I, too, have Natalia's question. Building on it, do we entertain different
units of development when we speak of development? Do we have an opportunity
to provide an alternative not only to the stagism of developmental theory
but also to its individualism?
Lois
> From: Natalia Gajdamaschko <nataliag@sfu.ca>
> Reply-To: Natalia Gajdamaschko <nataliag@sfu.ca>, "eXtended Mind, Culture,
> Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 20:12:07 -0700
> To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> Subject: Re: [xmca] RE: Questions for ISCAR
>
>
> Hi Mike and Dear ALL!
>
> Mike asked:
>> So, what question concerning CHAT is on your mind?
>
>
> My concern is that people from different fields apparently view
> "development" in very different ways, thus creating confusion whenever we
> are discussing development. We have had the same situation with "learning,"
> but at least with learning we admit openly that we have different learning
> theories. Development, what is development?
>
> I am always curious why people don't, for example, discuss the development
> of higher psychological functions versus lower psychological functions? Is
> Vygotsky's concept obsolete, not deserving, or falsified (if so, by whom?)?
>
> Cheers,
> Natalia.
> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Oct 01 2005 - 01:00:11 PDT