Advertisement

Design of Innovative Learning Environment: An Activity System Perspective

  • Juhong Christie LiuEmail author
Living reference work entry

Abstract

Effective learning takes place in social, cultural, and historical contexts and consists of activities beyond mere dissemination and acquisition of content knowledge. Teaching and learning practice and research in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) and humanities education, inquiries into educational reforms, and exploration in newer instructional strategies have demonstrated the needs of refreshing perspectives in learning environment design (Freeman et al., Proc Natl Acad Sci 111(23):8410–8415, 2014; Jonassen, Educ Technol Res Dev 48(4):63–85, 2000; Wouters et al., J Educ Psychol 105(2):249–265, 2013). The demand and complexity are accompanied with ever evolving technologies. Related social-cultural changes constantly challenge professionals in instructional design (ID) to take an interdisciplinary and adaptive lens. Experiences in medical education, e-learning design, teacher education, sports coaching, and human-computer interaction have revealed the value and potential of Activity Theory (AT) in the analysis, design, and deployment of transformed learning environments (Benson, Br J Educ Technol 39(3):456–467, 2008; Engeström, J Educ Work 14(1):133–156, 2001; Jones, Sport Educ Soc 21(2), 2016; Kuutti K, Activity theory as a potential framework for human-computer interaction research. In: Nardi BA (ed) Context and consciousness: activity theory and human-computer interaction. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 17–44, 1996; Lazarou, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27(5):424–439, 2011). This chapter focuses on the design possibilities of analyzing the characteristics of and reconfiguring the key components in an activity system (AS), including Subject and Object, Tools/Resources, Rules, Division of Labor/Roles, and Community to creatively design an innovative learning environment (ILE). Drawing upon the association between AS and ILE, the author will provide ID recommendations based on the analysis of major AS components.

Keywords

Activity theory (AT) Activity system (AS) Innovative learning environment (ILE) Instructional design (ID) 

