Αρχικό μήνυμα από Mike Cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>:
Thanks for all. I am grateful for your kindness and generosity.
I will be in touch.
Katerina
> Welcome Katerina. Seems like you must be pretty busy!!
> There are a good many descriptions of "design of the activities themselves"
> and in fact, among some on xmca there is active interest in CHAT approaches
> to what is called "design experimentation." Some is about science, some not.
>
> Early work of Ann Brown and Joe Campione is relevant. You kno
> You know work of Hedegaard on teaching evolution?
> Traditions related to Davydov on teaching math or language?
> Di Sessa, Cobb, who are less in CHAT tradition but might very interested in
> design experimentation?
> Our work on 5th Dimension? (see www.lchc.ucsd.edu work related to our
> lab and www.uclinks.org for many different lines of design work with
> somewhat varying theoretical orientations).
> The ISCAR conf reports on many specific curricular design efforts.
>
> Other XMCA-ites. Send suggestions! This is all from top of my head
> And, Katerina, please ask more directed questions if answers such as mine
> are not targeted enough. If you send me mail address, I can send you book
> about 15 years of work on 5thDimension design work. Others can do likewise
> for their efforts.
> mike
>
> On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 1:46 PM, <kplakits@cc.uoi.gr> wrote:
>
> > Αρχικό μήνυμα από Jay Lemke <jaylemke@umich.edu>:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I am Katerina Plakitsi from the University of Ioannina in Greece. I am
> > science
> > educator and in our research group we try to transfer activity theory to
> > science education. I supervise tree PhD programs where we try to use
> > activity
> > theory within three domains: a) teaching science in primary schools by
> > using
> > some elements of the history of science and also new technologies, b)
> > teaching
> > natural sciences in earnly childhood, and c) science education in science
> > museums and science centers.
> > We have done some pilot studies and we ended that the third generation and
> > especially Engestrom's model seems more appropriate for our researches.
> > But,
> > now we try to design the didactical activities using the activity theory.
> > And,
> > instead of the many articles that use activity theory in order to analyze
> > the
> > systems of activities, we could not find any recent or appropriate articles
> > on
> > the design of the activities themselves. Do you have anything about the
> > designing?
> >
> > You know, I had been for a long time studying personal and social
> > constructivism. Into this context, I have made research and have written
> > Greek
> > school science textbooks (http://users.uoi.gr/kplakits) enlightened by
> > social
> > constructivism. In our researches (unfortunately the most in Greek) we were
> > focusing to the cognitive obstacles, dialogue analysis and argumentation. I
> > am
> > familiar to design didactical strategies under a socio-cognitive
> > perspective.
> > But is it “right” to ask for the same way of thought into the
> > activity theory context? Or, I have to think about things in a more
> > dialectical
> > way? Is it feasible to move from the analysis to designing with the
> > activity
> > theory as a tool for the scope?
> > Yours
> > Katerina
> >
> > Katerina Plakitsi
> > Assistant Professor of Science Education
> > Department of Early Childhood Education
> > School of Education
> > University of Ioannina
> > Greece
> > kplakits@cc.uoi.gr
> > tel. +302651095771
> > fax. +302651095842
> >
> > A brief Newsletter for November-December 2008.
> > >From the 6th to the 9th of November, I organized the 5th
> > Pan-Hellenic Conference with International Participation entitled "Science
> > in
> > Society:Teaching natural sciences in early childhood"
> > (http://users.uoi.gr/5conns).
> > Michael Roth was a keynote speaker during the
> > opening ceremony.
> > Now, I organize the 5th Winter School for the PhD Students of
> > the Greek Union of Science Education (http://www.edife.gr).
> > It is been scheduled for March 20-22 at the University of Ioannina.
> > Furthermore, I am on board for the symposium to be
> > proposed for ESERA 2009 conference in Istanbul, entitled "Cultural studies
> > of
> > science education in Europe: Mapping issues and trends". The symposium is
> > being
> > organized by Michiel van Eijck, Eindhoven University of Technology, The
> > Netherlands. The editors of CSSE Justin Dillon, King's College London, UK,
> > as
> > well as Mariona Espinet, Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona, Spain,will be
> > on
> > board for the symposium too.
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Obviously this is a big topic. Alina's symposium, which I participated
> > > in, was very helpful on many issues, and I hope those papers are
> > > available somewhere.
> > >
> > > I think it is helpful to distinguish somewhat different levels and
> > > functions of the theory-methodology-methods complex. CHAT is, at least
> > > in some research centers' actual practices, a model for all three. I
> > > take the functions of these levels to be: Theory: saying how we
> > > understand human action to happen as it does and to change its
> > > patterns over time. Methodology: providing criteria for choosing
> > > theoretically appropriate research methods across a range of possible
> > > questions, contexts, and interests. Methods: specific procedures that
> > > are expected to be useful across a range of different projects or
> > > studies.
