Learning: A Processural Outcome of Human Activity

Via a critical appropriation of ideas from cultural historical activity theory (CHAT), this paper addresses three shortcomings in adult learning theories: insufficient guidance regarding how to systematically analyze learning that occurs in everyday life; 2) absence of mechanisms for overcoming subject-object dualism; and 3) insufficient analytic consideration for collective subjects. Introduction Although dominant theories of adult learning (such as self-directed or transformative learning) make general claims about how adults learn, the authors of this paper find in them little guidance regarding how to systematically observe and analyze learning that occurs in the everydayness of life. Moreover, theories of adult learning are beleaguered by a subject-object dualism that continues to plague classical behaviorist and cognitivist learning theories (Engestrom, 1999; Vygotsky, 1978). In most adult learning theories, the subject and object of learning remain conceptually (and often physically) separated from each other; with no adequate mechanism provided for their interaction. Dewey’s (1938) two principles of experience (continuity and interaction) were proposed, in part, to overcome the problem. But Dewey did not articulate a mechanism by which these two principles operate. Another concern of ours is how to examine learning that is produced and enacted by a collective subject. Adult learning theories do not deny that collectives can and do learn; but in most theories the focus is on individual learning. Even when collective subjects are emphasized (as is the case, for instance, with organization learning or discourse on the learning organization) a mechanism for empirically observing and analyzing the learning of collective subjects is not articulated. This paper addresses the concerns raised above by critically appropriating ideas from CHAT. We do not present an overview or critique of CHAT. Rather, within our space constraint, we discuss selected ideas we believe best address our concerns. They are: 1) mediation and mediating artifacts; 2) collective subjects and the hierarchical structure of activity; 3) activity systems; 4) relationship between learning and activity; and 5) multivoicedness and contradictions (Engestrom, 1987; Leont'ev, 1978; Vygotsky, 1978). Mediation and Mediating Artifacts Most learning theories assume that a subject and an object must interact in some way to produce learning; however, a direct relationship is often presumed. Behaviorists, for instance, presume that the subject is directly controlled by the operations of the object, while cognitivists presume that the meaning of the object is under direct control of the subject. Employing Marxist historical materialism, Vygotsky (1978) has introduced a third element— mediating artifacts—to overcome the subject-object dualism. Mediating artifacts are tools and signs (instruments). Tools are externally oriented means by which humans master and triumph over nature; we use them to change our external environment. On the other hand, we use signs to regulate our behavior; they are means of internal activity aimed at mastering ourselves. For Vygotsky, not only are subjects and objects always connected via mediating artifacts; they are also always co-constituted through this process of mediation. In mediation humans are rendered both producers and products of their environments. Mediating artifacts not only provide a way to empirically connect subject and object; in mediation, the dynamics of the relationship between and among subject and object is also revealed. The idea of Learning In Community: Proceedings of the joint international conference of the Adult Education Research Conference (AERC) (48th National Conference) and the Canadian Association for the Study of Adult Education (CASAE)/l'Association Canadienne pour l'Etude de l'Education des Adultes (ACEEA) (26th National Conference). Edited by Laura Servage and Tara Fenwick (June 2007)