Õpiobjektide koostamise ja levitamise vahendid

Kolmanda nädala ülesanne: Õppematerjalide loomisega seotud keskkonnad, tarkvara ja lugemine.

Tutvusin põgusalt kõigi lugemismaterjalidega ja valisin Wiley artikli lähemaks uurimiseks. Sealt leidsin kompaktse ja selge definitsiooni, mis on õpiobjekt. Definitsioon Wiley (2000) artiklist:  ”Igasugune õppimist toetav taaskasutatav digitaalne ressurss.” Õpiobjektidega seotud peamised probleemid õpidisaini kontekstis on valmis õpiobjektide kombineerimine – sisu ja järjestus – ning õpiobjektide mõistliku suuruse küsimus – kompromissi leidmine taaskasutuse lihtsuse ning katalogiseerimise kulutuste vahel.

Ma leidsin olevat küllaltki kasuliku ja minu jaoks selgitavana Wiley metafooriarenduse, kus ta kirjeldab senist Lego klotside põhimõtet ning põhjendab selle edasiarenduse vajalikkust. Ta toob õpiobjektide valdkonnas tavapärase Lego metafoori asemel välja uue ja sobilikuma metafoori – “aatom.” Selle põhjal loetleb ta kolm olulist punkti, mis kirjeldavad õpiobjektide omadusi kriitilisemalt võrreldes Lego klotsidega: * Iga aatomit ei saa kombineerida iga teise aaatomiga. * Sõltuvalt aatomi sisestruktuurist, saab teda teistega siduda vaid teatud struktuurina/järjestuses. * On vajalik teatav treenitus/oskus-teave, et siduda erinevaid aatomeid. (Wiley, D. A. 2000)

Mul puudub eelnev praktiline kogemus õppematerjalide loomiseks mõeldud tarkvaraga. Õige vähe olen vaadanud eXeLearningut ning otsustasin seda lähemalt uurida. Esiteks vaatasin mida kursusekaaslased olid oma blogides exeLearningu kohta kirjutanud ning mida sellega valmistanud. Nii sain kiire ülevaate pakutavatest võimalustest. Edasi laadisin tarkvara omale arvutisse ja mängisin sellega. Proovisin läbi erinevad materjaliesituse, ülesannete ning enesekontrolli meetodid ja vahendid. Mulle tundub see üpris lihtne ja kergesti omandatav, piisavate võimalustega esitamaks erinevat tüüpi materjale ja kontrollimaks teadmisi erinevaid küsimuse tüüpe kasutades. Miinustena nõustun kogenuma kursusekaaslase Ingridi arvamusega, et muudatuste tegemiseks on see vahend kohmakas ja veebipõhised alternatiivid võivad kasulikumaks osutuda. Oma katsetusi ma eksponeerida ei soovi, kuna seostatud materjali polnud omastkäest võtta.

Repositooriumeid pole otseselt mingi konkreetse materjali otsinguks kasutanud. Küll olen uurinud varem MIT OCW, et juhuslikult midagi huvipakkuvat leida. Ma eelistan audio või video loenguid, et neid siis vabal hetkel kuulata ja silmaringi või konkreetseid teadmisi suurendada. Selleks olen kasutanud erinevaid lehti, mis koondavad ülikoolide videoloenguid. Koolielu olen uurinud, kuna see mulle võõras oli, aga paljude koolikaaslaste jaoks midagi igapäevast. Huvitav oli vaadata, mis materjale seal leidub ja kuidas neid koolides tehakse. Siinjuures meenub eelmisel semestril Tallinna Ülikoolis kuuldud üllatavad mõtteavaldused. Loengut andnud õppejõud unistas valjuhäälselt sellest, et õpetajad võiksid teistega jagada enda loodud materjale ja nii “oleks maailm ilusam koht,” kus jagaksime ja edendaksime loovust. “Miks küll ei võiks nii olla?” Kursusekaaslased noogutasid nõustumise märgiks ja mina sain olla kõikidele valgustajaks, et selliseid võimalusi on mitmeid, õpetajad teevadki seda ja kõige tipuks on meie oma koolis vastav keskus, mis tegeleb koolidele nende vahendite ja võimaluste loomisega. Ehk see teadmine levib ja suurema teadlikkuse läbi muutuvad ka repositooriumid veel huvitavamateks.

 

Viited:

Wiley, D. A. (2000). Connecting learning objects to instructional design theory: A definition, a metaphor, and a taxonomy. In D. A. Wiley (Ed.), The Instructional Use of Learning Objects: Online Version. Retrieved from http://reusability.org/read/chapters/wiley.doc

Õpileping iseendaga – Digitaalsed õppematerjalid

Esimese nädala ülesande postitus: Kevad 2011 semestri õpileping aine Digitaalsete õppematerjalide koostamine sooritamiseks.

Teema – Digitaalsete õppematerjalide koostamine, selleks vajalike teadmiste ja oskuste omandamine: tehnoloogiad ja vahendid, autoriõigused ja viitamine, sisupaketid ja õpiobjektid ning nende metaandmetega kirjeldamine, multimeedial põhinevate testide koostamine.

Eesmärgid -

• Vähemalt ühe vahendiga täpsem tutvumine, et võiks öelda, et sellega oskan luua standardile ja nõuetele vastavat õppematerjali.

• Autoriõiguste ja viitamise selgeks saamine õppematerjalidega seotud küsimustes.

• Edukas ja hästikorraldatud grupitöö, mille tulemusel valmib esitletav “ühte õppematerjalide loomise vahendit tutvustav õppematerjal.”

• Siduda õpitav eelmise semestri sama valdkonna ainetes omandatuga – õpikeskkonnad ja -võrgustikud, õpidisain ja IT arendamisega seonduvad juriidilised probleemid.

• Õigeaegselt sisukate postituste kirjutamine.

• Aktiivne osalemine võrgustikus, kommenteerimine.

Strateegiad – Ajaplaneerimine – pean järge oma eesolevate ja tehtud tööde tähtaegades enda “semestriplaani” dokumendis ning planeerin hästi aega, et lugemiste, katsetamiste ja kirjutamistega õigeaegselt valmis saada. Planeerin lisaaega, et iseseisvalt (klassitunnis osalemata) teostada praktikumi tööd. Järjepidev töö – kõikide teemade järjestikune omandamine kursusematerjalide, kaaslaste blogide ja arutelu kaudu.

Vahendid/ressursid – Kasutan ülikoolide ligipääsu teadusartiklitele. Valin neid kohustusliku/soovitusliku kirjanduse loetelust. Jälgin kursusekaaaslaste blogisid ja kommentaare. Aeg.

Hindamine – Hinnang on positiivne, kui:

• Olen aine lõpuks esitanud kõik nõutud tööd heal tasemel ja väljendanud nendes oma uusi teadmisi ning kogemusi.

• Tunnen, et pühendusin vajalikul määral.

• Grupitöö on olnud edukas ja tulemus esitletav heal tasemel.

Mina olen… üks semester hiljem.

Tere uutele õpikaaslastele ja teistele, kes miskipärast siia sattunud. Minu nimi on Maarja ja ma olen IMKE teise aasta magistri tudeng ning see minu eelmise semestri algusega võrreldes värskendatud enesetutvustus.

Minu peamine suund õpingutes on olnud kasutajaliideste disainiküsimused ja sellega seonduva uurimine. Täpsemalt, mind huvitab kasutajakogemus (mitte pelgalt kasutatavus) interaktiivsetes keskkondades ja erinevate digitaalsete rakendustega suhtlemisel. Hetkel tegelengi sellealase kirjanduse sees tuhnimisega, et täpsustada oma magistritöö teemat.

Tudengielu kõrval naudin erinevaid kunsti loomise protsesse – maalimist, visandamist, joonistamist, graafikat, kõikvõimalikele pindadele omaloomingulise jälje jätmist. Minu seniseid töid võib näha veebialbumis, millest püüan ajajooksul oma kodulehte arendada. Viimasega tegin natukene algust, et esitleda mõningaid generatiivse kunsti töid eelmisel semestril vastavas aines.

Siin on minu pilt, kuid klassiruumis me ei kohtu, vähemasti mitte enne mai kuud, kuna seni elan Prantsusmaal Rennes ja püüan siit aktiivne online kursusekaaslane olla. Edukat ja aktiivset osalemist!

Flashback Autumn 2010

The last semester – autumn 2010 – was again a new kind experience as I decided to concentrate even more than before on building my personal study plan. Structuring the process was strongly supported by several courses which gave tasks to describe the process, to visualise the process, to evaluate the process.. of planning my studies. Now at the beginning of the next semester, I will look back and summarise the semester..

First, I chose all I found interesting, suitable and doable under my conditions from IMKE curriculum, then I chose courses according to the same criteria from Educational Technology curriculum and finally I searched the TLU course catalog to find any other interesting courses to fill in some gaps in the schedule. All together I chose 9 courses + 1 to visit just for listening during September and October.

The results:

* Satisfied with the collection of the courses – various and new fields.

* Suitable time table –  all courses that needed personal presence were at the beginning of the semester enabling me live abroad from November.

* Good planning and setting goals + personal deadlines enabled concentration on every course.

* Excellent grades with no exceptions :)

To summarise – I can highly recommend concentrating well on the process of selection, time management and planning as well as getting to know the proposed literature for the course and the background of the lecturer. Another important activity is to prioritise between the courses – on which to pay most attention and which mey be taken more loosly. And this semester I got acquinted to writing a learning contract with myself to plan a course (or the whole semester) which I migth use in the future.

Next step: Planning the beginning semester as well as the graduation and Master Thesis.. :)

Update to beginning semester shows that all courses I was planning to take assume quite a big percent of participating in person.. So, no courses this semester. I shall concentrate my thoughts on the thesis and also two web sites I have started building – my personal site and the site for a small company Koduköök producing bakery and culinary products.

Third Task – Connections between the concepts and projects

There were many many interesting generative art and literature projects – either visually, in their buildup or in the meaning - I browsed. Following two of them are chosen for some description and making connections to the theories and concepts studied earlier in our course.

Examples

“Poems in the Middle of the Road :: Streamflow Conditions” - Poems in the Middle of the Road by Rui Torres for Streamflow Conditions curated by Judd Morrissey for Subito Press. Poems of the readers posted via Twitter and WordPres.

The contents of the project are generated poems.

The visual of the project is a space which could be described as the ground and sky composed of text coming together at the horizon. There are some flying lines of text – the poems – in the middle and the user can change the viewpoint to the space. As far as I can understand there is one line that can be manipulated by clicking on the words which generates a new word on its place. When changing one word repeatedly, you get a total change of the sentence every time and when start changing another one in the sentence, the perspective and meaning have total change while you earlier just focused on one word. The user may also insert the generated poem to WordPress.

It is enjoyable play with sentences and meanings offering the user aesthetic pleasure via play of meaning and thoughts awaken by the variety of sentence constructions. One thing bothering me with this project is that I would like to read the other lines flying around but they change too fast to enable that.

There is another aspect to the project – an area that could be clicked on to change the main color. It works like the timemachine transporting the user from daylight to the evening or from ice glacier to the desert. In those two different zones different lines are offered for manipulation. As I understand it, the flying lines that one can not change are the ones posted earlier by other users. So the more users use the project and post, the more lines should be flying around.

Based on my readings – it is a work of generative poetry, but it is not generated just like that from a code. It is also interactive as it needs a user to manipulate the pre-programmed space to see some change – the line with certain words and a collection (database) of words behind it. It is therefore a cooperation between the artist who composed the “data collection” with the visual and rules for the system and the user who manipulates it and makes a decision to publish the outcome or not.

The play with words under some systematical control (in this case – which words can appear and which spots can be manipultaed) is seen as the art of language (Block and Torres, 2007). But it is also a way of visualising and giving linguistic shape to some code and technology. From another angle, theproject may also be interpreted as a collage while the substituted words come out of the context to a new place and in this respect present the “cut and paste” method used with collages.

 

“Love is patient” – 20 photographs by Kelly Castro are visualised through coding by Santiago Ortiz.

The collage project is based on Voronoi algorithm. As a result polygons are created from a list of points on the plane. Each polygon is defined by the set of points that are closer to a point in the list, the borderlines of polygon are situated at even distance from the points of both polygon. Each point is associated to a photo which is revealed more as the polygon gets larger while the point is situated further from other points. The movement is autonomous defined by a constant speed and an iterative random variation of direction. There is also the opportunity to lead the points manually – this is a nice possibility to discover the work personally.

The work is a piece of generative art. My understanding is based on the definition and explainations by Galanter (2008) – the control is ceded to a system (a computer-program working according to the algotithm) and results in a completed work of art. The work uses randomisation in composition, it changes in time based on the code written. In addition it is consisted of traditional works of art – the professional photographs.

Project “Love is Patient” is a collage technique – as described in Feuersteins’ article (1998), the collage takes pieces and places them into another context. In this project, portraits that in real life need to have all components in their real size and shape at right places to represent the person on it are now mixed up. Unexpected combinations of 20 different portraits are generated in time.

There is a continuos movement of the polycons, points and therefore the pieces we may see next to each other. In this respect the work is a continuum whereby we may not see a result in units, no stop scenes. It reminds the term “superintegration” from the above-mentioned article – the idea, the photos, the process, the code, the navigational opportunities, the choices left for the user or viewer, the time, the speed, the people on the portraits, new combinations of portraits and surely some more aspects we may think of.

Conclusion

I have bowsed through many interesting works, some better understood than others. Two projects – one of generative literature/poetry and other of generative art – were thought of and discussed in more detail. I have enjoyed the process. When concentraiting more deeply into the idea, technology and outcome (also experience it offers) one may discover so much more from the work than at the first or second glimpse. I always notice the visual effect firts, then think of the reason one may produse such a work, following I try to realize the system behind the production and then go on playing with it to enjoy the variety of versions generated either by reseting the project (in case of many works by Jared Tarbell’s works), manipulating it (in case of the two examples discussed above) or just creating something on my own (as I thought when playing with Jacson Pollocks’ painting style application).

As the task was to apply the readings, concepts and theory to the projects listed under resources, I did that and tried my best to express it in this post. I found it higly valuable as in any other topic or course – learn the theory, see the examples and make connections/try to explain. Reading over the articles and finding some possible explainations for the projects was a good way to understand better the subject field. In addition, it gave a better understanding for the project to be done during this course and some possible source code/technique/software to start with.

 

References:

Galanter, P., 2008. What is Complexism? Generative Art and the Cultures of Science and the Humanities. In GA2008, 11th Generative Art Conference, 151-167

Feuerstein, Penny L., 1998. Collage, Technology, and Creative Process. In Generative Art ‘98, 178-188

Block, F. and Torres, R., 2007. Poetic Transformations in(to) the Digital. In e-Poetry 2007. Paris

Task 14 – Finale!

The fourteenth task – What is it you are going to take with you from this course, be it negative or positive experience, content-related or organisational aspects and so on? Write down your experiences, observations, reflections on your Weblog.

I learned in detail the discussions and different views on the concept of “interactivity”, the changes occurred in the field of mass media (turning towards personal media), the theory and application of “activity theory”, possible components of an interactive environment (based on two learning networks) and their classification.

I like reading about the theoretical background and discussions of the terms, understanding the concepts and various viewpoints. This was also what we mainly had to do during the course. I agree that is basis of understanding the “real systems and environments.” I feel that we just reached almost there in our last assignments and based on the course program we had been given, I expected we would learn about, use and analyse more networks.

The most useful and interesting were the few practical tasks thinking about an activity, visualising or systemising it and in the end re-instrumentalising a non-computer activity to using the means of computer technology. It would have been great if there were more tasks like that about various environments.

Organisationally I find having a plan in before hand about the course outline (which is a must in our university, but did not occur here) to be a great asset to a learning situation. It is much more beneficial (for me personally) to gain some knowledge and abilities if I get to see the structure of the process before starting with it. I suppose it has become a must at university also because it has proved to be a precondition of successful learning.

Nevertheless, I appreciate dynamics and unexpected situations to learn to cope with them, just I did not find a course where we need to learn about some certain (more or less) phenomen to be the right place for that. It would be great if Sebastien could explain the connection now, while I remember from our first (or second) flash meeting him saying that we will see in the end what he had in mind and how having no understanding of the course outline helps us better understand the “interactive environments”. Having said that, I feel like I should try to figure it out myself.. :)

All in all, I put much effort to it and think I did good on the course. It was nice having the first personal feedback and also Terjes’ (at least posted by Terje, if Sebastien also contributed) summarised reflections on other posts. It would be nice to attend a following course getting into what the course program said about the more practical side. (“Learning outcomes: Have an overview of the user interaction over TV, mobile phones, GPS,wireless technology and interactive advertising. – Be aware of the limits and possibilities of interoperability within and across various media channels. – Ability to evaluate global chains of production processes, with multi-channel content delivery and interaction possibilities.” )

 

.

Task 13 – Redesigning and re-instrumentalising activities

The thirteenth task – Describe your activity and explain how would you redesign it, re-instrumentalise it and re-organised it to be more efficient, enjoyable, etc.

Thinking over several possibilities I decided to discuss the opportunities and ways of redesigning and instrumentalising arts. To be more specific and be able to base on my experience painting, visual effects and reworking existing (master)pieces will be covered. First I will describe some academic, non-digital methods and go to re-instrumentalising afterwards.

I started following some academic drawing lessons in the middle of 90′s. The basics of drawing is given by drawing and modelling simple geometric shapes – cube, silinder, cone, sphere. A shape must be depicted constructing various surfaces from stripes, no bordering lines should be seen. The technique is demanding and takes a lot of time to succeed but will be the base of all more complex objects later on. I followed the course throughout four years, 3,5 h weekly.

The same goes for painting. Given the technique used – aquarelles, oil paint etc. – one must work hard to reach the desired result. Or some other methods used for schooling. For example producing some nets of systemised stripes following some rules, you never know how it will look like in the end. To give a better description, it looks like for example Jared Tarbell has generated using ActionScript.

Another method used for academic learning at art school was taking a reproduction of a painting, deviding the surface into equal squares and then producing a new work consisting of the same squares that are now mono-colored according to the value they seem to have as average. What could be called in the computer technology? I would say “pixelation”.

All the above-mentioned techniques have their versions in technological world. Lev Manovich described in his “The Language of New Media,” his thoughts seeing a computer display 3D models of sphere, cylinder or a cube in perspective just in seconds (in 1985). He had learned to draw those in detail as described above years ago. Today we all know what the software is capable of doing and generating. When I started to discover all that, I felt some warm recognition of the techniques thinking “I know how to acieve that manually!”

I have tried out painting, sketching, 3D modeling, pixelating using the software targeted at those activities and I have enjoyed the process. It is a personal preference not to go totally over to digital methods of the activities I love – it is so true that once you get used to oil colours and the smell of white spirit, you can not exchange it to clean and shiny computer but you can definitely use it as a part of the process.

That is what I have found as a good compromise of using both technology (saving time) and traditional techniques of activity. I prepare my thougths and ideas in computer, use photo manipulation, editing sketches etc. then take place in front of the easel and canvas and work the idea out with real paint, brushes and enjoy the fragrance of the scene.

Task 12 – Tool or medium?

The twelwth task – discussion of information technology being a tool or a medium. The post is based on Rückriem’s (Rückriem, G., 2003) discussion.

New technologies have emerged through the times, Rückriem asks if we should characterize the importance of computer technology as “a tool” or “a medium”?

Computer as a machine is a tool like many other technologies. But in its real affect it is much more than just changing some activity, it revolutionises the structure of societal activity and globalises its reach. With such influence a thing can not just be named a “tool.” Constructing also semantic systems and world views it should be indicated to with the concept of “medium.” (Rückriem, G., 2003)

“Tool” is the main concept in activity theory and means something real the subject uses to reach the object. “Medium” on the other hand is a concept of media theory, whereby subject relates to object through mediators. (Rückriem, G., 2003)

For activity theory one must read it from the point of view of system theory, to be able to fulfill the methodological potentiality of the change of view – to see the computer technology either as a tool or a medium. (Rückriem, G., 2003)

To me. It is a tool when we speak of using it as a physical thing or a piece of software in it to fulfill a task or an activity. It is a medium when we speak of mediating an idea or a piece of information through using some program or application for it. I would say it is both tool and medium during the same process but from different perspectives.

References:

Rückriem, G. (2003). Tool or medium? The meaning of information and telecommunication technology to human practice. A quest for systemic understanding of activity theory.

Kokkuvõte – Refleksioon

Viimaseks ülesandeks aine Õpikeskkonnad ja Õpivõrgustikud raames on refleksioon õpitule ja protsessile, aluseks saab võtta kursuse alguses koostatud õpilepingu iseendaga. Seejuures tuleks vastata mõnedele püstitatud küsimustele.

Kas eesmärgid said täidetud? Minu sõnastatud eesmärgid:

“Kujundada arusaam ja oskused, kuidas võtta (või anda) maksimum (kasutada olemasolevat maksimaalse efektiivsusega) õpikeskkondadest ja -võrgustikest neid kasutades või luues. Selle eesmärgi täitmine parandab minu teadmisi ja oskusi nii kasutajana kui ka nende vahendite võimaliku tulevase loojana.”

Kõige õigem oleks öelda, et ma sain tunduvalt targemaks küsimustes, mis on õpikeskkond, õpivõrgustik, virtuaalne, reaalne, avatud, suletud ning mis on ühe või teise eelised ja puudused. Kuigi ma esialgu arvasin, et puutun siin aines kokku konkreetsete keskkondadega (Moodle, Elgg..), siis see osakaal oli tunduvalt väiksem kui teoreetilise aluse  ja ühe või teise keskkonna/võrgustiku eesmärkide selgitamine.

Ja tagantjärele olen selle tulemusega väga rahul, kuna olemasolevate kogemuste põhjal (näiteks Moodle või iCampuse kasutamine) sai õpitud teoreetiliste aluste, mõtiskluste ja arutelude kaudu vajalikud arusaamad kujundatud. Viimastest on ka kahtlemata abi nii kasutaja, looja kui sobiliku vahendi valijana.

Mis töötas ja mis mitte? Materjalide lugemine, nende põhjal enda arvamuse kirjutamine ja selgitamine on nö standard lahendus meie õppes. Siin püüdsin olla ka aktiivsem kommenteerija, et blogides tekiks arutelu. See õnnestus paremini kursuse alguses ja oli sel ajal väga kasulik, sest mitmetel osalejatel oli väga huvitavaid reaalseid kogemusi, mis täiendasid meeldivalt teadmisi sellest, kuidas mingi meetodi kasutamine koolis mõjunud on.

Väga positiivsed olid paar isiklikumat ja praktilisemat ülesannet – enda e-portfoolio ja õpikeskkonna ning -võrgustiku kujutamine. Nendega võiks vähemal-rohkemal määral ka edasi tegeleda, kuid kursusel tehtud algus andis palju mõtteid. Need on kasuks nii iseenda ümbruse märkamisel ja kaardistamisel kui ka õpitud teooria rakendamisel.

Minu tugevused ja nõrkused. Pean ajaplaneerimist ülioluliseks, kuna selleta ei suuda teostada plaane ja täita eesmärke sellisel viisil nagu mulle enim meeldiks. Selle semestri jooksul olen seda oskust kahtlemata edasi arendanud, kuid avastanud ka nõrkusi. Peamiselt on need küll seotud teiste inimeste poolse tegevusega, mida ei osanud ette näha. Näiteks oli korraga käimas kolm grupitööd, kus kõik teised inimesed käivad tööl ning tegelevad kooli asjadega kas viimasel minutil või lihtsalt minu uneajal. Seega kui olin planeerinud midagi iseseisvatest asjadest viimasel hetkel teha, siis sattus korduvalt nii, et ka kolme grupitöö inimesed ärkasid sel hetkel ja tahtsid tööle asuda. Kui seda püüda lahendada, peaks ilmselt endale pidevalt varuaega jätma, aga see on kahtlemata minu nõrk külg.

Kuhu edasi? Esiteks loodan, et leian ja osalen lähemas tulevikus mõnel Plenk laadi kursusel või siis võrgustikus. Teiseks, tekitas uudishimu edasi uurida teema avatud keskkondadest ja sellest, kuidas väga põnevalt mõnd kursust kokku panna kasutades olemasolevaid vahendeid, näiteks ka meie grupitöö idee edasiarendamine. Kolmandaks, hoian silma peal kevadsemestri kursustel, mis võiksid huvitavat täiendust senisele pakkuda. Neljandaks, püüan kasutada tulevaste ainete ja tegevuste puhul midagi õpilepingu taolist, kuna selle jälgimine on hea, pidepunkt ja ka tagasivaateks ning enesearengu suunamiseks.

Kokkuvõtteks, suur tänu juhendajatele ja teistele osalejatele huvitavate mõtete eest, edu järgmistes tegevustes ning loomulikult mõnusat lumist Jõuluaega!

Task 11 – Components of Interactive Environments

The eleventh task – comparing the components listed as parts of interactive environments by us some while ago to the components of activity system.

Our list of components is quite long but as it is unstructured it is difficult to evaluate if allais covered. We have listed some main categories like for example tools, but also mentioned specific tools themselves. So we have said that there is a component “roles” as well as a component “project manager.” So to analyse the coverage the list needs to be organized first. I will do it according to activity system as this was also part of the task.

If we say that activity theory and its main components – suject, object, community, rules, tools and division of labour – are the necessary components for describing interactive systems then I would say we have really covered almost all of them. Word-by-word we have listed Tools (and model, resource, evaluation criteria, plan, software which could be listed as tools) and Rules (and restrictions, quality which could also be a rule), we have other components mentioned under deifferent wording:  Aim or goal as the Object (and Result as the Outcome); Participants and actors as the Community; Roles as the Division of Labour (and more detailed for example project manager as one role, someone has thought it could be a tool, I prefer a role).

We have also mentioned tasks and activities as smaller units of an activity, which is a main point made by activity theory. Learnability was spoken of in the context of dividing an activity into smaller units makes it (better) learnable.

What I could not specify under our contribution was the Subject. I would say we were missing that.

But we listed many other things we said to be components. I would say most of them are relevant, some of them can be categorized under the activity system structure, so they are relevant components of some system (but not suitable for a framework). There were some components listed that could be depending on the specific system categorized as either rules or tools (the timeframe for example);

 

To shorten the list, I would give out the following:

Aim or Goal (the reason to act)

Task or action (smaller units to reach the goal)

Process (of tasks, the sequence of actions on the way)

Participants (all connected actors connected to the activity in the environment)

Roles (of participants and division of their responsibilities)

Timeframe (or the period of existence of the system or environment)

Tools (as all means used to act out, methodology, schedule..)

Rules (and restrictions)

And there should be something for Subject added.

 

I would add another measure to activity system framework that would cover other characteristics, because I guess there always exists some other components that are not well categorised under any of its current sections. For example I could not specify where to put the timeframe and some other connected values like if it has a start and end in time or only in fulfilling the goal. Quality is also something I could not fit in, guality criteria can be a rule, but the quality of the system over its “lifetime” could be of importance but does not fit into the activity system structure.