Theory Comparisons

Keeping in line with the topic for this unit, this assignment is to be completed in groups. For this assignment, your group will be the same one that you did your presentation with. To develop your response, each group will be assigned a private discussion space, where you can co-construct your response. As a group, come up with a response to the question below. Once your response is completed, post it on the appropriate discussion thread (details below). In addition to this, I’d like you to reflect on the process and how it related to the theories presented in this module. For example, did you deconstruct the task into smaller ‘activities’? Did different group members have different areas of expertise? How did your experience differ than if you had undertaken this assignment on your own? See below for the location for this discussion.
In the article by Bonnie Nardi, she has compared Activity Theory, Situated Cognition, and Distributed Cognition. In the end, she argues that Activity Theory is the most comprehensive and useful for studying learning in contexts. Keeping in mind that she is coming from an HCI (Human-Computer Interaction) perspective, do you agree with this? Why or why not?
To post your groups response to this question, click the Discussion link in the left-hand frame under Course Tools and then choose the “Unit 6 – Thought Question” topic from the list of Forum Topics. We have sub-divided the sections into 4 groups using the letter of your last name to sort. Once you have selected the appropriate forum, choose Compose Message in order to post your musings. Your reflections of your group learning experience should be posted in the “Unit 6 – Group Learning” thread, found in the same location.

Activity Theory (AT) is the most comprehensive and useful theory for studying learning in context because it provides a rich framework that embodies the basic tenets of the Situated Cognition and Distributed Cognition models while also considering motivation. Since AT allows examination of interactions from both the subject and tool perspectives in a cultural context (Blackener, 1995 in Spasser, 1999), it could promote more comprehensively designed learning environments. AT is also the most flexible (without altering motivation) because it considers an activity to be the relationship between a subject, objective, artifacts, actions and operations, where any one part can be modified if conditions change. The activity is the consciously generated context and reflects the true goals. Furthermore, since AT places people in control of the artifacts, it increases the demand for creative learning environments.

Some things that detract from the other approaches include: 1) Situated cognition can lead to excessive reductionism by putting too much emphasis on contextual details and hindering a more holistic view of the overall objectives. 2) Distributed cognition seems restricted to times where there is a specific system goal, whereas AT is more general and can therefore be applied to any situation in which there is an intentional goal. However, any study of learning in context would be incomplete if it relied entirely on any one framework. Distributed cognition could enhance the analysis because it involves more than one subject and therefore presents the opportunity to consider the effect of interaction and collaboration on learning. Its unique emphasis on how the design and use of tools contribute to collaborative learning should also be considered. Similarly, situated action analysis could focus attention on the previously unconsidered details of adaptations to unforeseen circumstances.

In conclusion, although AT is the most comprehensive theory for examining learning in context, including the other frameworks would provide additional insight.

Diana, Doug, Jackie, Jacqueline