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

[Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration



Thanks Annalisa for taking the care (CARE, which in fact you mention as crucial in/for collaboration, an observation I applaud and believe to be true) of summarizing. 

David, what an insightful reflection on the two sides of PISA-like testing! You mention the case of Catalonia with respect to bilingual education, which is, in my view, a laudable one. But I don to agree that PISA has no consequences to the individuals it uses as indexes of the collective practices it targets: changes in those practices will immediately affect the individuals implicated, as students, or as parents of future students, or as customers of corporations driven by former school students. PISA measures subject domains that are existing divisions in school curricula. It is not care, or compassion, or ecological awareness what it measures, but it measures language, math, science, etc. Now, I am very interested in your point that PISA is directed towards educational policy, not towards individuals. My question then is: Is PISA a potential actor in a revolutionary transformation of education, or will it always remain just a tool for quantitative change: more of this, less of that? Given that what PISA measures is a reflection of already-existing curricular divisions, how does/may PISA participate in the transformation of those divisions? I guess the answer is complex, and may involve considering PISA to be (today inescapable) part of a much larger landscape.
Alfredo
________________________________________
From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> on behalf of David Kellogg <dkellogg60@gmail.com>
Sent: 19 April 2016 22:38
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration

I think it's both true and untrue to say that PISA measures the
"cooperation" of individuals. Something we are all missing here, in our
general (and, for my part anyway, very much shared) distaste for large
scale and cross cultural tests, is that the PISA tests are administered to
individuals, but they are not designed to "measure" individual performances
at all. They are not high stakes tests, and there are actually no
consequences whatsoever for the individuals who take them. Instead, they
are something quite rare (and in my view precious) in the psychometric
world: a test of syllabus designers, teacher training institutions, and
ultimately education budgets.

I  think you can certainly blame the logic here. At bottom, it is the same
logic that says that when a child is failing, you punish the teachers. But
in this case that logic is actually applied to persons with real power
over educational inputs, and there are no untoward consequences towards
innocent learners or even teachers. I'm not so sure that's a bad
thing. PISA, for all its undoubted shortcomings--shortcomings that it
shares with any and all forms of "cross-cultural" psychological testing,
shortcomings which Vygotsky criticized in HDHMF and which Luria
inadvertently exposed in his Uzbekistan work, shortcomings which
were deliberately and explicitly analysed in the earlier work of people
like Sylvia Scribner, Joseph Glick and Mike Cole--PISA has played a very
progressive role in places like Catalonia, where it has provided clear
evidence in support of Catalan immersion and bilingual education. I think
it's no accident that PISA scores are very often cited by critics of US
education.

Perhaps the best way to put it is to say that the "unit of analysis" in
PISA is the individual, but the phenomenon to be explained is national
educational policy. That is both its weakness (because the individual is
actually an element and not a unit here) and its strength (because unlike
almost all other forms of testing there are no individual consequences).

David Kellogg
Macquarie University


On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 5:20 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil <a.j.gil@iped.uio.no>
wrote:

> Hi Michael, I share your concern. And I am sure many in this list too, and
> many researchers in traditions associated to xmca seem to agree too...
> There must then be some mechanism that, despite this considerably
> widespread awareness of the problem and the need to change, it is still
> possible for educational policy and implementation to continue without
> there being much substantial discussion about the kind of
> society/personalities schooling assumes and generates, of there  not being
> many such discussions in our academic presentations, publications,
> parent-teacher meetings... Rod's comment on collusion and its historical
> (non-)use may be part of the explanation, the type of discourses there
> being at work. Perhaps change is slower than we wish it to be (though
> certainly things are different now that when I went to school in Spain in
> the 80's, and that's not a lot of time), or we should not wait too long for
> evolution to continue and try to make more of a revolution...
>
> You mention artifacts in your note, and I know you specify them as part of
> a larger system of co-evolution. It seems to be the case, however, that the
> very focus on artifacts to the detriment of the operations may be at the
> heart of the problem. Andy was already pointing to the fact that the
> current state of affairs consists in first conceiving students as separated
> individuals, and then creating (from the outside) artifacts for supporting
> them in collaborating, as if those artifacts were to do the trick of
> putting them back together... Some may then say that artifacts then
> "mediate" between the different students so that something intersubjective
> emerges... But if what allows people to stick together is not the artifacts
> themselves, but what Larry calls shared attention (taking "attention" here
> to be something of psychological import, not just a "lower function" or
> component of the person but as a dispositional character that involves a
> multi-functional organization, and something that always includes some
> materials from the environment), then it is the process of using tools, the
> subjective-generating processes, what are of interest. Anyway, this is just
> to add more words to what you were already saying. But if the shift in
> (educational, assessment) practice has to do with a shift in the discourse,
> then I think finding ways of talking about collaboration where the primacy
> of the joint attention within places (to use Larry's formulation) is made
> patent and not confused may be part of the (revolutionary) solution. This
> is a very fascinating topic!
>
> Alfredo
> ________________________________________
> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> on behalf of Glassman, Michael <glassman.13@osu.edu>
> Sent: 19 April 2016 20:33
> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration
>
> Hi Alfredo,
>
> At the end of Tomasello's article he seems to be arguing for some akin to
> co-evolution.  That we develop artifacts that lead us toward
> cooperation/collaboration, but that the development of these artifacts are
> a product of collaboration.  The artifacts push us forward to
> collaboration.  The collaboration pushes us forward to create artifacts.
> Part I think of what he calls Vygotskian intelligence.  The role of
> education then is to lead us into scenarios of this co-evolution, or
> "boot-strapping."  Should we even be concerned with individual
> characteristics then, outside of the fact that they are part of what makes
> us human.  This is what worries me about the PISA framework.  Is it
> actually antithetical to a more collaborative society.
>
> Michael
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:
> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Alfredo Jornet Gil
> Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2016 2:17 PM
> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>;
> ablunden@mira.net
> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration
>
> ​​I just read a PISA related document that I found online on collaboration
> ( here<
> http://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/Draft%20PISA%202015%20Collaborative%20Problem%20Solving%20Framework%20.pdf>
> ), and it seems to me that PISA's starting point is the idea that
> ​collaboration is the result of putting (adding) individuals, that is, that
> collaboration works by the principle of addition. From this view, it seems
> that each individual comes into group tasks with her own subjectivity, and
> then, in and through the fact of working together with others towards a
> shared goal, there emerges something intersubjective and which leads to
> learning.
>
>
> Because PISA's motive is to *measure*, and most specifically to measure
> individuals, the index for measuring collaboration is established as the
> set of variables that they call "Collaboration Skills". These, I assume,
> are thought just as we tend to think of subjectivity: something we carry
> along and which we can put to play when we do things with others so that
> something different and bigger emerges from which we all will learn. This
> is a view that takes the individual as the primary phenomenon, and
> collaboration as a something that results from the putting of individuals
> to work together.
>
>
> But if we think of collaboration as the PRIMARY phenomenon, as I believe
> an approach a là Vygotsky would have it, then intersubjectivity (and not
> subjectivity) is primary. The generativeness of collaboration does not stem
> from an additive principle, but has a dynamic of its own. Here, any single
> subjectivity is a manifestation or refraction of that intersubjective
> phenomenon that we call collaboration. If collaboration skills exist only
> (emerge and are put to work only) in collaboration, are they features of
> the individual that can be measured? Or are not they features of the
> collaborative settings?
>
>
> Is not ​a parent's carrying of a baby in her arms a collaborative
> achievement? Obviously, there need to be two different individuals in the
> first place, but for there to be the two individuals, mother/father and
> baby there needs to be something larger that is parenting, and which indeed
> allows (and accounts) for the very existence of parents and children in the
> first place. Obviously too, for there to be a possibility for the
> collaborative achievement of {carrying | being carried} the baby and the
> mum need to have certain biological features and predispositions, such as
> priming towards grabbing and holding. But the coordination requires of
> joint work by the two and so there is a change that is not biological only
> but also and at the same time cultural. And so, assuming that all
> biological premises are on place, could we have anticipated or said
> anything about their collaborative achievement, of the type of mum-baby
> relation that was going to emerge? We know there are different practices of
> carrying babies that lead to different personalities, as works such as
> those by Mead and Bateson in the Balinese suggest.
>
>
> So, there are a number of problems in the idea of measuring collaborative
> skills as indexes for successful collaboration in education. First, if we
> agree that collaboration itself is a practice, and as such, may take many
> different forms and lead to very different characters/personalities, then
> for us to be able to agree on a set of collaborative skills we need to have
> first settled upon a given type of collaboration. Yet, in the literature
> this tends to be seen against the other measuring outcome: "learning
> outcomes"; in the document I've been looking at this was "collaborative
> problem solving". A discussion on WHAT kind of society (which is the same
> as to ask what kind of collaborations) we want to make possible through
> education, seems to be quite absent. The second and related problem
> concerns whether it makes sense at all to try to measure collaboration by
> means of individual outcomes, rather than in terms of collaborative
> settings themselves. But this is of course a requirement and result of the
> motive of measurement itself, specially when what needs to be reported back
> is that each individual performs adequately.
>
>
> Alfredo
>
> ________________________________________
> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> on behalf of Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>
> Sent: 19 April 2016 16:46
> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration
>
> I probably count as a "difficult person", Greg, but through my life, with
> a number of de facto relationships with women, I can't remember one that
> was disinclined to engage in conflict. One only has to watch any sit. com.
> on TV to see that it is an established fact of modern capitalist society
> that men cannot handle verbal conflict. As to physical conflict, that is
> sadly an altogether other matter. :) Andy (Enjoy that bit of conflict?)
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> *Andy Blunden*
> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
> On 20/04/2016 12:35 AM, Greg Mcverry wrote:
> > I like the connotative switch. Your version is way more inclusive mf
> > multiple perspectives.
> >
> > Overall this has been a wonderful thread.
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 7:57 PM Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net
> > <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>> wrote:
> >
> >     Greg, what about instead of "conflict ... Seems rooted
> >     in a
> >     male dominant discourse or view on the world"
> >     something like
> >     "the male dominant discourse or view on conflict" is
> >     destructive of collaboration.
> >     Andy
> >     ------------------------------------------------------------
> >     *Andy Blunden*
> >     http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
> >     <http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/>;
> >     On 19/04/2016 9:32 AM, Greg Mcverry wrote:
> >     >
> >     > I can find few to no instances where work and
> >     activity are
> >     > not done collaboratively, in terms of work with others.
> >     >
> >     > It seems much of this discussion centers around work we
> >     > choose to do, work we have to do, and choosing to do
> >     this
> >     > work while playing well with others.
> >     >
> >     > So if conflict is central to collaboration it would
> >     > therefore have to be central to work.
> >     >
> >     > Centering success and change as the result of
> >     conflict has
> >     > never sat well with me. Seems rooted in a male dominant
> >     > discourse or view on the world.
> >     >
> >     > Maybe its cooperation before conflict. Could those
> >     be the
> >     > poles of collaboration?
> >     >
> >     > I am not a fan of measuring collaboration (even
> >     though my
> >     > first real publication was on the development of these
> >     > instruments). Especially as Lemke et al shared the
> >     recent
> >     > assessment piece. Collaboration and the rest of the so
> >     > called 21st century skills are better measured and
> >     > developed in the spaces of learning rather than the
> >     learner.
> >     >
> >     > And these spaces must include the digital. I agree that
> >     > there are resources wasted on edtech under the banner of
> >     > collaboration.
> >     >
> >     > Yet I have seen and am a member of many open educational
> >     > communities who harness a collective knowledge base that
> >     > was never before possible due to limits of time and
> >     > distance...including this listserv.
> >     >
> >     > So collaboration... I like that, but testing
> >     > collaboration. No,  that sounds stupid.
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016, 6:31 PM mike cole
> >     <mcole@ucsd.edu <mailto:mcole@ucsd.edu>
> >     > <mailto:mcole@ucsd.edu <mailto:mcole@ucsd.edu>>> wrote:
> >     >
> >     >     Perhaps the work of mike tomasello is relevant
> >     to this
> >     >     discussion. I attach
> >     >     one article. Interesting title, too.
> >     >     mike
> >     >
> >     >     On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 8:32 AM, Andy Blunden
> >     >     <ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>
> >     <mailto:ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>>>
> >     wrote:
> >     >
> >     >     > Collaboration has a whole spectrum in many
> >     different
> >     >     directions. But I
> >     >     > think the conflict is an essential part of
> >     >     collaboration. Collaboration is
> >     >     > unity and difference. Both are required or
> >     there is
> >     >     no collaboration. The
> >     >     > "conflict" may be trivial, but then the moment of
> >     >     collaboration is trivial
> >     >     > as well. And the learning is trivial.
> >     >     >
> >     >     > I take collaboration as essentially between
> >     >     distinct, i,e, mutually
> >     >     > independent subjects. If two people who are clones
> >     >     of each other work
> >     >     > together on the same task, since their every
> >     thought
> >     >     is identical there is
> >     >     > no conflict. Equally two employees, for example,
> >     >     carrying out orders from
> >     >     > the same boss, work together, I don't see this as
> >     >     collaboration. But these
> >     >     > are trivial limiting cases. All collaborators have
> >     >     differences relevant to
> >     >     > the task at hand, and unless it is just a routine
> >     >     division of labour (which
> >     >     > I call cooperation), or conflict is forbidden or
> >     >     suppressed, there has to
> >     >     > be some conflict, some ripple on the waters.
> >     >     >
> >     >     > Andy
> >     >     >
> >     >
> >      ------------------------------------------------------------
> >     >     > *Andy Blunden*
> >     >     > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
> >     <http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/>;
> >     >     <http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/>;
> >     >     > On 19/04/2016 1:01 AM, Glassman, Michael wrote:
> >     >     >
> >     >     >> Hi Larry and Andy,
> >     >     >>
> >     >     >> This issue of commitment is a difficult one.
> >     If I
> >     >     might bring in a
> >     >     >> little bit of Mark Granovetter and Everett
> >     Rogers,
> >     >     marriage is a strong tie
> >     >     >> relationships.  Individuals make a commitment to
> >     >     it, as Larry says, so that
> >     >     >> the relationship is sustainable through even
> >     >     adversarial conflict, or does
> >     >     >> not collapse at the first sign of conflict.  But
> >     >     most collaborations,
> >     >     >> especially those that lead to problem
> >     solving, are
> >     >     based in weak tie
> >     >     >> networks.  Do we want to say that weak ties
> >     >     networks can only lead to
> >     >     >> cooperation.  Isn't there something to
> >     >     collaboration that allows
> >     >     >> individuals without a prior or even sustainable
> >     >     relationship to come
> >     >     >> together to create change through evolutionary
> >     >     disagreement that does not
> >     >     >> engender conflict?  Is that collaboration or
> >     is it
> >     >     something else.
> >     >     >>
> >     >     >> Michael
> >     >     >>
> >     >     >> -----Original Message-----
> >     >     >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
> >     <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> >     >     <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
> >     <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>> [mailto:
> >     >     >> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
> >     <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> >     >     <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
> >     <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>>] On Behalf Of
> >     >     Lplarry
> >     >     >> Sent: Monday, April 18, 2016 10:25 AM
> >     >     >> To: Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net
> >     <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>
> >     >     <mailto:ablunden@mira.net
> >     <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>>>; eXtended Mind, Culture,
> >     >     Activity <
> >     >     >> xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
> >     <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> >     >     <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
> >     <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>>>
> >     >     >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration
> >     >     >>
> >     >     >> Andy,
> >     >     >> This introduction of the image of marriage as the
> >     >     archetype of
> >     >     >> collaboration certainly opens the concept of
> >     >     collaboration to multiple
> >     >     >> aspects of *engaging conflict* or *managing
> >     conflict*.
> >     >     >> To say collaboration is (like) marriage
> >     carries us
> >     >     into a vast field of
> >     >     >> shared (and conflictual) meanings.
> >     >     >> Interesting how this image opens towards the
> >     >     imaginal and then travels to
> >     >     >> distinguishing ZPD from scaffolding.
> >     >     >>
> >     >     >> To move from co-operation towards
> >     collaboration (as
> >     >     marriage) is moving
> >     >     >> towards notions of *commitment* and *determinate
> >     >     relations* that remain
> >     >     >> always *open to change* but within a continuing
> >     >     commitment/collaboration.
> >     >     >>
> >     >     >> Marriage is a pregnant gestating image for
> >     engaging
> >     >     the concept of
> >     >     >> collaboration. Marriage as socio-historically
> >     >     meaningful.
