Mike, I haven't read them recently but from what I have read,
appropriation seems to be more of a description of what is seen
rather than an explanatory mechanism for learning. Usually I find it
defined as some process through which people construct, reconstruct
or co-construct sociocultural practices. But the mechanism of
construction itself remains black-boxed. (Perhaps equilibration is a
black box, too, but just at a lower level that I'm not questioning as
much.) Recently, I've been leaning toward a Piagetian perspective as
an explanation for individual appropriation while still recognizing,
as Ana was saying, the significant change in the learning environment
due to mediation both of others and sociohistorical tools. Perhaps
I've just "patched" these two together, but how else do we explain
appropriation? Did Newman et al or Rogoff explain the mechanism of
appropriation in a way that's not black-boxed?
Charles
>Charles? Have you seen discusion in Newman et al and somewhere in Rogoff
>about appropriation? This apropose your question:
>---
>I believe I can understand assimilation/accommodation, even if
>metaphorically, as a biological mechanism, but the mechanism of
>social/cultural mediation is sort of black-boxed for me. If we don't
>use assimilation/accommodation, what mechanism can we use for
>mediation?
>
>mike
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Mar 01 2002 - 01:00:19 PST