No disagreement, there, bb.
In perhaps old fashioned language I think you will find the same argument in
the LCHC article I recommended to Ed.
Vis a vis ISCAR, seems like all of us who go should see what gets said in
this regard.
mike
On 9/12/05, bb <xmca-whoever@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> To interject, I think we have to be careful about using the "transfer"
> when thinking about how one "system" of activity influences another.
> Transfer, especially as has been used in disciplines as education and
> cognitive science, carries the meaning of something that is durable from one
> activity to the next., like knowledge in the head. Apart from material
> artifacts, that is not what happens in the situations I've studied, and even
> material aftifacts are questionable, especially those that have a primarily
> semiotic function. Artifacts that have a primarily semiotic function may be
> such things as books, art, computers, ... and those that do not have a
> primarily semiotic function may be such things as hammers and table saws.
> Aside, I can't think of anything that is purely one or another. One can
> pretty much use a hammer from one situation of building a house to another
> in a durable way, but one can also take up the hammer to send a threat or
> message of defiance -- a totally!
> different function. There is a sliding scale of material/ideal that Mike
> has written about in cult. psych. but I prefer to think in terms of
> functionality, especially semiotic functionality.
>
> Artifacts that have a primarily semiotic function, such a university
> course evaluation form, function differently in different settings,
> sometimes just slightly differently, and often their function in one setting
> influences their function in another setting and vice-versa. In the setting
> in which one such form was created, and in which I was a participant, the
> creation of the form involved such things as the negotiation of differences
> between art faculty and education faculty about how students "demonstrate
> their learning", and how the faculty subsequently make decisions regarding
> the students learning, with disgreements over "grading" vs. "assessment".
> The decision to use either of these two terms on the form was the start of
> this negotiation. And then, administration was interested in the creation of
> a course evaluation form that would unify, and create a basis of comparison
> for, the evaluaiton of faculty across the many disciplines. But then, in the
> classroom at the !
> end of the semester, student comments on evaluation forms to which I am
> privy often indicate their interest in changing the professor's teaching
> practices -- these students often being experienced and talented k-12
> teachers have a good basis for advocating more effective teaching.
>
> So, how the form was phrased and designed is influencing the students
> comments about the quality of courses as we expected -- and it was prior
> comments that helped influence the decision to revise the form. Committee
> influenced by classroom and classroom influenced by committee, with
> different timescales of influence and influence being highly asymmetrical
> while also mutual. In short, that's how I think of artifacts and "transfer",
> in which I question just how much of the artifact is durable from one
> setting to the next, while conceding that there does seem to be something
> that is durable. I don't believe that seeking to clarify "transfer" will be
> productive in a social-cultural-historical-ecological theory.
>
> People and ideas are similar while also different than evaluation forms
> concerning how they function from one setting to the next, but while keeping
> this email short, I'd like to end that I also think what is durable needs to
> be questioned here as well. Privately, I've been using the term
> "transgenesis" instead to imply codevelopment, with what is the mediation of
> codevelopment also to be in a state of functional change, but what the heck,
> I'll share it at this moment, and see what you think.
>
> So I am interested in question of formulating theoretically about the
> processes of how what happens at one time and place influences that of
> another, with shared people and artifacts.
>
> bb
>
>
>
> > Ed,
> > Your question puts my issue in a somewhat different perspective, one
> > that I have not worked on a lot, but it certainly seems relevant. COP -
> > Community Of Practice - the way I interpret it to connect it with the
> > Activity Theory Model, deals mostly with the "division of labor"
> > (roles) -- and that is, of course,connected to the "rules" part of the
> > model. So if you have one division of labor in one activity, which is
> > also based on some stated and unstated rules, conventions and
> > expectations, then, my question is, how another activity in which the
> > rules and division of labor are different, interacts with the first one?
> > Does it interact? Can it interact? and how?
> >
> > I have not read Jean Lave's work on transfer. Could you send a
> reference?
> > Thanks
> > Ana
> >
> > Ed Wall wrote:
> >
> > > Mike
> > >
> > > There are many ways in which I am somewhat on the border in many of
> > > these conversations. As I read what Ana wrote what came to mind was
> > > some of the work Jean Lave did on the notion of transfer (within a
> > > social and anthropological context). I was wondering how Ana's
> > > questions, if they even do, interface with that body of work. Thus, it
> > > is quite possible I was asking about interfacing between ch/at and COP
> > > (I don't know what COP is - smile - although I presume it has
> > > something to do with social anthropology). I am sure there is a
> > > different emphasis, but the phenomena sound somewhat the same. What
> > > you say about Vrjo sounds interesting. Are those some relevant papers
> > > at xcma?
> > >
> > > Ed
> > >
> > >> Ed-- I interpret Ana's questionS to involve the issue of transfer and
> > >> relations between
> > >> activities and partipants involvement in those relational
> connections.
> > >>
> > >> This also connects with Yrjo's characterization of 3rd generation
> ch/at
> > >> research that
> > >> focuses on connections between activity systems.
> > >>
> > >> Maybe your question could also be interpreted as a request to clarify
> > >> the
> > >> relations between ch/at
> > >> and COP approaches to knowledge acquisition and transfer??
> > >> mike
> > >>
> > >> On 9/11/05, Ed Wall <ewall@umich.edu> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>
> > >>> How does your question interface with the work of Jean Lave and
> > >>> colleagues? A refinement?
> > >>>
> > >>> Ed Wall
> > >>>
> > >>> >I thought this question went to the whole list, but it ended just
> in
> > >>> >Mike's box. Here it is again:
> > >>> >
> > >>> >
> > >>> > My question is the interaction between different activities: what
> > >>> can be
> > >>> > "taken" from one activity to another? (Old question of the
> > >>> universals)
> > >>> > Also: what can be created only in a combination of several
> > >>> activities.
> > >>> > This is what I mean: we all participate in more than one activity
> > >>> all
> > >>> > the time. Is it possible to learn something in one activity and
> > >>> then use
> > >>> > it in another? In other words: what does it mean to "transport" a
> > >>> > way of
> > >>> > acting, behaving, or thinking from one activity to another?
> > >>> > And - what is a product only of participating in a certain
> > >>> > combination of activities at the same time?
> > >>> >
> > >>> > In my workshop in Sevilla I will explore interaction between the
> > >>> > "imaginary" and the "real" -- passing through in and out, and the
> > >>> > relationships between the two -- and what are the outcomes of this
> > >>> > relationship.
> > >>> >
> > >>> > See you in Sevilla
> > >>> > Ana
> > >>> >
> > >>> >
> > >>> > Mike Cole wrote:
> > >>> >
> > >>> > > You have a question about ch/at you might want answered during
> > >>> > your trip??
> > >>> > > A shame Helena could not come, and odd about that symposium. Odd
> > >>> > about
> > >>> > > the whole
> > >>> > > setup!
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > > See you in Sevilla.
> > >>> > > mike
> > >>> >
> > >>> >
> > >>> >
> > >>> >
> > >>> >_______________________________________________
> > >>> >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
> > >>>
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> 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
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>
_______________________________________________
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