Texts:
Winsor, Genre Activity Systems Engr
Panke & Gaiser, Head Clouds Social Tag
Winsor brings up activity theory as a way to address the issue of the simultaneous existence of pattern and contingency, saying that it offers us the ability to see how text and context are mutually influential and that it allows is to see that lack of unity is normal in an activity system (200). What I found interesting about this article was not this point, but the part where she outlined some of the similarities and definitions between genre theory and activity theory. I had previously been a little hazy on this delineation, but I feel that Winsor helped make this a little clearer.
Genre theory sees genre as a “typified rhetorical response to a typified social situation” (201). Similarly, activity theory sees generic texts as tools that “hold activity systems together by giving them a regular form and a sense of permanence” (201). However, while similar in this manner, there are ways that activity theory breaks off from genre theory. While genre theory sees that shaping influences are one-directional, from only social context to the text, activity theory reconceptualizes the relationship between text and context and doesn’t see context as a container for in which text is produced (201). Instead, all of the elements in an activity system (subjects, tools, objects, etc.) are mutually constitutive and always changing. While genre theory focuses on repetition and continuity, activity theory sees that tensions and discontinuities are normal in a system (201). This is because “complex organizations almost always encompass several subsidiary activity systems with different interests” (201). Looking at it this way, Winsor argues, makes it easier to see that pattern and contingency clearly can coexist (201).
This helps illustrate to me that activity theory is much more malleable of an idea and able to encompass and explain more. Our systems and networks that we participate in can become so complex; we need something this flexible to look at them through in any hopes of understanding them.
In their article on social tagging, Panke and Gaiser describe it as a tool for organizing personal and shared knowledge (318). Their study found that people have highly individualized ways of tagging and also pursued it for very different goals (342). Panke and Gaiser identify several different kinds of taggers: ego taggers, everyday archivers, broadcasters, and team players (342). This kind of applies to how Winsor looks at systems as bring very complex and in flux – which is why it applies to activity theory. It also applies to genre theory, as stated directly by the authors – but I will get to this in a minute.
First, there are two sides to the debate on social tagging though. Critics argue that the quality of keywords is doubtful and user-generated keywords will only add to the already vast amount of data on the Internet (320). However, supporters point out that sorting patterns generated by users demonstrate that classification is a construction, emphasizing that ordering information is a form of social practice (320). So then, tagging may serve as a solution to exemplify the breadth of our knowledge and the variety of elements it contains (321).
So then, what I really found interesting in this article that connects it directly to class is how Panke and Gaiser connect social tagging to genre theory. According to them, “genre theory can provide a fruitful framework for understanding the emergence of free-indexing terms” in regards to social tagging (324). They see genres as “dynamic forms that mediate between the unique features of individual contexts and the features that recur across contexts” and thus are embedded in our communicative activities (324). They see using genres as ‘‘situated cognition’’ - embracing form and content, addressing rhetorical appropriateness; simultaneously constituting and reproducing social structures; and signaling norms, epistemology, ideology, and social ontology (324). How this relates to social tagging is that tagging activities could help us understand how we build tagging vocabularies and how tagging may serve as a “genre aggregator” that may “bind artifacts belonging to different types of genres or multiple genres together”(325). Furthermore, because differentiating between genres and technologies can be difficult, “tagging vocabulary can provide interesting material to investigate which traits and qualities of a given artifact constitute the genre”(346). Another connection they make between social tagging and genre theory is the interplay of different genres. Looking at genres allows us to see how they interconnect to mediate specific activities (346). Panke and Gaiser argue that “tagging can be a way for us to visualize these interconnections, handle them in a self-organized manner, and thus create a productive information environment for ourselves and potentially for others” (346).
I think that it is interesting to look at social tagging in this way – as a way to illustrate genre theory. We had originally read this article last semester in Dr. Ding’s ENGL 856 class and had connected it to workplace communication. When reading it at that time, I saw social tagging as more of a strategic communication tool that was really beneficial for drawing in people and connecting them. This is probably thanks to my interest and background in PR. Reading it now in this class, I find it interesting to take a different perspective on it and see it in regards to genre theory as Panke and Gaiser illustrate briefly.
Showing posts with label activity system. Show all posts
Showing posts with label activity system. Show all posts
Thursday, May 24, 2012
Tuesday, May 22, 2012
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)