[xmca] Re: effectivity-affordance, artifact development?

From: Mike Cole (lchcmike@gmail.com)
Date: Tue Jan 24 2006 - 15:14:24 PST

I'll be interested in what people have to answer, Eric. But as formulated,
these questions
are difficult for me to respond to in ways I feel will be helpful. Different
people are interested in
measuring/documenting different things. Change in intellectual and social
behavior is one domain
where a lot of interest lies. Interests in doing so are really varied.

I think that words can be considered artifacts, but saying that in this
discussion at present does not
seem very helpful.

On 1/24/06, ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org <ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org> wrote:
> To all:
> This is a very thought provoking line of discussion that raises many
> questions.
> 1. What is it that people are interested in measuring? Or are
> researchers
> not interested in measuring anything but rather documenting human
> interaction that revolves around the activity of learning/teaching?
> 2. If the answer is documenting human interaction than what is the goal
> of
> the documentation of this activity?
> 3. I am assuming that most in the CHAT tradition accept language as tool.
> At what point does language become an artifact?
> Much more questions stewing but will allow the above to simmer. . .or burn
> depending upon the responses.
> eric
xmca mailing list

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Feb 01 2006 - 01:00:11 PST