[Xmca-l] Re: MCA Issue 3 article for discussion Re-started

[lpscholar2@gmail.com]

Margaret and Carrie,
What i appreciated was on page 193 (note 2) where Carlone, Kimmel, and Tschida describe the (dual promotion) of science and character education. They offer another example of a close link between science and morality.

The recognition that the construction of the (good) student in neo-lineral ideology does not make any reference to personal interest. Excitement, or engagement in topics, or content-related activities.
What students are offered instead are (hollowed-out) alternatives.
This is my way to indicate that more meaningful, less hollowed-out figured worlds are ethical worlds of (well-being).
(Well-being) being an abbreviation or short hand for (well-being-in-the-world-with-others) as central to education as edu-care that can be cultivated.

Sent from my Windows 10 phone

From: HENRY SHONERD
Sent: November 13, 2016 2:41 PM
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: MCA Issue 3 article for discussion Re-started

All,
I have read only part of Margaret’s and Carrie’s article, but I wanted to jump in with a reference to a book by Vygotskian Vera John-Steiner and her mathematician husband Reuben Hersh: Loving and Hating Mathematics: Challenging the Mathematical Life. Huw’s point (v) which refers to “identities of independence and finding out sustainable within these settings (school math classes) spent high school. Vera’s and Reuben’s book contrasts what it’s like to work and think like a real (working) mathematician (what I think Huw is talking about) and what we call mathematics in the classroom. Chapter 8 of the book "The Teaching of Mathematics: Fierce or Friendly?” is interesting reading and could be relevant to this discussion. 
Henry


On Nov 13, 2016, at 2:47 PM, Huw Lloyd <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Dear Margaret
> 
> My reading has not been a particularly careful one, so I leave it to
> yourselves to judge the usefulness of these points.
> 
> i) Whether arguments can be made (for or against) a nebulous term
> (neoliberalism) with its political associations, by arguments about
> identity that are themselves not deliberately political.
> 
> ii) Whether it is better not to focus essentially on the place of identity.
> 
> iii) Whether it is worthwhile contrasting the role/identity of "model
> student" with "identities" that anyone excelling at STEM subjects would
> relate to.  On this, I would point to the importance with identifying with
> appreciations for "awareness of not knowing" and "eagerness to find out"
> (which also entails learning about what it means to know).
> 
> iv) Whether you detect that to the degree that an identity is foregrounded
> in the actual practice of STEM work (rather than as background social
> appeasement), it is being faked? That is, someone is playing at the role
> rather than actually committing themselves to finding out about unknowns.
> 
> v) Whether, in fact, there is actually a "tiered" or varied set of
> acceptable "identities" within the settings you explored, such that
> identities of independence and finding out are sustainable within these
> settings, possibly representing a necessary fudge to deal with the
> requirements placed upon the institutions.
> 
> Best,
> Huw
> 
> On 12 November 2016 at 20:30, Margaret A Eisenhart <
> margaret.eisenhart@colorado.edu> wrote:
> 
>> Hello Everyone,
>> 
>> Carrie and I are newcomers to this list, and we thank you for the
>> opportunity to engage with you about our article, “Hollowed Out.”  We also
>> hope for your patience as we learn to participate in the stream of
>> thinking here!
>> 
>> Given the comments so far, we are intrigued by others’ ideas about the
>> link between our theory and our data.  On this topic, we would like to
>> make clear that we did not intend to suggest that the students were making
>> sense of their lives in the same way that we interpreted them through the
>> lens of our theory. Our claim is that opportunities and figured worlds are
>> resources for identity and that the students' words to us reflected
>> perspectives consistent with neoliberalism, with some pretty serious
>> implications. Like Phillip White, we are interested in what theories
>> others would use to explain the data we presented.
>> 
>> Like Mike Cole, we are also intrigued by the prospect of “exemplars” we
>> might turn to.
>> 
>> We look forward to hearing your thoughts.
>> 
>> 
>> Margaret Eisenhart
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 11/11/16, 11:35 AM, "lpscholar2@gmail.com" <lpscholar2@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> A resumption in exploring the meaning and sense (preferably sens as this
>>> term draws attention to movement and direction within meaning and sense)
>>> of this month’s article.
>>> The paper begins with the title and the image of (hollowed-out) meaning
>>> and sense that is impoverished and holds few resources for developing a
>>> deeper sens of identity.
>>> The article concludes with the implication that the work of social
>>> justice within educational institutions is not about improving
>>> educational outcome in neoliberal terms; the implications of the study
>>> are about *reorganizing* the identities – particulary
>>> identities-with-standind that young people are *exposed* to, can
>>> articulate, and can act on (in school and beyond).
>>> 
>>> I would say this is taking an ethical stand?.
>>> 
>>> I will now turn to page 189 and the section (identity-in-context) to
>>> amplify the notion of (cultural imaginary) and (figured worlds).
>>> This imaginary being the site or location of history-in-person. That is
>>> identity is a form of legacy (or *text*) ABOUT the kind of person one is
>>> or has become in responding to (external) circumstances.
>>> These external circumstances are EXPERIENCED primarily in the
>>> organization of local practices and cultural imaginaries (figured worlds)
>>> that circulate and *give meaning* (and sens) to local practices
>>> 
>>> Figured worlds are interpreted following Holland as socially and
>>> culturally *realms of interpretation* and certain players are recognized
>>> as (exemplars).
>>> 
>>> As such cultural, social, historical, dialogical psychological
>>> (imaginaries) are handmaidens of the imaginal *giving meaning* to *what*
>>> goes on in the directions we take together.
>>> 
>>> Two key terms i highlight are (exemplars) and (direction) we take.
>>> The realm of the ethical turn
>>> What are the markers and signposts emerging in the deeper ethical turn
>>> that offers more than a hollowed-out answer.
>>> Are there any *ghost* stories of exemplars we can turn to as well as
>>> living exemplars? By ghosts i mean ancestors who continue as beacons of
>>> hope exemplifying *who* we are.
>>> 
>>> My way into exploring the impoverished narratives of the neoliberal
>>> imaginary and reawakening exemplary ancestors or ghosts from their
>>> slumber to help guide us through these multiple imaginaries
>>> 
>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone
>>> 
>>> From: mike cole
>>> Sent: November 9, 2016 3:04 PM
>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: MCA Issue 3 article for discussion Re-started
>>> 
>>> Alfredo--
>>> 
>>> for any who missed the initial article sent out, you might send them
>>> here:
>>> 
>>> http://lchc.ucsd.edu/mca/
>>> 
>>> I am meeting shortly with Bruce. A list of improvements to web site
>>> welcome, although not clear how long they will take to implement.
>>> 
>>> mike
>>> 
>>> On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 2:38 PM, Alfredo Jornet Gil <a.j.gil@iped.uio.no>
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Dear all,
>>>> 
>>>> last week I announced MCA's 3rd Issue article for discussion:
>>>> 
>>>> "Hollowed Out: Meaning and Authoring of High School Math and Science
>>>> Identities in the Context of Neoliberal Reform," by Margaret Eisenhart
>>>> and
>>>> Carrie Allen.
>>>> 
>>>> The article is open access and will continue to be so during the
>>>> discussion time at this link.
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks to everyone who begun the discussion early after I shared the
>>>> link
>>>> last week, and sorry that we sort of brought the discussion to a halt
>>>> until
>>>> the authors were ready to discuss. I have now sent Margaret and Carrie
>>>> the
>>>> posts that were produced then so that they could catch up, but I also
>>>> invited them to feel free to move on an introduce themselves as soon as
>>>> they ​​wanted.
>>>> 
>>>> It is not without some doubts that one introduces a discussion of an
>>>> article in a moment that some US media have called as "An American
>>>> Tragedy"
>>>> and other international editorials are describing as "a dark day for the
>>>> world." But I believe that the paper may indeed offer some grounds for
>>>> discuss important issues that are at stake in everyone's home now, as
>>>> Mike
>>>> recently describes in a touching post on the "local state of mind" and
>>>> that
>>>> have to do with identity and its connection to a neoliberal
>>>> organisation of
>>>> the economy. It is not difficult to link neoliberalism to Trump's
>>>> phenomenon and how it pervades very intimate aspects of everyday life.
>>>> 
>>>> If this was not enough, I think the authors' background on women's
>>>> scholar
>>>> and professional careers in science is totally relevant to the
>>>> discussions
>>>> on gendered discourse we've been having. Now without halts, I hope this
>>>> thread gives joys and wisdom to all.
>>>> 
>>>> Alfredo
>>>> ________________________________________
>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>>>> on behalf of Alfredo Jornet Gil <a.j.gil@iped.uio.no>
>>>> Sent: 02 November 2016 01:48
>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: MCA Issue 3 article for discussion
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks Mike and everyone! I am sure Margaret (and many of those still
>>>> reading) will be happy to be able to catch up when she joins us next
>>>> week!
>>>> Alfredo
>>>> ________________________________________
>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>>>> on behalf of mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu>
>>>> Sent: 02 November 2016 01:32
>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: MCA Issue 3 article for discussion
>>>> 
>>>> Gentlemen -- I believe Fernando told us that Margaret would be
>>>> able to join this discussion next week. Just a quick glance at the
>>>> discussion so far indicates that there is a lot there to wade into
>>>> before she has had a word.
>>>> 
>>>> I am only part way through the article, expecting to have until next
>>>> week
>>>> to think about it.
>>>> 
>>>> May I suggest your forbearance while this slow-poke tries to catch up!
>>>> 
>>>> mike
>>>> 
>>>> On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 3:38 PM, White, Phillip
>>>> <Phillip.White@ucdenver.edu
>>>>> 
>>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> David & Larry, everyone else ...
>>>>> 
>>>>> by way of introduction, Margaret and Carrie point out that the data in
>>>>> this paper emerged through a three year study - which was the
>>>> processes
>>>> of
>>>>> how students of color, interested in STEM, responded to the externally
>>>>> imposed neoliberal requirements. they framed their study using
>>>> theories
>>>> of
>>>>> social practices on how identity developed in context.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> David, you reject the theories.  or so i understand your position. as
>>>> you
>>>>> write: It's that the theory
>>>>> 
>>>>> contradicts my own personal theories.
>>>>> 
>>>>> are you also rejecting the data as well?  it seems as if you are
>>>>> suggesting this when you write: The authors find this point (in the
>>>> case
>>>> of
>>>>> Lorena) somewhere between the
>>>>> beginning of the tenth and the end of the eleventh grade, but I think
>>>>> that's just because it's where they are looking.
>>>>> 
>>>>> you reject the narrative of Lorena on the grounds that it could be
>>>> traced
>>>>> back to infancy.
>>>>> 
>>>>> do you also reject the identical narrative found in the adult
>>>>> practitioners within the context of the high schools?  that this
>>>> narrative
>>>>> is not one of a contemporary neoliberal practice but rather could be
>>>> traced
>>>>> back to, say, the mid 1600's new england colonies, in particular
>>>>> massachusettes, where the practices of public american education
>>>> began?
>>>>> 
>>>>> to explain the data that emerged from the Eisenhart/Allen study, what
>>>>> theories would you have used?
>>>>> 
>>>>> phillip
>>>>> 
>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>>> <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>>>>> on behalf of lpscholar2@gmail.com <lpscholar2@gmail.com>
>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, November 1, 2016 7:03 AM
>>>>> To: David Kellogg; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: MCA Issue 3 article for discussion
>>>>> 
>>>>> Margaret and Carrie,
>>>>> Thank you for this wonderful paper that explains the shallow
>>>>> *hollowed-out* way of forming identity as a form of meaning and
>>>> sense. I
>>>>> will add the French word *sens* which always includes *direction*
>>>> within
>>>>> meaning and sense.
>>>>> 
>>>>> David, your response that what our theory makes sens of depends on
>>>> where
>>>>> we are looking makes sens to me.
>>>>> You put in question the moment when the interpersonal (you and me)
>>>> way of
>>>>> authoring sens *shifts* or turns to cultural and historical ways of
>>>> being
>>>>> immersed in sens. The article refers to the *historical-in-person*.
>>>>> 
>>>>> My further comment, where I am looking) is in the description of the
>>>>> sociocultural as a response to *externally changing circumstances*  as
>>>> the
>>>>> process of *learning as becoming* (see page 190).
>>>>> 
>>>>> The article says:
>>>>> 
>>>>> This process is what Lave and Wenger (1991) and other Sociocultural
>>>>> researchers have referred to as *learning as becoming,* that is,
>>>> learning
>>>>> that occurs as one becomes a certain kind of person in a particular
>>>>> context.  Identities conceived in this way are not stable or fixed. As
>>>>> *external circumstances* affecting a person change, so too may the
>>>>> identities that are produced *in response*. (Holland & Skinner, 1997).
>>>>> 
>>>>> In this version of *history-in-person* the identity processes that
>>>> start
>>>>> the process moving in a neoliberal *direction* are *external*
>>>>> circumstances. I am not questioning this version of the importance of
>>>> the
>>>>> external but do question if looking primarily or primordially to the
>>>>> external circumstances as central if we are not leaving a gap in our
>>>>> notions of *sens*.
>>>>> 
>>>>> If by looking or highlighting or illuminating the *external* and
>>>> highly
>>>>> visible acts of the actual we are leaving a gap in actual*ity.
>>>>> A gap in *sens*.
>>>>> 
>>>>> To be continued by others...
>>>>> 
>>>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone
>>>>> 
>>>>> From: David Kellogg
>>>>> Sent: October 31, 2016 2:15 PM
>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: MCA Issue 3 article for discussion
>>>>> 
>>>>> I was turning Mike's request--for a short explanation of the
>>>>> Halliday/Vygotsky interface--over in my mind for a few days, unsure
>>>> where
>>>>> to start. I usually decide these difficult "where to start" questions
>>>> in
>>>>> the easiest possible way, with whatever I happen to be working on. In
>>>> this
>>>>> case it's the origins of language in a one year old, a moment which is
>>>>> almost as mysterious to me as the origins of life or the Big Bang. But
>>>>> perhaps for that very reason it's not a good place to start (the Big
>>>> Bang
>>>>> always seemed to me to jump the gun a bit, not to mention the origins
>>>> of
>>>>> life).
>>>>> 
>>>>> Let me start with the "Hollowed Out" paper Alfredo just thoughtfully
>>>> sent
>>>>> around instead. My first impression is that this paper leaves a really
>>>> big
>>>>> gap between the data and the conclusions, and that this gap is largely
>>>>> filled by theory. Here are some examples of what I mean:
>>>>> 
>>>>> a)    "Whereas 'subject position' is given by society, 'identity' is
>>>>> self-authored, although it must be recognized by others to be
>>>> sustained."
>>>>> (p. 189)
>>>>> 
>>>>> b)  "It is notable that this construction of a good student, though
>>>>> familiar, does not make any reference to personal interest,
>>>> excitement,
>>>> or
>>>>> engagement in the topics or content-related activities." (193)
>>>>> 
>>>>> c)  "When students' statements such as 'I get it', 'I'm confident',
>>>> 'I'm
>>>>> good at this', and  'I can pull this off' are interpreted in the
>>>> context
>>>> of
>>>>> the figured world of math or science at the two schools, their
>>>> statements
>>>>> index more than a grade. They reference a meaning system for being
>>>> good
>>>> in
>>>>> math or science that includes the actor identity characteristics of
>>>> being
>>>>> able to grasp the subject matter easily, do the work quickly, do it
>>>> without
>>>>> help from others, do it faster than others, and get an A." (193)
>>>>> 
>>>>> In each case, we are told to believe in a theory: "given by society",
>>>>> "self-authored", "does not make any reference", "the context of the
>>>> figured
>>>>> world". It's not just that in each case the theory seems to go against
>>>> the
>>>>> data (although it certainly does in places, such as Lowena's views as
>>>> a
>>>>> tenth grader). I can always live with a theory that contradicts my
>>>> data:
>>>>> that's what being a rationalist is all about. It's that the theory
>>>>> contradicts my own personal theories.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I don't believe that identity is self authored, and I also don't
>>>> believe
>>>>> that subject position is given by society as a whole, I think the word
>>>>> "good" does include personal interest, excitement, and engagement as
>>>> much
>>>>> as it includes being able to grasp the subject matter easily, do the
>>>> work
>>>>> quickly, do it without help from others, do it faster than others and
>>>> get
>>>>> an A. To me anyway, the key word in the data given in c) is actually
>>>> "I"
>>>>> and not "it" or "this": the students think they are talking about, and
>>>>> therefore probably are actually talking about, a relation between
>>>> their
>>>>> inner states and the activity at hand  or between the activity at hand
>>>> and
>>>>> the result they get; they are not invoking the figured world of
>>>> neoliberal
>>>>> results and prospects.
>>>>> 
>>>>> But never mind my own theories. Any gap is, after all, a good
>>>> opportunity
>>>>> for theory building. The authors are raising a key issue in both
>>>> Vygotsky
>>>>> and Halliday: when does an interpersonal relation become a
>>>>> historico-cultural one? That is, when does that 'me" and "you"
>>>> relationship
>>>>> in which I really do have the power to author my identity (I can make
>>>> up
>>>>> any name I want and, within limits, invent my own history,
>>>> particularly
>>>> if
>>>>> I am a backpacker) give way to a job, an address, a number and a class
>>>> over
>>>>> which I have very little power at all? When does the interpersonal
>>>> somehow
>>>>> become an alien ideational "identity" that confronts me like a strange
>>>>> ghost when I look in the mirror?
>>>>> 
>>>>> The authors find this point (in the case of Lorena) somewhere between
>>>> the
>>>>> beginning of the tenth and the end of the eleventh grade, but I think
>>>>> that's just because it's where they are looking. We can probably find
>>>> the
>>>>> roots of this distinction (between the interpersonal and the
>>>>> historico-cultural) as far back as we like, right back to (Vygotsky)
>>>> the
>>>>> moment when the child gives up the "self-authored" language at one and
>>>>> takes on the language recognized by others and (Halliday) the moment
>>>> when
>>>>> the child distinguishes between Attributive identifying clauses ("I'm
>>>>> confident", "I'm good at this"), material processes ("I can pull this
>>>> off")
>>>>> and mental ones ("I get it").
>>>>> 
>>>>> (To be continued...but not necessarily by me!)
>>>>> 
>>>>> David Kellogg
>>>>> Macquarie University
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 4:50 PM, Alfredo Jornet Gil
>>>> <a.j.gil@iped.uio.no
>>>>> 
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Dear xmca'ers,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I am excited to announce the next article for discussion, which is
>>>> now
>>>>>> available open access at the T&F MCA pages<http://www.tandfonline.
>>>>>> com/doi/full/10.1080/10749039.2016.1188962>.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> After a really interesting discussion on Zaza's colourful paper
>>>> (which
>>>>>> still goes on developed into a discussion on micro- and
>>>> ontogenesis),
>>>> we
>>>>>> will from next week be looking at an article by Margaret Eisenhart
>>>> and
>>>>>> Carrie Allen from the special issue on "Reimagining Science
>>>> Education
>>>> in
>>>>>> the Neoliberal Global Context". I think the article, as the whole
>>>> issue,
>>>>>> offers a very neat example of research trying to tie together
>>>>>> cultural/economical? and developmental aspects (of identity in this
>>>>> case).
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Margaret has kindly accepted to join the discussion ?after US
>>>> elections
>>>>>> (which will surely keep the attention of many of us busy).
>>>> Meanwhile, I
>>>>>> share the link<http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10749039
>> .
>>>>>> 2016.1188962>  to the article (see above), and also attach it as
>>>> PDF.
>>>>>> ??Good read!
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Alfredo
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>>