COOPERATIVA MULTIACTIVA DE ARENAL (COMUARENAL)

As it developed activity theory split from more cognitive models of psychology (Bem & Looren de Jong, 2006) by shifting the focus from individuals to group actions and activity. Cognitive models tend to stress the information processing aspect of knowledge acquisition (Cook, 2005) by stressing the importance of mental models as a means to categorise and organise new information. At the same time, activity theory moved away from its earlier Marxist roots (Spencer, 1999). Vygotsky (1962) in particular had drawn on Marx to argue that not only do the tools available influence the process of completing a task (so cutting down a tree is different if done with an axe or a mechanical saw) but also change how that act of labour is understood and the degree of interaction (if any) between labourers and as to whether the labour is voluntary and shared, or paid and controlled. In a PBL context, as discussed in Section 2.1, the distinction may be between student behaviour when all the information is presented on paper (or needs to be found by visiting a library) and interaction is face-to-face and when a multimedia resource has been made available that allows both for information search and communication.

The concept of activity as a shifting combination of human actors and tools is an important element in Vygotsky’s theory and was developed by Leontev (1978) who argued that by

introducing the concept of activity into the theory of cognition, Marx gave it a strictly materialistic sense: For Marx, activity in its primary and basic form was sensory, practical activity in which people enter into a practical contact with objects of the surrounding world, test their resistance, and act on them, acknowledging their objective properties. (p. 22)

The three elements of activity, action and operation (Leontev, 1978) have remained at the core of the subsequent development of activity theory but have seen considerable refinement and debate about their functions. Some of the debate about how to interpret Vygotsky and Leontev relates to the issue of translation from Russian to English as well as understanding the constraints placed on scientists in the old Soviet Union (Kaptelinin, 2005). Blunden argues that Vygotsky’s approach to psychology cannot be understood except in terms of his use of Marx (and by implication Hegel) in his scientific approach (Blunden, 2011) and, in particular, how to define the concept of activity. To Leontev, the object of activity was both personal (the goal of an individual) and social as, even if carried out in private, the information used to carry out the task was determined by wider social and cultural norms (Kaptelinin, 2005). In combination this creates problems in understanding the meaning and usage of two critical terms in Activity Theory – ‘object’ and ‘context’.

Object is a complex concept as the meaning in Leontev’s (1978) original work is that the object of work is to be understood in a dynamic, Hegelian model (Sokolova, 2011). In effect, the subject (actors) work on the object (task) and, in turn, are influenced by that interaction (gaining knowledge, becoming exhausted, creating something new and useful). A further complication lies in the process of translating Leontev’s work from Russian. The concept of the ‘object’ is central in Activity Theory but in Russian two different words “Predmet” and “objekt” are used for this concept (Kaptelinin, 2013; Leontev, 1978). “Predmet”, in particular, according to Kaptelinin (2013) tends to refer to an object that was specifically designed to support human activities, while “objekt” can refer to any object (ie something that is naturally occurring as well as something specifically constructed by human beings). In

consequence, within an Activity Theory framework the meaning of object shifts according to its nature (in particular if it is deliberately man-made) and as the task is performed.

Activity Theory in terms of student learning is the controversy around the idea of ‘context’. Cole (2003) describes this as a ‘slippery concept’ which draws on the interrelationship between the learner and the situation in which the learning takes place. In this sense context can be linked to the other key idea of the ‘Zone of Proximal Development’ as constructing the likely focus of any learning experience. In a later paper he cites Vygotsky directly (Cole & Gajdamaschko, 2010) to link meaning and context as:

“Meaning is only one of these zones of the sense that the word acquires in the context of speech. In different contexts, a word’s sense changes. In contrast, meaning is a comparatively fixed and stable point, one that remains constant with all the changes of the word’s sense that are associated with its use in various contexts” (Cole and Gajdamaschko, 2010, p. 257)

An important part of this argument is that words shift meaning as context changes and one way in which the context can change is in terms of developing knowledge. In this respect, the learner,, whether the child (Vygotsky’s original focus) or a student in a PBL class, is both influenced by context (what they know, task boundaries, the social norms) and redefines the context as their knowledge develops. Of particular importance for PBL, which links also to the issue of silent students and the difficulties those from different academic traditions might experience, is that if a given mode of learning is outside their context (ie prior experience), then they will struggle. In effect, “if the content of the problem was changed so that it was familiar and meaningful, these same students were overwhelmingly correct” (Cole &

Gajdamaschko, 2010, p. 271).

Contemporary activity theory (Engeström, 1987; Leontev, 1978) was developed from Vygotsky’s basic concepts of the way in which a task was understood in terms of language, the tools, its purpose and the surrounding social organisation to capture the range of influences (past, future goals, other actors, knowledge and understanding, tools available for use) that affect the approach chosen to achieve a particular goal. It is a complex theoretical model and is easiest to explain by examples and analogies. For example, the process of information search 200 years ago would have consisted of a face-to-face interaction, an exchange of correspondence with an acknowledged

expert or a visit to a major library. Today, for most people, the natural starting point would be the Internet. Thus the same goal is carried out in very different ways and in doing so reflects wider changes in society and our understanding of how to look for information, and indeed just what the concept of information search implies. Again, in a PBL context, this may see the difference between students being presented with a folder of photocopied articles and having access to a multimodal web-based information resource. In each of these situations the basic activity ‘information search’ takes place in a different way and demands different skills.

Methodologically, activity theory has retained the concepts of an object (the purpose of an action), a subject (usually the individual(s) carrying out the action) and tools (the means by which an action can be carried out). In the example of information search (Jewitt, 2006), in the terms of activity theory, the object is to acquire more information, the subject is either the individual or the other contacts available but the

tools are potentially very different, having shifted from letters or a physical library to a search using the Internet.

Vygotsky (1962) had argued that the individual actions and understanding are influenced by the wider social norms and beliefs of a particular society. He argues that problem-solving behaviour is heavily based on a combination of internal dialogues used to create meaning and test scenarios and the interaction between this internal dialogue and collaboration and/or testing with other people (Jewitt, 2006). In addition, problem-solving behaviour is heavily influenced by the tools available (so knowledge acquisition is a different process with and without the Internet), but those tools are given meaning by the wider social processes. It was this element, in particular that which Leontev (1978) developed, arguing that human activity is most appropriately seen as a series of linked operations, some more or less automatic, but in pursuit of a defined goal, so:

Initially every operation, such as shifting gears, is formed as an action subordinated specifically to this goal and has its own conscious “orienting basis”…. Subsequently this action is included in another action, such as that of changing the speed of the automobile. At this point, shifting gears becomes one of the methods for carrying out this action-that is, it becomes an operation necessary for performing the action. (p. 64)

However, activity theory should not be seen as a conventional theory with a predictive causal model that relates external variables to outcomes. Instead, it provides a framework that can be used to describe what happens when individuals make use of the wider social norms and rules to understand information and respond to specific situations (Blin, 2004).