From the macro to the micro

If the previous readings (Nardi & O'day, 1999, etc.) can be categorized as reminiscent of a macro-analysis of the way that individuals interact with technology, Enyedy (2003),  Koedinger & Corbett (2006) and Schartz et al (2007) present a micro-level analysis of the interactions between individuals and technology. I borrow the terms micro and macro here from sociology to distinguish the analysis of systems and cultural structures from the analysis of everyday social interactions (in some sense, the individual acting within the system). In fact, the classroom is a locus of everyday social interactions. In the micro analyses presented by  Koedinger & Corbett (2006) and Schwartz, Blair, Biswas, Leelawong & Davis (2007), the authors focus on individual structures of thinking (schemas) and recognized the taken-for granted influence of social interactions on individuals cognition to a limited extent, or not at all (Schwartz et al. were arguably more overt in this recognition). Enyedy (2003) on the other hand, understood learning as social practices, or culturally-derived standards of behavior. Additionally, he argued that learning extended beyond the individual-social dichotomy, acknowledging that meaning (or learning) is "interactionally co-constitued" (pg. 365).



Given the interplay between the agency-system and mind-social dichotomies that arise in these articles, I have sought to revise my model by acknowledging that the nature of the lifeworld as inter-subjective, in which experiences are social in nature and can be shared with others. For instance, the interaction between peers and/or teachers are intersubjective in that each party comes with their own interpretation of the situation and affect each other's interpretation of the situation before them (recall Schwartz et al.'s example of the mother and child interaction). In some student interactions with technological designs on the other hand, students are in effect interacting with the embedded intention of the designer (e.g., cognitive tutors). Successful learning as such, depends on the perceived affordances of the designed technology. Perceptions of affordances however, are drawn from the lifeworld, as well as the presence of others. As noted by all the authors, successful use of the technology used in the classroom depended on social interactions with peers and teachers.

As I reflect on the model further however, perhaps there should actually be another thought-bubble that arises from the subject-object interaction, since this interaction affects how each would be thinking/thought of. Here, objects are taken to mean as artifacts that are imbued with cultural meanings drawn from one's lifeworld. They are thus not neutral, but instead imbued with a variety of meanings. Admittedly, the model is still general, but does capture the various aspects that are important in understanding the role of subject and objects in relation to the lifeworld (structures and systems included!).