Application of the Basic Terminology in Activity Theory

OCCUPATIONAL APPLICATIONS This article presents a comparative analysis of the basic terminology of activity theory. This terminology has its roots in Russian activity theory, and some translations failed to capture the original meaning of its basic concepts. The same terminology is utilized in other fields of psychology where it has a totally different meaning. Analysis of basic terminology of general, applied, and systemic-structural activity theory presented in this article will have value for ergonomists and engineers who utilize activity theory in practice. Without a clear understanding of basic activity theory terminology, its application by practitioners will be difficult. TECHNICAL ABSTRACT Background: Activity theory, and particularly its applied branches, can be very useful in designing equipment and software and in developing efficient methods of human performance. Applied activity theory and systemic-structural activity theory are especially valuable for ergonomic design, where cognitive aspects of work dominate. Cognitively and analytically oriented viewpoints on design require clearly developed terminology and a standardized language of human activity description. Much misunderstanding between practitioners and researchers in different areas of specialization derive from terminological issues. A clear understanding of activity theory basic terminology is particularly important for ergonomists with an engineering background. Purpose: The aim of this article is clarification of basic terminology in general, applied, and systemic-structural activity theory for specialists with an engineering background. Method: Comparative analysis of basic terminology in such areas as activity theory, cognitive psychology, action theory, and praxiology was conducted. Particular attention was paid to similar terms that have totally different meanings in these areas of study. Results: The meanings of basic terms in different branches of activity theory, their specifics, and the possibility of utilizing them by ergonomists in practice are provided. Knowledge of basic activity theory terminology makes it possible to utilize analytical procedures in ergonomic design that concentrate on cognitive components of work. Conclusions: Basic terminology of activity theory is very often used incorrectly. The same terms in different areas of study have totally different meanings. When professionals describe and evaluate task performance, which includes both physical and mental components, knowledge of terminology and its standardized description become a critical factor in design.

[1]  Keith Duncan,et al.  Cognitive Engineering , 2017, Encyclopedia of GIS.

[2]  Waldemar Karwowski,et al.  Human-Computer Interaction and Operators Performance: Optimizing Work Design with Activity Theory , 2010 .

[3]  J. Wertsch.  The Concept of Activity in Soviet Psychology , 1981 .

[4]  Waldemar Karwowski,et al.  A Method of Human Reliability Assessment Based on Systemic-Structural Activity Theory , 2010, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact..

[5]  Horst S. Daemmrich.  The Psychology of Art , 1972 .

[6]  W. Buxton.  Human-Computer Interaction , 1988, Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

[7]  John Annett,et al.  A systemic-structural theory of activity: applications to human performance and work design , 2008 .

[8]  Gregory Z. Bedny,et al.  "Working sphere/engagement" and the concept of task in activity theory , 2008, Interact. Comput..

[9]  W. Karwowski,et al.  Activity theory as a basis for the study of work , 2004, Ergonomics.

[10]  Steve Caplin,et al.  Principles Of Design , 2011 .

[11]  J. Chaplin.  Dictionary of psychology , 1975 .

[12]  R. Henson,et al.  Frontal lobes and human memory: insights from functional neuroimaging. , 2001, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[13]  J. Duncan,et al.  Common regions of the human frontal lobe recruited by diverse cognitive demands , 2000, Trends in Neurosciences.

[14]  V. Kaptelinin,et al.  Acting with Technology , 2008 .

[15]  C. E. Scott.  Existence and Consciousness , 1973 .

[16]  Lynne Regan,et al.  Engineering and design , 2003 .

[17]  Jutta Heckhausen,et al.  Motivation and action , 1991 .

[18]  Edwin A. Locke,et al.  Goal setting theory and job performance. , 1989 .

[19]  Tadeusz Kotarbiński.  Praxiology: An Introduction to the Sciences of Efficient Action , 2013 .

[20]  David E. Kieras,et al.  Towards a Practical GOMS Model Methodology for User Interface Design , 1988 .

[21]  B. Lomov.  The Problem of Activity in Psychology , 1982 .

[22]  Jan J. Ostrowski.  Praxiology—An Introduction to the Science of Efficient Action . By Tadeusz Kotarbinski. Translated from the Polish by Olgierd Wojtasiewicz. (Oxford, Pergamon Press; Warsaw, Polish Scientific Publishers, 1965. Pp. ii+219. Price 50s.) , 1968 .

[23]  H. Heckhausen,et al.  Thought contents and cognitive functioning in motivational versus volitional states of mind , 1987 .

[24]  Vladimir A. Ponomarenko,et al.  The significance of theoretical concepts in activity theory for applied research in aviation , 2004 .

[25]  A. N. Leont’ev,et al.  Activity, consciousness, and personality , 1978 .

[26]  Gitte Lindgaard,et al.  West meets East: Adapting Activity Theory for HCI & CSCW applications? , 2008, Interact. Comput..

[27]  M. Frese,et al.  Action as the core of work psychology: A German approach. , 1994 .

[28]  Bill Degrado,et al.  Engineering and design. , 1995, Current opinion in structural biology.

[29]  A.,et al.  Cognitive Engineering , 2008, Encyclopedia of GIS.

[30]  Rjoè,et al.  Activity theory as a framework for analyzing and redesigning work , 2005 .

[31]  Colin G. Ellard,et al.  Context and consciousness , 1995, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[32]  Paul E. Levy,et al.  Moving from Cognition to Action: A Control Theory Perspective , 1994 .

[33]  Waldemar Karwowski,et al.  Functional Analysis of Pilot Activity: A Method of Investigation of Flight Safety , 2010 .

[34]  E. Glover.  DICTIONARY OF PSYCHOLOGY , 1959 .

[35]  David Meister,et al.  Performance Measurement : Current Perspectives and Future Challenges , 2006 .

[36]  V Ponomarenko,et al.  Characteristics of Pilots’ Activity in Emergency Situations Resulting from Technical Failure , 2010 .

[37]  Lawrence A. Pervin,et al.  Goal Concepts: Themes, Issues, and Questions , 2015 .

[38]  Y. Engeström,et al.  Activity theory and individual and social transformation. , 1999 .

[39]  Waldemar Karwowski,et al.  A Systemic-Structural Activity Approach to the Design of Human-Computer Interaction Tasks , 2003, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact..