Deborah Littlejohn

DDN 702, Perver Baran

ANALYTIC ESSAY

Fall 2007

Theoretical Perspectives in Pedagogical Practice: Applying Post-positivism and Activity Theory in

Today’s Technologically Mediated Design Education

1

Introduction—What’s in a Paradigm? 3

Ontology, Epistemology and Methodology

Section One: Two Paradigms—Post-positivism and Activity Theory 4

I. POSTPOSITIVISM

A. Definition and Historical Basis 4

B. Basic Assumptions 5

Ontological, Epistemological and Methodological Assumptions

C. Main Concerns and Typical Questions 6

II. ACTIVITY THEORY

A. Definition and Historical Basis 6

B. Basic Assumptions 8

Ontological, Epistemological and Methodological Assumptions

C. Main Concerns and Typical Questions 10

Section Two: Paradigm Analyses 10

I. Comparisons between Post-positivism and Activity Theory

A. Ontological Comparisons 11

B. Epistemological Comparisons 11

C. Methodological Comparisons 12

Section Three: Paradigm Application in Design Pedagogy 12

I. Post-positivism in Educational Research 12

A. Post-positivism Article: Comparing Synthesis Strategies of Novice

Graphic Designers using Digital and Traditional Tools

II. Activity Theory in Educational Research 15

B. Activity Theory Article: Understanding Innovation in

Education Using Activity Theory

Conclusion—Potential Approaches in Research in Design Education 18

References 20

2

Theoretical Perspectives in Pedagogical Practice: Applying Post-positivism and Activity Theory in

Today’s Technologically Mediated Design Education

When all you have is a hammer, the whole world looks like a nail.

— Abraham Maslow

Introduction—What’s in a Paradigm?

A paradigm—from the Greek word for “pattern” or “example”—is a human construct that consists of a

“set of basic beliefs that define the nature of the world, the individual’s place in it and the range of

possible relationships to that world and its parts” (Guba & Lincoln 1998, p. 200). A paradigm, or

theoretical perspective, cannot be proven in a true-or-false sense—i.e., there are no “right” or “wrong”

paradigms—but, following Guba & Lincoln’s definition, paradigms can be described and defined by

answering three basic questions: the ontological question, the epistemological question and the

methodological question (ibid, p. 201). Ontology deals with the study of being and asks such questions

as, for example, “What exists?” “What is the nature of reality and what can be known about it?”

Epistemological questions address “What is the nature of the relationship between the knower and the

would-be-known?” “What is knowledge and how do we come to know it?” And finally, methodological

questions ask, “How can the knower go about discovering the would-be-known?” (ibid, p. 201).

It is critical for the inquirer to state his or her paradigm(s) when undertaking—and later publishing and

sharing—the research findings, for paradigms inform how the inquirer approaches and frames the

research question and proceeds in answering it. Theoretical perspective disclosure allows a reader to

understand exactly how the study is designed and whether or not its findings are applicable in other

contexts—and to judge in a public arena whether or not the research findings are sound. In this tripartite

essay, two theoretical perspectives are critically analyzed to determine their suitability and potential in

applying them to research questions within the domain of design education. The first section defines the

historical basis, main concerns and typical questions for each paradigm—Post-positivism and Activity

Theory—including their ontological, epistemological and methodological assumptions. The second

section compares and contrasts both perspectives to assess their commonalities and differences, and the

third and final section reviews the appropriateness for application of each framework to research

questions in design education—specifically, questions that relate to how digital technologies influence

design pedagogy from both the student’s and the instructor’s point of view. Consequently, examples of

3

previous research conducted under the assumptions of each of the two aforementioned paradigms are

considered in order to help illustrate their potential for application in this domain.

Section One: Two Paradigms—Post-positivism and Activity Theory

Post-positivism—Definition & Historical Basis

Although this paper focuses on the concerns of Post-positivism—the paradigm informing most current

research in the natural sciences today—a brief explanation of Positivism, which is closely related, will

help clarify where the terminology originates. Although the word “positivism” is found in the16th-

century writings of Francis Bacon, the self-styled French scientist Auguste Comte is credited with

popularizing the term through his Société Positiviste, which he founded in 1848 (Crotty 1998).

Positivism, the intellectual roots of which are found in the Western Enlightenment project of the 16th

century, proclaims that theology and metaphysics are out of date, imperfect modes of knowledge and

that positive (positive means “to posit”) knowledge is based on natural phenomena and their properties

and relations as verified by the empirical sciences (Webster’s Online Dictionary & Wikipedia).

Positivist philosophy, associated closely in meaning with the “scientific approach”, claims one objective

“truth” with verifiable patterns that can be predicted with certainty. In other words, Positivism assumes

an a priori “truth” which is discoverable through methodical, rigorous, careful observation that can be

proven through testable and repeatable methodologies. Foremost amongst the individuals to shape and

solidify Positivist thought during the Scientific Revolution is Rene Decartes (1596–1650). He is most

known for introducing Cartesian Dualism—the separation of mind (soul substance) and matter (physical

substance)—from which the mind-body division issued, wherein Descartes claims that mind and matter

can be studied without reference to the one another: the former should be left to the theologians and the

latter constitutes the subject of study for science. Descartes’ concept of the mind/body split would

influence scientific inquiry for the next three centuries (Webster’s Online Dictionary & Wikipedia).

Beginning in the late 19th century, Antipositivism was perhaps the first movement to challenge the rigid

nature of dominant Positivism. Early Antipositivists like Wilhelm Dilthey (1833–1911), Heinrich

Rickert (1863–1936) and later, Max Weber (1864–1920), address the Positivist failure to “appreciate the

fundamental experience of life, and instead favor physical and mental regularities, neglecting the

meaningful experience that was really the defining characteristic of human phenomena” (ibid).

4

Additionally, researchers within the scientific community itself began to express doubts about the

possibility of knowing with certainty any sort of “absolute truth”. For example, Werner Heisenberg

(1901–1976), one of the founders of quantum mechanics, posits in his “uncertainty principle” that “it is

impossible to determine both the position and momentum of a subatomic particle with any real

accuracy” (Crotty 1998, p. 29) leading to the epistemological idea that the very act of observation causes

a particle to behave differently (ibid). In a slightly different vein, Danish scientist Niels Bohr (1885–

1962) asserts the limitations of such scientific knowledge as ontological, as being “not due to how

humans know but to how subatomic particles are” (ibid, p. 30). The publication of Thomas Kuhn’s

(1922–1996) seminal The Structure of Scientific Knowledge (1964) was perhaps the final nail in the

Positivist/Anti-positivist-diatribe coffin. In his publication, Kuhn brought forth an historical and

sociological understanding of science expressing for the first time the notion that scientists work

within—and are constrained by—prevailing “paradigms” while questioning the “alleged objectivity and

value-free neutrality of scientific discovery” (ibid, p. 34).

Post-positivism—Ontological, Epistemological and Methodological Assumptions

Inheritor to these and other corresponding Realist/Relativist ontological debates, Post-positivism—also

known as Post-empiricism—emerged in the 1950s and 60s and is rooted in both the natural sciences and

the history and sociology of science (Webster’s Online Dictionary & Wikipedia). It is characterized by a

more nuanced belief in an ontologically realist “out there” reality that can only be known within some

level of probability (Groat & Wang 2002). Phillips & Burbules define Post-positivism as a

“nonfoundational approach to human knowledge that rejects the view that knowledge is erected on

absolutely secure foundations—for there are not such things; Post-positivists accept fallibilism (the

philosophical doctrine that absolute knowledge is impossible) as an unavoidable fact of life” (Phillips &

Burbules 2000, p. 29). Post-positivists believe that “human knowledge is not based on unchallenged,

solidified foundations; it is conjectural. But they believe there are real grounds, or warrants, for

asserting these beliefs or conjectures—although these warrants can be modified or withdrawn in the

light of further investigation” (Webster’s Online Dictionary & Wikipedia). Additionally, Post-positivists

concede that the “experimental methodologies employed in the natural sciences are often inappropriate

for research involving people” (Groat & Wang 2002, p. 33).

Post-positivism assumes critical-realist ontology and an empiricist epistemology (Denzin & Lincoln

2003). Like its earlier Positivist cousin, it posits a reality that is “out there” to be discovered, however, in

contrast, the reality can only be known imperfectly and within probability, not certainty as in the naïve-

5

realist position of Positivism. Post-positivism postulates, like Positivism, that the universe is comprised

of objective, constant objects and structures that exist as observable entities, on their own, independent

of the observer’s appreciation of them. Following Patton, “Post-positivism takes into account the

criticisms against and weakness of the rigidity of positivism, and now informs much contemporary

social science research, including reality-oriented qualitative inquiry…” (Patton 1990, p. 92) Within

Post-positivist methodologies, the researcher is autonomous from the subject of inquiry, objectivity is

important, and the inquirer manipulates and observes in a dispassionate, objective manner. This

perspective assumes modified experimental, manipulative methodologies that can include both

qualitative and quantitative practices (Denzin & Lincoln 2003).

Post-positivism—Typical Questions & Main Concerns

The typical outcome of Positivist/Post-positivist theory is to “enable people to derive a large number of

descriptive statements from a single explanatory statement” (Lang 1987, p. 14). As such, common

questions approached from a Post-positivist perspective might ask, “What is really going on in the real

world?” What can we establish with some degree of certainty?” How can we study a phenomenon so

that our findings correspond insofar as it’s possible in the real world?” (Patton 1990, p. 91) Above all,

the Positivist/Post-positivist is concerned with “validity, reliability and objectivity” (ibid, p. 93).

Activity Theory—Definition & Historical Basis

Activity Theory (AT) is a meta-theory (a term common to psychology) or a paradigm (the term used in

most social sciences) founded by Alexei Leont’ev (1903–1979) in the 1930s. Although AT has its basis

in the work of Soviet scientists Leont’ev and Sergei Rubinshtein (1889–1960), Lev Vygotsky (1896–

1934), one of the main founders of cultural-historical psychology—the predecessor to Activity

Theory—is credited with developing the initial theories informing the movement (Kaptelinin & Nardi

2006). Indeed, the differences between cultural-historical psychology and Activity Theory are so subtle

that both theories are often combined and referred to as CHAT, cultural-historical activity theory (ibid).

Vygotsky and his colleagues and followers were inspired by Karl Marx’s (1818–1883) anthropology and

methods that focused not on abstractions, but on action, real-life people and society as it is humanly

experienced (Engeström et al 1999). According to Engeström, the historical origins of AT can be located

in classical German philosophy, from Kant (1724–1804) to Hegel (1770–1831) (ibid). Kaptelinin &

Nardi define AT as a “social theory of human consciousness, construing consciousness as the product of

an individual’s interactions with people and artifacts in the context of everyday practical activity.

6

Consciousness is constituted as the enactment of our capacity for attention, intention, memory, learning,

reasoning, speech, reflection and imagination. It is through the exercise of these capacities in everyday

activities that we develop and is the basis for our very existence” (Kaptelinin & Nardi 2006, p. 8).

In the decades following World War II, AT was employed mostly within the psychology of play,

learning, cognition and child development, however during the 1980s and 90s when it was picked up

and internationalized by Scandinavian researchers (Engeström et al 1999), AT research broadened to

include topics such as development of work activities, learning and teaching, implementation of new

cultural tools such as computer technologies, human-computer interaction and issues concerning therapy

(ibid). Yrjö Engeström points out that the internationalization of AT in the 1980s and 90s has taken

place in the midst of massive changes in political and economic systems worldwide, for example, the

Berlin Wall fell—along with the Soviet Union—and South African apartheid was abolished, while

Nelson Mandela was freed from prison (ibid). Engeström notes, “Many of the current changes [in world

political systems] share two fundamental features: first, they are manifestations of activities from below,

not just outcomes of traditional maneuvering among the elite of political decision makers; and second,

they are unexpected or at least very sudden and rapidly escalating. These two features pose a serious

challenge to behavioral and social sciences” (ibid, p. 19).

The AT paradigm emphasizes that human activity is mediated by tools, and furthermore, tools are

created and transformed during the development of the activity itself and carry with them a particular

culture, understood from the historical remains of their development (ibid). Consequently, the use of

tools is an accumulation and transmission of social knowledge and it influences the nature of external

behavior and also the mental functioning of individuals (ibid). AT seeks to “understand individual

human beings, as well as the social entities they compose, in their natural everyday life circumstances,

through an analysis of the genesis, structure and processes of their activities as it is mediated by tools.

The concept of activity is therefore the most fundamental concept in AT. Activity in general, not only

human activity, but activity of any subject, is understood as a purposeful interaction of the subject with

the world, a process in which mutual transformations between the poles of ‘subject-object’ are

accomplished” (Kaptelinin & Nardi 2006, p. 31).

Within the scope of this paper, Activity Theory is discussed as a theory for understanding how people

act and learn with technology from the point of view of Vygotsky’s cultural-historical AT, also known,

7

as aforementioned, by the acronym CHAT—rather than delving into its utilization in psychology or

dwelling on the myriad applications in other domains of inquiry.

Activity Theory—Ontological, Epistemological and Methodological Assumptions

Since the publication of Denizin & Lincoln’s 1998 anthology The Landscape of Qualitative Research,

authors Guba & Lincoln note that several researchers have contemplated the paradigm tables reproduced

in their chapter “Competing Paradigms in Qualitative Research” included in this anthology (Denzin &

Lincoln 2003). John Heron and Peter Reason, for example, advocate for including a fifth

Participatory/Cooperative paradigm, an illustration of which is published in this second edition (ibid). A

careful study of the characteristics outlining the five major paradigms discussed in Guba & Lincoln’s

newly formulated tables reveals that AT shares, in varying degrees, some of the same characteristics

with the five major frameworks expressed in these tables: the Participatory/Cooperative (which shares

some ontological characteristics with Post-positivism), Constructivism and Critical Theory paradigms.

Such “paradigm blending” is not very surprising—indeed, it is predictable, according to Guba &

Lincoln, “… the reader familiar with several theoretical and paradigmatic strands of research will find

echoes of many streams of thought come together in the extended table” [illustrated in Denzin &

Lincoln’s new edition]. What this means is that the categories, as Laurel Richardson has pointed out,

‘are fluid, indeed what should be a category keeps altering, enlarging… even as [we] write, the

boundaries between the paradigms are shifting’” (ibid, p. 264).

Echoing the ontological relativist position of Constructivism, Activity Theory proposes that “truth” is

realized by what human beings do, in everyday activity—i.e., doing things in a social environment of

people and artifacts where reality is constructed in a local and specific context (Kaptelinin & Nardi

2006). However, Activity Theory does not strictly adhere to Constructivist ontology; it understands a

participative subjective-objective reality (hence its tenuous overlap with Positivism/Post-positivism) and

a critical-subjective extended epistemology including co-created findings, as in Heron & Reason’s

Participatory paradigm. Following Heron & Reason’s explanation of the Participatory paradigm, “Mind

and the given cosmos are engaged in a co-creative dance, so that what emerges as reality is the fruit of

an interaction of the given cosmos and the way the mind engages with it… What can be known about

the world is that it is always known as a subjectively articulated world, whose objectivity is relative to

how it is shaped by the knower” (Heron & Reason 1997, p. 279).

8

The knower and the known participate in the knowing process and that evidence is generated in at least

four interdependent ways: experiential, presentational, propositional, and practical (ibid, p. 280):

Experiential knowing includes direct encounters and face-to-face meeting…

Presentational knowing emerges from the former, evident in an intuitive grasp of the

significance of our resonance with and imaging of our world, as this grasp is symbolized

in graphic, plastic, musical, vocal and verbal art-forms… Propositional knowing is

knowing in conceptual terms that something is the case; knowledge by description of

some energy, entity, person, place, process or thing… and Practical knowing is knowing

how to do something, demonstrated in a skill or competence.

Methodologies employed within the AT paradigm are wide-ranging and overlap with those found in the

other major paradigms; i.e., they are collaborative and dialectic, qualitative as well as quantitative

(Kaptelinin & Nardi 2006). The concept of activity—with work as the model—forms a basis for

understanding the nature of knowledge and reality. This concept also implies a methodological approach

of studying human behavior in which social experimentation and intervention plays a central role, as in

the emancipatory agenda found within Critical Theory paradigms. The basic research method is not

traditional laboratory experiments but the formative experiment that combines active participants with

monitoring of the developmental changes of the study participants. Ethnographic methods that track the

history and development of a practice have also become important in recent work (ibid). Furthermore,

Engeström provides us with the reasoning behind AT’s deviation from Constructivism when he explains

(Engeström et al, 1999 p. 10):

The rise of Constructivism has led to justified skepticism regarding ideas of natural

determinism and objective representation of facts “out there”. However, much of

constructivism is quite narrowly focused on the construction of texts… Exclusive focus

on text may lead to a belief that knowledge, artifacts and institutions are modifiable at

will by means of rhetoric used by an author. AT sees construction more broadly. People

construct their institutions and activities above all by means of material and discursive,

object-oriented actions. On this view, the rhetorical construction of research texts is much

less omnipotent than many versions of constructivism would have us believe. This

suggests that the researcher’s constructive endeavors may be fruitful when positioned less

9

as stand-alone texts and more as voices and utterances in ongoing dialogues within and

between collective activity systems under investigation.

Activity system as a unit of analysis calls for complementarity of the system view and the

subject’s view. The analyst constructs the activity system as if looking from above. At the

same time, the analyst must select a subject, a member (or better yet, multiple different

members) of the local activity, through whose eyes and interpretations the activity is

constructed. This dialectic between the systemic and subjective-partisan views brings the

researcher into a dialogical relationship with the local activity under investigation…

Activity Theory—Typical Questions & Main Concerns

The main concerns of AT research include an emphasis on human intentionality, the asymmetry of

people and things, the importance of human development and the idea of culture and society as shaping

human activity (Kaptelinin & Nardi 2006). In the context of AT, activity is defined as a “purposeful

interaction of the subject (not just a human, but any subject) with the world, a process in which mutual

transformations between subject and object are accomplished” (ibid, p. 31). Questions asked by the AT

researcher, similar to those in the Constructivist camp, involve issues concerning “How have the people

in this setting constructed reality?” (Patton 1990, p. 96) Furthermore, questions are not always focused

on the individual—nor are they necessarily concerned solely with human beings—but can look at the

manner in which groups of people work with tools to accomplish some goal. AT researchers are as

likely to ask “How do these people function as a whole in collaborative work as they deal with barriers

and conflicts that arise while attempting a stated goal?” as they are to ask “How do tools mediate

activity?” or “How do different kinds of tools mediate differently?”

Section Two: Paradigm Analyses

Comparisons between Post-positivism and Activity Theory

The aim of Positivistic/Post-positivistic inquiry is explanation, ultimately enabling the prediction and

control of phenomena, whether natural or human subjects. The aim of AT, like other social science

frameworks, is understanding phenomena; AT attempts to “understand people as well as the social

entities they compose in their natural everyday life circumstances, through an analysis of the genesis,

structure and processes of their activities” (Kaptelinin & Nardi 2006, p. 31).

10

Ontological Comparisons

Post-positivism’s belief in an existing reality, separate from the observer, but imperfectly understood,

reveals critical-realist ontology. In somewhat tentative agreement with the Post-positivist paradigm, the

principle of “object-orientedness” in Activity Theory states that human beings live in a reality that is

objective, but in a broad sense; the things that constitute this reality have not only the properties that are

considered objective according to natural sciences but socially/culturally defined properties as well

(Kaptelinin & Nardi 2006). Diverging from any strict adherence to a Post-positivist ontology, however,

the main feature of AT’s approach is its “attitude of profound value—not to think of natural and social

processes as things subjugated to human intervention, as things to be manipulated, controlled and strictly

predicted. Natural and social processes have their own activity; the ways of their transformations can be

unique and unpredictable” (Engeström 1999, p. 69). While AT acknowledges a reality that is separate

from the observer, as does Post-positivism, the reality assumed in AT is socially understood through

people’s interactions with their environment, other people, tools and objects, and articulated first

socially, and secondly, within the mind. Furthermore, AT’s belief in a reality that is mediation by tools,

artifacts and signs is an idea that “breaks down the Cartesian walls that isolate the individual from the

culture and the society” (ibid, p. 29).

Epistemological Comparisons

Whereas AT overlaps somewhat with the Post-positivist ontology, that is not the case from an

epistemological standpoint. Post-positivist inquirers assume a detached, separated position from the

object of their study and such objectivity is important. Although it is possible to approximate reality, in

truth, it can never be fully apprehended. This posture contrasts notably with Vygotsky’s concept of AT

emphasizing the mediated character of all human-related phenomena, pointing out that human beings

create stimuli that determine their own reactions and are used as means for mastering their own

behavior; i.e., that humans, as creative beings, “determine themselves through the objects they create—

signs, symbols, tools and artifacts” (Engeström 1999, p. 66). Hence, the AT investigator participates in

and is interactively linked with the subject of research, whereas in Post-positivism, this hands-on

participation is not practiced. AT’s worldview involves what Heron & Reason call an “extended

epistemology”, which is in contrast to the dualist-objectivist critical tradition of Post-positivism (Heron

& Reason 1997). It involves an awareness of the four ways of knowing (aforementioned above—

experiential, presentational, propositional and practical), of how they interact, and of ways of changing

the relations between them so that they articulate a reality that is “unclouded by a restrictive and ill-

disciplined subjectivity… knowing is always set within a context of both linguistic-cultural and

11

experiential shared meaning, having a critical consciousness about our knowing necessarily includes

shared experience, dialogue, feedback and exchange with others” (ibid, p. 280). This interactive link

between the researcher and the subject of study is congruent with that of Constructivism; however with

AT, knowledge is socially and historically situated; therefore, this epistemological stance overlaps

somewhat with Critical Theory paradigms.

Methodological Comparisons

Post-positivism practices a modified experimental-manipulative methodology striving towards “critical

multiplism (a refurbished version of triangulation)” as a way to “falsify (not verify, as in Positivism)”

the hypotheses (Guba & Lincoln 1998, p. 205). In the social sciences, this methodology conducts

inquiry in “more natural settings (as opposed to the more highly controlled environments in Positivist

studies), collecting more situational information and reintroducing discovery as an element in inquiry”

(ibid, p. 205). Activity Theory, in contrast, regards practical experimentation and intervention as an

essential part of studying human practices. The best way of gaining an understanding is experimentation

through introducing new cultural tools into activity. In the method of double simulation, for example,

both a problem and novel cultural tools are introduced in an experimental situation; the solution of the

problem requires what is called remediation or retooling, the adoption, development and use of new

cultural means which makes the transformation of activity possible (Luria & Vygotsky 1992). The

commitment to the problems and well being of the people and activities studied is an established feature

of AT research.

Section Three: Paradigm Application in Design Pedagogy

Post-positivism in Educational Research

In Stones & Cassidy’s empirical study Comparing synthesis strategies of novice graphic designers using

digital and traditional tools, the impact of digital working processes on initial graphic design decision-

making is investigated by devising an experiment to gauge what extent do design strategies differ when

using the computer vs. using pen and paper tools. The sample was comprised of 96 volunteer students

representing three levels of study from two different institutions. All students were familiar with digital

tools used in producing graphic design work. The students were divided into two groups and each group

was given 15 minutes to complete a task with pencil and paper and 15 minutes to complete the same

task using design software. Group 1 completed their task first on the computer, Group 2 completed their

12

task first using paper and pencil. Participants were instructed to “elegantly” combine the letter “E” with

the number “6” adhering to the following rules: only one instance of each character per solution; black

and white only, any typeface can be selected, any scale or rotation of the letter/numeral employed, and

each figure should be readable. The focus of the investigation, as stated, is on analyzing characteristics

of each design solution rather than attempting to understand the impact of one medium upon another.

The inquirers position their study within the context of a broader tradition of similar academic work

conducted between 1969 to the date of their study (2006), expanding their inquiry in relation to

previously conducted research relating to graphic design and tool usage. Rather than study the design

process through more typical—and more open to subjective interpretations—methodologies such as

logging the process of designing via protocol analysis (a research method that elicits verbal reports from

research participants) or retrospectively by interviews and questionnaires, Stones & Cassidy attempt an

analysis of the characteristics of the design outcomes themselves, based upon their own interpretations,

without explanations from the students who produced the designs. They contend, “if we tighten the

constraints of the design task in an experimental setting, the design artifact becomes something that can

reveal classifiable strategic approaches in itself” (Stones & Cassidy 2006, p. 61). Indeed, the single

criteria for satisfying the inquiry—which tool (computer or pen-and-paper) is more efficient in

producing the most variety of preliminary design sketches—is determined by the quantity, and only the

quantity, of successful designs produced in the required amount of time.

This approach, one that separates the observer from the observed and assumes that there is an “out

there” reality to be apprehended, embodies the realist, dualist-objectivist understanding that entails a

Positivist/Post-positivist ontology and epistemology. The researchers explain, “Analysis of the end

artifact, rather than interviews, removes the difficult task of verbalization by the designer… The focus

shifts from requiring the subject to be fully reflective and articulate about an often tacit activity to

ensuring that the researcher can ‘decipher’ the end solutions through close examination of artifacts and

can establish some sort of pattern or trend in the dataset which is valid and analyzable” (ibid, p. 62).

As this study is described—controlled experimentation methodologies, isolated cause-and-effect

variables, objective analysis of the outcome-artifact, the removal of the subject’s human voice,

fragmentation of the object, and heavy reliance on researcher descriptions and statistical data—it is

solidly grounded in the Positivist/Post-positivist tradition. However, the study also foregrounds some of

the problems researchers should expect when conducting Positivist/Post-positivist research on such

13

messy, human-centered, multi-dimension, process-oriented tasks as design. For example, upon careful

reading of the research findings, several doubts concerning the study’s accuracy and objectivity arise.

Notably, the researcher’s definition of “elegant” as a characteristic that can be qualified—and later

quantified—immediately becomes problematic. Although the researchers create a taxonomy for

categorizing the students’ solutions (unconnected, touching, overlapping, enclosed, joined, and

contributing; see Fig. 1), nowhere in the report do the researchers explicitly qualify what is meant by the

directive “elegant solution” except for the problematic description, “The word ‘elegant’ was included to

imply that the overall shape of the solution should be aesthetically pleasing and unified” (Stones &

Cassidy 2006, p. 63). Indeed, whether or not a composition is deemed worthy enough for selection as

“elegant” is based purely upon the subjective opinion of the researchers. Whether or not—and exactly

how—the “elegant” criteria are applied consistently for each outcome is another valid concern.

Fig. 1: Taxonomy of synthesis strategies

The researchers make the broad, sweeping conclusion that their findings undisputedly suggest,

“…paper-based working allowed more solutions to be discovered, of all synthesis types, than digital

working” (ibid, p. 68). However, the isolation of one aspect of the design process—sketching—is

singled out for analysis, despite the fact that the design process is made up of complex interactions

between the designer and the designed, even at the earliest stages of ideation. The researchers do

14

acknowledge the difficulty in fragmenting the object—i.e., extracting out from the design process the

initial ideation phase—and reveal a more nuanced Post-positivist stance by admitting that the “unnatural

lab-based” nature of their experiment is a factor informing the decision to refrain from interrupting the

flow of work by gathering in-process data from their subjects so as to allow for a “maximizing of any

naturalness” in the student’s behavior (ibid, p. 62). Additionally, the researchers acknowledge that

“experiments restricting designers to a particular tool are essentially artificial and that modes of working

during a design task may not be symptomatic of that particular tool” (ibid, p. 62).

Although Stones & Cassidy disclose that the order in which the two media are used is not a variable that

has been considered when analyzing the results, the fact that one group begins on the computer whilst

the other begins with paper and pencil surely has an effect on the “efficiency” outcome of the students’

sketches. Furthermore, the participating students were at varying levels of experience in regards to their

education, comfort level with the design process and skills with using both pencil and computer. The

less experienced students are, without a doubt, going to be less efficient in ideation sketching—

regardless of the tool—than students who are more experienced with the design ideation process.

Finally, student sample was culled from volunteers at only two institutions; in order to make the kind of

general claims the researchers of this study express, a much larger group of students, perhaps grouped in

the same levels of experience and education and from a variety of institutions, should be included so that

the findings are truly applicable and general.

Activity Theory in Educational Research

In the Activity Theory-based study Understanding Innovation in Education Using Activity Theory,

researchers Russell & Schneiderheinze describe how four 4th & 5th grade teachers in four different

cities in Missouri design and implement a constructivist-based learning environment (CBLE) that also

utilizes a new computer-based interactive learning environment for the students as well as an online

networked environment for the geographically dispersed teachers to communicate with each other

during the course of the study. The goal of the inquiry, as stated by the researchers, is to “work with the

teachers to identify the characteristics and consequences of the efforts at change from the viewpoints of

the educators” (Russel & Schneiderheinze 2005, p. 38). Such intentions agree with both a Constructivist

and a Participatory/Cooperative ontological understanding that assumes a subjectively rendered reality

can be found within people’s interpretation of the object and/or the subject’s relationship to it. The

research is based upon previous studies dealing with teacher reform endeavors attempting the adoption

of technology innovations in the classroom, new theories of constructivist-based learning and the

15

principles of professional development for educators implementing reform. Russell & Schneiderheinze

dialectical methodologies utilize a multiple case study research technique to collect and analyze data to

discern how effectively each teacher implemented the CBLE unit based on the teacher’s individual goals

for adopting the innovations while participating in online collaborative professional development, and

identify “cross-case” issues that arose as the teachers implemented the technology innovation (ibid).

Each of the four cases includes a description of the teacher’s experience of implementing the innovation

cluster over a six-week period. The researchers identify the defining characteristics (called “nodes”) of

the teacher’s work activity to create the Activity Theory Model for each teacher using her voice in both

her collaborative dialog with the other teachers and in her reflective dialog with the researchers,

revealing the study’s interactive, interlinked epistemology. Next, the researchers identify contradictions

occurring in the development of the object, as perceived by the teacher, and categorize them as

contradictions she can or cannot resolve. Finally, the researchers identify the turning points indicating

how teachers respond to the contradictions and, subsequently, the way her response influences the

transformation of the object and the manner of implementation. As a result, the researchers are able to

identify case-by-case contradictions and turning points where each teacher expands, narrows or

disintegrates her objective (see Fig. 2, p. 17). Using the teacher’s original motive for implementing the

reform and her overarching concepts about the type of overall learning the technology innovations could

potentially afford her students, the researchers could also ultimately define the transformation process

for each teacher.

Researchers Russell & Schneiderheinze, in a transactional, interactive exchange with the teachers,

designed a study framed by the epistemology similar to Constructivist and Participatory/Cooperative

approaches. They identify, in collaborative interactions with the teachers, contextual and goal-related

elements in the work activity of their subjects that allowed them to then design interviews, surveys and

otherwise collect data on the relationships amongst the categories of work and later identify the

contradictions resulting from the implementation of the new technology. Along with descriptive case

study methods of data structuring and analysis, Activity Theory is employed in the study as a qualitative

methodology in order to understand the complex social system of the teachers’ activities and to look for

patterns of relationships in the work while the study took place. This study systemically identified the

important factors in the teachers’ classrooms that affected their ability to respond to tensions caused by

the adoption of the new technology and relate these responses to how effectively the teachers were able

to meet their goals for implementing CBLE using the new digital tools.

16

Fig. 2: An Activity System Model developed for one of the teachers in the Russel & Schneiderheinze study. The top of the AT

Model represents the insertion of new tools into the work activity. The subject arrow also identifies the announced outcome

for the unit as described by the teacher. The bottom of the triangle depicts the AT identified contextual characteristics for

each of the teacher’s individual work settings. These local context issues include 1) the rules of the work activity setting, 2)

the community; those local people that support or detract from the innovation efforts of the teacher, and 3) the division of

labor; those people necessary for the teacher to implement the innovation.

The subject attempting change in a work activity endeavors external elements to aid her in meeting her object. However,

these external elements create an imbalance in the system, which results in contradictions that appear between the nodes of

the activity system. In the AT Model developed for this study, the contradictions are indicated using a solid broken line for

unresolved contradictions, resulting in the lessening of the potential of the teacher to develop her object, or as a dashed

broken line when the teacher identified the contradictions and resolves it, resulting in the increased possibility that she would

meet her object goals.

17

There are several noteworthy details found in the design and implementation of this inquiry, a study that

seeks to understand educational reform efforts where educators attempt to integrate interactive

technologies in the classroom environment. These efforts have inherently complex, interrelated issues

associated with them including social, environmental, instructional, and technical considerations, to

name a few concerns. Human-computer interaction (HCI) researchers Gay & Hembrooke (2004) explain

that previous Positivist-based studies in HCI typically assume—and sometimes ignore—the needs and

preferences of human beings as end-users, consequently considering the technical attributes of the

technology rather trying to understand how human beings work with these tools in their daily tasks.

However, Gay & Hembrooke also note a cultural shift that has recently occurred in the HCI research

community, a shift that takes into consideration the human element—where the researcher finally

acknowledges a “context-based design where the use, design and evaluation of technology are socially

co-constructed and mediated by human communication and interaction” (Gay & Hembrooke 2004, p. 1).

Several prominent HCI researchers now promote Activity Theory—Victor Kaptelinin, Bonnie Nardi,

Gerry Stahl, Geri Gay and Helene Hembrooke, among others—as a strong contender for a new

paradigm that attempts understanding how people work with technology from a human-centered point

of view. AT’s potential lies in the attention that it gives to multiple dimensions of human engagement

with the world and in the framework that it provides for configuring those dimensions and processes into

a coherent “activity” (ibid).

Conclusion—Potential Approaches in Research in Design Education

Despite some of the problems found with Stones & Cassidy’s particular study, Post-positivist inquiry

into digitally mediated design education has the potential to be useful and valid. Wherever human beings

are concerned, however, researchers conducting scientific-based studies must be upfront in their

interpretations of and their communications about the types of results Post-positivistic approaches can

bring forth—and the rather severe limitations this framework carries when it is applied to the study of

people. Understanding the effects of computer technology in the design education context is a topic that

has only recently garnered a growing body of research; therefore its knowledge base is not so robust that

different research approaches cannot find a niche. Additionally, although previous research in human-

computer interaction was primarily conducted from a Post-positivist perspective, that assumption is

starting to change.

18

Constructivist and Participatory-based viewpoints found within Activity Theory are appropriate for

design education research that systematically seeks to understand the complex social machinations of

people working in their environments with other people using digital tools. Studies that try to identify

the influence of specific aspects of the work activity of human beings through a systematic and

contextual analysis can aid educational researchers seeking to understand how educators design and

implement innovative learning environments—an understanding that is becoming more and more

necessary in our technologically-mediated learning environments, whether in the academy or the

workplace. Educational studies based on research of complex human systems, studies of innovations,

studies of professional development for educators and other studies on the learning process can

potentially help to clarify the complex mixture of concepts and skills necessary for educators to

successfully implement innovative tools to reform their classrooms. Activity Theory as a methodology is

well suited for understanding complex human activity, dynamic change, tool mediation and social

construction of meaning.

Ultimately, the research question defines the methodology, epistemology and ontology of any particular

study, not the other way around. Paradigms, after all, are tools for researchers to employ in the design of

studies that hopefully answer their inquiries. If a researcher has only one tool in her toolbox, the kinds of

questions she can ask will be limited indeed.

19

References

Crotty, Michael (1998). The Foundations of Social Research: Meaning and Perspective in the Research

Process. London: Sage Publications.

Denzin, Norman & Guba Lincoln (1998). “Competing Paradigms in Qualitative Research” in The

Landscape of Qualitative Research: Theories and Issues. London: Sage Publications.

Denzin, Norman & Guba Lincoln (2003). “Paradigmatic Controversies, Contradictions and Emerging

Influences” in The Landscape of Qualitative Research: Theories and Issues. London: Sage Publications.

Engeström, Yrjö, Reijo Miettinen & Raija-Leena Punamäki, (eds) (1999). Perspectives on Activity

Theory. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Gay, Geri & Helene Hembrooke, (2004). Activity-Centered Design. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Groat, Linda & David Wang (2002). Architectural Research Methods. New York, NY: Wiley.

Heron, John & Peter Reason (1997). “A Participatory Inquiry Paradigm” in Qualitative Inquiry, Vol. 3,

No. 3, pp. 274–294.

Kaptelinin, Victor & Bonnie Nardi, (2006). Acting with Technology: Activity Theory and Interaction

Design. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Luria, Alexander & Lev Vygotsky (1992). Ape, Primitive Man and Child: Essays in the History of

Behavior. New York, NY: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

Lang, Jon (1987). Creating Architectural Theory: The Role of the Behavioral Sciences in Environmental

Design. New York, NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold Co.

Patton, Michael, Q., (2002). Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods. Newbury Park: Sage

Publications, 3rd Edition.

20

Phillips, Dennis & Nicholas Burbules (2000). Post-positivism and Educational Research. Lanham, MA:

Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

Russell, Donna, L. & Art Schneiderheinze (2006). “Understanding Innovation in Education Using

Activity Theory” in Educational Technology & Society, Vol. 8, No. 1, 2006, pp. 38–53.

Stahl, Gerry (2006). Group Cognition: Computer Support for Building Collaborative Knowledge.

Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Stones, Catherine & Tom Cassidy (2006). “Comparing Synthesis Strategies of Novice Graphic

Designers using Digital and Traditional Tools” in Design Studies, Vol. 28, No. 1, January 2007,

pp. 59–72.

Online References

Wikipedia, www.wikipedia.com

Webster’s Online Dictionary, www.m-w.com/

21