[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [xmca] 1982 paper on schooling

I'm also interested in this too.

I had a conversation with a friend who trains up teachers in schools and works with pupils, mainly who have English as a second language. She was telling me that she uses a Hallidayan genre model to help develop the children's speaking, and to make them express themselves in higher levels of thinking.

I am troubled by this. i am interested in Hallidayan genre teaching , as i think you can use a genre pedagogy to help pupils to develop their written language, and in the process develop their thinking. I am fascinated by how focusing on the different levels of the text you can induct kids into thinking in ways appropriate to the context and discipline, especially by working at the levels of the word - concepts and grammar- sentence and text.

But I am not sure that you can do this orally. Can you tell pupils how to frame their oral expression, to make them express themselves in a "higher cognitive way"? It seems bizarre - because I think we use language as a tool for thought. Can teaching more sophisticated oral linguistic structures impact on thinking.

I hope this makes sense.
Its' been bothering me all day!

Best to all
On 26 Jun 2010, at 17:02, ulvi icil wrote:

I am interested on the effect of schooling on concept formation, the
relationswhip between everyday and scientific concetps as a candidate
research topic for my master thesis that I will start to work October 2010
onwards !


2010/6/26, mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>:

That article connects to several ongoing threads, Andy. But lets see if
others are interested before I directly comment.

Instead, I think that the cover of the current issue of the New Yorker
magazine provides interesting food for thought one concepts and their
representations. It is accessible from www.newyorker.com. Try to click on
the cover and than use control+ (on a pc) to get a larger and larger
The different layers of meaning appear to move between the syntagmatic and
paradigmatic dimensions of meaning making. Besides,
its clever.

On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 6:38 AM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:

I just had a read of Mike's 1982 paper with Roy D'Andrade on the
of schooling on concept formation:


Great paper!

It occurred to me that Luria is in agreement with many others that a
hierarchical system of categories, a taxonomy, is the archetype of the "abstract" concept. Luria's conception of how this relates to prior forms
concept (affective and concrete) is the main point of interest in the article, but I would like to question whether this taxonomical idea is
as the archetype of the "true" concept. The article claims that
practices ("true" or not) are archetypal school practices, and this is an
interesting and different question.

An interesting counterpoint to this is Hegel's classification of 3
different components which he thinks must *all* be present in the
of a true concept:

The subject is (a) ascribed certain qualities; (b) seen as having having
certain place in a system of social practice; and (c) taken under its
as belonging to a certain living whole.

Further, I think (c) does not actually amount to the kind of Linnaean hierarchical family tree, but could also be interpreted like genre and archetype without the implied underlying totality. Also, there is all too
much room for subsuming (c) under (a) as almost all of present-day
philosophy and natural science are wont to do.

Mike, you have done a lot of work on the role of this "taxonomical
activity" in and out of school. Davydov on the other hand, emphasises (b)
opposed to (a). It would be interesting to investigate concept- formation
this wider frame.


-------------------------------------------------------------------- ----
*Andy Blunden*
Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/ <http://home.mira.net/% 7Eandy/>
Videos: http://vimeo.com/user3478333/videos
Book: http://www.brill.nl/scss

xmca mailing list

xmca mailing list

xmca mailing list

xmca mailing list