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

[Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: Re: Article for Discussion

 Dear Cliff,

Coming late to discussion, and only briefly looking through your paper, the
following paragraph caught my eye:

 "We urged that CC psychologists strengthen this unity by adopting related
concepts from CHAT. In CHAT, activity theory informs the analysis of
context as activity (e.g., Chaiklin & Lave, 1993 ). In CC, our focus is on
the setting of the activity: “ Activity settings arise from the pressures
and resources of the larger social system of which the participants are a
part”  (Tharp & Gallimore, 1988 , p. 73) and incorporate “ cognitive and
motoric action itself (activity), as well as the external, environmental,
and objective features of the occasion (settings)”  (Tharp & Gallimore, p.
72). In CHAT, activity is often analyzed as a system and sometimes as a
setting (e.g., Brown & Cole, 2002 ; Lave, 1988 )."

One of the formative applications of the (genetic) historical nature of
CHAT is to offer explanations (and guidance) for the development of
intellectual abilities (e.g. of the participants referred to above) which
offers a resource which may not be accounted for in the above description.
That is, the activity is also studied in terms of transformation.

I am currently endeavouring to put together a paper on various historically
expressed construals of CHAT, and it is interesting how this aspect is
often overlooked in relation to a reflexive understanding of one's milieu.

I am not sure whether this pertains accurately to the emails concerning
text and context, but another genetic-historical aspect that is often
overlooked is that psychological orientation, or the tentative
psychological system (zpd), precedes (genetically) the establishment of
stable formations, i.e. the discrete components arising out of a
reorganised action.