Bill Barowy wrote:
> Folks,
>
> 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."]