You are here:

Methods for Evaluating Learner Activities with New Technologies: Guidelines for the Lab@Future Project
Article

, Institute of Educational Technology, The Open University, United Kingdom ; , Centre for Activity Theory & Developmental Work Research, University of Helsinki, Finland ; , Center for Scientific Visualization, Ljubljana, Slovenia

International Journal on E-Learning, ISSN 1537-2456 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC USA

Full Text

Abstract

The task of evaluating learner activities with new technologies is becoming increasingly complex because traditional evaluation strategies do not adequately consider the unique and often dynamic characteristics of learners and activities carried out. Learner activities are largely driven by motives and relationships that exist in the context in which learning takes place. The article draws insights from theories of human activity and learning in order to understand learners and activities carried out using new technologies. Theory-informed guidelines were abstracted from activity theory and the theory of expansive learning and presented as a method for evaluating learner activities in an international project funded by the European Union (EU), specifically, Lab@Future. We describe basic features of the theories and use a case study to present an example implementation of the theory-informed guidelines used as a method for evaluating learner activities with new technologies. The ultimate goal of this study was to establish a method for applying activity theory-based pedagogical insight to the evaluation of learner activities in the Lab@Future project. The article concludes by reflecting on the benefits of using theory-informed guidelines as a method for evaluating learner activities with new technologies.

Citation

Mwanza-Simwami, D., Engeström, Y. & Amon, T. (2009). Methods for Evaluating Learner Activities with New Technologies: Guidelines for the Lab@Future Project. International Journal on E-Learning, 8(3), 361-384. Waynesville, NC USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved December 6, 2023 from .

© 2009 Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)

Keywords

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Alciatore, D., & Histand, M. (2003) Introduction to Mechatronics and Measurement Systems–2nd Edition, New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
  2. Alm, I. (2003). Designing interactive interfaces: Theoretical considerations of the complexity of standards and guidelines, and the difference between evolving and formalised systems. Interacting with Computers, 15: 109–119.
  3. Camerer, C.F. (2003). Behavioral game theory: Experiments on strategic interaction. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  4. Camerer, C.F., Ho, T.-H., & Chong, J.K. (2003). Models of thinking, learning and teaching in Methods for Evaluating Learner Activities with New Technologies 383
  5. Courtiat, J-P., Davarakis, C., Totter, A., Mwanza, D., Faust, M., Kaufmann, H., & Villemur, T. (2004). Evaluating Lab@Future: A collaborative e-learning laboratory experiments platform. In Proceedings of the European Distance and E-Learning Network Annual Conference. Budapest, Hungary: EDEN.
  6. Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki, Finland: Orienta-Konsultit Oy.
  7. Engeström, Y. (1994). Training for change: New approach to instruction and learning in working life. Geneva, Switzerland: International Labor Organisation.
  8. Hodgson, V.E. (2002). The European Union and e-learning: An examination of rhetoric, theory and practice. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18(3), 240–252.
  9. Issroff, K., & Scanlon, E. (2002). Using technology in higher education: An activity theory perspective. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18(1), 77–83.
  10. Kaptelinin, V., & Nardi, A.B. (2006). Acting with technology: Activity theory and interaction design. In A.B. Nardi, V. Kaptelinin, & K. Foot (Eds.), Acting with Technology Series. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  11. Kolb, D.A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
  12. Leont’ev, A.N. (1978). Activity, consciousness, and personality. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
  13. Mwanza, D. (2001). Where theory meets practice: A case for an activity theory based methodology to guide computer system design. In M. Hirose (Ed.), Proceedings of INTERACT’ 2001: Eighth IFIP TC 13 International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, pp. 342–349. Tokyo,
  14. Nunes, J.M., & Fowell, S.P. (1996). Hypermedia as an experimental learning tool: A theoretical model. Information Research New, 6(4), 15–27.
  15. O’Keeffe, I., Brady, A., Conlan, O., & Wade, V. (2006). Just-in-time generation of pedagogically sound, context sensitive personalized learning experiences. International Journal on E-Learning, 5(1), 113–127.
  16. Pavlov, P. (1928) Lectures on conditioned reflexes, vol. I. London: Lawrence and Wishart.
  17. Pimentel, J.R. (1999). Design of net-learning systems based on experiential learning. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks 3(2), 64–90.
  18. Polanyi, M. (1966). The tacit dimension. Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company, Inc.
  19. Schön, D.A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York, NY: Basic Books.
  20. Stahl, G. (2005). Engagement with learning. Foreword in D. Hung& M.S. Khine (Eds.), Engaged Learning with Emerging Technologies (pp. I-v). Boston: Springer.
  21. Taylor, J., Sharples, M., O’Malley, C., Vavoula, G., & Waycott, J. (2006). Towards a task model for mobile learning: a dialectical approach. International Journal of Learning Technology. In P. McAndrew& A. Jones (Eds.), Special Issue on Interactions, Objects and Outcomes in Learning. 2(2, 3), 138–158. UK: Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.
  22. Tuomi-Gröhn, T. (2005). Studying learning, transfer and content: A comparison of current approaches to Learning. In Y. Engeström, J. Lompscher, & G. Rückriem (Eds.), Putting Activity Theory to Work: Contributions from Developmental Work Research. International Cultural Historical Sciences. 3, 21–47. Berlin: Lehmanns Media.
  23. Vavoula, G.N., Lefrere, P., O’Malley, C., Sharples, M., & Taylor, J. (2004). Producing guidelines for learning, teaching and tutoring in a mobile environment. In J. Roschelle, T. Chan, & Y. Kinshuk (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2nd IEEE International Workshop on Wireless and Mobile Technologies in Education (WMTE), pp. 173–176. Los Alamitos, CA: Computer Society Press.
  24. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  25. Yi, J. (2006). Externalization of tacit knowledge in online environments. International Journal on E-Learning, 5(4), 663–674.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References

Also Read

Related Collections