Keywords

What Is Activity Theory?

Activity theory represents the application of principles of human development and learning from the Russian psychologist Lev Vygotsky and his contemporary interpreters such as Yrjö Engeström (1987) and Michael Cole (1996). While this ensures that activity theory enjoys a rich albeit evolving philosophical grounding, it also confronts science educators with challenges when appropriating it into their classrooms. Activity theory is not a monolithic template or a well-bounded set of research techniques that one can quickly extract from a textbook and reassemble for use. Rather, it is better considered a spectrum of ideas – without achieving complete consensus among researchers – that are located within the sociocultural learning tradition. Its unfamiliarity to those trained in Western psychology may have resulted in either indifference to activity theory or its use in ways that some experts would deem as unorthodox if not erroneous. While this state of affairs is understandably confusing for educators, activity theory can offer those following Vygotsky’s method of research a number of guidelines for organizing science teaching–learning that are respectful of how people learn and collaborate in tandem with cultural artifacts/tools. Together with its potential for addressing long-standing theoretical and practical dilemmas in science education research, this framework has already found resonance among those from the Learning Sciences, computer sciences, and organizational and workplace learning communities.

Within the field of science education, one has to realize that the sociocultural tradition in learning has only gained acceptance over the last 15–20 years. Placing issues of language, social interactions, and culture and history in the foreground, advocates here downplay the emphasis on achieving and assessing visible outcomes of learning where intelligence is believed to be housed within the mind. This sea change regarding the origins and development of learning as processual or transactive during activity rather than solely biological was sparked by the appearance of Vygotsky’s writings in English. Activity theory can thus be said to be the most sophisticated and interdisciplinary elaboration of Vygotskian thought for education currently, which itself draws upon dialectical-materialist underpinnings in Marxism. Remembering its long intellectual heritage enables one to quickly appreciate its ontological and epistemological assumptions as well as generate applications of activity theory that are more faithful to its practice-oriented, transformatory stance. Two ideas in dialectical materialism are acknowledged as salient in activity theory:

  1. (A)

    The reciprocal relationship between acting in the world and being transformed psychologically and sociologically by this very process.

    Being within, relating to, and acting on the material world, that is, when pursuing the conditions for life, human agents are simultaneously transformed at the level of the individual (the creation of consciousness [i.e., learning], personality) and at the level of the collective (the beginning of division of labor in society). On the one hand, it affirms that there is no escape from a materialist account of learning; without the prior concrete world of experience, there would be no knowledge to grasp or exhibit. As some have put it, there is no knowledge without praxis. The Cartesian rift between mind and body (and other dualisms) is thus healed through an activity theoretic perspective. On the other hand, there is another dialectical relationship; through their labor individuals serve both individual and collective needs; indeed labor creates the very conditions for society to function just as social institutions open up opportunities for individuals to contribute and sustain themselves in diverse ways. Unlike how other creatures usually interact with nature in a direct, stimulus–response manner, humankind manages or mediates these relationships of self and others through created and ever-changing tools and practices to satisfy human needs. It is argued that all higher psychological functions such as motivation, identity, and sensemaking are irrefutably mediated by interactions with others and shared artifacts (e.g., language) – learning as a sociocultural process precedes biological development as Vygotsky maintained. Individual learning therefore contributes towards expanding knowledge in/for others at the same time as established knowledge enables any newcomer to appropriate these through instruction without necessarily rediscovering this wisdom de novo.

    Because not everyone contributes in the same manner in/to society, a division of labor therefore exists. The totality of these societal activities (from which activity theory properly derives its nomenclature), however, serves in part to reproduce as well as be the engine for change in the world. And because these social practices form the basis of culture that individuals can orient towards, participate in, and perhaps depart over the course of time, the adjective “cultural-historical” is properly attached to activity theory (i.e., the popular acronym “CHAT”) to underscore their explanatory significance. Psychology has traditionally eschewed matters of culture and history in accounting for learning but activity theory instead conflates them as it is felt that mental processes are utterly dependent on the former. This again affirms the materialist-dialectical core of activity theory; change in any aspect of the material world or social practices and mutual changes in human functioning and cognition will ensue. Hence, when studying skilled actions, activity theorists pay careful attention to expertise occurring within a specific environment that they regard as ontologically indistinguishable although kept separate for analytical purposes by necessity. Rather than just privileging the actions of human agents, activity theorists prefer to scrutinize that particular societal activity as a whole and then interrogate these subsets of activity through various ways: what is happening or being changed there, by whom, through what means, and for what (historical) purposes. This close as well as practical approach towards understanding learning in a complex world (e.g., through interlinking levels of individual/collective) is a distinguishing feature of activity theory.

  2. (B)

    The transformation of the world should be a primary activity, not its mere contemplation.

