Re: [xmca] (ism) v (ist)

[Larry Purss <lpurss@shaw.ca>]

Andy, I also cannot say that I have a firm position on these topics of intersubjectivity and sociocultural theory.  Martin's recent post on ontology as exploring our basic assumptions that are the ground of our theories and what kind of entities we assume exist and in what types of relation is an excellent definition.
 
Now, why this is more than an intellectual question of cognitive "understanding" is that our basic assumptions inFORM our social practices and construct our cultural historical practices and our identities.
 
Jay's comment on this topic pointed out that our positions on epistemology and ontology are expressions of our personalities and by observing a person's activities in the world we can understand their underlying ontologies and epistemologies and their personality.
 
Now I interpret that position as a particular ontological position that posits a person's interpretative stance as the ground or foundation from which emerges our ontologies [basic assumptions].
 
Andy, ontology "as the science of BEING" I read as Heidegger's particular basic stance towards what is foundational.  Now his discourse was situated in the larger historical tradition of existential phenomenology within Continental Philosophy. 
There were and continue to be lively responses within the Continental Philosophy tradition to Heidegger's position.
 
Martin's psychology department at Duquesne University is in the forefront of continuing to keep alive and "recover" the basic assumptions within the tradition of Continental Philosophy and to make linkages with other traditions. When Martin brings in the writings of Shept [as influenced by continental philosophy discourse] and tries to link Shept's ideas to the ontological assumptions within Vygotsky's tradition I see Martin exploring the basic assumptions that emerged in sociocultural theory as being rooted in the tradition of Continental Philosophy.
Now this process of "recovery" is also inFORMING recent developments in relational, interpersonal and intersubjective psychoanalytic discourse.
 
Andy, at a more foundational level the perceived differences between intersubjective and sociocultural theories may share a common heritage in Continental Philosophy.  Descartes dualism and the dualism of self/ social or self/other as either 1st person or 3rd person perspectives can viewed from a 2nd person assumption that posits BECOMING [not being] as the communicative interactional process BETWEEN subjectivies from which emerge 1st person and 3rd person accounts.
 
I would like to recommend a book by Daniel Burston [who works with Martin] and is also bringing Continental Philosophy traditions into current human science.
His book [with Roger Frie, a relational psychoanalyist] is "Psychotherapy as a Human Science" written in 2006.  Their book explicates the ideas of many of the philosophers related to or in tension with the Continental Philosophy Tradition.
 
>From the human science perspective persons are seen as active agents [volitional] endowed with intentionality and embedded in particular social, cultural, and HISTORICAL contexts. Human science IS communicative science as WE help persons DEVELOP NEW WAYS of being IN the world [not being].
 
It is Martin's engagement within BOTH cultural historical traditions and Continental Philosophy  traditions that I think offers opportunities for developing new KINDS OF PERSONS and new KINDS OF MORAL WORLDS where we are radically implicated in each others becoming.
 
The Golden Key Schools idea of PAIR teachers as taking two different "teacher positions" that create new types of development is a specific example of moving these discussions from  philosophical discussions to intersubjective sociocultural practices.  The teacher who takes the position of the "uncertain fallible student" offers possibilities of revisioning the teacher/student institutional interactional patterns. By embracing uncertainty as a shared moral stance and ideal we can hopefully create institutional structures where uncertainty becomes a mutually shared ideal and not only an accomplishment of some brave individual students who are able to "challenge" the dogmatism of the received world view.
 
Larry
 
 
 
 


----- Original Message -----
From: Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>
Date: Saturday, April 17, 2010 11:40 pm
Subject: Re: [xmca] (ism) v (ist)
To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>

