Old dissertation posts

Quantitative vs. Qualitative

Every culture seems to have some kind of polarity, but perhaps not a polarity.  Everything can exist only in relation to something else and are actually complementary.  How can we have an omniscient God and still have the presence of evil?  Although omniscient does not mean the absence of evil. Free will does not mean the absence of determinism.  I posit that the apparent contradictions and conflicts of quantitative and qualitative research are as exactly conjoined as the above contrasts. Researchers in seemingly endless arguments have disputed for centuries over the validity of both quantitative and qualitative research.  I argue that these “methodology wars” are part of human existence and just like good and evil or free will and determinism, one cannot exist without the other. How can you have quantitative without qualitative and vice versa?

Ethics and research

Bradley, K.D., Royal, K.D., Cunningham, J.D., Weber, J.A., & Eli, J.A. (2008).  What constitutes good educational research?  A consideration of ethics, methods and theory. Mid-Western Educational Researcher, 21(1), 26-25.

Whereas researchers in other disciplines may disagree on ethical consideration, social science researchers tend to agree about what is and is not proper when conducting scientific inquiry p. 26.

The American Educational Research Association encourages researchers to objectively report results and refrain from distributing only the favorable results p. 26.

What makes researchers in other disciplines ambivalent about ethical considerations? Especially if human subjects are involved, ethics needs to be a major consideration.  The article states the need for improved ethics education.  Regardless of the field, strong contributions can be made benefiting humanity and the world, whether they are in the “hard” sciences or “soft” sciences.  There is, unfortunately, still a bias towards the “hard” sciences as being more rigorous, more stringent, and more of a benefit to humanity.  In any case, I agree with points in the article that state that the research procedures used should be appropriate to the research question being asked and the research answers being sought. The study should be methodologically sound.  However, should the methodology be approached differently for quantitative versus qualitative?

There are also epistemological claims including the argument that researchers who are not members of disempowered groups should not attempt to study said groups due to the assertion that researchers cannot understand or represent groups for which they are not members without the possibility of exploiting or being disrespectful of respondents p. 27

As a literacy teacher, I used to take this stance, especially regarding literature.  If an author was not part of the culture, how could he or she possibly have a realistic viewpoint?  For example, how can you write about the Native American culture if you are not a Native American yourself?  This stance has been intensely debated, sometimes in contentious ways.  I am thinking of Joseph Bruchac, a Native American author, who contends that no one except Native Americans can write children’s books that feature Native American characters.  I wonder if he would take the same stance about researchers of Native American issues.

My beliefs have changed through the years – if we believe that researchers or authors must be members of disempowered groups, these groups might never have a voice.  

Ivory Tower Research

Norman, D. E. (1993).  Things that make us smart:  Defending human attributes in the age of the machine.  New York, NY:  Perseus Books.

I have been increasingly bothered by the lack of reality in academic research.  University-based research can be clever, profound, and deep, but surprisingly often it has little or no impact either upon scientific knowledge or upon society at large.  University-based science is meant to impress one’s colleagues:  What matters is precision, rigor, and reproducibility, even if the result bears little relevance to the phenomena under study.  Whether the work has any relevance to broader issues is seldom addressed. 

If I were to get on a soapbox (does anyone know what that is, by the way?), the above statement by Donald Norman would be one of my major issues.  I have always had issues with “ivory tower” research that seems to have no relevance to society.  Although I have to admit that I have had many arguments with my husband and college age kids over this.  While I may think that a research study contributes nothing to humankind, they sometimes have different opinions.  I realize some in our class may believe in research for the sake of pure research.  And all research contributes to something?  Right?  Maybe? 

I wince as I write this next statement because it is a biblical statement (and I have been decrying religious postings lately).  Not to offend anyone.

To whom much is given, much is expected.

If an academic has the intellect and means, should he not do research that as Norman says, “has relevance to broader issues”?

The "myth" of objectivity

MItroff, I.I. The myth of objectivity or why science needs a new psychology of science.

It took me awhile to decide what the point was of this article; after further reading, I found it fascinating.  I have included several quotes from the article that I thought were especially debatable.

Thus, for this and many, many other reasons, the scientist may consider it “rational” not to give up his favored theses at the first signs of “negative” evidence, no matter how strong that evidence may appears at the time.  Indeed, he may even persist in his scientific beliefs for years in the face of considerable opposition and at the risk of being labeled a crank, or worst of all, of being almost totally ignored.  Objectivity results from the heated, intense, and biased confrontation and struggle between the “somewhat” biased ideas of “somewhat” biased individuals p. B-615.

Isn’t this related to previous articles we’ve read that have spoken of paradigm shifts?  I’ve read Kuhn’s The structure of scientific revolutions, which speaks of the very statement mentioned above.  Some scientists persist in their beliefs, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. 

What happens if “biased” scientists are flawed in their ideas or “opinions”?

“One often wishes that advisors with different points of view would confront each other directly and in public so that hidden or unstated assumptions could be revealed and the different modes of analysis explored . . .The fact that two men thoroughly and completely disagree with respect to their interpretations of the “meaning of the facts” does not make one of them less “valid” or reliable than the other p. B-616.

Does this further the advancement of science?  Wouldn’t it be better to be open to new ideas and discussions?

Can society continue to afford that kind of science which is the undue creation and reflection of one personality type, i.e. the converger?

Would you say that “out of the box” thinkers such as Steve Jobs and Bill Gates are divergers?  Would computers and other technological advances have evolved in the manner and speed, which they have if we were all convergers?

Thoughts on Dietrich Dörner

            Dörner speaks of human planning and decision-making processes going awry if we do not pay enough attention to side effects and long-term repercussion (p. 2).  However, is it ever possible to envision all the possibilities in any decision-making process, including designing computer simulations?  Does Dörner believe that computer simulation ‘games’ can help with possible scenariosbut without negative real-life consequences?  If programmers are human, can they possible envision/foresee all possibilities?  I know Dörner meant that simulation games can help, assist, improve. . .

            “It appears that, very early on, human beings developed a tendency to deal with problems on an ad hoc basis” p. 5.  Of course, everyone is “looking out” for themselves – #1.  The basic human instinct is of survival. 

            Can or will humans propose solutions/ideas if some of it is harmful or potentially life-threatening?  How does one “balance the scale”?  What about the classic lifeboat scenario?  Who do you save?  “The lesson of the scenario is that you have to choose between your life and the life of another person. There is a fundamental disharmony of interests, and it's kill or be killed. Which means in life, you're either a murderer, you are a victim, or you can sacrifice your life for other people” (Rowlands, J., 2006, retrieved from http://objectivism101.com/Lectures/Lecture41.shtml).

            Quotes that I found enlightening.

·      “Real improvement can be achieved, however, if we understand the demands that problem solving places on us and the errors that we are prone to make when we attempt to meet them” p. 7. 

·      “Thought is embedded in a context of feeling and affect; thought influences, and is turn influenced by, that context.  Thought is also always rooted in values and motivations.  We ordinarily think not for the sake of thinking but to achieve certain goals based on our system of values” p. 8.  TRUE.

·      “The conviction that our intentions are unquestionably good may sanctify the most questionable means” p. 8.  I can’t help it but this makes me think of Rick Santorum J

How effective are computer scenarios when one can envision many scenarios, only to have human nature throw an unexpected wrench into the works?  What about the ‘butterfly effect’ as illuminated in chaos theory?  What about complex adaptive systems (CAS)?

            “It did suggest to us, however, the ways that thinking, value systems, and emotions interact in decision-making processes” p. 18.  When do humans ignore something in plain view?  Is this avoidance strategy?  Refusal to see the facts?  Ignorance?  Ignore something if it doesn’t directly affect you?

            “We find a tendency, under time pressure, to apply overdoses of established measures. . .these are all mistakes of cognition” p. 33.

            “The tendency to let pressure to conform suppress self-criticism within the group – the great danger of groupthink” in teams of political decision makers” p. 34.  Isn’t this similar to weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq?

            I agree that computer simulations can be invaluable.  However, humans still have the capacity to “think”, reason, and analyze.  This does not take away from my belief that computers/robots may one day become sentient J

Maybe Mother Nature has it right?

Sociocultural Theory

The politics of literacy

Is literacy destined (doomed) to be dominated always by the majority group in power? How does a group become the dominant power? Does it always have to be the majority? How does one use literature and literacy to overcome oppression? How does one decide what is the “appropriate literacy” practice?
“We each turned to sociocultural theory to study aspects of literacy practice and learning because we were dissatisfied with purely cognitive or behavioral explanation of how people use and learn reading and writing” (Lewis, Enciso & Moje, 2007, p. 2). This quote is especially important considering today’s increasing globalization, diversity and inclusion of such diverse students in schools, and “schools” can refer to pre-K through 12 and college. Surface observations of students regarding their cognitive abilities and behaviors can be very deceiving. It can be difficult to discern a student’s knowledge and ability.

The authors also speak of different identities for different positions, places, and cultures. I identified with an example given in another article about killing a chicken. My childhood neighbors kept chickens that they would kill by swinging them by their necks. That is not something I have thought about for a long time and not something that most people have experienced. In fact, when speaking with my own children about it, they have never seen a chicken being killed but when talking about this to a friend from another country, it was a shared experience. This different identity would not be obvious to most classroom teachers and I believe many students would hesitate to mention it, fearing teasing by classmates.

“Identity, from the perspective of social psychology, is often associated with a stable internal state of being” (Lewis, et al., p. 4). The authors of this text, however, view identity as a fluid, socially and linguistically mediated construct. Individuals may have different identities for different positions, places, and cultures. The difficult point is how to decide which identity is apropos for which position or culture. How does an individual decide to switch? And how does language play a role in this decision?
“. . .in sociocultural theory, the focus is on how individuals shape identities as they come to belong to communities of practice rather than on how they shape identities in relation to the conflicting discourses that are always present in such communities. . .moments of conflict and disjuncture are often the spaces in which learning occurs” (Lewis, et al., p. 5). How are individuals and community linked? Does conflict and disjuncture lead to growth? Can one have an identity without a community? Cannot an individual have an identity by her- or himself? I realize a community of practice influences an individual but certain people can have strong beliefs and agencies and have little influence from a community.

Lewis, C., Enciso, P., & Moje, E.B. (2007).  Reframing sociocultural research on literacy:  Identity, agency, and power.  Mahwah, NJ:  Lawrence Erlbaum.

Connor-Greene, P.A. Making Connections: Evaluating the effectiveness of journal writing in enhancing student learning.

Connor-Greene, P.A. (2000).  Making connections:  Evaluating the effectiveness of journal writing in enhancing student learning.  Teaching of Psychology, 27(1),  44-46.

·      How effective is journal writing in increasing student learning?

·      Quasi-experimental design

·      Analysis of student test grades - journal writing increased student learning

·      Student evaluations - perceived usefulness of journaling

·      Journal examples - students connected course material to their own observations

·      Personality theory

o   Students responded to 15 different theories (historical perspective)

·      Students wrote entry for each theorist

·       Jnl entry weekly

·      Methodology

o   Compared student test grades from two different semesters

o   Mix of multiple choice, definitions, T/F, essay

o   Significantly higher test grades for journal writing classes

o   Successful stimulus to active learning

   With the predominantly larger classrooms prevalent in today’s economic climate, how does an educator address and validate all students’ interests?  Or for that matter, how does an educator address the fact that literature and reading sometimes takes a back seat to test preparation and taking?  We may have debates about which type of literature to present but that may not even be an option.  It would be wonderful to bring in out-of-school literacies and interests but in the majority of times, that’s not possible.  Teachers trying to address English Language TEKS with multicultural texts may be relegated to a particular list, or may only be able to read one book.  How does a teacher address the social identity of her students with just one book?

