中文
柯佳伶、李麗日（2011）。談權力關係下及人際互動中－教師異化現象。區域與社會發展研究，2，129-160。促進國際閱讀素養研究（PIRLS）. Retrieved June 24, 2016, from http://lrn.ncu.edu.tw/Teacher%20web/hwawei/PIRLS_home.htm
王思如（2003）。快速人種誌研究方法應用於產品開發之使用需求研究（未出版之碩士論文）。國立交通大學應用藝術所，新竹市。佐藤學（2012）。學習的革命：從教室出發的改革（黃郁倫、鍾啟泉，譯）。臺北市：親子天下。
何雅娟（2008）。混成式與數位式互動視訊學習成效比較之研究（未出版之碩士論文）。國立臺灣師範大學工業教育學系，臺北市。吳宗立、李孟娟（2009）。國小社會領域教師教學創新與影響因素之研究。社會科教育研究，14，251-275。吳麗君（2003）。論教育質性研究報告另類書寫的合理性。國立台北師範學院學報，16(1)，297-320。
李宏仁、錢富美（2010）。美國、日本、英國社會領域課程分析。載於薛雅惠、賴苑玲（主編），社會領域教材教法（頁24-47）。臺北市：五南出版社。
李咏吟、單文經（1997）。教學原理。台北：遠流。
李政勳（2015）。備課，備什麼？觀課，觀什麼？議課，議什麼？。取自http://flipedu.parenting.com.tw/blog-detail?id=1076
林志宜（2009）。建構小五學生Google地球地圖學習情境：以活動理論為架構之研究（未出版之碩士論文）。淡江大學教育科技學系碩士在職專班，臺北市。林佩璇（2003）。課程行動研究—從「專業成長」剖析教師角色轉化的困境。課程與教學季刊，6 (3)，129-146。林佩璇（2007）。台灣教學行動研究運動－走入洪流，走出泥淖，邁向新視野。課程與教學季刊，10(2)，35-52。林佩璇（2009）。課程行動研究的實踐論述：從自我到社會文化。教育實踐與研究，22(2)，95-122。林佩璇（2012）。課程行動研究－實踐取向的研究論述。台北市：洪葉文化
林佩璇（2014）。課程轉化的持續動力：文化歷史活動理論觀。載於北京人民教育出版社課程與教材研究所、國立臺北教育大學課程與教學傳播科技研究所、香港中文大學（編），課程改革持續的動力：第十六屆兩岸三地課程理論研討會論文集（279-290頁）。吉林省：東北師範大學。
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）。國立臺灣科技大學應用外語系，臺北市。林玫伶（2008）。假如要有學習單--學習單設計的原則與實例。臺北：幼獅文化。
林盈均（2008）。教學時數爭奪戰－談九年一貫領域教學時數的分配。第十九屆課程與教學論壇-E世代教學專業與研究國際學術研討會。
林菁（2004）。資訊素養融入國小社會學習領域－以Big6理念架構為例。視聽教育雙月刊，45(5)，2-16。林菁（2007）。資訊素養融入國小四年級社會學習領域教學：小小古蹟解說員的培訓研究。教育資料與圖書館學，44(3)，357-378。林菁（2009）。資訊素養融入國小四年級社會學習領域教學：小小古蹟解說員的培訓研究。教育資料與圖書館學，44(3)，357-378。林菁（2010）。應用辯論於國小六年級社會學習領域教學--為提升學生的資訊素養。教育資料與圖書館學季刊，47，499-530。林菁、李佳憓（2009）。國小圖書老師與班級教師合作設計資訊素養融入教學。教育資料與圖書館學季刊，47(2)，199-230。林進材（1997）。教師教學思考－理論、研究與應用。高雄市：復文。
林進材（1999）。國小專家教師與新手教師教學理論建構之研究，國民教育研究集刊，5，185-218。
林意雪（2010）。文化工具做為教與學之分析架構：一個文學圈的實例探討。當代教育季刊，18(4)，79-119。
林煥祥（2008）。台灣參加PISA2006成果報告 (ISBN 978-957-41-5148-6). 國科會計畫編號：NSC 95-2522-S-026-002.
柯華葳（2009）。培養Super小讀者。臺北市：天下雜誌。
師資培育法（2000年6月28日）。
國家教育研究院（2001）。中華民國教育年報90年版。取自http://www.naer.edu.tw/files/15-1000-7856,c1310-1.php?Lang=zh-tw
國教社群網（2015）。九年一貫課程綱要。取自http://teach.eje.edu.tw/
張淑玲（2005）。合作成長小組促成國小教師數學教學之能與反思能力成長之探討（未出版之博士論文）。國立臺灣師範大學數學系，臺北市。張智鈞（2010）。以大型多點觸控螢幕進行數位遊戲式協同學習活動之研究（未出版之碩士論文）。國立臺灣師範大學科技應用與人力資源發展學系，臺北市。張貴琳、黃秀霜、鄒慧英（2009），從國際比較觀點探討臺灣學生PISA2006閱讀 素養表現特徵。課程與教學季刊，13(1)，21-46。莊明貞（2005）。敘事探究及其在課程研究領域之發展。教育研究月刊，130，14-27。莊明貞（2008）.從方法論出發─理解一所郊區小型學校課程革新的敘事探究。
課程研究，3（2），49-74。
許珀文（1999）。應用活動理論來發展人機介面─以WebTV為例（未出版之碩士論文）。國立交通大學工業工程與管理系所，新竹市。許毓圃 (2001，3月26日). 政府機關全面實施週休二日成效之評析. Retrieved March 3, 2016, from http://old.npf.org.tw/PUBLICATION/CL/090/CL-C-090-068.htm
陳向明（2002）。社會科學質的研究。臺北市：五南。
陳宏維（2010）。以活動理論探討兩位台灣大學英文寫作老師教學信念及實施（未出版之碩士論文）。國立交通大學英語教學研究所，新竹市。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。陳淑絹（2000）。「辯論活動」在國小班級輔導活動的應用。國教輔導，40(1)，50-53。陳新轉（2004）。九年一貫社會領域課程發展 : 從課程綱要與能力指標出發。臺北市：心理。
游永菁（2007）。發展小學中年級學生進行行動學習的手持設備雛型（未出版之碩士論文）。國立交通大學工業工程與管理系所，新竹市。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）。國立臺灣師範大學數學系，臺北市。黃政傑（2015）。教師專業學習社群的特質與推動策略。取自http://teachernet.moe.edu.tw/BLOG/Article/ArticleDetail.aspx?proid=24&aid=109
黃儒傑（2009）。初任教師教學承諾及其相關因素。臺北市：高等教育出版社。
黃囇莉（2006）。人際和諧與衝突：本土化的理論與研究。臺北：揚智。
甄曉蘭（2000）。新世紀課程改革的挑戰與課程實踐理論的重建。教育研究集刊，44，61-90。劉宜汶（2010）。部落格為中介行為之教師發展（未出版之碩士論文）。國立交通大學英語教學研究所，新竹市。劉雅惠（2011）。中小學教師工作壓力之探究。學校行政雙月刊，72，77-98。
歐用生（1999）。國民小學社會科教學研究。臺北市：師大書苑。
歐用生（2002）。快樂學習或安樂死?體驗學習的批判教育學意涵。課程與教學季刊，5(3)，107-124。盧富美（1994）。國民小學社會科教材教法。臺北市：心理。
賴志宏（2007）。行動科技對經驗學習之支援性（未出版之博士論文）。國立中央大學資訊工程研究所，桃園縣。賴麗珍（譯）（2006）。教學生做摘要：五十種改進各學科學習的教學技術。R. Wormeli著。臺北市：心理。
簡紅珠（2002）。教師知識的不同詮釋與研究方法。課程與教學季刊，5(3)，1-16。魏淑君（2008）。由團體討論探究幼兒園主題課程的發展歷程—以Vygotsky的社會文化活動理論觀點（未出版之博士論文）。國立臺灣師範大學人類發展與家庭學系，臺北市。英文
Anderson-Patton, V., & Bass, E. (2002). Using narrative teaching portfolios for self-study. In N. Lyons, & V. K. Laboskey(Eds.), Narrative inquiry in practice: advancing the knowledge of teaching(pp. 101-114). NY: Teachers College.
Au, K. (1990). Changes in a teacher's view of interactive comprehension instruction. In L.C. Moll (Ed.), Vygotsky and education: Instructional implications and applications of sociohistorical psychology (pp. 271-286). Cambridge: Cambridge University.
Austin, T., & Seese, J. C. (2004). Self-study in school teaching: Teacher’s perspectives. In J. J. Loughran , M. L. Hamilton, & V. K. LaBoskey & T. Russel (Eds.), International handbook of self-study of teaching and teacher education practices(pp. 1231-1258). London: Kluwer academic publishers.
Baird, J.(2004). Interpreting the what, why and how of self-study in teaching and teacher education. In J. J. Loughran , M. L. Hamilton, & V. K. LaBoskey & T. Russel (Eds.), International handbook of self-study of teaching and teacher education practices(pp. 1393-1443). London: Kluwer academic publishers.
Beauchamp, C., Jazvac-Martek, M., & McAlpine, L. (2009). Studying doctoral education: using Active Theory to shape methodological tools. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 46(3), 265-277. doi: 10.1080/14703290903068839.
Beck, C., Freese, A., & Kosnik, C. (2004). The preservice practicum: Learning through self-study in a professional setting. In J. J. Loughran, M. L. Hamilton, & V. K. LaBoskey & T. Russel(Eds.), International handbook of self-study of teaching and teacher education practices(pp. 1259-1293). London: Kluwer academic publishers.
Blunden, A. (2010). The origins of cultural historical activity theory. Abstract retrieved from http://home.mira.net/~andy/works/origins-chat.htm
Brown, K., & Cole, M. (2002).Cultural historical activity theory and the expansion of opportunities for learning after school. In G. Wells, & G. Claxton (Eds.), Learning for life in the 21st Century: Sociocultural persepctives on the future of education (pp. 225-238). MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Bruner, J. (2001)。教育的文化（宋文里，譯）。台北市：遠流。
CCSS(2010). Common core states standards. Retrieved form http://www.corestandards.org/
Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (2000). Narrative inquiry: Experience and story in qualitative research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Clarke, A., & Erickon, G. (2004). The nature of teaching and learning in self-study. In J. J. Loughran, M. L. Hamilton, V. K. LaBoskey, & T. Russel (Eds.), International handbook of self-study of teaching and teacher education practices(pp. 41-68). London: Kluwer academic publishers.
Cole, M., & Gajdamashko, N. (2009).The concept of development in cultural-historial activity theory: Vertical and Horizontal. In A. Sannino (Ed.) Learning and expanding with activity Theory. NY: Cambridge University Press.
Cole, M., & Gajdamashko, N. (2009).The concept of development in cultural-historial activity theory: Vertical and Horizontal. In A. Sannino H. Daniels, & K. D. Gutiérrez (Eds.) Learning and Expanding with Activity Theory (pp. 129-143). NY: Cambridge University Press.
Connelly, F.M., & Clandinin, D.J. (1991). Narrative inquiry: storied experience. In E. Short (Ed.), Forms of curriculum Inquiry(pp. 121-154). NY: SUNY.
Davydov, V. V. (1999). The content and unsolved problems of activity theory. In Y. Engeström & R. Miettinen & R. L. Punamaki(Eds.), Perspectives on Activity Theory(pp. 39-52). Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK.
Dunkin, M.J., & Biddle, B.J. (1974). The study of teaching. NY: Holt, Reinhart, Winston.
Elijah, R.(2004). Voice in self-study. In J. J. Loughran, M. L. Hamilton, V. K. LaBoskey, & T. Russel (Eds.), International handbook of self-study of teaching and teacher education practices (pp. 247-271). London: Kluwer academic publishers.
Elliott, J.(1997). School-based curriculum development and action research in the United Kingdom. In S. Hollingsworth (Ed.), International action research (pp.17-28). London: Falmer.
Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by Expanding: an activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit.
Engeström, Y. (1999a). Activity Theory and Individual and Social Transformation. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen, & R. L. Punamaki(Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 19-38). Cambridge: 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.
