Advertisement

The dialectical potential of Cultural Historical Activity Theory for researching sustainable CSCL practices

  • Sue Timmis
Article
First Online:

Abstract

This article explores conceptual and methodological challenges in researching sustainable computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) within authentic educational settings. It argues that to investigate the sustainability of CSCL in such settings, we need to understand how new innovations become enculturated as part of educational communities and the shared repertoires and practices of learners and teachers. The potential for Cultural Historical Activity Theory (CHAT) as a relational, dialectical framework for researching collaborative learning is examined. The article argues that, although CHAT is increasingly being used for researching educational settings, it is often employed only descriptively or as a set of guiding principles and the dialectical method, which focuses on emergent contradictions and tensions, is not always fully explored. An integrated conceptual and methodological CHAT framework is proposed for understanding the complex interrelations between discourse, actions and community and as a result how new technological innovations and knowledge creation practices can be appropriated and sustained. This is illustrated through the analytical processes undertaken in a recent empirical study of undergraduates working on an online collaborative research project. The article concludes by arguing that the dialectical method at the heart of CHAT is both unifying and problematizing and could allow us to develop a richer, more integrated and explanatory picture of sustainable CSCL activities.

Keywords

Cultural Historical Activity Theory Sustainability Dialectics Discourse Knowledge creation Community Methodology 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The author acknowledges the contributions, time and efforts of the students and tutors involved in the empirical work reported here. My thanks are especially due to Patricia Triggs for her invaluable, insightful comments and advice in preparing this paper and to the anonymous reviewers for their helpful feedback on an earlier version.

References

  1. Arnseth, H. C., & Ludvigsen, S. (2006). Approaching institutional contexts: Systemic versus dialogic research in CSCL. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(2), 167–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arvaja, M., Salovaara, H., Hakkinen, P., & Jarvela, S. (2007). Combining individual and group-level perspectives for studying collaborative knowledge construction in context. Learning and Instruction, 17(4), 448–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). Speech Genres and Other Late Essays (trans: McGee, V. W.). Austin, Texas: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
  4. Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  5. Brew, A. (2006). Research and teaching: Beyond the divide. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  6. Bromley, D. W. (2008). Sustainability. In S. N. Durlauf & L. E. Blume (Eds.) The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, 2nd Edition, Palgrave Macmillian. Retrieved from http://www.dictionaryofeconomics.com/dictionary.
  7. Chan, C. (2011). Bridging research and practice: Implementing and sustaining knowledge building in Hong Kong classrooms. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 6(2), 147–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cole, M. (1996). Cultural psychology: A once and future discipline. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Cole, M., & Engeström, Y. (1993). A cultural-historical approach to distributed cognition. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 1–46). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Crook, C. (2000). Motivation and the ecology of collaborative learning. In R. Joiner, D. Miell, K. Littleton, & D. Faulkner (Eds.), Rethinking collaborative learning. London: Free Association Press.Google Scholar
  11. Crook, C. (2011). Versions of computer supported collaborating in higher education. In S. Ludvigsen, A. Lund, I. Rasmussen, & R. Säljö (Eds.), Learning across sites: New tools, infrastructures and practices (pp. 156–171). Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. Daniels, H. (2001). Vygotsky and pedagogy. London: RoutledgeFalmer.Google Scholar
  13. Daniels, H. (2006). Analysing institutional effects in Activity Theory: First steps in the development of a language of description. Outlines: Critical Social Studies, 2(2006), 43–58.Google Scholar
  14. Daniels, H. (2011). Analysing trajectories of professional learning in changing workplaces. Culture & Psychology, 17(3), 359–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. de Lange, T., & Lund, A. (2008). Digital tools and instructional rules: A study of how digital technologies become rooted in classroom procedures. Outlines: Critical Social Studies, 10(2), 36–58.Google Scholar
  16. Dillenbourg, P. (1999). What do you mean by ‘collaborative learning’? In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.), Collaborative learning: Cognitive and computational approaches (pp. 1–19). Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  17. Dillenbourg, P., Järvelä, S., & Fischer, F. (2009). The Evolution of research on computer-supported collaborative learning: From design to orchestration. In N. Balachef, S. Ludvigsen, T. de Jong, A. Lazonder, & S. Barnes (Eds.), Technology-enhanced learning: Principles and products (pp. 3–20). Dortrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Edwards, A. (2005). Relational agency: Learning to be a resourceful practitioner. International Journal of Educational Research, 43, 168–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit.Google Scholar
  20. Engeström, R. (1995). Voice as communicative action. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 2(3), 192–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Engeström, Y. (1999a). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen, & R. Punamaki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 19–38). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Engeström, Y. (1999b). Communication, discourse and activity. The Communication Review, 3(1), 165–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Engeström, Y. (1999c). Innovative learning in work teams: Analyzing cycles of knowledge creation in practice. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen, & R. Punamaki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 377–404). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133–156.Google Scholar
  25. Engeström, Y. (2009). The future of activity theory: A rough draft. In A. Sannino, H. Daniels, & K. D. Gutiérrez (Eds.), Learning and expanding with activity (pp. 303–328). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Fenwick, T. (2010). Re-thinking the “thing”: Sociomaterial approaches to understanding and researching learning in work. Journal of Workplace Learning, 22(1), 104–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  28. Hakkarainen, K. (2009). A knowledge-practice perspective on technology-mediated learning. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 4, 213–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Healey, M., & Jenkins, A. (2009). Developing undergraduate research and inquiry. Retrieved from http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/documents/research/DevelopingUndergraduateResearchandInquiry.pdf.
  30. Hiruma, F., Wells, G., & Ball, T. (2007). The problem of discoursing in activity. Actio: An International Journal of Human Activity Theory, 1, 93–114. http://kuir.jm.kansai-u.ac.jp/dspace/handle/10112/7574.Google Scholar
  31. Hyysalo, S. (2005). Objects and motives in a product design process. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 12(1), 19–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ilyenkov, E. V. (1977). Dialectical Logic: Essays in its History and Theory. Moscow: Progress.Google Scholar
  33. Jaworski, B., & Goodchild, S. (2006). Inquiry community in an activity theory frame. In J. Novotná, H. Moraová, M. Krátká, & N. Stehlíková (Eds.), Proceedings 30th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 3, pp. 353–360). Prague: PME.Google Scholar
  34. Jaworski, B., & Potari, D. (2009). Bridging the macro- and micro-divide: Using an activity theory model to capture sociocultural complexity in mathematics teaching and its development. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 72(2), 219–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Revisiting activity theory as a framework for designing student-centred learning environments. In D. H. Jonassen & S. Land (Eds.), Theoretical foundations of learning environments. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  36. Jones, C., & Healing, G. (2010). Net generation students: Agency and choice and the new technologies. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(5), 344–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Jordan, B., & Henderson, A. (1995). Interaction analysis: Foundations and practice. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(1), 39–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kaptelinin, V. (2005). The object of activity: Making sense of the sense-maker. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 12(1), 4–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Karasavvidis, I. (2009). Activity theory as a conceptual framework for understnading teacher approaches to information and communication technologies. Computers in Education, 53, 436–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Koschmann, T. (1996). Paradigm shifts and instructional technology: An introduction. In T. Koschmann (Ed.), CSCL, theory and practice of an emerging paradigm. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  41. Koschmann, T. (1999). Toward a dialogic theory of learning: Bakhtin’s contribution to understanding learning in settings of collaboration. In C. Hoadley (Ed.), Computer support for collaborative learning (pp. 308–313). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  42. Koschmann, T., Stahl, G., & Zemel, A. (2007). The video analyst’s manifesto (or the implications of Garfinkel’s policies for studying practice within design-based research). In R. Goldman, R. D. Pea, B. Barron, & S. Derry (Eds.), Video research in the learning sciences. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  43. Langemeyer, I., & Nissen, M. (2005). Activity theory. In B. Somekh & C. Lewin (Eds.), Research methods in the social sciences (pp. 188–196). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  44. Lemke, J. L. (1990). Making meaning: The principles of social semiotics, chapter 8 in talking science: Language and learning and values. Westport: Ablex.Google Scholar
  45. Leont’ev, A. N. (1978). Activity, consciousness, and personality. Retrieved from http://www.marxists.org/archive/leontev/works/1978/index.htm.
  46. Leont’ev, A. N. (1981). The problem of activity in psychology. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.), The concept of activity in soviet psychology (pp. 37–71). Armonk: M.E. Sharpe Inc.Google Scholar
  47. Lewis, R. (1997). An activity theory framework to explore distributed communities. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 13, 210–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Linell, P. (2009). Rethinking language, mind and world dialogically: Interactional and contextual theories of human sense-making. Charlotte: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  49. Lipponen, L., Hakkarainen, & Paavola, S. (2004). Practices and orientation of computer-supported collaborative learning. In J. Strijbos, P. Kirschner, & R. Martens (Eds.), What we know about CSCL, and implementing it in higher education (pp. 31–50). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Nardi, B. A. (1996). Studying context: A comparison of activity theory, situated action models and distributed cognition. In B. A. Nardi (Ed.), Context and consciousness (pp. 69–102). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  51. Nussbaumer, D. (2011). An overview of cultural historical activity theory (CHAT) use in classroom research 2000 to 2009. Educational Review, 64(1), 37–55.Google Scholar
  52. Oliver, M. (2011). Technological determinism in educational technology research: Some alternative ways of thinking about the relationship between learning and technology. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27(5), 373–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Perkins, D. N. (1993). Person-plus: A distributed view of thinking and learning. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 88–110). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Rasmussen, I., & Ludvigsen, S. (2009). The hedgehog and the fox: A discussion of the approaches to the analysis of ICT reforms in teacher education of Larry Cuban and Yrjö Engeström. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 16(1), 83–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Ritella, G., & Hakkarainen, K. (2012). Instrumental genesis in technology-mediated learning: From double stimulation to expansive knowledge practices. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 7(2), 239–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Rommetveit, R. (2003). On the role of “a psychology of the second person” in studies of meaning, language, and mind. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 10(3), 205–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Roschelle, J., & Teasely, S. D. (1995). The construction of shared knowledge in collaborative problem solving. In C. O’Malley (Ed.), Computer supported collaborative learning (pp. 69–97). Berlin Heidelberg: Springer Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Roth, W. M. (2004). Activity theory and education: An introduction. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 11(1), 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Roth, W. M. (2007). Emotion at work: A contribution to third-generation cultural-historical activity theory. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 14(1), 40–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Roth, W. M., & Lee, Y. J. (2007). “Vygotsky’s neglected legacy”: Cultural-historical activity theory. Review of Educational Research, 77(2), 186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Selwyn, N. (2011). Education and technology: Key issues and debates. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  62. Siyahhan, S., Barab, S. A., & Downton, M. (2010). Using activity theory to understand intergenerational play: The case of family quest. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 5(4), 415–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Stahl, G. (2005). Group cognition in computer assisted collaborative learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21, 79–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Stahl, G., & Hesse, F. (2010). Beyond folk theories of CSCL. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 5(4), 355–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Stahl, G., Koschmann, T., & Suthers, D. (2006). Computer-supported collaborative learning: An historical perspective. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 409–426). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  66. Strijbos, J. W., & Fischer, F. (2007). Methodological challenges for collaborative learning research. Learning and Instruction, 17, 389–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Sutherland, R., Eagle, S., & Joubert, M. (2012) A vision and strategy for technology enhanced learning: Report from the STELLAR Network of Excellence. Last accessed 7 August 2012 from: http://www.stellarnet.eu/kmi/deliverables/20120803_stellar_d1.8_final.pdf.
  68. Suthers, D. (2006). Technology affordances for intersubjective meaning making: A research agenda for CSCL. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(3), 315–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Timmis, S. (2012). Constant companions: Instant messaging conversations as sustainable supportive study structures amongst undergraduate peers. Computers in Education, 59(1), 3–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Timmis, S., Joubert, M., Manuel, A., & Barnes, S. (2010). Transmission, transformation and ritual: An investigation of students’ and researchers’ digitally mediated communications and collaborative work. Learning, Media and Technology, 35(3), 307–322.Google Scholar
  71. Van Aalst, J., & Hill, C. M. (2006). Activity theory as a framework for analysing knowledge building. Learning Environments Research, 9, 23–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Van Oers, B. (1998). From context to contextualizing. Learning and Instruction, 8(6), 473–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  74. Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and Language (trans: Kozulin, A.). Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT press.Google Scholar
  75. Wells, G. (2007). The mediating role of discoursing in activity. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 14(3), 160–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voices of the mind: A socio-cultural approach to mediated action. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  77. Williams, J., Davis, P., & Black, L. (2007). An agenda for CHAT in educational research: An editorial response. International Journal of Educational Research, 46, 104–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Yamagata-Lynch, L. C. (2003). Using activity theory as an analytic lens for examining technology professional development in schools. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 10(2), 100–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Society of the Learning Sciences, Inc. and Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Graduate School of EducationUniversity of BristolBristolUK

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options