What is CHAT? (Part 1 of a series)

I've spent the first half of this year immersed in methods literature (qualitative research, case study, transcription, reflexivity, analysis, for example).

I've fallen out of touch with the substantive theory of my project, which is a study of teacher-learners and their dispositions and mindsets toward digital technologies used in an online, graduate Reading Education course.

New articles and PDFs have piled up, so I am slowly digging into these, beginning with some readings in Cultural-Historical Activity Theory (CHAT), which I will elaborate on in a series of posts, beginning with this one.

The tricky thing about CHAT is it is both a substantive theory applied to human activity and learning as well as a nuts-and-bolts analytical method, should the researcher feel occasion to deploy it. (I, in fact, am going to try my hand at activity systems analysis this summer, in the final stages of my dissertation work.)

CHAT theorists whose writings have proven significant to my thinking about teacher experiences with technology include Yew-Jin Lee, Wolff-Michael Roth, and Anna Stetsenko. I've set up Google Scholar alerts to make sure I do not miss any new publications by these scholars; in the meantime, I am playing catch-up with past publications. In a follow-up to this post, I will summarize a 2011 article by Lee titled More than Just Storytelling: Cultural-Historical Activity Theory as an Under-Utilized Methodology for Educational Change Research.

But, first, a quick explanation of how I plan to use activity theory (the “AT” in “CHAT”).

Activity theory and activity systems analysis provide a way to understand the multiple realities that impinge on teacher education programs, in general, and tech-infused programs, in particular. I will apply activity systems analysis to understand various participants' developmental paths along the novice-to-expert spectrum and how their self-understandings influenced (and were influenced by) the online course that I helped facilitate in Fall 2012.

Scandinavian theorist Yrjo Engeström innovated the mediational triangle diagram, which represents an activity system as a basic unit of analysis and is commonly pictured in activity theoretical studies (Kaptelinin & Nardi, 2006, p. 99).



According to Roth (2004), an under-explored topic in studies of activity systems is "changing identities in changing communities as a result of praxis" (p. 6). By examining one or more "salient contradictions," activity systems analysis can shine light on questions about identity because "engagement with the contradictions leads to change, in the conditions concretely experienced by the participants and in their identities" (p. 7).

And a marker of teacher expertise is a willingness to engage with contradictions, an idea expressed throughout the literature (e.g. Koehler & Mishra, 2008).

Roth (2004), Lee (2011), and Stetsenko (2010), who, in their defense of activity theory against claims that it is too static and structured, make a case for its use in the study of identity development.

Despite the seeming calcification of Engeström's famous activity systems diagram, Roth argues that the model is "inherently dynamic" (p. 2) because activity embodies change.

Roth cites two features to argue his point. First, subject and object are a "dialectic unit." The object is bound to the subject, and it is tied to subject identity. People rely on object outcomes to build their identities.

Second, the idea "of practical activity and learning as coinciding with changing life conditions" can be traced all the way back to Marx and Engels and has been taken up time and again in the sociocultural tradition, by theorists such as Engeström and Lave. "That is, although the Engeström triangle depicts the structure of activity, it is inherently a dynamic structure continuously undergoing change in its parts, in its relations, and as a whole" (Roth, 2004, p. 4).

What are the implications of this? Roth asks, “If participation in activity changes the identity of the subject, what are the effects of the alienating structures of schooling?” Readers might think of standardized testing, one-size-fits-all curriculum requirements, teacher-centered instruction, and tightly regimented and routinized technology access (or zero technology access, in some cases). The list goes on.

As for teacher professional development, the activity that I am studying, it is no less influenced by “alienating structures.” Identifying these structures and how they affect teacher-learners is the purpose behind my study.

References

Kaptelinin, V., & Nardi, B. A. (2006). Acting with technology: Activity theory and interaction design. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Retrieved from http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=11004

Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2008). Introducing TPCK. In AACTE Committee on Innovation and Technology (Ed.), Handbook of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK) for educators (pp. 3–29). New York: Routledge.

Lee, Y. J. (2011). More than just story-telling: Cultural–Historical Activity Theory as an under-utilized methodology for educational change research. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 43(3), 403–424.

Roth, W.-M. (2004). Activity theory and education: An introduction. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 11(1), 1–8. doi:10.1207/s15327884mca1101_1

Stetsenko, A. (2009). Teaching–learning and development as activist projects of historical Becoming: Expanding Vygotsky’s approach to pedagogy. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 5(1), 6–16. doi:10.1080/15544800903406266

What is CHAT? (Part 1 of a series)