A human being is the simultaneous composite of several different levels of being, from atomic and subatomic to the level of complex social interaction, and these levels are nested within the individual hierarchically (lower levels giving rise to higher levels, etc.). One of the most important and influential approaches developed in the history of science has been that of systems theory and systemic thinking, in which the different levels of the hierarchy, and the interactions between those levels, are considered simultaneously. (...) Although this model provides a comprehensive view of biological being, the transition from one level to the other is not well defined in it. Uexküll and Pauli (Advances: Journal of the Institute for 417 the Advancement of Health 3:158–174, 1986) suggested that semiosis is the translator of the events from one level to the other. From a psychological point of view, a myriad of semiotic events happen inside an individual, and it has been suggested that among other semiotic events, inner speech plays an important role in mediating personal agency. Dialogical theories of the self, Jungian psychology and hypnosis research evidence show that there is a semiotic multiplicity in human agency and consciousness, and that these multiple streams are all converge to a central semiotic singularity. I argue in this paper that by taking a biosemiotic point of view, human ‘agency’ may be defined as the ability of an individual to direct the incoming and internal streams of semioses and the ability to create an integrative and superordinate new stream of semiosis in addition to the upwardly and downwardly component ones, and how such a view might open a new door for research into the concept of human ‘personality’ and ‘agency’. (shrink)

History is a complex subject. It is more propositional than procedural in nature (Nichol, 1984), and involves adductive thinking (Booth, 1983), where historical evidence and facts are 'teased out' and a convincing account of the past is then reconstructed through speculation, imagination and empathy (Nichol, 1984; Booth, 1983). The teaching and learning of history should not just be the transmission of knowledge, but rather it should involve a process whereby students and teachers interact in order to analyze evidence, raise questions (...) and hypotheses, synthesize facts, and communicate their ideas, understand others' viewpoints, consider values, reflect and engage in moral reasoning (Brophy, 1996). It is through this interaction that development of thinking in history will occur (Coltnam, 1975). The main focus of the research is on the language used in the history classroom, particularly during critical episodes when the teachers and students appeared to be engaged in the process of historical thinking. This research is particularly concerned with historical thought embedded in the language used in history classrooms. To investigate this, both high and low inference coding systems were adopted to code, describe and analyze the verbal behaviour that occurred. The data were gathered in six classes from schools in Singapore. They constituted two classes of above average students (Special stream), two classes of average students (Express stream) and two classes of below average (Normal stream) students. Audio and video recordings were made of two lessons from each of the six classes. These lessons were transcribed, coded and analyzed to ascertain which contexts were more conducive for the production of higher order thought. It was found that a complex interrelationship of factors including pedagogic activity, type of teacher talk and student talk, and even more importantly the interaction between them, determined whether or not there was historical thinking. The findings revealed that there was historical thinking when explicit and implicit contact was established during interaction between the teacher and the students. For explicit contact to he made the teacher and the students needed to be language game (Wittgenstein, 1972). This is where the teacher made those moves that elicited student responses that demonstrated historical thinking. For implicit contact to be made the element of voice (as in the concept of “voice” described in Bakhtin's theory on the dual-voicing and polyphony) becomes essential. During such episodes the teacher mediated between the characters in history, his or her own talk and that of the students. These responses which were often dramatised, the teacher used first and second person forms (dual voicing) to evoke empathy and imagination. In doing so they also engaged in a dialogic interaction with the characters of the past and there was back channelling. There were evidences of such dialogues in all the Special, Express and Normal stream lessons but in various contexts. These dialogues reveal that the nature of talk and interaction is distinct to the subject history. (shrink)