Jump to content

Activity theory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Stephaniebeth (talk | contribs) at 02:27, 25 May 2011 (Flesh out the AT in HCI portion). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
See also Social constructivism (learning theory) and Critical psychology.

Activity theory (AT) is a psychological meta-theory, paradigm, or theoretical framework, with its roots in Lev Semyonovich Vygotsky's cultural-historical psychology. Its founders were Alexei N. Leont'ev (1903-1979), and Sergei Rubinshtein (1889-1960) who sought to understand human activities as complex, socially situated phenomena and go beyond paradigms of cognition, psychoanalysis and behaviorism. It became one of the major psychological approaches in the former USSR, being widely used in both theoretical and applied psychology, in areas such as education, training, ergonomics, and work psychology.[1]

Activity Theory is particularly useful as a lens in ethnographic research. AT provides a method of understanding and analyzing a phenomena, finding patterns and making inferences across interactions, describing phenomena and presenting phenomena through a built-in language and rhetoric. The lens of Activity Theory provides a number of constructs by focusing on activities as the unit of analysis, particularly activities as a goal-directed or "purposeful" interaction of a subject with an object through use of a tool. These tools are "exteriorized" forms of mental processes manifested in constructs whether physical or psychological. Activity Theory recognizes the internalization and externalization of cognitive processes involved in use of tools, as well as the transformation or development that results from the interaction.

The history of activity theory

The origins of activity theory can be traced to several sources, which have subsequently given rise to various complementary and intertwined strands of development. This account will focus on two of the most important of these strands. The first is associated with the Moscow Institute of Psychology and in particular the troika of young researchers, Lev Semyonovich Vygotsky (18d96–1934), Alexander Romanovich Luria (1902–77) and Alexei Nikolaevich Leont'ev (1903–79). Vygotsky founded cultural-historical psychology, an important strand in the activity approach; Leont’ev, one of the principal founders of activity theory, both continued, and reacted against, Vygotsky's work. Leont'ev's formulation of general activity theory is currently the most influential in post-Soviet developments in AT, which have largely been in social-scientific and organizational, rather than psychological research.

The second major line of development within activity theory involves scientists, such as P. K. Anokhin (1898-1974) and N. A. Bernshtein (1896-1966), more directly concerned with the neurophysiological basis of activity; its foundation is associated with the Soviet philosopher of psychology S. L. Rubinshtein (1889-1960). This work was subsequently developed by researchers such as Pushkin, Zinchenko & Gordeeva, Ponomarenko, Zarakovsky and others, as is currently most well-known through the work on systemic-structural activity theory being carried out by G. Z. Bedny and his associates.

Leont'ev

After Vygotsky's early death, Leont'ev became the leader of the research group nowadays known as the Kharkov school of psychology and extended Vygotsky's research framework in significantly new ways. Leont'ev first examined the psychology of animals, looking at the different degrees to which animals can be said to have mental processes. He concluded that Pavlov's reflexionism was not a sufficient explanation of animal behaviour and that animals have an active relation to reality, which he called activity. In particular, the behaviour of higher primates such as chimpanzees could only be explained by the ape's formation of multi-phase plans using tools.

Leont'ev then progressed to humans and pointed out that people engage in "actions" that do not in themselves satisfy a need, but contribute towards the eventual satisfaction of a need. Often, these actions only make sense in a social context of a shared work activity. This lead him to a distinction between activities, which satisfy a need, and the actions that constitute the activities.

Leont'ev also argued that the activity in which a person is involved is reflected in their mental activity, that is (as he puts it) material reality is "presented" to consciousness, but only in its vital meaning or significance.

Developments in activity theory

Activity theory is dynamic. It can be used by a variety of disciplines to understand the way people act.[2]

Scandinavian activity theory

This major school of thought seeks to integrate and develop concepts from Vygotsky's Cultural-Historical Psychology and Leont'ev's activity theory with Western intellectual developments such as Cognitive Science, American Pragmatism, Constructivism, and Actor-Network Theory. It is known as Scandinavian activity theory. Work in the systems-structural theory of activity is also being carried on by researchers in the US and UK.

Systemic-structural activity theory (SSAT)

At the end of the 1990s, a group of Russian and American activity theorists working in the systems-cybernetic tradition of Bernshtein and Anokhin began to publish English-language articles and books dealing with topics in human factors and ergonomics[3] and, latterly, human-computer interaction.[4] Under the rubric of systemic-structural activity theory (SSAT), this work represents a modern synthesis within activity theory which brings together the cultural-historical and systems-structural strands of the tradition (as well as other work within Soviet psychology such as the Psychology of Set) with findings and methods from Western human factors/ergonomics and cognitive psychology.

The development of SSAT has been specifically oriented toward the analysis and design of the basic elements of human work activity: tasks, tools, methods, objects and results, and the skills, experience and abilities of involved subjects. SSAT has developed techniques for both the qualitative and quantitative description of work activity.[5] Its design-oriented analyses specifically focus on the interrelationship between the structure and self-regulation of work activity and the configuration of its material components.

Activity Theory in Human-Computer Interaction

Recent developments in the study of Human-Computer Interaction and cognitive science, have employed Activity Theory to provide a framework for informing (cf. interaction design) and evaluating design. This framework grew from the limitations of cognitivist theory, which Kaptelinin and Nardi describe as a postcognitivist perspective to interaction design [6].

Activity Theory in HCI describes "purposeful interaction" between subject and object in the world mediated by tools, both psychological and physical [7]. These tools become more readily accessible as they are communicable to other people, thereafter becoming useful for social interaction.[8].

In this framework, any task, or activity, can be broken down into actions, which are further subdivided into operations. In a design context, using these categories can provide the designer with an understanding of the steps necessary for a user to carry out a task.[9]. As these interactions occur as do developmental transformations, where the interconnectedness of interactions motivate the dynamic, continual change of practices over time [10].

Activities include automatic, conscious actions or goal-directed actions where there exists an Intentionality. Activity Theory hinges on this intentionality and the concept of object-orientedness, where reality is objective and there is a directionality and hierarchy between subject, object, tool and elements of the context. This object-orientedness is further supported by defining the subject of these interactions as a human. According to Activity Theory, humans have the agency or intentionality to complete goal-directed actions. Following this, the distinction between subject and object lies in human's agency: humans are information processing entities that have needs and power over or attraction to objects. In this way, objects do not have agency, but instead provides motives for an action. This notion of agency separates Activity Theory from similar theoretical counterparts, namely Actor Network Theory.

Sources

See also

References

  1. ^ Bedny, Gregory; Meister, David (1997). The Russian Theory of Activity: Current Applications To Design and Learning. Series in Applied Psychology. Psychology Press. ISBN 978-0-8058-1771-3.
  2. ^ Nardi, Bonnie A. (1996). Context and Consciousness: Activity Theory and Human-computer Interaction. pp 1-20. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. ISBN 0-262-14058-6
  3. ^ Bedny, G. Z. & Meister, D. (1997). The Russian Theory of Activity: Current Applications to Design and Learning, Mahwah, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  4. ^ Bedny, G. Z. & Karwowski, W. (2003b). A Systemic-Structural Activity Approach to the Design of Human-Computer Interaction Tasks. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 16, pp. 235-260.
  5. ^ Bedny, G. Z. & Karwowski, W. (2006) A Systemic-Structural Theory of Activity: Applications to Human Performance and Work Design. Boca Raton, CRC Press/Taylor & Francis.
  6. ^ Kaptelinin, V.; Nardi, Bonnie (2006). Acting with Technology: Activity Theory and Interaction Design. Cambridge: MIT Press.
  7. ^ Kaptelinin, V. (1997). The Activity Checklist : A Tool for. Development, 27-39.
  8. ^ M. Fjeld, K. Lauche, M. Bichsel, F. Voorhorst, H. Krueger & M. Rauterberg (2002): Physical and Virtual Tools: Activity Theory Applied to the Design of Groupware. In B. A. Nardi & D. F. Redmiles (eds.) A Special Issue of Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW): Activity Theory and the Practice of Design, Volume 11 (1-2), pp. 153-180.
  9. ^ Nardi, Bonnie A. (1996). Context and Consciousness: Activity Theory and Human-computer Interaction. pp 17-44. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. ISBN 0-262-14058-6
  10. ^ Kaptelinin, V.; Nardi, Bonnie (2006). Acting with Technology: Activity Theory and Interaction Design. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Activity_theory&oldid=430779803"