Mediational engagement in E-learning: An Activity Theory analysis

The emergence of educational technologies offers flexible learning opportunities to students. However, the nature of the online learning environment can lead to disengagement and subsequent minimal participation, which present challenges and concerns in relation to students’ learning. Therefore, in order for learners to have positive learning experiences, it is vital to identify factors that affect students’ engagement in online learning environments. Although the use of learning management systems (LMS) as an asynchronous e-learning platform can influence learner engagement, there is little research on these influences and the ways in which an LMS affects engagement. In addition, studies on students’ perceptions of learning and engagement with synchronous and asynchronous technologies are under-explored. In response to these concerns, this research sets out to gain a better understanding of students’ engagement in e-learning activities. In particular, the study examines mediating factors that affect students’ engagement in e-learning activities in a range of e-learning contexts at the University of Waikato. The study also aims to explore the affordances and constraints of some e-learning tools and their influence on students’ engagement in this context. The research was carried out in the form of three case studies and students and lecturers of the three courses in three different university departments participated in this study. Qualitative data collection methods used in the research were interviews, observations and document analysis. The data were collected throughout the duration of the courses. In exploring the factors that affect students’ engagement in e-learning activities and how the various elements operate together, Engstrom’s (1987) Activity Theory was used as the research framework. Activity theory helps describe learning activities, mediating tools, relationships between elements of activity systems and goals and objectives of activities. The constituents of an activity system include subject, object, tools, rules, community and division of labour. An activity system framework allowed this research to examine the relationships between these elements and also the way elements affect each other. Findings indicated that students’ active participation in the three cases was mediated by the educational technologies, the learning materials, the design of the course and the English language. The analysis also showed that the lecturers’ technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK) was reflected through the design of the courses and consequently influenced students’ learning. The development of an online learning community also benefitted students’ learning. Some deliberate strategies like creating spaces for communication both in general and in specific modules provided students with opportunities to work collaboratively, share ideas and useful information, and learn from each other. These interactions also facilitated close connections among students. The guidelines that specified information about the format of written or oral presentations, duration or length, level of formality, assessment criteria/marking guidelines and referencing guidelines also acted as a mediator and influenced the way students participated in activities in all three case studies. The analysis also indicated the importance of participants’ responsibilities in their courses. In particular, as a result of lecturers not defining both their roles and those of their students, some misunderstandings, confusions and frustrations occurred. These mediated students’ engagement. Insights gained from this study related to affordances and constrains of some e-learning tools and their influence on students’ engagement may be of benefit to tertiary educators. The pedagogical strategies that are suggested at the end of this thesis can also be of use to teachers and instructional designers when designing online courses. Overall, the findings confirm the importance of providing appropriate conditions for learner engagement in online learning contexts, and significance of lecturers’ technological pedagogical knowledge on learner engagement and positive learning experiences.

The future of technology enhanced active learning – a roadmap

The notion of active learning refers to the active involvement of learner in the learning process, capturing ideas of learning-by-doing and the fact that active participation and knowledge construction leads to deeper and more sustained learning. Interactivity, in particular learnercontent interaction, is a central aspect of technology-enhanced active learning. In this roadmap, the pedagogical background is discussed, the essential dimensions of technology-enhanced active learning systems are outlined and the factors that are expected to influence these systems currently and in the future are identified. A central aim is to address this promising field from a best practices perspective, clarifying central issues and formulating an agenda for future developments in the form of a roadmap

A case study for measuring informal learning in PLEs

The technological support for learning and teaching processes is constantly changing. Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) applied to education, cause changes that affect the way in which people learn. This application introduces new software systems and solutions to carry out teaching and learning activities. Connected to ICT application, the emergence of Web 2.0 and its use in learning contexts enables an online implementation of the student-centred learning paradigm. In addition, 2.0 trends provide “new” ways to exchange, making easier for informal learning to become patent. Given this context, open and user-centered learning environments are needed to integrate such kinds of tools and trends and are commonly described as Personal Learning Environments. Such environments coexist with the institutional learning management systems and they should interact and exchange information between them. This interaction would allow the assessment of what happens in the personal environment from the institutional side. This article describes a solution to make the interoperability possible between these systems. It is based on a set of interoperability scenarios and some components and communication channels. In order to test the solution it is implemented as a proof of concept and the scenarios are validated through several pilot experiences. In this article one of such scenarios and its evaluation experiment is described to conclude that functionalities from the institutional environments and the personal ones can be combined and it is possible to assess what happens in the activities based on them.Peer ReviewedPostprint (published version

Implementation and design of a service-based framework to integrate personal and institutional learning environments

The landscape of teaching and learning has changed in recent years because of the application of Information and Communications technology. Among the most representative innovations in this regard are Learning Management Systems. Despite of their popularity in institutional contexts and the wide set of tools and services that they provide to learners and teachers, they present several issues. Learning Management Systems are linked to an institution and a period of time, and are not adapted to learners' needs. In order to address these problems Personal Learning Environments are defined, but it is clear that these will not replace Learning Management Systems and other institutional contexts. Both types of environment should therefore coexist and interact. This paper presents a service-based framework to facilitate such interoperability. It supports the export of functionalities from the institutional to the personal environment and also the integration within the institution of learning outcomes from personal activities. In order to achieve this in a flexible, extensible and open way, web services and interoperability specifications are used. In addition some interoperability scenarios are posed. The framework has been tested in real learning contexts and the results show that interoperability is possible, and that it benefits learners, teachers and institutions.Peer ReviewedPostprint (author's final draft

Learning relationships from theory to design

This paper attempts to bridge the psychological and anthropological views of situated learning by focusing on the concept of a learning relationship, and by exploiting this concept in our framework for the design of learning technology. We employ Wenger's (1998) concept of communities of practice to give emphasis to social identification as a central aspect of learning, which should crucially influence our thinking about the design of learning environments. We describe learning relationships in terms of form (one‐to‐one, one‐to‐many etc.), nature (explorative, formative and comparative), distance (first‐, second‐order), and context, and we describe a first attempt at an empirical approach to their identification and measurement

Collaborative trails in e-learning environments

This deliverable focuses on collaboration within groups of learners, and hence collaborative trails. We begin by reviewing the theoretical background to collaborative learning and looking at the kinds of support that computers can give to groups of learners working collaboratively, and then look more deeply at some of the issues in designing environments to support collaborative learning trails and at tools and techniques, including collaborative filtering, that can be used for analysing collaborative trails. We then review the state-of-the-art in supporting collaborative learning in three different areas – experimental academic systems, systems using mobile technology (which are also generally academic), and commercially available systems. The final part of the deliverable presents three scenarios that show where technology that supports groups working collaboratively and producing collaborative trails may be heading in the near future

From conditioning to learning communities: Implications of fifty years of research in e‐learning interaction design

This paper will consider e‐learning in terms of the underlying learning processes and interactions that are stimulated, supported or favoured by new media and the contexts or communities in which it is used. We will review and critique a selection of research and development from the past fifty years that has linked pedagogical and learning theory to the design of innovative e‐learning systems and activities, and discuss their implications. It will include approaches that are, essentially, behaviourist (Skinner and Gagné), cognitivist (Pask, Piaget and Papert), situated (Lave, Wenger and Seely‐Brown), socio‐constructivist (Vygotsky), socio‐cultural (Nardi and Engestrom) and community‐based (Wenger and Preece). Emerging from this review is the argument that effective e‐learning usually requires, or involves, high‐quality educational discourse, that leads to, at the least, improved knowledge, and at the best, conceptual development and improved understanding. To achieve this I argue that we need to adopt a more holistic approach to design that synthesizes features of the included approaches, leading to a framework that emphasizes the relationships between cognitive changes, dialogue processes and the communities, or contexts for e‐learning

CHAT framework to study affordances in CALL environments

[EN] This paper proposes to explore the theory of affordances in the light of cultural historical activity theory (CHAT) to study affordances in complex Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL) environments. The term ‘affordance’ designates an action possibility that is offered by an environment or an object to an actor in the environment either “for good or ill” (Gibson, 1979). It depends not only on the inherent characteristics of the environment but also on the users’ perception and action capabilities. CALL affordances are said to be a unique combination of social, educational, linguistic, and technological affordances (Blin, 2016a). However, there is limited research to date that looks at affordances from an ecological perspective linking the micro moment-to-moment interaction levels with the macro level within which they are embedded in educational contexts (Blin, 2016a). This paper explores the analytical tools of CHAT (Leontyev, 1978; Engeström, 1987) as particularly suitable to investigate affordances at the macro, meso and micro levels of technology-mediated sociocultural educational contexts in CALL.Irish Research Council, Dublin City UniversityDey-Plissonneau, A. (2021). CHAT framework to study affordances in CALL environments. The EuroCALL Review. 29(2):11-21. https://doi.org/10.4995/eurocall.2021.14991OJS1121292Albrechtsen, H., Andersen, H. H. K., Bødker, S., & Pejtersen, a. M. (2001). Affordances in Activity Theory and Cognitive Systems Engineering. Learning (Vol. 1287).Baerentsen, K. B., & Trettvik, J. (2002). An activity theory approach to affordance. In Proceed- ings of the second Nordic conference on human-computer interaction (pp. 51-60). New York: Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/572020.572028Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays by M. M. Bakhtin. Austin: University of Texas Press.Blin, F. (2005). CALL and the devlopment of learner autonomy: an activity theoretical study. Institute of Educational Technology, The Open Universiy.Blin, F. (2016). The theory of affordances. In C. Caws & M. Hamel (Eds.), Language-Learner Computer Interactions: Theory, methodology and CALL applications. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1075/lsse.2.03bliBlin, F., Nocchi, S., & Fowley, C. (2013). Mondes virtuels et apprentissage des langues : Vers un cadre théorique émergent. Recherches et Applications, (54), 94-107.Blunden, A. (2010). An Interdisciplinary Theory of Activity. Leiden, Boston: BRILL. https://doi.org/10.1163/ej.9789004184060.i-344Blunden, A. (2015). Leontyev's Activity Theory and Social Theory. Retrieved April 9, 2018, from https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/pdfs/Leontyev and Social Theory.pdfBonderup Dohn, N. (2009). Affordances revisited: Articulating a Merleau-Pontian view. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 4(2), 151-170. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-009-9062-zCole, M. (1988). Cole-1988-Cross-cultural-research-socio-historical-tradition.pdf. Human Development, 31(3), 137-157. https://doi.org/10.1159/000275803Conole, G., & Dyke, M. (2004). What are the affordances of information and communication technologies? ALT-J, 12(2), 113-124. https://doi.org/10.3402/rlt.v12i2.11246Dalgarno, B., & Lee, M. J. W. (2010). What are the learning affordances of 3-D virtual environments? British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(1), 10-32. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.01038.xDarhower, M. A. (2008). The role of linguistic affordances in telecollaborative chat. Calico Journal, 26(1), 48-69.De Haan, J., Reed, W. M., & Kuwada, K. (2010). The effect of interactivity with a music video game on second language vocabulary recall. Language Learning & Technology, 74(2), 74-94.Engeström, R. (1995). Voice as Communicative Action. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 2(3), 192-214. https://doi.org/10.1080/10749039509524699Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by Expanding: An Activity-Theoretical Approach to Developmental Research. Helsinki: Finland: Orienta-Konsultit, Oy. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139814744Engeström, Y. (1999). Communication, Discourse and Activity. Communication Review, 3(1/2), 165-186. Retrieved from http://web.b.ebscohost.com.dcu.idm.oclc.org/ehost/detail/detail?vid=0&sid=54c035b1-f79f-40b4-977a-cddcf9022f98%40pdc-v-sessmgr05&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3D%3D#AN=4114913&db=cmsEngeström, Y. (2001). Expansive Learning at Work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133-156. https://doi.org/10.1080/13639080123238Engeström, Y. (2005). Developmental work research: expanding activity theory in practice. Berlin: Lehmanns Media. https://doi.org/10.1002/0471142735.ima03bs111Engeström, Y. (2008). From teams to knots: Activity theoretical studies of collaboration and learning at work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511619847Engeström, Y., Miettinen, R., & Punamäki, R.-L. (1999). Perspectives on Activity Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511812774Engestrom, Y., & Sannino, A. (2010). Studies of expansive learning: Foundation, findings and future challenges. Educational Research Review, 5, 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2009.12.002Gibson, E. J., & Pick, A. D. (2000). An Ecological Approach to Perceptual Learning and Development. Cary, USA: Oxford University Press.Gibson, J. J. (1979). The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. New York: Psychology Press, Taylor & Francis Group.Kaptelinin, V., & Nardi, B. (2012). Affordances in HCI: Toward a mediated action perspective. In Proceedings of the 2012 ACM Annual Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 967-976). New York: Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/2207676.2208541Kirschner, P., Strijbos, J., Kreijns, K., & Beers, P. J. (2004). Designing electronic collaborative learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(3), 47-66. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504675Kuutti, K. (1996). Activity Theory as a potential framework for Human-Computer Interaction research. In B. Nardi (Ed.), Context and Consciousness: Activity Theory and Humn-Computer Interaction (pp. 17-44). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Laurillard, D., Stratfold, M., Luckin, R., Plowman, L., & Taylor, L. (2000). Affordances for Learning in a Non-Linear Narrative Medium. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 2, 1-19. https://doi.org/10.5334/2000-2Lektorsky, V. (2004). Science, Society and Ethics. Poznan Studies in the Philosophy of the Sciences and the Humanities, 81, 229-232.Leontyev, A. N. (1978). Activity and Consciousness. (Andy Blunden, Ed.). CA, USA: Marxists Internet Archive. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.18.1688Leontyev, A. N. (1981). Problems of the development of the mind. Moscow: Progress.Levy, M., & Caws, C. (2016). CALL design and research. Taking a micro and macro view. In C. Caws & M.-J. Hamel (Eds.), Language-Learner Computer Interactions: Theory, methodology and CALL applications (pp. 89-113). Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1075/lsse.2.05levLin, A. M. Y. (2007). What's the Use of 'Triadic Dialogue'?: Activity Theory, Conversation Analysis and Analysis of Pedagogical Practices. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 2(2), 77-94. https://doi.org/10.1080/15544800701343943Nocchi, S. (2017). The affordances of virtual worlds for language learning.Reimann, R. (2001). So you want to be an interaction designer… Retrieved May 1, 2021, from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/247561586_So_you_want_to_be_an_interaction_designerTurner, P. (2005). Affordance as context. Interacting with Computers, 17(6), 787-800. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intcom.2005.04.003Van Lier, L. (2000). From input to affordance: Social-interactive learning from an ecological perspective. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 245-259). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Vyas, D., Chisalita, C. M., & Dix, A. (2008). Dynamics of affordances and implications for design (Report).Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and Language (A. Kozulin, Ed., Trans.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voices of the Mind: A Sociocultural Approach to Mediated Action. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press