Search:
Computing and Library Services - delivering an inspiring information environment

Activity theory: what does it offer elearning research?

Bennett, Elizabeth (2010) Activity theory: what does it offer elearning research? In: ALT-C 2009 In Dreams Begins Responsiblity, 8-10 September 2010, Manchester. (Unpublished)

[img]
Preview
PDF
Download (198kB) | Preview

    Abstract

    Activity theory is an analytical tool which offers a particularly useful perspective to those researching in elearning because of its ability to illuminate the contexts of an implementation of an innovation. Activity theory was originally conceived by Leontiev as a model of human psychology, but has been adapted to analyse complex situations involving people and organisational processes (1978). Within elearning and human computer interaction it is popular because it moves the focus of analysis from the technological tool to the way that tool is used by people to achieve a purpose.
    This paper compares the conceptions of activity theory proposed by Leontiev with the way that it has been interpreted by Engeström. The paper then focuses on how activity theory has been used to examine the impact that learning technologies have had on teachers’ practice through consideration of three case studies. The paper illustrates the methodological pluralism, the flexibility, lack of proscription and range of focus of activity theory in practice.
    As elearning seeks to become a well articulated discipline, activity theory offers a particularly useful way of conceptualising and articulating elearning practices because of its focus on a socio-cultural model for understanding the design, adoption and integration of technological tools into learning. The paper argues that Engeström’s approach to activity theory is popular despite criticisms of it as rarefied and over simplified because it fits with the characteristics of a good theory identified by Ur (2001). The paper also provides guidance on how to avoid the limitations associated with Engeström’s interpretation.

    ▼ Jump to Download Statistics
    Item Type: Conference or Workshop Item (Paper)
    Uncontrolled Keywords: activity theory elearning
    Subjects: L Education > LB Theory and practice of education > LB2300 Higher Education
    Schools: School of Education and Professional Development
    School of Education and Professional Development > Centre of Lifelong Learning and Social Justice
    School of Education and Professional Development > Centre of Lifelong Learning and Social Justice > Teaching, Public Pedagogies and Professionalism Research Group
    School of Education and Professional Development > Centre of Lifelong Learning and Social Justice > Technology Enhanced Learning Research Group
    Related URLs:
    References:

