Our last task for NIE course was to review our Task 5 and our reflections on Activity Theory and then compare them by looking for similarities and differences.
When I looked at my Task 5 I was a bit disappointed because while having some relevant thoughts in the beginning I totally change my course and sticked to easier and graphical description of our every day activities. Only thoughts that were somehow related to the topic were:
“Our Task nr 5 for this week was a bit confusing because I couldn’t imagine the perfect framework one could use to describe all his activities. We can dig in to the concept of activity itself and start thinking what process actually brings humans to acting, how they perform their activities and what does “activity” mean in a context of social life, when human can’t entirely chose his activities by his own but also exposed to activities of other people… “
At this time I had no idea about Activity Theory and it’s principles, internal and external activities, objects as tools and mediums, actors etc. I guess I just saw the top of the iceberg at this moment and never gave a deep thought on the “what is our activity after all” topic.
Also, I have absolutely ignored any external objects in my initial post and it never came to my mind that the tools we use have actually a huge impact on our lives and activities we are constantly involved in. While AT emphasizes that human activities are mediated a lot by tools it never actually appeared to me that the role of external objects in our everyday routines can be this important.
Right now, after the course, I cannot say that I am totally buying AT as a perfect framework for describing human activities, but it definitely added some interesting things worth considering to my perception of concept of “activity”.