These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,
and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving.
Content on this site may not meet current digital accessibility standards.
If you require an alternative, accessible format of any information found on this site,
please contact Bruce Jones, bjones@ucsd.edu to request an accommodation.
These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,
and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving.
Content on this site may not meet current digital accessibility standards.
If you require an alternative, accessible format of any information found on this site,
please contact Bruce Jones, bjones@ucsd.edu to request an accommodation.
Mike, as I read the 1984 article you wrote with Peg exploring the temporal and the spatial dimensions interweaving, a question slowly formed that may be interesting to others. It has to do with the *family resemblance* but also contrasts of the notions of *structure* and *system* How do others understand the shifts or *transfers* of meaning between these metaphors which share a family resemblance. [forestructure, foreground, foresystem] [backstructure, background, backsystem] These contrasting metaphors as images or *pictures* become sedimented through continued use in developing genres WITHIN historical social processes. This question came *to mind* as I read the 1984 article. The prefixes *fore* and *back* which imply *spatial* positioning are indexing *temporal* relations. This *transfer* of understanding within the temporal and spatial I find intriguing. Larry Larry On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 3:52 PM, mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com> wrote: > Hmmm, Bill. I need to go back and re-read the papers to see if our use of > structure rather than system is anything more than loose talk. I will also > cc Jay to alert him to the question. > > There are A LOT of entries at xmca under "leading activity." Here is an > example where making more systematic use of what has been gathered earlier > in systematic fashion would be useful. (working on it...). > > mike > > On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 1:54 PM, Barowy, William <barowy@lesley.edu> wrote: > > > Thanks for the paper, Mike. You made the point that educators conflated > > zopeds with scaffolding back then in 1984 and I still see that happening > > today. > > > > But more importantly, you use the phrase "activity structures" rather > than > > "activity systems" in the section on work activity. I know how YE > defines > > the latter an your use of "structures" indicates a difference, perhaps > like > > how Lemke defined activity structures in his early work -- would you > > comment on your view of the contrast between structures and systems? > > > > --- > > William Barowy, Ph. D. > > Associate Professor, > > Lesley University > > 29 Everett Street, > > Cambridge, MA 02138-2790 > > http://bill.barowy.net/ > > "I am always doing that which I cannot do, in order that I may learn how > > to do it." > > --Pablo Picasso > > > > > > > > __________________________________________ > > _____ > > 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