 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
With greatest surprise I found out that there was no Engerstöm's Learning by expanding on this page, in the Reference section. So, I put it there, along with the URL to the online text. Anyway, a major clean up of the reference section is needed. I am really not an expert in what the Scandinavians have done so far, therefore, I can't assess what is relevent and what is not. What is obvious anyway is that nobody will really miss at least half of the list. Yasya 18:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
- The question is whether or not each item in the Reference section is actually being used as a source. Looks more like a reading list than references. -- Ronz 19:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
This article and the Activity theory article are both quite brief. There is also significant overlap. Why not merge them into one article on activity theory? Nesbit 16:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
- This article was forked from Activity theory back in September. I don't see any need for a merge, especially since so little time has past. -- Ronz 01:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for reminder! I'll contribute to the "main" Activity theory soon. -- Yasya 15:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with Nesbit. Someone who searches for Activity Theory ends up on the Activity theory article, which is very incomplete and even inaccurate at times (for instance, the delineations between activity and action are unclear, operations are not explained at all, Engestrom's not mentioned once). This article is more complete and better researched but is more hidden. Also, while it is labeled "Scandinavian Activity Theory," it speaks to the broader activity-theory perspective in the western world in general. I think a merger would make a lot of sense. Elmarhashimov ( talk) 18:39, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
- I'll go ahead and merge the two articles. I've read through both of them carefully, and there's no reason why they shouldn't be in one single article. I'll redirect both search terms to the same page. I'll also be adding some research and key concepts, clarifying some of the language, and adding citations. Elmarhashimov ( talk) 20:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
It says, "...as a set of six interdependent elements..." and then lists the first 'element' as:
Object-orientedness - the objective of the activity system as a whole. 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.
It seems to me that this description is more describing a property (Object-orientedness) rather than an element. Also, do you mean by, "... the objective of the activity system as a whole." "...the goal (or purpose) of the activity system"? Repeated use of 'object/objective/objective' in different meanings is confusing. 01:55, 2 July 2010 (UTC) David G. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.225.132.145 ( talk)
There's a whole lot of Kuutti citations, but no mention in the references. Just thought I'd point that out ;-)... Mark Elliott 13:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
For Activity Theorists "consciousness" seems to refer to any mental functioning, whereas most other approaches to psychology distinguish conscious from unconscious functions. Thinking about the hierarchy of activity, actions and operations I am not sure this sentence is true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.2.190.254 ( talk • contribs)
This entire section seems to come from Nardi's work, yet there are no citations whatsoever. The lack of citations for direct quotes is a particularly egregious gap. ( I think these are from Nardi rather than Kuutti, but it is difficult to be certain given the lack of citations.) Moretz ( talk) 12:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
In truth, major portions of this article are sorely lacking in citations of quotes and sources in general (though sources are mentioned in the sentences, no specific identification is undertaken in many of the sections). Moretz ( talk) 13:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
This entire section seems to be copied from http://www.ipcf6.com/news.asp?Newsid=272 Moretz ( talk) 13:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
|
| This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
With greatest surprise I found out that there was no Engerstöm's Learning by expanding on this page, in the Reference section. So, I put it there, along with the URL to the online text. Anyway, a major clean up of the reference section is needed. I am really not an expert in what the Scandinavians have done so far, therefore, I can't assess what is relevent and what is not. What is obvious anyway is that nobody will really miss at least half of the list. Yasya 18:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
- The question is whether or not each item in the Reference section is actually being used as a source. Looks more like a reading list than references. -- Ronz 19:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
This article and the Activity theory article are both quite brief. There is also significant overlap. Why not merge them into one article on activity theory? Nesbit 16:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
- This article was forked from Activity theory back in September. I don't see any need for a merge, especially since so little time has past. -- Ronz 01:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for reminder! I'll contribute to the "main" Activity theory soon. -- Yasya 15:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with Nesbit. Someone who searches for Activity Theory ends up on the Activity theory article, which is very incomplete and even inaccurate at times (for instance, the delineations between activity and action are unclear, operations are not explained at all, Engestrom's not mentioned once). This article is more complete and better researched but is more hidden. Also, while it is labeled "Scandinavian Activity Theory," it speaks to the broader activity-theory perspective in the western world in general. I think a merger would make a lot of sense. Elmarhashimov ( talk) 18:39, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
- I'll go ahead and merge the two articles. I've read through both of them carefully, and there's no reason why they shouldn't be in one single article. I'll redirect both search terms to the same page. I'll also be adding some research and key concepts, clarifying some of the language, and adding citations. Elmarhashimov ( talk) 20:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
It says, "...as a set of six interdependent elements..." and then lists the first 'element' as:
Object-orientedness - the objective of the activity system as a whole. 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.
It seems to me that this description is more describing a property (Object-orientedness) rather than an element. Also, do you mean by, "... the objective of the activity system as a whole." "...the goal (or purpose) of the activity system"? Repeated use of 'object/objective/objective' in different meanings is confusing. 01:55, 2 July 2010 (UTC) David G. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.225.132.145 ( talk)
There's a whole lot of Kuutti citations, but no mention in the references. Just thought I'd point that out ;-)... Mark Elliott 13:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
For Activity Theorists "consciousness" seems to refer to any mental functioning, whereas most other approaches to psychology distinguish conscious from unconscious functions. Thinking about the hierarchy of activity, actions and operations I am not sure this sentence is true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.2.190.254 ( talk • contribs)
This entire section seems to come from Nardi's work, yet there are no citations whatsoever. The lack of citations for direct quotes is a particularly egregious gap. ( I think these are from Nardi rather than Kuutti, but it is difficult to be certain given the lack of citations.) Moretz ( talk) 12:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
In truth, major portions of this article are sorely lacking in citations of quotes and sources in general (though sources are mentioned in the sentences, no specific identification is undertaken in many of the sections). Moretz ( talk) 13:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
This entire section seems to be copied from http://www.ipcf6.com/news.asp?Newsid=272 Moretz ( talk) 13:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)