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

[Xmca-l] Re: Response to Spoilsport: Beyond oppositional dualitiesindrama in education and dialogic pedagogy to promote learning possibilities

Hi Larry

I’m using Vygotsky’s idea that when we play we foreground what we imagine over material reality so that the meaning of what we do predominates. We we play we are intending to pretend - you can’t be made to play - that’s what I mean by ‘at will'. I’m not sure which metaphor captures that experience best: fore- and back- or maybe over- and under- or stepping ‘in' and ‘out' of imagined spaces, events, and worlds. 

On the other hand I can see that there can be a sense of ‘being captured by’ - e.g. when the adults in the class I’m teaching initially pretended to row the boat and wave a sheet as a sail children wanted to join in - they asked and/or literally ran to join in - and probably with little intention. Though I think they must they were still exercising some ‘will' - the pretending could not simply be maintained by others. In a similar way, when you sit down with a child and are really interested in a book they are likely to ‘lean in’ physically and be ‘drawn in’ to the world via the illustrations and your talk especially if you pretend to talk like a character which ‘captures’ their interest and brings meaning to the dialogue …

Is that what you mean by a structure of shared perception/action? 


> On Mar 1, 2016, at 10:27 PM, Lplarry <lpscholar2@gmail.com> wrote:
> Brian,
> Just to  echo your understanding,*We are always in two time-spaces AT ONCE. This means simultaneously.
> You added that we move *to build this shared awareness with one time-space being over the other which also indicates the other time-space becomes under.
> A third aspect you suggest is to be able to foreground one time-space or the other *at will*.
> I have a question if this foregrounding (and backgrounding) movement which is meaning making is always *at will*.
> This is why I introduced the notion of being *captured by* which contrasts with willfully capturing or grasping meaning.
> This is the question if shared awareness that captures us may occur prior to developing shared awareness OF awareness.
> In other words is there a structure of shared perception/action that occurs prior to dialogical foregrounding and backgrounding discourse?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Edmiston, Brian W." <edmiston.1@osu.edu>
> Sent: ‎2016-‎03-‎01 6:09 PM
> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Response to Spoilsport: Beyond oppositional dualitiesindrama in education and dialogic pedagogy to promote learning possibilities
> Thanks, Helen
> Yes! - central to any drama is that we can imagine "What if …?” and then using social imagination (and dialogic imagination!) collaboratively embody and dialogue as if we were elsewhere, as if we were other people, as if we had more (or less) power - that’s empowering! But never losing the knowledge and experience of us-as-people asking those questions, reflecting on what we’re experiencing, and wondering what these imagined experiences might mean for me (me too!), for us, for others, for the world ...
> I’ve recently been working with an after-school group of 6 and 7 year olds as if we’ve been with Odysseus - using multimodal tools: fabric, pictures, some key artifacts, as well as our bodies and relationships we’ve been imagining sailing and rowing and singing, we’ve been in a shipwreck saving one another, dreaming of home, being turned to pigs by Circe, having the power to turn others into something, trying to convince Circe to turn people back, wondering whether to risk being killed by the monsters we’d just embodied or stay and party with Circe … and all the while engaged in inquiry about topics of interest to the children (and taken into angles that come from them): what do friends do - and not do? what dangers might we risk (or not) to go home? (oh, and we’re often reading bits of text in context as the children have all been labelled as ‘struggling readers’ and aren’t doing so well on those tests ...)
> In my practice I tend to move in and out of any imagined world a lot, especially early on. To build that shared awareness of "we are always in two time-spaces at once" with one being foregrounded over the other at will - like what children do when they play without adults.
> That's what Vygotsky stressed - that in playing it’s the meaning of our actions and the objects we use that we pay attention to - not the acts and things in themselves. And when we’re in dialogue with others (or often on the way to dialogue with these young children) then the potential for meaning-making about action in imagined events in the imagined-and-real world expands exponentially, especially since we can move in time and space - we’re not stuck with one or two chronotopes but can explore and move among multiple possible perspectives on events. While at the same time each person is always able to see through the perspectives of their life experiences - about what “home” is like for me, what my “friends" do with me, what “dangers” I’ve faced etc. to make new meaning that goes beyond the limits of the everyday world ...
> However, with me present and both playing along with the children and stepping out of the imagined world, I can mediate agreement about cultural norms (e.g. we listen when anyone is speaking to the group) and what’s happening socially so that no one is being left out and no one is dominating with ideas about what might happen (e.g.we can choose whether or not to go searching for food) or what something might mean (e.g.Circe might be an evil witch - how might we find out?).
