Why Activity Theory?
“Human activity is too complex to isolate, dissect, and study in a vacuum.”
(Dixon-Kraus, 1996)
Activity theory or activity system is often used as a useful framework for
understanding complex human behavior and interactions among individuals and groups.
Activity theory or activity system has its roots in the classical German philosophy of
Kant and Hegel but it was first developed in the former Soviet Union and specifically
from the work of Vygostsy under the influence of Marx’s materialism (Jonassen, 2000).
Vygostsy suggests that individual consciousness is built from the outside through relation
with others in socially meaningful activity and human higher mental functions are the
products of mediated activity. (Kozulin, 1999) Vygostsy further expands Marxist idea of
how tools and instruments mediate the labor activity to explain how psychological tools
such as language, works of art, algebraic symbols, etc., mediate thoughts. Activity theory
sees the unit of analysis is an activity in which the external and the internal are fused and
unified instead of seeing each individual as a separate entity (Nardi, 1996).
Why use Activity System to illustrate the mentoring program at ISU?
The mentoring relationships in ISU’s one-on-one faculty technology mentoring
program move away from traditional roles in which faculty teach students. The pairings
in this mentoring program involve people who are more experienced with technology
(students) teaching people who have less experience in technology (faculty). These
reverse-role relationships can turn into powerful learning experiences for both mentor
and mentee (Stewart, 1999; Li, 2001). People tend to pay attention to the technical
aspects of a one-on-one faculty technology mentoring program such as pairing and
hardware and software issues. It seems that one-on-one mentoring is a simple idea.
However, as simple as one-on-one can be, there are subtleties underneath. Subtleties
come from complex human interactions among individuals and groups involved in this
mentoring program. Therefore, it is ideal to illustrate this complex and multi-faceted
change in a professional practice through an analysis framework like Activity Theory or
Activity System.
Generation 1 : Activity Theory (Vygotsky)
Artifact-mediated and Object-oriented
Mediating Artifact
Subject
Object
Subject: A person or a group engaged in an activity
Object: Objective held by the subject
Mediation: Different types of tools such as material tools and mental tools
Generation 2 Activity Theory (Leontiev)
Extend the theory to separate individual actions from collective activities by
adding distinction between activity, action, and operation.
Three Hierarchical Levels
Activity --- Upper Level
Activity is driven by object-related motives
Action -- Middle level
Action is not an action by itself but as a coordinated part of social activity and
accompanied by shared meaning of the action. Action is driven by a goal.
Operation –Bottom level
Operation is driven by condition or whatever tool available at hand.
Third Generation Activity Theory (Engestrom)
The structure of a human activity system
(Engestrom, 1987, p. 78)
Subject: The individual or group.
The object (or objective): Target of the activity within the system.
Instruments: Internal or external mediating artifacts help to achieve the object
and then eventually the outcome.
Community: One or more people share the objective with the subject.
Rules: Actions and interactions are regulated by rules within the activity system.
Division of Labor: How tasks are divided horizontally between community
members. There is vertical division of power and status as well.
The Activity System of One-on-one Faculty Technology Mentoring Program
Themes of Successful Mentorship
The themes or key elements of successful mentorship identified through a
literature review paper (Chuang, et al., 2002) can be consider as strategies to resolve
contradictions within the elements in a mentoring program activity system.
Providing Visions for Technology Use (object)
When facing the contradictions of object or objective, coordination between
different versions of the object (in this case, visions for technology use) among different
subjects has to be achieved to ensure the continuous operation of the system.
Individualizing Technology Support (Instrument)
Instruments of this activity system include a variety of hardware and software.
However, the contradiction arises when the subjects have to decide whose computer to
use and where the computer is available. Faculty usually prefer prefers to use their own
computer in their own office where they feel most comfortable learning to advance their
technology skills.
Breaking Down Hierarchical Structure (Labor of division)
Establishing Open Dialogue and Collaborative Relationships (division of labor)
The subjects (mentors and mentees) involved in this activity system established a
more horizontal division of labor (breaking down hierarchical structure), avoiding one
primary contradiction of unequal status power between the faculty mentees and the
student mentors (collaborative relationship).
Providing Mutual Benefits ( Rule)
In a one-on-one mentoring program, the primary rule is that mentor and mentee
work in a one-on-one situation. The most common contradiction within this rule is that
one is intentionally giving and the other is passively taking, a one-way communication
and approach. Therefore, if mutual benefits can be achieved, the construction is relieved .
Establishing Learning Communities ( Community)
The establishment of learning communities is to break the isolation (contradiction)
between each individual member of a community or among different sub-communities.
References:
Chuang, H., Thompson, A., Schmidt, D. (2002). Faculty Technology Mentoring Program:
Major trends in the literature. Paper presented in Society for Information Technology &
Teacher Education 2002. Proceedings (13th, Nashville, Tennessee, USA, March 18-23,
2002).
Dixon-Krauss, L. (1996). Vygotsky in the classroom: Mediated literacy instruction and
assessment. New York, NY: Longman.
Nardi, B. (1996). Context and Consciousness: Activity theory and human-computer
interaction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to
developmental research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit.
Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Revisiting Activity Theory as a Framework for Designing
Student-Centered Learning Environments. In D. H. Jonassen & S. M. Land, Theoretical
Foundations of Learning Environments (pp. 89-121). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Kozulin, A. (1999). The concept of activity in Soviet psychology: Vygotsky, his
disciplesand critics. In Lloyd, P. & Fernyhough, C., et al (Eds). Lev Vygotsky: Critical
assessment: Vygotsky’s theory, Vol. I. (pp. 179-202). New York, NY, USA: Routledge.