tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5139380866860511018.post9139529835830756383..comments2024-03-27T10:50:09.979+00:00Comments on Improvisation Blog: Educational Content and Quantum PhysicsUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5139380866860511018.post-63316046893473540022017-04-28T19:43:15.088+01:002017-04-28T19:43:15.088+01:00Hi Simon,
It's worth remembering that the roo...Hi Simon,<br /><br />It's worth remembering that the root of the word conversation is "con-versare" - to "turn together".. ie. It's a dance!<br /><br />There may be sense in which we dance with books, or dance with our idea of the author. We certainly dance with music (which is also content). <br /><br />I don't find affordance helpful when thinking about this. It's too static. Instead at one moment I am presented with one possibility, and at another I might have many other possibilities. At the same time I am not dancing with Susskind himself, but with my idea of Susskind. Equally right now I am not dancing with you, but with my idea of you. <br /><br />On the whole I find dancing with e-learning content a bit like dancing with a robot. It doesn't give the freedom even that the book does. It tries to lead, but has no feeling for the job, no human touch.<br /><br />I agree about Vygotsky - but what is the ZPD if it isn't the space when the dance can occur? A more interesting question I find is, what *really* is the ZPD and how does it translate to a non face-to-face situation? I think Crook's wrong - it's much more complex than joint activity (what does that mean?) We're in the realm of the difference between a "pure we-relation" (as Schutz put it) and the non face-to-face "world of contemporaries". It's a question about how we tune-in to the inner worlds of each other...<br /><br />Mark Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12438712149227569557noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5139380866860511018.post-5780190147845686462017-04-28T05:36:22.784+01:002017-04-28T05:36:22.784+01:00I am always intrigued by your thoughts on conversa...I am always intrigued by your thoughts on conversation, Mark.<br /><br />I do wonder what the difference between content and conversation is. If we think about the idea of the expanded mind following the likes of Andy Clark and Edwin Hutchins, then perhaps ‘content’ and conversation are a similar thing. I get this sense when I read of your experience with a book and the online lectures. It seems to me you are using the ‘affordances’ of the two mediums to ‘coordinate’ your own conversation with Susskind. Once we learned through conversation alone – be it in words or gestures. Now we use our ability to use technologies of all sorts to expand not only our own minds, as Clark would have it, but also our ability to converse.<br /><br />This sits well with a Vygotskian notion of learning – of the integration or socialisation into the practices of a community of knowers and/or doers. Charles Crook’s work on this is interesting, arguing that there is a need for greater focus on the joint activity within the zone of proximal development, and subsequently that there is a need in the management and evaluation of computer supported learning for a greater focus on the broader context of classroom discourse. <br />For me the key question here is that of saliency – and particularly how do we manage the conversations that students have such that they discern what is most salient. As you describe, the approaches we have taken - driven by the readily available affordances of the technology at hand – have been a blunt way of doing this. <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com