References
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 July 2016
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Studies in Expansive LearningLearning What Is Not Yet There, pp. 249 - 270Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2016
References
Adler, P. S. & Heckscher, C. (2006). Towards collaborative community. In Adler, P. S. & Heckscher, C. (Eds.), The firm as a collaborative community: Reconstructing trust in the knowledge economy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ahonen, H. (2008). Oppimisen kohteen ja oppijan vastavuoroinen kehitys: Teleyrityksen asiakaspalvelun työyhteisöjen oppimiskäytäntöjen uudistaminen osana teknologis-taloudellista kumousta [Reciprocal development of the object and subject of learning: The renewal of the learning practices of front-line communities in a telecommunications company as part of the techno-economical paradigm change]. Helsinki: University of Helsinki, Department of Education (in Finnish).Google Scholar
Ahonen, H. & Virkkunen, J. (2003). Shared challenge for learning: Dialogue between management and front-line workers in knowledge management. International Journal of Information Technology and Management, 2(1–2), 59–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van den Akker, J., Gravemeijer, K., McKenny, S. & Mieveen, N. (Eds.) (2006). Educational design research. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ally, M. (2008). Nomadicity and information access: The mobile digital library for people on the move. In Needham, G. & Ally, M. (Eds.), M-libraries: Libraries on the move to provide virtual access. London: Facet Publishing (pp. 37–46).Google Scholar
Argyris, C. & Schön, D. A. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective. Reading: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Argyris, C. & Schön, D. A. (1996). Organizational learning 2: Theory, method, and practice. Reading: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Arievitch, I. (2004). An integrated view of development and learning: Galperin’s contribution to sociocultural psychology. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 10, 278–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arievitch, I. & Haenen, J. (2005). Connecting sociocultural theory and educational practice: Galperin’s approach. Educational Psychologist, 40(3), 155–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Avis, J. (2007). Engeström’s version of activity theory: A conservative praxis? Journal of Education and Work, 20(3), 161–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bäckström, Å. (2005). Spår: Om brädsportkultur, informella läroprocesser och identitet. Stockholm: HLS Förlag.Google Scholar
Baethge, M., Kitay, J. & Regalia, I. (1999). Managerial strategies, human resource practices, and labor relations in banks: A comparative view. In Regini, M., Kitay, J. & Baethge, M. (Eds.), From tellers to sellers: Changing employment relations in banks. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Baker, A. C., Jensen, P. J. & Kolb, D. A. (2002). Conversational learning: An experiential approach to knowledge creation. Westport: Quorum Books.Google Scholar
Bakhtin, M. M. (1982). The dialogic imagination: Four essays by M. M. Bakhtin. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Bakhurst, D. (1991). Consciousness and revolution in Soviet philosophy: From the Bolsheviks to Evald Ilyenkov. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bannan-Ritland, B. (2003). The role of design in research: The integrative learning design framework. Educational Researcher, 32, 21–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barab, S. A. & Kirshner, D. (2001). Guest editors’ introduction: Rethinking methodology in the learning sciences. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 10, 5–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauwens, M. (2005). Peer to peer and human evolution: On “the P2P relational dynamic” as the premise of the next civilizational stage. http://z.agoravox.fr/IMG/P2PandHumanEvolV2.pdf.Google Scholar
Beal, B. (1995). Disqualifying the official: An exploration of social resistance in the subculture of skateboarding. Sociology of Sport Journal, 12(5), 252–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beer, M. & Nohria, N. (Eds.) (2000). Breaking the code of change. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
Beers, P. J., Boshuizen, H. P. A., Kirshner, P. A. & Gijselaers, W. H. (2005). Computer support for knowledge construction in collaborative learning environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 21, 623–643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benkler, Y. (2006). The wealth of networks: How social production transforms markets and freedom. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Bereiter, C. (2002). Education and mind in the knowledge age. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Bodrozic, Z. (2008). Post-industrial intervention: An activity-theoretical expedition tracing the proximal development of forms of conducting interventions. Helsinki: University of Helsinki, Department of Education.Google Scholar
Boedker, S. & Andersen, P. B. (2005). Complex mediation. Human-Computer Interaction, 20, 353–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borden, I. (2001). Skateboarding, space and the city: Architecture and the body. Oxford: Berg.Google Scholar
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L. & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.) (2003). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Research Council.Google Scholar
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical, and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2, 141–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, S. L. & Eisenhardt, K. M. (1998). Competing on the edge: Strategy as structured chaos. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
Bruner, J. S. (1964). The course of cognitive growth. American Psychologist, 19, 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruner, J. S. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Bruner, J. S. (1974). Beyond the information given: Studies in the psychology of knowing. London: George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Bruner, J. S. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burke, G. & Peppard, J. (Eds.) (1995). Examining business process re-engineering: Current perspectives and research directions. London: Kogan Page.Google Scholar
Carroll, J. S. & Edmondson, A. C. (2002). Leading organizational learning in health care. Quality and Safety in Health Care, 11(1), 51–55.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
de Castell, S., Bryson, M. & Jenson, J. (2002). Object lessons: Towards an educational theory of technology. First Monday, 7(1). http://ojs-prod-lib.cc.uic.edu/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/923.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cendán, J. & Good, M. (2006). Interdisciplinary work flow assessment and redesign decreases operating room turnover time and allows for additional caseload. Archives of Surgery, 141(1), 65–69.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ciborra, C. (2000). From control to drift: The dynamics of corporate information infrastructures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cobb, P., Confrey, J., diSessa, A., Lehrer, R. & Schauble, L. (2003a). Design experiments in educational research. Educational Researcher, 32, 9–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cobb, P., McClain, K., de Silva Lamberg, T. & Dean, C. (2003b). Situating teachers’ instructional practices in the institutional setting of the school and district. Educational Researcher, 32(6), 13–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cole, M. (1996). Cultural psychology: A once and future discipline. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Cole, M. & Engeström, Y. (2007). Cultural-historical approaches to designing for development. In Valsiner, J. & Rosa, A. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of sociocultural psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (pp. 484–507).Google Scholar
Collins, A. (1992). Toward a design science of education. In Scanlon, E. & O’Shea, T. (Eds.), New directions in educational technology. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Collins, A., Joseph, D. & Bielaczyc, K. (2004). Design research: Theoretical and methodological issues. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13, 15–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, H. (2010). Tacit and explicit knowledge. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, M. (2008). Life as surplus: Biotechnology and capitalism in the neoliberal era. Seattle: University of Washington Press.Google Scholar
Cooper, P. (2004). The gift of education: An anthropological perspective on the commoditization of learning. Anthropology Today, 20(6), 5–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crossan, M. M. & Berdrow, I. (2003). Organizational learning and strategic renewal. Strategic Management Journal, 24, 1087–1105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crossan, M. M., Lane, H. W. & White, R. E. (1999). An organizational learning framework: From intuition to institution. Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 522–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cuban, L. (1986). Teachers and machines: The classroom use of technology since 1920. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cummings, S. & Angwin, D. (2004). The future shape of strategy: Lemmings or chimeiras. Academy of Management Executive, 18(2), 21–36.Google Scholar
Cussins, A. (1992). Content, embodiment and objectivity: The theory of cognitive trails. Mind, 101, 651–688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cussins, A. (1993). Nonconceptual content and the elimination of misconceived composites! Mind & Language, 8, 234–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Czarniawska, B. (1998). A narrative approach to organization studies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Czarniawska, B. (2004). Narratives in social science research. London: Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daly, J. (2005), Evidence-based medicine and the search for a science of clinical care. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daniels, H. (2004). Cultural historical activity theory and professional learning. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 51(2), 185–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davenport, T. H. & Short, J. E. (1990). The new industrial engineering: Information technology and business process redesign. Sloan Management Review, 31(4), 11–27.Google Scholar
Davydov, V. V. (1988). Problems of developmental teaching: The experience of theoretical and experimental psychological research. Excerpts (Part II). Soviet Education, 30(9), 3–83.Google Scholar
Davydov, V. V. (1990). Types of generalization in instruction: Logical and psychological problems in the structuring of school curricula. Reston: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
Davydov, V. V. (2008). Problems of developmental instruction: A theoretical and experimental psychological study. New York: Nova Science Publishers.Google Scholar
De Corte, E., Verschaffel, L., Entwistle, N. & van Merriënboer, J. (Eds.) (2003). Powerful learning environments: Unravelling basic components and dimensions. Amsterdam: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Deeg, R. (2006). Change from within: German and Italian finance in the 1990s. In Streeck, W. & Thelen, K. (Eds.), Beyond continuity: Institutional change in advanced political economies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Des Chene, M. (1997). Locating the past. In Gupta, A. & Ferguson, J. (Eds.), Anthropological locations: Boundaries and grounds of a field science. Berkeley: University of California Press (pp. 66–85).Google Scholar
Dierkes, M., Antal, A. B., Child, J. & Nonaka, I. (Eds.) (2001). Handbook of organizational learning and knowledge. Oxford. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dixon, N. (1994). The organizational learning cycle: How we can learn collectively. London: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Dochy, F., Engeström, Y., Sannino, A. & van Meeuwen, N. (2011). Interorganisational expansive learning at work. In Dochy, F., Gijbels, D., Segers, M. & Van den Bossche, P. (Eds.), Theories of learning for the workplace: Buiding blocks for training and professional development programs. London: Routledge (pp. 125–147).Google Scholar
Dodds, P. & Fletcher, J. D. (2004). Opportunities for new “smart” learning environments enabled by next-generation web capabilities. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 13, 391–404.Google Scholar
Dodgson, M. (1991). The management of technological learning: Lessons from a biotechnology company. Berlin: de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edmondson, A. (2004). Leaning from mistakes is easier said than done: Group and organizational influences on the detection and correction of human error. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Sciences, 40(1), 66–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, A. (2005). Let’s get beyond community and practice: The many meanings of learning by participating. The Curriculum Journal, 16(1), 49–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, A. (2009). From the systemic to the relational: Relational agency and activity theory. In Sannino, A., Daniels, H. & Gutiérrez, K. (Eds.), Learning and expanding with activity theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (pp. 197–211).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, K. Nielsen Paarup, A. & Jacobsen, P. (2009). Implementing lean in surgery: Lessons and implications. Paper presented at the Nordic Summer Symposium 2009: Does size matter? Benefits and Consequences of Centralizing in Health Care. May 25–29, Nordic School of Public Health, Gothenburg, Sweden.Google Scholar
Edwards, P. N. (1997). The closed world: Computers and the politics of discourse in cold war America. Cambridge: The MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eisenhardt, K. M. (2000). Paradox, spirals, ambivalence: The new language of change and pluralism. The Academy of Management Review, 25, 703–706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elliott, M. (2006). Stigmergic collaboration: The evolution of group work. M/C Journal 9.2. 02 Jan. 2009 <http://journal.media-culture.org.au/0605/03-elliott.php>..>Google Scholar
Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit.Google Scholar
Engeström, Y. (1989). The cultural-historical theory of activity and the study of political repression. International Journal of Mental Health, 17(4), 29–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engeström, Y. (1990). Learning, working and imagining: Twelve studies in activity theory. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit.Google Scholar
Engeström, Y. (1991). Non scolae sed vitae discimus: Toward overcoming the encapsulation of school learning. Learning and Instruction, 1, 243–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engeström, Y. (1995). Innovative organizational learning in medical and legal settings. In Martin, L. M. W., Nelson, K. & Tobach, E. (Eds.), Sociocultural psychology: Theory and practice of doing and knowing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Engeström, Y. (1996). Development as breaking away and opening up: A challenge to Vygotsky and Piaget. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 55, 126–132.Google Scholar
Engeström, Y. (1998). Reorganizing the motivational sphere of classroom culture: An activity-theoretical analysis of planning in a teacher team. In Seeger, F., Voigt, J. & Waschescio, U. (Eds.), The culture of the mathematics classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (pp. 76–103).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engeström, Y. (1999a). Expansive visibilization of work: An activity-theoretical perspective. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 8, 63–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engeström, Y. (1999b). Innovative learning in work teams: Analyzing cycles of knowledge creation in practice. In Engeström, Y., Miettinen, R. & Punamäki, R-L. (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engeström, Y. (2000). From individual action to collective activity and back: Developmental work research as an interventionist methodology. In Luff, P., Hindmarsh, J. & Heath, C. (Eds.), Workplace studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Engeström, Y. (2001a). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engeström, Y. (2001b). Making expansive decisions: An activity-theoretical study of practitioners building collaborative medical care for children. In Allwood, C. M. & Selart, M. (Eds.), Decision making: Social and creative dimensions. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Engeström, Y. (2003). The horizontal dimension of expansive learning: Weaving a texture of cognitive trails in the terrain of health care in Helsinki. In Achtenhagen, F. & John, E. G. (Eds.), Milestones of vocational and occupational education and Training. Volume 1: The teaching-learning perspective. Bielefeld: Bertelsmann.Google Scholar
Engeström, Y. (2004a). Managing as argumentative history-making. In Boland, R. J. Jr. & Collopy, F. (Eds.), Managing as designing. Stanford: Stanford Business Books.Google Scholar
Engeström, Y. (2004b). New forms of learning in co-configuration work. The Journal of Workplace Learning, 16, 11–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engeström, Y. (2005). Developmental work research: Expanding activity theory in practice. Berlin: Lehmanns Media.Google Scholar
Engeström, Y. (2007a). Enriching the theory of expansive learning: Lessons from journeys toward coconfiguration. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 14(1–2), 23–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engeström, Y. (2007b). From communities of practice to mycorrhizae. In Hughes, J., Jewson, N. & Unwin, L. (Eds.), Communities of practice: Critical perspectives. London: Routledge (pp. 41–54).Google Scholar
Engeström, Y. (2007c). From stabilization knowledge to possibility knowledge in organizational learning. Management Learning, 38, 271–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engeström, Y. (2007d). Putting Vygotsky to work: The Change Laboratory as an application of double stimulation. In Daniels, H., Cole, M. & Wertsch, J. V. (Eds.), The Cambridge companion to Vygotsky. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (pp. 363–382).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engeström, Y. (2008a). Enriching activity theory without shortcuts. Interacting with Computers, 20, 256–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engeström, Y. (2008b). From teams to knots: Activity-theoretical studies of collaboration and learning at work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engeström, Y. (2009a). From learning environments and implementation to activity systems and expansive learning. Actio: An International Journal of Human Activity Theory, 2, 17–33.Google Scholar
Engeström, Y. (2009b). The future of activity theory: A rough draft. In Sannino, A., Daniels, H. & Gutiérrez, K. (Eds.), Learning and expanding with activity theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (pp. 303–328).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engeström, Y. (2009c). Wildfire activities: New patterns of mobility and learning. International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning, 1(2), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engeström, Y. (2011). From design experiments to formative interventions. Theory & Psychology, 21(5), 598–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engeström, Y. & Ahonen, H. (2001). On the materiality of social capital: An activity-theoretical exploration. In Hasan, H., Gould, E., Larkin, P. & Vrazalic, L. (Eds.), Information systems and activity theory: Volume 2. Theory and practice. Wollongong: University of Wollongong Press (pp. 55–73).Google Scholar
Engeström, Y. & Blackler, F. (2005). On the life of the object. Organization, 12(3), 307–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engeström, Y. Brown, K. Engeström, R. & Koistinen, K. (1990). Organizational forgetting: An activity theoretical perspective. In Middleton, D. & Edwards, D. (Eds.), Collective remembering. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Engeström, Y. & Engeström, R. (1986). Developmental work research: The approach and an application in cleaning work. Nordisk Pedagogik, 6(1), 2–15.Google Scholar
Engeström, Y., Engeström, R. & Kärkkäinen, M. (1995). Polycontextuality and boundary crossing in expert cognition: Learning and problem solving in complex work activities. Learning and Instruction, 5, 319–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engeström, Y., Engeström, R. & Kerosuo, H. (2003). The discursive construction of collaborative care. Applied Linguistics, 24, 286–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engeström, Y., Engeström, R. & Suntio, A. (2002a). Can a school community learn to master its own future? An activity-theoretical study of expansive learning among middle school teachers. In Wells, G. & Claxton, G. (Eds.) Learning for life in the 21st century: Sociocultural perspectives on the future of education. London: Blackwell (pp. 211–224).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engeström, Y., Engeström, R. & Suntio, A. (2002b). From paralyzing myths to expansive action: Building computer-supported knowledge work into the curriculum from below. In Stahl, G. (Ed.), Computer support for collaborative learning: Foundations for a CSCL community. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum (pp. 318–324).Google Scholar
Engeström, Y., Engeström, R. & Vähäaho, T. (1999). When the center does not hold: The importance of knotworking. In Chaiklin, S., Hedegaard, M. & Jensen, U. J. (Eds.), Activity theory and social practice. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press (pp. 345–374).Google Scholar
Engeström, Y. & Escalante, V. (1996). Mundane tool or object of affection? The rise and fall of the Postal Buddy. In Nardi, B. A. (Ed.), Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human-computer interaction. Cambridge: The MIT Press (pp. 325–374).Google Scholar
Engeström, Y., Kaatrakoski, H., Kaiponen, P., Lahikainen, J., Myllys, H., Rantavuori, J. & Sinikara, K. (2012). Knotworking in academic libraries: Two case studies from the University of Helsinki. Liber Quarterly, 21(3/4), 387–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engeström, Y., Kajamaa, A., Kerosuo, H. & Laurila, P. (2010). Process enhancement versus community building: Transcending the dichotomy through expansive learning. In Yamazumi, K. (Ed.), Activity theory and fostering learning: Developmental interventions in education and work. Osaka: Center for Human Activity Theory, Kansai University (pp. 1–28).Google Scholar
Engeström, Y. & Kerosuo, H. (2007). From workplace learning to inter-organizational learning and back: The contribution of activity theory. Journal of Workplace Learning, 19, 336–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engeström, Y., Kerosuo, H. & Kajamaa, A. (2007). Beyond discontinuity: Expansive organizational learning remembered. Management Learning, 38(3), 319–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engeström, Y., Lompscher, J. & Rückriem, G. (Eds.) (2005). Putting activity theory to work: Contributions from developmental work research. Berlin: Lehmanns Media.Google Scholar
Engeström, Y., Miettinen, R. & Punamäki, R-L. (Eds.) (1999). Perspectives on activity theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engeström, Y., Nummijoki, J. & Sannino, A. (2012). Embodied germ cell at work: Building an expansive concept of physical mobility in home care. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 19(3), 287–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engeström, Y., Pasanen, A., Toiviainen, H. & Haavisto, V. (2005). Expansive learning as collaborative concept formation at work. In Yamazumi, K., Engeström, Y. & Daniels, H. (Eds.), New learning challenges: Going beyond the industrial age system of school and work. Osaka: Kansai University Press (pp. 47–78).Google Scholar
Engeström, Y., Puonti, A. & Seppänen, L. (2003). Spatial and temporal expansion of the object as a challenge for reorganizing work. In Nicolini, D., Gherardi, S. & Yanow, D. (Eds.), Knowing in organizations: A practice-based approach. Armonk: Sharpe (pp. 151–186).Google Scholar
Engeström, Y., Rantavuori, J. & Kerosuo, H. (2013). Expansive learning in a library: Actions, cycles and deviations from instructional intentions. Vocations and Learning. 6(1), 81–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engeström, Y. & Sannino, A. (2010). Studies of expansive learning: Foundations, findings and future challenges. Educational Research Review, 5(1), 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engeström, Y. & Sannino, A. (2011). Discursive manifestations of contradictions in organizational change efforts: A methodological framework. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 24(3), 368–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engeström, Y. & Sannino, A. (2012). Whatever happened to process theories of learning? Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 1, 45–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engeström, Y., Sannino, A. & Virkkunen, J. (2014). On the methodological demands of formative interventions. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 21(2), 118–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engeström, Y., Virkkunen, J., Helle, M., Pihlaja, J. & Poikela, R. (1996). The Change Laboratory as a tool for transforming work. Lifelong Learning in Europe, 1(2), 10–17.Google Scholar
Eskola, A. (1999). Laws, logics, and human activity. In Engeström, Y., Miettinen, R. & Punamäki, R-L. (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Falmagne, R. J. (1995). The abstract and the concrete. In Martin, L. M. W., Nelson, K. & Tobach, E. (Eds.), Sociocultural psychology: Theory and practice of doing and knowing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Felstead, A., Fuller, A., Unwin, L., Ashton, D., Butler, P. & Lee, T. (2005). Surveying the scene: Learning metaphors, survey design and the workplace context. Journal of Education and Work, 18(4), 359–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fenwick, T. J. (2004). Learning in portfolio work: Anchored innovation and mobile identity. Studies in Continuing Education, 26(2), 229–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fenwick, T. J. (2006a). Organisational learning in the “knots”: Discursive capacities emerging in a school-university collaboration. Journal of Educational Administration, 45(2), 138–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fenwick, T. J. (2006b). Toward enriched conceptions of work learning: Participation, expansion, and translation among individuals with/in activity. Human Resource Development Review, 5(3), 285–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
