Some earlier exchanges on the issue.
-----------------------
vera p john-steiner (vygotsky who-is-at unm.edu)
Fri, 17 Jul 1998 09:22:41 -0600 (MDT)
Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: Mike Cole: "Re: Appropriation"
Previous message: dkirsh who-is-at lsu.edu: "Appropriation, Part 2" David,
I have come to use appropriation in my work on intellectual collaboration.
I see it particularly as "mutual appropriation" that is, a process, skill,
even an emotional attitude that is embedded in the activity system of one
of the participants which is slowly made part, appropriated by partner or
partners. It is somewhat diffeerent from scaffolding because it takes
place between individuals who have many complementarities, and are engaged
in shared endeavors. One of my examples is Einstein and Grossmann, when
the latter helped Einstein Riemannian geometry. Subsequently, Einstein
became more "indeoendent" in approaching mathematical issues relevant to
his work in physics.
This description does not fully escape the internalization debate,
but it certainly places the issue in a co-participatory framework. (This
example will be in the book Peter is editing from the 1996 Chicago
centennial conference that Cambridge is publishing.)
Back at work after a nice, hard working, but exciting trip to Europe,
including ISCRAT.
Vera
---------
Mike Cole (mcole who-is-at weber.ucsd.edu)
Fri, 17 Jul 1998 09:16:06 -0700 (PDT)
Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: nate: "RE: Appropriation, Part 2"
Previous message: Mike Cole: "Re: Appropriation"
Maybe in reply to: dkirsh who-is-at lsu.edu: "Appropriation, Part 2"
Next in thread: dkirsh who-is-at lsu.edu: "Re: Appropriation, Part 2" Hi
David--
Your EXCELLENT summary of galperin vis a vis appropriation/
internalization bring to light an ambiguity that I think is critical
to examine. Any system that does "higher-lower" maps uneasily onto
a three part system with a hybrid, "matrialized ideal", middle part.
I believe that Ilyenokvian formulations of the Theses on Feurbach
help to think about that middle/mediating part. My attempt to deal
with these issues tried to elaborate the conception of artifact to
do the job. From this perspective, appropriation applies to the
system that includes all three "moments" of transaction which
exist as moments only analytically. Its process all the way down,
but without entification the flux would be intollerably chaotic.
mike
dkirsh who-is-at lsu.edu
Mon, 27 Jul 1998 17:20:33 -0500
Vera,
The reference was included in my original posting, appended here
in your response. Arievitch & van der Veer's point is not that a
theory of internalization isn't needed, only that propounding such
a theory in a way that does not preserve classical dualism (or that
does not appear to preserve classical dualism) is difficult. Terms
like "appropriation" or "mastery" have been suggested as
substitutes; but as the authors note, there are some important
aspects of internalization that are not preserved by these less
troublesome terms. Gal'perin's solution seems quite reasonable,
but I'm still having trouble reconciling his definition of appropriation
with other standard definitions.
David
vygotsky who-is-at unm.edu on 07/27/98 03:28:16 PM
To: xmca who-is-at weber.ucsd.edu who-is-at internet
cc: (bcc: David H Kirshner/dkirsh/LSU)
Subject: Re: Appropriation, Part 2
David,
I found your summary of Gal'perin very useful, do you have a reference? Or
did I miss that in catching up with messages. I am still puzzled by
the widespread resistance to internalization . We have so much
neurophysiological evidence that learning, appropriation and I thoibk
internalization produces neural re-organization. To me, denying
internalization is really opposing the notion that we can think both at
the psychological, participatory and the neurological level. But
then this may be a naive stance. (I AM REFERING, AS AN INSTANCE, TO THE
PHONOLOGICAL ACQUISITION STUDIES WE MENTION IN THE FUNCTIONAL SYSTEMS
ARTICLE IN THE LAST mca ISSUE).
vERA
On Thu, 16 Jul 1998 dkirsh who-is-at lsu.edu wrote:
> Lest the summer get too restful, perhaps, I'll
> say a few words about my particular interest in
> appropriation. As I'm reading about the problems
> with the construct of internalization (e.g., Arievitch
> & van der Veer, 1995), I'm trying to decide to what
> extent those problems are the result of trying to
> account for what is sometimes called "scientific
> thinking" or "higher order cognitive functions" in a
> social frame. Gal'perin, for example, struggled
> (explicitly) against Cartesian dualism in his account
> of three levels of activity: "material" (in which the
> activity is carried out in the material world); "ideal
> external" (in which the activity is enacted mentally,
> but only with the support of material props); and
> "ideal internal" (in which no external props are needed).
> For Gal'perin appropriation is a more general term that
> applies to all three of these sorts of actions; but only
> this last one is characteristically human (i.e., higher
> order) activity.
>
> What I'm trying to figure out is if appropriation, which
> seems like a relatively clear solution to the internalization
> problem, achieves its clarity by providing a more general
> (less specifically human) account of learning in the ZPD.
>
> Thanks.
> David Kirshner
>
> Louisiana State University
> dkirsh who-is-at lsu.edu
>
> Arievitch, I., & van der Veer, R. (1995). Furthering
> the internalization debate: Gal'perin's contribution.
> Human Development, 38, 113-126.
>
dkirsh who-is-at lsu.edu
Thu, 16 Jul 1998 20:08:06 -0500
Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: dkirsh who-is-at lsu.edu: "Appropriation, Part 2"
Previous message: Dr. PedroR. Portes: "Re: AERA-chat sig"
Next in thread: Mike Cole: "Re: Appropriation" Hello XMCA Friends.
I'm trying to get a better feel for the use of
Leont'ev's notion of appropriation in contemporary
neo-Vygotskyan theorizing. I've read the excellent
summary of the idea in the Construction Zone, and
I'm looking through Leont'ev's book now. I would
appreciate suggestions of other sources that not
only explain, but also contextualize, the current
usage.
Thanks in advance.
David Kirshner
dkirsh who-is-at lsu.edu
PS. I hope the summer quiet on XMCA means everyone
is having a restful and enjoyable holiday.
Leont'ev, A. N. (1981). Problems in the development
of mind. Moscow: Progress Publishers.
Newman, D., Griffin, P., & Cole, M. (1989). The
construction zone. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jun 27 2002 - 08:02:50 PDT