This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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). [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharplecturer ( talk • contribs) 14:14, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
References
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...
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)
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, 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)
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)
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)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.misq.org/skin/frontend/default/misq/pdf/Abstracts/AllenBrownAbstract.pdfWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:58, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
My eyes refused to track past the first paragraph. I ended up getting a more useful summary from:
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? — MaxEnt 22:09, 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)
This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Ball State University supported by Rhetoric and Composition and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Q2 term. Further details are available on the course page.
The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}}
by
PrimeBOT (
talk) on 15:52, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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). [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharplecturer ( talk • contribs) 14:14, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
References
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...
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)
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, 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)
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)
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)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.misq.org/skin/frontend/default/misq/pdf/Abstracts/AllenBrownAbstract.pdfWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:58, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
My eyes refused to track past the first paragraph. I ended up getting a more useful summary from:
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? — MaxEnt 22:09, 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)
This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Ball State University supported by Rhetoric and Composition and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Q2 term. Further details are available on the course page.
The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}}
by
PrimeBOT (
talk) on 15:52, 2 January 2023 (UTC)