            “In this era of accountability for learning outcomes in literacy education, it might be easy to ask whether sociocultural and critical perspectives on literacy learning and practice still matter” (Lewis, et al., p 15).  Accountability is getting to be even more critical; shouldn't socio- and critical perspectives be even more important?  If the important thing is to pass the test, getting students to think critically and be interested in the reading material would be easier if they were interested in the reading material.  Which might happen if the reading material had a focus on their culture . . .

            “Learning, we argue, both involves and requires participation in something.  Learning is motivated, as Kress (2003) argues, by a need to understand something, whether an act, a word, a sensory experience.  Learning, however, also leaves a residue; it makes a mark on the participant” (Lewis, et al., p. 16).  The participation required in learning may not need to be participation with others.  There needs to be interaction, reflexivity and reflexiveness and some need or reason to learn. However, many think that learning, especially in schools, needs to be imparted by others, especially an educator.  It could be that someone may spark an interest in a subject but then learning becomes an individual activity. 

            “The curious paradox of learning is that it simultaneously occurs in and is necessary for access to discourse communities” (p. 16).  “If one accepts that learning is always situated within discourse communities or is about gaining access to communities, as well as that discourse communities struggle over access to resources and that people within discourse communities are not always viewed or treated equally, one must then acknowledge that learning is shaped by and mired in power relations.  In addition, in a globalized, increasingly diverse world, people move across discourse communities, seeking to gain entrance, while existing members may be seeking to retain control over the community or to retain the community’s power and access to resources, vis-à-vis other competing communities.  Thus, gaining access to a community’s discourses – learning across discourse communities – is also a power-imbued process” (p. 17).  SO TRUE

            “Learning thus involves both awareness of differences and distinctions, and, ultimately, an act of subject formation, that is, identification with particular communities.  These identifications can be demonstrated through the enactment of particular identities one knows will be recognized as valuable in particular spaces and relationships.  That is, as people acquire, appropriate, resist, or reconceptualize skills and knowledge within and across discourse communities, they continue to be formed as acting subjects” (p. 19).

Does this ever stop?

How does one identify with a person?  Or a community?

Does new knowledge and participation lead to a new identity?

If you say that changing in some way is a new identity, then yes.

            “It should be clear that any and all of these hypotheses are possible and that without access to a larger ethnographic and cultural studies perspective, it would be impossible to determine with any degree of certainty James’s motives and desires” (p. 37).  It is worrisome how many ethnographers and researchers will make a supposition based on a “snapshot” analysis.  Any judgment made from one instance may or may not be inaccurate.  Unfortunately, this is how many schools and testing situations operate.  Students are observed or tested and decisions are made from one instance.  Some disciplines, however, are moving towards a portfolio or observational type assessment, which can be more accurate.

            “That said, students also learned that they could go only so far in weaving their experiences and subjectivities into school-based learning activities” (p. 44). 

How does a person know how far they can go in bringing outside experiences into school-based learning?  Perhaps this is a valuable lesson taught in schools.  Not only students, but everyone, needs to learn what is appropriate and what can be discussed in what situations.  The problem for educators is how to discern these out-of-school literacies and decide what is appropriate and utilize them effectively in teaching.  The following quote is apropos:

“It could also be said, however, that what they learned, or practiced was a kind of self-monitoring or silencing that could serve them well in mainstream social and educational settings” (p. 45).

Enciso, P. & Ryan, C. ().  Sociocultural theory:  Expanding the aims and practices of language arts education. 

            “Instead of understanding learning as socially mediated practice, schools are typically organized around the assumption that one monolithic, ‘standardized’ way of speaking, interacting, and building conceptual knowledge is natural and therefore, meaningful and right for everyone” (p. 133).  Perhaps this conception is because many schools are still filled with educators from the majority dominant class.  “Dominant” may be a racist stereotypical term but if one walks into schools in certain areas, most of the teachers may be white Anglo-Saxon or African-American or even Hispanic but that means that the sociocultural climate of the school will reflect that population.  If, for example, the majority of educators are White Anglo-Saxon, then the climate may lean towards a certain type of discourse, literature, etc. that would be different from a school populated by Black or Latino teachers. 

            But is it realistically possible to address all cultural backgrounds?  Do we need to?  And how do teachers do this?  What about exposing students to other literacies besides their own?  One could also ask whether we have to bring outside literacies to reach kids.  Are we doing kids a disservice by “forcing” them to conform to the structure of “school”?

            “Learning in a zone of proximal development requires teachers to give as much attention to students’ culturally specific linguistic and knowledge resources as they do to intended disciplinary aims and concepts.  When both teachers and students are interested in one another’s ideas and knowledge, it is possible to create a dialogic zone” (p. 135).  “. . .Smagorinsky describes this dialogic zone as one that deliberately includes multiple perspectives, based on individuals’ and communities’ diverse experiences and relations, with attention given to the resulting contradictions and convergences among their ideas” (p. 135).  How do teachers develop a dialogic zone with older students who are already so conditioned to subversion and “appropriate” socialization?  “Subversion” and “appropriate socialization” can be very volatile words that can be misunderstood by both students and teachers.  Why is an “effective” dialogic discourse not possible in a classroom?  Why does it take ‘story club’ for some students to ‘open up’?

            “The third principle of sociocultural theory is based on Vygotsky’s insight that language development is not supplementary to learning, but is crucial to engagement with the problems posed by new situations” (p. 136).  Without language, can one still communicate?  I once taught a Vietnamese woman who spoke no English and I spoke no Vietnamese, but we communicated just by the power of us both being women.

Grenfell, M. (2009.  Bourdieu, language, and literacy.  Reading Research Quarterly, 44(4), 438-448.  dx.doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.44.4.8

            Grenfell’s essay book review on Bourdieu was complicated.  It has been awhile since I have read an article where I have made so many notes and highlighted so many sentences J I liked his interests in the reading habits of students rather than their pure linguistic habits, not that there isn’t a need for pure linguistics also. 

            “Bordieu. . .his interest was rather in the reading habits of the students he was researching: their use of library facilities, what they read, etc.” (p. 439).  This interest was somewhat innovative. Previous researchers focused on people’s linguistic habits – etymology, phonology, morphology, etc. However, Bordieu’s phenomenology was and is just as important, especially with today’s increasingly globalized society.  The diversity of students in schools today makes it critical that we as teachers examine what students are reading, what they have access to, and what our reactions are to these readings.

            “Bourdieu’s big ‘discovery’ was that the ‘democratic school’ was not!  Rather than providing equal opportunities and a meritocracy, schools were a kind of cultural filter through which children passed. . .And, of course, language was the medium for this implicit ‘social selection’” (p. 440). How has anything changed today, especially for English language learners and low SES children? What are the factors that come into play?  Race?  Socioeconomic status?  Language?  The dominant language?  What about those who speak with an accent or who have limited vocabulary?  There is a separation of the ‘masses’ with an elitist language.

            In 1924, certain schools in Hawai’i were established as English standard schools.  The primary goal was to ensure that children of English-speaking parents were not held back because of integration and association with children who did not speak English at home (Hughes, 1993).  “A second articulated goal of the English standard system was to assure that children of English-speaking parents learned Western, not Asian, values and behavior” (Hughes, 1993, p. 76).  “The feeling of being deluged with people who were not assimilable was widespread” (Hughes, 1993, p. 72).  “The opponents agreed with John Dewey that the schools were a place in which people could escape from the group into which they had been born, but, they said, this would only work if the children were exposed to people from other racial, social, and economic strata” (Hughes, 1993, p. 65).  I have not read enough of Dewey to know if this is something he would have said or if his remarks were taken out of context or twisted.  English standard schools were ‘public’ but students had to pass an oral, and if old enough, a written English language test to gain admittance.  This effectively ruled out many children who came from homes where English was not their first language.  In practice, those families who could afford it sent their children to private schools, which lower socioeconomic status families could not afford.  This contributed to the divide that I believe still exists today between different races.  Hawai’i has the highest percentage of children attending private schools in the United States.  It’s unfortunate that this perception still persists from the English Standard System era that public schools are inferior. 

Hughes, J.R. (1993).  The demise of the English standard school system in Hawai’i.  The Hawaiian Journal of History, 27, 65-89.  Retrieved from            http://evols.library.manoa.hawaii.edu/bitstream/handle/10524/607/JL27071.pdf?s  equence=2

            It’s embarrassing to think that this went on in my home state and even more discouraging to think that it’s still going on – in all parts of the country.  As I asked earlier, why are those who speak with an accent considered inferior or unintelligent?  For that matter, why are those who speak another language not considered highly intelligent?  What about those with limited vocabulary?  Just because someone doesn’t have an extensive vocabulary, does that mean limited intelligence?

            I find it interesting that certain parts of our country are becoming alarmed at the growing majority of Spanish speakers and nationalities.  There is a push to make English the official language of the US and to have English-only policies everywhere.  I only have “free” TV; the majority of the stations are Spanish language stations, perhaps because this is Texas.  It’s also interesting watching the success of the new TV show called Q’Viva! (Jennifer Lopez and Marc Anthony) which seeks out new talent from Latin America.  Or the Dallas politician that said “a bunch of Mexicans”.  What is it about different peoples or different languages that makes people afraid?  Can and do we have separation of the masses with “elitist” language?

            “Bourdieu argues that Saussure affected this approach by eliminating the ‘physical part’ of communication, namely speech, and its individualization by particular people in particular contexts in order to privilege the construction of language in itself” (Grenfell, p. 441).  It is not just the study of linguistics of language but a lot of other factors that come into play. 

            “Such a position, argued Bourdieu, sidesteps the social and economic conditions of language acquisition and competence as an expression of legitimate, orthodox linguistic norms.  Moreover, it ignores the way that linguistic usage is always partly socially determined and thus, shaped by imposition and censure” (Grenfell, p. 441).  SO TRUE!      

            Re:  social acceptability.  Speech never exists on its own.  It’s one thing to “analyze” a language, i.e. morphological or syntactic analysis, but in my opinion, that is artificial “ivory tower” knowledge.  I realize there is some value in it. I was asked in my graduate studies at the University of Hawai’i to consider researching the Pohnpeian language but I didn't see the practicality of it. (Of course, I am not so rigid in my thoughts anymore but . . .  Social space must be taken into consideration.  Although even this or my analysis can be construed as a position of Ivory Tower power.

            “Social spaces must be understood as differentiated, and thus structural in essence” (Grenfell, p. 442.  “Cognition does not occur as part of a value-free realm of social intercourse.  Rather, all thought, all cognition, all phenomena need to be understood as being saturated with pre-existing values and interests, the very ones inherent in the objective and subjective structures of society, as exemplified in the homologies between habitus and field (Grenfell, p. 442).  ).  Language does not exist in isolation.  There is always interaction between the individual and the social world unless one accepts the premise that a person can have a conversation with himself and that is not an act of social exchange (in my opinion). 

            Maximize quantity – minimize loss of information ® Bourdieu cannot be overcome!  J

            “Robbins shows that the important point here is not the extent to which pedagogic communication is flawed but the very covert nature of the higher education system itself – to distinguish and differentiate in a way that is arbitrary, relative and value-laden in favor of some over other” (Grenfell, p. 443).  This is true but why?  And why are there weed-out classes?  Is this another instance of exclusivity?  Language exclusivity?  Educational exclusivity?

            “Vygotskyan psychology posits individuals are involved in a constant act of cognitive control: over self, objects, and others.  This perspective is similar to the Bourdieusian view of individual’s passing through social space and through fields, where they encounter the multidimensional forms of symbolic capital found there:  a symbolic capital that is, of course, defined and interpreted according to its social provenance.  Here Bourdieusian phenomenology again seems to converge with cognitive theory, in this case, of Vygotsky” (Grenfell, p. 443).

            “Of course, ‘wrong’ is not right, but, in this case, what gets pushed out is exactly what the pupil was thinking at this critical point – the pupil’s own particular cognitive thinking (habitus).  It is not so much a question of whether he was right or wrong but what thinking gave rise to this wrong answer.  Simply inducting him in the right answer passes over the individual cognitive and classroom structures shaping the event” (Grenfell, p. 443).  This unfortunately happens too many times in the classroom also.  Whether it is from not enough time, overcrowding, teacher incompetence or unawareness, etc., students are either force fed answers or answers are totally ignored.  I realize this is a very cynical view but yes, it would be extremely beneficial for all students if teachers could and would consider the context in which the answer was given.  There are many factors that lead to any person’s cognitive behavior.  Sociocultural background knowledge can play a factor but classroom environment can be critical for a child, with peer pressure, teacher-pleasing behaviors, etc. 

            “Bourne (1992), for example, has shown how some pupils get ‘spoken out’ of classroom discourses simply because of who they are and what they say and the extent to which these do or do not coincide with the teacher’s own pedagogical principles and categories of thought” (Grenfell, p. 444).  What a depressing statement because unfortunately, it is still true, especially with low SES and English language learners.  Perhaps my next paragraphs offer a solution?

Reflexivity and participant objectivation

            “What Bourdieu was interested in instead was an objectification of the social conditions of the thinking that set the limits on thought.  Such an objectification of the ‘social conditions’ of thinking itself necessarily calls for the objectification of the academic field withal its practical and epistemological biases.  The position of the researcher in the social space is consequently critical. . .” (Grenfell, p. 446).

            Grenfell speaks of three principles of a Bourdieusian method, 1. construction of the research object, 2. field analysis, 3.  participant objectivation.  I would argue that while all three are important, I believe number 3 is the most critical.  It is also the most difficult.  For an educator to reflect back on her practices and interactions with her students takes much thought and even training.  Objectifying the social condition, as Grenfell says, may mean objectifying more than just the social condition or the classroom but the entire academic discipline.  How does one become a reflexive educator?  Is this something that can be taught?  Or does it happen with experience?  Does awareness lead to objectivation?

Bakhtin and Vygotsky

Beyond Vygotsky:  Bakhtin’s contribution

Chapter 3

·      Formal schooling

·      Difference between home-schooled kids

·      Teacher-child interaction

The article makes me curious as to the differences between home-schooled children and those who attend “formal” school.  Actually I think of ‘formal’ school as any schooling outside the home, whether it’s Montessori, magnet, charter, etc.  Wertsch speaks of the teacher-child relationship which many times is the first adult-child relationship a child has outside of the parent/caregiver. Concept development as it changes from “unorganized heaps” to “complexes” to “concepts” can be developmental, or as Wertsch and Vygotsky allude to, highly influenced by institutional settings.  I am even more curious as to how these developmental progressions occur in abhorrent institutional settings, such as institutionalized daycare such as might occur in a Marxist setting?  I’m speaking of care where children rarely have any interaction, touch or language with others, other than necessary physical care.  How is their language and development different?

Vocabulary to know

Translinguistics

Inter- vs. intramental actions

Voice

Dialogicality

Addressivity

Beyond Vygotsky: Bakhtin’s contribution

Voices of the mind

“Speech can exist in reality only in the form of concrete utterances of individual speaking people, speech subjects.  Speech is always cast in the form of an utterance belonging to a particular speaking subject, and outside this form it cannot exist” p. 50.  Reading these comments from Bakhtin, related to discourse, I question whether speech has to be a concrete utterance in order to exist.  Does one also have to have addressivity?  Bakhtin says that “in the absence of addressivity, “the utterance does not and cannot exist” p. 52.  He believes that utterances are a “link in the chain of speech communication” p. 52.  I think that addressivity is critically important but not absolutely necessary.  I can think of the analogy “if a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?”  I contend that it does and that an individual does not need an audience to produce an utterance.  I agree that one needs a reason and utterances can and are influenced by the context, environment and other individuals but it is not an absolute need.

Maybe I should add to my previous thoughts that if an utterance is defined as speech communication between subjects, then yes, addressivity and audience are necessary.