Title
Author(s)
Source
Published by
Activity theory as a framework for project work in learning environments
David Hung and Angela Wong
Educational Technology, 40(2), 33-37
Educational Technology Publications
This document may be used for private study or research purpose only. This document or
any part of it may not be duplicated and/or distributed without permission of the copyright
owner.
The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document.
Copyright © 2000 by Educational Technology Publications, Inc.
This article was originally published in Educational Technology, Vol. 40 No. 2, pp. 33-37.
Archived with permission of the publisher.
Activity Theory as a
Framework for Project
Work in Learning
Environments
David W. L. Hung
Angela F. L. Wong
Recently, researchers have argued for learning to be
situated in rich contexts, becau se robust or useable
knowledge can be appropriated by engaging in tasks
and situations that are authentic (Collins, 1996).
Moreover, learning which begins in rich, situated
contexts can be 'transferred' if intentions to decontextuaUze or generalize the con cepts or knowledge
constructions across situations are made (Bereiter &
Scardamalia, 1989). Authenticity in school curricula
can be supported by investigations that are openended, with answers that are not predefined by any
particular perspective or discipline. Students then can
be engaged in the social construction process of
knowledge. P-roject work can be seen as a form of
open-ended contextual activity-based learning and part
of an instructional process that places great emphasis
on student problem solving as a collaborative effort
carried out over a period of time. Blumenfeld et a!.
(1991) have desc ribed project-based learning as
centered on relatively long-term, problem-focused,
meaningful units of instruction that integrate concepts
from a number of disciplines or fields of study.
Students pursue solutions to authentic problems by
asking and refining questions, debating ideas, 01aking
predictions, desi gning plans and/or experiments,
gathering information, collecting and analyzing data,
drawing conclusions, and communi cating their ideas
and findings to others. (Krajcik, Blumenfeld, Marx, &
Soloway, 1995, p. 483 )
In this article, w e propose activity th eory as a
· framework for proj ect w o rk. Within the framework
David W. l. Hung is Assistant Professor and Angela F. L.
Wong Associ ate Professor at the Nati onal Institute of
Ed~cati?n, ~chool of Education, Nanyang Technologica l
Un1vers1ty, Smgapore (e-mail: [email protected]).
·EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY/March-April 2000
proposed, we describe learning to be the transactional
process between subject, object, and community.
Activity Theory
A broad range of educational research has shown
that it is not possible to fully understand how people
learn or work if dimensions of context are left out
(Hung, 1999). Thus, the recent motivations
unde_rpinning these studies include understanding the
relat1ons among individuals, artifacts, and social
groups.
Activity theory is a cross-disciplinary framework for
~tudying different forms of human practices, factoring
In the processes of context as developmental processes,
both at the individual and social levels at the same
time, including the use of artifacts (Kuutti, 1 997).
Activity theory originated within the cultural-historical
school of Soviet psychology (Wertsch, 1981) with the
'concept of activity' as probably the most important
concept. One of the earliest Soviet philosophers of
psychology, S. L. Rubinshtein (1889-1960), noted that
activity is not merely external behavior; rather, it is
inextricably linked with consciousness . It is the key to
understanding the relationship between consciousness
and the objective world. Hence, conscious learning
emerges from activity or performance, not a precursor
of it Uonassen & Rohrer-Murphy, 1999).
Following Rubinshtein's work , we see the
development of Soviet psychology from L. S. Vygotsky' s
work (in the 1920s and 1930s) to the work of his
students, i_n particular A. N. Leont' ev. Although
Vy~o~sky_d1d not dwell specifically on the concept of
act1~~ty _m ~ny great detail, his work had many
ram1f1 cat1ons 1n the theory of activity in its current form,
for example, his notions of mediation by tools and
signs. It was Leont'ev who developed an integrated
framework for the theory of activity. Fundamentally,
Le~nt'ev claimed that activity should be analyzed at
va nous levels-activities, actions, and operations (the
hi erarchi cal stru cture of an activity). Activities are
di stin guished o n the basi s of their motive and the
object toward which they are oriented; actions, on the
basis of their goals; and operations, on the basis of the
conditions under which they are carried out (Wertsch,
1981 ). Sovi et p sychology al so places emphasi s on
soc ial interaction within an activity context and the
process: s of internalizatio n that take place through
mt~ract1on and mediation . Through internalization,
act1ons ca n become automati c and unconscious
operations. A ctivities are thus not stati c or ri gid entities;
they are u_n~e r continuous change and development.
. An act1v1ty _always contains various artifacts (e.g.,
m struments, s1 gns, procedures, machines, methods,
laws, forms of w o rk organization) and these artifacts
have a medi ating ro le. For example, an instrument
m ~di at:s between an ac~or and the object of doing; the
object 1s seen and manipulated within the limitations
33
I T~~~-1
..
Figure 1. Processes within an activity.
set by the instrument or tool. In addition, artifacts are
created and transformed during the development of
activities themselves, carrying within them a historical
culture-a historical residue of that development.
Moreove r, activity theory takes into account cultural
factors and developmental aspects of human mental life
(B0dker, 1991; Leont'ev, 1978). Th e various features of
th e ' th eory of acti v ity' fit together into a coherent
framework when w e consider that in the Vygotskian
school, th e notions of intern alization are co nce rned
with th e process of th e ability to ca rry out socially
formul ated, goal-directed ac ti o ns with the help o f
mediating tools (W ertsch , 198 1).
Following Soviet psychology, th e notions of acti vity
theory have been subsequently followed up by curren t
researchers in Social-Cultural Psychology (for exa mple,
Wertsch et a/., 1995) . In addi ti on, acti vity th eo ry has
also bee n introduced to th e field of Human- Computer
Interaction (for example, B0dker, 1991 ), Cons tructivist
Lea rning Environments (fo r exa mpl e, Jonassen &
Rohrer-Murph y, 1999), and Instructional Design (fo r
exa mpl e, Wilson, 1999). These studies all emph asize
the need to cons ider the larger context. For example,
instructional des igners need to un de rstand the
practitioner cu lture to at least some extent in order to
design effective produ cts (Wilson, 1999) .
A team of people working togeth er on a project ca n
be seen as a basic unit engaged in an activity. The team
has ob jectives to be achieved with certain o utcomes.
Within the team, the members function as a community
of learn ers operating under expli cit and implic it rul es of
working together, gove rn ed through some form of
divi sion of labo r, and mediated by too ls (see Figure 1,
w hich is adapted from Cole & Engestrom, 199 1). To
reiterate, an activity is a form of doing directed at an
object, and activiti es are distinguished from each other
according to their objects (i.e., intentiona l obj ecti ves).
Rules ca n include timelines and th e process of how the
34
project should be executed. Division of labor
co mprises the different functions and roles respective
team members perform . Tools could be spreadsheets
and comm unication devi ces, including paper and pen .
From Fi gure 1, tools can be perceived as mediating
between subjects (as part of the community} and
objects. Extending the notion of mediation, rules
med iate between subject and community, and division
of labor mediates between object and community.
Rules fo rm the basis for working between subjects in
the community. Division of labor is the means through
which members in the community work through the
o bject to be ach ieved, which then results in an
outcome. In the heart of the activity system or process,
learning occurs through a dialectic or transactional
interaction between subjec t, co mmunity, and object
(see bi-directional arrows). Such a transactional process
is congruent with the social construction or negotiation
of know ledge (Hung, 1999). Th e essence of learning is
seen in the transactional process undergirding social
co nstructivism.
Project Work from a Vygotskian
Perspective of Activity Theory
Vygotsky (1978, 198 1) also posi ts that mind emerges
through in te racti ons with others and the environment,
mediated by artifacts, signs, and language. In particular,
through a process of intern ali zation of external activity,
artifacts affect the kinds of mental processes people
develop. In o th er words, lea rnin g proceeds from
ex ternal act ion to intern al activit'x' . For instance,
chi ldren transact with the world without initially
understanding what they are doing; however, through
such a process, they graduall y notice patterns in thei r
behavior an d come to understand thei r external
ac tiv ity. With this new understa nd ing of their activity
co mes the internali zatio n of th at acti vity. Gradual ly
children rely less on the external supports of people
and obj ects in the world to cue th eir behavior as their
behavior becomes dire cted b y intern al mental
processes . M o reover, a child's th ought processes ca n
go beyond those permitted by the external activity
th ro ugh acti ve manipulatin g of the ex ternal world to
support creative ways of thinking. Given the belief that
the same p rocesses un derli e both cu ltural an d
in d iv idua l deve lopment, soc ia l in teraction is also
f un dame n ta l to V ygotsky ' s theory of child
development.
O ne of the ways children interact w ith a wo rld they
do not understand is by mimi cking or modeling mature
activ ity, behaviors, and actions. In other words, with
th e aid of ex perts, adults, or more capab le peers,
chi ldren are often ab le to perform tasks th at as
in dividua ls th ey wo u ld be incapab le of within the
sti pul ated Zone o f Proximal Development (ZPD). The
ZPD is described as the zo ne through which a more
ca pabl e individual ca n help a less capab le learner to
EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY/March-April2000
achieve a task at a higher po tential level of whi ch he or
she would not be abl e to do indiv iduall y. Whil e more
capable indi vi duals engage i n th e process es of
modeling, learners engage in m irro rin g the actions
provi ded w ithin particul ar activity contex ts (Hung,
1999). Such a process cou lei be perceived as a fo rm of
' division of labo r' (ex pert-l earner) perform ed under
specifi c no rms o r rul es of wo rkin g (mode l i ngmirroring) .
From activity theory' s point of view, thought is also
mediated by artifacts created and evo lved w ithin a
community; hen ce, w ays o f th i nk in g within the
communi ty are I inked with the arti fa cts. Lea rners
should participate in doing tasks, w ith in the ZPD and
mediated by artifacts sim il ar to th ose of used by
practiti o ners o r mature indi v idu als w ithin the
community. Learners canno t use the sa me artifacts as
experts because they are at a different develop mental
level ; however, art ifacts modeled o n expert artifacts
and sim p li fied in certain ways ca n m ediate the
development of the required skill s (Bellamy, 1997) .
Besides using artifacts in thei r culture, experts acti ve ly
change cul ture through the inve ntion and development
of new artifacts. Lea rners can also be encul turated so
that they can participate in this p rocess, giving them the
'constru cti vist' expe ri ence o f evo lv ing th ei r o wn
interpretive norm s thro ugh th eir own cu ltu ral designs.
Artifacts coul d be in the form of presentat ion s,
written documents, progress repo rts, models, pictures,
etc. The main po int i s th at lea rn ers sho uld b e
constructing their own artifacts and sharin g w ith their
community; that i s, mo d eling after the kin ds of
activities practi ced in th e ' rea l co mmunity .' Th e
(s imulated) comm un ity of practi ce prov ides the co ntext
and scaffoldi ng mechani sms w here mode li ng and
coachin g ca n take pl ace. Impo rtantly, the lea rn er must
be will ing to subm it to the tasks and acti o ns required of
him or her (Hung, 1999). In such situati ons, beginners
move from per ipheral partic ipati on in an acti v ity to
central participati on w ithin the community .
expert behaviors; hmvever, we are also advocating that
lea rning sho uld also•.rnodel after activities and practices
within rea l-l ife com munities (the context) .
Funda mentall y, activity theory provides a framework
fo r project work w here learners and experts ca n work
together, establ ishin g shared kn ow ledge, in authen tic
tas ks t hro ugh the use of appropri ate tech nologies,
learni ng resources, an d too ls. W hen learning resources
are made avai lab le thro ugh co mputer- med iated
netwo rks, students have to make w ise decisions to use
th ese arti fa cts to support their own learni ng. In such
contexts, learni ng is less traditiona l than in teachercentered instru ctio n; rather, students io'ok to teach ers
fo r di recti on (Wi lso n, 1999). Wo rk w ithin these project
tea ms shou ld mi rro r the kinds of activities, as fa r as
p o ss ible, seen i n real-l ife p ra cti ces . Bas ica ll y, su ch
efforts are to en cu lturate lea rn ers into activiti es that
'rea l-li fe communi ti es' engage i n. Through such a
transactio nal process, lea rners acqui re perso nal ' robu st'
k now ledge, p rod ucing outco mes of signifi ca nce.
Based on the above no ti o ns of acti vity theo ry,
stu dents wo rk togethe r in sm all groups to so l ve
authentic prob lems in project co llaborati on wi th other
students and mo re capab le in div i d uals w here
interactions and tra nsactions w ithi n zones of proxima l
developmen t ca n be establi sh ed. Experts shoul d be
avai lable to talk to students and their interact io ns
mediated by technologies suc h as ema il s, forums, and
know ledge representational too ls. These represe ntational too ls ca n incl ude vi sualizati o n and simulati on
fun ctions, concept mapp i ng, and o th er scaffo ld in g
mechani sms where transactio ns of knowledge ca n be
fostered. M ore capa bl e individuals ca n act as coac hes
or faci litators to the group of st udents, w here they also
aid in giving students feedba ck of their progress. Forms
of se lf-eva lua ti on and peer-evaluation metho ds ca n
also be infused. M uch emphas is has been on mode ling
Project information/procedure scheduling. Th is
stage req uires studen ts to engage in plann i ng,
b rain sto r m in g, li te ratu re sea rch, d ata co ll ecti on,
consoli dation, eva l uation, and reporting. Time lines,
scaffo ld ing p rocedures, and report-writing templates
are prov ided for thei r use. They are requi red to abide
by the timel ines and to submi t p rogress reports of their
work in the fo rm of charts, th inking logs, meetings, and
discuss io n no tes . W it h in th is stage, the assessment
m ethods are also incl uded and made transparen t to the
students. Th ey w ill be assessed via the overall ma rking
scheme, matrix assessme nt, peer evaluation, teacher
evaluati on, and assessment of the written report and
o ral prese ntat ion. We aim that these processes model
the kinds of activities in wh ich real communities
engage. The above tasks reflect the mediationa l p rocess
o f "rules" for the activity context.
EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY/March- April 2000
Design of a Prototype for
Web-Based Project Work
In ou r efforts to promo te project work on li ne using
Web-based techno logies, we have designed an
enviro nment in w h ich students wou ld work in teams
engaged in so lving real- li fe prob lems. Such a system
woul d comprise the fo llowing activities:
Registration/forming of project teams. This can be
fac ilitated v ia th e Intern et, lin k in g part i c ipants
internatio nall y. Each team coul d cons ist o f students
(loca ll y or internat ional ly), a teache r fac ilitator, and
experts from post-seconda ry in stitutions o r industri es.
With the format ion of such teams, zones of proxima l
development can be created, because team members
have va ry ing capabi liti es. The roles and responsib il ities
of each of the tea m members must be made clear to
everybody invo lved. This registration stage reflects th e
m ed iatio nal process of " division of labo-r " to be
formali zed w ithin th e acti vity co ntext.
35
INTERDISCIPLINARY PROJECT WORK
A pilot project by the National Institute of Education
Genera!
Info
PROJECT INTRODUCTION
Title
To study the feasibility of on line elections in Singapore
Subject .A.reas
History, Civic s, f1i1athematics, Technology, Sociology
Registration
Project. Info
Jmroduction
Teachers
Timelines
Procedure
Resources
II-
.A.! the end of th e project, learns are re quired to conclude favourably or unfavourably
on the fea sibility of online elections in Singapore
tAfHhi$-1 ~ol Overail Scfwme
!/Iatit>::
Evaluation
Peer Evaluation
The Si ngaporB
Centr-8 for
T~?ad1ing
TI1inking
Supervisor
E vafufll:ion
Report&
Presentation
Figure 2. Example screen capture for the computer-supported project work system.
Online resources prov1s10n. Reso urces include
thinking tools that ass ist students in prob lem so lvin g,
Web links for the p ro ject, and forum and c hat facilities
for stude nts to co mmuni cate among th emse lves and
w ith teachers and experts. In essence, these tools must
fa ci litate students' thinking and meaning-constructions.
By thinking tools, we mean ep istem i c stru ctu res
supp ortin g stu dents' th oug ht processes. Epistemi c
st ru ctures Jssist students to think a lo ng certa in
perspecti ves of meaning constru ction. H ence, through
the use of too ls th at all ow powerful representations and
comm un icat ions to take place between nov ices and
expert s, transaction in lea rnin g ccm be better faci litated.
The above resources reflect the mediational process of
"tools" in the act ivity context.
As students, teache rs, and experts wo rk together in
project wo rk, eac h w ith his or her spec ific fun ctions of
probl em so lvin g, fac ilitatin g, and p rov idin g exp ert
36
adv ice, students hJve the oppo rtunity to ' mirror' the
processes 'modeled' by mo re knowledgeable
ind ividua ls (Hung, 1999). As co mmunicati on is made
through words and graphical representations, thou ght
processes are made visible for ' modeling-mirroring' to
occu r. Each proj ect wo rk team becomes a sma ll
comm unity w ithin th e larger community of tea ms, each
wo rking o n its p ro ject. Through th e Intern et, these
individual teams can com~u ni cate and share
know ledge. Figure 2 shows a scree n captu re of th e
Web-based system developed. Th e project as shown
centers aro und an authentic task span ni ng knowledge
from different disciplines.
Conclusion
In conclusion , we recognize th at project wo rk
provides an exce ll ent platform for o ur studen ts to
EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY/March-April 2000
improve their thinking abilities and I ife-long learning
traits. Activity theory provides a hoi istic framework for
students to engage in activities authentic to real-life
practices. Activity theory admonishes us to focus not
only on the design of 'tools," but also on how to craft
the 'division of labor' to facilitate learning and
formulate 'rules' for reaching instru ctional outcomes .
The kinds of collaboration between novices and experts
and tasks individuals have to be engaged in reflect
what real practitioners do in any community. We hope
that in the process of engaging in project work, the
transactional processes of learning can be fostered.
To reiterate, there has been a lot of work done on
the design of tools or technologi es for meaningful
learning. Unless due consideration is given to the other
mediational components of an activity system , our
design considerations of the learnin g context may be
incommensurate.
D
Kuutti , K. (1997). Activity th eory as Cl potential framework for
humCln-computcr interaction resea rch. In B. A. Nardi (Ed.),
Context and ~onsciousness: Activity theory and humancomputer interaction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Leon t'ev, A. N . (1 978). Ac tivity, consciousness, and
personality. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prenti ce-Hall.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of
hig her psychological processes. Ca mbridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (19111 ). The ge nesis of hi gher mental
functions. In j.V. Wertsch (E d.), The concept of activity in
Soviet psychology. White Plains, NY: M. Sharpe.
.Wertsch, ). V. (Eel.) ! 19Ell ). Th e concept of activit)' in Soviet
psychology. White Plains, NY: M. Sharpe.
Wertsch, ). V. , del Rio, P. , & Alvarez, A. (Eds. J. (1995 ).
Sociocultural studies of mind. Cambridge: Ca mbridge, UK:
University Press.
Wilson, B. G. (1999, jan.-Feb.). Adopti o n of lea rn ing
techno logies: Toward new frameworks for und erstanding
the link between design and usc. Educational Technology,
39(1 ).
References
Bellamy, R. (1997) . D esigning ed uca tional tec hnology :
Computer-mediated change. In B. A. Nardi (Ed.), Context
and consciousness: Activity theory and human-computer
interaction . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1989). Intentiona l learning as
a goal of instruction . In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Cognition and
instruction: Issues and agendas. Hillsda le, Nj: Lawre nce
Erlbaum Associates.
Blumenfeld, P.C., Soloway, E., Marx, R.W., Krajcik, j.S.,
Guzdial, M., & Palincsar, A. (199 1 ). M otivating projectbased learning: Sustaining th e doing, supporting the
learning. Educational Psychologist, 26(3&4), 369- 398 .
B0dker, S. (1991). Activity th eory as a c hallenge to systems
design . In H. E. Nissen, H . K. Kl ein, & R. Hirsc hhei m
(Eds.), Information sys tems res earch: Contemporary
approaches and emerging traditions. Amsterdam: El sevier.
Cole, M., & Engestrom, Y. (199 1 ). A c ultural -hi storica l
approach to di stributed cogn iti on . In G. Sa lomon (Ed.).
Distributed cognitions: Psychologica l and educational
considerations. Ca mbridge, UK : Ca mbridge University
Press.
Collins, A. (1996). Design issues for learn ing environments. In
S. Vosniadou, E. De Corte, R. G laser, & H . Mandl (Eds.),
International perspectives on the design of technoloijy
supported learning environments. Hill sdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Hung, D. (1999). Activi t y, Clppre nti ces hip, a nd
epistemological appropr iation: Im p I ica tion s from the
writings of Mi chael Polanyi. Educa tional Psychologist,
34(4), 193-2 06.
Jonassen, D. , & Rohrer-Murphy, L. (1999). Activity th eory as a
fram ework for d es i gn in g co n stru c ti v i st l earni n g
environments. Educationa l Techno logy Research &
Development, 4 7(1), 61-79 .
Krajcik, j., Blumenfeld, P., Marx, R., & Soloway, E. (1995). A
collaborative model fo r help ing middle grade science
teachers learn project-based instru c ti o n. The Elementary
School journal, 94(5), 483- 497.
EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY/March-April 2000
37