Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
There are two ways to reason about the relationship between objective outcome
and motive. The first and widely published way using Leontiev's (1981) original
activity theory is the degree to which the outcome from objective “coincides” with
motive. When the outcome from objective coincides with motive, it is fulfilled or
complete and the activity ends, and as Leontiev (1981) states, this identifies “activity
proper”. The second alternative way to assess the relationship between objective
outcome and motive identified through re-examination and focused analysis of
Leontiev's (1981) original activity theory, is the degree to which objective outcome
merges
with motive which we argue also identifies “activity proper”. This reading and
interpretation of the relationship between objective outcome and motive has to our
knowledge received very little if any attention nor has it been previously used in the
assessment of activity. Merges implies two important aspects, firstly, the actions or
processes undertaken are heading in the right direction and secondly, merges doesn't
necessarily suggest an end point (i.e. objective outcome coincides with motive) but
suggests that as long as actions are contributing to the merging, then motive is being
fulfilled or satisfied. So for example, if a motive to interact or play with technology is
to be entertained or stimulated and the outcome from carrying out/performing
processes provides just that, then the objective outcome merges with or towards
motive. If this condition is maintained then users-players could hypothetically
continue to be engaged in interaction or play indefinitely (or at least until some other
need arises, from disruption or fatigue, etc.).
2.1
Lenses: Activity-Based Scenario / Narrative Approach
An activity-based scenario/narrative approach and framework was proposed [14],
building on Leontiev's (1981) activity theory, to plan, model, describe, develop and
evaluate scenarios and narrative of interaction and gameplay. In reference to figure 3,
central to this is the hierarchical framework of activity composed of: activity, actions
and operations and characterized respectively by objective, goals and conditions. The
hierarchical structure is dynamic with shifts between activity, actions and operations
orchestrated according to activity theoretical concepts and determined by situations
and circumstances (of interaction and gameplay). Its power comes from its lens-like
ability to focus on any level of abstraction from high-level descriptions of activities to
zoom in to any level of detail/complexity. So providing a flexible and dynamic
framework that supports design, development and analysis of interaction and
gameplay. However, the focus of this earlier work was on individual activities dealing
with one application/game on one platform [14]. In the next section we extend this to
deal with one or more activities, applications and platforms.
Activity is directed towards achieving an objective (as denoted by “a”). The
objective is a process characterizing the activity as a whole. When the objective is
fulfilled the activity ends. The objective is closely related to motive, and the motive is
the intention that stimulates and drives a user-player to interact / play a game. In
activity theory, the objective's outcome and motive have to be considered in the
analysis of “activity proper” [9]. While in previous work [14] this has been used to
provide a way to frame and reason about the degree to which work/play has been
