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

[mike cole]

Interesting question, Christopher. Maybe an expert will have the answer!
mike

On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 1:25 PM, Christopher Schuck <
schuckthemonkey@gmail.com> wrote:

> Would the fact that Mark has been seeking help from a community whose work
> partly involves understanding activity systems, and that we have been
> discussing and becoming involved in his project, constitute the
> introduction of an additional activity system and interaction with it? Or
> would this be trivializing what it means for something to be an "activity
> system?
>
> On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 4:07 PM, mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu> wrote:
>
> > 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
> >
>



-- 

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