Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Part I: Why writing studies embraced CHAT
Spinuzzi, C. (1996). Pseudotransactionality, activity theory, and professional writing
instruction. Technical Communication Quarterly, 5(3),
295–308.
Kinneavy, J. L. (1971). A theory of discourse: The aims of
discourse. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Pretice-Hall, Inc.
Hairston, M. (1985). Breaking our bonds and reaffirming our
connections. College Composition and
Communication, 36(3), 272–282.
Rhetoric and writing
studies didn’t have...
A paradigmA set of methodologiesA set of methodsA set of research techniques
Faigley, L. (1986). Competing Theories of Process: A Critique
and a Proposal. College English, 48(6), 527-542.
Charney, D. (1998). From logocentrism to ethnocentrism: Historicizing critiques of writing
research. Technical Communication Quarterly, 7(1),
9–32.
social cognitive
sociocognitive
Part II: Why CHAT was a good fit
1GAT
2GAT3GAT
mediation, internalization, proximal development
activity system, structure of activity
activity networks, contradictions, rules
Part III: CHAT’s methodological problems
3GAT was applied to
design research
And consequently changed in fundamental ways
From research subjects to participants
From individual to collective subjects
From prediction to description (and deliberation)
From individual activities to networked activities
Problem 1: Application
socio
cognitive
Problem 2: Theory
objectobjectobjectobject
Problem 3: Phenomenon
objectobjectobjectobject
Problem 4: Development
objectobject
object
object
object
1GAT2GAT
3GAT
4GAT
Part IV: How can we iterate CHAT?
Solution 1: Apply AT to sociocognitive, not just social, research into writing
sociocognitive
Solution 2: Rebuild activity theory around dialogism
Solution 3: Understand the object(ive) as multiple
objectobjectobjectobject
Solution 4: Theorize interfering cycles of development
Pivot it again
