Activity Theory: Basic Concepts and Applications
A summary of a tutorial given at the East West HCI 95 Conference
Victor Kaptelinin 1, Karl Kuutti2, Liam Bannon 3
1 Department ofInformatics, Ume~tUniversity, S-901 87 Ume$t,Sweden
2 Department of Information Proc. Science, University of Oulu, FIN-90570 Oulu, Finland
3 De7partment of Computer Science & Information Systems, University of Limerick, Ireland
Abstract The objective of the tutorial is to introduce attendees to Activity
Theory, a general theoretical framework for the analysis of human and
communal action in the world. After an overview of the theory, focus shifts to
how this framework can be utilized in practice. Some examples are shown of
how this framework can provide a fresh perspective on certain extant problems
in the fields of HCI and CSCW. Hopefully, participants become more aware of
the nature and complexity of current controversies concerning the role of theory
in the design of computer artifacts. By the end of the tutorial, participants
should be able to understand the basic principles of the approach, and to
describe their work activities in ways illuminated by this framework
1 Introduction
In recent years, the theoretical framework that has been relied on most heavily in the
field of human-computer interaction, i.e. human information-processing psychology,
has come under increasing fire. There is a concern both with the adequacy and the
utility of this and other frameworks for understanding technology in use, and for
informing the design process. The search for new conceptualizations has led to an
interest in Activity Theory, a conceptual framework that has its origins in the former
Soviet Union. This approach was first developed by the Russian psychologists L.
Vygotsky, S. Rubinshtein, A. Leontiev, and others. While it has existed for many
years it has not had much impact on Western thought until recently. This has partly
to do with the fact that in recent years the importance of understanding human
computer interact ions in social and cultural contexts has increasingly been
acknowledged. Traditionally, within the social and cognitive sciences there has been
a schism between individual and social accounts that often has resulted in
uncompromising and divisive stances. Activity theory does not accept this divide, but
provides accounts where both individual and collective activities can be seen to flow
into one another, by operating with a number of different units and levels of analysis.
There is also more focus on the nature of the relations and activities between actors
190
and their technological artifacts than in other theories. This mediational role played
by technological artifacts in work activities has begun to be investigated more fully,
and, as activity theory is built upon the concept of mediation, it is a particularly
fruitful avenue for exploration.
2 The Past and the Present of Activity Theory.
The general conceptual outlook of Activity Theory is quite different from most
Western approaches to psychology and other social sciences. To understand the
difference it seems useful to take a brief look at the origins of Activity Theory, at the
basic ideas, intentions, and conditions which determined the emergence of this
approach. While its roots can be traced back to a t least the 19th century (cf. Raeithel,
1992), Activity Theory was mainly a result of a larger effort to develop a new
psychology based on Marxist philosophy, an effort which started soon after the
Russian revolution of 1917. Several programs for restruc~ring psychology on a
Marxist basis were formulated in the 20's and 30's, and very heated debates between
proponents of different approaches were not uncommon at that time. One of the first
postulates Soviet psychologists agreed upon was the so-called "principle of unity and
inseparability of consciousness (i.e., human mind) and activity". The meaning of this
principle was that human mind comes to exist, develops, and can only be understood
within the context of meaningful, goal-oriented, and socially deter mined interaction
between human beings and their material environment.
The above principle was further elaborated by Sergey Rubinshtein, who explicitly
formulated the idea of human action as a unit of psychological analysis, and by Lev
Vygotsky, the founder of cultural-historical psychology, whose work in child
development in a social and cultural context has since become world famous (cf.
Vygotsky, 1962, 1978). Alexey Leontiev, a student of Lev Vygotsky, had developed
the conceptual framework which is known as Activity Theory. Activity Theory can be
considered as a continuation of the cultural-historical tradition but it differs in some
respects from the original Vygotskian approach.
For many years Activity Theory was the leading theoretical orientation in Russian
psychology and a multitude of studies were conducted within this framework.
Nowadays, Activity Theory is not an exclusively Russian approach. Recent
developments in Activity Theory are associated with a larger research community
which also includes researchers from Finland, Germany, Denmark, the USA, and
other countries. There are also attempts to expand the coverage of Activity Theory
beyond a purely psychological realm towards more general socially- and
organizationally- oriented problems in understanding the dynamics of work activities,
such as the "Developmental Work Research" programme developed in Finland by
Yrjo Engestr6m and his co-workers.