> > >
> > > Social constructivism, or constructionism, is not the third of these,
> > > and probably not very much the second. It is a bit of the first, and
> > > more generally, it is a set of epistemological propositions about how
> > > people know and what we can know, through action and social
> > > interaction. It is a very broad framework, more a philosophy than a
> > > theory or a method.
> > >
> > > Many versions of social constructivism do include some account of the
> > > relationship between individual knowing or ideas and collective,
> > > social, or cultural ways of knowing. Those that pay a lot of attention
> > > to the culture of a community as a basis for individual knowledge
> > > through action tend to also produce more specific theories of how this
> > > happens, and get labeled, broadly, sociocultural theories of ....
> > > something. (e.g. learning, education, development, etc.)
> > >
> > > Qualitative research comprises a wide range of methods (at least as
> > > many and probably more diverse than those called quantitative
> > > methods), as well as some methodological principles or advice. The
> > > methodology is grounded in an epistemology which shares many features
> > > with social constructivism, but is generally more interpretivist or
> > > hermeneutic. That is, it is more about how to make useful sense of
> > > experience/data, rather than about how people learn through social
> > > interaction, though there are overlaps in many cases.
> > >
> > > Qualitative research methods is an oddly named category. It presumes
> > > that quantitative research methods are the norm, if not the unmarked
> > > case, which in many research programs they are not. Nor do all non-
> > > quantitative methods have anything interesting in common just because
> > > they are not quantitative. And in fact it is possible to count
> > > features and compare counts within almost any sort of "qualitative"
> > > data, even ethnographic fieldnotes or videos.
> > >
> > > The more significant contrast is at the level of epistemology and
> > > methodology. Quantitative methods are generally chosen when the
> > > research paradigm assumes that there are causal relationships at work
> > > which produce quantitatively distinct degrees of effects, and that
> > > what is of interest in how much of x produces how much of y. If the
> > > interest is rather in exactly how it happens that any x produces any
> > > y, then you need a qualitative theory of what's going on. In natural
> > > science you tend to start with such a theory first, and then test it
> > > quantitatively. In social sciences either one does not have much of a
> > > theory to start with, just some expectations about causal connections,
> > > or you have a theory that tells you that quantitative differences are
> > > not what really matters for your research interests. Many disciplines
> > > such as quantitative sociology or experimental psychology try to
> > > develop theories by doing lots and lots of experiments. Personally, I
> > > think this is a hopeless approach. Theories come from prior theories
> > > and new ideas. The trajectory of theory-building can be constrained by
> > > empirical findings, and even inspired by them, but trying to put
> > > theory together out of networks of weak causal connections suggested
> > > by experiment is the naivest empiricism; or so my experience tells me.
> > >
> > > CHAT for me is like a theory, but not quite a theory. Its object is
> > > too general to make a theory about. There are just too many kinds of
> > > activity systems and relations among them, in too many different sorts
> > > of cultural and material contexts, to have one theory. Instead, CHAT
> > > is a starting point, a starter kit, for creating theories about
> > > activity systems without having to start from zero. It embodies a lot
> > > of conceptual insight into what matters when studying an activity
> > > system, etc. I agree with what some others have said that it's most
> > > unique feature is its emphasis on history, on the dynamics of change
> > > across multiple timescales, and its assumptions, derived from Marx
> > > that concrete material contradictions (and depending on your version,
> > > their manifestation as or the relatively autonomously emergent "ideal"
> > > or semiotic-discursive-ideological contradictions) are the primary
> > > engines of change.
> > >
> > > CHAT methods seem to have been developed in the course of long-term
> > > research programs in various places (e.g. Moscow, Helsinki, San
> > > Diego), but they are far from identical. CHAT as proto-theory does not
> > > determine specific research methods, though it favors some over others
> > > (which gives it methodological force, in my terminology). Many
> > > research methods can be adapted or used in a way that is faithful to
> > > the intellectual program we trace back to LSV and Leontiev, and that
> > > includes, I think many that are called "qualitative" ... such as
> > > interviews, focus groups, ethnographic observation, participant
> > > ethnography, discourse analysis, multimedia semiotic analysis, video
> > > ethnography, biographical studies, case studies, historical studies,
> > > longitudinal developmental studies, tracking or trailing studies,
> > > tracing network connections (ala Latour's ANT), etc. Each must be
> > > transformed in some ways to be most consistent with CHAT. But then
> > > each must be transformed in any case to fit the needs of a particular
> > > research effort.
> > >
> > > I know that some people like to develop specific methods and refine
> > > them for re-use in many similar studies. This is a productive
> > > approach. But it can sometimes lead us to forget that the real work of
> > > research is its creative dimension: coming up with new ways of
> > > figuring things out, building on what we and others have done before.
> > > If our interests are theoretical and broad, then we are likely to find
> > > ourselves participating in a wide range of different kinds of studies
> > > over a research lifetime, and we need to be prepared to reinvent our
> > > methods, our theories, and even our epistemologies as we go.
> > >
> > > JAY.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Jay Lemke
> > > Professor
> > > Educational Studies
> > > University of Michigan
> > > Ann Arbor, MI 48109
> > > www.umich.edu/~jaylemke <http://www.umich.edu/%7Ejaylemke>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Nov 19, 2008, at 2:04 PM, Mary van der Riet wrote:
> > >
> > > > Activity theory as emblematic of qualitative research?
> > > >
> > > > I have a question. Many studies which use cultural-historical activity
> > > > theory, do not explicitly identify a research design or paradigm (this
> > > > might be because activity theory operates on both methodological and
> > > > method levels, but that is another issue)
> > > >
> > > > I have been trying to draw out some of the links between the
> > > > qualitative
> > > > research paradigm and �activity theory�. There are
> > elements of
> > this
> > > > methodology that draw on different dimensions of qualitative research
> > > > and could be said to have allegiances to different paradigms/positions
> > > > and practices within the qualitative approach (interpretive,
> > > > hermeneutic, grounded theory, social constructionist).
> > > > Perhaps you have some ideas?
> > > >
> > > > Broadly, qualitative research is defined (in the classic approaches)
> > > > as
> > > >
> > > > * an open-ended and inductive exploration of a phenomenon, rather than
> > > > providing causal explanations (Denzin & Lincoln, 1994).
> > > > * having a concern with making sense of/obtaining an understanding of,
> > > > human experience,
> > > > * broadly �interpretivist� � this means:
> > > > * assuming that people�s subjective experiences, the meaning
> > these
> > > > experiences have for them, and thus their representation of reality,
> > > > can
> > > > and should be a focus of study (Kvale, 1996).
> > > > * and that it is a search for a detailed, �thick
> > description�
> > (Geertz,
> > > > 1973), of these experiences.
> > > > * and assuming that an understanding of human experience requires a
> > > > contextual approach (Schwandt, 1994; Denzin & Lincoln, 2005); that the
> > > > �meaning� of a phenomenon is indexical, and thus human
> > experiences
> > > > need to be explored and examined in context, as they are lived.
> > > > This, in
> > > > part, means understanding the social, linguistic and historical
> > > > features
> > > > which shape human phenomena (Kelly 2006).
> > > >
> > > > [this bit seems to have the most synergies with CHAT � but I
> > don�t
> > > > think it is meant in this way i.e. that there is a dialectical
> > > > interaction between social and individual �levels of
> > analysis�]
> > > >
> > > > And what about the �critique� of the situated perspective
> > which
> > > > predominates in ethnographic approaches? This is articulated as
> > > > follows:
> > > > * there is a need to move beyond describing and
> > �understanding� human
> > > > experience in situ. Kelly (1994) argues that the participant, embedded
> > > > in his or her reality, perspective and context, does not possesses the
> > > > perspective necessary to provide a comprehensive account of an
> > > > experience or phenomenon. There is thus a need to provide an account
> > > > of
> > > > a phenomenon which exceeds the self-understanding of the
> > > > participants, a
> > > > distanciated account (Kelly, 2006). Thus description alone, and a
> > > > description in the participants� words, is insufficient for an
> > > > explanation of a phenomenon. There is a need to provide an
> > > > elaboration,
> > > > or expansion, of the participant�s account.
> > > >
> > > > And what of the social constructionist perspective: which argues,
> > > > drawing on Terre Blanche, Kelly and Durrheim (2006), that
> > > > participants�
> > > > thoughts, feelings and experiences are products of systems of
> > > > meaning at
> > > > a social level (Terre Blanche et al, 2006). Constructionist research
> > > > is
> > > > about �interpreting the social world as a kind of language; that
> > is,
> > > > as
> > > > a system of meanings and practices that construct reality�
> > (p.280)
> > > > These
> > > > �everyday actions or images create and maintain� the
> > world in
> > which we
> > > > live (Terre Blanche et al, 2006, p.280). They argue that interpreting
> > > > this social world means understanding and examining this system of
> > > > meanings, these representations of reality, practices, and physical
> > > > arrangements which �construct particular versions of the world
> > by
> > > > providing a framework or system through which we can understand
> > > > objects
> > > > and practices as well as understand who we are and what we should do
> > > > in
> > > > relation to these systems� (ibid, p.282). When we act, they
> > argue,
> > > > what
> > > > we achieve is to �reproduce the ruling discourses of out time
> > and
> > > > re-enact established relational patterns� (p.282).
> > > >
> > > > Is Activity Theory just a social constructionist approach? It might
> > > > emphasize the historical trajectory ofand dilemmas, but it seems to
> > > > be essentially concerned with the same
> > > > thing.
> > > >
> > > > Has anybody been writing about this?
> > > >
> > > > Mary
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Mary van der Riet; School of Psychology; University of KwaZulu-Natal
> > > > Private Bag X01, Scottsville, 3209
> > > >
> > > > email: vanderriet@ukzn.ac.za
> > > > tel: 033 260 6163; fax: 033 2605809
> > > >
> > > > Please find our Email Disclaimer here:
> > http://www.ukzn.ac.za/disclaimer/
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > 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
Received on Sun Nov 30 10:41:55 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Dec 01 2008 - 12:52:40 PST