Divisions of labor in school and in the workplace: Comparing computer- and paper-supported activities across settings

Cscl 2: Carrying Forward the Conversation

Volumn , Issue , 2013, Pages 229-258

  Stevens, Reed R ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 70350425296     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9781410601544-17     Document Type: Chapter

References (59)

1. Becker, H. (1995). “The Power of Inertia,�? Qualitative Sociology, 18, 301-309.
2. Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice (R.Nice, Trans.). New York: Cambridge University Press.
3. Bowker, G.C., Star, S.L, Turner, W., & Gasser, L. (Eds.). (1997). Social science, technical systems, and cooperative work: Beyond the great divide. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
4. Braverman, H. (1974). Labor and monopoly capital: The degradation of work in the twentieth century. New York: Monthly Review Press.
5. Brown, A. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. The Journal of Learning Sciences, 2, 141-178.
6. Brown, A.L., &Campione, J.C. (1994). Guided discovery in a community of learners. In K.McGilly (Ed.), Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice (pp. 229-270). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
7. Clarke, A.E., & Fujimura, J.H. (Eds.). (1992). The right tools for the job. At work in twentieth-century life sciences. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
8. Cohen, E.G. (1994). Designing group work: Strategies for the heterogeneous classroom (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.
9. Cole, M. (1996). Creating model activity systems. Cultural psychology: A once and future discipline (pp. 257-285). Cambridge, MA: Belknap.
10. Cole, M., & Engestrom, Y. (1993). A cultural-historical approach to distributed cognition. In G.Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions (pp. 1-46). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
11. Cole, M., Hood, L., & McDennott, R.P. (1997). Concepts of ecological validity: Their differing implications for comparative cognitive research. In M.Cole, Y.Engestrom, & O.Vasquez (Eds.), Mind, culture and activity. Seminal papers from the Laboratory of Comparative Human Cognition (pp. 49-56). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
12. Collins, A. (1992). Toward a design science of education. In E.Scanlon & T.O’Shea (Eds.), New directions in educational technology (pp. 15-22). New York: Springer-Verlag.
13. Cuban, L. (1986). Teachers and machines: The classroom use of technology since 1920. New York: Teachers College Press.
14. Cuff, D. (1991). Architecture: The story of practice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
15. diSessa, A. (1991). Epistemological micromodels: The ease of coordination and quantities. In J.Montagero & A.Tryphon (Eds.), Psychologie genetique et sciences cognitives. Geneva: Fondation Archives Jean Piaget.
16. diSessa, A.A., Hammer, D., Sherin, B., & Kolpakowski, T. (1991). Inventing graphing: Meta-representational expertise in children. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 10, 117-160.
17. Durkheim, E. (1984/1893). The division of labor in society. New York: The Free Press.
18. Engestrom, Y. (1990). When is a tool? Multiple meanings of artifacts in human activity. Learning, working, and imagining: Twelve studies in activity theory (pp. 171-195). Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit Oy.
19. Fujimura, J. (1987). Constructing “do-able�? problems in cancer research: Articulating alignment. Social Studies of Science, 17, 257-293.
20. Fujimura, J. (1992). Crafting science: Standardized packages, boundary objects, and “translation.�? In A.Pickering (Ed.), Science as practice and culture (pp. 168-211). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
21. Gasser, L. (1986). The integration of computing and routine work. ACM Transactions on Office Information Systems, 4, 205-225.
22. Gaver, W. (1996). Situating action II. Affordances for interaction: The social is material for design. Ecological Psychology, 8(2), 111-129.
23. Gibson, J.J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
24. Goodwin, C., & Goodwin, M. (1996). Seeing as a situated activity: Formulating planes. In Y. Engestrom & D.Middleton (Eds.), Cognition and communication at work (pp. 61-95). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
25. Greeno, J. (1997, September). Conceptual growth considered as change in discursive practices. Presented at Cognition and Development Colloquium, University of California, Berkeley.
26. Hall, R. (1995). Exploring design oriented mathematical practices in school and work settings. Communications of the ACM, 38, 62.
27. Hall, R.P., Knudsen, J., & Greeno, J.G. (1995/1996). A case study of systemic aspects of assessment technologies. Educational Assessment, 3, 315-361.
