Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Using activity-oriented design methods to study collaborative knowledge-building in e-learning courses within higher education

  • Published:
International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Trends in higher education have contributed to the need for more coordination and collaboration among different constituencies involved in instructional design and delivery. As researchers and educational technologists working in a large public research university, our research focuses on understanding the interactions among various stakeholder groups involved in e-Learning courses. In this paper we provide an interpretation of how Activity-Oriented Design Methods (AODM) based on Activity Theory can be used to develop a more comprehensive understanding of collaborative knowledge building practices among course design teams and their students. We also discuss how these methods can inform instructional design and development within distance education programs. In the absence of universally accepted methods for applying activity theoretical perspectives, these methods provide an analytic scheme for identifying the essential elements of an activity and for examining their interrelationships or contradictions, which are essential to improving the activity overall. The procedures described here have been used in a series of e-Learning case studies at our institution. We draw from one case to illustrate our interpretation of Activity-Oriented Design Methods. The themes discussed in this paper have implications for a broad audience of educational researchers, technologists, instructional systems designers, faculty, course assistants, and administrators concerned with examining and advancing collaboration among different groups in developing e-Learning.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

References

  • Ackerson, V., Medina, V., & Wang, N. (2002). A collaborative effort to improve university engineering instruction. School Science and Mathematics, 102(8), 405–419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anfara, V. A., Brown, K. A., & Mangione, T. L. (2002). Qualitative analysis on stage: Making the research process more public. Educational Researcher, 31(7), 28–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Argyris, C., & Schon, D. A. (1974). Theory in practice: Increasing professional effectiveness. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barab, S. A. (2006). Design-based research: A methodological toolkit for the learning scientist. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 153–169). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barab, S., Barnett, M., Ymgala-Lynch, L., Squire, K., & Keating, T. (2004a). Using activity theory to understand the systemic tensions characterized in a technology rich introductory astronomy course. Mind, Culture and Activity, 9(2), 76–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barab, S. A., Evans, M. A., & Baek, E. (2004b). Activity theory as a lens for characterizing the participatory unit. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 199–214). Bloomington, IN: Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT). Retrieved May 1, 2006, from http://www.aect.org/Intranet/Publications/index.asp#hb.

  • Barab, S., & Squire, K. (2004). Design-based research: Putting a stake in the ground. The Journal of Learning Sciences, 13(1), 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becker, H. J., & Ravitz, J. (1999). The influence of computer and internet use on teachers’ pedagogical practices and perception. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 31(4), 356–384.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Lou, Y., Borokhovski, E., Wade, A., Wozney, L., et al. (2004). How does distance education compare with classroom instruction? A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Review of Educational Research, 74(3), 379–439.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boettcher, J. V., & Conrad, R. (2004). Faculty guide for moving teaching and learning to the Web, 2nd edition. Phoenix, AZ: League for Innovation in the College.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience and school. Washington, D.C: Committee on Developments in the Science of Learning.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 453–494). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Darling-Hammond, L., & Bransford, J. (2005). Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dede, C. (2004). If design-based research is the answer, what is the question? A commentary on Collins, Joseph, Bielaczyc; diSessa and Cobb; and Fishman, Marx, Blumenthal, Krajcik, and Soloway. The Journal of Learning Sciences, 13(1), 105–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, D. (1990). Classroom discourse and classroom knowledge. In C. Rogers & P. Kutnick (Eds.), Readings in the social psychology of the primary classroom (pp. 20–35). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Engeström, Y. (1991). Non scolae sed vitae discimus: Toward overcoming the encapsulation of learning. In H. Daniels (Ed.), An introduction to Vygotsky (pp. 151–170). New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 (pp. 64–103). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Engeström, Y. (1995). Innovative organizational learning in medical and legal settings. In L. M. W. Martin, K. Nelson & E. Tobach (Eds.), Sociocultural psychology: Theory and practice of doing and knowing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Engeström, Y. (1999a). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen & R. Punamaki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 19–38). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Engeström, Y. (1999b). Innovative learning in work teams: Analyzing cycles of knowledge creation in practice. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen & R. Punamaki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 377–404). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Engestrom, Y., & Miettinen, R. (1999). Introduction. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen & R. Punamaki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 377–404). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Engeström, Y., Miettinen, R., & Punamäki, R.-L. (Eds.). (1999). Perspectives on activity theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Eraut, M. (1994). Developing professional knowledge and competence. London: Rutledge Falmer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ernst, D., Jorn, L., Wagner, M., McGlynn, N., Molgaard, L., Sonnack, J., Oliver, J., et al. (2004). Faculty technology survey. (Tech Report), Digital Media Center, Office of Informational Technology, University of Minnesota, MN, USA.

  • Ertmer, P. A. (2005). Teachers pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology integration? Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 25–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fassnacht, C., & Woods, D. (2006). Transana (Version 2.10) [Computer software]. Madison, WI: The Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System. Retrieved May 10, 2006, from http://www.transana.org.

  • Fisher, E. (1997). Developments in exploratory talk and academic argument. In R. Wegerif & P. Scrimshaw (Eds.), Computers and talk in the primary classroom (pp. 38–48). Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hakkarainen, P. (1999). Play and motivation. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen & R. Punamaki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 231–249). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haythornthwaite, C. (2006). Facilitating collaboration in online learning. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 10(1), 7–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hedegaard, M. (1999). Activity theory and history teaching. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen, & R. Punamaki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 282–297). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herring, S. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Linguistic, social and cross-cultural perspectives. Amsterdam, PA: J. Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hewitt, J. (2004). An exploration of community in a knowledge forum classroom: An activity system analysis. In S. A. Barab, R. Kling, & J. H. Gray (Eds.), Designing for virtual communities in the service of learning (pp. 210–238). Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Computers in the classroom: Mindtools for critical thinking. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, C., Dirckinck-Holmfeld, L., & Lindstrom, B. (2006). A relational, indirect, meso-level approach to CSCL design in the next decade. International Journal of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(1), 35–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (1995). Student achievement through staff development: Fundamentals of school renewal, 2nd edition. White Plains, NY: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khan, B. H. (2005). Managing e-learning: Design, delivery, implementation and evaluation. Hershey, PA: Information Science.

    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 (pp. 17–44). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuutti, K. (1999). Activity theory, transformation of work, and information systems design. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen, & R. Punamaki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 360–376). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, E. Y. C., Chan, C. K. K., & Aalst, J. V. (2006). Student assessing their own collaborative knowledge building. International Journal of Computer-supported Collaborative Learning, 1(1), 57–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Leont'ev, A. N. (1981). Problems of the development of the mind. Moscow: Progress Publisher

    Google Scholar 

  • Levy, F., & Murnane, R. J. (2004). The new division of labor: How computers are creating the next job market. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Light, P., Littleton, K., Messer, D., & Joiner, R. (1994). Social and communicative processes in computer-based problem solving. European Journal of Psychology in Education, 9(1), 93–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lompscher, J. (1999). Activity formation as an alternative strategy of instruction. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen, & R. Punamaki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 264–281). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mercer, N. (1996). The quality of talk in children's collaborative activity in the classroom. Learning and instruction, 6(4), 359–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mercer, N. (2000). Words and minds: How we use language to think together. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mercer, N., & Fisher, E. (1997). The importance of talk. In R. Wegerif & P. Scrimshaw (Eds.), Computers and talk in the primary classroom (pp. 13–21). Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mwanza, D. (2002a). Towards an activity-oriented design method for HCI research and practice. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Open University, Milton Keynes, United Kingdom. Retrieved April 15, 2006, from http://iet.open.ac.uk/pp/d.mwanza/Phd.htm.

  • Mwanza, D. (2002b). Conceptualising work activity for CAL systems design. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18(1), 84–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nardi, B. A. (1996). Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human–computer interaction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paavola, S., Lipponen, L., & Hakkarainen, K. (2004). Models of innovative knowledge communities and three metaphors of learning. Review of Educational Research, 74(4), 557–576.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (2005). Collaborating online: Learning together in community. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paulson, K. (2002). Reconfiguring faculty roles for virtual settings. Journal of Higher Education, 73(1), 123–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raeithel, A. (1992). Activity theory as a foundation for design. In C. Floyd, H. Zullighoven, R. Budde, and R. Keil-Slawick (Eds.), Software development and reality construction (pp. 391–415). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roth, W. M., & Lee, Y. J. (2007). Vygotsky’s neglected legacy: Cultural–historical activity theory. Review of Educational Research, 77(2), 186–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2004a). Computer support for knowledge-building communities. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(3), 265–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C., & Lamon, M. (2004b). The CSILE project: Trying to bring the classroom into World 3. In K. McGilley (Ed.), Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice (pp. 201–228). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scanlon, E., & Issroff, K. (2005). Activity theory and higher education: Evaluating learning technologies. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21(6), 230–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schuster, J. H., & Finkelstein, M. (2004). The American faculty: Restructuring academic work and careers. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stahl, G. (2006a). Computer support for building collaborative knowledge. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stahl, G. (2006b). Analyzing and designing the group cognitive experience. International Journal of Cooperative Information Systems (IJCIS). Retrieved April 24, 2006, from http://www.cis.drexel.edu/faculty/gerry/pub/ijcis.pdf.

  • Stahl, G., Koschmann, T., & Suthers, D. (2006). Computer-supported collaborative learning: An historical perspective. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 409–425). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swan, K. (2006). Assessment and collaboration in online learning. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 10(1), 45–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tallent-Runnels, M. K., Thomas, J. A., Lan, W. Y., Cooper, S., Ahern, T. C., Shaw, S. M., et al. (2006). Teaching courses online: A review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 76(1), 93–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • The Design-based Research Collective (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wegerif, R., & Mercer, P. (1997). A dialogical framework for researching peer talk. In R.Wegerif & P. Scrimshaw (Eds.), Computers and talk in the primary classroom (pp. 48–64). Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wegerif, R., & Scrimshaw, P. (Eds.). (1997). Computers and talk in the primary classroom. Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters.

  • Wells, G. (2002). The role of dialogue in activity theory. Mind, Culture and Activity, 9(1), 43–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wells, G. (2004). Creating and improving a ‘virtual object’ through web-mediated discourse. In R. Ottewill, L. Borredon, L. Falque, B. Macfarlane & A. Wall (Eds.), Educational innovation in economics and business VIII: Pedagogy, technology and innovation. Dordrecht, NL: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. London: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiske, M. S., Franz, K. R., & Breit, L. (2005). Teaching for understanding with technology. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Learning Technologies, College of Education and Human Development, University of Minnesota, Rm 130A Peik Hall, 159 Pillsbury Drive, SE Minneapolis, MN, USA

    Christine Greenhow

  2. Social Sciences Division, Macalester College, 1600 Grand Ave, St. Paul, MN, 55105, USA

    Brad Belbas

Authors
  1. Christine Greenhow
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Brad Belbas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christine Greenhow.

Additional information

Authors contributed equally to this manuscript.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Greenhow, C., Belbas, B. Using activity-oriented design methods to study collaborative knowledge-building in e-learning courses within higher education. Computer Supported Learning 2, 363–391 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-007-9023-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-007-9023-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation