In a message dated 4/13/2002 5:56:24 PM Central Daylight Time,
rjapias@uol.com.br writes:
> My question is: Why to consider only this two levels of analyse when
> appoaching, since a sociocultual perspective, human activity? According to
> MC, in Cultural Psychology: a once and future discipline a
> historical-cultural approach to human pshychesism must take into account
> four levels of analyse (Same ones postulated by LV and his team):
> macrogenetic, filogenetic, ontogenetic and microgenetic. Wouldn't those
> four levels be the way to solve the conflit you pointed to in your
> articles?
This four levels of analysis is also reinforced by Valsiner's discussion of
cultural psychology and not merely for theoretical discussion but for
assessing the development of children's actions in goal directed activities.
Sawyer's article assessing sociocultural literature has provided a robust
vehicle for synthesizing what has been discussed in the field to this point.
Another note to make regarding the Sawyer sociocultural analysis article is
how similar Sawyer's notion of dual analysis is to LSV's 'functional method
of double stimulation' experimental methodology. The strength of this
notion of dual analysis is that during the time that the instructor is
assessing the student's abilities there is feedback to promote development.
I would appreciate more discussion of this split in sociocultural study. Is
it a matter of being a purist as far as social/individual holism to sacrifice
specific studies?
Left wondering more then before I read sawyer's article,
eric
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 01 2002 - 01:00:07 PDT