Is there a sense, however, in which YE's idea learning by exapnsion within a
community is fundamentally different from the idea of learners as legitimate
peripheral participants in Lave and Wenger's idea of a community of
practice? I have always worried that the L&W model implies a conservative
and reactive approach to learning whilst Engestrom seems to be arguing
against such a reactive view of learning.
Dr Geoff Hayward
SKOPE Theme 3
Department of Educational Studies
University of Oxford
15 Norham Gardens
Oxford
OX2 6PY
UK
Phone: 01865 274007
Fax: 01865 274027
e-mail: geoff.hayward@edstud.ox.ac.uk
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul H.Dillon" <illonph@pacbell.net>
To: <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 3:25 AM
Subject: Re: community & community of practice
> Perhaps we are jumping ahead since the expanded activity system model that
> includes community is presented in chapter 2 but one thing that needs to
be
> pointed out, since we are jumping ahead, is that the discussion of
community
> without discussing "rules" and "division of labor" as well as the
> fundamental realtions of production, distribution, exchange, and
comsumption
> that YE employs within the expanded triangle, is a notable weakness of
> everything i've ever seen about the meaning of community in CHAT. But I
> wonder if it wouldn't be better to wait until chapter 2 before entering
into
> these issues.
>
> Paul H. Dillon
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Charles Nelson <c.nelson@mail.utexas.edu>
> To: <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> Sent: Monday, April 02, 2001 3:19 PM
> Subject: Re: community & community of practice
>
>
> > David, I don't know of any good discussions on the differences, but
> > AT's community of practice might actually be narrower. That is, the
> > community in an activity are those subjects motivated towards the
> > same object, whereas in other perspectives, it's often the people
> > engaged in the same actions, whether or not they are working towards
> > the same object.
> >
> > Charles Nelson
> >
> > >I am perhaps jumping ahead in our discussion of LBE (or back to our
> > >discussion of community in March 2000), but I am trying to
> > >understand how "community" in Yrjo's understanding of an activity
> > >system differs, if at all, from the concept of "community of
> > >practice" in related theorizing, such Wenger and J. Seeley Brown.
> > >
> > >This is a particular problem of terminology and theory for me
> > >because so many people in business, distance education, etc. are
> > >using the term "community or practice," with a variety of meanings.
> > >And when I have tried to explain to others using "community of
> > >practice" that Engestrom's concept is broader I have run into
> > >confusions, my own and others'. (see, e.g.,
> > >http://www.newgrange.org/dfoffice/files/community_of_practice_files_dr
> > >aw.htm
> > >
> > >Can anyone point me to a good discussion of the differences?
> > >
> > >David
> >
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 01 2001 - 01:01:39 PDT