Abstract

The paper argues that the notion of learning environment is not a theoretical concept that can serve as the centerpiece and unit of analysis in research on computersupported collaborative learning, and that the preoccupation in this research domain with implementation of digital learning environments is a largely misguided consequence of the unquestioned expectation that technology will radically change learning. The paper suggests that these two pervasive weaknesses may be at least partially overcome by examining activity systems as an alternative unit of analysis and by focusing on expansive learning instead of implementation as such. A case study of a Finnish middle school demonstrates that it is important to build the introduction of new technologies on the local realities of actual teachers and students. It is unlikely that the implementation and diffusion of advanced digital learning environments will be successful in a school where the teachers will not allow the students to use computers during recess and the students believe that their teachers will in any case take away the computers the next day. In the school examined in the case study, the building of trust and optimism by means of simple new practices and artifacts was the first step toward a serious collective engagement with the potentials of computers for instruction and learning.

References

Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective. Reading: Addison-Wesley.

Barab, S. A., & Kirshner, D. (2001). Guest editors’ introduction: Rethinking methodology in the learning sciences. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 10, 5-15.

Beers, P. J., Boshuizen, H. P. A., Kirshner, P. A., & Gijselaers, W. H. (2005). Computer support for knowledge construction in collaborative learning environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 21, 623-643.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

de Castell, S., Bryson, M., & Jenson, J. (2002). Object lessons: Towards an educational theory of technology. First Monday, 7(1).

Cole, M. (1996). Cultural psychology: A once and future discipline. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Cuban, L. (1986). Teachers and machines: The classroom use of technology since 1920. New York: Teachers College Press.

Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

De Corte, E., Verschaffel, L., Entwistle, N., & van Merriënboer, J. (Eds.) (2003). Powerful learning environments: Unravelling basic components and dimensions. Amsterdam: Pergamon.

Dodds, P., & Fletcher, J. D. (2004). Opportunities for new ‘smart’ learning environments enabled by next-generation web capabilities. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 13, 391-404.

Edwards, P. N. (1997). The closed world: Computers and the politics of discourse in cold war America. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Engeström, Y. (1999a). Expansive visibilization of work: An activity-theoretical perspective. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 8, 63-93.

Engeström, Y. (1999b). Innovative learning in work teams: Analyzing cycles of knowledge creation in practice. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen, & R-L. Punamäki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14, 133-156.

Engeström, Y. (2005). Knotworking to create collaborative intentionality capital in fluid organizational fields. In M. M. Beyerlein, S. T. Beyerlein, & F. A. Kennedy (Eds.), Collaborative capital: Creating intangible value. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Engeström, Y., Engeström, R., & Suntio, A. (2002a). Can a school community learn to master its own future? An activity-theoretical study of expansive learning among middle school teachers. In G. Wells, & G. Claxton (Eds.), Learning for life in the 21st century: Sociocultural perspectives on the future of education. London: Blackwell.

Engeström, Y., Engeström, R., & Suntio, A. (2002b). From paralyzing myths to expansive action: Building computer-supported knowledge work into the curriculum from below. In G. Stahl (Ed.), Computer support for collaborative learning: Foundations for a CSCL community. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Engeström, Y., & Escalante, V. (1996). Mundane tool or object of affection? The rise and fall of the Postal Buddy. In B. A. Nardi (Ed.), Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human-computer interaction. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Feenberg, A. (1999). Questioning technology. New York: Routledge.

Gulikers, J. T. M., Bastiaens, T. J., & Martens, R. L. (2005). The surplus value of an authentic learning environment. Computers in Human Behavior, 21, 509-521.

Hasu, M., & Engeström, Y. (2000). Measurement in action: An activity-theoretical perspective on producer-user interaction. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 53, 61-89.

Herrington, J., & Oliver, R. (2000). An instructional design framework for authentic learning environments. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 48(3), 23-48.

Järvelä, S., & Volet, S. (2004). Motivation in real-life, dynamic, and interactive learning environments: Stretching constructs and methodologies. European Psychologist, 9, 193-197.

Keller, C. (2005). Virtual learning environments: Three implementation perspectives.Learning, Media & Technology, 30, 299-311.

Kirshner, P. A. (2005). Learning in innovative learning environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 21, 547-554.

de Kock, A., Sleegers, P., & Voeten, M. J. M. (2004). New learning and the classification of learning environments in secondary education. Review of Educational Research, 74, 141-170.

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

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

McNeil, L. M. (1999). Contradictions of control: School structure and school knowledge. New York: Routledge.

Pippin, R. B. (1995). On the notion of technology as ideology. In A. Feenberg, & A. Hannay (Eds.), Technology and the politics of knowledge. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Pressman, J. L., & Wildavsky, A. (1984). Implementation. 3rd edition. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Sutter, B. (2001). Instruction at heart: Activity-theoretical studies of learning and development in coronary clinical work. Karlskrona: Blekinge Institute of Technology.

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

Wasson, B., Ludvigsen, S., & Hoppe, U. (eds.) (2003). Designing for change in networked learning environments. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Wertsch, J. V. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Zinchenko, V. P. (1985). Vygotsky’s ideas about units for the analysis of mind. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.), Culture, communication, and cognition: Vygotskian perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.