[Xmca-l] Re: book of possible interest

[David Kellogg]

Francis:

Well, first of all, the word "internal" here is the word Vygotsky uses. In
History of the Development of the Higher Mental Functions, he explains that
it simply means the psychological as opposed to the social. Perhaps
"inward" would be a better translation: culture in "inward" with respect to
nature, psychology is "inward" with respect to sociology, signs are
"inward" with respect to tools, and within signs, inner speech is "inward"
with respect to social contact.

To put this in Hallidayan terms, I think we have to say that the ideational
metafunction is "inward" with respect to the interpersonal one. We can
easily construe representations and figures without interpersonal contact,
but we can't exchange speaking roles. Similarly we can exchange
commodities, goods and services, without construing inner representations
of reality. That explains why the metafunctions are independent, also
why they require a third to join them. "Thinking" is Halliday's ideational
metafunction; "Speech" is his interpersonal metafunction. And of course the
textual metafunction is represented in "Thinking and Speech" by the word
"and".

My wife is currently working on an article that tries to argue for a
diachronic rather than a synchronic teaching of world literature. The idea
is to show the diversity in unity of world literature in time rather than
just in space. But the further back she goes towards the very origins of
writing that Mike is talking about (cuneiform, counters) the more writing
is concerned with exchanging goods and services and the less it is
interested in what we would call ideation. Conversely, by the middle ages,
everybody is interested in representing figures, and by our own time it is
all about creating texts, whether they represent figures or not.

So I guess that unlike you I would recognize not just diversity but
development: development towards greater complexity, development towards
greater diversity, development towards greater inclusiveness (we have
fables AND stream of consciousness literature, but the Ancient Egyptians
only had the former), development in generality (translatability) and
development in abstraction. In one of his lectures, Vygotsky talks about
the uniqueness of ontogenesis insofar as it involves confronting the END of
development with the BEGINNING. That is also, of course, what the study of
the history of literature must do.

In my data, the development is microgenetic (I guess Halliday would call it
logogenetic). "Hi" is essentially a matter of interpersonal contact, whle
"I'm Mr. K" is,  as you point out, ideation. Since this is dialogue, I
guess "And you?" is about looking back to the information just given and
forward to the next turn, and therefore has a textualizing function. It is
the "and" in thinking and the "and" in speech.

I thought I was pretty explicit about the context. I am talking about the
practica that we do at the end of the term--I have to watch trainees teach
and then offer comments. My own entry into the classroom is, or should be,
a kind of model them (because I am a native speaker, but above all because
I am the examiner, and a wise examinee will examine the examiner and try to
do likewise). So I try to introduce myself in a way that I think will
present a range of functions, and suggest a fairly small minimal unit for
using them. But only some of the teachers manage to develop a rhythm: get
attention, give information, check understanding, and I suspect that they
have already developed this rhythm before they arrive in class.

When Andy says that our whole discussion is just silly, all he really means
is that his specific formulations of ideas are not the centre of it. But in
defense of our grumpy philosopher, I should say that Andy is DOES recognize
practical intelligence, but he recognizes it as something qualitative
different from higher intellect (that is, thinking in concepts). So do I.
And so, actually, does Vygotsky (Chapter TWO of Thinking and Speech, where
Vygotsky describes childhood as a zigzagging from practical realism, to
imaginative irrealism, to verbal realism).

So yes--physical play, what Vygotsky calls "quasi-play", roughousing--all
of these are good examples of "practical intelligence", but not necessarily
verbalized intellect. The move into verbalized intellect is not a smooth
one: we can see qualitative transformations in play, first from rote play
(which nevertheless requires a kind of mental representation of the act in
order to repeat it) to role play (which repeats the actor but not the act)
to rule play (which varies actors according to fixed rules).

Huw's objection, that the move from the one into the other requires no
dialectical leap, is in direct contradiction to Vygotsky, and in fact
directly contradicts the very Vygotsky text that he directs me too which
insists on the distinctness as well as the linkedness of role play and rule
play. (Elkonin is another matter; I think his idea of "leading activity"
(as opposed to psychological function) is a neo-behavioristic retreat from
Vygotsky.)  But it also contradicts this, which is from the crucial
paragraph break that divides the two sections of Thinking and Speech,
Chapter One, in its original 1934 edition:

Когда говорят, что диалектический скачок является не только переходом от
немыслящей материи к ощущению, но и переходом от ощущения к мысли, то этим
хотят сказать, что мышление отражает действительность в сознании
качественно иначе, чем непосредственное ощущение. По-видимому, есть все
основания допустить, что это качественное отличие единицы в основном и
главном есть обобщенное отражение действительности. (When we say that the
dialectical leap is not only the transition from nonthinking matter to
sentient, but also the transition from sentience to thought, what we wish
to say is that thinking reflects reality in consciousness in a
qualitatively different way than unmediated sentience. Evidently, there is
every foundation for assuming that this qualitative difference in units
lies in the generalized reflection of reality.)

David Kellogg
Hankuk University of Foreign Studies


On 23 July 2014 04:13, FRANCIS J. SULLIVAN <fsulliva@temple.edu> wrote:

> 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."
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >
> > >
> >
>