RE: [xmca] Learning Sciences / Science of Education

["David H Kirshner" <dkirsh@lsu.edu>]

Thanks, Mike.
The methodological connection is important.
David
PS. When did you become so "coole"?


-----Original Message-----
From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu]
On Behalf Of mike coole
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 9:42 AM
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: Re: [xmca] Learning Sciences / Science of Education

A correlated development, David. The emergence of the term, "design
experimentation" at the same time. I found this terminology useful for
explaining what we were doing at the time for a variety of reasons. We
at
lchc have written a little on the limitations of this idea, and Yrjo has
as
well, in recent publications.

re transfer. The recent Sfard book reviewed in MCA and the old 1983 LCHC
article on culture and cognition both take up this issue in ways
antithetical to the cognitivist paradigm. Jean was an lchc co-author of
the
article at the time.
mike

On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 12:11 AM, David H Kirshner <dkirsh@lsu.edu>
wrote:

> Thanks, Martin, Emily, and Michael for questions (copied below).
>
> I'll try, briefly, to explain my "take" on the Learning Sciences.
> First, I was wrong. How People Learn doesn't take the production
system
> as central. The course I'm teaching relies on other authors who do
> (e.g., Schools for Thought, by John Bruer). Still, I would argue that
> production systems (or other similar computational formalisms)
underlie
> the learning sciences movement, even though the politics of what one
can
> claim explicitly is rather dense and convoluted.
>
> Production rules are condition-action pairs specified within a
> computational system--i.e., with sufficient clarity and precision that
a
> serial digital computer can check the condition and execute the
action.
> Complex architectures of such productions are used to simulate
expertise
> in a variety of domains. More impressively--this work really is
> impressive--some production systems can improve their performance by
> refining their own production rules through experience--i.e., learn.
> However, expertise always comes down to fluent performance of routine
> tasks--i.e., skills. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Production_system)
>
> Probably the best known production system model of learning is the ACT
> system of John Anderson. In many books, including "The Atomic
Components
> of Thought" (Anderson & Lebiere, 1998), Anderson makes it clear that
> production rules are, well, the atomic components of
thought--completely
> central to all cognitive activity.
>
> Doubtless, many will remember Anderson's 1996 attack of situated
> cognition in Educational Researcher. Jim Greeno rose to the defense of
> situativity theory in a 1997 response, which Anderson and colleagues
> vigorously rebutted in the same issue. Finally, Anderson, Greeno, and
> co-authors collaborated on a let's-bury-the-hatchet piece focused on
> their commonalities of perspective. Somewhere before the final article
> of the series, Tony and I contributed a critique of what we saw as the
> limitations of the construal of situated cognition operative in that
> conversation.
>
> What made Jean Lave's 1988 book have such impact on the learning
> sciences community was her devastating critique of cognitivist efforts
> to account for transfer. Indeed, it was in the context of that buzz
that
> Greeno defected from cognitivism to situativity.
>
> Jean's work, as well as that of many others, made it clear that
> fundamental change would be needed to account for "context" which, in
a
> strict cognitivist treatment (e.g., within a production system), has
to
> be decomposed into discrete symbols that can enter into the cognitive
> architecture. So, surely, there was, and continues to be a strand of
the
> learning sciences that is open to a radical rethinking the nature
> cognitive theory. But I think Greeno's reconciliation with Anderson et
> al. signals a willingness of many to construe situated cognition as an
> effort to shore up cognitivism, rather than to challenge it.
>
> So, move forward a few years and you have Bransford et al.,
representing
> the learning sciences establishment in education, embracing the
rhetoric
> of situated cognition, and putting forward a "soft" version of
cognitive
> science that doesn't mention production systems or any other
> computational fundamentals. What are we to make of this warm and fuzzy
> approach?
>
> For me the answer is that cognitive science is doing what it has to do
> to be a dominant force in education without fundamentally changing its
> stripes. The main clue is that the only really coherent guidance
offered
> in How People Learn is toward expertise as fluent performance (see
> below). There really is no theorization that I can discern to support
> the rhetoric of concept development, scaffolding, metacognition, or
> collaborative dispositions. This is a reasonable course of action on
the
> part of cognitivists. They do have something solid to build on in the
> impressive accomplishments of information processing models of
> cognitition. They do hope the cognitivist net they are casting can
catch
> the sorts of expertise educators value. Short of abandoning ship,
> there's really no alternative to building up from where you are.
