Engestrom et al. (1999) Perspectives on Activity Theory (2)

Further notes on Engestrom, Y., Miettinen, R.  and Punamaki, R. L. eds. (1999) Perspectives on Activity Theory,Cambridge,CambridgeUniversity Press.

Brostrom (1999) writes, ‘In play activity children very often go beyond the current contextual frame. Children not only appropriate the social surrounding world, they also make unexpected creative changes. Observations of play in preschools indicate that children not only adopt [sic] to and internalize the local institutional culture but expand beyond it as well. Through this activity new knowledge, skills, and actions often appear’ (p. 251). It would be interesting to substitute ‘people’ for ‘children’ in this passage, as creativity can emerge from seemingly aimless activity undertaken by children or adults. New knowledge and understanding can occur serendipitously, or when boundaries are weakened or removed. Therefore, while Activity Theory relates to activity that is purposeful, the process and development of play suggests that Expansive Learning (Engestrom 1987, 2001) can happen, and may happen more easily, without goal-directed action. As Hakkarainen (1999) notes, ‘There is no necessity to produce any concrete results or attain previously formulated goals in play’ (p. 234). The products of play, because they are not pre-figured, can be new, and revelatory,

Brostrom also writes, ‘If the teachers make room for children’s creative activities, they themselves will generate such expanding elements. The opposite will occur if the teachers put too much structure into the play. Expansive play will not appear’ (p. 261). Again, we can apply this to learning generally, rather than to the learning of children in particular. Expansive Learning requires an appropriate environment in which to flourish. The more learning is controlled, the fewer the outlets for creativity, though it is unlikely that it could ever be suppressed entirely.

Lompscher (1999) follows Brostrom’s analysis by summarising conventional learning: ‘in most classrooms students are objects of didactic actions aimed at the transmission of knowledge and skills (and norms and values, as well) from the teacher’s head (or from the textbook) to the pupils’ heads’ (p. 266). Conventional learning, therefore, obstructs creativity. By giving learners (and workers) more creative opportunities, educational institutions and workplaces create more opportunities for the creation of new knowledge and understanding. The implications for this approach, as far as Activity Theory is concerned, is that it challenges the role of the ‘Object’ node, and may encourage a new configuration of the structure.

References

Brostrom, S. (1999) ‘Drama games with 6-year-old children: Possibilities and limitations,’ in Y. Engestrom, R. Miettinen and R.-L. Punamaki (eds.) Perspectives on Activity Theory,Cambridge,CambridgeUniversity Press.

Engeström, Y. (1987) Learning by expanding: an activity-theoretical approach to developmental research.Helsinki, Orienta-Konsultit Oy. http://lchc.ucsd.edu/MCA/Paper/Engestrom/expanding/toc.htm (accessed 8 July 2011).

Engestrom, Y. (2001) ‘Expansive Learning at Work: toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization,’ Journal of Education and Work, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 133-156.

Hakkarainen, P. (1999) ‘Play and motivation,’ in Y. Engestrom, R. Miettinen and R.-L. Punamaki (eds.) Perspectives on Activity Theory,Cambridge,CambridgeUniversity Press.

Lompscher, J. (1999) ‘Activity formation as an alternative strategy of instruction’ ’ in Y. Engestrom, R. Miettinen and R.-L. Punamaki (eds.) Perspectives on Activity Theory,Cambridge,CambridgeUniversity Press.

Prof Eric Thomas at JISC11: ‘Financial Challenges, Digital Opportunities’

The keynote at the JISC (Joint Information Systems Committee) Conference 2011 in Liverpool was given by Prof Eric Thomas, Vice Chancellor, University of Bristol, and Universities UK President-Elect.

Prof Thomas gave some sense of the seismic change in higher education in the UK over the last 50 years by pointing out that, in 1961, 4.2% of 18 yr olds went to university. Conversely, in 2011, 44% of 18-30 yr olds will go to university. Continued expansion in student numbers is, however, countered by a climate of cutbacks. Cuts of 1 billion to the H.E. sector were announced in Dec 09, with a further cut of 200 million in Spring 2010.

Prof Thomas reminded the audience of the proposed terms of loan repayment arising from the Browne review of H.E., which will involve students paying 9p in the pound of their earnings, once their earnings exceed 21k. Therefore, the previous State system for H.E. was free at the point of access, with repayments via the taxation system (though spread across the whole working population). Similarly, the new system will mean higher education is still free at the point of access, and still repaid via the tax system, but with more of the repayment falling on the individual. However, while Prof Browne’s analysis tots up, it does gloss over the argument that society as a whole benefits from an educated population. More broadly, the H.E. sector in the UK is shifting from a state run system to a consumer-led, lightly regulated market in which consumers will be seeking value for money.

The social impact of the new, market-based system will be arguably its most significant feature, posing the questions of how lower-income families will respond, and how debt-averse communities will respond. Prof Thomas said he had spoken with Princeton University who, following the imposition of a similar system, found that people from the bottom 10% of incomes stopped applying to come to the university.

Where Prof Thomas’s analysis deviated from most predictions of the post-Browne settlement was in his analysis of the range of fees likely to be charged for H.E.. In the aftermath of the Dearing Review (1997) and the introduction of fees, the maximum fees allowable quickly became the standard fees charged by all H.E.I.s, and institutions charging less than the maximum were perceived as second rate. There is a perception that the same will happen post-Browne, and that all universities will charge 9k per year (Oxford and Cambridge will, predictably, do this, but Exeter, Durham and Surrey have announced that they, too, intend charging the maximum). However, Prof Thomas argued that people won’t necessarily pay the highest fees, and will be more informed consumers. More specifically, he argued that there will be a marked increase in people’s expectations of H.E. (increased fees will further embed the customer metaphor), that more students will study at their local H.E.I. because of cost, and that students will want to know the employability rates of the courses they might attend.

Prof Thomas developed his argument with reference to the expansion of Higher Education provision in the Further Education (F.E.) sector, and to the expansion of private provision in H.E.. He used the analogy of budget airlines, pointing out that they account for only 10-15% of the market, but have fundamentally changed the market itself, with established airlines re-branding themselves as more high-end. Transferring the analogy back to H.E., it seems likely that individuals to whom fees of 9k annually are not a disincentive will opt to attend established universities. However, fees of 9k annually will also create a large area of non-consumption, pricing some sections of the population out of the mainstream sector. Therefore, F.E. colleges and private providers will be in the interesting position of competing against non-consumption, a niche in which the Open University gained success previously, by offering H.E. to sectors of the population to whom it had previously been inaccessible (Archer et al. 1999). Furthermore, there is a similarity between the current position of F.E. colleges and private providers on the one hand, and the position of Polytechnics in the 1970s on the other, with new entrants to the H.E. market expanding their curricula, and offering many of the same qualifications as the mainstream H.E. sector.

Prof Thomas gave the hypothetical example of a private provider offering a law degree in 2 yrs for 5k a year. This will be good value for money for the student, and will enable entry to the law profession, perhaps at the level of local town solicitor rather than London barrister, but an attractive career proposition regardless.

Prof Thomas also pointed out that the sector itself will not necessarily benefit from the post Browne settlement, as student fees will not comprise additional income for the universities, but will supplant the income from the State which is being withdrawn. A further point opened up by Prof Thomas was the likelihood of mergers and acquisitions in the sector. He pointed out that there are currently 44 providers of H.E. in London. He argued that there won’t be less provision, but there will be fewer institutions.

Overall, Prof Thomas offered a persuasive argument concerning likely future developments within the sector. His analysis broadly accords with other prognoses (such as Lord Mandelson at the 2010 Dearing conference, or Stefan Collini in The London Review of Books), but where he deviates is in his predictions concerning the range of fees that will be charged. The upper level of 9k annually will price some individuals and (more worryingly) communities out of Higher Education, but it will also create an opening for local F.E. colleges and specialist H.E.I.s offering degree-level quality at a much lower price, thereby enabling wider access to H.E.. Once that happens, established H.E. brands like Oxford, Cambridge et al. will not have a problem retreating to the high end of the market, but the mid-range H.E.I.s, and especially the post-92 institutions, will need to move rapidly to create distinctive identities for themselves in the squeezed middle.

Reference
Archer, W., Garrison, R. and Anderson, T. (1999) ‘Adopting Disruptive Technologies in Traditional Universities: Continuing Education as an Incubator for Innovation,’ Canadian Journal of University Continuing Education, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 13-30.

Summer break

Taking a summer break. Enjoy (click the Youtube link when it comes up).

Rodriguez ‘The Playful and the Serious…’ (2006)

Rodriguez (2006), in article that takes Huizinga’s Homo Ludens as its starting point, argues that play is more important intrinsically than extrinsically. People play for ‘the experience that it affords. We do not characteristically play to fulfil a practical task…’

Rodriquez reminds us of Huizinga’s idea of the magic circle, ‘a spatiotemporal frame within which play occurs’. One of the problems with using technologies for learning is that they blur the boundaries of the circle; play becomes intermeshed with learning, which can cause confusion for the learner who expects the two to be demarcated. I would argue that this is a conceptual legacy of the Industrial Revolution, before which life was shaped by the agrarian and ecclesiastical calendars. With the advent of industrial production, however, workers attended workplaces at given hours, with leisure time marked off, a fact signified by the accelerating commercialisation of leisure in the second half of the nineteenth century, including paying entrance fees for horse racing, and the formation of the F.A..

Towards the end of Rodriguez’s article he moves into a Situationist position, citing Knabb (1981) when he argues that ‘the process of learning does not consist in the transmission of skills from teachers to students, but in the active design and execution of experimental actions by the learners themselves, without any utilitarian purpose.’ There is a connection with Engestrom’s expansive learning theory here and, because it’s Engestrom, the ghost of Marx is present, too. My understanding is that Marx posited a utopia in which people would be largely freed from the trammels of work, and creation could occur for the very pleasure of creating. This is the position that Terry Eagleton comes to in his talk on Socialism and Culture at a Marxism conference (2009).

Rodriguez is clear that ‘Curiosity and risk-taking become fundamental values of exploratory learning.’ Playful, exploratory learning, consequently, is not about the enhancement of learning and teaching, but about ‘a profound rethinking of its [teaching’s] methods and subject matter.’ What this means for technology-enhanced learning is that learners can be given the technology and simply see where it takes them. If the outcome is not utilitarian then the learning has not failed, because playing with technologies can be intrinsically fulfilling for the learner. Rodriguez’s position is arguably utopian, yet it also seems to be the next step on from expansive learning, with the removal not only of an authoritative centre, but of a clear and functional purpose too.

References

Eagleton, T. (2009) ‘Socialism and Culture’ Resistance mp3, http://www.resistancemp3.org.uk/cgi-bin/standardsearch.pl (accessed 6 August 2010)

Knabb, K. (1981) Situationist International Anthology, Berkely, CA: Bureau of Public Secrets.

Rodriguez, H. (2006) ‘The Playful and the Serious: An approximation to Huizinga’s Homo Ludens’ Game Studies: The International Journal of Computer Game Research, vol. 6, no. 1, http://gamestudies.org/0601/articles/rodriges (accessed 6 August 2010)

Leadership for Open and Flexible Learning

Latchem and Hanna (2002) argue, ‘Distance learning has historically been disruptive to traditional educational systems’ (p. 204). It’s an interesting point to start from; distance learning does have an effect on control. Unlike the traditional classroom, there isn’t an authority figure physically present, and so other imperatives come into play. Maybe the learner has an economic need to learn, or maybe the drive is more personal, or maybe the learner can learn effectively with no form of coercion.

The authors also argue that a major achievement of open universities has been to ‘provide academic, professional development and general programmes to a far wider public’ (p. 204). In this sense open universities can be identified as disruptive institutions, changing the learning that happens in the act of making that learning available to a section of the population who had not already obtained their training for H.E. study successfully through the school system.

The impact of the open universities leads the authors to conclude, ‘What began at the “low end” of the marketplace as correspondence education is becoming a dominant force.’ There is an argument for seeing the open universities as disruptive in opposition to the sustaining model offered by older H.E.I.s, and Latchem and Hanna assemble this argument convincingly. Traditional H.E.I.s are now offering online and distance learning as a support to or replacement for the traditional lecture hall.

From promising beginnings, however, the authors lapse into truism: ‘Achieving systemic and radical change in higher education is no easy matter.’ The same point was made in a more illuminating way by Hearn (1996) who argued that trying to change an education system is like trying to move a cemetery, in the sense that there is not a lot of internal support for it. More interestingly, Latchem and Hanna see the traditional paraphernalia of learning, ‘the textbook, the lecturer as the authority, and the test as the all-inclusive means of assessing the learning’ as ‘an 18th century way of knowing the world that is expressly empirical and representational’ (p. 208). Personally, I think educational structures in the UK owe more to the nineteenth century; Gladstone’s government’s Education Act of 1870, which made education compulsory for children aged 5-13, was about preparing children to function as adults in an industrial economy. If our economic base has shifted markedly since then, it is surprising that relatively little has changed about our classrooms and our ways of assessing learning. Alternatively, the lack of change in our classrooms might signify that our economic model has not altered a great deal.

The occasional truism aside, the article is valuable for applying the sustaining/disruptive dualism to higher education on a ‘macro’ scale. If technologies do democratise learning (a contentious argument) and if, therefore, an acceleration in the availability of technologies democratises learning at an accelerated pace, then academics will need to re-think their professional identities, to a degree that challenges their status as an authority. More fundamentally, the fact that more people are paying more for higher education means that a ‘goods and services’ mentality will increasingly permeate the sector. The disruptions to come may be on at least as grand a scale as that identified by Latchem and Hanna.

References

Hearn, J. C. (1996) ‘Transforming U.S. Higher Education: An organizational perspective’ Innovative Higher Education, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 141-154.

Latchem, C. and Hanna, D. E. (2002) ‘Leadership for Open and Flexible learning’ Open Learning, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 203-215.

Reflections on an EdD study week-end

The highlights: meeting my supervisor, anticipating the highs and lows ahead, wondering whether having been a research student in the 90s will comprise an advantage, concluding that it probably won’t.

 A really good conversation with one of the OU people about what ‘democratic values’ means in the context of ethical research. A parliamentary democracy can invade an oil-rich nation. A parliamentary democracy can land commandos on a ship carrying aid. If I practise comparably aggressive methods in my research, am I being ethical? If not, why not? It seems to me that democratic values can mean whatever the powerful want them to mean.

 Getting a really interesting book on Communities of Practice, critically challenging the whole idea. It may shake or cement my views; either is good.

 The less than highlights: not being a natural networker, keeping that frozen smile on hold was a big ask.

 Eating way way too much. Henceforth I will be known as Sir Loin of Pork.

 Rushing back on Sunday to see England play Germany. Call me old-fashioned, but I think it’s best to have a defence, midfield and attack, rather than 11 clueless Herberts running randomly and pointing a lot.

 The security guy at the library who wouldn’t let me in at 11:57 because the library doesn’t open til 12. No further comment needed.

 And next – sorting out my research methods. What do I do, apart from conduct interviews? I don’t want to add another level of data gathering just for the sake of doing it. But there may be a gap between how people tell me they use technologies for learning, and how they actually use them. That gap seems big right now.

 Overall – very glad I met my supervisor (Daisy) and spent several hours discussing the research with her. Very glad I attended the workshop on transcribing interviews (her suggestion). Very glad I met a very nice Labrador on the way to the library.

 Could the event have been half a day shorter? Maybe, but churls like me never wholly enter the spirit of these things.

 Final thought. The perennial anxiety of research as an isolating experience. That’s the best bit. Some of us were medieval monks in a previous life. Probably.

Too good not to share

An outstanding poem; ‘In your absence’ by Judith Harris.

It came to my notice via the Anon magazine people.

And stop planning so much

I’ve seen a scary Lesson Plan document given out to people doing teaching qualifications. It has three pages and a whole lot of boxes, with gripping headings like ‘referral notes for action’ (beats me), ‘Health and safety’ (hi-vi waistcoats, presumably, to keep everyone healthy and safe) and ‘Link discussions to previous learning and to individuals’ job roles, teaching subject and previous experiences or interests’ (I’m sure my coat’s here somewhere).

What concerns me is that excessive planning militates against effective learning. Learning should welcome its unexpected twists and turns. Sunstein (2002) talks about unanticipated encounters being a chief source of learning, and we should be wary of learning experiences that are the slaves of aims and outcomes.

On my recently completed MA I had a discussion with fellow learners, in which I argued that I would be happy to abandon the aims and objectives of a class if I felt that it was travelling into really interesting territory. One of the points of learning is to take us somewhere we have never travelled, and if that’s new for the lecturer as well as the students, then so much for the better.

One of my fellow learners was a trainer for the armed forces, and was more in favour of planning. I take his point; if a group of fighter pilots stopped talking about how to drop bombs and started discussing a really interesting piece of crochet, that might be problematic. Mind you, I’d be happy if the world had more crochet and less fighter planes, not least because yarn bombing is exposing the more militantly creative wing of the crochet movement.

My own lesson planning is minimal, and I don’t see how I could adjust to the forms handed out to trainees in the profession now, where a lot of boxes are ticked without effective learning being guaranteed, or even made more likely. It feels like Gradgrindism, or the concomitant of league tables and targets, an educational culture in which we make the measurable things important, instead of making the important things measurable.

Reference
Sunstein, C. R. (2002) ‘MyUniversity.com? Personalized Education & Personalized news’ Educause, vol. 37, no. 5, pp. 33-40.