by 
Balloon experiment
We started the lesson by defining balloons. First we drew them, then we tried to describe them in Turkish and in another language. I think it is Arabic.
The crucial point here is: the medium doesn't carry the thought, it shapes the thought.
First Generation — Vygotsky
Key concept: Mediated Action
Triangle: Subject -> Tool/Artifact -> Object
Humans don't react directly to the world; there's always a cultural medium in between: language, numbers, symbols, technology, drawing.
Example: You need to do calculations. Will you do it in your head, on paper, with a calculator, or with Excel? The calculations you can do change depending on the tool you use. Someone who learns Excel truly expands their "thinking capacity."
What's missing? This triangle focuses on a single person. Where is the community, where are the rules, where is the common purpose?
Second Generation — Leontiev + Engeström
Leontiev's contribution: The distinction between Activity / Action / Operation.
| Layer | What | Balloon example |
|---|---|---|
| Activity | Big work revolving around a common object/motive. | To get the balloon to the target. |
| Action | The individual's conscious, purposeful contribution | One is blowing, one is giving direction, one is watching. |
| Operation | How the action is performed depending on the circumstances. | Slow blowing, changing position, using the paper at hand. |
Leontiev's famous hunter example: A group is hunting. One man scares the animals away. If you watch alone, you'll miss the prey. But the other hunters are waiting in the direction the animals fled. So individual action only gains meaning within the context of collective activity.
Engeström's contribution: Extended triangle (6 elements)
- Subject -> who is doing it? -> Group members
- Object -> what is it done for? -> To get the balloon to its destination.
- Tools -> balloon, air, paper, language
- Rules -> using your hands is prohibited, there's a time limit.
- Community -> your own team + other teams
- Division of Labor -> who is blowing the wind, who is directing, who is deciding?
- → Outcome -> the balloon is arriving, but the participation pattern is also becoming visible.
Critical warning: This is not a checklist, it's a linked system. Changing one item affects the others.
Contradictions — the engine of the system.
Contradiction is not a dispute. It's not a fight between two people. It's a structural inconsistency within the system, something that constantly produces the same problem.
Balloon example:
- Objective stated: everyone should participate meaningfully
- Rule: the fastest team wins
Look at the contradiction: when speed is rewarded, 1-2 people take over the work, while the rest become spectators. Then the teacher says, "These children are unmotivated." But the children are not to blame; the system produces this behavior.
The right question is: "Which part of the system is repeatedly generating this problem?"
Engeström's main argument is: contradictions are not a problem, they are the engine of change. As tensions rise, people begin to look for new ways. That's how change happens.
Expansive Learning
Here, the definition of learning changes: learning = not doing the task better, but redesigning the task itself.
Two stages:
- Question the current effectiveness -> "Why is speed our only metric?"
- Model a new system -> modify the object, rules, tools, or division of labor.
In the context of the balloon: "carry the balloon faster" -> "establish a fast AND inclusive way of working"
The task has changed. What is learned is not the skill itself, but how to organize the work.
Third Generation — Engeström
Now there isn't just one system, but at least two interacting systems.
The same balloon means different things in two different systems:
| System A | System B | |
|---|---|---|
| Object | To reach the destination as quickly as possible. | Reaching the goal together |
| Rule | Not everyone has to participate. | Everyone should contribute. |
| Outcome | As soon as possible | Meaningful participation |
The balloon is physically the same. But the object, the motive, the rule are different -> the meaning is different.
Boundary crossing: When two systems are forced to cooperate, the border between them transforms into a space for negotiation and learning. Ultimately, a new shared objective emerges that wasn't initially present in either system. For example, "a method that is both fast and inclusive."
In a hospital, doctors are one system, the patient's family is another. Different tools, different rules, different definitions of "success." They clash. But if they communicate properly, a care plan emerges that neither of them initially considered. This is what third-generation researchers are studying.
What does it say in terms of learning theory?
| Before | After |
|---|---|
| The rules are fixed. | The rules are visible and can be changed. |
| There is only one definition of success. | Different sounds reshape the object. |
| The absent member was "unmotivated". | The problem is being examined systemically. |
| The task is completed, the matter is closed. | A new form of activity is tried. |
Learning is the transformation of how people work together on a common object, not just a change inside a head.
Three Generations Summary
| Generation | Analysis unit | Who |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Mediated action - subject-instrument-object | Vygotsky |
| 2 | Activity system + kural, topluluk, iş bölümü | Leontiev, Engeström |
| 3 | Interacting systems - border crossing, shared object | Engeström |
No comments:
Post a Comment