These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,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These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,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.
David,
I don't know if this example is any good, but the way I've been thinking
about it is this: An example of learning is when one reads a new word and
its definition and it makes sense. An example of microgenesis would be when
that word enters one's vocabulary and becomes a tool for thinking. What do
you think? And do you think this could be extended to show the difference
between a microgenetic change and an ontogenetic change?
Best,
Lara
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 7:58 PM, David Kellogg <vaughndogblack@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> This seems like a dumb question, but it flickers in front of my eyes when I
> try to read the article for discussion.
>
> How is microgenesis (or logogenesis, to use the Hallidayan terminology)
> different from learning?
>
> Being a rather lazy thinker, I spent a number of years thinking that
> microgenesis is just a fancy name for learning, in the same way that
> ontogenesis is nothing but a Greek word for the more Latinate "development".
>
> Now I know better. As the name suggests, it is a microcosm of development,
> a miniature longitudinal study in ontogenesis, and of course development is
> revolutionary and qualitative in a way that learning is not. I also know
> that the relationship between learning and development has to be indirect,
> while the relationship between microgenesis and ontogenesis has to
> be direct. Finally, I have a sense that microgenesis is in some way
> intra-mental and restructional and transfomationalatory while learning is
> more inter-mental and communicationary and transactionalizing (to coin a
> phrase).
>
> But then I'm stuck. I can't think of a single example that shows a clear
> difference. And until I do, the distinction is just empty verbalism to me.
> I know it's there but I can't picture it..
>
> David Kellogg
> Seoul National University of Education
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
Received on Wed Jul 9 12:34 PDT 2008