[Xmca-l] Re: Article on Positioning Theory

[Larry Purss]

Donna, Jennifer

Yes, it was Paley's expression "you cant' say you can't play" that I was
exploring as an EXPLICIT *value position* that can be contested as not
valuing individual choice.
Jennifer, your extending this *rule* with your observation

"From my experience, it was only when I asked students EXPLICITLY  to take
responsibility for the voices of their peers that I made any headway with
balancing positioning in groups"

also points to the ongoing negotiation and *shared reflection* of the
reality of positioning AS EXPRESSING OUR VOICES.

As a counsellor who explores issues of *belonging* and *friendship" the
issue of *developing caring* is another way into this conversation. I sense
that until a student actually EXPERIENCES [as felt movement of
vulnerability and trust] caring for another that the discussion ABOUT
caring is not productive.

Helping another to *find and express their personal voice* is exploring
this theme of FELT VITALITY as lived experience prior to our understanding
ABOUT caring as a conceptual *reality*.

Donna, your question why it is OK for some participants to not engage in
productive activity  and continue to *feel* a sense of belonging as a
participating member while other participants are actively excluded and
constrained from participating is an interesting question which may relate
to issues of *voice* AS *felt tendency*.

I have tried to imagine seriously engaging with Paley's statement and if
it would transgress our value of *individual reflective choice* to
EXPLICITLY engage with the alternative value which questions individual
choice in the *rule*

"You can't say you can't play"

The emphasis on EXPLICITLY developing a value position that encourages each
of us to help others *find voice* seems to be a possible answer* to Donna's
question.
Larry


On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 8:24 AM, Vadeboncoeur, Jennifer <
j.vadeboncoeur@ubc.ca> wrote:

> I'm not sure if you are referring to Paley's, "You can't say you can't
> play," but I appreciate that perspective, Larry. You've offered several
> important points to the dialogue, from the idea that this happens more
> often than not, to the idea that we really need to practice collaborative
> group work, to the option of opting out as having unintended consequences
> ...
>
> Donna highlighted for us below that there are outcomes that can be quite
> serious from this positioning ...
>
> >From my experience, it was only when I asked students explicitly to take
> responsibility for the voices of their peers that I made any headway with
> balancing positioning in groups ... and this was with uni students ... can
> we ask the same of younger children? ... both that some be more responsible
> to share their ideas and other be more responsible to listen and discuss?
>
> Best to all - jen
>
>
>
>
> On 2014-03-26, at 8:17 AM, Donna Kotsopoulos wrote:
>
> > Thanks, Larry for starting the discussion.
> >
> > It's useful to think about our own experiences in group work. My
> research results surprised me. However, I shouldn't have been surprised. My
> own personal experiences working in groups are similar to those that I
> observed with the students. Some people do very little and are permitted to
> very little. Others do very little and are taken to task for doing very
> little. The main question this paper raises is why it okay for some to do
> very little and not for others? What are the outcomes of persistent
> positioning? There is a productive component that should be of concern to
> educators.
> >
> >
> >
> > Donna Kotsopoulos, Ph.D.
> > Associate Professor
> > Faculty of Education & Faculty of Science, Department of Mathematics
> > Wilfrid Laurier University
> > 75 University Avenue West, BA313K
> > Waterloo, Ontario, N2L 3C5
> > (519) 884-0710 x 3953
> > www.wlu.ca/education/dkotsopoulos
> > www.wlu.ca/mathbrains
> >
> >
> > DISCLAIMER: This e-mail and any file(s) transmitted with it, is intended
> for the exclusive use by the person(s) mentioned above as recipient(s). Any
> unauthorized distribution, copying or other use is strictly prohibited.
> >>>> On 3/26/2014 at 10:34 AM, in message <
> CAGaCnpzXMnauz79g2UvazmCudyU7y56cLUguC9wrpQXnYBTwig@mail.gmail.com>,
> Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Donna's article is asking us to examine the possible unintended
> > consequences of promoting a "collaborative" model of classroom engagement
> > as possibly promoting a [mis]alignment of interactive AND reflexive
> > positioning in group process.
> >
> > One comment that jumped out was the observation that in EVERY
> collaborative
> > group observed ONE participant was [mis]aligned in the group process. My
> > question is if each [mis]aligned participant was asked to re-form within
> a
> > new collaborative grouping would the same dynamic occur? Would Mitchell
> > possibly [re]align and become a *productive* participant who aligns with
> > the *task* while one of the participants would continue to be
> [mis]aligned??
> > This phenomena that in EVERY collaborative grouping there was a
> > [mis]alignment leads to a question if this would same dynamic is playing
> > out in other classroom settings?
> >
> > At the end of the article the conclusion offered that persons should
> have a
> > *choice* to participate or withdraw from engaging in the collaborative
> > process and either work alone or with others also expresses a particular
> > *value* position.  When [mis]aligned with the other participants through
> > engaging in  a process of  *individual* reflection one *ought* to have
> the
> > *choice* to withdraw.
> > Could this *answer* also possibly lead to unintended consequences?
> >
> > A few months ago there was an article on positioning within a
> kindergarten
> > classroom. The question asked was if there should be a *rule* or
> > *principle* that one cannot say "You cannot play with us?"
> > This rule promotes an alternative *value* position. The article described
> > how the central discursive dynamic was exploring if there were any
> > *exceptions* to this rule?  The question whether this rule should *stand*
> > and become a standpoint for how we position each other was left as an
> *open
> > question* which could never have a final answer. However the
> *interactive*
> > AND *reflexive* alignment and [mis]alighnent was very fluid and more
> like a
> > *stream* of positioning to be negotiated.
>
>
>