Fluent Essays

I attached the instruction below. Please meet every requirements. The length of the paper should be at least one page. a_r_activity__1_spring_2020.pdf rogoff_topping_baker_sennett_lacasa_2002.pdf Unformatted Attachment Preview PSYC 791W.01 (Spring 2020) Culture & Human Development Action-Reaction Activity #1 Chavajay DUE: Thursday, 2/13/2019 – Uploaded to the course website Goal: To apply your understanding of the three lens of analysis (Rogoff, 2003; Rogoff, Topping, Baker-Sennett, & Lacasa, 2002) by utilizing them to examine patterns of activities in one cultural community Instructions (one page, double-spaced): Choose ONE of the three cultural communities below whose activities you are familiar with enough to illustrate the aspects of ‘an activity’ that would be brought into focus by each of the three lens of analysis proposed by Rogoff (2003) and Rogoff, Topping, Baker-Sennett, and Lacasa (2002). Option #1: Preschool in three cultures: Japan, China, and U.S.A Film viewed in class & available for free online at (UNH ID & password required): https://unh.kanopystreaming.com/video/original-preschool-three-cultures Choose to focus on one activity from one of the three preschools. Refresh your memory of the details about the preschool’s everyday routines by viewing the film again from anywhere via the website indicated above. Option #2: Choose a sports event about which you have sufficient knowledge to be able to examine one of its activity using the three lens of analysis. Optional: For additional assistance in thinking through aspects of a sports activity that would fulfill this assignment, refer to Heath’s (1991) ethnographic study about a team learning to play little league baseball. [Heath (1991) is available on the course website under Files.] If interested, you may fulfill this assignment by reading and drawing on the information Heath (1991) provides. Option #3: Choose any other cultural community about which you have sufficient knowledge to be able to examine one of its activities using the three lens of analysis. Your paper must be organized in the following manner: 1.) Write a brief introductory paragraph that: a.) identifies the activity you chose to focus on for this assignment b.) describes the cultural community in which your focal activity takes place c.) explains your familiarity with this focal activity and its associated cultural community 2.) Concisely describe the activity on which you chose to focus 3.) For EACH of the THREE lens of analysis: a.) label the particular lens of analysis (i.e., personal, interpersonal, & community/institutional) b.) identify and describe which aspects of the activity would be foregrounded by that particular lens of analysis 4.) Conclude your paper by explaining (in a just few sentences) how examining children’s development using these three lens of analysis in combination may expand understanding of people’s development in cultural context. Debate Mutual Contributions of Individuals, Partners, and Institutions: Planning to Remember in Girl Scout Cookie Sales Barbara Rogoff and Karen Topping, University of California, Santa Cruz, Jacquelyn Baker-Sennett, University of British Columbia, and Pilar Lacasa, University of Alcalá Abstract This paper argues that planning entails distributed, mutual contributions of individuals, their social partners, and their community institutions. We suggest that these mutually involved contributions can be viewed through shifts in focus of analysis, contrasting with analyses of cognitive development that treat individuals as though they exist apart from their social and cultural worlds. We illustrate this argument with a study examining the distributed nature of planning to remember in a complex everyday task. We investigated the personal, interpersonal, and institutional cognitive contributions of 16 Girl Scouts, their mothers and customers and other companions, and institutions (the national organization and the cookie company) in keeping track of deliveries and planning collection of money in Girl Scout cookie sales and deliveries. The article also discusses an analytic methodology (Functional Pattern Analysis) for abstracting findings from the details of rich ethnographic data. Individual scouts, their mothers, customers, and the scouting organization and cookie company all played significant roles in keeping track of progress. In particular, tools and supports provided by the cookie company played a key role in organizing the cognitive tasks, and the scouts collaborated in planning with other people (usually their mothers and customers). Our findings illustrate the importance of examining contributions beyond those of the individual, while still recognizing the active roles of individuals in thinking. We argue that conceiving of individual, interpersonal, and institutional/cultural contributions as mutually constituting aspects of cognitive activities supports this aim beyond the usual focus on separate individual and ‘external’ factors. Keywords: sociocultural theory; cognitive tools; distributed cognition; planning to remember Correspondence should be addressed to Barbara Rogoff, Psychology Department, Room 277, Social Sciences II, University of California, Santa Cruz, CA 95064, USA. Email: brogoff@cats.ucsc.edu © Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2002. Published by Blackwell Publishers, 108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 1JF, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA. Individuals, Partners, Institutions 267 This article makes the argument that the distributed, mutual contributions of individuals, their partners, and community institutions to planning can be studied with analyses that focus on one or another of these contributions, keeping key aspects of the others part of the analysis. This contrasts with common approaches that treat these contributions as independent factors or entities that can be understood without regard to each other. We illustrate our argument with a study of planning to remember during cookie sales and delivery by Girl Scouts, their mothers and customers and other companions, and the national scouting organization and the cookie baking company. We also use the observations to illustrate a method of qualitative data analysis that involves successive abstraction from ethnographic details of complex everyday activity to create generalities across specific cases. Sociocultural theory suggests that the study of cognitive activity requires analysis of the mutual contributions of individuals, their partners, and the community/ institutional traditions in which people participate. Usually, however, the development of planning has been studied with individuals doing set problems in laboratories, with little attention to contributions beyond those of the individual studied. Although social interaction with peers or parents in planning has sometimes been studied (Duran & Gauvain, 1993; Ellis, 1997; Gearhart, 1979; Radziszewska & Rogoff, 1988, 1991), this is only a small step in the direction of examining sociocultural aspects of planning. Research has seldom examined institutional or community aspects of planning (with a few exceptions, see Baker-Sennett, Matusov, & Rogoff, 1992; Dunbar, 1995; Hutchins, 1995; Saxe, 1991). The social context as well as the goals and means available for problem solution have usually been staged by researchers, who have seldom studied their own roles in their subjects’ planning. They have also rarely considered the roles of research traditions and academic institutions and practices in determining the problems and means available (or valued) to solve them. It is difficult to investigate ourselves—the researchers—as actors, and to examine the institutions in which we function as sociocultural settings. People have notorious difficulty in studying themselves, as indicated by researchers who go to foreign communities and uncover assumptions that they otherwise take for granted as common sense in their own community (Berger & Luckmann, 1966; Rogoff, 1990, in press). Cultural understanding is sufficiently taken for granted that special efforts are needed to draw attention to important features of the obvious (Smedslund, 1984). We studied a planning activity that was not devised and controlled by ourselves and our research institutions—Girl Scout cookie sales and delivery—to investigate planning to remember as a process to which individuals, other people, and cultural practices all contribute. The study is intended to illustrate a way of thinking about the relations between individuals and the world that treats these as mutual aspects of a larger whole, rather than self-contained entities. Conceptualizing Individual, Interpersonal, and Community/Institutional Contributions to Thinking Recent years have seen a shift from viewing cognition as an exclusively individual process. Many scholars are building on Vygotsky’s (1978) argument that rather than deriving explanations of psychological processes from the individual’s characteristics plus secondary social influences, analysis should focus on the social, cultural, and historical processes in which individuals develop (Wertsch, 1985; Wertsch, Tulviste, & Hagstrom, 1993). © Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2002 Social Development, 11, 2, 2002 268 Barbara Rogoff et al. However, researchers still struggle with how to conceive of the contributions of companions and culture to cognition. The field often seems to be dominated by an either/or conception in which either the person or the outside world is regarded as responsible for development. To get beyond the study of self-contained individuals, the focus often seems to switch to the impact of partners or ‘cultures,’ leaving out the active contribution of individuals. This amounts to a pendulum swing to ‘social (or cultural) influences’ from the earlier focus on individual efforts and characteristics (Rogoff, 1998). Social- (or cultural-) influence approaches credit the outside world, but still maintain the individual as the basic unit of analysis, treating the individual as the recipient of external influences. A boundary between individual and world is still assumed, with one side or the other (or sometimes each in turn) regarded as active. The assumed boundary encourages research that examines individual factors and social (or cultural) factors as though they exist independently of each other; the separated factors are related later through correlational or analysis of variance approaches that assume their independence in order to examine their ‘interaction.’ This is a quite different conceptualization than sociocultural theory, which removes the assumption that the individual and the social or cultural world are self-contained entities, bounded off from each other. Instead, people are viewed as developing in their engagement in sociocultural endeavors with other people, as they make use of cultural tools, practices, and institutions inherited from previous generations, and simultaneously transform them in their use (Rogoff, 1998).1 Sociocultural Activity as the Unit of Analysis Sociocultural theory (also called cultural/historical theory) offers a major shift in the unit of analysis. The unit of analysis becomes the whole sociocultural activity. This unit replaces the usual use of the characteristics or behaviors of a self-contained individual as either the locus of learning or as a recipient of influences from social or cultural entities. Vygotsky proposed that the most basic unit of analysis of human development and learning should be not the individual but a unit of analysis that preserves the inner workings of larger events of interest. He argued that using the individual as the unit of analysis separates human functioning into elements that no longer function as does the larger living unit. He sought a unit that ‘designates a product of analysis that possesses all the basic characteristics of the whole. The unit is a vital and irreducible part of the whole’ (1987, p. 46). Leont’ev elaborated the concept of activity as the basic unit of analysis. He stated that ‘if we removed human activity from the system of social relationships and social life, it would not exist and would have no structure’ (1981, pp. 46–47). Relatedly, in discussing Ilyenkov’s related approach to activity theory, Bakhurst claimed that The study of mind, of culture, and of language (in all its diversity) are internally related: that is, it will be impossible to render any one of these domains intelligible without essential reference to the others. (1988, p. 39) Other theorists have argued similarly. Dewey emphasized a change from the individual to the event as the basic unit of analysis (Dewey & Bentley, 1949), and Werner (1954) also argued for the necessity of analysis of meaningful wholes rather than trying to derive the totality from a synthesis of its elements. Compatible units of © Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2002 Social Development, 11, 2, 2002 Individuals, Partners, Institutions 269 analysis also seem to be employed by some researchers studying events in the brain (such as the functioning of neurons or the development of brain matter) and perception-and-action (such as coordination of limbs in the context of action in real circumstances). For example, Pribram (1990) discussed the hologram metaphor, which he attributed to the parallel distributed processing approach: ‘The properties of holograms are expressed by the principle that “the whole is contained or enfolded in its parts,” and the very notion of “parts” is altered, because parts of a hologram do not have what we think of as boundaries’ (pp. 92–93; see also Gibson, 1982). Using sociocultural activity as the unit of analysis shifts individuals from being viewed as self-contained entities, standing apart from the contributions of other people and cultural practices. Instead, the contributions of individuals along with those of their companions and their cultural traditions are treated as aspects of the whole unified sociocultural activity. Employing sociocultural activity as the unit of analysis allows us to see how cognitive processes extend across individual efforts, the participation of partners, and institutions and cultural traditions. Cognition Distributed through Sociocultural/Historical Activity Rather than Isolated within Individual Boundaries Efforts to address cognitive problems are inseparably tied to the material and sociocultural/historical context of the problems themselves (Baker-Sennett et al., 1992; Cole, 1995; Cole & Griffin, 1980; Ellis, 1997; Lave, Murtaugh, & de la Rocha, 1984; Moll, Tapia, & Whitmore, 1993; Rogoff, 1998; Scribner, 1984). As Hutchins (1991) pointed out in his studies of navigating large ships, cognition is distributed across people as they collaborate with each other and with historically developed tools designed to aid in the cognitive work. The skilled thinking that occurs in figuring out how to turn a massive moving vessel to dock in a small harbor is clearly handled through the coordination of many people working with cognitive devices developed by predecessors to handle some aspects of the data gathering, calculations, and interpersonal problem solving that are necessary. Similar analyses identify the distributed nature of thinking in many everyday activities that are commonly thought of as individually accomplished. Vygotsky suggested that people rely on the mutual support of other people and of ‘psychological tools’ such as ‘language; various systems for counting; mnemonic techniques; algebraic symbol systems; works of art; writing; schemes, diagrams, maps, and mechanical drawings; all sorts of conventional signs; etc.’ (1981, p. 137). The contributions of institutional practices and technologies to cognitive processes are increasingly noted in research on cognition (Hutchins, 1990, 1995; Lave, 1988; Pea, 1993; Rogoff, 1998). Examples include the use of artifacts such as the globe in children’s understanding of astronomy (Schoultz, Säljö, & Wyndhamn, 2001) and diagrams in the representation of ideas in a physics research group (Ochs, Jacoby, & Gonzales, 1994); the importance of discourse and material formats for setting problems to solve in classroom settings (Kobayashi, 1994; Rogoff & Toma, 1997); and the role of the computer as a cognitive tool (Hawkins, 1987; Pea, 1993; Schrage, 1990; Zellermayer, Salomon, Globerson, & Givon, 1991). Thinking with artifacts involves people in remote collaboration with those who designed them. Pea (1993) provided an apt illustration of reconceptualizing intelligence to include contributions of other people and cognitive tools, in his description of a presentation by Seymour Papert of a computer program for building toy machines: © Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2002 Social Development, 11, 2, 2002 270 Barbara Rogoff et al. Papert described what marvelous machines the students had built, with very little ‘interference’ from teachers. . . . Although Papert could ‘see’ teachers interventions (a kind of social distribution of intelligence contributing to the child’s achievement of activity), the designers’ interventions (a kind of artifact-based intelligence contributing to the child’s achievement of activity) were not seen. . . . [The child] could be scaffolded in the achievement of the activity either explicitly by the intelligence of the teacher, or implicitly by that of the designers, now embedded in the constraints of the artifacts with which the child was playing. (pp. 64–65) A primary aim of this paper is to contribute to how we conceptualize the distributed nature of thinking, first by discussing concepts for focusing our analyses, and then by illustrating the mutual cognitive contibutions of individuals, their companions, and their communities in Girl Scout cookie sales and delivery. We are attempting to make visible some aspects of cognitive activities that are often not noticed, due to researchers’ embeddedness in our own research traditions and assumptions that artificially separate the mutual contributions of individuals, other people, and communities/institutions. Three Foci of Analysis Often the idea of analyzing whole, multifaceted sociocultural activities to understand cognition seems overwhelming. To make the process more manageable, Rogoff (1995) suggested a coordinated use across studies of three foci of analysis to examine the contributions of individuals, their companions, and their communities/institutions. A personal focus of analysis highlights individuals’ contributions and change in the activity; an interpersonal focus of analysis highlights the contributions that occur as people communicate and coordinate efforts, whether face-to-face or more distally; and a community focus of analysis highlights contributions to the activity that derive from dynamic cultural practices and institutional traditions and tools. Rogoff (1995) proposed that researchers can use the analytic foci like different lenses to bring one aspect of the activity into focus while the others remain less detailed in the background, in order to simplify questions and analyses in a particular study or line of studies, while considering other relevant information in a less detailed fashion to make sense of the main focus. The distinctions between personal, interpersonal, and community foci are analytic, created by the researcher to foreground one or another of them for the sake of a particular analysis, while keeping the others in the background of the analysis to provide essential information necessary to make sense of the primary focus (Rogoff, 1995; Rogoff, Baker-Sennett, Lacasa, & Goldsmith, 1995). Thus researchers may consider a single person thinking, or the functioning of a whole community, as foreground—but still in relation to key information from the backgrounded aspects of the activity. In this way, contributions can be analyzed with the focused aspect understood in relation to the others, rather than treating individuals, partners, or cultural practices as though they stand alone, ... Purchase answer to see full attachment