> >     >     >>
> >     >     >>
> >     >     >>
> >     >     >>
> >     >     >> Sent from my Windows 10 phone
> >     >     >>
> >     >     >> From: Andy Blunden
> >     >     >> Sent: April 18, 2016 5:58 AM
> >     >     >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> >     >     >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration
> >     >     >>
> >     >     >> The field is rife with different definitions; I
> >     >     choose the set of
> >     >     >> definitions which suit the overall concept I am
> >     >     developing. Can't do
> >     >     >> anything about that! But the issue of
> >     >     >> *conflict* is absolutely essential. Any co-called
> >     >     collaboration in which
> >     >     >> conflict is either suppressed or organised
> >     away is
> >     >     certainly not worthy of
> >     >     >> the name.
> >     >     >>
> >     >     >> That said, conflict has the potential always to
> >     >     destroy a collaboration,
> >     >     >> and at the same time can be moderated so
> >     >     successfully that it is positively
> >     >     >> enjoyable. The archetype of collaboration is
> >     >     marriage, so we all know what
> >     >     >> this is about. Managing conflict is the most
> >     >     essential element of
> >     >     >> collaboration, but that includes encouraging
> >     it as
> >     >     well as moderating it.
> >     >     >>
> >     >     >> This issue has echoes of the ZPD vs "scaffolding"
> >     >     question.
> >     >     >>
> >     >     >> Andy
> >     >     >>
> >     >
> >      ------------------------------------------------------------
> >     >     >> *Andy Blunden*
> >     >     >> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
> >     <http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/>;
> >     >     <http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/>;
> >     >     >> On 18/04/2016 10:33 PM, Glassman, Michael wrote:
> >     >     >>
> >     >     >>> Hi Andy,
> >     >     >>>
> >     >     >>> Thanks for your response.  I would like to put
> >     >     aside the issue of
> >     >     >>> computers which I think is extraordinarily
> >     complex
> >     >     (are we talking about
> >     >     >>> the Internet, or the Ethernet, or the Web, or
> >     >     Artificial Intelligence or
> >     >     >>> Augmentation?  More and more I am feeling these
> >     >     distinctions are critical).
> >     >     >>>
> >     >     >>> But your post does refer to issues I am
> >     struggling
> >     >     with.  There has been
> >     >     >>> a lot of talk of the difference between
> >     >     cooperation and collaboration at a
> >     >     >>> number of levels.  Right now I think I like
> >     >     Stephen Downes' distinction
> >     >     >>> which is cooperation is engaging in
> >     community work
> >     >     for your own needs - so
> >     >     >>> you never really give yourself up to the
> >     learning
> >     >     community, while
> >     >     >>> collaboration involves actually creating a
> >     >     community.  Others I think see
> >     >     >>> collaboration as the development of shared
> >     meaning
> >     >     while cooperation is
> >     >     >>> simply (shared isn't the right word, right?)
> >     >     action towards a goal.  I
> >     >     >>> think both to a certain degree reflect your
> >     thinking.
> >     >     >>>
> >     >     >>> I am interested in the idea of conflict, which I
> >     >     think would be
> >     >     >>> antithetical to PISA's conception of
> >     >     collaboration, they seem to be looking
> >     >     >>> to cut down on conflict as much as possible.  It
> >     >     also seems to work against
> >     >     >>> a number of uses of collaboration in the
> >     field of
> >     >     education.  Does Alfie
> >     >     >>> Kohn talk about collaboration - what would
> >     he say
> >     >     about conflict.
> >     >     >>>
> >     >     >>> So I'm thinking though these just working
> >     together
> >     >     visions of
> >     >     >>> collaboration are missing that "something" and
> >     >     conflict, as
> >     >     >>> counter-intuitive as it is to models of
> >     >     collaboration might make sense.
> >     >     >>> But what do we mean by conflict.
> >     >     >>>
> >     >     >>> Is it conflict between members of the
> >     >     collaborative group or is it the
> >     >     >>> abilities of the collaborative group to see
> >     >     conflict between their
> >     >     >>> solutions and the realities of the world around
> >     >     them (I know, another
> >     >     >>> loaded phrase).
> >     >     >>>
> >     >     >>> We also have a tendency to see conflict of
> >     >     adversarial.  If there is one
> >     >     >>> thing I think collaboration is, it is
> >     >     non-adversarial in nature.  So can
> >     >     >>> ideas be in conflict without individuals raising
> >     >     those being adversarial
> >     >     >>> with each other.  What if people are adversarial
> >     >     to each other and yet
> >     >     >>> still work together to accomplish important
> >     >     things, or is this
> >     >     >>> cooperation?  Or is these another concept that
> >     >     hasn't been defined, or
> >     >     >>> perhaps I am not grasping?
> >     >     >>>
> >     >     >>> The danger with PISA's definition is there is
> >     >     really no mechanism for
> >     >     >>> change.  Should collaboration have a
> >     mechanism for
> >     >     change or innovation?
> >     >     >>>
> >     >     >>> Thoughts running around my head.
> >     >     >>>
> >     >     >>> MIchael
> >     >     >>>
> >     >     >>> -----Original Message-----
> >     >     >>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
> >     <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> >     >     <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
> >     <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
> >     >     >>> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
> >     <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> >     >     <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
> >     <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>>] On Behalf Of
> >     >     Andy Blunden
> >     >     >>> Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2016 9:10 PM
> >     >     >>> To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
> >     <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> >     >     <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
> >     <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
> >     >     >>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration
> >     >     >>>
> >     >     >>> "Collaboration" is a big word in my universe,
> >     >     Michael, so I'll offer
> >     >     >>> some observations.
> >     >     >>>
> >     >     >>> Collaboration as "together working" means
> >     >     specifically working together
> >     >     >>> to a common object (aim). That generally entails
> >     >     working together to change
> >     >     >>> an object-of-labour (/Arbeitsgegenstand/).
> >     >     >>>
> >     >     >>> There is a lot of discussion about the
> >     difference
> >     >     between Collaboration
> >     >     >>> and the etymologically identical
> >     Cooperation, much
> >     >     of this is in the
> >     >     >>> "educational debate." As I see it, Collaboration
> >     >     essentially involves both
> >     >     >>> cooperation and conflict. Conflict is also one
> >     >     form or aspect of
> >     >     >>> collaboration, because the parties are working
> >     >     towards two opposite
> >     >     >>> concepts of the same object. "Object" here
> >     >     therefore has a slippery
> >     >     >>> meaning. It can mean the
> >     /Arbeitsgegenstand/, the
> >     >     object worked upon, or
> >     >     >>> the Gegenstand, the object aimed for. Both ideas
> >     >     incorporate the
> >     >     >>> possibility of difference.
> >     >     >>>
> >     >     >>> Collaboration essentially involves the coming
> >     >     together of distinct
> >     >     >>> parties (or subjects). True Collaboration
> >     involves
> >     >     a merging of the
> >     >     >>> subjectivities for the course of a single
> >     project,
> >     >     but there are "limiting
> >     >     >>> cases" of non-collaborative collaboration. These
> >     >     include an exchange of
> >     >     >>> labour governed by a negotiation of a contract
> >     >     (such as customer-service
> >     >     >>> provider in which the subjects retain their
> >     mutual
> >     >     independence throughout)
> >     >     >>> and command-and-obey (in which one subject is
> >     >     subordinated to another).
> >     >     >>>
> >     >     >>> Cooperation does not imply conflict within the
> >     >     working relationship
> >     >     >>> usually because there is a division of labour;
> >     >     Collaboration on the other
> >     >     >>> hand involves each party taking a critical
> >     >     attitude towards the
> >     >     >>> contribution of the other party. o conflict
> >     is an
> >     >     essential ingredient to
> >     >     >>> Collaboration.
> >     >     >>>
> >     >     >>> Collaboration is a learning process, to the
> >     extent
> >     >     that one could argue
> >     >     >>> that learning can *only* be a Collaborative
> >     >     process. So Collaboration means
> >     >     >>> that the object (aim) of the labour changes,
> >     >     because the /concept /of the
> >     >     >>> object changes.
> >     >     >>> Collaborators learn about the object (worked
> >     upon)
> >     >     in the process of
> >     >     >>> working on it, and the object (aim) by
> >     realising it.
> >     >     >>>
> >     >     >>> In education there has been an unfortunate
> >     >     development in which (1)
> >     >     >>> students work independently because they are
> >     >     physically or organisationally
> >     >     >>> distant, (2) Collaboration between the
> >     students is
> >     >     then facilitated by the
> >     >     >>> use of computer and communication equipment, (3)
> >     >     Students who are already
> >     >     >>> face-to-face are obliged to introduce a computer
> >     >     between them so that their
> >     >     >>> collaboration, instead of being face-to-face,
> >     >     mediated only by the
> >     >     >>> /Arbeitsgegenstand/, they now find their
> >     >     Collaboration mediated by a
> >     >     >>> computer. That is, "Collaboration" has come to
> >     >     mean the undermining of
> >     >     >>> Collaboration by the use of Collaborative
> >     tools to
> >     >     avoid closer
> >     >     >>> collaboration.
> >     >     >>>
> >     >     >>> And this is the danger. The education
> >     bureaucracy
> >     >     has heard a bit about
> >     >     >>> the benefits of Collaboration as a learning
> >     >     process, and that Collaboration
> >     >     >>> requires equipment. So they get the idea
> >     that they
> >     >     have to separate
> >     >     >>> students or researchers from one another so that
> >     >     they can collaborate.
> >     >     >>> Once separated the bureaucacy can provide
> >     >     equipment to allow students
> >     >     >>> to Collaborate notwithstanding their having been
> >     >     separated from one
> >     >     >>> another. And the same goes for
> >     >     >>> students+teachers, research+industry,
> >     >     management+workers, etc.
> >     >     >>>
> >     >     >>> Does that help, Michael?
> >     >     >>> Andy
> >     >     >>>
> >     >     >>>
> >     >
> >      ------------------------------------------------------------
> >     >     >>> *Andy Blunden*
> >     >     >>> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
> >     <http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/>;
> >     >     <http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/>;
> >     >     >>> On 18/04/2016 6:38 AM, Glassman, Michael wrote:
> >     >     >>>
> >     >     >>>> Hello all,
> >     >     >>>>
> >     >     >>>> I have a question for anybody who might be
> >     >     willing to respond. How do
> >     >     >>>> you define collaboration?  What spurs this
> >     >     question is that PISA is
> >     >     >>>> developing a framework for testing
> >     collaboration
> >     >     internationally.  At first
> >     >     >>>> I thought I was getting punked, but it
> >     really is
> >     >     happening, the framework
> >     >     >>>> is at the link below.   The idea of
> >     collaboration
> >     >     is being used more and
> >     >     >>>> more - especially in contexts that involve
> >     >     computer/web based research, but
> >     >     >>>> it often times seems to be a placeholder. The
> >     >     word only came into vogue
> >     >     >>>> late nineteenth century I think -  col meaning
> >     >     together and labore meaning
> >     >     >>>> to labor.  A lot of people who discuss
> >     >     collaboration invoke Vygotsky (e.g.
> >     >     >>>> the PISA framework) or sometimes Dewey
> >     (Although
> >     >     I am kind of sure Dewey
> >     >     >>>> never actually used the word collaboration, but
> >     >     I  might be wrong).  Anyway
> >     >     >>>> the PISA document defines collaboration but
> >     in a
> >     >     very simplistic way I
> >     >     >>>> think so that it is not wrong but not
> >     helpful.  I
> >     >     know there was some
> >     >     >>>> research around language (being able
> >     >     >>>>
> >     >     >>>   to
> >     >     >>
> >     >     >>>     create shared meanings).  But so far to
> >     me it
> >     >     seems to miss the
> >     >     >>>> point, but I can't think what I would
> >     replace it
> >     >     with.  I guess you could
> >     >     >>>> call this a request for comments.  I find PISA
> >     >     creating a test for
> >     >     >>>> collaboration kind of dangerous.
> >     >     >>>>
> >     >     >>>>
> >     >
> >
> https://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/Draft%20PISA%202015%20Collabor
> >     >     >>>> a tive%20Problem%20Solving%20Framework%20.pdf
> >     >     >>>>
> >     >     >>>> Michael
> >     >     >>>>
> >     >     >>>>
> >     >     >>>>
> >     >     >>
> >     >     >>
> >     >     >>
> >     >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >     --
> >     >
> >     >     It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural
> >     >     science with an object
> >     >     that creates history. Ernst Boesch
> >     >
> >
>
>