FitzSimons, G. E. (2003). Using Engeström’s expansive learning framework to analyse a case study in adult mathematics education. Literacy & Numeracy Studies, 12(2), 47–63.Google Scholar
Fleck, J. (1994). Learning by trying: The implementation of configurational technology. Research Policy, 23, 637–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foot, K. (2001). Cultural-historical activity theory as practice theory: Illuminating the development of a conflict-monitoring network. Communication Theory, 11(1), 56–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galer, G. S. & van der Heijden, K. (2001). Scenarios and their contribution to organizational learning: From practice to theory. In Dierkes, M., Antal, A. B., Child, J. & Nonaka, I. (Eds.), Handbook of organizational learning and knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press (pp. 849–864).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gal’perin, P. Y. (1957). An experimental study in the formation of mental actions. In Simon, B. (Ed.), Psychology in the Soviet Union. Stanford: Stanford University Press (pp. 213–232).Google Scholar
Gal’perin, P. Y. (1967). On the notion of internalization. Soviet Psychology, 5(3), 28–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gal’perin, P. Y. (1969). Stages in the development of mental acts. In Cole, M. & Maltzman, I. (Eds.), A handbook of contemporary Soviet psychology. New York: Basic Books (pp. 249–273).Google Scholar
Garud, R. & Karnoe, P. (Eds.) (2001). Path dependence and creation. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Gee, J. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gersick, C. J. G. (1991). Revolutionary change theories: A multilevel exploration of the punctuated equilibrium paradigm. Academy of Management Review, 16, 10–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gourlay, S. (2006). Conceptualizing knowledge creation: A critique of Nonaka’s theory. Journal of Management Studies, 43(7), 1415–1436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gozdz, K. (Ed.) (1995). Community building: Renewing spirit and learning in business. San Francisco: Sterling & Stone.Google Scholar
Greeno, J. G. & Engeström, Y. (2014). Learning in activity. In Sawyer, R. K. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences. Second edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Greenstein, D. (2010). Strategies for sustaining the university library. Portal: Libraries and the Academy, 10 (2), 121–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gulikers, J. T. M., Bastiaens, T. J. & Martens, R. L. (2005). The surplus value of an authentic learning environment. Computers in Human Behavior, 21, 509–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gutiérrez, K. D. (2008). Developing a sociocritical literacy in the third space. Reading Research Quarterly, 43(2), 148–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gutiérrez, K., Baguedano-López, P. & Tejeda, C. (1999). Rethinking diversity: Hybridity and hybrid language practices in the third space. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 6(4), 286–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gutiérrez, K. & Larson, J. (2007). Discussing expanded spaces for learning. Language Arts, 85(1), 69–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gutierrez, K. D., Rymes, B. & Larson, J. (1995). Script, counterscript, and underlife in the classroom - Brown, James versus Brown v. Board of Education. Harvard Educational Review, 65, 445–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gutiérrez, K. & Vossoughi, S. (2010). Lifting off the ground to return anew: Mediated praxis, transformative learning, and social design experiments. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1–2), 100–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haavisto, V. (2002). Court work in transition: An activity-theoretical study of changing work practices in a Finnish district court. Helsinki: University of Helsinki, Department of Education.Google Scholar
Haenen, J. (2001). Outlining the teaching-learning process: Piotr Gal’perin’s contribution. Learning and Istruction, 11, 157–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haigh, J. (2007). Expansive learning in the university setting: The case for simulated clinical experience. Nurse Education in Practice, 7, 95–102.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hall, R. & Greeno, J. G. (2008). Conceptual learning. In Good, T. (Ed.), 21st Century Education: A Reference Handbook. London: Sage (pp. 212–221).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hammer, M. (1990), Reengineering work: Don’t automate, obliterate! Harvard Business Review, 68(4), 104–112.Google Scholar
Hammer, M. & Champy, J. (1993), Reengineering the corporation: A manifesto for business revolution. London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing.Google Scholar
Harders, M., Malangoni, M., Weight, S. & Sidhu, T. (2006). Improving operating room efficiency through process redesign. Surgery, 140(4), 509–516.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harré, R. (1984). Personal being: A theory of individual psychology. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Harrington, B., McLoughlin, K. & Riddel, D. (1997). Business process re-engineering in the public sector: A case study of the contributions agency. New Technology, Work and Employment, 13(1), 43–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hasu, M. (2000). Blind men and the elephant: Implementation of a new artifact as an expansive possibility. Outlines, 2, 5–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hasu, M. & Engeström, Y. (2000). Measurement in action: An activity-theoretical perspective on producer-user interaction. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 53, 61–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herrington, J. & Oliver, R. (2000). An instructional design framework for authentic learning environments. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 48(3), 23–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heylighen, F. (2007). Why is open access development so successful? Stigmergic organization and the economics of information. In Lutterbeck, B., Baerwolff, M. & Gehring, R. A. (Eds.), Open Source Jahrbuch 2007. Berlin: Lehmanns Media.Google Scholar
Hill, R., Capper, P., Wilson, K., Whatman, R. & Wong, K. (2007). Workplace learning in the New Zealand apple industry network: A new co-design method for government “practice making”. Journal of Workplace Learning, 19(6), 359–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
von Hippel, E. & Tyre, M. J. (1995). How learning by doing is done: Problem identification in novel process equipment. Research Policy, 24, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hobsbawm, E. J. (1964). The tramping artisan. In Hobsbawm, E. (Ed.), Labouring men: Studies in the history of labour. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson (pp. 5–22).Google Scholar
Hodkinson, P., Biesta, G. & James, D. (2007). Understanding learning culturally: Overcoming the dualism between social and individual views of learning. Vocations and Learning, 1(1), 27–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holstein, J. A. & Gubrium, J. F. (1998). Active interviewing. In Silverman, D. (Ed.), Qualitative research: Theory, method and practice. London: Sage Publications (pp. 113–129).Google Scholar
Holzkamp, K. (1993). Lernen: Subjektwissenschaftliche Grundlegung [Learning: A subject-scientific foundation]. Frankfurt am Main: Campus (in German).Google Scholar
Hubbard, L., Mehan, H. & Stein, M. K. (2006). Reform as learning: School reform, organizational culture, and community politics in San Diego. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hutchins, E. (2005). Material anchors for conceptual blends. Journal of Pragmatics, 37, 1555–1577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyrkkänen, U. (2007). Käsityksistä ajatuksen poluille: Ammatikorkeakoulun tutkimus- ja kehitystoiminnan konseptin kehittäminen [From conceptions to cognitive trails: Developing the concept of research and development activity for the university of applied sciences]. Helsinki: University of Helsinki, Department of Education (in Finnish).Google Scholar
Hyysalo, S. (2004). Uses of innovation: Wristcare in the practices of engineers and elderly. Helsinki: University of Helsinki, Department of Education.Google Scholar
Il’enkov, E. V. (1977). Dialectical logic: Essays in its history and theory. Moscow: Progress.Google Scholar
Il’enkov, E. V. (1982). The dialectics of the abstract and the concrete in Marx’s Capital. Moscow: Progress.Google Scholar
Järvelä, S. & Volet, S. (2004). Motivation in real-life, dynamic, and interactive learning environments: Stretching constructs and methodologies. European Psychologist, 9, 193–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jonassen, D. H. & Land, S. M. (2000). Theoretical foundations of learning environments. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Kafai, Y. & Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2009). Notes from the new editors-in-chief. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 18(1), 4–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kanigel, R. (1997). The one best way: Frederick Winslow Taylor and the enigma of efficiency. New York: Viking.Google Scholar
Kärkkäinen, M. (1999). Teams as breakers of traditional work practices: A longitudinal study of planning and implementing curriculum units in elementary school teacher teams. Helsinki: University of Helsinki, Department of Education.Google Scholar
Karvonen, S., Rämö, J., Leijala, M. & Holmström, J. (2004). Productivity improvement in heart surgery: A case study on care process development. Production Planning and Control, 15(3), 238–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kazlauskas, A. & Crawford, K. (2007). Learning what is not yet there: Knowledge mobilization in a communal activity. In Verenikina, I., Kell, P. & Vogl, G. (Eds.), Learning and socio-cultural theory: Exploring modern Vygotskian perspectives. Workshop proceedings. Wollongong: University of Wollongong. ISBN 978-1-74128-138-5. E-version: http://ro.uow.edu.au/llrgGoogle Scholar
Keller, C. (2005). Virtual learning environments: Three implementation perspectives. Learning, Media & Technology, 30, 299–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keller, C. M. & Keller, J. D. (1996). Cognition and tool use: The blacksmith at work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kelly, A. E. (2004). Design research in education: Yes, but is it methodological? The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13, 115–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelly, A. E., Lesh, R. A. & Baek, J. Y. (Eds.) (2008). Handbook of design research methods in education: Innovations in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics learning and teaching. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kerosuo, H. (2001). “Boundary encounters” as a place for learning and development at work. Outlines - Critical Social Studies, 3(1), 53–65.Google Scholar
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: University of Helsinki, Department of Education.Google Scholar
Kerosuo, H. & Engeström, Y. (2003). Boundary crossing and learning in creation of new work practice. Journal of Workplace Learning, 15, 345–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kerosuo, H. Kajamaa, A. & Engeström, Y. (2005). Building bridges between the past, present and future: Narrative and emotional remembering of organizational change efforts. In Gherardi, S. & Nicolini, D. (Eds.), The passion for learning and knowing. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Organizational Learning and Knowledge. Trento: University of Trento.Google Scholar
Kindred, J. B. (1999). “8/18/97 Bite Me”: Resistance in learning and work. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 6, 196–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirshner, P. A. (2005). Learning in innovative learning environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 21, 547–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klein, N. (2007). The shock doctrine: The rise of disaster capitalism. London: Allen Lane.Google Scholar
Knights, D. & Willmott, H. (Eds.) (2000). The reengineering revolution: Critical studies of corporate change. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knorr-Cetina, K. D. (1997). Sociality with objects: Social relations in postsocial knowledge societies. Theory, Culture & Society, 14(4), 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knorr-Cetina, K. D. (2005). From pipes to scopes: The flow architecture of financial markets. In Barry, A. (Ed.), The technological economy. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
de Kock, A., Sleegers, P. & Voeten, M. J. M. (2004). New learning and the classification of learning environments in secondary education. Review of Educational Research, 74, 141–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kolb, A. Y. & Kolb, D. A. (2005). Learning styles and learning spaces: Enhancing experiential learning in higher education. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4(2), 192–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kolb, D. A., Rubin, I. & McIntyre, J. (1971). Organizational psychology: An experiential approach. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Kolodner, J. L. (1991). The Journal of the Learning Sciences: Effecting changes in education. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 1(1), 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kolodner, J. L. (2000). Entering our tenth year: We’ve come a long way, and thank you to all. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(1), 1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kolodner, J. L. (2009). Note from the outgoing editor-in-chief. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 18(1), 1–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Konkola, R., Tuomi-Gröhn, T., Lambert, P. & Ludvigsen, S. (2007). Promoting learning and transfer between school and workplace. Journal of Education and Work, 20(3), 211–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kosík, K. (1976). Dialectics of the concrete: A study on problems of man and world. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Kruger, A. C. & Tomasello, M. (1998). Cultural learning and learning culture. In Olson, D. R. & Torrance, N. (Eds.), The handbook of education and human development. Malden: Blackwell (pp. 369–387).Google Scholar
Lambert, P. (1999). Rajaviiva katoaa: Innovatiivista oppimista ammatillisen opettajankoulutuksen, oppilaitosten ja työelämän organisaatioiden yhteistyönä [Boundaries fade away: Innovative learning through collaboration between vocational teacher education, training institutes, and work organizations]. Helsinki: Helsingin ammattikorkeakoulu (in Finnish).Google Scholar
Langemeyer, I. (2006). Contradictions in expansive learning: Towards a critical analysis of self-dependent forms of learning in relation to contemporary socio-technological change. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung, 7(1), Article 12 (www.qualitative-research.net/fqs/).Google Scholar
Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Law, J. & Lynch, M. (1988). Lists, field guides, and the descriptive organization of seeing: Birdwatching as an exemplary observational activity. Human Studies, 11(2/3), 271–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, G. K. & Cole, R. E. (2003). From a firm-based to a community-based model of knowledge creation: The case of the Linux kernel development. Organization Science, 14(6), 633-649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leont’ev, A. N. (1932). The development of voluntary attention in the child. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 40, 52–81.Google Scholar
Leont’ev, A. N. (1978). Activity, consciousness, and personality. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Leppilahti, J. & Malmqvist, S. (2006), Tekonivelpotilaan hoitoprosessin kehittämisanalyysi. Unpublished final report of the process study on knee and hip surgery at Oulu University Hospital, August 31, 2006 (in Finnish).Google Scholar
Levinthal, D. A. & March, J. G. (1993). The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal, 14, 95–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewin, K. (1947). Frontiers in group dynamics: Concept, method and reality in social science; social equilibria and social change. Human Relations, 1(1), 5–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lillrank, P. & Parvinen, P. (2004). Omistaja, prosessi, potilas [Owner, process, patient]. Suomen Lääkärilehti, 59(10), 1052–1055 (in Finnish).Google Scholar
Loch, C. H. & Huberman, B. A. (1999). A punctuated-equilibrium model of technology diffusion. Management Science, 45, 160–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lompscher, J. (2004). Lernkultur und Kompetenzentwicklung aus kulturhistoricher Sicht: Lernen Erwachsener im Arbeitsprozess [Learning culture and competence development in a cultural-historical perspective: Adult learning in the process of work]. Berlin: Lehmanns Media (in German).Google Scholar
Maccoby, M. (2006). Health care organizations as collaborative learning communities. In Heckscher, C. & Adler, P. S. (Eds.), The firm as a collaborative community: Reconstructing trust in the knowledge economy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Macpherson, I., Robertson, S. & Walford, G. (2014). Education, privatisation and social justice: Case studies from Africa, South Asia and South East Asia. Oxford: Symposium Books.Google Scholar
Majchrzak, A., Jarvenpaa, S. L. & Hollingshead, A. B. (2007). Coordinating expertise among emergent groups responding to disasters. Organization Science, 18(1), 147–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Makino, Y. (2007). The third generation of e-learning: Expansive learning mediated by a weblog. International Journal of Web Based Communities, 3 (1), 16–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mäkitalo, J. (2005). Work-related well-being in the transformation of nursing home work. Oulu: Oulu University Press.Google Scholar
Malloch, M., Cairns, L., Evans, K. & O’Connor, B. N. (Eds.) (2011). The SAGE handbook of workplace learning. Los Angeles: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marcus, G. E. (1995). Ethnography in/of the world system: The emergence of multi-sited ethnography, Annual Review of Ethnography 24, 95–117.Google Scholar
Martin, D. (2008). A new paradigm to inform inter-professional learning for integrating speech and language provision into secondary schools: A socio-cultural activity theory approach. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 24(2), 173–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, T. S., McCrone, S. M., Bower, M. L. & Dindyal, J. (2005). The interplay of teacher and student actions in the teaching and learning of geometric proof. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 60, 95–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marton, F. (2006). Sameness and difference in transfer. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(4), 499–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marton, F. & Trigwell, K. (2000). Variatio est mater studiorum. Higher Education Research & Development, 19(3), 381–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maxwell, J. A. (2004). Causal explanation, qualitative research, and scientific inquiry in education. Educational Researcher, 33, 3–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McNeil, L. M. (1999). Contradictions of control: School structure and school knowledge. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
McNulty, T. & Ferlie, E. (2004). Process transformations: Limitations to radical organizational change within public service organizations. Organization Studies, 28(8), 1389–1412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McVee, M. B., Dunsmore, K. & Gavelek, J. R. (2005). Schema theory revisited. Review of Educational Research, 75(4), 531–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Melucci, A. (1996). Challenging codes: Collective action in the information age. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mercer, N. & Littleton, K. (2007). Dialogue and the development of children’s thinking: A sociocultural approach. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyers, E. M. (2007). From activity to learning: Using cultural historical activity theory to model school library programmes and practices. Information Research, 12(3), 5.Google Scholar
Middleton, D. & Edwards, D. (1990). Conversational remembering: A social psychological approach. In Middleton, D. & Edwards, D. (Eds.), Collective remembering. London: Sage Publication.Google Scholar
Middleton, J., Gorard, S., Taylor, C. & Bannan-Ritland, B. (2008). The “compleat” design experiment: From soup to nuts. In Kelly, A. E., Lesh, R. A. & Baek, J. Y. (Eds.), Handbook of design research methods in education: Innovations in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics learning and teaching. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Midgley, G. (2000). Systemic intervention: Philosophy, methodology, and practice. New York: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miettinen, R. (2000). The concept of experiential learning and John Dewey’s theory of reflective thought and action. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 19(1), 54–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mishler, E. (1986). Research interviewing: Context and narrative. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morton, T. (2013). Hyperobjects: Philosophy and ecology after the end of the world. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Mukute, M. (2010). Exploring and expanding learning processes in sustainable agriculture workplace contexts. PhD thesis. Grahamstown, South Africa: Rhodes University.Google Scholar
Nadler, D. A., Shaw, R. B. & Walton, A. E. (1995). Discontinuous change: Leading organizational transformation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Needham, G. & Ally, M. (Eds.) (2008). Mlibraries: Libraries on the move to provide virtual access. London: Facet Publishing.Google Scholar
Nilsson, M. (2003). Transformation through integration: An activity theoretical analysis of school development as integration of child care institutions and elementary school. Karlskrona: Blekinge Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Nonaka, I. & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nonaka, I., Toyama, R. & Byosiére, P. (2001). A theory of organizational knowledge creation: Understanding the dynamic process of creating knowledge. In Dierkes, M., Antal, A. B., Child, J. & Nonaka, I. (Eds.), Handbook of organizational learning and knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press (pp. 491–517).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norman, D. A. (1978). Notes toward a theory of complex learning. In Lesgold, A., Pellegrino, J. W., Fokkema, S. D. & Glaser, R. (Eds.), Cognitive psychology and instruction. New York: Plenum (pp. 39–48).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nummijoki, J. & Engeström, Y. (2009). Towards co-configuration in home care of the elderly: Cultivating agency by designing and implementing the mobility agreement. In Daniels, H., Edwards, A., Engeström, Y., Gallagher, T. & Ludvigsen, S. (Eds.), Activity theory in practice: Promoting learning across boundaries and agencies. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
O’Donnell, C. L. (2008). Defining, conceptualizing, and measuring fidelity of implementation and its relationship to outcomes in K–12 curriculum intervention research. Review of Educational Research, 78, 33–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Dowd, T. C. (1988). Five years of heartsink patients in general practice. British Medical Journal, 97, 528–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ohlsson, S. (2011). Deep learning: How the mind overrides experience. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olson, D. R. (2004). The triumph of hope over experience in the search for “what works”: A response to Slavin. Educational Researcher, 33, 24–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olson, D. R. & Torrance, N. (Eds.) (1998). The handbook of education and human development. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Neill, P. & Sohal, A. S. (1999). Business process reengineering: A review of recent literature. Technovation, 19(9), 571–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orlikowski, W. (1996). Improvising organizational transformation over time: A situated change perspective. Information Systems Research, 7, 63–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oser, F. K. & Baeriswyl, F. J. (2001). Choreagraphies of teaching: Bridging instruction to learning. In Richardson, V. (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching. Fourth edition. Washington, D.C.: American Educational Research Association (pp. 1031–1065).Google Scholar
Paavola, S., Lipponen, L. & Hakkarainen, K. (2004). Models of innovative knowledge communities and three metaphors of learning. Review of Educational Research, 74, 557–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palen, L., Hiltz, S. R. & Liu, S. B. (2007). Online forums supporting grassroots participation in emergency preparedness and response. Communications of the ACM, 50(3), 54–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peck, C. A., Gallucci, C., Sloan, T. & Lippincott, A. (2009). Organizational learning and program renewal in teacher education: A sociocultural theory of learning, innovation and change. Educational Research Review, 4, 16–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peltokorpi, A. & Kujala, J. (2006). Time-based analysis of total cost of patient episodes: A case study of hip replacement. International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance, 19(2), 136–145.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pereira-Querol, M. & Seppänen, L. (2009). Learning as changes in activity systems: The emergence of on-farm biogas production for carbon credits. Outlook on Agriculture, 38(2), 147–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perez, C. (2002). Technological revolutions and financial capital: The dynamics of bubbles and golden ages. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pettigrew, A. (1995). Longitudinal field research on change: Theory and practice. In Huber, G. & Van de Ven, A. (Eds.), Longitudinal field research methods: Studying processes of organizational change. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
Petryna, A., Lakoff, A. & Kleinman, A. (Eds.) (2006). Global pharmaceuticals: Ethics, markets, practices. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Pihlaja, J. (2005). Learning in and for production: An activity-theoretical study of the historical development of distributed systems of generalizing. Helsinki: University of Helsinki, Department of Education.Google Scholar
