But Armando! History is change. Equating history and development in a
is EXACTLY what drove Jim Wertsch, del Rio, Alverez and others to propose
sociocultural studies as the meta category.
The issues of diachronic and synchronic heterogeneity appear to be very
badly underspecified (along with the meanings attributed to the concept,
in our discussion. I take this to be what you mean when you write about the
examining the questions of integration of situatedness of learning, social
situation of development (is it uniform at a given age or variable?), (this
is also issue of what is meant by sociocultural context).
On 10/5/06, Armando Perez <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> BUT MIKE, HISTORY IS DEPELOPEMENT BUT WHAT
> DEVELOPMENT, IN WHAT DIRECTION, DEVELOPMENT IS HISTORY
> IN WHAT SPECIFIC LEVEL......SITUATED LEARNING, SOCIAL
> SITUATION OF DEVELOPMENT SOCIOCULTURAL CONTEXT. ITS
> THERE ARE A LOT OF QUESTION IN BOTH, THEORETICAL AND
> PRACTICAL LEVEL......
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
xmca mailing list
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Nov 01 2006 - 01:00:14 PST