RE: [xmca] activity theory 3rd generation

                  Andy:

Yro is certainly a brilliant theorist/ researcher/thinker/teacher and I am
not in any way disregarding his learning by expanding theory. However,
when he expands the triangle at the angle of activity it is no longer a
triangle. Perhaps a helix would represent a better metaphor, similar to
the one that Mikhail Basov introduced in his structural analysis theory.
Here is a link:
https://www.openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/bitstream/1887/10538/1/7_703_016.pdf
great thanks to the illustrious and ever present M. Cole for his
introduction.

Unfortunately on this link there is not the written word by Basov only what
Valsiner and Van de Veer provide as their thoughts on Basov, Basov was
remarkedly similar in theory to Vygotsky's syncretic/complex/concept
devlopment but what Basov provided was more intrinsic to concpetulizing a
framework of development that was based on his observations of children in
everyday settings.

Dr. Cole (following Mark's lead here, besides there are a lot of Mikes on
this listserv and if anyone has ever earned the title you certainly have):
Are you aware of any link to Basov's article "Structural Analysis of
Psychology from the Standpoint of Behavior"? If not I could rummage about
in my collection of dusty archives that I accumulated when I wrote my
master's paper and perhaps I could upload it. This talk of diagrams and
what helps people visualize the development of activity (Basov spoke of
behavior and not activity) makes me believe that Basov and his structural
analysis would be a great fit.

Andy, your second point was regarding parallel paths of development.
Because I only know how I think I will use myself as an example. Many
times I have thought what I had to contribute on this listserv is relevant
to the thread and then when I read my posts before I hit "send" I am
stunned at my own stupididty so I delete the garbledygook. Perhaps it is
because thoughts are not well formulated sentences but rather chunks and
hunks of meaning that run parallel to speech (writing being a form of
speech) the only way to know what thoughts make sense and what thoughts
don't is to speak them or write them. When Vygotsky writes about this he
mentions the experiments that have people speak about the problem they are
solving and compare the solution to when people do not have to speak about
the problem they are solving. What Vygotsky found was that people solve
problems differently if they are speaking about it rather then only
thinking about it. What is the mediator? In both instances language is
the medium, Luria's mnemonist of course being an exception to this.

Dr. Cole and Sylvia Scribner wrote the best book on this subject,
"Psychology of Literacy". Perhaps if Dr. Cole is so inclined he could dust
off his notes on the subject and speak to this. But if he doesn't have the
time then he certainly may not give it a thought ; ]

eric

P.S. is this one of those posts I should have deleted rather than sent?

_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
Received on Sun Nov 18 07:18 PST 2007