Activity theory as a framework for designing constructivist learning environments

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

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 Press

    Google 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, 199–233

    Google 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.

  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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

  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.

  18. Korvela, P. (1997).How to analyze everyday activity at home? Paper presented at the 1st Nordic-Baltic Conference on Activity Theory.

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Nissen, H.E., Klein, H.K., & Hirschheim, R. (Eds.). (1991).Information systems research: Contemporary approaches and emergent traditions.

  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)

  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 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

His current research focuses on designing constructivist learning environments, cognitive tools for learning, knowledge representation methods, problem solving, computer-supported collaborative argumentation, cognitive task analysis, and individual differences and learning.

His current research focuses on designing constructivist learning environments, cognitive tools for learning, knowledge representation methods, problem solving, computer-supported collaborative argumentation, cognitive task analysis, and individual differences and learning.

Her research interests include activity theory and structural knowledge.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Jonassen, D.H., Rohrer-Murphy, L. Activity theory as a framework for designing constructivist learning environments. ETR&D 47, 61–79 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02299477

Download citation

Keywords

  • Human Activity
  • Learning Environment
  • Activity System
  • Educational Technology
  • Sign System