[Xmca-l] Re: book of possible interest
Andy Blunden
ablunden@mira.net
Tue Jul 22 19:44:00 PDT 2014
Francis, I dipped out of the conversation about fuzzy things because it
was just getting silly, but please allow me to nip a couple of rumours
in the bud before they become reveived wisdom. I have never used the
term "semantic action". The term appeared in my message in my attempt to
sum up what *David* was saying. Since he disowns the term I guess I was
mistaken. Secondly, I certainly do not conflate the sign and the
concept. I deal with the relation at some length in my book on Concepts.
Andy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Andy Blunden*
http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
FRANCIS J. SULLIVAN wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>>
>
> DOESN'T IMAGINATIVE PLAY COUNT AS THINKING?
>
>
>> 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.
>>
>> THE ABOVE IS WHAT SEEMS TO ME TO BE ABOUT "ACADEMIC DISCOURSE,"
>> UNNECESSARILY NARROWING "THINKING." I TAKE HIS TERM SEMANTIC ACTION TO
>> REFER TO THE ILLOCUTIONARY FORCE OF THE DISCOURSE
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> HERE I AGREE COMPLETELY WITH YOU, BUT ALSO TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE
>>
> SOCIALIZATION OF SCHOOLING AS A CRUCIAL FACTOR.
>
>
>> 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."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
>
More information about the xmca-l
mailing list