Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Boundary objects in collaborative work and learning

  • Published:
Information Systems Frontiers Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Boundary objects are artifacts, processes, concepts and other entities that provide bridges across boundaries and act as shared references that are meaningful for learners and collaborators with different backgrounds. In this paper, we explore cooperation in a cross-disciplinary and cross-cultural context, focusing on the opportunities for learning that arise at different boundaries and on corresponding boundary objects to facilitate both collaboration and learning. We present and discuss a study we conducted within a Cooperation Technology course. The discussion provides implications for collaboration support across boundaries, including insights on why they are important, how to facilitate their creation, and how to use technologies for that. The implications are formulated as instruction for designing university courses, but can be used in a wider context.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anisetty, P., & Young, P. (2011). Collaboration problems in conducting a group project in a software engineering course. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 26(5), 45–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arias, E. G., & Fischer, G. (2000). Boundary objects: Their role in articulating the task at hand and making information relevant to it. In International Symposium on Interactive & Collaborative Computing (ICC), Wollongong, Australia (pp. 567–574). Rochester: ICSC Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beddall-Hill, N. L., & Jonathan, R. (2010). Mobile devices as ‘boundary objects’ on field trips. Journal of the Research Center for Educational Technology, 6(1), 28–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boud, D., Keogh, R., & Walker, D. (Eds.). (1985). Reflection: Turning experience into learning. London: Kogan Page.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boud, D., Cressey, P., & Docherty, P. (2006). Productive reflection at work: Learning for changing organizations. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlisle, R. P. (2002). A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries: boundary objects in new product development. Organization Science, 13(4), 442–455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dirckinck-Holmfeld, L. (2006). Designing for collaboration and mutual negotiation of meaning – boundary objects in networked learning environments. In S. Banks, V. Hodgson, C. Jones, B. Kemp, D. McConnell, & C. Smith (Eds.), 5th International Conference on Networked Learning Lancaster, UK (pp. 1–8). Lancaster: Lancaster University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit Oy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, G. (2001). External and shareable artifacts as opportunities for social creativity in communities of interest. In J. S. Gero & M. L. Maher (Eds.), 5th International Conference on Computational and Cognitive Models of Creative Design, Heron Island, Australia (pp. 67–89). Australia: University of Sydney.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, G. (2005). Distances and diversity: Sources for social creativity. In 5th Conference on Creativity & Cognition, London (pp. 128–136). New York: ACM. doi:10.1145/1056224.1056243.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, G., & Ostwald, J. (2005). Knowledge communication in design communities: And how they may be overcome. In R. Bromme, F. Hesse, & H. Spada (Eds.), Barriers and biases in computer-mediated knowledge communication (pp. 213–242). Berlin: Springer. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Series, Vol. 5.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, G., Rohde, M., & Wulf, V. (2007). Community-based learning: the core competency of residential, research based universities. International Journal for Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(1), 9–40. doi:10.1007/s11412-007-9009-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fominykh, M., Prasolova-Forland, E., Divitini, M., & Petersen, S. A. (2013). Hands-on learning of cooperation technology: Combining knowledge construction and reflection. In M. J. W. Lee (Ed.), International Conference on Teaching, Assessment and Learning for Engineering (TALE), Bali, Indonesia (pp. 213–218). New York: IEEE. doi:10.1109/TALE.2013.6654431.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fominykh, M., Prasolova-Førland, E., Morozov, M., Smorkalov, A., & Divitini, M. (2014). Facilitating creative collaborative activities with dedicated tools in a 3D virtual world. In R. Neves-Silva, G. A. Tshirintzis, V. Uskov, R. J. Howlett, & L. C. Jain (Eds.), 1st International Conference on Smart Technology based Education and Training (STET), Chania, Greece (pp. 716–725). Amsterdam: Ios Press. doi:10.3233/978-1-61499-405-3-716.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forgues, D., Koskela, L. J., & Lejeune, A. (2009). Information technology as boundary object for transformational learning. Journal of Information Technology in Construction, 14, 48–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gal, U., Yoo, Y., & Boland, R. J. (2004). The dynamics of boundary objects, social infrastructures and social identities. Working Papers on Information Systems, 4(4), 193–206.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbs, G. R. (2008). Analysing qualitative data. London, UK: SAGE Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, B. G. (1965). The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis. Social Problems, 12(4), 436–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang, E. Y., & Huang, T. K. (2013). Measuring boundary objects in an attempt to explain innovativeness. In J. Ralph & H. Sprague (Eds.), 46th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), Wailea, HI, USA (pp. 3645–3653). New York: IEEE. doi:10.1109/HICSS.2013.394.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jansen, A., Herbel-Eisenmann, B., & Smith, J. P. (2012). Detecting students’ experiences of discontinuities between middle school and high school mathematics programs: learning during boundary crossing. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 14(4), 285–309. doi:10.1080/10986065.2012.717379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laumakis, M., Graham, C., & Dziuban, C. (2009). The Sloan-C pillars and boundary objects as a framework for evaluating blended learning. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 13(1), 75–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morozov, M., Gerasimov, A., & Fominykh, M. (2012). vAcademia – educational virtual world with 3D recording. In A. Kuijper & A. Sourin (Eds.), 12th International Conference on Cyberworlds (CW), Darmstadt, Germany, September 25–27 2012 (pp. 199–206). New York: IEEE. doi:10.1109/CW.2012.35.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Nolen, S. B., Horn, I. S., Ward, C. J., & Childers, S. A. (2011). Novice teacher learning and motivation across contexts: assessment tools as boundary objects. Cognition and Instruction, 29(1), 88–122. doi:10.1080/07370008.2010.533221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prasolova-Førland, E. (2003). Virtual spaces as artifacts: Implications for the design of educational CVEs. In International Conference on Cyberworlds, Singapore (pp. 396–403). New York: IEEE. doi:10.1109/CYBER.2003.1253481.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, G. W., & Bernard, H. R. (2003). Techniques to identify themes. Field Methods, 15(1), 85–109. doi:10.1177/1525822X02239569.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shuangyan, L., Joy, M., & Griffiths, N. (2010). Students’ perceptions of the factors leading to unsuccessful group collaboration. In M. Jemni, Kinshuk, D. Sampson, & J. M. Spector (Eds.), 10th International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT), Sousse, Tunisia (pp. 565–569). New York: IEEE. doi:10.1109/ICALT.2010.161.

    Google Scholar 

  • SIMOLA (2012). Lingobee Repository.

  • Star, S. (1989). The structure of Ill-structured solutions: Boundary objects and heterogeneous distributed problem solving. In L. Gasser & M. N. Huhns (Eds.), Distributed artificial intelligence (Vol. II, pp. 37–54). San Mateo: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Star, S., & Griesemer, J. (1989). Institutional ecology, ‘translations’ and boundary objects: amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s museum of vertebrate zoology, 1907–39. Social Studies of Science, 19(3), 387–420. doi:10.1177/030631289019003001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsui, A. B. M., & Law, D. Y. K. (2007). Learning as boundary-crossing in school–university partnership. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(8), 1289–1301. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2006.06.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wenger, E. (2000). Communities of practice and social learning systems. Organization, 7(2), 225–246. doi:10.1177/135050840072002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yiannoutsou, N., & Kynigos, C. (2013). Boundary objects in educational design research: Designing an intervention for learning how to learn in collectives with technologies that support collaboration and exploratory learning. In T. Plomp & N. Nieveen (Eds.), Educational design research: Introduction and illustrative cases (pp. 357–379). Enschede: SLO.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Part of the work presented in this paper is funded by EU LLP CoCreat and SIMOLA projects. This publication reflects the views only of the authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein. The study has been done with the support of the Program for Learning with ICT at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology. The writing of the paper was supported by the Volga State University of Technology. We thank all the study participants.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Program for Learning with ICT, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway

    Mikhail Fominykh & Ekaterina Prasolova-Førland

  2. Department of Information Science and Computer Engineering, Volga State University of Technology, Yoshkar-Ola, Russia

    Mikhail Fominykh

  3. Department of Computer and Information Science, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway

    Monica Divitini

  4. SINTEF Technology & Society, Trondheim, Norway

    Sobah Abbas Petersen

Authors
  1. Mikhail Fominykh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ekaterina Prasolova-Førland
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Monica Divitini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sobah Abbas Petersen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mikhail Fominykh.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fominykh, M., Prasolova-Førland, E., Divitini, M. et al. Boundary objects in collaborative work and learning. Inf Syst Front 18, 85–102 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-015-9579-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-015-9579-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation