Re: [xmca] double-stimulation method

From: <ERIC.RAMBERG who-is-at>
Date: Wed Oct 08 2008 - 12:02:52 PDT

Hello Steve, welcome to the discussion. My best answer to that question
would be to look at Sylvia Scribner's work study research that is available
on the LCHS website. I believe you will find it imbedded in the LCHC
newsletter. It is fascinating stuff. Of course the brilliant
cross-cultural research of Dr. Michael Cole could also illicit quite a
boatload of info. The rub is that neither Scribner or Cole used Vygotsky's
complex framework for summarizing their work. Perhaps that makes it a


                      Steve Gabosch
                      <stevegabosch@me To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <>
                      .com> cc:
                      Sent by: Subject: Re: [xmca] double-stimulation method
                      10/08/2008 01:24
                      Please respond
                      to "eXtended
                      Mind, Culture,

Eric, Paula, others,

Vygotsky's idea of complexive thinking in adults greatly interests
me. What has been done so far with this in theory and research?

- Steve

On Oct 8, 2008, at 11:06 AM, wrote:

> Hello Paula:
> This is the aspect of your post that I would like to focus on:
> 4. providing a snapshot of a 'complex'
> Yes, they - the blocks - do. What is sometimes a bit difficult for
> me to
> impart to colleagues who haven't worked with the blocks is that
> reading
> about them, and then conducting an exercise with them, are very (very)
> different experiences. I suspect this to be true of most research
> instruments - the thing about the blocks, though, is that the
> solution is
> deceptively simple - especially when you have found out what it is by
> reading about it. In fact, this element - trying to keep the actual
> solution a secret - got me into trouble in one of my first
> submissions to a
> major publication - precisely because I was hoping there would be some
> readers out there who wouldn't want to be told the whodunit - but
> would
> prefer to work it out for themselves.
> But, to return to the 'snapshot', as you can see from my comments in
> point
> number three, a snapshot of complexes is gained - sometimes there are
> combinations of them and what makes lots of the analysis really
> challenging
> is working out what is developmental, what is complexive in adults,
> and
> what
> is idiosyncratic in everyone. Does this make sense, Eric?
> Once again the idea of complexive thinking provides a structure that
> is
> flexible. Problem solving at any age can bounce from syncretic to
> diffuse
> to statistical to matching to chains and finally to conceptual. The
> measure of what constitutes conceptual thinking, in my humble
> opinion, lies
> with the word being the unit of analysis. The beauty of Vygotsky's
> complexes is that he states them as methods of achieving activities
> and not
> as stages of development that build upon each other. A person at
> any age
> may illicit any of the complexes by themselves or in unison with
> another
> complex. I believe what needs to be sorted out is what cultural
> structures
> illicit what complexes and what cultural and historical methods best
> contribute to conceptual thinking. David Kellogg was correct when he
> stated that the Japanese powerhouse of elementary education should
> certainly be studied in depth to hopefully answer these questions.
> eric
> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list

xmca mailing list

xmca mailing list
Received on Wed Oct 8 12:07 PDT 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Sep 18 2009 - 07:30:00 PDT