Mike,
You are correct that there is also a biological ontology that I've been
neglecting, although I'm not sure about a "turn" in the same sense, since
this ontology seems to have been present in the background all along.
Thinking about this, it strikes me that an important moment in the
emergence of a cognitive approach was Chomsky's critique of Skinner, and
Chomsky is more an innate rationalist vs. an empiricist. In this case
we're not talking about the epistemology of science, but the epistemology
of learning in general (e.g. First Language learning). Maybe this is
missing from the common narrative in the US because proponents here such
as Chomsky & Fodor tend not to be psychologists. There are a couple books
on the debate between Piaget and Chomsky on language and learning (See
http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/6016193
and
http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/13197037
I don't think there's been much interest in that debate in US education
schools, maybe because it's assumeed Piaget's on the right side. There may
be more interest in a biological ontology among US psychologists than we
see in the education field, and rationalism might be more influential (vs.
empiricism) outside the English-speaking academic world.
Maybe David Kirshner would have more to say about the Chomsky angle.
On Sat, 8 Sep 2007, Mike Cole wrote:
> 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
>
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
Received on Sat Sep 8 08:36 PDT 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Oct 08 2007 - 06:02:26 PDT