I'm not sure. Everything that babies learn is unfamiliar territory,
and so is quite a bit that toddlers learn. Granted that a territory
is completely unfamiliar, if it is a given context that you are
working "within," might that not still be level II, and transcending
the "given context" would be necessary to move to level III? Or is it
simply enough to be "completely" unfamiliar?
Charles Nelson
Judy wrote:
>In a sense, anyone who "is" at level II -- anyone who has learned how to
>learn and can move across settings; whose experience is punctuated by what
>counts as a context of action must draw on level III learning in completely
>unfamiliar territory, where "what counts as a context" of action has to be
>learned anew. what do you think? or you? or you?
>judy
>
>At 04:35 AM 4/19/01 -0700, you wrote:
> >
> >Kathy-- My personal experience is that researchers may be pushed to the
> >level 3 learning that Bateson talks about, but rarely if ever the kids.
> >
> >Unless-- does it count that with the kids you get into interactions where
> >they are talking with an adult, engaging in joint activity that requires
> >effort, where they are making real contributions, and the wholel thing
> >feels like a peer interaction? They seem literally different people at
> >such times, and their subsequent behavior often has them taking on more
> >adult responsibilities. no one tells them to changein this way. Its
> >not just a new habit is it? or is it?
> >mike
> >heading for underwater minnesotta
> >
> >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 01 2001 - 01:01:53 PDT