Re: [xmca] (ism) v (ist)

[mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>]

I have downloaded the documents you posted, Dot.
if i ever understand the term, ontology (or have the illusion I do!), Larry,
I might be better able to respond to your note. I think, but am uncertain,
that you are pointing to at least part of what Michael-Luis were emphasizing
in their editorial comment on re-conceptualizing (or re-
covering the idea of consciousness as always/only possible only for two (I
would probably want to add at least three (!) people.
mike
On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 7:11 PM, Dot Robbins <drobbins72000@yahoo.com>wrote:

> Dear Jenna and All,
> Realizing that this discussion is no longer going on, I just wanted to
> thank you, Jenna, for your comments...Constructivism/Constructionism is a
> very important discussion internationally, for many reasons, especially in
> the West. The good news for many of you is that you can delete this message
> now, if not interested. I have attached my thoughts on this topic, but they
> were written many years ago....Perhaps the notes are not totally correct, or
> valid today...it was long ago....what is very important is the situation
> some face about *rigour*......We need to be clear about comparing apples and
> oranges.....Mike's note was very important for me, listed below..... The
> aspects of cultural mediation are so important, and also the aspect of the
> process of development. We need a historical clarification of the times of
> Vygotsky-Luria-Leontiev regarding their use/or none-use of research data in
> their writings (what was the actual political situation of using
>  statistical data in those days? I have read about this problem, but cannot
> comment on it now)....
> Debates about *rigour* need to be placed in context, as we do not compare
> apples with oranges…I am also attaching our introduction to the Davydov book
> about the understanding of “non-classical” psychology….it leads to the
> understanding of “metacognition,” which is a key component in dialogues with
> many, including those in “traditional” cognitivist fields….I will restrain
> my thoughts to Chomsky here….we need to have a grounded understanding of
> Spinoza, inter alia, to understand cultural-historical theory, and we also
> need to know the deep theories/and times of Descartes….So, I will stop
> here….Hopefully, others will help us, especially our colleagues in
> Brazil.....
> With very good wishes of Spring to all,
> Dot
> --- On Fri, 4/9/10, mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> From: mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [xmca] (ism) v (ist)
> To: "Jenna McWilliams" <jenmcwil@umail.iu.edu>
> Cc: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> Date: Friday, April 9, 2010, 12:52 PM
>
>
> Debating *rigour  *with respect to such a question*?
> *My advice is to take a good novel to read when caught in such
> circumstances. Rigourous with respect to what?
> Is a psychological experiment  about number calculation procesess more
> rigorous than an ethnogrpahic account
> of "the same" topic (I almost slipped and wrote phenomenon!).
>
> My guess vis a  vis my own question? Piagetian social constructivism saw
> culture as ailement for the mind that varied along a scale from less to
> more
> (never considered obesity, i guess). Vygotskian cultural-historical
> psycholoy places cultural mediation in the center of the process, making
> all
> Piageian binaries into fuzzy trinaries for which it is always
> necessary to rise to the concrete. Of course one person's concrete is
> another's  "whaaat" but at least they are
> trying to understand each other within a more or less mutually recognizable
> point of view.  Constructionism includes cultural practices, making things.
> But it does not theorize them in chat terms.
> mike
>
> On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 3:38 PM, Jenna McWilliams <jenmcwil@umail.iu.edu
> >wrote:
>
> > I don't know! That's why I've pitched this issue to you guys.
> >
> > I recently sat on the sidelines watching a pair of academics argue over
> > whether cultural-historical learning theories are as theoretically
> rigorous
> > as cognitivist theories. As you might imagine, the cognitivist argued
> they
> > aren't as rigorous, while the situative theorist argued they were. I
> wonder
> > if you xmca-ers have thoughts on this.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ~~
> >
> > Jenna McWilliams
> > Learning Sciences Program, Indiana University
> > ~
> > http://jennamcwilliams.blogspot.com
> > http://remediatingassessment.blogspot.com
> > ~
> > jenmcwil@indiana.edu
> > jennamcjenna@gmail.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Apr 7, 2010, at 3:50 PM, mike cole wrote:
> >
> >  Jenna-- No wonder you are so quiet on XMCA-- you are busy in another
> >> interesting discussion, differently mediated!
> >>
> >> So, vis a vis the local conversation, how do constructivism or
> >> constructionism
> >> relate to cultural-historical theories?
> >> mike
> >>
> >> On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 10:12 AM, Jenna McWilliams <
> jenmcwil@umail.iu.edu
> >> >wrote:
> >>
> >>  Hello,
> >>> I'm really enjoying this conversation, as it aligns really nicely with
> >>> issues I'm grappling with both in my graduate work and in my research
> >>> projects and groups.
> >>>
> >>> Though I'm a shameless self-promoter, I normally wouldn't plug my blog
> in
> >>> such an esteemed listserv--except that I recently published a post
> about
> >>> the
> >>> (ir)reconcilability of sociocultural and cognitivist learning theories
> >>> (at
> >>>
> >>>
> http://jennamcwilliams.blogspot.com/2010/04/why-i-am-not-constructionist.html
> >>> ,
> >>> if you want to see). It's the conversation below the post that
> interests
> >>> me
> >>> now--a fun debate has started about whether pulling from sociocultural
> >>> and
> >>> cognitivist theories can be called "synthesis" or "cherrypicking." I
> fall
> >>> on
> >>> the "cherrypicking" side of things, though I can acknowledge how
> >>> rhetorically poor that term is.
> >>>
> >>> I was going to post some of this thread in the comments section before
> I
> >>> started worrying about the appropriateness of doing that, so instead
> I'll
> >>> just set forth a plea to anyone who's interested to join in on the
> >>> conversation. My readers and I would be most grateful for any thoughts
> >>> you
> >>> are willing to offer.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks for this listserv, which is supporting my knowledge acquisition
> >>> and
> >>> enabling me to participate in knowledge production.
> >>>
> >>> jenna
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ~~
> >>>
> >>> Jenna McWilliams
> >>> Learning Sciences Program, Indiana University
> >>> ~
> >>> http://jennamcwilliams.blogspot.com
> >>> http://remediatingassessment.blogspot.com
> >>> ~
> >>> jenmcwil@indiana.edu
> >>> jennamcjenna@gmail.com
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Apr 7, 2010, at 9:32 AM, Michael Glassman wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Helen,
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Just to put in my two cents.  Constructivism itself is an
> >>>> epistemological
> >>>> stance.  I had always thought the term was coined by Kohlberg, but
> >>>> googling
> >>>> around it seems to come from Piaget in 1967 (so it is doubtful
> Vygtosky
> >>>> would have thought of himself at least as a constructivist).  It
> >>>> suggests
> >>>> that the way in which knowledge comes into existence is through an
> >>>> individual's construction based on experience in the world around
> them,
> >>>> rather than being given (some interpretations of behaviorism) or
> >>>> realized
> >>>> based on experience unlocking some warehouse of the mind (Chomsky).
> The
> >>>> learning paradox which was recently mentioned actually came out of a
> >>>> debate
> >>>> between Piaget and Vygotsky (although the actual terms emerged out of
> a
> >>>> later discussion of the debate) - with the Chomskyites arguing about
> >>>> whether
> >>>> you can know if something should be recognized as something that
> should
> >>>> go
> >>>> into the construction of knowledge if you do not already have some
> >>>> knowledge
> >>>> that it is important.
> >>>>
> >>>> Social constructivism is not quite as well developed, but it suggests
> >>>> the
> >>>> same constructivist epistemological stance, but instead of focusing on
> >>>> how
> >>>> the individual constructs knowledge out of their experience in the
> world
> >>>> they construct their knowledge of the world through their experience
> in
> >>>> social relationships.  The social relationships tend to take some type
> >>>> of
> >>>> precedence so that the construction of knowledge is not universal but
> >>>> delineated and defined by social experience.  I myself tend to take
> this
> >>>> view of Vygotsky but not everybody does (and it is also a little hard
> to
> >>>> square with scientific concepts which have been discussed recently).
> >>>>
> >>>> Constructionism in my experience has been more reserved for more
> >>>> immediate, process oriented knowledge building or the process of
> >>>> knowing,
> >>>> many times variations of off shoots from Dewey's Instrumental
> Pragmatism
> >>>> by
> >>>> people such as Gergen, Harre and Rorty.  But other people use
> >>>> constructivism
> >>>> and constructionism interchangably.  Again, from my perspective there
> is
> >>>> a
> >>>> difference in an epistemological stance of constructivism and
> >>>> constructionism.  Possibly the dividing factor is the constructivism
> >>>> assume
> >>>> a metaphysics while constructionsim seems to more often argue against
> >>>> one.
> >>>>
> >>>> CHAT - cultural historical activity theory - well that's a lot.  My
> own
> >>>> view is that within this sort of umbrella of ideas there is no single
> >>>> epistemological stance or a definite view of a metaphysic.  Meaning I
> >>>> think
> >>>> you can find social constructivists, constructionists, and perhaps
> even
> >>>> the
> >>>> odd constructivist hiding in a corner somehwere.
> >>>>
> >>>> Anyway, I hope that is some help.
> >>>>
> >>>> Michael
> >>>>
> >>>> ________________________________
> >>>>
> >>>> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu on behalf of ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org
> >>>> Sent: Wed 4/7/2010 8:57 AM
> >>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> >>>> Cc: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu; eXtended Mind, Culture,Activity
> >>>> Subject: [xmca] (ism) v (ist)
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> In the xmca archive there is much discussion about the differences
> >>>> between
> >>>> just these two modifiers.  Never settled, perhaps never will.  From a
> >>>> linguist standpoint one is active and one is passive.
> >>>>
> >>>> Helen; from my own experience when I wrote my master's thesis ( A
> >>>> Vygotskian perspective on Special Education Transition Services) my
> >>>> supervisor kept asking if I wouldn't be better off making the argument
> >>>> from an Ericson point of view so I believe mainstream acadamia is
> still
> >>>> confused about what cultural-historical theory is; however, I believe
> I
> >>>> am
> >>>> safe in saying it is not social constructivism.  Has your supervisor
> >>>> specifically stated where they are finding the descrepancies in your
> >>>> argument?  In my thesis I wanted to use more Valsiner and Van der Veer
> >>>> references but found they did not coexist very well with the Vygotsky,
> >>>> Luria, Scribner, and Cole cross cultural studies I was referencing.
> >>>>
> >>>> Maybe this helps, maybe this muddies the water?
> >>>>
> >>>> eric
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Helen Grimmett <helen.grimmett@education.monash.edu.au>
> >>>> Sent by: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
> >>>> 04/06/2010 09:38 PM
> >>>> Please respond to "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity"
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>     To:     lchcmike@gmail.com, "eXtended Mind, Culture,    Activity"
> >>>> <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> >>>>     cc:
> >>>>     Subject:        Re: [xmca] Book review ol talk and texts
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Can I please ask a (probably extremely naive) question? What are the
> >>>> differences between social constructivism (as referred to in this book
> >>>> review) and cultural-historical theory? My supervisor keeps telling me
> I
> >>>> am confusing my arguments by using references from both paradigms, but
> I
> >>>> still haven't managed to grasp what the difference is.
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks,
> >>>> Helen
> >>>>
> >>>> ----- Original Message -----
> >>>> From: mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>
> >>>> Date: Wednesday, April 7, 2010 11:59 am
> >>>> Subject: Re: [xmca] Book review ol talk and texts
> >>>> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> >>>> Cc: Roy Pea <roypea@stanford.edu>
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks for the review, Larry.
> >>>>
> >>>>> So many important issue intersect there.
> >>>>> Gotta find out what Joe Polman and Roy Pea have to offer on the
> >>>>> learningparadox. Thought Newman et al. set that one to rest back in
> >>>>> the last
> >>>>> millennium!! And to think that it involves a revival of the idea of
> >>>>> a zoped
> >>>>> in transformative communication! Super.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> :-)
> >>>>> mike
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Roy-- Can you send us the text? Really sounds interesting.
> >>>>> On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 9:07 AM, Larry Purss <lpurss@shaw.ca> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I just read this review of a new book that I thought may be
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>  interesting to
> >>>>>
> >>>>>  some of the CHAT community so I''ve attached the review.  David
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>  Olson wrote
> >>>>>
> >>>>>  one of the chapters.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Larry
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>> 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
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> xmca mailing list
> >>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> <winmail.dat>_______________________________________________
> >>>>
> >>>> 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
> >>
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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