1. HCC class lecture 16 comments
John Canny 3/16/05

2. Administrivia

3. Activity Theory family tree
Original (Russian) ActivityTheory
Situated Learning/ Communities of Practice
Distributed Cognition
Actor-Network Theory
Scandinavian AT

4. Engestrom’s Activity Theory
Engestrom’s take on Activity theory seems to draw from several sources beyond Leont’evs:
Marxism, with its emphasis on historical analysis, production and division of labor.
“Communities of practice” which developed in San Diego and Irvine in the 1980s.

5. Engestrom’s Activity Theory
Some care needs to be taken in applying the Engestrom model.
Distinguishing between “group subject” and “community”.
The subject is still the group of people doing the activity.
The community form social context for the subject, but are not directly involved in the activity.

6. Engestrom’s Activity Theory
Engestrom argues for “rules” and “division of labor” although they are articulated using less strict language.
e.g. rules include “norms” and social conventions for behavior (community standards if you like).
Division of labor includes “roles” for individuals, skill, management structure etc.

7. Engestrom’s Activity Theory
Engestrom’s extensions seem rather arbitrary.
Community is a contextual factor, but is the only contextual factor considered.
There is “division of labor” but not “division of tools.” Since tools include documents and language more generally, Engestrom rejects “genre” analysis (e.g. Bakhtin) that fits well otherwise with AT, and with methods like Actor-Network Theory.

8. Discussion Topics
T1: Critique the Engestrom model. What could it have included beyond what it does? What could be left out?
T2: Was the full Engestrom model relevant to the BUILD-IT system? What was actually used?