How to bring a technical artifact into use: A micro-developmental perspective

In order to understand how technical artifacts are attuned to, interacted with, and shaped in various and varied classrooms, it is necessary to construct detailed accounts of the use of particular artifacts in particular classrooms. This paper presents a descriptive account of how a shared workspace was brought into use by a student pair in a face-to-face planning task. A micro-developmental perspective was adopted to describe how the pair established a purposeful connection with this unfamiliar artifact over a relatively short time frame. This appropriation was examined against the background of their regular planning practice. We describe how situational resources present in the classroom—norms, practices and artifacts— frame possible action, and how these possibilities are enacted by the pair. Analysis shows that the association of norms and practices with the technical artifact lead to a contradiction that surfaced as resistance experienced from the artifact. This resistance played an important part in the appropriation process of the pair. It signaled tension in the activity, triggered reflection on the interaction with the artifact, and had a coordinative function. The absence of resistance was equally important. It allowed the pair to transpose or depart from regular procedure without reflection

How to bring a technical artifact into use: A micro-developmental perspective

In order to understand how technical artifacts are attuned to, interacted with, and shaped in various and varied classrooms, it is necessary to construct detailed accounts of the use of particular artifacts in particular classrooms. This paper presents a descriptive account of how a shared workspace was brought into use by a student pair in a face-to-face planning task. A micro-developmental perspective was adopted to describe how the pair established a purposeful connection with this unfamiliar artifact over a relatively short time frame. This appropriation was examined against the background of their regular planning practice. We describe how situational resources present in the classroom—norms, practices and artifacts— frame possible action, and how these possibilities are enacted by the pair. Analysis shows that the association of norms and practices with the technical artifact lead to a contradiction that surfaced as resistance experienced from the artifact. This resistance played an important part in the appropriation process of the pair. It signaled tension in the activity, triggered reflection on the interaction with the artifact, and had a coordinative function. The absence of resistance was equally important. It allowed the pair to transpose or depart from regular procedure without reflection

Connecting agents and artifacts in CSCL: Towards a rationale of mutual shaping

Overdijk, M., Van Diggelen, W., Kirschner, P. A., & Baker, M. (2012). Connecting agents and artifacts in CSCL: Towards a rationale of mutual shaping. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 7, 193-210. doi:10.1007/s11412-012-9143-2Studying how collaborative activity takes shape interactionally in the context of technological settings is one of the main challenges in the field of Computer- Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL). It requires us, amongst other things, to look into the ‘black box’ of how technical artifacts are brought into use, or rather, how they are attuned to, interacted with, and shaped in various and varied practices. This article explores the establishment of a purposeful connection of human agents and technical artifacts in CSCL, that we call ‘the agent-artifact connection’. In order to contribute to a grounded conception of this connection, we reviewed three theoretical positions: affordance, structures and instrument. Although these three positions differ in how they conceptualise the connection, they share the assumption that a technical artifact carries a potential for action that becomes available when artifact and agent connect, and that the availability of action opportunities is relative to the ones who interact with the artifact. In this article, we map out the conceptual and methodological implications for each of the positions. We argue that the rationale of ‘shaping’ collaborative interactions that underlies a part of CSCL research should be replaced by a rationale of ‘mutual shaping’ of human agents and technical artifacts

Biopsychosocial baseline values of 15 000 patients suffering from chronic pain:Dutch DataPain study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Chronic pain affects many adults. To improve our daily practice, we need to understand multidisciplinary approaches, integrated treatment plans and the biopsychosocial context of these patients. To date, almost 15 000 chronic pain patients have been referred to the Maastricht University Pain Center in the Netherlands.METHODS: This study describes 11 214 of these patients suffering from chronic pain. Chronic pain was analyzed using relevant Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials instruments.RESULTS: Most patients were female (59.3%). The prevalence of low education was 59%, and unemployment/disability was 35.9%. The mean age was 55.6 years. Severe pain (Numerical Rating Sale score 7-10) was reported by 71.9% of the patients; psychological and quality of life values deteriorated when pain severity increased. Approximately 36% of patients showed severe signs of depression or anxiety, and 39% displayed high pain catastrophizing. Of all patients, 17.8% reported high values for pain severity, catastrophizing and anxiety or depression.CONCLUSIONS: Based on baseline biopsychosocial values, this study shows the complexity of patients referred to pain centers. Pain management with a biopsychosocial approach in an integrated multidisciplinary setting is indispensable. Above all, adjusted education on chronic pain and attention to its biopsychosocial aspects are deemed necessary.</p