RE: [xmca] The Evolution of CHAT

I second the request from Cathrene Connery and Donald James Cunningham
to hear from some who have tried how they (you) present CHAT. The
historical perspective (behaviorism, cognitive science, sociocultural
perspectives) seems like a necessary one. But what were the problems at
each point that pushed things onward?

Helena

 
Helena Worthen
Clinical Associate Professor
Labor Education Program
Institute of Labor & Industrial Relations
504 E. Armory, Room 227
Champaign, IL 61821
Phone: 217-244-4095
hworthen@uiuc.edu
-----Original Message-----
From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu]
On Behalf Of Cathrene Connery
Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2007 5:59 PM
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: [xmca] The Evolution of CHAT

Tony Whitson wrote:
> Don,
>
> Sorry for the delay in responding to this -- but I think it's a useful

> question for discussion in this group.
>
> I want to respond quickly on another point before getting to your main

> question about teaching CHAT.
>
> First, you write:
>> I've taught the usual suspects (behaviorism,
>> Bandura, Piaget, cognitive information processing) for years and have
a
>> pretty good idea about them but would appreciate some help on CHAT.
>
> Where I am, students have learned a story about how once upon a time
> the world was ruled by the behaviorists, but they've been vanquished
> by the (scientifically, pedagogically, politically, and morally)
> superior forces of Cognitive Science. They think that's where the
> story ends (as in the "End of History" celebrated since Daniel Bell in

> the early 60's, where history completes itself with the universal
> triumph of capitalism).
>
> I think it's important for students to learn about what's happening
> "beyond cognitivism." For me, this is not just a matter of theory or
> intellectual politics: My students just won't understand anything I'm
> saying or doing unless they understand that I'm addressing an ontology

> in which cognition cannot be understood except as it is embedded in
> the broader (not only cognitive) projects and processes of being and
> becoming. CHAT takes this stance against reductive cognitivism, and
> CHAT cannot be understood (IMHO) without recognizing this. I think
> Wenger & the Communities of Practice literature perhaps makes this
> point more directly and accessibly, although details have not been
> theorized as extensively as in CHAT. Curriculum theory -- my own home
> turf -- has always approached education as a matter of ontology, not
> merely cognition (i.e., not just Knowing, but Being and Becoming).
>
> So, I would want to tell the story of behaviorist hegemony giving way
> to cognitivist hegemony, which in turn is being challenged by a turn
> to the broader perspective of social ontology. This is not to say that

> the reductivist ideology of cognitivISM is replaced by an ideology of
> postcognitivISM (see my post at http://postcog.net ); Nor is it a call

> for hegemonic "postcognitivism" in place of hegemonic cognitivism.
>
> One good source is Lave, Jean. "Teaching, as Learning, in Practice."
> Mind, Culture, and Activity 3, no. 3 (1996): 149-64.
> I think this particular point might come through more strongly in
> Lave, Jean. "Learning as Participation in Communities of Practice."
> Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, San
> Francisco 1992.
> (This paper is now linked from http://postcog.net/#Lave . This is the
> paper Jean presented in the symposium that David Kirshner and I
> organized, which grew into our book _Situated Cognition_, although a
> different piece was used as her chapter in the book. The MCA article
> includes aspects of the AERA paper, although its scope is broader and
> the social ontology argument may be less central to the complete
> published article.)
>
> With regard to your main question, you write:
>> [I] was wondering if any of you would be
>> willing to share with me (and other XMCAers) how you present CHAT. I
>> mean, I don't think undergrads are going to be too interested in the
>> distinction between action and activity or working out the concept of
>> "object". Or am I wrong?
>
> This could be a very interesting discussion for XMCA.
> As you suggest, for an undergrad Ed Psych class, it might be best to
> streamline CHAT a bit. However, I don't think the differentiation
> among the three levels of activity, action, and operations is
> dispensable. I think it's necessary to see activities and activity
> systems emerging on a social/cultural level beyond consciously
> goal-oriented action, and to see the role of routinized operational
> activity that does not require conscious attention.
>
> It would be helpful to develop introductory approaches for this
> audience. Starting points could include the resources at
> http://www.edu.helsinki.fi/activity/pages/chatanddwr/
> and
> Roth, Wolff-Michael, and Yew-Jin Lee. ""Vygotsky's Neglected Legacy":
> Cultural-Historical Activity Theory." Review of Educational Research
> 77, no. 2 (2007): 186-232.
> as well as
> pp. 27-47 in Spinuzzi, Clay. Tracing Genres through Organizations: A
> Sociocultural Approach to Information Design. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT
> Press, 2003.
> and
> pp. 29-72 ("Activity Theory in a Nutshell") in Kaptelinin, Victor, and

> Bonnie A. Nardi. Acting with Technology: Activity Theory and
> Interaction Design. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2006.
>
> On Wed, 29 Aug 2007, Cunningham, Donald James wrote:
>
>> And in a week or so, I will begin teaching an undergraduate class in
>> "Educational Psychology" for future teachers. It has been a few years
>> since I taught such a class and was wondering if any of you would be
>> willing to share with me (and other XMCAers) how you present CHAT. I
>> mean, I don't think undergrads are going to be too interested in the
>> distinction between action and activity or working out the concept of
>> "object". Or am I wrong? I've taught the usual suspects (behaviorism,
>> Bandura, Piaget, cognitive information processing) for years and have
a
>> pretty good idea about them but would appreciate some help on CHAT.
>>
>>
>>
>> Don Cunningham
>> Indiana University
>>
>> Ancora Imparo!
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
[mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu]
>> On Behalf Of Mike Cole
>> Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2007 6:13 PM
>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>> Subject: [xmca] mediational theories of mind: Suggestions requested
>>
>> Dear Xmca-ites---
>>
>> Toward the end of the month I will begin teaching a grad course on
>> mediational theories of mind.
>> I would love suggestions for interesting readings.
>> We will be looking in a sort of "mcLuhanesque" way at the affordances
of
>> different kinds of mediators
>> in human action/activity/mind.
>>
>> So, language and thought
>> writing
>> film
>> music
>> tv
>> rituals
>> games
>> .........
>>
>> Starting with early 20th century writers of general familiarity to
>> members
>> of this list, I have been thinking about including
>> such works as Cszikentmihalyi, "meaning of things," Turkle's recent
>> "evocative objects," and perhaps something on mediated
>> behavior in large groups such as "the wisdom of crowds."
>>
>> Any and all suggestions warmly welcomed. So much going on its hard to
>> even
>> think about how to begin to think about this
>> upcoming fall!!
>>
>> mike
>> _______________________________________________
>> xmca mailing list
>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>> _______________________________________________
>> xmca mailing list
>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>
>
> Tony Whitson
> UD School of Education
> NEWARK DE 19716
>
> twhitson@udel.edu
> _______________________________
>
> "those who fail to reread
> are obliged to read the same story everywhere"
> -- Roland Barthes, S/Z (1970)
> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
Hi everyone:
Tony's eloquent characterization of "behaviorist hegemony giving way to
cognitivist hegemony, which in turn is being challenged by a turn to the

broader perspective of social ontology" is well put. How CHAT is being
presented to the rugged individualists (albeit mythological entities) in

our teacher ed programs is of interest to me as well. It would further
be helpful for CHAT neophytes like myself to hear how those of you who
have shaped CHAT view how the domain has genetically evolved and, in
some cases, splintered (i.e. the differences between sociocultural
theory vs. activity theory). Thanks for engaging in an interesting
discussion. I realize this topic has already been hashed out on-line
previously, but it was Lev that said we only truly know something when
we view it in motion.
Cathrene

-- 
Dr. M. Cathrene Connery
Assistant Professor of Education
607.274.7382
Ithaca College
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca