Educational Psychology—Limitations and Possibilities

Activity Theory as a Framework 785
makes possible its transformation. These two processes are inseparably intertwined” (Engeström
and Miettinen, 1999). Relatedly, the principle of internalization/externalization suggests that
the shaping of external activities results in shaping internal ones. The importance of these two
concepts and their inseparability is further explained by Bhaskar as he examines society as already
being in existence, and thus “any concrete human praxis, if you like, act of objectivation, can
only modify it; and the totality of such acts sustain or change it. It is not the product of their
activity (any more than their actions are completely determined by it)” (1989, p. xx). When
considering the design of an educational system —that is, learning environments and the learning
experiences therein—within society, it is important to see society as already existing, and that
an educational system already exists. But society or an educational system as a social system
within society exists only by virtue of human activity. Therefore, “people do not create society,
for it always preexists them. Rather it is an ensemble of structures, practices and conventions that
individuals reproduce or transform. But which would not exist unless they did so. Society does
not exist independently of conscious human activity” (Bhaskar, 1989, p. xx). Relatedly, designing
learning environments, and more specifically the learning experiences that animate the cognitive
development of students, requires an understanding that internalization/externalization processes
regulate human actions/interactions within cultural activities. The use of semiotic tools (language,
discourse) and other intellectual or psychological tools to mediate design serves to instruct the
design imperatives for creating alternative levels of consciousness in the learner, facilitate higher
levels of mental activity, and transform existing systems.
Importantly, if we apply this understanding of conscious human activity to the design of learning
systems, we become aware of the critical role that designing activity systems of learning
play in transforming existing learning experiences, rather than reproducing them. As Bhaskar
explains, social structures are products of social activity, they may be viewed as objects of transformation
through conscious human activity. “And because social activities are interdependent,
social structures may be only relatively autonomous. Society may thus be conceived as an articulated
ensemble of such relatively independent and enduring structures; that is, a complex totality
subject to change” (Bhaskar, 1989, p. 78).
DESIGNING EDUCATIONAL SYSTEMS—LEARNING
ENVIRONMENTS/EXPERIENCES
Designing educational systems, for purposes of this discussion, focuses on the design of
complex learning systems or learning environments, and the various learning activities that
enable individuals to learn. Returning to Brown (1992) briefly, design in relation to cognition
is concerned with multilevel and multifocus activity, and the creation of alternative learning
experiences that consider the whole learning environment and the social interaction of individuals
within the environment as well as through the interconnected activities that situate learning
experiences. In this sense, design, as a form of social systems design, is a communicative process
among individuals that enables collective action(s) of learning, creating, constructing knowledge,
mediating meaning and understanding, etc. These actions lead to the creation of change in and/or
of the social system; the transfer of the conception of a new or alternative system into action.
Banathy further elaborates that the designer’s main tool is subjectivity, which includes social
practice, community, interest and commitment, ideas and ideals, the ethics of the system and the
moral idea, affectivity, faith, and self-reflection” (Banathy, 1996, p. 164).
As identified in the examination of cultural-historical activity theory (CHAT), the embodiment
of participant’s subjectivity is a critical element of the social change or transformation process.
Subjectivity as a design element enables the object of design to be realized, particularly when the
object is to create a complex social system for learning.