Mike and all,
The questions are, indeed very thought provoking. I'd like to hear more
discussion on the quotes that Natalia gave us, and on the general issue
of the interaction of different activity systems. Bill B.'s term of
"Transgenesis" is really calling for more discussion. My presentation in
Sevilla deals with the interaction between the "imaginary" and the
"real" -- movements between the two (or more) worlds and their
interaction to create new meanings (Transgenesis??). This connects to
many of the expressed interests.
I would also love to have an XMCA meeting. Especially with the people
who volunteered to be on the CH-SIG's award committee. We all have so
many things to talk about. And then some.
I am leaving today in a few hours for Belgrade, S&MN. I am participating
in a three day program for educators on using drama, storytelling,
dance, music and art in education.
I'll try to be on line, but if not,
All the best and
see you all in Sevilla
Ana
steve thorne wrote:
>
> hi all -- great questions coming out -- very thought-provoking.
>
> in particular, the challenge of inter-activity system analysis is one
> i'm also thinking about. i find it impossible to bound the object of
> analysis to a discrete activity system. however, as this thread
> indicates, the relations among activities across historically
> distinctive systems are polymorphous and tricky. this articulates with
> another problem i'm having -- ascertaining the goal of activity from a
> participant relative vantage point. i'll be presenting on these issues
> at ISCAR and hope to attend sessions that also confront these
> challenges/problems.
>
> btw, are xcma folk attempting to meet at ISCAR?
>
> best,
>
> steve
>
>> 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
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
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