Advertisement

Practices and Potential of Activity Theory for Educational Technology Research

Chapter

Abstract

This chapter aims to examine the practices and potential of Activity Theory (AT) for educational technology research (ETR). AT provides a framework within which to understand object-oriented, collective, and social environments (Engeström, Perspectives in activity theory (pp. 19–38). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999). Activity systems provide flexible frameworks that can be modified according to the nature of the context. In ETR, AT has been used as a tool to analyze and design complex learning situations as well as to analyze the contradictions and barriers in technology integration and to describe the dynamics of organizational knowledge creation. In this chapter, the basics of AT are presented and the available research using AT as a methodological tool in ETR is examined. The use of AT as a metaphorical tool in learning design and artifact development, as an analytic tool in an innovation study, and as a descriptive and prescriptive tool in a knowledge management study is explained. I also refer to the potential use of Actor Network Theory (ANT) as a possible third generation AT (Engeström, Journal of Education and Work 14(1):134–156, 2001) that can be used to understand the symmetrical relationship between multiple activity systems.

Keywords

Activity theory Educational technology research Actor network theory 

References

  1. Barab, S. A., Barnett, M., Yamagata-Lynch, L., Squire, K., & Keating, T. (2002). Using activity theory to understand the contradictions characterizing a technology-rich introductory astronomy course. Mind Culture, and Activity, 9(2), 76–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barab, S. A., Schatz, S., & Scheckler, R. (2004). Using activity theory to conceptualize online community and using online community to conceptualize activity theory. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 11(1), 25–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bellamy, R. K. E. (1996). Designing educational technology: Computer mediated change. In B. Nardi (Ed.), Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human-computer interaction (pp. 123–146). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  4. Benson, A. D., & Whitworth, A. (2007). Technology at the planning table: Activity theory, negotiation and course management systems. Journal of Organisational Transformation and Social Change, 4(1), 75–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Benson, A. D., Lawler, C., & Whitworth, A. (2008). Rules, roles and tools: Activity theory and the comparative study of e-learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(3), 456–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blin, F., & Munro, F. (2008). Why hasn’t technology disrupted academics’ teaching practices? Understanding resistance to change through the lens of activity theory. Computers & Education, 50(2), 475–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Broer, T., Nieboer, A. P., & Bal, R. A. (2010). Opening the black box of quality improvement collaboratives: An actor-network theory approach. BMC Health Services Research, 10(1), 265. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-10-265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Callon, M. (1986). The sociology of an actor-network: The case of the electric vehicle. In M. Callon, J. Law, & A. Rip (Eds.), Mapping the dynamics of science and technology (pp. 19–34). London: Macmillan Press.Google Scholar
  9. Callon, M. (1999). Actor network theory—The market test. In J. Laws & J. Hassard (Eds.), Actor network theory and after (pp. 181–195). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
  10. Cole, M., & Engeström, Y. (1991). A cultural-historical approach to distributed cognition. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 1–47). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Collis, B., & Margaryan, A. (2004). Applying activity theory to computer-supported collaborative learning and work-based activities in corporate settings. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(4), 38–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Demiraslan, Y., & Koçak Usluel, Y. (2008). ICT integration processes in Turkish schools: Using activity theory to study issues and contradictions. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24(4), 458–474.Google Scholar
  13. *Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit Oy.Google Scholar
  14. *Engeström, Y. (1999). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen, & R. L. Punamäki. (Eds.), Perspectives in activity theory. (pp. 19–38). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Engeström, Y. (2000). Activity theory as a framework for analyzing and redesigning work. Ergonomics, 43(7), 960–974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. *Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 134–156.Google Scholar
  17. Engeström, Y., & Escalante, V. (1996). Mundane tool or object of affection? The rise and fall of the Postal Buddy. In B. A. Nardi (Ed.), Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human-computer interaction. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  18. Fenwick, T. (2009). Reading educational reform with actor network theory: Fluid spaces, otherings, and ambivalences. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 43(1), 114–134.Google Scholar
  19. Fox, S. (2000). Communities of practice, foucault and actor-network theory. Journal of Management Studies, 37(6), 853–867.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gao, P. (2005). Using actor-network theory to analyze strategy formulation. Information Systems Journal, 15(3), 255–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Issroff, K., & Scanlon, E. (2002). Using technology in higher education: An activity theory perspective. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18(1), 77–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Halloran, J., Rogers, Y., & Scaife, M. (2002). Taking the ‘no’ out of lotus notes: Activity theory, groupware, and student group work. In G. Stahl (Ed.), Proceedings of the 2002 conference on computer support for collaborative learning (pp. 169–178). Boulder, CO: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  23. Hitchings, R. (2003). People, plants and performance: On actor network theory and the material pleasures of the private garden. Social & Cultural Geography, 4(1), 99–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Revisiting activity theory as a framework for designing student-centred learning environments. In D. Jonassen & S. Land (Eds.), Theoretical foundations of learning environments (pp. 89–122). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  25. Jonassen, D. H., & Rohrer-Murphy, L. (1999). Activity theory as a framework for designing constructivist learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(1), 61–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kaptelinin, V. (2003). UMEA: Translating interaction histories into project contexts. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 353–360). Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, USA.Google Scholar
  27. *Kaptelinin, V., & Nardi, B. (2006). Acting with technology: Activity theory and interaction design. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  28. Kuutti, K. (1996). Activity theory as a potential framework for human computer interaction research. In B. Nardi (Ed.), Context and ­consciousness: Activity theory and human computer interaction (pp. 17–44). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  29. Latour, B. (1993). We have never been modern. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  30. *Leontev, A. N. (1978). Activity, consciousness, and personality. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  31. *Leontev, A. N. (1981). Problems of the development of mind. Moscow: Progress.Google Scholar
  32. Lim, C. P., & Chai, C. S. (2004). An activity-theoretical approach to research of ICT integration in Singapore Schools: Orienting activities and learner autonomy. Computers & Education, 43(3), 215–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lim, C. P., & Hang, D. (2003). An activity theory approach to research of ICT integration in Singapore schools. Computers & Education, 41(1), 49–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lim, C. P., Tay, L. Y., & Hedberg, J. (2011). Employing an activity theoretical perspective to localize an educational innovation in an elementary school. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 44(3), 319–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mähring, M., Holmström, J., Keil, M., & Montealegre, R. (2004). Trojan actor-networks and swift translation: Bringing actor-network theory to IT project escalation studies. Information Technology and People, 17(2), 210–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Miettinen, R. (1999). The riddle of things: Activity theory and actor network theory as approaches to studying innovations. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 6(3), 170–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mihalca, L., & Miclea, M. (2007). Current trends in instructional technology research. Cognition, Brain, Behavior, 11(1), 115–129.Google Scholar
  38. Mwanza, D. (2002). Conceptualizing work activity for CAL systems design. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18(1), 84–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Mwanza, D., & Engeström, Y. (2005). Managing content in e-learning environments. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(3), 453–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Nocon, H. (2008). Contradictions of time in collaborative school research. Journal of Educational Change, 9(4), 339–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Reeves, T. (2006). Design research from a technology perspective. In J. Van den Akker, K. GraveMeijer, S. McKenney, & N. Nieveen (Eds.), Educational technology design research. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  42. Ross, S. M., Morrison, G. R., & Lowther, D. L. (2010). Educational technology research past and present: Balancing rigor and relevance to impact school learning. Contemporary Educational Technology, 1(1), 17–35.Google Scholar
  43. Roth, W. M., & Lee, Y. J. (2007). “Vygotsky’s neglected legacy”: Cultural-historical activity theory. Review of Educational Research, 77(2), 186–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Roth, W. M., & Tobin, K. (2002). Redesigning an “urban” teacher education program: An activity theory perspective. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 9(2), 108–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Russell, D. (1997). Rethinking genre in school and society: An activity theory analysis. Written Communication, 14(4), 504–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Russell, D. L., & Schneiderheinze. (2005). Understanding innovation in education using activity theory. Educational Technology & Society, 8(1), 38–53.Google Scholar
  47. Stevenson, I. (2008). Tool, tutor, environment or resource: Exploring metaphors for digital technology and pedagogy using activity theory. Computers & Education, 51(2), 836–853.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Tan, S., & Melles, G. (2010). An activity theory focused case study of graphic designers’ tool-mediated activities during the conceptual design phase. Design Studies, 31(5), 461–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Tatnall, A., & Gilding, A. (1999). Actor-network theory and information systems research. Paper presented at the 10th Australasian Conference on Information Systems, Wellington, Victoria University of Wellington.Google Scholar
  50. Tondeur, J., Cooper, M., & Newhouse, C. P. (2010). From ICT coordination to ICT integration: A longitudinal case study. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(4), 296–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Tsui, A. B. M., & Law, D. Y. K. (2007). Learning as boundary-crossing in school–university partnership. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 1289–1301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Uden, L. (2007). Activity theory for designing mobile learning. International Journal of Mobile Learning and Organisation, 1(1), 81–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Van Merrienboer, J. G., & Martens, R. (2002). Computer-based tools for instructional design: An introduction to the special issue. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(4), 5–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Wells, G. (2002). The role of dialogue in activity theory. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 9(1), 43–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Winn, W. (2002). Current trends in: Educational technology research: The study of learning environments. Educational Psychology Review, 14(3), 331–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Yamagata-Lynch, L. C. (2003). Using activity theory as an analytic lens for examining technology professional development in schools. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 10(2), 100–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Yamagata-Lynch, L. C. (2007). Confronting analytical dilemmas for understanding complex human interactions in design-based research from a cultural—historical activity theory (CHAT) framework. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16(4), 451–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Yamagata-Lynch, L. C., & Smaldino, S. (2007). Using activity theory to evaluate and improve K-12 school and university partnerships. Evaluation and Program Planning, 30(4), 364–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. *Yamagata-Lynch, L. C. (2010). Activity systems analysis methods: Understanding complex learning environments. Boston, MA: Springer.Google Scholar
  61. Yamazumi, K. (2008). A hybrid activity system as educational innovation. Journal of Educational Change, 9(4), 365–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Zurita, G., & Nussbaum, M. (2007). A conceptual framework based on activity theory for mobile CSCL. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(2), 211–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer Education and Instructional TechnologyAtaturk UniversityErzurumTurkey

Personalised recommendations