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

[Xmca-l] Unsubscribe




Kathy-ann Daniel-Gittens, Ph.D.

Email: kdaniel@wayne.edu

Phone: 407-790-6432



________________________________
From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> on behalf of xmca-l-request@mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l-request@mailman.ucsd.edu>
Sent: Friday, August 19, 2016 11:22 AM
To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
Subject: xmca-l Digest, Vol 37, Issue 3

Send xmca-l mailing list submissions to
        xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
        https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca-l
xmca-l Info Page<https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca-l>
mailman.ucsd.edu
XMCA-L@UCSD.EDU The mailing list for the eXtended Mind, Culture Activity group. [Subscribe the XMCA community mailing list] [Unsubscribe] [Visit the XMCA List Archive ...


or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
        xmca-l-request@mailman.ucsd.edu

You can reach the person managing the list at
        xmca-l-owner@mailman.ucsd.edu

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of xmca-l digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: "English" as a school subject (David Kellogg)
   2. Re: "English" as a school subject (Shirley Franklin)
   3. Re: "English" as a school subject (Laure Kloetzer)
   4. Re: "English" as a school subject (Dr. Paul C. Mocombe)
   5. Re: "English" as a school subject (Stephen Walsh)
   6.  3rd generation activity theory (Mark de Boer)
   7. Re: 3rd generation activity theory (Glassman, Michael)
   8. Re: 3rd generation activity theory (mike cole)
   9. Re: 3rd generation activity theory (Carol Macdonald)
  10. Re: 3rd generation activity theory (Lplarry)
  11. Fwd: [COGDEVSOC] Job Posting - Assistant Professor of
      Psychology/Educational Psychologist - Rhodes College (mike cole)
  12. Re: 3rd generation activity theory (Martin John Packer)
  13. Re: 3rd generation activity theory (Greg Thompson)
  14. Re: "English" as a school subject (FRANCIS J. SULLIVAN)
  15. Re: "English" as a school subject (Stephen Walsh)
  16. Fwd: FW: Syllabus on sociocultural theories: grad seminar
      (Ana Marjanovic-Shane)
  17. Re: Fwd: FW: Syllabus on sociocultural theories: grad seminar
      (Lakshmi Bandlamudi)
  18. Re: Fwd: FW: Syllabus on sociocultural theories: grad seminar
      (Lakshmi Bandlamudi)
  19. Re: "English" as a school subject (FRANCIS J. SULLIVAN)
  20. Re: "English" as a school subject (David H Kirshner)
  21. Re: "English" as a school subject (FRANCIS J. SULLIVAN)
  22. Re: "English" as a school subject (David H Kirshner)
  23. Re: "English" as a school subject (Helen Grimmett)
  24. Re: 3rd generation activity theory (Martin John Packer)
  25. Re: 3rd generation activity theory (Mark de Boer)
  26. Re: Fwd: FW: Syllabus on sociocultural theories: grad seminar
      (Stephen Diaz)
  27. Re: Fwd: FW: Syllabus on sociocultural theories: grad seminar
      (Stephen Diaz)
  28.  Fwd: 78% of workers struggle with collaboration (mike cole)
  29.   Re: 3rd generation activity theory (Mark de Boer)
  30. Re: 3rd generation activity theory (mike cole)
  31. Re: 3rd generation activity theory (HENRY SHONERD)
  32. Re: 3rd generation activity theory (mike cole)
  33. Re: 3rd generation activity theory (Christopher Schuck)
  34. Re: 3rd generation activity theory (mike cole)
  35. Re: 3rd generation activity theory (Greg Thompson)
  36.  Fwd: [COGDEVSOC] Faculty Job Posting for the Listserv (mike cole)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2016 21:25:37 +1000
From: David Kellogg <dkellogg60@gmail.com>
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: "English" as a school subject
To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
Message-ID:
        <CACwG6Duk-M+PRY3H+VvUn-R3KKXuJtepFCs2VX9Mzhpuv8Uwvg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Peter:

Korean is a mandatory subject in primary schools in Korea, from first grade
through twelfth grade. The curriculum includes grammar, literature, and
even intonation (I attended a smashing lesson on intonation for third
graders a couple of weeks ago).

Chinese is a mandatory subject in primary schools in China, from first
through twelfth grade. The curriculum starts with learning characters,
calligraphy and simple texts, and then the classics by established writers.
Most university students are also required to take at least one semester of
Chinese.

A couple of weeks ago I attended a preschool in Seoul where the children
recited the Jeonjamun every morning--that's the one thousand character
Chinese classic that was written in the fifth century. It functions as a
kind of alphabet song, because although it is one thousand characters long
(it takes about four or five thousand characters to be functionally
literate in Chinese) not one character in the whole rhyming text is
repeated. You could tell how long each child had been in the preschool by
watching to see who nodded off when--only the seven year olds who had been
there three years could recite the whole thing from beginning to end.

David Kellogg
Macquarie University

On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 8:24 PM, Peter Smagorinsky <smago@uga.edu> wrote:

> Hi, I'm writing mainly to my colleagues who are familiar with public
> school, pre-university (what we call K-12 in the US) education systems,
> with a question.
>
> In English-speaking nations, there is a school subject called "English"
> that involves the study of literature (much from English-speaking authors,
> rather than "world literature" which may have its own separate course),
> writing (or now, multimodal composing), and language study (of the English
> language, often in the form of grammar instruction). This subject is not
> ESL, EFL, TESOL, or other way of describing learning the language of
> English by speakers of other languages.
>
> My question: I know that in Russia there are school subjects of Russian
> literature and language; in the Netherlands there is the following:
> The Study Dutch Language & Literature (Dutch: Nederlandse Taal- en
> Letterkunde) can be found at each Dutch university. Formerly you studied
> linguistics and literature, from about 1975 a third component was
> introduced: Taalbeheersing (Dutch for language skills, especially writing
> and argumentation). Nowadays the studies have new names, like Dutch
> Language and culture
>
> Do other nations dedicate a school subject to this discipline (literature,
> writing, language study in L1 and generally nationalistic in curriculum)?
> If so, what is it called, and what does it comprise?
>
> Thx,Peter
>
>


------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2016 12:28:23 +0100
From: Shirley Franklin <s.franklin08@btinternet.com>
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: "English" as a school subject
To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
Message-ID: <80B84DE9-5435-4264-86C5-A9EF8975B984@btinternet.com>
Content-Type: text/plain;       charset=us-ascii

In England, what is meant by "English" in primary schools tends to be rather dreadful non contextualised "Literacy" Skills, while in secondary it becomes more literature-focused with some language.
But the formal assessment assumes it's the same throughout and inspectors and Government wonder why kids "slip backwards" in secondary English achievements!

Shows the idiocy of isolated literacy teaching and of testing.

Shirley
Sent from my iPhone

> On 16 Aug 2016, at 11:31, Greg Mcverry <jgregmcverry@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Peter,
>
> I have always heard colloquially that English became a subject first in
> India where imperial government officials feared their children were being
> deanglicized by the locals. No idea if it's true.
>
> I also think English as a subject is evolving with the rise of disciplinary
> literacies as a lens. It is no longer cast as the class where you learn to
> read and write.
>
> Greg
>
>> On Tue, Aug 16, 2016, 6:26 AM Peter Smagorinsky <smago@uga.edu> wrote:
>>
>> Hi, I'm writing mainly to my colleagues who are familiar with public
>> school, pre-university (what we call K-12 in the US) education systems,
>> with a question.
>>
>> In English-speaking nations, there is a school subject called "English"
>> that involves the study of literature (much from English-speaking authors,
>> rather than "world literature" which may have its own separate course),
>> writing (or now, multimodal composing), and language study (of the English
>> language, often in the form of grammar instruction). This subject is not
>> ESL, EFL, TESOL, or other way of describing learning the language of
>> English by speakers of other languages.
>>
>> My question: I know that in Russia there are school subjects of Russian
>> literature and language; in the Netherlands there is the following:
>> The Study Dutch Language & Literature (Dutch: Nederlandse Taal- en
>> Letterkunde) can be found at each Dutch university. Formerly you studied
>> linguistics and literature, from about 1975 a third component was
>> introduced: Taalbeheersing (Dutch for language skills, especially writing
>> and argumentation). Nowadays the studies have new names, like Dutch
>> Language and culture
>>
>> Do other nations dedicate a school subject to this discipline (literature,
>> writing, language study in L1 and generally nationalistic in curriculum)?
>> If so, what is it called, and what does it comprise?
>>
>> Thx,Peter
>>
>>




------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2016 14:13:21 +0200
From: Laure Kloetzer <laure.kloetzer@gmail.com>
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: "English" as a school subject
To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
Message-ID:
        <CAAWrmNG=UJHxhJSn8rGpOa-EjL1dtzS4NR_fr6qEoHr28FCgFQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Hi,
In France & Switzerland, French is an important school subject. Curriculum
includes reading/writing, then later (from 7-8 years old) spelling, some
grammar, vocabulary, and later again (around 11-12) literature (dominantly
French).
Best
LK


2016-08-16 13:28 GMT+02:00 Shirley Franklin <s.franklin08@btinternet.com>:

> In England, what is meant by "English" in primary schools tends to be
> rather dreadful non contextualised "Literacy" Skills, while in secondary it
> becomes more literature-focused with some language.
> But the formal assessment assumes it's the same throughout and inspectors
> and Government wonder why kids "slip backwards" in secondary English
> achievements!
>
> Shows the idiocy of isolated literacy teaching and of testing.
>
> Shirley
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On 16 Aug 2016, at 11:31, Greg Mcverry <jgregmcverry@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Peter,
> >
> > I have always heard colloquially that English became a subject first in
> > India where imperial government officials feared their children were
> being
> > deanglicized by the locals. No idea if it's true.
> >
> > I also think English as a subject is evolving with the rise of
> disciplinary
> > literacies as a lens. It is no longer cast as the class where you learn
> to
> > read and write.
> >
> > Greg
> >
> >> On Tue, Aug 16, 2016, 6:26 AM Peter Smagorinsky <smago@uga.edu> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi, I'm writing mainly to my colleagues who are familiar with public
> >> school, pre-university (what we call K-12 in the US) education systems,
> >> with a question.
> >>
> >> In English-speaking nations, there is a school subject called "English"
> >> that involves the study of literature (much from English-speaking
> authors,
> >> rather than "world literature" which may have its own separate course),
> >> writing (or now, multimodal composing), and language study (of the
> English
> >> language, often in the form of grammar instruction). This subject is not
> >> ESL, EFL, TESOL, or other way of describing learning the language of
> >> English by speakers of other languages.
> >>
> >> My question: I know that in Russia there are school subjects of Russian
> >> literature and language; in the Netherlands there is the following:
> >> The Study Dutch Language & Literature (Dutch: Nederlandse Taal- en
> >> Letterkunde) can be found at each Dutch university. Formerly you studied
> >> linguistics and literature, from about 1975 a third component was
> >> introduced: Taalbeheersing (Dutch for language skills, especially
> writing
> >> and argumentation). Nowadays the studies have new names, like Dutch
> >> Language and culture
> >>
> >> Do other nations dedicate a school subject to this discipline
> (literature,
> >> writing, language study in L1 and generally nationalistic in
> curriculum)?
> >> If so, what is it called, and what does it comprise?
> >>
> >> Thx,Peter
> >>
> >>
>
>
>


------------------------------

Message: 4
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2016 08:15:43 -0400
From: "Dr. Paul C. Mocombe" <pmocombe@mocombeian.com>
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: "English" as a school subject
To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
Message-ID: <2opbb70b0kica3k8946iiucm.1471349736883@email.android.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8



In haiti,
The haitian academy of kreyol has just established kreyol as the medium of instruction in k-12 education over french.?
The emphasis is on kreyol literature, writing, grammar, and (vodou) culture. ?Michel de Graffe (MIT professor and member of the academy), via his MIT initiative, was instrumental in ?consolidating the process.


Sent via the Samsung Galaxy Note? 4, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone

-------- Original message --------
From: Peter Smagorinsky <smago@uga.edu>
Date: 8/16/2016  6:24 AM  (GMT-05:00)
To: "eXtended Mind, Culture,    Activity (xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu)" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
Subject: [Xmca-l]  "English" as a school subject

Hi, I'm writing mainly to my colleagues who are familiar with public school, pre-university (what we call K-12 in the US) education systems, with a question.

In English-speaking nations, there is a school subject called "English" that involves the study of literature (much from English-speaking authors, rather than "world literature" which may have its own separate course), writing (or now, multimodal composing), and language study (of the English language, often in the form of grammar instruction). This subject is not ESL, EFL, TESOL, or other way of describing learning the language of English by speakers of other languages.

My question: I know that in Russia there are school subjects of Russian literature and language; in the Netherlands there is the following:
The Study Dutch Language & Literature (Dutch: Nederlandse Taal- en Letterkunde) can be found at each Dutch university. Formerly you studied linguistics and literature, from about 1975 a third component was introduced: Taalbeheersing (Dutch for language skills, especially writing and argumentation). Nowadays the studies have new names, like Dutch Language and culture

Do other nations dedicate a school subject to this discipline (literature, writing, language study in L1 and generally nationalistic in curriculum)? If so, what is it called, and what does it comprise?

Thx,Peter


------------------------------

Message: 5
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2016 13:33:31 +0100
From: Stephen Walsh <stephenwals@gmail.com>
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: "English" as a school subject
To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
Message-ID:
        <CAOeEpKVndcFuNhEo2qFMcF=4x=pHRX8SsDpf0UcO2OCQbng_NQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

HI Peter,

In Ireland all schoolchildren study 'Irish'.  It is compulsory form the
beginning of primary education to the end of secondary education.  If it
would be helpful to have more detail I can put some more info together for
you.

Best regards,
Stephen

On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 11:24 AM, Peter Smagorinsky <smago@uga.edu> wrote:

> Hi, I'm writing mainly to my colleagues who are familiar with public
> school, pre-university (what we call K-12 in the US) education systems,
> with a question.
>
> In English-speaking nations, there is a school subject called "English"
> that involves the study of literature (much from English-speaking authors,
> rather than "world literature" which may have its own separate course),
> writing (or now, multimodal composing), and language study (of the English
> language, often in the form of grammar instruction). This subject is not
> ESL, EFL, TESOL, or other way of describing learning the language of
> English by speakers of other languages.
>
> My question: I know that in Russia there are school subjects of Russian
> literature and language; in the Netherlands there is the following:
> The Study Dutch Language & Literature (Dutch: Nederlandse Taal- en
> Letterkunde) can be found at each Dutch university. Formerly you studied
> linguistics and literature, from about 1975 a third component was
> introduced: Taalbeheersing (Dutch for language skills, especially writing
> and argumentation). Nowadays the studies have new names, like Dutch
> Language and culture
>
> Do other nations dedicate a school subject to this discipline (literature,
> writing, language study in L1 and generally nationalistic in curriculum)?
> If so, what is it called, and what does it comprise?
>
> Thx,Peter
>
>


------------------------------

Message: 6
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2016 23:04:03 +0900
From: Mark de Boer <mark.yomogi@gmail.com>
Subject: [Xmca-l]  3rd generation activity theory
To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
Message-ID:
        <CAOgf4eW2mPmHDn5o6p5KSDBajRP=cD-eZocFAipxK=7a_AwiiA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Hello!

I have not posted in a very long time. I am hoping that someone can help
out with my question(s).

I am working with data from a group of 4 students, they are collaboratively
working on a project. Most of their collaboration is done using an online
forum, although there is some-face-to-face time. They are working in the
L2, English, their L1 is Japanese. Their project was to investigate pet
bottle use on campus and give a poster presentation on their findings.

They have done some preliminary work, such as a survey to students, some
interviews, some general research and have begun to work on their poster.
(all dialogue is being shared in the online forum).

The dialogue in the forum looks something like this:

1. Student A: 'Let's begin working on our poster'
2. Student B: 'I made my poster, please check' (poster1 file an attachment
in the forum)
3. Student C: 'I've made some small changes, and I added some information'
(poster2 file an attachment in the forum, originally poster1)
4. Student D: 'Student C's ideas are good, I made some changes too.'
(poster3 file an attachment in the forum, originally poster 2)
5. Student B: 'I think that we should put the following contents in our
poster (suggesting a list of topics concerning pet bottles and pet bottle
use) Please give me your opinion.
6. Student C: 'I made a poster about (topic a), please check' (poster4 file
an attachment in the forum, originally poster3)

And so forth. This occurs the bouncing back and forth of the file, each
student adding or changing something, expressing what they have done in the
online forum. There are about 120 lines of data, with over 80 files being
shared.

I have used Longacre's analysis to prove that this is procedural dialogue,
and Bereiter's discussions of progressive dialogue to prove that this is
progressive dialogue, but I have gotten stuck on the concept of 3rd
generation activity theory to show that this is a joint construction of the
object of the activity, and that there are a number activity systems at
work.

What I want to show is that there is evidence of dialogue that pushes the
creation of content. The learners are working from basically nothing, they
only have been given a project of what to investigate, but the rest of what
they do is up to them. They decide content, they decide what to present,
and they decide who does what within their group. So, as someone makes a
suggestion, as in 1 and 5, content follows based on the suggestion.
I also want to show that there is evidence that the content created also
causes more dialogue to occur. So as content is uploaded, as in 2, 3, 4,
and 6, students respond with evaluation, changes to the content, and
additions to the content.

I can understand what happens between 1 and 2. This is a simple case. But
between 2, 3, and 4 it becomes complicated. In 2, B uploads a file and
requests evaluation. C downloads the content, makes changes, and uploads it
in 3. The language in the forum in 2, I would like to argue that it is a
tool, to inform the others that there is content for them to look at, but
that this is actually a case of the content in 2 creating the reason for
dialogue in 3. But at the same time, content is changed and uploaded in 3.

In my efforts to understand this data, I have turned to two places,
Engestrom's chapter from 1999, Innovative learning in work teams, and
Daniels book 2001, Vygotsky and Pedagogy, mostly chapter 3, the discussions
of Activity theory 3rd generation as a starting point.

I want to argue that the learners are jointly constructing the object of
the activity, and that object is what Bereiter and Wells refer to as the
improvable object. The dialogue influences the content and the content
influences the dialogue. Can this be argued as 3rd generation activity
theory? I am thinking it can be, I actually think it is a perfect fit to
the model, but I am alone reading these materials without anyone to bounce
these ideas off of. My confusion lies in that this is with second language
learners in a general English course, and most of the instances of language
learning discussions center around the structure of the language, not the
use of the language.

Eventually, my final argument is that through this interaction, instances
of dynamic assessment occurs between learners, because not only are they
sharing files and constantly changing them, but occasionally Student B may
upload a file with content and Student A (or other) will make a suggestion
to Student B who will then change their poster file again and upload it.
Again, much of the discussion of dynamic assessment and language learning
occurs around the structure of the language, so I'm certain that this is a
new field of study with respect to joint construction of an object coupled
with instances of dynamic assessment in a language learning environment.

I know there is probably much more I can write, but not to bog down the
readers here, I am interested in thoughts or opinions on what is happening
with the data.

Respectfully,

Mark


------------------------------

Message: 7
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2016 14:22:42 +0000
From: "Glassman, Michael" <glassman.13@osu.edu>
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: 3rd generation activity theory
To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
Message-ID:
        <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C32935@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu>

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Hi Mark,

I think the issue is really complex.  Are the students using the open forum to make the poster better for presentation or to advance the thinking that the poster represents.  If it is the first then I don't think you can think of it as the type of progressive thinking the Knowledge Forum for instance is looking to create through student interactions.  It is instead the students looking to use the technology to advance their needs within the larger system (a good poster means a better grade).  On the other hand if you can show that the students are really changing each other's thinking about what's on the poster (and I am not sure you can from the dialogue you presented here) then you can make an argument for augmented thinking, for progressive development of thinking, I am guessing for 3rd generation activity theory.

I think Kai Hakkarainnen and Sammi Paavola have written some really interesting stuff on this.  Take a look at some of their articles.

Michael

-----Original Message-----
From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Mark de Boer
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 10:04 AM
To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
Subject: [Xmca-l] 3rd generation activity theory

Hello!

I have not posted in a very long time. I am hoping that someone can help out with my question(s).

I am working with data from a group of 4 students, they are collaboratively working on a project. Most of their collaboration is done using an online forum, although there is some-face-to-face time. They are working in the L2, English, their L1 is Japanese. Their project was to investigate pet bottle use on campus and give a poster presentation on their findings.

They have done some preliminary work, such as a survey to students, some interviews, some general research and have begun to work on their poster.
(all dialogue is being shared in the online forum).

