T´ erminos referentes a PPMIMERGE

A key aspect of contradictions is that their recognition delivers insight into the change and development possibilities of activities. Karanssios, Riisla and Simeonova (2017) argue that as contradictions arise, or are observed, they expose the dynamics, inefficiencies, and most

importantly, opportunities for change and action. Contradictions are historically accumulating structural tensions within and between activity systems, consequently causing a change (breakdown or development) in people’s activities or themselves (Blin & Munro, 2007:457). By their nature, contradictions often cause a sort of imbalance to the original activity and have the potential for instigating a change process. Contradictions are inevitable in the functioning of any activity system because they serve as useful sources for expansive developmental transformations (Igira & Aanestad, 2009:209). They are especially important in the study of social settings because of the way they result in change and development.

In some contexts, contradictions appear as tensions (Barab, Schatz & Scheckler, 2004:25), in others as breakdowns, conflicts or clashes between people, their cultures, practices or beliefs (Basharina, 2007:82; Demiraslan & Usluel, 2008:458), and yet in others as dilemmas and discoordinations (Roth, 2004:1). Several researchers (e.g. Lim & Hang, 2003:49; Basharina, 2007:84; Murphy & Rodriguez-Manzanares, 2008:442; Demiraslan & Usluel, 2008:458; and Hu & Webb, 2009:178) argue that contradictions often occur in the form of limited tools and infrastructure, training of teachers, misalignment of academic calendars, culturally inappropriate pedagogical models, academic socialisation, technological access, methods of learning accreditation and diversity in backgrounds, cultures, values and beliefs.

According to Engeström and Sannino (2011:1), a double bind is a type of paradox that is a manifestation of a contradiction within the meaning of activity theory. I take up the same idea, adding to it that paradox is not a contradiction, but that paradoxes can be manifestations of contradictions. For this research, contradictions were used as a conceptual framework to guide data collection and analysis (Foot & Groleau, 2011:238).

Activity theory uses the term contradictions (breakdowns, conflicts) to indicate a misfit within elements, between them, between different activities or between different developmental phases of a single activity (Engeström & Sannino, 2011:371). The challenges or problems that crop up with the introduction of computers as mediational tools in the activity of learning from the point of view of AT could be termed contradictions and indicate a misfit within elements. Activity systems are characterised by their own internal contradictions. These contradictions can also be

tensions that arise between the various components of the activity system. These tensions are critical to understanding what motivates specific actions within the activity system, and more generally in understanding the dynamic nature (evolution) of the system (Barab et al., 2002:25).

From the above discussion of contradictions and their manifestation according to the AT framework, it is evident that contradictions are important aspects in an activity because they might be used as sources of development. In other words, contradictions trigger reflection, thereby helping in the improvement of the activity. Contradictions reveal themselves as breakdowns, problems, tensions or misfits between elements of an activity or between activities (Demiraslan & Usluel, 2008:460).

The following tensions within the activity developed by Media Works were identified: systems quality, which measures technical successes; information quality, which measures semantic success; and user satisfaction. All these tensions have an impact on individuals, the organisation, the object and the community, as well as between the rules and the community. Furthermore, the solutions were identified which may be adopted to relieve tensions at a later stage.

In the first case, the tension exists because of the effects that the object (e.g., changes in the Media Works programmes) will have on the community. For example, if a change (the object) is introduced in the workbook, other learners (the community) might need to be informed because they may need to perform additional tasks as a result (e.g. update the documentation). The tension exists because developers are not aware of some interdependencies in the software and, therefore, how other members of the community are affected by their work. Nevertheless, the community must support the evolution of the programme and guarantee that the programme delivered is not inconsistent with the specifications, manuals and other artefacts.

In the second case, the tension exists between rules and the community because one rule suggests that a computer technician should perform a specific action so that the programme should run fully, but he takes days or weeks after a call has been logged by the AET centre manager, whereby the technician’s slackness affects the rest of the community. Media Works’ learning intervention management system called Navigate is a computer system used for computer-based learning in

the AET programme. It was noted that facilitators in other AET centres relied more on workbooks only than on the computer applications intended to up-skill learners because of a lack of access to computers, thus defeating the purpose of using the computer (object) for teaching and learning.

In the third case, the tension exists because of limited tools and infrastructure, technological access and methods of learning. Identifying these contradictions has helped me to see activity systems beyond just a single system but also the links with other systems. Without such links, a system cannot function effectively. These other systems were considered simultaneously as constituents of the activity system during analysis. My opinion of an AET computer class is that it should be one of the many places of socialisation where a theoretical framework helps to understand and analyse the relationship between the human mind (what people think and feel) and activity (what people do).

Tensions produced by the primary contradiction were illustrated for each element in the activity system: subject, object, instruments or tools, community, rules and division of labour. Examples from the case study showed that the primary contradictions between quality and use of the AET computer programme at this mine manifested themselves in the form of tensions in each element of the activity system and were thus numbered 1-4 and shown in Figure 2.6.

Engeström (2001:133) identifies four levels of contradictions, which are summarised in Figure 2.6. Primary contradictions refer to inner contradictions within each constituent component of the central activity system (i.e. rules, artefacts, division of labour, object, subject, and community). “This primary contradiction pervades all elements of our activity systems” (Engeström, 2001:137).

Figure 2.6: Four levels of contradictions (adapted from Engeström, 2001)

The primary contradictions were dormant and revealed themselves in secondary contradictions which took the form of concrete tensions between the constituents of the central activity system. Secondary contradiction takes place between the constituents of the central activity (i.e. rules, artefacts, division of labour). Activity theorists highlight that the primary contradictions evolve taking the form of secondary and tertiary contradictions that contribute to the instability of the system. Tertiary contradictions occur when the designed or given new model is gradually replaced by another new one, firmly grounded in practice through the resolution of the contradictions between the given new and the existing forms of the activity. Quaternary contradictions occur when activity participants encounter changes to an activity that result in creating conflicts with adjacent activities. Table 2.1 shows how the four levels of contradictions were identified in this case study.

Table 2.1: Four levels of contradictions Level of Contradictions Example

Primary Contradiction Out of four AET centres only one for Own-time used face-to-face and engaged with computers for curriculum delivery. The curriculum for Media Works, who are service providers for AET learning material, encompasses face-to-face and multimedia, which created concrete tensions between the constituents of the central activity system.

Secondary Contradiction AET centre managers and facilitators did not seem not to be accountable for responsibilities introduced to them like integration of computers for teaching and learning to meet other daily teaching responsibilities. I observed tension between the rules and the instruments when there were highly hierarchical policies and procedures regarding installation of any computer software in the mine’s computers. Purchasing of new computers, which were not installed with Media Works computer software used for teaching and learning, also caused tensions in the case study in the sense that centre managers had to log a call with the Media Works service desk to install a new software package and the turnaround time was not guaranteed

Tertiary contradiction New methods for facilitation, which included integration of computers, did not necessarily fit into facilitators’ daily classroom practices as they seemed to be comfortable with face-to-face teaching and only used computers to fast-track those adult learners who were seasoned performers.

Quaternary contradiction One area of change to facilitators’ daily classroom practice interacted with other activities in the classroom and necessitated more change. According to Akkerman and Bakker (2011:167), a boundary crossing perspective allows a more fine-grained understanding of the required new relationships and cultural perceptions, as it is specifically targeted at analysing challenges and learning opportunities of situations in which diverse stakeholders (e.g., different disciplines or institutions) need to collaborate. Boundary objects are designed to enable the change of horizons and the crossing of boundaries and hence continue to support learning.

2.2.6 Boundary crossing: learners’ engagement with computers as a tool for learning