro to Goffman, not sure.
passing and management are closely releated to
appropriation and appropriate, i think.
bon soir

On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 8:36 PM, Ed Wall <ewall@umich.edu> wrote:

Well, if you put it that way (smile), you take me back, in a sense, to Goffman and face work (and, perhaps, elsewhere) and I would say yes it
happen at the organizational level and it may not just be an accumulation
internalized individuals. In fact, I wonder if any individual need
internalize. That is, the They is actually anonymous.

On Mar 24, 2009, at 11:20 PM, Mike Cole wrote:

Yes. We appear to be talking past each other with lots of bemused

I misinterpreted your first message because I had this
quick response to the word "standards" which in my
life comes up most often in the NCLB context. You quite appropriately
reoriented me.

But I got to thinking, as I often do, about internalization
at the level of individuals and of organizations. Hence my response.

In YOUR context (now) I believe we agree.

PS-- Do you think I am totally off the wall in drawing an analogy between internalization at the individual and organizational levels? (Disinterest
aside). Certainly very possible!!!

On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 8:14 PM, Ed Wall <ewall@umich.edu> wrote:

I'm sorry, I have no real interest in NCLB (that isn't true, but
in this context). I was referring to the sense in which Bodrova and
seem to be using it. You seem to recognize that sense?


On Mar 24, 2009, at 11:04 PM, Mike Cole wrote:

Ed-- I do not have the refs to hand, but there is quite a literature on
the impact of NCLBehind on classroom

Peter S and many others. Help!!

On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 5:42 PM, Ed Wall <ewall@umich.edu> wrote:

There is always the question of the Other and volumes have been
written on this. However, it is the process of this type of
in which I'm interested as it seems to be always simultaneously
and crucial. So as you say THAT, might you say more about THAT (smile)
point me, as you have graciously done, in the direction?


On Mar 24, 2009, at 8:29 PM, Mike Cole wrote:

Oh, THAT kind of performance standards. I was missing the context. e.g.
we internalize the expectations that others have of us.

Shifting contexts to the level of national educational policy (which
the context I created with your words) provides an sort of interesting
to think about the extent to which no child left behind standards were internalized. At the institutional level, a lot in some places judging
the way in which classrooms have been changed into test driven
and accepted as "appropriate" (having been appropriated!).

On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 3:01 PM, Ed Wall <ewall@umich.edu> wrote:


The idea behind such a phrasing, if I understand correctly, seems to predate Aristotle (he says something like "We think it proper for
young to be modest, because as they live by feeling they often err,
modesty may keep them in check"), but such wording (i.e.
of performance standards') appears in Elena Bodrova and Deborah J.
Tools of the Mind so I had assumed that it was somewhat usual.


On Mar 24, 2009, at 12:43 AM, Mike Cole wrote:

Could you expand please, Ed? I am not certain of what you mean.

On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 5:03 PM, Ed Wall <ewall@umich.edu> wrote:

Hi Folks

 In some reading I've been doing the notion of, one might say,
'internalization of performance standards' appears. I have the
that Vygotsky thought something like thist and/or some of those
Any places I can look for more information?

Ed Wall

xmca mailing list

xmca mailing list

xmca mailing list

Visiting Researcher,
Wits School of Education
6 Andover Road
Johannesburg 2092
011 673 9265  082 562 1050
xmca mailing list

xmca mailing list