By the way I have always thought the best Cervantes metaphor for the social sciences was Dulcinea. We take these battered and patched up ideas who have done what they had to do just to survive and become their champions and defenders (probably against the creator's wishes) considering them inviolated, beyond reproach and to be worshipped. Michael ________________________________ From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu on behalf of smago Sent: Sun 9/12/2010 9:37 AM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: RE: [xmca] Link to this month's article A brief response--I don't consider my remarks to involve a "quixotian attack," but rather a complaint about how the triangle has been claimed for work in which it never reappears, which I view as a problem in US researchers' efforts to align themselves with a "hot" theory without actually working within the theory. It's not Engeström's fault that the triangle has been used in this manner, but rather the fault of those who use it in superficial ways. I don't consider that to be an attack, or quixotian. It's rather a critique that I've been working out for several years and that I've thought about quite a bit. -----Original Message----- From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Yrjö Engeström Sent: Sunday, September 12, 2010 8:03 AM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: Re: [xmca] Link to this month's article This is a brief comment to Peter Smagorinsky's message, copied below. Quixotian attacks on triangles have been a relatively common genre for some years now. I usually do not get involved in those discussions because I don't find them productive. However, I am slightly bothered by the following sentence in Peter's message: "Engeström, at least from what I've read, employs it [the 'triangle framework'] as a consultant to business management to help construct settings more conducive to collective productivity." Since I have never done business management consulting, I would like to know on what readings Peter might be basing his statement. Cheers, Yrjö Engeström ----- smago kirjoitti 10.9.2010 kello 22.29: > http://lchc.ucsd.edu/MCA > Mike Cole is heading out on vacation, and so asked me to start the > discussion of the MCA article "Construction of Boundaries in Teacher > Education: Analyzing Student Teachers' Accounts," which the > electorate identified as this issue's paper for us to consider on > the network. I didn't know that Mike actually took vacations. But I > did agree to help launch this discussion, and help to sustain it > once it gets going. I have done a number of studies with similar > populations to those featured in this article-that is, I've studied > the transition that teachers make when moving from their university > preparation through the first year of full-time teaching. I've also > been part of a university teacher education program in English > Education (which is the teaching of literature, writing, and > language; it is not ESOL) for the last two decades, and before that > regularly mentored student teachers in my jobs at secondary schools > in the US. So I do have some familiarity with the issues at stake in > this article. > > One difference: Jahreie and Ottesen use what they call "Cultural- > Historical Activity Theory" to motivate their work, and I once did > too. But as CHAT has gravitated to Engeström's interpretation and > exposition via his Triangle, I have moved away from this orientation > and now only claim to use Vygotskian principles to formulate my > analyses. So if I were to pose an opening question that perhaps > might appeal to those who aren't interested in teacher education, it > would be: What is CHAT, and which version of it do we invoke when we > claim to use it? Cole's Cultural Psychology did include the famous > Triangle, yet seemed very ecumenical in drawing on a host of sources > so that it was not the centerpiece of his conception of CHAT. > Engeström's system seems more closed to me, involving a specific set > of terms and constructs all bound in The Triangle. Perhaps because I > entered this field through the writing of Vygotsky and Wertsch (and > Engeström is clear in the introductory chapter to Perspectives on > Activity Theory that Wertsch is not an activity theorist, nor are > Lave and Wenger), I don't equate Engeström with either Activity > Theory or CHAT, and have disavowed that nomenclature in my more > recent work. So what is it about the Triangle that has become so > alluring that it has squeezed out other compelling conceptions of > Leont'ev's reformulation of Vygotsky's work so that it shifts > attention from the individual-in-context to the collective itself? I > find this shift to be particularly troubling in U.S.-based > scholarship in which the Triangle is often thrown up on conference > screens but never put to any evident use in the research reported. > For Scandinavians and others from nations with more collectivist > orientations, the adoption of a wholeheartedly Marxist approach > makes better cultural sense. And with that I will move to the > article in question, authored by faculty members from the University > of Oslo. > > Jahreie and Ottesen's article concerns the conflicting demands of > the different settings faced by student teachers-those who are at > the end of their university teacher education programs and beginning > to transition to school-based teaching positions by apprenticing > under the mentorship of a full-time teacher, ideally one who is a > "master" teacher (but as I know from experience, this is not always > the case). In my reading of the paper, I see an effort to use > Engeström's terminology to account for processes involved when > student teachers engage with established members of different > settings that inevitably provide different "objects" for activity: > the university with its effort to produce a particular kind of > teacher, and the schools with their efforts to produce a particular > kind of student. A second general question I would pose is: From > what I can tell, most countries have settled on a very similar model > for teacher education: general education coursework, specialized > disciplinary course work, education course work, field experiences, > student teaching, and then the first job. Given that this model > seems to occur worldwide-amidst nations of different emphasis, > orientation to learning, economic structure and process, history, > demographics, and so on-what broader activity setting seems to > suggest this approach as the most efficacious in the preparation of > new teachers, regardless of national character and culture? In the > U.S. there are presently moves afoot to provide alternative pathways > to teaching careers, but most university programs follow this > sequence. Apparently this process, with expected variation, is > universal. But why? > > To return to a separate point emerging from this same general > observation: The authors say (p. 231) that "The object of the > activity for the [university Department of Teacher Education] is > student teachers' learning trajectories. The object of activity for > the schools, however, is pupils' learning." Actually I think it's > more complicated than that, at least in the schools, where a primary > problem facing educators is agreeing on the purpose of education. > Even "student learning" is a highly contested construct, one that > creates the sort of boundary problems elaborated in this article. In > schools, it's often the ability to perform on tests, while in the > "progressive" university environment, it might involve learning more > about the self and how to express or explore it. Or something else. > For some people, schools exist to socialize young people into adult > roles, often based on the economic circumstances of their families. > For others they should promote upward mobility. Or learn a trade, or > become better informed citizens, or learn to follow authority, or > learn to question authority, or learn how to memorize information, > or learn how to construct knowledge, or learn how to answer > questions, or learn how to pose questions, or do any of many other > things. I've referred to this problem as the "mixed motive" of the > setting of schools, one that can shift from teacher to teacher, > which complicates the idea that the "object of activity for the > schools is student learning." Another question thus might be, For > complex settings like schools, how do we know what the object of > activity is? (I'm using the authors' language here; I'm more > comfortable with Wertsch's use of "motive" [1985] to describe the > overriding teleological goal toward which activity in a setting is > directed.) > > > I'll pose one final question before inviting others to contribute to > the discussion: What are the perils involved in using The Triangle > as an a priori framework for studying activity? Engeström, at least > from what I've read, employs it as a consultant to business > management to help construct settings more conducive to collective > productivity. To what degree can it then be extrapolated to other > kinds of settings that do not share the business environment's > relatively closed-ended motive (to produce and sell widgets, etc.)? > When the objects/goals/motives are less amenable to agreement, how > appropriate is The Triangle as a template for understanding > activity, or promoting activity of a certain sort? When the transfer > of The Triangle involves a great leap, as from a post office to a > school, to what degree might it serve as a Procrustean Bed rather > than a useful heuristic for understanding activity? (Procrustes was > an Attican thief who laid his victims on his iron bed. If a victim > was shorter than the bed, he stretched the body to fit; if the > victim was too long, he cut off the legs to make the body fit. In > either case the victim died.) > > OK, that's enough of a starter kit. Please join in and feel free to > ignore what I've written and launch something else, or help me > clarify my confusion regarding the questions I've raised. > _______________________________________________ > 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 _______________________________________________ xmca mailing list xmca@weber.ucsd.edu http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
<<winmail.dat>>
_______________________________________________ xmca mailing list xmca@weber.ucsd.edu http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca