Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature Link
Log in

Activity theory as a framework for designing constructivist learning environments

  • Development
  • Published:
Educational Technology Research and Development Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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 via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

References

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Bødker, S. (1991b).Through the interface: A human activity approach to user interface design. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Engeström, Y. (1987).Learning by expanding: An activity theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki, Finland: Orienta-Konsultit Oy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Engeström, Y. (1992).Interactive expertise: Studies in distributed working intelligence (Research Bulletin 83). Helsinke: University of Helsinke Department of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Engeström, Y., & Middleton, D. (1996).Cognition and communication at work. Boston, MA: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Gibson, J.J. (1979).An ecological approach to visual perception. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Jonassen, D.H. (in press).Computers as mindtools for schools: Engaging critical thinking. Columbus, OH: Prentice-Hall.

  • Jonassen, D.H., & Land, S.M. (1999).Theoretical foundation of learning environments. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

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

  • Kuhn, T. (1972).The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991).Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leont'ev, A. (1972). The problem of activity in psychology.Voprosy filosofii, 9, 95–108.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leont'ev, A. (1974). The problem of activity in psychology.Soviet Psychology, 13(2), 4–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leont'ev, A.N. (1978).Activity, consciousness, and personality. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Linnard, M. (1995). New debates on learning support.Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 11, 239–253.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

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

  • 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 

  • Reigeluth, C.N. (1999).Instructional design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Schank, R., & Cleary, R. (1995).Engines for education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Tessmer, M., & Richey, R. (1997). The role of context in learning and instructional design.Educational Technology: Research and Development, 45(2)

  • 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 

  • Vygotsky. (1982).Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Pennsylvania State University, USA

    David H. Jonassen (Professor of Instructional Systems)

  2. The Pennsylvania State University, USA

    Lucia Rohrer-Murphy (doctoral student in Instructional Systems)

Authors
  1. David H. Jonassen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lucia Rohrer-Murphy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

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

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02299477

Keywords

Search

Navigation