Cultural Historical Activity Theory vs. Instructional Design - Round 1
I am using the theoretical framework of cultural historical activity theory (CHAT) to guide discussion among a group participating in my dissertation study. I see cultural historical activity theory as a scaffold to guide the discourse and purpose of the group. For example, starting out with rules of discourse is immensely helpful in clearly articulating what we expect from each other. Articulating goals is instrumental in establishing our group’s purpose, as is articulating hoped for outcomes.
In talking with Mr DoE (off-blog discussion), I was posing the question—how is CHAT different from Instructional Design (ID) models. He suggested that ID is often prescriptive, as opposed to descriptive…
Then I suggested that if one is using a constructivist ID model, which is more fluid and more accommodating to the specific thing being designed….then what is the difference between ID and CHAT, at least philosophically? To flesh that out a big more, a constructivist ID model should have the following parts: Goals (objectives, learning goals), Audience (stakeholders, who is being designed for, how are they included in the design process), Materials (artifacts, supplies, etc), Methods (learning theories and strategies for using tools), and Evaluation (both formative & summative that can then inform future goals…)…Each part informs another part, in a fluid, rather than linear process.
Likewise, cultural historical activity theory…we have artifacts (analogous to materials), subjects acting on objects (I hate this part because often people are the “object” and I would prefer not to objectify other people, particularly in a model that strives to do just the opposite), outcomes (objectives–to inform the next iteration of the goal-setting process), goals (group objectives), rules of discourse (lacking in ID, in fact maybe a deficiency of the constructivist ID model since this is not address, at least not that I’ve seen), members of community (audience, but in a more participatory way)…The historical aspect of CHAT is analogous to the process in ID of looking backward over previous summative evaluation (assuming that organizations do that 
.
As I think “out loud” (quietly typing), CHAT may have advantages over modifying Instructional Design models to be constructivist in nature, because CHAT is designed to force a group to make visible expectations of discourse and to make visible the group’s collective goals.
That being said…please critique, poke holes, tell me how I’m misinterpreting either of these theories. Since I see both as trying to make human interaction more “systematic” –it may be that people who are familiar with studying systems, that all systematic theories have similar components.