In reading the article I have on the Russian Golden Key Program
the authors differentiate between mastery and interiorization.
They argue that Vygotsky's followers extended the conception of
interiorization to include the mastering of social experience
and knowledge stored in culture. The authors concept of
interiorization seems similar to Jim's conception of
appropriation; in that, it differs from simple mastery of
cultural knowledge. However; they see interiorization as to
include mastery not to exlude it. Interiorization goes beyond
mastery in the sense the individual takes it as its own, which
would include those inconvenient things (for testing) such as
emotions, sense, and motives.
In reference to your example of cancer patients they have taken
the content as their own, which would include a level of
mastery. The authors of the Golden Key Program also argue
Vygotsky saw the many sided sense (subjective) as being primary
with meaning (objective) proceeding from it. In reference to
Joe's message I suspect he is probally right in the sense that
informal settings are less likely to incorporate a hidden,
non-dynamic definition of mastery. They are more inclined to be
concerned with "assisting performance" than some universal
notion of what ought to be mastered.
Nate
Nate Schmolze
http://www.geocities.com/~nschmolze/
schmolze who-is-at students.wisc.edu
People with great passions, people who accomplish great deeds,
People who possess strong feelings even people with great minds
and a strong personality, rarely come out of good little boys
and girls
L.S. Vygotsky