Kwang, Jeong, Maria, Eugene, Robert, Ilias, Francoise, Nate, and
proactively Mike and Jim, have contributed considerable clarity into the
murky waters surrounding the social side of Piaget. Piaget recognized
social influences on individual meaning making, but does not consider
meaning making as 'out there' or even still as 'in there AND out there'.
He did not like to study adults interacting with children because the
authority dimensions clouded the cognitive dimensions, in his view. He
never seems to have caught Jay's language disease, does not think of
mediation, enculturation, appropration, or systems. Dwells instead on
accomodation and assimilation.
So what?
Someone, I hope, will tell me that the following claim has already been
made. That although Piaget's focus on the individual "makes it impossible
to develop a sociocultural approach to cognition using his theory as the
basis", a *complete* sociocultural theory [with a nod to Albert] will
include a Piagetian-like description of meaning-making in the individual.
Insofar as 'sociocultural' theories [or perhaps better put
'cultural-historical theories'] will address phylogenesis, mesogenesis, and
artifactogenesis etc., these theories would not be comprehensive if they
did not also include ontogenesis.
In our present think, at the intersection of activity systems are artifacts
and individuals. In the former, artifacts of one system may be
appropriated into a new system, and as Naoki maintains, the artifact
changes the new system, and the use of the artifact mutually changes. This
is instantiated in the adoption of computer modeling tools by classrooms,
or perhaps in the changing work habits of IBM customers, even though the
vision might be to use the tool the right way [nod to my 8th grade shop
teacher].
People cross the boundaries, however fuzzy, of activity systems. They
bring with them their own personalized versions of practices, theories,
beliefs (not to distinguish theories and beliefs), and motives.
Individuals take individual action. Put several 7th grade students in the
same room, trying to make meaning out of a diagram they have co-constructed
and you will find comments like "It doesn't make sense, it doesn't show
what I'm saying." (sic) Yet, collectively, individuals mutually shape
each others actions in activity and hence 'the whole is more than the sum
of its parts.'
That quote is from a female, code-named 'Anne' who was interacting with two
males. One way to distinguish the aforementioned 'parts', however
distasteful the metaphor, is by gender. Would you disagree with the claim
that ontogenesis plays a role in gender differences, what distinguishes us
as male and female? I don't know, but I can venture the impression that
some of the responses I have to situations requiring action, in comparison
to my wife (same situation, different gender) or to my sister (similar
situations, same family, different gender) are different because I am male,
both culturally and physiologically.
But back to Piaget (remember him?), he was an excellent observer of human
behavior. His work fills some of the void as one looks at what an
individual brings to, or can take away from, participation in an activity
system. It is not clear to me if the Zone of proximal development can be
discussed in a deep manner without a characterization of what an individual
might do/does without the influence of an other. And I do wonder if one
should even strive for a *complete* theory. My cybernetic friends maintain
that understanding a sophisticated system requires an even more
sophisticated system. Is it at all possible for humans to contrive
something to completely understand themselves? And how long can I sit here
writing this, in denial, rather than move that damn dead refrigerator
downstairs? No priviledge, just links, and lots of denial.
Bill Barowy, Associate Professor
Technology in Education
Lesley College, 29 Everett Street, Cambridge, MA 02138-2790
Phone: 617-349-8168 / Fax: 617-349-8169
_______________________
"One of life's quiet excitements is to stand somewhat apart from yourself
and watch yourself softly become the author of something beautiful."
[Norman Maclean in "A river runs through it."]