Reconsidering meaning making and its analytical implications for cultural studies of science education
- PDF / 197,273 Bytes
- 7 Pages / 439.37 x 666.142 pts Page_size
- 57 Downloads / 193 Views
Reconsidering meaning making and its analytical implications for cultural studies of science education Hans Christian Arnseth • Ingeborg Krange
Received: 13 September 2012 / Accepted: 31 October 2012 / Published online: 11 December 2012 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012
Abstract The discussion in this forum aims to push some of the ideas further and thus clarify some of the concepts used in the feature article. This includes a debate of the concepts of meaning making, procedural and conceptual learning experiences, the distinction between realism and constructivism in our research practice, and finally how to foster productive disciplinary engagement. Keywords
Meaning-making Constructivism Dialogism Productive interaction
We would like to take the opportunity to thank the reviewers for their very thorough and critical reading of our feature article, which not only have made us reconsider our text but also our analytical commitments more generally. We appreciate their reading as a way of pushing the issues further and of raising interesting aspects with practical consequences. For us it has been a true learning experience, to compare our writing to their extensive review. In this reply, we will try to comply with the ethos of this forum and abstain from simply defending our arguments from the criticisms raised. Instead we will use the opportunity to engage in dialogue and push some of the topics a bit further as well as clarifying some of the most important concepts used in our argument. First of all, let us make clear that we see ourselves as firmly embedded within a research practice inspired by sociocultural ideas and interaction analytic methods. In light of this, we were a bit surprised of the criticism raised that we would have retorted too easily in our analysis to constructivist dichotomizations between representations/signs and meanings as well as mind and world. We acknowledge that this critical reading is legitimate and that the reviewers provide reasonable arguments for the problems described, that is, that the conceptual categories, distinctions and methodological practices Lead Editor: C. El-Hani. H. C. Arnseth Department of Educational Research, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway I. Krange (&) Intermedia, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway e-mail: [email protected]
123
490
H. C. Arnseth, I. Krange
invite such a reading. We acknowledge the problematic nature of treating talk, action or use of representations as indications of meanings located in signs or minds. Thus, we agree that the notion of meaning and even meaning making, which is very much used in sociocultural and dialogic research, can be problematic. In light of this, the first issue we want to discuss concerns whether the notion of meaning and meaning making is of any use to us, or whether we should pursue other analytic categories. Furthermore, can we ever escape construction, or to put it differently, can we ever in our research practices capture the real, or what participants treat as real, even if w
Data Loading...
