How to bring a technical artifact into use: A micro-developmental perspective

  • Maarten Overdijk
  • Wouter van Diggelen
  • Jerry Andriessen
  • Paul A. Kirschner
Article

Abstract

In order to understand how technical artifacts are attuned to, interacted with, and shaped in various and varied classrooms, it is necessary to construct detailed accounts of the use of particular artifacts in particular classrooms. This paper presents a descriptive account of how a shared workspace was brought into use by a student pair in a face-to-face planning task. A micro-developmental perspective was adopted to describe how the pair established a purposeful connection with this unfamiliar artifact over a relatively short time frame. This appropriation was examined against the background of their regular planning practice. We describe how situational resources present in the classroom—norms, practices and artifacts—frame possible action, and how these possibilities are enacted by the pair. Analysis shows that the association of norms and practices with the technical artifact lead to a contradiction that surfaced as resistance experienced from the artifact. This resistance played an important part in the appropriation process of the pair. It signaled tension in the activity, triggered reflection on the interaction with the artifact, and had a coordinative function. The absence of resistance was equally important. It allowed the pair to transpose or depart from regular procedure without reflection.

Keywords

Appropriation Enactment Resistance Plan construction Shared workspace 

References

  1. Bansler, J. P., & Havn, E. (2003). Technology-use mediation: Making sense of electronic communication in an organizational context. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 16, 57–84.Google Scholar
  2. Bijker, W. E., Hughes, T. P., & Pinch, T. J. (1987). The social construction of technological systems: New directions in the sociology and history of technology. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bowers, J., Cobb, P., & McClain, K. (1999). The evolution of mathematical practices: A case study. Cognition and Instruction, 17, 25–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carroll, J., Howard, S., Vetere, F., Peck, J., & Murphy, J. (2002). Just what do the youth of today want? Technology appropriation by young people. Proceedings of the 35th Hawai’i International Conference on the System Sciences (HICSS-35, CD-ROM). Maui: Hawai’i: Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, Inc. (IEEE).Google Scholar
  5. Cobb, P., Stephan, M., McClain, K., & Gravemeijer, K. (2001). Participating in classroom mathematical practices. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 10, 113–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Danish, J. A., & Enyedy, N. (2006). Negotiated representational mediators: How young children decide what to include in their science representations. Science Education, 91(1), 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. DeSanctis, G., & Poole, M. S. (1994). Capturing the complexity of advanced technology use: Adaptive structuration theory. Organization Science, 5(2), 121–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dourish, P. (2001). Where the action is: The foundations of embodied interaction. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  9. Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expending: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki: Orienta—Konsultit Oy.Google Scholar
  10. Engeström, Y. (1999). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen, & R.-L. Punamäki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 19–38). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Enyedy, N. (2003). Knowledge construction and collective practice: At the intersection of learning, talk, and social configurations in a computer-mediated mathematics classroom. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12, 361–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Enyedy, N. (2005). Inventing mapping: Creating cultural forms to solve collective problems. Cognition and Instruction, 23, 427–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  14. Goodwin, C. (2000). Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 1489–1522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Greeno, J. G. (1998). The situativity of knowing, learning, and research. American Psychologist, 53(1), 5–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hall, R. (1996). Representation as shared activity: Situated cognition and Dewey’s cartography of experience. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 5, 209–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kaptelinin, V., & Nardi, B. (2006). Acting with technology: Activity theory and interaction design. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  18. Koschmann, T., Kuutti, K., & Hickman, L. (1998). The concept of breakdown in Heidegger, Leont'ev, and Dewey and its implications for education. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 5(1), 25–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kreijns, K., & Kirschner, P. A. (2001). The social affordances of computer-supported collaborative learning environments. Proceedings of the 31st ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, Reno.Google Scholar
  20. LeBaron, C. (2002). Technology does not exist independent of its use. In T. Koschmann, R. Hall, & N. Miyake (Eds.), CSCL2: Carrying forward the conversation (pp. 433–440). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc.Google Scholar
  21. Lonchamp, J. (2012). An instrumental perspective on CSCL systems. International Journal of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, 7, 211–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mackay, H., & Gillespie, G. (1992). Extending the social shaping of technology approach: Ideology and appropriation. Social Studies of Science, 22(4), 685–716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. MacKenzie, D. A., & Wacjman, J. (1985). The social shaping of technology: How the refrigerator got its hum. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Medina, R., & Suthers, D. D. (2012). Inscriptions becoming representations in representational practices. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 22(1), 23–69.Google Scholar
  25. Miettinen, R. (2001). Artifact mediation in Dewey and in cultural/historical activity theory. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 8, 297–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Norman, D. (1988). The psychology of everyday things. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  27. Orlikowski, W. J. (1992). The duality of technology: Rethinking the concept of technology in organizations. Organization Science, 3(3), 398–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Orlikowski, W. J. (2000). Using technology and constituting structures: A practice lens for studying technology in organizations. Organization Science, 11, 404–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Overdijk, M. (2009). Appropriation of technology for collaboration: From mastery to utilization. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Utrecht: Utrecht University.Google Scholar
  30. Overdijk, M., & Van Diggelen, W. (2008). Appropriation of a shared workspace: Organizing principles and their application. International Journal of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, 3, 165–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Overdijk, M., van Diggelen, W., Kirschner, P. A., & Baker, M. (2012). Connecting agents and artefacts: Towards a rationale of mutual shaping. International Journal of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, 7, 193–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pea, R. (1982). What is planning development the development of? In D. Forbes & M. T. Greenberg (Eds.), New directions for child development: Children’s planning strategies (pp. 5–27). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  33. Piaget, J. (1964). Six etudes de psychologie [Six studies of psychology]. Paris: Denoël.Google Scholar
  34. Pickering, A. (1993). The mangle of practice: Agency and emergence in the sociology of science. American Journal of Sociology, 99, 559–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pinch, T. J., & Bijker, W. E. (1987). The social construction of facts and artefacts: Or how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other. In W. E. Bijker, T. P. Hughes, & T. J. Pinch (Eds.), The social construction of technological systems: New directions in the sociology and history of technology (pp. 17–50). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  36. Rabardel, P. (1995). Les Hommes et les Technologies: Approches cognitives des instruments contemporains [People and technologies: Cognitive approaches to contemporary instruments]. Paris: Armand Colin.Google Scholar
  37. Rabardel, P., & Bourmaud, G. (2003). From computer to instrument system: A developmental perspective. Interacting with Computers, 15(5), 665–691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ritella, G., & Hakkarainen, K. (2012). Instrumental genesis in technology-mediated learning: From double stimulation to expansive knowledge practices. International Journal of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, 7, 239–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Roschelle, J. (1992). Learning by collaborating: Convergent conceptual change. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2, 235–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Roth, W.-M. (1996). Art and artefact of children’s designing: A situated cognition perspective. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 5, 129–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Stahl, G. (2013). Learning across levels. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 8(1), 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Streeck, J., Goodwin, C., & LeBaron, C. (2011). Embodied interaction: Language and body in the material world. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Suchman, L. A. (1987). Plans and situated actions: The problem of human machine communication. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Suthers, D. D. (2006). Technology affordances for intersubjective meaning making: A research agenda for CSCL. International Journal of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, 1, 315–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Suthers, D. D., & Hundhausen, C. (2003). An experimental study of the effects of representational guidance on collaborative learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(2), 183–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  47. Yin, R. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Society of the Learning Sciences, Inc. 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maarten Overdijk
    • 1
    • 5
  • Wouter van Diggelen
    • 2
  • Jerry Andriessen
    • 3
  • Paul A. Kirschner
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Educational SciencesUtrecht UniversityUtrechtThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of EducationDa Vinci CollegeDordrechtThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Wise and Munro Learning ResearchThe HagueThe Netherlands
  4. 4.Centre for Learning Sciences and Technologies (CELSTEC)Open UniversityHeerlenThe Netherlands
  5. 5.LeidenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations