Talk:Activity theory

PLEASE MAKE THIS PAGE MORE PRACTICAL.
I would like to highlight that some people who are coming here to read about activity theory have no idea what it is. Even if they do it is useful to give them a point of view that encourages learning by explaining the theory prior to discussion of its origins and background. Perhaps more emphasis should be placed on discussing the practical applications and ideas of activity theory. What I see so far doesn't seem helpful to anyone who doesn't know anything. Weissdom (talk) 22:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Responding to this three years later by overhauling the entire page. Hope this helps! Stephaniebeth (talk) 03:09, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

This is a great introductory article, but I would love to see it developed more. I'm in a rhetoric/composition PhD program, and some of my peers and I are currently looking into editing/revising/adding to Wikipedia articles related to our areas of interest. I'm currently learning about AT (and loving it), and I see quite a few familiar things here; but I'm also not seeing a lot of important aspects of AT, as well as important sources. I'll try to help! Elmarhashimov (talk) 19:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I just published the new merged article, based on the original AT article here and the Scandinavian AT, which used to be separate. This is still a work in progress—many of the components moved here from the Scandinavian AT article need citations. I'll be working on this over the next few weeks. Please feel free to do so yourself as well. Thanks! Elmarhashimov (talk) 22:40, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Various editing issues
It's a start. Someone who knows more about the subject can take it from here. (I did the original text; I just forgot to login first).

I am trying to learn about AT, and this page offers no general descriptive introduction to the main ideas and so was not helpful to me. Just a constructive opinion! Keep editing! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.200.132.48 (talk) 05:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The transliteration of the names varies between treatments. I make no claim to knowledge of the Russian language. M.e 09:43, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

The transliteration of the names is an interesting issue. Russian is my native language, so maybe I can help. I can also help with the pronunciation (perhaps, by adding an IPA transcription?—that seems to be a cool Wikipedian convention). Also, the original Russian names throughout the article would be helpful, too (I can help with that as well). Elmarhashimov (talk) 19:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, in paragraph 2 it says that AT is great for ethnographic research. I would go even further and say that it's great for any kind of rich qualitative studies. I can pull some stuff from Nardi for that as well. Also, there's nothing really here about AT as a theoretical framework for research, as methodology. I'll get on that soon... Elmarhashimov (talk) 19:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

General observation: the article could use more citations and more references/sources. Elmarhashimov (talk) 19:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Finally (for now...haha), there needs to be a section on professional and technical writing and writing studies at large, as they draw a lot from AT. Some key terminology is missing, too—practices, operations, types of activity, etc. And where are the activity triangles? I'm on it... :) Elmarhashimov (talk) 19:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Sergei Rubinstein is not the author attributed to the work with Vygotsky and Leont'ev, it is A.R. Luria. You can verify with CRADLE, who are the experts on AT and this work. (sorry first time user at correcting, so not sure if it is in the right place or doing the comment correctly). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharplecturer (talk • contribs) 14:14, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Activity theory and Consciousness
I removed the statement that "because of this, Activity Theory has nothing to say about consciousness, as the term is generally used" (in the information theory section). There are several different meanings of 'consciousness'; if AT wants to use one of them, that's fine. m.e. 1 July 2005 14:03 (UTC)

Hi M.e., whoever you are. I saw your page and got mad at its partisanship and historical inaccuracy. This stimulated me to begin adding to it. If you do a search on systemic structural activity theory you'll find my wenb pages; I'm based in Wales, UK. Get in touch if you object to what I've done, want to discuss things further, whatever...


 * Just in case: the founder of the theory, Leontiev wrote a book that happens to be called Activity, Consciousness, and Personality; it does have to say quite a lot about consiousneess, indeed :) ... Btw, if interested, feel free to check out also this one: Activity and Consciousness. Both are available @ www.marxists.org... Yasya 04:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Consciousness is actually a basic component of AT, as Vygotsky's notion "unity of consciousness" is integral. Stephaniebeth (talk) 03:12, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Yasya and Stephaniebeth. There's plenty of stuff on consciousness in Nardi as well. I'll pull some of that and add to the article in the near future. Elmarhashimov (talk) 19:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Discussing the bias of the article: Scandinavian vs. Soviet (post-Vygotskian) traditions
Just a thought: I guess, the article as it is presented now, 14:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC), is strongly biased towards the Scandinavian school and some computer related stuff, whereas, I believe, it has always been a) a purely psychological theory and b) predominantly associated with such names as Leontiev, Luria, Zaporozhets, Galperin, Zinchenko (both P.I. and V.P.), Elkonin, Davydov, and many-many others, in other words, the Soviet, or rather, post-Vygotskian tradition. I guess, such presentation of activity theory is unfortuantely quite misleading, not to say, confusing. Yasya 14:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, well, I'm still trying to get my head around activity theory, but I see what you're saying. So, how do you propose continuing? Do you think we should write more about its Soviet background or cut out some of the Scandinavian school or computer-related info? It may be an idea to break the article up into subarticles - though I'm not sure how desirable this would be. Please feel free to edit the article in an overall structural sense - not just the adding of info - I also think it is necessary. Cormaggio @ 18:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I have been thinking about the issue for a while and here is what I would suggest.
 * The whole article should be divided into two (at least) part, where the original Activity theory article should be about the psychological (developmental) school developed mostly in the countries of the former USSR (to the best of my knowledge, mainly in Russia and Ukraine, perhaps, also partly in Georgia). This school of thought is directly related with such figures as Vygotsky, Leontiev, Luria, the work of the Kharkov school and many others.
 * Then I believe we should create another article, e.g. Scandinavian activity theory that would deal with the work of Swedish, Finnish and other related schools of psychology. The whole issue of computer-related info, I guess, belongs here. Both articles should be cross referenced. Yasya 04:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The issues of periodization, disciplinary and geographical borders
Yes, these are all great points. Also, what about American activity theory? American professional and technical writing scholars, and some rhetoric/composition scholars as of late, have generated a good amount of scholarship on AT. I'll look into this as well... Elmarhashimov (talk) 19:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Curiously enough, I have had no idea of AT application in the field of rhetorics and composition. This initially innocent entry is growing into something really huge, which might be quite interesting. But please make sure that you clearly indicate the historical phases and geographical locales since, I am most certain, all these issues matter a lot. Thus, I doubt the originators of the whole thing, Rubinstein and Leontiev, would recognize their ideas in the later developments, either in Scandinavia or the US, or anywhere else outside the Soviet Union. I guess, by the end of his life Leontiev (i.e. A.N.) did not really associate himself with the bunch of stuff that was being done back then in the USSR under the banner of "activity theory" in psychology in the Soviet Union--not to mention a totally sick idea of applying it beyond the confines of discipline or abroad :). (References available upon request). Good luck with editing anyway!--Yasya (talk) 16:24, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Scandinavian activity theory
I did it! All the non-Soviet stuff was moved to the article Scandinavian activity theory. This, present article, on the other hand, is supposed to deal with the enourmously reach tradition of a) Soviet and post-Soviet b) psychological and educational research within the tradition of Leont'ev and, in some sense, Vygotsky. Suggestions and improvements are more than welcome :)... Yasya 04:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Citation issues
I lifted this list of sources from the Scandinavian AT article I merged here. None of these were properly cited. Not sure how to go about incorporating these as citations throughout the text here. See the list of uncited references below. Elmarhashimov (talk) 22:49, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Bærentsen, K. (2000). Intuitive user interfaces. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, vol. 12, pp. 29-60.
 * Bærentsen, K. B. & Trettvik, J. (2002). An Activity Theory Approach to Affordance. In NordiCHI 2002, Proceedings of the Second Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, 19 October-23 October 2002, Aarhus, Denmark, pp. 51-60.
 * Bannon, L. (1991). From Human Factors to Human Actors: The Role of Psychology and Human-Computer Interaction Studies in Systems Design. In J. Greenbaum & M. Kyng (eds.), Design at Work: Cooperative Design of Computer Systems. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 25-44.
 * Bannon, L. and Bødker, S. (1991) Beyond the Interface: Encountering Artifacts in Use. Book Chapter in J.M. Carroll (Ed.) Designing Interaction: Psychology at the Human-Computer Interface, New York, Cambridge University Press, pp. 227-253.
 * Bardram, J. E. & Bertelsen, O. W. (1995). Supporting the Development of Transparent Interaction. In Blumenthal, B., Gornostaev, J. & Unger, C. (Eds.). Human-Computer Interaction. 5th International Conference, EWHCI `95 Moscow, Russia, July 1995. Selected Papers. Berlin: Springer Verlag (LNCS 1015), pp. 79-90.
 * Beguin, P. & Rabardel, P. (2000). Designing for instrument mediated activity, Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, vol. 12, pp. 173-190.
 * Bertelsen, O. & Bødker, S. Activity theory (2002). HCI Models, Theories and Frameworks (ed. John Carroll). Morgan Kaufmann, pp. 291-324.
 * Bødker, S. & K. Grønbæk (1996). Users and Designers in Mutual Activity- an analysis of cooperative activities in systems design. In Engeström, Y. & Middleton D. (Eds.). Cognition and Communication at Work, Cambridge University Press, pp. 130-158.
 * Bødker, S. (1991). Through the Interface – a Human Activity Approach to User Interface Design Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1991.
 * Bødker, S. (1993). Historical analysis and conflicting perspectives - contextua¬lizing HCI. In Bass, L., Gornostaev, J. & Unger, C. (Eds.). Human-Computer interaction. 3rd International Conference, EWHCI '93, Springer Lecture Notes in Computer Science vol. 753, pp.1-10.
 * David F. Redmiles (ed). Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), Special Issue on Activity Theory and the Practice of Design. 11(1-2), 2002. Also see Activity Theory and the Practice of Design.
 * Ehn, P., & Kyng, M. (1984). A tool perspective on design of interactive computer support for skilled workers. In M. Sääksjärvi (Ed.), Proceedings from the Seventh Scandinavian Research Seminar on Systemeering. Helsinki: Helsinki Business School, 1984, pp. 211–242.
 * Engeström, Yrjö (1987). Learning by Expanding: An Activity - Theoretical Approach to Developmental Research.
 * Greif, S. (1991). The role of German work psychology in the design of artifacts. In J. Carroll (Ed.). Designing Interaction: Psychological Theory of the Human-Computer Interface.
 * Hydén, L.-C. (1981). Psykologi och Materialism. Introduktion till den materialistiska psykologin, Prisma. (In Swedish. Psychology and Materialism. An Introduction to materialistic psychology)
 * Kaptelinin, V. (1996). Computer-mediated activity: functional organs in social and developmental contexts. In Nardi, B. A. (ed.), Context and consciousness: activity theory and human-computer interaction. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
 * Korpela, M., Soriyan, HA, Olufokunbi, KC (2000). Activity analysis as a method for information systems development, . Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, vol. 12, pp.191-210.
 * Kuutti, K. (1996). Activity theory as a potential framework for human-computer interaction research. In Nardi, B. A. (ed.), Context and consciousness: activity theory and human-computer interaction. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
 * Leont'ev, A. Problems of the development of mind. English translation, Progress Press, 1981, Moscow. (Russian original 1947).
 * Leont'ev, A. Activity, Consciousness, and Personality
 * Nardi, Bonnie A. (ed.). Context and consciousness: activity theory and human-computer interaction. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1996.
 * Plowman, L., Rogers, Y. & Ramage, M. (1995). What Are Workplace Studies For? Proceedings of the Fourth European Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, p.309-324
 * Raeithel, A. (1992). An activity-theoretical foundation for design. In Budde, R., Floyd, C., Keil-Slawik, R. & Züllighoven, H. (Eds.). Software Development and Reality Construction, Berlin: Springer Verlag. pp. 391-415.
 * Raeithel, A. (1996) From coordinatedness to Coordination via Cooperation and Co-construction. Paper presented at Workshop on Work and Learning in Transition, San Diego, January 1996.
 * Star, S.L. (1996). Working together: symbolic interactionism, activity theory, and information systems. In Engeström, Y. & Middleton D. (Eds.). Cognition and Communication at Work, Cambridge University Press, pp. 296-318.
 * Timpka, T. & Sjöberg, C. (1994). Voices in design: The dynamics of participatory information systems, Trigg, R., Anderson, S.I. & Dykstra-Ericson, E. (Eds.). PDC’94: Proceedings of the Participatory Design Conference, Palo Alto, CA: CPSR/ACM, 1994, pp. 75-86
 * Verenikina, I. & ldquo;Cultural-Historical Psychology and Activity Theory;. In Hasan, H., Gould, E. and Hyland, P. (Eds) Information systems and activity theory: tools in context, 7–18. University of Wollongong Press, 1998, Wollongong.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Activity theory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.misq.org/skin/frontend/default/misq/pdf/Abstracts/AllenBrownAbstract.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080724202547/http://www-static.cc.gatech.edu/~aforte/BryantForteBruckBecomingWikipedian.pdf to http://www-static.cc.gatech.edu/~aforte/BryantForteBruckBecomingWikipedian.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:58, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Lead is wall of text
My eyes refused to track past the first paragraph. I ended up getting a more useful summary from:


 * http://www.artifex.org/~bonnie/

It takes a stout wall to make my eyes go on hunger strike. Probably some sound material here, but could it not be made more inviting? &mdash; MaxEnt 22:09, 16 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I realize this is a blunt tool, but I pasted the lead into an online Gunning fog index calculator and got scores of 20, 22, and 21 for the three paragraphs, where 17 is college graduate, and each increment represents another year of education. "Texts for a wide audience generally need a fog index less than 12." &mdash; MaxEnt 22:16, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

" 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." ???? What does this mean? Is this even English? Avinatbezeq (talk) 16:52, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment
This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Ball State University supported by Rhetoric and Composition and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program&#32;during the 2012 Q2 term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from by PrimeBOT (talk) on 15:52, 2 January 2023 (UTC)