Three generations of cultural historical activity theory Historical

  • Slides: 28
Download presentation
Three generations of cultural historical activity theory? Historical and theoretical challenges Nikolai Veresov Monash

Three generations of cultural historical activity theory? Historical and theoretical challenges Nikolai Veresov Monash University 1

What do we know about three generations of activity theory? 2

What do we know about three generations of activity theory? 2

Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity theoretical approach to developmental research (Helsinki,

Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity theoretical approach to developmental research (Helsinki, Orienta Konsultit). Engestrom, Y. (1990). Learning, working, imagining: Twelve studies in activity theory. Helsinki: Orienta Konsultit. Cole, M. and Engeström, Y. (1993) A cultural historical approach to distributed cognition, in: G. Salomon (Ed. ), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations (New York, Cambridge University Press), 1 46. Engeström, Y, Miettinen, R. & Punamäki, R. (Eds. ). (1999). Perspectives on activity theory. New York: Cambridge University Press. Engeström, Y. (1999) Innovative learning in work teams: analysing cycles of knowledge creation in practice, in: Y. Engestrom et al (Eds. ) Perspectives on Activity Theory, (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press), 377 406. Cole, M. , & Engeström, Y. (2007). Cultural historical approaches to designing for development. In Valsiner, J. , & Rosa, A. (Eds. ). The Cambridge handbook of sociocultural psychology (pp. 484 507). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 3

Generations Time Names Unit of analysis Principle 1 st Generation 2 nd Generation 3

Generations Time Names Unit of analysis Principle 1 st Generation 2 nd Generation 3 rd Generation 4

Generations Time Names Unit of analysis Principle 1 st Generation 1920 s-1930 s Vygotsky

Generations Time Names Unit of analysis Principle 1 st Generation 1920 s-1930 s Vygotsky mediated action mediation 2 nd Generation 1930 s-1970 s Leontiev triangle of activity 3 rd Generation 1970 s - now Engestrom activity system transformation 5

First generation Unit of analysis: mediated action (Engestrom, 2008) Mediational Means (Tools) (machines, writing,

First generation Unit of analysis: mediated action (Engestrom, 2008) Mediational Means (Tools) (machines, writing, speaking, gesture, architecture, music, etc) Subject(s) (individual, dyad, group) Object/Motive --> Outcome(s) 6

Second generation: unit of analysis - activity system 7

Second generation: unit of analysis - activity system 7

8

8

Generations: First generation – Lev Vygotsky (1896 1934) Cultural historical theory of development of

Generations: First generation – Lev Vygotsky (1896 1934) Cultural historical theory of development of higher mental functions 9

10

10

Vygotsky – cultural-historical theory A. Leontiev = activity theory L. Bozhovich = theory of

Vygotsky – cultural-historical theory A. Leontiev = activity theory L. Bozhovich = theory of personality M. Lisina = theory of communication N. Morozova = development and special education 11

 Generations: First generation – Lev Vygotsky (1896 -1934) 1930 s-1970 s First generation

Generations: First generation – Lev Vygotsky (1896 -1934) 1930 s-1970 s First generation of activity theory Second generation of cultural- historical theory 12

First generation of activity theory (Leontiev, Elkonin, Galperin, Zaportozhets, P. Zinchenko) 1930 s-1970 s

First generation of activity theory (Leontiev, Elkonin, Galperin, Zaportozhets, P. Zinchenko) 1930 s-1970 s Second generation of cultural - historical theory (Lisina, Bozhovich) 1970 s – 2000 s Second generation of activity theory(V. Davydov, D. Elkonin, J. Lompsher, G. Rückriem) Third generation of activity theory (Rubtsov, Zuckernan, B. Elkonin) CHAT (cultural-historical activity theory) M. Cole, J. Wertsch, Y. Engestrom Third generation of cultural- historical theory (V. Zinchenko, E. Kravtsova, M. Fleer, N. Veresov, P. Hakkarainen 13

NOW Three co existing theoretical approaches: • Cultural historical theory • Activity theory •

NOW Three co existing theoretical approaches: • Cultural historical theory • Activity theory • Cultural historical activity theory 14

First generation: cultural historical theory (Vygotsky) Key ideas of cultural historical theory? 15

First generation: cultural historical theory (Vygotsky) Key ideas of cultural historical theory? 15

 • Socio cultural genesis of human consciousness (higher mental functions) • Dialectical character

• Socio cultural genesis of human consciousness (higher mental functions) • Dialectical character of cultural development (contradictions, crises, drama, new quality=neoformations) • Mediation • Other? 16

First generation: Vygotsky Unit of analysis: mediated action (Engestrom, 2008) Mediating Means (Tools) (machines,

First generation: Vygotsky Unit of analysis: mediated action (Engestrom, 2008) Mediating Means (Tools) (machines, writing, speaking, gesture, architecture, music, etc) Subject(s) (individual, dyad, group) Object/Motive --> Outcome(s) 17

Vygotsky: Mediated action IS NOT a unit of analysis: This form of analysis relies

Vygotsky: Mediated action IS NOT a unit of analysis: This form of analysis relies on the parti tioning of the complex whole intounits. In contrast to the term "element, " the term "unit" designates a product of analysis that possesses all the basic characteristics of the whole. The unit is a vital and irreducible part of the whole. . . By unit we mean a product of analysis which, unlike elements, retains all the basic properties of the whole and which cannot be further divided without losing them (Vygotsky, 1987, p 46 47) Mediated action as a higher form of behaviour, can always be divided completely and without any remainder into the natural elementary … processes that make it up, just as the work of any machine can, in the last analysis, be reduced to a definite system of physicochemical processes (Vygotsky, 1997, p. 80). 18

Vygotsky: “The concept "development of higher mental functions" and the subject of our research

Vygotsky: “The concept "development of higher mental functions" and the subject of our research encompass two groups of phenomena that seem, at first glance, to be completely unrelated, but in fact represent two basic branches, two streams of the development of higher forms of behavior inseparably connected, but never merging into one. These are, first, the processes of mastering external materials of cultural development and thinking: language, writing, arithmetic, drawing; second, the processes of development of special higher mental functions not delimited and not determined with any degree of precision and in traditional psychology termed voluntary attention, logical memory, formation of concepts, etc. Both of these taken together also form that which we conditionally call the process of development of higher forms of the child's behaviour” (Vygotsky, 1997, p. 14). 19

“. . . every function in the cultural development of the child appears on

“. . . every function in the cultural development of the child appears on the stage twice, in two planes, first, the social, then the psychological, first between people as an intermental category, then within the child as a intramental category. . . Genetically, social relations, real relations of people, stand behind all the higher mental functions and their relations…every higher mental function was external because it was social before it became an internal strictly mental function; it was formerly a social relation between two people (Vygotsky 1997, p. 106) 20

Second generation: unit of analysis - activity system 21

Second generation: unit of analysis - activity system 21

CHAT is a movement for improvement and modification (or even modernisation) of some of

CHAT is a movement for improvement and modification (or even modernisation) of some of the basic concepts and principles of Vygotsky’s approach, according to today’s requirements (Cole, 1996; 1996 a), or recently, as a kind of conceptual reformulation and combination of Vygotsky (principle of mediation) and A. Leont’ev (principle of activity) (Cole, 2007). …activity and mediation as two aspects of a single whole in human life world” (Cole & Engeström, 2007, p. 485). 22

CHAT: tools and signs = mediating artefacts Vygotsky: mediating activity of human being •

CHAT: tools and signs = mediating artefacts Vygotsky: mediating activity of human being • use of tools • use of signs Our diagram presents both types of devices as diverging lines of mediating activity… These activities are so different that even the nature of the devices used cannot be one and the same in both cases (Vygotsky, 1997, p. 62). Even more vague is the idea of those who understand such expressions in a literal sense. Phenomena that have their own psychological aspect, but in essence do not belong wholly to psychology, such as technology, are completely illegitimately psychologized. The basis for this identification is ignoring the essence of both forms of activity and the differences in their historical role and nature. Tools as devices of work, devices for mastering the processes of nature, and language as a device for social contact and communication, dissolve in the general concept of artifacts or artificial devices (p. 61). 23

“The basic principle of the functioning of higher functions (personality) is social, entailing interaction

“The basic principle of the functioning of higher functions (personality) is social, entailing interaction of functions, in place of interaction between people. They can be most fully developed in the form of drama” (Vygotsky 1929/1989, p. 59; Original emphasis). 24

Leontiev – principle of activity? No, the principle of the unity of conscious and

Leontiev – principle of activity? No, the principle of the unity of conscious and activity: • The activity of man makes up the substance of his consciousness” (Leont’ev, 1978, p. 95). • Psychological structure of consciousness corresponds to the structure of activity but is not identical to it • the human activity and individual consciousness have common structure (Leont’ev, 1978, p. 62). • the process of internalization is not external action transferred into a pre existing internal “plan of consciousness”; it is the process in which this internal plan is formed” (Leont’ev, 1978, p. 60). 25

26

26

Engeström (1999) suggests that activity theory may be summarized with the help of five

Engeström (1999) suggests that activity theory may be summarized with the help of five principles. They stand as a manifesto of the current state of activity theory: ‘The first principle is that a collective, artifact mediated and object oriented activity system, seen in its network relations to other activity systems, is taken as the prime unit of analysis. Contradicts Vygotsky’s concepts of • tool/sign and their psychological nature • mediating activity of a human being Contradicts Vygotsky’s concept of unit of analysis Contradicts Leontiev’s principle of the unity of consciousness and activity 27

Key ideas and challenges: • Re thinking Vygotsky’s legacy: theory and research methodology •

Key ideas and challenges: • Re thinking Vygotsky’s legacy: theory and research methodology • What is development (dialectics of transformations and reorganisation) • Mediated activity OR mediating activity? • Subject of activity OR an individual in a process of becoming? • Activity: Concept? Principle? Unit of analysis? • Social formation of mind: what is “social”? • Social practices: how to approach? Social practices, activity, social situation of development, subjectivity. • Perezhivanie as a theoretical concept. 28