Re: [xmca] Obama's Learn Act

[mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>]

Thanks for the clarification. Sorry for any confusion.
mike

On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 12:38 PM, David H Kirshner <dkirsh@lsu.edu> wrote:

> Mike,
>
> Transmission is not a metaphor for learning related to contemporary
> learning theory.
>
> My typoloy of pedagogical methods includes two pedagogies for each of
> the three metaphor, a "teacher centered" pedagogy that assume students
> have certain attributes that positions them for a relatively
> straightforward pedagogical approach, and a "student centered" pedagogy
> that requires a more challenging pedagogical practice.
>
> "Lecture" is the teacher centered pedagogy associated with conceptual
> construction. From a Piagetian-based constructivist interpretation,
> concept development implies juxtaposing expectations generated by one's
> current concepts with the results of experience. Lecture is an effective
> pedagogical method whenever the student is metacognitively sophisticated
> enough to orchestrate their own discrepant events. In this case, the
> teacher can happily believe they are transmitting their ideas to the
> student, as their pedagogical role does not require anything of the
> teacher beyond organizing the material in a way that is sensible to
> them.
>
> In the student centered version, the teacher assumes for the particular
> concepts to be taught the students he/she is working with are not
> sufficiently metacognitively sophisticated to benefit from lecture. Thus
> the teacher organizes a task environment intended to produce specific
> discrepant events based on a model of the students' current conceptual
> structures.
>
> David
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu]
> On Behalf Of mike cole
> Sent: Sunday, December 20, 2009 9:17 AM
> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> Subject: Re: [xmca] Obama's Learn Act
>
> David--- Wouldn't Transmission be the first metaphor of your three
> (the other two being construction and enculturation?).
>
> Jay, Tony, et al.  At the end of the senior seminar i teach the students
> watch "The Graduate." Its a little dated -- why is Benjamin so passive?
> But
> he and Elaine, the two young "pro" tagaonists are very certainly not
> encouraged to enter the moral order into which they are being inducted,
> willy nilly. A very unattractive representation of the "California
> Dream" of
> consumption and infidelity. Plastics. Their reaction is silent surface
> compliance, and
> after the fact breaking away, they know not toward what.
>
> Seems normative enough to me. Reading *The Joy Luck Club* where the
> parents
> want to induct, but the kids want to be Americans, is not all that
> different.
>
> Off to today's real life.
> mike
>
> On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 5:32 PM, Tony Whitson <twhitson@udel.edu> wrote:
>
> > In Texas the State Bd of Ed is making no pretense of consistency on
> this,
> > however. Last year for the Science standards they insisted that
> students be
> > given a balanced presentation of "both sides" on evolution, and be
> > encouraged to decide for themselves. This year they're doing Social
> Studies,
> > and conservative board members are saying directly and explicitly that
> they
> > don't want balanced Social Studies, but instead social studies that
> preaches
> > patriotism and free enterprise.
> >
> >
> > On Sun, 20 Dec 2009, Andy Blunden wrote:
> >
> >  Jay, that "critical thinking" has a chance of being a shared aim of
> >> education is supported by the fact that the bible bashers now prefer
> to
> >> argue that Natural Selection is an unproven hypothesis, and that
> Genesis is
> >> another equally plausible hypothesis, rather than trying to claim
> exclusive
> >> access to the truth. A lie of course, and a damn annoying one at
> that, but
> >> still a concession to our postmodern, sceptical times. Critical
> thinking is
> >> part of the fine liberal tradition going back to Burke and Locke,
> about not
> >> being sucked into "ideology". Isn't this something Jesus would have
> >> supported? :)
> >>
> >> andy
> >>
> >> Jay Lemke wrote:
> >>
> >>> Tony and all,
> >>>
> >>> Not sure if this post was meant for xmca or not, certainly the many
> >>> references will be of interest.
> >>>
> >>> The closing quote thought included this:
> >>>
> >>> " ... Within our civilization every
> >>> young man or woman is systematically encouraged to enter more or
> less
> >>> profoundly into a debate about the moral values and intellectual
> assets
> >>> that determine our order of life."
> >>>
> >>> Even in 1966, when it was published, it seems unlikely to have been
> the
> >>> case, though maybe it was an ideal for many people. I certainly
> don't
> >>> remember being "systematically encouraged" to enter that debate. It
> was more
> >>> like having to crash the party, start the discussion, or fend off
> the
> >>> disparaging attitudes of all the people who thought it quite
> unnecessary to
> >>> have such a debate. Even at the University of Chicago, where in 1966
> there
> >>> really was an intellectual tradition of critical thinking that
> >>> systematically encouraged it among undergraduates, I eventually
> realized
> >>> that it was still a foregone conclusion that at the end of the
> debate we
> >>> would be affirming the Western tradition, and its pinnacle, the
> beliefs,
> >>> principles, practices and institutions of the good old USA -- with
> room for
> >>> some small improvements, of course, so long as they carried out the
> same
> >>> principles.
> >>>
> >>> By 1968 I was wondering if those principles could ever be enough. By
> 1972
> >>> I was quite sure they would not be. Today I look back on them as
> >>> hysterically naive. Or maybe just as the best of the 18th century
> hopelessly
> >>> overwhelmed in the 21st.
> >>>
> >>> Still, I'd be happy if people far more conservative than I could
> agree
> >>> with me and my ilk that such systematic encouragement ought to be
> the
> >>> primary goal of education. With that settled we could get round to
> arguing
> >>> about how to organize the debate in ways that did not try to
> conclusively
> >>> pre-empt its outcomes.
> >>>
> >>> JAY.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Jay Lemke
> >>> Professor (Adjunct, 2009-2010)
> >>> Educational Studies
> >>> University of Michigan
> >>> Ann Arbor, MI 48109
> >>> www.umich.edu/~jaylemke <http://www.umich.edu/%7Ejaylemke> <
> http://www.umich.edu/%7Ejaylemke>
> >>>
> >>> Visiting Scholar
> >>> Laboratory for Comparative Human Communication
> >>> University of California -- San Diego
> >>> La Jolla, CA
> >>> USA 92093
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Dec 19, 2009, at 11:03 AM, Tony Whitson wrote:
> >>>
> >>>  David,
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm enclosing some things that might be of interest. I'm also
> copying to
> >>>> Bill since he's more familiar with these than I am (I expect he was
> >>>> using
> >>>> these things in classes at LSU before I got there).
> >>>>
> >>>> Here are some citations (an Endnote library with these citations is
> >>>> attached
> >>>> in a zip file. you can probably import from that if you use other
> bib
> >>>> software. I have also included a pdf of the SCIENCE TEACHING
> >>>> ORIENTATIONS
> >>>> article -- see top paragraph of p. 221):
> >>>>
> >>>> Barr, Robert D., James L. Barth, and S. Samuel Shermis. Defining
> the
> >>>> Social
> >>>> Studies, Bulletin - National Council for the Social Studies, #51.
> >>>> Arlington
> >>>> VA: National Council for the Social Studies, 1977.
> >>>> ---. The Nature of the Social Studies. Palm Springs, CA: ETC
> >>>> Publications,
> >>>> 1977.
> >>>>
> >>>> Flitner, Andreas. "Theories of Adolescence." Paedagogica Europaea
> 2,
> >>>> (1966):
> >>>> 226-32.
> >>>>
> >>>> Friedrichsen, Patricia Meis, and Thomas M. Dana. "Substantive-Level
> >>>> Theory
> >>>> of Highly Regarded Secondary Biology Teachers' Science Teaching
> >>>> Orientations." Journal of Research in Science Teaching 42, no. 2
> (2005):
> >>>> 218-44.
> >>>>
> >>>> White, Charles S. "A Validation Study of the Barth-Shermis Social
> >>>> Studies
> >>>> Preference Scale." Theory and Research in Social Education 10, no.
> 2
> >>>> (1982):
> >>>> 1-20.
> >>>>
> >>>> B, B, & S identified "three traditions" in Social Studies. White
> found
> >>>> teachers' thinking & practice did not line of consistently with any
> of
> >>>> the
> >>>> traditions, in particular (this is from memory, I haven't read the
> White
> >>>> piece since it first came out. I thought TRSE was supposed to be
> >>>> available
> >>>> on the web with a rolling wall for recent volumes; but I don't see
> it.
> >>>> I'm
> >>>> sure it's in the LSU library, though. Maybe Bill knows about Web
> >>>> availability.)
> >>>>
> >>>> I think you're right, descriptively; but I don't come to your
> >>>> prescriptive
> >>>> stance. I would argue for educating for competence in the
> respective
> >>>> fields
> >>>> of praxis, which creates a standpoint for critiquing any of the
> >>>> orientations
> >>>> insofar as they can be shown to fall short of forming competence in
> >>>> students. The only valuing that's required for this is the valuing
> of
> >>>> competence. The fact/value dichotomy in general is of course
> >>>> positivistic.
> >>>>
> >>>> Martin recently posted a quote that I see as an example of one
> approach
> >>>> for
> >>>> making the case for competence:
> >>>>
> >>>> " static societies assign to young people a definite place within
> the
> >>>> social
> >>>> order as it is: young people are given the status of adults and
> inherit
> >>>> their forms of behaviour. This act of taking over may be brief or
> >>>> slightly
> >>>> longer, but the result is clear. Young people are being fitted into
> the
> >>>> existing system of values and orders and thus become
> indistinguishable
> >>>> from
> >>>> adults. On the other hand, it is the distinguishing mark of our
> highly
> >>>> civilized and individualized society that nothing is simply handed
> on
> >>>> and
> >>>> accepted - it must be understood and affirmed. Within our
> civilization
> >>>> every
> >>>> young man or woman is systematically encouraged to enter more or
> less
> >>>> profoundly into a debate about the moral values and intellectual
> assets
> >>>> that determine our order of life. The young woman or man ought to
> >>>> comprehend
> >>>> this form of life, affirm or deny its value, and thus work out his
> [or
> >>>> her]
> >>>> own position in the world. The psychological crisis of adolescence
> is
> >>>> essentially the outcome of this debate."
> >>>>
> >>>> (Flitner, 1966, p. 228)
> >>>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
> [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu]
> >>>> On
> >>>> Behalf Of David H Kirshner
> >>>> Sent: Friday, December 18, 2009 12:15 PM
> >>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> >>>> Subject: RE: [xmca] Obama's Learn Act
> >>>>
> >>>> Michael,
> >>>>
> >>>> Finally, a moment to respond, to you, but also to the many
> subsequent
> >>>> posts that have lamented the politically intractable landscape of
> >>>> education.
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm reminded of the Math Wars (my own home turf) that has been a
> scourge
> >>>> in the U.S. for almost 15 years now. In it, reformers, rallying
> around
> >>>> the Curriculum & Evaluation Standards promulgated by the National
> >>>> Council of Teachers of Mathematics, are pitted against
> conservatives who
> >>>> insist on repetitive practice and lecture methods. As expected,
> >>>> legislatures that have been drawn into the fray (e.g., California)
> have
> >>>> tended to side with conservatives. Conservatives, in this dispute,
> >>>> number among their members a large and vocal cadre of prominent
> >>>> mathematicians (see the 1999 open letter to the U.S. Secretary of
> >>>> Education signed by 200 of them denouncing reform curricula:
> >>>> http://www.mathematicallycorrect.com/nation.htm).
> >>>>
> >>>> Reformers have been quick to lament the ideological tenor of the
> debate.
