Re: [xmca] Peter Smagorinsky on concepts

[Christine Schweighart <schweighartc@gmail.com>]

Ok - but what is left open is where that comes from. I feel
'book-learning'  or 'formal instruction' as terms are imbued with 'didactic
directing' , whereas self-directing' ( of participating persons, between
each other) and 'nudging each other' to understandings are perhaps more
authentic accounts..just that each time anew an ideal-typical path is
synthesised not 'reproduced'. In this 'process' is not replicable, but
'recoverable' - in the knowing that significant moments might be
appreciable for other settings - but not reconstructable.
Perhaps that's  less confusing,  with the 'contamination' of understandings
of 'action-research '  abounding from other traditions - more 'practice
research'?

'Instruction' is a loaded term , I am recalling  Peter Goodyear's
predicament as editor of ' Instructional Science' , when I met him in 1997
he was deliberating renaming the journal, such was the 'crisis'. Although
you flag that 'does not 'exclude'' - this can become 'lost' when a
mainstream makes a distinction based upon 'instruction' as being of a form
which does 'exclude' - and teasing out the difference becomes 'lengthy' and
'loses' large constituencies...
 I got stuck on this as follows:


Formal instruction as a term refers at once to both teaching and learning
(Cole 2009), it is not a simple matter to convey this meaning. The first
sentence of self definition from the Springer Journal ‘Instructional
Science’ states

‘Instructional Science promotes a deeper understanding of the nature,
theory, and practice of the instructional process and resultant learning.’
(Instructional Science 2010)

Where a great deal of confusion can be seen[1] <#_ftn1>, the product of the
instructional process (of teaching-learning),  cannot be ‘learning’ – which
is within the process.  I make a point of exploring this to be able to
identify the essential relations of ‘formal instruction’ when taken with a
teaching-learning meaning. The essential relations that arise from
teaching-learning which could achieve development of theoretical thinking
about regulatory agency relations as a product, cannot be the terms and
relations expressed in this journal definition, for example.

------------------------------

[1] <#_ftnref1> The sentence itself is an expression of theory which is
constituting practice- therefore it is tautological for these terms to be
used within the definition. What remains is a declaration ‘ Instructional
Science promotes a deeper understanding of the nature of the instructional
process.’
 Ah Mike's reference was

Cole, M. (2009). 'The Perils of Translation: A First Step in Reconsidering
Vygotsky's Theory of Development in Relation to Formal Education.' *Mind,
Culture, and Activity* *16*(4):pp 291-295.

 Let's go back to 'ideal typical path of development ( as 'process' : as in
not a product).. I feel I 'slip' there..
Christine

On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 3:26 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:

> Christine Schweighart wrote:
>
>> Perhaps you might expand 'book' or 'formal instruction' to include
>> 'action-research' [ as articulation of concept development which
>> engendered  {valued/ acccomodated in collective}improvement of 'form of
>> living'] as a moment?? as distinct from personal sense, with some
>> plausibility as social 'meaning' though maybe not 'book' or 'formal
>> instruction' - - as 'where do these come from?' is the question that
>> springs out - how does academic knowledge transform etc.
>>  Christine.
>>
> Christine, I think it would surely only confuse things to include "action
> research" as an expansion of what is surely a well-known concept of "book
> learning" and/or "formal instruction." An ideal typical path of development
> does not "exclude" instruction which might be informal or may not use
> books. The point of using ideal typical concepts as a way of approaching a
> complex whole is not to try to include everything, but to grasp the
> essential nature of the whole. Imagine trying to do geometry without
> straight lines and circles, because we didn't want to "exclude" wiggly
> lines.
>
> Andy
>
> ______________________________**____________
> _____
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/**listinfo/xmca<http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca>
>
__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca