Activity Theory - Science topic

Thank you very much for your insightful response and valuable literature recommendations. They are excellent and highlight that collaboration is indeed a multidimensional and highly complex construct. This complexity underscores the significant challenge of developing a curriculum for teacher education aimed at fostering effective collaboration in schools.

Sai Sampath V L Kuricheti You have asked a key question.

Here there are two "moments".

-The framework is the model of human activity. It means, an abstraction of the human activity, including the essential relations among its components. And what are those components? i have in mind the active agent in every activity (the human subject, the agent who acts), the object on which the subject (material or ideal, including artifacts, situations, feelings, etc ), the tools mediating the actions of the subject on the object; the procedures or methods followed by subject for mediated (by tools) actions on the object; the external conditions where all these interactions take place (physical and socio - psychological conditions), and, finally, the result of the activity, it is, the modified object. Any problem, needed of a solution, can be described in terms of that categories. Consequently, any problem needed of the Computer mediation, can find its requisites expressed in terms of that categories and their relations.

-On the other hand, I assume (in fact it's not me, it is assumed in the foundations of several Psychological theories), that Psyche has its origin in the external material activity, it is its dynamic reflex (both directly and indirectly, by means of the -semantic based- communication in the last case), but, on the other hand, the Psyche is the "ruler", the guide, of external activity, they are in a dialectic interaction, and can take place thanks to the fact that both, external, material activity, and the internal, psychological, have the same structure ( that which is going to be used as a framework). Consequently that model of the human activity has to take into account the the psychological aspects of the activity, be founded on their principles.

Regarding use cases, I can tell about my own experience. Several years ago I had to model by ontologies the preferences of students in virtual learning environment. After a long study of possible candidates of preferences definitions, I consider the understanding of preferences as it is assumed in Rational decision Theory: a preference is a kind of choice.

Considering than choice take place in the context of concrete activity, I assumed that preferences are internal choice, made by the human subject. The question is: the choice of what. Here, given that every activity has the above mentioned structure, a preference is defined as the internal choice made by the subject of the activity components (structural moments). Specifically I followed the psychological activity structure define by a Russian Psychologist, follower of the Activity Theory (the classical one, because currently there are several trends, the most known in the European context -and in part of the American one-, is the Scandinavian Activity Theory).

Details of that processes can be found in at least to journal articles, an in a PhD thesis, that are accessible here, on RG (the drawback, for not Latin readers, is that they are written in Spanish, while the activity theory based description of the human structure, applied in the research, as far as I know, are published only in Russian).

Now I'm trying to figure out what other researcher think on it, or what other approaches they have applied or created.

Traveling while having an open mind allows to see new perspectives, get new concepts and have a deeper understanding of human society. Its very rewarding for the ones seeking the truth to go to places where everything is different, that sort of shock is highly rewarding. Conditioning exists at all levels.

Very interesting (and, I have to say, polemic) your contribution, starting from your comment: The theory puts to rest the century-old dogma about qualia, subject experience, and cognition as the natural oasis of consciousness and that its mechanism relies on quantum information or quantum mechanics.

First of all, It's obvious that I need to read detailed all the related argumentation, before making any founded comment, but, and realizing that it will be a priori, I feel it looks like a new step in the direction to the reductionist solution of understanding of mind in general and consciousness particularly (started with the neuroscience based approach)... even in the conceptualization there are a lot of conflicts...

Thank you very much for your contribution.

@Rey Segundo Guerrero-Proenza. Thank you for your response. In my study I did not use the activity theory, instead constructivist approach is embedded in my theoretical framework of study wherein the dispersion of innovations theory is applicable. According to previous researchers, the constructivist inquiry is consistent with qualitative methods. And since my study is Qualitative research it aims to understand what people believe and feel as well as how they interpret events. You may read Rogers Dispersion and Diffusion Innovation Theory somehow might be related to your study. Thank you.

Hi

The top triangle of Subject, Tools, and Object is attributed to Vygotsky but the extended one with Rules, Community, and DoL is Engestrom.

mixed approach will provide good output

Hi Brooke,

telehealth is a very broad domain. Do you have any particular interests? Maybe with regard to a specific technology or use case? I can provide you with some research once I know what you are aiming for.

Feel free to check out or research on primary care and the appplication of video consultaion:

Another of our articles is currently in press in JMIR, it deals with team-based care and delegation processes:

PS: The Journal of Medical Internet Research (JMIR) is a perfect start for research on that topic.

@yuda

Dear Hugh O'Donnell

I have developed a general approach to quantifying the division of labor using the example of the emergence of multicellularity. I believe that this approach can be applied to your case as well.

Check out the attached articles. And if you have any questions - write to me.

Good luck!

To follow up: So far I have had the most success manually making the AT models on PowerPoint. For me, it's been easier than learning new software.

Thank You Julian Obertopp.

Dear Juergen Henze , if you writ by English Language is better.

Dear Daniel Weber, Thank You, but we need the question by English langue.

Hi Dan Moreno,

I would look into the work of Bakhtin, Vygotsky and Leontiev. Maybe also Anna Stetsenko or Hubert Hermans if you're looking for modern identity construction within movements or the self. But identity is something that also needs to be neatly defined so you can pick a discussion.

As far as 'identity as an object', my good friend Ehsan Baha (also on researchgate,) is real life proof that understanding or becoming aware of your identity can be an object. His work, although not rooted in CHAT, is helping design students understand their identity and use to develop themselves and their understanding of long term object and meaning.

Dear Nazia Asad, I asked for better explanation of mentioned terms with very good reason. The roots of Bloom's taxonomy (taxonomies is much better because he - together with his assistants - developed three taxonomies: for cognitive, affective and psychomotor domain) are in behaviourism (Skinner's), and Pavlov's experiments are the very beginning of that learning theory. Secondly, Vygotsky's approach is well-known as a cultural-historical approach and Vygotsky found that the roots of higher order thinking skills (as internal phenomenon) are in child's social activity (an external phenomenon). Social and cultural circumstances are constantly changing, and our mental functioning is adapting to it. Today, Vygotsky's theory is a part of so-called social constructivism. His important terms are ZPD, alomorphic development, and his well-known study is Thought and Language.

To conclude - behaviourism (Bloom's taxonomy) and social constructivism (Vygotsky) could be put in connection, but it's not easy to do. Taxonomy serves as a methodology for development of teaching goals and learning outcomes and it could be useful for describing short-term changes through the learning process, while social constructivism rather explains long-term changes - individual construction of knowledge that was gained through social interaction and with learner's activity.

Well, this is very interesting question.

Interesting..

Yes, why not? Employers use the instrument of employees to produce goods and earn money. And once there exists a real AI (think of robots) it would be a subject too and could modify its environment.

You (or this theory, I do not know) implicitly assume that subjects are animated beings and instruments are inanimate. But why? An activity is independend of this dichotomy, it depends on an actor (subject or instrument) and on the thing the actor uses (subject or instrument) in order to modify an object (subject or instrument).

Just my thoughts from the viewpoint of knowledge representation.

May I suggest that you remove any reference to age:  It is a bias in the current cultures which a target person in the genre will usually object to. 

Ask yourself, why is it important that you “call” someone or something with an adjective that indicates what demographic group you are targeting?  Alternately try using action words to indicate what activity happens for someone or at a place.  If you’re meeting in the library to discuss a current topic just say so.  If you are having an exercise session aimed at persons with arthritis then say so.  Concentrate on what you are doing or where. 

Better to avoid the age prejudice altogether.  As for me?  You may call me Sir or Mr. Frech and if you are my friend you may use my first name.

PID, in German, is "Prae-Implantantions-Diagostik", corresponding to Preimplantation genetic diagnosis.

Domenico:

The important thing, I think, is to keep an open mind, and to be enactively flexible when a new (from a personal perspective) experience challenges what one imagines one "knows."

Luis:

Thanks for the links. On with the search!

Postscript:

Connect the audio output device, turn up the volume, and click here:

Plan B, in case the latter link becomes inactive:

A major approach in using theory as a lens to guide deductive research study is for scholars to formulate hypothesis from the theory and then test the hypohesis to measure relationships and arrive at conclusion. I hope this information helps!

Hi, Carmenne,

Thanks for your question.

Agency in activity theory is not the starting point. The starting point is activity, and activity always has a creative and transformative aspect in it, coming from its inner contradictions and movement. Agency in activity theory boils down to the question : How participants become authors of their activity and give direction and shape to the activity – the challenge of overcoming alienation. Within activity theory studying agency means going to the roots of how agency emerges. For this the best source we have is Vygotsky’s principle of double stimulation as the generative mechanism of volitional action.

Agency has been taken up in activity theory only quite recently and we can see both a broader and a more specific understanding of agency in this theoretical framework. The broader understanding is that agency is the general human capacity to master one’s own actions with the help of cultural means. A more specific understanding of agency is captured by the notion of transformative agency, linked to Vygotsky’s principle of double stimulation. This refers to the human potential to break out of paralyzing conflicts with the help of mediating means used as second stimuli and to transform the situation expansively. Of course Vygotsky focused on examples of individuals facing conflicting motives, but literature is emerging showing that this principle works also in collectives and over long time spans. How generally applicable is the principle of double stimulation is still an open challenge to research on agency.

Double stimulation is both a principle and a method. The literature has treated it primarily as only a method, which can lead to an unduly narrow understanding.

Here are some references :

Sannino, A. (2015). The principle of double stimulation: A path to volitional action. Learning, Culture, and Social Interaction, 6, 1-15.

Sannino, A. (Ed., 2015). Special issue: The emergence of transformative agency and double stimulation: Activity-based studies in the Vygotskian tradition. Learning, Culture, and Social Interaction, 4, 1-3.

Sannino, A. (2016). Double stimulation in the waiting experiment with collectives. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 50(1), 142-173.

By definition, a community of one would seem to rule out Activity Systems. However, a single subject can be examined within an Activity System as they become the subject in the Activity System triangle. If you wish to focus on the individual, perhaps consider the work of Vygotsky or Leont'ev who were much more interested in how an individual achieves their objective via the mediation of tools. 

I attended a tutorial at CEC2012 on "Recurrence Plots: A Simple and Effective way to Visualise Time Series Data".  It could be something you find useful.

I think you need to be a little careful about how you describe your methodology given AT already is a theoretical framework and so to an extent you will be engaging at least to some extent in deductive analysis (presumably using pre-existing AT categories). A grounded theory approach is inductive.  Often people describe what is a general inductive qualitative  method as GT. That upsets GT practitioners.  Inductive analysis could be combined with AT  - for example by doing thematic analysis within data organised according to AT concepts but that would not make it GT.   Charmaz's approach to GT would be more compatible with what you are proposing than other forms of GT as she accepts you cannot ignore existing theory completely when doing GT. However, there is a big gap between that and using AT. There is nothing to stop you taking what you consider to be useful from GT but not claiming that you have developed a grounded theory.   An alternative is consider Layder's work on adaptive theory. I recommend the Sage Handbook on grounded theory as essential reading before you set out on  your intended approach.

This reference could be helpful: 

Activity systems analysis methods: understanding complex learning environments,

by Lisa C. Yamagata-Lynch, New York, Springer, 2010, xvi + 148 pp., US$129.00

(hardcover), ISBN 987-1-4419-6320-8

Hi Jiakang,

Although Activity Theory has quite a long history (mainly in Soviet Psychology - Vygotsky, Leontev etc) it's use in organisational structures was mainly pioneered by Engstrom. I have supplied a few references below. I have also included a few references from a colleague of mine at Griffith University, Professor Stephen Billet who has done a lot of work in this area. Hope these help. Kevin

Engestrom, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An Activity - Theoretical Approach to Developmental Research. http://communication.ucsd.edu/MCA/Paper/Engestrom/expanding/toc.htm

Engestrom, Y. (1999). Learning by expanding: Ten years after. (Introduction to the German edition of Learning by expanding). http://communication.ucsd.edu/MCA/Paper/Engestrom/expanding/intro.htm

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.