> >>>> But it should be kept in mind that mathematicians are not your
> usual
> >>>> ideologues. Rather in California (the epicenter of the Math Wars)
> where
> >>>> NCTM's Standards were adopted in the early 1990s, mathematicians
> only
> >>>> become involved following widespread anecdotal accounts of
> dysfunctional
> >>>> learning environments spawned in the name of reform curricula.
> >>>>
> >>>> I condense my previous points:
> >>>>
> >>>> 1. The universe of pedagogical discourse is framed by 3 distinct
> >>>> metaphorical notions of learning related to acquisition of skills,
> >>>> concepts, and dispositions, respectively.*
> >>>>
> >>>> 2. These distinct notions of learning also are guiding intuitions
> for
> >>>> the major psychological schools-behavioral/cognitive,
> developmental, and
> >>>> sociocultural, respectively.
> >>>>
> >>>> 3. The best possibility for a coherent and accessible pedagogical
> theory
> >>>> parses "good teaching" into 3 separate genres related to these 3
> >>>> intuitive notions of learning.
> >>>>
> >>>> 4. Such a parsing separates out values issues (what sort(s) of
> learning
> >>>> should we pursue in educational settings) from efficacy issues (how
> can
> >>>> we best support learning).
> >>>>
> >>>> 5. Current pedagogical theorizing is not oriented around genres,
> but
> >>>> rather is integrative; the orienting goal is to identify a single
> set of
> >>>> practices that constitutes the practices of good teaching.
> >>>>
> >>>> 5i. Good teaching framed in this integrative fashion obscures
> reference
> >>>> back to the grounding metaphorical intuitions about learning. As
> result
> >>>> such theorizing tends to be intellectually intractable.
> >>>>
> >>>> 5ii. Any particular version of good teaching framed in this
> integrative
> >>>> fashion reifies certain learning goals over others. This conflation
> of
> >>>> values issues with issues of efficacy makes pedagogical theory
> >>>> inherently divisive.
> >>>>
> >>>> 6. The tendency toward integrative theorizing in education traces
> back
> >>>> to two sociological circumstances: (i) the preparadigmatic status
> of
> >>>> psychology; and (ii) the historic subservience of education to
> >>>> psychology.
> >>>>
> >>>> 6i. As a preparadigmatic science the historical imperative is to
> achieve
> >>>> paradigmatic consensus. Thus each psychological school works
> outward
> >>>> from its primary intuitions about learning to try to encompass the
> >>>> broader concerns of the field. The hegemonic agenda for each is to
> >>>> present learning as a complex and multifaceted process that
> eventually
> >>>> can become an umbrella for the whole field.
> >>>>
> >>>> 6ii. Because education is in a (subservient) partnership with
> >>>> psychology, educators have come to adopt the psychologists'
> aspirational
> >>>> view of learning as unitary or integrative, thereby denying what is
> >>>> plainly obvious: at this historical juncture learning is diversely
> >>>> conceived within unreconciled psychological traditions. Indeed,
> >>>> education plays out as a surrogate field for psychology's
> competitive
> >>>> ambitions.
> >>>>
> >>>> In short, I think we have been less than effective in influencing
> >>>> education because what we provide for education is a discourse that
> is
> >>>> both confusing and divisive.
> >>>>
> >>>> David
> >>>>
> >>>> *Michael, my point isn't that philosophical and ontological
> analyses of
> >>>> the sort you referenced aren't important and relevant. Rather, I
> see
> >>>> these as background influences on the psychological framings of
> learning
> >>>> that orient education.
> >>>>
> >>>> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
> [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu]
> >>>> On Behalf Of Michael Glassman
> >>>> Sent: Monday, December 14, 2009 10:02 AM
> >>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> >>>> Subject: RE: [xmca] Obama's Learn Act
> >>>>
> >>>> David,
> >>>>
> >>>> I think your ideas on the three metaphors are salient in terms of
> common
> >>>> sense, but I also think that what is wrong with the Learn Act is
> that it
> >>>> doesn't really connect up with any of them.
> >>>>
> >>>> Near as I can tell (and perhaps somebody can set me straight here)
> this
> >>>> idea that children should learn knowledge in preschool of basic
> letters,
> >>>> numbers, vocabulary so they can be ready to learn immediately (and
> if
> >>>> they are not doing this something is wrong) is a sort of mash up of
> >>>> nativism (the idea that humans are programmed to recognize certain
> types
> >>>> of information and once they are exposed to it they will integrate
> it
> >>>> into their thinking), cognitive architectures (the idea that you
> should
> >>>> build specific types of architectures in the brain early which will
> >>>> allow children to make connections with new more complex
> information
> >>>> later), the efficacy of direct instruction (see nativist), and a
> realist
> >>>> perspective (that there is specific type of information in the
> world
> >>>> that the child needs to know that will make them more successful -
> once
> >>>> they are able to recognize and process this information they will
> be
> >>>> able to use it to their own and society's advantage).  Underlying
> these
> >>>> assumptions is the idea that the child is basically a passive
> learner,
> >>>> and that once the mind recognizes important information it will
> take
> >>>> over.  I find the arguments confusing and circular, and in some
> ways
> >>>> dangerous (suggesting that there is a specific type of knowledge
> that is
> >>>> valuable and should take precedence, and that this knowledge can be
> used
> >>>> to control nature).  It is also opposite of what early chilhood
> >>>> educators such as Friedrich Frobel, Maria Montessori, the people
> who
> >>>> have been working in Piagetian, Deweyan, and Vygotskian paradigms
> have
> >>>> been doing for over a century.  All of that work has simply been
> swept
> >>>> aside for this new - it isn't even a paradigm.  I don't know what
> it is.
> >>>>
> >>>> I don't think there is any strong logical argument that can be made
> for
> >>>> this position.  And I think there is really no empirical evidence
> that
> >>>> suggests this leads to better learners (unless some great
> breakthrough
> >>>> occurred while I was asleep).  And yet over the last couple of
> decades
> >>>> it seems to have become gospel in some very important circles
> >>>> (especially in the government).  The only answer I can think of is
> that
> >>>> it fills some social and/or economic need.
> >>>>
> >>>> Michael
> >>>>
> >>>> ________________________________
> >>>>
> >>>> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu on behalf of David H Kirshner
> >>>> Sent: Mon 12/14/2009 2:26 AM
> >>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> >>>> Subject: RE: [xmca] Obama's Learn Act
> >>>>
> >>>> Michael,
> >>>>
> >>>> I think our discourse fails to sway politicians because it fails to
> >>>> connect up with our cultural commonsense about learning.
> >>>>
> >>>> Broadly speaking I see our cultural commonsense involving 3 main
> >>>> metaphors of learning corresponding to 3 major kinds of learning
> goals
> >>>> informed by 3 major theoretical thrusts in psychology:
> >>>>
> >>>> METAPHOR     LEARNING GOAL    PSYCHOLOGICAL THRUST
> >>>> Habituation             Skills            Behaviorism/some
> cognitive
> >>>> science
> >>>> Construction             Concepts         Developmental / Piagetian
> >>>> Enculturation            Dispositions      Sociocultural
> >>>>
> >>>> The problems arise from the sociological imperative of psychology
> to
> >>>> become a paradigmatic science. Rather than elaborate these
> alternative
> >>>> notions of learning in a way that highlights their distinct
> conceptual
> >>>> foundations, psychologists of all stripes are bent upon extending
> >>>> outward from their basic intuition about learning so as to
> incorporate
> >>>> the interests and concerns of the other camps. In this way,
> eventually,
> >>>> one school succeeds in capturing the field and paradigmatic
> psychology
> >>>> is achieved.
> >>>>
> >>>> In the meantime, (1) theories of learning become intractably
> complex
> >>>> even as the intuitive underpinning of each psychological thrust
> becomes
> >>>> increasingly opaque, and (2) values decisions about which form(s)
> of
> >>>> learning should be pursued in education become absorbed into
> theoretical
> >>>> discourses about learning.