> Larry, although you addressed your comments to Mike, I'd 
> like to throw a couple of thoughts into this huge and 
> troublesome domain.
> 
> 1. I have been a little intrigued by where this meaning of 
> "ontology" came from. I am trying to catch up with Heidegger 
> at the moment, and though I am reserving my judgment on his 
> ideas generally, he is discussing Ontology, that is, the 
> science of Being, the same meaning given to this word (so 
> far as I can see) by the Greeks, by Hegel and in conteporary 
> Marxist writing. I used to think it was Sartre who 
> introduced the idea of Ontology as to do with personal 
> identity, in line with his concept of existence during his 
> Existentialist period. But you now suggest something which 
> is kind of midway, i.e., Ontology as to do with what is 
> foundational. I am not sure if that is the same as the 
> science of being, or not.
> 
> 2. I like your metaphor of 1st person, 2nd person and 3rd 
> person, but to me, all the examples you gave of approaches 
> seeking to overcome dualisms are like the "bridging" 
> metaphor which as you correctly say, sets off from a 
> dualism. When 2 people communicate they always use a means 
> of communication which pre-existed both parties. There is 
> always a third. And all attempts to overcome dualism based 
> on "two sides of a coin," "Self/Other, "dialogue" and so on 
> are just variations on dualism, as far as I can see. It's 
> like people saying that D"escartes was wrong," because 
> "thought and matter *are* connected," which was of course 
> Descartes' whole point. :) This is the same question that 
> started this thread, i.e., (roughly) the difference between 
> intersubjectivity and sociocultural approaches.
> 
> Andy
> 
> Larry Purss wrote:
> > Mike, yes I am using ontology to  ""recover" the idea of 
> consciousness as something that emerges between people and my 
> reading of Michael and Luis article and Martin's posting also 
> point to a similar theme. I think Martin is redirecting our gaze 
> or returning us historically to the existential themes 
> being  debated within continental philosophy.  Also 
> Merleau-Ponty's voice about the centrality of the body [as Rod 
> Parker-Rees wrote about in "bringing children to body] is part 
> of this historical conversation within continental 
> philosophy.  Martin's intimate knowledge of this historical 
> tradition seems to be re-engaging this tradition in informing 
> sociocultural and cultural historical perspectives.  
> > My using the term "ontology" as that which is foundational or 
> ground is an attempt to support the project of an engagement 
> with the themes of continental philosophy.  Why is this 
> important for me personally.  I guess as a person immersed 
> in the common sense taken-for-granted  historical social 
> surround of "modernity", I'm searching for  a new moral 
> compass that transcends neoliberal notions of how we OUGHT to 
> proceed and searching for a way to form a "new commons" with 
> shared notions of "the good" or how we ought to proceed"  
> > Now the postmodernist preoccupation with deconstructing all 
> notions of a shared moral compass seems to continue the 
> fragmentation and atomization of hyper individualism as it tries 
> to critique modernity.  
> > Continental philosophy as it explores themes of consciousness 
> as what happens BETWEEN [or in the spaces] is a theory of 
> communication with a different ontological ground. 
> >  
> > I also see this theme being explored in Dot's article 
> emphasing that communication and generality are two sides of the 
> same coin and represent the SAME REALITY. Gennadi states "at 
> first glance, this does not make any sense.  Communication 
> deals with the realization of social relationships, and 
> generalization represents an intellectual, mental act of one 
> particular individual"  
> > Mike,  I interpret that what Martin and Michael and Luis 
> are pointing to is that our theories are struggling to find ways 
> to NOT use metaphors such as "bridging"  to explain 
> dualistic interactions and trying to find metaphors such as "two 
> sides of the same coin" or "yin/yang" or "figure/ground" to 
> capture a single process which we differentiate or split into 
> dialectical tensions through our historical patterns of communication.
> >  
> > Communication seems central to this process but how we imagine 
> the processes of communication and what is CONSTITUTED within 
> communication is contested ground. 
> >  
> > My interpretation of Michael and Luis article is their attempt 
> to explore communication as CO-constituted.  They state 
> "...when we take the conversation as the unit, in which EACH 
> word has TWO SIDES, any ASYMMETRY within the unit, that is, 
> between moments of the unit, has to be thought of 
> differently."  This way of viewing the ZPD challenges the 
> notion of teaching/learning as an ASYMMETRICAL relationship of 
> one person being the teacher and the other person in the 
> position of learner. For Michael and Luis in the ZPD BOTH 
> teacher and learner are occupying  the teaching and the 
> learning positions in recursive looping. The student occupies 
> BOTH the teaching and learning position and the teacher occupies 
> both the learner and teaching position.
> > Mike, this notion of communication as radically 
> implicating  the other in our ideas and thoughts can be 
> expressed as an alternative ontology.  I would suggest that 
> this notion of our thoughts and ideas as radically implicated in 
> others ideas and thoughts as communicated BETWEEN self and other 
> can be extended to our identities or subjectivities as being 
> radically implicated  in processes of recognition and 
> RESPONSE. 
> > What is foundational can be understood ontologically as a 1st 
> person introspective subjectivity, a 3rd person sociocultural 
> ground or a 2nd person relational ego-alter dialectic that is 
> the foundation of subjectivity and cultural frames.
> >  
> > I have to clarify that my background in individualistic 
> psychological perspectives leaves me inadequately prepared to 
> articulate a clear and logically coherent position on these 
> topics but from a 2nd person ontology my searching for 
> historically informed linkages between sociocultural  and 
> continental philosophy discourses is an example of a ZPD that 
> develops a shared expanding horizon of understanding.  Each 
> time I RESPOND and my ideas are RECOGNIZED and RESPONDED to I am 
> taking both positions of teaching and learning and it is this 
> fundamental communicational engagement which IS 
> subjectivity.  Now how we communicate in 2010 creates or 
> constitutes a different subjectivity [and moral engagement] than 
> would be constituted in previous historical periods.  This 
> is how I interpret Martin's question of what "kinds of persons" 
> are we constituting.
> >  
> > Larry
> >  
> >  
> > 
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>
> > Date: Saturday, April 17, 2010 5:44 pm
> > Subject: Re: [xmca] (ism) v (ist)
> > To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> > Cc: Jenna McWilliams <jenmcwil@umail.iu.edu>
> > 
> >> I have downloaded the documents you posted, Dot.
> >> if i ever understand the term, ontology (or have the illusion 
> I 
> >> do!), Larry,
> >> I might be better able to respond to your note. I think, but 
> am 
> >> uncertain,that you are pointing to at least part of what 
> Michael-
> >> Luis were emphasizing
> >> in their editorial comment on re-conceptualizing (or re-
> >> covering the idea of consciousness as always/only possible 
> only 
> >> for two (I
> >> would probably want to add at least three (!) people.
> >> mike
> >> On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 7:11 PM, Dot Robbins 
> >> <drobbins72000@yahoo.com>wrote:
> >>> Dear Jenna and All,
> >>> Realizing that this discussion is no longer going on, I just 
> >> wanted to
> >>> thank you, Jenna, for your 
> >> comments...Constructivism/Constructionism is a
> >>> very important discussion internationally, for many reasons, 
> >> especially in
> >>> the West. The good news for many of you is that you can 
> delete 
> >> this message
> >>> now, if not interested. I have attached my thoughts on this 
> >> topic, but they
> >>> were written many years ago....Perhaps the notes are not 
> >> totally correct, or
> >>> valid today...it was long ago....what is very important is 
> the 
> >> situation> some face about *rigour*......We need to be clear 
> >> about comparing apples and
> >>> oranges.....Mike's note was very important for me, listed 
> >> below..... The
> >>> aspects of cultural mediation are so important, and also the 
> >> aspect of the
> >>> process of development. We need a historical clarification 
> of 
> >> the times of
> >>> Vygotsky-Luria-Leontiev regarding their use/or none-use of 
> >> research data in
> >>> their writings (what was the actual political situation of using
> >>>  statistical data in those days? I have read about this 
> >> problem, but cannot
> >>> comment on it now)....
> >>> Debates about *rigour* need to be placed in context, as we 
> do 
> >> not compare
> >>> apples with oranges…I am also attaching our introduction to 
> >> the Davydov book
> >>> about the understanding of “non-classical” psychology….it 
> >> leads to the
> >>> understanding of “metacognition,” which is a key component 
> in 
> >> dialogues with
> >>> many, including those in “traditional” cognitivist fields….I 
> >> will restrain
> >>> my thoughts to Chomsky here….we need to have a grounded 
> >> understanding of
> >>> Spinoza, inter alia, to understand cultural-historical 
> theory, 
> >> and we also
> >>> need to know the deep theories/and times of Descartes….So, I 
> >> will stop
> >>> here….Hopefully, others will help us, especially our 
> >> colleagues in
> >>> Brazil.....
> >>> With very good wishes of Spring to all,
> >>> Dot
> >>> --- On Fri, 4/9/10, mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> From: mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>
> >>> Subject: Re: [xmca] (ism) v (ist)
> >>> To: "Jenna McWilliams" <jenmcwil@umail.iu.edu>
> >>> Cc: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> >>> Date: Friday, April 9, 2010, 12:52 PM
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Debating *rigour  *with respect to such a question*?
> >>> *My advice is to take a good novel to read when caught in such
> >>> circumstances. Rigourous with respect to what?
> >>> Is a psychological experiment  about number calculation 
> >> procesess more
> >>> rigorous than an ethnogrpahic account
> >>> of "the same" topic (I almost slipped and wrote phenomenon!).
> >>>
> >>> My guess vis a  vis my own question? Piagetian social 
> >> constructivism saw
> >>> culture as ailement for the mind that varied along a scale 
> >> from less to
> >>> more
> >>> (never considered obesity, i guess). Vygotskian cultural-
> historical>>> psycholoy places cultural mediation in the center 
> of the 
> >> process, making
> >>> all
> >>> Piageian binaries into fuzzy trinaries for which it is always
> >>> necessary to rise to the concrete. Of course one person's 
> >> concrete is
> >>> another's  "whaaat" but at least they are
> >>> trying to understand each other within a more or less 
> mutually 
> >> recognizable> point of view.  Constructionism includes 
> >> cultural practices, making things.
> >>> But it does not theorize them in chat terms.
> >>> mike
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 3:38 PM, Jenna McWilliams 
> >> <jenmcwil@umail.iu.edu> >wrote:
> >>>> I don't know! That's why I've pitched this issue to you guys.
> >>>>
> >>>> I recently sat on the sidelines watching a pair of 
> academics 
> >> argue over
> >>>> whether cultural-historical learning theories are as 
> theoretically>>> rigorous
> >>>> as cognitivist theories. As you might imagine, the 
> >> cognitivist argued
> >>> they
> >>>> aren't as rigorous, while the situative theorist argued 
> they 
> >> were. I
> >>> wonder
> >>>> if you xmca-ers have thoughts on this.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> ~~
> >>>>
> >>>> Jenna McWilliams
> >>>> Learning Sciences Program, Indiana University
> >>>> ~
> >>>> http://jennamcwilliams.blogspot.com
> >>>> http://remediatingassessment.blogspot.com
> >>>> ~
> >>>> jenmcwil@indiana.edu
> >>>> jennamcjenna@gmail.com
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Apr 7, 2010, at 3:50 PM, mike cole wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>  Jenna-- No wonder you are so quiet on XMCA-- you are 
> >> busy in another
> >>>>> interesting discussion, differently mediated!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So, vis a vis the local conversation, how do 
> constructivism or
> >>>>> constructionism
> >>>>> relate to cultural-historical theories?
> >>>>> mike
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 10:12 AM, Jenna McWilliams <
> >>> jenmcwil@umail.iu.edu
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>  Hello,
> >>>>>> I'm really enjoying this conversation, as it aligns 
> really 
> >> nicely with
> >>>>>> issues I'm grappling with both in my graduate work and in 
> >> my research
> >>>>>> projects and groups.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Though I'm a shameless self-promoter, I normally wouldn't 
> >> plug my blog
> >>> in
> >>>>>> such an esteemed listserv--except that I recently 
> >> published a post
> >>> about
> >>>>>> the
> >>>>>> (ir)reconcilability of sociocultural and cognitivist 
> >> learning theories
> >>>>>> (at
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>> http://jennamcwilliams.blogspot.com/2010/04/why-i-am-not-
> >> constructionist.html> >>> ,
> >>>>>> if you want to see). It's the conversation below the post that
> >>> interests
> >>>>>> me
> >>>>>> now--a fun debate has started about whether pulling from 
> >> sociocultural> >>> and
> >>>>>> cognitivist theories can be called "synthesis" or 
> >> "cherrypicking." I
> >>> fall
> >>>>>> on
> >>>>>> the "cherrypicking" side of things, though I can 
> >> acknowledge how
> >>>>>> rhetorically poor that term is.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I was going to post some of this thread in the comments 
> >> section before
> >>> I
> >>>>>> started worrying about the appropriateness of doing that, 
> >> so instead
> >>> I'll
> >>>>>> just set forth a plea to anyone who's interested to join 
> >> in on the
> >>>>>> conversation. My readers and I would be most grateful for 
> >> any thoughts
> >>>>>> you
> >>>>>> are willing to offer.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Thanks for this listserv, which is supporting my 
> knowledge 
> >> acquisition> >>> and
> >>>>>> enabling me to participate in knowledge production.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> jenna
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> ~~
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Jenna McWilliams
> >>>>>> Learning Sciences Program, Indiana University
> >>>>>> ~
> >>>>>> http://jennamcwilliams.blogspot.com
> >>>>>> http://remediatingassessment.blogspot.com
> >>>>>> ~
> >>>>>> jenmcwil@indiana.edu
> >>>>>> jennamcjenna@gmail.com
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Apr 7, 2010, at 9:32 AM, Michael Glassman wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Helen,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Just to put in my two cents.  Constructivism itself 
> >> is an
> >>>>>>> epistemological
> >>>>>>> stance.  I had always thought the term was coined 
> by 
> >> Kohlberg, but
> >>>>>>> googling
> >>>>>>> around it seems to come from Piaget in 1967 (so it is doubtful
> >>> Vygtosky
> >>>>>>> would have thought of himself at least as a 
> >> constructivist).  It
> >>>>>>> suggests
> >>>>>>> that the way in which knowledge comes into existence is 
> >> through an
> >>>>>>> individual's construction based on experience in the 
> >> world around
> >>> them,
> >>>>>>> rather than being given (some interpretations of 
> >> behaviorism) or
> >>>>>>> realized
> >>>>>>> based on experience unlocking some warehouse of the mind 
> >> (Chomsky).> The
> >>>>>>> learning paradox which was recently mentioned actually 
> >> came out of a
> >>>>>>> debate
> >>>>>>> between Piaget and Vygotsky (although the actual terms 
> >> emerged out of
> >>> a
> >>>>>>> later discussion of the debate) - with the Chomskyites 
> >> arguing about
> >>>>>>> whether
> >>>>>>> you can know if something should be recognized as 
> >> something that
> >>> should
> >>>>>>> go
> >>>>>>> into the construction of knowledge if you do not already 
> >> have some
> >>>>>>> knowledge
> >>>>>>> that it is important.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Social constructivism is not quite as well developed, 
> but 
> >> it suggests
> >>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>> same constructivist epistemological stance, but instead 
> >> of focusing on
> >>>>>>> how
> >>>>>>> the individual constructs knowledge out of their 
> >> experience in the
> >>> world
> >>>>>>> they construct their knowledge of the world through 
> their 
> >> experience> in
> >>>>>>> social relationships.  The social relationships 
> tend 
> >> to take some type
> >>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>> precedence so that the construction of knowledge is not 
> >> universal but
> >>>>>>> delineated and defined by social experience.  I 
> >> myself tend to take
> >>> this
> >>>>>>> view of Vygotsky but not everybody does (and it is also 
> a 
> >> little hard
> >>> to
> >>>>>>> square with scientific concepts which have been 
> discussed 
> >> recently).> >>>>
> >>>>>>> Constructionism in my experience has been more reserved 
> >> for more
> >>>>>>> immediate, process oriented knowledge building or the 
> >> process of
> >>>>>>> knowing,
> >>>>>>> many times variations of off shoots from Dewey's Instrumental
> >>> Pragmatism
> >>>>>>> by
> >>>>>>> people such as Gergen, Harre and Rorty.  But other 
> >> people use
> >>>>>>> constructivism
> >>>>>>> and constructionism interchangably.  Again, from my 
> >> perspective there
> >>> is
> >>>>>>> a
> >>>>>>> difference in an epistemological stance of 
> constructivism and
> >>>>>>> constructionism.  Possibly the dividing factor is 
> >> the constructivism
> >>>>>>> assume
> >>>>>>> a metaphysics while constructionsim seems to more often 
> >> argue against
> >>>>>>> one.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> CHAT - cultural historical activity theory - well that's 
> >> a lot.  My
> >>> own
> >>>>>>> view is that within this sort of umbrella of ideas there 
> >> is no single
> >>>>>>> epistemological stance or a definite view of a 
> >> metaphysic.  Meaning I
> >>>>>>> think
> >>>>>>> you can find social constructivists, constructionists, 
> >> and perhaps
> >>> even
> >>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>> odd constructivist hiding in a corner somehwere.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Anyway, I hope that is some help.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Michael
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> ________________________________
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu on behalf of 
> >> ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org> >>>> Sent: Wed 4/7/2010 8:57 AM
> >>>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> >>>>>>> Cc: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu; eXtended Mind, 
> >> Culture,Activity> >>>> Subject: [xmca] (ism) v (ist)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> In the xmca archive there is much discussion about the 
> >> differences> >>>> between
> >>>>>>> just these two modifiers.  Never settled, perhaps 
> >> never will.  From a
> >>>>>>> linguist standpoint one is active and one is passive.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Helen; from my own experience when I wrote my master's 
> >> thesis ( A
> >>>>>>> Vygotskian perspective on Special Education Transition 
> >> Services) my
> >>>>>>> supervisor kept asking if I wouldn't be better off 
> making 
> >> the argument
> >>>>>>> from an Ericson point of view so I believe mainstream 
> >> acadamia is
> >>> still
> >>>>>>> confused about what cultural-historical theory is; 
> >> however, I believe
> >>> I
> >>>>>>> am
> >>>>>>> safe in saying it is not social constructivism.  
> Has 
> >> your supervisor
> >>>>>>> specifically stated where they are finding the 
> >> descrepancies in your
> >>>>>>> argument?  In my thesis I wanted to use more 
> >> Valsiner and Van der Veer
> >>>>>>> references but found they did not coexist very well with 
> >> the Vygotsky,
> >>>>>>> Luria, Scribner, and Cole cross cultural studies I was 
> >> referencing.> >>>>
> >>>>>>> Maybe this helps, maybe this muddies the water?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> eric
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Helen Grimmett <helen.grimmett@education.monash.edu.au>
> >>>>>>> Sent by: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
> >>>>>>> 04/06/2010 09:38 PM
> >>>>>>> Please respond to "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity"
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>     To:     
> >> lchcmike@gmail.com, "eXtended Mind, 
> Culture,    
> >> Activity"> >>>> <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> >>>>>>>     cc:
> >>>>>>>     
> >> Subject:        Re: [xmca] 
> >> Book review ol talk and texts
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Can I please ask a (probably extremely naive) question? 
> >> What are the
> >>>>>>> differences between social constructivism (as referred 
> to 
> >> in this book
> >>>>>>> review) and cultural-historical theory? My supervisor 
> >> keeps telling me
> >>> I
> >>>>>>> am confusing my arguments by using references from both 
> >> paradigms, but
> >>> I
> >>>>>>> still haven't managed to grasp what the difference is.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>> Helen
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
> >>>>>>> From: mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>> Date: Wednesday, April 7, 2010 11:59 am
> >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [xmca] Book review ol talk and texts
> >>>>>>> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" 
> <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>>>>>>>> Cc: Roy Pea <roypea@stanford.edu>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Thanks for the review, Larry.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> So many important issue intersect there.
> >>>>>>>> Gotta find out what Joe Polman and Roy Pea have to 
> offer 
> >> on the
> >>>>>>>> learningparadox. Thought Newman et al. set that one to 
> >> rest back in
> >>>>>>>> the last
> >>>>>>>> millennium!! And to think that it involves a revival of 
> >> the idea of
> >>>>>>>> a zoped
> >>>>>>>> in transformative communication! Super.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> :-)
> >>>>>>>> mike
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Roy-- Can you send us the text? Really sounds interesting.
> >>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 9:07 AM, Larry Purss 
> >> <lpurss@shaw.ca> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> I just read this review of a new book that I thought 
> may be
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>  interesting to
> >>>>>>>>  some of the CHAT community so I''ve attached the 
> >> review.  David
> >>>>>>>>>  Olson wrote
> >>>>>>>>  one of the chapters.
> >>>>>>>>> Larry
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>>>>> 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
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 
> <winmail.dat>_______________________________________________>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 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
> >>>
> >>>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
> > 
> > 
> 
> -- 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> -------
> Andy Blunden http://home.mira.net/~andy/ +61 3 9380 9435 
> Skype andy.blunden
> An Interdisciplinary Theory of Activity: 
> http://www.brill.nl/scss
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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