learning - Academic Conferences Limited
learning - Academic Conferences Limited learning - Academic Conferences Limited
Nabil Ben Abdallah and Françoise Poyet itself are mediated by a certain form of division of labor. The whole system provides a set of dynamic relations which adjust themselves and adapt continuously to maintain a certain productive stability (transformation of the object into outcome). Figure 1: Structure of a system of human activities (Engeström1987) The principles commonly described of the activity theory are: object orientation, mediation, the hierarchical structure of activity, internalization/externalization, and development. According to the principle object orientation of the activity theory, all the human activities are directed towards objects. They make it possible to transform an object considered as "a raw material'' to a significant object which is potentially shared by various system activities. These interactions with the object are, according to the principle of mediation, inevitably mediated by material or intellectual tools. These tools are able to adapt to environments composed of other tools and / or other human actors. The principle of the hierarchical structure of activity is one of the principal contributions of Leontiev (Leontiev 1981), it supposes the existence of three hierarchical levels of activities to carry out a given task: activities in close relation with the motivations and intentions, actions subordinate and related to specific goals, and operations determined by the real conditions of the activity. For Leontiev the human activity exists only in the form of an action or a chain of actions. The principle of internalization/externalization informs us about our mental processes which are the consequences of our internalized external activities. These processes are connected to their social and cultural environment. Lastly, the principle of development requires that the human activity is analyzed in the context of development. It is a question of understanding how an activity develops, in the course of time, in an historical and cultural context, and how the actions undertaken on the object of the activity affect such a development. According to Kaptelinin and Bonnie (Kaptelinin 2006, p.72): "principles of activity theory should be considered as an integrated system because they are associated with various aspects of the whole activity. That is, systematic application of any of the principles makes it eventually necessary to engage all the others". The activity theory is currently used in various studies related directly or indirectly to human activity. In the field, for instance, the human-computer interaction, activity theory is used as a relevant theoretical framework for the design and analysis of computer systems by focusing on the objective, constraints and specificities of the human activity (Engeström 2010; Larry 2009; Kaptelinin 2006; Mwanza 2002; Kuutti 1996; Nardi 1996). From the definition of an activity system and principles of activity theory described above, we try to sketch the outlines of an approach that allows us to conduct a comprehensive evaluation connecting both practical acceptability (utility and usability) is the social acceptability of a VLE. 5. Towards a comprehensive evaluation of VLE In the activity theory, the principle of mediation is a key principle to understand the system of activities in its globality. It informs us about the mediating role of the Tool that essentially mediates subject- 52
Nabil Ben Abdallah and Françoise Poyet object interactions, as well as community-object interactions. According to the nature of the analyzed activity, the two other mediators of the activities system (rules and division of work) can influence the mediation around of the activity tool. To analyze and understand the role of these mediators in the achievement of an activity, we initially decompose the global activity system in subsystems represented by triads consisting of three elements including a mediator. Each subsystem is composed of the following elements: the subject or community, the object and a mediating element (tool or rules or division of labor). There are therefore six triads: (subject, tool, object), (subject, rules, object), (subject, division of labor, object), (community, division of labor, object), (community, tool, object) and (community, rules, object). The theoretical framework of activity theory (primarily its concepts and its principles) makes it possible to identify various evaluation questions which an appraiser must ask to determine the various factors which can influence the global acceptability of the VLE. This is essentially the contextual factors of the interaction with the VLE whose determination helps to identify and to understand social and practical acceptability. Here we are suggesting a few series of questions which can be formulated around each the activity system triads. The data analysis collected from these questions must take into account the global nature of the activity, and the fact that the application of a given principle inevitably triggers the application of the other principles. For example, analysis of the impact of the VLE on learning must take into account the hierarchical structure of activity, object-oriented nature of the activity, the acquisition of knowledge through the process internalization / externalization, and development of system activities. Table 1: Examples of questions (subject, tool, object) (subject, rules, object) (subject, division of labour, object), (community, tool, object) (community, rules, object) (community, division of labour, object) Aspects of individual activity - Did you find the VLE useful to perform the work? - Did you meet with obstacles during the use of the VLE? - Did the rules of the work organization pose problems to you? - is the use of the VLE compatible with the rules of the work organization? - Did you agree with the allocation (whether agreed or implicit) of tasks? - Does the division of labour imposed by the use of the VLE facilitate the performance of work? Aspects of collective activity - Do you wish to use a VLE to complete a collective work? - Are the functionalities of the VLE related to collective work easy to use? - Did the rules of the work organization pose problems to you? - Is the use of the VLE compatible with the rules of the work organization? - Was there a collective definition of the different roles in the team? - Was there was an evolution of roles of the team members according to operations carried out (query writing, information filtering,) and the intermediate results? - Does the division of labour imposed by the use of the VLE facilitate the performance of work? To demonstrate this process, we would like to provide an example. In this example, groups of students carry out information searches on a given topic. Each group must produce a report gathering and synthesizing retrieved information. The Representation of the activity according to Engeström model enables us to understand the work of a student (subject) engaged in the production of a report (object) in collaboration with the members of its group (community). The relation which links a student with a group is determined by explicit rules (duration of work, mandatory work participation, collective presentation of work, concurrent teams, etc) imposed by the learning device which has been set up. The mediation between the subject and the object is carried out, among other things, by tools offered by a VLE. The division of work is based on an internal organization for each group, the lecturers do not operate in the allocation of tasks among group members. Among other things, collected data show us that the students consider the VLE as a communications tool, as well as a production of intermediate documents tool, and especially as an information sharing tool among the members of the same group. The tested functionalities appeared useful to the 53
- Page 28 and 29: Samuel Adu Gyamfi et al. the develo
- Page 30 and 31: Samuel Adu Gyamfi et al. completion
- Page 32 and 33: Samuel Adu Gyamfi et al. interactio
- Page 34 and 35: Survey of Teachers’ use of Comput
- Page 36 and 37: Babatunde Alabi Alege and Stephen O
- Page 38 and 39: Babatunde Alabi Alege and Stephen O
- Page 40 and 41: Babatunde Alabi Alege and Stephen O
- Page 42 and 43: Issues and Challenges in Implementi
- Page 44 and 45: Hussein Al-Yaseen et al. 2000/2001
- Page 46 and 47: Hussein Al-Yaseen et al. phase invo
- Page 48 and 49: Hussein Al-Yaseen et al. Berthold,
- Page 50 and 51: Antonios Andreatos Figure 1: Estima
- Page 52 and 53: Antonios Andreatos exchange applied
- Page 54 and 55: Antonios Andreatos knowledge space,
- Page 56 and 57: Figure 5: Video metadata from YouTu
- Page 58 and 59: Antonios Andreatos The organisatio
- Page 60 and 61: Constructing a Survey Instrument fo
- Page 62 and 63: Jonathan Barkand The teacher demon
- Page 64 and 65: Jonathan Barkand Indicator 2.3: Has
- Page 66 and 67: References Jonathan Barkand Allen,
- Page 68 and 69: 2. Pedagogical agents Orlando Belo
- Page 70 and 71: Orlando Belo Type (Tp), the refere
- Page 72 and 73: 3.3 The agent’s architecture Orla
- Page 74 and 75: Some Reflections on the Evaluation
- Page 76 and 77: Nabil Ben Abdallah and Françoise P
- Page 80 and 81: Nabil Ben Abdallah and Françoise P
- Page 82 and 83: Designing A New Curriculum: Finding
- Page 84 and 85: Andrea Benn For this new course, it
- Page 86 and 87: Andrea Benn Technology is already i
- Page 88 and 89: Andrea Benn To bring about the co-o
- Page 90 and 91: Latefa Bin Fryan and Lampros Stergi
- Page 92 and 93: Latefa Bin Fryan and Lampros Stergi
- Page 94 and 95: Faculty development Online course
- Page 96 and 97: Latefa Bin Fryan and Lampros Stergi
- Page 98 and 99: Latefa Bin Fryan and Lampros Stergi
- Page 100 and 101: Alice Bird being reviewed under the
- Page 102 and 103: Alice Bird Developing the process m
- Page 104 and 105: Alice Bird Reflecting on the feasib
- Page 106 and 107: 3.3 Early stage implementation Alic
- Page 108 and 109: Enhancement of e-Testing Possibilit
- Page 110 and 111: Martin Cápay et al. of Likert scal
- Page 112 and 113: Martin Cápay et al. Figure 3 Proce
- Page 114 and 115: Martin Cápay et al. Figure 4: An e
- Page 116 and 117: Martin Cápay et al. On the other h
- Page 118 and 119: Tim Cappelli demand from students t
- Page 120 and 121: Tim Cappelli at a time and increasi
- Page 122 and 123: Tim Cappelli forms were processed a
- Page 124 and 125: Objectives More efficient and faste
- Page 126 and 127: Digital Educational Resources Repos
Nabil Ben Abdallah and Françoise Poyet<br />
itself are mediated by a certain form of division of labor. The whole system provides a set of dynamic<br />
relations which adjust themselves and adapt continuously to maintain a certain productive stability<br />
(transformation of the object into outcome).<br />
Figure 1: Structure of a system of human activities (Engeström1987)<br />
The principles commonly described of the activity theory are: object orientation, mediation, the<br />
hierarchical structure of activity, internalization/externalization, and development. According to the<br />
principle object orientation of the activity theory, all the human activities are directed towards objects.<br />
They make it possible to transform an object considered as "a raw material'' to a significant object<br />
which is potentially shared by various system activities. These interactions with the object are,<br />
according to the principle of mediation, inevitably mediated by material or intellectual tools. These<br />
tools are able to adapt to environments composed of other tools and / or other human actors. The<br />
principle of the hierarchical structure of activity is one of the principal contributions of Leontiev<br />
(Leontiev 1981), it supposes the existence of three hierarchical levels of activities to carry out a given<br />
task: activities in close relation with the motivations and intentions, actions subordinate and related to<br />
specific goals, and operations determined by the real conditions of the activity. For Leontiev the<br />
human activity exists only in the form of an action or a chain of actions. The principle of<br />
internalization/externalization informs us about our mental processes which are the consequences of<br />
our internalized external activities. These processes are connected to their social and cultural<br />
environment. Lastly, the principle of development requires that the human activity is analyzed in the<br />
context of development. It is a question of understanding how an activity develops, in the course of<br />
time, in an historical and cultural context, and how the actions undertaken on the object of the activity<br />
affect such a development. According to Kaptelinin and Bonnie (Kaptelinin 2006, p.72): "principles of<br />
activity theory should be considered as an integrated system because they are associated with<br />
various aspects of the whole activity. That is, systematic application of any of the principles makes it<br />
eventually necessary to engage all the others".<br />
The activity theory is currently used in various studies related directly or indirectly to human activity. In<br />
the field, for instance, the human-computer interaction, activity theory is used as a relevant theoretical<br />
framework for the design and analysis of computer systems by focusing on the objective, constraints<br />
and specificities of the human activity (Engeström 2010; Larry 2009; Kaptelinin 2006; Mwanza 2002;<br />
Kuutti 1996; Nardi 1996).<br />
From the definition of an activity system and principles of activity theory described above, we try to<br />
sketch the outlines of an approach that allows us to conduct a comprehensive evaluation connecting<br />
both practical acceptability (utility and usability) is the social acceptability of a VLE.<br />
5. Towards a comprehensive evaluation of VLE<br />
In the activity theory, the principle of mediation is a key principle to understand the system of activities<br />
in its globality. It informs us about the mediating role of the Tool that essentially mediates subject-<br />
52