Activity theory as an organising structure for the

Activity theory evolved from the work of Vygotsky and his colleagues, A. N. Leont’ev and A. R. Luria (1978), who offer a conceptual framework for learning environments based on establishing a relationship between learning systems or objects in the environment and users or learners, also known as actors (Bannon, 1991). This relationship was established by means of mediating agents or cultural tools. It is a “philosophical and cross-disciplinary framework for studying different forms of human praxis as developmental processes, both individual and social levels interlinked at the same time” (Kuutti, 1995, p. 7). It is, therefore, an ideal

goal-oriented and which are characteristic of complex and collaborative learning tasks.

Furthermore, activity theory posits that “conscious learning emerges from activity (performance), not as a precursor to it” (Jonassen & Rohrer-Murphy, 1999, p. 1). In this light, activity theory provides us with another way of viewing human thinking within the performance of an activity. In human-computer interaction, activity theory is used as a framework to describe the structure, development and context of tasks that are mediated by objects, signs, artefacts or tools such as a computerised system (Kuutti, 1995). Clearly, the application of activity theory goes beyond the user interface interaction or learning system but is an association of all the above and, therefore, can be viewed as encapsulating the elemental components of technology-mediated activity processes; technology then becomes an enabler of learning. Ratner (1996; 1997) contends that activity theory consists of goal-oriented tasks that need to be performed as part of the design of a learning activity or program and are, therefore, contextualised. His work suggests that learners are actively engaging rather than being passive participants in technology-mediated and goal- oriented activities or tasks. Furthermore, in activity theory-based learning

environments, the actors or learners are brought together as a collective unit through activity goals and objectives. Within this interaction, contradictions and tensions shape developments in educational pursuits (Yamagata-Lynch, 2007). So activity theory can be used as a way of explaining activities or as a methodology for studying activities of students in ICE (integrated collaborative environments).

The unit of analysis for activity theory-based environments is the activity which consists of the subject or actor (individual or group), object or goal (products acted on with its attendant motivations), tools/instruments or methods/operations

(processes undertaken to reach the objective including microprocesses that make up the actions), community (sociocultural context), rules (implicit and explicit rules and norms of the community that constrain the activity), division of labour (horizontal and vertical roles and relationships within the community that affect task division) and outcome (transformation of the objects; the overall intention of the activity system) (Collis & Margaryan, 2004; Jonassen & Rohrer-Murphy, 1999; Nardi, 1996; Shanahan, 2009). Modifications to the activity system model, or otherwise known as third generation models, were subsequently proposed by Backhurst (2009) and Yamagata-Lynch (2007), and which consisted of two or more interacting activity systems. However for the purposes of this study, Kuuti’s (1995) diagrammatic structure showing the relationship of activity elements for a single system is shown in Figure 2.4.

Figure 2.4. Basic structure of an activity (Kuutti, 1995).

This systemic model — which is based on the conceptualization by Engeström (1987) contains three mutual relationships between subject, object and community (an activity is actually a systemic whole in the sense that all elements have a relationship to other elements, but all those connections have not been presented in the picture for the [sic] sake of clarity). The relationship between subject and object is mediated by “tools”, the relationship between subject and community is mediated by

“rules” and the relationship between object and community is mediated by the “division of labour”. These three classes should be understood rather broadly. A “tool” can be anything which is used in the transformation process, including both material tools and tools for thinking; “rules” cover both explicit and implicit norms, conventions and social relations within a community; “division of labour” refers to the explicit and implicit

organization of a community as related to the transformation process of the object into the outcome; each of the mediating terms is historically formed and open to further development (Kuutti, 1995, pp. 8-9).

The constructs of critical thinking (outcome), collaborative learning groups (community) and complex and contextualised task/activity (object), technology (tool) and the learner skill bases of eductive ability, learning approaches and technological self-efficacy (subject) are organised and integrated over Kuuti’s (1995) model in order to see how these are related to the various elements of the activity system as shown in Figure 2.5.

Figure 2.5. Instructional design process overlaying the activity system.

Transformation Process TOOLS Collaborative technology SUBJECT Eductive ability, learning approaches, motivation and

technological self-efficacy

OBJECT

Performance of activity tasks that elicits critical thinking

COMMUNITY Group/Class RULES DIV OF LABOUR OUTCOME CT Analyse, Define/design and Develop

Implement/activate

Evaluate

The instructional design process often used by instructional designers (e.g., computer and engineering course design) is based on the project management life cycle of analysis, define/design, develop, implement and evaluate (ADDIE), as discussed in Molenda (2003) and Godat and Atkin (2011), are overlaid in the model. Although Figure 2.5 offers an organisational schema, it does not provide a clear framework for operationalising and implementing the various elements of the activity system within teaching and learning practice. Based on the foundational constructs of activity theory above, and going back to the intent of this study, that of determining deep learning and critical thinking behaviour for learners with differing skill bases (eductive ability, technological self-efficacy, approach to learning and

motivation), a preliminary instructional design framework was proposed to guide

activity design and the integration of technology within collaborative environments for this study.