>
> David
>
>
>
> __________ How People Learn (p. 49)___________
> http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309070368
> The issue of retrieving relevant information provides clues about the
> nature of usable knowledge. Knowledge must be "conditionalized" in
order
> to be retrieved when it is needed; otherwise, it remains inert
> (Whitehead, 1929). Many designs for curriculum instruction and
> assessment practices fail to emphasize the importance of
conditionalized
> knowledge. For example, texts often present facts and formulas with
> little attention to helping students learn the conditions under which
> they are most useful. Many assessments measure only propositional
> (factual) knowledge and never ask whether students know when, where,
and
> why to use that knowledge.
>
> Another important characteristic of expertise is the ability to
retrieve
> relevant knowledge in a manner that is relatively "effortless." This
> fluent retrieval does not mean that experts always accomplish tasks in
> less time than novices; often they take more time in order to fully
> understand a problem. But their ability to retrieve information
> effortlessly is extremely important because fluency places fewer
demands
> on conscious attention, which is limited in capacity (Schneider and
> Shiffrin, 1977, 1985). Effortful retrieval, by contrast, places many
> demands on a learner's attention: attentional effort is being expended
> on remembering instead of learning. Instruction that focuses solely on
> accuracy does not necessarily help students develop fluency (e.g.,
Beck
> et al., 1989; Hasselbring et al., 1987; LaBerge and Samuels, 1974).
> _____________________________________________
>
>
> Anderson, J. R., Greeno, J. G., Reder, L. M., & Simon, H. A. (2000).
> Perspectives on learning, thinking, and activity. Educational
> Researcher, 29, 11-13.
>
> Anderson, J. R., & Lebiere, C. (Eds.) (1998). The atomic components of
> thought. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
>
> Anderson, J. R., Reder, L. M., & Simon, H. A. (1996). Situated
learning
> and education. Educational Researcher, 25(4), 5-11.
>
> Anderson, J. R., Reder, L. M., & Simon, H. A. (1997). Situative versus
> cognitive perspectives: Form versus substance. Educational Researcher,
> 26(1), 18-21.
>
> Greeno, J. G. (1997). On claims that answer the wrong question.
> Educational Researcher, 26(1), 5-17.
>
> Kirshner, D. & Whitson, J. A. (1998). Obstacles to understanding
> cognition as situated. Educational Researcher, 27(8), 22-28.
>
> Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
> University Press.
>
>
> Martin:
> Fascinating discussion - but could someone provide me with some
> clarification of the 'production' model (of schooling? of cognition?)
> and the formation model (of knowledge? of the learner? Bildung)?
> And is the claim that learning science is hegemonic with respect to
> other perspectives (such as Piaget or LSV), or wrt schooling
> (curriculum)?
> And 'dissipation' of situative perspectives... In the sense of being
> dispersed and lost? Seems to me everyone in cog sci is jumping on the
> situated bandwagon. More co-opted than dissipated?
> hanging on to this thread for dear life...
>
> Emily:
> When you stated:
> " So the text is largely a promissory note for how a cognitive science
> approach encompasses all of these rich traditions, whereas inspecting
> the actual contribution of cognitive science research leads to little
> more than an unpacking of how skills develop through repetitive
> practice."
> Is the latter part of the sentence (from 'whereas' on) your comment on
> the text or on cognitive science in general?
> In either case, it seems to be a very narrow view on 'all' cognitive
> science research. I assume it is based on some works in particular?
>
> Michael Evans:
> The thread has given me a lot to think about and I'll need to digest
> before responding fully - I must say that I'm not getting the exact
> reading of this literature as David and Tony, particularly if you move
> past Bransford work, which is represented early in the Sawyer edited
> handbook...I do agree that there is a degree of re-branding going on,
> but I'm naive enough to sense there's a legitimate project going on
here
> in terms of bringing together several disciplines including cognitive
> science - again, the handbook has contributions from educational
> psychology, mathematics & science education, computer science, and
> educational anthropology...
> As I noted previously, what concerned me about the literature was a
lack
> of deference to the debt many of the authors owe to Vygotsky, much
less
> so to Piaget...
> Again, I appreciate the creation of this thread and hope to contribute
> more once I've had a chance to think more about it...
>
>
>
> __________ How People Learn (p. 49)___________
> http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309070368
> The issue of retrieving relevant information provides clues about the
> nature of usable knowledge. Knowledge must be "conditionalized" in
order
> to be retrieved when it is needed; otherwise, it remains inert
> (Whitehead, 1929). Many designs for curriculum instruction and
> assessment practices fail to emphasize the importance of
conditionalized
> knowledge. For example, texts often present facts and formulas with
> little attention to helping students learn the conditions under which
> they are most useful. Many assessments measure only propositional
> (factual) knowledge and never ask whether students know when, where,
and
> why to use that knowledge.
>
> Another important characteristic of expertise is the ability to
retrieve
> relevant knowledge in a manner that is relatively "effortless." This
> fluent retrieval does not mean that experts always accomplish tasks in
> less time than novices; often they take more time in order to fully
> understand a problem. But their ability to retrieve information
> effortlessly is extremely important because fluency places fewer
demands
> on conscious attention, which is limited in capacity (Schneider and
> Shiffrin, 1977, 1985). Effortful retrieval, by contrast, places many
> demands on a learner's attention: attentional effort is being expended
> on remembering instead of learning. Instruction that focuses solely on
> accuracy does not necessarily help students develop fluency (e.g.,
Beck
> et al., 1989; Hasselbring et al., 1987; LaBerge and Samuels, 1974).
> _____________________________________________
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu]
> On Behalf Of Martin Packer
> Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 7:01 PM
> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> Subject: Re: [xmca] Learning Sciences / Science of Education
>
> Fascinating discussion - but could someone provide me with some
> clarification of the 'production' model (of schooling? of cognition?)
> and the formation model (of knowledge? of the learner? Bildung)?
>
> And is the claim that learning science is hegemonic with respect to
> other perspectives (such as Piaget or LSV), or wrt schooling
> (curriculum)?
>
> And 'dissipation' of situative perspectives... In the sense of being
> dispersed and lost? Seems to me everyone in cog sci is jumping on the
> situated bandwagon. More co-opted than dissipated?
>
> hanging on to this thread for dear life...
>
> Martin
>
>
> On Sep 15, 2009, at 7:29 PM, Tony Whitson wrote:
>
> > David,
> >
> > Your message is powerfully corrobarative.
> >
> > It arrived as I was preparing documents for inclusion in the web
> > page I'll be posting in response to this thread. One of those
> > documents is a very slightly expanded version of a proposal for AERA
> > this year on Learning Sciences / Science of Education as a hegemonic
> > project.
> >
> > In terms of HOW PEOPLE LEARN, Piaget, Vygotsky -- and how Dewey,
> > Lave, etc. get contortedly forced into that framework, see my
> > "Curriculum & the post-(cognitivist) synthesis,"
> > at http://wp.me/p1V0H-1O . (If you vaguely remember having seen this
> > before, it's because I skipped ahead to this page when you appeared
> > in my classroom a couple years ago.)
> >
> > I find this article very helpful for understanding what's happening
> > here:
> >
> > Lave, J. (1991). Situating learning in communities of practice. In
> > L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on
> > socially shared cognition (1st ed., pp. 63-82). Washington, DC:
> > American Psychological Association.
> >
> > I will include that in the page for tonight.
> >
> > Emily, my own answer (obviously not speaking for David) is that
> > David nails the problem with his reference to the production model.
> > The difference between production and formation is absolutely
> > crucial. I think Cognitive Science is generally oblivious to that
> > difference. Some Cog Sci is clearly productionist. There's nothing
> > to preclude Cog Sci from recognizing formation as distinct from
> > production, but often in its obliviousness it remains equivocal and
> > ambiguous at best. Given that in U.S. English discourse education as
> > formation has pretty much disappeared from the language, writing
> > must be done deliberately to preclude texts from being read as
> > productionist texts, and I don't see that happening in the Cog Sci
> > literature, even where the author(s) might be themselves thinking
> > that they're writing about formative activity.
> >
> > On Tue, 15 Sep 2009, Duvall, Emily wrote:
> >
> >> David,
> >> When you stated:
> >> " So the text is largely a promissory note for how a cognitive
> >> science
> >> approach encompasses all of these rich traditions, whereas
inspecting
> >> the actual contribution of cognitive science research leads to
little
> >> more than an unpacking of how
> >> skills develop through repetitive practice."
> >>
> >> Is the latter part of the sentence (from 'whereas' on) your comment
> >> on
> >> the text or on cognitive science in general?
> >> In either case, it seems to be a very narrow view on 'all'
cognitive
> >> science research. I assume it is based on some works in particular?
> >> ~em
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-
> >> bounces@weber.ucsd.edu]
> >> On Behalf Of David H Kirshner
> >> Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 3:45 PM
> >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> >> Subject: RE: [xmca] Learning Sciences / Science of Education
> >>
> >> Tony,
> >>
> >> I'm co-PI on a grant to replicate the University of Texas secondary
> >> teacher education program, which is largely focused on the learning
> >> sciences literature. This semester, I'm teaching an intro course,
> >> Knowing and Learning, that uses How People Learn as its main text,
> >> and
> >> presents the orthodoxy of production systems as the organizing
> >> framework
> >> for thinking about learning and teaching--at the same time
> >> extolling the
> >> need for group work, project based instruction, and the like. What
> >> becomes increasingly clear as I go through the literature is the
> >> hegemonic character of the learning sciences, at least in relation
to
> >> educational matters. The insights into learning extolled in the
> >> literature derive in large part from Piagetian constructivist
> >> research
> >> and from Vygotskyan sociocultural research. So the text is largely
a
> >> promissory note for how a cognitive science approach encompasses
> >> all of
> >> these rich traditions, whereas inspecting the actual contribution
of
> >> cognitive science research leads to little more than an unpacking
> >> of how
> >> skills develop through repetitive practice.
> >>
> >> The sociological process of hegemonic discourse is itself an
> >> interest of
> >> mine at this time. I'm recalling our discussion of a couple of
> >> years ago
> >> about the possibility of a new edition of our situated cognition
> >> reader
> >> organized as a response to the dissipation of situative
perspectives
> >> within the learning sciences. I'm increasingly interested in
> >> understanding that process.
> >>
> >> David
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-
> >> bounces@weber.ucsd.edu]
> >> On Behalf Of Tony Whitson
> >> Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 3:07 PM
> >> To: mcole@ucsd.edu; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> >> Subject: [xmca] Learning Sciences / Science of Education
> >>
> >> This is something that I'm very interested in. I'm planning a paper
> >> for
> >> a
> >> narrow audience this winter, and a more ambitious paper for a wide
> >> audience in Winter 2011. If others would be interested in a 2011
AERA
> >> symposium, let's talk.
> >>
> >> I'll see if I can put together a post tonight with some fragments &
> >> bibliography that people might be interested in.
> >>
> >> Meanwhile, I think there is a short answer, which of course is not
> >> the
> >> complete answer:
> >>
> >> I think a good deal of the impetus behind "Learning Sciences" comes
> >> from
> >>
> >> the political hostility to Education faculty in favor of
> >> positive(istic)
> >>
> >> psychology, as in Reid Lyons' statement that "If there was any
> >> piece of
> >> legislation that I could pass, it would be to blow up colleges of
> >> education".
> >>
> >> This has created an environment in which an Educational
Psychologist
> >> (like
> >> John Bransford, for example) would lose out in the funding for
> >> competition
> >> to a Learning Scientist (like John Bransford, for example).
> >>
> >> Folks in Seattle, Nashville, etc. see little cost in a name change
> >> that
> >> keeps the dollars flowing. I'm not concerned about the name change,
> >> so
> >> much, but I have continuing concerns about the enterprise in
general.
> >>
> >> On Tue, 15 Sep 2009, Mike Cole wrote:
> >>
> >>> Thanks Em-- And I googled Goswami neuromyths. Also very
> >>> enlightening.
> >>> Goswami did early work with Ann Brown, former collaborator with us
> >>> at
> >> LCHC.
> >>>
> >>> Now if we go back a step and look at the people who created the
> >>> label
> >> of
> >>> learning sciences, and their backgrounds, the shift from
> >> "developmental
> >>> psychology" to developmental sciences, the appearance recently of
> >>> the
> >>> handbook of cultural developmental science, ......... what a
> >>> tempest!
> >> Must
> >>> be a teapot in there somewhere. Simultaneous, fractilated paradigm
> >> shifts?
> >>>
> >>> Does anyone have the luxury of being able to organize a science
> >> studies
> >>> interrogation of these movements? Seems really worthwhile.
> >>> mike
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 12:16 PM, Duvall, Emily <emily@uidaho.edu>
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Thanks Mike... :-)
> >>>>       In general I like Goswami's work; I find her discussion of
> >>>> neuromyths compelling and have had my grad students do additional
> >>>> research on some of them. I am also particularly interested in
ways
> >> to
> >>>> try to negotiate across different fields. I've attached my
favorite
> >>>> Goswami and a nice intro to neuroeducation.
> >>>>       As a side note: Monica (Hansen, who frequently shows up on
> >>>> the
> >>>> list serve and is one of my doc students) and I took a
neuroscience
> >>>> journal club/ seminar last spring and found ourselves trying to
> >>>> make
> >>>> sense of the work that is done with regard to education. We are
> >> taking
> >>>> another seminar right now and some of the folks who were in last
> >> year's
> >>>> class are presenting journal articles in their field, but are
> >>>> trying
> >> to
> >>>> make the links to human experience, particularly education. It's
> >>>> been
> >>>> interesting to discover how open minded the students and faculty
> >> are...
> >>>> one of the computational neuroscience faculty has taken up some
> >> Vygotsky
> >>>> reading as well as neuroeducation... of course Luria's work is a
> >>>> door
> >>>> opener and a point of mutual interest.
> >>>>       ~em
> >>>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
> >> [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu]
> >>>> On Behalf Of Mike Cole
> >>>> Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 9:41 AM
> >>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> >>>> Subject: Re: [xmca] Neuroscience connections to learning and
> >> relearning
> >>>>
> >>>> No one picked up on your interest in neuroeducation, Emily. A lot
> >>>> of
> >>>> what I
> >>>> read in this area strikes me as almost entirely without any
> >> appreciation
> >>>> of
> >>>> education, or human experience, as a culturally mediated,
> >> co-constructed
> >>>> process. Do you have a favorite general ref you could point us to
> >> that
> >>>> you
> >>>> resonate to??
> >>>> mike
> >>>>
> >>>> On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 8:50 AM, Duvall, Emily <emily@uidaho.edu>
> >> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> I thought some of you might one or both of these article
summaries
> >>>>> interesting. The first really speaks to the new field of
> >>>> neuroeducation
> >>>>> with regard to cellular learning... the nice thing about the
> >>>>> summary
> >>>> is
> >>>>> it gives you an overview of learning at the cellular basis...
very
> >>>> clear
> >>>>> and easy to understand. Plus an introduction to astrocytes...
:-)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The second piece actually discusses re-learning, which has been
a
> >>>> topic
> >>>>> lately.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> What I personally find so interesting is the role of experience
in
> >>>>> learning and relearning... I found myself thinking back to
Shirley
> >>>> Brice
> >>>>> Heath's work... it would be fun to go back to her work and look
at
> >> her
> >>>>> study through a neuroeducation lens.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 1. Star-shaped Cells In Brain Help With Learning
> >>>>> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090911132907.htm
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Every movement and every thought requires the passing of
specific
> >>>>> information between networks of nerve cells. To improve a skill
or
> >> to
> >>>>> learn something new entails more efficient or a greater number
of
> >> cell
> >>>>> contacts. Scientists can now show that certain cells in the
> >>>>> brain --
> >>>> the
> >>>>> astrocytes -- actively influence this information exchange.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 2. Forgotten But Not Gone: How The Brain Re-learns
> >>>>> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/11/081117110834.htm
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thanks to our ability to learn and to remember, we can perform
> >>>>> tasks
> >>>>> that other living things can not even dream of. However, we are
> >>>>> only
> >>>>> just beginning to get the gist of what really goes on in the
brain
> >>>> when
> >>>>> it learns or forgets something. What we do know is that changes
in
> >> the
> >>>>> contacts between nerve cells play an important role. But can
these
> >>>>> structural changes account for that well-known phenomenon that
> >>>>> it is
> >>>>> much easier to re-learn something that was forgotten than to
learn
> >>>>> something completely new?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ~em
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Emily Duvall, PhD
> >>>>> Assistant Professor Curriculum & Instruction
> >>>>> University of Idaho, Coeur d'Alene
> >>>>> 1000 W. Hubbard Suite 242 | Coeur d'Alene, ID 83814
> >>>>> T 208 292 2512 | F 208 667 5275 emily@uidaho.edu |
> >> www.cda.uidaho.edu
> >>>>>
> >>>>> He only earns his freedom and his life, who takes them every day
> >>>>> by
> >>>>> storm.
> >>>>> -- Johann Wolfgang Goethe
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>> 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
> >>>
> >>
> >> Tony Whitson
> >> UD School of Education
> >> NEWARK  DE  19716
> >>
> >> twhitson@udel.edu
> >> _______________________________
> >>
> >> "those who fail to reread
> >> are obliged to read the same story everywhere"
> >>                  -- Roland Barthes, S/Z (1970)
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
> >>
> >
> > Tony Whitson
> > UD School of Education
> > NEWARK  DE  19716
> >
> > twhitson@udel.edu
> > _______________________________
> >
> > "those who fail to reread
> > are obliged to read the same story everywhere"
> >                  -- Roland Barthes, S/Z (1970)
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca