Talk:Activity theory

message: I would like to highlight that some people who are coming here to read about activity theory have no idea what it is. Even if they do it is useful to give them a point of view that encourages learning by explaining the theory prior to discussion of its origins and background. Perhaps more emphasis should be placed on discussing the practical applications and ideas of activity theory. What I see so far doesn't seem helpful to anyone who doesn't know anything. Weissdom (talk) 22:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  PLEASE MAKE THIS PAGE MORE PRACTICAL. 

message: It's a start. Someone who knows more about the subject can take it from here. (I did the original text; I just forgot to login first).
I am trying to learn about AT, and this page offers no general descriptive introduction to the main ideas and so was not helpful to me. Just a constructive opinion! Keep editing!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.200.132.48 (talk) 05:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Various editing issues 

message: I removed the statement that "because of this, Activity Theory has nothing to say about consciousness, as the term is generally used" (in the information theory section). There are several different meanings of 'consciousness'; if AT wants to use one of them, that's fine. m.e. 1 July 2005 14:03 (UTC)
Hi M.e., whoever you are. I saw your page and got mad at its partisanship and historical inaccuracy. This stimulated me to begin adding to it. If you do a search on systemic structural activity theory you'll find my wenb pages; I'm based in Wales, UK. Get in touch if you object to what I've done, want to discuss things further, whatever...
: Just in case: the founder of the theory, Leontiev wrote a book that happens to be called Activity, Consciousness, and Personality; it does have to say quite a lot about consiousneess, indeed :) ... Btw, if interested, feel free to check out also this one: Activity and Consciousness. Both are available @ www.marxists.org... Yasya 04:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Activity theory and Consciousness 

message: Yes, these are all great points. Also, what about American activity theory? American professional and technical writing scholars, and some rhetoric/composition scholars as of late, have generated a good amount of scholarship on AT. I'll look into this as well... Elmarhashimov (talk) 19:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Curiously enough, I have had no idea of AT application in the field of rhetorics and composition. This initially innocent entry is growing into something really huge, which might be quite interesting. But please make sure that you clearly indicate the historical phases and geographical locales since, I am most certain, all these issues matter a lot. Thus, I doubt the originators of the whole thing, Rubinstein and Leontiev, would recognize their ideas in the later developments, either in Scandinavia or the US, or anywhere else outside the Soviet Union. I guess, by the end of his life Leontiev (i.e. A.N.) did not really associate himself with the bunch of stuff that was being done back then in the USSR under the banner of "activity theory" in psychology in the Soviet Union--not to mention a totally sick idea of applying it beyond the confines of discipline or abroad :). (References available upon request). Good luck with editing anyway!--Yasya (talk) 16:24, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The issues of periodization, disciplinary and geographical borders 

message: I did it! All the non-Soviet stuff was moved to the article Scandinavian activity theory. This, present article, on the other hand, is supposed to deal with the enourmously reach tradition of a) Soviet and post-Soviet b) psychological and educational research within the tradition of Leont'ev and, in some sense, Vygotsky. Suggestions and improvements are more than welcome :)... Yasya 04:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scandinavian activity theory 

message: I lifted this list of sources from the Scandinavian AT article I merged here. None of these were properly cited. Not sure how to go about incorporating these as citations throughout the text here. See the list of uncited references below. Elmarhashimov (talk) 22:49, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation issues 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Activity theory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://www.misq.org/skin/frontend/default/misq/pdf/Abstracts/AllenBrownAbstract.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080724202547/http://www-static.cc.gatech.edu/~aforte/BryantForteBruckBecomingWikipedian.pdf to http://www-static.cc.gatech.edu/~aforte/BryantForteBruckBecomingWikipedian.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:58, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: My eyes refused to track past the first paragraph.  I ended up getting a more useful summary from: 
* http://www.artifex.org/~bonnie/
It takes a stout wall to make my eyes go on hunger strike.  Probably some sound material here, but could it not be made more inviting? — MaxEnt 22:09, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I realize this is a blunt tool, but I pasted the lead into an online Gunning fog index calculator and got scores of 20, 22, and 21 for the three paragraphs, where 17 is college graduate, and each increment represents another year of education. "Texts for a wide audience generally need a fog index less than 12." — MaxEnt 22:16, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead is wall of text