Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,181

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Activity theory as a framework for designing constructivist learning environments

Jonassen, David H., Rohrer-Murphy, Lucia·1999·Educational Technology Research and Development
DOI 10.1007/bf02299477
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/bf02299477

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 34

  1. Bellamy, R.K.E. (1996). Designing educational technology: Computer-mediated change. In B.A Nardi (Ed.),Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human-computer interaction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
  2. Bødker, S. (1991a). Activity theory as a challenge to systems design. IN H.E. Nissen, H.K. Klein, & R. Hirschheim (Eds.),Information systems research: Contemporary approaches and emergent traditions. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
  3. Bødker, S. (1991b).Through the interface: A human activity approach to user interface design. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  4. Cognition and Technology Group. (1992). Technology and the design of generative learning environments. In D.H. Jonassen & T.M. Duffy (Eds.),Constructivism and the technology of instruction: A conversation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  5. de Vos, G.A. (1986) Insight and symbol: Dimensions of analysis in psychoanalytic anthropology.The Journal of Psychoanalytic Anthropology, 9(3), Summer 1986, 199–233
  6. Engeström, Y. (1992).Interactive expertise: Studies in distributed working intelligence (Research Bulletin 83). Helsinke: University of Helsinke Department of Education.
  7. Engeström, Y., & Middleton, D. (1996).Cognition and communication at work. Boston, MA: Cambridge University Press. · DOI · Paper page
  8. Fishbein, D.D., Eckart, T., Lauver, E., van Leeuwen, R., & Langemeyer, D. (1990). Learners' questions and comprehension in a tutoring system.Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 163–170. · DOI
  9. Jonassen, D.H. (1991). Objectivism vs. constructivism: Do we need a new paradigm?Educational Technology: Research and Development., 39(3), 5–14.
  10. Jonassen, D.H. (in press).Computers as mindtools for schools: Engaging critical thinking. Columbus, OH: Prentice-Hall.
  11. Jonassen, D.H., & Land, S.M. (1999).Theoretical foundation of learning environments. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  12. Kapetlinin, V. (1996). Activity theory: Implications for human-computer interaction. In B.A. Nardi (Ed.),Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human-computer interaction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  13. Koistinen, K., & Kangasoja, J. (1997).Learning to survive: How does a small multimedia company learn to master the production process? Paper presented at the 1st Nordic-Baltic Conference on Activity Theory.
  14. Korvela, P. (1997).How to analyze everyday activity at home? Paper presented at the 1st Nordic-Baltic Conference on Activity Theory.
  15. Kuhn, T. (1972).The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  16. 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. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  17. Kuutti, K. (1991). Activity theory and its applications to information systems research and development. In H.E. Nissen, H.K. Klein, & R. Hirschheim (Eds.),Information systems research: Contemporary approaches and emergent traditions (pp. 529–549). North Holland: Elvsevier Science Publishers B.V.
  18. Land, S.M., & Hannafin, M. (1996). A conceptual framework for the development of theories-inaction with open-ended learning environments.Educational Technology: Research and Development, 44(3), 37–53.
  19. Leont'ev, A. (1972). The problem of activity in psychology.Voprosy filosofii, 9, 95–108.
  20. Leont'ev, A. (1974). The problem of activity in psychology.Soviet Psychology, 13(2), 4–33. · DOI · Paper page
  21. Leont'ev, A.N. (1978).Activity, consciousness, and personality. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
  22. Leont'ev, A.N. (1981). The problem of activity in psychology. In J.V. Wertsch (Ed.),The concept of activity in Soviet psychology. Armonk, NY: Sharpe.
  23. Linnard, M. (1995). New debates on learning support.Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 11, 239–253. · DOI
  24. Nardi, B.A. (1996). Studying context: A comparison of activity theory, situated action models, and distributed cognition. In B.A Nardi (Ed.),Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human-computer interaction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  25. Nardi, B. & Miller, J. (1991). Twinkling lights and nested loops: Distributed problem solving and spreadsheet development.International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 34, 161–184. · DOI · Paper page
  26. Nissen, H.E., Klein, H.K., & Hirschheim, R. (Eds.). (1991).Information systems research: Contemporary approaches and emergent traditions.
  27. Perkins, D.N. (1993). Person-plus: A distributed view of thinking and learning. In G. Salomon (Ed.),Distributed cognitions.: Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 88–110). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  28. Reigeluth, C.N. (1999).Instructional design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  29. Savery, J., & Duffy, T.M. (1995). Problem based learning: An instructional model and its constructivist framework. In B.G. Wilson (Ed.),Constructivist learning environments: Case studies in instructional design. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
  30. Schank, R., & Cleary, R. (1995).Engines for education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  31. Spiro, R.J., & Jehng, J.C. (1991). Cognitive flexibility and hypertext: Theory and technology for non-linear and multidimensional traversal of complex subject matter. In D. Nix and R. Spiro (Eds.),Cognition, education, & multimedia. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  32. Tessmer, M., & Richey, R. (1997). The role of context in learning and instructional design.Educational Technology: Research and Development, 45(2) · DOI · Paper page
  33. Winegar, L. (1992). Children's emerging understanding of social events: Co-construction and social process. In L.T. Winegar & J. Valsiner (Eds.),Children's development within social context (pp. 3–27). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
  34. Vygotsky. (1982).Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Cited by

See all 1,181

Metadata

Authors
Jonassen, D. H., & Rohrer-Murphy, L.
Venue
Educational Technology Research and Development
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
1999-03
Volume
47
Issue
1
Pages
61-79
ISSN
  • 1042-1629 (ISSN-L)
  • 1556-6501
DOI
10.1007/bf02299477
OpenAlex
W1988674822
Cited by
1,181
References
6
FWCI
15.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.