THEORETICAL ORIENTATION OF THE STUDY
3.5 Associating activity theory with the current study
In an activity system regular and recurring patterns of activity are called its practice (Greeno &
Engestrom, 2006). Activity theory is therefore considered suitable to explore as a framework, given that the learning collaboration for this study involves a subject and a learning community.
In the study described in this report, the researcher adapted activity theory (Engeström, 2001), a sociocultural perspective which examined the relationship between human learning and social context (Tsui, Edward & Lopez -Real, 2009) cited in Islam (2012) to explore how FA is understood and enacted in the context of mathematics by teacher educators in the teacher Colleges of Education in Ghana.
3.5.1 Components of the activity system with reference to the study
This section presents a description of the various components of the activity system and their relationship within the context of the present study.
81 3.5.1.1 The outcome of the activity system
Outcome refers to “ the end result of the activity” (Yamagata – Lynch, 2010, p.2). In the context of this study, the desired outcome of formative assessment is successful teaching and learning of mathematics since formative assessment activity aims to improve teaching and learning of mathematics.
3.5.1.2 The subject of the activity system
Hasan and Kazlauskas (2014) note that the subject (human doer) in an activity system is basically a person or group who engages in the activity. In other words, the subject refers to individuals who engage in the activity to achieve the outcome. In the context of this study, the subject refers to MTE’s who facilitate mathematics learning. The MTEs’ initiate the assessment process and through active engagement with students generate evidence about the teaching and learning process, to be able to determine the next step of the instruction. The subject of the actively system can collectively be referred to as a community.
3.5.1.3 Community of the activity system
Yamagata – Lynch (2010) described the community of the activity system as the social group that the subject belongs to or identifies with while participating in the activity. This to say the subject is located within the community of people sharing same objectives. In the case of this study, the community of the activity system includes the subject, students and other mathematics teacher educators who directly or indirectly share same objectives and attainment of the outcomes of an activity.
3.5.1.4 Rules of the activity system
The relationship between the subject and the community is mediated by rules (Foot, 2014). This suggests that rules regulate the actions of the subject towards an object. According to Ryder and Yamagata-Lynch (2014) rules provide guidance as to acceptable interaction among subjects. In other words, rules refer to the norms, conventions and social interactions that affect the actions of the subject. Adapting the notion of rules within the context of this study indicates that teacher educators must use the guidelines on assessment enshrined in the National Teacher Education Curriculum Framework (NTECF) of Ghana and the National Teaching Standards (NTS) as a
82
reference point when planning, designing, and evaluating assessment in relation to the intention behind the assessment. The rules also include assessment criteria, common practices pertaining how classroom discourse and interactions are regulated and all mathematics rules.
3.5.1.5 Object of the activity system
According to Ryder and Yamagata-Lynch (2014) the object defines the reason why the subject participates in the activity. Framing the object within this study suggests the aim or the goal of the activity system. Within the formative assessment activity system, the object refers to mathematics teacher educators formative assessment practices in mathematics module. Foot (2014)pointed out that a motive for change emerges out of a linkage between the need and the object, and this is when the need is consciously recognised.
3.5.1.6 Tools of the activity system
Khoza (2012) referred to a tool as anything that communicates information during the activity system. Tools mediate the object of the activity. Naidoo (2011) averred that learning occurs as individuals interact with each other, and the interactions are mediated by tools. Tools take part in the transformation of the object into an outcome, which can be desired or unexpected (Murphy &
Rodriguez-Manzanares, 2008). They can be external and material (e.g. a textbook) or internal and symbolic (e.g., language). In this study tools refer to the different assessment strategies or techniques which are used during student-teacher interaction with the aim of facilitating teaching and learning of mathematics. In addition, physical resources of the teacher colleges form part of the tools. Hasan and Kazlauskas (2014) posit that an activity both mediates and is mediated by the physical and psychological tools used as well as the social context of the activity.
3.5.1.7 Division of labour in the activity system
The subject shared responsibility with the community (Students and other MTE’s) for the achievement of the outcome. This was recognised through a division of labour, whereby the subject and students responded with respect to the role they played and the responsibilities they shared in the activity system. According to Murphy and Rodriguez-Manzanares (2008) the division of labour involves the division of tasks and roles among members of the community and the division of power and status. For effective formative assessment, mathematics teacher educators
83
must guide the formative assessment process, ensure students participation, and ensure that students act on the feedback given. In this study activities which were considered vital to MTEs for supporting mathematics learning includes: marking students assessment scripts, involve the students in the assessment process, writing comments about students work (feedback), communicating feedback. However, the student’s responsibility is to engage actively in the formative assessment process and act upon the feedback provided by the teacher educator.
This suggests that the subjects in this study assumed different roles and responsibilities in making the activity process effective and successful. It is worth noting that the activity system is not static, and the elements within it may change places over time. The interplay between the elements of an activity system provide opportunities for new learning and for change (Wilson, 2014). The model that follows (Figure 3.6) emerged from this study.
Figure 3.6: Formative assessment as an activity system (adapted from Engeström, 2001, p. 135).
Formative assessment strategies, formative assessment in the sociocultural context
Outcome
Division of labour Community
Rule
Object Subject
Tools
Students and other mathematics teacher educators.
MTEs mark students script, provide and communicate feedback, students act on
feedback, students engage in FA Teacher educators
and students
Mathematics teacher educators formative
assessment practices Successful teaching and learning of mathematics
Assessment guidelines and time frame
84
While division of labour as explained in activity theory involves interaction between members of the community, in this study the focus is more on the MTE than students, because the aim is to understand their knowledge and practices. Therefore less attention would be given to how students learn from FA. However, since their learning should reveal the success of the division of labour, part of the observation stage would be to watch how this interplay takes place in the classroom setting.