Title: Using Third Generation Activity Theory and Contradictions to Analyse Qualitative Data
1Using Third Generation Activity Theory and
Contradictions to Analyse Qualitative Data
Elizabeth Murphy María Rodríguez with
Charlene Dodd Brian Kerr
2Outline
- Overview of Activity Theory contradictions
- Identifying articulating contradictions
- Categorizing contradictions
- Possibilities limitations
3Activity Theory (AT) Contradictions
4- Activity Theory is a philosophical and
cross-disciplinary framework for studying
different forms of human practices as
developmental processes, with both individual and
social levels interlinked at the same time. - Kuutti
(1996)
5- Activity theory is relevant for understanding
how new technologies can affect educational
change. Bellamy (1996) - Activity Theory is useful as a lens to analyse
computer-supported activity of a group or
organization. - Kaptelinin (1996)
6Language, B. Board, Body language,
Computer Pen paper,
Educated students
Teach
Teacher
Classroom management, rules, procedures
Students, Parents, Teachers, Administrators
Department of Education, Principal
Engeström (1987)
73rd Generation Activity Theory
Engeström (2001)
8- Activity systems are in constant movement and
internally contradictory. Their systemic
contradictions, manifested in disturbances and
mundane innovations, offer possibilities for
expansive developmental transformations.
Engeström (2000)
9Identifying Articulating Contradictions
10Rules for identifying contradictions
- A contradiction can reflect a tension, contrast,
denial, or opposition. - Only one contradiction can be assigned to a unit.
11Rules for articulating contradictions
- Report the contradiction in one sentence.
- Use two propositions.
- Use the same subject for both propositions.
- Mark the opposition with the word but or
however. - Articulate the contradiction using, as much as
possible, the actual words of the interviewee. - Use the third person teachers to generalize
when interviewees refer to you. - Include, where possible, any evidence of
innovation.
12Uncoded unit 1
-
- When you're face-to-face, you can see the
students, you know that they are listening to
you. They may be thinking about something else,
but at least they're not reading a book in front
of you You can control that face-to-face In
here online, you can't do that, so I needed to
have a way to make sure that they were attentive,
and the only way to do that is interaction
13Contradiction 1
- Face-to-face
- Can control attention
Online Cant do that
14Articulation of contradiction 1
-
- When teachers are face-to-face, they can see the
students and control their attention, but,
online, they can't do that, so they need to have
a way to make sure students are attentive, and
the only way to do that is interaction.
15Uncoded unit 2
-
- the artifacts from the homework assignment have
to be sent to me, either scanned as e-mail
attachments... But that means that, rather than
doing an informal assessment, I now have to do a
formal assessment. I have to apply rubrics to
them or score them according to a scoring
formula. that takes a lot of time. In a
face-to-face classroom, in the two minutes it
takes for kids to find their seats, I can assess
the homework. In a virtual environment, I cant
do that. It takes me at least 15 to 20 minutes
to go through 20 or 30 submissions.
16Contradiction 2
- Face-to-face classroom
- Informal assessment
- Two minutes
- Can assess homework in two minutes
Virtual environment Formal assessment 15 to 20
minutes Cant do that
17Articulation of contradiction 2
- In the face-to-face classroom, teachers can
assess homework informally in the two minutes it
takes for students to find their seats, but in
the virtual classroom they have to do a formal
assessment, and it takes at least 15 to 20
minutes to go through 20 or 30 submissions.
18Uncoded unit 3
- We are finding, for example, that students are
less willing to perform asynchronous activities
simply because they prefer synchronous but that
doesnt make it a good thing. Many kinds of
learning are best done not synchronously because,
in many cases, the teacher may, for example, end
up dominating the proceedings in a synchronous
mode while we wish them to be asynchronous
because we want the student to have a very lively
input here.
19Contradiction 3
- Many kinds of learning are best
done not synchronously -
Students prefer synchronous
20Articulation of contradiction 3
-
- Many kinds of learning are best done
asynchronously because the teacher may end up
dominating the proceedings in synchronous mode,
but many kinds of learning cannot be done
asynchronously because students are less willing
to perform asynchronous activities.
21Uncoded unit 4
-
- Elluminate Live can be isolating. Social
presence is important and if Im one who is
intimidated by this headset and when I put it on,
I close myself off from my immediate environment
around me, then thats an isolating kind of
experience. And if Im the only one doing this
course in this way, Ive got no one around me
that I can look to and say, Did you understand
that?... Im limited to my dialogue through the
technology. So while Elluminate Live can bring a
discourse and people together who wouldnt
normally be together, I think it has limitations.
22Contradiction 4
- Elluminate Live can be isolating and has
limitations -
Elluminate Live can bring a discourse and people
together who wouldnt normally be together
23Articulation of contradiction 4
-
- Elluminate Live can bring a discourse and people
together who wouldnt normally be together, but
Elluminate Live has limitations and can be
isolating because when students put on that
headset they can close themselves off from their
immediate environment.
24Uncoded unit 5
-
- I dont think that the problem with curriculum
is a problem thats faced exclusively by just
distance teachers. In terms of mathematics, I do
believe that the curriculum is overloaded. But
that just means that teaching has to be altered
to make sure that all the curriculum will be
covered, but thats a face-to-face problem as
well
25Articulation of contradiction 5
26Categorizing Contradictions
27Categorizing contradictions according to elements
of the activity system
- Subject-Tools
-
- Teachers could benefit from content that they
could grab in some sort of a repository because
theres a fairly substantial learning curve
associated with creating content, but teachers
cant grab it from a repository because its
either hidden behind firewalls or it doesnt yet
exist. -
28Categorizing by keywords
29Possibilities
- Activity Theory and contradictions provide a
powerful explanatory framework - AT is useful for many domains, not just teaching
and learning - Useful for large body of qualitative data
- When combined with the notion of transformation,
contradictions can provide tools for identifying
innovations in practice
30Limitations
- Difficulty building reliability
- Time and resources, e.g. coder training,
iterative development of coding rules -
- Data may not lend themselves to this type of
analysis - AT literature has a lot of concepts related to
contradictions (e.g. disturbances, perturbations)
that make it difficult to understand
31Thank You, Merci
Elizabeth Murphy (709) 737-7634
(709) 737-2345 emurphy_at_mun.ca
www.ucs.mun.ca/emurphy/ María A. Rodríguez
(709) 737-4748 mariar_at_mun.ca
Brian Kerr (709) 737-3468
bkerr_at_mun.ca Charlene Dodd
(709) 737-2569 cdodd_at_mun.ca
32References
- Bellamy, R. K. E. (1996). Designing educational
technology Computer-mediated change. In . A.
Nardi (Ed.), Context and consciousness Activity
theory and human-computer interaction (pp.
123-146). Cambridge, MA The MIT Press. - Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding An
activity-theoretical approach to developmental
research. Helsinki Orienta-Konsultit. - Engeström, Y. (2000). Activity theory as a
framework for analyzing and redesigning work.
Ergonomics, 43(7), 960-974. - Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work
Toward and activity theoretical
reconceptualisation. Journal of Education and
Work, 14(1), 133-156. - Kaptelinin, V. (1996). Activity Theory
Implications for human-computer interaction. In
B. Nardi, (Ed.), Context and Consciousness
Activity theory and human-computer interaction
(pp. 107 110). Cambridge, MA MIT Press. - 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 The MIT
Press.
33Activity Theory Resources
- Caitlin, S., Hedegaard, M., Jensen, U. J.
(Eds.). (1999) Activity Theory and social
practice Cultural-historical approaches. Aarhus
Aarhus University Press. - Center for Activity Theory and Developmental Work
Research (2003-2004). Retrieved July 27, 2006
from http//www.edu.helsinki.fi/activity/. - Center for Human Activity Theory (CHAT) (2005).
Retrieved May 7, 2007, from http//www.chat.kansai
-u.ac.jp/en/index.html - Centre for Sociocultural and Activity Theory
Research (CSAT) (2002). Retrieved July 27, 2006
from http//www.bath.ac.uk/csat/index.html - Cole, M., Engeström, Y., Vasquez, O. (Eds.)
(1997). Mind, culture and activity Seminal
papers from the Laboratory of Comparative Human
Cognition. Cambridge Cambridge University Press. - Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding An
activity-theoretical approach to developmental
research. Helsinki Orienta-Konsulit. Retrieved
July 27, 2006 from - http//lchc.ucsd.edu/MCA/Paper/Engestrom/ex
panding/toc.htm - Engeström, Y. (1990). Learning, working and
imagining Twelve studies in activity theory.
Helsinki Orienta-Konsultit. - Engeström, Y. (1993). Interactive expertise.
Helsinki University of Helsinki. - Engeström, Y., Middleton, D. (Eds.) (1996).
Cognition and communication at work. Cambridge
Cambridge University Press.
34Activity Theory Resources
- Engeström, Y., Miettinen, R. Punamäki, R.
(Eds.). (1999). Perspectives on activity theory.
New York Cambridge University Press. - International Society for Cultural and Activity
Research (ISCAR) (2007). Retrieved May 7, 2007,
from http//www.iscar.org/ - Jonassen, D. (2000). Revisiting activity theory
as a framework for designing student-centered
learning environments. In D. Jonassen S. Land
(Eds.), Theoretical foundations of learning
environments (pp. 89-122). Mahwah, NJ Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates. - Laboratory of Comparative Human Cognition (n.d.).
Retrieved May 7, 2007, from http//lchc.ucsd.edu/i
ndex.html - Langemeyer, I., Nissen, M. (2005). Activity
Theory Key concepts. In B. Somekh C. Lewin
(Eds.), Research methods in the social sciences
(pp. 188-195). Thousand Oaks, CA Sage
publications. Retrieved July 27, 2006 from - http//www.cmr.fu-berlin.de/faculty/ines/Sage03fi
nal1.pdf - Nardi, B. A. (Ed.). (1996). Context and
consciousness Activity theory and human-computer
interaction. Cambridge, MA MIT Press. - Ryder, M. (2006). Activity Theory. Retrieved July
27, 2006 from http//carbon.cudenver.edu/mryder/i
tc_data/activity.html