Using Activity Theory to Study ICT integration
A Response to Demiraslan and Usluel (2008): ICT integration processes in Turkish schools: Using activity theory to study issues and contradictions.
I found the above article using a sociocultural framework to investigate ICT integration process. So it means that this activity system really has something to do with ICT integration in educational settings. I didn’t include this framework at the very beginning of my research. But I know this triangle-ish figure will matter in my research. The point is I use qualitative inquiry techniques. The research questions are open for changes and modifications. I can bring or drop anything in my research. That’s a good point about qualitative approaches.
After my research data were collected, every day I look at them -- thinking what to do. How should I analyse this messy constructs? Gradually I have come across some useful techniques to organize the data. Activity theory for me is now clearer than before after I read this article. It means that when we study an integration of technology in an educational setting. There are key domains to be carefully explored. If possible, the research questions should be designed to concur with the aspects within activity system before the data collection. It will be useful to do these as the researcher will have a theoretical framework in mind when he/she gathering the data. But for me, I don’t really have any frameworks in mind when I collected my data. The only thing that I knew was getting the data from the natural setting, listening to teachers talking about their work- like a friend sharing what’s going on in lives- and perceiving teachers’ views and behaviours as the way they really are. However, some researchers may want to have a sound theory in hand to manipulate their data. These key elements are:
Subject: people who use the tools and what they know about the tools (teachers)
Object: the goals of using the tools (students create a web blog for keeping their learning journal)
Tools: what tools are being used (CMC, Moodle, PowerPoint, Word, Google)
Rules: what’s the regulation of using the tools or the evaluation criteria (e.g. students use multiple skills to create their learning blogs )
Community: who else involving the use of the tools (students, blog readers, peer teachers, local organisations)
Division of labour: the roles and responsibilities of individual who use the tools(students maintain the blogs and interact with the readers)
Outcome: what are consequences of using the tools/ what the subject receive
(Students experience meaningful language use and online communication; be able to carry on using the tools and the skills in their learning process)
NOTE: The examples I have provided in the parentheses are all from my own understanding. Diversity will occur in other research settings and contexts. I have my own interpretation which base on the obtained data and from my research point of view.
1 comment:
In activity theory, goals correspond to actions and motive corresponds to "object." These are different levels of analysis. Although people are generally conscious of goals, they are usually unconscious of the object of activity.
The community is determined by the object. For that reason, teachers and students are often not in the same community. The object of teachers is to help students learn disciplinary knowledge. Although some students are also interested in disciplinary knowledge, the object for most students is simply to get a degree. Engestrõm calls this latter activity "school-going" activity as opposed to "learning" activity.
The hoped for outcome is the object becoming a tool in another activity, which in a learning activity indicates that learning has taken place.
Post a Comment