> I also want to build the knowledge from the beginning that each person chooses to step into (and out of) imagined worlds and that anyone can step out (or sit out!) at any time. That no one is being coerced and those participating are agreeing to make this imagined reality happen together - something that Gavin Bolton stressed years ago - the sense that we are making this happen to ourselves. One older boy who had been brought into the room sat at a table - and chose to look at pictures in the books - I’d just bought a model of a Greek ship for him to make to find he had been suspended … maybe he’ll be back next week. Another older boy knew about Poseidon when I was sharing illustrations from versions of Homer’s story - he wanted to show the younger children how he-as-Poseidon could use a trident to bring about a storm - that we then embodied as part of another shipwreck! Oh, and one week a younger boy snuck in to join his friends!
> This week we’ll be meeting the Cyclops (those who choose to join in …!)
> Brian
> BTW if you want my take on how drama (and specifically what I call dramatic inquiry) can be dialogic - see my 2014 book published by Routledge: Transforming Teaching and Learning with Active and Dramatic Approaches.
> [cid:image001.png@01CE44CA.B3EB06D0]
> Brian Edmiston, PhD
> Professor of Drama in Education
> Department of Teaching and Learning
> Columbus, OH 43210
> edmiston.1@osu.edu<mailto:edmiston.1@osu.edu>
> go.osu.edu/edmiston<http://go.osu.edu/edmiston>
> 'To live means to participate in dialogue: to ask questions, to heed, to respond, to agree, and so forth. In this dialogue a person participates wholly and throughout his whole life: with his eyes, lips, hands, soul, spirit, with his whole body and deeds. He invests his entire self in discourse'
> Bakhtin, 1984, p. 293
> On Mar 1, 2016, at 6:38 PM, Helen Grimmett <helen.grimmett@monash.edu<mailto:helen.grimmett@monash.edu>> wrote:
> I think what is being missed, is that the playing out of the 'imagined
> situation' is not the whole extent of a 'drama in education' lesson or unit
> of work. The imagined situation provides an opportunity for children to
> 'try out' and experience different roles, perspectives, opinions, emotions
> and actions, with the safety net of knowing that everyone has agreed that
> this is 'pretend' and that they are able to 'step out' again and back to
> their real lives. However, the equally important element of the DiE
> lesson/unit is the dialogue that can take place after everyone steps out of
> the imagined situation - where all of the feelings, thoughts and actions
> that were expressed or experienced during the 'play' can be revisited,
> discussed and debated from a more detached position and where
> understandings of others' perceptions can be further explored, and
> alternative responses and meanings can be constructed.
> So, yes, it is necessary for the players to buy in to the imagined
> situation and agree to play along within the 'rules' of the roles they are
> playing in order to keep the drama functioning, but the whole point is that
> everyone knows that there will soon be a time where they will step out of
> the role again and be able to say "When your character did X, it made me
> feel Y" or "I never realised how difficult it would be to ..." or "I wonder
> what would have happened if ..." etc. In my mind this part of the session
> is an equally crucial part of the learning and is why I believe DiE (done
> well) is a dialogical pedagogy. It is the very awareness of the different
> chronotopes (that we have all agreed we are pretending) that makes this
> possible. It is a different kettle of fish altogether when people are
> thrust into a 'simulation exercise' and are never quite sure if what they
> are experiencing is real or not (especially in light of current events
> which mean many children have had to experience confusing school lockdown
> and evacuation events), which is why Heathcote put so much emphasis on
> establishing 'agreement' about the situation that was being mutually
> created and the roles that were being adopted. I do not find this
> oppressing, but rather empowering, that the teacher is endowing students
> with the power to 'pretend', to 'try out different ways of being', and to
> contribute to both the imaginary situation and the reality of the lesson as
> it unfolds in a very dialogical way, that may in fact allow them to develop
> a new understanding of who they currently are and who they might
> potentially be.
> Cheers,
> Helen
> --
> Lecturer in Primary and Early Years Education
> Professional Experience Liaison - Primary
> *Education*
> Monash University
> Room 159, Building 902, Berwick Campus
> 100 Clyde Road
> Berwick VIC 3806
> Australia
> T: +61 3 9904 7171
> E: helen.grimmett@monash.edu<mailto:helen.grimmett@monash.edu> <name.surname@monash.edu<mailto:name.surname@monash.edu>>
> monash.edu<http://monash.edu>
> The Practice of Teachers' Professional Development: A Cultural-Historical
> Approach
> <https://www.sensepublishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/professional-learning-1/the-practice-of-teachers-professional-development/>
> Helen Grimmett (2014) Sense Publishers
> On 2 March 2016 at 03:42, Dr. Ana Marjanovic-Shane <anamshane@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> Dear Larry,
> I am reading your highly interesting comments and feedback on the ideas I
> started to develop in the “Spoilsport” article.  Yes, you are right that I
> use the concept of a chronotope - as one of the central concepts in my
> study. I understood this concept from MM Bakhtin as a unity of time, space
> and axiology, i.e., set of values, relationships, rules and expectations
> that exist for the participants in a time-space. Bakhtin described
> chronotope in literature as “the intrinsic connectedness of temporal and
> spatial relationships that are artistically expressed . . . [S]patial and
> temporal indicators are fused into one carefully thought out, concrete
> whole.Time, as it were, thickens, takes on flesh, becomes artistically
> visible; likewise, space becomes charged and responsive to the movements of
> time, plot and history” (Bakhtin, 1994, p. 184).
> And while, in literature there may be ONE chronotope within the literary
> work, in our lives, and especially in play, education, art, etc - we always
> “operate” on more than one chronotope simultaneously - as if they are
> laminated layers of the same event. However, these chronotopes relate to
> each other in a different way - depending on a situation.
> You invoke the concept of being “captured” by the imagined worlds
> (chronotopes). I think that it may be true - but we are captured in
> different ways and have different means of freeing ourselves up - in
> different situations - depending on the relationship in which these
> chronotopes are set. My whole argument in the Spoilsport paper is that when
> the imagined chronotope becomes a place of “dwelling” it is as
> “captivating” as the our chronotope of the real - and that it is hard,
> potentially impossible and often seen as illegitimate (non-normative) to
> “spoil” this chronotope - to try to break its mangels. Both the imagined
> and the ontological chronotope can become oppressive. I think that the
> dialogic freedom may come from the possibility to create such a
> relationship between the chronotopes that allows their participants to
> examine the boundaries and see them in each-others’ perspectives. In that
> sense I don’t see the relationship between the imagined and the reality as
> a *divide* as you put it, but as a fruitful boundary and dialogic
> contact-zone, where a new meaning stems exactly from being able to draw the
> boundary between them.
> I am intrigued with your last comment about Jewish “Adamic” world
> contrasting with the Greek classical world. What did you mean?
> What do you think?
> Ana
> On Mar 1, 2016, at 10:59 AM, Lplarry <lpscholar2@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ana,
> In this response the paradigms hinge on the notion of differing
> chrono/topes.
> * community of players (CoPl)
> * reality (RC) or ontological
> * imagined (IC)
> Therefore, the theme of being *cast out* may be playing with a theme of
> *falling away* or being *cast out* from the garden of Eden as a chronotopic
> theme.
> There seems to be a theme of what dominates *over* what becomes its
> opposite.
> Ana, you suggest both drama and dialogical chronotopes INVOKE OR SUMMON
> UP imagined worlds. I will add the metaphor that both *capture* or are
> *captured by* imaginal worlds. This is the *capta* aspect of. Chronotopes.
> Now to *be* summoned or invoked or embodied or endowed are polar
> opposites in your horizon of understanding.
> A clear di/vergence of the imaginal and ontological and community of
> players chronotopes.
> I question if BOTH the imaginal AND ontological exist within a relation
> of con/vergence as primary prior to becoming differentiated into polar
> opposites.
> This version of the imaginal/reality *divide* plays with the notion of
> *apposition* prior to the forming of polar opposites with one side
> *capturing* the other side by dominating over the other, placing the other
> side *under* or relagated to the *shadows*.
> The play of the Jewiish *Adamic* world contrasting with the Greek
> classical world seems to have a place in this turn taking
> Larry
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Dr. Ana Marjanovic-Shane" <anamshane@gmail.com>
> Sent: ‎2016-‎03-‎01 12:41 AM
> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Response to Spoilsport: Beyond oppositional
> dualities indrama in education and dialogic pedagogy to promote learning
> possibilities
> Dear Sue and Brian and all,
> First – thanks for taking the time and effort to respond to my paper. I
> take your response very seriously. I have some questions for clarification
> and also some more comments regarding what I think is a “paradigmatic
> difference” – rather than an arbitrary dichotomy between the two approaches
> to education that I outlined in my paper.
> Please see my responses below, between your words - in blue!
> Ana
> __________
> On Feb 29, 2016, at 1:09 AM, Susan Davis <s.davis@cqu.edu.au> wrote:
> As scholars and practitioners committed to the use of drama for
> educational purposes we wish to respond briefly to Ana Marjanovic-Shane’s
> article: “Spoilsport” in drama in education vs. dialogic pedagogy. Our
> intention is to provide some of our shared professional understanding of
> drama’s use in educational contexts that we hope will illuminate some of
> the misunderstandings we find in this article. At the same time, we look
> forward to future productive dialogue about what we regard as potential
> overlaps between these pedagogical approaches.
> We need to stress from the start that there is no unified field named
> ‘drama in education’ that would extend to those who work within playworlds,
> or practice psychodrama and so forth as claimed by Marjanovic-Shane. We
> confine our remarks to the field that we are knowledgeable about and from
> which Marjanovic-Shane draws her example: a classroom use of drama
> described by Heathcote as ‘drama in education’ or ‘educational drama’ and
> more recently as process drama, applied theatre, and dramatic inquiry,
> among other terms.  In fact these fields of practice have arisen from very
> different communities in progressive school education, educational
> psychology, early childhood, and play all of whom independently discovered
> the power of using drama in their practice. There have only recently been
> some nascent interactions between these groups (see for example the book
> ‘Dramatic Interactions in Education’ <
> http://www.bloomsbury.com/au/dramatic-interactions-in-education-9781472576
> 910/> which we published last year
> [The entire original message is not included.]