Hi Cathrene-
Lets see what your initiative uncovers. A lot I hope. As to ISCAR, maybe the
idea of an ISCAR in
San Diego is just a malicious rumor? (The offer of a cot and key to the lab
stand, so far no takers)
Here is a small contribution to your project that might be of some interest.
Check out the first page of the document at
http://lchc.ucsd.edu/Pubs/CHILDPSY.pdf. Published in 1981. The "author"
is labelled as lchc, but if you go to the bottom of the first page, there is
a list of the contributors with non-acronymic names
Perhaps there are some clues to history in that list?
mike
PS-- A search on Raeithel on lchc might yield a little information as well.
On 9/7/07, Cathrene Connery <cconnery@ithaca.edu> wrote:
>
> Hi everyone:
> Thanks to Mike for the interesting graphic by Arne Raethell. It is a
> beautiful heuristic and psychological tool. The notion of putting
> together a session at ISCAR on this topic is actually a very good one
> ...and while the complexity of the task may appear to require the
> spacial / relational intelligence of a cab driver from Chicago or
> London, I believe that by elucidating the major thoroughfares, back
> alleys, and main streets associated with CHAT would invite more
> participants into the larger discussion.
>
> Like Mike, we are all swamped right now and are likely to be heading to
> the gym or the bar. (Perhaps I am the only person on the East Coast
> still in her office on Friday at 5:00 p.m.?) However, if the weight of
> this question could be amicably shouldered by the collective,
> distributed intelligence and historical memory of this list serve, I
> think the task is doable. What if everyone took a deep breath, typed
> the stem "In the beginning...." and wrote in a stream of conscious
> fashion knowing that there is a younger generation of scholars, an eager
> audience, who need and look up to your guidance? One or two paragraphs
> would be enough. Perhaps people on the list serve could agree to
> disagree in advance without challenging others interpretations? The
> results might be very interesting: a multi-dimensional prism
> highlighting the many colors / interpretations of the field.
>
> The CHAT community is unique among list serves exhibiting a comraderie
> and respect other electronic conversations don't reflect. If each
> person could highlight a piece of the puzzle related to their interest,
> we'd have a fascinating mosaic from which we could co-construct
> individual and perhaps, a collective vision. Besides, we don't want
> Mike to go through life out of breath, experiencing his responsibilities
> to the list serve like one of those slick TV wrestlers who heaves bodies
> across the ring. As far as the cot and key are concerned, if there
> are any opportunities to do post-doc work, please let me know!
> Happy Friday,
> Cathrene
>
>
>
> Mike Cole wrote:
> > HUGE FONT FOR HUGE QUESTION!!!
> > Now for the small print - read with care)
> > (I volunteer to do this work on condition that members of xmca complete
> two
> > grant proposals required in next few weeks, prepare for,
> > and teach my fall classes! I will provide a cot and key to LCHC to my
> > substitute at UCSD during this time period. And when I am done,
> > like the dragon's teeth that Jason stirred up looking for the golden
> fleece,
> > a thousand better informed colleagues will point out the
> > total idiocy of my interpretation of history)
> >
> > Now, feeling all springy and cool after the passing fit of local hot
> air, I
> > will say that
> > I think it would be most useful, if there is genuine interest in such
> > historical excavation,
> > exegesis, and exciting prospects, that it be (shhhhh) a collective
> effort.
> >
> > There are books written on this topics, several chapters of books about
> > which some members
> > of xmca are presumably knowledgeable because their names are attached to
> > them, as well as
> > many papers written on this topic in many languages, and hot disputes
> about
> > this topic in several
> > world capitals as we stare at our screens. There is even a lot to be
> found
> > by goggling on lchc.
> >
> > For the moment (I am about to join my family after a long day of work) I
> > append a graphical genaeology (sp?) created by Arne Raeithel that may
> > indicate some of the territory to be covered in a way some will find
> useful.
> > I have a few documents around the lab I can dig up that most will
> > not know about that are relevant. But this topic, if people really want
> to
> > engage it, requires willingness of many to cooperate in a collaborative
> > archeaology of ideas.
> >
> > Perhaps this would make an interesting general symposium at ISCAR next
> year,
> > if the organizers, wherever they are hiding, ever get around
> > to making public their plans for that august occasion.
> >
> > mike
> >
> >
> > On 9/6/07, Worthen, Helena Harlow <hworthen@ad.uiuc.edu> wrote:
> >
> >> I second the request from Cathrene Connery and Donald James Cunningham
> >> to hear from some who have tried how they (you) present CHAT. The
> >> historical perspective (behaviorism, cognitive science, sociocultural
> >> perspectives) seems like a necessary one. But what were the problems at
> >> each point that pushed things onward?
> >>
> >> Helena
> >>
> >>
> >> Helena Worthen
> >> Clinical Associate Professor
> >> Labor Education Program
> >> Institute of Labor & Industrial Relations
> >> 504 E. Armory, Room 227
> >> Champaign, IL 61821
> >> Phone: 217-244-4095
> >> hworthen@uiuc.edu
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu]
> >> On Behalf Of Cathrene Connery
> >> Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2007 5:59 PM
> >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> >> Subject: [xmca] The Evolution of CHAT
> >>
> >> Tony Whitson wrote:
> >>
> >>> Don,
> >>>
> >>> Sorry for the delay in responding to this -- but I think it's a useful
> >>>
> >>> question for discussion in this group.
> >>>
> >>> I want to respond quickly on another point before getting to your main
> >>>
> >>> question about teaching CHAT.
> >>>
> >>> First, you write:
> >>>
> >>>> I've taught the usual suspects (behaviorism,
> >>>> Bandura, Piaget, cognitive information processing) for years and have
> >>>>
> >> a
> >>
> >>>> pretty good idea about them but would appreciate some help on CHAT.
> >>>>
> >>> Where I am, students have learned a story about how once upon a time
> >>> the world was ruled by the behaviorists, but they've been vanquished
> >>> by the (scientifically, pedagogically, politically, and morally)
> >>> superior forces of Cognitive Science. They think that's where the
> >>> story ends (as in the "End of History" celebrated since Daniel Bell in
> >>>
> >>> the early 60's, where history completes itself with the universal
> >>> triumph of capitalism).
> >>>
> >>> I think it's important for students to learn about what's happening
> >>> "beyond cognitivism." For me, this is not just a matter of theory or
> >>> intellectual politics: My students just won't understand anything I'm
> >>> saying or doing unless they understand that I'm addressing an ontology
> >>>
> >>> in which cognition cannot be understood except as it is embedded in
> >>> the broader (not only cognitive) projects and processes of being and
> >>> becoming. CHAT takes this stance against reductive cognitivism, and
> >>> CHAT cannot be understood (IMHO) without recognizing this. I think
> >>> Wenger & the Communities of Practice literature perhaps makes this
> >>> point more directly and accessibly, although details have not been
> >>> theorized as extensively as in CHAT. Curriculum theory -- my own home
> >>> turf -- has always approached education as a matter of ontology, not
> >>> merely cognition (i.e., not just Knowing, but Being and Becoming).
> >>>
> >>> So, I would want to tell the story of behaviorist hegemony giving way
> >>> to cognitivist hegemony, which in turn is being challenged by a turn
> >>> to the broader perspective of social ontology. This is not to say that
> >>>
> >>> the reductivist ideology of cognitivISM is replaced by an ideology of
> >>> postcognitivISM (see my post at http://postcog.net ); Nor is it a call
> >>>
> >>> for hegemonic "postcognitivism" in place of hegemonic cognitivism.
> >>>
> >>> One good source is Lave, Jean. "Teaching, as Learning, in Practice."
> >>> Mind, Culture, and Activity 3, no. 3 (1996): 149-64.
> >>> I think this particular point might come through more strongly in
> >>> Lave, Jean. "Learning as Participation in Communities of Practice."
> >>> Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, San
> >>> Francisco 1992.
> >>> (This paper is now linked from http://postcog.net/#Lave . This is the
> >>> paper Jean presented in the symposium that David Kirshner and I
> >>> organized, which grew into our book _Situated Cognition_, although a
> >>> different piece was used as her chapter in the book. The MCA article
> >>> includes aspects of the AERA paper, although its scope is broader and
> >>> the social ontology argument may be less central to the complete
> >>> published article.)
> >>>
> >>> With regard to your main question, you write:
> >>>
> >>>> [I] was wondering if any of you would be
> >>>> willing to share with me (and other XMCAers) how you present CHAT. I
> >>>> mean, I don't think undergrads are going to be too interested in the
> >>>> distinction between action and activity or working out the concept of
> >>>> "object". Or am I wrong?
> >>>>
> >>> This could be a very interesting discussion for XMCA.
> >>> As you suggest, for an undergrad Ed Psych class, it might be best to
> >>> streamline CHAT a bit. However, I don't think the differentiation
> >>> among the three levels of activity, action, and operations is
> >>> dispensable. I think it's necessary to see activities and activity
> >>> systems emerging on a social/cultural level beyond consciously
> >>> goal-oriented action, and to see the role of routinized operational
> >>> activity that does not require conscious attention.
> >>>
> >>> It would be helpful to develop introductory approaches for this
> >>> audience. Starting points could include the resources at
> >>> http://www.edu.helsinki.fi/activity/pages/chatanddwr/
> >>> and
> >>> Roth, Wolff-Michael, and Yew-Jin Lee. ""Vygotsky's Neglected Legacy":
> >>> Cultural-Historical Activity Theory." Review of Educational Research
> >>> 77, no. 2 (2007): 186-232.
> >>> as well as
> >>> pp. 27-47 in Spinuzzi, Clay. Tracing Genres through Organizations: A
> >>> Sociocultural Approach to Information Design. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT
> >>> Press, 2003.
> >>> and
> >>> pp. 29-72 ("Activity Theory in a Nutshell") in Kaptelinin, Victor, and
> >>>
> >>> Bonnie A. Nardi. Acting with Technology: Activity Theory and
> >>> Interaction Design. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2006.
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, 29 Aug 2007, Cunningham, Donald James wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> And in a week or so, I will begin teaching an undergraduate class in
> >>>> "Educational Psychology" for future teachers. It has been a few years
> >>>> since I taught such a class and was wondering if any of you would be
> >>>> willing to share with me (and other XMCAers) how you present CHAT. I
> >>>> mean, I don't think undergrads are going to be too interested in the
> >>>> distinction between action and activity or working out the concept of
> >>>> "object". Or am I wrong? I've taught the usual suspects (behaviorism,
> >>>> Bandura, Piaget, cognitive information processing) for years and have
> >>>>
> >> a
> >>
> >>>> pretty good idea about them but would appreciate some help on CHAT.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Don Cunningham
> >>>> Indiana University
> >>>>
> >>>> Ancora Imparo!
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
> >>>>
> >> [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu]
> >>
> >>>> On Behalf Of Mike Cole
> >>>> Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2007 6:13 PM
> >>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> >>>> Subject: [xmca] mediational theories of mind: Suggestions requested
> >>>>
> >>>> Dear Xmca-ites---
> >>>>
> >>>> Toward the end of the month I will begin teaching a grad course on
> >>>> mediational theories of mind.
> >>>> I would love suggestions for interesting readings.
> >>>> We will be looking in a sort of "mcLuhanesque" way at the affordances
> >>>>
> >> of
> >>
> >>>> different kinds of mediators
> >>>> in human action/activity/mind.
> >>>>
> >>>> So, language and thought
> >>>> writing
> >>>> film
> >>>> music
> >>>> tv
> >>>> rituals
> >>>> games
> >>>> .........
> >>>>
> >>>> Starting with early 20th century writers of general familiarity to
> >>>> members
> >>>> of this list, I have been thinking about including
> >>>> such works as Cszikentmihalyi, "meaning of things," Turkle's recent
> >>>> "evocative objects," and perhaps something on mediated
> >>>> behavior in large groups such as "the wisdom of crowds."
> >>>>
> >>>> Any and all suggestions warmly welcomed. So much going on its hard to
> >>>> even
> >>>> think about how to begin to think about this
> >>>> upcoming fall!!
> >>>>
> >>>> mike
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> xmca mailing list
> >>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> xmca mailing list
> >>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> Tony Whitson
> >>> UD School of Education
> >>> NEWARK DE 19716
> >>>
> >>> twhitson@udel.edu
> >>> _______________________________
> >>>
> >>> "those who fail to reread
> >>> are obliged to read the same story everywhere"
> >>> -- Roland Barthes, S/Z (1970)
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> xmca mailing list
> >>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >>>
> >> Hi everyone:
> >> Tony's eloquent characterization of "behaviorist hegemony giving way to
> >> cognitivist hegemony, which in turn is being challenged by a turn to
> the
> >>
> >> broader perspective of social ontology" is well put. How CHAT is being
> >> presented to the rugged individualists (albeit mythological entities)
> in
> >>
> >> our teacher ed programs is of interest to me as well. It would further
> >> be helpful for CHAT neophytes like myself to hear how those of you who
> >> have shaped CHAT view how the domain has genetically evolved and, in
> >> some cases, splintered (i.e. the differences between sociocultural
> >> theory vs. activity theory). Thanks for engaging in an interesting
> >> discussion. I realize this topic has already been hashed out on-line
> >> previously, but it was Lev that said we only truly know something when
> >> we view it in motion.
> >> Cathrene
> >>
> >> --
> >> Dr. M. Cathrene Connery
> >> Assistant Professor of Education
> >> 607.274.7382
> >> Ithaca College
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> xmca mailing list
> >> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> xmca mailing list
> >> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> xmca mailing list
> >> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >>
>
>
> --
> Dr. M. Cathrene Connery
> Assistant Professor of Education
> 607.274.7382
> Ithaca College
>
>
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
Received on Fri Sep 7 16:37 PDT 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Oct 08 2007 - 06:02:26 PDT