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 leads 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.
Overdijk, M., van Diggelen, W., Andriessen, J., & Kirschner, P. A. (2014). How to bring a technical artifact into use: A micro-developmental perspective. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning. 9(3), 283–303. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-014-9195-6.
Received: 21 March 2013 /Accepted: 6 June 2014 /Published online: 18 June 2014
© International Society of the Learning Sciences, Inc. 2014
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
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.
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, MA: MIT Press.
Bowers, J., Cobb, P., & McClain, K. (1999). The evolution of mathematical practices: A case study. Cognition and Instruction, 17, 25–64.
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).
Cobb, P., Stephan, M., McClain, K., & Gravemeijer, K. (2001). Participating in classroom mathematical practices. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 10, 113–163.
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.
DeSanctis, G., & Poole, M. S. (1994). Capturing the complexity of advanced technology use: Adaptive structuration theory. Organization Science, 5(2), 121–147.
Dourish, P. (2001). Where the action is: The foundations of embodied interaction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expending: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki, Finland: Orienta—Konsultit Oy.
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, UK: Cambridge University Press.
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.
Enyedy, N. (2005). Inventing mapping: Creating cultural forms to solve collective problems. Cognition and Instruction, 23, 427–466.
Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Goodwin, C. (2000). Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 1489–1522.
Greeno, J. G. (1998). The situativity of knowing, learning, and research. American Psychologist, 53(1), 5–26.
Hall, R. (1996). Representation as shared activity: Situated cognition and Dewey’s cartography of experience. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 5, 209–238.
Kaptelinin, V., & Nardi, B. (2006). Acting with technology: Activity theory and interaction design. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
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.
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.
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, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Association.
Lonchamp, J. (2012). An instrumental perspective on CSCL systems. International Journal of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, 7, 211–236.
Mackay, H., & Gillespie, G. (1992). Extending the social shaping of technology approach: Ideology and appropriation. Social Studies of Science, 22(4), 685–716.
MacKenzie, D. A., & Wacjman, J. (1985). The social shaping of technology: How the refrigerator got its hum. Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press.
Medina, R., & Suthers, D. D. (2012). Inscriptions becoming representations in representational practices. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 22(1), 23–69.
Miettinen, R. (2001). Artifact mediation in Dewey and in cultural/historical activity theory. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 8, 297–308.
Norman, D. (1988). The psychology of everyday things. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Orlikowski, W. J. (1992). The duality of technology: Rethinking the concept of technology in organizations. Organization Science, 3(3), 398–427.
Orlikowski, W. J. (2000). Using technology and constituting structures: A practice lens for studying technology in organizations. Organization Science, 11, 404–428.
Overdijk, M. (2009). Appropriation of technology for collaboration: From mastery to utilization. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Utrecht, The Netherlands: Utrecht University.
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.
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.
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, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Piaget, J. (1964). Six etudes de psychologie [Six studies of psychology]. Paris, France: Denoël.
Pickering, A. (1993). The mangle of practice: Agency and emergence in the sociology of science. American Journal of Sociology, 99, 559–589.
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, MA: MIT Press.
Rabardel, P. (1995). Les Hommes et les Technologies: Approches cognitives des instruments contemporains [People and technologies: Cognitive approaches to contemporary instruments]. Paris, France: Armand Colin.
Rabardel, P., & Bourmaud, G. (2003). From computer to instrument system: A developmental perspective. Interacting with Computers, 15(5), 665–691.
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.
Roschelle, J. (1992). Learning by collaborating: Convergent conceptual change. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2, 235–276.
Roth, W.-M. (1996). Art and artefact of children's designing: A situated cognition perspective. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 5, 129–166.
Stahl, G. (2013). Learning across levels. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 8(1), 1–12.
Streeck, J., Goodwin, C., & LeBaron, C. (2011). Embodied interaction: Language and body in the material world. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Suchman, L. A. (1987). Plans and situated actions: The problem of human machine communication. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
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.
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.
Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Yin, R. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendices
Appendices
Appendix 1: “The Kitchen Project” Syllabus (Fragment)
The project syllabus contains three chapters, each corresponding with a specific domain. Chapter 1 contains communication assignments. These are about language (i.e., native Dutch, German, and French) and the practical use of language. Chapter 2 contains technology assignments. Math, physics, and chemistry are relevant knowledge domains here. Chapter 3 contains civics assignments: about government, society, and rules and regulations. Below, one finds the technology and communication assignments (translated from Dutch) as they are presented in the project syllabus. The assignments are accompanied with several examples (e.g., of technical drawings and invoices) and other background information that is necessary to complete them. This information is not presented here.
-
Technology assignments
-
Situation
-
The Ten Donker family has been using their kitchen for 3 years now. They would like to have a new one.
-
New equipment: microwave, dishwasher, hood, and sink with tap
-
Other (existing) equipment is taken up in the new design.
-
How to go from A to B?
-
Attention points (math, physics, chemistry)
-
Making and reading of a technical drawing
-
Recognizing and applying technical symbols
-
Calculation of costs (tender/VAT on discount percentage)
-
Working with formulae (U = I*R and P + U*I) and derivatives
-
Functioning of meter cabinet
-
Analogy water pressure and water usage
-
Electric power and cost calculation
-
Further deepening: replacement resistance/resistance metal wire
-
With this assignment you will have to translate the wishes of the client to technical solutions:
-
“Sunday breakfast comes with fresh orange juice”
-
The Ten Donker family has an electric orange presser. Where have you planned the socket?
-
“Why should a refrigerator use more energy than necessary, it’s expensive and bad for the environment”
-
What should the family pay attention to, according to you?
-
“We like clean walls with no cables and our cooker in the middle”
-
Where do you place the gas-, water-, and light conductors?
-
Communication assignments
-
Description
-
The Ten Donker family wants to have a new kitchen installed in their home. They have taken over an old kitchen with the acquisition of their house 3 years ago. They plan to outsource the work to a licensed firm. They have been told by friends that German (French) firms are particularly good in kitchen installations.
-
Write an email to a German (French) kitchen firm in which you kindly request a brochure.
-
Write an email on behalf of Kuchenland, Nordhorn (Pays des cuisines, Lille) in which you make an appointment.
-
With the Ten Donker family to do measurements
-
Kuchenland (Pays des cuisines) also invites them to visit their showroom in Nordhorn (Lille).
-
Kuchenland (Pays des cuisines) sends the family a tender.
-
Relevant competencies
-
For this assignment you will have to:
-
Write a brief letter in German or French.
-
Make a proper invoice in Dutch.
-
Write a reflection on the collaboration and functioning of the partners (in Dutch).
Appendix 2: Plan for the “Flower Project ” by Lucas and Oscar
Time | Done (check) | |
Communication | ||
1. Plan | 30 min | |
2. Look up export law and regulation | 30 min | |
3. Business letter in Dutch | 20 min | |
4. 10 questions about civilians | 15 min | |
5. Report of civilians | 30 min | |
6. Flying flowers: | ||
Summarize activities | 40 min | |
Make brochure | 50 min | |
7. Do 5 questions with German text | 30 min | |
8. Make reflection | 20 min | |
Technology | ||
1. Intake with customer about wishes for truck | 30 min | |
2. make autocad drawing | 3,5 h | |
3. Discuss drawing with client | 30 min | |
Civics | ||
Paper: | ||
1. Think of topic and questions | 30 min | |
2. Gather information | 50 min | |
3. Write paper | 2 h |
Appendix 3: Excerpts from the Protocol (L = Lucas, O = Oscar)
Episode 1
Line | Time | Action | |
97 | 16.06 | O | Adds “task” card under Day 1. |
98 | 16.12 | O | Labels “task” card “Communication.” |
99 | 16.14 | O | Adds “task” card under Day 1. |
100 | 16.20 | O | Labels “task” card “Project plan in workspace.” |
101 | 16.24 | L | Put everything underneath communication? |
102 | 16.27 | O | Yes, under communication, if I do this one, then you can do the next. |
103 | 16.32 | L | Project plan, what’s that a part of, communication, right? |
104 | 16.38 | O | We already have a project plan, right? |
105 | 16.55 | O | Adds links between cards (Fig. 6.3). |
106 | 17.01 | L | Oh, you do it like that… OK. |
Episode 2
129 | 25.01 | L | Adds “task” card under Day 2. |
130 | 25.03 | L | Labels “task” card “Communication.” |
131 | 25.05 | L | Adds “task” card under Day 2. |
132 | 25.09 | L | Labels “task” card “Mail for brochure.” |
133 | 25.13 | O | Adds “task” card under Day 1. |
134 | 25.17 | O | Labels “task” card “design kitchen.” |
135 | 25.21 | L | Adds “task” card under Day 2. |
136 | 25.25 | L | Labels “task” card “Tender.” |
137 | 25.27 | L | Adds links between cards (Fig. 6.4). |
138 | 25.28 | O | Edits comment window of “task” card. |
Episode 3
141 | 25.34 | L | What’s kitchen design a part of? |
142 | 25.36 | O | That’s part of technology. |
143 | 25.38 | L | Then we should perhaps leave communication out. |
144 | 25:41 | L | But do only the things that we need to do on that day. |
Episode 4
154 | 28.24 | L | Adds “time” card. |
155 | 28.26 | L | Labels “time card “total time = 150 min.” |
156 | 28.27 | O | Where do we put technology? |
157 | 28.29 | L | I’m not sure. |
158 | 28.34 | O | Adds “task” card. |
159 | 28.37 | O | Labels “task” card “technics.” |
160 | 28.40 | O | Let’s do here, I’ve put “technics” instead of technology. |
161 | 28.41 | L | Adds link between cards. |
162 | 28.43 | O | Deletes “technics” card. |
163 | 28.45 | O | Edits “design kitchen” card. |
164 | 28.48 | O | Adds label “(technical drawing)” |
165 | 28:52 | O | But, we are now, eh… per part. |
166 | 28.54 | O | Moves “design kitchen” card to third column. |
167 | 28.57 | L | Moves design kitchen” card back to first column. |
168 | 28.59 | L | Adds “task” card. |
169 | 29.61 | L | Labels “task” card “technology” (Fig. 6.5). |
170 | 29.62 | T | So we’ll also get communication. |
Episode 5
242 | 38.55 | O | I would like to continue with technical drawing. |
243 | 39.08 | L | What’s that a part of? |
244 | 39.14 | L | Is that part of communication, or not? |
245 | 39.15 | O | Yeah, well, it’s not necessarily communication, but I think it belongs there... |
246 | 39.20 | L | Shouldn’t we just remove communication? |
247 | 39.25 | O | No, we’ll just do planning for a day, not for a course, we’ll just… shall we do that? |
248 | 39.28 | L | Shall we then remove communication and stuff? |
249 | 39.34 | O | I think we’ll just have to plan what we do on that day. |
250 | 39:37 | O | And then we put above there what it is, Eyh? |
251 | 39.38 | L | Ok. |
252 | 39.40 | L | Like I’ve put “technology” above it. |
253 | 39.43 | O | yeah, like that. |
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Overdijk, M., van Diggelen, W., Andriessen, J., Kirschner, P.A. (2021). Investigation 6. How to Bring a Technical Artifact into Use: A Micro-developmental Perspective. In: Stahl, G. (eds) Theoretical Investigations. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Series, vol 18. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49157-4_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49157-4_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-49156-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-49157-4
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)