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

[Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration

Sorry if this has been discussed and I just missed it but David’s post made me wonder: Unintended consequences are likely even with cooperation, where the object of the project is determined ahead of time. With collaboration the object is not fully elaborated, so the outcome is not unintended; it isn’t even known ahead of time. I assume that a curriculum must be specific enough to get “buy in” from people with money and power. Doesn’t that mean that schooling will necessarily be cooperative, rather than collaborative and that collaboration will have to be sought outside of school? Is Mike’s work with out-of-school programs in The Fifth Dimension relevant?

> On Apr 20, 2016, at 5:10 PM, David Kellogg <dkellogg60@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think that if you read what I wrote, Michael, you will see that it does
> not say that PISA in particular or mass testing in general is benign. On
> the contrary, I think a lot of the points that you make are actually made
> before you, in my posting, when I said that the logic of PISA was the logic
> of No Child Left Behind.
> But let's be precise. The woman who is sharing this office is currently
> designing "time of response" tests for volunteer simultaneous interpreters
> that are pretty similar to "Titchener's Piano", the key-pressing tests that
> Vygotsky used in HDHMF. These tests will decide whether or not she gets a
> Ph.D. and enjoys a life of cultivated leisure in the busy economy of China,
> and in that sense they are certainly high stakes. But she is having trouble
> recruiting experimental subjects because the cash incentive that she is
> offering the subjects is far less than what a professional simultaneous
> interpreter makes on the job and the result of the test, while important
> for her, is of no consequence whatsoever to the experimental subjects. When
> we say a "high stakes test" we mean something that is high stakes for the
> testee, not something that is high stakes for the interpreter or the test
> designer. Similarly, a college entrance exam is high stakes for a high
> school leaver, but not for the professor who is writing the questions, and
> a job interview is high stakes for the interviewee but not for the
> interviewer surfing the internet on his cell phone. PISA is not a high
> stakes test for the people who take it: in the normal as well as the
> technical sense of the word, it is not a high stakes test.
> It often happens that attempts at replacing an evolved solution with a
> designed one has unintended consequences. The negative side of that we
> know: the failure of socialism in the USSR which has given a new lease on
> life to a particularly decrepit and bestial form of capitalism. (I am
> always amused to hear it called "neoliberal", because of course it is...and
> it should remind us of the true, nineteenth century meaning of the term
> liberal and hesitate to use "liberal" to designate human progress.) The
> positive side, I think, is a little less well known, but when you think
> about it you see that many great and even not so great strides forward in
> human progress--women's suffrage, compulsory education, Obamacare--have
> been unintended consequences (the idea that women would help outvote
> blacks, the idea that education would replace less efficient child labor
> with that of their parents, and the attempt to prop up employer provided
> health care plans which were in turn a response to the wage freeze imposed
> after the second world war to prevent the rise of the unions).
> PISA data was important in making the case for Catalan independence--both
> directly and indirectly. Directly, Catalan independence parties used
> Catalan immersion's strong PISA scores to show that a Catalan speaking
> country would be fully able to operate without Castilian, as a full member
> of the European Union. This direct argument was, I think, quite false: it
> ignored the fact that Catalonia has far more technically advanced industry
> than other parts of Spain. Indirectly, the neo-Franquist government fought
> back by the usual trick of forcing Catalonia to provide full education in
> Castilian to every student who wanted it, trying to force Catalan immersion
> school districts into bankruptcy; this petty obstructionism soon brought
> even the non-Catalan speakers into the independence movement. Of course,
> that wasn't enough: when it was clear that Catalonia would vote
> overwhelmingly for independence, the court simply declared the vote
> unconstitutional. The Basque region, which has a similar immersion
> programme, was immediately cowed into submission, which probably means more
> years of fruitless terrorism, something that the Castilian-dominant
> bourgeoisie can certainly live with. In the end, it is a matter of the
> relationship of forces, but that doesn't mean that empirical data is
> completely irrelevant--it is one more weapon, and if you leave it lying
> around, the other side will pick it up and hit you with it
> Closer to home, take marriage equality. Of course, like Catalan
> independence, it is ultimately a question of the relationship of force--it
> was really, in the long run, brought about by generations of brave lesbians
> and gay men who fought cops and gay-bashing terrorists, courageously "came
> out" to their colleagues and their families, and for one long dark decade
> died like flies while the Reagan regime literally gloated. But can we
> explain the short term--how to explain its rapid progress through courts
> which have been carefully stacked by cultural conservatives over the same
> period?
> One legally unanswerable argument is simply that people are "born that
> way", and therefore cannot be lawfully deprived of rights that are accorded
> American citizens who are born with so-called "normal" sexual proclivities.
> The evidence is that this argument, although legally impeccable, happens to
> be empirically wrong. Interestingly, the usual tests for researching this
> are the same that Vygotsky uses in his lecture on heredity, when he
> compares monozygotic twins and heterozygotic twins on measures of musical
> ability and language ability. Vygotsky concludes, from the fact that there
> is a large difference between twin types in musical ability and a small one
> in language ability, that music is more susceptible to hereditary influence
> than speech. These (low-stakes) tests show that sexual preferences are
> actually somewhere between music and speech. So the Lesbian Avengers
> were empirically right to coin the slogan "We recruit!"; gay people--just
> like heterosexuals--are not necessarily "born that way".
> (You know what they say about men with small fingers? Yeah...they make
> lousy cellists--they should probably study the violin instead.)
> David Kellogg
> Macquarie University
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 7:05 AM, Glassman, Michael <glassman.13@osu.edu>
> wrote:
>> Hi David,
>> I think I might disagree with you here.  I don't see PISA as benign.  I
>> cannot speak to Catalonia but in two cultures where I have some knowledge
>> of its impact I think it functions very much as a high stakes test.  While
>> it is true it impacts the society at large rather than the individual, most
>> high stakes test have more impact on institutions than individuals.
>> Schools are often not concerned with individual students in high stakes
>> testing here in the United States but with their own reputations.  That is
>> how they are presented and I think very often that is how they are taken.
>> When students do poorly on them it is determined the school is falling
>> behind, the school must make changes.  The people at Pearson make the same
>> argument that they are really testing the syllabi and curriculum.  This
>> argument is often used by charter schools.  It has also shown up in tying
>> teachers' pay to testing.  PISA it seems to me does this writ large.  They
>> measure students in different cultures to a single scale, and by doing this
>> and publishing comparisons get educational institutions to adopt their
>> definitions of knowledge and what it means to be knowledgeable.  At least
>> here in the United States there is a very strong trickle-down effect from
>> PISA and educators all the way down are under pressure to do better on
>> their tests.
>> This is what worries me about their view of collaborative problem
>> solving.  Not only are they going to wind up defining collaboration (and
>> believe it or not they already are.  I actually found this out of a
>> communication on collaboration where the respondent said "you know PISA
>> developed a framework on collaboration" as if this was going to end the
>> discussion and where should all move forward from there) but they are going
>> to directly impact the way education, and collaborative learning, is done
>> in formal educational settings.  Leading to the  "Why don't American kids
>> collaborate better than Singapore kids" irony where we become competitive
>> about our international standing in collaboration.  To me this is a very
>> dangerous turn, attempting to drag in a more Pragmatic/democratic ideal
>> into a neoliberal, competitive framework.
>> Sort of in response to Alfredo I see web tools as new artifacts that have
>> the possibility of engaging new types of human processes, perhaps
>> collaborative processes, that can lead to new collaborative tools (For
>> instance during Fukushima individuals were able to use web tools to create
>> a space where they shared and organized information about radiation levels
>> at different distances from he reactor.  I wonder if we are at the
>> beginning of this, but fear what it means by ideas such as collaborative
>> learning being captured by organizations such as PISA, who are very clear
>> that collaboration is all about getting those good jobs in the 21st
>> century.  The bosses want you to work well together.
>> Michael
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:
>> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of David Kellogg
>> Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2016 4:38 PM
>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>> 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%20Collaborat
>>> ive%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