> >>>>
> >>>> The legacy for education is a pedagogical discourse that is
> >>>> simultaneously confused and conflicted. The real alternatives that
> COULD
> >>>> be framed for pedagogical practice toward diverse goals become
> >>>> homogenized within a shapeless, integrative discourse. Sloganeering
> >>>> substitutes in for intellectual foundation; competing camps attest
> to
> >>>> the strength (i.e., influence) of the psychological schools whose
> >>>> theories have inspired the slogans.
> >>>>
> >>>> David
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
> [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu]
> >>>> On Behalf Of Michael Glassman
> >>>> Sent: Sunday, December 13, 2009 11:05 PM
> >>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> >>>> Subject: RE: [xmca] Obama's Learn Act
> >>>>
> >>>> I really think that this legislation is, among other things,
> >>>> historically insensitive.  Do people really think, given our
> society's
> >>>> history with assessment tests, that these tests are not going to be
> >>>> geared towards middle class values?  Do people really think that
> these
> >>>> tests are not going to be used to label and differentiate groups?
> Do
> >>>> people really think that these assessments are not going to be used
> to
> >>>> in some way reinforce a deficit model for children who don't do
> well on
> >>>> the tests?  The fact that these tests are being conducted at such a
> >>>> young age makes these ideas even more painful.
> >>>>
> >>>> These senators Brown and Franken and Murray have their hearts in
> the
> >>>> right place, but our discourse on education in the United States
> has
> >>>> become so convoluted and narrow and so dominated by a faux realist
> >>>> perspective (actually an unholy combination of realist and
> idealist)
> >>>> that even legislators who mean well are I think making thoughtless
> >>>> mistakes.  It still pains me that Ted Kennedy and George Miller
> were
> >>>> major forces behind NCLB.  There are many reasons for this I think,
> not
> >>>> the least of which is control of public discourse by a relatively
> small
> >>>> group of educators - but just because you are giving money towards
> >>>> education initiatives does not mean that you are helping the cause
> of
> >>>> universal education.
> >>>>
> >>>> Michael
> >>>> ________________________________
> >>>>
> >>>> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu on behalf of cconnery@ithaca.edu
> >>>> Sent: Sun 12/13/2009 10:10 PM
> >>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> >>>> Subject: RE: [xmca] Obama's Learn Act
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi Peg and others:
> >>>>
> >>>> Here is the specific language under section 9, e,1,c of the LEARN
> Act:
> >>>>
> >>>> SEC. 9. SUBGRANTS TO ELIGIBLE ENTITIES IN SUPPORT OF BIRTH THROUGH
> >>>> KINDERGARTEN ENTRY LITERACY.
> >>>>
> >>>> (e) LOCAL USES OF FUNDS.-
> >>>> (1) IN GENERAL.-An eligible entity that receives a subgrant under
> this
> >>>> section shall use the subgrant funds consistent with the plan
> proposed
> >>>> in subsection (c) to carry out the following activities:
> >>>> (C) SCREENING ASSESSMENTS AND MEASURES.-Acquiring, providing
> training
> >>>> for, and implementing screening assessments or other appropriate
> >>>> measures to determine whether children from birth through
> kindergarten
> >>>> entry are developing appropriate early language and literacy
> skills.
> >>>>
> >>>> The question is, "WHO will determine what is appropriate and HOW
> will
> >>>> they assess it?" This goes to the heart of Vygotsky's work.
> >>>>
> >>>> Cathrene
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> xmca mailing list
> >>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >>>> <SCIENCE TEACHING ORIENTATIONS.pdf><3
> >>>> traditions.zip>_______________________________________________
> >>>> 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/<http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/>
> <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/>+61 3 9380 9435 Skype andy.blunden
> >> Hegel's Logic with a Foreword by Andy Blunden:
> >> http://www.marxists.org/admin/books/index.htm
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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