Only 7 years? Wow!
You probably know that there are websites that feature architectural
designs for the learning spaces of the future ... though I imagine
they have trouble keeping up with changing technology --- but at
least they are thinking about it!
I wonder how students would describe their ideal environment for
supporting learning?
Or is it just the world we live in?
JAY.
At 09:53 PM 10/17/2007, you wrote:
>I love your "concrete" example, Jay.
>I got involved in xmca c. 1995 when I took on the job of looking
>after teaching spaces at the University of Melbourne. Talking to
>teaching staff I became aware that the buildings and rooms
>themselves, equipment and the whole organisation and conception of
>teaching infrastructure was stuck in the 1960s, the last time the
>relevant architects and administrators had had anything to do with a
>lecture theatre. A 7-year project of changing consciousness, policy
>documents, financial arrangements and organisational structures at
>*every* level then followed, with me pushing from underneath the
>whole time. That experience has always formed for me the
>paradigmatic example of the mediation of learning and communication
>by material artefacts. ... and that didn't even get to content,
>course design and teaching practice.
>Andy
>At 08:13 PM 17/10/2007 -0400, you wrote:
>
>>I am a bit busy right now, but it would be interesting to consider
>>a specific example.
>>
>>One thing I had in mind was, for example, the difficulty and long
>>timescale involved in changing teaching practices in classrooms. A
>>teacher might have discussion with students mediated not just by
>>words, but also by items in a textbook (diagrams, photos, written
>>questions, tables of information, etc.) . The forms that the
>>discussion takes, and the existence of textbooks (as a genre and as
>>material objects) depends on community norms, divisions of labor,
>>etc. Think what it takes to get major changes in textbooks
>>throughout a school district, state, or country. Think what it
>>would take to change the genre of the textbook to say something
>>dialogic (ala Plato or Galileo) rather than monlogical, both in
>>terms of the attitudes and thinking of large numbers of people, and
>>in terms of the writing, production, and distribution of the new
>>kinds of books. Think about the form of the infamous
>>Question-Answer-Evaluation speech genre in classrooms (IRE or IRF,
>>famously analyzed for pro's as well as con's by Gordon), how its
>>perpetuation is grounded in the experience in school of whole
>>generations, and in what is taught in teacher education
>>institutions (along with standard formats of lesson plans, etc.).
>>Think how these practices depend even on the micro-architecture of
>>classrooms (teacher in front, rows of desks) and what it would take
>>materially, as well as in design norms, to change it. (Yes, I know
>>there are other patterns, but none are yet a dominant norm, I think).
>>
>>So the "weight" at the bottom of the triangle gets translated into
>>a lot of very concrete mediators (books of specific genres,
>>utterances and exchanges in specific speech genres, arrangements of
>>furniture, written lesson plans, etc.) that not only mediate
>>between teacher and student, but also in a different sense mediate
>>between the macrosocial and the microsocial, between the collective
>>institutions (in the technical sociological sense) at the bottom of
>>the big triangle, and the interpersonal joint activity actions at the top.
>>
>>In many ways what I am trying to describe is a Latourian
>>elaboration on the multiscale social dynamics that the triangles represent.
>>
>>JAY.
>>
>>
>>At 10:38 PM 10/16/2007, you wrote:
>>>I think that idea is really worth thingking about, Jay. Can you give us a
>>>concrete expample
>>>to think with? The general idea is appealing.
>>>mike
>>>
>>>On 10/16/07, Jay Lemke <jaylemke@umich.edu> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > An interesting point, certainly, that we _do_ reify these things, in
>>> > many ways, and it is through those reifications, and not as
>>> > abstractions, that rules, norms, divisions of labor, etc. have their
>>> > material mediations for us.
>>> >
>>> > We write down laws, we mouth aphorisms, we have indeed got road
>>> > signs, and markers of class divisions and gender divisions, and media
>>> > advertising and photos to show which toys go with boys and which with
>>> > girls, etc. etc.
>>> >
>>> > How then do these mediations differ from those at the top center of
>>> > the triangle? all mediations are surely both material and semiotic,
>>> > but those that run vertically are frequently repeated, they become
>>> > typical of communities, and not just ad hoc improvisations of a
>>> > moment. As such, their dynamics, the timescales on which they change
>>> > (and don't change), are quite different. In Latour's terms, their
>>> > networks are "longer", or materially speaking, there is a lot more
>>> > "mass" at stake, more people, more tool-making engines, more fat and
>>> > thin wallets, more prisons and uniforms and weapons. More badges of
>>> > rank, more paper flowing through chains of command, more social
>>> > geography of big and small houses built near and far to one another,
>>> > with more or less garbage in their streets.
>>> >
>>> > Those social realities down at the bottom represent a lot more "weight".
>>> >
>>> > What do you think?
>>> >
>>> > JAY.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > At 08:13 PM 10/14/2007, you wrote:
>>> > >At 07:05 PM 14/10/2007 -0400, you wrote:
>>> > >>I agree with Mike that mediation, in some sense(s), occurs not just
>>> > >>through tools, but also via more community level "culture". The
>>> > >>problem, I think, is to not simply reify abstractions like rules,
>>> > >>norms, division of labor, etc.,
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > >... or on the other hand, to see how rules, norms, division of
>>> > >labor, etc., *are* reified (or objectified), and why people act in
>>> > >line with them as if they were written down like road signs?
>>> > >
>>> > >Andy
>>> > >
>>> > >>but, again as Mike recommends, to see how they play out in concrete
>>> > >>cases. From such cases we can try to build a repertoire of
>>> > >>different ways in which these community-level mediations occur.
>>> > >>
>>> > >>In the genre/SFL/register approach that Gordon recommends, and that
>>> > >>Ruqaiya Hasan also commented on, one way to see such mediations is
>>> > >>through the ways in which different "social voices" (ala Bakhtin)
>>> > >>or textual genres, which have their manifestations in talk and
>>> > >>texts at the apex of the top triangle, themselves translate
>>> > >>divisions of labor and opinion, or social norms, in the community
>>> > >>(or communities) into concrete practices ... such as in Bakhtin's
>>> > >>notion of heteroglossia, which has both a sociology of social
>>> > >>divisions aspect and also an "axiological" one, which manifests
>>> > >>social norms, attitudes, values, etc. According to SFL discourse
>>> > >>theory, we ought then to expect to see these lower-triangle
>>> > >>mediations show up in genre and register differences, right down to
>>> > >>the level of linguistic choices and frequency distributions.
>>> > >>
>>> > >>If there is, among the waiting queue of papers-seeking-comment on
>>> > >>xmca, any which offer us concrete cases where we might pursue these
>>> > >>possibilities, I'd be very interested to see them. Especially if
>>> > >>they contain any specific data on language-using or other
>>> > >>sign-using practices in concrete joint-action activities where the
>>> > >>norms and practices of one or more communities are being brought
>>> > >>together (uneasily? or too easily?).
>>> > >>
>>> > >>Heracleitus wrote that 'the road up and the road down are the same
>>> > >>road', and maybe in triangle-land the way across runs through such
>>> > >>up-and-down roads. I sure know that my own research does!
>>> > >>
>>> > >>JAY.
>>> > >>
>>> > >>
>>> > >>
>>> > >>At 12:36 PM 10/14/2007, you wrote:
>>> > >>>In a discussion with Gordon that was mostly about other matters I
>>> > raised the
>>> > >>>issue of the extent to which it is appropriate to think of the
>>> > mediations in
>>> > >>>Yrjo's expanded triangle as only occuring through the apex, and where
>>> > >>>subject-subject mediated interaction (including discourse)
>>> was not also
>>> > >>>represented there. Don't social rules mediate the activity and
>>> > person-person
>>> > >>>interactions. Are there not pathways of mediations from subject to
>>> > community
>>> > >>>AND to mediators at the top?
