LAS TELEVISIONES AUTONÓMICAS

As noted in the introduction to Chapter 2, this study uses activity theory as its theoretical framework. The main principles and components of the theory having been set out in that chapter (Section 2.2), this section gives further details of its working, while section 3.5 explains its use in the present study.

There are many versions of AT; Rogers (2008) cited in (Law and Sun, 2012) claims that 57 versions exist. In all versions, the basic idea is to examine all factors that impact on an Activity, in this case the use of tablets in schools, and the different aspects of that Activity. An Activity is a system of human Actions directed toward an Object and mediated by artefacts in relation to a Community and a set of Rules. AT conceptualises human Activities as being interlinked, with each Activity connected to or leading to another. It is often difficult to isolate them or their impact (Engestrom, Yrjo, 2000); therefore understanding any single Activity involves exploring its relationship with others. It must also take account of participants’ aims and values and of social and cultural factors (Kaptelinin, 1996).

AT holds that Activities are mediated through Tools, which can be instruments, signs or ideas. It is used to explain the meaning that Tools carry in social Activities. External Tools are used to enhance pupils’ learning in many teaching contexts and where technological devices such as computers are integrated (Kaptelinin, 1996; Nardi, 1996).

Thus, AT is a way of analysing the complex context of an Activity, providing the researcher with concepts for developing an understanding of the Activity System. It has been used to study the conflicts arising from the implementation of new technologies, where teachers’ beliefs clash with their actual practices (Russell and Schneiderheinze, 2005). For example, to understand students’ resistance to the introduction of computer-assisted language learning into their learning context, Blin (2004) examined learners’ educational histories and their history of technology use.

Among the reasons for using AT in this context is the fact that it makes no strong distinction between the human Subjects, the existing and newly adopted Tools and other components of the Activity, but views them all as integrated and interacting elements. AT thus helps to explore the changes in teachers’ practices or the ways in which they reconstruct their teaching Activities when new technologies are introduced ( Buell, 2004 cited in Murphy and Rodriguez- Manzanares, 2008)

Using Activity as a unit of analysis allows the phenomenon of interest to be analysed as an individual Activity or a collective process. AT provides a framework for examining a structured sequence of Operations, Actions and Activities with their mediating Tools within a given context. It is possible to differentiate between the collective Activity and its Actions with an extended snapshot of that Activity (Allen et al., 2011). For example, when a group of students use their computers to search for information, there will be a difference between the skills learned by individuals while searching and the information found with the operations of the search process. AT provides flexibility so that each individual’s search for information can be viewed as several individual Activities that are constitutive Actions of an Activity System (Allen et al., 2011).

By breaking down the collective Activity into groups of smaller Activities within the same context, AT enables the researcher to perform a deeper level of analysis of the main Activity System in context. It also accommodates the examination of an Activity as a combination of the Actions of individuals who together constitute the Subject of the collective Activity (Engeström, Engeström, and Vähäaho cited in Allen et al., 2011). By identifying these different elements, a researcher can study the working of the relationships and patterns that make up the Activity System (Russell and Schneiderheinze, 2005). In order to explore these relations and patterns, Engeström (2001) describes five principles of AT, namely collectivity, multi-voicedness, history and development, contradiction and transformation.

3.4.1 Collectivity

The first principle of activity theory is that the prime unit of analysis is the collective Activity. This includes the Tool-mediated Activity, which is seen in relation to other Activities that exist in its network. It is thus important not to isolate the use of tablets or to view only their uses on specific tasks; instead, their presence in the lesson must be viewed against different components of AT such as Rules, Division of Labour, Object and all other pillars, in addition to different teaching and learning tasks that are carried out during the lesson.

3.4.2 Multi-voicedness

The complexity of an Activity, the people involved from the Community, along with the Subject and the Division of Labour within the Activity, create different views, interests and objectives within the Activity, which Engeström calls the multi-voicedness of the Activity. This also refers to the different views created for different components of the Activity, along with its accumulative history, which multiply in the network of Activities, since Activities are connected. Multi- voicedness is a “source of trouble and source of innovation”, requiring the action of negotiation (Engestrom, 2001, p.136).

3.4.3 History and development

AT analyses Activities in the environment in which they exist. However, it also takes account of two types of history of each Activity. The first meaning of history here relates simply to how long the Activity has existed. For example, when studying a teacher’s use of computers in her classroom it is useful to know the length of her experience in classroom computer use. Secondly, it also important to identify the history within the Activity and how each Activity has developed, as there might be varying histories within an Activity (Kaptelinin, 1996).

3.4.4 Contradictions

Engeström argues that disturbance, defined as “deviation from standard script” (Engestrom, Yrjo, 2000. P 964) is a sign of considerable contradictions. Contradictions have been described in many ways, using words such as ‘disturbance’, ‘conflict’, ‘denial’, ‘problem’, ‘clash’, ‘breakdown’ and ‘instability’ (Murphy and Rodriguez-Manzanares, 2008). The best description I have found is “a misfit within elements, between them, between different activities, or between different developmental phases of a single activity” (Kuutti, 1996, p.34). Introducing a new Tool, such as the tablet, can create contradictions with some existing Activity components such as Rules or Division of Labour, resulting in inconsistency with the new Tool (Engeström, 2001). Contradictions are not viewed as problems or conflicts, however, but rather as guiding innovation, change and development. Contradictions appear as a visible disturbance (Capper and Williams, 2004) that reduces coordination of interaction as well as creating a noticeable change of interaction flow (Bodker, 1989). These disturbances within and between Activities start when individuals receive more than one message linked to daily practices and where these messages run counter to each other, creating contradiction (Engeström, 1987).

Innovation and developments emerge when people involved in the Activity work on resolving contradictions (Engeström and Sannino, 2010). Since they create the motive for change, paving the way for potential development and innovation through change, contradictions are not to be viewed negatively; on the contrary, they are important for development. Activity Systems work to gradually resolve

contradictions through the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) and by redefining Motives and Objects. However, contradictions may reappear at different stages of the Activity (Engeström, 2001). On the other hand, a positive result is not guaranteed, as it depends on how contradictions are addressed and resolved. In other words, development does not always occur, because contradiction can enable or disable the progress of a learning Activity (Nelson, 2002). Furthermore, Capper and Williams (2004) believe that it not always easy to identify and tackle contradictions, as some of them are “invisible and undiscussable” and the invisibility of these contradictions can lead people to take them for granted and to fail to recognise their difficulties, especially in relation to culture. Undiscussable contradictions are visible, but people avoid talking about them due to cultural or political restrictions or because of personal habits that make them feel embarrassed when discussing some issues.

3.4.5 Transformation

Engeström (2001) argues that “standard” learning theories focus on the idea that learners are there to acquire defined skills or knowledge and the outcome is an observable change in their behaviour. These theories assume that skills and knowledge are stable and that it is the teacher who should identify what is to be learned. Engeström rejects this view, contending that all types of learners actually learn things that are not defined or understood ahead of the learning process. He believes that in their personal lives and practices, individuals learn as yet unseen forms of Activities, which in fact are still being created while the learning happens. He calls this “expansive transformation”, in which the learning Activity moves through a cycle of transformation as contradictions drive the Activity System and participating individuals to question and reform pre-existing norms. He claims that “standard” learning theories are of little help in trying to understand these processes. Building on these ideas, Roth et al. (2009) assert that learning, progress and development cannot be reduced to individual Subjects, because the Activity System has a non-self-identical nature, whereby different parts of the Activity may be viewed as representing individual aspects of it, but the Activity has to be considered as whole in order to see the complete developmental picture. They conclude that it makes no sense to view a classroom learning

Activity System without considering its links to the school Activity System of which it is part (Roth et al., 2009).