Re: [xmca] How is Microgenesis Different From Learning?

David: What does this mean? Too synoptic for mel
mike

*I also know that the relationship between learning and development has to
be indirect, while the relationship between microgenesis and ontogenesis has
to be direct
*
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 4:58 PM, David Kellogg <vaughndogblack@yahoo.com>
wrote:

> This seems like a dumb question, but it flickers in front of my eyes when I
> try to read the article for discussion.
>
> How is microgenesis (or logogenesis, to use the Hallidayan terminology)
> different from learning?
>
> Being a rather lazy thinker, I spent a number of years thinking that
> microgenesis is just a fancy name for learning, in the same way that
> ontogenesis is nothing but a Greek word for the more Latinate "development".
>
> Now I know better. As the name suggests, it is a microcosm of development,
> a miniature longitudinal study in ontogenesis, and of course development is
> revolutionary and qualitative in a way that learning is not. I also know
> that the relationship between learning and development has to be indirect,
> while the relationship between microgenesis and ontogenesis has to
> be direct. Finally, I have a sense that microgenesis is in some way
> intra-mental and restructional and transfomationalatory while learning is
> more inter-mental and communicationary and transactionalizing (to coin a
> phrase).
>
> But then I'm stuck. I can't think of a single example that shows a clear
> difference. And until I do, the distinction is just empty verbalism to me.
> I know it's there but I can't picture it..
>
> David Kellogg
> Seoul National University of Education
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
Received on Tue Jul 8 13:31 PDT 2008