Billett, S. (2003). Individualising the social - socialising the individual: Interdependence between social and individual agency in vocational learning. Keynote presentation. 11th Annual International conference on post-compulsory education and training: Enriching learning cultures, 1, 55-71. http://www98.griffith.edu.au/dspace/bitstream/10072/1677/1/CLWRIndividual_and_social.pdf

Billett, S. (2006). Relational interdependence between social and individual agency in work and working life. Mind, Culture and Activity, 13(1), 53-69. http://www98.griffith.edu.au/dspace/bitstream/10072/11761/1/Individual_and_socialMCA2.pdf

Billett, S. (2006). Work, Change and Workers. The Netherlands: Springer.

Dear, Crux of the activity theory lays the need to enlist a set of knowing that create activities to unlock workplace complexities. Knowing is all about interaction between individual and its workplace environment. It remains within the natural, physical and material scope of research. This can provide logical basis to generate genuine knowledge and make verifiable claims

Using activity theory lens, workplace activities can be ascertained. The T&D needs of the contemporary organizations can be identified by considering employee ability, motivation level, participation level, opportunity to participate; the human and social capital held by the organization, contextual factors from the external environment such as business strategies can be enlisted to know about training & development needs of employees. This will advance your thought I hope.

Other references that can help:

Rabardel, Pierre. 1995. Les hommes et les technologies: approche cognitive des instruments contemporains. Collection U. Série psychologie. Paris: Armand Colin.

Bødker, Susanne. 1987. “Through the Interface - A Human Activity Approach to User Interface Design.” DAIMI Report Series, no. 224 (April): 1–192.

Kaptelinin, Victor. 2013. “Activity Theory.” The Encyclopedia of Human-Computer Interaction, 2nd Ed. www.interaction-design.org/encyclopedia/activity_theory.html.

The question is too fuzzy for accurate answers, but here's some more ideas about context. Many of these current answers are very limited and narrow - context is a huge term that is used in numerous alternative ways. You need to be more precise what you want to achieve with context and modelling. What you mean by context and modelling. Etc.

Research about provenance is all about documenting and tracking context. This article reviews are huge amount of multi-disciplinary provenance (=contexts) research. The topic is huge.

One clearly a methodological paper about context modelling is this: CEIP Maps: Context-embedded Information Product Map

There is a lot of research about context in HCI research. The whole discipline is based on the concept of context. For example HCI ISO standard defines Context of Use as a combination of users, tasks, tools and environments. You can model these issues in unlimited level of detail and complexity. There exists a lot of managerial and technical tools for modelling contexts in user centred development processes. Software systems for modelling context as well as systems to monitor contexts. Etc.

You can also have a look at Alcaraz and Lopez, who discuss the differentiation between situation awareness and context awareness:

Alcaraz, C., Lopez, J. (2013) Wide-area situation awareness for critical infrastruture protection. Computer 46(4). pp 30-37

Hi Allen,

I'd simple recommend taking a look at Ms. Viñas' site (English version). You'll find some ideas on how to promote writing through mobiles.

hope it helps,

Laura

Presently some ergonomists reject the concept of goal all together because this concept is not clearly defined outside of Systemic-Structural Activity Theory (SSAT).

In the goal-setting theory goal and motive are considered together. They wrote: “The more intense the goal is the more efforts people spend to reach the goal.” Therefore, they state that the goal pulls activity.

In contrast, in SSAT goal and motive are two different activity mechanisms. Motive is energetic and goal is cognitive mechanism of activity.  Motive and goal metaphorically create a vector motive ->goal. Motive pushes activity to reach the goal. The more intensive the motive the more efforts a person spend to reach the goal. The goal can be precise or imprecise but it can’t be intensive.

It’s also important to mention that Goal directed activity is poly-motivated. Therefore, according to goal setting when a person performs one task she/he tries to achieve several goals at the same time. In our opinion, this is incorrect.

We are putting out two new books by the end of this year. They might be of use to you for better understanding of this issue (CRC, Taylor & Francis Group).

I think that the best framework for using Mobile Assisted Language Learning (MALL) is student-centered active learning using a task-based assignment structure that is fully-integrated into the curriculum.

Unfortunately, I cannot direct you to a single reference that says all of these things.  The MALL field is still lacking literature about best practices.

Hi Wagner,

From my understanding Vygotsky was much more focused on the individual in the activity and their motives for perfoming an activity. Leontev, on the other hand, perhaps in line with the politics of the time, was much more interested in the social aspect of the activity. He also explored in more detail the notions of actions, activities and functional organs. In my view, mandatory reading on the topic is 

Wertsch, J. V. (Ed.). (1981). The Concept of Activity in Soviet Psychology. New York: M.E. Sharpe.

Enjoy.

Hi Ahmad,

Here is a section from a book chapter I am hoping to have published soon. It deals with the over-socialisation. Kevin

Is a systemic perspective enough to tell the story?

The use of Activity Systems has provided an account of how the various systemic elements such as university policies, teaching responsibilities, and research agendas are inter-related and how the resolution of various perturbances (such as role identity, community membership) has occurred as a result of my transition into academic life. Although mentioned briefly, what is still absent from an Activity Systems account of my transition is a clear picture of what makes my journey unique and what this has to say about the journeys of other early career academics. Tyler and Danaher (2010) suggest that although all doctoral journeys “land on the same islands and arrive at the same destination” (p. 11)’, the pathways taken on the journey are not set and therefore the need exists to “consider each student’s journey on a case-by-case and highly situated basis” (p. 11). The lack of individual consideration, identified by Tyler and Danaher is a partial consequence of the lack of emphasis on the Subject in Activity System conceptualisations. This omission is recognised by various authors in their critique of Activity Systems (see for instance, Valsiner and Van Der Meer, 2000; Billett, 2003 / 2006; Wheelahan, 2004; Daniels, 2008). These authors believe that, in attempting to explicate the influence of the system on the individual, the individual has in fact become ‘over socialised’ and become depicted as merely a representation of the society in which they live. Tolman (1999, p. 82) assumes a more extreme position and argues that Activity Systems posit the individual as “society’s gift where the individual is society manifested in a single organism”. I argue that to understand my individual experience of perturbing practices within the Activity Systems I have depicted, an accounting of my active agency and also the influence of particular workplace affordances (Billett, 2006), is critical. Furthermore, if Activity Systems are to be a useful framework for uncovering and examining perturbing practices in the careers of Early Career Academics, then an account which incorporates the agentic action of a range of individuals is required.

Difference at Individual Level – Active Subjects

One mechanism to account for my individual agentic action is Membership Categorisation (Baker, 1997). Membership Categorisation theorises the role of active subjects and suggests that individual Subjects create identities by choosing from a range of roles according to the particular context in which they find themselves. Consequently, identities are chosen, but at the same time are shaped by the particular socio-cultural contexts of the various systems to which I belonged. How people describe themselves, and how they reason about their actions, are pragmatic selections from a range of possible category identifications; an individual may identify as ‘author’ or ‘teacher’ or ‘researcher’ and then describe their activity based on such identifications. Each may be correct identifiers of the same person but the selection makes calls on very different domains of knowledge and reason (Baker, 1997; Martek, 2008). Identity selection is closely related to participation in a community of practice. The kinds of activities that individuals engage in throughout their lives, and how they elect to engage with these tasks, are bases by which individuals actively engage in, and gain a sense of, the social experience. According to Valsiner and Van der Veer (2000), due to the uniqueness of each person’s premeditated experience, the ways in which individuals engage with what they encounter is unique and shapes the agentic action which constitutes the self. Furthermore, “as an individual’s ontogenies and ontogenetic development are unique, any one person’s prior experience is not and cannot be the same as others as it is individually negotiated through a lifetime of interactions with the social world” (Billett, 2006, p. 67). Therefore, even though the social context may be similar for all members of a community, the positioning of each individual within it is distinctive. The interpretation of the social practices within a community, and the individual’s engagement with this practice, will always be unique due in large part to their personal work histories. Consequently, my experience of the doctoral journey, whilst similar in many respects to the experience of other doctoral candidates, is also a unique journey; it is person-dependent (Tyler & Danaher, 2010).

It is usually best to do a literature search using a good database such as Scopus or Google Scholar rather than limiting the search to a few journals.