I am not sure there is an agreed-upon classic study in the sociocultural
tradition. For a recent over-view you might want to read Barbara Rogoff's
article in the new (1998) Handbook of Child Development. The articles
in the book, *Mind, Culture, and Activity* will give you a feel for the
development of this line of thinking over the past couple of decades
in the US (mainly).
I do not know the origin of the term, "socially shared cognition." There
was a conference followed by a book sponsored by people at LRDC with
that title and since you are in Pittsburgh, that is likely to be the
source of your question.
My discussion article in that book indicates some of the linkages between
the themes of that conference and the cultural-historical activity approach
that I use. I am not sure if there is a group of scholars who identify
themselves as "socially shared cognition theory" advocates. But socio-
cultural/chat scholars assume that by necessity, cognition is socially
shared/distributed. Perhaps a frequent difference is the emphasis in
the work of those who use the word, culture, is that the sharing and
the sociality are assumed to be mediated by non-human "stuff".
I have often asked myself the same question you asked concerning "3
leading questions." I doubt if there is concensus among socio-cultural-
historical-distributed, etc scholars.
Speaking personally, three questions that I spend a lot of time
thinking about are:
1. How changes in different genetic domains co-constitute each other
from the perspective of ontogeny, the genesis of individuals.
2. The non-linearity of cultural time vis a vis human experience.
3. The role of context in the constitution of human thought processes.
My specific focus at the moment is on the question of why "successful"
educational innovations so often fail.
I hope that is of some help.
mike