From Artifacts to Infrastructures in Studies of Learning Practices

REFERENCES

• Bannon, L. (1991). From human factors to human actors: The role of psychology and human-computer interaction studies in system design. In J. Greenbaum & M. Kyng (Eds.), Design at work: Cooperative design of computer systems (pp. 25–44). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind. New York, NY: Ballantine.
   Google Scholar
• Bielaczyc, K. (2006). Designing social infrastructure: Critical issues in creating learning environments with technology. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15, 301–329. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls1503_1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bielaczyc, K. (2013). Informing design research: Learning from teachers’ designs of social infrastructure. Journal of the Learning Sciences,22, 258–311. doi:10.1080/10508406.2012.691925
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bødker, S., & Klokmose, C. N. (2011). The human–artifact model: An activity theoretical approach to artifact ecologies. Human–Computer Interaction, 26, 315–371. doi:10.1080/07370024.2011.626709
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bowker, G. C., Baker, K., Millerand, F., & Ribes, D. (2010). Toward information infrastructure studies: Ways of knowing in a networked environment. In J. Hunsinger, L. Klastrup, & M. Allen (Eds.), International handbook of internet research (pp. 97–117). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Bygholm, A., & Nyvang, T. (2009). An infrastructural perspective on implementing new educational technology. In L. Dirckinck-Holmfeld, C. Jones, & B. Lindström (Eds.), Analysing networked learning practices in higher education and continuing professional development (pp. 29–43). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Cole, M. (1996). Cultural psychology: A once and future discipline. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cole, M., & Engeström, Y. (1993). A cultural-historical approach to distributed cognition. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 1–46). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35, 982–1003. doi:10.1287/mnsc.35.8.982
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki, Finland: Orienta-Konsultit Oy.
   Google Scholar
• Engeström, Y. (1990). When is a tool? In Y. Engeström (Ed.), Learning, working, and imagining (pp. 171–195). Helsinki, Finland: Orienta-Konsultit Oy.
   Google Scholar
• Ferguson, R. (2012). Learning analytics: Drivers, developments, and challenges. International Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning, 4, 304–317. doi:10.1504/IJTEL.2012.051816
   Google Scholar
• Guribye, F. (2005). Infrastructures for learning – Ethnographic inquiries into the social and technical conditions of education and training (Unpublished doctoral thesis). University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/1956/859
   Google Scholar
• Guribye, F., & Lindström, B. (2009). Infrastructures for learning and networked tools – The introduction of a new tool in an inter-organisational network. In L. Dirckinck-Holmfeld, C. Jones, & B. Lindström (Eds.), Analysing networked learning practices in higher education and continuing professional development (pp. 103–115). Rotterdam, the Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Hanseth, O., & Lundberg, N. (2001). Designing work-oriented infrastructures. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 10, 347–372. doi:10.1023/A:1012727708439
   Google Scholar
• Hanseth, O., & Monteiro, E. (1997). Inscribing behaviour in information infrastructure standards. Accounting, Management and Information Technologies, 7, 183–211. doi:10.1016/S0959-8022(97)00008-8
   Google Scholar
• Hanseth, O., Monteiro, E., & Hatling, M. (1996). Developing information infrastructure: The tension between standardization and flexibility. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 21, 407–426. doi:10.1177/016224399602100402
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Igira, F., & Aanestad, M. (2009). Living with contradictions: Complementing activity theory with the notion of “installed base” to address the historical dimension of transformation. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 16, 209–233. doi:10.1080/10749030802546269
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jewett, T., & Kling, R. (1991). The dynamics of computerization in a social science research team: A case study of infrastructure, strategies, and skills. Social Science Computer Review, 9, 246–275. doi:10.1177/089443939100900205
   Google Scholar
• Jones, C. (2009). A context for collaboration: Institutions and the infrastructure for learning. In C. O’Malley, D. Suthers, P. Reimann, & A. Dimitracopoulou (Eds.), CSCL ‘09 proceedings of the 9th international conference on computer-supported collaborative learning (Vol. 1, pp. 292–296). Raleigh, NC: Lulu Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jones, C., Dirckinck-Holmfeld, L., & Lindström, B. (2006). A relational, indirect, meso-level approach to CSCL design in the next decade. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1, 35–56. doi:10.1007/s11412-006-6841-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaptelinin, V. (1996). Activity theory: Implications for human-computer interaction. In B. Nardi (Ed.), Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human-computer interaction (pp. 103–116). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kaptelinin, V. (2013). The mediational perspective on digital technology: Understanding the interplay between technology, mind, and action. In S. Price, C. Jewitt, & B. Brown (Eds.), The Sage handbook of digital technology research (pp. 203–216). London, UK: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Kaptelinin, V., & Cole, M. (2001). Individual and collective activities in educational computer game playing. In T. Koschmann, R. Hall, & N. Miyake (Eds.), CSCL 2: Carrying forward the conversation (pp. 303–316). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Kaptelinin, V., & Nardi, B. (2006). Acting with technology: Activity theory and interaction design. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kling, R. (1992). Behind the terminal: The critical role of computing infrastructure in effective information systems development and use. In W. W. Cotterman & J. A. Senn (Eds.), Challenges and strategies for research in systems development (pp. 153–201). New York, NY: Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Kling, R., & Scacchi, W. (1982). The web of computing: Computer technology as social organization. Advances in Computers, 21, 1–90. doi:10.1016/S0065-2458(08)60567-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koschmann, T. (Ed.). (1996). CSCL: Theory and practice of an emerging paradigm. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Koschmann, T., Kelson, A. C., Feltovich, P. J., & Barrows., H. S. (1996). Computer-supported problem-based learning: A principled approach to the use of computers in collaborative learning. In T. Koschmann (Ed.), CSCL: Theory and practice of an emerging paradigm (pp. 83–124). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Kuutii, K. (1991a). Activity theory and its applications to information systems research and development. In H.-E. Nissen, H. K. Klein, & R. Hirschheim (Eds.), Information systems research: Contemporary approaches and emergent traditions (pp. 529–549). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Elsevier Science.
   Google Scholar
• Kuutii, K. (1991b). The concept of activity as a basic unit of analysis for CSCW research. In L. Bannon, M. Robinson, & K. Schmidt (Eds.), Proceedings of the second European conference on computer-supported cooperative work ECSCW’ 91 (pp. 249–264). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Lakkala, M., Muukonnen, H., Paavola, S., & Hakkarainen, K. (2008). Designing pedagogical infrastructures in university courses for technology-enhanced collaborative inquiry. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning,3, 33–64. doi:10.1142/S1793206808000446
   Google Scholar
• Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lipponen, L., Lallimo, J., & Lakkala, M. (2006). Designing infrastructures for learning with technology. In D. Fisher & M. S. Khine (Eds.), Contemporary approaches to research on learning environments: Worldviews (pp. 449–460). Singapore: World Scientific Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Monteiro, E. (2000). Actor-network theory and information infrastructure. In C. Ciborra, K. Braa, A. Cordella, B. Dahlbom, A. Failla, O. Hanseth, & K. A. Simon (Eds.), From control to drift: The dynamics of corporate information infrastructures (pp. 71–83). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Monteiro, E., Pollock, N., Hanseth, O., & Williams, R. (2013). From artefacts to infrastructures. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 22, 575–607. doi:10.1007/s10606-012-9167-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Netteland, G. (2008). Training for change in large organizations–exploring problem areas and identifying opportunities in the implementation of e- learning ( Unpublished doctoral thesis). University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.
   Google Scholar
• Orlikowski, W. J., & Iacono, C. S. (2001). Research commentary: Desperately seeking the “IT” in IT research—A call to theorizing the IT artifact. Information Systems Research, 12, 121–134. doi:10.1287/isre.12.2.121.9700
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ribes, D., & Lee, C. P. (2010). Sociotechnical studies of cyberinfrastructure and e-research: Current themes and future trajectories. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 19, 231–244. doi:10.1007/s10606-010-9120-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Säljö, R. (1999). Learning as the use of tools: A sociocultural perspective on the human-technology link. In K. Littleton & P. Light (Eds.), Learning with computers: Analysing productive interaction (pp. 144–161). London, UK: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Säljö, R. (2011). Digital tools and challenges to institutional traditions of learning: Technologies, social memory, and the performative nature of learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning,26, 53–64. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2009.00341.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educational Researcher, 27(2), 4–13. doi:10.3102/0013189X027002004
   Google Scholar
• Star, S. L. (1996). Working together. Symbolic interactionism, activity theory, and information systems. In Y. Engeström & D. Middleton (Eds.), Cognition and communication at work (pp. 296–318). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Star, S. L. (1999). The ethnography of infrastructure. American Behavioral Scientist, 43, 377–391. doi:10.1177/00027649921955326
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Star, S. L. (2002). Infrastructure and ethnographic practice. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 14, 107–122.
   Google Scholar
• Star, S. L., & Bowker, G. C. (2002). How to infrastructure. In L. Lievrouw & S. Livingstone (Eds.), Handbook of the new media (pp. 151–162). London, UK: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Star, S. L., & Ruhleder, K. (1996). Steps toward an ecology of infrastructure: Design and access for large information spaces. Information Systems Research, 7, 111–134. doi:10.1287/isre.7.1.111
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wertsch, J. V. (1998). Mind as action. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar