Treść głównego artykułu


(Copyright Elsevier)

Szczegóły artykułu

Biogramy autorów

Yrjö Engeström, Uniwersytet w Helsinkach

Profesor edukacji dorosłych, dyrektor Center for Activity Theory and Developmental Work Research na Uniwersytecie Helsińskim. W latach 1990–1995 profesor i dyrektor The Laboratory of Comparative Human Cognition na Uniwersytecie Kalifornijskim, San Diego. Twórca teorii ekspansywnego uczenia się. Wraz z zespołem prowadzi badania w ramach utworzonego Laboratorium Zmiany (The Change Laboratory). Autor i współautor książek Learning by expanding (1987), Training for Change: New Approach to Instruction and Learning in Working Life (1994), Cognition and Communication at Work (z Davidem Middleton, 1996), Mind, Culture, and Activity: Seminal Papers from the Laboratory of Comparative Human Cognition (z M. Cole, O. Vasquez, 1997), Between School and Work: New Perspectives on Transfer and Boundary Crossing (z Terttu Tuomi-Gröhn, 2003), From Teams to Knots: Activity-theoretical Studies of Collaboration and Learning at Work (2008).

Annalisa Sannino, Uniwersytet w Helsinkach

Institute of Behavioural Sciences at University of Helsinki, Laboratory of Comparative Human Cognition and the Department of Communication at the University of California San Diego (2002–2003), Department of Education at the University of Salerno in Italy (2001–2008). Zainteresowania badawcze: kulturowo-historyczna teoria działalności, komunikacja, poznanie oraz uczenie się w instytucjach edukacyjnych i organizacjach pracy, ze szczególnym uwzględnieniem powiązań pomiędzy dyskursem a działalnością. Autorka artykułów w anglojęzycznych, francuskich oraz włoskich czasopismach naukowych oraz książki Learning and Expanding with Activity Theory (z H. Daniels, K. Gutierrez, 2009).


  1. Ahonen, H., & Virkkunen, J. (2003). Shared challenge for learning: Dialogue between management and front-line workers in knowledge management. International Journal of Information Technology and Management, 2(1–2), 59–84.
  2. Ahonen, H. (2008). Reciprocal development of the object and subject of learning: The renewal of the learning practices of front-line communities in a telecommunications company as part of the techno-economical paradigm change Oppimisen kohteen ja oppijan vastavuoroinen kehitys: Teleyrityksen asiakaspalvelun työyhteisöjen oppimiskäytäntöjen uudistaminen osana teknologis-taloudellista kumousta. Helsinki: University of Helsinki, Department of Education.
  3. Avis, J. (2007). Engeström’s version of activity theory: A conservative praxis? Journal of Education and Work, 20(3), 161–177.
  4. Bakhtin, M. M. (1982). The dialogic imagination: Four essays by M. M. Bakhtin. Austin: University of Texas Press.
  5. Bakhurst, D. (1991). Consciousness and revolution in Soviet philosophy: From the Bolsheviks to Evald Ilyenkov. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  6. Barowy, W., & Jouper, C. (2004). The complex of school change: Personal and systemic co-development. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 11(1), 9–24.
  7. Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind. New York, NY: Ballantine Books.
  8. Benkler, Y. (2006). The wealth of networks: How social production transforms markets and freedom. New Haven: Yale University Press.
  9. Bereiter, C. (2002). Education and mind in the knowledge age. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  10. Bodrozic, Z. (2008). Post-industrial intervention: An activity-theoretical expedition tracing the proximal development of forms of conducting interventions. Helsinki: University of Helsinki, Department of Education.
  11. Cole, M., & Engeström, Y. (2007a). Cultural–historical approaches to designing for development. In J. Valsiner, & A. Rosa (Eds.), The Cambrdige handbook of sociocultural psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  12. Cooper, M. (2008). Life as surplus: Biotechnology and capitalism in the neoliberal era. Seattle: University of Washington Press.
  13. Cussins, A. (1992). Content, embodiment and objectivity: The theory of cognitive trails. Mind, 101, 651–688.
  14. Cussins, A. (1993). Nonconceptual content and the elimination of misconceived composites! Mind & Language, 8, 234–252.
  15. Daniels, H. (2004). Cultural historical activity theory and professional learning. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 51(2), 185–200.
  16. Daniels, H., Edwards, A., Engeström, Y., Gallagher, T., & Ludvigsen, S. (Eds.). (2009). Activity theory in practice: Promoting learning across boundaries and agencies. London: Routledge.
  17. Davydov, V. V. (1988). Problems of developmental teaching: The experience of theoretical and experimental psychological research. Excerpts (Part 2). Soviet Education, 30(9), 3–83.
  18. Davydov, V. V. (1990). Types of generalization in instruction: Logical and psychological problems in the structuring of school curricula. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
  19. Edwards, A. (2005). Let’s get beyond community and practice: The many meanings of learning by participating. The Curriculum Journal, 16(1), 49–65.
  20. Edwards, A. (2009). From the systemic to the relational: Relational agency and activity theory. In A. Sannino, H. Daniels, & K. Gutiérrez (Eds.), Learning and expanding with activity theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  21. Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit.
  22. Engeström, Y. (1990). Learning, working and imagining: Twelve studies in activity theory. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit.
  23. Engeström, Y. (1991). Non scolae sed vitae discimus: Toward overcoming the encapsulation of school learning. Learning and Instruction, 1, 243–259.
  24. Engeström, Y. (1996). Development as breaking away and opening up: A challenge to Vygotsky and Piaget. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 55, 126–132.
  25. Engeström, Y. (1998). Reorganizing the motivational sphere of classroom culture: An activity-theoretical analysis of planning in a teacher team. In F. Seeger, J. Voigt, & U.Waschescio (Eds.), The culture of the mathematics classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  26. Engeström, Y. (1999a). Expansive visibilization of work: An activity-theoretical perspective. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 8, 63–93.
  27. Engeström, Y. (1999b). Innovative learning in work teams: Analyzing cycles of knowledge creation in practice. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen, & R.-L. Punamäki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  28. Engeström, Y. (2000). From individual action to collective activity and back: Developmental work research as an interventionist methodology. In P. Luff, J. Hindmarsh, & C. Heath (Eds.), Workplace studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  29. Engeström, Y. (2001a). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133–156.
  30. Engeström, Y. (2001b). Making expansive decisions: An activity-theoretical study of practitioners building collaborative medical care for children. In C. M. Allwood, & M. Selart (Eds.), Decision making: Social and creative dimensions. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
  31. Engeström, Y. (2003). The horizontal dimension of expansive learning: Weaving a texture of cognitive trails in the terrain of health care in Helsinki. In F. Achtenhagen, & E. G. John (Eds.), Milestones of vocational and occupational education and Training. Volume 1: The teaching–learning perspective. Bielefeld: Bertelsmann.
  32. Engeström, Y. (2004a). Managing as argumentative history-making. In R. J. Boland Jr., & F. Collopy (Eds.), Managing as designing. Stanford: Stanford Business Books.
  33. Engeström, Y. (2004b). New forms of learning in co-configuration work. Journal of Workplace Learning, 16, 11–21.
  34. Engeström, Y. (2005). Developmental work research: Expanding activity theory in practice. Berlin: Lehmanns Media.
  35. Engeström, Y. (2007a). Enriching the theory of expansive learning: Lessons from journeys toward coconfiguration. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 14(1–2), 23–39.
  36. Engeström, Y. (2007b). From stabilization knowledge to possibility knowledge in organizational learning. Management Learning, 38, 271–275.
  37. Engeström, Y. (2007c). 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.
  38. Engeström, Y. (2008). From teams to knots: Activity-theoretical studies of collaboration and learning at work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  39. Engeström, Y. (2009). Wildfire activities: New patterns of mobility and learning. International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning, 1(2), 1–18.
  40. Engeström, Y. (forthcoming). From design experiments to formative interventions. Theory and Psychology, 20.
  41. Engeström, Y., & Engeström, R. (1986). Developmental work research: The approach and an application in cleaning work. Nordisk Pedagogik, 6(1), 2–15.
  42. Engeström, Y., Engeström, R., & Kärkkäinen, M. (1995). Polycontextuality and boundary crossing in expert cognition: Learning and problem solving in complex work activities. Learning and Instruction, 5, 319–336.
  43. Engeström, Y., Engeström, R., & Kerosuo, H. (2003). The discursive construction of collaborative care. Applied Linguistics, 24, 286–315.
  44. Engeström, Y., Engeström, R., & Suntio, A. (2002). Can a school community learn to master its own future? An activity-theoretical study of expansive learning among middle school teachers. In G. Wells, & G. Claxton (Eds.), Learning for life in the 21st century: Sociocultural perspectives on the future of education. Oxford: Blackwell.
  45. Engeström, Y., Engeström, R., & Vähäaho, 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.
  46. Engeström, Y., & Kerosuo, H. (2007). From workplace learning to inter-organizational learning and back: The contribution of activity theory. Journal of Workplace Learning, 19, 336–342.
  47. Engeström, Y., Kerosuo, H., & Kajamaa, A. (2007). Beyond discontinuity: Expansive organizational learning remembered. Management Learning, 38(3), 319–336.
  48. Engeström, Y., Lompscher, J., & Rückriem, G. (Eds.). (2005). Putting activity theory to work: Contributions from developmental work research. Berlin: Lehmanns Media.
  49. Engeström, Y., Pasanen, A., Toiviainen, H.,&Haavisto, V. (2005). Expansive learning as collaborative concept formation at work. In K. Yamazumi, Y. Engeström, & H. Daniels (Eds.), New learning challenges: Going beyond the industrial age system of school and work. Kansai: Kansai University Press.
  50. Engeström, Y., Puonti, A., & Seppänen, L. (2003). Spatial and temporal expansion of the object as a challenge for reorganizing work. In D. Nicolini, S. Gherardi, & D. Yanow (Eds.), Knowing in organizations: A practice-based approach. Armonk: Sharpe.
  51. Engeström, Y., Virkkunen, J., Helle, M., Pihlaja, J., & Poikela, R. (1996). The change laboratory as a tool for transforming work. Lifelong Learning in Europe, 1(2), 10–17.
  52. Falmagne, R. J. (1995). The abstract and the concrete. In L. M. W. Martin, K. Nelson, & E. Tobach (Eds.), Sociocultural psychology: Theory and practice of doing and knowing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  53. Felstead, A., Fuller, A., Unwin, L., Ashton, D., Butler, P., & Lee, T. (2005). Surveying the scene: Learning metaphors, survey design and the workplace context. Journal of Education and Work, 18(4), 359–383.
  54. Fenwick, T. (2006a). Organisational learning in the ‘knots’: Discursive capacities emerging in a school–university collaboration. Journal of Educational Administration, 45(2), 138–153.
  55. Fenwick, T. (2006b). Toward enriched conceptions of work learning: Participation, expansion, and translation among individuals with/in activity. Human Resource Development Review, 5(3), 285–302.
  56. Fenwick, T. J. (2004). Learning in portfolio work: Anchored innovation and mobile identity. Studies in Continuing Education, 26(2), 229–245.
  57. FitzSimons, G. E. (2003). Using Engeström’s expansive learning framework to analyse a case study in adult mathematics education. Literacy & Numeracy Studies, 12(2), 47–63.
  58. Foot, K. (2001). Cultural–historical activity theory as practical theory: Illuminating the development of a conflict monitoring network. Communication Theory, 11(1), 56–83.
  59. Gutiérrez, K. (2008). Developing a sociocritical literacy in the third space. Reading Research Quarterly, 43(2), 148–164.
  60. Gutiérrez, K., & Larson, J. (2007). Discussing expanded spaces for learning. Language Arts, 85(1), 69–77.
  61. Gutiérrez, K., & Vossoughi, S. (2010). Lifting off the ground to return anew: Mediated praxis, transformative learning, and social design experiments. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1–2), 100–117.
  62. Haavisto, V. (2002). Court work in transition: An activity-theoretical study of changing work practices in a F innish district court. Helsinki: University of Helsinki, Department of Education.
  63. Haigh, J. (2007). Expansive learning in the university setting: The case for simulated clinical experience. Nurse Education in Practice, 7, 95–102.
  64. Hall, R., & Greeno, J. G. (2008). Conceptual learning. In T. Good (Ed.), 21st Century education: A reference handbook (pp. 212–221). London: Sage.
  65. Hasu, M. (2000). Blind men and the elephant: Implementation of a new artifact as an expansive possibility. Outlines, 2, 5–41.
  66. Hasu, M., & Engeström, Y. (2000). Measurement in action: An activity-theoretical perspective on producer-user interaction. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 53, 61–89.
  67. Hill, R., Capper, P., Wilson, K., Whatman, R., &Wong, K. (2007). Workplace learning in the New Zealand apple industry network: A new co-design method for government ‘practice making’. Journal of Workplace Learning, 19(6), 359–376.
  68. Holzkamp, K. (1993). Learning: A subject-scientific foundation Lernen: Subjektwissenschaftliche Grundlegung. Frankfurt am Main: Campus.
  69. Hubbard, L., Mehan, H., & Stein, M. K. (2006). Reform as learning: School reform, organizational culture, and community politics in San Diego. New York, NY: Routledge.
  70. Hyrkkänen, U. (2007). From conceptions to cognitive trails: Developing the concept of research and development activity for the university of applied sciences Käsityksistä ajatuksen poluille: Ammatikorkeakoulun tutkimus-ja kehitystoiminnan konseptin kehittäminen. Helsinki: University of Helsinki, Department of Education.
  71. Hyysalo, S. (2004). Uses of innovation: Wristcare in the practices of engineers and elderly. Helsinki: University of Helsinki, Department of Education.
  72. Il’enkov, E. V. (1977). Dialectical logic: Essays in its history and theory. Moscow: Progress.
  73. Il’enkov, E. V. (1982). The dialectics of the abstract and the concrete in Marx’s ‘Capital’. Moscow: Progress.
  74. Kärkkäinen, M. (1999). Teams as breakers of traditional work practices: A longitudinal study of planning and implementing curriculum units in elementary school teacher teams. Helsinki: University of Helsinki, Department of Education.
  75. Kazlauskas, A. & Crawford, K. (2007). Learning what is not yet there: Knowledge mobilization in a communal activity. In I. Verenikina, P. Kell & G. Vogl (Eds), Learning and socio-cultural theory: Exploring modern Vygotskian perspectives.
  76. Workshop proceedings. Wollongong: University of Wollongong. Retrieved from
  77. Kerosuo, H. (2006). Boundaries in action: An activity-theoretical study of development, learning and change in health care for patients with multiple and chronic illnesses. Helsinki: University of Helsinki, Department of Education.
  78. Kerosuo, H., & Engeström, Y. (2003). Boundary crossing and learning in creation of new work practice. Journal of Workplace Learning, 15, 345–351.
  79. Kivi, A. (1929). Seven brothers. New York, NY: Coward–McCann.
  80. Klein, N. (2007). The shock doctrine: The rise of disaster capitalism. London: Allen Lane.
  81. Koistinen, K. (2007). From a group of friends to a business enterprise: Disturbances of production and learning in a rapidly changing company Kaveriporukasta liiketoiminnaksi: Tuotannon häiriöt ja organisaation oppiminen nopeasti muuttuvassa yrityksessä. Helsinki: University of Helsinki, Department of Education.
  82. Konkola, R., Tuomi-Gröhn, T., Lambert, P., & Ludvigsen, S. (2007). Promoting learning and transfer between school and workplace. Journal of Education and Work, 20(3), 211–228.
  83. Lambert, P. (1999). Boundaries fade away: Innovative learning through collaboration between vocational teacher education, training institutes, and work organizations Rajaviiva katoaa: Innovatiivista oppimista ammatillisen opettajankoulutuksen, oppilaitosten ja työelämän organisaatioiden yhteistyönä. Helsinki: Helsingin ammattikorkeakoulu.
  84. Langemeyer, I. (2006). Contradictions in expansive learning: Towards a critical analysis of self-dependent forms of learning in relation to contemporary socio-technological change. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung, 7(1). Article 12. Retrieved from
  85. Lave, J., &Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  86. Leont’ev, A. N. (1978). Activity, consciousness, and personality. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
  87. Leont’ev, A. N. (1981). Problems of the development of the mind. Moscow: Progress.
  88. Lewin, K. (1947). Frontiers in group dynamics: Concept, method and reality in social science; social equilibria and social change. Human Relations, 1(1), 5–41.
  89. Lompscher, J. (2004). Learning culture and competence development in a cultural-historical perspective: Adult learning in the process of work Lernkultur und Kompetenzentwicklung aus kulturhistoricher Sicht: Lernen Erwachsener im Arbeitsprozess. Berlin: Lehmanns Media.
  90. Makino, Y. (2007). The third generation of e-learning: Expansive learning mediated by a weblog. International Journal of Web Based Communities, 3(1), 16–31.
  91. Mäkitalo, J. (2005). Work-related well-being in the transformation of nursing home work. Oulu: Oulu University Press.
  92. Martin, D. (2008). A new paradigm to inform inter-professional learning for integrating speech and language provision into secondary schools: A sociocultural activity theory approach. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 24(2), 173–192.
  93. Marton, F. (2006). Sameness and difference in transfer. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(4), 499–535.
  94. Marton, F., & Trigwell, K. (2000). Variatio est mater studiorum. Higher Education Research & Development, 19(3), 381–395.
  95. Midgley, G. (2000). Systemic intervention: Philosophy, methodology, and practice. New York, NY: Kluwer.
  96. Nilsson, M. (2003). Transformation through integration: An activity theoretical analysis of school development as integration of child care institutions and elementary school. Karlskrona: Blekinge Institute of Technology.
  97. Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
  98. Nummijoki, J.,&Engeström, Y. (2009). Towards co-configuration in home care of the elderly: Cultivating agency by designing and implementing themobility agreement. In H. Daniels, A. Edwards, Y. Engeström, T. Gallagher, & S. Ludvigsen (Eds.), Activity theory in practice: Promoting learning across boundaries and agencies. London: Routledge.
  99. van Oers, B., Wardekker, W., Elbers, E., & van der Veer, R. (Eds.). (2008). The transformation of learning: Advances in cultural–historical activity theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  100. Paavola, S., Lipponen, L., & Hakkarainen, K. (2004). Models of innovative knowledge communities and three metaphors of learning. Review of Educational Research, 74, 557–576.
  101. Pereira-Querol, M., & Seppänen, L. (2009). Learning as changes in activity systems: The emergence of on-farm biogas production for carbon credits. Outlook on Agriculture, 38(2), 147–155.
  102. Perez, C. (2002). Technological revolutions and financial capital: The dynamics of bubbles and golden ages. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
  103. Petryna, A., Lakoff, A., & Kleinman, A. (Eds.). (2006). Global pharmaceuticals: Ethics, markets, practices. Durham: Duke University Press.
  104. Pihlaja, J. (2005). Learning in and for production: An activity-theoretical study of the historical development of distributed systems of generalizing. Helsinki: University of Helsinki, Department of Education.
  105. Polanyi, M. (1958). Personal knowledge. Towards a post critical philosophy. London: Routledge.
  106. Popper, K. (1972). Objective knowledge: An evolutionary approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  107. Puonti, A. (2004). Learning to work together: Collaboration between authorities in economic-crime investigation. Vantaa: National Bureau of Investigation.
  108. Rasmussen, I., & Ludvigsen, S. (2009). The hedgehog and the fox: A discussion of the approaches to the analysis of ICT reforms in teacher education of Larry Cuban and Yrjö Engeström. Mind. Culture, and Activity, 16(1), 83–104.
  109. Rose, N. (2007). The politics of life itself: Biomedicine, power, and subjectivity in the twenty-first century. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  110. Roth, W.-M., & Lee, Y.-J. (2007). Vygotsky’s neglected legacy”: Cultural–historical activity theory. Review of Educational Research, 77(2), 186–232.
  111. Rückriem, G. (2009). Digital technology and mediation: A challenge to activity theory. In A. Sannino, H. Daniels, & K. Gutiérrez (Eds.), Learning and expanding with activity theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  112. Saaren-Seppälä, T. (2004). The care of a shared patient: A study of collaboration across organizational boundaries between hospital, health center and parents of child patients Yhteisen potilaan hoito: Tutkimus organisaatiorajat ylittävästä yhteistoiminnasta sairaalan, terveyskeskuksen ja lapsipotilaiden vanhempien suhteissa. Tampere: University of Tampere.
  113. Sannino, A. (2005). Cultural-historical and discursive tools for analyzing critical conflicts in students’ development. In K. Yamazumi, Y. Engeström, & H. Daniels (Eds.), New learning challenges: Going beyond the industrial age system of school and work. Osaka: Kansai University Press.
  114. Sannino, A. (2008a). Experiencing conversations: Bridging the gap between discourse and activity. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 38(3), 267–291.
  115. Sannino, A. (2008b). From talk to action: Experiencing interlocution in developmental interventions. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 15, 234–257.
  116. Sannino, A. (2010). Breaking out of a professional abstraction: The pupil as materialized object for teacher trainees. In V. Ellis, A. Edwards, & P. Smagorinsky (Eds.), Cultural–historical perspectives on teacher education and development: Learning teaching. London: Routlege.
  117. Sannino, A., & Nocon, H. (2008). Introduction: Activity theory and school innovation. Journal of Educational Change, 9(4), 325–328.
  118. Sannino, A., Daniels, H., & Gutierrez, K. (2009). Activity theory between historical engagement and future-making practice. In A. Sannino, H. Daniels, & K. Gutiérrez (Eds.), Learning and expanding with activity theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  119. Seppänen, L. (2004). Learning challenges in organic vegetable farming: An activity-theoretical study of on-farm practices. Helsinki: University of Helsinki, Institute for Rural Research and Training.
  120. Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors of learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educational Researcher, 27(2), 4–13.
  121. Siltala, J., Freeman, S., & Miettinen, R. (2007). Exploring the tensions between volunteers and firms in hybrid projects. Helsinki: Center for Activity Theory and Developmental Work Research. (Working Paper 36).
  122. Star, S. L.,&Griesemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional ecology, ‘translations’ and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museumof Vertebrate Zoology, 1907–1939. Social Studies of Science, 9, 387–420.
  123. Teräs, M. (2007). Intercultural learning and hybridity in the Culture Laboratory. Helsinki: University of Helsinki, Department of Education.
  124. Toikka, K., Hyötyläinen, R., & Norros, L. (1986). Development of work in flexible manufacturing. Nordisk Pedagogik, 6(1), 16–24.
  125. Toiviainen, H. (2003). Learning across levels: Challenges of collaboration in a smallfirm network. Helsinki: University of Helsinki, Department of Education.
  126. Toiviainen, H. (2007). Inter-organizational learning across levels: An object-oriented approach. Journal of Workplace Learning, 19(6), 343–358.
  127. Toiviainen, H., Kerosuo, H., & Syrjälä, T. (2009). Development Radar’: The co-configuration of a tool in a learning network. Journal of Workplace Learning, 21(7), 509–524.
  128. Tsui, A. B. M., & Law, D. Y. K. (2007). Learning as boundary-crossing in school–university partnership. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 1289–1301.
  129. Tuomi-Gröhn, T., & Engeström, Y. (Eds.). (2003). Between school and work: New perspectives on transfer and boundary-crossing. Amsterdam: Pergamon. van der Veer, R., & Valsiner, J. (1991). Understanding Vygotsky: A quest for synthesis. Oxford: Blackwell.
  130. Vasilyuk, F. (1988). The psychology of experiencing. Moscow: Progress.
  131. Victor, B., & Boynton, A. C. (1998). Invented here: Maximizing your organization’s internal growth and profitability. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
  132. Virkkunen, J. (2004). Developmental interventions in work activities: An activity theoretical interpretation. In T. Kontinen (Ed.), Development intervention: Actor and activity perspectives. Helsinki: Center for Activity Theory and Developmental Work Research and Institute for Development Studies, University of Helsinki.
  133. Virkkunen, J. (2006a). Dilemmas in building shared transformative agency. Activités revue électronique, 3(1).
  134. Virkkunen, J. (2006b). Hybrid agency in co-configuration work. Outlines, 8(1), 61–75.
  135. Virkkunen, J., & Ahonen, H. (2004). Transforming learning and knowledge creation on the shop floor. International Journal of Human Resources Development and Management, 4(1), 57–72.
  136. Virkkunen, J. & Ahonen, H. (forthcoming). Supporting expansive learning through theoretical-genetic reflection in the Change Laboratory. Journal of Organizational Change Management.
  137. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
  138. Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). Thinking and speech. In R. W. Rieber, & A. S. Carton (Eds.), The collected works of L.S. Vygotsky. Vol. 1: Problems of general psychology. New York, NY: Plenum, pp. 39–285.
  139. Vygotsky, L. S. (1997). The history of the development of higher mental functions. In R. W. Rieber (Ed.), The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky. Vol. 4: The history of the development of higher mental functions. New York, NY: Plenum.
  140. Warmington, P. (2008). From ‘activity’ to ‘labour’: Commodification, labour-power and contradiction in Engeström’s activity theory. Outlines, 10(2), 4–19.
  141. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  142. Wright, W., & Middendorf, G. (Eds.). (2008). The fight over food: Producers, consumers, and activists challenge the global food system. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press.
  143. Yamazumi, K. (2008). A hybrid activity system as educational innovation. Journal of Educational Change, 9(4), 365–373.
  144. Yamazumi, K. (2009). Expansive agency in multi-activity collaboration. In A. Sannino, H. Daniels, & K. Gutiérrez (Eds.), Learning and expanding with activity theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  145. Young, M. (2001). Contextualising a new approach to learning: Some comments on Yrjö Engeström’s theory of expansive learning. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 157–161.