It's been maybe 6 years now that I've been in and out of this discussion
space, and the hook that always draws me back in is the lovely "unit of
analysis" stuff. I remember first being startled by the notion that the
activity theory/CHAT perspective was based on a unit of analysis that
linked a person/people with language in some kind of action.
This is the minimal unit Paul Dillion must be referring to when he
says: 'Unless the term "unit analysis" has been broadened, I understand
it in Vygotsky's sense of the minimal unit that still contains the
properties of the whole phenomena."
Then we get Geoff Hayward's response to that (I'm working down a list
of messages here): "...but when I went into classrooms what I saw was a
whole series of individuals trying to make sense of, say, photosynthesis
through a range of different sorts of processes - including teacher
exposition, small group discussion and practical work -
using a range of devices ands artifacts, in joint activity with each
other
and their teacher (plus other adults in the classroom including me) -"
-- that is, individuals "trying to make sense" -- using language,
broadly understood most likely to include any kind of symbolic
communication -- in the action of trying to make sense. This puzzled
him, he says, until he ran into AT, upon which he began to think that
"...the activity system itself was the unit-of-analysis, but that I
could look at the unit from different perspectives, say from the
perspective of the rules as they developed through time, or at different
levels, say the level of the individual or the level of the group."
Here is where, at least in that particular message, Geoff sort of grinds
to a halt. If we were in face to face converation at this point I'd say:
"Yes, the activity system IS the unit of analysis -- the activity system
beign the students using symbolic communication to make sense etc. --
but you can't look at it 'from the perspective of the rules..' Only
people can have a perspective, so you have to choose among people to
take a perspective. Who are the people involved? The students, surely --
also the teachers, also the curriculum designers, the test-writers, the
assessment system adminsitrators, etc. Each of these is a different
activity system, yes, but multiplying them doesn't really create
confusion: the unit of analysis in each is the same: person/people,
communcation tool, purpose. What becomes very clear at this point is
that there is conflict and contradiction among the different activity
systems. The beauty of AT to me is that it clarifies what so many other
methods mask over, the nodes of contradiction or synergy where activity
systems intersect. That's what I love about it!
I'll pause here... this is already more than one screen.
Helena Worthen
Chicago Labor Education Program
University of Illinois, Chicago, IL 60607
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Sep 01 2000 - 01:00:53 PDT