[Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: Re: Zuckerman's 2016 article and "what wouldaneducationbe?"

[lpscholar2@gmail.com]

Huw,
Your question concerning (voice) and switching between teacher directed goals (her intent to teach mathematics  knowledge as structured work) and the (voice) of group mediated work working to interpret the task, checking with each other, criticism, agreement, etc.

This back and forth movement framed as two contrasting orientations each expressing their own *tone*.
The subtleties in which they can be switched between, merged, fused, (LP -overlayed?) and redeployed from one context to another. 
What may be overlooked is the teacher’s voice and tone structuring through *orchestrating* the setting such that there is an implicit obligation to conform to the teacher’s voice?
Your point of interest (LP – theme?) concerns the block in creative engagement when the students are obliged to orient to the teacher’s style and voice and tone.

What I do not hear in this exploration of shifting orientations expressed through teacher voice and group oriented voice is the voice of the individual (person) whose orientation could be withdrawn from the (scene) drowned out by both the teacher voice and the group mediated voice.

To hear his/her tentative voice requires what Winnicott called a *holding* environment. Others orient to the expression – hearing the other into voice.

In the various modes of subtle orientation and engagement we return to the notion of development as *overlayering* of the attachment voice, imitation voice, playful voice, and the learning voice. 
Question : when are these multiple voices merging & fusing and infecting each other and when is there distance through overlaying within the multiple orientations.

The image that comes to mind that captures my addition to various voices  is of two hands clasping. One adult and one a child’s. The question left unsaid in this image;
Who is leading who. I imagine the small hand leading the adult hand. This image can extend to voices, and vision and perceiving in general. 
Are schools responsible for this *level* or *layer* of orientation of voices?
My bias is to answer - yes



Sent from my Windows 10 phone

From: Huw Lloyd
Sent: December 9, 2016 8:27 AM
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: Re: Zuckerman's 2016 article and "what wouldaneducationbe?"

Phillip sent me a few papers pertaining to social identities, which can be
related to the question.  But I should like to say that this is not what I
had in mind.

The point of interest, really, is what is the block in creative engagement
when the students do not engage in this specifically structured group work,
i.e. when they are responding directly to the teacher.

In the teacher-oriented work we have, I am presuming, goals to respond to
the teachers requests in particular ways.  In the group-mediated work we
have, I am also presuming, goals concerning work upon interpretation of the
task, checking with each other, criticism, agreement etc.  It is the tone
of these various modes of orientation and engagement I am referring to and
the subtleties with which they may be switched between, merged, or
redeployed from one context to another. For example, could this be a
product of the teacher's authority for orchestrating the structured
setting, such that the obligation to conform to the settings overlooked by
the teacher prevent the students from direct interpretation and criticism?

Best,
Huw

On 6 December 2016 at 12:39, Huw Lloyd <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com> wrote:

> Well, here is a speculative question which may interest Galina: to what
> degree is "voice" (situated identity and active orientation towards
> particular role-meanings) considered in the platform (the group sustaining
> their inquiry) established?
>
> From one perspective it does not matter too much whether it is considered,
> so long as the students attend and respond to the imagery they experience.
> Does one even try to distinguish "active persona" on a
> scientific/repeatable basis?
>
> On the other hand it may lend further leverage into discerning the
> conflicts and associations between "voice".  E.g. whether the direct
> (rather than group-mediated) voice of the teacher does not directly block
> the students creative and reflexive consideration, but rather that it
> powerfully evokes a particular formalised voice on the part of the student.
> The consideration was that this might be an appropriate way to link
> dialogical (i.e. Bakhtin) considerations to the cognitive aspects of AT and
> (perhaps) the implicit thought modes accompanying them.
>
> As I see it, this still supports the adult-child participations,
> particularly with respect to directives, e.g. the short verb phrases
> commonly acquired by infants/toddlers.  At home we have a delightful phrase
> that moved from a caution to mocking (which I think may have been started
> by our youngest) which is "Tell-you-off!" it is full off mock reprimand and
> gruffly spoken when someone isn't following the script (toddlers love
> scripts).
>
> Another thought I had regarding platforms was that when I was at
> primary/middle school computers were practically shunned by adults, which
> was brilliant. Not only could one devote lots of uninterrupted time to
> building things that worked out of one's imagination, the adults would nod
> approvingly and say to themselves that the child was learning "computer
> skills".  Micro-computers at that juncture not only provided an operating
> system platform (usually manifesting as a little blinking cursor, inviting
> you to write a program) they established a social space/platform too.  But
> not only that, the computer housed the reflections of one's ideas which,
> just like one's attention, could be brought to life in an instant.
>
> Best,
> Huw
>
> On 5 December 2016 at 17:02, mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu> wrote:
>
>> Dear Colleagues -- Here is my quick translation of Galina's response to my
>> invitation to join the discussion of her paper. (Note that she refers to
>> reflexive thinking which is the topic of a second paper I am not sure
>> everyone has obtained).
>>
>> I would emphasize her point that this work was written in the 1980's,
>> published in 2000, and available to us only now in English. These temporal
>> facts and their implications in terms of judgments about the political
>> context of the work ought to be kept in mind when interpreting aspects of
>> the text. Speaking personally, Phillip's comments about the common values
>> across different systems of state sponsored mass education provide a
>> reasonable interpretive framework.
>>
>> Here are Galina's comments:
>>
>> Michael -
>>
>> I send you a book file, part of which has been translated and is now being
>> discussed. I am of two minds about participating in the discussion. Do I
>> want to participate in the discussion? Yes and no. Yes, because I have
>> never tired of learning. No, because I am tired of the socio-political
>> myths that gradually sinks discussion.
>>
>>
>>
>> With regard to the politics. El'konin and Davydov were and remain
>> dissidents both in relation to their own times, and in the new millennium;
>> and in their personal behavior and professional accomplishments are
>> important for me, because I love these people and their ideas.
>>
>>
>>
>> The book *How do younger school children learn to learn?* (from which the
>> article was selected). It was published in 2000 and written in the late
>> 80s. Is it outdated? Yes and no. Obsolete are the specific examples of
>> learning situations I used to illustrate various pedagogical ideas. But
>> the
>> specific instructional situations described, as a rule, were recorded on
>> the day of testing: the result of the main lessons from a good teacher -
>> an
>> understanding of how today's ideas could be implemented better, fuller,
>> and
>> more clearly remain useful. What has not aged are ideas about interpsychic
>> action, illustrated by these learning situations. At present I will
>> mention
>> only two:
>>
>>
>>
>> 1) Education always introduces asymmetries into development, supporting
>> some potential opportunities and age not supporting others. The dream of
>> all-round harmonious development is unattainable due to the specific
>> relationship of instruction and development.
>>
>>
>>
>> 2) For the *reflexive development* of the child, interaction with adults
>> who are familiar and knowledgeable about the subject matter needs to be
>> supplemented by interaction with peers who do not know the answers and are
>> not more knowledgeable. This [dual necessity] is on the one hand, well
>> known and repeatedly demonstrated, but on the other hand, it is constantly
>> ignored. For me, this is important because it makes re-think one of the
>> most quoted sayings of Vygotsky: "Zone of Proximal Development - is the
>> distance between the level of a child's actual development as determined
>> by
>> the tasks presented that are accomplished independently, and the level of
>> potential development, determined by means of a procedure in which
>> problems
>> are solved under the leadership of adults or in collaboration with more
>> knowledgeable peers."
>>
>>
>>
>> ​Is this another way of formulating Ed Wall's idea of rigor and
>> responsiveness in pedagogical terms? Sort of like modes and relations of
>> production one might say.
>>
>> mike​
>>
>> ​
>>  21-kak-mlsch-uchatsa_2000.pdf
>> <https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7y1a3DKSsQJWTNSN3BRNll0Zn
>> c/view?usp=drive_web>
>> ​
>>
>> >
>> >>>
>> >>>
>>
>
>