I think, for them, activity triangles are the artifacts not only
for researchers but for practioners and communication
of researchers and practioners in workplaces.
By using activity triangles and other artifacts, for example,
both of researchers and practioners are engaging in clarifying the
object, conflict and other things.
In the case of Bodker and her colleagues research of designing
database for municipal government, they introduced the prototype
tool for collaborative design of database.
The prototype was not actual database and it was designed
by Mac hypercard exactly as a kind of changable real models.
So, it was very easy to change, redesign the "data base".
Practioners and designers were designing gradually by using
that flexible prototype.
By using this prototype, I think, the object became intelligible
not only for the desinger but for practioners.
This is because, by the prototype, particiapnts could look at
the concrete design of database, find out the problems, and propose
alternative designs soon, situatedly.
In this case, the boundary of communities between designers
and users were reorgainzed as well. It means, by using the prototype,
"users" could often become "designers" and mutual constitution
of "designers" and "users" was reorganized.
And, later, this prototype as the object, that is hypercard database,
will become a tool for the real database design and communication
among particiapnts
In Japan, participatory design is becoming popular. However,
in many cases, it is not going well. For example, my friend who
is a architect for school building would say that teachers
in school could not say anything about design even when designers
tried to ask their request. According to him, teacher has nothing
for desiging school building.
In this case, it is very natural because there is no good
artifact and no its appropriate use for organizing communication
between teachers and designers. Without concrete artifacts and
organizing the context of its use, the object becomes very
vague and do not become concrete at all.
The architecture group of my friend had various artifacts for
modeling for building. However, their description of students'
actions and interactions was very poor. For example, they described
and analysed students' actions just as scattering and gathering ants.
I was so surprised when they showed me the figure of many dots
and lines in the drawing that represented the process of students'
moves in the school.
In some sense, they had formed the object. However, from the other
viewpoint, the object as constructing a school was not visible at
all for them. On the other hand, teachers were not given any artifacts
and contexts in order to make their object of constructing building
visible and in order to comminicate with the artchitecture group.
In the reseach of Bodker and her colleagues,
the prototype is a kind of artifacts for making the object socially
intelligible and communicable between various members came from
different places. This prototype can be regarded as a bounday object
in the sense that is quite different from standardizarion.
(Standardizarion of knowldge, skills and procedures from
the management side is shown in the research of Orr and Wenger.)
That is the quite different view point from cognitive engineering
researchers such as Norman (and Collins?).
In the case of cognitive engineering, what is good design is
judged by the "expert" who came from outside such as Norman. I think,
actually, it is impossible.
On the other hand, in the case of activity theory, the object or
good design can be judged by practioners themselves.
In the case of Bodker, the researcher arranged the tool for
the prototpe and communication situation for the prototype desgin.
By that, practioners and designer collaboratively, situatedly designed
the database.
In this process, what is good design was judged by practioners with
the assist of researchers and designers.
That is a quite different thing from pushing or persuading
"the ideal goal" from the "outside".
Why don't you use the experinces of the above workplace
research and practice for designing activity in school?
First of all, the object is not goal, plan and as such.
Instead of discussion about goal, the analysis of what is the object
in the ordinary classroom lesson with teachers and students will be
very useful.
Second, it is nesessary to try to explore the concrete tools
for clarifying, communicating and reorganizing the object
with teachers and students.
Third, acitivty theory or its triangle is the artifact not only for
researcher but for practioners, that is teachers and students
in the case of school.
Direct use of activty triangles may be not so useful for them and
even for researchers. However, the concrete tools such as the
prototype of Bodker and her colleague will be useful for all.
In that sense, activity theory, if it has enough concrete tools,
should be shared with participants of activity and should be
embedded in activity or practice.
In the case of ordinary instruction design,
even though activity theory is used, it is often only for researchers
and teachers. (for teachers, not always).
Probably it is not so popular that students, researchers and teachers
share the activity theory, triangle, and/or the tool such as prototype
for making mutually intelligible of their own object or activity.
In other words, according to my impression, activity theory for
instructional design is generally used only for "teaching currilulum"
that is hidden from the side of students (or sometimes even
for teachers).
Further, these activity triangles are not usually used
for analysing design activity of instruction itself, that is learning of
the "adults" ' side.
Bill sent me their paper as an attachment document.
Thanks a lot again. I think it is a very high quality paper and
I assume there are rich unwritten background.
I wonder why Bill does not focus on their own designing activity
of instruction and computer tools as learning of "adults" ' side.
Desiging instruction itself can be regarded as part of learning and
part of reorganization of activity system and should be
focussed for analysis istead of making them go to the backstage.
In this way, learning as mutual accomplishment can be analysed.
I think that instruction design and workplace research are
in some sense very close depending on the viewpoint.
If activity theory or its triangle is an artifact only for researchers,
or if this artifact is only used for researchers' interpretation of
"data", it will lose its dynamism.
And if activity theory does not have the concrete tools such
as the prototype, it will lose the power and the use of activity triangle
will become just work of allocating actual examples into its "slots"
of "object", "instrument", "rules" or slots of "activity", "action",
"operation".
If it is used as the embedded and concrete artifact as shown
in some of papers of Yrjo, Bodker and their colleagues, I feel
that there are many things I have to learn from activity theory
and communication between activity theory and situated approach
is going well.
Finally, regarding "theoretical or conceptual knowledge" as an object
of activity in school, it seems to me that this kind of formulating is
VERY vague and we need artifacts and interaction in order to to make
this object socially intelligible and communicable.
Naoki Ueno
NIER, Tokyo