Skip to main content

Learning, Development, and Cultural-Historical Activity Theory

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
  • 2546 Accesses

Part of the book series: Cultural Studies of Science Education ((CSSE,volume 6))

Abstract

In this chapter, we (a) contextualize early childhood science and (b) outline the foundation of our approach: cultural-historical activity. We focus on the dynamic aspects of the theory, as A. N. Leont’ev originally presented it and as it was subsequently further developed by Russian (Il’enkov, Mikhailov) and Western scholars (Holzkamp, Dreier, Nissen). The dynamic aspects of (social, material) reality require dialectical concepts to be captured at the ideal level. We introduce the idea of dialectical concepts that are characterized by inner contradictions that are precisely reflections of the dynamic aspects of life that we experience and observe.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The English translation of the text entitled Concrete Human Psychology (Vygotsky 1989) does not render justice to the original (in Vygotskij 2005). Thus, for example, Vygotsky writes in this quotation about societal relations and functions, but in English, the adjective is translated as “social,” even though Vygotsky makes differentiated use of the two adjectives, societal and social. A societal relation embodies institutional and power differences in a way that a social relation does not.

    Vygotsky’s name is transcribed differently into different languages. In the text, we consistently use the widely used English spelling. In the references, we use the name in the way it appears on the cover of the book that we reference or quote from. The Russian name, as any Russian word, is transcribed into English using the common phonetic transcription rules.

  2. 2.

    In most English texts, we might find the term “meaning” at this place. This term, however, is fraught with problems, as it is used to translate a variety of terms from other languages so that we cannot ever know what the original text said. The equivalents of sense, signification, and reference may all be translated and become “meaning” in an English translation. That is, for semioticians, the “meaning” of meaning is unclear (Nöth 1990). Making a distinction is important, however, because Russian authors tended to know the work of the Swiss semiologist Ferdinand de Saussure, who operated with the French terms sens (sense), référence (reference), and signification (signification). Thus, the French translation of a Bakhtin sentence reads “Le sens [smysl] du mot est entièrement déterminé par son contexte” (Bakhtine [Volochinov] 1930/1977, p. 115), which is falsely translated into English as “The meaning of a word is determined entirely by its context” (Vološinov 1930/1973, p. 79). Vygotsky’s word znachenie appears in English as “meaning” but in German as Bedeutung. According to one specialist in both Russian/Slavonic studies and Bakhtin, the Russian word znachenie corresponds to the German Bedeutung and is best rendered as “signification” (Brandist 2001).

  3. 3.

    The original Russian text is available online: www2.unil.ch/slav/ling/textes/VOLOSHINOV-29/introd.html

  4. 4.

    There is a problem with this term in that English that it is used to translate two distinct words used by the Russian founders of activity theory, as well as by the German Marx/Engels texts on which they grounded their work: deyatel’nost’/Tätigkeit (activity) and aktivnost’/Aktivität (activity). Here, we use the English term activity only to refer to deyatel’nost’/Tätigkeit and use other terms such as task, event, or assignment where one might find “activity” in the texts of our science educator colleagues. Thus, matching the colors of paper socks and a colored carpet in a kindergarten, as described in Chap. 3, is a task rather than an activity.

  5. 5.

    Here again, there is a problem for the reader of English, for “object” translates two distinct Russian/German equivalents: predmet/Gegenstand and ob’ekt/Objekt. The former might be an object of consciousness, referring literally to something thrown (Lat. iacere, to throw) before (Lat. ob-); the latter term refers to some material thing.

  6. 6.

    Thus, Marx points out that not only do humans produce things in activity but also they expend themselves in the process (Marx and Engels 1962). That is, production of things that meet some generalized need is at the same time consumption (of the body, machines, materials, and tools).

  7. 7.

    Michael Hoffmann, a classically trained philosopher and semiotician, was a member of our research laboratory for some time. His incisive questions allowed us to develop our own understanding of materialist dialectics.

  8. 8.

    Physicists model the dynamic of quantum phenomena using state functions and equations involving these. They also model observations using quantum mechanical operators. When these operators are allowed to operate on state functions, one or the other observable is realized. The state functions and the observables are very different things.

  9. 9.

    For this reason, a hammer is something very different for a competent carpenter, to whom the hammer is a handy tool (i.e., it is ready to hand), whereas for scientists or engineers with a theoretical gaze, it is an object that is present to hand (made present again in and through the representations they use) (Heidegger 1927/1977).

References

  • Bakhtine, M. [Volochinov, V. N.] (1977). Le marxisme et la philosophie du langage: essai d’application de la méthode sociologique en linguistique. Paris: Les Éditions de Minuit. (First published in 1930)

    Google Scholar 

  • Brandist, C. (2001). Problems of sense, significance, and validity in the Bakhtin circle. Topos, 1(2). URL: topos.ehu.lt/zine/2001/1/branidst.htm. Accessed 20 Apr 2011.

  • Deleuze, G. (1967). Différance et répétition. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foucault, M. (1975). Surveiller et punir: naissance de la prison [Discipline and punish: Birth of the prison]. Paris: Gallimard.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heidegger, M. (1977). Sein und Zeit [Being and time]. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. (First published in 1927)

    Google Scholar 

  • Henry, M. (2000). Incarnation: une philosophie de la chair [Incarnation: A philosophy of the flesh]. Paris: Éditions du Seuil.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holzkamp, K. (1983). Grundlegung der Psychologie [Foundation/Founding psychology]. Frankfurt/M: Campus.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holzkamp, K. (1993). Lernen: Subjektwissenschaftliche Grundlegung [Learning: Foundations in a science of the subject]. Frankfurt/M: Campus.

    Google Scholar 

  • Il’enkov, E. (1982). Dialectics of the abstract and the concrete in Marx’s Capital (S. Kuzyakov, Trans.). Moscow: Progress.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lave, J. (1993). The practice of learning. In S. Chaiklin & J. Lave (Eds.), Understanding practice: Perspectives on activity and context (pp. 3–32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Leontjew, A. N. (1982). Tätigkeit, Bewusstsein, Persönlichkeit [Activity, consciousness, personality]. Köln: Pahl-Rugenstein.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luria, A. R. (1973). The working brain. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1962). Werke Band 23: Das Kapital [Works Vol. 23: Capital]. Berlin: Dietz.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nöth, W. (1990). Handbook of semiotics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1967). The child’s conception of space. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vološinov, V. N. (1973). Marxism and the philosophy of language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (First published in 1930)

    Google Scholar 

  • Vosniadou, S., & Brewer, W. F. (1992). Mental models of the earth: A study of conceptual change in childhood. Cognitive Psychology, 24, 535–585.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1989). Concrete human psychology. Soviet Psychology, 27(2), 53–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1997). The collected works: Vol. 3. Problems of the theory and history of psychology. New York: Plenum. (First published in 1927)

    Google Scholar 

  • Vygotskij, L. S. (2005). Psykhologiya razvitiya cheloveka [Psychology of human development]. Moscow: Eksmo.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wolff-Michael Roth .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Roth, WM., Goulart, M.I.M., Plakitsi, K. (2013). Learning, Development, and Cultural-Historical Activity Theory. In: Science Education during Early Childhood. Cultural Studies of Science Education, vol 6. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5186-6_1

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics