A triangular prism model: Using activity theory to examine online learning communities

Education and Information Technologies

Volumn 18, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 85-93

  Keengwe, Jared ^a   Kang, Jung Jin ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NORTH DAKOTA   (United States)

^b MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Activity theory; Inservice teachers; Online Learning Communities (OLC); Preservice teachers; Triangular Prism Model (TPM)

Indexed keywords

EID: 84873750521     PISSN: 13602357     EISSN: 15737608     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10639-011-9178-4     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Barab, S. A., Barnet, G. M., Yamagata-Lynch, L. C., Squire, K., & Keating, T. (2002). Using activity theory to understand the contradictions characterizing a technology-rich introductory astronomy course. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 9(2), 76-107.
2. Barab, S., Schatz, S., & Scheckler, R. (2004). Using activity theory to conceptualize online community and using online community to conceptualize activity theory. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 11(1), 25-47.
3. Boer, N., van Baalen, P., & Kumar, K. (2002). An activity theory approach for studying the situatedness of knowledge sharing. In Proceedings of the 35th Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences.
4. Engestrom, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133-157.
5. Groff, J., & Mouza, C. (2008). A framework for addressing challenges to classroom technology use. AACE Journal, 16(1), 21-46.
6. Heinze, A., & Procter, C. (2004). Reflections on the use of blended learning. Proceedings of Education in a Changing Environment, University of Salford, UK.
7. Hur, J. W., & Hara, N. (2006). Factors cultivating sustainable online communities for K-12 teacher professional development. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 36(3), 245-268.
8. Issroff, K., & Scanlon, E. (2002). Using technology in higher education: an activity theory perspective. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18(1), 77-83.
9. Jonassen, D. H., & Rohrer-Murphy, L. (1999). Activity theory as a framework for designing constructivist learning environment. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 47(1), 61-79.
10. Jonassen, D. H., Peck, K. L., & Wilson, B. G. (1999). Learning with technology: A constructivist perspective. Upper Saddle River: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
11. Kang, J. J. (2011). Examining successful online community and the participants with a Triangular prism activity systems model, In Proceedings of the 23rd Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education.
12. Kaptelinin, V., Nardi, B., & Macaulay, C. (1999). The activity checklist: a tool for representing the "space" of context. Interactions, July & August, 27-39.
13. Karasavvidis, L. (2009). Activity Theory as a theoretical framework for the study of blended learning: a case study. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Networked Learning.
14. Lantolf, J. P., & Appel, G. (1994). Vygotskian approaches to second language research. Norwood: Ablex.
15. Lock, J. (2006). New image: online communities to facilitate teacher professional development. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14(4), 663-678.
16. Mason, R. (2006). Learning technologies for adult continuing education. Studies in Continuing Education, 28(2), 121-133.
17. Mwanza D. (2002). Towards an activity-oriented design method for HCI research and practice. Unpublished PhD thesis. The Open University, Milton Keynes, United Kingdom.
18. Nelson, C., & Kim, M. K. (2001). Contradictions, appropriation and transformation: an activity theory approach to L2 writing and classroom practice. Texas Papers for Foreign Language Education, 6(1), 37-62.
19. Nielsen, J., & Norman, D. (2003). Making web advertisements work. Unpublished article. Retrieved July 12, 2011, from http://www. useit. com/alertbox/20030505. html.
20. Palloff, R., & Pratt, K. (1999). Building learning communities in cyberspace: Effective strategies for the online classroom. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
21. Pea, R. D. (1993). Practices of distributed intelligence and designs for education. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 47-87). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
22. Preece, J. (2000). Online communities: Designing usability and supporting sociability. Chichester: Willey.
23. Preece, J., Nonnecke, B., & Andrews, D. (2004). The top five reasons for lurking: improving community experiences for everyone. Computers in Human Behavior, 20(2), 201-223.
24. Richards, J. C., Gallo, P. B., & Renandya, W. A. (2001). Exploring teachers' beliefs and the processes of change. PAC Journal, 1(1), 41-58.
25. Schrum, L., & Hong, S. (2002). Dimensions and strategies for online success: voices from experienced educators. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 6(1), 57-67.
26. Sheu, F. (2001). Activity Theory Framework and Cognitive Perspectives in Designing Technology-Based Support Systems. Retrieved June 10, 2011, from http://www. eric. ed. gov/ERICWebPortal/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED47017.
27. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
28. Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. M. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice: A guide to managing knowledge- seven principles for cultivating communities of practice. Cambridge: Harvard Business Press.
29. Yamagata-Lynch, L. C. (2003). Using activity theory as an analytical lens for examining technology professional development in schools. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 10(2), 100-119.