Home > musings > Reflection on task 11

Reflection on task 11

Thank you for making an attempt to compare our created list of components with the components that the activity theory framework offers. Some of you have provided very thorough comparsions which reflect your serious effort to think about the ways how activity systems can be described.

As most of you stated our extensive list of components covers all the components of activity theory framework. I agree with you. All of you acknowledged the fact that our list is too long with too many synonyms and it should be reduced, however, as noted by some of you, most of them can be used as an additional explanation for the umbrella term of the specific component. The common approach was to divide the components created by us between the components of activity theory framework. No big differences in this regard. They all can be placed somewhere.

I agree with a remark made by Kersti and Kairi that “we thought of it [our list of components] more like a project rather than an interactive system” (Kairi). “There are words that characterize both “activity” and “interactive environments”, but some apply only for one” (Kersti). So our list of components does not show the actual relationships between them, their interrelatedness, but also interactions contrary to the activity theory framework. We were focusing on a linear process…Jakob continues that “you might find a load of elements that you can attribute to the different levels of an activity system, but does that really tell you much about nature of the interactions between them?” He also raises the question “whether there are any clear normatives provided by Activity Theory with regard to how a system should be like?” I see the activity theory framework as an analytical tool, which does not aim at providing normatives, but rather helps us to understand how the system functions and where the weaknesses or strengths of a particular system are; and this analysis may point us toward the ways how a system should be like from the observer’s point of view.

However, some of you also mentioned a few components, which were missing, but could play an important role of the activity theory framework: “it is possible to think about feedback as new activity or process, but in interactivity, it is one main features that creates interactivity” (Raul) or “assessment of outcome would be also one possible way to expand idea behind activity theory” (Argo) or “constant changing in the sense of interactive environments have to “go with the flow” and the conditions are changing according to what the users need and want” (Kersti). Dynamic nature, starting and ending point of any activity system, but also previously mentioned possible extensions of the activity theory framework are fair components to consider while thinking about constantly changing interactive environments…

Btw! For whose who doesn’t know that while using your study buddy’s sentences, it is the common practice and unwritten rule to put references, especially if the sentence is a copy-paste from someone’s else Weblog ;).

Categories: musings
  1. No comments yet.
  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: