Task 9 NIE - Activity theory

I will try to explain what Activity theory is for me. I could list some definitions from researchers, psychologists or AI analysts, but I think it would be much more useful to try to explain it in my own words, after I have read several articles and used Google search to find out more where and how Activity theory is used.

Reaching the goal by Activity theory. Leontjev

Historically activity theory started in the beginning of 20th century in Russia. Today one of the most important activity theory centers is in Helsinki. A lot of different researches come from there. Most of them are from IT fields, where human action and computer (mediated) actions are analysed.

While Pavlov explained a lot of animal behavior through instincts, then it couldn't explain everything. Võgotsky and Leontjev took pavlov's instincts based theory further and it started activity theory. The idea is, animals and people do things because we plan and know we need or have to to get something else - for example fulfill our needs. When we talk about only humans then activity theory is based on knowingly doing things, taking and handling the reality, which has also been called activity.

In psychology Activity theory is important in learning theories. This is what it's taken to IT fields as well - it's important to understand how people learn, to be able to make some AI learn from it's activities. By activity theory learning is done through the actions that form a system and make sensible organizational base. Later we can use learned things to decide what to do, or act in a certain way. Activity theory is continuos, everything can change based on new experience and actions that are done.


* this overview is written based on different articles, wikipedia and definitions.

Task 8 - from personal media to influencing masses

For long media channels have filtered news and information for audience, so that audience gets what the media channel decides is important to share and forward. As now one person can influence and have audience by himself, professional media channels are challenged to know more and explain why some news are shared and others are not. At the same time these media channels get quick feedback that either praises them for shared information or blames for leaving something behind.

Before the communication was one-sided, people got what they wanted. This week I heard a American talking about his high school time in the beginning of 80's when they also had only 3 TV channels to choose from compared to hundreds they have now. All these TV channels have to compete of having bigger audiences. And if during 80's a channel could easily have 80 million people watching a show, then today it's already good if they have 1 million, the drop has been enormous. At the same time, all these channels get feedback from their audience and have to rely on it. Even more and more they are using real-live shows. It's cheap, but from the other side its direct communication of the audience. The audience is who decides what is going to happen and participants are among the same audience.

This we already know that privately held blogs might grow even bigger than official media channels or newspapers online versions. These people who manage their personal blogs usually are not professional journalists. They just care about a topic so much that they want to talk about it, and if there is enough readers, who read it and share it, comment blog posts and it's searchable through search engines - it will get into masses.

Lüders wrote in his article "Internet works within all of society's social systems, increasing levels of self-reflection." There is nothing new in her statement. Internet is generally cheap, it can be used with cheaper technical tools and it's accessible by most society classes.

For me talking about the possibilities that Internet provides usually seems even totally common thing. So it has changed the way we communicate or perceive information. Mass media is not the the same mass media we knew 20 years ago. I am more interested in how people use these new ways they have and if and how it has changed a person or groups? I think people more and more understand how much influence they might have. There has always been the desire to influence, but now people have the tools they didn't have before. We already have some really good examples of how Internet has helped to start non-violent revolution (through Facebook in Latin-America). It wasn't done deliberately, but it happened, because so many people with same thoughts saw the outcall and new they were not alone with their thoughts and it gave them safety feeling.

So I am thinking what more is there to come, how much individuals knowlingly use the mediums and tools they now have?

Task 7 - interactivity, from my point of view

Interactive webpage

When I talk about interactive webpage, then I mean a webpage where user can contribute for example in writing something that other users can read and give their opinions or thoughts on. Simplest is probably an internet forum where somene can start a thread and others will continue to discuss about the topic they are interested and have information on.

But often a question is asked “how to make a website more interactive?”. 

Then people don’t really mean only technical possibilities but also the overall feeling - usability and accessibility are also part of discussion now. 
For me interaction is basically communication where all parties can give their input. Therefore TV series aren’t but for example TV shows where watchers can vote for singers they like the most, already is. 

Interactive for all

The two articles we read for Task 5 and Task 6 made me think that interactivity is not the same concept for all the people but it depends on the research field for example and from one's perspective and feeling.

I am interested in groups - from the research field side. I like to think how roups are formed online for example, if the same human groups and “interaction” can give a person what is comparable from a reallife experience. IN these group discussions interaction an communication is also important. And from here I could try to define what interaction is for me and how it differs from communication.

Inter should mean between someone and action, doing something. Putting these things together means that there are different sides who are doing something that influences both sides. Communication is probably part of interaction, althought it might ssometimes seem like a broader term. While communication is for example the email that we send to a friend, then interaction is “sending email, reading the email, thinking of replying to it or not replying”. All this is interaction it contains different parts and all details are important. Having a discussion about dogs is communication but also interaction, the overall bubble around saying words, looking in the eyes, being ready for answering and being influenced by the other side for wanting, needing or being told to participate.

Dance interactive

While I was looking for information, some interesting articles or pages that would talk about interactivity I came across Dance Interactive. It's a page that selles 6 different videos for teaching the exact movement of dance motions. 

The reason why I found it was I started to think how much dancing is interactive.  Of course it is! It's built on communication, feeling, answering actions and getting the "touch" that makes to want to continue. 

Technical tools help to give dancing videos something different, so that it's not only about people who dance, but the show itself is based on the movement of actor. 

WII game is one of the best examples of interactiv dancing with technical support.

Interactivity is subjective term. There is no correct answer that would fit for everyone. 

Task 6 - More about "Interactivity"

This post is based on the article "Interactivity: a concept explication" by Spiro Kiousis.

In overall Kiousis seems to have taken investigation fo interactivity really seriously. I liked his way of Although it might also be affected by his abstract where he says that in his view interactivity has both media and psychological factor.

Like a correct metaanalysis, Kiousis gives an overview of previous articles and definitions about interactivity. He also uses several thoughts and theory from Jensens article that we read for task 5. His way of working and analysis is really interesting, for later understanding he explains visually and puts together 3 dimensions: technology, communication and user perception. Later in the article he builds his theory on the same graphic.


Kousis finds it important to consider both computer mediated and non-computer mediated communication. It seems to him that several researchers consider too much on technological tools that are used for communication and that help to fill the criteria that they have set for "interactivity".
In article conclusion it's said that interactivity could be defined as the degree to which a communication technology can create a mediated environment in which participants can communicate (one-to-one, one-to-many, and many- to-many) both synchronously and asynchronously and participate in reciprocal message exchanges (third-order dependency). 

I find it interesting that Kiousis also explains user perception because it's really subjective and not easy to measure. But I agree it's important and while the article started with searching the definition mostly form psychological and media point of view those who actually take part in action are important.
As the graphical picture above already gives all the important terms of Kiousis definition, I will not start to name them once more.


Like said above, Kiuosis tries to build together one stronger theory that would fit several previous definitions under it. For me it seems a logical way, often researchers look at the things too narrowly and a metaanalysis helps to take most important details and sew them together into a big picture.



References: 
Kiousis, S. (2002) "Interactivity: a concept explication", New Media & Society, 4(3): 355–383.

Task 5 - Interactivity, finding the true definition?!

This post is based on the article "‘Interactivity’ Tracking a New Concept in Media and Communication Studies" by Jens F. Jensen.
Jensen's article is long explaining article, giving an overview of the background of "Interactivity" definitions. I am always a critical person, so I ask - why he wrote that he will also give a new possibility to define the term - when all he did for me seems like he put the different theories together. And he has now a lot more information than those researchers he citates. But as he didn't still use any social network examples I started to think when was the article written - 1998 it seems. It's more than 10 years ago!


Like he says "Interactivity" comes from the word "Interaction" which means different things depending on what is one's background in scientific field. It was the most important thing for me in this article - I started to truly think how I take the word and term "interaction" really self-explanatory, and have never thought about how physics or neuroscientists see it, or if they even use it. 


The 3-dimensional model that Jensen gives at the end fits well in the world we know today. I would also say that other researchers who had their theories also thought them really well depending on the information they had, especially Heeter in 1989, this really surprised me. Although in her table she also used media tools, she also explained the change of interaction and communication channels that will change. And there wasn't even Internet yet!


Jensen takes into consideration 3 different variables that help to understand the depth of interaction and interactivity

• Conversational interactivity
• Registrational interactivity
• Selective interactivity

Interactivity cube - 
not Jensen's but the one meant for 
children to play and understand 
the meaning of different sides connecting 
and influencing others.

Before I haven't read some newer versions of scientifically trying to prove the meaning or theory of "interactivity" the one Jensen gives with his conclusion, seems to be working one.

The picture on the right is a toy for baby's. It's name is "Interactivity cube". I think it shows really well, how different sides influence each other and are connected. And I know that children growing up today, will have the touch of it much more than we did on 80's. With different tools (I mena internet tools, tv tools, all kinds of technological wonders) we, the people, will be able to find more and more needs that we didn't know we even had.