[Xmca-l] Re: book of possible interest

Mon Jul 14 23:10:51 PDT 2014

Well, I do hope that Helen means that "for the moment", as I have learned
an awful lot from this book and even more from this discussion. You see, I
am trying to tease apart two very different processes that appear, on the
face of it, to be almost identical, but which also appear to have
diametrically opposite developmental effects.

One process is the process of getting people to feel at ease,
confident, and happy that they understand what you are saying because it is
actually something that is identical or at least very similar to what they
already think. Another, almost identical, process is the process of
"establishing ties" between a new form of knowledge and an earlier one.
BOTH of these processes, it seems to me, occur throughout Helen's book, and
it is easy to mistake the one for the other. BOTH of these processes, to
use our earlier terminology, involve "establishing ties", but only one of
them also involves breaking away.

For example, at one point in the book Helen, looking back over the Banksia
Bay PLZ data, rounds on herself for using a transparent piece of
scaffolding to elicit the word "communicate" from a group of teachers. What
bothers her is not that the answer itself is far too general to be of any
practical value to the teachers, but only that she had it very firmly in
mind, and kept badgering the teachers (as we all do, when we have a precise
answer in mind) until she got it. The alternative, she points out, would be
to take what she got and work with that.

Yes indeed. But I think the main reason that would have been more
interesting is not that it would have resulted in fewer rejections of
teacher answers and made people more at ease, confdent, and happy that they
understood, but rather than it would have yielded something more like a
concrete but unconscious and not yet volitionally controlled example of
excellence from the teacher's own practice. I almost always find that the
actual answers I want--the "methods" I end up imparting to my own teachers,
are already present in the data they bring me (because we almost always
begin with actual transcripts of their lessons) but they are generally not
methods but only moments, and moments that go unnoticed and therefore
ungeneralized in the hurly burly of actual teaching.

Last winter, Helen and I were at a conference in New Zealand where, among
other eventful episodes, Craig Brandist got up and gave a very precise list
of half a dozen different and utterly contradictory ways in which Bakhtin
uses the term "dialogue". Because the senses of "dialogue" are so many and
varied, people simply pick and choose, and they tend invariably to choose
the ones that are closest to the way they already think. It is as moments
like this that we need to remind ourselves that Bakhtin's "dialogue" does
not, for the most part, ever include children, or women; that he did not
"dialogue" with Volosinov or Medvedev when he allowed his acolytes
to plunder their corpses, and that his love of carnival and the public
marketplace does not extend to a belief in any form of political democracy.

So I think we should start off with an understanding that what Vygotsky
says about defect is not the same was what we now believe. Vygotsky, for
example, believed that sign language was not true language, and that even
the congenitally deaf should be taught to lip read; this is simply
wrong. (On the other hand, what he says about spontaneously created sign
languages--that they are essentially elaborated systems of gesture and they
lack the signifying functions--fits exactly with Susan Goldin-Meadow's
observations in Chicago.)

And one reason I think it is important to begin with this understanding is
this: sometimes--usually--LSV is right and we are wrong. In particular, I
think the "credit" view of defect, or, for that matter, ignorance of any
kind and not fully conscious teacher expertise risks becoming a liberal
platitude--the cup is always half full, so why not look on the bright side
of dearth? I certainly do not feel empowered by the fact that I know
English but I do not know ASL, and I rather doubt that deaf people feel
empowered by the opposite state of affairs. When I don't know something, I
do not see any bright side of not knowing it, for the very simple
reason that I can't see at all.

Vygotsky was probably very influenced by "Iolanta", an opera that
Tchaikovsky wrote--he certainly seems to quote it extensively in the last
chapter of "Thinking and Speech". In "Iolanta", King Renee copes with the
blindness of his daughter by having her shut up in a garden and forbidding
all his subjects from discussing light, sight, color or anything visible in
any way. Vaudemont, a knight of Burgundy, blunders into the garden,
discovers Iolanta's secret. Iolanta convinces him that sight is
unnecessary, but in the course of doing so, she develops the desire to see
and choose for herself.