Pine, B. J. II (1993). Mass customization: The new frontier in business competition. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
Pippin, R. B. (1995). On the notion of technology as ideology. In Feenberg, A. & Hannay, A. (Eds.), Technology and the politics of knowledge. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Poole, M. S., Van de Ven, A. H., Dooley, K. & Holmes, M. E. (2000). Organizational change and innovation processes: Theory and methods for research. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Popper, K. (1972). Objective knowledge: An evolutionary approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Prensky, M. (2008). Students as designers and creators of educational computer games: Who else? British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(6), 1004–1019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pressman, J. L. & Wildavsky, A. (1984). Implementation. Third edition. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Puonti, A. (2004). Learning to work together: Collaboration between authorities in economic-crime investigation. Vantaa: National Bureau of Investigation.Google Scholar
Quinn, R. E. & Cameron, K. S. (Eds.) (1988). Paradox and transformation: Towards a theory of change in organization and management. Cambridge: Ballinger.Google Scholar
Radley, A. & Taylor, D. (2003). Remembering one’s stay in hospital: A study in photography, recovery and forgetting. Health, 7(2), 129–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rao, H., Morrill, C. & Zald, M. N. (2000). Power plays: How social movements and collective action create new organizational forms. Research in Organizational Behavior, 22, 239–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rasmussen, I. & Ludvigsen, S. (2009). The hedgehog and the fox: A discussion of the approaches to the analysis of ICT reforms in teacher education of Larry Cuban and Yrjö Engeström. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 16(1), 83–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ravitch, D. (2014). Reign of error: The hoax of the privatization movement and the danger to America’s public schools. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
Romanelli, E. & Tushman, M. (1994). Organizational transformation as punctuated equilibrium: An empirical test. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 1141–1166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rorabaugh, W. J. (1986). The craft apprectice: From Franklin to the machine age in America. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rose, N. (2007). The politics of life itself: Biomedicine, power, and subjectivity in the twenty-first century. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roth, W-M. & Lee, Y-J. (2007). Vygotsky’s neglected legacy: Cultural-historical activity theory. Review of Educational Research, 77(2), 186–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rubtsov, V. V. (1991). Learning in children: Organization and development of cooperative actions. New York: Nova Science Publishers.Google Scholar
Rückriem, G. (2009). Digital technology and mediation: A challenge to activity theory. In Sannino, A., Daniels, H. & Gutiérrez, K. (Eds.), Learning and expanding with activity theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rumelhart, D. E. & Norman, D. A. (1978). Accretion, tuning and restructuring: Three modes of learning. In Cotton, J. W. & Klatzky, R. (Eds.), Semantic factors in cognition. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Saaren-Seppälä, T. (2004). Yhteisen potilaan hoito: Tutkimus organisaatiorajat ylittävästä yhteistoiminnasta sairaalan, terveyskeskuksen ja lapsipotilaiden vanhempien suhteissa [The care of a shared patient: A study of collaboration across organizational boundaries between hospital, health center and parents of child patients]. Tampere: University of Tampere.Google Scholar
Sackett, D.L. & Rosenberg, M.C. (1995). On the need for evidence-based medicine. Journal of Public Health Medicine, 17(3), 330–334.Google ScholarPubMed
Salovaara, H. & Järvelä, S. (2003). Students’ strategic actions in computer-supported collaborative learning. Learning Environments Research, 6, 267–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sannino, A. (2005). Cultural-historical and discursive tools for analyzing critical conflicts in students’ development. In Yamazumi, K., Engeström, Y. & Daniels, H. (Eds.), New learning challenges: Going beyond the industrial age system of school and work. Osaka: Kansai University Press.Google Scholar
Sannino, A. (2008a). Experiencing conversations: Bridging the gap between discourse and activity. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 38(3), 267–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sannino, A. (2008b). From talk to action: Experiencing interlocution in developmental interventions. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 15, 234–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sannino, A. (2010a). Breaking out of a professional abstraction: The pupil as materialized object for teacher trainees. In Ellis, V., Edwards, A. & Smagorinsky, P. (Eds.), Cultural-historical perspectives on teacher education and development: Learning teaching. London: Routlege.Google Scholar
Sannino, A. (2010b). Teachers’ talk of experiencing: Conflict, resistance and agency. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(4), 838–844.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sannino, A., Daniels, H. & Gutiérrez, K. D. (2009a). Activity theory between historical engagement and future-making practice. In Sannino, A., Daniels, H. & Gutiérrez, K. D. (Eds.), Learning and expanding with activity theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sannino, A., Daniels, H. & Gutiérrez, K. D. (Eds.) (2009b) Learning and expanding with activity theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sannino, A. & Nocon, H. (2008). Introduction: Activity theory and school innovation. Journal of Educational Change, 9(4), 325–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sawchuck, P. H. (2011). Researching workplace learning: An overview and critique. In Malloch, M., Cairns, L., Evans, K. & O’Connor, B. N. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of workplace learning. Los Angeles: Sage (pp. 165–180).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sawyer, R. K. (2006a). Introduction: The new science of learning. In Sawyer, R. K. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (pp. 1–16).Google Scholar
Sawyer, R. K. (Ed.) (2006b). The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sawyer, R. K. (Ed.) (2014). The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences. Second edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scarbrough, H., Bresnen, M., Edelman, L. F., Laurent, S., Newell, S. & Swan, J. (2004). The processes of project-based learning. Management Learning, 35(4), 491–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schaupp, M. (2011). From function-based development practices to collaborative capability building: An intervention to extend practitioners’ ideas. In Poell, R. F. & van Woerkom, M. (Eds.), Supporting workplace learning: Towards evidence-based practice. New York: Springer (pp. 205–224).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, D. L., Chang, J. & Martin, L. (2008). Instrumentation and innovation in design experiments: Taking the turn towards efficiency. In Kelly, A. E., Lesh, R. A. & Baek, J. Y. (Eds.), Handbook of design research methods in education: Innovations in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics learning and teaching. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
Seppänen, L. (2004). Learning challenges in organic vegetable farming: An activity-theoretical study of on-farm practices. Helsinki: University of Helsinki, Institute for Rural Research and Training.Google Scholar
Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors of learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educational Researcher, 27(2), 4–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shuell, T. J. (1990). Phases of meaningful learning. Review of Educational Research, 60(4), 531–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shumar, W. (2013). College for sale: A critique of the commodification of higher education. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siltala, J., Freeman, S. & Miettinen, R. (2007). Exploring the tensions between volunteers and firms in hybrid projects. Helsinki: Center for Activity Theory and Developmental Work Research (Working Paper 36).Google Scholar
Silva, M. J. (2007). Children as creators of multisensory geographic information. Volunteered Geographic Information Workshop: Supplementary Papers, University of California, Santa Barbara, National Center for Geographic Information & Analysis. Available at www.ncgia.ucsb.edu/projects/vgi/supp.html.Google Scholar
Soule, S. A. (2012). Social movements and markets, industries and firms. Organization Studies, 33(12), 1715–1733.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spasser, M. (2002). Realist activity theory for digital library evaluation: Conceptual framework and case study. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 11, 81–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Star, S. L. & Griesemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional ecology, “translations” and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907–39. Social Studies of Science, 9, 387–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Streeck, W. & Thelen, K. (Eds.) (2005). Beyond continuity: Institutional change in advanced political economies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sutter, B. (2001). Instruction at heart: Activity-theoretical studies of learning and development in coronary clinical work. Karlskrona: Blekinge Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Tabak, I. & Radinsky, J. (2013). Note from the incoming editors. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 22(1), 4–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Talyzina, N. F. (1981). The pscyhology of learning: Theories of learning and programmed instruction. Moscow: Progress.Google Scholar
Tapscott, D. & Williams, A. (2007). Wikinomics: How mass collaboration changes everything. London: Atlantic Books.Google Scholar
Teräs, M. (2007). Intercultural learning and hybridity in the Culture Laboratory. Helsinki: University of Helsinki, Department of Education.Google Scholar
Tilak, J. B. G. (2008). Higher education: A public good or a commodity for trade? Prospects, 38, 449–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toikka, K., Hyötyläinen, R. & Norros, L. (1986). Development of work in flexible manufacturing. Nordisk Pedagogik, 6(1), 16–24.Google Scholar
Toiviainen, H. (2003). Learning across levels: Challenges of collaboration in a small-firm network. Helsinki: University of Helsinki, Department of Education.Google Scholar
Toiviainen, H. (2007). Inter-organizational learning across levels: An object-oriented approach. Journal of Workplace Learning, 19(6), 343–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toiviainen, H. & Engeström, Y. (2009) Expansive learning in and for work. In Daniels, H., Lauder, H. & Porter, J. (Eds.), Knowledge, values and educational policy. London: Routledge (pp. 95–109).Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. (1999). The cultural origins of human cognition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Tsui, A. B. M. & Law, D. Y. K. (2007). Learning as boundary-crossing in school–university partnership. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 1289–1301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tuomi-Gröhn, T. & Engeström, Y. (Eds.) (2003). Between school and work: New perspectives on transfer and boundary-crossing. Amsterdam: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Tyre, M. J. & von Hippel, E. (1997). The situated nature of adaptive learning in organizations. Organization Science, 8(1), 71–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vakola, M. & Rezgui, Y. (2000). Critique of existing business process re-engineering methodologies: The development and implementation of a new methodology. Business Process Management Journal, 6(3), 238–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van de Ven, A. H. & Poole, M. S. (1988). Paradoxical requirements for a theory of organizational change. In Quinn, R. E. & Cameron, K. S. (Eds.), Paradox and transformation: Towards a theory of change in organization and management. Cambridge: Ballinger.Google Scholar
Van der Veer, R. & Valsiner, J. (1991). Understanding Vygotsky: A quest for synthesis. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Vayda, A. P., McCay, B. J. & Eghenter, C. (1991). Concepts of process in social science explanations. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 21(3), 318–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Victor, B. & Boynton, A. C. (1998). Invented here: Maximizing your organization’s internal growth and profitability. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
Vince, R. (1998). Behind and beyond Kolb’s learning cycle. Journal of Management Education, 22(3), 304–319.Google Scholar
Virkkunen, J. (2004). Developmental interventions in work activities: An activity theoretical interpretation. In Kontinen, T. (Ed.), Development intervention: Actor and activity perspectives. Helsinki: Center for Activity Theory and Developmental Work Research and Institute for Development Studies, University of Helsinki.Google Scholar
Virkkunen, J. (2006a). Dilemmas in building shared transformative agency. @ctivités revue électronique, 3 (1), 43–66.Google Scholar
Virkkunen, J. (2006b). Hybrid agency in co-configuration work. Outlines, 8(1), 61–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Virkkunen, J. (2009). Two theories of organizational knowledge creation. In Sannino, A., Daniels, H. & Gutiérrez, K. D. (Eds.), Learning and expanding with activity theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (pp. 144–159).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Virkkunen, J., & Ahonen, H. (2004). Transforming learning and knowledge creation on the shop floor. International Journal of Human Resources Development and Management, 4(1), 57–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Virkkunen, J. & Ahonen, H. (2011). Supporting expansive learning through theoretical-genetic reflection in the Change Laboratory. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 24(2), 229–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Vygotsky, L. S. (1987a). Lectures on psychology. In The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky. Vol. 1. Problems of general psychology. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
Vygotsky, L. S. (1987b). Thinking and speech. In The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky. Vol. 1: Problems of general psychology. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
Vygotsky, L. S. (1997a). The historical meaning of the crisis in psychology: A methodological investigation. In The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky. Vol. 3. Problems of the theory and history of psychology. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
Vygotsky, L. S. (1997b). The history of the development of higher mental functions. In The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky. Vol. 4. The history of the development of higher mental functions. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
Vygotsky, L. S. (1997c). The instrumental method in psychology. In The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky. Vol. 3. Problems of the theory and history of psychology. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
Vygotsky, L. S. (1998). The problem of age. In The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky, Vol. 5. Child psychology. New York: Kluwer/Plenum.Google Scholar
Vygotsky, L. S. (1999). Tool and sign in the development of the child. In The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky. Vol. 6. Scientific legacy. New York: Kluwer/Plenum.Google Scholar
Walker, C. R. & Guest, R. H. (1952). The man on the assembly line. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warmington, P. (2008). From “activity” to “labour”: Commodification, labour-power and contradiction in Engeström’s activity theory. Outlines, 10(2), 4–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wasson, B., Ludvigsen, S. & Hoppe, U. (Eds.) (2003). Designing for change in networked learning environments. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wertsch, J. V. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Williams, R., Stewart, J. & Slack, R. (2005). Social learning in technological innovation: Experimenting with information and communication technologies. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Womack, J. P., Jones, D. T. & Roos, D. (1990). The machine that changed the world. New York: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
Wright, W. & Middendorf, G. (Eds.) (2008). The fight over food: Producers, consumers, and activists challenge the global food system. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
Yamazumi, K. (2008). A hybrid activity system as educational innovation. Journal of Educational Change, 9(4), 365–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yamazumi, K. (2009). Expansive agency in multi-activity collaboration. In Sannino, A., Daniels, H. & Gutiérrez, K. (Eds.), Learning and expanding with activity theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Young, M. (2001). Contextualising a new approach to learning: Some comments on Yrjö Engeström’s theory of expansive learning. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 157–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zinchenko, V. P. (1985). Vygotsky’s ideas about units for the analysis of mind. In Wertsch, J. V. (Ed.), Culture, communication, and cognition: Vygotskian perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar