George,
allow me a few days to read and digest your ideas- given a past life of
mine in Educational Technology, I think I understand what you are trying
to do. I just need to revist some ideas that I have not thought about
in a while. My own frustrations with using Instructional System Design
in teaching/learning situations might only produce questions- which may
or may not help you work these ideas out yourself.
In the mean time I am going to forward your e-mails to a friend in the
UK who has worked with Bednay and is very much influenced by this work.
You might also want to contact David Wiley, a learning objects
propenent- although last time I talked with him he was becoming more
suspect on the reusability of these objects. I know he has read and is
influenced by Wertsch although I am not sure what he is doing with
theses ideas in his work. You can find his e-mail by going to
www.usu.edu then to the instructional technology department. sorry but
I prefer not to broadcast his e-mail address without prior consent.
good luck
jim
George wrote:
> Dear Jim,
> dear all,
>
> thank you very much for your response. Thank you very much, once the
> paper will be there, I will be most interested in hearing your
> critical opinion.
>
> On Feb 11, 2005, at 7:34 PM, Jim Rogers wrote:
>
>> I would love to read your paper once you have it finished.
>
>
> Also, please allow me to bring 'more practicality' to my struggles.
>
> On Feb 8, 2005, at 2:42 AM, Jim Rogers wrote:
>
>> 3) This online research methodology is certainly an important issue
>> we need to look at. I suppose one important parameter depends on
>> your specific situation (see #1 above)- what information do you have
>> access to (e.g. student log files, on-line activities, asynchronous
>> discussion archives)? I tried for a couple of semesters to collect
>> data soley from asyncrhonous discussions but felt they really fell
>> short in providing only synthetic description of what was going on in
>> the classroom. I wanted to know more about "why" things were
>> happening and not just "what" was happening. Luckily I was able to
>> get students from the class who happened to be on campus and
>> interviewed them. This really helped me to understand why the
>> students engaged (and didn't engage) in the class activities which is
>> why my interest in identity became central. I started out, somewhat
>> like lara, looking for something completely different.
>> If the discussion on the Hybridity article ever gets started we can
>> all talk about the complexity of the individual and their actions in
>> various contexts (still not sure if I am using this term correctly
>> though)
>
>
> In my yesterday's email, I touched the discrepancy between
> prescriptive and descriptive educational systems. I believe that we
> need both types of systems because prescriptive systems, in my eyes,
> should be concerned with 'how things' ought to be or, in other words,
> their main purpose is to support the internalisation process.
> Descriptive systems, however, are concerned with putting e-learning
> content together. The conceptual and challenging aspect in relation
> with AT/SSTA hereto means as far as I look at it, is that whenever a
> major element the teaching activity i.e,. learning tasks, actions,
> goals, motives, feedback, self-control, algorithm, heuristic, and
> strategies change, it will cause effects onto the descriptive system
> responsibility.
>
> My (AT/SSTA') theoretical and practical questions are:
> What AT/SSTA' methods exist to determine activity and behaviour?
> What data will we therefore need?
> .... because didactical activity is heuristic, strategic, semantic,
> and ??
>
> In terms of the descriptive part - where I am presently working on -
> is that I think we should determine the logical, algorithmic,
> heuristic (coming from teaching activity [prescriptive action]), and
> semantic. The very very small and head-breaking unit I am working now
> is to determine the logical and algorithmic activity/action of
> e-learning objects. But, it needs to be embedded into a higher picture
> - that's what SCT and AT is all about, isn't it?
>
> Hence, my struggle is:
> What AT methods can we deploy? Bedny talks about Systemic-structural
> approach, Morphological analysis, Functional analysis - but how?
> and what data do we need?
>
> So, what do you think, is a prescriptive educational system an
> external tool or an object?
> and what about a descriptive educational system? just a tool?
>
> Also, I had a quick look at what I could find on the web on Kuutti. It
> is quite interesting, his triangle differs greatly from SSTA.
>
> Have a good week-end to all of you!
> best regards,
>
> George
> (Hansjoerg von Brevern)
>
> -------------------------------------
>
> Research in e-Learning Objects, e-Learning meta data standards,
> didactical activity, Systemic-Structural Activity Theory, and
> Socio-cultural Theory
>
>
--Jim Rogers Associate Professor Utah State University Logan, UT. 84322-0715 t: 435.797.3910 f: 435.797.4050
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Mar 01 2005 - 01:00:04 PST