[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Xmca-l] Re: 3rd generation activity theory
I do not see why you need to deploy a 3rd generation AT model to
analyse the development of an idea in a single AT system. Most 3rd
generation AT applications deal with "interdisciplinary systems". Let
us say you have a patient that is being treated by medical doctors
(hospital, public health) and social workers (social welfare), then
you deploy a 3rd generation AT.
Now consider what happens if the presentation your group is going to
make is part of a project involving another community outside school
(let us say work involving a group of elder in a residence for the
elder). Then you may apply a 3rd generation AT.
BTW, I dislike the "models".
On 19 August 2016 at 08:03, Greg Thompson <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Small point here Mark about the 5/6 transition, but as an American English
> speaker, and given the further clarification that you just provided, I feel
> like Student C's comment in 6 is lacking something about how to connect it
> to what came before. I would have expected some kind of linking clause or
> transition like "[to student B] that's a great idea. I am attaching a
> I would suggest two possibilities for why this didn't happen:
> 1a. this is a metapragmatic difference between their native tongue and
> 1b. they don't have the linguistic resources to accomplish this kind of
> bridging (although "that's a great idea seems grammatically and
> semantically simple enough that I would assume that, based on their other
> utterances, would have been easy enough to produce).
> 2. It is unnecessary given the medium in which they are working (i.e., the
> collaborative nature of Student C's comment in 6 is obvious given what has
> come before).
> Of course there may be others, but each of these options point to how
> collaboration is mediated by the means of communication (whether the means
> are metapragmatics, linguistic resources, or the medium of communication).
> That doesn't get you to 3rd gen activity theory but it seems to be
> something that is old school activity theory. It seems to be clearly there
> in the data. What's more, it is this aspect of collaboration that is
> entirely left out of many models of collaboration (see the virtual
> communication system that Mike sent an email about shortly ago).
> Just one thought among many.
> On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 11:00 PM, Mark de Boer <email@example.com>
>> Thank you for your replies. For some reason I did not get them in my
>> mailbox, so I am consolidating
>> the mail here from the XMCA archive site and replying to everyone
>> below each of your messages.
>> Hi Mark,
>> I think the issue is really complex.
>> Are the students using the open forum to make the poster better for
>> or to advance the thinking that the poster represents.
>> If it is the first then I don't think you can think of it as the type of
>> progressive thinking the Knowledge Forum for instance is looking to create
>> through student interactions. It is instead the students looking to use
>> technology to advance their needs within the larger system (a good
>> poster means a better grade).
>> On the other hand if you can show that the students are really
>> changing each other's
>> thinking about what's on the poster (and I am not sure you can from
>> the dialogue you
>> presented here) then you can make an argument for augmented thinking,
>> for progressive
>> development of thinking, I am guessing for 3rd generation activity theory.
>> I think Kai Hakkarainnen and Sammi Paavola have written some really
>> interesting stuff on this.
>> Take a look at some of their articles.
>> Hello Michael,
>> The students are doing both. They use the forum to better the poster,
>> but as they are doing this,
>> the poster is evolving to change from data to 'a message', i.e. the
>> data are facts concerning pet
>> bottle manufacturing, recycling, and usage, which evolves into a
>> message that pet bottles are harmful for
>> the environment, harmful for our bodies, and that we should stop using
>> them. So although the dialogue
>> I showed here doesn't show this (there is a lot of dialogue that is
>> not shown in my short example),
>> the majority of the dialogue moves the process forward, what should be
>> done, what message should be put in the poster,
>> but the content in the posters provides the most evidence that there
>> is influence of content, content added
>> often has an influence on other content, and the message evolves. The
>> issue is complex, it is a language learning classroom,
>> and I am attempting to show that through the student interaction, they
>> are dynamically assessing each other.
>> Hi Mark
>> It is not clear to me from your explication why you need 3rd gen AT.
>> I concur with Mike, Mark. There is not a *system *of activity being
>> negotiated here as I see. Beliefs, motives, goals, division of labour,
>> subject, object, outcomes. It's seems like overkill in your situation,
>> where content is being negotiated and renegotiated. I am at a loss to
>> offer you anything more than what you are dealing with in terms of
>> dialogue, except you might like to see what Eugene Matusov might have to
>> Hello Mike and Carol,
>> Originally, my thoughts were to examine what the learners were doing
>> in the forums, and came up
>> with the conclusion that this was an object oriented activity. The
>> thinking came from reading
>> 'Toward overcoming the encapsulation of school learning' by Engestrom,
>> as learners are working on their
>> understanding of the different concepts of the topics they are going
>> to present on. I showed division of labour,
>> subject, object outcomes, tools. My dilemma, was that I wanted to show
>> that on one side there was the language which was driving
>> the process forward, this can be easily proven using different
>> analytical tools, but I also wanted to show that as a result of
>> collaboration, the students would develop content.(this can also
>> easily be seen from the data). But as they developed content,
>> they would discuss it, thus the content was also responsible for the
>> collaboration. This would be done up to the point of where
>> they would present. Thus the division of systems (in my mind).
>> I also wanted to show that the object (poster) was not the end
>> product, it was used as a tool for their presentation
>> (tools-and-results activity).
>> I am confused now, because I have written, submitted, and passed 2
>> literature reviews towards my PhD with these concepts in mind and
>> now I am currently writing the final paper, showing the analysis of the
>> > On Aug 16, 2016, at 9:04 AM, Mark de Boer <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> > I can understand what happens between 1 and 2. This is a simple case. But
>> > between 2, 3, and 4 it becomes complicated.
>> Mark, I don’t yet understand what happens between 1 and 2!
>> > 1. Student A: 'Let's begin working on our poster'
>> > 2. Student B: 'I made my poster, please check' (poster1 file an
>> > in the forum)
>> How did “our poster” become “my poster”?
>> Dear Martin,
>> Because this is a group of 4 students, even though they are developing
>> a poster as a group, they
>> (as is seen later on) end up dividing the work and each start to
>> create 'their part of the poster',
>> so the dialogue moves from 'let's make our poster' (as a group) to 'I
>> made my poster' (contribution to the
>> group's whole poster). Later on in the dialogue, the group leader
>> divides the work of the poster into
>> topics as I showed, but then after a number of days, he decides to
>> assign these topics to the other
>> students in the group. The dialogue moves from one poster being
>> created - moving from student to
>> student, to 4 sub posters being created by 4 students, and the
>> dialogue shows evidence that the
>> students are looking at each others posters, making suggestions about
>> what gets written, and in
>> some cases altering other student's posters. At the end the posters
>> are printed and put on the wall
>> ready for presenting.
>> I don't understand what happens between 5 and 6:
>> "5. Student B: 'I think that we should put the following contents in our
>> poster (suggesting a list of topics concerning pet bottles and pet bottle
>> use) Please give me your opinion.
>> 6. Student C: 'I made a poster about (topic a), please check' (poster4 file
>> an attachment in the forum, originally poster3)"
>> How did poster3 get changed into poster4 that is "about topic a". Or was
>> poster3 already about topic a? If so, then why the need to introduce to
>> everyone with "I made a poster about (topic a)"? Was "topic a" something
>> that was introduced by Student B in turn #5? Is this due to the students
>> not having the resources in English to indicate how their turn relates to
>> the previous turn?
>> The continuity/discontinuity (aka "old/new information") is what is unclear
>> to me. The fact that this poster4 is a revision of poster3 suggests
>> continuity and old information. But the statement "I made a poster about
>> (topic a)" suggests discontinuity and new information.
>> Dear Greg,
>> I'm sorry I wasn't clear here. Even though the poster is starting to
>> get developed, the leader of
>> the group decides that there should be specific themes running though
>> the poster, thus topics (a-d) are decided
>> and written into the forum. Poster 3 file already contains some
>> information, but now student C takes that poster
>> and adds topic-a information. (Topic b information was already there).
>> So the poster begins to get built by adding
>> topic information. So although there is continuity and old
>> information, there is discontinuity and new information added.
>> Later some of the students also put information into the poster that
>> begins to link the different topics together.
>> At one point though the group leader decides that instead of listing
>> topics and having a free-for-all, each student randomly
>> adding information, he assigns the topics Student A gets topic a, etc,
>> and then there is a discontinuity and new information.
>> The poster that they have been sharing is somewhat abandoned (although
>> some information is pulled) and each student begins to
>> work on their own topic as a completely separate file, uploading it to
>> the forum as changes are made.
>> Thank you everyone for your replies. If it is at all possible, would
>> someone be willing to skype about this? I promise not to
>> take up much of your time. My skype handle is yomogi-cello. I would be
>> very grateful for any help or advice after you have read this post.
>> Warm regards,
> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
> Assistant Professor
> Department of Anthropology
> 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
> Brigham Young University
> Provo, UT 84602