3.4 Activity Theory / Cultural Historical Activity Theory 57
3.4.3 Characterising Cultural Historical Activity Theory 59
3.4.3.5 Division of Labour 66
Activity theory represents a paradigm that affords the complexity of an activity system to be analysed in the context of its socio-cultural and historical tools that mingle with the various components (Engeström, 1996). The symbolic interaction between agency and structure between the micro and macro levels highlights the changes, challenges and transformations that take place in an activity system (Thuraisingam et al, 2012). Kain and Wardle (2008) identify this process as “dialectically structured” (p.2). The term ‘dialectic’ describes a relationship in which aspects of a process, transaction, or system are mutually dependent. Consequently activity theory helps a researcher concentrate on the dynamic interrelationships between the many components of an activity system (Thuraisingam et al, 2012). The activity system comprises of the subject/s; the mediational tools employed; social and contextual relationships; the roles; and the division of labour that govern their influence in achieving objectives. Of optimum relevance here is the role of division of labour.
The division of labour explains the distribution of tasks and roles between members of the community and the division of power and status (Murphy & Rodriguez-Manzanares, 2008).
Hardman (2008) affirms this ideology by further alerting to a vertical and horizontal negotiation of responsibilities and power within the context of the activity. The horizontal aspect describes how
tasks are divided between community members and the vertical aspires to division amongst power and status (Li and Bratt, 2004). Amory (2006) elaborates the relationship of division of labour to the community. The premise is that the community is an implicit or explicit organisation of a community instrumental in rearing the transformation process of the objective into an outcome. It is important to comprehend these assumptions and characteristics of what constitutes the division of labour in an activity, so that each member understands and performs their tasks towards the expected outcome (Wang, 2008).
The link between division of labour and the community can also be explained through a reciprocal relationship between the division of labour and rules. According to Kain and Wardle (2008) an activity system is constrained by these. In higher education the labour is divided among participants. Students assume the task for completing assignments; instructors are responsible for grading assignments; and administrators have to ensure grades are transparent on students’ transcripts (Kain & Wardle, 2008). The rules determine the agreement about how the activity will transpire. It is integral to consider how labour is divided in an activity system because this accounts for the influences that shape the activity in a broader context. This then extends to the theme of the types of human interaction identified earlier, and defines activity theory as a framework for describing how people work together (division of labour), using tools (e.g. chat room) to achieve outcomes (learning online) (Nardi, 1996).
So far, much of the debate surrounding the assumption of various components in the activity system has come from various studies, including that of Tay’s (2011). It is therefore wise to continue drawing from his work to provide a more wholesome description of an entire activity system than to just pull loose threads from other studies. The division of labour in Tay’s (2011) study allowed each participant to complement the process of ICT integration into the school curriculum by fulfilling their roles. Staff from the different departments developed their specific curriculum and combined the use of ICT into the teaching and learning frameworks. The task of teachers is inclined towards developing pedagogical approaches which required students to learn with and from computers. The technical teams’ responsibility was multi-faceted as they were confronted with establishment of wireless network, storage and charging of the Tablet PCs, and the installation of projectors and interactive white boards in classrooms. This also extended to other technical and logistical support departments. The school was instrumental in setting up the prospective committee to look into and explore emerging technologies. Additional support from the Ministry of Education and the Infocomm Development Authority further enhanced the process of ICT integration. This thick description on the intense division of labour not only indicates the numerous community members involved but an exploration of the many responsibilities and tasks that strive in the direction of achieving the primary objective; integration of ICT into the
school curriculum. It also suggests that the tasks assigned to each member need to be clearly spelt out to ensure an effective demonstration in reality. Evidently the conception of collaboration was effectively deployed, as technical teams depended on logistical support, and the Ministry of Education and Infocomm Development Authority further backed up the initiatives of the school to bring a sense of reality to the perceived vision of ICT integration.
To correlate with the ideas derived from Tay’s (2011) study regarding the division of labour, other studies have also been sourced to gain more perspective. Hardman (2008) describes the role of the educator as one to teach, and the task of students is one to learn in the activity system. The study examined the pedagogical approaches in four grade six classrooms with the idea to view how teachers teach and how students respond to learning as a consequence of teaching styles.
In this context the division of labour was distributed between the educators and students. In Joyes’ (2006) study of the division of labour includes the role of students, the tutor and the higher education institution. As part of the tutor’s responsibilities, they have to use the Learning Activity Analysis Tool (LAAT) to inform their pedagogical style. This involves reading information in using the LAAT, create a new LAAT that must relate to the learning activity, share the LAAT with peers, and set activities that students can respond to. Students have the task of responding to the teaching method by learning and participating in the activities outlined by the tutor. For instance students are asked to read a book chapter and prepare a written report on this to share with others (Joyes, 2006).
The investigation in determining the role of division of labour in the activity system outlined by various studies in online educational environments, has the potential to inform the researcher’s perspective of this study. Other studies correspond with the study at hand because they take place in an online teaching and learning context, and have chosen activity theory as a relative theoretical framework. Exploring how each activity system composed their division of labour to include tasks, responsibilities and powers makes it possible to determine the same avenue for this study. Therefore the researcher has identified the facilitator and students who comprise the division of labour. The facilitator is responsible for deciding on the pedagogical approach which aligns to the implementation of online tools designed to inform learning. Subsequently the university faculty of Curriculum Studies will influence the teaching styles adopted by the facilitator. The facilitator also has the task of setting assignments, devising learning activities, and prescribing readings that are relevant to the Curriculum Context and Change module. Students assume the position of learning with the guidance of the facilitator, and are required to complete and submit assignments that influence their progress of the course.