Week 3b AM and PM Metaphors – my thoughts

Having read about the Acquisition and Participation Metaphors and the Activity Theory I've got the following thoughts and key points
Sfard does not claim that AM and PM are muturally exclusive, in fact, PM rarely exists without some AM first. A combincation of AM and PM bring to forward the advantages of both and pushes back the limitations of each.
There should be more metaphors such as the knowledge-creation metaphor and to crudely categorise things as simply AM or PM was unsatisfactory.
Activity Theory - in elearning control is lost by the teacher to the student. In face to face practice teachers have control over their excellence in teaching. The outcome of the activity system is a change in the learner. In elearning technology the excellence in teaching is limited by the software, which is limited by the norms, skills, etc of the developers. The content developers become involved and have further norms and rules to follow.
However, this does not concur with the findings of Bayne where she found that students felt a lack of control and teachers felt more control over the learners from the perspective of cyber identities.
Activity Theory hlps us to understand how in elearning the activity control is lost by the teacher to the student. In face to face practice teachers have control over their excellence in teaching. The outcome of the activity system is a change in the learner. In elearning technology the excellence in teaching is limited by the software, which is limited by the norms, skills, etc of the developers. The content developers become involved and have further norms and rules to follow.
The author doesn't mention the influence of the students. I feel that in discussion forums a lot of the control over how stable the objective remains is down to the students and the route that their discussion take. In H808 discussions were given more freedom and time to develop and explore different avenues, so far on H800 this has been difficult due to the overloaded nature of the activities. There is no time for deep learning.
Comparing the metaphors to my own learning experiences (from wk 1)a) do all of my examples of learning refer to learning in terms of either acquisition or participation? Learning how to use captivate was acquisition because I just read the instructions, but it was participation in terms of action as in order to establish the learning I had to practice it. Most have a combination of both AM and PM. Surely, how can you learn through PM if you don't have the knowledge acquisition either before or during the Participatory period.
b) Any instances that do not fit into either AM or PM?No.
c) Is your learning process more oriented to you as an individual or to you within a social context? Social. I prefer to learn from doing, sharing and discussing than from reading/listening. It helps to reinforce my learning. Even blogging to me is PM, I'm participating with myself because I don't have a class to "talk" to about what we're learning. I've always learnt more from vocalising what I'm learning, eg explaining to others or simply discussing or sharing information.
Emma Nugent : Yesterday 15:07 Tags: Acquisition Activity Theory Bayne Metaphors My Thoughts Participation Sfard Week 3 Comments (0) Close comments Edit Write follow-up Report a problem
Please wait - comments are loading

Week 3b – further thoughts in the Activity Theory and AM and PM
I was having trouble grasping the concepts in the Sfard Articile and the Activity Theory that was introduced in the course notes and in preparation for the online tutorial we have tonight I've done some further research to try and develop my understanding better.
Articles found
James, M and Brown, S(2005)'Grasping the TLRP nettle: preliminary analysis and some enduring issues surrounding the improvement of learning outcomes',Curriculum Journal,16:1,7 — 30 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0958517042000336782
and
Robertson, I. (2007) "E-Learning Practices: Exploring the Potential of Pedagogic Space, Activity Theory and the Pedagogic Device," Learning and Socio-cultural Theory: Exploring Modern Vygotskian Perspectives International Workshop 2007: Vol. 1: Iss. 1, Article 5. Available at: http://ro.uow.edu.au/llrg/vol1/iss1/5
J&B state that it's important to think in terms of relationships between teaching input and learning output.
They state how metaphors are used in how people theorize about learning and learning processes. They explain Sfard's Acquisition and Participation metaphors more. Learning as acquisition is the dominant view. The PM is a "linguistic turn" where the dynamic activity of doing gives way to the static concept of having. Sfard suggests that "the learner should be viewed as a person interested in participation in activities" as opposed to just collecting possessions of knowledge.
Learning activities are "embedded in contexts" so learning is about "situatedness, cultural embeddedness and social mediation". The emphasis of PM is on discussion, activity, interaction and being part of a community.
In J&B's research, the AM was more prevalent that the PM metaphor, in most cases there were dual approaches and in only 1 was there PM only.
J&B suggest that there should be more metaphors such as the knowledge-creation metaphor and to crudely categorise things as simply AM or PM was unsatisfactory. The theoreiical perspectives that fitted into the AM were extremely varied - constructivist as well as social-constructivist views.
Part of Robertson's article looked at the Activity Theory in relation to elearning and compared how it can be used for F2F and e-teaching.
It has helped me to understand the Activity Theory (AT) better. "Activity is seen as dynamic, contextually bound and the based unit of analysis. Activities are distinguished from one another by the tangible or intangible objects achieved. If the object changes then so does the activity." Tools... mediate between the subject and object... such as physical tools, language and symbols which are created or transformed in the course of the activity" The tools and other factors in the AT are both enabling and limited.
Em's Comment: So we can use the AT to look at what parts of the learning process we need to do an assessment of when reviewing or writing elearning activities.
2nd generation Activity Theory diagram showing the different elements. This shows the theory at a collective level, rules may be explicit or implicit; division of labour refers to the explicit and implicit organisation of the community. Third generation Activity Theory brings in the concept of boundaries and where two of more activity systems come into contact there may be tensions.
In f2f teaching the teacher is mostly responsible for the development and delievery of the teaching programme and it is adapted to some extent based on the responses of the learners behaviours and is adapted by the teacher. The teaching is influenced by the text books used and the cultural norms of the institution and the discipline they work in.
F2F annotated AT diagram

In elearning activities control is shared by many groups involved in design and delivery of the teaching. The norms and behaviours of the software developers is influential and that of content developers. The division of labour in elearning activities is divided between many people. Here is the diagram annotated with the elearning activity.
Based on the elements of generation two Activity Theory Mwanza and Engestrom (2003) describe an eight step model to guide researchers using Activity Theory.
1. Activity: What sort of activity am I interested in?2. Object(ive): Why is the activity taking place?3. Subjects: Who is involved in carrying out the activity?4. Tools: By what means are the subjects performing the activity?5. Rules and regulations: Are there any cultural norms, rules or regulations governing the performance of the activity?6. Division of labour: Who are responsible for what, when carrying out activity and how are those roles organised?7. Community: What is the environment in which this activity is being carried out?8. Outcomes: What is the desired outcome from carrying out this activity? (Mwanza & Engestrom, 2003)
The author helps us to understand how in elearning the activity control is lost by the teacher to the student. In face to face practice teachers have control over their excellence in teaching. The outcome of the activity system is a change in the learner. In elearning technology the excellence in teaching is limited by the software, which is limited by the norms, skills, etc of the developers. The content developers become involved and have further norms and rules to follow.
Em's Comment: the author doesn't mention the influence of the students. I feel that in discussion forums a lot of the control over how stable the objective remains is down to the students and the route that their discussion take. In H808 discussions were given more freedom and time to develop and explore different avenues, so far on H800 this has been difficult due to the overloaded nature of the activities. There is no time for deep learning.