FW: [xmca] Creativity

From: Peg Griffin (Peg.Griffin@worldnet.att.net)
Date: Thu Feb 23 2006 - 10:47:05 PST

-----Original Message-----
From: Natalia Gajdamaschko [mailto:nataliag@sfu.ca]
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 10:20 AM
To: Peg.Griffin@worldnet.att.net
Subject: Re: [xmca] Creativity

Hi Peg,

This is very interesting. I also have been thinking about it in connection
to curriculum development for younger children. By the way, did you notice
that we wondered off the XMCA space somehow -- should we re-post our chat
there so more people could jump in and comment? How do we do that?


On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 10:04:18 -0800 Peg.Griffin@worldnet.att.net wrote:
> Natalia, yes that it what I've noticed, ""genuine metaphor" (that could
> pop-up suddenly in the situation of play)".
> It's exactly what I am tempted to think of as epiphoric.
> That way we could reserve "meta" for the less
> pop-up-held-within-the-play-activity forms or instances.
> The later appearing forms are more likely to be "defensible" or
> "explicable"
> by the user/creator even if the activity that gave rise is interfered with
> somehow (by atrophy over time or change in participant structure or
> imposition of interfering questions from an experimenter or teacher or
> editor...).
> But while maybe not fully "meta" controlled, an emotive aesthetic reaction
> to the epiphor by at least some participant in the play activity may
> be what
> contributes to the germ yielding the later growth of meptaphor?
> I've also been thinking that the "epi" and "meta" difference may be or be
> very close related to the "everyday" and "scientific" distinction.
> And finally, I've been thinking along these lines because I've been
> thinking
> about "mathematization" that early childhood mathematics educators talk
> about. The main idea is that in play and life kids are in situations
> mathematics is and when parents/teachers "mathematize" the situation
> there's
> a better chance for kids to capitalize on their experiences during later
> schooling in mathematics.
> Here's an example: a classroom full of kids is about to do a project
> that is
> too messy for the whole class to do at once. They need to divide into
> teams.
> The kids walk into spaces to divide themselves; they use a deck of cards
> with classmates' pictures and names to divide; they use hearts on a magnet
> board with dry erase marked columns to divide. It is all division by
> dealing or distribution: 1, 1, 1; 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3... And they try
> bigger or
> smaller "teams" as they figure out what will be not too messy but have
> enough kids to do the project and have fun. The mathematization on the dry
> erase magnetized board with columns lets them see (and some fall in love
> with) the calculus of more teams/fewer people on a team.
> By the way I have never had creativity demand so much to be noticed and
> appreciated as it is among the mathematics loving preschoolers I've met.
> Peg
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Natalia Gajdamaschko [mailto:nataliag@sfu.ca]
> Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 7:08 AM
> To: Peg.Griffin@worldnet.att.net
> Subject: Re: [xmca] Creativity
> On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 09:45:54 -0800 Peg.Griffin@worldnet.att.net wrote:
> > Metaphorical thinking ascribed to kids has also worried me, not so much
> > about thinking in complexes (although now it will!) but about the
> contrast
> > with not-metaphor. I think what is called metaphor use by a little
> one is
> > sometimes not shown to be in a system of opposition with non-figurative
> > language/thought. So, diachronically speaking, maybe metaphor for kids
> > not the same as for others; if that's so, the door is open for the worry
> > about what it is synchronically (i.e., maybe thinking in complexes).
> > Do we
> > want to think of it in the same way as it may become later in the little
> > one's life trajectory? Or do we want to see the germ cell that yields a
> > subsequent form?
> Yes, exactly, Peg! If metaphor for younger kids is not the same as it
> may be for others, in what way it would be different from, say,
> metaphor for
> an adolescent? Is it not necessary for us to keep in mind that it
could be
> based inside different psychological systems, not least in order to be
> to show that imagination and creativity are developing?
> Or, another way to ask the same question: if we assume that metaphorical
> thinking in younger children is a process of maturation, how do we
> distinguish between possible "genuine metaphor" (that could pop-up
> in the situation of play) and "non-figurative" thinking, which is thinking
> in complexes (in the situation of problem solving)?
> Best wishes,
> Natalia.
> P.S. Thank you for "epiphoric" idea and references.

xmca mailing list

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Mar 01 2006 - 01:00:03 PST