Re: [xmca] Gratier, Greenfield, & Isaac

[yuan lai <laiyuantaiwan@gmail.com>]

This is all very interesting, Jay. I tried the keywords "timescales" "Lemke"
and "xmca" and a few thread titles show up. I only had time to glance and I
think this is the article you referred to:
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jaylemke/webs/time/MCA-intro.htm
I'm going to read the article and the discussion thread "timescale question"
with great interest. Point me in the right direction if I got them wrong. Of
course I'll read the above any way.
Yuan

On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 6:54 PM, Jay Lemke <jaylemke@umich.edu> wrote:

> I had originally asked about methodology in the CG&I article, and I'm happy
> to have had so much discussion over this.
>
> I think that one of the problems with "linking micro and macro" is setting
> the issue up as just TWO levels. Even if we really mean each of these to
> stand for a range of scales of time, talk, action, and development/learning,
> the very contrast we use to define them as different and separate gets in
> the way of their proper "integration".
>
> One alternative is to more explicitly construct several levels of analysis
> from the eye-blink (or wink, or "OK") to the sedimentation of a habitus over
> years. And of course in both directions. And to try to specify just HOW the
> connections are made across timescales, both adjacent ones and in those
> cases where we jump over larger gaps. I started a discussion of this several
> years ago in a piece in MCA, and I continue to find the basic approach
> helpful, if obviously not so simple to put into practice in analysis.
>
> There is also the issue of contrasting an "individual" vs a "collective"
> cultural orientation. Or even an Anglo-MiddleClass culture vs. a Latino/a
> working class (rural ?) one. How can we imagine teachers bringing together
> these imaginary realms across the essentialized differences (not to mention
> the misleading stereotypes) we construct for them? The way to bridge across
> differences, which can be very real in their effects, is not to define them
> contrastively, but to construct the larger multi-dimensional space of
> possible variations, in which there may well be different average clusters
> between communities, but in which there are still wide ranges of OVERLAPPING
> features and paths across small gaps, like a path of stepping stones, that,
> in particular circumstances, make connections much more ready-to-foot. :-)
>
> In her elaboration of Bernstein's coding orientations, Hasan's work, which
> I mentioned before, takes into account that while there are different
> dispositions toward how common and usual a way of expressing something (like
> a command/request) may be across social classes or cultural communities, it
> is still the case that both sides can and do use the mode of expression that
> is preferred by the other side (even unconsciously "preferred" as with
> habitus). Another parallel might be made with the ways in which different
> dialects, e.g. middle-class US English vs. African-American basolect
> ("street talk"), which can at their extremes be nearly mutually
> unintelligible (with some asymmetry due to power relations), in fact belong
> to a cline (the de-creolizing continuum) in which the AA acrolect overlaps
> much more substantially with middle-class "standard" (in speech, as opposed
> to writing, I rather doubt there is a "standard" dialect, just more and less
> prestige feature clusters). It is by deconstructing these reified forms into
> their component features that we find the paths for connection.
>
> Such an approach requires valuing complexity over simplicity. That was not
> the path that led the natural sciences to their early successes. It is not
> the way to an easy tenure. It is what is supposed to underlie really
> insightful work in fields like history or literary criticism. If the
> humanities have methodological lessons for the study of human activity, I
> think they lie in ways of dealing with the complexity of things.
>
> JAY.
>
> PS. On the specific point of inter-coder culture, we might imagine that it
> takes a village to analyze a village, and that in fact the collective ad-hoc
> "culture" of a group of researchers, long and deeply engaged with some other
> community, is the ideal tool to bring to its study. WITHIN that research
> culture/community, a consensus that took the form of inter-coder agreement
> could be useful insofar as it could be situated in relation to the rest of
> our mini-culture, including an understanding of our disagreements (and not
> just about coding some instances). When you can tell me something credible
> and interesting that arises from the disagreements, then I will take claims
> based on the agreements more seriously.
>
>
>
>
> Jay Lemke
> Professor (Adjunct, 2009-2010)
> Educational Studies
> University of Michigan
> Ann Arbor, MI 48109
> www.umich.edu/~jaylemke <http://www.umich.edu/%7Ejaylemke>
>
> Visiting Scholar
> Laboratory for Comparative Human Communication
> University of California -- San Diego
> La Jolla, CA
> USA 92093
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Dec 5, 2009, at 11:25 AM, mike cole wrote:
>
>  I'll be very interested in what the authors have to say to your analysis,
>> David (and no, Larry, emotions are all over xmca!- no problem unless they
>> serve ad hominim destructive aims - (my view).
>>
>> I wanted to comment on another aspect of David's note that may be
>> overlooked, but which I think adds an important, additional cultural
>> element
>> to the analysis. I am referring to the problem of efforts to
>> train coders and then test for reliability.
>>
>> David describes the problem quite well. But I want to link it to the idea
>> that what we do when we get (say) two people to code the same protocols
>> from
>> complex interactional scenes is to create a micro-culture among the coders
>> during the training.
>>
>> We wrestled with this problem (which may have been written up somewhere
>> back
>> in the LCHC newsletter days, or may have remained merely discussion within
>> the lab) a good deal in, for example, work on categorizing forms of
>> behavior
>> in afterschool clubs. What we found was that we could get agreement up to
>> a
>> pretty high level for the behavioral categories we were using *so long as
>> the coders stayed in contact with each other as they worked.* But at some
>> point one of the people involved fell ill, and when s/he returned to work,
>> the agreement level among coders took a tumble. I believe there was a good
>> deal of work on this general issue back in the 1970's- 1980's -- we were
>> not
>> the only ones who stumbled across the fact that the coding reliability
>> might
>> be the result of what we would now call the creation of a microculture
>> that
>> required ongoing maintenance.
>>
>> Experimental procedures that script subjects' behaviors might be usefully
>> viewed as "pre-coding" schemes that provide a patina of objectivity
>> because
>> they antecede the data collection phase, but run the danger of getting out
>> of the observations what had covertly been built in. But that leads down a
>> long road we probably should not
>> pursue at present.
>> mike
>>
>> On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 10:28 AM, Larry Purss <lpurss@shaw.ca> wrote:
>>
>>  David
>>>
>>> Your analysis of how we proceed from micro to macro VS from macro to
>>> micro
>>> is brilliant (is that too emotional a term for academic discourse where
>>> we
>>> should remain reserved).
>>> I have been trying to integrate the various cultural-critical discourses
>>> with the micro-genetic "experience-near" acts of cognition and
>>> "affect-attunement".
>>> You have suggested a framework which helps me begin to understand how the
>>> socio-cultural (historical-cultural) standpoint and the cultural-critical
>>> standpoint take different positions on the same landscape.
>>> I hope others have reflections on the way you have elaborated the
>>> contrasts
>>> Thank you
>>>
>>> Larry
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: David Kellogg <vaughndogblack@yahoo.com>
>>> Date: Friday, December 4, 2009 9:30 pm
>>> Subject: Re: [xmca] Gratier, Greenfield, & Isaac
>>> To: Culture ActivityeXtended Mind <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>>>
>>>  Sometime in the late twentieth century, literary critics made
>>>> the discovery that all the qualitative methods developed for the
>>>> exegeses of literary texts could be readily applied to so-called
>>>> "non-literary" texts. This included biographical, formal, "new
>>>> criticism" based on the text itself, and a plethora of more or
>>>> less committed approaches like feminism, multiculturalism,
>>>> postcolonialism all of which share a cultural-critical stance of
>>>> one kind or another. Cultural critical discussion of the content
>>>> of texts, which could be readily confirmed by juicy quotes
>>>> (sorry, I mean, by the judicious application of cultural
>>>> analysis) led to a "postructuralist" critical discourse analysis.
>>>>
>>>> There is a kind of classroom discourse analysis that I would
>>>> describe as qualitative literary criticism applied to teacher
>>>> talk, in which words like "enthusiasm", "excitement", and
>>>> "knowledge building" are used the way we used to talk about the
>>>> muscularity of Milton's metaphors or the crystalline structure
>>>> of Pope's verses.
>>>>
>>>> But as Halliday points out, a discourse analysis of this type,
>>>> without some systematic and clear link to grammar on the one
>>>> hand and semantics on the other, is really no analysis at all;
>>>> it's just a running commentary on a text, with some selective
>>>> highlights tendentiously provided to bolster the critic's
>>>> argument. That's why Gratier, Greenfield and Isaac heroically
>>>> try to confirm their micro-analyses with a more macro-
>>>> logogenetic comparison.
>>>>
>>>> How does an analyst manage to connect the kind of microgenetic
>>>> analysis that we really require to catch actual acts of
>>>> cognition and communication in the wild with something more
>>>> macrogenetic, even ontogenetic? I think there are two basic
>>>> tendancies.
>>>> The first tendancy is the tendancy we see in ethnomethodology
>>>> and conversation analysis influenced work, and it's one I would
>>>> describe as downward reductionist. The analyst takes SINGULARITY
>>>> as the key feature of communicative/cognitive events, and tries
>>>> to find the implicit communicative principle in a single
>>>> particular event (e.g. methods of turn-taking, the latching of
>>>> adjacency pairs, etc.). If these can be shown to inhere in the
>>>> actual meaning-making procedures of the participants themselves,
>>>> then presumably they can be generalized to the macrogenetic
>>>> plane.
>>>>
>>>> The problem with this appears on p. 305 of Gratier, Greenfield
>>>> and Isaac, where the authors admit that their inter-rater
>>>> agreement rate was low: 68% for the collaborative completions,
>>>> 75% for repetition, and only 62% (!!!) for nonverbal imitations.
>>>> For praise and criticism the inter-rater reliability was 78% and
>>>> 71% respectively.
>>>>
>>>> Raters are trained, and when that doesn't work (as it often
>>>> doesn't in my own work) they train each other until it does. But
>>>> if even trained and re-trained raters cannot agree on what
>>>> constitutes praise and what constitutes criticism, it's hard to
>>>> see how participants consistently do. One cannot help suspecting
>>>> that they simply don't, and that this may as responsible for
>>>> the discomfort reported in parent teacher conferences by
>>>> Greenfield, Quiroz and Raeff as anything else.
>>>>
>>>> It seems to me that the socio-cultural (or cultural-historical)
>>>> approach to the methodological problem of linking micro- and
>>>> macro- levels of analysis is, as the name implies, a much more
>>>> UPWARDLY moving methodological maneuver. It involves trying to
>>>> find a point where microgenetic changes pass over into
>>>> macrogenetic ones, and often that involves working backwards
>>>> from macrogenetic differences to microgenetic ones.
>>>>
>>>> That is why I am not so shocked as some participants by the
>>>> "essentializing" language of cooperation vs. competition,
>>>> "collective" vs. "individualistic" or even Latino vs. Anglo.
>>>> Actually, I think this kind of language is, as Larry says, a
>>>> heuristic; a form of "hypothesis and then research", and it's
>>>> excusable in a socio-cultural (cultural historical) attempt to
>>>> link the micro with the macro.
>>>>
>>>> Where I think I really differ with the authors is in the way
>>>> that IRE is selectively employed to describe the latter and not
>>>> the former, and "criticism" is selectively employed to describe
>>>> the former and not the latter. It seems to me that BOTH of the
>>>> following interactions can be described in terms of IRE:
>>>>
>>>> BC:
>>>> T:El mar es la colecion de much agua, pero agua fresca o agua salada?
>>>> S: Agua salada.
>>>> T: OK.
>>>>
>>>> Non-BC:
>>>> T: Tell us what an artist does. What does an artist do?
>>>> S: Draw.
>>>> T: Draws. OK? How about a photographer?
>>>> S: Takes pictures.
>>>> T: OK.
>>>>
>>>> The usual way we think about IRE involves emphasizing the role
>>>> of the E, either as reward (in neo-behaviorist teaching) or as a
>>>> bridge to linking exchanges into sequences (in the work of Hugh
>>>> Mehan, and latterly in that of Nassaji and Wells, and Gordon
>>>> Wells generally). But here both teachers are moving from the
>>>> general to the particular, from definition to
>>>> exemplification, using "OK" as their E move.
>>>>
>>>> It's pretty clear to me that the INITIATE is the key difference.
>>>> In BC the initiate is a STATEMENT, followed by a question with
>>>> only one degree of freedom. The result is a consensus, albeit
>>>> one based on very little choice (and one which confirms what one
>>>> child said earlier in the exchange, "ya me lo se todo").
>>>>
>>>> In the Non-BC we have a much more open opening: a command which
>>>> actually REQUIRES participation, followed by a wh-question. The
>>>> child's response is the object of critical uptake (focussed on
>>>> verb-subject agreement). But the second question indicates an
>>>> implicit CRITICISM of this response, because a photographer can
>>>> also be said to be an artist, but a photographer does not draw.
>>>>
>>>> So it appears to me that the teacher in the Non-BC classroom is
>>>> being a lot more critical, at least implicitly. The difference
>>>> between the two classrooms might actually be in the
>>>> demandingness ("prospectivity" is the proper technical term, I
>>>> guess) of the initiate.
>>>>
>>>> The problem is that there is nothing inherent or universally
>>>> generalizeable in demandingness; it really does depend on the
>>>> needs and on the volition of the participants. In a classroom,
>>>> however, those needs and that volition are, either explicitly or
>>>> implicitly, explainable by that faith in a link between learning
>>>> and development which we all do confess.
>>>>
>>>> David Kellogg
>>>> Seoul National University of Education
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --- On Fri, 12/4/09, Larry Purss <lpurss@shaw.ca> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From: Larry Purss <lpurss@shaw.ca>
>>>> Subject: Re: [xmca] Gratier, Greenfield, & Isaac
>>>> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>>>> Date: Friday, December 4, 2009, 5:21 AM
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I wanted to amplify an aspect of the article that is implicit
>>>> and make it more explicit.
>>>> On page 312 various frames are offered to explain the reason for
>>>> the alternative communicative styles.
>>>> A) in the BC class the interactions are peer-group led rather
>>>> than teacher led
>>>> B)It might reflect a sense of partaking in a group voice and
>>>> sharing a coherent group identity.
>>>> C)It may denote a general OPENNESS TO NOVELTY and creative
>>>> responding and an orientation to verbal PLAY,NARRATIVE, AND HUMOR.
>>>>
>>>> There is another discourse which focuses on creating "COMMON
>>>> GROUND" (p313) and "student attentional engagement and emotional
>>>> expression" (313) which "results in a rhythmic pattern that
>>>> creates ensemble" (313).
>>>> This is the dramaturlogical discourse of "enactments" and "PLAY"
>>>> and language "games"  This discourse emphasizes metaphors that
>>>> point to creating or opening spaces where common ground emerges
>>>> from novelty.
>>>> I share sympathy with the perspective of this article that
>>>> emphasizes collaborative emergence.  Yes the terms
>>>> collectivistic and individualistic are essentializing terms but
>>>> if we view them as heuristic language games to map the territory
>>>> of the relational patterns emerging and creating common ground
>>>> their are various discourses which can point us in that direction.
>>>>
>>>> Larry
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: David Kellogg <vaughndogblack@yahoo.com>
>>>> Date: Friday, December 4, 2009 12:50 am
>>>> Subject: Re: [xmca] Gratier, Greenfield, & Isaac
>>>> To: lchcmike@gmail.com, Culture ActivityeXtended Mind
>>>> <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>>>>
>>>>> The part that Jay is puzzled by caught my eye as well. It's
>>>>> right on the bottom of p. 297:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Cultural conflicts between Latino family values and American
>>>>> pedagogical values were also studied empirically by
>>>>>
>>>> Greenfield,
>>>>
>>>>> Quiroz and Raeff (2000) through an analysis of patent-teacher
>>>>> conferences. They found widely varying emphases on helping and
>>>>> sharing as well as high levels of misunderstanding and
>>>>>
>>>> confusion
>>>>
>>>>> between Latino parents and US trained mainstream teachers.
>>>>> Implicit cultural conflicts were shown to clearly (?) relate
>>>>>
>>>> to
>>>>
>>>>> underlying and nonverbalized cultural assumptions. In these
>>>>> conferences, the teacher, having adopted the 'individualistic'
>>>>> assumptions of US school culture, was verbally constructing an
>>>>> 'individualistic' child, whereas the parent was verbally
>>>>> constructing a 'collectivistic' one. As an example, one
>>>>>
>>>> element
>>>>
>>>>> in the 'collectivistic worldview is a dispreference for
>>>>>
>>>> praise,
>>>>
>>>>> which makes one child stand out. In the 'individualistic' (p.
>>>>> 298) worldview, in contrast, praise is strongly preferred. In
>>>>> one conference, teh teacher's
>>>>> praise for the child made a father extremely
>>>>> uncomfortable. Given that these parents were concerned with
>>>>> socializing their children into tehir culture, we would
>>>>>
>>>> imagine
>>>>
>>>>> that high levels of praise in the classroom would cause
>>>>>
>>>> conflict
>>>>
>>>>> with the children's (?) more collectivistic worldview, based
>>>>>
>>>> on
>>>>
>>>>> their home socialization."
>>>>>
>>>>> This paragraph is later transformed into a research hypothesis
>>>>> on p. 303:
>>>>>
>>>>> "H4: We predicted more use of praise in the non-BC classroom
>>>>>
>>>> and
>>>>
>>>>> more use of criticism in the BC classroom." (p. 303)
>>>>>
>>>>> It is also the object of quantitative analysis on p. 304: "the
>>>>> number of instances of praise and criticism directed at the
>>>>>
>>>> students">
>>>>
>>>>> It seems clear, to answer Jay's query, that this means
>>>>> praise/criticism of the child by the teacher. What is less
>>>>>
>>>> clear
>>>>
>>>>> is how these can be "clearly" related to NONVERBALIZED and
>>>>> UNDERLYING cultural assumptions,,
>>>>>
>>>>> If they are underlying and assumed, why would they be
>>>>>
>>>> verbalized
>>>>
>>>>> at all? If they are wholly or partly nonverbalized, how can
>>>>>
>>>> they
>>>>
>>>>> be quantified in the number of instances of praise and
>>>>>
>>>> criticism
>>>>
>>>>> directed at students?
>>>>>
>>>>> In addition, it's not at all clear how or if research based on
>>>>> parent-teacher conferences, which are performances of a rather
>>>>> different nature in which the child does not take part, is
>>>>>
>>>> valid
>>>>
>>>>> for classroom research.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think, unlike Jay, I am rather sympathetic to the
>>>>>
>>>> Bernsteinian
>>>>
>>>>> assumptions that underly this kind of research. I do believe
>>>>> that there is something called a restricted code and a more
>>>>> elaborated one, and I even believe that up to a certain point
>>>>>
>>>> a
>>>>
>>>>> home-school mismatch can be debilitating for children.
>>>>>
>>>>> But I also believe that after a certain point (say, fourth or
>>>>> fifth grade) kids begin to talk like other kids and not like
>>>>> their parents. So when we find restricted codes reproducing
>>>>> themselves in learner language, it is not blameable on parent
>>>>> cultures, but rather on the child's own emerging volition.
>>>>>
>>>>> That is the bad news. The good news is that, like foreign
>>>>> language codes (which are certainly elaborated), the
>>>>> fossilization of restricted codes is highly susceptible
>>>>> to teacher intervention.
>>>>>
>>>>> David Kellogg
>>>>> Seoul National University of Education
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --- On Thu, 12/3/09, mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> From: mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>
>>>>> Subject: Re: [xmca] Gratier, Greenfield, & Isaac
>>>>> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>>>>> Cc: "Patricia Greenfield" <greenfield@psych.ucla.edu>,
>>>>> mgratier@u-paris10.fr
>>>>> Date: Thursday, December 3, 2009, 4:51 PM
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I am cc'ing authors in case they have not signed up for the
>>>>> discussion. A
>>>>> mixture of questions have been raised that perhaps
>>>>> they can help to help us sort out.
>>>>> mike
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 3:00 PM, yuan lai
>>>>> <laiyuantaiwan@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>  Michael, I believe there are ways that mirror the “natural
>>>>>>
>>>>> way” to teach
>>>>>
>>>>>> cultural capital overtly. I’ve seen 3- and 4-year-olds from
>>>>>>
>>>>> families of
>>>>>
>>>>>> refugee status quickly appropriated the value placed on
>>>>>>
>>>>> print,
>>>>
>>>>> showing> interest in print, wanting to write their names,
>>>>> feeling proud of their own
>>>>>
>>>>>> attempts, not long after establishing a relationship with
>>>>>>
>>>>> the
>>>>
>>>>> preschool> teacher in various activities in a family literacy
>>>>> program, which embeds
>>>>>
>>>>>> print in almost all its classroom activities. For example,
>>>>>>
>>>>> the
>>>>
>>>>> teacher read
>>>>>
>>>>>> to the children while they were eating, pointed out print
>>>>>>
>>>>> and
>>>>
>>>>> signs in the
>>>>>
>>>>>> environment for them as they went out for recess, and wrote
>>>>>>
>>>>> notes in front
>>>>>
>>>>>> of them to request materials needed for the classroom. The
>>>>>>
>>>>> transformation> of
>>>>>
>>>>>> the children’s attention, interest, and desire is amazing
>>>>>>
>>>>> given that the
>>>>>
>>>>>> children hardly understood English when they entered the
>>>>>>
>>>>> program and their
>>>>>
>>>>>> parents seldom read to them or pointed out print around due
>>>>>>
>>>>> to
>>>>
>>>>> low reading
>>>>>
>>>>>> and writing ability in English and in their first language.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I've since been
>>>>>
>>>>>> convinced of the importance of setting up a learning
>>>>>>
>>>>> environment that has
>>>>>
>>>>>> an
>>>>>> emphasis on relationship building.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jay, until you revealed it, I didn't see it. I reread the
>>>>>>
>>>>> section leading
>>>>>
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> the hypotheses section and found that there is some
>>>>>>
>>>>> reference
>>>>
>>>>> to praise,
>>>>>
>>>>>> but
>>>>>> not at all to criticism.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It appears that the same two classrooms (BC and non-BC) have
>>>>>>
>>>>> been studied
>>>>>
>>>>>> from different angles and the findings seem to be consistent
>>>>>>
>>>>> with Gratier
>>>>>
>>>>>> et
>>>>>> al.'s framework. This article certainly extends their work.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Terms such as
>>>>>
>>>>>> style and collectivism do connote essentialization; the
>>>>>>
>>>>> authors’ data
>>>>>
>>>>>> provide substantiation of the essentialzed norms and
>>>>>>
>>>>> communication styles
>>>>>
>>>>>> (although what one sets out to do confines what one looks
>>>>>>
>>>>> for)
>>>>
>>>>> but I think
>>>>>
>>>>>> they could have gone a step further. The example of a
>>>>>>
>>>>> father’s
>>>>
>>>>> feeling> uncomfortable when the teacher praised his child does
>>>>> not tell how he may
>>>>>
>>>>>> act or say to people in his in-group. There is also the
>>>>>>
>>>>> assumption that
>>>>>
>>>>>> home
>>>>>> socialization remains the same after immigration. Given the
>>>>>>
>>>>> contrastive> framework in Gratier et al., I see little reasons
>>>>> not to include the
>>>>>
>>>>>> videotaping of the same groups of children (some of them,
>>>>>>
>>>>> more
>>>>
>>>>> likely)> interacting with their parents at home. Or is another
>>>>> paper forthcoming?