Engeström, Y. (2000).Activity theory as a framework for analyzing and redesigning work. Ergonomics, 43(7), 960-974.
Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133–156. doi:10.1080/13639080020028747
Engeström, Y., & Kerosuo, H.(2007). From workplace learning to inter-organizational learning and back: the contribution of activity theory. Journal of Workplace Learning, 19(6), 336-342. Doi: 10.1108/13665620710777084
Engeström, Y.(2008). From teams tp knots: activity-theoretical studies of collaboration and learning at work. NY: Cambridge University Press.
Engeström, Y., & Sannino, A.(2010). Studies of expansive learning: Foundations, findings and future challenges. Educational Research Review, doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2009.12.002Erickson, F. (2012). Comments on causality in qualitative inquiry. Qualitative Inquiry, 18(8), 686-688.
Feldman, A. & Paugh, P. & Mills, G. (2004). Self-study though action research. In J. J. Loughran, M. L. Hamilton, V. K. LaBoskey, & T. Russel (Eds.), International handbook of self-study of teaching and teacher education practices (pp. 943-978). London: Kluwer academic publishers.
Fenstermacher, G. D. (1986). Philosophy of research on teaching: Three aspects. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd Ed.) (pp. 37-49). New York: Macmillan.
Fichtner, B. (1999). Activity revisited as an explanatory principle and as an object of study-Old limits and new perspectives. In S. Chaiklin, M. Hedegaard, & U. J. Jensen (Eds.), Activity theory and social practice: Cultural-historical(pp. 225-234). Headington: Aarhus University Press.
Floden, R. E.（2001）.Research on effects of teaching: Acontinuing model for research on teaching. In V. Richardson（Ed.）, Handbook of research on teaching（4th ed.）（pp.3-16）.WA: AERA.
Gallego, M. A., & Cole, M. (2001). Classroom cultures and cultures in the classroom. In V. Richardson(Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching(pp. 951-952). Washington D.C.: American Educational Research Association.
Gallucci, C., Van Lare, M. D., Yoon, I. H., & Boatright, B. (2010). Instructional coaching: Building theory about the role and organizational support for professional learning. American Educational Research Journal, 47(4), 919–963. doi:10.3102/0002831210371497
Giddens, A. (1986). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Oakland, CA: University of California Press.
Giroux, H.A. （2006）。教師是知識份子（莊明貞審閱）。台北市：高等教育文化事業有限公司。
Greene, M. (1973), Teachers as Stranger: Educational Philosophy for the Modern Age, Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Guy, E. S.(2005). From rollout to appropriation: Changing practices of development and use during a groupware project. http://www.cmis.brighton.ac.uk/staff/esg1/papers/PhD/00_toc.pdf
Hardman, J. ( 2007). Making sense of the meaning maker: tracking the object of activity in a computer-based mathematics lesson using activity theory. International Journal of Education and Development using Information and Communication Technology, 3(4), 110-130.
Hargreaves, A. (1992). Cultures of teaching: A focus for change. In A. Punamäki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 377-404). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Haroutunian-Gordon, S. (1995).The role of narrative in interpretive discussion. In H. McEwam (Eds.), Narrative in teaching, learning and research (pp.100-115). New York: Teacher College Press.
Hendry, & Jean, H. (2012, May 30). Foreign language learning of students with language learning disabilites: an activity theory perspective of three middle school students. Retrieved June 5, 2016, from http://d-scholarship.pitt.edu/7507/
Jackson, P. W. (1990). Life in classrooms. NY: Teachers College(Reprint. Originally published: New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1968.)
Jackson, P. W. (1992). Untaught lessons. NY:Teachers College Press.
Jackson, P. W.（1986）. The practice of teaching. NY: Teacher College Columbia University.
Johnson, C. (2007). Finding our place: using cultural historical active theory (CHAT) and teacher personal theorizing to investigate place theory of character development. Journal of research in character education, 5(1), 49-70.
Jonassen, D. (2000). Learning as activity. Retrieved from http://www.learndev.org/dl/DenverJonassen.PDF
Karpov, Y. V. (2003). Vygotsky’s doctrine of scientific concepts: Its role for contemporary education. In A. Kozulin, B. Gindis, & V. Ageyev & S. Miller (Eds.), Vygotsky’s educational theory in culture Context (pp. 15-38). NY: Cambridge University Press.
Koc, C. (2011).The views of prospective class teachers about peer assessment in teaching practice. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 11(4), 1979-1989.
Kozulin, A. (2003). Psychological tools and mediated learning. In A. Kozulin, B. Gindis, V. Ageyev & S. Miller (Eds.), Vygotsky’s educational theory in culture Context(pp. 15-38). NY: Cambridge university press.
LaBoskey, V. K. (2004). The methodology of self-study and its theoretical underpinnings. In J. J. Loughran, M. L. Hamilton, V. K. LaBoskey, & T. Russel(Eds.), International handbook of self-study of teaching and teacher education practices (pp. 817-870). London: Kluwer academic publishers.
Lather, P. (1986). Issues of validity in openly ideological research: between a rock and a soft place. Interchange, 17(4), 63 – 84.
Leadbetter, J. & Warmington, P. (2010). Expansive learning, expansive labour: conceptualising the social production of labour‐power within multi‐agency working. In H. Daniels, A. Edwards, Y. Engeström, T. Gallagher, & S. R. Ludvigsen (Eds.), Activity Theory in practice: Promoting learning across boundaries and agencies (pp. 72-89). NY: Routledge.
Lee, C. D. (2003). Cultural Modeling: CHAT as Lens for Understanding Instructional Discourse Based on African American English Discourse Patterns. In A. Kozulin & B. Gindis & V. Ageyev & S. Miller(Eds.), Vygotsky’s Educational Theory in culture Context(pp. 393-410). NY: Cambridge university press.
Leont'ev, A. N. (1978). Activity, consciousness, and personality. Englewood Cliffs. NJ: Prentice- Hall.
Leont'ev, A. N. (2009). The Development of Mind: Selected Works of Aleksei Nikolaevich Leont’ev. Abstract retrieved from http://marxists.org/archive/leontev/works/development-mind.pdf
Loughran, J. J., Hamilton, M. L., LaBoskey, V. K., & Russel, T. (2004). International handbook of self-study of teaching and teacher education practices. London: Kluwer academic publishers
Loughran, J. J. (2004). A history and context of self-study of teaching and teacher education practices. In J. J. Loughran, M. L. Hamilton, V. K., LaBoskey, & T. Russel (Eds.), International handbook of self-study of teaching and teacher education practices(pp. 7-40). London: Kluwer academic publishers.
McLaren, P. (1998). Life in schools: An introduction to critical pedagogy in the foundations of education. N Y: Longman.
Mertler, C.A. (2006). Action research: teachers as researchers in the classroom. London: Sage.
Middleton, D. (2010). Identify learning in interprofessional discourse: The development of an analytic protocol. In H. Daniels & A. Edwards & Y. Engestrom & T. Gallagher & S. R. Ludvigsen(Eds.), Activity theory in practice: promoting learning across boundaries and agencies(pp. 90-1030). NY: Routledge.
Moll, L. C. (2001). Through the mediation of others: Vygotskian research on teaching. In V. Richardson（Ed.）, Handbook of research on teaching （4th ed.）（pp.3-16）.WA: AERA.
Noffke, S. (1997). Themes and tensions in US action research: Towards Historical Analysis. In S. Hollingsworth (Ed.), International action research(pp. 2-16). London: Falmer.
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company. New York: Oxford University
OECD (2006). Assessing scientific, reading and mathematical literacy: A framework for PISA 2006. Paris: Author.
Oxford (2016). In Oxford Dictionary. Retrieved from http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/
Pinnegar, S., & Daynes, J.G. (2007). Locating narrative inquiry historically: thematics in the turn to narrative. In D. Jean Clandinin (Eds.), Handbook of narrative inquiry: Mapping a methodology (pp.3-34). Thousand Oaks, Ca: Sage.
Pinnegar, S., & Hamilton, M. L. (2009). Self-study of practice as a genre of qualitative research-theory, methodology, and practice. NY: Springer.
Pinnegar, S., & Hamilton, M. L. (2009).Self-study of practice as a genre of qualitative research-theory, methodology, and practice. NY: Springer.
Portes, P. R. (1996). Ethnicity and culture in educational psychology. In D. C. Berliner, & R. C. Calfee(Eds.) Handbook of educational psychology(pp. 331-357). NY: Macmillan.
Ritchie, J.S., & Wilson, D.E. (2000). Teacher narrative as critical inquiry: rewriting the script. NY:Teachers College.
Roth, W. M., & Lee, Y. J. (2007). ‘Vyogotsky’s neglected Legacy’: Cultural-historical activity theory. Review of Educational Research, 77, 2, 186-232. DOI: 10.31020/0034654306298273.
Rückriem, G. (2012). „Activity Theory“ as Methodology. http://georgrueckriem.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/2methodologie2012.pdf
Samaras, A. P. (2011). Self-study: teacher research. NY: SAGE.
Sannino, A., & Daniels, H., & Gutiérrez, K.(2009). Activity theory between historical engagement and future-makung practice. In A. Sannino(Ed.), Learning expanding with activity theory(pp.1-18). NY: Cambridge University Press.
Sarson, S. B.(1999).The Classroom and the School Culture: Teaching as a Performing Art. NY: Teacher College Columbia University.
Schön , D. A. (1986). Educating the reflective practitioner. NY: Jossey-Bass.
Schön, D. A. （2003）。反映回觀－教育實踐的個案研究(夏林清譯)。台北市：遠流。
Schwab, J. J. (1970). The practical: A language for curriculum. Washington, DC: National Education Association.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Paradigms and research programs in the study of teaching: A contemporary perspective. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed.) (pp. 3-36). NY: Macmillan.
Smidt, S. (2009). Introducing Vygotsky. NY: Routledge.
Stetsenko, A. P. (1999). Social interaction, cultural tools and the zone of proximal development: In search of synthesis. In S. Chaiklin, M. Hedegaard, & U. J. Jensen (Eds.), Activity theory and social practice: Cultural-historical(pp. 225-234). Headington: Aarhus University Press.
Toulmin, C. W. (1999). Society versus context in individual development: Does theory make a difference? In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen, & R. L. Punamaki(Eds.), Perspectives on Activity Theory (pp. 70-86). Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK.
Virkkunen, J., Makinen, E., Lintula, L. (2010). From diagnosis to clients: constructing the object of collaborative development between physiotherapy educators and workplaces. In H. Daniels, A. Edwards, Y. Engestrom, T. Gallagher, & S. R. Ludvigsen (Eds.), Activity theory in practice: Promoting learning across boundaries and agencies (pp. 9-24). NY: Routledge.
Virkkunen, J.(2009). Two theories of organizational knowledge creation. In A. Sannino, H. Daniels, & K. D. Gutiérrez (Eds.) Learning and Expanding with Activity Theory (pp. 144-159). NY: Cambridge University Press.
Vul’fson, B.L. (2010). “Russia and Europe”—The Fundamental Problem of Courses in the History of Russia. Russian Social Science Review, 51(6), 4-18.
Vygotsky, L. S. & Luria, A. (1934). Tool and symbol in child development. Abstract retrieved from http://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/works/1934/tool-symbol.htm
Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Though and language. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Vygotsky, L. S.(1978).Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Havard University Press.
Waller, (1932). The sociology of teaching. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Yamagata-Lynch, L. C., & Haudenschild, M(2006). Using activity theory to identify contradictions and tensions in teacher professional development. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA) .
Year One of the Russian Revolution (2012). The Insurrection of 25 October 1917. Abstract retrieved from http://www.marxists.org/archive/serge/1930/year-one/ch02.htm
Zeichner, K. & Noffke, S. (2001). Practitioner research. In V. Richardson(Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching(4th ed.)(pp. 298-332). AERA: Washington, D.C.
Zimmerman, L.W. (2009). Reflective teaching practice: engaging in praxis. The journal of theory construction & testing, 13(2), 46-500.