Discussion on Lim's (2002) sociocultural view - AODM (Activity-Oriented Design Method)

This post will highlight the AODM (Activity-Oriented Design Method) a summary of the class activity - applying the eight-step model (see Mwanza, 2002) to the blogging activity https://apps4lockdown.blogspot.com -

The Activity-oriented design method and Activity theory

The activity theory emanated from the sociohistorical and sociocultural theories of Vygotsky (1978), Leont’ev (1978) and others. In comparison to postulations of “cognitive education and situated learning (Collins et al. 1989) that theorize learning as situated in context and relationships instead of simply in the thoughts of  the learning entity, sociocultural and historical theories claims that learning originates from involvement  in collaborative group activities, facilitated by objects and it is intricately tied to social practices.

While studying the affordances of emerging educational technologies in the context of its application in higher institutions, the activity theory provides an exceptional perspective to analyze the multifaceted social practices that are peculiar in this context of focus. The reason for this is largely because of the emphasis that is placed on the interactions that subsist between the entities engaged in an activity. Improvements to this foregoing are realized by the historical progression of the activity, the problems bordering the application of tools to facilitate the activity, and the viewpoints and actions functioning in the environment the activity is been executed. (Mwanza 2002a).

 “Activity theory offers a set of perspectives on human activity and set of concepts for describing that activity...as we expand our horizons to think not only about usable systems but now useful systems” (p. 8) (emphasis in the original). Nardi (1996). Back to the foundational works of Lev Vygotsky (1978), who postulated the Activity theory, he established the idea of mediated action. Mediated action follows a fundamental notion that presents that humans do not intermingle absolutely with their environment, but they find expression of interaction by the tools and signs. See Fig 1 below referred to as a basic mediational model –

Leont'ev (1981) progressed on the Vygotsky’s (1978, pp. 62–63) theory of mediated action by postulating the three-level model of activity. His work on the three-level model of activity enunciates the progressive change of social activity to individually adopted cognitive structures. Thus, the object or “intent” lies at the very underpinning of human activity, this Leont'ev (1981) posited as the fundamental motivating element of human activity.

The significance of examining the failures or flaws in the connections of elements in an activity system as a way of increasing and changing the system and emerging human customs was chiefly accentuated by Engeström. His postulations of expansive learning encompassed collective examination and investigation of current methodologies to create novel opportunities.

Behind the development of the expanded triangle by Engeström’s (1987) was the focus on enabling the activity systems modeling. The expanded activity theory triangle has been at the very core of current advancements both in the educational sector and other sectors of human endeavors. Engeström’s (1987) described the activity system as object-oriented, socially mediated, and collaborative human activity. The activity system was designed to characterize system’s essential elements. (Engeström and Miettinen 1999, p. 9).

 The system’s essential elements consist of the subject, object, community, and other facilitators of human activity, specifically tools, rules, and division of labour (Engeström 1987).

The object: This characterizes the intent or obstacle space and offers the reason for which

individual actions and goals are created. The object offers the rationale for differentiating the diverse actions and sub-activities inside of the main activity system.

The subject: This element characterizes the individual and joint aspects of human activity.

The individual aspect is exemplified by means of the application of tools to deliver on the object. The joint effort aspect is characterized by way of relationship between the subject and mutual collective resources (i.e., rules, community, division of labour).

The tools: This element characterizes products used in human activity, which could include physical objects (e.g., pencils, paper, computer hardware, books), people, and even non concrete resources (e.g. proficiency, verbal expression in diverse unique language, beliefs). The tools element exemplifies the principle of mediation in human activity.

The rules: This element characterizes the standards, beliefs, and principles that compel and

impact how an activity is carried out. While some rules are unambiguous other rules are implicit; all these are reliant on the norms and practices that are at work in given communities.

The community: This element characterizes the mutual group and those with a common interest in the object and outcomes of the activity; The community is one of three additions to the original triangle model, that interposes to the macro-level (i.e., mutual) perspective.

The division of labour: This element characterizes the creation of roles and responsibilities,

which subjects assume when completing an activity; it represents the distribution of tasks and categorized position and influence.

Below is a link in response to the class task - 

Applying the AODM’s eight-step model-Pamela Chukwuemeka

Task description:  

A)    Post to your blog today's discussion on Lim's (2002) sociocultural view - from outer to inner activity system - address all the layers.

B) Apply the eight-step model (see Mwanza, 2002) to the blogging activity (https://apps4lockdown.blogspot.com - answer the eight questions as clearly as possible. 

C)      Use the answers in b) to draw the activity system triangle (see p.78). 

D) With the help of c) use the table 3 on p.81 to generate research questions about this blogging activity. 

References

Barab, S. A., Evans, M. A., & Baek, E. (2004b). Activity theory as a lens for characterizing the participatory unit. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 199–214). Bloomington, IN: Association for Educational Communications and Technology ACET, Retrieved May 1, 2006, from http://www.aect.org/Intranet/Publications

Engeström, Y. (1999a). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen & R. Punamaki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 19–38). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Mwanza, D. (2002a). Towards an activity-oriented design method for HCI research and practice. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Open University, Milton Keynes, United Kingdom. Retrieved April 15, 2006, from http://iet.open.ac.uk/pp/d.mwanza/Phd.htm.

Nardi, B. A. (1996). Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human–computer interaction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.