On 29-Jun-05, at 11:04 AM, ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org wrote:
>
> Ruqaiya, I like your mention of Vygotsky's analogy of the goose
> affecting
> the flock with fear. Working with the population of student's I do,
> 16-21
> year emotionally and behaviorally disturbed, I see this play out many
> times
> where all of the interaction is based on reaction it is difficult to
> move
> beyond basic levels of learning. I have your same worry that I have
Hi Eric,
I think it might help you to move away from the negative
characterization of your "population". Don't start with the normative
expectations of an educator, but analyze the ways in which these
students communicate, make sense, use semiotic resources, produce and
reproduce emotions, individually and collectively.
This might give you an understanding that moves beyond characterizing
the students as "emotionally and behaviorally disturbed" so that it is
"difficult to move beyond basic levels of learning".
In fact, once you look in the way suggested, you may find a tremendous
amount of learning is going on, just not the one you specify and expect
as the norm.
Others might suggest what I am trying to say differently--e.g., take an
ethnomethodological attitude and disinterest. . .
Cheers,
Michael
> limited knowledge of Activity Theory as well and so I spend a great
> deal
> reading. I always tend to drift back to Vygotsky's Thought and
> Language to
> ground my thoughts.
>
> Gordon, could you please elaborate on Halliday's thoughts pertaining
> to the
> discussion of concrete operational language v the conceptual language?
>
> eric
>
>
>
> "ruqaiya hasan"
> <Ruqaiya.Hasan who-is-at ling To:
> <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> .mq.edu.au> cc:
> Sent by: Subject: Re: [xmca]
> Re: LCA: LSV: Thought and language
> xmca-bounces who-is-at weber.
> ucsd.edu
>
>
> 06/29/2005 09:45 AM
> Please respond to
> xmca
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Eric just very nicely summed up some of our problems: too many
> languages of
> description, too many distinct orientations. But then the world was
> never
> meant to be monochromatic, was it.
>
> I have a worry that I don't really know much about AT only some of
> Yrjo's
> work, and somethings by Mike Cole's; and occasional articles here and
> there.
> In thinking of AT as a framework for the analysis and description of
> social
> practice, one problem I had was that I just didn't see how where you
> have a
> 'negotiated act' and an over-time performance of an activity eg say
> education intention or purpose or goal could be taken as definitive. In
> beginning an act I might have purpose such and so, intention this and
> that
> but the other who is to respond and co-act may not have the same
> orientation. I am thinking particularly of education where most of us
> teachers take 'purposive' conscious planned action; but I don't know
> any
> brave person in the teaching profession who will claim that the
> purpose is
> achieved, that the person toward whom we have directed mediation has
> actually actively engaged with it. Also many of our activities are so
> complex: is it always possible to know what goal(s) we are aiming at,
> or
> even to know when a goal has been achieved.
>
> when it comes to the kind of activities that Eric was talking about,
> not
> many are aware (counting out folks like us whose job it is to analyse)
> that
> we are undertaking any activity. But as Eric says whatever we do,
> whether
> we
> know we are doing it or not, does have some interactive consequence;
> only I
> am not very sure that very sure whether it is analogous to the goose
> infecting the flock with fear (Vygotsky's analogy) or whether its a
> case of
> developing 'higher mental functions'.
>
> Phil wrote:
> "...culturally mediated higher mental functions involve indirect
> actions on the world that incorporate a "slice" of previously used
> material matter into the current aspect of action. The cultural
> artifact shaped by human practice that mediates the development of
> higher mental functions offers the "benefits from the mental work that
> produced the particular form of matter". Is this a history of
> interaction in tools that Ruqaiya points to?"
>
> yes Phil it is: but in fact if for the moment we do not think in terms
> of
> high-ER mental functions -- just of mental functions -- it seems to me
> that
> the cultural past (is there any other kind of past?) is always there
> because
> all of us have the culture of our "speech fellowship" (Firth's
> classification) embodied in us, and it thus enters into all our
> activities.
>
> Ruqaiya
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Phil Chappell" <philchappell@mac.com>
> To: <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2005 10:14 PM
> Subject: [xmca] Re: LCA: LSV: Thought and language
>
>
> Dear All,
>
> I'm just recovering from a Bangkok lurgy that has laid me low for a few
> days, and now catching up on the discussion. While there are several
> things going on, Michael has called us to arms to extend the discussion
> beyond the first generation of AT, amongst other areas, and Ruqaiya has
> reminded us of the material/ideal issue. And Gordon and Lars have
> discussed the transforming of a tool ( a genre) for immediate
> communicative purposes. Ruqaiya wrote: "I feel that culture is
> sedimented into the design and performance of concrete tools and that
> the use of tools (may be not as elementary as tying the knot to
> remember but others such as even using a spade or shovel) might itself
> have a history of interaction at its supportive base".
>
> In a paper by Wertsch and Cole
> http://www.massey.ac.nz/~alock/virtual/colevyg.htm the authors wrote
> that culturally mediated higher mental functions involve indirect
> actions on the world that incorporate a "slice" of previously used
> material matter into the current aspect of action. The cultural
> artifact shaped by human practice that mediates the development of
> higher mental functions offers the "benefits from the mental work that
> produced the particular form of matter". Is this a history of
> interaction in tools that Ruqaiya points to?
>
> Further, in his introduction to this strand of the discussion, Gordon
> referred to the work of Tomasello. I too find Tomasello's ideas of
> interest, which are supported by a wealth of research. He and his
> colleagues contend that "intentional instruction" is a human universal,
> mediated mainly through language during intersubjective interactions
> with others. As Gordon mentioned, humans have a biologically-based
> predisposition to compare others with themselves, which in itself leads
> to more sophisticated modes of cultural learning as learners discover
> that people have different perspectives on social activity.
>
> Just a couple of post-fever thoughts that may indeed carry the remnants
> of my recent physical/mental state ;-)
>
> Loads to discuss (as Michael pointed out) before Ruqaiya's paper (next
> week).
>
> Phil
>
> On 29/06/2005, at 8:40 AM, Wolff-Michael Roth wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>> in all of the discussion about Vygotsky and language here on this
>> list, I have been lurking and wondering about the following points:
>>
>> 1. Why does nobody talk about those who took Vygotsky's work
>> further--I mean in the sense that Yrjö called the work first
>> generation AT, and the Leoton'evs (A.N & A.A.) second generation, and
>> the current efforts third generation. Why don't we discuss on this
>> list the subsequent developments, why do we think we have to go back
>> to LSV?
>> 2. In all of the discussions, I have not seen a single time the word
>> "dialectics". And yet LSV uses it in his Chapter 1 of Thought and
>> Language, and he articulates a number of dialectical relations in the
>> chapter. Why is there no discussion about this?
>> 3. Felix Mikhailov provides an interesting discussion of language,
>> self, reality, etc. that builds on the work of all the giants
>> preceding him, including LSV and ANL and AAL. Why do we not discuss
>> his writings, which are dialectical and which take us away from the
>> primacy of the word, this singular focus on something that Derrida
>> called phallogocentrism (logos=word).
>> 4. Why do we not discuss the relationship of meaning and word meaning
>> and the thing subsequent authors call activity, the unit. . . I guess
>> we could talk about the unit and its relevance to do the kind of work
>> we do?
>>
>> Just some questions. . .
>>
>> Michael
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> xmca mailing list
>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jul 01 2005 - 01:00:08 PDT