Confronting analytical dilemmas for understanding complex human interactions in design-based research from a Cultural - Historical Activity Theory (CHAT) framework

Journal of the Learning Sciences

Volumn 16, Issue 4, 2007, Pages 451-484

  Yamagata Lynch, Lisa C ^a  

^a NORTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 41349115914     PISSN: 10508406     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10508400701524777     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Barab, S. A., Barnet, G. M., Yamagata-Lynch, L. C., Squire, K., & Keating, T. (2002). Using activity theory to understand the contradictions characterizing a technology-rich introductory astronomy course. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 9(2), 76-107.
2. Barab, S. A., Schatz, S., & Scheckler, R. (2004). Using activity theory to conceptualize online community and using online community to conceptualize activity theory. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 11(1), 25-47.
3. Barab, S. A., & Squire, K. (2004). Design-based research: Putting a stake in the ground. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 1-14.
4. Bedny, G. Z., & Harris, S. R. (2005). The systemic-structural theory of activity: Applications to the study of human work. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 12(2), 128-147.
5. Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. Journal of the learning Sciences, 2(2), 141-178.
6. Brushlinskii, A. V. (2004). The activity approach and psychology. Journal of Russian & East European Psychology, 42(2), 69-81.
7. Cobb, P., Confrey, J., diSessa, A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in educational research. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 9-13.
8. Cole, M. (1996). Cultural psychology: A once and future discipline. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
9. Cole, M., & Engeström, Y. (1993). A cultural-historical approach to distributed cognition. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 1-46). New York: Cambridge University Press.
10. Collins, A. (1992). Toward a design science of education. In E. Scanlon & T. O'Shea (Eds.), New directions in educational technology (Vol. 96, pp. 15-22). New York: Springer-Verlag.
11. Collins, A., Joseph, D., & Bielaczyc, K. (2004). Design research: Theoretical and methodological issues. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 15-42.
12. Davydov, V. V. (1999). The content and unsolved problems of activity theory. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen, & R.-L. Punamaki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 39-52). New York: Cambridge University Press.
13. Design-Based Researcher Collective. (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5-8.
14. diSessa, A. A., & Cobb, P. (2004). Ontological innovation and the role of theory in design experiments. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 77-103.
15. Ehman, L., Bonk, C. J., & Yamagata-Lynch, L. C. (2005). A model of teacher professional development to support technology integration. AACE Journal, 13(3), 251-272.
16. Ejigeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki, Finland: Orienta-Konsultit Oy.
17. Engeström, Y. (1993). Developmental studies of work as a testbench of activity theory: The case of primary care medical practice. In S. Chaiklin & J. Lave (Eds.), Understanding practice: Perspectives on activity and context (pp. 64-103). New York: Cambridge University Press.
18. Engeström, Y. (1996). The tensions of judging: Handling cases of driving under the influence of alcohol in Finland and California. In Y. Engeström & D. Middleton (Eds.), Cognition and communication at work (pp. 199-232). New York: Cambridge University Press.
19. Engeström, Y. (1999). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen, & R.-L. Punamaki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 19-38). New York: Cambridge University Press.
20. Engeström, Y. (2000). Activity theory as a framework for analyzing and redesigning work. Ergonomics, 43(1), 960-974.
21. Fishman, B. J., Marx, R. W., Blumenfeld, P. C., Krajcik, J., & Soloway, E. (2004). Creating a framework for research on systemic technology innovations. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 43-76.
22. Gallimore, R., & Tharp, R. (1990). Teaching mind in society: Teaching schooling, and literate discourse. In L. C. Moll (Ed.), Vygotsky and education: Instructional implications and applications of sociohistorical psychology (pp. 175-205). New York: Cambridge University Press.
23. Galperin, P. I. (1992). The problem of activity in Soviet psychology. Journal of Russian & East European Psychology, 30(4), 37-59.
24. Hoadley, C. M. (2004). Methodological alignment in design-based research. Educational Psychologist, 39(4), 203-212.
25. Hyysalo, S. (2005). Objects and motives in a product design process. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 12(1), 19-36.
26. Joseph, D. (2004). The practice of design-based research: Uncovering the interplay between design, research, and the real-world context. Educational Psychologist, 39(4), 235-242.
27. Kaptelinin, V. (2005). The object of activity: Making sense of the sense-maker. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 12(1), 4-18.
28. Kozulin, A. (1990). Vygotsky's psychology: A biography of ideas. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
29. Lave, J. (1993). The practice of learning. In S. Chailklin & J. Lave (Eds.), Understanding practice: Perspectives on activity and context (pp. 3-32). New York: Cambridge University Press.
30. Lazarev, V. S. (2004). The crisis of "the activity approach" in psychology and possible ways to overcome it. Journal of Russian & East European Psychology, 42(3), 35-58.
31. Leontiev, A. N. (1974). The problem of activity in psychology. Soviet Psychology, 13(2), 4-33.
32. Leontiev, A. N. (1978). The problem of activity and psychology. In A. N. Leontiev (Ed.), Activity, consciousness, and personality (pp. 45-74). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
33. Leontiev, A. N. (1981). The problem of activity in psychology. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.), The concept of activity in Soviet psychology (pp. 37-71). New York: Sharpe.
34. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
35. Luria, A. R. (1979). The making of mind: A personal account of Soviet psychology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
36. Miettinen, R. (2005). Object of activity and individual motivation. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 12(1), 52-69.
37. Nardi, B. A. (1996). Activity theory and human-computer interaction. In B. A. Nardi (Ed.), Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human-computer interaction (pp. 1-16). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
38. Nardi, B. A. (2005). Objects of desire: Power and passion in collaborative activity. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 12(1), 37-51.
39. Packer, M. J., & Goicoechea, J. (2000). Sociocultural and constructivist theories of learning: Ontology, not just epistemology. Educational Psychologist, 35(4), 227-241.
40. Rogoff, B. (1995). Observing sociocultural activity on three planes: Participatory appropriation, guided participation, and apprenticeship. In J. V. Wertsch, P. Del Rio, & A. Alvarez (Eds.), Sociocultural studies of mind (pp. 139-164). New York: Cambridge University Press.
41. Roschelle, J. (1998). Activity theory: A foundation for designing learning technology? Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7(2), 241-255.
42. Roth, W. M., & Tobin, K. (2002). Redesigning an "urban" teacher education program: An activity theory perspective. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 9(2), 108-131.
43. Rozin, V. M. (2004). Value foundations of conceptions of activity in psychology and contemporary methodology. Journal of Russian & East European Psychology, 42(3), 72-89.
44. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1992). On paradigms and methods: What do you do when the ones you know don't do what you want them to? Issues in the analysis of data in the form of videotapes. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(2), 179-214.
45. Scribner, S. (1997). A sociocultural approach to the study of mind. In E. Toback, R. J. Flamagne, M. B. Parlee, L. M. W. Martin, & A. S. Kapelman (Eds.), Mind and social practice: Selected writings of Sylvia Scribner (pp. 266-280). New York: Cambridge University Press.
46. Stetsenko, A. (2005). Activity as object-related: Resolving the dichotomy of individual and collective planes of activity. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 12(1), 70-88.
47. Tharp, R. G., & Gallimore, R. (1988). Rousing minds to life: Teaching, learning, and schooling in social context. New York: Cambridge Univeristy Press.
48. Toomela, A. (2000). Activity theory is a dead end for cultural-historical psychology. Culture and Psychology, 6(3), 353-364.
49. Wertsch, J. V., Tulviste, P., & Hagstrom, F. (1993). A sociocultural approach to agency. In E. A. Forman, N. Minick, & C. A. Stone (Eds.), Contexts for learning: Sociocultural dynamics in children's development (pp. 336-356). New York: Oxford University Press.
50. Yamagata-Lynch, L. C. (2003a). How a technology professional development program fit into the work lives of teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19(6), 591-607.
51. Yamagata-Lynch, L. C. (2003b). Using activity theory as an analytical lens for examining technology professional development in schools. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 10(2), 100-119.