The dialogue in the forum looks something like this:

1. Student A: 'Let's begin working on our poster'
2. Student B: 'I made my poster, please check' (poster1 file an attachment in the forum) 3. Student C: 'I've made some small changes, and I added some information'
(poster2 file an attachment in the forum, originally poster1) 4. Student D: 'Student C's ideas are good, I made some changes too.'
(poster3 file an attachment in the forum, originally poster 2) 5. Student B: 'I think that we should put the following contents in our poster (suggesting a list of topics concerning pet bottles and pet bottle
use) Please give me your opinion.
6. Student C: 'I made a poster about (topic a), please check' (poster4 file an attachment in the forum, originally poster3)

And so forth. This occurs the bouncing back and forth of the file, each student adding or changing something, expressing what they have done in the online forum. There are about 120 lines of data, with over 80 files being shared.

I have used Longacre's analysis to prove that this is procedural dialogue, and Bereiter's discussions of progressive dialogue to prove that this is progressive dialogue, but I have gotten stuck on the concept of 3rd generation activity theory to show that this is a joint construction of the object of the activity, and that there are a number activity systems at work.

What I want to show is that there is evidence of dialogue that pushes the creation of content. The learners are working from basically nothing, they only have been given a project of what to investigate, but the rest of what they do is up to them. They decide content, they decide what to present, and they decide who does what within their group. So, as someone makes a suggestion, as in 1 and 5, content follows based on the suggestion.
I also want to show that there is evidence that the content created also causes more dialogue to occur. So as content is uploaded, as in 2, 3, 4, and 6, students respond with evaluation, changes to the content, and additions to the content.

I can understand what happens between 1 and 2. This is a simple case. But between 2, 3, and 4 it becomes complicated. In 2, B uploads a file and requests evaluation. C downloads the content, makes changes, and uploads it in 3. The language in the forum in 2, I would like to argue that it is a tool, to inform the others that there is content for them to look at, but that this is actually a case of the content in 2 creating the reason for dialogue in 3. But at the same time, content is changed and uploaded in 3.

In my efforts to understand this data, I have turned to two places, Engestrom's chapter from 1999, Innovative learning in work teams, and Daniels book 2001, Vygotsky and Pedagogy, mostly chapter 3, the discussions of Activity theory 3rd generation as a starting point.

I want to argue that the learners are jointly constructing the object of the activity, and that object is what Bereiter and Wells refer to as the improvable object. The dialogue influences the content and the content influences the dialogue. Can this be argued as 3rd generation activity theory? I am thinking it can be, I actually think it is a perfect fit to the model, but I am alone reading these materials without anyone to bounce these ideas off of. My confusion lies in that this is with second language learners in a general English course, and most of the instances of language learning discussions center around the structure of the language, not the use of the language.

Eventually, my final argument is that through this interaction, instances of dynamic assessment occurs between learners, because not only are they sharing files and constantly changing them, but occasionally Student B may upload a file with content and Student A (or other) will make a suggestion to Student B who will then change their poster file again and upload it.
Again, much of the discussion of dynamic assessment and language learning occurs around the structure of the language, so I'm certain that this is a new field of study with respect to joint construction of an object coupled with instances of dynamic assessment in a language learning environment.

I know there is probably much more I can write, but not to bog down the readers here, I am interested in thoughts or opinions on what is happening with the data.

Respectfully,

Mark



------------------------------

Message: 8
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2016 08:14:07 -0700
From: mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu>
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: 3rd generation activity theory
To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
Message-ID:
        <CAHCnM0A5XTxc1-zuaOTyxm5y1FCap4a5ziPmOFs=05zarFdQdw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Hi Mark

It is not clear to me from your explication why you need 3rd gen AT.
Mike

On Tuesday, August 16, 2016, Mark de Boer <mark.yomogi@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello!
>
> I have not posted in a very long time. I am hoping that someone can help
> out with my question(s).
>
> I am working with data from a group of 4 students, they are collaboratively
> working on a project. Most of their collaboration is done using an online
> forum, although there is some-face-to-face time. They are working in the
> L2, English, their L1 is Japanese. Their project was to investigate pet
> bottle use on campus and give a poster presentation on their findings.
>
> They have done some preliminary work, such as a survey to students, some
> interviews, some general research and have begun to work on their poster.
> (all dialogue is being shared in the online forum).
>
> The dialogue in the forum looks something like this:
>
> 1. Student A: 'Let's begin working on our poster'
> 2. Student B: 'I made my poster, please check' (poster1 file an attachment
> in the forum)
> 3. Student C: 'I've made some small changes, and I added some information'
> (poster2 file an attachment in the forum, originally poster1)
> 4. Student D: 'Student C's ideas are good, I made some changes too.'
> (poster3 file an attachment in the forum, originally poster 2)
> 5. Student B: 'I think that we should put the following contents in our
> poster (suggesting a list of topics concerning pet bottles and pet bottle
> use) Please give me your opinion.
> 6. Student C: 'I made a poster about (topic a), please check' (poster4 file
> an attachment in the forum, originally poster3)
>
> And so forth. This occurs the bouncing back and forth of the file, each
> student adding or changing something, expressing what they have done in the
> online forum. There are about 120 lines of data, with over 80 files being
> shared.
>
> I have used Longacre's analysis to prove that this is procedural dialogue,
> and Bereiter's discussions of progressive dialogue to prove that this is
> progressive dialogue, but I have gotten stuck on the concept of 3rd
> generation activity theory to show that this is a joint construction of the
> object of the activity, and that there are a number activity systems at
> work.
>
> What I want to show is that there is evidence of dialogue that pushes the
> creation of content. The learners are working from basically nothing, they
> only have been given a project of what to investigate, but the rest of what
> they do is up to them. They decide content, they decide what to present,
> and they decide who does what within their group. So, as someone makes a
> suggestion, as in 1 and 5, content follows based on the suggestion.
> I also want to show that there is evidence that the content created also
> causes more dialogue to occur. So as content is uploaded, as in 2, 3, 4,
> and 6, students respond with evaluation, changes to the content, and
> additions to the content.
>
> I can understand what happens between 1 and 2. This is a simple case. But
> between 2, 3, and 4 it becomes complicated. In 2, B uploads a file and
> requests evaluation. C downloads the content, makes changes, and uploads it
> in 3. The language in the forum in 2, I would like to argue that it is a
> tool, to inform the others that there is content for them to look at, but
> that this is actually a case of the content in 2 creating the reason for
> dialogue in 3. But at the same time, content is changed and uploaded in 3.
>
> In my efforts to understand this data, I have turned to two places,
> Engestrom's chapter from 1999, Innovative learning in work teams, and
> Daniels book 2001, Vygotsky and Pedagogy, mostly chapter 3, the discussions
> of Activity theory 3rd generation as a starting point.
>
> I want to argue that the learners are jointly constructing the object of
> the activity, and that object is what Bereiter and Wells refer to as the
> improvable object. The dialogue influences the content and the content
> influences the dialogue. Can this be argued as 3rd generation activity
> theory? I am thinking it can be, I actually think it is a perfect fit to
> the model, but I am alone reading these materials without anyone to bounce
> these ideas off of. My confusion lies in that this is with second language
> learners in a general English course, and most of the instances of language
> learning discussions center around the structure of the language, not the
> use of the language.
>
> Eventually, my final argument is that through this interaction, instances
> of dynamic assessment occurs between learners, because not only are they
> sharing files and constantly changing them, but occasionally Student B may
> upload a file with content and Student A (or other) will make a suggestion
> to Student B who will then change their poster file again and upload it.
> Again, much of the discussion of dynamic assessment and language learning
> occurs around the structure of the language, so I'm certain that this is a
> new field of study with respect to joint construction of an object coupled
> with instances of dynamic assessment in a language learning environment.
>
> I know there is probably much more I can write, but not to bog down the
> readers here, I am interested in thoughts or opinions on what is happening
> with the data.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Mark
>


--

It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an object
that creates history. Ernst Boesch


------------------------------

Message: 9
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2016 17:29:12 +0200
From: Carol Macdonald <carolmacdon@gmail.com>
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: 3rd generation activity theory
To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
Message-ID:
        <CAGVMwbUOOfrnS77f_fvWg9SGk=w7p4M3rzs8UNwYOpQzRo+AhA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

I concur with Mike, Mark.  There is not a *system *of activity being
negotiated here as I see. Beliefs, motives, goals, division of labour,
subject, object, outcomes. It's seems like overkill in your situation,
where content is being negotiated and renegotiated.  I am at a loss to
offer you anything more than what you are dealing with in terms of
dialogue, except you might like to see what Eugene Matusov might have to
offer.

Carol

On 16 August 2016 at 17:14, mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu> wrote:

> Hi Mark
>
> It is not clear to me from your explication why you need 3rd gen AT.
> Mike
>
> On Tuesday, August 16, 2016, Mark de Boer <mark.yomogi@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hello!
> >
> > I have not posted in a very long time. I am hoping that someone can help
> > out with my question(s).
> >
> > I am working with data from a group of 4 students, they are
> collaboratively
> > working on a project. Most of their collaboration is done using an online
> > forum, although there is some-face-to-face time. They are working in the
> > L2, English, their L1 is Japanese. Their project was to investigate pet
> > bottle use on campus and give a poster presentation on their findings.
> >
> > They have done some preliminary work, such as a survey to students, some
> > interviews, some general research and have begun to work on their poster.
> > (all dialogue is being shared in the online forum).
> >
> > The dialogue in the forum looks something like this:
> >
> > 1. Student A: 'Let's begin working on our poster'
> > 2. Student B: 'I made my poster, please check' (poster1 file an
> attachment
> > in the forum)
> > 3. Student C: 'I've made some small changes, and I added some
> information'
> > (poster2 file an attachment in the forum, originally poster1)
> > 4. Student D: 'Student C's ideas are good, I made some changes too.'
> > (poster3 file an attachment in the forum, originally poster 2)
> > 5. Student B: 'I think that we should put the following contents in our
> > poster (suggesting a list of topics concerning pet bottles and pet bottle
> > use) Please give me your opinion.
> > 6. Student C: 'I made a poster about (topic a), please check' (poster4
> file
> > an attachment in the forum, originally poster3)
> >
> > And so forth. This occurs the bouncing back and forth of the file, each
> > student adding or changing something, expressing what they have done in
> the
> > online forum. There are about 120 lines of data, with over 80 files being
> > shared.
> >
> > I have used Longacre's analysis to prove that this is procedural
> dialogue,
> > and Bereiter's discussions of progressive dialogue to prove that this is
> > progressive dialogue, but I have gotten stuck on the concept of 3rd
> > generation activity theory to show that this is a joint construction of
> the
> > object of the activity, and that there are a number activity systems at
> > work.
> >
> > What I want to show is that there is evidence of dialogue that pushes the
> > creation of content. The learners are working from basically nothing,
> they
> > only have been given a project of what to investigate, but the rest of
> what
> > they do is up to them. They decide content, they decide what to present,
> > and they decide who does what within their group. So, as someone makes a
> > suggestion, as in 1 and 5, content follows based on the suggestion.
> > I also want to show that there is evidence that the content created also
> > causes more dialogue to occur. So as content is uploaded, as in 2, 3, 4,
> > and 6, students respond with evaluation, changes to the content, and
> > additions to the content.
> >
> > I can understand what happens between 1 and 2. This is a simple case. But
> > between 2, 3, and 4 it becomes complicated. In 2, B uploads a file and
> > requests evaluation. C downloads the content, makes changes, and uploads
> it
> > in 3. The language in the forum in 2, I would like to argue that it is a
> > tool, to inform the others that there is content for them to look at, but
> > that this is actually a case of the content in 2 creating the reason for
> > dialogue in 3. But at the same time, content is changed and uploaded in
> 3.
> >
> > In my efforts to understand this data, I have turned to two places,
> > Engestrom's chapter from 1999, Innovative learning in work teams, and
> > Daniels book 2001, Vygotsky and Pedagogy, mostly chapter 3, the
> discussions
> > of Activity theory 3rd generation as a starting point.
> >
> > I want to argue that the learners are jointly constructing the object of
> > the activity, and that object is what Bereiter and Wells refer to as the
> > improvable object. The dialogue influences the content and the content
> > influences the dialogue. Can this be argued as 3rd generation activity
> > theory? I am thinking it can be, I actually think it is a perfect fit to
> > the model, but I am alone reading these materials without anyone to
> bounce
> > these ideas off of. My confusion lies in that this is with second
> language
> > learners in a general English course, and most of the instances of
> language
> > learning discussions center around the structure of the language, not the
> > use of the language.
> >
> > Eventually, my final argument is that through this interaction, instances
> > of dynamic assessment occurs between learners, because not only are they
> > sharing files and constantly changing them, but occasionally Student B
> may
> > upload a file with content and Student A (or other) will make a
> suggestion
> > to Student B who will then change their poster file again and upload it.
> > Again, much of the discussion of dynamic assessment and language learning
> > occurs around the structure of the language, so I'm certain that this is
> a
> > new field of study with respect to joint construction of an object
> coupled
> > with instances of dynamic assessment in a language learning environment.
> >
> > I know there is probably much more I can write, but not to bog down the
> > readers here, I am interested in thoughts or opinions on what is
> happening
> > with the data.
> >
> > Respectfully,
> >
> > Mark
> >
>
>
> --
>
> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an object
> that creates history. Ernst Boesch
>



--
Carol A Macdonald Ph.D (Edin)
Developmental psycholinguist
Honorary Research Fellow: Department of Linguistics, Unisa
alternative email address: tmacdoca@unisa.ac.za


------------------------------

Message: 10
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2016 08:38:00 -0700
From: Lplarry <lpscholar2@gmail.com>
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: 3rd generation activity theory
To: Mark de Boer <mark.yomogi@gmail.com>,       "xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu"
        <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
Message-ID: <57b33365.4ae7420a.b32bd.1cc3@mx.google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Mark,
I may be going way off course in my stream of thought creating an ox-bow formation that is irrelevant in this stream of your reflections and questions. If so just ignore my think-aloud.

In recent posts if you were listening in to Rien Raud?s exploration of *ity* your theme can be seen to circulate between specific/ity and general/ity in the dynamics of creating objective/ity.

To construct the (object) of activity are you creating objectives?  Are these objectives developing THROUGH the process of objective/ity?
You want to show or demonstrate that there are a number (count *them*) of activity systems at work.

Content pushes dialogue & dialogue pushes content?

  Is there also *pulling* dynamics *drawing* us to become absorbed or enter into a number of *systems*.

My question hinges on the
* permeability* of each of these (systems) that are demarcating the topography or structure of each (specific) system. What we (place) inside a particular system that occurs with systematic/ity *in order to* make sense of  the many activity systems that are creating (producing, constructing) the *object* as our objective. The objects particular *objective/ity* that develops within this dynamic process.
I will pause here and leave my stream of thought as an ox-bow phenomena cut off from the source of this flow of dialogue and joint participation.
The exploration of the relation of (objects) and objectives  and (objective/ity)
THROUGH a number of permeable demarcations.







Sent from my Windows 10 phone

From: Mark de Boer

------------------------------

Message: 11
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2016 09:20:54 -0700
From: mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu>
Subject: [Xmca-l] Fwd: [COGDEVSOC] Job Posting - Assistant Professor
        of Psychology/Educational Psychologist - Rhodes College
To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
Message-ID:
        <CAHCnM0DNkMs4rNhxPsn6vOufAKr7HwAxRwbexiothBaQTpUtXg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

*Assistant Professor of Psychology/Educational Psychologist.  *The Psychology
Department <https://www.rhodes.edu/psychology> at Rhodes College
<http://www.rhodes.edu> invites applications for a tenure-track position.
The successful candidate must possess a firm commitment to teaching,
scholarship, and service at a liberal arts college. Preference will be
given to candidates who have demonstrated commitments to urban education
and working with historically marginalized populations. Teaching
responsibilities will include five courses a year from the following:
introductory psychology, educational psychology, child and/or adolescent
development, learning and motivation, advanced research methods in
psychology, and upper-level research and seminar courses in the candidate?s
research area. Previous teaching experience is desirable. Candidates must
have completed all requirements for a Ph.D. in Educational Psychology or a
related field by July 2017. A number of interdisciplinary fields yield
graduates who would be appropriate for this position (e.g., Liberal Studies
in Urban Childhood, Interdisciplinary Human Development, Educational
Science programs). The successful candidate will contribute to an
interdisciplinary Educational Studies <https://www.rhodes.edu/education>
major, will be expected to establish and maintain an active program of
research involving undergraduates, and to participate in the life of the
College. Research opportunities will be supported by startup funds, lab
space, and by Rhodes partnerships with the Shelby County School district
<http://www.scsk12.org/> and other educational institutions in the city.

Founded in 1848, Rhodes College is a highly selective, private,
residential, undergraduate college, located in Memphis, Tennessee.  We
aspire to graduate students with a lifelong passion for learning, a
compassion for others, and the ability to translate academic study and
personal concern into effective leadership and action in their communities
and the world. We encourage applications from candidates interested in
helping us achieve this vision
<https://www.rhodes.edu/content/rhodes-vision>.



Rhodes College values an inclusive and welcoming environment.  We are an
equal opportunity employer committed to diversity
<http://handbook.rhodes.edu/diversity> in the workforce.



Memphis has a metropolitan population of over one million and provides
multiple opportunities for research and for cultural and recreational
activities <http://www.rhodes.edu/content/our-city>.



Please apply online at jobs.rhodes.edu; only online applications will be
accepted.  A complete application includes a cover letter, a CV, a
statement of teaching philosophy, a research plan, and three letters of
recommendation. Please address in your cover letter your interest in
teaching at a liberal arts college and how your experiences with teaching,
scholarship, and/or service might contribute to a college community that
includes a commitment to diversity as one of its core values. Review of
completed applications will begin on October 1 and continue until the
position is filled. The online application system will solicit letters of
recommendation electronically from the candidate?s recommenders once their
contact information has been entered by the candidate and the search
committee requests them.  Background checks are required before candidates
can be brought to campus for interviews. For further information please
contact Dr. Katherine White, whitek@rhodes.edu
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','whitek@rhodes.edu');>.

------------------------------------------------------------
------------------

Sean Hardwick

Departmental Assistant

Anthropology & Sociology and Psychology

Rhodes College

2000 North Parkway

Memphis, TN 38112

(901) 843-3930

hardwicks@rhodes.edu <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','hardwicks@rhodes.edu');>





--

It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an object
that creates history. Ernst Boesch


------------------------------

Message: 12
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2016 16:28:27 +0000
From: Martin John Packer <mpacker@uniandes.edu.co>
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: 3rd generation activity theory
To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
Message-ID: <BF45852B-DE67-42DA-952E-175F19EF221F@uniandes.edu.co>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

> On Aug 16, 2016, at 9:04 AM, Mark de Boer <mark.yomogi@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I can understand what happens between 1 and 2. This is a simple case. But
> between 2, 3, and 4 it becomes complicated.

Mark, I don?t yet understand what happens between 1 and 2!

> 1. Student A: 'Let's begin working on our poster'
> 2. Student B: 'I made my poster, please check' (poster1 file an attachment
> in the forum)

How did ?our poster? become ?my poster??

Martin




------------------------------

Message: 13
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2016 10:59:58 -0600
From: Greg Thompson <greg.a.thompson@gmail.com>
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: 3rd generation activity theory
To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
Message-ID:
        <CAHH++PksohNDz7eQJXz+ZTkh7+HxAML1kxd6c_WhQ2E7BAjKHw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Mark,
I don't understand what happens between 5 and 6:

"5. Student B: 'I think that we should put the following contents in our
poster (suggesting a list of topics concerning pet bottles and pet bottle
use) Please give me your opinion.
6. Student C: 'I made a poster about (topic a), please check' (poster4 file
an attachment in the forum, originally poster3)"

How did poster3 get changed into poster4 that is "about topic a". Or was
poster3 already about topic a? If so, then why the need to introduce to
everyone with "I made a poster about (topic a)"? Was "topic a" something
that was introduced by Student B in turn #5? Is this due to the students
not having the resources in English to indicate how their turn relates to
the previous turn?

The continuity/discontinuity (aka "old/new information") is what is unclear
to me. The fact that this poster4 is a revision of poster3 suggests
continuity and old information. But the statement "I made a poster about
(topic a)" suggests discontinuity and new information.

-greg



On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 10:28 AM, Martin John Packer <
mpacker@uniandes.edu.co> wrote:

> > On Aug 16, 2016, at 9:04 AM, Mark de Boer <mark.yomogi@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I can understand what happens between 1 and 2. This is a simple case. But
> > between 2, 3, and 4 it becomes complicated.
>
> Mark, I don?t yet understand what happens between 1 and 2!
>
> > 1. Student A: 'Let's begin working on our poster'
> > 2. Student B: 'I made my poster, please check' (poster1 file an
> attachment
> > in the forum)
>
> How did ?our poster? become ?my poster??
>
> Martin
>
>
>


--
Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Department of Anthropology
880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson


------------------------------

Message: 14
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2016 13:52:39 -0400
From: "FRANCIS J. SULLIVAN" <fsulliva@temple.edu>
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: "English" as a school subject
To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
Message-ID:
        <CAF8DDy_dh678GbmGedG8ycR+sa-M62dEwKGGd1+2Kn4TFeyMQg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

And isn't it also true that "Irish" (Is that the same as "Gaelic"? What are
the differences?) has mad a real comeback as a spoken language among Irish
citizens?

