Re: [xmca] Inside Outside

Sorry Michael. I must have misunderstood,
Andy
At 03:08 AM 26/03/2008 -0700, you wrote:
>Why do you think I favor a dichotomy? There is a praxeology of theory
>and a praxeology of practice, each a practice in its own right. I
>don't separate the ideal and material. :-)
>Michael
>
>
>On 25-Mar-08, at 7:30 PM, Andy Blunden wrote:
>
>Wolf-Michael,
>I know I just put myself in the position of devil's advocate to
>defend dichotomies against being brushed aside too lightly, but I
>cannot understand your advocacy of theory/practice dichotomy as
>something you'd actually like to strengthen?
>
>Andy
>At 07:19 PM 25/03/2008 -0700, you wrote:
>>Hi David,
>>I think you misunderstood me and I am sorry you feel you have to
>>apologize. I wasn't saying anything about your use of praat or other
>>stuff. I was saying something about my hope that we abandon
>>internal/ external. The problem is that educators, interested in
>>modifying individuals, require this kind of talk. I do understand. I was a
>>teacher for many years.
>>
>>But I think ANALYTICALLY you don't want to maintain that distinction.
>>
>>I see the problems resurfacing in this message, where David takes
>>about his praxis, but discussions where about analytic categories.
>>This is not a good mix, and we have discussed this here in earlier
>>strands when people discussed the confusion between activity (or
>>community of practice or . . . ) as analytic concepts versus when
>>they are used as design concepts.
>>
>>This is along the same lines that I see Jean Lave and Etienne Wenger
>>to have parted ways, the former continuing to insist on the analytic
>>nature of the concepts they forged (CoP, LPP) and the latter using
>>the concepts to help companies to change practices of training people
>>at work....
>>
>>I think it would help to separate out the two different discourses,
>>related to very different value system. The problem with education
>>and other fields is that their declared intent is in most cases not
>>growth and development of the best in them but manipulation of people
>>to speak specific discourses----just look at math and science
>>education, two disciplines I am more familiar with. It is all about
>>making people conform to standards that conservative politicians in
>>cahoots with GWB and the likes impose on an entire nation,
>>indoctrinating everyone to a particular ideology, and getting
>>researchers, who ought to know better, buy into the ideology so that
>>they get something from the granting feeding trough.
>>
>>:-)
>>
>>Cheers,
>>
>>Michael
>>
>>PS: Again, David, I did not critique your work, your analyses---it's
>>all about the categories. :-)
>>
>>
>>On 25-Mar-08, at 6:57 PM, David Kellogg wrote:
>>
>>Dear Mark:
>>
>> You write:
>>
>>"First of all, your juxtaposition of a 'native speaker' and an
>>'expert?' teacher, to me has very little validity. Your first example
>>of the teacher using a display question to elicit information is, in
>>my mind the wrong way round for education."
>>
>> I don't understand how these two sentences are connected. It seems
>>to me that the "validity" of the native speaker construct (not mine)
>>is one issue and the use of display questions (again, not a term I
>>introduced and not a distinction I accept) is an entirely different
>>one. Neither is really relevant to this research.
>>
>> I have to take the foreign teachers as I find them: they are being
>>hired in tens of thousands. Whether I reject the construct of "native
>>speaker" or not I will still have a situation where foreigners are
>>being hired and Korean teachers are being fired. I don't think that
>>handwaving about the death of the native speaker (Davies, Kramsch,
>>etc.) will do anything to alter this policy. But I DO think that if I
>>can show systematic differences in discourse, I can at least remove
>>one of the spurious justifications of the policy.
>>
>> Both "native teachers" (by which I mean Koreans) and foreign
>>teachers use display questions and both use nondisplay questions.
>>This distinction is not relevant to my research, as far as I can see.
>>
>> You write:
>>
>>"Display questions too, don't have a place in the classroom, much more
>>than open ended up intonation questions that leave the student
>>wondering what's coming next. Is this the way you try to avoid display
>>questions?"
>>
>> I'm a little unsure about the grammar here. Do you mean "any more
>>than open ended intonation questions"? But it doesnt matter. I don't
>>try to decide what does and does not have a place in the classroom. I
>>do research.
>>
>>"This intonation... is this really how we talk? The use of display
>>questions though to discuss gestures versus intonation, I just don't
>>understand."
>>
>> I don't really know what you mean by "we". It seems to me that
>>this research is not about "we". It is about the data, and I am not
>>in the data. But the intonation is.
>>
>> To observe intonation I use phonemic analysis programme called
>>"Praat" which Wolff-Michael has also used. You can download it for
>>free here:
>>
>>
>> www.praat.org
>>
>>
>> I see my work as being quite close to Wolff-Michael's work, which
>>is why I was quite surprised when he implied that work based on the
>>kinds of distinctions I am using (e.g. gesture, intonation, or old
>>information and new information) is not really cultural-historical.
>>But perhaps it was mere rhetorical excess!
>>
>>David Kellogg
>> Seoul National University of Education
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>---------------------------------
>>Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.
>>Try it now.
>>_______________________________________________
>>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
>
> Andy Blunden : http://home.mira.net/~andy/ tel (H) +61 3 9380 9435,
>mobile 0409 358 651
>
>_______________________________________________
>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

  Andy Blunden : http://home.mira.net/~andy/ tel (H) +61 3 9380 9435,
mobile 0409 358 651

_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
Received on Wed Mar 26 05:14 PDT 2008