A Cultural Historical Activity Theory [CHAT] Analysis of Technology Integration: Case Study of Two Teachers

Abstract

Classic research methods are ineffective in capturing the dynamic relationships among users, technology, and outcomes for technology integration research. Cognitive research attempts to eliminate environmental variability and test for recall and transferability of knowledge representations. Such approaches lead to arguably ineffective measures of learning. Activity theory provides a holistic framework to investigate relationships among the elements present in a technology integration activity. These research approaches are compared. A CHAT framework is suggested as an appropriate structure for analyzing technology integration efforts. This approach focuses on the dynamic relationships among individuals, goals, tools, community members, and mediating factors that are the elements of any human activity. An example of this framework in practice is presented. A research model generated from applying CHAT approach is proposed. Introduction As educational technology has become more prevalent in educational settings, research efforts have increased to study technology’s uses and impacts. Although by nature technology is a tool used within human activity, the traditional research approaches tend to focus only on the user of the technology, specifically outcomes as a result of using technology (Matheson et al., 1999). In an attempt to eliminate the variability of the environment investigators ignore or control for key elements of the activity itself such as historical background and motivations of the subjects, the technology’s role in achieving goals, and relationships among others within the activity. Activity theory is a socio-cultural and historical lens through which human activity systems can be holistically analyzed (Engestrom, 1999; Jonassen & Rohrer-Murphy, 1999). This approach focuses on the interaction of human activity and human thought within its relevant environmental context. Since learning is not a precursor to, rather it emerges from activity, research should attempt to examine the individuals(s) involved in the activity and activity elements such as the product of the activity, mediating tools, community members, and guiding rules while the individual(s) is/are acting on and attempting to produce an outcome. This paper provides a comparison of CHAT and traditional cognitive research methods and an example of how CHAT was used to analyze the impact of a technology integration intervention. A research model generated from this project is also proposed and discussed. Brief Overview of Activity Theory Activity theory adds value to assessment processes in that it suggests that the combined foundational elements of an activity are the unit of analysis that represents the minimum elements of an object-oriented, collective, and culturally mediated human activity (Engestrom, 1987). It is the internal tensions and contradictions within and among the elements of a human activity that lead to the transitions and transformation of knowledge. The basic elements of an activity include subject, object, tools, community, rules, and division of labor (Engestrom, 1987; Kuttii, 1991; Kuttii, 1996). The main focus of any activity is in the production of an outcome (object), physical or mental. The subject, an individual or group, determines that there is a need or motive to fulfill, the object. Using the tools (e.g., technology, training, conceptual ideas, people) the subject moves toward accomplishing the object. The community members set rules and norms under which the subject operates and establishes how the community members organize (division of labor) to meet goals. All of the elements influence the others and are influenced by social, cultural, and historical factors, such as background knowledge, personal bias, availability of tools, and other factors. Each individual activity is also affected by other surrounding activities that may have

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 24 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.