Re: [xmca] Link to this month's article

[Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com>]

I would like to comment on Peter's recognition that Mike takes a more
"ecumenical" approach and uses activity systems as one perspective among
many.  It is in this spirit I want to draw attention to the article written
by Kris Gutierrez, Betsy Rymes, and Joanne Larson "Script, Counterscript,
and Underlife in the Classroom" in Harvard Educational Review, Vol.65 No.3
Fall 1995.  This article also discusses classroom life and interactions
within institutional structures and how these institutions impact identity.
I believe both the Gutierrez article and the Jahreie & Ottesen article
"Construction of Boundaries in Teacher Education: Analyzing student
teachers' accounts" are discussing institutional school related dynamics but
emphasizing different aspects of educational activity systems.
Jahreie & Ottesen, as I interpret their article, were articulating the
CONSTRAINTS within university supervision and teacher mentoring activity
systems on the developing student teachers identity. These constraints can
best be negotiated by creating "spaces" where student teachers can meet as
equals [symmetrical] and challenge the transcendent ACCOUNTS of the PURPOSE
of lesson plans in the alternative activity systems. This perspective which
articulates the rigid historically structured ACCOUNTS [that have different
objects or focus for lesson plans] constrain and subjugate the students.  In
order to "open up" these rigid institutionally structured accounts an
ALTERNATIVE PHYSICAL THRID SPACE is recommended as a location  to stand up
to these hegemonic accounts.  It is within more SYMMETRICAL alternative
group formats that the two "objects" can be put in play, and possibly
transcendended as each student teacher MAY create a NEW perspective where
the dialectical tension between supervision and mentoring ACCOUNTS are
transcended and integrated in a NEW perspective where the previous tensions
are resolved.  This article sees the institutional  ACCOUNTS embedded in the
historically constructed activity systems as formed within asymmetrical
relationships with the student having little power. The way to achieve
transcendent ACCOUNTS is by forming PHYSICAL alternative third spaces which
are symmetrical groups of fellow students who together can stand up and
challenge the dominant ACCOUNTS. Through "making available to each other"
their thoughts and reflections,  new transcendent ACCOUNTS are formed to
guide one's practice as a new teacher.
In my interpretation of this article I would suggest it is "biased" [I
believe ALL accounts have  bias] to emphasize the HISTORICAL structural
aspects of institutional arrangements and how best to free oneself from
rigid institutional ACCOUNTS that POSITION the student teacher [an account
of constraint].  Jahreie & Ottesen suggest creating physical third spaces as
a strategy for freeing the student teachers to find their own voices as
they search for ways to transcend the tensions within the alternative
activity systems. This third PHYSICAL SPACE exists in geographical space.

Gutierrez ACCOUNT of institutional school life also focuses on activity
systems but her account is more BIASED to creating THIRD SPACES, not by
removing the person from the historically structured institutional activity
system but rather creating a metaphorical "dialogical space" of
INTERSUBJECTIVITY where alternative VOICES are located within the
institutional structure. This third space challenges the MONOLOGICAL teacher
voice. Rather than the construct "account" Gutierrez presents the notion "of
script and counterscript as a heuristic in both the critique and the
construction of particular sociocultural pracitices in classrooms." (p.445)
Both Jahreie&Ottesen and Gutierrez are exploring "object-oriented activity"
which has two aspects [the first is the historical, generalized object
of norms and rules within activity system whereas the second aspect is the
SITUATIONAL CONSTRUCTED object that gives direction to the (inter)action.]
I would suggest that Gutierrez article focuses [is biased] more towards the
second aspect of situational, constructed shared objects. A key concept
in Gutierrez focus on situational (inter)action in constructing activity
systems is Bahktin's notion of VOICE.
Jahrerie&Ottesen also articulate a notion of "learning spheres".
Jaherie&Ottesen" suggest this INTERMEDIATE unit BETWEEN ACTION & ACTIVITY is
SUBORDINATE to ACTIVITY SYSTEMS. They suggest learning spheres are too
diverse and shifting to be considered activity systems and are constrained
by the tools, rules, and division of labour of activity systems.   In my
interpretation of Gutierrez's article, I would suggest she puts more
emphasis on the transformative power of "learning spheres" IF [and this is a
big if] a THIRD SPACE can be created within the learning sphere.  Gutierrez
speaks  emphasizes the POSSIBILITY of "learning spheres" to transform
practices IF a THIRD SPACE can be created that not only "makes available"
other voices BUT  INTERSUBJECTIVELY transcend our individually "available"
voices to bring forth a SHARED voice which transforms subjectivity.  This
more dialogical account of school practices emphasizes social heteroglossia
and voices as being more than "made available" in learning spheres. For
Bahktin there is a simultaneous fluidity to internal and external notions of
"voice" and the internalized multi-voiced and socially enacted external
mutivoiced accounts are a simultaneous process that transcend the
inner/outer notions of voice.

It seems to me that Gutierrez and Jarreie&Ottesen are both exploring
activity systems, culture, and history, in developmental processes. However,
they are taking different positions using different lenses [perspectives]
from which to view the phenomena.  The term Discourses [with a capital D]
captures the multivoicedness of these alternative APPROACHES to activity and
learning spheres.

My personal bias [an intuitive abductive process] is to give more weight to
"learning spheres" as locations of "possiblity" as transformative sites IF
and only IF a metaphorical THIRD SPACE can be "opened up" to do more than
make our accounts "available" to each other.  Gutierrez emphasizes the
INTERSUBJECTIVE GENERATIVE possiblities that can EMERGE within the creation
of THIRD SPACES.

Larry
On Sun, Sep 12, 2010 at 7:01 AM, Michael Glassman <MGlassman@ehe.osu.edu>wrote:

> By the way I have always thought the best Cervantes metaphor for the social
> sciences was Dulcinea.  We take these battered and patched up ideas who have
> done what they had to do just to survive and become their champions and
> defenders (probably against the creator's wishes) considering them
> inviolated, beyond reproach and to be worshipped.
>
> Michael
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu on behalf of smago
> Sent: Sun 9/12/2010 9:37 AM
> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> Subject: RE: [xmca] Link to this month's article
>
>
>
> A brief response--I don't consider my remarks to involve a "quixotian
> attack," but rather a complaint about how the triangle has been claimed for
> work in which it never reappears, which I view as a problem in US
> researchers' efforts to align themselves with a "hot" theory without
> actually working within the theory. It's not Engeström's fault that the
> triangle has been used in this manner, but rather the fault of those who use
> it in superficial ways. I don't consider that to be an attack, or quixotian.
> It's rather a critique that I've been working out for several years and that
> I've thought about quite a bit.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] On
> Behalf Of Yrjö Engeström
> Sent: Sunday, September 12, 2010 8:03 AM
> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> Subject: Re: [xmca] Link to this month's article
>
> This is a brief comment to Peter Smagorinsky's message, copied below.
>
> Quixotian attacks on triangles have been a relatively common genre for
> some years now. I usually do not get involved in those discussions
> because I don't find them productive. However, I am slightly bothered
> by the following sentence in Peter's message:
> "Engeström, at least from what I've read, employs it [the 'triangle
> framework'] as a consultant to business management to help construct
> settings more conducive to collective productivity."
>
> Since I have never done business management consulting, I would like
> to know on what readings Peter might be basing his statement.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Yrjö Engeström
>
> -----
> smago kirjoitti 10.9.2010 kello 22.29:
>
> > http://lchc.ucsd.edu/MCA
> > Mike Cole is heading out on vacation, and so asked me to start the
> > discussion of the MCA article "Construction of Boundaries in Teacher
> > Education: Analyzing Student Teachers' Accounts," which the
> > electorate identified as this issue's paper for us to consider on
> > the network. I didn't know that Mike actually took vacations. But I
> > did agree to help launch this discussion, and help to sustain it
> > once it gets going. I have done a number of studies with similar
> > populations to those featured in this article-that is, I've studied
> > the transition that teachers make when moving from their university
> > preparation through the first year of full-time teaching. I've also
> > been part of a university teacher education program in English
> > Education (which is the teaching of literature, writing, and
> > language; it is not ESOL) for the last two decades, and before that
> > regularly mentored student teachers in my jobs at secondary schools
> > in the US. So I do have some familiarity with the issues at stake in
> > this article.
> >
> > One difference: Jahreie and Ottesen use what they call "Cultural-
> > Historical Activity Theory" to motivate their work, and I once did
> > too. But as CHAT has gravitated to Engeström's interpretation and
> > exposition via his Triangle, I have moved away from this orientation
> > and now only claim to use Vygotskian principles to formulate my
> > analyses. So if I were to pose an opening question that perhaps
> > might appeal to those who aren't interested in teacher education, it
> > would be: What is CHAT, and which version of it do we invoke when we
> > claim to use it? Cole's Cultural Psychology did include the famous
> > Triangle, yet seemed very ecumenical in drawing on a host of sources
> > so that it was not the centerpiece of his conception of CHAT.
> > Engeström's system seems more closed to me, involving a specific set
> > of terms and constructs all bound in The Triangle. Perhaps because I
> > entered this field through the writing of Vygotsky and Wertsch (and
> > Engeström is clear in the introductory chapter to Perspectives on
> > Activity Theory that Wertsch is not an activity theorist, nor are
> > Lave and Wenger), I don't equate Engeström with either Activity
> > Theory or CHAT, and have disavowed that nomenclature in my more
> > recent work. So what is it about the Triangle that has become so
> > alluring that it has squeezed out other compelling conceptions of
> > Leont'ev's reformulation of Vygotsky's work so that it shifts
> > attention from the individual-in-context to the collective itself? I
> > find this shift to be particularly troubling in U.S.-based
> > scholarship in which the Triangle is often thrown up on conference
> > screens but never put to any evident use in the research reported.
> > For Scandinavians and others from nations with more collectivist
> > orientations, the adoption of a wholeheartedly Marxist approach
> > makes better cultural sense. And with that I will move to the
> > article in question, authored by faculty members from the University
> > of Oslo.
> >
> > Jahreie and Ottesen's article concerns the conflicting demands of
> > the different settings faced by student teachers-those who are at
> > the end of their university teacher education programs and beginning
> > to transition to school-based teaching positions by apprenticing
> > under the mentorship of a full-time teacher, ideally one who is a
> > "master" teacher (but as I know from experience, this is not always
> > the case). In my reading of the paper, I see an effort to use
> > Engeström's terminology to account for processes involved when
> > student teachers engage with established members of different
> > settings that inevitably provide different "objects" for activity:
> > the university with its effort to produce a particular kind of
> > teacher, and the schools with their efforts to produce a particular
> > kind of student. A second general question I would pose is: From
> > what I can tell, most countries have settled on a very similar model
> > for teacher education: general education coursework, specialized
> > disciplinary course work, education course work, field experiences,
> > student teaching, and then the first job. Given that this model
> > seems to occur worldwide-amidst nations of different emphasis,
> > orientation to learning, economic structure and process, history,
> > demographics, and so on-what broader activity setting seems to
> > suggest this approach as the most efficacious in the preparation of
> > new teachers, regardless of national character and culture? In the
> > U.S. there are presently moves afoot to provide alternative pathways
> > to teaching careers, but most university programs follow this
> > sequence. Apparently this process, with expected variation, is
> > universal. But why?
> >
> > To return to a separate point emerging from this same general
> > observation: The authors say (p. 231) that "The object of the
> > activity for the [university Department of Teacher Education] is
> > student teachers' learning trajectories. The object of activity for
> > the schools, however, is pupils' learning." Actually I think it's
> > more complicated than that, at least in the schools, where a primary
> > problem facing educators is agreeing on the purpose of education.
> > Even "student learning" is a highly contested construct, one that
> > creates the sort of boundary problems elaborated in this article. In
> > schools, it's often the ability to perform on tests, while in the
> > "progressive" university environment, it might involve learning more
> > about the self and how to express or explore it. Or something else.
> > For some people, schools exist to socialize young people into adult
> > roles, often based on the economic circumstances of their families.
> > For others they should promote upward mobility. Or learn a trade, or
> > become better informed citizens, or learn to follow authority, or
> > learn to question authority, or learn how to memorize information,
> > or learn how to construct knowledge, or learn how to answer
> > questions, or learn how to pose questions, or do any of many other
> > things. I've referred to this problem as the "mixed motive" of the
> > setting of schools, one that can shift from teacher to teacher,
> > which complicates the idea that the "object of activity for the
> > schools is student learning." Another question thus might be, For
> > complex settings like schools, how do we know what the object of
> > activity is? (I'm using the authors' language here; I'm more
> > comfortable with Wertsch's use of "motive" [1985] to describe the
> > overriding teleological goal toward which activity in a setting is
> > directed.)
> >
> >
> > I'll pose one final question before inviting others to contribute to
> > the discussion: What are the perils involved in using The Triangle
> > as an a priori framework for studying activity? Engeström, at least
> > from what I've read, employs it as a consultant to business
> > management to help construct settings more conducive to collective
> > productivity. To what degree can it then be extrapolated to other
> > kinds of settings that do not share the business environment's
> > relatively closed-ended motive (to produce and sell widgets, etc.)?
> > When the objects/goals/motives are less amenable to agreement, how
> > appropriate is The Triangle as a template for understanding
> > activity, or promoting activity of a certain sort? When the transfer
> > of The Triangle involves a great leap, as from a post office to a
> > school, to what degree might it serve as a Procrustean Bed rather
> > than a useful heuristic for understanding activity? (Procrustes was
> > an Attican thief who laid his victims on his iron bed. If a victim
> > was shorter than the bed, he stretched the body to fit; if the
> > victim was too long, he cut off the legs to make the body fit. In
> > either case the victim died.)
> >
> > OK, that's enough of a starter kit. Please join in and feel free to
> > ignore what I've written and launch something else, or help me
> > clarify my confusion regarding the questions I've raised.
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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