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yuan
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 4:46 AM, Michael Glassman
>>>>>>
>>>>> <MGlassman@ehe.osu.edu> >wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  Jay
>>>>>>> ,
>>>>>>> It seems to me a playing out - at least to some extent of
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bourdieu's> larger
>>>>>
>>>>>> theory.  That increasing the cultural capital of the
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> teacher
>>>>
>>>>> in relation
>>>>>
>>>>>> to
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the class would increase the level of social capital,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> which
>>>>
>>>>> would lead to
>>>>>
>>>>>> some of the findings they present.  A lack of cultural
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> capital (usually
>>>>>
>>>>>> assumed on the part of the students) would certainly lead
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> to more
>>>>
>>>>> difficulties in communication and the students feeling
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> more
>>>>
>>>>> uncomfortable> in
>>>>>
>>>>>> class.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But this leads to a fairly radical assumption on the part
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> of
>>>>
>>>>> the authors
>>>>>
>>>>>> concerning habitus, even in terms of Bourdieu's theory.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is that
>>>>>
>>>>>> cultural capital can be taught overtly, as cultural
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> capital -
>>>>
>>>>> Bourdieu
>>>>>
>>>>>> seems
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> to emphasize that we learn cultural capital more or less
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> unconsciously,> > through everyday experience in the right
>>>>> situations (whether it is with
>>>>>
>>>>>> parents or in a school system where the type of cultural
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> capital that
>>>>>
>>>>>> leads
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> to easy social capital is pervasive).  I'm not so sure
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> this
>>>>
>>>>> is possible.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have another difficult which is that I read habitus as
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> defining class
>>>>>
>>>>>> distinctions rather than cultural distinctions, and that
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm
>>>>
>>>>> not sure his
>>>>>
>>>>>> ideas translate between the two, or make that much sense
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> if
>>>>
>>>>> they do.  The
>>>>>
>>>>>> types of cultures like Latino/Latina cultures are going to
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> have class
>>>>>
>>>>>> distinctions defined by different habitas, defined most
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> easily by
>>>>>
>>>>>> different
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> levels of economic capital, and different recogntions of
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> symbolic capital
>>>>>
>>>>>> (and symbolic violence),  To say a population so large has
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> a
>>>>
>>>>> single type
>>>>>
>>>>>> of
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> habitus I think is problematic - especially when using a
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> terms such as
>>>>>
>>>>>> collectivist, which is both categorical and far too broad
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I
>>>>
>>>>> think to be
>>>>>
>>>>>> really salient in describing classes, let alone entire
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> cultures (I think
>>>>>
>>>>>> level and type of social capital might be more appropriate
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> if you are
>>>>>
>>>>>> going
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> to use Bourdeiu's theory as a starting point).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Michael
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu on behalf of Jay Lemke
>>>>>>> Sent: Thu 12/3/2009 12:16 AM
>>>>>>> To: XMCA Forum
>>>>>>> Subject: [xmca] Gratier, Greenfield, & Isaac
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't know how many people have yet had a chance to look
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> at the MCA
>>>>>
>>>>>> article-of-the-month (Gratier, Greenfield, & Isaac on
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> communicative> > habitus and attunement in classrooms).
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I must have missed something, so could someone explain to
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> me
>>>>
>>>>> how they
>>>>>
>>>>>> derive the hypothesis that the more culturally attuned
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> classroom will
>>>>>
>>>>>> have more criticism (by the teacher? or by everyone?) and
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> less praise,
>>>>>
>>>>>> than the mismatched classroom?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And what do you think generally about the methodology in
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> this work?
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> JAY.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jay Lemke
>>>>>>> Professor (Adjunct, 2009-2010)
>>>>>>> Educational Studies
>>>>>>> University of Michigan
>>>>>>> Ann Arbor, MI 48109
>>>>>>> www.umich.edu/~jaylemke <http://www.umich.edu/%7Ejaylemke> <
>>>>>>> http://www.umich.edu/%7Ejaylemke>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> <http://www.umich.edu/%7Ejaylemke> <
>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.umich.edu/%7Ejaylemke>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Visiting Scholar
>>>>>>> Laboratory for Comparative Human Communication
>>>>>>> University of California -- San Diego
>>>>>>> La Jolla, CA
>>>>>>> USA 92093
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca