[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [xmca] Learning Sciences / Science of Education



I apologize for not getting something posted tonight, as I had planned.

The explanation will be appreciated here better than it would be elsewhere. It has to do with tools and my lifeworld.

I must confess to being a garlic addict. My dishwasher has broken down, so I don't have a clean fork, which is what I normally use for crushing garlic. So I used a spoon instead. But my technique resulted in the muscles in my right hand becoming so sore that it's intensely painful for me to type.

Hopefully I will be back in business as usual tomorrow.

On Tue, 15 Sep 2009, Monica Hansen wrote:

This is a great discussion. I am also waiting to see what clarifications are
made on these questions. Especially on the question of formation--is the
learner objectified in both of these models? What about student agency?
Will? Motivation?

-----Original Message-----
From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] On
Behalf Of Martin Packer
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 5:01 PM
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: Re: [xmca] Learning Sciences / Science of Education

Fascinating discussion - but could someone provide me with some
clarification of the 'production' model (of schooling? of cognition?)
and the formation model (of knowledge? of the learner? Bildung)?

And is the claim that learning science is hegemonic with respect to
other perspectives (such as Piaget or LSV), or wrt schooling
(curriculum)?

And 'dissipation' of situative perspectives... In the sense of being
dispersed and lost? Seems to me everyone in cog sci is jumping on the
situated bandwagon. More co-opted than dissipated?

hanging on to this thread for dear life...

Martin


On Sep 15, 2009, at 7:29 PM, Tony Whitson wrote:

David,

Your message is powerfully corrobarative.

It arrived as I was preparing documents for inclusion in the web
page I'll be posting in response to this thread. One of those
documents is a very slightly expanded version of a proposal for AERA
this year on Learning Sciences / Science of Education as a hegemonic
project.

In terms of HOW PEOPLE LEARN, Piaget, Vygotsky -- and how Dewey,
Lave, etc. get contortedly forced into that framework, see my
"Curriculum & the post-(cognitivist) synthesis,"
at http://wp.me/p1V0H-1O . (If you vaguely remember having seen this
before, it's because I skipped ahead to this page when you appeared
in my classroom a couple years ago.)

I find this article very helpful for understanding what's happening
here:

Lave, J. (1991). Situating learning in communities of practice. In
L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on
socially shared cognition (1st ed., pp. 63-82). Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.

I will include that in the page for tonight.

Emily, my own answer (obviously not speaking for David) is that
David nails the problem with his reference to the production model.
The difference between production and formation is absolutely
crucial. I think Cognitive Science is generally oblivious to that
difference. Some Cog Sci is clearly productionist. There's nothing
to preclude Cog Sci from recognizing formation as distinct from
production, but often in its obliviousness it remains equivocal and
ambiguous at best. Given that in U.S. English discourse education as
formation has pretty much disappeared from the language, writing
must be done deliberately to preclude texts from being read as
productionist texts, and I don't see that happening in the Cog Sci
literature, even where the author(s) might be themselves thinking
that they're writing about formative activity.

On Tue, 15 Sep 2009, Duvall, Emily wrote:

David,
When you stated:
" So the text is largely a promissory note for how a cognitive
science
approach encompasses all of these rich traditions, whereas inspecting
the actual contribution of cognitive science research leads to little
more than an unpacking of how
skills develop through repetitive practice."

Is the latter part of the sentence (from 'whereas' on) your comment
on
the text or on cognitive science in general?
In either case, it seems to be a very narrow view on 'all' cognitive
science research. I assume it is based on some works in particular?
~em

-----Original Message-----
From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-
bounces@weber.ucsd.edu]
On Behalf Of David H Kirshner
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 3:45 PM
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: RE: [xmca] Learning Sciences / Science of Education

Tony,

I'm co-PI on a grant to replicate the University of Texas secondary
teacher education program, which is largely focused on the learning
sciences literature. This semester, I'm teaching an intro course,
Knowing and Learning, that uses How People Learn as its main text,
and
presents the orthodoxy of production systems as the organizing
framework
for thinking about learning and teaching--at the same time
extolling the
need for group work, project based instruction, and the like. What
becomes increasingly clear as I go through the literature is the
hegemonic character of the learning sciences, at least in relation to
educational matters. The insights into learning extolled in the
literature derive in large part from Piagetian constructivist
research
and from Vygotskyan sociocultural research. So the text is largely a
promissory note for how a cognitive science approach encompasses
all of
these rich traditions, whereas inspecting the actual contribution of
cognitive science research leads to little more than an unpacking
of how
skills develop through repetitive practice.

The sociological process of hegemonic discourse is itself an
interest of
mine at this time. I'm recalling our discussion of a couple of
years ago
about the possibility of a new edition of our situated cognition
reader
organized as a response to the dissipation of situative perspectives
within the learning sciences. I'm increasingly interested in
understanding that process.

David


-----Original Message-----
From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-
bounces@weber.ucsd.edu]
On Behalf Of Tony Whitson
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 3:07 PM
To: mcole@ucsd.edu; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: [xmca] Learning Sciences / Science of Education

This is something that I'm very interested in. I'm planning a paper
for
a
narrow audience this winter, and a more ambitious paper for a wide
audience in Winter 2011. If others would be interested in a 2011 AERA
symposium, let's talk.

I'll see if I can put together a post tonight with some fragments &
bibliography that people might be interested in.

Meanwhile, I think there is a short answer, which of course is not
the
complete answer:

I think a good deal of the impetus behind "Learning Sciences" comes
from

the political hostility to Education faculty in favor of
positive(istic)

psychology, as in Reid Lyons' statement that "If there was any
piece of
legislation that I could pass, it would be to blow up colleges of
education".

This has created an environment in which an Educational Psychologist
(like
John Bransford, for example) would lose out in the funding for
competition
to a Learning Scientist (like John Bransford, for example).

Folks in Seattle, Nashville, etc. see little cost in a name change
that
keeps the dollars flowing. I'm not concerned about the name change,
so
much, but I have continuing concerns about the enterprise in general.

On Tue, 15 Sep 2009, Mike Cole wrote:

Thanks Em-- And I googled Goswami neuromyths. Also very
enlightening.
Goswami did early work with Ann Brown, former collaborator with us
at
LCHC.

Now if we go back a step and look at the people who created the
label
of
learning sciences, and their backgrounds, the shift from
"developmental
psychology" to developmental sciences, the appearance recently of
the
handbook of cultural developmental science, ......... what a
tempest!
Must
be a teapot in there somewhere. Simultaneous, fractilated paradigm
shifts?

Does anyone have the luxury of being able to organize a science
studies
interrogation of these movements? Seems really worthwhile.
mike

On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 12:16 PM, Duvall, Emily <emily@uidaho.edu>
wrote:

Thanks Mike... :-)
      In general I like Goswami's work; I find her discussion of
neuromyths compelling and have had my grad students do additional
research on some of them. I am also particularly interested in ways
to
try to negotiate across different fields. I've attached my favorite
Goswami and a nice intro to neuroeducation.
      As a side note: Monica (Hansen, who frequently shows up on
the
list serve and is one of my doc students) and I took a neuroscience
journal club/ seminar last spring and found ourselves trying to
make
sense of the work that is done with regard to education. We are
taking
another seminar right now and some of the folks who were in last
year's
class are presenting journal articles in their field, but are
trying
to
make the links to human experience, particularly education. It's
been
interesting to discover how open minded the students and faculty
are...
one of the computational neuroscience faculty has taken up some
Vygotsky
reading as well as neuroeducation... of course Luria's work is a
door
opener and a point of mutual interest.
      ~em

-----Original Message-----
From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
[mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu]
On Behalf Of Mike Cole
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 9:41 AM
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: Re: [xmca] Neuroscience connections to learning and
relearning

No one picked up on your interest in neuroeducation, Emily. A lot
of
what I
read in this area strikes me as almost entirely without any
appreciation
of
education, or human experience, as a culturally mediated,
co-constructed
process. Do you have a favorite general ref you could point us to
that
you
resonate to??
mike

On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 8:50 AM, Duvall, Emily <emily@uidaho.edu>
wrote:

I thought some of you might one or both of these article summaries
interesting. The first really speaks to the new field of
neuroeducation
with regard to cellular learning... the nice thing about the
summary
is
it gives you an overview of learning at the cellular basis... very
clear
and easy to understand. Plus an introduction to astrocytes... :-)

The second piece actually discusses re-learning, which has been a
topic
lately.

What I personally find so interesting is the role of experience in
learning and relearning... I found myself thinking back to Shirley
Brice
Heath's work... it would be fun to go back to her work and look at
her
study through a neuroeducation lens.

1. Star-shaped Cells In Brain Help With Learning
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090911132907.htm

Every movement and every thought requires the passing of specific
information between networks of nerve cells. To improve a skill or
to
learn something new entails more efficient or a greater number of
cell
contacts. Scientists can now show that certain cells in the
brain --
the
astrocytes -- actively influence this information exchange.

2. Forgotten But Not Gone: How The Brain Re-learns
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/11/081117110834.htm

Thanks to our ability to learn and to remember, we can perform
tasks
that other living things can not even dream of. However, we are
only
just beginning to get the gist of what really goes on in the brain
when
it learns or forgets something. What we do know is that changes in
the
contacts between nerve cells play an important role. But can these
structural changes account for that well-known phenomenon that
it is
much easier to re-learn something that was forgotten than to learn
something completely new?


~em


Emily Duvall, PhD
Assistant Professor Curriculum & Instruction
University of Idaho, Coeur d'Alene
1000 W. Hubbard Suite 242 | Coeur d'Alene, ID 83814
T 208 292 2512 | F 208 667 5275 emily@uidaho.edu |
www.cda.uidaho.edu

He only earns his freedom and his life, who takes them every day
by
storm.
-- Johann Wolfgang Goethe




_______________________________________________
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


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
_______________________________________________
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

_______________________________________________
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