Peter,
I read the paper a few times and found it interesting on several levels. It
adressed many of the personal contradictions I usually feel about reading
research.
One thing that stood out was your use of "codification". Maybe it is my
flag, but it seems that word has a long history, and a history that may not
be compatible with the argument you were putting forward. I associate the
word strongly with the "in the text" view of meaning I took you as argueing
against. Also, it seems to have a strong information processing and
innatist history as in "breaking the code".
I guess for me the word felt out of place with other concepts like signs,
tools, and culture. It felt alien or like the old Sesame Street lingo which
one of these words don't belong. You mention in the beginning that you
definately hope one does not leave with a sense that you are argueing
meaning is inside the text. With that in mind, I am curious how the use of
codification would play a role in that kind interpretation ocurring.
This is not to say I disagree with how you conceptualized "codification" in
the paper, I found it very helpful and it adressed aspects of reading that
an Activity standpoint does not always address. I guess my concern lies in
using terminology that seems to support a certain view of reading, learning,
mind and the consequences that follow.
Second, when I was putting up your figures, I asked my daughter how old she
thought the students were who made the pictures. She answered, "no more
than 5th grade". I recently was looking through the Japenese / American
comparisons and what semed to come through very strongly (early Bruner)was
that our education system has a very strong action-iconic-symbolic
progression that is part of our cultural beliefs about development. So, I am
curious about the story, if there is one, with the students reactions to
"making pictures". Like with Vera's work on cognitive pluralism, I enjoyed
the emphasis you put on signs that avoided a developmentalist framing.
Thanks for the interesting read.
Nate
Nate Schmolze
http://www.geocities.com/nate_schmolze/
schmolze@students.wisc.edu
****************************************************************************
****************
"Overcoming the naturalistic concept of mental development calls for a
radically new approach
to the interrelation between child and society. We have been led to this
conclusion by a
special investigation of the historical emergence of role-playing. In
contrast to the view
that role playing is an eternal extra-historical phenomenon, we hypothesized
that role playing emerged at a specific stage of social development, as the
child's position in society changed
in the course of history. role-playing is an activity that is social in
origin and,
consequently, social in content."
D. B. El'konin
****************************************************************************
****************
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 23 2000 - 09:21:09 PDT