You mean this message?
From: Sophie Alcock
Sent: Monday, September 20, 2004 9:46 AM
Subject: RE: michal roth's intro?
Well I found the intro useful and reassuring because Michael does refer
to Engestrom's triangle model of AT and defends it's potentially
static, structuralist interpretation by simply pointing out that
criticisms of the model, "fail to recognize that the the model is
inherently dynamic". I find fluid diagrammes of ideas useful for
breaking down categorical assumptions, and variations on this triangle
can therefore be more helpful than too many words.
I also appreciated the clear linking to Marxist theory.
I'm not sure how useful it is to try to categorise the internal
tensions and contradictions in activity systems as four types, yet the
categorisation is logical. This is a tension I grapple with. Tension
is central to young children's playfulness and humour (my study focus).
Contradictions are inherent and basic to humour. It helps to use
practical examples. So, the contradictions around children's word play
and rules (and roles) are obvious. And the contradictions do motivate
and propel the activity. In the play process childrn have fun both
re-creating sounds, rhythms, meanings, of words and also connecting
with each other. At the same time children may feel some sense of
control as together they improvise and synchronise words, making and
remaking rules too.
I'm still puzzling over tensions and contradictions and look forward to
reading the article when it's posted.
From: Mike Cole [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Sunday, September 19, 2004 5:04 AM
Subject: michal roth's intro?
Have folks had a chance to Micael Roth's intro to the xmca issue we will
be discussing? I have seen no comments. Is anyone having trouble
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Nov 09 2004 - 11:43:04 PST