An in situ approach

Vicky AntoniadouUniversitat Autònoma de BarcelonaLyon, May 2010

A/ Theoretical background – Cultural-Historical Activity Theory (CHAT) Theoretical background- origins and development Key figures and contributions Main ideas and premises

B/ Presentation of the research Description of situation examined in this research Approach and methodology adopted Work up to now Further analysis planned

Paradigm shift in education in the last two decades cognitive perspective vs. sociocultural

perspective

Key figures in literatureo Mikhail Bakhtin - Dialogic approach o Lev Vygotsky- Dialectic approach

Sociocultural and historical context as mediator of all human mental development

Theoretical frameworks developed to this accounto Sociocultural Theory (Vygotsky, 1978; 1986),o Situated learning (Lave, 1996)o Communities of Practice – Learning by doing (Lave and Wenger, 1991)o Activity Theory (Leont'ev, 1978, Engestrӧm, 1999; 2001),

CHAT - Theory of the mind (Marx – dialectics of mind)“Activity theory is a theoretical framework for analysing human practices as developmental processes with both individual and social levels interlinked at the same time” (Kuutti, 1996).

Three generations of CHAT

1.Lev Vygotsky (1896-1934)- Human mental development and social, cultural

and historical conditions are intertwined- Cultural mediation to human cognition- Mind emerges in activity - Reacts to behaviorism:

stimulus-response, cause – effect)

Vygotsky (1978; 1986)

Leont’ev, 1978

Engestrӧm, 1987: 75

1. Activity system as the prime unit of analysis

“ Any analysis of a human activity should focus on a three-way

interaction among subjects-objects and communities mediated by

tools, rules and division of labor” (Engestrӧm, 1987)

2. Multivoicedness

“An activity is not a homogeneous entity. It is comprised of a variety of disparate elements, voices and viewpoints (Engeström 1999).

3. Historicity

“ Activities are not static or rigid, they are constantly evolving. To understand a phenomenon means to know how it is developed into its existing form (Kaptelinin 1996)

4. Contradictions - 4 levels of contradictions internal and external“Historically accumulating structural tensions within and between activity systems (Engestrӧm, 2001). They are a source of innovation and change” (Engestrӧm, 1999)

5. Expansive cycles

Expansive learning Refers to the cases where knowledge and what there is to be learned is not stable or well-defined; new forms of activities […] are literally learned as they are being created (ibid.).

Why is it relevant to this research?There is no single or right answer to the question of what a good teacher is or what a teacher should know in terms of stable/ well-defined knowledge.

“ Learning is too much of a complex process to be examined in a unidirectional/linear way. “It is always distributed across mind, time and space” (Barab et al., 2001)”.

.

1. Who are the subjects of learning?

• 7 teacher trainees in the 3rd and final year of their TEFL degree doing their

Practicum

• Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB) - Academic year 2009-10.

2. Why do they learn?

• To become primary education teachers of EFL.

3. What do they learn?

• Develop teacher skills valid for future language educators via EPOSTL criteria -

European Portfolio for Student Teachers of Languages

4. How do they learn?

a) Via (tele)collaboration through discussion groups with UIUC peers and face to

face tutorials with their fellow peers and school placement.

b) Through immersive use of new technologies i.e. Second Life, Zoho, Voicethread

and familiar technologies i.e. Moodle, text chats, Skype to construct final

products required for the course:

i. design and implementation of a teaching sequence

ii. Design, implementation and evaluation of a podcast and sequence of

activities

What will count as knowledge or learning in the case of teacher formation?

Is it possible to identify learning moments i.e. development of teaching skills in the practicum activity of teacher trainees?

What is the role of collaboration as mediator in this development?

How can the CHAT model be used to answer this questions?

Longitudinal situated qualitative research - Aims to examine the learning process in all its length and complexity.

Sees learning as development through active participation and internalization

1. Choose 3 students based on criteria of performance throughout the course and enthusiasm towards the suggested course of instruction

2. Gather the data where these 3 subjects are directly involved i.e. forum discussions, transcript from online meeting, classroom tutorials presentations, final wiki assignment.

3. Segment data corpus (transcripts of classroom tutorials, online chats, forum discussions) into Action-Relevant Episodes (ARE) to trace the development of the outcome (Barab, Hay and Yagamata-Lynch, 2001)

Action Relevant Episodes (AREs)

“ activity occurrences that are judged to be a significant happening in the learning context, and are delimited

by a change in theme, activity, subject or resources” (Barab et al., 2001).

Each ARE should be comprised by an initiator, an issue at hand (main focus of the episode), the participants, resources (any piece of information, object or tool that a participant use to carry out the practice) and a practice (result/conclusion)

Video and audio recordings of the face to face interaction in classroom. (40 recorded hours)

Instances of asynchronous (forum) interaction between the students exchanging feedback on:o the teaching sequence* (5 sessions: draft revised

minimally 3 times following f2f/online interactions)o the podcast* (1 session: designed with online partner)o individual Action Research (data yet to be compiled).

Two instances of online synchronous interactions for

o the design of the teaching sequence* (MSN)o the design of the podcast* (SL)

Subject: Anita- enthusiasm/steady performanceactivity observed: design of teaching sequence (wiki)

LEARNING IS DEFINITELY THERE!

Extract 1: Anita links theory (previously discussed/debated in class) with observed practice and develops own hypothesis (Mother Tongue) – Eng’s:multivoicedness & contradictions

Extract 2: Anita questions her peers about the appropriate Division of Labour in an EFL classroom during tasks. – Eng’s: multivoicedness

Extract 3: Anita uses theory (Communicative Approach) to illuminate practice/her experience of telecollaboration as a valuable tool for EFL teaching. Eng’s/CHAT’s: tool mediation, multivoicedness made up by the school setting

But…

Where and how exactly do I pinpoint those specific moments

it happens?

1. Pull out the AREs that denote a practice of particular interest to the overall activity e.g. assessment type, instruction approach chosen.

2. Classify the AREs chosen into ‘more manageable’ sub-triangles (Mwanza, 2001) and generate research questions which will help me locate contradictions.

3. Apply ethnomethodology and MCA (Sacks, 1992) to the AREs in order to perform a microanalysis of the multivoiced interaction.

4. Examine the emergence of expansive/transformative learning through the contradictions in terms of competence in ‘making connections’ between theoretical knowledge and practical situations, critically reflect on their teaching, overcome problems (contradictions) and provide solutions.

Interpretive framework to determine and analyze the general situation of the practicum activity i.e. identify the components that make up the activity, set the general scope of the research – the analysis of the course

Multidimensional learning e.g. skills and knowledge on Second Life developed in parallel with designing the podcast and CHAT becomes problematic when it comes to analyze this multidimensionality – it can’t be rigidly segmented in linear ways.

Learning is not a linear process nor a cyclical one and I would probably be risking creating that impression by presenting development in stages

Thank you for your attention

Questions/Suggestions?

Barab, Hay and Yagamata- Lynch (2001). Constructing Networks of Action-Relevant Episodes: An in situ research methodology. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 10(1&2), 63–112.

Dooly, M. (2009). Doing Diversity: Teachers’ construction of their classroom reality. Peter Lung AG, International Academic Publishers.

Dooly, M. (2009) New competencies in a new era? Examining the impact of a teacher training project. ReCALL 21(3): 352–369.

Dooly, M. A. (2010). Shopping across the (EU) market: teacher trainees look for experience abroad. Language and Intercultural Communication. Vol. 10, No. 1, 54_71

Engestrӧm, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: an activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit.

Engestrӧm, Y. (1999). Expansive visibilization of work: an activity-theoretical perspective. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 8(1-2), 63-93.

Engestrӧm, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: towards an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133-156.

Jonassen, D.H. & Rohrer-Murphy, L. (1999). Activity theory as a framework for designing constructivist learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(1), 62-79.

Kaptelinin, V. (1996). Activity theory: implications for human-computer interaction. In B. Nardi (ed.), Context and consciousness: activity theory and human-computer interaction. (pp. 45-67). Cambridge, MA: MIT press.

Kaptelinin, V., Nardi, B.A. & Macaulay, C. (1999). The activity checklist: a tool for representing the space of context.Interactions Magazine, 6(4), 27-39.

Kaptelinin, V. (2000). The didactics of the Web: understanding activity transformations in business and administration. Paper presented at the Workshop on Distributed Cognition and Distributed Knowledge: Key issues in Design for e-commerce and E-government, Sharding, Australia, June 14-16, 2000.

Kuutti, K. (1996). Activity theory as a potential framework for human-computer interaction research. In B. Nardi (Ed.),Context and consciousness: activity theory and human-computer interaction. (pp. 17-44). Cambridge, MA: MIT press.

Leont'ev, A.N. (1978). Activity, consciousness and personality. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Leont'ev, A.N. (1981). Problems of the development of mind. Moscow: Progress

Mwanza, D. (2001). Where theory meets practice: a case for an activity theory based methodology to guide computer system design. In Michitaka Hirose (Ed), Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, Tokyo, Japan, July 9-13, 2001. (pp. 342-349) Amsterdam: IOS Press. Retrieved 1 May, 2010 from http://tinyurl.com/49ezz9 (Archived by WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/5Xmd3Mc0Y)

Tolman, C.W. (1988b). The basic vocabulary of Activity Theory. Activity Theory, 1, 14-20. Retrieved from: http://www.comnet.ca/~pballan/AT2.htm

Uden, L., Valderas, P. and Pastor, O. (2008) An activity-theory-based model to analyse Web application requirements. In InformationResearch, Vol.13, No. 2. Retrieved from: http://informationr.net/ir/13-2/paper340.html#Kuutti96

Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind and society. Cambridge MA: Harvard University

Press.

Table

D of L

R

S

C C

RI

S

OC

O S

O

O O

O

D of LI

What tools does the subjects use do achieve their objectives and how?What rules affect the way the subjects achieve the objective and how?How does the division of labor influence the way the subjects satisfy their objective?How do the tools in use affect the way community achieves the objective?What rules affect the community in the way it satisfies the object?How does the division of labor affect the way the community achieves the objective