Cited by 167Innovative Education and Learning PracticesTeacher Education and Leadership StudiesInnovative Teaching and Learning Methods

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Using Activity Theory to Conceptualize Online Community and Using Online Community to Conceptualize Activity Theory

Barab, Sasha, Schatz, Steve, Scheckler, Rebecca·2004·Mind, Culture, and Activity

Abstract

In this article we describe the evolving structure of the Inquiry Learning Forum (ILF), a sociotechnical interaction network (STIN) designed to support a Web-based community of in-service and preservice mathematics and science teachers sharing, improving, and creating inquiry-based pedagogical practices. Specifically, we apply activity theory as an analytical lens for characterizing the process of designing and supporting the implementation of this online community. Our findings lend support for three implications. First, activity theory can provide a useful analytical tool for characterizing design activity, especially in terms of illuminating the challenges of designing something like community. Second, as one moves toward trying to design a community, particularly one in which the members will be expected to engage in new practices that challenge their current culture, many tensions emerge. Third, consideration of the ILF as a STIN was a necessary conceptual step in our understanding of the ILF and the transactional nature of people and tools. It is our conception that activity theory and STIN are synergistic theoretical frameworks that, when taken together, can provide a richer view of design activity and community functioning than either can offer in isolation.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1207/s15327884mca1101_3

Cites

0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 24

  1. 10.1207/S15327809JLS1104_3 · DOI
  2. Barab S. A., 1999, The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8, 349, 10.1080/10508406.1999.9672074 · DOI
  3. 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.
  4. Barab S., 2001, Educational Technology Research and Development, 49, 71, 10.1007/BF02504948 · DOI
  5. 10.1080/01972240309466 · DOI
  6. Brown A. L., 1992, The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2, 141, 10.1207/s15327809jls0202_2 · DOI · Paper page
  7. Dewey, J. & Bentley, A. (1989). Knowing and the known. In J. A. Boydston (Ed.), John Dewey: The later works, Volume 16 (pp. 1-279). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. (Original work published 1949)
  8. Engestrom, Y. (1994). Teachers as collaborative thinkers: Activity-theoretical study of an innovative teacher team. In I. Carlgren, G. Handal, & S. Vaage (Eds.), Teachers minds and actions: Research on teachers' thinking and practice. London: Falmer.
  9. Engestrom, Y. (1999). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In Y. Engestrom, R. Miettinin, & R. Punamaki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 19-38). New York: Cambridge University Press. · DOI
  10. Garrison, J. (2001). An introduction to Dewey's theory of functional "trans-action": An alternative paradigm for activity theory. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 8, 275-296. · DOI
  11. 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.
  12. Jonassen D. H., 1999, Educational Technology Research and Development, 47, 61, 10.1007/BF02299477 · DOI
  13. Kim, A. J. (2000). Community building: Secret strategies for successful online communities on the Web. Berkeley, CA: Peachpit Press.
  14. 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. 17-44). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  15. Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Milton Keynes, England: Open University Press.
  16. Leont'ev A., 1974, Soviet Psychology, 13, 4, 10.2753/RPO1061-040513024 · DOI
  17. Leont'ev A., 1989, Soviet Psychology, 27, 22, 10.2753/RPO1061-0405270122 · DOI
  18. Miettinen, R, (1997). The concept of activity in the analysis of heterogeneous networks in innovation process. CSIT Workshop, "Actor Network and After."Retrieved January 20, 2002, from http://communication.ucsd.edu/MCA/Paper/Reijo/Reijo.html
  19. Nardi, B. (Ed.). (1996). Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human-computer interaction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  20. Preece, J. (2000). Online communities: Designing usability, supporting sociability. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
  21. Schuler, D. & Namioka, A. (Eds.). (1993). Participatory design: Principles and practices. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
  22. 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.
  23. Smith, M. A. & Kollock, P. (Eds.). (1999). Communities in cyberspace. London: Routledge. · DOI
  24. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 167

Metadata

Authors
Barab, S., Schatz, S., & Scheckler, R.
Affiliations
Indiana University Bloomington (US)
Venue
Mind, Culture, and Activity
Published
2004-02
Volume
11
Issue
1
Pages
25-47
ISSN
  • 1074-9039 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-7884
OpenAlex
W2055360708
Cited by
167
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 20 · 2012: 10
FWCI
12.92
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 › Teacher Education and Leadership Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
Keywords
activity theory, online communities, design activity, community design, inquiry-based teaching, science and mathematics teachers, online learning communities

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