Talk:Activity theory
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Various editing issues
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).
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)
[edit] Activity theory and Consciousness
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...
- Just in case: the founder of the theory, Leontiev wrote a book that happens to be called Activity, Consciousness, and Personality; it does have to say quite a lot about consiousneess, indeed :) ... Btw, if interested, feel free to check out also this one: Activity and Consciousness. Both are available @ www.marxists.org... Yasya 04:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Discussing the bias of the article: Scandinavian vs. Soviet (post-Vygotskian) traditions
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, well, I'm still trying to get my head around activity theory, but I see what you're saying. So, how do you propose continuing? Do you think we should write more about its Soviet background or cut out some of the Scandinavian school or computer-related info? It may be an idea to break the article up into subarticles - though I'm not sure how desirable this would be. Please feel free to edit the article in an overall structural sense - not just the adding of info - I also think it is necessary. Cormaggio @ 18:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- Well, I have been thinking about the issue for a while and here is what I would suggest.
- The whole article should be divided into two (at least) part, where the original Activity theory article should be about the psychological (developmental) school developed mostly in the countries of the former USSR (to the best of my knowledge, mainly in Russia and Ukraine, perhaps, also partly in Georgia). This school of thought is directly related with such figures as Vygotsky, Leontiev, Luria, the work of the Kharkov school and many others.
- Then I believe we should create another article, e.g. Scandinavian activity theory that would deal with the work of Swedish, Finnish and other related schools of psychology. The whole issue of computer-related info, I guess, belongs here. Both articles should be cross referenced. Yasya 04:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Well, I have been thinking about the issue for a while and here is what I would suggest.
[edit] Scandinavian activity theory
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)
