We seem to be in agreement, Ini. It is not an easy problem and it has many
facets. Just arranging coordinated consideration of the topic in this
distributed quasi-group would not be easy.
mike
On Apr 4, 2005 6:01 AM, I.Haket@ppsw.rug.nl <I.Haket@ppsw.rug.nl> wrote:
>
> I have no problems imagining a functional reorganization in a
> sociocultural activity
> (consisting of people and artifacts) that includes psychological
> processes. The activity
> changes in a qualitatively different one. Like e.g. concrete and abstract
> logic in
> Piagetian tasks. The sociocultural activity would be - unlike Piaget's
> perspective - the
> whole task people and artifacts included. But I don't think this kind of
> reorganization can
> be easily translated in "development" as distinguished from "learning".
> Even if you take
> "development" as a collective proces. There are different individuals in
> an activity and
> even if some activity system functions on a qualitatively different level,
> the individuals in
> it function different in different situations. (Like you yourself
> illustrated with your own co-
> research in a previous mail.) We could alternatively take the route of
> following
> individual trajectories. I think there lies I problem to. IIf there were
> to be a functional
> reorganization in the structure of individual actions, people would have
> to take complete
> psychological processes away from participating in an activity.
>
> Ini
>
>
> On 1 Apr 2005 at 10:20, Mike Cole wrote:
>
> > I think the question of functional organization of WHAT is important
> > here. What is the unit of analysis? Does it include
> > functional reorganization in the structure of individual actions that
> > implicate what are often referred to as psychological processes, or
> > can this be simply assumed through funcational reorganization of
> > person-others interaction?
> > mike
> >
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun May 01 2005 - 01:00:06 PDT