That animated version of myself in the right sidebar was made at Voki. It is really too young for me and makes me look like my cousin Ronnie 25 years ago, but I shouldn’t complain about something this free (you can compare my Voki with me by scrolling down the page to my photograph where my real age is betrayed nicely). Making my Voki involved a quick trip to the website and then a few minutes to select and color and tweek until I felt I got as close to myself as possible. There are limitations on the choices (Wii’s Mii avatar maker gives you a lot more control by comparison), but the ability to put in a background picture should allow users to get satisfactory results if they are trying to make avatar art imitate what they see in the mirror, which is probably not everyone’s intent. The best part is you can make it speak, though mine seems to require way too much time to load my insubstantial message. Voki’s website says, “Create a character, make it talk, take it anywhere.” I think my students will like this a lot. It adds a new layer of personalization to blogs and websites.

I’ve been reading  Acting withTechnology (Kaptelinin & Nardi, 2006), a book about Activity Theory and how it relates (particularly) to interface design. One of the many interesting ideas that come up in the book is the notion of curation. When I first heard it, I thought of curator, as in museum curator, and the idea of what goes on in a museum: identifying, organizing, verifying, and documenting. In Activity Theory, however, the term has a very particular meaning. According to Kaptelinin and Nardi, curation “is a deeply social process through which materials are strategically revealed to others, or hidden from them” (pg 159).

Though the situation the authors talk about is the interaction of research scientists at a company looking to develop drugs by analyzing genes, this got me thinking about language learning. There has been considerable research into the area of Willingness to Communicate (WTC) in recent years. Curation seems to me like a goal-driven social form of WTC. Curation seems to focus perhaps too exclusively on  the individual’s attempts to achieve objectives in the social situation, assuming that other factors are constant (attitudes to the company, personality, etc.). This cannot be said of students in a class. There are usually too few characteristics that are constant across learners. WTC is probably the better theory for describing the motivations and behaviors of students in a language classroom, but curation gives a nice way of talking about the ongoing process of what learners will share or not in communication with other students (and instructors). Language students have two things affecting their curation: one is the choice of what to share (often culturally determined) and the other is proficiency (what they are able to and not able to communicate).

It’s funny how you can go so long without hearing some things. In my case, one of these things was Activity Theory. For the last few years, I have been reading and hearing things that are related to it without ever hearing the name itself or having the theory spelled out for me. I was familiar, for example with Vygotsky, the mentor of Leontiev (the developer of the theory) and the originator of some of the ideas that are part of Activity Theory. His name and theory of zone of proximal development are often mentioned in TESOL literature, though rarely really focused on. I had read some of Wenger’s work, so often used to justify the Web 2.0 approach to (language) learning and teaching, and I was aware of the burgeoning interest in the social model of language learning. But somehow, I just didn’t hear about Activity Theory, until it was mentioned in a discussion. The name sounded interesting and so I made a quick trip to Wikipedia and found a short but enticing entry. This lead me eventually to a book by Kaptelinin and Nardi called Acting withTechnology which does a really great job of introducing and explaining the theory, including its historical development and recent applications. Though the main focus of the book is on computer interface design, there are sections looking specifically at Activity Theory in education. And the more I read, the more interesting the theory became and the more I began to see it as perhaps a theory that could bring the cognitive model of language learning and the social model of language learning together into a larger, more complete model. Shortly after, I came across a book that looks at Activity Theory in language teaching, called Sociocultural Theory and the Genesis of Second Language Development, which I have taken delivery of but not yet read. It has some chapters on Activity Theory in language education.

So what is Activity Theory? It is a theory that aims to understand “…individuals and the social entities they compose in their natural everyday life circumstances through an analysis of the genesis, structure, and processes of their activities” (Kaptelinin & Nardi, 2006, pg. 31). This is done though an examination of activities, the purposeful interaction of subjects with the world (objects), including the social contexts. Analysis of activities is the only way to understand both the subject and the object, and the changes that occur in both through activities. This sounds a little overly general at first, but as we look at the basic principles of the theory, we begin to see how it starts to make sense and how it gives an interesting perspective on the phenomena we are examining.

• Human activity is directed toward objects, always. Objects can be things or objectives, and the activities that connect subjects with objects can change over time. Kaptelinin & Nardi give the example of a family and a home. Think of how the activity the family is engaged in regarding the home (buying it and living in it) change over time, and think of how rules, customs, norms and requirements of the family and wider community affect this activity.
• Activities can be analyzed at different levels: activities, actions (specific goal-directed processes), and operations (automated actions). Objects do not really change, but the activities (goals, actions, and operations) are dynamic.
• There are both internal and external activities. Internal activities are similar to cognitive processes. Externalization, on the other hand, occurs when internalized action needs to be repaired or scaled. It is a careful, self-monitored external working through of a process that an individual would otherwise do quickly internally. Activity Theory “…emphasizes that it is the constant transformation between the external and the internal that is the basis of human activity” (Kaptelinin & Nardi, 2006, pg. 70)
• There is a strong emphasis on social factors and this often focuses on tools, which are culturally loaded mediators that color the ways people act.
• There is a strong emphasis on development and one of the key research methods is the formative experiment, where the researcher monitors developmental changes over time.

I am still trying to get a good grasp of the theory and its application to education but it is starting to make a lot of sense to me and it is definitely calling out the limitations of cognitive approaches to language learning. In interface design, this theory has helped designers notice that there are higher and lower level actions (tasks) and place more attention to offering support for the the higher level ones. Higher level actions are meaningful tasks that do not change regardless of the specific technology or strategy used (for example, submitting a paper). Lower level actions are tasks that usually involve an application’s functionality (for example, attaching a Word document to an e-mail message). Activity Theory seems to be able to provide a context for the bigger picture. This is potentially very appealing, but for the time being it is certainly very interesting.