5.22 Reading Response

Texts:
Russell, “Looking Beyond the Interface”
Ding, NIH

Activity Systems & Theory
I feel that both of these articles helped me to better understand activity systems and activity theory. We were able to get a better explanation of what these are and to see them illustrated.

We are always engaging in collective activity because human behavior is social in origin and thus human activity is collective (Russell 66). No written product exists in isolation (Ding 43). However, activity can be widely distributed in time and space and is mediated by complex networks of tools (Russell 66). To look at this we can use an activity system, or a “functional system of social/cultural interactions that constitutes behavior and produces that kind of change called learning” (Russell 68). In an activity system, a subject “interacts with tools over time on some object with some shared motive to achieve some outcome” (Russell 67). Because it views context as a functional system rather than a container, it sees learning as expanding involvement (Russell 68).

Parts of an activity system include: the subject, an individual or group engaged in an activity, the object, the material or space on which the subject acts, the motive, the object or focus of activity, the outcome, and the tools, anything that mediates subjects’ actions on objects (Russell 69-70). Also, we may include the community, the conditions of all the other elements of the system, the division of labor, and rules into our recognition of the activity system (Russell 70-71). Clearly, though, not every situation can be clearly defined as an activity system and there can be various contradictions. Russell mentions that contradictions can occur between and among any of the elements in a system (71).

I also really enjoyed Ding’s illustration of an activity system when applied to NIH Grant Writing. It really helped me to identify the different parts of one by using a real and tangible example. It makes such a tough idea much easier to grasp.

Learning & the Activity System
Learning is not a neat transfer of information, but a complex network of tool-mediated human relationships that we must look at according to shared social and cultural practices (Russell 73). It takes place in both formal educational settings and informal settings (Ding 4).Russell introduces zones of proximal development to describe the difference between what one can do alone and with assistance (73). This helps illustrate that learning is social and takes place as people use tools and mutual change themselves and those tools (73).

Russell argues that activity theory “can have heuristic value for planning and ‘trouble-shooting’ redesigns of distributed learning” (80). He comments that activity theory is helpful for learning because it sees it as expanding involvement over time, both social and intellectual, with the people and tools in culture (65). It is useful because it “looks beyond the individual learner, the interface and the ‘material’ to understand the social and material relations that affect complex human learning, people’s interactions with others as mediated by tools, including symbols” (65). Activity theory offers three new perspectives: multilevelness, or the ability to look at issues on different levels in a framework, interaction and social contexts, and development and changes in human practices (Ding 9).

Furthermore, effective learning can occur through teaching the genre system instead of specific genres (Ding 43). While this requires a lot from the teacher and is highly demanding and time consuming, it can be more affective than traditional practices looking at target genres (Ding 43). To further illustrate how activity theory can be helpful in learning, Ding adds that the integration of cognitive and social apprenticeships enable systematic and consistent incorporation of learning resources (4). Cognitive apprenticeship emphasizes context and situation (Ding 7). Social apprenticeship stresses learning in informal settings (8).

Questions & Comments:
One thing that struck my attention is that Ding points out that teaching actual genre systems rather than specific target genres is very demanding. It requires understanding, familiarity, collaboration, careful planning, and constant revision in pedagogical practices (Ding 43). However, is this really realistic? Today’s types of education seem to focus on being more holistic and at the same time teachers have to cover a broad range of information in most classes. They cannot always teach this specific. So, is this view then only helpful in some cases? I think that it may take too long and too much effort. While it may be worth it, it does not seem easy to do or realistic in the current situation; it may be something teachers need to develop and ease into over time.

With a clearer view of what activity systems are, I can definitely see how it could be useful to instructional designers and teachers in helping facilitate learning. There are obviously a variety of complex elements associated in learning environments today, particularly with all the added technologies. This seems like a helpful way to delineate the factors in play and assess how they may affect, influence, be advantageous, or interfere in certain situations.