Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel
Erik Driessen was not involved in the review of or the decision to publish this article.
There is a growing need for research on culture, cultural differences and cultural effects of globalization in medical education, but these are complex phenomena to investigate. Socio-cultural activity theory seems a useful framework to study cultural complexity, because it matches current views on culture as a dynamic process situated in a social context, and has been valued in diverse fields for yielding rich understandings of complex issues and key factors involved. This paper explains how activity theory can be used in (cross-)cultural medical education research. We discuss activity theory’s theoretical background and principles, and we show how these can be applied to the cultural research practice by discussing the steps involved in a cross-cultural study that we conducted, from formulating research questions to drawing conclusions. We describe how the activity system, the unit of analysis in activity theory, can serve as an organizing principle to grasp cultural complexity. We end with reflections on the theoretical and practical use of activity theory for cultural research and note that it is not a shortcut to capture cultural complexity: it is a challenge for researchers to determine the boundaries of their study and to analyze and interpret the dynamics of the activity system.
Frambach JM, Driessen EW, Beh P, van der Vleuten CPM. Quiet or questioning? Students’ discussion behaviors in student-centered education across cultures. Stud High Educ. 2013;1–21.
Engeström Y. Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In: Engeström Y, Miettinen R, Punamäki R-L, editors. Perspectives on activity theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1999. p. 19–38. CrossRef
Nasir NiS, Hand VM. Exploring sociocultural perspectives on race, culture, and learning. Rev Educ Res. 2006;76:449–75.
Rogoff B, Chavajay P. What’s become of research on the cultural basis of cognitive development. Am Psychol. 1995;50:859–77. CrossRef
Stetsenko A, Arievitch IM. The self in cultural-historical activity theory—Reclaiming the unity of social and individual dimensions of human development. Theor Psych. 2004;14:475–503. CrossRef
Vygotsky LS. Mind in society. the development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 1978.
Engeström Y, Miettinen R. Introduction. In: Engeström Y, Miettinen R, Punamäki R-L, editors. Perspectives on activity theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1999. p. 1–16. CrossRef
Bakhurst D. Reflections on activity theory. Educ Rev. 2009;61:197–210. CrossRef
Avis J. Transformation or transformism: Engestrom’s version of activity theory? Educ Rev. 2009;61:151–65. CrossRef
Engeström Y. Expansive learning at work: toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. J Educ Work. 2001;14:133–56. CrossRef
Jonassen DH, Rohrer-Murphy L. Activity theory as a framework for designing constructivist learning environments. Educ Technol Res Dev. 1999;47:61–79. CrossRef
Sandars J. An activity theory perspective. Work Base Learn Prim Care. 2005;3:191–201.
King N. Using templates in the thematic analysis of text. In: Cassel C, Symon G, editors. Essential guide to qualitative methods in organizational research. London: Sage Publications; 2004. p. 256–70. CrossRef
King N. Template Analysis. 2010. http://www.hud.ac.uk/hhs/research/template_analysis/.Retrieved 17 June 2010.
Tsui ABM, Lopez-Real F, Edwards G. Sociocultural perspectives of learning. In: Tsui ABM, Lopez-Real F, Edwards G, editors. Learning in school-university partnership: sociocultural perspectives. New York: Routledge; 2009. p. 25–43.
Mann K, Dornan T, Teunissen P. Perspectives on learning. In: Dornan T, Mann K, Scherpbier A, Spencer J, editors. Medical education: theory and practice. Oxford: Churchill Livingstone Elsevier; 2011. p. 17–38.
- Using activity theory to study cultural complexity in medical education
Janneke M. Frambach
Erik W. Driessen
Cees P. M. van der Vleuten
- Bohn Stafleu van Loghum