Using activity theory and its principle of contradictions to guide research in educational technology

Australasian Journal of Educational Technology

Volumn 24, Issue 4, 2008, Pages 442-457

  Murphy, Elizabeth ^a   Rodriguez Manzanares, Maria A ^a  

^a MEMORIAL UNIVERSITY OF NEWFOUNDLAND   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 54849403326     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14495554     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.14742/ajet.1203     Document Type: Article

References (56)

1. Bannon, L. & Kaptelinin, V. (2000). From human-computer interaction to computer-mediated activity. In C. Stephanidis (Ed.), User interfaces for all: Concepts, methods, and tools (pp. 183-202). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
2. Barab, S., A., Barnett, M., Yamagata-Lynch, L., 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.
3. Barab, S., 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.
4. Basharina, O. K. (2007). An activity theory perspective on student-reported contradictions in international telecollaboration. Language Learning & Technology, 11(2), 82-103. [viewed 19 July 2007]. http://llt.msu.edu/vol11num2/basharina/default.html
5. Bellamy, R. (1996). Designing educational technology: Computer-mediated change. In B. Nardi (Ed.), Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human-computer interaction (pp. 123-145). Cambridge: The MIT Press.
6. Benson, A., Lawler, C. & Whitworth, A. (2008). Rules, roles and tools: Activity theory and the comparative study of e-learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(3), 456-467.
7. Berge, O. & Fjuk, A. (2006). Understanding the roles of online meetings in a net-based course. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 22(1), 13-23.
8. Buell, J. P. (n. d.). COWS in the classroom: Technology introduction and teacher change through the lens of activity theory. [viewed 22 July 2008] http://edwebsfiles.ed.uiuc.edu/meter/Documents/COWS_FollowUp.pdf
9. Buell, J. (2004). Learning to teach with laptops: A case study of teacher change. In C. Crawford et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference 2004 (pp. 1984-1985). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
10. Blin, F. (2004). CALL and the development of learner autonomy: Towards an activity-theoretical perspective. Recall, 16(2), 377-395.
11. Blin, F. (2005). CALL and the development of learner autonomy: An activity theoretical study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Institute of Educational Technology, The Open University, UK. [viewed 22 July 2008] http://www.dcu.ie/~blinf/BlinThesis.pdf
12. Brine, J. & Franken, M. (2006). Students' perceptions of a selected aspect of a computer mediated academic writing program: An activity theory analysis. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 22(1), 21-38. http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet22/brine.html
13. Capper, P. & Williams, B. (2004). Enhancing evaluation using systems concepts. American Evaluation Association. http://users.actrix.co.nz/ bobwill/activity.doc [viewed 2 Sep 2006, verified 3 Aug 2008]
14. Center for Activity Theory and Developmental Work Research (2003-2004). [viewed 5 Sep 2006, verified 3 Aug 2008] http://www.edu.helsinki.fi/ activity/pages/chatanddwr/activitysystem/
15. 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). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
16. Dippe, G. (2006). The missing teacher: Contradictions and conflicts in the experience of online learners. Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Networked Learning 2006. Lancaster: Lancaster University. [viewed 10 Mar 2006, verified 3 Aug 2008] http://www.networkedlearningconference.org.uk/past/nlc2006/abstracts/ pdfs/P38%20Dippe.PDF
17. Dobson, M., LeBlanc, D. & Burgoyne, D. (2004). Transforming tensions in learning technology design: Operationalising activity theory. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 30(1). http://www.cjlt.ca/content/vol30.1/cjlt30-1_art2.html [viewed 23 July 2008]
18. Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit.
19. 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). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
20. Engeström, Y. (1996). Developmental work research as educational research: Looking ten years back and into the zone of proximal development. Nordisk Pedagogik, 16(3), 131-143.
21. Engeström, Y., & Miettinen, R. (1999). Activity Theory and individual and social transformation. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen, & R. L. Punamäki (Eds.), Perspectives on Activity Theory (pp. 19-38). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
22. Engeström, Y. (2000). Activity theory as a framework for analyzing and redesigning work. Ergonomics, 43(7), 960-974.
23. Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity-theoretical conceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133-156.
24. Engeström, Y., Brown, C., Christopher, L. C. & Gregory, J. (1991). Coordination, cooperation and communication in the courts: Expansive transitions in legal work. The Quarterly Newsletter of the Laboratory of Comparative Human Cognition, 13(4), 88-97.
25. Engeström, Y, Engeström, R. & Suntio, A. (2002a). Can a school community learn to master its own future? An activity theoretical study of expansive learning among middle school teachers. In G. Wells & G. Claxton (Eds.), Learning for life in the 21st Century: Sociocultural perspectives on the future of education (p. 211-224). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
26. Engeström, Y, Engeström, R. & Suntio, A. (2002b). From paralyzing myths to expansive action: Building computer-supported knowledge into the curriculum from below. In Stahl, G. (Ed.), Computer support for collaborative learning: Foundations for a CSCL community (pp. 318-324). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
27. Engeström, Y. & Miettinen, R. (1999). Introduction. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen & R. L. Punamäki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 1-18). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
28. Fåhræus, E. R. (2004). Distance education students moving towards collaborative learning: A field study of Australian distance education students and systems. Educational Technology & Society, 7(2), 129-140. http://www.ifets.info/journals/7_2/16.pdf
29. Gay, G., Rieger, R. & Bennington, T. (2001). Using mobile computing to enhance field study. In T. Koschmann, R. Hall, & N. Miyake (Eds.), CSCL2: Carrying forward the conversation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
30. Halverson, C. A. (2002). Activity theory and distributed cognition: Or what does CSCW need to DO with theories? Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 11(1-2), 243-267.
31. Hardman, J. (2005). An exploratory case study of computer use in a primary school mathematics classroom: New technology, new pedagogy? Perspectives in Education, 23(4), 99-111.
32. Il'enkov, E. V. (1982). The dialectics of the abstract and the concrete in Marx's 'Capital'. Moscow: Progress.
33. Isssroff, K. & Scanlon, E. (2002). Using technology in higher education: An activity theory perspective. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18(1), 77-83.
34. Jonassen, D. H. & Rohrer-Murphy, L. (1999). Activity theory as a framework for designing constructivist learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(1), 62-79.
35. Kaptelinin, V. (1996). Computer-mediated activity: Functional organs in social and developmental contexts. In B. Nardi (Ed.), Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human-computer interaction (pp. 45-68). Cambridge: The MIT Press.
36. Kaptelinin, V. & Nardi, B. (2006). Acting with technology: Activity theory and interaction design. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
37. Kaptelinin, V., Nardi, B. & Macaulay, C. (1999). The activity checklist: A tool for representing the "space" of context. Interactions, 6(4), 27-39.
38. Kuutti, K. (1996). Activity theory as a potential framework for human-computer interaction research. In B. A. Nardi (Ed.), Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human-computer interaction (pp. 17-44). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
39. Lantolf, J. (2006). Sociocultural theory and L2: State of the art. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(1), 67-109.
40. Lim, C. P. & Hang, D. (2003). An activity theory approach to research of ICT integration in Singapore schools. Computers & Education, 41(1), 49-63. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/B6VCJ-487KGKG-2/1/61bfb6537fcbee91814cff5c6f5bf537 [viewed 22 July 2008]
41. Murphy, E. & Rodriguez-Manzanares, M. A. (in press). Contradictions between the virtual and physical high school classroom: A third-generation activity theory perspective. British Journal of Educational Technology. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00776.x
42. Murphy, E., Rodriguez-Manzanares, M. A., Dodd, C. & Kerr, B. (2006). Using third generation activity theory and contradictions to analyse qualitative data. [viewed 25 Jan 2007, verified 11 Aug 2008] http://cider.athabascau.ca/CIDERSessions/sessionarchive/
43. Nardi, B. (Ed.) (1996a). Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human-computer interaction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
44. Nardi, B. (1996b). Studying context: A comparison of activity theory, situated action models, and distributed cognition. In B. Nardi (Ed.), Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human-computer interaction (pp. 35-52). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
45. Nelson, C. & Kim, M. K. (2001). Contradictions, appropriation and transformation: An activity theory approach to L2 writing and classroom practice. Texas Papers for Foreign Language Education, 6(1), 37-62.
46. Nelson, C. (2002). Contradictions in learning to write in a second language classroom: Insights from radical constructivism, activity theory, and complexity theory. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin. http://www.kean.edu/~cnelson/ contradictions.pdf
47. Parks, S. (2000). Same task, different activities: Issues of investment, identity and use of strategy. TESL Canada Journal, 17(2), 64-88.
48. Peruski, L. (2003). Contradictions, disturbances, and transformations: An activity theoretical analysis of three faculty members' experience with designing and teaching online courses. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University.
49. Roth, W-M. (1996). Knowledge diffusion in a grade 4-5 classroom during a unit on civil engineering: An analysis of a classroom community in terms of its changing resources and practices. Cognition and Instruction, 14(2), 179-220.
50. Roth, W-M. & Tobin, K. (2002). Redesigning an "urban" teacher education program: An activity theory perspective. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 9(2), 108-131.
51. Russell, D. (2001). Looking beyond the interface: Activity theory and distributed learning. In M. Lea & K. Nicoll (Eds.), Distributed learning (pp. 64-82). New York: Routledge Falmer.
52. Russell, D. L. & Schneiderheinze, A. (2005). Understanding innovation in education using activity theory. Educational Technology & Society, 8(1), 38-53. http://www.ifets.info/others/ download_pdf.php?j_id=26&a_id=520
53. Thorne, S. (2003). Artifacts and cultures-of-use in intercultural communication. Language Learning & Technology, 7(2), 38-67. http://llt.msu.edu/vol7num2/thorne/
54. Wardle, E. A. (2004). Can cross-disciplinary links help us teach "academic discourse" in FYC? Across the Disciplines, 1. http://wac.colostate.edu/atd/articles/wardle2004/ [viewed 25 July 2007, verified 11 Aug 2008]
55. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
56. Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.