When comparing the components offered (
http://piratepad.net/apsWT6vudX) to the one's introduced in activity theory, I'd state that all of the components necessary were definitely described. When taking the model described in (http://informationr.net/ir/13-2/paper340.html), I tried to sub-categorize all of the components in the list to the 6 main categories introduced by Uden et al (2008).
Subject -aim/goal, result, trigger / event, model / modelling
Community - participants,
Object (Outcome) - process, task, effect, quality
Rules - timeframe, methodology, options, interrelatedness (relations), rules, start, end, restrictions / limitations, location (located), evaluation criteria
Division of Labour - actors, project manager, role,
Mediating artefact (Tools) - schedule, time management, control, feedback, tools, workmanship, plan, software, resource, learnability,
When looking upon this list, we can see that maybe too much focus has been put on rules and tools, so this reached level of detail-ness is maybe somewhat unnecessary. Too little focus again has been put on the participants themselves - who they are (community) and what are their roles (division of labour).
If I'd have to shorten down this offered list, I would leave only the core notions untouched:
Subject -aim/goal, result
Community - participants,
Object (Outcome) - process
Rules - rules
Division of Labour - actors
Mediating artefact (Tools) - schedule, time management, control, feedback, tools, workmanship, plan, software, resource, learnability,
Only the tools part can´t - in my view - be "cut down" as the diversity of tools available for interaction purposes is always greeted.
All in all there weren´t any new possible categories described in the list but it is a good idea to use parts of that list to elaborate the 6-category structure of the activity theory framework as the created list was in some categories very thorough.
No comments:
Post a Comment