Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Activity Theory in Informal Contexts: Contradictions Across Learning Contexts

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
How People Learn in Informal Science Environments

  • 369 Accesses

Abstract

Most learning theorists now view learning as a fundamental intertwining of social, cultural, and historical processes, and have observed this intertwining (Barton and Tan, J Res Sci Teach 46:50–73, 2009; Rahm in Understanding interactions at science centers and museums. Sense Publishers, 2012) in museums and elsewhere. Here, we will use sociocultural theory and cultural historical activity theory, CHAT as our foundation and analytic tool (Engeström, 1987, 2006; Engeström & Sannino, 2011), to look closely at learning at three levels of analysis: family activity, visitor/educator activities and field-based teaching activity. Using three case studies of conflict and change, we examine how CHAT provides a comprehensive theory that can integrate complex and often conflicting aspects of learning and teaching in out of school settings. We focus our analysis on contradictions, most specifically as they play out across the personal, professional, and institutional levels, involving curricular, social, ideological and cultural tensions. We emphasize the concept of expansive learning, noting in particular how theoretical constructs and practices are intertwined, as we use abstract ideas to understand concrete practices and vice versa. CHAT allows us to consider contexts, people, and their mediational means and goals, without losing sight of the whole.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 159.99
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

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Ash, D. (2022). Reculturing museums: Embrace conflict, create change, Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ash, D. (2019). Reflective practice in action research: moving beyond the “standard model.” In L. Martin, L. Tran, & D. Ash (Eds.), The reflective museum practitioner: expanding practice in science museums (pp. 23–38). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429025242-3

  • Ash, D. (2014a). Positioning informal learning research in museums within activity theory: From theory to practice and back again. Curator: The Museum Journal, 57, 107–118. https://doi.org/10.1111/cura.1205

  • Ash, D. (2014b). Creating hybrid spaces for talk: Humor as a resource learners bring to informal learning context. National Society for the Study of Education, 113(2), 535–555.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ash D., & Lombana J. (2012). Methodologies for reflective practice and museum educator research. In D. Ash, J. Rahm, L. M. Melber (Eds.), Putting theory into practice. New directions in mathematics and science education, (Vol. 25). Sense Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6091-964-0_4

  • Ash, D., & Race, A. (2021). Paths toward hybridity between equity and field-based environmental education for novice science teachers. International Journal of Informal Science and Environmental Learning, 1(1), 1–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ash, D., & Rahm, J. (2012). Introduction: Tools for research in informal settings. In D. Ash, J Rahm, & L. Melber (Eds.), From theory to practice: Tools for research in informal settings. Sense.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bang, M., & Marin, A. (2015). Nature-culture constructs in science learning: Human/non-human agency and intentionality. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(4), 530–544. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bang, M., Warren, B., Rosebery, A. S., & Medin, D. (2012). Desettling expectations in science education. Human Development, 55(5–6), 302–318. https://doi.org/10.1159/000345322

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barton, A. C., & Tan, E. (2009). Funds of knowledge and discourses and hybrid space. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(1), 50–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, T. (2018). Museums, power and knowledge: Selected essays. Routledge

    Google Scholar 

  • Bogost, I. (2018, October 26). The myth of ‘dumbing down’. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/10/scholars-shouldnt-fear-dumbing-down-public/573979/

  • Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (1999). How people learn. National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, A. L., Ash, D., Rutherford, M., Nakagawa, K., Gordon, A., & Campione, J. C. (1993). Distributed expertise in the classroom. In G. Solomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 188–228). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawson, E. (2014a). “Not designed for us”: How science museums and science centers socially exclude low-income, minority ethnic groups. Science Education, 98(6), 981–1008. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dawson, E. (2014b). Equity in formal science education: Developing an access and equity framework for science museums and science centres. Studies in Science Education, 50(2), 209–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dawson, E. (2014c). Reframing social exclusion from science communication: Moving away from “barriers” towards a more complex perspective. Journal of Science Communication, 13(2), 1–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • deGregoria Kelly, L. A. (2009). Action research as professional development for zoo educators. Visitor Studies, 12(1), 30–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dubin, S. (1999, 2014). Displays of power: Memory and amnesia in the American Museum. New York University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Engestrӧm, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding. An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Orienta-Konsultit.

