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

For EARLI members only.
Not for onward distribution.
298 O. Erstad
objective, what is described as ‘division of labor’. The basic unit of analysis within
activity theory is not the individual subject or a tool, but a system that considers
intentional tool use within a cultural context. At the same time it is possible to
interpret an inherent epistemic bias within activity systems, where subjects have
agency in a way that tools, rules and even communities do not (Nardi, 1996;
Oliver & Pelletier, 2006).
The concept of activity is a core element in the way we study digital literacy in
schools. It relates to how humans use tools in different settings. Within activity
theory, three levels at which activity can be analysed have been identified (Kuutti,
1996). The most general level is called the level of activity, as an expression of
collective activities, which describe high- level plans such as digital literacy defined
within school curricula. The second level is more specific, focusing on the individual
actions that contribute to the activity, such as teachers and students using
computers as part of learning processes in specific subject domains. The third is
more specific still, consisting of operations that contribute to each action, such as
using specific software programs to work on specific assignments. Operations are
usually routine or automatic, rarely being the focus of conscious attention unless
something goes wrong (Oliver & Pelletier, 2006).
Context, as an analytic perspective, becomes important by studying how activities
and actions are embedded within activity systems in specific circumstances and
situations. An important division in our understanding of context is presented by
Michael Cole (1996: 132–137) in what he calls ‘context as that which surrounds’
and ‘context as that which weaves together’. The first implies a common notion
of context as all that lies around the activities performed and which influence these
activities in different ways. These are studies of different layers with the learner, the
task and the activity in the centre and organizations and communities as broader
contextual factors. The point is that ‘what surrounds’ is interpreted as influencing
the activities at the centre.
Another way of looking at context is through what Cole describes as ‘that which
weaves together’. He writes about this as: ‘When context is thought of in this way,
it cannot be reduced to that which surrounds. It is, rather, a qualitative relation
between a minimum of two analytical entities (threads), which are two moments in
a single process. The boundaries between “task and its context” are not clear- cut
and static but ambiguous and dynamic’ (1996: 135). This is also related to the
goals, tools and setting that the act is part of. Cole refers to Bateson’s example of
the blind man and the stick to illustrate this point. One cannot just analyse the man
and his stick, and the limitations of human perception and cognition, but needs to
include the purposes and the environment in which this man finds himself.
Social context also relates to the way people need to develop an understanding
of what forms of verbal and nonverbal behaviour are appropriate in which social
context. As stated by Erickson and Schultz: ‘This requires knowing what context
one is in and when context changes. We think that the capacity for monitoring
contexts must be an essential feature of social competence’ (1997: 22). This raises
questions about how digital literacy is to be understood in school- based settings,