Living With Contradiction: Cultural Historical Activity Theory as a Theoretical Frame to Study Student Engineering Project Teams
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Living With Contradiction: Cultural Historical Activity Theory as a Theoretical Frame to Study Student Engineering Project Teams Problem-‐based learning supports collaborative constructivist learning by encouraging students to engage in independent investigation of specific problems (Savery, 2006). Engineering disciplines tend to engage project-‐based learning opportunities that are characterized by longer engagement with more complex projects than traditional PBL(Bédard, Lison, Dalle, Côté, & Boutin, 2012), such as capstone projects or competitive project teams. Such extended, complex projects provide students with multiple opportunities to develop both technical knowledge and professional judgment – and multiple challenges that might jeopardize a project group’s success. This paper outlines cultural-‐historical activity theory (CHAT) as a theoretical lens to understand the challenges engineering PBL student groups face. Building from Vygotsky’s social constructivism, CHAT squarely situates human agency in sociocultural forces that shape and constrain the nature and execution of that activity. (Engestrom, 1987). By balancing human agency with rules, community and power concerns, contemporary CHAT highlights the situated nature of technical work and highlights multiple points of contradiction that must be negotiated and considered (Engestrom, 1999). Perhaps particularly disquieting for engineers, these contradictions are often highly social and political in nature and resist simple analysis or resolution. This paper grounds CHAT analysis in continuing research into the management practices of Formula SAE (FSAE) student engineering teams. The core activity of a FSAE team is to design, manufacture, test and race a small racecar in intercollegiate competition. Towards this goal, FSAE teams must learn to negotiate a range of organizational contradictions. FSAE teams must recruit and retain team members in a high-‐turnover environment. They must learn to operate within the constraints established by the competition, school administration and societal laws and mores. Teams may also strategically choose to share some information and collaborate with competitive teams for mutual gain. CHAT as a theoretical frame highlights these and other points of potential contradiction and allows for sharing of experiences to help determine best practices in a variety of team contexts. References Bédard, D., Lison, C., Dalle, D., Côté, D., & Boutin, N. (2012). Problem-‐based and Project-‐ based Learning in Engineering and Medicine: Determinants of Students’ Engagement and Persistence. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-‐Based Learning, 6(2). doi:10.7771/1541-‐5015.1355 Engestrom, Y. (1987). Learning by Expanding: An activity-‐theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki: Orienta-‐Konsultit. Engestrom, Y. (1999). Activity Theory and Individual and Social Transformation. In Y. Engestrom, R. Miettenien, & R.-‐L. Punamaki (Eds.), Perspectives on Activity Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Savery, J. R. (2006). Overview of Problem-‐based Learning: Definitions and Distinctions. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-‐Based Learning, 1(1), 9–20.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».