Francis J. Sullivan, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Department of Teaching and Learning
College of Education
Temple University
Philadelphia, PA 19122

On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 8:33 AM, Stephen Walsh <stephenwals@gmail.com>
wrote:

> HI Peter,
> e
> In Ireland all schoolchildren study 'Irish'.  It is compulsory form the
> beginning of primary education to the end of secondary education.  If it
> would be helpful to have more detail I can put some more info together for
> you.
>
> Best regards,
> Stephen
>
> On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 11:24 AM, Peter Smagorinsky <smago@uga.edu> wrote:
>
> > Hi, I'm writing mainly to my colleagues who are familiar with public
> > school, pre-university (what we call K-12 in the US) education systems,
> > with a question.
> >
> > In English-speaking nations, there is a school subject called "English"
> > that involves the study of literature (much from English-speaking
> authors,
> > rather than "world literature" which may have its own separate course),
> > writing (or now, multimodal composing), and language study (of the
> English
> > language, often in the form of grammar instruction). This subject is not
> > ESL, EFL, TESOL, or other way of describing learning the language of
> > English by speakers of other languages.
> >
> > My question: I know that in Russia there are school subjects of Russian
> > literature and language; in the Netherlands there is the following:
> > The Study Dutch Language & Literature (Dutch: Nederlandse Taal- en
> > Letterkunde) can be found at each Dutch university. Formerly you studied
> > linguistics and literature, from about 1975 a third component was
> > introduced: Taalbeheersing (Dutch for language skills, especially writing
> > and argumentation). Nowadays the studies have new names, like Dutch
> > Language and culture
> >
> > Do other nations dedicate a school subject to this discipline
> (literature,
> > writing, language study in L1 and generally nationalistic in curriculum)?
> > If so, what is it called, and what does it comprise?
> >
> > Thx,Peter
> >
> >
>


------------------------------

Message: 15
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2016 19:08:52 +0100
From: Stephen Walsh <stephenwals@gmail.com>
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: "English" as a school subject
To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
Message-ID:
        <CAOeEpKXm=+8SjgUtLq2AowLxbG2eWtjD2RcSkYVOACxOv4CShQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Hi Francis,

Yes - Irish is doing ok.  My Irish is poor but my daughter is fluent.  She,
and many people her age (she's a teenager), go to Irish language schools
and that, in my view, has given the language a real boost.

Stephen

On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 6:52 PM, FRANCIS J. SULLIVAN <fsulliva@temple.edu>
wrote:

> And isn't it also true that "Irish" (Is that the same as "Gaelic"? What are
> the differences?) has mad a real comeback as a spoken language among Irish
> citizens?
>
> Francis J. Sullivan, Ph.D.
> Associate Professor
> Department of Teaching and Learning
> College of Education
> Temple University
> Philadelphia, PA 19122
>
> On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 8:33 AM, Stephen Walsh <stephenwals@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > HI Peter,
> > e
> > In Ireland all schoolchildren study 'Irish'.  It is compulsory form the
> > beginning of primary education to the end of secondary education.  If it
> > would be helpful to have more detail I can put some more info together
> for
> > you.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Stephen
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 11:24 AM, Peter Smagorinsky <smago@uga.edu>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi, I'm writing mainly to my colleagues who are familiar with public
> > > school, pre-university (what we call K-12 in the US) education systems,
> > > with a question.
> > >
> > > In English-speaking nations, there is a school subject called "English"
> > > that involves the study of literature (much from English-speaking
> > authors,
> > > rather than "world literature" which may have its own separate course),
> > > writing (or now, multimodal composing), and language study (of the
> > English
> > > language, often in the form of grammar instruction). This subject is
> not
> > > ESL, EFL, TESOL, or other way of describing learning the language of
> > > English by speakers of other languages.
> > >
> > > My question: I know that in Russia there are school subjects of Russian
> > > literature and language; in the Netherlands there is the following:
> > > The Study Dutch Language & Literature (Dutch: Nederlandse Taal- en
> > > Letterkunde) can be found at each Dutch university. Formerly you
> studied
> > > linguistics and literature, from about 1975 a third component was
> > > introduced: Taalbeheersing (Dutch for language skills, especially
> writing
> > > and argumentation). Nowadays the studies have new names, like Dutch
> > > Language and culture
> > >
> > > Do other nations dedicate a school subject to this discipline
> > (literature,
> > > writing, language study in L1 and generally nationalistic in
> curriculum)?
> > > If so, what is it called, and what does it comprise?
> > >
> > > Thx,Peter
> > >
> > >
> >
>


------------------------------

Message: 16
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2016 18:19:04 +0000
From: Ana Marjanovic-Shane <anamshane@gmail.com>
Subject: [Xmca-l] Fwd: FW: Syllabus on sociocultural theories: grad
        seminar
To: "xmca-l@ucsd.edu" <xmca-l@ucsd.edu>, Eugene Matusov
        <ematusov@udel.edu>
Message-ID:
        <CALqp6zNOHE6T3gux8B0W-xyYYq_G2F+kFUUwGg_bS44AE=O0gA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Dear XMCAers?



Thanks a lot for your help with my grad seminar syllabus ?Sociocultural
Theories in Education.? Attached please find my ?final draft? of it ?
actually, the final draft will be developed by my students and me *at the
end of the course *because we are going to change it via democratic
governance of the class. So, if you get new ideas to share, you won?t be
late.



Take care,



Eugene
----------------------------

Eugene Matusov, PhD, ematusov@udel.edu

Editor-in-Chief, Dialogic Pedagogy Journal <http://dpj.pitt.edu/>

Professor of Education

School of Education

16 W Main st

University of Delaware

Newark, DE 19716, USA



Publications: http://ematusov.soe.udel.edu/vita/publications.htm

DiaPed: http://diaped.soe.udel.edu

DPJ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/groups/DPJ.two/

----------------------------









--

*Ana Marjanovic-Shane*

Dialogic Pedagogy Journal editor (dpj.pitt.edu)

Associate Professor of Education

Chestnut Hill College

phone: 267-334-2905
--
*Ana Marjanovic-Shane*
Dialogic Pedagogy Journal editor (dpj.pitt.edu)
Associate Professor of Education
Chestnut Hill College
phone: 267-334-2905
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Opening Syllabus for EDUC 855.16F,        Sociocultural Theories in Education, grad seminar,      2016-08-15.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 74466 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20160816/e5978c10/attachment-0001.bin

------------------------------

Message: 17
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2016 18:42:52 +0000 (UTC)
From: Lakshmi Bandlamudi <banvenlak@yahoo.com>
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: FW: Syllabus on sociocultural theories:
        grad seminar
To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>,
        "xmca-l@ucsd.edu" <xmca-l@ucsd.edu>, Eugene Matusov
        <ematusov@udel.edu>
Message-ID:
        <307206405.15759682.1471372972582.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Hello,
Although I have not contributed to the discussions, I follow them quite diligently, and recent discussions prompted me to bring to your attention my recently?published book and the details are given below. I thought there might be some?Bakhtin enthusiasts in this group.


Difference, Dialogue, and Development?is an in-depth exploration of the collected works of Mikhail Bakhtin to find relevance of key concepts of dialogism for understanding various aspects of human development. Taking the reality of differences in the world as a given, Bandlamudi argues that such a reality necessitates dialogue, and actively responding to that necessity leads to development. The varied works of Bakhtin that span several decades passing through the most tumultuous period in Russian history, are brought under one banner of three D?s ? Difference, Dialogue and Development ? and the composite features of the three D?s emerge as leitmotifs in every chapter.


?

In an ocean of Bakhtiniana, this is a fresh voice.? Lakshmi Bandlamudi? brings together the disparate works Bakhtin wrote over a long lifetime in a reading that adds ?Development? to the usual ?Ds?(Dialog, Difference) in Bakhtin studies.? In so doing, she adds another dimension to the heteronomy called ?Bakhtin?. Michael Holquist. Yale University.



?

?
Lakshmi Bandlamudi?s?Difference, Dialogue, and Development?has to rank among the very best, certainly the clearest, most astute expositions of Michail Bakhtin?s writings. Her aim is not simply to explicate the Russian thinker?s wide-ranging, at times seemingly contradictory, essays but to depict his worldview and the ethical implications that derive from his commitment to the ever-shifting dialogical dimensions of human life ? to encounters that resist definition, as definition is demanded. Bandlamudi accepts, indeed elaborates, the challenges to the staid visions of the human sciences that Bakhtin poses. As such she challenges those same staid assumptions that govern so much of our lives. Her work is transformative. Vincent Crapanzano. Distinguished Professor of Comparative Literature and Anthropology. Graduate Center, CUNY?


?
Also, here are the chapter headings:


?
CONTENTS

?

Preface

?Acknowledgements

?Chapter 1. Introduction: Dialogue = Development

?Chapter 2. The Novel & The Hero: Developmental Narrative & The Developing Subject

?Chapter 3. Creative Living and Aesthetic Vision:?Cultivating Finer Sensibilities

?Chapter 4. Carnivalization of Consciousness: A Catalyst for Development

?Chapter 5. Authoring the Self ? Answering the Other:?Epistemological Necessities and Ethical Obligations

?Chapter 6. Dialogic Method for Human Sciences:?Between the Message Giver ? Message ? Messenger ? and Message Receiver

?Chapter 7. Differences as the Will to Power and Freedom to Choose




    On Tuesday, August 16, 2016 2:20 PM, Ana Marjanovic-Shane <anamshane@gmail.com> wrote:


 Dear XMCAers?



Thanks a lot for your help with my grad seminar syllabus ?Sociocultural
Theories in Education.? Attached please find my ?final draft? of it ?
actually, the final draft will be developed by my students and me *at the
end of the course *because we are going to change it via democratic
governance of the class. So, if you get new ideas to share, you won?t be
late.



Take care,



Eugene
----------------------------

Eugene Matusov, PhD, ematusov@udel.edu

Editor-in-Chief, Dialogic Pedagogy Journal <http://dpj.pitt.edu/>

Professor of Education

School of Education

16 W Main st

University of Delaware

Newark, DE 19716, USA



Publications: http://ematusov.soe.udel.edu/vita/publications.htm

DiaPed: http://diaped.soe.udel.edu

DPJ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/groups/DPJ.two/

----------------------------









--

*Ana Marjanovic-Shane*

Dialogic Pedagogy Journal editor (dpj.pitt.edu)

Associate Professor of Education

Chestnut Hill College

phone: 267-334-2905
--
*Ana Marjanovic-Shane*
Dialogic Pedagogy Journal editor (dpj.pitt.edu)
Associate Professor of Education
Chestnut Hill College
phone: 267-334-2905


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 9781138805927.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 85797 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20160816/a485a195/attachment-0002.jpg

------------------------------

Message: 18
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2016 18:42:52 +0000 (UTC)
From: Lakshmi Bandlamudi <banvenlak@yahoo.com>
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: FW: Syllabus on sociocultural theories:
        grad seminar
To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>,
        "xmca-l@ucsd.edu" <xmca-l@ucsd.edu>, Eugene Matusov
        <ematusov@udel.edu>
Message-ID:
        <307206405.15759682.1471372972582.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Hello,
Although I have not contributed to the discussions, I follow them quite diligently, and recent discussions prompted me to bring to your attention my recently?published book and the details are given below. I thought there might be some?Bakhtin enthusiasts in this group.


Difference, Dialogue, and Development?is an in-depth exploration of the collected works of Mikhail Bakhtin to find relevance of key concepts of dialogism for understanding various aspects of human development. Taking the reality of differences in the world as a given, Bandlamudi argues that such a reality necessitates dialogue, and actively responding to that necessity leads to development. The varied works of Bakhtin that span several decades passing through the most tumultuous period in Russian history, are brought under one banner of three D?s ? Difference, Dialogue and Development ? and the composite features of the three D?s emerge as leitmotifs in every chapter.


?

In an ocean of Bakhtiniana, this is a fresh voice.? Lakshmi Bandlamudi? brings together the disparate works Bakhtin wrote over a long lifetime in a reading that adds ?Development? to the usual ?Ds?(Dialog, Difference) in Bakhtin studies.? In so doing, she adds another dimension to the heteronomy called ?Bakhtin?. Michael Holquist. Yale University.



?

?
Lakshmi Bandlamudi?s?Difference, Dialogue, and Development?has to rank among the very best, certainly the clearest, most astute expositions of Michail Bakhtin?s writings. Her aim is not simply to explicate the Russian thinker?s wide-ranging, at times seemingly contradictory, essays but to depict his worldview and the ethical implications that derive from his commitment to the ever-shifting dialogical dimensions of human life ? to encounters that resist definition, as definition is demanded. Bandlamudi accepts, indeed elaborates, the challenges to the staid visions of the human sciences that Bakhtin poses. As such she challenges those same staid assumptions that govern so much of our lives. Her work is transformative. Vincent Crapanzano. Distinguished Professor of Comparative Literature and Anthropology. Graduate Center, CUNY?


?
Also, here are the chapter headings:


?
CONTENTS

?

Preface

?Acknowledgements

?Chapter 1. Introduction: Dialogue = Development

?Chapter 2. The Novel & The Hero: Developmental Narrative & The Developing Subject

?Chapter 3. Creative Living and Aesthetic Vision:?Cultivating Finer Sensibilities

?Chapter 4. Carnivalization of Consciousness: A Catalyst for Development

?Chapter 5. Authoring the Self ? Answering the Other:?Epistemological Necessities and Ethical Obligations

?Chapter 6. Dialogic Method for Human Sciences:?Between the Message Giver ? Message ? Messenger ? and Message Receiver

?Chapter 7. Differences as the Will to Power and Freedom to Choose




    On Tuesday, August 16, 2016 2:20 PM, Ana Marjanovic-Shane <anamshane@gmail.com> wrote:


 Dear XMCAers?



Thanks a lot for your help with my grad seminar syllabus ?Sociocultural
Theories in Education.? Attached please find my ?final draft? of it ?
actually, the final draft will be developed by my students and me *at the
end of the course *because we are going to change it via democratic
governance of the class. So, if you get new ideas to share, you won?t be
late.



Take care,



Eugene
----------------------------

Eugene Matusov, PhD, ematusov@udel.edu

Editor-in-Chief, Dialogic Pedagogy Journal <http://dpj.pitt.edu/>

Professor of Education

School of Education

16 W Main st

University of Delaware

Newark, DE 19716, USA



Publications: http://ematusov.soe.udel.edu/vita/publications.htm

DiaPed: http://diaped.soe.udel.edu

DPJ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/groups/DPJ.two/

----------------------------









--

*Ana Marjanovic-Shane*

Dialogic Pedagogy Journal editor (dpj.pitt.edu)

Associate Professor of Education

Chestnut Hill College

phone: 267-334-2905
--
*Ana Marjanovic-Shane*
Dialogic Pedagogy Journal editor (dpj.pitt.edu)
Associate Professor of Education
Chestnut Hill College
phone: 267-334-2905


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 9781138805927.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 85797 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20160816/a485a195/attachment-0003.jpg

------------------------------

Message: 19
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2016 14:49:29 -0400
From: "FRANCIS J. SULLIVAN" <fsulliva@temple.edu>
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: "English" as a school subject
To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
Message-ID:
        <CAF8DDy_SyL1Yi7LXre1T8MAkgpXugDRzwKegrMei04d8rBUs3Q@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

As someone who has always identified as an Irish American (no hyphen), I am
so glad to hear this. Thank you for responding.

Francis J. Sullivan, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Department of Teaching and Learning
College of Education
Temple University
Philadelphia, PA 19122


Find out what any people will quietly submit to and you have the exact
measure of the injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them.

 Frederick Douglass

On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 2:08 PM, Stephen Walsh <stephenwals@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi Francis,
>
> Yes - Irish is doing ok.  My Irish is poor but my daughter is fluent.  She,
> and many people her age (she's a teenager), go to Irish language schools
> and that, in my view, has given the language a real boost.
>
> Stephen
>
> On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 6:52 PM, FRANCIS J. SULLIVAN <fsulliva@temple.edu>
> wrote:
>
> > And isn't it also true that "Irish" (Is that the same as "Gaelic"? What
> are
> > the differences?) has mad a real comeback as a spoken language among
> Irish
> > citizens?
> >
> > Francis J. Sullivan, Ph.D.
> > Associate Professor
> > Department of Teaching and Learning
> > College of Education
> > Temple University
> > Philadelphia, PA 19122
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 8:33 AM, Stephen Walsh <stephenwals@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > HI Peter,
> > > e
> > > In Ireland all schoolchildren study 'Irish'.  It is compulsory form the
> > > beginning of primary education to the end of secondary education.  If
> it
> > > would be helpful to have more detail I can put some more info together
> > for
> > > you.
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > > Stephen
> > >
> > > On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 11:24 AM, Peter Smagorinsky <smago@uga.edu>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi, I'm writing mainly to my colleagues who are familiar with public
> > > > school, pre-university (what we call K-12 in the US) education
> systems,
> > > > with a question.
> > > >
> > > > In English-speaking nations, there is a school subject called
> "English"
> > > > that involves the study of literature (much from English-speaking
> > > authors,
> > > > rather than "world literature" which may have its own separate
> course),
> > > > writing (or now, multimodal composing), and language study (of the
> > > English
> > > > language, often in the form of grammar instruction). This subject is
> > not
> > > > ESL, EFL, TESOL, or other way of describing learning the language of
> > > > English by speakers of other languages.
> > > >
> > > > My question: I know that in Russia there are school subjects of
> Russian
> > > > literature and language; in the Netherlands there is the following:
> > > > The Study Dutch Language & Literature (Dutch: Nederlandse Taal- en
> > > > Letterkunde) can be found at each Dutch university. Formerly you
> > studied
> > > > linguistics and literature, from about 1975 a third component was
> > > > introduced: Taalbeheersing (Dutch for language skills, especially
> > writing
> > > > and argumentation). Nowadays the studies have new names, like Dutch
> > > > Language and culture
> > > >
> > > > Do other nations dedicate a school subject to this discipline
> > > (literature,
> > > > writing, language study in L1 and generally nationalistic in
> > curriculum)?
> > > > If so, what is it called, and what does it comprise?
> > > >
> > > > Thx,Peter
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>


------------------------------

Message: 20
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2016 19:15:55 +0000
From: David H Kirshner <dkirsh@lsu.edu>
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: "English" as a school subject
To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
Message-ID:
        <BL2PR06MB22749B872D55F30B8F27F56DC5130@BL2PR06MB2274.namprd06.prod.outlook.com>

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Gaelic was brought from Ireland in the 5th and 6th centuries AD and now is spoken mainly in western Scotland.
I was picked up hitchhiking in Scotland many years ago by three guys in a Volkswagen, and could not tell for the duration of the 30 minute drive whether they were conversing in English or Gaelic.
David


-----Original Message-----
From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of FRANCIS J. SULLIVAN
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 12:53 PM
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: "English" as a school subject

And isn't it also true that "Irish" (Is that the same as "Gaelic"? What are the differences?) has mad a real comeback as a spoken language among Irish citizens?

Francis J. Sullivan, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Department of Teaching and Learning
College of Education
Temple University
Philadelphia, PA 19122

On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 8:33 AM, Stephen Walsh <stephenwals@gmail.com>
wrote:

> HI Peter,
> e
> In Ireland all schoolchildren study 'Irish'.  It is compulsory form
> the beginning of primary education to the end of secondary education.
> If it would be helpful to have more detail I can put some more info
> together for you.
>
> Best regards,
> Stephen
>
> On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 11:24 AM, Peter Smagorinsky <smago@uga.edu> wrote:
>
> > Hi, I'm writing mainly to my colleagues who are familiar with public
> > school, pre-university (what we call K-12 in the US) education
> > systems, with a question.
> >
> > In English-speaking nations, there is a school subject called "English"
> > that involves the study of literature (much from English-speaking
> authors,
> > rather than "world literature" which may have its own separate
> > course), writing (or now, multimodal composing), and language study
> > (of the
> English
> > language, often in the form of grammar instruction). This subject is
> > not ESL, EFL, TESOL, or other way of describing learning the
> > language of English by speakers of other languages.
> >
> > My question: I know that in Russia there are school subjects of
> > Russian literature and language; in the Netherlands there is the following:
> > The Study Dutch Language & Literature (Dutch: Nederlandse Taal- en
> > Letterkunde) can be found at each Dutch university. Formerly you
> > studied linguistics and literature, from about 1975 a third
> > component was
> > introduced: Taalbeheersing (Dutch for language skills, especially
> > writing and argumentation). Nowadays the studies have new names,
> > like Dutch Language and culture
> >
> > Do other nations dedicate a school subject to this discipline
> (literature,
> > writing, language study in L1 and generally nationalistic in curriculum)?
> > If so, what is it called, and what does it comprise?
> >
> > Thx,Peter
> >
> >
>



------------------------------

Message: 21
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2016 16:04:53 -0400
From: "FRANCIS J. SULLIVAN" <fsulliva@temple.edu>
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: "English" as a school subject
To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
Message-ID:
        <CAF8DDy8CNbFLvSePUbx-O2a=DummngAuZKVuA6D8Rr+8_wpppw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Wow, so were the code-switching? Should we coin the term "Gaelish" or
"Englic"?

Francis J. Sullivan, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Department of Teaching and Learning
College of Education
Temple University
Philadelphia, PA 19122


Find out what any people will quietly submit to and you have the exact
measure of the injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them.

 Frederick Douglass

On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 3:15 PM, David H Kirshner <dkirsh@lsu.edu> wrote:

> Gaelic was brought from Ireland in the 5th and 6th centuries AD and now is
> spoken mainly in western Scotland.
> I was picked up hitchhiking in Scotland many years ago by three guys in a
> Volkswagen, and could not tell for the duration of the 30 minute drive
> whether they were conversing in English or Gaelic.
> David
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@
> mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of FRANCIS J. SULLIVAN
> Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 12:53 PM
> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: "English" as a school subject
>
> And isn't it also true that "Irish" (Is that the same as "Gaelic"? What
> are the differences?) has mad a real comeback as a spoken language among
> Irish citizens?
>
> Francis J. Sullivan, Ph.D.
> Associate Professor
> Department of Teaching and Learning
> College of Education
> Temple University
> Philadelphia, PA 19122
>
> On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 8:33 AM, Stephen Walsh <stephenwals@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > HI Peter,
> > e
> > In Ireland all schoolchildren study 'Irish'.  It is compulsory form
> > the beginning of primary education to the end of secondary education.
> > If it would be helpful to have more detail I can put some more info
> > together for you.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Stephen
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 11:24 AM, Peter Smagorinsky <smago@uga.edu>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi, I'm writing mainly to my colleagues who are familiar with public
> > > school, pre-university (what we call K-12 in the US) education
> > > systems, with a question.
> > >
> > > In English-speaking nations, there is a school subject called "English"
> > > that involves the study of literature (much from English-speaking
> > authors,
> > > rather than "world literature" which may have its own separate
> > > course), writing (or now, multimodal composing), and language study
> > > (of the
> > English
> > > language, often in the form of grammar instruction). This subject is
> > > not ESL, EFL, TESOL, or other way of describing learning the
> > > language of English by speakers of other languages.
> > >
> > > My question: I know that in Russia there are school subjects of
> > > Russian literature and language; in the Netherlands there is the
> following:
> > > The Study Dutch Language & Literature (Dutch: Nederlandse Taal- en
> > > Letterkunde) can be found at each Dutch university. Formerly you
> > > studied linguistics and literature, from about 1975 a third
> > > component was
> > > introduced: Taalbeheersing (Dutch for language skills, especially
> > > writing and argumentation). Nowadays the studies have new names,
> > > like Dutch Language and culture
> > >
> > > Do other nations dedicate a school subject to this discipline
> > (literature,
> > > writing, language study in L1 and generally nationalistic in
> curriculum)?
> > > If so, what is it called, and what does it comprise?
> > >
> > > Thx,Peter
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>


------------------------------

Message: 22
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2016 22:51:17 +0000
From: David H Kirshner <dkirsh@lsu.edu>
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: "English" as a school subject
To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
Message-ID:
        <BL2PR06MB22744FFD1F3E435783DC9BA5C5130@BL2PR06MB2274.namprd06.prod.outlook.com>

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

All I can figure is that the prosody of Gaelic and deeply Scottish-accent English is nearly identical.
So, no code switching, just 3 guys having a conversation among themselves.
It sounded like I should understand what they were saying, but I couldn't quite put the phonemes together into lexical items.
David


-----Original Message-----
From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of FRANCIS J. SULLIVAN
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 3:05 PM
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: "English" as a school subject

Wow, so were the code-switching? Should we coin the term "Gaelish" or "Englic"?

Francis J. Sullivan, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Department of Teaching and Learning
College of Education
Temple University
Philadelphia, PA 19122


Find out what any people will quietly submit to and you have the exact measure of the injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them.

 Frederick Douglass

On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 3:15 PM, David H Kirshner <dkirsh@lsu.edu> wrote:

> Gaelic was brought from Ireland in the 5th and 6th centuries AD and
> now is spoken mainly in western Scotland.
> I was picked up hitchhiking in Scotland many years ago by three guys
> in a Volkswagen, and could not tell for the duration of the 30 minute
> drive whether they were conversing in English or Gaelic.
> David
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@
> mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of FRANCIS J. SULLIVAN
> Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 12:53 PM
> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: "English" as a school subject
>
> And isn't it also true that "Irish" (Is that the same as "Gaelic"?
> What are the differences?) has mad a real comeback as a spoken
> language among Irish citizens?
>
> Francis J. Sullivan, Ph.D.
> Associate Professor
> Department of Teaching and Learning
> College of Education
> Temple University
> Philadelphia, PA 19122
>
> On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 8:33 AM, Stephen Walsh <stephenwals@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > HI Peter,
> > e
> > In Ireland all schoolchildren study 'Irish'.  It is compulsory form
> > the beginning of primary education to the end of secondary education.
> > If it would be helpful to have more detail I can put some more info
> > together for you.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Stephen
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 11:24 AM, Peter Smagorinsky <smago@uga.edu>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi, I'm writing mainly to my colleagues who are familiar with
> > > public school, pre-university (what we call K-12 in the US)
> > > education systems, with a question.
> > >
> > > In English-speaking nations, there is a school subject called "English"
> > > that involves the study of literature (much from English-speaking
> > authors,
> > > rather than "world literature" which may have its own separate
> > > course), writing (or now, multimodal composing), and language
> > > study (of the
> > English
> > > language, often in the form of grammar instruction). This subject
> > > is not ESL, EFL, TESOL, or other way of describing learning the
> > > language of English by speakers of other languages.
> > >
> > > My question: I know that in Russia there are school subjects of
> > > Russian literature and language; in the Netherlands there is the
> following:
> > > The Study Dutch Language & Literature (Dutch: Nederlandse Taal- en
> > > Letterkunde) can be found at each Dutch university. Formerly you
> > > studied linguistics and literature, from about 1975 a third
> > > component was
> > > introduced: Taalbeheersing (Dutch for language skills, especially
> > > writing and argumentation). Nowadays the studies have new names,
> > > like Dutch Language and culture
> > >
> > > Do other nations dedicate a school subject to this discipline
> > (literature,
> > > writing, language study in L1 and generally nationalistic in
> curriculum)?
> > > If so, what is it called, and what does it comprise?
> > >
> > > Thx,Peter
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>



------------------------------

Message: 23
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2016 10:48:59 +1000
From: Helen Grimmett <helen.grimmett@monash.edu>
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: "English" as a school subject
To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
Message-ID:
        <CAGzL+FL7OoA6zbL244YvRo83Xcf8-TvrdiukAeRSxHxSyF1dmA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

My Scottish neighbour Rab is a builder, and when he showed up briefly on
our Australian home reno reality TV series "The Block" they put subtitles
up every time he spoke because his accent was so thick! My husband and I
were wishing that this facility was available in real life for our 'over
the fence' conversations! I understand completely David your feeling that
you should understand what is being said, but not having the foggiest idea
what is going on.

Sorry Peter, we seem to have derailed your thread...

In Australia, English is much as you describe (the tripod) and is
compulsory through to Year 12. However, in recent times (at least in the
state of Victoria), Year 11 & 12 students can now choose between
'mainstream' English (the tripod), Literature (mostly text analysis),
English Language (the 'science' of language and language acquisition) or
English as an Additional Language (for students with less than 7 years
instruction in English speaking schools - except in the case of indigenous
and hearing-impaired students) to meet this compulsory requirement.
All schools teach mainstream English, most would offer Literature and EAL
if they have enough students wanting to do them, but relatively few offer
English Language.

Cheers,
Helen

--
*Dr HELEN GRIMMETT *
Lecturer in Primary and Early Years Education
Professional Experience Liaison - Primary

*Education*
Monash University
Room 159, Building 902, Berwick Campus
100 Clyde Road
Berwick VIC 3806
Australia

T: +61 3 9904 7171
E: helen.grimmett@monash.edu <name.surname@monash.edu>
monash.edu

*Recent work:*
Helen Grimmett (2016): The Problem of ?Just Tell Us?: Insights from Playing
with Poetic Inquiry and Dialogical Self Theory, *Studying Teacher Education*,
DOI: 10.1080/17425964.2016.1143810
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17425964.2016.1143810

Helen Grimmett (2014), The Practice of Teachers' Professional Development:
A Cultural-Historical Approach
<https://www.sensepublishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/professional-learning-1/the-practice-of-teachers-professional-development/>
,
Rotterdam: Sense Publishers




On 17 August 2016 at 08:51, David H Kirshner <dkirsh@lsu.edu> wrote:

> All I can figure is that the prosody of Gaelic and deeply Scottish-accent
> English is nearly identical.
> So, no code switching, just 3 guys having a conversation among themselves.
> It sounded like I should understand what they were saying, but I couldn't
> quite put the phonemes together into lexical items.
> David
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@
> mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of FRANCIS J. SULLIVAN
> Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 3:05 PM
> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: "English" as a school subject
>
> Wow, so were the code-switching? Should we coin the term "Gaelish" or
> "Englic"?
>
> Francis J. Sullivan, Ph.D.
> Associate Professor
> Department of Teaching and Learning
> College of Education
> Temple University
> Philadelphia, PA 19122
>
>
> Find out what any people will quietly submit to and you have the exact
> measure of the injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them.
>
>  Frederick Douglass
>
> On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 3:15 PM, David H Kirshner <dkirsh@lsu.edu> wrote:
>
> > Gaelic was brought from Ireland in the 5th and 6th centuries AD and
> > now is spoken mainly in western Scotland.
> > I was picked up hitchhiking in Scotland many years ago by three guys
> > in a Volkswagen, and could not tell for the duration of the 30 minute
> > drive whether they were conversing in English or Gaelic.
> > David
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@
> > mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of FRANCIS J. SULLIVAN
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 12:53 PM
> > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: "English" as a school subject
> >
> > And isn't it also true that "Irish" (Is that the same as "Gaelic"?
> > What are the differences?) has mad a real comeback as a spoken
> > language among Irish citizens?
> >
> > Francis J. Sullivan, Ph.D.
> > Associate Professor
> > Department of Teaching and Learning
> > College of Education
> > Temple University
> > Philadelphia, PA 19122
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 8:33 AM, Stephen Walsh <stephenwals@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > HI Peter,
> > > e
> > > In Ireland all schoolchildren study 'Irish'.  It is compulsory form
> > > the beginning of primary education to the end of secondary education.
> > > If it would be helpful to have more detail I can put some more info
> > > together for you.
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > > Stephen
> > >
> > > On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 11:24 AM, Peter Smagorinsky <smago@uga.edu>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi, I'm writing mainly to my colleagues who are familiar with
> > > > public school, pre-university (what we call K-12 in the US)
> > > > education systems, with a question.
> > > >
> > > > In English-speaking nations, there is a school subject called
> "English"
> > > > that involves the study of literature (much from English-speaking
> > > authors,
> > > > rather than "world literature" which may have its own separate
> > > > course), writing (or now, multimodal composing), and language
> > > > study (of the
> > > English
> > > > language, often in the form of grammar instruction). This subject
> > > > is not ESL, EFL, TESOL, or other way of describing learning the
> > > > language of English by speakers of other languages.
> > > >
> > > > My question: I know that in Russia there are school subjects of
> > > > Russian literature and language; in the Netherlands there is the
> > following:
> > > > The Study Dutch Language & Literature (Dutch: Nederlandse Taal- en
> > > > Letterkunde) can be found at each Dutch university. Formerly you
> > > > studied linguistics and literature, from about 1975 a third
> > > > component was
> > > > introduced: Taalbeheersing (Dutch for language skills, especially
> > > > writing and argumentation). Nowadays the studies have new names,
> > > > like Dutch Language and culture
> > > >
> > > > Do other nations dedicate a school subject to this discipline
> > > (literature,
> > > > writing, language study in L1 and generally nationalistic in
> > curriculum)?
> > > > If so, what is it called, and what does it comprise?
> > > >
> > > > Thx,Peter
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>


------------------------------

Message: 24
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2016 02:53:03 +0000
From: Martin John Packer <mpacker@uniandes.edu.co>
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: 3rd generation activity theory
To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
Message-ID: <452899F5-04C3-4BA1-992D-E247EFF3D97C@uniandes.edu.co>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Mark,

I think what Greg and I are each pointing towards is that a line-by-line analysis, *guided* by theory, is going to provide more insight into what is going on than an attempt to ?prove? that it is one or another theoretical ?category' of dialogue.

Martin




> On Aug 16, 2016, at 11:59 AM, Greg Thompson <greg.a.thompson@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Mark,
> I don't understand what happens between 5 and 6:
>
> "5. Student B: 'I think that we should put the following contents in our
> poster (suggesting a list of topics concerning pet bottles and pet bottle
> use) Please give me your opinion.
> 6. Student C: 'I made a poster about (topic a), please check' (poster4 file
> an attachment in the forum, originally poster3)"
>
> How did poster3 get changed into poster4 that is "about topic a". Or was
> poster3 already about topic a? If so, then why the need to introduce to
> everyone with "I made a poster about (topic a)"? Was "topic a" something
> that was introduced by Student B in turn #5? Is this due to the students
> not having the resources in English to indicate how their turn relates to
> the previous turn?
>
> The continuity/discontinuity (aka "old/new information") is what is unclear
> to me. The fact that this poster4 is a revision of poster3 suggests
> continuity and old information. But the statement "I made a poster about
> (topic a)" suggests discontinuity and new information.
>
> -greg
>
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 10:28 AM, Martin John Packer <
> mpacker@uniandes.edu.co> wrote:
>
>>> On Aug 16, 2016, at 9:04 AM, Mark de Boer <mark.yomogi@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I can understand what happens between 1 and 2. This is a simple case. But
>>> between 2, 3, and 4 it becomes complicated.
>>
>> Mark, I don?t yet understand what happens between 1 and 2!
>>
>>> 1. Student A: 'Let's begin working on our poster'
>>> 2. Student B: 'I made my poster, please check' (poster1 file an
>> attachment
>>> in the forum)
>>
>> How did ?our poster? become ?my poster??
>>
>> Martin
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
> Assistant Professor
> Department of Anthropology
> 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
> Brigham Young University
> Provo, UT 84602
> http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson




------------------------------

Message: 25
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2016 15:36:12 +0900
From: Mark de Boer <mark.yomogi@gmail.com>
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: 3rd generation activity theory
To: Lplarry <lpscholar2@gmail.com>, xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
Message-ID:
        <CAOgf4eUPJi+EpXFbvQoscpwsPa4hPshAHVYuh450XT+b5wFQ3Q@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Larry,

Thank you for your reply.
I'm not creating objectives per se, the objective of the activity is for
the learners to decide what to do. Inevitably, they need to give a poster
presentation, a powerpoint presentation and a report on their findings. The
topic is laid out with the rest up to them. I let them be students with
very little interference from me.

I wanted to observe their collaboration, I use this term in the sense of
their working together towards a common goal. They need to decide what to
research, their schedule, what to present. What I observe is what they do
with the language, how they share information, how they 'assess' each
other, and what they do to move their 'object' to completion. Much like any
other research on dynamic assessment, I want to understand their process,
but in my case, sans teacher and without the focus on grammar.

I've been along the track of Engestrom's expansive learning, viewing their
movements as (based on Engestrom's 5 principles) 'an artifact-mediated and
object-oriented activity system, seen in its network relations to other
activity systems' and 'a multi -voicedness' and 'the central role of
contradictions'. (I don't have Engestrom's 1999 Keynote address Changing
practice through research: Changing research through practice, so I cannot
expand much further than cited sources).

If you want to view the object (the improvable object) as something that
permeates between systems, then it would serve to view each individual
learner as their own system, but part of a larger system. (attached).
Because of the learner's different perspectives, mediation is important.
They are constructing a shared object, (later they diverge as one of the
group members specifically divides the topics up and assigns them to
individual members - yet the objects come together at the end). If a
metaphor could describe this, it could be pictured as a group of students
sitting around a table sharing ideas. One puts an idea down on the table,
another one picks it up (or all of them), makes comments, adds information,
and puts it down again. As they do this they 'say something'. In some cases
the idea is returned to table without changes, but comments suggest changes
and the changes are made. The students have their own access to sources of
information, they can discuss information with the group or research
information elsewhere. It is a very open dynamic environment with the
object at the center. No one needs to say anything really, they can just
pass the document back and forth. But that is not what happens. And this is
not an isolated case, all groups (11 groups in all) behaved in the same
way. And looking over a number of years, each year, the presentations and
reports are completely different, but the learners go through the same
process.

As I have argued, the focus is on the object, not who is doing what, but
what is being done. The object is key to how they communicate or
collaborate. You might be able to say that there are pulling dynamics, the
dynamics of the group with impending deadlines force the learners to
collaborate, but the dialogue is very specific. The learners are very
detailed about what they discuss, what changes were made, what needs to be
done. I've also brought Feuerstein's MLE into the equation, because it
needs to be argued that they are 'interactionists', assessing each other
through their perspectives, and assisting each other in developing both
language and skills. The text in the forums, the text in the object that
they are building are just different modalities. But these different
modalities end up serving the other. I'm not sure if 'permeable
demarcations' is something that can be applied here.

My perspective may be very narrow, but without much collaboration with the
outside world on this topic, I may have developed a slight tunnel vision.
Hence my plea to the xmca list. Every aspect I examine always seems to
bring me back to the same place I started.

Mark





On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 12:38 AM, Lplarry <lpscholar2@gmail.com> wrote:

> Mark,
>
> I may be going way off course in my stream of thought creating an ox-bow
> formation that is irrelevant in this stream of your reflections and
> questions. If so just ignore my think-aloud.
>
>
>
> In recent posts if you were listening in to Rien Raud?s exploration of *
> *ity** your theme can be seen to circulate between specific/ity and
> general/ity in the dynamics of creating objective/ity.
>
>
>
> To construct the (object) of activity are you creating objectives?  Are
> these objectives developing THROUGH the process of objective/ity?
>
> You want to show or demonstrate that there are a number (count **them**)
> of activity systems at work.
>
>
>
> Content pushes dialogue & dialogue pushes content?
>
>
>
>   Is there also **pulling** dynamics **drawing** us to become absorbed or
> enter into a number of *systems*.
>
>
>
> My question hinges on the
>
> * permeability* of each of these (systems) that are demarcating the
> topography or structure of each (specific) system. What we (place) inside a
> particular system that occurs with systematic/ity **in order to** make
> sense of  the many activity systems that are creating (producing,
> constructing) the *object* as our objective. The objects particular *
> *objective/ity** that develops within this dynamic process.
>
> I will pause here and leave my stream of thought as an ox-bow phenomena
> cut off from the source of this flow of dialogue and joint participation.
>
> The exploration of the relation of (objects) and objectives  and
> (objective/ity)
>
> THROUGH a number of permeable demarcations.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Sent from my Windows 10 phone
>
>
>
> *From: *Mark de Boer <mark.yomogi@gmail.com>
> *Sent: *August 16, 2016 7:06 AM
> *To: *xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
> *Subject: *[Xmca-l] 3rd generation activity theory
>
>
>
> Hello!
>
>
>
> I have not posted in a very long time. I am hoping that someone can help
>
> out with my question(s).
>
>
>
> I am working with data from a group of 4 students, they are collaboratively
>
> working on a project. Most of their collaboration is done using an online
>
> forum, although there is some-face-to-face time. They are working in the
>
> L2, English, their L1 is Japanese. Their project was to investigate pet
>
> bottle use on campus and give a poster presentation on their findings.
>
>
>
> They have done some preliminary work, such as a survey to students, some
>
> interviews, some general research and have begun to work on their poster.
>
> (all dialogue is being shared in the online forum).
>
>
>
> The dialogue in the forum looks something like this:
>
>
>
> 1. Student A: 'Let's begin working on our poster'
>
> 2. Student B: 'I made my poster, please check' (poster1 file an attachment
>
> in the forum)
>
> 3. Student C: 'I've made some small changes, and I added some information'
>
> (poster2 file an attachment in the forum, originally poster1)
>
> 4. Student D: 'Student C's ideas are good, I made some changes too.'
>
> (poster3 file an attachment in the forum, originally poster 2)
>
> 5. Student B: 'I think that we should put the following contents in our
>
> poster (suggesting a list of topics concerning pet bottles and pet bottle
>
> use) Please give me your opinion.
>
> 6. Student C: 'I made a poster about (topic a), please check' (poster4 file
>
> an attachment in the forum, originally poster3)
>
>
>
> And so forth. This occurs the bouncing back and forth of the file, each
>
> student adding or changing something, expressing what they have done in the
>
> online forum. There are about 120 lines of data, with over 80 files being
>
> shared.
>
>
>
> I have used Longacre's analysis to prove that this is procedural dialogue,
>
> and Bereiter's discussions of progressive dialogue to prove that this is
>
> progressive dialogue, but I have gotten stuck on the concept of 3rd
>
> generation activity theory to show that this is a joint construction of the
>
> object of the activity, and that there are a number activity systems at
>
> work.
>
>
>
> What I want to show is that there is evidence of dialogue that pushes the
>
> creation of content. The learners are working from basically nothing, they
>
> only have been given a project of what to investigate, but the rest of what
>
> they do is up to them. They decide content, they decide what to present,
>
> and they decide who does what within their group. So, as someone makes a
>
> suggestion, as in 1 and 5, content follows based on the suggestion.
>
> I also want to show that there is evidence that the content created also
>
> causes more dialogue to occur. So as content is uploaded, as in 2, 3, 4,
>
> and 6, students respond with evaluation, changes to the content, and
>
> additions to the content.
>
>
>
> I can understand what happens between 1 and 2. This is a simple case. But
>
> between 2, 3, and 4 it becomes complicated. In 2, B uploads a file and
>
> requests evaluation. C downloads the content, makes changes, and uploads it
>
> in 3. The language in the forum in 2, I would like to argue that it is a
>
> tool, to inform the others that there is content for them to look at, but
>
> that this is actually a case of the content in 2 creating the reason for
>
> dialogue in 3. But at the same time, content is changed and uploaded in 3.
>
>
>
> In my efforts to understand this data, I have turned to two places,
>
> Engestrom's chapter from 1999, Innovative learning in work teams, and
>
> Daniels book 2001, Vygotsky and Pedagogy, mostly chapter 3, the discussions
>
> of Activity theory 3rd generation as a starting point.
>
>
>
> I want to argue that the learners are jointly constructing the object of
>
> the activity, and that object is what Bereiter and Wells refer to as the
>
> improvable object. The dialogue influences the content and the content
>
> influences the dialogue. Can this be argued as 3rd generation activity
>
> theory? I am thinking it can be, I actually think it is a perfect fit to
>
> the model, but I am alone reading these materials without anyone to bounce
>
> these ideas off of. My confusion lies in that this is with second language
>
> learners in a general English course, and most of the instances of language
>
> learning discussions center around the structure of the language, not the
>
> use of the language.
>
>
>
> Eventually, my final argument is that through this interaction, instances
>
> of dynamic assessment occurs between learners, because not only are they
>
> sharing files and constantly changing them, but occasionally Student B may
>
> upload a file with content and Student A (or other) will make a suggestion
>
> to Student B who will then change their poster file again and upload it.
>
> Again, much of the discussion of dynamic assessment and language learning
>
> occurs around the structure of the language, so I'm certain that this is a
>
> new field of study with respect to joint construction of an object coupled
>
> with instances of dynamic assessment in a language learning environment.
>
>
>
> I know there is probably much more I can write, but not to bog down the
>
> readers here, I am interested in thoughts or opinions on what is happening
>
> with the data.
>
>
>
> Respectfully,
>
>
>
> Mark
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: activity systems.png
Type: image/png
Size: 101564 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20160817/310e4df2/attachment-0001.png

------------------------------

Message: 26
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2016 16:14:12 +0000
From: Stephen Diaz <EDiaz@csusb.edu>
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: FW: Syllabus on sociocultural theories:
        grad seminar
To: "xmca-l@ucsd.edu" <xmca-l@ucsd.edu>, Eugene Matusov
        <ematusov@udel.edu>,    "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity"
        <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
Message-ID:
        <BN3PR0801MB0865179479C488C76DA103F4A7140@BN3PR0801MB0865.namprd08.prod.outlook.com>

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

Thanks for posting Gene's syllabus.  I just want to comment on the glaring gap in the curricular map.  That is the absence of the work of Michael Cole's work in the syllabus.  It is good that Gene allows students to introduce and pursue their own perspectives and interests because one of the first changes I would make as a student would be to include Cole's work in the curricular map.  Gene's syllabus is great contribution to those of us who teach in this area.  Thank you.

Esteban Diaz


________________________________
From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> on behalf of Ana Marjanovic-Shane <anamshane@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 11:19 AM
To: xmca-l@ucsd.edu; Eugene Matusov
Subject: [Xmca-l] Fwd: FW: Syllabus on sociocultural theories: grad seminar

Dear XMCAers-



Thanks a lot for your help with my grad seminar syllabus "Sociocultural
Theories in Education." Attached please find my "final draft" of it -
actually, the final draft will be developed by my students and me *at the
end of the course *because we are going to change it via democratic
governance of the class. So, if you get new ideas to share, you won't be
late.



Take care,



Eugene
----------------------------

Eugene Matusov, PhD, ematusov@udel.edu

Editor-in-Chief, Dialogic Pedagogy Journal <http://dpj.pitt.edu/>

Professor of Education

School of Education

16 W Main st

University of Delaware

Newark, DE 19716, USA



Publications: http://ematusov.soe.udel.edu/vita/publications.htm

DiaPed: http://diaped.soe.udel.edu

DPJ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/groups/DPJ.two/

----------------------------









--

*Ana Marjanovic-Shane*

Dialogic Pedagogy Journal editor (dpj.pitt.edu)

Associate Professor of Education

Chestnut Hill College

phone: 267-334-2905
--
*Ana Marjanovic-Shane*
Dialogic Pedagogy Journal editor (dpj.pitt.edu)
Associate Professor of Education
Chestnut Hill College
phone: 267-334-2905


------------------------------

Message: 27
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2016 16:14:12 +0000
From: Stephen Diaz <EDiaz@csusb.edu>
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: FW: Syllabus on sociocultural theories:
        grad seminar
To: "xmca-l@ucsd.edu" <xmca-l@ucsd.edu>, Eugene Matusov
        <ematusov@udel.edu>,    "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity"
        <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
Message-ID:
        <BN3PR0801MB0865179479C488C76DA103F4A7140@BN3PR0801MB0865.namprd08.prod.outlook.com>

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

Thanks for posting Gene's syllabus.  I just want to comment on the glaring gap in the curricular map.  That is the absence of the work of Michael Cole's work in the syllabus.  It is good that Gene allows students to introduce and pursue their own perspectives and interests because one of the first changes I would make as a student would be to include Cole's work in the curricular map.  Gene's syllabus is great contribution to those of us who teach in this area.  Thank you.

Esteban Diaz


________________________________
From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> on behalf of Ana Marjanovic-Shane <anamshane@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 11:19 AM
To: xmca-l@ucsd.edu; Eugene Matusov
Subject: [Xmca-l] Fwd: FW: Syllabus on sociocultural theories: grad seminar

Dear XMCAers-



Thanks a lot for your help with my grad seminar syllabus "Sociocultural
Theories in Education." Attached please find my "final draft" of it -
actually, the final draft will be developed by my students and me *at the
end of the course *because we are going to change it via democratic
governance of the class. So, if you get new ideas to share, you won't be
late.



Take care,



Eugene
----------------------------

Eugene Matusov, PhD, ematusov@udel.edu

Editor-in-Chief, Dialogic Pedagogy Journal <http://dpj.pitt.edu/>

Professor of Education

School of Education

16 W Main st

University of Delaware

Newark, DE 19716, USA



Publications: http://ematusov.soe.udel.edu/vita/publications.htm

DiaPed: http://diaped.soe.udel.edu

DPJ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/groups/DPJ.two/

----------------------------









--

*Ana Marjanovic-Shane*

Dialogic Pedagogy Journal editor (dpj.pitt.edu)

Associate Professor of Education

Chestnut Hill College

phone: 267-334-2905
--
*Ana Marjanovic-Shane*
Dialogic Pedagogy Journal editor (dpj.pitt.edu)
Associate Professor of Education
Chestnut Hill College
phone: 267-334-2905


------------------------------

Message: 28
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2016 11:37:19 -0700
From: mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu>
Subject: [Xmca-l]  Fwd: 78% of workers struggle with collaboration
To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
Message-ID:
        <CAHCnM0Br1zTyb7wL5eCfg7i_tBhaX5tUgQBRs-x3ybr7k8FGrA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

This ad struck me as an interesting indication of a domain in which a lot
of our discussions about mediation, cooperation, communication,
collaboration find a natural home.

mike
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Polycom Inc. <Contact_Polycom_Americas@polycom.com>
Date: Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 8:33 AM
Subject: 78% of workers struggle with collaboration
To: mcole@ucsd.edu



The traditional office space is dead. Welcome a new world of shared, open
spaces.

[image: logo]
<http://app.info.polycom.com/e/er?s=1078&lid=4&elqTrackId=f3b06f1da72549ae8d046096140da1ef&elq=43bb8b4625c74d29808ce336465664f8&elqaid=25760&elqat=1>

[image: img]
[image: The Incredible Shrinking Office: Transforming Workspaces to Empower
Collaboration]
<http://app.info.polycom.com/e/er?s=1078&lid=28990&elqcontact=CPOLY000001951974&elqTrackId=5388874bbb2943cdb2695b01a9601c1b&elq=43bb8b4625c74d29808ce336465664f8&elqaid=25760&elqat=1>

new Report The Incredible Shrinking Office: Transforming Workspaces to
Empower Collaboration


Various studies show that up to 82% of knowledge workers feel they need to
collaborate with others throughout the day to get work done.  Yet,
according to an IBM study, 78% say they struggle to effectively connect
their workplace and help people collaborate?either virtually or
face-to-face. Why? The answer is not all collaboration is alike.

Go to the report
<http://app.info.polycom.com/e/er?s=1078&lid=28990&elqcontact=CPOLY000001951974&elqTrackId=d1154cbd7e19437fb58df4fbb7265d77&elq=43bb8b4625c74d29808ce336465664f8&elqaid=25760&elqat=1>
to
get the latest trends in office space utilization and learn about the three
main types of collaboration and how they need to be supported differently
in the work environment.

go to report
<http://app.info.polycom.com/e/er?s=1078&lid=28990&elqcontact=CPOLY000001951974&elqTrackId=cc7a45c443024804947ae857aa764cbb&elq=43bb8b4625c74d29808ce336465664f8&elqaid=25760&elqat=1>

[image: img]
<http://app.info.polycom.com/e/er?s=1078&lid=28980&elqcontact=CPOLY000001951974&elqTrackId=5df3514824434a77aa60654f07ebb3ac&elq=43bb8b4625c74d29808ce336465664f8&elqaid=25760&elqat=1>

Collaborate in a circle, regardless of location

Witness the power of meeting in the round in this interactive demo of
Polycom? RealPresence Centro?.
Go to Demo
<http://app.info.polycom.com/e/er?s=1078&lid=28980&elqcontact=CPOLY000001951974&elqTrackId=28cdfb48b7ac45cabcb2f20243822deb&elq=43bb8b4625c74d29808ce336465664f8&elqaid=25760&elqat=1>
[image: img]
<http://app.info.polycom.com/e/er?s=1078&lid=28989&elqcontact=CPOLY000001951974&elqTrackId=911db5430ffd427cb6192bf6ee959884&elq=43bb8b4625c74d29808ce336465664f8&elqaid=25760&elqat=1>

NATO embraces a new way of working

NATO Communications and Information (NCI) agency is changing how global
participants meet and interact.
Watch Video
<http://app.info.polycom.com/e/er?s=1078&lid=28989&elqcontact=CPOLY000001951974&elqTrackId=9fb7a5b26ece44b89f2dede692f5ffda&elq=43bb8b4625c74d29808ce336465664f8&elqaid=25760&elqat=1>
[image: img]
<http://app.info.polycom.com/e/er?s=1078&lid=28978&elqcontact=CPOLY000001951974&elqTrackId=5ceb59764b72450b9412557f67ebc151&elq=43bb8b4625c74d29808ce336465664f8&elqaid=25760&elqat=1>

Polycom Experience Center Open House - Upcoming Dates

Visit a Polycom experience center to see  demonstrations of the latest
innovations in group video collaboration.
See Dates & Locations
<http://app.info.polycom.com/e/er?s=1078&lid=28978&elqcontact=CPOLY000001951974&elqTrackId=e6fe2e0fa18444489f1ae7bbee7cdcd4&elq=43bb8b4625c74d29808ce336465664f8&elqaid=25760&elqat=1>
Polycom, Inc.
6001 America Center Drive, San Jose, CA 95002
Tel: 1.800.POLYCOM | Web: http://www.polycom.com
<http://www.polycom.com?elqTrackId=2a06cc49c90b492da2ca2f529665befa&elq=43bb8b4625c74d29808ce336465664f8&elqaid=25760&elqat=1&elqCampaignId=6025>
You are subscribed as mcole@ucsd.edu.
Online Version
<http://app.info.polycom.com/e/es.aspx?s=1078&e=854119&elqTrackId=d00b4c3fd6954bfa856635f795bcd8eb&elq=43bb8b4625c74d29808ce336465664f8&elqaid=25760&elqat=1>
| Privacy Policy
<http://www.polycom.com/company/privacy-policy.html?elqTrackId=574c969d17e34314aeec1a1115ad98e3&elq=43bb8b4625c74d29808ce336465664f8&elqaid=25760&elqat=1&elqCampaignId=6025>
| Unsubscribe
<http://app.info.polycom.com/e/u.aspx?s=1078&elq=43bb8b4625c74d29808ce336465664f8>
?2016 Polycom, Inc. All Rights Reserved. All other brands, products, or
service names are or may be trademarks or service marks of, and are used to
identify, products or services of their respective owners.



--

It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an object
that creates history. Ernst Boesch


------------------------------

Message: 29
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2016 14:00:06 +0900
From: Mark de Boer <mark.yomogi@gmail.com>
Subject: [Xmca-l]   Re: 3rd generation activity theory
To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
Message-ID:
        <CAOgf4eV_RcCy8UhsMMVaRs+xMsUNZtSx+a0m=psy28j_sP27eg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Hello!
Thank you for your replies. For some reason I did not get them in my
mailbox, so I am consolidating

the mail here from the XMCA archive site and replying to everyone
below each of your messages.


Hi Mark,

I think the issue is really complex.
Are the students using the open forum to make the poster better for
presentation
or to advance the thinking that the poster represents.
If it is the first then I don't think you can think of it as the type of
progressive thinking the Knowledge Forum for instance is looking to create
through student interactions.  It is instead the students looking to use the
technology to advance their needs within the larger system (a good
poster means a better grade).
On the other hand if you can show that the students are really
changing each other's
thinking about what's on the poster (and I am not sure you can from
the dialogue you
presented here) then you can make an argument for augmented thinking,
for progressive
development of thinking, I am guessing for 3rd generation activity theory.

I think Kai Hakkarainnen and Sammi Paavola have written some really
interesting stuff on this.
Take a look at some of their articles.

Michael


Hello Michael,

The students are doing both. They use the forum to better the poster,
but as they are doing this,

the poster is evolving to change from data to 'a message', i.e. the
data are facts concerning pet

bottle manufacturing, recycling, and usage, which evolves into a
message that pet bottles are harmful for

the environment, harmful for our bodies, and that we should stop using
them. So although the dialogue

I  showed here doesn't show this (there is a lot of dialogue that is
not shown in my short example),

the majority of the dialogue moves the process forward, what should be
done, what message should be put in the poster,
but the content in the posters provides the most evidence that there
is influence of content, content added

often has an influence on other content, and the message evolves. The
issue is complex, it is a language learning classroom,

and I am attempting to show that through the student interaction, they
are dynamically assessing each other.



Hi Mark

It is not clear to me from your explication why you need 3rd gen AT.
Mike
I concur with Mike, Mark.  There is not a *system *of activity being
negotiated here as I see. Beliefs, motives, goals, division of labour,
subject, object, outcomes. It's seems like overkill in your situation,
where content is being negotiated and renegotiated.  I am at a loss to
offer you anything more than what you are dealing with in terms of
dialogue, except you might like to see what Eugene Matusov might have to
offer.

Carol

Hello Mike and Carol,

Originally, my thoughts were to examine what the learners were doing
in the forums, and came up

with the conclusion that this was an object oriented activity. The
thinking came from reading
'Toward overcoming the encapsulation of school learning' by Engestrom,
as learners are working on their

understanding of the different concepts of the topics they are going
to present on. I showed division of labour,

subject, object outcomes, tools. My dilemma, was that I wanted to show
that on one side there was the language which was driving

the process forward, this can be easily proven using different
analytical tools, but I also wanted to show that as a result of

collaboration, the students would develop content.(this can also
easily be seen from the data). But as they developed content,
they would discuss it, thus the content was also responsible for the
collaboration. This would be done up to the point of where
they would present. Thus the division of systems (in my mind).
I also wanted to show that the object (poster) was not the end
product, it was used as a tool for their presentation
(tools-and-results activity).

I am confused now, because I have written, submitted, and passed 2
literature reviews towards my PhD with these concepts in mind and
now I am currently writing the final paper, showing the analysis of the data.





> On Aug 16, 2016, at 9:04 AM, Mark de Boer <mark.yomogi@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I can understand what happens between 1 and 2. This is a simple case. But
> between 2, 3, and 4 it becomes complicated.

Mark, I don?t yet understand what happens between 1 and 2!

> 1. Student A: 'Let's begin working on our poster'
> 2. Student B: 'I made my poster, please check' (poster1 file an attachment
> in the forum)

How did ?our poster? become ?my poster??

Martin

Dear Martin,

Because this is a group of 4 students, even though they are developing
a poster as a group, they
(as is seen later on) end up dividing the work and each start to
create 'their part of the poster',

so the dialogue moves from 'let's make our poster' (as a group) to 'I
made my poster' (contribution to the

group's whole poster). Later on in the dialogue, the group leader
divides the work of the poster into

topics as I showed, but then after a number of days, he decides to
assign these topics to the other

students in the group. The dialogue moves from one poster being
created - moving from student to

student, to 4 sub posters being created by 4 students, and the
dialogue shows evidence that the

students are looking at each others posters, making suggestions about
what gets written, and in

some cases altering other student's posters. At the end the posters
are printed and put on the wall

 ready for presenting.




Mark,
I don't understand what happens between 5 and 6:

"5. Student B: 'I think that we should put the following contents in our
poster (suggesting a list of topics concerning pet bottles and pet bottle
use) Please give me your opinion.
6. Student C: 'I made a poster about (topic a), please check' (poster4 file
an attachment in the forum, originally poster3)"

How did poster3 get changed into poster4 that is "about topic a". Or was
poster3 already about topic a? If so, then why the need to introduce to
everyone with "I made a poster about (topic a)"? Was "topic a" something
that was introduced by Student B in turn #5? Is this due to the students
not having the resources in English to indicate how their turn relates to
the previous turn?

The continuity/discontinuity (aka "old/new information") is what is unclear
to me. The fact that this poster4 is a revision of poster3 suggests
continuity and old information. But the statement "I made a poster about
(topic a)" suggests discontinuity and new information.

-greg

Dear Greg,

I'm sorry I wasn't clear here. Even though the poster is starting to
get developed, the leader of

the group decides that there should be specific themes running though
the poster, thus topics (a-d) are decided

and written into the forum. Poster 3 file already contains some
information, but now student C takes that poster

and adds topic-a information. (Topic b information was already there).
So the poster begins to get built by adding

topic information. So although there is continuity and old
information, there is discontinuity and new information added.

Later some of the students also put information into the poster that
begins to link the different topics together.

At one point though the group leader decides that instead of listing
topics and having a free-for-all, each student randomly

adding information, he assigns the topics Student A gets topic a, etc,
and then there is a discontinuity and new information.

The poster that they have been sharing is somewhat abandoned (although
some information is pulled) and each student begins to

work on their own topic as a completely separate file, uploading it to
the forum as changes are made.



Thank you everyone for your replies. If it is at all possible, would
someone be willing to skype about this? I promise not to

take up much of your time. My skype handle is yomogi-cello. I would be
very grateful for any help or advice after you have read this post.

Warm regards,

Mark


------------------------------

Message: 30
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2016 10:20:39 -0700
From: mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu>
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: 3rd generation activity theory
To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
Message-ID:
        <CAHCnM0C5PUMoNQw=PC0Pa97YO49VUQv_cUNeBCE=jGrqNSVf8g@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Mark --

I take "third generation activity theory" to involve interactions between
activity systems in addition to the principles you enumerate. Perhaps I am
mistaken. A brief paper by Harry Daniels contains a summary that accords
with my understanding.

It can be confusing to ask for advice on xmca when you get a lot of it form
disparate people!

mike

http://www.bath.ac.uk/research/liw/resources/Models%20and%20principles%20of%20Activity%20Theory.pdf

On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 10:00 PM, Mark de Boer <mark.yomogi@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hello!
> Thank you for your replies. For some reason I did not get them in my
> mailbox, so I am consolidating
>
> the mail here from the XMCA archive site and replying to everyone
> below each of your messages.
>
>
> Hi Mark,
>
> I think the issue is really complex.
> Are the students using the open forum to make the poster better for
> presentation
> or to advance the thinking that the poster represents.
> If it is the first then I don't think you can think of it as the type of
> progressive thinking the Knowledge Forum for instance is looking to create
> through student interactions.  It is instead the students looking to use
> the
> technology to advance their needs within the larger system (a good
> poster means a better grade).
> On the other hand if you can show that the students are really
> changing each other's
> thinking about what's on the poster (and I am not sure you can from
> the dialogue you
> presented here) then you can make an argument for augmented thinking,
> for progressive
> development of thinking, I am guessing for 3rd generation activity theory.
>
> I think Kai Hakkarainnen and Sammi Paavola have written some really
> interesting stuff on this.
> Take a look at some of their articles.
>
> Michael
>
>
> Hello Michael,
>
> The students are doing both. They use the forum to better the poster,
> but as they are doing this,
>
> the poster is evolving to change from data to 'a message', i.e. the
> data are facts concerning pet
>
> bottle manufacturing, recycling, and usage, which evolves into a
> message that pet bottles are harmful for
>
> the environment, harmful for our bodies, and that we should stop using
> them. So although the dialogue
>
> I  showed here doesn't show this (there is a lot of dialogue that is
> not shown in my short example),
>
> the majority of the dialogue moves the process forward, what should be
> done, what message should be put in the poster,
> but the content in the posters provides the most evidence that there
> is influence of content, content added
>
> often has an influence on other content, and the message evolves. The
> issue is complex, it is a language learning classroom,
>
> and I am attempting to show that through the student interaction, they
> are dynamically assessing each other.
>
>
>
> Hi Mark
>
> It is not clear to me from your explication why you need 3rd gen AT.
> Mike
> I concur with Mike, Mark.  There is not a *system *of activity being
> negotiated here as I see. Beliefs, motives, goals, division of labour,
> subject, object, outcomes. It's seems like overkill in your situation,
> where content is being negotiated and renegotiated.  I am at a loss to
> offer you anything more than what you are dealing with in terms of
> dialogue, except you might like to see what Eugene Matusov might have to
> offer.
>
> Carol
>
> Hello Mike and Carol,
>
> Originally, my thoughts were to examine what the learners were doing
> in the forums, and came up
>
> with the conclusion that this was an object oriented activity. The
> thinking came from reading
> 'Toward overcoming the encapsulation of school learning' by Engestrom,
> as learners are working on their
>
> understanding of the different concepts of the topics they are going
> to present on. I showed division of labour,
>
> subject, object outcomes, tools. My dilemma, was that I wanted to show
> that on one side there was the language which was driving
>
> the process forward, this can be easily proven using different
> analytical tools, but I also wanted to show that as a result of
>
> collaboration, the students would develop content.(this can also
> easily be seen from the data). But as they developed content,
> they would discuss it, thus the content was also responsible for the
> collaboration. This would be done up to the point of where
> they would present. Thus the division of systems (in my mind).
> I also wanted to show that the object (poster) was not the end
> product, it was used as a tool for their presentation
> (tools-and-results activity).
>
> I am confused now, because I have written, submitted, and passed 2
> literature reviews towards my PhD with these concepts in mind and
> now I am currently writing the final paper, showing the analysis of the
> data.
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 16, 2016, at 9:04 AM, Mark de Boer <mark.yomogi@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I can understand what happens between 1 and 2. This is a simple case. But
> > between 2, 3, and 4 it becomes complicated.
>
> Mark, I don?t yet understand what happens between 1 and 2!
>
> > 1. Student A: 'Let's begin working on our poster'
> > 2. Student B: 'I made my poster, please check' (poster1 file an
> attachment
> > in the forum)
>
> How did ?our poster? become ?my poster??
>
> Martin
>
> Dear Martin,
>
> Because this is a group of 4 students, even though they are developing
> a poster as a group, they
> (as is seen later on) end up dividing the work and each start to
> create 'their part of the poster',
>
> so the dialogue moves from 'let's make our poster' (as a group) to 'I
> made my poster' (contribution to the
>
> group's whole poster). Later on in the dialogue, the group leader
> divides the work of the poster into
>
> topics as I showed, but then after a number of days, he decides to
> assign these topics to the other
>
> students in the group. The dialogue moves from one poster being
> created - moving from student to
>
> student, to 4 sub posters being created by 4 students, and the
> dialogue shows evidence that the
>
> students are looking at each others posters, making suggestions about
> what gets written, and in
>
> some cases altering other student's posters. At the end the posters
> are printed and put on the wall
>
>  ready for presenting.
>
>
>
>
> Mark,
> I don't understand what happens between 5 and 6:
>
> "5. Student B: 'I think that we should put the following contents in our
> poster (suggesting a list of topics concerning pet bottles and pet bottle
> use) Please give me your opinion.
> 6. Student C: 'I made a poster about (topic a), please check' (poster4 file
> an attachment in the forum, originally poster3)"
>
> How did poster3 get changed into poster4 that is "about topic a". Or was
> poster3 already about topic a? If so, then why the need to introduce to
> everyone with "I made a poster about (topic a)"? Was "topic a" something
> that was introduced by Student B in turn #5? Is this due to the students
> not having the resources in English to indicate how their turn relates to
> the previous turn?
>
> The continuity/discontinuity (aka "old/new information") is what is unclear
> to me. The fact that this poster4 is a revision of poster3 suggests
> continuity and old information. But the statement "I made a poster about
> (topic a)" suggests discontinuity and new information.
>
> -greg
>
> Dear Greg,
>
> I'm sorry I wasn't clear here. Even though the poster is starting to
> get developed, the leader of
>
> the group decides that there should be specific themes running though
> the poster, thus topics (a-d) are decided
>
> and written into the forum. Poster 3 file already contains some
> information, but now student C takes that poster
>
> and adds topic-a information. (Topic b information was already there).
> So the poster begins to get built by adding
>
> topic information. So although there is continuity and old
> information, there is discontinuity and new information added.
>
> Later some of the students also put information into the poster that
> begins to link the different topics together.
>
> At one point though the group leader decides that instead of listing
> topics and having a free-for-all, each student randomly
>
> adding information, he assigns the topics Student A gets topic a, etc,
> and then there is a discontinuity and new information.
>
> The poster that they have been sharing is somewhat abandoned (although
> some information is pulled) and each student begins to
>
> work on their own topic as a completely separate file, uploading it to
> the forum as changes are made.
>
>
>
> Thank you everyone for your replies. If it is at all possible, would
> someone be willing to skype about this? I promise not to
>
> take up much of your time. My skype handle is yomogi-cello. I would be
> very grateful for any help or advice after you have read this post.
>
> Warm regards,
>
> Mark
>



--

It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an object
that creates history. Ernst Boesch


------------------------------

Message: 31
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2016 13:32:59 -0600
From: HENRY SHONERD <hshonerd@gmail.com>
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: 3rd generation activity theory
To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
Message-ID: <18E7486D-60E0-404A-87B4-DB40703EFC67@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain;       charset=utf-8

Mike,
Figure 3 of Daniels, with its two triangles, depicts VISUALLY what you call ?interactions between activity systems??t Yet, if I am not mistaken, from that figure to the the final paragraph he describes IN WRITING interactions almost entirely within only ONE activity system at a time. Does this touch in any way on your qualifier: ?Perhaps I am mistaken.??

I ask this not only for theoretical reasons, but because in my life my own commitments to projects have been very much affected by ?contending? projects. A prime example is the push and pull of what might be called neoliberal and more collectivist solutions to economic problems. In the 60s, as a grad student in economics at UC Berkeley, I was much more convinced of collectivist, centralized approaches than I am today. On the other hand, even Milton Friedman thought that some problems, education in particular, cannot be solved purely by market forces.

I look at my previous paragraph and I realize that I am construing my journey (and Friedman?s?) as individual. The final paragraph of Daniels construes the journey as collective:  "A full cycle of expansive transformation may be understood as a collective journey through the zone of proximal development of the activity.? It seems to me that the contending projects that students bring into the classroom, not ignorance, make or break dialog in the classroom.

Henry







> On Aug 18, 2016, at 11:20 AM, mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu> wrote:
>
> Mark --
>
> I take "third generation activity theory" to involve interactions between
> activity systems in addition to the principles you enumerate. Perhaps I am
> mistaken. A brief paper by Harry Daniels contains a summary that accords
> with my understanding.
>
> It can be confusing to ask for advice on xmca when you get a lot of it form
> disparate people!
>
> mike
>
> http://www.bath.ac.uk/research/liw/resources/Models%20and%20principles%20of%20Activity%20Theory.pdf
>
> On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 10:00 PM, Mark de Boer <mark.yomogi@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hello!
>> Thank you for your replies. For some reason I did not get them in my
>> mailbox, so I am consolidating
>>
>> the mail here from the XMCA archive site and replying to everyone
>> below each of your messages.
>>
>>
>> Hi Mark,
>>
>> I think the issue is really complex.
>> Are the students using the open forum to make the poster better for
>> presentation
>> or to advance the thinking that the poster represents.
>> If it is the first then I don't think you can think of it as the type of
>> progressive thinking the Knowledge Forum for instance is looking to create
>> through student interactions.  It is instead the students looking to use
>> the
>> technology to advance their needs within the larger system (a good
>> poster means a better grade).
>> On the other hand if you can show that the students are really
>> changing each other's
>> thinking about what's on the poster (and I am not sure you can from
>> the dialogue you
>> presented here) then you can make an argument for augmented thinking,
>> for progressive
>> development of thinking, I am guessing for 3rd generation activity theory.
>>
>> I think Kai Hakkarainnen and Sammi Paavola have written some really
>> interesting stuff on this.
>> Take a look at some of their articles.
>>
>> Michael
>>
>>
>> Hello Michael,
>>
>> The students are doing both. They use the forum to better the poster,
>> but as they are doing this,
>>
>> the poster is evolving to change from data to 'a message', i.e. the
>> data are facts concerning pet
>>
>> bottle manufacturing, recycling, and usage, which evolves into a
>> message that pet bottles are harmful for
>>
>> the environment, harmful for our bodies, and that we should stop using
>> them. So although the dialogue
>>
>> I  showed here doesn't show this (there is a lot of dialogue that is
>> not shown in my short example),
>>
>> the majority of the dialogue moves the process forward, what should be
>> done, what message should be put in the poster,
>> but the content in the posters provides the most evidence that there
>> is influence of content, content added
>>
>> often has an influence on other content, and the message evolves. The
>> issue is complex, it is a language learning classroom,
>>
>> and I am attempting to show that through the student interaction, they
>> are dynamically assessing each other.
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Mark
>>
>> It is not clear to me from your explication why you need 3rd gen AT.
>> Mike
>> I concur with Mike, Mark.  There is not a *system *of activity being
>> negotiated here as I see. Beliefs, motives, goals, division of labour,
>> subject, object, outcomes. It's seems like overkill in your situation,
>> where content is being negotiated and renegotiated.  I am at a loss to
>> offer you anything more than what you are dealing with in terms of
>> dialogue, except you might like to see what Eugene Matusov might have to
>> offer.
>>
>> Carol
>>
>> Hello Mike and Carol,
>>
>> Originally, my thoughts were to examine what the learners were doing
>> in the forums, and came up
>>
>> with the conclusion that this was an object oriented activity. The
>> thinking came from reading
>> 'Toward overcoming the encapsulation of school learning' by Engestrom,
>> as learners are working on their
>>
>> understanding of the different concepts of the topics they are going
>> to present on. I showed division of labour,
>>
>> subject, object outcomes, tools. My dilemma, was that I wanted to show
>> that on one side there was the language which was driving
>>
>> the process forward, this can be easily proven using different
>> analytical tools, but I also wanted to show that as a result of
>>
>> collaboration, the students would develop content.(this can also
>> easily be seen from the data). But as they developed content,
>> they would discuss it, thus the content was also responsible for the
>> collaboration. This would be done up to the point of where
>> they would present. Thus the division of systems (in my mind).
>> I also wanted to show that the object (poster) was not the end
>> product, it was used as a tool for their presentation
>> (tools-and-results activity).
>>
>> I am confused now, because I have written, submitted, and passed 2
>> literature reviews towards my PhD with these concepts in mind and
>> now I am currently writing the final paper, showing the analysis of the
>> data.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Aug 16, 2016, at 9:04 AM, Mark de Boer <mark.yomogi@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I can understand what happens between 1 and 2. This is a simple case. But
>>> between 2, 3, and 4 it becomes complicated.
>>
>> Mark, I don?t yet understand what happens between 1 and 2!
>>
>>> 1. Student A: 'Let's begin working on our poster'
>>> 2. Student B: 'I made my poster, please check' (poster1 file an
>> attachment
>>> in the forum)
>>
>> How did ?our poster? become ?my poster??
>>
>> Martin
>>
>> Dear Martin,
>>
>> Because this is a group of 4 students, even though they are developing
>> a poster as a group, they
>> (as is seen later on) end up dividing the work and each start to
>> create 'their part of the poster',
>>
>> so the dialogue moves from 'let's make our poster' (as a group) to 'I
>> made my poster' (contribution to the
>>
>> group's whole poster). Later on in the dialogue, the group leader
>> divides the work of the poster into
>>
>> topics as I showed, but then after a number of days, he decides to
>> assign these topics to the other
>>
>> students in the group. The dialogue moves from one poster being
>> created - moving from student to
>>
>> student, to 4 sub posters being created by 4 students, and the
>> dialogue shows evidence that the
>>
>> students are looking at each others posters, making suggestions about
>> what gets written, and in
>>
>> some cases altering other student's posters. At the end the posters
>> are printed and put on the wall
>>
>> ready for presenting.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Mark,
>> I don't understand what happens between 5 and 6:
>>
>> "5. Student B: 'I think that we should put the following contents in our
>> poster (suggesting a list of topics concerning pet bottles and pet bottle
>> use) Please give me your opinion.
>> 6. Student C: 'I made a poster about (topic a), please check' (poster4 file
>> an attachment in the forum, originally poster3)"
>>
>> How did poster3 get changed into poster4 that is "about topic a". Or was
>> poster3 already about topic a? If so, then why the need to introduce to
>> everyone with "I made a poster about (topic a)"? Was "topic a" something
>> that was introduced by Student B in turn #5? Is this due to the students
>> not having the resources in English to indicate how their turn relates to
>> the previous turn?
>>
>> The continuity/discontinuity (aka "old/new information") is what is unclear
>> to me. The fact that this poster4 is a revision of poster3 suggests
>> continuity and old information. But the statement "I made a poster about
>> (topic a)" suggests discontinuity and new information.
>>
>> -greg
>>
>> Dear Greg,
>>
>> I'm sorry I wasn't clear here. Even though the poster is starting to
>> get developed, the leader of
>>
>> the group decides that there should be specific themes running though
>> the poster, thus topics (a-d) are decided
>>
>> and written into the forum. Poster 3 file already contains some
>> information, but now student C takes that poster
>>
>> and adds topic-a information. (Topic b information was already there).
>> So the poster begins to get built by adding
>>
>> topic information. So although there is continuity and old
>> information, there is discontinuity and new information added.
>>
>> Later some of the students also put information into the poster that
>> begins to link the different topics together.
>>
>> At one point though the group leader decides that instead of listing
>> topics and having a free-for-all, each student randomly
>>
>> adding information, he assigns the topics Student A gets topic a, etc,
>> and then there is a discontinuity and new information.
>>
>> The poster that they have been sharing is somewhat abandoned (although
>> some information is pulled) and each student begins to
>>
>> work on their own topic as a completely separate file, uploading it to
>> the forum as changes are made.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thank you everyone for your replies. If it is at all possible, would
>> someone be willing to skype about this? I promise not to
>>
>> take up much of your time. My skype handle is yomogi-cello. I would be
>> very grateful for any help or advice after you have read this post.
>>
>> Warm regards,
>>
>> Mark
>>
>
>
>
> --
>
> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an object
> that creates history. Ernst Boesch



------------------------------

Message: 32
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2016 13:07:30 -0700
From: mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu>
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: 3rd generation activity theory
To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
Message-ID:
        <CAHCnM0ArY-UkPa5DUYXM7VgeyzM3qmG9eHGvtRaWOCnmrKWoXg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Perhaps, Henry.

I thought that Mark was concentrating on the joint activity within a single
activity system. Perfectly fine. I was uncertain why he needed the
additional apparatus.

mike

On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 12:32 PM, HENRY SHONERD <hshonerd@gmail.com> wrote:

> Mike,
> Figure 3 of Daniels, with its two triangles, depicts VISUALLY what you
> call ?interactions between activity systems??t Yet, if I am not mistaken,
> from that figure to the the final paragraph he describes IN WRITING
> interactions almost entirely within only ONE activity system at a time.
> Does this touch in any way on your qualifier: ?Perhaps I am mistaken.??
>
> I ask this not only for theoretical reasons, but because in my life my own
> commitments to projects have been very much affected by ?contending?
> projects. A prime example is the push and pull of what might be called
> neoliberal and more collectivist solutions to economic problems. In the
> 60s, as a grad student in economics at UC Berkeley, I was much more
> convinced of collectivist, centralized approaches than I am today. On the
> other hand, even Milton Friedman thought that some problems, education in
> particular, cannot be solved purely by market forces.
>
> I look at my previous paragraph and I realize that I am construing my
> journey (and Friedman?s?) as individual. The final paragraph of Daniels
> construes the journey as collective:  "A full cycle of expansive
> transformation may be understood as a collective journey through the zone
> of proximal development of the activity.? It seems to me that the
> contending projects that students bring into the classroom, not ignorance,
> make or break dialog in the classroom.
>
> Henry
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 18, 2016, at 11:20 AM, mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu> wrote:
> >
> > Mark --
> >
> > I take "third generation activity theory" to involve interactions between
> > activity systems in addition to the principles you enumerate. Perhaps I
> am
> > mistaken. A brief paper by Harry Daniels contains a summary that accords
> > with my understanding.
> >
> > It can be confusing to ask for advice on xmca when you get a lot of it
> form
> > disparate people!
> >
> > mike
> >
> > http://www.bath.ac.uk/research/liw/resources/Models%
> 20and%20principles%20of%20Activity%20Theory.pdf
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 10:00 PM, Mark de Boer <mark.yomogi@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Hello!
> >> Thank you for your replies. For some reason I did not get them in my
> >> mailbox, so I am consolidating
> >>
> >> the mail here from the XMCA archive site and replying to everyone
> >> below each of your messages.
> >>
> >>
> >> Hi Mark,
> >>
> >> I think the issue is really complex.
> >> Are the students using the open forum to make the poster better for
> >> presentation
> >> or to advance the thinking that the poster represents.
> >> If it is the first then I don't think you can think of it as the type of
> >> progressive thinking the Knowledge Forum for instance is looking to
> create
> >> through student interactions.  It is instead the students looking to use
> >> the
> >> technology to advance their needs within the larger system (a good
> >> poster means a better grade).
> >> On the other hand if you can show that the students are really
> >> changing each other's
> >> thinking about what's on the poster (and I am not sure you can from
> >> the dialogue you
> >> presented here) then you can make an argument for augmented thinking,
> >> for progressive
> >> development of thinking, I am guessing for 3rd generation activity
> theory.
> >>
> >> I think Kai Hakkarainnen and Sammi Paavola have written some really
> >> interesting stuff on this.
> >> Take a look at some of their articles.
> >>
> >> Michael
> >>
> >>
> >> Hello Michael,
> >>
> >> The students are doing both. They use the forum to better the poster,
> >> but as they are doing this,
> >>
> >> the poster is evolving to change from data to 'a message', i.e. the
> >> data are facts concerning pet
> >>
> >> bottle manufacturing, recycling, and usage, which evolves into a
> >> message that pet bottles are harmful for
> >>
> >> the environment, harmful for our bodies, and that we should stop using
> >> them. So although the dialogue
> >>
> >> I  showed here doesn't show this (there is a lot of dialogue that is
> >> not shown in my short example),
> >>
> >> the majority of the dialogue moves the process forward, what should be
> >> done, what message should be put in the poster,
> >> but the content in the posters provides the most evidence that there
> >> is influence of content, content added
> >>
> >> often has an influence on other content, and the message evolves. The
> >> issue is complex, it is a language learning classroom,
> >>
> >> and I am attempting to show that through the student interaction, they
> >> are dynamically assessing each other.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Hi Mark
> >>
> >> It is not clear to me from your explication why you need 3rd gen AT.
> >> Mike
> >> I concur with Mike, Mark.  There is not a *system *of activity being
> >> negotiated here as I see. Beliefs, motives, goals, division of labour,
> >> subject, object, outcomes. It's seems like overkill in your situation,
> >> where content is being negotiated and renegotiated.  I am at a loss to
> >> offer you anything more than what you are dealing with in terms of
> >> dialogue, except you might like to see what Eugene Matusov might have to
> >> offer.
> >>
> >> Carol
> >>
> >> Hello Mike and Carol,
> >>
> >> Originally, my thoughts were to examine what the learners were doing
> >> in the forums, and came up
> >>
> >> with the conclusion that this was an object oriented activity. The
> >> thinking came from reading
> >> 'Toward overcoming the encapsulation of school learning' by Engestrom,
> >> as learners are working on their
> >>
> >> understanding of the different concepts of the topics they are going
> >> to present on. I showed division of labour,
> >>
> >> subject, object outcomes, tools. My dilemma, was that I wanted to show
> >> that on one side there was the language which was driving
> >>
> >> the process forward, this can be easily proven using different
> >> analytical tools, but I also wanted to show that as a result of
> >>
> >> collaboration, the students would develop content.(this can also
> >> easily be seen from the data). But as they developed content,
> >> they would discuss it, thus the content was also responsible for the
> >> collaboration. This would be done up to the point of where
> >> they would present. Thus the division of systems (in my mind).
> >> I also wanted to show that the object (poster) was not the end
> >> product, it was used as a tool for their presentation
> >> (tools-and-results activity).
> >>
> >> I am confused now, because I have written, submitted, and passed 2
> >> literature reviews towards my PhD with these concepts in mind and
> >> now I am currently writing the final paper, showing the analysis of the
> >> data.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> On Aug 16, 2016, at 9:04 AM, Mark de Boer <mark.yomogi@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I can understand what happens between 1 and 2. This is a simple case.
> But
> >>> between 2, 3, and 4 it becomes complicated.
> >>
> >> Mark, I don?t yet understand what happens between 1 and 2!
> >>
> >>> 1. Student A: 'Let's begin working on our poster'
> >>> 2. Student B: 'I made my poster, please check' (poster1 file an
> >> attachment
> >>> in the forum)
> >>
> >> How did ?our poster? become ?my poster??
> >>
> >> Martin
> >>
> >> Dear Martin,
> >>
> >> Because this is a group of 4 students, even though they are developing
> >> a poster as a group, they
> >> (as is seen later on) end up dividing the work and each start to
> >> create 'their part of the poster',
> >>
> >> so the dialogue moves from 'let's make our poster' (as a group) to 'I
> >> made my poster' (contribution to the
> >>
> >> group's whole poster). Later on in the dialogue, the group leader
> >> divides the work of the poster into
> >>
> >> topics as I showed, but then after a number of days, he decides to
> >> assign these topics to the other
> >>
> >> students in the group. The dialogue moves from one poster being
> >> created - moving from student to
> >>
> >> student, to 4 sub posters being created by 4 students, and the
> >> dialogue shows evidence that the
> >>
> >> students are looking at each others posters, making suggestions about
> >> what gets written, and in
> >>
> >> some cases altering other student's posters. At the end the posters
> >> are printed and put on the wall
> >>
> >> ready for presenting.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Mark,
> >> I don't understand what happens between 5 and 6:
> >>
> >> "5. Student B: 'I think that we should put the following contents in our
> >> poster (suggesting a list of topics concerning pet bottles and pet
> bottle
> >> use) Please give me your opinion.
> >> 6. Student C: 'I made a poster about (topic a), please check' (poster4
> file
> >> an attachment in the forum, originally poster3)"
> >>
> >> How did poster3 get changed into poster4 that is "about topic a". Or was
> >> poster3 already about topic a? If so, then why the need to introduce to
> >> everyone with "I made a poster about (topic a)"? Was "topic a" something
> >> that was introduced by Student B in turn #5? Is this due to the students
> >> not having the resources in English to indicate how their turn relates
> to
> >> the previous turn?
> >>
> >> The continuity/discontinuity (aka "old/new information") is what is
> unclear
> >> to me. The fact that this poster4 is a revision of poster3 suggests
> >> continuity and old information. But the statement "I made a poster about
> >> (topic a)" suggests discontinuity and new information.
> >>
> >> -greg
> >>
> >> Dear Greg,
> >>
> >> I'm sorry I wasn't clear here. Even though the poster is starting to
> >> get developed, the leader of
> >>
> >> the group decides that there should be specific themes running though
> >> the poster, thus topics (a-d) are decided
> >>
> >> and written into the forum. Poster 3 file already contains some
> >> information, but now student C takes that poster
> >>
> >> and adds topic-a information. (Topic b information was already there).
> >> So the poster begins to get built by adding
> >>
> >> topic information. So although there is continuity and old
> >> information, there is discontinuity and new information added.
> >>
> >> Later some of the students also put information into the poster that
> >> begins to link the different topics together.
> >>
> >> At one point though the group leader decides that instead of listing
> >> topics and having a free-for-all, each student randomly
> >>
> >> adding information, he assigns the topics Student A gets topic a, etc,
> >> and then there is a discontinuity and new information.
> >>
> >> The poster that they have been sharing is somewhat abandoned (although
> >> some information is pulled) and each student begins to
> >>
> >> work on their own topic as a completely separate file, uploading it to
> >> the forum as changes are made.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Thank you everyone for your replies. If it is at all possible, would
> >> someone be willing to skype about this? I promise not to
> >>
> >> take up much of your time. My skype handle is yomogi-cello. I would be
> >> very grateful for any help or advice after you have read this post.
> >>
> >> Warm regards,
> >>
> >> Mark
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an
> object
> > that creates history. Ernst Boesch
>
>


--

It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an object
that creates history. Ernst Boesch


------------------------------

Message: 33
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2016 16:25:11 -0400
From: Christopher Schuck <schuckthemonkey@gmail.com>
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: 3rd generation activity theory
To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
Message-ID:
        <CAA5aoDvEYM77APZUT0DUnu6V01+DCQ2oy+rLL=RK+bX3=YqZhQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Would the fact that Mark has been seeking help from a community whose work
partly involves understanding activity systems, and that we have been
discussing and becoming involved in his project, constitute the
introduction of an additional activity system and interaction with it? Or
would this be trivializing what it means for something to be an "activity
system?

On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 4:07 PM, mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu> wrote:

> Perhaps, Henry.
>
> I thought that Mark was concentrating on the joint activity within a single
> activity system. Perfectly fine. I was uncertain why he needed the
> additional apparatus.
>
> mike
>
> On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 12:32 PM, HENRY SHONERD <hshonerd@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Mike,
> > Figure 3 of Daniels, with its two triangles, depicts VISUALLY what you
> > call ?interactions between activity systems??t Yet, if I am not mistaken,
> > from that figure to the the final paragraph he describes IN WRITING
> > interactions almost entirely within only ONE activity system at a time.
> > Does this touch in any way on your qualifier: ?Perhaps I am mistaken.??
> >
> > I ask this not only for theoretical reasons, but because in my life my
> own
> > commitments to projects have been very much affected by ?contending?
> > projects. A prime example is the push and pull of what might be called
> > neoliberal and more collectivist solutions to economic problems. In the
> > 60s, as a grad student in economics at UC Berkeley, I was much more
> > convinced of collectivist, centralized approaches than I am today. On the
> > other hand, even Milton Friedman thought that some problems, education in
> > particular, cannot be solved purely by market forces.
> >
> > I look at my previous paragraph and I realize that I am construing my
> > journey (and Friedman?s?) as individual. The final paragraph of Daniels
> > construes the journey as collective:  "A full cycle of expansive
> > transformation may be understood as a collective journey through the zone
> > of proximal development of the activity.? It seems to me that the
> > contending projects that students bring into the classroom, not
> ignorance,
> > make or break dialog in the classroom.
> >
> > Henry
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Aug 18, 2016, at 11:20 AM, mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > > Mark --
> > >
> > > I take "third generation activity theory" to involve interactions
> between
> > > activity systems in addition to the principles you enumerate. Perhaps I
> > am
> > > mistaken. A brief paper by Harry Daniels contains a summary that
> accords
> > > with my understanding.
> > >
> > > It can be confusing to ask for advice on xmca when you get a lot of it
> > form
> > > disparate people!
> > >
> > > mike
> > >
> > > http://www.bath.ac.uk/research/liw/resources/Models%
> > 20and%20principles%20of%20Activity%20Theory.pdf
> > >
> > > On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 10:00 PM, Mark de Boer <mark.yomogi@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hello!
> > >> Thank you for your replies. For some reason I did not get them in my
> > >> mailbox, so I am consolidating
> > >>
> > >> the mail here from the XMCA archive site and replying to everyone
> > >> below each of your messages.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Hi Mark,
> > >>
> > >> I think the issue is really complex.
> > >> Are the students using the open forum to make the poster better for
> > >> presentation
> > >> or to advance the thinking that the poster represents.
> > >> If it is the first then I don't think you can think of it as the type
> of
> > >> progressive thinking the Knowledge Forum for instance is looking to
> > create
> > >> through student interactions.  It is instead the students looking to
> use
> > >> the
> > >> technology to advance their needs within the larger system (a good
> > >> poster means a better grade).
> > >> On the other hand if you can show that the students are really
> > >> changing each other's
> > >> thinking about what's on the poster (and I am not sure you can from
> > >> the dialogue you
> > >> presented here) then you can make an argument for augmented thinking,
> > >> for progressive
> > >> development of thinking, I am guessing for 3rd generation activity
> > theory.
> > >>
> > >> I think Kai Hakkarainnen and Sammi Paavola have written some really
> > >> interesting stuff on this.
> > >> Take a look at some of their articles.
> > >>
> > >> Michael
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Hello Michael,
> > >>
> > >> The students are doing both. They use the forum to better the poster,
> > >> but as they are doing this,
> > >>
> > >> the poster is evolving to change from data to 'a message', i.e. the
> > >> data are facts concerning pet
> > >>
> > >> bottle manufacturing, recycling, and usage, which evolves into a
> > >> message that pet bottles are harmful for
> > >>
> > >> the environment, harmful for our bodies, and that we should stop using
> > >> them. So although the dialogue
> > >>
> > >> I  showed here doesn't show this (there is a lot of dialogue that is
> > >> not shown in my short example),
> > >>
> > >> the majority of the dialogue moves the process forward, what should be
> > >> done, what message should be put in the poster,
> > >> but the content in the posters provides the most evidence that there
> > >> is influence of content, content added
> > >>
> > >> often has an influence on other content, and the message evolves. The
> > >> issue is complex, it is a language learning classroom,
> > >>
> > >> and I am attempting to show that through the student interaction, they
> > >> are dynamically assessing each other.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Hi Mark
> > >>
> > >> It is not clear to me from your explication why you need 3rd gen AT.
> > >> Mike
> > >> I concur with Mike, Mark.  There is not a *system *of activity being
> > >> negotiated here as I see. Beliefs, motives, goals, division of labour,
> > >> subject, object, outcomes. It's seems like overkill in your situation,
> > >> where content is being negotiated and renegotiated.  I am at a loss to
> > >> offer you anything more than what you are dealing with in terms of
> > >> dialogue, except you might like to see what Eugene Matusov might have
> to
> > >> offer.
> > >>
> > >> Carol
> > >>
> > >> Hello Mike and Carol,
> > >>
> > >> Originally, my thoughts were to examine what the learners were doing
> > >> in the forums, and came up
> > >>
> > >> with the conclusion that this was an object oriented activity. The
> > >> thinking came from reading
> > >> 'Toward overcoming the encapsulation of school learning' by Engestrom,
> > >> as learners are working on their
> > >>
> > >> understanding of the different concepts of the topics they are going
> > >> to present on. I showed division of labour,
> > >>
> > >> subject, object outcomes, tools. My dilemma, was that I wanted to show
> > >> that on one side there was the language which was driving
> > >>
> > >> the process forward, this can be easily proven using different
> > >> analytical tools, but I also wanted to show that as a result of
> > >>
> > >> collaboration, the students would develop content.(this can also
> > >> easily be seen from the data). But as they developed content,
> > >> they would discuss it, thus the content was also responsible for the
> > >> collaboration. This would be done up to the point of where
> > >> they would present. Thus the division of systems (in my mind).
> > >> I also wanted to show that the object (poster) was not the end
> > >> product, it was used as a tool for their presentation
> > >> (tools-and-results activity).
> > >>
> > >> I am confused now, because I have written, submitted, and passed 2
> > >> literature reviews towards my PhD with these concepts in mind and
> > >> now I am currently writing the final paper, showing the analysis of
> the
> > >> data.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> On Aug 16, 2016, at 9:04 AM, Mark de Boer <mark.yomogi@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> I can understand what happens between 1 and 2. This is a simple case.
> > But
> > >>> between 2, 3, and 4 it becomes complicated.
> > >>
> > >> Mark, I don?t yet understand what happens between 1 and 2!
> > >>
> > >>> 1. Student A: 'Let's begin working on our poster'
> > >>> 2. Student B: 'I made my poster, please check' (poster1 file an
> > >> attachment
> > >>> in the forum)
> > >>
> > >> How did ?our poster? become ?my poster??
> > >>
> > >> Martin
> > >>
> > >> Dear Martin,
> > >>
> > >> Because this is a group of 4 students, even though they are developing
> > >> a poster as a group, they
> > >> (as is seen later on) end up dividing the work and each start to
> > >> create 'their part of the poster',
> > >>
> > >> so the dialogue moves from 'let's make our poster' (as a group) to 'I
> > >> made my poster' (contribution to the
> > >>
> > >> group's whole poster). Later on in the dialogue, the group leader
> > >> divides the work of the poster into
> > >>
> > >> topics as I showed, but then after a number of days, he decides to
> > >> assign these topics to the other
> > >>
> > >> students in the group. The dialogue moves from one poster being
> > >> created - moving from student to
> > >>
> > >> student, to 4 sub posters being created by 4 students, and the
> > >> dialogue shows evidence that the
> > >>
> > >> students are looking at each others posters, making suggestions about
> > >> what gets written, and in
> > >>
> > >> some cases altering other student's posters. At the end the posters
> > >> are printed and put on the wall
> > >>
> > >> ready for presenting.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Mark,
> > >> I don't understand what happens between 5 and 6:
> > >>
> > >> "5. Student B: 'I think that we should put the following contents in
> our
> > >> poster (suggesting a list of topics concerning pet bottles and pet
> > bottle
> > >> use) Please give me your opinion.
> > >> 6. Student C: 'I made a poster about (topic a), please check' (poster4
> > file
> > >> an attachment in the forum, originally poster3)"
> > >>
> > >> How did poster3 get changed into poster4 that is "about topic a". Or
> was
> > >> poster3 already about topic a? If so, then why the need to introduce
> to
> > >> everyone with "I made a poster about (topic a)"? Was "topic a"
> something
> > >> that was introduced by Student B in turn #5? Is this due to the
> students
> > >> not having the resources in English to indicate how their turn relates
> > to
> > >> the previous turn?
> > >>
> > >> The continuity/discontinuity (aka "old/new information") is what is
> > unclear
> > >> to me. The fact that this poster4 is a revision of poster3 suggests
> > >> continuity and old information. But the statement "I made a poster
> about
> > >> (topic a)" suggests discontinuity and new information.
> > >>
> > >> -greg
> > >>
> > >> Dear Greg,
> > >>
> > >> I'm sorry I wasn't clear here. Even though the poster is starting to
> > >> get developed, the leader of
> > >>
> > >> the group decides that there should be specific themes running though
> > >> the poster, thus topics (a-d) are decided
> > >>
> > >> and written into the forum. Poster 3 file already contains some
> > >> information, but now student C takes that poster
> > >>
> > >> and adds topic-a information. (Topic b information was already there).
> > >> So the poster begins to get built by adding
> > >>
> > >> topic information. So although there is continuity and old
> > >> information, there is discontinuity and new information added.
> > >>
> > >> Later some of the students also put information into the poster that
> > >> begins to link the different topics together.
> > >>
> > >> At one point though the group leader decides that instead of listing
> > >> topics and having a free-for-all, each student randomly
> > >>
> > >> adding information, he assigns the topics Student A gets topic a, etc,
> > >> and then there is a discontinuity and new information.
> > >>
> > >> The poster that they have been sharing is somewhat abandoned (although
> > >> some information is pulled) and each student begins to
> > >>
> > >> work on their own topic as a completely separate file, uploading it to
> > >> the forum as changes are made.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Thank you everyone for your replies. If it is at all possible, would
> > >> someone be willing to skype about this? I promise not to
> > >>
> > >> take up much of your time. My skype handle is yomogi-cello. I would be
> > >> very grateful for any help or advice after you have read this post.
> > >>
> > >> Warm regards,
> > >>
> > >> Mark
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an
> > object
> > > that creates history. Ernst Boesch
> >
> >
>
>
> --
>
> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an object
> that creates history. Ernst Boesch
>


------------------------------

Message: 34
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2016 15:18:33 -0700
From: mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu>
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: 3rd generation activity theory
To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
Message-ID:
        <CAHCnM0DGsWyFh8LKuCGGCU1NS4_aa8V8B4_Ry88Tq=Fy3ZdZqw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Interesting question, Christopher. Maybe an expert will have the answer!
mike

On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 1:25 PM, Christopher Schuck <
schuckthemonkey@gmail.com> wrote:

> Would the fact that Mark has been seeking help from a community whose work
> partly involves understanding activity systems, and that we have been
> discussing and becoming involved in his project, constitute the
> introduction of an additional activity system and interaction with it? Or
> would this be trivializing what it means for something to be an "activity
> system?
>
> On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 4:07 PM, mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu> wrote:
>
> > Perhaps, Henry.
> >
> > I thought that Mark was concentrating on the joint activity within a
> single
> > activity system. Perfectly fine. I was uncertain why he needed the
> > additional apparatus.
> >
> > mike
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 12:32 PM, HENRY SHONERD <hshonerd@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Mike,
> > > Figure 3 of Daniels, with its two triangles, depicts VISUALLY what you
> > > call ?interactions between activity systems??t Yet, if I am not
> mistaken,
> > > from that figure to the the final paragraph he describes IN WRITING
> > > interactions almost entirely within only ONE activity system at a time.
> > > Does this touch in any way on your qualifier: ?Perhaps I am mistaken.??
> > >
> > > I ask this not only for theoretical reasons, but because in my life my
> > own
> > > commitments to projects have been very much affected by ?contending?
> > > projects. A prime example is the push and pull of what might be called
> > > neoliberal and more collectivist solutions to economic problems. In the
> > > 60s, as a grad student in economics at UC Berkeley, I was much more
> > > convinced of collectivist, centralized approaches than I am today. On
> the
> > > other hand, even Milton Friedman thought that some problems, education
> in
> > > particular, cannot be solved purely by market forces.
> > >
> > > I look at my previous paragraph and I realize that I am construing my
> > > journey (and Friedman?s?) as individual. The final paragraph of Daniels
> > > construes the journey as collective:  "A full cycle of expansive
> > > transformation may be understood as a collective journey through the
> zone
> > > of proximal development of the activity.? It seems to me that the
> > > contending projects that students bring into the classroom, not
> > ignorance,
> > > make or break dialog in the classroom.
> > >
> > > Henry
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > On Aug 18, 2016, at 11:20 AM, mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Mark --
> > > >
> > > > I take "third generation activity theory" to involve interactions
> > between
> > > > activity systems in addition to the principles you enumerate.
> Perhaps I
> > > am
> > > > mistaken. A brief paper by Harry Daniels contains a summary that
> > accords
> > > > with my understanding.
> > > >
> > > > It can be confusing to ask for advice on xmca when you get a lot of
> it
> > > form
> > > > disparate people!
> > > >
> > > > mike
> > > >
> > > > http://www.bath.ac.uk/research/liw/resources/Models%
> > > 20and%20principles%20of%20Activity%20Theory.pdf
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 10:00 PM, Mark de Boer <
> mark.yomogi@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Hello!
> > > >> Thank you for your replies. For some reason I did not get them in my
> > > >> mailbox, so I am consolidating
> > > >>
> > > >> the mail here from the XMCA archive site and replying to everyone
> > > >> below each of your messages.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Hi Mark,
> > > >>
> > > >> I think the issue is really complex.
> > > >> Are the students using the open forum to make the poster better for
> > > >> presentation
> > > >> or to advance the thinking that the poster represents.
> > > >> If it is the first then I don't think you can think of it as the
> type
> > of
> > > >> progressive thinking the Knowledge Forum for instance is looking to
> > > create
> > > >> through student interactions.  It is instead the students looking to
> > use
> > > >> the
> > > >> technology to advance their needs within the larger system (a good
> > > >> poster means a better grade).
> > > >> On the other hand if you can show that the students are really
> > > >> changing each other's
> > > >> thinking about what's on the poster (and I am not sure you can from
> > > >> the dialogue you
> > > >> presented here) then you can make an argument for augmented
> thinking,
> > > >> for progressive
> > > >> development of thinking, I am guessing for 3rd generation activity
> > > theory.
> > > >>
> > > >> I think Kai Hakkarainnen and Sammi Paavola have written some really
> > > >> interesting stuff on this.
> > > >> Take a look at some of their articles.
> > > >>
> > > >> Michael
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Hello Michael,
> > > >>
> > > >> The students are doing both. They use the forum to better the
> poster,
> > > >> but as they are doing this,
> > > >>
> > > >> the poster is evolving to change from data to 'a message', i.e. the
> > > >> data are facts concerning pet
> > > >>
> > > >> bottle manufacturing, recycling, and usage, which evolves into a
> > > >> message that pet bottles are harmful for
> > > >>
> > > >> the environment, harmful for our bodies, and that we should stop
> using
> > > >> them. So although the dialogue
> > > >>
> > > >> I  showed here doesn't show this (there is a lot of dialogue that is
> > > >> not shown in my short example),
> > > >>
> > > >> the majority of the dialogue moves the process forward, what should
> be
> > > >> done, what message should be put in the poster,
> > > >> but the content in the posters provides the most evidence that there
> > > >> is influence of content, content added
> > > >>
> > > >> often has an influence on other content, and the message evolves.
> The
> > > >> issue is complex, it is a language learning classroom,
> > > >>
> > > >> and I am attempting to show that through the student interaction,
> they
> > > >> are dynamically assessing each other.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Hi Mark
> > > >>
> > > >> It is not clear to me from your explication why you need 3rd gen AT.
> > > >> Mike
> > > >> I concur with Mike, Mark.  There is not a *system *of activity being
> > > >> negotiated here as I see. Beliefs, motives, goals, division of
> labour,
> > > >> subject, object, outcomes. It's seems like overkill in your
> situation,
> > > >> where content is being negotiated and renegotiated.  I am at a loss
> to
> > > >> offer you anything more than what you are dealing with in terms of
> > > >> dialogue, except you might like to see what Eugene Matusov might
> have
> > to
> > > >> offer.
> > > >>
> > > >> Carol
> > > >>
> > > >> Hello Mike and Carol,
> > > >>
> > > >> Originally, my thoughts were to examine what the learners were doing
> > > >> in the forums, and came up
> > > >>
> > > >> with the conclusion that this was an object oriented activity. The
> > > >> thinking came from reading
> > > >> 'Toward overcoming the encapsulation of school learning' by
> Engestrom,
> > > >> as learners are working on their
> > > >>
> > > >> understanding of the different concepts of the topics they are going
> > > >> to present on. I showed division of labour,
> > > >>
> > > >> subject, object outcomes, tools. My dilemma, was that I wanted to
> show
> > > >> that on one side there was the language which was driving
> > > >>
> > > >> the process forward, this can be easily proven using different
> > > >> analytical tools, but I also wanted to show that as a result of
> > > >>
> > > >> collaboration, the students would develop content.(this can also
> > > >> easily be seen from the data). But as they developed content,
> > > >> they would discuss it, thus the content was also responsible for the
> > > >> collaboration. This would be done up to the point of where
> > > >> they would present. Thus the division of systems (in my mind).
> > > >> I also wanted to show that the object (poster) was not the end
> > > >> product, it was used as a tool for their presentation
> > > >> (tools-and-results activity).
> > > >>
> > > >> I am confused now, because I have written, submitted, and passed 2
> > > >> literature reviews towards my PhD with these concepts in mind and
> > > >> now I am currently writing the final paper, showing the analysis of
> > the
> > > >> data.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>> On Aug 16, 2016, at 9:04 AM, Mark de Boer <mark.yomogi@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I can understand what happens between 1 and 2. This is a simple
> case.
> > > But
> > > >>> between 2, 3, and 4 it becomes complicated.
> > > >>
> > > >> Mark, I don?t yet understand what happens between 1 and 2!
> > > >>
> > > >>> 1. Student A: 'Let's begin working on our poster'
> > > >>> 2. Student B: 'I made my poster, please check' (poster1 file an
> > > >> attachment
> > > >>> in the forum)
> > > >>
> > > >> How did ?our poster? become ?my poster??
> > > >>
> > > >> Martin
> > > >>
> > > >> Dear Martin,
> > > >>
> > > >> Because this is a group of 4 students, even though they are
> developing
> > > >> a poster as a group, they
> > > >> (as is seen later on) end up dividing the work and each start to
> > > >> create 'their part of the poster',
> > > >>
> > > >> so the dialogue moves from 'let's make our poster' (as a group) to
> 'I
> > > >> made my poster' (contribution to the
> > > >>
> > > >> group's whole poster). Later on in the dialogue, the group leader
> > > >> divides the work of the poster into
> > > >>
> > > >> topics as I showed, but then after a number of days, he decides to
> > > >> assign these topics to the other
> > > >>
> > > >> students in the group. The dialogue moves from one poster being
> > > >> created - moving from student to
> > > >>
> > > >> student, to 4 sub posters being created by 4 students, and the
> > > >> dialogue shows evidence that the
> > > >>
> > > >> students are looking at each others posters, making suggestions
> about
> > > >> what gets written, and in
> > > >>
> > > >> some cases altering other student's posters. At the end the posters
> > > >> are printed and put on the wall
> > > >>
> > > >> ready for presenting.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Mark,
> > > >> I don't understand what happens between 5 and 6:
> > > >>
> > > >> "5. Student B: 'I think that we should put the following contents in
> > our
> > > >> poster (suggesting a list of topics concerning pet bottles and pet
> > > bottle
> > > >> use) Please give me your opinion.
> > > >> 6. Student C: 'I made a poster about (topic a), please check'
> (poster4
> > > file
> > > >> an attachment in the forum, originally poster3)"
> > > >>
> > > >> How did poster3 get changed into poster4 that is "about topic a". Or
> > was
> > > >> poster3 already about topic a? If so, then why the need to introduce
> > to
> > > >> everyone with "I made a poster about (topic a)"? Was "topic a"
> > something
> > > >> that was introduced by Student B in turn #5? Is this due to the
> > students
> > > >> not having the resources in English to indicate how their turn
> relates
> > > to
> > > >> the previous turn?
> > > >>
> > > >> The continuity/discontinuity (aka "old/new information") is what is
> > > unclear
> > > >> to me. The fact that this poster4 is a revision of poster3 suggests
> > > >> continuity and old information. But the statement "I made a poster
> > about
> > > >> (topic a)" suggests discontinuity and new information.
> > > >>
> > > >> -greg
> > > >>
> > > >> Dear Greg,
> > > >>
> > > >> I'm sorry I wasn't clear here. Even though the poster is starting to
> > > >> get developed, the leader of
> > > >>
> > > >> the group decides that there should be specific themes running
> though
> > > >> the poster, thus topics (a-d) are decided
> > > >>
> > > >> and written into the forum. Poster 3 file already contains some
> > > >> information, but now student C takes that poster
> > > >>
> > > >> and adds topic-a information. (Topic b information was already
> there).
> > > >> So the poster begins to get built by adding
> > > >>
> > > >> topic information. So although there is continuity and old
> > > >> information, there is discontinuity and new information added.
> > > >>
> > > >> Later some of the students also put information into the poster that
> > > >> begins to link the different topics together.
> > > >>
> > > >> At one point though the group leader decides that instead of listing
> > > >> topics and having a free-for-all, each student randomly
> > > >>
> > > >> adding information, he assigns the topics Student A gets topic a,
> etc,
> > > >> and then there is a discontinuity and new information.
> > > >>
> > > >> The poster that they have been sharing is somewhat abandoned
> (although
> > > >> some information is pulled) and each student begins to
> > > >>
> > > >> work on their own topic as a completely separate file, uploading it
> to
> > > >> the forum as changes are made.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Thank you everyone for your replies. If it is at all possible, would
> > > >> someone be willing to skype about this? I promise not to
> > > >>
> > > >> take up much of your time. My skype handle is yomogi-cello. I would
> be
> > > >> very grateful for any help or advice after you have read this post.
> > > >>
> > > >> Warm regards,
> > > >>
> > > >> Mark
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > > It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an
> > > object
> > > > that creates history. Ernst Boesch
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an
> object
> > that creates history. Ernst Boesch
> >
>



--

It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an object
that creates history. Ernst Boesch


------------------------------

Message: 35
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2016 17:03:18 -0600
From: Greg Thompson <greg.a.thompson@gmail.com>
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: 3rd generation activity theory
To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
Message-ID:
        <CAHH++PmGoJSB7j6ghyNGup=myeYZC-T0DpKnKG-ZaHtybG3oWw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Small point here Mark about the 5/6 transition, but as an American English
speaker, and given the further clarification that you just provided, I feel
like Student C's comment in 6 is lacking something about how to connect it
to what came before. I would have expected some kind of linking clause or
transition like "[to student B] that's a great idea. I am attaching a
poster..."

I would suggest two possibilities for why this didn't happen:
1a. this is a metapragmatic difference between their native tongue and
English.
1b. they don't have the linguistic resources to accomplish this kind of
bridging (although "that's a great idea seems grammatically and
semantically simple enough that I would assume that, based on their other
utterances, would have been easy enough to produce).
2. It is unnecessary given the medium in which they are working (i.e., the
collaborative nature of Student C's comment in 6 is obvious given what has
come before).

Of course there may be others, but each of these options point to how
collaboration is mediated by the means of communication (whether the means
are metapragmatics, linguistic resources, or the medium of communication).
That doesn't get you to 3rd gen activity theory but it seems to be
something that is old school activity theory. It seems to be clearly there
in the data. What's more, it is this aspect of collaboration that is
entirely left out of many models of collaboration (see the virtual
communication system that Mike sent an email about shortly ago).

Just one thought among many.

-greg



On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 11:00 PM, Mark de Boer <mark.yomogi@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hello!
> Thank you for your replies. For some reason I did not get them in my
> mailbox, so I am consolidating
>
> the mail here from the XMCA archive site and replying to everyone
> below each of your messages.
>
>
> Hi Mark,
>
> I think the issue is really complex.
> Are the students using the open forum to make the poster better for
> presentation
> or to advance the thinking that the poster represents.
> If it is the first then I don't think you can think of it as the type of
> progressive thinking the Knowledge Forum for instance is looking to create
> through student interactions.  It is instead the students looking to use
> the
> technology to advance their needs within the larger system (a good
> poster means a better grade).
> On the other hand if you can show that the students are really
> changing each other's
> thinking about what's on the poster (and I am not sure you can from
> the dialogue you
> presented here) then you can make an argument for augmented thinking,
> for progressive
> development of thinking, I am guessing for 3rd generation activity theory.
>
> I think Kai Hakkarainnen and Sammi Paavola have written some really
> interesting stuff on this.
> Take a look at some of their articles.
>
> Michael
>
>
> Hello Michael,
>
> The students are doing both. They use the forum to better the poster,
> but as they are doing this,
>
> the poster is evolving to change from data to 'a message', i.e. the
> data are facts concerning pet
>
> bottle manufacturing, recycling, and usage, which evolves into a
> message that pet bottles are harmful for
>
> the environment, harmful for our bodies, and that we should stop using
> them. So although the dialogue
>
> I  showed here doesn't show this (there is a lot of dialogue that is
> not shown in my short example),
>
> the majority of the dialogue moves the process forward, what should be
> done, what message should be put in the poster,
> but the content in the posters provides the most evidence that there
> is influence of content, content added
>
> often has an influence on other content, and the message evolves. The
> issue is complex, it is a language learning classroom,
>
> and I am attempting to show that through the student interaction, they
> are dynamically assessing each other.
>
>
>
> Hi Mark
>
> It is not clear to me from your explication why you need 3rd gen AT.
> Mike
> I concur with Mike, Mark.  There is not a *system *of activity being
> negotiated here as I see. Beliefs, motives, goals, division of labour,
> subject, object, outcomes. It's seems like overkill in your situation,
> where content is being negotiated and renegotiated.  I am at a loss to
> offer you anything more than what you are dealing with in terms of
> dialogue, except you might like to see what Eugene Matusov might have to
> offer.
>
> Carol
>
> Hello Mike and Carol,
>
> Originally, my thoughts were to examine what the learners were doing
> in the forums, and came up
>
> with the conclusion that this was an object oriented activity. The
> thinking came from reading
> 'Toward overcoming the encapsulation of school learning' by Engestrom,
> as learners are working on their
>
> understanding of the different concepts of the topics they are going
> to present on. I showed division of labour,
>
> subject, object outcomes, tools. My dilemma, was that I wanted to show
> that on one side there was the language which was driving
>
> the process forward, this can be easily proven using different
> analytical tools, but I also wanted to show that as a result of
>
> collaboration, the students would develop content.(this can also
> easily be seen from the data). But as they developed content,
> they would discuss it, thus the content was also responsible for the
> collaboration. This would be done up to the point of where
> they would present. Thus the division of systems (in my mind).
> I also wanted to show that the object (poster) was not the end
> product, it was used as a tool for their presentation
> (tools-and-results activity).
>
> I am confused now, because I have written, submitted, and passed 2
> literature reviews towards my PhD with these concepts in mind and
> now I am currently writing the final paper, showing the analysis of the
> data.
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 16, 2016, at 9:04 AM, Mark de Boer <mark.yomogi@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I can understand what happens between 1 and 2. This is a simple case. But
> > between 2, 3, and 4 it becomes complicated.
>
> Mark, I don?t yet understand what happens between 1 and 2!
>
> > 1. Student A: 'Let's begin working on our poster'
> > 2. Student B: 'I made my poster, please check' (poster1 file an
> attachment
> > in the forum)
>
> How did ?our poster? become ?my poster??
>
> Martin
>
> Dear Martin,
>
> Because this is a group of 4 students, even though they are developing
> a poster as a group, they
> (as is seen later on) end up dividing the work and each start to
> create 'their part of the poster',
>
> so the dialogue moves from 'let's make our poster' (as a group) to 'I
> made my poster' (contribution to the
>
> group's whole poster). Later on in the dialogue, the group leader
> divides the work of the poster into
>
> topics as I showed, but then after a number of days, he decides to
> assign these topics to the other
>
> students in the group. The dialogue moves from one poster being
> created - moving from student to
>
> student, to 4 sub posters being created by 4 students, and the
> dialogue shows evidence that the
>
> students are looking at each others posters, making suggestions about
> what gets written, and in
>
> some cases altering other student's posters. At the end the posters
> are printed and put on the wall
>
>  ready for presenting.
>
>
>
>
> Mark,
> I don't understand what happens between 5 and 6:
>
> "5. Student B: 'I think that we should put the following contents in our
> poster (suggesting a list of topics concerning pet bottles and pet bottle
> use) Please give me your opinion.
> 6. Student C: 'I made a poster about (topic a), please check' (poster4 file
> an attachment in the forum, originally poster3)"
>
> How did poster3 get changed into poster4 that is "about topic a". Or was
> poster3 already about topic a? If so, then why the need to introduce to
> everyone with "I made a poster about (topic a)"? Was "topic a" something
> that was introduced by Student B in turn #5? Is this due to the students
> not having the resources in English to indicate how their turn relates to
> the previous turn?
>
> The continuity/discontinuity (aka "old/new information") is what is unclear
> to me. The fact that this poster4 is a revision of poster3 suggests
> continuity and old information. But the statement "I made a poster about
> (topic a)" suggests discontinuity and new information.
>
> -greg
>
> Dear Greg,
>
> I'm sorry I wasn't clear here. Even though the poster is starting to
> get developed, the leader of
>
> the group decides that there should be specific themes running though
> the poster, thus topics (a-d) are decided
>
> and written into the forum. Poster 3 file already contains some
> information, but now student C takes that poster
>
> and adds topic-a information. (Topic b information was already there).
> So the poster begins to get built by adding
>
> topic information. So although there is continuity and old
> information, there is discontinuity and new information added.
>
> Later some of the students also put information into the poster that
> begins to link the different topics together.
>
> At one point though the group leader decides that instead of listing
> topics and having a free-for-all, each student randomly
>
> adding information, he assigns the topics Student A gets topic a, etc,
> and then there is a discontinuity and new information.
>
> The poster that they have been sharing is somewhat abandoned (although
> some information is pulled) and each student begins to
>
> work on their own topic as a completely separate file, uploading it to
> the forum as changes are made.
>
>
>
> Thank you everyone for your replies. If it is at all possible, would
> someone be willing to skype about this? I promise not to
>
> take up much of your time. My skype handle is yomogi-cello. I would be
> very grateful for any help or advice after you have read this post.
>
> Warm regards,
>
> Mark
>



--
Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Department of Anthropology
880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson


------------------------------

Message: 36
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2016 08:20:10 -0700
From: mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu>
Subject: [Xmca-l]  Fwd: [COGDEVSOC] Faculty Job Posting for the
        Listserv
To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
Message-ID:
        <CAHCnM0DAMJapS6oRhwX0n2i0JYMwzbcaEzzNHamKpzQ1=zghuw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

A job
Mike

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: *Connell, Deborah A* <connelld@pitt.edu>
Date: Tuesday, 16 August 2016
Subject: [COGDEVSOC] Faculty Job Posting for the Listserv
To: "cogdevsoc@lists.cogdevsoc.org" <cogdevsoc@lists.cogdevsoc.org>
Cc: "Connell, Deborah A" <connelld@pitt.edu>


Hello:



I would like to post the attached faculty position on your Listserv. I have
also included the text within this email. If you need a name of someone in
good standing, you can refer to Dr. Julie Fiez. Please let me know if there
is any other information that you need. Thank you!



Best,



Debbie



*------------------------------*

*Deborah Connell*

Assistant to Daniel S. Shaw, Chairman ? Department of Psychology

University of Pittsburgh ? 210 South Bouquet Street

3129 Sennott Square ? Pittsburgh, PA  15260

Pittsburgh, PA   15260



Phone:  412-624-4337


------------------------------





The Department of Psychology at the University of Pittsburgh announces a
tenure track position at the *Assistant Professor* level, pending budgetary
approval, for an individual with a program of research focusing on*
developmental psychology*. Outstanding candidates with strong expertise in
prenatal, infant, child, and/or adolescent development will be considered
with a strong theoretical orientation, with emphasis in any of the
following areas especially welcomed:



?           Socioemotional, cognitive (including attention), or
social-cognitive development, including problematic or non-normative
development

?           Epigenetic influences

?           Developmental neuroscience (cognitive or affective)

?           Advanced quantitative expertise; or who use neuroimaging or
physiological methods; or who conduct applied or policy-relevant research

?

As the ability to complement and extend the current strengths of the
Psychology Department is also essential, optimal candidates should have
cross-disciplinary interests that intersect with other departmental program
areas.



The Psychology Department (http://www.psychology.pitt.edu) is committed to
excellence in research and in teaching at both the graduate and
undergraduate levels. The Department has 38 tenure-stream faculty and
houses five graduate training programs: Biological and Health, Clinical,
Cognitive, Developmental, and Social, along with cross-program training
opportunities.  The interdisciplinary nature of psychological science is
reflected in both faculty research interests and collaborations and
training options afforded to graduate students.



The review of applications will begin immediately, with complete
applications received by October 15, 2016 receiving full consideration.
Applications should be submitted electronically by sending a cover letter,
CV, statements of research and teaching interests, three letters of
recommendation, and up to three representative publications to
*psyrecr@pitt.edu
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','psyrecr@pitt.edu');>*. The subject heading of
recommendation letters should include the applicant?s last name and the
word Recommendation*.*  Inquiries regarding the position can be addressed
to the Chair of the Search Committee, Professor Jana Iverson (
jiverson@pitt.edu <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jiverson@pitt.edu');>). The
University of Pittsburgh is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity
Employer and values equality of opportunity, human dignity and diversity.
EEO/AA/M/F/Vets/Disabled.







--

It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an object
that creates history. Ernst Boesch
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: DevelopmentalAd.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 368008 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20160819/ced68294/attachment.pdf

------------------------------

_______________________________________________
xmca-l mailing list
xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca-l


End of xmca-l Digest, Vol 37, Issue 3
*************************************