Activity Theory

What is Activity Theory?

When I hear the term “Activity Theory”, I think about how there are theories about how an activity takes place and what behaviors can be applied to make the activity intentional and an impactful learning experience. According to Farres & McDonald, “Activity theory is concerned with the relationship between consciousness and activity and is composed of subject, object, and community and the elements that mediate these interactions” (Farres & McDonald, 2006, pp. 166). These connections and relationships can be seen in Figure 1 above.

Considering what philosophical perspective this theory contextualizes, there are a few to connect. Jonassen discussed multiple perspectives that tie into Activity Theory, such as the philosophy of Kant & Hegel, “which emphasized both the historical development of ideas as well as the active and constructive role of humans. This philosophy provided the foundation for the more contemporary philosophy of Marx and Engels and the Soviet cultural-historical psychology of Vygotsky, Leont’ev, and Luria on which activity theory is based” (Jonassen, 1999, pp. 62). 

I will say, I have always been a terrible studier of philosophy and keeping theories straight. Knowing that the Activity Theory is able to connect to many different philosophical perspectives is mind blowing, but it also shows me how well some philosophers/theorizers are able to work “with” each other and build ideas off of each other. I consider the idea of Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development with Activity Theory in that the learners are considered the subjects, and each subject may be at a different zone within the Z.P.D.; that’s why it is important to consider who all is participating within an activity.

Along with that, I can also see how the A.T. can connect to Leont’ev’s Hierarchical Structure of an Activity. Seen in Figure 2 below, we see that we have a triangular diagram, similar to that of Engestrom’s. They both focus on activities and what are considered important for creating an effective activity. We look at the object of the activity/what is being taught within the activity, the goal of the lesson/what actions will be or should be taking place during the activity, and what conditions should be implemented to the activity/what operation should be help to make the activity successful.

The Elements that make Activity Theory

Considering all that forms the diagram in Figure 1 above, we have the following terms:

1. Tools – When we think about the tools within an activity, we have to consider what equipment, materials, and even mindsets will be needed to complete a specific activity. All activities created require specific tools in order for there to be completion. According to Jonassen, “tools can be anything used in the transformative process,” (Jonassen, 1999, pp. 63) which means that tools do not have to be something physical in order to be considered “a tool.” The main thing to consider when thinking about what tools are required within an activity is the questions of “What do I need in order to complete this activity successfully?”
2. Subject(s) – Initially, you might think of subject(s) as what the activity is about, but it is actually considering who will be participating in the activity. Who will be the subject(s) that will be completing the tasks in order to reach their desired outcome?
3. Objects – Every activity has a reason for being performed, and knowing the object, also known as the objective, explains why the activity is being carried out in the first place.
4. Outcomes/Goals – This is what the ending of the activity is desired to look like. What do we want learners to be able to accomplish by the end of the activity?
5. Rules – With every activity, there must be a set of rules for learners to follow. Rules must be put into place in order to keep balance among individuals and groups who are completing the task. Without those rules in place, there might be chaos among members in how the activity is to be performed.
6. Community – Although we have been learning about a community as a group of people with similar interests in class, the term “community” can be taken further by describing a specific environment in which learners/collaborators can meet up to engage in the activity. It can be a physical place, or it can be a virtual platform.
7. Division of Labor – Just as it is labeled, division of labor looks at who will be completing what tasks in order to complete the activity. If it is an individual project, the individual is responsible for all parts at stake. If it is considered a group activity, each group member must take on a task in order to make efforts equal.

Each of these terms can connect together in this activity system to help plot out an effective activity. Each role is important, and the activity could not play out if one of these are missing.

Virtual Learning Within Activity Theory

Over the past few years, we have been in the process of finding ways to create virtual learning opportunities. We have created computer games for kids, virtual simulations for older learners, and others. Especially within recent years, we have been relying heavily on virtual learning due to the events of the Covid-19 pandemic. Being a teacher, I have seen the pros and cons behind virtual learning and how it can be a learning opportunity for students. Some educators can see the good in using virtual learning to extend student knowledge, while other might see it as a hinderance to developing proper knowledge. Before discussing both, it’s important to see whether the Activity Theory can be applied to virtual learning.

Thinking about the roles within Activity Theory, they can also be applied to activities of the virtual world. You will still have your subjects participating in the activity, they will still have an objective and desired outcome, there will always be rules to follow and tools to use; the main difference between traditional learning activities and virtual learning activities is the community/environment. We are so used to the fact of being able to work together in a classroom or physical environment, but with today’s technology, learning communities and environments are able to be on virtual platforms. Depending on the virtual platform, collaboration can be completed in different ways. For example, if we consider our virtual community on Canvas, we have our subject(s)/participants: the students and the professors/teachers, rules: having due dates, assignment rules, etc., community: classroom Canvas page, and tools: we have our resources pages in which the professors share the reading materials and resources that could help us complete specific tasks. All these elements within the Activity Theory can be applied to a virtual learning community if plotted out correctly.

I do believe that virtual learning can be an essential tool when used correctly with the proper subject(s) and all the other factors within the Activity Theory. Also depending on the community itself, I think all other points in the Activity Theory diagram will flow into place. It all truly is based on what the activity is that is being planned; an activity, in my opinion, is considered effective when all the points in Activity Theory are clearly addressed. Being a teacher, I know that the outcome is not always going to be what you planned, but if the rest can be planned properly, then the likeliness of the desired outcome occurring is higher in possibility.

Activity Theory as a Framework

When I think about what a framework is, I think of how something should be plotted out or drawn out in order to help it make sense. Being able to observe the diagram in Figure 1 explaining the framework of Activity Theory is beneficial to see how all points are connected together. All points work together to create an effective activity. The Activity Theory framework was designed and recommended to be used “in research as a conceptual tool that researchers can operationalize based on the ‘specific nature of the object under scrutiny'” (Farres & McDonald, 2006, pp. 169). The framework of A.T. does not have do be specifically used for education; it can be used in any type of learning environment setting. I, personally, think it might be beneficial for educators, such as myself, to consider the A.T. framework as a tool of organization when forming lesson plans. To be able to use it to organize thoughts and important points in the lesson might be beneficial, especially when considering those who might observe the lesson, such as a principal. When I was in college, we learned about how to make lesson plans detailed enough to where anyone who were to read your plan could execute the lesson. While I do think using the A.T. framework could be beneficial in organizing the lesson, I don’t think it could be used by everyone unless the A.T. framework is discussed and implemented at schools.

Questions

1. Do you think educators should be required to use the Activity Theory within their lesson planning? Would it be beneficial to them to use it in planning out their lessons, or would it just be more for them to do on top of all that they already do?
2. Why do you think they decided to make a role for outcomes within the framework? I know in my line of work, outcomes are not always what you plan them out to be. There can be a desired outcome, but it isn’t guaranteed to happen, so why bother writing it out if it is only a desire?

References

Jonassen, D.H., Rohrer-Murphy, L. (1999). Activity theory as a framework for designing constructivist learning environments. ETR&D 47, 61-79.

Farres & McDonald (2006). Activity theory and context. 164-181