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

RE: [xmca] Peter Smagorinsky on concepts



Thanks for helping to extend the vimeo conversation, Larry. One refinement I'd make concerns your remark:

[40 minutes] Affect and a strong sense of self leads to USING concepts more effectively.  Yes, confidence leads to better practise [phronesis or everyday concepts] but when reflecting on new teachers development why is "meta-experience" impoverished [the WAY the teacher experiences her/his experience]  Concepts when USED confidently support anticipation of future experiences which lead to a SENSE of order and security [45 minutes]



I don't think I'd call their meta-experiences impoverished. A negative way of experiencing experience can be quite robust and frame new experiences dramatically. p



-----Original Message-----
From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Larry Purss
Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2012 9:58 PM
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: Re: [xmca] Peter Smagorinsky on concepts



Hi Anthony & Peter



I just finished watching the vimeo presentation.  Thank you for producing this onderful CHAT and thinking out loud about concepts while we all listen in. It was very helpful to have the concrete activity of gardening to help ground the theoretical in the practical.  I also remember fondly the extended conversation on "concepts" that was generated last April.



I want to respond to a few of the ideas which generated further reflection while I was listening.



Peter talked about "competing centers of gravity" and the fact that most student teachers do not inhabit a conceptual home base from which to guide their practice of teaching.  My reflection is if this is the reality for teacher's then why is there no development of a "shared" center of gravity which develops over time within specific schools?  I do believe that Gadamer's notion of "shared understanding" LEADING to "self-understanding"

is a possible way of answering why no shared purpose [with shared concepts] develops. It is because there are no opportunities for genuine conversations to develop where one's suppositions are put at risk and ruptures expected AND WELCOMED.  My other posts today give more elaboration of this point.



[40 minutes] Affect and a strong sense of self leads to USING concepts more effectively.  Yes, confidence leads to better practise [phronesis or everyday concepts] but when reflecting on new teachers development why is "meta-experience" impoverished [the WAY the teacher experiences her/his experience]  Concepts when USED confidently support anticipation of future experiences which lead to a SENSE of order and security [45 minutes]



[50 minute] Word meaning was explored and Peter critiqued the notion that a concept develops by "weeding out" what doesn't belong. Peter suggested this was too simple an answer. I agree. This way of framing concept development ASSUMES a single framework or tradition within which the concept gets elaborated and develops.  But how the concept is USED within different contexts may actually require learning multiple different meanings of the SAME word with different meanings and each use of the word meaning must be developed.  Onceagain Gadamer's notion of "understanding" as dialogical perceives word meaning as developing multiple meanings within contrasting contexts but because we USE the same word we think we are using the word in the same way.  As Peter emphasizes concepts are fuzzy and nobody owns the concept. However within genuine dialogue as we USE the words in shared practices we also develop shared understandings.  If each teacher lives within a classroom world where there is no opportunity for shared use of the words, then the concepts will remain more fuzzy and confusing.  Without genuine dialogue words IN COMMON have less chance to develop.



[54 minute]  Word meaning is "perspective driven".  YES. Therefore, we should find practices where our perspectives are explored in a spirit of fallibility and openness to having our perspectives challenged and our presuppositions questioned. But in order to participate in these particular TYPES of conversations requires a safe context in which to be vulnerable to having one's particular prejudices put in "play".



Those are a few reflections generated. Once again, Anthony and Peter, thank you for producing this video and sharing in in the public domain.



Larry

On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 9:50 AM, ANTHONY M BARRA <tub80742@temple.edu<mailto:tub80742@temple.edu>>wrote:



> Does anyone remember that xmca discussion on concepts from last April

> that generated over 100 responses?  It's a fascinating re-read,

> especially in a single retrospective stream.  I grappled with it last

> week, alongside Peter Smagorinsky's new book, *Vygotsky and Literacy

> Research: a Methodological Framework*<

> https://www.sensepublishers.com/product_info.php?products_id=1374&osCs

> id=1a7

> >,

> before interviewing Peter for the Vimeo CHAT group-page.  Peter's

> personal story of appropriating Vygotsky and his discussion of the

> "fuzzy" interplay between everyday and academic concepts were

> particularly interesting to me.  As were the many true-life

> landscaping metaphors he used to discuss concept development.

>

> Anyway, the interview is here

> <http://vimeo.com/groups/chat/videos/34706097>if anyone would like to

> check it out.  *full url:

> http://vimeo.com/groups/chat/videos/34706097

>

> Thanks,

>

> Anthony Barra

> NJ, USA

> __________________________________________

> _____

> xmca mailing list

> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu<mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>

> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca

>

__________________________________________

_____

xmca mailing list

xmca@weber.ucsd.edu<mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>

http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca


__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca