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

Re: Fw: Re: [xmca] Double Stimulation?

Oh, and you asked me to take a paper and critique it. I offered a critiqueof Yrjo's article in MCA 19(3) (i.e. August 2012) here on xmca, but there was absolutely no discussion on it. But I put it on my home page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/works/engestrom.htm <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/works/engestrom.htm> But this one is not one that uses the triangle. It uses the "germ cell" method, to which I am well disposed. But I still had criticisms. I have read "triangle" type papers, but only those written by others, none of which I want to waste my time on. I haven't read the articles you mention by YE himself.


mike cole wrote:

Here is what would help me, and I suspect others on XMCA. Take an already published piece of work that uses the expanded triangle Yrjo proposes in Learning by Expanding. Say, the work on cleaners in the early work. Tell us about the mistaken conclusions that arise because of misunderstandings that confusion of the triangle for "activity" (no modifiers) causes. Suggest how we might improve our understanding. Or tell us why that example works, but some other example (teachers in schools, nurses and doctors in a hospital, etc.) does not.

xmca mailing list