JeongSuk,
Please post the following reply to xmca.
At 08:32 PM 5/5/98 +0900, Naoki Euno wrote:
>
>Is this paraphrasing showing that the problem of practice of reification
>of "mental" is just the other side of the coin of the problem of practice of
>reification of "objective socail" or "objective macro social structure"?
>
>Of course, this "the other side of coin" is not the solution.
>
Naoki,
Your comment brings to my mind the recent _Educational Researcher_ article
(27(2), pp. 4-13, March, 1998) by Anna Sfard in which she groups together
sociocultural and constructivist theorizing as subscribing to the same
Acquisition Metaphor (AM), in contrast with other theories that
subscribe to the Participation Metaphor (PM):
Finally, the dichotomy between acquisition and participation should
not be mistaken for the well-known distinction between individualist
and social perspectives on learning. ... According to the distinction
proposed in this article, theories that speak about reception
of knowledge and those that view learning as internalization
of socially established concepts belong to the same category
(AM), whereas on the individual/social axis, they must be placed
at opposite poles. ... It is important to understand that the two
distinctions were made according to different criteria: While the
acquisition/participation division is ontological in nature and
draws on two radically different answers to the question, "What
is this thing called learning?," the individual/social dichotomy does
not imply a controversy as to the definition of learning, but rather
rests on differing visions of the mechanisms of learning. (p. 7)
I recommend her article as a clear and forceful analysis of
current upheavals in cognitive theorizing.
David Kirshner,
Louisiana State University
cikirs who-is-at lsuvm.sncc.lsu.edu