[Xmca-l] Re: Article on Positioning Theory

[mike cole]

Published only in Russian, Huw.   :-))
mike


On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 4:23 PM, Huw Lloyd <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com>wrote:

> Good work, Larry.
>
> On the topics of practicalities of "vitalness" and typologies of
> collaboration, I am reminded of a quip from Tolstoy beginning Anna
> Karenina: "Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in
> its own way".
>
> I think we know a fair bit about how to participate in happy
> collaborations.  Which, after all, are the ones we want to foster.  Yet, it
> seems a bit strange to expect children to simply know how to do this,
> especially when you consider all the fumbling attempts adults make at it.
>
> I perceive that one of the practical pieces of the "role cards" that Mike
> had occasion to used (King et al, unpublished?) would be to reduce the
> politics of this for children not practiced at this sort of thing.  For me,
> one area I'd look at is the relation between demands on attention and
> "authoritarian tactics" in collaborative settings, i.e. the strain of
> attention and the desire to "force" a way through to a required task.
>
> Another area I would be equally curious about is the cultural milieu in
> which all these settings are situated.
>
> Best,
> Huw
>
> Catherine A. King, C. A., Griffin, P., Diaz, S., & Cole, M. (unpublished?)
> *A
> Model Systems Approach to Reading Instruction and the Diagnosis of Reading
> Disabilities.   *Available at:
> http://lchc.ucsd.edu/MCA/Mail/xmcamail.2012_10.dir/pdfFxCIQcbtlO.pdf
>
>
> On 28 March 2014 21:18, Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Andy, Huw, Donna, Greg, Jennifer and others who have responded
> >
> > The exploration of positioning theory  has generated  multiple
> discussions
> > which have been stimulated by Donna's article under discussion.  One
> theme
> > that seems vital is to  explore *evaluative practices* and how we arrive
> at
> > our shared values within collaborations. Jennifer's exploration of voice,
> > Huw's referencing inferential positioning, collaboration as having
> > *aspects* that are both constraining and freeing AS multiple TYPES, and
> the
> > complexity of coming to shared understandings.
> >
> > On page 52 of the article "Positioning Theory: Vygotsky, Wittgenstein,
> and
> > Social Constructionis Theory" Dorothy Howie and Michael Peters conclude
> the
> > sub-section on "The New Social Psychology and the Russian Humanistic
> > Tradition" with this comment on evaluative practices.
> >
> > "In conclusion to this section, there are implications of this cultural
> > embeddedness of meanings as expressed in institutional practices and
> > conversations for the interpreting and use of Positioning Theory FOR
> > EVALUATIVE practices IN GENERAL"
> >
> > Andy's comments on TYPES of collaboration  in general AS evaluative
> > practices and the exploration of KINDS of positioning.
> >
> > This section ends with a quote from Harre and Van Lagenhove, 1991:p404]
> >
> > "... the cataloguing of KINDS of positions that exist here and now will
> not
> > necessarily be found at other places and times. In so far as the content
> of
> > a position is DEFINED in terms of rights, duties and obligations of
> > speaking, and these 'MORAL' properties are locally and momentarily
> > specified, positions will be unstable in content as well"
> >
> > To return to the article under discussion, Greg asked if the dynamics in
> > the middle school math class as *observed*  are particular KINDS of
> > collaboration emerging within specific  culturally and historically
> > constrained contexts?
> >
> > There seems to be an *evaluative* ASPECT to understanding positioning
> > theory that expands and extends the complexity of collaborative practices
> >
> >  [the article I have referenced  has free access because the publisher
> > allows free access to 3 articles from their journals over a 14 day
> period]
> > .
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 7:26 AM, Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Andy,
> > >
> > > I experienced your question and as a sudden shift in the collaboration.
> > > The exploration of positioning theory was moving in the direction of
> > > questioning the potential of collaboration is an ideal that may be
> > > constrained. The *meaning* of collaboration was being modified and
> > tending
> > > in one direction.
> > > Your reflection on the value of reflection as a *core* value shifted
> our
> > > engagement with this concept and collaboration *felt* different.
> > > Collaboration went from feeling *suspect* to being a valued term. THIS
> > > phenomena  as felt tendency re-positions the concept of collaboration
> in
> > > our community.
> > > Andy, you then propose the more appropriate *posing* [positioning] of
> > this
> > > question must be *what TYPE of collaboration* is or is not in the best
> > > interest of this or that student. Which then poses/positions the
> question
> > > of "What TYPES of collaboration are there?".
> > >
> > > You suggest that EACH TYPE has a NORM and the particular ways the
> > students
> > > in this class are *normed* I would pose as expressing a particular
> VALUE
> > > position.
> > > Therefore *types* AND *posings* AND *positionings* AND *values* AND
> > > *norms* OF collaboration becomes a particular TYPE of storyline
> [genre??]
> > >
> > > You are suggesting the concept *collaborative* is preferable to
> > > *discourse*. I'm assuming you also would prefer *collaboration* to the
> > > concept *dialogue*.
> > >
> > > I am curious if others share Andy's preference for the concept
> > > *collaboration* and exploring TYPES OR KINDS of collaboration as a way
> to
> > > *reveal* [unmask??] the dynamic flow of  *streams* of collaboration
> > > as expanding and extending the understanding of BOTH positioning theory
> > AND
> > > collaboration.
> > >
> > > I will send a comment on another post which indicates the origin of
> > > Harre's positioning theory within Vygotsky's cultural historical theory
> > AS
> > > a humanistic storyline
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 1:37 AM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>
> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Donna, I agree that "Collaboration is incredible complex" but then you
> > >> add "and hard to achieve."
> > >> Rather than taking it that "collaboration" means one very strictly
> > >> defined norm, couldn't we accept that all the phenomena you describe
> > (and
> > >> more) are aspects of collaboration, and that there is more than one
> > norm of
> > >> collaboratin and many more ways of falling short of normativity, of
> > being
> > >> betrayed, exploited, disappointed, misunderstood, etc., etc.? I prefer
> > to
> > >> take every human relationship as an instance of collaboration, that
> is,
> > I
> > >> take collaboration as the lens through which to understand human
> > >> relationships. But rather than setting up one norm against which every
> > >> human experience turns out to be a dreadful failure, we could see
> every
> > >> human experience as being a window on the experience of collaboration,
> > the
> > >> expectations, the productivity, the potential for disappointment,
> > >> exploitation, etc.? Is there a better way to understand human
> > relationship?
> > >> Discourse? I think "collaboration" is a superior conceptual framework
> > than
> > >> "discouse."
> > >>
> > >> Andy
> > >>
> > >>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >> *Andy Blunden*
> > >> http://home.mira.net/~andy/
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Donna Kotsopoulos wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Thanks for the probes, Greg!
> > >>>
> > >>> I think that to answer your question, I may need to ask a series of
> > >>> rhetorical questions.
> > >>>
> > >>> Have you ever worked collaboratively with others where: (a) someone
> had
> > >>> to agree to disagree?
> > >>> (b) there was a slacker in the group?
> > >>> (c) someone did all the work and all the talking?
> > >>> (d) there was consensus but you wouldn't have called it
> collaboration?
> > >>> (e) what you hoped to gain from the experience was not up to what you
> > >>> expected?
> > >>>
> > >>> I believe most people, including children, would answer yes to some
> or
> > >>> all of those questions. This is because there is an endemic deficit
> to
> > >>> collaboration that has been ignored in the literature in my view.
> It's
> > been
> > >>> a cup overflowing discourse despite the realities of many people.
> > >>>
> > >>> I still have students collaborate - pretty extensively. My goals and
> > >>> expectations are different now. My approach in sharing the
> > expectations is
> > >>> different now. I address those rhetorical questions head-on and
> > encourage
> > >>> the students to own their own responsibility and to keep others
> > accountable.
> > >>>
> > >>> To some extent collaboration is merely an illusion. While we hope
> that
> > >>> shared discourse leads to learning, this can't be assumed and what is
> > >>> learned, intended or otherwise, can't be assumed. Similar to teacher
> > >>> directed learning, collaborative learning doesn't work for everyone.
> > If an
> > >>> artifact or a decision is the outcome of collaborations, it is
> probable
> > >>> that someone in the group perhaps didn't agree or had alternative
> > ideas.
> > >>> Collaboration and consensus are different. Collaboration is
> incredible
> > >>> complex and hard to achieve. Even as adults, the challenge is
> > formidable -
> > >>> its because there is an illusion that must be perpetuated in order to
> > >>> achieve an end. Ultimately, a united front is presented - despite the
> > fact
> > >>> that there may have been problems.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Donna Kotsopoulos, Ph.D.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> >
>