Abstract
This chapter locates knowledge mapping within the theoretical framework of cultural historical activity theory. Cultural historical activity theory provides an analytic tool for understanding how knowledge maps can act as “stimuli-means”: a cultural artefact that can mediate the performance of subjects (Vygotsky, 1978). Knowledge maps possess Vygotsky’s double nature: they not only enable students to enact academic practice but also allow reflection on that practice. They enable students to build an “internal cognitive schematisation of that practice” (Guile, 2005, p. 127). Further, cultural historical activity theory gives the tools to analyse the social context of our use of knowledge maps and thus consider the mediating rules (tacit and explicit) and division of labour that mediate our use of knowledge maps. Knowledge maps can be viewed as acting within Brandom’s (2000) space of reasons, which allows learners to use reasons to develop and exchange judgements based on shareable, theoretically articulated concepts and collectively develop the ability to restructure their knowledge and enact these judgements (Guile, 2011). In particular multimodal collaborative knowledge maps can act as Vygotsky’s (Vygotsky, 1978) zone of proximal development, where teacher and peer-to-peer interaction allow students to solve problems and learn concepts and skills that they would be otherwise unable to tackle.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Kaptelinin and Miettinen are referring to the object of activity rather than cultural historic activity theory but the description is apt to both.
- 2.
Parlton was a term invented by Feynman to explain interactions within protons. It was subsequently overtaken by the more successful quark (see Gleick, 1992, pp. 387–396).
References
Adams, K. (2004). Modelling success: Enhancing international postgraduate research students’ self-efficacy for research seminar presentations. Higher Education Research and Development, 23(2), 115–130.
Aguilar-Tamayo, M. F., & Aguilar-Garcia, M. F. (2008). Novak and Vygotsky and the representation of the scientific concept. Paper presented at the Concept Mapping: Connecting Educators.
Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays by M.M. Bakhtin (C. Emerson & M. Holquist, Trans.). Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
Bakhurst, D. (2005). Il’enkov on education. Studies in East European Thought, 57(3), 261–275.
Baldón, M. O., & Berionni, A. (2006). Models of social constructivism, laboratory teaching and concept maps to build scientific knowledge and organize concept network teaching experiences in first level education in Italian schools. Paper presented at the Concept Maps: Theory, Methodology, Technology. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Concept Mapping.
Brandom, R. (2000). Articulating reasons: An introduction to inferentialism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Britton, L. R., & Anderson, K. A. (2010). Peer coaching and pre-service teachers: Examining an underutilised concept. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(2), 306–314.
Brophy, J. (1999). Toward a model of value aspects of motivation in education: Developing appreciation for particular learning domains and activities. Educational Psychologist, 34(2), 75–85.
Chaiklin, S. (2003). The zone of proximal development in Vygotsky’s analysis of learning and instruction. In A. Kozulin, B. Gindis, V. Ageyev, & S. Miller (Eds.), Vygotsky’s educational theory in cultural context (pp. 339–364). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Coltman, P., Petyaeva, D., & Anghileri, J. (2002). Scaffolding learning through meaningful tasks and adult interaction. Early Years, 22(1), 40–49.
Cripps Clark, J. (2001). Creating a community of scholarship: The CODET experience. Paper presented at the Deakin University Students Association Postgraduate Research Conference, Deakin University, Toorak.
Cripps Clark, J. (2003). A survey of the methodologies and methods of science education research. Paper presented at the Symposium on Contemporary Approaches to Research in Mathematics, Science, Health and Environmental Education, Deakin University, Burwood.
Daniels, H. (2005). Subjectivity, identity and workplace divisions of labour. Paper presented at the Sociocultural Theory in Educational Research and Practice, University of Manchester.
Davydov, V. V. (2008). Problems of developmental instruction: A theoretical and experimental psychological study (P. Moxhay, Trans.). New York: Nova Science Publishers.
Derry, J. (2008). Abstract rationality in education: From Vygotsky to Brandom. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 27(1), 49–62.
Devenish, R., Dyer, S., Jefferson, T., Lord, L., van Leeuwen, S., & Fazakerley, V. (2009). Peer to peer support: The disappearing work in the doctoral student experience. Higher Education Research and Development, 28(1), 59–70.
Edwards, A. (2005). Relational agency: Learning to be a resourceful practitioner. International Journal of Educational Research, 43(3), 168–182.
Elkonin, D. B. (2005). The psychology of play, preface: The biography of this research. Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, 43(1), 11–21.
Engeström, Y. (1992). Learning by expanding: An activity theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit.
Engeström, Y. (1999). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In Y. Engeström, R. Meittinen, & R. Punamaki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 19–38). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Engeström, Y. (2000). Activity theory as a framework for analyzing and redesigning work. Ergonomics, 43(7), 960–974.
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. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Engeström, Y. (2009). The future of activity theory: A rough draft. In A. Sannino, H. Daniels, & K. Gutierrez (Eds.), Learning and expanding with activity theory (pp. 303–328). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Engeström, Y., & Sannino, A. (2010). Studies of expansive learning: Foundations, findings and future challenges. Educational Research Review, 5(1), 1–24.
Feryok, A. (2009). Activity theory, imitation and their role in teacher development. Language Teaching Research, 13(3), 279–299.
Foot, K. (2002). Pursuing an evolving object: A case study in object formation and identification. Mind, Culture and Activity, 9(2), 132–149.
Gleick, J. (1992). Genius: Richard Feynman and modern physics. London: Little, Brown and Company.
Guile, D. (2005). Knowledge, mediation and activity. Unpublished PhD, Institute of Education, London.
Guile, D. (2011). Interprofessional learning: Reasons, judgement, and action. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 18(4), 342–364.
Hicks, D. (2000). Self and other in Bakhtin’s early philosophical essays: Prelude to prose consciousness. Mind, Culture and Activity, 7(3), 227–242.
Jonassan, 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., & Miettinen, R. (2005). Perspectives on the object of activity. Mind, Culture and Activity, 12(1), 1–3.
Kinchin, I. M., Hay, D. B., & Adams, A. (2000). How a qualitative approach to concept map analysis can be used to aid learning by illustrating patterns of conceptual development. Educational Research, 42(1), 43–57.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lee, C. D., & Smagorinsky, P. (2000). Introduction: Constructing meaning through collaborative inquiry. In C. D. Lee & P. Smagorinsky (Eds.), Vygotskian perspectives on literacy research: Constructing meaning through collaborative inquiry (pp. 1–15). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Leont’ev, A. N. (1978). Activity, consciousness, and personality. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prenice-Hall.
Leont’ev, A. N. (1981). The problem of activity in psychology. In J. Wertsch (Ed.), The concept of activity in Soviet psychology (pp. 37–71). Armonk, NY: Sharpe.
Manouchehri, A. (2002). Developing teaching knowledge through peer discourse. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(6), 715–737.
Mariani, L. (1997). Teacher support and teacher challenge in promoting learner autonomy. Perspectives, 23(2).
McDowell, J. (1996). Mind and world. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
McLoughlin, C., Brady, J., Lee, M. J. W., & Russell, R. (2007). Peer-to-peer: An e-mentoring approach to developing community, mutual engagement and professional identity for pre-service teachers. Paper presented at the Australian Association for Research in Education (AARE) Conference.
Mehra, J. (1996). The beat of a different drum: The life and science of Richard Feynman. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mercer, N. (2000). The guided construction of knowledge: Talk amongst teachers and learners. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Mercer, N., & Howe, C. (2012). Explaining the dialogic processes of teaching and learning: The value and potential of sociocultural theory. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 1(1), 12.
Moreira-Unisinos, S. M. (2010). Concept map as a school genre: Considerations for teaching and learning. Paper presented at the Concept Maps: Making Learning Meaningful, The Fourth International Conference on Concept Mapping, Viña del Mar, Chile.
Nobelprize.org. The Nobel Prize in Physics 1965. Retrieved September 30, 2012 from http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1965/.
Novak, J. D., & Cañas, A. J. (2006). The origins of the concept mapping tool and the continuing evolution of the tool. Information Visualization, 5(3), 175–184.
Radziszewska, B., & Rogoff, B. (1991). Children’s guided participation in planning imaginary errands with skilled adult or peer partners. Developmental Psychology, 27(3), 381–390.
Rasku-Puttonen, H., Etelaplelto, A., Hakkinen, P., & Arvaja, M. (2002). Teachers’ instructional scaffolding in an innovative information communication technology-based history learning environment. Teacher Development, 6(2).
Ritella, G., & Hakkarainen, K. (2012). Instrumental genesis in technology-mediated learning: From double stimulation to expansive knowledge practices. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 7(2), 239–258.
Roth, W.-M., & Tobin, K. (2002). Redesigning an ‘urban’ teacher education program: An activity theory perspective. Mind, Culture and Activity, 9(2), 108–131.
Sennett, R. (2012). Together: The rituals, pleasures, and politics of cooperation. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Spasser, M. A. (2002). Realistcally evaluating the flora of North America digital library project as an activity network: A case study. Mind, Culture and Activity, 9(4), 270–295.
Stoyanova, N., & Kommers, P. (2002). Concept mapping as a medium of shared cognition in computer-supported collaborative problem solving. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 13(1), 111–133.
Taylor, C. (1991). The ethics of authenticity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Tharp, R. G. (1992). Instructional and social context of educational practice and reform. In E. A. Forman, N. Minch, & C. A. Stone (Eds.), Contexts for learning: Sociocultural dynamics in childrens development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Van Boxtel, C., van der Linden, J., Roelofs, E., & Erkens, G. (2002). Collaborative concept mapping: Provoking and supporting meaningful discourse. Theory into Practice, 41(1), 40–46.
Verenikina, I. (2003). Understanding scaffolding and the ZPD in educational research. Paper presented at the Educational research, risks and dilemmas: NZARE/AARE Conference 2003, Auckland, New Zealand.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1933/1966). Play and its role in the mental development of the child. Psychology and Marxism Internet Archive. Retrieved January 6, 2006 from http://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/works/1933/play.htm.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1934/1962). Thinking and speaking (E. Hanfmann, G. Vakar & N. Minnick, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1987a). The collected works of L.S. Vygotsky: Volume 2. The fundamentals of defectology (N. Minick, Trans.). New York: Plenum Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1987b). The collected works of L.S. Vygotsky: Volume 4. The history of the development of higher mental functions (N. Minick, Trans.). New York: Plenum Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1987c). The collected works of L.S. Vygotsky: Volume 5. Child psychology (M. J. Hall, Trans.). New York: Plenum Press.
Wells, G. (2007). Who we become depends on the company we keep and on what we do and say together. International Journal of Educational Research, 46, 100–103.
Wertsch, J. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of the mind. Harvard, MA: Harvard University Press.
Zinchenko, V. P. (2001). Developing activity theory: The zone of proximal development and beyond. In B. A. Nardi (Ed.), Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human-computer interactions (pp. 283–324). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media New York
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Clark, J.C. (2014). Towards a Cultural Historical Theory of Knowledge Mapping: Collaboration and Activity in the Zone of Proximal Development. In: Ifenthaler, D., Hanewald, R. (eds) Digital Knowledge Maps in Education. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3178-7_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3178-7_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-3177-0
Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-3178-7
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)