Rules, roles and tools: Activity theory and the comparative study of e-learning

Activity theory (AT) is a powerful tool for investigating ‘artefacts in use’, ie, the ways technologies interrelate with their local context. AT reveals the interfaces between e-learning at the macro- (strategy, policy, ‘campus-wide’ solutions) and the micro-organisational levels (everyday working practice, iterative change, individual adaptation). In AT, contexts are conceived of as activity systems in which human, technological and organisational elements are interrelated and largely inseparable. Both the subjects of the activity system (internal) and the wider community (external) mediate their activities through tools, rules and roles. This paper shows how a course management system (CMS) exerts an influence over all three of these mediators, though the exact nature of this influence depends on the particular configuration of each activity system. This is illustrated with reference to two case study programmes, both of which used Moodle as their CMS, but which had activity systems structured in quite different ways; the programmes also had different relationships with their external organisational environment.

[1]  W. Karwowski,et al.  Activity theory as a basis for the study of work , 2004, Ergonomics.

[2]  G. Bedny,et al.  The Systemic-Structural Theory of Activity: Applications to the Study of Human Work , 2005 .

[3]  Alekseĭ Nikolaevich Leontʹev Problems of the development of the mind , 1981 .

[4]  Andrew Whitworth,et al.  Mapping e-learning: Visualising the negotiated social shaping of educational technology , 2006 .

[5]  S. L. Star,et al.  The Ethnography of Infrastructure , 1999 .

[6]  Liam J. Bannon,et al.  Beyond the Interface: Encountering Artifacts in Use , 1989 .

[7]  Yrjö Engeström,et al.  Pedagogical Adeptness in the Design of E-learning Environments: Experiences from the Lab@Future Project , 2003 .

[8]  Gráinne Conole,et al.  Learning from the UKeU experience , 2005 .

[9]  Martin Oliver,et al.  The impact of e-learning on organisational roles and structures , 2006 .

[10]  M. Oliver,et al.  Does E‐learning Policy Drive Change in Higher Education?: A case study relating models of organisational change to e‐learning implementation , 2005 .

[11]  Andrew Whitworth,et al.  Technology at the Planning Table: Activity Theory, Negotiation and Course Management Systems , 2007 .

[12]  Stacey L. Hogan,et al.  Planning Responsibly for Adult Education: A Guide to Negotiating Power and Interests , 1994 .

[13]  C. Argyris On organizational learning , 1993 .

[14]  Daisy Mwanza,et al.  Where Theory Meets Practice: A Case for an Activity Theory Based Methodology to Guide Computer System Design , 2001, INTERACT.

[15]  Victor Kaptelinin,et al.  Methods & tools: The activity checklist: a tool for representing the “space” of context , 1999, INTR.

[16]  Maggie McPherson,et al.  Editorial introduction: BJET special issue on best practice or situated action: the organization of technology enhanced learning , 2008, Br. J. Educ. Technol..

[17]  Caroline Haythornthwaite,et al.  Introduction to E-learning research , 2007 .

[18]  Etienne Wenger,et al.  Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity , 1998 .