191
3 The Basic Principles of Activity Theory: an Overview
It should first be noted that Activity Theory is not a "theory" in the strict
interpretation of the term. First, while it is usually associated with Leontiev's
approach, there are also several other interpretations of Activity Theory, Second, and
more important, it is not what people usually mean by a theory, but rather consists of
a set of basic principles which constitute a general conceptual system which can be
used as a foundation for more specific theories. These basic principles of Activity
Theory
include
object-orientedness,
the
dual
concepts
of
internalization/externalization, tool mediation, hierarchical structure of activity, and
continuous development.
It is obvious that activity cannot exist as an isolated entity. The very concept of
activity implies that there is an agent who acts (an individual or collective "subject").
Then, any activity is directed at something, so there should be things the agent is
interacting with. According to the Activity Theory terminology, activity mediates
interaction between subjects (agents) and objects (things). [Against the postulate of
directedness] The basic principles of Activity Theory, which will be presented below,
clarify different components of this system: the objects involved in human activities,
the forms of mediation, the structure of activity, etc.
The principle of "object-orientedness" is one of the most important principles of
Activity Theory. However, it is also the most controversial and potentially confusing
one. It describes the specific Activity Theory point of view on the nature of objects
with which human agents interact. On the one hand, Activity Theory is based on the
materialistic philosophy of Marxism, and it assumes that human beings live in
objective reality which determines and shapes the nature of subjective phenomenal
This basic assumption makes it possible to seek for an objective account of subjective
phenomena. Psychology, according to Leontiev, can be (and should be) no less a
thorough, rigorous science than natural sciences are. On the other hand, Leontiev
clearly understood that the concept of object in psychology cannot be limited to
physical, chemical, biological, etc., properties of things. Socially determined
properties of things, especially those of artifacts, and the very involvement of things
in human activity, are also objective properties which can be studied with objective
methods. So, the principle of object-orientedness states that human beings live in a
reality which is objective in a broad sense; the things which constitute this reality
have not only the properties* which are considered objective according to natural
sciences but socially/culturally defined properties as well. [In order to avoid
confusion between the traditional natural science-oriented meaning of objectivity and
the meaning of objectivity in Activity Theory, Leontiev used the word "predmet"].
Since human interaction with reality is the subject matter of several disciplines,
and since Activity Theory was originally developed as a psychological approach, the
problem emerges of how to define a specifically psychological perspective on activity
and how Activity Theory is related to other psychological approaches. Activity
192
Theory differentiates between internal and external activities. The traditional notion
of mental processes corresponds to internal activities. Activity Theory emphasizes
that internal activities cannot be understood if they are analyzed separately, in
isolation from external activities, because there are mutual transformations between
these two kinds of activities: internalization and externalization It is the general
context of activity (which includes both external and internal components) that
determines when and why external activities become internal and vice versa.
Internalization, i.e., transformation of external activities into internal ones,
provides a possibility for human beings to simulate potential interactions with reality
without performing actual manipulations on real objects. In some cases external
components can be omitted in order to make an action more efficient (e.g., in the case
of calculations). In other cases internalization helps to identify the optimal way of
acting before performing this action externally. Externalization, i.e., transformation
of internal activities into external ones, is often necessary when an internalized action
needs to be "repaired" or when a collaboration between several agents requires their
activities to be performed externally in order to be coordinated.
The Activity Theory emphasis on social factors and on interaction between agents
and their environments explains why the principle of tool mediation plays a central
role within the approach. First of all, tools shape the way human beings interact with
reality. And, according to the above principle of internalization / externalization,
shaping external activities ultimately results in shaping internal ones. Second, tools
usually reflect the experiences of other people who have tried to solve similar
problems at an earlier time and invented/modified the tool to make it more efficient.
This experience is accumulated in the structural properties of tools (shape, material,
etc.) as well as in the knowledge of how the tool should be used. Tools are created
and transformed during the development of the activity itself and carry with them a
particular culture - - the historical remnants from that development. So, the use of
tools is a means for the accumulation and transmission of social knowledge. It
influences the nature, not only of external behavior, but also of the mental
functioning of individuals.
