Engestrom (1996) ‘Development as breaking away and opening up…’

Engestrom (1996) challenges the idea of development as, metaphorically, a process of vertical ascent. Hence, ‘Traditional developmental theories are about progress, about climbing upward on some developmental ladders… [M]ovement happens along a vertical dimension, from immaturity and incompetence toward maturity and competency.’

Engestrom also critiques an influential theory of learning and development, Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development:  ‘It is depicted as the distance between the actual developmental level and the level of potential development reachable under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers. “Level” and “more capable” are vertical notions.’

Engestrom views learning and development as a more turbulent process, a position that counters the idea of apprenticeship as the gradual, incremental acquisition of mastery in a particular field. For Engestrom, learning and development entails destruction of the old. Therefore, relationships in learning and development entail tension, as existing knowledge and understanding is tested and then accepted, adapted or rejected, depending on its relevance and use value in the circumstances prevailing at the time.

If development is, as Engestrom argues, ‘significant and relatively long-term qualitative change in the way we relate to the world,’ then it is dependent on its context for meaning and relevance, and hence development is only useful if it remains relevant. As contexts do not remain static, so knowledge does not remain static.

Arguing from an Activity Theory perspective, Engestrom stresses the importance of learning and development occurring via tools (mediating artefacts), through which people render their environments sensible, in the sense that they construct a purpose for each tool, which is utilised to achieve an outcome in goal-directed activity. Through the use of tools, people create new meanings and new possibilities: ‘The mediating artifact not only amplifies, it opens up new possibilities that lead to surprises.’

Therefore, for Engestrom, subjects use tools in ways that do not necessarily conflate with the tool’s design. Instead, they use the tools at their disposal innovatively, to achieve outcomes. The use of tools is necessarily creative because contexts do not remain static, and hence the purpose for which a tools was designed may no longer be applicable. Learning and development, therefore, are ongoing, quotidian and creative: ‘Development emerges as everyday creation or construction of the new in zones of uncertainty riddled with contradictions and surprises and heavily dependent on re-mediation by cultural artifacts.’

Reference

Engestrom, Y. (1996) ‘Development as breaking away and opening up: a challenge to Vygotsky and Piaget,’ http://lchc.ucsd.edu/mca/Paper/Engestrom/Engestrom.html (accessed 31 October 2011)

Diamondstone, J. (2002) ‘Keeping Resistance in view in an Activity Theory analysis’

Diamondstone is interested in power in learning and teaching, and in subjects (individuals) who resist power by not accepting the meanings that a dominant culture constructs.

Diamondstone argues that the resisting subject is revisiting and rejecting a construction of meaning made by the powerful. Furthermore, Diamondstone sees potential in resistance, in the sense that the resisting learner often has to be resourceful in order to resist. Moreover, Diamondstone sees three, distinct spaces in learning and teaching: the first is the official discourse controlled by the teacher, the second is characterised by open resistance, and the third space, which also resists, but by using less overt, more subtle strategies (p. 2).

Resistance can be seen as deviant, even criminal behaviour, but Diamondstone’s argument is that resistance highlights flaws in the existing activity system (p. 9). Therefore, rather than suppressing resistance, it should be opened up to see what systemic flaws are exposed. That said, the implications of Diamondstone’s analysis would prompt a fundamental reconfiguring of the classroom, with the traditional power relations of teaching being unseated. Top-down authority, focused in the teacher, would no longer be valid if classroom practice was designed to expose structural flaws within the education system, and the wider economic and social system underpinning the classroom.

A key point in Diamondstone’s analysis is that meaning is not constructed in a vacuum. Instead, meaning is constructed within a tradition, and the privilege of constructing meaning is, within dominant culture, in the hands of the powerful. Hence, ‘We are consumers of meanings made by others as we go about the business of making meaning ourselves’ (p. 9) and thus there is an extent to which activity is dialectical, as it presupposes and relies upon tension in order for progress to be made, and in order for sense to be made out of experience. In practice, this means accepting some existing meanings, but also rejecting others, and constructing new meanings when the existing ones turn out to be no longer fit for purpose. I don’t think Diamondstone identifies fully who or what the powerful is/are, but she does expose revolutionary possibilities in Activity Theory.

Reference

Diamondstone, J. (2002) ‘Keeping Resistance in View in an Activity Theory Analysis,’ Mind, Culture and Activity, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 2-21.

Cann, A.J. and Badge, J.L. (2011) ‘Reflective Social Portfolios for Feedback and Peer Mentoring’

This internal paper from the University of Leicesterwould benefit from a stronger narrative (who did what and when); it is probably clear to colleagues at the university, but it’s less easy for an outsider to know what was going on, and what was researched. That said, the article does make interesting points about how students use technologies, what attracts or repels students when it comes to learning technologies, and how technologies may be blurring the lines between different activities.

One of the interesting features of the research is that it shows students gravitating towards their trusted brands, such as Google and YouTube (p. 7). Hence, seeking to attract students to Virtual Learning Environments (VLEs) with content alone may be difficult, as students already have engrained perceptions of specific providers. It may be more beneficial to H.E.I.s to make their content available through popular channels (witness the amount of universities with their own YouTube channels).   

The research looks at an e-portfolio that students had to compile for an assessment. The exercise was not a success, given that less than 1% of the portfolios were updated after the module ended, and given the rebarbative nature of some of the student feedback (p.8).  An alternative approach at the university, more reminiscent of Facebook in its appearance, appeared to be more successful, especially as contributions did not tail off during the module, and that 15-20% of the students carried on using it after the assessment (p.21).

The researchers argue, ‘we anticipate that there will be a student-led trickle down effect arising from the introduction of these tools into teaching, eventually changing academic practices, much as the introduction of the institutional VLE changed teaching practices a few years ago’ (p. 21). However, it is debatable whether the VLE has changed teaching practices; research by Blin and Munro (2008) at one university showed that the introduction of a VLE led to existing teaching materials (Word documents and Powerpoint presentations) being relocated online, but did not lead to changes in learning and teaching practices in terms of rethinking teaching to suit the new medium.

The researchers conclude that students prefer easy to use technologies, ‘with a shallow initial learning curve’ (p. 22). The latter point ties-in with Christensen’s theory of Disruption (1997, 2003, 2011), with ease of use being a significant factor in the uptake of a technology (incidentally, a lot of the hype about Second Life, a technology with a steeper learning curve, appears to have receded). Institutional VLEs, therefore, benefit from ease of use in order to attract and maintain student interest. Links to popular technologies, such as relevant YouTube videos, may be one means of aligning VLEs with student preferences. The metaphor the researchers use for big social networks, the Swiss Army Knife (p.8) may be applied usefully to VLEs. Hence, the VLE becomes a hub, providing access to learning materials plus a range of enhancements from popular channels, available through a VLE link.   

References

Blin, F. and Munro, M. (2008) ‘Why hasn’t technology disrupted academics’ teaching practices? Understanding resistance to change through the lens of activity theory’, Computers and Education, vol. 50, pp. 475-490.

Cann, A.J. and Badge, J.L. (2011) ‘Reflective Social Portfolios for Feedback and Peer Mentoring,’ Schoolof Biological Sciences, University of Leicester, UK, http://hdl.handle.net/2381/9704 (accessed 22 September 2011).

Christensen, C. M. (1997) The innovator’s dilemma: when new technologies cause great firms to fail, Boston, Mass., Harvard Business School Press.

Christensen, C. M. and Raynor, M. E. (2003) The Innovator’s Solution: Creating and Sustaining Successful Growth,CambridgeMA, Harvard University Press.

Christensen, C. M., Horn, M. B., and Johnson, C. W. (2011) Disrupting Class: How Disruptive Innovation Will Change the Way the World Learns,New York, McGraw Hill.

Smagorinsky, P. (2001) ‘If meaning is constructed, what is it made from?’

One of the implications of Disruptive Technology/Disruptive Innovation theory is that meaning emerges from usage. Users construct a meaning for a technology, which may differ from the designer’s original intentions.

For Activity Theory, too, the meaning of a tool, its purpose, arises from usage; the subject employs the tool to serve a specific purpose, with the design of a tool having only limited power to determine its epistemic use (Engestrom 2007). Samgorinsky echoes this view when he writes: ‘… the same implement may serve as a different tool for different users, no tool at all for other users, or a different tool for the same user in different situations, depending on how (or if at all) it is conceptualized’ (p. 139). 

Smagorinsky’s article is interested in what influences the construction of meaning, and how the potential uses of tools are conceptualised. The construction of usage and hence meaning is not an unfettered process and, instead, is shaped by pre-existing power structures in a given society. Hence, ‘dominant cultures have the power to define their version of reality as reality, thus establishing their values as authoritative and sovereign’ (p. 136). In practice, in learning and teaching situations, ‘teachers emphasise specific reading conventions and discourage others’ (p.138). Consequently, socio-economic groups socialised within the dominant culture have an educational advantage, as their values and practices have already been constructed, and reaffirmed by dominant culture. Hence, and unsurprisingly, ‘school becomes a much more hospitable and rewarding experience for some groups than for others’ (p. 138).

For Smagorinsky, therefore, meanings constructed are, in turn, shaped by history, economics and politics, all mediated through the culture of texts and other tools. Meanings are shaped by history in the sense that existing possibilities for the use of a tool will have been constructed by previous societies and individuals, thereby comprising a range of established uses. Meanings are shaped by economics and politics in the sense that some social groups will share the dominant culture because it affords them certain privileges and protections, whereas other groups will be disadvantaged by the dominant culture and are thus less likely to share its norms. Smagorinsky writes of readers: ‘Though alone, they engage in culturally mediated processes, in dialogue with the great history of texts… Though alone, they act in relationship with other readers and readings, participating in communities of practice where social positioning and powerful readings have consequences for others… meaning emerges for the worlds they inhabit and the lives they lead within their worlds’ (p.163). Meaning is constructed within, or against, a framework established by a dominant culture which articulates history in order to legitimise its own dominance.

Smagorinsky reminds us that the use of tools does not occur in a creative vacuum; individuals do not approach a tool as an unlimited index of possibilities. Furthermore, Smagorignsky’s understanding of knowledge overlaps with Wenger’s when the latter writes, ‘Our knowing – even of the most unexceptional kind – is always too big, too rich, too ancient, and too connected for us to be the source of it individually’ (1998, p. 141). Hence, when users use tools in innovative, unexpected ways it may be worthwhile trying to understand users’ prior experiences and their position in relation to the dominant culture. It would further be interesting to explore any correlations between dissent (whether explicitly voiced or articulated through practice) and innovation.

References

Engeström, Y. (2007) ‘Enriching the Theory of Expansive Learning: Lessons From Journeys Toward Coconfiguration’, Mind, Culture and Activity, vol. 14, nos. 1-2, pp. 23-39.

Smagorinsky, P. (2001) ‘If meaning is constructed, what is it made from?’: Toward a cultural theory of reading author(s)’, Review of Educational Research, vol. 71, no. 1, pp. 133-169.

Wenger, Etienne (1998, repr. 2005), Communities of Practice,Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

 

Engestrom et al. (1999) Perspectives on Activity Theory (5)

It is possible to see the internet as causing changes, both in education and in society. From this standpoint, and assuming the internet to be a benign phenomenon in education, the internet democratises learning by, for example, giving learners easy access to resources.

The internet also has the potential to democratise learning when learners have greater technological competence than their lecturers; Scanlon and Issoff’s (2005) research identified an instance in which students helped a lecturer operate a technology, the lecturer welcomed the assistance, and the learning experience was bettered for everyone (what would have happened if the lecturer had asserted his/her authority by resisting the help?). Thus far we have a view of the internet that works within an activity system triangle, as a new tool effects the division of labour.

However, the internet may not be causal. It may, instead, expose existing practices and hierarchies from a new perspective; the idea of the familiar object seen from an unfamiliar angle. For example, and as argued by Castells (2002), the geography of the internet reflects wider power structures: ‘… the use of the internet is highly differentiated in territorial terms, following the uneven distribution of technological infrastructure, wealth, and education in the planet’ (p. 211) and hence, ‘the centrality of the Internet in many areas of social, economic and political activity is tantamount to marginality for those without, or with only limited, access to the Internet, as well as of those unable to use it effectively’ (p. 247). From this standpoint, the internet consolidates and amplifies existing inequalities, and doesn’t cause change.

Tikhomirov (1999) cites data from Zinovieva showing ‘the dependence of intellectual activity’s organization on the level of the subject’s confidence. It appeared that confident subjects had a higher goal orientation, which leads to the “cutting off”… of the hypotheses of all information that does not lead to the goal, as well as higher trust in existing conclusions and higher integration between generalizations’ (p. 350). Hence, some subjects (in the sense of individuals) pursue goals more rigorously than others, and are less likely to be distracted by changes within and between other nodes in the activity system. However, this is about subjects, not about tools and thus Activity Theory might now suggest that, in the case of the internet, the tool is not effecting large-scale changes because the subject and their disposition towards the goal is the primary determinant. However, privileging the subject node makes the activity system three-dimensional, in the sense that it has peaks of influence.

