I have introduced the concept of activity in the previous section in terms of an overall theoretical perspective. In Soviet Psychology the concept of activity was developed and used both in a ‘broad’ sense and in a ‘narrower’ sense (Davidov and Markova, 1983). In the broad sense, activity was regarded as a theoretical concept, and in the narrower sense as a device giving structure to human activity. In the broad sense, it was used “in connection with the principle of the unity of mind and activity” (ibid, p. 54), as a principle for a theoretical foundation. In the narrower and more specific sense, it was used to describe internal activity by distinguishing “two sets of structural characteris- tics: activity-action-operation, and motive-goal-constraint” (ibid, p. 55) which related to Leontiev’s work on activity. I now discuss the concept of activity in its ‘narrower’ sense, as an analytical device.
45
Figure 4.1: The Structural Elements of Activity
Leontiev (1981) defined the components of activity on three levels. At the top level the subject’s activity is related to a motive, at the second level actions are related to goals, and at the third level the operations are related to the conditions, or constraints, underpinning an activity. This provides, to some extent, a hierarchical structure that is suitable for analysis and categorisation. However, the elements at each level relate to each other in different ways which results in three qualitatively different levels of analysis.
I have reproduced a diagram from Goodchild (1997, p. 28) that shows the elements of activity (see Figure 4.1)1. The diagram shows the relationship between motive and activity. Activity is fundamentally related to motive and consists of, but is not limited to actions and goals. Actions realise and give form to activity. Actions in turn consist of operations which are constrained by conditions. These provide the elements of human activity. However, human activity is not limited to the sum of these elements. It includes also, for example, the relationships between the elements.
At the top level of analysis activity is characterised by its motive, or objective. Activity comprises of actions. Leontiev wrote,
1
. . . actions are not special “parts” that constitute activity. Human activity exists only in the form of an action or a chain of actions. (Leontiev, 1981, p. 61)
The actions are subordinated to goals. Whereas goals are consciously held, the individual engaged in activity may be less aware of the motive of activity. Motives underpin activity, and there cannot be activity without a motive. Leontiev explained:
There can be no activity without a motive. “Unmotivated” activity is not activity devoid of a motive: it is activity with a motive that is subjectively and objectively concealed. (Leontiev, 1981, p. 59)
Thus the motive may not be ‘obvious’ or ‘transparent’ to the subject, or to other par- ticipants engaged in activity, or the motive may be hidden or obscured by the context or situation. If the subject engaged in activity is, or becomes conscious of the motive then the motive becomes a motive-goal.
An action, on the other hand, is determined by its goal orientation.
We call a process an action when it is subordinated to the idea of achieving a result, i.e., a process that is subordinated to a conscious goal. (Leontiev, 1981, p. 59; underlined in original )
Due to their link with actions, goals are consciously held and for the most part achievable, while the motive of the activity may not be.
Thus the motive is the energising function for activity, whereas the goals and actions, at the second level of analysis, take over a directive function (Leontiev, 1981, p. 60). It is sometimes difficult to distinguish between the two levels, activity and action. Leontiev offered the following explanation which I found helpful:
When a concrete process is taking place before us, external or internal, then from the point of its relation to motive, it appears as human activity, but when it is subordinated to purpose, then it appears as an action or accumula- tion of a chain of actions. (Leontiev, 1978, p. 64; italics my emphasis; cited in Kozulin, 1986)
I used this explanation (in my analysis in Chapter 5) to distinguish activity from the actions that contributed to activity.
47
But operations and actions are also often difficult to distinguish from one another. Human actions have both an intentional aspect (what must be done) and an opera- tional aspect (how it can be done). The means by which an action is carried out are the operations, the ‘how it can be done’.
The individual involved in an action must perform operations to carry out the action (where the action is in pursuit of a goal). Goals are given under certain conditions, or constraints which are related to factors in the social or cultural environment of hu- man activity. Operations, on the other hand, are dependent on, and limited by these very conditions. Hence I summarise the three levels of activity by writing activity correspondent to a motive, actions correspondent to goals and operations dependent on conditions (see below). The elements at each level of activity are related to each other in different ways. In applying Leontiev’s framework to my data I obtained three qualitatively different levels of analysis.
In following Leontiev, Zinchenko and Gordon (1981) proposed ‘mobility’ between the elements of activity and in the relationships between elements, reflecting the changing nature of human activity.2
The relationships among the components of activity are mobile and change- able. What is the goal of an activity can become its means under other conditions; conversely, the means of an activity can become actions. The mobility of these relationships can also be seen in the fact that one and the same goal can be attained by various means just as one and the same set of means can be used to reach different goals. The interrelationship between goals and motives can change in an analogous way. (Zinchenko and Gordon, 1981, p. 74)
Intermediate goals may also be identified from a more global goal which may result in dividing an action into separate successive actions. Or, on the other hand, intermediate goals may merge into an overarching goal and become less conscious to the individual in activity. Leontiev expressed ‘mobility’ between the elements of activity (the “units”) in terms of “division” or, conversely, “consolidation”. He said,
The mobility of the various “units” of the system of activity is expressed by the fact that each of them can become fractional or, conversely, can embrace units that formerly were relatively independent. (Leontiev, 1981, p. 65)
2
In the quotation that follows, Zinchenko used ‘means’ instead of ‘operations’ as Wertsch explained in Wertsch (1981a).
In relation to Leontiev’s structural elements of activity theory, the work by P. I. Zinchenko provides a theoretical view of learning in an activity theory framework. Leontiev pro- vided the example of driving a car where the action of shifting gears was first a goal- directed action that became an operation as the learner became more proficient in driving (see Leontiev, 1981, p. 64). Zinchenko presented an empirical study with children that supported this claim. Zinchenko wrote,
Leontiev’s (1945) research showed that any complex intellectual operation always starts out as an independent, goal-directed action and then develops into an operation. (Zinchenko, 1981, p. 309)
Zinchenko’s study into “incidental learning”, that is learning ‘by the way’, not the result of a deliberate strategy, led to the claim that information closely connected with the goal of an action is better remembered than information concerned with the operation(s) of an action.
In summary, in this section, I have presented Leontiev’s development of activity theory. In its ‘narrower’ sense, activity comprises three structural elements: activity corre- spondent to a motive, actions correspondent to goals and operations dependent on conditions.
For my study I have adopted Leontiev’s formulation and use of the concept of activity. Leontiev’s framework involves three (different) levels of analysis and theory building. In the next chapter, Chapter 5, I exemplify my interpretation of these three levels with examples drawn from my data.
Chapter 5
A structural analysis of teaching
with respect to theory
This is the first of two chapters in which I present the analysis of my data. In this chapter I present a theoretical model of the teaching process based on my analysis of the interviews with the lecturer (the meetings data). In developing the model I drew on Activity theory (Leontiev, 1981), and I relate the structural elements of Activity, that are the activity-motive, the actions-goals and the operations-conditions, to my coding analysis of the meetings data. For example, I relate what I referred to as (the lecturer’s) intentions and strategies (in my coding and analysis of the meetings data) to the theoretical concepts of actions and goals in Activity theory.
Before presenting the results of my data analysis, I discuss the linear algebra module where the research took place. I give an overview of the structure and design of the module summarising my discussion in Chapter 1. I present an account of the lecturer’s reasons and motivation in changing the design of the linear algebra module, in particular in adopting an ‘inductive’ style for presenting the mathematical content, as opposed to the more ‘traditional’ (DTP) style, as is often used in university mathematics teaching. I based my interpretation on the data collected in interviews with the lecturer (the meetings data).
5.1
Course design and course structure
The linear algebra module was a one year long module where the first semester was taught by one lecturer and a different lecturer took over at the start of the second semester. Research took place with one of the lecturers only, in the first semester. The
lecturer in Semester 1 (with the agreement of, and working closely with the lecturer who taught in Semester 2) had structured the material of the course so that all the linear algebra concepts were introduced in the first semester in an informal way, with the more formal treatment of the same material by the second lecturer in Semester 2. In this chapter I present my analysis of the teaching approach, based in the main on the meetings data, that is on the comments made by the lecturer in conversation and interview with the researchers, but drawing also on the observational data from lectures and tutorials.
Meetings with the lecturer were transcribed and labelled chronologically using the ab- breviations M1, M2, etc. Similarly, lectures and tutorials were (partially) transcribed and labelled L1, L2, etc. I labelled the lectures and tutorials chronologically as they were given so that L5, for example, related to a tutorial. Whenever I reproduce a comment that the lecturer made in a meeting or in a lecture I provide a reference in the form (M15, 13:45), for example. This means that the lecturer made this comment in meeting M15, and 13 minutes and 45 seconds after I had set the voice recorder to record.
As stated in Chapter 1 the lecturer re-structured the content of the module in order to present a more inductive approach to the teaching of linear algebra. He produced course notes that accompanied the module in two versions: one set of notes for students (the student version) that contained ‘gaps’, and a second, full or complete set of notes (no ‘gaps’). The student version of the course notes contained blank areas where students could write the solution to examples presented in lecture. The formulation of the example was printed in full, as were any definitions and observations or remarks that the lecturer wanted to refer to in lecture. Thus, in general, only the solutions to examples were ‘missing’. The second, full or complete set of notes contained all that the student version had; in addition it also contained the worked solutions to the examples. This latter set was not made available to students until the end of the module. The student version was made available for students ahead of the lectures on LEARN, the university’s virtual learning environment. The lecturer asked students to print out a copy and bring to the lecture. At times I refer to the student version of the notes as ‘notes-with-gaps’ or ‘gappy notes’ in short, as this is what they were commonly called (Burn and Wood, 1995).