Case studies revisited: what can Activity Theory offer?

Kim Issroff
*
and Eileen Scanlon
+
*
Higher Education Research and Development Unit, University ollege !ondon"
+
Institute of Educational #echnology, #he $pen University"
%ddress for correspondence& Dr Kim Issroff, Higher Education Research and Development Unit, E'D,
University ollege !ondon, ()(* #orrington 'lace, !ondon, +(E ,-#, UK
Keywords: Activity Theory, Groupworking, Multi-faceted data collection
Abstract
%ctivity #heory is currently .idely /eing applied to develop an understanding of human practice,
particularly in colla/orative settings, .hich are often computer supported" In this paper .e .ill revie.
some of these studies" %ctivity #heory has /een .idely used in a range of disciplines, /ut only recently
applied to computer)supported colla/orative learning" 0rom a retrospective consideration of several case
studies of science learning, .e .ill present our current reflections a/out the affordances of %ctivity #heory
compared to previous approaches .e have adopted" +e .ill descri/e the multi)faceted approach that .e
have no. used in several studies" Reconsidering the data collected using this method in light of %ctivity
#heory, .e found that shared purpose is a very comple1 notion and contradictions can /e conceived and
resolved in a variety of .ays" Rules of practice are often not shared and difficult to change" %ctivity #heory
can help to descri/e events .hen a community changes practice over a significant period of time"
Introduction
$ver the past 23 years, there has /een an emphasis on rigorously controlled e1perimental studies of
computer)supported colla/orative learning to try to understand the features .hich lead to high pre) to post)
test gain" Ho.ever, more recently, there has /een ac4no.ledgement of the importance of conte1t,
perceptions and emotions in the reported research" #his shift has /een encouraged /y interest in ne.
theories including situated cognition, constructivism and socio)cultural psychology" Ho.ever, the past 5
years have seen people finding inspiration in %ctivity #heory as an approach to studying and understanding
technology)/ased learning and .or4ing situations"
%ctivity #heory can /e conceptualised and used in a variety of .ays" $ur understanding of %ctivity #heory
can /e descri/ed as follo.s& the /asic unit of analysis is an activity .hich includes a conte1t" %ctivities are
directed at o/6ects 7or tas4s8 and is motivated /y the need to transform the o/6ect into an outcome" #he
relationship /et.een the su/6ect and the o/6ect is mediated /y a tool" #his is located .ithin a community
and the community is governed /y a set of rules and organised through a division of la/our" #hese ideas are
helpfully ela/orated in Engestr9m 7(*:;8, Kuutti 7(**,8 and Halloran 7in press8"
Developing a methodology for studying computer)supported colla/orative learning is complicated /y the
fact that research in this area has a variety of purposes& investigating the /enefits of computer)supported
colla/orative learning, determining the mechanisms of colla/orative learning, soft.are design and
educational guidelines" #his research is conducted /y different communities including computer scientists
doing human)computer interaction 7HI8, psychologists trying to understand the mechanisms of thought
and learning, and educationalists .ho .ish to help teachers in constructing and maintaining effective
colla/orative learning settings"
A multi-faceted approach to investigating collaborative learning
+e have therefore an approach to investigating colla/oration, .hich .e have applied mainly in situations
.here science is learned colla/oratively" #his multi)faceted approach involves investigating the
colla/orations in naturalistic settings from a range of perspectives& the pupils, the teacher and the
researchers" #his approach ac4no.ledges the importance and influence of the conte1t on the .ays in .hich
students colla/orate" It also ac4no.ledges that different children and teachers have different perceptions,
understandings and e1pectations of learning situations" #hese .ill affect the .ays in .hich they /ehave
during the interactions" In order to understand the nature of the interaction .e need access to each learner<s
understanding" #he classroom environment can /e vie.ed as consisting of several conte1ts .hich mediate
individual learning and peer interactions in a variety of .ays" Research that concentrates only on snapshot
o/servations of classroom activity can /e detailed and provide a rich picture of classroom activity 7Kim/ell
et al", (**=8 /ut .e find a need to develop a detailed picture of ho. individuals in a group situation interact
and ho. those interactions develop over time"
In order to ac4no.ledge these perspectives, our research methodology involved videoing, intervie.ing and
the use of >uestionnaires over a significant period of time"
+e need to understand ho. teachers plans and intentions develop over the period of o/servation and .e
need to understand the evolving nature of the .or4 in groups" #herefore, one strand of our approach has
