[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [xmca] Peter Smagorinsky on concepts

Sorry, Christine. I just can't make any sense of this.

Christine Schweighart wrote:
Dear Andy,
I can't relate to geometry:) but after the 'Instructional Science' thought, a 'conceptual development' ( not that 'concept' has become static) might be such that the 'product' would be enabling 'new' learning in a different form of living... so geometry enables a different way of living in the world, and qualitatively different learning possibilities flow from that. Our 'naming' ( in that everyday understanding of 'objectifying') - tends to hide the on-going dynamic - this is a big problem - how to keep in mind on-going dynamic as we 'name' to make communication 'easier'... this relation was in another of your messages.

Yes the historical inheritance - but there is always current living contradictions, and from time to time 'big chunks' are deemed to be 'too redundant' to these ( working on 'phenomenon'). ( Flogiston etc) - how that works its way back to curriculum communities is another pandoras box...

xmca mailing list