Хокинс Л. преподаватель факультета искусства, бизнеса, информатики и образования Университета Центрального Квинслэнда, Австралия e-mail: l.hawkins@cqu.edu.au
Работники умственного труда (например, группа фасилитаторов) рефлексируют и экстернализируют
имеющиеся знания в качестве средства для планирования будущей деятельности. Рефлексия и экстернализация знаний могут быть увеличены путем включения в рефлексию с другими людьми посредством диалога. Рефлексия и планирование в группе может помочь при формулировке и передачи неявных знаний. Цикл экстернализации знаний (ЭкЗн) разработан как метод в рамках социального конструктивизма для запечатления и передачи сложности знания в этом контексте. ЭкЗн в качестве отправной точки принимает цикл экспансивного обучения Энгестрёма (ЦЭО), который был разработан как метод исследования и преобразования трудовой деятельности. Первоначальная цель цикла экспансивного обучения заключалась в предоставлении средства практикующему специалисту для рассмотрения своих методов работы, при использовании данных, концептуальных инструментов и руководящих указаний исследователей. Данная статья описывает противоречия, установленные между первоначальной целью ЦЭО (непосредственно помогать практикам) и целью ЭкЗн (создать последовательный циклический исследовательский метод для использования исследователем). Данная работа призвана разъяснить преобразование ЦЭО в ЭкЗн и предоставить подробное описание каждого этапа в течение цикла.
Antunes P.,Ho T. The Design of a GDSS Meeting
Preparation Tool // Group Decision and Negotiation, V. 10. № 1.
2001.
Boag-Munroe G. Wrestling with words and meanings: Finding a tool for
analysing language in activity theory // Educational Review, V. 56. № 2.
2004.
Bødker S. Applying activity theory to video analysis: how to make
sense of video data in human-computer interaction. In Nardi B.(Ed.). Applying
activity theory to video analysis: how to make sense of video data in
human-computer interaction. V. Cambridge, MA. 1995.
Boer N. I., van Baalen P. J. and KumarK. An activity theory
approach for studying the situatedness of knowledge sharing. In 35th Hawaii
International Conference on System Sciences. Hawaii. 2002.
Braxton J. M. Reflections on a Scholarship of Practice // Review of
Higher Education, V. 28. № 2. 2005.
Chinn P. L.,Kramer M. K. Theory and nursing:
Integrating knowledge development. V. St. Louis. 1999.
Cruz Neto G. G., Gomes A. G. and de Castro J. B. Mapping Activity
Theory Diagrams into i* Organizational Models // Journal of Computer Science
and Technology, V. 5. № 2. 2005.
Engeström Y. Activity theory as a framework for analysing and
redesigned work // Ergonomics, V. 43. № 7. 2000.
Engeström Y. Expansive learning at Work: toward an activity
theoretical reconceptualization // Journal of Education and Work, V. 14.
№ 1. 2001.
Engeström Y. Innovative learning in work teams: Analyzing cycles of
knowledge creation in practice. In Engeström Y., Miettinen R. and Punamäki R.
L.(Ed.). Innovative learning in work teams: Analyzing cycles of knowledge
creation in practice. V. Cambridge. 1999.
Engeström Y. Learning by expanding: An activity theoretical approach
to developmental research. V. Helsinki. 1987.
Engeström Y. Learning by expanding: Ten years after (Lernen durch
Expansion). V. Marburg. 1999.
Engeström Y. Putting Vygotsky to work: The change laboratory as an
application of double stimulation. In H. Daniels M. C., & J. V.
Wertsch(Ed.). Putting Vygotsky to work: The change laboratory as an application
of double stimulation. V. Cambridge, England. 2007.
Eraut M. Knowledge creation and knowledge use in professional
contexts // Studies in Higher Education, V. 10. № 2. 1985.
Fischer G. Shared understanding, informed participation, and social
creativity: Objectives for the next generation of collaborative systems. In
COOP’2000: Fourth International Conference on the Design of Cooperative
Systems. Sophia Antipolis, France. 2000.
Foot K. A. Cultural historical activity theory as practical theory:
Illuminating the development of a conflict monitoring network // Communication
Theory, V. 11. № 1. 2001.
Harris S. R. Supporting Learning-in-Use: Some Applications of
Activity Theory to the Analysis and Design of ICT-Enabled Collaborative Work
and Learning. 2007.
Hasan H. A cultural-historical activity theory approach to users,
usability and usefulness. In Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems
(PACIS). Auckland. 2007.
Hawkins L. A.,Whymark G. Increasing the descriptive
power of CHAT with culturally advanced notation. 2006.
Helle M. Disturbances and contradictions as tools for understanding
work in the newsroom // Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, V.
12. № 1-2. 2001.
Hill R., Capper P., Wilson K., WhatmanR. and Wong K.
Workplace learning in the New Zealand apple industry network: A new co-design
method for government “practice making” // Journal of Workplace Learning,
V. 19. № 6. 2007.
Jonassen D. Learning to solve problems: An instructional design
guide. V. San Francisco, CA. 2004.
Lapadat J. C. Problematizing transcription: purpose, paradigm and
quality // International Journal of Social Research Methodology, V. 3. №
3. 2000.
Lipponen L., Hakkarainen K. and Paavola S. Practices end
orientations of computer-supported collaborative learning. In Stribos J.,
Kirschner P. and MArtens R.(Ed.). Practices end orientations of
computer-supported collaborative learning. V. Boston, MA. 2004.
Lopez-Mesa B. Selection and use of engineering design methods using
creative problem solving. 2006.
Malopinsky L. V. Facilitating organisational change: The use of
activity theory as a framework for social construction of strategic knowledge.
2008.
Mwanza D. Mind the gap: Activity theory and design. In CSCW 2000.
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 2000.
Mwanza D. Where theory meets practice: A case for an Activity Theory
based methodology to guide computer system design. In INTERACT’ 2001: Eighth
IFIP TC 13 Conference on Human-Computer Interaction. Tokyo, Japan. 2001.
Osmond J. Knowledge Use in Social Work Practice: Examining its
Functional Possibilities // Journal of Social Work, V. 6. № 3. 2006.
Paavola S.,HakkarainenK. From meaning making
to joint construction of knowledge practices and artefacts - A trialogical
approach to CSCL. In Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning. Rhodes, Greece.
2009.
Paavola S., Lipponen L. and Hakkarainen K. Models of Innovative
Knowledge Communities and Three Metaphors of Learning // Review of Educational
Research, V. 74. № 4. 2004.
Patton M. Q. Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. V.
Thousand Oaks, CA., 2001.
Squire K. Cultural framing of computer/video games // The
International Journal of Computer Game Research, V. 2. № 1. 2002.
Stahl G. Can shared knowledge exceed the sum of its parts? In
DeRidder R. V. J.(Ed.). Can shared knowledge exceed the sum of its parts? V.
Amsterdam, Netherlands. 2003.
Uden L. and Helo P. Designing mobile interfaces using activity
theory // International Journal of Mobile Communications, V. 6. № 5.
2008.
Wainwright D. Can Sociological Research Be Qualitative, Critical and
Valid? // The Qualitative Report, V. 3. № 2. 1997.
Wang Q. Student-facilitators’ roles in moderating online discussions
// British Journal of Educational Technology, V. 39. № 5. 2008.
Wilson J. P. Reflecting-on-the-future: a chronological consideration
of reflective practice // Reflective Practice, V. 9. № 2. 2008.
Yamagata-Lynch L. C. Confronting Analytical Dilemmas for
Understanding Complex Human Interactions in Design-Based Research From a
Cultural-Historical Activity Theory (CHAT) Framework // Journal of the Learning
Sciences, V. 16. № 4. 2007.