Re: [xmca] Inside Outside

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
Received on Wed Mar 26 03:14 PDT 2008