Learning Across Sites: New tools, infrastructures and practices - Earli

For EARLI members only.
Not for onward distribution.
216 A. Lund and T. E. Hauge
they also were forced to go beyond everyday ethical contemplation, emotionally as
well as intellectually. They did so by developing dialogue and multiple perspectives
as well as drawing on available resources. However, this proved to be a demanding
process. There are several implications, which we discuss in the following.
For pedagogical practice the case shows how important it is to be aware of the
many aspects of the object; how it can be instantiated and how it is intrinsically
linked to the type of ongoing activity. Throughout the assignment the object
shifts as the type of activity shifts. In the exploratory first phase it appears as slippery
and nearly impossible to pin down. By searching and compiling information,
learners gradually come to acknowledge the object’s multifarious character but
it is represented in only loosely connected bits and pieces gleaned from multiple
and often contradictory sources.
In the next phase, the object is developed as learners engage in negotiations
as to what it means for those involved in the conflict as well as for themselves, as
external investigators. Conceptual development and dialogic approaches do not
reduce the compound object to a “fact” that learners agree on, but challenge their
understanding of it and its implications. Occasionally such progress can be seen
as qualitative leaps as when an artifact such as the Helsinki Committee’s website
mediates their acknowledgement of the conflict’s historical roots.
In the final phase we see how the activity type moves from exploration and negotiation
to presentation. Consequently the object is also affected. The activity reveals
that it is just as important to identify the impact of non- productive interactions and
strategies; how objects may become blurred by information overload, how artifacts
intended to mediate object orientation in fact threaten to substitute the object. For
example, the content of the role play was corrupted by the learners’ fixation with
costumes, props, and abusive language that did not serve knowledge- advancement
purposes. Thus, during this phase of the project the object changed for the group
and slipped away for the rest of the class. We see a contradiction in the activity
system, a conflict at the object level where the result is that it ceases to structure
the activity of the group in its attempt to realize a shared object. Such problems
may disturb or even destroy the original object- oriented activity. But reflection on
such disruptions can also bring about renewed activity of knowledge- creation; they
represent opportunities for knowledge- advancement. When the role- play features
threatened to replace the intended object of conveying insight in an ethical dilemma
we witnessed a breakdown. However, this breakdown also resulted in response
from peers that called for a return to the intended object. Within the group it led
to reflection, self- criticism – indications of such a reorientation.
Together, the above activity types prompt the question as to what kind of
object that emerges as learners cross boundaries from the known to the unknown.
Hakkarainen (2006) analyzes various types of objects and in activity- theoretical
terms. He lists several types of objects such as technical objects, network objects
(e.g. Wikipedia, www.wikipedia.org), fluid or virtual objects (e.g. 3D- design environments),
“fire” objects (messy and constantly changing), and epistemic objects.
Typical of epistemic objects is that the focus is “on issues that are currently beyond