[Xmca-l] Re: Difference between appropriation and learning transfer

[Huw Lloyd]

Han Kim,

Fundamentally AT is about development, not appropriation. So you might say
appropriation was appropriated (an inevitable outcome). This is from Luria
(1961): "It would not be wrong to say that the basic principle of Soviet
psychology is the idea of development, the proposition that such mental
activities as intelligent perception, purposive memory, active attention
and deliberate action result from a lengthy evolution in a child's actual
behavior."

Development as distinct from conventional notions of learning is more
difficult to communicate, perhaps because it often entails development.
Reorganisation of the means of learning is a good starting point, which is
what the notion of transfer implicitly points to, i.e. that which is beyond
superficial learning. Probably the most succinct pointing to the
distinction is in the experimental work of Gal'perin.

Best,
Huw

On 15 May 2018 at 19:57, Kim, Han Gil <kim.3208@osu.edu> wrote:

> Dear colleagues and seasoned scholars,
>
> I am looking for useful articles/books to better understand two similar
> concepts (appropriation and transfer of learning).
>
> 1. Appropriation, one of the central concepts of activity theory
> (Grossman, Smagorinsky & Valencia 1991; Leont’ev 1981; Wertsch 1991)
>
> 2. transfer of learning, especially in the area of Writing Across
> Curriculum/discipline and/or L2 writing (contrastive rhetoric and English
> for academic purposes).
>
> Any suggestions?
> Thanks.
>
> ----------
> Han Kim
>
> Lecturer in Korean (as a foreign language)
> Department of East Asian Languages and Literatures
> College of Arts and Sciences
>
> I am what I learn. If I have seen further, it is only by standing upon the
> shoulders of giants.
>
>