Traditional activities change in surprising ways when computermediated communication becomes a component of the activity system. In this descriptive study, we leverage two perspectives on social activity to understand the experiences of individuals who became active collaborators in Wikipedia, a prolific, cooperatively-authored online encyclopedia. Legitimate peripheral participation provides a lens for understanding participation in a community as an adaptable process that evolves over time. We use ideas from activity theory as a framework to describe our results. Finally, we describe how activity on the Wikipedia stands in striking contrast to traditional publishing and suggests a new paradigm for collaborative systems.

Abstract. Activity theory is based on the concept of tools mediating between subjects and objects. In this theory, an individual’s creative interaction with his or her surroundings can result in the production of tools. When an individual’s mental processes are exteriorized in the form of tools – termed objectification – they become more accessible to other people and are therefore useful for social interaction. This paper shows how our understanding of activity theory has shaped our design philosophy for groupware and how we have applied it. Our design philosophy and practice is exemplified by a description of the BUILD-IT system. This is an Augmented Reality system we developed to enhance group work; it is a kind of graspable groupware which supports cooperative planning. The system allows a group of people, co-located around a table, to interact, by means of physical bricks, with models in a virtual three-dimensional (3D) setting. Guided by task analysis, a set of specific tools for different 3D planning and configuration tasks was implemented as part of this system. We investigate both physical and virtual tools. These tools allow users to adjust model height, viewpoint, and scale of the virtual setting. Finally, our design practice is summarized in a set of design guidelines. Based on these guidelines, we reflect on our own design practice and the

This essay compares activity theory (AT) with distributed cognition theory (DCOG), asking what each can do for CSCW. It approaches this task by proposing that theories – when viewed as conceptual tools for making sense of a domain – have four important attributes: descriptive power; rhetorical power; inferential power; and application power. It observes that AT and DCOG are not so different: both emphasize cognition; both include the social and cultural context of cognition; both share a commitment to ethnographically collected data. Starting with a description of the distributed cognition approach, it uses an example of a DCOG analysis to ground a discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of AT and DCOG as an approach to issues in CSCW. Finally, the essay considers what theoretical work is being done by the attributes of the respective theories, and whether AT, DCOG, or any theory developed outside the context of group work, will work for CSCW.

exploratory learning with games and simulations within the curriculum be most effectively evaluated? Computers and Education 46 (3) 249-264. This is an author-produced version of a paper published in Computers and Education (ISSN 0360-1315). This version has been peer-reviewed, but does not include the final publisher proof corrections, published layout, or pagination. The published version is available to subscribers at

Collective behaviour is often characterised by the so-called "coordination paradox": Looking at individual ants, for example, they do not seem to cooperate or communicate explicitly, but nevertheless at the social level cooperative behaviour, such as nest building, emerges, apparently without any central coordination. In the case of social insects such emergent coordination has been explained by the theory of stigmergy, which describes how individuals can effect the behaviour of others (and their own) through artefacts, i.e. the product of their own activity (e.g., building material in the ants' case). Artefacts clearly also play a strong role in human collective behaviour, which has been emphasised, for example, by proponents of activity theory and distributed cognition. However, the relation between theories of situated/social cognition and theories of social insect behaviour has so far received relatively little attention in the cognitive science literature. This paper aims to take a step in this direction by comparing three theoretical frameworks for the study of cognition in the context of agent-environment interaction (activity theory, situated action, and distributed cognition) to each other and to the theory of stigmergy as a possible minimal common ground. The comparison focuses on what each of the four theories has to say about the role/nature of (a) the agents involved in collective behaviour, (b) their environment, (c) the collective activities addressed, and (d) the role that artefacts play in the interaction between agents and their environments, and in particular in the coordination of cooperation.

Abstract. An activity theory model and a mediating artifacts hierarchy were employed to help identify the needs for tools for customer support engineers who documented solutions to customer problems, a knowledge authoring activity. This activity also involves customer support engineers who assist Hewlett-Packard software product users. The particular tools to be designed were knowledgeauthoring tools embedded in the customer support tracking application suite, SupportTracker. 1 The research analyzed the role of tensions between the elements of Engeström’s activity theory model. The research also explored the benefits of specific interpretations of Engeström’s refinement of Wartofsky’s mediating artifacts hierarchy. The hierarchy contributed to the identification of desired characteristics of mediating artifacts, particularly tools. The findings included an interpretation of the “where-to ” artifact concept as supporting an understanding of the entire activity system as an evolving entity. Specific interventions were used to achieve a positive impact on the evolution of the activity system. Key words: activity theory, communities of practice, customer support organization, field study, intervention, knowledge authoring and maintenance, mediating means, requirements engineering, software design 1.

CSCW researchers have increasingly come to realize that the material work settings and the artifacts that populate them play a crucial role in the seamless and effective coordination and alignment of cooperative work. However, while the central role of artifacts in cooperative work has been recognized and applauded, the concept of artifact as used in CSCW is highly problematic as it often presumes mentalist notions of artifacts as simple vehicles of `information'. This paper is an attempt to depart from these notions. Based upon ethnographic studies of architectural work, we attempt to develop an understanding of the coordinative roles of artifacts which accounts for the multiplicity of artifacts and the complex interplay of particular practices and the specific material forms of artifacts.

The objective of the research presented in this article is to find representational mechanisms for relating and integrating the collaborative learning elements present in real practical environments, create an integrated ontology that considers and relates these elements, and make use of it to define new collaborative learning scenarios. It is therefore necessary to identify the key ideas underlying the notion of ontology that will be essential in subsequent application development: a list of the basic elements that give rise to a common vocabulary for collaborative learning, and the relationship and dependencies between them. The Activity Theory is used as a theoretical framework for organising the elements in the ontology. This ontology gives rise to the structured elements that form the concpetual structure for the definition and construction of CSCL environments, and the analysis and assessment of group collaboration.

We reflect upon the process of developing a tangible space for children’s collaborative construction of screenbased systems. As in all design work, the design process involved continual refinements of initial ideas and their practical realisation. We discuss how some widely held qualities often put forward with tangible interfaces were given up in favour of reaching overall goals of interaction. In particular our design involved a shift from a focus on persistent representation and readability of tangible code structures, to instead focus on achieving reusability of programming resources. On a general level, our results illustrate a view on tangibles as resources for action instead of only as alternative forms of data representation. Importantly, this view includes action directed towards the computer as well as off-line socially oriented action conducted with the tangible artefacts. Author Keywords Tangible programming, TUI, embodied interaction

Intelligence, expertise, ability and talent, as these terms have traditionally been used in education and psychology, are socially agreed upon labels that minimize the dynamic, evolving, and contextual nature of individual–environment relations. These hypothesized constructs can instead be described as functional relations distributed across whole persons and particular contexts through which individuals appear knowledgeably skillful. The purpose of this article is to support a concept of ability and talent development that is theoretically grounded in 5 distinct, yet interrelated, notions: ecological psychology, situated cognition, distributed cognition, activity theory, and legitimate peripheral participation. Although talent may be reserved by some to describe individuals possessing exceptional ability and ability may be described as an internal trait, in our description neither ability nor talent are possessed. Instead, they are treated as equivalent terms that can be used to describe functional transactions that are situated across person-in-situation. Further, and more important, by arguing that ability is part of the individual–environment transaction, we take the potential to appear talented out of the hands (or heads) of the few and instead treat it as an opportunity that is available to all although it may be actualized more frequently by some.