These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,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These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,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.
Sorry, Christine. I just can't make any sense of this. Andy Christine Schweighart wrote:
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.
__________________________________________ _____ xmca mailing list xmca@weber.ucsd.edu http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca