A humble empirical observation from Carol:
In recent work with a student on promoting the zpd in the English
classroom,
in an ideal situation (only 20 girls in the class) and explicitly
using the
concept of the double move (Hedegaard), and the group zpd (H and also
Wells). Granted this research was only 6 months in length, the girls'
performance was radically affected for the better, including their
motivation and pride. *However the ranking of *t*heir **competence
(sorry
that's my term) in the class stayed exactly the same as had surfaced
with
regular pedagogy. *I like (to help students) to work with broad and
narrow
zpd's (and teach usinga crocodile jaws picture), and must surely say
that in
this research context, that the relative width of the learners' zpd is
preserved in the analysis of the classes' peformance. What does this
mean
for a single student...does it mean that she is *only* able to
*conceptualise
the task to a previously established limit? *Sure, the groups did
better
than any individual (Gordon's notion), but laying underneath there
seems to
be a limiting condition. I think this speaks to internalization, but
with
"terms and conditions" attached. I do hope I have made myself
clear. I
certainly get slightly anxious about the situation, or more aptly my
lack of
ability to explain this in another way.
C.
PS. NCLB is in our SA curriculum, and it's so naive about learning
that it's
not worth discussing.
2009/3/25 Mike Cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>
Yes.
We are discussing the homology (?) (maybe wrong word) between
changes at
individual and activity/organizational level.
This might go macro to Goffman, not sure.
passing and management are closely releated to
appropriation and appropriate, i think.
bon soir
mike
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 8:36 PM, Ed Wall <ewall@umich.edu> wrote:
Well, if you put it that way (smile), you take me back, in a
sense, to
Goffman and face work (and, perhaps, elsewhere) and I would say
yes it
does
happen at the organizational level and it may not just be an
accumulation
of
internalized individuals. In fact, I wonder if any individual need
internalize. That is, the They is actually anonymous.
Ed
On Mar 24, 2009, at 11:20 PM, Mike Cole wrote:
Yes. We appear to be talking past each other with lots of bemused
observers.
I misinterpreted your first message because I had this
quick response to the word "standards" which in my
life comes up most often in the NCLB context. You quite
appropriately
reoriented me.
But I got to thinking, as I often do, about internalization
at the level of individuals and of organizations. Hence my response.
In YOUR context (now) I believe we agree.
mike
PS-- Do you think I am totally off the wall in drawing an analogy
between
internalization at the individual and organizational levels?
(Disinterest
aside). Certainly very possible!!!
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 8:14 PM, Ed Wall <ewall@umich.edu> wrote:
Mike
I'm sorry, I have no real interest in NCLB (that isn't true,
but
not
in this context). I was referring to the sense in which Bodrova and
Leong
seem to be using it. You seem to recognize that sense?
Ed
On Mar 24, 2009, at 11:04 PM, Mike Cole wrote:
Ed-- I do not have the refs to hand, but there is quite a
literature on
the impact of NCLBehind on classroom
practices.
Peter S and many others. Help!!
mike
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 5:42 PM, Ed Wall <ewall@umich.edu> wrote:
Mike
There is always the question of the Other and volumes
have been
written on this. However, it is the process of this type of
internalization
in which I'm interested as it seems to be always simultaneously
problematic
and crucial. So as you say THAT, might you say more about THAT
(smile)
or
point me, as you have graciously done, in the direction?
Ed
On Mar 24, 2009, at 8:29 PM, Mike Cole wrote:
Oh, THAT kind of performance standards. I was missing the
context. e.g.
we internalize the expectations that others have of us.
Shifting contexts to the level of national educational policy
(which
was
the context I created with your words) provides an sort of
interesting
way
to think about the extent to which no child left behind
standards were
internalized. At the institutional level, a lot in some places
judging
by
the way in which classrooms have been changed into test driven
organizations
and accepted as "appropriate" (having been appropriated!).
mike
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 3:01 PM, Ed Wall <ewall@umich.edu> wrote:
Mike
The idea behind such a phrasing, if I understand correctly,
seems
to predate Aristotle (he says something like "We think it
proper for
the
young to be modest, because as they live by feeling they often
err,
and
modesty may keep them in check"), but such wording (i.e.
'internalization
of performance standards') appears in Elena Bodrova and Deborah
J.
Leong.
Tools of the Mind so I had assumed that it was somewhat usual.
Ed
On Mar 24, 2009, at 12:43 AM, Mike Cole wrote:
Could you expand please, Ed? I am not certain of what you mean.
mike
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 5:03 PM, Ed Wall <ewall@umich.edu>
wrote:
Hi Folks
In some reading I've been doing the notion of, one might say,
'internalization of performance standards' appears. I have the
impression
that Vygotsky thought something like thist and/or some of those
after
him.
Any places I can look for more information?
Ed Wall
_______________________________________________
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
--
Visiting Researcher,
Wits School of Education
6 Andover Road
Westdene
Johannesburg 2092
011 673 9265 082 562 1050
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca