Re: Fw: Re: [xmca] Double Stimulation?

[Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>]

Oh, and you asked me to take a paper and critique it. I offered a 
critiqueof Yrjo's article in MCA 19(3) (i.e. August 2012) here on xmca, 
but there was absolutely no discussion on it. But I put it on my home 
page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/works/engestrom.htm 
<http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/works/engestrom.htm>
But this one is not one that uses the triangle. It uses the "germ cell" 
method, to which I am well disposed. But I still had criticisms. I have 
read "triangle" type papers, but only those written by others, none of 
which I want to waste my time on. I haven't read the articles you 
mention by YE himself.

Andy

mike cole wrote:
> ...
>
> Here is what would help me, and I suspect others on XMCA. Take an 
> already published piece of work that uses the expanded triangle Yrjo 
> proposes in Learning by Expanding. Say, the work on cleaners in the 
> early work. Tell us about the mistaken conclusions that arise because 
> of misunderstandings that confusion of the triangle for "activity" (no 
> modifiers) causes. Suggest how we might improve our understanding. Or 
> tell us why that example works, but some other example (teachers in 
> schools, nurses and doctors in a hospital, etc.) does not.


__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca