[Xmca-l] Re: 3rd generation activity theory

[mike cole]

Perhaps, Henry.

I thought that Mark was concentrating on the joint activity within a single
activity system. Perfectly fine. I was uncertain why he needed the
additional apparatus.

mike

On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 12:32 PM, HENRY SHONERD <hshonerd@gmail.com> wrote:

> Mike,
> Figure 3 of Daniels, with its two triangles, depicts VISUALLY what you
> call “interactions between activity systems”?t Yet, if I am not mistaken,
> from that figure to the the final paragraph he describes IN WRITING
> interactions almost entirely within only ONE activity system at a time.
> Does this touch in any way on your qualifier: “Perhaps I am mistaken.”?
>
> I ask this not only for theoretical reasons, but because in my life my own
> commitments to projects have been very much affected by “contending”
> projects. A prime example is the push and pull of what might be called
> neoliberal and more collectivist solutions to economic problems. In the
> 60s, as a grad student in economics at UC Berkeley, I was much more
> convinced of collectivist, centralized approaches than I am today. On the
> other hand, even Milton Friedman thought that some problems, education in
> particular, cannot be solved purely by market forces.
>
> I look at my previous paragraph and I realize that I am construing my
> journey (and Friedman’s?) as individual. The final paragraph of Daniels
> construes the journey as collective:  "A full cycle of expansive
> transformation may be understood as a collective journey through the zone
> of proximal development of the activity.” It seems to me that the
> contending projects that students bring into the classroom, not ignorance,
> make or break dialog in the classroom.
>
> Henry
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 18, 2016, at 11:20 AM, mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu> wrote:
> >
> > Mark --
> >
> > I take "third generation activity theory" to involve interactions between
> > activity systems in addition to the principles you enumerate. Perhaps I
> am
> > mistaken. A brief paper by Harry Daniels contains a summary that accords
> > with my understanding.
> >
> > It can be confusing to ask for advice on xmca when you get a lot of it
> form
> > disparate people!
> >
> > mike
> >
> > http://www.bath.ac.uk/research/liw/resources/Models%
> 20and%20principles%20of%20Activity%20Theory.pdf
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 10:00 PM, Mark de Boer <mark.yomogi@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Hello!
> >> 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
> >> presentation
> >> 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
> >> the
> >> 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.
> >>
> >> Michael
> >>
> >>
> >> 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.
> >> Mike
> >> 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
> >> offer.
> >>
> >> Carol
> >>
> >> 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
> >> data.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> On Aug 16, 2016, at 9:04 AM, Mark de Boer <mark.yomogi@gmail.com>
> 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
> >> attachment
> >>> in the forum)
> >>
> >> How did “our poster” become “my poster”?
> >>
> >> Martin
> >>
> >> 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.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Mark,
> >> 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.
> >>
> >> -greg
> >>
> >> 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,
> >>
> >> Mark
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an
> object
> > that creates history. Ernst Boesch
>
>


-- 

It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an object
that creates history. Ernst Boesch