Engestrom (2001) revisited

Engestrom (2001), exploring the potential application of Activity Theory in learning and teaching, starts with questions:

• Who are the subjects of learning, how are they defined and located?
• Why do they learn, what makes them make the effort?
• What do they learn, what are the contents and outcomes of learning?
• How do they learn, what are the key actions or processes of learning?  (p. 133)

Teaching can be constructed around these questions, but the outcomes are never wholly predictable, because our learning and teaching practices are ‘characterized by ambiguity, surprise, interpretation, sense making, and potential for change’ (p. 134).

One risk with Activity Theory is that it can lead to the reification of the activity system, but Engestrom asserts an activity system, ‘is always a community of multiple points of view, traditions and interests. The division of labor in an activity creates different positions for the participants, the participants carry their own diverse histories, and the activity system itself carries multiple layers and strands of history engraved in its artifacts, rules and conventions… It is a source of trouble and a source of innovation, demanding actions of translation and negotiation’ (p. 136). An activity system is always in a state of flux, but, periodically, tensions between nodes within the system can comprise a means of producing a new phase of development in the system.

One implication of Activity theory is that deviant behaviour is misnamed. Instead of being a sign of disorder to be quelled, it can be read as an indication of the inadequacies of an existing system, requiring structural re-evaluation rather than castigation of an individual: ‘As the contradictions of an activity systems are aggravated, some individual participants begin to question and deviate from its established norms’ (p. 137). Deviation, therefore, can be the expression of inadequacy in an existing system, and a call for change.

Revisiting Engestrom is useful for understanding the permeability of activity systems, which are continually subject to the pressures of history, the individual and other activity systems. However, the framework remains useful for isolating component parts of a purposeful activity, and exploring where tensions might arise, and how those tensions can be addressed.

 

Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive Learning at Work: toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization, Journal of Education and Work, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 133-156.