Advertisement

Understanding and Examining Design Activities with Cultural Historical Activity Theory

  • Lisa C. Yamagata-Lynch
Chapter
Part of the Educational Communications and Technology: Issues and Innovations book series (ECTII)

Abstract

In this chapter, I discuss the need in instructional technology to understand design within the context of complex real-world human activities. I propose cultural historical activity theory (CHAT) as a theoretical framework that can provide a method for uncovering the complexities involved in real-world design. In this discussion I share my personal design experience at a Global Communications Company and provide a sample case and its analysis about one family’s experience building a Passive Home in the United States.

Keywords

Cultural historical activity theory (CHAT) Vygotsky Activity theory Activity systems analysis Leontiev Engeström Corporate training Instructional design Design models Mediated action Sociocultural Qualitative research 

Notes

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank the editors of this volume and reviewers assigned to comment on my work. There were several reviewers, but I would like to particularly thank Dr. Craig Howard who poured attention to this chapter when it was not one of the chapters he was assigned to review. His comments challenged my thinking and had influence on its final development. I would also like to thank my colleague Dr. Trena Paulus who volunteered and took time reviewing this work.

References

  1. Barab, S. A., Barnett, M., Yamagata-Lynch, L., Squire, K., & Keating, T. (2002). Using activity theory to understand the systemic tensions characterizing a technology-rich introductory astronomy course. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 9(2), 76. doi: 10.1207/S15327884MCA0902_02.
  2. Barab, S. A., Evans, M. A., & Baek, E. (2003). Activity theory as a lens for characterizing the participatory unit. In D. Jonasen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communication and technology (2nd ed., pp. 199–214). New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  3. 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. doi: 10.1207/s15327884mca1101_3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bichelmeyer, B., Boling, E., & Gibbons, A. S. (2006). Instructional design and technology models: Their impact on research and teaching in instructional design technology. In R. M. Branch, M. Orey, & V. J. McClendon (Eds.), Educational media and technology yearbook (Vol. 31, pp. 33–73). Littleton, CO: Libraries Unlimited.Google Scholar
  5. Cole, M. (1996). Cultural psychology: A once and future discipline. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Cole, M., & Engeström, Y. (1993). A cultural-historical approach to distributed cognition. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 1–46). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. C. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
  8. Cross, N. (2006). Designerly ways of knowing. Basel: Springer.Google Scholar
  9. Cross, N. (2008). Engineering design methods: Strategies for product design (4th ed.). Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  10. DeVane, B., & Squire, K. (2012). Activity theory in the learning technologies. In D. Jonassen & S. Land (Eds.), Theoretical foundations of learning environments (2nd ed., pp. 242–267). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  11. Dick, W., Carey, L., & Carey, J. O. (2008). The systematic design of instruction (7th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  12. Duffy, T. M., & Cunningham, D. J. (1996). Constructivism: Implications for the design and delivery of instruction. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 170–198). New York: Simon & Schuster/Macmillan.Google Scholar
  13. Duffy, T. M., & Jonassen, D. H. (Eds.). (1992). Constructivism and the technology of instruction: A conversation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  14. Duffy, T. M., Lowyck, J., & Jonassen, D. H. (Eds.). (1991). Designing environments for constructive learning: NATO ASI Series. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  15. El’konin, B. D. (1993). The nature of human action. Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, 31(3), 22–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Retrieved November 30, 2009, from http://lchc.ucsd.edu/MCA/Paper/Engestrom/expanding/toc.htm.
  17. Engeström, Y. (1993). Developmental studies of work as a testbench of activity theory: The case of primary care medical practice. In S. Chaiklin & J. Lave (Eds.), Understanding practice: Perspectives on activity and context (pp. 64–103). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gagne, R. M. (1985). The conditions of learning and theory of instruction (4th ed.). Belmont, CA: (Need city) Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  19. Galperin, P. I. (1989). Mental actions as a basis for the formation of thoughts and images. Soviet Psychology, 27(3), 45–64.Google Scholar
  20. Hyysalo, S. (2005). Objects and motives in a product design process. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 12(1), 19. doi: 10.1207/s15327884mca1201_3.
  21. Jonassen, D. H. (2000a). Toward a design theory of problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(4), 63–85. doi: 10.1007/BF02300500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jonassen, D. H. (2000b). Revisiting activity theory as a framework for designing student-centered learning environments. In D. H. Jonassen & S. M. Land (Eds.), Theoretical foundations of learning environments (pp. 89–121). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  23. 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
  24. Kaptelinin, V. (2005). The object of activity: Making sense of the sense-maker. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 12(1), 4–18. doi: 10.1207/s15327884mca1201_2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kirkpatrick, D. L., & Kirkpatrick, J. D. (2006). Evaluating training programs: The four levels (3rd ed.). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.Google Scholar
  26. Lawson, B., & Dorst, K. (2009). Design expertise. London: Architectural Press.Google Scholar
  27. Leontiev, A. N. (1978). The problem of activity and psychology. In A. N. Leont’ev (Ed.), Activity, consciousness, and personality (pp. 45–74). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  28. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  29. Lynham, S. A. (2000). Theory building in the human resource development profession. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 11(2), 159–178. doi: 10.1002/1532-1096(200022)11:2<159::AID-HRDQ5>3.0.CO;2-E.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Nardi, B. A. (2005). Objects of desire: Power and passion in collaborative activity. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 12(1), 37–51. doi: 10.1207/s15327884mca1201_4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Parrish, P. (2006). Design as storytelling. TechTrends, 50(4), 72–82. doi: 10.1007/s11528-006-0072-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Reeves, T. C., Herrington, J., & Oliver, R. (2004). A development research agenda for online collaborative learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(4), 53–65. doi: 10.1007/BF02504718.Google Scholar
  33. Reigeluth, C. M. (1983). Instructional-design theories and models: An overview of their current status. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  34. Smaldino, S. E., Lowther, D. L., & Russell, J. D. (2011). Instructional technology and media for learning (10th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  35. Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  36. Stake, R. E. (2010). Qualitative research: Studying how things work. New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  37. Stetsenko, A. (2005). Activity as object-related: Resolving the dichotomy of individual and collective planes of activity. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 12(1), 70–88. doi: 10.1207/s15327884mca1201_6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Stetsenko, A. (2008). From relational ontology to transformative activist stance on development and learning: Expanding Vygotsky’s (CHAT) project. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 3, 471–491. doi: 10.1007/s11422-008-9111-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Stetsenko, A. (2010). Standing on the shoulders of giants: A balancing act of dialectically theorizing conceptual understanding on the grounds of Vygotsky’s project. In W. M. Roth (Ed.), Re/structuring science education (Vol. 2, pp. 69–88). Dordrecht: Springer, Netherlands. Retrieved from http://www.springerlink.com/content/m871956518271w66/.
  40. van der Veer, R. (1997). Some major themes in Vygotsky’s theoretical works: An introduction. In R. W. Rieber & J. Wollock (Eds.), The collected works of L.S. Vygotsky: Volume 3: Problems of the theory and history of psychology (pp. 1–7). New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  41. van der Veer, R. (2008). Multiple readings of Vygotsky. In B. Van Oers, W. Wardekker, E. Elbers, & R. Van der Veer (Eds.), The transformation of learning: Advances in cultural historical activity theory (pp. 20–37). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Wang, F., & Hannafin, M. (2005). Design-based research and technology-enhanced learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 5–23. doi: 10.1007/BF02504682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Yamagata-Lynch, L. C. (2003). Using activity theory as an analytical lens for examining technology professional development in schools. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 10(2), 100–119. doi: 10.1207/S1532-7884MCA1002_2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Yamagata-Lynch, L. C. (2010). Activity systems analysis methods: Understanding complex learning environments. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Yanchar, S. C., South, J. B., Williams, D. D., Allen, S., & Wilson, B. G. (2010). Struggling with theory? A qualitative investigation of conceptual tool use in instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(1), 39–60. doi: 10.1007/s11423-009-9129-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Zeller, T. Jr. (2010, September 25). In passive-house standards: A brighter shade of green. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/26/business/energy-environment/26smart.html?_r=1&pagewanted=1&ref=general&src=me.

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Educational Psychology and CounselingUniversity of TennesseeKnoxvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations