Mike Cole wrote:
"Those interested in the action/chat methodology discussion
I do not understand how, if one believes that culture is constiutive of
human development, one can ignore the history of the behaviors in activity
that are the object of the research at the center of the discussion on this
list for the past quarter of a century. This argument is made concretely in
extenso in a variety of places and to start it de novo here I think that
the
onus is on those who wish to jettison genetic analysis. The organization of
activity in any work place or in any classroom or at any family table and
hence the organiztion of behvior, its subjective significance or
participants, etc. ALL require such an
analysis. That such analyses take time, and are inconvenient, expensive,
difficulty, etc. is a separate issue. That microgenesis, which I engage in
routinely,
is most accessible and close to the level of action research, is important
to note as a starting point. But to stop there would, in my view, be a
shame."
Being someone who spends his time practicing teaching/learning and reading
articles by those who research I know this discussion about action research
falls outside of my area of expertise.
With that premise in mind please ignore the ignorance of this question
mike, "are you stating your dissatisfaction with current literature making
quantum leaps in theory based upon assumptions of how microgenetic,
ontogenetic, phylogenetic and historical development co-constructs or does
NOT co-construct environs/contexts?"
If this is not the case I apologize for stepping outside of my expertise.
That said I am thoroughly enjoying reading the newly posted articles.
Thank you to Wolf-Michael Roth for the link to his article as well.
eric
_______________________________________________
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 - 10:11:33 PST