Abstract
This paper is part of a study which focused on the restructuring of scientific literacy (Roth & Lee, 2004), in the sense that it proposes a new methodological tool for designing the teaching of scientific concepts to young children. This new approach comes under the umbrella of activity theory. However, if activity theory is employed mainly in the analysis of activities (Engeström, 1987), in the present study it is employed in an attempt to design the activities of students.
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
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Allchin, D. (1997). Rekindling phlogiston: From classroom case study to interdisciplinary relationships. Science & Education, 6, 473–509.
Barab, S. A., Cherkes-Julkowski, M., Swenson, R., Garrett. S., Shaw, R. E., & Young, M. (1999). Principles of self-organization: Ecologizing the learner-facilitator system. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8, 349–390.
Barab, S. A., Evans, M., & Baek, E.-O. (2003). Activity theory as a lens for charactering the participatory unit. In D. Jonassen (Ed.), International handbook on communication technologies (Vol. 2, pp. 199–214). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Barab, S., Schatz, S., & Scheckler, R. (2004). Using activity theory to conceptualize online community and using online community to conceptualize activity theory. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 11(1), 25–47.
Basharina, O. (2007). An activity theory perspective on student – Reported contradictions in international telecollaboration. Language Learning & Technology, 11(2), 36–58.
Bevilacqua, F., & Giannetto, E. (1998). The history of physics and European physics education. In International handbook of science education (Vol. II, pp. 1015–1026). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publisher.
Bigum, C. (2000). Actor-network theory and online university teaching: Translation versus diffusion. In B. A. Knight & L. Rowan (Eds.), Researching futures oriented pedagogies (pp. 7–22). Flaxton, Qld: PostPressed.
Binnie, A. (2001). Using the history of electricity and magnetism to enhance teaching. Science & Education, 10, 379–389.
Bottino, R-M., Chiappini, G., Forcheri, P., Lemut, E., & Molfino, M-T., (1999). Activity theory: A framework for design and reporting on research projects based on ICT. Education and Information Technologies, 4(3), 281–295.
Bruner, R. (1975). From communication to language – A psychological perspective. Cognition, 3, 255–287.
Butterfield, H. (1994). The origins of modern science. London: G. Bell & Sons (Greek edition).
Cole, M. (1988). Cross-cultural research in the sociohistorical tradition. Human Development, 31, 137–151.
Cole, M. (1996). Cultural psychology. A once and future discipline. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Cole, M. (1999). Cultural psychology: Some general principles and a concrete example. In Y. Engestrom, R. Miettinen, & R. Punamaki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Cole, M., & Engeström, Y. (1993). A cultural-historical interpretation of distributed cognition. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distribute cognition: Psychological and educational considerations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Clot, Y. (2009). Clinic of activity theory: The dialogue as instrument. In A. Sannino, H. Daniels, & K. Gutierrez (Eds.), Learning and expanding with activity theory. Cambridge: Cambidge University Press.
Dafermos, M. (2002). The cultural-historical theory of L. S. Vygotsky. Athens: Atrapos [in Greek].
Dagenais, A., (2003). Teaching the history of science without lectures. In Proceedings of 7th International History, Philosophy of Science and Science Teaching Conference (pp. 227–234). Winnipeg.
Dagenais, A., (2010). Teaching high school physics with a story-line. Interchange, 41(4), 335–345.
Davydov, V. (1999). The content and unsolved problems of activity theory. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen, & R. Punamaki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Dodge, B. J. (2001). Focus five rules for writing great webquests. Learning and Leading with Technology, 28(8), 6–9.
Duignan, M., Noble, T., & Biddle, R., (2006). Activity theory for design from checklist to interview. In T. Clemmensen, P. Campos, R. Omgreen, Al. Petjersen, & W. Wong (Eds.), IFIP International federation for information processing (Vol. 221, Human Work Interaction Design: Designing for Human Work, pp. 1–25). Boston: Springer.
Elmore, F. R. (2004). Foreword. In E. Coppola (Ed.), Powering up: Learning to teach well with technology. New York: Teachers College Press.
Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit.
Engeström, Y. (1999a). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen, & R. Punamaki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Engeström, Y. (1999b). Innovative learning in work teams: Analyzing cycles of knowledge creation in practice. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen, & R. Punamaki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Engeström, Y. (1999c). Learning by expanding: Ten years after. Introduction to the German edition of Learning by expanding, published in 1999 under the title Lernen durch Expansion (Marburg: BdWi-Verlag; translated by Falk Seeger). Retrieved November 9, 2010, from http://lchc.ucsd.edu/MCA/Paper/Engestrom/expanding/intro.htm
Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), DOI: 10.1080/13639080020028747.
Engeström, Y., & Miettinen, R., (1999). Introduction. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen, & R. Punamaki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Engeström, Y., Engeström, R., & Vahaaho, T., (1999). When the center does not hold: The importance of knotworking. In S. Chaiklin, M. Hedegaard, & U. J. Jensen (Eds.), Activity theory and social practice: Cultural-historical approaches. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press.
Faraday, M. (1835–1855). Experimental researches in electricity (reprinted). New York: Dover.
Galili, I., & Hazan, A. (2000). The influence of an historically oriented course on students content knowledge in optics evaluated by means of facets-schemes analysis. Physics Education Research: A Supplement to the American Journal of Physics, 68(7), S3–S15.
Gillispie, C. C. (1994). The edge of objectivity: An essay in the history of scientific ideas. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1960 [in Greek].
Griffin, P., & Cole, M. (1984). Current activity for the future: The zoped. In B. Rogoff & J. V.Wertsch (Eds.), Children’s learning in the zone of proximal development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Guisasola, J., Almudí, J. M., & Furió, C. (2005). The nature of science and its implications for physics textbooks. Science & Education, 14(3), 321–328.
Hakkarainen, P., Engeström, R., Kangas, K., Bollström-Huttunen, M., & Hakkarainen, K. (2004). The artefact project – Hybrid knowledge building in a networked learning environment. Paper presented at the Scandinavian Summer Cruise at Baltic Sea, “Motivation, learning, and knowledge building in the 21st century,” , June 18–June 21.
Heering, P. (2003). History-science-epistemology: On the use of historical experiments in physics teacher training. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), Proceedings of the 6th IHPST Conference, Denver 2001. Avaible from the IHPST Group, IHPST.org.
Heering, P. (2005). Analysing unsuccessful experiments and instruments with the replication method. In ÉNDOXA: Series Filosóficas (Vol. 19, pp. 315–340). Madrid: UNED.
Heilbron, J. L. (1979). Electricity in the 17th and 18th centuries: A study of early Modern physics. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Heisenberg, W. (1997). Das Naturbild der heutigen Physik. Rowohlt, 1955 [in Greek].
Henke, A., Höttecke, D., & Riess, F. (2009). Case studies for teaching and learning with history and philosophy of science exemplary results of the HIPST project in Germany. Paper presented at the Tenth International History, Philosophy, and Science, Teaching Conference University of Notre Dame South Bend, USA, June 24–28.
Irwin, A. R. (2000). Historical case studies: Teaching the nature of science in context. Science Education, 84(1), 5–26.
Jonassen, D. (2000). Computers as mindtools for school: Engaging critical thinking. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
Jonassen, D., & Rohrer-Murphy, L. (1999). Activity theory as a framework for designing constructivist learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(1), 61–79.
Kaptelinin, V., & Nardi, B. (2006). Acting with technology: Activity theory and interaction design. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Kaptelinin, V., Nardi, B. A., & Macaulay, C. (1999). The activity checklist: A tool for representing the “Space” of context. ACM /Interactions, Methods & Tools, 6, 27–39.
Kipnis, N. (2005). Chance in science: The discovery of electromagnetism by H.C. Oersted. Science Education, 14, 1–28.
Koschmann, T. (1996). Paradigm shifts and instructional technology. In T. Koschmann (Ed.), CSCL: Theory and practice of an emerging paradigm. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Kozma, R. (2003). Technology, innovation, and educational change: A global perspective. Eugene, OR: International Society for Educational Technology.
Kutti, K. (1996). Activity theory as a potential framework for human-computer interaction research. In B. Nardi (Ed.), Context and consciousness. London: MIT Press.
Latour, B. (1988). The pasteurisation of France. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Lee, C. D., & Smagorinsky, P. (2000). Vygotskian perspectives on literacy research, constructing meaning through collaborative inquiry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Leontiev, A. (1979). The problem of activity in psychology. In J. Wertsch (Ed.), The concept of activity in soviet psychology. New York: Armonk, M.E. Sharpe.
Lim, P. C. (2007). Effective integration of ICT in Singapore schools: Pedagogical and policy implications. Education Tech Research, 55, 83–116.
Luria, A. (1976). Cognitive development: Its cultural and social foundations. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Malamitsa, K., Kokkotas, P., & Stamoulis, E. (2005). The use of aspects of history of science in teaching science enhances the development of critical thinking. Paper presented at the Eighth International History, Philosophy and Science Teaching Conference (IHPST 8), Teaching and Communicating Science: What the history, philosophy and sociology of science can contribute, England, 15–18 July 2005, Abstracts (pp. 63–64), Leeds: University of Leeds. Retrieved from http://www.ihpst2005.leeds.ac.uk/papers.htm.
Masson, S., & Vázquez-Abad, J. (2006). Integrating history of science in science education through historical microworld to promote conceptual change. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 15(3), 257–268.
Matthews, M. (1994). Science teaching, The role of history and philosophy of science. New York: Routledge.
Matthews, M. (1998). The nature of science and science teaching. In B. Fraser & K. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (Pt. 2). Dordrecht/Boston/London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Monk, M., & Osborn, J. (1997). Placing the history and philosophy of science on the curriculum: A model for the development of pedagogy. Science Education, 81, 405–424.
Mwanza, D. (2000). Mind the gap: Activity theory and design. Paper submitted at CSCW 2000 Conference in Philadelphia, PA, December 2–6.
Nardi, B. A. (1996). Activity theory and human-computer interaction. In B. A. Nardi (Ed.), Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human-computer interaction (pp. 69–103). Cambridge and London: MIT Press.
Nersessian, N. J. (1995). Should physicists preach what they practice? Constructive modeling in doing and learning physics. Science & Education, 4(3), 203–226.
Nersessian, N. J. (2002). Abstraction via generic modeling in concept formation in science. Mind & Society, 5(3), 129–154.
Nersessian, N. J. (2009). Conceptual change: Creativity, cognition, and culture. In J. Meheus & T. Nickles (Eds.), Models of discovery and creativity (pp. 127–158). New York: Springer.
Ravanis, K. (1999). Science in preschool education: A teaching and cognitive approach. Athens: Typothito [in Greek].
Rizzo, A. (2003). Activity Centered Professional Development and Teachers. Take-Up of ICT, paper was presented at the IFIP Working Groups 3.1 and 3.3 Working Conference: ICT and the Teacher of the Future, held at St. Hilda’s College, The University of Melbourne, Australia, 27–31 January.
Rossi, P. (2004). La nascita della scienza in Europa. Greek translation by Tsiamouras Panagiotis. Athens: Ellinika Grammata.
Roth, W. M. (2009). On the inclusion of emotions, identity and ethico-moral dimensions of actions. In A. Sannino, H. Daniels, & K. Gutierrez (Eds.), Learning and expanding with activity theory. Cambridge: Cambidge University Press.
Roth, W.-M., & Lee, S. (2004). Science education as/for participation in the community. Science Education, 88(2), 263–291.
Roth, W.-M., & Lee, Y. J. (2007). Vygotsky’s neglected legacy: Cultural-historical activity theory. Review of Educational Research, 77(2), 186–232.
Segrè, E. (2001). From falling bodies to radio waves: Classical physicists and their discoveries. Greek translation by Kostantina Mergia, Vol. A, Athens: Diavlos.
Seker, H., & Welsh, L. C. (2006). The use of history of mechanics in teaching motion and force units. Science & Education, 15, 55–89.
Seroglou, F., & Koumaras, P. (2001). The contribution of the history of physics in physics education: A review. Science & Education, 10, 153–172.
Seroglou, F., Koumaras, P., & Tselfes, V. (1998). History of science and instructional design: The case of electromagnetism. Science and Education, 7, 261–280.
Sneider, C. I., & Ohadi, M. M. (1998). Unraveling students’ misconceptions about the earth’s shape and gravity. Science Education, 82, 265–284.
Stamoulis, E., & Kokkotas, P. (2006). Using activity theory to analyze the effect of input from HPS in a technologically rich environment for teaching science. In Proceedings of 3rd National Conference Early Childhood Education of University Thessaly on Science Education: Learning Methods and Technologies, Volos.
Stamoulis, E., Kokkotas, P., & Mavrogiannakis, M. (2003). The contribution of history and philosophy of science in their teaching: Presentation of Archimedes and his work with the software. In Proceedings of the 2nd National Conference: The contribution of history and philosophy of science in science teaching, May 8–11 (pp. 468–473). Athens: University of Athens.
Stinner, A., & Williams, H. (1998). History and philosophy of science in the science curriculum. In B. Fraser & K. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (Pt. 2). Dordrecht/Boston/London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Stinner, A. (1994). The story of force: From Aristotle to Einstein. Physics Education, 29(2), 77–85.
Stinner, A. (1995). Contextual settings, science stories, and large context problems: Toward a more humanistic science education. Science Education, 79(5), 555–581.
Stinner, A., MacMillan, B., Metz, D., Jilek, J., & Klassen, S. (2003). The renewal of case studies in science education. Science & Education, 12, 617–643.
Stinner, A. (2007). Toward a humanistic science education: Using stories, drama, and the theatre. Canadian Theater Review, 14–19.
Thorne, S. (2003). Artefacts and cultures-of-use in intercultural communication. Language Learning & Technology, 7(2), 38–67.
Voutsina, L., & Ravanis, K. (2007). Historical models and mental representations of students’ school on magnetism. In D. Koliopoulos (Ed.), History, philosophy and teaching science. Maroussi: Othisi [in Greek].
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Wandersee, J. (1985). Can the history of science help science educators anticipate students’ misconceptions? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23, 581–597.
Wartofsky, M. (1979). Models. Representation and the scientific understanding. Boston: Reidel.
Wells, G. (2000). From action to writing: Modes of representing and knowing. In J. W. Astington (Ed.), Minds in the making. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Wertsch, J. V. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Westfall, R. S. (2006). The construction of modern science. Mechanism and mechanics. New York: Cambridge University Press (in Greek language edition).
Whittaker, Ε. T. (1987). A history of the theories of aether and electricity from the age of Descartes: The close of the nineteenth century. Dublin: Dublin University press.
Woolgar, S. (2003). Science: The very idea. London: Routledge (in Greek language, Katoptro, Athens).
Yoon, H.-G. (2006). The nature of science drama in science education. Paper presented at the 9th International Conference on Public Communication of Science and Technology, Coex, Seoul, Korea, May 17–20. Retrieved November, 2010, from http://sciencedrama.cnue.ac.kr/admin/upload/non/yoon(2006).pdf.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Sense Publishers
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Stamoulis, E., Plakitsi, K. (2013). Activity Theory, History and Philosophy of Science, and ICT Technologies in Science Teaching Applications. In: Plakitsi, K. (eds) Activity Theory in Formal and Informal Science Education. Cultural and Historical Perspectives on Science Education. SensePublishers, Rotterdam. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6091-317-4_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6091-317-4_6
Publisher Name: SensePublishers, Rotterdam
Online ISBN: 978-94-6091-317-4
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)
