XMCA Mail 2005_02: Re: Self-Determination theory versus SCT and

These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes, and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving.
Content on this site may not meet current digital accessibility standards.
If you require an alternative, accessible format of any information found on this site, please contact Bruce Jones, bjones@ucsd.edu to request an accommodation.

Re: Self-Determination theory versus SCT and AT

allow me a few days to read and digest your ideas- given a past life of
mine in Educational Technology, I think I understand what you are trying
to do. I just need to revist some ideas that I have not thought about
in a while. My own frustrations with using Instructional System Design
in teaching/learning situations might only produce questions- which may
or may not help you work these ideas out yourself.

In the mean time I am going to forward your e-mails to a friend in the
UK who has worked with Bednay and is very much influenced by this work.
You might also want to contact David Wiley, a learning objects
propenent- although last time I talked with him he was becoming more
suspect on the reusability of these objects. I know he has read and is
influenced by Wertsch although I am not sure what he is doing with
theses ideas in his work. You can find his e-mail by going to
www.usu.edu then to the instructional technology department. sorry but
I prefer not to broadcast his e-mail address without prior consent.

> Dear Jim,
> dear all,
>
> thank you very much for your response. Thank you very much, once the
> paper will be there, I will be most interested in hearing your
> critical opinion.
>
> On Feb 11, 2005, at 7:34 PM, Jim Rogers wrote:
>
>> I would love to read your paper once you have it finished.
>
>
> Also, please allow me to bring 'more practicality' to my struggles.
>
> On Feb 8, 2005, at 2:42 AM, Jim Rogers wrote:
>
>> 3) This online research methodology is certainly an important issue
>> we need to look at. I suppose one important parameter depends on
>> your specific situation (see #1 above)- what information do you have
>> access to (e.g. student log files, on-line activities, asynchronous
>> discussion archives)? I tried for a couple of semesters to collect
>> data soley from asyncrhonous discussions but felt they really fell
>> short in providing only synthetic description of what was going on in
>> the classroom. I wanted to know more about "why" things were
>> happening and not just "what" was happening. Luckily I was able to
>> get students from the class who happened to be on campus and
>> interviewed them. This really helped me to understand why the
>> students engaged (and didn't engage) in the class activities which is
>> why my interest in identity became central. I started out, somewhat
>> like lara, looking for something completely different.
>> If the discussion on the Hybridity article ever gets started we can
>> all talk about the complexity of the individual and their actions in
>> various contexts (still not sure if I am using this term correctly
>> though)
>
>
> In my yesterday's email, I touched the discrepancy between
> prescriptive and descriptive educational systems. I believe that we
> need both types of systems because prescriptive systems, in my eyes,
> should be concerned with 'how things' ought to be or, in other words,
> their main purpose is to support the internalisation process.
> Descriptive systems, however, are concerned with putting e-learning
> content together. The conceptual and challenging aspect in relation
> with AT/SSTA hereto means as far as I look at it, is that whenever a
> major element the teaching activity i.e,. learning tasks, actions,
> goals, motives, feedback, self-control, algorithm, heuristic, and
> strategies change, it will cause effects onto the descriptive system
> responsibility.
>
> My (AT/SSTA') theoretical and practical questions are:
> What AT/SSTA' methods exist to determine activity and behaviour?
> What data will we therefore need?
> .... because didactical activity is heuristic, strategic, semantic,
> and ??
>
> In terms of the descriptive part - where I am presently working on -
> is that I think we should determine the logical, algorithmic,
> heuristic (coming from teaching activity [prescriptive action]), and
> semantic. The very very small and head-breaking unit I am working now
> is to determine the logical and algorithmic activity/action of
> e-learning objects. But, it needs to be embedded into a higher picture
> - that's what SCT and AT is all about, isn't it?
>
> Hence, my struggle is:
> What AT methods can we deploy? Bedny talks about Systemic-structural
> approach, Morphological analysis, Functional analysis - but how?
> and what data do we need?
>
> So, what do you think, is a prescriptive educational system an
> external tool or an object?
> and what about a descriptive educational system? just a tool?
>
> Also, I had a quick look at what I could find on the web on Kuutti. It
> is quite interesting, his triangle differs greatly from SSTA.
>
> Have a good week-end to all of you!
> best regards,
>
> George
> (Hansjoerg von Brevern)
>
> -------------------------------------
>
> Research in e-Learning Objects, e-Learning meta data standards,
> didactical activity, Systemic-Structural Activity Theory, and
> Socio-cultural Theory
>
>