Using Activity Theory in Developing Instructial Tools for
Project Management Studies
Maritta Pirhonen
Department of Computer Science and Information Systems, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland
Keywords: Project-based Learning, Project Management Education, Activity Theory, Supervising, Instruction.
Abstract: Competence and skills of the project manager are significant to project success. The skills needed in project
managers’ work cannot be learned only by reading the books or a lecture hall; one learns them by practice.
Therefore, an important challenge for educational institutions is to develop pedagogical practices that allow
students to participate in working life projects and to confront real-life problems. Project-based learning
(PBL) offers a model that enables students to practice the skills and competences needed in working life
projects by utilizing real-world work assignments in time-limited projects. Using PBL method alone does
not necessarily guarantee learning result. In order to be successful, PBL method requires effective and
competent supervision and guidance of students as well as appropriate tools for instruction. In this study the
concepts from activity theory (AT) are applied to development tools for supervising project-based learning.
1 INTRODUCTION
The connection between project manager’s skills
and project success has been addressed in several
studies (Iacovou and Dexter, 2004); (Müller and
Turner, 2007). Often these skills are learnt in real-
life working situations, because acquiring skills
necessitates experience instead of studying
theoretical facts by reading a book, or attending a
lecture. Learning necessary soft skills required in IS
project management and leadership during the
project studies might support IS projects succeeding
in "real world" working scenarios. Therefore, project
management education needs to focus on practical
issues of managing rather than on tools and
techniques of management itself.
Project-based learning (PBL) offers a model for
students to practice the skills and competences
needed in IS projects by utilizing real world work
assignments in time-limited projects (Tynjälä et al.,
2009). However, using PBL method alone does not
guarantee learning results. In order to be successful,
PBL method requires both effective and competent
supervision and an uniform learning environment
that enables easy access and use of online materials.
The goal of the research in progress is to develop
pedagogic methods and tools to support the learning
of skills and competencies required in IS project
work. Activity Theory (AT) concepts provide an
analytical framework for developing the
instructional methods responding to the educational
needs. Particularly the concept of contradiction
(“historically accumulating structural tensions
within and between activity systems” (Engeström,
2001, p. 137) is seen to provide rich and fruitful
insights into the system dynamics.
This paper is organized as follows. First, we
depict the course, which is based on the project-
based learning approach. Second, pedagogical
background for project-based learning is reviewed.
In the following chapter brief description of activity
theory is presented. This is followed by the
description of the project management course as an
activity in AT. Finally, an outline of our ongoing
research is presented.
2 PROJECT MANAGEMENT
COURSE
The project-based learning (PBL) approach has been
adopted in information system education at the
University of Jyväskylä for years (see more
Pirhonen 2009, 2010). For example, the
implementation of the Project Management and
Execution (PME) course (10 ECTS credits) is based
323
Pirhonen M..
Using Activity Theory in Developing Instructial Tools for Project Management Studies.
DOI: 10.5220/0004963203230328
In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU-2014), pages 323-328
ISBN: 978-989-758-021-5
Copyright
c
2014 SCITEPRESS (Science and Technology Publications, Lda.)
on PBL approaches (Tynjälä et al., 2009). The
course belongs to the elective studies towards the
degree of Master of Economic Sciences in the field
of ICT. The main aim of the PME course is to offer
the students an opportunity to gain authentic
practical experience of an ICT experts’ work. In
addition, the goal is to provide students with a
comprehensive and a realistic view of the work in IS
projects. In more detail, students are expected to
learn project management, leadership, group work,
and communication by managing, leading and
executing information systems projects. In addition,
they are expected to learn an assessment of the
significance of team leading as a part of project
success.
The learning environment is maintained in co-
ordination with three parties – a student group, the
university, and a client organization. A legally
binding cooperation contract is drawn up between
the three parties before project starts. It covers the
subject matter (a description of the project
objectives), the obligations and rights of the
contracting parties, copyrights, guarantees and
maintenance, confidentiality and the concealment of
confidential information, payments and the payment
schedule.
The project course lasts from the beginning of
November to the end of April (26 weeks). During
the course each student is expected to use 140 hours
for implementing the project task and 130 hours for
demonstrating project-work skills, including team
leading, group work, and communication. The
groups plan their work, complete the scheduled
tasks, and produce deliverables. Each student is
expected to take the role of project manager and
project secretary. These roles rotate every month to
ensure that each member of the project team works
in both roles at least once. In total, a group of five
students uses 700 hours in planning and executing
the client project.
During the course, students work in close co-
operation with their client and they meet with the
client representatives on weekly basis. In addition,
the guest lectures from collaborative companies are
invited to give lectures on relevant topics to project
management. The collaboration with a client ends in
a steering group meeting at which the results of the
project are approved.
During the course seminars are arranged to
enhance students´ communications skills..
Pedagogical activities such as peer reviewing, group
discussion, peer coaching and self/peer assessment
are being set up by supervisors to enhance the
learning effectiveness of the project.
Each student group is evaluated twice during the
six-month period of the project. The first evaluation
takes place in the middle of February after three
months’ work. The second evaluation is carried out
at the end of the course in April. The content of the
evaluation is grouped and structured around the
themes covering issues to the course’s learning
objectives and critical to project management
success. The course grade (1-5) for a group is
calculated on the basis of the following factors:
project management, project work, and
communication. The evaluation involves composing
an evaluation report using the assessment
framework. Both students and their supervisors
compose the report. Written evaluations are
uploaded in the digital learning environment Optima
(the day before an evaluation discussion). The
evaluation is based on the perceptions of the
students´ work capabilities with their clients as well
as the documentation produced during the project.
Both supervisors and the student groups are
acquainted with the each other’s evaluations before
an evaluation discussion. The grading of the course
is mainly based on the debates that emerge during
discussions concerning the reports.
3 PROJECT-BASED LEARNING
Problem-Based Learning (PBL – nowadays also the
abbreviation for Project-Based Learning) has
become widely recognized over the last 40 years.
PBL has been proven to be successful educational
approach in many different study domains. It has
been adopted for years in Aalborg University in
Denmark (Graaff and Kolmos, 2003). According to
Kjersdam (1994) students graduated from Aalborg
are more productive and competent compared to
graduated students from other educational
institutions.
Project-based learning (PBL) refers to a theory
and practice of utilizing real-world work
assignments on time-limited projects to achieve
mandated performance objectives and to facilitate
individual and collective learning (Smith and Dods,
1997). The theory of PBL is based on constructivism
and according to the constructivism theory, the
learner is guided to build and modify his or her
existing mental model. This means that the focus is
on knowledge construction rather than on
knowledge transmission as in the theory of
behaviourism. Constructivism takes account of the
situational nature of learning and thus advocates
authentic or simulated environments (von
CSEDU2014-6thInternationalConferenceonComputerSupportedEducation
324
Glasersfeld 1984). There are five significant features
of PBL (Helle, Tynjälä, Lonka and Olkinuora 2007):
• a problem or a question serves to drive learn-ing
objectives;
• a concrete artifact is constructed;
• the learners control the learning process (pacing,
sequencing, and actual content);
• the learning is contextualized (what we learn in a
particular context we recall in similar contexts);
and
• projects are complex enough to induce students
to generate questions of their own.
In many models of project-based learning, students
are assumed to work on real world projects by
default. This creates good conditions to learn a vast
range of skills in various project areas. Students
learn management, teamwork, and communications,
as it involves both individual and co-operative
activities, interactive discussions and writing in the
form of plans, reports, memos etc. This type of
learning offers a very concrete and holistic
experience of certain processes such as the process
of construction work or managing a project (Helle et
al., 2006). Often collaboration skills are put into
action by the collaborative nature of project
management. In fact, the studies have suggested that
project work may have many educational and social
benefits (Moses et al., 2000), such as the
development of communication skills (Pigford,
1992), along with team-building and inter-personal
skills (Roberts, 2000). Supervisors support the work
of their students by guiding and assisting them to
learn independently and helping them to retrieve
relevant information when required. Supervisors
oversee the project process and monitor the progress
and performance of each student. The role of the
supervisor is vital, especially in the early stages of
the project when students may need more guidance
in situations where they need to communicate and
collaborate with their client.
4 ACTIVITY THEORY – AN
OVERVIEW
Activity theory (AT) offers a theoretical framework
to study both individual and collective activities. It
provides an analytical framework within which to
study human activity in general. A model of the
structure of an activity system (AS) includes two
types of constituents: core components, such as
subject, object/outcome, and community; and
mediatory components, such as instruments (tools),
rules, and division of labor (Figure 1).
Figure 1: The structure of a human activity (adapted from
Engeström, 1987, p. 78).
An activity is a collective phenomenon; it has a
subject (an individual or collective) who understand
its motive, and who uses tools to achieve an object,
thus transforming objects into outcomes. An activity
is always associated with long-term purposes and
strong motives. All members of the community
share the object (and the motive) of the activity.
Tools mediate between a subject and the object,
which is transformed into the outcome. The object is
seen and manipulated within the limitations set by
the tools. Rules mediate the relationship between the
community and the subject, while the division of
labor mediates the relationship between the
community and the object. Rules cover both implicit
and explicit norms, conventions, and social relations
in a community as related to the transformation
process of the object into an outcome. The
responsibilities of the members of the community
are coordinated by some division of labor (e.g., the
division of tasks and roles among members of the
community and the divisions of power and status),
yet guided by rules. These rules regulate, as well as
constrain, their actions and relationships in the
activity system (Engeström, 1990; Kuutti, 1996).
Engeström (1987) added the concept of
contradiction onto Vygostky´s (1978) thinking.
Primary contradictions are those found within a
constituent of the activity (i.e., in the object, rules,
tools, etc.) and secondary contradictions are those
that appear between constituents of the activity (e.g.,
between the tool and the subject). Contradictions
constitute a key principle in AT and shape an
activity (Engeström, 2001). When contradictions
arise, or when they are observed, they expose
dynamics, inefficiencies, and importantly,
opportunities for a change (Helle, 2000). Kuutti
(1996, p. 34) describes contradictions as “a misfit
within elements, between them, between different
Instruments
Object
Rules
Subject
Community Division of
l
a
bour
Outcome
Transformation
Motivation
UsingActivityTheoryinDevelopingInstructialToolsforProjectManagementStudies
325
activities, or between different development phases
of a single activity”. They generate “disturbances
and conflicts, but also innovative attempts to change
the activity” (Engeström, 2001, p. 134).
Contradictions are significant for development
and they exist in the form of resistance to achieving
goals of the intended activity. They also exist as
emerging dilemmas, disturbances, and
discoordinations. In spite of the potential of
contradictions to result in development in an activity
system, the development does not always occur.
Often contradictions may not be easily recognized or
acknowledged, visible, or even openly discussed by
those experiencing them (Engeström, 2001). On the
other hand, contradictions that are not discussed may
be embarrassing, or uncomfortable in nature. They
may also be culturally difficult to confront, such as
personal habits, bad behaviour, or an incompetence
of the leader.
To summarize, subjects, who are motivated by
an object, carry out activities. A subject transforms
the object into an outcome. An object may be shared
by a community of people, working together to
achieve a desired outcome. Tools, rules, and a
division of labor mediate the relationship between
the subjects, community, and the object.
Contradictions are a key principle in AT and they
are driving force of change.
5 PROJECT MANAGEMENT
COURSE AS AN ACTIVITY
In the depiction of PME course as an activity
system, a student group is chosen to be subject. A
subject plays a key role when analysing other
elements of an activity. In this case we are interested
in student group´s perspective – how the tools
support their learning and achieving the course’s
learning objectives - when analysing PME activity.
The objectives of the cooperation parties differ.
From the students’ and supervisors’ points of view,
the main object is to learn useful skills needed in
“real project work”. Correspondingly clients’ main
motive to co-operate with the university and by
doing so, find potential employees to recruit.
Certainly, clients’ objective is also to obtain results
from the project they are involved with. This is a
goal they naturally share with the students they have
worked with. Different types of objectives, however,
might cause contradictions between the parties
involved. If such an event occurs, the supervisors
need to intervene in the situation by discussing
openly about the issue with all parties. In our study
we focus on the objective seen from the point of
student group´s view. Their motive is to achieve the
course’s learning objectives. The outcome of course
of is that students are provided with skills needed in
projects. The activity “PME course” is presented in
the terms of activity theory (AT) in Table 1.
Table 1: PME course as an activity.
5 Description
Subject Student group
Object
To learn skills needed in project
management
Outcome
To enable students to develop skills
needed in project
Instruments or
tools
Project management tools,
communication tools, guiding meetings,
written instructions, pedagogic methods
Community Students, teachers, clients
Division of labour
Responsibilities according to the
contract
Rules
Constraints on schedule, contract,
assessment
The tools include a project management system
(e.g. software, standards), weekly meetings between
the supervisor and the student group, and written
instruction. During the meetings, the weekly project
reports and project plans are discussed and
reviewed. The project manager and team members
keep providing updates of their project, which are
compared with the documented expectations in the
project plan.
The present tools are seen to have troublesome
features. First, the amount of the tools required in
the project work is great, and they are located in
several, different environments. Project management
tools (e.g. software for managing the schedule or the
resources) are located in multiple systems and data
transmission between systems has been proven to be
difficult and time-consuming. Second, the written
instructions are stored in the digital learning
environment into which students need to log in
separately in order to gain access to project
documentation, or upload and share new documents.
Students are frustrated while working with so many
incompatible systems, which may even decrease
their motivation to study.
Activity theory emphasizes that a tool should
come fully into being when it is used and that
knowing how to use it is a crucial part of the tool.
Therefore, the use of tools entails an evolutionary
accumulation and transmission of social knowledge,
which influences not only the external behaviour but
also the mental functioning of individuals.
Therefore, the pedagogic tools supporting and
promoting learning are vital part of supervisors work
with their students.
CSEDU2014-6thInternationalConferenceonComputerSupportedEducation
326
6 CONCLUSIONS
Effective and competent supervision and guidance
of students is a vital part of a project-based learning
method; PBL method alone does not guarantee
learning results. Hence, appropriate pedagogic
instructional tools and methods are of critical
importance of achieving learning goals.
To understand the underlying contradictions
between a student group and tools used in project
studies, we adopt the activity theory (AT) as our lens
to explore possible misfits. The strength of AT is
that it allows to break down the structure of an
activity into smaller categorical elements
(Basharina, 2007), and to identify contradictions and
structural tensions of the activity (Engeström, 1995);
(Engeström, 2001). Contradictions relate to
tendencies or forces that need each other, but at the
same time negate each other. The contradictions
generate disturbances, conflicts, and eruptions in an
activity, thus making contradictions indirectly
visible. By recognising structural tensions that
causes disturbances and conflicts in activity it is
possible that new forms and qualitative stages of
activity emerge as solutions to the contradictions
(Engeström, 1987). This being the case, we argue
that the AT provides us with the proper theoretical
lens to develop instructional tools for project
management studies at the University of Jyväskylä.
So far we have modelled the PME course as an
activity system. Next step in our study is to start an
exploratory study by interviewing students,
supervisors, and clients having participated in the
PME course in 2011 - 2014. The aim of the study in
progress is to identify the disturbances emerged
during the course and contradictions that cause
“problems, ruptures, breakdowns, and clashes”
(Kuutti, 1996, p. 34). In this phase of the study we
are especially focusing on contradictions found
between the student group (subject) and pedagogic
methods and tools used during the course. Further
studies may also benefit from a deeper investigation
of the objectives of the PME course from clients’
points of view for purposes to find contradictions
between different objectives of the cooperation
parties.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I wish to thank Eliisa Jauhiainen and Minna
Silvennoinen their insightful feedback in the
development of this study.
REFERENCES
Basharina, O. K. 2007. An activity theory perspective on
student-reported contradictions in international tele-
collaboration. Language Learning & Technology,
11(2), 82-103.
Cole, M. and Engeström, Y. 1993. A cultural-historical
approach to distributed cognition. In G. Salomon (Ed.)
Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational
considerations. Cambridge University Press, New
York.
Engeström, Y. 1987. Learning by expanding: An activity-
theoretical approach to developmental research.
Helsinki: Orienta-konsultit.
Engeström, Y. 1990. Learning, working, and imagining:
Twelve studies in activity theory. Helsinki: Orienta-
konsultit.
Engeström, Y., 1995. Objects, contradictions and
collaboration in medical cognition: an activity-
theoretical perspective. Artificial Intelligence in
Medicine, 7 (5), 395-412.
Engeström, Y., 2001. Expansive learning at work: towards
an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of
Education and Work, 14(1), 133-156.
de Graaff E. and Kolmos, A., 2003. Characteristics of
problem-based learning, International Journal of
Engineering Education, 19(5), 657–662.
Helle, M. 2000. Disturbances and Contradictions as Tools
for Understanding Work in the Newsroom, Scandina-
vian Journal of Information Systems, 12(1), 81-113.
Helle, L., Tynjälä, P. and Olkinuora, E. 2006. Project-
based learning in post-secondary education – theory,
practice and rubber sling shots. Higher Education,
51(2), 287–314.
Helle, L., Tynjälä, P., Olkinuora, E. and Lonka K. 2007.
’Ain’t nothing like a real thing’. Motivation and study
processes on work-based project course in information
systems design. British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 77(2), 397-411.
Iacovou, C. L. and Dexter, A. S. 2004. Turning around
runaway information technology projects. California
Management Review, 46(4), 68-88.
Kjersdam, F. 1994. Tomorrow´s Engineering Education –
The Aalborg Experiment. Journal of Engineering
Education, 19(2), 197-204.
Kuutti, K. 1996. Activity Theory as a potential framework
for human-computer interaction research. In B. Nardi
(ed.) Context and Consciousness: Activity Theory and
Human Computer Interaction, MIT Press, Cambridge,
17-44.
Moses, L., Fincher, S., Caristi J., 2000. Teams work (panel
session) in Haller S. (ed.) Proceedings of the thirty-
first SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer
science education, March 7-12. Austin, USA. New
York: ACM Press, pp. 421-422.
Müller, R. and Turner J. R. 2007. Matching the project
manager’s leadership style to project type.
International Journal of Project Management, 25(1),
21-32.
Pigford, D. V., 1992. The Documentation and Evaluation
UsingActivityTheoryinDevelopingInstructialToolsforProjectManagementStudies
327
of Team-Oriented Database Projects. Proceedings of
the twenty-third technical symposium on Computer
science education, Kansas City, Missouri, United
States. New York: ACM Press, pp. 28-33.
Pirhonen, M. 2009. Challenges of Supervising Student
Projects in Collaboration with Authentic Clients. Pro-
ceedings of the 1st International Conference on Com-
puter Supported Education (CSEDU) [CD-ROM],
Lisbon, Portugal, May 23-26, 2009.
Pirhonen, M. 2010. Learning Soft Skills in Project
Management Course: Students´ Perceptions. In
Aramo-Immonen, H., Naaranoja, M. and Toikka, T.
(eds.) Proceedings of Project Knowledge Sharing
Arena, Scientific Track Project Days 2010, 31-41.
Roberts, E., 2000. Computing education and the infor-
mation technology workforce. SIGCSE Bulletin (32)2,
pp. 83-90.
Smith, B., Dodds, R., 1997. Developing Managers
Through Project-based Learning. Aldershot/Vermont:
Gover.
Tynjälä, P., Pirhonen, M., Vartiainen, T. and Helle, L.
2009. Educating IT project managers through project-
based learning: A working-life perspective. The
Communications of the Association for Information
Systems, Vol. 24, Article 16, 270-299.
von Glasersfeld, E. 1984. An introduction to radical con-
structivism. In Watzlawick, P. (eds.) The Invented Re-
ality. How do We Know What We Believe We Know?
Contributions to Constructivism, Norton, New York,
NY, 17-40.
Vygotsky, L. S. 1978. Mind in Society. The development
of Higher Psychological Processes. Harvard
University Press, Cambridge, MA.
CSEDU2014-6thInternationalConferenceonComputerSupportedEducation
328
