Task 10: Applying activity theory into practice.

Introduction

In 2008 Lorna Uden, Pedro Valderas and Oscar Pastor proposed a three-way approach (based various contributions) on how to apply activity theory to the analysis of Web application requirements (see source). This example of applying activity theory into practice is suitable for the task at hand (i.e. comparing PLENK2010 to the New Interactive Environments course and defining the activity systems for both).

The methodology consists of the following steps:

1. Clarify the purpose of the activity system

The purpose of this step is to understand the context within which activities occur and to reach a thorough understanding of the motivations for the activity being modelled and any interpretations of perceived contradictions.

2. Analyse the activity system and produce the activity system

This step involves defining, in depth, the components of the given activity, namely, the subject, object, community, rules and division of labour.

3. Analyse the activity structure

This step involves decomposing each activity into actions and operations.

The given methodology will be used while defining and comparing the activity systems of PLENK2010 and New Interactive Environments courses.


PLENK2010 activity system

1. Clarify the purpose of the activity system

The purpose of PLENK2010 (Personal Learning Environments Networks and Knowledge 2010) is to fascilitate a randomized, but highly personal collaborative learning experience online (a so-called connectivist course). This experience will not be received through a single place or an environment. Users will pick and work with preferred content.

2. Analyse the activity system and produce the activity system

3. Analyse the activity structure

A fellow student (Ilya Šmorgun) has produced a very neat comparison of the two activity systems. Since there's no specific need to reproduce this content, a link is provided instead: http://shmorgun.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Activity-System-Comparison.png


New Interactive Environments activity system

While analysing and constructing an activity system for the NIE course, some inherent conflicts were discovered. Activity systems for the two courses can be absolutely identical. But they can also be very different. What determines this vast variation?

For example, we can take a closer look at the objects of the aforementioned activity systems. The PLENK2010 course sets out to provide a very unique learning experience. A person is expected to choose what he/she reads and how he/she repurposes that content. If we break it down to keywords, we can define the PLENK2010 object as:

- user generated content
- personalized learning experience
- use of various tools

The NIE course activity system object may be defined identically. On the other hand, we can view an alternative level of detail and interpretation by Ilya and discover that the two activity systems are fairly different. But isn't a blog post the same as "user generated content"?

Comparison and conclusion

As it was pointed out earlier, there's more than one way to look at these activity systems. It's my personal opinion that activity theory cannot be applied into practice. Activity theory and related analysis is very dependent on the interpretation. How to choose the suitable level of detail? How to define an activity system objectivly? This topic seems to have too many loose ends and way too much context for one blog post to handle.

Task 9: Exploring activity theory as a framework for describing activity systems

To gain a better knowledge of activity theory and activity systems, several sources were studied:

1. Kuuti, K. (1995). Activity theory as a potential framework for human-computer interaction research. In. B. Nardi (Ed.), Context and Consciousness: Activity Theory and Human Computer Interaction. Cambridge: MIT Press.

2. Uden, L., Valderas, P. & Pastor, O. (2008). An activity-theory-based model to analyse Web application requirements. Information Research, 13(2).

3. http://www.learning-theories.com/activity-theory.html

4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Activity_theory

The first source (a journal article by Kuuti, K.) focuses on human-computer interaction (HCI) research. Activity theory is considered a potential framework for such studies. Kuuti merely provides an overview of the HCI related research and relevant criticism. He defines activity theory as:

"... a philosophical and cross-disciplinary framework for studying different forms of human practices as development processes, both individual and social levels interlinked at the same time."

Kuuti also defines the three key principles of activity theory:

- activities as basic units of analysis (minimal meaningful context for individual actions must be included in the basic unit of analysis)

- history and development (activities are not static or rigid unities but they and their elements are under continuous change and development)

- artifacts and mediation (an activity always contains various artifacts such as instruments, signs, procedures, machines, methods, laws, forms of work organization, etc.)

A visualization of the activity theory is provided as follows (courtesy of the internet):

Kuuti does not explain the essence of the activity theory very clearly, that's why an alternative visualization was provided (courtesy of the internet). The definition below the visualization makes things a lot clearer.

Since the goal was to explore activity theory as a framework for describing activity systems, we most certainly have to look into what Uden, L., Valderas, P. & Pastor, O had to say about it. Their journal article has a specific paragraph about "applying activity theory to the analysis of web application requirements." (More information available here: http://informationr.net/ir/13-2/paper340.html).

The best short summary regarding what the activity theory is about is located at this address: http://www.learning-theories.com/activity-theory.html

Task 8: From mass media to personal media

Marika Lüders has written an article titled "Conceptualizing personal media" (2008) in the New Media & Society magazine. She states that "the digitization and personal use of media technologies have destabilized the traditional dichotomization between mass communication and interpersonal communication, and therefore between mass media and personal media."

What she's trying to say is that "traditionally mass communication is comprehended in contrast with interpersonal communiation." Lüders states that "with the digitalization of media, in certain cases the same media technologies are used for both mass media and private individual purposes."

What does it mean, really? Nowadays the dynamics have changed quite a lot. Anyone with an internet connection can use various publishing platforms, share photos or befriend total strangers. The digitization and personal use of media technologies have empowered people. The new media discourse has had a serious impact on how people communicate with eachother.

It's not only that the same technologies are used for both mass media and private individual purposes, but the line between public and private has become increasingly thin. People have become more vulnerable than ever. People are sharing more information about their lives than ever.

The following video is a good example regarding how we hand out information without really thinking things through (thus creating privacy risks) and how these new technologies are used for interpersonal communication. Would anyone actually share this information with roughly 200+ people? Or is it just a habit we've become used to (since technology enables it)? And most importantly, is that how life's going to be from now on?

A Companion to Digital Humanities: Multimedia. A Critical Review

Introduction

"A Companion to Digital Humanities" offers a collection of articles (37 alltogether) about the field of humanities computing. One of those articles is written by Geoffrey Rockwell and Andrew Mactavish. It is titled "Multimedia" (A Companion to Digital Humanities, ed. Susan Schreibman, Ray Siemens, John Unsworth. Oxford: Blackwell, 2004. http://www.digitalhumanities.org/companion)

The following is a critical review regarding this article. A short introduction about the topic is provided by the authors:

"How do we think through the new types of media created for the computer? Many names have emerged to describe computer-based forms, such as digital media, new media, hypermedia, or multimedia. In this chapter we will start with multimedia, one possible name that captures one of the features of the emerging genre."

The article was produced in 2004, so we have to take into account that the contents may not be as conteporary as one might expect.

What is Multimedia?

Rockwell and Mactavish introduce two definitons of multimedia and propose a third one that "combines many of the features in the others with a focus on multimedia as a genre of communicative work:"

A multimedia work is a computer-based rhetorical artifact in which multiple media are integrated into an interactive whole.

The authors go on and use parts of the definition to analyze multimedia. These parts include:

- "computer based"

- "rhetorical artifact"

- "multiple media"

- "integrated whole"

- "interactive"

While being short and concrete, this definition needs to be updated and some critique is required. Today multimedia can be created and accessed by a number of devices including cellphones, MP3 players and tablets. The list is by no means final. Cellphones have 1 GHz processors and the word "computer" may refer to a variety of devices.

Also, "rhetorical artifact" is a very vague term to describe content. If we look at Facebook, it's certainly a multimedia gateway (sending, receiving and creating videos, photos and text using the Facebook platform). On the other hand, it's a collection of data and it has administrative capabilities regarding content.

The authors have excluded randomness from the definition of multimedia by stating that there's a creator and the intent for the work to be experienced as an artistic whole. Different platforms and technologies allow random content creation (user generated content) that is forwarded to the recipient in a feed form. The feed itself can combine various types of media and provide access to various types of media. By recording chat-roulette (www.chatroulette.com) sessions one may compile a totally random multimedia work. Examples can be found on the Youtube.

Types of Multimedia

The authors argue that "the challenge of multimedia to the humanities is thinking through the variety of multimedia artifacts and asking about the clusters of works that can be aggregated into types."

They propose the following list:

- Web hypermedia

- Computer games

- Digital art

- Multimedia encyclopedia

Such categorization is always dangerous. It's leaves little room for change and things do tend to change. Especially in the field of multimedia and everything interactive. Web hypermedia is a good primary category, but it's too general, today all the other categories might as well be parts of the first one. Rigid categorization is out of date, because information (regarding it's objective) is consumed and manipulated online.

History

The history section of this article requires little critique, it's accurate, but not very comprehensive. It's understood and probably related to length restrictions and the primary focus of the article.

Numbers and text, images, desktop publishing, authoring environments, sound, digital video and virtual space are discussed. Various categorizations may exist.

Main Academic Issues

Rockwell and Mactavish introduce few of the academic issues related to multimedia:

- Best practices in multimedia production.

- Game criticism and interactivity.

- Theories and histories of multimedia.

The list is by no means comprehensive. Many other issues exist, but Rockwell and Mactavish do not argue otherwise. All of the mentioned issues are still being studied today, but some new and interesting issues have emerged. For example, the use of multimedia in the field of education and learning.

Conclusion

The authors seem to think of multimedia as something static. They propose very rigid and concrete categories and forget to mention the dynamic essence of multimedia. It's an overview on the topic of multimedia, not a comprehensive analysis. The authors understand that and suggest links and materials for further reading. Even so, the article should have taken into account the possibility of change.

Task 7: In search for my own understanding of interactivity

We have been living the virtual revolution for the past 15+ years. Everything from how we interact with one-another to how we do business, or even how we learn, has changed. The WWW has become the most popular technology in the world. We shop online, we communicate online, we order food online, we pay our bills online, we work online, we watch movies online. There's not a lot of activities that lack online presence or interactivity for that matter. You can even have online sex. Or commit suicide while online. The humankind has become totally immersed.

Jensen quotes a Newsweek article from 1993 where the term interactivity was described as follows:

... a huge amount of information available to anyone at the touch of a button, everything from airline schedules to esoteric scientific journals to video versions of off-off-off Broadway. Watching a movie won’t be a passive experience. At various points, you’ll click on alternative story lines and create your individualized version of “Terminator XII”. Consumers will send as well as receive all kinds of data ... Video camera owners could record news they see and put it on the universal network ... Viewers could select whatever they wanted just by pushing a button ... Instead of playing rented tapes on their VCRs, ... [the customers] may be able to call up a movie from a library of thousands through a menu displayed on the TV. Game fanatics maybe able to do the same from another electronic library filled with realistic video versions of arcade shoot-’em-ups ... (Newsweek, 1993:38).

In 2008, Michael Wesch (an anthropologist), presented his speech titled "An anthropological introduction to Youtube" at the Library of Congress (US). This video is probably the best way to introduce how the things Jensen wrote about, have become a reality.

Kiousis came to a conclusion that there's no point in refining a single definition. He felt very strongly about combining various definitions of interactivity to form one that encompasses all the possible characteristics of the term at hand. He proposed a conceptual definiton:

Interactivity can be defined as the degree to which a communication technology can create a mediated environment in which participants can communicate (one-to-one, one-to-many, many-to-many), both synchronously and asynchronously, and participate in reciprocal message exchanges (third-order dependency). With regard to human users, it additionally refers to their ability to perceive the experience as a simulation of interpersonal communication and increase the awareness of telepresence.

I agree that this may, in fact, be the best academic approach so far. But I would take this approach even further. Since interactivity (the term and the consequent reality) is in a constant state of flux, we cannot escape the need of redefining everything after a short while. Be it a new technology, a new platform for interaction or a change in legislation.

From a scientific perspective, one must always seek to narrow down the focus of any problem at hand. So, it's imperative that we discuss the term interactivity in relation to specific categories. But how would one define or list these categories? My guess is that interactivity should not be perceived as something that is limited by anything.

In 2010, Mark Zuckerberg stated that they "are building a web where the default is social" (read more about it here: http://techcrunch.com/2010/04/21/zuckerbergs-buildin-web-default-social/). What it means, is more interactivity. Everywere.

Let's analyze the status quo (e.g. my current level of interactivity):

- Skype

- Gmail & Google Talk

- Blogger

- Facebook

- TechCrunch

These are the webpages/applications currently active in my laptop (on a quiet evening). On any given day that list would be a bit longer. One might find open sessions of MSN Messenger, Mashable, NY Times, WSJ, HBR, eBay, Youtube and many more sites/apps/forums on my computer screen.

So, there you have it, every type of interaction from an asynchronous Youtube video playback and online commentaries to instant messaging and real time video/voice chat. We have it all and we don't even notice it anymore.

I would argue that the main concept of interactivity has remained unchanged, but it's application has become more diverse.