![](bg5.png)
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