[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Xmca-l] Re: 3rd generation activity theory
- To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: 3rd generation activity theory
- From: Martin John Packer <email@example.com>
- Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2016 02:53:03 +0000
- Accept-language: es-CO, en-US
- Authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) firstname.lastname@example.org;
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=uniandes.edu.co; s=selector1; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=B3GFOa+II9Mv8dMO1U41pHw34haEB+EVOAAvfwYuTWY=; b=obrL2vXLPmQNXrb1iYUj30fw5vx42241OoYr3F1b2mfbKqIX+3EZRof4VQeEoVHAOC/Ycz1j5rTNgitrrhUGF7C9uJnEzrxZ5Cp52hF/s/YUJ7kqmgac1ckTN2VcD2T2SgqbY50g/LzWrMrhAtrke+RjgWZpH1384YfBm2xU5us=
- In-reply-to: <CAHH++PksohNDz7eQJXz+ZTkh7+HxAML1kxd6c_WhQ2E7BAjKHw@mail.gmail.com>
- List-archive: <https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l>
- List-help: <mailto:email@example.com?subject=help>
- List-id: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l.mailman.ucsd.edu>
- List-post: <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>
- List-subscribe: <https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca-l>, <mailto:email@example.com?subject=subscribe>
- List-unsubscribe: <https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca-l>, <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=unsubscribe>
- References: <CAOgf4eW2mPmHDn5o6p5KSDBajRP=cD-eZocFAipxK=7a_AwiiA@mail.gmail.com> <CAHCnM0A5XTxc1-zuaOTyxm5y1FCap4a5ziPmOFs=05zarFdQdw@mail.gmail.com> <BF45852B-DE67-42DA-952E-175F19EF221F@uniandes.edu.co> <CAHH++PksohNDz7eQJXz+ZTkh7+HxAML1kxd6c_WhQ2E7BAjKHw@mail.gmail.com>
- Reply-to: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <email@example.com>
- Sender: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
- Spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
- Thread-index: AQHR99s4E9nCfCteHEm2bibwjOiqDA==
- Thread-topic: [Xmca-l] 3rd generation activity theory
I think what Greg and I are each pointing towards is that a line-by-line analysis, *guided* by theory, is going to provide more insight into what is going on than an attempt to ‘prove’ that it is one or another theoretical ‘category' of dialogue.
> On Aug 16, 2016, at 11:59 AM, Greg Thompson <email@example.com> wrote:
> I don't understand what happens between 5 and 6:
> "5. Student B: 'I think that we should put the following contents in our
> poster (suggesting a list of topics concerning pet bottles and pet bottle
> use) Please give me your opinion.
> 6. Student C: 'I made a poster about (topic a), please check' (poster4 file
> an attachment in the forum, originally poster3)"
> How did poster3 get changed into poster4 that is "about topic a". Or was
> poster3 already about topic a? If so, then why the need to introduce to
> everyone with "I made a poster about (topic a)"? Was "topic a" something
> that was introduced by Student B in turn #5? Is this due to the students
> not having the resources in English to indicate how their turn relates to
> the previous turn?
> The continuity/discontinuity (aka "old/new information") is what is unclear
> to me. The fact that this poster4 is a revision of poster3 suggests
> continuity and old information. But the statement "I made a poster about
> (topic a)" suggests discontinuity and new information.
> On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 10:28 AM, Martin John Packer <
> firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>>> On Aug 16, 2016, at 9:04 AM, Mark de Boer <email@example.com> wrote:
>>> I can understand what happens between 1 and 2. This is a simple case. But
>>> between 2, 3, and 4 it becomes complicated.
>> Mark, I don’t yet understand what happens between 1 and 2!
>>> 1. Student A: 'Let's begin working on our poster'
>>> 2. Student B: 'I made my poster, please check' (poster1 file an
>>> in the forum)
>> How did “our poster” become “my poster”?
> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
> Assistant Professor
> Department of Anthropology
> 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
> Brigham Young University
> Provo, UT 84602