Hi elice- Poor Jim will be inundated! I am checking on what Meltzoff, Kuhl, et al say as well. Attached is Emerson on Bakhtin/Shlovsky on some version of distanciation. Odd that "alienation" has not snuck into the conversation yet. mike 2010/9/5 Forman, Ellice A <ellice@pitt.edu> > Mike, > I forwarded the earlier message to Jim Greeno. Let's see what he says. I've > kept up with his work since 2000, since he's now a close colleague of mine > at the University of Pittsburgh. And he's been very influenced by recent > work by CHAT investigators. > Ellice Forman > > ________________________________________ > From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] On Behalf > Of mike cole [lchcmike@gmail.com] > Sent: Sunday, September 05, 2010 1:21 PM > To: David H Kirshner > Cc: eXtended Mind, Culture,Activity > Subject: Re: sigh ... RE: [xmca] What's new in the learning sciences? > > Thanks for the ref, David. Wonder what Jim Greeno would have to say. > mike > > On Sun, Sep 5, 2010 at 10:01 AM, David H Kirshner <dkirsh@lsu.edu> wrote: > > > This raises an issue we've discussed before, whether the putative > interest > > of cognitivists in socioculturalism should be appreciated as a possible > > reaching out toward a social ontology, or as a hegemonic move toward > > capturing the sociocultural flag within an individualist paradigm. > Without > > alleging bad faith--many cognitivists do struggle--there seems to have > been > > very little foundational movement of cognitivism over the 25 years since > the > > flirtation with situated cognition theory started in earnest. Perhaps the > > reconciliation of Greeno with Anderson, Reder, and Simon following their > > principled disagreements was the end of the line for fundamental movement > of > > cognitive science. > > David > > > > Anderson, J. R., Greeno, J. G., Reder, L. M., & Simon, H. A. (2000). > > Perspectives on learning, thinking, and activity. Educational Researcher, > > 29(4), 11-23. > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] > On > > Behalf Of mike cole > > Sent: Sunday, September 05, 2010 10:33 AM > > To: Tony Whitson > > Cc: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity; William Penuel > > Subject: Re: sigh ... RE: [xmca] What's new in the learning sciences? > > > > Tony-- There was some discussion of this article not long after it came > > out, > > i believe. I am perfectly happy to engage the article seriously and to > seek > > to engage the authors as well. But is there a will to do so on xmca? > > > > Note: Polls will be closing on next article for discussion from XMCA at > > noon > > on Wednesday, PST. > > > > mike > > > > On Sat, Sep 4, 2010 at 4:22 PM, Tony Whitson <twhitson@udel.edu> wrote: > > > > > This appeared in Science, which is a widely read and highly regarded > > > journal > > > for the broader science community in the US. > > > > > > ... sigh !!! > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] > > On > > > Behalf Of O'Connor, Kevin > > > Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2010 2:00 PM > > > To: lchcmike@gmail.com > > > Cc: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity; William Penuel > > > Subject: Re: [xmca] What's new in the learning sciences? > > > > > > Mike, > > > Iąd say that Bill and I draw our sense of Śhuman scienceą directly from > > > those 19th c. discussions and more recent developments along the same > > > lines. > > > We do make these connections in the intro chapter, and return to them > in > > > the > > > conclusion to locate a human science perspective within contemporary > > > learning research. Iąd also note that Martin Packer directly raises > the > > > links to Vygotskyąs crisis in his chapter. > > > Kevin > > > > > > > > > On 7/6/10 1:35 PM, "mike cole" <lchcmike@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Thanks Kevin, that is very helpful. > > > > Just from what was in the TC summary, the following question arises > for > > > me. To > > > > what extent is the notion of human science in this overview akin to, > or > > > derive > > > > its theoretical orientation from, discussions about the "humane" "vs" > > the > > > > natural sciences in the late 19th century. I ask because this links > to > > > > Vygotsky's "crisis" monograph and ongoing discussions in many places > > > including > > > > xmca. Will read ch1 when the workday has come to an end. > > > > mike > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 10:31 AM, O'Connor, Kevin > > > <kevin.oconnor@rochester.edu> > > > > wrote: > > > >> Hi Mike, > > > >> Thanks for asking, Mike! Below is the original proposal for a > special > > > issue > > > >> that eventually became the NSSE Yearbook this will provide an > > > overview. > > > >> Also, with the permission of Teachers College Record, which now > > > publishes > > > >> the NSSE Yearbooks, Iąve attached the introductory chapter. Of > > course, > > > >> different authors in the yearbook develop the idea of a human > science > > in > > > >> different ways and would emphasize different points. > > > >> Kevin > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Research on Learning as a Human Science > > > >> > > > >> Organizers and Co-Editors: > > > >> William R. Penuel > > > >> Kevin OąConnor > > > >> > > > >> Theme Overview: > > > >> This special issue of Teachers College Record will articulate an > > > approach > > > to > > > >> learning research as human science. This human science approach > views > > > >> science as an inherently value-laden social practice, implying > > different > > > >> epistemologies, methodologies, and research foci. It is concerned > not > > > just > > > >> with what works but also with questions about the goals and purposes > > of > > > >> education; the involvement of different actors and groups in > advancing > > > those > > > >> goals; and the enactment of designs for learning and their > > consequences. > > > The > > > >> papers aim to exemplify this approach, showing how it can inform > > broader > > > >> debates over the nature and purposes of learning, and suggest > > different > > > >> understandings of and approaches to how education can transform > social > > > >> futures for individuals and their communities. > > > >> > > > >> Objectives > > > >> Recently, both academic research into learning and broader policy > > > discussions > > > >> over the nature and direction of learning and education have been > > framed > > > by > > > >> two largely distinct scientific paradigms. On one hand is an > > approach, > > > >> modeled on clinical trials in medicine, that promotes controlled > > > >> experimentation on learning outcomes as the route to knowledge about > > > >> learning, and on the other hand is an approach, modeled on > > engineering, > > > that > > > >> promotes detailed in situ studies of learning processes in > > > >> theoretically-derived learning environments. A third broad paradigm > of > > > >> scientific activity, social science as human science, has yet to > gain > > a > > > >> unified voice in these discussions, despite the work of many > > > individuals. > > > >> This special issue aims to articulate and offer exemplars of this > > human > > > >> science approach to studying learning, which we believe can stand > > > alongside > > > >> and extend currently prevailing approaches to inform broader debates > > > over > > > the > > > >> nature and purposes of learning and education. Framing learning > > > research > > > as > > > >> a human science implies different epistemologies, methodologies, and > > > foci > > > of > > > >> research than those pursued by many researchers today. In addition, > > the > > > >> approach implies different understandings of and approaches to how > > > education > > > >> can transform social futures for individuals and their communities. > > > >> > > > >> Significance of the Proposed Special Issue Theme > > > >> > > > >> Much attention in recent years has been paid to the status of > research > > > on > > > >> learning as a science, especially with respect to what kind of > science > > > it > > > >> ought it to be. Although the debate is hardly new, it is > particularly > > > pitched > > > >> at the moment, with significant resources at stake for both research > > and > > > >> practice. For example, advocates for more experimental research in > > > education > > > >> (e.g., Cook, 2002) argue that education should be a science that > > > advances > > > >> through testing of impacts on student achievement of discrete > > programs. > > > Their > > > >> view is that educational research should proceed like medical > > research, > > > and > > > >> that such tests are best carried out through random assignment > studies > > > is > > > now > > > >> reflected in federal law that defines research as the products of > > > experiments > > > >> and allocates evaluation funds principally to those investigators > who > > > agree > > > >> to conduct randomized controlled trials (Slavin, 2002). An alternate > > > view > > > >> proposed by researchers in the learning sciences is that research on > > > learning > > > >> ought to be a design science (Barab & Squire, 2004; Brown, 1992; > > > Collins, > > > >> 1990; Collins, Joseph, & Bielaczyc, 2004; Kelly, 2003). This work > has > > > >> received significant federal support itself over the past two > decades > > > (Suter > > > >> & Frechtling, 2000), primarily from the National Science Foundation, > > and > > > its > > > >> signature methodology, the łdesign experiment˛ (Brown, 1992), has > > > received > > > >> prominent attention within major journals in education (e.g., > special > > > issues > > > >> of Educational Researcher and The Journal of the Learning Sciences). > > The > > > >> likening of education to engineering in the learning sciences draws > > > attention > > > >> to the goal of engaging in the task of developing usable and useful > > > curricula > > > >> that impact teaching and learning. > > > >> > > > >> Each of these images of what kind of science research on learning > > should > > > be > > > >> obscures some important humanistic aspects of the discipline. The > > logic > > > of > > > >> experimentation explicitly treats characteristics of persons and > their > > > >> contexts as sources of experimental error controllable by random > > > assignment. > > > >> But teachers, administrators, and policy makers are often very > > > interested > > > in > > > >> context, in łwhat works when, how, and for whom˛ in ways that > demands > > > >> researchers pay much closer attention to persons and context in > > > selecting > > > >> programs for adoption (Means & Penuel, 2005). Moreover, the > > hypothesized > > > >> relationship of research to practice‹namely that identification of > > > effective > > > >> programs will become information that rational actors use to select > > > programs > > > >> and improve practice (e.g., Dynarski, 2008)‹fails to acknowledge > > > inequities > > > >> in access to information about programs and resources to support > them > > > that > > > >> exist in systems and overlooks one of the features that makes > medical > > > >> knowledge so useful, namely its signature pedagogies and methods of > > > induction > > > >> (Shulman, 2005). The image of education as an engineering science > > gives > > > >> greater primacy to the local context (e.g., Squire, MaKinster, > > Barnett, > > > >> Luehmann, & Barab, 2003), but often either taken for granted or left > > > >> underspecified are both the larger educational purposes of > curricular > > > >> innovations and the probable consequences of those innovations, if > > > >> implemented widely, for the long-term social futures of > participating > > > >> students. Casting educational improvement as a problem of design and > > > >> engineering provides few conceptual handles for engaging larger > > debates > > > about > > > >> what is worth knowing (Whitehead, 1929), particularly given how the > > > world > > > is > > > >> changing; about how to teach łother peopleąs children˛ (Delpit, > 1986); > > > or > > > >> even for considering who might benefit and who might be harmed if > > > designed > > > >> innovations were brought to scale. > > > >> > > > >> An alternative approach is to cast educational research as a human > > > science, > > > >> distinct from the logic of social experimentation and from design > > > science. > > > >> Some key ideas of the approach are: > > > >> * Educational research is a social practice situated in broader > > > institutional > > > >> and historical contexts; participants as agents within those > contexts > > > are > > > >> reproducing, adapting, and transforming the social practice of > > > educational > > > >> research through their research activities. > > > >> * In contrast to experimental research, a goal of human sciences > > > research > > > >> should be to understand why actors do what they do from multiple > > > >> perspectives, including their own. This łemic˛ turn in educational > > > research > > > >> seeks to re-voice the experiences of actors within theoretical > frames. > > > >> * In contrast to engineering-oriented research, a goal of human > > sciences > > > >> research should analyze design itself as human activity and consider > > > what > > > >> values designs reflect and deflect, who benefits and who loses from > > > >> implementation, and the extent to which particular design activities > > > >> reproduce or transform new social futures. Like education, design is > > > >> value-laden. Design research approaches have often foregrounded > > > engineering > > > >> issues and backgrounded the articulation of values and their > origins, > > > with > > > >> important exceptions (e.g., Edelson & Joseph, 2004) that suggest a > > human > > > >> sciences approach may be seen as an extension of or fulfillment of > the > > > design > > > >> research tradition as opposed to a break from it. > > > >> * Following from these points, research on learning requires that > the > > > >> researcher stipulate, explicitly or implicitly, the endpoint or > telos > > > toward > > > >> which learning and development are directed. Thus, human science is > > an > > > >> inherently value-laden endeavor (Kaplan, 1983). > > > >> * Relationships between researchers and research participants are > > > implicated > > > >> in operations of power, locally and beyond the immediate situation. > > This > > > >> provides an additional warrant for arguing that a human science > > approach > > > >> merits more extensive discussion and articulation as a Śthird wayą > in > > > >> educational research beyond both the medical-model and the > > engineering > > > >> model. > > > >> > > > >> Such perspectives are not entirely new. Indeed, the idea that the > > human > > > >> sciences represent a distinct kind of science, distinguished from > the > > > natural > > > >> sciences, has a long tradition in Western social science and > > philosophy > > > of > > > >> science, originating in Vicoąs New Science, which argues for a > science > > > of > > > >> human society based not on an understanding of universal laws but > > rather > > > on > > > >> those sensibilities that govern different communities in different > > human > > > >> ages. More recent formulations draw attention to the fundamental > role > > of > > > >> language and interpretation in social scientific accounts (Taylor, > > > 1985), > > > to > > > >> the vital uses of reasons and arguments in human affairs that > consider > > > the > > > >> particulars of situations rather than a Cartesian timeless and > > > context-free > > > >> rationality (Toulmin, 1990), and of the need to explicate operations > > of > > > power > > > >> within such accounts (Flyvbjerg, 2001) > > > >> > > > >> What is new in this series of papers is the articulation of a linked > > set > > > of > > > >> perspectives for guiding programs of research based on the idea that > > > >> educational research should be concerned not just about what works > but > > > with > > > >> questions about the goals and purposes of education; the involvement > > of > > > >> different actors and groups in advancing those goals; and the > > enactment > > > of > > > >> designs for learning and their consequences. We anticipate that many > > > design > > > >> researchers agree with such a perspective; others argue explicitly > > that > > > >> design research and experimental aims are both similar to the goals > > for > > > the > > > >> natural sciences (Collins et al., 2004; diSessa & Cobb, 2004). But > in > > > both > > > >> the design-based and experimental tradition, practitioners, > > communities > > > of > > > >> parents, and students rarely get to define the goals for endeavors > > > >> (Engeström, 2008). Needed within the learning sciences are > > perspectives > > > and > > > >> methods that lead to research that can guide practical action and > that > > > opens > > > >> questions about purpose to public dialogue; to designs that enable > > > learners > > > >> and communities to advance new social futures; and to organizational > > > settings > > > >> that allow for broad participation in debates about the ends of > > > education. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> On 7/6/10 12:53 PM, "mike cole" <lchcmike@gmail.com > > > >> <http://lchcmike@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > >> > > > >>> Looks wonderfully interesing, Kevin. McDermott got me to read Moll > > > Flanders > > > >>> recently in connection with his contribution which is the only one > I > > > recall > > > >>> seeing. > > > >>> > > > >>> Is there somewhere in the volume or elsewhere where you and your > > > colleagues > > > >>> lay out for the reader what is meant by a human science? > > > >>> Could that be made available to xmca readers? > > > >>> mike > > > >>> > > > >>> On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 9:44 AM, O'Connor, Kevin > > > <kevin.oconnor@rochester.edu > > > >>> <http://kevin.oconnor@rochester.edu> > wrote: > > > >>>> (this time with attachment) > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Hi Mike, > > > >>>> Bill Penuel and I have co-edited an NSSE Yearbook, just published, > > on > > > the > > > >>>> topic of 'Learning Research as a Human Science.' I was not at > ICLS, > > > but > > > >>>> the > > > >>>> perspective was well-represented there by a number of contributors > > to > > > the > > > >>>> yearbook who qualify as both 'learning scientists' and > > 'XMCA-o-types'. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> I've attached the table of contents for those who might be > > interested. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> I'm looking forward to others' reports of the conference! > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Kevin > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> -- > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Kevin O'Connor > > > >>>> Assistant Professor > > > >>>> School of Education, 249 UCB > > > >>>> University of Colorado > > > >>>> Boulder CO 80309 > > > >>>> > > > >>>> kevin.oconnor@colorado.edu <http://kevin.oconnor@colorado.edu> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> On 7/5/10 11:33 AM, "mike cole" <lchcmike@gmail.com > > > >>>> <http://lchcmike@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> > Dear XMCA-o-types, > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > Several of you have visited the charming city of Chicago and > > > attending a > > > >>>>> > convocation of "learning > > > >>>>> > scientists." > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > *WHAT NEWS? WHAT'S INTERESTING? WHAT'S HOT? ONLY LEARNING, NO > > > >>>>> INSTRUCTION? > > > >>>>> > :-) > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > MIKE* > > > >>>>> > _______________________________________________ > > > >>>>> > xmca mailing list > > > >>>>> > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <http://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 >
Attachment:
emerson.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document
_______________________________________________ xmca mailing list xmca@weber.ucsd.edu http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca