[Xmca-l] Re: Article on Positioning Theory

[David Hernandez Saca]

Can I have a PDF copy of Donna's article? Thank you, David

-----Original Message-----
From: "Larry Purss" <lpscholar2@gmail.com>
Sent: ‎3/‎26/‎2014 7:36 AM
To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
Subject: [Xmca-l]  Article on Positioning Theory

 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.