Re: Ford & Forman RE: [xmca] mediational theories of mind: Suggestionsrequested

And where all the geese are gathered, the ground is rather slippery, and
often
does not smell all that great to the non-sheep! So one has to watch one's
step.
:-)
mike

On 9/8/07, David H Kirshner <dkirsh@lsu.edu> wrote:
>
> I don't think Chomsky's innatist claims are biological in any material
> sense. Innatism was advanced on the basis of a negative claim--kids
> couldn't possibly "learn" their first language (a reasonable conjecture
> at the time given the state of our understanding of inductive learning
> processes, but not very compelling now), so they must have been born
> with it. But for Chomsky, this argument simply authorized a highly
> theoretical, rationalist research agenda of profiling Universal Grammar
> (implied by the innatist assumption) through a kind of meta-analysis of
> grammars of particular languages. There was never a biological agenda
> (that I'm aware of).
>
> The discussion of shifting paradigms seems somewhat idealized and
> misleading. It's true emphasis has shifted from behaviorism to
> cognitivism and now possibly toward some sort of social ontology. But a
> shift of emphasis is not a shift of paradigm. Behaviorist ongology is
> still a going concern, both in continuing behavioral studies and in some
> wings of cognitive psychology that house the ontological commitments in
> a more sophisticated set of mechanisms. And the social turn, as we all
> know too well, is not so much a theoretical accomplishment as an
> evolving project. The field continues in a preparadigmatic state. All
> the geese are still around, and they're all pecking at each other as
> well as at the corn.
>
> David Kirshner
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu]
> On Behalf Of Tony Whitson
> Sent: Saturday, September 08, 2007 10:27 AM
> To: mcole@weber.ucsd.edu; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> Subject: Re: Ford & Forman RE: [xmca] mediational theories of mind:
> Suggestionsrequested
>
> Mike,
> You are correct that there is also a biological ontology that I've
> been
> neglecting, although I'm not sure about a "turn" in the same sense,
> since
> this ontology seems to have been present in the background all along.
>
> Thinking about this, it strikes me that an important moment in the
> emergence of a cognitive approach was Chomsky's critique of Skinner, and
>
> Chomsky is more an innate rationalist vs. an empiricist. In this case
> we're not talking about the epistemology of science, but the
> epistemology
> of learning in general (e.g. First Language learning). Maybe this is
> missing from the common narrative in the US because proponents here such
>
> as Chomsky & Fodor tend not to be psychologists. There are a couple
> books
> on the debate between Piaget and Chomsky on language and learning (See
> http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/6016193
> and
> http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/13197037
>
> I don't think there's been much interest in that debate in US education
> schools, maybe because it's assumeed Piaget's on the right side. There
> may
> be more interest in a biological ontology among US psychologists than we
>
> see in the education field, and rationalism might be more influential
> (vs.
> empiricism) outside the English-speaking academic world.
>
> Maybe David Kirshner would have more to say about the Chomsky angle.
>
> On Sat, 8 Sep 2007, Mike Cole wrote:
>
> > Thanks for the pointer, Tony.
> > Am I correct that missing from this discussion is a simultaneous
> "turn"
> > toward a
> > biological ontology, e.g., innate core domain modules and
> corresponding
> > innate
> > (present at or near birth, requiring only triggering to appear, etc.)
> > modules?
> > mike
> >
> > On 9/8/07, Tony Whitson <twhitson@udel.edu> wrote:
> >>
> >> This might not help Don in Italy right now, but here's a suggested
> reading
> >> for teaching on these topics:
> >>
> >> Ford, Michael J., and Ellice A. Forman. "Chapter 1: Redefining
> >> Disciplinary Learning in Classroom Contexts." Review of Research in
> >> Education 30, no. 1 (2006): 1-32.
> >>
> >> In the past, I've given my students papers representing various
> >> alternative orientations. The Ford & Forman chapter is exceptional, I
> >> think, in its presentation of a history that represents the
> successive
> >> emergence of approaches, from behavioral to cognitive to what they
> call
> >> the turn to practice(s) -- which refers to the historical development
> that
> >> I would characterize as the turn to social ontology.
> >>
> >> On Sat, 8 Sep 2007, Tony Whitson wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi, Don,
> >>>
> >>> I don't disagree with anything you say in this post. However, the
> >> narrative
> >>> of cognitivism as a superior successor to behaviorism is a narrative
> >> that is
> >>> generally taught and learned in our School of Ed, and I suspect not
> only
> >> in
> >>> our place. And, as a matter of historical reality, behaviorism did
> >> exercise
> >>> hegemony, as I think cognitivism does now.
> >>>
> >>> When I deal with this in my classes, I stress that of course
> cognitive
> >>> science does not deny or disparage behavior, or the behavioral
> science
> >>> approaches to understanding behavior. Nor does social ontology deny
> or
> >>> disparage cognition, or the cognitive science approaches to
> >> understanding
> >>> cognition.
> >>>
> >>> The problem lies in the reductionism whereby cognitivism (i.e., the
> >> reductive
> >>> ideology) insists on treating matters that are not just matters of
> >> cognition
> >>> as if they are merely cognitive, or can be understood adequately in
> >> purely
> >>> cognitive terms. As suggested on http://postcog.net , it seems to me
> >> that
> >>> this is what is done, for example, in the "How People Learn" model
> >>> (Bransford, et al.) which has attained a kind of canonical status at
> our
> >>> place, and I think widely in Education. So, for example, Lave is
> cited
> >> for
> >>> the point that context involves conditions that are consequential
> for
> >>> cognition. That proposition certainly is implicated in Lave's work,
> but
> >> to
> >>> reduce her theory to that cognitivist plane is a real, limiting
> >> distortion,
> >>> IMHO.
> >>>
> >>> On Sat, 8 Sep 2007, Cunningham, Donald James wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Hi Tony,
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks for the great reply. I'll have to beg off responding in any
> >> depth.
> >>>> I am currently in Italy where the class I am teaching is happening
> and
> >> my
> >>>> precious laptop has just blown up on me. Everything I need to teach
> is
> >> on
> >>>> there!!!! So I am relegated to limited time on public computers
> with
> >>>> European keyboards.
> >>>>
> >>>> But briefly, I take a more conciliatory approach to theory. I don't
> see
> >> it
> >>>> as a matter of behaviorist hegemony, etc. ANY theory can be
> misused. I
> >>>> take the theories to be tools or sets of glasses for viewing a
> >> situation
> >>>> with each tool having its potentialities and its limitations, each
> set
> >> of
> >>>> glasses brings some things in to focus and blurs or distorts
> others.
> >>>> Behaviorism was very helpful to me in sorting out my son's episodes
> of
> >>>> enuresis. It is a good tool for thinking about classroom
> organization.
> >> But
> >>>> behaviorism omits/distorts notions like self agency so other tools,
> >> other
> >>>> glasses should be examined as well. So I don't see the historical
> >>>> progression from behaviorism to cognitivism and beyond as an
> >> evolutionary
> >>>> one where were are gradually homing in on the one true theory. I
> see
> >> it
> >>>> as a process of discovering more possibilities - which of course
> makes
> >> it
> >>>> harder to know which alternative might be the most useful in a
> given
> >>>> situation. I believe Giddens called that process "manufacturing
> >>>> uncertainty". I have dedicated my career to creating uncertainty!
> >>>>
> >>>> Ciao..........djc
> >>>>
> >>>> Don Cunningham
> >>>> Indiana University
> >>>>
> >>>> ________________________________
> >>>>
> >>>> From: Tony Whitson [mailto:twhitson@UDel.Edu]
> >>>> Sent: Thu 9/6/2007 6:27 PM
> >>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> >>>> Cc: Cunningham, Donald James; Mike Cole
> >>>> Subject: RE: [xmca] mediational theories of mind: Suggestions
> requested
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Don,
> >>>>
> >>>> Sorry for the delay in responding to this -- but I think it's a
> useful
> >>>> question for discussion in this group.
> >>>>
> >>>> I want to respond quickly on another point before getting to your
> main
> >>>> question about teaching CHAT.
> >>>>
> >>>> First, you write:
> >>>>> I've taught the usual suspects (behaviorism,
> >>>>> Bandura, Piaget, cognitive information processing) for years and
> have
> >> a
> >>>>> pretty good idea about them but would appreciate some help on
> CHAT.
> >>>>
> >>>> Where I am, students have learned a story about how once upon a
> time
> >> the
> >>>> world was ruled by the behaviorists, but they've been vanquished by
> the
> >>>> (scientifically, pedagogically, politically, and morally) superior
> >> forces
> >>>> of Cognitive Science. They think that's where the story ends (as in
> the
> >>>> "End of History" celebrated since Daniel Bell in the early 60's,
> where
> >>>> history completes itself with the universal triumph of capitalism).
> >>>>
> >>>> I think it's important for students to learn about what's happening
> >>>> "beyond cognitivism." For me, this is not just a matter of theory
> or
> >>>> intellectual politics: My students just won't understand anything
> I'm
> >>>> saying or doing unless they understand that I'm addressing an
> ontology
> >> in
> >>>> which cognition cannot be understood except as it is embedded in
> the
> >>>> broader (not only cognitive) projects and processes of being and
> >> becoming.
> >>>> CHAT takes this stance against reductive cognitivism, and CHAT
> cannot
> >> be
> >>>> understood (IMHO) without recognizing this. I think Wenger & the
> >>>> Communities of Practice literature perhaps makes this point more
> >> directly
> >>>> and accessibly, although details have not been theorized as
> extensively
> >> as
> >>>> in CHAT. Curriculum theory -- my own home turf -- has always
> approached
> >>>> education as a matter of ontology, not merely cognition (i.e., not
> just
> >>>> Knowing, but Being and Becoming).
> >>>>
> >>>> So, I would want to tell the story of behaviorist hegemony giving
> way
> >> to
> >>>> cognitivist hegemony, which in turn is being challenged by a turn
> to
> >> the
> >>>> broader perspective of social ontology. This is not to say that the
> >>>> reductivist ideology of cognitivISM is replaced by an ideology of
> >>>> postcognitivISM (see my post at http://postcog.net
> <http://postcog.net/
> >>>
> >>>> ); Nor is it a call for
> >>>> hegemonic "postcognitivism" in place of hegemonic cognitivism.
> >>>>
> >>>> One good source is Lave, Jean. "Teaching, as Learning, in
> Practice."
> >> Mind,
> >>>> Culture, and Activity 3, no. 3 (1996): 149-64.
> >>>> I think this particular point might come through more strongly in
> >>>> Lave, Jean. "Learning as Participation in Communities of Practice."
> >> Paper
> >>>> presented at the American Educational Research Association, San
> >> Francisco
> >>>> 1992.
> >>>> (This paper is now linked from http://postcog.net/#Lave . This is
> the
> >>>> paper Jean presented in the symposium that David Kirshner and I
> >> organized,
> >>>> which grew into our book _Situated Cognition_, although a different
> >> piece
> >>>> was used as her chapter in the book. The MCA article includes
> aspects
> >> of
> >>>> the AERA paper, although its scope is broader and the social
> ontology
> >>>> argument may be less central to the complete published article.)
> >>>>
> >>>> With regard to your main question, you write:
> >>>>> [I] was wondering if any of you would be
> >>>>> willing to share with me (and other XMCAers) how you present CHAT.
> I
> >>>>> mean, I don't think undergrads are going to be too interested in
> the
> >>>>> distinction between action and activity or working out the concept
> of
> >>>>> "object". Or am I wrong?
> >>>>
> >>>> This could be a very interesting discussion for XMCA.
> >>>> As you suggest, for an undergrad Ed Psych class, it might be best
> to
> >>>> streamline CHAT a bit. However, I don't think the differentiation
> among
> >>>> the three levels of activity, action, and operations is
> dispensable. I
> >>>> think it's necessary to see activities and activity systems
> emerging on
> >> a
> >>>> social/cultural level beyond consciously goal-oriented action, and
> to
> >> see
> >>>> the role of routinized operational activity that does not require
> >>>> conscious attention.
> >>>>
> >>>> It would be helpful to develop introductory approaches for this
> >> audience.
> >>>> Starting points could include the resources at
> >>>> http://www.edu.helsinki.fi/activity/pages/chatanddwr/
> >>>> and
> >>>> Roth, Wolff-Michael, and Yew-Jin Lee. ""Vygotsky's Neglected
> Legacy":
> >>>> Cultural-Historical Activity Theory." Review of Educational
> Research
> >> 77,
> >>>> no. 2 (2007): 186-232.
> >>>> as well as
> >>>> pp. 27-47 in Spinuzzi, Clay. Tracing Genres through Organizations:
> A
> >>>> Sociocultural Approach to Information Design. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT
> >> Press,
> >>>> 2003.
> >>>> and
> >>>> pp. 29-72 ("Activity Theory in a Nutshell") in Kaptelinin, Victor,
> and
> >>>> Bonnie A. Nardi. Acting with Technology: Activity Theory and
> >> Interaction
> >>>> Design. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2006.
> >>>>
> >>>> On Wed, 29 Aug 2007, Cunningham, Donald James wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> And in a week or so, I will begin teaching an undergraduate class
> in
> >>>>> "Educational Psychology" for future teachers. It has been a few
> years
> >>>>> since I taught such a class and was wondering if any of you would
> be
> >>>>> willing to share with me (and other XMCAers) how you present CHAT.
> I
> >>>>> mean, I don't think undergrads are going to be too interested in
> the
> >>>>> distinction between action and activity or working out the concept
> of
> >>>>> "object". Or am I wrong? I've taught the usual suspects
> (behaviorism,
> >>>>> Bandura, Piaget, cognitive information processing) for years and
> have
> >> a
> >>>>> pretty good idea about them but would appreciate some help on
> CHAT.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Don Cunningham
> >>>>> Indiana University
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Ancora Imparo!
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
> [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu]
> >>>>> On Behalf Of Mike Cole
> >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2007 6:13 PM
> >>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> >>>>> Subject: [xmca] mediational theories of mind: Suggestions
> requested
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Dear Xmca-ites---
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Toward the end of the month I will begin teaching a grad course on
> >>>>> mediational theories of mind.
> >>>>> I would love suggestions for interesting readings.
> >>>>> We will be looking in a sort of "mcLuhanesque" way at the
> affordances
> >> of
> >>>>> different kinds of mediators
> >>>>> in human action/activity/mind.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So, language and thought
> >>>>> writing
> >>>>> film
> >>>>> music
> >>>>> tv
> >>>>> rituals
> >>>>> games
> >>>>> .........
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Starting with early 20th century writers of general familiarity to
> >>>>> members
> >>>>> of this list, I have been thinking about including
> >>>>> such works as Cszikentmihalyi, "meaning of things," Turkle's
> recent
> >>>>> "evocative objects," and perhaps something on mediated
> >>>>> behavior in large groups such as "the wisdom of crowds."
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Any and all suggestions warmly welcomed. So much going on its hard
> to
> >>>>> even
> >>>>> think about how to begin to think about this
> >>>>> upcoming fall!!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> mike
> >>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>> 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
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> 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)
> >>
> >> 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
> >
>
> 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
Received on Sat Sep 8 13:01 PDT 2007