Hi Gordon and all,
the problem with such representations is that you equate "person" with
"subject", so that subject and object become polar opposites. If
Leont'ev is right and the object is both material and vision, then part
of the person is in the object, and, conversely, part of the object is
in the person. But in your representation, person and subject and
material object are separated.
As to the changing of the goal, some readers might be interested in a
paper David Middleton and I have come out:
Roth, W.-M., & Middleton, D. (in press). The making of asymmetries of
knowing, identity, and accountability in the sequential organization of
graph interpretation. Cultural Studies of Science Education.
I can make it available to anyone who cares reading it.
On 30-Jun-05, at 11:22 AM, Gordon Wells wrote:
>> Eric wrote:
>> I do know most of the problem lies in my behavioristic training but
>> nebulous ideas and lengthly descriptions that sound nice are a hard
>> to support when so many educators are hell bent on test scores. I
>> think test scores are the answer but then what? How could the
>> triangle be
>> applied for an individual? Should it be? Once again Phil I like your
>> summary of Activity Theory, it points to the usefulness of how
>> Theory is a useful tool for social theorists when discussing how it is
>> people interact and accomplish activities.
> Engestrom gives a couple of examples of how an individual (himself)
> and then a group (participants at a conference) might engage in
> actions within a joint activity: that of developing activity theory.
> You can find this in the first chapter of Engestrom et al (Eds)
> Perspectives on Activity Theory (Cambridge University Press, 1999).
> But very little work in activity theory addresses the interaction over
> time of participants in an action, in which goals are negotiated as
> the action proceeds through talk and other media, including gesture,
> body posture as well as artifacts such as texts, computers, etc. I
> tried to develop a way of describing an example of this kind in my
> paper in MCA, The role of dialogue in activity. In it, I include the
> attached diagram to show two (or more) subjects bring their individual
> mediating resources to bear on the same object to produce a joint
> outcome and, in the second diagram, how this can represent working in
> the zpd when one of the participants who has greater relevant assists
> the other and provides an occasion for appropriation. While the
> diagram is static, the analysis of the interaction attempts to capture
> the emergen nature of the participants joint action. Perhaps this
> would be relevant for yhour work, Phil.
> Gordon Wells
> Dept of Education, http://education.ucsc.edu/faculty/gwells
> UC Santa Cruz.
> xmca mailing list
xmca mailing list
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jul 01 2005 - 01:00:08 PDT