Re: [Fle3-users] Theoretical framework

[David Le Blanc]

Teemu,

 

Thank you so much for this wonderful feedback and discussion on the theoretical framework for Fle3. You had mentioned that Fle3 aligned well with Activity Theory.  In fact, when I first looked at Fle3 I was convinced that it was directly built upon the theoretical framework of Activity Theory. I will now have a closer look at Hakkarainen’s theories of Progressive Inquiry. I am unfamiliar with this area. Thanks for the great links.

 

In my online Java programming course where I am using Fle3, I find the Fle3 tools support a somewhat operationalised version of Activity Theory. The Knowledge Building tools, like most other threaded discussions are an opportunity for learners to negotiate meanings and display representations of their thinking. The WebTop and its ability to create links to various section of the course is yet another area to make public, or share the learner’s knowledge representations. The Jamming sessions permit learners to collaboratively create artifacts that are visible to all, can be annotated and can be expanded upon (Zone of Proximal Development).

 

I have been so impressed with Fle3 that I’ve convinced two faculty members to try it out in some of their graduate courses at Simon Fraser University next semester, where I am a Ph.D. student. In one of those courses, I will be helping to design and develop some of the instructional strategies using Fle3 and the supporting theoretical framework of Activity Theory.

 

You had mentioned that you were looking for appropriate journals to publish your article about using Fle3 to change the educational practice. You might consider “Mind, Culture and Activity”. Here’s a link: http://lchc.ucsd.edu/MCA/Journal/moremca.html

 

 I would very much like to receive a copy of the research article you have prepared.

 

David Le Blanc

http://mySandbox.net

http://TogetherApart.com