5d is a somewhat special case, because it was a fairly well
developed system that had been designed - at minimum, a network
of participant roles and staged activities around particular artifacts -
whereas a math curriculum developed in-house is at best
a thinner system, one that leaves participant roles under-
specified or under-problematized. Then again, one might argue
that 5d failed when it did for similar reasons.
Bill's question, " Where does >activity theory come in to guide us in our
efforts?" is important in any case. The obvious utility of AT
in my view is descriptive -- it points us to the dimensions we
have to account for in an account of an activity system. &
the distinction between motives and goals provides an important
tool for formative evaluations of a new endeavor, as long as
the researcher accounts for the object of joint activity from
the perspective of different participants...
I am still thinking in terms of individuals/actors/agents in
the system, of the design of activities in local settings where
participants contribute to the definition of what is going on,
where they shape the context, and not in macro-sociological
terms, where the success or failure of a "grafting" process
may have to be understood, but which is pretty confounding
with respect to the design of a design....
Bill, what happened to the "community of explorers" project?
Judith
>The in vitro/in house distinction is helpful and illuminates better the 5d
>work, which I'd like to understand better. To push the analogy, unlike
>curriculum efforts which attempt to modify an existing system of activity,
>like surgery perhaps with an artifactual implant, 5d is a system born new and
>relatively autonomous, which then you and others tried to encourage extant
>systems to adopt, maintain and sustain, perhaps like grafting. Where does
>activity theory come in to guide us in our efforts? Can we generate
>macro-sociological and political-economic criteria for selecting one path
>over another or generating yet a third?
>
>Reflection on the work I did with Denis Newman et. al. in the 'Community of
>Explorers' project in light of the above dimensions indicates that, as
>envisioned, the project occured about 5 years too early with respect to
>schools/technology/societal awareness. In this project the intervention was
>the use of the internet to create a network community of high school teachers
>that adopted computer modeling tools into science classrooms. Nearly a year
>of effort was expended at connecting teachers to the Internet, training in
>technology, establishing legitimacy of tools, which now could be expended in
>building the capacity for sustainability. Yet, the nature of the funding
>program was to seek these deficits as moments of opportunity to advance
>knowledge and create agents of change. Timing was ripe for funding if not
>for schools.
>
>Bill B.
>--------------------------------------
>Date: 8/1/97 1:16 AM
>To: Bill Barowy
>From: xmca who-is-at weber.ucsd.edu
>As I point out in the last chapter of CP, Bill, I figure I am doing a form
>of experiment by design. I recall referencing Ann Brown who referenced
>Allan Collins, but have never seen the book the Allan was going to put
>out on this topic.
>
>Your point about "envisioning" rings very true to me. The problem with
>"in vitro" meaning "in house/lab" is that one's vision of possible
>environments is poverty stricken. Reality runneth over.
>
>Are all design experiments examples of what I am talking about as positive
>critical theory? I don't think so. By and large, such research efforts do
>not concern themselves with "higher" levels of context, and conduct design
>resarch that include analysis of macro-sociological and political-economic
>factors shaping the ability of the innovation to survive "in vitro." Its
>a rich topic, you are right.
>mike
>
>
>------------------ RFC822 Header Follows ------------------
>Received: by qm.terc.edu with SMTP;1 Aug 1997 01:14:50 U
>Received: from weber.ucsd.edu by is.TERC.EDU (5.x/SMI-SVR4)
> id AA18561; Fri, 1 Aug 1997 01:09:44 -0400
>Received: (from procmail who-is-at localhost) by weber.ucsd.edu (8.8.3/8.8.3) id
>TAA13769; Thu, 31 Jul 1997 19:11:30 -0700 (PDT)
>Resent-Date: Thu, 31 Jul 1997 19:11:30 -0700 (PDT)
>Date: Thu, 31 Jul 1997 19:11:27 -0700 (PDT)
>From: Mike Cole <mcole who-is-at weber.ucsd.edu>
>Message-Id: <199708010211.TAA13754 who-is-at weber.ucsd.edu>
>To: xmca who-is-at weber.ucsd.edu
>Subject: Re: Vive in vitro!
>Resent-Message-Id: <"bqjjVD.A.EXD.RXU4z" who-is-at weber>
>Resent-From: xmca who-is-at weber.ucsd.edu
>Reply-To: xmca who-is-at weber.ucsd.edu
>X-Mailing-List: <xmca who-is-at weber.ucsd.edu> archive/latest/4287
>X-Loop: xmca who-is-at weber.ucsd.edu
>Precedence: list
>Resent-Sender: xmca-request who-is-at weber.ucsd.edu
>
>
>
>
>
Judith Diamondstone (908) 932-7496 Ext. 352
MAILING ADDRESS:
Graduate School of Education
Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey
10 Seminary Place
New Brunswick, NJ 08903