posted by Nicolas Balacheff on Friday 26th, February 2010 (19:10)
Quite an interesting and stimulating paper taking up the challenge of contributing to our effort to understand "what, if anything, people are learning by playing games" (69) It is based on activity theory, referring primarily to Vygotsky, built on the system formed by the Tool as a mediator between the Subject and the Object (the latter meaning the intention of the subject) and its contemporary extension by Engeström and others which takes into account the social determination of both the Subject and (his/her) Object(ive). The authors make the relevant remark that taking a systemic perspective means that properties which may be identified cannot be ascribed to the Subject as an isolated part of that system. What raises a theoretical and methodological difficulty when the problématique is to understand learning (or Subject semantic/meaning attached to a behaviour). Meeting this difficulty with the cK¢ model [*], I solved it (if I may say so) by considering what could be seen as the projection of the system model onto one of its components, the learner (or onto the Tool). In the case of cK¢ it leads me to propose the (P, R, L, Σ) quadruplet to model the learner conception (what could be mirrored by a quadruplet of the same kind to model the Tool). So, it is clear that I am interested in the method of analysis which the authors propose in order to operationalize the theory.
Then, looking precisely at the proposed methodology, I see a few issues which may be interesting to discuss: contraction, action/operation and in the end the reference to learning and the related question "what is learned?"
posted by Martin Oliver on Monday 1st, March 2010 (12:00)
Two brief comments in response - thanks for engaging with this.
First, I'm increasingly of the opinion that what activity theory provides is a way of generating systematic narratives. I'm not sure they can be "pinned down" with a correspondence model of truth for all of the reasons raised in the comments (e.g. the attribution of a "real" object). Their value lies in their utility, assessed in relation to their credibility and integrity in relation to available data.
In other words, we never know for sure, but that doesn't have to stop us drawing useful conclusions.
Second, what is learnt is - at one level - only going to be "how to play", and I don't think it's necessary to be apologetic that the methodology generates such conclusions. From any kind of situated perspective on learning, that's an appropriate kind of conclusion to draw. The subsequent value of that learning in relation to other issues - curriculum achievement, or professional performance, say - is a closely related but separate problem. Trying to solve both problems (outcome and their re-application) at the same time may just be trying to achieve too much.
As an aside, the quadruplet seemed interesting, but I don't feel I understand it well enough to comment on that.
log in
