Re: [xmca] Purposes and processes of education

[mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>]

Sure, lets thicken the pot.
Why not start off by explaining to us the McD and Lave concept of *
development*? Fits the agenda of what I am writing to a "t." For Lave
learning is shifting positionality in communities of practice. What is for
McDermott? Is there a role for deliberate instruction in their view at any
time before capitalism came up on the scene?

And as for the Estranged (labor) learning paper, everyone can find it at
(you guessed it!):

http://lchc.ucsd.edu/MCA/Paper/index.html

My mind wanders constantly to MLK and the continuing legacy of rascism,
despite the many gains, since his death, and the meaning of his life. Seems
relevant to recent threads here.

(while i spend a hopefully rainy day mostly writing letters of rec when I
would rather be chatting with you all).

mike

On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 12:37 AM, Larry Purss <lpurss@shaw.ca> wrote:

>      Another turn of direction in this dialogue/collaboration on the
> "purposes and processes of education" is generated by my reading a book
> chapter by Ray McDermott and Jean Lave called "Estranged {labour} Learning"
> in the book titled "Critical Perspectives on Activity" (2006) by Peter
> Sawchuck, Newton Duarte, and Mohamed Elhammouni.
> Achilles
>  this article is elaborating a method of textual analysis where Marx's 1844
> article "Estranged Labour" is "translated" across disciplinary
> boundaries (political economy translated into educational theory).  Key
> terms in Marx's political economy discourse are SUBSTITUTED for key terms in
> educational theory to highlight what McDermott and Lave "see" as a single
> process of commodification where learning (in parallel to labour) has become
> alienated and estranged. This method of substitution/translation is very
> informative in highlighting how key terms are always embedded in narrative
> constructions which reflect ongoing social relations.
> McDermott and Lave point out "For most modern thought, reality has been
> irremediably perspectival, but for Marx, all perspectives are also
> irremediably political. OBJECTIVE REALITY not only depends on where one is
> standing, but where one is standing IN RELATION to everyone else..."(page
> 99)
> McDermott and Lave critique our theories of education as particular
> discourses that have the same underlying social practices as capitalism.
> They suggest the commodification of learning is the result.
> "Deliberate instruction" from this Marxist tradition is explained as an
> aspect of perpetuating dominant patterns of estranged labour.
> "Deliberate instruction" can also be seen as "schooling" (30 students, 1
> teacher) which emerges as a process of statism and centralization as seen in
> China and elaborated on this thread.
> "Deliberate instruction" can also be contrasted as the "human spark" that
> differentiates chimps and humans and is therefore the ontological ground for
> adaptation of humans in social groups.
>
> Deliberate instruction as elaborated in "educational theory" needs to
> expand to include what I view as the more general category of learning
> theory.
>
>  CHAT  put's forth a perspective that learning theory must be qualified by
> the descriptors "situated learning theory" or "relational learning
> theory" to transcend the view of learning as located within the individual.
> McDermott and Lave label this notion of "individual" learning "estranged
> learning". and say it has its historical roots in capitalism. (or an
> alternative historical narrative of deliberate instruction is in the service
> of the formation of the state such as in China)
>
> Mike, I'm also not making any validity claims except that by playing with
> these multiple discourses we do elaborate a deeper more nuanced horizon of
> understanding on learning theory.
> And in this thread we haven't yet added in the notion of "development" to
> thicken the plot further.
>
> Larry
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>
> Date: Sunday, January 17, 2010 8:47 pm
> Subject: Re: [xmca] Purposes and processes of education
> To: Tony Whitson <twhitson@udel.edu>
> Cc: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>, SongFrank <
> fffranksong@hotmail.com>, huyi <huyi1910@hotmail.com>
>
> > I am unsure, tony.
> > Apprenticeships in pre-literate societies are interesting but
> > are they
> > counter-example? There is arrangement of opportunities to
> > observe and even
> > sequencing
> > of tasks, but descriptions of deliberate instruction are rare
> > and there are
> > not 30/1 ratios (although there are forms of activity that pass
> > as "exams.")
> >
> > Scribner and Cole studied people who were literate without
> > schools, but that
> > does not appear typical, and in terms of relationship of
> > literacy and
> > schooling the direction "causal" relations.
> >
> > I hope it is clear that I am not making claims here, but trying
> > to explore
> > more deeply this bundle of issues.
> >
> > mike
> >
> > On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 8:37 PM, Tony Whitson
> > <twhitson@udel.edu> wrote:
> >
> > > On Sun, 17 Jan 2010, mike cole wrote:
> > >
> > >  As part of background, "deliberate instruction" is one
> > of the standing
> > >> differentia between chimps and humans. But, for example,
> > Bruner claims
> > >> that
> > >> there is no evidence of deliberate instruction among "Kung
> > San Bushmen"
> > >> (in
> > >> quotes because the names given to these people is highly disputed).
> > >>
> > >
> > > So, to further clarify the question: with this differentium,
> > are the
> > > apprenticeship models reported by folks like Lave, Scribner,
> > and Cole
> > > counted or not counted as "deliberate instruction"?
> > >
> > > And is learning among the Bushmen differentiate from such models?
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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