Commentary : Human-field interaction as mediated by mobile computers

Cscl 2: Carrying Forward the Conversation

Volumn , Issue , 2013, Pages 533-537

  Barab, Sasha A ^a  

^a INDIANA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85071817260     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: None     Document Type: Chapter

References (20)

1. Barab, S.A., & Landa, A. (1997). Designing effective interdisciplinary anchors. Educational Leadership, 54, 52-55.
2. Barab, S.A. (1999). Ecologizing instruction through integrated Units. Middle School Journal, 30, 21-28.
3. Barab, S., Barnett, M., Yamagata-Lynch, L., Squire, K., & Keating, T. (in press). Using activity theory to understand the contradictions characterizing a technologyrich introductory astronomy course. To appear in Mind, Culture, and Activity.
4. Barab, S.A., Cherkes-Julkowski, M., Swenson, R., Garrett. S., Shaw, R.E., & Young, M. (1999). Principles of self-organization: Ecologizing the learner-facilitator system. The Journal of The Learning Sciences, 8(3&4), 349-390.
5. Barab, S.A., & Duffy, T. (2000). From practice fields to communities of practice. In D.Jonassen, & S.M.Land. (Eds.). Theoretical Foundations of Learning Environments (pp. 25-56). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
6. Carroll, J.M. (1987). Interfacing thought: Cognitive aspects of human-computer interaction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
7. Carroll, J.M. (1991). Designing interaction: Psychology at the human-computer interface. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
8. Duffy, T.M., & Jonassen, D.H. (Eds.). (1992). Constructivism and the technology of instruction. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
9. Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding. Helsinki: Orienta-konsultit.
10. Engeström, Y. (1988). 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, MA: Cambridge University Press.
11. Kaptelinin, V. (1996). Activity theory: Implications for human-computer interaction. In B.Nardi (Ed.), Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human-computer interaction. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
12. Kuutti, K. (1996). Activity Theory as a potential framework for human-computer interaction research. In B.Nardi (Ed.), Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human-computer interaction. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
13. Leont’ev, A. (1974). The problem of activity in psychology. Soviet Psychology, 13(2), 4-33.
14. Leont’ev, A. (1981). Problems of the development of mind. Moscow: Progress.
15. Leont’ev, A. (1989). The problem of activity in the history of Soviet psychology. Soviet Psychology, 27(1), 22-39.
16. Nardi, B. (Ed.). (1996). Context and consciousness: Activity theory and humancomputer interaction. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
17. Postman, N. (1992). Technopoly: The surrender of culture to technology. New York: Alfred A.Knopf.
18. Reed, R.S. (1996a). Encountering the world: Toward an ecological psychology. New York: Oxford University Press.
19. Reed, R.S. (1996b). The necessity of experience. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
20. Young, M.E., & Barab, S. (1999). Perception of the raison d’etre in anchored instruction: An ecological psychology perspective. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 20(2), 113-135.