I have never thought of this that way, but it strikes me as a good point.
L&W - focus on an individual changing their iwn social position as they
engage in learning, but the social structure is rather stable, a "given".
Yrjo is stressing the change in the social structure itself as each new
learner enters the learning arena! Very interesting.
Ana
At 07:51 AM 4/3/2001 +0100, you wrote:
>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 - 01:01:41 PDT