David Kelogg
Hankuk University of Foreign Studies

On 15 July 2014 11:12, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:

> My reading of Vygotsky on 'defectology' was that the 'defect' was the
> problem in social relations, that is, the person who is different in some
> way suffers because of the way that difference is treated or not treated by
> others, not for anything in itself. One and the same feature could be a
> great benefit or a fatal flaw, depending on how others react to it.
> Except insofar as introducing the idea of a "credit view" is a move aimed
> at changing the perceptions and behaviours of others in relation to the
> subject, I don't think Vygotsky is an advocate of the mirror image of a
> deficit view. As I see it, he analyses the problem of the person being
> treated as deficient by means of the unit of *defect-compensation*. The
> defect (a problem arising in social interaction, with others) generates
> certain challenges which are overcome, generally also in interaction with
> others. This "compensation" leads to what Helen could call a "credit" and
> it is the dynamic set up between the social defect and social compensation
> which shapes the subject's psychology and their relation to others.
> Andy
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *Andy Blunden*
> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
>
>
> Helen Grimmett wrote:
>
>> I think what is unique about Vygotsky's work in defectology is that,
>> despite the name, it is not a deficit view (in the way that I understand
>> the term) at all.
>>
>> I understand the commonly used term 'deficit view' as a focus on what
>> children are 'missing' that needs to be provided to them by teachers to
>> bring them up to a pre-conceived idea of 'normal' for their age/grade
>> level
>> etc. Whereas, a 'credit view' focuses on what children are able to do and
>> bring to a learning situation, in which, in the interaction with others,
>> they will be able to become more able to do and 'be' more than they were
>> before (i.e. to develop), whether this be in the 'expected' ways to the
>> 'expected' level or in completely different ways to a variety of different
>> levels beyond or outside 'standard' expectations. From the little I have
>> read on defectology I think this is what Vygotsky was advocating - that
>> despite a child's blindness or deafness etc, development was still
>> possible
>> if mediational means were found that made use of the child's credits (i.e.
>> using sign language or braille so that children still had access to the
>> developmental opportunities provided by language). So I think your term
>> pre-abled is in fact a credit view rather than a deficit view.
>>
>> I was attempting to also use a credit view in my work with the teachers. I
>> saw them as being experienced practitioners who had lots to bring to our
>> discussions of teaching and learning, in which together we could see what
>> could be developed (new practices, new understandings). Once Kay and Mike
>> realised this they got on board and engaged in the process and (possibly
>> for the first time in a long while as they both saw themselves [and in
>> fact
>> are officially designated as] 'expert teachers') really reawakened the
>> process of developing as professionals. They blew off most of the content
>> I
>> was contributing, but they realised the process was actually about
>> 'unsticking' their own development and working out new and personally
>> interesting and meaningful ways of 'becoming' more as teachers, instead of
>> being stuck 'being' the teacher they had turned into over the years. Not
>> all of the teachers made this leap in the time I worked with them though.
>> Others were either quite disgruntled that I wouldn't provide them with
>> answers to 'fix' their own perceived deficits or patiently waited for me
>> to
>> go away and stop rocking the boat. From what I can gather though, Ann (the
>> principal) kept the boat rocking and managed over time to get more
>> teachers
>> to buy into the process of learning from each other and collaboratively
>> creating new practices. As we said earlier, development takes time as well
>> as effort.
>>
>> All I've got time for at the moment!
>>
>> Helen
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Dr Helen Grimmett
>> Lecturer, Student Adviser,
>> Faculty of Education,
>> Room G64F, Building 902
>> Monash University, Berwick campus
>> Phone: 9904 7171
>>
>> *New Book: *
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>> <http://monash.edu.au/education/news/50-years/?utm_
>> source=staff-email&utm_medium=email-signature&utm_campaign=50th>
>>
>>
>> On 14 July 2014 14:43, David Kellogg <dkellogg60@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Near the end of Chapter Three (p. 81), Helen is summing up her experience
>>> with the Banksia Bay PLZ and she notes with some dismay that her PDers
>>> have
>>> "a deficit view" of their children and tend towards "container models" of
>>> the mind ("empty vessel, sponge, blank canvas"). Only one teacher, Ann
>>> sees
>>> anything wrong with this, and Helen says "they don't necessarily value
>>> her
>>> opinion".
>>>
>>>  Helen finds herself rather conflicted: One the one hand, she says "If
>>> their representations of children really do represent their beliefs, then
>>> they are probably right to insist there is no need to change." And on the
>>> other, she says "My intention was never to say that their present
>>> practice
>>> was wrong, but to help them see alternative ways of thinking about
>>> children, learning, and teaching."
>>>
>>> Of course, if there is no need to change, then it follows that there is
>>> no
>>> reason to look for alternative ways of thinking about children, learning
>>> and teaching. The only reason for spending scarce cognitive resources on
>>> seeing different ways of looking at children is if you do, in fact, take
>>> a
>>> deficit view of the teachers. Ann, and the Regional Consultants,
>>> apparently
>>> do, but Helen realizes that there isn't much basis for this: not only do
>>> we
>>> have no actual data of lessons to look at, we know that one of the
>>> teachers, Kay, has been in the classroom for three decades (during which
>>> time Helen has spent at least one decade OUT of the classroom).
>>>
>>> While we were translating Vygotsky's "History of the Development of the
>>> Higher Psychological Functions" last year, some of my colleagues were
>>> taken
>>> aback by Vygotsky's use of terms like "moron", "imbecile", "idiot", and
>>> "cretin". Of course, Vygotsky is writing long before the "euphemisim
>>> treadmill" turned these into playground insults; for Vygotsky they are
>>> quite precise descriptors--not of cognitive ability but actually of
>>> LANGUAGE ability. But because our readership are progressive Korean
>>> teachers with strong views about these questions, we found that we
>>> couldn't
>>> even use the term "mentally retarded" without a strongly worded footnote
>>> disavowing the "deficit" thinking behind the term.
>>>
>>> I think that Vygotsky would have been surprised by this. I think he took
>>> it
>>> for granted that a defect was a deficit: being blind means a deficit in
>>> vision, and being deaf means a deficit in hearing. In the same way, a
>>> brain
>>> defect is not an asset. On the other hand, I think Vygotsky would find
>>> our
>>> own term "disabled" quite inaccurate: since all forms of development are
>>> compensatory and involve "circuitous routes" of one kind or another, and
>>> all developed children, even, and even especially, gifted children,
>>> contain
>>> islands of underdevelopment, the correct term for deficits of all kinds
>>> is
>>> not "disabled" but "pre-abled".
>>>
>>> Personally, I see nothing wrong with a deficit view of children that sees
>>> them as pre-abled (or, as Vygotsky liked to say, 'primitivist"; that is,
>>> they are waiting for the mediational means that we have foolishly
>>> developed
>>> only for the psychophysiologically most common types to catch up with the
>>> actual variation in real children. I suspect this view is actually quite
>>> a
>>> bit closer to what Kay thinks than to what Helen thinks.
>>>
>>> David Kellogg
>>> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 13 July 2014 10:59, Helen Grimmett <helen.grimmett@monash.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Hi David,
>>>>
>>>> Interesting question. I absolutely think that development AS a
>>>>
>>>>
>>> professional
>>>
>>>
>>>> is necessary, just as development as a human is necessary, so if
>>>> professional development is seen as the practice in which this
>>>>
>>>>
>>> development
>>>
>>>
>>>> is produced then absolutely I do think it is necessary. The form that
>>>>
>>>>
>>> this
>>>
>>>
>>>> practice takes though, and indeed the form of the development that is
>>>> produced within this practice, are the things open to question however.
>>>>
>>>> I definitely think that a teacher's development as a professional
>>>>
>>>>
>>> includes
>>>
>>>
>>>> the need to understand their practice better rather than just change it,
>>>> but I think that understanding often develops best in/alongside/with the
>>>> process of changing (and vice versa) rather than separately from it,
>>>> and,
>>>> as you point out above, in establishing ties *between* people and then
>>>> within them. So a practice of professional development that creates
>>>> conditions which support this type of development will (I believe) be
>>>>
>>>>
>>> much
>>>
>>>
>>>> more effective than traditional forms of PD that either attempt to
>>>>
>>>>
>>> lecture
>>>
>>>
>>>> about theoretical principles but do not support teachers to transfer
>>>>
>>>>
>>> these
>>>
>>>
>>>> into practical changes, OR provide teachers with practical programs and
>>>> expect them to implement them without any understanding of what and why
>>>>
>>>>
>>> the
>>>
>>>
>>>> changes matter. I think the term "Professional Development" is an
>>>>
>>>>
>>> absolute
>>>
>>>
>>>> misnomer for either of those typical approaches.
>>>>
>>>> So again, I have a problem with names! I'm talking about Professional
>>>> Development with a completely different meaning than what most of the
>>>> education community believe it to mean when they talk about attending PD
>>>> seminars or workshops. I toyed with trying to find a different name for
>>>>
>>>>
>>> the
>>>
>>>
>>>> particular meaning I'm talking about, but when you are talking about
>>>> development from a cultural-historical theoretical perspective then
>>>> there
>>>> really is no other word to use! That's why I stuck to using
>>>> 'professional
>>>> development' (in full) when I meant my meaning, and PD (which is what
>>>> teachers in Australia commonly refer to seminars and workshops as) when
>>>> I
>>>> refer to the typical (and in my view, usually non-developmental) forms
>>>> of
>>>> activities that teachers are subjected to each year.
>>>>
>>>> So, I agree that the need for PD is questionable, but the need for
>>>> practices of professional development that help teachers to develop as
>>>> professionals (that is, to develop a unified understanding of both the
>>>> theoretical and practical aspects of their work, which is itself
>>>> continually developing in order to meet the changing needs of their
>>>> students, schools and society) is essential. While I think co-teaching
>>>> is
>>>> one practical small-scale solution, working out viable, economical, and
>>>> manageable ways to create these practices on a large-scale is a very
>>>>
>>>>
>>> large
>>>
>>>
>>>> problem.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Helen
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dr Helen Grimmett
>>>> Lecturer, Student Adviser,
>>>> Faculty of Education,
>>>> Room G64F, Building 902
>>>> Monash University, Berwick campus
>>>> Phone: 9904 7171
>>>>
>>>> *New Book: *
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> <
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> http://monash.edu.au/education/news/50-years/?utm_
>>> source=staff-email&utm_medium=email-signature&utm_campaign=50th
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 13 July 2014 08:57, David Kellogg <dkellogg60@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Helen:
>>>>>
>>>>> Good to hear from you at long last--I knew you were lurking out there
>>>>> somewhere!
>>>>>
>>>>> I didn't actually write the line about "establishing ties"--it's from
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> "The
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Little Prince". The prince asks what "tame" means, and the fox replies
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> that
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> it means "to establish ties". But of course what I meant was that ties
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> are
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> established first between people and then within them; the ties of
>>>>> development are interfunctional ties that make up a new psychological
>>>>> system. (Or, for Halliday, they are the inter-systemic ties that make
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> up
>>>
>>>
>>>> new metafunctions.)
>>>>>
>>>>> As you say, Yrjo Engestrom chooses to emphasize another aspect of
>>>>> development with "breaking away"--he wants to stress its crisis-ridden
>>>>> nature. I agree with this, actually, but mostly I agree with you, that
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> we
>>>
>>>
>>>> are talking about two moments of the same process. To me, breaking away
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> is
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> really a precondition of the real business of establishing ties.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thomas Piketty makes a similar point in his book "Capital in the
>>>>> Twenty-first Century". He admits that war and revolution is the only
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> thing
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> that EVER counteracts the tendency of returns from capital to outstrip
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> the
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> growth in income, and that the 20th Century was an outlier in this
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> respect,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> and the Russian revolution an extreme outlier within that outlier. But
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> he
>>>
>>>
>>>> also says that in the long run the one thing that makes UPWARD mobility
>>>>> possible is education. Despite everything, because of everything.
>>>>>
>>>>> I finished the book a few days ago. I guess the thing I most want to
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> ask
>>>
>>>
>>>> about is the assumption that professional development is necessary at
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> all.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Doesn't it make more sense to say that before we change what we are
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> doing,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> we should understand it better?
>>>>>
>>>>> David Kellogg
>>>>> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 12 July 2014 13:20, Helen Grimmett <helen.grimmett@monash.edu>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Ah, I think you have hit the nail on the head David. It is indeed
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> TIME
>>>
>>>
>>>> that
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> is so crucial - not only duration of time, but also location of time
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> (which
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> I suppose is really context).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The problems I had with Mike and his colleagues about the terminology
>>>>>> stemmed partly from the typical Aussie disdain for using words that
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> might
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> make your mates think you are trying to appear 'better' than them, so
>>>>>> therefore you mock anything that sounds too serious or intellectual.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> But
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> beyond this surface level of complaining the problems Huw and you
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> have
>>>
>>>
>>>> been
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> discussing boil down to problems with time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Huw's complaint about my use of the heading "Features of
>>>>>> Cultural-Historical Learning Activities" is well justified - but it
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> was
>>>
>>>
>>>> really just a shorthand written version of what I was verbally asking
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> for
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> as "What might be some particular features of learning activities
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> that
>>>
>>>
>>>> would align with principles of Cultural-Historical Theory?" That
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> would
>>>
>>>
>>>> have
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> taken too long to write on the top of the piece of paper - and of
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> course
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> time is always too short in any after-school PD so shortcuts are
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> inevitably
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> taken. (Time problem #1)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Time problem #2, which your discussion has highlighted for me, is
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> that
>>>
>>>
>>>> of
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> course my question was really "What might be some particular features
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> of
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> learning activities that would align with THE LIMITED NUMBER OF (AND
>>>>>> LIMITED UNDERSTANDING OF) principles of Cultural-Historical Theory
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> THAT
>>>
>>>
>>>> YOU
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> HAVE BEEN INTRODUCED TO SO FAR?" so I really should have not been so
>>>>>> surprised that they would find the brainstorming activity difficult
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> and
>>>
>>>
>>>> resort to diversionary tactics! (Mike's outburst posted here by David
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> was
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> not the only eventful moment I write about from this one activity.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> But
>>>
>>>
>>>> these apparent failures actually provided much more interesting data
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> for
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> me
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> and eventually lead me to several key findings in my thesis). I had
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> spent
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> several years by this stage reading and discussing Vygotsky and yet I
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> had
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> assumed/hoped the teachers would have enough understanding from my
>>>>>> (probably not very good) explanations ABOUT theory over the previous
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> 3
>>>
>>>
>>>> short sessions I had had with them to be able to contribute answers
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> to
>>>
>>>
>>>> my
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> brainstorm question. They had not had enough TIME to become familiar
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> with
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> enough of the theory to make much sense of it yet - but still, we
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> have
>>>
>>>
>>>> to
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> start somewhere and this was still early days.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Time problem #3 brings in what I called above the location of time. I
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> had
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> never intended for the sessions to be me giving after-school lectures
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> about
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> either theory or practice, yet this is what the teachers seemed to
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> expect
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> from me (and even demand from me) and were pretty disgruntled when I
>>>>>> wouldn't/couldn't deliver. My intention was always to get them to
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> engage
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> with the relationship between THEORY and PRACTICE, just as David's
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> comic
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> book discusses the relationship between THINKING and SPEECH or
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> EMOTION
>>>
>>>
>>>> and
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> COGNITION. My problem of course was that once we were in an
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> after-school
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> meeting we were removed in both time and space from where theory and
>>>>>> practice of teaching/learning operate as a relation (i.e. the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> classroom
>>>
>>>
>>>> activity). I was actually trying to create/use our own PLZ
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> (Professional
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Learning ZPD) as the activity in which to develop and understand this
>>>>>> relationship but it was initially very hard to get the teachers to
>>>>>> understand this (at least until we had enough of David's Fox's
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> socially
>>>
>>>
>>>> shared experiences for the meanings to become communicable) and then
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> even
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> more difficult to get them to transfer this back to developing their
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> own
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> classroom teaching. Ironically, despite being the loudest complainers
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> and
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> disparagers, it was Mike and Kay (the protagonist of my other
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> eventful
>>>
>>>
>>>> moment in the brainstorming session) who actually ended up making the
>>>>>> biggest changes in their classroom practice. Perhaps this is not
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> really
>>>
>>>
>>>> surprising at all - they were the ones who obviously engaged and
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> argued
>>>
>>>
>>>> with the ideas and activities rather than simply endured them!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My eventual answer to the problems encountered in my work with the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> group
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> of
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> teachers was to work WITH a teacher IN her own classroom so that we
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> had
>>>
>>>
>>>> shared experiences of the relationship between theory and practice
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> which
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> could not only be discussed after the events, but also actually acted
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> upon
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> there and then IN the event - creating what I called "Situated
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Conscious
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Awareness" of both the theoretical and practical aspects of the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> concepts
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> of
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> teaching/learning and development we were developing understanding
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> and
>>>
>>>
>>>> practice of together. But perhaps I should wait until David gets up
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> to
>>>
>>>
>>>> this
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> part of the book before I say more!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Finally, one other point that really caught my attention in your
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> comic
>>>
>>>
>>>> book
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> David is that your prince calls development "to establish ties" which
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> is
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> an
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> interesting difference to Engestrom's definition as "breaking away".
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> But
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> perhaps, as always in CH theory, it is not a matter of either/or but
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> in
>>>
>>>
>>>> fact both/and ideas that are necessary. From what I learned in my
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> study,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> teachers' development as professionals is definitely BOTH about
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> breaking
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> away from old, routinised understandings and practices AND
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> establishing
>>>
>>>
>>>> new
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> connections between and amongst theoretical concepts and practices,
>>>>>> enabling them to continually develop new competences and motives
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> across
>>>
>>>
>>>> all
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> of their professional duties.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks for your interest in my book David. The discussion it has
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> sparked
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> has helped me revisit ideas from new perspectives.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> Helen
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dr Helen Grimmett
>>>>>> Lecturer, Student Adviser,
>>>>>> Faculty of Education,
>>>>>> Room G64F, Building 902
>>>>>> Monash University, Berwick campus
>>>>>> Phone: 9904 7171
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *New Book: *
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> http://monash.edu.au/education/news/50-years/?utm_
>>> source=staff-email&utm_medium=email-signature&utm_campaign=50th
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 12 July 2014 07:29, David Kellogg <dkellogg60@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Plekhanov distinguishes between "agitators" and "propagandists".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Agitators
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> are essentially popularizers; they have the job of ripping away a
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> subset
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> of
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> smaller and simpler ideas from a fabric of much larger and more
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> complex
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> theory and then disseminating them amongst the largest possible
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> number
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> of
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> people. In other words, their focus is exoteric. Propagandists are
>>>>>>> essentially conspiratorial: they have the job of initiating a small
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> number
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> of the elect and educating them in the whole theoretical system--as
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Larry
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> would say, the full Bildung. In other words, their focus is
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> esoteric.
>>>
>>>
>>>> As
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> you can see, Plekhanov was good at making distinctions, and not so
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> good
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> at
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> showing how things are linked. For Helena, who is a  labor
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> educator,
>>>
>>>
>>>> you
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> can't really be an effective agitator unless you are also a
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> propagandist.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> You need to present your exoteric extracts in such a way that they
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> are,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> to
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> borrow Larry's phrase, both necessary and sufficient to lead people
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> on
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> to
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> the esoterica. I'm with Helena--and with Bruner--with children it's
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> always
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> possible to tell the truth, part of the truth, but nothing but the
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> truth,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> and if we can do it with kids, why not do it with adults?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (I am less sure about what it means to say that the objectively
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> human
>>>
>>>
>>>> is
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> the "subjectively historical"--it sounds like history is being
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> reified
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> as a
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> subject, that is, as a living, breathing, acting "World Spirit"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> that
>>>
>>>
>>>> can
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> have a mind and reflect upon itself. My understanding of history is
>>>>>>> that just as we cannot have the advanced form of historical
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> consciousness
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> in dialogue with the more primitive forms, the opportunity to
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> reflect
>>>
>>>
>>>> upon
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the whole process when it is all over is simply never going to be
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> available
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> to anyone. The Merleau-Ponty quotation is beautiful and intensely
>>>>>>> poetic, Larry--but when I look at a bubble or a wave, I do not
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> simply
>>>
>>>
>>>> see
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> chaos; I see past bubbles and past waves, and potential bubbles and
>>>>>>> potential waves. Isn't that a part of the experience of "loving
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> history"
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> as
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> well?)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My wife wrote a wonderful Ph.D. thesis about how any work of
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> literature
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> can
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> be looked at on four time frames: phylogenetic (the history of a
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> genre),
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> ontogenetic (the biography of a career), logogenetic (the
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> development
>>>
>>>
>>>> of
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> a
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> plot or a character), and microgenetic (the unfolding of a
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> dialogue,
>>>
>>>
>>>> or a
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> paragraph). Her supervisor complained about the terminology in
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> somewhat
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> more elegant terms than Mike does in Helen's data:and suggested
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> that
>>>
>>>
>>>> she
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> should replace the terms with "history", "biography", "development"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> and
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> "unfolding", to make it more exoteric.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think that if she had done that, it would have made the thesis
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> into
>>>
>>>
>>>> agitation rather than education. Yes, the terms would have been
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> more
>>>
>>>
>>>> familiar, and they might even, given other context, be taken to
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> mean
>>>
>>>
>>>> the
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> same thing. But what we would have gotten is good, clear
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> distinctions
>>>
>>>
>>>> ("history" on the one hand and "biography" on the other) and what
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> we
>>>
>>>
>>>> would
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> have lost is the linkedness of one time frame to another--the way
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> in
>>>
>>>
>>>> which
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the phylogenesis of genre produces the mature genre which is used
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> in
>>>
>>>
>>>> an
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> author's ontegenesis, and the way in which the author's ontogenesis
>>>>>>> produces the starting point and the raw materials for the
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> logogenetic
>>>
>>>
>>>> development of a work, not to mention the way in which logogenesis
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> is
>>>
>>>
>>>> reflected in the microgenetic unfolding of dialogue.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So I think that when Helena writes that anything can be explained
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> to
>>>
>>>
>>>> anyone
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> in language that is everyday and simple and in a way that is
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> understandable
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and at least part of the whole truth, I agree somewhat enviously
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> (you
>>>
>>>
>>>> see,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Helena is a labor educator, but I teach TESOL, which is really the
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> process
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> of taking a few very simple and exoteric ideas that good teachers
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> already
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> have and disseminating the select to the elect for vast sums of
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> money).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> But
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have to add a rider--when we popularize richly woven fabrics of
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> ideas
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> like cultural historical theory we are not simply juggling
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> vocabulary.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> think that Helena recognizes this perfectly when she says that it
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> takes
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> TIME to be simple and clear. If it were simply a matter of
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> replacing
>>>
>>>
>>>> "cultural historical" with "community of learners" it would
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> actually
>>>
>>>
>>>> take
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> less time, but it isn't and it doesn't.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is very hot in Seoul today, and somewhere out there a toddler is
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> arguing
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> with a parent because he wants watermelon with breakfast. The
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> parent
>>>
>>>
>>>> resists, because if you eat cold watermelon on an empty stomach you
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> get a
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> tummy-ache. The argument grows heated and long--and complex, but
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> the
>>>
>>>
>>>> complexity is of a particular kind, with very short, repeated,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> insistancies
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> from the child and somewhat longer more complex remonstrations from
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> the
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> parent. We can call this complex discourse but simple grammar. A
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> few
>>>
>>>
>>>> years
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> will go by and we will find that the school child has mastered the
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> trick
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> of
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> long and complex remonstrations and can use them pre-emptively to
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> win
>>>
>>>
>>>> arguments. We can call this complex grammar, but simple vocabulary.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Only
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> when a decade or two has elapsed will we find that child, now
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> adult,
>>>
>>>
>>>> can
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> use the language of science, which is for the most part
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> grammatically
>>>
>>>
>>>> simple (at least compared to the pre-emptive remonstrations of the
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> school
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> child), but full of very complex vocabulary (e.g. "phylogeny
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> anticipates
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> ontogeny", or "cultural-historical activity theory enables
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> communities
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> of
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> learners").
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's Saturday today, and in a few minutes I have to leave for the
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> weekly
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> meeting of our translation group, which produces mighty tomes which
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> we
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> produce to popularize the works of Vygotsky amongst militant
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> teachers
>>>
>>>
>>>> here
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> in Korea (our version of "Thinking and Speech" is seven hundred
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> pages
>>>
>>>
>>>> long
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> because of all the explanatory notes and boxes with helpful
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> pictures).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> the other hand, there is the attached comic book version of the
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> first
>>>
>>>
>>>> chapter of "Thinking and Speech" which I wrote a couple of years
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> ago
>>>
>>>
>>>> for
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> some graduate students who were having trouble talking about the
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> real
>>>
>>>
>>>> "Thinking and Speech" in class.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think you can see that Huw's complaint is justified--the comic
>>>>>>> book dialogue is "about" Thinking and Speech, but it is not
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Thinking
>>>
>>>
>>>> and
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Speech" at all, in the same way that "community of learners" or
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> "biography"
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> is ABOUT cultural historical theory or ontogenesis. And I think
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> that
>>>
>>>
>>>> part
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> of the problem (but only part of it) is that the comic book is just
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> too
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> short.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> David Kellogg
>>>>>>> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2014-07-11 17:09 GMT+09:00 Leif Strandberg <
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> leifstrandberg.ab@telia.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 11 jul 2014 kl. 06:41 skrev Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com>:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> David,
>>>>>>>>> I have been following your reflections through this thread.
>>>>>>>>> You commented:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So it's almost always more useful for me to
>>>>>>>>> think of learning phenomena as NOT reducible to the physical,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> at
>>>
>>>
>>>> least
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> in their unit of analysis
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I have been reflecting on the notion of *bildung* as learning.
>>>>>>>>> The notion of *cultivation* and *disposition* and *comportment*
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> as
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> potential of learning.
>>>>>>>>> I came across this quote from Gramsci who was questioning the
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> notion
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> of
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *laws* as the basis for making social predictions. Such *laws*
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> excluded
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> subjective factor from history.
>>>>>>>>> Gramsci wrote on social process: "Objective always means
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 'humanly
>>>
>>>
>>>> objective' which can be held to correspond exactly to
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 'historically
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> subjective' "
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Merleau-Ponty also explored what I refer to as *disposition*
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> with
>>>
>>>
>>>> this
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> quote on the reality of history:
>>>>>>>>> History "awakens us to the importance of daily events and
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> action.
>>>
>>>
>>>> For
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> a philosophy [of history -LP] which arouses in us a love for
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> our
>>>
>>>
>>>> times
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> which are not the simple repetition of human eternity nor
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> merely
>>>
>>>
>>>> the
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> conclusion of premises already postulated. It is a view that
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> like
>>>
>>>
>>>> the
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> most
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> fragile object of perception - a soap bubble, or a wave - or
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> like
>>>
>>>
>>>> the
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> most
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> simple dialogue, embraces indivisibly all the order and all the
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> disorder
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> the world."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>