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

Fri Nov 18 19:12:33 PST 2016

Thank you, Phillip.
"For us in these times, to even have hope is too abstract, too detached, too spectatorial. Instead we must be a hope, a participant and a force for good as we face this catastrophe.”
That’s my favorite part.
Henry

> On Nov 18, 2016, at 3:52 PM, White, Phillip <Phillip.White@ucdenver.edu> wrote:
> 
> well, this is what Cornel West has to say:
> 
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/17/american-neoliberalism-cornel-west-2016-election
> 
> [https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/aae8946d80dac457aa8b6af3f9a9fd5acc6b4acb/0_662_5150_3090/master/5150.jpg?w=1200&h=140&q=55&auto=format&usm=12&fit=crop&bm=normal&ba=bottom%2Cleft&blend64=aHR0cHM6Ly91cGxvYWRzLmd1aW0uY28udWsvMjAxNi8wNS8yNS9vdmVybGF5LWxvZ28tMTIwMC05MF9vcHQucG5n&s=4cbd18b4943818f70304ff2cfdc3da2d]<https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/17/american-neoliberalism-cornel-west-2016-election>
> 
> Goodbye, American neoliberalism. A new era is here | Cornel West<https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/17/american-neoliberalism-cornel-west-2016-election>
> www.theguardian.com
> Trump’s election was enabled by the policies that overlooked the plight of our most vulnerable citizens. We gird ourselves for a frightening future
> 
> 
> 
> 
> phillip
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> on behalf of lpscholar2@gmail.com <lpscholar2@gmail.com>
> Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2016 8:16:01 PM
> To: Edward Wall; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: MCA Issue 3 article for discussion Re-started
> 
> So basically engaging in play may be foundational to learning a particular disciplinary subject matter including mathematical play.
> This playful approach as counterpoint to formal high stakes approaches.  This places the scope of play (itself) at the center of our inquiry.
> This feels intuitively to be relevant to exemplary ways of learning.
> 
> Like imagination, play is not taken seriously , but may be foundational or necessary for learning that is exemplary.
> 
> 
> Sent from my Windows 10 phone
> 
> From: Edward Wall
> Sent: November 17, 2016 4:45 PM
> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: MCA Issue 3 article for discussion Re-started
> 
> Larry
> 
>     There are, at least, four somewhat current possibilities (I’m not sure if they should be called exemplars) as regards mathematics
> 
> 1. Summerhill (and, perhaps, some other English private schools)
> 2. Some private schools in the US (a book was written by a teacher at one. If there is any interest I’ll see if I can dig up the title).
> 3. The case of Louis P. Benezet in a US public school in1929
> 4. There is some indication that schools in Finland and the Netherlands are, perhaps, a little less ‘neoliberal' (however, the evidence isn’t clear)
> 
> Basically in some of the above formal mathematics instruction is put off until either children ask or until until fourth or fifth grade; however, children engage in, you might say, mathematical play (Dewey recommended something like this). This is, by the way and according to some, also what a good mathematics preK program looks like. Also, this is a bit as regards mathematics what the ancient Greek version of schooling for the elite looked like (i.e. mathematics was put off).
> 
> Ed
> 
>> On Nov 17, 2016, at  3:05 PM, lpscholar2@gmail.com wrote:
>> 
>> The question remains, if this neoliberal context generates (hollowed-out) educational *spaces* or institutions then is it possible we are able to offer exemplars of other educational places (current or historical) that manifested different kinds of identity formation that were not hollowed out. I speculate these exemplars would embody or incarnate deeply historical and  ethical orientations and practices.
>> If we have lost our way, are there other models (cultural imaginaries) that co-generate developmental narratives that will nurture well-being?
>> 
>> Exemplary models that point in a certain direction
>> 
>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone
>> 
>> From: Huw Lloyd
>> Sent: November 17, 2016 11:32 AM
>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: MCA Issue 3 article for discussion Re-started
>> 
>> Alfredo,
>> 
>> Yes, they're pathological.  I am merely saying that the problems inherent
>> in the pathology can be edifying.  No, I don't think the issues can be
>> transcended within conventional practices. Perhaps the best that can be
>> achieved is that the students recognise an institutional need for "good
>> behaviour" and the teacher recognises an educational need for real problem
>> solving. For "real" education, we would need something like Davydov's
>> system. But this is merely one view of the purpose of "education". There
>> are many who don't seem to recognise these (and other) important
>> implications.
>> 
>> Best,
>> Huw
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 17 November 2016 at 18:11, Alfredo Jornet Gil <a.j.gil@iped.uio.no>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Huw,
>>> 
>>> great comments. I like what you say, that the (institutional, social)
>>> process always is educational, and I agree: it develops into the formation
>>> of habit and character. But I still wonder whether all educational
>>> processes lead to growth or development, or whether we rather should be
>>> able to identify some processes as, we may call them, *pathological* (or
>>> perhaps involutive?). There you have Bateson on double bind and
>>> schizophrenia, for example. Here, in the article, we have some young
>>> students that enter a system that generates a double bind (it was Mike who
>>> made me aware of the connection with double bind). The question is, will
>>> the system develop without some form of awareness *about* the double bind
>>> that overcomes it by generating a system that does not only include the
>>> double bind, but also its own description (thereby becoming a higher order
>>> system, one in which participants, students and teachers, come to grow
>>> rather than come to stall).
>>> 
>>> Alfredo
>>> ________________________________________
>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>>> on behalf of Huw Lloyd <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com>
>>> Sent: 17 November 2016 10:54
>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: MCA Issue 3 article for discussion Re-started
>>> 
>>> Alfredo,
>>> 
>>> The 'zone' is always present.  Whether it is recognised or not is another
>>> matter.
>>> I do not think this interpretation is quite a zero sum game, because there
>>> is always the aspect that the institutionalised process is educational --
>>> the laws reveal themselves one way or another.  So (from an Illich
>>> perspective) the opportunity to discover what is real remains, it just
>>> takes a different course.
>>> 
>>> Best,
>>> Huw
>>> 
>>> On 17 November 2016 at 07:37, Alfredo Jornet Gil <a.j.gil@iped.uio.no>
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> What touches me of the article is something that perhaps relates to this
>>>> tension that I find between David's (individualistic?) approach to
>>>> prolepsis in his post (David, I thought, and continue thinking, that
>>>> prolepsis refers to something that emerges in the relation between two,
>>> not
>>>> something that either is present or absent within a person), and
>>> Phillip's
>>>> view of young people figuring out what life is all about just as all we
>>> do.
>>>> And so here (and in any neoliberal school context) we have wonderfully
>>>> beautiful young people more or less interested in science or in maths,
>>> but
>>>> all eager to live a life and evolve as best as they can (whatever that
>>> best
>>>> may mean for each one). And then you see how the history and context that
>>>> they come into gives them everything they need to develop motives and
>>>> goals; to then make sure that the majority of them won't make it so that
>>>> only a few privileged (or in the case of Margaret's paper none, according
>>>> to the authors) succeed. And then what remains is not just a hollowed-out
>>>> science and math identity, but also a hollowed-out soul that had illusion
>>>> and now just doesn't. Not only a failure to provide opportunities to
>>>> learners to become anything(one) good about science and math, but also a
>>>> robbing of other possible paths of development that may had grown in
>>> people
>>>> if they had been hanging out with some other better company. Do we have a
>>>> term to refer to the opposite of a zone of proximal development? Not just
>>>> the absence of it, but the strangling of it.
>>>> 
>>>> Alfredo
>>>> ________________________________________
>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>>>> on behalf of White, Phillip <Phillip.White@ucdenver.edu>
>>>> Sent: 17 November 2016 06:29
>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: MCA Issue 3 article for discussion Re-started
>>>> 
>>>> David, the examples on page 193, students 1, 2 & 3 - aren't these
>>> examples
>>>> of proleptic thought - especially for student 2, who looks at where she
>>> is
>>>> "I have my own standards", a statement of the present, then a looking
>>> back
>>>> at  what has happened, "I like to get straight A's". and then setting a
>>>> target for the future, "help for like to get in college and stuff, so
>>> yeah,
>>>> I participate in a lot of stuff." ending with a reassertion of present
>>>> activities to attain future goals.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> and there is a preponderance of the use of "I", rather than "you".
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> i'd give the young people for credit than a myopia focused merely on
>>> their
>>>> age: the business of young people is figuring out what life is all about
>>>> and how to participate, just as adults and infants and old people like me
>>>> do.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> i'm not convinced that your arguments are supported by the data in this
>>>> Eisenhard / Allen paper.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> phillip
>>>> 
>>>> ________________________________
>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>>>> on behalf of David Kellogg <dkellogg60@gmail.com>
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2016 1:24:35 PM
>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: MCA Issue 3 article for discussion Re-started
>>>> 
>>>> Actually, Henry, I was attacking the idea that tense is an empty mental
>>>> space. I guess I am a little like Larry: when we discuss articles I have
>>> a
>>>> strong tendency to try to make them relevant to what I am doing rather
>>> than
>>>> to drop what I am doing and go and discuss what everybody else is
>>>> discussing. So what I am doing right now is trying to make sense of some
>>>> story-telling data where the adults are all over the map on tenses, and
>>> the
>>>> kids seem to stick to one tense only. The adults are slipping in and out
>>> of
>>>> mental spaces. The kids are telling stories.
>>>> 
>>>> I think the relevance to the article is this: When you look at the way
>>> the
>>>> article frames institutional practices and figured worlds, we see
>>>> prolepsis--a preoccupation with the future. But when we look at what the
>>>> kids are doing and saying it is very much in the moment. Is this simply
>>>> because mental processes like "like" and "want" tend to take simple
>>> present
>>>> (because they are less defined than material processes)? Or is it because
>>>> while the institutions have the near future firmly in view and the
>>> figured
>>>> worlds have irrealis in view, the business of young people is youth?
>>>> 
>>>> Vygotsky points out that the question the interviewer asks is very much a
>>>> part of the data. For example, if you ask a question using "you" you
>>> often
>>>> get "you" in reply, even if you design your question to get "I".
>>>> 
>>>> Q: Why do you want to kill yourself?
>>>> A: The same reason everybody wants to kill themselves. You want to find
>>> out
>>>> if anybody really cares.
>>>> 
>>>> To take another example that is probably more relevant to readers: both
>>> the
>>>> Brexit vote and the American elections are clear examples of statistical
>>>> unreliability in that if you tried to repeat the election the morning
>>> after
>>>> you would probably get an utterly different result. Take all of those
>>> black
>>>> voters and the real working class voters who voted Obama but couldn't be
>>>> bothered for Hillary (not the imaginary "white working class voters" who
>>>> work in imaginary industries in Iowa, rural Pennsylvania, North Carolina
>>>> and Florida). They might well have behaved rather differently knowing how
>>>> imminent the neo-Confederacy really was. This is usually presented as
>>>> "buyer's remorse," but it's more than that; the event itself would be
>>> part
>>>> of its replication. This is something that statistical models that use
>>>> standard error of the mean cannot build in (they work on the impossible
>>>> idea that you can repeat an event ten or twenty thousand times without
>>> any
>>>> memory at all).
>>>> 
>>>> In the same way, when you interview a group of students together you
>>> notice
>>>> that they tend to model answers on each other rather than on your
>>> question,
>>>> and when you interview them separately, you notice that YOU tend to
>>> change
>>>> your question according to the previous answer you received. On the one
>>>> hand, life is not easily distracted by its own future: it is too wholly
>>>> there in each moment of existence. On the other hand, each of these
>>> moments
>>>> includes the previous one, and therefore all the previous ones, in
>>> itself.
>>>> The past weighs like a nightmare on the brain of the living, and objects
>>> in
>>>> the rear view mirror are always closer than they appear.
>>>> 
>>>> David Kellogg
>>>> Macquarie University
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 10:23 AM, HENRY SHONERD <hshonerd@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> David,
>>>>> I was puzzled that you found Langacker to be relevant to this topic,
>>> but
>>>>> the last paragraph of your post makes an important connection between
>>>>> Langacker and Vygotsky: Both see speech acts as staged…interactants
>>> view
>>>>> themselves as “on stage”. I think the book by Vera and Reuben is
>>> largely
>>>>> about how differently math is “staged” by working mathematicians as
>>>>> contrasted with doing math in school. I think it would be interesting
>>> to
>>>>> analyze how natural language and the language of math scaffold each
>>> other
>>>>> in both contexts. Word problems have been a well-used way of connecting
>>>> the
>>>>> two languages; stats and graphs are commonly used in the media to
>>> clarify
>>>>> and elaborate text in articles on economics, presidential elections,
>>> and
>>>>> what not.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I would love to read your “unpublishable” on Langacker and Halliday on
>>>>> tense. What I recall from reading Langacker is his interest in “basic
>>>>> domains”, starting with the temporal and spatial. Somewhere he has said
>>>>> that he believes that the temporal domain is the more basic. As you’d
>>>>> guess, the spatial domain is especially useful in elucidating what he
>>>> calls
>>>>> “things” (nouns are conceptually about things); the temporal domain is
>>>> more
>>>>> closely connected to what he calls “processes” wherein he analyzes
>>> tense
>>>>> and aspect.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I think Langacker would agree that his work in cognitive grammar has a
>>>>> long way to go in contributing to the idea that grammar is usage based,
>>>>> rather than some autonomous module, but he is working on it. I think
>>>> there
>>>>> is a potential for connecting Halliday and Langacker, though I’m not
>>>> smart
>>>>> enough to convince you of that evidently. Somehow the connection must
>>> be
>>>>> made by staying close to the data, “thick description” ethnographers
>>> are
>>>>> fond of saying. I think the article by Carrie and Margaret is raising
>>>> this
>>>>> issue.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The “hollowed out” math curriculum in the article resonates with the
>>>>> “potholes” you say teachers must watch out for. Some may say that  the
>>>>> hollowing out is typical even of “elite” K-12 schools. Some may say
>>> that
>>>>> this is deliberate. I would say my own experience of math in school was
>>>>> often hollowed out, which I sensed, but didn’t discover until I got to
>>>> the
>>>>> “pure math” department in the mid 60s at Univ of Texas at Austin under
>>>> the
>>>>> leadership of Robert Lee Moore. He is a main protagonist in Chapter 8
>>> of
>>>>> Vera’s and Reuben’s book.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I’ll end it there.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Henry
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Nov 15, 2016, at 1:38 PM, David Kellogg <dkellogg60@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Henry:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I just wrote another unpublishable comparing how Langacker and
>>>>>> Halliday treat tense, and I'm starting to come to grips with the
>>>>> different
>>>>>> theory of experience underlying the two grammars. Langacker somehow
>>>> sees
>>>>> it
>>>>>> as creating empty mental space (and aspect as creating space within
>>>>> space).
>>>>>> Halliday sees tense as a way of abstracting concrete doings and
>>>>> happenings.
>>>>>> Halliday's tense system is not spatial at all but temporal: it's
>>>>> temporally
>>>>>> deictic and then temporally recursive: a kind of time machine that
>>>>>> simultaneously transports and orients the speaker either
>>> proleptically
>>>> or
>>>>>> retroleptically. So for example if I say to you that this article we
>>>> are
>>>>>> discussing is going to have been being discussed for two or three
>>> weeks
>>>>>> now, then "is going" is a kind of time machine that takes you into
>>> the
>>>>>> future, from which "You are Here" vantage point the article has been
>>>>> (past)
>>>>>> being discussed (present). Present in the past in the future.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> And that got me thinking about theory and practice. It seems to me
>>> that
>>>>> the
>>>>>> they are related, but simultaneously and not sequentially. That is,
>>> the
>>>>>> output of one is not the input of the other: they are simply more and
>>>>> less
>>>>>> abstract ways of looking at one and the same thing. So for example in
>>>>> this
>>>>>> article the tasks of theory and practice are one and the same: the
>>> task
>>>>> of
>>>>>> theory is really to define as precisely as possible the domain, the
>>>>> scope,
>>>>>> the range of the inquiry into authoring math and science identities
>>> and
>>>>> the
>>>>>> task of practice is to ask what exactly you want to do in this
>>>>>> domain/scope/range--to try to understand how they are hollowed out a
>>>>> little
>>>>>> better so that maybe teachers like you and me can help fill the damn
>>>>>> potholes in a little. You can't really do the one without doing the
>>>>> other:
>>>>>> trying to decide the terrain under study without deciding some task
>>>> that
>>>>>> you want to do there is like imagining tense as empty mental space
>>> and
>>>>> not
>>>>>> as some actual, concrete doing or happening. Conversely, the way you
>>>> dig
>>>>>> the hole depends very much on how big and where you want it.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> So there are three kinds of mental spaces in the first part of the
>>>>> article:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> a) institutional arrangements (e.g. "priority improvement plans",
>>>>>> career-academy/comprehensive school status STEM tracks, AP classes)
>>>>>> b) figured worlds (e.g. 'good students', and 'don't cares', or what
>>>>> Eckhart
>>>>>> and McConnell-Ginet called 'jocks', 'nerds',  'burnouts',
>>>> 'gangbangers')
>>>>>> c) authored identities (i.e. what kids say about themselves and what
>>>> they
>>>>>> think about themselves)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Now, I think it's possible to make this distinction--but they are
>>>>> probably
>>>>>> better understood not as mental spaces (in which case they really do
>>>>>> overlap) but rather as doings (or, as is my wont, sayings). Different
>>>>>> people are saying different things: a) is mostly the sayings of the
>>>>> school
>>>>>> boards and administrators, b) is mostly the sayings of teachers and
>>>>> groups
>>>>>> of kids, and c) is mostly the sayings of individual students. It's
>>>> always
>>>>>> tempting for a theory to focus on c), because that's where all the
>>> data
>>>>> is
>>>>>> and it's tempting for practice too, because if you are against what
>>> is
>>>>>> happening in a) and in b), that's where the most likely point of
>>>>>> intervention is.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> "But the data does suggest that the "figured worlds" are figured by
>>>>>> authored identities--not by institutional arrangements. Is that just
>>> an
>>>>>> artefact of the warm empathy of the authors for the words (although
>>>> maybe
>>>>>> not the exact wordings) of their subjects, or is it real grounds for
>>>>> hope?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Marx says (beginning of the 18th Brumaire): "*Men make* their own
>>>>> *history*,
>>>>>> *but they* do *not make* it as *they* please; *they* do *not make* it
>>>>>> under self-selected circumstances, *but* under circumstances existing
>>>>>> already, given and transmitted from the *past*. The tradition of all
>>>> dead
>>>>>> generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living."
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> It's a good theory, i.e. at once a truth and a tragedy. And it's a
>>>>>> theory treats time as time and not as an empty stage.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> David Kellogg
>>>>>> Macquarie University
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 9:39 AM, HENRY SHONERD <hshonerd@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 