/een to intervie. the students and the teacher throughout the period of the interactions e1ploring teachers
approaches to science generally as .ell as specific tas4s"
<to illuminate current practice in order to etter understand it!" Murphy et al!, #$$%, page &
Interpretations of activity theory in current research
%n account of %ctivity #heory and its implications can /e found in the .or4 of a num/er of authors, and
for recent introductions, see -a4er et al" 7(***8 and !e.is 7(**;8" -a4er and colleagues claim that %ctivity
#heory ena/les them to develop a frame.or4 .hich ena/les them to analyse different forms of grounding
in colla/orative learning" !e.is applies %ctivity #heory to distri/uted communities and concludes that
'Activity Theory can provide a framework for further research which e(plores these issues y focusing on
susets of interdependent parameters which e(ist in collaorative learning activity!) *ewis +#$$&, -age
.#&
In the rest of this section, .e descri/e four different e1amples of the application of %ctivity #heory .hich
illustrate the variety of .ays in .hich researchers have used %ctivity #heory in their .or4"
?ardi 7(**,8 .or4ing from the perspective of HI research .rites of the difficulty she e1perienced in
analysing data from a study of end user application soft.are ) slide ma4ing soft.are" Her
retrospective vie. .as that a /eneficial approach to the analysis of her data .ould have /een to ma4e
use of the language of %ctivity #heory" She uses a distinction /et.een o/6ects and action to replace
more un.ieldy terms as su/tas4 specificity and end to end specificity" Her central point ho.ever is
the realisation that the notion of tas4 is not simple&
@without Activity theory notions of a goal-action relation we had no way to descrie the notion of a goal
that is formulated to represent the action necessary for the fulfillment of the o/ect0 p .1# and later 0task
does not suggest collective motion or directive force as the Activity Theory notion of o/ect does! Her point
.as that /efore she found %ctivity #heory she felt she had a @ conceptual vacuum"A
#olmie and -oyle 723338 have used %ctivity #heory to analyse a case study of learners on)line engaging in
computer mediated communication in a university teaching setting" BSc students in educational
psychology on training placements used 0irst lass conferencing to produce a literature revie. and seminar
paper" #olmie and -oyle used %ctivity #heory to ma4e three predictions& first that the characteristics of the
trainees and the tas4 they .ere set .ould help them esta/lish a shared purpose .hich .ould motivate
online interaction, secondly, that the B usage .ould reflect the re>uirements of this shared purpose and
thirdly, even if there is a shared purpose, this may not lead to transactive discussion" #hey conclude that
there is good support for the %ctivity #heory perspective and the role of shared purpose in defining system
use" Ho.ever the t.o groups of learners they studied /ehaved mar4edly differently and they .ere not a/le
to dra. on %ctivity #heory to account for these differences" #hey also e1press some discomfort .ith the
potential for confirmatory /ias inherent in understanding the different factors in the case study"
B.anCa 723338 offers an operationalisation of %ctivity #heory in an organisational conte1t using an
e1panded triangle model .hich incorporates the community and other mediators of human activity, namely
tools, rules and divisions of /ehaviour" She applies this to a case study of an organisation using computer
tools such as a calltrac4ing system to promote organisational learning" She reports on her e1perience of
using the notational structure to generate suita/le >uestions for the intervie.s conducted .ith .or4ers"
Ho.ever she identifies pro/lems in ease of use and representation, particularly in relation to time and some
dimensions of temporary relations .ithin and /et.een the teams" Ho.ever, she remains enthusiastic a/out
the potential of /rea4ing do.n e1panded triangles to e1pose contradictions"
Halloran 723338 carried out a pro6ect on groups of first year undergraduate students ta4ing a soft.are
design and evaluation course using !otus ?otes, .ith a vie. to .or4ing out ho. the tool could /e
reconfigured to support the activity /etter" He notes that students .ere prepared to create fictitious evidence
of !otus ?otes use" Kuutti 7(**,8 in his revie. of %ctivity #heory points out that %ctivity #heory uses
contradictions /et.een different activities to indicate a misfit /et.een elements, /et.een different
activities and /et.een different developmental activities or /et.een different developmental phases of the
same activity" ontradictions sho. up as pro/lems or /rea4do.ns and activities are almost al.ays in the
process of .or4ing through contradictions" Halloran asserts that an intentional rather than a cultural)
historical perspective is necessary and that .e should <e characterising contradictions not as
developmental anomalies ut as mismatches etween what groups are intending to achieve!0 p 1!
#hese e1amples illustrate the .ide variety of uses to .hich %ctivity #heory has /een put"
#olmie D -oyle 723338 use the theory to ma4e predictions a/out B use" ?ardi 7(**,8 appeals to the
theory to fill a conceptual vacuum in the field of HI" B.anCa, 723338 e1amines the theory in a great deal
of attention to the processes uses %ctivity #heory to generate intervie. >uestions" Halloran 723338 uses the
#heory as a frame.or4 for understanding group /ehaviour" +hile all these authors dra. attention to the
/enefits of %ctivity #heory, they all allude to a num/er of different pro/lems" B.anCa e1perienced
pro/lems .or4ing on the representations of activity, .hile Halloran found that his case study could not deal
.ith 2intentional contradictions!0 -oth B.anCa and Halloran in their .or4 are e1tending the ideas of
%ctivity #heory"
Three case studies
$ver the past five years .e have .or4ed on a range of pro6ects e1amining colla/orative learning .here the
computer has /een used in a variety of .ays" In this section .e e1amine three episodes from these
pro6ects, .ith a vie. to understanding .hether an %ctivity #heory perspective .ould provide us .ith any
useful information" #he pro6ects from .hich .e have ta4en episodes are& the olla/orative !earning and
'rimary Science 7!%'S8 pro6ect, loo4ing at childrenAs classroom /ehaviour during colla/orative practical
science investigations 7Scanlon et al, (**=8, the Investigating computer supported learning from an
%ffective 'erspective pro6ect 7Issroff, (**58, loo4ing at children .or4ing on a dynamic document reporting
their science .or4, and finally a pro6ect to integrate computers into an undergraduate topographical
anatomy la/oratory in order to promote active and colla/orative learning 7Issroff et al" (**;, $smond et al",
(**;8"
$ur approach in this paper has /een a reflective one in .hich .e have reconsidered our data using the
concepts .hich define our understanding of %ctivity #heory" During the course of this reflection, .e found
that there .ere many different .ays of conceptualising the case studies" $f course any retrospective
research such as this relies heavily on interpretation" +e do not vie. this as a test or validation of %ctivity
#heory /ut as a .ay of seeing if %ctivity #heory can provide us .ith further insights into the case studies"
Episode 1: Boys on slope (Collaborative earning and !rimary "cience !ro#ect$ "canlon et al%$1&&'(
+e decided to collect data on the account of the teachers perspective of childrenAs science achievement and
group .or4, childrenAs understanding of science, and to video activities underta4en in the classroom" +e
needed to intervie. teachers a/out their approach to science generally, and children a/out their intentions
actions and to pro/e their procedural decision and conceptual understanding"
#his episode involves four /oys .or4ing on ho. to change a slope to ma4e a toy car go farther"
%t the planning stage, the /oys have a disagreement on .hat .ould affect the distance travelled /y the car"
#he /oys disagree a/out .hether a steeper slope causes the car to go further" #he conflict is resolved to the
e1tent that the children ma4e a 6oint decision a/out .hat to do" #he children decide to com/ine their t.o
hypotheses) one that the length of slope affects distance travelled .hile the other is concentrating ho.
steep the slope is"
- +e .ill have t.o different lengths of .ood, a long /it of .ood and a short /it of .ood" +e .ill
ma4e the slope longer and higher
#he teacher discourages them from this /ut to no avail"
# #hatAs t.o different tests then, isnAt it" It might /e an ideaEinteresting to find out or /e interesting
to see .hat happens there, may/e you could do that after.ards" ompare the heights first, then
compare the slopes after.ards
+hat is happening here is >uite comple1" #he children .ere under instructions from the teacher to come to
an agreement a/out the investigation .hich they .ould carry out" So the com/ination of the t.o
hypotheses served the purpose of helping them to achieve .hat they understood to /e the teacherAs goal of
a shared tas4" Success for them at the planning stage is to complete the planning sheet .ith one
investigation that they all have agreed to do" 0rom another perspective ho.ever, although the conflict a/out
.hat to do is resolved the underlying disagreement a/out .hich factors are important is unresolved" #he
decision to amalgamate the t.o hypotheses gives them a .ay to move for.ards"
%part from the driving force of see4ing a shared tas4, there are other influences on their progress" +hat
they seem to /e operating on, is a /elief in fairness, that it .ould /e unfair not to incorporate /oth
hypotheses .hich may /e an e1tension of the notion of @fair test @ .hich they have overgeneralised" #he
idea of @fair testA is a device used /y primary science specialists to help children understand ideas li4e
control of varia/les" During our pro6ect .e administered a >uestionnaire to a class of 2* children of the
same age as those reported on here" $ur e1tract does not illustrate ho. e1actly they have interpreted the
notion of fair test, /ut childrenAs responses to the >uestionnaire indicate that there is an issue a/out .hether
the children have grasped the idea a/out the meaning of the term fair test .idely used in primary science"
#he ma6ority of children had not grasped that it is necessary to isolate the varia/le that is /eing tested"
In the .ay .e .or4ed in this pro6ect, .e .ere a/le to consider the conte1t in .hich the children .or4ed
and their perceptions of it" #his is similar to a cultural historical approach /ut driven /y our vie. that to
understand such colla/orative learning e1periences it .as necessary to ta4e a .ide vie. of .hat needs to
/e understood in such situations"
%n %ctivity #heory perspective on the analysis of data from this pro6ect .ould have some similarities .ith
this approach" #he importance of having a common purpose of the tas4 is the 4ey feature that #olmie and
-oyle use as a prediction from %ctivity #heory" It is important to realise that some of the concepts and
language used in %ctivity #heory stem from Fygots4y 7(*;:8 and !eontAev 7(*:38 and have already
entered the discourse of educational research, for e1ample shared tas4" Engestr9m provides the concept of
an activity system and provides an e1tended language for concepts to /e applied"
In an %ctivity #heory perspective therefore .e should /e a/le to descri/e this episode from our data
collection" So far, .e have descri/ed t.o types of conflict)/et.een ho. the tas4 is perceived /y the
children 7to agree on an investigation8 and the teacher 7to agree on an investigation .hich can produce a
clear result8 as contradictions /et.een aspects of the system" #his is difficult to do ho.ever" Engestr9m
descri/es conflicts as arising in mem/ers of an activity system .ho still share the same purpose" In our
e1ample, there is a mismatch /et.een su/6ectsA vie. of the purposes" %n alternative interpretation is to see
the concept of @fair testA as an e1ample of a rule of the community"
In our pro6ect .hich involved a multi)disciplinary team, .e .ere a/le to dra. on our 4no.ledge of the
science education community, and the historical development of the instructional concept of fair testing to
ma4e sense of our data"
Episode ): Children collaborating about the *ater cycle% ( Investigating Computer "upported
earning from an affective perspective$ Issroff$1&&+(
Karen, Ryan and Ellen .ere * year olds .or4ing colla/oratively to construct a dynamic document a/out
the .ater cycle" #he conte1t for this activity .as a primary school classroom in .hich pupils .or4ed
colla/oratively fre>uently" #he teacher .as a strong /eliever in colla/oration and had /een identified as
e1cellent in supporting colla/orative learning /y national inspectors" #his activity occurred to.ards the end
of a series of colla/orative investigations on the topic of .ater" #hese .ere /eing studied /y the
olla/orative !earning and 'rimary Science 7!%'S8 research pro6ect and .e therefore have comple1 and
in)depth 4no.ledge of this particular classroom"
#he three children .ere considered /y their teacher to /e amongst the more a/le in the class and he
therefore gave them an e1tra activity to .or4 on together" #his involved creating a dynamic document
a/out the .ater cycle" % dynamic document is a series of images, .ith associated sound, .hich are lin4ed
together to create a slide sho." #he in)depth case study can /e found in Issroff 7(**58"
#he colla/oration lasted for ; sessions ) appro1imately * hours" #he pupils produced a document .hich
they .ere proud of and .hich the teacher thought .as very good" Ho.ever, the actual colla/oration .as
unsuccessful& the pupils fought, the tas4 .as split up and in the intervie.s, it /ecame clear that there .ere
gaps in their 4no.ledge" Ryan did not .ant to .or4 .ith either of the girls again and they did not .ant to
.or4 .ith him"
+e are going to focus on one small episode in this e1tended colla/oration" #he development of dynamic
documents has several different phases" During the planning phase, the children are told to produce a
paper)/ased story/oard as a plan for the final computer)/ased document" #hey /egan /y producing a 6oint
story/oard" Karen, Ellen and Ryan initially .or4ed on this together /ut .hen they got to the picture and
associated te1t for evaporation, they realised that none of them could e1plain evaporation" In %ctivity
#heory terms, this is a contradiction in the system /ecause they did not have the 4no.ledge to complete the
action .hich .ould ena/le them to reach their o/6ect 7i"e" to construct the story/oard8" +e have /een
una/le to descri/e this contradiction in %ctivity #heory terms" #he contradiction .as concerned .ith not
having the appropriate 4no.ledge" Ho.ever, the group did not resolve this contradiction /y all finding out
more information a/out evaporation" Instead, Karen decided that Ryan should complete the part of the
story/oard concerned .ith evaporation on his o.n, .hile she and Ellen started .or4ing on the computer"
#hus the resolution .as concerned .ith the division of la/our" Ro/ert .ent to the li/rary and researched
evaporation" He constructed his o.n mini)story/oard .hich .as incorporated into the main document" In
intervie.s after the activity, it .as clear that Karen and Ellen did not have any understanding of
evaporation"
0rom an %ctivity #heory perspective, .e can see this resolution as occurring /y changing the division of
la/our" Ho.ever, this change led to the a/andonment of a shared purpose 7although it is argua/le that there
never .as a shared purpose /et.een these three children8" #his splitting up of the tas4 then had 4noc4 on
effects for the rest of the colla/oration" In particular, Karen and Emily did not engage .ith the difficult
topic of evaporation and sho.ed no progress in their understanding of evaporation in the intervie.s" %s
Karen and Emily .ent off and started .or4ing on the computer .ithout Ryan, he felt left out and .as
unhappy .ith the colla/oration"
In this case study %ctivity #heory provides a conceptual frame.or4 .ithin .hich .e can couch this
e1tended episode in the colla/oration" Ho.ever, as it is currently constituted, it does not add anything in
terms of e1planation" +e have /een una/le to reformulate this study in terms of %ctivity #heory, in
particular, to descri/e the dominant contradiction" Ho.ever, as ?ardi points out GActivity theory is a
powerful and clarifying descriptive tool rather than a strongly predictive theory!) ?ardi, (**,, p" ;"
Episode ,: The case of changing anatomy teaching in -E (Issroff et al% 1&&.(
#his case study is particularly pertinent /ecause the la/oratory can /e vie.ed as an e1isting community of
practice .ith its o.n rules and conventions" #herefore it should /e amena/le to analysis using %ctivity
#heory given that this sort of community has provided seminal .or4s in the area"
University ollege !ondon 7U!8 is a large, research)led, multi)faculty university" #he follo.ing case
study is a/out an attempt to get medical students to /ecome active learners of anatomy in the
#opographical %natomy !a/oratory 7.ith cadavers for students to learn .ith8, including the introduction of
computers" Students .ere previously taught in a traditional manner" #his meant that they .ould attend a
conventional lecture and this .as follo.ed /y a t.o hour la/oratory session .ith groups of students
standing around a cadaver, .hile demonstrators sho.ed them the real features .hich had /een covered in
the lecture" #he reality of this .as that the demonstrators simply repeated much of .hat had /een said in
lectures and many of the students could not even see the cadaver" #his approach is clearly /ased on a
transmissive vie. of teaching and learning and the students .ere passive listeners rather than active
participants, structuring their o.n learning activities"
% ne. Reader .as appointed and put in charge of the la/oratory" He decided that there .as a need for
change, and recent documents from the -ritish Bedical %ssociation supported this" He incorporated a
.ider range of resources into the la/oratory, including specimens, H)rays, posters and computers" He
introduced .or4/oo4s .hich guided students through the topics and included activities for students to
complete during the la/oratory periods" He e1plained to his demonstrators that he did not .ant them to
stand over cadavers lecturing to the students, /ut to stand /ac4 and act as a resource for the students" He
e1plained to the students that he .anted them to ma4e active use of all the resources in the la/oratory" U!
has a highly prestigious medical school and students re>uire very high grades" #hese students have thrived
in a traditional system, learning from teachers and /oo4s, .ith a very prescri/ed curriculum and fact)/ased
assessments" +e carried out research in this la/oratory for t.o years"
In reality, a/out half of the demonstrators continued to teach in the traditional method for the first year"
Bany of the students continued to cro.d around these demonstrators" #he students made little active use of
the resources availa/le" Ho.ever, this .as not true of all of the demonstrators, nor of all of the students" In
order to try to overcome some of these pro/lems, .e e1plicitly incorporated the use of many of the
resources into the .or4/oo4s, providing e1plicit scaffolding for students on ho. to use the resources and
.hich resources .ere appropriate at different times" 0or e1ample, .e pointed out .hat features to loo4 at in
an H)ray or ho. to use a particular soft.are programme" In the second year, .e found that students .ere
ma4ing more use of the .ide range of resources availa/le to them" #hose demonstrators .ho .ere una/le
to step /ac4 from their traditional teaching roles in the first year /ecame more a/le to step /ac4 from their
traditional teaching methods"
In %ctivity #heory terms, there .ere contradictions for the demonstrators and the students" 0or /oth, ne.
tools 7for e1ample, computers, 1)rays, posters, specimens8 .ere /eing introduced into the community and
associated .ith these .ere ne. rules of practice 7the demonstrators .ere not to teach in a traditional
manner, the students .ere to /e more active participants8" #hese ne. rules led to ne. divisions of practice
/et.een the demonstrators and students" 0or the demonstrators, they .ere /eing as4ed to change their
teaching practice" 0or many, this meant moving a.ay, not 6ust from .hat they .ere used to in terms of
teaching, /ut also from the .ays in .hich they had /een taught 7i"e" the historical development of the
community of practice8" #here .as a similar contradiction for the students, .ho had, in general, /een very
successful at school, using traditional teaching methods in .hich the students are passive recipients of
4no.ledge and information, .ithin a highly structured environment .ith teachers and /oo4s"
Ho.ever, in the first year, some of the demonstrators resolved this contradiction /y effectively ignoring it
and continuing .ith their e1isting practice" +hat is of interest though is that in the second year, they
resolved the contradiction in a different .ay" #he point here is that it too4 the community time to adapt to
the changes and %ctivity #heory provides us .ith a frame.or4 .ithin .hich to understand this& in terms of
the development of a community of practice over a significant period of time to change the rules of practice
.hich had /een developed historically"
Conclusion
#his paper has revie.ed some studies .ith applied %ctivity #heory in a variety of .ays including to ma4e
predictions 7#olmie D -oyle, 23338, to fill a conceptual vacuum 7?ardi, (**,8, to generate intervie.
>uestions 7B.anCa, 23338 and as a frame.or4 for understanding group /ehaviour 7Halloran, 23338"
%ll these authors are enthusiastic a/out %ctivity #heory to /egin .ith" Ho.ever, .ith the e1ception of
?ardi, the authors uncovered pro/lems of different types" B.anCa e1pressed hers as representation, .hile
Halloran found that his case study could not readily /e defined in %ctivity #heory terms 7for e1ample,
common o/6ect, history, evolved artifact8 " #olmie and -oyle .orry a/out the potential for confirmatory
/ias"
+e then descri/ed the multiple perspective approach that .e have no. used in several studies and
reconsidered data collected using this method in light of %ctivity #heory" +e discussed three episodes
from case studies" In the first study, .e found that there .as a mismatch in su/6ects< vie.s of the purpose
of the investigation .hich can /e understood in terms of their understanding of fair tests" #his difficulty
.ith the notion of shared tas4 .as also found in the second case study in .hich a contradiction .as
