Hierarchische Ordnung der verschiedenen Lernzielklassen laut Bloom (1972):
1. Wissen
1.1 Wissen von konkreten Einzelheiten
1.11 Terminologisches Wissen
1.12 Wissen einzelner Fakten
1.2 Wissen der Wege und Mittel, mit konkreten Einzelheiten zu arbeiten
1.21 Wissen von Konventionen
1.22 Wissen von Trends und zeitlichen Abfolgen
1.23 Wissen von Klassifikationen und Kategorien
1.24 Wissen von Kriterien
1.25 Wissen von Methoden
1.3 Wissen von Verallgemeinerungen und Abstraktionen eines Fachgebietes
1.31 Wissen von Prinzipien und Verallgemeinerungen
1.32 Wissen von Theorien und Strukturen
2. Verstehen
2.1 Übersetzen
2.2 Interpretieren
2.3 Extrapolieren
3.Anwendung
4.Analyse
4.1 Analyse von Elementen
4.2 Analyse von Beziehungen
4.3 Analyse von ordnenden Prinzipien
5.Synthese
5.1 Herstellen einer einzigartigen Nachricht
5.2 Entwerfen eines Plans für bestimmte Handlungen
5.3 Ableiten einer Folge abstrakter Beziehungen
6.Evaluation
6.1 Urteilen aufgrund innerer Evidenz
6.2 Urteilen aufgrund äußerer Kriterien
Freitag, 23. Januar 2009
Mittwoch, 14. Januar 2009
Vorsicht Bildschirm von Manfred Spitzer
http://web.me.com/benhuberty/_A_Page_about_ME/Dossier_R%C3%A9flexif/Eintr%C3%A4ge/2009/1/14_Vorsicht_Bildschirm..._!.html
von Ben Huberty
von Ben Huberty
Neue Intelligenz von Steven Johnson
http://www.facebook.com/ext/share.php?sid=56876822864&h=QCGae&u=QmHn4
von Ben Huberty
den un enger Kirtik vun mir interesseiert ass. bescheed soen, se ass ze grouss fir heihinner ze posten, mee villaicht stellen ech nach en link online
von Ben Huberty
den un enger Kirtik vun mir interesseiert ass. bescheed soen, se ass ze grouss fir heihinner ze posten, mee villaicht stellen ech nach en link online
Dienstag, 13. Januar 2009
Schegloff
Reflections on Language, Development, and the Interactional Character of Talk-in-Interaction
Emanuel A. Schegloff
The double interactivity of talk (la double interactivité de la parole)
One order of Interactivity: Joint Production of Talk (le déroulement de l’interactivité: la production commune de la parole)
Interaction is that for which the talk is conceives; its character is shaped by the structure of opportunities to deliver a message in the first place, and so forth.
• Children have to learn not to talk when another is talking.
• They have to learn to listen while talking, or talk while listening, so that the simultaneous talk can be adjusted to that of the other.
• They have to learn to recognize when another is talking.
• They have to learn that they can still be thought to be interrupting even though the speaker has finished the sentence.
• They have to learn that they can still be interrupting though no individual speaker has any recognizable unit like a story underway.
→ In other words, children have to learn that talk-by-one person is nonetheless an outcome, which it takes the whole assemblage to produce.
• Children will have to learn how the relevant interactional and sequential organizations operate formally, as well as how the local company or cohort of participants is administering them on that occasion, and with respect to children, in particular with respect to them.
L’auteur utilise un exemple anecdotique pour clarifier la procédure de la parole.
1. Être attentif à la parole d’autrui
2. Analyser la parole
3. Reconnaître que quelqu’un attend une réponse (réaction)
4. savoir qu’une action va suivre sa réaction (réponse) → first an answer, than a responsive action
5. une réaction peut déclencher une action subséquente (suivante), dépendante de sa propre réaction
On peut notifier la compréhension que l’interaction (dans la parole) est un instrument pour opérer.
A second order of Interactivity: The character of Language (le deuxième règlement de l’interactivité: le caractère du langage)
The organization of conversation (of talk-in-interaction) includes among its generic components what we call the organization of repair. This is an organized set of practices, by which parties to talk-in-interaction can address troubles in speaking, hearing, and understanding the talk.
The presence of such an organization, its generic presence and relevance, allows language to be constructed differently than might otherwise have been imagined. It need not
• Be unambiguous
• Have invariant mappings of signs or symbols and their signifiers
• Have a syntax that assigns but a single interpretation to a given expression
Talk-in-interaction is interactive quite apart from (1) its contextuality, by reference to which it is virtually always responsive or prosponsive, and (2) its collaborativeness, in the sense that whatever gets done is a joint achievement.
Transparently, the natural environment of language use is talk-in-interaction, and originally ordinary conversation.
A case in point
D’abord la mère regarde son fils et ne dit rien. C’est juste au moment où le fils la regarde en retour qu’elle prononce sa critique. (On peut considérer l’action comme un indice qu’on veut donner à l’enfant en lui disant : « tu vois que je vois tout »)
En ne disant un mot jusqu’au moment où le garçon s’arrête, la mère ne la sanctionne pas pour son comportement, mais elle veut qu’il apprend de quelle manière il faut agir si on a un tel problème. En fait, elle le dit pour la prochaine fois. Elle ne veut pas le punir, mais elle veut qu’il apprenne à faire mieux.
This is a general resource in interaction. (each apparently oriented to some unequivocal orientation to nextness)
Se refréner sur (sich mit etwas zurückhalten) une remarque jusqu’au moment où les dernières activités ont fini.
This kind of utterance (Äußerung) makes one of a limited set of response types relevant next; it is what we call a “first pair part of an adjacency pair” Here the mandate (Auftrag) is for some action, and the preferred response type is a compliant (folgsam) action. (“a compliance marker”)
Between mother’s injunction (Vorschrift) and the boy’s incipient (anfangend) compliance (Einwilligung) there intervenes a sequence (Ablauf), of the sort we term repair (Behebung, Ausbesserung, Reperatur). This repair is canonical (anerkannt) in a number of respects. It is initiated by a/the recipient of the talk containing the trouble source, who leaves it for the speaker of the trouble-source to deal with the trouble. The repair is initiated in the turn after the trouble-source turn, which is where virtually all such “other-initiated” repairs are initiated. It is responded to and completed in the next turn, which is also canonical, and is responded to there by the prior speaker, the speaker of trouble-source.
The Sacks Substitution
Sacks noted that in the environment of repair, pro-terms regularly get replaced by the full-forms to which they referred.
Selon l’auteur on n’a pas besoin d’entendre toute la conversation pour pouvoir savoir ce que quelqu’un veut nous communiquer. Bien en contraire, parfois il est beaucoup plus efficace de ne pas prononcer toute la communication. Il suffit de donner les ressources nécessaires à son interlocuteur, comme dans l’exemple du dîner, où il y a une interaction entre la mère et le fils.
Dans cette scène la mère n’a pas interrompu le garçon, ce n’est qu’à la fin qu’elle a prononcé sa remarque. En procédant ainsi, elle ne le sanctionne pas pour ce moment précis, mais elle envisage que le garçon va adapter son comportement la prochaine fois.
Le discours entre le fils et sa mère se penche plutôt sur la lutte contre les difficultés que sur son invocation.
Knowledge in an implicit way itself turns on the generic presence and invocability of repair resources in interaction. Such resources are generically available in talk-in-interaction to resolve troubles in hearing und understanding.
Children learn to deal with the moment-to-moment contingencies (Möglichkeiten, Zufälligkeiten, Eventualitäten) of life in interaction, and the details of language use and conduct, in the moment-to-moment contingencies of life in interaction, with their deployments of language and other conduct.
Emanuel A. Schegloff
The double interactivity of talk (la double interactivité de la parole)
One order of Interactivity: Joint Production of Talk (le déroulement de l’interactivité: la production commune de la parole)
Interaction is that for which the talk is conceives; its character is shaped by the structure of opportunities to deliver a message in the first place, and so forth.
• Children have to learn not to talk when another is talking.
• They have to learn to listen while talking, or talk while listening, so that the simultaneous talk can be adjusted to that of the other.
• They have to learn to recognize when another is talking.
• They have to learn that they can still be thought to be interrupting even though the speaker has finished the sentence.
• They have to learn that they can still be interrupting though no individual speaker has any recognizable unit like a story underway.
→ In other words, children have to learn that talk-by-one person is nonetheless an outcome, which it takes the whole assemblage to produce.
• Children will have to learn how the relevant interactional and sequential organizations operate formally, as well as how the local company or cohort of participants is administering them on that occasion, and with respect to children, in particular with respect to them.
L’auteur utilise un exemple anecdotique pour clarifier la procédure de la parole.
1. Être attentif à la parole d’autrui
2. Analyser la parole
3. Reconnaître que quelqu’un attend une réponse (réaction)
4. savoir qu’une action va suivre sa réaction (réponse) → first an answer, than a responsive action
5. une réaction peut déclencher une action subséquente (suivante), dépendante de sa propre réaction
On peut notifier la compréhension que l’interaction (dans la parole) est un instrument pour opérer.
A second order of Interactivity: The character of Language (le deuxième règlement de l’interactivité: le caractère du langage)
The organization of conversation (of talk-in-interaction) includes among its generic components what we call the organization of repair. This is an organized set of practices, by which parties to talk-in-interaction can address troubles in speaking, hearing, and understanding the talk.
The presence of such an organization, its generic presence and relevance, allows language to be constructed differently than might otherwise have been imagined. It need not
• Be unambiguous
• Have invariant mappings of signs or symbols and their signifiers
• Have a syntax that assigns but a single interpretation to a given expression
Talk-in-interaction is interactive quite apart from (1) its contextuality, by reference to which it is virtually always responsive or prosponsive, and (2) its collaborativeness, in the sense that whatever gets done is a joint achievement.
Transparently, the natural environment of language use is talk-in-interaction, and originally ordinary conversation.
A case in point
D’abord la mère regarde son fils et ne dit rien. C’est juste au moment où le fils la regarde en retour qu’elle prononce sa critique. (On peut considérer l’action comme un indice qu’on veut donner à l’enfant en lui disant : « tu vois que je vois tout »)
En ne disant un mot jusqu’au moment où le garçon s’arrête, la mère ne la sanctionne pas pour son comportement, mais elle veut qu’il apprend de quelle manière il faut agir si on a un tel problème. En fait, elle le dit pour la prochaine fois. Elle ne veut pas le punir, mais elle veut qu’il apprenne à faire mieux.
This is a general resource in interaction. (each apparently oriented to some unequivocal orientation to nextness)
Se refréner sur (sich mit etwas zurückhalten) une remarque jusqu’au moment où les dernières activités ont fini.
This kind of utterance (Äußerung) makes one of a limited set of response types relevant next; it is what we call a “first pair part of an adjacency pair” Here the mandate (Auftrag) is for some action, and the preferred response type is a compliant (folgsam) action. (“a compliance marker”)
Between mother’s injunction (Vorschrift) and the boy’s incipient (anfangend) compliance (Einwilligung) there intervenes a sequence (Ablauf), of the sort we term repair (Behebung, Ausbesserung, Reperatur). This repair is canonical (anerkannt) in a number of respects. It is initiated by a/the recipient of the talk containing the trouble source, who leaves it for the speaker of the trouble-source to deal with the trouble. The repair is initiated in the turn after the trouble-source turn, which is where virtually all such “other-initiated” repairs are initiated. It is responded to and completed in the next turn, which is also canonical, and is responded to there by the prior speaker, the speaker of trouble-source.
The Sacks Substitution
Sacks noted that in the environment of repair, pro-terms regularly get replaced by the full-forms to which they referred.
Selon l’auteur on n’a pas besoin d’entendre toute la conversation pour pouvoir savoir ce que quelqu’un veut nous communiquer. Bien en contraire, parfois il est beaucoup plus efficace de ne pas prononcer toute la communication. Il suffit de donner les ressources nécessaires à son interlocuteur, comme dans l’exemple du dîner, où il y a une interaction entre la mère et le fils.
Dans cette scène la mère n’a pas interrompu le garçon, ce n’est qu’à la fin qu’elle a prononcé sa remarque. En procédant ainsi, elle ne le sanctionne pas pour ce moment précis, mais elle envisage que le garçon va adapter son comportement la prochaine fois.
Le discours entre le fils et sa mère se penche plutôt sur la lutte contre les difficultés que sur son invocation.
Knowledge in an implicit way itself turns on the generic presence and invocability of repair resources in interaction. Such resources are generically available in talk-in-interaction to resolve troubles in hearing und understanding.
Children learn to deal with the moment-to-moment contingencies (Möglichkeiten, Zufälligkeiten, Eventualitäten) of life in interaction, and the details of language use and conduct, in the moment-to-moment contingencies of life in interaction, with their deployments of language and other conduct.
Bruner
From Communicating to talking by Jerome Bruner
The global vision
The transition from prelinguistic communication to language – the original endowment of human beings
The interpreting and negotiating start the moment the infant enters the human scene. It is at this stage of interpretation and negotiation that language acquisition is acted out.
Initial cognitive endowment
The first of these conclusions is that much of the cognitive processing going on in infancy appears to operate in support of goal-directed activity. (From the start, the human infant is active in seeking out regularities in the world about him.) Their behaviour is guided from early on by active means-end readiness and by search.
The second conclusion about infant endowment: It is obvious that an enormous amount of the activity of the child during the first year and a half of life is extraordinarily social and communicative. (A social response to the infant is the most powerful reinforcer one can use in ordinary learning experiments.)
The third conclusion is that much of early infant action takes place in constrained, familiar situations and shows a surprisingly high degree of order and “systematicity”. (Children spend most of their time doing a very limited number of things.) Children enter the world of language and of culture with a readiness to find or invent systematic ways of dealing with social requirements and linguistic forms. The child reacts “culturally” with characteristic hypotheses about what is required and enters language with a readiness for order. There are two important implications that fallow from this. The first is that from the start, the child becomes readily attuned to “making a lot out of a little” by combination. The second implication is more social. The acquisition of prelinguistic and linguistic communication takes place, in the main, in the highly constrained settings to which we are referring. (The child and his caretaker readily combine elements in these situations to extract meanings, assign interpretations, and infer intentions. It is precisely the combining of all elements in constrained situations (speech and nonspeech alike) that provides the road to communicative effectiveness.)
A fourth conclusion about the nature of infant cognitive endowment is that its systematic character is surprisingly abstract.
These four cognitive “endowments” – means-end readiness, transactionality, systematicity, and abstractness – provide foundation processes that aid the child’s language acquisition.
Language does not “grow out of” prior protophonological, protosyntactic, protosemantic, or protopragmatic knowledge. It requires a unique sensitivity to a patterned sound system, to grammatical constraints, to referential requirements, to communicative intentions, etc.
Entry into language
Learning a native language is an accomplishment within the grasp of any toddler, yet discovering how children do it has eluded generations of philosophers and linguists.
Learning a language, then, consists of learning not only, the grammar of a particular language but also learning how to realise one’s intentions by appropriate use of that grammar.
The child must master the conceptual structure of the world that language will map – the social world as well as the physical. He must also master the conventions for making his intentions clear by language.
Support for Language Acquisition
The development of language, then, involves two people negotiating. Language is not encountered willy-nilly by the child; it is shaped to make a communicative interaction effective.
The author proposes that this “arranging” of early speech interaction requires routinized and familiar settings, formats, for the child to comprehend what is going on, given his limited capacity for processing information. These routines constitute what I intend by a Language Acquisition Support System.
There are at least four ways in which such a Language Acquisition Support System helps assure continuity from prelinguistic to linguistic communication. Because there is such a concentration on familiar and routine transactional formats, it becomes feasible for the adult partner to highlight those features of the world that are already salient to the child and that have a basic of simple grammatical form. A second way in which the adult helps the child through formatting is by encouraging and modelling lexical and phrasal substitutes for familiar gestural and vocal means for effecting various communicative functions. Thirdly, it is characteristic of play formats particularly that they are made of stipulative or constitutive “events” that are created by language and then recreated on demand by language. Later these formats take on the character of “pretend” situations. Finally, once the mother and child are launched into routinized formats, various psychological and linguistic processes are brought into play that generalize from one format to another. Naming, for example, appears first in indicating formats and then transfers to requesting formats.
What is striking is how early the child develops means to signal his focus of attention and his requests for assistance.
These are the mundane procedures and events that constitute a Language Acquisition Support System, along with the elements of fine tuning that comprise “baby talk” exchanges.
The global vision
The transition from prelinguistic communication to language – the original endowment of human beings
The interpreting and negotiating start the moment the infant enters the human scene. It is at this stage of interpretation and negotiation that language acquisition is acted out.
Initial cognitive endowment
The first of these conclusions is that much of the cognitive processing going on in infancy appears to operate in support of goal-directed activity. (From the start, the human infant is active in seeking out regularities in the world about him.) Their behaviour is guided from early on by active means-end readiness and by search.
The second conclusion about infant endowment: It is obvious that an enormous amount of the activity of the child during the first year and a half of life is extraordinarily social and communicative. (A social response to the infant is the most powerful reinforcer one can use in ordinary learning experiments.)
The third conclusion is that much of early infant action takes place in constrained, familiar situations and shows a surprisingly high degree of order and “systematicity”. (Children spend most of their time doing a very limited number of things.) Children enter the world of language and of culture with a readiness to find or invent systematic ways of dealing with social requirements and linguistic forms. The child reacts “culturally” with characteristic hypotheses about what is required and enters language with a readiness for order. There are two important implications that fallow from this. The first is that from the start, the child becomes readily attuned to “making a lot out of a little” by combination. The second implication is more social. The acquisition of prelinguistic and linguistic communication takes place, in the main, in the highly constrained settings to which we are referring. (The child and his caretaker readily combine elements in these situations to extract meanings, assign interpretations, and infer intentions. It is precisely the combining of all elements in constrained situations (speech and nonspeech alike) that provides the road to communicative effectiveness.)
A fourth conclusion about the nature of infant cognitive endowment is that its systematic character is surprisingly abstract.
These four cognitive “endowments” – means-end readiness, transactionality, systematicity, and abstractness – provide foundation processes that aid the child’s language acquisition.
Language does not “grow out of” prior protophonological, protosyntactic, protosemantic, or protopragmatic knowledge. It requires a unique sensitivity to a patterned sound system, to grammatical constraints, to referential requirements, to communicative intentions, etc.
Entry into language
Learning a native language is an accomplishment within the grasp of any toddler, yet discovering how children do it has eluded generations of philosophers and linguists.
Learning a language, then, consists of learning not only, the grammar of a particular language but also learning how to realise one’s intentions by appropriate use of that grammar.
The child must master the conceptual structure of the world that language will map – the social world as well as the physical. He must also master the conventions for making his intentions clear by language.
Support for Language Acquisition
The development of language, then, involves two people negotiating. Language is not encountered willy-nilly by the child; it is shaped to make a communicative interaction effective.
The author proposes that this “arranging” of early speech interaction requires routinized and familiar settings, formats, for the child to comprehend what is going on, given his limited capacity for processing information. These routines constitute what I intend by a Language Acquisition Support System.
There are at least four ways in which such a Language Acquisition Support System helps assure continuity from prelinguistic to linguistic communication. Because there is such a concentration on familiar and routine transactional formats, it becomes feasible for the adult partner to highlight those features of the world that are already salient to the child and that have a basic of simple grammatical form. A second way in which the adult helps the child through formatting is by encouraging and modelling lexical and phrasal substitutes for familiar gestural and vocal means for effecting various communicative functions. Thirdly, it is characteristic of play formats particularly that they are made of stipulative or constitutive “events” that are created by language and then recreated on demand by language. Later these formats take on the character of “pretend” situations. Finally, once the mother and child are launched into routinized formats, various psychological and linguistic processes are brought into play that generalize from one format to another. Naming, for example, appears first in indicating formats and then transfers to requesting formats.
What is striking is how early the child develops means to signal his focus of attention and his requests for assistance.
These are the mundane procedures and events that constitute a Language Acquisition Support System, along with the elements of fine tuning that comprise “baby talk” exchanges.
Tomasello
Social-cognitive Basis of Language Development
In his text the author declares, that children must have several social-cognitive skills to can develop language. These skills are: joint attention, intention reading, perspective taking and communicative collaboration.
Joint attention
The size of children’s early vocabulary is highly correlated with the amount of time they spent with their interlocutor.
Intention reading
Children’s acquisition of linguistic symbols depends a lot on their ability to read the intentions of others. They must be able to determine specifically what the adult intends for them to attend to.
Perspective taking
Children must learn the perspective and the communicative situations in which it is appropriately used. They have to learn when to use which construction, and this often requires an adequate evaluation of the knowledge and expectations of the conversational partner. Thus children have to simulate the perspective of their interlocutor to engage them-self in conservation.
Communicative collaboration
When two parts are communicating, there is “a negotiation of meaning” between them. When one person does not understand the other, then he asks to get a clarification of the speech.
This back and forth involves that the child constantly shifts from her own perspective to that of the other person and so on. These actions are helping the child to construct social norms and individual attitudes and beliefs.
Conclusion
To get the ability of learning a language, a child needs first certain social-cognitive skills. When the child possesses these skills it can acquire language. After that it can do conservation where on the other hand it is creating new social-cognitive skills again.
So the child needs social-cognitive skills to develop language and language to get new social-cognitive skills.
In his text the author declares, that children must have several social-cognitive skills to can develop language. These skills are: joint attention, intention reading, perspective taking and communicative collaboration.
Joint attention
The size of children’s early vocabulary is highly correlated with the amount of time they spent with their interlocutor.
Intention reading
Children’s acquisition of linguistic symbols depends a lot on their ability to read the intentions of others. They must be able to determine specifically what the adult intends for them to attend to.
Perspective taking
Children must learn the perspective and the communicative situations in which it is appropriately used. They have to learn when to use which construction, and this often requires an adequate evaluation of the knowledge and expectations of the conversational partner. Thus children have to simulate the perspective of their interlocutor to engage them-self in conservation.
Communicative collaboration
When two parts are communicating, there is “a negotiation of meaning” between them. When one person does not understand the other, then he asks to get a clarification of the speech.
This back and forth involves that the child constantly shifts from her own perspective to that of the other person and so on. These actions are helping the child to construct social norms and individual attitudes and beliefs.
Conclusion
To get the ability of learning a language, a child needs first certain social-cognitive skills. When the child possesses these skills it can acquire language. After that it can do conservation where on the other hand it is creating new social-cognitive skills again.
So the child needs social-cognitive skills to develop language and language to get new social-cognitive skills.
Montag, 12. Januar 2009
kritech denken vis-à-vis vun Medien
ech probeieren emol dem Piaget seng theorie op desen Aspekt vun medien unzewenden.
wann e Kand, waat z.B. Gewalt am Fernseh gesait, net kritech denkt, dann gett dest schema zu denen existeiernden schemaen dozougefügt. et gett sou ze soen assimileiert. dei neideg viraussetzng ass awer, dass d Kand schon real gewalt erliewt huet.
wann d Kand awer elo kritech denkt, dann wees et, dass et des Gewalt mat reeller gewalt trennen muss an dofir muss et nei schemaen entweckelen, dei des situatioun betreffen. et akkomodeiert also seng struktur.
an dem eischten Fall werft et dann dei real mat der virtueller Welt zesummen woubei et beim 2ten fall zweschen denen zwou Saachen ennerscheeden kann.
wann e Kand, waat z.B. Gewalt am Fernseh gesait, net kritech denkt, dann gett dest schema zu denen existeiernden schemaen dozougefügt. et gett sou ze soen assimileiert. dei neideg viraussetzng ass awer, dass d Kand schon real gewalt erliewt huet.
wann d Kand awer elo kritech denkt, dann wees et, dass et des Gewalt mat reeller gewalt trennen muss an dofir muss et nei schemaen entweckelen, dei des situatioun betreffen. et akkomodeiert also seng struktur.
an dem eischten Fall werft et dann dei real mat der virtueller Welt zesummen woubei et beim 2ten fall zweschen denen zwou Saachen ennerscheeden kann.
Abonnieren
Kommentare (Atom)