According to Vygotsky, there are two kinds of tools: technical ones and
psychological ones. Technical tools are intended to manipulate physical objects (e.g.,
a hammer) while psychological tools are used by human beings to influence other
people or themselves (e.g., the multiplication table, a calendar, or an advertisement).
On the one hand, tools expand our possibilities to manipulate and transform
different objects, but on the other hand the object is perceived and manipulated not
"as such" but within the limitations set by the tool. Thus mediating tools have both an
enabling and a constraining function. Activity Theory is also directing attention
towards the contexts of use. Tools are never used in a vacuum, but have been shaped
by the social and cultural context where the use is taking place.
Leontiev's version of Activity Theory is often associated with a three-level scheme
describing the hierarchical structure of activity. The central level (or, rather, group
193
of levels) is that of actions. Actions are oriented towards goals, which are the objects
of actions. Usually, goals are functionally subordinated to other goals, which may be
subordinated to still other goals, and so forth. Moving up the hierarchy of goals we
finally reach a top-level goal which is not subordinated to any other goal. This toplevel goal, which in Activity Theory is designated as "motive", is the object of a
whole activity. Basically, motives correspond to human needs. They are the objects
which motivate human activities while goals are the objects human activities are
directed at. Moving down the hierarchy of actions we eventually cross the border
between conscious and automatic processes. The latter, which individuals are not
aware of, are responsive to actual conditions. They do not have their own goals, they
rather provide an adjustment of actions to current situations. According to Activity
Theory terminology, they are "operations." Therefore, activities, which are driven by
motives, are performed through certain actions which are directed at goals and which,
in turn, are implemented through certain operations.
Finally, Activity Theory requires that human interaction with reality should be
analysed in the context of development. Of course, Activity Theory is not the only
psychological theory which considers development as one of its major research topics.
However, in Activity Theory development is not only an object of study, but also a
general research methodology. Activity Theory sees all practices as a result of certain
historical developments under certain conditions and as continuously re-forming and
developing processes. According to the philosophy of dialectical materialism and,
more specifically, to dialectical logic as developed by Evald Ilyenkov, any system can
only be understood through analysis of its developmental transformations. That is
why the basic research method in Activity Theory is not a traditional laboratory
experiment but the so-called "formative experiment" which combines active
participation with monitoring of the developmental changes of the object of study.
The basic principles of Activity Theory outlined above should be considered as an
integrated system, because they are associated with various aspects of the whole
activity. A systematic application of any of these principles makes it eventually
necessary to engage all of the others as well. For instance, an analysis of the
mechanisms underlying the social constitution of the human mind should take into
consideration such concepts as tool appropriation, internalization of social
knowledge, and transformations of the structure of activity resulting from learning
and development. The many layers and levels of analysis and their inter-relation
that can be developed in this approach has often given a picture of an overly
cumbersome conceptual apparatus with an attendant set of unfamiliar methodological
guidelines for carrying out empirical studies. This apparent complexity has
unfortunately frightened off many practitioners from actually trying to apply activitytheoretical concepts in practical situations.
4 Activity Theory and Human-Computer Interaction
Like any other conceptual framework, Activity Theory can influence HumanComputer Interaction in four different ways: (1) it may help to orient research and
194
development in this field by indicating new directions which deserve exploration but
are overlooked or underestimated by the HCI community, (2) it may help to direct
research efforts by formulating new questions in either new or traditional areas, (3) it
may provide support for solving actual problems in HCI, and, finally, (4) it may
contribute to the seN-reflection and znalysis of the HCI community, to a better
understanding of its values, intentions, and social context.
The orienting contribution of Activity Theory to the field of HCI is rather obvious:
it stresses the importance of the social and developmental context of computer use.
However, Activity Theory not only calls for investing more research efforts in
studying context and development, it also offers a long list of specific problems to
study.
For example, Activity Theory emphasizes the importance of developmental
transformations of actions into operations. This means that the action-operation
process shift is a common feature of human computer interaction. The question is:
why is computer support of this dynamics provided so rarely? In which situations can
this kind of support cart be successfully implemented? Could it be possible to facilitate
or stimulate this switch at several levels, so that actions, each of which have resulted
from compressing several component actions through their transformation into
operations, would be compressed again to create an even more powerful action7
Starting to find answers to questions like this and to experiment with realization
possibilities might open a new, largely untrodden path for HCI research and design,
not an easy one, but certainly worth pursuing.
