Re: [xmca] Peter Smagorinsky on concepts

[Christine Schweighart <schweighartc@gmail.com>]

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...
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