1 / 25

Explaining CALL through Activity Theory and vice-versa

Explaining CALL through Activity Theory and vice-versa. Vilson J. Leffa, UCPel Brazil leffa@via-rs.net http://www.leffa.pro.br. Main points. Need for a unifying theory in CALL Introduction to Activity Theory (AT) Structure Principles Hierarchical levels Merging AT with CALL

dana
Download Presentation

Explaining CALL through Activity Theory and vice-versa

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Explaining CALL through Activity Theory and vice-versa Vilson J. Leffa, UCPel Brazil leffa@via-rs.net http://www.leffa.pro.br

  2. Main points • Need for a unifying theory in CALL • Introduction to Activity Theory (AT) • Structure • Principles • Hierarchical levels • Merging AT with CALL • A new paradigm in CALL research?

  3. Need for a unifying theory in CALL • Many “no’s” • No “reliable conceptual framework” (Levy, 1997, p. 3); • No recognition as an area of research (Keegan, 1990, p. 51); • No unifying theory (Holmberg, 1982; Kelly, 1990; Smith, 1980) • The tutor/tool dichotomy Challenge: How to incorporate opposites and fragments into a unified theory

  4. Activity Theory (AT) • AT is a philosophical and cross-disciplinary framework for studying different forms of human practices as developmental processes (Kuutti 1996) • Historical materialism • HCI Hospitals Schools • Social practices • Development

  5. Structure • Segmentation for explanatory purposes • How does the subject appropriate the object?

  6. Mediation • A tool • empowers the subject • materializes an object • imposes limitations • modifies the subject • cannot be discarded

  7. Object - Outcome • Object • Content to be internalized • Outcome • Content actually internalized • Possible conflicts • Phases of the Moon • Teacher’s expectation Versus students’ realizations

  8. Contextualization • The immersion process • Vulnerability • Inside / outside • Distributed cognition • Part of a whole

  9. The whole picture

  10. Principles • object-orientedness • mediation • development • internalization/externalization • unity of consciousness and activity • contextualization • hierarchical structure

  11. Object-orientedness • The object may be • physical, chemical, biological, social, cultural • may involve • feelings, ideas • colonialism, brotherhood • but always treated as objective reality

  12. Principle of mediation • Tools as extension of our organs • Tool + organ = “functional organ” • Transmission of knowledge • Accumulation of knowledge • We need more than our hands and our mind to learn and change; we also need the tools we have created (Bacon)

  13. Principle of development • AT develops continuously • Supports fast methodological updates • Requires a view of historical development • Does not allow re-inventing the wheel

  14. Internalization/externalization • No boundary between what is inside and what is outside • Activities are externalized on objects • Objects may be indispensable • No piano sonata without a piano • Simulation hypothesis • Internalization and ZPD

  15. Hierarchical levels (Harris)

  16. A CALL activity • If AT did not exist we would have to invent it to explain CALL • AT can account for the diversified nature of CALL • Any component in the structure can be replaced • AT can account for the historical development of CALL • Any theory is seen as part of an evolutionary process

  17. Freezing a moment

  18. Structure

  19. The tool issue • Beyond computer • Screen is not a sheet of paper • Undue emphasis on technology? • Demands on the user • The tutor/tool dichotomy

  20. Object-oriented • A beater in a primeval collective hunt, …[frightens] a herd of animals and [sends] them toward other hunters, hiding in ambush. (Leontyev, 1981: 209-210). • Sometimes a student’s action does not coincide with the final objective • Importance of consciousness

  21. Tool mediation • Any piece of courseware [...] carries with it a ‘teacher in the machine’, a projection of the personalities of the designers, programmers, materials developers(Hubard,1996 : 21) • People anthropomorphize computers, treating the machine as if it were a person (Schaumburg, 2001; Reeves & Nass, 1996)

  22. Externalization/ Internalization cycle • We externalize what is inside us through words and gestures • Words and gestures can be saved and reproduced • Images, movement, and interactivity can be added to amplify our gestures • Under certain conditions (ZPD etc.) what is externalized can be internalized

  23. CALL is dynamic • Computers change continuously, requiring activities to be developed and re-developed • Computers facilitate change

  24. The hierarchical issue • Operation level (below consciousness) • Typing skills • Eye-hand synchronization … • Action level (conscious) • Answering a question … • Activity level • Cloze • Chat session …

  25. Final comments • AT as a simple and visual way to explain the complexity of situated CALL • We learn and change through the instruments we create • Playing with different identities • Possibility of starting a new research paradigm if all lose ends in CALL are put together

More Related