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

[Xmca-l] Re: Unsubscribe



To unsubscribe from xmca, follow the directions on the same website where
you subscribed:
http://lchc.ucsd.edu/MCA/Mail/

mike cole

On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 8:30 AM, Kathy-Ann Daniel-Gittens <kdaniel@wayne.edu
> wrote:

>
>
> 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=05za
> rFdQdw@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_SyL1Yi7LXre1T8MAkgpXugDRzwKegr
> Mei04d8rBUs3Q@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+EpXFbvQoscpwsPa4hPshAHVYuh450X
> T+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=43bb8b4625c74d29808ce336465664
> f8&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=5388874bbb2943cdb2695b01a9601c
> 1b&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=d1154cbd7e19437fb58df4fbb7265d
> 77&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=cc7a45c443024804947ae857aa764c
> bb&elq=43bb8b4625c74d29808ce336465664f8&elqaid=25760&elqat=1>
>
> [image: img]
> <http://app.info.polycom.com/e/er?s=1078&lid=28980&;
> elqcontact=CPOLY000001951974&elqTrackId=5df3514824434a77aa60654f07ebb3
> ac&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=28cdfb48b7ac45cabcb2f20243822d
> eb&elq=43bb8b4625c74d29808ce336465664f8&elqaid=25760&elqat=1>
> [image: img]
> <http://app.info.polycom.com/e/er?s=1078&lid=28989&;
> elqcontact=CPOLY000001951974&elqTrackId=911db5430ffd427cb6192bf6ee9598
> 84&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=9fb7a5b26ece44b89f2dede692f5ff
> da&elq=43bb8b4625c74d29808ce336465664f8&elqaid=25760&elqat=1>
> [image: img]
> <http://app.info.polycom.com/e/er?s=1078&lid=28978&;
> elqcontact=CPOLY000001951974&elqTrackId=5ceb59764b72450b9412557f67ebc1
> 51&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=e6fe2e0fa18444489f1ae7bbee7cdc
> d4&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=43bb8b4625c74d29808ce336465664
> f8&elqaid=25760&elqat=1>
> | Privacy Policy
> <http://www.polycom.com/company/privacy-policy.html?elqTrackId=
> 574c969d17e34314aeec1a1115ad98e3&elq=43bb8b4625c74d29808ce336465664
> f8&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=jGrqNS
> Vf8g@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-UkPa5DUYXM7VgeyzM3qmG9eHGvtRaW
> OCnmrKWoXg@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
> *************************************
>



-- 

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