Engeström’s (1987a) triangular model of activity (Figure 3.2) makes clear that each node has a reciprocal influence and importance with respect to all the others. Community is one such node; thus the community in which an activity takes place not only affects the subject, object, tools, division of labour and rules of the activity, it has a telling influence on the process of the activity as well. Figure 3.4 offers an example of the activity of a student undertaking a CAA test.
This section on ‘community’ begins with a brief review of the impact that community has on the other nodes of activity, as described by Leont’ev, Engeström and others that have assisted in the development of understanding activity.
It continues and culminates with the notion of figured worlds, as proposed by Holland et al. (1998b), which offers a construct for framing and understanding how individuals act within particular socially and culturally formed contexts.
Community in the activity system
Leont’ev (1977) affirmed the critical importance of community in human activity: “Despite all its diversity, all its special features the activity of the human individual is a system that obeys the system of relations of society. Outside these relations human activity does not exist.” (Leont’ev,1977, p. 7)
Subject Object Tools
Rules Community Division of labour
Production
Consumption
Exchange Distribution
Figure 3.5: Activity in Marx (1999) as parts of the Engeström (1987a) triangle
While individuals are intrinsically influenced by the society and culture in which they are immersed, Leont’ev was clear that it was not a simple matter of deducing or predicting an individual’s actions by the norms of those societies and cultures.
In the previous section, Motives and goals, Tikhomirov’s position on the formulation of goals and the choices that individuals and groups make to pursue those goals were described. He believed that all group goals were once formulated by individuals, and individuals within those groups may elect to adopt or reject those group goals in their own actions. Pointedly, he noted that it was not simply a matter of individuals adopting the goals of the group — or community — to which they belong, “since otherwise law- breaking could not have been explained” (Tikhomirov,1988, p. 117).
From Leont’ev and Tikhomirov, there is a clear impression that the individual and their community are not always reflected faithfully from one to the other. However, Leont’ev noted the importance of community and the adoption of a common motive across the community as a necessary characteristic of human activity derived from the Marxist ideology from which activity theory was conceived.
Engeström (1987a) made the influences of community on the activity system clear in his triangular representation of activity. In this diagram, community is seen to have a reflexive influence on the subject, the object, the division of labour, the rules and the development of tools.
He also suggested that “each sub-triangle. . . is potentially an activity of its own” (Engeström,
1987a) and used Marx’s (1999) terminology for production, exchange, consumption and distribution to represent them (Figure 3.5). The influence of community on the other nodes of activity is most telling in the latter three triangles.
Marx (1999) described the four processes represented by the sub-triangles in the following way:
“. . . in production the members of society appropriate (create, shape) the products of nature in accord with human needs; distribution determines the proportion in which the individual shares in the product; exchange delivers the particular products into which the individual desires to convert the por- tion which distribution has assigned to him; and finally, in consumption, the products become objects of gratification, of individual appropriation. Pro- duction creates the objects which correspond to the given needs; distribution divides them up according to social laws; exchange further parcels out the already divided shares in accord with individual needs; and finally, in con- sumption, the product steps outside this social movement and becomes a direct object and servant of individual need, and satisfies it in being con- sumed.” (Marx,1999, ch. 1, sect. 2, para. 2)
In this passage, Marx noted the community influence in all four processes. In production, the community and the individual agree on the object of the activity; in distribution, the responsibilities for individuals within the activity are allocated; in exchange — or, as Engeström suggested, communication — products, tools, rules and information are exchanged between individuals in the community of the activity; and in consumption, the product of the activity serves to satisfy the needs of the individuals within the community.
Hence it is clear that the community of an activity has a direct impact on the processes that occur within that activity. Consequently, the course and end-product of the activity are also affected by the community.
How does one define the community in which lecturers and students engage with computer- aided assessment? If the community is defined by those agents that have some investment in the individual’s activity — that is, those agents that have an effect on the individual’s activity — then the scope for those agents included is very large: students are influenced by family, friends, peers, lecturers, former teachers, and so on; for lecturers, colleagues, administrators, students, research literature, and so on, may have an influence on their teaching.
However, it is perhaps somewhat peculiar to consider the student’s family, for example, as part of the community in the activity of learning at university or taking computer-aided assessments. Nonetheless, there remain cultural and historical influences on the individ- ual, regardless whether these influencers may be considered as part of the ‘community’ of the activity.
In order to make more sense of the distinctions between those in the community of the activity and those that merely form an external cultural or historical influence, the notion of figured worlds is useful as a framework for describing the agency of individuals both to be an individual within a community seeking a common motive, and to have multiple identities for engaging with multiple activities and multiple communities.
Figured worlds
Individuals are engaged in several activities in which there are different communities, ex- pectations, outcomes and tools. In participating in each activity, individuals are expected to act according to those norms and accepted practices: in other words, individuals act differently according to the activity system in which they are engaged in. Holland, Lachicotte Jr, Skinner, and Cain (1998a) called this notion “figured worlds”.
“By ‘figured world’, then, we mean a socially and culturally constructed realm of interpretation in which particular characters and actors are recognised, significance is assigned to certain acts, and particular outcomes are valued over others.” (Holland et al.,1998a, p. 52)
A university comprises several figured worlds: some value academic endeavours; some reward sporting achievement; some desire administrative efficiency; some value social skills. Students and lecturers at the university find themselves engaging with several different figured worlds with activities that sometimes compete for an individual’s time and effort.
Lecturers are teachers, assessors and researchers. While teaching, they are governed by rules of the institution and expectations from the student; they engage primarily with students and use a variety of tools to communicate. While assessing, lecturers abide by a different set of rules and cultural expectations; they have a different role in administering and reporting students’ performances and use different tools. While researching, the community is very different — little interaction with students and more with peers and colleagues — and the motives are substantially different.
For students, university life transcends study. There are several study activities: in the lecture, in the seminar, in the library, in the exam hall, and so on. The activity is visibly different in each. Many students also live at university and, for some, their social lives are centred around their halls of residence. They might also engage with sports groups, clubs and societies.
Figured worlds are spaces in which new identities not only develop but are expected to develop: in order to engage with others and achieve while in a figured world, individuals must participate in community activities. However, the identities that develop within figured worlds tend not to be distinct or “brand new”. Consequently, one might expect that new students entering university will inherit aspects of their identities developed prior to arrival and develop new characteristics as they partake in these new activities. Citing Holland et al. (1998a), Rush and Fecho described figured worlds as being contin- uous and developing; to which the same could be said for individuals’ identities as they develop in a figured world:
“Figured worlds acknowledge the simultaneity of their historic and the dy- namic. As such, there is an understanding that what is will continue, but what is will also be different even as it retains qualities of what has gone before. The process of improvisation — of finding space for oneself within a larger social construct — figures significantly into this transaction of the historic and the dynamic.” (Rush & Fecho,2008, p. 126, emphasis added for clarity)
Rubin (2007, p. 245) concluded: “The conceptual frame of figured worlds is a powerful tool for illuminating how everyday activities and events become part of identity pro- duction.” In the Rush and Fecho (2008) study, the students were encouraged to develop identities as speech and language practitioners; Rubin reported on the effects of a figured world on the development of students’ identities in the classroom.
The idea that figured worlds develop participants’ identities is an important one. The Rubin study indicated how this can have a negative impact on students’ identities and, as a consequence, how they form their aims, motives and ambitions.
The figured worlds from which university students come from typically — but not always — relate to secondary school, in which there are expectations for conduct, study and assessment. Upon arriving at university, these students arrive at new figured worlds in which the rules are not enforced in the same way, and the division of labour is such that the students are expected to work more autonomously.
As well as being a place for learning, university is also a social space. This study is situated in a British university with a large campus: many students live on-site or nearby. It is renowned for its reputation in sports and many students participate in societies and clubs. Each of these social spaces forms a figured world and students may form multiple identities.
Thus a student might not just be a student while at university: they might also be footballers or hockey players; they might be activists, fundraisers or student representa- tives; they might also be a halls resident and form their own communities based on their interests with housemates.
As these identities develop, students may find that their figured worlds collide: they may be faced with tensions that arise from sports fixtures or outings, for example. In such cases, the students may have to align more with one identity than another.
Lecturers face similar tensions and choices. They engage with many figured worlds within the university, which include research, teaching and assessment commitments. In each of these figured worlds, with differing — and sometimes conflicting — demands and outcomes, lecturers juggle their time to fulfil their commitments.
Therefore, an important consideration for choosing a methodology is to capture these fig- ured worlds and how they impact on identity development and the resolution of tensions between competing identities.
It is possible that CAA could be considered a figured world in which individuals develop new identities and actions. If CAA does form a figured world, then there may be tensions that arise between the expectations within the CAA figured world and other figured worlds.
In order for CAA to be considered a figured world there must be identities, actions and goals that are valued distinctly from other figured worlds in the university community. Therefore, the analysis should determine what identities, actions and goals are valued in CAA testing and whether these are considered distinct and different.