resolved /y a ne. division of la/our" #his meant that the children had no shared tas4 .hich impacted on
the rest of the colla/oration" In /oth these case studies, .e felt that %ctivity #heory did not provide us .ith
further significant insights a/out the colla/orations, /ut .as a useful tool .ith .hich to present the results
to others" In the third episode, %ctivity #heory provided us .ith a language and a frame.or4 .ithin .hich
.e could descri/e and understand the development of more active learning in anatomy" #herefore, %ctivity
#heory provides us .ith a frame.or4 for descri/ing developments over a long period of time .ithin a
cultural conte1t" Ho.ever, .e .ere surprised to find that even in the setting .here the frame.or4 .as
providing useful ne. insights .e .ere not a/le to use it to find further insights into the fine grained aspects
of interactions /et.een individuals .ithin this setting"
/eferences
-annon, !" and -od4er, S 7(**(8 -eyond the interface& Encountering artifacts in use" In I" arroll, ed"
3esigning interaction4 psychology at the human interface" am/ridge& am/ridge University 'ress
-a4er, B", Hansen, #", Ioiner, R" and #raum, D" 7(***8 #he Role of Jrounding in olla/orative !earning
#as4s, In Dillen/ourg, '" 7Ed8 5ollaorative learning: computational and cognitive approaches! Elsevier 'ress"
Engestr9m, K 7(*:;8 *earning y 6(panding: an Activity Theoretical Approach to 3evelopmental
7esearch! Helsin4i
Halloran, I" 7in press8 #he %ctivity Space& analysing student group.or4 around !otus ?otes" Su/mitted to
S+ 233("
Ho.e, " 7(**L8" 'eer Interaction and Kno.ledge %c>uisition" 8ocial 3evelopment! ) 7L8"
Issroff, K" 7(**58 9nvestigating computer-supported collaorative learning from an affective perspective!
Unpu/lished 'h"D" #hesis, #he Institute of Educational #echnology, #he $pen University"
Issroff, K", $smond, B" and $AHiggins, '" 7(**;8 0rom cadaver to computer& incorporating computers into the
#opographical %natomy !a/oratory" Association for *earning Technologies :ournal, 5, (, 55),3"
Kim/ell, R", Sta/les, K" and Jreen, R" 7(**=8 Understanding technological approaches& ho. children
tac4le design and technology tas4s" In Smith, I" I" 7ed", 9nternational 5onference on 3esign and
Technology, !ough/orough University of #echnology"
Kuutti, K" 7(**,8 %ctivity theory as a potential frame.or4 for human)computer interaction research, In
?ardi, -" 7ed"8 5onte(t and consciousness: activity theory and human-computer interaction, BI# 'ress
!e.is, R" 7(**;8 %n %ctivity #heory frame.or4 to e1plore distri/uted communities
:ournal of 5omputer Assisted *earning, 1,, 2(3)2(:"
!eontAev, %"?" 7(*:38 -rolems of the 3evelopment of the Mind, Bosco.& 'rogress
!ight, '" H" and Bevarech, M" R" 7(**28" Introduction" *earning and 9nstruction )& (55)(5*"
Burphy, ', Scanlon, E", Issroff, K".ith Hodgson, -" and +hitelegg, E" 7(**58 % multi)faceted
investigation into childrenAs group.or4 in primary science, -roceedings of 6567, -ath, Septem/er
B.anCa, D" 723338 Mind the Gap: Activity Theory and design, Internal Research Report, KBI)#R)*5
?ardi, -" 7(**,8 7ed"8 5onte(t and consciousness: activity theory and human-computer interaction, BI#
'ress
?ardi, -" 7(**,8 Some reflections on the application of activity theory" In ?ardi, -" 7ed"8 5onte(t and
consciousness: activity theory and human-computer interaction, BI# 'ress
$smond, B", Issroff, K" and $<Higgins, '" 7(**;8 Integrating omputers into Students< !earning of %natomy
and Em/ryology" In 5T9 5entre for Medicine ;pdate, University of -ristol"
Scanlon, E", Burphy, '", Hodgson, -" and +hitelegg, E" 7(**=8 % case study approach to studying
colla/oration in primary science classrooms" In H" 0oot, "I", Ho.e, %" %nderson, %", #olmie, %" and
+arden, %" 7Eds8" Group and 9nteractive *earning, Southampton& omputational Bechanics 'u/lications"
#olmie, %" and -oyle, I" 723338 0actors influencing the success of computer mediated communication
7B8 environments in university teaching& a revie. and case study, 5omputers and 6ducation, L=, ((*)
(=3
Fygots4y, ! 7(*;:8 Bind in society& the development of higher psychological processes, am/ridge
University 'ress"