These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,
and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving.
Content on this site may not meet current digital accessibility standards.
If you require an alternative, accessible format of any information found on this site,
please contact Bruce Jones, bjones@ucsd.edu to request an accommodation.
These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,
and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving.
Content on this site may not meet current digital accessibility standards.
If you require an alternative, accessible format of any information found on this site,
please contact Bruce Jones, bjones@ucsd.edu to request an accommodation.
What becomes problematic is when we use "synthesis" to talk about what's really cherrypicking. I agree with others that the issue is aligned with questions of epistemology and ontology, and things get muddled when people haven't clearly articulated the theories of knowing and learning that guide their approach. If you take a stridently situative approach to cognition, for example, then you'll have a lot of splainin to do if, for example, you start trying to integrate notions of cognitive load or mental models into your theory of learning.
~~ Jenna McWilliams Learning Sciences Program, Indiana University ~ http://jennamcwilliams.blogspot.com http://remediatingassessment.blogspot.com ~ jenmcwil@indiana.edu jennamcjenna@gmail.com On Apr 8, 2010, at 12:23 PM, Rafi Santo wrote:
I've been enjoying this conversation so much that I've decided to emerge from behind my usual lurker stance. (First time poster, long time reader, all that.)It sounds like these two issues, cherry-picking theories (or, framed more positively, synthesizing or remixing theories) and cherry picking data actually have a pretty dynamic relationship. From what you're saying Jay, it would follow that perhaps in order to effectively synthesize learning theories and/or developmental paradigms, in the beginning stages one might cherry-pick data in order to support that emerging hypothesis before it gets quashed. These two types of cherry-picking are distinct, but have an important relationship between them for those that see it as possible to synthesize theories, a group that I count myself as part of. At the same time, this very relationship might feed the narratives (and, of course, valid arguments) that opponents to synthesis make about the lack of methodological rigor that synthesis work can be characterized by.Rafi __ Rafi Santo Senior Program Associate Online Leadership Program Global Kids http://www.globalkids.org/?id=5 http://olpglobalkids.org At 9:37 PM -0700 4/7/10, Jay Lemke wrote:I truncated and added the cherries to make a comment on the "cherry- picking" debate that Jenna's blog (link below) pivoted into the conversation here.There it seems to be about the reputed evils of mixing theories (of learning and/or development). But I took the lesson concerning cherry-picking from Fred Erickson, for whom it was, much more persuasively, about the dangers of selectively picking just those items of data or evidence that support a particular position.I think that cherry-picking (the metaphor means picking just the sweet, ripe cherries from the tree and leaving the unripe sour ones) items of evidence to support a hypothesis or a theory is OK when the theory is very new and needs some benefit of the doubt so it can be developed and elaborated into something worth more carefully evaluating. Rather than just trying to kill it off in the cradle.Once it's old enough to fend for itself, then it's dangerous to its future well-being to feed it only ripe cherries and not see how it copes, or doesn't, with sour cherries that are inevitably also to be found. Cherry-picking evidence is what happens with cults, religions, conspiracy theories, political fanaticisms, and other things that scholarly inquiry tries to avoid becoming. I have a religious faith that eating occasional sour cherries is good for the healthy development of useful and interesting new theories and practices. What doesn't kill us makes us stronger!But this view of cherry-picking does NOT apply in the same sense to concepts, ideas, methods, discourse thematics, representations, and the like. They are the only stuff around from which to build new theories and practices, and it makes sense to explore any possible combination of them that might be helpful. While philosophers may shudder, I simply don't believe any two ideas are inherently and necessarily incompatible with one another, or that philosophical purism or canons of "consistency" are really of much use, much less intellectual necessities. This stance is generally associated with postmodernism, but need not be. I think it's better associated with a high tolerance for ambiguity and uncertainty in the theory- creation process. And some philosophers certainly seem to agree (e.g. Feyerabend, Latour, Serres).Of course I also don't believe that theories ever do, or ever can, definitively (much less uniquely) explain phenomena. They are just tools for getting on with the inquiry, or provisionally guiding practice, until something else comes along.JAY. Jay Lemke Professor (Adjunct, 2009-2010) Educational Studies University of Michigan Ann Arbor, MI 48109 www.umich.edu/~jaylemke Visiting Scholar Laboratory for Comparative Human Cognition University of California -- San Diego La Jolla, CA USA 92093 On Apr 7, 2010, at 3:38 PM, Jenna McWilliams 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 anotherinteresting discussion, differently mediated! So, vis a vis the local conversation, how do constructivism or constructionism relate to cultural-historical theories? mikeOn 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 researchprojects 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 onthe "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'lljust set forth a plea to anyone who's interested to join in on theconversation. My readers and I would be most grateful for any thoughts youare willing to offer.Thanks for this listserv, which is supporting my knowledge acquisition andenabling 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_______________________________________________ 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