Skip to content | Change text size

Table of Contents:

The Final Framework:

  

Technology as Tool: Activity Theory Perspective [1]

Purpose: To enable location of pedagogic materials supported by new learning technologies within the three levels of activity theory.

References: 21, 31, 49, 65

At which level is the learning activity located:

  1. Operations Level: By automating and substituting human operations. [Linked to the learner’s Conditions.] The operations level of support is oriented towards technical mastery. At this level, the learner would be given feedback in terms of right/wrong answers with some remediation but within a drill and practice format.
  2. Action Level : (a) By serving as a tool in manipulative and transformative actions. (b) By helping in actions directed towards sense making. [Linked to the learner’s Goals.] The action level of support is content-focused and oriented towards developing understanding of both tools and mathematical processes. The focus is on supporting meaning making, and the technologies are either intended to support transformative and manipulative actions by the learners or to render the tools and procedures themselves visible and comprehensible. Supporting sense-making actions within an activity means that materials need to be culturally appropriate.
  3. Activity level : By actions supporting communicative actions between participants. [Linked to the learner’s Motives.] The focus is on creative, innovative, and transformative learning. The object of learning is enabled to become a common object, shared between learners. The tools are now utilised to enable the creation of a new routine or the construction of a new tool.

 

  1. At the level of operations:
    1. Is the program intended to support the automating of routines by providing data and triggering predetermined responses in the learner? [e.g., to provide drill and practice in number, measurement, algebraic manipulation, geometric facts, statistical routines, calculus skills, etc.]
    2. Does the program provide instruction on how to use symbolic algebra systems, spreadsheets, databases, dynamic geometry software, statistics packages, etc.? [e.g., via text, word, or spreadsheet files, CD-ROMs, the worldwide web, etc.]
    3. Is the program intended to support the embedding and imposing of a certain set of mathematical rules? [e.g., arithmetic/statistical calculations including knowledge and use of the metric system; also algebraic conventions, geometric facts, etc.]
    4. Is an implicit community created by linking the work tasks of several people together? [e.g., learners on- and/or off-campus, teachers and significant others for the learner]
    5. Is a certain division of labour embedded and imposed? [e.g., clear demarcation of tasks between designer/teacher/tutor and learner]

 

  1. At the level of actions:
    1.  Are the technological artefacts themselves made visible and comprehensible? [e.g., dynamic geometry systems, exploratory and interactive educational algebra, statistics, graphing packages — commercially- or custom-made]
    2. Are communicative actions supported and the network of actors made visible? [e.g., via email, discussion groups, online conferencing, etc.]
    3. Is the work organisation made visible and comprehensible?

 

  1. At the level of activity:
    1. Is the learner supported in learning and reflection with respect to the whole object and activity?
    2.  Is the negotiation of new rules enabled?
    3.  Are the formation of new communities and the reorganisation of the division of labour enabled?
    4. Is there be a reflection on the learning process?
    5. Could the reflection entail a critique of technology and the uses to which it is put?
    6. Could there be a critical mathematics education? [i.e., activity and reflection leading towards democratic empowerment]
    7.  Is communication enhanced by genuine collaboration? [e.g., via projects, local and global, and supported by multimedia conferencing]
    8. Is there a focus on expansive learning — which allows for creativity and interaction arising from tensions and contradictions within and between activity systems? [i.e., emanating from conversations, analyses, and genuinely open research; and by all stakeholders, collaboratively reflecting on alternative shared models of planning and implementation]