The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Using Activity Theory to Understand the Systemic Tensions Characterizing a Technology-Rich Introductory Astronomy Course
Abstract
In this report of our research on a computer-based three-dimensional (3-D) modeling course for learning astronomy, we use the central tenets of activity theory to analyze participation by undergraduate students and instructors, illuminating the instances of activity that characterized course dynamics. Specifically, we focus on the relations of participant (student) and object (3-D models and astronomy understandings) and how, in our course, object transformations leading to scientific understandings are mediated by tools (both technological and human), the overall classroom microculture (emergent norms), division of labor (group dynamics and student-instructor roles), and rules (informal, formal, and technical). Through analysis of the data, we interpreted and then focused on two systemic tensions as illuminative of classroom activity. With respect to the first systemic tension, we examined the interplay between learning astronomy and building 3-D models. Results suggested that instead of detracting from the emergence of an activity system that supported learning astronomy, model-building actions frequently coevolved with (were the same as) astronomy-learning actions. With respect to the second tension, we examined the interplay between prespecified, teacher-directed instruction versus emergent, student-directed learning. Our results indicated that it was rarely teacher-imposed nor student-initiated constraints that directed learning; rather, rules, norms, and divisions of la…
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“The distribution of tasks between learners in one group, which was found to be 'a good practice for accomplishing tasks as team' was, however, 'not as successful for fostering the development of a broad understanding of astronomy' (p. 99). This was because some learners did not learn concepts that another team member had been responsible for.”
From Using activity theory and its principle of contradictions to guide research in educational technology (2008) · cites this paper as Barab et al., 2002
In the citing paper
“Findings of some studies (e.g., Barab et al., 2002; Basharina, 2007; Peruski, 2003; Russell & Schneiderheinze, 2005) revealed instances where contradictions were not resolved.”
From Using activity theory and its principle of contradictions to guide research in educational technology (2008) · cites this paper as Barab et al., 2002
In the citing paper
“the study, consistent with Roth's (1996) guidelines for AT enquiry, 'supported and refuted emerging hypotheses about how practices, resources, task constraints, task manifestations, and student understandings evolved over time' (Barab et al., 2002, p. 83).”
From Using activity theory and its principle of contradictions to guide research in educational technology (2008) · cites this paper as Barab et al., 2002
In the citing paper
“The authors interpreted this finding as a contradiction between the division of labour-in terms of students distributing tasks in the group versus each individual carrying out all the tasks-and the object of learning astronomy.”
From Using activity theory and its principle of contradictions to guide research in educational technology (2008) · cites this paper as Barab et al., 2002
In the citing paper
“Barab et al.'s (2002) study, which used both quantitative and qualitative data, illustrates how analysis may need to be ongoing, iterative, parallel to data collection, and involve data from additional sources.”
From Using activity theory and its principle of contradictions to guide research in educational technology (2008) · cites this paper as Barab et al., 2002
Citations
Cites
Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511815355 · Cited by 35,324
The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (2017) · Aldine (Routledge reprint) · doi:10.4324/9780203793206 · Cited by 25,789
But is it rigorous? Trustworthiness and authenticity in naturalistic evaluation
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1986) · New Directions for Program Evaluation · doi:10.1002/ev.1427 · Cited by 3,668
The 1987 Presidential Address Learning In School and Out
Resnick, L. B. (1987) · Educational Researcher · doi:10.3102/0013189x016009013 · Cited by 1,035
Engeström, Y. (1993) · Understanding Practice · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511625510.004 · Cited by 853
Research works printed but not linked: 57
- Barab, S. A. (2002). Commentary: Human-field interaction as mediated by mobile computers. In T. Koschmann, R. Hall, & N. Miyake (Eds.), Computer supported collaborative learning (pp. 533-538). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
- Barab, S. A., Barnett, M. G. & Squire, K. (2001). Building a community of teachers: Navigating the essential tensions in practice. The Journal of the Learning Sciences.
- 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. · DOI
- 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, Inc.
- 10.1002/1098-2736(200009)37:7<719::AID-TEA6>3.0.CO;2-V · DOI
- Barab S. A., 1998, Technology Trends, 43, 15, 10.1007/BF02818171 · DOI
- 10.1023/A:1009416822783 · DOI
- Barab, S. A., Hay, K. E. & Yamagata-Lynch, L. C. (2001). Constructing networks of activity: An in-situ research methodology. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 10(1&2), 63-112. · DOI
- 10.1207/S15326985EP3703_3 · DOI
- Barab S. A., 2000, Educational Technology Research and Development, 48, 37, 10.1007/BF02313400 · DOI
- Barnett M., 2001, The Journal of College Science Teaching, 30, 300
- Bednar, A. K., Cunningham, D., Duffy, T. M. & Perry, D. J. (1992). Theory into practice: How do we link? In T. Duffy & D. Jonassen (Eds.), Constructivism and the technology of instruction (pp. 17-34). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
- Blumenfeld P. C., 1996, Educational Researcher, 25, 37, 10.3102/0013189X025008037 · DOI
- Brown A. L., 1992, The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2, 141, 10.1207/s15327809jls0202_2 · DOI · Paper page
- Carroll, J. M. (1987). Interfacing thought: Cognitive aspects of human-computer interaction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
- Carroll, J. M. (1991). Designing interaction: Psychology at the human-computer interface. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
- Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt., 1993, Educational Technology, 33, 52
- Comins, N. F. (1993). Sources of misconceptions in astronomy. In J. Novak (Ed.), Proceedings of the third international conference on misconceptions and educational strategies in science and mathematics (distributed electronically). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.
- Dewey, J. (1981). Experience in nature. In J. A. Boydston (Ed.), John Dewey: The later works, 1925-1953, Vol 1 (pp. 1-326). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. (Original work published in 1925)
- Edwards L. D., 1995, Journal of Educational Computing Research, 12, 77, 10.2190/C9XX-VMC6-CVLQ-KKXF · DOI
- Engestrom, Y. (1999). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In Y. Engestrom, R. Miettinen, & R. Punamaki, (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 19-38). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. · DOI
- Garrison J., 1995, American Educational Research Journal, 32, 716, 10.3102/00028312032004716 · DOI
- 10.1037//0003-066X.53.1.5 · DOI
- Guba, E. G. & Lincoln, Y. S. (1983). Epistemological and methodological bases of naturalistic inquiry. In G. F. Madaus, M. S. Scriven, & D. L. Stufflebeam (Eds.), Evaluation models: Viewpoints on educational and human services evaluation (pp. 311-334). Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff Publishing.
- Hannafin M. J., 1994, Educational Technology, 34, 48
- Jackson S. L., 1994, Interactive Learning Environments, 4, 233, 10.1080/1049482940040305 · DOI
- Jonassen D. H., 1991, Educational Technology, 31, 28
- Jonassen, D. H. (1996). Computers in the classroom: Mindtools for critical thinking. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
- Knorr-Cetina, K. D. (1981). Introduction: The micro-sociological challenge of macro-sociology: Towards a reconstruction of social theory and methodology. In K. Knorr-Cetina & A. V. Cicourel (Eds.), Advances in social theory and methodology: Toward an integration of micro- and macro-sociologies (pp. 2-47). Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
- 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 (pp. 92-117). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
- Land S. M., 1996, Educational Technology Research and Development, 44, 37, 10.1007/BF02300424 · DOI
- Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Milton Keynes, England: Open University Press.
- Lave, J. (1993). Situating learning in communities of practice. In L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine, & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 17-36). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
- Lave, J. (1997). The culture of acquisition and the practice of understanding. In D. Kirshner & J. A. Whitson (Eds.), Situated cognition: Social, semiotic, and psychological perspectives (pp. 63-82). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
- Lehrer R., 1994, Interactive Learning Environments, 4, 219, 10.1080/1049482940040304 · DOI
- Leont'ev A., 1974, Soviet Psychology, 13, 4, 10.2753/RPO1061-040513024 · DOI
- Leont'ev A., 1989, Soviet Psychology, 27, 22, 10.2753/RPO1061-0405270122 · DOI
- McLellan, H. (1996). Virtual realities. In D. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 457-487). Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff Publishing.
- Nardi, B. (Ed.). (1996). Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human-computer interaction. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
- Nastasi B., 1991, School Psychology Review, 20, 110, 10.1080/02796015.1991.12085536 · DOI
- Papert, S. (1991). Situating constructionism. In I. Harel & S. Papert (Eds.), Constructionism: Research reports and essays, 1985-1990 (pp. 1-11). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
- Resnick L. B., 1987, Educational Researcher, 16, 13
- Rorty, R. (1979). Philosophy and the mirror of nature. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
- Roth W.-M., 1996, Cognition and Instruction, 14, 170
- Roth, W.M. (1998). Designing communities. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic. · DOI
- Sabelli N., 1994, Interactive Learning Environments, 4, 195, 10.1080/1049482940040302 · DOI
- Savery, J. & Duffy, T. (1996). Problem-based learning. An instructional model and its constructionist framework. In B. Wilson (Ed.), Constructivist learning environments: Case studies in instructional design (pp. 135-148). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
- Scardamalia M., 1994, The Journal of Sciences, 3, 265
- Schoon, K. J. (1993). The origin of earth and space science misconceptions: A survey of pre-service elementary teachers. In J. Novak, (Ed.), Proceedings of the Third International Seminar on Misconceptions and Educational Strategies in Science and Mathematics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University (distributed electronically).
- Scriven, M. S. (1983). Evaluation methodologies. In G. F. Madaus, M. S. Scriven, & D. L. Stufflebeam (Eds.), Evaluation models: Viewpoints on educational and human services evaluation (pp. 229-260). Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff Publishing.
- 10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199804)82:2<265::AID-SCE8>3.0.CO;2-C · DOI
- Stake, R. E. (1983). Program evaluation, particularly responsive evaluation. In G. F. Madaus, M. S. Scriven, & D. L. Stufflebeam (Eds.), Evaluation models: Viewpoints on educational and human services evaluation (pp. 287-310). Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff Publishing.
- 10.1023/A:1021840407112 · DOI
- Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
- Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Pres · DOI · Paper page
- Winn W., 1995, Technological Horizons in Education Journal, 23, 70
- Young M., 1993, Educational Technology Research and Development, 41, 43, 10.1007/BF02297091 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
“Vygotsky’s Neglected Legacy”: Cultural-Historical Activity Theory
Roth, W., & Lee, Y. (2007) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/0034654306298273 · Cited by 1,240
Greeno, J. G., & Engeström, Y. (2014) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139519526.009 · Cited by 503
“Three such examples are Barab et al. (2002), Engeström (2001), and Hutchins (1993).”
A review of research on student teachers' professional identity
Izadinia, M. (2013) · British Educational Research Journal · doi:10.1080/01411926.2012.679614 · Cited by 401
“( 2002 ), the focus of activity theory is on how participants transform objects and how the components of a system, actor (participant) or actors (subgroups) and the acted on (object) as well as the dynamic relations between them, mediate this transformation.”
BackgroundDeveloping an Empirical Account of a Community of Practice: Characterizing the Essential Tensions
Barab, S. A., Barnett, M., & Squire, K. D. (2002) · Journal of the Learning Sciences · doi:10.1207/s15327809jls1104_3 · Cited by 329
Self-citationXing, W.-L., Guo, R., Petakovic, E., & Goggins, S. (2015) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.09.034 · Cited by 306
“Activity theory focuses on how students’ participation transforms objects and how components in a system mediate this transformation (Barab et al., 2002).”
Background
Metadata
- Authors
- Barab, S. A., Barnett, M., Yamagata-Lynch, L., Squire, K., & Keating, T.
- Affiliations
- Indiana University Bloomington (US)
- Boston College (US)
- University of Utah (US)
- Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
- The Tech Interactive (US)
- Venue
- Mind, Culture, and Activity
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2002-05
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 76-107
- ISSN
- 1074-9039 (ISSN-L)
- 1532-7884
- OpenAlex
- W2028082438
- Cited by
- 265
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 21 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 17 · 2012: 18
- FWCI
- 23.41
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Mind Culture and Activity (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- American Educational Research Association
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Innovative Education and Learning Practices
- Social Sciences › Education › Science Education and Pedagogy
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
- Keywords
- activity theory, 3D modeling, computer-assisted instruction, systemic tension, division of labor, student-led learning, teacher-centered instruction
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
