Re: Self-Determination theory versus SCT and AT

From: George (
Date: Sun Feb 13 2005 - 05:03:11 PST

I am sorry Mike, I incorrectly sent the message to your personal mail.


Dear Mike,
dear all,

thank you for your input that we also need to look at the psychological
issues. Now, I would like to add some more issues, trying to identify
what activities we might need to address, respectively research on when
it comes to e-learning systems under a sociocultural approach. Below is
a table on some activities on which I am wondering if research exists
(I hope it comes out properly - especially for those who set their mail
to just .txt - below is made in richt text):

|Type of Activity/ | Prescriptive | Descriptive|
|Contrasting system | System | System |
|Didactical: | | |
|- learning | X | X |
|- teaching | X | X |
|Self-control | X | |
|Feedback | X | X |
|Algorithmic | | X |
|Heuristic | X | X |
|Strategic | X | X |
|Computational | | X |
|Logical | | X |

Now, the interesting thing would be to know of course, what the
discrepancy means between the types of activities between prescriptive
and descriptive systems. Also, according to [1], the author claims: “…
the major notations that are used in the study of learning are learning
task, actions, goals, motives, feed-back, self-control, algorithm,
heuristic, strategies, and the like” (p. 306). These notions are equal
to learning AND teaching. Hm, by "notion" does Bedny mean ACTIVITY? In
view of all attributes except for ACTIONS and GOALS, I could agree that
the characteristics address ACTIVITY - to me, it would make sense. But
what about if not? What about "actions" and "goals"?

Also, when it comes to discussing about the underlying activities in
descriptive systems (e.g., logical, algorithmic), I can surely talk
about and be happy to discuss, but as soon as it comes to the
prescriptive system way of thinking in terms of activities - I am lost.
Lost, in view of conceptual (well, maybe more or less ok because I see
it), but surely in view of theoretical (what AT' methodological
approach would be suitable) and practical (what data, etc.) issues. So,
I would be more than happy any input.

Maybe, I should also say that my terminology of
descriptive/prescriptive or design systems is absolutely not far off
from SCT or AT terminology and philosophy e.g., Kari Kuutti (thank you
Mike!), Olav W. Bertelsen - apart from previous authors I mentioned
earlier in the cognitive domain (e.g., Simon).

On Feb 12, 2005, at 2:01 AM, Mike Cole wrote:

> Jim, George, Lara et al---
> I have been too swamped with other obligations and my interest in the
> discussion article to participate properly in this thread.
> Reading down through your discussion and examples has been very
> intersting.
> For other reasons, today I have been reading Nardi's edited volume on
> context and
> consciousness and Hutchin's Cognition in the Wild both of which refer
> to differnt aspects
> of cultural historical activity approahces, especially in relation to
> the concept of
> distributed cognition ( see also the Pea edit volume with that titrle).
> It seems to me that it would be useful to dig into some of the
> literature on cultural
> psychology and distributed cognition in this discusion as well as the
> burgeoning
> lliterature on design experimentation, which overlap in important
> ways. The writings
> of Karri Kutti in that literature and others who are specifically
> worring about e-learning ought to be helpful.
> It appears that many people are too preoccupied with local matters to
> interact in this venu at present, bu the issues being raised ought to
> be address by al.
> mike


[1] G. Bedny and D. Meister, The Russian Theory of Activity: Current
Applications to Design and Learning, Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, 1997.

Have a good week-end,

(Hansjoerg von Brevern)


Research in e-Learning Objects, e-Learning meta data standards,
didactical activity, Systemic-Structural Activity Theory, and
Socio-cultural Theory

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Mar 01 2005 - 01:00:04 PST