[peirce-l] Re: Pragmatic inquiry == "the love of learning"

[Gary Richmond]

Darrel, list, You wrote: DS: It would seem my teaching of letters and words may not have had learning in my mind, hence; I am not a teacher. It seems to me that a parent entering into this kind of dialogue with his child certainly has learning "in his mind" at that moment (even if perhaps not exactly at the earlier moment of his teaching letters and words), that entering into this kind of dialogue you are having with Grace (first about 'nothingness' and now about the structure/content of words--my word, man, what will it be next? quantum mechanics?!!!), this kind of questioning approach seems likely to help Grace begin to form habits which could lead her to valuing and using Socratic method (and other dialectical techniques) in her own learning. Here's a neat definition I recently came upon of "Socratic method" which links well to the subject of this thread and your post. Socratic method n. A pedagogical technique in which a teacher does not give information directly but instead asks a series of questions, with the result that the student comes either to the desired knowledge by answering the questions or to a deeper awareness of the limits of knowledge. (American Heritage eDictionary) Of course a child needs to be taught a few facts and exposed to a lot of collateral experience or there won't be much subject matter for discussion (to say the least). But, it seems to me that your engaging in such dialogue with Grace is establishing fertile ground in which learning in the Peircean sense is most likely to occur. You wrote that your response to Grace's telling you that she learned in school that words are "made of letters" was: DS: "Grace, you have been reading for some time now, and you have known the alphabet for three years, you knew that letters were in words". She replies "But, I didn't know that words were made (I am unsure how she perceives "made") of letters". Knowing that words have letters does not, in the eyes of a six year old, necessarily mean that words are made of letters This question you have as to "how she perceives 'made' " might be worth pursuing further with her. I had a thought that one way you might take it up would be in considering with her homonyms suitable to her 6 year old reading level, perhaps "to, too, two, 2" to explore just what "made of" might mean here. This could as well  lead to an inquiry--again suitable for a six year old--into the differences between written and spoken language. Down the road one might even want to consider the difference between words, like 'two', and equivalent symbols, like '2', /, /, etc. But I'd advise your not taking it much further than that or you might end up producing  the world's youngest semiotician! You began your post by writing: DS: This post probably will not advance the subject Well, I can't agree as it certainly has advanced the subject for me (while I am always eager to hear what you and Grace have been intellectually 'up to' :-) Best, Gary Darrel Summers wrote: All,       This post probably will not advance the subject, but I thought I would share an insight it has brought to me.        My six year old daughter (who posed a question about "nothing" some time ago) has been reading at a six year olds level for about a year now (thankfully unremarkable). She came to me recently and said "I learned that words are made of letters at school today". I said "Grace, you have been reading for some time now, and you have known the alphabet for three years, you knew that letters were in words". She replies "But, I didn't know that words were made (I am unsure how she perceives "made") of letters".      Knowing that words have letters does not, in the eyes of a six year old, necessarily mean that words are made of letters. My assumption that she would have known otherwise seems in line with:   But, of course! Further reflection on the graphic image (teaching reflecting learning) as symbol of the thread's theme got me thinking that it is not just any teaching which will be reflected as learning, but a certain kind of teaching, a structuring and shaping of teaching with learning in mind from the get go in order that it might reflect learning (certainly a different shaping of "teaching" in the graphic might not have reflected "learning" at all).       It would seem my teaching of letters and words may not have had learning in my mind, hence; I am not a teacher.   Best Darrel Summers --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com