[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[xmca] By Way of Continuing on Instruction/Assessment

Although I cannot participate in the professional details of the discussion
of linguistic theory,
I would hope that we could pursue a couple of the topics that Matthew and
Jim raised which resonate
beyond the specifics of this research domain.

One was the issue of theory and practice. I personally have a difficult time
with the way in which many
social science professionals use the terms "basic" and "applied." In this
regard, by my reading,
LSV was not saying that all psychology is applied psychology. I think he
believed he could supercede
the "two psychologies" bifurcation through the dynamic-genetic method, LSV's
way of implementing
Lewin's ideas (I believe). I did not understand the exchange on this issue
of practice as the criterion
of theory. So more on this would be helpful.

A second was the CHAT/SCT issue. I think we broke through the idea of "one
right name" to at least
the beginning of an exploration of how these labels developed as
intellectual streams of
thoughts, values, and practices. But it seemed only a start. In this regard,
the Susan Kirschner article
that mary sent around

Sociocultural Subjectivities: Progress, Prospects, Problems
Theory Psychology 2010;20 765-780

seemed like it complemented the Hatano take coming from cognitive
developmental psychology or
my early statements in Madrid which have been posted around.

Third, seems like it would be worthwhile to pursue the thread around DA
about "whose DA methodology"? Alex
Kozulin is a key player in mediating the Vygotsky-Feurestein traditions over
the past few decades. They are
both present in Matthew and Jim's article. Are there significant differences
among these traditions upon which one
in favor of DA in general should focus?

Others may have other issues, but I would sure like to hear about these.
xmca mailing list