    This is an extension of the former point; it is not sufficient to merely describe or philosophize about the world at the level of ideas. Instead, one has to participate with others (e.g., to describe, critique, explain, expose power) to author one’s context in a life-affirming, creative, and humane sense (Roth 2010). The material world will pose all sorts of resistance to our desires (we cannot fly like birds), but this does not hold true for social phenomenon, which is amenable to human intervention/change that gave rise to it in the first place. True to its Marxist roots, activity theory is distinguished from other theories of learning in its problem-solving, expansive, and improvement-seeking nature that have been used to critique many situations and processes both in and out of school (Langemeyer and Nissen 2011). This has provided activity theory with intrinsic appeal as both a theory of instruction and a model of learning, not only for those concerned with social justice and equity agendas. A hypothetical example might serve to tie the two aforementioned key ideas in dialectical materialism: Annotated lesson plans have recently been recommended as an ideal vehicle for building a shared knowledge base for school improvement. When a teacher is motivated to submit something towards the pool of lesson plans (i.e., a knowledge product), not only does her school department benefit in enlarging the pedagogical repertoires for the collective to tap upon, but student learning (and school climate) also improves, which is the raison d’être for teachers. Identifying any obstacles together with the enablers in the overall system can provide leverage to sustain this virtuous cycle of innovative activity. Knowledge (better seen as a verb or process) in the activity system of schooling thus increases as the lesson plans are continuously revised by individual teachers engaging with different classroom/school settings and subject areas. Better yet, when students are jointly engaged in learning with teachers such as during aspects of Assessment for Learning, the joint transformation of their lifeworlds in the zone of proximal development is made manifest – does it really matter who is doing the teaching–learning now when everyone benefits?

How Can We Describe and Use Activity Theory?

Research in activity theory has fallen into two main thrusts: (1) a method and a methodology to research human psychology during engagement in everyday activities and (2) a practical intervention method for redesigning work conditions in organizations including that of schools. There are finer distinctions and a specialized vocabulary available too; the object (that part of the world to be changed) of activity is that which motivates participation in the activity system to produce an outcome. It makes no sense to speak of activity without an object for people would not undertake any actions or efforts to change the object in the first instance; they are mutually constitutive. While these actions that serve the object(s) are conscious behaviors, there is another lower level of activity that can be described – operations – which are unconscious processes (without any connotations of psychoanalysis). These three important hierarchical levels – activity, actions, and operations – are dialectically linked, just as an object is linked in a similar way to its subject (i.e., human agents). A classic example here was provided by Vygotsky’s student A. N. Leontiev who spoke about the primeval collective hunt; hunters and beaters are united by a common object (to obtain food) even as they perform different and distributed actions during activity.

A more recent but highly influential heuristic known as the activity triangle has similarly proven to be an easy entry point into activity theory as seen in Fig. 1 below. Building on the fundamental concept of mediation, the subject focuses on the object using certain tools (both real and symbolic). This part of the activity system is characterized by production, whereas during consumption, exchange, and distribution, other moments/elements are brought to bear such as the rules, community, and the division of labor. Important to note is that they are again all dialectically linked; while we can focus on a single moment in the activity system, one should recall that the others are always residing in the background.

Activity Theory and Science Learning, Fig. 1
figure 15figure 15

A depiction of an activity system – the fundamental unit of analysis – using agriculture as an exemplar. Farmers (subject) plant crops using machinery and chemicals (tools) to produce food and other valued produce (object). This process follows scientific and/or tacit knowledge of farming (rules) and articulates with those involved in production/exchange/consumption practices such as salespersons, irrigation experts, and restaurateurs, etc. (community). No single farmer can/might produce everything and is thus reliant on others for equipment, building materials, seeds, and so forth (division of labor)

Full size image

The activity triangle has achieved an iconic status although approaching activity theory this way is not without some pitfalls. For example, it tends to emphasize the synchronic rather than diachronic aspects of activity just as it has tempted some to be indiscriminate in identifying the various moments in an activity system that exist in a parts–whole relationship. These problems are partly due to the subtlety in defining “activity”; the English language is unable to differentiate the German/Russian understanding of societal activity or work (Tätigkeit/deyatel’nost) from mere effort, being engaged or busy, which is known as Aktivität/aktivnost. Hence, educators are frequently puzzled over the most appropriate level of analytical focus – the national system (i.e., schooling), the school/district, or the classroom/groups of students – because all three “activity systems” are amply represented in the literature, sometimes even within a single manuscript.

Besides the three hierarchical levels of activity and the different moments in an activity system, another fruitful concept is the idea of contradictions. These are frequently described as inner contradictions and are not to be confused with issues, conflicts, or problems of a superficial nature. Contradictions per se do not cause change; instead, they act as both resources and products of human agency during transformations of activity systems (i.e., when the object is changed). These dilemmas that are cultural-historical in origin exist at the collective/societal level and appear in four kinds. For instance, schools undergoing STEM reforms might encounter a lack of resources (a primary contradiction), learning mismatches between learners and teachers (secondary contradiction), unrealistic policy mandates coming from external authorities (tertiary contradiction), and possibly graduating students ill-prepared for science-related careers (quaternary contradiction). Presently, one reads about third generation (at least two interacting activity systems, tensions, dialogue, etc.) and fourth generation activity theory (inclusion of emotions, identity, ethics) although there is no firm consensus on their characteristics. What perhaps can be agreed is that activity theory tries to explain how sensemaking and development occur at the intersection of people acting in and on their sociomaterial environments.

