Thanks for the pointer, Tony.
Am I correct that missing from this discussion is a simultaneous "turn"
toward a
biological ontology, e.g., innate core domain modules and corresponding
innate
(present at or near birth, requiring only triggering to appear, etc.)
modules?
mike
On 9/8/07, Tony Whitson <twhitson@udel.edu> wrote:
>
> This might not help Don in Italy right now, but here's a suggested reading
> for teaching on these topics:
>
> Ford, Michael J., and Ellice A. Forman. "Chapter 1: Redefining
> Disciplinary Learning in Classroom Contexts." Review of Research in
> Education 30, no. 1 (2006): 1-32.
>
> In the past, I've given my students papers representing various
> alternative orientations. The Ford & Forman chapter is exceptional, I
> think, in its presentation of a history that represents the successive
> emergence of approaches, from behavioral to cognitive to what they call
> the turn to practice(s) -- which refers to the historical development that
> I would characterize as the turn to social ontology.
>
> On Sat, 8 Sep 2007, Tony Whitson wrote:
>
> > Hi, Don,
> >
> > I don't disagree with anything you say in this post. However, the
> narrative
> > of cognitivism as a superior successor to behaviorism is a narrative
> that is
> > generally taught and learned in our School of Ed, and I suspect not only
> in
> > our place. And, as a matter of historical reality, behaviorism did
> exercise
> > hegemony, as I think cognitivism does now.
> >
> > When I deal with this in my classes, I stress that of course cognitive
> > science does not deny or disparage behavior, or the behavioral science
> > approaches to understanding behavior. Nor does social ontology deny or
> > disparage cognition, or the cognitive science approaches to
> understanding
> > cognition.
> >
> > The problem lies in the reductionism whereby cognitivism (i.e., the
> reductive
> > ideology) insists on treating matters that are not just matters of
> cognition
> > as if they are merely cognitive, or can be understood adequately in
> purely
> > cognitive terms. As suggested on http://postcog.net , it seems to me
> that
> > this is what is done, for example, in the "How People Learn" model
> > (Bransford, et al.) which has attained a kind of canonical status at our
> > place, and I think widely in Education. So, for example, Lave is cited
> for
> > the point that context involves conditions that are consequential for
> > cognition. That proposition certainly is implicated in Lave's work, but
> to
> > reduce her theory to that cognitivist plane is a real, limiting
> distortion,
> > IMHO.
> >
> > On Sat, 8 Sep 2007, Cunningham, Donald James wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Tony,
> >>
> >> Thanks for the great reply. I'll have to beg off responding in any
> depth.
> >> I am currently in Italy where the class I am teaching is happening and
> my
> >> precious laptop has just blown up on me. Everything I need to teach is
> on
> >> there!!!! So I am relegated to limited time on public computers with
> >> European keyboards.
> >>
> >> But briefly, I take a more conciliatory approach to theory. I don't see
> it
> >> as a matter of behaviorist hegemony, etc. ANY theory can be misused. I
> >> take the theories to be tools or sets of glasses for viewing a
> situation
> >> with each tool having its potentialities and its limitations, each set
> of
> >> glasses brings some things in to focus and blurs or distorts others.
> >> Behaviorism was very helpful to me in sorting out my son's episodes of
> >> enuresis. It is a good tool for thinking about classroom organization.
> But
> >> behaviorism omits/distorts notions like self agency so other tools,
> other
> >> glasses should be examined as well. So I don't see the historical
> >> progression from behaviorism to cognitivism and beyond as an
> evolutionary
> >> one where were are gradually homing in on the one true theory. I see
> it
> >> as a process of discovering more possibilities - which of course makes
> it
> >> harder to know which alternative might be the most useful in a given
> >> situation. I believe Giddens called that process "manufacturing
> >> uncertainty". I have dedicated my career to creating uncertainty!
> >>
> >> Ciao..........djc
> >>
> >> Don Cunningham
> >> Indiana University
> >>
> >> ________________________________
> >>
> >> From: Tony Whitson [mailto:twhitson@UDel.Edu]
> >> Sent: Thu 9/6/2007 6:27 PM
> >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> >> Cc: Cunningham, Donald James; Mike Cole
> >> Subject: RE: [xmca] mediational theories of mind: Suggestions requested
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Don,
> >>
> >> Sorry for the delay in responding to this -- but I think it's a useful
> >> question for discussion in this group.
> >>
> >> I want to respond quickly on another point before getting to your main
> >> question about teaching CHAT.
> >>
> >> First, you write:
> >>> I've taught the usual suspects (behaviorism,
> >>> Bandura, Piaget, cognitive information processing) for years and have
> a
> >>> pretty good idea about them but would appreciate some help on CHAT.
> >>
> >> Where I am, students have learned a story about how once upon a time
> the
> >> world was ruled by the behaviorists, but they've been vanquished by the
> >> (scientifically, pedagogically, politically, and morally) superior
> forces
> >> of Cognitive Science. They think that's where the story ends (as in the
> >> "End of History" celebrated since Daniel Bell in the early 60's, where
> >> history completes itself with the universal triumph of capitalism).
> >>
> >> I think it's important for students to learn about what's happening
> >> "beyond cognitivism." For me, this is not just a matter of theory or
> >> intellectual politics: My students just won't understand anything I'm
> >> saying or doing unless they understand that I'm addressing an ontology
> in
> >> which cognition cannot be understood except as it is embedded in the
> >> broader (not only cognitive) projects and processes of being and
> becoming.
> >> CHAT takes this stance against reductive cognitivism, and CHAT cannot
> be
> >> understood (IMHO) without recognizing this. I think Wenger & the
> >> Communities of Practice literature perhaps makes this point more
> directly
> >> and accessibly, although details have not been theorized as extensively
> as
> >> in CHAT. Curriculum theory -- my own home turf -- has always approached
> >> education as a matter of ontology, not merely cognition (i.e., not just
> >> Knowing, but Being and Becoming).
> >>
> >> So, I would want to tell the story of behaviorist hegemony giving way
> to
> >> cognitivist hegemony, which in turn is being challenged by a turn to
> the
> >> broader perspective of social ontology. This is not to say that the
> >> reductivist ideology of cognitivISM is replaced by an ideology of
> >> postcognitivISM (see my post at http://postcog.net <http://postcog.net/
> >
> >> ); Nor is it a call for
> >> hegemonic "postcognitivism" in place of hegemonic cognitivism.
> >>
> >> One good source is Lave, Jean. "Teaching, as Learning, in Practice."
> Mind,
> >> Culture, and Activity 3, no. 3 (1996): 149-64.
> >> I think this particular point might come through more strongly in
> >> Lave, Jean. "Learning as Participation in Communities of Practice."
> Paper
> >> presented at the American Educational Research Association, San
> Francisco
> >> 1992.
> >> (This paper is now linked from http://postcog.net/#Lave . This is the
> >> paper Jean presented in the symposium that David Kirshner and I
> organized,
> >> which grew into our book _Situated Cognition_, although a different
> piece
> >> was used as her chapter in the book. The MCA article includes aspects
> of
> >> the AERA paper, although its scope is broader and the social ontology
> >> argument may be less central to the complete published article.)
> >>
> >> With regard to your main question, you write:
> >>> [I] was wondering if any of you would be
> >>> willing to share with me (and other XMCAers) how you present CHAT. I
> >>> mean, I don't think undergrads are going to be too interested in the
> >>> distinction between action and activity or working out the concept of
> >>> "object". Or am I wrong?
> >>
> >> This could be a very interesting discussion for XMCA.
> >> As you suggest, for an undergrad Ed Psych class, it might be best to
> >> streamline CHAT a bit. However, I don't think the differentiation among
> >> the three levels of activity, action, and operations is dispensable. I
> >> think it's necessary to see activities and activity systems emerging on
> a
> >> social/cultural level beyond consciously goal-oriented action, and to
> see
> >> the role of routinized operational activity that does not require
> >> conscious attention.
> >>
> >> It would be helpful to develop introductory approaches for this
> audience.
> >> Starting points could include the resources at
> >> http://www.edu.helsinki.fi/activity/pages/chatanddwr/
> >> and
> >> Roth, Wolff-Michael, and Yew-Jin Lee. ""Vygotsky's Neglected Legacy":
> >> Cultural-Historical Activity Theory." Review of Educational Research
> 77,
> >> no. 2 (2007): 186-232.
> >> as well as
> >> pp. 27-47 in Spinuzzi, Clay. Tracing Genres through Organizations: A
> >> Sociocultural Approach to Information Design. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT
> Press,
> >> 2003.
> >> and
> >> pp. 29-72 ("Activity Theory in a Nutshell") in Kaptelinin, Victor, and
> >> Bonnie A. Nardi. Acting with Technology: Activity Theory and
> Interaction
> >> Design. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2006.
> >>
> >> On Wed, 29 Aug 2007, Cunningham, Donald James wrote:
> >>
> >>> And in a week or so, I will begin teaching an undergraduate class in
> >>> "Educational Psychology" for future teachers. It has been a few years
> >>> since I taught such a class and was wondering if any of you would be
> >>> willing to share with me (and other XMCAers) how you present CHAT. I
> >>> mean, I don't think undergrads are going to be too interested in the
> >>> distinction between action and activity or working out the concept of
> >>> "object". Or am I wrong? I've taught the usual suspects (behaviorism,
> >>> Bandura, Piaget, cognitive information processing) for years and have
> a
> >>> pretty good idea about them but would appreciate some help on CHAT.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Don Cunningham
> >>> Indiana University
> >>>
> >>> Ancora Imparo!
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu]
> >>> On Behalf Of Mike Cole
> >>> Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2007 6:13 PM
> >>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> >>> Subject: [xmca] mediational theories of mind: Suggestions requested
> >>>
> >>> Dear Xmca-ites---
> >>>
> >>> Toward the end of the month I will begin teaching a grad course on
> >>> mediational theories of mind.
> >>> I would love suggestions for interesting readings.
> >>> We will be looking in a sort of "mcLuhanesque" way at the affordances
> of
> >>> different kinds of mediators
> >>> in human action/activity/mind.
> >>>
> >>> So, language and thought
> >>> writing
> >>> film
> >>> music
> >>> tv
> >>> rituals
> >>> games
> >>> .........
> >>>
> >>> Starting with early 20th century writers of general familiarity to
> >>> members
> >>> of this list, I have been thinking about including
> >>> such works as Cszikentmihalyi, "meaning of things," Turkle's recent
> >>> "evocative objects," and perhaps something on mediated
> >>> behavior in large groups such as "the wisdom of crowds."
> >>>
> >>> Any and all suggestions warmly welcomed. So much going on its hard to
> >>> even
> >>> think about how to begin to think about this
> >>> upcoming fall!!
> >>>
> >>> mike
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> 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
> >>>
> >>
> >> Tony Whitson
> >> UD School of Education
> >> NEWARK DE 19716
> >>
> >> twhitson@udel.edu
> >> _______________________________
> >>
> >> "those who fail to reread
> >> are obliged to read the same story everywhere"
> >> -- Roland Barthes, S/Z (1970)
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> xmca mailing list
> >> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >>
> >
> > Tony Whitson
> > UD School of Education
> > NEWARK DE 19716
> >
> > twhitson@udel.edu
> > _______________________________
> >
> > "those who fail to reread
> > are obliged to read the same story everywhere"
> > -- Roland Barthes, S/Z (1970)
>
> Tony Whitson
> UD School of Education
> NEWARK DE 19716
>
> twhitson@udel.edu
> _______________________________
>
> "those who fail to reread
> are obliged to read the same story everywhere"
> -- Roland Barthes, S/Z (1970)
> _______________________________________________
> 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 Sat Sep 8 08:06 PDT 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Oct 08 2007 - 06:02:26 PDT