[xmca] Next Steps: CHAT History & Panel

Greetings!

Thanks to everyone who has contributed to the dialogue regarding the
History of CHAT and potential ISCAR panel. Your comments have both
helped to outline the scope of the topic and key readings while
providing key contributors to the potential list. I will try to
summarize a bit from your feedback and perhaps a proposal will take shape.

Peter hit the nail on the head by outlining the complexities when we ask
what is CHAT? What is it not? Where did it come from? How has it
evolved? Lois cogently brought up the issue of the definition of
historical lenses, contributing the question of who is allowed to tell
the history / herstory and who is not? Tony further elaborated on the
issue of how far one can stray from Vygotskian roots to be considered
“grounded” in CHAT.

Mary also called our attention to the multiple contexts in which CHAT is
applied in activity and practice. I really appreciated her descriptive
suggestion to provide a “historical overview of the roots of AR [CHAT],
to see how it manifests itself currently, what challenges exist for the
different forms of practice, and how these challenges shape the theory”
(Mary -Forgive me for not quoting you directly as it is late and I have
a sinus infection and three chapters to read for tomorrow.) Depending on
the availability of the presenters and the time allotted, we may or may
not be able to address all these topics.

Perhaps most interesting of all is Tony’s suggestion to contrast an
historical narrative of CHAT by conducting a dialectical analysis of the
different forms of thought that have arisen from the Trio’s work. Lev
would have especially appreciated that thought. I sure wish I had
thought of that suggestion as a dissertation topic. Perhaps this might
be a potential outcome from the panel?

In terms of a list of possible panelists, I have received suggestions
from the list serve and private e-mails. As the ignorant and innocent
individual who originally asked the question, I find myself in an
interesting position being alien to the political landscape that is no
doubt associated with constructing such a list. I am hoping you will
continue to make suggestions to help me develop an inclusive, balanced,
and well rounded list so a positive symposium might be assembled. The
following individuals seem to represent a significant core: Anderson,
Arievitch, Borders-Simmons, Bruner, Chilean researchers, Cole, Deforest,
Diaz, Duvall, Eidman, Engstrom, Griffin, John-Steiner, Lave, Lee, Levin,
Lompscher, Mahn, Martin, Michell, Mehan, Moll,Newman,Pettito, Riel,
Robbins, Roth, Russian Researchers, Simmons, Souberman, Stetsenko, South
African Researchers, Teale,Wenger, & Wertsch. Please forward any other
additional names you believe would help us to explore this topic,
perhaps those coming from dogmatic or divergent views.

In the meantime, I’ll consult with Mike and a few other individuals to
see what our next steps will be. He has graciously contacted a talented
librarian regarding the development of an electronic archive for the
many important titles you have forwarded.

Mil gracias / 1000 thanks,

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