Activity Theory and Science Education

In general, activity theory has been commended for its ability to handle issues of contexts, complexity, power and politics, identity and emotions, and the rapidity of educational change among others. Yet, the inroads into science education have been patchy without any person, group, or research program who can be consistently associated with this framework save for a select few such as Wolff-Michael Roth (2010). Science educators would find interest in some of the advantages of using activity theory in the discipline that are summarized below (see Roth et al. 2009).

  1. 1.

    To understand tool mediation in teaching and learning

    Most studies in this category have examined the use of computers and software as mediators of science learning, including the role of contradictions in the activity system. The use of psychological/thinking tools such as scientific representations has also been an area of interest. And treating science as practice in the new STEM standards in the United States finds much alignment with understanding activity as equivalent to the production, consumption, and exchange of knowledge.

  2. 2.

    To make visible normally invisible structures, processes, relations, and configurations

    It is the intent of educators here to provide accounts of learning that are more inclusive, to understand how schooling in society mediates individual learning. Urban science education or those initiatives that advocate science for all or with science–technology–society emphases immediately come to mind. Important but less invoked themes of race, class, and gender that play over different timescales for learners are now salient. This is the strength of activity theory when it draws culture and history into our explanations of learning.

  3. 3.

    To investigate issues concerning a larger system or across systems

    Even though the focus of analysis has often been the single activity system, activity theory allows researchers to zoom in and out, to make linkages between nested and overlapping activity systems (i.e., boundary objects) and give greater breadth and depth to analyses. For example, science teachers are impacted by district and societal demands and the forces of globalization even though classrooms might seem like rather isolated activity systems to many.

  4. 4.

    To rethink and empower science learning

    Squarely within its transformative stance, past research in this category has shifted attributing (dis)ability in purely personal terms to incorporate the sociocultural dimensions as well. Research in science education here has studied informal learning environments (e.g., environmental groups) where deep motivation and surprising levels of science expertise are displayed among students that have been written off by formal institutions.

  5. 5.

    To create structures and collaborations to facilitate change

    Notable here is the vast amount of work done on coteaching and cogenerative dialogs in urban science education where activity theory is used as a theory for praxis and theory of praxis. Stakeholders in environmental or workplace disputes have also been brought together using this framework to good effect because it allows for multi-voicedness in uncovering the contradictions and the heterogeneous forms the object of activity might assume.

Ongoing Difficulties with Activity Theory

One persistent dispute concerns the unit of analysis in activity theory. If we assume that activities are properly those that sustain human society, then the unit of analysis that Vygotsky championed tends towards larger, more encompassing categories such as schooling, agriculture, law, and so on. It is definitely not at the level of the individual which classical psychology has favored. Be that as it may, this has not prevented the examination of classrooms or curricula programs using activity theory to unpack the systemic contradictions there or to pinpoint specific individuals as the subject of activity. Similarly, identifying the elements or moments within the activity triangle has been seen as problematic because these are believed to be dialectical in nature thereby impossible to analyze or comprehend as stand-alone entities. Again, such a purist stance has not been consistently applied; individual elements within the triangle have been the topic of past research. In short, activity theory has philosophical underpinnings that are not easily understood (e.g., privileging knowledge as process), and thus it sometimes seems too encompassing to the point of being vague as well as too specific on other occasions with claims made that are unsupportable by the data. However, it is now increasingly accepted that micro-level phenomenon feed and support macro-level events which themselves offer affordances for the emergence of new or existing structures – both levels are analytically productive as what Vygotsky had proposed although declaring one’s theoretical commitments here is needed.

Contradictions have also long been irresistible as an explanatory variable when accounting for problems and resistance to change in activity theoretic research. Yet, fidelity to these being an inner, systemic contradiction which the use and exchange value of all objects exemplify is not often adhered. The final candidate for why activity theory is so frequently misunderstood is most likely its inherent dialectical structure; learning changes from being largely attributable to individual qualities or accomplishments to being a social, collective venture. A dialectical perspective likewise suggests a needed corrective against a form of smugness in sociocultural research – our interpretations of the social world are but works in progress, by-products of a particular age and place and of fallible human beings. Certainly, this lack of closure and certitude in taking a dialectical stance will be frustrating to many.

Overall Assessment of Activity Theory in Science Learning

What are science educators to make of activity theory? It has been claimed to be able to overcome dichotomies that have plagued education such as individual/collective, body/mind, intra-/inter-psychological, and so forth. While these goals are still being worked out, at the very minimum it sensitizes us to view learning as an ongoing orchestration of people and cultural artifacts in practices (activity systems) where the past and the present are intertwined. It also inspires us to see the potential for human(e) development when societal contradictions are surfaced, critiqued, and overcome. This is an exciting but extremely difficult endeavor; human learning is multidimensional and complex, which science educators have overwhelmingly theorized at the level of the individual learner. Activity theorists will therefore continue to plod on in their research long after where Vygotsky had left off.

Cross-References