<P> interested in seeing other researcher's opinions. great discussion<BR><BR><FONT SIZE=2><B>Peter Smagorinsky <smago@uga.edu></B></FONT><BR><FONT SIZE=2>Sent by: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu</FONT><BR><FONT SIZE=2>01/27/2006 11:36 AM EST</FONT><BR><FONT SIZE=2>Please respond to "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity"</FONT><BR><BR> <FONT SIZE=2>To:</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2>"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu></FONT><BR> <FONT SIZE=2>cc:</FONT> <BR> <FONT SIZE=2>bcc:</FONT> <BR> <FONT SIZE=2>Subject:</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2>Re: [xmca] Concepts, word and meaning</FONT><BR> <BR><BR></P><P><FONT FACE="Monospace,Courier">I imagine that a concept can serve the purpose of a "tool," which Mike<BR>treats as an artifact (we may already have 3 terms in play that have<BR>contested definitions--concept, tool, artifact). But I think it depends on<BR>how a person uses it. p<BR>At 10:04 AM 1/27/2006 -0600, you wrote:<BR></FONT><BR><FONT FACE="Monospace,Courier">>Peter;<BR>><BR>>Nice overview, it succinctly summarizes the view Vygotsky held pertaining<BR>>to the interplay between a person's everyday experiences and the formal<BR>>register expected in the specific training grounds where rigid expectations<BR>>are reinforced.<BR>><BR>>Would researchers in the CHAT tradition feel comfortable equating<BR>>Vygotsky's concept with artifact? Does artifact have a formal overtone or<BR>>do artifacts have a more all encompassing character that transfers to<BR>>everyday experiences?<BR>><BR>>eric<BR>><BR>>eric<BR>><BR>><BR>><BR>><BR>> Peter<BR>><BR>> Smagorinsky To: "eXtended Mind,<BR>> Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu><BR>> <smago@uga.edu> cc:<BR>><BR>> &
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Feb 01 2006 - 01:00:11 PST