References
- Engeström, Y. 1990. Learning, Working and Imagining: Twelve Studies in Activity Theory. Helsinki: Konsultit.
- Engeström, Y. 2001. “Expansive Learning at Work: Toward an Activity Theoretical Reconceptualization.” Journal of Education and Work 14: 133–156. doi:10.1080/13639080020028747.
- Ertmer, P. A., J. C. Richardson, J. D. Lehman, T. J. Newby, X. Cheng, C. Mong, and A. Sadaf. 2010. “Peer Feedback in a Large Undergraduate Blended Course: Perceptions of Value and Learning.” Journal of Educational Computing Research 43 (1): 67–88. doi:10.2190/EC.43.1.e.
- Garrison, D. R., and Z. Akyol. 2009. “Role of Instructional Technology in the Transformation of Higher Education.” Journal of Computing in Higher Education 21 (1): 19–30. doi:10.1007/s12528-009-9014-7.
- Hammond, M. 2005. “A Review of Recent Papers on Online Discussion in Teaching and Learning in Higher Education.” Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks 9: 9–23. http://sloanconsortium.org/jaln/v9n3/review-recent-papers-online-discussion-teaching-and-learning-higher-education.
- Jonassen, D. H. 2000. “Revisiting Activity Theory as a Framework for Designing Student-centered Learning Environments.” In Theoretical Foundations of Learning Environments, edited by D. H. Jonassen and S. M. Land, 89–121. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
- Jonassen, D. H., and S. M. Land. 2000. “Preface.” In Theoretical Foundations of Learning Environments, edited by D. H. Jonassen and S. M. Land, iii–ix. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
- Kaptelinin, V. 2005. “The Object of Activity: Making Sense of the Sense-maker.” Mind, Culture, and Activity 12 (1): 4–18. doi:10.1207/s15327884mca1201_2.
- Lave, J., and E. Wenger. 1991. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Miettinen, R. 1998. “Object Construction and Networks in Research Work: The Case of Research on Cellulose-degrading Enzymes.” Social Studies of Science 28 (3): 423–463. doi:10.1177/030631298028003003.
- Murchison, J. M. 2010. Ethnography Essentials: Designing, Conducting, and Presenting your Research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
- Murphy, E., and M. Rodriguez-Manzanares. 2008. “Using Activity Theory and Its Principle of Contradictions to Guide Research in Educational Technology.” Australasian Journal of Educational Technology 24: 442–457. http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet.html.
- Mwanza, D. 2002. “Conceptualising Work Activity for CAL Systems Design.” Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 18 (1): 84–92.. doi:10.1046/j.0266-4909.2001.00214.x.
- Riese, H., A. Samara, and S. Lillejord. 2012. “Peer Relations in Peer Learning.” International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 25 (5): 601–624. doi:10.1080/09518398.2011.605078.
- Salomon, G., and D. N. Perkins. 1998. “Individual and Social Aspects of Learning.” Review of Research in Education 23: 1–24. http://rre.sagepub.com.
- Smagorinsky, P., A. Lakly, and T. S. Johnson. 2002. “Acquiescence, Accommodation, and Resistance in Learning to Teach within a Prescribed Curriculum.” English Education 34: 187–213. http://www.ncte.org/journals/ee http://rre.sagepub.com.
- Stone, R., S. Cooper, and R. Cant. 2013. “The Value of Peer Learning in Undergraduate Nursing Education: A Systematic Review.” International Scholarly Research Network Nursing 2013: 1–10. http://www.hindawi.com/isrn/nursing/.
- Topping, K. J. 2005. “Trends in Peer Learning.” Educational Psychology 25 (6): 631–645. doi:10.1080/01443410500345172.
- Vygotsky, L. S. 1978. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
- Wake, J. D., O. Dysthe, and S. Mjelstad. 2007. “New and Changing Teacher Roles in Higher Education in a Digital Age.” Educational Technology & Society 10: 40–51.
- Westberry, N., and M. Franken. 2013. “Co-construction of Knowledge in Tertiary Online Settings: An Ecology of Resources Perspective.” Instructional Science 41 (1): 147–164. doi:10.1007/s11251-012-9222-9.