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>>I have been thinking how important it is when using these highly
>>> > abstract
>>> > >>>representations to rise to concrete examples and, having done so, to
>>> > compare
>>> > >>>the ways in which different representation highlight
>>> different features
>>> > of
>>> > >>>the overall system in a way that is more complentary than
>>> > contradictory.
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>>Are people about done with a focus on Gordon's article? There are a
>>> > couple
>>> > >>>of people who might benefit from having their work read and discussed
>>> > on
>>> > >>>XMCA and want advice.
>>> > >>>I am happy to stay with Gordon's piece which has been a rich source of
>>> > >>>discussion, but if people want to put it into the store of
>>> > >>>to-be-returned-to-when-needed contributions, we might put up something
>>> > new
>>> > >>>where junior folks are seeking critique and advice.
>>> > >>>mike
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>>On 10/13/07, Jay Lemke <jaylemke@umich.edu> wrote:
>>> > >>> >
>>> > >>> >
>>> > >>> > After a way-too-busy last several weeks, I've finally
>>> caught up with
>>> > >>> > reading a lot of xmca posts, and especially those about Gordon
>>> > Wells'
>>> > >>> > article on discoursing as an operational mediation of activities.
>>> > >>> >
>>> > >>> > I generally agree with Gordon's point of view, but with some
>>> > >>> > exceptions and a few shifts in conceptual framework. As this was
>>> > >>> > obviously a very complex topic, I'm just going to make a few points
>>> > >>> > here and attach the notes I wrote to myself to articulate my own
>>> > >>> > position in more detail.
>>> > >>> >
>>> > >>> > We surely do need better ways to talk about both the similarities
>>> > and
>>> > >>> > the differences in how activity is mediated by talk vs. artifactual
>>> > >>> > tools. Both are indeed material, and both are, I believe, also
>>> > >>> > potentially (though tools not always so in practice) semiotic. The
>>> > >>> > ways in which they are mediational for an activity may be more
>>> > >>> > constitutive (the activity unthinkable apart from them) or more
>>> > >>> > optionally instrumental (the activity may be clumsy or fail without
>>> > >>> > them, but can be imagined without them). Signs are one
>>> kind of tool.
>>> > >>> > Or better said, I think, material objects or material processes
>>> > (like
>>> > >>> > phonation) can be used-as-tools-in-activity, and are not
>>> > >>> > tools-as-such except when used-as-tools-in-activity, and likewise
>>> > for
>>> > >>> > tools that are (or are also) used-as-signs-in-activity. The special
>>> > >>> > character of sign-use distinguishing it from non-semiotic tool-use
>>> > >>> > has to do with the difference between the material
>>> > >>> > affordances-for-use of tool-qualities as such and the possible
>>> > social
>>> > >>> > meanings of those qualities and ways-of-using. This is key and
>>> > >>> > complex, and it's the main subject of the attached notes.
>>> > >>> >
>>> > >>> > I am not so clear about Gordon's proposal to take talk-in-activity
>>> > as
>>> > >>> > operation-level in Leontiev's sense. I've always thought that there
>>> > >>> > have to be more than just three levels in the analysis of an
>>> > >>> > activity, even if the relations between operations and actions, vs.
>>> > >>> > the different kinds of relations between actions and
>>> activities, are
>>> > >>> > key to understanding the possible types of relations among the many
>>> > >>> > levels. Within talk, there are already many levels, articulating
>>> > >>> > among themselves in both the sound-to-word way and in the
>>> > >>> > sentence-to-paragraph way (cf. 'double articulation' in classic
>>> > >>> > linguistic theory). And between talk and larger activities in which
>>> > >>> > it is embedded and for which it is constitutive or instrumental to
>>> > >>> > some degree, there are also multiple levels of (or links in a chain
>>> > >>> > of) interpretance, ala Peirce. More on this in the notes.
>>> > >>> >
>>> > >>> > I've always appreciated Gordon's dialogical version of Engestrom's
>>> > >>> > triangles, based on his reading of Bakhtin (with which I mainly
>>> > >>> > agree). But I wonder if in this formulation we don't somewhat
>>> > >>> > background a key element of the top triangle -- that the use of
>>> > >>> > mediational means is a digression, or displacement, from direct
>>> > >>> > subject-on-object or here subject-on-subject action? It's a
>>> > different
>>> > >>> > activity with the mediation of tool or sign than without
>>> it, even if
>>> > >>> > the same goal is reached. In the subject-on-subject version, while
>>> > we
>>> > >>> > can and should pay attention to the emergence of joint goals and
>>> > >>> > outcomes, or on the conflict of goals, etc., I think the core issue
>>> > >>> > is linguistic manipulation and control as a displacement
>>> from direct
>>> > >>> > physical manipulation and control (though clearly we often do both,
>>> > >>> > and this may be especially important in early development, as it is
>>> > >>> > in learning/teaching bike riding, etc.). But we also need to think
>>> > >>> > about how language, or sign-use in general, serves to directly
>>> > >>> > influence the Other, and how it differs from, say, pushing them
>>> > >>> > bodily or hitting them with a stick (tool). Differs both for the
>>> > >>> > better, and for the worse, in terms of power and control, or
>>> > >>> > resistance. My sense is that there is a lot in this more
>>> > >>> > uncomfortable aspect of linguistic mediation to help us understand
>>> > >>> > how and why signs are used in joint activity. Historically, not all
>>> > >>> > joint activity has been voluntary.
>>> > >>> >
>>> > >>> > I apologize for the occasional opacity of the attached notes where
>>> > >>> > they reflect my inner-speech.
>>> > >>> >
>>> > >>> > JAY.
>>> > >>> >
>>> > >>> >
>>> > >>> > Jay Lemke
>>> > >>> > Professor
>>> > >>> > University of Michigan
>>> > >>> > School of Education
>>> > >>> > 610 East University
>>> > >>> > Ann Arbor, MI 48109
>>> > >>> >
>>> > >>> > Tel. 734-763-9276
>>> > >>> > Email. JayLemke@UMich.edu
>>> > >>> > Website. <http://www.umich.edu/~jaylemke%A0>www.umich.edu/~jaylemke
>>> > >>> >
>>> > >>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > >>> > 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
>>> > >>
>>> > >>
>>> > >>Jay Lemke
>>> > >>Professor
>>> > >>University of Michigan
>>> > >>School of Education
>>> > >>610 East University
>>> > >>Ann Arbor, MI 48109
>>> > >>
>>> > >>Tel. 734-763-9276
>>> > >>Email. JayLemke@UMich.edu
>>> > >>Website. <http://www.umich.edu/~jaylemke%A0>www.umich.edu/~jaylemke
>>> > >>_______________________________________________
>>> > >>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
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Jay Lemke
>>> > Professor
>>> > University of Michigan
>>> > School of Education
>>> > 610 East University
>>> > Ann Arbor, MI 48109
>>> >
>>> > Tel. 734-763-9276
>>> > Email. JayLemke@UMich.edu
>>> > Website. <http://www.umich.edu/~jaylemke%A0>www.umich.edu/~jaylemke
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > 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
>>
>>
>>Jay Lemke
>>Professor
>>University of Michigan
>>School of Education
>>610 East University
>>Ann Arbor, MI 48109
>>
>>Tel. 734-763-9276
>>Email. JayLemke@UMich.edu
>>Website. <http://www.umich.edu/~jaylemke%A0>www.umich.edu/~jaylemke
>>_______________________________________________
>>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
>
Jay Lemke
Professor
University of Michigan
School of Education
610 East University
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
Tel. 734-763-9276
Email. JayLemke@UMich.edu
Website. <http://www.umich.edu/~jaylemke%A0>www.umich.edu/~jaylemke
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
Received on Thu Oct 18 19:13 PDT 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Nov 20 2007 - 14:25:43 PST