Google forms can stimulate conversations in discussion-based seminars? An activity theory perspective
Abstract
One challenge in seminar-style postgraduate courses is that some students are uncomfortable with discussing course content and concepts among their peers and in front of the lecturer in seminars. This article is a case study of the incorporation of Google Form questions into seminars in a postgraduate Economic History course, a tool intervention undertaken as a response to the challenge of some students’ seminar reticence. The study explores whether the tool intervention can from students’ perspectives stimulate conversation, and examines whether the objectives of the students and the lecturer were aligned in the learning activity. The article draws on two theories to frame the research: Engeström’s (2001) third generation Activity Theory, employed to locate change-enabling contradictions and the objects of the educational activity, and Laurillard’s (2002) Conversational Framework as a theory of learning wherein students and the teacher interface with mutually accessible concepts. The study draws on interview data from structured interviews with students at the end of the course. The article contends that Google Forms are assistive in stimulating conversations around core concepts, and that a quaternary contradiction emerged between the lecturer and the individual student’s objects in the educational activityDownloads
References
Barab, Sasha, Michael Barnett, Lisa Yamagata-Lynch, Kurt Squire, and Thomas Keating. 2002. “Using Activity Theory to Understand the Systemic Tensions Characterizing a Technology-Rich Introductory Astronomy Course.” MIND, CULTURE, AND ACTIVITY 9 (2): 76–107.
Czerniewicz, Laura, Andrew Deacon, Michael Glover, and Sukaina Walji. 2017. “MOOC—making and Open Educational Practices.” Journal of Computing in Higher Education 29 (1): 81–97.
Elbow, Peter. 1988. Writing Without Teachers. New York: Oxford University Press.
Engeström, Yrjö. 1987. Learning by Expanding: An Activity-Theoretic Approach to Developmental Research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit Oy.
———. 2001. “Expansive Learning at Work: Toward an Activity Theoretical Reconceptualization.” Journal of Education and Work 14 (1): 133–56.
Engeström, Yrjö, and Annalisa Sannino. 2010. “Studies of Expansive Learning: Foundations, Findings and Future Challenges.” Educational Research Review 5 (1): 1–24.
Name removed. 2017. “Google Form Questions as a Stimulus for Discussion and Interaction in Postgraduate Economic History Course Seminars at a South African University.” PGDip essay, Cape Town: University of Cape Town.
Hardman, Joanne. 2005. “An Exploratory Case Study of Computer Use in a Primary School Mathematics Classroom: New Technology, New Pedagogy?” Perspectives in Education: Research on ICTs and Education in South Africa: Special Issue 23 (4): 99–111.
———. 2008. “Researching Pedagogy: An Activity Theory Approach.” Journal of Education 45 (1): 65–94.
Kirkup, Gill, and Adrian Kirkwood. 2005. “Information and Communications Technologies (ICT) in Higher Education Teaching—a Tale of Gradualism Rather than Revolution.” Learning, Media and Technology 30 (2): 185–99.
Kuutti, Kari. 1996. “Activity Theory as a Potential Framework for Human-Computer Interaction Research.” In Context and Consciousness: Activity Theory and Human-Computer Interaction, edited by Bonnie Nardi, 17–44. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Laurillard, Diana. 2002a. “Rethinking Teaching for the Knowledge Society.” EDUCAUSE Review 37 (1): 133–56.
———. 2002b. Rethinking University Teaching: A Conversational Framework for the Effective Use of Learning Technologies. 2nd ed. London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Murphy, Elizabeth, and Maria Rodriguez-Manzanares. 2008. “Contradictions between the Virtual and Physical High School Classroom: A Third‐generation Activity Theory Perspective.” British Journal of Educational Technology 39 (6): 1061–72.
———. 2014. Activity Theory Perspectives on Technology in Higher Education. Hershey, Pennsylvania: IGI Global.
Nardi, Bonnie. 1996. “Activity Theory and Human-Computer Interaction.” In Context and Consciousness: Activity Theory and Human-Computer Interaction, edited by Bonnie Nardi, 7–16. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Peruski, Lisa. 2003. “Contradictions, Disturbances and Transformations: An Activity Theoretical Analysis of Three Faculty Members’ Experience with Designing and Teaching Online Courses.” PhD thesis, Michigan State University.
Peruski, Lisa, and Punya Mishra. 2004. “Webs of Activity in Online Course Design and Teaching.” ALT-J: Research in Learning Technology 12 (1): 37–49.
Russell, Donna, and Art Schneiderheinze. 2005. “Understanding Innovation in Education Using Activity Theory.” Educational Technology and Society 8 (1): 38–53.
Copyright (c) 2020 Michael John Glover
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
This journal is an open access journal, and the authors and journal should be properly acknowledged, when works are cited.
Authors, copyright holders, may use the publishers version for teaching purposes, in books, theses, dissertations, conferences and conference papers.
A copy of the authors' publishers version may also be hosted on the following websites:
- Non-commercial personal homepage or blog.
- Institutional webpage.
- Authors Institutional Repository.
The following notice should accompany such a posting on the website: This is an electronic version of an article published in SAJHE, Volume XXX, number XXX, pages XXX “XXX", DOI. Authors should also supply a hyperlink to the original paper or indicate where the original paper (http://www.journals.ac.za/index.php/SAJHE) may be found.
Authors publishers version, affiliated with the Stellenbosch University will be automatically deposited in the University Institutional Repository SUNScholar.
Articles as a whole, may not be re-published with another journal.
The following license applies:
Attribution CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
