Diane, Paul, and Nate
It would seem that the contradiction that energizes the activity system to
LBE could arise from the members in the system or an external system.
Regardless of the source, both the system and groups of members
co-construct different zpds. The system has to distribute tasks among
members for it to travel through its zpd. As a result of accepting new
tasks, members of the system may experience contradictions and co-construct
zpds with others. Their mastery and appropriation of existing and new tools
to travel through their zpd contributes to the expansion of the system in
developing a historically new form of the activity.
As I read LBE, mastery and appropriation of tools alone will not meet the
criteria for learning at the individual level. The individual must apply
what is mastered and appropriated to a task that enables collective to
resolve a contradiction. What is mastered and appropriated need not be new
to all members of the collective. Some members may already know how to
perform their tasks. However, they will not meet the criteria of having
learned until they use these tools in the activity of the system. Solving
the contradiction may or may not produce a new historical form of the
activity. It may well take churning through many contradictions and zpds
to produce a new form of activity. A system and its participants are never
out of the construction zone.
As I read LBE, the criterion for learning is different for the members and
the system and this requires multiple zpds for both individuals and the
system.
Paul, if I remember correctly, earlier you mentioned that all
contradictions were not equal. I'm not sure that it matters. What is
important is that repairing different disruptions requires different
distributions of tasks.
A question: How would two activity systems co-construct a zpe?
Bill Blanton
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 01 2001 - 01:02:10 PDT