[Xmca-l] Re: remote_online learning?

[David Kellogg]

I don't think that photography really replaced painting, nor do I think
that television ever replaced printing. In both cases, there was some
encroachment and then an "involution" (a die-off) where functions
overlapped. For example, we no longer pay for expensive family portraits,
and the number of people who watch Downton Abbey is probably a lot greater
than the number that read Anthony Trollope. But where functions did not
redound (e.g. abstraction in painting and forensics in photography,
advertising in television vs. psychological prose) there was enrichment and
evolution. Crises only become pathological when involution fails to occur,
and when the transitional forms thrown up at critical times become
permanent ones. We cannot make salads from the cotyledons of our lettuce
greens.

I think that pathological tendency is exactly what Mr. Schmidt and his
colleagues are pushing with their attempt to make on-line learning
economically sustainable even when it is not educationally so. Rebecca
Schuman recently pointed out that the expense of online learning to
universities is greater than classroom learning (because it requires you to
pay faculty AND tech support). So you can only turn a profit if you make it
permanent (You have to do what Chairman Mao used to do in the old Peasant
Studies Institute in revolutionary Guangzhou:  "keep the blackboard and
erase the students"). On-line learning in a way presents the OPPOSITE
problem that  photograhy presented to painting and television presented to
printing. Photography is better at "unmediated" presentation than painting,
and television rewards attention rather than concentration. Like
photography and TV, face to face conversation is just a whole lot better at
these.

Much the same may be said about Mr. Schmidt's response to China and South
Korea's response, which is explicitly and avowedly pro-individualism and
implicitly and covertly pro-US imperialist. But whether or not Mr. Schmidt
agrees to it, the Anglo-American approach of preventative-but-not-public
medicine is going to involute, and very quickly too. One example will
suffice. Yesterday KCDC released a report on the "reinfection"
phenomenon--the fact that people who recover will test positive again in a
few months. The Koreans found that this was due to deactivated virus
particles which persist in the body but which are detected by oversensitive
testing. This is REALLY big news--it essentially means that humans as a
species will eventually survive Covid 19 in more or less the way we
prevailed over the Black Death and small pox. But the study was done
here in Korea, and it was publisihed only in Korean; the rest of the world
had to read the abstract.

David Kellogg
Sangmyung University

New Article: Ruqaiya Hasan, in memoriam: A manual and a manifesto.
Outlines, Spring 2020
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://tidsskrift.dk/outlines/article/view/116238/167607__;!!Mih3wA!TRjizV3Qo-rmLP8F-Hy7aO5AtWByRzlq1e7lAjC7euzs3e-_H0HlE9QKv9w1GQ5b_sFBew$ 

New Translation with Nikolai Veresov: *L.S. Vygotsky's Pedological
Works* *Volume
One: Foundations of Pedology*"
 https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9789811505270__;!!Mih3wA!TRjizV3Qo-rmLP8F-Hy7aO5AtWByRzlq1e7lAjC7euzs3e-_H0HlE9QKv9w1GQ6IvWMRiA$ 



On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 7:02 AM Annalisa Aguilar <annalisa@unm.edu> wrote:

> Hi Mike,
>
> But then how is it that we even exist, having these conversations? If this
> were all true?
>
> There is within each individual the freedom to choose, we are not all
> automatons.
>
> I suppose what I mean to say is that if we say it's hopeless, then it is.
>
> So then why even bother?
>
> Why not just give up the ghost (and resignedly accept our
> bourgeois-reality as the medicine we are spoonfed)? Are we talking about
> the borg? Is resistance futile?
>
> To hell with that (narrative)!
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Annalisa
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> on behalf of mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 20, 2020 3:34 PM
> *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: remote_online learning?
>
>
> *  [EXTERNAL]*
> Annalisa --  I believe that Tom's point is that such promising innovations
> are almost always
> possible on the fringes of educational practice, but that they are
> inevitably domesticated or
> stomped on by pre-existing regimes of power.
>
> That is what Adorno argued in the post-WWII. And many before and since.
> mike
>
> On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 2:29 PM Annalisa Aguilar <annalisa@unm.edu> wrote:
>
> Hi Tom,
>
> May I, in turn, thank you for your civil disagreement? 🙂
>
> Online learning is one area of study in my educational background. We
> looked at Second Life (SL) and tried to create a learning space there,
> once. I think that there is always room for innovation, but there is always
> a transaction of what one forfeits for what one gains. I was underwhelmed
> by SL's prospects.
>
> In the heyday of SL, which as a platform is barely in a coma right now,
> I'd once heard that a medical school created a giant kidney sculpture, that
> students' avatars could walk around to investigate and discuss with one
> another how various kidney processes worked.  It was a virtual biological
> fountain in the town square. I'm not sure that this learning context would
> ever beat out a human anatomy class, but I found the solution interesting.
>
> Blackboard was another platform we used, which I detested. It was like
> looking at the teacher's chalkboard through a slice of swiss cheese.
> Perhaps it is more "evolved" now.
>
> What was interesting about SL is that one could project a sense of place,
> which we know is helpful for memory and retention. There was a lot of open
> space for play involved in SL, enough to make it interesting, but it was
> perhaps far too much work to create viable learning environments.
>
> I think what we have to accept (which I feel all experienced educators
> already know and feel) is that flattening all education to an online
> learning space of a 2D screen, as may be experienced with grade-schoolers
> during the pandemic today, is destructive to learning, *because* of
> associations of place with learning.
>
> In a way, online learning venues that we may enjoy as adults, such as the
> AUP conference on Psychology in Global Crises, is a bit like driving,
> drinking, and smoking. What I mean is that one must pass a certain age in
> order to decide if it is good for me or not, or that I have the hand-eye
> coordination to negotiate (as with driving). Consider recent ZOOMbombing
> abuses, which would make any parent want to unplug the computer and
> constrain learning to books.
>
> We live in a time where the classroom holds no sanctity whatsoever. We
> must put the sanctity back into teaching and learning.
>
> I still maintain that we are not powerless to debate the ways in which the
> situations and environments we determine are viable to create contexts of
> learning.
>
> I find the lack of detail in the Klein article is not by accident, but out
> of convenience. There has been plenty of online learning happening for
> quite sometime now. But this has largely been in adult or in college-aged
> learning venues . Not with grade school.
>
> I do think that there has been some online tutoring venues for
> grade-school kids, but I'm not certain how much that has been formally
> studied. I also wonder what answers homeschooling might contribute as well,
> although that venue for learning has a decidedly conservative sheen upon
> it, for all the homesteading mythologies those folk abide in. I would guess
> that this is form of learning is one that they would welcome, because
> parents would get to pick and choose what their children learn.
>
> I don't think this could ever be construed as a liberal arts education,
> nor would it deliver new generations of critical thinkers.
>
> What I feel may be a part of the pushback against these propositions is
> childcare, and how parents will require this to provide for their own
> families. I found this NY opinion piece insightful:
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/22/opinion/coronavirus-parenting-burnout.html__;!!Mih3wA!TRjizV3Qo-rmLP8F-Hy7aO5AtWByRzlq1e7lAjC7euzs3e-_H0HlE9QKv9w1GQ5PAiB9cg$ 
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/22/opinion/coronavirus-parenting-burnout.html?action=click&module=RelatedLinks&pgtype=Article__;!!Mih3wA!SZSEYLggVkbsFhK2-SLWJT1oidlnry4UU07CU8yscHieuVTRIi4U3vkjwqo1GLIpcTD9PA$>
>
> It may be we witness in a shakeout for free childcare that it is a right,
> not a privilege. That would be a huge boon for many. But the pandemic may
> also show us a new aspect of the validity of classroom education and why we
> must fight to preserve it. We use it or we lose it.
>
> It may usher in more critical discourse about the meaning of the classroom
> to the child's learning. if only for the attentional affordances that the
> classroom provides to a cluster of young minds and their teacher.
>
> Last, in reply to your, "I cannot grasp what is intended/visualized by the
> AI/digital experts," may I remind you that Thomas Edison believed that he
> could turn the classroom upside-down with the invention of film, and that
> education would be significantly transformed by watching movies. People
> then worried if that meant there would be no need to learn to read, etc. We
> see that what Edison visualized was simply not realistic. But is it the
> case that watching films in a classroom doesn't provide some facet of
> learning? Yes. But has it supplanted traditional forms of learning? No.
>
> If teachers discover there are legitimate technological additions to
> already successful evidence-based learning environments, that support
> well-known learning theory, technology can be welcomed if it can be
> integrated with existing models.
>
> If teachers do not find such technology useful, then it's just another way
> to enrich the pockets of Mr. Schmidt and other technophiles, where money
> will be spent but the products unused. That would be tragic and wasteful.
>
> One of the aspects I do not like about the idea of grade-school online
> learning environments is how it inures children to surveillance, which may
> also turn off a great many kids who would prefer wandering backyards, or
> riding bikes in the park, to play with friends. I don't think learning and
> surveillance is a constructive combination.
>
> There is a lot to consider, and perhaps this is where the alarm is more
> appropriately felt, because these are new challenges, and there are not yet
> words to describe what we find wrong with these problems, and so we must
> better ourselves by searching for the arguments and stances we can unite
> behind. Perhaps we feel alarmed because we must grapple with an unknown
> interloper. We are fatigued because our senses are already shredded from
> what is already difficult about living in a pandemic.
>
> This is why I do not feel Klein's tone is helpful to us. It stands upon a
> mythology that technology is inevitable. After much study and
> introspection, I will never accept that reality.
>
> To listen to Klein is to believe that a town crier were to some and say
> "They are coming take all our tools and all they will leave us are hammers
> and pins."
>
> I just do not believe this narrative.
>
> We cannot give up.
>
> Is there a fight ahead? Yes.
>
> Should we rally together to protect what needs protecting? Most
> definitely, yes.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Annalisa
> ------------------------------
> *From:* xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> on behalf of Tom Richardson <tom.richardson3@googlemail.com>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 20, 2020 7:31 AM
> *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: remote_online learning?
>
>
> *  [EXTERNAL]*
>
> Hello Annalisa
> Thank you for your reactions to the Klein article. I agree with almost
> none of your opinions about the content nor the form. About the capacity of
> human nature for both heroic altruism and lethal self-interested behaviour
> acted out by the same person, I have no doubts.
>
>    - What I really wanted an answer to was: 'What will the environment
>    created for this new online learning actually consist of, in the
>    widest sense of the situation for the learner and the context in which such
>    learning takes place?'.
>    - What can be confidently forecast about the nature of these changes
>    for the *perezhivanie  *of the learner, which shapes her social being
>    and that which she perceives as being 'normal/abnormal',
>    'acceptable/unacceptable' and 'changeable/unchangeable' in her society?
>
> Since little practical detail is given in Klein's piece and I haven't yet
> listened to the complete video from the ECNY meeting, I cannot grasp what
> is intended/visualised by the AI/digital experts.
> I would welcome some approach to answers to those questions if that is
> within your area of expertise; if not, I am content to let it rest.
>
> Kind regards
> Tom
>
>
> On Tue, 19 May 2020 at 22:07, Annalisa Aguilar <annalisa@unm.edu> wrote:
>
> Hello Tom,
>
> Thank you for posting the link.
>
> I did finally get around to reading the Klein article, and it is fairly
> dismal the manner that she outlines the intentions of Mr. Schmidt. That is
> not to say that she is far from the mark, but we are not just unthinking
> pods in the matrix, powerless to articulate the way technology is distended
> into our lives.
>
> I think what bothers me most about the Klein article is the tone. It
> reinforces through negation a fallacy that technology is inevitable (and
> resistance is futile). I say this because she presumes this narrative has
> become the hegemony upon which she reacts. It is far too doomsday.
>
> At the same time, a lot of her concerns are valid. The trawling for power
> in Washington by Silicon Valley is not unknown to us.
>
> Yet, I also had a real hard time with her juxatposing Schmidt with Bill
> Gates. Gates is working to do actual good in the world by projects such as
> the humble toilet in geographic locations without waste treatment
> facilities, or low water infrastructure (and we might as well include
> Warren Buffet in that equation, because the lionshare of the funding
> flowing into the Gates Foundation is from him. Buffet did not make his
> billions through technology, unless you want to include the telephone).
>
> I happen to know that the Gates Foundation is funding efforts to encourage
> agricultural developments in places like Columbia to grow coffee to replace
> illicit crops, in order to scale down the violence that coincides with the
> drug wars. These efforts are working.
>
> Why does she leave this out of the discussion? That's the general problem
> I find with Naomi Klein, is the chicken-little-sky-is-falling perspective.
>
> She seems to be similar to those trumpsters who blame the genesis of COVID
> (if not upon China) upon Gates, as some strange mastermind move to control
> the world.
>
> Tom, I think it is right and human that you responded to the bleakness of
> the tone, but that doesn't mean this worldview is correct or accurate.
> Technology will always be a tool for use. It is not monolithic. There is
> the off button. We do still have a democracy and processes in place to
> deliberate the way forward.
>
> As long as humans desire freedom there will always be resistance to
> control systems, generating a constant search for the chinks in the armor,
> or other loopholes to squeeze through. People will always use technology in
> ways that were not anticipated, but just as that can be assertion can be
> construed as dismal, it can also mean good news, that we always have agency
> to decide how to use our tools.
>
> Also, one stick in the spokes that was glaring for me is that Mr. Schmidt
> will never be able to address the laws for mandatory education for disabled
> children with his goals for flattening the classroom into two-dimensional
> online learning screens. He will never be able to walk around that law.
>
> So there are many ways this "technology is inevitable" narrative simply
> does not hold water for me.
>
> I hope this might be a little encouraging.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Annalisa
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> on behalf of mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 19, 2020 10:46 AM
> *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: remote_online learning?
>
>
> *  [EXTERNAL]*
> Hello Tom Richardson
>      This topic has been the front and center in the "Re-generating Chat
> Project" that has just finished its
> planned two year efforts that focused on the challenges to human
> development, and theories of "Development
> in the Anthropcene.  Two months ago, the word Anthropocene was replaced by
> the code word, covid-19, a pandemic.
> Both crises pose huge challenges to theories of development as well as to
> actual development of huge numbers of people around the  world.
>      The MCA-linked website, CulturalPraxis currently has a number of
> essays on the challenges of this historical moment, and the opportunities.
>       In the United States, the crisis has deschooled society in the most
> dramatic way one can imagine -- A way that literally forced
> a massive re-mediation of human life.  Education, the wheel house of most
> members of this discussion over the years,
> is now a family affair big time. Simulaneously, home-worksite relations
> have been disassembled,  both modes and relations of production are getting
> a shock that is crumbling institutions (home, school, work,).
>
> We can really get the feel of Roy D'andrade's comment that doing social
> science is like studying rocks in a rockslide.  This rockslide moves a warp
> speed and its invisible.
>
> Remediation of existing classroom structures is what we have been about
> for 100 years.
> Seems like there has never been a more appropriate time to start providing
> working models of effective practices that do NOT
> assume that things will return to Christmas, 2019.
>
> Thanks for asking.
> mike
>
>
>
> On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 9:07 AM Tom Richardson <
> tom.richardson3@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> Greetings Xmca-ers
> I would   like to raise a question.
> In the article by Naomi Klein linked below, apart from all the major
> questions about  our futures  - personal freedom, health protection,
> democratic control and the power of Big Digital Tech_AI, international
> competition etc. that she raises, I wondered what from a Vygotskyan
> approach to child/human development/education can / should be a reply to
> these sentences on the 'home schooling' that has (or hasn't) been
> happening  recently:
>
>
> "Indeed, Schmidt has been relentless in pursuing this vision. Two weeks
> after that article appeared, he described
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtAyGVuRQME__;!!Mih3wA!VRgkzssOuSyNvpVQWR2QH7dShhiXD5eWtYs2HahNwv_pKUU7G9GOQZMrzIpGsa_-KDBGFw$> the
> ad-hoc home schooling programming that teachers and families across the
> country had been forced to cobble together during this public health
> emergency as “a massive experiment in remote learning”.
>
> The goal of this experiment, he said, was “trying to find out: how do kids
> learn remotely? And with that data we should be able to build better remote
> and distance learning tools which, when combined with the teacher … will
> help kids learn better.” "
>
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.theguardian.com/news/2020/may/13/naomi-klein-how-big-tech-plans-to-profit-from-coronavirus-pandemic__;!!Mih3wA!TRjizV3Qo-rmLP8F-Hy7aO5AtWByRzlq1e7lAjC7euzs3e-_H0HlE9QKv9w1GQ7s8kbwqA$ 
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.theguardian.com/news/2020/may/13/naomi-klein-how-big-tech-plans-to-profit-from-coronavirus-pandemic__;!!Mih3wA!VRgkzssOuSyNvpVQWR2QH7dShhiXD5eWtYs2HahNwv_pKUU7G9GOQZMrzIpGsa-SnnFGDg$>
>
>
> Just asking
> Tom Richardson
> Middlesbrough UK
>
>
>
> --
>
> "How does newness come into the world?  How is it born?  Of what fusions,
> translations, conjoinings is it made?" Salman Rushdie
> ---------------------------------------------------
> For archival resources relevant to the research of lchc.ucsd.edu.
> For narrative history of LCHC:  lchcautobio.ucsd.edu.
> For new MCA-related website see: culturalpraxis.net
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://culturalpraxis.net__;!!Mih3wA!V4rtgUKjjshdiOxbIML_kuerunhUbHYomcCKiRVA5FkPs1WJIJwbuavyFoG613bJeWFP-g$>
> .
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> "How does newness come into the world?  How is it born?  Of what fusions,
> translations, conjoinings is it made?" Salman Rushdie
> ---------------------------------------------------
> Cultural Praxis Website: https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://culturalpraxis.net__;!!Mih3wA!TRjizV3Qo-rmLP8F-Hy7aO5AtWByRzlq1e7lAjC7euzs3e-_H0HlE9QKv9w1GQ7FdvVZzg$ 
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://culturalpraxis.net__;!!Mih3wA!RnRdGQWYFYHxAK38ym13_SVJ07gfBvADzdpt_v2fqpvjtY1AjFRdPxgCXwCy58nv0fJG_Q$>
> Re-generating CHAT Website: re-generatingchat.com
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://re-generatingchat.com__;!!Mih3wA!RnRdGQWYFYHxAK38ym13_SVJ07gfBvADzdpt_v2fqpvjtY1AjFRdPxgCXwCy58nPZEuGiQ$>
> Archival resources website: lchc.ucsd.edu.
> Narrative history of LCHC:  lchcautobio.ucsd.edu.
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20200521/c3e82c5f/attachment.html