‘Learning to assess’ and ‘assessing to learn’: The construction of knowledge about assistive technology

Educational Action Research

Volumn 14, Issue 4, 2006, Pages 535-545

  Folkes, Clare ^a   Carmichael, Patrick ^b  

^a KING'S COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Assistive Technology; Communities of practice; Inter agency working; Networks; Professional learning

Indexed keywords

EID: 84890722068     PISSN: 09650792     EISSN: 17475074     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09650790600975767     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Abilitynet. 2004. Our assessment services Available online at: http://www.abilitynet.org.uk/content/factsheets/abnass.htm (accessed 31 August 2005)
2. Altrichter, H., 2005. The role of professional community in action research. Collaborative Action Research, 13(1): 11–23.
3. Baszanger, I., 1997. “ Deciphering chronic pain ”. In Grounded theory in practice, Edited by: Strauss, A., and Corbin, J., 1–34. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
4. Bereiter, C., and Scardamalia, M., 1993. Surpassing ourselves, Chicago, IL: Open Court.
5. Burt, R. S., 2000. “ The network structure of social capital ”. In Research in organizational behaviour, Edited by: Sutton, R. I., and Staw, B. M., Vol. 22, Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
6. Casali, S., 1995. “ A physical skills based strategy for choosing an appropriate interface method ”. In Extra-ordinary human–computer interaction: interfaces for users with disabilities, Edited by: Edwards, A., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
7. Day, H., Jutai, J., and Campbell, K., 2002. Development of a scale to measure the psychosocial impact of assistive devices: lessons learned and the road ahead. Disability and Rehabilitation, 24(1–3): 31–37.
8. DeRuyter, F., 1997. The importance of outcome measures for assistive technology service delivery systems. Technology and Disability, 6: 89–104.
9. Engeström, Y., 1999. “ Innovative learning in work teams: analyzing cycles of knowledge creation in practice ”. In Perspectives on activity theory, Edited by: Engeström, Y., Miettinen, R., and Punamaki, R.-L., 377–404. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
10. Engeström, Y., Engeström, R., and Vahaaho, T., 1999. “ When the center does not hold: the importance of knotworking ”. In Activity theory and social practice, Edited by: Chaiklin, S., Hedegaard, M., and Jensen, U. J., 345–374. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press.
11. Engeström, Y., Engeström, R., and Kerosuo, H., 2003. The discursive construction of collaborative care. Applied Linguistics, 24(3): 286–315.
12. Entwistle, N., McCune, V., and Hounsell, J., 2002. Approaches to studying and perceptions of university teaching–learning environments: concepts, measures and preliminary findings, Edinburgh: ETL Project. ETL Occasional Paper, September
13. Folkes, C., 2004. Last voices: an exploration of the nature of assistive technology interventions for people with motor neurone disease, UK: University of Reading. M.A. dissertation
14. Fuller, A., Hodkinson, H., Hodkinson, P., and Unwin, L., 2005. Learning as legitimate peripheral participation in communities of practice: a reassessment of keyt concepts in workplace learning. British Educational Research Journal, 31(1): 49–68.
15. Granovetter, M., 1973. The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6): 1360–1380.
16. Hakkarainen, K., Palonen, T., Paavola, S., and Lehtinen, E., 2004. Communities of networked expertise: professional and educational perspectives, Amsterdam: Elsevier.
17. Lave, J., and Wenger, E., 1991. Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
18. Nonaka, I., and Takeuchi, H., 1995. The knowledge-creating company: how Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation, New York: Oxford University Press.
19. Paavola, S., Lipponen, L., and Hakkarainen, K., 2002. “ Epistemological foundations for CSCL: a comparison of three models of innovative knowledge communities ”. In Computer support for collaborative learning: foundations for a CSCL community, Edited by: Stahl, G., 24–32. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
20. Pape, T., Kim, J., and Weiner, B., 2002. The shaping of individual meanings assigned to assistive technology: a review of personal factors. Disability and Rehabilitation, 24(1–3): 5–20.
21. Scherer, M., 2002a. The change in emphasis from people to person. Disability and Rehabilitation, 24(1–3): 1–4.
22. Scherer, M., 2002b. The importance of assistive technology outcomes Available online at: http://www.e-bility.com/articles/at.shtml (accessed 31 August 2005)
23. Schön, D., 1983. The reflective practitioner. How professionals think in action, London: Temple Smith.
24. Sfard, A., 1998. On two metaphors for learning and on the dangers of choosing just one. Educational Researcher, 27(2): 4–13.
25. Stenhouse, L., 1975. An introduction to curriculum research and development, London: Heinemann.
26. Toulmin, S., 1999. “ Knowledge as shared procedures ”. In Perspectives on activity theory, Edited by: Engeström, Y., Miettinen, R., and Punamaki, R.-L., 53–64. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
27. Wenger, E., 1998. Communities of practice: learning, meaning and identity, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
28. Wenger, E., McDermott, R., and Snyder, W., 2002. Cultivating communities of practice, Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.