Activity theory as a framework for designing constructivist learning environments

  • David H. Jonassen
  • Lucia Rohrer-Murphy
Development

Abstract

The epistemic assumptions of constructive learning are different from those of traditional instruction, so classical methods of needs and task analysis are inappropriate for designing constructivist learning environments (CLEs). This paper argues that activity theory provides an appropriate framework for analyzing needs, tasks, and outcomes for designing CLEs. Activity theory is a socio-cultural, socio-historical lens through which designers can analyze human activity systems. It focuses on the interaction of human activity and consciousness within its relevant environmental context. Since conscious learning emerges from activity (performance), not as a precursor to it, CLEs should attempt to replicate the activity structures, tools and sign systems, socio-cultural rules, and community expectations that performers must accommodate while acting on some object of learning. After explicating assumptions of activity theory and briefly describing the components of CLEs, this paper describes a process for using activity theory as a framework for describing the components of an activity system that can be modeled in CLEs.

Keywords

Human Activity Learning Environment Activity System Educational Technology Sign System 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bellamy, R.K.E. (1996). Designing educational technology: Computer-mediated change. In B.A Nardi (Ed.),Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human-computer interaction. Cambridge, MA: MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  2. Bødker, S. (1991a). Activity theory as a challenge to systems design. IN H.E. Nissen, H.K. Klein, & R. Hirschheim (Eds.),Information systems research: Contemporary approaches and emergent traditions. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  3. Bødker, S. (1991b).Through the interface: A human activity approach to user interface design. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  4. Cognition and Technology Group. (1992). Technology and the design of generative learning environments. In D.H. Jonassen & T.M. Duffy (Eds.),Constructivism and the technology of instruction: A conversation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  5. de Vos, G.A. (1986) Insight and symbol: Dimensions of analysis in psychoanalytic anthropology.The Journal of Psychoanalytic Anthropology, 9(3), Summer 1986, 199–233Google Scholar
  6. Engeström, Y. (1987).Learning by expanding: An activity theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki, Finland: Orienta-Konsultit Oy.Google Scholar
  7. Engeström, Y. (1992).Interactive expertise: Studies in distributed working intelligence (Research Bulletin 83). Helsinke: University of Helsinke Department of Education.Google Scholar
  8. Engeström, Y. (1993). Developmental studies of work as a test bench of activity theory: The case of primary care medical practice. In S. Chaiklin and J. Lave (Eds.),Understanding practice: Perspectives on activity and context. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Engeström, Y., & Middleton, D. (1996).Cognition and communication at work. Boston, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Fishbein, D.D., Eckart, T., Lauver, E., van Leeuwen, R., & Langemeyer, D. (1990). Learners' questions and comprehension in a tutoring system.Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 163–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gibson, J.J. (1979).An ecological approach to visual perception. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  12. Jonassen, D.H. (1991). Objectivism vs. constructivism: Do we need a new paradigm?Educational Technology: Research and Development., 39(3), 5–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jonassen, D.H. (1999). Designing constructivist learning environments. In C.M. Reigeluth (Ed.),Instructional-design theories and models, 2nd Ed. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  14. Jonassen, D.H. (in press).Computers as mindtools for schools: Engaging critical thinking. Columbus, OH: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  15. Jonassen, D.H., & Land, S.M. (1999).Theoretical foundation of learning environments. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  16. Kapetlinin, V. (1996). Activity theory: Implications for human-computer interaction. In B.A. Nardi (Ed.),Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human-computer interaction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  17. Koistinen, K., & Kangasoja, J. (1997).Learning to survive: How does a small multimedia company learn to master the production process? Paper presented at the 1st Nordic-Baltic Conference on Activity Theory.Google Scholar
  18. Korvela, P. (1997).How to analyze everyday activity at home? Paper presented at the 1st Nordic-Baltic Conference on Activity Theory.Google Scholar
  19. Kuhn, T. (1972).The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  20. Kuutti, K. (1996). Activity theory as a potential framework for human-computer interaction research. In B.A. Nardi (Ed.),Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human-computer interaction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  21. Kuutti, K. (1991). Activity theory and its applications to information systems research and development. In H.E. Nissen, H.K. Klein, & R. Hirschheim (Eds.),Information systems research: Contemporary approaches and emergent traditions (pp. 529–549). North Holland: Elvsevier Science Publishers B.V.Google Scholar
  22. Land, S.M., & Hannafin, M. (1996). A conceptual framework for the development of theories-inaction with open-ended learning environments.Educational Technology: Research and Development, 44(3), 37–53.Google Scholar
  23. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991).Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Leont'ev, A. (1972). The problem of activity in psychology.Voprosy filosofii, 9, 95–108.Google Scholar
  25. Leont'ev, A. (1974). The problem of activity in psychology.Soviet Psychology, 13(2), 4–33.Google Scholar
  26. Leont'ev, A.N. (1978).Activity, consciousness, and personality. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  27. Leont'ev, A.N. (1981). The problem of activity in psychology. In J.V. Wertsch (Ed.),The concept of activity in Soviet psychology. Armonk, NY: Sharpe.Google Scholar
  28. Linnard, M. (1995). New debates on learning support.Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 11, 239–253.Google Scholar
  29. Nardi, B.A. (1996). Studying context: A comparison of activity theory, situated action models, and distributed cognition. In B.A Nardi (Ed.),Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human-computer interaction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  30. Nardi, B. & Miller, J. (1991). Twinkling lights and nested loops: Distributed problem solving and spreadsheet development.International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 34, 161–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Nissen, H.E., Klein, H.K., & Hirschheim, R. (Eds.). (1991).Information systems research: Contemporary approaches and emergent traditions.Google Scholar
  32. Perkins, D.N. (1993). Person-plus: A distributed view of thinking and learning. In G. Salomon (Ed.),Distributed cognitions.: Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 88–110). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Reigeluth, C.N. (1999).Instructional design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  34. Savery, J., & Duffy, T.M. (1995). Problem based learning: An instructional model and its constructivist framework. In B.G. Wilson (Ed.),Constructivist learning environments: Case studies in instructional design. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.Google Scholar
  35. Schank, R., & Cleary, R. (1995).Engines for education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  36. Spiro, R.J., & Jehng, J.C. (1991). Cognitive flexibility and hypertext: Theory and technology for non-linear and multidimensional traversal of complex subject matter. In D. Nix and R. Spiro (Eds.),Cognition, education, & multimedia. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  37. Tessmer, M., & Richey, R. (1997). The role of context in learning and instructional design.Educational Technology: Research and Development, 45(2)Google Scholar
  38. Winegar, L. (1992). Children's emerging understanding of social events: Co-construction and social process. In L.T. Winegar & J. Valsiner (Eds.),Children's development within social context (pp. 3–27). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.Google Scholar
  39. Vygotsky. (1982).Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications and Technology 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • David H. Jonassen
    • 1
  • Lucia Rohrer-Murphy
    • 2
  1. 1.The Pennsylvania State UniversityUSA
  2. 2.The Pennsylvania State UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations