Abstract
Drawing on Wartofsky’s work on models and, in particular, his notion of a tertiary artifact as a guide to action, Cole gives detailed examples of how his creation of the Fifth Dimension, aiming at engaging vulnerable learners, can be characterized as a tertiary artifact that opens up imaginative possibilities for these learners. The argument is that there no natural perception; children must learn how to see, and how to think, and the construction of material representations, such as the environment offered by the Fifth Dimension, is key to this learning. A tertiary artifact mediates the ways in which we perceive the world in a particularly powerful way, guiding and informing human imagination. What tertiary artifacts permit and foster is a mode of engagement in the world that can be said to be offline. Offline activity, according to Wartofsky, is play in an imaginatively constructed world and this is what is offered in the design of the Fifth Dimension (5th D).
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
Notes
- 1.
Our presentations were published several years later in an edited selection of papers from the conference (Engestrom, Meittinen, & Punamaki, 1990).
- 2.
- 3.
For video’s about various instantiations of the 5th D see lchcautbio.ucsd.edu.
- 4.
For descriptions of other sites see Cole et al. (2006); uclinks.berkeley.edu.
References
Cole, M. (1996). Cultural psychology: A once and future discipline. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Cole, M. (1999). Cultural psychology: Some general principles and a concrete example. In Y. Engeström & R. L. Punamaki (Eds.), Perspective on activity theory (pp. 87–106). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cole, M. (2006). Culture and cognitive development in phylogenetic, historical development in phylogenetic, historical, and ontogenetic perspective. In D. Kuhn & R. Siegler (Eds.), Handbook of Child Psychology (Vol. 2): Cognition, perception and language (6th ed.). New York: Wiley.
Cole, M., & Packer, M. (2016a). Design-based intervention research as the science of the doubly artificial. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 25(4), 503–530.
Cole, M. & Packer, M. (2016b). A bio-cultural-historical approach to the study of development. In M. J. Gelfand, C. Chiu, & Huang & Y. Huang (Eds.), Handbook of advances in culture and psychology (Vol. 6, pp. 1–76). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dahl, B. (2002). Profit, learning, and ideology: A comparative study of institutional structure and idioculture in two after-school child enrichment programs. Honors Thesis, University of California, San Diego.
Engeström, Y. (1990). Learning, working. Orienta Konsultit Oy: Imagining. Helsinki.
Engeström, Y. (2007). Putting Vygotsky to work: The change laboratory as an application of double stimulation. In H. Daniels, M. Cole, & J. V. Wertsch (Eds.), The Cambridge companion to Vygotsky (pp. 363–382). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Engeström, Y., Meittinen, R., & Punamaki, R.-L. (Eds.). (1999). Perspectves on activity theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gillespie, A., & Zittoun, T. (2010). Using resources: conceptualizing the mediation and reflective use of tools and signs. Culture and Psychology, 16(1), 37–62.
Gillespie, A., & Zittoun, T. (2016). Imagination in human and cultural development. Hove: Routledge.
Habib, L., & Wittek, L. (2007). The portfolio as artifact and actor. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 14(4), 266–282.
Hedegaard, M. (1999). Activity theory and history teaching. In Y. Engeström, R. Meittinen, & R.-L. Punamaki (Eds.), Perspectves on activity theory (pp. 282–297). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hedegaard, M. (2005). Learning and child development. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press.
Hirsh, A. (2015). IDPs at work. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 59(1), 77–94.
Hutchins, E. (2014). The cultural ecosystem of human cognition. Philosophical Psychology, 7(1), 34–49.
LCHC (The Laboratory of Comparative Human Cognition) (1983). Culture and cognitive development. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.), W. Kessen (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 295–356). New York: Wiley.
McDonald, G., Le, H., Higgins, J., & Podmore, V. (2005). Artifacts, tools, and classrooms. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 12(2), 113–127.
Miettinen, R. (1999). The riddle of things: Activity theory and actor-network theory as approaches to studying innovations. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 6(4), 170–195.
Susi, T. (2006). Tools and artefacts—knowing ‘where-from’ affects their present use. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 28(28).
Wartofsky, M. (1979). Models: Representation and the scientific understanding. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Zittoun, T., & Glavenau, V. (2017). Handbook of imagination and culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Cole, M. (2019). Re-covering the Idea of a Tertiary Artifact. In: Edwards, A., Fleer, M., Bøttcher, L. (eds) Cultural-Historical Approaches to Studying Learning and Development. Perspectives in Cultural-Historical Research, vol 6. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-6826-4_20
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-6826-4_20
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-13-6825-7
Online ISBN: 978-981-13-6826-4
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)