The Object of Activity: Making Sense of the Sense-Maker

388 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Confronting Analytical Dilemmas for Understanding Complex Human Interactions in Design-Based Research From a Cultural—Historical Activity Theory (CHAT) Framework (2007, methodology): “This analysis method is designed to be used to understand human activity situated in a collective context (Engeström, 1987; Kaptelinin, 2005) through a series of triangle diagrams.”
Activity Theory: who is doing what, why and how (2014, background): “…in and out from a top-down to a bottom up perspective according to the Leontiev’s (1981) hierarchy; • The tensions and contradictions between activities (Engeström1999), and; • The zone of proximal development where learning occurs and new activities are envisaged (Engeström1999; Kaptelinin 2005).”
Reflections on activity theory (2009, background): “Consider the recent debate about the nature of the object of activity (Foot 2002; Kaptelinin 2005).”
More than just a brain: emotions and the doctoral experience (2013, background): “The way that subjects represent the objects of their different ASs motivates and guides their trajectories – ‘[t]he complex nature of the relationship between subjects and objects . . . is characterized as “passion” . . . “desire” [and] “contradiction”’ (Kaptelinin, 2005, p. 5).”