Dear Jim,
dear all,
thank you very much for your response. Thank you very much, once the
paper will be there, I will be most interested in hearing your critical
opinion.
On Feb 11, 2005, at 7:34 PM, Jim Rogers wrote:
> I would love to read your paper once you have it finished.
Also, please allow me to bring 'more practicality' to my struggles.
On Feb 8, 2005, at 2:42 AM, Jim Rogers wrote:
> 3) This online research methodology is certainly an important issue we
> need to look at. I suppose one important parameter depends on your
> specific situation (see #1 above)- what information do you have
> access to (e.g. student log files, on-line activities, asynchronous
> discussion archives)? I tried for a couple of semesters to collect
> data soley from asyncrhonous discussions but felt they really fell
> short in providing only synthetic description of what was going on in
> the classroom. I wanted to know more about "why" things were
> happening and not just "what" was happening. Luckily I was able to
> get students from the class who happened to be on campus and
> interviewed them. This really helped me to understand why the
> students engaged (and didn't engage) in the class activities which is
> why my interest in identity became central. I started out, somewhat
> like lara, looking for something completely different.
> If the discussion on the Hybridity article ever gets started we can
> all talk about the complexity of the individual and their actions in
> various contexts (still not sure if I am using this term correctly
> though)
In my yesterday's email, I touched the discrepancy between prescriptive
and descriptive educational systems. I believe that we need both types
of systems because prescriptive systems, in my eyes, should be
concerned with 'how things' ought to be or, in other words, their main
purpose is to support the internalisation process. Descriptive systems,
however, are concerned with putting e-learning content together. The
conceptual and challenging aspect in relation with AT/SSTA hereto means
as far as I look at it, is that whenever a major element the teaching
activity i.e,. learning tasks, actions, goals, motives, feedback,
self-control, algorithm, heuristic, and strategies change, it will
cause effects onto the descriptive system responsibility.
My (AT/SSTA') theoretical and practical questions are:
What AT/SSTA' methods exist to determine activity and behaviour?
What data will we therefore need?
.... because didactical activity is heuristic, strategic, semantic, and
??
In terms of the descriptive part - where I am presently working on - is
that I think we should determine the logical, algorithmic, heuristic
(coming from teaching activity [prescriptive action]), and semantic.
The very very small and head-breaking unit I am working now is to
determine the logical and algorithmic activity/action of e-learning
objects. But, it needs to be embedded into a higher picture - that's
what SCT and AT is all about, isn't it?
Hence, my struggle is:
What AT methods can we deploy? Bedny talks about Systemic-structural
approach, Morphological analysis, Functional analysis - but how?
and what data do we need?
So, what do you think, is a prescriptive educational system an external
tool or an object?
and what about a descriptive educational system? just a tool?
Also, I had a quick look at what I could find on the web on Kuutti. It
is quite interesting, his triangle differs greatly from SSTA.
Have a good week-end to all of you!
best regards,
George
(Hansjoerg von Brevern)
-------------------------------------
Research in e-Learning Objects, e-Learning meta data standards,
didactical activity, Systemic-Structural Activity Theory, and
Socio-cultural Theory
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Mar 01 2005 - 01:00:04 PST