    Google Scholar 

  • Engeström, Y. (1999b). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen, & R. Punamäki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory: Learning in doing: Social, cognitive and computational perspectives (pp. 19–38). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511812774.003

  • Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133–156. https://doi.org/10.1080/13639080020028747

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engeström, Y., Miettinen, R., & Punamäki R. (Eds.). (1999). Perspectives on activity theory. Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Engeström, Y., & Sannino, A. (2011). Discursive manifestations of contradictions in organizational change efforts: A methodological framework. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 24, 368–387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foot, K. A. (2001). Cultural-historical activity theory as practice theory: Illuminating the development of conflict-monitoring network. Communication Theory, 11(1), 56–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foot, K. (2014). Cultural-historical activity theory: Exploring a theory to inform practice and research. Journal of Human Behavior in Social Environments, 12(3), 329–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foot, K., & Groleau, C. (2011). Contradictions, transitions, and materiality in organizing processes: An activity theory perspective. First Monday, 16(6), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v16i6.3479

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gutiérrez, K. D., & Calabrese Barton, A. (2015). The possibilities and limits of the structure-agency dialectic in advancing science for all. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(4), 574–583.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gutierrez, K., & Rogoff, B. (2003). Cultural ways of learning: Individual traits or repertoires of practice. Educational Researcher, 32(5), 19–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris, C. I. (1995). Whiteness as property. In K. Crenshaw, N. Gotanda, G. Peller, & K. Thomas (Eds.), Critical race theory (pp. 276–291). The New Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holzman, L. (2006). What kind of theory is activity theory? Theory and Psychology, 16(1), 5–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Janes, R. (2013). Museums and the paradox of change. Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Janes, R. (2009). Museums in a troubled world. Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kuutti, K. (1996). Activity theory as a potential framework for human– computer interaction research. In B. Nardi (Ed.), Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human–computer interaction (pp. 17–44). MIT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leont’ev, A. N. (1978). Activity, consciousness, and personality. Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mahn, H. (2003). Periods in child development: Vygotsky’s perspective, In L. S. Vygotsky (Eds.), Vygotsky's educational theory in cultural context. Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mai, T., & Ash, D. (2012). Tracing our methodological steps: Making meaning of families’ hybrid “figuring out” practices at science museum exhibits. In D. Ash, J. Rahm, & L. Melber (Eds.), Putting theory into practice: Methodologies for informal learning research (pp. 97–117). Sense Publishers.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Moore, B. (2013). Understanding the ideology of normal: Making visible the ways in which educators think about students who seem different. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Colorado.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, E., & Rodríguez Manzanares, M. (2008). Using activity theory and its principle of contradictions to guide research in educational technology. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rahm, J. (2012) Science in the making at the margin: A multi-sited ethnography of learning and becoming in an afterschool program, a garden, and a math and science Upward Bound program. In E. Davidsson and A. Jakobsson, (Eds.), Understanding interactions at science centers and museums. Sense Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roth, W. M., Radford, L., & LaCroix, L. (2012). Working with cultural-historical activity theory. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 13(2), Art. 23. http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1814/3379

  • Vossoughi, S., & Gutiérrez, K. D. (2014). Studying movement, hybridity, and change: Toward a multi-sited sensibility for research on learning across contexts and borders. Teachers College Record, 116(14), 603–632.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). Thinking and speech. Plenum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ward, S. J. (2016). Understanding contradictions in times of change: A CHAT analysis in an art museum. [Doctoral dissertation, University of Washington]. Research Works Archive. http://hdl.handle.net/1773/37091

  • Wertsch, J. V. (2007). Mediation. In H. Daniels, M. Cole, & J. V. Wertsch (Eds.), The Cambridge companion to Vygotsky (pp. 178–192). Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Yamagata-Lynch, L. C. (2010). Activity systems analysis methods: Understanding complex learning environments. Springer.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of California, Santa Cruz, CA, USA

    Doris Ash

  2. University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA

    Sarah Jo Ward

Authors
  1. Doris Ash
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sarah Jo Ward
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Doris Ash .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Columbus State University, Columbus, GA, USA

    Patricia G. Patrick

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Ash, D., Ward, S.J. (2023). Activity Theory in Informal Contexts: Contradictions Across Learning Contexts. In: Patrick, P.G. (eds) How People Learn in Informal Science Environments. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-13291-9_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-13291-9_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-13290-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-13291-9

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation