Advertisement

Analysing Expansive Learning in a Multilayered Design Project

  • Hanna Toiviainen
  • Seppo Toikka
  • Jiri Lallimo
Part of the Technology Enhanced Learning book series (TEL, volume 7)

Abstract

The learning of design teams has been the focus of academic interest for several decades. From the investigations of intra-team performance, present-day research has proceeded to analyses of distributed teams mediated by advanced technology. As organizations are increasingly networking to accomplish their tasks, design settings also become networked and complex, inviting heterogeneous ensembles of actors to join the process. In this chapter, we will argue that design activities are multi-layered rather than confined within the boundaries of a single team.

Keywords

Design Object Design Activity Customer Relationship Management Design Team Specification Document 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Billig M, Condor S, Edwards D, Gane M, Middleton D, Radley A. Ideological dilemmas: A social psychology of everyday thinking. London: SAGE; 1988.Google Scholar
  2. Boztepe S. User value: Competing theories and models. International Journal of Design. 2007;1(2):55–63.Google Scholar
  3. Bucciarelli LL. Designing and learning: A disjunction in contexts. Design Studies. 2003;24(3):295–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carmel E, Bird B. Small is beautiful: A study of packaged software development teams. Journal of High Technology Management Research. 1997;8(1):129–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Castells, M. (1996). The rise of the network society. The information age: Economy, society and culture, Volume I, Cambridge, MA; Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
  6. Chaiklin S, Hedegaard M, Juul Jensen U. Activity Theory and Social Practice: Cultural-Historical Approaches. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press; 1999.Google Scholar
  7. Engeström Y. Learning by Expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki: Orienta Konsultit Oy; 1987.Google Scholar
  8. Engeström Y. New forms of learning in co-configuration work. Journal of Workplace Learning. 2004;16(1/2):11–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Engeström Y. Putting Vygotsky to Work: The Change Laboratory as an Application of Double Stimulation. In: Daniels H, Cole M, Wertsh JV, editors. Cambridge Companion to Vygotsky. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2007. p. 363–382.Google Scholar
  10. Engeström Y. From teams to knots: Activity-theoretical studies of collaboration and learning at work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2008.Google Scholar
  11. Engeström Y, Puonti A, Seppänen L. Spatial and Temporal Expansion of the Object as a Challenge for Reorganizing Work. In: Nicolini D, Gherardi S, Yanow D, editors. Knowing in organizations: A practice-based approach. New York: M.E. Sharpe; 2003. p. 151–186.Google Scholar
  12. Engeström Y, Toiviainen H. Co-configurational design of learning instrumentalities: An activity-theoretical perspective. In: Ludvigsen S, Lund A, Rasmussen I, Säljö R, editors. Learning across sites: New tools, infrastructures and practices. New York: Routledge; 2011. p. 33–52.Google Scholar
  13. Hakkarainen K, Paavola S. Toward a trialogical approach to learning. In: Schwarz B, Dreyfus T, Hershkowitz R, editors. Transformation of knowledge through classroom interaction. London: Routledge; 2009. p. 65–80.Google Scholar
  14. Henderson K. On line and on paper. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2000.Google Scholar
  15. Igira F, Aanestad M. Living with Contradictions: Complementing Activity Theory with the Notion of “Installed Base” to Address the Historical Dimension of Transformation. Mind, Culture, and Activity. 2009;16(3):209–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kerosuo, H. (2006). Boundaries in Action: An Activity-theoretical Study of Development, Learning and Change in Health Care for Patients with Multiple and Chronic Illnesses. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press. Available: http://ethesis.helsinki.fi/julkaisut/kay/kasva/vk/kerosuo/ (accessed January 2011).
  17. Kerosuo H, Toiviainen H. Expansive Learning across Workplace Boundaries. International Journal of Educational Research. 2011;50(1):48–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Krippendorff, K. (2006). The semantic turn: A new foundation for design. London: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  19. Latour, B & Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory life: The Construction of Scientific Facts. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  20. Leont’ev AN. Activity, consciousness, personality. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall; 1978.Google Scholar
  21. Levina N. The emergence of boundary spanning competence in practice: implications for implementation and use of information systems. Management information systems quarterly. 2005;29(2):335–363.Google Scholar
  22. Murphy E, Rodriguez-Manzanares MA. Using activity theory and its principle of contradictions to guide research in educational technology. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology. 2008;24(4):442–457.Google Scholar
  23. Powell WW. Neither Market nor Hierarchy: Network Forms of Organization. Research in Organizational Behavior. 1990;12:295–336.Google Scholar
  24. Pressman RS. Software Engineering: A Practitioner’s Approach. London: McGraw-Hill Publishing Company; 2000.Google Scholar
  25. Sims-Schouten S, Riley CE, Willig C. Critical realism in discourse analysis: A Presentation of a systematic method of analysis using women’s talk of motherhood, childcare and female employment as an example. Theory & Psychology. 2007;17(1):101–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Toiviainen H. Inter-organizational Learning across Levels: An Object-Oriented Approach. Journal of Workplace Learning. 2007;19(4):343–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Toiviainen, H., Kerosuo, H., & Syrjälä, T. (2009): ”Development Radar”: the co-configuration of a tool in a learning network. Journal of Workplace learning, 21(7), 509-524.Google Scholar
  28. Uden L, Valderas P, Pastor O. An activity-theory-based model to analyse Web application requirements. Information Research: An International Electronic Journal, ISSN. 2008;1368–1613:13(2).Google Scholar
  29. Victor B, Boynton AC. Invented Here: Maximizing Your Organization’s Internal Growth and Profitability. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press; 1998.Google Scholar
  30. Virkkunen J. Hybrid Agency in Co-Configuration Work. Outlines. 2006;1(2006):61–74.Google Scholar
  31. Vygotsky LS. Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press; 1978.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Sense Publishers 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hanna Toiviainen
    • 1
  • Seppo Toikka
    • 2
  • Jiri Lallimo
    • 3
  1. 1.Institute of Behavioural SciencesUniversity of HelsinkiFinland
  2. 2.Institute of Behavioural SciencesUniversity of HelsinkiFinland
  3. 3.Institute of Behavioural SciencesUniversity of HelsinkiFinland

Personalised recommendations