cathrene
i certainly would be interested in your dissertation
merja helle
e-mail: merja.helle@helsinki.fi
Quoting Cathrene Connery <ConneryC@cwu.EDU>:
> Hi everyone:
> My dissertation on the ontogenesis of emergent biliterates (2006)
> integrated sociocultural and action research methods. During the course
> of the writing,it became necessary to include an additional chapter on
> the philosophical assumptions of the study for one of the committee
> members to legitimize my approach. I'd be happy to forward the chapter
> as an attachment to anyone who is interested. It certainly would make a
> fun article for anyone who'd like to collaborate!
> Cathrene
> >>> Kevin Rocap <Kevin.Rocap@liu.edu> 1/12/2007 7:26 AM >>>
> Dear Elaine,
>
> Hi! You pose some interesting things to consider. I can suggest what I
>
> think are a few clarifications (perhaps distinctions, perhaps not ;-)).
>
> (1) Action research involves the practitioner in researching
> his/her/their own practices whether for ongoing improvement or for other
>
> social action/change. The CHAT framework has certainly been applied by
> folks studying other people's actions, not necessarily their own.
>
> (2) While CHAT provides some theories of action, object, tool use,
> interrelations, I'm not sure I'd characterize it as inherently
> "activist" which I think is more in the hands of whomever is making use
> of the CHAT framework.
>
> (3) A CHAT framework could certainly be used by practitioner-researchers
>
> within their own action research activity and might help them understand
>
> and/or comment upon diverse tools, objects/intents/purposes, contexts,
> etc. of their own researched practice, imho.
>
> (4) Action Science referenced by Engestrom is very specfiic and does not
>
> layout the same range of variables for consideration (i.e., the various
> points on the triangle in the case of CHAT). The primary focus from my
> prior experience studying action science with Chris Argyris is that the
> focus is on talk among actors in an organization and how that frames,
> organizes, coordinates and provides a window into their commitments,
> attitudes, and behaviors (whether Model I or Model II in the Argyris
> typology). True their talk may have to, at key points, be
> compared/contrasted with their non-verbal behaviors (yet without real
> frameworks regarding ways to assess those behaviors per se), but verbal
> behaviors were always the primary focus in my short experience (maybe
> the presumption is that much of corporate behavior hinges on talk ;-)).
>
> My two cents.
>
> In Peace,
> K.
>
>
>
> Elaine Mateus wrote:
> > Dear All,
> > There has been a recurrent issue among some of my brazilian peers
> regarding differences and/or similarities between action-research and the
> CHAT methodological framing. I'm also uncertain about this matter as I
> read Kemmis, for example, saying that:
> >
> > In my view, critical or emancipatory action research is always
> connected to social action: it always understands itself as a concrete
> and practical expression of the aspiration to change the social (or
> educational) world for the better through improving shared social
> practices, our shared understandings of these social practices, and the
> shared situations in which these practices are carried out. It is thus
> always critical, in the sense that it is about relentlessly trying to
> understand and improve the way things are in relation to how they could
> be better. But it is also critical in the sense that it is activist: it
> aims at creating a form of collaborative learning by doing (in which
> groups of participants set out to learn from change in a process of
> making changes, studying the process and consequences of these changes,
> and trying again). It aims to help people understand themselves as the
> agents, as well as the products, of history. In my view, action research
> is also committed to spreading involvement and participation in the
> research process. (Kemmis, 1993 http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v1n1.html)
> >
> > On the other hand, Engestrom and his colleagues in "The discursive
> construction of collaborative care" (2003 :433), say that:
> >
> > For example, one might ask what is the difference between our work and
> the 'action science' practiced by Chris Argyris and his colleagues
> (Argyris & al., 1985). Action science is aimed at making practitioners
> aware of the persistent and often harmful 'single-loop' mechanisms in
> their talk and interaction. However, in action science literature, we
> don't learn much about how the practitioners actually change their
> practices, or what new tools and organizational structures they develop
> and adopt.
> >
> > Can someone suggest further readings so that we can have a better
> understanding on this issue?
> > Thanks
> > Elaine Mateus
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>
> M. Cathrene Connery, Ph.D.
> Assistant Professor of Bilingual & TESL Education
> Central Washington University
> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
**********************************************************
Merja Helle
Center for Activity Theory and Developmental Work Research
University of Helsinki
Address: 00014 University of Helsinki
Finland
phone:+358 (0)50-4485 111
email: merja.helle@helsinki.fi
************************************************************
"You don't the know the facts before you know the fiction"
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Feb 01 2007 - 10:11:32 PST