Guía de Evaluación del Módulo Aplicación y seguimiento de programas ambientales

Activity Theory has been described as a framework for understanding situations, rather than a predictive theory, and is often more useful for identifying problems within activities (e.g. Nardi 1996). Activity Theory provides a ‘unified account of Vygotsky’s proposals on

the nature and development of human behaviour’ (Lantoff, 2006 p8). A central concept of

Activity theory is that the development of human abilities occurs through object-oriented

activity (Lazarev, 2004). Furthermore, the purpose of Activity Theory is to understand individuals and the social entities they compose in everyday settings (Engestrom & Nardi, 2006). Engestrom (2009) suggests that participation in an activity occurs when human action is object-driven. These objects, which Engestrom (2009) also refers to as concerns, are “generators of foci, attention, motivation, effort and meaning” (Engestrom p304). In other words, when attention, motivation, effort or meaning are oriented towards a

Figure 4- 1 Engestrom's (1999) Model of Activity

Engestrom’s Model of Activity

Activity Theory is an evolving theory, currently in the third generation (2009).

Engestrom’s (1999) second generation model of Activity Theory is shown in figure 4-1. Third generation Activity Theory develops this model to include multiple Activity Systems orientating toward a potentially shared goal, shown in figure 4-2. In Engestrom’s model the subject refers to the individual or group at the focus of the study. The object “refers to

the ‘raw material’ or ‘problem space’ at which the activity is directed and which is moulded or transformed into outcomes with the help of physical and symbolic, external and internal tools” (Engestrom, 1993, p67). According to Engestrom these tools are used

to guide or influence the object of the activity. These tools can be internal (e.g., language) or external, such as textbooks or instruments. However, not all Activity theorists agree that internal tools such as language can exist. For example, Nardi (2005) notes that the object of Activity Theory is to understand the link between consciousness and activity. She continues that consciousness is located in everyday practice and not in the brain, therefore there are no internal representations of knowledge which can be accessed outwith the context. However, I would agree with Engestrom’s (1990) assertion that “mediating

artefacts include tools and signs, both external implements and internal representations such as mental models” p381.

Within Engestrom’s model, community refers simply to those who are participating with the activity towards the same object. Division of labour refers to the division of tasks amongst the subjects during the activity. Finally, rules can be norms which influence actions and interactions within the system (Engestrom, 1993, Kuutti 1996).

Engestrom’s Model Mediating Artefacts Object Division of Labour Community Rules Subject Outcome = Contradictions

Object – generator of foci of attention,

motivation, effort and meaning, the goal

Subject – individual or group at the focus of

the study

Mediating Artefacts - instruments, tools and

signs used in the activity

Division of Labour – division of tasks

amongst subjects during the activity

Rules – norms and rules which influence

actions and interactions

Community – those participating towards the

object of the activity

Contradictions – the motive for change within

Development of Activity Theory

The concept of activity was first seen in the writings of German philosophers such as Hegel and Kant (Repkin 2003). Around the time that they were writing, the predominant view of humanity was that of ‘reactors’ to their situation. Life was viewed as being pre- determined either by a creator or by the influence of environmental factors. Therefore, individuals could not be held fully accountable for their own life course. The philosophers suggested a different way of conceiving of humanity. Rather than being passive, they suggested that individuals were instead active creators of their environment and life. Responsibility was therefore placed with the individual for their own life course. The idea that individuals were active in creating their life experiences caused attention to turn to the nature of development of competencies and individual’s potential in life. Marx adopted this philosophical position which was in turn adopted by Vygotsky in the 1920s when he developed his socio-cultural theory of development. Whilst many theorists have provided input to the forming of Activity Theory, for example Leonti’ev and Luria, the writings of Vygotsky have remained one of the prominent influences in its development (Repkin 2003).

Activity Theory rests on the premise introduced by Vygotsky that individual thoughts and actions are mediated by tools and artefacts which can be psychological or physical.

Engestrom (1990) suggests that in order to understand the actions carried out during an activity it is necessary to understand the components which comprise the system. As mentioned in the chapter on collaborative metacognition, the activity studied within this thesis is that of collaborative problem solving. In doing so, I have particularly focussed on the relationship between the use of a linguistic tool, that of metacognition, and

participation in the activity. However, as previously mentioned, the third generation of Activity Theory proposes multiple activity systems, as depicted in figure (4-2).

Engestrom (2009) proposed that multiple activity systems interact and focus on a shared object. For example, within the context of the research contained within this thesis, it is possible to highlight multiple activity systems. One system might be the student group. The object of the activity is solution of the problem. However, teachers may also represent an activity system whose object might be the development of metacognitive skills in students. Part of that object will overlap with the student activity system since

departments might represent an activity system whose object is to ensure students are engaged in appropriate learning experiences, such as collaborative group work. All of these activity systems can be focussed on the shared object of the problem solving. As such, each system might influence the object in different ways.

Engestrom (2009) has proposed that a potential outcome of multiple activity systems is the concept of runaway objects. Objects in an activity system are constantly changed through the multiple activities. Runaway objects have the potential to expand between multiple activity systems. They may begin as small objects or goals, yet develop, often without prediction, to these larger runaway objects. Engestrom (2009) asserts that whilst runaway objects will generate opposition, they are not necessarily a negative phenomenon. Rather,

runaway objects may be emancipatory in nature.

Figure 4- 2 Engestrom's (2009) Third Generation Model of Activity

Five principles of activity theory

Engestrom (2001) refers to five principles of Activity Theory which guide research in this area which are outlined below.

Unit of Analysis

The first principle of activity theory states that the main unit of analysis is the activity

system. Individuals act towards the goal, or object, of the activity. However, these

individual actions cannot be understood independently of the activity system. Rather, they must be “interpreted against the background of the entire activity system” (Engestrom 2001 p136). In the study reported on in this thesis, the primary activity system was the groups of students who were working together during their problem solving tasks.

Engestrom’s Model Multiple Activity Systems

Subject Mediating Artefacts Division of Labour Community Rules Shared object Mediating Artefacts Division of Labour Community Rules Subject

Multi-Voicedness

The second principle is Multi-voicedness. This refers to the different perspectives and histories the members of an activity system bring to the activity. These different

perspectives might impact the system either positively or negatively (Engestrom 2001). Data from student recall interviews and teacher focus groups contributed towards the understanding of multi-voicedness within the activity system.

Historicity

Historicity is the third principle and draws attention to the historical development of the

activity system. The study of the history of an activity system allows a deeper

understanding, both of the problems of the system and the potential development of the system. The data from the teacher focus groups also addresses the principle of historicity.

Contradictions

The fourth principle is that of contradictions. Contradictions within the activity system can produce transformation and change, but can also have a negative impact on the activity. Contradictions represent the motive for change or development within activity systems. The impact of contradictions might be positive or negative. Engestrom (2001) notes that contradictions are not simply conflicts or disagreements, rather they have a deeper social, cultural or historical meaning. Contradictions “generate disturbances and

conflicts, but also innovative attempts to change the activity” (p137). It is through the

analysis of the activity system as a whole, that underlying contradictions, which give rise to both failures and innovations, might be identified (Engestrom 2007).

Contradictions might be identified as “deviations in the observable flow of interaction” (Engestrom, Brown, Christopher & Gregory, 1991 p 91). They can represent ‘problems or

breakdowns’ within the system (Kuutti 1996, p34), and are often the result of an individual

receiving conflicting messages or demands (Engestrom 2001).

Crucially, contradictions are not always identifiable by those working within the activity system. When they are identifiable, they may not, for different reasons, be discussible at the point of the activity. It is because such contradictions go unacknowledged that they have the potential to be so damaging to the activity (Capper & Williams, 2004).

activity, it is necessary to employ the previous three principles in the research design. The data from the student recall interviews and the teacher focus group both provided evidence of contradictions both within and between activity systems.

Expansive Learning

The fifth principle of activity theory is expansive learning. This refers to the development of the activity. Once individuals become competent members of the activity and the activity becomes more demanding, externalisation will occur through critical self-

reflection and a search for new solutions. Engestrom (2001) refers to expansive learning as the collective zone of proximal development of the system:

“It is the distance between the present everyday actions of the individuals and the historically new form of the societal activity that can be collectively generated as a solution to the double bind potentially embedded in the everyday actions.”

(Engestrom, 1987, p. 174)

According to activity theory, development and learning occur through the process of expansive learning. However, Daniels (2004) notes that activity theory encourages a

pedagogic imagination in teaching and learning. Engestrom (2001) suggests that many

traditional theories of learning make certain assumptions about the learning process, for example, that knowledge is static and fixed and can be transferred from a knowledgeable teacher to a student. Even when students have all of the knowledge they require at their disposal to solve a problem, there is no guarantee that they will do that. Rather, other issues, especially when working collaboratively might impact the situation. A pedagogic

imagination allows educators to develop new ways of working and engaging students

which take into account such issues. Engestrom (2001) notes that expansive learning need not necessarily be a move upwards in understanding, but can also represent a sideways shift in the way in which learning occurs.

According to Engestrom (2001) expansive learning produces culturally new patterns of learning. These new patterns do not occur simply through individuals becoming more expert in a particular area, such as becoming expert at mathematics. Rather, the use of an activity theory framework might highlight potential explanations for this lack of

occurrence, through the concept of contradictions. In doing so, these issues can then be addressed within the system in order for expansive learning and development to occur. As

previously mentioned, contradictions impact positively or negatively on the process of expansive learning. It is these contradictions which are the motive force of change in the system (Engestrom & Miettinen 2007).

Critique of Activity Theory

Whilst the use of activity theory in research projects has increased over the last three decades (Engestrom 2009), it has attracted criticisms in a number of areas.

The Problem of Compulsory Education as an Activity

Repkin (2003) suggests that learning activity is a special form of human activity and refers to development education as the means by which to study it. The questions with which learning activity is concerned are those such as ‘how do we learn?’ ‘what mechanisms underlie learning?’ and ‘are there hidden resources available to us?’.

According to Repkin (2003), not all activity is produced by internal needs or motivations as is posited by other Activity theorists. Rather, individuals may find themselves

participating in activities involuntarily – such as education. A child is ‘sent’ to school. An important aspect of this is that the goal of the activity is not set by the individual, yet pertains to the individual. Activity itself in terms of the theoretical interpretation, is one in which the individual is actively and freely involved. Therefore a child learns because they want to rather than because they are told. The difference here is motivation towards the goal. This provides a difficulty in terms of researching activity within the learning environment – or indeed in any environment – children can perform a task but not be involved in activity.

However, Repkin’s view is perhaps too negative in terms of the motivational influences in children. In looking at a classroom full of children who appear to be thoroughly engaged with their learning it is difficult to suggest that they are not taking part in an activity. The same argument that Repkin uses could indeed be applied to any individual taking part in an activity that is not the result of a pure biological need. If a number of adults were asked their motivation for going to work in the morning I would be surprised to find that their main one was for self-fulfilment or because it was what they longed to do. Rather, many people go to work, primarily because it is expected of them in order to pay the bills, if nothing else. Likewise, children go to school because they have been socialised into going to school – it is just what children do. We can therefore assume that children are motivated

to take part in the learning activity. However, motivations may be different between children. Also, this motivation may be influenced by other factors within the activity system.

Whilst the problem of motivation is one that can be overcome within the compulsory education setting, it is nonetheless one of the weaknesses of Activity Theory. Kaptelinin and Nardi (2006) suggest that meaningful activity should be the unit of analysis. This description does represent a potential difficulty within a class problem solving activity. However, it is also addressed to a certain extent by Engestrom’s (2009) proposal of multiple activity systems. Whilst students are in the classroom setting, their motivation and attention may be on an activity, however it may not be the learning activity.

Ratner (1997) suggests that activity theory fails to fully explain negative or destructive activities by individuals within the system. However, this criticism can be answered, to a great extent by the previously mentioned concept of contradictions. Whilst negative behaviours, do not in themselves constitute contradictions, they may nonetheless be observable forms of underlying contradictions. However, such explanations can clearly not be applied to all negative behaviours and it is a criticism worth bearing in mind.

Despite these criticisms of Activity Theory it remains, nonetheless, a useful framework for understanding the use of collaborative metacognition during group work in mathematics. Activity theory takes account of multiple perspectives as well as the historical context of mathematics in the classroom. Furthermore, it allows the voice of the individual to be heard within the context of group work.

Activity theory has been associated with many different methodologies (Kaptelinin 2013). The chosen methodology for this study is case study which will be addressed in the next section.