Activity Theory Analysing technology mediated learning in social context

Michael Paskevicius

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUfIO9F8

The evolution of activity theory

Origins

• Vygotsky's notion of mediation• Triangular model of complex

mediated act, triad of subject, object, mediating artefact

– The limitation of the first generation was that the unit of analysis remained individually focused

Leont'ev’s contribution (1981)

• Leont'ev introduced the crucial differentiation between individual action and collective activity

• Considered historically evolving division of labor impacting activity

• Defined the hierarchical structure of activity

– The limitation of the second generation was not explicitly taking into account cultural diversity

Yrjö Engeström (1987)• Expansion of the basic Vygotskian model to include the

social/collective elements in an activity system• Elements of community, rules, division of labour and object • Emphasises the importance of considering and analysing

these elements interactions with each other

Yrjö Engeström (1987)• Subjects are the individual or group whose

viewpoint is adopted.• Object “refers to the ‘raw material’ or ‘problem

space’ at which the activity is directed and which is molded or transformed into outcomes. It precedes and motivates activity.

• Tools mediate the object of activity. They can be external, material (e.g., a textbook, a computer) or internal, symbolic (e.g., language).

• Community refers to the participants of an activity system, who share the same object.

• The division of labour involves the division of tasks and roles among members of the community and the divisions of power and status.

• Rules are explicit and implicit norms that regulate actions and interactions within the system

Yrjö Engeström (2014)• Networks of interacting activity systems

Five principles of activity theory

Hierarchical structure of activity

Object-orientedness

Internalization/externalization

Mediation

Development

Object-orientedness

• “Any activity of an organism is directed at a certain object; an objectless activity is impossible” (Leont'ev, 1981)

• Suggests we seek an understanding not only of what people are doing, but also why they are doing it (Kaptelinin, 2005)

Hierarchical structure of activity

• Activity - motivating object carried out by the community - regulated by motives

• Action - action level goals carried out by individuals or groups - regulated by goals

• Operation - operational conditions become routinized by humans or machines - regulated by conditions

Internalization/externalization

• Internalization - transformation of external activities into internal ones

• Externalization - transforms internal activities into external ones

Mediation• Human activity is mediated by tools which have socially

and culturally developed properties (Kaptelinin & Nardi, 1997).

• The use of tools is an accumulation and transmission of social knowledge

• Tool use influences the nature of external behavior and also the mental functioning of individuals (Wartofsky 1979 quoted in Russell, 2002).

• The learning of higher cognitive functions are necessarily mediated using tools, while lower elementary functions are innate

Image from Ng'ambi, D. (2010) Mobile Learning in Africa: a case of anonymous SMS http://www.slideshare.net/Ngambi1MLearning/

Development• Activity is a key source of development of both the subject

and the object• Activities change over time through systemic

contradictions leading to transformation and expansion

• “An expansive transformation is accomplished when the object and motive of the activity are reconceptualized to embrace a radically wider horizon of possibilities than in the previous mode of the activity”. (Engeström, 2001, p. 137)

Applications of AT: Contradictions within activity systems

The teachers' absence in the [online] discussion conflicted with learners' expectations in two ways: their learning process was severely inhibited on the net and both their individual and group work was seriously impaired. Since there was no interlocutor for student questions, no discussion partner or any online guidance, etc., the students felt abandoned by their teacher and this led to a loss of confidence in them. (Dippe, 2006)

“The introduction of the computer as a tool has required a new division of labour due in part to the novelty of the tool but also due to the fact that the teacher is unable to assist all students with the computer tasks. Hence, students have become teachers of other students.” (Hardman, 2005)

Applications of AT: Describing activity systems

Exploring systems of activity around the creation of open education resources and how they expand potential outcomes

Applications of AT: Exploring how objects become tools

Exploring how outcomes related to one system of activity may be used as tools for other systems of activity

Adapted from Murphy & Manzanares, 2008

Applications of AT: Comparing systems of activity

Comparing systems of activity which draw upon different tools and environments for the purpose of understanding systemic changes

Applications of AT: Comparing systems of activity

Comparing systems of activity which aim for different objects for the purpose of understanding systemic changes

Bozalek, V., Ng’ambi, D., Wood, D., Herrington, J., Hardman, J., & Amory, A. (Eds.). (2014).

Discussion

References • Blin, F., & Munro, M. (2008). Why hasn’t technology disrupted academics’ teaching practices?

Understanding resistance to change through the lens of activity theory. Computers & Education, 50(2), 475-490.

• Bozalek, V., Ng’ambi, D., Wood, D., Herrington, J., Hardman, J., & Amory, A. (Eds.). (2014). Activity Theory, Authentic Learning and Emerging Technologies: Towards a Transformative Higher Education Pedagogy. Routledge.

• Daniels, H., Edwards, A., Engeström, Y., Gallagher, T., & Ludvigsen, S. R. (Eds.). (2013). Activity theory in practice: Promoting learning across boundaries and agencies. Routledge.

• Dippe, G. (2006). The missing teacher: Contradictions and conflicts in the experience of online learners. Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Networked Learning 2006. Lancaster: Lancaster University.

• Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit.

• Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive Learning at Work: Toward an Activity-theoretical Conceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), pp. 133-156.

• Engeström, Y. (2014). Learning by expanding. Cambridge University Press.• Hardman, J. (2005). An exploratory case study of computer use in a primary school mathematics

classroom: New technology, new pedagogy? Perspectives in Education, 23(4), 99-111.• Kaptelinin, V., & Nardi, B. A. (1997, March). Activity theory: basic concepts and applications.

In CHI'97 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 158-159). ACM. http://gossettphd.org/library/KaptelininNardi_BasicsofAT.pdf

• Kaptelinin, V. (2005). The object of activity: Making sense of the sense-maker. Mind, culture, and activity, 12(1), 4-18

References • Kaptelinin, V., & Nardi, B. A. (2006). Acting with technology: Activity theory and interaction

design. MIT Press.• Murphy, E. & Rodriguez-Manzanares, M. (2014). Activity Theory perspectives on technology in

higher education. Hershey, Pennsylvania: IGI Global.• Murphy, E., & Manzanares, M. A. R. (2008). Contradictions between the virtual and physical high

school classroom: A third generation Activity Theory perspective. British Journal of Educational ‐Technology, 39(6), 1061-1072.

• Murphy, E., & Rodriguez-Manzanares, M. A. (2008). Using activity theory and its principle of contradictions to guide research in educational technology. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24(4), 442-457.

• Russell, D. (2002). Looking beyond the interface: Activity theory and distributed learning. Distributed learning: Social and cultural approaches to practice, 64-82.

• Saljo, R. (1999). A sociocultural perspective on the human-technology link. Learning with computers: Analysing productive interaction, 144.

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.. To view a copy of this license, visit

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0

Prepared by: Michael Paskevicius Learning Technologies Application DeveloperCentre for Innovation and Excellence in Learningmichael.paskevicus@viu.ca

Follow me: http://twitter.com/mpaskevi

Presentations: http://www.slideshare.net/mpaskevi