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.
Similar content being viewed by others
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
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.
Bødker, S. (1991b).Through the interface: A human activity approach to user interface design. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
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.
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
Engeström, Y. (1987).Learning by expanding: An activity theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki, Finland: Orienta-Konsultit Oy.
Engeström, Y. (1992).Interactive expertise: Studies in distributed working intelligence (Research Bulletin 83). Helsinke: University of Helsinke Department of Education.
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.
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.
Gibson, J.J. (1979).An ecological approach to visual perception. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Jonassen, D.H. (1991). Objectivism vs. constructivism: Do we need a new paradigm?Educational Technology: Research and Development., 39(3), 5–14.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991).Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Leont'ev, A. (1972). The problem of activity in psychology.Voprosy filosofii, 9, 95–108.
Leont'ev, A. (1974). The problem of activity in psychology.Soviet Psychology, 13(2), 4–33.
Leont'ev, A.N. (1978).Activity, consciousness, and personality. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
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.
Linnard, M. (1995). New debates on learning support.Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 11, 239–253.
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.
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.
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.
Reigeluth, C.N. (1999).Instructional design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
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.
Schank, R., & Cleary, R. (1995).Engines for education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
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.
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.
Vygotsky. (1982).Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
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
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
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02299477