Understanding innovation in education using activity theory

Educational Technology and Society

Volumn 8, Issue 1, 2005, Pages 38-53

  Russell, Donna L ^a   Schneiderheinze, Art ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI KANSAS CITY   (United States)

^b Project Construct National Center   (United States)

Author keywords

Activity theory methodology; Problem based learning; Professional development for innovators in education; Technology innovations in education

Indexed keywords

EID: 21244462334     PISSN: 11763647     EISSN: 14364522     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Barab, S. A., Hay, K. E., & Yamagata-Lynch, L. C. (2001). Constructing networks of activity: An in-situ research methodology. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 10 (1&2), 63-112.
2. Bereiter, C. (2002). Education and mind in the knowledge age, New Jersey. Lawrence Erlbaum.
3. Blumenfeld, P. C., Soloway, E., Marx, R., Krajcik, J. S., Guzdial, M., & Palincsar, A. (1991). Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educational Psychologist, 26, 369-398.
4. Bruce, B. C., Peyton, J. K., & Batson, T. W. (1993). Network-based classrooms: Promises and realities, New York: Cambridge University Press.
5. Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research, Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit.
6. Engeström, Y., Miettinen, R., & Punamäki, R. (Eds.). (1999). Perspectives on activity theory, Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
7. H'enkov, E. V. (1977). Dialectical logic: Essays in its history and theory, Moscow: Progress.
8. Jonassen, D. H., Peck, K. L., & Wilson, B. G. (1999). Learning with technology: A constructivist perspective, Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Merrill-Prentice Hall.
9. Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Toward a design theory of problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48 (4), 63-85.
10. Korthagen, F. (1993). Two modes of reflection. Teacher and Teacher Education, 9 (3), 317-326.
11. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation, Cambridge, U.K: Cambridge University Press.
12. Means, B., & Olson, K. (1995). Technology's role in education reform: Findings from a national study of innovating schools, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
13. Pea, R. (1993). Practices of distributed intelligence and designs for education. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations, Cambridge, U.K: Cambridge University Press, 47-87.
14. Pfeiffer, J. W., & Jones, J. E. (Eds.) (1974). Role nominations - A handbook of structured experiences for human relations training (Vol. II), San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
15. President's Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology (1997). Report to the President on the use of technology to strengthen K-12 education in the United States. Washington, DC.
16. th ed.), NY: The Free Press.
17. Salomon, G. (1993). No distribution without individuals' cognition: A dynamic interactional view. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed Cognitions: Psychological and Educational Considerations. NY: Cambridge University Press, 111-138.
18. Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action, NY: Basic Books.
19. Shulman, L. (1992). Toward a pedagogy of cases. In J. H. Shulman (Ed.), Case methods in teacher education. NY: Teachers College Press, 1-30.
20. Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and language, Cambridge: The MIT Press.
21. Web-Based Education Commission (2000). The power of the Internet for learning: Moving from promise to practice. Washington, DC.
22. Wertsch, J. (1998). Mind as action, NY: Oxford University Press.
23. Wilson, B., Sherry, L., Dobrovolny, J., Batty, M., & Ryder, M. (2001). Adoption of learning technologies in schools and universities. In H. H. Adelsberger, B. Collis, & J. M. Pawlowski (Eds.), Handbook of Information Technologies for Education & Training. New York: Springer-Verlag, 293-307.