    Bannon, L. (1997). Activity Theory. Retrieved 26/10/09, from http://www.irit.fr/ACTIVITES/GRIC/cotcos/pjs/TheoreticalApproaches/Actvity/ActivitypaperBannon.htm
    Barab, S., A., Barnett, M., Yamagata-Lynch, L., Squire, K. & Keating, T. (2002). Using activity theory to understand the contradictions characterizing a technology-rich introductory astronomy course. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 9(2), 76-107. Cited in Murphy, E., & Rodriguez-Manzanares, M. A. (2008). Using activity theory and its principle of contradictions to guide research in educational technology. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24(4), 442-457.
    Basharina, O. K. (2007). An activity theory perspective on student-reported contradictions in international telecollaboration. Language Learning & Technology, 11(2), 82-103. [viewed 19 July 2007]. http://llt.msu.edu/vol11num2/basharina/default.html. Cited in Murphy, E., & Rodriguez-Manzanares, M. A. (2008). Using activity theory and its principle of contradictions to guide research in educational technology. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24(4), 442-457.
    Benson, A., Lawler, C., & Whitworth, A. (2008). Rules, roles and tools: Activity theory and the comparative study of e-learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(3), 456-467.
    Dippe, G. (2006). The Missing Teacher: Contradictions and Conflicts in the Experience of Online Learners. Paper presented at the Networked Learning, Lancaster.
    Ellis, R. (1997). SLA Research and Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cited in Ur, P. (2001). Opening Gates to Teacher Education. Retrieved 27/10/09, from vcisrael.macam.ac.il/site/eng/files/E1A003/files/theoryvc.DOC
    Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive Learning at Work: toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133-156.
    Hardman, J. (2005). An exploratory case study of computer use in a primary school mathematics classroom: New technology, new pedagogy? Perspectives in Education, 23(4), 99-111. Cited in Murphy, E., & Rodriguez-Manzanares, M. A. (2008). Using activity theory and its principle of contradictions to guide research in educational technology. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24(4), 442-457.
    Huberman, M. & M.B. Miles (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis. London: Sage. Cited in Ur, P. (2001). Opening Gates to Teacher Education. Retrieved 27/10/09, from vcisrael.macam.ac.il/site/eng/files/E1A003/files/theoryvc.DOC
    Issroff, K., & Scanlon, E. (2002). Using technology in Higher Education: an Activity Theory perspective. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18, 77-83.
    Kaptelinin, V., & Nardi, B. A. (2006). Acting with Technology Activity Theory and Interaction Design. London: MIT Press.
    Kuutti, K. (1996). Activity Theory as a Potential Framework for Human Computer Interaction. In B. Nardi (Ed.), Context and Consciousness. London: MIT Press.
    Langemeyer, I., & Nissen, M. (2004). Activity Theory. In C. Lewin & B. Somekh (Eds.), Research Methods in the Social Sciences (pp. 188-192). London: Sage.
    Langemeyer, I., & Roth, W.-M. (2006). Is Cultural-Historical Activity Theory Threatened to Fall Short of its Own Principles and Possibilities as a Dialectical Social Science? Outlines, 2, 20-42.
    Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science; selected theoretical papers. In D. Cartwright (Ed.). New York: Harper Rowe.
    Leontiev, A. N. (1978). Activity, Consciousness, and Personality. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
    Murphy, E., & Rodriguez-Manzanares, M. A. (2008). Using activity theory and its principle of contradictions to guide research in educational technology. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24(4), 442-457.
    Murphy, E., Rodriguez-Manzanares, M. A., Dodd, C., & Kerr, B. (2006). Using third generation activity theory and contradictions to analyse qualitative data. Retrieved 25 January 2007, from http://cider.athabascau.ca/CIDERSessions/sessionarchive/
    Mwanza, D. (2001). Changing Tools, Changing Attitudes: Effects of introducing a CSCL system to promote learning at work. Paper presented at the Euro-CSCL 2001: 1st European Conference on Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning
    Mwanza-Simwami, D. (2007). Concepts and Methods for investigating learner activities with Mobile Devices: An Activity Theory Perspective. Paper presented at the Beyond Mobile Learning Workshop.
    Nardi, B. A. (Ed.). (1996). Context and Consciousness. London: The MIT Press.
    Popper, K. 1963. Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Cited in Ur, P. (2001). Opening Gates to Teacher Education. Retrieved 27/10/09, from vcisrael.macam.ac.il/site/eng/files/E1A003/files/theoryvc.DOC
    Price, S., & Oliver, M. (2007). A framework for conceptualising the Impact of Technology on Teaching and Learning. Educational Technology & Society, 10(1), 16-27.
    Scanlon, E., & Issroff, K. (2005). Activity Theory and Higher Education:evaluating learning technologies. Journal of Computer Assisted learning 21, 430-439.
    Somekh, B., & Saunders, L. (2007). Developing knowledge through intervention: meaning and definition of ‘quality’ in research into change. Research Papers in Education, 22(2), 183-197.
    Swan, M. (1994). Design criteria for pedagogic language rules. In Bygate, M., A. Tonkyn, & E. Williams (eds) Grammar and the Language Teacher. Hemel Hempstead: Prentice Hall International. Cited in Ur, P. (2001). Opening Gates to Teacher Education. Retrieved 27/10/09, from vcisrael.macam.ac.il/site/eng/files/E1A003/files/theoryvc.DOC
    Tompsett, C. (2007) Tipping into the abyss: with more than a virtual parachute? ALT-J, 15, (2), pp. 175–180
    Ur, P. (2001). Opening Gates to Teacher Education. Retrieved 27/10/09, from vcisrael.macam.ac.il/site/eng/files/E1A003/files/theoryvc.DOC

    Depositing User: Elizabeth Bennett
    Date Deposited: 31 May 2011 16:24
    Last Modified: 06 Aug 2013 10:36
    URI: http://eprints.hud.ac.uk/id/eprint/10631

    Document Downloads

    Downloader Countries

    More statistics for this item...

    Item control for Repository Staff only:

    View Item

    University of Huddersfield, Queensgate, Huddersfield, HD1 3DH Copyright and Disclaimer All rights reserved ©