Unravelling Cultural-Historical Activity Theory (CHAT): Leontiev’s and Engeström’s Approaches to Activity Theory

Q1 Arts and Humanities

Knowledge Cultures Pub Date : 2022-01-01 DOI:10.22381/kc10120225

{"title":"Unravelling Cultural-Historical Activity Theory (CHAT): Leontiev’s and Engeström’s Approaches to Activity Theory","authors":"","doi":"10.22381/kc10120225","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":". Activity theory has long been an influential framework in the field of education. However, its theoretical concepts are not easily grasped by scholars, mainly due to difficulties in translation from the original Russian works, the complexity of these concepts and multiple versions embedded within the tradition. The two major approaches within activity theory were established by Leontiev and another version proposed later by Engeström, and they have often been confused and conflated together in the literature. This paper provides a much-needed theoretical comparison between these approaches in regard to the field of education. The criteria for comparison involve their theoretical foundations, central phenomena of interest, key theoretical concepts, units of analysis and explanatory mechanisms. Insights from this paper contribute to establishing a more refined understanding of activity theory and its variants, which in turn allows researchers to make more informed decisions when selecting and using these frameworks. Implications for practical research practices are discussed with examples from the area of teacher professional development.","PeriodicalId":37557,"journal":{"name":"Knowledge Cultures","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Knowledge Cultures","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22381/kc10120225","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 2

Abstract

. Activity theory has long been an influential framework in the field of education. However, its theoretical concepts are not easily grasped by scholars, mainly due to difficulties in translation from the original Russian works, the complexity of these concepts and multiple versions embedded within the tradition. The two major approaches within activity theory were established by Leontiev and another version proposed later by Engeström, and they have often been confused and conflated together in the literature. This paper provides a much-needed theoretical comparison between these approaches in regard to the field of education. The criteria for comparison involve their theoretical foundations, central phenomena of interest, key theoretical concepts, units of analysis and explanatory mechanisms. Insights from this paper contribute to establishing a more refined understanding of activity theory and its variants, which in turn allows researchers to make more informed decisions when selecting and using these frameworks. Implications for practical research practices are discussed with examples from the area of teacher professional development.

查看原文本刊更多论文

解构文化史活动理论:列昂蒂耶夫和Engeström的活动理论途径

。长期以来，活动理论一直是教育领域一个有影响的框架。然而，其理论概念并不容易被学者们理解，主要是由于从俄罗斯原著翻译的困难，这些概念的复杂性以及传统中嵌入的多种版本。活动理论中的两种主要方法是由Leontiev建立的，另一个版本后来由Engeström提出，它们在文献中经常被混淆和混为一谈。本文在教育领域对这些方法进行了急需的理论比较。比较标准包括它们的理论基础、关注的中心现象、关键理论概念、分析单位和解释机制。本文的见解有助于建立对活动理论及其变体的更精细的理解，这反过来又使研究人员在选择和使用这些框架时做出更明智的决定。通过教师专业发展领域的例子，讨论了对实际研究实践的启示。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Knowledge Cultures Arts and Humanities-Literature and Literary Theory

CiteScore

2.70

自引率

0.00%

发文量

期刊介绍： Knowledge Cultures is a multidisciplinary journal that draws on the humanities and social sciences at the intersections of economics, philosophy, library science, international law, politics, cultural studies, literary studies, new technology studies, history, and education. The journal serves as a hothouse for research with a specific focus on how knowledge futures will help to define the shape of higher education in the twenty-first century. In particular, the journal is interested in general theoretical problems concerning information and knowledge production and exchange, including the globalization of higher education, the knowledge economy, the interface between publishing and academia, and the development of the intellectual commons with an accent on digital sustainability, commons-based production and exchange of information and culture, the development of learning and knowledge networks and emerging concepts of freedom, access and justice in the organization of knowledge production.