Using Third Generation Activity Theory and Contradictions to Analyse Qualitative Data - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 34
About This Presentation
Title:

Using Third Generation Activity Theory and Contradictions to Analyse Qualitative Data

Description:

Activity theory as a potential framework for human computer interaction research. ... consciousness: Activity theory and human-computer interaction (pp. 17-44) ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:282
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 35
Provided by: ciderAth
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Using Third Generation Activity Theory and Contradictions to Analyse Qualitative Data


1
Using Third Generation Activity Theory and
Contradictions to Analyse Qualitative Data
Elizabeth Murphy María Rodríguez with
Charlene Dodd Brian Kerr
2
Outline
  • Overview of Activity Theory contradictions
  • Identifying articulating contradictions
  • Categorizing contradictions
  • Possibilities limitations

3
Activity 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)

6
Language, 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)
7
3rd 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)
9
Identifying Articulating Contradictions
10
Rules for identifying contradictions
  • A contradiction can reflect a tension, contrast,
    denial, or opposition.
  • Only one contradiction can be assigned to a unit.

11
Rules 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.

12
Uncoded 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

13
Contradiction 1
  • Face-to-face
  • Can control attention

Online Cant do that
14
Articulation 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.

15
Uncoded 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.

16
Contradiction 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
17
Articulation 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.

18
Uncoded 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.

19
Contradiction 3
  • Many kinds of learning are best
    done not synchronously

Students prefer synchronous
20
Articulation 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.

21
Uncoded 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.

22
Contradiction 4
  • Elluminate Live can be isolating and has
    limitations

Elluminate Live can bring a discourse and people
together who wouldnt normally be together
23
Articulation 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.

24
Uncoded 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

25
Articulation of contradiction 5
  • No contradiction

26
Categorizing Contradictions
27
Categorizing 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.

28
Categorizing by keywords
29
Possibilities
  • 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

30
Limitations
  • 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

31
Thank 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
32
References
  • 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.

33
Activity 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.

34
Activity 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
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com