28. Hall, R., & Stevens, R. (1995). Making space: A comparison of mathematical work in school and professional design practices. In S.L.Star (Ed.), The cultures of computing (pp. 118-145). London: Basil Blackwell.
29. Healy, J.M. (1998). Failure to connect: How computers affect our children’s minds for better and worse. New York: Simon & Schuster.
30. Herrenkohl, L.R., &Guerra, M.R. (1999). Participant structures, scientific discourse, and student engagement in fourth grade. Cognition and Instruction, 16, 431-473.
31. Hughes, E.C. (1971). The sociological eye: Selected papers. Chicago: Aldine-Atherton.
32. Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
33. Koschmann, T. (Ed.). (1996). CSCL, Theory and practice of an emerging paradigm. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
34. Latour, B. (1994). Pragmatogonies: A mythical account of how humans and nonhumans swap properties. American Behavioral Scientist, 37, 791-808.
35. Latour, B. (1996). On interobjectivity. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 3, 228-245.
36. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
37. Law, J., & Bijker, W.E. (1992). Postscript: Technology, stability and social theory. In W.E. Bijker & J.Law (Eds.), Shaping technology/building society: Studies in sociotechnical change (pp. 290-308). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
38. Livingston, E. (1993). The disciplinarity of knowledge at the mathematics-physics interface. In E.Messer-Davidow, D.R.Shumway, & D.J.Sylvan (Eds.), Knowledges: Historical and critical studies in disciplinarity. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press.
39. Mitchell, W.J., & McCullough, M. (1995). Digital design media (2nd ed.). New York: Van Nostrand.
40. MMAP: Middle school mathematics through applications. (1995). The Antarctica project: A middle-school mathematics unit. Palo Alto, CA: Institute for Research on Learning, Reinhold.
41. Newman, D., Griffin, P., & Cole, M. (1989). The construction zone: Working for cognitive change in school. New York: Cambridge University Press.
42. Petraglia, J. (1998). Reality by design: The rhetoric and technology of authenticity in education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
43. Robbins, E. (1994). Why architects draw. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
44. Shapin, S. (1989). The invisible technician. American Scientist, 77, 554-563.
45. Star, S.L. (1991). Power, technology and the phenomenology of conventions: On being allergic to onions. Sociological Review, 38, 26-56.
46. Star, S.L., & Griesemer, J.R. (1989). Institutional ecology, “translations�? and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39. Social Studies of Science, 19, 387-420.
47. Stevens, A.H. (2000). Drawing will never be obsolete: Reflections on the continuities between traditional and digital media. Column 5, 14. College of Architecture and Urban Planning, University of Washington.
48. Stevens, R. (1999). Disciplined perception: Comparing the development of embodied mathematical practices in school and at work. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.
49. Stevens, R. (2000). Who counts what as math: Emergent and assigned mathematical problems in a project-based classroom. In J.Boaler (Ed.), Social analysis of mathematics teaching and learning. New York: Elsevier.
50. Stevens, R., & Hall, R. (1997). Seeing tornado: How video traces mediate visitor understanding of (natural?) phenomena in a science museum. Science Education, 81, 735-748.
51. Stevens, R., & Hall, R. (1998). Disciplined perception: Learning to see in technoscience. In M.Lampert & M.L.Blunk (Eds.), Talking mathematics in school: Studies of teaching and learning (pp. 107-149). New York: Cambridge University Press.
52. Strauss, A. (1985). Work and the division of labor. The Sociological Quarterly, 29, 1-19.
53. Strauss, A. (1988). The articulation of project work: An organizational process. Sociological Quarterly, 29, 163-178.
54. Suchman, L. (1994). Working relations of technology production and use. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 2, 21-39.
55. Suchman, L. (1995). Making work visible. Communications of the ACM, 38, 56-64.
56. Thorne, B. (1993). Gender play: Girls and boys in school. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
57. Traweek, S. (1988). Beamtimes and lifetimes. The world of high energy physicists. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
58. Van Haneghan, J., Barron, L., Young, M., Williams, S., Vye, N., & Bransford, J. (1992). The “Jasper�? series: An experiment with new ways to enhance mathematical thinking. In D.F.Halpern (Ed.), Enhancing thinking skills in the sciences and mathematics (pp. 15-38). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
59. Zuboff, S. (1984). In the age of the smart machine: The future of work and power. New York: Basic Books.