The Role of Dialogue in Activity Theory

Activity Theory as formulated by Leont'ev and expanded by Engeström has tended to emphasize activity systems in which the objects to which subjects' actions are directed are material in form. In such accounts, discourse-if considered at all-is treated as just one of the artifacts or practices that mediate the subject's object-directed actions. As several scholars have pointed out, however, this model does not provide a satisfactory account of the dialogue in which such semiotic artifacts as accounts, explanations, and theories are the objects created and in which the co-construction of meaning by two or more participants actually constitutes the action. This article is intended as a contribution to the ongoing collaborative attempt to provide a more satisfactory account of the role of dialogue in activity, taking as example the dialogue in which two students negotiated a decision about the object of the activity in which they were engaged.

[1]  William R. Penuel,et al.  Vygotsky and identity formation: A sociocultural approach. , 1995 .

[2]  B. Rogoff.  Apprenticeship in Thinking: Cognitive Development in Social Context , 1990 .

[3]  Robert Sommer,et al.  Experience and Education. , 1974 .

[4]  Jay L. Lemke,et al.  Using language in the classroom , 1989 .

[5]  Yrjö Engeström,et al.  Non scolae sed vitae discimus: Toward overcoming the encapsulation of school learning , 1991 .

[6]  J. Lemke.  Textual Politics: Discourse And Social Dynamics , 1995 .

[7]  Clay Spinuzzi,et al.  Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human-computer interaction , 1997 .

[8]  Y. Engeström,et al.  Perspectives on activity theory: Play, learning, and instruction , 1999 .

[9]  G. Kress.  Before Writing: Rethinking the Paths to Literacy , 1997 .

[10]  J. Bruner.  Actual minds, possible worlds , 1985 .

[11]  L. Vygotsky.  Genesis of the higher mental functions. , 1991 .

[12]  G. Wells.  FROM ACTION TO WRITING : MODES OF REPRESENTING AND KNOWING , 2004 .

[13]  W. Freeman.  Societies of Brains: A Study in the Neuroscience of Love and Hate. By W. J. Freeman. Erlbaum: Hillsdale, NJ. 1994. , 1997, Psychological Medicine.

[14]  G. Wells.  Dialogic Inquiry: Towards a Socio-cultural Practice and Theory of Education , 1999 .

[15]  G. Wells,et al.  Writing in Knowledge-Building Communities. , 2000 .

[16]  W. Frawley.  Mind as Action , 1998, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[17]  C. Bereiter.  Implications of postmodernism for science, or, science as progressive discourse , 1994 .

[18]  Reijo Miettinen,et al.  Perspectives on activity theory: Transcending traditional school learning: Teachers' work and networks of learning , 1999 .

[19]  J. Wertsch,et al.  The creation of context in joint problem-solving. , 1984 .

[20]  M. Cole.  Cultural psychology: a once and future discipline? , 1996, Nebraska Symposium on Motivation. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation.

[21]  Marx W. Wartofsky,et al.  Models: Representation And The Scientific Understanding , 1979 .

[22]  H. Mehan,et al.  Learning Lessons, Social Organization in the Classroom , 1979 .

[23]  J. Lemke.  Talking Science: Language, Learning, and Values , 1990 .

[24]  Peter Scrimshaw,et al.  Computers and talk in the primary classroom , 1997 .

[25]  M. Halliday.  Towards a Language-Based Theory of Learning , 1993 .

[26]  Frank Smith,et al.  Writing and the writer , 1982 .

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

[28]  M. Studdert-Kennedy.  Hand and Mind: What Gestures Reveal About Thought. , 1994 .

[29]  M. Cole.  A cultural-historical approach to distributed cognition , 1993 .

[30]  M. Bakhtin,et al.  Speech genres and other late essays , 1986 .