On Wed, October 25, 2006 13:06, Katarina Rodina wrote:
> Dear Mike,
> thanks for a very interesting answer (C`est un grand privilege pour moi!)
>
> There were some discussions here in Spanish, so I was considering to begin
> writing in Russian (using the latin transcription), or maybe German as
> this is a real multicultural, multisemiotic scientific forum… It’s not
> always easy to write good English (if English is not your mother tongue),
> and some European scholars may find this forum very useful and
> stimulating, but hesitate to participate because of their insufficient
> command of English.
>
> From my point of view, writing in different Languages here, may help us to
> obtain a better understanding of Vygotsky’s ideas and CHAT`s scientific
> basis in general, from different ontological points of view. I’d like to
> say something here about the wide range of different interpretations of
> Vygotsky (schools, theories etc.) in Russia and beyond (Western Europe,
> USA, Japan etc), based on 1) different philosophical (epistemological)
> positions, according to Wertsch, Chaiklin and Lektorsky, and 2) as you,
> Mike, have pointed out a number of times in your work (Cole 1996, 2003
> (Danish edition)) about “varied vocabulary used” (Cole, in H. Daniels
> (Ed.), 2005:210). Thus, this different terminological use (e.g.
> “environmental”, “situation”, “context”, “practice”, “activity” and many
> more” (Cole 2005: 211) is partially based on 1) and 2). In this context,
> there’s no way that questions concerning, for example, terminological
> validity can be ignored. At least that’s my experience in my research on
> communication in early dysontogeny (children with intellectual
> disabilities). I operationalized the key concept for the Vygotskian and
> Neo-Vygotskian developmental approach, obchenie (russ.), usually
> translated as communication (Russians discussions by Leontiev, Lisina,
> Lomov, Davydov and German: Rissom (1984), Jantzen (2005), Siebert (2006)
> etc). How would you translate “obchenie”, Mike?
>
> And now back to your answer.
> Mike wrote: “I do not know what Karpov means by neo-Vygotskian. The term
> does not appear in the index of his book”
>
> What we discuss here is Yuri Karpov’s book “The Neo-Vygotskian Approach to
> Child Development” (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2005). I think that Karpov in
> his book clearly highlights The Neo-Vygotskian Approach (NVA) as a
> Soviet/Russian Vygotskian research in the field of child psychology.
> According to Bodrova & Leong (2003:169) “most of these [Russian
> neo-Vygotskian] works are virtually unfamiliar to the Western audience. As
> a result, the general perception of the Vygotskian approach […] is not
> very helpful in designing practical solutions to classrooms problems” and
> this also concerns different theoretical concepts of the NVA, as for
> example the cultural-historical and activity based concept of
> intersubjective Communication in Early Ontogeny elaborated and based on
> the ideas of Zaporozhets, Lisina, Leontiev, Elkonin. Unfortunately,
> references to these concepts in the writings of Bråten (1998) and
> Trevarthen (1974-1994 etc) are extremely rare, even though they are, from
> a neo-psychoanalytical or nativist point of view (Karpov 2005) interested
> in the same scientific questions as Russian neo-Vygotskians, like genesis
> and early ontogeny of child-adult communication in the development of
> intersubjectivity (Rodina, 2006, in press).
>
> Karpov (2005:9) legitimized the definition of NVA as “Russian followers of
> Vygotsky were not the only ones who elaborated his ideas in their research
> and writings. In particular, a number of American scholars (Berk, Cole,
> Rogoff, Valsiner, and Wertsch, to name just a few) contributed much to
> further elaboration of some of Vygotsky`s notions. It has been Russian
> neo-Vygotskians, however, who have elaborated Vygotsky`s contentions into
> a theory that describes and explains the stage-by-stage development from
> birth through adolescence of children in industrialized societies.
> Therefore, the definition of this theory as the neo-Vygotskian approach to
> child development, from my point of view, is legitimate”.
>
> In this context, the Russian NVA is introduced to English speaking readers
> and Karpov claims that “Russian followers of Vygotsky have elaborated his
> ideas into a theory that integrates cognitive, motivational, and social
> aspects of child development with an emphasis on the role of children's
> activity as mediated by adults in their development”.
>
> So, in what way can this represent an “orthodox version of Vygotsky”? If
> we think along these lines, then it isn’t an exactly correct description
> to claim that “all of the members of ISCAR are neo-Vygotskians” but
> rather, as Daniels (2006) point out, “post-Vygotskians”…
> From my point of view, it is not only pedantic to stress the differences
> between neo- and post-Vygotskians, un less this difference in the
> classification of Vygotskians is important for theory driven research
> (incl. validation and trustworthiness) and theory, methodology and its
> practical implementation.
>
> MC:“Many of the people whose work is cited as neo-Vygotskian did not/do
> not agree on important matters with Vygotsky or each other”
>
>
> Can this be explained as a result of 1) and 2) (see above), possibly in
> combination with pragmatic, fragmental use of Vygotsky`s concepts(Langford
> 2005) and a lack of “more inclusive analysis” (Cole 1996:130) of Vygotsky
> and CHAT in Russia (Zincenko & Mesheryakov, Mikhailov, Davydov &
> Kudryavtsev) and beyond Russia (Bodrova & Leong (1996,2003), Karpov( 2003,
> 2005), Gindis (1995, 2003), Stetsenko & Arievitch (2004), Rodina
> (forthcoming, 2006))?
>
> MC:“This has not prevented them, especially since Vygotsky became an
> important figure outside of Russia, for declaring their allegiance to the
> real Vygotsky”
>
> As to the real Vygotsky, Mike, I feel that we (neo- and post-Vygotskians)
> still don’t know him very well. LSV’s eclectical-ontological perspectives
> (like Foucault) are not easily classified or categorized in some kind of
> “ism”, right? Who he was (from an ontological position) is not easy to say
> right now. Thus, LSV’s concept of CHAT is not easily defineded
> theoretically, neither. According to Davydov, “Cultural Historical Theory
> is not yet swimming in deep enough waters to be called a theory”,
> stressing (together with Mikhailov, 2005) that “there’s no need to set the
> woods on fire”…
>
> I would very much like to ask you, Mike: 1) Is the so-called
> Socio-Cultural Theory (SCT), in a sense, “old news”, as
> Davydov-Mikhailov-Kudryavtsev claim? 2) Is SCT to be regarded as a theory
> (see e.g. Thorne (2005)) or more accurate a “Social Cultural Approach to
> Cognition”?
>
> I must admit that it took years to get even close to an understanding of
> le grand difference between SCT, Social-Cultural Approach to Learning &
> Development and CHAT (incl. NVA). I regard SCT as a CHAT or
> undiscovered/or poorly analysed Vygotsky. SCT is vygotskian CHAT in
> another, perhaps more sophisticated or complicated clothing. But is there
> anything new here from a scientific point of view? Can SCT explain to us
> how and why human beings develop and learn? Wherein lies the principal
> difference between SCT’s situated learning of Lave & Venger (1991),
> distributed cognitions (Hutchins 1995), perspective of mediated actions
> (Wertsch 1991, 1998, Säljö 2000), variant of activity theory of Engeström
> (1991), and the general CHAT’s view on learning and development (e.g.
> Davydov-Kudryavtsevs concept of developmental learning)?
>
> MC:“By my reading there are many orthodox Vygotskians, who recognize
> themselves as
> such when addressing the inadequacies with which others have interpreted
> Vygotsky's ideas, known to us through the amazing process by which texts
> attributed to him have been constructed”
>
> Completely agree with you here, Mike.
>
> MC: “I am sceptical about the Marxist vision of progress to which at least
> some of the time-- see wertsch on this subject) LSV and (apparently
> Karpov) adhere”
>
> I have some difficulties seeing LSV as a Marxist, more than a
> social-constructionist, inspired by the French sociological school, German
> idealism etc (which was not unusual in the Russian “underground”
> intellectual culture at the beginning of the 20th century in the fields of
> literature, arts etc). Vygotsky’s work (from his “Psychology of Art”,
> 1915, to the very last writings of 1934 in the field of psychopathology
> and defectology) is constructionist (Gergen 1995; 2001) as well as
> non-constructivist (see Karpov, 2005). From my point of view, Vygotsky’s
> social constructionist views do not represent the same view on the social
> construction of mind as in the social constructionist theory by Bergman &
> Luckman (1966), which explain human socialisation from an evolutionist
> perspective. I would rather say that Vygotsky’s social constructionism is
> an historical (not evolutionist) situated approach to the understanding of
> human cultural development.
>
> Another question: Isn’t the SCT inspired by Marxist or neo-Marxist
> (postmodernist) views?
>
> MC: “… the heterogeneity of purported developmental levels at any given
> time in a child's life/day than my Russian colleagues who might be counted
> as neo-Vygotskians”
>
> Does this approach – operating with age as an analytical unit of
> development (including age related psychological novel formations, social
> situation of development, zone of proximal development, leading activity)
> – represent a satisfactory explanation of the mechanisms of child
> development from a dialectical and social constructionist point of view?
>
> MC: “Other Americans can speak for themselves. I was recently asked by a
> person new to the field if it was true, as European colleagues say, that
> Americans misinterpret Vygotsky as she had heard. Undoubtedly. We are
> probably not alone”
>
> Russians scholars like Brushlinsky, Leontiev etc. also belong to this
> category. It is well known that there are many “Vygotskies”. Anyway, I
> think it’s important to know the different visions or views in order to
> obtain a “more included analyse” as you, Mike, have stressed in you
> writings. One of my Scandinavian colleagues told me that “we don’t need a
> Russian vision of Vygotsky. We already have all that we need in the
> American version of Michael Cole and James Wertsch”. But is this the right
> path to scientific intersubjectivity and inclusive knowledge?
>
> MC: “This topic, too, has received a lot of attention. I would recommend
> reading Jim Wertsch on the topic. He seems to me a plausible fountainhead
> of the socio-cultural studies movement among followers of Vygotsky and has
> been clear about his view of the matter”
>
> Mike, as I already have written here, the very sophisticated
> socio-cultural views of Wertsch and others are somewhat difficult to
> grasp. Vygotsky’s concept of early cultural development and its impact on
> contemporary psychology seems to be insufficiently analysed and
> highlighted in the SCT. Thus, from my point of view, Wertsch’s ideas
> represent an another version of symbolic interactionism, focusing on
> socialization, not cultural development. Wertsch developed his theory on
> mediated action partially from his semiotic view on Vygotsky, focusing on
> Vygotsky’s studies of mind and speech. But, as we know, already
> Brushlinsky was critized for the “semiotic centrism” in his
> interpretations of Vygotsky’s central writings. Wertsch compares Vygotsky
> with Mead (1934) and Bateson (1975), but if Mead’s “inculturation” is to
> be understood as socialisation (like Bateson’s theory of protoconversation
> and “Trevarthen`s … analysis of infant-child communication in terms of
> infant intersubjectivity”(Bråten 1998:7)), focusing on man as a social
> being (from an evolutionist point of view), then Vygotsky’s
> “inculturation” first of all regards man as a cultural being (from a
> Vygotskian historism point of view). Thus LSC’s theory of HMF is a theory
> of cultural development as “vrashivanie v kulturu”/“growing into the
> culture” (Veresov 1999, 2001, Kudryavtsev 2006, in press). But in
> Socio-Cultural Theory, the Vygotskian concept of cultural development, is
> not given any significant attention – although Wertsch (2005:67, in
> Daniels (ed.), “An Introduction to Vygotsky”) point out that “… neither
> Vygotsky nor his followers provided extensive accounts of the notion of
> culture” and that “An explication of Vygotsky`s notion of culture must be
> based on an analysis of the role that culture played in his overall
> theoretical system. In this system Vygotsky gave the idea of mediation
> analytic priority over the notion of culture…his analysis of culture is
> part of his attempt to elaborate the notion of mediation” (ibid, 67).
> Perhaps some of you from xmca would like to comment on this?
>
> Best regards,
> Katarina
>
>
>
> On Mon, October 23, 2006 01:49, Mike Cole wrote:
>> Que Lastima, Katarina! Zhalko dazhe! I do not understand Spanish well
>> either
>> (What a shame, Katarina, even too bad). No po russki pisat zdes
>> bezpolezno
>> (But to write here in Russian is not helpful -- even if I cuold typle
>> worth
>> a damn
>> in cyrillic!).
>>
>> I will answer in red italics in the body of your text.
>> On 10/22/06, Katarina Rodina <katarina.rodina@isp.uio.no> wrote:
>>>
>>> Mike,
>>>
>>> Does "an orthodox Vygotsky", as you pointed out, mean something like
>>> Karpov's definition of the Neo-Vygotskian Developmental Approach,
>>
>> I do not know what Karpov means by neo-Vygotskian. The term does not
>> appear
>> in the index of his book. The book jacket says that "For the first time,
>> the
>> neo-Vygotskian
>> approach to child development is introduced to English speaking readers.
>> Russian followers
>> of Vygotsky have elaboratedhis ideas into a theory that integrates
>> cognitive, motivational,
>> and social aspects of child development with an emphasis on the role of
>> children's activity as
>> mediated by adults in their development.
>>
>> I believe that by this broad defintion, all of the members of ISCAR are
>> neo-Vygotskians.
>>
>>
>> or do
>>> you have an another definition of "the orthodox Vygotsky"?
>>
>>
>> Many of the people whose work is cited as neo-Vygotskian did not/do not
>> agree on important matters
>> with Vygotsky or each other. This has not prevented them, especially
>> since
>> Vygotsky became
>> an important figure outside of Russia, for declaring their allegiance to
>> the
>> real Vygotsky. By my
>> reading there are many orthodox Vygotskians, who recognize themselves
>> as
>> such when addressing
>> the inadequacies with which others have interpreted Vygotsky's ideas,
>> known
>> to us through the
>> amazing process by which texts attributed to him have been constructed.
>>
>> If I understand you correctly, Vygotsky as highlighted from the American
>>> pragmatism point of view, is principally different from the orthodox
>>> (traditional)Vygotsky?
>>
>>
>> There are as many answers to this questions as there are Americans who
>> find
>> Vygotsky's ideas an
>> inspiration. I am one of them. For me (I do not pretend to speak for
>> others) there are some significant
>> ways in which my ideas differ from those of many Russians I encounter
>> using
>> his ideas and from many
>> Americans and Europeans who use his ideas. I am sceptical about the
>> Marxist
>> vision of progress to which
>> at least some of the time-- see wertsch on this subject) LSV and
>> (apparently Karpov) adhere. I am much more
>> impressed by the heterogeneity of purported developmental levels at any
>> given time in a child's life/day than
>> my Russian colleagues who might be counted as neo-Vygotskians. All of
>> this
>> is available in published sources
>> and need not be elaborated here. There are also some recent papers on
>> the
>> lchc web page.
>>
>> Other Americans can speak for themselves. I was recently asked by a
>> person
>> new to the field if it was true, as
>> European colleagues say, that Americans misinterpret Vygotsky as she
>> had
>> heard. Undoubtedly. We are probably not alone
>>
>> Is a social cultural approach to learning and
>>> development principally or fundamentally different from the CHAT?
>>
>>
>> This topic, too, has received a lot of attention. I would recommend
>> reading
>> Jim Wertsch on the topic. He seems to me a plausible
>> fountainhead of the socio-cultural studies movement among followers of
>> Vygotsky and has been clear about his view of the matter.
>> But of course, sociocultural has come to include many varied people,
>> many
>> of
>> whom are on this list. They too, can speak for themselves.
>>
>>
>> My own view, not dissimilar to my view regarding the relation of
>> "Vygotskian
>> cultural-historical psychology to Leontiev's version of activity
>> theory (remember Rubenshtein had a purportedly different view, although
>> I
>> am
>> not sure if current followers of Vygotsky and activity theory
>> a la Leontiev still think it is really different) is that the
>> differences
>> between CHAT and Sociocultural theory are matters of emphasis and
>> highlighting. For example, in a recent paper I read that CHAT theorists
>> focus on tool mediation transforming the object of activity where
>> "object"
>> is assumed to mean (not human) while sociocultural theorists focus on
>> mediation of activity with other people. I believe this to be a false
>> dichotomy. All mediation involves both "poles" of human activity. Modes
>> and
>> relations of production are co-constiuitive, to put it in terms
>> that Leontiev might have favored.And not only Leontiev. A contrast I
>> have
>> noted is that history/development (both contested terms) play a more
>> prominent role in work that uses the CHAT framework. I comment on this
>> in
>> a
>> commentary in Human Development a few years ago edited by
>> wertsch and rogoff.
>>
>> If yes,
>>> what's the core of these differences?
>>
>>
>> So, are these differences that make a difference?
>>
>> What do you think?
>>
>> mike
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Best regards,
>>> Katarina
>>> (please write in English or Russian, I'don't understand Spanish :-))
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, October 22, 2006 20:30, Mike Cole wrote:
>>> > By the same, I believe that we do not
>>> > have llamarmos to illusions and to think that we have received an
>>> orthodox
>>> > Vygotsky here. Our dialogues with Vygotsky are also dialogues with
>>> the
>>> > American pragmatismo and certain forms to think as well to the
>>> culture
>>> > about
>>> > Europe, other people's to the North American tradition (I think about
>>> the
>>> > German culturalismo, for example, or in French sociology). Our
>>> dialogue
>>> > with
>>> > Vygotsky is, then, as Bakhtin had dreamed it: plenary session of
>>> voices,
>>> > other voices submerged in the one of Vygotsky, and manifold
>>> resonances.
>>> >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> > On 10/21/06, David Preiss <davidpreiss@uc.cl> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> Mike y otros,
>>> >>
>>> >> Estoy totalmente de acuerdo con ustedes.
>>> >>
>>> >> En efecto, para mi el valor de Vygotsky y la Teoría de la Actividad
>>> >> es su capacidad para generar y alimentar nuevas ideas, en diferentes
>>> >> contextos, y en diferentes tradiciones culturales. Desde el momento
>>> >> en que el diálogo sobre Vygotsky se dirime sobre la base de su calce
>>> >> con la "doctrina oficial" (desde donde quiera que esta provenga),
>>> >> esta deja de tener interés, al menos para mi.
>>> >>
>>> >> En Latinoamérica Vygotsky ha sido recibido a partir de dos fuentes:
>>> >> una mediada por Europa y otra mediada por Estados Unidos. Por lo
>>> >> mismo, creo que no debemos llamarmos a ilusiones y pensar que hemos
>>> >> recibido aquí un Vygotsky ortodoxo. Nuestros diálogos con Vygotsky
>>> >> son también diálogos con el pragmatismo estadounidense y con ciertas
>>> >> formas de pensar a la cultura en Europa, ajenas a su vez a la
>>> >> tradición norteamericana (pienso en el culturalismo alemán, por
>>> >> ejemplo, o en la sociología francesa).
>>> >>
>>> >> Nuestro diálogo con Vygotsky es, entonces, tal como Bakhtin lo
>>> >> hubiera soñado: pleno de voces, otras voces sumergidas en la de
>>> >> Vygotsky, y múltiples resonancias.
>>> >>
>>> >> David
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> On Oct 21, 2006, at 2:11 PM, Mike Cole wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> > So many topics are sneaking into the discussion with no change in
>>> >> > headers (I
>>> >> > know, Reply is easier and
>>> >> > definitely preferable to silence!) that I want to pick up on just
>>> >> > one of the
>>> >> > many issues raised in the past
>>> >> > couple of days.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > When Ana writes "no absolute, universal, pre-existing,
>>> a-historical
>>> >> > template
>>> >> > against which to judge and define 'heights' was meant to be
>>> >> > suggested" I
>>> >> > think it is worthwhile pausing at least a little to consider the
>>> >> > agency
>>> >> > buried in "was meant to be suggested." This issue relates to the
>>> >> > issue of
>>> >> > one-right-way thinking about the legacy of Vygotsky and his
>>> >> > colleagues and
>>> >> > how to orient to it.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > So, first, about who might have suggested that while no "pre
>>> existing,
>>> >> > a-historical template" was a part of their understanding of
>>> >> > genesis (phylo.cultural.onto.micro) there is little doubt in my
>>> >> > mind that
>>> >> > LSV and Luria and Leontiev all had a HISTORICAL developmental,
>>> from
>>> >> > lower to
>>> >> > higher, sequence of changes in mind when they talked about
>>> >> > primitive/modern,
>>> >> > etc. According to this way of thinking Theoretical thinking in
>>> >> > scientific
>>> >> > concepts is
>>> >> > later than thinking in complexes ontogenetically and cultural
>>> >> > historically,
>>> >> > and phylogenetically and such later modes of thought are higher,
>>> >> > better,
>>> >> > more "context independent," and to adopt the
>>> >> > view expressed by Michael and Ana is, from this perspective, not
>>> >> > only not
>>> >> > true to Vygotsky but the delusions of well meaning bourgeois
>>> >> > liberals whose
>>> >> > bleeding
>>> >> > hearts are obscuring their vision.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > (For clear statement of this perspective see Karpov's book on neo-
>>> >> > vygotskian
>>> >> > psychology or Mescheryakov & Zinchenko's characterization of the
>>> >> > deviations
>>> >> > from Vygotskian
>>> >> > thinking of which I am manifestly guilty in *Cultural psychology*
>>> >> > as reason
>>> >> > to characterize my view as "anti-historical cultural psychology.")
>>> >> >
>>> >> > My own view which is, a trust, readily available to anyone who is
>>> >> > not bored
>>> >> > by repitition of it, is that for almost 20 years we have been
>>> >> > witnessing
>>> >> > historical changes
>>> >> > of many kinds, one consequence is, for this group, the meeting,
>>> >> > converging,
>>> >> > transforming, distorting, changing, improving, debasing, etc of
>>> the
>>> >> > ideas of
>>> >> > Soviet (largely Russian)
>>> >> > psychologists with a very heterogeneous group of non-Soviet, non-
>>> >> > Russian
>>> >> > psychologists, anthropologists, sociologists, educationalists,
>>> work
>>> >> > researchers...... all of whom are
>>> >> > attracted by what appear to be important strengths in the core
>>> >> > ideas to be
>>> >> > re-constructed from the writings of LSV et al from the mid 1920's
>>> >> > up to the
>>> >> > mid 1970's with several
>>> >> > very significant periods of disruption and radical zigs and zags.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > We all do this differently, drawing upon what we can from those
>>> >> > cultural
>>> >> > traditions of which we are a part. So for me it includes Dewey and
>>> the
>>> >> > little of American pragmaticism I know,
>>> >> > a melange of Anglo-American anthropological work, Bartlett, a
>>> >> > background in
>>> >> > human development, encounters with different OTHERS in various
>>> >> > parts of the
>>> >> > world. For Michael it
>>> >> > includes a range of European thought much of which I have not even
>>> >> > heard of,
>>> >> > never mind read and thought about, for Ana there is a strong
>>> >> > starting point
>>> >> > as a young participant
>>> >> > in the late days of the Moscow school's approach and her many
>>> years
>>> of
>>> >> > experience in Western Europe and the United States, bb brings his
>>> >> > strong
>>> >> > background in physics and
>>> >> > tireless efforts to enable the education of teachers around the
>>> >> > country
>>> >> > combined with a voracious reading appetite. Etc.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > All of this to reproduce what LSV wrote in 1924-34? Or Leontiev,
>>> >> > or.....?
>>> >> > Did they know how to incorporate Bakhtin? And if they did, could
>>> >> > they would
>>> >> > they?
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Short bottom line: Establishing the one right way to develop the
>>> >> > unfilled
>>> >> > program of lsv and his colleagues is not an attractive task.
>>> >> > Seeking to
>>> >> > explore ways to enrich, correct, make
>>> >> > relevant to our times, and in general, make those ideas equipment
>>> >> > for our
>>> >> > living and the prospects for living of our progeny IS an
>>> attractive
>>> >> > task.
>>> >> > What a great tool kit we have been
>>> >> > bequeathed! And with all the modern tools at our disposal and
>>> their
>>> >> > shoulder's to stand on, can we see past our noses? At least as far
>>> >> > as the
>>> >> > computer screen?
>>> >> >
>>> >> > It snowed again in Colorado just after I left and the sun glistens
>>> >> > in my
>>> >> > back yard.
>>> >> > Neighbors slaughter each other in Baghdad.
>>> >> > I vamos escriber en dos lingues acqui en XMCA
>>> >> >
>>> >> > All true. Guess it really is the best of all possible worlds.
>>> >> > mike
>>> >> > _______________________________________________
>>> >> > xmca mailing list
>>> >> > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>> >> > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>> >> >
>>> >>
>>> >> David Preiss, Ph.D.
>>> >> Profesor Auxiliar / Assistant Professor
>>> >>
>>> >> Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile
>>> >> Escuela de Psicología
>>> >> Av Vicuña Mackenna 4860
>>> >> Macul, Santiago
>>> >> Chile
>>> >>
>>> >> Fono: 3544605
>>> >> Fax: 3544844
>>> >> e-mail: davidpreiss@uc.cl
>>> >> web personal: http://web.mac.com/ddpreiss/
>>> >> web institucional: http://www.uc.cl/psicologia
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > xmca mailing list
>>> > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>> > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Katarina A. Rodina
>>> MSc in Speech-Language Pathology,
>>> PhD-Research Fellow,
>>> Department of Special Needs Education
>>> University of Oslo
>>> P.O.Box 1140 Blindern
>>> NO-0318 OSLO,Norway
>>> Phone: +47 22 85 81 38
>>> Fax: +47 22 85 80 21
>>> E-mail: katarina.rodina@isp.uio.no
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Katarina A. Rodina
> MSc in Speech-Language Pathology,
> PhD-Research Fellow,
> Department of Special Needs Education
> University of Oslo
> P.O.Box 1140 Blindern
> NO-0318 OSLO,Norway
> Phone: +47 22 85 81 38
> Fax: +47 22 85 80 21
> E-mail: katarina.rodina@isp.uio.no
>
>
>
-- Katarina A. Rodina MSc in Speech-Language Pathology, PhD-Research Fellow, Department of Special Needs Education University of Oslo P.O.Box 1140 Blindern NO-0318 OSLO,Norway Phone: +47 22 85 81 38 Fax: +47 22 85 80 21 E-mail: katarina.rodina@isp.uio.no_______________________________________________ xmca mailing list xmca@weber.ucsd.edu http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Nov 01 2006 - 01:00:15 PST