Tikhomirov goes on to make large claims for the internet:  ‘New forms of creative work, education, and play appear, forms that are simply impossible without computers. At the same time, new types of stereotyped, routine activity appear… The computer is not only a universal data-processing device, it is also a universal means of influencing human activity and, consequently, the human psyche… The specific character of such influence is defined, first of all, not by a computer, but by the organizational and social conditions of its use and by the characteristics of the activity’ (p. 353). Having said the internet does effect change, Tikhomoirov also argues that the potential of the internet to effect change is shaped by other nodes in the activity system. Hence there has to be a broader constellation, without which the potential of the internet to cause change is not realised. However, if the right conditions are created than, Tikhomirov argues, change ensues in patterns of human activity and thus, from a materialist perspective, in the human psyche.

It is difficult to argue convincingly that the internet is causing changes to the human psyche, because of immanence; it is not possible to stand outside evolving processes in which individuals are implicated. It is possible to argue that the internet is changing the way we learn, as it blurs the lines between learning, working and socialising (Conole et al., 2008). It is less easy to argue that the internet democtaises learning, because of both a first level digital divide (with sections of the population not having net access), and a second level digital divide (Hirgattai 2002), whereby people lack effective access by not having the skills required to make effective use of the internet.

Tikhomirov, from a materialist perspective, argues that a change in practice leads to changes in perception, and in consciousness. This imbues the activity system with particular significance, as changing patterns of behaviour, which can result from just one change in one node, lead to different patterns of thinking in individuals and collectives. Therefore, if the internet is changing what we do, it may also change what we think.

References

Castells, M. (2002) The Internet Galaxy,Oxford,OxfordUniversity Press.

Conole, G., Laat, Maarten de, Dillon, T. and Darby, J. (2008) ‘“Disruptive technolgies”, “pedagogical innovation”: What’s new? Findings from an in-depth study of students’ use and perception of technology’ Computers and Education, vol. 50, pp. 511-524.

Hargittai, E. (2002) ‘Second Level Digital Divide: Differences in People’s Onlnie Skills’ First Monday,  http://www.eszter.com/research/pubs/hargittai-secondleveldd.pdf (accessed 12 August 2011).

Scanlon, E. and Issoff, K. (2005) ‘Activity Theory and Higher Education: evaluating learning technologies’ Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, vol. 21, pp. 430-439.

Tikhomirov, O. K. (1999) ‘The theory of activity changed by information technology’ in Y. Engestrom, R. Miettinen and R.-L. Punamaki (eds.) Perspectives on Activity Theory,Cambridge,CambridgeUniversity Press, pp. 325-346.

Engestrom et al. (1999) Perspectives on Activity Theory (4)

Engestrom (1999) provides a close analysis of activity theory, activity systems and expansive learning, the latter occurring when tensions in an activity system are exposed. The exposure of tensions within an activity system can lead to the system’s reconfiguration, via expansive learning. 

Engestrom touches on the Marxist roots of activity theory, by affirming it ‘is based on a dialectical theory of knowledge and thinking’ (p. 378). The tensions within an existing system are the breeding ground for new forms of knowledge.

Engestrom is particularly interested in the object node in an activity system, and in the determining effects of the object node. Activity theory argues that purposeful human activities are mediated through tools (material or symbolic), but Engestrom also argues, ‘Activities are social practices oriented at objects’ (p. 380). Hence, ‘the object gains motivating force that gives shape and direction to activity. The object determines the horizon of possible actions’ (p381). The object of the activity system, therefore, shapes the parameters of the activity, as the activity is configured to attain the object (though an object and an eventual outcome need not be one and the same).

Engestrom’s analysis becomes more complex when he distinguishes objects from goals: ‘Objects are not to be confused with goals. Goals are attached to specific actions. Actions have clear points of beginning and termination and relatively short half-lives. Activity systems evolve through long historical cycles in which clear beginnings and ends are difficult to determine’ (p. 381). The essential difference appears to be one of scale; specific actions can be directed towards goals, but activity systems are more longitudinal, in the sense that, being dialectical, they exacerbate and expose tensions over time.

Building on his understanding of the importance of objects in activity systems, and on the distinction between objects and the more localised, immediate and thus more easily identifiable goals, Engestrom writes, ‘being a horizon, the object is never fully reached or conquered’ (p. 381). It appears to me that activity systems are more likely to get reconfigured under the pressure of their own internal contradictions than they are to get fully and unproblematically realised, other than in the short term context of a specific action leading to a goal. Tension between nodes appears to be the natural state of activity systems over time. 

Given the focus on change over time, and the distinction between objects and goals, Engestrom draws a further distinction, between innovative learning and an expansive cycle. The former can be localised, but the latter needs a more substantial temporal frame in which to play through: ‘Miniature cycles of innovative learning should be regarded as potentially expansive. A large-scale, expansive cycle of organizational transformation always consists of small cycles of innovative learning. However, the appearance of small-scale cycles of innovative learning does not in itself guarantee that an expansive cycle is going on’ (p. 385). Hence, the localised event of innovative learning can signify the emergence of expansive learning, but need not necessarily do so. However, one form of innovative learning prompting another and another comprises the ground work and the catalyst for expansive learning.

Engestrom also constructs a similar distinction between a solution innovation and a trajectory innovation: ‘A solution innovation typically applies only to the specific case for which it was invented, whereas a trajectory innovation is aimed at becoming a more or less permanent, repeatedly used procedure. Of course, it is possible that a solution innovation is subsequently repeated consciously in similar new situations, thus becoming a trajectory innovation. Conversely, a trajectory innovation may fail to generalize beyond the first application, thus effectively becoming a one-time solution innovation’ (p. 387).  Again, the essence of the distinction is between a localised event, and a bigger, structural change. However, the solution innovation can comprise a template that can be applied to solve other problems, hence establishing itself as a trajectory innovation, without having been conceived as one in the first place.

Engetsrom’s article as a whole brings additional complexity to activity theory, activity systems and expansive learning. The article argues that changes in activity systems and the emergence of expansive learning are only observable over time (typically, 2 to 3 years in research studies). However, individual innovations can develop into expansive transformations. Individual innovations, therefore, are unlikely to arise on the basis of an analysis of an activity system, and are more likely to be constructed in the face of an immediate, not recognisably structural, problem. However, localised solutions can accumulate, thus creating the conditions in which existing, structural problems are more manifest, leading to a collective desire to overhaul the existing structure, and replace it with an activity system better suited to its current context.

Reference

Engestrom, Y. (1999) ‘Innovative learning in work teams: Analyzing cycles of knowledge creation in practice,’ in Y. Engestrom, R. Miettinen and R.-L. Punamaki (eds.) Perspectives on Activity Theory,Cambridge,CambridgeUniversity Press, pp. 377-404.

 

 

 

 

Engestrom et al. (1999) Perspectives on Activity Theory (3)

People working in education in the UK can get taken aback by the continuities between education in 2011, and education as it took shape in the context of the Education Act of 1870, which made education compulsory for children aged 5 to 13. 

The essential, if unstated, purpose of the Act was to prepare children to function as adults in an industrial economy. Hence there was a time to arrive at school, a time to depart, a clear focus of authority in the classroom with all the students facing the same way, and sanctions (brutal, in general) for anyone deviating from the norms. Consequently, children entered industrial production with a clear sense of the expectations held of them. Their personal or class collective contributions to the development of industry, society and culture were not sought.

Mietinnen’s chapter identifies key features of present day learning and teaching: ‘School learning is characterized by memorization and reproduction of school texts. It is accompanied by an instrumental motivation of school success that tends to eliminate substantive interest in the phenomena and knowledge to be studied. The fundamental problem is that knowledge learned in such a way is difficult to use and apply in life outside the school’ (p. 325). School learning still appears to be modeled on the economic and political needs of an industrial society, yet the external contexts have changed, which makes school learning more irrelevant to the world outside school than it ever has been.

Miettinnen uses the language of Activity Theory to identify a particular problem with school learning: ‘the most important artifact of the school institution: decontextualized, independent text’ (p. 326). Online technologies offer a different artifact and, possibly, enhanced relevance to learning.  

At present, the disconnect between the structure of school learning and the wider social structure results in, ‘the historical isolation of school from other societal activities… Passive reception and memorization produce the paradoxical combination of slavish dependence on books and a real inability to use them.’ (p. 326).

The structure of school learning conjures up images of a monorail, with a point of departure, a point of arrival and no opportunity for deviation. Hence we have, ‘the unique inertia and conformity of classroom teaching and interaction… Teacher talk dominates, and students’ activity is largely limited to answering questions formulated by the teacher’ (p. 327). Furthermore, the structure of school learning bleaches communication of its power to create and enhance valuable learning: ‘In ordinary oral language, questions are used to request information and action. In schools, questions are asked to which the teacher already knows the answers’ (p. 329).  

Hence, when students arrive at university and are expected to take more responsibility for their own learning, they may understand what a deadline is, and its importance, but they may not understand how to construct knowledge, understanding and meaning for themselves, as they are successful graduates of a system that encourages the reproduction of what is already held to be known. Positing technology as learning ‘s saviour is reductive, but at least technology can comprise a clear link between the world of the classroom, and the world outside. Therefore, by positioning technology as the artifefact (tool), educators can change the other nodes in the Activity System, and thus change learning for the better.

Reference

Miettinen, R. (1999) ‘Transcending traditional school learning: Teachers’ work and networks of learning,’ in Y. Engestrom, R. Miettinen and R.-L. Punamaki (eds.) Perspectives on Activity Theory, Cambridge, CambridgeUniversity Press, pp. 325-346.

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.

An activity system triangle

Literature round up June 11

Young (2001) identifies some structural features of activity systems and expansive learning (Engestrom 1987, 2001) , pointing out that expansive learning ‘assumes a common goal’, and hence learning is a means to an end (pp. 159-160). In order for expansive learning to work, contradictions are identified and explored, and thus questions have to be asked. However, Young argues that socialisation within learning contexts can disable the expansive learning model: ‘The theory of expansive learning quite rightly gives a key role to questioning by learners. However, questioning in either a workplace or classroom context can easily be perceived as trouble making. It is possible, therefore, that a student or trainee begins by questioning, but later learns to keep quiet – thus providing a barrier to the continuation of the expansive learning cycle’ (p. 160). With specific regard to workplace learning, Rikowski (2000) has argued that recruiters look for attitudes rather than skills, with the desired attitudes including obedience. Hence, a culture can emerge that discourages the questions necessary for expansive learning to work.

Mc William (2008) argues higher education pedagogy is outdated: ‘mainstream pedagogical practice, particularly in universities, very much parallels a twentieth-century work culture focused on accessing information and using it to solve relatively predictable problems or complete routinised transactions of one kind or another’ (p. 264). She argues for more fluid pedagogies, reflecting both the impact of technology on twenty-first century living, and reflecting too the emerging demands of the workplace. She further argues for play as a pedagogical tool, seeing its experimental, error-welcoming characteristics as better suited to our age. Many years earlier, Huizinga (1938) argued that play turns to seriousness and seriousness turns to play, a belief which will be familiar to anyone who has become absorbed in winning a game or a sporting contest, and to anyone who has dressed up in costumes and intoned ritual phrases in courts or at church altars.

McWilliam’s core argument, that our pedagogies are no longer suited to our contexts, has been made elsewhere (e.g., Prensky 2001). However, her contention that the lecturer needs to become ‘a usefully ignorant co-worker’ (p. 265) lends itself to an activity system perspective, with the lecturer having to relinquish their authority within the division of labour, in order for effective and relevant learning to occur. Young argues that expansive learning presupposes a context in which contradictions are encouraged to come to the surface, whereas many workplaces and educational contexts suppress contradictions. Engestrom would argue that the surfacing of contradictions is an inevitability over the long-term, but it is likely that long-suppressed contradictions will be more disruptive when they finally emerge.

References
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 13 June 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.

McWilliam, E. (2008), ‘Unlearning how to teach,’ Innovations in Education and Teaching International, vol. 45, no. 3, pp. 263-269.

Prensky, M. (2001) ‘Digital natives, digital immigrants’ On the horizon, vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 1-6.

Rikowski, G. (2000) ‘That Other Great Class of Commodities: Repositioning Marxist Educational Theory,’ paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Conference, Cardiff University, 7-10 September 2000.

Young M. (2001), ‘Contextualising a New Approach to learning: some comments on Yrgo Engestrom’s theory of expansive learning,’ Journal of Education and Work, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 157-161.