At 09:38 PM 22/12/2006 -0500, you wrote:
>However, I feel that your description of Participatory Democracy displays a
>certain kind of extremism, or overstatement for ideological purposes, which
>can be the source of confusion, especially at a time when
>"student-as-customer" is all the rage, and not "teacher-as-authority".
>
>Andy, student-as-customer is a different concept than not
>"teacher-as-authority." From the reading I have done they come from two
>completely different places - for two different reasons or purposes. If
>I'm not mistaken, the student as customer model comes from applying to
>business model to education - it has little to do with Progressive
>education I think. It is true that George Counts did develop a stand of
>Progressive education that was more student centered - but student
>centered education in some ways misses the point of democratic
>education. One of the issue of democratic education is the idea I think
>that students need to take responsibility as members of a community in the
>classroom. I don't really see how that relates to the student as customer
>issue. Avoiding the "teacher as authority" paradigm is important thought
>I think because learning to listen to people and depend on them to solve
>problems simply because they have been deemed authority can be dangerous -
>circa the United States 2000 - 20006. I think this is a really important
>point. Once a person has gained a level of authority is that person's
>purpose progressive problem solving or maintaining a positioin of authority?
Your observations are absolutely correct, Michael. I am only asking that we
seek a "third position" and not one-sidedly promote one side of the dichotomy.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
... We should not dismiss history - I suppose that we can't - but we should
be aware always of how it is used as an instrument.
exactly my point.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>When was representative democracy abolished and replaced with
>participatory democracy in any social group? This is interesting to me.
I am referring here to the USSR etc.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>I don't see the point of your remarks about teleology; perhaps you could
>explain their significance. We all know teleology is a bad thing today.
>
>The difficulty of teleology I was discussing involves the part it plays in
>some forms of liberalism. If you believe you are moving towards an ideal
>end point, and you have gained some knowledge that brings you closer to
>that end point, then the purpose of the activity is transferring that
>knowledge to another - maybe somebody who is coming up behind you. Human
>progress becomes something like a relay race in which we are running with
>our baton and when we reach the next person we transfer our baton forward,
>all in an effort to reach the finish line. The focus of our activity
>becomes the baton. We don't stop to think, why am I running, where am I
>going? We must pass the baton forward. What if there were no end point
>we were running towards? Would that help us realize that there is no
>reason to move the baton forward, that what is important is the actual
>running. Maybe we could get together with the people behind and the
>people ahead and he could figure out how to make a better running shoes,
>or how to improve the track, or how to get more people in to the
>race. Okay, I'm stretching this metaphor way too far. But are we better
>off if we realize that activity is not a unified, rule driven race to same
>great human goal - and when we have reached that goal we will have
>won. Activity is pluralistic, many different activities that we should
>work on together to make better, and by making these activities better,
>making our life better. I wonder if I am making any sense at all at this
>point. Maybe I should go look for a baton.
It was Bernstein in 1899 who said "That which is generally called the
ultimate aim of socialism is nothing, but the movement is everything" but
this is just going from one extreme to the other. Engels replied with
Hegel, that ultimately there can be no conflict between the movement and
its end, which put differently, means that it is precisely the conflict
between the movement and its aims which is the life blood of democracy. To
one-sidedly stress the movement against its aims is to reduce life to a party.
Andy
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>Michael
>
>
>
>
>________________________________
>
>From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu on behalf of Andy Blunden
>Sent: Fri 12/22/2006 7:50 PM
>To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>Subject: RE: [xmca] Evolving personalized instructional construct?
>
>
>
>Michael,
>
>Coming from where I do, I fully support your interest in participatory
>democracy.Cognition between people, whether via Peirce or Vygotsky, we know
>to be prior to cognition within a person. So I too regard participatory
>democracy, collective and practical problem solving, to be of central
>importance in understanding the human condition at the moment. This is an
>important shared concern, Michael.
>
>However, I feel that your description of Participatory Democracy displays a
>certain kind of extremism, or overstatement for ideological purposes, which
>can be the source of confusion, especially at a time when
>"student-as-customer" is all the rage, and not "teacher-as-authority".
>However, I feel that your description of Participatory Democracy displays a
>certain kind of extremism, or overstatement for ideological purposes, which
>can be the source of confusion, especially at a time when
>"student-as-customer" is all the rage, and not "teacher-as-authority".
>I might say also that for all the criticisms we might have of
>representative democracy, it very obviously has its time and place, and in
>those countries and times when it was abolished because it is not as good
>as participatory democracy, the results were less than impressive. There
>are problems which simply cannot be solved by PD alone and to suggest
>otherwise it also to sow confusion.
>
>I don't see the point of your remarks about teleology; perhaps you could
>explain their significance. We all know teleology is a bad thing today.
>
>Andy
>At 07:58 AM 22/12/2006 -0500, you wrote:
> >Andy,
> >
> >Okay, a couple of things. First, there are a number of forms of democracy
> >- two major forms being representative democracy and participatory
> >democracy. The idea that you find somebody who knows better or has more
> >experience than you, and you choose them to make decisions, or lead you in
> >a particular direction, is basically a representative type of
> >democracy. Representative democracy, at least in the United States, is
> >basically a liberal idea. It suggests that we move towards some
> >teleological end point, and somebody who has been on the road towards that
> >point longer than us necessarily knows more - then you - as learner, pick
> >up the baton and continue on in that direction (as opposed to a
> >conservative view which uses some of the same superficial methodology -
> >but to make sure you maintain circumscribed behavior that already
> >works). In this sense development as you say (and I am still not sure
> >about this distinction between learning and development) is part of a
> >grand, unified strategy (many arguments about the source of this strategy).
> >
> >In a vision of participatory democracy there is no teleological end point,
> >each problem is unique and creates its own unique problems and demands its
> >own unique solutions. You can use tools developed from other, earlier
> >experiments - but they are only instruments, they are not end in and of
> >themselves - and you may have to throw them out. When a person who has
> >gone before is involved that presents both a benefit and a danger. The
> >benefit of course is the person who has gone before can introduce the
> >instruments in to the new problem. The danger is the person who has gone
> >before believes because they solved the previous problem they can solve
> >the immediate problem - the true danger in this is that the person who has
> >gone before actually sets the solution - based on previous experience -
> >before engaging in the experiment. In other words, you wind up fighting
> >yesterday's war over and over and there is never any progress. A
> >participatory democracy starts anew in terms of problem solving with each
> >problem. Any member of the social cooperative - any member - may have a
> >solution to the particular problem - so all members are equal in the
> >ability to problem solve at the start, and are dependent on each
> >other. Individuals are celebrated, because it is the individual idea that
> >can move the community forward - any individual idea. Each individual
> >then has an equal role in the problem solving - they don't have equal
> >abilities - but there is a chance that any of them can be the person who
> >offers the next step in the problem solving. Much of this is laid out in
> >DEMOCRACY AND EDUCATION. I have read that parts of this were translated
> >in to Russian at the time Vygotsky was a young scholar, along with all of
> >SCHOOL AND SOCIETY.
> >
> >As far as Zoped, I was thinking last night, the question that keeps moving
> >across my mind is - is Zoped a method for transferring cultural capital
> >(information an individual needs to know to be successful in society) or
> >is it a method for creating social capital (a trusting cooperative
> >atmosphere where information is residue of relationship)?
> >
> >Michael
> >
> >________________________________
> >
> >From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu on behalf of Andy Blunden
> >Sent: Fri 12/22/2006 2:29 AM
> >To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> >Subject: RE: [xmca] Evolving personalized instructional construct?
> >
> >
> >
> >I would answer Michael's first question: "Yes you have to be involved in
> >some activity (socially and historically extended, object-oriented) in
> >order to *develop* as a person, not just learn, and that involves other
> >people who went before you." I think that the idea that this is
> >anti-democratic is weird. It is anti-liberal in the individualist meaning
> >of that word, but liberal individualism is not the same as "democratic".
> >In relation to the second question: ZOPED exists only in the relationship
> >between an individual, particular activities (social, object-oriented) and
> >some artefact used in that activity, not IN the individual as such, but
> >unfortunately the word "zone" and how it is used, where it is the state of
> >an individual learner alone which is the focus, implies quite the opposite.
> >A habit of thought, I guess.
> >Andy
> >At 09:45 AM 21/12/2006 -0500, Michael Glassman wrote:
> > >... Is Zoped making the argument that we need a gate keeper to deliver us
> > >information that will help us realize our learning/development - or is
> > >Zoped a democratic atmosphere where information is in constant negotiation
> > >based on the needs and the problems of the participants? I have seen both
> > >ideas, even on this list in the past few days. Another question - is
> > >Zoped part of the individual - for instance, do I have a Zoped? Or is it
> > >some type of learning atmosphere that fosters new insights through
> > >communication? If it's the latter then we can test it empirically, but we
> > >can't quantify or objectify it (or maybe we can - I just wanted to say it
> > >is not in my Zoped - but do I want to say it is not in the Zoped I am
> > >in?). I guess the big question EPIC asks is "Does information need to be
> > >controlled by somebody who (claims to have?) has more experience with it
> > >to have worth - or is that a recipe for authoritarianism rather than
> > democracy?
> > >
> > >Michael
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >________________________________
> > >
> > >From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu on behalf of Cunningham, Donald James
> > >Sent: Thu 12/21/2006 9:13 AM
> > >To: eXtended Mind, Culture,Activity
> > >Subject: RE: [xmca] Evolving personalized instructional construct?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >Yes, I was thinking of the computer versions of the SAT and GRE where the
> > >question you are asked next depends upon your prior answers rather than a
> > >set linear order. As I understand it, the procedure is supposed to allow
> > >the test taker to show better their "true" that might be over or
> > >underestimated on the basis of any given question. But certainly Ann
> > >Brown's notion of dynamic assessment is another example.
> > >
> > >The EPIC algorithms would operate on a massive processing premise. By
> > >comparing results across countless learners, it would presumably have the
> > >capability of providing learners with just what they need, when they need
> > >it. Is that good teaching?
> > >
> > >Don Cunningham
> > >Indiana University
> > >
> > >"Whatever you are, be a good one" - A. Lincoln
> > >
> > >
> > >-----Original Message-----
> > >From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] On
> > >Behalf Of Mike Cole
> > >Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2006 10:44 PM
> > >To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> > >Subject: Re: [xmca] Evolving personalized instructional construct?
> > >
> > >Don-- I am, like many, overwhelmed, but where did this come from:
> > >Adaptive testing is another
> > >example of an artificial intelligence that tries to move people into a
> > >zone of maximum response.
> > >
> > >"Adaptive testing" is restricted to computer based testing??
> > >
> > >mike
> > >
> > >
> > >On 12/20/06, David Preiss <davidpreiss@uc.cl> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Don
> > > > Could we reframe your thoughts as the question whether is it really
> > > > relevant than the more competent partner in a ZOPED be a human person?
> > > > David
> > > >
> > > > On Dec 20, 2006, at 10:31 PM, Cunningham, Donald James wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > No one picked up on this and I should probably just drop it but the
> > > > > continued discussion on ZOPED prompts me to ask, could a computer
> > > > > algorithm be a "more knowledgeable" partner? Adaptive testing is
> > > > > another
> > > > > example of an artificial intelligence that tries to move people
> into a
> > > > > zone of maximum response. If the vision in EPIC 2015 were actualized,
> > > > > might not the algorithm be a sensei, showing us the way forward? I
> > > > > understand that the notion of _forward_ is problematic, but is that
> > > > > not
> > > > > also true of a human sensei......or any teacher? And why should the
> > > > > goal
> > > > > in a zoped be the ability to act independently? Most of the things
> > > > > in my
> > > > > life that have expanded my capabilities are things I have come to
> rely
> > > > > on and are now a part of me. I can't imagine how I ever wrote
> anything
> > > > > of value when I wrote in long hand, had a poor (now nearly blind
> > > > > thanks
> > > > > to me) secretary type it up, correct, edit, repeat, and so forth.
> > > > > Here I
> > > > > link with Donna's contribution where she mentions natural born
> > > > > cyborgs.
> > > > > Can anyone doubt that within my lifetime (and I'm OLD) that things
> > > > > like
> > > > > MP3's and cell phones will be available as surgical implants?
> > > > >
> > > > > Mind you, this all scares the beejeezes out of me..........djc
> > > > >
> > > > > Don Cunningham
> > > > > Indiana University
> > > > >
> > > > > "Whatever you are, be a good one" - A. Lincoln
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
> [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu]
> > > > > On Behalf Of Cunningham, Donald James
> > > > > Sent: Sunday, December 17, 2006 10:05 PM
> > > > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> > > > > Subject: [xmca] Evolving personalized instructional construct?
> > > > >
> > > > > I sometimes wonder if the future of education is parallel to the
> > > > > future
> > > > > proposed for the news media in the flash movie EPIC 2005 (there is
> > > > > also
> > > > > an earlier version EPIC 2004). Available here:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > http://epic.makingithappen.co.uk/
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Don Cunningham
> > > > >
> > > > > Indiana University
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > "Whatever you are, be a good one" - A. Lincoln
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > 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
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > David Preiss, Ph.D.
> > > > Profesor Auxiliar / Assistant Professor
> > > >
> > > > Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile
> > > > Escuela de Psicología
> > > > Av Vicuña Mackenna 4860
> > > > Macul, Santiago
> > > > Chile
> > > >
> > > > Fono: 3544605
> > > > Fax: 3544844
> > > > e-mail: davidpreiss@uc.cl
> > > > web personal: http://web.mac.com/ddpreiss/
> > > > web institucional: http://www.uc.cl/psicologia
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > 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
> >
> > Andy Blunden : http://home.mira.net/~andy/ tel (H) +61 3 9380 9435, AIM
> >identity: AndyMarxists 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
>
> Andy Blunden : http://home.mira.net/~andy/ tel (H) +61 3 9380 9435, AIM
>identity: AndyMarxists 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
Andy Blunden : http://home.mira.net/~andy/ tel (H) +61 3 9380 9435, AIM
identity: AndyMarxists mobile 0409 358 651
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jan 03 2007 - 07:06:19 PST