Re: [xmca] Trying to stop the strands from unravelling

[mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>]

Carol--- I learn from xmca discussions mostly because they are NOT referred
journal articles, but reflections up, extensions of, musings about, ideas
that appear after having been peer reviewed. And as we have often seen,
members of xmca are not always enamored of the judgments of the reviewers
and editors!!

The relation of "metacognition" to other concepts that refer generally to
thinking about thinking (and thinking about thinking-as-action and perhaps
thinking about thinking also as action?) seems quite worthwhile. You did not
use the term, reflexivity, but that seems relevant as well, along with other
terms.

David Kel, was your use of mastery related to jim w's distinction between
mastery and internalization?

mike

On Sat, Apr 24, 2010 at 7:30 AM, Carol Macdonald <carolmacdon@gmail.com>wrote:

> Hi guys
>
> Since I have been underemployed for a while I have been able to pay
> reasonable attention to the very interesting recent postings.
>
> What concerns me is the fact that one or more conversations land up with
> concepts that are not really CHAT concepts, while on another conversation
> people have been trying to build up further theory on the nature of the ZPD
> (including Bakhtin, dialogicality, intersubjectivity etc) and the nature of
> concepts in chapters 5 & 6 of LSV.
>
> First we have the introduction of concepts such as *metacognition* (this
> was
> Nancy in late March).  I wrote about the unviability of teaching thinking
> skills a while back, so I thought I might be of help bringing this
> essentially educational psychology concept up to date and tell XMCA why we
> shouldn't use it.  To my dismay I found that there is now a whole journal
> dedicated to metacognition and learning, and looking at a few articles, it
> is clear that the concept has been diluted and confused, especially when
> compared with the original version Flavell laid out. So I decided to not
> regale my conversation partners with my view and wish here only to point
> out
> that metacognition is *not* a CHAT concept, and to make a plea to guard
> against unwelcome intruders. So far so god.
>
> Then we have more recently *conscious awareness* and *mastery* described in
> a nontechnical situation.  David K, in his ever constructive self,
> immediately tried to incorporate them. I do not have such a problem
> with *mastery
> *as Jim Wertsch wrote about it in 1998 in *Mind in Action* and I have used
> this in educational analysis. (Jim says its LSV, San Diego). However, it is
> essentially a characteristic of the individual. It is necessary but not
> sufficient for *appropriation.*
>
> Ironically *conscious awareness *is quite close to aspects of
> metacognition,
> but if I am right, it is essentially a characteristic of the individual,
> and
> I would want to know how it fits into our currently received analysis of
> the
> ZPD (on the file serve). Maybe we can talk about the teacher and the
> learner
> both having conscious awareness, but they would have to be brought into
> some
> relation because they would be different for the two. How does it relate to
> potential and real concepts, or is this another conversation?
>
> I either need some help here, since I can't integrate this/these, maybe
> they
> can't be, or to be told to stop fussing. Mike might tell me that we are not
> writing journal articles here, but I really  do learn from following the
> discussions.
>
> Timid thanks in advance
> Carol
>
> --
> Visiting Researcher
> Wits School of Education
> 6 Andover Road
> Westdene
> Johannesburg 2092
> _______________________________________________
> 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