References

  1. Amory, A. (2010). Education technology and hidden ideological contradictions. Educational Technology & Society, 13(1), 69–79.Google Scholar
  2. Berrett, D., Mcmurtrie, B., & Supiano, B. (2018, June 21). Not just for video games: Virtual reality joins the classroom. The Chronicle of Higher Education-Teaching Newsletter. Retrieved from https://www.chronicle.com/article/Not-Just-for-Video-Games-/243729
  3. Bonk, C., Lee, M. M., Reeves, T. C., & Reynolds, T. H. (2015). MOOCs and open education around the world. London, England: Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. Brayko, K. (2013). Community-based placements as contexts for disciplinary learning: A study of literacy teacher education outside of school. Journal of Teacher Education, 64(1), 47–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Butz, N. T., Stupnisky, R. H., Pekrun, R., Jensen, J. L., & Harsell, D. M. (2016). The impact of emotions on student achievement in synchronous hybrid business and public administration programs: A longitudinal test of control-value theory. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 14(4), 441–474.  https://doi.org/10.1111/dsji.12110.
  6. Carter, L. M., Beattie, B., Caswell, W., & Fitzgerald, S. (2015). An examination of interprofessional team functioning in a BScN blended learning program: Implications for accessible distance-based nursing education programs. Canadian Journal of University Continuing Education, 41(1), 1–14.Google Scholar
  7. Chell, E. (2007). Social enterprise and entrepreneurship: Towards a convergent theory of the entrepreneurial process. International Small Business Journal, 25(1), 5–26.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242607071779.
  8. Collins, P., Shukla, S., & Redmiles, D. (2002). Activity theory and system design: A view from the trenches. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 11(1–2), 55–80.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015219918601.
  9. Cooksy, L. J., Gill, P., & Kelly, P. A. (2001). The program logic model as an integrative framework for a multimethod evaluation. Evaluation and Program Planning, 24(2), 119–128.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0149-7189(01)00003-9.
  10. Dorner, H., & Kárpáti, A. (2010). Mentoring for innovation: Key factors affecting participant satisfaction in the process of collaborative knowledge construction in teacher training. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Network, 14(4), 63–77.Google Scholar
  11. Double Robotics, Inc. (2017). Blended learning and hybrid classrooms. Retrieved from https://www.doublerobotics.com/education/.
  12. Eick, C. J., & Reed, C. J. (2002). What makes an inquiry-oriented science teacher? The influence of learning histories on student teacher role identity and practice. Science Education, 86(3), 401–416.  https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10020.
  13. Engeström, Y. (1995). Objects, contradictions and collaboration in medical cognition: An activity-theoretical perspective. Artificial Intelligence in Medicine, 7(5), 395–412.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0933-3657(95)00012-U.
  14. Engeström, Y. (2000). Activity theory as a framework for analyzing and redesigning work. Ergonomics, 43(7), 960–974.  https://doi.org/10.1080/001401300409143.
  15. Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133–156.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13639080020028747.
  16. Entwistle, N. J., & Peterson, E. R. (2004). Conceptions of learning and knowledge in higher education: Relationships with study behaviour and influences of learning environments. International journal of educational research, 41(6), 407–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Estes, M. D., Ingram, R., & Liu, J. C. (2014). A review of flipped classroom research, practice, and technologies. International HETL Review, 4(7), 1–8.Google Scholar
  18. Estes, M. D., Liu, J., Zha, S., & Reedy, K. (2014). Designing for problem-based learning in a collaborative STEM lab: A case study. TechTrends, 58(6), 90–98.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-014-0808-8.
  19. Fink, L. D. (2013). Creating significant learning experiences: An integrated approach to designing college courses. San Francisco, CA: Wiley.Google Scholar
  20. Fire, N., & Casstevens, W. J. (2013). The use of cultural historical activity theory (CHAT) within a constructivist learning environment to develop core competencies in social work. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 33(1), 41–58.  https://doi.org/10.1080/08841233.2012.749828.
  21. Flaherty, C. (2017, February 23). Large-scale assessment without standardized tests. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/02/23/aacu-releases-report-national-large-scale-look-student-learning
  22. Flanigan, R. L. (2017, June 12). “Course-choice” efforts grow to give students more options. Education Week. Retrieved from https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2017/06/14/course-choice-efforts-grow-in-rural-schools.html
  23. Foot, K. A. (2014). Cultural-historical activity theory: Exploring a theory to inform practice and research. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 24(3), 329–347.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10911359.2013.831011.
  24. Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8410–8415.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111.
  25. Graves, S. M., Abbitt, J., Klett, M. D., & Wang, C. (2009). A mentoring model for interactive online learning in support of a technology innovation challenge grant. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 26(1), 5–16.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10402454.2009.10784626.
  26. Halverson, E. R., & Sheridan, K. (2014). The maker movement in education. Harvard Educational Review, 84(4), 495–504.  https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.84.4.34j1g68140382063.
  27. Hayes, K. J., Eljiz, K., Dadich, A., Fitzgerald, J. A., & Sloan, T. (2015). Trialability, observability and risk reduction accelerating individual innovation adoption decisions. Journal of health organization and management, 29(2), 271–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hokanson, B., Miller, C., & Hooper, S. (2008). A Contemporary Perspective for Innovation in Instructional Design. TechTrends, 52(6), 36–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Istance, D., & Kools, M. (2013). OECD work on technology and education: Innovative learning environments as an integrating framework. European Journal of Education, 48(1), 43–57.  https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12017.
  30. Jonassen, D. H. (1997). Instructional design models for well-structured and III-structured problem-solving learning outcomes. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(1), 65–94.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02299613.
  31. Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Toward a design theory of problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(4), 63–85.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02300500.
  32. 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
  33. Kidwell, P. K., Freeman, R., Smith, C., & Zarcone, J. (2004). Integrating online instruction with active mentoring to support professionals in applied settings. Internet and Higher Education, 7(2), 141–150.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2004.03.003.
  34. Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom's taxonomy: An overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(4), 212–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Layng, J. (1997). Parallels between project management and instructional design. Performance Improvement, 36(6), 16–20.  https://doi.org/10.1002/pfi.4140360605.
  36. Leacock, T. L., & Nesbit, J. C. (2007). A framework for evaluating the quality of multimedia learning resources. Educational Technology & Society, 10, 44–59.  https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004.
  37. Lewis, K., Henriques, J., Liu, J. C., & Brantmeier, E. J. (2016). Opportunities and barriers for community-engaged scholarship: An exploratory study at a comprehensive university. National Social Science Journal, 47(1), 50–59.Google Scholar
  38. Liu, J., & Alexander, R. (2017). Factors affecting faculty use of video conferencing in teaching: A mixed-method study. Journal of Educational Technology Development and Exchange (JETDE), 10(2), 37–54.Google Scholar
  39. Liu, J. C. (2012). Customized consultation to support design and development of blended courses. Presentation at the 18th annual Sloan consortium international conference on online learning, Orlando, FL.Google Scholar
  40. Liu, J. C., & Adams, A. (2017). Design of online student orientation with conceptual and procedural scaffolding. In F. Q. Lai & J. D. Lehman (Eds.), Learning and knowledge analytics in open education (pp. 41–68). Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-38956-1_5.
  41. Liu, J. C., Swayne, D., & Adams, A. (2017). Design for deep learning through facilitating an entrepreneurial mindset. Presentation at HKAECT2017 international research symposium, Hong Kong.Google Scholar
  42. Lu, W.-H., Deen, D., Rothstein, D., Santana, L., & Gold, M. R. (2011). Activating community health center patients in developing question-formulation skills. Health Education & Behavior, 38(6), 637–645.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1090198110393337.
  43. Mahraj, K. (2012). Using information expertise to enhance massive open online courses. Public Services Quarterly, 8(4), 359–368.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15228959.2012.730415.
  44. Martin, L. (2015).The promise of the maker movement for education. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER), 5(1), 30–39.  https://doi.org/10.7771/2157-9288.1099.
  45. McDavid, J. C., & Hawthorn, L. R. L. (2006). Program evaluation & performance measurement: An introduction to practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  46. Merchant, Z., Goetz, E. T., Cifuentes, L., Keeney-Kennicutt, W., & Davis, T. J. (2014). Effectiveness of virtual reality-based instruction on students’ learning outcomes in K-12 and higher education: A meta-analysis. Computers & Education, 70, 29–40.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.07.033.
  47. Merriweather, L. R., & Morgan, A. J. (2013). Two cultures collide: Bridging the generation gap in a non-traditional mentorship. Qualitative Report, 18(6), 1–16.Google Scholar
  48. Michaelsen, L. K., & Sweet, M. (2011). Team-based learning. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2011, 41–51.  https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.467.
  49. Moog, R. S., & Spencer, J. N. (2008). POGIL: An overview. ACS Symposium Series, 994, 1–13. Washington, DC: American Chemical Society.  https://doi.org/10.1021/bk-2008-0994.ch001.
  50. Park, K. (2015). Instructional design models for blended learning in engineering education. International Journal of Engineering Education, 31(2), 476–485.Google Scholar
  51. Postholm, M. B. (2015). Methodologies in cultural–historical activity theory: The example of school-based development. Educational Research, 57(1), 43–58.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2014.983723.
  52. Pritchard, P. A. (2010). The embedded science librarian: Partner in curriculum design and delivery. Journal of Library Administration, 50(4), 373–396.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01930821003667054.
  53. Quitadamo, I. J., Brahler, C. J., & Crouch, G. J. (2009). Peer-led team learning: A prospective method for increasing critical thinking in undergraduate science courses. Science Educator, 18(1), 29–39.Google Scholar
  54. Rinaldo, S. B., Davis, D. F., & Borunda, J. (2015). Delivering value to community partners in service-learning projects. Journal of Community Engagement and Scholarship, 8(1), 115–125.  https://doi.org/10.5193/JEE33.3.208.
  55. Rodriguez, J. E., Greer, K., & Shipman, B. (2014). Copyright and you: Copyright instruction for college students in the digital age. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 40(5), 486–491.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ACALIB.2014.06.001.
  56. Rogers, E. M. (2010). Diffusion of innovations (4th ed.). New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
  57. Roth, W.-M. (2004). Activity theory and education: An introduction. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 11(1), 1–8.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327884mca1101_1.
  58. Rothstein, D., & Santana, L. (2011). Teaching students to ask their own questions. Harvard Education Letter, 27(5), 1–2.Google Scholar
  59. Ruder, S. M., & Hunnicutt, S. S. (2008). POGIL in chemistry courses at a large urban university: A case study. ACS Symposium Series, 994, 133–147.  https://doi.org/10.1021/bk-2008-0994.ch012.
  60. Russell, D. L., & Schneiderheinze, A. (2005). Understanding innovation in education using activity theory. Educational Technology & Society, 8(1), 38–53.Google Scholar
  61. Rybacki, K. (2009). Cultural historical activity theory as a tool for informing and evaluating technology in education. Children, Youth & Environments, 19(1), 279–305.Google Scholar
  62. Schaffer, S. P., Reyes, L., Kim, H., & Collins, B. (2010). Using activity theory to understand learning design requirements of patient self-management environments. Educational Media International, 47(4), 329–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Schiffman, S. S. (1986). Instructional systems design: Five views of the field. Journal of Instructional Development, 9, 14–21.  https://doi.org/10.2307/30220829.
  64. Schuch, D., Liu, J. C., & Bona, S. (2015). Mentoring graduate students in instructional technology: What we learned from PacifiCorp D&D mentoring. Presentation at the 2015 Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT) International Convention, Indianapolis, IN.Google Scholar
  65. Siemens, G. (2013). Learning analytics: The emergence of a discipline. American Behavioral Scientist, 57(10), 1380–1400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Simonson, S. R., & Shadle, S. E. (2013). Implementing process oriented guided inquiry learning (POGIL) in undergraduate biomechanics : Lessons learned by a novice. Journal of STEM Education, 14(1), 56–64.Google Scholar
  67. Straumsheim, C. (2017, July 26). MIT deems half online, half in-person master’s program a success. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/07/26/mit-deems-half-online-half-person-masters-program-success
  68. Takeuchi, M., & Esmonde, I. (2011). Professional development as discourse change: Teaching mathematics to English learners. Pedagogies, 6(4), 331–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Thompson, A., Dagenhard, P., Castor, T., & Brookins-Fisher, J. (2016). Health education doctoral degree programs: A review of admission and graduation requirements. Health Educator, 48(2), 16–22.Google Scholar
  70. Tien, L. T., Roth, V., & Kampmeier, J. A. (2002). Implementation of a peer-led team learning instructional approach in an undergraduate organic chemistry course. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(7), 606–632.  https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10038.
  71. Valentín-Rivera, L. (2016). Activity theory in Spanish mixed classrooms: Exploring corrective feedback as an artifact. Foreign Language Annals, 49(3), 615–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Van Rooij, S. W. (2010). Project management in instructional design: ADDIE is not enough. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(5), 852–864.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.00982.x.
  73. Wilson, B. G. (1996). Constructivist learning environments: Case studies in instructional design. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.Google Scholar
  74. Woods, D. R. (2014). Problem-oriented learning, problem-based learning, problem-based synthesis, process oriented guided inquiry learning, peer-led team learning, model-eliciting activities, and project-based learning: What is best for you? Industrial and Engineering Chemistry Research, 53(13), 5337–5354.  https://doi.org/10.1021/ie401202k.
  75. 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.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10508400701524777.
  76. Yamagata-Lynch, L. C. (2010). Understanding cultural historical activity theory. In L. C. Yamagata-Lynch (Ed.), Activity systems analysis methods (pp. 13–26). Boston, MA: Springer US.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-6321-5_2.
  77. 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.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2007.08.003.

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.James Madison UniversityHarrisonburgUSA

Section editors and affiliations

  • Lin Lin
    • 1
  • Bernadette Sibuma
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Learning Technologies, College of InformationUniversity of North TexasDentonUSA
  2. 2.Learning and Teaching DivisionEducation Development CenterWalthamUSA

Personalised recommendations