When it comes to the way in which Activity Theory may provide solutions to the
problems of HCI and CSCW, there are numerous examples of specific areas of
research where limitations of existing approaches are rather obvious and Activity
Theory can contribute to overcoming these limitations. The research problems which
can be attacked more successfully with the use of the conceptual tools of Activity
Theory, include the role of contextual factors in human computer interaction, the
nature of cognitive artifacts, advantages and limitations of Effordances, and user
interface transparency, among others.
Finally, Activity Theory can help the HCI community to reflect on problems of
the general organization of research activities in the field and how they are related to
practical problems of computer systems design. It should be noted that there are
significant differences between the general theoretical attitude of Activity Theory and
most of the current mainstream approaches in the field: First, much research in the
area is based on an implicit assumption that "interfaces exist": that a computer
interface is something which can be isolated from the context, an isolatable
phenomenon that can be an independent object of research. Second, because
mainstream cognitive psychology has not been able to offer much theoretical help in
understanding HCI-related problems, there has been lately a clear shift away from
theory-based research towards "grassroots, practice-based" approaches to research
and development. Some of these approaches are a theoretical, not interested in
theoretical explanations, -- e.g., most studies in usability and scenarios or the
195
increasing popularity of ethnography as a research method. Some go even further and
are antitheoretical, -- e.g., the strong emphasis on the central role of the tacit,
unreflected knowledge of users in some forms of participatory design.
In both cases, Activity Theory takes a different position. First, the objectorientedness of Activity Theory determines a fundamental redefinition of what must
be the object of research: it states that it is not fruitful to study "interfaces" as isolated
entities, but they have to be embedded in purposeful actions, where both the object of
those actions, the purpose of them, and the larger context in which they are taking
place are significant. Computer use is always purposeful, we are always working
with something "through the interface" and what this something is and why we want
to work with it should be essential factors influencing the design. The necessity to
move in this direction has been anticipated and emphasized by many critical
observers of HCI research in recent years. When it comes to the tendency to
disregard theories, Activity Theory warns that we should not throw the baby out with
the bathwater: while intimate and detailed observations of practices are important, the
apparent weakness of theories used in HCI is not the fault of theory per se, as we
would argue that it is indeed possible to combine detailed data-driven analysis of
actual practices with powerful models.
5 Selected Bibliography
5.1 Activity Theory and the Design of Computer Systems
Bannon L., Bodker S. Beyond the interface: Encountering artifacts in use. In:
J.Carroll (ed.): Designing Interaction: Psychology at the Human-Computer
Interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1991, pp. 227-253.
Bannon, L. J. A Pilgrims Progress: From Cognitive Science to Cooperative Design.
AI and Society, 4, 259-275 (1990).
Blum, B.I. Beyond Programming. To a New Era of Design. New York.: Oxford
University Press 1995.
Bedker S. Reframing human computer interaction from the activity theory point of
view. The Journal of Psychology (Psikhologicheski Zhurnal), 14(4), (1993). (in
Russian)
Bedker, S. A human activity approach to user interfaces. Human Computer
Interaction, 4(3), 171-195 (1989).
Bedker, S. Through the interface: A human activity approach to user interface design.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum 1991.
196
B~dker, S. Historical analysis and conflicting perspectives: contextualizing HCI.
Proceedings East-West International Conference on Human-Computer
Interaction (EWHCI'93). Moscow, Russia, 3-7 August 1993. Moscow: ICSTI
1993, v. 1, pp. 132-142.
Bourke, I., Verenikina I., Gould, E. Interacting with proprietary software users: An
application for activity theory? Proceedings East-West International
Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (EWHCI'93). Moscow, Russia, 37 August 1993. Moscow: ICSTI 1993, v. 1, pp. 219-225.
Draper S. Activity theory: The new direction for HCI7 International Journal of ManMachine Studies 38, 812-821 (1992)
Favorin, M. & Kuutti, K. To support learning at work by making work visible
through information technology: an activity theory approach. In Levonen, J.J.
& Tukiainen, M.T. (Eds.) Proceedings of the Interdisciplinary Workshop on
Complex Learning in Computer Environments. TOTY-P8-1994-04, University
of Joensuu, pp 34-39.
Kaptelinin, V. Human computer interaction in context: the activity theory
perspective. Proceedings East-West International Conference on Human
Computer Interaction (EWHCI'92). St. Petersburg, Russia, 4-8 August 1992.
Moscow: ICSTI 1992, pp. 13-22.
Kaptelinin, V. Integration of computer tools into the structure of human activity:
implications for cognitive ergonomics. Proceedings of Sixth European
Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics (ECCE 6). Balatonfured,Hungary, 6-11
September 1992. Roma: CUD 1992, pp. 285-294.
Kaptelinin, V. Item recognition in menu selection: the effect of practice. Adjunct
proceedings INTERCHI'93 Conference on Human Factors in Computing
Systems. Amsterdam, the Netherlands, 24--29 ACM 1993, pp. 183-184.
Kaptelinin, V. Activity Theory: Implications for Human Computer Interaction. In: M.
D. Brouwer-Janse, T. L. Harrington (eds.): Human Machine Communication
for Educational Systems Design. Berlin: Springer 1994, pp. 5-15.
Kuutti, K. Activity Theory and its applications in information systems research and
design. In: H.-E. Nissen, H. K. Klein, and R. t-Iirschheim (eds.): Information
Systems Research Arena of the 90's. Amsterdam: North-Holland 1991, pp.
529-550.
Kuutti, K. (1991). The Concept of Activity as a Basic Unit for CSCW Research. In L.
J. Bannon, M. Robinson, & K. Schmidt (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2nd
ECSCW.,(pp. 249-264). Amsterdam: Kluwer.
197
Kuutti, K. HCI Research Debate and Activity Theory Position. Proceedings East-West
International Conference on Human--Computer Interaction. St. Petersburg,
Russia, 4-8 August 1992. Moscow: ICSTI 1992, pp. 13-22.
Kuutti, K. Notes on systems supporting "organizational context" - - an Activity
Theory viewpoint. In: L. Bannon & K. Schmidt (eds.): Issues of Supporting
Organizational Context in CSCW systems. COMIC Deliverable 1.1.
Lancaster: Lancaster University 1993, pp. 101-118.
Kuutti, K., & Arvonen, T. Identifying CSCW Applications by Means of Activity
Theory Concepts: A Case Example. In Turner, J. & Kraut, R. (eds.) Sharing
Perspectives. Proceedings of the ACM 1992 Conference on ComputerSupported Cooperative Work (CSCW'92). New York: ACM Press 1992, pp.
233-240.
Kuutti, K., Bannon, L. Searching for unity among diversity: Exploring the interface
concept. Proceedings INTERCHr93 Conference on Human Factors in
Computing Systems. Amsterdam, the Netherlands, 24--29 April 1993. New
York: ACM Press 1993, pp. 263-268.
Kuutti, K. & Favorin, M. Tools for Research-simulating Learning. In: B.Z. Barta, J.
Eccleston, and R. Hambusch (eds.): Computer-Mediated Education of
Information Technology Professionals and Advanced End-Users. IFIP
Transactions A-35. Amsterdam: North-Holland 1993, pp. 41-48.
Kuutti, K., & Virkkunen, J. Organizational Memory and Learning Network
Organization: The Case of Finnish Labour Protection Inspectors. Proceedings
28th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences-1995
(HICSS-28). Maul, Hawaii, 3.-6. January 1995. Los Alamitos, California:
IEEE Computer Press, 1995, vol. IV, pp. 313-322.
Munipov V. M. Leont'ev's contribution to engineering psychology and ergonomics
[Vklad A. N. Leontjeva v razvitie inzhenernoj psikhologii i ergonomiki]. In A.
V. Zaporozhets, V. P. Zinchenko, and O. V. Ovchinnikova Leont'ev and
Contemporary Psychology [A. N. Leontjev i sovremennaja psikhologija].
Moscow: Izdatelstvo MGU 1983. (In Russian)
Nardi, B. Studying context: A comparison of activity theory, situated action models,
and distributed cognition. Proceedings East-West International Conference on
Human Computer Interaction. St. Petersburg, Russia, 4-8 August 1992.
Moscow: ICSTI 1992, pp. 352-359.
Nardi, B. Studying task- specificity: How we could have done it right the first time
with activity theory. Proceedings East-West International Conference on
Human Computer Interaction (EWHCI'94). St. Petersburg, Russia, 2-6 August
1994. Moscow: ICSTI 1994, v. 1, pp. 6-12.
198
Raeithel, A. Activity theory as a foundation for design. In: Floyd C. ZRllighoven, H.,
Budde, R. & Keil-Slawik, R. (Eds.) Software Development and Reality
Construction. Berlin: Springer 1992. pp. 391-415.
Rogalski, J. Analyzing distributed cooperation in dynamic environment
management: the "distributed crew" in automatized cockpits. Proc~dings
Seventh European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics (ECCE 7). Bonn,
Germany, September 5-8 1994. Sankt Augustin: GMD 1994, pp. 187-199.
Saarelma, O. New Work -- New Tools. Information system development in the
context of development of work activity. CEC ESPRIT project 6225 COMIC
report Oulu-2-2. Oulu: University of Oulu 1993.
Sj6berg, C. Voices in Design: Argumentation in Participatory Development.
Link6ping Studies in Science and Technology. Thesis No. 436. Link6ping:
Link6ping University 1994.
Tikhomirov, O. K. (1981) The psychological consequences of computerization. In: J.
Wertsch (ed.).The Concept of Activity in Soviet Psychology. Armonk, NY:
M.E.Sharpe 1991.
Timpka, T. and the MDA-group. A Methodology for the Definition of Clinical
Decision Support System Requirements. CEC AIM project A2005
"DILEMMA" deliverable D04. Link6ping: Link6ping University 1993.
Zinchenko, V., Munipov V. Fundamentals of Ergonomics. Moscow: Progress
Publishers 1989.
5.2 Activity Theory in General
Bakhurst D. Consciousness and revolution in Soviet philosophy: From the Bolsheviks
to Evald Ilyenkov: Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1991.
Bernstein N. The Co-ordination and Regulation of Movements. Oxford: Pergamon
Press 1967.
Brushlinsky A. The activity of the subject and psychic activity. In: V. A. Lelaorsky,
Y. Engestr6m (eds.): Activity: The Theory, Methodology, and Problems.
Orlando: Paul M. Deutsch 1990, pp. 67-73.
Cole, M. The zone of proximal development: where culture and cognition create each
other. In: J. Wertsch (ed.) Culture, Communication, and Cognition:
Vygotskian perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1984,
pp. 146-161.
199
Davydov, V.V. On the place of the category of activity in modern theoretical
psychology. In: V. A. Lektorsky, Y. Engestr{$m(eds.): Activity: The Theory,
Methodology, and Problems. Orlando: Paul M. Deutsch 1990, pp. 75-81.
Elkonin, D.B. Toward the problem of stages in the mental development of the child.
In: M. Cole (ed): Soviet Developmental Psychology. White Plains, N.Y.:
Sharpe 1977. pp. 538-563.
Engestr6m, Y. Learning by Expanding: An Activity-Theoretical Approach to
Developmental Research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit Oy 1987.
Engestr6m Y. Learning, working, and imagining: Twelve studies in activity theory.
Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit 1990.
Engestr6m, Y. Developmental work research: Reconstructing expertise through
expansive learning. In: M. I. Nurminen and G. R. S. Weir (eds.): Human Jobs
and Computer Interfaces. Amsterdam: North-Holland 1991, pp. 265-290.
Engestr6m, Y. Interactive expertise: Studies in distributed working intelligence.
University of Helsinki. Research Bulletin # 83. Helsinki: University of
Helsinki 1992.
Kaptelinin, V. Consciousness, Attention, and Control. Multidisciplinary Newsletter
for Research in Activity Theory, No. 11/12, pp. 45-49 (1992)
Lektorsky, V. A. Subject, Object, Cognition. Moscow: Progress Publishers 1984.
Leont'ev, A. N. Activity. Consciousness. Personality. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice
Hall 1978.
Leont'ev, A. N. Problems of the Development of Mind. Moscow: Progress Publishers
1981.
Petrovsky, A. V., Petrovsky, V. A. Active personality and Leont'ev's ideas [Lichnost i
ee aktivnost v svete idej A. N. Leontjeva]. In A. V. Zaporozhets, V. P.
Zinchenko, and O. V. Ovchinnikova Leont'ev and Contemporary Psychology
[A. N. Leontjev i sovremen naja psikhologija]. Moscow: Izdatelstvo MGU
1983. (in Russian)
Petrovsky, A. V. and Yaroshevsky, M. G. (eds.). A Concise Psychological Dictionary.
Moscow: Progress Publishers 1987.
Talyzina, N. The Psychology of Learning. Moscow: Progress Publishers 1981.
Tikhomirov, O. The Psychology of Thinking. Moscow: Progress Publishers 1988.
200
Vygotsky, L. S. Thought and Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. Mind and Society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press 1978.
Wertsch J. The concept of activity in Soviet psychology: An introduction. In: J.
Wertsch (ed.): The Concept of Activity in Soviet Psychology. Armonk, NY:
M.E.Sharpe 1981.
Zinchenko V.P., Gordon V.M. Methodological problems in the psychological analysis
of activity. In: J. Wertsch (ed.).The Concept of Activity in Soviet Psychology,
Armonk, NY: M.E.Sharpe 1981.
Zinchenko, V. Activity theory: Retrospect and prospect. Proceedings East-West
International Conference on Human Computer Interaction (EWHCI'92). St.
Petersburg, Russia, 4-8 August 1992. Moscow: ICSTI 1992, pp. 1-5.
5.3 Other Related Papers
Bannon, L. From human factors to human actors: The role of psychology and human
computer interaction studies in system design. In: J. Greenbaum, M. Kyng,
eds. Design at Work: Cooperative Design of Computer Systems. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum 1991, pp. 25-44.
Brusilovsky, P., Burmistrov, I., Kaptelinin, V. Structuring the field of HCI: an
empirical study of experts' representations. Proceedings East-West
International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (EWHCr93).
Moscow, Russia, 3-7 August 1993. Moscow: ICSTI 1993, v. 3, pp. 18-28.
Carroll J.M., Kellogg W.A., Rosson M.B. The task-artifact cycle. In: J.Carroll (ed.):
Designing Interaction: Psychology at the Human-Computer Interface.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1991, pp. 74-102.
Cypher A. The structttre of user's activities. In: D. Norman, S. Draper (eds.): User
Centered System Design: New Perspectives on Human-Computer Interaction.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum 1986, pp.243-264.
Elm, P. Work-oriented design of computer artifacts. Arbetslivscentnnn. Stockholm
1988.
Grudin J. Interactive systems: Bridging the gaps between developers and users. IEEE
Computer 24, 59-69 (1991).
Grudin J. Utility and usability: Research issues and developmentcontexts.
Proceedings First International Moscow Workshop on Human Computer
Interaction (HCI'91). Moscow, Russia, 5-9 August 1991. Moscow: ICSTI
1991, pp. 18-22.
201
Grudin, J. The computer reaches out: the historical continuity of interface design.
Proceedings CHI'90 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.
Seattle, Wash., 1-4 April 1990. New York: ACM Press, 1990, pp. 261-268.
Grudin, J. Interface: An evolving concept. Communications of the ACM 36 (4), 110119 (1993).
Henderson A., Kyng M. There's no place like home: Continuing design in use. In: J.
Greenbaum, M. Kyng (eds.): Design at Work: Cooperative Design of
Computer Systems. I-Iillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum 1991, pp. 219-240.
Monk, A., Nardi, B., Gilbert, N., Mantei, M., McCarthy, J. (1993) Mixing oil and
water? Ethnography versus experimental psychology in the study of computermediated communication. Proceedings INTERCHI'93 Conference on Human
Factors in Computing Systems. Amsterdam, the Netherlands, 24-29 April
1993. New York: ACM Press, pp. 3-6.
Norman, D. Cognitive Artifacts. In J. Carroll (ed.): Designing Interaction:
Psychology at the Human-Computer Interface. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press 1991, pp 17-38.
Wood C. A cultural-cognitive approach to collaborative writing. Proceedings Sixth
European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics (ECCE 6). Balatonfured,
Hungary, 6-11 September 1992. Roma: CUD 1992, pp. 87-102.