Explaining CALL through Activity Theory and vice-versa Vilson J. Leffa, UCPel Brazil

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?

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

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

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

Mediation A tool – empowers the subject – materializes an object – imposes limitations – modifies the subject – cannot be discarded

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

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

The whole picture

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

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

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)

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

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

Hierarchical levels (Harris)

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

Freezing a moment

Structure

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

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: ). Sometimes a student’s action does not coincide with the final objective Importance of consciousness

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)

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

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

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

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