These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,
and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving.
Content on this site may not meet current digital accessibility standards.
If you require an alternative, accessible format of any information found on this site,
please contact Bruce Jones, bjones@ucsd.edu to request an accommodation.
These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,
and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving.
Content on this site may not meet current digital accessibility standards.
If you require an alternative, accessible format of any information found on this site,
please contact Bruce Jones, bjones@ucsd.edu to request an accommodation.
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