Activity theory analyzes human behavior in social contexts. It originated from Vygotsky's notion of mediated action and the relationship between subject, object, and mediating artifact. Leont'ev introduced the distinction between individual action and collective activity, considering how division of labor impacts activity. Engeström expanded the model to include community, rules, division of labor, and how they interact within an activity system. Activity theory principles include the hierarchical structure of activity, its object-oriented nature, internalization/externalization of tools, mediation of human activity by tools, and development over time through contradictions. It has been applied to understand technology use in education and analyze changes within and between activity systems.

1. Activity Theory
Analysing technology mediated learning in social context
Michael Paskevicius
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUfIO9F8

2. The evolution of activity theory
Origins
• Vygotsky's notion of mediation
• Triangular model of complex
mediated act, triad of subject, object,
mediating artefact
– The limitation of the first
generation was that the unit of
analysis remained individually
focused

3. Leont'ev’s contribution (1981)
• Leont'ev introduced the crucial differentiation between
individual action and collective activity
• Considered historically evolving division of labor impacting
activity
• Defined the hierarchical structure of activity
– The limitation of the second generation was not
explicitly taking into account cultural diversity

4. Yrjö Engeström (1987)
• Expansion of the basic Vygotskian model to include the
social/collective elements in an activity system
• Elements of community, rules, division of labour and
object
• Emphasises the importance of considering and analysing
these elements interactions with each other

5. Yrjö Engeström (1987)
• Subjects are the individual or group whose
viewpoint is adopted.
• Object “refers to the ‘raw material’ or ‘problem
space’ at which the activity is directed and which
is molded or transformed into outcomes. It
precedes and motivates activity.
• Tools mediate the object of activity. They can be
external, material (e.g., a textbook, a computer)
or internal, symbolic (e.g., language).
• Community refers to the participants of an
activity system, who share the same object.
• The division of labour involves the division of
tasks and roles among members of the
community and the divisions of power and status.
• Rules are explicit and implicit norms that regulate
actions and interactions within the system

7. Yrjö Engeström (2014)
• Networks of interacting activity systems

8. Five principles of activity theory
Hierarchical structure of activity
Object-orientedness
Internalization/externalization
Mediation
Development

9. Object-orientedness
• “Any activity of an organism is
directed at a certain object; an
objectless activity is impossible”
(Leont'ev, 1981)
• Suggests we seek an
understanding not only of what
people are doing, but also why
they are doing it (Kaptelinin, 2005)

10. Hierarchical structure of activity
• Activity - motivating object carried out by the community
- regulated by motives
• Action - action level goals carried out by individuals or
groups - regulated by goals
• Operation - operational conditions become routinized by
humans or machines - regulated by conditions

11. Internalization/externalization
• Internalization - transformation of
external activities into internal ones
• Externalization - transforms internal
activities into external ones

12. Mediation
• Human activity is mediated by tools which have socially
and culturally developed properties (Kaptelinin & Nardi,
1997).
• The use of tools is an accumulation and transmission of
social knowledge
• Tool use influences the nature of external behavior and
also the mental functioning of individuals (Wartofsky
1979 quoted in Russell, 2002).
• The learning of higher cognitive
functions are necessarily mediated
using tools, while lower elementary
functions are innate
Image from Ng'ambi, D. (2010) Mobile Learning in Africa: a case of
anonymous SMS http://www.slideshare.net/Ngambi1MLearning/

13. Development
• Activity is a key source of development of both the subject
and the object
• Activities change over time through systemic
contradictions leading to transformation and expansion
• “An expansive transformation is accomplished when the
object and motive of the activity are reconceptualized to
embrace a radically wider horizon of possibilities than in
the previous mode of the activity”. (Engeström, 2001, p.
137)

14. Applications of AT: Contradictions
within activity systems
The teachers' absence in the [online] discussion conflicted with learners'
expectations in two ways: their learning process was severely inhibited on the net
and both their individual and group work was seriously impaired. Since there was
no interlocutor for student questions, no discussion partner or any online
guidance, etc., the students felt abandoned by their teacher and this led to a loss
of confidence in them. (Dippe, 2006)
“The introduction of the computer as a tool has required a new division of labour
due in part to the novelty of the tool but also due to the fact that the teacher is
unable to assist all students with the computer tasks. Hence, students have
become teachers of other students.” (Hardman, 2005)

15. Applications of AT: Describing activity
systems
Exploring systems of activity around the creation of open
education resources and how they expand potential outcomes

16. Applications of AT: Exploring how
objects become tools
Exploring how outcomes related to one system of activity may
be used as tools for other systems of activity

17. Adapted from Murphy & Manzanares, 2008
Applications of AT: Comparing systems
of activity
Comparing systems of activity which draw upon different tools and
environments for the purpose of understanding systemic changes

18. Applications of AT: Comparing systems
of activity
Comparing systems of activity which aim for different objects for
the purpose of understanding systemic changes
Bozalek, V., Ng’ambi, D., Wood, D., Herrington, J., Hardman,
J., & Amory, A. (Eds.). (2014).

19. Discussion

20. References
• Blin, F., & Munro, M. (2008). Why hasn’t technology disrupted academics’ teaching practices?
Understanding resistance to change through the lens of activity theory. Computers & Education,
50(2), 475-490.
• Bozalek, V., Ng’ambi, D., Wood, D., Herrington, J., Hardman, J., & Amory, A. (Eds.).
(2014). Activity Theory, Authentic Learning and Emerging Technologies: Towards a
Transformative Higher Education Pedagogy. Routledge.
• Daniels, H., Edwards, A., Engeström, Y., Gallagher, T., & Ludvigsen, S. R. (Eds.). (2013). Activity
theory in practice: Promoting learning across boundaries and agencies. Routledge.
• Dippe, G. (2006). The missing teacher: Contradictions and conflicts in the experience of online
learners. Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Networked Learning 2006.
Lancaster: Lancaster University.
• Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental
research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit.
• Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive Learning at Work: Toward an Activity-theoretical
Conceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), pp. 133-156.
• Engeström, Y. (2014). Learning by expanding. Cambridge University Press.
• Hardman, J. (2005). An exploratory case study of computer use in a primary school mathematics
classroom: New technology, new pedagogy? Perspectives in Education, 23(4), 99-111.
• Kaptelinin, V., & Nardi, B. A. (1997, March). Activity theory: basic concepts and applications.
In CHI'97 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 158-159). ACM.
http://gossettphd.org/library/KaptelininNardi_BasicsofAT.pdf
• Kaptelinin, V. (2005). The object of activity: Making sense of the sense-maker. Mind, culture, and
activity, 12(1), 4-18

21. References
• Kaptelinin, V., & Nardi, B. A. (2006). Acting with technology: Activity theory and interaction
design. MIT Press.
• Murphy, E. & Rodriguez-Manzanares, M. (2014). Activity Theory perspectives on technology in
higher education. Hershey, Pennsylvania: IGI Global.
• Murphy, E., & Manzanares, M. A. R. (2008). Contradictions between the virtual and physical high
school classroom: A third‐generation Activity Theory perspective. British Journal of Educational
Technology, 39(6), 1061-1072.
• Murphy, E., & Rodriguez-Manzanares, M. A. (2008). Using activity theory and its principle of
contradictions to guide research in educational technology. Australasian Journal of Educational
Technology, 24(4), 442-457.
• Russell, D. (2002). Looking beyond the interface: Activity theory and distributed
learning. Distributed learning: Social and cultural approaches to practice, 64-82.
• Saljo, R. (1999). A sociocultural perspective on the human-technology link. Learning with
computers: Analysing productive interaction, 144.

22. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License.. To view a copy of this license, visit
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
Prepared by: Michael Paskevicius
Learning Technologies Application Developer
Centre for Innovation and Excellence in Learning
michael.paskevicus@viu.ca
Follow me: http://twitter.com/mpaskevi
Presentations: http://www.slideshare.net/mpaskevi