> I'd love some help hashing out the differences between activity theory
and
> the Lave & Wenger, 1991 and Wenger, 1998 concept of situated learning.
The
> following note from Wenger's new tome gives us his perspective on the
> differences. I'm wondering about the view from the other side.
>
> "I would argue that our actions do not achieve their meanings in and of
> themselves, but rather in the context of a broader process of
neogtiation.
> By starting with practice as a context for the negotiation of meaning, I
do
> not assume that activities carry their own meanings. Thi si sone reason
> that I will not take discrete activities, or even systems of activities,
as
> a fundamental unit of analysis. In this regard, theories based on
practice
> have a different ontological foundation than activity theory (Leont'ev,
> '81; Wertsch, '85)."
>
> Thanks,
>
> Linda P.
Perspective on Activity Theory
Engestrom and Mietten
" One could say that community of practice (referring to Lave and Wenger)
is sociospacially a wider and more emconpassing unit of analysis than
mediated action (Wertsch). The problem here is the temporal dimension.
The theory of legitimate peripheral participation depicts learning and
development primarily as a oneway movement from the periphery, accupied by
novices, to the center, inhabited by experienced masters of a given
practice. What seems to be missing is movement outward and in unexpected
directions: questioning of authority, criticism, innovation, initiation of
change. Instability and inner contradictions of practice are all but
missing - ironically, a feature of which Lave and Wegner (19991, pp. 47-8)
themselves criticize Vygotskian notions of internalization."
Nate
>
>