解构文化史活动理论:列昂蒂耶夫和Engeström的活动理论途径

Q1 Arts and Humanities Knowledge Cultures Pub Date : 2022-01-01 DOI:10.22381/kc10120225
{"title":"解构文化史活动理论:列昂蒂耶夫和Engeström的活动理论途径","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":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"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\":null,\"pages\":null},\"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}","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

摘要

。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。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Unravelling Cultural-Historical Activity Theory (CHAT): Leontiev’s and Engeström’s Approaches to Activity Theory
. 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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Knowledge Cultures
Knowledge Cultures Arts and Humanities-Literature and Literary Theory
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
15
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.
期刊最新文献
Mobilising for Action: Introduction to the Special Issue What We Do in Kauri Forests: Exploring the Affective Worlds of ‘High Risk’ Users of Vulnerable Forest Areas in Aotearoa|New Zealand Healing Fragmentation of Forest Biosecurity Networks: A Conceptual and Reflexive Mapping Analysis of Postcolonial Relations that Matter in Aotearoa|New Zealand and Cymru|Wales Positioning Research to Improve Tree-Biosecurity Relations Walking, Sensing, Knowing: An Ethnography on Foot Around Forest Biosecurity Interventions in Te-Ika-ā-Māui
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1