Chapter 2. From a Dominant Social Cognitive Framework to an Emerging Sociocultural Framework Framework
2.3 A Sociocultural Framework for Exceptional Academic Achievement: An Individual–
2.3.2 An overview of cultural-historical activity theory
implicit in other psychological theories. Moreover, the theory facilitates the embodiment of culture and the individual in a historical, current, and on-going activity process (Van Vlaenderen
& Neves, 2004), and may therefore represent a particular application of sociocultural thought that has relevance at multiple individual, social, historical, and institutional levels.
Although the phrases “cultural-historical”, “socio-cultural”, and “socio-historical” are frequently used interchangeably, the focus on cultural-historical for this thesis is intentional as it centralises cultural and historical processes in human activity and learning (Daniels, 2008). Given the centrality and relevance of culture and history in contemporary South African higher education (see section 1.2), it would be important to conceptually foreground these processes. Chaiklin (2001) identifies cultural-historical psychology as the term used by Vygotsky to describe his approach, defining this field as the “study of the development of psychological functions through social participation in societally-organised practices” (Chaiklin, 2001, p. 21). This is similar to the sociocultural conception of culture that was referred to earlier (see subsection 2.3.1), which highlighted a focus on interpersonal participation in social activities. In the current study, this was linked to a Vygotskian approach to conceptualising co-regulated (and adaptive) learning and exceptional academic achievement (to be discussed below, see subsection 2.3.3), this having particular importance for this thesis.
In the context of this study, academic activity (an object) may be mediated by various artefacts (e.g., daily planner, online tutorial, past examination paper) for a higher education student (subject). The above descriptions (and example) of Vygotsky’s mediated triangle (and subsequent reformulations of this) are however, notably focused at the individual level of activity.
A second generation of activity theory (which moved the focus away from individual activity21) is frequently ascribed to the work of Aleksei N. Leontiev (Engeström, Miettinen, & Punamäki, 1999). A student and collaborator of Vygotsky, Leontiev’s (1978) second generation of
theorising began to distinguish different forms of activity, separating activity into individual action and collective activity. Leontiev’s writings signal a move away from analysis of
individual action, to a conceptualisation of and focus on collective activity as the unit of analysis.
Engeström (1987) affirms this by claiming, “we may well speak of the activity of the individual, but never of the individual activity; only actions are individual” (p. 66).
21 In contrast, Kaptelinin (2005) asserts that Leontiev’s version of activity theory was predominantly focused at the level of individual activity. He does, however, clarify that Leontiev also theorised the notion of collective activity, although given the application of this theory in the field of psychology, the focus on the level of individual activity and personality remained.
Figure 2-3. Reformulated conceptualisation of Vygotsky's complex mediated act
Leontiev (1978), in his consideration of the object as indicated in Figure 2-3, distinguished between the object of collective activity, and the goal of individual (or group) action.
Specifically, individual actions are perceived to be driven by individual or group goals, where a student may for example study individually and/or in a group for a test (the action), this action being driven by the goal of passing the test. In contrast, collective activity (within which an individual’s actions are embedded) is driven by an object (or motive). An example of collective activity could, for example, be the implementation of a formal academic support programme for a group of previously disadvantaged students, with the object (or motive) of contributing to a transformation agenda in higher education.
In addition to his elaboration of the constructs of object and goal, Leontiev (1978) also identified operations as the methods (falling under “individual actions”) that individuals may use in the pursuit of their goals. For example, some of the operations that students may employ in their actions could include drawing up a study schedule, summarising content, highlighting text, and memorising content. These operations are necessarily dependent on and driven by certain conditions (such as having access to the content that needs to be summarised or highlighted).
Leontiev’s (1978) extended notion of object-oriented collective activity has been represented in Figure 2-4. This representation positions condition-dependent operations, at the bottom of the hierarchical structure, with goal-directed action (by the individual or the group) above this.
Object-oriented collective activity is positioned at the top of the hierarchy, this representing a social and cultural motive. Therefore, just as action is perceived as individual, and activity as collective, motivation is understood as an individual (or group-based) process while motive is positioned as being socially and culturally located (Wells, 2011). Fleer (2011) affirms the latter by suggesting, “every activity is driven by distinct motives and these motives do not arise from within, but rather are the objects of the material world” (p. 67).
Daniels (2001b) reinforces that the expansion of the concepts of goal and object signal a move towards object-oriented collective activity as a suitable unit of analysis. As identified above, this stance allows a move away from approaches that separate individual and social constructs. As a result, the phenomenon of exceptional academic achievement could then be understood from the perspective of collective activity (e.g., families, study groups, departments, institutions) directed towards academic achievement. Importantly though, individual actions and operations are necessarily perceived as being embedded within this perspective of collective activity, where the object (or motive) of academic activity that produces exceptional academic achievement would be perceived as existing in the external world (and not necessarily with an individual student’s operation, goal, and motivation).
Leontiev’s second generation of activity theory development (focusing on individual actions embedded within collective activity) provided a platform for a third level of development in the field of activity theory. Predominantly led by Yrjӧ Engestrӧm, a researcher and theorist from Finland, the third generation of activity theory foregrounds the analysis of collective and institutional activity systems (Engeström & Miettinen, 1999). Whereas the first and second
Figure 2-4. Leontiev’s object-oriented collective activity incorporating individual actions
generations of activity theory theorised individual and collective activity, Engestrӧm’s focus on activity is distinctly social and collective. Over the past two and a half decades, Engestrӧm’s work has progressively theorised a concept of activity that facilitates a macro analysis of community and institutional activities, within which a micro analysis of individual actions and activities may be embedded.
In particular, drawing on Marx’s centrality of the division of labour in human society, Engestrӧm (1987) proposed a third generation of activity theory which positions a layer beneath Vygotsky’s original triangle of mediated action. Congruent with Marxist ideology, Engestrӧm (1987)
suggested that human activity is necessarily also mediated by a “division of labour”, “rules”, and the “community” within which the object-oriented activity occurs. Cole (2005) suggests that the
“community refers to those who share the same general object” (p. 218), and in the context of academic achievement in higher education, this community could include a variety of people (family, lecturers, and peers). “Rules” refers to the customs and conventions that may guide individual actions and collective activity (e.g., rules for graduating cum laude or summa cum laude, rules for obtaining a distinction, norms and conventions for being awarded a certificate of merit or dean’s commendation, and rules and norms for test and examination taking behaviour).
“Division of labour” refers to the way in which the various community members may contribute towards the object-oriented activity (Cole, 2005). In the higher education environment for example, there may be debates around how the division of labour between student and lecturer should be negotiated. Figure 2-5 is a graphic representation of a human activity system as proposed by Engeström (1987, 1999a). The bidirectional arrows suggest a dynamic and iterative system, where a subject is understood in the context of object-oriented activity that is mediated by cultural or mediating artefacts (tools and signs). Importantly, the subject represents a
collective subject that is modulated via a division of labour, systemic rules, and the community.
Although a dialectical relationship between the subject and object was advanced earlier when introducing sociocultural theory, it is necessary to reiterate this relationship within a specific activity system perspective. This is because the notion of object (specifically Objekt) could be further differentiated from the collective object (Predmet) of activity referred to above
(Kaptelinin, 2005)22. From a contemporary cultural-historical activity theory perspective, the object (Objekt) can also be characterised as
The “raw material” or “problem space” at which the activity is directed and which is molded [sic] and transformed into outcomes with the help of physical and symbolic, external and internal mediating instruments, including both tools and signs. (Centre for Activity Theory and Developmental Work Research, n.d.)
In exploring the process of material (and psychological) production and activity, Marx and Engels (1968, as cited in Davydov, 1999, p. 40) originally conceived of the “object [of this production and activity] … as an internal image, as a need, as an attraction and as a goal.” In
22 Kaptelinin (2005) identifies that Objekt and Predmet are Russian words, “both of which are typically translated into English as ‘object’” (p. 6).
Figure 2-5. Proposed representation of human activity (adapted from Engestrӧm, 1999a)
other words, the object is that which can be acted upon and transformed in a space, this object possessing some “attraction” or “pull” for the subject. It is the attraction or pull that underlies the collective object (Predmet) of activity, and constitutes the Objekt or material space within which the activity occurs (Kaptelinin, 2005; Roth, 2013). In some ways, the object of activity is
predominantly thought-oriented (ideal), whereas the Objekt is concrete (material).
Within cultural-historical activity theory then, the object and subject (and other components of an activity system) exist in dialectical interaction and relationship with each other (Roth, 2004).
This dialectical relationship is further clarified by Engeström and Escalante (1996) in their description that –
Objects do not exist for us in themselves, directly and without mediation. We relate to objects by means of other objects … this means that objects appear in two fundamentally different roles: as objects (Gegenstand23) and as mediating artefacts or tools. There is nothing in the material makeup of an object as such that would determine which one it is:
object or tool. The constellation of the activity determines the place and meaning of the object (pp. 361-362).
In application, the third generation of activity theory focuses on facilitating change,
transformation, and development in a range of organisational and education contexts. This has involved the exploration of intersecting activity systems (Avis, 2009; Engeström, 2009a; Oswald
& Perold, 2011; Warmington, 2011). In the context of higher education and exceptional
academic achievement, the application of third-generation activity theory is likely to involve the analysis of multiple intersecting academic activity systems, and multi-institution studies at a national level.
The section above has introduced the constructs of activity theory as a particular sociocultural approach to understanding human nature and interaction at multiple individual, social,
institutional and cultural levels. In particular, activity theory draws strongly on notions of
23 Gegenstand refers to the German equivalent of Predmet, or object of activity (Roth, 2013). Reference to Gegenstand therefore is a reference to the collective object or motive of an activity.
dialecticism and mediated activity, and provides a suitable lens through which academic activity in higher education could be conceptualised. I suggest that the lens is suitable because it
facilitates a conception of human nature that moves beyond an individual–social dualism, which in turn may allow a synthesis between social cognitive and quantitative modes of representing (exceptional) academic achievement in higher education. From an activity theory perspective, seemingly individual “constructs such as motivation (and learning) cannot be distinguished from the larger realm of activity, and the individual’s activity cannot be distinguished from the larger sociocultural context” (McCaslin & Hickey, 2001, p. 242). Before considering contemporary trends and concerns in activity theory, a particular sociocultural application of motivation and self-regulation in the learning context is presented.