Russel And Yanez's Activity Theory Analysis

1374 Words3 Pages

Activity Theory, as described by Russel and Yanez throughout their essay entitled, ‘Big Picture People Rarely Become Historians’ is the combination of influences impacting classroom dynamics across the country. Russel and Yanez’s activity theory emphasizes textual pathways between parts of an activity system, alienation between professionals and non-professionals, and historical contradictions. Currently there are six main aspects of their suggested activity system; tools, subject, rules, community, division of labor, and motives. Russel and Yanez describe tools as a way to ‘give people working in some activity a useful perspective from which to develop new approaches, new mediational tools (or new ways of using old tools) to transform or "re-mediate" their activity’ (Russel and Yanez 335). In their …show more content…

Rules are outlined as, ‘expectations, conventions for using writing in the university and in the discipline of academic history—genres’ (Russel and Yanez 341). The community within the activity system suggests that, ‘learners are always in contact with the history, values, and social relations of a community—or among communities—as embedded in the shared cultural tools used by that commun[ities] to mediate activity’ (Russel and Yanez 338). Within this community are both the division of labor and motives. The division of labor is suggested by Yanez and Russel to be the cause of alienation amongst experts and non-experts as, ‘the teacher does certain things and the students do other things. One has more power than the others’ (Russel and Yanez 339). All these aspects and their interactions equate to the end result of an activity theory;

Open Document