作为实践的废墟的文学讨论:涌现和/在对话学习事件中的社会学理论

IF 1 Q3 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
George Kamberelis, W. Mcginley, A. Welker
{"title":"作为实践的废墟的文学讨论:涌现和/在对话学习事件中的社会学理论","authors":"George Kamberelis, W. Mcginley, A. Welker","doi":"10.5195/DPJ.2015.69","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this report, we argue that some of the most productive and edifying kinds of literature discussions among certain ages/grade levels may be best understood as “mangles of practice” (Pickering, 1995).  Mangles of practice involve the coalescence of planned and contingent forces, and they produce emergent or self-organizing transformations of ongoing social activities, as well as unpredictable outcomes or products.  Indeed, the discussions we studied had these characteristics.  They often involved both planned and contingent actions and reactions by individual, social, cultural, and material agents and agencies.  As such, they were emergent phenomena about which we could seldom predict what precise collections, collisions, and collusions of actions and reactions would occur within them or what the effects of these collections, collisions, and collusions would be.  In spite of (or more likely because of) their unpredictability, these discussions were extremely dynamic knowledge-producing activities.  Given this social fact, we think our findings contribute significantly to understanding the lineaments and potentials of dialogic pedagogy, which deepens students’ learning and development.  More specifically, when teachers successfully prompt and engage students in more robustly dialogic talk that promotes text-to-life connections, life-to text connections, linkages to non-school knowledge (like that of popular culture), etc., then students often reap a wide variety of benefits with respect to their abilities to engage in genuine inquiry, to reason and argue for particular interpretations, to evaluate complex human actions and decisions, and to develop principled social, cultural, and moral equipment for living their own lives.","PeriodicalId":42140,"journal":{"name":"Dialogic Pedagogy","volume":"3 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-07-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Literature Discussions as Mangles of Practice: Sociological Theories of Emergence and/in Dialogic Learning Events\",\"authors\":\"George Kamberelis, W. Mcginley, A. Welker\",\"doi\":\"10.5195/DPJ.2015.69\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In this report, we argue that some of the most productive and edifying kinds of literature discussions among certain ages/grade levels may be best understood as “mangles of practice” (Pickering, 1995).  Mangles of practice involve the coalescence of planned and contingent forces, and they produce emergent or self-organizing transformations of ongoing social activities, as well as unpredictable outcomes or products.  Indeed, the discussions we studied had these characteristics.  They often involved both planned and contingent actions and reactions by individual, social, cultural, and material agents and agencies.  As such, they were emergent phenomena about which we could seldom predict what precise collections, collisions, and collusions of actions and reactions would occur within them or what the effects of these collections, collisions, and collusions would be.  In spite of (or more likely because of) their unpredictability, these discussions were extremely dynamic knowledge-producing activities.  Given this social fact, we think our findings contribute significantly to understanding the lineaments and potentials of dialogic pedagogy, which deepens students’ learning and development.  More specifically, when teachers successfully prompt and engage students in more robustly dialogic talk that promotes text-to-life connections, life-to text connections, linkages to non-school knowledge (like that of popular culture), etc., then students often reap a wide variety of benefits with respect to their abilities to engage in genuine inquiry, to reason and argue for particular interpretations, to evaluate complex human actions and decisions, and to develop principled social, cultural, and moral equipment for living their own lives.\",\"PeriodicalId\":42140,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Dialogic Pedagogy\",\"volume\":\"3 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2015-07-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"6\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Dialogic Pedagogy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5195/DPJ.2015.69\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Dialogic Pedagogy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5195/DPJ.2015.69","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

摘要

在本报告中,我们认为,在某些年龄/年级水平上,一些最富有成效和最有启发性的文学讨论可能被最好地理解为“实践的混乱”(皮克林,1995)。实践的混乱包括计划和偶然力量的结合,它们产生正在进行的社会活动的紧急或自组织转变,以及不可预测的结果或产品。的确,我们研究的讨论有这些特点。它们通常涉及个人、社会、文化和物质的代理人和机构的计划和偶然的行动和反应。就其本身而言,它们是突现现象,我们很难预测它们内部会发生什么样的行动和反应的精确集合、碰撞和串通,或者这些集合、碰撞和串通会产生什么样的影响。尽管(或者更有可能是因为)这些讨论的不可预测性,但它们是极其动态的知识生产活动。鉴于这一社会事实,我们认为我们的研究结果对理解对话教学法的特征和潜力有重要贡献,对话教学法可以加深学生的学习和发展。更具体地说,当教师成功地引导和吸引学生进行更有力的对话,促进文本与生活的联系,生活与文本的联系,与非学校知识(如流行文化)的联系等,那么学生通常会在他们从事真正的探究,推理和争论特定解释,评估复杂的人类行为和决定,以及发展原则的社会,文化,文化,文化,文化和文化的能力方面获得各种各样的好处。以及过自己生活的道德装备。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Literature Discussions as Mangles of Practice: Sociological Theories of Emergence and/in Dialogic Learning Events
In this report, we argue that some of the most productive and edifying kinds of literature discussions among certain ages/grade levels may be best understood as “mangles of practice” (Pickering, 1995).  Mangles of practice involve the coalescence of planned and contingent forces, and they produce emergent or self-organizing transformations of ongoing social activities, as well as unpredictable outcomes or products.  Indeed, the discussions we studied had these characteristics.  They often involved both planned and contingent actions and reactions by individual, social, cultural, and material agents and agencies.  As such, they were emergent phenomena about which we could seldom predict what precise collections, collisions, and collusions of actions and reactions would occur within them or what the effects of these collections, collisions, and collusions would be.  In spite of (or more likely because of) their unpredictability, these discussions were extremely dynamic knowledge-producing activities.  Given this social fact, we think our findings contribute significantly to understanding the lineaments and potentials of dialogic pedagogy, which deepens students’ learning and development.  More specifically, when teachers successfully prompt and engage students in more robustly dialogic talk that promotes text-to-life connections, life-to text connections, linkages to non-school knowledge (like that of popular culture), etc., then students often reap a wide variety of benefits with respect to their abilities to engage in genuine inquiry, to reason and argue for particular interpretations, to evaluate complex human actions and decisions, and to develop principled social, cultural, and moral equipment for living their own lives.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Dialogic Pedagogy
Dialogic Pedagogy EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
33.30%
发文量
12
审稿时长
16 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信