[Xmca-l] Re: book of possible interest
Peter Smagorinsky
smago@uga.edu
Tue Jul 15 02:56:58 PDT 2014
In case anyone's interested in one person's interpretation of LSV's defectological writing, I've written the following papers, each with a link to the pdf. P
Cook, L. S., & Smagorinsky, P. (2014). Constructing positive social updrafts for extranormative personalities. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction. Available at http://www.petersmagorinsky.net/About/PDF/LCSI_2014.pdf
Smagorinsky, P. (2014). Who's normal here? An atypical's perspective on mental health and educational inclusion. English Journal, 103(5), 15–23. Available at http://www.petersmagorinsky.net/About/PDF/EJ/EJ2014.pdf
Smagorinsky, P. (2012). Vygotsky, "defectology," and the inclusion of people of difference in the broader cultural stream. Journal of Language and Literacy Education [Online], 8(1), 1-25. Available at http://jolle.coe.uga.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Vygotsky-and-Defectology.pdf
Smagorinsky, P. (2012). "Every individual has his own insanity": Applying Vygotsky's work on defectology to the question of mental health as an issue of inclusion. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 1(1), 67-77. Available at http://www.petersmagorinsky.net/About/PDF/LCSI/LCSI_2012.pdf
-----Original Message-----
From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Andy Blunden
Sent: Monday, July 14, 2014 10:12 PM
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: book of possible interest
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."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I read these passages from Gramsci and M-P as a way of
>>>>>>>>
>> exploring
>>
>>>>>>>> *comportment* or *disposition* that is *learned*. [bildung??]
>>>>>>>>
>>>> There
>>>>
>>>>> is
>>>>>
>>>>>>> no
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> necessary or sufficient standpoint for interpreting this
>>>>>>>>
>>> inherently
>>>
>>>>>>>> heterogeneous process. However we may potentially learn various
>>>>>>>> *approaches* or *ways* of being-in-the-world through learning
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> processes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The notion of *bildung* is a way to reflect on this learning
>>>>>>>>
>>>> process
>>>>
>>>>>>>> Larry
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 3:54 PM, Huw Lloyd <
>>>>>>>>
>>>>> huw.softdesigns@gmail.com>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 10 July 2014 22:33, David Kellogg <dkellogg60@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Huw:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Is learning material? In what sense? At what point?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Historically, with Marx. :)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The rest of your formations are subsumed by Baldwin's 1st and
>>>>>>>>>
>>> 2nd
>>>
>>>>>>> axioms of
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> genetic logic. :)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As someone experienced with computation and computational
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> processes, I
>>>>>
>>>>>>> do
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> find it quite straightfoward to think of memories as material
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> impressions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Cached values or lazy evaluation -- it's quite
>>>>>>>>>
>>> straightforward...
>>>
>>>>> Not
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> rubbish, not garbage, but Babbage!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>> Huw
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I guess I think of it this way. All phenomena in the universe
>>>>>>>>>>
>>> are
>>>
>>>>>>>>> physical,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> but only in the final analysis. When my father (who is a
>>>>>>>>>>
>>> retired
>>>
>>>>> but
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> unrepentant solar physicist) studies these phenomena he uses
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> various
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> units
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> of analysis (my father likes to think big, so his usual unit
>>>>>>>>>>
>> of
>>
>>>>>>> analysis
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> a solar emission many times larger than the earth, but
>>>>>>>>>>
>>> sometimes,
>>>
>>>>>>>>> depending
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> on the problem, he will condescend to think about smaller
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> particles
>>>>
>>>>>>> like
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> atomic nuclei). Some of these physical phenomena, when they
>>>>>>>>>>
>>> cool
>>>
>>>>>> down a
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> little, are chemical as well, and because these phenomena are
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> chemical
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> well as physical, the unit of analysis that is proper to them
>>>>>>>>>>
>>> is
>>>
>>>>> the
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> molecule and its motions, and not simply the particle (Dad
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> doesn't
>>>>
>>>>>> care
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> about these phenomena; he likes his physics hot).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Some of these chemical phenomena are biological as well, and
>>>>>>>>>>
>>> here
>>>
>>>>>> once
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> again the unit of analysis has to change (e.g. to the cell)
>>>>>>>>>>
>> in
>>
>>>>> order
>>>>>
>>>>>> to
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> take into account the new properties which come into being at
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> this
>>>>
>>>>>>> scale.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Some biological phenomena are cultural-historical in turn,
>>>>>>>>>>
>> and
>>
>>>> here
>>>>
>>>>>> too
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> must change the unit of analysis in order not to lose
>>>>>>>>>>
>> essential
>>
>>>>>>>>> information
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> that is created with higher levels of organization and
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> complexity.Of
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> course, these cultural historical phenomena are all reducible
>>>>>>>>>>
>>> to
>>>
>>>>>>>>> biological
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> phenomena, and therefore reducible to chemical and physical
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> phenomena,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> only in the final analysis. Hey, in the final analysis, as
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> Carolyn
>>>>
>>>>>>> Porco
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> says, we all get reduced to physical phenomena when the sun
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> explodes
>>>>>
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> blows the particles that were once our bodies out into space,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>> to
>>>
>>>>>> enjoy
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> eternal life...but only as physical phenomena.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In the meantime, if we want to understand cultural-historical
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> phenomena
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> such, we have to confront their higher levels of organization
>>>>>>>>>>
>>> and
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> complexity.The cultural historical phenomena that I am most
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> interested
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> turn out to have another subset of phenomena which Halliday
>>>>>>>>>>
>>> calls
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> semiotic--that is, they are sociologically
>>>>>>>>>>
>> cultural-historical
>>
>>>>>>> phenomena
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> that stand, even if only for a fleeting instant,
>>>>>>>>>> for psychologically cultural-historical phenomena. These
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> phenomena
>>>>
>>>>>> are
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> material too (that is, they are biological, chemical, and
>>>>>>>>>>
>> even
>>
>>>>>>>>>> physical), for the way things stand for other things is
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> ultimately
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> reducible to a thing: words are, in the final analysis, "made
>>>>>>>>>>
>>> of
>>>
>>>>>> living
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> breath", as Shakespeare says, or "layers of moving air" if
>>>>>>>>>>
>> you
>>
>>>>> prefer
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Engels.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But only in the final analysis. In the interim, too much
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> information
>>>>>
>>>>>> is
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> lost when we reduce these semiotic phenomena to physical,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> material,
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> things (for example, when my students try to model learner
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> comprehension
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> problems as pure phonetic discrimination without taking into
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> account
>>>>>
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> layer of wording or meaning). 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. Actually, it seems to me that the
>>>>>>>>>> general "cultural-historical" level of analysis is if
>>>>>>>>>>
>> anything
>>
>>> a
>>>
>>>>> step
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> closer to biology or chemistry or physics than the subset of
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> cultural
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> historical phenomena that I mean when I refer to learning,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> because
>>>>
>>>>> to
>>>>>
>>>>>>> me
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> learning is microgenetic, that is, POTENTIALLY ontogenetic,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>> which
>>>
>>>>> is
>>>>>
>>>>>> in
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> turn POTENTIALLY sociogenetic, which (to me) is the general
>>>>>>>>>>
>>> level
>>>
>>>>> of
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> analysis we mean when we talk about cultural historical
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> phenomena.
>>>>
>>>>> So
>>>>>
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> real answer to Mike's colorful complaint about handles is not
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Community
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Learners" but actually "physico-chemico-bio-socio-semiotic
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> learning
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> activities".
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Time for that quantum physical cup of coffee you were talking
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> about....
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> David Kellogg
>>>>>>>>>> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 10 July 2014 08:53, Huw Lloyd <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> David,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Just to be clear, the error I was referring to was the
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> attribution
>>>>
>>>>>> of
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> theory (as an adjective) to the material thing (learning).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>> It
>>
>>>>> would
>>>>>
>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> like saying, I am going to make a Newtonian cup of coffee in
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> the
>>>
>>>>>>>>> morning
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> and a quantum mechanical cup of coffee in the afternoon.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I suppose colourful language serves the purpose of
>>>>>>>>>>>
>> deliberate
>>
>>>>>>>>> vagueness.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It's hard to be trendy and have a precise point.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I fear we are soon approaching the "teach yourself activity
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> theory
>>>>
>>>>>> for
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> dummies" book someday soon. From my understanding, the
>>>>>>>>>>>
>> theory
>>
>>>>>> itself
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> repudiates such a thing -- one cannot spoon feed theory --
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> but I
>>>
>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> think that will stop folk trying.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I see no problem (or contradiction) in top down approaches.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Solving a
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> problem in general is a powerful approach to many problems.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> For
>>>
>>>>>> many
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> problems the concrete details are amenable to design and
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> configuration,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> one
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> can often choose tools to suit the proposed solution rather
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> than
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> vice-versa. But from an educational perspective, I see no
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> alternative
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> than starting with the individual, ofcourse one can have
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> general
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> strategies
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> in doing so -- waiting to be asked before giving an
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> explanation
>>>
>>>>> etc.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Nice chatting.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>> Huw
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 9 July 2014 22:46, David Kellogg <dkellogg60@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Huw:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Helen has written a remarkable, important book. I gather
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> it's
>>
>>>>> part
>>>>>
>>>>>> of
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> her
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ph.D. thesis, but it doesn't really read like a Ph.D.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> thesis.
>>
>>>> It
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> reads
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> like
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> a teacher-trainer (or "professional development
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> consultant",
>>
>>> or
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> whatever
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> are supposed to call them) with a problem who eventually,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> with
>>>
>>>> a
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> little
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> help from the classics of cultural historical psychology
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> and
>>
>>> a
>>>
>>>>> lot
>>>>>
>>>>>> of
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> help
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> from a co-teacher (who has a somewhat bookish, inert but
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> nevertheless
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> respectful and open acquaintance with those classics)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> achieves
>>>
>>>> a
>>>>
>>>>>> very
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> open
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> but nevertheless very workable solution.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So the bit I quoted represents the problem, or rather, two
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> problems.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> one hand, Helen is trying to do something new: she wants to
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> bring
>>>>
>>>>>> new
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> CHAT
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> concepts to bear on extant classroom activities and modify
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> them
>>>
>>>>> in
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ways
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> that she is confident will work. On the other, Helen is
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> working
>>>
>>>>>> with
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> pretty experienced (and even somewhat brutalized) teachers:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> they
>>>>
>>>>>> have
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> seen
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Professional Development" fads come and go, collected
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> their
>>
>>>> free
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> lunches
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> and go on doing things the old way.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Helen achieves her solution from the bottom up. Eventually,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> she
>>>
>>>>>> does
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> find a
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> teacher who can teacher her a lot and who, even though
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> Helen
>>
>>>>>> herself
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> is uniquely gifted, with not only the theoretical
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> background
>>
>>> we
>>>
>>>>> all
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> share,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> but also considerable first hand experience as a teacher
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> and
>>
>>> a
>>>
>>>>>>>>> parent,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> nevertheless be taught in turn. But as you can see from the
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> extract,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> she's
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> extremely open, even to savage, unfair, and somewhat obtuse
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> criticisms.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Mike's critique of "cultural historical" is not that it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> an
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> epistemological error or a typological one, or that it puts
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> the
>>>
>>>>>>>>> product
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "culture" before the process "history". It's not even that
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> it
>>
>>>>>>>>> suggests
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> on the odd day Piagetian activities might be taking place,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> which,
>>>>
>>>>>> by
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> way, is probably true, since these teachers were mostly
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> trained
>>>
>>>>>>>>> during
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "reign" of Piaget in the sixties and seventies.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> No, Mike's complaint is really, if you will pardon the
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> expression,
>>>>>
>>>>>> a
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> wank
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> of a complaint. He is just complaining that the name is
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> uncool;
>>>
>>>>> it
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> sound like the popular teachers would like it; the name
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> won't
>>
>>>> go
>>>>
>>>>>> with
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> embossed moose like "Abercrombie and Fitch" or "community
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> of
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> learners" does. I think we have to accept that responsive,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> sensitive
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> teachers inevitably end up internalizing some of the worst
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> aspects
>>>>>
>>>>>> of
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> adolescent thinking, and this is an example. I might even
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> say
>>
>>>>> it's
>>>>>
>>>>>> a
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> bullshit complaint. It's crap, etc. (But this is one of
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> those
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> language situations where redundancy does not suggest
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> development.)
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I guess if I encountered a bullshit complaint like that I
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> would
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> complain
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> little about "community of learners". I think that
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> "community
>>
>>>> of
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> learners" is essentially a way of saying
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> "socio-psychological":
>>>
>>>>>> it's
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> relevant to everyday teaching, but it doesn't tell us much
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> about
>>>>
>>>>>> how
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "socio" got there, whereas "cultural-historical" does. I
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> might
>>>
>>>>> even
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ask
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Mike is going to try to teach physics, chemistry, biology,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> or
>>
>>>>>> history
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> kids without some way of saying "physico-chemical" or
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "chemico-biological",
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> or "biologico-social". If not, then I don't see anything
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> wrong
>>>
>>>>> with
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> teaching language, including the language of teaching, as
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> something
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "socio-semiotic" or "historico-cultural". But then, I never
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> was
>>>
>>>>> one
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> cool kids.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> My problem is this. I too would like to write a book now. I
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> have
>>>>
>>>>>> two
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> mind, and they are both practical books about teacher
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> training,
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> similar in their targets to Helen's book, which is why I am
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> studying
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> carefully. But I find that the books that I have in mind
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> are
>>
>>>>> really
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "about
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> something" in a way that Helen's book is not. I don't mean
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> that
>>>
>>>>>>>>> Helen's
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> book has no object of study: like the title says, the
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> object
>>
>>> of
>>>
>>>>>> study
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> teacher development. What I mean is that the teaching has
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> no
>>
>>>>> clear
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> object
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> of teaching: it's not specifically about teaching math or
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> literacy
>>>>>
>>>>>> or
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> anything else but about teaching in general. The books I
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> have
>>
>>>> in
>>>>
>>>>>> mind
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> really about teaching literacy (I think I want to try to
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> teach
>>>
>>>>>>>>> WRITING
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> before READING) and teaching science (I think I want to
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> try a
>>
>>>>>> "hands
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> off"
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> approach that emphasizes word meanings instead of
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> laboratory
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> experiments).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> And I am finding that I when I do this the result is not at
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> all
>>>
>>>>> the
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> kind
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "bottom up" thing that Helen does; it's very top down.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> David Kellogg
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9 July 2014 07:33, Huw Lloyd <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Colourful. The complaint seems perfectly valid though: a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> typological
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> epistemological error all in one conflated term. It
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> suggests
>>>
>>>>> that
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> odd hours of the day there are Piagetian activities taking
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> place.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Was
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> part of the point of the chapter?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Huw
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8 July 2014 21:40, David Kellogg <dkellogg60@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm actually in the middle of Chapter Three right now.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> What I
>>>
>>>>> can
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> tell
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is that Helen's first two chapters are a kind of "Who's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> Who"
>>>
>>>> at
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> xmca,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Helen reading the great classics (in the wrong order) and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> talking
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Andy,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Greg, and others on this list. But beyond the litte
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> shout-outs
>>>>
>>>>> to
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> xmca,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chapter Three, you find interesting problems like this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> Helen
>>>
>>>>> is
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> setting
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> up
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a "Professional Learning ZPD". This an acronymy within an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> acronym
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> (an
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "acro-acronym-nym", like the group I used to belong to in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> New
>>>
>>>>>>>>> York
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Paris, called "ACT-UP"), and in general Helen seems to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> have
>>
>>>>> some
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> trouble
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with names. On pp. 58-59, she writes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "In PLZ 4 I wrote the title 'Features of cultural
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> Historical
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Learning
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Activities' across a piece of butcher's paper and asked
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> the
>>
>>>>> grou
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> brainstorm features of activities that would be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> consistent
>>
>>>> with
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> cultural
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> historical theory. After a few suggestions, Mike suddenly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> interrupted
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> with:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> MIKE: Can I ask, Helen, why such a wank of a name?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HELEN: Cultural-historical?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> MIKE: Yeah, what a bullshit name.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DEB: What should it be Mike?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> MIKE: What does it mean to anyone? Is that relevant to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> anyone
>>>
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> name? Cultural-historical learning. What does that mean?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HELEN: Well....
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> MIKE: It's crap.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HELEN: Well, I don't think that you, that's the name of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> teh
>>
>>>>>>>>> theoyr,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cultural historical theory, but I think in terms of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> schools
>>
>>>>> using
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> teh
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> theory they talk about Communities of Learners.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> MIKE: Yeah, but why don't they call it that?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HELEN: OK, so (I start crossing out "cultural historical"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> and
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> changing
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to "Communities of Learners")
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> MIKE: That name is like calliing the ultra net site for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> teachers
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 'design
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> space'. It has no relevance to the name whatsoever, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> to
>>
>>>> use
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it--features
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of cultural historical learning--sounds like a load of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> crap.
>>>
>>>> It
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't have any relevance ot what it means. If you said
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> to
>>
>>>> me
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> cultural
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> historical learning, I go ....
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BETH: I actually thought it meant talking about he past
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> (general
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> agreement).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> MIKE: That's what it implies, the past and how you used
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> to
>>
>>>>> teach.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HELEN: I suppose I'm just trying to familiarize you with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> the
>>>
>>>>> term
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (general
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> agreement)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> MIKE: If you call it community of learners then it's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> something
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> that's
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relevant."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Helen then makes the (cultural-historical) point that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> words
>>
>>>>> have
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> history,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but they are not necessarily YOUR history--for Helen,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> "cultural
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> historical"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> calls up a whole series of quite precise concepts, while
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Community
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Learners" is kind of vague and undefined. But for the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> teachers
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> (who
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> are,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> must say, not exactly reticent about sharing, and do not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> limit
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> themselves
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to sharing their expertise) what you get is old times.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's funny that they ignore the word culture. I always
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> thought
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "cultural historical" is a little bit of the cart before
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> the
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> horse....
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> David Kellogg
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8 July 2014 21:40, Peter Smagorinsky <smago@uga.edu>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Practice of Teachers' Professional Development
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A Cultural-Historical Approach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Helen Grimmett (Monash University, Australia)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This book uses Vygotsky's cultural-historical theory to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> provide a
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> unique
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> theorisation of teachers' professional development as a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> practice. A
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> practice can be described as the socially structured
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> actions
>>>
>>>>>>>>> set
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> up
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> produce a product or service aimed at meeting a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> collective
>>
>>>>>>>>> human
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> need.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this case, collaborative, interventionist work with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> teachers
>>>
>>>>> in
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Click
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> here for a free preview and full description<
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001ZduyW2xyB1USw9R1YjQno7GI-mDLfJ6m-729UFbNgCKe6Z_p9GP7xjN9IHr0mfZ1yni-XmxHyPfAaNcVjlENvx4l8ySiyRYKHRvvg2E6WbMlf3hNShpk2qTuRRu0ZenYc1mrXxe68_BX4FXljTnHjOx91vJalGeivvaQfmQF57rpGgcDrJe9bprlVyXQwjSo0U6yk-QJ1S5miZfuS7ohswmNs3UZWGMucMgWJyU6E_J3d8QHyWjpGuBM8i2twLXGBPHkZb6hFN4pF6PT3r3M7HYvwFdzAzSfRvpCd90DvQMVDuqkf5VY3ccoD6FppEGF&c=0Y23gLfSZ1jN_yGPyItMZic7SWiIoOcRfcrQWB0JYs9lkVW149lxUQ==&ch=ioZBoxRIwDxdvg-uu6NEwI-E45lgW01U_INO86ZNyJpwbp9zcKnCIA==
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>
>
>
More information about the xmca-l
mailing list