[Xmca-l] Re: book of possible interest

[FRANCIS J. SULLIVAN]

David,

I have been, and still am, in the midst of teaching myself--now looking at
the first assignment completed. So, I have been away from the list. Wow!
I've just read through the other strand, realizing just how different this
way of thinking is from just about everything I do. I find it hard to
envision thought processes in language as "internal." To me they are always
part of a social exchange, conducted in a context that is constrained by
culture. So, I'm not sure I can answer your question, but I will try.
First.  if you want to contrast the functions of the three "moves" in your
example, I would not begin with their grammatical form. It might make sense
to segment them into "information units" (Halliday's term); but, what seems
to me most important--and something whose absence in the thread on "fuzzy
things" just boggles my mind--is to construe the social context in which
the utterance takes place. As you know, each of the three
meta-functions--ideational, interpersonal, and textual--has its
corresponding element in the social context, namely, Field, Tenor, and
Mode. The first element seems especially relevant here. Halliday discusses
it in terms of the purpose, or cognitive activity, in which the text is
uttered. So, you walk into a classroom--for the first time??, midway into
the semester?--there would be differences in terms of analyzing the
"meaning" of the text. Still, I would say that in this context the
utterance "Hi, I'm Mr. K. And you?" addresses the "Interpersonal" element
primarily and secondarily the Mode.  The Mode, or "genre," (there's a lot
of contention about where genre fits into SFL right now) is that of the
"Introduction," the interpersonal is informal and friendly, as suggested by
the use of contractions and periphrasis "And you."  Very little of the
utterance would address Field, just "I'm Mr. K."

So, it may sound as if I would agree with Andy. But, I don't. You and I do
agree that "thinking" is a more capacious term than what Andy allows.
Whether he is correct about Vygotsky's position, of course, I don't know.
It strikes me, however, that what Andy calls "thinking" is that kind of
discourse typically referred to as "academic." In fact, he sounds almost
like Levi-Strauss at times, distinguishing the "Savage" from the
"Civilized."  I don't think he means to, but it is almost impossible to
escape it within the framework of a strictly developmental model that has a
clear final stage--and so little attention to context. Specifically, we
need to understand this development of "scientific conceptualizing"
socially *first*, before we begin to concern ourselves with what may, or
may not, be happening in somebody's neural net. In this, I follow Hymes and
Gumperz, who developed the term "ways of speaking." Academic discourse is
just that--a way of speaking--and one that is learned, as  Vygotsky makes
clear, only in the context of certain kinds and levels of schooling. But we
cannot infer from that developmental process, I think, that such learning
transforms the learner in a strictly cognitive manner. For me, at least,
what development means here is a kind of socialization, the result of which
is that s/he internalizes those ways of speaking deemed appropriate by the
particular community to which s/he belongs. And, of course, one can belong
to multiple communities with different, and even conflicting ways of
speaking.

I don't know if that helps you at all. It seems to me that, as distinct
from your point about Vygotsky's dialectical take on the relationship sign
and concept, Andy tends to conflate the two--erasing the hyphen instead of
working it.

Francis J. Sullivan, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Department of Teaching and Learning
College of Education
Temple University
Philadelphia, PA 19122


Find out what any people will quietly submit to and you have the exact
measure of the injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them.

 Frederick Douglass


On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 5:51 PM, David Kellogg <dkellogg60@gmail.com> wrote:

> Francis:
>
> We just had about two weeks of "teaching practica". The terrified trainees
> have to stand up and teach a fifteen minute lesson in front of peers
> masequerading as children and three rabid professors making negative
> comments. Not only is this not a very propitious environment in which to
> try out new things (or even demonstrate basic teaching skills), it's a
> really an opportunity made in hell for saying anything intelligent about
> teaching, which is, alas, my job.
>
> Here's what I wanted to ask you, since you have a background in
> systemic-functional grammar and CDA and above all because you seemed to
> imply in your last that you thought the very attempt to engage can be
> transformative (as opposed to demoralizing). I sometimes notice that the
> best teachers have a regular rhythm--getting attention, giving information,
> and checking understanding. This rhythm is faster when the "kids" are
> learning something familiar and slower when the "kids" are on new
> territory, but it's always there. I would like to say that these three
> functions are related in some systematic way to imperatives, declaratives,
> and interrogatives. But they are not, even when I take interpersonal
> metaphors (e.g. "May I have your attention please?") into account. What do
> you think I am looking at here?
>
> Now, let me use this example to address some of what Huw and Andy have been
> saying. I hope you'll see that the two threads are not quite as unrelated
> as the two different titles suggest. Suppose I walk into a classroom, pick
> out some friendly eye contact, and I say "Hi! I'm Mr. K. And you?" As you
> can see, the first "Hi!" is an instance of getting attention. But it isn't
> a figure of experience: it's a minor clause. "I'm Mr. K" is a major clause,
> and "And you?" is an elliptical clause, parasitic on "I'm Mr. K" for most
> of its wording. So it seems to me that SOME functions (e.g. getting
> attention) are rather closer to figures of experience, while others are
> more concerned with social contact. All functions have to be both, but they
> don't have to be the same proportions of both, and so development is,
> contrary to what Huw suggests, perfectly possible. Children do not leap
> metaphysically, but dialectically--by going from using language mostly to
> get attention (and largely without clause grammar) to using language to
> give information and eventually using it to check understanding.
>
> You can see that "Hi!" is a good example of the unity of behavior and
> consciousness that Andy is talking about. But by the time we get to
> checking understanding, the "behavior" element becomes pretty irrelevant: I
> just don't see any way in which understanding can be described as
> "behavior" and we can still retain the key distinction between
> pseudoconceptual understanding and conceptual understanding.
>
> In Andy's first point, he argues that when children are not using word
> meanings to think (i.e. visiographical thinking, which plays a very
> important role in getting children's attention) they are not thinking. I
> prefer to think that they are thinking, but they are thinking using what
> Vygotsky (and Buhler and especially Kohler, who were certainly genetic
> psychologists) liked to call "practical intellect". It's intellect. But
> it's not verbal thinking.
>
> I'm not sure that I agree when Andy says, in his second point, that labour
> is ALWAYS inadequate as a foundation for psychological inquiry--I imagine
> Helena Worthen finds it very useful. But I certainly agree with Andy that
> the revisionists (Leontiev, Zinchenko, Wertsch) took "labour" as
> paradigmatic, and as a result they had to deep-six Vygotsky's late ideas
> about the semantic structure of consciousness (that is, Vygotsky's idea
> that minds are made of word meanings, not action plans). Some of the
> revisionists did this reluctantly (Leontiev, at his best) but some of them
> were quite strident (Zinchenko in particular). All of them considered
> Vygotsky an idealist.
>
> As I understand it, Huw DISAGREES with Andy and actually agrees with the
> revisionist critique of Vygotsky on the grounds that children are mostly
> preoccupied with action and not word meaning. That's all very true of
> course: but they are NOT really preoccupied with labour activity. Their
> preoccupations are with PLAY activity (Kim Yongho and I did a good study of
> so-called "Task based teaching" that shows how children redefine tasks as
> role plays and games). Play activity is, as Vygotsky has shown us,
> genetically related to speech and not to labour.
>
> Andy's third point is that semantic actions (???) create intellectual
> structures in the mind. I don't know what a semantic action is; semantics
> for me is the process of making something stand for something else, but I
> don't see in what sense it helps to model this process as an "action". In
> many ways, it is precisely a non-action, because it includes conditionality
> and interpretability, neither of which is usefully modeled as action.
>
> In any case, you and I, Francis, are Hallidayans. We know that ideation is
> only a part of semantics (there is also the interpersonal and the textual
> metafunction), and that intellect is only a part of ideation (there is the
> experiential as well as the logical metafunction). So there is no basis
> whatsoever for the charge of intellectualism (I think what Andy is really
> getting at is not intellectualism but objectivism).
>
> I agree with the Russians who say that "perezhivanie" is a well defined
> concept. But to me "well defined" means developmentally so: it means that
> the specific weight of the various components of "perezhivanie" have to be
> allowed to change as we develop: so for young children "perezhivanie" is
> largely "felt experience", and for older children it is mostly "thought
> over--contemplated--experience". I don't see that thinking over is mostly
> an intellectual exercise though--I always feel, even in these exchanges on
> xmca, that there is a certain emotional component which makes us respond,
> sometimes before we really even think things out.
>
> David Kellogg
> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies
>
>
>
>
> On 16 July 2014 04:39, FRANCIS J. SULLIVAN <fsulliva@temple.edu> wrote:
>
> > With great trepidation, I want to enter this conversation with my first
> > post to the list (I have followed it for about a year now) because as
> both
> > a researcher and teacher educator the issues raised are  major concerns
> of
> > mine too. I find, I think it was David's point, the idea that we can
> think
> > of the "connections" problem in two ways to be at the heart of the issue,
> > at least for me. It is one thing to construct a connection that "adds to"
> > the existing knowledge framework of others. But, it is a very different
> > thing to sea5rch for a "connection" that requires others to qualitatively
> > change, or even abandon, their existing framework. Helen seems to achieve
> > such a connection with at least some of her teachers by helping them to
> > re-cognize their own social identities so that the new knowledge and
> > framework became less threatening and more inviting. She reconnected them
> > with who they used to be and what they valued. So they did not see
> > themselves as merely "ignorant" but more like retracing their steps.
> > For me, at least, that's why the "deficit" models of teaching (or
> research)
> > practices do not work. We--teachers and students--need to find a place
> from
> > which we can begin this journey together, common ground so to speak.
> While
> > a deaf person may not "know" English, I don't think that's the salient
> > point. All of us don't know things. What seems to me salient in Helen's
> > attempt to find connections, is that the very attempt challenged their
> > current ways of framing their professional lives. What we might think of
> as
> > "ignorance," those teachers thought of as "knowledge." And that
> "knowledge"
> > was part and parcel of the ways they positioned themselves as teachers in
> > relation to students.
> >  I am tempted to put this into discourse analysis terms--I'm a
> > semi-Hallidayan with a critical theory twist. But, I've said enough for a
> > first post, I think. I hope it is useful.
> >
> > Francis J. Sullivan, Ph.D.
> > Associate Professor
> > Department of Teaching and Learning
> > College of Education
> > Temple University
> > Philadelphia, PA 19122
> >
> >
> > Find out what any people will quietly submit to and you have the exact
> > measure of the injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them.
> >
> >  Frederick Douglass
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 2:10 AM, David Kellogg <dkellogg60@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > 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."
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > >
> >
>