一、中文篇目
丁導民（2003）。企業實務社群的知識分享與組織學習關係之研究。（未出版之博士論文）。臺北：國立台灣師範大學。
于文浩（2012）。共創性學習：一種集體智慧的進化。遠程教育雜誌，2，28-35。
中華民國成人教育學會（1995）。成人教育辭典。臺北：作者。
中華民國統計資訊網（2015）。國小補校學生數。取自：http://statdb.dgbas.gov.tw/pxweb/Dialog/Saveshow.asp
內政部統計局（2013）。103年第8週（102年我國國籍之歸化及喪失情況）。2013.08.13取自http://sowf.moi.gov.tw/stat/week/list.htm。
內政部統計局（2015）。104年第14週內政統計通報(我國15歲以上人口教育程度統計)。http://www.moi.gov.tw/stat/news_content.aspx?sn=9361http://www.moi.gov.tw/stat/news_content.aspx?sn=8270
王光旭（2012）。委員會決策參與影響因素之探析—社會鑲嵌的觀點。政策與人力管理，3（2），75-117。王浩博（2013）。國民中小學各領域/科目學習節數之探討。載於范信賢（主編）國民中小學課程綱要之研擬原則與方向（頁175-202）。臺北：國家教育研究院。
白亦方、劉修豪、黃炳煌（2011）。形塑完美的國民：課程史觀點。載於國家教育研究院（主編），我國百年教育回顧與展望（頁253-276）。臺北：國家教育研究院籌備處。
在線新華辭典（2014年8月18日）。學習基本解釋。取自http://xh.5156edu.com/html5/64519.html
何青蓉（1996）。省思困境、邁向未來，談我國成人教育根本問題。成人之美，17-22。教育部（2013）。補習及進修教育法。臺北：作者。
何青蓉（2009）。我國與美國成人識讀教育政策之比較。高雄師大學報：教育與社會科學類，27，1-20。余朝權（2010）。組織行為學。（第三版）。臺北：五南。
吳世望（2010）。團隊學習成效之探討—以台灣醫療所之實務社群為例。（未出版之博士論文）。嘉義：國立中正大學。吳定（2003）。政策管理。臺北：聯經。
吳政穎（2013）。導入社群網站於國小學童閱讀學習成效之研究-以活動理論為架構（未出版之碩士論文）。亞洲大學：臺中市。
吳剛（2013）。活動理論是也下的學習的反思與重構。載於武漢理工大學學報（社會科學板），26（5），830-835。
吳剛、洪建中（2012）。一種新的學習隱喻：拓展性學習的研究—基於“文化-歷史”活動理論的視角。遠程教育雜誌，3，23-30。
吳敏而、許民陽、陳美如、黃茂在、趙鏡中和周筱亭（2013）。國民中小學課程綱要實施與輔助系統之初探。載於范信賢（主編）國民中小學課程綱要之研擬原則與方向（頁239-261）。臺北：國家教育研究院。吳濟民（2007）。組織學習與智慧資本對創新績效之影響。（未出版之博士論文）。嘉義：國立中正大學。呂巾嬌、劉美鳳、史力范（2007）。活動理論的發展脈絡與應用探析。現代教育技術，17 (1)，8-14。
呂立杰（2007）。課程政策制定過程的特徵與本質。課程˙教材˙教法，27 (8)，3-7。中國：人民教育出版社。
李子建、黃顯華（2002）。課程—範式、取向和設計（第二版）。香港：中文大學出版社。
李文富（2013）。國民中小學課程綱要你念與目標之研擬研究。載於范信賢（主編），國民中小學課程綱要之研擬原則與方向（頁79-99）。臺北：國家教育研究院。
李湘茹（2010）。九年一貫課程綱要內涵特性與發展歷程之研究（未出版之碩士論文）。臺北市市立教育大學：臺北市。
汪銘生（2006）。領導與團隊管理。新北市：國立空中大學。
周何（總主編）（2004）。國語活用辭典（3版）。臺北市：五南。
周淑卿（1996）。我國國民中小學課程自由化政策趨向之研究（未出版博士論文）。臺北。國立臺灣師範大學：臺北市。林怡君（2010）。從活動理論觀點研究臺灣中學跨國協作交流計畫（未出版之碩士論文）。國立臺灣科技大學：臺北市。
洪詠善（2000）。國民教育階段九年一貫課程總綱綱要決策過程之研究（未出版之碩士論文）。國立台北師範學院：臺北市。
洪詠善（2013）。國民中小學課程綱要屬性與作用之研究，載於范信賢（主編），國民中小學課程綱要之研擬原則與方向（頁49-77）。臺北：國家教育研究院。
胡象明（2003）。公共部門決策的理論與方法。中國：高等教育出版社。
胡夢鯨（2003）。學習型補校組織學習、發展策略與問題解決成效關係之研究。成人及終生教育學刊，1，36-62。孫澤厚（2010）。組織行為學。中國：清華大學出版社；北京交通大學出版社。
徐仁輝、楊永年、張昕（2006）。公共組織行為。臺北：智勝文化事業有限公司。
徐煥喆（2013）。野柳自然中心之發展歷程與團隊學習運作之個案研究。（未出版之碩士論文）。臺北：國立臺灣師範大學。
秦葆琦（2013）。國民中小學領域/科目組成之探討。載於范信賢（主編）國民中小學課程綱要之研擬原則與方向（頁127-173）。臺北：國家教育研究院。
張允宜（2006）。團隊目標導向對團隊創新與個人創新行為之跨層次分析－以任務反思為中介變數。（未出版之碩士論文）。臺北：東吳大學。
張芬芬（2010）。質性資料分析的五步驟：在抽象階梯上爬升。初等教育學刊，35，87-120。張茂桂（2009）。再探公民：反思高中《公民與社會》新課綱之訂定，公民訓育學報，20，1-31。張嘉育（2011）。課程政策。臺北：冠學。
教育部（1935）。教育部訓令第三八二九號。臺北，作者。
教育部（1957）。第三次中國教育年鑒。臺北：正中書局。
教育部（1974）。第四次中華民國教育年鑒。臺北：正中書局。
教育部（1984）。第五次中活民國教育年鑒。臺北：正中書局。
教育部（2002）。終身學習法。臺北：作者。取自：http://edu.law.moe.gov.tw/LawContentDetails.aspx?id=FL009166&KeyWordHL=&StyleType=1
教育部（2010a）。第八次全國教育會議—終身學習與學習社會（十大中心議題）。臺北：作者。
教育部（2010b）。「國民中小學補習學校教育」實施現況之研究。教育部2010年全國補校課綱修訂專題研究，未出版。
教育部（2011）。中華民國教育報告書。取自2012.02.01。http://140.111.34.34/docdb/files/dma7db04060c043a0aa.pdf
教育部（2012）。國民中小學附設補習學校課程綱要總綱。臺北：作者。（未出版）
教育部（2013）。補習及進修教育法。臺北：作者。取自：2014.02.01 http://law.moj.gov.tw/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?PCode=H0080002
教育部統計處（2012）。國民中小學補校校別資料。取自：取自：2013.02.01 http://www.edu.tw/pages/detail.aspx?Node=3752&Page=17284&Index=7&WID=31d75a44-efff-4c44-a075-15a9eb7aecdf
教育部統計處（2013a2015）。全國各縣市國民中小學中輟學生中途輟學及復學統計表。臺北：作者。取自：2014.09.015.05.10 http://www.edu.tw/pages/detail.aspx?Node=4076&Page=20047&Index=5&WID=31d75a44-efff-4c44-a075-15a9eb7aecdf
陳佩英、曾正宜（2011）。探析專業學習社群的展化學習經驗與課程創新行動—活動理論取徑。教育研究集刊，57(2)，39-84。陳定邦（2004）。鷹架教學概念在成人學習歷程上應用之研究─以空大《統計學》課輔教學為例。（未出版之博士論文）。臺北：國立臺灣師範大學。陳玟樺（2007）。捕捉隱沒的力量—學習領域課程小組教師課程決定的反思實踐個案研究。（未出版之碩士論文）。臺北：國立臺灣師範大學。
陳柏璋（1999）。九年一貫新課程綱要修訂的背景及內涵。教育研究資訊，1，1-13。
陳亭之（2012）。節能減碳實踐中教師和行政的矛盾－活動理論觀點（未出版之碩士論文）。國立中央大學：桃園市。
陳振明、孟華（2006）。公共組織論。中國：上海人民出版社。
陳斐卿、林盈秀、蕭述三（2013）。教師合作設計課程的困難—活動理論觀點。教育實踐與研究，26（1），63-94。陳榮華（2007）。從語言的中介性論高達美的意義理論—兼論本質主義與反本質主義。臺大文史哲學報，66，153-178。彭懷真（2012）。工作與組織行為。臺北、巨流圖書公司。
曾文婕（20122013）。關注“知識創造”：技術支持學習的新訴求。電化教育研究，7，17-21。
馮朝霖（2000）。教育哲學專論：主體、情性與創化。臺北：元照。
馮朝霖、范信賢、白亦方（2013）。國民中小學課程綱要系統圖像之研究。載於范信賢（主編）國民中小學課程綱要之研擬原則與方向（頁21-47）。臺北：國家教育研究院。
黃子真（2006）。稅務人員運用團隊學習策略對核心價值影響之研究--以財政部臺灣省中區國稅局為例。（未出版之碩士論文）。國立彰化師範大學：彰化。
黃志賢（2007）。台灣泰雅族國中生數學教學模式之研究-活動理論的探討與實踐（未出版之博士論文）。國立臺灣師範大學：臺北市。
黃志賢、林福來（2008）。利用活動理論分析泰雅族國中生的數學學習並設計教學活動。中華民國科學教育學會，16（2），147-170。黃政傑（1995）。成人教育課程設計。台北：師大書苑。
黃炳煌、黃政傑、羅文機、林文瑛、李湘吉（1991）。我國國民補習學校教育目標與功能定位之研究。臺北市：教育部社教司。
黃富順（1994）。我國失學民眾識字標準及識字字彙之研究。成人教育，21，35-43。黃富順（2002）。成人學習。台北：五南。
黃富順（2006）。成人學習與教學，載於外籍配偶師資培育講義（中冊）。國家教育研究院籌備處。
黃顯華、徐慧璇（2006）。台灣課程改革理論基礎再思。課程研究，1（2），21-45。楊孟蓉（2008）。我國高中藝術生活課程政策形塑脈絡與議題之研究（未出版之碩士論文）。台灣師範大學：臺北市。
楊國賜（2010）。我國教育永續發展之核心價值及推動方式研究期末報告（未出版）。教育部教研會專題研究成果報告（編號：980180632）。
楊深坑（2002）。科學理論與教育學發展。臺北：心理。楊傑文（2008）。九五高中地理暫綱的課程決定與理念之研究（未出版之碩士論文）。臺灣師範大學：臺北市。
楊龍立、潘麗珠（2005）。課程組織：理論與實務。臺北：高等教育出版社。
葉雅青（2010）。探索式學習,利用式學習及團隊創造力：以心理安全及團隊凝聚力為調節（未出版之博士論文）。臺南：國立成功大學。趙慧軍（1997）。活動理論的產生、發展和前景。東北師大學報(哲學社會版)，165。中國：東北師大。
劉复興（2003）。教育政策的價值分析。中國北京：教育科學出版社。
歐用生、葉興華和洪若烈（2013）。導論。載於范信賢（主編）國民中小學課程綱要之研擬原則與方向（頁1-20）。臺北：國家教育研究院。
歐亞美（2012）。我國成人識字教育政策執行之研究（未出版之博士論文）。國立台灣師範大學，臺北市。蔡清田（2003）。課程政策決定—以國家教育改革法案為依據的課程決策。臺北：五南圖書出版公司。蔡清田（2011）。素養：課程改革的DNA。臺北市: 高等教育。鄭葳、王大為（2005）。超越學習的個體性和社會性之爭—活動理論之逾限帶學習論的影響。全球教育展望，34(1)，25-30。中國：華東師大。
蕭佳純（2006）。邁向學習型補校困境與發展策略之研究。管理與教育研究學報，6，1-23。
賴志宏（2007）。行動科技對經驗學習之支援性（未出版博士論文）。國立中央大學，新竹市。
韓春屏（2000）。國中補校教學取向、學生批判思考與學習滿意相關之硏究。（未出版碩士論文）。高雄師大：高雄市。
韓培爾（1998）。應用社會科學研究法。臺北：商務。
簡楚瑛（2009）。課程發展理論與實務。臺北：心理。
廬乃桂、何碧愉（2010）。能動者工作的延續力：學校改進的啟動與更新。當代華人教育學報，38(2)，1-39。蘇勇、何智美（2007）。現代組織行為學。中國：清華大學出版社。
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen S. K. (2008)。質性教育研究:理論與方法（3版）。（黃光雄主編，李奉儒、高清淑、鄭銳隆、林麗菊、吳芝儀、洪志成、高清田等譯）。臺北市：濤石文化。（原著出版於2001）
Dye, T. R. (2008)。理解公共政策（11版）（孫彩虹譯）。中國：北京大學出版社。（原著出版於2005）
Gadamer, H. G. (1988)。真理與方法Truth and method。(吳文勇譯)。臺北：南方叢書出版社。（原著出版於1975）
Gerston, L. N. (2005)。公共政策的制訂—過程與原則（張明貴譯）。臺北市：五南圖書。（原著出版於2004）
Hackman, J. Richard (2014)。群體智慧：用團隊解決難題（孫曉敏、薛剛譯）。中國：北京大學出版社。（原著出版於2011）
Jones, B. D. (1994/2010)。再思民主政治中的決策制訂：注意力、選擇和公共政策（李丹陽譯）。中國：北京大學出版社。
Levi, D. (2012)。團體動力學（蔡春美、蘇韋列、蕭景容、魏慧珠譯）。臺北市：洪葉文化。（原著出版於2011）
Ornstein, A. C., & Hunkins, F. P. (2004). 課程發展與設計（方德隆譯）。臺北市：培生教育。（原著出版於2004）
Patton, M. Q. (2008)。質的評鑑與研究（3版）（吳芝儀、李奉儒譯）。嘉義：濤石文化。（原著出版於2002）
Ritchie, J., & Lewis, J. (2008)。質性研究方法（藍毓仁譯）。臺北：巨流圖書。（原著出版於2003）
Robbins, S. P.(2011)。組織行為學（13版）（黃家齊譯）。臺北：華泰文化。（原著出版於2001,2003,2005,2007,2009）
Ruane, J. M. (2007)。研究方法概論（王修曉譯）。臺北市：五南。（原著出版於2005）
Satir, Virginin & Baldwin, Michele (2000/2001).薩提爾治療實錄--逐步示範與解析(李銳玲、黃繡、龔嫻紅譯)。臺北：張老師。
Strauss, A. & Corbin, J.( 2001). 紮根理論研究方法（吳芝儀、廖梅花譯）。臺北：濤石文化。（原著出版於1998）
二、西文篇目
Abramson, P. R. (1992). A case for case studies. Thousand Oaks, CA.:Sage.
Anthony, A. B. (2012). Activity theory as a framework for investigating district-classroom system interactions and their influences on technology Integration. Technology Integration, 44(4), 335-356.
Argyris, C., & Schön, D.A. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Avis, J. (2007). Engeström’s version of activity theory: A conservative praxis? Journal of Education and Work, 20(3), 161-177.
Bakhtin, M. M. (1982). The dialogic imagination: Four essays. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
Ball, S.J. (1994). Education reform: A critical and post-structural approach. Buckingham, England: Open University press.
Barab, S., A., Barnett, M., Yamagata-Lynch, L., Squire, K., & Keating, T. (2002). Using activity theory to understand the contradictions characterizing a technology-rich introductory astronomy course. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 9(2), 76-107.
Barab, S., Evans, M. A., & Beak, E. (2004). Activity theory as a lens for characterizing the participatory unit. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology: a project of the association for educational communications and technology (pp. 199-214). London, England: Routledge.
Baran, B., & Cagiltay, K. (2010). The dynamics of online communities in the activity theory framework. Educational, Technology & Society, 13 (4), 155-166.
Barber, M., & Mourshed, M. (2009). Shaping the future: How good education systems can become great in the decade ahead. Report on the international education roundtable: 7th July, 2009, Singapore: McKinsey and Company. Retrieved from www.mckinsey.com/locations/southeastasia/knowledge/Education_Roundtable.pdf
Basharina, O. K. (2007). An activity theory perspective on student-reported contradictions in international telecollaboration. Language Learning & Technology, 11(2), 82-103. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/vol11num2/basharina/default.html
Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind. New York, NY: Ballantine Books.
Beder. H. (1991). Adult literacy: Issues for policy and practice. Malabar, FL: Krieger Publishing Company.
Bereiter, C. (1974). Elementary school: Necessity or convenience? In E. W. Eisner, & E. Vallance, (Eds.), Conflicting conceptions of curriculum (pp. 20-36). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan Pub. Corp.
Bereiter, C. (2002). Education and mind in the knowledge age. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Berge, O., & Fjuk, A. (2006). Understanding the roles of online meetings in a net-based course. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 22(1), 13-23.
Billett, S. (2004). Workplace participatory practices: Conceptualising workplaces as learning environments. Journal of Workplace Learning, 16(6), 312-24.
Billett, S. (2010). Learning through practice: Models, traditions, orientations and approaches London, England: Springer.
Bratton, J., Mills, J. H., Pyrch, T., & Sawchuk, P. (2004). Workplace learning: A critical introduction. Aurora, Ontario: Garamond Press.
Bruner, J. (1996). The Culture of Education. Cambridge. Massachusetts, MA: Harvard University Press.
Capper, P., & Williams, B. (2004). Enhancing evaluation using systems concepts. American Evaluation Association, November, pp.1-8. Retrieved from
http://users.actrix.co.nz/bobwill/activity.doc
Coletta, N. J. (1996). Formal, nonformal and informal education. In A.C. Tuijnman (Ed.), International encyclopedia of adult education and training, (2nd ed., pp. 22-27). Oxford, England: Pergamon.
Comeau, G. S. (2009). The "Illusion of Inclusion"? The role of Consultation processes in Canadian Sport Policy-Making. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Ottawa, Canada). Abstract retrieved from ProQuest Dissertation and Theses database. (UMI No. 61370)
Daniels, H., Leadbetter, J., Soares, A. & MacNab, N. (2007). Learning in and for cross-school working. Oxford Review of Education, 33(2), 125-142.
Davydov, V. V. (1988). Problems of developmental teaching: The experience of theoretical and experimental psychological research. Excerpts (Part II). Soviet Education, 30(9), 3-83.
Dippe, G. (2006). The missing teacher: Contradictions and conflicts in the experience of online learners. Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Networked Learning 2006,pp.1-8. Lancaster University, England. Retrieved from http://www.networkedlearningconference.org.uk/past/nlc2006/abstracts/pdfs/P38%20Dippe.pdf
Dunn, W. N. (1994). Public policy analysis: An introduction public (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Ellström, P-E. (2002). Time and the logics of learning. Lifelong Learning in Europe, 2, 86-93.
Elmore, R., & Sykes, G. (1992). Curriculum policy. In P. Jeckson (ed.), Handbook of research on curriculum, (pp. 185-215). Nork York, NY: Macmillan.
Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki, Finland: Orienta-Konsultit. Retrieved from: http://lchc.ucsd.edu/mca/Paper/Engestrom/Learning-by-Expanding.pdf
Engeström, Y. (1993). Developmental studies of work as a testbench of activity theory: The case of primary care medical practice. In Chaiklin, S., & Lave, J. (Eds.). Understanding practice: Perspectives on activity and context (pp. 64-103). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Engeström, Y. (1999a). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In Y. Engestrom, R. Miettinen, & R. L. Punamaki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
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,(pp.377-406). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Engeström, Y. (2001a). Making expansive decisions: An activity-theoretical study of practitioners building collaborative medical care for children. In Allwood, C. M., & Selart, M. (Eds.), Decision making: Social and creative dimensions (pp. 281-301). Dordrecht: Springer Science & Business Media.
Engeström, Y. (2001b). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization, Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133-156.
Engeström, Y. (2007). Enriching the theory of expansive learning: Lessons from journeys toward configuration. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 14(1-2), 23-39.
Engeström, Y. (2008). Enriching activity theory without shortcuts. Interacting with Computers, 20(2), 256-259.
Engeström, Y. (2010). Activity theory and learning at work. In Malloch, M., Cairns, L., Evans, K., & O'Connor, B. N. (Eds.). The SAGE handbook of workplace learning. London, England: SAGE Publications.
Engeström, Y., & Miettinen, R. (1999). Introduction. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen, & R.-L.Punamäki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 1-18). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Engeström, Y. & Sannino, A. (2010). Studies of expansive learning: Foundations, findings and future challenges. Educational Research Review, 5(1), pp.1-24.
Evans, K. & Kersh, N. (2004).Recognition of tacit skills and knowledge: Sustaining earning outcomes in workplace environments. Journal of Workplace Learning, 16(1/2), 63-74.
Feldman, A., & Weiss, T. (2010). Understanding change in teachers’ ways of being through collaborative action research: a cultural–historical activity theory analysis. Educational Action Research, 18(1), 29-55.
Fenwick, T. (2006a). Organizational learning in the ‘knots’: Discursive capacities emerging in a school-university collaboration. Journal of Educational Administration, 45(2), 138-153.
Fenwick, T. (2006b) .Tidying the territory: questioning terms and purposes in work-learning research. Journal of Workplace Learning, 18(5), 265-278.
Fenwick, T. (2006c). Toward enriched conceptions of work learning: Participation, expansion, and translation among individuals with/in activity. Human Resource Development Review, 5(3), 285-302.
FitzSimons, G. E. (2003). Implications from Engeström’s concept of expansive learning for enriching learning cultures in VET. Keynote address. In J. Searle, I. Yashin-Shaw, & D. Roebuck (Eds.), Proceedings of the 11th Annual International Conference on Post-Compulsory Education and Training, (Vol. 1). pp 201-212. Brisbane, Australia: Australian Academic Press.
Fuller, A., & Unwin, L. (2004). Expansive learning environments: Integrating personal and organizational development. In H. Rainbird, A. Fuller, & A. Munro (Eds.), Workplace learning in context. London, England: Routledge.
Glesne, C. (2006). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacom.
Govaerts, N., ＆ Baert, H. (2011). Learning patterns in organizations: Towards a typology of workplace-learning configurations. Human Resource Development International, 14(5), 545-559.
Grotlüschen, A. (2005). Expansive learning: benefits and limitations of subject-scientific learning theory. European Journal Vocational Training, 36/S, 15-20.
Gustavsson, M. (2009). Facilitating expansive learning in a public sector organization. Studies in Continuing Education, 31(3), 245-259.
Habermas, J. (1979). Communication and the evolution of society. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Hackel, M., & Klebl, M. (2014). The double path of expansive learning in complex socio-technical change processes. Outlines - Critical Practice Studies, 15(1), 4-27.
Hackman, J. R.(1987). The design of work team. In J. W. Lorsh (Ed.) Handbook of organizational behavior (pp.315-342). New Jersey, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Hager, P. (2004). Conceptions of learning and understanding learning at work. Studies in Continuing Education, 26(1), 3-17.
Haggerson, N. L. (2000). Expanding curriculum research and understanding: A mytho-poetic perspective. New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Hakkarainen, K. (2004).Pursuit of explanation within a computer-supported classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 26(8), 979-996.
Heidegger, M. (1962). Being and time. Trans. J. Macquarrie, & E. Robinson, Oxford, England: Blackwell.
Holzkamp, K. (2004). Wider den Lehr-Lern-Kurzschluß. Interview zum Thema‚ ‘Lernen’. In P.Faulstich, & J. Ludwig, (Eds), Expansives Lernen, 29-38. Baltmansweiler, Swiss: Schneider Verlage Hohengehren. Retrieved from
http://www.sabes.org/aia121.htm.
Il’enkov, E. V. (1977). Dialectical logic: essays in its history and theory. Moscow, Russia: Progress.
Illeris, K. (2004). The three dimensions of learning: Contemporary learning theory in the tension field between the cognitive, the emotional and the social. Malabar, FL: Krieger Press.
Jaworski, B., & Potari, D. (2009). Bridging the macro- and micro-divide: Using an activity theory model to capture sociocultural complexity in mathematics teaching and its development. Educ Stud Math, 72, 219-236.
Jiwani, G. (2010). Uncovering the unknown of government policy decision-making process at senior levels: Multiple case study. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Washington). Available from ProQuest Dissertation and theses database. (UMI No. 3431602)
Jonassen, D. H. (1995). Supporting communities of learners with technology: A vision for integrating technology with learning in schools. Educational Technology, 5, 602-631.
Jonassen, D. H., & Rohrer-Murphy, L. (1999). Activity theory as a framework for designing constructivist learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(1), 61-79.
Jónsdóttir, I. J.(2007,Augest). Workplace learning in context. In B. Weaver (Chair), 19th Nordic academy of management conference, (pp.1-15), Bergen, Norges.
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, Finland: University of Helsinki, Department of Education.
Kerosuo, H. (2001). Boundary encounters as a place for learning and development at work. Critical Social Studies, 3(1), 53-65.
Kerosuo, H., & Engeström, Y. (2003). Boundary crossing and learning in creation of new work practice. Journal of Workplace Learning, 15(7/8), 345-351.
Kinicki, A., & Kreitner, R. (2009). Organizational behavior: Key concepts, skills & best practices (4th Ed). Burr Ridge, IL: Irwin/McGraw-Hill.
Kliebard, H. M. (1998). The effort to reconstruct the modern American curriculum. In L. E .Beyer, & M. W. Apple (Eds.), The curriculum: Problems, polities, and possibilities (pp.19-31). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Knowles, M. S., Swanson, R. A., & Holton, E. F. III (2005). The adult learner: The definitive classic in adult education and human resource development (6th Ed.). California, CA: Elsevier Science and Technology Books.
Kolb, D. A. (1976).Management and the learning process. California Management Review, 18(3), 21-31.
Kruppe, A. (2011). Superintendents’ perceptions of utilizing a democratic decision-making process in learning communities. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Lewis). Available from ProQuest Dissertation and theses database. (UMI No.3453949).
Kuutti, K. (1996). Activity theory as a potential framework for human-computer interaction research. In B. A. Nardi (Ed.), Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human-computer interaction (pp. 17-44). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Lautenbach, G. (2010).Expansive learning cycles: Lecturers using educational technologies for teaching and learning. South African Journal of Higher Education, 24(5), 699-715.
Lave, J., ＆ Wenger, E., (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Legard, R., Keegan, J., & Ward, K. (2003). In-depth interviews. In J. Ritchie & J. Lewis (Eds.). Qualitative research practice: A guide for social research students and researchers (pp. 138-169). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Leont’ev, A. N. (1978). Activity, consciousness and personality. Retrieved from http://www.marxists.org/archive/leontev/works/1978/index.htm
Leont’ev, A. N. (1981). Problems of the development of the mind. Retrieved from http://marxists.org/archive/leontev/works/development-mind.pdf
Levine, K. (1986). The social context of literacy. London, England: Routledge & Kengan Paul.
Levine, T. H. (2010).Tools for the study and design of collaborative teacher learning: The affordances of different conceptions of teacher community and activity theory. Teacher Education Quarterly, Winter, 109-130.
Lofland, J., Snow, D., Anderson, L., & Lofland. L. H. (2006). Analyzing social setting: A guide to qualitative observation and analysis. (4th ed.) Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Thomson.
Long, N. (2001). Development sociology: Actor perspectives. London, England: Routledge.
Marx, K. (1999).The labour-process and the process of producing surplus-value. In K. Marix, Capital (Vol. 1, Ch. 7). Retrieved from https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/Capital-Volume-I.pdf
Martin, D., & Peim, N. (2009). Critical perspectives on activity theory. Educational Review, 61(2), 131–138.
McGuire, P. (2000). A performance standard for teaching and learning with the equipped for the future (EFF) content standards. Adventures in Assessment, 12.Boston, MA: SABES/World Education. Available at: the international adult literacy survey. OECD Publications Service, France.
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Merrifield, J. (2000) Equipped for the future research report: Building the framework, 1993-1997. Washington DC: National institute for literacy. Retrieved from
http://eff.cls.utk.edu/resources/merrifield_eff.htm
Mezirow, J.(1995). Contemporary paradigms of learning. Adult Education Quarterly, 46(3), 158-173.
Midgley, G. (2000). Systemic intervention: Philosophy, methodology, and practice. New York, NY: Kluwer Academic.
Mosvold, R., & Bjuland, R. (2011). An activity theory view on learning studies. International Journal of Early Childhood, 43(3), 261-275.
Murphy, E., & Rodriguez-Manzanares, M. (2008). Using activity theory and its principle of contradictions to guide research in educational technology. Australasian Journal of Education Technology, 24(4), 442-447.
Niemann, R. (2013). Revisiting expansive learning for knowledge production and capability development at postgraduate level in higher education studies. Perspectives in Education, 31(1), 30-39.
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The Knowledge creating company. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
OECD education working paper No. 34, Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/edu/workingpapers
OECD, & Statistics Canada (2000). Literacy in the information age: Final report of Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. (OECD). (1996). Lifelong learning for all. Paris, England: Author. Retrieved from http://www.britishcouncil.org/inclusion_recommendations_final_27-01-12.pdf
Paavola, S., & Hakkarainan, k. (2005). The knowledge creation metaphor: An emergent epistemological approach to learning. Science & Education 14, 537-557.
Paavola, S., Lipponen, L., & Hakkarainen, K. (2004).Models of innovative knowledge communities and three metaphors of learning. Review of Educational Research, winter, 74(4), 557-576.
PIAAC Literacy Expert Group. (2009). PIAAC literacy: A conceptual framework. OECD education working papers, 34, OECD publishing. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/displaydocument/?doclanguage=en&cote=edu/wkp%282009% 2913
Piaget, J. (1985). Equilibration of cognitive structures. Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press.
Popham, W. J., & Baker, E. I. (1970). Systematic instruction. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Portney, K. E. (1986). Approaching public policy analysis：An introduction to policy and program research. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Pratt, D. (1980). Curriculum design and development. New York, NY: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Puonti, A. (2004). Learning to work together: Collaboration between authorities in economic-crime investigation. Vantaa, Finland: National bureau of investigation. Retrieved from http://www.helsinki.fi/cradle/documents/Doctoral%20dissertations/Puonti%202004%20Learning%20to%20work%20together.pdf
Robbins, S.P., & Judge, T.A. (2009). Organizational behavior. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Rodriguez, H. (1998). Activity theory and cognitive sciences. Perspectives on activity theory, Retrieved from http://www.nada.kth.se/~henrry/papers/ActivityTheory.html
Rorty, R. (1998). Truth and progress: Philosophical papers, 3. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Roth, W.M., Lee, Y-J., & Hsu, P-L. (2009). A tool for changing the world: possibilities of cultural-historical activity theory to reinvigorate science education. Studies in Science Education, 45(2), 131–167.
Russell D. L., & Schneiderheinze, A. (2005). Understanding innovation in education using activity theory. Educational Technology & Society, 8(1), 38-53. Retrieved from http://www.ifets.info/others/download_pdf.php?j_id26&a_id=520
Sabatier, P. A., & Jenkins-Smith, H. C. (1993). Policy change and learning: An advocacy coalition approach. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Saka, Y., Southerland, S. A., & Brooks, J. S. (2009). Becoming a member of a school community while working toward science education reform: Teacher induction from cultural historical activity theory (CHAT) perspective. Science Education, 93(6), 996-1025.
Sannino, A. (2008). Experiencing conversations: Bridging the gap between discourse and activity. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 38(3), 267–291.
Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective and practitioner. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Seligman, M. E.P., ＆Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000).Positive psychology-An introduction. American Psychologist, 55(1), 5-14.
Senge, P.M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York, NY: Doubleday.
Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors of learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educational Researcher, 27(2), 4-13.
Simons, P.R.J. (2000). Learning as you work: tautology or challenge? Training and Development, 13: 7-11.
Stein, S. (2000). Equipped for the future content standards: What adults need to know and be able to do in the 21st century. Washington, DC: National Institute for Literacy.
Swanson, R. A. (1995).Human resource development: Performance is the key. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 6(2): 207-213.
Thomas, K. W. (1992). Conflict and conflict management: Reflections and update. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13(3), Special issue: Conflict and negotiation in organizations: Historical and contemporary prspectives, 265-274.
Toiviainen, H. (2007). Inter-organizational learning across levels: An object-oriented approach. Journal of Workplace Learning, 19 (6), 343-358.
Turnley, W. H., & Feldman, D. C. (2000). Re-examining the effects of psychological contract violations: Unmet expectations and Job dissatisfaction as mediators. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21(1), 25-42.
UNESCO (2003). Literacy: a UNESCO perspective. Paris, France: UNESCO. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0013/001318/131817eo.pdf
UNESCO (2005). Literacy for life: education for all global monitoring report 2006. Paris, France: UNESCO. Retrieved from http://www.uis.unesco.org/Library/Documents/gmr06-en.pdf
UNESCO International Bureau of Education（2013）。Learning in the post-2015 education and development agenda. Retrieved from http://www.ibe.unesco.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Publications/UNESCO-IBE_Statement_on_Learning_Post-2015_eng.pdf
Van Oers, B. (2004). Steps towards a sociocultural theory of learning, lecture at the University of Jyväskylä, Finland, 10th December 2004. Retrieved from http://home.planet.nl/~oers0054/Steps%20towards%20a%20sociocultural%20theory%20of%20learning.pdf.
Venkat, H., & Adler, J. (2008). Expanding the foci of activity theory: accessing the broader contexts and experiences of mathematics education reform. Educational Review, 60(2), 127-193.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society. (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, eds.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1986).Thought and language. Translated revised and edited by A. Kozulin. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Wenger, E. (1998) Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Yamagata-Lynch, L. C. (2007). Confronting analytical dilemmas for understanding complex human interactions in design-based research from a Cultural-Historical Activity Theory (CHAT) framework. The Journal of The Learning Sciences, 16(4), 451–484.
Yamagata-Lynch, L. C., ＆ Haudenschild, M. (2006). Using activity theory to identify contradictions and tensions in teacher professional development. In J. L. Snow-Gerono (Chair), 2006 Annual meeting of the American Education Research Association (AREA), San Francisco, CA.
Yamazumi, K. (2006). Activity theory and the transformation of pedagogic practice. Educational Studies in Japan: International Yearbook, 1, 77-90.
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Young, M. (2001). Contextualising a new approach to learning: Some comments on Yrjo Engestrom’s theory of expansive learning. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 157-161.